BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:44 PM

Whatever Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:54 PM

"Agreement to wait till after the war to decide on the position on partition - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?"

The problem I have with that statement is that on the 9th July 1914 war had not been declared, Germany had not invaded Belgium, so perhaps you could tell us all how at that time they decided to wait until after the end of a war that had yet to be started.

On the 8th July 1914 the Lords and the Unionists agreed to the temporary six year exclusion that had been proposed as part of Asquith's Amending Bill that had was to be included in the 1914 Home Rule Bill. The amending bill was abandoned on Great Britain's entry into the war on the 4th August 1914.

At no point at all in the process was permanent partition ever promised until Ulster was guaranteed an opt out of an independent Ireland set up by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921.

Are you suggesting that Lloyd did not tell both sides that partition had been decided in their favour

Lloyd George told Redmond that the six year temporary exclusion previously talked about and agreed to in 1914 would remain. Lloyd George assured Carson that the Unionists would not be forced into a union against their will. Tell us how that matches up to what you have stated above Redmond didn't want partition at all and Carson was not given any promise of there being a permanent partition. The rising led to the war of independence which resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty which then gave the Ulster Unionists exactly what they wanted. Had there been no rising, there would have been no war of independence and there would have been no Anglo-Irish Treaty, no opt out for the Unionists. Instead the North and South would have had six years to reach a compromise solution.

""Parliamentary Republicans""
They are referred to as both

Inaccurately and incorrectly, there were no Parliamentary Republicans until after the 1918 election and they all refused to take their seats in Westminster.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 05:08 PM

GSS Jims post underlines my point that politicians [even then] were not to be trusted

That all depends if you accept what Jim says in his post as being the truth - simply put it wasn't - at no time at all was permanent partition ever promised by anyone to the Ulster Unionists. please do not just take my word for it:

Look at the details of the proposed but abandoned Amending Bill for the 1914 Home Rule Bill

Look at the details of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which still mentions a temporary exclusion lasting six years - how could that possibly be if Lloyd George had promised the Unionists permanent Partition in July 1916?

Taking a look at what was said between 1912 an 1914 British Politicians did everything that they said they would

Delivered a Home Rule Act that was delayed due to the outbreak of hostilities in Europe

Delivered on their promise that Home Rule would be the first thing they'd deal with once hostilities had ended

Delivered on the promise that all parties would be consulted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 16 - 03:57 AM

Jim,

"By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement.
"
Agreement to wait till after the war to decide on the position on partition

Rubbish!
There was no war then, and Britain was intending not to join any war between Germany and France.


"By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement. "
They were, and only the rising destroyed that agreement.
Only the rising prevented the Bill from being enacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 May 16 - 04:11 AM

Whatever Keith.

Start of the war August 1914, the Act 1914, the Rising 1916 yes I can see how two years after the event the Rising prevented something two years prior. Makes sense doesn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 04:31 AM

More of the same, unqualified arrogance that has been dealt with over and over again
I gave you a list of statements and asked you if you had a problem with them - once again, you refuse to rely.
Thank you for confirming that Britain decided to go with the Unionists on partition, totally ignoring the Catholic majority wishes, without consultation - that's something, I suppose.
No country or Empire should have the right to artificially divide another without the permission of its inhabitants.
No country should have the right to section of vast tract of another and declare it a separate state, based on religion, colour of skin, taste in music..... whatever.
No country should have the right to defend minority religion-driven fanatics who have armed themselves in order to impose their will on the country as a whole.
Britain did all these things and much more and that is what you are defending.
The result of that fanatical minority taking control in those six states on the lives of those who didn't share their fanaticism lasted for half a century and ended in a bloodbath which still bubbles away beneath the surface.
The non-fanatic minority in the six counties were forced to inferior lives than those who followed the religion of the ruling fanatics, under a regime of non-equality, insecurity of tenure and employment, poor housing, regular sectarian rioting and a greatly inferior access to electoral democracy
Peaceful protests against the conditions imposed on the minority were met with extreme violence by the fanatics, fully supported by the forces of 'law-and-order' - which led to two decades of bloodshed in Ireland and on the British mainland.
From the word go those fanatics have been "the selfish men of violence" - first to arm, first to threaten, first to consider civil war, first to establish an oppressive sectarian state within Britain - all supported by the British establishment, by sections of the British Army and later by the British Army and judicial system as a whole - and by you.
And you dare to shed crocodile tears for those who died during Easter Week, overwhelmingly at the hands (artillery) of the British forces.
Every nation has a right to full cultural and political independence, to choose its own path, to make its own mistakes and to shape its own future - that is now a fully accepted truth, except by the dinosaurs who year for the day when they were kings of the prehistoric rainforests.
People who fought to bring about that freedom and make it a reality are heroes, not "selfish murderers", nor gullibly brainwashed" idiots.
Their efforts were acts of heroism, not "contemptible jokes".
The "murderers" were those who rigged trials and executed the heroes and innocents alike - or those who cut down pacifists, or massacred protesters or indiscriminately fired mortars into occupied areas.
The gullibly brainwashed idiots are those who defend this behaviour and sneer at the heroes who fought for the right of countries to rule themselves and in doing so, helped to bring the entire difice of Empire throughout the world crashing to dust - proof of the pudding, if nothing else is.
You pair are (once again) alone in your quest - here or elsewhere - I can't think of anybody anywhere who is prepared to spend the time and effort denigrating what is in fact, an internationally accepted act of heroism - it is hardly surprising that the same two put in similar efforts into defending the depopulation of Ireland and the mass-murder of its people not too long ago - if we were discussing serial killings we would be considering "a behavioural pattern".
Ireland will be celebrating and re-examining this event for the rest of the year, in a few years time it will be doing the same for the limited independence that these events helped bring about Best not put way your Union Jacks too soon - you're going to need them again shortly to tell the Irish they didn't deserve independence and they were tricked by "the Spanish and the French" into asking for it in the first place.
Rule Britannia, eh what!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 04:34 AM

"That all depends if you accept what Jim says in his post as being the truth - simply put it wasn't -"
Then produce evidence rather than denials - I have
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 16 - 04:43 AM

You won't get anywhere with Keith in a month of Sundays. Treat his input as a bit of fun and you'll be all right. He's at it again big-time over on the Labour Party thread. It must be because he eats three shredded wheats every morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 05:42 AM

"You won't get anywhere with Keith in a month of Sundays. "
I really don't expect to Steve - you can't feed information into closed minds
I considered leaving this pair to stew in their own juice until I worked out what I had gained from this thread.
It's helped me to put together, check and articulate what I have always sknown abot Ireland, adjust it and correct it where it has been wrong and add to it, mainly from revisiting books I haven't read for years
Keith doesn't read books - he told us so, Teribus never quotes from anything, books or the web, or , if he does, he won't tell us what for fear we will find him out in telling porkies.
None of this is for their benefit, it's for mine and anybody who wishes to join me on the two-way-street of information sharing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 16 - 07:49 AM

Rag,
I can see how two years after the event the Rising prevented something two years prior. Makes sense doesn't it.

