BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:11 AM

Oh, you mean things like the "fact" that 453,000 were prepared to take up arms, something that Terri has claimed on more than one occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:27 AM

Raggy:

If it is merely your opinion that's fine. I disagree with your opinion but that is just my opinion. But please do not present your opinion as fact. It is not."

How about giving that advice to Carroll he seems to be in need of it more than I - when I give an opinion I clearly say so.

Note once again that you ignored my question - par for the course.

But here are some undeniable facts:

The threat to the country (Ireland) as a whole posed by the pro-Union supporters in the North was real enough for the pro-independence crowd in the South to form an armed militia.

The threat to the country as a whole posed by the pro-Union supporters in the North was real enough for the pro-independence delegation sent to London to negotiate peace in 19121 was sufficient for the North to be granted it's right to self-determination. The fledgling Government in 1921 could cope with de Valera and the IRA - which they did. They most certainly would not have been able to cope with the strength of opposition that would have been ranged against them had they had to take on the UVF and their supporters ( Support for the UVF was quantifiable - support for independence lacklustre at best, of course you could prove me wrong in that, but I know you won't).


The threat to the country as a whole posed by the pro-Union supporters in the North was considered real enough that on two occasions when offered full UK support for a united Ireland the Government of the Republic rejected it within seconds of the offer being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:34 AM

"The Rebels were not charged with treason"

Quite right Jom they were charged WITH having been one of a party at [whatever location] from which shots were fired, occasioning casualties amongst His Majesty's troops, and you are further charged with conspiracy with His Majesty's enemies. THOSE WERE the charges BUT THEY WERE TRIED FOR OFFENCES UNDER THE TREASON ACT.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:36 AM

I'll suggest the same to you Terri, try reading Tim Pat Coogans book 1916 The Morning After.

I hope that you at least will give a read and then comment. It gives one perspective and I'm not saying it is the only perspective.

I don't hold that hope for your sidekick, he's obviously not intelligent enough to read the book, he struggles to get cut and pastes correct.


(wait for the bleatings of denial)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:37 AM

Rag, if a professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin tells us a book is historically inaccurate, I believe him.

I do not believe I know more about modern Irish history that a modern Irish history professor, as you arrogantly seem to.

Have you read his books?
Why do you dismiss his opinion on something he has devoted his life to the study of, and is respected as among the highest authorities in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:59 AM

Professor Ferriter.
Graduate of UCD, BA (1991), PhD (1996). Lecturer in Modern Irish History at UCD 1996-1998. Researcher and writer with Dictionary of Irish Biography 1998-1999. Senior lecturer in Irish History at St Patrick's College, DCU, 1999-2008. Appointed Professor of Modern Irish History at UCD in 2008. Visiting Burns Library Scholar at Boston College 2008-2009.

Main research interests: the social, political and cultural history of twentieth century Ireland.

Tim Pat Coogan?
A journalist who has written populist books purporting to be history.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:59 AM

Tim Pat Coogan (who you haven't read) is a respected writer, broadcaster and journalist. His books include biographies of Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera, The Irish Civil War, 1916 The Easter Rising, 1916 The Mornings after, The Famine Plot.

He fits all your strange criteria in that he is still alive, his books have been published in the last 20 years, is eminent and yet you see fit to condemn him on the say so of another (rival) writer who you also HAVEN'T READ.

Laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 05:47 AM

"Quite right Jom they were charged WITH having been one of a party at [whatever location] from which shots were fired, occasioning casualties amongst His Majesty's troops"
Not treason then, as you have been insisting, just national liberation rebellion, which is what I said in the first place?
Now we're getting somewhere.
Now - do you want to have a go at the illegal manner in which the trial was conducted - won't hold my breath?
"Have you been able to quote any historian in support of yours or Jim's case"
We are daily being treated to articles written by historians and researchers which support exactly the case I have been putting and have access to at least half-a-dozen programmes a week on television researched and attributed to established historians on television supporting it.
You, on the other hand hand not produced one single qualified historian who backs your case - not one single one.
You have offered a journalist who whose opinion coincides with your own on some aspects, but his qualifications make his opinions just that, opinions.
Fr Séamus Murphy SJ is a lecturer in philosophy - his CV contains no reference to his having any historical qualifications whatever so again, just opinions.
The historian you thought backed your case didn't, on the contrary, he supports the cause of the Rebellion and believes its ideals are unfulfilled.
When you demand historians - where are yours?
Your knowledge of Irish history is non-existent as is the likelihood of your gaining some as you have proudly pointed out - you are not interested in the subject and do not intend to change that situation.
Have we spotted flaws in your knowledge....? you have to be joking.
Your whole case is built on your contempt for the Irish as "gullible" and their history as "a contemptible joke".
" Tim Pat Coogan? A journalist who has written populist books purporting to be history".
More contempt for the Irish.
Tim Pat Coogan is a highly respected historian without qualifications who has pent his life writing highly respected books on Irish history - his work of Collins, De Valera, The Troubles, The IRA, The Famine, The Irish Diaspora..... are major reference works respected throughout Ireland.
The Fact that you have come up with one historian who disagrees with him changes all that one iota
Ferriter takes the diametric opposite to you on the Rising so why not show us these historians you keep bleating on about - who are they and what do they say?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 05:54 AM

