Bloody Sunday Victims found Innocent by Saville Inquiry

[Marko]

Its just broken that the Saville Inquiry has found all the victims of Bloody Sunday in 1972 to be innocent.

From the details so far it appears that soldiers went into the area as a result of an order from Parachute Regiment Colonel Derek Wilford which should not have been given and which was contrary to the orders that he had received from Brigadier Pat MacLellan, the soldier in charge of the Army's operation on Bloody Sunday.

It also found that there was no provocation for any of the shootings.

I was wondering what people thought here, particularly those who have served in the forces as to how much accountability those soldiers should have?

[Officer of Engineers]

Col Wilford will fall on his sword for this.

[bigross86]

The higher echelons and the staff should be punished somehow. If a clear order to open fire was given, whoever gave the order should be punished. The regular soldiers that actually did the shooting should not be punished. They were following what to them was a legal order in what was perceived as a life threatening environment (regardless of the fact that it wasn't). Before anyone makes a Nazi comparison, they were not planning to go and kill the protesters.

Besides, I'll bet the rank and file soldiers are already torn up inside over this.

[Tarek Morgen]

The higher echelons and the staff should be punished somehow. If a clear order to open fire was given, whoever gave the order should be punished. The regular soldiers that actually did the shooting should not be punished. They were following what to them was a legal order in what was perceived as a life threatening environment (regardless of the fact that it wasn't). Before anyone makes a Nazi comparison, they were not planning to go and kill the protesters.

Besides, I'll bet the rank and file soldiers are already torn up inside over this.

After what I've read at least one of the victims died after first being wounded (but not killed), lying face down on the ground and getting shot a second time from point black. If this discription was accurate at least this one killing does seem quite intentional and could not be justified by believing to be under attack by protesters.

[crooks]

It only confirms what anyone who was there has known for years - that it was a murderfest, without provocation or justification.

[FluffyThoughts]

It only confirms what anyone who was there has known for years - that it was a murderfest, without provocation or justification.

The Official IRA admit firing during the protest. Let's put it to bed.

[dave angel]

i think everybody knew that all those shot were unarmed - certainly in the mid 1990's the BG was saying that.

the issue was why it happened - and Saville said what most people had thought (but for £200m more), that the build-up to 1PARA's 'policing' of the demo (a reserve Bn from another Bde being used instead of 'local' troops, 1 Royal Anglians having a long-range contact on the city walls that morning, and OIRA gunfire directed at IPARA about 15 mins before Spt Coy started shooting) had suggested to Spt Coy 1PARA that there was going to be a serious fight, Lt Col Wilford making it up as he went along and in conflict with the Local Bde commander, frightening intemperate remarks by Commander Land Forces NI who happenned to be present, a complete breakdown of control within Spt Coy once they were ordered to round up the rioters, a complete failure by Spt Coys officers and SNCO's to find out what the hell their soldiers were firing at, and some soldiers completely leaving the boundaries of what the 'Yellow Card ROE' allowed.

effectively that the soldiers who opened fire could be broken into 3 catagories: soldiers who deliberately shot at persons knowing them to be completely outside the ROE and not caring (murder), soldiers who, seeing their colleagues shooting, assumed they must be shooting at 'legitimate' targets and who joined in (careless), and soldiers who fired within the rules of the yellow card (which allows for subjective decisions to be made about 'reasonable belief based on what the soldier believed at the time to be real'), but who, in the cold light of day, were proved to be incorrect in their beliefs (unfortunate).

[crooks]

The Official IRA admit firing during the protest. Let's put it to bed.

You'd certainly like that, being British.

Your boys fired into an unarmed crowd, which had no weapons, first.

Deal with that, then we'll put it to bed.

[astralis]

okay, now that both of you have had your say-- drop it, thanks. i want to pre-empt this from getting nasty.

[bigross86]

If I may insert my tuppence (as it were) even though I posted earlier:

I haven't read the whole report yet, and from the fractures of information that I've gathered about Bloody Sunday (and I probably do not know the whole story) the way I see it, the soldiers were doing a job they were not meant to be doing. Using Paras as riot control is a - asking them to perform a mission they've not been trained for, and b - bad for morale, especially since the Paras are considered a better than average unit.

