In a word, No.

The Public Interest test is far more nuanced.

Whilst im uncomfortable with British troops deployed with their hands tied, the number of 'he raised the weapon as if to shoot' copycat testimonies don't enhance our reputation.
Here's another angle.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/...day-soldier-f/

We know what it means but what is the relevance please?

Let's try a different phrase then:

"The public gets the police force they deserve."

Well, the NI DPP thinks otherwise.

Worth a read https://webarchive.nationalarchives....04/#the-report

Surprised to read that the soldiers fired over 100 times and there was some shooting from the IRA...

" 5.4 We have concluded that the explanation for such firing by Support Company soldiers after they had gone into the Bogside was in most cases probably the mistaken belief among them that republican paramilitaries were responding in force to their arrival in the Bogside. This belief was initiated by the first shots fired by Lieutenant N and reinforced by the further shots that followed soon after. In this belief soldiers reacted by losing their self-control and firing themselves, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training and failing to satisfy themselves that they had identified targets posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. In the case of those soldiers who fired in either the knowledge or belief that no-one in the areas into which they fired was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or not caring whether or not anyone there was posing such a threat, it is at least possible that they did so in the indefensible belief that all the civilians they fired at were probably either members of the Provisional or Official IRA or were supporters of one or other of these paramilitary organisations; and so deserved to be shot notwithstanding that they were not armed or posing any threat of causing death or serious injury. Our overall conclusion is that there was a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline among the soldiers of Support Company. "


Reading the summary it appears clear Wilford disobeyed orders and sent people in.

Now the issue of Military supporting Civilian Authorities has been mentioned in the event a Brexit crash in law and order. Based on the events of Bloody Sunday would the UK population want the Army on the streets.

From the same publication.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/...-soldiers-too/

No the were not - McGinnis has admitted as much, claiming he may have fired the first shots, not the Para Regt Lt.
Yes, people were firing at the soldiers

Nope and Bloody Sunday inquiry was clear on that. Not a single weapon was found on any of those who were shote. Army reacted to another army unit firing,

Because it showed units out control and even post this the establishment culture was all units were blameless.

Putting ANY troops onto the streets is dangerous. Putting an aggressive outfit such as paratroops even more so

It was clear on the day it was an out-of control reaction and the Brits spent years ignoring it. Now its accepted the legal guys swing into ation

You can't condone murder but it's a bit much that one poor b****** has to carry the can for everyone else

No weapons were found on the dead, which is a fair reason to believe they were innocent.

Maybe if the Para's had snuffed McGuinness (smiling as he cynically claimed he'd fired the first shots) out at the start, the following years of violence wouldn't have happened.

Perhaps one or two people commenting in this thread should Google "Op Banner" and learn about "peaceful" protest NI style, especially duirng the so called "marching season".

A good record to listen to (banned by both MoD and BBC STILL) (note this relates to an actual event)

Fully expect this to be moderated out :-(