Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Amnesty for what happened in NI

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Amnesty for what happened in NI

Old 28th May 2019, 16:05
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 126
Amnesty for what happened in NI

It has been reported recently that the Prime Minister Theresa May has personally stopped any amnesty for British Service veterans who served in Northern Ireland. What are your thoughts on anybody who is involved in the death of other people during the conflict. Should there be an amnesty for everybody or just certain people so that we can have peace
DON T is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 16:34
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,597
If the Terrorists are getting Amnesties, or "Not currently of interest" type notices, then any one below General should get them too.
The Generals got the pay and pensions. Let them take the flak.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 16:41
  #3 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,042
Before posters write their responses to this thread it might help us all to understand them better if they would clearly state if they HAD or HAD NOT ever been legally involved in a shooting war in which they could have been killed at any minute.

HAD: One's instant reaction to being shot at is anger, self defence and retaliation, fear and sobering thoughts come later. Soldiers cannot be trained to the highest level to carry out shooting wars, on behalf of the government, and then be constrained by pages of small print, it is simply not natural. Shooting back often requires split second decision making. The relevant authorities that send soldiers into a shooting situation are simply abdicating their responsibilities by trying to then place unrealistic terms and conditions on the circumstances under which a soldier will ignore his training and stop to consider his next actions, based on some terms and conditions written in the calm of a Whitehall office. What happens on the battlefield stays on the battlefield.
parabellum is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 16:42
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,984
Agreed, it rankles that these poor sods who have in several cases already been through court marshals and civilian courts in the past find themselves dragged back into courts again. The bloody MP's that put them in that position should be standing alongside them as accessories.


served in NI.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 16:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 369
Bloody difficult topic. It seems wholly unreasonable to go after men who were doing the job they were ordered to do, back in a time when we didn't get as concerned as we do now about whether what they were asked to do was just. The flip side is that there's evidence that some acted well outwith their orders, and almost seemed to relish violence, and they should be held responsible for their actions.

How the hell we determine who should be held responsible, and who should not, I don't know. A chap I knew years ago, who had accidentally shot and killed a teenager during a fracas that involved a stolen car being driven through a road block in NI, never got over what he'd done. He'd been following orders, and when he opened fire it was well within the rules of engagement that applied; the stolen car was driving straight at him and his colleagues. What he didn't know at the time he fired was that the lad he killed was only fifteen. He only found that out after he'd killed him. Last I heard the blokes mental health had gone seriously downhill, his wife had left him and he was looking to emigrate to try and run away from his past. Just an ordinary soldier, doing his job, who didn't seem to be getting any help after he left the army. I've often wondered whether he's now one of the ones being tracked down for prosecution, 30 or 40 years after the event. If he is, then it seems very wrong to me.
VP959 is online now  
Old 28th May 2019, 18:59
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,969
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Bloody difficult topic. It seems wholly unreasonable to go after men who were doing the job they were ordered to do, back in a time when we didn't get as concerned as we do now about whether what they were asked to do was just. The flip side is that there's evidence that some acted well outwith their orders, and almost seemed to relish violence, and they should be held responsible for their actions.
Some want just a blanket amnesty................. guess that means that EVERYBODY involved gets it. It also sets the precedent that any time forces are involved in a conflict then not to worry about Geneva convention or anything else as they can do what they want and will get off. A very bad precedent to set.

The Bloody Sunday inquiries were clear that some seem to continue firing and almost realish the shooting. Remember this was soldiers firing on civilians in the UK.

Turn this on its head and someone arrested because they were on opposite side and killed a load of people, law must give them a pass as well.

How the hell we determine who should be held responsible, and who should not, I don't know. A chap I knew years ago, who had accidentally shot and killed a teenager during a fracas that involved a stolen car being driven through a road block in NI, never got over what he'd done. He'd been following orders, and when he opened fire it was well within the rules of engagement that applied; the stolen car was driving straight at him and his colleagues. What he didn't know at the time he fired was that the lad he killed was only fifteen. He only found that out after he'd killed him. Last I heard the blokes mental health had gone seriously downhill, his wife had left him and he was looking to emigrate to try and run away from his past. Just an ordinary soldier, doing his job, who didn't seem to be getting any help after he left the army. I've often wondered whether he's now one of the ones being tracked down for prosecution, 30 or 40 years after the event. If he is, then it seems very wrong to me.
If you are talking of the case I am thinking of, the actions of the unit afterwards were to concoct evidence to show that someone had been hit and injured, the car was already passed the checkpoint when shots were fired by 8 members of the unit.
racedo is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 19:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 48
Posts: 780
As someone who grew up during the Troubles, I've mixed views on this one. To me, the RUC and Army were the difference between some level of normality and anarchy...they held the line (and ultimately, I believe, wore the terrorists down). They were the good guys...so when one of them stepped over the line, there's an argument that says they should be held to the highest standards. Because the forces of law and order were better men than the terrorists of whatever hue.

