"Thing is Jom you don't put up any facts, "
You have had these facts over and over again, we have had at least two epic threads on the Famine and yet you repeat the same garbage as you did then - want me to link you to the threads - the two Trevelyan latters, including the one published in Coogan's 2016 book, or the newly-researched facts from the landslide of books published during the 150th anniversary commemorations, or even those from Englishwoman Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith's 'The Great Hunger' (up to 1995 her book was the only major work dealing with The Famine).
On the last thread, we actually narrowed it down to (I think) numerous essential facts (full warehouses, enough food to feed Ireland four time over, the continuation of importing food for profit, laissez faire policy, Trevelyan's letter, the massive number of evictions, which, in my opinion, proved beyond doubt Britain's guilt in the outcome of the Famine....) all linked to documented evidence - I put them up again and again, requesting your response - you refused to respond - which is what you pair do and what you are doing here.
I don't know what you read (I don't count The Daily Mail and the Beano as reading), but you never link what you say, you just present them as definitive statements which turn out to be nothing more than clay pigeons.
I know what Keith reads - nothing - he's been honest enough to tell us that - and it shows (though I now smell the burning rubber of desperate back-pedaling) .
Again, Keith has been honest enough to tall us that he isn't interested enough to read up on these subjects, though he persists in dragging out these charades and trying to win prizes.
Your technique is to make your definitive, unlinked statements, ignore the responses and make them again later, as you are doing here with The Famine - you've been shot down over all this countless number of times yet you still come back for more.
I suggest if you want to make a point on this you answer the questions you were given last time and come back with some documented facts of your own - declaring a thing to be true doesn't make it so.
This is actual, well established and universally accepted history we are dealing with - not jingoistic propaganda, which is what your arguments mount up to.
"The executions Jom were the sentence demanded by the law for anyone found guilty of treason in time of war."
That has never been put up as a reason for them happening, they took place at the behest of General Maxwell alone, they were held in secret, and those charged were not allowed to offer a defence of any shape or form - they were revenge-taking kangaroo courts - a disgrace to the army and a disgrace to the Empire, some aspects of the 'trials' were actually illegal by both military and civil standards.

"Controversially, Maxwell decided that the courts-martial would be held in secret and without a defence, which Crown law officers later ruled to have been illegal.[132] Some of those who conducted the trials had commanded British troops involved in suppressing the Rising, a conflict of interest that the Military Manual prohibited."
(Wiki entry on The Rising).

You describe the Rebellion as "murder", yet none of the actual murders or atrocities that took place at the time were ever tried.   

"After the Rising, claims of atrocities carried out by British troops began to emerge. Although they did not receive as much attention as the executions, they sparked outrage among the Irish public and were raised by Irish MPs in Parliament.
One incident was the 'Portobello killings'. On Tuesday 25 April, Dubliner Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, a pacifist nationalist activist, had been arrested by British soldiers. Captain John Bowen-Colthurst then took him with a British raiding party as a hostage and human shield. On Rathmines Road he stopped a boy named James Coade, whom he shot dead. His troops then destroyed a tobacconist's shop with grenades and seized journalists Thomas Dickson and Patrick MacIntyre. The next morning, Colthurst had Skeffington and the two journalists shot by firing squad in Portobello Barracks. The bodies were then buried there. Later that day he shot a Labour Party councillor, Richard O'Carroll. When Major Sir Francis Vane learned of the killings he telephoned his superiors in Dublin Castle, but no action was taken. Vane informed Herbert Kitchener, who told General Maxwell to arrest Colthurst, but Maxwell refused. Colthurst was eventually arrested and court-martialled in June. He was found guilty of murder but insane, and detained for twenty months at Broadmoor. Public and political pressure led to a public inquiry, which reached similar conclusions. Major Vane was discharged "owing to his action in the Skeffington murder case".[141][142][143][144][145]
The other incident was the 'North King Street massacre'. On the night of 28–29 April, British soldiers of the South Staffordshire Regiment, under Colonel Henry Taylor, had burst into houses on North King Street and killed 15 male civilians whom they accused of being rebels. The soldiers shot or bayoneted the victims, then secretly buried some of them in cellars or back yards after robbing them. The area saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Rising and the British had taken heavy casualties for little gain. General Maxwell attempted to excuse the killings and argued that the rebels were ultimately responsible. He claimed that "the rebels wore no uniform" and that the people of North King Street were rebel sympathizers. Maxwell concluded that such incidents "are absolutely unavoidable in such a business as this" and that "Under the circumstance the troops [...] behaved with the greatest restraint". A private brief, prepared for the Prime Minister, said the soldiers "had orders not to take any prisoners" but took it to mean they were to shoot any suspected rebel. The City Coroner's inquest found that soldiers had killed "unarmed and offending" residents. The military court of inquiry ruled that no specific soldiers could be held responsible, and no action was taken"
From the Wiki entry on the Rising.

"As for the British Empire Jom, the events of 1916 and 1921 had nothing whatsoever to do with its demise,"
'Course it didn't - it fell of its own accord.
The Rising was the first great crack in the facade, it inspired the movement for India leaving the Empire, it was written about at length by the Russian revolutionaries, who used it to overthrow Tsardom... it showed the Empire at its brutal worst and it showed how a small number of poorly armed irregulars could take on the might of the richest and most powerful power in the world - the first domino to wobble.
"That they will do anything to get a deal? "
Now you appear to be defending the altering of a treaty on National Independence - not "some politicians" but an Empire.
How on earth can you write off the altering of a document that has brought about a century bloodshed, injustice and civil conflict which is still seething away waiting to erupt again (by my watch, in a couple of months time)
What kind of people are you
"I was obviously being too modest about my knowledge of history."
I see Keith is developing a sense of humour in his old age.
Jim Carroll