BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

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

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

No I did not.

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

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

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

No they were not.

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

It actually says THE FAMINE PLOT.

Which means quite simply they refer to THE FAMINE PLOT.

Stop lying (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good work professor keep it up.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So partisan, not neutral or objective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS I did find Hastings tedious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bought yourself a compass yet?

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

Jom - here it is AGAIN:

Treason Act UK

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laughable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


(wait for the bleatings of denial)

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

"The Rebels were not charged with treason"

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

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

Raggy:

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

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

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

But here are some undeniable facts:

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

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


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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:08 AM

"Do I need to read a book that is a travesty of history...............NO

Does anyone seeking the true version of events........................NO"

Not having read the book you are not in a position to say it is a travesty. You have merely cited the opinion of another author who again you have not read.

So, let me get this straight in my head. You say Author A is wrong because Author B says so. You have not read Author B so cannot know whether his writings are accurate. You have not read Author A so you cannot say his writings are inaccurate.

Where in that muddle do you form the opinion that Author A's writings are a travesty. You don't know and more to the point you will never know because you are too lazy and too disinterested to read him.

As I have said before your "argument" has no validity.

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

But please do not present your opinion as fact. It is not.

He never has Rag.
No-one can state as a fact any alternative history that did not happen, and no-one has.
Of course it is opinion and it does not need explaining, except to you obviously Rag.
Opinions are worth nothing if not informed by facts, which T's always are.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:58 AM

Jim,
"The Proclamation itself outlined who was responsible for igniting the rising and referenced the Irish Republic's potential ally of Germany. These details of the proclamation, considered to be treason, ensured certain death by firing squad for the leaders of the Irish Republic if independence was not obtained."
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/50-facts-about-the-Easter-Rising-which-began-99-years-ago-today-PHOTOS.html

Rag,
Have you been able to quote any historian in support of yours or Jim's case........NO

Have you spotted any gap in my knowledge of the history of the rising................NO.

Have you spotted any errors in the history I have produced to support my case...NO.

Anything to suggest my knowledge of history is inadequate.......NO

Do I need to read a book that is a travesty of history...............NO

Does anyone seeking the true version of events........................NO

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:51 AM

It is exactly that Terri ............... your opinion. You have no facts to back up your statement which you purport to be truths.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:39 AM

"Ehmm Jom"
You really do need to do something about that sore throat
" Act of UNION 1801"
The Rebels were not charged with treason - did Britain add not properly charging the men they shot to the other breaches of British law in this brutally inept affair?
Perhaps you'd like to give us the details of what the rule book says about trying people before sentencing them to death?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:38 AM

Raggy 453,000 or thereabouts solemnly swore that they would do whatever was necessary to prevent Home Rule and Independence. The Larne Gun Smuggling scandal and the formation of the UVF caused the formation of the IVF so the Nationalists certainly took them seriously and at face value at the time. In the rebellion of 1916 only 0.05% of the Irish population could be arsed to take part. In the Irish War of Independence only 0.5% of the Irish population could be arsed to take part. And so enraged by the treaty settlement were they that in the Civil War that de Valera fanned into flames in 1921 and which lasted for almost eleven months only 3.33% of the population of Southern Ireland could be arsed to take part. In the North around 48% of the population were arsed to sign a Covenant stating in the clearest terms possible what they would do to remain as part of the United Kingdom - tell me of any similar document signed in the South to back your rebels Raggy.

As to arms and ammunition Raggy I believe that the UVF managed to get arms into Ireland far more successfully than either the IVF or the IRB.

All moot of course at it never happened but, and this is just my opinion, had independence been forced on the North then the civil war would have been far, far worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:19 AM

"In order for them to have been executed for treason they would have to have been British"

Ehmm Jom - Act of UNION 1801 meant that the country that declared war on Germany on august 4th 1914 was the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND IRELAND

Taking up arms against the Crown and conspiring with enemies of the Crown IS TREASON - That is what those men did.

"The fact that there was a war on was totally immaterial - Ireland was not part of that war - the Irishmen who fought did so volunteered to do so and when Britain attempted to forcibly conscript them in 1918 the Irish turned them down - it was never Ireland's war."

Oh I don't know Jom I think that the country being at war would aggravate the charge and cause it to be dealt with to the utmost extent of the law. Ireland was as much a part of that war as the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (See Above, and over 210,000 native born Irishmen thought so - how many turned out for your rebellion Jom? 1,250 - 1,500? You've mentioned this attempt at forcing conscription in Ireland in 1918 can you give us all a date upon which that happened, because I've looked and I cannot find it. Can you give us a date when the idea of conscription was put before the Irish and the date they rejected it? You see I don't think that you can because it never happened.

