BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - AprilOn 14 Sep 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:40 AM

"The Home Rule Bill was opposed vehemently by the Tories and blocked by the House of Lords; it was eventually got through by Royal assent.

Wrong Jom - read up on British Parliamentary procedure and the 1911 Parliament Act which was brought in to ensure the dominance of the House of Commons over the House of Lords. As to your "got through by Royal Assent" I think that you are mixing up "Royal Assent" which every Act of Parliament must receive before it can be enacted and a thing called "Royal Decree" which have no place in British Law any law, or amendment to an existing law must be put before Parliament, debated by both Houses of Parliament, the House of Lords have no right of veto over anything coming from the Commons, they can only delay it for three readings after which the Commons vote on it for the last time and the Bill is sent to the reigning Monarch for signature.

"After the Easter Rising of 1916, two attempts were made by the Prime Minister, Asquith during the First World War to implement the Act."

Impossible according to the Suspensory Act of 1914, there may well have been discussions regarding how the 1914 Home Rule could be implemented but there could have been no attempt to implement Home Rule until after the end of the war.

"The Suspensory Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5 c. 88) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which suspended the coming into force of two other Acts: the Welsh Church Act 1914 (for the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales), and the Government of Ireland Act 1914 (Third Home Rule Bill for Ireland). The Suspensory Act received the royal assent on the same day as the two Acts it suspended, on 18 September 1914.

On 14 September 1915 an Order in Council made under the Suspensory Act suspended the Government of Ireland Act for a further six months (i.e. until 18 March 1916), and postponed Welsh disestablishment until the end of the war. A subsequent series of Orders in Council, dated 29 February 1916, 7 September 1916, 13 March 1917, 22 August 1917, 27 February 1918, 4 September 1918, 12 March 1919, 18 August 1919, 2 March 1920, and 13 August 1920 suspended the Irish Act in further blocks of six months until the Government of Ireland Act 1920 (passed 23 December 1920) repealed the 1914 Home Rule Act. However, the 1920 Act was never fully implemented either, due to the Irish War of Independence (culminating in the independence from the United Kingdom of most of Ireland as the Irish Free State); home rule was only established in Northern Ireland.

"To say that Home Rule was a done deal is utter bollocks - it was a lose-lose situation either way for those who wanted Independence"

Home Rule WAS a done deal, the only thing that needed to be done was to convince two groups of Irishmen how it could be brought in to the satisfaction of both parties. Don't confuse Home Rule with Independence they are not the same. Trouble was both sides in this dispute (both Irish) wanted different things and both stubbornly refused to any compromise and that Jom was what caused the Partition of Ireland. The civil war in Ireland was caused by one group of Irishmen in South not accepting the deal that had been made by those sent by their Parliament to London to negotiate Independence. This idiotic stance forced on the South by de Valera caused the economic ruin of the Irish Free State and later that of the Republic of Ireland. The Irish civil war was short, bitter and small scale (Although larger by a fair margin than the Irish War of Independence that preceded it) had the North's wishes and right of self determination been denied the civil war that would have followed would have much worse in terms of scale and time.

"Your accusation that the rebels were guilty of "murder" and the Irish people would celebrate that act and make heroes out of "murderers" is as despicable as Keith's - The Rebels were freedom fighters, fighting for independence from the British Empire, "on whose hands the blood never dried" according to a saying of the time.

What else would you call gunning down unarmed men Jom? I expect that your bias, bigotry and racism will somehow get round that, just as you have seemed to stick your fingers in your ears to "La-La-La" away the fact that from September 1914 the leaders of the IRB were in contact with the Government of a country that Great Britain and Ireland was at war with - No surprises there the same was true of damn near every single rebellion in Ireland since the time of Elizabeth the First.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 03:38 AM