"Tim Pat Coogan (who you haven't read) is a respected writer, broadcaster and journalist."

Likewise Sir Max Hastings (who you haven't read) is an even more respected writer, broadcaster and journalist (I'd back his awards and peer opinion of him in all three fields against those of Coogan) yet you and your pals are somewhat dismissive of him for exactly the same reasons as you hail Coogan to be the font of all wisdom.

I'm with Keith - "if a professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin tells us a book [Coogan's] is historically inaccurate [Detailing why}, I believe him."

Coogan is trotting out the same old brainwash myths because he knows they will help sales of his books in Ireland and in the US - bless him business after all is business.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:05 AM

Jom - here it is AGAIN:

Treason Act UK

The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its English translation.

The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:

"when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";
"if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir";
"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; and
"if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".


Treason laws were used against Irish insurgents before Irish independence, because Jom you see engaging in an armed uprising and conspiring with an enemy Government sounds awfully like - "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; to me - that is what they were charged with doing under the provisions of the Treason Act

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:08 AM

Wrong again Terrikins I have read Max Hastings. But don't worry you don't often get your "facts" correct do you.

Bought yourself a compass yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:24 AM

You've read Max Hastings have you Raggy? Well done, but you could just be saying that couldn't you - I'll take your word for it - but you have no way of proving it.

A Compass? I have a few, both the draughting and navigational sort plus a couple of GPS units, don't need any more thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:24 AM

"Treason Act UK"
For crying out loud Terri - they were not charged with treason - anybody sentenced to be executed has a right by law to be properly charged with the crime he or she is supposed to have committed - that was not done and the trial was an outrage in terms of British civil and military justice - the charge was not treason so they were not guilty of treason.
Hide by any rule-book you wish but until you show that all the rules in that book were applied it was a Kangaroo Court, pure and simple.   
The garbage that they colluded with the Germans is bollocks - they in no way supported Germany - their only contact with them was to take their weapons and nobody has ever attempted to show otherwise - not even you - you just accuse them of collusion.
Now - did the rebels receive a fair trial and was their treatment up to accepted standards?
"Likewise Sir Max Hastings"
I quite agree - I only challenged Hastings on the basis that Keith was demanding qualified historians selling books in real bookshops - he rejected everybody else.
Hastings is a qualified tabloid journalist.
"Coogan is trotting out the same old brainwash myths because he knows they will help sales of his books in Ireland"
Coogan is a principled, dedicated if unqualified historian and is respected as such throughout Ireland, even by his critics, whose main complaint is that he does not keep proper notes and therefore makes mistakes
He is in no way commercially motivated - which sounds like a smear tactic from a desperate man to me.
Keith has yet to produce a single historian to back his case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:29 AM

PS I did find Hastings tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:39 AM

1: They were charged with crimes under the treason act
2: They were properly charged with the crimes that they had committed - no supposedly about it, read the Proclamation that they ALL signed.
3: "The garbage that they colluded with the Germans is bollocks - they in no way supported Germany - their only contact with them was to take their weapons and nobody has ever attempted to show otherwise - not even you - you just accuse them of collusion."

Bollocks eh? The Military Council in contact with representatives of the German Government from November 1914 - was that bollocks? Somehow doubt it, it is a matter of historical record. Sir Roger Casements 1915 Ireland Report that he submitted to the German High Command - was that bollocks? Again a matter of historical record as is the German's rejection of it. Plunkett's journey to Germany in 1915 to assist Casement and procure German weapons - was that bollocks? The landing of Sir Roger Casement from a German submarine and his subsequent interception and capture immediately before the rising - was that all bollocks? The interception and scuttling of the arms ship Aud by the Royal Navy - was that all bollocks?

