The Bloody Sunday inquiry: was it worth it?
Discussion
It appears the biggest winners out of all of this are the legal teams.Interesting read from today's Telegraph:
Telegraph said:
After 12 long years, and at a cost approaching £200 million, the Bloody Sunday inquiry into the killing of 14 civilians in Londonderry will tomorrow report its findings in a document 5,000 pages long. The shootings, by the British Army on January 30, 1972, happened during a civil rights march which had been banned: all marches in Northern Ireland had been forbidden in an attempt to lower the mounting tensions.
It is astonishing to think that when the tribunal, chaired by Lord Saville, began its work in 1998, David Cameron was not even in Parliament. Now, 38 years after the event itself, Bloody Sunday has come back to haunt another British prime minister.
To say that there is a lack of enthusiasm in Westminster for the report is an understatement. No politician has looked forward to it. When Peter Mandelson resigned as Northern Ireland Secretary, he wryly remarked that his one consolation was that he would not be at the Dispatch Box when the Bloody Sunday inquiry reported.
Tomorrow, Lord Saville is expected to unleash pressure for the prosecution of former soldiers for unlawful killing – just days after Mr Cameron told our troops in Afghanistan that the Army deserved a place of honour at the centre of British life. It is worth remembering that the same British Army lost more soldiers in Ireland between 1971 and 1975 than it has in Afghanistan in the last four years.
So how can this exercise possibly have taken so long and cost so much? Some argue that the Ministry of Defence was dragging its feet – and there was certainly a lack of enthusiasm for it among the top brass. One internal email said: "The Bloody Sunday inquiry are after records (if any) of what happened to the Bloody Sunday weaponse_SLps on Tuesday the Battle of Hastings inquiry will want to find the longbow which put Harold's
eye out!"
The biggest problem was that the forensic evidence relied upon by the original Widgery Tribunal, set up after the shootings, was discredited by the new inquiry.
Lord Saville's remit covered not just Bloody Sunday as a single episode, but each individual killing and wounding, of which there were 27. Every case had to be examined individually to establish whether the killing or wounding had been unlawful or in self-defence. This involved taking evidence from all the surviving eyewitnesses and re-examining a mountain of forensic data.
Arguably, none of this need ever have happened. The promise of a renewed inquiry was conceded by Tony Blair in order to secure a deal with Sinn Fein during the peace process in the late 1990s. But Martin McGuinness, the former IRA chief and now the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, subsequently told Jonathan Powell, who was Tony Blair's chief of staff, that a simple apology would have sufficed. After all, John Major, the previous Tory prime minister, had already formally accepted on the British government's behalf that those killed were innocent.
It is easy to treat the Saville Inquiry as an almost inexplicably pointless exercise, a mistake in judgment by a newly elected prime minister. But the decision to set it up was rooted in the politics of the peace process. It came just after the British and Irish governments had published proposals that appeared to tilt the negotiations for what would become the Good Friday Agreement away from Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein towards David Trimble and the Ulster Unionists.
The decision to go ahead with the inquiry gave Mr Adams some useful cover when he was facing fierce criticism from within the republican movement. And it did not hurt that some Labour politicians thought a new tribunal might produce embarrassing revelations about the Conservative government in power at the time.
The trouble, now, lies in the ignored question: what exactly does nationalist Ireland want by way of atonement for Bloody Sunday? Mr Adams has long held the view that "everybody knows it was a premeditated attack as part of the military/political strategy of the time". In fact, that is a more accurate description of the IRA's bombings in Belfast city centre on Bloody Friday (July 21, 1972) than it is of Bloody Sunday. But it is the context in which Lord Saville has been operating – and it helps to explain why the tribunal, which heard from more than 900 witnesses, has taken so long.
As the inquiry unfolded, it became clear that the evidence does not support a premeditated political strategy on the part of the British government. For instance, when, early in January 1972, the Cabinet discussed the security situation in Londonderry, Edward Heath concluded that a military operation to restore law and order might be inevitable – but should be undertaken only after a successful political initiative. This is not the tone of a prime minister contemplating a Bloody Sunday massacre within three weeks.
