BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)

Subject: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:21 AM

I see he has died, and the Internet is swamped with hatred and disgust at the murder and terrorism he instigated. However, it could be said he 'saw the light' and tried during the last years of his life to make amends with his work for peace.

Has anyone else got mixed feelings about this man?
Can one forgive such evil if the perpetrator is truly repentant?
I feel sorrow for his family who, whatever the man was, have lost a loved one. But I have sympathy with the families of the victims of terrorism, who must find it very hard to forgive.

I have to say, I find very distasteful indeed the many remarks online about 'rotting in hell' and 'good riddance' etc. Such spite, in my opinion, does no good at all when trying to heal the scars.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Johnny J
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:51 AM

"Can one forgive such evil if the perpetrator is truly repentant?"

Yes, although many would argue that forgiveness is up to a "Higher Power" as opposed to the families of victims.

As for "Truly repentant", although he took a different path in recent years, he hasn't really stated that he regrets his previous actions.
I won't condemn him though and don't believe in speaking ill of the dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:59 AM

He did a damn sight more to keep the peace process on the road, not least when it came to keeping his own faction from fracturing, than many a Downing Street politician. It's always worth remembering that there were TWO factions involved in the Troubles and it's also worth remembering why the soldiers were sent in in the first place (it's notable that both Theresa May and John Major neglected to include that context in their remarks). Conflict is ugly and he was involved in ugly things, as were the Brits and the Loyalists. But he deserves a lot of credit and it's to be hoped that the next generation of politicians in Northern Ireland will take inspiration from the amazing and constructive relationship between McGuinness and Dr Paisley. We are not there yet by a long chalk and there's a lot of hard work still to be done. It needs people with his same vision.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 10:20 AM

I believe the situation was complex and there were great grievances on both sides. I also think it does a lot of potential damage to rake over the wrongs, injustices and violence, instead of looking forward with renewed hope. The only thing to be gained by remembering what happened is to learn from the past, and to honour the efforts made by any of the protagonists to heal the rifts and create (and maintain) a new Peace.

I was mainly moved to start this thread by looking at the dreadful remarks by ignorant and rather childish people on various sites which express hate-filled and vengeful opinions ('Hell is too good for him', 'Hope it was a very painful death' etc). These could in fact rekindle the anger and resurrect feelings which are better laid to rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 10:41 AM

Just heard a moving interview with a man who lost his son in the Warrington bomb
He praised McGuinness for the work he did on the Peace process and ended by saying "Of course, you might claim that in his early days, so was Mandela and many of those who won states Israel their freedom.
I suppose people will go to any lengths to free their country, if that's what they believed in".
I remember a similar statement being made by that gentle man who lost his daughter in the Omagh bombing
Would that we all had the same humanity and ability to forgive.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Allan Conn
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 10:46 AM

Unfortunately the internet is filled with vicious hatred for all kinds of people including politicians most of who have never advocated or been associated with violence. There are just some very vicious nasty people out of there. You can't change history but the people of Northern Ireland managed to change course to more peaceful times. Maybe that is how Martin should be best remembered - as a man who changed course and who helped his community and his part of Ireland change course!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Stu
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 10:56 AM

There's little doubt McGuinness was a brutal man in his day, but then that brutality was practised by all sides in the conflict. The fact that McGuinness was largely responsible for beating swords into ploughshares should be enough for us (many of whom remember the terror of the bombing campaign) to recognise his place in history. His part in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement alone is immensely significant; one day this will mean a united Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:06 PM

"You can't change history but the people of Northern Ireland managed to change course to more peaceful times." - Allan Conn

Don't know where you got that from Allan, "the people of Northern Ireland" never wanted the violence in the first place. Martin McGuinness realised in 1985 the PIRA had been fought to a standstill and that a stalemate had been reached that British Government could maintain for as long as it would take to get all sides to negotiate. McGuinness realised it as did Gerry Adams. Their place in history is them getting the message across not to "the people of Northern Ireland" but to the majority of the members of the Provisional IRA, who were, let's face it, responsible for most civilian deaths throughout the period known as "The Troubles".

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:21 PM

""the people of Northern Ireland" never wanted the violence in the first place"
Of course they didn't but the violence was instigated when the Catholic minority reached breaking point when their peaceful civil rights marches were met with by violence, both from Loyalist mobs and from the police who co-operated with them.
Isn't it lucky that people like McGuinness were around to to help getting a Peace Process started rather than playing the blame game, as is happening here?
Some people never learn - or are personally never in a position to have to.Give it a rest Teribus - we really have been here before
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:24 PM

It's heartening to read all these measured posts which look at the man with balanced views, not flame-throwing comments heaping evil curses on his (deceased) head.
One can't discount of course the terrible events during the troubles, and the myriad innocent people (including children) who died. I personally can't get out of my mind the Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings, where explosions tore men and horses to pieces. It made me think of WW1, and the vulnerability and innocence of the horses somehow struck me forcibly. Almost a metaphor for the whole sorry situation.
Teribus is right in that it's never the ordinary people who seek extreme violence; they just want to get on with their everyday lives in safety. But it seems it is they who take the brunt of it all, and not just in Ireland. Look at Rwanda, or Ivory Coast in their recent civil war. Grenades in family courtyards, children's arms lopped off with machetes. Always the small, vulnerable ordinary folk who suffer.

I hope he rests in peace, and that peace may prevail. But that depends on 'ordinary people' behaving with decency and restraint.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:45 PM

R.I.P.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

I had a very odd experience with Martin McGuinness once
I used to be maintenance electrician for The Ethical Society at Conway Hall in Central London.
Unknown to me, McGuinnes was due to speak at a press conference there and I was working in one of the walk-in cupboards that housed the fuse boxes.
Unknown to me, he and his entourage arrived and made their way along the corridor to the main hall as I emerged from the cupboard on to the corridor carrying a hammer - a slight flurry of consternation which was soon sorted out with no problem
One of his gofers came back with a cup of coffee for me later.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 03:09 PM

Good grief Jim, they might have panicked and wiped you out no questions asked! I imagine 'a slight flurry of consternation' hardly begins to describe it!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:26 PM

Lucky for you that it was McGuiness and not Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:34 PM

Are you suggesting that Teribus is violent?


God, you can be so bloody stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:46 PM

Are you completely immune to irony Steve? :0)

Looking at some of your attempts at humour, I suppose that is just a rhetorical question. :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:54 PM

As a matter of fact, I quite enjoy irony. However, this is not an example of it in any way, shape or form. Grab yourself a dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:25 PM

he was crap after Manfred Mann.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:11 PM

Blessed are the peacemakers - no matter how they arrived at that point.

Saul of Tarsus comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:40 PM

Tom McGuinness, Dick and Harry, should not be confused with Martin.
"he was crap after Manfred Mann."
Martin McGuinness was a Colossus amongst men imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: ollaimh
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 10:44 PM

it's a shame he didn't live to see the end of imperial englands last colony. just a few more years and the brits hundreds of years of war in ireland will be done, and they will be gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 10:51 PM

I thought that Steve was being ironic there.
.......................
All people in leading roles in any conflict are pretty certain to have terrible things on their conscience, if they have one. I'd imagine far more innocent people have been blown to bits by Obama's drones than by the IRA's bombs. And as for the bigger wars...

I'd see Martin McGuinness's role in taking Northern Ireland away from war as more important historically than his role in making war. If he hadn't been there I doubt if it would have made any significant difference to the way the Troubles went - but if he hadn't been there I think it might have made it a lot harder to lead the republican army and community to relinquish methods of violence, and to build a peace across the divisions, however shaky at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 03:02 AM

Maybe didn't express it the best but what I meant was the people of Northern Ireland managed to have their country change course to more normal times. If they are not to be congratulated for that then who is? That is all I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 05:16 AM

Why does the title mention Sinn Fein but not IRA in which he served longer?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 05:20 AM

the Paul of Tarsus metaphor is a good one.

Saul, why persecutest thou me...and a blinding light on the road to Damascus.
Of course when Paul went back to Rome and said, we've got to stop all this shit....or words to that effect. They crucified him.

its a bit like comparing a wild donkey with the seaside variety - there are similarities , but there probably are with the bloke from Manfred Mann.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 05:49 AM

as for a Colossus
Are there any records of people sailing between his legs?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 06:50 AM

During all the troubles in Ireland there was a war going on and neither side was blameless. Inevitably with wars, there is loss of life and families suffer. However, M.McG was a major contributor to the peace process, showing him to me a man of conviction in whatever he does. Like all of us, our belief in ourselves and our futures change through the years... and ''~Hey'' who are we to judge? May he rest in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 06:59 AM

Big Al, the Bible doesn't say how Paul died. There are various suggestions that Nero, who purported to be his friend, had him beheaded (as befitted a Citizen of Rome) but others say he died of natural causes. He was certainly imprisoned for a long spell, which would have more than likely brought about his demise from disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 07:20 AM

"Why does the title mention Sinn Fein but not IRA in which he served longer?"
Pehaps because that's where he did his best and most positive work
Why has nobody mentioned that the people who were responsible for the shooting of 26 unarmed civilians, causing the deaths of 14 of them, still go unpunished, even though who they were and what they did has been a matter of record for forty-odd years?
Why wasn't the high-court judge who whitewashed those crimes not publicy criticised for his corrupt behaviour.   
Why weren't the authorities who were responsible for the incarceration of the six men convicted of the Birmingham Pub bombing, yet continued to keep them incarcerated for years after their innocence had been established, removed from their jobs and brought to justice for illegal detention of innocent men?
This period of British/Irish history is full of such unanswered questions.
Thanks to people like Martin McGuinness, these questions were not allowed to create a barrier to peace and reconciliation in Ireland - he got on with the job instead of trying to settle old scores.
Just as well the world isn't full of vengeance-seeking dinosaurs who are as much of the problem as the IRA or the Loyalists ever were.
Maybe I should add Brexit to the list as it stands responsible for the possibility of closing the national borders that McGuinness and his colleagues helped to open.
Looking to the near future, that is quite likely to bring the gun and bomb back onto the streetes of the North East corner of Ireland nearly as much as dwelling on who was to blame for what!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 07:41 AM

Why has nobody mentioned that the people who were responsible for the shooting of 26 unarmed civilians, causing the deaths of 14 of them, still go unpunished,

A contentious case Jim, and are you ok that thousands killed by IRA have received no justice yet those soldiers are still being pursued by PSNI?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 07:51 AM

OMG - Yet another episode in the Keithy and Jim show. Prepare for a lengthy siege...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 07:59 AM

Yes indeed MM's life of not settling old scores doesn't seem to have set much of an example to those two.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 08:59 AM

"A contentious case Jim"
Settled and apologised for but still unpunished.
I adopt the same attitude towards punishment of the guilty as did the South Africans under Mandela
Punishment would fill the jails with both Republicans, Loyalists, soldiers and policemen - all of whom had a part in the slaughter.
Then we would have to go back as far as 1922 and start trying and punishing those who were responsible of the whole ***** mess in the first place - not to mention the intervening period of anti-catholic rioting, unjust governance, inflammatory sectarian marches......
You could spend the next couple of decades listing those who could be deemed possibly responsible - on all sides - before you could even think about instigating, trying and punishing them.
You would need to go back at least to the first violence in the trouble, caused by a loyalist act of terror.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 09:18 AM

lets go straight to level 10 of the game

JIm: I thoughT Martin was a decent bloke
Keith: i don't
Jim: so typical...You're a stinkpot
Keith: where does it say that was typical? point out where it says typical. I dare you. You're a doubledouble stinkpot! and you're picking on me!
Jim: Double treble stinkpot with bells on and wax coming out of your ears!
etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 09:23 AM

Yes, except I never call names.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 09:35 AM

"JIm: I thought Martin was a decent bloke"
I didn't say that Al - don't misquote me if you insist on interfering.
I said that that this ins not time to be taking sides and pointing fingers - that's already been done ad nauseum
I've just listened to Arlene Foster - not my favourite politician by any means but her praise of McGuinness and the role he played in bringing about some sort of peace in a still shitty situation makes this pair look like Mathew Hopkins.
Rather than attempting to censor what others are saying, why not say something that we can all get our teeth into
I have no wish to spend too much time on this pair so why not help me out?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 12:07 PM

Well as someone in the Irish POst said when Adams published his biography. its a bit like an iceberg - no one really knows what was going on behind the scenes, but nothing anyone says is likely to come anywhere near the truth.

in England, we were in a particularly unprivileged position because of the censorship.So I don't think there's anything useful to be said. Nothing added up to what we were being told.

I have no idea of his contribution to either the troubles or the peace process, and i don't really believe anyone who says they did understand what was going on.

