Dennis Hutchings is a British Army veteran with a chestful of medals. He’s very angry about the fact that he and other veterans from the conflict in our North-East Nest (NEN) are facing the prospect of being charged for killings they were involved with during the Troubles. The way Dennis sees it, several Tory MPs, the British SoS for Northern Ireland, the British Prime Minister Theresa May and “the vast majority of people in the UK” support his stand, that this charging of old soldiers should stop. Mr Hutchings is charged with the attempted murder of a suspected IRA man who was killed in 1974 but later was found to be innocent.
The complaint of the British army veterans – some 1,000 of whom marched on Westminster recently- is that there is disproportionate attention being paid to British army killings, which form they say just 10% of the violent deaths here during the Troubles. The DUP is reported as saying that 90% of legacy cases being investigated by the PSNI are directed at British Army veterans.
The PSNI denies that. It has released figures showing that just 30% of its cases concern former members of the British Army.
As in all matters, statistics can be slippery little animals. The PSNI legacy unit presumably knows how many cases it’s investigating, and it says 30% of those being investigated are British Army cases. Theresa May, our dear SoS and Tory MPs appear to be saying that only 10% of killings involved the British army, so only 10% should be investigated by the PSNI.
One factor that hasn’t been considered is the matter of collusion. In some 120 cases, according to Ann Cadwallader in her book Lethal Allies, the security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries to kill innocent Catholics. Her book by no means exhausts the cases where such claims are made. So the 10% could grow considerably if we count in those British Army people who worked hand in glove with unionist paramilitaries.
However, none of that is central to the case. What is central is whether the charges made against British Army veteran are valid. Because if the police come to my door and charge me with robbing a bank, there’s little point in my claiming that they should be investigating a street half a mile away, which is full of bank robbers. That’s irrelevant: the question is and must remain, did I rob a bank or not. Ditto with the British army. The question is not whether enough resources are being directed to investigate paramilitary killings; the question is, did these veterans of the British army unlawfully kill people while they were here?
Two other quick points.
Many of the British army veterans, along with the likes of Tom Elliott , directly or indirectly claim that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Barra McGrory, is biased, since he defended many IRA cases in the past. As Michael Finucane has pointed out, the conflation of lawyers with the clients they defend is highly dangerous. He should know, given what happened to his father Pat, after claims in the House of Commons by Douglas Hogg. Besides being dangerous, such conflation is supremely stupid. Are these accusers of McGrory saying that a lawyer should defend only those who are not guilty? Who then would defend those believed to be guilty? Because the law is intended to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, only when their actions have been proven illegal. In other words, you’re innocent until proved guilty, and you’re entitled to the best legal representatives available. Barra McGrory made himself available and represented those involved in the conflict from all sides, not just republicans.
Final point. The British army veterans are outraged that “we who gave so much” serving in Northern Ireland should be betrayed by the authorities bringing cases against them. Sorry, guys. The fact that you came over here with guns and dressed in British army uniform didn’t entitle you to kill or arrange illegal killings. We paid you to protect us, not to slaughter us.
Poor little British snowflakes do protest too much. I don’t know what they have to fear from British investigations, after all they did no wrong and were the good guys? And sure if they perchance are charged with a crime, say murder, they can always find solace in a PTSD defence baloney or indeed the ‘I found God’ mitigation that their colleagues in the pseudo unionist terror gangs often used.
Maybe they are more angry at their superiors who promised them that their crimes would never be exposed?
Peculiar all the same, Esteemed Blogmeister, how the mindset of the Consentia south of the Black Sow’s Dyke on this topic of the B.A. (Free Pass) parallels that of the mindset east of the Black Sow’s Dyke.
Or maybe not that peculiar considering the Top Billing the Toppers of the Terrorists received during the Sell-out Celebrations of the Risible Easter Rising on Liffeyside last year.
TESS of d’UBER-VILLAINS
Who so is best then to land this title grand?
Tess May or Tess MAI, for this broad brand?
MAI is the nacky
Ack for the tacky
‘Republic ‘ of Monoglot, Anglophone Ireland
Well you ‘ve hit every nail on the head here Jude. The truth is sometimes hard to take.The politicians will always wash their hands after giving the orders and will cherry -pick to suit their own agenda and keep their own voters sweet.None of those UK politicians have any voters over here so they will not worry too much about public opinion here. The soldiers were their hired hands doing a job” over here”… (in aplace that was somehere that most of them had never otherwisew ever visited)To most of them it was a “foreign” place away from home and they were being paid by the Government for the task, just as if it was Aden. They were young men , of course and some may have been raw and volatile, but those are the people that their government sent. If some of them acted beyond their remit and became criminals or acted in a criminal, reckless or murderous way, they should have been treated just as anyone else would be. They didn’t come over here to build houses, after all. They came supposedly to maintain the peace and apparently look after the public in a lawful way. They wouldn’t have been sent to do this if the British government had thought that the RUC were able or capable for the task. If they went on to kill their own fellow citizens there has to be a case.