Perfect sense Rag.
Agreement was reached.
The war delayed enactment, but the rising destroyed it.

Steve, once again you post with no contribution to the debate, just a personal attack on me.

Treat his input as a bit of fun and you'll be all right.

Perhaps you could identify a single error of fact from me Steve.
Good luck with that.
No-one else has been able to.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 May 16 - 08:25 AM

Whatever Keith


Now go and repeat your mantra.











The English, the English the England are best
so up with the English and down with the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 08:35 AM

"Perhaps you could identify a single error of fact from me Steve."
Please do not turn this into another of your "me, me, me" threads.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 09:31 AM

"Agreement was reached."
And please stop repeating this inaccuracy unless you are prepared to offer evidence to back uop yourr claim.
Agreement was most definitely reached on the issue of partition.
After years of opposition, the Unionists narrowed down their demand from "no independence in any form for Ireland" through, "partition for nine counties", to reluctantly agreeing to "permanent partition for six counties" - Carson rejected the Redmondite demands for temporary partition saying "we do not want a sentence of death, with a stay of execution for 6 years."
Redmond refused permanent partition completely as "an unthinkable abomination" and described Lloyd Georges unilateral promise of permanent partition as "a betrayal"

"Following the Easter Rising, Lloyd George made another attempt to achieve a Home Rule settlement, which again foundered on the partition question. By the end of 1918 the situation was transformed by the collapse of the Irish Parliamentary Party and Sinn Fein's demand for a settlement considerably in advance of Home Rule."
   
This is the progression of the situation

"Sir Edward Carson and the Irish Unionist Party (mostly Ulster MPs) backed by a Lords' recommendation, supported the government's Amending Bill in the Lords on 8 July 1914 for the "temporary exclusion of Ulster" from the workings of the future Act, but the number of counties (four, six or nine) and whether exclusion was to be temporary or permanent, all still to be negotiated."
HOME RULE CRISIS

When Lloyd George guaranteed that that "temporary" situation was to be permanent, the movement collapses and Ireland moved on to demand full independence.
If "Agreement was reached." - how did they square that circle?
Lloyd George's, not the rebels' behaviour sent the Home Rule Bill and the Movement crashing in flames - you are the only ones who have blamed the Rebels for this.
If you possess a single shred of honesty, (which I doubt) you will either produce evidence to back your parrot-like utterances or you will stop making them - an actual withdrawal is, of course out of the question.
Now, perhapss we can move on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 May 16 - 10:13 AM

It would appear that both Raggytash and Jim Carroll have major problems with time lines and chronology of events.

Carroll thinks that all parties involved used their clairvoyant powers to decide to delay the enactment of Home Rule until after the end of a war that hadn't even started.

Raggytash wonders:

Start of the war August 1914, the Act 1914, the Rising 1916 yes I can see how two years after the event the Rising prevented something two years prior. Makes sense doesn't it.

Yes it does make perfect sense as long as you take the trouble to realise that:

1: The 1914 Home Rule legislation was delayed by the start of the war and that it would be enacted once hostilities were concluded. Before the start of the war all parties had reached agreement and that involved temporary partition for Ulster for a period of six years.

2: The rising of 1916 hardened Unionist opposition and prevented enactment of the 1914 Home Rule Act, it did not however prevent enactment of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Besides in August 1914 the "Rebels" hadn't had the opportunity to hold all the appropriate meetings to collude with the Germans and get more arms, in order to stage their rising while the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was at war with Germany. The "magnificent seven" hadn't even had the chance to form their highly secret clique within a highly secret organisation in order to hoodwink the Supreme Council of the IRB and the Executive Council of the Irish Volunteers who were actually supposed to be running things. All that underhand and traitorous planning and plotting takes a bit of time - two years would just about cover it - Makes sense doesn't it.

As for this:

No country or Empire should have the right to artificially divide another without the permission of its inhabitants.

Quite right and no country or Empire did in the case of Irish Independence. By the way what was the position of the inhabitants of Ulster? I think that they made their wishes known very clearly from 1912 onwards - they were to be ignored were they? OK to coerce them.

No country should have the right to section of vast tract of another and declare it a separate state, based on religion, colour of skin, taste in music..... whatever.

Quite right and no country did in the case of Irish Independence

No country should have the right to defend minority religion-driven fanatics who have armed themselves in order to impose their will on the country as a whole.

Who are you talking about here the UVF or the Pearse Faction of the IVF? Fact shows that of the two only the IVF actually used their arms, only the IVF engaged in the subsequent War of Independence in order to impose their will on the country as a whole. In the North how well supported was the "rebel" side in the war of independence, hardly any support at all correct. Neither the Rising or the subsequent war did anything to promote any confidence in any Dublin based independent government and de Valera's total disregard for the will of the majority and disrespect for democracy illustrated in the aftermath of the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty vindicated the Unionist's decision to have no further part in any Independent Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 12:11 PM

"It would appear that both Raggytash and Jim Carroll have major problems with time lines and chronology of events."
And it would seem you still have trouble offering nothing other than arrogantly definitive statements - where ifs your evidence for anything you have ever said?
"The rising of 1916 hardened Unionist opposition"
Utterly stupid - how do you "harden opposition" of a bunch of armed fanatics who have threatened Civil War if their demands where not met - bring them to the brink of nuclear war?.
Even the Brits recognised that the Unionists were armed loose cannons who were prepared to go to war to get their way and had the support of sections of the British Army to achieve that end; despite this fact, they still appeased them.
They were the first to arm and drill and the first to threaten a War that would make Easter week look like a playground scrap.   
The only way you can possiby justify this utterly crass statement is by ignoring the landslides of factual documentation you have been given - in return, you have offed nothing..
"Quite right and no country or Empire did in the case of Irish Independence"
Again bal;derdash - Independence means unity - Britain forced through pertition to appease the Unionist thugs - you've been given the evidence of this - in return, you have offed nothing.
"Who are you talking about here the UVF or the Pearse Faction of the IVF?"
Now you are deliberately rewriting Irish history
There were no factions among the rebels - no disagreements as to what their aims were - the proof of this is carved into Irish history in the agreed Proclamation.
As with all movements, there were different ideals - Connolly and others were Socialists, Pearse a National idealist, the bulk of them just wanted fredom from British rule
THere's little use asking you to prove this smear - you don't do that sort of thing.
Conned by the Spanish and French, no right to Unity because of how it was before the Normans - you really do operate of the "if you can't prove it, smear it" principle.
When will you realise that, until you start actually backing what you say with actual researched facts, your pronouncements will remain nothing but the opinions of an Empire Loyalist   believed by no-one but Keith, and he has his own personality problems

