British Army veterans have slammed Labour live on GB News after MPs voted to remove legal protections for soldiers who served during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
The move means veterans could face prosecution over actions taken during the conflict, sparking anger among former service personnel and their supporters.
Veterans told GB News they feel “stabbed in the back” by the Government and warned that they will “feel this in votes moving forward”.
Veteran Liam Kelly told Martin Daubney: “This Government has stabbed the veteran community and future veterans in the back, because this sets a dangerous precedent going forward.
“It will also impact our capability as a nation to provide defence in the future. The only winners from today’s vote are the human rights companies, our enemies abroad, and the Labour Party.
“Labour must have a larger strategy or game plan here to compromise our national security going forward, and to stab the UK veteran community in the back.
“We are a large demographic when it comes to voting, and they will feel this in the ballot box in future elections.”
Former paratrooper Jeff Butler, said: “We knew they were going to do it. We’re very upset. They won’t listen. They’ve already jumped the gun before the Supreme Court has made a ruling.
“We spent a lot of time in court listening to all the arguments from the various parties, and I feel like they’re just trying to rush this through.
“We’re not going to get any justice. That isn’t what we’re about, but we don’t see why they should get justice against us when half of these were the people shooting at us in the first place.”
David Holmes, a former RAF regiment gunner added: “They always used the term ‘immunity’ when it was actually conditional immunity based on truth and reconciliation.
“Truth and reconciliation is what the victims and their families want.
“They’re not going to get it through the normal legal process they’re only going to get it through that conditional immunity.
“And the fact that they say it is not in compliance with the ECHR, when that issue is still being considered by the Supreme Court, I was one of four people who actually made that intervention.
“Between us, and with some crowdfunding, we put up the money for that intervention to get it through, because they just abandoned it.”
More to follow…