Under Martial Law ALL civil rights are suspended and the military authorities can make, apply and enforce whatever laws they deem necessary. Martial Law was declared on 25th April 1916.

I know very well what those executed were charged with - I actually posted it on this very thread - what you are charged with normally tends to describe what you actually did - now then Jom show me the:

Armed Rebellion Act of Great Britain and Ireland in force and on the statute books in 1916.

Show me the Conspiring with Enemies of the State Act of Great Britain and Ireland in force and on the statute books in 1916.

You'll have a bit of trouble doing that as neither exists or ever has existed - HOWEVER both those offences are detailed in the Treason Act which has been on the statute books since 1351 I posted that on this thread as well highlighting the relevant parts of it.

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

where is your evidence that 453,000 people would have taken up arms Terri. In fact how are the 453,000 people going to be provided with arms. Collusion with the British forces perhaps.

Once again you are presenting your "facts" as "truth" neither of which is the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: ollaimh
Date: 04 May 16 - 10:17 PM

thank you jim carrol that says it all.

i want to add that the plain fact that sein fein won a landslide election as soon as they got the chance shows the irish people supported the rebellion. this is a plain fact. the writers now depended on to show a lack of support were part of the old quisling ruling elite or their toadies.

but the anglos have a quible, a hair to split! so starvstion doesn't count, a quible a hari to split so torture, invasion and every form of brutality doesn't count, it's not like the torture starvation and murder by the paras, done by the bad people like quadaffi, because they have a quible and a hair ti split.and of course if the british hadn't been brutal to the rebels there would have been no election win and no popular support--WHEN WERE THE BRITSH EVER ANYTHING BUT BRUTAL? in keyna? whoops there they did all the troture hanging and concentration camp thing, in bengal? opps there they let millions starve, in america, where they made war on women children and food supplies to get rid of the native(as oft quoted at the tine "nits make lice") on and on brutality after brutality.

it's hang wringingly awfull that the rebellion was more destructive than necessary, so awfull. what about the hundreds of years of british destruction, but that isn't a quible.

what the general deniers are saying is two fold. first there is no connection between events.   things aren't related . just because the same poeple and state that conquered ireland,(or india or canada) was the one torturing or murdering, doesn't mean there is any mental connection between those who conquered and those who tortured(see the residential schools for the very worst), no connection between events and peolple. and secend they believe that the fact that the anglos got an econimikc benefit from smashing irish culture and people has no evidential value that any anglos meant any malice or even had any awareness of the abuses. it's a lot like nazi holocoust deniers, dimminish deflect and deny and you have to prove prove prove all over again.

well thankfully they aren't as powerfull as they once were, but now americans are taking up the sword of empire. godess help us if trump gets elected.

what it shows clear as day isthat anglo culture is racist and militaristic to the core, abd isn't likely to change soon. these bigots will buy any quibble and any jingoistic lie if it flatters their endless pride and coddles their hate