Who exactly were their "Gallant Allies" in Europe mentioned in the Proclamation Jom?

"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; Guilty as charged under the Treason Act 1351 and subsequent amendments, and executed accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:47 AM

"Well done, but you could just be saying that couldn't you - "
He could, just as you could be (and do) saying everything you say, especially as you don't ever supply links.
Keith boasts he has not read books on this subject and only quotes things he has found on the internet after the subject has come up He ones spectacularly foot-in-mouthed by claiming he had read one of the most difficult books on Stalinism and yet was totally unable to answer a basic question to back up his claim - he didn't attempt to answer, he just ignored requests to do so..... so when it comes to claims, neither of you are shining lights in the veracity stakes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:59 AM

The pertinent question is "were they given a fair trial"

Some of the people conducting the trials has also been involved in suppressing the rising. This I believe is prohibited in the military manual.

So question 1. Is it prohibited in the Military Manual that an officer involved in an action cannot take part is any later legal proceedings. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

So question 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes then should these people have been debarred from being involved in the trials. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

General Maxwell took it upon himself to conduct the trials in secret and without a defence being allowed.

So question 2. Was this ruled illegal by Crown Law Officers, again a simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 08:12 AM

An additional point has to be answered is the fact that those chosen for execution and imprisonment were often selected randomly by officers who had never seen those particular rebels, but judged them to be culpable on the spot.
At least one of those executed had not taken part in the Rebellion and was not even in Dublin.
"Thomas Kent: Born in 1865, Kent was arrested at his home in Castlelyons, Co. Cork following a raid by the Royal Irish Constabulary on 22 April 1916, during which his brother Richard was fatally wounded. It had been his intention to travel to Dublin to participate in the Rising, but when the mobilisation order for the Irish Volunteers was cancelled on Easter Sunday he assumed that the Rising had been postponed, leading him to stay at home. He was executed at Cork Detention Barracks on 9 May 1916 following a court martial. In 1966 the railway station in Cork was renamed Kent Station in his honour.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 May 16 - 08:17 AM

if   a    professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin tells us a book is historically inaccurate, I believe him.[emphasis mine]

Based on a single negative review? Then the two of you are decidedly idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 May 16 - 01:20 PM

Jim thanks for the info ,i have often been at kent station, but did not realise the history of the name.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 02:41 PM

The Fact that you have come up with one historian who disagrees with him changes all that one iota

Jim,
From wiki,
"Coogan has been criticised by Irish historians Luke Kennedy, Cormac Ó Gráda and Diarmaid Ferriter for refusing to keep to good scholarly method and privileging his opinions over evidential fact:

"Well, I waited in this book to hear some great revelation and it just isn't there. It's anticlimactic. I could not see the great plot, and indeed there is no serious historian who ... I can't think of a single historian who has researched the Famine in depth – and Tim Pat has not researched it in depth" (The Famine Plot).
"This is far from his best: it rakes over ground already all too familiar, adds little that is new, and lacks an obvious narrative or logical structure" (The Famine Plot).
"Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history. ... he does not appear interested in context and shows scant regard for evidence. He does not attempt to offer any sustained analysis in relation to the challenges of state building, the meaning of sovereignty, economic and cultural transformations, or comparative perspectives on the evolution of Irish society. There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on. There is no rhyme or reason when it comes to the citation of the many quotations he uses; the vast majority are not referenced. For the 300-page text, 21 endnotes are cited and six of them relate to Coogan's previous books, a reminder that much of this tome consists of recycled material. ... Tim Pat Coogan ... he is a decent, compassionate man who has made a significant contribution to Irish life. But he has not read up on Irish history; indeed, such is the paucity of his research efforts that this book amounts to a travesty of 20th-century Irish history" (1916: The Mornings After)."

So three examples given of all the Irish historians who criticise his work.

Also wiki,
"Coogan writes from a nationalist perspective. "

So partisan, not neutral or objective.

Also Jim, what you said about ne and the Stalin biography is a lie, but I will not argue the case with you here.
Again you resort to personal attack when your argument fall down.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 02:51 PM

So two out of three criticisms were about another book entirely.

