Former soldier convicted of manslaughter in NI troubles 1988

[NutLoose]

See link, more on the story.

https://news.sky.com/story/former-british-soldier-david-holden-convicted-of-manslaughter-of-catholic-aidan-mcanespie-in-1988-in-northern-ireland-12755065



A former British soldier has been found guilty of the manslaughter of a Catholic man shot dead in Northern Ireland in 1988 during the Troubles.

David Holden becomes the first veteran to be convicted of a historical offence since the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of conflict.

Aidan McAnespie was killed in Aughnacloy, County Tyrone, 34 years ago after walking through a border security checkpoint.

The 23-year-old had been on his way to a Gaelic football match when he was shot in the back.

Holden, who was 18 at the time serving with the Grenadier Guards, had admitted firing the shot which killed Mr McAnespie, but had said he had discharged the weapon by accident because his hands were wet.

The 53-year-old had denied the charge of gross negligent manslaughter during his non-jury trial at Belfast Crown Court.

But trial judge Mr Justice O'Hara said he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

[Asturias56]

Mr Justice O'Hara said he considered the defendant "criminally culpable" beyond any reasonable doubt.

He found that Holden had pointed a machine gun at Mr McAnespie and pulled the trigger, while assuming the gun was not cocked. He said: "That assumption should not have been made."

In his written judgement, Mr Justice O'Hara said he was satisfied the defendant had not cocked the weapon himself before firing it. He said he fundamentally disagreed with the suggestion that it was not exceptionally bad for the defendant to have assumed that the weapon was not cocked. "In my judgement this was the ultimate 'take no chances' situation because the risk of disaster was so great.

David Holden, 53, denied aiming the weapon deliberately at Mr McAnespie "The defendant should have appreciated at the moment he pulled the trigger that if the gun was cocked deadly consequences might follow." The judge told the court Holden had given a "deliberately false account" of what happened. He dismissed the defendant's claim that his hands had been wet from cleaning duties. He also concluded Holden's explanation as to how the weapon came to be fired was "entirely unconvincing" and was a "deliberately false account of what happened".

In the written judgement, he said the defendant had broken two "golden rules", which included never aiming a weapon unless one intends to fire and never increasing the risk of negligent discharge.

The court heard Mr McAnespie was unarmed.

[Old_Slartibartfast]

Hard to have any sympathy for someone that was clearly unfit to carry a firearm. Ignoring all basic firearm safety training, and pointing a loaded weapon at someone, deliberately, and pulling the trigger, flies in the face of everything this young soldier should have been taught.

[chevvron]

No excuse for poor fiirearms handling but what about all the provos who pointed a gun at a squaddie and shot them in the back then Blair (and Kier Starmer) pardoned them.

[Old_Slartibartfast]

No excuse for poor fiirearms handling but what about all the provos who pointed a gun at a squaddie and shot them in the back then Blair (and Kier Starmer) pardoned them.

Shouldn't be any excuse or pardons for them, either, but we are supposed to hold our own behaviour to higher standards than that of our enemies. There was no doubt that, even though no war had been declared, the terrorists on both sides within the Six Counties were the enemy of the British government. I believe the view at the time of the GFA was that pardoning the actions of enemies was the only way to get out of the vicious cycle of attack - retaliation - attack etc. Whether that was right or wrong depends on your perspective, but I'm convinced that the GFA has saved many lives and has led to the start of reconciliation between the various factions.

[ZFT]

No excuse for poor fiirearms handling but what about all the provos who pointed a gun at a squaddie and shot them in the back then Blair (and Kier Starmer) pardoned them.
....and sod all to do with kids and Irish passports. The Blairs are scum.

[melmothtw]

Responded to thread on this issue not that long ago at NI Troubles amnesty plan changes. (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/646610-ni-troubles-amnesty-plan-changes.html?highlight=NI+Troubles+amnesty+plan+changes.) but was roundly shouted down by the likes of Helpful Stacker, Crab, and Nutloose for suggesting that British soldiers shouldn't be granted a general amnesty, and that historical allegations should be investigated and justice done. Happy to be vindicated.

[ExAscoteer2]

Happy to be vindicated.

And yet members of PIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF, UDA get away scot free.. Where's the justice in that?

[_Agrajag_]

Responded to thread on this issue not that long ago at NI Troubles amnesty plan changes. but was roundly shouted down by the likes of Helpful Stacker, Crab, and Nutloose for suggesting that British soldiers shouldn't be granted a general amnesty, and that historical allegations should be investigated and justice done. Happy to be vindicated.

I believe that this is one of those impossible situations, where there is no just or fair outcome that could be accepted by all parties involved. It was a tragedy for the young man that was shot, and for his family, as well as for the young soldier. If anyone, for one moment, thinks that this soldier hasn't already suffered for his actions when he was 19 years old then they really need their bumps felt.

Years ago I met a former soldier that had been involved in the fatal shooting of some young lads that had stolen a car and driven through a check point in NI. He was manning the checkpoint and, along with his colleagues fired at the car. I don't think it was ever proven which of the SLRs had fire the fatal rounds, but that was irrelevant. When I met him, some 20 odd years later, he had been struggling with the consequences of that incident for years, and clearly wasn't at all well. Under the policy that seems to apply now there is every chance that this incident could come before the courts, much as the one in this thread has.

There are times when I wish that we had the US concept of a statute of limitations, beyond which all we can do is strive to get people to forgive each other for tragic mistakes made in the past. It seems to me, as someone that is part Irish, that the biggest single problem is the few who keep dragging up events from the past to justify their ongoing tit-for-tat actions. If the peace keeping activities in NI had been a war, then I believe that in many ways forgiveness would be easier. A former colleague travelled to the Falklands this year and met Argentinians that had killed his mates. For him, this was cathartic, and laid to rest some of the ghosts that have plagued him since 1982, and he came back noticeably changed. It is a great shame we seem to struggle to do the same for all those involved in the NI conflict.

[SASless]

As an outsider to the whole NI situation and its history....I see parallels at the individual level that relates to other events where Soldiers are involved in the taking of life.

There are volumes of laws, treaties, and conventions along with military law, and Rules of Engagement that a instruct us on how a War must be fought.

War and its cousins is a miserable thing, brutal, and can never be executed in a perfect manner for any number of reasons.

We are sent from our home and hearth at the order of our government and many times under very dubious reasons and later we find perhaps not very honorable ones at that.

Then we find we might be fighting not only our designated enemy but our own Chain of Command for really questionable reasons.

Northern Ireland is no different in that and the British Army is no different than other Armies.

The way to Peace, genuine Peace is Northern Ireland is beyond most of us to design.

That will have to be done by the People there....as they have to live with one another.

From my visits to Vietnam as a tourist confirm the benefits that accrue from meeting with your old adversaries.

I have watched some severely affected Soldiers and Marines who experienced brutal close quarters combat and who carried the hidden scars of those experiences find some closure and release as a result of those encounters with former enemies.

It does not erase what happened before but with years to reflect upon it all then meet your opponents who also suffered those same kinds of hidden wounds.....it does promote healing.

War changes you....and places burdens on you that those that have not had that experience cannot understand.

Sitting around Legion Bar or sitting at an. outdoor patio of a Vietnamese Bar with former NVA and VC Soldiers....the stories were interesting and helped heal some old wounds.

One thing I learned is you cannot fight your way to peace.

[Asturias56]

Good post SAS - that's what they found in S Africa and other places - you can't just go on and on fighting the old battles if you want peace

[OvertHawk]

I've often pondered on the culpability of those who put, often very young, soldiers on the streets of Northern Ireland and expected them to behave like police officers in a situation that felt to them like a war (which was what they had been trained to fight).

When a nervous squaddie pulls the trigger it's them that will bear the responsibility not the general or the politician that put them there.

But if the accountable manager of an airline put an inappropriately trained pilot in a role they were not suitable for and that led to a fatality they will (rightly) face consequences.

(I concede that this particular case seems to be a pretty clear example of gross negligence on the part of the soldier but many others are not so clear cut).

[_Agrajag_]

I've often pondered on the culpability of those who put, often very young, soldiers on the streets of Northern Ireland and expected them to behave like police officers in a situation that felt to them like a war (which was what they had been trained to fight).

When a nervous squaddie pulls the trigger it's them that will bear the responsibility not the general or the politician that put them there.

But if the accountable manager of an airline put an inappropriately trained pilot in a role they were not suitable for and that led to a fatality they will (rightly) face consequences.

(I concede that this particular case seems to be a pretty clear example of gross negligence on the part of the soldier but many others are not so clear cut).


This seems to be the very crux of the problem in NI, at least in the early days. None of the young men sent there in the 70s and 80s were trained to be police officers, they had mostly been trained for war. I wonder how many of them at that time had been trained and fully understood how to interact with civilians and properly assess threats in that environment?

My best guess is that few would have had the training or maturity to deal with often complex situations, where most of the people around them were just innocent bystanders. It is easy to get a view from the media that NI is a place overrun with terrorists, but the reality is that the extremists on both sides are just tiny proportion of the population, most likely less than 1%.

[NutLoose]

You could say the ultimate culpability lies with the Irish poplulation that took up arms in the belief it would solve their problems.
No weapons on the street killing each other, no need for the army to be there.

[melmothtw]

You could say the ultimate culpability lies with the Irish poplulation that took up arms in the belief it would solve their problems.
No weapons on the street killing each other, no need for the army to be there.

Such an astonishingly bad take.

[NutLoose]

Why? there are plenty of ways to air ones grievences without bombing and maiming innocent people. I am talking about the whole NI troubles. The numbers involved in violence were a minority of the population

[Toadstool]

Why? there are plenty of ways to air ones grievences without bombing and maiming innocent people. I am talking about the whole NI troubles. The numbers involved in violence were a minority of the population

It’s not a defence. I’m sure that his legal team didn’t even consider it as such.

[melmothtw]

'One man's terrorist...', Nutloose.

[NutLoose]

It’s not a defence. I’m sure that his legal team didn’t even consider it as such.

I wasn't saying it was a defence, I was just replying to the post above mine ( and the quote below ) pondering if the culpability should rest with those that sent the young soldiers to Ireland I.e the Uk Government, and pointing out that you could say the ultimate culpability should be those that started their war of Terror on the population of NI. Without those individuals, there would have been no need to put the army there in the first place.


Originally Posted by OvertHawk View Post (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/650013-former-soldier-convicted-manslaughter-ni-troubles-1988-a.html#post11338513)
I've often pondered on the culpability of those who put, often very young, soldiers on the streets of Northern Ireland and expected them to behave like police officers in a situation that felt to them like a war (which was what they had been trained to fight).

[melmothtw]

I wasn't saying it was a defence, I was just replying to the post above mine ( and the quote below ) pondering if the culpability should rest with those that sent the young soldiers to Ireland I.e the Uk Government, and pointing out that you could say the ultimate culpability should be those that started their war of Terror on the population of NI. Without those individuals, there would have been no need to put the army there in the first place.

Surely, the 'ultimate culpability' should be with those who invaded a sovereign neighbouring country and then calved off and annexed a sizeable portion of it to 'protect' an ethnic minority who had been artificially transplanted there centuries before and who now wished to remain citizens of 'the motherland'. Sound familiar?

Of course, all of this is getting away from the OP - that a British solider pointed a loaded machine gun at a civilian who was just going about his business in a British city, seemingly didn't check to see if it was cocked or even if the safety catch was on (if you believe his version of events that it was an accident, which frankly is implausible), and pulled the trigger. This happened, and there are posters (including the OP) who think such matters should not be investigated purely because it was a British solider, and we're the good guys, right?

[NutLoose]

I actually tend to agree with the result of this one, the only query I had was the line

But trial judge Mr Justice O'Hara said he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

No jury?

And the fact that it appears to be one sided due to the issue of Immunity letters etc

[Una Due Tfc]

Why? there are plenty of ways to air ones grievences without bombing and maiming innocent people. I am talking about the whole NI troubles. The numbers involved in violence were a minority of the population

What other methods did you have in mind Nutloose? Bare in mind Catholics were not allowed vote, and their initially peaceful protests were attacked by the RUC. That's one of the reasons why the Army were originally sent in, to protect the Catholic population from the RUC and vigilante attacks.

I don't think everyone in Britain has a full idea of how discrimated against and subjugated the Catholic population of NI was in the run up to the Troubles.

[NutLoose]

Allowing them the vote would have been a start.

[HOVIS]

....and sod all to do with kids and Irish passports. The Blairs are scum.
https://fb.watch/h4nrO_kg1i/
Lest we Forget.
Personally, having lived through daily news reports of atrocities (on all sides) in NI when I was growing up, I prefer the NI of today. It isn't perfect but it's light years away from the mess that was the 1970/80s.

[_Agrajag_]

What other methods did you have in mind Nutloose? Bare in mind Catholics were not allowed vote, and their initially peaceful protests were attacked by the RUC. That's one of the reasons why the Army were originally sent in, to protect the Catholic population from the RUC and vigilante attacks.