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:15 PM

"Ehmm NO Jom but you can condemn and execute men guilty of firing on British troops and conspiring with the enemy in time of war."
Which is not what they were executed for.
In order for them to have been executed for treason they would have to have been British
They were not executed for treason - which you seem now to be backing away from.
They were not executed for murder - as you have suggested.
They were executed for taking part in a rebellion.
The fact that there was a war on was totally immaterial - Ireland was not part of that war - the Irishmen who fought did so volunteered to do so and when Britain attempted to forcibly conscript them in 1918 the Irish turned them down - it was never Ireland's war.
Nowhere does the word treason appear in connection with the rising as you have obviously found in your desperate scrabbling.
The court was a kangaroo Court because it met neither legal or military standards - it was rigged by allowing men who had been part of the fighting to take part in the decision when to execute and not to execute.
The decision on who was to be executed or not to be executed was taken arbitrarily by the prisoners being lined up in the yard of the prison and officers who had been in action walking along the lines with informers and pointing them out.
The accused were given no right to legal representation and were not allowed to speak in their own defence.
The examinations (there were no proper 'trials' of the accused took no more than a half hour each, some lasted less than half that time.
The proceedings were condemned as illegal by British legal officials
The prisoners were publicly humiliated and beaten by their captors - Tom Clarke, who had been chosen to be President and Commander-in-chief of the new Republic had the rising been successful, a frail man in poor health due to his earlier treatment in British prisons, was stripped naked on the parade ground in front of his fellow rebels and jeering British troops and beaten with soaked knotted towels.
Not only were the executions illegal and brutal but so was the treatment of many of the prisoners.
The trial was a travesty of justice by any standards not even reaching the standard British soldiers captured in Germany during WW2.
All this is a matter of record - it was a ****** kangaroo Court.
One more time THE REBELS WERE NOT CHARGED WITH TREASON - LIVE WITH IT
Are you suggesting that it was not necessary to charge the men with what they were executed for – is that how British justice works?
If you wish to keep this up - link us to some facts rather than just your unproven statements.
Happy to keep this up as long as you want - each time you do I will endeavour to add a few more details of the inhuman treatment of the captors.
You really can't get your head around the fact that your arrogant talking-down-to tone makes you look all the more stupid when you make a balls-up, as you are doing here
"A genuine expert on Irish history who found the the history in Coogans book was a "travesty."
Back to the "real historians" again Keith - have you no self-respect.
"He really knows Irish history."
As you have never read a book on the subject and are not interested in doing so - how the **** would you know what he knows?
Just to clear up a point, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if Ferriter is such a great historian, I'm not sure where that leaves your argument about The rising being a "contemptible joke".
As do virtually all Irish historians, he supports the rising and at no time questions its validity - so what on earth are you doing challenging a "real historian" and calling him gullible and fooled by propaganda?.
The Coogan book that he challenges is not about Easter Week as such (he wrote a book on the rising some years ago which Ferriter has never commented on)
The only arguments Ferriter has on what Coogan had to say on the Irish revolutionary period was to challenge three dates (he claims two were a year out and one two years out.)
Ferriter's argument was with Coogan's analysis of what has happened to Ireland since and whether the ideals of the rising were lived up to - Coogan claims they weren't as do many thousands of other historians, experts and interested people, particularly in relation to the Party that has been in Government up to the last election.
These are not a matter of historical fact but arguments based on politics.
Coogan describes his book as a personal take on the state of Ireland, which is how he tends to write and what Ferriter challenges is that personal take which he describes as "arrogant".
If Ferriter has any qualms about The Rising he keeps them to himself - he certainly has never described them as a contemptible joke.
He challenges how the freedoms brought about by the rising were described then and have been interpreted since but he at no time challenges its validity - it seems that. like Kineally, you have backed another loser.
This type of humiliation would be totally unnecessary if you bothered to read the articles you take your one-liners from.
Even if he had been opposed to the Rising he would be one historian (very much in the minority) out of many hundreds writing, lecturing, researching, setting up exhibitions, making radio and television programmes... and all the other work going into an event you have described as a "contemptible joke".
The one thing about this centenary is the unanimity of the people involved, with virtually no critical opposition - but I'm sure you know that as your desperate searches have managed to unearth a priest living in America and a journalist - Ferriter, who you thought might be an ally, has blown up in your face, as did Kineally.
G'night George - G'night Gracie.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 May 16 - 06:14 PM

Diarmaid Ferriter is professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin.

But is he alive or dead?

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

Ehmm NO Jom but you can condemn and execute men guilty of firing on British troops and conspiring with the enemy in time of war.

Martial Law was declared in on the 25th of April 1916 in an attempt to maintain order on the streets of Dublin. This was later extended to the whole country.

Under Martial Law individuals were tried without a defence council, without a jury and the trials took place in private chambers. Members of the public and members of the press were not allowed to be present at the trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 05:07 PM

"the fact that the convenient was signed by 453,000 does not indicate that 543,000 were prepared to take up arms."

Maybe that should read:

"the fact that the convenant was signed by 453,000 does not indicate that 453,000 were prepared to take up arms."

That would be the same 453,00 presumably who had just sworn to

hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland

Don't know about you Raggy but that would serve as a good enough indication of intent and sign of commitment to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:23 PM

professor have you read the book ................ no

Will you ever read the book ................. no

Are you interested in the subject .............no

Do you know anything about the subject (apart from cut and pastes).. no

Do you have anything valid to say ........... no

Go and read the book, come to think of it, go and read any book about the subject.

Then and ONLY then will you have any positive contribution to this discussion.

Until you do so I, and many others, will continue to think of you as an annoying and lazy cretin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:22 PM

Yes Jim.
A genuine expert on Irish history who found the the history in Coogans book was a "travesty."

You linked to two reviews.
The Indy one was by a non-historian who would not have known that what he was reading was inaccurate. Wrong.

The other review said nothing about the book apart from its sales.
8000 copies.
Hardly "a best seller" as you claimed Jim and certainly not claimed as such by the reviewer!
"One thing that is clear from the Nielsen figures for 2015 is that the ­enthusiasm of Irish publishers in bringing out so many 1916-related books was not matched by ­interest among the book-buying public. ­Despite the huge success of Joe Duffy's book, in general the sales of 1916-­related books have been disappointing."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:16 PM

Terriblossom, the fact that the convenient was signed by 453,000 does not indicate that 543,000 were prepared to take up arms.