Good work professor keep it up.

Bet you haven't bothered to get it from the library yourself to make your own evaluation.


No ............... thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:02 PM

Know all about that Keith - three historians about of how many would that be then
I don't know which of today's historians are still revisionist and as you don't read books I'm ***** sure you don't
I've read Coogan's book - have you (oh, there's me forgetting......!!)
Do yui know which of these historians are partisan, neutral otr objective - course you don't.
You scratch around for a few names and the all blow up in your face, Keneally, Hastings and now Ferriter.
Why should I debate literature with a declared illiterate?
"Jim, what you said about ne and the Stalin biography is a lie,"
So you managed to tell me the difference between Deuscher and Conquest - 'course you did, I've probably forgotten it - remind me and prove me a liar.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:12 PM

Rag,
So two out of three criticisms were about another book entirely.

No. They were criticisms of him as a writer of history.

Jim,
You lie about our Stalin discussion.
The thread is still there to prove it.
I will not be drawn into another off topic argument with you. You always try that when your arguments fall flat.

Do yui know which of these historians are partisan, neutral otr objective - course you don't.

Yes. If they are professional academics employed by universities, they are nuetral, objective historians.

If they make their living by the sale of books, they have an incentive to make them pro nationalist because they will sell much better in US.

Wiki says that "he writes fro a nationalist perspective."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:13 PM

By the way - you said the Easter Rising was substantially covered by all books on WW1 - would you mind telling me which ones - I did ask
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:58 PM

"No. They were criticisms of him as a writer of history"

No they were not.

I know you cannot read properly professor but if you look at the quotes at the end of the first two it refers to THE FAMINE PLOT in particular.

It actually says THE FAMINE PLOT.

Which means quite simply they refer to THE FAMINE PLOT.

Stop lying (again)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:02 AM

Jim,
By the way - you said the Easter Rising was substantially covered by all books on WW1

No I did not.

Rag, those reviews just show that he has been falsifying history for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:07 AM

That is YOUR false interpretation.

However the comments refer to a single book THE FAMINE PLOT not to any other of his works.

Once again YOU have been caught out LYING and YOU are in no position to criticise an author who YOU haven't read, will probably never read and have clearly stated on many occasions YOU have no interest in his subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:14 AM

I do not lie Rag.
Those criticisms were of him as an historian.

Anything else to say about the rising, or are you grateful for any diversion from a difficult subject for you and Jim?

Jim's knowledge has been shown to be wrong, you have not shown any at all, and neither of you can fault the historical facts produced by T and me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:29 AM

Absolutely not Keith YOU ARE A LIAR. You have been caught out once again and even when caught you continue to lie, as you will continue to lie about this.

Two of the three comments referred specifically to the FAMINE PLOT, nothing else. You LIED about them referring to Tim Pat Coogan himself.

It is here clearly for everyone to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 16 - 06:42 AM

The Famine Plot was his book and it was criticised for historical inaccuracy in two of the three.
The third one was the book you recommended.

It is here clearly for everyone to see.
Yes. Here it is again.

"Well, I waited in this book to hear some great revelation and it just isn't there. It's anticlimactic. I could not see the great plot, and indeed there is no serious historian who ... I can't think of a single historian who has researched the Famine in depth – and Tim Pat has not researched it in depth" (The Famine Plot).
"This is far from his best: it rakes over ground already all too familiar, adds little that is new, and lacks an obvious narrative or logical structure" (The Famine Plot).
"Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history. ... he does not appear interested in context and shows scant regard for evidence. He does not attempt to offer any sustained analysis in relation to the challenges of state building, the meaning of sovereignty, economic and cultural transformations, or comparative perspectives on the evolution of Irish society. There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on. There is no rhyme or reason when it comes to the citation of the many quotations he uses; the vast majority are not referenced. For the 300-page text, 21 endnotes are cited and six of them relate to Coogan's previous books, a reminder that much of this tome consists of recycled material. ... Tim Pat Coogan ... he is a decent, compassionate man who has made a significant contribution to Irish life. But he has not read up on Irish history; indeed, such is the paucity of his research efforts that this book amounts to a travesty of 20th-century Irish history" (1916: The Mornings After)."

Anything else to say about the rising, or are you grateful for any diversion from a difficult subject for you and Jim?

