Search results

That is true, but the British army in Ulster is not an army of occupation.

Interestingly it was the Catholic/Nationalist community who wanted the army to be sent in to protect them in 1969. So much for the claim that the army was an 'occupying force'.

The case was closed and no further action was proposed by the PPS in 2019 the case REOPENED in 2022.

I did make my mind up. I said that soldiers don't make good policemen. I also said that using soldiers was unavoidable. I used the word unavoidable because at the time there was no alternative. The situation was such, that soldiers had to be used due to the seriousness of the emergency.

The IRA don't represent the majority of the population, either Nationalist or Unionist. They had no mandate from either community to use violence for political ends. All they achieved was to start a sectarian war between Protestants and Catholics. If the British army hadn't been there , it would...

The 'English' aren't occupying anywhere.

That's true but you can't accuse just anyone without enough evidence to justify the prosecution in the first case. This soldier F is just the latest of a line of elderly veterens who been charged, only for their trials to collapse or be acquitted. Some haven't been so fortunate...

At the time the authorities had no choice but to use the army to support the police. The police are trained to police civilian society, the IRA were using military grade weapons and explosives against them, The use of the army was unavoidable.

That's true. Soldiering and policing are two separate disciplines. Soldiers don't make good policemen.

At the time the police were stretched to breaking point investigating IRA murders and bombings which were happening every day.

90% of the deaths in N.Ireland were caused by terrorists. In Gaza over 90% of deaths are caused by the IDF. The British army were in N.Ireland in a policing role and not an offensive role. Overall , by disrupting the majority of IRA operations and jailing terrorists the security forces saved...

The decision to prosecute was made in 2019 but was dropped, for some reason it was reopened in 2022 even though evidentially nothing had changed. Instagram https://share.google/bAsIrA8AYBPxE4rfo

That is the problem, bringing prosecutions against ex soldiers without a realistic chance of a conviction brings the judicial system into disrepute. The perception of the public is the charges are malicious and part of a witch hunt for political purposes.

As I have pointed out before, the Judge who acquitted the veteren , said that the evidence presented by the prosecution fell well short of what is required to secure a successful prosecution. Normally historic criminal cases can only be reopened if there is compelling new evidence to justify...

He didn't get away with murder , a trial was held and the judge acquitted him. The Judge said that evidence against the veteren fell well short of what was required to have a reasonable prospect of a conviction.

It was justice for the accused, he was victim of a malicious prosecution.

https://news.sky.com/story/paratrooper-known-as-soldier-f-not-guilty-of-bloody-sunday-murders-1345513 Result Justice has been served.

Starmers, one out, one in policy, is now one out, one in, and one back again on the next boat. Iranian bloke deported under the scheme was only gone a few days , then he returned on another small boat. Labour is going to end up like the Tories at this rate. It must be obvious that the 'one out...

Best American sit com was the Beverly Hill Billies IMHO.

Starmer has said that an operational decision made by the police in Birmingham, to ban Maccabi fans was anti semitic. If that is the case, then those who made that decision should be held accountable. However if an investigation of the decision to ban the Maccabi fans, shows that the grounds...