Debate contribution: Soldier F: Not Guilty Verdict
Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on .
- MLA
- Mr Doug Beattie MC
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matters of the Day
- Heading
- Soldier F: Not Guilty Verdict
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5212692
Read the official Assembly record
Text
When we stand to talk about such things, I am always mindful of the fact that we should do so with compassion and empathy. I am a military veteran of 44 years. Today, as I stand here, my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones or who were injured. It is important to acknowledge that. One of the worst things about all this is that we always knew what the outcome of the trial was going to be, because there was not the evidence that was needed to secure a conviction. At times, the families were let down when people made them feel as though there would be enough to get a conviction. Clearly, there was not, and everybody knew that. It was not the army that was on trial, nor was it the Parachute Regiment. Those who tried to extrapolate the trial of Soldier F to cover all those are the people who created the feeling of a show trial, but that is not what happened. It was a trial against a lance corporal — a single lance corporal who was in charge of four soldiers out of thousands who were deployed on that day. He was found not guilty. Regardless of whether we like it — I know the families do not like it, but it is the reality of where we are — the individual was found not guilty. The families can now do as they wish to bring further charges of perjury — it is their absolute right to do so — but I am concerned that we are leading them down another road where we will raise their hopes and then dash them. We had the Saville inquiry and spent £200 million. I am not complaining about that — it is a lot of money, but I am certainly not complaining about it, and I am not complaining about the £4·3 million that was spent defending Soldier F — but look at the Birmingham bombings. Twenty-one people were murdered and over 200 were injured, but victims and families have been told that they are not getting an inquiry. In many ways, we have to reflect on the issue in the round. I am happy enough to say that Bloody Sunday was wrong and that what happened on that day was poor — I am more than happy to say that: it was certainly nothing to be proud of — but carrying on down the road that we are going down now, and trying to tell families that they are going to get something that, clearly, they are not going to get, does not help anybody. I started by saying that our thoughts should be with those who were killed, those who were injured and their families, but, in truth, they have had more than anybody else in Northern Ireland has had regarding investigations, inquiries and bringing somebody to trial. There are so many more people out there who have not had that. We need to reflect and remember compassion and empathy.
508 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.20 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.41 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:46 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.