Tony Blair seems to have admired him.....worrying!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 12:15 PM

Safest thing to do is to judge him in context of what he achieved overall rather than from a period from which nobody came out with clean hands.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 12:21 PM

Surely "what he achieved overall" includes that earlier period.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 01:47 PM

well this it. none of us are really certain. in the period we were being told he was a bloodthirsty terrorist, quite responsible teachers were inviting him to into schools to talk to the pupils. it doesn't add up.

there was a lot of misinformation around.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 02:22 PM

"Surely "what he achieved overall" includes that earlier period."
Of course it does
You judge the man's value as whole, but you need to put it into context, and that context was a bloody war in which nobody can claim the upper ground.
I was in London at the time the bombs were going off and my work took me into the West End - not a comfortable time and a great deal of anger about.
I was also in this town (for a week-long music school) at the time the hunger strikers were dying and the street was lined with black flags.
I had a relative, a young woman, whose hand was severely damaged when a bomb placed by a Loyalist terrorist in a rubbish bin exploded.
My there's sister and her family were escaped from their burning home in Derry and were forced to flee to Dublin for safety during anti-Catholic rioting back in the early fifties.
How far do you want to take this and how far back do you want to go?
Both sides have horror stories.
I'm not a nationalist in any way, shape or form and I do not support terrorism, but I have come to the opinion that while Ireland remains divided our children will be witnessing the same 'troubles' we have.
Attempting to lay blame is only going to exacerbate that situation.
The problem with these arguments is that to take what some people say, you would come to believe that there was only on side in this war, when in fact, there were three.   
If anybody is to 'blame' it is the politicians who failed to resolve a problem which began nearly a century ago (and could have been solved far more easily then).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 02:30 PM

***** keyboard and multi-tasking!!!
"My there's sister"
My father's sister
Should have said my relative with the damaged hand was in Dublin at teh toime of the incident
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 05:03 PM

its a bit like an iceberg - no one really knows what was going on behind the scenes, but nothing anyone says is likely to come anywhere near the truth.

That's not really a very accurate description of an iceberg...
..............
The most plausible constitutional solution for Ireland would be a version of the Chinese principle "one country, two systems". It isn't so much the existence of a separate Irish political entity ruled from Belfast that's the problem, but the involvement of a third party across the water in England. My understanding is that that notion is very much consistent with how Martin McGuinness eventually saw things.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 09:18 PM

The Daily Mail's front page today gave Martin McGuinness's dates and two huge photos of bloodied and desperate people, one of Guildford in 1974 and one of Enniskillen in 1987. There was no further comment. Very balanced. Not. The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. A bit of Shakespeare from my 'O' Level English Lit.

What's been missing in the last couple of days is any sense of context regarding the Troubles, which, arguably, started when the troops moved in as a consequence of the repression of the efforts of the minority Catholic community to obtain civil rights and achieve an end to blatant discrimination by the police and local authorities (NOT arguable). Well it didn't take long for the role of the troops to do a 180-degree turn. Martin was a Catholic Derry boy who was radicalised (yeah, dirty word these days) by this turn of events. I've had a bad day today and I don't feel well, so I offer you these figures, slightly rounded I admit, without comment, the aspiration being to give that missing context, at least in part (as I know that numbers can't say everything). Source: Beeb.

Number killed in the Troubles: 3500.

Civilians killed: 2000

Catholic civilians killed: 1270

Protestant civilians killed: 730

Catholic civilians killed by security forces: 170

Protestant civilians killed by security forces : 23

Paramilitary nationalists killed by security forces: 180

Paramilitary Loyalists killed by security forces: less than 20

There are plenty of other figures, of course, and many more were injured than killed. But the figures show, if nothing else, that the Troubles were a conflict of three sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 01:19 AM

Yes Shaw many more were maimed and injured - over ten times the number killed - Of those killed 1870-odd were killed by the PIRA, who were also responsible for the vast majority of those maimed and injured. Interesting to note that you did not list the number of those who served in the security forces, police and emergency services who were killed. Yes it was a conflict of three sides:

1: Nationalist Paramilitaries
2: Loyalist Paramilitaries
3: Those trying to protect and safeguard the bulk of the civilian population of Northern Ireland.

Out of your figures for nationalist and loyalist paramilitaries killed not one single one of them gave their lives in any attempt to save the life of a single Irishman - in fact the reverse was more the case - Oh and without any shadow of a doubt Martin McGuinness was one of those responsiblle for giving the orders that resulted in those deaths and injuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 04:29 AM

All this has been debated over and over again - no conclusion was reached then and none will be reached now
All that will happen will be a re- polarisation of already established positions
This was a war that need not have happened and would not have taken place if the right political decisions had been taken in the first place - if the country had not been divided into two religious halves, if the Unionists had not written out the say of the very significant minority in the six counties, if the obvious inequality that existed in the North East had been rectified in Westminster, if the Civil Rights Marches had not been so brutally quashed.....
The rest boils down to "my people killed more people than your people....." and no side can be absolved on that basis.
I know enough about Ireland to have reached the conclusion that basically, ordinary people get on with each other no matter what religion
The problems arise when politicians interfere and religious bigots take to their pulpits.
A great deal of progress has been made since the Troubles - any stumbles on the way can be traced back to the two stumbling blocks - the next big one being Brexit and the effect it will have and is already having in a large number of the British people in Ireland.
Another fine mess they've got us into Ollie!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 07:18 AM

Well done for missing the point, Teribus. Dig up all the numbers you can. I'll ignore you.

I didn't post those incomplete statistics in order to start a war of numbers, Jim, simply to demonstrate that three factions, not just the IRA, have plenty of blood on their hands. The militarisation of the conflict, away from the sticks and stones of the late 60s, was ramped up by the British government. The attitude exemplified by that Mail front page has been rife in the last couple of days. Let's call it Norman Tebbitry. The Troubles started not as an offensive in order to take over, ISIS-style, but a reaction to blatant repression and brutality by an anti-Catholic police force and decades of institutionalised discrimination against the large Catholic minority. I am not justifying any action by any party. I am saying that, if there really is a God up there who has now sent Martin McGuinness to the hottest part of hell, who can ignore his pivotal role in the peace process Mail and Teribus-style, then he isn't any kind of God that I'd want anything to do with.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 09:12 AM

well if Brexit convinces the Irish prots that they have more in common with the Irish catholics than they do with us - wouldn't that be what everyone wants?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 09:59 AM

Unintended consequences, eh, Al?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 10:10 AM

red hot poker up the bum for you Steve - now you're off god's christmas card list.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 10:22 AM

Are you the baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells, Al? That's what he threatened Blackadder with!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 12:22 PM

Steve,
, simply to demonstrate that three factions, not just the IRA, have plenty of blood on their hands.

But you only posted the numbers killed by security forces, few of whom were civilians!
Who has by far the most blood on their hands Steve, especially of civilians, and why defend them?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 01:15 PM

i don't think anyone's defending anyone Keith.   killing people is indefensible.
the point is that we can't stop what the IRA do.
But ultimately those soldiers were working for us - our tax dollar. so really its our responsibility.

the problem is....sorry! one of the problems is that there are far more than three factions. and all the factions aren't military. the various church leaders bear an enormous responsibility. as Jim has said the shades of political opinion are many and various, and they all have terrific reasons for being in different parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 01:17 PM

Just bugger off, Keith. I've made it abundantly clear that the figures I provided were incomplete, that they were not intended to kick off one of your stupid numbers games and that I posted a few statistics to demonstrate the non-numerical point that the IRA far from being the the only dog in the fight - they did not even provoke the fight in the first place. You'd think from some of the coverage in the last few days that this man, who turned out to be a man of peace, was an unreconstructed, unapologetic murderous thug until he drew his last breath. It is not true, and plenty of his adversaries in the other two factions involved have as much to answer for as he had.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:21 PM

I posted a few statistics to demonstrate the non-numerical point that the IRA far from being the the only dog in the fight

INLA and the various IRAs were responsible for more deaths than everyone else put together!

they did not even provoke the fight in the first place.

Yes they did. There was discrimination and repression in NI as in USA.
In both places it was dealt with peacefully by the Civil Rights movement and in NI the SDLP.
The IRAs achieved nothing but death.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:53 PM

I thought his funeral today was a very dignified affair, and I was heartened to see representatives of all sides of the Troubles attending. The officiating priest actually said that Martin McGuinness fully realised the implications of his past activities, and had made great efforts to bring about resolution and peace.
I wish only for him to Rest In Peace. Raking over past injustices and violence can do no good, but looking ahead with hope and goodwill can.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:57 PM

The killing of civilians by security forces is a special case and can never go untried and unpunished, however many are killed by the warring factions.
The security forced not only killed civilians, but they colluded with the loyalists to assist in their killing
The fact that they did it in the name of the British people and were given the right to carry arms by te British Government, makes it a crime we are all responsible for if it is left investigated and unpunished.
Counting and comparing corpses is sick, meaningless garbage - all it proves is that one side side were more efficient or more committed than the other
A sick-sick-sick argument   
Any blame lies with those who created the situation in which this was inevitable, as it was following the response to the peaceful Civil Rights demonstrations.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 03:03 PM

COLLUSION
MORE
LONG TERM COLLUSION
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 04:59 PM

In order to maintain dignity in this thread, it is important that we ignore this despicable intervention by Keith. I refuse to engage with this man whose twisted ideology dictates to him that he "only gives one side of the story." We've seen it before apropos of Ireland and we've seen it before apropos of Israel. There's nothing to be gained by to-ing and fro-ing with him on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 05:08 PM

There've been plenty of threads arguing back and forth about the rights and the wrongs of what happened in the Troubles, and about all the other priods of Troubles since Ireland was under the control of England.   Couldn't we leave this thread to be about Martin McGuiness?

As I made the point, his role in relation to the violence was one that many others could have, but his role in relation to moving Northern Ireland, and the Republican movement, away from violence was one that it is hard to see anyone else doing as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 05:13 PM

I agree one hundred percent with both the substance and the sentiment of your post, Kevin. Maybe I have a way of being slightly less subtle!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:10 AM

"Couldn't we leave this thread to be about Martin McGuiness?"
Nice idea Mac, but a little like discussing the Pope without mentioning Catholicism
McGuinness, like Adams, Paisley and the rest of the combatants, need to be discussed if full, historical context - almost impossible to do while the situation that gave rise to their prominence is still so fresh in our minds - any discussion with inevitably be a continuation of the war using words rather than guns.
I came across this article, which for me come the nearest to dealing with the conflict in context - the alternative is to plough through Someone like Robert Kee's detailed history of conflict in twentieth century Ireland - I wondert if Thames Television's excellent and very readable 'The Troubles' overview of the conflict is still available
It is almost certainly incomplete, but so is the information we have at our disposal.
Maybe a United Ireland and a coming together of all sides will fill in the gaps as the "context" article points out "The violence of the 'Troubles' is still open to partisan interpretation."

IN CONTEXT

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:36 AM

I apologise if this thread has opened wounds and provoked a bitter discussion. My intention was to explore the complexity of this man, to condemn the very unpleasant remarks about his death on social media and to muse upon the fact that he redeemed himself by his actions in his later years. I didn't intend to create yet another argument about the rights and wrongs of the Troubles. These have all been explored before.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:08 AM

If Martin McGuinness had met Martin Luther King, he would have advised him and to abandon the peaceful, dignified protests that led to full civil rights within a few years, and to start exploding huge bombs in malls, bars and bus stations, and to shoot policemen and National Guard in the streets and in their homes on or off duty.
In NI that policy drove the communities even further apart and delayed a peaceful, equitable settlement for half a century.
We could have had it in the 70s.

The number of deaths, scaled up to the US population, would be comparable to the Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

i totally agree with everything Jim has said in that last post.

history is still being written on the subject of Ireland. and we, by virtue of our historical context - our view is skewed and imperfect.

i should be able to understand a guy like Martin McGuinness - but I don't. My family had Irish republican connections right into the 1930's.
To me - he and Adams appeared to have a free press, access to democratic process - however imperfect - but compared to people in Putin's Russia, they had an open goal. it seemed to me (reading their own accounts of the Cheyne House talks) - they had the sympathetic ear of the most left wing government that England has ever had - and they rejected it to choose violence.

but obviously that's because i was in England, and i didn't understand their point of view. and whatever they say - you can't walk a mile in another man's shoes. the facts of the situation are just not available and really its no use worrying at it like a dog at a bone.

he did what he did, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 07:56 AM

If Martin McGuinness had met Martin Luther King...

I don't think he did, did he? Such speculation has no relevance and the sentiment that follows that speculation does nothing to further the peace process nor address Eliza's points.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 09:31 AM

Comparing Ireland to the US Civil Rights Movement is facile
In the US, the Southern blacks were fighting for a right that had already been granted to the rest of America
There was never any question that the southern administrations would offer armed resistance to those demands.
In Ireland, the protests had already been met with violence from the Loyalists which had been backed by the 'forced of law ang order' and ignored by Britain.
Rightly or wrongly, the Catholics decided that peaceful persuasion was not going to work - especially as the Loyalists had already introduced violence into the equation.
It needs to be remembered that those who fought remembered tat the British state had executed the leaders of 1916 and Independence (of a sort) was only finally won by taking up arms.
It is nonsense to claim that Britain was there to keep the peace - the collusion with the Loyalists makes it quite clear which horse they had decided to back
Whatever your take on the violence (from all sides), that is what brought the sides to the conference table and nobody disputes that fact
It is often forgotten that there was another war of independence against British rule 20-odd years earlier that also involved violence and terrorism, but I doubt if those choosing to condemn outright what happened in Ireland would take the same stance on what happened elsewhere in the 1940s
In the end, all of these occurences are directly traceable back to The British Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 10:53 AM

Jim,
Rightly or wrongly, the Catholics decided that peaceful persuasion was not going to work - especially as the Loyalists had already introduced violence into the equation.

It did work. Public opinion nationally was on their side. The national government took control, disbanded the B Specials, instituted equal rights for all, and sent troops to protect the Nationalist community from the sectarian attacks.

The "armed struggle" achieved nothing but decades of death and misery.

