BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 04:39 AM

"The link I posted has fires being started in Sackville Street around 20:30hrs on the 24th April and at that time no artillery had been brought up"
Every single example of "no artillery" was directly taken from the link you posted - nowhere else.
I didn't "forget to mentioning" that conscription was never enacted - it's common knowledge and has been mentioned several times
It was a permanent threat, as the posting shows and was suggested right up to 1918; it was even considered by Lloyd George as a solution to 'The Irish Problem", pretty much as the Famine was by Trevelyan, this time by forcibly conscripting the imprisoned rebels to fight in Europe.
Think these two problems are put to bed safely, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 03:42 AM

One obvious question though. Had those seven men not gone ahead with their "Sacrifice in Blood" Rising, would there have been any looting, would unarmed policemen have been gunned down, would any building have been set on fire or shelled? The answer of course would be NO. The responsibility for what happened in Dublin and to Dublin during the Easter Rising lies with those who planned and initiated the Rising.

Seen from the perspective of the pro-unionist North the events of Easter week would be viewed as a traitorous attack by a minority republican nationalist group, who it would appear would stop at nothing to gain independence. So what prospect would there be of expecting any compromise to find a middle-road from this element? Little wonder that their attitude to partition hardened after the rising. The actions and behaviour of the Irish Parliament set up after the 1918 general elections would also have a negative effect in the North, but what really put the cap on it and killed any chance of a union between North and South was what happened when leading Irish political leaders failed to honour and respect their own democratic process during the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 which resulted in a civil war breaking out in the South between two nationalist groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 03:14 AM

Jim Carroll - 18 May 16 - 07:53 PM
No time lines - That is the trouble with people who post great swathes of text that they have scanned and forget to clearly indicate the date the events described took place. For example the post detailed clearly relates to a time AFTER the rising had been put down, as Lloyd George is clearly the man driving things and America has obviously joined the war. The poster also omits to inform everyone that no Irishman was ever conscripted. But thanks for the "cut-n-paste"

He then stated the considerations which had weighed with him.

1: "Even if Home Rule were carried tomorrow, the army and navy would be under the control of the Imperial Parliament.

The claim has never been put forward by any Irish party that the army and navy and the defence of the Realm are local matters.

2: In the second place, I do not believe it possible in this country to tear industry about, to break up single businesses, to take fathers of forty-five and upwards from their homes to fight the battles of a Catholic nationality on the Continent without deep resentment at the spectacle of sturdy young Catholics in Ireland spending their time in increasing the difficulties of this country by drilling and by compelling us to keep troops in Ireland. I do not know any grounds of justice or equity on which conscription could not be applied to Ireland. "

The Government had shown indulgence to Ireland, "wise and reasonable indulgence", he thought, in the hope that she would become "reconciled to her Imperial association".

3: But they could not "go to the House of Commons and ask our people to make sacrifices, sacrifices which the Irish in America are making, and leave the Irish at home out. I think we ought to accord to Ireland the same rights as Irishmen are enjoying in America. "

Personally I think that Lloyd George makes three very valid points there, none of them are important however as conscription was never applied in Ireland. But I wonder what John Redmond's take would have been had subsequent to being given Home Rule an enemy invaded Ireland would he have been content to see the armed forces of Great Britain stand aside and watch from the side-lines? Somehow don't think so.

Jim Carroll - 18 May 16 - 08:26 PM

Again a list of events with no time line. The link I posted has fires being started in Sackville Street around 20:30hrs on the 24th April and at that time no artillery had been brought up. The Army's reserve artillery battery arrived some time in the morning of the 25th April and opened fire that afternoon at 15:00 at targets (barricades) in direct line of sight in the Philsborough area of the city. Naval gunfire from the armed yacht Helga commenced at 20:15 that evening when two rounds were fired into the upper part of Boland's Mill.

It is however clear from the post that the rebels had clearly fortified positions on Sackville Street and were fighting from them - which rather makes them legitimate targets doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 08:26 PM

"No artillery at all in Dublin at that time and it was the looters who set fire to the buildings."
Too good to pass up again!

Evidence of "no artillery!!!!"
The Irish Times article actually says:
"The naval bombardment of Liberty Hall has effectively destroyed the building. The HMY Helga has now turned its guns on targets on Sackville Street."
" Artillery attacks on rebel positions on Sackville Street continue, as do the exchanges of sniper fire around St Stephen's Green and at Marrowbone Lane."
And
"The British begin throwing hand grenades into Clanwilliam House. Fires start burning in the building. "
And
"British begin to shell Sackville Street area. An 18-pound shell hits the Irish Times building and ignites rolls of newsprint."
And
British infantry attack on Sackville Street has stalled. Fires in the area are intensifying and spreading from building to building on Lower Abbey Street.
And
"The fires in and around Sackville Street have taken hold, and are burning freely, and the shelling of the area continues unabated."
And
"The combination of the fires and the heavy shelling means that rebel held buildings such as the Imperial Hotel and Clery's will have to be abandoned."
And
"The inferno on Sackville Street, coupled with the British advances during the day, means that some of the smaller outposts held by the rebels are being evacuated and they are moving back to the GPO."
And
"Fire out of control in Sackville Street and the Dublin Fire Brigade is stood down due to danger of small arms fire in the area."
And
"Shelling resumes targeting the GPO."
And
"The fires on Sackville Street have taken hold in most buildings along the street."
And
"The artillery attack on the Sackville Street area, particularly the GPO, shows no sign of slowing down. Much of the area is destroyed and the fires still burn intensely."
And
"The walls of the GPO, damaged by flames and artillery fire, have begun to collapse.
Just thought I'd mention it - it must have been "the looters" who had all the artillery
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 07:53 PM

Compulsory conscription sorted.
Jim Carroll

From Ireland's Civil War, pp 68 and 69, Carleton Younger (1968)   
The alternative was adopted but Lloyd George was adamant that a Home Rule Bill must be introduced also, otherwise "it would be stated, and rightly so, that the pledges given on this subject had not been redeemed". Government supporters, the whole of the Labour Party, the American people and he. himself, would not accept one measure without the other.
Brushing aside Bonar Law's objection that if there were not substantial agreement in the Convention, the pledge that Ulster would not be coerced might be difficult to sustain, the Prime Minister stated his intention to carry through a bill based on the Convention's recommendations if possible, and, if not, then based on the original letter to Sir Horace Plunkett.
Only in the event of Irish Members of all sections opposing the Home Rule Bill in the House of Commons would Lloyd George concede conscription without Home Rule. Barnes went further and declined to be party to the application of conscription in Ireland unless Home Rule went through. 8
On April 6th, the Prime Minister sombrely reported to the Cabinet that great numbers of men had been lost in France and that hundreds of thousands more would be needed. He had now received the Report of the Convention, but his determination of the day before not to introduce one measure without the other had wilted. The calamitous situation in France had impelled him to come to a decision that legislation should be passed providing for conscription in Ireland. There would be trouble, perhaps bloodshed, he acknowledged, but this he now believed had to be accepted.
He then stated the considerations which had weighed with him.
"Even if Home Rule were carried tomorrow, the army and navy would be under the control of the Imperial Parliament.
The claim has never been put forward by any Irish party that the army and navy and the defence of the Realm are local matters. In the second place, I do not believe it possible in this country to tear industry about, to break up single businesses, to take fathers of forty-five and upwards from their homes to fight the battles of a Catholic nationality on the Continent without deep resentment at the spectacle of sturdy young Catholics in Ireland spending their time in increasing the difficulties of this country by drilling and by compelling us to keep troops in Ireland. I do not know any grounds of justice or equity on which conscription could not be applied to Ireland. "
The Government had shown indulgence to Ireland, "wise and reasonable indulgence", he thought, in the hope that she would become "reconciled to her Imperial association". But they could not "go to the House of Commons and ask our people to make sacrifices, sacrifices which the Irish in America are making, and leave the Irish at home out. I think we ought to accord to Ireland the same rights as Irishmen are enjoying in America. "

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 16 - 03:40 PM

Keith,

In 1914, the government, Unionists and Nationalists agreed and passed the Home Rule Bill with a large majority, with no suggestion of permanent partition.

Had there been no Easter Rising and had the Nationalists kept faith with John Redmond Ireland would have got Home Rule in 1919, probably with the previously agreed temporary arrangement. Both parties then would have six years to arrive at some sort of working compromise or some alternative solution and Ireland would have gained its independence in 1931 under the Statute of Westminster and not one drop of blood would have been shed.