The Home Rule Bill was opposed vehemently by the Tories and blocked by the House of Lords; it was eventually got through by Royal assent.
After the Easter Rising of 1916, two attempts were made by the Prime Minister, Asquith during the First World War to implement the Act. The first attempt came in June 1916, when David Lloyd George was sent to Dublin to offer immediate implementation to the leaders of the Irish Party. The scheme revolved around partition, officially a temporary arrangement, as understood by Redmond. Lloyd George gave the Ulster leader, Carson, a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced into a self-governing Ireland. His tactic was to see that neither side would find out before a compromise was implemented.[13] A modified Act of 1914 had been drawn up by the Cabinet on 17 June. The Act had two amendments enforced by Unionists on 19 July – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons. When informed by Lloyd George on 22 July 1916, Redmond accused the government of treachery. While all this backhanding was going on the Tory opponents to any kind of Independence had renewed their campaign to block it. This was decisive in sealing the future fortunes of the Home Rule movement. Asquith made a second attempt to implement Home Rule in 1917, with the calling of the Irish Convention chaired by Horace Plunkett. This consisted of Nationalist and Unionist representatives who, by April 1918, only succeeded in agreeing a report with an 'understanding' on recommendations for the establishment of self-government.
There was never an agreement to the permanent partition of Ireland by the Irish parliamentarians and when it was finally forced through under the threat of war, it led to civil War in Ireland and a near century of inequality of the Catholic population in employment, housing and voting, which in turn led to unrest, regular anti-Catholic rioting and the violent quashing of civil-rights protests in the late 1960s which brought about getting on for 3 years of bloody open warfare, the aftershocks of which are still being felt.
To say that Home Rule was a done deal is utter bollocks - it was a lose-lose situation either way for those who wanted Independence.
Ireland was entitled to Independence and the rebels took the only course open to them?
Your accusation that the rebels were guilty of "murder" and the Irish people would celebrate that act and make heroes out of "murderers" is as despicable as Keith's - The Rebels were freedom fighters, fighting for independence from the British Empire, "on whose hands the blood never dried" according to a saying of the time.
If any "murder" was done, it was the cold-blooded and totally unnecessary execution of the leaders, which backfired magnificently.
So what did they do - they gave Ireland an example of what Imperialism represented by strapping a critically wounded man into a chair so they could execute him - that remains as the strongest image of The Easter Rising up to the present day.
Far from the reason being your equally despicable accusation that the rebels were allies of the Germans (a wonderful blast from the past, that one - nobody believes that now), it was aimed at setting an example, with the possible exception of Connolly, who had to be removed as his Socialist ideals were a threat to the system and in behaving in such an evil manner they gave Ireland an example of what Imperialism represented by strapping a critically wounded man into a chair so they could shoot him - that remains as the strongest image of The Easter Rising up to the present day.
British behaviour before, during and after the Rising is adequate evidence of how far Britain could be trusted.
Black and Tans were first recruited in 1919 - they were sent to Ireland in March the following year but, as I said, when they were disbanded many of them remained and joined the R.I.C. - they continued their activities up to the Truce.
Nit-pick if you like, but Tans trained by Britain were in fact still operating in Ireland until the R.I.C. was disbanded in 1922.
"The border was changed so that as many people as possible would be on their preferred side, saving more bloodshed."
The Irish people on either side of the border were never consulted
Six Counties instead of nine was the result of appeasing Carson and his mutineers - you have had a description of Lloyd Georges's continuing behaviour in all this - made up maybe?
- if you have any quibble with the gerrymandering that took place, show that it didn't.
"My views are the same as those of Father Murphy"
I'm sure they are - my views are the same as those of the Irish people as a whole rather than an American Jesuit priest.
Your and Keith's "Bernard Manning" attitude to the Irish was demonstrated perfectly to your appeasement to Sir Charles Trevelyan's genocidal handling of The Famine and is being repeated here in spades - 't'ick Micks who don't understand their own history and celebrate murder' - Manning, Jim Davidson and Punch Magazine all rolled into one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 12:53 PM

Well, Joe Offer, thank goodness I wasn't part of that crowd who were calling each other "stupid." Yes there is good information in this thread, but there is also misinformation, information that can't be relied on and information predicated on political prejudices. 'Twas ever thus, of course. The Easter Rising has had a profound effect on Irish politics and the Irish people on both sides of that confounded border for a hundred years. Our opinion of the men who instigated it should not be predicated on whichever side our sympathies lie with. Too much of that happens in this thread and that is precisely how bad history is written. I don't see you attacking that. There. You have my take on it, which I've already stated several times in this thread in spite of your protestations that I haven't.

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

Jim,
It was forced through despite ongoing opposition by Tories and Unionists.

Every Act of Parliament is "forced through despite ongoing opposition" by the other parties!"

The Irish Parliamentarians accepted it only on the basis that partition would last no more than a year after the war ended.

Not true Jim. No-one knew there was going to be a war when it was drafted, and partition was not even mentioned in the bill before the rising.

The Rebels had no reason to believe it would be honoured at all,

Rubbish. They had no reason not to, and the Irish people were content.
Who gave them the right to start murdering Irish people on such a whim?

How did the Rising in any way bring about making partition permanent

It poisoned the well of negotiation. An accommodation with the Unionists might have been possible otherwise.

Again - bloody nonsense - Britain ascertained a majority Unionist vote in the north by Gerrymandering the borders.

No. The border was changed so that as many people as possible would be on their preferred side, saving more bloodshed.

Ireland and the Irish did nothing to support Germany in the war.
The rebels still called them "gallant allies."

