Off Topic Sunday, bloody Sunday.

please log in to view this image

 

still have no idea what you are referring to unless it was agreed compensation for "false imprisonment" or some such as i'm fairly certain all ex members of either the "Provos" or "Official" , never mind INLA ,did not receive £50k just for being a member after all even the informers didn't get much financially.

 

The Provos were always the main players. Utter ****s.

 

those letters were the thing i was referring to in my earlier post.

 

I’ve missed the good folk at British Military Humour. Always great insight.

 

Are they wrong?

 

In my experience, probably.

 

when was soldier F exonerated and on what evidence ?
It is fairly clear from the Saville inquiry that he went "rogue" but if you don't look you won't find.

 

Well for 47 years and after enquiry after enquiry nothing has happened. After the GFA all those ****s got set free, so why this, why now, and how is it right?

 

i thought i'd made it fairly clear and know this is likely to lead to me getting **** from now on but it is a simple fact that on that day members of the Parachute Regiment committed murder as covered by Military law and Soldier F was according to the Saville inquiry responsible for 5 of the 13 deaths .
However as i pointed out in my earlier post seems like double standards since , in secret , the paramilitary members were given immunity during the GFA negotiations is it not reasonable to treat all "combatants" in the same way.

 

So he was responsible for 5 deaths, but getting charged with 2?

 

because for criminal conviction you need proof "beyond reasonable doubt" and Saville inquiry could make judgements based on a lower standard.

 

but you said he killed 5.

so you have no proof?

you've just convicted him of 3 killings with no proof.

 

no the Saville inquiry stated the evidence showed he had killed 5 that day not me and neither the inquiry nor i have the power to convict only a court of law ( even Diplock courts ) can do that.
I'm out of here but will leave you with this
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-of-the-bloody-sunday-inquiry

 

Shouldn't it come down to a court martial?

 

Worked for Marine A.

 

No it didn't smartarse.

But that isn't my point. As he was a serving soldier, shouldn't it be a soldiers court?

 

I would have thought so but not sure how that decision is made. This case though has political implications and that may have some bearing on the decision even though it shouldn't.

 

Soldiers deal with soldiers, or so i was led to believe.

If it comes to it, let them make him a scapegoat, not some ****ing politician.

 

I read somewhere that all these enquiries had cost £175m

that's a **** load of money, to convict a 70ish year old man after 47 years,