A day that re-opens old wounds

TomTom

The thought of Martin McGuinness on trial gives great satisfaction that he might account for his actions that day; but if this is to be yet another Labour Lynching of the British Army it would do well to revisit The Curragh Mutiny and inform the politicians of its unhappiness

The Laughing Cavalier

Another one of Blair's time bombs. Retired squaddies and junior officers are likely to be prosecuted while terrorist scum like McGuinness and Adams get off scot free to enjoy the fruits of high office. Where's the justice in that? NuLabour, the gift that goes on giving.

Naomi Muse

Another ill-judged Blair sop to try and create his own legacy rather than for the good of all involved.

Whoever was wrong, and it does look like the army went awol, it should have been dealt with in a timely manner. Raising it now and seeing again all those pictures of the protagonist groups, together with hearing the rhetoric of hate, will not help anyone.

The innocent have been maligned for these 30 years, and the guilty have been left untried for the same. A public apology by any and all parties who did wrong would be the best way forward, and any with murderous intentions, should hang their heads and admit it, so that it can be dealt with.

Why did it take so long?

Why could it not be done within a 12 month?

Blair has a lot to answer for.

Yam Yam

Let's just hope Cameron says "report noted" - and then promptly declares that no soldier that this colossal waste of public money deems culpable will face prosecution.

Nicholas

"Yet the political dictates of peace mean that the British army must be blackened."

Maybe if you are craven enough to believe in peace at any price. This has all happened before, with examples as long ago as the Boston Massacre, where soldiers have been held to account by standards not applied to the scum provoking them.

David Dee

Do you mean the General Jackson, second in command on the day, who took thirty(yes 30) years to accept that those who were murdered were actually innocent,unarmed, British subjects and not terrorists as he had previously felt.

He, more than anyone else is responsible for the truth having to be dragged out over such a long period as he was not prepared to be man enough to state the obvious from the onset.

This man was a complete disgrace to the uniform of the British army and instead of being awarded a promotion should have been drummed out of the army immediately after this cock-up.

strapworld

Well, we will see how much Cameron stands by his earlier remarks about the Army!

It appears that the IRA and all terrorist scum can walk about free after their murders and 'punishment beatings'. But servicement placed in a riot situation, fired upon by innocent supporters of the IRA led by mcGuinness will be castigated and threatened with prosecution.

Let us see the leader come out of Cameron.

Nicholas

"Do you mean the General Jackson, second in command on the day, who took thirty(yes 30) years to accept that those who were murdered were actually innocent,unarmed, British subjects and not terrorists as he had previously felt."

As opposed to McGuiness who took 30 years to admit that IRA gunmen had also been firing on that day.

Lord Monkington-Smythe

I don't think anything will come from it, partially because terrorists who considered it just dandy to blow up civilians have had early release for political reasons, so are in no position to push for military prosecutions, and also because of the middle of a war in Afganistan. It would be a "brave" politician who started calling for court proceedings into low ranked ex-soldiers at this time, as our present troops are stuck in an intractable quagmire. Not good for moral or votes...

Vulture

Politicians don't read so Kipling's words would be lost on them:

'It's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and "Chuck 'im out the brute"
But its "the Saviour of his country" when the guns begin to shoot.

The Bellman

@David Dee: I very much doubt that any of the thirteen shot dead that day in 'Free Derry' would have described themselves as 'British subjects'.

Your lack of curiosity about the historical and political context is matched only by your misapprehensions about the military system and how it might apply to General Jackson. Jackson was adjutant of 1 PARA, not second-in-command. The adjutant is a battalion staff officer responsible primarily for personnel matters. I'm not sure, but it is doubtful whether he deployed on the ground on the day. If he did so, it was out of curiosity and in the capacity of a 'military tourist': ordinarily the adjutant would have no executive authority for the conduct of operations. It is therefore simply absurd to assert that he 'more than anyone else' (more than the CO? More than the Brigade Commander? More than the Commander Land Forces?) is responsible for not having 'stated the obvious from the outset'.