My views are the same as those of Father Murphy, which the Irish Times was happy to publish.
If they showed "Bernard Manning-like contempt for the Irish people " that would not happen.

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

1: "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." - Source: Max Caulfield "The Easter Rising" page 18

2: "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." - Source: Foy and Barton "The Easter Rising" page 25

3: "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. 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. The German military rejected the plan, but agreed to ship arms and ammunition to the Volunteers." - Sources: Townshend, Easter 1916, p. 104; Foy and Barton, The Easter Rising, p. 105; McNally and Dennis, Easter Rising 1916: Birth of the Irish Republic, p. 30 & Foy and Barton, The Easter Rising, pp.25-28

So Jom far from it being a lie we have the entire Supreme Council of the IRB agreeing to obtaining support from Germany a country at war with Great Britain at a meeting held on the 5th September 1914.

Roger Casement travels to Germany a country at war with Great Britain at the time.

Plunkett joins Casement in Germany to attempt to arrange a German invasion.

Below you will find how less than ten men subverted the wishes, aims and views of the "organisations" they were supposed to be part of:

"In May 1915, Clarke and MacDermott established a Military Committee or Military Council within the IRB, consisting of Pearse, Plunkett and Ceannt, to draw up plans for a rising. Clarke and MacDermott joined it shortly after. The Military Council was able to promote its own policies and personnel independently of both the Volunteer Executive and the IRB Executive. Although the Volunteer and IRB leaders were not against a rising in principle, they were of the opinion that it was not opportune at that moment. Volunteer Chief-of-Staff Eoin MacNeill, supported a rising only if the British government attempted to suppress the Volunteers or introduce conscription, and if such a rising had some chance of success. IRB President Denis McCullough and prominent IRB member Bulmer Hobson held similar views. The Military Council kept its plans secret, so as to prevent the British authorities learning of the plans, and to thwart those within the organisation who might try to stop the rising. IRB members held officer rank in the Volunteers throughout the country and took their orders from the Military Council, not from MacNeill."

On the Black & Tans Jom:

"The Black and Tans served in Ireland from the end of 1919 to some time in 1921"

The first deployment of the Black & Tans to Ireland was in March 1920. Their activities ended with the Truce that came into force in June 1921. 15 months Jom NOT two years – Steve Shaw will no doubt be able to explain the importance of you getting this right to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 09:40 AM

This is what I have been looking for - factual information. Thanks to Jim and others, I now have a factual basis for consideration of this issue. I got lost in the midst of a crowd of people, each calling the other "stupid."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 08:52 AM

Keith
Would just like confirmation of your Bernard Manning-like contempt for the Irish people
I came back from Liverpool yesterday to six invitations to talks and exhibitions by researchers and commemorating the Rising as a major event in Irish history
Our television and newspapers are still carrying articles and programmes on the subject on a daily basis, and will be into the foreseeable future.
The International Ballad Conference in Limerick in July is dedicating a large part to The Rising and the same team that organised a two year long national project on Child Ballads, Aileen Lambert and Mick Fortune, backed by the National Library, have now embarked on a similar one on on this subject, several of the singers involved being regular contributors to this subject.
Jim Carroll
Do you honestly believe that such efforts would be put into celebrating "a contemptable joke" and "murder".
Don't expect a response to this - just puting your position into context.
Jim Carroll

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

It still doesn't add up to the one third that Terricola is claiming.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 07:47 AM

"I KEEP ASKING YOU FOR THEM!"
You claimed you had answered them - that was a lie.
This is the first time you have even pretended to address this one
"It was. Only the war delayed it."
It was forced through despite ongoing opposition by Tories and Unionists.
The Irish Parliamentarians accepted it only on the basis that partition would last no more than a year after the war ended.
The Rebels had no reason to believe it would be honoured at all, given the track record of British opposition to any form of Home Rule.
"Yes, as a consequence of the rising."
How did the Rising in any way bring about making partition permanent - bloody nonsense?
Lloyd George admitted it was due to pressure from the Unionists.
You are making this up - who has ever blamed the Rising for the changes - t was the Curragh Mutiny which brought those about.
"No. British government and people would love to be rid of it, "
Again - bloody nonsense - Britain ascertained a majority Unionist vote in the north by Gerrymandering the borders.
Originally, the plan was to partition the whole nine counties of Ulster, Britain dropped the three of them that would have given a Catholic majority in order to create a Protestant State.
"The rebels called them their "gallant allies!""
In providing weapons - no more - Ireland and the Irish did nothing to support Germany in the war.
It was an Imperial war and Ireland had spent centuries trying to get out of the Empire.
Where is your evidence that the Rebels did anything to suppoert Germany - propagands? - statements of support?...... nothing Keith - your claim is out-o-date jingoist propaganda.
"Occurring during Ireland's Revolutionary period, the Irish people's experience of the war was complex and its memory of it divisive. At the outbreak of the war, most Irish people, regardless of political affiliation, supported the war in much the same way as their British counterparts,[1] and both nationalist and unionist leaders initially backed the British war effort. Their followers, both Catholic and Protestant, served extensively in the British forces, many in three specially raised divisions with others in the Imperial and United States armies, John T. Prout being an example of an Irishman serving in the latter. Over 200,000 Irishmen fought in the war, in several theatres and either 30,000,[2] or, if one includes those who died serving in armies other than Britain's, 49,400 died.