So if they made mistakes, where does the fault lie? If they are not all “fit for purpose “and some screw up ,as some are bound to do at some time, they would still have to be treated as anyone would be within the law. There should be no question about any of that .Everyone simply can’t be innocent and some are plainly not.There have to have been some screw-ups joining the army and and being loosed on the streets and these are the ones that need to be investigated and not simply covered up.
There are plenty of cases where horrible murders were committed by all sides in the conflict but they will probably never all be investigated in our lifetimes so the only possible conclusion is to promote some kind of “truth commission” where there will be no one prosecuted but information will be in the public domain .It will have to be enough to simply know the details of the deaths ,if we are to leave it behind us and move away from conflict.That means that all sides need to accept some hard truths and the British government will need to be part of that otherwise the IRA, the Loyalists , The UDR, and the RUC will have no reason to open up either.Some may never tell their story in any case.As we already know , many have died already and have taken their stories with them.
paddy
I see no prospect of a truth commission in the near future do you?
There is no real desire for it, in my view, from any of the participants.
I agree with the thrust of Jude’s argument.These cases need to be investigated,regardless of who the alleged perpetrator is.
Unfortunately truth and justice will become ever more difficult to attain for victims as the years go by.
The death of Martin McGuinness reminds us that many of the active participants who knew the truth will take their secrets to the grave.
I agree gio. There will be no “truth commission” because the British Government will not move on something like that.The game being played is kicking that can down the road until a whole generation dies away and then it will not matter by then anyway..By the same token I don’t think that we’ll be going back into local government anytime soon either if that is one of the things that Sinn Fein would like to see happening . They are in no real hurry on that score in any case and have little to lose by walking away..Truth and justice are one thing(or two things, even!) but what a lot of people seem to really want is not simple truth and justice, anyway.What some want is simple revenge. because there is still hatred around and it is the hatred that hasn’t been dealt with in the past ten years and more.There is still a lot of pre-Christian, eye -for– an eye need for revenge out there. As you say , the Martin McGuinness story will be told by others other than himself with all the colour and tricks of memory that will be entailed. Part of it might be true , but not all. As far as some seem to think, Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams are some kind of masterminds who had their fingertips on every little event that happened between 1960 to the present and that simply isn’t true.
No desire for it?
Republicans have called for it time and again and have said they’d participate if others will.
Unfortunately others parties won’t tell the truth of their involvement.
I wonder why that is?
Surely another point is that a lot of killings by Republicans no longer need investigation as the alleged perpetrators have already been vigorously pursued by the RUC, , apprehended prosecutedfound guilty and sentenced by non-jury courts. Even in the rare cases where the RUC pursued cases of Army killings the number who actually served sentences was miniscule.
Does the phrase ‘unjustified and unjustifiable’ in relation to killings by agents of the British state not mean anything at all?
Those terms ‘unjustified and unjustifiable’ might mean nothing at all to you if you happen to be a unionist who sees everyone other than himself …especially if that person opposes him. politically ..as some kind of “terrorist”.As far as they are concerned , they are the good guys and everyone else doesn’t really count. That holds even truer if you happen to be a Tory Little englander who views the “paddies over there ” simply as a foreign species.
The Provos shot my da. The Britishers shot my son. What more does either side need to know? How can a more detailed account help or change anything?
For once I agree fiosrach. A line needs to be drawn under the whole thing. Amnesty for pre 1998 troubles related crimes and an end to all troubles related inquiries. Not pleasant or fair for the families of victims, but we already gave up on justice when we released the paramilitaries in the GFA.
Maybe that’s the only way to get beyond this issue.
Scott that’s all good in a black and white world however the troubles was far from black and white. I would suggest the IRA has admitted and acknowledged that they killed people. However, and you may not like this concept, there are families of unionist violence who have reason to believe the British state secretly allowed or even encouraged the targeting of their loved ones. If that is the case I would suggest most relatives of these victims would like to know how far up the ‘chain of command’ this went? It’s all too simple to tell a family your mum/dad etc was ‘the victim of a random sectarian attack’ when evidence points to something more sinister, don’t you think?
By drawing a line under it is what the British state would like as it would cleanse their hands of culpability. There’s no other reason why they would wish for that line to be drawn? It would then allow them to keep up the present day narrative which is IRA bad, unionist also bad but they were only responding to the IRA and British official forces good. Nice and simple isn’t it?