There is now an increasing acceptance on the nationalist side that Bloody Sunday was not a premeditated act. Eamonn McCann, the journalist and a leading figure in the civil rights movement in Derry at the time, has acknowledged that "there was no clear evidencee_SLps of a high-level plan for a lethal assault on Bloody Sunday". McCann said that he had long believed that Bloody Sunday had been designed to shore up the Unionist government at Stormont: "But I was wrong. No convincing evidence emerged at the hearings to sustain my view."
But that is far from being the end of the matter. If British politicians cannot be blamed, then will the Army get it in the neck? How else are we to explain the deaths of 14 innocent people?
The internal Army response to the original Widgery findings, which did not find soldiers guilty of wrongdoing, was concern that innocent people had died. But it is easy to forget the circumstances in which the troops operated – a province where fleet-footed young rioters petrol-bombed and racially abused exhausted soldiers. In the autumn of 1971, Army officers tried to negotiate a "softly, softly" policy with local leaders, but the rioting intensified and an already formidable IRA killing machine became more active.
It is speculated that Lord Saville will find that there was unlawful killing. Even Lord Widgery's inquiry acknowledged that there was undisciplined firing by soldiers. Will someone be called
to account for this? There will
be those in the nationalist community demanding the prosecution of politicians who defended the killings and of senior civil servants who were part of an alleged cover-up.
Only one thing is certain: it is impossible for Lord Saville to achieve total satisfaction. This is why he has been so meticulous in his work in order to produce a massively detailed and complex report, almost as a protective shield against the inevitable criticism he will face.
How, though, would it serve the public interest to prosecute former soldiers or politicians so long after the event – not least when so many paramilitary killers were given early release from prison as part of the Good Friday Agreement?
Lord Bew is professor of Irish Politics at Queen's University, Belfast, and was a historical adviser to the Saville Inquiry from 1998 to 2001
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/7825835/The-Bloody-Sunday-inquiry-was-it-worth-it.htmlIt is astonishing to think that when the tribunal, chaired by Lord Saville, began its work in 1998, David Cameron was not even in Parliament. Now, 38 years after the event itself, Bloody Sunday has come back to haunt another British prime minister.
To say that there is a lack of enthusiasm in Westminster for the report is an understatement. No politician has looked forward to it. When Peter Mandelson resigned as Northern Ireland Secretary, he wryly remarked that his one consolation was that he would not be at the Dispatch Box when the Bloody Sunday inquiry reported.
Tomorrow, Lord Saville is expected to unleash pressure for the prosecution of former soldiers for unlawful killing – just days after Mr Cameron told our troops in Afghanistan that the Army deserved a place of honour at the centre of British life. It is worth remembering that the same British Army lost more soldiers in Ireland between 1971 and 1975 than it has in Afghanistan in the last four years.
So how can this exercise possibly have taken so long and cost so much? Some argue that the Ministry of Defence was dragging its feet – and there was certainly a lack of enthusiasm for it among the top brass. One internal email said: "The Bloody Sunday inquiry are after records (if any) of what happened to the Bloody Sunday weaponse_SLps on Tuesday the Battle of Hastings inquiry will want to find the longbow which put Harold's
eye out!"
The biggest problem was that the forensic evidence relied upon by the original Widgery Tribunal, set up after the shootings, was discredited by the new inquiry.
Lord Saville's remit covered not just Bloody Sunday as a single episode, but each individual killing and wounding, of which there were 27. Every case had to be examined individually to establish whether the killing or wounding had been unlawful or in self-defence. This involved taking evidence from all the surviving eyewitnesses and re-examining a mountain of forensic data.
Arguably, none of this need ever have happened. The promise of a renewed inquiry was conceded by Tony Blair in order to secure a deal with Sinn Fein during the peace process in the late 1990s. But Martin McGuinness, the former IRA chief and now the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, subsequently told Jonathan Powell, who was Tony Blair's chief of staff, that a simple apology would have sufficed. After all, John Major, the previous Tory prime minister, had already formally accepted on the British government's behalf that those killed were innocent.