In 1916, supporters of Irish independence from Great Britain took the opportunity of the ongoing war to proclaim an Irish Republic and to defend it in an armed rebellion against British rule in Dublin, a rebellion which Germany attempted to help. In addition, Britain's intention to impose conscription in Ireland in 1918 provoked widespread resistance and as a result remained unimplemented."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 07:35 AM

You were wrong about the percentage of Catholics in the 6 counties Rag.
Only 34.4%
https://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/what-happens-in-2016-when-northern-irelands-catholics-are-on-a-par-with-protestant

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 07:28 AM

And your point is? Apart from verifying my figures that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 07:20 AM

Population 26 counties 1911, 3.1 4million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_population_analysis
Population 6 couties 1911, 1.25 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland
Protestants in 26 counties 1911, 10%
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

Notice that the percentage dropped rapidly after the rising, while the Catholic population in the North rose steadily.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 07:00 AM

Jim,
You have answered none of the questions Keith

That is because you won't tell me what they are!!
I KEEP ASKING YOU FOR THEM!

you are still claiming that Independence was "inevitable"

It was. Only the war delayed it.

Britain altered the Treaty
Yes, as a consequence of the rising.

and still clings on to six counties despite the near century of inequality and bloodshed.

No. British government and people would love to be rid of it, but the people of those counties keep voting to stay, and they are entitled to self determination.

A lie - Germany supplied weapons to the Republicans because they believed it would be a hindrance to Britain's war effort - the supplying of weapons was the only contact they had with the rebels

The rebels called them their "gallant allies!"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 06:23 AM

As I suspected you have made figures up, are not prepared to substantiate them but expect the rest of us to believe them.

What you were trying to implicate is that one third of the total population was in favour of remaining with the union. In actually FACT you cannot justify such a claim.

If you wish to suggest that the protestant Irish wanted to remain within the union they, the protestants, in FACT made up less than 18% of the total population.

Yet more lies from your camp. No surprise there.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 06:18 AM

"German Government since the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914. "
A lie - Germany supplied weapons to the Republicans because they believed it would be a hindrance to Britain's war effort - the supplying of weapons was the only contact they had with the rebels and it had nothing whatever to do with the executions and was never claimed to be the reason - you have made that up - as you do.
Britain executed the rebel leaders as an example of what would happen if the Irish stepped out of line again, nothing more.   
As you don't link your claims, you have no evidence for your inventions.
Had wartime treason been the reason, everybody who participated in the rebellion would have been executed.
Incidentally, The Black and Tans served in Ireland from the end of 1919 to some time in 1921 (exact date hard to establish but many of the Tans joined the RIC and remained there up to 1922 - they were responsible for many of the atrocities committed by that took place during the War of Independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 05:58 AM

Apart from being permanently puzzled Raggy you also seem to be good at asking questions and very poor at answering them. To quote your pal - I am not going to do your homework for you look the figures up yourself - guess what Raggy - you might actually learn something - but as I said previously you won't find them in fairy tales and works of fiction.

One observation though Raggy, where on earth did you get the idea that the entire population of Ireland wanted independence, was there no dissent or opposition in your fairy tale world? I can think of numerous groups throughout the length and breadth of Ireland whose continued well being rested with continued close ties to Great Britain.

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

I am curious as to were you gain your information from. If it is from a reliable source, which is what you demand from other people, then fine tell us what the source is. If you read it on the back of your cornflakes packet it is not.

So some simple questions for you to answer.

1. Where do your figures come from.
2. Where do the almost 1 million come from.
3. What does that almost 1 million make as a percentage of the total   population of Ireland as it was in 1916.

The problem I have terribrandy is that I think your figures are a figment of your imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:53 AM

Raggy you seem to spend your entire life wandering around being puzzled, perhaps you should educate yourself by reading works that aren't works of fiction.