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 12:11 PM

"It would appear that both Raggytash and Jim Carroll have major problems with time lines and chronology of events."
And it would seem you still have trouble offering nothing other than arrogantly definitive statements - where ifs your evidence for anything you have ever said?
"The rising of 1916 hardened Unionist opposition"
Utterly stupid - how do you "harden opposition" of a bunch of armed fanatics who have threatened Civil War if their demands where not met - bring them to the brink of nuclear war?.
Even the Brits recognised that the Unionists were armed loose cannons who were prepared to go to war to get their way and had the support of sections of the British Army to achieve that end; despite this fact, they still appeased them.
They were the first to arm and drill and the first to threaten a War that would make Easter week look like a playground scrap.   
The only way you can possiby justify this utterly crass statement is by ignoring the landslides of factual documentation you have been given - in return, you have offed nothing..
"Quite right and no country or Empire did in the case of Irish Independence"
Again bal;derdash - Independence means unity - Britain forced through pertition to appease the Unionist thugs - you've been given the evidence of this - in return, you have offed nothing.
"Who are you talking about here the UVF or the Pearse Faction of the IVF?"
Now you are deliberately rewriting Irish history
There were no factions among the rebels - no disagreements as to what their aims were - the proof of this is carved into Irish history in the agreed Proclamation.
As with all movements, there were different ideals - Connolly and others were Socialists, Pearse a National idealist, the bulk of them just wanted fredom from British rule
THere's little use asking you to prove this smear - you don't do that sort of thing.
Conned by the Spanish and French, no right to Unity because of how it was before the Normans - you really do operate of the "if you can't prove it, smear it" principle.
When will you realise that, until you start actually backing what you say with actual researched facts, your pronouncements will remain nothing but the opinions of an Empire Loyalist   believed by no-one but Keith, and he has his own personality problems

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 03:17 PM

More time now
This is where it should have been at the beginning - out in the open.
The outpouringsof these two are little more than a display of spiteful cultural hatred directed at a tiny handful of poorly armed and trained men who held the British Empire at bay for a week and ended up tweaking its nose so hard that it set the building blocks of the entire Imperial system tumbling.
If you have any evidence of a "faction" among the rebels - please provide it.
If you have any evidence of the actions of Easter Week offending the finer feelings of a bunch of armed traitorous thugs to the extent that they forgot their manners - please provide it.
If you have any evidence of Ireland being egged on by Spain and France to demand Independence - please provide it.
If you have evidence of any of your crass claims - no artillery, a fair trial for Tom Kent, an army refusing to act if a bunch of Unionist thugs invaded part of Britain not being tantamount to a mutiny, rioters setting fire to the whole of Sackville Street, Ireland not being entitled to independence because of what happened in Norman times...... any of this shit - please provide it.
Otherwise it remains what it appears to be - the hate-filled ramblings of a pair of Neanderthal Empire Loyalists making up stories in defence of a long-gone-but not missed predatory Empire and a highly dangerous group of religion-inspired fanatics.
You don't provide evidence, either of you because there is none - not even Keith with his assiduous searching for "real historians" has turned up zilch, though I have little doubt that he has worn out eyes and fingers looking for some.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 May 16 - 03:44 PM

Teribus, you in particular disappoint me, I thought you may have more intelligence.

The professor wrote:

"By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement. "
They were, and only the rising destroyed that agreement.
Only the rising prevented the Bill from being enacted"

How an event TWO YEARS AFTER the initial agreement can prevent it from being enacted is ridiculous.

As for anything the professor types ........ whatever

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 16 - 05:32 PM

Teribus, you in particular disappoint me, I thought you may have more intelligence.

Well, now there's you problem, mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 May 16 - 07:07 PM

Raggytash - 26 May 16 - 03:44 PM

Shall we do this by getting you to supply the answers?

Time line

Third Irish Home Rule BILL introduced in April 1912

Third Irish Home Rule Bill goes through its readings in both Commons and Lords. Finally in July 1914 agreement is reached by all parties via an proposed Amendment Bill that guarantees the Unionists a six year exclusion from Government from Dublin. This Amendment Bill is abandoned in August 1914 when Britain goes to war with Germany. The Home Rule Bill introduced in 1912 however becomes the Home Rule ACT in September 1914 with the understanding that what was previously agreed still remains to be formalised to allow the Act to be made fact. Nothing else is done between the declaration of war and the rising instigated by seven fanatical members of the IRB. Their "Rising" set up from start to finish to FAIL impresses who in what quarters? The Republicans to push ahead and the Unionists to dig in against it. That Raggytash is how decisions taken in 1916 wrecked something that was put in motion in 1912, which became Law in 1914.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 May 16 - 07:29 PM

Jim Carroll - 26 May 16 - 12:11 PM

The REALITY though Carroll is that THREATS are one thing ACTION entirely another. Now you tell us all who it was of the two groups who formed in 1913 and who armed in 1914 actually used their weapons against the people of Ireland - not ONCE but three times in the following eight years and caused the deaths of roughly 6,500 people - Give you a hint Carroll - it wasn't the Unionists. THREATS one thing ACTION another entirely.

The magnificent seven rose on that Easter Week-end for an independent united Ireland - truth is that 100 years on plus, almost 10,000 Irish lives have been needlessly lost and the "men of the gun" have ensured that that goal of a united independent Ireland is further away now than it was on the 23rd April 1914 - Haven't they done well.

Now instead of ranting and frothing at the mouth you calmly put down in writing what you think the prospects are for the attainment of a united Ireland are today and when you think that it will happen. My assessment is that it is still a very long way off - if ever, and that is what was won by the seven men who forced the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916 and if you laud their efforts, then accept what their actions wrought - a permanently partitioned land, because that is the reality of today.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 03:44 AM

"The REALITY though Carroll is that"
Whoops - your strain is showing - tsk-tsk!!
The reality is that, as you refuse to offer anything other than unlinked and unproven jingist opinions and as you are now just repeating something that has been fully covered over and over again (not to mention that you are reduced to childish-name-calling, you need to find the nearest garage - you're out of petrol.
Jim Carroll

From 'Ireland Since the Famine' F.S.L. Lyons (1971)