Jim's knowledge has been shown to be wrong, you have not shown any at all, and neither of you can fault the historical facts produced by T and me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 May 16 - 07:01 AM

You said all three were criticisms of the 1916 The Mornings After.

Two of the three criticisms were relating to another book entirely.

You then said that all three were criticisms of him as a writer of history.

They were not they were criticisms of one book.

You then said the reviews showed he had been falsifying history for years, a libellous statement if ever I heard one. (Must point that out to Tim Pat Coogan, I've heard a rumour that he does enjoy legal actions)

You then repeated that they were criticisms of him as a historian.

No they were not, they criticised one book.

You have been proven once again to be a liar and as I suggested earlier you will continue to lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 16 - 07:23 AM

"Jim's knowledge has been shown to be wrong"
Where and by whom
You have not put up a single historian to back your case, you have refused to respond to and of the points made other than to repeat your inaccuracies.
You refuse to even substantiate your own claims only to deny you made them -you suggested that "of course" your WW1 books cover Easter week yet not only fail to name one, but deny having said so. "No I did not.
"
Your one hopeful historian crumbled in your face and you have now resorted to posting your failed arguments on the Antisemitism thread behind our backs.
Heving ruled The Famine out of bounds for everyone else, you have now resorted to a single critiscism of the author.
Your mate has obviously decided that discretion is the better part of valour and done a runner.
I have suggested to the posters to the Antisemitism thread for your behaviour - I suggest you do the same here for taking your arguments to another thread behind our backs.
I doubt you will do either
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 16 - 10:30 AM

Re books on WW1
"No I did not."
"Rag, it is true I do not read books on Irish history, but I am very well read on the period 1914-1918 which of course includes the rising."
You gave the impression that The Easter Rising was an essential part of the history of WW1.
I sk again, in which books on WW1 are the events of Easter Week covered?
"Anything else to say about the rising, or are you grateful for any diversion from a difficult subject for you and Jim?"
You and your mate has been humiliated on this subject - you have displayed in glorious technicolour your attitude to the Irish people as a whole.
You witter on about historians, having boasted that you have never read one on the subject (and don't intend to) and you have not produced a single one who backs your contempt for a part of Irish history that is being celebrated at the present time.
There is a great deal more to be said on the subject, but not to you - you have proven your stated ignorance and disinterest over and over again.
You are still attempting to win prizes and have now resorted to posting your arguments on the Antisemitsim thread.
I have suggested you apologise to the posters on that thread - I suggets the same here, though I don't expect a decent response for either
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 May 16 - 01:17 PM

Well, the discussion, though heated, continues to be interesting. I don't think anybody is lying here. Lies are false statements intentionally meant to mislead. I think people here are saying what they believe to be correct - even though it may be incorrect. Rather than respond with accusations of "lying," a factual, documented response would be helpful.

It is my impression that the Irish rebels executed after the Easter Rising, were charged with and executed for treason. But I haven't seen credible documentation of these charges, and that would be interesting to me.

It seems to me that treason as a political offense. Many times, those who are charged with treason are people who truly believe they are doing something for the good of their society. But yet treason and other political offenses seem to be the most common reason for capital punishment. We humans don't execute people for public safety - we execute for political expediency.

It seems to me that both the British and the Irish rebels executed good people for purely political reasons.

I think that's wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 May 16 - 04:15 PM

Joe, I know you are trying to pour oil and troubled waters but although we all often make mistakes I draw a line when someone deliberately lies and then continues to do so.

When one contributor claims from the rooftops that there are 3 criticisms of a book when in reality is in fact one criticism of a book, which that contributor then claims to be criticisms of that author works, it has to be pointed out.

If once pointed out that contributor had said Ooops my mistake, it would not have gone any further. However both you and I know said contributor will NEVER acknowledge they are in the wrong.

In one post that contributor actually libelled the author of the book in question. I would like to think the said author would take an action against the contributor and I've saved the offending posts just in case he does.