I don't don't everyone in Britain has a full idea of how discrimated against and subjugated the Cathlic population of NI was in the run up to the Troubles.

Well said.

I still find it astonishing that so many people have no understanding at all of the position of the, then minority, catholic population in NI, or that in 1969 the army went in to protect them from protestant attacks. As you so rightly say, catholics were a persecuted minority there at that time, that had to endure constant threats and goading from a small, but very powerful, group of protestant extremists.

I had the misfortune to work at an establishment where the civilian admin bloke was one of that protestant minority. I can clearly remember being at a barbecue with that man espousing his view that all catholic babies should be spit roasted, to rid the land of their scourge. Not said by him in in fun, either. The fact that no one batted an eyelid when he said this says it all, really.

[Just This Once...]

The finding of gross negligence / manslaughter seems too extreme, to me at least, especially given the time elapsed - some 34 years after this tragic event. It is all too easy to produce an unsafe conviction, even without a defined statute of limitations in UK law.

It is beyond any doubt that this teenage soldier influenced in any way the preceding events leading to this fatal outcome. Political decisions put soldiers on the streets of its citizens and to arm them with battlefield weapons such as the belt-fed heavy GPMG used here. All the operational commanders and tactical leaders of this junior soldier have long since died, taking those who sited the sangar, defined the arcs of fire and detailed a loaded GPMG for that role on that street. With all those actual decision makers now dead they are removed from the witnesses-for-the-defence list, cannot be cross-examined or account for their own actions. Above all, all those decision makers knew and accepted the additional risk to human life when you put battlefield weapons in that situation. When they 'accept' that risk they 'own' part of it. It should not all tumble down to the last soldier and certainly not to the extent that a careless disregard for life is attributed to him alone.

The elapsed time also robs the accused of any detailed memory of his actions or those expected of him. I may have spent most of my own career flying but I did do 3 brief stints in supporting specialist roles which required me to deploy fully trained and current on the GPMG. My last time behind this weapon is 'only' decade ago and even in that shorter timespan I cannot recall all the drills and quirks of the GPMG. I do remember that the drills changed between my first and second qualification (feed tray) and varied again for helo use. For those in the US reading GPMG = M249 you would be very close but all the extra safety revisions and the drastic removal of the number of risks of an ND have never been retrofitted to the British GPMG. I've had a US colleague grab my arm in the dead of night when he saw me operate the cocking handle before removing the belt and my 'failure' to conduct drills with the safety applied - but that was (is?) required of our rustic / original 'version' of the modern M249.

The British version of the FN MAG / GPMG is an awesome battlefield weapon but it is not a weapon you would want on your own civilian streets. It has zero design sh*** given for accidental firing (negligent discharge), just to spit hate at HMG's enemies. With a safety that cannot be applied unless cocked, fixed firing pin on an open bolt action, no traverse safety blocks/sears, normal drills conducted with the safety off, fully cocked for an 'unload' to remove the feed-horn pressure on the first round, feed tray drills slowly swapping from sweep alone to actually checking the breach for a live round before changing back again, depending on where the decision wheel was, using the trigger on normal drills, slip-fire risk with the top cover, an 'unload' drill that accepted that a live round could remain in the breach and be fired when you pull the trigger during the 'unload' drill... etc etc. No doubt those with better memory can correct, add or even take away from the list but the point is that these risks would be unacceptable for weapon acceptance now and even back then the risks were held by the MoD, not the soldier alone.

So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.

Of course, none of this detracts from the unacceptable death in this incident; the victim was going about his day-to-day life before being hit once by a crazy-angle ricochet from an accidental 3 round burst from a battlefield weapon that was not aimed or pointed anywhere near him. The Crown put that soldier in that spot, with that weapon and in doing so it accepted its part in the increased risk to life. The Crown should not absolve itself 34 years later and then place all the blame on a single teenage soldier operating in a very different time to that of the modern day.

[NutLoose]

So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.


Remember when we went from a single cock to clear the weapon to a triple cock on the SLR, wasn't there a training film based on an incident where some individual in a vehicle being bounced around miss heard the call to "steady" themselves as "ready" and put one up the spout that later discharged causing an injury... It was also to aid dead tired soldiers unloading their weapons that might have missed one round ejecting with the mag still on but possibly not three.

I seem to remember a round imbeded in the Aldergrove armoury wall where you handed in your weapons from an SLP?

[melmothtw]

The finding of gross negligence / manslaughter seems too extreme, to me at least, especially given the time elapsed - some 34 years after this tragic event. It is all too easy to produce an unsafe conviction, even without a defined statute of limitations in UK law.

It is beyond any doubt that this teenage soldier influenced in any way the preceding events leading to this fatal outcome. Political decisions put soldiers on the streets of its citizens and to arm them with battlefield weapons such as the belt-fed heavy GPMG used here. All the operational commanders and tactical leaders of this junior soldier have long since died, taking those who sited the sangar, defined the arcs of fire and detailed a loaded GPMG for that role on that street. With all those actual decision makers now dead they are removed from the witnesses-for-the-defence list, cannot be cross-examined or account for their own actions. Above all, all those decision makers knew and accepted the additional risk to human life when you put battlefield weapons in that situation. When they 'accept' that risk they 'own' part of it. It should not all tumble down to the last soldier and certainly not to the extent that a careless disregard for life is attributed to him alone.

The elapsed time also robs the accused of any detailed memory of his actions or those expected of him. I may have spent most of my own career flying but I did do 3 brief stints in supporting specialist roles which required me to deploy fully trained and current on the GPMG. My last time behind this weapon is 'only' decade ago and even in that shorter timespan I cannot recall all the drills and quirks of the GPMG. I do remember that the drills changed between my first and second qualification (feed tray) and varied again for helo use. For those in the US reading GPMG = M249 you would be very close but all the extra safety revisions and the drastic removal of the number of risks of an ND have never been retrofitted to the British GPMG. I've had a US colleague grab my arm in the dead of night when he saw me operate the cocking handle before removing the belt and my 'failure' to conduct drills with the safety applied - but that was (is?) required of our rustic / original 'version' of the modern M249.

The British version of the FN MAG / GPMG is an awesome battlefield weapon but it is not a weapon you would want on your own civilian streets. It has zero design sh*** given for accidental firing (negligent discharge), just to spit hate at HMG's enemies. With a safety that cannot be applied unless cocked, fixed firing pin on an open bolt action, no traverse safety blocks/sears, normal drills conducted with the safety off, fully cocked for an 'unload' to remove the feed-horn pressure on the first round, feed tray drills slowly swapping from sweep alone to actually checking the breach for a live round before changing back again, depending on where the decision wheel was, using the trigger on normal drills, slip-fire risk with the top cover, an 'unload' drill that accepted that a live round could remain in the breach and be fired when you pull the trigger during the 'unload' drill... etc etc. No doubt those with better memory can correct, add or even take away from the list but the point is that these risks would be unacceptable for weapon acceptance now and even back then the risks were held by the MoD, not the soldier alone.

So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.

Of course, none of this detracts from the unacceptable death in this incident; the victim was going about his day-to-day life before being hit once by a crazy-angle ricochet from an accidental 3 round burst from a battlefield weapon that was not aimed or pointed anywhere near him. The Crown put that soldier in that spot, with that weapon and in doing so it accepted its part in the increased risk to life. The Crown should not absolve itself 34 years later and then place all the blame on a single teenage soldier operating in a very different time to that of the modern day.

A British court heard all the evidence and determined the verdict. For all you say about the GPMG's design flaws, this soldier (by his own admission) lined a civilian up in his sights and pulled the trigger - that's not a negligent discharge. The judge did not believe the soldier's account that it was an accident, and without hearing all the evidence I'm not going to second guess them.

I do have some sympathy for the 'passage of time' argument, but would we apply that to other historical offences committed elsewhere in the world - the Holocaust, for example. "He was only a camp guard, he took orders from Himmler, who is now dead and cannot speak in his defence" (before anyone says it, no I am not comparing the British Army in NI to the SS, I am just taking the 'passage of time' argument to its logical conclusion), or Mai Lai, or Srebrenica, or what is happening in Ukraine today?? Also, the immediate family of Aidan McAnespie are still alive, and require justice just the same as if it was yours or my father/son/brother/uncle/friend who was shot dead in the street.

[_Agrajag_]

All good points well made, but a British court heard all the evidence and determined the verdict. For all you say about the GPMG's design flaws, this soldier (by his own admission) lined a civilian up in his sights and pulled the trigger - that's not a negligent discharge. The judge did not believe the soldier's account that it was an accident, and without hearing all the evidence I'm not going to second guess them.

I do have some sympathy for the 'passage of time' argument, but would we apply that to other historical offences committed elsewhere in the world - the Holocaust, for example. "He was only a camp guard, he took orders from Himmler, who is now dead and cannot speak in his defence" (before anyone says it, no I am not comparing the British Army in NI to the SS, I am just taking the 'passage of time' argument to its logical conclusion), or Mai Lai, or Srebrenica, or what is happening in Ukraine today?? Also, the immediate family of Aidan McAnespie are still alive, and require justice just the same as if it was yours or my father/son/brother/uncle/friend who was shot dead in the street.

I wonder if this may be an example of the key difference between the verdict and the sentence (which I don't think has been pronounced, yet)?

The verdict will have been predicated on the facts of the incident, and whether or not this young soldier should or should not have behaved as he did. The sentence will, presumably (and I do not know the exact details of how it is determined) take into account the passage of time, any failings in the chain of command, training, the weapon involved, etc. There have been several cases where people have been found guilty of, for example, helping someone terminally ill die, which I believe may be classed as manslaughter, but where the sentence had been non-custodial.

I don't believe there is any leeway in the UK justice system when it comes to pronouncing a verdict, but there does seem to be a lot of leeway when it comes to sentencing, it seems.

[Asturias56]

"The finding of gross negligence / manslaughter seems too extreme, to me at least, especially given the time elapsed -"

If that killing had happened in England Scotland or Wales do you think it would have taken 34 years to come to court?

And it wasn't " crazy angle ricochet" The judge found that Holden had pointed a machine gun at Mr McAnespie and pulled the trigger.

[cheekychimp]

The finding of gross negligence / manslaughter seems too extreme, to me at least, especially given the time elapsed - some 34 years after this tragic event. It is all too easy to produce an unsafe conviction, even without a defined statute of limitations in UK law.

It is beyond any doubt that this teenage soldier influenced in any way the preceding events leading to this fatal outcome. Political decisions put soldiers on the streets of its citizens and to arm them with battlefield weapons such as the belt-fed heavy GPMG used here. All the operational commanders and tactical leaders of this junior soldier have long since died, taking those who sited the sangar, defined the arcs of fire and detailed a loaded GPMG for that role on that street. With all those actual decision makers now dead they are removed from the witnesses-for-the-defence list, cannot be cross-examined or account for their own actions. Above all, all those decision makers knew and accepted the additional risk to human life when you put battlefield weapons in that situation. When they 'accept' that risk they 'own' part of it. It should not all tumble down to the last soldier and certainly not to the extent that a careless disregard for life is attributed to him alone.

The elapsed time also robs the accused of any detailed memory of his actions or those expected of him. I may have spent most of my own career flying but I did do 3 brief stints in supporting specialist roles which required me to deploy fully trained and current on the GPMG. My last time behind this weapon is 'only' decade ago and even in that shorter timespan I cannot recall all the drills and quirks of the GPMG. I do remember that the drills changed between my first and second qualification (feed tray) and varied again for helo use. For those in the US reading GPMG = M249 you would be very close but all the extra safety revisions and the drastic removal of the number of risks of an ND have never been retrofitted to the British GPMG. I've had a US colleague grab my arm in the dead of night when he saw me operate the cocking handle before removing the belt and my 'failure' to conduct drills with the safety applied - but that was (is?) required of our rustic / original 'version' of the modern M249.

The British version of the FN MAG / GPMG is an awesome battlefield weapon but it is not a weapon you would want on your own civilian streets. It has zero design sh*** given for accidental firing (negligent discharge), just to spit hate at HMG's enemies. With a safety that cannot be applied unless cocked, fixed firing pin on an open bolt action, no traverse safety blocks/sears, normal drills conducted with the safety off, fully cocked for an 'unload' to remove the feed-horn pressure on the first round, feed tray drills slowly swapping from sweep alone to actually checking the breach for a live round before changing back again, depending on where the decision wheel was, using the trigger on normal drills, slip-fire risk with the top cover, an 'unload' drill that accepted that a live round could remain in the breach and be fired when you pull the trigger during the 'unload' drill... etc etc. No doubt those with better memory can correct, add or even take away from the list but the point is that these risks would be unacceptable for weapon acceptance now and even back then the risks were held by the MoD, not the soldier alone.

So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.

