As for the soldiers that is not right in my mind. They were defending our liberty.
It's a very difficult issue, isn't it? Yes, the army was originally in Northern Ireland to protect the citizens from terrorist attacks. But at what point do we continue to offer soldiers (or police officers, firemen, or any public service) protection when they stray outside the law and outside what we might consider to be acceptable behaviour?
There was a massive demonstration by motorcyclists in London yesterday, showing their support for Soldier F, and it was absolutely right that they should be able to do so. What would have happened if a squad of Police officers from the firearms unit decided that the bikers represented a threat to the public and started shooting them?
Charges would quite properly be not only in order but demanded by the public. And what if the Police force closed ranks and made it very difficult to identify the perpetrators? How long should we go on trying to find those guilty? 5 years? 10? 50?
In the case of Soldier F, I believe there is a strong argument for not charging him, but nevertheless the law indicates that there is sufficient evidence to gain a conviction. I suspect that a jury of his peers will disagree and reach a not guilty verdict, but we must let due process take its course. Otherwise what exactly is it we are fighting to defend?