RTE - Chronology of the Easter Rising

Fires in Sackville Street:
Monday 24th April, 1916
15:30 Looting starts
20:30 Looting continues in Sackville Street, and fires also begin breaking out in premises on the street.

No artillery at all in Dublin at that time and it was the looters who set fire to the buildings.

Tuesday 25th April, 1916
Reserve Artillery arrive during the morning from Athlone
15:00 British 18-pounder artillery based at Grangegorman Asylum opens fire on rebel positions in the Phibsboro area.
20:15 British gun yacht, the HMY Helga has entered the Liffey and fired at Boland's Mills damaging the upper storeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 02:51 PM

The Shelling of Dublin City Centre
Eye witness account from 'The Scrap' Gene Kerrigan.

The shelling of Dublin city centre continued through Thursday. Unable to do their job, the Dublin Fire Brigade watched helplessly as the flames spread. Around 7.30pm, the outsize DBC building collapsed into Sackville Street - a terrible noise, a vast mass of falling bricks and debris, the impact shaking the whole street. Colossal clouds of dust and smoke rose into the sky. Watching from the Imperial Hotel.
Having consumed the Hibernian Bank, flames continued moving north along the block. Hoyte's, a chemist's premises equipped with barrels of turpentine and methylated spirits, caught fire and the whole building went up. Barrels of chemicals exploded, some of them landing on the roof of the Imperial Hotel.
The immense conflagration at Hoyte's took the fire to the end of that block, with just the narrow lane of Sackville Place separating it from the block dominated by Clerys department store and the Imperial Hotel.
The flames crept along the barricade at the top of Sackville Place - the barricade through which Frank Henderson and his F Company comrades had passed when they arrived in the city centre on Tuesday evening. The fire soon reached the building on the other side of the lane and began to crawl up the window frame. Clerys and the Imperial Hotel would be next.
The British artillery was taking its time about finding the range of the GPO, and its efforts were spraying shells far and wide. Guns in the garden of the Rotunda Hospital were lobbing shells over buildings to drop into the Sackville Street area. Some hit the roof of the Imperial. A water tank attached to a side wall, under the roof, took a direct hit and shattered. The water fell straight down into an annex where a number of Volunteers were resting – it hit them like a wave and washed them along the floor.
Besides drenching the Volunteers, the direct hit on the water tank had deprived the Imperial garrison of water to fight fires.
A shell hit the roof of the Metropole Hotel.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 16 - 02:17 PM

Jim,
The Tories in opposition and the House of Lords fought tooth and nail to defeat any attempts to Unite Ireland.

That is the job of the opposition and is what always happens.
That is how parliament works.

In 1914, the government, Unionists and Nationalists agreed and passed the Home Rule Bill with a large majority, with no suggestion of permanent partition.

Instead we had the rising and years of war and death.
What do you find to celebrate in that?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 08:28 AM

"So Jom"
Your behavior on this thread is very reminiscent of that of the thuggish Unionists 'Billy-Boys' I used to argue with in my youth in Liverpool, bullying and bascally all empty bluster.
Until you clean up your act, I would highly recommend to all that they steer a wide course from you and anybody who chooses to behave like you.
Never mind, you'll find someone to talk to on The Glorious Twelfth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 16 - 06:56 AM

So Jom if you haven't lied then you can give everybody on this forum the reference of the post where either Keith A of Hertford or myself said

That Ireland is not entitled to independence.

Simple enough task surely - I mean apart from the fact that no such post exists - But that you know perfectly well - But you still felt free to make accusations that you knew to be 100% false - speaks volumes about you and the lengths your Anglophobia drives you to.

As to where the Normans come into it Jom? It was under THEIR rule that the concept of the Irish being a nation was created. You should have read the link.

Another thing that speaks volumes, on one hand you condemn me for referring back to the Normans (Even although that was in response to a specific question raised by Joe Offer) then you refer to the Protestants in Ireland as 'Blow-In Newcomers' because they arrived in the early 1600s. Any idea why they were "Planted"? Any idea who "Planted" them ?

Ever heard of Chief Hugh O'Neill that great "Irish" patriot, who worked tirelessly to make Ireland a colony of Spain's in the hope that he would be Spain's Viceroy. Caused no end of problems towards the end of Queen Elizabeth the First's reign and in the early part of the reign of King James VI of Scotland & I of England. O'Neill's lands were in the North and when he fled to Spain after his defeat at Kinsale James the First of England found what he thought was a perfect solution to two problems. He transplanted the troublesome and infamous "Riding" Families who lived either side of the Anglo-Scottish border who basically had been living in a perpetual state of war for 350 years, and he granted them land in Northern Ireland to fill the vacuum left by O'Neill. If the Irish wanted to fight then they might as well fight people who would be more than prepared to fight back, and King James knew that if he could rely on the borderers to do anything it would be to fight for the land that had been given them. The other thing he could now rely on was that even if the Catholics of Ireland were still prepared to be played with as dupes and pawns of the Spanish and the French, he would always have a safe base and territory that he could rely on in the North, from which he could defeat any rebellion. Now having been there for the best part of 500 years they are as "Irish" as anyone else living there. They have and have always had as much right to self-determination as anyone else and to have that right respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 06:33 AM

Too good to pass up.
The claim of 'blood signing was not an "urban myth" – if it was a false claim, as is 90% probable, it was one started by Unionists, circulated by Unionists and still maintained by some Unionists – a sign of their fanaticism, which was the point I was making in drawing attention to it.
Jim Carroll

"and the other incident was that, among some twenty men who signed the Covenant in Belfast with their own blood, Major Crawford was able to claim that he was following a family tradition, inasmuch as a lineal ancestor had in the same grim fashion emphasised his adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in 1638."
The Claim

The Covenant had two basic parts: The Covenant itself, which was signed by men, and the Declaration, which was signed by women. In total, the Covenant was signed by 237,368 men; the Declaration, by 234,046 women. The most passionate signatories signed in their own blood.
And again

A forensic test determined to recognise the iron content of blood has now returned a 90% confidence that the signature was not in fact made in blood - though some Unionists are still holding onto the 10% uncertainty factor!
hThe ongoing claim by Unionists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 05:14 AM

I must say, I have tried, but this ahs become like trying to have a serious conversation with a truculent drunk with learning difficulties and someone who constantly accuses you of telling lies - also with learning difficulties.
Between them, they have driven this subject into the ground, as far as I'm concerned - it is neither educational, inspiring or in any way enjoyable.
Pity - it's a subject which interests me and, I suspect, many others and it is far too important to some of us to have to put up with this behaviour.
Perhaps, having learned our lesson, someone might consider opening another - this one has been kicked to death by thugs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 04:01 AM

You are still insisting on your arrogant rudeness which underlines why you neither have a case nor are worth discussing with or even listening to - take a pill.
Your 'Norman' argument is utter nonsense - if it was the Unionists would have no case whatever in Ireland.
The religio/political divides in Ulster are the result of settlers being deliberately planted there in the 1600s (how long is that after "The Normans?"and today's situation in The Six Counties is a result of the British Government enforcing a division in the 1920s - the Protestants are 'Blow-in newcomers' in both cases and, by your reckoning, can have no claim to a recognised presence in Ireland - certainly no claim to a Protestant State.
For ***** sake, stop talking down to people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 07:19 PM

Pre-Norman Ireland

"Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous."
or this
"prior to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland there was no united Irish Nation any notion that there was is a myth."
You are now falling into Keith's habit of lying about what you have put up.

Lies? no I will leave that to you - you are after all very good at it - read the link supplied to find out more - somehow don't think that you will - but rest assured others might.

OK then Jom tell us all what Lt-General Haig had to do with the Curragh Incident. As far as is recorded it was this:

Haig stressed {To Gough's brother} that the army's duty was to keep the peace and urged his officers not to dabble in politics. - WOW.

By the way what post did Haig resign from? Or is this just another example of those totally incorrect claims about Kitchener resignations that you are now infamous for?

"Proved by forensic science to be false - nothing more than an urban myth."
By whom and where is this proof available.

Date 27th September 2012 BBC:

Scientific test carried out on the signature by Dr Alastair Ruffell, of Queen's University Belfast, has found no evidence to support the claim.

Dr Ruffell's test used Luminol, which reacts with the iron present in haemoglobin and produces a blue-white glow.

He told the BBC the results carried the possibility of a margin of error because "this material has been uncontrolled for 100 years."

