BS: British Army at it again

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 04:56 AM

Jim, there was a clear implication of threat in Martin's posts, and he deliberately posted Keith's real identity while concealing his own. You and I use our real names. What is Martin hiding?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 03:55 AM

Sorry Richard - are you going to ask the same question of everybody on this forum - or are you 'frit'?
He has said he does not support any dissident, our resident apologist for sectarian triumphalism had failed to produce a single shred of evidence to back his claim of a "bat-wielding" thug or a "bullying fascist" and he has (it goes without saying) failed to withdraw his accusations.
Why is it necessary to demand an identity?
I find myself in agreement with you on most things, but I find your views on Ireland to be more at home on the pages of 19th century 'Punch' - sorry about that.
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:58 PM

So, Martin, if "the ball is over the wall and the rest is history" are you going to come clean about who and where you are, or are you, in the word used by Margaret Thatcher (on whom be perpetual unrest) "frit".

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:56 PM

You are indeed correct in your analysis Mr.Bridge.

I do not support any of the so called dissident groups, I think their campaign is futile. I cannot be a hypocrite and condemn any young man who chooses to engage in an armed struggle, but I have and would advise against it.

I would also like to state, I have issues with Sinn Fein as a party, I feel many of their policy decisions lack wisdom. I also have personal issues with both Marty McGuinness and Gerry Adams as do many and hope to see them replaced.

I do have to hand it to the British government though, their policy of divide and conquer worked a treat. I see so many former comrades walk past each other in the street and very few former army men attend Sinn Fein organized gatherings.

Sinn Fein leadership didn't change, they were young men who got caught up in a war who were always of a political orientation,they were never army men.

Well, the ball is over the wall now and the rest is history.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:17 PM

I do not agree about the bombs Richard.
SDLP were confident they could have achieved the current agreements and more years ago.
They understood that nothing could be achieved until the violence stopped, and so it proved.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 11:41 AM

I would say that since "Martin" has disclosed Keith's name (and implied that he he knows where he lives, and he knows my name and everyone knows where I live, that "Martin" should disclose his full name and address. Shouldn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 11:37 AM

TBH, Keith, the IRA/PIRA bombs were not pointless. They won them the "war". The terrorism paid off.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 10:38 AM

"The IRA has apologised for all the non-combatants it has killed,"
Has anybody apologised for the atrocities carried out on either side (there were two sides to the conflict) - and does it make the slightest difference to the victims or their?
Cameron has just 'apologised' for the atrocities committed against the Kenyan people during the Mau Mau uprising - slaughter, torture, rape, castration,destruction of civilian property, destructo - does anybody seriously believe that wipes the slate clean - or is is just diplomatic lip-service?
Feckin' hypocritical gobbledegook
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 09:21 AM

In answer to Richard's question, no.
The IRA has apologised for all the non-combatants it has killed, but not for any of the operations that killed them.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 09:05 AM

I will allow others to read my post and make judgement of your fixation with Irish politics,
I do follow it with interest. Your objection?

your attempts flame others
if you mean point out the gaping flaws in your argument, yes.

and of your inability to answer questions pacifically directed at you.
Never knowingly. Which one have I missed?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:42 AM

Mr. Acheson, I will allow others to read my post and make judgement of your fixation with Irish politics,your attempts flame others and of your inability to answer questions pacifically directed at you.

Mr Bridge, no I did not oppose them at the time, as for apologizes, I am aware that talks took place in February and again in August between the Provisional leadership and the British government regarding this matter. I agree there is a need for this to be addressed, so it would be inappropriate for me to speak about it here as I am not involved in it.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:28 AM

"During the Troubles, the SDLP was the most popular Irish nationalist party in Northern Ireland, but since the Provisional IRA ceasefire in 1994 it has lost ground to the republican party Sinn Féin, which in 2001 became the more popular of the two parties for the first time. Established during the Troubles, a significant difference between the two parties was the SDLP's rejection of violence, in contrast to Sinn Féin's support for the Provisional IRA."

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:24 AM

You posts to such threads are controversial to say the least.