1 million I thought I said almost a million, but no matter, Steve Shaw in his pedantry will not take you to task about that as he would Keith or myself. None-the-less opposition to Home Rule and an independent Ireland was massive in the North, after all Raggy it was as a reaction to that opposition that the Irish Volunteers were formed.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:39 AM

" it is appalling to me that the British chose to execute the leaders of the Easter Rising"

Ill advised certainly, but the penalty for treason in time of war is death. The leaders of the Easter Rising had been in contact with the German Government since the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914. Immediately before the Easter Rising a ship carrying German arms was intercepted off the coast of Ireland and Sir Roger Casement was arrested after having landed on Banna Strand from a German Submarine.

In the aftermath of the Easter Rising some 3,500 were arrested and held, Courts Martial passed 90 death sentences, commuting all but 15 of them to five years imprisonment, those sentences ended up as being 1 year.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:38 AM

"Well noted Joe, the reason that the partition of Ireland came about was because out of a population of just over 3 million, almost 1 million wanted no part of an independent Ireland, by and large that remains the case to this day"

I'm a tad puzzled Terriblossom. The population of the 26 counties was about 3.1 million in 1911. Do the 1 million who wanted no part of an independent Ireland come from that number or are you mistaking that 1 million for the population of the 6 counties that comprise modern day Northern Ireland which was about 1.25 million of whom about 40% or half a million were Catholic.

If the 1 million came from the population of the 26 counties can be provide a link to your source.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:25 AM

My, muy my, this pair of clowns still in denial and still abusing the Irish people and their history - and still telling porkies.
You have answered none of the questions Keith and your have you are still claiming that Independence was "inevitable" despite the fact that Britain altered the Treaty (which was rejected in it's distorted form bt the Irish Parliamentarians in its distorted form) and still clings on to six counties despite the near century of inequality and bloodshed.
In claiming that you have answered the points I made you are lying, pure and simple - where have you ever dealt with the discrepency between permanent and the original proposal of full unity a year after WW1 ended - you haven't.
Question in full.
"The British parliament passed the act before the rising,"
And altered it in July 1916 to make the partition of the six counties permanent - it was originally intended that these counties (originally the whole of Ulster, but altered when it was realised that this would give the Catholics a majority in the North) would be partitioned until a year after the war ended.
Even the Parliamentary Irish rejected the re-written treaty - Redmond described it as "a betrayal"
The Republicans who took part in the Rising did so because they realised that Britain had no intention of ratifying any treaty that did not meet its own interests.
You have been given all this before, what part of this do you have problems with; if none, why are you raising it again and again and again.....?
Britain was finally forced to concede a form of Independence, at the threat of an alternative of "a signature or war", which lead to immediate Civil War in the 26 Counties, built in financial, political and land-owning injustice, inequality and hardship for the Catholic third of the six counties, and a near-century of unrest and bloodshed.
What problems do you have with any of this?"
Your claim to have answered it is simply not true - ignoring of facts and repetition is not an answer.
The destruction
I've come back to half-a-dozen invitations from history groups to attend talks by Irish researchers on The Rising - more to come.
Your description of the ignorance of the Irish people to their history is racist, pure and simple.
Your refusal to respond to the enormity of your attitude to them is a shining example of your dishonesty.
Was amused to be told that Terrytoon knows more about the destruction of Dublin than those on the ground attending to the damage at the time - nice to know we have such geniuses in our midst.
Sheesh - what a pair!!
I've just returned from a visit to Liverpool, during which the establishment and the forces of law and order were dealt a sharp lesson in what happens when the establishment tries to alter facts and re-write history - when will you people ever learn?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:25 AM

There's an old saying Joe One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

From 1169AD various incarnations of English and then British forces had kept the indigenous population in appalling conditions. Over 700 years. What do you really expect the people to do.

I do note that the people who supposably cheered the British troops were not too slow in taking advantage of the situation to loot and pillage. They did so because many of them were destitute. A situation caused by the very same government who troops they were cheering?

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

Twaddle Raggy complete and utter twaddle - as usual

Prior to Henry II's incursion there was no "Irish Nation" as you fondly seem to think.

For vast tracts of the 700 years you mention the island was a united nation and existed in a state of peace and prosperity.

Various discontented elements in Ireland who sought advancement were cynically used by various foreign powers down through the course of those years to foment trouble in Ireland.

Meddling by the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland robbed people of opportunity.

"Sir Michael Hicks Beach, one of the pillars of the UK establishment, the sort of people who forced Ireland into poverty.
imo, the Irish had no choice"

Good heavens GSS how on earth did "he/they" manage to do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:13 AM

Hi, Raggytash - I think it's clear to most of us that most of the people in Ireland felt they were in an "oppressed and subjugated nation." But what I'm reading tells me that many people in Ireland thought that the rebels went too far in their violence. If a nation is oppressed, does that mean that there are no limits on the measures people can take to oppose that oppression - even when the oppressor has begun to withdraw?

