Who’s furious about this?

According to the Mail, Corbyn saying that British soldiers aren’t above the law is infuriating.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6819199/Jeremy-Corbyn-says-British-soldiers-face-prosecution-Bloody-Sunday.html

The right wing media smears are ramping up.

He was a supporter of the IRA cause. So it's not really a surprise he holds this view.

One he's entitled too of course.

I’m more shocked at TROY reading the DM.

I thought it was beneath him!

It's certainly beneath me. When I wipe my arse.

May the Prime Minister and Corbyn the leader of HM opposition party - is it any wonder the country is currently in such a political mess?

boltonbonce wrote:It's certainly beneath me. When I wipe my arse.

Sluffy wrote:May the Prime Minister and Corbyn the leader of HM opposition party - is it any wonder the country is currently in such a political mess?

Personally, I don't believe that British or any other soldiers are above the law. In fact they're not as both British law and International law are making clear. Plus we have a long history of military war crimes. 
I'm quite sure that the Daily Mail was fully supportive of the War Crimes Commission when Saddam, those Serbian generals or the Nazis were brought to trial - less so when the British introduced concentration camps back in the Boer War, gas attacks in WW1 or more recently the Afghanistan and Iraq torture squads.
All about controlling the narrative isn't it?

The Germans initiated the use of gas in WWI.

xmiles wrote:The Germans initiated the use of gas in WWI.

Actually it was the French.

wanderlust wrote:

xmiles wrote:The Germans initiated the use of gas in WWI.

Actually it was the French.

Technically correct but it was tear gas and had no effect. Nobody thought the use of tear gas was a breach of the Hague Convention.

The Germans were the first to use large scale and lethal gas attacks. In April 1915 they fired more than 150 tons of lethal chlorine gas at French positions.

I was a soldier back in the late 80's, early 90's. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy and IF the army really opened fire without provocation then those soldiers SHOULD face a court for their actions no matter how much later in the day it is. However it's hard to say for sure what really happened on that awful day before the shooting started. I spoke to one guy who was actually there and he's adamant that the first shot did NOT come from the soldiers but from the crowd. However even he says the response was ill disciplined given the situation.

In defence of the army I would say this. In Northern Ireland at that time soldiers were being asked to function in what really should have been a police officers role but without the proper training for that. They were sent into an incredibly volatile situation unprepared and since a soldier is trained to eliminate threats not arrest them it's little wonder that something like this happened. Whether or not the government or RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) should share in the blame is something to consider but in all frankness the Army did for the most part a very good job in incredibly difficult circumstances. Those soldiers who broke the law were thankfully hugely outnumbered by the ones who didn't. As in most large organisations no one notices when the job's done right but all hell breaks loose when a mistake is made.

As has been said previously. If all the terrorists were cleared of their crimes, including murder, why have the soldiers, who were upholding the countries laws, not been given the same legal right. Also, many terrorists have been given 'comfort letters' freeing them of any charges, and this was given even though they were not included as part of the Dublin agreement.

It’s a difficult subject, but to your point Glos I feel quite strongly that British soldiers should be held to a higher standard than any terrorist.

It IS hard but the fact is soldiers are specifically trained to go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. I truly feel for them in this case since the noise of the crowd, the clear general hostility being displayed towards them and the fact the 'enemy' could be any one of the people who were there must have made it incredibly difficult for them but you simply can't open fire in such a situation unless you're under fire yourself. Also, you need to have clearly identified your target and have a clean shot. What appears to have happened here is a break down in discipline. Whether you agree or not such breakdowns cannot be permitted, there is no room for it in the field. In this case it resulted in a tragedy in which civilians were killed. The soldiers responsible for that must answer for their actions. Most of all the Commanding Officer at the scene needs to be held accountable for the actions of his men. How did they decide to open fire? Did he order it? If not how quickly was he able to regain control and stop the shooting? It may be more than forty years later but these questions need to be answered clearly and in a way that shows nothing is being covered up.