The Move to Civil War
"This suggestion was first made in May 1912 and came to nothing in face of George V's impeccably constitutional behaviour, but it was a worrying indication of how far the monarchy itself was likely to be involved in the crisis. On the other hand, the Unionists in general, and Carson in particular, devoted themselves to raising the tension in Ulster to a new high pitch. In September 1912, amid scenes of deep emotion, Carson led a vast concourse of Ulstermen in signing the Solemn League and Covenant. As loyal subjects of the King they pledged themselves, with¬out any evidence of conscious irony, to oppose the King's government and to use all necessary means 'to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority.'
What gave this tribal ritual its real menace was the fact, insufficiently appreciated either by the government or by the nationalists, that the Ulstermen were beginning to drill and to organise in support of their threats. As far back as Carson's Craigavon meeting of 1911 a Tyrone detachment of Orangemen had impressed all observers by their smart¬ness which, it appeared, was the result of conscientious drilling. During 1912 it was discovered that Justices of the Peace could authorise such drilling 'for the purpose of maintaining the constitution of the United Kingdom as now established' and more and more groups of ardent Unionists took up the idea. In January 1913 the Ulster Unionist Council made the crucial decision to form these groups into a coherent body - the Ulster Volunteer Force-to be limited to 100,000 men and organised on a military basis. To help them they had a retired Indian army general, Sir George Richardson (recommended by no less a person than Field Marshal Roberts) assisted by an able staff officer, Captain Wilfred Spender. The fact that the Volunteers drilled openly was ominous, but since they drilled for the most part with wooden rifles it was still open to the nationalists to laugh at them and to persist in the dangerous belief that they were bluffing. The time was fast ap¬proaching when this belief would become much more difficult to sus¬tain.
Meanwhile, in parliament and behind the scenes the pressure for some sort of compromise was mounting. Early in January 1913 Carson proposed in studiously moderate tones that the whole nine counties of Ulster be excluded from the Bill. It was, of course, a totally unaccept¬able suggestion and Carson himself made it plain that he was still not prepared to compromise on the main issue, but at least it indicated a willingness to talk about possibilities. And although his -motion was rejected, when Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, met Bonar Law at Balmoral in the autumn he found him also prepared to negotiate on the basis of some kind of exclusion. The hope of agree¬ment was faint, but it was enough for the Prime Minister himself to hold three meetings with the Leader of the Opposition between seriously considering whether they might not cause the House of Lords to refuse to pass the annual Army Act, without which no government could exist, since in the absence of an Army Act the Army itself could not be paid or even kept in being as a regular force. That the Con¬servative party should have come to this pass, at a time of deep inter¬national tension in Europe, was a staggering indication of how far the Irish crisis had corroded all the ordinary decencies and conventions of constitutional government. But before Bonar Law and his associates had made up their minds to reject this desperate plan, the initiative was seized by a group of Army officers stationed at the Curragh camp in Ireland. In a state of dire confusion - due partly to the highly charged atmosphere of the time and partly to a misunderstanding of orders-some fifty-eight officers proffered their resignations rather than face the prospect of having, as they believed, to 'coerce' Ulster. Worse still, one of the generals in Ireland, Sir Hubert Gough (himself a member of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy caste) proceeded to London and, aided by the Director of Military Operations (Sir Henry Wilson, another Anglo-Irish soldier), extracted from the Secretary of State for War, Colonel J. E. B. Seely, a pledge that the government had no intention of using the Army 'to crush political opposition to the policy or principles of the Home Rule Bill'. This was too much even for the patient Asquith to stomach. Seely was obliged to resign, as were two generals, and Asquith himself took over the War Office for the time being. He at once repudiated Seely's pledge, but nothing could conceal the fact that he had very nearly had a mutiny on Ms hands and that he could not count upon the loyalty of the Army if he now moved to coerce Ulster. He did not move to coerce Ulster.
It was against this background of ever growing passion and bitter¬ness that Major Crawford now reappeared upon the scene. He had earned out his arms purchases in Germany (enabled to do so by large sums subscribed to a Defence Fund by English as well as Irish Union¬ists) and on the night of 24-25 April these were landed at three har¬bours on the east coast of Ulster (Larne, Bangor and Donaghadee) and distributed with extraordinary speed and efficiency all over the pro¬vince inside twenty-four hours.17 It is hard to say which impressed contemporaries more-the fierce determination that had inspired this
coup, or the inability of the government either to prevent it taking I place or to punish those who had perpetrated it. These two events- the Curragh incident and the Ulster gun-running - had, as we can now i see, a double effect upon the situation. On the one hand, the gun- [ running restored the military supremacy in Ireland to the Ulster Volunteers with, the inevitable result that the Irish Volunteers in the south were moved at once to imitate the northern initiative. And on E the other hand, with the situation deteriorating as fast as it was . doing, the government had more reason than ever to work for a f settlement and, since it could not coerce Carson, attempt to coerce Redmond.
In June 1914, therefore, Asquith, groping desperately for a com¬promise, even if only a temporary one, decided on an Amending Bill I to deal separately with Ulster. As introduced in the Lords, it provided i for county option for six years - precisely 'the stay of execution' already rejected by Carson. But since the Unionist majority in the 1 upper House promptly altered the proposals so as to provide for the exclusion of all nine counties for an indefinite period, it was plain that nothing was to be hoped for from this device. Reluctantly, and dreading i the failure which was almost inevitable, Asquith allowed himself to ; be pushed inch by inch nearer to the conference between the two parties that the King
Had been anxiously urging upon him for some time. The conference duly held its first meeting on 21 July at Bucking¬ham Palace, bringing face to face Asquith, Lloyd George, Redmond and Dillon on the one side, and on the other Bonar Law, Lord Lansdowne, Carson and James Craig. After a few days of intensive but l' entirely fruitless negotiation discussing maps and figures but always
getting back, as Asquith wrote to a friend, 'to that most damnable / creation of the perverted ingenuity of man, the county of Tyrone', the Conference ended in deadlock. It had proved quite impossible to agree on areas of exclusion which would not do injury to either Catholic or Protestant.
The breakdown of the Conference was announced on 24 July. Two days later the Irish Volunteers carried out their gun-running on the Ulster model, but improved upon the occasion by doing it in broad daylight. This, too, was a decisive event, more decisive than was realised at the time, even in Ireland. Superficially, the southern Volunteers were under Redmond's control, for the previous month he had insisted that his nominees should be given what he believed would be a predominant voice in the Provisional Committee which governed their organisation. His action earned him deep resentment but little real influence. The gun-running was planned and carried out without his knowledge, and although the intention of most of those who participated was probably no more than to restore the balance between their force and the Ulster Volunteers, the residuary legatees of this operation were the IRB, who had already permeated the Irish Volun¬teers for purposes of their own. The greater part of the guns were landed at Howth, on the north side of Dublin Bay, so that they could be distributed with the maximum speed. This was done despite the authorities' decision to call out the troops, but when the latter were returning to barracks a further incident Occurred of precisely the kind calculated to do most damage to Anglo-Irish relations. Harassed by a hostile but unarmed crowd, the troops turned and fired, killing three people and injuring thirty-eight.
The immediate political effect of this tragedy was to make it more impossible even than before for the nationalist leaders to compromise. Since Carson was equally adamant, there seemed no Way out short of that civil war which had been threatening for so long. But quite suddenly the domestic quarrel was submerged in the vaster European crisis. With the international situation worsening almost hour by hour, Asquith abandoned his intention of pressing on with an Amendment Bill. But would this mean also the abandonment of the Home Rule Bill itself, now so near the end of its long and weary course? The British arguments in favour of this were strong. With war imminent it would be folly to aggravate the internecine conflict. But a European war did not seem to nationalists a sufficient reason to baulk them of what seemed to them their just expectations. If Redmond did not succeed in getting Home Rule onto the statute-book he might not be able to hold back the surge of indignation that would sweep over Ireland. He him¬self was in a dilemma. Home Rule was the ultimate objective of his whole political career and naturally he did not want to jettison it at this eleventh hour. On the other hand, his sympathies with Britain in the war now breaking out were strong, far stronger than were those of most of his colleagues or of the country he led. At this agonisingly difficult moment in his career he took a momentous decision, one that in the long run was to cost him dear. On 3 August, in an emotional speech to the House of Commons, he pledged Ireland's support for the war and urged the government to leave the defence of Irish shores to Irishmen, to the Volunteers from north and south.
This generosity seems to have been, if not quite spontaneous, at least without political calculation, though it was a reasonable supposition that it might make Asquith a little more amenable to the demand that Home Rule should go on the statute-book. Whether this was so or not, or whether the Prime Minister was more impressed by the impassioned warnings Redmond addressed to him in private that the loyalty of the south could not be relied on if Home Rule were denied, it is impossible to say. He was, of course, being simultaneously pressed in the opposite direction by Bonar Law and Carson, and it was not until September that
The complex cross-currents that swirled round the Irish Volunteers are dealt with below, Part III, chap. 1. It was typical of the confusion of life in Ireland at the time that the purchase of the arms in Germany and their transport to Dublin were carried out by sympathisers who were mainly members of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy class.
he finally escaped from his predicament by agreeing to place the Gov¬ernment of Ireland Act on the statute-book, but with two provisos. One was that it should not come into operation until after the end of the war; and the other was that it would not come into operation until after parliament had had an opportunity of making provision for Ulster by special amending legislation. And thus it came about on 18 September that tie nationalists and their allies found themselves in a House of Commons almost denuded of Unionists, welcoming the news that the royal assent had at last been given. And amid cheers and the singing of 'God Save the King' a long, bitter chapter in the history of two countries seemed to have been ended. Yet nothing could have been further from the truth. Asquith might have bought time by his com¬promise, but he had bought little else"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: bobad
Date: 27 May 16 - 07:50 AM

