I did? How astute of me...
Numerous issues there Sonic.
1. As to the financial state of the individual, well we live in a capitalist society and that's life. There are plenty of organisations/people that will help ex-Forces.
2. Does it matter what their defence is? If its honest and sound they have nothing to fear. And if they did wrong I suspect all (or at least many) of us here would wish to see them convicted and punished. The court will consider it and come to a judgement.
3. As for the 'one person' - we'll perhaps that is indicative the State only investigates/brings charges when confident it is in the right?
Bottomline the Armed Forces act in all our names and the standard we expect is high. I think most who serve get that. I certainly did.
Total joke, if I were soldier A or C I'd say, can't remember, go prove it. 42 years on that's a tall order.
Two British soldiers to be charged over IRA leader's 1972 murder
So "tough ****." Nice one. Really all heart aren't you?
So why not do this at the time? Presumably no evidence then, and no evidence at the previous investigation either. Who's this serving? No problem if you do the crime you do the time. This was decades ago. And yes you do have something to fear. See above. Dawn raid, driven a 100 miles, house raided, damage done, court cases, lawyers, interviews, accusations hanging over her head. All to someone who was serving her country.
Or perhaps there's some politics behind it? They are described as witch hunts for a reason. If there was sufficient evidence it would have been sorted at the time.
So as the armed forces act in our names, how many names were actually calling for this to happen then?
They won't be convicted unless the case can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not a question of heart. One way or another they will be able to fund their defence.
A society that prizes human life, rule of law and human rights.
Time should be no barrier to justice. For example would you advocate the likes of Rolf Harris just be 'let of' then?
And now she has cleared her name... Better innocent people are interviewed that the guilty walk free surely?
Two days ago.
Michael Fallon: No witch hunts into troop action in N Ireland and Afghanistan - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk
Guess it isn't a witch hunt. Fallon promised.
And if there was sufficient evidence they would have been charged decades ago.
The winner here will be the lawyers.
I'd like a society that doesn't try to prosecute pensioners for something decades ago.
Oh, thank you so much.
Other European countries have a statute of limitation regarding sex crimes. We don't. Usually you are pro European on everything. Everything. So which side are you on on this?
Should Britain have a Statute of Limitations on sex crimes?
"Britain is unique in Europe in that it has no Statute of Limitations for serious sexual crimes. This means that someone can be arrested, charged and convicted for a crime that they committed half a century ago, even though many witnesses may be dead, memories are faded and the only evidence is the word of the alleged victim – or more accurately, the accuser.
The limitation periods for other countries for this type of offence vary and they are often on a ‘sliding scale’ to take account of the age of the alleged victim or have exclusion or inclusion clauses built in.
The average limitation period across the EU is about 12 years from the date of the alleged offence with a maximum of 20 years if the alleged victim was under age at the time or if violence was supposedly involved.
The point is though that Britain has no limitation period at all and this is seen by many to be totally unjust. It is also true that one very rarely hears about ‘historic’ violent crimes."
So do you want us to follow other EU countries on this or are we right? Regarding Rolf the last offence was 1986. He was tried in 2014. In any other EU country he'd have got away scott free, except his victims would have known they would certainly have had to do something sooner.
Same point here. You want a conviction do it at the time or as soon as possible. No problem if people are found to be guilty but sooner or later there needs to be a cut off.
Presumably you are innocent of any crime right now. So you'd be happy for a dawn raid, damage, being dragged across the country, interviewed, as hey, you are innocent and you can then eventually be cleared?
There could be a myriad reasons why the cases can only be progressed now.
Of course I don't agree with a statute of limitations. I refer you again to Rolf Harris. I'm sure you'll agree he shouldn't be let off for offences done almost three decades ago. So why should murder be swept aside just because it was a few years ago?
Why? The guilty should know they can never escape justice.
If I was suspected of something, I would happily co-operate with the authorities.
So you think other European countries are wrong. Why do you think they might have such legislation? Why are we right and they are all wrong?
I'd have thought your view was they did the legal system better than we did. As you don't I'm assume you think we should handle all legal matters ourselves then? Keep them out? I am glad to see you believe in our sovereignty.
A very timely news report today:
101-year-old Ralph Clarke guilty of child sex offences - BBC News
Former RAF serviceman Ralph Clarke found guilty of sex offences in the 1970s and 1980s. Three decades hence then should he have been let off? Of course not! He ruined people's lives and should pay. And indeed he will - his final months or years will be relatively unpleasant, his financial and property assets redistributed, his lifetime achievements elicipsed forever by his conviction and he will likely be estranged from his family. Should he have been spared all that just because he was old? No! That would have been a huge injustice to his victims.
It is exactly the same with this Northern Ireland case. The prosecutor considers there to be sufficient evidence so let the case the progress and go from there. If they are acquitted it is done and everyone can move on with their names cleared. If not it is right and proper they pay the price for failing to meet the standards they were entrusted to uphold.
So you think other European countries are right. Why do you think they might have such legislation? Why are we wrong and they are all right?
I'd have thought your view was they did the legal system worse than we did. As you don't I'm assume you think we should let the EU handle all legal matters then? Let's stay in? I am glad to see you believe in the EU.