Besides, he is entitled to his opinions about the opposition faced by the men of his battalion - especially as he has greater understanding of the context than someone who has just read the Wikipedia entry on Bloody Sunday, which appears to be the basis for your rant. I cannot speculate on what produced his volte face, but it might have been influenced by the weight of witness testimony to Saville that many of the victims were unarmed. That he changed his mind is not evidence of conspiracy, still less does it make him 'a disgrace to the uniform of the British Army'.

Occasional Ostrich

Bravo, Bellman, you're spot on. It's a pity that the comment facility on these blogs affords the Dees of this world a wider audience than their squat and the pub down the corner, whose denizens are already p*ssed off with his vuvuzela droning.

John in Norwich

In my opinion any army or police on special protection duty for Blair, his odious wife, Brown etc. should ask to be removed from the duty, and those who are ordered to replace them should make a similar request.

On such protection duty I presume it is accepted that you may have to take a bullet on Blair's behalf, but do you think Blair will stand shoulder to shoulder with you if 10 years from now something is dreged up against you?

I also assume Blair and his odious wife would agree that to force someone into such a duty against their explicit wishes was a breach of their human rights.

Paul Hawkins

and clearly Lord Saville has been nowhere near the Troubles. A tour in NI, a few foot patrols in Belfast or a VCP down some god forsaken road would have given him a real perspective on the issue.

The millions wasted on this enquiry would have been better spent on the victims of the TRoubles.

The Masked Marvel

You can say goodbye to joint rule now. Even a casual listener to the news of today's events will have noticed that this is has tainted the entire idea of a British presence of any kind in Norther Ireland.

Anything associated with the UK is poison now. Nothing wrong with the truth coming out, if that's what this is, but the problem lies in the attitudes revealed by the relatives and other NI talking heads on the BBC, as well as the tone of the media coverage. It's not only vindication of the victims of Bloody Sunday, but vindication by association of all IRA activity.

I wish I was back home in Derry

The attitudes towards human rights, truth and justice on this thread are a tribute to the collective ignorance you display with pride.

Occasional Ostrich

@The Masked Marvel

British presence? Oh, you mean the majority of the population thereof.

yank

The British army won't be blackened. All recognize that when you put kids into uniform and into the shooting zone, people are going to be shot. No disrespect meant for the dead, because we all mourn their passing, but you cannot un-ring the bell, not even by Blairish proclamation.

Nicholas provided the proper perspective above. Once, a few drunken colonists poured out into the streets, to shower some soldiers with stone confetti, and that's always a bad idea, particularly if they're redcoats with Brown Bess muskets. So we had the Boston Massacre. Give the Brits credit, they immediately recognized the gravity of the situation, and engaged in lawful pursuit of the matter. Perhaps those niceties weren't well attended following the shootings in '72, but then, those folks, at least some of them, were likely throwing more than stone confetti.

How do you want your young son to serve? In a military that might turn him over to the wolves, 40 years on? A mistake then shouldn't be turned into a mistake today.

The officer corps deals and has likely already dealt with malefactors much more efficiently than politicians ever could, particularly 40 years after the fact. I think that's where it should remain.

Grieve the dead, certainly. That is all that can be done here.

The Masked Marvel

Occasional Ostrich,

I meant joint rule and any legal or political connection between Northern Ireland and the UK. The IRA have now been sanitized, their leaders and top killers freely walking the streets and halls of government, and the bad guy in the whole picture is the British Government.

The inquiry result is being reported as a vindication of the entire march, and of all Republican supporters in Bogside on the day, including the lad with the innocent nail bombs, as well as Martin McGuiness and his Thompson sub-machine gun. This can lead only in one direction.

Kennybhoy

"I wish I was back home in Derry"

Bugger of then, there's a good chap.