Canada's ambassador to Ireland teaches manners to Irish lout at Easter rising commemorative ceremony: YouTube

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 May 16 - 07:54 AM

Bobad lout misrepresents ceremony which was honoring THE BRITISH SOLDIERS who murdered Irish participants the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: bobad
Date: 27 May 16 - 08:09 AM

FYI the ceremony was a joint British-Irish affair attended by, among other dignitaries, Britain's ambassador to Ireland, Dominick Chilcott. It was about reconciliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: bobad
Date: 27 May 16 - 08:29 AM

That should be RECONCILIATION, GregF.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 08:45 AM

"That should be RECONCILIATION, GregF."
Quite agree - maybe it's time we commemorated the boys of the gallant Luftwaffe who fell in our own commemoration ceremonies - waddya think?
I think, if you are serious Bobad, try whispering the word "reconciliation" into the ears of Keith and Teribus - perhaps ith might put a stop to their mud-slinging and culture-hating diatribes.
I have to say, I don't see a great deal of merit in the type of protest in question, but if you listen to what's going on and read it up fully, you will find he was using the ceremony to protest against something else entirely different.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 16 - 09:21 AM

The outpouringsof these two are little more than a display of spiteful cultural hatred directed at a tiny handful of poorly armed and trained men who held the British Empire at bay for a week and ended up tweaking its nose so hard that it set the building blocks of the entire Imperial system tumbling.

If that is what you have to believe to give yourself some comfort then all well and good - it is about as far away from the truth as you normally get.

1: If you have any evidence of a "faction" among the rebels - please provide it.


The Irish Volunteers

Extract:
The Irish Volunteers (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann), sometimes called the Irish Volunteer Force[1][2][3] or Irish Volunteer Army,[4][5][6] was a military organisation established in 1913 by Irish nationalists. It was ostensibly formed in response to the formation of the Ulster Volunteers in 1912, and its declared primary aim was "to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland".[7] The Volunteers included members of the Gaelic League, Ancient Order of Hibernians and Sinn Féin,[8] and, secretly, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB). Increasing rapidly to a strength of nearly 200,000 by mid-1914, IT SPLIT in September of that year over John Redmond's commitment to the British War effort, with the smaller group retaining the name of "Irish Volunteers".

The Redmondite faction became known as the National Volunteers. It was in September 1914 that your magnificent seven decided to collude with the enemy and stage a rising, they did that to save THEIR little movement from extinction.

2: If you have any evidence of the actions of Easter Week offending the finer feelings of a bunch of armed traitorous thugs to the extent that they forgot their manners - please provide it.


Governmment of Ireland Act 1914

Extract 1:
At the Bill's third reading on 21 May 1914 several members asked about a proposal to exclude the whole of Ulster for six years. Asquith was seeking any solution that would avoid a civil war.

Extract 2:
Carson and the Irish Unionist Party (mostly Ulster MPs) backed by a Lords' recommendation, supported the government's Amending Bill in the Lords on 8 July 1914 for the "temporary exclusion of Ulster" from the workings of the future Act, but the number of counties (four, six or nine) and whether exclusion was to be temporary or permanent, all still to be negotiated.

Extract 3:
AFTER the Easter Rising of 1916, two attempts were made by Prime Minister H. H. Asquith during the First World War to implement the Act. The first attempt came in June 1916, when David Lloyd George, then Minister for Munitions, was sent to Dublin to offer immediate implementation to the leaders of the Irish Party, Redmond and Dillon. The scheme revolved around partition, officially a temporary arrangement, as understood by Redmond. Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader, Carson, a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced into a self-governing Ireland. His tactic was to see that neither side would find out before a compromise was implemented.[13] A modified Act of 1914 had been drawn up by the Cabinet on 17 June. The Act had two amendments enforced by Unionists on 19 July – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons.

Now can any body see the shift in the Unionists position from the one accepted on the 8th July 1914 and what they were demanding on the 19th July 1916 AFTER THE EASTER RISING.

In 1916 in Ireland there was only one group of armed traitorous thugs and fortunately their hash was settled in Dublin where through their actions they were responsible for the deaths of 485 people. The Ulster Volunteers by 1916 were almost entirely serving in the British Army alongside former members of the Redmondite faction of the Irish Volunteers.

