A British soldier aims his rifle during a patrol along the Irish border. (Photo by Alex Bowie/Getty Images)
Johnny Mercer was never going to last long in frontline politics. As veterans’ minister, the former soldier has always presented his unruffled, plain-speaking attitude as a virtue. He’s the kind of politician who, despite being an MP at the time, once appeared half-naked in an advert for Dove shower gel; who, when asked if he had ever taken drugs, replied: “You don’t put diesel in a Ferrari.”
Of course, such candour has its advantages. But not in frontline politics — where, for good or ill, a different set of skills is needed to make allies and get things done.
And so it was hardly surprising that Mercer was unceremoniously sacked this week, after expressing anger at the Government’s failure to keep its promise to protect veterans of the British Armed Forces from facing prosecution for historic offences. Next week, two unnamed veterans will go on trial in Belfast for the 1972 murder of an IRA commander — the first time that British soldiers will be prosecuted for the alleged killing of an IRA terrorist.
Mercer was understandably frustrated; the Government had previously pledged that such a prosecution would never occur. Few sacked politicians can say they were dismissed for taking a stand on an important issue. Mercer, in that respect, is the exception.
For ultimately, it would have been far easier for Mercer to have taken the easy way out and turn a blind eye to the trial. The issue of historic prosecutions is an ethical and political nightmare, one which is very easy to put off — as successive governments have demonstrated.
Even when such investigations do take place, they tend to be far from fruitful. Take, for example, the probe into the killings in Londonderry in 1972 that became known as Bloody Sunday, when 13 people were killed. It gave rise to the longest and costliest inquiry in British legal history.
The Saville Inquiry published its findings in 2010 — a full 12 years after it was established — and found that a number of the soldiers present on the day fired in a way that was “unjustified and unjustifiable”. And yet, for the soldiers who took part, the Saville inquiry was of little utility. They were granted legal immunity from future prosecution so long as they told the truth. But a number of the soldiers — most notably the man known as Soldier F — perjured themselves in their attempts to whitewash their actions, thus leaving themselves open for future prosecution.
Not that anyone was in any hurry to do so. After Lord Saville’s report was published, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) announced that it would begin a murder investigation into the killings. And there was a distinct sense of foot-dragging around the matter.
The PSNI announced that it would have to begin its investigations as though they were starting from scratch, implying that the incomparably detailed Saville report had no worth. It took almost a decade for them to decide to only prosecute one of the soldiers — Soldier F — for his actions on the day. Even now Soldier F only faces prosecution for two of the deaths he was most likely responsible for — much to the horror of the families of other victims, who are believed to have been killed by Soldier F.
Today, discussion surrounding Soldier F’s prosecution tends to be strikingly reductive: either wholeheartedly in support of the prosecution or in defence of the veteran.
And on the face of it, it seems like a straightforward decision to make. Having watched Soldier F testify in 2003 — and written a book on the matter — I can say with certainty that he is a liar. He pretends to have no memory of what happened on that day because he knows that what he did was indefensible; he disgraced not just his regiment but his country. In any normal situation, it would be impossible to justify not prosecuting him.
But the situation in Northern Ireland is not normal — not least because prosecutions there have become a very one-sided affair. In order to secure the current peace arrangements, it was necessary to take decisions that would ordinarily be unconscionable. Most notably, the British government, led by Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell, carried out secret side-deals with the IRA and its political wing Sinn Fein as part of the Good Friday Agreement. These included the assurance to unconvicted terrorists who were “on the run” that they would not be prosecuted for their historic crimes.
Blair and Campbell kept the existence of these letters classified, knowing full well that the British public would not be able to stomach them. Indeed, these “get out of jail free” letters remained such a secret that when John Downey was prosecuted in 2014 for his participation in the IRA’s 1982 Hyde Park Bombing, the trial collapsed when the defence produced the assurances secretly given to Downey by the British government.
Downey was as responsible for the Hyde Park Bombing as Soldier F was for Bloody Sunday — yet it is only one of these men who faces prosecution. And as a result, many believe there is a double-standard at play here: why should Soldier F face the possibility of being charged one day when a number of the terrorists Britain was fighting are able to walk free?
Certainly it’s a legitimate concern. But is this double-standard not defensible? After all, Downey was a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation, while Soldier F was a serving representative of the state. Surely a soldier must be held to a higher standard than a terrorist?
For the most part, that claim has a certain appeal, and if it were the case that the army still has lessons to learn from Bloody Sunday and its aftermath, then it might be more applicable. But it is almost fifty years since Bloody Sunday happened, and the inquiries into it — in particular the Saville Inquiry — have already established the many lessons that should have been learned. There has even been a Prime Ministerial apology for the actions of British soldiers on the day. What more is there to achieve?
Mercer, then, was right to condemn the Government for failing on its promise not to allow former servicemen to appear in court. But now that he is on the backbenches, perhaps he can put forward a more subtle argument that needs making.
For ultimately, even in the case of Soldier F, there is little need to condone or defend the historical actions of the few rogue British troops in Northern Ireland. That doesn’t mean whitewashing Soldier F for his crimes, any more than it means whitewashing Downey for his.
But either both men are in court or neither is. Make that case, and it’s up to Sinn Fein and their supporters to make the next move.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI would like to suggest that you do not condemn a soldier until you have stood in their shoes. They went out every day, be it at work or not, knowing that they may be kidnapped, tortured, shot, murdered and so on regardless of whether they were wearing their uniform or not. Their families and children were targeted. Hundreds were murdered. They went through that every day. Every day for years. Can you imagine living like that? They had to make split second decision about a community and people who they knew were doing all those things. The terrorists went out every day to do those things, to do them deliberately, some still do. I am still disgusted that so many hundreds of thousands of people supported a politician who backed those people. I know where my support is.
“They went out every day, be it at work or not, knowing that they may be kidnapped, tortured, shot, murdered and so on regardless of whether they were wearing their uniform or not. Their families and children were targeted. Hundreds were murdered. They went through that every day. Every day for years.” True after Bloody Sunday, but probably not true before.
Were you in NI during this time? How can you justify your statement it was not true before bloody sunday?
Remember, soldiers are trained to use arms to kill or incapacitate a percieved enemy. Why else give them a loaded weapon.
‘True after b****y Sunday, but probably not true before.’ Perhaps, maybe, possibly…….but probably every other day, then.
64 Army & RUC had been murdered before B****y Sunday.
Gunner Curtis, Royal Artillery was the first soldier, as you should know.
Hugh McCabe of the Royal Irish Hussars was the first soldier killed during the troubles.