However, as mentioned above, if an amnesty is being offered to the terrorists, then the same ought to be offered to any service personnel who were caught up in less than honourable behaviour.

All of this is nothing to do with justice though...it's a rewriting of history to paint the Republican movement as honourable combatants. And it's sickening. When you look at the detail of their barbarism...and the fact that they continue to be the hand inside the Sinn Fein puppet. I'm a moderate unionist, but I've said it here before...it gets more difficult to stay moderate with each untruth that is peddled, and which the government fails to challenge.
NWSRG is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 19:05
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,969
Originally Posted by NWSRG View Post
However, as mentioned above, if an amnesty is being offered to the terrorists, then the same ought to be offered to any service personnel who were caught up in less than honourable behaviour.
.
Are you stating that no Republican has been arrested since 1998 and charged for killings ?

You know that is incorrect for a start. What about members of the security forces who openly conspired with Loyalists to have people killed ? Should they just get a pass.
racedo is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 19:42
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 48
Posts: 780
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
Are you stating that no Republican has been arrested since 1998 and charged for killings ?

You know that is incorrect for a start. What about members of the security forces who openly conspired with Loyalists to have people killed ? Should they just get a pass.
I think you'll struggle to find too many prosecutions...and that's even before we consider the missing 26M from the Northern Bank, or the numerous murders that have been carried out in Republican areas against 'their own' people since the GFA.

As I mentioned, we ought to be better than them, and for that reason, there are very strong grounds to prosecute those who stooped to the terrorists' levels. But this is not about justice...if is about 'managing' history so that all sides are seen as equal perpetrators, when clearly they were not. And hence, those of us in this part of the world have to accept gunmen into government...something the Dublin government have said they won't ever accept. It's that imbalance of justice that's the problem...if you're going to (rightly) prosecute servicemen who went rogue, then why do the terrorists get a by ball (and seat in government)...
NWSRG is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 20:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,969
Originally Posted by NWSRG View Post
I think you'll struggle to find too many prosecutions...and that's even before we consider the missing 26M from the Northern Bank, or the numerous murders that have been carried out in Republican areas against 'their own' people since the GFA.
You seem to be forgetting the loyalist deaths at their own hands. The Northern bank job I believe ended with most of the cash being burnt and really is irrelavant as was 6 1/2 ywars after GFA.

I also said "arrests" not prosecutions, very great difference and there have been arrests and likely that will continue.

As I mentioned, we ought to be better than them, and for that reason, there are very strong grounds to prosecute those who stooped to the terrorists' levels. But this is not about justice...if is about 'managing' history so that all sides are seen as equal perpetrators, when clearly they were not.
In total 4 members of the security services were jailed for actions in NI between 1968 and 1998, RUC were not allowed investigate where Army was involved as it went to RMP.


'https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov...m-20130703.pdf

racedo is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 20:18
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 48
Posts: 780
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
You seem to be forgetting the loyalist deaths at their own hands. The Northern bank job I believe ended with most of the cash being burnt and really is irrelavant as was 6 1/2 ywars after GFA.
Not at all...they are all terrorists in my book, and absolutely, the loyalists are cut from the same cloth.

And surely a multi-million pound heist is a multi-million pound heist whether before the GFA or after? After all, the IRA were supposed to be 'disbanded' by that stage...or perhaps not.

Bottom line is that many people in this part of the world did their best to bring their kids up respecting one another, and the law. And I'm talking about both sides of the community. Despite the horrors going on around them, they kept doing the ordinary, and didn't give in to the despots. Now those same despots (from either side) are given credibility by our government, while their crimes are air-brushed. Justice?
NWSRG is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 20:58
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,969
Originally Posted by NWSRG View Post
Not at all...they are all terrorists in my book, and absolutely, the loyalists are cut from the same cloth.

And surely a multi-million pound heist is a multi-million pound heist whether before the GFA or after? After all, the IRA were supposed to be 'disbanded' by that stage...or perhaps not.

Bottom line is that many people in this part of the world did their best to bring their kids up respecting one another, and the law. And I'm talking about both sides of the community. Despite the horrors going on around them, they kept doing the ordinary, and didn't give in to the despots. Now those same despots (from either side) are given credibility by our government, while their crimes are air-brushed. Justice?
Now you are changing the subject matter.