It is easy to treat the Saville Inquiry as an almost inexplicably pointless exercise, a mistake in judgment by a newly elected prime minister. But the decision to set it up was rooted in the politics of the peace process. It came just after the British and Irish governments had published proposals that appeared to tilt the negotiations for what would become the Good Friday Agreement away from Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein towards David Trimble and the Ulster Unionists.
The decision to go ahead with the inquiry gave Mr Adams some useful cover when he was facing fierce criticism from within the republican movement. And it did not hurt that some Labour politicians thought a new tribunal might produce embarrassing revelations about the Conservative government in power at the time.
The trouble, now, lies in the ignored question: what exactly does nationalist Ireland want by way of atonement for Bloody Sunday? Mr Adams has long held the view that "everybody knows it was a premeditated attack as part of the military/political strategy of the time". In fact, that is a more accurate description of the IRA's bombings in Belfast city centre on Bloody Friday (July 21, 1972) than it is of Bloody Sunday. But it is the context in which Lord Saville has been operating – and it helps to explain why the tribunal, which heard from more than 900 witnesses, has taken so long.
As the inquiry unfolded, it became clear that the evidence does not support a premeditated political strategy on the part of the British government. For instance, when, early in January 1972, the Cabinet discussed the security situation in Londonderry, Edward Heath concluded that a military operation to restore law and order might be inevitable – but should be undertaken only after a successful political initiative. This is not the tone of a prime minister contemplating a Bloody Sunday massacre within three weeks.
There is now an increasing acceptance on the nationalist side that Bloody Sunday was not a premeditated act. Eamonn McCann, the journalist and a leading figure in the civil rights movement in Derry at the time, has acknowledged that "there was no clear evidencee_SLps of a high-level plan for a lethal assault on Bloody Sunday". McCann said that he had long believed that Bloody Sunday had been designed to shore up the Unionist government at Stormont: "But I was wrong. No convincing evidence emerged at the hearings to sustain my view."
But that is far from being the end of the matter. If British politicians cannot be blamed, then will the Army get it in the neck? How else are we to explain the deaths of 14 innocent people?
The internal Army response to the original Widgery findings, which did not find soldiers guilty of wrongdoing, was concern that innocent people had died. But it is easy to forget the circumstances in which the troops operated – a province where fleet-footed young rioters petrol-bombed and racially abused exhausted soldiers. In the autumn of 1971, Army officers tried to negotiate a "softly, softly" policy with local leaders, but the rioting intensified and an already formidable IRA killing machine became more active.
It is speculated that Lord Saville will find that there was unlawful killing. Even Lord Widgery's inquiry acknowledged that there was undisciplined firing by soldiers. Will someone be called
to account for this? There will
be those in the nationalist community demanding the prosecution of politicians who defended the killings and of senior civil servants who were part of an alleged cover-up.
Only one thing is certain: it is impossible for Lord Saville to achieve total satisfaction. This is why he has been so meticulous in his work in order to produce a massively detailed and complex report, almost as a protective shield against the inevitable criticism he will face.
How, though, would it serve the public interest to prosecute former soldiers or politicians so long after the event – not least when so many paramilitary killers were given early release from prison as part of the Good Friday Agreement?
Lord Bew is professor of Irish Politics at Queen's University, Belfast, and was a historical adviser to the Saville Inquiry from 1998 to 2001
We should reopen the inquiry into the two Corporals murders.
Two Corporals aged 23 and 24 in a car happened across a funeral at Milltown were caught, beaten, tortured, impaled on metal railings then while the crowd were still gloating about one of them crying for his mum, they dumped them in the back of a taxi, took them to waste ground and shot them while they were completely helpless. Unfortunately I had the thing described to me by one of the police officers that dealt with it and the true details are far worse than what is described on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings
Be warned there is a picture there which will upset some who dont have a clue what the real world is like.
There were others involved, so maybe we should find out about everyone who assaulted the soldiers?
Whats the point the ones convicted of their murders were released in 1998 anyway.
Be a murdering terrorist scumbag and you get let out of jail and get pally with Mo Mowlem and her group of New Labour b
ds. Be a soldier and face prosecution and jail time 38 years afterwards.