3: If you have any evidence of Ireland being egged on by Spain and France to demand Independence - please provide it.

Spain - The Nine Years War

Extract 1:
Later in 1595 O'Neill and O'Donnell wrote to King Philip II of Spain for help, and offered to be his vassals. He also proposed that his cousin Archduke Albert be made Prince of Ireland, but nothing came of this.[9][10] Philip II replied encouraging them in January 1596.[11] An unsuccessful armada sailed in 1596; the war in Ireland became a part of the wider Anglo-Spanish War.

Extract 2:
In 1601, the long promised Spanish expedition finally arrived in the form of 3,500 soldiers at Kinsale, Cork, virtually the southern tip of Ireland. Mountjoy immediately besieged them with 7,000 men.

The Spanish tried three times to land troops in Ireland to assist Hugh O'Neill only the one detailed above was successful in getting troops ashore. The rebellion failed with a victory for the English at the Battle of Kinsale.

France - 1798 Rebellion

Extract 1:
The outbreak of war with France earlier in 1793, following the execution of Louis XVI, forced the Society underground and toward armed insurrection with French aid. The avowed intent of the United Irishmen was to "break the connection with England"; the organisation spread throughout Ireland and had at least 200,000 members by 1797.

Extract 2:
Despite their growing strength, the United Irish leadership decided to seek military help from the French revolutionary government and to postpone the rising until French troops landed in Ireland. Theobald Wolfe Tone, leader of the United Irishmen, travelled in exile from the United States to France to press the case for intervention.

Extract 3:
Tone's efforts succeeded with the dispatch of the Expédition d'Irlande, and he accompanied a force of 14,000 French veteran troops under General Hoche which arrived off the coast of Ireland at Bantry Bay in December 1796 after eluding the Royal Navy; however, unremitting storms, indecisiveness of leaders and poor seamanship all combined to prevent a landing. The despairing Wolfe Tone remarked, "England has had its luckiest escape since the Armada."[7] The French fleet was forced to return home and the veteran army intended to spearhead the invasion of Ireland split up and was sent to fight in other theatres of the French Revolutionary Wars.

4: If you have evidence of any of your crass claims - no artillery

Where and when did I say that there was no artillery? Had to go back to making stuff up again Jim? You on the other hand claimed that the British used Heavy artillery in Dublin - they didn't there was no Heavy Artillery in Ireland at that time it was all deployed on the Western Front.

5: a fair trial for Tom Kent
Tried by Court Martial in Cork as the Country was under both DORA and Martial Law, was that the same trial in which his brother was found not guilty and acquitted?

6: an army refusing to act if a bunch of Unionist thugs invaded part of Britain not being tantamount to a mutiny

Hypothetical Jim and hardly an Army, but I suppose you have proof that the Army would not have acted, besides Jim the Ulster Volunteers were raised in 1913 to counter any attempt by the British Government to force them into home rule from Dublin so which part of Britain were they about to invade.

On the 18th/19th March 1914 troops in Ireland were ordered North to guard six arms depots, the troops obeyed those orders and by the 31st March 1914 the six arms depots were reinforced and secured.

7: rioters setting fire to the whole of Sackville Street

RTE/Booston College Chronology of the Easter Rising 1916

Open the link and read and digest the entry for 20:30 on the evening of the 24th April 1916:

Looting continues in Sackville Street, and fires also begin breaking out in premises on the street.

Your claim was that Sackville Street was set ablaze by British Heavy Artillery - not true though was it.

Now scroll down through the link provided to THE ENTRIES FOR 14:00hrs and 15:00hrs on the 25th April 1916 the day AFTER fires were started on Sackville Street:

14:00 - The British have continued to rush troops into the city from across Ireland. During the morning the Reserve Artillery have arrived from Athlone

15:00 - British 18-pounder artillery based at Grangegorman Asylum opens fire on rebel positions in the Phibsboro area.

Keep going Jim and you will find that the first mention of artillery being directed at Sackville Street comes around noon on the 26th April 1916. By that time fires started by looters on the evening of the 24th April had been burning unchecked for almost 40 hours.

8: Ireland not being entitled to independence because of what happened in Norman times

If you can show me the post in which I said anything even remotely like that I would be utterly amazed.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 09:35 AM

By the way Bobad - "reconciliation" involves acknowledging past behaviour and, if necessary, apologising for it, as did Tony Blair (for all his faults) over the bloody Sunday Massacre.
The British establishment and press have virtually ignored this centenary - no official representatives at the ceremonies, no coverage in the British press.... as sumed up nicely in this Guardian article.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/25/the-guardian-view-on-the-easter-rising-centenary-irelands-history-lesson-for-britain
The last thing those running Britain have in their minds at present is "reconciliation" - they've never forgiven Ireland for what she did to the Empire - talk about the Irish having long memories!!!
Teribus
None of your links (at long last) - make the slightest difference to anythhing I've said - I've read them all before and quoted from one of them.
Your "Boston College Chronology" is identical to the one you put up earlier which is dun and dusted to the extent that is one of the few you have actually back-tracked from.
It certainly doesn''t claim that the widespread fires that destroyed Sackville Stree were started by the looters - it says that when the fires looting started prior to Wednesday, there were fires started.
Come - on - eve you can do better that two old-hat wiki entries and a timeline which has been long put to bed.
No wonder you don't put up linls if that's the best you can manage
Why not ask Keith for lessons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 May 16 - 09:49 AM

I do like one line in your latest diatribe Teribus






"Kinsale, Cork, virtually the SOUTHERN tip of Ireland."




Actually it's a long way from the southern tip of Ireland which is at Brow Head on the Mizen Peninsula close the Crookhaven, some 70 miles by road.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 16 - 11:35 AM

Raggytash - 27 May 16 - 09:49 AM

You've lost me there I'm afraid please point out the diatribe in which I said

"Kinsale, Cork, virtually the SOUTHERN tip of Ireland."

I think that phrase above was clearly marked as an extract from the link I supplied. Perhaps you are being too eager to leap into the nit-picking fray to bother to read what is written. Please take the matter up with whoever wrote the Wiki entry - it certainly was not me.

And as you cannot believe a word I say - try opening the link and you'll find the phrase you so vehemently object to there.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 16 - 11:48 AM

Rag,

How an event TWO YEARS AFTER the initial agreement can prevent it from being enacted is ridiculous.

Oh dear. I can't make it much simpler for you Rag dear.

The initial agreement was for a peaceful transition to independence.
Unity and consensus was finally achieved.
Before the war ended and it could be enacted, the violent and bloody rising destroyed the unity and consensus forever.
The Unionists wanted no part of such an unstable and violent state.

So, two years after consensus was achieved, but before it could be acted on, the rising ruined everything for everyone.
Ok Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 12:29 PM

"Oh dear. I can't make it much simpler for you Rag dear."