Issue is about an amnesty with particular reference to service personnel.
racedo is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 23:03
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 53
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
Some want just a blanket amnesty................. guess that means that EVERYBODY involved gets it. It also sets the precedent that any time forces are involved in a conflict then not to worry about Geneva convention or anything else as they can do what they want and will get off. A very bad precedent to set.

The Bloody Sunday inquiries were clear that some seem to continue firing and almost realish the shooting. Remember this was soldiers firing on civilians in the UK.

Turn this on its head and someone arrested because they were on opposite side and killed a load of people, law must give them a pass as well.



If you are talking of the case I am thinking of, the actions of the unit afterwards were to concoct evidence to show that someone had been hit and injured, the car was already passed the checkpoint when shots were fired by 8 members of the unit.
ROE in that case was breached massive as nobody at the VCP was hit by the car in question. It happened when I was based out there in the later half of 1990. The yellow card at the time clearly stated that you could only fire at vehicles that had passed you and had hit somebody!!! (it assumed that anybody at a VCP wouldn't be stupid enough to stand still and get run over!!!!). If memory serves, just before I left NI, that rule was removed from the ROE due a review after some Bootnecks did a totally legal engagement in which one of guys on the VCP was actually runover by a car that bust through a VCP with the driver in a massive panic as their passenger was in the process of dying of a heart attack. The real pity is that for very good operational reason the ROE can not made public to show that a very small number of British soldiers broke the law of the land.

For all you old farts that think ROE was something that came in because of Northern Ireland, they existed at least 5 years before Ireland kicked off. I've seen armed guard orders for No.65 Squadron's Missile Site at RAF Seletar on Singapore in early 1964 that are not that much different that the ROE that I basically would have followed to the letter had I had to engage a terrorist at any time during my 30 years of service (unfortunately when the IRA actually got a few shot's off at myself I didn't have a rifle to hand to return fire). Those rules most likely date back further to 1957, when the UK Government ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The biggest problem that the Army didn't appear to pass any of these rules on to their Officers or Men, or as I saw on one very rare occasion an RAF Regiment Officer tell us to ignore them (turns out he had transferred across from the Army). The discussion between the guys from my outfit afterwards was basically "What planet is this Idiot on!!!!" An interesting take on the topic by a former CO 2 Para, bet he isn't going to get invites to reunions.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...6Bk9KjnrkB18L8 .


1.
MAINJAFAD is online now  
Old 29th May 2019, 06:35
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 523
Soldiers need to know that they have to behave to a standard or they will be held accountable, what would happen in future conflicts if they knew they had carte blanche to do as they pleased ?

Obviously it was difficult to follow the ROE exactly when your life was in danger and mistakes made in good faith, such as the above example of the road block should be subject to amnesty. Those who deliberately went way over the top need to be held to account.
krismiler is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 06:51
  #15 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,593
Surely the key issue is one of time. Unlike late forensic discovery of a criminal, the soldiers involved here were known at the outset. That there was no trial and conviction at the time is not their fault. Any investigations should be aimed higher up the tree at those that didn't pursue the deaths at the time.

I have some vivid memories of events in my past but cannot reliably recall names and faces in these snapshots. In one I can remember with 100% certainty a particular event and sure It facts. Only when I checked my log book which serves as a diary did I realise how fact differed from memory.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 07:10
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
If you are talking of the case I am thinking of, the actions of the unit afterwards were to concoct evidence to show that someone had been hit and injured, the car was already passed the checkpoint when shots were fired by 8 members of the unit.
Doesn't sound like the same incident to me, based on what the chap told me at the time. From what the chap told me only two of those manning the roadblock discharged weapons, and in the follow up enquiry it couldn't be proven which of them had fired the fatal shot, but the chap felt certain it must have been him. There was no follow up after the initial investigation, as far as I know, as before the chap's wife left him she had tried to get him help with his mental health issues, to no avail.

VP959 is online now  
Old 29th May 2019, 13:42
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 53
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Bloody difficult topic. It seems wholly unreasonable to go after men who were doing the job they were ordered to do, back in a time when we didn't get as concerned as we do now about whether what they were asked to do was just. The flip side is that there's evidence that some acted well outwith their orders, and almost seemed to relish violence, and they should be held responsible for their actions.