Hugh was 20 years old when he was shot and killed by British Security Forces who were firing indiscriminately during a street disturbance.
The only difference between Gunner Curtis and Hugh is Hugh was off duty at the time of his death.
Killed attempting to help a man that had been wounded.
As you should know.
McCabe was a member of the Queens Royal Irish Hussars, as you should know!
He was killed by the RUC in controversial circumstances in 1969, whilst on leave.
Thus he does not ‘qualify’ as the first operational death of the British Army in the most recent Irish War. Do not you agree?
You are 100% correct, they went out most days with probably some sense of fear inside them.
However they went out “to work”, they had a job to do, and that job was to protect civilians, not kill them.
The British Armed Forces in NI actually killed more civilians than they did loyalist and republican paramilitaries put together.
They had numerous protocols set in place to protect civilians, such as, only opening fire when there was a genuine threat to life, a warning of opening fire must be given, and when opening fire, firing “aimed shots only”.
On Bloody Sunday we know no warnings were given, and if “aimed shots only” were practiced why we’re all 13 victims who were killed and the other 14 injured via gun shot wounds all unarmed?
Why was John Pat Cunningham a mentally handicapped lad with the mental age of a 6-10 year old killed via two gun shots wounds to the back whilst running away in a field to which he worked.
Why was Majella O’Hare shot 5 times in the back while walking to church, 5 high velocity rounds that practically tore her in two.
Your support should be with the victims not the perpetrator.
It is rather surprising how poor the Paras shooting was on that day. Lack of practice perhaps?
The Guards were much better shots!
Douglas Murray has knowledge of Soldier Fs character… I do not so I will trust his judgment over my personal feelings in this instance.
What IS true, is that soldier F had training and support on the day. His colleagues did not act as he did despite being under the same duress. Was he more fearful than his colleagues? Possibly.
Also true is that despite vigorous screening, the odd psychopath makes it into our forces (police & armed). It’s just a fact. They’re attracted to these professions which is why the vigorous screening is in place. Unfortunately, psychopaths tend to be really good at lying ….. Is Soldier F a psycho/sociopath? Possibly.
We don’t know the stresses these soldiers were under on the day, but we do know that they had training, colleagues for support and guns.
As an army veteran of two of our many wars since WW2 I can say without hesitation that successive UK governments do not look after their own. In my opinion, and through what I have seen and experienced, the MOD is most likely the biggest threat to our nation though it’s incompetence, wastefulness and lack of duty of care to the people who actually do the fighting.
As has always been the case, sadly. My own dad being RAF but a Pole was ostracised after the war as the Attlee government pandered to the Soviets. ‘Encouraged to leave the country’ was how they put it. Plus ca change…
Unfortunately, that has been, still is and always will be the situation in perpetuity. I honestly believe that anyone aspiring to be a minister should be required to complete at least two years active service, preferably on the front line, before taking office.
Sadly Mr Mercer has learned, like the rest of us, that our Prime Minister is a shallow and vainglourious fop.
Now I couldn’t care less about Johnson’s machinations with the rest of the political and media caste, quite frankly they need and deserve one another. It is another thing altogether when military and police veterans are thrown to the wolves in what will be no more than a show trial. And just watch SF, and their allies milk it for all they can. It’ll be a racing certainty that the likes of Michael Mansfield QC will be appearing on the BBC gravely intoning on the iniquities of Britain’s past and demanding that others be bought to book.
This government has a huge majority, and could easily have steered legislation through parliament on this matter of protecting our service personnel. It could have, but didn’t, because it doesn’t give a toss.
From huge admiration for Johnson with his GE victory and Brexit to utter contempt now, his latest disgrace sickening me to the core.
I’m ex-Service myself and appalled by the treatment our NI veterans are getting. Nevertheless, interfering in the actions of the prosecuting body in NI, in a way that is legal and sustainable, is fraught with difficulty. I suspect you will have been highly critical of Sturgeon’s apparent manipulating of the Crown Office in Scotland re Salmond, so don’t suggest it’s a proper thing to do in NI. There have been a lot of backbench Tories speaking out against the Overseas Operations Bill recently, so opposition to providing protection from prosecution for Service personnel on active service is not limited to the HoL and the usual suspects. Legislation such as you propose was not in the GE manifesto so cannot be forced through the HoL under the Salisbury Convention.
Nelson’s closing suggestion is superficially neat but won’t provide a sound legal framework for action, or inaction, by the prosecuting authority.
Blair and Campbell are to blame, for their one-sided and secretive agreement with SF.
P.S. Mercer is a t1t. Don’t forget how he jumped on the anti-Scruton bandwagon with such enthusiasm in 2019.
“Blair and Campbell are to blame, for their one-sided and secretive agreement with SF.” Even more than most realise, as part of those agreements they passed the names of any serviceman who’d ever pointed, let alone fired, a gun at the IRA to SF. And the opportunity to remove legally held handguns from those who held them was taken in part to make the RIRA/CIRA retribution squads lives easier/safer according to former M.I. staff.
Absolutely disgraceful. Our politicians are morally weak. The IRA should have been destroyed not pardoned
We spent 25 years trying to do that. Didn’t work, unfortunately.
I think that it was working just fine until Blair stuck his oar in.
Wrong. And for the record, before 1997, John Major was moving towards a peace agreement with SF, but his hands were tied by the infighting within the Tory party – the Europhobes would have latched onto it as another way to undermine him, so it was left to Tony Blair to create the Good Friday Agreement. I have a suspicion that he acknowledged John Major’s early contribution, though it was 20 years ago so hard to remember.
Casualties were tiny by the 1990’s, way down from their peak in 1972. In fact as Maudling (?) had previously said NI “was an acceptable level of violence”.
However you are correct to surmise that the wretched John Major was as culpable as the Blair creature.
Unless one is being strictly partisan, John Major, that midget among statesmen, is little better than Blair. Why anyone still listens to a word either of those vain, foolish men is beyond me.
Nothing is impossible. We didn’t try hard enough.
Of course some things are impossible. The more unrestrained the Army got in the 1970s, the more recruits it created for the IRA.
Operation Motorman in the summer of 1972 was the missed opportunity. The GOC at the time General Frank Tuzo had very firm ideas of what had to be done, but predictably was overruled by the ‘base rats’ in Whitehall. Had Tuzo had his way we could have celebrated a triumph by Christmas 1972..
Other parts of the world have shown us it can be done.
The evidence is that the IRA resumed the terror tomorrow, it would not stand a chance against modern surveliance techniques. As we everything, we would have to be determined and clever. ATM, we seem to be neither
Even if that’s so, you’re talking about 2021 surveillance techniques not the late 1990s. In 1998, would you really have wanted another quarter of a century of terrorism in the hope of some technological fix in the 21st century?