Oh dear - you haven't responded to my questions on this - your repeating something you know not to be true which is a clear indication of your dishonesty in repeating it.
To repeat

"Agreement to wait till after the war to decide on the position on partition - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"Home Rule was not discussed again until after the Rising."
It was never "discussede" after the Rising - Lloyd George had gone ahead with making partition permanent - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement
Redmond had made it cleared from the beginning that permanent partition was not on the table as far as his party was concerned - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"So no guarantee of permanent partition then"
Are you suggesting that Lloyd did not tell both sides that partition had been decided in their favour - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?   
"NOT the same thing at all."
Certainly not the same he had told the Unionists if that's what you mean, though I'm sure you don't - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?"

If your patonising statement is true - please respond to the points
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 16 - 12:38 PM

Jim Carroll - 27 May 16 - 09:35 AM

Teribus
None of your links (at long last) - make the slightest difference to anythhing I've said

1: So there was a split in the Irish Volunteers in 1914 with 92.5% of the membership siding with Redmond (Nationalist, Constitutional Home Rule) and only 7.5% of them siding with Pearse (Militant, Republican, Independence). But you said there wasn't a split didn't you.

2: Clearly demonstrated that the Easter Rising did harden the attitudes of the Unionists reluctant acceptance of a temporary six year exclusion in July 1914 to demanding permanent exclusion two years later in July 1916 in the immediate aftermath of the Easter Rising - I cannot think of anything else that might have made them change their minds can you?

3: Ample evidence provided of previous rebellions where Spain and France have egged on malcontents in Ireland in order to hopefully divert the attention of England with whom both Spain and France were engaged in hostilities at the time.

4: No example of me ever having said that there was no artillery in Dublin then Jim? Thought not - just more output from the Jim Carroll factory of "Made-Up-Shit". What I actually did say and what the RTE/Boston College link tells you is that there was no artillery in Dublin when the first fires were started by looters in Sackville Street. The link also tells you that no artillery fire was directed on Sackville Street until after noon on the 26th April. At The Four Courts here is the entry for 18:15hrs on the 26th April Fighting continues around the Four Courts, with rebels setting fire to buildings in an attempt to hamper the military advance. - I would imagine that the researchers from both RTE and Boston College had good factual grounds for detailing those pieces of information - I for the life of me can see no reason to believe that they just made it up or lied about it.

5: The Kent brothers were tried by Court Martial as the country was under Martial Law at the time. Had they not fired on the policemen who had come to arrest them then none of them would have died. Instead they fired on the police and on the soldiers who were subsequently called to assist the police in the armed stand-off initiated by the Kent Brothers. One brother sentenced to death with that sentence being carried out, a second brother was acquitted and released and a third sentenced to death with that sentence being commuted to 5 years penal servitude of which he only served one year.

6: The UVF took no action, and because of that no orders had to be given to crush them, no orders were disobeyed - In short there was no "Mutiny". No act of military aggression as you first described it.

7: The RTE/Boston College link provided gives you the time line on when fires were started in Sackville Street - No British troops near, only civilian looters and Irish Volunteers present - Tell me why should the researchers from RTE or Boston College lie. Also mentioned in their chronology of the events they state that Volunteer fire drove away members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, so when the fires started in Sackville Street the Dublin Fire Brigade did not make any attempt to put those fires out - Tell me what do you think would happen if you torched buildings in a city centre then just left them to burn - would things get better or would they get worse?

8: Ireland not being entitled to independence because of what happened in Norman times

As I said "If you can show me the post in which I said anything even remotely like that I would be utterly amazed" - after all you've had long enough and you've been asked often enough - yet neither you or Joe Offer have come up with that elusive, or should it be non-existent post of mine - more Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit".

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 12:41 PM

More simply put Keith
If you have two diametrically opposed vies on the questuiion of partition and if the enactment of the Treaty depended on both sides reaching agreement on this question, how on earth could it possibly have been enacted?
How could a peaceful solution have been reached if one side of the argument had armed itself and announced it was ready to enter into Civil War to get its way?
As these arguments predated the uprising by nearly two years, how could that have had any effect on enacting the Bill?
Answers on a plain postcard will not do - put your facts where your claims are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 May 16 - 02:11 PM

Whatever Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 02:17 PM

The aims of the rising were clearly set out in the proclamation - there was no split
I rea[peat - how do you harden the attitude of a group that has threatened Civil War if its aims were not met?
"Ample evidence provided of previous rebellions where Spain and France have egged on malcontents in Ireland"
Where - you have provided none.
Wolfe Tone went to France to request aid - not the other way around - the time he spent pleading his case is indicative of how difficult it was.
I suggest you visit the exhibition in Bantry House if you dispute this.
" No example of me ever having said that there was no artillery in Dublin then Jim"
As I said, every Nation has a right to demand independence and the Irish were way ahead in the field in doing this.
Your suggestion that this was not the case is no more than post Imperial spite.
"No artillery at all in Dublin at that time and it was the looters who set fire to the buildings."
The main cause of the extent of the fires was the artillery British shell that hit the water supply making it impossible to put the fires out.
The fires blazed thoughout the week - your timeline mentions only one day at the beginning of that week.
Looters could not have possible caused fires to the that extent
We've ******* been here obv=ver anbd ob=[ver again - artillery fire cause verutualkly all the damage in the centre of Dublin - the Rebels didn't have the wherewithal if they'd wanted to carry it out.
Don't be stupid.
"he Kent brothers were tried by Court Martial as the country was under Martial Law at the time. "
How does this effect the fact that at one minute Asquith claimed that Tom had been executed for murder and later changed it to treason - doesn't truth apply to martial law frightening though!!
Tom Kent was executed as a murderer even though they couldn't prove he was carrying a gun -Asquith changed it to taking part in a rebellion, which waqs equally fallacious.
The trial was riggged - whent there was of it.
"The UVF took no action, and because of that no orders had to be given to crush them, "
So - threatening not to obey orders at a time of threatened civil war was tantamount to mutiny and had it happened in actual wartime would have been open to a sentence of death - semantics aside of course.
"he RTE/Boston College link provided gives you the time line on when fires were started in Sackville Street "
When they started - you claimed that the fires were the responsibility of the looters - full stop.
You did this to remove the artillery barrage from blame - easier to blame the victims.
"As I said "If you can show me the post in which I said anything even remotely like that I would be utterly amazed"
The whole tenor of your argument has indicated that.
Suggesting that Ireland's claim to unity was dubious because of what happened in Norman Times indicates that.
Suggesting that "misfits egged on by France and Spain" were the reason Ireland has demanded independence (as you ahve just repeated) is a screaming indication that Ireland was not entitled to independence
Keith has at least described the Irish as being gullible and led on by propaganda and as dismissed celebrations of "a contemptible joke" comparable to St Patrick's Day - his hatred of the Irish and their history is admitted - yours is palpable - he at least, has more bottler than you.
Between you, you are a pair of squalid little Englanders.
I've finished responding to facts that are long done and dusted.
You have described everything I have put up as "immaterial" and have ignored them.
I have responded to every point you have made only to have them repeated over and over again - as we used to say in Liverpool - "you don't boil cabbages twice".
I will not be responding to any of your points again - you have responded to none of mine.
So far, you have puttwo Wiki links which prove nothing ad a timeline that we have discussed and settled as immaterial to your arguments.
The pair ofg you have bent over backwards to denigrate Ireland and her history - Keith attempting to draw blood from The Civil War - a subject that is still never discussed her a,d you, stooping as low as to attempt to smear one of the leaders over his accused, but unproven sexuality.
You really are a disgusting pair.
This is getting in the way of what I want to do - continue with the story and put together lots and lots of "immaterial" information - not for your benefit (other than to get under your skin, which it does) - now that really turns me on.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 May 16 - 02:34 PM