How the hell we determine who should be held responsible, and who should not, I don't know. A chap I knew years ago, who had accidentally shot and killed a teenager during a fracas that involved a stolen car being driven through a road block in NI, never got over what he'd done. He'd been following orders, and when he opened fire it was well within the rules of engagement that applied; the stolen car was driving straight at him and his colleagues. What he didn't know at the time he fired was that the lad he killed was only fifteen. He only found that out after he'd killed him. Last I heard the blokes mental health had gone seriously downhill, his wife had left him and he was looking to emigrate to try and run away from his past. Just an ordinary soldier, doing his job, who didn't seem to be getting any help after he left the army. I've often wondered whether he's now one of the ones being tracked down for prosecution, 30 or 40 years after the event. If he is, then it seems very wrong to me.
Only one 15 year old was killed in a British Army shooting of a stolen car during the troubles, his name was Paul Moan and he was shot in March 1980. As I stated, RoE was reviewed and changed in light of events that we are not aware of. However, there is a data base of all the killings involved with the Troubles on the Internet and there is a correlation to the shootings of approaching stolen cars and change of RoE which seems to have happened around 1984/1985 (Too many Joyriding kids getting shot dead). Your friend is most likely totally safe as he followed the RoE of the time to the letter. There were only 5 engagements after 1984 involving moving vehicles which involve fatal shootings to the GFA, One by Special Forces (Civilian killed in cross fire during a firefight between the SAS and IRA in 1988), Two by the RUC (one teenager during a high speed chase and a very disputed chase and killing of an IRA member) both after 1990. One by the Royal Marines of a IRA member which resulted in murder charges against two of them (which resulted in acquittals) and the double killing done by the Para's in 1990 which resulted in a murder conviction of one of them.

One interesting fact if you actually dig into some of the cases in question that are not being reported by the Hate Fail is that prosecution wittiness's are former British Soldiers who were there at the time from various support Crops (Royal Signals and RAMC) and even former Paratroopers who have come forward quoting that they were threatened by Para officers if they told the truth at the time!!!! Opps, PN is correct if this true, some junior and senior officers should be looking at jail time for perverting the course of justice.

The only good thing is the standard of RoE training today is considerably better in the shape of training material available, like films that cover the majority of the examples of when lethal force is lawful and when it is not.
MAINJAFAD is online now  
Old 29th May 2019, 14:28
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,969
Originally Posted by MAINJAFAD View Post
Only one 15 year old was killed in a British Army shooting of a stolen car during the troubles, his name was Paul Moan and he was shot in March 1980.
WRONG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Clegg
racedo is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 14:32
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,969
Originally Posted by MAINJAFAD View Post

The only good thing is the standard of RoE training today is considerably better in the shape of training material available, like films that cover the majority of the examples of when lethal force is lawful and when it is not.
Rules and orders were provided on Bloody Sunday about sending people into the Bogside.

The orders were ignored.
racedo is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 15:11
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by MAINJAFAD View Post
Only one 15 year old was killed in a British Army shooting of a stolen car during the troubles, his name was Paul Moan and he was shot in March 1980. As I stated, RoE was reviewed and changed in light of events that we are not aware of. However, there is a data base of all the killings involved with the Troubles on the Internet and there is a correlation to the shootings of approaching stolen cars and change of RoE which seems to have happened around 1984/1985 (Too many Joyriding kids getting shot dead). Your friend is most likely totally safe as he followed the RoE of the time to the letter. There were only 5 engagements after 1984 involving moving vehicles which involve fatal shootings to the GFA, One by Special Forces (Civilian killed in cross fire during a firefight between the SAS and IRA in 1988), Two by the RUC (one teenager during a high speed chase and a very disputed chase and killing of an IRA member) both after 1990. One by the Royal Marines of a IRA member which resulted in murder charges against two of them (which resulted in acquittals) and the double killing done by the Para's in 1990 which resulted in a murder conviction of one of them.

One interesting fact if you actually dig into some of the cases in question that are not being reported by the Hate Fail is that prosecution wittiness's are former British Soldiers who were there at the time from various support Crops (Royal Signals and RAMC) and even former Paratroopers who have come forward quoting that they were threatened by Para officers if they told the truth at the time!!!! Opps, PN is correct if this true, some junior and senior officers should be looking at jail time for perverting the course of justice.

The only good thing is the standard of RoE training today is considerably better in the shape of training material available, like films that cover the majority of the examples of when lethal force is lawful and when it is not.
Thanks.

It's a fair while since I've spoken to the chap, but I've dug out an email address and emailed him to ask how he is (and where he is, I've a feeling he was planning to move to New Zealand).

I may well have got some of his story awry, as he told me the tale whilst he was in a bit of an emotional state (having consumed quite a lot to drink, around the time his wife left him). I do know that he wasn't in the special forces or the Paras, and would guess that he'd served in an infantry regiment from somewhere in the North, as that's where he came from.
VP959 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.