And incidentally, both sides would have access to technology – webcams in the windows of NI’s terraced streets, alerting the IRA when soldiers appeared, for example.
The IRA council had been infiltrated. Special Branch had a high ranking mole within their ranks. The IRA were on the verge of losing their war until Blair snatched defeat from the jaws of victory
Fair point. I was just meaning a defeat of the IRA
I doubt if that’s historically correct. And on your own argument, it would only have taken the IRA to realise that they were losing because one of the Army Council was betraying them, for them to weed him out and then resume fighting with more success.
I’m afraid that there’s a long history of delusion on the Daily Telegraph right over Northern Ireland. Before the Troubles started, they were truculent supporters of the Unionists, with their gerrymandering of NI electoral boundaries and their discrimination against Catholics over jobs and housing. Once the Troubles started, largely as a result of the sectarianism of the Unionists because they preferred to keep pre-1921 divisions alive for electoral purposes and avoid a predominantly working-class population from moving over to class-based politics which would have favoured the Left, the Telegraph right moved on to insisting that the IRA could be defeated “if only we could take the gloves off” – in other words, send 18 year old squaddies to disembowel even more people’s sofas with their bayonets, in Catholic areas as part of “searches”. Which of course just created more recruits for the IRA. And now we have the Good Friday Agreement, the Telegraph right insists that the IRA was almost defeated anyway and we don’t need the GFA. (Funnily enough, they can’t explain how the IRA was “almost defeated” when they were whingeing that the only way to do that would be to “take the gloves off” and that wasn’t done. They’d rather bellow assertions than realise the contradictions in their own arguments.)
If you want a case study of how right-wingers are capable of being both ignorant, and dangerous to the national interest, their attitude towards NI over the last 75 years would be an excellent choice.
I suggest you read Who Ws Responsible For The Troubles, by Liam Kennedy. If all you do is read page 41 you’ll I think revise your mistaken idea that it was “the sectarianism of the Unionists” that was largely to blame.
You either don’t remember, or were too young.
The Irish propensity for ‘selling each other out’ has always been astonishing !
Interesting you should say that if “the IRA resumed the terror tomorrow, it would not stand a chance against modern surveliance techniques.”
I’m not sure you’re right. The “new” IRA planted a bomb on Monday, and two people have been arrested. It remains to be seen whether this was a result of old-fashioned surveillance techniques and informers, or just the conventional rounding up of “the usual suspects”. They are unlikely to have been arrested because they emailed someone the details of the plot, or discussed it on their mobiles.
As for other parts of the world showing us it that terrorists can be destroyed – while individuals undoubtedly can, if we do it in a way that creates lots more terrorists, then we will fail. BL00dy Sunday shows how profoundly a terrorist movement can be strengthened by state action.
And many examples you might cite of foreign action against terrorism may be unconscionable here. Sri Lanka interned hundreds of thousands of civilians and killed tens of thousands while destroying Tamil Tigers. It remains to be seen whether their post-conflict society will see a lessening in divisions and grievances. Myanmar acted “robustly” against groups they considered terrorist – and genocide among the Rohingya (and a huge refugee crisis, and the trashed reputation of Aung San Suu Kyi) was the result.
It’s not as easy as you may think to utterly destroy terrorists without unacceptable collateral damage – never mind the counterproductive boost to their cause it causes.
Bar for the malignant influence of the United States, the IRA & associated thugs would have been destroyed in less than four months.
Another couple of years and it would have been all over bar the shouting. We only got a GFA because the IRA knew they had failed.
They knew they weren’t winning. But they would have carried on at some level, hoping for something to turn up, which perhaps it would: for example, the 2008 financial crisis, applied to Northern Ireland, might have created more recruits, who knows?
1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash
1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash
if you remember ,it was the British army chief at the time who acknowledged that the British army could not defeat the IRA ,and the IRA most certainly could not defeat the British Army. So a political solution had to be found. The GFA was the result. Like it or Lump it
‘They’ were saved by the Kennedy Mafia and Tony Blair Esq.
It nearly did, just after 9/11. American support for the IRA suddenly dropped off a cliff and for a moment it looked as if they had had it. However, Blair promptly, in a unprecedented move (as remarked by various commentators at the time), invited Sinn Fein to a meeting at No. 10 thus making sure his beloved “peace process” didn’t get derailed.
Except the peace process was concluded before 9/11 happened
Ah Jim, you and your facts!
You Paddies never did like facts did you?
The Provos were the inevitable outcome of an apartheid statelet we let flourish within the UK (Northern Ireland had its own devolved parliament from 1921 to the early 70s). It was not a case of destroying the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries. It was a question of using British political genius to lead both Catholic and Protestant communities to a sunlit upland where both felt parity of esteem in Ulster.
An army friend told me that the IRA was really on the back foot and losing and that was the real reason it agreed to negotiate the GFA. The Army had the upper hand and victory over the IRA was in sight.
The British government made a promise, in order to secure the Good Friday Agreement, that terrorists would not be held accountable. That’s a promise. I’m not commenting on whether or not that promise should have been made, but once made, the government can’t break it simply because it’s ballsed-up its approach to its own soldiers.
Regarding its own soldiers, an offer was made of immunity from prosecution, in exchange for the truth. That promise has been kept for the soldiers who told the truth.
In effect, Soldier F is being damned for perjuring himself. Immunity for the killings he apparently committed had been offered to him, and his subsequent behaviour, not the actual killing itself, is where the difference lies in his situation, and that of Downey.
I’m not saying this outcome sits easy, but the State needs to be bound by its rules and promises. Where the State no longer feels the need to be, then you’ve got problems.
Soldier F is well over 70. He has been harassed by the British State for years, at the instigation of the Irish-American lobby.
I wonder how you would have reacted had you been in his shoes?
From your erudite reply I would hazard a guess that you are from a higher socio-economic class to Soldier F , who, to use the words of late Duke of Wellington’s is probably one of “the scum of earth”.
Thus do you see fit to pontificate on a matter that you can never understand.
Incidentally I suspect that you have almost certainly never wielded more than a feather duster in anger, am I correct?
Ad hominem attacks are rarely persuasive and yours is no exception.
What are you referring to?
Possibly your ad hominem attack on Seb, but that’s just a wild guess on my part.
Really? I thought that was polite way of asking him if he had ever served with the Colours.
I think it was the Spectator which described Soldier F as a psychopath. A psychopath, firing high velocity rounds at multiple, unarmed civilians. So let’s not lionise Solider F.