That being said, it is appalling to me that the British chose to execute the leaders of the Easter Rising. I can't figure out why they did that. In carrying out those executions, they lost any claim to the moral high ground - and they made martyrs out of those who were executed.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:10 AM

Strange that Teribombast, when either yourself or the professor glean something from the Internet everyone is supposed to accept it as fact. When I glean something from the Internet it is suddenly a fairytale.

As I have said many times before the armed forces aren't going to make public things that show them in a bad light. You must know that if you actually served in the Navy.

I know you won't acknowledge that to be the truth but we both know it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:00 AM

Allow me to paraphrase:

Surely you will condemn a government of a foreign state, against the will of the people in a oppressed and subjugated nation, for starting an insurrection by murdering an tens of thousands of unarmed civilians over seven centuries, denying them education, decent housing, land, the vote, which culminating in the war of independence which led to the death of hundreds, mostly civilians, and leading to a bloody civil war and thousands more deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 03:56 AM

"One British gun fired on another British gun, the second British gun having been "borrowed" from the ship of the first.

Rags apart from a single unsubstantiated story recounting this supposed incident there is no evidence of what you state above ever having happened. If you actually think that it did then get digging and prove it.

"As for the Helga returning fire even your mate accepts that DID happen. That is logged. That is FACT."

Ehmmm hate to draw your attention to this Raggy but no that is not fact, but as you like FACTS try this one:

Your link states that this supposed incident occurred on the 27th of April 1916. The Helga only fired on Boland's Mill on one occasion during that Easter, on the 25th April around 20:15. That is actually logged - it was one of the chronological steps researchers for RTE noted. On the following day 26th April they also noted that Helga fired at Liberty Hall between 08:30 and 12:00 and destroyed it.

Your story is only that - a fairy tale, but as you introduced it into the debate, and Keith and myself who have challenged it giving the reasons for our scepticism, it is up to you to prove it.

"Now, it's also true that the execution of the Easter Rising participants was a totally unnecessary act on the part of the British. It appears to me that it was those executions that turned the tide of public opinion to favor Home Rule. It may have hastened the process of Home Rule, but I wonder if it also inspired the partition of Ireland."

Well noted Joe, the reason that the partition of Ireland came about was because out of a population of just over 3 million, almost 1 million wanted no part of an independent Ireland, by and large that remains the case to this day.

In 1921 de Valera was one of those who sent Michael Collins to negotiate an agreement that de Valera knew he was never going to accept - Collins was on a hiding to nothing - but in the ensuing Civil War that followed the Pro-Treaty Free Staters won. The constitutional territorial claim to the north by the Republic of Ireland was what was subsequently used by the "men of the gun" to cause murder and mayhem down through the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 03:46 AM

Dick,
the rebels had no choice but to use violence.

The choice was a peaceful transition as guaranteed by the 1914 Act.
That was the wish of the people.

Dave,
slaughter of innocent people then I believe it is always wrong.

Good for you Dave, but so does everyone else.
Surely you will condemn a gang of people armed by a foreign enemy, against the will of the people in a democratic state, starting an insurrection by murdering an unarmed policeman and culminating in the death of hundreds, mostly civilians, and leading to a bloody civil war and thousands more deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 06:17 PM

Hi, Dick -Although I'm a pacifist and would prefer alternatives, I have no logical question about the need for the Irish rebels to use violence - earlier in their struggle. But what good did it do them to use violence and get themselves executed in April 1916, 2 years after the Home Rule bill was passed by Parliament? That's a question that hasn't been answered to my satisfaction. Maybe there was good reason - but I don't understand it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 05:32 PM

Joe, I am English, but i think the rebels had no choice but to use violence.
Joe, my great grandfather was chancellor of the exchequer in Disraeli's government, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, one of the pillars of the UK establishment, the sort of people who forced Ireland into poverty.
imo, the Irish had no choice

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 05:10 PM

Greg, there's no question about the righteousness of the cause - Great Britain occupied Ireland for 400 years. But I think that very same righteousness blinded the rebels, and drove them to fight in this uprising when there was no longer need for violence - Great Britain had agreed to Home Rule two years earlier.

Now, it's also true that the execution of the Easter Rising participants was a totally unnecessary act on the part of the British. It appears to me that it was those executions that turned the tide of public opinion to favor Home Rule. It may have hastened the process of Home Rule, but I wonder if it also inspired the partition of Ireland.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 04:15 PM

the Easter Rising. The "rebels" were so sure of the rightness of their cause, that they saw no purpose in continuing a respectful conversation with the British.

Joe, you're just displaying woeful ignorance of the entire situation that existed between England & Ireland ranging over 400 years.