Dave, I did not speculate about McG's policies, I just applied them to the American Civil Rights situation which despite what Jim claims was a fair comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 11:24 AM

This is a fascinating thread and I am grateful for the range and fierceness of it. I am not Irish, I am not Catholic, nor Protestant, but I am from Boston and in my elementary school days there were more Brians than Roberts in my classes. I've spent time in Ireland and read plenty of literature that is adorned with Irish thought and perspective. The Irish have had a major impact on my country and me. So this thread speaks to me.
I think when people exhibit a capacity and commitment to change, that puts them above the average level of behavior.
I also remember a saying that it is good to bury the hatchet, but no one forgets WHERE it's buried.
It is easy to enumerate the dead and their numbers, and harder to note the cases where people are not killed.
I visited Eason's in Dublin and bought a bunch of books to ship home. The title of one of them: "It's handy when people don't die."

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 12:55 PM

"It did work."
No it didn't Keith - the Loyalists were forced to the conference table, as were the Brits by Easter Week and the War of Independence - it would never have happened otherwise, as the responses to the Civil Rights marches proved.
The six counties were an oppressive set up by Britain which led to nearly half a century of inequality and injustice.
Anti Catholic riots were a regular feature of life, voting determined by property ownership and, in the times of unemployment, work only if you kicked with the 'right' foot.
All this is documented, as is the fact that, once afgain, the first signs of violence cam from the loyalists, and the compliance by the forces of 'law and order' and the Protestants to maintain the status quo
You are fully aware of this, or if you are not, you have never followed up the information you have been given in previous arguments
I have no intention of making this another head-to-head with you.
Please respond to what has been put up - we really have been here far too often before
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:21 PM

It strikes me that the English establishment suffers from two major failings
They live in the past and they are incapable of learning from it
Write that down - it's a gem
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:44 PM

Jim,
"It did work."
No it didn't Keith

Yes it did. All the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association were met, but that was never the issue for the IRAs.

They intended to force NI out of the UK against the will of the majority of its people by violence, intimidation, murder, bombing and shooting.

McGuinness said,"it would be the cutting edge of the IRA rather than the ballot box that would remove the Brit presence from Ireland "

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:46 PM

all true Jim.
the conservative party was still at that point (round 1967 say...) the conservative party the conservative and unionist party. there can be little doubt which side the english establishment were on.

However - they weren't the party in power. plus i think many english people were genuinely repelled by the violence of Ian Paisley's rhetoric. Although in truth, I will admit very few of us could have told with any certainty what he was on about! But he sounded like trouble, and english people don't like that.

Adams and Martin McG were very young and full of 1916 rhetoric. McG was younger than me. at that age i was screwing up my first teaching practice. i don't think its really fair to expect wisdom from the young. i'm not sure its all that clever to be justifying them. certainly failing the teaching practice was my fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:19 PM

Whatever party was in power in UK, they could not force NI out of the Union without at least a 1% majority of the NI electorate, and that was unachievable.

Even though Unionist was in their name, the Tories would have been delighted to be rid of NI as would every other party and the whole population of mainland UK.
The problem was persuading them to vote for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:54 PM

'the Tories would have been delighted to be rid of NI as would every other party and the whole population of mainland UK.'

i don't think the evidence bears that out. the monied classes had a lot invested in NI. in fact that was one of the 1916's lot main bone of contention - we had nicked the industrial heartland of the country.

if there was the political will to get them to bugger off, theres all kinds of ways we could have tipped them the black spot. made subtle differences between the two countries that would have built up. - - like the fuss about them wearing prison uniforms. if we really didn't give a shit - we could have said, yeh whatever it takes for you to shut up. instead we had the hunger strikes. . and Thatcher's intransigence.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:41 AM

we had nicked the industrial heartland of the country.

We did not nick it. We did not want it even then.
The British government wanted it gone but the army refused to fight them to make them go, and the Irish army could not fight them to force them in.
We were stuck with them.
Maybe Brexit will finally rid us of the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:02 AM

I said I wasn't going to turn this into a head-to-head Keith but I am grateful for your display of ignorance of Britain's oldest colony.
While such attitudes exist we will still be counting the body bags.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM

Poor Keith. Him and his old buddies, standing on the sidelines shouting at a world that's leaving them behind, unable to comprehend the fact their empire is dead and we're now nothing more than an increasingly marginalised collection of small countries whose union is fracturing down nationalistic lines due to the fact the old folk trashed the future with Brexit.

Their spittle-flecked invective is witless, sad and dull to endure.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:10 AM

ignorance - a funny word.

i'm sure we all ignore. what we don't want to think abouut.

but what is really stopping us kicking NI out of the United KIngdom tomorrow?

i've heard it said, we would have Beirut on our doorstep.....possible, i suppose. certainly we couldn't make Ireland unite if it didn't want to. anyway - it wouldn't be our concern. no more English troops sacrificed. they could all be merry little Europeans, without wicked old British empire.

i suppose in many ways what the violence achieved was that it made NI an unattractive place in which to in vest for many years. but to get rid of NI then would have been to reward violence. now would be a good time.

we don't need the acquiesence of the the people of Northern Ireland. Surely its up to the people of the United KIngdom, who we invite in.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:18 AM

but what is really stopping us kicking NI out of the United KIngdom tomorrow?

Just that up to now they did not want to go, and were prepared to fight to stay in.
Like Scotland it requires a 1% majority.

Talk of colonialism and empire is just Republican propaganda. Lies.
The British Parliament passed the Home Rule Bill for the whole island in 1914. We did not want any of it then and never have since.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:47 AM

we don't need the acquiesence of the the people of Northern Ireland. Surely its up to the people of the United KIngdom, who we invite in.

Yes, but NI is already in.
They are entitled to self determination, as are the peoples of Wales and Scotland (and England).

Only the Scots were consulted over whether they should leave or stay, not the whole UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 06:32 AM

yes but its our country. if we don't want them, as you say. everything points to the fact that the public will is being thwarted on this subject by an uppercrust elite.

its about time wedid something about it and kicked them out.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:05 AM

THe six counties have been moving towards an Catholic/Protestant equality situation fro some time now.
It seem Brexit has pipped it at the post and removed many of the obstacles for a long needed United Ireland
Funny old world
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM

"It seem Brexit has pipped it at the post and removed many of the obstacles for a long needed United Ireland"

There have been no obstacles in place since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, only the entrenched attitudes of frightened people.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:46 AM

"only the entrenched attitudes of frightened people."
From what I can ake out Stu, apathy has played a large part in it - doesn't it always?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 09:00 AM

in truth - theres plenty to be frightened of. i don't blame anybody for not wanting to confront their fears.

but when the past holds so much bad stuff - surely its better to try for something new.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 10:15 AM

Could I suggest that the right wingers on here read "Those are real bullets, aren't they" by Peter Pringle and Phillip Jacobson.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:01 AM

Al, would you not allow the people of NI themselves to choose their form of governance?
It is not any "uppercrust elite" but ordinary people like us.
Would you force them out at gun point, as the IRA tried?
I would not want to be part of such fascist aggression.

Jim,
THe six counties have been moving towards an Catholic/Protestant equality situation fro some time now.
It seem Brexit has pipped it at the post and removed many of the obstacles for a long needed United Ireland

Let's hope so Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:34 AM

"Al, would you not allow the people of NI themselves to choose their form of governance?"
No people has the right to choose a Government that persecutes and discriminates against a large section of the population - we are learning that with Trump
Britain carefully chose the six counties to give them a Protestant majority - that's why we never refer to them as "Ulster" - three counties were deliberately excluded afiet Britain had don her sums
That is deliberately building in inequality into a State - Gerrymandering, to give it its correct title
The Troubles were Britain's chickens coming home to roost
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:22 PM

Jim, I fear you are wasting your time trying to educate some people on here as to the history and geography of Ireland, they simply do not want to know or understand the various issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:59 PM

Keith A, a small correction, if you wouldn't mind. The British Parliament did indeed pass the Home Rule Bill in 1914 - but it was then shelved until the end of the war; it was never enacted fully.
However, if you read it, it's not the kind of devolution that people imagine - it was a very limited thing, basically allowing Ireland to have a kind of county council level representation. All real power remained with London.
And in Northern Ireland to this day, there is a hate-filled tiny minority who burn effigies of people like Martin McGuinness and burn Ireland's national flag on the night of 11/12 July every year, to celebrate a battle that took place in 1690?

Might I mention that this discussion should really be separated out from a thread about the recent death of someone, which should be limited to RIPs?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 01:13 PM

'Al, would you not allow the people of NI themselves to choose their form of governance?'

frankly no. they forfeited that right cos they couldn't behave themselves.

as Jim points out - the situation was artificial. but it has to be said - all the paraphernalia of democracy and a free press was open to them. they could have shouted louder.

but both sides went, no! sod that! we'd rather kill each other.

government or governance - whatever that means, its a bit like teaching. it implies an act of cooperation, a willingness to be governed. in Northern Ireland that act of cooperation with the parliament in London was missing.
what you require of the participants, ironically particularly the ones calling themselves loyalists is impossible. just face the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
Britain carefully chose the six counties to give them a Protestant majority - that's why we never refer to them as "Ulster" - three counties were deliberately excluded afiet Britain had don her sums
That is deliberately building in inequality into a State - Gerrymandering, to give it its correct title

No Jim. The Unionist community wanted to be in and the Nationalists wanted to be out, so the line was drawn to please as many people as possible.
Consideration, to give it its correct title.

Thompson,
Keith A, a small correction, if you wouldn't mind. The British Parliament did indeed pass the Home Rule Bill in 1914 - but it was then shelved until the end of the war; it was never enacted fully.

The fact that it was passed proves that Britain did not want any of Ireland.
It would have been enacted but for the pointless and unnecessary 1916 "Rising" (when hardly anyone rose.)

Had they just waited for the war to end (and their boys come home) decades of bloodshed would have been saved and a United Ireland achieved early in 1919.
The fools the fools.

Al,
frankly no. they forfeited that right cos they couldn't behave themselves.

Every person? Collective punishment?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:20 PM

"No Jim. The Unionist community wanted to be in and the Nationalists wanted to be out, so the line was drawn to please as many people as possible."
Gerrymandering is a fact -
To make such yor ridiculous claim possible would require a referendum
The original decision was to partition the whole of Ulster in line with the Loyalist demand "Ulster says No"
They did the math and realised the other three counties would give a majority to the 'Taigs' so they dropped three - simple s that.
How do you claim the will of the people was sought - issuing mobile phones maybe
Please do not be stupid
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:20 PM

"No Jim. The Unionist community wanted to be in and the Nationalists wanted to be out, so the line was drawn to please as many people as possible."
Gerrymandering is a fact -
To make such yor ridiculous claim possible would require a referendum
The original decision was to partition the whole of Ulster in line with the Loyalist demand "Ulster says No"
They did the math and realised the other three counties would give a majority to the 'Taigs' so they dropped three - simple s that.
How do you claim the will of the people was sought - issuing mobile phones maybe
Please do not be stupid
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:23 PM

The decision to end the union with Europe didn't require getting the agreement of other Europeans, even the ones living and working and paying taxes here. It didn't even require consulting with them.

It would be perfectly possible for Westminster to end the union with Northern Ireland. Why we could even have a referendum about it - then, if England voted heavily enough in favour, we could ignore whatever they thought about it in Northern Ireland. After all, there's a precedent for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:04 PM

well according to you Keith, they have avoided the 'punishment' since 1919.

make yer bleedin' mind up!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:54 PM

THERE YOU GO
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:29 PM

Keith A, if politics had stood still during the war, you'd be right. But in 1915 the Liberal government (Home Rule was a Liberal project) collapsed, and was replaced by a coalition dominated by the Conservative and Unionist Party. They were never going to allow Home Rule to come into being.
And what's this about "the fools, the fools" - they fought for and got full independence, a full and free Republic, rather than the county council status that Home Rule would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 08:05 PM

"They were never going to allow Home Rule to come into being."
To ascertain this, in 1929, having gerrymandered a Protestant majority and declared that the North would be a Protestant State, they abandoned the Proportional Representation system of voting and installed a first past the post system, this way making sure that the Catholics had no say in the running of the State.
Additiuonally, under this system, Catholics were disadvantaged further when it came to the vote because of the property ownership restrictions to elections (see below description)
Jim Carroll

The commonly understood impetus for civil rights grievances is the way unionists dominated government in Northern Ireland after partition in 1921. Under the devolved Stormont regime, anti-Catholic discrimination occurred in private and public employment and public services, particularly those provided by local councils. Although some debate the character of the postpartition state in both politics and scholarship, a broad consensus agrees that, from 1921 to 1968, the devolved political system supported and legitimated widespread discrimination against the Catholic minority (e.g., Darby 1976; Whyte 1983).
State discrimination was most pronounced in local government. Local authorities preferentially allocated public housing to Protestants, and the system for voting in local elections meant housing discrimination had electoral consequences. That is, under Northern Irish voting laws, only "ratepayers"— either property owners or public housing tenants, both of whom paid a local property tax called "rates"—or their nominated representatives could vote in local elections. Private tenants did not pay rates—their landlords did—so these tenants were not automatically entitled to a local council vote. These rules applied only to local council elections; all adults were enfranchised for Northern Irish and UK parliamentary elections. Yet this system, combined with discrimination against Catholics in public housing, amplified the political representation of unionism. Ratepayers' provisions also entitled owners of commercial property to nominate special voters (non-ratepayers) for each £10 ($28) value of the property, for up to six voters.2 Given disproportionate Protestant ownership of commercial property, this, too, increased unionists' political representation (see Darby 1976). Furthermore, the practice nurtured a culture of patronage within unionism, as non-ratepaying Protestants were dependent on properly owners for nominations lo vote in local council elections. There was also a pattern of gerrymandering, whereby electoral boundaries were drawn to ensure unionist dominance, most strikingly in Derry. Policing and justice also operated in a biased fashion, with the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act 1922 allowing internment without trial.'
Brice Dickson (2010), a respected human rights scholar and advocate (he was a founding member of the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the former head of the Human Rights Commission), makes clear the underlying difficulty of approaching Stormont's repressions as human rights violations. Although these practices disenfranchised the minority, he explains, international frameworks that define human rights do not prescribe particular political or voting arrangements. In this sense, these frameworks offer limited tools. For Dickson (2010), stretching human rights principles to denounce the Stormont regimes practices obscures the essentially political nature of its abuses (15). Extending this observation helps clarify a central insight: rights conflicts were political from the moment of their emergence in Northern Ireland. Broader narratives took longer to emerge, such as identifying human rights violations as causes of conflict or, later, human rights culture as a cause of peace.
In the 1960s, however, political and economic shifts occurring through¬out western Europe dramatically changed the regions politics. A growing Catholic middle class and radicalized university students (from both Catho¬lic and Protestant backgrounds) challenged the regions governance. 'The civil rights movement they created, and opposition to it, became a catalyst, rather than a simple cause, for the conflict. The local movement combined tactics from both the U.S. civil rights movement and European student uprisings. These tactics were introduced at a moment of increasing local tensions, as nationalists and unionists, respectively, celebrated the fiftieth anniversaries the Easter Rising and the World War I Battle of the Somme.4

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:22 AM

Jim,
To make such yor ridiculous claim possible would require a referendum

Don't be silly. Everyone knows where the nationalist and unionist communities are located.
Villages and towns that were mostly Nationalist would want to be outside the line.
Those that were Unionist would want to be inside.

