Sir Keir Starmer has been warned his Labour Government will face a “rude awakening” if it pushes ahead with plans to axe protections for Troubles veterans.
Labour has repeatedly pledged to amend the Legacy Act, a piece of legislation introduced by the Tories to bring to an end vexatious prosecutions against veterans.
However, there are now fears that the potential changes could bring hundreds of criminal and civil claims against former British soldiers.
A petition, launched by ex-Brigadier Ian Liles OBE, is demanding the Prime Minister rules out making any changes that would allow prosecutions to be brought against those “combating terrorism” between 1969 and 2007.
Speaking to GB News shortly after the petition surpassed 50,000 signatures, Liles said: “The speed of the climb does not surprise me as there is a good deal of anger amongst both veterans and members of the public by what they see as a betrayal by Starmer of our veterans.
“Terrorists get comfort letters and release from jail for murdering and maiming innocent men, women and children and even babes in arms, while soldiers get hounded for doing their duty on operations they were ordered on by the Government.”
“Their job must be to protect serving soldiers and veterans from persecution, not encourage it, which they appear to be doing. What message does it send to the fine young men and women serving today? Make a split-second decision on operations and then be persecuted by the Government and apparently the Ministry of Defence years later to appease our enemies.”
Around 300,000 British soldiers were deployed to Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles, with 1,441 servicemen and women being killed during Operation Banner.
The 1998 Good Friday Agreement later ensured that thousands of republican and loyalist terrorists were released from prison.
“This is political. The past is the past. There are thousands of victims of terrorist killings, bombings, extortion, kidnapping, and kneecapping who will never get justice. So some military veterans are hounded to seek to rewrite the past. This isn’t social justice or justice.
“The only person who may benefit beyond the lawyers is Gerry Adams, who will get compensation for being held in internment 50 years ago.
Anonymous said
May 18 12:30 PM, 2025
If someone has been unlawfully killed, surely it doesn't matter if it's by the military or a civilian, or how long ago, it's a crime, isn't it?
Magica said
May 18 1:34 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
If someone has been unlawfully killed, surely it doesn't matter if it's by the military or a civilian, or how long ago, it's a crime, isn't it?
So shall we arrest old vets from WW2 to stand trial aswell?
Anonymous said
May 18 2:11 PM, 2025
Magica wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If someone has been unlawfully killed, surely it doesn't matter if it's by the military or a civilian, or how long ago, it's a crime, isn't it?
So shall we arrest old vets from WW2 to stand trial aswell?
That depends on who they are and what they did.
Digger said
May 18 2:46 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Magica wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If someone has been unlawfully killed, surely it doesn't matter if it's by the military or a civilian, or how long ago, it's a crime, isn't it?
So shall we arrest old vets from WW2 to stand trial aswell?
That depends on who they are and what they did.
There's the same skewed thinking going on that saw that armed policeman prosecuted for shooting a known thug, Chris Kaba. Don't give men guns and expect them to fight or uphold the law then turn on them and treat them like the scum they're dealing with.
It's easy to sit your armchair and point fingers when you've never been in that situation where your stress levels are through the roof and you might die at any time.
Anonymous said
May 18 3:08 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Magica wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If someone has been unlawfully killed, surely it doesn't matter if it's by the military or a civilian, or how long ago, it's a crime, isn't it?
So shall we arrest old vets from WW2 to stand trial aswell?
That depends on who they are and what they did.
There's the same skewed thinking going on that saw that armed policeman prosecuted for shooting a known thug, Chris Kaba. Don't give men guns and expect them to fight or uphold the law then turn on them and treat them like the scum they're dealing with.
It's easy to sit your armchair and point fingers when you've never been in that situation where your stress levels are through the roof and you might die at any time.
There were plenty of war crimes carried out by the British during WW2, including murder and rape.
I'm assuming there were laws of conduct decades ago. The time to prosecute was back then under the laws and and norms of warfare back then.
What are these solders accused of doing? Something like Mai Lai (spelling)?
