Kent was implicated with The Rising because, when arrested, he was found to be unarmed and so, could not be charged with murder - he was fitted up with taking part in a Rebellion he was not even present at - an act of revenge.
He was not a signatory, yet he was executed as a leader.

So there was NO gun battle on the morning of the 2nd May 1916 at the Kent's house – strange that because that morning three men were shot, one, the first to die was a police officer who was killed outright (Suicide was it Jim? – I mean if the Kent brothers had no weapons how on earth did William Rowe die? I take it that you are aware that he did die, or was that all a fit up too, perhaps William Rowe wasn't dead at all but very much alive and they huckled him away to a quiet retirement bungalow in Bognor to live out his days?), the second died of wounds received during a gun battle that didn't take place and the third was shot attempting to escape after he had surrendered.

The raid was initially carried out by seven police officers, who having mysteriously come under fire from four men who according to Jom had no guns, requested assistance from the Army. The soldiers arrive on the scene and I would just love to know how the police managed to convince the soldiers that their presence was required to subdue four unarmed men (Maybe there was a gifted comedian and ventriloquist among the policemen present, you know like that character in Police Academy who could make a noise like a machine gun and that is what convinced the troops to hang around)

Now as to fitting up goes the link that Carroll gave is written from one perspective, one that Jom believes in its entirety. But as soldiers were present and if there was a gun battle, and I believe that there was (Only explanation for Rowe's death), and that gun battle and stand-off lasted four hours, which it did, then the Kent brothers must have fired on both Police officers and on the soldiers present.

15 executed, only seven signed the proclamation, the other eight were leaders of contingents who had fired on policemen and soldiers in Dublin and in Cork. Why was Thomas Kent executed and why was his brother acquitted? My guess is that Thomas Kent did a deal to save his brothers life.

""Who exactly were their "Gallant Allies" in Europe mentioned in the Proclamation Jom?"
Those who gave them weapons - nobody has ever accused the Irish of siding with Germany except you pair"

Really Jom? What about Sir Roger Casement's "Irish Report" requesting that German troops be landed in Ireland to assist in driving the British out? The German High Command rejected it as totally impracticable as they could not get that sort of assistance past the British Naval blockade.

"Russia was in exactly the same position shortly after - nobody has ever accused them of being German allies either."

Laughable notion, the revolution had already started and the Tsar had abdicated BEFORE Lenin started to organise his return to Russia from Switzerland. Casement and the leadership of the IRB and IVF waited until after the war had started, then elected to collude with the enemy.

"Some time between the Home Rule Bill being approved and July 1916, when it was re-introduced into Parliament, it was secretly altered by The British Government to accommodate the Loyalists, therefore making it invalid.
The Republicans had always opposed partition in any form and did not trust Britain to honour the "temporary" nature of its inclusion even as a temporary measure.
The details of the Bill were to be settled sometime after the War ended But Britain went ahead and partitioned Ireland without consent of the signatories.
That is why the Bill was never a reality in a completed form.
The altered form was forced through after the War of Independence, using a threat of war and blackmailing one of the signatories, Michael Collins.
That butcered treaty has been responsoble of every singly drop of blood spilled between then and now."

Sorry Jom but can you please give us the date when the already passed Irish Home Rule Bill was re-introduced into Parliament? I ask as that would be a first in Parliamentary Procedure and would require another Act of Parliament having to have been overthrown. As always you demonstrate a remarkable ignorance of British Parliamentary procedure, of how things are done and of what can and what cannot be done.

I also like your definition of self-determination inferred in the above. You seem to advocate self-determination on a highly selective basis, self-determination for some but not for others – how quaint. Trouble was you had two sides in Ireland who were diametrically opposed and neither appeared to be prepared to compromise. Your "men of the gun" in Easter 1916 ended all hope of any compromise ever being reached, they guaranteed the civil war at the end of the war of independence and their idiotic territorial claim, now thankfully moderated and rationalised, was been the cause of " every singly drop of blood spilled between then and now.". Thankfully however as a result of the GFA and the All Ireland referendum that followed it, the "men of the gun" have been told by the Irish people both North and South of the border that the gun, bomb and violence have no place in Irish politics and must not be used again - sort of blows all claims of their "mandate from the people" right out of the water, even going back to Easter 1916 it never existed in the first place.

The Easter Rising did nothing to accomplish what it's leaders wanted, in fact it hindered it, now one hundred years on there is still no signs of there ever being a united Ireland - unless such a union is desired by the people of Northern Ireland (Exactly as was the case in 1914). The greatest shame of the period was that there was no General Election in 1915, had there been one the IPP would have had the landslide victory in Ireland, the "men of the gun" would have been consigned to history, and some sort of compromised would have been worked out - the Easter Rising killed all chance of that ever happening.