Thankyou McGrath, I appreciate your explanation (honestly!).

But wasn't the fourteen-year-old 'child' (not quite a child really, more a young man, but I take your point) also firing a high-velocity weapon at the troops who had them surrounded? I might have that wrong but I'm sure I saw it reported that way at the time. If so, surely it kinda takes away the automatic assumption of innocence, and thus the automatic right to protection, that a child would normally be entitled to? Not altogether sure myself, but I lean slightly towards that conviction.

With regard to the possibility of a trial, it's unfortunately the case that, even if they were tried and found guilty, they wouldn't have suffered the fate they deserved. They'd just have been locked away in some high-tec,high-security nick somewhere, at an astronomical cost to the taxpayer (on top of the obscene amounts of money lavished on the removal of them and their father already). I agree there's a good feeling goes with proving their guilt, and we won't have that, but at least they're out of the way for good now.

And thanks for the 'Lad' - haven't been called that for years! Nice One!

Johnny