Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Former servicemen, witch hunt ?


Recommended Posts

Dave SYP

Following the most recent case in court this week of former servicemen accused of the unlawful killing of an IRA Terrorist decades ago, is it time our legal system stopped pursuing our former servicemen in this way?  Do you think that after all, the Good Friday Agreement gave in to some of the demands of the terrorists in exchange for ceasefire and peace in Northern Ireland at the time and that the slate should have been wiped clean?  Do you think there should be a time limitation on charges being brought against former service personnel operating in war or hostile zones? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ether

    30

  • Equin0x

    12

  • Dave SYP

    10

  • TooTall

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is no time limit on the offence of Murder, and there should not be. Here we have extraordinary circumstances in an era when IRA terrorists hid behind women, children and anonimity to murder civi

I struggle to remember what I had for breakfast yesterday.

Again people comparing the situation to our street. "If you seen a mortally wounded person on the street..." Blah blah blah, well in that case I'd have the privilege of calling the emergency services.

TooTall

I don't think there should be a time limitation. However you can't gun for the military with no evidence and ignore the IRAs atrocities, that they openly admit too and evidence exists! 

The threshold needs to be moved on charges, as these changes have been based on nothing more than hearsay....how in hell did CPS authorise them? It just goes to show our judicial system is not fit for purpose. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueBob

Probably agree with the concept but it’s how it is applied and the practicalities that are the concern

Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
5 hours ago, Dave SYP said:

Following the most recent case in court this week of former servicemen accused of the unlawful killing of an IRA Terrorist decades ago, is it time our legal system stopped pursuing our former servicemen in this way?  Do you think that after all, the Good Friday Agreement gave in to some of the demands of the terrorists in exchange for ceasefire and peace in Northern Ireland at the time and that the slate should have been wiped clean?  Do you think there should be a time limitation on charges being brought against former service personnel operating in war or hostile zones? 

As far as I know some minor crimes are already time limited and need to be brought to court within a number of months. Accusations like this are more serious though and in my view shouldn't be time limited. If there is accusations that a soldier has unlawfully killed someone it should be investigated, and if there is evidence it should be pursued.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
5 hours ago, Dave SYP said:

Following the most recent case in court this week of former servicemen accused of the unlawful killing of an IRA Terrorist decades ago, is it time our legal system stopped pursuing our former servicemen in this way?  Do you think that after all, the Good Friday Agreement gave in to some of the demands of the terrorists in exchange for ceasefire and peace in Northern Ireland at the time and that the slate should have been wiped clean?  Do you think there should be a time limitation on charges being brought against former service personnel operating in war or hostile zones? 

Possibly time a timeframe, but definitely some limitations on how many bites at the Cherry they get. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22

There is no time limit on the offence of Murder, and there should not be. Here we have extraordinary circumstances in an era when IRA terrorists hid behind women, children and anonimity to murder civilians and Servicemen. They saw any Military as easy prey for their murderous intent. In the Peace agreement the IRA were given immunity from Prosecution which was wrong but, if they were going to do that they should have made it for everyone.

The murder in the incident was of an IRA hit man who was known to have committed 15 murders of military personnel.  The man fled from a road block so what were the soldiers expected to conclude. The decision to prosecute the retired soldiers was beyond any understanding.  The circumstances of the shootings have been investigated thoroughly several times and the soldiers had been vindicated each time. The prosecution smacks of appeasement and was nothing more than vexatious and vindictive.

It took a High Court Judge to see sense and acquit them. The soldiers involved, all in their 70's should receive compensation.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave SYP
57 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

There is no time limit on the offence of Murder, and there should not be. Here we have extraordinary circumstances in an era when IRA terrorists hid behind women, children and anonimity to murder civilians and Servicemen. They saw any Military as easy prey for their murderous intent. In the Peace agreement the IRA were given immunity from Prosecution which was wrong but, if they were going to do that they should have made it for everyone.

The murder in the incident was of an IRA hit man who was known to have committed 15 murders of military personnel.  The man fled from a road block so what were the soldiers expected to conclude. The decision to prosecute the retired soldiers was beyond any understanding.  The circumstances of the shootings have been investigated thoroughly several times and the soldiers had been vindicated each time. The prosecution smacks of appeasement and was nothing more than vexatious and vindictive.

It took a High Court Judge to see sense and acquit them. The soldiers involved, all in their 70's should receive compensation.

I agree entirely Zulu 22. It seems to me that the only ones to benefit from this would be the lawyers (as always!) That should now be the end of the matter, but from bitter experience I know that it won’t. There is a new breed of IRA membership now and although they weren’t even born when all this was happening, they could use it as an excuse for further violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
1 hour ago, Dave SYP said:

I agree entirely Zulu 22. It seems to me that the only ones to benefit from this would be the lawyers (as always!) That should now be the end of the matter, but from bitter experience I know that it won’t. There is a new breed of IRA membership now and although they weren’t even born when all this was happening, they could use it as an excuse for further violence.