However, Soldier F hardly typifies the British Army in Northern Ireland – he is one of the most extreme examples and therefore always produced to justify one side of the argument.
Perhaps he was a psychopath in N Ireland – I do not know. I also do not know whether he was a psychopath before he arrived for duty in N Ireland. What I do know is I have never walked in his shoes & if I did do so how much of my own personality would have been effected.
The Saville Inquiry concluded Bernard McGuigan was unequivocally killed by Soldier F that day.
Bernard left his place of safety to help a wounded man who had been shot, waving a white handkerchief and shouting don’t shoot. Soldier F’s response to Bernard was to shoot him the head.
I think it’s safe to say Soldier F can be considered a psychopath.
Perhaps you missed my point.
If he was indeed a psychopath, did NI assist him being that way? It appears you may also be missing a large point of this article being that our governments do not look after our soldiers during & after conflict as they should do. No other employee in or out of government service would be treated so badly.
In regard to the Saville enquiry that you quote, I do not have your loyalty to the conclusions drawn from many, many such enquiries.
Sadly history, especially in my life time gives credence to my belief.
It’s a matter of public record that Soldier F’s name is Dave.
How very unfortunate.
I have at least 8 acquaintances called Dave, could you be more specific?
Or a good shot?
Quite right ,and as a veteran of the Northern Ireland Civil war myself, I’m glad there is to be no change in the law, other wise servicemen in future conflicts will feel able to behave anyway they please without concern about their conduct or prosecution. Considering the 350,000 service personnel that served in NI during 30 years of the troubles, this lone prosecution shows the level of self control and professionalism of 99% of the troops that were sent there. There should be no closing of ranks to protect an individual who may have brought the name of the service into disrepute.
I seem to recall that his fellow soldiers were appalled by his actions, and said so.
Charles, if you imagine that Army officers like soldiers who don’t tell the truth over their use of high velocity firearms, you have little experience of the armed forces. Officers will generally have a draconian approach to such things and zero sympathy for them. Your bleeding heart for Soldier F sounds like some Guardian-reading social worker making excuses for a malefactor.
*Nice try Princess!
*(Thank you David Bettney).
Plenty of soldiers served in NI without murdering civilians. If he is 70 and is indeed as guilty as it sounds, he has managed to escape justice for those crimes for nearly 50 years. Realistically, he should have been prosecuted in the 70’s. The only thing that makes it so fraught now is that republican terrorists are not being prosecuted for their own murderous conduct.
This is not the sort of vexatious case such as that which occurred with Brian Wood MC.
I too wonder how I would have reacted had I been in his shoes. God knows, I have no reply to that, save that it is how he reacted that is the issue. As a soldier, he was under pressure in way that I have not been. As a British soldier, he is held to standards that I cannot with confidence claim I could meet.
I have never been a soldier, but I have fought (brawled if you like, as the state didn’t sanction it), in defense of others. I do not regret it, and would do so again.
As a citizen of the nation that Soldier F was representing, I have every right to express an opinion. That is what a democratic nation state not only allows, but should expect of its people. If opinion is reserved only for those who bear arms, then you are welcome to your military dictatorship.
The hypocrisy of the Americans regarding the open support organisations over there were providing to the IRA during the Troubles, including fund-raising, was disgraceful.
My point was that a nation state needs to be bound by its laws, by its promises. Given the ones that have been made in this case, an emotional wish to give Soldier F a break should not override the need for the State’s behaviour to limited to actions it has agreed, and being democratic, to which the people have presumably agreed.
And if we’re going to be emotional about it, he may be seventy. None of the people he shot are going to be. Their mothers are ninety or so. I hope the years have lessened their pain.
As a British soldier, he had a duty to defend, to uphold the honour and the values of his nation. Did he?
His first and only loyalty was probably to the Parachute Regiment.
At the time he and many others thought they were
“under effective enemy fire”.
Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales agreed with them.
However the Irish- US Mafia disagreed, and years later after the squandering of £400 million over twelve years another English Judge (surprise, surprise) thought differently. We call this extraordinary phenomenon ‘British Justice’.
With the sole exception of Lord Hoffman’s (aka:‘leg over Lenny’) behaviour during the proceedings against Augusto Pinochet, I cannot recall a more unsatisfactory judgement.
Rubbish his 1st and only loyalty was to the crown, if not he was also a traitor!
Calm down, and you obviously don’t know the Parachute Regiment.
We all see fit to pontificate on things we do not understand, most people are not murders or rapists, and do not understand it. But we still know it to be wrong!
And the two soldiers about to be tried? They are not Soldier F, yet are still being prosecuted.
The way that Blair and New Labour allowed IRA killers to get off totally free was sickening. But so was everything Blair and New Labour did.
And the Tories gave a peerage to Brexit Party politician Claire Fox, who backed the IRA and refuses to withdraw her views of that time.
https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/father-warrington-bombing-victim-deeply-19077745
Labour opposed giving a peerage to this IRA apologist
Sorry to post something which doesn’t feed into your endlessly-expressed view that Labour is the root of all evil. I guess you’d agree that Labour was right and the Tories were wrong?
Yes absolutely, but only on this occasion it seems.
So what you’re saying, Chris C, is that Claire Fox is a lot like Jeremy Corbyn in respect of her past support for the IRA?
Everything they did, ever? You do realise that sort of sweeping demonization rather dents your credibility.
If you’re not careful people will get the impression you’re some sort of right wing nut.
Well you have made it quite cleat for all of us that you a left wing nutter. Thank you.
You’re too kind, Charles.
But let’s step back from the keyboards – tomorrow is supposed to be sunny, and everything will probably seem better.
Touché!
Thank you for that thoroughly deserved eulogy to Johnny Mercer MP. At least there is one man of honour left in that cesspit, otherwise known as the House of Commons.
However, given the pernicious influence of the United States in Irish affairs, via the Kennedy Clan, NORAID etc, Northern Ireland was always going to be war that was impossible to win. From the US point of view ‘good’ terrorists are those who murder British soldiers, ‘bad’ terrorists those who do little things like 9/11. The vile Pelosi creature is vociferous in her views on Ireland, even though she hails from the wastelands of southern Italy.
Sadly give the Irish propensity for ‘never forgive and never forget’ this sorry saga will continue for many years yet.
Whatever our feelings about our beloved, obese, jocular, Prime Minister, he will never have the moral courage to address this issue.
Mercer is only a man of honour in his own imagination. You must have forgotten how gleefully he leapt on the anti-Scruton bandwagon in 2019.