The world is a fair place.
Two Corporals aged 23 and 24 in a car happened across a funeral at Milltown were caught, beaten, tortured, impaled on metal railings then while the crowd were still gloating about one of them crying for his mum, they dumped them in the back of a taxi, took them to waste ground and shot them while they were completely helpless. Unfortunately I had the thing described to me by one of the police officers that dealt with it and the true details are far worse than what is described on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings
Be warned there is a picture there which will upset some who dont have a clue what the real world is like.
There were others involved, so maybe we should find out about everyone who assaulted the soldiers?
Whats the point the ones convicted of their murders were released in 1998 anyway.
Be a murdering terrorist scumbag and you get let out of jail and get pally with Mo Mowlem and her group of New Labour b
ds. Be a soldier and face prosecution and jail time 38 years afterwards.The world is a fair place.
Edited by Mr Dave on Monday 14th June 22:16
It makes me sick the way these people in Ireland are saying it isn't political it's about human rights, what about the human rights of all the innocent people they killed?
It was fine for the IRA to kill people usually with cowardly bombs but as soon as someone from 'their side' gets killed they are bleating 'unfair'
Soldiers were prosecuted if they shot somebody but the IRA didn't hand their murderers in.
One rule for army, no rules for them.
It was fine for the IRA to kill people usually with cowardly bombs but as soon as someone from 'their side' gets killed they are bleating 'unfair'
Soldiers were prosecuted if they shot somebody but the IRA didn't hand their murderers in.
One rule for army, no rules for them.
They were just discussing this on newsnight...Seems it might have the potential to reignite trouble, but hopefully won't do.
Seems that it's all been a bit self indulgent by Lord Saville if you ask me. Seems likely that there are elements of truth to the accounts from both sides of the argument, and that there isn't a definitive truth or narrative to the events. I doubt anyone had a full picture on the ground on the day, painting one 38 years later based on fragmented memories from different sides with partisan views was never going to be possible,
Interestingly Patrick Mercer MP made reference in his closing summary on newsnight to the effect this would have on currently serving soldiers in 'Afghanistan and Pakistan', not sure if it's common knowledge, or at least publicly acknowledged that we have serving soldiers in Pakistan.
Seems that it's all been a bit self indulgent by Lord Saville if you ask me. Seems likely that there are elements of truth to the accounts from both sides of the argument, and that there isn't a definitive truth or narrative to the events. I doubt anyone had a full picture on the ground on the day, painting one 38 years later based on fragmented memories from different sides with partisan views was never going to be possible,
Interestingly Patrick Mercer MP made reference in his closing summary on newsnight to the effect this would have on currently serving soldiers in 'Afghanistan and Pakistan', not sure if it's common knowledge, or at least publicly acknowledged that we have serving soldiers in Pakistan.
Magog said:
They were just discussing this on newsnight...Seems it might have the potential to reignite trouble, but hopefully won't do.
Trouble has been brewing for a long while,the reality of the situation is that the economy had picked up and more jobs were to be had, and people who are satisfied dont fight.Now the economy is getting in a bad way attacks have been picking up and resentment building.
It just needs something small to start the ball rolling and good weather this summer will help more riots start (when rioting was bad it was always the years of good weather, not many can be bothered to go riot in the rain).
Then some nutters will shoot a prod, the prods will shoot some catholics and it will spiral out of control, the army will be called in as the PSNI are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard these days and the Republicans will go ballistic, cries of the Tories going back to Thatcher and undoing all the agreements.
Big difference these days is the money just isnt there, Americans and Libyans dont support the "cause" and the drugs money is too lucrative for some for it to be spent on guns and bombs .
End result, a lot of people to do with the Saville inquiry are very well off from it and the normal people who dont give a toss are the ones that get shafted.
No, HTH. There would have been more point in taking the £200m and blowing it on coke and hookers. All we have learned is that some young soldiers were tasked with crowd control(which they were ill-equipped or trained for), and the crowd didn't want to be controlled. There were shots fired and civilians died.
