BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:35 PM

"What is indisputable is that 1916 was a hugely significant event that transformed the focus of Irish nationalism, increased divisions and made people more politically aware and active."
I think that is a reasonable statement, unfortunately De velera put the clock back by revising the constitution and making reactionary and backward looking deals with the catholic church, and now we appear to have irish politicians the majority of whom are intent on looking after themselves

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:04 PM

From your Ferriter link Jim.

"Others see the 1916 Rising as a bloody act by a few unelected individuals. The Rising, they say, increased the divisions between Ulster unionists and southern Irish nationalists, and was the start of an era of unnecessary bloodshed and violence. Many of these people say that independence for Ireland could have been achieved peacefully, without the Rising.
The Rising destroyed the Home Rule project. For 40 years, a group of Irish politicians had campaigned for an arrangement that would keep Ireland inside the British empire, but would allow some decisions be taken by Irish members of an Irish home rule parliament.
The Rising killed off this idea."

"What is indisputable is that 1916 was a hugely significant event that transformed the focus of Irish nationalism, increased divisions and made people more politically aware and active."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 10:50 AM

"Didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks"
You have had a reasonable explanation for this fro one of your own - Thatcherite, Michael Portaloo.
You have also been given adequate proof that the Rebels wanted nothing of either Imperial power - "We serve neither King nor Kaiser" - not an empty slogan but a policy statement by James Connolly, one of the leading architects of the Rising (see his gathered essays 'Labour and Easter Week').
The Rebels had no sympathy whatever for either side and you now should know that fact - you've been given enough evidence.
It seems little more than a malicious attempt to distort their position - nobody else anywhere is making such a suggestion.
Those "clowns" still managed to kick the arse of the most powerful Empire on the planet though - no getting away from that fact.
Diarmaid Ferriter who "really knows Irish history."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 09:35 AM

In April 1916 neither side knew who the victors would be. You were trying to claim something that could not be guessed at, at the time.

Ah but Raggy you didn't ask about who thought that they would win in April 1916 did you, you asked the following question:

Did either side in 1916 know who would be dictating terms at the end of the war?"

To which I answered first half of 1916 the Germans might have been confident that they would win. By December they would not have been so confident while France and Great Britain would have had grounds for optimism, serious damage inflicted on the German Army forced to retreat on the western front, dismissal of their Commander, realisation in the German High Command that having given it their best shot they could not defeat either Great Britain or France, the German Highs Seas Fleet confined to port where it would remain for the rest of the war. Great Britain's new citizen army had just forced the best army in the world to retreat.

This statement of mine is perfectly true and requires no guessing and no crystal ball at all:

But the thing that really does amaze me is that the clowns who set all this in motion back in 1916 claiming that if their "Provisional Government" stood for a week, then they would have a place at the Peace talks and Peace Treaty negotiations at the end of the war, obviously didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks and treaty negotiations - they like Germany would be having terms dictated to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 09:11 AM

The ridiculousness of your suggestion has just struck me Terri
By the end of the Rising there were 19,000 (have no idea where your 4,000 was conjured up from) British troops in Dublin, some new recruits, but the vast majority trained in weapon use, cavalrymen, heavy-gunners, a battleship and highly trained and log-serving officers - against how many?
Those Rebels who were trained, did so without weapons, whiche were not available, and without experienced officers - their 'training' was little more than a few Sunday afternoons marching with broom-handles over their shoulders and listening to lectures in The Dublin Hills.
The Irish Citizen Army (the 'trained' rebels) was a small group of trained trade union volunteers from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union established in Dublin for the defence of worker's demonstrations from the police. It was formed by such seasoned and battle-scarred leaders as James Larkin, James Connolly and Jack White on 23 November 1913. Other prominent members included Seán O'Casey, Constance Markievicz, Francis Sheehy-Skeffington and P. T. Daly. In 1916, it took part in the Easter Rising
Those were the ones who started the dominoes of Empire tumbling and gave inspiration to those who were part of its eventual fall.
You really do make this up as you go along, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 08:21 AM

"Had numerical superiority at the beginning of the rising and did nothing with it."
Numerical superiority over whom - the population of Dublin?
Immediately the revolt broke out the Army moved in.
The Rebels took over the GPO and read the Proclamation - it had no intention of taking over the City - it was a demonstration in support of Independence.
"Had been drilled and trained for a period of at least three years."
A tiny handful had - the majority were raw volunteers.
Certainly none had the ability and experience to match those they were fighting.
"but as soon as the regulars arrive on the scene the rebellion is toast."
And yet they brought about the beginning of the end for the Empire
"shows amazing restraint"
Yeah sure - the wind blew down all the buildings and killed all the civilians - and the murder of the Rebels with a afked trial never really happened.
"it becomes tedious and boring,"
As does all rudeness Dick, including your own, which is quite often tinged with insulting nastiness
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:41 AM

Not factual at all. In April 1916 neither side knew who the victors would be. You were trying to claim something that could not be guessed at, at the time.

Anyhow, That's me done for a while I'm off on holiday and hopefully will be out of contact for over a week.


Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:25 AM

Sorry Raggy' the question I was referring to was your one about who would know what when. That question I believe I answered fairly comprehensively and factually

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:18 AM

The point was raised by you not I.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:14 AM

Nicely glossing over the poor nature and the scarcity of the weapons available to the Irish forces.