But according to Dr Ruffell, the test is capable of detecting tiny traces even in old samples.

"Some years ago we did a test in the Colorado desert where they put some blood on some rocks and we went back ten years later and we were able to find the blood using the Luminol test", he said.

"The iron in the blood degrades very slowly."

Now tell us Jom what tests did you do that counters the work done by Dr Alastair Ruffell of Queen's University Belfast? My guess is that you didn't do any.

"You know as well as I do how the British Parliamentary system works"

Judging by the crap that you have come out with I know, and have clearly demonstrated that I know, a damned sight better than you how the British Parliamentary system works. What is it that demonstrates this?

1: Your ignorance about the Parliament Act 1911 and how it affects Bills proposed by the House of Commons.
2: Your idiotic assertion that Opposition Parties Govern - quite simply put - They don't.
3: The fact that for long enough you claimed that the Irish Home Rule Bill 1914 had been defeated - when of course it hadn't.
4: The fact that you persist in claiming that alterations were made to an Act of Parliament when in fact they hadn't and refusal to accept that that Act of Parliament was repealed, replaced and never enforced.

The book I quoted from earlier "'Lines of Most Resistance' (The Lords, the Tories and Ireland, 1884 – 1914) Edward Pearce" is dedicated to the behaviour of the Conservatives at the time

And the relevance of that from April 1912 until September 1914 is what exactly? April 1912 Home Rule Bill introduced, September 1914 Home Rule Bill becomes the Government of Ireland Act 1914, the Bill having received Royal Assent - But I forgot Jom-the infallible stated that that never happened. Oh dear Jom just one more historical inexactitude of yours to add to your list.

the Unionists armed themselves in readiness to oppose any attempts whatever to include a united Irelan - they were the first group of the 20th century to brin arms into Ireland for political purposes and they were backed by the Conservatives in Government and my officers i the British Army - Asquith calculated how many might be involved - including senior officers

Number of points here that I feel I must draw to your attention:

1: The year is 1914 - THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVES IN GOVERNMENT. - ( JOM deliberate lie and misrepresentation No:1)
2: " my officers i the British Army" Good heavens Jom I didn't know that you had any back there in 1914. Tell me how many did you have? Where did you keep them?
3: Tell us all how Asquith calculated what any group, or professional body in the entire length and breadth of the British Empire might, or might not do in 1914? - absolutely dying to hear what our little Marxist comes out with on this - crystal ball, Ouija Board perhaps? Pure conjecture, no calculation, but pray tell having made these imaginary calculations ( Based on God knows what) what instructions did he as Prime Minister give, if what you say is correct?

You have been given all this, all with named sources

Most of it being irrelevant twaddle to be perfectly honest.

Oh and yes I did reference the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as its introduction replaced the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which previously replaced the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - and that Jom the infallible is where we came in wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 May 16 - 12:01 PM

"Dates and events are easily checked"
Your job to provide backing for your claims - I do.
"At no point on any thread on this forum have either Keith or myself ever said anything remotely like that"
Then what the **** is this about.
"Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous."
or this
"prior to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland there was no united Irish Nation any notion that there was is a myth."
You are now falling into Keith's habit of lying about what you have put up.
Why it's not worth continuing this farce with you pair
"The most senior Officer involved in the Curragh Incident was Gough, who when summoned to the War Office on the 22nd March stated quite clearly and unequivocally that he would obey any order given him."
And General Haig or did he resiign because he wanted to put his feet up??
This type of dishonesty is exactly why you never link to your claims.
"Proved by forensic science to be false - nothing more than an urban myth."
By whom and where is this proof available.
"So in the time frame you are attempting to squeeze all this into there were no Conservatives in the Government."
You know as well as I do how the British Parliamentary system works - the Governance of the country is down to the controlling majority, the opposition and The House of Lords.
The Tories in opposition and the House of Lords fought tooth and nail to defeat any attempts to Unite Ireland.
The book I quoted from earlier "'Lines of Most Resistance' (The Lords, the Tories and Ireland, 1884 – 1914) Edward Pearce" is dedicated to the behaviour of the Conservatives at the time
Whatever your "timeline" means the Unionists armed themselves in readiness to oppose any attempts whatever to include a united Irelan - they were the first group of the 20th century to brin arms into Ireland for political purposes and they were backed by the Conservatives in Government and my officers i the British Army - Asquith calculated how many might be involved - including senior officers.
You have been given all this, all with named sources and none of it my opinion, yet you have consistently and dishonestly referred to it as being mine - Keith continues to accuse me of making these facts up - every single of has been taken from the wors of researchers - he has offered nothing - uyou have attempted to bluff from start to finish offering not even the semblence of evidence.
Nor you scream "thread drift" as Keith does when he is in a corner "If you wish to discuss, sectarianism, bigotry and civil rights abuses post 1921 "
Are you seriously suggesting that the ongoing behaviour right up to the present day has nothing to do with this - I seem to remember that you have taken it up to The Good Friday Agreement
Oh yes here it is:
"This was thankfully ended in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement:"
Thank you for confirming that you pair are not worth the efforty of responding to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 11:18 AM

Jim Carroll - 17 May 16 - 10:45 AM

Once again, no links, no proof, just declarations"

Nope Jom just dates that put things in the right sequence, not the mish-mash, jumble, invention and confusion you normally have to cobble together.

Dates and events are easily checked - not to you of course - you simply do not bother.

As for the downright lies you employ as gap fillers in your rants, I just shrug them off and have done for a long time, but as an example:

" your 'Ireland has no right to claim independence as it isn't really a nation'"

At no point on any thread on this forum have either Keith or myself ever said anything remotely like that - you know it, we know it - and now having been challenged repeatedly to back your lies up and having demonstrated your reluctance and inability to do so - everyone else on this forum who has read this thread knows it.

As to the rest of your bigoted, rascist, Anglophobic rant - I simply just did not bother to read it - I doubt whether I will ever read another post of yours again - like GregF you have absolutely nothing to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 May 16 - 10:45 AM