Or something like Dresden which would probably be considered a war crime now?
Digger said
May 19 10:05 AM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
I'm assuming there were laws of conduct decades ago. The time to prosecute was back then under the laws and and norms of warfare back then.
What are these solders accused of doing? Something like Mai Lai (spelling)?
Or something like Dresden which would probably be considered a war crime now?
Dresden. Hiroshima. Terrible times demand terrible acts. War is war. And if you start it, be prepared to take the consequences. If you've ever read about the Rape of Nanjing you'll perhaps have some inkling of why they needed to drop that bomb over Japan.
Maddog said
May 19 4:01 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
I'm assuming there were laws of conduct decades ago. The time to prosecute was back then under the laws and and norms of warfare back then.
What are these solders accused of doing? Something like Mai Lai (spelling)?
Or something like Dresden which would probably be considered a war crime now?
Dresden. Hiroshima. Terrible times demand terrible acts. War is war. And if you start it, be prepared to take the consequences. If you've ever read about the Rape of Nanjing you'll perhaps have some inkling of why they needed to drop that bomb over Japan.
Oh I know. The thing about war is usually the only way to end it is to destroy every hope the opposition has..That means bringing maximum amounts of violence, not waging war by a rule book.
It also creates a deterrent for others thinking about starting one..
Digger said
May 20 3:44 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
I'm assuming there were laws of conduct decades ago. The time to prosecute was back then under the laws and and norms of warfare back then.
What are these solders accused of doing? Something like Mai Lai (spelling)?
Or something like Dresden which would probably be considered a war crime now?
Dresden. Hiroshima. Terrible times demand terrible acts. War is war. And if you start it, be prepared to take the consequences. If you've ever read about the Rape of Nanjing you'll perhaps have some inkling of why they needed to drop that bomb over Japan.
Oh I know. The thing about war is usually the only way to end it is to destroy every hope the opposition has..That means bringing maximum amounts of violence, not waging war by a rule book.
It also creates a deterrent for others thinking about starting one..
Sherman's Scorched Earth policy. Harsh but it works.
Maddog said
May 20 3:55 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
I'm assuming there were laws of conduct decades ago. The time to prosecute was back then under the laws and and norms of warfare back then.
What are these solders accused of doing? Something like Mai Lai (spelling)?
Or something like Dresden which would probably be considered a war crime now?
Dresden. Hiroshima. Terrible times demand terrible acts. War is war. And if you start it, be prepared to take the consequences. If you've ever read about the Rape of Nanjing you'll perhaps have some inkling of why they needed to drop that bomb over Japan.
Oh I know. The thing about war is usually the only way to end it is to destroy every hope the opposition has..That means bringing maximum amounts of violence, not waging war by a rule book.
It also creates a deterrent for others thinking about starting one..
Sherman's Scorched Earth policy. Harsh but it works.
Yup. But like Hiroshima it brought the enemy to their knees and ended the bloodshed.
I'm not supporting indiscriminate killing of civilians but wars of slow attrition may kill more civilians through starvation and disease.
There's something to be said for getting these things over with as quickly as possible vs "nation building"..
Barksdale said
May 20 6:45 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
What are these solders accused of doing? Something like Mai Lai (spelling)?
Murder, manslaughter and torture are the highest level allegations. It also covers other conduct which gave rise to death or serious injury but without criminal action so civil claims cannot be commenced for them. Numbers vary but about 3,500 killings and 40,000 injuries are said to be covered by the legislation. It also means new inquests cannot be commenced.
Although victims cannot use traditional criminal and civil routes they do have access to the ICRIR to consider their case which many people see as a reasonable compromise to balance the rights of individuals but not have a chilling effect on military personnel to carry out their duties for fear of prosecution.
Maddog said
May 20 7:08 PM, 2025
Barksdale wrote:
Maddog wrote:
What are these solders accused of doing? Something like Mai Lai (spelling)?