The IRA is and has been for a long time absolutely nothing to do with Irish independence. It’s a front for Organised Crime. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
bensonby

I’m not sure why the Good Friday Agreement doesn’t work both ways: I.e. forgiving the offences of both sides. That said, there is an argument for the state to be held to a higher standard: as the state is bound by Human Rights considerations.

Perhaps the answer lies in a kind of “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” where matters are investigated thoroughly by a judge-lead inquiry, and verdicts are returned, without individuals actually facing imprisonment etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
11 minutes ago, bensonby said:

I’m not sure why the Good Friday Agreement doesn’t work both ways: I.e. forgiving the offences of both sides. That said, there is an argument for the state to be held to a higher standard: as the state is bound by Human Rights considerations.

Perhaps the answer lies in a kind of “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” where matters are investigated thoroughly by a judge-lead inquiry, and verdicts are returned, without individuals actually facing imprisonment etc.

I think it’s time for exactly this, with an acceptance that unless significant new evidence is identified (not witnesses trying to recount a 50 year old memory) then no prosecution will take place. 
 

Let’s be honest, how can a judicial system expect someone to remember details from 50 Years ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
7 minutes ago, Ether said:

I think it’s time for exactly this, with an acceptance that unless significant new evidence is identified (not witnesses trying to recount a 50 year old memory) then no prosecution will take place. 
 

Let’s be honest, how can a judicial system expect someone to remember details from 50 Years ago. 

What should happen if there was specifically new evidence about something, either an IRA member killing someone or a British soldier doing so. Should both be prosecuted? Or neither? Or one but not the other?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
10 minutes ago, Equin0x said:

What should happen if there was specifically new evidence about something, either an IRA member killing someone or a British soldier doing so. Should both be prosecuted? Or neither? Or one but not the other?

Isn’t that inequality exactly what the issue is, the government isn’t seeking out Republican Terrorists from 50 years ago. But they are going back over old evidence and trying to up sell it as new. 
 

so there are two choices: 

If there is credible new evidence that hasn’t already been in court and has the same ‘Reasonable prospect of conviction’ any offence has. Then prosecute, but fairly and accept any witness evidence is unreliable. 
or

Draw a line under it, no more prosecutions and stop wasting time, money and effort on what is a Witch hunt with nothing but old evidence 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
1 minute ago, Ether said:

Isn’t that inequality exactly what the issue is, the government isn’t seeking out Republican Terrorists from 50 years ago. But they are going back over old evidence and trying to up sell it as new. 
 

so there are two choices: 

If there is credible new evidence that hasn’t already been in court and has the same ‘Reasonable prospect of conviction’ any offence has. Then prosecute, but fairly and accept any witness evidence is unreliable. 
or

Draw a line under it, no more prosecutions and stop wasting time, money and effort on what is a Witch hunt with nothing but old evidence 

 

As much as I don't feel comfortable about it, I think the second one does have the best chance of keeping the peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
5 minutes ago, Equin0x said:

As much as I don't feel comfortable about it, I think the second one does have the best chance of keeping the peace.

I agree, it’s the most reasonable, but doesn’t stop a new prosecution if a new offence is identified that hasn’t been investigated before. 
 

I don’t support total immunity for Service Personnel, there are plenty of criminals in the military, but it’s a cross section of society, so not unexpected. 
 

I do question if we can applies today’s standards and expectations to 50 years ago. After all we never prosecuted pilots who killed 1000’s of civilians in bombing raids. Today’s society isn’t the measure for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
2 minutes ago, Ether said:

I agree, it’s the most reasonable, but doesn’t stop a new prosecution if a new offence is identified that hasn’t been investigated before. 
 

I don’t support total immunity for Service Personnel, there are plenty of criminals in the military, but it’s a cross section of society, so not unexpected. 
 

I do question if we can applies today’s standards and expectations to 50 years ago. After all we never prosecuted pilots who killed 1000’s of civilians in bombing raids. Today’s society isn’t the measure for me.

Was bombing civilians actually illegal at the time? Murder has always been illegal (well since before The Troubles at least)

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Police Community is a forum that is supported financially through advertisements. It is a breach of our standard use policy to use Adblock plugins/software on our site. 

In order to continue using our site you will need to disable Adblock across our site. Alternatively you can purchase a membership package from our online store to remove adverts as part of the membership subscription. 

https://police.community/remove-adverts/

Thank you for your support.

I have disabled Adblock