There’s a reason he left the Army as a Captain. He’s clearly not a team player and lacks loyalty to his colleagues, including the Defence Secretary who is also ex-Army. His intention of a stage-managed resignation, which he was stupid enough to leak, is not very honourable. On 20 April he tweeted he had been sacked, not resigned, while simultaneously publishing his resignation letter, signed and dated the 21st! The letter itself was full of snide digs at his former colleagues, which were redolent of yardarm clearing.
He’s too thick to realise that the MSM are only interested in his story to the extent that it discomforts the PM. They have no interest in the welfare of service veterans and will not be his allies in the longer term.
A dignified resignation followed by a sombre and telling statement from the backbenches would have advanced his cause much more effectively than his chaotic flouncing out.
You are right I’m sad to say. At the end of the day all we have is Captain Mercer Royal Artillery.
Why does Captain Wallace, Scots Guards remain so supine? Pathetic!
“When War is over and all things righted
God is neglected and the old Soldier slighted”.
As a former member of the Senior Service you must be revelling in all this!
Soldier F has been described in this discussion as “a psychopath” and untypical of the average British soldier in Northern Ireland. Having grown up there in the 60s and 70s , with daily experience of the British Army on the streets , I am more than happy to concede that point, especially when compared to their appalling locally recruited auxiliaries. However , and more importantly , Soldier F was a member of the Parachute Regiment , whose fearsome ( and some might say unsavoury) reputation was the very reason they were present in the city on the day of the massacre.Based on my day to day experience and that of my contemporaries, I could give you a list of British Army regiments in ascending order based on their levels of brutality (and I use that term with full understanding of its implication) towards the civilian population , or at least one part of it. And sitting at the top of that list by some considerable margin would be the Parachute Regiment.
What about the Royal Marines or the K.S.O.B.?
I’d be interested to know who you’d say were the most civil and responsible regiments in NI over ‘the troubles’. You always hear about Gerry Adams and the Paras, nothing about John Hume and the PBI. More credit to those who didnt shoot their way to the front pages.
In an imperfect world, with imperfect people, it’s amazing how quick, high minded “shit’s” are to throw the plebs to the wolves when it suits. The trial, this week, from the other side of the pond, being a case in point.
Indeed. Who killed Ashli Babbitt? The US State did. Result? Their ‘agent’ got off scot-free! Wonderful.
Be interested what your views are on other US police shootings.
Babbitt was one of the least contentious she was running towards danger as part of a mob and hooded. Jumped over a barrier with a clear run at people the police were protecting. Even I would not convict.
Give the feral nature of a large section of the US population I feel one has to accept that the Police will very occasionally hit the wrong target.
We must have seen different videos of the Babbitt killing!
In ‘mine’ she was standing unarmed in a crowded room filled with heavily armed para military police, and protesters, three of them, including Babbitt attempting (badly) to hammer their way through a reinforced glass double door. Initially three other unarmed policeman are standing in front of the door watching with some amusement the antics of Babbitt &Co to break it. They ultimately withdraw and the demolition continues.(Due to the plastic screen within the door it was proving very resistant.)
Suddenly, beyond the door, two black hands emerge holding a large automatic pistol. (anybody any idea what type?). For four or five seconds the killer takes careful aim, before ‘blowing’ Ms Babbitt away at point blank range ..Bravo!
Immediately a heavily armed, somewhat apprehensive para military policeman is at Babbitt’s side. He peers through the shattered door, spots the black hands and nods approvingly. (This is rapidly turning into the greatest triumph of US Arms since Saratoga).
I missed the ‘running & jumping’ of which you speak, but conclude this must of have happened prior to her arriving at the door and commencing her feeble attempts at demolition.
In conclusion, the owner of those black hands needs to be arrested and charged. I personally haven’t seen anything so disgraceful in the States since Mr Jack Ruby was allowed to slaughter Mr Lee Harvey Oswald, back in 1963, but I lead a rather secluded life here in Arcadia, as I am sure you will appreciate.
So you always just see what you want to see then
Are you asking a question or stating a fact?
Ah, a supporter of Derek Chauvin. It wouldn’t be Unherd without that.
Soldiers should not be “above the law”, that goes without saying. But dragging out decades-old allegations against soldiers, almost impossible to prove, when the terrorists they faced in that conflict have been granted immunity, seems an unnecessarily unlevel playing field. It is a similar story in Kenya, in Cyprus, in Afghanistan and anywhere else that British forces have been deployed since the end of the second world war.
If, as part of a reconciliation process, amnesty is granted to protagonists that’s an understandable and perhaps necessary step towards a better future.
I find it strange (though sadly completely unsurprising) that although the left-liberal media have been fulsome in their support for ‘truth and reconciliation’ programs in South Africa, supporting the idea of an amnesty for both sides as a necessary part of the healing process, they seem to support only amnesty for those arrayed against the British when it comes to The Troubles.
The Guardian has supported TRC amnesties in South Africa, Spain, Cambodia, Chile, Rwanda, Bosnia and Colombia.
Describing South Africa’s as the “gold standard” and echoing Archbishop Tutu’s description of it as “an incubation chamber for national healing, reconciliation and forgiveness” one might have thought the Guardian would follow through and think such a process should be part of the necessary healing process for Northern Ireland.
But no.
Whilst the murderers of innocent civilians are given “get out of jail” amnesties, with all their clear and obvious murders forgiven them, soldiers who served in Northern Ireland do not get the same consideration.
It’s also worth factoring in that there are people like the despicable Phil Shiner out there (the disgraced solicitor struck off for gross misconduct after bringing dishonest abuse claims against British soldiers who served in Iraq – who was also a semi-regular columnist in the Guardian) who look to profit from bringing false claims against members of the armed forces after they have left the service.
I find the Govt’s reluctance to sort this situation out deeply unfair, and frankly indefensible.
Surely Britain needs a statute of limitations? How can we fairly prosecute crimes from 50 years ago? Witnesses will have died. Memories will be faulty. The accused is a different person, and too old to repeat his crimes. Many countries have statutes of limitations; why not Britain?
Murder never ‘lies’. Nor should it.
For sex offences then? Would you have one for that as well as murder? Would you have let off Ronny Biggs? Should Lord Lucan now surface, would you let him go scot free for bludgeoning his servant to death?
UK courts ARE quite capable of taking into account the age of the accused when it comes to sentencing. It remains the case though that someone unable to do the time should not have committed the crime.
BTW the UK DOES have a SOL for any offence coming under the jurisdiction of a magistrates court.
Quite right!
I think the public are starting to realise that this Government has no ethics, core values or guiding ‘Conservative’ ideology. Taken together with the cladding scandal, we see a PM and Cabinet that has tin ears when it comes to plight of either leaseholders or former members of our military.