Murder, manslaughter and torture are the highest level allegations. It also covers other conduct which gave rise to death or serious injury but without criminal action so civil claims cannot be commenced for them. Numbers vary but about 3,500 killings and 40,000 injuries are said to be covered by the legislation. It also means new inquests cannot be commenced.
Although victims cannot use traditional criminal and civil routes they do have access to the ICRIR to consider their case which many people see as a reasonable compromise to balance the rights of individuals but not have a chilling effect on military personnel to carry out their duties for fear of prosecution.
Aren't soldiers supposed to kill others?.
If the government put soldiers in a position to kill or be killed, you kind of have to expect they will lean heavily towards the kill option to prevent the second..
Torture is different. That happens outside the field of battle when the victim is no longer a threat..
Barksdale said
May 20 7:54 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Aren't soldiers supposed to kill others?.
If the government put soldiers in a position to kill or be killed, you kind of have to expect they will lean heavily towards the kill option to prevent the second..
Torture is different. That happens outside the field of battle when the victim is no longer a threat..
The Troubles wasn't treated as a war where the ordinary rules of combat applied under international humanitarian law but the UK givernment classified it as a domestic security incident (given it arose from Northern Ireland which is part of the UK.) Therefore, our domestic law applied and so criminal / civil standards of liability.
It was also complicated by the use of paramilitary groups (who are not lawful combatants) and civilian involvement which blurred the lines of what we would expect in combat. It was akin to say having an armed police presence taking out domestic terrorist cells rather than a war as such and so actions were viewed along the lines of what constituted reasonable force and so on.
Maddog said
May 20 8:15 PM, 2025
Barksdale wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Aren't soldiers supposed to kill others?.
If the government put soldiers in a position to kill or be killed, you kind of have to expect they will lean heavily towards the kill option to prevent the second..
Torture is different. That happens outside the field of battle when the victim is no longer a threat..
The Troubles wasn't treated as a war where the ordinary rules of combat applied under international humanitarian law but the UK givernment classified it as a domestic security incident (given it arose from Northern Ireland which is part of the UK.) Therefore, our domestic law applied and so criminal / civil standards of liability.
It was also complicated by the use of paramilitary groups (who are not lawful combatants) and civilian involvement which blurred the lines of what we would expect in combat. It was akin to say having an armed police presence taking out domestic terrorist cells rather than a war as such and so actions were viewed along the lines of what constituted reasonable force and so on.
Which is why it's probably better to not expect soldiers to engage in law enforcement.
You've trained them to be a hammer..Not that police are much better, but they have a different mission..
Barksdale said
May 21 12:50 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Which is why it's probably better to not expect soldiers to engage in law enforcement.
You've trained them to be a hammer..Not that police are much better, but they have a different mission..
Right, which is why this issue has become politically charged.
I cannot see the Labour government changing the position if for no other reason than doing so would open the floodgates to claims, which would be expensive and require them to hire an army...of lawyers. I guess I'll never be out of a job.
Sir Keir Starmer has been warned his Labour Government will face a “rude awakening” if it pushes ahead with plans to axe protections for Troubles veterans.
Labour has repeatedly pledged to amend the Legacy Act, a piece of legislation introduced by the Tories to bring to an end vexatious prosecutions against veterans.
However, there are now fears that the potential changes could bring hundreds of criminal and civil claims against former British soldiers.
A petition, launched by ex-Brigadier Ian Liles OBE, is demanding the Prime Minister rules out making any changes that would allow prosecutions to be brought against those “combating terrorism” between 1969 and 2007.
Speaking to GB News shortly after the petition surpassed 50,000 signatures, Liles said: “The speed of the climb does not surprise me as there is a good deal of anger amongst both veterans and members of the public by what they see as a betrayal by Starmer of our veterans.
“Terrorists get comfort letters and release from jail for murdering and maiming innocent men, women and children and even babes in arms, while soldiers get hounded for doing their duty on operations they were ordered on by the Government.”