Of course, none of this detracts from the unacceptable death in this incident; the victim was going about his day-to-day life before being hit once by a crazy-angle ricochet from an accidental 3 round burst from a battlefield weapon that was not aimed or pointed anywhere near him. The Crown put that soldier in that spot, with that weapon and in doing so it accepted its part in the increased risk to life. The Crown should not absolve itself 34 years later and then place all the blame on a single teenage soldier operating in a very different time to that of the modern day.
That's all a bit dramatic. As someone who's patrolled with the GPMG in N.I, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, I can say that it is an ideal weapon for all those theatres. There's lots of reasons to patrol with them in Counter Insurgency operations, they were in sangars to counter the VBIED threat. He claimed he didn't know it was made ready, which implies that AO didn't routinely have weapons made ready in sangars or on patrol (some did) which can only mean someone before him did it and didn't tell him. It's simple enough, he sighted on someone and pulled the trigger, correct verdict. I've pointed my rifle at hundreds of people to get a better view through my sight, even when made ready, never had the urge to pull the trigger unnecessarily though.

[chevvron]

When I was at ATC camp in Malta (about '72) we were shooting on a range out to sea when a local boat came into view. The STOP was ordered and all cadets instructed to apply safety catches (Enfield .303). One of the cadets stood up holding his rifle then there was a loud bang and a rather scared looking cadet.
He was asked what happened; he replied he'd pointed the gun at the boat and pulled the trigger. The Oi/c examined the rifle and found that although it looked 'safe', the safety catch wasn't actually pushed all the way so it could be fired.
The round actually hit the wheelhouse of the boat and ricocheted inside it virtually demolishing it but thankfully no-one was hurt.
The station commander was 'in conference' with Dom Mintoff (the then Maltese PM who eventually kicked the military out of Malta) for several hours while the the problem was sorted out.

[NutLoose]

I do have some sympathy for the 'passage of time' argument


In all cases I live in hope when a Lawyer or those being cross examined will turn around to the examining Lawyer and ask can you tell me what you were doing on Tuesday the 22nd of march 1992? or similar, because none of them probably can.

[melmothtw]

In all cases I live in hope when a Lawyer or those being cross examined will turn around to the examining Lawyer and ask can you tell me what you were doing on Tuesday the 22nd of march 1992? or similar, because none of them probably can.

I don't know the significance of the 22 March 1992 date for you, Nutloose, but if that was a date you shot someone then I imagine you'd be able to remember the details just as well many years later.

[NutLoose]

Just a random date, but I did say in all cases and the passage of time has a funny effect on the brain, if it didn't, it wouldn't be necessary for police officers to record details in their note books at the time for later use in court would it, because they would be able to recollect exactly what happened from memory.

[SASless]

Someone please explain why the passage of time (34 years) have anything to do with what level of "gross negligence " that occurred at the time of the event?

I can see the harm to recollection of events and other mitigating factors that would weigh in the Sentencing following conviction.

Whether the Accused could offer a proper defense to counter the allegations is a separate matter that should be considered by those passing judgment upon him in Court as part of the determination of Sentence.

"Just This Once" offers a very insightful commentary and sees it straight in my opinion.

The one thing that destroyed the Defense was knowingly pointing a firearm at a person with no intent or legal blessing to discharge that weapon.....then pulling the trigger. Triggers do not move themselves without some human intervention even if unintended.

I too have pointed firearms at people....not many....and in one case was fully intending to discharge the weapon at that person from about six feet away....and had actually started pulling the trigger on a Revolver....but did not complete the action because the fellow holding the knife elected to drop it in response to my demands he do so.

So I do understand reality.....and the need for proper training and self discipline to perform to the standards one is trained to conform to in one's performance of official duties especially those which put others at grave risk of serious injury or death.

My real question is why the 34 year wait? Who is responsible for that and why? Is that not the bigger crime than one Squaddie causing an accidental discharge of a weapon that resulted in an unnecessary death?

It is plain to see the matter was not properly handled at the time and to now bring this lone Soldier to Court for something that happened so long ago and not at the same time address the larger crimes that surrounded that event seems grossly unfair to me.

[NutLoose]

SASless, unfortunately it's the other cases, this one appears to have been a correct finding, but other cases had Court Marshals at the time, and were exonorated, as an example

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9207991/Another-12-former-soldiers-served-Northern-Ireland-investigation-conduct.html
If prosecuted, the soldiers, now in their 60s and 70s, will follow six Northern Ireland veterans including Dennis Hutchings, 79, who have already been charged following ‘legacy’ investigations into shootings dating back decades.A number of the soldiers have repeatedly been investigated and cleared of wrongdoing only to be reinvestigated by new units set up in Northern Ireland to deal with historical cases.


The Mail has highlighted the case of great-grandfather Mr Hutchings, who is due to stand trial on an attempted murder charge later this year in relation to a 1974 shooting.

He was previously investigated and cleared twice before his arrest in 2015.


https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8352/

There has been significant criticism, on all sides, of the process by which legacy investigations have been, and continue to be, undertaken. Concerns have been expressed over the credibility and reliability of evidence and witness statements that may be over 40 years old and of the re-opening of investigations that had already concluded. Most notable has been the widespread perception that investigations have disproportionately focused on the actions of the armed forces and former police officers: these account for 30% of the LIB’s workload but only form 10% of the overall deaths during the Troubles.

and then there was this, as you can see its a minefield of controversity.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/northern-ireland/57484/bloody-sunday-troops-should-be-given-immunity


BRITISH soldiers who shot dead unarmed civilians during a civil rights march in 1972 should not face prosecution, the former Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain has said.

Police in the province have recently re-opened an investigation into the events of Bloody Sunday, in which 13 protesters were killed by members of the Parachute Regiment. A 14th man died later from his injuries.

Writing in the [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/10670206/Hain-calls-for-Bloody-Sunday-troops-amnesty.html]Sunday Telegraph, Hain said: “Difficult as I know it is for victims on all sides, I see no point in endlessly searching for evidence for crimes committed so many years ago in the Troubles and which is increasingly difficult if not impossible to get given the passage of time.

“If we are going to draw a line on historic and in all probability fruitless investigations, that must include the pursuit of soldiers involved in Bloody Sunday.”

Hain also defended an amnesty granted to IRA suspects while he was in office, which sparked anger last week.

On Monday the trial was halted of John Downey, who was charged last year with killing four British soldiers in a bomb attack in Hyde Park in 1982. A judge ruled that a letter sent in 2007 assuring Downey, now 62, that he would not face trial must be honoured, even though it had been sent by mistake.

The case led Northern Irish First Minister Peter Robinson to issue a threat of resignation, which he withdrew when David Cameron promised a judicial inquiry into the “get out of jail free” letters.

[huge72]

I am a member of the NI vets association and the comments on a similar thread over on their site, are understandably on the side of the soldier. I am in no way saying that this chap is not guilty, indeed he admits to pulling the trigger. But we sit here over 30 years after the event, passing judgement on the chap from our warm cockpits. I served there for 9 years of my career, was shot at, mortared and stoned, I picked up and dropped off hundreds of young soldiers in the bad lands of South Armargh, looked into their 1000 yard stares and just like SASless's Vietnam the average age was 19, mere children. They were on edge everyday of their tours, not knowing where the shot was going to come from. I don't know the whole circumstances of the incident but he was on Sangar duty and would have been expected to cover off people coming and going. It's claimed that they were innocent civilians and earlier in this thread it was said that only 1% of the population were terrorists, but in South Armagh, whether in PIRA or not virtually all the local population hated us. He should not have pulled the trigger, caused this poor chap to die and the family years of grief and heartache., but rather than castigating the soldier all these years later put yourself in his shoes, your 19, on your first tour in the province, you have been told that they are all terrorists or sympathisers and that you have protect your mates. Are you so sure you wouldn't have had your finger covering the trigger just that little bit too close. Its time to put this all to bed, yes he's guilty, yes he has to face the consequences but who are we to stand judgement when we were not there and were never in that situation. So go ahead tear what I have said to shreds, unless you were serving during the longest campaign the Army has ever faced, 38 years, where the security forces suffered nearly 3000 casualties, you will never know.

[Just This Once...]

Someone please explain why the passage of time (34 years) have anything to do with what level of "gross negligence " that occurred at the time of the event? [...]
It is plain to see the matter was not properly handled at the time and to now bring this lone Soldier to Court for something that happened so long ago and not at the same time address the larger crimes that surrounded that event seems grossly unfair to me.

I think in all cases an investigation did take place at the time where COs and investigators could and did decide that further action was required, including courts marshal. Even if insufficient evidence was found to justify a prosecution or when a CM failed to find guilt, this left a great deal of paperwork to unearth, decades later. Effectively all of these individuals have previously had charges dismissed, dropped or found not guilty, or guilty of a lower charge, with the defence available to them at the time (inc chain of command, living witnesses etc) against the standards of that time.

Fast forward a few decades and those cases were subject to review and prosecution outside the CM process, this time in a civilian court. The more senior personnel in the chain of command and other witnesses have long since departed and not all records and evidence were retained. The prosecutions went ahead with what was left, which could make things look very bad or unjustifiably good. Hence someone's unchallenged notes from the day have survived that suggest (in this particular case) the individual did admit to taking aim. Other equally uncorroborated statements suggest the opposite and the forensics, such as they were, suggest that the 3-round burst all landed a considerable distance from the victim, indicating that he was not aimed at at all. The 3 ricochets all went off in different directions but 1 of them hit this innocent chap, some 300m or so from the firing point.

I've only been shot once (ie once too many) and it too was a ricochet. I've no idea who fired the round that hit me, other than it wasn't the enemy - it could even have been one of mine. Still hurt though.

It's been over a decade since I had to work or weapon, approve a dumb bomb attack or put my targeteer's signature against something surrounded by collateral damage concerns, to the very best of my ability. I guess I have to wait another 25 years or so to see if retrospective prosecutions are in vogue or not, or if what was considered acceptable at the time becomes abhorrent in the future.

[NutLoose]

I am a member of the NI vets association and the comments on a similar thread over on their site, are understandably on the side of the soldier. I am in no way saying that this chap is not guilty, indeed he admits to pulling the trigger. But we sit here over 30 years after the event, passing judgement on the chap from our warm cockpits. I served there for 9 years of my career, was shot at, mortared and stoned, I picked up and dropped off hundreds of young soldiers in the bad lands of South Armargh, looked into their 1000 yard stares and just like SASless's Vietnam the average age was 19, mere children. They were on edge everyday of their tours, not knowing where the shot was going to come from. I don't know the whole circumstances of the incident but he was on Sangar duty and would have been expected to cover off people coming and going. It's claimed that they were innocent civilians and earlier in this thread it was said that only 1% of the population were terrorists, but in South Armagh, whether in PIRA or not virtually all the local population hated us. He should not have pulled the trigger, caused this poor chap to die and the family years of grief and heartache., but rather than castigating the soldier all these years later put yourself in his shoes, your 19, on your first tour in the province, you have been told that they are all terrorists or sympathisers and that you have protect your mates. Are you so sure you wouldn't have had your finger covering the trigger just that little bit too close. Its time to put this all to bed, yes he's guilty, yes he has to face the consequences but who are we to stand judgement when we were not there and were never in that situation. So go ahead tear what I have said to shreds, unless you were serving during the longest campaign the Army has ever faced, 38 years, where the security forces suffered nearly 3000 casualties, you will never know.
Agreed

And as long as this goes on there will be "sourness" on both sides, it really does need to be put to bed once and for all for both sides of the troubles, so the Country and everyone can move on to a brighter future, dragging it up over and over again does no one in the whole period in our history any good.

[melmothtw]

Agreed

And as long as this goes on there will be "sourness" on both sides, it really does need to be put to bed once and for all for both sides of the troubles, so the Country and everyone can move on to a brighter future, dragging it up over and over again does no one in the whole period in our history any good.

Aidan McAnespie's family might disagree.

[Asturias56]

"but rather than castigating the soldier all these years later put yourself in his shoes, your 19, on your first tour in the province, you have been told that they are all terrorists or sympathisers and that you have protect your mates. Are you so sure you wouldn't have had your finger covering the trigger just that little bit too close."

It was a checkpoint , the deceased had gone through it properly . There was no indication he was a "terrorist" and he was shot in the back at point blank range. There is no way it can be excused I'm afraid

[langleybaston]

I keep seeing references to pulling the trigger. Is this what is taught?

I have never fired a shot in anger, but fired a fair bit of 303 rifle and 22 rifle and a little pistol.

Currently all I have are air weapons, rifle and pistol, just as well as old age sets in!

If I had pulled the trigger I would have missed by a country mile, thats for sure.

Just asking.

[cheekychimp]

I keep seeing references to pulling the trigger. Is this what is taught?

I have never fired a shot in anger, but fired a fair bit of 303 rifle and 22 rifle and a little pistol.

Currently all I have are air weapons, rifle and pistol, just as well as old age sets in!

If I had pulled the trigger I would have missed by a country mile, thats for sure.

Just asking.
No, you squeeze the trigger, but to most people it's known as pulling the trigger.

[Just This Once...]