It is reprehensible that the IRA can flaunt their ‘comfort letters’ and at the same time expect the courts to hound veterans in the seventies. It’s time that former and current members of our armed services were given clear assurances that if the fight for Queen and country they will not be chased by lawyers for the rest of their days.
Of the comfort letters names, 173 were not wanted, 8 were returned to prison and 11 remained wanted.
Since 2011 the Historic Inquiries Team have investigated 26 legacy cases, 21 relating to paramilitaries, 2 relating to the police and just 3 relating to the Armed Forces. 12 paramilitary members have been prosecuted, and the last 3 cases to be investigated have been the highly publicised Armed Forces cases, if the paramilitary prosecutions were as highly publicised as the veterans cases the common misconception of the “one-sided” prosecutions of veterans would not exist.
It’s astounding that 10’s of thousands of people seem to have a bigger issue with the thought of prosecuting a veteran than the crime they actually committed.
The whole Historic Inquiries Team is a national disgrace, funded by the English taxpayer to provide jobs for the boys of the wretched P.S.N.I.
The sooner we are rid of this expensive, putrefying Albatross that is Northern Ireland the better.
Come back Cromwell, all is forgiven.
You mention the cladding scandal (though only in the context of leaseholders, not the Grenfell Towers victims themselves). The Government were certainly pursuing the “Conservative ideology” you crave when they deregulated building fire safety and allowed the construction industry to “self-regulate”. That’s what created the Grenfell Tower tragedy. We’ve seen how private sector firms commissioned fire tests, saw their products go up in flames, and then marketed them as non-flammable, in the pursuit of profit and without any of that boring Socialist regulation that gets in the way of executive bonuses and raising dividends. On the morning after the GT fire, there was a Government meeting on yet further deregulation of building safety standards….. which had to be abandoned because it wasn’t a good look that day. So you have got some of what Conservatives want ideologically, deregulation, at the cost of 72 lives, and the disastrous consequence that the cost of altering all the installed cladding is 100 times higher than insisting on proper fire standards from the beginning. This is what happens when privileged clowns with a discredited ideology from the Thatcher/Reagan period are allowed to muck up the real world rather than staying in their “think tanks” funded by US dark money. Just saying.
And Boris gave Brexit Party politician Claire Fox a peerage despite her attitude to the IRA’s Warrington bombing which killed two young boys.
https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/father-warrington-bombing-victim-deeply-19077745
This was Boris’s payoff to the Brexit Party for its antics of withdrawing candidates in Tory seats during the 2019 election.
Labour called for the peerage to be blocked.
The Saville Enquiry cost the taxpayer over £400 million. Great work for lawyers but otherwise a complete waste of time & money.
Off course by today’s standards where HMG can squander £37 billion on the fiasco known a “Trick & Trace” it’s nothing, but this astonishing profligacy with public money has to stop.
Why is it a waste of money to investigate the shooting of 13 unarmed civilians?
Because it’s decades too late and the past needs to be forgiven, not raked up.
That would work better if the State hadn’t spent most of the last half century denying the truth, and holding spurious enquiries (at least one) which proclaimed that the dead had only themselves to blame and those who ordered the guns to be fired are blameless. You can’t go (like Blair with Iraq!) seamlessly from claiming you have done nothing wrong, to claiming that everyone should move on and forget it, with no intervening stage of admitting the truth.
But what if they had murdered your sister/brother/random loved one?
How can this discussion world if the B word keeps getting censored?
And Jesus wept comes to mind!
Did not Jesus weep at the death of Lazarus out of sympathy and compassion?
The crowd shouldn’t have there in the first place:
*”B****ySunday began as a peaceful—but illegal—demonstration by some 10,000 people organized by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association”.
* Britannica
10,000 people in a free democracy! As it happens!
They shouldn’t have been there. They courted death and they knew it. It’s a national characteristic, which has served them ill over the past eight centuries.
Because you can’t raise the dead.
Compensation of say £1million per person would have been a far better option for all concerned.
If people are only of value monetarily to you, surely you would have some kind of model for how much each was worth individually?
$27 million for the relatives of the convicted criminal George Perry Floyd!
How bonkers is that?
Paddies are far cheaper for some inexplicable reason. Perhaps you know why?
That was the price the UK paid for ‘rigging’ the first Bloody Sunday enquiry
Fenian propaganda.
Given the difference in conclusions between the two enquiries, at least one of them must have been wrong. The second was more thorough and open, so if you think it was wrong, you should be able to show us where it went off the rails.
We may well think that a separate lawyer, at standard rates, for each victims’ families is over the top – but the first enquiry did seem at best inadequate, and something better was needed.
Wrong perhaps, but “ rigged” as Mr Spiro Spero states, complete nonsense.
If you’re as familiar with “Yes, Prime Minister” as I suspect you are, you’ll realise that, while nobody would ever dream of “rigging” an enquiry, it is nevertheless of the utmost important that someone sound is selected to run it – someone on whom can one can absolutely rely to do the right thing.
Are you seriously suggesting that John Passmore Widgery, Baron Widgery, Kt, OBE, TD, PC, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, 1971-80 “rigged” the BS Enquiry?
It always easy to slander the dead. In fact the Irish have almost made it an art form? Are you one of them by any chance?
If so, you have my sincere condolences.
I seem to remember some years ago the British government relentlessly pursuing tapes in an American university, recorded on the understanding they would not be released until after the interviewees’ deaths, in which IRA veterans discussed their actions during the troubles. This was done with a view to prosecution, notwithstanding the Good Friday agreement. If you make peace, make peace. Don’t pursue old scores. And if you do, then pursue them on both sides.
Bloody Blair. Everywhere you look his spoor is on most of the worst actions of the UK government since his election in 1997. His legacy is the wreckage of the free society and the rule of law.
Soldier F is an idiot and loathsome, and hard to feel for him personally.
I whilst not supporting the idea UK soldiers should be excused crimes against humanity like Mercer appears to do feel we should move on from the Troubles – lots of people did unspeakable things, our politicians conducted a dirty war, even death squads although how high up the Police/Army that went etc
I see no value to the prosecution basically prosecuting him for lying – for not having even the substance to admit what he did. Once you send in soldiers this will happen (if you prosecute first it’s surely the commanders especially if they cover up?).
On the wider issue no one should have immunity in law. However we don’t have to prosecute every crime for instance Last Labour Govt support for torture and rendition by Libya.
Sidebar: I did love Mercer discovered 3 days before that Boris was a liar and his cabinet vile scum. If only there were some sign of this prior. What next that they are corrupt?