The line was drawn to satisfy as many as possible.

Thompson,
They were never going to allow Home Rule to come into being.

No-one could have stopped it. It had been passed into law. They could have had a united Ireland and home rule leading to full independence without any murders or any civil war.

The "Rising" was utterly unnecessary and counter productive.

Kevin,
The decision to end the union with Europe didn't require getting the agreement of other Europeans,

Yes, but the rest of Europe could not have voted us out, any more than the rest of Britain could vote out Scotland, N.I. or Wales.

The peoples of those countries are entitled to self determination.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM

this is indeed a revolutionary view of things Keith.

so your contention is that Connolly, Pearse et al. - their intention was to impede the British government's intention to grant independence.

well....i suppose its a point of view...

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:23 AM

"Don't be silly. Everyone knows where the nationalist and unionist communities are located."
Nonsense - they drew up the borders without consulting them
Only the militant loyalists had stated that they wished to remain in Britain - there was never at anytime a nationwide consultation as to what the people of the six counties wanted - the only voice was that of the militantly aggressive Loyalists
Many protestant had fought for and demanded a United Ireland- some of the great nationalist leaders were Protestants
WOLFE TONE is considered the father of Irish Nationalism
The people were never at any time consulted - the British colluded to form a Protestant state and the leaders of that State set up an administration that deliberately created a class system devided on religious lines.
You have the nuts and bolts of how they went about it
Rather than just dismissing that information, why not dispute it with facts of your own?
We have been over this hundreds of times and tyou have never moved from your bigoted support of the Loyalist view - that is what brought about the deaths of so many people and will continue to do so while it persists.
The 'rising' led to the War of Independence, which on the one hand kept
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:58 AM

You need to remember that the struggle was not one between religious groups bu on of National Self Determination and just as some Catholics were happy to stay as part of Britain, just as many Protestants wished to Govern themselves as Irish
The set-up may have worked as a temporary measure if the question of religion had not been introduced into the equation by The Covenant
Finishes with this Keith until you start arguing on the basis of history and not from a pro-establishment English point of view
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 10:46 AM

this is indeed a revolutionary view of things Keith.

"Revolutionary"? Is that defined as "idiotic"?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 12:28 PM

At point of a gun or by the bombing a civilian population in acts of terrorism you can slice off part of a country, or part of an empire and create a new entity. What you cannot do at the point of a gun or by the use of bombs is force unification to create a new entity. The latter is what the "men of the gun" in Irish politics have been trying since 1914 when a tiny minority of them secretly approached the Germans to request assistance to achieve their goal. Had, as Keith A stated, the Irish nationalists waited until the end of the "Great War", the Home Rule Act would have been implemented and Ireland would have ended up as a united, independent sovereign state in 1931. Instead the "men of the gun" opted for war, first with the British, then with each other. History repeated itself when the Second World War came along and the IRA (An illegal organisation in Eire) forged links with the Nazis to try and united North and South (They failed - Dev introduced non-jury trials and internment to stop them), they tried again in 1950s border campaign and their "Volunteers" got the shock of their lives when they found out that the North would fight to maintain their ties with the UK, the campaign ended in total failure, apart for rather spectacular and well planned and executed raid early on, the "campaign" was a complete and utter farce. In the troubles the NI Human Rights Campaign had the total backing and support of the people in the UK, for once the "Official" IRA saw that and took the decision to stand to one side, a view not shared by some members who formed the "Provisional" IRA, so the "men of the gun" had another go at forced unification of Ireland - and again the failed spectacularly - the Republic of Ireland dropped it's constitutional territorial claim on the North.

Brexit might just achieve what decades of violence totally failed to - let's wait and see. As far as British Policy goes - they've been trying to get rid of Ireland since the mid 1800s. If the North finds that their interests are best served maintaining open trading links with the Republic then they can call for a referendum anytime they wish - no-one would stand in their way. Having had that referendum and for arguments sake we'll say that they opted to join the Republic, then a second referendum in the Republic would be held to agree to the North becoming part of a united Republic of Ireland. Interesting times.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:18 PM

A very partisan view of Irish history Teribus
The 'Men of the Gun' were the Loyalists (not the Irish people, Catholic or Protestant) who introduced the gun into twentieth century Irish politics.
The same Loyalists also struck the first terrorist blow in the 1960s.
The Civil Rights movement that was brutally battered into silence by the Loyalists with the assistance of the R.U.C. had nothing whatever to do with "maintaining their ties with the UK" - it was a peaceful demand for equal rights and opportunities fro the Catholic third of the population of the Six Counties.
You might as well have added to your diatribe "This has been a broadcast on behalf of the Loyalists of Post-Empire Britain
It bears no reality to to the situation that gave rise to the Troubles.
I suggest you read a book rather than official British bulletins.
Jim Carroll

THE CREATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE IRISH BORDER
KJ Rankin
"Plans to include all of Ulster's nine counties in the new "Northern Ireland" with a view to facilitating future unity was effectively vetoed by Ulster unionists who were keen to procure a secure 2:1 majority in six counties than handle a slender and precarious 9:7 balance. However, with the Act being virtually ignored in the rest of Ireland, the boundary was not quite secured. The 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty endowed the Border with a temporary and qualified recognition but established a disparity between
a devolved government within the United Kingdom and the newly autonomous
Dominion of the Irish Free State.
The provision for the Boundary Commission had been agreed by the Irish negotiators upon the logic that reducing Northern Ireland's territory would hasten its disintegration and subsequent prospects for unity. This was grossly simplistic and arguably counter-productive in that reducing Northern Ireland's would inevitably create a stronger unionist majority and fallacious to equate territorial with economic viability.
The initial tactical advantage offered by the Boundary Commission was converted into a potentially devastating political liability.
The Boundary Commission saga confirmed the territorial framework of Northern Ireland as it exists today and with it transferred attention to constitutional rather than territorial structures. The Irish Border can understandably be regarded as symbolising the conflict between unionism and nationalism, but it is also an archetypal example of the interplay between politics and geography whereby abstract political concepts are applied in different spatial scales.
https://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/CentreforInternationalBordersResearch/Publications/WorkingPapers/MappingFrontiersworkingpapers/Filetoupload,175395,en.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:33 PM

There you go - the demnds of the Civil Rights Marches that were met with such violence - nuffin to do with Links to London
Jim Carroll

01: Civil Rights Movement 1968-69
In 1968 the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement became international news.
In October 1968, when television pictures of RUC officers baton-charging a civil rights demonstration in Derry were shown around the world, the Northern Ireland civil rights movement became international news.
This push for civil rights was backed by a wide range of political and social activists. It was influenced by television coverage of the black civil rights protests in America and the student protest movement across Europe. The main areas where reforms were sought were: the allocation of public housing, a "one man, one vote" electoral system, fair employment practices in the public service and a restructuring of the RUC. With the population of Northern Ireland divided two-thirds Protestant and one-third Catholic, it was the minority who felt the brunt of discrimination. Public housing was granted by local government authorities, and there was much evidence of discrimination against the Catholic population by local councils in the allocation of houses. Prior to 1969, elections were not held on a "one person, one vote" basis, and gerrymandering was used to secure unionist majorities on local councils.
Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating geographic boundaries in order to gain political advantage and influence a desired electoral result.
In 1963, Terence O'Neill became Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Seen as a moderate unionist, he set about reforming the economy. He also expressed a desire to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and create a better rapport with the government in Dublin, hoping this would address the sense of alienation felt by Catholics towards the political system in Northern Ireland. However, reforms were too slow in coming for the minority Catholic population, and O'Neill's meeting with the Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, in 1965 raised the ire of loyalists led by the Reverend Ian Paisley. Within his own Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), O'Neill also met with opposition from William Craig and Brian Faulkner.
From the autumn of 1968 onwards, a wide range of activists marched behind the civil rights banner, adopting civil disobedience in an attempt to secure their goals. Housing activists, socialists, nationalists, unionists, republicans, students, trade unionists and political representatives came together across the North. Many of the protesters were bright young university educated Catholics, who had been able to avail of the free education brought in by the 1949 Education Act. This movement attempted to bring a new dynamic to Northern Ireland politics. The demand for basic civil rights from the Northern Ireland government was an effort to move the traditional fault-lines away from the familiar Catholic-Protestant, nationalist-unionist, republican-loyalist and Irish-British divides by demanding basic rights for all citizens of Britain. However, as the civil rights campaign gained momentum, so too did loyalist opposition. Heightened sectarian tension became more difficult to control, and civil disobedience events began to descend into occasions of civil disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:35 PM

Al,
so your contention is that Connolly, Pearse et al. - their intention was to impede the British government's intention to grant independence.

No, but home rule was going to happen anyway.
There was no need for violence, and they had no mandate or support from the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:03 PM

"No, but home rule was going to happen anyway."
No it wasn't
Once again, we've been through this
Had Easter week not happened Irish Youth would have been decimated on The Somme and Ireland would have been unsustainable as a nation - you've had Lloyd George's statement
Immediately the Irish realised the brutal nature of Britain the rebels gotr their mandate.
As with Independence, Britain was not to be trusted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:36 PM

Taking decimation in it's literal sense, i.e. "one-in-ten" then that is almost exactly what did happen to those fighting in the British, Commonwealth and Empire Armies during both the First and Second World Wars.

So your: "Had Easter week not happened Irish Youth would have been decimated on The Somme and Ireland would have been unsustainable as a nation"

The losses suffered by the British, Commonwealth and Empire forces did not result in any losses that could ever be remotely described as unsustainable - so from you this is just more over emotive claptrap based on total ignorance.

Elsewhere the French, Germans and Russians lost even more - and that did not result in any "unsustainability" - quite the contrary within 20 years they were all ready to start all over again.

The "men of the gun" in Irish history and in the "fight" for Irish Independence and Unity have only ever succeeded in demonstrating their unerring skill and abilities at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In 2016 you were further away from achieving a united Ireland than you were in 2014 and the real irony is that it may well be Brexit that eventually does lay the ground for unity and the "men of the gun" will have had S.F.A. to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:44 PM

Keith, some of those guys had already spent years in English jails. I really do think they were in a better position to gauge the intentions and likely actions of the English establishment of the time than you are - even allowing for your fierce interest, and doubtless intelligent weighing of the evidence.

its the sort of difference between the crap that schools inspectors write and the realities of life in the classroom. the business end of human experience is always - just different.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:54 PM

WW1 was a war of attrition and even those Irish who volunteered caimed that they were put in the most dangerous positions when fighting
Ireland had lost so many in the famine, though starvation, disease and through the emigrations, to sacrifice so many would, as I said, have made Ireland unsustainable as a nation.
It would have been obsecen to involve Ireland, who had fought for centuries to rid itself of British rule, to force young Irishmen to fight and die fot the very Empire they were trying to free themselves from - even with the limited Home Rule concessions.
We've dealt with all this over and over again and you remained a couple up shit's creek without a paddle last time
Now you are trying to reopen the same subject - on your own again.
"The "men of the gun" "
I don't suppose you mean the Loyalists - that's who they were in the 20th century
You seem quite happy to support them: " got the shock of their lives when they found out that the North would fight to maintain their ties with the UK" yet prepared to condemn republicans who fight for civil right or whatever - almost as 'fair minded and even handed' as the way the six counties were set up as a Protestant state, I would say - how about you?
No need to ask which side you are on, is there?
This thread is bout McGuinness who did more than any other to bring the warring sides to the conference table - that's how much he had to "do with it"
Little Englander Brexit stands to knock that work back decades.
Have we finished with the 'Links with London' but than?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:59 PM

The people of England have the same right to break with the Union as the people of Northern Ireland. In the wake of the experience of the attempt to hold Ireland in the Union by force has been learnt. The continuance of the Union is a matter of murual agreement. The UK isn't like tge USA in this respect.