I'm surprised at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 03:03 PM

Question: You state categorically that the Helga did not report incoming fire.

Where do you get that information from. IF you have information that STATES that please share it with us, because I for one don't believe you have THAT specific information YOU are making that up.

As for the Helga returning fire even your mate accepts that DID happen. That is logged. That is FACT.

Now, Who is lying Terribus or YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 02:57 PM

Keithy baby ............ where did the 1lb gun come from ??

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 02:34 PM

Steve, I have found your contribution the the discussion of the Rising.

"The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. "

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 02:24 PM


One British gun fired on another British gun, the second British gun having been "borrowed" from the ship of the first.

No it did not.
The one pounder was at street level with several big building between it and Helga.
Helga could not see it and could not fire on it because of all the buildings in the way.

Similarly, the one pounder shells fired at a high angle at the flag pole, would land about 2 miles beyond the Liffey.
Helga dd not report coming under fire or returning fire.
It never happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 02:04 PM

Straw ............ clutch ........... straw ........ Once again Cherriblossom you are trying to divert the conversation away the main thrust.

Stick to the point.

One British gun fired on another British gun, the second British gun having been "borrowed" from the ship of the first.

Brill !!!

PS Before you deny this, you have gone along with this scenario for some little time before you worked out it didn't match up to your preconceived ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 01:42 PM

Ah Thompson does that mean that V-J Day is also wrong by years to take into account the surrender of the last of the "hold-outs". The Rising as such was over once Pearse and Connolly formally surrendered unconditionally to Brigadier-General Lowe on the 29th April 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 01:32 PM

Keith says:

Have you expressed any views on the rising at all?
Do you have any?
You, Steve and Greg only come to the thread to stir up off-topic arguments.
Why do you do that? It is trolling.
Please stop.

He's right. Such posts and the name-calling serve only to carry on the nastiness that has driven so many people away from our BS section, and that made it impossible to leave this thread in the music section. These posts add nothing at all but animosity to the discussion. They convey no information.

I suppose, though, that such animosity may well be a good demonstration of the spirit of the Easter Rising. The "rebels" were so sure of the rightness of their cause, that they saw no purpose in continuing a respectful conversation with the British. The British, at this point, were more than willing to accommodate the wishes of those who demanded independence for Ireland, but the "rebels" believed that only bloodshed would prove the righteousness of their cause.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 01:32 PM

See, Steve, I got him to admit a mistake. You owe me £5 ;-) Your turn now:-D

Where do you get your views on historical events Dave?
Are they just whims?

No, they are not. If by historic events you mean pointless slaughter of innocent people then I believe it is always wrong. People can argue over who started it and whether it was justified until they are blue in the face and it will not bring anyone back. My view is that unless people learn from past mistakes they will continue making them and that blame allocation will not help with that.

I also believe, as a fellow expert on historic events of yours, Hilo, said that "Not everyone is hoodwinked by glossy books in a shop."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 12:58 PM

It was actually 24 April to 30 April when Thomas MacDonagh stood down his garrison and the other garrisons under him.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 12:47 PM

Another fact relating to the Joemulvey link you supplied Raggy - your link states that this supposed "artillery duel" took place on Thursday 27th April 1916, and was initiated because Helga fired on Bolands Mill whereupon De Valera raised a Green Flag on an adjacent Tower to misdirect fire from the Helga. Unfortunately Raggy the only time the Helga fired on Bolands Mill was at 20:15 on the evening of the 25th April, now does that register? She did not fire at all on the 27th and after hitting Bolands Mill on the 25th she did not fire on Bolands Mill again. The Sherwood Foresters with the 1 pound hand served and aimed gun from the Helga in 12 shots managed to hit the flagpole at a range of 400 metres - now what diameter was that flag pole Raggy? Bloody small target at 400 metres eh? Especially for a gun on a temporary lash-up of a mounting that is being aimed and fired by someone holding it.

The story told in the link you provided is utter codswallop.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 11:17 AM

"Your "facts" don't add up do they."

Not to you they don't Raggy, but they would to others who bothered to read about the Easter Rising. Tell me again Raggy the Volunteers under Connolly and Pearse, they did assemble in the centre of Dublin and they did occupy buildings didn't they? They read their proclamation and then sat back and waited. I take it that the groups of men assigned to various positions were ordered to remain at their posts just in case those nasty Brits came along. And that gets us onto the other participants those Nasty Brits who having had to be rushed into Dublin would be on the move and would be free to move about as required in order to attack the more or less static volunteers occupying buildings. So with regard to your last post I have not got the foggiest clue about the point you are trying to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 11:04 AM

It's important that readers of this thread know that you are not reliable. And no, I'm not doing your homework for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 10:30 AM

Thanks Dave.
I should have said my fourth post, first day. Sorry.