Once again, no links, no proof, just declarations - you've stopped even pretending to link your claims - none of which dispute anything I have put up with verification.
Nothing you offer disproves anything I have put up, mostof it doesn't even realte to it.
I've just about had it with you pair of anachronistic Empire Loyalists – your 'Ireland has no right to claim independence as it isn't really a nation' because of the situation 800 years ago, really was the limit of the time I'm prepared to waste with a pair of hate-filled dinosaurs – I have come to the conclusion that people who advocate the type of fundamentalism expressed by you are really not 'the full shilling', as they say around here.
You've already claimed that Ireland has no right to unity, denied you said it and now you've repeated it
Of course Ireland has every right to be considered a full Nation   - it was a Nation when America was no more than a collection of colonial settlers from all over the world, under British rule, on the one hand, slaughtering the native Americans and robbing their land, on the other, driving off other Empires so they wouldn't have to share the loot.
Ireland was a nation when Australia was a British penal colony, and the when their New Zealand Colonial neighbours were doing the same to the Maoris as was being done to the Native Americans.
It was a nation when England was still fighting its nearest neighbours, Scotland and Wales, destroying their cultures, languages and ways of life and bringing their leaders to heel as faithful servants of the Empire.
You reflect everything that made The British Empire the evil predatory leech that it was, it's arrogance, its hate filled superiority and its contempt for everybody it controlled and everybody who ever opposed its despotic rule.
I was educated into believing that to be foreign was to be inferior, that Britannia still "ruled the waves", that we, as Britons, were "special" and that we had "civilised a world filled with savage barbarians – that was right up to the mid 1950s.
The hangover from that 'brainwashing' remains the cause of many of the crises and sufferings in the world today – the state in which we left the economies, industries and cultures of the countries we enslaved, the still-predatory way we regard and treat the Third World, where we help maintain a form of slavery with our demand for sweat-labour cheaply produced goods and oil – all have fuelled wars, oppression and terrorism.
Nearer to home, the instilled racism of many British people still makes the lives of visitors from abroad and British citizens with the 'misfortune' to have been born elsewhere miserable and dangerous (it is calculated that over 50% of the British population hold and have openly expressed racist views).   
I grew up in Liverpool, a city which prospered, along with other seaport cities like Bristol and Plymouth, from The British Empire's leading involvement in the international slave trade.
The hangover from that evil trade, established in America in States like Virginia under British rule, brought about the vicious American Civil War in the middle of the 19th century and was still being felt in the Southern States right into the 1960s when its Civil Rights movement was popularising the songs and black laments which first enticed me into folk song.
"Great" Britain (doesn't its arrogance resonate in that name?) has little to be proud of; it conquered a large part of the world by military force, enslaved its people and crushed their cultures and religions.
We once recorded interviews with a dear, long-dead friend, Paddy Boyle, from Donegal (father of the superb flute player, Maggie Boyle, who died last year, and uncle of highly-respected actor, Seán McGinley).
Paddy told us how, when he was a child under British rule, he and his Donegal, native-Irish-speaking fellow pupils were given small sticks to wear around their necks on a string; when the master heard one of them speaking Irish, he carved a notch into the stick and at the end of the week, the 'offender' would be given a stroke of the cane for every notch – that epitomised the British Empire's 'respect' for other cultures.   
The arrogance of Empire wrought suffering on the Irish people for at least six centuries, within my grandparent's lifetimes its handling of The Famine robbed Ireland of a third of its people, either through disease and starvation or by enforced emigration.   
That arrogance inspired the paramilitary Ulster Unionists to threaten British democracy with armed resistance and eventually brought about decades of inequality, poverty and violence to the Catholics of the Six Counties, leading to virtual Civil war and attacks on the British mainland.
Attempts to gain independence from Britain were met with military opposition, slaughter and the mass murder of its leaders in the form of rigged, undefended trials and summary executions.
Easter Week helped to put a stop to British rule in most of Ireland and to the eventual collapse of the "Evil Empire" (to borrow a phrase), though I have to admit that the callous butchery of best part of a generation of young men in defence of that Empire helped.
You pair have given us a clear picture of why that Empire was so hated – in your arrogance, in your dismissal of the rights of other nations, in your contempt for them – actually expressed by Keith in his writing off of the respect and the knowledge the Irish have for their history as "a contemptible joke, brought about by propaganda" and putting the demonstration of that respect as "the Irish loving to celebrate" and comparing the recognition of one of the most decisive acts in Irish history to "St Patrick's Day".
Your – "Ireland has no reason to desire independence because it was never really a united nation" is beyond belief as a statement which typifies the hatred and contempt that was passed on to us through the post-Empire education system.
You are the Punch Cartoons, the writings of Charles Kingsley, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson all rolled into a neat bundle of two.
I'm more than happy, anxious even, to continue this discussion with any seriously interested posters who wish to – for the blast of fresh air it would bring, if for nothing else – but I've finished with you two – life really is too short.   
"Jom"
You will never cop on, will you?
Your inability to control your bad mannered contempt for those who disagree with you is proof, if proof were needed, of your ineffectuality in persuading others of your argument and your insecurity of those arguments – if you can't get people to accept them, or if they dare to criticise Britain or, in this case, it's long-dead Empire, or the Establishment, then talk down to them and bully them into silence - it really does typify your archaic Empire Loyalism.
Every time you find yourself in a dilemma, your self-applied straightjacket works loose, your instinctive ill-manners kick in and you revert to what Joe Offer has rightly described as "childish and boring name-calling" - if I can make an effort to clean up my act, you really need to try cleaning up yours, though it really doesn't matter too much to me; if I was into scoring points, which I am not, each time the mask slips is the mark of another 'hit'.
I choose to call myself Jim Carroll, and in case we ever get around to a half-decent exchange of ideas and knowledge I would ask that you use it – all academic anyway – who on earth wants to waste time and energy on such an unpleasant and insecure pair?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 10:05 AM

"Probably, one of the few good things to come out of W.W.1. was that it dissipated a potentially disastrous Civil War in Britain."

Oh don't be such a grump Carroll, there were lots of good things that came out of WWI. The one that you mention is a minor one, primarily as it is based entirely on conjecture, it is only your opinion that has converted the possible to the probable. Noted however that you glossed over the fact that after war had been declared the men of the UVF joined the British Army - What did Pearse's 15,000 do? Ah yes they colluded with the enemy and planned a rising and set it up to fail thereby betraying their own men and throwing their lives away.

When the Republicans eventually forced Britain to give 26 counties full independence, the fanatical nutters who had brought Britain to the brink of Civil War were put in charge of the six counties, and mounted a nearly half-a-century reign of terror and persecution on one third of the population which lasted to the late 1960s when, after an attempt to gain civil rights was brutally put down by the fanatical nutters, aided and abetted by the R.U.C. - this erupted into 'The Troubles' which spilled over onto mainland Britain.

First question when exactly did the pro-union UVF bring Britain to the brink of a civil war in Britain? They clearly stated what their red line was (Ulster being forced into a united Ireland governed from Dublin) and at no time from April 1912 to 7th December 1921 did that ever look as though it was ever going to happen.

When the truce was called in June 1921 the war had been fought to a stalemate. In the ensuing negotiations the parties involved agreed to honour and respect the right of self-determination for both Northern and Southern Ireland - on the 6th December 1921 a united and independent Irish Free State came into being and in accordance with the terms of the Treaty that created it on the 7th December 1921 the six counties of the North exercised their right to cede from that State to become a self-governing autonomous part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

But I note your bias - the pro-unionists you portray as fanatical nutters who in the period we are talking about did not fire a single shot or kill anyone and who when their country went to war they willingly volunteered to fight the enemy. Those who were put in charge to run the six counties were elected to do so by the electorate of Northern Ireland.

Now what about the fanatical paramilitary nutters of the IVF led by Pearse. SEVEN men plotted a rising that they kept secret from their own IVF Executive and colluded with the enemy in time of war. They lit the blue touch paper and stood back and watched as their actions in Dublin bore fruit. All the destruction wrought was THEIR responsibility. Their actions polarised opinion and ended all hope of a united Ireland as far as the North was concerned. As with those elected to run things in the North those elected in the South were elected to do so by the electorate of the Free State and those elected in the South taking into account the rising, the war of independence and the civil war had a damn sight more blood on their hands.

If you wish to discuss, sectarianism, bigotry and civil rights abuses post 1921 then open a thread about it but if you do then make sure your opening post covers those that occurred in both the North and in the South.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 06:08 AM

The Conservatives in the Government backed these the nutty Paramilitaries.

Only one tiny thing wrong with that - It was a Liberal Government in power from 5 April 1908 – 25th May 1915 and then a Coalition Wartime Government under Asquith's leadership from 25th May 1915 until 5th December 1916. So in the time frame you are attempting to squeeze all this into there were no Conservatives in the Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 05:53 AM

Apologies - I forgot this bit:

(one high-ranking nutter had signed the Covenant in his own blood).

Proved by forensic science to be false - nothing more than an urban myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 05:38 AM

On to the next bit of complete and utter twaddle:

High ranking officers in the British Army pledged their support to this bunch of fanatical paramilitaries by saying that they would refuse to order their men to stop them if they mounted an armed revolt on then British Ireland - traitors all, prepared to take part in what amounted to a military coup in the event of part of the British Isles being attacked by self-declared, fanatical nutters (one high-ranking nutter had signed the Covenant in his own blood).

High ranking officers pledged their support to bunch of fanatical paramilitaries did they? Specifics, where, when and how? The most senior Officer involved in the Curragh Incident was Gough, who when summoned to the War Office on the 22nd March stated quite clearly and unequivocally that he would obey any order given him.

57 Officers out of 70 in one Brigade stated that they would tender their resignations rather than face dismissal. As events progressed none of these officers resigned, and the orders to deploy North to secure six armament depots were carried out and completed on schedule (31st March, 1914).

Where on earth did you get this from:

High ranking officers in the British Army said that they would refuse to order their men to stop them if they{these fanatical paramilitaries presumably} mounted an armed revolt on then British Ireland.

Have you any proof at all for this, or is it more Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" presented as fact that we all must swallow. But here are a few facts for you:

1: The men were ordered North, those orders were obeyed to the letter.
2: Not only were the British troops in Ireland prepared to act against any armed insurrection, contingencies for six scenarios related to possible UVF activity had been considered and prepared for.
3: Measures were in place to reinforce the troops in Ireland if need be with troops from the Mainland, these measures even took into account the possibility of strike action by railwaymen, dockers and merchant seamen in sympathy with the Ulster Unionists.
4: The Royal Navy's 3rd Battle Squadron was off Lamlash in the Clyde with orders to bombard Belfast if required.

There were no UVF plans to take over the armaments depots, they thought that doing that would be too severe a provocation, they decided to purchase arms abroad instead and the plan to smuggle these arms into Ulster was well underway even before the Curragh Incident happened.