And if the other countries in the EU wished to exclude the UK, while there is no formal provision for expulsion analogous to that which exists for secession, there is a power to suspend membership, and no time limit on that, so it could be permanent. And it would always be possible to establish a New Model EU excluding any undesirable country.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:10 PM

Going back to one of the original questions, let me say this about repentance: Fuck being sorry. I don't care how sorry you are after doing awful things for a long time, over and over. The question to me becomes, what did you DO about it? And I think this guy tried to right the wrongs.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:48 AM

Very true Mrrzy.

In what way has the rest of the UK tried to force Northern Ireland to remain in the Union with the UK Kevin? In December 1922 the whole of Ireland was given it's independence as a united entity, within 24 hours the six counties that formed what we know now as Northern Ireland declared their wish that they wanted no part of a united Ireland governed by Dublin and sought to remain as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, the Act that enabled them to exercise this choice was the 1920 Government of Ireland Act and the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty that ended the Irish War of Independence.

What I support Jim is the right of self-determination, what I support is the rule of law and order, both of which you seem to be against. The people of Northern Ireland will decide THEIR fate and future - not some myth believing fantasist with a gun in one hand and a bomb in the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:01 AM

"the six counties that formed what we know now as Northern Ireland declared their wish that they wanted no part of a united Ireland governed by Dublin"
The six counties did no such thing
The Loyalists from earlier in the century had declared they wanted no part of a United Ireland and they shipped arms and declared that in to ascertain that no event should it ever take place, officers in the British army backed them by declaring they would take no part in enforcing a United Ireland on THE LOYALISTS - (not the Irish people - who at no time were given a chance to express their opinions).
At no time were the North Eastern Irish People consulted over partition until long after it had become a fait accompli and the people as a whole had had a bellyful of violence, both in Ireland and in the European bloodbath.
Since then, the victorious THE LOYALISTS have held sway in the North using repressive sectarian governance and triumphalist sectarian marches to continue to hold six counties for Britain.
It is this continued colonisation by another name that has caused misery, hardship and death in this section of Ireland for nearly a century and it will continue to do so until partition ends.
Personally, I have very little time for national barriers other than for practical purposes - people are people, whichever part of the planet you happen to be on.
Whenever I've travelled in the North, the first thing that comes to mind is that you are surrounded by Irish people living in Ireland, and part of a long and proud Irish heritage.
Throughout British rule, that heritage was crushed almost to destruction, its history was suppressed and re-written to make Ireland part of Britain, and its language and national identity was virtually destroyed.
It took five years of bloody guerrilla warfare to bring about independence for twenty six counties, and the peace that was forced on to Ireland in 1922 brought about another year of equally bloody civil war.
Following the Treaty, the Catholics in the North underwent gatting on for half-a-century's sectarian anti - Catholic oppression (not address here by either of our Blimpish flag-waggers), up to the point that, once again, attempts to get a fair deal for the one third minority brought about open, state supported violent opposition to peaceful protests, led to yet more guerrilla warfare.
It takes a special type of post-Empire mindlessness not to realise that this situation cannot continue indefinitely, but it will go on causing misery and hardship and filling body-bags until the border between North and South is removed and Ireland Ireland's thirty two Counties are recognised as one country.
Britain's latest exercise in Little Englander flag-wagging has caused a sharp about-turn and raised the possibility of Ireland returning to a 'hard-border', so we can look forward to more violence for our kids to sort out - that is our legacy to them.
When will we ever learn?
"Jim"
Always a sign that you are on the ropes for argument Teribus - and you seemed to be trying so hard!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:54 AM

Jim,
Had Easter week not happened Irish Youth would have been decimated on The Somme and Ireland

The "rising" made no difference to the Irish volunteers fighting in the war. They continued to fight and die to the end (but were not "decimated.")

Al,
Keith, some of those guys had already spent years in English jails.

Only one of them ever tried to get elected, and he lost badly.

they were in a better position to gauge the intentions and likely actions of the English establishment of the time than you are

The Irish people did not agree. They showed contempt for the gunmen throughout, even when they were being dragged off to jail.

the attempt to hold Ireland in the Union by force

Never happened. Britain did not want Ireland in the Union but it could not be done while Britain was fighting for its very survival and not winning.
An attempt was made to take the North OUT of the Union by force, against the expressed will of the majority of its people.

Jim,
It is this continued colonisation

It is not colonisation if the people demand to remain in the Union despite not being wanted by the rest of us.


It took five years of bloody guerrilla warfare to bring about independence for twenty six counties,

No it did not. They were going to get it anyway. The law had been passed. The slaughter of thousands was for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:03 AM

contempt.....

Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse -
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:25 AM

We have beeen here Keith
You provideed no evidence for you claims then and you are just repeating what has been said before #
Your attitude and that of Teribius is archaic English racism - an attitude that countries that were once part of the Empire had no right to Independence
You even went as far as claiming that Irish children had been brainwashed to hate Britain, when in fact, any hatred that might have arisen fro a time rose from the fact that newly independent Ireland began to teach the history that had been suppressed under British rule.
Oddly enough - the Irsi do not hate Britain, but when I encounter the archaic views of people like you two, I would fully understand if they did.
Britain not only wanted Ireland in the union but they defended on it as a source of food exports and of profit - so much so that, when millions of Irish were starving, Britain continued to export food out of Ireland and sell it back to the dying at market prices
Throughout the famine, there waqs enough food locked in warehouses guarded by soldiers to feed the starving Irish four times over.
That is a documented fact of history
Britain also need governance over Ireland to ascertain that they had a peaceful neighbour that didn't attempt to seek refvenge for many centuries of oppression - they had no worries on that one - the Irish are far more forgiving of past sins than a nation that is still fighting the Battle of Waterloo via Brexit
Stop this now
If you wish to raise this again, reopen your old ludicrous displays of jingoism on the Famine and Easter week threads.
These matters have all been settled - they really have
Last year you and your mate accused the Irish nation of glorifying mass murder by commemorating The Easter Rising
Any racist could same about St George's Day if they had the feeble mind to do so.
Stop this denigrating of the Irish people - you really have had your five minutes of fame
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:28 AM

"It took five years of bloody guerrilla warfare to bring about independence for twenty six counties, and the peace that was forced on to Ireland in 1922 brought about another year of equally bloody civil war." - Jim Carroll

Identify the period of this epic struggle Jim.

If, as I think it is, you are referring to the period 1916 to 1921 then there was NO five years of bloody guerrilla warfare. You had not quite one week of complete and utter futile lunacy instigated in secret by just seven men in April 1916 that resulted in the destruction of the centre of Dublin followed by three and a quarter years of no fighting at all followed by two and a half years of minor sporadic skirmishing in what is known as the Irish war of independence during which time Ireland was given home rule which the nationalists rejected and the unionists in the north accepted.

This "bloody struggle" as you call it involved less than 0.65% of the population which had attached the following "butcher's bill":

Irish Republican Army ~550 dead

Royal Irish Constabulary 410 dead
British Army 261 dead
Ulster Special Constabulary 43 USC

In addition to the above ~750 civilians died in this two and a half year period, giving a total of ~2014 people killed - the population of Ireland at the time was just over 3 million people. So not really much of a bloody guerrilla war as delusional Jim would have us all believe.

The funny thing is that Jim insists that although the IRA "won" their war of independence a peace treaty was forced upon them, which is of course bullshit. But Jim has previously also insisted that he knows more about what happened in the negotiations than those who actually did take part in them - more delusion in the mind of Jim Carroll - I on the other hand tend to believe the men who were present.

The "men of the gun" (Good old Dev among them) then decided to fight a civil war in the newly created Irish Free State. Irish Republican forces fought against the Irish Nationalist forces who supported the Irish Free State and the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

This conflict lasted just under 11 months but was much bloodier than the two and a half year war of independence and involved far larger numbers that represented about 3% of the population.

Republican forces numbered ~15,000
Nationalist forces numbered ~58,500

For the 10 months, 3 weeks and 5 days that this idiotic, futile and pointless exercise lasted, precise figures for the dead and wounded have still in 2017 to be fully determined and calculated. The pro-treaty "Nationalist" forces appear to have suffered somewhere between 540–800 fatalities, while the anti-treaty "Republican" forces appear to have received considerably heavier losses. For total combatant and civilian deaths, a minimum of 1,000 and a maximum of 4,000 have been suggested. All done for absolutely NOTHING apart from the wilful destruction by "Republican" forces towards the end of the conflict of Irish Government administrative buildings, commercial properties and vital transport infrastructure. The costs of this idiocy instigated by the "men of the gun" so admired by Jim Carroll amounted to some £50 million pounds that crippled the finances and economy of the fledgling Government of the newly independent Irish Free State with huge debt and resulted in a budget deficit of over £4 million in 1923.

Plain objective truth with regard to your "men of the gun" Carroll is as follows:

1: They fucked up in 1914
2: They fucked up in 1916
3: They fucked up in 1919
4: They fucked up in 1922
5: Had they done nothing at all Ireland would have been an independent united country in 1931.
6: They fucked up in 1939/40
7: They fucked up in 1956
8: They fucked up in 1969
9: Some elements are still determined, against the will and the declared wishes of the people in Ireland, to fuck up yet again claiming the same non-existent mandate claimed previously by the "secret seven" in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:38 AM

Al,
contempt.....

Yes. They were derided with contempt by their fellow Dubliners throughout the "rising" and when they were dragged of to jail.
The eulogising did not start until they were dead.

Jim,
You provideed no evidence for you claims then and you are just repeating what has been said before #

We did supply the evidence. For which claim have you forgotten it?
You can have it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 07:02 AM

"Identify the period of this epic struggle "
Have done so
"Jom."
More insecurity
Enough of this racist, anti-Irish crap - we've taken up far too much space as it is.
Martin McGuinness undoubtedly was part of a terrorist campaign
Terrorism is not a philosophy - it is a tactic resorted to those who feel it necessary to win battles they believe are worthwhile
Moyse Dayan and many Jewish freedom fighters were terrorists, though I doubt if Israel would appreciate them being described as such
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist - today he is remembered worldwide as a great national hero (except that by Thatcherites, of course).
Our history is full of heroes who resorted to extreme measures that could be described as terrorism, in order to bring about justice and freedom
In wartime Europe, the resistance movements in occupied countries, often assisted by British assistance, resorted to terrorist tactics which killed and maimed civilians as well as 'the enemy'.
I've just finished watching SS/GB on television - entertaining fiction, which raises an interesting point.
How far would those opposing Nazism have gone to win back Britain from the Reich?
C J Sansom's ' Dominion raises the same point.
There can be little argument, not even from this pair of jingoists, that partition brought about misery, suffering and hardship and when protests against that situation were greeted with brutality and violence, the Republicans resorted to terrorist tactics.
Personally I am a 'sort of' pacifist - I abhor the taking of human life as an unnatural act, yet I have never been presented with the situation of having to contemplate it.
My father was a pacisfist 'sort of' who went off to Spain to kill Spaniards because he believed that in doing so, it might stop the rise of fascism in Europe.
Terrorism is often a movable feast of a term applied as a matter of convenience to people who quite often are metamorphosed into Nation Heroes by history
Perhaps we might discuss this rather than the racist garbage from this pair which has long sickened me.
My neighbours who commemorated Easter week last year were not celebrating mass murder and it is sick racism to suggest that they were
Finished with this pair of Blimps
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM

'you provided no evidence....'

Jim, evidence providing is bollocks. Keith will provide evidence. he always does. its always bollocks.

the facts of the matter are simple.

Irish republicans have engaged in violent acts in the hope of gaining independence for their country. this has gone on for several centuries without success.

This to any fair minded person would suggest a certain reluctance of England to relinquish their hold on Ireland.

not to Keith. most other people - not to Keith.

its like some people can't work the video recorder - Keith doesn't get it.

Martin McGuiness - the person we're supposed to be discussing. he did get it. he chose to fight. perhaps he was wrong. but it was his life - that's what he did with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 08:22 AM

"Keith will provide evidence"
Actually Al, he has long since ceased providing evidence,
His "real historians who sold their books in "real bookshops" have ling ridden off into the sunset and his "expert witnesses" who back up his racist claims have returned to the Elysian Fields they were conjured up from - I think his attempting to denigrate entire nations was even too rich for their ichor
Now it's jut unqualified statements and denials
I go along with your analysis of the Irish situation, though I suggest that it's a little more complicated than that.
I think the wisest thing I've read about McGuinness was in the Irish Times - "those of us who were too close to the action to make an unbiased analysis may condemn him but only history can judge him fully, and only then, when all the facts are known.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 08:39 AM

Nice obit for McGuinness here:

Morning Star

It neither beatifies nor demonizes him.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:49 AM

Jim,
You provideed no evidence for you claims then and you are just repeating what has been said before #

We did supply the evidence. For which claim have you forgotten it?
You can have it again.

Al, there have always been men of violence but they never had much support.
Sinn Fein campaigned for home rule before WW1.
They could not get elected and went broke for lack of support.

If you choose to ignore the evidence and believe the propaganda, you get a lovely brave story but not what really happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:16 AM

"Irish republicans have engaged in violent acts in the hope of gaining independence for their country. this has gone on for several centuries without success.