Not at all.
The views I expressed were those of the SDLP.
The majority of Nationalist voted SDLP until Sinn Fein disassociated itself from the violence.
My expressed views were much more in line with ordinary Nationalists than yours are.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:14 AM

you create thread after thread on the subject of Northern Irish politics.

Again, your intelligence is shite.
I started one thread when I was specifically requested to by Republican posters, and one about the Northern Bank job.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:12 AM

Did you oppose them at the time? Have the IRA or PIRA apologised for them?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:03 AM

I understand you are not part of it, yet you create thread after thread on the subject of Northern Irish politics. You posts to such threads are controversial to say the least.

Mr. Acheson, you have created a lot of disharmony here among members and guests alike. Posting derogatory comments simply to antagonize other people is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 07:49 AM

His support for the loyal orders and Loyalist paramilitary collusion is blatant.

I am not part of your mad sectarian divide.
I do not support either side and loathe all paramilitaries.
My step daughter worked in Manchester M&S, was slightly injured by the second Manchester bombing, witnessed terrible scenes including her friend, a young bride-to-be, whose face was shredded by flying glass from your evil, pointless device.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 07:29 AM

Keith Acheson, there was call for that remark, why would you think anyone would harm your stepdaughter ?

Mr. Carroll, Keith Acheson's cheap shot as a drama queen in the post above was to gain sympathy, it failed. Much as one would expect from a weekend warrior.

His lack of understanding of the persecution of the nationalist community in the North of Ireland stands as testimony. His support for the loyal orders and Loyalist paramilitary collusion is blatant.

I just put it down to a lack of knowledge. Keith Acheson keeps going back to an incident in England when a device detonated in a city centre. His adult television presenter stepdaughter was three mile away from it and he rants as if she was at the seat of the blast.

Mr. Bridge, yes I regret the London bombings, I also regret the loss of life on both sides of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:48 AM

I just wonder if there were any IRA or PIRA members or supporters who opposed for example the London bombings. Just saying.

As to the UK Marines, surely (if the facts are otherwise please say so) the original injuring of the combatant is not in dispute. The charges arise, do they not, out of whether they decided, once the combatant was helpless, to withhold appropriate treatment.   Is that not so.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:20 AM

you and the sectarian thugs you support

I am not part of your mad sectarian divide.
I do not support any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:02 AM

No - just evidence will do nicely, thank you.
I have no idea who 'Martin' is, any more than I know who Keith A of Hertford is - you both choose to disguise your identities.
I do have the advantage of knowing 'WHAT' you and the sectarian thugs you support are. If you have any evidence that 'Martin' is aa bat-weilding thug or a fasccist bully, please present it. I don't believe you will in a million years withdraw the accusation.
Finished!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:36 AM

You want our broken heads for your evidence Jim?
Jim Carrol, friend of the fascist bully.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:19 AM

You are not an administrator on this thread and I'm more than a little disappointed that the real administrators allow you to behave the way you are doing here.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ACCUSE ANYBODY OF BEING BASEBALL-BAT WEILDING THUGS WITHOUT EVIDENCE
At the very least you bring this forum into disrepute.
I'd have thought your family were more in danger of being attacked by the bomb throwing thugs who wee on the streets of Belfast not so long ago - tose who prompted the PSNI to say that if sectarian demonstrations were not brought under control somebody would end up dead.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/04/belfast-rioters-police-officers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:00 AM

Who do you think Martin is then Jim?
Do you think he might have any association with Republican paramilitaries?
He is not the British Guest Martin who likes folk music and who last posted in July.
What do you imagine brought this Martin to our forum, and if he does know who Terribus is, how did he find out?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:39 AM

"You don't have children Jim."
How the hell do you know whether I have children or not
Your spinelessly dishonest behaviour on this thread is as low as it gets even by your standard.
I suggest if you have any evidence that the Guest here is likely to come threatening your family with a baseball bat, you produce it, otherwise you withdraw your disgusting accusation - sorry, I forgot, you don't g there
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:24 AM

You don't have children Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:20 AM

"Stop feeding the troll, folks."
It would be more in keeping with the spirit of this forum if members were advised not to accuse guest posters of being baseball-wielding thugs without evidence.
This disgusting display of sectarian crocodile tears to avoid having to respond to valid points is about as low as it gets.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 05:11 PM

Stop feeding the troll, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 10:11 AM

I will back off now Martin.
I have a daughter at home, and I can not risk a visit from your boys with baseball bats and balaclavas.
Ia anyone still impressed by his "humanity"?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 08:48 AM

Keith, I know you like to refer to the Cain website. Please read this link to the Torture of civilians in the North of Ireland by the British army. The British government was later found GUILTY OF TORTURE in the European courts.

