ISN’T it worrying when a British prime minister can stand up in Parliament, lie, and not only go unchallenged by any MP in the House, but moreover is cheered for the lie that is spun as fact? 

During Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday May 9, in a response to a question on the “Troubles investigation” Theresa May stated: “The only people being investigated are those that served in armed forces or law enforcement.” 

This of course was a blatant lie. Currently, there are approximately 570 terrorist cases under investigation, yet not one MP challenged the Prime Minister on this. 

I assume that fear of being called a terrorist sympathiser was uppermost in the minds of some MPs so they remained silent. However, May is not alone in promoting statements as facts that when scrutinised, fail to be accurate.

Colonel Richard Kemp, on Monday May 14 talking on the Nolan show on BBC Radio Ulster, explained that he plans to relinquish his commission over the “hounding” of former British soldiers, that, to use his words, will be dragged through the courts. 

Whether I agree with him or not, I admire his principles if he goes ahead with his pledge. However, his argument appears inconsistent in some areas, wrong in others and fails to take account of other key issues.

For instance, Kemp stated in the heat of battle things go wrong, there is confusion and mistakes are made, and having experienced incidents of this kind I agree with Kemp 100 per cent. 

I can relate to an incident in 1972 while patrolling along the side streets off the Falls Road, when, were it not for the quick thinking of my section commander, a child playing with a toy gun could have been shot.

What Kemp is forgetting, unaware of or chooses to ignore, is that in many cases there were no gun battles at the time the incidents took place. 

For example, what about the shooting of John Kerr? On August 11 1971, Kerr was walking away from the church gates in West Belfast when he was shot by a British army sniper.  

Or what about Manus Deery, aged just 15, shot in the head by a soldier in 1972 who was on duty in a sentry post on the Derry Walls? 

These incidents never occurred during the chaos and confusion of a gun battle. Kerr was taking a break from his work and Deery was talking to his friend.

Kemp stated he wanted equal treatment between soldiers and terrorists and is obviously angered that this doesn’t appear to be the case. 

While that may or may not be true, he is missing a vital point. The British government never applied equal treatment to Catholic and Protestant communities, and this was part of the problem. 

The Falls Road curfew targeted the Catholic community and left four civilians dead, while the Protestant area went relatively untouched.

So too with internment. Suspected republican paramilitaries were first interned in August 1971, but it was 1973 before the first suspected loyalist paramilitaries were interned. 

These events, along with others, played a major part in driving a wedge between the security forces and the Catholic community, which, as statistics show, increased violence and IRA recruitment. 

Part of Kemp’s argument for dropping the investigations against security forces is that incidents were investigated at the time they occurred, so there is nothing to gain by investigating them now. Really?

I think it is worth reminding Kemp that the 1971 McGurk’s Bar bombing was investigated at the time. 

However, it came to light the security forces, although knowing from the outset it was a lie, put the blame on the IRA and tried to “dig dirt” on any of the innocent people who died in the explosion to try to link them to the IRA. 

Then we have the Ballymurphy Massacre where the military police carried out the investigation with no RUC input at all, and finally, has Kemp forgotten about Bloody Sunday and the Widgery Tribunal? 

Moreover, in all three cases not one of the victims belonged to any terror group, and in the incidents in Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday, not one weapon was found.  

With a history of investigation like this, does it not become clear to everyone why the families don’t have much confidence in the original investigations and are requesting a fresh pair of eyes?

When placed on the spot, Kemp seemed unsure of what he wanted for former soldiers. Asked by Nolan if he wanted a “statute of limitations,” he seemed hesitant to say yes when it was put to him that if the British government were to do so, they would be in the good company of Chile and Argentina which both introduced a statute of limitations under a military dictatorship, and of course Robert Mugabe. 

Asked whether former soldiers should be investigated, Kemp suggested yes, but only if there was new evidence. This presents the question, how do you find new evidence to open up the investigation, if you don’t investigate to try to find new evidence? 

Kemp also suggested that those soldiers who did act above the law were dealt with. However he failed to go on to say that not only did they serve no more than three years behind bars, but were allowed back into the British army to continue their service.

Looking through the smokescreen of statements, Kemp and others just want the “Problem” to go away, to disappear. They want the relatives to accept that in war mistakes are made and innocent people are killed.

Sadly that is true, unfortunately what Kemp and others are forgetting is it’s not only about people shot in disputed circumstances, it is alleged lies were told about weapons the victims had but which never existed.

Consequently, having been shot by the security forces while “allegedly” in possession of a weapon that in many cases “disappeared” before it could be recovered, the victims were classed as being armed members of a terrorist group.

As the families have said many times, it’s not just about justice, it’s about discovering the truth on how their loved ones died, and just as importantly, clearing their names.