This to any fair minded person would suggest a certain reluctance of England to relinquish their hold on Ireland.

not to Keith. most other people - not to Keith.

its like some people can't work the video recorder - Keith doesn't get it." - Big Al Whittle

First paragraph: Not true there has only ever been IIRC three attempts by "Irish Republicans" to gain independence for Ireland. The most constant attempts have been made, mostly peacefully, by Irish Nationalists, who did manage to instigate reforms and improvements over the years. John Redmond's Home Rule efforts had they been allowed by an extremely tiny minority of "Republicans" to proceed, then they would have resulted in the creation in 1931 of a united, independent Ireland without one drop of blood being shed.

A free, united, independent Ireland was declared and came into being on the 6th December 1922, it lasted about 24 hours as the Parliament of Northern Ireland exercised it's right to opt out of a united Ireland governed from Dublin and remain as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. So Big Al it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any reluctance on the part of "England" to relinquish it's hold on Ireland. "England", by the way Big Al, has not existed as a political or national entity since 1707.

It would appear that the only people here who do not get anything are the people who ignore the recorded and well documented history of these events from the perspectives of the three parties concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:19 AM

men of violence never had much support....

do the names Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler...the triumph of the will...

evoke any memories?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:26 AM

"A free, united, independent Ireland was declared and came into being on the 6th December 1922, "
Utter historical nonsense
Can you offer something otehr than your owen statement to substantiate this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 11:13 AM

A more accurate harassment of the Treaty would be that Lloyd George forced though its signing under a threat of war if it wasn't signed and in the hands of the Loyalists within three days
Collins summed this up perfectly when he said, "in signing this I am signing my own death warrant" - which was exactly what happened.
Ireland was plunged into Civil Warr immediately the negotiators returned.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 11:49 AM

Keith and Teribus....is history really your thing?

so far we've had the caring side of first world war generals, now England's sefless struggle for Irish independence....

What next!!! Henry VIII and THomas Cromwell innocent of Anne Boleyn's decapitation....evidence of nasty accident with potato peeler.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:07 PM


so far we've had the caring side of first world war generals,

Not from us. Just that they were generally competent and effective.

now England's sefless struggle for Irish independence....

Al, do you not believe that the Home Rule Bill was passed in 1914?
It really was.
You have been mislead by Republican propaganda and rewriting of history.
Everything I have stated is an easily verified fact.

What do you doubt?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:40 PM

"Al, do you not believe that the Home Rule Bill was passed in 1914?
It really was.
"
It most certainly was not - not with agreement of either party - go look up 'The Buckingham Palace Meeting'
The bill was deadlocked - the King called a meeting at Buckingham Palace in July, 1914 and a hurried compromise was mooted but not signed.
The outbreak of War in October caused it to be postponed until the end of the War - the rest is non-history
Go buy yourself a ****** history book, for Christ's sake
You've been told this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:52 PM

BUCKINGHAM PALACE CONFERENCE
Read, mark and inwardly digest Keith
No bill, no agreement
An unverified piece of nonsense
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:51 PM

"Decimation" means one on ten being killed. There were approximately 8.6 million British and British Empire servicemen in the Great War. Some 950,000 died. "Decimation" is in fact an understatement, Keith, not an exaggeration. (I haven't tried to separate out the Irish figures here, but I think it's highly unlikely that the proportion of deaths among servicemen was any lower than that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:35 PM

Jim - google Government of Ireland ACT 1914 - you will find it, the ACT means that it had been passed by both Houses of Parliament and that it was on the statute books.

Date of the Buckingham Palace Conference was from 21st to 24th JULY 1914

Date the Irish Home Rule Bill 1914 received Royal Assent and became law was 18th SEPTEMBER 1914.

With the outbreak of World War I on 4 August 1914, Asquith decided to abandon his Amending Bill, and instead rushed through a new bill the Suspensory Act 1914 which was presented for Royal Assent simultaneously with both the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and the Welsh Church Act 1914. Although the two controversial Bills had now finally reached the statute books on 18 September 1914, the Suspensory Act ensured that Home Rule would be postponed for the duration of the conflict and would not come into operation until the end of the war.

Don't argue with me take it up with Hansard and the British Government. As usual you are totally wrong, documented record fact demonstrates this, the fact that you do not accept it only proves how delusional you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:57 PM

On the North of Ireland opting out Jim - it is all here, maps, dates, and land mass:

Northern Ireland Opts Out

Pay particular attention to the Light and Dark Green areas of the map that represented the Irish Free State on the 6th December 1922, then compare that to the Dark Green area of the map that represented the Irish Free State on the 8th December 1922.

Pay attention to the detailed land mass of the Irish Free State until the 8th December 1922 [32,433 sq miles] and then the figure for AFTER 8th December 1922 [27,027 sq miles]

Negotiations took about one year so, so much for your three day ultimatum crap. The war that Lloyd George referred to would not have been a war between Great Britain and the Irish Free State it would have been a civil war in Ireland that would have pitted the Nationalist/Republican South against the Unionist/Loyalist North.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:06 AM

No agreement was reached as Keith suggested, the Treaty was signed at gunpoint and, following the State murder of the rebel leaders, the even the Home Rule Party washed its hands of any agreement and shortly collapsed.
The Brits attempted to bluster though a settlement on behalf of the Loyalists who had demanded that there never be a united Ireland.
Of courrs nobody wanted anything to do with such an agreement other than those it favoured The Loyalists.   
The immediate response to the forced through Treaty was Civil War - even the Free Staters fought on the basis that it was a temporary measure
The agreement was unacceptable to the majority of the Irish People and it was rejected because of that
The outcome was half a century of repressive rule in th North
I wonder (don't) why you andd your mate refuse to refer to the conditions imposed on the Catholic third of the population of the North
If you want to know why the agreement was rejected - it's all there in half a century of repression.
The British have a history of not being trusted.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:33 AM

Kevin, thanks for the correction.
Decimated does not mean just one tenth survive.
11.5% of those mobilised were killed.
(Crimea had a higher rate.)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:40 AM

Jim,
No agreement was reached as Keith suggested, the

It was passed by both Houses of Parliament as I stated.
You only need a majority, not unanimous "agreement" Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 05:16 AM

"It was passed by both Houses of Parliament as I stated."
It was not acceptable to the signatories and the Buckingham Palace article stated
It was not acceptable to the Home Rulers in the July 1915 form and any attempts to change it to appease them would not be acceptable to the Loyalists
You cannot have an agreement without the acceptance of both parties unless you are suggesting that Britain had the right to impose it - wouldn't ssurprise me in the least.
You stated crap
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 05:35 AM

Clinging to "decimated" as meaning one-tenth killed is like claiming that "gay" means happy and carefree or that "nice" means subtle or trivial. In any case, the word may have originally had nothing to do with killing or punishing at all, rather meaning "to tithe." When you start to delve a little into the unstoppable evolution of word meanings, you find that word-pedants are often just making fools of themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:07 AM

A master class in Alternative "Facts" - Jim Carroll - 28 Mar 17 - 04:06 AM - totally deluded Jim as always.

Not one single documented fact or account in London, Dublin or in Belfast supports a single thing that you claim.

1: Government of Ireland Act 1914 passed onto the statute books on 18th September, 1914

2: November 1914 the Irish Republican Brotherhood contacts the Germans seeking assistance in planning and carrying out an armed rising.

3: Easter Week Rising in Dublin 1916, instigated by a tiny minority showed already sceptical political leaders and the unionists in the North exactly how "stable" any form of Dublin Government would be. Quite naturally they hardened their attitude to any proposed Home Rule proposal.

4: January 1919 SF declare Independence and the "war of independence" starts in the South. This war is prosecuted by a tiny proportion of the population less than 3%. By July 1921 this "war" has been fought to a stalemate a truce is called and peace negotiations are entered into.

5: Government of Ireland Act 1920 passed into law which offers home rule to both Dublin and Belfast on the understanding that within six years both Parliaments would merge. The actions taking place in the South prompts the Unionists in the North to accept the terms of the 1920 Act they formed their autonomous Parliament in May 1920.

6: Eamon de Valera was too cowardly to attend or be a part of the negotiating team the Irish Government sent to London in 1921. By December 1921 and agreement had been reached and the Treaty was passed by the UK Parliament conditionally that it be passed the Dublin Government, even although the negotiating team had been given full plenipotentiary powers. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was eventually passed by the Dublin Government on the 6th December 1922 (Documented Fact) creating the Irish Free State. As part of that Treaty the Parliament in Belfast had the right within one month of the Treaty coming into effect they could opt out

4: On the 7th December 1922 the Belfast Parliament exercised that option. Probably because a civil war had "kicked off" in the South in July 1922 that would last until May 1923.

By the way Shaw - Decimation - punishment in the Roman Legions where 1 in 10 are executed - the number was considered as being sufficient to punish without affecting the fighting capability of the unit.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM

"I on the other hand tend to believe the men who were present."

Really? But your track record here is to tell us only to believe the work of recent, living historians. You're not very keen on eye-witness accounts as historical documents. The more recent the historians, the more temporally remote from the action they are. So which is it to be? Or maybe we should believe only you?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:23 AM

Ah, poor Teribus. "Decimate" did not appear as an English word until the 16th century and was derived from the Medieval Latin word "decimatus" which related to tithing, or taking a tenth, nothing to do with punishment or killing. In its earliest uses in English, "decimate" related to taking the tithe more often than it did to the punishment context. "Decimated" today hardly ever relates to the strict sense of killing one tenth and most people who use the word don't use it that way. You cling to it if you like. Maybe Stu could tell us more about dinosaurs like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:25 AM

Clinging to "decimated" as meaning one-tenth killed is like claiming that "gay" means happy and carefree or that "nice" means subtle or trivial. In any case, the word may have originally had nothing to do with killing or punishing at all, rather meaning "to tithe." When you start to delve a little into the unstoppable evolution of word meanings, you find that word-pedants are often just making fools of themselves.

The fact that a vocal minority have given a new meaning to an existing word doesn't mean that the old meaning has to be ignored, and cannot still be used.
Also, with "word pedants often making fools of themselves" does that include the pedants who insist that only the 'modern' meaning of words is now acceptable?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:01 AM

"Not one single documented fact or account in London, Dublin or in Belfast supports a single thing that you claim."
You have had this over and over again, along with links
You've been linkeed several times to Lloy'd Gourge's 'sign or in   three days it is war'
Articles above and on earlier threads have been produced ad nauseum that the Loyalists declarerd 'No surrender to Papism' as far back as the Covenant and The fact that the peace was foisted on the Irish People is glaringly obvious from the fact that it plunged Ireland into Civil War
"Government of Ireland Act 1914 passed onto the statute books on 18th September, 1914"
That had not been agreed by the negotiating parties, shown by the fact that the Buckingham Palace Conference ended without agreement
The British Government was one of three sides and had no right to put anything on the statute books without the agreement of the other two.
Easter Week had the full support of the people after it had taken place and the Brits had executed the leaders.
The rest is jingoistic British bullshit
No agreement was reached as you tqwots are claiming - Britain had not the right to declare a settlement without the argreement odf all
Your arrogant Imperialist blustering explaines every single body-bag that has been filled over the last half century - Britain has never accepted the right of any nation it has controlled to self rule either keeping their toe in the door ot facing armed opposition
You pair are racist anachronisms - but a very useful examle of the lingering British Imperial mentality.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:03 AM

my old Latin teacher told me decimating was an extreme sanction of the Roman army. if a legion had not performed well enough in battle - a tenth of their number were slaughtered.

he probably wouldn't have minded decimating our class, as there were several of us incapable of remembering all the lists of words in Kennedys Shorter Latin Primer - which came in a handy size for biffing kids over the head with.

i presume joe gledhill had some classical reference to back up his gory tale - he usually had.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:07 AM

Just a reminder Teribus - you still appear to believe that you can bully and bluster your archaic history without producing a single documanted fact t back it up
For Christs sake grow up and act like an adult - bullies and bullshitters are for closing time - doesn't work here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:09 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:12 AM

Very true Shaw I am "not very keen on eye-witness accounts as historical documents." especially when those "eye-witness accounts" refer to things that never happened to such an extent that:

When they come out with such tales as British soldiers being summarily executed by Officers or special military police units for not "going over the top" quickly enough:

1: They cannot identify a place
2: They cannot provide a date
3: They cannot identify a Regiment or Unit involved
4: They cannot provide any information related to the name of any victim
5: They cannot provide the name of any perpetrator.
6: They cannot provide any information as to numbers of victims.

Other aspects that cast doubt on such tales:

- If you are in the line and about to attack you will be with the members of your platoon and your Company and your Regiment - you will not be among a bunch of complete and utter strangers, you will KNOW the men surrounding you, you will have trained with them, worked with them, drank with them, fought with them and shared every hardship with them. To say in any of these "eye-witness accounts" that you didn't know them is ludicrous bullshit.

- Take a look at photographs of any front line trench fully manned as they would be before an attack, look at the interconnecting communication trenches. There simply isn't any room for Officers or special units to stand behind anyone in readiness to shoot them. Anyone attempting such a stunt would be ripped to shreds in seconds by their victim's friends.

That British soldiers were summarily executed by their own officers or special military police units is a MYTH. Those who claim and hold to it that such activities did take place have not been able to come up with one single instance in four years of kicking this back and forth on this forum.

Oh and Shaw such "eye-witness accounts" can in no way be the same as the minuted notes and records of formal meetings and informal personal notes written by participants at those meetings at the time as they:

1: Identify the time and place of the meetings referred to.
2: Identify those participating in the meeting.
3; Detail the agenda of the meeting.