Now that we've based the story on the fact that the soldiers were not suitable for the mission at hand, here's what I've managed to gather: The soldiers were performing riot control against a mob that had degraded to the point where soldiers were using water cannon, tear gas and rubber bullets against the protesters. A report that there was an IRA sniper operating in the area was received at HQ.

At about 4:00PM the Paras were given permission to shoot live ammo and go into the city itself. Someone somewhere gave the order to open fire. Now, the soldiers that did the shooting probably break into 2 groups: The first group were just following orders they perceived to be legal and rational at the time due to reports of the sniper. In the fog of war things have been known to happen, and I truly believe that blaming this group of soldiers has no merit, because if they are anything like the soldiers I know and served with, if they killed someone that retroactively was proved to be a mistake, they'd feel really bad about it and be eating themselves from the inside.

The second group of soldiers are soldiers that opened fire willingly, whether it be because they were fed up of doing riot control, because they enjoyed shooting, had a friend killed or any of a myriad of other reasons. I can't distinguish between the two groups since I don't have the info, but with any luck the Saville Inquiry does have that info. Any soldier in the second group should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Murder has no statute of limitations.

The difference as I see it between the two groups of soldiers is the difference between murder and manslaughter. The second group, even if not planned, killed those people willingly.

I'd like you guys to please correct me if the details I have are wrong. This subject actually interests me quite a lot because I spent a good deal of time in the same shoes as the Paras, being a Tankie that spent a lot of my service also doing riot control and the like.

[dave lukins]

This has taken 38 years to get to this stage. To now prosecute soldiers will take just as long. You would have to prove what weapon, and who's weapon, killed which person. Then you would have to disprove their original statements on why they opened fired in the first place and who gave the order. Was it the 'brick' Commander, the Troop Commander or the Section Commander? A nightmare for any Court.


I was in Long Kesh(The Maze prison)at the time and when I heard about it . I thought then that this doesn't sound good for the Army little realising that 38 yrs later it was still making headline news.

[dave angel]

Then you would have to disprove their original statements on why they opened fired in the first place and who gave the order. Was it the 'brick' Commander, the Troop Commander or the Section Commander?

nobody 'gave an order to fire', it was almost certainly one single soldier who started firing, on his own account - as the 'Yellow Card' not just allowed, but required - who was then joined by other soldiers either explicitly following his example, or who, upon hearing/seeing their colleagues firing assumed that they were being fired at.

the central plank of the law was that individual soldiers were accountable to the law for every round they fired, so the law required that the decision to fire, and what to fire at, was made by the soldier alone. every soldier who served in NI had it drummed into him everyday under exactly what conditions he could open fire, it was also explicitly stated that he could not be ordered to open fire by anyone, but that he could be ordered not to open fire or to cease firing.

the issue of prosecutions is going to be difficult - the Saville enquiry seems to have mixed messages about the evidence it recieved: the enquiry wasn't a 'truth and reconcilliation' job, and couldn't offer immunity from prosecution, however the Advocate General at the time the inquiry was set up stated that material submitted to the enquiry by an individual couldn't subsequently be used to prosecute that individual, and then you come to issue of a fair trial - after this report, and 38 years of politicing over the events of the day, would it be possible to find a jury that did not have preconceived views on the guilt or innocence of anyone put on trial? i think probably not, and i don't think any defence lawyer would have a problem convincing a Judge of that...

[Marko]

Well apparently the laywers representing the victims families said that they had 'no appetite' for prosecutions.

I guess you have to balance the desire to prosecute against the fact that there are republican and loyalist terrorists who have been released from prison.

Another issue is that the soldiers lied to both inquiries. And then Colonel Derek Wilford recieved a medal from the queen for his handling of the operation.

[Bigfella]

I would be VERY surpised to see any prosecutions aout of this. Those who are found to have done the wrong thing (on the day or subsequently) should be 'named & shamed' however. Attention should also be paid to Lord Widgery & his investigation. The blood on all their hands is much greater than what was shed that day.

[treasure44]

this is what happens when highly motivated airborne shock troopers are used in a peacekeeping role. trained to react aggressively and proactively to any threat, much more so than regular green army, what was expected to happen?

im not defending the killing of civilians, however, there are so many other factors present here its not possible to just go "para scum murdered civilians for no reason"