There was no UVF plan to march on Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 04:56 AM

"To to top all this - Ireland, who had no right to independence (which one of you have denied claiming) had never really existed as a nation anyway (as claimed by the same feller)"

Now then a couple of questions for you about that:

1: When and where did I ever say that I thought that Ireland was not entitled to independence? (You've been asked for proof of this claim of yours a number of times now and you have rather significantly been unable to come up with it - yet another baseless accusation - more Jim Carroll "made-up-shit")

2: "Ireland never really existed as a nation"? I do not recall saying that. What I did say was: "they" {the Irish} were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms" I think if you study your history of Ireland you will find that that statement is perfectly correct.

Oh and while you are at it, you could answer and back up another of your baseless accusations:

When and where did I ever say that I thought that the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 16 - 04:47 AM

Jim,
The Unionists were totally opposed to the Home Rule Bill unless it included permanent partition which was granted to them in July 1914

You are inventing history again Jim.

The Unionists were not "totally opposed," they voted for it!

In July 1914 they agreed a temporary not permanent partition.
There was no suggestion of any permanent partition until after the rising, and because of the rising.

You have all your facts completely wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 04:36 AM

"The Government were well aware of this, which is why they altered the agreed conditions (Redmond had made it clear he would accept no other) from "six years" to "permanent partition"

Of course the only problem with this bit of your story Jom is that:

The Third Home Rule Bill put before Parliament in April 1912, received Royal Assent in September 1914 in its original form, Asquith having abandoned his Amending Bill in August 1914 when the country went war with Germany.

So you see the Government altered nothing. As would be plainly obvious if you bothered to read the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - you won't do that I know and you will cling to your MYTH.

Now let us take a look at the alteration of "agreed" conditions and the your next bit of nonsense that can be shown for the misleading claptrap that it is by looking at dates events happened (Referring here to your - "they colluded with armed paramilitaries who had been assembled and egged-on by Carson, Craig and other fanatical nutters while at the same time destroying the Home Rule movement which would possibly have kept Ireland within the control of the Empire.). It comes in two parts:

1914 - Asquith's Amending Bill

21st May, 1914 - A proposed amendment to the Bill that temporarily excludes the whole of Ulster from Government from Dublin for six years is proposed.

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

4th August, 1914 - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland declares war on Germany. UVF members were subsequently to volunteer for service in the British Army. Asquith abandons his Amending Bill.

18th September 1914 - Home Rule Bill becomes a Home Rule Act

Fast forward to 1916

24th April to 29th April 1916 - IVF stage the rising in Dublin

3rd to 12th May 1916 - Leaders executed, the manner in which the British Military authorities in Ireland deals with the aftermath causes previous Home Rule moderates to sympathise with the harder line Independence Republicans.

July 1916 - Asquith attempts to enact the 1914 Home Rule Act and Lloyd George is sent to broker some sort of deal. Redmond is still prepared to accept the temporary six year exclusion for Ulster. Carson, Craig and the pro-unionists for some obscure reason have now backed away from that and want a permanent partition. Lloyd George in attempting to get back to the 1914 agreement assures Carson that Ulster will not be forced into any united Ireland against its will (Nowhere in that correspondence is any permanent partition promised). All negotiations breakdown when Redmond hears of this assurance and the attempt to enact Home Rule for Ireland is abandoned.   

Now in the summer of 1916 who were the armed paramilitaries that the Government were colluding with? In 1914 and 1915 the members of the UVF were volunteering in droves to join the Irish Regiments in the British Army, as to a lesser extent were members of the Redmonite Home Rule faction of the IVF, leaving only the hardline leadership of the Republican Independence Pearse faction of the IVF to plot their rising in secret from their own members between 1915 and Easter 1916.

What hardened the pro-unionist stance - the Easter Rising
Was the Government of Ireland Act 1914 altered in 1916 - no it was not.

Redmond basically went into a sulk and that was that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 10:08 PM

Nice fairy tale Jom but it does not stand up when you put the events in order and apply a time line to them.

I have always said that your attention to detail is almost no-existent and your ability with regard to research is careless and shoddy.

1: "The Unionist, armed themselves with smuggled weapons and declared that, under no circumstances they would accept a United Ireland - they were no more than an armed group of traitorous paramilitaries."

But they didn't did they Jom - here's the actual time line for you:

11th April, 1912 - Asquith introduces the Third Irish Home Rule Bill

28th September, 1912 'Ulster Day' - The day when 447,197 people signed the Ulster Covenant, which bound those 447,197 signatories to resist Home Rule by use of "all means necessary".

13th January, 1913 - The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was formed to resist any attempts by the British Government to 'impose' Home Rule on Ulster.

25th November 1913 the Irish Volunteer Force created - its declared primary aim was "to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland" (Shall we just ignore/deny the existence of such previous Nationalist groups as the Gaelic League, Ancient Order of Hibernians, Sinn Féin, and the Irish Republican Brotherhood who for reasons best known to themselves joined the IVF secretly)

December 1913 - British Government ban the import into Ireland of arms.

March 1914 - British Government order troops based in Ireland to deploy to armament depots in the North to safeguard the contents from possible theft by the UVF. By 31st March the troops are in place and the arms depots are secured.

25th April, 1914 - UVF successfully smuggle arms into Ulster - the guns and ammunition having been purchased in Hamburg from a private arms dealer.

21st May, 1914 - A proposed amendment to the Bill that temporarily excludes the whole of Ulster from Government from Dublin for six years is proposed.

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

26th July, 1914 - IVF successfully smuggle arms into Howth - the guns and ammunition having been purchased in Germany.

4th August, 1914 - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland declares war on Germany. UVF members were subsequently to volunteer for service in the British Army. Asquith abandons his Amending Bill.

5th September, 1914 - The Supreme Council of the IRB meet and decide that they will stage an uprising before the war ends and to do this they will secure help from Germany.

18th September, 1914 - The Government of Ireland Act 1914 receives Royal Assent.

Doesn't quite tally with your little one liner does it Jom. The UVF never using the guns it smuggled in and then the UVF almost to a man go off and volunteer to fight the Germans (To be fair quite a number of the Redmond faction of the IVF did the same). The Pearse faction of the IVF just one month after the war starts votes to collude with the enemy in order to turn it's guns on British Troops and Irish Policemen in Dublin on the 24th April, 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 08:04 PM

Right - finished with you pair.
This is the situation you have been given, by all the evidence you have been provided.
The Unionist, armed themselves with smuggled weapons and declared that, under no circumstances they would accept a United Ireland - they were no more than an armed group of traitorous paramilitaries.
The Government were well aware of this, which is why they altered the agreed conditions (Redmond had made it clear he would accept no other) from "six years" to "permanent partition", in doing so, they colluded with armed paramilitaries who had been assembled and egged-on by Carson, Craig and other fanatical nutters while at the same time destroying the Home Rule movement which would possibly have kept Ireland within the control of the Empire.
High ranking officers in the British Army pledged their support to this bunch of fanatical paramilitaries by saying that they would refuse to order their men to stop them if they mounted an armed revolt on then British Ireland - traitors all, prepared to take part in what amounted to a military coup in the event of part of the British Isles being attacked by self-declared, fanatical nutters (one high-ranking nutter had signed the Covenant in his own blood).
The Conservatives in the Government backed these the nutty Paramilitaries.
Probably, one of the few good things to come out of W.W.1. was that it dissipated a potentially disastrous Civil War in Britain.
When the Republicans eventually forced Britain to give 26 counties full independence, the fanatical nutters who had brought Britain to the brink of Civil War were put in charge of the six counties, and mounted a nearly half-a-century reign of terror and persecution on one third of the population which lasted to the late 1960s when, after an attempt to gain civil rights was brutally put down by the fanatical nutters, aided and abetted by the R.U.C. - this erupted into 'The Troubles' which spilled over onto mainland Britain.
And the Easter uprising was a "contemptible joke" - sure it was!!
To to top all this - Ireland, who had no right to independence (which one of you have denied claiming) had never really existed as a nation anyway (as claimed by the same feller)
Those who the gods wish to destroy must be first made mad - as the saying goes.
G'night George, g'night Gracie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 05:18 PM

"The army officers refused to support threatened violence from Usltermen in March 1914"

Exactly, on the orders of the British Government the Army moved troops to the six armament depots in the North to safeguard against those arms falling into the hands of the UVF if they decided to take any action. They most definitely were not going to support any threat of violence from the UVF in the North. Now tell us all how they managed to do that in the middle of this mutiny of yours were "half the officers in the Army" were refusing to obey orders, unless of course there wasn't a mutiny at all.