If there is evidence that these or any other soldiers are responsible for murder, then they should be prosecuted however long may have elapsed. What is galling for so many is that right now former terrorists against whom there is prima facie evidence of involvement in murder and other crimes are walking free safe in the knowledge that they will never face prosecution. The same, alas, can be said for Tony Blair.
Why would anyone in HMG give a Tinker’s cuss about the fate of three geriatric Paratroopers who served this county well in Aden & Northern Ireland many years ago?
They are completely expendable for political gain with the loathsome Irish Lobby of the USA. Incidentally the second most powerful Lobby Group after the Israeli one.
I’m betting (and I am a betting man) that you did not study any constitutional law at any British university.
Did you?
Very noble to suggest that a soldier should be held to a higher standard than a terrorist. My inclination would be the opposite.
How?
I disagree, solders serving their country should be upholding the moral values their country considers worthy, which may or may not coincide with the morality of the government of the day. Honour is not about winning at any cost, it is the very opposite!
Douglas Murray points out that the British army did in fact get the same offer, immunity on conditions. F broke those conditions. The deal with the IRA had conditions. If members broke then they were open to prosecution for the previous atrocities.
Neither deals should have been made.
I thoroughly recommend the BBC series ‘Spotlight on the Troubles’ on iPlayer to get a background on the desperately dirty politics surrounding NI over the last fifty or sixty years.
It’s a long, often hard watch, but utterly compelling viewing, each and every one of them and, seriously, no-one comes out of this covered in any glory.
It pulls no punches regarding the often brutal subject matter and manages, I think, to take no sides, be it in terms of the UK or Irish governments’ often disingenuous approaches to ‘the situation’ or the sectarian divides that exist within the province itself.
Without wishing to ‘spoil’ its conclusion though, it’s pretty clear by the end of it that the IRA has been all but defeated by fair means or foul in relation to its ability to function as an effective terrorist force thanks to UK intelligence and sometimes own highly questionable practices, its infiltration, its access to arms and its ability to fund its deadly pursuits on any meaningful scale any longer, eventually driving them/its ‘political wing, Republican Sinn Féin, to the negotiating table in the late 1990s.
This, to me, then begs the largely rhetorical question as to why successive UK governments have behaved as they have done over the ensuing two decades since the 1998 Good Friday Agreement?
A pattern of behaviour that is all too depressingly echoed in Douglas Murray’s illustration above.
One wonders why we continually pander to Sinn Fein and IRA, who of course pretend that they are not affiliated anymore. They effectively are an enemy of the State which has not been sufficiently routed and defeated. The Government should declare the cases closed and reiterate the fact that Northern Ireland is British and will remain so until the people democratically decide otherwise.
Your book on N.Ireland (can’t write the actual title, as the word ‘bloody’ is censored!) is next in my Audible library. Look forward to listening.
The problem is that the British state refuses to admit to atrocities carried out by Protestant paramilitary proxies on behalf of the British state. Or that they were fighting a war. The consequence is that British service personnel are being tried for acts that they committed believing that they were obeying orders.
All armies impose tough discipline on themselves. The Army was executing British soldiers for war crimes against civilians and German prisoners at the time of the Battle of the Bulge in 1945. They didn’t wave the Union Jack and demand immunity, with rhetoric about fighting for King and Country.
Similarly, serving Generals have at times been outspoken in condemning atrocities committed against civilians in Iraq.
Do you happen to know which British soldiers were executed, as you claim for War Crimes, at the time of the Battle of the Bulge, which incidentally started on the 15 December, 1944.
I was under the impression that the term War Crimes was first used at Nuremberg in 1946.
The only one I can think of was Captain Robert Maxwell MC, and he ‘got away with it’.
By your silence I take it that you cannot come up with any examples of the “The Army executing British soldiers for war crimes against civilians and German prisoners at the time of the Battle of the Bulge in 1945”.
If other words you made it up?
Incidentally you would be on firmer ground had you mentioned the Second Boer War, 1899-1902.
Or he could have a life out-with the comical ranting to strangers online.
Can you translate that? It’s incoherent at best, probably vulgar at worst.
The IRA and Britain made a peace that has held and both should be satisfied with that. Years of unnecessary deaths led up to that point. You don’t make peace with your friends. You make it with your enemies. Sadly a lesson yet to be learned by Israel. Oddly that peace process was looking better than this one at that time in history. Knowing the history of the troubles I hardly look at the IRA as terrorists. Especially since when they were given a fair deal for peace they took it. I don’t see the point in prosecuting the soldiers myself. Both sides should focus on the peace. I think I was last in Derry in 2018. There is still a pronounced Catholic and Protestant side separated by the river to this day. That is sad to see but at least they aren’t trying to kill each other anymore. Still a lot if work left to reconcile those communities
Wow! Many of the previous acerbic comments have been restored. Thank you!
Proves one thing all parties are as bad or as good. But there consistentl, they lie to us, when it suits. I know that rash promises are are made to seek agreements. The Irish problem constantly bites us in the ass. And that’s the problem but no one will admit it.
In his book, Murray describes how Soldier F committed murder while wearing a British army uniform. In failing to prosecute him, the British state condoned what he did. There are rules of war and F broke them. It’s possible that he could be pursued by the International Criminal Court which takes jurisdiction when a member state fails to do so. The British government knows perfectly well that Soldier F killed in its name. The Downey parallel is irrelevant. The integrity of our military is one of the few things that everybody hangs on to in these times of politically selective justice. Soldier F should have been prosecuted at the time when his crimes became known and that should not prevent his prosecution now.
Since murder is legally proscribed killing and has to be confirmed in a court of law, perhaps “two unnamed veterans will go on trial in Belfast for the 1972 murder of an IRA commander” is a little bit of question begging.
Douglas makes a valid point that if an IRA man can escape prosecution for murdering a soldier, then a soldier should escape prosecution for murdering an IRA man.
However, what about the case of a renegade soldier – a psychopath – who deliberately murders innocent citizens. Is he to escape prosecution?
There were such soldiers operating with impunity in the Army’s MRF & they have stained the name of the vast majority of the army’s serving soldiers. Should they really be let off the hook?
If only it were that simple, but it isn’t, as I am sure you well know.
As Johnny Mercer said, ‘ You have to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative’.
Blaire was an idiot for his actions, there was an alternative:
Allow prosecution, conviction and sentence;
Suspend all sentences as soon as they were handed down, subject only to be reinstated in the event that the individual was found to have engaged in terroristic activity (unlike other suspensions where some other criminal activity could get them back in jail).
This was a far superior approach as it would show the justice system still functioning but also would prevent the fear of incarceration from derailing the process. It would also have reduced the intimidation of the academic activity into recording of the history of the troubles which those terrorists who now want to white wash the situation.