Interesting story
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/intern/docs/jmcg74b.htm

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 08:41 AM

So you know who I am Martin, and yes I do feel threatened.

The interrogation techniques used by Britain and many others including US were not previously recognised as torture, and were not used when they were so defined.

Your torture techniques have been recognised as torture since medieval times, and mutilation is just mutilation.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 07:52 AM

Bill Woodcock, your comments above say more about you than I ever could. Your lack of knowledge of the war in the North of Ireland is similar to that of Keith Acheson.

I understand you didn't serve as a Marine in the North, although you would like others to presume your attachment to the regiment held a combatants role when in fact it didn't. Keith, the Territorial army never served in any role in the North of Ireland.

I suggest both of you restrict your comments to that of a thread contributor and drop the persona of someone who served on the ground, just allow the likes of Dead Horse and myself to supply the first hand experiences.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 06:59 AM

"There was a young guy in his late teens came up North around 1972 or 3, from somewhere down south, can't recall where. He was very spirited, spoke of family involved in the struggle since the 1920's.

His girlfriend followed him against his expressed wished. They died instantly when the device they were transporting exploded, she wouldn't let him go alone. I recall a young soldier shot by a sniper in 1974, he was only a kid of 18. He called out what I presume were family members or a girlfriend to help him, medics couldn't get to him for what seemed ages. This is the cruelty many forget."

So this shows "humanity" does it Raedwulf?? Curious sort of "humanity" if it is

The first example the "young guy from down South" and his girlfriend went out to deliberately place an explosive device with the intent of taking life - I was delighted to hear that their device exploded prematurely and I hope that no innocent lives were lost.

The second (I presume "other side of the coin") example is the deliberate murder of an 18 year old who was on the streets of Northern Ireland specifically to stop people such as those mentioned in the first example from taking innocent lives with their bombs.

No comparison whatsoever.

Any news on Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes tapes?? As of the 6th July, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the government's position that the subpoena should not be quashed and that the tapes should be released to the PSNI.   What is on those tapes may yet see Gerry Adams collar felt for ordering the murder of Jean McConville.

Oh and Guest Martin no mention on your part of the PIRA deliberately shooting children in circumstances where they thought it could be blamed on the Security Forces, then, in once instance in particular, lying bare-faced to the Parents of the child they had killed.

Much talk about statistics and their accuracy - one thing sticks out though as a constant - The Republicans/Nationalists killed more Irish men women and chidren in the squalid period referred to as "The Troubles" than any other actor in the drama.

The Royal Marines in question are being held while an investigation is being carried out - nobody here knows the circumstances - so nobody here can accuse anybody of doing anything at the moment.


I will wait to see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 05:32 AM

Keith, I note you do not include any of the actions of the British army in the North of Ireland against the civilian population, such as torture which they were found guilty of in a European court, Bloody Sunday, killing of children by rubber and plastic bullets or collusion by the security forces working with loyalist paramilitary groups in your summary.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 04:37 AM

So you missed the compassion I expressed for poor Jean and her children.
No matter.
Martin's discussion was about war crimes not humanity, and my post was about hypocrisy.
I was reminded of Jean McConville when Martin wrote of hearing the dying words of a young sniper victim.
Her supposed crime was to show humanity to anothere such, or perhaps the same.

If those imprisoned Marines did commit a war crime, I join Martin in condemning and deploring it.
Will he condemn PIRA war crimes such as Jean's torture, mutilation, murder and dumped denied body?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 06:04 PM

Oh, for fuck's sake.

There was a young guy in his late teens came up North around 1972 or 3, from somewhere down south, can't recall where. He was very spirited, spoke of family involved in the struggle since the 1920's.