House of Commons, July 1989:Mr. Canavan : What is the likely effect on the British-Irish talks and on Britain's reputation throughout the world when the British soldier who killed an innocent young man, Aidan McAnespie, is simply given a token fine and returned to normal duties, and when the British Government refuse reasonable demands from respectable organisations such as Amnesty International for a full judicial inquiry into that disputed killing and into the SAS killings of three unarmed people in Gibraltar?

Mr. [Tom] King : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman bothered to study the facts before seeking to make such outrageous allegations. He may not be aware that the matter was investigated, not only as the absolute requirement on which I insist and as the absolute practice, by the RUC in a full criminal investigation, but on this occasion by the deputy commissioner, now the commissioner, of the Garda on behalf of the Irish Government. On this exceptional occasion, they wished to investigate, too. As no evidence was forthcoming, on either side of the border, that the incident was anything other than an accident, I am appalled that the hon. Gentleman chooses to raise the matter in this way.

[Just This Once...]

... he was shot in the back at point blank range. There is no way it can be excused I'm afraid

I find your failure to adhere to facts rather disturbing. A man lost his life so it is deserving of your time to read & understand them before posting wild nonsense.

[OJ 72]

Now, I normally stand back and chuckle at the ‘experts’ on PPrune when it’s obvious they don’t really understand the situation/. And I’m constantly amazed how normally rational, knowledgeable, and erudite individuals regurgitate the same hoary old nonsense about a subject they know little, or nothing about viz Northern Ireland! But in this case I couldn't really ignore the crass generalisations. So…

Firstly, contrary to what ‘melmothtw’ asserts Ireland was no more a sovereign country to be invaded as was England when the Danes’, Viking, Saxons’ and Norman invasions took place from the 8th Century onwards. Ireland was an island composed of a large number of warring clans, septs, tribes and ‘minor Kings’, and immigration both ways across the North Channel and the Irish Sea had been going on for generations. For evidence of both of these facts then please see the ‘Táin Bó Cúailnge’ aka ‘The Cattle Raid of Cooley’. In fact, before the ‘arrival’ of the ‘English’ in 1155 there had already been Viking, Danish, and Norman incursions into Ireland.

It was only in 1155 that Pope Adrian IV issued the papal bull ‘Laudabiliter’, commissioning King Henry II to intervene in Ireland to assist in the reform of the Irish Church, and the Irish system of governance according to the Roman (Latin Rite) ecclesiastical system. So ironically, ‘England’s’ (sic) engagement in Ireland was at the behest of a Pope – somewhat ironic, don’t you think?

Secondly, was Northern Ireland, in the words (again) of ‘melmothtw’ ‘…calved off and annexed’? No, it was ultimately formed as a result of the 1918 General Election where, in what became the Republic of Ireland there were massive Sinn Fein returns viz they won 73 out the 105 seats contested. But in the old Province of Ulster (the nine counties) Unionists won 23 of the 38 seats contested, and within the area that eventually formed the six counties of the new Northern Ireland, Unionists won 23 out of the 30 seats contested. It’s called democracy!

However, this obvious, ahem, shall we say, difference of opinion led to the introduction of ‘The Government of Ireland Act 1920’ aka The Fourth Home Rule Bill. The Act was intended to partition Ireland into two self-governing polities: the six north-eastern counties were to form ‘Northern Ireland’, while the remainder of the country was to form ‘Southern Ireland’. Both territories were to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for the future reunification of the island through a Council of Ireland; but the island would remain part of the UK with a Dublin Parliament - in effect a sort of pre-1800 Act of Union model. The Act was passed by the British Parliament in November 1920, received Royal Assent in December 1920, and came into force on 3 May 1921.

As a result of a stalemate in the Irish War of Independence (1919 – 1921) between the (old) IRA, and the British Forces, ‘peace talks’ were held between Sinn Fein and the British Government leading to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921. This provided for the establishment of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) as a self-governing Dominion within the ‘community of nations known as the British Empire’; in effect a status ‘the same as that of the Dominion of Canada’. However, following a referendum in the 26 counties of The Irish Free State in 1937, a new constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann) was adopted, that eventually led to the formation of the Republic of Ireland in 1949, when Commonwealth membership was terminated. Consequently, the hoped for re-unification of the island within the Commonwealth would never happen

So, Northern Ireland, far from being ‘calved off and annexed…’ actually remained a part of the United Kingdom, whilst the Republic of Ireland seceded from the same Union!

Now as for the assertion from ‘Una Due Tfc’ that, ‘bare (sic) in mind Catholics were not allowed to vote…’, and ‘Nutloose’s’ statement ‘Allowing them the vote would have been a start.’ What a load of old tosh! Catholics always had the right to vote in Northern Ireland. Some Catholics in the Kingdom of Ireland gained the right to vote with the partial relaxation of the Penal Laws in the 1790s, and all restrictions on Catholics voting in the United Kingdom were removed in 1829. This carried over into Northern Ireland in 1922 for General Elections, and thus, as a matter of law, there was no distinction between Catholic and Protestant voters.

Where the difference came was that the Parliament of Northern Ireland (Stormont) did not follow Westminster in changes to the Parliamentary franchise from 1945 - one man, one vote (or, if we’re being all 2020s ‘one person, one vote’). And up until 1969, plural voting was still allowed for local government elections in Great Britain and Northern Ireland - strangely, no taking to the streets and the murder of your neighbours in GB! - but in addition, also it also applied to for Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland.

This meant that that, as in Great Britain, all people over the age of 21, could vote in Parliamentary elections, however, unlike the situation in Great Britain, non-ratepayers did not have a vote in local government elections, and certain individuals such as Company Directors, could warrant an extra vote depending on the size of their company. And this is why the NI Civil Rights Movement had a genuine grievance.

However, the lack of local Government votes for non-ratepayers was not deliberately aimed at Roman Catholics, it affected many Protestants as well – my father included. However, what did not help Roman Catholics was the gerrymandering of Local Government electoral boundaries, nor discrimination in the allocation of houses to Catholic families. Nevertheless, as a friend of mine said - 'Protestants may have got their slum quicker...but it was still a slum'. As a personal example, my 86 year old Grandmother had an outside toilet at her house until she died in the mid-1980s, and my uncle, aunt and six cousins lived beside my Granny in a three-bedroomed 'cellar; house, also with an outside loo!

In summary, can what happened in Northern Ireland from 1921 to the imposition of direct rule following the prorogation of Stormont in 1972 ever be excused? Never!

However, are there explanations why this discrimination took place – well, yes, possibly, and thankfully they are of a different time. When the state of Northern Ireland came into being in May 1921 one third of places in the Judiciary, the Civil Service and the Police were set aside specifically for Roman Catholics. However, Catholic churchmen such as Cardinal Joseph McCrory preached that Catholics should have nothing to do with the new structures or the new country. Furthermore, in 1931 he stated that ‘the Protestant Church in Ireland – and the same is true of the Protestant Church anywhere – is not only not the rightful representative of the early Irish Church, but it is not even a part of the Church of Christ. That is my proposition’. Consequently, for the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland a Trojan Horse was apparently amongst them, and the days of 1641, 1688, 1798, and 1916 would be played out all over again. And from 1969 onwards they could have been said to be correct!

However, to end on a positive note I would like to echo the words of ‘Hovis’ – and not only did I live through the daily news reports…I lived through the actualities on the streets - ‘I prefer the NI of today. It isn't perfect but it's light years away from the mess that was the 1970/80s.’ Spot on!!!

[melmothtw]

Now, I normally stand back and chuckle at the ‘experts’ on PPrune when it’s obvious they don’t really understand the situation/. And I’m constantly amazed how normally rational, knowledgeable, and erudite individuals regurgitate the same hoary old nonsense about a subject they know little, or nothing about viz Northern Ireland! But in this case I couldn't really ignore the crass generalisations. So…

Firstly, contrary to what ‘melmothtw’ asserts Ireland was no more a sovereign country to be invaded as was England when the Danes’, Viking, Saxons’ and Norman invasions took place from the 8th Century onwards. Ireland was an island composed of a large number of warring clans, septs, tribes and ‘minor Kings’, and immigration both ways across the North Channel and the Irish Sea had been going on for generations. For evidence of both of these facts then please see the ‘Táin Bó Cúailnge’ aka ‘The Cattle Raid of Cooley’. In fact, before the ‘arrival’ of the ‘English’ in 1155 there had already been Viking, Danish, and Norman incursions into Ireland.

It was only in 1155 that Pope Adrian IV issued the papal bull ‘Laudabiliter’, commissioning King Henry II to intervene in Ireland to assist in the reform of the Irish Church, and the Irish system of governance according to the Roman (Latin Rite) ecclesiastical system. So ironically, ‘England’s’ (sic) engagement in Ireland was at the behest of a Pope – somewhat ironic, don’t you think?

Secondly, was Northern Ireland, in the words (again) of ‘melmothtw’ ‘…calved off and annexed’? No, it was ultimately formed as a result of the 1918 General Election where, in what became the Republic of Ireland there were massive Sinn Fein returns viz they won 73 out the 105 seats contested. But in the old Province of Ulster (the nine counties) Unionists won 23 of the 38 seats contested, and within the area that eventually formed the six counties of the new Northern Ireland, Unionists won 23 out of the 30 seats contested. It’s called democracy!

However, this obvious, ahem, shall we say, difference of opinion led to the introduction of ‘The Government of Ireland Act 1920’ aka The Fourth Home Rule Bill. The Act was intended to partition Ireland into two self-governing polities: the six north-eastern counties were to form ‘Northern Ireland’, while the remainder of the country was to form ‘Southern Ireland’. Both territories were to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for the future reunification of the island through a Council of Ireland; but the island would remain part of the UK with a Dublin Parliament - in effect a sort of pre-1800 Act of Union model. The Act was passed by the British Parliament in November 1920, received Royal Assent in December 1920, and came into force on 3 May 1921.

As a result of a stalemate in the Irish War of Independence (1919 – 1921) between the (old) IRA, and the British Forces, ‘peace talks’ were held between Sinn Fein and the British Government leading to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921. This provided for the establishment of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) as a self-governing Dominion within the ‘community of nations known as the British Empire’; in effect a status ‘the same as that of the Dominion of Canada’. However, following a referendum in the 26 counties of The Irish Free State in 1937, a new constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann) was adopted, that eventually led to the formation of the Republic of Ireland in 1949, when Commonwealth membership was terminated. Consequently, the hoped for re-unification of the island within the Commonwealth would never happen

So, Northern Ireland, far from being ‘calved off and annexed…’ actually remained a part of the United Kingdom, whilst the Republic of Ireland seceded from the same Union!

Now as for the assertion from ‘Una Due Tfc’ that, ‘bare (sic) in mind Catholics were not allowed to vote…’, and ‘Nutloose’s’ statement ‘Allowing them the vote would have been a start.’ What a load of old tosh! Catholics always had the right to vote in Northern Ireland. Some Catholics in the Kingdom of Ireland gained the right to vote with the partial relaxation of the Penal Laws in the 1790s, and all restrictions on Catholics voting in the United Kingdom were removed in 1829. This carried over into Northern Ireland in 1922 for General Elections, and thus, as a matter of law, there was no distinction between Catholic and Protestant voters.

Where the difference came was that the Parliament of Northern Ireland (Stormont) did not follow Westminster in changes to the Parliamentary franchise from 1945 - one man, one vote (or, if we’re being all 2020s ‘one person, one vote’). And up until 1969, plural voting was still allowed for local government elections in Great Britain and Northern Ireland - strangely, no taking to the streets and the murder of your neighbours in GB! - but in addition, also it also applied to for Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland.

This meant that that, as in Great Britain, all people over the age of 21, could vote in Parliamentary elections, however, unlike the situation in Great Britain, non-ratepayers did not have a vote in local government elections, and certain individuals such as Company Directors, could warrant an extra vote depending on the size of their company. And this is why the NI Civil Rights Movement had a genuine grievance.

However, the lack of local Government votes for non-ratepayers was not deliberately aimed at Roman Catholics, it affected many Protestants as well – my father included. However, what did not help Roman Catholics was the gerrymandering of Local Government electoral boundaries, nor discrimination in the allocation of houses to Catholic families. Nevertheless, as a friend of mine said - 'Protestants may have got their slum quicker...but it was still a slum'. As a personal example, my 86 year old Grandmother had an outside toilet at her house until she died in the mid-1980s, and my uncle, aunt and six cousins lived beside my Granny in a three-bedroomed 'cellar; house, also with an outside loo!

In summary, can what happened in Northern Ireland from 1921 to the imposition of direct rule following the prorogation of Stormont in 1972 ever be excused? Never!

