Soldier F.

[Highway Man]

On the enemy? And any civilians you chose?

Are you sure about that?

Yes in Northern Ireland it was always against civilians. It was a civil war. If you had permission to shoot then yes why not?

 

[IT Minion]

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.

Dennis Hutchings: Ex-soldier on trial over Troubles shooting dies - BBC News

The trial of Dennis Hutchings, 80, had been adjourned when he tested positive for Covid-19.

www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

This bloke was suffering from kidney disease when he was forced to go to N.Ireland during the Covid epidemic to stand trial for an incident which happened decades ago, he had already been exonerated of any crime at the time of the incident.
The obvious stress and his medical condition along with Covid killed him before the trial took place.
Like the other cases , the prosecution produced no new evidence to justify a trial.
I have pointed out before that the N.Ireland public prosecution service is not fit for purpose and there should be a public inquiry to find out what on earth is going on.

Nothing about Northern Ireland is fit for purpose. It is true now and more so when the troubles kicked off.

A bigoted and oppressive government led to the, initially, non violent protests that spiralled into the riots that led to 'peacekeepers' being brought in.

A fear of Irish integration and corrupt policing by the police and army kept the troubles fueled. Fuel the religious fundamentalists on both sides we're happy to use.

Massacres where the army ignored their rules of engagement and killed innocent people, like bloody Sunday, were probably inevitable. But that doesn't mean it isn't a stain on the Paras history that they should never forget.

Since it wasn't officially a war then what they did wasn't a war crime, it was unlawful killing of some sort, call it murder if you want. Anyone who breaks the law and kills someone should be prosecuted.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

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

Various enquiries had concluded their report.
Such as this one

The report stated, "The firing by soldiers of 1 PARA on Bloody Sunday caused the deaths of 13 people and injury to a similar number, none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury,"[10] and also said, "The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries."[11] Saville stated that British paratroopers "lost control",[12] fatally shooting fleeing civilians and those who tried to aid the civilians who had been shot by the Parachute Regiment.[13] The report stated that soldiers involving in Bloody Sunday had concocted lies in their attempt to hide their acts.[13] Saville stated that the civilians had not been warned by the British soldiers present that they intended to shoot.[8] The report states, contrary to the previously established belief, that none of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone throwers, and that the civilians were not posing any threat.[8]

Bloody Sunday Inquiry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But the prosecution of soldier F was not concluded, nor closed until the end of the recent court case.
The charges were dropped at one point then restarted on the decision of The High Court in Belfast.

14 March 2019​

Cases against the other 17 soldiers are dropped, and thePublic Prosecution Service (PPS) for Northern Ireland make a decision to charge Soldier F alone for the murder of James Wray and William McKinney, two of the 13 victims of Bloody Sunday.

Bloody Sunday: The timeline of the longest inquiry in British legal history

BFBS Forces News takes a look at the events from Bloody Sunday, up to the present day

www.forcesnews.com

 

[noseall]

Yes in Northern Ireland it was always against civilians. It was a civil war. If you had permission to shoot then yes why not?

Are you attempting to say, there is a scenario whereby soldiers can legally kill innocent civilians?

 

[Highway Man]

Are you attempting to say, there is a scenario whereby soldiers can legally kill innocent civilians?

If given an order to shoot. Hardly call people throwing petrol bombs at them innocent. The army used rubber bullets most of the time against them

 

[noseall]

If given an order to shoot. Hardly call people throwing petrol bombs at them innocent. The army used rubber bullets most of the time against them

I see you have shifted the goalposts somewhat. I'm not interested in your strawman waffle.

Just to be clear - there is no situation whereby it is legal for soldiers to shoot innocent civilians.

 

[Highway Man]

I see you have shifted the goalposts somewhat. I'm not interested in your strawman waffle.

Just to be clear - there is no situation whereby it is legal for soldiers to shoot innocent civilians.

Who was talking about innocent civilians?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Yes in Northern Ireland it was always against civilians. It was a civil war. If you had permission to shoot then yes why not?

Who was talking about innocent civilians?

 

[Highway Man]

Not innocent though are they, unless you think a gang of thugs throwing petrol bombs at you are innocent civilians.

 

[noseall]

Did you forget how the conversation progressed. Let me refresh you on the back and forth. Here is where you said it was ok to murder....

Once you have permission to open fire you have a licence to kill. There is no murder.

On the enemy? And any civilians you chose?

Are you sure about that?

Who was talking about innocent civilians?

You were...

Yes in Northern Ireland it was always against civilians. It was a civil war. If you had permission to shoot then yes why not?

 

[Highway Man]

Did you forget how the conversation progressed. Let me refresh you on the back and forth. Here is where you said it was ok to murder....





You were...

Not seeing your point. Soldier f didn’t simply open fire on innocent civilians.

 

[Risteard]

Regardless to any political views. No soldier who is sent to serve anywhere in the world should have to face prosecution for doing his job. Unless that soldier opened fire on his own accord and committed a war crime by doing so. Leave them alone to get on with their jobs and take the politicians to court.

It literally was a war crime.

 

[Risteard]

Not seeing your point. Soldier f didn’t simply open fire on innocent civilians.

He most certainly did.

 

[Highway Man]

It literally was a war crime.

Nonsense

 

[Risteard]

Nonsense

No it absolutely isn't. An army of occupation does not have any legal right to wilfully murder people in that occupied territory.