Bloody Sunday: One former British soldier to be charged over Northern Ireland in 1972

[arista]

who can only be identified as soldier F - will face prosecution
for two murders and four attempted murders.]



Back in 1972
One IRA Irishman fired one shot
setting up the British troops


https://news.sky.com/story/bloody-sunday-one-former-british-soldier-to-be-charged-over-northern-ireland-massacre-11664944

https://e3.365dm.com/19/03/768x432/skynews-bloody-sunday-derry_4607546.jpg?bypass-service-worker&20190313220909
[Thirteen people were killed by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday]

[Underscore]

Lock him up

[arista]

Lock him up


It was the IRA shooters that fired first.

[Cherie]

It was the IRA shooters that fired first.

Fake news, the shot was fired at a completely different location

For anyone who wants to know what actually happened here is the timeline

What happened in the build-up to Bloody Sunday and on the day?
A week before Bloody Sunday, British Army soldiers fired plastic bullets and CS gas at protesters at a banned civil rights demonstration on Magilligan Strand near Londonderry.

Four days later, two Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were shot dead by republicans in the nationalist Creggan area of the city.

While tensions in Derry were high as the morning of January 30, 1972 arrived, few could have predicted the bloodshed that followed.

It was just after lunchtime when demonstrators started assembling on the Creggan estate for the latest Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (Nicra) protest march, an event outlawed by a Stormont ban on large public assemblies and processions.

This time the destination was the city's Guildhall.

2.50pm: Due to get under way at 2pm, the start is delayed by 50 minutes to accommodate the steady stream of late arrivals. Marchers leave Creggan Drive and set off for the city centre, with hundreds joining in at almost every turn.

3.25pm: The march passes the Bogside Inn bar and continues on to William Street. Estimates of the size of demonstration at this point vary. Organisers claimed up to 20,000 people were involved, while the authorities put it at a more conservative 3,000 to 5,000.

3.45pm: With the Army having erected barricades blocking the way to the Guildhall, the main body of the march turns left on to Rossville Street towards the revised rallying point at the famous Free Derry corner at the entrance to the nationalist Bogside estate. A number break off and continue down William Street to confront soldiers at a barricade. Some rioting ensues. Minor clashes between stone-throwers and security forces at this junction were commonplace, with locals dubbing the area "aggro corner".

3.55pm: Before the main shooting incident and at a location away from both the riot and march, two soldiers in a derelict building on William Street fire a number of rounds after claiming they had come under attack. An Official IRA member is believed to have fired at the building during this incident. Two men are injured when the soldiers opened fire. One of them, 59-year-old John Johnston, dies four months later. Campaigners have long acknowledged him as the 14th victim of Bloody Sunday. However, the Bloody Sunday inquiry said the wounds he sustained on the day did not contribute to his death, noting he had an inoperable brain tumour.

3.56pm: Rioters disperse from William Street after the Army deploys water cannons. Paratroopers request permission to commence an arrest operation on those who had fled down Chamberlain Street and Rossville Street.

4.07pm: A company of paratroopers, led by Major Ted Loden, is given an order to start arresting any remaining rioters in William Street. But they are told not to engage in a running battle down Rossville Street.

4.10pm: The soldiers open fire on people in the area of Rossville Flats.



https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bloody-sunday-what-happened-in-northern-ireland-in-1972-and-what-is-the-saville-inquiry-a4090866.html

[arista]

"the shot was fired at a completely different location"

Yes but the IRA Terrorists
just wanted the troops to shoot back
it was a set up, a trap.

[Niamh.]

"the shot was fired at a completely different location"

Yes but the IRA Terrorists
just wanted the troops to shoot back
it was a set up, a trap.

wow

[bots]

There was so much crap happening around that time, that circumstances played a great part in it. However, I have problems with the least senior person in the organisation being held responsible for it. The responsibility goes much higher. That's my major complaint in this whole sorry mess.

[Cherie]

There was so much crap happening around that time, that circumstances played a great part in it. However, I have problems with the least senior person in the organisation being held responsible for it. The responsibility goes much higher. That's my major complaint in this whole sorry mess.

I would agree with this

[Cherie]

there was all sorts of stuff like that going on. I heard the IRA being described as harmless boy scouts today, and as someone that was around at that time, that offends me greatly.

Whoever said that is being disingenous, how can you describe an organisation that murdered innocents boys scouts

There were plenty incarcarated in the H Blocks, so unless this was a regular occurence for boy scouts that has to go down as one of the most ill informed comments of the century

that said the British Army were there to keep the peace, not shoot innocent kids which happened on Bloody Sunday

[smudgie]

The murder of innocent people should always be investigated.

[AnnieK]

There were huge faults on both sides during the Troubles. Agree the soldier being prosecuted now is more of a scapegoat, following orders from higher up. Very wrong but innocent lives were lost that day.

[Beso]

Two people were imprisoned for it and released as part of the Good Friday agreement, if you are going to have an opinion on it at least have an informed one

i kind of new that but couldnt be bothered to look it up....yes, the whole point is that these murdering bastards were released or pardoned to an extent..


then now, to appease these murdering bastards incase they start the troubles again we have to find guilt in one soldier who would have done exactly what his training told him to do.

