British Army - Frequently asked Questions and Answers

Question: Why does this website focus on British Army killings? What about those killed by the IRA or the Taliban?

Answer: if you wish to read about the heroics of the British Army and ignore the facts about the murder of innocent civilians go visit the British Army website www.army.mod.uk, or The Sun www.thesun.co.uk, or any of the hundreds of mainstream media websites that ignore the reality of British Army involvement in Ireland, Iraq or Afghanistan.

This website focuses on British Army Killings if only to help draw attention to these injustices. If the British Army cannot see a distinction between the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians and killing combatants in the heat of battle, then it should certainly remain at home.

Question: Shouldn’t you be supporting our troops instead of attacking them in this way?

Answer: I refuse to support illegal actions carried out by the British Army, and - to use the words of the British Prime Minister David Cameron - “you do not defend the British army by defending the indefensible." To ignore the killing of unarmed civilians, and prisoners of war, is to undermine everything the British Army is supposed to defend and represent.

Question: I do not believe any of the claims on this website. Can you prove that the British Army has deliberately killed innocent civilians?

Answer: Most of the evidence is already in the public domain and is drawn from official British sources such as Sir John Stevens report into British Army collusion, or the Canadian Judge Cory, and respected human rights lawyers. In regards to the murder of Iraqi prisoners the information comes from evidence revealed in court cases where the victim’s families are seeking redress through the British Courts.

Evidence of the Springhill and Ballymurphy killings comes from witnesses and autopsy reports. Many of the remaining cases are already acknowledged by the British Army but explained by them as “mistakes”, or “accidents”, however these “mistakes” do not stand up to scrutiny when other evidence, such as the number of victims and the frequency of the killings is taken into account. Many of the killings also contravene the British Army’s own guidelines, such as firing plastic bullets (some bullets have been deliberately doctored to inflict severe injury) at close range where the death of the victim, many of whom were children, is almost inevitable.

Question: British soldiers are not permitted to fire on unarmed civilians, and they know they would face a court-martial if they did so. Why do you claim this is not the case?

Answer: The fact is British soldiers have traditionally had no training in regards to their legal or moral obligations to civilians and prisoners of war. The AGC ALS (Army Legal Service) role is one of an advisory capacity, and it has no military significance to commanders or soldiers in the field. Working against this is a deep rooted culture that exists in the British Army that the killing of civilians is not only inevitable, but it is acceptable.

This culture is even reflected in how the British Army treats the handful of soldiers who have been convicted of such murders – the convicted soldier continues to receive their full pay while in prison, and upon their release (usually having only served a couple of years in prison) they are reinstated to their regiment, treated as heroes, and soon afterwards promoted. This makes a mockery of justice, and exposes the attitude of the British Army to having convicted murderers in its ranks.

Question: The British Army Police investigated all of these killings. Why do you not accept their findings ?

Answer: The RMP (SIB) has a notorious record for investigating the killing of civilians by British Army personnel. By the admission of one of its RMP police officers who served in Ireland and Iraq there are tremendous pressures on all investigators to produce findings that are acceptable to senior regimental commanders and the MoD. Any investigator that refuses to tow the line will soon get a reputation as a troublemaker, and their careers made extremely difficult.

The ability to gather evidence and interview witnesses can be made very difficult as investigators frequently need the cooperation of the very regiments that they are investigating. Even the denial of access to transport and support by regimental commanders places the investigators in a difficult, if not impossible, situation.

There are numerous examples where junior investigators have produced reports that have been returned by senior SIB officers because they produce finding that are politically unacceptable.

The investigation of the killing of Iraqi prisoners was a typical example of the influence of the senior RMP (SIB) figures. SIB staff were asked to rewrite their reports to omit crucial evidence and witness statements, and even asked to lie under oath by Colonel Dudley Giles one of the RMP’s senior commanders in order to conceal the killing and mutilation of Iraqi prisoners .

The problem can be resolved by the formation of an independent and transparent investigative body to oversee the investigation of the killing of civilians. Until the formation of such a body the British Army will remain incapable of carrying out impartial investigations into the killing of civilians by British Army personnel.

Question: I fought to defend / The British Army is defending - your freedom. Why abuse that freedom with this website?

Answer: The British Army is NOT defending anybodies freedom, especially in Ireland, Iraq, or Afghanistan – anybody who believes they are isn’t capable of understanding the facts behind the British presence in the north of Ireland, or the illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, or of the nature of political power in this country. Please do not waste my time with daft questions like this. Whatever role the British Army has played in four hundred years of British imperial history – defending “freedom” has not been one of them.

Question: Do you accept that your remarks might cause offence to the families of British Army personnel?

Answer: I’m far more concerned about the offence caused to the victim and their own family by the illegal actions of members of the British Army. The families of British Army personnel have a whole network of support available to them, not least a sympathetic media, and considerable financial and social resources to assist them.

The victims of the British Army on the other hand have very few resources, and have to fight for justice without the aid of a sympathetic press, or an impartial investigative or judicial system. Many of the families of the victims who have been killed by the British Army in the north of Ireland have spent decades campaigning for justice – some of them have died without so much as an admission from the British Army of any wrongdoing. It took the British government forty years to admit that the Bloody Sunday victims were innocent – at that rate it will take a millennium to admit the truth about the remaining killings.