You know enough about weapons, so you constantly tell us, did the Irish forces have anything like the weaponry of the British.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:11 AM

Ehmmm Raggy' if the point was moot why ask your question in the first place? Totally irrelevant, although the possibility of being tried and executed for treason might have put a few people off and explain the astounding lack of support your rising had.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:06 AM

But Raggy in the general scheme of things related to the prosecution of the First World War the Easter Rising meant absolutely nothing, and as far as Jom's - "a handful of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteer rebels kept the army of the world's richest and mot powerful Empire at arms length for a full week" - that's right Carroll big up the opposition after they have knocked seven bells out of you.

Your handful of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteer rebels:

1: Had numerical superiority at the beginning of the rising and did nothing with it.

2: Had been drilled and trained for a period of at least three years.

As for - "the army of the world's richest and mot powerful Empire at arms length for a full week":

1: Initially ~1,000 men and police officers that increased to 4,000 troops all of them raw recruits straight out of training in England.

2: Historically this went the same way as most attempted rebellions in Ireland or Scotland. The rebels initially make gains against the local forces and militia, but as soon as the regulars arrive on the scene the rebellion is toast.

3: The fact that the conflict was fought in the centre of a city with a population of over 305,000 the fact that fatalities were held to less than 500 shows amazing restraint compared to what the armed forces of the world's richest and most powerful Empire could have done had it actually deployed an army to do the work. Besides Jom an army wasn't available they were doing far more important things elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:05 AM

If the point is moot why did you try to use it to further your argument. Yet another incorrect statement hoping no-one would pull you up no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:54 AM

Quite agree Dick. However I held an olive branch out quite recently and was told by Teribus to **** off (for want of a better expression)

It would appear he considered my approach a weakness. I would be quite happy to use the given name if the same consideration was extended to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:51 AM

Besides Raggy your question was moot - The Entente Powers DID win the war and had the Leaders of 1916 won their place at the table it would only have been to get themselves new arseholes reamed - In those days the inevitable penalty for picking the losing side in any conflict.

Their actions whilst inspiring the "men of the gun" to falsely claim they had the sole mandate to decide the future of the Irish Nation, undoubtedly hardened pro-union opposition and guaranteed partition. In doing this the "heroes of 1916" did neither Ireland or their cause any good at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:49 AM

By December 1916 ............ the Rising took place some 9 months prior. Nice try though.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:42 AM

By December 1916 - the Entente Powers knew that they would win. German losses could not be sustained, that was the bitter truth that Falkenhayn's failed attempts at attrition proved throughout 1916. After November 1916 the German Army on the Western Front went onto the defensive and even then British and French bite-and-hold assaults kept them moving back. It was only the collapse of Russia and it's withdrawal from the war that allowed the Germans to make one last desperate effort in 1918. That attack through a series of five offensives failed for exactly the same reasons their initial attack in 1914 failed and then within 21 days of the last of those offensives petering out the British, French and American Armies went over onto the offensive - 100 days later the First World War was over. British leaders Lloyd George and Churchill thought that the Entente powers would have to wait until 1919 to defeat the Germans, Haig proved them wrong, the tactics developed from 1916 and 1917 were refined and put into effect as the Germans ran out of steam and once the offensive started there was never going to be any chance of the Germans stopping it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:39 AM

I would point out Teribus I suggested a short time ago we should use the given name of the other individual at all times (as I had been doing for a few days) your reply was less than accommodating and you continued to refer to me as Raggy. Pot, Kettle, Black.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:26 AM

My word, that doesn't actually answer the question though does it.

We have discussed often enough WW1 and we will never agree on the details so can we move back to the Rising of 1916 and your statement that said:

"But the thing that really does amaze me is that the clowns who set all this in motion back in 1916 claiming that if their "Provisional Government" stood for a week, then they would have a place at the Peace talks and Peace Treaty negotiations at the end of the war, obviously didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks and treaty negotiations - they like Germany would be having terms dictated to them"

I asked if anyone knew in 1916 the outcome of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:19 AM

Sorry - missed a bit Dick
Your article on Dev may be of interest to you, but he played a peripheral part during Easter Week, though it might be worthwhile discussing what happened to the ideals of the Rising under his leadership of Ireland, which is partly what Coogan's book and and Diarmaid Ferriter's response is about - but not necessarily here though
I would remind you that you are one of the last people to accuse others of abuse and "puerile, infantile behaviour" - glass houses etc.
THe rudeness that happens here - from all sides - does not change any of the arguments
"That their leadership colluded with the German Government in time of war is undeniable"
It's been denied and proven to be not the case - they accepted guns and no more.
The leadership did not set it up to fail - where is there a modicum of proof to suggest they did?
They thought they could win and had things gone to plan and the Rising been backed throughout Ireland (and unofficially called off), it might have got further than it did.
You are still avoiding the fact that Britain behaved illegally in the way the trials were conducted (after the crisis was over) and the Prime Minister actually altered the reason for one execution after it had been carried out - SFA to do with "martial law" - it was a face-saving attempt to cover up the illegality of what had happened.
The Rising did not bring about the fall of the Empire (the term I used was "set in motion") but it inspired enough opposition to eventually bring the entire system tumbling.
"must be the slowest collapse in History."
I suggest you read Gibbon if you wish to learn how long it actually takes for an empire to collapse - centuries rather than a few decades.
As it was, a handful of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteer rebels kept the army of the world's richest and mot powerful Empire at arms length for a full week - comparable to the peasant army which kicked the U.S. off the roof of Saigon Embassy after over a decade of armed struggle.
Credit where credit's due, I say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:18 AM

Raggytash - 13 May 16 - 05:37 AM

The answer to your question Raggy would tend to swing rather dramatically during the course of that year.