Likewise, Scott.
Unpalatable as it is, I don’t expect justice from any of this whatever the outcome.
I’d say we gave up on justice when we had the Widgery Report…
Pity others had to die while we kept fighting for it, then.
No one really had to die, did they, Dr. Collins?
fiosrach
Do you not think the families of victims from whatever side deserve to know what happened?
If you had lost someone (maybe you did I don’t know) would you not want to know how it happened and who did it at the very least?
Of course they deserve to know gio, but that is not what is ever gong to happen.Until that happens there’ll be rumour and nothing else The British government are very much against the idea of making everything public knowledge, anyway and nothing happens unless they change their minds. I think that Sinn fein wanted some kind of truth and reconciliation thing but that hunges on an open process.
paddy
Certainly the British government have plenty they want to keep quiet, but I feel you are going a bit easy on SF there.
What sort of truth would we get from them do you think, given that they were hardly keeping records,many are now dead, and those who break ranks to speak out are routinely dismissed as drunks liars or anti peace process.
What credibility would Gerry Adams have if he were to announce that he had been in the IRA all along?
Only when he is well retired is there any chance of that happening.
gio
I’m afraid I’m of the opinion that we’ll never get the truth. People might well deserve to know, but people won’t ever know, and anyway, why would they believe what they were told?
Unfortunately this is no longer about truth i.e actual, factual truth – it’s about winning the battle for history – and I wouldn’t rush to feed that monster.
PF
I agree.
The battle for history has been under way for some time, each side accusing the other of revisionism.
‘ O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us! ‘
Apart from the revelations that show the British state to be completely rotten and the faint hope that it might speed their departure, I personally see no advantage in further information coming to light. I might discover that my relation may have been shot by a neighbour who I thought to be a decent fellow. I know some people want to know every jot and tittle but I don’t. My lAck.of love for the British state can grow no more.
fiosrach
And you would rather go on thinking he was a decent fellow?
I would say you would be in the minority.
He might have been in the UDR or RUC and just fell into bad company. Y’know along with the rotten apples.
The perception is that a hierarchy of victims has been created with several victims names known widely, (Jean Mc Conville, Shankill bomb victims, Kingsmill, Le Mon, etc.) Most of these victims are high profile due to the belief that their deaths were carried out by the IRA. Apart from Pat Finucane, whose family have pursued justice for many years, how many names are out there murdered by security forces, loyalists, UDR or the RUC.
Most victims from all sides are forgotten by all except those who loved them. Some families have allowed their loved one’s name to be used for cheap political point scoring.
We saw with the death of MMcG’s the vitriol thrown at his memory, whereas when Ian Paisley died, I don’t remember such an avalanche of hatred and bile. Yes, some victims seem to be more important that others and at the bottom of the pile is nationalists murdered by security & Loyalists. I lost 3 family members, all young, and I do not expect justice in my lifetime, sadly.
Such unbelievable arrogance by these Brit soldiers, who we were told over the years, were the bravest of the brave, keeping the peace in the north of Ireland!
They were given guns, trained to kill, and they came here, and murdered people by the hundred – and now these ‘brave men’, when the possibility of their murdering careers may be investigated, are squealing that they, because they were in uniform, were entitled to murder, with no possibility of any consequence.
I hate quoting Maggie Thatcher, but ‘Murder is murder is murder’, and nobody should be above the law, even though they have been for 40 years!
Do the crime then do the time.
Simples.
Fair enough, Am G, but those that did, didn’t, if you see what I mean – the Belfast Agreement saw to that (and it was democratic), so I don’t see what is to be gained now.
The arrogance of yer man this morning dismissing uncomfortable facts as ‘propaganda’.
The British have a fetish for their military. There is no point trying to argue logically with them.
“Fair enough, Am G, but those that did, didn’t, if you see what I mean – the Belfast Agreement saw to that (and it was democratic), so I don’t see what is to be gained now.”
You know exactly what ‘is to be gained’ or rather what some have to lose. You are not that daft. Drawing a line under it suits the British state big time in the battle for ‘hearts and minds’. Btw, do I detect a bit of animosity from yourself regarding the release of prisoners under the GFA? Would you have been resentful if there were a few hundred British army terrorists prisoners that happened to avail of that scheme? And before you reply with that forked tongue and utter words ‘all those who committed ‘crimes’ should face the courts blah blah blah’ then practice what you preach and demand the British state face up to the allegations levelled against it? Seeing as you are a balanced and fair individual and all that of course.*eyes rolled*