“Their job must be to protect serving soldiers and veterans from persecution, not encourage it, which they appear to be doing. What message does it send to the fine young men and women serving today? Make a split-second decision on operations and then be persecuted by the Government and apparently the Ministry of Defence years later to appease our enemies.”
Around 300,000 British soldiers were deployed to Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles, with 1,441 servicemen and women being killed during Operation Banner.
The 1998 Good Friday Agreement later ensured that thousands of republican and loyalist terrorists were released from prison.
“This is political. The past is the past. There are thousands of victims of terrorist killings, bombings, extortion, kidnapping, and kneecapping who will never get justice. So some military veterans are hounded to seek to rewrite the past. This isn’t social justice or justice.
“The only person who may benefit beyond the lawyers is Gerry Adams, who will get compensation for being held in internment 50 years ago.
If someone has been unlawfully killed, surely it doesn't matter if it's by the military or a civilian, or how long ago, it's a crime, isn't it?
So shall we arrest old vets from WW2 to stand trial aswell?
That depends on who they are and what they did.
There's the same skewed thinking going on that saw that armed policeman prosecuted for shooting a known thug, Chris Kaba. Don't give men guns and expect them to fight or uphold the law then turn on them and treat them like the scum they're dealing with.
It's easy to sit your armchair and point fingers when you've never been in that situation where your stress levels are through the roof and you might die at any time.
There were plenty of war crimes carried out by the British during WW2, including murder and rape.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes#World_War_II
What are these solders accused of doing? Something like Mai Lai (spelling)?
Or something like Dresden which would probably be considered a war crime now?
Dresden. Hiroshima. Terrible times demand terrible acts. War is war. And if you start it, be prepared to take the consequences. If you've ever read about the Rape of Nanjing you'll perhaps have some inkling of why they needed to drop that bomb over Japan.
Oh I know. The thing about war is usually the only way to end it is to destroy every hope the opposition has..That means bringing maximum amounts of violence, not waging war by a rule book.
It also creates a deterrent for others thinking about starting one..
Sherman's Scorched Earth policy. Harsh but it works.
Yup. But like Hiroshima it brought the enemy to their knees and ended the bloodshed.
I'm not supporting indiscriminate killing of civilians but wars of slow attrition may kill more civilians through starvation and disease.
There's something to be said for getting these things over with as quickly as possible vs "nation building"..
Murder, manslaughter and torture are the highest level allegations. It also covers other conduct which gave rise to death or serious injury but without criminal action so civil claims cannot be commenced for them. Numbers vary but about 3,500 killings and 40,000 injuries are said to be covered by the legislation. It also means new inquests cannot be commenced.
Although victims cannot use traditional criminal and civil routes they do have access to the ICRIR to consider their case which many people see as a reasonable compromise to balance the rights of individuals but not have a chilling effect on military personnel to carry out their duties for fear of prosecution.
Aren't soldiers supposed to kill others?.
If the government put soldiers in a position to kill or be killed, you kind of have to expect they will lean heavily towards the kill option to prevent the second..
Torture is different. That happens outside the field of battle when the victim is no longer a threat..
The Troubles wasn't treated as a war where the ordinary rules of combat applied under international humanitarian law but the UK givernment classified it as a domestic security incident (given it arose from Northern Ireland which is part of the UK.) Therefore, our domestic law applied and so criminal / civil standards of liability.
It was also complicated by the use of paramilitary groups (who are not lawful combatants) and civilian involvement which blurred the lines of what we would expect in combat. It was akin to say having an armed police presence taking out domestic terrorist cells rather than a war as such and so actions were viewed along the lines of what constituted reasonable force and so on.
Which is why it's probably better to not expect soldiers to engage in law enforcement.
You've trained them to be a hammer..Not that police are much better, but they have a different mission..
Right, which is why this issue has become politically charged.
I cannot see the Labour government changing the position if for no other reason than doing so would open the floodgates to claims, which would be expensive and require them to hire an army...of lawyers. I guess I'll never be out of a job.