In the first half of the year I would imagine that the Germans started out feeling fairly confident that it would be them dictating peace terms.

In the second half of the year the Entente powers started to gain confidence in their ability to win the war.

The events of 1916 that support that (The Easter Rising being a flea-bite on the backside of an elephant - ["And the world did gaze with deep amaze" my arse]):

1: Battle of Verdun when Falkenhayn put into practice his strategy of attrition to bleed the French and British Armies in France white. Simply put he failed to do this, the Battle of Verdun would last until December 1916 and proved to be a decisive French victory.

2: Battle of Jutland 31 May – 1 June 1916 after which the German High Seas Fleet never again set sail. So where it could be argued that it was tactically inconclusive it was an overwhelmingly important strategic victory for the Royal Navy.

3: Battle of the Somme 1 July – 18 November 1916 the first battle to be fought by Britain's new citizen army. Fought to relieve pressure on the French Armies fighting at Verdun a goal it did accomplish. By the time the battle was over Falkenhayn's strategy had failed to achieve its goal and the German High command came to realise that their armies in the west could not defeat the French and British. Falkenhayn was dismissed and Britain's new citizen army knew that it could take on and defeat the best Germany could throw against it - and that is precisely what proved to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:41 AM

An interesting resume Good Soldier I shall look out for the book by John Turi.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:41 AM

Apologies GSS, I did read your post with interest. The author's POV is certainly plausible but I think I would have to read his book, before I could comment on the balance of probability.

The "De Valera the cowardly, incompetent, mentally unstable officer who deserted his troops" is certainly believable and borne out by the man's own actions.

Since the formation of the Irish Free State and the declaration of the Republic there have been two occasions where British Prime Ministers have offered their full support for union between the South and the North - on both occasions the offer has been refused in seconds.

I also apologise for apparently boring you with our squabble, but when Carroll persists in putting forward his cock-eyed Made-Up-Shit version of history to advance his Anglophobia, you can rest assured that I will draw his attention to details that tend to blow his dearly held myths clear out of the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:37 AM

Did either side in 1916 know who would be dictating terms at the end of the war?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:25 AM

"You want to show that The Rebels were all German agents"

Do I Jom? I have never laid any claim that "ALL of them" were any such thing. That their leadership colluded with the German Government in time of war is undeniable.

That their leadership in the form of the secretive Military Council that Pearse and Connelly set up to isolate the Leadership of the IRB and act against their wishes is undeniable.

That the leadership of the Easter Rising deliberately set it up to fail is undeniable.

That their leadership deliberately lied to their men is undeniable.

But the thing that really does amaze me is that the clowns who set all this in motion back in 1916 claiming that if their "Provisional Government" stood for a week, then they would have a place at the Peace talks and Peace Treaty negotiations at the end of the war, obviously didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks and treaty negotiations - they like Germany would be having terms dictated to them. Permanent partition would have been guaranteed under Wilson's right of self-determination as the pro-unionist North could clearly demonstrate that they had always opposed those who sided with Germany and quite rightly wanted to be treated as being entirely separate from the enemy of the victorious Entente powers.

Funny thing about military law, there are offences and charges against which there is no defence, no question of guilt, if you have been charged with the offence you automatically are guilty, all you can plead is mitigation. The most common is being AWOL, doesn't matter how or why you were absent, you were absent full stop. Now then Jom the same would be true of those who signed the Proclamation, they had no defence, to those who had taken up arms and fought, there is no defence, so witter on all you like about rules, etc - The rules under Martial Law were whatever they needed to be as viewed by the Officer Commanding - they were guilty as charged and the vast majority of them were treated with extreme leniency considering that they had acted in the way they had in time of war.

The Easter Rising brought about the collapse of the British Empire - DREAM ON. What collapse? What Downfall? if as you state it started in Easter 1916 it must be the slowest collapse in History.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:04 AM

Don't know if they are "boring" but any repetition is an attempt to get responses to points I put up - I've certainly put enough of them up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:03 AM

Iput up an interesting aticle related to the easter rising and dev, and both sides continue to sqabble and score points and ignore, a dbatable article about dev and how the easter rising affected him, are you lot interested in the easter rising orinterested in scoring points and childish alterations of each others names ,examples jom and terribus, puerile infantile behaviour absolutely pathetic on both sides

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:48 AM

Apologies goe - I was responding to unnecessary aggression
Won't happen again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:38 AM

Game, set and match, I think

"This is not a battle to see who wins or loses. Your messages are getting boring and repetitive."
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:24 AM

You are responding to nothing I put up Terribus other than to deny it.
You want to show that The Rebels were all German agents - where's your evidence and who agrees with you?
I repeat
Kent was tried and executed for murder - after his execution " "Asquith offered a different explanation for Kent's execution to that which he had previously provided. Where, on 11 May, he declared the crime committed by Kent to be that of 'murder', by early July it had changed to that of 'taking part in an armed rebellion'"
What part of the English book of rules does that appear in?
The trials of the Rebels were rigged, even by British standards making their executions an act of mass-murder.
The Empire was a corrupt and predatory business that habitally led to those it ruled over.
A total justification for The Easter Rising which set in motion its downfall
Game, setand match, I think - you didn't even get up the ladder as far as Tim Henman.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:36 AM

Keith carefully selects and quotes out out context, from books he has never heard of up to that point

Not true.
I quoted from whole articles written by historians and available on line, with a link so they could be seen in their original, intended context.