The terrorist harpy on Newsnight was ridiculous; how anyone can expect to get evidence beyond reasonable doubt that it was soldier X that shot victim A rather than soldier Y after 40 years is beyond me, then there is the palpable cant in requiring the hypothetically convicted squaddy to do time when all the convicted terrorists got free passes 'in the name of peace'. Are we allowed to bang them all up again if it kicks off, and can we expect a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing at some point?
The terrorist harpy on Newsnight was ridiculous; how anyone can expect to get evidence beyond reasonable doubt that it was soldier X that shot victim A rather than soldier Y after 40 years is beyond me, then there is the palpable cant in requiring the hypothetically convicted squaddy to do time when all the convicted terrorists got free passes 'in the name of peace'. Are we allowed to bang them all up again if it kicks off, and can we expect a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing at some point?
I would say if you had lost your loved one then you would think it is worth it.
But as above, I wished they spent as much if not more money in finding and bringing to justice those who killed British Troops (especially those two young guys who took a wrong turn and got beaten to death by a crowd - they were brave lads). Yet I wonder how many of them are now "political" persons..
But as above, I wished they spent as much if not more money in finding and bringing to justice those who killed British Troops (especially those two young guys who took a wrong turn and got beaten to death by a crowd - they were brave lads). Yet I wonder how many of them are now "political" persons..
Where to start with a thread like this ?
1.There is NO moral equivalence between terrorists killing innocent civillians and state security forces killing innocent civillians. To suggest that there is, is warped beyond belief.
2.Whether the nationalists in NI wanted this inquiry or not should be irrelevant to the mainland UK citizens, who should demand to know the reasons for British military killing innocent civilians whether that occured in NI or a tube station in London.
3.Clearly, if your loved-ones had been killed, you would want answers and justice and the exoneration of those who were said to be armed or throwing bombs, when they were in fact, completely innocent.
4.Obviously the costs spiralled out of control, and that was a mistake, but what price do you put on justice ?
5.Finally, as far as I'm concerned, the main question that I hope will be clarified by the report, is whether or not there was a direct or indirect order from the government, to go in shooting. I hope the answer is "no", but I'm not confident.
1.There is NO moral equivalence between terrorists killing innocent civillians and state security forces killing innocent civillians. To suggest that there is, is warped beyond belief.
2.Whether the nationalists in NI wanted this inquiry or not should be irrelevant to the mainland UK citizens, who should demand to know the reasons for British military killing innocent civilians whether that occured in NI or a tube station in London.
3.Clearly, if your loved-ones had been killed, you would want answers and justice and the exoneration of those who were said to be armed or throwing bombs, when they were in fact, completely innocent.
4.Obviously the costs spiralled out of control, and that was a mistake, but what price do you put on justice ?
5.Finally, as far as I'm concerned, the main question that I hope will be clarified by the report, is whether or not there was a direct or indirect order from the government, to go in shooting. I hope the answer is "no", but I'm not confident.
BOR said:
Where to start with a thread like this ?
1.There is NO moral equivalence between terrorists killing innocent civillians and state security forces killing innocent civillians. To suggest that there is, is warped beyond belief.
2.Whether the nationalists in NI wanted this inquiry or not should be irrelevant to the mainland UK citizens, who should demand to know the reasons for British military killing innocent civilians whether that occured in NI or a tube station in London.
3.Clearly, if your loved-ones had been killed, you would want answers and justice and the exoneration of those who were said to be armed or throwing bombs, when they were in fact, completely innocent.
4.Obviously the costs spiralled out of control, and that was a mistake, but what price do you put on justice ?
5.Finally, as far as I'm concerned, the main question that I hope will be clarified by the report, is whether or not there was a direct or indirect order from the government, to go in shooting. I hope the answer is "no", but I'm not confident.
Spot on. 1.There is NO moral equivalence between terrorists killing innocent civillians and state security forces killing innocent civillians. To suggest that there is, is warped beyond belief.
2.Whether the nationalists in NI wanted this inquiry or not should be irrelevant to the mainland UK citizens, who should demand to know the reasons for British military killing innocent civilians whether that occured in NI or a tube station in London.