[Beso]

they should now imo investigate the 1183 unsolved deaths linked to the troubles that have been swept under the carpet since the good friday agreement

[Niamh.]

i kind of new that but couldnt be bothered to look it up....yes, the whole point is that these murdering bastards were released or pardoned to an extent..


then now, to appease these murdering bastards incase they start the troubles again we have to find guilt in one soldier who would have done exactly what his training told him to do.

Shoot unarmed civilians?

[Beso]

Shoot unarmed civilians?

Return fire.

[Niamh.]

Return fire.

They weren't returning fire

[Beso]

They weren't returning fire

That is still open to debate according to the Saville inquiry.

[Livia]

The IRA killed more Irish people than the security forces and all the loyalist terrorists put together. I don't think the British army was responsible for the deaths of any children, unlike the IRA, but hey, up the Republic, right?. It stinks when a man will be tried for being somewhere and doing something he was under orders to carry out. Meanwhile, the most violent IRA terrorists are enjoying their freedom. Some of them have died peaceful deaths surrounded by their families... Jews don't believe in hell, but for these people, I hope we're wrong.,

As for the two young men dragged out of their car and beaten to death by a bunch of savages, I know some Irish people get annoyed when that's brought up. It was one of the lowest, most shameful points I think... a terrible thing to watch two young men torn apart, whatever their nationality, but still there are some Irish people who think it was acceptable. The IRA and its supporters have kept their heads high, refusing to apologise for atrocities, like the Enniskillen bomb where 12 people died at a Remembrance Day parade, and nearly 70 people received the most horrific injuries.

The IRA were sick, murderous terrorists responsible for more deaths in Ireland and on the mainland than any other group. However noble their cause may have been, the open support of them still, well... fills me with despair.

[Niamh.]

Of course it was the lowest point as far as a British person is concerned. Clearly British deaths mean so much more than Irish deaths

[Livia]

Of course it was the lowest point as far as a British person is concerned. Clearly British deaths mean so much more than Irish deaths

Oh Niamh, please... It was a low point. There were so many low points.

I don't support any of the deaths that happened in the Troubles because I don't support terrorism, but the IRA killed so many more than the security forces and Loyalists. And yet you support them every time there's a discussion. Don't you feel anything for anyone the IRA murdered?

[Niamh.]

Oh Niamh, please... It was a low point. There were so many low points.

I don't support any of the deaths that happened in the Troubles because I don't support terrorism, but the IRA killed so many more than the security forces and Loyalists. And yet you support them every time there's a discussion. Don't you feel anything for anyone the IRA murdered?

I support the IRA? This thread is about innocent people murdered by the British Army and yet again it's turned into "the IRA did this so innocent Irish people shouldn't be vindicated" The people murdered here weren't IRA members but YET AGAIN, the fact the IRA existed is being used to justify their deaths

[Livia]

I support the IRA? This thread is about innocent people murdered by the British Army and yet again it's turned into "the IRA did this so innocent Irish people shouldn't be vindicated" The people murdered here weren't IRA members but YET AGAIN, the fact the IRA existed is being used to justify their deaths

Inevitably the discussion turns to the IRA because of the sheer volume of people they murdered. And the fact that Soldiers are being dragged into court decades later, while the IRA terrorists were given an amnesty.

Maybe you don't" support" the IRA but every time there's a discussion on here you certainly sound as though you do, especially when the two young men dragged from their car is mentioned, you seem outraged that people bring it up and last time it was mentioned your initial response was "not hearing much sympathy for the Irish people"... which just isn't true. It's not that black and white.

If we're ever going to move on from the Troubles, my own opinion is that Sinn Fein need to take up their seats in Stormont and everyone involved in violence during the Troubles needs to be tried.... or pardoned. It has to be seen to be equal.

[Niamh.]

Inevitably the discussion turns to the IRA because of the sheer volume of people they murdered. And the fact that Soldiers are being dragged into court decades later, while the IRA terrorists were given an amnesty.

Maybe you don't" support" the IRA but every time there's a discussion on here you certainly sound as though you do, especially when the two young men dragged from their car is mentioned, you seem outraged that people bring it up and last time it was mentioned your initial response was "not hearing much sympathy for the Irish people"... which just isn't true. It's not that black and white.

If we're ever going to move on from the Troubles, my own opinion is that Sinn Fein need to take up their seats in Stormont and everyone involved in violence during the Troubles needs to be tried.... or pardoned. It has to be seen to be equal.

The IRA were a terrorist group, the British Army were not therefore do you not think they should be held to a higher standard of behaviour? It's like saying that police shouldn't have to face charges for a crime because criminals exist. Odd logic.

[Livia]

The IRA were a terrorist group, the British Army were not therefore do you not think they should be held to a higher standard of behaviour? It's like saying that police shouldn't have to face charges for a crime because criminals exist. Odd logic.

That analogy really doesn't work.