ALL OF WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED. See the difference Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:29 AM

From: Big Al Whittle - PM
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:09 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)

Uh oh, looks like Shaw is once again shown to be full of 💩💩💩 .

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:31 AM

"You've been linkeed several times to Lloy'd Gourge's 'sign or in   three days it is war'" - Jim Carroll

Hate to point this out to you Jim but the meetings were peace negotiations called during a Truce that had been declared on the 22nd July 1921. If none of this means anything to you dipshit - it means that there was already a war in progress, a war declared by Irish republicans in January 1919. OF COURSE if there was no agreement hostilities would RESUME

Jim Carroll - 28 Mar 17 - 08:07 AM

"Just a reminder Teribus - you still appear to believe that you can bully and bluster your archaic history without producing a single documanted fact t back it up"

So what about the following for documented back up:

1: Government of Ireland Act 1914
2: Government of Ireland Act 1920
3: Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:54 AM

I know when the war started and I know when the negotiations took place - I also know that the War of independence came a
bout when Britain's brutish intransigence became obvious and that the forcing though of a Treaty brought Ireland to Civil War
"So what about the following for documented back up:"
Then why don't you quote from them when you arrogantly bluster your way through your archaic arguments - any moron can point to things - as you are showing
Back your post Empire jingoism with facts not meaningless gestures.
In you7r racist manner you spent nearly a year denigrating an entire nation for acknowleging a significant historical event - show usd how you know more than they do with facts- nor bullying bluster.
Anybody who needs to have it explained to him why a country with the population the size Ireland which lost over two million through famine and emigration wwould not survive its youth being slaughtered on The Somme is seriosly in need of a knowledge transplant.
Stop friggin' bluffing - you know sweet fuck all about Ireland and her history
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 09:06 AM

[...studiously trying to ignore the drivel of the last hour...]

There's no "vocal minority" doing it, Nigel. There's ordinary people using the words in new ways. Yesterday, I went out into my veg plot with determination and decimated the weeds. Think there's anything wrong with that? "Decimated" has been used in that sense for four hundred years whether you like it or not. The Romans used the word "decimatio" for the practice, but it took another 1500 years before the word popped up in English, and then it usually referred to the taking of tithe. The supply of iceberg lettuces this winter was decimated by bad weather in southern Spain. No-one bothered to check whether it was one in ten. It also means the killing of one-tenth of Roman legions. No problem If the context is understood. Its commonest 16th century meaning was the taking of tithes, nothing to do with punishments. Use it that way if you like, though no-one will know what you're talking about, but it has at least as much historical validity apropos of the use of English as the punishment sense you're valiantly defending. No-one is telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't do. You seem to be accusing me of insisting on its modern usage only, but actually I'm just reflecting what the usage is. If you insist on its historical meaning only, you're at risk of sounding a bit quaint. I'm left-handed. That makes me sinister. The English language is one of the last great bastions of democracy. Anyone for a gay evening at the fair?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 09:14 AM

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 09:20 AM

You are stalking. Cut it out. Now. The moderators have asked me to bring you to their attention if you do it, and you're doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 09:29 AM

Shaw: derived from the Medieval Latin word "decimatus" which related to tithing, or taking a tenth, nothing to do with punishment or killing.

Wikipedia: the word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".[1] The procedure was a pragmatic attempt to balance the need to punish serious offences with the realities of managing a large group of offenders.[2]

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2014-03-22.:decimate: to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 09:31 AM

Improve your scholarship.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 09:38 AM

Run crying to the moderators now and tell them I have shown you to be full of 💩💩💩, there's the lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 10:00 AM

There's no "vocal minority" doing it, Nigel. There's ordinary people using the words in new ways
I somehow doubt that the change in the use of the word 'Gay' was brought about due to the requirements of the majority. I believe it was brought in by a vocal minority.

I went out into my veg plot with determination and decimated the weeds I think anyone stating that in the allotments would quickly become a laughing stock. Not really sons of the soil type language is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 10:04 AM

Hard to tell when prejudice kept gays from raising their voice anyway
The term was in use much earlier than the 'Gay Rights' movement - Larry Grayson was using it in the Sixties to me recollection
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 10:37 AM

Yes, Larry Grayson used to use the catchphrase "What a gay day". But despite the campness of his act I never associated his use of the word 'gay' with anything other than 'carefree and cheerful'.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 10:44 AM

Apparently not, according to the dictionary definition
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:08 AM

According to 'The Insect that Stole Butter (Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins,) "gay" was fully in use in the 1930s among homosexuals, but there are indications that it is earlier than this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:16 AM

Steve, if your version of "decimate" is accepted, then I was right to deny Jim's claim about British soldiers in WW1.
Also McGrath was wrong to correct me.

Thanks for you impartiality in contradicting them and supporting me.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:27 AM

Rubbish, it was simply a smokescreen to obscure the true meaning of the word homosexual.

"Gay" activists didn't like homosexuals being defined by their sexual behaviour and decided to purloin the word gay.

Unfortunately for them we are all defined in sexual terms by our orientation. Should we find a nice user friendly word to describe our heterosexuality?    Or are we all adults here?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:41 AM

"Rubbish, it was simply a smokescreen to obscure the true meaning of the word homosexual."
Homophobis rubbish - t was used among gays, not to hide anything from anybody
Your raving homophobia is once more confirmed by your claiming that we need a "nicer" term for a natural human condition - what on earth is not nice about being gay
You really are the pits of humanity (sic) Ake - nowt nice about your brand of gender hatred
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

Big Al Whittle - 27 Mar 17 - 11:49 AM

Keith and Teribus....is history really your thing?

so far we've had the caring side of first world war generals, now England's sefless struggle for Irish independence....

Well it would certainly seem to be more our thing than yours Big Al.

By any metric you wish to measure success by those who commanded the British, Commonwealth and Empire forces during the First World War did so far better than those who commanded any of the other combatant armies of 1914. As an enlisted soldier or officer you stood a far better chance on surviving the conflict as part of the British Armed Forces than you would being in either the French, German, or Russian Armies. Now if you wish to refute that then address the facts not the person telling you about them.

When in January 1919 two police officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary escorting a consignment of explosives to a quarry were deliberately murdered in cold blood by the IRA and Sinn Fein declared independence the British Government could have swamped Ireland with masses of the 5 million men it had under arms, all combat hardened veterans straight from the 100 days offensive that swept the Germans before them and ended the war - They didn't Big Al because they had already decided immediately before the war to grant Home Rule with Dominion status to Ireland. Sinn Fein and the "men of the gun" apparently so admired by the likes of yourself and Carroll completely screwed that process up and demonstrated to the political leadership of the Northern Unionists precisely what complete and utter wankers they were. There was NO glorious and bloody guerrilla war fought in the South against the Brits it didn't amount to more than sporadic skirmishes before the Republican side ran out of steam and a truce was called. The Government of Great Britain could have ignored the calls for peace talks BUT they didn't. The talks were held that resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty which became the Irish Free State Constitution Act of 1922 - the Government of Great Britain having signed off on it in December 1921 a full year before the clowns in Dublin finally ratified it (That delay Big Al was all down to the Irish who had decided that they wanted to fight and kill one another in a totally pointless civil war). No reluctance at all on the part of "England" to let Ireland go and the proof of that is there for all to see - if history WAS really your thing, but as I said at the beginning as far as you are concerned it obviously isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 12:28 PM

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the word gay, it expresses very well the feeling of happiness and joy.

The problem is that it is now never used in its proper context, people feel intimidated by its new association.   We have lost one of the nicest words in the English language.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:03 PM

Teribus - the English government has many years and many opportunities to divest itself of Ireland.

it hasn't.

as our history proves when want to do something, we will.

when the alchemists produced formulae to prove they could make gold, eventually they accepted they were wrong. after centuries....

if your facts come up with a conclusion that is obviously bollocks. then somewhere along the line - you have to accept you have got it wrong.

i don't have centuries to spend on this nonsense. you remind me of a kid in our first year class exam at the grammar school who proved that the escalator at KIngs Cross Station was moving at 60mph. the teacher couldn't convince him his calculation was wrong. but with most of us commonsense kicks in.

think of all those days and years, when no English politician said - right this week, this month we'll get rid of fucking Ireland. between 1914 and now......and yet you insist it was a prime intention.

in the bowels of Christ...consider that you might be wrong.

and while you're at it consider some of the names on a cenotaph near you and think - did the commanders of these men give due consideration to how those lives were expended? common fucking sense tells most of us - they got it mega wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:20 PM

Ever wish you hadn't mentioned something? Sheesh.



Nigel, this isn't me saying this, but decimate has been used since time immemorial to mean to lay waste to, to severely damage, to annihilate or to devastate, without particular reference to one-in-ten. It's also been used in the one-in-ten punishment sense. Neither attracts comment in my experience, either by horny-handed sons of toil down the allotments or by anyone else.

How about "poor farming practices have decimated the songbird population in the last fifty years?" Are your eyebrows raised? It's what people say, Nigel, and any lingusitics guru worth his or her salt will tell you that that's all that matters. King Canutes like you and akenaton can't stop the language evolving, and I'll drink to that. Perhaps a small glass of Mount Gay rum.

And Keith, I don't care how you interpret my remarks. I'm not even reading your exceptionally tedious and repetitive posts much at all these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:21 PM

Linguistics. Why didn't my over-fussy spell-checker pick that up!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:37 PM

"I didn't say there was anything wrong with the word gay, it expresses very well the feeling of happiness and joy."
Yes you did - you said it was used as a smokescreen - why shouuld anybody have need for such a thing?
You really need to stay at the bottom of the loch where all good dinosaurs should be confined to make the world safe for human beings
"Gay" activists didn't like homosexuals being defined by their sexual behaviour and decided to purloin the word gay"
That's a load of distateful crap too - as the definition points out, the term was in use long before homosexuals could openly express their homosexuality without the law being used against them
You paint the picture of a secret plot.
Jesus - you are a distasteful piece of work
"the British Government could have swamped Ireland with masses of the 5 million men it had under arms"
The worst incident of this perid w
Crap history again you bend the facts to suit the agenda.
You carefully forget to mention that on 24 April 1915 the Unionists had SMUGGLED ARMS into Irelandto be used against Republicans if there was any chance of a United Ireland.
Any action the Republicans used can be quite safely declared self defensive.
"As early as 1893, plans were floated to raise 2,000-4,000 men, to drill as soldiers in Ulster. Many Ulster Unionists interpreted the southern and western violence directed against land grievances as pro-Home Rule (and thus believed Home Rule was appeasement of this violence), and resolved to defy the government militarily."
"In 1912 the Ulster Volunteers. They were formed from 100,000 local militia and were reviewed marching by Carson that April. The Unionist Council reorganised the volunteers in January 1913 into the paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), who threatened to resist by physical force the implementation of the Act and the authority of any restored Dublin Parliament by force of arms, fearing that Dublin rule would mean the ascendency of Catholicism—in the words of one MP, that "'home rule' in Ireland would prove to be 'Rome Rule'."[17] In 1912 the Ulster Volunteers. They were formed from 100,000 local militia and were reviewed marching by Carson that April. The Unionist Council reorganised the volunteers in January 1913 into the paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), who threatened to resist by physical force the implementation of the Act and the authority of any restored Dublin Parliament by force of arms, fearing that Dublin rule would mean the ascendency of Catholicism—in the words of one MP, that "'home rule' in Ireland would prove to be 'Rome Rule'."
The events of 1919 came 26 years after the Unionists had armed themselves, trained their forces and made ready for war
The worst incident of the period took place in Desertmartin, County Derry in 1922 and toppd the killing of the two policemen by a mile

Desertmartin, County Derry
The attack and the killings by Specials in Desertmartin on 19 May 1922 was one of the worst sectarian incidents during this period. Two Specials started a small fire in a large four-storey mill in the village; the plan was to take credit for having discovered it, put it out and place the blame on the mainly nationalist population of the village. The fire, however, got out of control and the mill was gutted. The Specials responsible for setting the fire claimed to have seen two men running away from the scene, and this was sufficient excuse for Specials from the area and from nearby Magherafelt to loot and burn Catholic-owned homes and shops in Desertmartin. Where it was not possible to burn a house, because of adjacent Protestant neighbours, furniture and possessions were throw into the street and became part of a bonfire. While this mayhem was going on in the village, a number of Specials, in uniform, went to the homes of the Catholic McGeehan and Higgins families, took two sets of brothers out to a lonely country lane, lined them up against a ditch and riddled them with bullets. The Sunday after this slaughter four hearses brought their remains to Coolcalm church in Desertmartin, where they were interred in a single grave. At the inquest into their deaths the police admitted that they were respectable men who had never previously come to their notice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:42 PM

Face it, Jim. We're surrounded by 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:58 PM

How on earth has a thread about Martin McGuiness turned into a discussion about the common use of English words?

On second thoughts I am probably better off not knowing. I suspect a certain amount of not picking was involved. Probably by the people who whinge about staying on topic.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:01 PM

How on earth has a thread about Martin McGuiness turned into a discussion about the common use of English words?

I guess someone decimated it

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:04 PM

THIS moderator bails whenever a thread is taken over by assholes and turned into just another chapter of the Jim & Keith show. Shut up, talk about the subject, or I-don't-give-a-shit.