His girlfriend followed him against his expressed wished. They died instantly when the device they were transporting exploded, she wouldn't let him go alone. I recall a young soldier shot by a sniper in 1974, he was only a kid of 18. He called out what I presume were family members or a girlfriend to help him, medics couldn't get to him for what seemed ages. This is the cruelty many forget.

Maybe Martin is an out & out Provo. I don't know. But that one post, even if I ignore everything else, shows humanity. Maybe more than you've shown. I've said everything I had to say, including calling out Martin for reviving this, and calling you out for ignoring that, but I'll repeat this much:

If we gain anything by raking over old coals, then rake. But do we gain anything? Or would it be better to let the thread die?

Martin shows humanity; so does Dead Horse. What's your contribution? I don't give a fuck, I must be right, no matter what? I'm not saying I think that's what you're saying, but if someone told me that they thought you did, I'd have trouble arguing that they were wrong. Have a think about that!

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 05:13 PM

Martin, you restarted this thread to tell everyone what the Marines are accused of, in case it did not make "international" news.
PR you said, presumably for PIRA. You speak as if you were of them.

The Marines are accused of killing a prisoner.
That is not just against ROE, it is against the International Law of Armed Conflict.

Martin, did not PIRA murder prisoners, not just as an aberration, but as routine and standard procedure?
Hundreds?
More?
Did they not go further, and torture and mutilate them before murdering them?
Even including non-combatants, like poor Jean McConville, whose children were left to go into care never knowing what became of their mum, or the torture she endured before her death.
(Guardian. We also now know that she was interrogated and tortured after the abduction; she was beaten with such force that her bones cracked and her hands were mutilated.)

Tell us why that does not make you guilty of the worst hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: mayomick
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:06 AM

The existence of Rules of Engagement may be a bit hard to accept for lower rank squadies like Keith and Dead Horse – usually decent uneducated people who have had to physically face down the opposition to their presence on the streets of northern Ireland over the years . Hopefully yesterday's brief MoD statement regarding the marines' arrest should show the importance attached by the UK military's higher ranks to standards and to the armed forces' own Rules of Engagement .

"These arrests demonstrate the Department and the Armed Forces' determination to ensure UK personnel act in accordance with their Rules of Engagement and our standards."

The army's rules of engagement are worked out according to the political ends of whatever emergency the military is involved in dealing with . Dead Horse and Keith should try to appreciate the fact that any army operates as a bureaucracy, and, like all bureaucracies , functions as two separate parts of a greater whole : one part being involved with policy-making decisions , the other with implementing those policies. The two ends of a bureaucracy work independently of each other and are largely kept in the dark about how the other side carries out its assigned role. That's how bureaucracy works -the lower ranks have no imput into policy-making and the higher rank rarely has to get its hands dirty .

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 04:50 AM

In the earlier years soldiers sent to Northern Ireland had to take a pay cut, as they became inelligible for LOA (Living Overseas Allowance).
Then we got an increase due to the extra risks. I believe this was about 40 pence a day.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:41 AM

Do you never wish that the Omagh bomb had exploded on its way to the town Martin?
All those shoppers, the unborn twins, the visiting Spanish children.

Or, the Enniskillen bomb?
Bloody Friday, Warrington, Manchester,.....

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:10 AM

""Do we still HAVE an Army? I thought they were replacing it with Volunteers from the TA to save money?""

FYI, the Terriers are paid at exactly the same rate as regulars when on active service.

They all have day jobs for which they are paid in civvy street.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 09:08 AM

There was a young guy in his late teens came up North around 1972 or 3, from somewhere down south, can't recall where. He was very spirited, spoke of family involved in the struggle since the 1920's.

His girlfriend followed him against his expressed wished. They died instantly when the device they were transporting exploded, she wouldn't let him go alone. I recall a young soldier shot by a sniper in 1974, he was only a kid of 18. He called out what I presume were family members or a girlfriend to help him, medics couldn't get to him for what seemed ages. This is the cruelty many forget.

Sorry for the thrift, they just came to mind, there are no doubt countless stories of personal suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 07:37 AM

Do we still HAVE an Army? I thought they were replacing it with Volunteers from the TA to save money?