The British army was acting under orders. The people who gave those orders should be up there, not the squaddies.

The odd logic is that, the Army needs to be prosecuted and the terrorists don't.

[Niamh.]

That analogy really doesn't work.

The British army was acting under orders. The people who gave those orders should be up there, not the squaddies.

The odd logic is that, the Army needs to be prosecuted and the terrorists don't.

Yes it does very much. Nice for the Army to hide behind the "just following orders" line though. I'm sure that's a great comfort for the families of those they murdered

[Beso]

did i have a post deleted in here or did i forget to post it?

[Twosugars]

The IRA were a terrorist group, the British Army were not therefore do you not think they should be held to a higher standard of behaviour? It's like saying that police shouldn't have to face charges for a crime because criminals exist. Odd logic.

A good point well made.

[MTVN]

My first thought was that it wasn't right that soldiers were still being hounded when everyone else involved in killings in Northern Ireland had been let off the hook. I read this really powerful article by Douglas Murray though which has largely changed my view:

It is more than 15 years since the Bloody Sunday soldiers last appeared in public. For months I sat in the room with them to watch their evidence at Lord Saville’s inquiry. And while Lionel Shriver is*right*that the sight of terrorists benefiting from an immunity denied to our soldiers is grotesque, there are competing qualms. Not only because British soldiers should be held to a higher standard than terrorists. But because, having watched all of the Bloody Sunday shooters testify, I can say with certainty that they include not only unapologetic killers, but unrelenting liars.

As one soldier after another appeared before Lord Saville, it became clear that the soldiers of 1 Para were intent on spurning this last effort to get to the truth of what happened that day. Almost without exception they stonewalled, sticking to the testimony they had given in 1972, repeating claims that had been repeatedly disproven and, when in difficulty, pleading forgetfulness. Not a plausible forgetfulness, but a highly selective, implausible type. Their evidence was evasive, frustrating and self-damning.

The Saville inquiry had promised immunity from further legal action to all witnesses who told the truth about their actions on the day. In that quiet inquiry room, one and a half decades ago, the soldiers of 1 Para might have come clean and admitted what they had done before sinking back into anonymity and retirement. Instead they stuck to their lies.

For example, on the day itself, four soldiers — E, F, G and H — moved as a brick into one of the more concealed areas of the Bogside. By their own evidence they were responsible for at least half of the deaths that day. By the time of the Saville inquiry, soldiers E and G were dead, but F and H were not, were called and clearly reluctantly appeared. H was the soldier who had fired the most number of shots that day, including 19 he said he fired at a single window that did not shatter. But it was soldier F — who fired 13 rounds on the day — whose performance in 1972 and 2003 was most disturbing. It always seemed to me that if anyone was deserving of prosecution, then it was him.

F started lying from the moment the shooting stopped. Like every other soldier who had fired, F was immediately asked to give the Royal Military Police (RMP) his justification for, and direction of, each shot. So in the early hours of 31 January 1972 F pointed on a map to a number of positions where he claimed to have fired at gunmen and nail-bombers. At no stage did he admit to firing at the rubble barricade where Michael Kelly had fallen, shot side-on in the abdomen. Yet while F was speaking to the RMP, at the nearby hospital a 7.62mm calibre bullet was being dug out of the spine of Michael Kelly’s body.

In the weeks that followed the rifles of the soldiers who had fired were sent to a Belfast laboratory for testing. Realising that unmentioned shots would be traced to his gun, F chose to radically alter his story.

So at Lord Widgery’s inquiry, several weeks after the day, F decided to recall firing at a ‘bomber’ at the rubble barricade. There was no bomber at the barricade. But the bullet that had lodged in Kelly’s body was indeed shown to have come from F’s rifle. And so at that earliest stage of the search for the truth, F’s first lie — and first murder — was exposed. And nothing happened. F stayed in the army and periodically received promotion.

Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.

Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.

Unusually, F’s first name is in the public domain. It is ‘Dave’. It is public because a number of witnesses heard it shouted. One wounded civilian lying on the ground heard the brick of four soldiers calling to each other. ‘I’ve got another one’ shouted one. And then, ‘We’re pulling out, Dave.’

In 1972 Dave — F — committed perjury in front of Lord Chief Justice Widgery. He perjured himself again before Lord Saville in 2003. Perhaps on that disastrous day in 1972 he thought he was teaching the citizens of Londonderry some kind of lesson. Or perhaps — under what he presumed to be suitable cover — he just seized an opportunity to kill with impunity on British streets. It is true that few people are comfortable with retired soldiers being prosecuted. But if soldier F did indeed presume he could get away with murder that day, who is comfortable with that presumption proving right?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-case-for-prosecuting-bloody-sunday-soldier-f/amp/

[Cherie]

My first thought was that it wasn't right that soldiers were still being hounded when everyone else involved in killings in Northern Ireland had been let off the hook. I read this really powerful article by Douglas Murray though which has largely changed my view:

Sure makes uncomfortable reading, when a man waving a white hanky trying to help an injured man is shot through the head by a peacekeeper