"The Unionists were totally opposed to the Home Rule Bill unless it included permanent partition which was granted to them in July 1914"

Oh dear Jim, time lines crossed again, nobody was talking about any permanent partition in 1914. You've got your July right but the year is two years out, it was in July 1916 that Carson got Lloyd George's assurance in writing that Ulster would never be forced into a united Ireland - but he {Lloyd George} did not give Carson any guarantee of a permanent partition. Now you tell me what happened in 1916 in Ireland that might have given the Unionists pause for thought and harden their attitudes to a united Ireland (HINT - Have a look at Dublin in April that year).

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 02:13 PM

Joking no - prior to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland there was no united Irish Nation any notion that there was is a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 03:14 PM

Carson described the proposal to partition Ireland for six years as
" we do not want a sentence of death, with a stay of execution for 6 years."
How does that indicate in any way that he did anything but oppose the proposed bill?
The Unionists have always said that they will never accept a United Ireland -
How does that indicate in any way that they were not totally against the proposals contained in the Bill?
Give us a break
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 02:47 PM

"In 1914 the Unionists supported the Home Rule Bill and it was passed with a large majority."
The Unionists were getting arms from Germany in April 1914 (three months before war broke out) to invade the South if things didn't go their way.
The army officers refused to support threatened violence from Usltermen in March 1914
The Unionists were totally opposed to the Home Rule Bill unless it included permanent partition which was granted to them in July 1914 - up to then it had been only for six years, which meant they were opposed to The Home Rule agreement as it stood until it was altered.
Please don't be so obtuse (or dishonest) Keith - and do not accuse me of making 'false' claims - I leave that to experts like yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 16 - 02:35 PM

Jim, all that stuff you posted about Craig and Hansard was from 1912!
In 1914 the Unionists supported the Home Rule Bill and it was passed with a large majority.

All your claims about it are false.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 02:13 PM

"they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms
aRE YOUJOKING - PRIOR TO THE ***** NORMANS - where exactly was the British Empire then?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 01:54 PM

"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination,"
You're not Irish are you
Though you said you did't believe Ireland should have stayed in the Empitre -make up your mind.
"Many of his supporters turned to a new anti-British political party called Sinn Féin."
Sinn Fein arose out of a number of Anti-British parties stretching bak into the 19th century - like the Rising - it didn't come out of thin air..
Sorry do you mean the ""Men of the Gun" who threatened violence prior to WW1 or the "Men of the Gun" who Rebelled against British rule in 1916 - all very confusing?
"What was the order that was supposed to have been given that caused the resignations?"
Your'e the military "expert" you tell me.
I do know that the Curragh traitors supported the armed Ulstermen who were threatening to wage war against what was then a part of Britain nasty men!!!.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 01:44 PM

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 01:22 PM

Ah even when given links and sources it makes no difference (Well I knew that before I posted them) so why bother.

What was the order that was supposed to have been given that caused the resignations?

The prospect of being ordered to Ulster to supress any action taken by the UVF? - Nope.

The orders being considered was the movement of troops to secure arms depots in the North. Those were the measures being planned on the 18th and 19th March. Apart from the threat of resignation by a few officers, those orders were carried out by the original planned date of 31st March. As a contingency should the UVF have interfered with these precautions, the fleet was standing-by ready to intervene and supply ships to bring troops across from the mainland.

But then you would have known all that if you had read the link provided. But as you don't read 'em why should anybody supply 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 01:27 PM

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 11:07 AM

Your time line is flying all over the place.

John Redmond

John Redmond in 1914: "Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."

Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms. The USA at that time was and still is a Federal Union of individual sovereign states, the Dominion of Canada a Confederation of Provinces and Australia a Commonwealth of States.

John Redmond and the Easter Rising: Many in the south of Ireland were initially angry with the rebels, but the executions caused widespread resentment. Fatally for his political ambitions, Redmond supported the British government. Many of his supporters turned to a new anti-British political party called Sinn Féin.

Redmond foresaw anarchy "when every blackguard who wants to commit an outrage will simply call himself a Sinn Féiner and thereby get the sympathy of the unthinking crowd".

Here he is describing the "Men of the Gun" who have been a bane and a brake on progress in Ireland since seven men decided to have a go one Easter one hundred years ago. The excuse always used is their ludicrous claims of having a mandate for violence on behalf of the "Irish people" based on the illegal territorial claim that up until 1998 was enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 01:22 PM

"Your "cut-n-paste" from a TV Programme shows nothing of the sort, the Home Rule Bil"
Wasn'tr from a "Television programme" - it was a series of essays based on the research for a series of Programmes.
We know what the Curragh Mutiny was - it was a threat to disobey orders if troops were sent to prevent an armed insurrection in Ulster - in other words, to support that armed insurrection by neutralising the British Army in Ireland - sounds like mutiny (or something more sinister) to me.
Been here, done that - go and read the tee-shirt - all the facts are there for all to see other than those who don't wish to read them.
No more on the "betrayal" of the British Empire's Irish allies in parliament - at least that one's out the way.
Or the fact that the "traitorously" rebellious Ulstermen were the first to import arms into Ireland to be used by paramilitaries for a political purpose SUPPLIED BY GERMANY - now there's a coincidence .

NEXT
Jim Carroll

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

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 11:24 AM

Perthaps this might put paid to the claim that the Unionists supported The Home Rule Bill (though I doubt it)

Your "cut-n-paste" from a TV Programme shows nothing of the sort, the Home Rule Bill is not even mentioned in it. What it does show without any shadow of a doubt - the lengths that the Ulster Unionists were prepared to go to make it perfectly clear to anybody that they were not under any circumstance prepared to be coerced into a united Ireland governed from Dublin by a government seeking full independence, a government in which they would always be a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 12:33 PM

Still no links which makes everything here uncorroborated opinion which has been covered over and over again by identifiable facts.

Ah it has to be links that you can click on does it Jom. I believe that I have given a few of those and Keith A has given you many, but here we go:

1: Curragh Incident

Extract 1:
On the evening of 18 March Paget wired Maj-Gen Friend that the troop movements were to be completed by dawn on Sunday 31 March. Paget was summoned to another meeting on 19 March at which Seely declared that the government was pressing ahead with Home Rule and had no intention of allowing civil war to break out, suggesting that the Ulster Volunteers were to be crushed if they attempted to start one. Prince Louis of Battenberg (First Sea Lord) was also at the meeting, as that day the 3rd Battle Squadron was ordered to steam to Lamlash on the Firth of Clyde (the following night Churchill told French that his ships would have Belfast in flames in 24 hours), whilst other vessels were ready to help deploy troops to Ulster (in case of a strike by railwaymen sympathetic to Ulster).

Extract 2:
On the evening of 20 March Paget sent a telegram to the War Office in London announcing that almost all the officers of 5th Lancers intended to resign and the same was probably true of 16th Lancers. Seely replied, on behalf of the Army Council, telling Paget to suspend any senior officer who had offered to resign, and ordering Gough and 2 of his 3 colonels (the attitude of the third was unclear) to report to the War Office. A second telegram just before midnight confirmed 57 officers preferred to accept dismissal (it was actually 61 including Gough[9]):


Officer Commanding 5th Lancers states that all officers, except two and one doubtful, are resigning their commissions today. I much fear same conditions in the 16th Lancers. Fear men will refuse to move. Regret to report Brigadier-General Gough and fifty-seven officers 3rd Cavalry Brigade prefer to accept dismissal if ordered North.


The officers were not technically guilty of mutiny, as they had resigned before refusing to carry out a direct order. As all were in Gough's brigade, and as they were informed of his reservations about Seely's orders, he was portrayed as central to the whole incident.


Extract 3:
General Sir Charles Fergusson, then commanding the 5th division in Ireland, toured units on the morining of Saturday 21 March to ensure their future compliance with government policy. One of his officers said later that:

"He [Fergusson] reminded us that although we must natur­ally hold private political views, officially we should not be on the side of any one political party. It was our duty to obey orders, to go wherever we were sent and to comply with instructions of any political party that happened to be in power. There was no sloppy sentiment, it was good stuff straight from the shoulder and just what we wanted."[10]

Paget did the same but his speech was described as "absolutely unconvincing and inconclusive". However Paget was able to conduct the precautionary moves planned on 18 and 19 March.[11]

Extract 4:
Gough, summoned to the War Office, confirmed (Sunday 22 March) that he would have obeyed a direct order to move against Ulster.