Of course, I can't think why no government's thought of getting soldiers to put their lives on the line for nothing before..but then, we've never had Nazis ruling the country before, other than Herr Thatcher (yes, masculine, I know, all you pedants, but it suits her best)...and she was quite 'kind' in comparison to her Love Child, Dave....

Fook War!
Fook the Lives and Money it wastes!
And especially, FOOK those who send others off to get themselves blown up whilst they sit at home working out ways of having a Free Army!

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:32 AM

Martin, obviously training accidents by anyone are not counted by historians as casualties of the conflict.
Dead Horse, I have seen your posts on the veterans' site.
I agree that the conflict was to blame for those deaths.
From what I know of him, Sutton the man would agree too, but you can see why he could not count them in his index.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:21 AM

Yes DH, the RA seemed to be permanently in the North. I think the Green Jackets or Green Howards suffered heavy losses on their tours, maybe just time distorting my memory.

I always hated it when a regiment was leaving, the night before their tour was over they usually ran amok in the estates, waving flags, winding people up and drinking, I suppose young men just letting off steam. As for the Scottish regiments, Christ they were the pits.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:11 AM

Most volunteers attended training camps in the Irish republic (a few went to the Middle East for specialist training).

Training Officers in the early days worked with clothes pegs,mouse traps and solder as I imagine DH will know what I speak of. These were very unreliable, many families were told their loves ones went to America and England as they had become compromised which wasn't unusual rather than breaking the truth to them.

Causalities were commonplace at such camps, due to working with unproven techniques, antiquated material and basic nativity.

A Swiss company produced a parking meter timer for the American market which was on a keyring, once these became a reliable alternative the British government bought the company over and closed it down !

All a long time ago and thankfully now history.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 05:08 AM

That is a mighty conclusion to jump to Allan.
I know of more than a couple of instances where 'patrol A' was fired on by 'patrol B' causing casualties, and that is the conclusion I would jump to if I was of the jumping sort.
Our latest update has been made using a 40 page document obtained from the MOD. One of our members cross referenced it with our Roll of Honour which numbers now stand at 1505. As before, this figure does not include ex UDR members or family members who were murdered. When those are added on, the total will approach the 1600 mark.
The chap who is compiling this list hopes to eventually have a photo of every headstone available, with attached pic of the individual and circumstance of death - quite some task. We each try to help by visiting grave sites in our own area and taking a picture of the grave and tidying up where necessary. As can be appreciated, some are very well kept and some are in an appalling condition.
The chap doing this had four tours plus odd 'visits' AND did a spell in Dhofar.
No. I had never heard of the place either. Look it up. It was happening at the same time as I was in NI. http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Desert_song/Mirbat.htm

Something I didnt know at the time, but certainly do now, is that by far the greatest number of troops deployed were soldiers from the Royal Artillery. The county providing the greatest number of troops was Yorkshire. So there is a standing joke that we are a cross between a Rest Home for retired gunners and Last of The Summer Wine.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Allan Conn
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM

"If a soldier loses his mind as a direct result...etc"

The cross tabs on the Cain site state that 6 members of the British Army were killed by the British Army during the conflict. So it does seem to at least attempt to take account of the type of death you describe.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 06:32 PM

If a soldier loses his mind as a direct result of being deployed on Op Banner, and he takes his rifle and shoots & kills another soldier who was trying to calm him down, and then is shot and killed in turn by another soldier, does that count as two deaths due to the conflict?
Believe me - it happened.
Or how about a soldier killed in a road accident when he swerved to avoid a bunch of kids throwing missiles at him & his vehicle? Aid was unable to get to him for some time because they were prevented by rioters - who had taken the place of the kids.
Or another soldier who fell from the back of a lorry and was run over by the army vehicle following too closely behind? (as per normal practice for vehicles in NI)
The RoH compiled by NIVA includes ALL security forces deaths unless it can be shown to have been through natural causes NOT related to deployment. So far we have only found one case of a heart attack that we cannot put down to deployment. Far more traffic accidents occured in NI involving security forces than occured in BAOR for instance, so it can be assumed that it was due to the circumstances of their job and the stress associated with it. The same applies to suicides, of which there were a few.
We admit to bias in this matter. I assume all statistics are biased, even if unintentionally.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 10:02 AM

Sorry, link
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/updates.html