Only you have quoted from a book you have not read, O'Callaghan's of which a few pages are available on line and which you quoted without link.
(sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:33 AM

"You have the arguments for the position of the rebels on Germany and the War - nothing you have put up in any way changes their 'We serve neither King nor Kaiser" stance."

So Jom all you have to refute the Easter Rising's Leaders and the Supreme Council's documented collusion with an enemy power in time of war is a F**kin' photograph - are you serious? Just by taking up arms and diverting British troops from the front was giving aid and comfort to the enemy, then we have the minor detail of the German weapons in their hands with which they gunned down unarmed policemen and civilians right at the start of the "Rising".

Don't just scream in multi-coloured upper case rants that what I have put up is incorrect you cretin - prove it. I don't think that you will you never do.

"Poppies for Profit" - Amazing how I forgot that classic example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit", those were the 888,000-odd poppies that were made for £9 a piece that raised £15 million for charity - Come on the Jom tell us all about it and I will knock you flat again with straightforward facts from the Royal British Legion website.

Still no thread on the Famine then Jom - speaks volumes for your confidence level in carrying that argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:28 AM

Jim,
"I never have."
Yes you have and you've taken this long to get round to denying it.

No. I denied it last time you made that accusation.
I only expressed my contempt for the rebel leadership, never the Irish people. (sorry Joe)

"I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate"
More racist stereotyping and more sneering at the Irish and their traditions - keep it up Keith.

Not sneering. I love to celebrate too, especially Paddy's day. (sorry Joe)

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

More uncorroborated bullshit.
"Thomas Kent was guilty of levying war against the King in his Realm."
Kent was tried and executed for murder - after his execution " "Asquith offered a different explanation for Kent's execution to that which he had previously provided. Where, on 11 May, he declared the crime committed by Kent to be that of 'murder', by early July it had changed to that of 'taking part in an armed rebellion'"
What part of the English book of rules does that appear in?
"Both Keith A and myself have in the past given references"
Keith carefully selects and quotes out out context, from books he has never heard of up to that point, bits which suit him - you provide nothing but expect us to accept your declarations without question.
"it would not make the blindest bit of difference to you, what evidence was laid before you"
I respond to everything put up - you respond to nothing and certainly qualify nothing.
You have the arguments for the position of the rebels on Germany and the War - nothing you have put up in any way changes their 'We serve neither King nor Kaiser" stance.
How about putting up someone who is actually making the same claims aas you are, but be careful not to make Keith's mistake of persistently backing the wrong horses?
Your flag-wagging, pro-Empire struttings are things of the past - they went with 'Empire Day' and 'From Greenland's Icy mountains', where, to be foreign was to be "in error's chain".
I assume your continued silence means we are in agreement of the illegal conduct of the trials
"Kitchener"
We all make mistakes - I could sit here all day discussing "democratic Britain at the time Trade Unioninists were being transported" or "prosperous Liverpool at the beginning of the 20th century", or the "poppies for profit" enterprise of 2014 - or even your defence of the Kent fit-up - or every single argument you have ever put up, drawn a blank and fallen silent on - but why take part in a pissing competition with someone with a flow problem?
Your vicious and archaic two-man arguments have totally failed to ring any bells here as they failed to on The famine - they appear to be as unaccepted here as they are in the rest of the modern world.
I repeat, nobody is putting up these arguments any more - even Keith, with his assiduous trawling of the net, has totally failed to come up with one "real, living historian" who backs your case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 02:30 AM

"Tom Kent executed for something he did not do"

The Treason Act 1351 is an Act of the Parliament of England which codified and curtailed the common law offence of treason. No new offences were created by the statute.[3] It is one of the earliest English statutes still in force, although it has been very significantly amended.[4][5] It was extended to Ireland in 1495[6] and to Scotland in 1708.[7] The Act was passed at Westminster in the Hilary term of 1351, in the 25th year of the reign of Edward III and was entitled "A Declaration which Offences shall be adjudged Treason". - Source - Treason Act 1351

Extract from the above:

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:

"compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned; the original Norman French was "fait compasser ou ymaginer") the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 on 26 March 2015,[10] this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest child and heir);

violated the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest son only if he is also the heir[11]);

levied war against the King in his Realm;

adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;

counterfeited the Great Seal or the Privy Seal (repealed and re-enacted in the Forgery Act 1830; death penalty abolished in 1832;[12] reduced to felony in 1861[13] (except in Scotland[14]));

counterfeited English coinage or imported counterfeit English coinage (reduced to felony in 1832[15]);

killed the Chancellor, Treasurer (this office is now in commission), one of the King's Justices (either of the King's Bench or the Common Pleas), a Justice in Eyre, an Assize judge, and "all other Justices", while they are performing their offices. (This did not include the barons of the Exchequer.[16])

In firing on the Police and the army and initiating the gun-battle that took place in Cork on the 2nd May 1916, with the country under Martial Law, Thomas Kent was guilty of levying war against the King in his Realm.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:53 AM

"It's always intrigued me why you never link your claims to anything - whenever I've tried to trace your statements I've drawn a blank"

Three points on that Jom:

1: Both Keith A and myself have in the past given references and links which you dismiss or do not bother to check.

2: I don't know why it intrigues you Jom as it would not make the blindest bit of difference to you, what evidence was laid before you - you would ignore it. Your bigotry, rascism and Anglophobia is far too ingrained.