2: Government of Ireland Act 1914

3: Republican Nationalists Collusion with Germany

Sir Roger Casement

Extract 1:
In August 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, Casement and John Devoy arranged a meeting in New York with the western hemisphere's top-ranking German diplomat, Count Bernstorff, to propose a mutually beneficial plan: if Germany would sell guns to the Irish revolutionary and provide military leaders, the Irish would revolt against England, diverting troops and attention from the war on Germany. Bernstorff appeared sympathetic.

Extract 2:
In October 1914 Casement sailed for Germany via Norway — In November 1914[23] Casement negotiated a declaration by Germany which stated:


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


Planning the Easter Rising

Extract 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.

Extract 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.[31] Casement also attempted to recruit an Irish Brigade, made up of Irish prisoners of war, which would be armed and sent to Ireland to join the uprising.[32][33] However, only 56 men volunteered. Plunkett joined Casement in Germany the following year. Together, Plunkett and Casement presented a plan (the 'Ireland Report') in which a German expeditionary force would land on the west coast of Ireland, while a rising in Dublin diverted the British forces so that the Germans, with the help of local Volunteers, could secure the line of the River Shannon, before advancing on the capital.[34] The German military rejected the plan, but agreed to ship arms and ammunition to the Volunteers.[35]

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

Perthaps this might put paid to the claim that the Unionists supported The Home Rule Bill (though I doubt it)
From The Troubles Thames Television 1980
THE ULSTER VOLUNTEER FORCE
In January 1913, the Ulster Unionist Council, led by Carson, decided to bring the various ad hoc groups who were drilling in northern Ireland into one unit, the Ulster Volunteer Force. This was to be organised on a military basis under the command of a retired professional army officer, Sir George Richardson. Volunteers started assembling and drilling openly throughout Ulster, although at first they carried only wooden replicas of rifles and it is probable that they were not taken seriously. Soon, however, their numbers amounted to some 100,000 men.
One of the most fanatical of Ulstermen, Major Fred Crawford (who had signed his name in blood on Ulster's Solemn League and Covenant), brought several thousand rifles, some machine guns and a large stockpile of ammunition into Ulster during the year to arm the UVF. The Government, alarmed by the growth of this private armoury, clamped down and in December prohibited the import of arms and ammunition into Ireland. With instructions from the Ulster Unionist Council and with funds raised in England and Ireland, Crawford disappeared to Germany to purchase whatever weaponry he could, planning to smuggle it back into Ulster by sea. On the night of 24 April 1914, 20,000 German rifles and 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition were landed at three Ulster ports and distributed throughout the UVF within twenty-four hours. The gun-running restored a position of military supremacy in Ireland to the Ulster Unionists, at a crucial time during the delicate negotiations over Home Rule. It helped to persuade Asquith and the Liberal Cabinet that the Ulster threats were no bluff.
By July 1914, the Ulster Volunteer Force was well armed and well trained. In the case of a complete breakdown in the Home Rule discussions, they threatened open war against anyone who tried to impose a Dublin Parliament on Ulster. UVF units were standing by, awaiting the telegraphed order from Carson to move into action. Detailed and intricate plans had been made to evacuate the women and children from Belfast in the event of an outbreak of fighting. The UVF medical corps was prepared to deal with thousands of casualties. Then, suddenly, the problems of Ulster were overwhelmed by a far greater conflagration.
The photograph shows Sir Edward Carson, with his characteristic blackthorn stick, inspecting a UVF unit in 1914, after the Larne gun-running. Note the German rifles and the military regalia.
Jim Carroll

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

"There was no reluctance. They could have rejected it."
Tactically they couldn't - they did not "fully back the bill" you have Craig's statement and their continuing behaviour right up to the present day has confirmed that fact.
Where is your evidence for any of this Keith - you appear to have abandoned even your "real historians" - oh fickle, fickle man!!!
Can we just sort out this temporary/permanent nonsense once and for all.
In his Limerick speech Redmond described the idea of partition as "an unthinkable abomination"
He was only brought around to the idea by the promise that it should be only for a temporary period - six years.
Lloyd George was fully aware of this - that is why he separately and secretly negotiated with both sides, promising one side a temporary partitioning, the other, a permanent one.
Not only did that dishonesty kill The Home Rule movement stone dead and lead to a demand for full independence for Ireland, but it has been responsible for every bomb exploded and every bullet fired in here and on mainland Britain ever since.
It was described as a "betrayal" by Redmond, who as a supporter of The British Empire, and that is exactly what it was.
Now, unless anybody has any fresh information on the matter I suggest we stop peddling lines that have long been discredited and move on.
NEXT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 16 - 10:27 AM

They reluctantly accepted a compromise which they had no intention of honouring - quite clear from both their proclamation, which was an open statement of defiance and from the proceedings recorded in Hansard

There was no reluctance. They could have rejected it.
They fully backed the Bill, just asking to be left out for a while to see how it turned out.

Your baseless claims are all false Jim.
No "evidence" at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 10:25 AM

Still no links which makes everything here uncorroborated opinion which has been covered over and over again by identifiable facts.
No intention of going over any of this again - it's all here.
"GregF has said absolutely nothing in connection with the subject under discussion."
Couldn't agree more - why bring him into it - I didn't?
"CARROLL"
Jim Carroll is the name I have chosen to be identified by - if you can't manage respect - why not opt for dignity - you're not doing yourself any favors here - mounting hysteria really doesn't help.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 09:48 AM

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 09:07 AM

"Britain was and is ruled by Parliament not Proclamation."

We are talking about where the Unionists stood on Independence, not what happened in Parliament.

They reluctantly accepted a compromise which they had no intention of honouring - quite clear from both their proclamation, which was an open statement of defiance and from the proceedings recorded in Hansard ( 18 months before The Easter Rising).

1: Where the Unionists stood on Independence?? I would have thought that that would be obvious - they would be against it - and that is what they stated.

2: So "They reluctantly accepted a compromise which they had no intention of honouring" - I take it here you are referring to the Temporary six years exclusion amendment that was discussed but never was actually written into the Act that obtained Royal Assent in 1914. But if what you said is true, then it shows that the Unionist side was prepared to make a compromise. The Redmond-ite Nationalists were content with first obtaining Home Rule and they were backed by a vast number throughout Ireland.

What they were being offered was Home Rule and Dominion status just like Canada and Australia - both countries are federations of individual States (Australia) and Provinces (Canada) - why couldn't the same thing have applied to Ireland? (Had they done so, the Home Rulers would have had a sovereign independent united Ireland by 1931 under the Statute of Westminster). The exclusion from rule from Dublin proposed was temporary and it should have been in the gift of all minds assembled to demonstrate a way that a United Ireland could be made to work during the course of those six years. Unfortunately for all parties the Great War delayed everything.

The other fly in the ointment were the Irish Republicans who wanted immediate independence in 1914 they were a small minority. They plotted a rising and colluded with the enemy in order to make it happen. Their rising of 1916 which has demonstrably been proven to have had very little support failed and served only to politically polarise those seeking independence and those wishing to remain in the Union with Great Britain - after the '16 rebellion the War of Independence and the ensuing Civil War that immediately followed it, there was no way on God's earth that the Unionists could be tempted into a United Ireland, and that is where things stand today.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 09:15 AM

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 07:14 AM

"Jim Carroll hurls out accusations of no links being provided when it is plainly obvious that they have."
You haven't and you never do, and that is all I have ever commented on.

REALLY JIM? Then please explain this little passage of posts it relates to the number of officer resignations in March 1914 – you know – that "Act of Aggression" you initially introduced into this thread:

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 06:14 AM

About half the British Officers stationed in Ireland were prepared to back the claims of the Unionists - in essence a threat of Military Coup.

Teribus -15 May 16 - 10:23 AM

" About half the British Officers stationed in Ireland were prepared to back the claims of the Unionists - in essence a threat of Military Coup."

This is YOUR OPINION and about as factually wrong as you could get it.

"Half the British Officers stationed in Ireland" – Where on earth did you get that ill-informed twaddle from? All in all only 100 officers threatened to resign – if you are attempting to tell us that there were only 200 Army Officers stationed in Ireland then you are more of an ignoramus than I thought – 57 out of that 100 came from the 3rd Cavalry Brigade alone - My Source: The telegram sent by the Commander in Chief in Ireland to the War Office dated 20th March

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 11:02 AM

"This is YOUR OPINION and about as factually wrong as you could get it."
No it is not - it is a direct quote from Asquith -
"Asquith confided to a friend 'there is no doubt if were to order a march upon Ulster that about half the officers in the Army would strike."
so maybe he got it wrong and your source got it right - whoops - you didn't give a source, did you?