This one contributor is renowned for trying to "mislead" others. Some of us call that lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:55 PM

Yeah, but is Coogan alive or dead? That's the first thing we need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 06 May 16 - 07:18 PM

Hmmm. Just looked in on this thread thinking it would probably be best to stay out of it. My initial judgement is confirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 16 - 07:34 PM

Sorry, Joe, but you really don't understand Keith, do you. It's a bit like when you've been reading and trusting your local paper for thirty years or so, then, one day, the paper reports something about you. It's inaccurate, it misquotes you and it misrepresents you in the extreme. After that, you can never again believe a word it says. Well that's how we are with Keith. My turning point, as if I needed one, was his gross misrepresentation of Geoffrey Wheatcroft. It just so happened that I'd read that Guardian article just before Keith misrepresented it so grossly. When I challenged him, he was unapologetic and would not admit to his glaring error, even in the face of the plain truth. Regrettably, but factually, that makes Keith a liar, Joe. Yes, there are liars on this forum. No need to be so nice about them. Having said all that, your post is otherwise reasonable and measured.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 16 - 12:14 AM

Yeah, but when all we hear is that some poster is a liar, we don't learn anything. Better to lay off the accusations, and use the "lies" (if that is what they are) as an opportunity to further explain the truth. Accusations of lying, are just not interesting. I wish Mr. Trump would learn that.

I'm still trying to sort all this out. I think people are pretty accurate when trying to present their perspective of an issue. However, there's something in human nature that makes us unable to present the other party's perspective with similar accuracy. My tendency is to side with the Irish rebels, but I know that rebels tend toward absolutism in their belief in their cause. I also know the British to be extremely decent people, not likely to oppress if they actually realize that they're being oppressive. But still, the British played a major part in the Highland Clearances in Scotland, and in the oppression of the Irish. So, I'm still trying to make sense out of all this.

I cringe every time I hear the "liar" accusation. I really respect Barack Obama, and I was shocked when a Congressman shouted out "liar" during Obama's State of the Union address a few years ago. And the Republicans (and even some Bernie Sanders supporters) have had a concerted effort to label Hillary Clinton as a liar - and I just can't believe them. So, if I hear the term "liar," I'd rather see refuting information instead of just the accusation.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 01:37 AM

Raggytash - 05 May 16 - 06:59 AM

Martial Law having been declared on the 25th April 1916 means that General Maxwell could do pretty much as he liked.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 16 - 01:51 AM

But does martial law justify tyranny, Teribus? political executions?

I think that in the eyes of the world, the execution of the Irish rebels of 1916, was just wrong. Britain simply had no need to do that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 01:57 AM

Thomas Kent - the whole story

(Tomás Ceannt in Irish)(1865 – 9 May 1916) was an Irish nationalist executed following a gunfight with the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) on 22 April 1916.
Kent was part of a prominent nationalist family who lived at Bawnard House, Castlelyons, County Cork. They were prepared to take part in the Easter Rising, but when the mobilization order was countermanded, they stayed home. The rising nevertheless went forward in Dublin, and the RIC was sent to arrest well-known sympathizers throughout the country including, but not limited to, known members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, Sinn Féin, and the Irish Volunteers. When the Kent residence was raided they were met with resistance from Thomas and his brothers Richard, David, and William. A gunfight lasted for four hours, in which an RIC officer, Head Constable William Rowe, was killed and David Kent was seriously wounded. Eventually the Kents were forced to surrender, although Richard made a last minute dash for freedom and was fatally wounded.

Thomas and William were tried by court martial on the charge of murdering Head Constable Rowe. William was acquitted, but Thomas was sentenced to death and executed by firing squad in, Cork on 9 May 1916. David Kent was brought to Dublin where he was charged with the same offence, found guilty and sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted and he was sentenced to five years penal servitude. Apart from the singular case of Roger Casement, Thomas Kent was the only person outside of Dublin to be executed for his role in the events of Easter Week. He is buried in the grounds of Collins Barracks, Cork (formerly Victoria Barracks).

So then Jom I can certainly see why even in 1916 without the imposition of Martial Law that all four of the Kent brothers would be charged and executed - killing a police officer in the execution of his duty would guarantee it - but they weren't were they?

David first wounded in the four hour long gunfight that they started, he was later tried, convicted, sentenced to death and then had his sentence commuted to five years penal servitude.

Richard shot and fatally wounded attempting to escape (,i.e. his own choice Jom - he knew precisely what risk he was taking)

William Kent was arrested, tried and acquitted

Thomas Kent who did kill Rowe was arrested, tried , convicted and executed.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:06 AM

"You said all three were criticisms of the 1916 The Mornings After."

Don't think he did Raggy.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:58 AM

Hello Terrikins, where have you been. I've been hoping for a response to the three questions I put to you in my post that asked:

The pertinent question is "were they given a fair trial"

Some of the people conducting the trials has also been involved in suppressing the rising. This I believe is prohibited in the military manual.