"That should be RECONCILIATION, GregF."

No reconciliation possible, BooBad, unless certain parties are willing to accept the truth of the situation.

I hope you recognise yourself as among that number under consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 02:36 PM

By the way - if you haave any more to say about Easter Week upsetting the feelings of the poor, sensitive Loyalists, I've got loads and loads here on how they ran the Six Counties after the Treaty, turning it into a sectarian hell-hole lasting half-a-century, for those who kicked with the other foot.
perhaps that was because of Eater Week too - waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 16 - 03:25 PM

Jim,
If you have two diametrically opposed vies on the questuiion of partition and if the enactment of the Treaty depended on both sides reaching agreement on this question, how on earth could it possibly have been enacted?

Agreement was reached by all parties in 1914 for a temporary partition.
Before it could be enacted, the rising ruined all hope of a peaceful transition and destroyed the unity and consensus finally achieved in 1914.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 May 16 - 03:44 PM

Whatever

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 16 - 03:48 PM

Jim Carroll - 27 May 16 - 12:41 PM

More simply put Keith
If you have two diametrically opposed vies on the questuiion of partition and if the enactment of the Treaty depended on both sides reaching agreement on this question, how on earth could it possibly have been enacted?

Simple Jim, as things were going, from the proposed Amending Bill that was agreed to by both Redmond AND Carson by the 8th July 1914, had the Great War not started then the Government of Ireland Act 1914 would have been enacted on the 18th September 1914 when it received Royal Assent Ireland would have got Home Rule and for a temporary period of six years Ulster would have been excluded from rule from Dublin and both sides would have a grace period of six years to convince each other that Home Rule from Dublin could work for both parties. That autonomy would have been granted as Dominion Status and come 1931 with the Statute of Westminster Ireland would have become a sovereign independent nation.

But the War did come along and to save their secret and sordid little clique Pearse, Connelly and Co., had to have an armed rising, and they jumped at the chance the war gave them.

I rather think that the agreement reached by Carson, the Lords and the Liberal Government on the 8th July 1914 could not have been reached without the consent and approval of the Ulster Unionists, unlike the IVF they did not have a secret council who had high-jacked the organisation as the IRB had high-jacked the Irish Volunteers.

Tell me apart from drilling and holding the odd parade what violence was ever perpetrated by the UVF between their formation in 1913 and them going off to join the British Army to fight the Germans in 1914.

Easter Rising 24th April 1916, which was defeated. Attempt made by the British Government to enact the 1914 Act in July 1916, now the Unionists want Permanent Partition on the agenda - You tell me Jim what was it that caused that shift in stance from the 8th July 1914?

You've got the links, you've got the sources.

On artillery - Go back and look at your own post - your contention was that it was the heavy artillery used by the British that started the fires in Dublin - simply put it wasn't - and I have proved that, the researchers from RTE and Boston College have proved that - fires started on Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 when there were no British Troops anywhere near Sackville Street and no British Artillery in Dublin. The only people in Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 were the Irish Volunteers and civilian looters - OK Sherlock you tell me which of the three groups mentioned could not have possibly started those fires.

Ah so it is now a British shell damaging a water main that caused the damage - it had nothing to do with the Dublin Fire Brigade not being willing to fight the fires they being quite rightly scared of getting themselves shot by the Volunteers who incidentally had already shot at and killed unarmed policemen in Sackville Street. The other thing we have also clearly established is that from the fires being started it was almost 40 hours before any British Artillery fire was directed at Sackville Street - fire if left unchecked can build and do quite a bit of damage in 40 hours.

As for the rest of your incoherent rant I'll wait for a translation from somebody - it like your thinking is all over the place and totally lacking in logic or reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 16 - 04:46 AM

LINK
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 16 - 05:58 AM

As far as I am concerned, this section of the discussion is well and truely finished - it's been good fun while it lasted, every bit as entertaining as Monty Python.
There's enough here for people to make their own minds up, if they haven't died of boredom.
Irish people, far from having to be duped into participating in their own history, have taken an active part in the formation of their nation and that is what is being celebrated at present.
As happened on the 150th anniversary of the Famine, there has been a renewal of interest in Irish history here in Ireland - every day brings something new.   
For my own interest, I have started to put together a chronological 'what happened next' which I'm happy to continue putting up as I have been with references and links, where possible for genuine debate, otherwise, I'll keep it on file for my own use.
Participation from others here and a couple of P.M.s have indicated some interest - we'll see!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 16 - 10:21 AM

Irish people, far from having to be duped into participating in their own history, have taken an active part in the formation of their nation

Except they did not.
There was no participation by the people in the rising.
The people opposed it and spat their contempt at the rebels.

They opposed the rebels when they started the violence.
They opposed them when they published their "proclamation," opposing that too.
They opposed the rebels when they were defeated, and when they were arrested, and when they were incarcerated.

It was only when they were shot that they received any support.
Perhaps they should have just shot themselves and saved Dublin all that death and destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 May 16 - 10:35 AM

Ah history according to professor Acheson.

Whatever Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 16 - 10:42 AM

Do you challenge a single historical fact I have ever provided Rag?
No, because you can't.

"Whatever" is an admission of defeat. You are saying you have no reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 May 16 - 10:50 AM

No I am simply saying you know sweet FA about Irish history, you have no interest in Irish history you merely want to argue the toss about subjects you have no knowledge of, and I for one can't be arsed any more.

Whatever Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 16 - 11:50 AM


No I am simply saying you know sweet FA about Irish history,

But you can find not a single fault in the history I have presented.
Your false accusations are just gratuitous personal attacks.
You are unable to specify a single error on my part.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 16 - 12:11 PM

Don't let him nause up any life this thread might have with his inanities Raggy - take your own advice - "whatever" will do fine.
Jim Carroll