...actually I don't. This is somebody else's problem. Mostly those folks who hope to discuss a subject without the obsessives taking it over again. Good luck. As long as they're still here, most political threads are their bitch.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

"THIS moderator bails whenever a thread is taken over by assholes and turned into just another chapter of the Jim & Keith show."
The way you insult members of this forum, maybe it's just as well
You may be happy to see racists run riot without being challenged Jeri, I am not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Stu
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:42 PM

"Mostly those folks who hope to discuss a subject without the obsessives taking it over again. Good luck. As long as they're still here, most political threads are their bitch."

Sums it up perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:52 PM

Everybody thinks it's the other guy.............lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 03:52 PM

in truth Martin McGuinness was a controversial character. I think some sort of do with 'fists flying and biddies crying' is just being properly respectful.

How the decimalisation crept in, is anyone's guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:00 PM

"decimate has been used since time immemorial to mean to lay waste to, to severely damage, to annihilate or to devastate, without particular reference to one-in-ten." - Steve Shaw

No it hasn't. That meaning is modern over-emotive twaddle.

As a means of punishment and enforcing discipline it was measured so as NOT to affect the fighting capability of the unit - NOTHING even remotely close to:

- Lay waste to;
- severely damage;
- annihilation (total destruction);
- devastation.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:09 PM

Everybody thinks it's the other guy.

Boo, YOU are "the other guy".

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:09 PM

lets just leave that it doesn't mean to be kind and supportive and buy a nice box of chocolates for the party in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:53 PM

Boo, YOU are "the other guy"

Lol, funny, I was thinking it was you 😵

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 06:04 PM

Modern over-emotive twaddle? Give over, Bill. You're the past master when it comes to changing the meanings of words! Why, you transformed Keith's downright lie to a mere "passing reference!" Anyway, you say tomayto, I'll say Solanum lycopersicum. Or pomodoro. Or love apple. Or tomato at a pinch (preferably a pinch of chilli flakes and a finely-sliced garlic clove, a half-teaspoon of sugar and a pinch of salt, simmered with extra virgin olive oil for half an hour, not forgetting to add a handful of torn basil leaves for the last two minutes). Don't challenge me on words, Billy boy. Even the much-lamented MGM came to grief via that endeavour. You are welcome to look up the etymology and historical usage of decimate. Everything I've said is correct. Check it out! Good luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:15 PM

Synonyms of "decimation" from Merriam-Webster, Bill. Are you ready?

annihilation, destruction, demolishment, demolition, desolation, devastation, extermination, extinction, havoc, loss, mincemeat, obliteration, ruin, ruination, wastage, wreckage

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:27 PM

This, from 'The Oxford Book of Word Origins' (entitled 'The Insect that Stole Butter')
I would recommend anybody who hasn't got a copy of this should get their hands on one.
It's probable one of the most entertaining books on our shelves, not to mention useful
Jim Carroll

""DECIMATE [LME] When Roman legions mutinied, they would be decimated—one in every ten men would be selected by lot and executed. In its first recorded use in English, in the late 16th century, decimate refers to this practice, but by the mid 17th century people were using it of other acts of killing, destroying, or removing one in ten. They then lost sight of the military context, and soon any severe loss or destruction could be described as decimation. See also DECADE""
("LME stands for Latin Middle English, by the way)

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:29 PM

The wiki entry for "gay" is intriguing. It seems that the word may have been used for homosexual in the late 19th century.   It was a long road for the word in the 20th century before it became universally adopted for that sense by the latter part of the century. "Queer" was too pejorative and "homosexual" was too clinical, so "gay," being neither, fitted the bill very well. There is no sense that the word was deliberately or suddenly usurped by the gay community, contrary to what our ignorant and bigoted friend thinks. Of course, no-one has to believe wiki. We can always choose to believe akenaton instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:34 PM

But Jim, we must always attend to the ex cathedra word of the mighty Teribus, king of the lexicon! If he says that a usage that doesn't suit him is "modern, over-emotive twaddle," who are we to demur! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 02:05 AM

"Queer" was too pejorative and "Gay" has simply become viewed as being the same.

The Jeremy Thorpe trial threw up some entertaining alternatives IIRC, pity they didn't catch on.

By the way Shaw, I thought it was you who set yourself up as the Lexicon King. Not my problem at all if people abuse and misuse words and rob them of their meaning, all that does is display ignorance and completely corrupt what the person using it was trying to say (As Jim did when he introduced the word to this thread).

Not surprised that you and Carroll follow this line it assists you in the misrepresentations you try to put across.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 02:51 AM

Al, like most folk of our generation I once shared your view of WW1.
Historical knowledge has moved on, and I have just followed it.
Nothing published in the last twenty of years supports those myths many still believe. Teribus and I have just related what any historian now will tell you. Read a book.

Irish history is different. Their is an industry devoted to sustaining historical myths.
No-one can deny that a home rule bill was passed in 1914.
No-one can deny that Britain wanted Ireland to remain united after home rule but the North refused to accept it and were fully prepared to fight.
I accept that the heroic narrative of brave Republican Davids overcoming the British Empire Goliath is a much more appealing story.

You have made it clear that your mind is closed to such boring facts, so let's please Jeri and drop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 04:29 AM

"You have made it clear that your mind is closed to such boring facts, so let's please Jeri and drop it."
Jeri hasn't asked the subject to be dropped, but I can see why you have
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 04:46 AM

How about "poor farming practices have decimated the songbird population in the last fifty years?" Are your eyebrows raised? It's what people say, Nigel, and any lingusitics guru worth his or her salt will tell you that that's all that matters.
That's better than your example about weeds, and yes, I would accept that if I read it. The meaning has expanded to mean 'destroy a large percentage of, rather than kill 10%, but the various dictionaries still relate it to people, animals, or other creatures. I still think you'd be laughed at for using it to refer to plantlife.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 04:57 AM

Incidentally Keith
You have just been presented with more "boring facts" about the origins of violence in Northern Ireland
I assume that your efforts to end this discussion are not unrelated to your and your fick mate's inability to respond to them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 05:16 AM

No Jim.
You have produced nothing new.
I know all your arguments and you know how they have all been knocked down on previous threads.

If you have a particular "boring facts about the origins of violence in Northern Ireland," put it up and have it knocked down again, but it will only be of interest to us. No-one else will read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 05:42 AM

That's fine then, Nigel. You have accepted that word meaning and usage can evolve, or at least be flexible, and that "decimate" can be used legitimately away from its one-in-ten sense. In fact, that usage has always been available for that word since it first appeared in English, as has its usage for tithing, though the latter usage is now more or less defunct. I can only suggest that demurrers do the scholarship. Interesting that you think I can decimate birds but not weeds, but we can let that one go I suppose.

Now, have a little word in Teribus's shell-like....🗣👂🏻

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 06:35 AM

"You have produced nothing new."
I said at the beginning that this had been covered ad nauseum and that the violence in Ireland eminated from the Loyalist refusal to accept a United Ireland.
You have been given all this information before - the militarising of the Unionists, their introduction of weapons into the county, the treatment of Catholics under Protestant rule, the triumphalist sectarian marches, the collusion of the RUC in violently crushing of Civil rights protests....
All old news and all contradicted by your and Teribus's denials.
You have never at any time "knocked down" any of them - on the contrary, you have both slunk off with your bigoted jingoistic tails between your legs as you are attempting to do now.
You refuse to respond to historical facts and refuse to produce your own, and when you run out of excuses, you do a runner.
The only thing the pair of you are fit for is as examples of ongoing British Blimpish jingoism.
The pair of you remain a standing joke that would be more at home on the pages of PUNCH MAGAZINE and the like
You are a pair of friggin' anachronisms
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 07:00 AM

Thank you for your condescension: Interesting that you think I can decimate birds but not weeds, but we can let that one go I suppose.
You don't need to 'let it go'. You could just admit that you're wrong.
And don't try to back up your suppositions by using the thesaurus:
Synonyms of "decimation" from Merriam-Webster, Bill. Are you ready?

annihilation, destruction, demolishment, demolition, desolation, devastation, extermination, extinction, havoc, loss, mincemeat, obliteration, ruin, ruination, wastage, wreckage
A thesaurus gives words 'similar in meaning to' the chosen word. This is to allow you to choose the most suitable word. The words in any particular group are not all interchangeable.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 07:45 AM

I wasn't being condescending (I was accepting what you said, actually), I wasn't wrong and I know that synonyms are not interchangeable, Nigel, though they do help to steer towards good word usage. Now I'd far sooner go down this line of argument than revisit those sterile old arguments about the Troubles, etc., but it would be more pleasant if you could just drop your dog-with-bone stance for a minute or two. We're not writing legalese here, we're using language as informally and idiomatically as possible whilst trying to maintain the rules of grammar. Words are not set in stone, at least not since Moses went up the mountain. Their meanings evolve, some senses become less popular, others gain ascendancy. You can't fight it alone. It's fine to occasionally split infinitives and always was, it's fine to say "hopefully" and always was, and we can use words in any way we like irregardless of the opinions of others. 😉 Just never use "albeit" or "on a daily basis" or "prior to" in my presence!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 09:03 AM

"we can use words in any way we like irregardless of the opinions of others"

Of course you can and do Shaw. But there again you have spent most of your "working" life talking at people, not talking to them.

If you wish to put a point over to someone, or argue a case, you have to be very exact and accurate in what you say because you knowing what you mean counts for S.F.A. in any dialogue, the point of which should be to make sure the person you are talking TO understands fully what you mean by what you have said.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with using "albeit" ( alternative to using "even though" or "although") which is more than I can say for "irregardless" which most dictionaries list as being nonstandard or incorrect, and recommend that "regardless" should be used instead. Perhaps you should have used "irrespective" instead? You probably didn't because you never respect anything anyone else says unless they are in total agreement with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 09:08 AM

You can't fight it alone. It's fine to occasionally split infinitives and always was, it's fine to say "hopefully" and always was, and we can use words in any way we like irregardless of the opinions of others.
I'm not trying to fight it. I also realise that we can use words in any way we like. Much like Humpty Dumpty in "Through the looking glass".
But if we do so we lose the main function of language, which is the sharing of information. That sharing of information requires a common vocabulary where words have a common and accepted meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:08 AM

But the meanings of words evolve. Mournful resistance, of the kind put up by akenaton to the modern sense of "gay" which all bar a few troglodytes accept, is useless. The evolution of language is a very democratic process, and po-faced language pedants generally come across as idiotic, wannabe tin-pot dictators. There are some losses I do fret about, such as the useful distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested," but when I looked into it I discovered that there was never a "rule" governing their usage in the first place. Never a rule about splitting infinitives either (most people who bemoan "split infinitives" actually harbour a faulty notion of what an infinitive is in the first place). Same with "decimation."

Well, Teribus, if I'd shown that last post of mine to a hundred people, I wonder how many wouldn't have realised that my use of "irregardless" was sarcastic. Had you been excluded from the hundred, the answer would have been none. With you included, the answer is one. You. By the way, as we've never met you can't possibly know about my teaching techniques. Standing at the front talking at people was never my style, I'll tell you that much. As for the importance of accuracy, I couldn't agree more. So I'm just wondering how, according to you, a bare-faced lie turned into a passing remark...

"Albeit" is never necessary, as "though" or "although" will always do the job. It's just pretentious. And, believe it or not, "irregardless" is a real word. Just not one I'd be wanting to use.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:22 AM

Keith, you mistake me.

i don't dispute your facts.
i dispute your interpretation and the way you emphasise certain facts.

passing a bill through parliament proves nothing. history will no doubt prove that the poor prisoner held on remand for months had the same recourse to the law that Thatcher had when she convened a court on spec at midnight to sequester the miners assets.

bills in parliament, laws, are dry abstract things. the political will to enforce something is something quite different.

similarly - i'm sure you can prove that the first world war English generals were as good as generals anywhere. however when i think of the half dozen young men whom my family lost in that conflict, i can't help bur believe a different ckass of human being would not have consigned them to their deaths.

you may feel my mind is closed. i think your analyses are naively quantitative.

in qualitative, substantive terms - England didn't do the morally right thing about Irish independence. And the first world war generals were a gang of shits.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:30 AM

And, believe it or not, "irregardless" is a real word. Just not one I'd be wanting to use.

You could have a good time in front of your class explaining that there is a large difference between "I'd be wanting to use" or "I would wish/want to use". Or was that more sarcasm rather than a bad choice of words?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:02 PM

It was a perfectly good choice of words. The construction is informal but grammatically correct. OK, I wouldn't include that kind of thing in my PhD thesis. I wouldn't be including "OK" either. And I wouldn't be including "I wouldn't be including." And I probably wouldn't be starting a sentence with "And," though there's nothing wrong with that. And I wouldn't be using "wouldn't" or "there's," preferring the full written-out forms. Thing is, context is everything, the point being to communicate ideas in the most appropriate way for the circumstances. I don't think about rules and I think there's more to clarity of expression than abiding by strict and narrow definitions of words. Imagine the soullessness of a performance of a Beethoven symphony in which the players all regarded the score as a mere collection of thousands of musical notes which had to be literally and mindlessly rendered. I'd rather not.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:08 PM

By the way, talking about bad choices of words, Nigel:

"Or was that more sarcasm rather than a bad choice of words?"

Which one would you leave out given another shot at it, Nigel - more or rather? 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

What a worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

I have never yet encountered a gay homosexual, most appear to be rather neurotic.....IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:19 PM

Lumbricus terrestris? Allolobophora longa? Or have you been scratching your bum again and come up with a pesky nematode?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:23 PM

From your postings here I would say that the reason you've never seen a gay homosexual, as you so quaintly put it, is that they always see you coming.