3.Clearly, if your loved-ones had been killed, you would want answers and justice and the exoneration of those who were said to be armed or throwing bombs, when they were in fact, completely innocent.
4.Obviously the costs spiralled out of control, and that was a mistake, but what price do you put on justice ?
5.Finally, as far as I'm concerned, the main question that I hope will be clarified by the report, is whether or not there was a direct or indirect order from the government, to go in shooting. I hope the answer is "no", but I'm not confident.
The cost and time make this feel like a complete waste of effort. And the fact that the terrorists (on both sides, but esp the IRA) got away with many more murders makes it seem like the soldiers are being picked on.
But the soldiers where there for the state, and the state must better than terrorists and also held accountable for it's actions. So why it feels like this should have been left alone it had to be looked in to.
BOR said:
5.Finally, as far as I'm concerned, the main question that I hope will be clarified by the report, is whether or not there was a direct or indirect order from the government, to go in shooting. I hope the answer is "no", but I'm not confident.
I sincerely doubt there was any such order - even if there was, I doubt the inquiry would find or publish it.Someone once said something which, if you think about it, is extremely subtle "You don't throw stones at the Paras"
Tired young men, dehumanised and trained to kill, armed, in a very hostile and extremely stressful situation (for which they were not specifically trained, remember - urban riot control and counter terrorism) at risk of sniper fire, and moved into the area specifically for the operation.
Not the sort of people you throw anything at.
Whatever the actual cause, I'm amazed it didn't happen more frequently.
As for the State wanting this left alone; there's a fragile peace in NI, with a few splinter groups still active (we've had a couple of soldiers shot recently). Publishing this, especially if it's contentious, will not help anyone.
The powder keg of NI politics could see a dramatic escalation - and put the whole process back 15 years... all over an event that happened 40 years ago.
I can see why some people would want it left alone.
Edited by Dunk76 on Tuesday 15th June 09:06
Dunk76 said:
I sincerely doubt there was any such order - even if there was, I doubt the inquiry would find or publish it.
True enough in this case.BUT in respect of the Embassy action, a few people have stated that Mrs Thatcher herself informed the troopers that she thought it was in Britain's interests if none of the terrorists escaped alive. And I don't know how true it was, but there was a rumour that the one who got out and mixed with the captives was spotted, and a trooper was just dragging him away and drawing his pistol, when another trooper told him he was in full view of the world's press.................
Mr Dave said:
We should reopen the inquiry into the two Corporals murders.
Two Corporals aged 23 and 24 in a car happened across a funeral at Milltown were caught, beaten, tortured, impaled on metal railings then while the crowd were still gloating about one of them crying for his mum, they dumped them in the back of a taxi, took them to waste ground and shot them while they were completely helpless. Unfortunately I had the thing described to me by one of the police officers that dealt with it and the true details are far worse than what is described on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings
Be warned there is a picture there which will upset some who dont have a clue what the real world is like.
There were others involved, so maybe we should find out about everyone who assaulted the soldiers?
Whats the point the ones convicted of their murders were released in 1998 anyway.
Be a murdering terrorist scumbag and you get let out of jail and get pally with Mo Mowlem and her group of New Labour bds. Be a soldier and face prosecution and jail time 38 years afterwards.
The world is a fair place.
totaly agree its a totaly fTwo Corporals aged 23 and 24 in a car happened across a funeral at Milltown were caught, beaten, tortured, impaled on metal railings then while the crowd were still gloating about one of them crying for his mum, they dumped them in the back of a taxi, took them to waste ground and shot them while they were completely helpless. Unfortunately I had the thing described to me by one of the police officers that dealt with it and the true details are far worse than what is described on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings
Be warned there is a picture there which will upset some who dont have a clue what the real world is like.
There were others involved, so maybe we should find out about everyone who assaulted the soldiers?
Whats the point the ones convicted of their murders were released in 1998 anyway.
Be a murdering terrorist scumbag and you get let out of jail and get pally with Mo Mowlem and her group of New Labour b
ds. Be a soldier and face prosecution and jail time 38 years afterwards.The world is a fair place.