However, are there explanations why this discrimination took place – well, yes, possibly, and thankfully they are of a different time. When the state of Northern Ireland came into being in May 1921 one third of places in the Judiciary, the Civil Service and the Police were set aside specifically for Roman Catholics. However, Catholic churchmen such as Cardinal Joseph McCrory preached that Catholics should have nothing to do with the new structures or the new country. Furthermore, in 1931 he stated that ‘the Protestant Church in Ireland – and the same is true of the Protestant Church anywhere – is not only not the rightful representative of the early Irish Church, but it is not even a part of the Church of Christ. That is my proposition’. Consequently, for the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland a Trojan Horse was apparently amongst them, and the days of 1641, 1688, 1798, and 1916 would be played out all over again. And from 1969 onwards they could have been said to be correct!

However, to end on a positive note I would like to echo the words of ‘Hovis’ – and not only did I live through the daily news reports…I lived through the actualities on the streets - ‘I prefer the NI of today. It isn't perfect but it's light years away from the mess that was the 1970/80s.’ Spot on!!!

All highly interesting and demonstrates an impressive ability to Google Search, but not really relevant to the issue up for discussion.

[OJ 72]

Yep, that’s right! Google search got me my MLitt in Irish Politics!

By the by, I wonder who it was started the thread drift with totally unfounded allegations in the first place?!? Like I say, I’m normally happy to sit on my hands, except when total nonsense is being purported as fact!!!

[pixityarse]

Seroiusly you lot?

If this had been a 19 year old, scared and unsupported pilot dropped into a no win scenario and caused a death/deaths would this much judgment be unleashed either for or against?

It's terrible that a poor kid killed another poor kid in circumstances nobody would have chosen, but the difference between a learning system and the blame/politics system is so stark. A more enlightened approach could have saved so many scenarios that followed and arguably 20 plus years of war. If you can't see that, you should be on the Daily Mail website instead.

Just my humble view but you know I'm right.

P

[SASless]

Melmothw,

Are you questioning the source of the information or the content offered by OJ 72?

I would like to see more of that kind of posts that are heavy on facts and history.

We are drifting a bit but there is relevance between where we are and how that young soldier found himself in NI.

[melmothtw]

We are drifting a bit

We are. The soldier was not giving any thought to a potted history of Ireland at the time of the shooting and neither was the British justice system when it charged and found him guilty of manslaughter 34 years later, so why are we going down that rabbit hole?

[ExAscoteer2]

so why are we going down that rabbit hole?

Well you started it with your inane and totally inaccurate comment:

Surely, the 'ultimate culpability' should be with those who invaded a sovereign neighbouring country and then calved off and annexed a sizeable portion of it to 'protect' an ethnic minority who had been artificially transplanted there centuries before and who now wished to remain citizens of 'the motherland'.

[NutLoose]

We are. The soldier was not giving any thought to a potted history of Ireland at the time of the shooting and neither was the British justice system when it charged and found him guilty of manslaughter 34 years later, so why are we going down that rabbit hole?

​​​​​​​He would have been briefed about the ongoing situation though, I know I was.

[melmothtw]

Well you started it with your inane and totally inaccurate drivel:

Nope, read the full exchange. I was making the point that the Irish population does not bear 'ultimate culpability' for the Troubles for deigning to take up arms against what they perceived to be a foreign invader.

That's all, but I think you already know that.

[ExAscoteer2]

You really need to do some research on Irish History before you pontificate to us.

[melmothtw]

He would have been briefed about the ongoing situation though, I know I was.

I strongly suspect neither he nor you were briefed on 'The Cattle Raid of Cooley'.

[melmothtw]

You really need to do some research on Irish History before you pontificate to us.

Obfuscate, deflect, and conflate all you like Ascotteer, the facts of this case speak for themselves.

[ExAscoteer2]

Keep going....

What do YOU know about 'The Troubles'? How did they affect you?

[melmothtw]

Keep going....

What do YOU know about 'The Troubles'? How did they affect you?

What did I JUST say about obfuscation and deflection? But since you ask, I did note some of my own personal experience of the Troubles in the link to the earlier thread I provided in my first comment in this thread.

That said, my personal experiences of the Troubles are totally irrelevant to this case, as are yours.

[ExAscoteer2]

That said, my personal experiences of the Troubles are totally irrelevant to this case, as are yours.

So you had family murdered by terrorists?

I rather think not.

Oh and I think my personal experiences of 'The Troubles' (losing family to Terrorists) are TOTALLY relevant.

[OJ 72]

Nope, read the full exchange. I was making the point that the Irish population does not bear 'ultimate culpability' for the Troubles for deigning to take up arms against what they perceived to be a foreign invader.

That's all, but I think you already know that.

melmothtw - I doubt if anyone with my surname could ever be classed as a ‘foreign invader’!!!

[melmothtw]

melmothtw - I doubt if anyone with my surname could ever be classed as a ‘foreign invader’!!!

Well, given that to me you're just OJ 72, I will have to take your word for that. Again though, this has nothing to do with the case at hand.

[Una Due Tfc]

I caveat my post here by saying I'm born, bred and living in the Republic. Many of my family of my grandparents generation fought in the war of independence. Some other distant relatives took part in the troubles.

The original "cause" of this is that after a number of rebellions in Ireland centuries ago, the lands of many who were deemed to have taken part were seized by the Crown in retaliation. Poor Protestant settlers from Britain were incentivised to move over and these lands were given to them. This is not the fault of anyone alive today.

The whole establishment of NI was bungled from the get go. The border was drawn in the wrong place. Tyrone, Armagh and Derry were Catholic majority and they did not want to be separated from the Irish Free State as it was at the time.

Secatarianism was rife from day 1. James Craig, the initial First Minister from NI described the province as "A protestant land for protestant people". Catholics could not vote and were banned from the best jobs, shipbuilding and heavy industry at the time. The Civil Rights movement started peacefully, marches etc. These were attacked by the RUC and Loyalist mobs. Things began to spiral, but the Bloody Sunday massacre lit the fuse. The exact causes are heavily disputed, but ultimately unarmed civilians were fired upon. Things exploded. A number of people's minds turned from justice to revenge. This was utterly tragic and decades of senseless bloodshed ensued. There were no innocent organisations or Governments. There is documented collusion between the British Army, RUC, Intelligence Services and the Loyalist Paramilitaries. It is also an open secret that a blind eye was turned to Republican Paramilitaries at many levels in the Republic. Nobody benefitted from this situation, but everyone lost.

Churchill offered NI to De Valera, Thatcher tried to wash her hands of it in private meetings with Haughey before that leaked to the press and she had to reverse course. In recent years it is obvious May and Johnson wanted rid. It is my opinion that the only resolution to the NI question is within NI itself. Both the Republic and Britain should distance themselves as much as reasonably practicable until a real solution is proposed by the people of NI themselves.

I feel so tremendously sorry for the kids in the British Army thrust into that cauldron. Some small amount of them were as evil as the Paramilitaries and we saw that in their actions, but the vast majority were in a situation they did not ask for.

In this particular case, a soldier fired a bullet into the back of a civilian, and the judge deemed he was lying to protect himself. I think the right verdict was reached, but I certainly bear no angry intentions or feelings for him.

[Just This Once...]

In this particular case, a soldier fired a bullet brief 3-round burst into the back of road [nearly 300m away] a [ricochet of which] hit [a] civilian, and [after trying the case again] the [latest] judge deemed he was lying to protect himself. I think the right verdict was reached [in at least one of the prosecutions], but I certainly bear no angry intentions or feelings for him.

Some small edits for consideration but I appreciate the calm comments and your caveat; but I am British and I think you have been far too lenient of the role of the British State, who played a massive role in putting the young soldier at that scene. The choices made to place him and that fully loaded weapon system on that arc of fire in a residential area were not made by him. When 'we' (the State) place soldiers, sailors and airmen in unique circumstance, armed and under potential threat, the State should own part of that risk and not load it all onto 1 soldier, especially one who had been tried and punished previously for his actions.

[Hughes500]

Having been there, yes with HM forces but interestingly in an Irish Regiment of the British Army where 60 % of our soldiers came from the North 30 % from the south the remaining 10% from Uk mainland ( half my family comes from Ballymena before anyone asks ) so speak with a reasonable amount of experience.
To all of you I would ask the following questions
1. Been shot at by someone who is not in a uniform and hiding in plain site amongst the civilian population ?
2. Been in a riot where people are throwing petrol bombs at you with the intent to kill you ?
3. Watched a baying mob drag 2 soldiers from a car and beat the **** out of them and murder them infront of so called Catholic Priests ?
4. Seen Catholic Priests on UTV say it is disgraceful that The British Army shot dead 7 of 8 terrorists in an ambush saying it was unfair as they were hiding and not in uniform ?

When you can answer yes to those questions then you are in a position to perhaps pass judgement on a young lad. Should he have squeezed the trigger ? No, but and it is a big but ,the other side gets off scot free so where is the so called justice, where is the fairness? To those like Melmothtw if to prosecute him is your idea of fairness then I am sorry you are wrong. With your attitude you will never get anyone to defend our country and its freedoms. I certainly would not sign on again and with the attitude of some of you where you think it is acceptable for one side to be given an amnesty and the other side ( and the side that was legally put there )not to be given the same is unacceptable.

[Una Due Tfc]

Having been there, yes with HM forces but interestingly in an Irish Regiment of the British Army where 60 % of our soldiers came from the North 30 % from the south the remaining 10% from Uk mainland ( half my family comes from Ballymena before anyone asks ) so speak with a reasonable amount of experience.
To all of you I would ask the following questions
1. Been shot at by someone who is not in a uniform and hiding in plain site amongst the civilian population ?
2. Been in a riot where people are throwing petrol bombs at you with the intent to kill you ?
3. Watched a baying mob drag 2 soldiers from a car and beat the **** out of them and murder them infront of so called Catholic Priests ?
4. Seen Catholic Priests on UTV say it is disgraceful that The British Army shot dead 7 of 8 terrorists in an ambush saying it was unfair as they were hiding and not in uniform ?

When you can answer yes to those questions then you are in a position to perhaps pass judgement on a young lad. Should he have squeezed the trigger ? No, but and it is a big but ,the other side gets off scot free so where is the so called justice, where is the fairness? To those like Melmothtw if to prosecute him is your idea of fairness then I am sorry you are wrong. With your attitude you will never get anyone to defend our country and its freedoms. I certainly would not sign on again and with the attitude of some of you where you think it is acceptable for one side to be given an amnesty and the other side ( and the side that was legally put there )not to be given the same is unacceptable.

Hughes I have the utmost sympathy for the situation you were placed in, the murder of young innocent British Soldiers who were there under orders was abhorrent, evil, vile, monstrous....but firing on the back of someone is against the Army's ROE, let alone the civilian law implications.

These young men were failed by their State in my opinion, but putting the back of a civilian in your sights and pulling the trigger.....this is at BEST reckless endangerment, at worst.....I don't want to say.

[melmothtw]

Having been there, yes with HM forces but interestingly in an Irish Regiment of the British Army where 60 % of our soldiers came from the North 30 % from the south the remaining 10% from Uk mainland ( half my family comes from Ballymena before anyone asks ) so speak with a reasonable amount of experience.
To all of you I would ask the following questions
1. Been shot at by someone who is not in a uniform and hiding in plain site amongst the civilian population ?
2. Been in a riot where people are throwing petrol bombs at you with the intent to kill you ?
3. Watched a baying mob drag 2 soldiers from a car and beat the **** out of them and murder them infront of so called Catholic Priests ?
4. Seen Catholic Priests on UTV say it is disgraceful that The British Army shot dead 7 of 8 terrorists in an ambush saying it was unfair as they were hiding and not in uniform ?

When you can answer yes to those questions then you are in a position to perhaps pass judgement on a young lad. Should he have squeezed the trigger ? No, but and it is a big but ,the other side gets off scot free so where is the so called justice, where is the fairness? To those like Melmothtw if to prosecute him is your idea of fairness then I am sorry you are wrong. With your attitude you will never get anyone to defend our country and its freedoms. I certainly would not sign on again and with the attitude of some of you where you think it is acceptable for one side to be given an amnesty and the other side ( and the side that was legally put there )not to be given the same is unacceptable.

Was going to leave this, but seeing as you called me out by name...

Should he have squeezed the trigger ? No

We're in agreement.

​​​​​​​some of you where you think it is acceptable for one side to be given an amnesty and the other side ( and the side that was legally put there )not to be given the same is unacceptable.

I've not heard anyone say this is acceptable (least of all me), but it is the reality of the peace deal that the British government brokered.

​​​​​​​When you can answer yes to those questions then you are in a position to perhaps pass judgement on a young lad

The courts passed the judgement.

​​​​​​​To those like Melmothtw if to prosecute him is your idea of fairness then I am sorry you are wrong.

The family of the dead civilian will disagree. I accept that there are many families of murdered security forces victims who won't get the same, but you don't get justice by denying justice to others (and again, im aware this cuts both ways, but that's the deal the British government brokered so take it up with them).

In the absence of being called out again, I'll leave this thread now.

[OJ 72]

‘Una Due Tfc’ you make some valid points, but many of them don’t stand up to scrutiny when you analyse them:

a. ‘The border was drawn in the wrong place. Tyrone, Armagh and Derry were Catholic majority…’

Not true…Armagh had a (slim) Protestant majority!

b. James Craig, the initial First Minister from NI described the province as ‘A protestant land for protestant people’. (Actually, to be pedantic he was Prime Minister – ‘First Minister’ is a designation from the Belfast Agreement 1998)

Most people misquote this, and conveniently forgets what he said in the first part of this speech on 24th April 1934. This was ‘Since we took up office, we have tried to be absolutely fair towards all the citizens of Northern Ireland. Actually, on an Orange platform, I, myself, laid down the principle, to which I still adhere, that I was Prime Minister not of one section of the community but of all, and that as far as I possibly could I was going to see that fair play was meted out to all classes and creeds without any favour whatever on my part.’ And the actual in reply to a question from George Leeke of the Nationalist Party was…’ The Honourable Member must remember that in the South they boasted of a Catholic State. They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State.’

c. ‘Catholics could not vote…’

Really?!! Obviously, you didn’t read my earlier refutation of this old trope!!!

d. ‘The Civil Rights movement started peacefully…’

Possibly, but it was quickly infiltrated by militant Republicans who used the Civil Rights protests as a cover to renew their attack on the State following their failed 'Border Campaign, 1956-62!

e. ‘There is documented collusion between the British Army, RUC, Intelligence Services and the Loyalist Paramilitaries…’

This is irrefutable, but there is also documented collusion between An Garda Siochana and the Provisional IRA!!! Remember the murder of Ch Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan murdered by PIRA after they left a meeting at Dundalk Garda Station in March 1989? Nope, probably not as it doesn’t fit your narrative.

f. ‘Churchill offered NI to De Valera,’

Yes, potentially to entice the Republic to eschew its neutrality, but just how would Churchill have achieved such a thing?!? By the way, De Valera rejected this offer out of hand, and then gave his condolences to the German Embassy in Dublin following Hitler’s suicide!!! And ironically De Valera’s intransigence effectively copper fastened the Union. Churchill said after the war - ‘But for the loyalty of Northern Ireland we should have been confronted with slavery and death and the light which now shines so strongly throughout the world would have been quenched.’ And then in 1949 came ‘The Ireland Act’ that stated that ‘ hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament [now the people] of Northern Ireland.’

[i]Et sic porro…

Undertaking my Masters taught me one important fact – objectivity! Whilst you may not like it, and it can make you uncomfortable, you must shed any baggage that you carry and see the facts as they are, and not through the lenses of orange (or indeed green) tinted glasses!

[_Agrajag_]

Hughes I have the utmost sympathy for the situation you were placed in, the murder of young innocent British Soldiers who were there under orders was abhorrent, evil, vile, monstrous....but firing on the back of someone is against the Army's ROE, let alone the civilian law implications.

These young men were failed by their State in my opinion, but putting the back of a civilian in your sights and pulling the trigger.....this is at BEST reckless endangerment, at worst.....I don't want to say.

That is the crux of this, these young men were indeed failed by their state. They should never have been placed in that situation, it not only did little to protect the civilian population, it also increased the tension, and the level of violence, by both sides of the sectarian divide. Let us not also forget that a very great deal of the violence within the Six Counties was criminal, and not always sectarian. Organised criminals, or both persuasions and none, took advantage of the absence of normal policing to expand their violent crime networks, often using the sectarian divide as a cover.

This always happens in what amounts to war zones, and is not unique to The Troubles. It has featured in modern Irish history since before the formation of the Free State, with violent criminals being allowed to operate under either the covert consent of the ruling government (as happened in the Six Counties), or just because the normal checks and balances of law and order are absent. An example would be the gang rape of my grandmother, at the hands of the Black and Tans, at a time when Ireland was under British rule. She never really recovered from that and took her own life when I was a small boy.

It is a truism that the "winning" side always gets to write history, something I didn't really grasp until I was an adult. I was born in England, and didn't take up my Irish citizenship until after a trip to Ireland on my honeymoon. We visited my family, and walked around a museum in Limerick where they had an exhibit covering the history of Ireland from the period around the Easter Rising, through the War of Independence, the formation of the Free State and the Irish Civil War, to the eventual creation of the Republic of Ireland. The portrayal of Irish history I saw there was very different to that I had been taught at school in England. My history teachers at school had openly lied to me, of that I am certain. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two versions of history, but the reality is that the British Empire got to write the version accepted within that Empire, and it is not an accurate portrayal of eventsl.

[NutLoose]

I strongly suspect neither he nor you were briefed on 'The Cattle Raid of Cooley'.

No, but we were warned about the local WRACs.. ;)

[MENELAUS]

And disco nights in the maze.

[Hughes500]

So Melmothtw, so should the soldier be convicted 30 odd years later ? I assume you agree , it is not a case of taking it up with the British Govt, I would like to know your personal position. Is it fair that one side is given an amnesty yet the other side isnt ?

[melmothtw]

So Melmothtw, so should the soldier be convicted 30 odd years later ? I assume you agree , it is not a case of taking it up with the British Govt, I would like to know your personal position. Is it fair that one side is given an amnesty yet the other side isnt ?

Yes, my personal opinion is that there should not be a statute of limitations on murder, and the UK justice system agrees.

To answer your second question, no it is plainly not fair that one side gets an amnesty while the other does not, but that's the deal that the British government made to secure peace.

[chevvron]

To answer your second question, no it is plainly not fair that one side gets an amnesty while the other does not, but that's the deal that the British government made to secure peace.
No it's the deal that Blair and the present leader of the opposition Keir Starmer agreed.

[MENELAUS]

Yes, my personal opinion is that there should not be a statute of limitations on murder, and the UK justice system agrees.

To answer your second question, no it is plainly not fair that one side gets an amnesty while the other does not, but that's the deal that the British government made to secure peace.


Well that should perhaps be changed. What about the perpetrators of Warrenpoint ? Or those c@@@s that kept blowing up the Europa Hotel, maiming hundreds. Or those that drove the car in to Oxford Street bus station ? And then blew it up, instantly killing 6 and maiming hundreds. I then had the pleasure of watching a squaddie shovel body parts and glass in to the back of a truck…aged 11, with my grandad. This is the sort of **** that these kids ( for that is what the majority of them were) had to put up with. Years later when I was dropping different young men off from the back of the Wessex they were sh@t scared. Given that a sizeable part of the population in those areas could quite happily have put a bullet in the back of their heads. So, we could go on and on about the various atrocities on both sides. And the endless cycles of revenge and mistrust.
However, in the interests of truth and reconciliation to convict an individual 30 + years after the event is frankly a nonsense. In much the same way as awarding compensation to those murderous bastards of the PIRA for wrongful arrest is a travesty of justice.
Amnesty for all. Or not at all.
And concur with all the previous about NI. Much prefer the present version with the sun roof open than the dark old days. Pretty sure that could have been achieved with an amnesty for all however. As opposed to the recent outbreak of one sided justice.

[OJ 72]

I’m sorry _Agrajag_ to which six of the 32 counties do you refer? Tipperary, Clare. Meath, Limerick, Waterford and Wexford perhaps?

The name of the place which appears to be such anathema to you is ‘Northern Ireland’. And for you to refer to it, twice, using such a pejorative term, betrays a degree of (unconscious?) bias – perhaps understandable given the unimaginable trauma suffered by your family – however, that makes me question the objectivity in the rest of your argument.

MENELAUS, you and I must be of a vintage. I too recall, with horror, the images of the Oxford Street Bus Station bombing, and indeed the other 19 IRA bombs that exploded around Belfast, with minimal or no warning on Bloody Friday – 21 July 1972. In those days the BBC didn’t give ‘trigger warnings’ or state that ‘some viewers may find the following images distressing’! When the first pictures of limbless torsos being literally brushed into a tarpaulin appeared on BBC NI’s ‘Scene Around Six’, my parents couldn’t switch off our TV quickly enough – however, some 50 years later that is still seared in my memory.

It was carnage such as this, and La Mon, and the Abercorn etc etc that influenced a generation. Many, like myself joined the military, (both regular and the Ulster Defence Regiment), others the RUC (and many paid the supreme sacrifice for protecting all sections of the community, irrespective of what some agenda-driven, revisionist historians would have you believe). But unfortunately, some, and some of these are bound to have been contemporaries of mine, went to the dark side and joined the UDA or UVF. Sad, but true, and I in no way condone their totally misguided actions.

Terrorism, from whatever side of the community is abhorrent and wrong and is to be condemned without reservation.

PS…_Agrajag_ - TE Utley’s description of an Ulsterman as the ‘first to give, and the first to take, offence’ may, or indeed may not, be apposite here!!!

PPS…and yes, I’ve seen Harry Enfield’s portrayal of ‘William Ulsterman’ on the ‘Tube of You’, and I find it bloody hilarious!!!

[_Agrajag_]

I’m sorry _Agrajag_ to which six of the 32 counties do you refer? Tipperary, Clare. Meath, Limerick, Waterford and Wexford perhaps?

The name of the place which appears to be such anathema to you is ‘Northern Ireland’. And for you to refer to it, twice, using such a pejorative term, betrays a degree of (unconscious?) bias – perhaps understandable given the unimaginable trauma suffered by your family – however, that makes me question the objectivity in the rest of your argument.


PS…_Agrajag_ - TE Utley’s description of an Ulsterman as the ‘first to give, and the first to take, offence’ may, or indeed may not, be apposite here!!!

PPS…and yes, I’ve seen Harry Enfield’s portrayal of ‘William Ulsterman’ on the ‘Tube of You’, and I find it bloody hilarious!!!



As you well know, there are nine counties in Ulster, only six of them are a part of the UK, the other three are in the RoI (Co. Donegal, Co. Monaghan & Co. Cavan). The British media used Ulster as a pejorative term to describe the Six Counties from before The Troubles until a couple of decades ago, when they finally started to phase it out and use the term Northern Ireland. Even now the British media often refer to the RoI as "Southern Ireland", a state that ceased to exist in 1937, as another attempt to pretend that the RoI was still a part of the UK.

The use of the term Ulster to describe UK ruled Northern Ireland was deliberately provocative terminology that was aimed at keeping what they saw as the uppity Irish in their place. It wasn't until around the time of the GFA that the media (and the British government) stopped misusing the term Ulster to describe their bit of the island of Ireland. FWIW, even Wikipedia has this as the first paragraph on its entry about Ulster (my highlight in the quote below):

Ulster . . . is one of the four traditional Irish provinces. It is made up of nine counties: six of these constitute Northern Ireland (a part of the United Kingdom); the remaining three are in the Republic of Ireland.

[Geriaviator]

I hadn't intended to join this discussion but I must support OJ72's comments above. They are all the more timely in view of the moves over the weekend for a public inquiry into the Omagh bombings in which 18 innocent shoppers were killed. To OJ72's citing of Garda-IRA collusion I would add the murder of two judges returning from Dublin. I too lost friends on both sides of the divide. I too spent long hours on stag awaiting a suprise attack perhaps from the civilian strolling past on the far side of the street. I have sampled the unique musky smell of a thousand-strong mob intent on riot. To pursue a stressed-out youngster who made a fatal mistake when countless murderers walk free is not justice.

Many if not most Republicans were glad to see the arrival of the Army to quell attacks from Unionist mobs. When my friends in 2 Queen's took up positions in (Republican) Divis Street Belfast on August 15 1969 I went up with 24 fish suppers only to find the local residents had liberally supplied with tea, scones and sandwiches. To this day I remember the comment of their company officer, Capt. John Gerelli: "Today they're bringing us tea and biscuits, tomorrow they'll be throwing stones or worse. We'll end up pig in the middle, we always do".

Fifty-three years later John is long gone, but his prophesy still echoes today.

[MENELAUS]

Divis Flats. Now long gone. Cracking spot to jettison fuel. Allegedly.

[cynicalint]

Divis Flats. Now long gone. Cracking spot to jettison fuel. Allegedly.
And fridges - allegedly!

[Finningley Boy]

Good post SAS - that's what they found in S Africa and other places - you can't just go on and on fighting the old battles if you want peace
I think this sums it all up, the problem is, ever since Blair and his, I would say, genuine efficacious approach to resolve the "troubles" the outcome, I would further say for political reasons, has seen British Soldiers of the era treated like Nazi war criminals. The supporters then and now, of the IRA and Sinn Fein etc, will never accept a balanced and fair settlement. They believe every British soldier is a murderer or potentially one. They further believe that every member of of the IRA, every violent protester who flung rocks and bricks and engaged in worse, are unquestionably innocent. There are of course those on the Brit side who react similarly from their own perspective. Blair took the saucepan off the boil, but he didn't solve the matter. Out of fear that the provos wouldn't accept anything but a subjective outcome deeply favourable to their boys, so he couldn't seek a fair settlement. Because of the international situation, British Governments have to contend with the often biased or ignorant pro-IRA leanings of just about any other government on the planet. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to counter an IRA terrorist resurgence in any decisive manner, which would ensue if the likes of this soldier were granted the amnesty afforded all the terrorist characters on both sides. Its still a puzzle to me , however, why all these charges are being brought, this is perhaps the most recent one, at least 34 years on?

FB

[_Agrajag_]

I think this sums it all up, the problem is, ever since Blair and his, I would say, genuine efficacious approach to resolve the "troubles" the outcome, I would further say for political reasons, has seen British Soldiers of the era treated like Nazi war criminals. The supporters then and now, of the IRA and Sinn Fein etc, will never accept a balanced and fair settlement. They believe every British soldier is a murderer or potentially one. They further believe that every member of of the IRA, every violent protester who flung rocks and bricks and engaged in worse, are unquestionably innocent. There are of course those on the Brit side who react similarly from their own perspective. Blair took the saucepan off the boil, but he didn't solve the matter. Out of fear that the provos wouldn't accept anything but a subjective outcome deeply favourable to their boys, so he couldn't seek a fair settlement. Because of the international situation, British Governments have to contend with the often biased or ignorant pro-IRA leanings of just about any other government on the planet. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to counter an IRA terrorist resurgence in any decisive manner, which would ensue if the likes of this soldier were granted the amnesty afforded all the terrorist characters on both sides. Its still a puzzle to me , however, why all these charges are being brought, this is perhaps the most recent one, at least 34 years on?

FB


Have a guess as to which of the two terrorist groups carried out the greatest number of attacks between 1985 and 1998. I will give you a clue - it was not the Republican terrorists.

There is a widespread myth propagated, mostly in the UK media, that the IRA were to blame for all the violence. The reality is that both sides were equally to blame. The Republicans carried out more attacks between 1968 and 1985, then the Loyalists upped they game and massively increased the number of attacks they carried out. You couldn't slip a fag paper between the two when it comes to who was worst.

As someone rightly observed earlier, the peacekeeping force were hated by both sides, and were fair game as targets for both, even if the UK media often tried to focus on the Republicans as the bad guys and the Loyalists as the good guys. Add in that the Loyalists were often actively encouraged to march in Republican areas, just to stir things up, and it's little wonder that it took so long for someone to knock all their bloody heads together and start a workable peace process.

FWIW, I very strongly disagree with the one-sided nature of the amnesty - both sides, and the peacekeepers caught in the middle, should have been granted the same immunity for actions back then. It's a bloody tragedy that this never happened.

[Vasco dePilot]

You could say the ultimate culpability lies with the Irish poplulation that took up arms in the belief it would solve their problems.
No weapons on the street killing each other, no need for the army to be there.
You need to learn some history. Then you will probably understand why that comment is so ignorant.
The British Army were initially sent to Northern Ireland to protect the minority population who were being beaten and killed by the majority (mainly Protestant Unionists). The BA were welcomed in as saviours. Several major errors of judgment by the BA led to the complete turnaround in the attitudes of the Catholic population. In particular, the slaughter in Derry on Bloody Sunday by the Parachute Regiment (January 1972) plus the brutal introduction of Internment carried out by soldiers, inexperienced in the art of confronting often innocent civilians, has a huge amount to answer for.
To understand what happened later in the 80s and 90s, it is essential to learn the history that led up to those dreaded decades.

[cheekychimp]

As someone rightly observed earlier, the peacekeeping force were hated by both sides, and were fair game as targets for both, even if the UK media often tried to focus on the Republicans as the bad guys and the Loyalists as the good guys..
We weren't a "peacekeeping force" we were there to support the RUC in the legal execution of their duties. The IRA were painted as the bad guys because they were, during pre-deployment training the focus was on Republican terrorist groups because they were the ones actively targeting and killing us. The Loyalist terrorists concentrated on killing Catholics, occasionally targeting the Security Forces if we stopped their fun. Or perhaps I missed something during my 3 tours and have been wrong all this time.

[Haraka]

Cheekychimp
Agreed. And there was a big difference between the Urban and Rural campaigns. (Certainly in the 70's)

[Mogwi]

And fridges - allegedly!

Certainly aware of a few milk bottles that went that way from 1500’. Made a noise like 1k bombs inbound, apparently!

Mog

[Video Mixdown]

We weren't a "peacekeeping force" we were there to support the RUC in the legal execution of their duties. The IRA were painted as the bad guys because they were, during pre-deployment training the focus was on Republican terrorist groups because they were the ones actively targeting and killing us. The Loyalist terrorists concentrated on killing Catholics, occasionally targeting the Security Forces if we stopped their fun. Or perhaps I missed something during my 3 tours and have been wrong all this time.
Just as military resources are often used to assist Police investigations and operations in all parts of the UK. If my work in NI helped end the career of any terrorists I consider it time well spent.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/650013-former-soldier-convicted-manslaughter-ni-troubles-1988-a.html#post11338531)
You could say the ultimate culpability lies with the Irish popullation that took up arms in the belief it would solve their problems.
No weapons on the street killing each other, no need for the army to be there.

You need to learn some history. Then you will probably understand why that comment is so ignorant.
The British Army were initially sent to Northern Ireland to protect the minority population who were being beaten and killed by the majority (mainly Protestant Unionists). The BA were welcomed in as saviours. Several major errors of judgment by the BA led to the complete turnaround in the attitudes of the Catholic population. In particular, the slaughter in Derry on Bloody Sunday by the Parachute Regiment (January 1972) plus the brutal introduction of Internment carried out by soldiers, inexperienced in the art of confronting often innocent civilians, has a huge amount to answer for.
To understand what happened later in the 80s and 90s, it is essential to learn the history that led up to those dreaded decades.

Why is is ignorant, you need to read it again.

You could say the ultimate culpability lies with the Irish population that took up arms in the belief it would solve their problems.

Nowhere in that statement do I say who was doing the killing, and as you say "The British Army were initially sent to Northern Ireland to protect the minority population who were being beaten and killed by the majority".

The British Army was initially deployed, at the request of the unionist government of Northern Ireland in response to the August 1969 riots. Its role was to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and to assert the authority of the British.

So as I said, If the Irish population hadn't take up arms and started killing each other REGARLESS OF SIDES the Government on Northern Ireland at the time would not have needed to call on the British Military who were initially welcomed by both sides.

To understand what happened later in the 80s and 90s, it is essential to learn the history that led up to those dreaded decades.
and having been there helps too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Banner

[Readthebigbreach]

What complete rubbish . The man was uninvolved unarmed , had passed through the checkpoint and was a threat to no one . He was shot in the back . The checkpoint was not under attack . What references to Irish history or the design of a gpmg or your experience flying Wessex has got to do with any of this ? Nothing . Sickening to read the feeble attempts to justify the psychopathic mowing down of an innocent British citizen .

[SASless]

A few questions......How is the latest generation, that has not been directly exposed to the violence, accepting the change?

We are all products of our environment that includes what we learn from our parents and grandparent, the schools, and those we encounter, the media, and in these days social media.

Is the trend positive and there is less bitterness among the young as a result of the political decisions that led to the Amnesty?

From a personal perspective my views re Communism is starkly different than my Nephew's view as we each grew up in quite different times.

[blind pew]

Considering there is still resentment between pro and anti treaty groups from a century ago and with the red white and blue curb Stones across the border I would guess not a great deal except the vast scandals of kiddie fiddlers being exposed has changed the mentality in the south amongst many.
But it’s an Ireland fraught with organised crime on all levels.
A couple of years ago I was forced to stop because someone thought I was spying on criminal activities- I explained who I was and what I was doing and went on my way.
I asked my pal who was head of military intelligence although I didn’t know that at the time (but guessed having been intercepted by special branch and SBS in the past); he came back to me that the powers that be allow that activity because it’s better than stopping it and the criminals diversifying.
In his last year he revealed his position but while he had shared his intelligence with the Gardi it wasn’t reciprocated.

Sunday Carlingford had a demonstration with cars from both sides of the border ..protesting about Ukrainian male refugees being housed locally, although the cafe proprietor and staff thought that these protesters were a disgrace.

It’s a land of contradictions and many I meet from both sides wouldn’t dream of crossing the border except for a budget flight.

It’s a great place to retire as long as one keeps one nose out of politics, church and corruption.

[Tengah Type]

Can we please ressurect Nelson Mandela to produce a new "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" as in South Africa. That seems to be the best way ( in recent times )
to accept that all sides are equally to be responsable for the past "Troubles" and to let "Bygones be Bygones".

Alternatively make all Irish People play Rugby Union Football. Their team has been an "All Ireland" team since 1880 as are their supporters!

PS I am not being flippant, but it seems that a lot of people can be reasonable and not resort to continuous strife!

Putting on Tin Hat awaiting incoming;

[NutLoose]

SASless we are all born into this world totally devoid of hate, prejudice or malice against each other regardless of sex, colour or religion, sadly that is indoctrinated into our young people by adults who should know better. Until that changes nothing will change.

[MENELAUS]

The same Nelson that blew up sub stations etc. One man’s terrorist … etc etc

[Sloppy Link]

Good post SAS - that's what they found in S Africa and other places - you can't just go on and on fighting the old battles if you want peace
Zombie - The Craberries.

[Asturias56]

The same Nelson that blew up sub stations etc. One man’s terrorist … etc etc


but he changed Menelaus - he changed - and that's what is necessary in N Ireland

[OJ 72]

Asturias - but have the terrorists changed in the NI context? In what other country in the world is the the extinction of the country of which they are supposed to govern the avowed aim of the party with the largest number seats (Sinn Fein, 27 seats) in the putative Government?!?**

To rephrase (a paraphrase, admittedly) of von Clausewitz, in this case 'Politics is the continuation of the 'armed struggle' (sic) by other means'!!! Is their war over - definitely not. This is simply a tactical pause to see what concessions they can get, and then if these are not enough, then they change tack - cf 1641, 1688, 1798, 1916, 1921, 1935, 1940, 1956, 1969 - fight, pause, fight, pause...???

**NB...not an overall majority though: 2022 NI Assembly elections - Union Supporting Parties - 35 seats (40.13%); 'Small 'u'' unionist Party - 17 seats (13.53%); Irish Unity Supporting Parties - 35 seats (39.57); Non-Aligned - 1 seat (1.14%); Others - 0 seats (5.23%)

[Readthebigbreach]

Northern Ireland is not a two sided sectarian soccer match. It has a population of over 1.5 million people. The vast majority have never held a weapon or inflicted violence on another human. The vast majority simply want to be left alone to mind their own business and make a living for themselves and their family. This man was one of them. A bigot imposes an identity on his victim to allow his uncontrolled emotional thinking to compensate his lack of reality.

[MENELAUS]

but he changed Menelaus - he changed - and that's what is necessary in N Ireland


He did. It was certainly expedient for him, and the ANC, to do so. And take a look at modern SA and see the spiral in to decline of services, utilities and corruption ever since. Sometimes it takes a strong persona just to hold a place together. Certainly the case with Tito.
The “chuckle bros” also changed. And for a brief period harmony reigned at Stormont. And they made a decent fist of their respective jobs. Not bad for the man admitting to firing the shots from the flat in the Bogside that sent the Paras off on their rampage. Again, bad judgement. Paras should have been nowhere near a civil rights movement demonstration. They are trained to do a certain job, with prejudice, lightly armed therefore expect a violent response, and get out. Their actions that day ( despite the Bogside being a bloody mess generally) probably did more for IRA and Sinn Fein recruitment than any other single action.
I digress. If a man like G@@ry A@@ms can be free under an amnesty ( and I’m pretty sure he hasn’t changed his views one jot) then the same should apply to servicemen acting for the Crown. Accidents and misjudgments do happen. The actions of the PIRA, IRA, Real IRA, UDF, UFF etc etc were rarely accidental.

[_Agrajag_]

Can we please ressurect Nelson Mandela to produce a new "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" as in South Africa. That seems to be the best way ( in recent times )
to accept that all sides are equally to be responsable for the past "Troubles" and to let "Bygones be Bygones".


I had high hopes that this is what might have come out of the GFA, but it seems that was far too big a stretch. Much good has come from the GFA, though, I think the only major issue is the one-sided nature of the cancellation of past crimes.


Northern Ireland is not a two sided sectarian soccer match. It has a population of over 1.5 million people. The vast majority have never held a weapon or inflicted violence on another human. The vast majority simply want to be left alone to mind their own business and make a living for themselves and their family. This man was one of them. A bigot imposes an identity on his victim to allow his uncontrolled emotional thinking to compensate his lack of reality.

I agree, and having some in-depth knowledge of many of the finer points of criminality involved (my family live within a couple of km of the border with South Armagh) I despair at the way the media had always tried to emphasise The Troubles as being a two sided sectarian war. The British media, in particular, rarely seemed to report on the massive amount of organised crime going on, most of it not specific to one sectarian group or another, just criminals taking advantage of the no-go areas and the general break down in law and order. By contrast, the criminal stuff, particularly associated with cross-border activities, was never out of the news when we were still living near the border.

I've also long felt that the RUC was far from being squeaky clean. As another has pointed out, the UK armed forces there were effectively under some degree of control by the RUC, but as a police force there were parts of the RUC that were as corrupt as hell. I knew one fairly senior RUC officer for a time (married a cousin of mine) and remember going to his house one evening and being shocked to see a massive UVF flag hanging on the wall in his hall. The UVF at was a prohibited terrorist organisation, yet here was a n RUC police officer more or less openly telling anyone that visited that he was either a member or a supporter. Nothing to do with religion, either, he didn't believe in a god any more than I do.

The whole thing is a bloody mess. No one side is right or wrong, all are as bad as each other. Looking at the demographic changes in the population and the impact of Brexit it would not surprise me at all to find that the idea of re-unifying the island of Ireland starts to look more attractive. I've no view one way or the other about that, but can see that there are a lot of issues caused by Brexit than may well cause some to question very long held beliefs.

[Readthebigbreach]

Northern Ireland is far from a bloody mess . It has the highest number of civil servants per capita than any part of the UK . There are more murders and violent crimes in many US cities than in NI including during the troubles. For many it is a very profitable and easy existence despite (or maybe in some cases because of ) the continuing sectarian dialogue trumpeted by a the usual sources.

[_Agrajag_]

Northern Ireland is far from a bloody mess . It has the highest number of civil servants per capita than any part of the UK . There are more murders and violent crimes in many US cities than in NI including during the troubles. For many it is a very profitable and easy existence despite (or maybe in some cases because of ) the continuing sectarian dialogue trumpeted by a the usual sources.


Surely you are not correlating the "highest number of civil servants per capita" as any sort of measure of success for a population, are you? My experience suggests that the reverse should be true, a truly meritocracy should have the LOWEST number of civil servants per capita, as ultimately they are little more than a burden upon taxpayers.

I made no reference to murder, or violent crime, you appear to have plucked that from thin air. What I wrote is a matter of record above, and in case comprehension is not a key skill, allow me to repeat it:

The British media, in particular, rarely seemed to report on the massive amount of organised crime going on, most of it not specific to one sectarian group or another, just criminals taking advantage of the no-go areas and the general break down in law and order. By contrast, the criminal stuff, particularly associated with cross-border activities, was never out of the news when we were still living near the border..

Most of that cross-border activity was associated with smuggling. In the case of fuel smuggling this was obvious to a visually impaired person. There were filling stations out in the wilds on the UK side of the border that made a handsome living from selling fuel to Irish drivers, often driving vehicles with enlarged fuel tanks, who would cross the border several times a day to fill up with cheap British fuel and flog it back home. Same went for pretty much any other commodity that was more expensive in the RoI.

Very little was ever done to address the vast amount of cross-border crime, and much of it (on some of the bigger roads across the border) was allowed to continue because it there were no resources to police it. There were hundreds of official crossing points on the border, and many hundreds more unofficial ones, like farm tracks. Heck, one farm near our place had fields both side of the border, so moving his cows through a gate was crossing the border!

[langleybaston]

[QUOTE=_Agrajag_;11342840]Surely you are not correlating the "highest number of civil servants per capita" as any sort of measure of success for a population, are you? My experience suggests that the reverse should be true, a truly meritocracy should have the LOWEST number of civil servants per capita, as ultimately they are little more than a burden upon taxpayers.

Thank you for those kind words, belittling 41 years of dedicated professional service in the M o D Met.Office, during which I paid a lot of tax.
In that time the staffing was reduced from about 5000 to about 2000, and the output improved, driven by early take-up of main frame computers. Staffing on military stations was always minimal, usually covered 24/7/365, and sick leave was almost unknown. Staff suffered frequent upheaval, being posted every 3 years and undertaking short detachments at very short notice.
Little has changed since I retired except forecasts continue to improve.

The next time you look at a weather forecast remember, it is not magic, it depends on a small nmber of highly skilled but rather inadequately rewarded civil servants.

[_Agrajag_]

Surely you are not correlating the "highest number of civil servants per capita" as any sort of measure of success for a population, are you? My experience suggests that the reverse should be true, a truly meritocracy should have the LOWEST number of civil servants per capita, as ultimately they are little more than a burden upon taxpayers.

Thank you for those kind words, belittling 41 years of dedicated professional service in the M o D Met.Office, during which I paid a lot of tax.
In that time the staffing was reduced from about 5000 to about 2000, and the output improved, driven by early take-up of main frame computers. Staffing on military stations was always minimal, usually covered 24/7/365, and sick leave was almost unknown. Staff suffered frequent upheaval, being posted every 3 years and undertaking short detachments at very short notice.
Little has changed since I retired except forecasts continue to improve.

The next time you look at a weather forecast remember, it is not magic, it depends on a small nmber of highly skilled but rather inadequately rewarded civil servants.

For goodness sake, tone down the hypersensitive, lets take this completely out of context in order to wind someone up for no purpose, mode!

My intent was very clear, and I was also a civil servant for 16 years after serving queen and country for 22 years before that. I was not in any way, shape or form, criticising civil servants, as you would realise if you had actually taken the time to read my post. What I was criticising was the merit of using the ratio of numbers of civil servants to the total population as a measure of success of a state or part thereof.

Would you argue that NI would be seen as a world beating state if 50% of the population were Met Office staff? I would guess you would not, any more than I would not argue that having 50% of the population of NI made up of civilian ROs was a good metric.

Sometimes it helps the flow of sensible intercourse to be reasonable and allow a bit of give and take, and not choose to be hyper-sensitive and criticise a point that has not even been stated.

[langleybaston]

F I was not in any way, shape or form, criticising civil servants,

Other than being little more than a burden upon taxpayers.

Says it all.

[_Agrajag_]

Other than being little more than a burden upon taxpayers.

Says it all.


Ok, I'll play this game then, as it seems you're intent on being offended for absolutely no reason. Hypothetical question. Let's say that 50% of the working population of NI were Met Office staff. Would that be, in your view, a valid indicator of the success or prosperity of that region?

I say that it would not, any more than if 50% of the population were civilian ROs, or 50% of the population worked for HMRC, or 50% of the population worked in Stormont.

It's a silly point to try and make, whichever way you choose to look at it. Any successful population needs the minimum amount of government, and civil servants, commensurate with a high standard of living and decent public services. An imbalance, such that their is a surfeit of people being paid by the taxpayer, just increases the burden of taxation beyond that which the population can sustain and still have a reasonable quality of life.

Edited to add: I have the utmost respect for Met Office staff. More than once my life depended on their skills and expertise. At the same time, I would not have wished to have had 100 of them giving me a met brief at the same time.

[SASless]

Before long I can foresee an outbreak of Balloons on Sticks at Ten Paces Man to Man combat if this goes much further.

[NutLoose]

Would you argue that NI would be seen as a world beating state if 50% of the population were Met Office staff?

I don't know weather that would work..

[MENELAUS]

I don't know weather that would work..


Or p@ssing in the wind ?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Aidan McAnespie's family might disagree.

​​​​I was at Bessbrook on the 12th February 1997, when Stephen Restorick was murdered by a shot to the back from a coward. I was still there a month later when his parents visited the spot where their son was killed and unveiled a memorial to him in The Mill garden.

And yet Stephen Restorick's parents, especially his mother Rita, have been tireless campaigners for peace in NI, with a call for an amnesty for all sides, despite the fact that their son's murderer was released 16 months into a 490 year sentence. So whose voices matters more?

​​​​​

[SASless]

I suppose if there ever was a group of people that would put an end to War and Murder....it would be the Mothers who lost children to it.....and rightly so.

[_Agrajag_]

I suppose if there ever was a group of people that would put an end to War and Murder....it would be the Mothers who lost children to it.....and rightly so.

There have been some signs that it is the mothers of soldiers in Russia that are making the most noise about the war in Ukraine. How much influence they have I don't know, let's hope it is significant.

[MATELO]

For goodness sake, tone down the hypersensitive, lets take this completely out of context in order to wind someone up for no purpose, mode!

My intent was very clear, and I was also a civil servant for 16 years after serving queen and country for 22 years before that. I was not in any way, shape or form, criticising civil servants, as you would realise if you had actually taken the time to read my post. What I was criticising was the merit of using the ratio of numbers of civil servants to the total population as a measure of success of a state or part thereof.

Would you argue that NI would be seen as a world beating state if 50% of the population were Met Office staff? I would guess you would not, any more than I would not argue that having 50% of the population of NI made up of civilian ROs was a good metric.

Sometimes it helps the flow of sensible intercourse to be reasonable and allow a bit of give and take, and not choose to be hyper-sensitive and criticise a point that has not even been stated.

Oh, but you were though.

Haven't seen a bigger backtrack since the Antonov missed his turn at Asi.

[_Agrajag_]

Oh, but you were though.

Haven't seen a bigger backtrack since the Antonov missed his turn at Asi.


Believe what you wish, even though I've been clear to state my intent, which is not at all as you've tried to construe it. Ask your self why a civil servant with 16 years service (me) would make the ludicrous assumption that you and another have done - it makes no sense whatsoever.

My last post on this, it's not worth the effort of trying to clarify my intent any further. I know what I meant, and it was not as you've chosen to falsely conclude.

[langleybaston]

Believe what you wish, even though I've been clear to state my intent, which is not at all as you've tried to construe it. Ask your self why a civil servant with 16 years service (me) would make the ludicrous assumption that you and another have done - it makes no sense whatsoever.

My last post on this, it's not worth the effort of trying to clarify my intent any further. I know what I meant, and it was not as you've chosen to falsely conclude.

I am glad that is sorted: happy to learn that civil servants are not considered little more than a burden upon taxpayers.
My last on the subject too.

[blind pew]

I knew an extremely competent glider pilot who would do an aerobatic sequence returning to the airfield from a cross country flight. After a couple of sessions he confessed he was in the red arrows and born and bred north of the border. I asked why he had relocated to the south..I make and sell racing sails and whilst those in the republic are happy to use his services the north is filled with civil servants who have nothing better to do than find the cheapest price.
A council has recently taken over a park that we use for paragliding..they have insisted that we sign an annual agreement to use it and give a weeks notice before we fly. Our take off criteria is wind direction of 290 to 250 degrees and 8 to 12 knots…they couldn’t even forecast the fastnet storm 24 hours in advance!

[_Agrajag_]

I knew an extremely competent glider pilot who would do an aerobatic sequence returning to the airfield from a cross country flight. After a couple of sessions he confessed he was in the red arrows and born and bred north of the border. I asked why he had relocated to the south..I make and sell racing sails and whilst those in the republic are happy to use his services the north is filled with civil servants who have nothing better to do than find the cheapest price.
A council has recently taken over a park that we use for paragliding..they have insisted that we sign an annual agreement to use it and give a weeks notice before we fly. Our take off criteria is wind direction of 290 to 250 degrees and 8 to 12 knots…they couldn’t even forecast the fastnet storm 24 hours in advance!


I fail to understand why anyone can object to society having the lowest cost, taxpayer funded, administration. It seems pretty obvious to me that we should strive to have a fair and equable society where taxation is as low as can be practically achieved, commensurate with a high standard of public services, as ultimately it is everyone that pays taxes that fund all public services. The trick is getting that balance right, so that we place the least burden on taxpayers in order to get the required level of public services. Some states get this wrong and spend too little on public services, some states get this wrong by paying too much for poor public services. Finding the sweet spot, where public services meet the needs of the majority, without placing an undue burden on all taxpayers, should be the goal of all government.

One problem in NI is that they have not had a proper and effective government for years, too much time has been spent arguing about power sharing and too little time has been spent in managing government funded services. As a consequence there have been several major errors of judgement and poorly thought through legislation. Who can forget, for example, the insane RHI scandal, where farmers were paid a profit by government to heat empty barns under the way the civil servants of the NI government chose to frame their version of the legislation? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive_scandal

No one here is going to suggest that this was a well thought through policy, and one that justifies the way government and the civil service works in NI, are they?

There are other examples too, including those around other incentives associated with things like farming, that were almost as badly thought through and implemented.

[blind pew]

The glider pilot story was before the good Friday agreement…not long afterwards I was in a cafe north of the border when the owners old boss came in, had a chat and left. They had worked together in local government with something to do with food hygiene. He had been party to drafting new inspection guidelines which only he could fulfil, organised sabbatical leave to allow him to set up a company to carry out the inspections for the council.
‘Wasn’t it McGuinness who resigned in protest at the wood pellet heating scandal that involved the top politicians…not apparently unlike the PPE print money for your mates (allegedly) across the water.
We were locked down for months within a 2km home radius then 5km whilst anyone from across the border could roam freely including 100s of yanks who rented RVs after flying into Belfast.
A land of contradictions where the standard excuse starts with “because of the British” and continues with why they ignore the rules…a great place to retire.

[Readthebigbreach]

This thread is a great example of obfuscation and circumlocution . Aidan McAnespie was mown down in a unjustifiable act of violence by someone paid by the taxpayer to do the opposite .Northern Ireland is not the dystopian nightmare portrayed by some who did their best to make it one.