BUT I HAD GIVEN THE SOURCE HADN'T I CARROLL

And what you were presenting as a fact was a remark reportedly made by Asquith who could only have been stating an opinion.

You clearly cannot differentiate between fact and opinion

You have got no clue whatsoever as to what constitutes evidence – that you mistake for unsubstantiated rumour but only if it suits your point of view.

As to the Government of Ireland ACT 1914 that you keep insisting was altered in July 1916 and was further altered in 1918 – here is what it covered when it received Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914

The Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, introduced the Bill on 11 April 1912.[2] Allowing more autonomy than its two predecessors, the bill provided for:

A bicameral Irish Parliament to be set up in Dublin (a 40-member Senate and a 164-member House of Commons) with powers to deal with most national affairs;

A number of Irish MPs would continue to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom (42 MPs, rather than 103).

The abolition of Dublin Castle administration, though with the retention of the Lord Lieutenant.

The financial situation was a concern. Irish taxes had yielded a surplus of £2 million in 1893, that had turned into a current spending net deficit of £1.5m by 1910 that had to be raised by London. An annual "Transferred Sum" mechanism was proposed to maintain spending in Ireland as it was.[3]

The Bill was passed by the Commons by a majority of 10 votes in 1912 but the House of Lords rejected it 326 votes to 69 in January 1913. In 1913 it was reintroduced and again passed by the Commons but was again rejected by the Lords by 302 votes to 64. In 1914 after the third reading, the Bill was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a majority of 77. Having been defeated a third time in the Lords, the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act to override the Lords and send it for Royal Assent.

Now that is fact – simple recorded Parliamentary Fact – you can use the internet to check it out – as you obviously will not accept any link I put up regarding this Act of Parliament – Only trouble is that you cannot be arsed to do that – so you persist in repeating your ill-informed and totally incorrect fairy stories. Mind you, you are not alone on this forum who cannot be bothered to check facts, there are quite a few of you including Joe Offer.

Now where is the Government of Ireland Act 1914 as subsequently amended 1916 Jim?

Where is the Government of Ireland Act 1914 as subsequently amended 1916 and further amended 1918 Jim?

Good luck in coming up with those because they simply DO NOT EXIST

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 07:29 AM

Greg has offered his opinion

Yes Jim he has offered his opinion but in doing so "GregF has said absolutely nothing in connection with the subject under discussion."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 09:07 AM

"Britain was and is ruled by Parliament not Proclamation."
We are talking about where the Unionists stood on Independence, not what happened in Parliament.
They reluctantly accepted a compromise which they had no intention of honouring - quite clear from both their proclamation, which was an open statement of defiance and from the proceedings recorded in Hansard ( 18 months before The Easter Rising).
The Unionists had actually armed themselves against having to accept Independence in any form.
To suggest that The Easter Rising in any way posed the threat of an "unstable state" is utter nonsense; The Unionists had destabilised the situation long before the rising was a twinkle in anyone's eye.
The Easter Rising became an excuse to succumb to the demands of the Unionists.
Partitioning Ireland was utterly undemocratic, even by British Parliamentary standards - a little like allowing South East to secede from the rest of the Britain because that's where the work is.
It is no different to what happened in America when the South attempted to withdraw from The Union - also leading to Civil war.
One of the realities of all this is that in genaral, Northern Irish people in the main consider themselves Irish rather than British - it is the bowler-hatted and be-sashed nutters who are very much in the minority and who cause the bloodshed, not the Northern Irish people.
If you visit any part of the North (East) you will find friendly people who have no problems in communicating with each other - go there on the 'Glorious Twelfth' and you will see how that situation annually changes for a short period (in a couple of cities rather than throughout the country).
Leon Uris and others have rightly described it as "hate-invoking tribalism"      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 16 - 08:39 AM

Jim,
Read their proclomation

Britain was and is ruled by Parliament not Proclamation.
The Home Rule Act was agreed by all sides in Parliament.
That is a fact.
Home rule was assured.
That is a fact.

The rising poisoned the well of peaceful negotiation for ever, and led to years of bloodshed.
It achieved nothing else.

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

"GregF has said absolutely nothing in connection with the subject under discussion."
You also appear to have resorted to swinging wild in denigrating and insulting other members of this forum on the basis of what they have and have not said - nobody should be allowed to do that.
Greg has offered his opinion, which is basically, all you have done as you never link to what you claim.
Jim Carroll

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

"Jim Carroll hurls out accusations of no links being provided when it is plainly obvious that they have."
You haven't and you never do, and that is all I have ever commented on.
Keith's links are a bit of a standing joke, with his "real historians selling books in real bookshops".
This appears to be a bit of a diversion - the pieces I have offered may be trivia to you (you would say that, wouldn't you?), but they all reference statements you have made, which logically makes those statements "trivia".
"Trivia" appears to mean "Everything I disagree with" in your dictionary.
Why not try to respond to the points rather than trying to denigrate those who don't agree with you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 06:58 AM

Just been through this entire thread

As far as supplying links and corroboration of what he has said in his posts no-one comes close to the number of links and quotes submitted by Keith A of Hertford.

Jim Carroll hurls out accusations of no links being provided when it is plainly obvious that they have. His posts to this thread have contained massive cut-n-pastes of material that is largely irrelevant, attempts to divert the thread onto past topics when he feels he is coming under pressure, complete and utter denial of fact (Irrespective of evidence that prove him to be in error) and convoluted arguments based entirely on things that people haven't stated.

GregF has said absolutely nothing in connection with the subject under discussion.

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

"Treaty"
Should read - "The Bill" of course
Jim Carroll

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

Just to show how prepared to accept the Treaty the Unionists were, this is a description of the Parliamentary debate after the the details of the Treaty had been agreed in 1914 - James Craig, the leading protagonist in this debate, was the leader of the Unster Unionists and became the first Prime Minister of the Six Counties after Independence.
The footnote to the piece is an interesting example of how attitudes had hardly changed at the time of the publication of this book (1999)
Jim Carroll

From 'Lines of Most Resistance' (The Lords, the Tories and Ireland, 1884 – 1914) Edward Pearce (1999)
Craig, the earnest non-employer of Roman Catholics on his estate, disliked contradiction, of which there is a good deal in Parliament. His friends 'lay open to the grossest taunts and insults from members on the other side'. They were 'met in the most flippant and jeering way with members of the Cabinet sitting there and grinning like apes at us'. He was tired and wouldn't stand for it.
"The north of Ireland will be forced from under the shelter of Great Britain and from under the British flag, and will have to go. In future we will have to take our orders from the hon. and learned member for Waterford [Redmond] and the nationalist rebels. *
That is the position I say so far as I am concerned - and this is a serious statement - I am tired: I repeat it, I am tired. I believe that my proper place and the proper place of all the other Ulster members is among their own trusty friends in the north of Ireland, for I believe that this government is not to be treated as a government, but is to be treated as a caucus led by rebels. The only way to treat them is for us to go back quietly and assist our loyal friends there to make what preparations are necessary."
Craig's sullen rage was infectious. A few minutes later, while a Tory member, Pollock, was renewing the attack on Asquith - 'quite ready to throw aside every possible precedent in order to maintain his own contemptible position' - the skies broke in ways best set out by Hansard: 4
SIR WILLIAM BULL, COLONEL CHALLONER AND OTHER HON. MEMBERS: Traitor, traitor!
MR SPEAKER: If I knew the hon. member who made use of that expression—
SIR WILLIAM BULL: I did.
COLONEL CHALLONER: I did.
MR SPEAKER: I tell both members that it is not a parliamentary expression.
MR CHARLES CRAIG: How can hon. members be expected to use parliamentary expressions under circumstances such as these?
MR SPEAKER: However strongly hon. members feel they have been treated, they are not entitled to use that particular word.
MR CHARLES CRAIG: I echo everything that has been said by the hon. member.
(HON. MEMBERS: Traitor! )
MR SPEAKER: What hon. members used that expression?
SIR WILLIAM BULL: I used it."

* Ireland had not rebelled in any meaningful sense since 1798, but Ulster Unionists always cultivate a taste for anachronism. To this day they speak of the Republic of Ireland - established under that name in 1949 - by its treaty title, the 'Free State'.