So question 1. Is it prohibited in the Military Manual that an officer involved in an action cannot take part is any later legal proceedings. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

So question 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes then should these people have been debarred from being involved in the trials. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

General Maxwell took it upon himself to conduct the trials in secret and without a defence being allowed.

So question 3. Was this ruled illegal by Crown Law Officers, again a simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 03:11 AM

Joe Offer - 06 May 16 - 01:17 PM

Well, the discussion, though heated, continues to be interesting. I don't think anybody is lying here. Lies are false statements intentionally meant to mislead. I think people here are saying what they believe to be correct - even though it may be incorrect. Rather than respond with accusations of "lying," a factual, documented response would be helpful.

Two posts on Thomas Kent Joe, one very sanitised post from Jim Carroll, and another providing far more detail from me. Are you familiar Joe with the expression lying by omission?

Jim's post seeks to give the impression that Kent was selected at random and killed for taking part in the rising even although he was not even in Dublin at the time. In doing this does he seek to mislead? I certainly think so.

My contribution details that Kent was executed for the shooting of a policeman in the execution of his duty.

To answer your earlier question and subsequent comment:

What tyranny? Had the men executed in 1916 done anything like that in the USA, while the USA was at war their feet would not have touched the ground on the way to death row and the execution chamber - the US has executed a man (Brown) for organising armed resistance to slavery and one man (Mumford) for simply tearing down the union flag during the civil war.

I personally, would have kept them all alive, especially those who signed the proclamation. I would have paraded them through every town, village, parish and school hall in Ireland exposing their lies and their treachery to their own followers and to the Irish people (who they most certainly did not represent - they even had to keep their intentions secret from their own organisations FFS!!).

To expose and provide proof to the world of the extent of their treacherous collusion with Germany between 1914 and 1916 would have let the Germans know that their naval codes had been broken. Tell me Joe how closely was ENIGMA guarded during the Second World War? How closely guarded a secret was the Manhattan Project? The USA and Great Britain would have done anything to keep those secrets from their enemies. Great Britain was in the same situation in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 04:43 AM

"The pertinent question is "were they given a fair trial"

Some of the people conducting the trials has also been involved in suppressing the rising. This I believe is prohibited in the military manual.

So question 1. Is it prohibited in the Military Manual that an officer involved in an action cannot take part is any later legal proceedings. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

So question 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes then should these people have been debarred from being involved in the trials. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

General Maxwell took it upon himself to conduct the trials in secret and without a defence being allowed.

So question 3. Was this ruled illegal by Crown Law Officers, again a simple yes or no answer will suffice.

To answer your questions in reverse order and acknowledging the fact that Martial Law had been declared on the 25th April and therefore taking into account that that significantly altered the circumstances to the extent that peacetime and civil rules are dispensed with:

3: No, and there was no such ruling, it was the opinion of some Crown Law Officers, the subsequent Royal Commission into the Easter Rising did not rule that the Courts Martial held after the rising were illegal.

2: No, if under the circumstance these are the only officers of suitable rank immediately available, and that holds good irrespective if martial law has been declared

1: No, see 2 above.

Your pertinent quest "were they given a fair trial"?

David Kent certainly received a fair trial (IMHO he should have been executed as an accessory to murder).

William Kent certainly received a fair trial - he was acquitted (IMHO he should have been executed as an accessory to murder).

90 people court-martialled and sentenced to death - only 15 sentences actually carried out - So yes IMHO considering what they were guilty of they received a fair trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 May 16 - 10:02 AM

Your opinion counts for naught.

You know that the answer to each of the question IN LAW (not your opinion) but IN LAW is yes, yes and yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 10:40 AM

If my opinion counts for naught Raggy why did you ask for it?

The answer IN LAW you say. Are you a legal expert? I somehow doubt it.

But it wasn't just IN LAW was it Raggy? It was UNDER MARTIAL LAW - by the way it was the fact that you have not picked up on the difference that leads me to suspect that you are NOT a legal expert.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 16 - 10:47 AM

I rarely call people liars, Joe, but when I do my reasoning for reaching that conclusion is always crystal clear. I spent many posts and a good deal of time refuting what Keith said about Wheatcroft and stating what was actually in the article. One can do no more.