Douglas Murray is usually quite sound on moral issues but on this matter he seems unable to distinguish between the Armed Forces of the Crown and terrorist murderers. One stark difference Murray fails to acknowledge is that IRA terrorists set out to murder people and had no compunction about killing innocent bystanders in the process of killing selected targets, and very often had no selected targets, intending just to kill whoever happened to be around at the time. Being a liar, if Soldier F is indeed a liar as Murray insists, does not make him a murderer. Murray has expressed contempt for Soldier F and other soldiers in his previous articles. This article is just more of the same and offers no new insights, if any at all.
Murray writes: “In any normal situation, it would be impossible to justify not prosecuting him.” Well, Douglas Murray, in any normal circumstance Soldier F would not have been there at all.
A far more insightful and balanced article by Col Tim Collins was published in The Telegraph, 27 April. He has no qualms about soldiers being held to the highest standards but he appreciates the difference between a terrorist and a soldier.
Douglas Murray is usually quite sound on moral issues but on this matter he seems unable to distinguish between the Armed Forces of the Crown and terrorist murderers. One stark difference Murray fails to acknowledge is that IRA terrorists set out to murder people and had no compunction about killing innocent bystanders in the process of killing selected targets, and very often had no selected targets, intending just to kill whoever happened to be around at the time. Being a liar, if Soldier F is indeed a liar as Murray insists, does not make him a murderer. Murray has expressed contempt for Soldier F and other soldiers in his previous articles. This article is just more of the same and offers no new insights, if any at all.
Murray writes: “In any normal situation, it would be impossible to justify not prosecuting him.” Well, Douglas Murray, in any normal circumstance Soldier F would not have been there at all.
A far more insightful and balanced article by Col Tim Collins was published in The Telegraph, 27 April. He has no qualms about soldiers being held to the highest standards but he appreciates the difference between a terrorist and a soldier.
..
Charles, this by far your best post. Any chance you can keep all your future spewings at this level?
Mercer seems to have gone up in Douglas’ estimations since the Scruton debacle.
Reminds me of the “Truth and Reconciliation” Commissions in ZA. The SAP officials tell of their atrocities, and then when it was the ANC’s turn, somehow it was time to wrap it up.
It is embarrassing that the supposed conservative side continually falls for this progressive move of demanding acquiescence for their atrocities, yet somehow a shout of “hypocrisy!” will stop the show trials. The hypocrisy is the point from the progressives.
As regards some comments on Ashli Babbitt. The officer fired into an unarmed crowd with other police officers right behind her. At a minimum, he would be fired for a bad shoot in endangering his colleagues. His only smart move was shooting Trump supporters. There is no crime in that.
A good post spoilt by your last remark, or are you some form of homicidal nutter?
I suppose “you can’t put in what God left out”.
Have you seen anyone in trouble FOR attacking Trump supporters? I have not. We have two systems of justice in the US right now. Judge Sullivan is on the bench today explicitly stating one should be in jail for supporting Trump. He also refused to agree to dismiss charges against General Flynn. 20 years ago, he would be impeached. Now, he is hailed as a judicial hero.
I am not in favor of it, I am simply stating the facts. Evidence shows the police who shoot unarmed Trump supporters face zero consequences.
Well it is a national disgrace, which will NOT fade with the passage of time as it has been ‘captured’ on video for future generations to marvel at.
It would hard to find a better example of the degeneracy now prevalent the US, which is a terrible shame.
To refer to the “comfort letters” like many other journalists is a poor effort to relate to the prosecutions of NI Veterans to the likes of the IRA. Of the submitted names, 173 are not wanted, 8 have been returned to prison and 11 remain wanted. So the letter isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Again comparison to John Downey and Soldier F’s case, effective journalism would inform you that John Downey is currently in Police Custody and has been since 2018, and as close as December 2020 has been ordered to pay £715,000 to the victims of the Hyde Park bombing.
So the logic stands, if the government can pursue the likes of John Downey then they should pursue the likes of Soldier F.
The simple fact of the matter is, these are British Troops on British Soil who were employed and deployed to protect civilians, not kill them.
A very good example of the difference between a defining and a non-defining relative clause: “much to the horror of the families of other victims, who are believed to have been killed by Soldier F.” The comma after “victims” means that all the other victims were killed by Soldier F, whereas I’m fairly sure that Murray meant to refer to some of the others only, in which case there should have been no comma.
What is needed is reconciliation not prosecutions and recriminations. Nelson Mandela showed the way in South Africa. It did not solve all of SA’s problems but it at least gave them a fighting chance of healing the wounds. If the wounds in NI are ever to heal then everyone needs to stop picking at the scabs.
Wrong. Downey is being prosecuted:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/john-downey-murder-trial-held-up-over-covid-vaccination-40309179.html
But not for the Hyde Park bombings.
No but for murders related to the troubles. Which somewhat undermines the author’s point that alleged IRA members have been given amnesty whilst British soldiers have not.
Where are many of yesterday’s comments?
They appear to have been ‘sanitised’ for our protection.
Have you tried scrolling up and down? Bottom right on the keyboard.
No far too technical for me and no g-grandchild in range! But thanks anyway.
Impossible problems of peoples and borders – it happens so often, where peoples interests differ in their pursuit of the best, and appropriate, self-interest of each, and then when you scratch the surface a lot of it was a front, essentially, for gangsterism, whitewashed with a cause. What’s wrong here is the lack of reciprocal treatment – we would still be deep in the previous conflict if they hadn’t been allowed to walk away with amnesty……. Mr Mercer is the only one who cares for justice for these veterans of scarring conflict an adult lifetime ago.
What nauseating tosh. Murray seeks to establish some false equivalence between the British army and paramilitary forces. This might have been the IRA’s view of things but it isn’t mine. British soldiers who break the law should be answerable for it.
It was necessary to secure peace in Northern Ireland to establish some sort of amnesty for the paramilitaries. No such requirement arose in these negotiations arose for British soldiers – it would have been inconscionable if it had. They are answerable under UK law for anything they have done and no treaty between the UK and Ireland (what the GFA is) could possibly change that. The vast, vast majority have served their country with honesty and integrity and no-one should shirk from any scrutiny regarding this.
There is an issue concerning “ambulance chasing” style pursuit of UK veterans and whether current UK legal processes are appropriate. To confuse this with the GFA and amnesties granted to past terrorists to secure a peace process is really a gross insult to the many who dedicated much of their lives to achieving this. Murray would have us still embroiled in the Troubles – a typical attitude of someone not directly affected but desperate to wield an opinion.