Inquiry results.
Right. Even more stuff about the inquiry.
I am sorry about this, by the way, my last three posts have been pretty much nothing but 'you know this one inquiry? Let's talk about that!' and it's all been quite serious and grim.
Unfortunately, there's probably more to come, but I will try to do a meme or something fun and lighthearted in the meantime for a break from the monotony and the grimdark, I promise.
Anyway, apologies aside, here are points from the results/David Cameron's speech. As I write this, he's currently taking questions.
- The inquiry has come to the conclusion that none of the casualties posed a threat of death or serious injury, the soldiers gave no warning, and the soldiers fired the first shots. Cameron says that the responsibility lies solely with the British army. All good.
- Martin McGuinness, current deputy first minister of Northern Ireland (and then second-in command of the IRA), was present and most likely armed with a sub-machinegun. However, the report apparently says that he did nothing to excuse the soldiers opening fire. Nevertheless, embarassing for McGuinness, but who really cares if he's embarassed? I sure don't.
- Some of the soldiers provided false accounts of what happened. Somehow, I managed not to leap out of my seat in shock.
- There is no evidence of premeditation or conspiracy. It actually surprises me that they even thought to mention this - I know there are conspiracy theories, but the idea that it was premeditated is and has always been absurd.
- Cameron honours the role played by the armed forces, commending them for bringing peace and noting that over the course of the troubles, over 1000 members of the security forces lost their lives. This kind of rubs me up the wrong way, just a little, largely because it's irrelevant to the incident at hand? But I recognise that a) he's right and b) he kind of had to say that.
- Cameron reprimands those who would defend what the British troops did, saying that you cannot defend the army by defending the indefensible. Completely agree with him there.
- On the matter of prosecution, Cameron implies that there is nothing in the report either way, and asserts that that is the role of the courts, not a tribunal. In response to Harriet Harman, acting leader of the Labour Party, he has neither dismissed nor confirmed the option of a blanket immunity for these soldiers, but has confirmed that soldiers who gave evidence will not be convicted using the evidence that they gave. I'd like it if he provided an answer either way, but it is completely fair, I believe, to not use evidence given by certain soldiers against them. Also, Cameron has noted that he's deliberately saying nothing so that he doesn't say anything which may prejudice a trial: Fair enough, then.
- In closing (and in response to Mark Durklan, former leader of the SDLP), Cameron acknowledges the grief of the families, notes that we must not forget the past but that we must move on, and that the Widgery report has been fully superseded. All these are, I think, good.
Tensions are seemingly quite high: There's been talk of Parachute Regiment's job being to "massacre enemies of the British state" (thank you, Tony Doherty), which is ridiculous, and of how "republicans never let go of things" if it can be used to attack the British (thank you, Belfast News Letter), which is similarly absurd. We'll see what happens with those. Overall though, Lord Saville did a good, if slightly longwinded job with the report, and David Cameron has managed his speech to the Commons remarkably well, in my opinion.
The report may be found here. At the end there is a sixty page summary, followed by a one and a half page summary of the summary. If you're so inclined to read, I strongly advise not trying to slog through the 4939.5 pages before that.
There will be a full day debate on the results of the inquiry in the autumn.
Once again, my apologies for clogging up your flists with this stuff. I think it's of interest, but even if it is, I've been posting a lot about it.
I am sorry about this, by the way, my last three posts have been pretty much nothing but 'you know this one inquiry? Let's talk about that!' and it's all been quite serious and grim.
Unfortunately, there's probably more to come, but I will try to do a meme or something fun and lighthearted in the meantime for a break from the monotony and the grimdark, I promise.
Anyway, apologies aside, here are points from the results/David Cameron's speech. As I write this, he's currently taking questions.
- The inquiry has come to the conclusion that none of the casualties posed a threat of death or serious injury, the soldiers gave no warning, and the soldiers fired the first shots. Cameron says that the responsibility lies solely with the British army. All good.
- Martin McGuinness, current deputy first minister of Northern Ireland (and then second-in command of the IRA), was present and most likely armed with a sub-machinegun. However, the report apparently says that he did nothing to excuse the soldiers opening fire. Nevertheless, embarassing for McGuinness, but who really cares if he's embarassed? I sure don't.
- Some of the soldiers provided false accounts of what happened. Somehow, I managed not to leap out of my seat in shock.
- There is no evidence of premeditation or conspiracy. It actually surprises me that they even thought to mention this - I know there are conspiracy theories, but the idea that it was premeditated is and has always been absurd.
- Cameron honours the role played by the armed forces, commending them for bringing peace and noting that over the course of the troubles, over 1000 members of the security forces lost their lives. This kind of rubs me up the wrong way, just a little, largely because it's irrelevant to the incident at hand? But I recognise that a) he's right and b) he kind of had to say that.
- Cameron reprimands those who would defend what the British troops did, saying that you cannot defend the army by defending the indefensible. Completely agree with him there.
- On the matter of prosecution, Cameron implies that there is nothing in the report either way, and asserts that that is the role of the courts, not a tribunal. In response to Harriet Harman, acting leader of the Labour Party, he has neither dismissed nor confirmed the option of a blanket immunity for these soldiers, but has confirmed that soldiers who gave evidence will not be convicted using the evidence that they gave. I'd like it if he provided an answer either way, but it is completely fair, I believe, to not use evidence given by certain soldiers against them. Also, Cameron has noted that he's deliberately saying nothing so that he doesn't say anything which may prejudice a trial: Fair enough, then.
- In closing (and in response to Mark Durklan, former leader of the SDLP), Cameron acknowledges the grief of the families, notes that we must not forget the past but that we must move on, and that the Widgery report has been fully superseded. All these are, I think, good.
Tensions are seemingly quite high: There's been talk of Parachute Regiment's job being to "massacre enemies of the British state" (thank you, Tony Doherty), which is ridiculous, and of how "republicans never let go of things" if it can be used to attack the British (thank you, Belfast News Letter), which is similarly absurd. We'll see what happens with those. Overall though, Lord Saville did a good, if slightly longwinded job with the report, and David Cameron has managed his speech to the Commons remarkably well, in my opinion.
The report may be found here. At the end there is a sixty page summary, followed by a one and a half page summary of the summary. If you're so inclined to read, I strongly advise not trying to slog through the 4939.5 pages before that.
There will be a full day debate on the results of the inquiry in the autumn.
Once again, my apologies for clogging up your flists with this stuff. I think it's of interest, but even if it is, I've been posting a lot about it.