News4 mins ago
Here We Go Again
BBC News,
2 Ex Paras to be prosecuted over a shooting in Belfast in the 70's
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Baldric. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The so called 'Comfort Letters' were not a guarantee to stay out of jail. They were sent to suspects who we had very little prospect of convicting. But they categorically stated that the intention not to persue the 'on the runs' was only valid 'unless new evidence emerges'. The letters only came to the public's notice when IRA suspects were subsequently being investigated and they were miffed.
In the case of the two soldiers, they have not been prosecured for 46 years, but new evidence has apparently come to light in the rececent Commision investigation.
In the case of the two soldiers, they have not been prosecured for 46 years, but new evidence has apparently come to light in the rececent Commision investigation.
-- answer removed --
andy-hughes, ' no doubt all that is suitable for public consumption will be advised in due course.'
Yes, of course I understand that might happen but I'm intrigued as to how in 1972 there wasn't enough evidence to charge one person, yet somehow, sufficient evidence has now come to light that the prosecution service feel they can now indict two people.
Yes, of course I understand that might happen but I'm intrigued as to how in 1972 there wasn't enough evidence to charge one person, yet somehow, sufficient evidence has now come to light that the prosecution service feel they can now indict two people.
vulcan42
// I'm intrigued as to how in 1972 there wasn't enough evidence to charge one person, yet somehow, sufficient evidence has now come to light //
Perhaps the original RUC investigation does not stack up with hindsight. The RUC were seeing its members murdered by the IRA, so they would unlikely to be independent and objective in investigating the killing of an IRA leader.
// I'm intrigued as to how in 1972 there wasn't enough evidence to charge one person, yet somehow, sufficient evidence has now come to light //
Perhaps the original RUC investigation does not stack up with hindsight. The RUC were seeing its members murdered by the IRA, so they would unlikely to be independent and objective in investigating the killing of an IRA leader.
Tora,
Martin McGuinness has boasted many times of firing a gun at British troops on bloody sunday.
Only problem is, the Brtish had McGinness under constant surveillance diring he incident, and the Army's own report cleared him of firing shots. The evidence of Martin Ingram to the Saville Enquiry shows that whatever McGuinness has said in the past, hat he was lying.
http:// www.iri shtimes .com/ne ws/mcgu innesss -did-no t-shoot -on-blo ody-sun day-sol dier-sa ys-1.47 0917
Martin McGuinness has boasted many times of firing a gun at British troops on bloody sunday.
Only problem is, the Brtish had McGinness under constant surveillance diring he incident, and the Army's own report cleared him of firing shots. The evidence of Martin Ingram to the Saville Enquiry shows that whatever McGuinness has said in the past, hat he was lying.
http://
//if they can prosecute Rolf for historic offences, I don't see why others should be given a free pass.//
that is because you dont understand the standard criteria for the CPS to bring a prosecution - 1972 it would have been the police I think
1. reasonable chance of success ( success is proving beyond reasonable dount)
2. it is in the public interest
and if the answer is yes to 1 and 2
they will prosecute
and no the army should not be given a free pass to shoot whom ever when they are deployed or else you get a situation like Aleppo
( both sides arresting and shooting men they dont like )
that is because you dont understand the standard criteria for the CPS to bring a prosecution - 1972 it would have been the police I think
1. reasonable chance of success ( success is proving beyond reasonable dount)
2. it is in the public interest
and if the answer is yes to 1 and 2
they will prosecute
and no the army should not be given a free pass to shoot whom ever when they are deployed or else you get a situation like Aleppo
( both sides arresting and shooting men they dont like )