3: As far as your ability to trace and check facts given - Try harder, I am not going to do your homework for you.

But we will try a couple shall we, just to demonstrate:

Example 1:

In previous threads on WWI you stated that Kitchener was forced to resign from his post as Secretary of State for War.

Lord Herbert Kitchener

Time taken to find and put that link up was less that a minute from the easiest source of information on the internet - yet you say you have trouble doing that?

List of Secretaries of State for War

OK then Jom give us the date he was forced to resigned or state unequivocally that you were wrong and that the truth was he was never forced to resign - he was appointed as Secretary of State for War the day after war was declared and he died in office 5th June 1916.

Example: 2

You have repeatedly come out with the dissembling rubbish about there being no evidence of collusion between the IRB, IVF and the Germans.

Sir Roger Casement:
"Casement helped to form in 1913 the Irish National Volunteers, a nationalist organisation. The following year, in July 1914, Casement visited New York in an attempt to garner support for the organisation. With the outbreak of war the following month Casement similarly hoped for German assistance in gaining Irish independence from Britain.

With this in mind Casement travelled to Berlin in November 1914; once there however he found the Germans reluctant to undertake the risk of sending forces to Ireland (Indicates that he must have asked them). He was also disappointed in his hopes of recruiting to his cause Irish prisoners taken to Germany.

"While in Germany Casement strove in particular to effectively borrow a number of German officers to assist with a planned Easter rising in Dublin; again, he was disappointed. Believing the planned rising unlikely to succeed at that stage Casement arranged to be taken by German submarine to Ireland where he hoped to dissuade nationalist leaders from undertaking rebellion for the present.

Consequently he was landed near Tralee in County Kerry on 12 April 1916. Twelve days later he was arrested by the British, taken to London, and charged with treason. At about this time copies of a diary (the 'Black Diary') reputed to be written by Casement were circulated among government officials, detailing alleged homosexual practices with native boys.

Although clearly an attempt by the British to discredit Casement the diaries' authenticity was verified by an independent panel of scholars in 1959 and, more recently, in 2002. With an appeal dismissed Casement was taken to Pentonville Prison in London where he was hanged on 3 August 1916."

Source - Casement

Time taken about one minute - of this you are incapable?

Then there is this one Jom:

"In November 1914[23] Casement negotiated a declaration by Germany which stated:


"The Imperial Government formally declares that under no circumstances would Germany invade Ireland with a view to its conquest or the overthrow of any native institutions in that country. Should the fortune of this Great War, that was not of Germany's seeking, ever BRING IN ITS COURSE GERMAN TROOPS TO THE SHORES OF IRELAND, they would land there not as an army of invaders to pillage and destroy but as the forces of a Government that is inspired by goodwill towards a country and people for whom Germany desires only national prosperity and national freedom".[24]

Source - Casement

Casement went to Germany with the knowledge and consent of the leaders of the IRB and the IVF this piece of information backed up by:

"The Supreme Council of the IRB met on 5 September 1914, just over a month after the British government had declared war on Germany. At this meeting, they decided to stage an uprising before the war ended and to secure help from Germany.[22]   Source - Caulfield, Max, The Easter Rebellion, p. 18

Then there is this:

After the war began, Roger Casement and Clan na Gael leader John Devoy met the German ambassador to the United States, Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, to discuss German backing for an uprising. Casement went to Germany and began negotiations with the German government and military. He persuaded the Germans to announce their support for Irish independence in November 1914.[31] Casement also attempted to recruit an Irish Brigade, made up of Irish prisoners of war, which would be armed and sent to Ireland to join the uprising.[32][33] However, only 56 men volunteered. Plunkett joined Casement in Germany the following year. Together, Plunkett and Casement presented a plan (the 'Ireland Report') in which a German expeditionary force would land on the west coast of Ireland, while a rising in Dublin diverted the British forces so that the Germans, with the help of local Volunteers, could secure the line of the River Shannon, before advancing on the capital.[34] The German military rejected the plan, but agreed to ship arms and ammunition to the Volunteers.[35]"

Collusion on a massive scale and as the Military Council took over the Easter Rising and kept the details of it secret then those who signed the Proclamation were guilty of Treason - They were accordingly charged with committing offences UNDER THE TREASON ACT namely:

1 Taking up arms against the King - which they most undoubtedly did.

2 Providing aid and comfort to the enemy - which they most undoubtedly did and for which you have previously been given the links to the Treason Act and the actual Anglo-French wording of these two specific charges.

But none of that matters to you does it Jom - so be intrigued no more. You and your pals rarely if ever provide substantive evidence for either your claims, statements or accusations - you just fling shit and run.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 16 - 12:59 AM

DE VELERA, took part in the easter rising, here is an interesting book.The book, provocatively titled 'England's Greatest Spy: Eamon de Valera', suggests that Dev was terrified of being executed after the Rising and was "turned" in exchange for his life. For some years afterwards, the book claims, Dev was under British control.
The 470-page hardback is published by Stacey International, a London publisher specialising in politics and history.

The author is retired US naval officer and historian John Turi from Princeton, New Jersey. He developed an interest in Irish history through his wife, who was born in Ireland. Turi has been researching his controversial book for a decade.
The case against de Valera by Turi is based firstly on a detailed analysis of Dev's emotionally stunted formative years.

He claims Dev was rejected by everyone in his early life -- his mysterious father in New York (in fact, Dev was probably illegitimate), his mother, his uncle in Ireland, who treated him coldly, even the Church, which rejected his ambitions for the priesthood because of his probable illegitimacy.
His miserable upbringing left Dev with an inadequate personality, Turi suggests, which made him susceptible to being influenced later on.

Turi is scathing about Dev's erratic behaviour during the Rising, when he was in charge of the men at Boland's Mill.
He stayed awake for days, became disorientated and issued confused, sometimes ridiculous, orders. "It was not just his tactics the men questioned," Turi writes, "they questioned his sanity as well."

Dev kept his men "sitting on their heels" while a short distance away at Mount Street Bridge eight Volunteers were trying to hold off hundreds of British soldiers.
In fact the men at Boland's Mill played little or no part in the Easter Week fighting, Turi says, because Dev was so exhausted and fearful.

At the end of the week, when word reached Boland's Mill of the surrender, Turi writes that de Valera "abandoned his men and slipped out of Boland's at noon on the Sunday, taking with him a British prisoner . . . as his insurance against being shot before he could surrender".


Cowardly

"De Valera the cowardly, incompetent, mentally unstable officer who deserted his troops was (later) repackaged as de Valera the lonely hero fighting valiantly against overwhelming odds."
What followed was also suspicious, Turi says.

Dev later claimed that he was tried with a number of other men and sentenced to death.
Turi writes: "Not one of the men allegedly tried with de Valera ever confirmed that such a trial took place, and there is no trace in the British Public Record Office of any trial."

He also quotes the flat denial by the army prosecuting officer, William Wylie, that de Valera had been tried.

Turi also considers Dev's fragile mental state and tearful collapse at Richmond Barracks the night before he was taken to Kilmainham, to where condemned prisoners were sent.
All the events indicate that Dev was terrified of dying, Turi suggests, and that it would have been easy for the British intelligence officer Ivor Price to turn Dev into a British collaborator. Major Price was "skilled at manipulating weakness".

Turi notes that Dev was the only one of four Dublin commandants not to be tried and executed.

He dismisses theories that Dev was spared because he was born in America or because the British realised that further executions would be a mistake; as others were executed later.
The only reasonable explanation, Turi claims, is that Dev was "turned". In all, Turi sets forth a dozen instances of what he calls "de Valera's machinations that aided and abetted British interests" to support this claim.



Collins

Some of this 'evidence' concerns Dev's activities in the US after he was released from prison -- which split the powerful Irish-American lobby.
Turi also says the British feared what Michael Collins might do in the North and used de Valera to engineer the situation that resulted in Collins's death.

Turi also calls Irish neutrality during the World War II "a hoax on the Irish people and a major boon for English interests".

His book, which ends with a call for a posthumous trial of de Valera, was published in Ireland and Britain on November 30 and in the US last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:47 PM

Terribus
"Agreed Jim - so will please stop claiming that the Leaders of the rising did not support the Germans"
'bout time we finished this, doncha think?
It's always intrigued me why you never link your claims to anything - whenever I've tried to trace your statements I've drawn a blank
I've confess I've been a bit slow on the uptake on this- YOU HAVE MADE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM UP.
Take this one for instance.
Nobody claims nowadays that the Rebels ever supported the German war effort - they took guns - nothing more.
They were not tried for treason - in your own words they were charged with "in other words" and their trial was rigged in order that they could be executed.
Technically, of course, they were guilty of nothing - they received no proper trial, they were not allowed to mount a defence, they were allowed no legal representation, the proceedings were condemned as illegal by the British courts, the 'trials' were held in secret and the details of those proceedings have never been released a century after they took place.
It remains to be seen whether Britain will apologise of this miscarriage of justice as they did over The Famine.
Their "collusion" is simply an invention on your part.
Even good ol' Norman Portillo describes the Irish 'support' for Germany thus:
"Martyrdom
Portillo puzzles over the reference in the Proclamation to "our gallant allies in Europe", namely Germany.
He believes the reference was put there by Patrick Pearse to provoke the British into an over-reaction.
"How do you expect the British not to shoot people who refer to the gallant allies? It is not central to declaring independence for Ireland.
"The whole thing makes sense without having to mention Germany at all. If you pursue this theory that Patrick Pearse wanted martyrdom, then you know this is all part of it."
Hence, he believes the British fell into the "propaganda trap" set for them by the leaders of the Rising."

The trained section of the Rebel Forces actually posed in front of the building shelled by the Helga, Liberty Hall, under a banner reading "We serve neither King nor Kaiser"
This photograph has been put up several times, but I'm happy to dig it out again, if you wish.
The Rebels did not support Germany, they were not charged with supporting Germany - you and Keith made it up, individually or between you, neither of you has produced proof - (or a historian between you)
Casement's case was different; he was tried for treason based on his 'Pro-German' statement
He was given a trial, allowed to offer evidence and had legal representation.
He was found guilty, allowed to appeal, his appeal was turned down and he was hanged.
Even here, there is a question mark hanging over whether Casement actually said what he said.
Britain mounted a campaign to smear Casement, using his supposed homosexuality so he would not be regarded as a hero as were the Rebels.

"Whitehall was guilty of plain blackguardism in deploying private documents to manipulate public opinion in Britain, Ireland and America during the Great War," he said. The diaries, written in an Army field notebook, three pocket diaries and a cash ledger, chart Casement's prolific homosexual activity at a time when such exploits were not only discreditable but illegal.
Home Office papers released in 1995 by the PRO showed how the "black diaries" were used to turn public opinion against Casement. The Cabinet was told as Ministers considered clemency that he "had for years been addicted to the grossest sodomical practices." They were advised that if he were executed "the knowledge of his immoral character. . .will alienate sympathy and prevent his being treated as a martyr".
The Telegraph, March 2002.

For a long time it has been claimed that these "Black Diaries" were faked, though now, it appears they were probably genuine and Casement committed the 'unforgivable sin' of being a homosexual.
Though the matteris still contested
Given that the Government colluded with Maxwell to have Tom Kent executed for something he did not do, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same to smear Casement - the British Dirty Tricks team left today's Israeli propaganda efforts at the starting post when it came to Ireland.
One thing is certain; when Casement was in Germany negotiating for weapons, he was under constant surveillance by German Security men because they suspected him of spying for Britain - some friendship.   
Anyway - you can clear all this up by breaking your life-long golden rule and actually producing some proof that anybody other than you pair actually claims that the Rebels supported the German War effort.
Keith
"I never have."
Yes you have and you've taken this long to get round to denying it.
The next step is that you only said it because someone told you to - unfortunately, there you have been unable to find any "real historians" to back your claims.
"I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate"
More racist stereotyping and more sneering at the Irish and their traditions - keep it up Keith.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 10:00 AM

Raggytash - 12 May 16 - 05:49 AM

Still trying to have the last word,

No Raggy he was simply asking you for once to provide an example to back up your accusations.

My bet is that not a single one will materialise - par for the course - no surprises there at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 16 - 09:37 AM

Jim,
Your contempt was in describing the Irish people as being gullible and supporting murderers

I never have. (sorry Joe)

Simple question - why do you think Ireland is celebrating this in the way they are at the present time

I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate.
Is St.Pat's Day celebrated as an historical occasion?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:26 AM

Well then GregF from what you say you certainly haven't - or listened to her lectures either I'd guess:

Salzburg, Austria, 2014:

"How could a Europe that had been so prosperous and so largely peaceful for so many years, that was basking in a glorious period of trade and technological advance, that was flourishing within a long-established global order, have been thrown — in the course of a month — into the bloodiest conflict the world had then ever seen?"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:21 AM

"The Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan", T-Bird? You obviously haven't read her works on WW I.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:09 AM

"Germany certainly expected the Rebellion to act as a diversion, as they did when they gave safe passage to Lenin in their revolution the following year, BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY "SUPPORT IRELAND EVER GAVE TO GERMANY AND NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE" - Jim Carroll

Agreed Jim - so will please stop claiming that the Leaders of the rising did not support the Germans - after all you've just admitted quite clearly in Upper Case above that they did. And at that time, two years into a world war involving Great Britain and Germany, that constituted an offence under the Treason Act, namely these two facets of it:

"levied war against the King in his Realm;" The rising in Dublin

"adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere" Colluding with the Germans in an attempt to land arms supplied by the enemy and create a diversion that would draw troops away from the war in France thereby giving comfort to the enemy.

Nobody supports that garbage now, nor have they for decades.

Oh dear Jom, speaking for everybody else again? Delusions of grandure or what?

The British Empire was a predatory set-up based on extracting wealth from those the conquored - no different from any other Empire throughout history - It was like a giant beehive with all it's occupants living only to serve a queen."

Ah so no such thing as outward investment then? I think the Indians would disagree with you on that.

Which nations did we conquer Jom? Care to tell us how with a population the size of Great Britain's between 1690 and 1916 we managed to "conquer" two thirds of the earth's surface and hold it?


"The Famine ws typical of how it could work - despite a catastrophic natural disaster, Britain continued to export food from Ireland for the merchants to sell off to Britain.
The warehouses, full of food, were locked and guarded.
Relief was sent from Britain to be sold to the starving at the going price so as not to interfere with the profits of the merchants."

Want a thread on the famine Jom? then open one detailing in your OP your case with all statements made backed up by real evidence (First looking up what constitutes real evidence)

One inconvenient fact for you Jom the imports of grain into Ireland during the "famine years" was four times what was exported.

Please explain to us how all the food in those warehouses was to be transported and distributed.

Another inconvenient fact for you Jom - the primary cause of the drop in population during the "famine" was emigration, the second was death from disease (Diseases that for the next thirty years would know no cure - so hardly avoidable as you claim) and the third, by a long way was starvation (IIRC in the worse of the "famine years" the number that died from starvation numbered 6,000)

"If native cultures or practices got in the way of British rule (little more than absentee landlordism - it was removed - a typical example being the Irish language, which was all but systematically destroyed."

Better example for you Jom - General Sir Charles James Napier, the Commander-in-Chief in India from 1849 to 1851 is often noted for a story involving Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of sati by British authorities.

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

The practice of burning widows on the death of their husbands ceased - Oooh nasty British Empire eh Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 07:19 AM

Like the way Thompson compares apples to oranges in his attempts to make a point:

"The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd. If Germany won WWII and occupied Britain, and then went to war with, say, Scandinavia, would the British be considered treacherous or treasonous for failing to support Germany in this war?"

Anybody see anything wrong with that? Shouldn't he have more accurately stated:

The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd. If Germany won WWII and occupied Britain, and then having ruled Britain for 700 years and incorporated Britain into the German State went to war with, say, Scandinavia, would the British be considered treacherous or treasonous for failing to support Germany in this war?

I'd say yes they would.

Numbers who fought for "the cause" in 1916 - 1,250
Numbers potentially available to fight for "the cause" but who were deliberately ordered to stay home and do nothing in 1916 - 13,750

Number of Irishmen who fought in the British Armed forces in the First World War ~210,000 - Those numbers speak volumes for a country of roughly 3 million in 1911, it clearly demonstrates which conflict they were more concerned with.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 16 - 07:07 AM

"Jim, I have only expressed contempt for the 1916 rebels, never for the people of Ireland who shared my contempt for them.(Sorry Joe)"
Your contempt was in describing the Irish people as being gullible and supporting murderers - you specified Fergie, but he said what is being said throughout Ireland now and will be for the rest of the year
You have apparently laboured over an excuse for your behab=viuour.
Simple question - why do you think Ireland is celebrating this in the way they are at the present time
Please take Joe's adivice an leave this.
Terrribus
Can't believe you are still attempting to salvage this from the ashes of your failed arguments.
Germany certainly expected the Rebellion to act as a diversion, as they did when they gave safe passage to Lenin in their revolution the following year, BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY "SUPPORT IRELAND EVER GAVE TO GERMANY AND NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE
The Irish made a bid for self-determination while the empires were tearing each other apart - no better time to choose.
I didn't see Michael Portillo's programme on Easter week but this was hit take on the affair.

"Martyrdom
Portillo puzzles over the reference in the Proclamation to "our gallant allies in Europe", namely Germany.
He believes the reference was put there by Patrick Pearse to provoke the British into an over-reaction.
"How do you expect the British not to shoot people who refer to the gallant allies? It is not central to declaring independence for Ireland.
"The whole thing makes sense without having to mention Germany at all. If you pursue this theory that Patrick Pearse wanted martyrdom, then you know this is all part of it."
Hence, he believes the British fell into the "propaganda trap" set for them by the leaders of the Rising."
How Britain Lost the Easter Rising

Was fascinated to read your defence of Empire - like taking the dog for a walk through Jurassic Park.
When I described you as a "Empire Loyalist jingoist", I really didn't mean that literally - my, my, my!!
Nobody supports that garbage now, nor have they for decades.
The British Empire was a predatory set-up based on extracting wealth from those the conquored - no different from any other Empire throughout history - It was like a giant beehive with all it's occupants living only to serve a queen.
The Famine ws typical of how it could work - despite a catastrophic natural disaster, Britain continued to export food from Ireland for the merchants to sell off to Britain.
The warehouses, full of food, were locked and guarded.
Relief was sent from Britain to be sold to the starving at the going price so as not to interfere with the profits of the merchants.
If native cultures or practices got in the way of British rule (little more than absentee landlordism - it was removed - a typical example being the Irish language, which was all but systematically destroyed.   
Are you planning a further film in the series, 'Jurassic Park" - look forward to it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 06:28 AM

"you just have to produce examples of how the Rebels actually supported the Germans rather than pay lip-service to it to get guns.
The Rebellion was an Anti Imperialist Revolt - Germany was an Imperial power - speaks for itself."
Jim Carroll

Casement's "Irish Report" - Which required German troops to be landed on the west coast of Ireland

The aim of the "rebellion" as put by both Plunkett and by Casement in 1915 to the Germans was that with German support the rising would draw British troops away from the fighting in France - Now in time of war I would call that active support of the enemy.

The "Rebellion" as you call it was a sham from start to finish. It was deliberately set up to fail by those who led it. It had absolutely no other purpose than to keep the "men of the gun" and Sinn Fein in the game - Pearse's "Blood Sacrifice". The men who fought in Dublin believed in their cause and in their leaders who deliberately fed them lies and threw their lives away in an exercise of wanton destruction mounted to achieve nothing. It's crowning achievement? Rather than further the cause of an independent united Ireland it hardened "Unionist" opposition and guaranteed that the "Unionists" in the North would insist on partition, and for all the attempts by the "men of the gun" down through the years since 1916, that goal of a united independent Ireland is further away today than it was then - why do I say that? Because back in the early part of the 20th century all the nationalists had to do was convince the "unionists" in the North, today written into law not only do those living in the North have to decide for themselves that they want to be part of a united independent Ireland, then the second part of the process has to be fulfilled - those living in the Republic of Ireland have to agree to the union - and if the "men of the gun" in the North have their say then the Republic of Ireland has to take one enormous leap of faith and trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 May 16 - 05:49 AM

Still trying to have the last word, read a book on the subject yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 16 - 05:38 AM

Once again Rag, produce one historical fact I have got wrong instead of just accusing me of it.
(sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 May 16 - 05:31 AM

Ah the old game of trying to have the last word.

When you actually learn something of Irish History, when you take an interest in the subject, when you actually read a WHOLE book and not just snippets trawled from the Internet, then and only then will you have a useful contribution to make. Given that these things are not going to happen you will continue to snipe uneducated comments from the wings, because in your ignorance that's what you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 16 - 04:44 AM

Joe, sorry I keep defending myself, but Rag and Jim keep making false accusations that I can not allow to stand.

it seems to me that credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule bill that had passed Parliament.

I do not recall any such evidence presented.
Could we have a reminder please?

Thompson
The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd.

It is isn't it, but true all the same.
They volunteered in huge numbers to fight for Britain in WW1 and even after independence in WW2!
Because it was not an occupation. Ireland was an integral part of the UK just as Scotland and Wales were and still are.
Their independence movements never refer to an occupation, so why do you?

Jim, I have only expressed contempt for the 1916 rebels, never for the people of Ireland who shared my contempt for them.(Sorry Joe)