I am sure if this statement is not FACTUALLY correct you will point out where I am wrong.

If you COULD provide a figure of the percentage of that 543,000 who were prepared to take up arms I'm sure we'd all love to see it, and of course, your supporting evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:07 PM

"Diarmaid Ferriter is professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin."
Another "real historian" -my, my, my
Made my day Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:02 PM

Diarmaid Ferriter is professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin. His book A Nation and Not a Rabble: The Irish Revolution 1913-23 is published in paperback by Profile Books

He really knows Irish history.
Why would anyone read a book that he says is "an arrogant travesty of Irish history?"
Certainly not to learn anything.

"this truly dreadful book"

" Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history."

"scant regard for evidence."

"There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on. There is no rhyme or reason when it comes to the citation of the many quotations he uses; the vast majority are not referenced. For the 300-page text, 21 endnotes are cited and six of them relate to Coogan's previous books, "

"Nor is there much accuracy about dates. Contrary to his assertions, Arthur Griffith did not found Sinn Féin in 1904 (it was 1905); the Ulster Volunteer Force was not established in 1912 (it was 1913); Erskine Childers did not organise the smuggling of arms to Ireland "in the summer of 1916" (it was 1914); and King George V did not open the Northern Ireland parliament on June 7th, 1921 (it was June 22nd)."

"Coogan is also a master of sweeping, inaccurate generalisations. "

"There are many other varieties of codswallop: "Fianna Fáil cumainn became IRA flying columns by night". Strange, then, that the IRA was declared an illegal organisation by a Fianna Fáil government in 1936."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:55 PM

"Taking up arms, firing on British Troops and conspiring with the enemy "
You can't condemn people to death for "in other words" - your rule book and the British law says to have to be specifically charged - have your charges read out and be allowed to enter a defence and produce witnesses - source British and military law (not to mention natural justice.
Any capital crime has to adhere to the rule of law - this kangaroo court breached its own laws - no defence, no witnesses, judged by those involved in the fighting.
I ask again, where anywhere has this act of revenge ever been referred to as a "Treason Trial" - surely it went town in the reacords as "treason"?
You and your "in other words" are making it up as you always do.
treason is a matter of law, not a matter of making things up to try to win arguments
The accuse is assused of "in other words" - how do you plead (whoops sorry, you have no right to reply to that"
You're a bit ofa joke really - who did you serve under during your fantasy tiume in the forces - Bilko??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:40 PM

The charges were laid according to a formula: "You are charged with having been one of a party at [whatever location] from which shots were fired, occasioning casualties amongst His Majesty's troops, and you are further charged with conspiracy with His Majesty's enemies." - Source: Irish Times Article

Taking up arms, firing on British Troops and conspiring with the enemy - In other words TREASON.

Raggy yer tis:

"The Ulster Covenant, also known as Ulster's Solemn League and Covenant, was signed by just under half a million men and women from Ulster, on and before 28 September 1912, in protest against the Third Home Rule Bill, introduced by the British Government in that same year."

The names and numbers are simple matter of historical record. That Covenant included these words:

"we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V., humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:24 PM

patriotism is like the barking of village dogs...H G Wells.
Viscount Rothermere is one such dog mad with rabies and frothing at the mouth with xenophopobic jingoism, whilst being a tax exile

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:15 PM

wiggle wiggle, wot the feck does that mean, jim?
THE DAILY MAIL, a paper that barks out patriotism while its owner that patriotic viscount rothermere is a tax exile "patrotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" Dr Johnson,
he was of course referring to false patriots such as the owner of the daily wail

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:12 PM

"Those who signed the Proclamation were undoubtedly guilty of Treason"
If they had been executed for treason, the law and natural justice demands that they be tried for such - they weren't
It would have been a insisted that the be allowed to offer a defence to speak on their behalf - they weren't
The would have been allowed to speak in their own defence - they weren't
Every individual who took part in the rising would have been liable to be tried for treason - they weren't - they weren't even questioned The were selected by British officers who had seen them during the fighting - illegal by any standards.   
Where in your rule book does it say that traitors during wartime can be pardoned on the whim of an officer, without consultating a higher authority?
"your opinion - NOT FACT".
None of these things happened = it was a kangaroo court, not a trial for treason and nobody has ever claimed it was - apart from you.
If you haven't made just made this up, where's your evidence.
You don't have to serve time washing up in a galley to recognise either a kangaroo court or an act of revenge
Who has ever mentioned "treason" in connection to these murders - a century-old secret perhaps?
Jim Carroll