"Home rule had already been agreed.
It was not brought forward by one day.
The killing was all for nothing. There could have been a peaceful transition and no civil war.
The fools, the fools."

I have never denied that my views on history are informed by reading history.
That is what normal, intelligent people do.
(But not you apparently!)

They are still my views.
Where do you get your views on historical events Dave?
Are they just whims?

Steve, I can not remember you expressing a view on the rising.
Will you remind us?
Was it just one post out of all your others not about the rising at all, but just stirring up off-topic arguments with anyone who disagrees with your fellow lefties.

That still makes you a troll, and you are still trying to restart an off-topic argument.
Please stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 08:38 AM

Ah you mean people wouldn't be allowed to wander round, that's possibly why YOU mentioned:

"As to a consensus Rags who was it the citizens of Dublin were cheering as they hauled that gun through the streets? When food supplies started to run low throughout the city who was it that opened the warehouses and distributed food to where it was needed? Give you a hint it certainly was not Pearse, Connolly & Co."

Or perhaps it was why you mentioned:

"Dubliners cheered the British troops dragging the 1 pounder gun landed from the Helga into position to fire on the rebels"

The SAME gun that later fired in the direction of "rebel" fire.

Your "facts" don't add up do they.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 08:21 AM

Even harder Raggy when your heroes are shown to be liars and tellers of tall and improbable tales upon which their "fame" is based. As to ineptitude Liberty Hall abandoned within four hours, De Valera hunkered down and forced to play no real part in the events of the week while he put the lives of innocent civilians at risk in order to save his little band, the "Rising" brought to nought in under a week with less than 500 people killed. I think that showed remarkable restraint considering that this battle that basically raw recruits straight out of training took part in was fought in the centre of a city with a population of about 310,000. But never mind Raggy never let facts get in the way of your fairy tales, but everytime those fairy tales and myths that you love so dearly are trotted out I will be there to knock them flat, couldn't care less about making any attempt to convince you or your pals of anything as you are blessed with a monstrously closed mind, but others reading it will be a damned sight better informed.

Oh by the way I do not think you would be allowed just to wander where you please in the middle of a battle so my question still stands how could your volunteer witness what he said he witnessed and how could he observe fall of shot from two different guns firing in opposite directions. Bolands Mill is set back from the Liffey isn't it Raggy? De Valera put a flag up on a near by tower to mislead and misdirect fire from the Helga away from his men and his position which would mean that from the Liffy Helga's gun would firing in what direction? For the fall of shot from Helga to be mistaken for rebel fire where would the Sherwood Foresters have to have been. You see Raggy old son you simply cannot be in two places at the same time and there simply was no vantage point in the area from which you could witness the guns or fall of shot as described in the link you provided.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 06:29 AM

I expressed my views in my first post, but Jim rubbished them so I backed them with the findings of historians.

Here are your first two posts on the thread, Keith.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:13 AM

This BBC TV programme also questions the idea that Home Rule was advanced at all by those acts of violence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b075f1f2

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:15 AM

"In 1916, at the height of WW1, armed insurgents rose up against the British in Dublin, the empire's second city. Using secret documents, cabinet papers, intelligence reports, military orders, diaries and letters, Michael Portillo pieces together the story of this uprising from the British point of view.

Was Dublin just another battle at a time of war where military justice was immediate and brutal or, by their actions, did the British men who wrote these documents hasten the end of an empire? Did an unlikely band of Irish rebels, led by playwrights and poets, do more to advance the cause of Irish freedom in five days than nationalist politicians had done in the previous 50 years, or did they damage the cause and condemn the island to a history of violence? Michael looks for the answers. This is the story of Ireland's Easter Rising as told by British politicians, soldiers, spies and bureaucrats."

So, a link to a program by Michael Portillo and a write up of that program with nary an opinion between them! Not indulging in those little pastry products stuffed with pig meat again are we Keith? Or is it, as I suspect, a new meaning of either views or first post that no one but you has considered yet? As to

Have you expressed any views on the rising at all?

No, have you? and

Do you have any?

Yes, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 05:01 AM

I know it's hard when your heroes are shown to be men of straw. This is just another example of the ineptitude (at times) of the British Military machine. You will just have to learn, like the rest of us, to live with it.





Doesn't stop a few of us from having a giggle though.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 04:51 AM

Nothing from you either, Keith. You just quote other peoples work

Not true at all Dave.
I expressed my views in my first post, but Jim rubbished them so I backed them with the findings of historians.

Have you expressed any views on the rising at all?
Do you have any?
You, Steve and Greg only come to the thread to stir up off-topic arguments.
Why do you do that? It is trolling.
Please stop.