Edited by Mr Dave on Monday 14th June 22:16
ked up United kingdom , the 1998 agreement was a total waste of time , would happily slot the two Irish muther f
kerrs who killed those corporals you wouldnt get this s
te in Russia , those responsible would be still suffering in the Gulag !!Dunk, it's not quite that clear cut. There is evidence suggesting that this was a pre-planned attack on the orders of the government. The majority of this evidence is annectdotal or hearsay, so only has a limited amount of value. One known fact however, is that General Ford proposed a plan to shoot live rounds at rioters, and had a batch of rifles converted from 7,62mm to 0,22 to reduce their "lethallity". This was discussed at cabinet level, but not put into action, but illustrates the mentallity that existed at that time.
I think the inquiry will fall short of directly accusing the cabinet of ordering the attack, but I think there will be strong criticism of the political and military chain-of-command, for a lack of clarity or ambiguity in their instructions, leading certain of the paras to feel they had the backing to go in shooting.
Dunk76 said:
Someone once said something which, if you think about it, is extremely subtle "You don't throw stones at the Paras"
I completely agree your point, which begs the question "why was a parachute regiment inserted into NI to police a civil rights march, when the outcome was fairly predictable?"I think the inquiry will fall short of directly accusing the cabinet of ordering the attack, but I think there will be strong criticism of the political and military chain-of-command, for a lack of clarity or ambiguity in their instructions, leading certain of the paras to feel they had the backing to go in shooting.
BOR said:
There is evidence suggesting that this was a pre-planned attack on the orders of the government. The majority of this evidence is annectdotal or hearsay, so only has a limited amount of value.
Republican conspiracy theorizing does not evidence make. I'll take the point if the inquiry provides rock solid proof of this. But I'll also eat not only my hat but all of my clothes if that happens.BOR said:
One known fact however, is that General Ford proposed a plan to shoot live rounds at rioters, and had a batch of rifles converted from 7,62mm to 0,22 to reduce their "lethallity". This was discussed at cabinet level, but not put into action, but illustrates the mentallity that existed at that time.
All sorts of things were discussed. The mentality was that the UK was facing a situation it had never seen before. Similar situations in the days of Empire would have been dealt with using lethal force and little more would have been said about it. The presence and growing power of the media, as well as the Republican movement's skilful manipulation of them for propaganda purposes ruled that out. Most countries at the time used shotguns firing birdshot for riot control. The British didn't. Water cannon was found to be ineffective. Baton rounds (rubber bullets) were in their infancy then and not yet on general issue. Even then, when troops used baton guns instead of rifles the Republican movement complained and had a massive media/propaganda field day. BOR said:
Dunk76 said:
Someone once said something which, if you think about it, is extremely subtle "You don't throw stones at the Paras"
I completely agree your point, which begs the question "why was a parachute regiment inserted into NI to police a civil rights march, when the outcome was fairly predictable?"Having said all of that, Bloody Sunday was the third in a series of serious mistakes/miscalculations/f
k-ups on the part of the army in the first few years of the troubles (all seen with the comfortable benefit of hindsight) that contributed to making the situation much worse (the other two being "the Falls Curfew" in 1970 and Internment in 1971. The army actually opposed internment but had to carry it out). The Provisional IRA was hell bent on confronting the army and was going to do it anyway when it was ready, but these events made it easier for them to carry a measure of support, or at least passive acquiescence, from a large part of the nationalist community.loltolhurst said:
makes me fume to see martin im a terrorist mcguinness on the news going on about how they were innocent people there and should be this and that inquiry. how about we do an inquiry into what you did you terrorist fk.
Couldn't agree more, BOR (poster above) is asking about the cabinets involvement. In NI now there is a self proclaimed former IRA member (terrorist) in a significant positon of power. McGuiness should have been banged up years ago, along with Adams. They are both pure scum, pure evil. And all those who were convicted of terrorism should have never been released (early or otherwise).k.It's about f
king time the media in this nation got behind our military, instead of bleeting the usual liberal "why can't we all just get along" bks. Then maybe they'd have aclue how the real world works.No good can come from this, except to set us back 30 years.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff