BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST

Subject: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 01:59 PM

The Saville Report, which will be published on Tuesday (15 June) will almost certainly conclude that some, if not all, of the 14 demonstrators killed (I would say murdered) by British soldiers were killed illegally. Even the disgracefully rigged Widgery report accepted that four of the deaths "bordered on the reckless," and during the Saville inquiry some soldiers admitted that their statements to Widgery had been "inaccurate" and concocted under duress.

Whether the report will recommend prosecutions remains to be seen. Even if it does, the prosecution service will not instigate criminal trials unless there is a realistic chance of securing convictions. After 38 years, that could be difficult.

I'm not too concerned about whether culpable soldiers should be prosecuted at this late stage anyway, but then I am not enthusiastic about prosecuting war crimes either, especially when many years have elapsed. I realise that victims' relatives may have different views. I would certainly be in favour of prosecuting anyone who can be proved to have been involved in the original cover-up, which involved blackening the names of entirely innocent victims, up to and including putting nail bombs into a victim's pockets. And I would welcome anything that tarnishes the memory of the arrogant Col Wilford, who was the Paratroops commander on the fateful day.

Whatever the outcome, I would have to say that much as I loathe Tony Blair in almost every respect, it is to his credit that he initiated this public inquiry almost at the first opportunity, and it is not his fault that the report was not published during his time in office.

---

Note from Joe Offer: The Saville Report was published 15 June 2010. The report is a study of the events of Sunday 30 January 1972, when several demonstrators were killed in Derry in Northern Ireland. The event has become known as Bloody Sunday.
Several threads on this subject were started or refreshed over the last two or three days. Since we generally allow only one active thread on any given subject, I have combined messages from several threads. Check the message title to see where the message came from.


We've had some trouble with impersonation in this thread, so I have deleted a number of Guest messages. From this point (3 July 2010), no other Guest messages will be allowed. You must be logged in if you wish to post. thank you. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:50 AM

What is this about? I wasn't paying attention, so I'm not outraged...

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:55 AM

Some background I found:
http://worldbb

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:57 AM

Sorry, bad link:
http://worldbbnews.com/2010/06/lord-savilles-bloody-sunday-report-is-a-failure-of-the-judicial-process/

Subject: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Lox
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:29 PM

After more than 30 years, it has been concluded once and for all that peaceful protesters shot by the occupying army were not terrorists of any description but that this was just a smear to justify their murder.

Perhaps this atrocity can now be put behind us and the wounds can start to heal.

Sunday Bloody Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Leadfingers
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:43 PM

As long as people like you , Lox , continue calling British Soldiers on BRITISH soil an Occupying Army , all you will do is stir up more Crap !
And NO I dont think what happened was in any way correct , but its a shame its taken so long .

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Lox
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:51 PM

Actually I was celebrating the good news.

Sorry it's made you so upset.

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 07:21 PM

As yet there has been no apology for the lying Widgery Report, or for Prime Minister Heath's part in ensuring that Lord Widgery disgraced himself and his country by writing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 09:26 PM

'UNJUSTIFIED AND UNJUSTIFIABLE'

"1 Para arrived in Londonderry on the morning of Sunday 30th January 1972."

And from one simple, opening sentence, the Saville inquiry explains how a tragedy unfolded.
It has taken him 12 years, 10 volumes and almost £200m - but Lord Saville and his Bloody Sunday inquiry team have doggedly achieved a near blow-by-blow account of how 13 people were shot dead in a single day by the Parachute Regiment - all of them killed without justification.

By January 1972, the predominantly nationalist civil rights movement had had enough and decided to defy the ban on marches.
Tensions were high and the 1st battalion of the Parachute Regiment was sent from Belfast to Derry to deal with any trouble.
Saville does not explicitly suggest that 1 Para arrived tooled up for a fight. But he makes clear that they were the wrong people to send into a powder keg situation because they had a reputation for excessive force.
Many marches were followed with a degree of rioting - but the organisers had sought assurances from the various republican factions that they would keep a lid on things while the peaceful demonstration took place.


Lord Saville's report strongly criticised the conduct of solidiers involved in Bloody Sunday.

It said there was

"a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline"

that none of those killed was posing a serious threat.

Some people were killed fleeing or going to the aid of others.

The report also said that many of the soldiers involved had lied about what happened.


From David Cameron's statement in the Commons

"I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve.

But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear.
There is no doubt.
There is nothing equivocal.
There are no ambiguities.
What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable.

It was wrong.

Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying.
The report refers to one person who was shot while "crawling … away from the soldiers" ... Another was shot, in all probability, "when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground" ... and a father was "hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to…tend his son".

Full report

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:22 AM

Weren't all sides given an amnesty. If so, why has so much money been spent on this incident?

All forms of war are terrible and innocent people are going to get killed.

I still remember the Birmingham Pub bombings

Quote
The Birmingham pub bombings occurred on 21 November 1974 in Birmingham, England. The explosions killed 21 people and injured 182. The devices were placed in two central Birmingham pubs – the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town (now renamed the Yard of Ale).It has been claimed that members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) planted the bombs.
Unquote

I do not condone what happened and am glad that the truth has come out.

Can we now let it RIP

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:25 AM

"continue calling British Soldiers on BRITISH soil an Occupying Army"
I'm old enough to remember somebody saying something similar about India once.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:30 AM

The report says that shots were fired by IRA too.
It says that "on balance" they "believe" that it was not the first shots.
They do not say why they believe that version.

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:09 AM

If you search your memories, Jim, I believe you will find that Ireland was British soil for hundreds of years before the UK occupied India. A fellow called Cromwell continued previous possession.

Assuming that the report is correct that shots were fired by the IRA (first, second, third, or whatever) it is entirely clear that armed IRA terrorists were present.

My suspicion is that it is the present version of events that has been creatively written to provide a basis to say "Oh dear we were bad rulers, can we now exist in peace and will all you naughty boys stop bombing and shooting please?".

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Lox
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:17 AM

As usual, Keith knows better.

If only they hadn't wasted all that time and money, they could have got Kieth to do it instead.

David Cameron has apologized, the report recognizes that a crime was committed ...

... but Kieth is still trying to justify it.


If ever there was any reason to believe your claim of neutrality mate, you've totally blown it now.


I suspect you'll be back on this thread explaining why Cameron and the report were wrong and that you'll still be justifying the soldiers actions in years to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:52 AM

I do not recognise myself in your post Lox.
I did not attempt to justify the killings did I?
For the record, I do not.
I do not claim to know better.
The report actually says, "As we have stated, the evidence of paramilitary gunfire in Sector 1 is confusing. However, we have no doubt that OIRA 1 fired the shot that hit the drainpipe on the side of the Presbyterian church; and we equally have no doubt that there was other paramilitary gunfire in this sector before soldiers of 1 PARA went into the Bogside. The evidence suggests to us that this was probably firing by members of the Official IRA."

Am I not allowed to draw attention to these overlooked sections?
What have you got against me Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,D.Company Belfast
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:12 AM

This report has been a long time coming. It showed that the Murderous British army ran amok in the North of Ireland for 30 years. The campaign of the Provisional Irish Republican army was justified. Today we must not only remember the dead of Derry, but also the volunteers of the P.I.R.A. We honour them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:22 AM

You must have seen a different report, D.
This one reported only that 3 or four soldiers in an army of tens of thousands "ran amok" one afternoon in 1972.
How does that justify a campaign of violence the caused the death of thousands more people, including so many more innocents?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Lox
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:24 AM

Don't feed the trolls.

Subject: RE: Lyr Req: Bloody Sunday (Irish Republican song)
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:26 AM

Today's Financial Times of London has an excellent report on it and a couple editorials.

http://www.ft.com "Cameron apologises for Bloody Sunday"

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:43 AM

There is an excellent article in today's Financial Times of London and some editorials.

http://www.ft.com

"Cameron apologises for Bloody Sunday"

The entire report is online with FT. It reads like a well written novel and is broken into 10 volumes. If you read nothing else try Volumn I, chapter 3 "Events of the Day."

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

The truly shocking part is...it cost 200 million pounds to create the report. (The Brits surly do love their lawyers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Noreen
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:30 AM

Bloody Sunday report published- BBC report
The Bloody Sunday killings were unjustified and unjustifiable, the Prime Minster has said.

At long, long last!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Mr Happy
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:30 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:36 AM

'The truly shocking part is...it cost 200 million pounds to create the report. (The Brits surly do love their lawyers.'

So how much is the truth worth, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Den
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 10:26 AM

Unjustifiable has got to be the understatement of the century.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 11:11 AM

>>Unjustifiable has got to be the understatement of the century<<

Just like this.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 11:54 AM

The history of the world is so full of 'unjustifiable' responses to provocation that it's hard to wrap one's mind around the total context of it all.

No...they shouldn't shoot people like that....and people ought to KNOW that when you protest and dare folks with guns, occasionally some idiot is going to fire.

(They shouldn't have shot into the crowd at Kent State Univ. in the US, either....but....)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 12:31 PM

"Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, the officer directly in charge of the paratroopers, has always maintained that his soldiers were fired on first and were merely doing their duty. But the Saville report, which strongly criticised the Parachute Regiment, said Wilford ignored orders from his brigadier that he should not order troops beyond a barrier deeper into the Bogside area."

Six months after Bloody Sunday he was given an OBE...

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 12:35 PM

"If you search your memories, Jim, I believe you will find that Ireland was British soil for hundreds of years before the UK occupied India"
And if you open your books Richard, you'll find that opposition to British rule goes back beyond Cromwell.
As an internationalist, I have no great interest in national boundries one way or another, but I have come to realise that others attach great importance to them and are prepared to die for them.
I wonder how long we Brits would have gone on fighting if Nazi Germany had won the war.
Britain has felt the need to keep an armed presence in Ireland throughout the time it has ruled there, not from fear of invasion from outside but because of opposition from inside. Both Bloody Sundays (don't forget the first one) were the result.
"My suspicion is that it is the present version of events that has been creatively written......"
Now how did I know that, whatever the report came up with, there would be flag-wavers popping up everywhere saying similar.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 01:04 PM

The evidence that the army fired first came from eyewitnesses, including newspaper reporters, whose evidence is in the public domain and matches reports published at the time.

The evidence that the demonstrators fired at all comes from the army and MI6, whose evidence was given in secret, indeed, we're not allowed to know what it was. And they had every incentive to keep their own role in prolonging the war- because they'd have been out of a job otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: vectis
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:33 PM

The anger engendered by this incident caused too many deaths on all sides. The worst part of it was the way the soldiers lied about it...
Caused even more anger and more deaths.

Bout time something near the truth came out.

Subject: RE: BS: Murdered activists cleared of terrorism
From: Gurney
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:53 PM

Jim, wouldn't you say that this whole thread is a flag waving exercise?

I can see both the orange-and-green and the red-white-and-blue represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:51 PM

The impressive thing is the way government and army spokesmen can keep a straight face while saying that all this happened long ago, and that casual murder of innocent people by the military could never happen today.

Meanwhile the inquiry into the killing of Baha Mousa, the Iraqi hotel worker beaten to death by soldiers in 2003, is taking place round the corner.
..................was

I note that General Michael Jackson, who after Bloody Sunday was associated with the labelling of victim as bomb-throwers and snipers, and later became head of the army, has issued a statement in which he referred to David Cameron's "fulsome apology". Look up "fulsome" in a dictionary. It doesn't mean "full"...

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:05 AM

Seeing it as British troops firing on civilians on British soil makes it worse, not better than an occupying army. It puts it in the same light as Peterloo (as has been done in the media), where the military (local militia in that case) attack those they are supposed to protect.

It is that which makes it different from what happened after with the groups on both sides which killed indiscriminately on both sides of the Irish Sea, and picked out and murdered those they objected to. It is that which makes it deserving of the extensive investigation. Pointing at lack of similar response to IRA atrocities ignores the particular wrong done when a nation's army shoots its citizens. (The same, of course, applies to the police.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:22 AM

Paul Burke, you said "The evidence that the demonstrators fired at all comes from the army and MI6, whose evidence was given in secret, indeed, we're not allowed to know what it was."

The report actually says, "As we have stated, the evidence of paramilitary gunfire in Sector 1 is confusing. However, we have no doubt that OIRA 1 fired the shot that hit the drainpipe on the side of the Presbyterian church; and we equally have no doubt that there was other paramilitary gunfire in this sector before soldiers of 1 PARA went into the Bogside. The evidence suggests to us that this was probably firing by members of the Official IRA."

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:27 AM

Gurney
"Jim, wouldn't you say that this whole thread is a flag waving exercise?"
Not really. I have made my own position clear - as a British citizen I am angered that the British Army should shoot down protestors in my name.
The report confirms what many of us have known for decades.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:28 AM

No smoke without fire Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:50 AM

Anyway, the report must be true - that nice Mr Cameron said so!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:52 AM

Well of course it's true Jim. David Cameron is not a liar like Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:38 AM

"Well of course it's true Jim. David Cameron is not a liar like Obama!"
Politicians, liars? Go wash your mouth out!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:08 PM

Keith, Saville does not need to say why he "believes" the first shots were not fired by the Official IRA. He has arrived at his view "on balance" in light of the evidence presented. Most of that evidence was heard in public and published at the time it was given. I have no doubt that Saville will have subjected it to microscopic analysis in the body of his report. but I have not yet read all 5,000 pages. If you or anyone else would like to have a stab at that, here it is:

Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry

Jim, the analogy with India does have one or two limitations. For instance Northern Ireland's status accords with the declared wishes of a majority of its population, which was far from the case in pre-partition India. Also, in conforming with the wishes of Ghandi and Jinnah, the Brits left the region in obscene haste, resulting in a bloodbath in which the death toll ran into millions. The slightly more civilised disengagement from Ireland is, in my view, much to be preferred.

Richard Bridge's suggestion the Saville report is a piece of creative writing is quite extraordinary. It is a view that has not been advanced by any informed commentator from any side of the arguments. To sustain his suspicion he must have somehow persuaded himself that liars like Soldier F were telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 09:55 PM

I'll bet the Israeli/ UN report on the tragedy of the Boats-For-Gaza of last fortnight gets done in less time, with less expenditure, and more initial honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 04:33 AM

"Northern Ireland's status accords with the declared wishes of a majority of its population,"
Only after a border had been carefully drawn to ensure that majority.
Originally the intention was to include the whole of the nine counties of Ulster into the Province, but when those involved realised that this would give a Catholic majority, three counties were hastily dispensed with (I think it's called 'gerrymandering'). The First Minister was then in the position to declare that he would govern over a 'Protestant State', in spite of a sizeable Catholic minority (one-third, I think) - a built in disaster waiting to happen, I would have thought.
I really can't recall a referendum on the subject, can anyone?.
Sorry - I really am not arguing the rights and wrongs of all this - it just doesn't seem to me to be a stable way to govern a country.
It's always amused me that we are in the somewhat ludicrous position that the northernmost point of Ireland is in the South.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 05:16 AM

Peter K, fair enough he does not have to say how he balanced the evidence, but why does he say in the vol 1 overview that he "believes" army shot first, but in the detail of those events he says OIRA "no doubt" fired shots before Paras even entered Bogside?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 05:22 AM

I'll bet the Israeli/ UN report on the tragedy of the Boats-For-Gaza of last fortnight gets done in less time, with less expenditure, and more initial honesty.

The same sort of honesty as Widgery? I am sure robomatic is right about that. Especially in the light of the fact that Israel has invited David Trimble to oversee it, and he was a fervent backer of Widgery's clumsy whitewashing operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:16 AM

This has all the makings of a 'who fired first' battle, giving the impression that the incident was Brits versus I.R.A. - which it wasn't, of course, but why let facts get in the way of a good argument.
It was, once again, a case of the Army firing on unarmed demonstrators and killing thirteen of them, and there can be no justification of that whatever. It has been suggested that one soldier alone was responsible for four deaths.
Just as with the earlier Civil Rights demonstrations in Derry, if the British Government had taken seriously the legitimate grievences of the people of Northern Ireland in the first place instead of doing what they always do and attemptng to suppress them with military force, Bloody Sunday would not have happened, nor would the decades of slaughter that followed.
When will they ever learn, and when will we ever get round to stopping them from acting as if the Empire is still at its height?
These murders were carried out in our name.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:40 AM

The incident was not Brits versus IRA, but it is relevant that a Brits versus IRA exchange was going on concurrently.

Has anyone even attempted to justify what those three or four soldiers did?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:20 AM

"Has anyone even attempted to justify what those three or four soldiers did?"
They most certainly have - for thirty odd years, and if you are refering to this thread, Richard Bridge thinks it's all an invention of politicians anyway. The 'who fired argument smacks of 'defence' as it did with the Israeli atrocities one.
The shootings had nothing whatever to do with the real/imagined IRA exchange had nothing whatever to do with the cold blooded shooting down of (if we are to accept the description) British citizens.
I wonder how many people would have rushed to defend Bloody Sunday if it had happened in Brimingham, or Liverpool! or Manchester - now there'sa thought - maybe Peterloo was the fault of all those nasty radicals and we've been misjudging Joe Nadin ind his lads all these years.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:24 AM

Sorry - missed a bit.
I find your "what those three or four soldiers did?" an extremely telling phrase as well - no officers, no commands to open fire, no political a judiacial cover up, no media justification, just four lads in khaki going it alone.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:54 AM

I acknowledge there was a cover up afterwards, but otherwise yes, just those individuals who went out of control.

(Why do you challenge Saville with your use of "/imagined" ?)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 08:41 AM

"Why do you challenge Saville with your use of "/imagined"
It has taken thirty-odd years to reach the situation where we can claim without contradiction that there has been a massacre of innocent civilians; now we are looking at the detail. I haven't read the report in full (have you/has anybody here) but I understand that the evidence for IRA fire came from those who have been found to have carried out the massacre ("they would say that, wouldn't they" springs to mind instantly, I'm afraid) - we'll see.
Why are you attempting to scapegoat soldiers under orders for what is obviously (to me anyway) a political/military decision to violently suppress a demonstration, especially as it had happened not too long before in Derry when the police deliberately routed a protest march to place the demonstators at the mercy of a screaming mob?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 08:48 AM

I did provide the passage that said there was "no doubt" about IRA fire.
I have not read it all but if those who did the unlawful killing were ordered to do it, I am sure it would have been reported prominently.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 08:55 AM

"I have not read it all but if those who did the unlawful killing were ordered to do it, I am sure it would have been reported prominently."
In which case, we are about to see those responsible arrested and tried for murder, or at the very least, manslaughter - do you honestly believe that this is about to happen?
So far we have not even been told their names.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 09:07 AM

"In which case, we are about to see ...."

Unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 09:14 AM

"Unlikely. "
Game, set and match I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 12:01 PM

I'm curious Keith - do you have any evidence that the massacre was carried out by a handful of rogue squaddies or have you decided this off your own bat?
I'm buggered if I can find any reference to it in the enquiry report.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 12:24 PM

The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries. The question remains, however, as to whether others also bear direct or indirect responsibility for what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 12:52 PM

Should have been in quotes.
from vol 1

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 01:00 PM

Yep -read that - says it was unjustifiable; doen't say it was unauthorised - that seems to be your own interpretation.
Never mind - that's what the squaddies are there for - to carry the can back when things go wrong.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 03:02 PM

Same old crap. The most exhaustive study ever done shows conclusively that the Army fired first, was unjustified in firing, murdered innocent and peaceful demonstrators, one fellow crawling away was shot in the back .... and the apologists start looking to parse words. Even Bill D makes the insinuation that provocation caused the unjustified shootings. Would you have said that about King's march in Selma? Peaceful people, protesting the British occupation of their homeland (whether you think that is true or not is not relevant, it is what they felt), were fired upon. The fact that there were armed IRA and Nationalists in the crowd doesn't mean a lot, there always are. But there was no reason to open fire. The Army was wrong, the report proves it, the PM apologized upon full review of the report. Richard...... your comment boggles the mind ...... I expected different.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:42 PM

The killimg may well have been unauthorised, but the subsequent cover-up was not.

The cover-up, which was organised at the highest level involved justifying what those soldiers did, and what their commanding officers did. The man who sent the death squad into the Bogside, apparently against orders, was given an OBE a few months after Bloody Sunday.

And the cover-up probably did even more to ensure that the war escalated and continued for a generation than the the Bloody Sunday killings did. If there had been an immediate recognition of the truth, immediate action to identify all those responsible and deal with them appropriately, and a sincere apology in the same teerms as Cameron made this week, thousands of lives over the years could well have been saved.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Noreen
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:59 PM

Totally agree, Kevin.
And it is the perjury which is the only thing worth pursuing and prosecuting at this stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:26 PM

Not just the perjury - the way in which the judicial system was corrupted and distorted in the process of the cover-up.

It should also be remembered that in March 1976 Lord Chief Justice Widgery dismissed the first appeal by the Birmingham Six in respect of the Birmingham pub bombings. It was 1991 before his finding was overthrown, and these innocent men freed from jail.

"A safe pair of hands" is how this kind of helpful public servant is decribed by those who find his services so useful, in the short run any rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 03:36 AM

I agree that the cover up was what made this of such consequence in the escalation of the troubles.
It was likely done in the hope of reducing the impact. A hugely costly mistake.

Big Mick, members of this small unit killed indiscriminately, and shame on them, but please remember that small units of your army have done much worse things than Bloody Sunday.
In Iraq for instance I recall reprisal killings of innocent unarmed civillians including children, and a whole family killed to facilitate the rape of a young girl.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 03:44 AM

The evidence that the demonstrators fired at all comes from the army and MI6, whose evidence was given in secret, indeed, we're not allowed to know what it was. And they had every incentive to keep their own role in prolonging the war- because they'd have been out of a job otherwise. - Paul Burke

Somebody referred to the evidence presented and the balancing of that evidence by Lord Saville. Is the truth now known about the events of that day? No it is not because not everyone who should have gave evidence did they, all members of the OIRA and PIRA present in Londonderry on that day did not give evidence, and could not be compelled to give evidence as members of the Security Forces were, they have not been given the the opportunity to tell the truth and whatever evidence they might have given could not of course have been "balanced" by Lord Saville.

By the bye Paul I did not realise that MI6 and Army are or ever have been part time organisations. Your contention that:

they had every incentive to keep their own role in prolonging the war- because they'd have been out of a job otherwise.

Is utterly ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 04:03 AM

On the subject of lies and cover ups. Please correct me if I am wrong here but with regard to that Civil Rights Demonstration:

At the time
1. According to the OIRA they were not present
2. According to the PIRA they were not present

After evidence came to light (photograph of Martin McGuinness in the crowd) it was stated that while they "might" have been present they were unarmed "observers".

Now it turns out that they were both there and that they were armed. In addition it turns out that not only were the OIRA and PIRA present and armed and Saville states that "no doubt" the OIRA fired shots prior to 1 Para entering the area.

Were the OIRA trying to provoke an incident that the PIRA would be blamed for? Who knows, it would not be unique or unusual. As to blame and possible prosecution of those covering things up and giving orders on the day, I do not think that you will find Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness clamouring for any such action, and they have good cause to dread that anybody does adopt such a course. In Londonderry alone there are some 87 murders that could be linked to Mr McGuinness as Derry Brigade Commander/Deputy Commander, while over in Belfast around that time Gerry Adams undoubtely knew about and sanctioned actions taken against Mrs Jean McConville who was abducted, tortured and murdered. So I think that this will all be put to rest very quickly if they want the GFA and the "Peace Process" to remain in effect. Still no accounting for what might happen when loads of people run about demanding justice, what they get of course is law, which is not the same thing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Penny S.
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 04:40 AM

The radio - Saturday Live, BBC Radio 4 - has just been interviewing a woman who was 16 and wrote a diary of the day. One of her points was that the shooting did not make sense to her. Here was the army which had arrived in NI to protect the civil rights activists from the Unionist majority, shooting those it was supposed to protect. Not quite an occupying army up to that point. Perhaps it would be proper for someone to investigate just where the PBI got their ideas from? (And get them - I've seen a website with far right leaning with a forum group "for squaddies") And work out how to improve their briefings on rules of engagement.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 08:29 AM

"1. According to the OIRA they were not present" "2. According to the PIRA they were not present"
According to previous enquiries the shooting down of thirteen unarmed Irish demonstrators demonstrators was fully justified.
The presence of armed OIRA or PIRA members is based entirely on undisclosed evidence by anonymous members of the force that carried out the killings.
Oh dear, what's a girl to believe!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 10:15 AM

From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:52 AM

Well of course it's true Jim. David Cameron is not a liar like Obama!





Just what in the bloody hell does Obama have to do with any of this?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 11:26 AM

Jim, "The presence of armed OIRA or PIRA members is based entirely on undisclosed evidence by anonymous members of the force that carried out the killings"

If you are referring to Saville, that is not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 11:46 AM

The presence of armed OIRA or PIRA members is based entirely on undisclosed evidence by anonymous members of the force that carried out the killings.
Oh dear, what's a girl to believe!!!

Anything a girl damn well likes Jim, but most important of all, irrespective of source, Saville believed it after balancing the evidence available to the extent that he made a specific comment on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 02:43 PM

"Saville believed it after balancing the evidence available to the extent that he made a specific comment on it."
Then why are you bringing in irrelevant speculation as to whether the "
"OIRA were trying to provoke an incident that the PIRA would be blamed for?" which was not considered in the report (other than to divert the thread from the fact that the British Army shot down thirteen unarmed (British) demonstrators.
Those responsible for the massacre have lied and covered up for well over thirt years - isn't it rather too late to try and get them off the hook by shifting the blame after they've actually got round to 'fessing up"?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 03:12 PM

Not entirely speculative Jim.
The report has evidence that PIRA men tried to stop OIRA men from carrying out their operations.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 03:47 PM

Right then, the inquiry has been carried out at great cost, the conclusions have been drawn, and the results published.
It concludes that it was wrong to kill unarmed civilians, that's not news, we knew that the day it happened.
The PM has apologised, what more is required?
IF another endless post mortem is to be carried out in these threads it will NEVER come to a reconciliation of the opposing sides.
HOWEVER, if you want to rake it over, lets include, Brighton, Guildford, Warrington, Omagh, Warrenpoint, Nairac, Mountbatten, Wilson, etc etc etc, ad nauseam.
Again it will prove nothing, just further entrench viewpoints already held, and endlessly restated.
Why don't you all try living in the here and now, and put the past behind you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 05:05 PM

We still have not any details about how the cover-up by the government and the army was organised, and who was involved in ordering it, in authorising it, in organising it or in colluding in it. If we are to be protected against that being done in future it is important that that information is revealed.

What is needed is a change of the culture so that covering up for the crimes of colleagues, in the army, the police, or indeed in any organisation, is not seen as loyalty, but as treachery. We are an awfully long way from that, as has been demonstrated time and time again up to the present time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 06:23 PM

There are also no details of how and who organised many of the events I listed above. Why is it important that one side gets full information, but the other refuses to give evidence at the Saville enquiry.
Come on lets draw a line under all this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 06:48 PM

Because "one side", ie the government - is running the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 08:47 PM

footnote (some light relief), November 1983:

U2 is in a studio in Dublin, playing its new song, ÒSunday Bloody Sunday,Ó to the record company. The melody is a good one but the lyric is, in hindsight, an inarticulate speech of the heart. ItÕs a small song that tries but fails to contrast big ideas ... atonement with forgiveness ... ÒBloody SundayÓ with Easter Sunday. The song will be sung wherever there are rock fans with mullets and rage, from Sarajevo to Tehran. Over time, the lyric will change and grow. But here, with the Cockneyed record company boss at the songÕs birth, the maternity ward goes quiet when the man announces that the baby is Òa hitÓ... with one caveat: ÒDrop the Ôbloody.Õ ÔBloodyÕ wonÕt bloody work on the radio.Ó

(Bono, writing in the New York Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 02:20 AM

"Right then, the inquiry has been carried out at great cost, the conclusions have been drawn, and the results published.
It concludes that it was wrong to kill unarmed civilians, that's not news, we knew that the day it happened.
The PM has apologised, what more is required?
IF another endless post mortem is to be carried out in these threads it will NEVER come to a reconciliation of the opposing sides.
HOWEVER, if you want to rake it over, lets include, Brighton, Guildford, Warrington, Omagh, Warrenpoint, Nairac, Mountbatten, Wilson, etc etc etc, ad nauseam.
Again it will prove nothing, just further entrench viewpoints already held, and endlessly restated.
Why don't you all try living in the here and now, and put the past behind you?"

+1 for the most sensible contribution on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 02:46 AM

McGrath, those responsible for all those other indiscriminate killings of innocent civillians are also in government now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 03:52 AM

"The PM has apologised, what more is required?..."
There's still the small matter of six counties to be sorted yet - unless we want a replay.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 04:56 AM

We could ask the people who live in those counties.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 05:05 AM

"There's still the small matter of six counties to be sorted yet - unless we want a replay."

True enough Jim, but unless people (especially the people of Ireland) get their heads out of the past and into the now and the future, that matter never will be 'sorted out'.

Constantly replaying past wrongs won't 'sort out' anything - all it does is reinforce peoples' inbred hatreds. Finger-pointing and blame-laying is not positive and will not get anything 'sorted out'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 05:52 AM

"We could ask the people who live in those counties."
That would be a first.
"......get their heads out of the past "
While six counties remain under British rule the past will continue to be the present into the forseeable future.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 06:09 AM

I thought they had been asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 06:15 AM

The creation of 'Northern Ireland' (sic) based on a gerrymandered border, in order to leave a Protestant majority in power, was a political act which led to 80 years of often bloody conflict.
Asking that gerrymandered (then two-thirds, much less now) majority whether they would like the situation to remain the same would achieve - what exactly?
They could, of course, ask the population of whole of the Province of Ulster (the only valid historical entity) whether they wished to be Irish or British - but I can't see them any more prepared to do that than they were in 1922 - can you?
Incidentally, in answer to the question "what now", the press this morning is full of suggestions, including putting those responsible on trial, (as you would any murderers and perjurers, no matter how long ago their crimes were committed) and even involving the Hague War Crimes Court - take your pick.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 06:59 AM

It is no good trying to change history.
Hardly anyone alive has known anything but the current status.
Why can't the people who live, work, and bring up their families there, now, have what they want now?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 08:25 AM

In which case hold a referendum in Northern Ireland tomorrow and then abide by the decision made by the people the result will affect and put this to bed for good. At any point in the future should the inhabitants of Northern Ireland wish to revisit the issue they can hold another referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 10:35 AM

"......get their heads out of the past "
"While six counties remain under British rule the past will continue to be the present into the forseeable future."

And there, my case rests, M'Lud.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 11:08 AM

Why not abide by the result of the 1922 referendum?
Mind you, I'm not too sure that the Irish Republic would welcome this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Smedley
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 12:49 PM

Irish culture, much like Israeli culture, depends on a narrative of past persecutions for a substantial part of its identity.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 03:05 PM

"And there, my case rests, M'Lud."
Don't know where you are B. but I wonder how long and how hard the British would fight if say, Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Hampshire, Sussex and Kent were annexed by France and became French - perhaps you'd care to speculate?
The 'troubles' will continue in Ireland until Britain takes a giant step into the 21st century and acknowleges that the days of Empire are all but gone (despite reports to the contrary from The Last Night At The Proms'.
Bloody Sunday, the violent suppression of the Civil Rights Marches, The Birmingham Six and Guildford Four fit-ups, internment without trial, the bombing campaigns, the hunger strikes...... are not 'the Irish problem' they are often claimed to be, but merely the symptoms - and pompous arrogance such as "people (especially the people of Ireland) get their heads out of the past" only confirms, to my mind at least, how just far in the past British thought is lodged.
"In which case hold a referendum in Northern Ireland tomorrow"
Are you referring to Northern Ireland proper or the gerrymandered one created politically in 1922 to produce a Protestant state?
"Why not abide by the result of the 1922 referendum?"
Isn't this what Backwoodsman describes as "Living in the past" - the partition of Ireland clearly has not worked and is never likely to.
Northern (sic) Ireland was a political creation which never worked, and never will - that is the lesson of Bloody Sunday. Leave things as they are at present and you are passing the problem on to the next generation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 03:24 PM

Not arguing with any of that, Jim. Just saying that nothing will be solved by finger-pointing, blame-laying and shit-flinging over things that happened long ago, and which can't be 'un-happened'.

Without all sides stepping back from past wrongs, facing up to the uncontestable fact that there's blame on all parties, and vowing to put the future before all else, there's no solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 03:27 PM

I believe the referendum resulted in a massive vote in favour of seccession. (Only 4 counties voted to stay British)
That's what I mean when I say, abide by it.
Had it not been for Carson, and the refusal of British troops at the Curragh to partake in controlling the threats of armed insurrection, by him and his followers, then, as I understand it, the whole of Ireland would have become an independant republic.
I'm not 100% sure of my facts on that, so I'm willing to stand corrected if I misunderstand the situation in 1922.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 03:40 PM

There you go with your ancient history again.
Try to catch up with the present.
It is what people want now that counts.
If, years ago, any 6 counties such as Jim mentioned ended up being governed by France, and if the people of those counties wanted to stay French, only a fascist would put a gun to their head and force them back to British rule.
Scotland only has to vote for independence and it will get it.
Likewise Wales, Cornwall or any other part of Britain.
Never mind what happened before any of us alive now were born.
Let people choose their future if they cannot change the past.

And, believe me, no one will be more overjoyed than the people of mainland Britain if you ever manage to persuade 51% to vote to leave!
As soon as you like.
Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 05:14 PM

".....shit-flinging over things that happened long ago,"
How long is long ago - 38 years ago is long ago for some people - why hold a Bloody Sunday enquiry - why not just gloss it over as Widgery tried to do?
More recently, the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four - are these too long ago - why were they released, exonertated and held up as classic cases of injustice - why bother - all in the past?
"and if the people of those counties wanted to stay French,"
What utter bollocks - apart from the fact the the people of Ireland as a whole have never at any time been asked if they wanted the return of the six counties forcibly retained under the threat of invasion as part of Britain - in fact, they had a civil war over it.
Empire is a thing of the past.
What on earth do you people think 'The Troubles' were about, Bloody Sunday, The Civil Rights Movement, The Hunger Strikers....?
I asked before; how long would British people go on fighting if Nazi Germany had won the last war - or would they have cosied down into the Third Reich and put Britain as an independant nation down to 'a thing of the past'?
THe situation as it stands TODAY is that six Irish counties remain under British rule long after the British Empire has become a thing of the past - this has led to bloodshed and protest it is this that has to be dealt with - if it is not, it will remain a festering sore within these islands.
The circle that has to be squared is that the people of those six Irish counties are just that - Irish (I'm not aware that any of us have the right to opt out of our nationality).
Not sure of the point you are point you are making about Carson, Keith; he led a military mutiny against Home Rule in 1914 - if he had led it in favour, he would have been executed, as were the Easter Week rebels.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 05:52 PM

Keith, you have taken nothing from Saville if you still think Boody Sunday was down to three of four rogue squaddies. Have a look at what Saville says about General Ford (re deploying the Paras to Derry) and the odious Colonel Wilford (re disobeying orders).

Jim has a fair point (too subtle for Teribus) about partition. The border was indeed drawn carefully (and in fact logically, if there had to be a border at all) to ensure that as far as was reasonable Northern Ireland would be comprised ony of people who wanted to be in it. That simple fact undermines the credibility of any referendum carried out only in Northern Ireland.

The downside of Jim's position is that through most of the history of partition, any referendum undertaken across the whole island of Ireland would also, in all probability, have supported partition.

Various factors point to this conclusion. First partition was supported by Ireland's elected parliament when Collins took the deal back to the Dail. (Had it not been for Dev's refusal to accept parliament's will (a refusal which tore the state apart) partition would have ended generations ago, exactly as Collins had intended.) Second the anecdotal evidence that anyone can glean by travelling around the republic (and far more so "beyond the pale") is that indifference and apathy towards the whole question of Northern Ireland is huge. Third, there is the evidence of the republic's referendum in 1998 about whether to abandoning the constitutional claim on the territory of Northern Ireland. It produced a majority of 94 per cent in favour of amending the constitution, unpalatable as Jim must find that fact.

To answer jim's question about referenda in Northern Ireland, there was one in 1993 specifically on the status of Northern Ireland. The vote in favour of staying in the UK was 57 per cent, with less than one per cent against. (It was obviously boycotted by nationalists.) In 1998 there was a referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, contemporaneously with the one in the republic. The vote in favour of the agreement (which of course recognised NI's status as part of the UK) was 71 per cent.

At the time of the 1998 referenda, Ireland had one of the fastest-growing economies in the developed world. More recently its fortunes have been dramatically reversed, making it even more unlikely than it has always been hitherto, that Dublin would be even slightly interested in taking on the challenge of several hundred thousand belligerent prods. Likewise unification must look at least a little less attractive than previously to the Northern Ireland population. Jim has quite a lot of canvassing to do before he can claim any kind of democractic support for a united Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 06:28 PM

Accepting and tolerating Partition as something that has to be lived with for now is not the same as "supporting" it. (And as for that "anecdotal evidence that anyone can glean", it's not in line with what I've ever gleaned. But that's the trouble with anecdotal evidence. It all depends on whom you happen to pass your time with.
..............................

But focusing all our attention on Ireland alone here is to my mind to miss the point. The signs from recent episodes of violence towards innocent people by agents of the state - remember the way the butchery of Jean de Menezes was dealt with - are that the attitudes that underpinned and orchestrated the cover-up, with all its lies, are still very much present and active.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 10:43 PM

McG, I don't know how much time you've spent in Ireland, north or south, but you would find that for many Northern Ireland catholics, one of the most distressing aspects of the reunification campaign has been the lack of support it has had from their fellow catholics in the republic. i hesitate to take his name in vain, but I think you might find that our friend Ard Mhacha of this parish is one who holds this view.

I think it's a bit harsh to suggest that state attitudes have not changed a lot.The Widgery report was produced at a time when there was a strong belief within the judiciary that the state and its agents could do no wrong. In all probability Widgery believed the co-ordinated lies and deceptions put forward by the Paras and senior officers - in muh the way that Lord Denning was unable to uphold the Birmingham Six appeal on the grounds that to do so would mean police officer had lied - which any right-minded peron would regard as unthinkable.

Catastrophic failings in the judicial system such a the Birmingham ix, Judith Ward, the Guildford Four and several cases unconnected with Ireland, stripped lawyers and judges of their godlike status in much the same way as child abuse did for the catholic hierarchies in several countries. In both cases overwheening arrogance has had to be tempered with a little bit of humility. And in the case of the judiciary, establishing a Criminal Cases Review Commission has been an important step in the right direction.

Bloody Sunday was an exception even among exceptions and it is right and inevitable that the Saville report and debate about the report (including a parliamentay debate in autumn ) should treat it as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 01:51 AM

Jim, how long is long ago?
38 years is long, but the people of NI wanted the enquiry.
They were belatedly given it, at great expence.
Pity IRAs decided not to provide evidence.
The OIRA witness said he did so because local people wanted it.
Fair play to him.
Shame on the IRAs.

I can not agree that the aspirations of the people now should be denied them bacause of disputed events of 90 years ago.
Your message would be , accept Dublin rule or we kill you?

Back to the present, the report finds that the overwhelming majority of the soldiers did not disobey orders and shoot protesters.
Decisions were taken that hind sight shows to be mistaken, but no one was ordered or allowed to shoot protesters, and it was in clear breach of the rules of engagement.
I have acknowledged that the effect of the cover up by army, government and IRAs was disasterous.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:28 AM

...and Jim, I said nothing about Carson.
Ancient history.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:44 AM

I made my attitude to nationalism, et al clear earlier on; but just in case:
"As an internationalist, I have no great interest in national boundries one way or another, but I have come to realise that others attach great importance to them and are prepared to die for them."
What we have here on this thread is a microcosm of everything that has gone wrong with Ireland.
Here we have - what are you - a bunch of Brits (maybe some Americans thrown in), the same as me, (I have Irish family connections, but I was born and spent the most of my life in Britain) deciding and pontificating on what is best for the Irish, what they want, what they need, what they have done and should do...... the Empire midset writ small!
This is exactly what has caused all the trouble down the centuries, and has led to poor governance, poverty, a lethally mismanaged famine, mass emigration, massacres, a treaty forced through under threat of invasion, the partitioning of the country on religious grounds in favour of the majority religion over the minority, culminating in 80 years of conflict; mainly bloody, the need for a permanent military presence, - and what do you come up with? - the maintaining of the status quo - brilliant!!!
I still haven't had a reply to my "if the Nazis had won the war" question, yet it remains at the heart of what is happening in Ireland today - a nation conquored, colonised, poorly governed and finally partitioned under threat.
None of this is "living in the past"; these events shaped modern Ireland as surely as The Battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar made Britain what it is today.
As with many former colonies, Britain left Ireland in a mess, it has poured in money and young lives to suppress the effects of that mess, and if the source of the problem isn't tackled, it will be your children and your children's children who are killing and dying for a partitioned Ireland in the not-to-distant future.
Peter K claims a lack of support from the Republic for what is happening in the North - not my experience, having lived here for a dozen years, but that aside. In the thirty odd years I lived in London I didn't meet many people who understood or cared very much what was happening in Ireland, until the bombs started going off in their streets, and then all they wanted was for Ireland to go away. It is to the shame of those responsible that it has taken bombs on mainland Britain to get a debate on the future of Ireland going (no, I certainly don't support violence; I abhor it and those who cause it, but that's the way it is).
The partitioning of Ireland was a political act and asking a gerrrymandered population to decide the future is going to solve nothing.
There is a fragile peace here at present - so fragile that a politicians wife putting herself about very nearly brought about what had been achieved so far, crashing around our ears - that is Britain's legacy to Ireland - one to be proud of - I don't think so really - does anybody?
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:53 AM

"bunch of Brits (maybe some Americans thrown in), the same as me, (I have Irish family connections, but I was born and spent the most of my life in Britain) deciding and pontificating on what is best for the Irish"

No, we are pontificating that the people involved should decide for themselves.

Your WW2 question. The fight would go on as long as there was a will fight.
When a majority preferred things to remain as they are, who would have the right to deny them?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:16 AM

For balance, here are some views of the soldiers who were there.
I can not make a link that works.
Google Telegraph bloody sunday

In an extraordinary fight back against the inquiry's finding that the shooting of 14 unarmed civilians was "unjustifiable" the Paras accused Lord Saville of coming to "subjective and inaccurate conclusions".

In a letter passed to The Daily Telegraph on behalf of 35 former members of 1st Bn The Parachute Regiment present on Bloody Sunday they wanted it to be known "that we have no desire that the report's finding be now buried and forgotten".

"This is because we believe the inquiry as convened was fundamentally flawed and its conclusions based upon a subjective interpretation of only some of the evidence adduced before it."

It said Lord Saville "chose one position and cherry picked his evidence to support it" and rejected the soldier's evidence that they came under fire.

The soldiers came to the defence of their commanding officer, Lt Col Derek Wilford accusing Lord Saville of a "cynical exercise" to blame a senior rank to avoid condemning junior soldiers.

The letter also attacks Martin McGuinness saying "a more untruthful and unreliable witness would be hard to find". Mr McGuinness, Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister and self-confessed Provisional IRA commander on Bloody Sunday, was accused by Lord Saville of carrying but apparently not using a Thompson machine gun on the day.

The Saville report said the men from Support Company, 1 Para, "lost their self-control" on Jan 30, 1972 and then "put forward false accounts to justify their firing" when they gave evidence.

But the report, that was released last Tuesday, "totally ignored" the evidence of soldiers who said they had come under fire, said the letter.

"Clear and consistent eye witness accounts were discounted and all these people branded as liars.

"Any purely objective assessment of all the evidence would conclude that the truth was difficult, if not impossible, to establish to the satisfaction of all."

Without the participation of the Provisional IRA in giving evidence the complete truth could never be established".

Lord Saville's failure to make any reference to the IRA's role was "not surprising" as "to do so would be to highlight to the British tax payer that the inquiry was ill conceived and incapable of establishing the facts before a single pound coin had been spent, let alone well over £200 million of them".

While it admitted "mistakes" were made on the day it asked why out of the "hundreds" of riots 1 Para had witnessed did soldiers use live rounds on Bloody Sunday?

"We submit that it was because the hostile firing by elements of the Provisional IRA triggered a sequence of events which ultimately proved tragic."

But it added: "Those who broke the law and brought disgrace fully deserve to be punished."

Lt Col Wilford was criticised by Lord Saville of disobeying orders by sending his men into the Roman Catholic Bogside area of Londonderry. But the soldiers countered that the attack on their CO was a "cynical exercise to head off the possibility of criticism that the inquiry might condemn only lowly ranking officers and men".

The men, who were not involved in the shootings, added: "The qualities Col Wilford has shown over these past years are but a few of the reasons his officers and men would have followed him anywhere".

A copy of the Bloody Sunday report has been passed to Northern Ireland's Director of Public Prosecutions.

When contacted by The Daily Telegraph Lt Col Wilford said he was under legal advice to make no comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:36 AM

"No, we are pontificating that the people involved should decide for themselves."
Which "people involved" would that be; those selected by British politicians 88 years ago, thus creating the present mess, or all the people in involved - namely the whole population of Ireland?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 07:51 AM

Peter gives evidence that the vote would be the same anyway.
I would answer, let the people who would actually have a change of government imposed on them decide if they want it, whatever may have happened 88 years ago.

You would have change of government, after 88 years, imposed on them by force?
Fascist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:07 PM

To lose a part of a nation to a foreign power should be the decision of the nation of a whole, not just those who have been singled out by that foreign power.
I believe there was a bit of an altercation in the U.S. in the middle of the 19th century when a number of States decided to go it alone - or am I imagining it?
Was it an act of fascism on the part of the Union to impose their will on the Cessationist States?
The seizure of the six counties was an act of force; first a softening-up campaign my British military thugs (The Black and Tans and The Auxiliaries), then a threat of invasion (within 2 weeks) if the treaty was not signed - was this not fascism?
The new administration in Northern Ireland was set up to represent only two-thirds of the population, openly declaring that Ulster (sic) was to be 'A Protestant State', and keeping the Catholic third down by anti-Catholic riots (I know this to be a fact through the experiences of members of my family in Derry in the 1950s) and police brutality backed up by the constant threat of British militarty intervention - was this not fascism?
The Civil Rights protest marches at the end of the 1960s were met with police baton charges and anti-Catholc stone-throwing mobs - was this not fascism?
The Northern Ireland State was born and upheld out of State violence and threats of violence (fascism by anybody's description) and therefore cannot be said to be a democratically established entity.
Tell me none of this happened.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:33 PM

"Which "people involved" would that be; those selected by British politicians 88 years ago, thus creating the present mess, or all the people in involved - namely the whole population of Ireland?"

Hasn't there already been referendums? Both a majority in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland said that whether Northern Ireland remains within the UK or not is up to the people of Northern Ireland alone. The British people (British as in from GB rather than the UK) had no say in the matter though various polls have showed that the British people as a whole are more in favour of a united Ireland than the Irish as whole are. As to the creation of a united Ireland then I take it that is up to the Irish both north and south.

I take it that Republicans in the north aren't currently really pushing for a referendum as to whether they should leave the UK because they know they suspect they would lose any referendum. Losing any such rferendum would probably kill the debate for a generation at least. It was almost a quarter of a century before a second Scottish devolution referendum. It makes sense that after more years of power sharing and being further away from the violence then unionist opposition may well soften.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 01:57 AM

Jim, here is a closer parallel in 19th Century USA.
Parts of Mexico were made parts of USA.
The people in those states now are mostly happy with that, but if the whole of Mexico got to vote on it, there would be a few less of those united states.

Do you think that would be sensible?

You have not commented on the evidence that Ireland would not vote for unification anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 02:00 AM

And yes, there were a lot of fascist acts in those days.
No excuse for acting the fascist today.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 03:51 PM

If you don't dispute my descriptions of how the six counties were decided on and their annexation was carried through, Mexico is no comparison. Force was used to create an openly declared Protestant State which marginalised and excluded the Catholic population - I take it the same didn't happen in Mexico - or did it?
Perhaps you'd like to examine the voting rights that the Catholic population had at the time of the seizure to decide whether the annexation was valid or not.
"No excuse for acting the fascist today."
We are discussing the murder of unarmed civilians and the cover up of same - last week's news, not the dim and distant past.
The murders happened nearly forty years ago - we are discusing them now because the British establishment has continued the cover-up till now.
You are still arguing for the status quo, which means the continuance of the violence - almost certainly to the next generation.
Have a good marching season.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 05:07 PM

Have a good marching season?
You fool!
I am nothing to do with any of that crap.
Arguing for the staus quo?
Wrong again.
Like all my countrymen, I would love to be rid of the lot of you.
Just stop voting for NI to be British and we will all be happy.

Violence against the Mexicans?
Some Irish Americans changed sides and fought for Mexico, so disgusted were they.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 06:33 PM

Keith, can't you see Jim's point: nobody thought of Northern Ireland as a state until a majority of the Irish people was shown to be in favour of independence. At which point a line was drawn to create a cut-off area in which Protestants were the majority. This line was also DELIBERATELY drawn to ensure that an exploitable minority- always excluded from the political top table- was included. Why? Because the Protestant majority was divided by class- Maexist class I'm talking about here- and they needed the Protestant working class to be set against the permanent minority Catholic working class to neutralise them.

If you think this is fanciful, think about James Connolly- the brilliant if flawed leader of Irish working people of any or no religion.

The last great battle of the Protestant state- we'll have words about what Protestantism meant to the Curragh mutineers later- was triggered not by nationalism but by the oppression of the deliberately- enclaved Catholics, and the vicious reaction of both the Stormont government and the (reactively embattled) Protestant working class. The British army- brought in to protect Nationalist areas (ghettos) against NI state violence (B Specials mobilised) had only a Schlieffen plan that had Us on one side, and the Rebels on the other. That's what the squaddies were told, that's what they are still saying (still uncomprehending pawns) today.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:40 AM

I refuse to say if I see his point.
I will not have words on the Curragh mutineers either.
Not on this thread, or it will go the way of a hundred others.
Let him start a new one and I will get stuck in as usual.

This thread is about now, and about Bloody Sunday.
If someone advocated any other group having their rights quashed and an unwanted regime imposed on them by force, these same people would be howling with liberal indignation.
Because it is the majority people of NI, on go the jack boots.

Now, does anyone think the ex soldiers had a point about the reports blinkered consideration of some evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:20 AM

"I am nothing to do with any of that crap."
You may not support it Keith but it's integral to the partitioning of Ireland and the forcible way it has been kept in its place.
"I would love to be rid of the lot of you."
You sound like a flag-waving Empire Loyalist; this has been the cry of Empire down the ages - I assume you have conveniently overlooked the fact that I am a Brit bred and born.
This thread is about an incident in Irish history where, once again, the British establishment have dealt with 'the restlss natives' by brute force.
England's influence extends back over 8 centuries and is pock-marked with Bloody Sundays, this just being the latest. They have arrived at a situation where the state is so instable that it could be plunged into violence once again by incidents such as the bed-hopping antics of 'coo-coo-coo choo Mrs Robinson'.
There has been a great deal of ducking the real issues in this discussion;
Britain would be prepared to lose six counties should the occupants wish it - bollocks it would; it would fight tooth-and-nail to retain every inch of ground (from Rockall to The Falklands - look them up if you've forgotten).
The struggle for The United States was a fascist conflict (or did you just duck-and-dive around that one).
"This thread is about now, and about Bloody Sunday."
And Bloody Sunday was and remains about the governance of Ireland by force of arms - fascism (a term you were happy to raise) in anybody's book.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:26 AM

The report was intended to finally bury the events of Bloody Sunday.

Who was most likely to dig it up and parade it around for another 40 years?

A few elderly men, with no support, who used to be soldiers, or the vigorous, vociferous and well funded Nationalist organisations.
Who was it most important to appease?

Political expediency has taken precedence over truth and justice, just as in the original cover ups.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:32 AM

I looked up Rockall and the Falklands.
Rockall has no people at all.
The Falkland Islands has people. A fascist regime claimed the islands based on ancient history of long dead people.
The islanders wanted to remain British, and Britain fought the fascists for their right to choose.
I am surprised you chose these examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:41 AM

"I would love to be rid of the lot of you."...... has been the cry of Empire down the ages .

Did you mean to write that Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:27 AM

"Britain would be prepared to lose six counties should the occupants wish it - bollocks it would; it would fight tooth-and-nail to retain every inch of ground ."

But it has long been agreed Jim.
51% is all you need.
Likewise Scotland.

You are completely wrong about everything.
You look foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:30 AM

"The report was intended to finally bury the events of Bloody Sunday."
Yes, indeed it was - bury and forget it, as has happened with every other atrocity Britain has been resposible for.
"I am surprised you chose these examples."
Why? - they are perfect examples of a nation that has clung on to every inch of territory at the cost of countless millions of young lives, as distinct from your somewhat inane sugestion that it would happily relinquish six English counties at the request of its occupants - I made no comment on the rights or wrongs of either case.
"Did you mean to write that Jim? "
Of course; wasn't the Empire sold to as as being for the good of those colonised - to keep "Their hands from error's chain" as the Imperial hymn succinctly puts it.
Britain's colonisation of a large portion of the world was neatly described as "The White Man's Burden" - nothing whatever to do with power and wealth, of course!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:46 AM

It is good that we agree on the main purpose of the report.

It is not my inane suggestion that Britain will leave as soon as 51% vote on it.
That is the agreed truth. It is a commitment.

No one has even broken a fingernail trying to hang on to Rockall.
That was a rubbish example.

Britain has not clung to any of its Empire. It was all given away and has become the friendly Commonwealth.
No millions of young lives squandered.
Where do you get this stuff from?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:56 AM

"Britain has not clung to any of its Empire"
It clung on to it as long as it possibly could and left many former colonies in a bloody mess.
Read the books - watch the news - it is what Bloody Sunday was all about, and unless it is treated holistically it will happen again - and again - and again........
You don't cure measles by cutting off the spots.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:00 AM

We disagree on that.
Now, what did you think of the report?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:02 AM

And incidentally - while I have no argument with your description of the Argentinian Government that claimed the Falklands, our involvement had little to do with opposition to fascism - the lady who took us there being all but one herself - not to mention her friend and mentor Augusto P, a fascist dictator responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of young people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:14 AM

So, should the Falklanders have been abandoned to the mercy of Galtieri's fascist junta, or was it right to resist?

Shall we start another thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 10:36 AM

"So, should the Falklanders have been abandoned to the mercy of Galtieri's fascist junta, or was it right to resist?"
Of course not - I'm refering to the motive behind the invasion, not the side issue.
I couldn't resist winding up an obvious Thatcherite - the picture of her strutting around in her paramilitary uniform stays with me yet.
What do I think of the report - so far, so good, though a little vague as to laying the blame where it really belongs (but we've already discussed that) - let's see what happens now, shall we.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:21 AM

Er, the motive behind the invasion was to send back Galtieri's army.
Otherwise there would not have been an invasion, would there?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:29 PM

"Er, the motive behind the invasion was to send back Galtieri's army."
Nthing to do with an election in the offing - of course!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:43 PM

So are you saying, but for election, Falklands would have been handed over?
Or are you saying, we would have invaded because of the election, even if Galtieri was not there?

And you dare to say that I talk bollocks!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:19 PM

No, I am saying that there was a valid reason to intervene in The Falklands (not sure of the Belgrano obscenity); but the sight of a Prime Minister strutting around in paramilitary uniform had more to do with winning votes than it did winning a war - and it was a rather symolically telling image, don't you think?
Anti-fascism had nothing whatever to do with Thatcher's motives - she supported mass-murderer Augusto Pinochet to the extent of pleading for his release from house arrest and his return to Chile.
I agree with your earlier statement - lets open a thread where you can support them both - should you wish to, of course.
Juim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:43 PM

Shall we start another thread?

Obviously yes, if you want to talk about the Falklands/Malvinas.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:50 AM

As far as this thread goes, since Jim accepts there was a valid reason to intervene, it makes both his examples of Britain clinging to Empire rubbish.
I never saw Thatcher strutting around in paramilitary uniform. Can you find an image for us?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:27 AM

First - apologies for an inexcusable thread drift - my fault entirely. The only excuse I can offer is that it isn't often that I get a chance to bait a real liuve Thatcherite; nowadays they seem to keep a very low profile; it won't happen again - open a new thread.
"Britain clinging to Empire rubbish."
I think Bloody Sunday and the run up to it - plus that fact that six counties still remain under British control - is example enough of Britain clinging on to the remnants of Empire and is prepared to use force to do so.
You have - rather disgracefully, in my opinion, pushed the line that the massacre was down to a handful of soldiers; in which case, why weren't they court martialed instead of mounting an elaborate cover-up.
If this had happened, the army and the government would have been exonerated on the spot and would not have been brought to the present humiliating climb down.
You agree that it is unlikely that anybody will be tried for the events - why - are these soldiers guilty of criminal acts?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:56 AM

I think Bloody Sunday and the run up to it - plus that fact that six counties still remain under British control - is example enough of Britain clinging on to the remnants of Empire and is prepared to use force to do so.

As far as I am aware Northern Ireland has been autonomous for as long as the Republic of Ireland. It was created by the will of the majority of the population who lived there, otherwise it would never have existed. Plain truth was that one third of the population of Ireland did not want any part of a United Ireland.

The creation of the Irish Free State resulted in an extremely bloody civil war in the Republic. The numbers involved were tiny and the civil war was mercifully short, had Northern Ireland's population been forced into a United Ireland in 1921 that civil war would have destroyed the entire country. As in most things political in this world a compromise was found, as with most compromises it was not perfect and it did not please everyone.

The entire population of Ireland was consulted in the run up to acceptance of the GFA and Eire's constitutional claim on Ulster was scrapped. The entire population of Ireland voted and backed the position that it is up to the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland alone to decide who governs them and how they are governed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:57 AM

Jim, you are so wrong in thinking that Britain wants to cling on to NI.
It is not wanted by the British people or the British government, and never has been.
It is just that governments have been reluctant to use force on the people of NI to force them out.
Obviously, you would love to get started on them.

Why are prosecutions unlikely.
I did not form my own opinion on that. I do not have the knowledge.

This is from BBC.


BBC Northern Ireland's Paul McCauley, who was the only journalist to attend every day of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry said that any prosecutions against individuals would be unlikely.

"Given the Good Friday agreement, even if a soldier were to be prosecuted as a result of this, they would not spend a day in jail.

"That is not my opinion, that is a fact"

Some legal experts, however, said wriggle room remains for prosecutions and, more likely, civil lawsuits against retired soldiers, particularly as some of the them were found to have lied to the Saville Inquiry.

BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the decision whether or not to prosecute the soldiers would not be straightforward.

"There needed to be sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction - not an easy test after 38 years.

"If any defendant believes that the passage of time makes a fair trial impossible, they could argue the prosecution was an abuse of process," our correspondent said.

"Any prosecutions would also need to be judged to be in the public interest."

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:02 AM

Jim, you said, "You have - rather disgracefully, in my opinion, pushed the line that the massacre was down to a handful of soldiers"

Again my opinion is worth little, but the report agrees with me, disgracefully or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 08:56 AM

Keith's snide 'Fascist bully boy' reference on the Israeli atrocity thread reminded me that I hadn't responded to the 'public opinion' comments earlier.
The gerrymandered Protestant majority in the north are still in the majority, so they are certainly going to vote for the retention of the six counties. They have maintained their superiority in the north through their political dominance and through their history of intimidation and outright bullying. We are now entering into the marching season when they will be parading and posturing in their bowler hats and orange sashes and have applied to march through nationalist areas such as the Garvaghey Road following their annual intimidatory march to Drumcree. Any decision in the north has to be considered in the light of 80 years of such intimidation.
In the Republic support for the unification of Ireland waxes and wanes depending on the current situation. At the time of the hunger strikes, when this place was bedecked with black flags, or at the time of announcement of the Birmingham Six/Guilford Four et al fit-ups there would have been no doubt whatever of a clear decision to end the partition. Unification still remains an aim of all the political parties here though sometimes a 'peace at any price' feeling prevails – not the best guide to a lasting decision.
I have no strong feelings one way or the other on a united Ireland; I merely point out that while the country is divided the conflict will continue.
I.M.O a lasting peace will only be achieved by ALL the parties concerned reaching an amicable decision though open debate which takes in the interests and wishes of all the people; otherwise we can look forward to a future of Bloody Sundays. Holding up past decisions arrived as I have described, as definitive, guarantees this as a future for Ireland.
Hamas was elected democratically – I don't see Keith and his apologists throwing their support for them because of their 'chosen' status.
At the risk of being labelled a 'Fascist bully boy' I again point out that the Nazi Party was elected into power (as were the governments that took Britain into Iraq and America into Viet Nam).
It is how Governments exercise power that is the final decider on whether they are good leaders, not how they got there.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 11:26 AM

"I have no strong feelings one way or the other on a united Ireland; I merely point out that while the country is divided the conflict will continue."

But again there were referendums both in the North and in the Republic and the principle that whether Northern Ireland should remain within the UK or not is down to the electorate of Northern Ireland was accepted by substantial majorities in both parts of Ireland. They are now power sharing in the North and even though extremists of both persuasions are still around the people now live in relative normality. You talk as if your position is the answer but surely this refusing to get over the past and pushing one view as the only answer is part of the problem and not any solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 12:59 PM

"But again there were referendums....."
I've described the circumstances in which those referendums were held - tell me where my accounts are not accurate.
"They are now power sharing..."
I've pointed out the fragility of the power-sharing agreement (minister's wife putting it about etc.) and I am aware that a bottle thrown in the wrong direction on one of the triumphalist Orange Lodge marches could destroy it tomorrow.
I have no answer to the present situation, I have never claimed such, but I know that maintaining the status quo (as is being argued for here), doesn't come even close.
What I am saying is that if the situation doesn't change radically we will be burying our children and grandchildren in the cause of a partitioned Ireland.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 02:59 PM

You might not like the Unionists, but they live there and are entitled to their vote.

Are you still saying a United Ireland should be imposed against the will of the majority?
It would have to be by force.
I do regard that as a fascist plan.

Hamas were elected in Gaza.
Gazans can vote for who they want.
So should the people of NI.

On the other thread you wrote,
"on the Bloody Sunday thread you have consistently excused and attempted to divert the blame from a government whose soldiers shot down innocent ....."

No evidence has ever been produced that the government or anyone else ordered or even encouraged those 4 soldiers to shoot.
I submitted factual information from the report.
You make stuff up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 03:47 PM

"I've described the circumstances in which those referendums were held - tell me where my accounts are not accurate."

The results of the said referendum in the Republic were 94.4% in favour of the agreement and ony 5.6% against. In the North it was 71.1% in favour and 28.9% against. Pretty substantial in both parts of Ireland but overwhelming in the Republic itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 04:51 PM

"Are you still saying a United Ireland should be imposed against the will of the majority?"
No, I am not, and I have never suggested such a thing -IF YOU ARE CLAIMING I AM, WHERE HAVE I MADE SUCH A SUGGESTION?
I am saying that whatever the future of the six counties it must be governed on behalf of all the people who live there, not just a dominant, self-serving majority.
The violence has come from all sides of the divide, the nationalists, the loyalst, but in particular, from the British.
Quick run-down of their track record
Easter Week 1916 The rebels had to be escorted under a protective guard to save them from the mobs of Dubliners demanding to know why they weren't fighting "with our lads in France".
Instead of sticking the leaders in Frongock with the rest of the rebels, where history would have remembered them as fanatical eccentrics, they were systematically executed, giving 'the cause' exactly what it needed - martyrs - and the most powerful symbol ever - a badly wounded Connolly strapped in a chair to enable him to face the firing squad. Result guerrilla warfare leading to an inevitable settlement.
The despatching of military thugs to soften up the population for an acceptible (to the British) treaty - result, a British-run terrorist campaign of arson, murder, torture - and the first Irish Bloody Sunday when troops fired on an unarmed football crowd, killing fourteen.
A treaty backed up by a threat of military invasion - result, civil war and a hostile division of Ireland with a government in the north committed to 'a Protestant State' leaving the Catholic third without representation, no proper voting rights, poor housing, high unemployment, anti-catholic riots and burnings which lasted into the late fifties.
Civil Rights marches baton charged by police and attacked by protestant mobs- result, a revival of the IRA as an effectively armed body, another Bloody Sunday, open wafare of the streets of Derry, Belfast and several major cities in mainland Britain - twenty-odd years of bloodletting.
Overall result, an unstable state still dominated by a beligerant, though reduced majority.
Ireland is geographically, culturally, and historically one country - the decision to partition it was a political one and it patently hasn't worked.
The only way it will work is with the goodwill and agreement of all the people of Ireland arrived at openly as a whole - it has not got that.
Unification is inevitable; the only things in question is when and the size of the body count between now and then.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 05:24 PM

To lose a part of a nation to a foreign power should be the decision of the nation of a whole, not just those who have been singled out by that foreign power.
(Opinion of NI people irrelevant)
I believe there was a bit of an altercation in the U.S. in the middle of the 19th century when a number of States decided to go it alone - or am I imagining it?
Was it an act of fascism on the part of the Union to impose their will on the Cessationist States?
(Opinion of inhabitants irrelevant.)
The seizure of the six counties was an act of force; first a softening-up campaign my British military thugs (The Black and Tans and The Auxiliaries), then a threat of invasion (within 2 weeks) if the treaty was not signed - was this not fascism?
The new administration in Northern Ireland was set up to represent only two-thirds of the population, openly declaring that Ulster (sic) was to be 'A Protestant State', and keeping the Catholic third down by anti-Catholic riots (I know this to be a fact through the experiences of members of my family in Derry in the 1950s) and police brutality backed up by the constant threat of British militarty intervention - was this not fascism?
The Civil Rights protest marches at the end of the 1960s were met with police baton charges and anti-Catholc stone-throwing mobs - was this not fascism?
The Northern Ireland State was born and upheld out of State violence and threats of violence (fascism by anybody's description) and therefore cannot be said to be a democratically established entity.

(So their votes can be ignored and they should be forced to accept a union.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,R Feree
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 05:52 PM

Please read the history of Ireland from the dawn of time and draw your own conclusions.

A potted Irish History without recrimination

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 06:29 PM

R Free, we have had a hundred threads on that.
Now we are discussing the Saville Report.
The discussion you want can be had by starting a new thread, but you will have to become a member first.
Alternatively, as a Guest, you could reopen previous threads not closed to guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 06:36 PM

Jim, everyone who has read this thread is laughing at you for now saying you never denied the North the right to choose their future.
They will remember posts like " asking a gerrrymandered population to decide the future is going to solve nothing."

I do not laugh.
It is good that you have listened to reasoned debate and changed your mind.

You are no longer a fascist bully boy.
Good on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 07:46 PM

At no time have any of those quote indicated that I am suggesting ignoring the opinions of the majority in favour of a minority - the additional conclusion were all your own, not mine.
It is the duty of any elected government to represent the nation as a whole, not that section who voted for them - that is how democracy works.
I have repeated that the new Northern Ireland authority not only just represented the Protestant minortity, but declared that as its intention - a Protestant State (with a third of the population Catholic) a recipe for the violence that followed. You have failed to even deny this fact, let alone disprove it, so presumably you accept and support it. To deny any minority full representation, no matter how small, is classic fascism, be they Jewish, West Indian, Asian, Traveller, Catholic, whatever - Fascism plain and simple - the suppression of a minority by a majority. Even Thatcher had to pay lip service to representing those who opposed her, though she wasn't very convincing at it.
Are you suggesting that the establishment of the Union in the U.S. was a fascist act? - I seem to remember that it was the Confederacy that produced the Ku Klux Clan in order to continue its supremecy over the blacks.
How on earth do you reach the conclusion that the rest of your quotes are not indicative of a repressive regime (Black and Tans, threat of invasion if the treaty was not signed, the new administration reprenting only the Protestant majority, Civil Rights Marches violently crushed, continued violence (such as Bloody Sunday) by the British and by the Protestant majority) - show me where they are not - one by one would be helpful. You have not denied that any of them happened, so you presumably support them all.
As I said, I have never suggested that the rights of the majority should be ignored, though I do believe they should not exclude the opinions or the well being of the minority, as they have done over the last 80-odd years.
"Jim, everyone who has read this thread is laughing at you"
Where would this be then?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 09:08 PM

Nice try, Tbus, but everyone is not laughing. You are guilty of an elementary debate tactic. That is you build a false predicate, then build a brilliant argument to support it. Jim has, IMO, pointed that out and you have obfuscated on the facts. He has also made it clear time and again that he is an internationalist, and that his interest is in simply stating his opinion. It is one I share. You may continue to argue for the legitimacy of these gerrymandered areas, but the simple fact is that the plantation policies, and subsequent playing of the orange card time and again, have created a generational schism that will only be corrected by time and politics. But I know of very few experts from either side of the debate that do not agree that it is just a matter of time now.

As to Keith's continued attempts to downplay the report and the blame it lays, I would simply say that your PM saw fit to stand up and say very directly that he apologized for these troops and there actions. End of story. Get over it.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 12:56 AM

Ah Big Mick answer the following questions regarding how the people of Ireland have clearly shown their attitude to the question of Northern Ireland.

By the will of the people has the Republic's constitutional claim on the North been abandoned?

A simple YES will suffice as that is the answer to that question, a simple matter of record.

Have the people of Ireland clearly stated their opinion that violence has no place in Irish politics?

A simple YES will suffice for the answer to that question as well.

Have the people of Ireland clearly stated their opinion that it is up to the population of Northern Ireland to determine how and by whom they are governed?

A simple YES answers this question as well.

And as you put it so well I will return your sage advice - Those are the facts of the matter - Live with them.

Harking back into history is irrelevant, it is what the people who are directly affected now want that counts, otherwise Big Mick, talking of "plantation politics" one hell of a lot of people currently living in the good ol' US of A had better pack their bags or be prepared to make some mighty restitution regarding ownership of the land that they stole. "Pot"; "Kettle"; "Black" link those words in a well known phrase or saying, that would apply.

Oh Jim the "Black and Tans" were not formed to terrorise and threated the people into acceptance of any boundary. They came into being because Sinn Fein tacitily agreed with the policy of killing Government workers, Policemen and Postmen throughout Ireland. The reality of the boundary commission was that a border had to be agreed, the fledgling Irish Free State and the later Republic of Ireland could not have fought the civil war that would have resulted had the North been forced against its will into a United Ireland in 1921.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 01:23 AM

Mick, I feel the same as the PM about the action of those 4 soldiers, and the susequent cover up by army, government and IRAs.

The report holds no one else responsible for the shootings.

Jim, I wrote this,
20 Jun 10 - 04:56 AM
"We could ask the people who live in those counties."

For the last 9 days you have been posting about why we should not.
I will say no more. It is all there to be seen.

Mick, it may be just a matter of time. The Unionist emigration and higher Nationalist birth rate will change the majority.
As long as you agree with Jim and me that the people who live in the 6 counties must be allowed to choose their future.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 01:40 AM

I do not agree with much of what you all keep saying about the partition, but we should not be discussing old history here.
Open a new thread and I will explain why you have it all wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 05:36 AM

Neil, I don't think anyone would think that was him not me, would they?
No deception intended.
And the words I gave him were the truth, weren't they?

And I must ask, "Neil", who the f**k are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 06:25 AM

"By the will of the people has the Republic's constitutional claim on the North been abandoned?"
No it hasn't - It is still an aim of all the major parties in Ireland.
"Have the people of Ireland clearly stated their opinion that violence has no place in Irish politics?"
Yes they have - have the culprits of the Bloody Sunday massacre stated the same - if so, why did it take nearly forty years to put their hands up to the crime?
"Have the people of Ireland clearly stated their opinion that it is up to the population of Northern Ireland to determine how and by whom they are governed?"
Some have, some haven't. Those who have are prepared to let give the political process a chance. That process is so fragile at present that it only takes one minister's wife misbehaving herself to bring the whole thing crashing to the ground.
The present peace process has led to power sharing, the removal of British troops from Ireland and the dismantling of the border as such - which is regarded by those involved as a step towards re-unification. What will happen if there is no more progress remains to be seen.
"Oh Jim the "Black and Tans" were not formed to terrorise"
Yes they were - at least, that's how the history bools tell it - even those vaguely in support of the British line - try Beresford-Ellis, or Tim Pat Coogan.
The thuggish behaviour of the Tans and the Auxiliaries is well enough documented to be beyond dispute - the burning of Cork City, the massacre of football supporters at Croke Park.... They were Neanderthal thugs sent to subdue.
"For the last 9 days you have been posting about why we should not."
I ask again - where have I once suggested that the views of the Protestant majority should not be considered? So far you have not provided one example.
I simply say that the partition of Ireland is the main/only cause of the internicene violence there, as it has been where any country has been partitioned.
Whatever you and I may think, the retention of six counties by a foreign nation will continue to be a running sore while it persists - that is how national identity works, and the nonsensical idea that Britain would tolerate the ownership of one square foot of their territory, especially on their mainland, is just that - nonsense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 06:47 AM

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has announced an independence referendum bill as the centrepiece of the SNP's plans for the coming year.(2010)

He probably wont try it now, but if he did and won, by 1%, Scotland would be independent.

That makes nonsense of your statement, "and the nonsensical idea that Britain would tolerate the ownership of one square foot of their territory, especially on their mainland, is just that - nonsense"

You previously said, "asking a gerrrymandered population to decide the future is going to solve nothing."
I took that to mean that they should not decide.
You can see why.
Glad you have been in agreement with me all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 07:19 AM

Keith
There are those who claim Scotland to be a seperate counrties - you were claiming your nonsense for the Southern Counties of England.
No - I can't see why at all and I am not with you.
I stated that peace will not come about while six counties remain in foreign hands - that remains my position (is it yours?)
Terribus
"Beresford Ellis"
My apologies - I meant Ricard Bennett
See below - from a fairly impeccible source
Jim Carroll
Although they were only a small proportion of British forces in Ireland, they were the toughest, the wildest, and the most feared. They knew noth¬ing and they cared nothing about Ireland. They were sent there in March of 1920 by Llovd George's Coalition Cabinet to make it "a hell for rebels to live in." They could arrest and imprison anyone at any time. They murdered civilians. They wore a strange mixture of dark green tunics, khaki trousers, black belts, and odd headgear, including civilian felt hats. The Irish named them after a famous pack of wild dogs in Co. Limerick—The Black and Tans.
The Black and Tans murdered innocent people, burned and looted all over the south and west of Ireland. By July of 1921 they had accom¬plished their mission so spectacularly well that they united not only Irish but British public opinion against the government; undermined Lloyd George's Coalition; and dealt the Liberal Party a blow from which it was never to recover. Richard Bennett's book is an accurate account of an ugly and harrowing period in Anglo-Irish history—a period that the English have struggled to forget and the Irish cannot help but remember.

Richard Bennett was a Lt.-Col. in the Army Bureau of Current Affairs at the War Office. He was editor of Lilliput for four years, edited the Bedside Lilliput, and has written two novels.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 07:42 AM

It is very hard to follow your logic Jim.
It is as if you know little and post without thinking what you are saying.

YOU, "I stated that peace will not come about while six counties remain in foreign hands - that remains my position.."

Peace has come about Jim.

YOU, ""asking a gerrrymandered population to decide the future is going to solve nothing."

But, you also say that they should decide!!
So you don't want it solved???

Then you talk about one square foot of British territory, especially the mainland, BUT NOT SCOTLAND!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 07:56 AM

"Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has announced an independence referendum bill as the centrepiece of the SNP's plans for the coming year.(2010) He probably wont try it now, but if he did and won, by 1%, Scotland would be independent."

In reality the SNP administration is a minority administration and as the Unionist parties as a whole have a majority of seats (the Greens and Scottish Socialist Party also favour independence)then in this parliament the Nats have no chance of bringing forward a referendum unless they can bring one of the three main unionist parties on board.

Labour had previously suggested that because the constitution wasn't devolved that Westminster could block any referendum. That has now been abandoned as they seemed to concede that referendums are just consultative and that a devolved government can indeed consult the people. The SNP's position is that Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty does not over-ride the sovereignty of the Scottish people - and this has by precedent already been suggested in a previous Scottish Court ruling. Hence the Nats would claim that a YES vote by whatever margin in a consultative referendum (a result which would be by no means certain) would give them the mandate to negotiate independence from the UK. The unionist parties don't seem to be denying this! Their plan seems to simply be avoid any referendum. The issue isn't really debated as unionist strategy seems to be just regard it as an irrelevant sideshow.

However you are right in that despite the political manoueverings there is no suggestion from anyone anywhere that the British state would try to keep Scotland within the union by force. For a start the British people would never countenance that. The idea that the UK wants to cling on to every bit of territory is nonsense. I think a UK government would run a vigorous political campaign to keep the union of Great Britain intact - but would run no similar campaign as far as the union of Great Britain with Northern Ireland goes. Indeed the British state and the British people as a whole would probably be delighted and more than a tad relieved should the people of Northern Ireland decide to join a united Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 08:09 AM

"Mick, it may be just a matter of time. The Unionist emigration and higher Nationalist birth rate will change the majority."

Mind which religion is in the majority won't necessarily change the voting balance from NO for a United Ireland to a YES. As far as I understand it the Protestant population are much more uniform in their NO stance than the Catholic population is in their YES stance. Hence it is prefectly possible to have a majority Catholic population but still lose a united Ireland referendum - just as it is possible and probably preferable that there could be a swing of opinion and softening of a Unionist stance that there could be a YES vote with the current Protestant majority. Surely the longer they work together and the further away the Troubles become then stances may get more in line. I suspect the Republic itself would much rather have a fair proportion of the Protestants voting for or at least accepting a UI rather than have 49.9% of the Northern Irish brought into a UI kicking and screaming!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 08:41 AM

"Peace has come about Jim."

hmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 04:50 PM

"By the will of the people has the Republic's constitutional claim on the North been abandoned?"
No it hasn't - It is still an aim of all the major parties in Ireland.

Please provide a source that shows clearly the clause in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland that lays claim on the six counties that form the Northern Ireland. You will not be able to do that because that claim has been dropped from the Constitution, correct me if I am wrong but doesn't it take a referendum to change the Constitution? The change came about because the majority of the people of the island of Ireland voted that only the people of Northern ireland had a say in how they were governed and by whom they were governed.

Whether a United Ireland is still an aim of any political party in Ireland is irrelevant, that is merely a political ambition.

"Have the people of Ireland clearly stated their opinion that violence has no place in Irish politics?"
Yes they have

Good pleased to see that we have put that one to bed, so no Republican or Nationalist Terrorist Group can ever claim they have any mandate whatsoever from the people of Ireland for blowing up innocent civilians in order to bring about a United Ireland.

"Have the people of Ireland clearly stated their opinion that it is up to the population of Northern Ireland to determine how and by whom they are governed?"
Some have, some haven't. Those who have are prepared to let give the political process a chance.

Not quite as simple as some have, some haven't, was it Jim. Described more accurately it would be put in the following terms:

The vast majority have, a tiny minority haven't.

As Big Mick says - Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 08:25 PM

Posted this before but it appears to have gone awol – wonder why? Try again
Keith:
"It is as if you know little and post without thinking what you are saying."
I'll try to avoid the tone of arrogant self-importance you have adopted here – apart from saying you often give the impression of having picked what little knowledge about Ireland from listening to Bernard Manning – there, that's off my chest.
My understanding of Irish politics comes diectly from family experience – a major part of most of my life, which fed an interest to know more – doesn't make me right by any means, but I have given some thought to it.
I have set my opinion as clear as I can, giving the facts as I know them; the undemocratic way partition was arrived at, the threat of invasion if the treaty had not been signed, the unequal situation between Catholic and Protestant situations, the violence against the Catholic minority, the persistent use of force by both the Unionists and the Brits to maintain the six counties……. You have chosen to ignore all, so I can only assume that you accept what I have said and find it acceptable.
You have persisted with you mantra – "have to go with the wishes of the Protestant majority" – so let's play it your way.
WHY?
It is a truism that political change is usually brought about by a handful of zealots pursuing their dreams, ideals, interests, whatever; so what have we got in N.I. A group of bowler-hatted, besashed fanatics making the running over the last 80 years – turn your telly on and you'll see them marching to Drumcree and down the Garvaghy Road if they get permission – a minority within a diminishing majority, within a huge majority (Ireland as a whole).
Any conceding to a foreign power of (using my earlier example) say the six Southern Counties of England would have to be with the agreement of Britain as a whole (despite your earlier claim of it being otherwise). You bizarrely described my American Civil War analogy as an example of my being a 'fascist bullyboy', then ignored my invitation to qualify your statement – the invitation is still open. The loss of territory to a foreign power carries with it serious implications: cultural, political, economic, security.... (this latter applies particularly to Ireland in the light of the Monoghan and Dublin bombings carried out by Loyalist terrorists almost certainly with the collusion of the British Security Forces – have you come across the Stevens report and its fate?). It seems to me that any decision to relinquish six counties to a foreign power has to be that of the country as a whole rathere than a group of self-interested and carefully selected fanatics.
So for the future well being of Ireland and the Irish as a whole, any such decision has to be that of all the people of Ireland and only after exhaustive debate, and agreement – this has yet to happen.
The ironic aspect to partition is that it was intended to be only a temporary measure, both by the British and the Irish Free State (want me to quote Lloyd George and Churchill on the matter?)
A bit nearer to home for you.
Don't the British people have a say in all this?
It is more or less accepted by all sides that if the British people were given a referendum on the after they would happily vote Northern Ireland out of the Union tomorrow. I seem to remember this is your stance ("Be glad to see the back of you", I think was how you summed it up – whoever 'you' is).
We used to attend the Forkhill Singing Weekend in South Armagh and often crossed the border to Dundalk at night for a meal by one of the 'unapproved' roads (without an established checkpoint).
On several occasions we would be stopped by a platoon of British soldiers, made up of young men, little more than children, all clutching powerful weapons in trembling hands; scared shitless of the situation they found themselves in.
We couldn't work out why most of them had Liverpool, or Newcastle, or Lowland Scots accents until we visited Lockerbie and saw on a beer-mat 'OUT OF WORK - JOIN THE ARMY AND LEARN A TRADE'.
They were young working-class lads from high unemployment areas, sent to fight, and possibly die for a Partitioned Ireland.
I come from such an area (Liverpool) and if any of my family were put in such a position I would want a say in why they were being asked to put their life on the line; wouldn't you, or have you got your nose stuck so far up the arse of the establishment that it doesn't matter to you?
So what have we got?
A decision to partition Ireland arrived at undemocratically though a manipulated border on behalf of Unionist fanatics who declared from the outset that they had no intention of considering the aspirations or well-being of one third of the population.
Over half a century of violence against that Catholic minority, supported by force of arms, with the ready assistance of various British Governments.
A prevailing state of insecurity where violence could break out at any time.
All on the behalf of the same type of fanatics who persecuted and terrorised the schoolchildren at Holy Cross in the Ardoyne area of Belfast - because they were the wrong religion.
And that's how it stands at present.
So - my logic?
My logic tells me that the situation of a partitioned country is bound to generate violence and conflict and the only way to rectify the situation is by an agreement reached together by all parties - the six counties, the Republic and Britain, and the unification of Ireland, as was originally intended.
"Peace has come about Jim."
My arse it has.
The Irish people are battle-weary at the present time; this may remain the case throughout this present generation, but future Irish men and women are bound to pick up the flag - they always have.
What's your solution - the maintaining the status quo - tell me if I've got that right?
"Please provide a source that shows clearly the clause...."
I said that the unification of Ireland remains an aim of all the major parties - I thought this to be the case, but to be doubly sure, I Wikied it - and sure enough....
"Good pleased to see that we have put that one to bed"
You've conveniently left out the rest of the sentence. I also said earlier that the Irish attitude to the six counties waxes and wanes. The Irish question has been with us for a long time and it hasn't yet gone away, nor will it while six counties are under the control of a foreign power.
"Live with it."
Or die with it - as the case may be!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 01:55 AM

I do not know why you think army recruitment and your adventures on the border have any relevance.
Why will you NEVER stay on subject.
I will respond to parts of your ramblings.

"You bizarrely described my American Civil War analogy as an example of my being a 'fascist bullyboy', then ignored my invitation to qualify your statement – the invitation is still open"

The Confederacy wanted to be separate from the Union.
They were made to rejoin by force in a terrible war that killed more Americans than all its other wars put together.
And you think that a good analogy for what should be done to the 6 counties.
Fascist bully boy is quite restrained I think.

Scotland is mainland Britain, has been part of UK for centuries, but is free to leave any time it wants to.
Cornwall is Southern England. It only has a tiny Nationalist movement, but if that changed it could expect the same treatment.

You are now advocating that British people should decide Ulster's future! If I advocated that there would be howls of Empire Loyalist from you!

The 6 Counties have been under British rule for centuries. Never under Dublin rule. They know much more about their history than you or me, and overwhelmingly still want to stay British.
You and I might not like that, but I would let them choose their own future.
And you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:34 AM

"Why will you NEVER stay on subject."
We are discussing a single issue in a centuries old war and young British soldiers, whether they are patrolling the border or shooting down unarmed civilians is very much a part of this subject.
"The Confederacy wanted to be separate from the Union...."
So you're a Confederate as well as a Thatcherite and you do believe the Union to have been a fascist organisation - now there's a thing!!! How about The Klan - was that an acceptable expression of the people's will?
"...but if that changed it could expect the same treatment."
Are you suggesting that the people of Britain as a whole would have no say in the matter if Cornwall decided to become part of another country?
"You are now advocating that British people should decide Ulster's future"
No - Britain is already deciding Ulster's future, and has done so for 80 odd years; I am suggesting that all involved, North East Ireland, The Republic and Britain should have a voice in what is culturaly, geographically and historically part of Ireland - or don't you agree with that? Shouldn't British people have an active say in where their children are sent to risk their lives, and maybe die? By the way, there are three counties in Ulster that are part of The Republic, so it can't legitimately aspire to that name.
"The 6 Counties have been under British rule for centuries."
As was the whole of Ireland, the partitioning is 80 plus years old. The conflict here is indicative of the fact that this has been and continues to be a constant source of unrest which needs to be remedied - it simply hasn't worked in the past and is not likely to in the future.
You're really not very good at this, are you? You really could have circumvented all this by saying that you wish to keep things as they are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:52 AM

But I don't wish to keep things as they are!
Britain wants rid.

BUT, we respect the right of the people themselves to choose.

Now YOU tell us who YOU think should decide their future for them, and how would YOU make them accept it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 05:02 AM

And Jim, YOU chose the analogy of how the Union dealt with the Confederacy to explain how you thought the 6 Counties should be dealt with.
Wage war however costly until they collapse and give in.
You bullying fascist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 07:03 AM

"YOU chose the analogy of how the Union dealt with the Confederacy to explain how you thought the 6 Counties should be dealt with."
Where did I suggest that?
"BUT, we respect the right of the people themselves to choose."
But not the British people?
"Now YOU tell us who YOU think should decide their future for them,"
Just said it, but one more time - everybody involved, the six counties, the Republic and the British who provide the canon fodder and the money.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 07:08 AM

"the Republic and the British who provide the canon fodder and the money."
To add - it doesn't get more democratic than that - who do you think should decide what role the British and the Republic should play?
"You bullying fascist."
Sticks and stones... if you wish to return to the schoolyard.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 07:38 AM

I am now clear who you think should decide the future of the 6 counties.
"Just said it, but one more time - everybody involved, the six counties, the Republic and the British who provide the canon fodder and the money.
Jim Carroll"

The Republic can outvote the 6 counties on its own, and Britain could do it many times over.

And if the people of the 6 counties did not want what Britain and the Republic demand of them, what would YOU want done to them?

By the analogy you gave, they should be physically battered into submission, like the Confederacy.
That is fascist bullying Jim.
It is not just name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 07:45 AM

You have not answered one single point I have raised; you are reduced to distorting what I have sid, outright lying and infantile name-calling.
I think you are out of ammunition - don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:00 AM

I thought I had answered your points.
I will answer anything you put up, but no long, rambling posts please.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:11 AM

Been lurking here for quite a while and I have to say that Jim does seem to want it both ways - one the one hand complaining bitterly (and rightly, IMHO) about British involvement in the affairs of the Irish people, but on the other wanting the British to vote on their destiny.

Seems only right and fair that that decision should rest solely with the people of the island of Ireland.

Unless, of course, you want the British involved in the vote because you know that the majority of us on the mainland would support a united Ireland, so the Republican vote would be hugely reinforced and the (albeit slight) possibility of the 6 counties remaining 'British' would be removed?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:30 AM

Does anyone else in the whole world believe that the people of mainland Britain should be allowed to vote for the next government of NI?
Has Jim completely lost it this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:56 AM

"the people of mainland Britain should be allowed to vote for the next government of NI?"

It could be argued that if NI is to remain British, then the British people have a right to democratically decide that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:59 AM

It could be argued.
Do you, Crow Sister?
Does anyone????

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:59 AM

"Does anyone else in the whole world believe that the people of mainland Britain should be allowed to vote for the next government of NI?
Has Jim completely lost it this time?"

There could be a twisted method in the madness! There have been polls showing that far more Britons (who show any preference) favour a united Ireland over Northern Ireland being part of the UK - whereas there was a recent poll in Northern Ireland showing support for a UI at only around 36% or so. Hence if the British voted in a referendum they could well vote for a united Ireland whereas the people of Northern Ireland probably wouldn't. Though of course that would amount to kicking the people of Northern Ireland out of the UK against their will and I imagine when it is put that way there would be little support for that amongst the British!

Of course you are right only people living in Scotland voted for Scottish devolution etc etc. So the people of Northern Ireland should have the right to state whether they wish to remain within the union or not and not have their voices swamped by the far more numerous English and Scots most of whom don't have much of a clue about NI and many of whom don't care about NI. The British accept that principle, and 90% and more of those in the Republic accepted that as did an estimated 90% plus of Catholics in the north of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 09:22 AM

"Does anyone????"

For the record, I don't have any strong opinions on the matter myself. But that doesn't make it a perspective worth any less worth discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 09:31 AM

So far we only have Jim to discuss it with.
I think it will be a long wait for anyone else!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 09:31 AM

Backwoodsman;
My argument is that the British people should have a say in their own involvement in the six counties - where is that a contradiction with anything else I've said?
Keith has said that can't happen with either Britain or the Republic because "The Republic can outvote the 6 counties on its own, and Britain could do it many times over."
So neither have a say on the question because it would not produce the resuly required - is that right?
"Seems only right and fair that that decision should rest solely with the people of the island of Ireland."
Absolutely - this is what I have been saying all along.
Keith
"By the analogy you gave, they should be physically battered into submission, like the Confederacy."
Try again - where did I say this. I gave the American Civil War as an example of a nation's reaction to the cessation by a number of States - nothing more. You appear to believe it was fascist for the Union to resist that cessation - is that right?
"Does anyone else in the whole world believe that the people of mainland Britain should be allowed to vote for the next government of NI?"
And once more - where have I suggested this? I say that if the British people are expected to police the six counties, they should have a say in THEIR OWN INVOLVEMENT - to suggest I have said otherwise is a gross distortion. Straight question - should the British people have the right to a say in whether British troops are sent to Ireland or not?
"what would YOU want done to them?"
Not my decision to make TBTG - but as I see it several things can happen.
The partitioned state could fall and become part of the Republic; not the end of the world. To prevent it from doing so artificially by force of arms would achieve nothing and lead to further periods of armed conflict.
On the other hand, the six counties could decide to go it alone, but in order to do so it would have to take the Catholic minority on as full partners, which has not happened to date.
The alternative to both of these is that the killing will continue as it has for centuries.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 09:46 AM

Let me answer your points Jim.

"So neither (Republic or Britain) have a say on the question because it would not produce the resuly required - is that right?

YES! RIGHT! The "required" result is the one wanted by the people of NI themselves, not imposed by outsiders.

"...decision should rest solely with the people of the island of Ireland."
Absolutely - this is what I have been saying all along."

No, you have just added mainland voters too!

The US Civil War. YOU gave it as an analogy of how NI should be dealt with, and only today demanded I should respond to it.

"Straight question - should the British people have the right to a say in whether British troops are sent to Ireland or not?"

The British people, through their elected government, DO decide where troops are sent.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 10:27 AM

"The "required" result is the one wanted by the people of NI themselves, not imposed by outsiders."
So the people of the six counties decide when where and if British are deployed and the residents of the British mainland have no say in the matter - is that right?
"No, you have just added mainland voters too!"
No I haven't - you are distorting what I have said again. I said the future of the six counties should rest with the people of the whole of Ireland.
I added that the people of mainland Britain should have a say in whether British troops should be deployed there.
"The US Civil War."
This is exactly what I said - I at no time have advocated a Civil War to decide matters.
"To lose a part of a nation to a foreign power should be the decision of the nation of a whole, not just those who have been singled out by that foreign power.
(Opinion of NI people irrelevant)
I believe there was a bit of an altercation in the U.S. in the middle of the 19th century when a number of States decided to go it alone - or am I imagining it?
Was it an act of fascism on the part of the Union to impose their will on the Cessationist States?"
I still haven't had a reply on whether you believe the opposition to cessation was an act of fascism - reply please.
"The British people, through their elected government, DO decide where troops are sent."
So when we elected the Blair Government we voted to send troops to Iraq - is that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 10:41 AM

Glad we agree Jim. I believe this dreadful situation that's haunted the Irish people for so long is too important to leave their fate in the hands of an overwhelming number of mainland voters who have no allegiance to the island, and no investment in the fate of its people.

I cannot believe it's right for anyone other than the whole community of the island of Ireland to take part in determining their future - their land, their decision alone. Anything else would be like inviting the population of Normandy to vote on the future of the United Kingdom, simply because a long time ago we had the same king.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 11:46 AM

I was not distorting what you said about mainland voting on NI.
Backwoodsman, Allan C., and Crow Sister also took that meaning.
You have not explained what say you now think mainlanders should have. Troop deployment is obviously under British government control.

The Union forced the Confederacy back in.
If Britain did that to Scotland, or Ireland to the 6 Counties, I would say that was fascism by the mores of today.
You think it quite acceptable for the 6 counties to be forcibly subsumed.
I say that is fascist bullying.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 12:16 PM

"I say that is fascist bullying."
I'm sure our American friends will be delighted to hear that their country came about through an act of fascism.
And where does slavery - one of the main bones of contention - fit in to all this?
"If Britain did that to Scotland".
Scotland (and Wales) are sepatate countries and have a right to self determination should they wish it. The Cessationist states were part of the country of America.
"You think it quite acceptable for the 6 counties to be forcibly subsumed."
No I don't, and have never said so; on the contrary, I have persistently pointed out that the partitioning of Ireland came about through force and coercion. I say that the decision should be made by the whole of Ireland - that is democracy.
"You have not explained what say you now think mainlanders should have"
Mainland Britain should have no say whatever in the governance of Ireland - the fact that it has had the controlling say for as long as it has had has led to centuries of bloodshed.
"I was not distorting what you said about mainland voting on NI."
Then please point out my relevant posting; if anything I have written has caused confusion, I apologise.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 03:50 PM

I would so like to argue you down on your version of the partition, but those people are dead and irrelevant to this discussion.
We have to start from where we are.

American people who know their history would not make the mistake of the Civil War again.
But you approve anyway.
You now say you would not use force to make NI accept Dublin rule, but how else would you.
Many predict a new armed struggle.

This is all hyporthetical because, as has been said, no one except mainland Britain would vote for a united Ireland.
The argument is sterile and pointless, but the principle is important.
I say the people of NI should choose for themselves in the full knowledge of their history.
No one else has the right to deny them that, and impose outsiders' demands and an alien regime on them against their will.
Not Britain and not the Republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:36 PM

You bizarrely described my American Civil War analogy as an example of my being a 'fascist bullyboy', then ignored my invitation to qualify your statement - the invitation is still open. - Jim Carroll

When the thirteen colonies became the first thirteen States of the United States of America I believe that it was written into the Constitution of each individual State that they were free at anytime to secede from that Union. The Northern States by forcing the Southern States to remain in the Union was therefore acting against the wishes of the people of the Southern States and against the Constitutions of those States, plain coercion in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:49 PM

The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland:

Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

Explanatory Notes on Article 2
As amended, Article 2 provides that everyone born on the island of Ireland has the right to be a part of the Irish nation. The intention is partly to allow the people of Northern Ireland, if they wish, to feel included in the 'nation' without making what might be perceived as an extraterritorial claim. This is a reflection of the provision in the Belfast Agreement recognising the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

The new wording of Article 2 also had the legal effect of granting to everyone born on the island the right to Irish Citizenship. However this right has since been qualified by the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Adopted in 2004, this amendment did not alter the wording of Articles 2 and 3 but nonetheless limited the constitutional right to citizenship to those born on the island to at least one Irish parent. Article 2 further recognises the "special affinity" between the people of Ireland and the Irish diaspora.

Explanatory Notes on Article 3
As amended, Article 3, Section 1 expresses the "firm will" of the Irish nation to create a united Irish people, though not, explicitly, a united country. It stresses, however, that a united Ireland should respect the distinct cultural identity of Unionists and that it should only come about with the separate "democratically expressed" consent of the peoples of both parts of the island. This provision was intended to diminish the concerns of Unionists, that their rights would be ignored in a united Ireland, should that happen. Under the Good Friday Agreement the people of Northern Ireland's "democratically expressed" consent must be secured in a referendum. Interestingly for a provision that speaks of the "Irish Nation"'s desire for unity, it adds an additional legal requirement for a referendum to be held not only in Northern Ireland but also in Ireland before a united Ireland could be brought about. Section 2 allows Ireland to participate in the cross-border 'implementation' bodies established under the Agreement.

Okay Jim what's your beef? Unification of Ireland requires separate referenda to be held in both Northern Ireland and in the Republic. Now that seems to me to imply that the whole of the population of Ireland have a say. What would you do if the North said YES but the Republic said NO? Would you abide by that decision?

I said that the unification of Ireland remains an aim of all the major parties - I thought this to be the case, but to be doubly sure, I Wikied it - and sure enough....

As I said before the aims and aspirations of political parties are irrelevant, it is the expressed will of the people that counts, and the fact remains that the Republic of Ireland's Constitutional claim on the North has been dropped from the Constitution that existed from 1937 to 1999.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 05:11 PM

So Jim, it looks like your plan of unity imposed on NI by outside votes has already been rejected.
It would have been a nasty, illiberal and unjust coup anyway.
Fascist really.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 05:49 AM

"Fascist really. "
Can we stop this infantile name calling.
If it is 'fascist' to suggest that Ireland should have a say in the governence of six of it's provinces, it is equally 'fascist' to suggest that the British people should have no say in a continued military presence in Ireland.
Your constant mindless throwing out of the term 'fascist' not only shown a gross ignorance of the term on your part, but it is a deep insult to the real victims of fascism,
I realise that this goes against your redneck, 'good ol' boy' nature, but please make an effort to grow up.
More later,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 07:31 AM

However you dress it up, to suggest that the people of the 6 counties be made, by force, to submit to an unwanted regime, to satisfy the wants of that regime, fits my definition of fascist.

And that was what you were suggesting.
Or have you done another couple of backflips?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 11:19 AM

I have set my opinion as clear as I can, giving the facts as I know them; - Jim Carroll

Okay then let us examine those facts as you understand them.

1) the undemocratic way partition was arrived at,

Was the Irish Free State founded democratically? No it was not but we will let that pass, it falls into your apparent fervent belief in one law for the goose another for the gander. The process that established the two political entities of the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland was consultative and the border was established by agreement of all three Governments involved.

2) the threat of invasion if the treaty had not been signed,

What threat of invasion? Made by whom? What was going to be invaded? The Irish Free State? That defies logic if you acknowledge that at the time the British Government were trying their best to extricate themselves from Ireland, the whole premise is ludicrous - If you don't sign this treaty granting you independence we will invade you!! FFS its preposterous what planet are you living on?.

3) the unequal situation between Catholic and Protestant situations,

Please correct me if I am wrong here Jim, but the Catholic population of Northern Ireland has grown and has grown steadily since May 1921, whereas, the Protestant population in the Irish Free State and then latterly the Irish Republic has plummeted. Religious intolerance has existed and has been pandered to and practiced on both sides of the border for generations to such an extent that it has long been considered the norm. Thankfully those days and those generations are dying out

4) the violence against the Catholic minority,

It might come as a surprise to you Jim, but the founding of the Society of United Irishmen precedes the founding of the Orange Order by some five years, the latter being established to protect Protestant landowners, farmers and tradesmen from nationalist violence. On partition the first acts of violence perpetrated in Northern Ireland were by the IRA.

5) the persistent use of force by both the Unionists and the Brits to maintain the six counties…….

Examples of the use of such force please. At the same time and reflected by an accurate timeline list attacks by initiated by nationalists. As Northern Ireland has been autonomous since December 1922, the "Brits" have had very little to do with it. In the period now referred to as "The Troubles" the "Brits" got involved in order to sort out the inequalities you speak of. Had the nationalist paramilitaries stayed out of it and left it to the civil rights movement then roughly 3500 people would have kept their lives and 36,000 people would not have been injured.

Little challenge for you Jim, give me the name of one Republican, or Nationalist volunteer who gave their life to save the life of any man, woman or child throughout the entire period. I can give you the names of quite a few members of the emergency services and security services who did just that.

You have persisted with you mantra - "have to go with the wishes of the Protestant majority" - so let's play it your way.

WHY?

Could one relevant factor possibly be because they did actually form the majority of the population perhaps? Not your form of democracy I know Jim (where the demands of a radical but highly vocal minority threatening violence to achieve their ends must always prevail) but that is the general governing principle of a democracy that the will of the majority prevails.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 12:48 PM

Still not getting time to join in the fun - so quickly.
The American Civil War - Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America; they fought against the United States (the Union), which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states.
"The Northern States by forcing the Southern States to remain in the Union was therefore acting against the wishes of the people of the Southern States and against the Constitutions of those States, plain coercion in other words."
I asked where the abolition of slavery fitted into all this - I received no reply, which tells me all I want to know.   
"fits my definition of fascist."
Then I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
I repeat; "If it is 'fascist' to suggest that Ireland should have a say in the governence of six of it's provinces, it is equally 'fascist' to suggest that the British people should have no say in a continued military presence in Ireland."
You appear to wish to persist in your infantile name calling - which also tells me all I want to know.
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 01:43 PM

Psst Jim if you think that the American Civil War had anything to do with abolishing Slavery then you are as naive as they come.

Myths about US strategy/policy

The War of Independence/Revolutionary War - was about "Taxation and Representation" - Bollocks it was

The War of 1812 was about restraint of trade and impressment of sailors from American ships - Bollocks it was

The American Civil War was fought to free the slaves - like fuck it was.

Now go away and instead of reading myths go and study history and take a look at what EACH side wanted. You will find that the causes detailed above only provided convenient excuses that covered much more rapacious aims and objectives.

the partitioning of Ireland came about through force and coercion

Care to expand on that or are we still on the farcical premise that the big bad English were threatening to invade Ireland if the Irish did not accept independence from England?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 01:44 PM

"Ireland should have a say in the governence of six of it's provinces"
The Irish Republic can govern all its provinces, but not the 6 counties of NI, unless the people of those 6 counties want it.

You are obfuscating by using the phrase "have a say"
That is what you said mainland Britain should have, but you then said a say did not mean a vote??!!
And you apologised for the confusion it caused.
And now you are doing it again.

So we have a rough idea of your position, do you believe that, if the Republic wanted NI but NI did not want to join the Republic, their wishes should be trumped by those of the Republic?

Please do not answer with refernce to Cromwell, Easter rising, etc.,etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 03:11 PM

But there has still been no apology for the closing of ranks to protect the guilty, and for the cover-up. Those were the things that probably caused the worst damage, and led to the most deaths down the years. And those are the things that still continue to shape the way killings by agents of the state are dealt with.

Not just in the UK, of course, but if this pattern is ever going to change, this is as good a place to start as any.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 06:37 PM

Those were the things that probably caused the worst damage, and led to the most deaths down the years.

Kevin you have got to be fuckin' kidding haven't you. You have got to be having a joke here.

"Led to the most deaths down the years!!!"

Lies, cover ups. You can pin it all down to to one Sunday afternoon where 14 people died??? Are you joking!!! What about the 87 murders that McGuinness had a hand in? Don't they count??

"The PIRA never deliberately targeted any civilians" do you remember that statement? Tell me, no tell us all whether or not that was a deliberate lie. Don't bother Kevin it was a fucking lie and the PIRA were forced, repeat forced into owning up to it.

3500+ died Kevin most at the hands of Nationalist/Republican groups, people they said they were "protecting" 36,000 were maimed and injured, they were being protected too.

Want to count lies and the effects of the lies told Kevin???

THEN FOR FUCKS SAKE DO IT HONESTLY!! APPLY IT TO BOTH SIDES. Just for once tell yourself the truth.

I will pose you the same question that I posed Jim Carroll:

Give me the name of one member of any paramilitary group nationalist or loyalist who gave their lives to save the life of any innocent civilian man, woman or child between 1968 and 1999.

I CHALLENGE YOU THERE ARE NONE. And you have got the affrontery and the gall to lay the blame of loss of life in Northern Ireland at the door of the British Government and the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 03:55 AM

"Was the Irish Free State founded democratically?
The Irish State was formed though a war of independence from colonialism which lasted centuries; as were many countries; do you have problems with this or do you think they should all have stayed in the Empire?

"….was established by agreement of all three Governments involved."
It was established reluctantly, after centuries of unrest. The negotiations for a treaty followed a period of state terrorism by British troops specifically put there to create a situation where the best results could be obtained(for a British Government and an extremely belligerent Protestant minority).
The irony was that the treaty eventually signed was opposed but all but a small minority of the population of the six counties. The Catholic minority were in favour of a totally united Ireland (either immediately or eventually); around half the Protestants were totally against any part of Ireland being under British rule; the minority remaining were prepared to go along with the partitioning. As I said, the treaty was forced through and maintained by violence add threats of invasion.

"What threat of invasion?". "If you don't sign this treaty granting you independence we will invade you!! "

Exaxctly;
"The Prime Minister (Lloyd George), of course, needed more than this: all must sign; if they did not, he solemnly promised that he would not even give them time to lay the matter before the Dail: it would be "war within three days," and war more terrible by far than any they had yet experienced. At 7:45p.m. The meeting broke up. Griffith had agreed to sign; Collins appeared to hesitate only over the Oath; Barton, who came to this meeting as a sort of host curiae, had not committed himself at all."
From - 'The Damnable Question – 126 of Anglo-Irish conflict'. George Dangerfield, 1976.

" Catholic population of Northern Ireland has grown and has grown steadily since May 1921, whereas, the Protestant population in the Irish Free State and then latterly the Irish Republic has plummeted."
There has been no evidence of persecution of non-Catholcs in the Republic, despite the Catholic Church having a strong influence (no longer the case as the church has lost its credibility following the clerical child abuse revelations).
On the other hand, there has been anti-Catholic repression and violence throughout the six counties. The stated aim of the original Home Rule Bill was to set up a Protestant State where the Catholic third of the population had no say in the governance of the state.
This has lasted throughout the state's existence and culminated in the peacefully held Civil Rights Marches in the late '60s which were responded to by baton charges by the RUC and the directing of the marchers through stone-throwing Unionist mobs – the next twenty-odd years speak for themselves.   

"Examples of the use of such force please."
You got 'em;
Members of my own family were burned out of their home in Derry by rioting Unionist mobs, forcing them to leave and flee to Dublin with their child in arms.

"Could one relevant factor possibly be because they did actually form the majority of the population perhaps?"
Even if the wishes of the majority had been met by the signing of the Treaty, which it wasn't, in a democracy it is the duty of any government to represent the interests of all sections of the population, minority or majority. This has never happened in the six counties and the question of 'power-sharing' has been brought to the conference table at gun-point and has yet to be resolved satisfactorily – not the basis for a democratic or stable state.
Anything else?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:15 AM

Jim, I am very sympathetic o the plight of your family and so many others.
Protestant families were burned out of houses in Catholic areas too, weren't they.
I will not respond to your other answers to Terribus. I think he will!

I am surely not alone in wanting you position clarified.
Hypothetically, if the people of the Republic wanted NI, but NI people did not want the Republic, who should prevail?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:10 AM

"Protestant families were burned out of houses in Catholic areas too",
Care to give examples? Any recent acts of violence towards any religious or cultural group are the results of decades of the situation I described above; in the Republic Catholics and Protestants have co-existed peacfully since the founding of the state - do you honestly believe the same can be said of the six counties?
"I will not respond to your other answers to Terribus. "
I didn't think for one moment you would.
You have persistently reduced your contribution to this debate to extremely unpleasant and somewhat inarticulate name-calling, replacing argument with invective.
You say you would like to challange my description on the partition (or on Irish history in general) yet you have refrained from doing so, though you have had ample opportunity.
Once again you have skipped around explaining why my suggestion that the whole of Ireland should have a say in the loss of six counties is 'fascist', yet yours that the general population of Britain should have no say in armed intervention is not.
I have no axe to grind in this argument. I am neither Catholic nor Protestant - an atheis in fact. I am an Internationalist, not a Republican - if anything, I am a humanitarian with a long-standing interest in history - Irish in particular.
I see a country torn apart by centuries of bloody conflict and would like to see it stopped once and for all.
I have offered my suggestions for a way this might - just might be achieved - you and your bombastic friend have offered none - except that things must remain the same because a group of carefully selected
'hell-fire-and-brimstone religious fanatics say it should.
If your symapthy is in any way genuine, I suggest you lay off your childish invective - it doesn't even make sense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:25 AM

I have not had ample opportunity to discuss partion with you, because you have still not opened a history thread.
This is about Saville, remember.
Not Cromwell, Easter Rising, Falklands war, Thatcher, .....

I am surely not alone in wanting you position clarified.
Hypothetically, if the people of the Republic wanted NI, but NI people did not want the Republic, who should prevail?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:27 AM

Jim, are you saying that Protestant families were not burned out of their homes?
Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 12:45 PM

"Jim, are you saying that Protestant families were not burned out of their homes?"
I am saying that following the treaty Protestant families were treated as equals in the Republic, whereas in the six counties Catholics became an underclass and were persecuted and terrorised as I described. The behaviour towards Catholics was the root of the troubles that followed.
During the recent troubles both sides took part in the internicene warfare that took place, which was caused, as I said, by the political situation in the six counties.
Why - are you saying anything different?
If so, let's hear it - with examples of course.
"This is about Saville, remember."
Stop wriggling Keith, The causes of Bloody Sunday date much further back than the Treaty even.
I find your protestations somewhat inconsistent. The regime you are supporting here is, at this very moment, using a battle that took place in 1690 to parade their superiority in the six counties, while the one you're ating as apologist for on the Israeli atrocities thread bases their behaviour on a two thousand year old myth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 01:05 PM

Jim, you gave your family's experience as an example of the persistent use of force by both the Unionists and the Brits to maintain the six counties.
But families on both sides were burned out of their homes.
Deny it?

I do not accept that discussion of Saville makes it essential for you to dredge up all the ancient history yet again.
If you must, start a thread and I will accomodate you.

I am not supporting any regime! You have made that up.

Now, I am surely not alone in wanting your position clarified.
Hypothetically, if the people of the Republic wanted NI, but NI people did not want the Republic, who should prevail?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 03:00 PM

"But families on both sides were burned out of their homes."
As I asked - examples please.
Protestant families were treated with respect in the new Republic - if you know otherwise, please say where and when.
"Hypothetically, if the people of the Republic wanted NI, but NI people did not want the Republic, who should prevail?"
You have my answer in my 05:10 AM posting - if you have any additional information, please produce it.
"you gave your family's experience as an example of the persistent use of force by both the Unionists and the Brits to maintain the six counties."
No I didn't - I gave them as an example of use of force by loyalist mobs against a Catholic family. I have persistantly given other examples of systematic persecution of Catholics as a whole by both Unionists and their 'keepers of the peace'. Either you are again deliberately distorting what I have said, or you are very obuse.
I'm sure if you waffle on long enough the 5th Cavalry will come galloping over the hill, but until that time you appear to be on your own.
Please stop digging; this is getting rather embarrassing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 04:48 AM

Jim, you are being dishonest.
In answer to Teribus, "5) the persistent use of force by both the Unionists and the Brits to maintain the six counties…….

Examples of the use of such force please"

You gave your family's experience as an example.
It is another of your rubbish examples because it happened to Protestant families too.
If you did not know that both sides suffered as the housing estates became segregated, that is a serious failing that weakens your credibility.

Now, I am surely not alone in wanting your position clarified, and your 05.10 AM post yesterday gives no clue, so I must ask you again, please, if the people of the Republic wanted NI, but NI people did not want the Republic, who should prevail?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 05:35 AM

Yes Allan, but he is only pretending to believe that we have switched to discussing the Republic.
He knows that we are talking about Protestant and Catholic families burned out of their homes on the estates of NI.
No wonder he is embarrassed.
He can not answer the questions put to him so he has to make up ones he thinks he can answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 06:28 AM

"No wonder he is embarrassed."
I am embarrased because you are making a fool of youself publicly by insisting on something and consistently refusing to produce proof - I want no part in that (though you seem to be doing a pretty good job of it without my help).
Where are your examples of Protestants being abused in the Republic as Catholics were up north?
The abuse towards Catholics is well documented - the six county state was set up to deliberately eclude them, the anti- Catholic rioting, the baton charges of the Civil Rights marches - if you ay thios was equally done to the Protestants in the Republic WHERE AND WHEN - you must have some examples to back up your continual statements - arson attacks, stoning, driving out of Protestant families or refugees fleeing - where?
"......switched to discussing the Republic."
If you think wwe can discuss Bloody Sundaty without discussing its causes, you're even thicker than you I take you to be.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 12:10 PM

"Protestant families were also burned out in the North, OR DO YOU DENY THAT?"
I really can't believe this idiocy - please get help.
NO PROTESTANTS WERE BURNED OUT BY CATHOLICS FOLLOWING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE REPUBLIC; BY BRITISH SOLDIERS, FELLOW PROTESTANTS, LITTLE GREEN MEN WITH RAY GUNS - IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY - PRODUCE IT.
This is an account of the 1935 anti-Catholic riots from
'The Troubles' - a book of essays by different writers produced for Thames Television to coincide with their series of the same name in 1980.
There had been major riots three years earlier in 1932 and such riots were a regular feature of life for Catholics in the six counties right though to the 1960s
This will be my last posting on the subject of anti-Catholic rioting.
A rather tired Jim Carroll.

1935 RIOTS
Despite the display of solidarity between Protestant and Catholic workers during the hard times of unemployment and the hunger marches of 1932, religious tension still existed in the community. The scarcity of jobs and consistently high levels of unemployment made for severe frictions in Northern Ireland society. For the Unionist party leadership it was vital to keep the loyalty of the Protestant working classes, and Orange speeches fanned sectarian flames. Protestant employers were exhorted to take on only Protestant workers. In July 1933 the Fermanagh Times reported a speech by Basil Brooke, later to become Prime Minister in Northern Ireland, appealing to Loyalists 'wherever possible to employ good Protestant lads and lassies In the Londonderry Sentinel in March 1934 he said:
I recommend those people who are Loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics, 99% of whom are disloyal . . . If you don't act properly now, before we know where we are we shall find ourselves in the minority instead of the majority.
The Ulster Protestant League was formed in 1931 with one of its objectives being 'to safeguard the employment of Protestants.' It was a sectarian organisation whose virulently anti-Catholic platform frequently led to violence. In November 1933, a Catholic publican was shot dead in York Street, Belfast, the first sectarian murder since 1922. Sectarian disputes escalated through 1934 to a crescendo in the summer of 1935. A big Ulster Protestant League rally on 18 June was followed by two weeks of disorders, and led the Minister of Home Affairs to ban all parades in the city. But this would have prohibited the annual Orange parades, and the outraged Orange Order put pressure on the Government to relent. They gave in, the ban was lifted, and the parades went ahead.
Predictably, bloody scenes ensued. Shooting began in the York Street area. The Catholics, claimed that the Orangemen broke out of the march and attacked Catholic homes. The Orangemen claimed that Catholics fired into the parade. Who fired the first shots is impossible to determine now, but Belfast was in an uproar, and within days serious rioting had spread from York Street and had broken out all over the city, in the Short Strand, in Sandy Row and Peter's Mill. Catholics in the shipyards were expelled from their jobs, and Catholic girls were expelled from the York Street and Crumlin Road linen mills.
The RUC could not control the situation, and British troops were called in to try to restore order. They erected metal barricades as a sort of peace line along the ends of the Catholic streets around York Street, as they were to do in 1969. Whilst trying to control a Loyalist crowd in the Docks, they shot and killed two Protestants.
The fighting continued for three weeks, although some of the barricades were not taken down for months. Eleven people were killed and nearly 600 injured. There were 133 cases of arson and 367 of malicious damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 01:17 PM

Jim , I am not talking about the Republic and never was.
I don't know why you keep on about all those riots, or why you even started.

I know of course that Catholic families were burned from their homes IN THE NORTH.

I am just pointing out that Protestant families IN THE NORTH suffered in the same way when the housing estates IN THE NORTH became segrated in the 70s and into the 80s.

I am sure you will not deny that I have stated a well known fact.

If that is cleared up, I must ask you again, please, if the people of the Republic wanted NI, but NI people did not want the Republic, who should prevail?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 02:14 PM

Keith,
My apologies for the outburst.
I have no intention of allowing you to drive me off this thread as have another poster on the Israeli atrocity one.
I will continue to post hereas the subject interests me greatly, but not to anything you have to say. To be honest, I don't even know if you are a troll not bright enough to post anonymously.
I am really not qualified to cope with somebody with your problems. Good luck.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 05:17 PM

We've had some trouble with impersonation in this thread, so I have deleted a number of Guest messages. From this point, no other Guest messages will be allowed. You must be logged in if you wish to post.
thank you.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:35 AM

Joe and All;
I hope that nobody here takes my suggestion that Keith is a troll seriously; it was written in a moment of utter frustratiion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 05:47 AM

Sorry Joe. I was away from home.
Jim, you clearly have a problem conceding that both Catholic and Protestant families were burned out of their homes as yours was.
I do not understand your problem, and I expect others are puzzled too.
Obviously no point pursueing it further, but why enter into debate if you have no go areas?

You also clearly do not want to answer the "who should prevail?" question.
It is not a trick question.
My answer would be, the people of NI should have the final say and that rights of minorities should continue to be respected.

Again, if you can not or will not give an opinion on a basic question like that, what are you doing in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 06:31 AM

Jim, you kept complaining that I would not discuss the partition of Ireland and such on this thread.
Your mindset, that says nothing new can be achieved in NI withould raking over centuries of disputed history, has been the cause of the painful and slow progress there.

Before you accuse me again of avoiding the subject, this takes you to a place where you and I discussed just that.
thread.cfm?threadid=41161#2086681

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 08:50 AM

Foolish Guest, you will be deleted.
Do you not see the irony in your complaining of a supposed impersonation, when you are impersonating someone else?

On the old thread Jim answered the question,
"You would deny the people of the North the right to choose their government?"
Yes, just as I would deny the people of Birmingham to choose "their" government

I described his attitude as cruel and undemocratic.
(I had not seen him posturing as an anti fascist then.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 03:50 PM

The thing is, when you have political engineering to ensure a particular electoral result, that distorts everything. Gerrymandering is just one aspect of it.

So for example in South Africa there was the attempted camouflage of declaring that black people were citizens of artificial Bantustans, and not of South Africa, and accordingly that denying them a vote was perfectly compatible with claiming that South Africa was a democracy.

Or in Israel you have a situation where most of the native population were ethnically cleansed, forced to leave and denied their right to return, and therefore excluded from any elections in the place they came from, ensuring a permanent majority for the people who had replaced them.

In Northern Ireland the trick was to draw the borders of the territory in such a way as to include large areas with majorities who did not wish to be included but in such a way that they could always be outvoted in the territory as a whole.

We can't re-run history to undue that kind of thing, but it is important to recognize that simple head-counting is not the whole story, and is not the only factor in determining whether a regime is "democratic". And of course that recognition is reflected in the complexities of the political settlement that followed the Good Friday Agreement, designed to ensure "power-sharing".
.............

As for Teribus's indignant response to a previous post, my point is that Bloody Sunday, combined with its cover-up played a fatal role in bringing about the escalation and continuation of the conflict. It turned the Provos from a fringe group on the edge of a Civil Rights movement into something far more central and far more deadly, with mass support. In the old saying, it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:14 AM

McGrath, I challenge your version of the "trick" of drawing the borders.
However it was done there would have been trouble.
I would say they were drawn to include as many as practically possible who wanted inclusion, and vice versa.
It was a pragmatic attempt to please most of the people most of the time, and that is all polticians can ever hope to achieve.
The history is fiercely contested and disputed.
Any attempt now to right disputed historical wrongs is doomed to failure.
What you and Jim must try to do is accept that we are where we are, and aim to please most of today's people most of the time.

(You also stated as if it were undisputed fact a highly contentious and one sided version of Israel's history. Why do you do that?)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:34 AM

"What you and Jim must try to do is accept that we are where we are,"
No - what we must try and find out why we are where we are to see ascertain that Bloody Sunday doesn't happen again.
Saville said what needed to be said about the actual events - British soldiers shot down thirteen unarmed demonstrators, just as their predecessors did similarly in the previous Bloody Sunday. It then went on to cover up the reasons for the massacre for thirty eight years.
Unless we take these events in their full context and try to understand why they happened there is a possibility that they will continue to happen.
Some of us have attempted to put these events in their historical context; you have consistently tried to police this thread in order that we don't do so. You are not an adjudicator on this forum; please stop attempting to adjudicate. And please do not continue to distort what I have to say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:43 AM

Jim ,I do not distort what you say, I quote it.
Your obsession with your version of history condemns you and your ilk to repeat it.
Saville was able to investigate the events of Bloody Sunday without raking over what previous generations might or might not have done.
You and your ilk have been left behind by the modern people of Ireland, and thank God for that.
I can not prevent you indulging your fetish for refighting ancient battles in this thread, but I can and do refuse to join in with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 04:01 AM

Jim, as you have reopened communication with me, I think you will find this piece from New Statesman of interest.
. I remember as a teenager watching the burning houses further down towards the centre of Belfast, in one of those streets that led from the Shankill to an area that I knew less well. Burning out, they called it. "We're burning them out," they would say. We burnt out their lot; they burnt out ours. Families left the area where they had lived for generations. They moved house by house. There were no wagon trains like in Kosovo, just individual families getting out when they had to, with whatever they could gather around them.

The Catholics at the bottom of Ligoniel Road moved to the top of the road, the Protestants at the top moved to the bottom. It was a distance of about 400 yards, but this was all that was required to feel safe, to be with your own kind.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200005220026

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 04:26 AM

"Jim ,I do not distort what you say, I quote it."
You have persistantly distorted my position and have painted yourself into a corner in your efforts, so much so that you have tried strenuously to steer the discussion away from areas on which you have no knowledge.
You not only refuse to debate 'my version' of history but you have done your best to prevent me from discussing it.
"Saville was able to investigate....,"
Saville dealt with and reported on the events of the day and their cover-up - he did not attempt to put them in context of the political situation existing in the six counties, then or now, nor did he suggest how the position might be rectified and the events not repeated - it wasn't his brief.
Bloody Sunday happened because Ireland was partitioned in 1922 in favour of a Unionist majority, which led to nearly half a century of sectarian conflict culminating in open warfare in the seventies - Bloody Sunday was only one, albeit a significent incident in that warfare. The situation created in 1922 has not altered significantly enough to guarantee that it will not be repeated.
I have made my suggestions of why the massacre happened and how things might proceed - now let's hear yours.
Please do not continue to lie about my opinions and do not tell me or anybody omn this thread what we should or should not be discussing - you have monoplised and distorted one thread; don't do the same with this one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:04 AM

Jim lad,
Fascist that you are, you want to force me to discuss history on this thread.
BUT YOU CAN'T!
No wonder you get all bitter and twisted.

If I am steering away from areas on which I have no knowledge, how is it that I have managed to discuss those exact areas, at great length, so many times before?
(You could always open or reopen a thread.)

I have not knowingly distorted what you say.
Give an example if you say I have.
One problem is that you are deliberately vague in your statements.
You say, X or Y should "have a say" in the governance of NI.
Does that mean a vote, a veto, or just a post on Mudcat?
Who knows?
Not you, or you would have clarified.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:55 AM

You again!
I did not attempt to deceive anyone, but you are blatantly claiming to be Allan C!
You are a liar and a hypocrite.
Be gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:57 AM

Keith - you appears to have reverted once again to infantile name-calling in place of argument and continue to attempt to dominate this thread with your idiocy.
For the record, my newspaper carries a front page photograph of the Orange march to Drumcree, having been refused permission to triumphally parade down the Catholic Garvaghy Road.
These are two of the articles carried in the inner pages - peace at last!!!
Jim Carroll

SIX OFFICERS INJURED IN ORGANISED BELFAST RIOTS
Six police officers have been injured in a second night of orches¬trated rioting in Belfast, the PSNI has said.
Nine police vehicles were dam¬aged as officers came under attack from stones, fireworks, petrol bombs, paint, masonry and, on one occasion, an axe.
Trouble flared in the Broadway area at a major junction between the Ml motorway and the West-link. About 100, rioters began attacking police, who responded with plastic bullets. The police ombudsman is investigating the firing of the rounds. The trouble eased at about 3am yesterday.
Some gas cylinders were thrown into the road at the Broadway roundabout, and a car was set alight. A fast food outlet was broken into and substantial damage caused. Two cash tills were later recovered.
A senior police officer said it was believed the trouble was preplanned, but added it was difficult to say by whom. The PSNI has appealed for more information, especially regarding the possibility that the rioters came into the area from elsewhere to target police.
"The violence that we saw last night was orchestrated," Chief Insp Emma Mooney said.
Police searches in the area before trouble began for a second night uncovered bottles, masonry , and other items which could be used in riot situations, she added.
Rioting had flared on Friday night in the same locality when four police vehicles were attacked.
The injured officers suffered head and upper body wounds. None are said to have life-threatening injuries.

POLICE PREVENT ORANGEMEN PARADING ON GARVAGHY ROAD
DAN KEENAN (Northern News Editor in Drumcree)
Portadown Orangemen have been prevented by police from marching along the nation¬alist Garvaghy Road in Portadown, Co Armagh for a 12th consecutive year.
Members of the local lodge made their way to Drumcree parish church outside the town for their annual Somme commemoration service. But they were prevented returning through the nationalist area on foot of a Parades Commission determination.
District secretary Nigel Dawson called on a small group of police officers, led by chief inspector Ken Mawhinney, to remove the light barrier blocking Drumcree Road, but this was refused.
Orangemen dispersed peacefully a short time later after a defiant speech by district master Darryl Hewitt in which he called for the disbandment of the Parades Commission. He also denounced the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition and accused the police of enforcing one rule for them and another for unionists in Co Armagh.
He told members of Portadown lodge that senior Orangemen were "putting in a lot of time and effort seeking a resolution to the impasse".
"We will not be walking away from this place and I can assure you that we will continue to work hard to achieve what we desire." He said marchers attempted to complete their original banned parade "each and every Sunday... And there is still a presence on the hill every night".
"One must ask the question, 'Why are we still here this year?' After all the chair of the Parades Commission [Rena Shepherd] stood at this place last Drumcree Sunday and stated that she would have the situation resolved by December." He claimed Orangemen had met Ms Shepherd on at least three occasions since last year and claimed they had been told the commission was not prepared to initiate any sanctions against the nationalist residents.
Mr Hewitt added: "The sooner the Parades Commission is dis¬solved the better - tomorrow would do." He said it would be "interesting to see what comes of the new arrangements for parading in Northern Ireland". These were promised as part of the deal to secure the devolution of policing and justice powers to Stormont concluded at Hillsborough in February.
"When the new body comes into being you can be sure that the first issue to be dealt with is our parade from this place back to Carleton Street." Turning to the police, Mr Hewitt asked why no nationalist had been threatened with arrest "regarding illegal parades that take place around Northern Ireland".
"It seems to be that there is one law for the nationalist-republican community and another for the unionist community," he alleged.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:31 AM

And your point is...?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:47 AM

My point is - contrary to your early statement.
"Peace has come about Jim." - it hasn't, and until the political problems created by the sectarian division of Ireland are solved, it won't.
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:52 AM

And you are sure there would be less trouble if people followed your advice and tried to reconcile every advance with a contentious and bitterly disputed history?
I think you are a fool, and a dangerous one.
We are lucky you are almost the last of your kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 07:23 AM

And once again you avoid the issue with invective.
I ask again, and will do until you answer - What's your solution?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 07:46 AM

PS Where is my 'contentiously' history 'bitterly disputed' - certainly not here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 08:26 AM

Jim, that you do not recognise that the history is "contentious and bitterly disputed" shows how blinkered you are.
You think your version is the only one.

I keep telling you what my solution is. Let the people who have to live in NI decide its future.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 08:27 AM

I would say they were drawn to include as many as practically possible who wanted inclusion, and vice versa.

Remove that "vice versa" and I'd agree with you there, Keith. But not with it included.

As for my summary of one aspect of Israeli history, I don't think it is now seriously open to doubt that ethnic cleansing on a massive scale was carried out in 1948. And there is obviously nothing in the least controversial in the assertion that the refugee population have not and are not allowed to return, and that the reason for this, as repeatedly stated by Israel, is that it would undo the politico-ethnic status quo.

My point in raising it is that I believe it is important to recognize that the Northern Ireland situation is not in principle unique, it is one example of the process in which the forms of democracy have been distorted in order to achieve ethnically motivated ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 08:59 AM

"contentious and bitterly disputed"
The historical facts I have presented are well documented and not disputed; it is the present state of affairs that are being battled over.
"Let the people who have to live in NI decide its future."
As I said, maintain the status quo - two examples of which you have in the press cuttings I posted.
At present there are riots on the Belfast Streets and the potential for further and greater violence as the marching season gets underweigh,
You have written off the right of British people as a whole having a say in military involvement in the situation, defering that right to an aggressive and potentially violent sectarian minority of the UK.
Despite the clear wishes of the majority of British people (yourself included), the government is committed to military intervention in the six counties - where is the democracy in that and how does leaving things as they are solve the situation one way or the other?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 09:12 AM

If those historical facts are undisputed, why are people disputing them?

The people deciding for themselves has not perpetuated the status quo.
It has put Sinn Fein officials in offices of state, and brought about weapons decommisioning by all the main paramilitary groups.
Only a few history obsessed loonies are still running around with guns and bombs.

The British Government is not committed to military intervention, and there is no military intervention.

For someone who is not interested in borders, you have shown a huge and emotional yearning for a United Ireland.
It is not my fault that it is not wanted in Ireland.
I wish it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 09:28 AM

And Jim, there would still be a marching season with or without the border.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 10:55 AM

Once again you dodge your suggestion that the British people as a whole should have no say in armed intervention and the continuance of the six counties in the Union.
"you have shown a huge and emotional yearning for a United Ireland."
and once again to continue to distort my view on a United Ireland - "....there would still be a marching season with or without the border. "
There would, and no harm in that - but it would no longer be the 'beating of the bounds' truimphal and intimidating demonstration of superiority that it is now.
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 11:19 AM

Jim, the marching season would be exactly the same.
Why would they march any differently?
I am not dodging anything. That stuff of yours about the British people "having a say" in miltary intervention is just not worthy of a reply.
The days of military intervention in NI are long over.
Through our elected representatives we do "have a say" in military interventions.
You just cling to this bit of nonsense because the British are the only ones who still want a United Ireland.
That is why you want Britain to "have a say"
It is laughable.

I do not distort you view on a United Ireland.
I just point out that you have been here arguing for it for days now.
Sadly for you, the Irish people have moved on from that.
You are just an anachronism.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 01:27 PM

The assumption that people voting for the Good Friday Agreement were saying that they did not wish to see a United Ireland is an assumption too far. For most, I would suggest that, it was seen as a more realistic way of seeking to achieve that goal in time, as well as a way of winding down the cycle of violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:54 PM

Not an issue for me McGrath.
The people of the Republic voted, with a large majority, that the people of NI should choose to be part of UK or part of Republic.
They agree with me, not Jim.
Jim alone feels that the people of mainland Britain should "have a say."
Jim alone knows what that even means.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:06 PM

It's not that unreasonable to suggest that the consent of both partners in a union is necessary for that union to be viable. That's how it works when it comes to marriage after all...

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:16 PM

"Through our elected representatives we do "have a say" in military interventions."
So - as I asked once before and got no reply - everybody who voted for a Blair Government voted for the invasion of Iraq did they?
It is pretty well an established fact the the British population would vote tomorrow for the removal of the six counties from the Union. You still haven't told us why the sectarian unionists in the North should have a greater say in the matter over the general population of Britain.
"I do not distort you view on a United Ireland."
Yes you do - I have persistently said that a United Ireland is one way to end the conflict in the North, whatever I may feel personally about it.
"Jim alone feels that the people of mainland Britain should "have a say."
And you alone feel that they shopuld not have a say, but just provide the cannon-fodder and the money for the conflicts.
If you hold so much store in the way the people of The Republic voted, why can't the British people be treated to the same opportunity to vote on the issue? I think you said earlier that the people of the Republic and Britain cannot be trusted with the vote because it would not produce the required result - is that right?
I live in the Republic and spend a great deal of time travelling round the whole of Ireland and know that the people I meet, here and elsewhere, do not necessary want a partitioned Ireland; they want the troubles to go away. A decision taken on that basis is no foundation to build a stable society - as has been proved over and over again.
Once again - If you are going to leave the situation as it is WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO THE PRESENT AND MOUNTING VIOLENCE AND UNREST?
"The days of military intervention in NI are long over."
On what grounds do you make this astounding statement; the days of a permanent British presence has been put on hold but, like the threat of invasion at the time of the treaty, military intervention remains as a constant threat.
"You are just an anachronism"
You appear to be incapable of making a contribution to this discussion without peppering it with invective and personal abuse. I belive you to be one of the most unpleasantly insecure people I have ever debated with.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 02:14 AM

You seem to be suggesting that Britain should abandon its representational democracy.
That takes thread drift to new, stratospheric levels.
If that is not what you mean, stop being a twat and tell us how you envision Britain "having a say."
My position is clear. The people of NI should make the decision.
Not the Republic, though they agree with me anyway.
And not Britain. The British do want rid of NI, but if asked I am certain I would be found to be typical in wanting NI to decide about NI.
As with Falklanders and Gibraltarians.
There was negligable support for troops out even at the height of the Troubles.

And now your big question!
"If you are going to leave the situation as it is WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO THE PRESENT AND MOUNTING VIOLENCE AND UNREST? "

The violence of the Troubles is over.
PSNI are dealing adequately with dissident Republicans. The army is not wanted or needed.
Sectarian tension is a fact of life. We have it in Glasgow too.
Changing the border would not make it better and probably make it worse.
You invite personal abuse because you never let on what you actually mean or want.
This sterile debate should have been wound up days ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 03:28 AM

I repeat - did those who voted for Blair vote for the Iraqi war? Representation democracy does not mean the continuation of a political situation that has created strife for nearly nine decades and has led to a permanent state of conflict as well as a racist animosity towards Irish people totally unprecedented in my experience.
How do you go about letting the people decide - by open debate between all groups leading to referendum - how else? Certainly not by political pressure by one aggressive and influential minority. It is you who has insisted that the wishes of that tiny vociferous minority should be pandered to despite the wishes of the rest of the British population, so why should the opinions of the people as a whole not be sought and acted upon - that would be the democratic way out of the present problem?
"PSNI are dealing adequately with dissident Republicans."
No they are not - the threat and the fact of terrorist violence remains - want a list?
"Sectarian tension is a fact of life. We have it in Glasgow too."
Sectarian violence in Glasgow, nor in my native Liverpool where the same situation exists, has not led to sectarian discrimination and exclusion of a specific group, long-term rioting, massacres, open warfare, terrorism and partitioning as it has in the six counties.
"Changing the border ....."
The border was created as a temporary measure; it was put in place under the threat of military invasion and was held there only by the aggressive behaviour of the Unionist activists - it is long past its sell-by date, if it was ever a suitable option in the first place.
"The violence of the Troubles is over."
Then what is the rioting taking place in Belfast and the annual stand-offs at Drumcree and all the other flashpoints throughout the marching season all about?
When Mrs Robinson, the wife of the Unionist leader decided to go walkabout the power-sharing talks were in risk of collapsing, which could well have plunged us into an even bloodier set of 'Troubles' - no country can tolerate that sort of risk hanging over it - it is a recipe for disaster.
"You invite personal abuse...."
I have offered a personal opinion on the incident, its causes and possible cures. You have reacted with personal abuse throughout in a manner I have never come across before, not here - not anywhere.
I have been through this thread several times and I can not find one single original suggestion from you, one piece of personal reasearch, one glimmer of knowledge, one single indication that you know anything about Ireland. You have based your whole approach on picking up on the input of others. You have attempted to bully and manipulate the thread away from areas you don't begin to understand with claims of 'ancient history' and 'dead people'. When your friend Terribus shambled off into the sunset you fell flat on your arse as if somebody had pulled your chair from under you. You have relied totally on drawing on the contributions of others to dominate this thread and when they have not coincided with your own opinions you have tried to shout them down.
It is little wonder that you think "This sterile debate should have been wound up days ago" - you are totally out of your depth.
A quick glance down the 'Israeli atrocity' thread appears to indicate that this is your general approach to debate as you have appeared to have done the same to a lesser extent there.
If offering a contrary opinion to your own 'invites abuse' and results in the vitriolic bile that you have displayed here (want a list? We could start with "stop being a twat") then perhaps you should consider a a more soothing pastime - macrame maybe!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 03:45 AM

OK Jim.
Delete "stop being a twat" and insert "start being sensible"
Delete " you are an anachronism" and insert " your views are anachronistic."
Start a new thread about forms of democracy.
So Britain having a say means a referendum.
And how would British votes be weighed against NI votes?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 04:01 AM

Jim, I think we can stop here.
You have said what you think should happen.
I think that would be a backward step and unworkable anyway.
I have said what I think should happen.
There is no outcry that PSNI are overwhelmed by the antics of RIRA CIRA etc., except you obviously.
No one wants or needs the army back, except you obviously.
I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 09:34 AM

"Delete "stop being a twat" and insert "start being sensible""
I've become rather tired with your antics at spoiling threads so I'm going to gather together very bit of invective and abuse you have hurled during this debate so that we can view it in all its glory.
Once again you answer none of the points I've made exept to distort my views.
As I said - you live off the thoughts of others because you have none of your own.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 10:11 AM

My thoughts on this are simple and need no explanation.
Let the people of NI decide for themselves.
And the Dublin government agrees with me.
And the people of the Republic overwhelmingly agree with me.
And the British government agrees with me.

Jim Carrol says there should be a referendum held in mainland Britain.
He is on his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 11:31 AM

I am a fairly typical Brit, and I read the popular press most days.
I am quite cetain that, if asked, mainland Britain would also vote that NI should decide their own future.

YOU Jim have hijacked this thread.
We should have been discussing Bloody Sunday and the report, but you INSISTED on going down this dead end.

I should have refused to join in on this as well.
Sorry everyone.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 01:40 PM

"We should have been discussing Bloody Sunday"
We are discussing the causes of Bloody Sunday - you are displaying your ill mannered loutishness.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: ollaimh
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 01:48 PM

i find myself agreeing with carrol. richard brydges again showshis bigotry racismand fascism. what can you say.

there was little credibleevidence of anyone firing anything at the british army. that is the last ditch face saving and if savile had wanted peace and healing he shouldhave said so, but the brityish imperial racism dies hard. i have repeatedly seen peoe post racist remarks . only against gaels is it still apparantly acveptable to a lot of brits.

the real story s that the british army, police prosecutors and political people to the highest level participate in perjury for 38 years. the lot should be thrown in jail. never wil be as the establishment rarely disciplines its own.

the paras fired because ythey were predominately racists and thought any irish man protesting should die. plain and simple.

wnat really bothers me is the repeated racist remarks on mud cat. do people have any decency?   i've seen people equate the protests against the blody sunday cover up with the pira--the assumption that all who are opposed to british army murder must be pira is pure racism. again i recently saw someidiot excusing the ethnic cleansing of the acadiens of canada because they had abused the natives. not true , natives got on well with acadiens. it was the english settlers that took their adn and stole their chldren to die at a fifty percent rate in their church/government schols. but any excuse makes the worst behavior ok.

the british enpire ethnically cleansed many places. som acknoldgement of tyhat would be nice. therte are few vengefu peole, but lorts of racists brits continuing the justifications.

the saville report has alsopartially continued the justificatins. there was little credible evidence of any firing but by the british army . therte was mch evidence of the planting of weapons, and perjury and shipping the soldiers who refused to lie out to honh kong and the wiggery report refused tyo interview them.

time to stop the weasle words. it was a great injustice . britian hads always governed ireland as a colony andwith violence first. time to actually jail the perpertrastorts. if thats done the next time they will think.

butn whatb really bothers me is the blame the victum mentality of british medcatters i am encountering regularily. take some responsibility. grow up. no ne but your own believe you anyway

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 05:08 PM

If Scotland wants independence then Scotland holds a referendum - under the rules in the UK, England has no say in that referendum, and there are very good reasons for that all connected with guaranteeing the rights of a minority.

In the treaty that created the Irish Free State, Ireland was United for as long as it took Northern Ireland to exercise its right to opt out of the arrangement. Therefore Northern Ireland and the Republic had been "independent" from Great Britain for about the same length of time albeit that Northern Ireland through choice is a self-governing autonomous part of the United Kingdom, and as with Scotland, neither Scotland, England or Wales has any right in the political determination of its status, so no, the people of Great Britain should not have a say in whether or not Northern ireland remains in the United Kingdom.

Jim still wittering on about the ludicrous threat of invasion, as I said hardly credible if Britain was trying to get shot of Ireland at the time. The partition was agreed to for one reason and one reason only and it was a very pragmatic one - The Irish Free State nearly collapsed fighting its own civil war against a few thousand members of the IRA. How on earth would they, the fledgling Irish State have coped fighting against 500,000 Ulstermen hell bent on wrecking the nation. Answer to that was they would not have been able to cope and everybody knew it.

What the people voted for with the referenda both North and South of the border Kevin was that it is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide how they are ruled and who rules them. If the people of Northern ireland hold a referendum and vote for Union with the republic of Ireland, then the people of the Republic then hold a referendum to agree to Union or not.

I will ask my question of Jim again if the North wants Union and the South does not will you accept that decision?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 05:49 PM

Jim and Ollaimh,
Saville found no evidence at all of premeditation.
Saville found clear evidence that IRA shot first, but that the soldiers who fired were not aware of those shots.

Ollaimh, please give examples of racism against Gaels here, because I have never seen any.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 06:02 PM

Whether Northern Ireland should at this time be part of a United Ireland is one question, and it was one which was put to the people of Ireland in a referendum.

But whether it should be part of the United Kingdom is another question entirely - and it one which has never been put to the people of Britain.

That may be a good thing, since the likely result of a resounding "No" vote, which I would expect such a referendum to produce would probably be a pretty unpleasant Orange Free Statelet, and a renewed conflict which would very likely be even nastier than the last one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 06:28 PM

McGrath and Jim, I think that Irish people would be angered by the very notion of asking mainland Brits to vote on their future.
Those dissident guests should be sniping at you two, not me.

The result of such a vote?
We do not want any part of Ireland thank you, but we would defend the right of the NI people to choose for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 06:40 PM

"I think that Irish people would be angered by the very notion of asking mainland Brits to vote on their future."

I wouldn't be angered if Britain had a say in whether or not a part of Ireland remained a part of Britain.

I wonder why "Irish" people would be concerned about what British people might choose to do with themeselves, seeing as they are apparently Irish instead of British?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 07:15 PM

I can't see a difference in principle between the notion that the people of Northern Ireland should be entitled to choose to separate themselves from the rest of the United Kingdom, and the notion that the rest of the United Kingdom should be able to choose to separate themselves from Northern Ireland.

However I'm inclined to prefer that the question doesn't get put, for the reason I gave.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 01:01 AM

How many people reside and could therefore vote in such a referendum Kevin? As the number of people who live in England far out numbers the populations of Scotland; Northern Ireland and Wales. Under your scheme the population od England to always outvote and dominate the desired courses of the native populations of those countries.

The same goes for an Irish Referendum, that is why it is up to the population of Northern Ireland to demonstrate its desire to become part of a united Ireland first.

But again I will ask my question if the North says Yes and the South says No will the nationalists in Ireland accept the vote that shows the "will of the people".

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 01:47 AM

Jim, the mainland referendum was your "original thought."
When are you going to defend it?

You say that I don't have original thoughts.
I am glad I didn't have that one.
And you said it out loud!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 03:49 AM

"if the North wants Union and the South does not will you accept that decision? "
Not only would I accept that decision - I DO ACCEPT IT and always have because that is apparently the position as it stands at the present time. But I also say thet if that remains the position, then so does the instability, the threat of further violence and further incidents like Bloody Sunday.
Those who put together the Partition did so with the intention that it was a stop-gap measure in the full realisation that it was not a long term solution.
Partition was not put in place because that was what the Irish people wanted, it was to placate a Protestant minority and was itended to keep the peace until a further solution could be found. Because the Unionist two-thirds used the situation to maintain their authority over one third of the population of the six counties, the peace has not been kept and the inequalities of the two factions remained right up to comparitavely recently.
Whatever statements have been made here, the desire for a united Ireland has not gone away; as I said, it still remains as an aim of all the main political parties, though it has been put on the back-burner for the sake of peace at the present time - the same stop-gap measure it was originally. I repeat, though I have no doubt it will continue to be distorted, if it is democratic that the unionist minority in present day 'Britain' have a right to decide that the border remains in place, it is equally democratic that the British people have a right to decide their involvement in maintaining that border. No one has even suggested that the British people as a whole are opposed to the Union as it stands concerning Ireland - so it means tha situation as it stands can only me maintained by refusing the British people as a whole the right to have their say on the matter. "
"please give examples of racism against Gaels here, because I have never seen any."
To borrow an earlier statement - WHAT PLANET TO YOU LIVE ON? Britian is an extremely racist nation and the Irish have been one of the major targets for centuries - a sort of combination of Punch, Bernard Manning and Richard Bridge is pretty well the norm at the presentr time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 04:20 AM

"if it is democratic that the unionist minority in present day 'Britain' have a right to decide that the border remains in place, it is equally democratic that the British people have a right to decide their involvement in maintaining that border"

But we don't care Jim.
It is up to them.
We will be very happy when they decide to go, but meanwhile we will defend their right to choose.

"it has been put on the back-burner for the sake of peace "
Peace is what everyone wants Jim. Why do you want to change it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 04:49 AM

"But we don't care Jim."
We don't care about what in particular? - I am suggesting that the British people have a say in whether Brtain continues to be involved in maintaining a border - paying for military intevention, sending troops etc - are you saying that you don't care about that - the British people certainly do and would change that situation tomorrow if asked? You are suggesting that they have no say in the matter - how undemocratic.
"Why do you want to change it? "
Do you deny violence is happening at the present time (see above news cuttings) and is likely to escalete given the circumstances.
That is what needs changing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 05:26 AM

It is democratic Jim.
It is representational democracy like all major countries have.
There is no suppressed public anger here about paying for troops who are not needed anymore anyway.
Sorry Jim, we just don't care.
You sort it out.

Do you say to your countrymen, "I know what we should do lads. Ask the British. They'll know."

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 05:33 AM

BTW, how is that list of my invective coming on Jim?
I am looking forward to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: allanc
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 05:51 AM

"It is representational democracy like all major countries have."

Quite so - we have a parliamentary system. As far as I know there has only ever been one referendum put to the people of the UK as a whole and that was over membership of what is now the EU. There have been quite a few other referendums concerning constituent parts of the UK/GB or regional parts of England and in all of these referendums the vote was only given to the people directly affected in these various constituent parts of the state or regions of England. For example the two Scottish devolution referendums or the London Mayor referendum etc. That is a solid democratic principle. Scots would have simply not accepted that people outwith of Scotland should have the deciding vote on what happened within Scotland. The Scottish people chose their preferred option and that then had to be passed through Parliament for what was basically a rubber stamp. The same would be so for Northern Ireland - and I can't think why anyone should think they deserve less democracy than Scots, Welsh or Londoners got?

As far as I see it various opinion polls in GB have shown that the British people favour the idea that the people of Northern Ireland should have the right to choose and all the major parties back that idea. 90% or so of the people of the Irish Republic who voted agreed with that. And a majority of the people of Northern Ireland agree with that too. It wasn't broken down so that you could tell which religion voted which way - but I believe that the estimates are that the Catholic population of Northern Ireland voted the same way as the Republic with about 90% accepting the principle. The Protestant majority was still there but was much smaller with a substantial minority saying No. In other words the only people against it seem to be a small proportion of hard line Nationalists and a larger proportion of hard line Unionists. Both probably thinking that their opinion should over-ride the opinion of the people as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 09:05 AM

"BTW, how is that list of my invective coming on Jim?"
On its way as soon as I get time Keith - notice you have avoided adding to it of late, which is a step in the right direction on your part - adulthood beckons!
"Do you say to your countrymen...."
Which countrymen woud they be - I'm sure the people of Liverpool would take that rather puerile remark for the prattishness it conveys.
"Sorry Jim, we just don't care."
Are you saying the British have no opinion on whether the six counties remain as part of Britain, or that their opinion doesn't count?
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 09:39 AM

Jim, wherever you live now, you do not come across as English.
Do you not feel Irish?
If ever you do find yourself in a bar with real Irishmen, probably best not to argue too strongly for a British referendum to solve the problems of Ireland.
They will agree with me, in answer to your last question, that mainland Brits' opinions do not count.

Your penultimate question was whether we have an opinion.
Not really. When the Troubles were on we just wanted rid of the lot of you. That has faded now. Why should we think about it?

Do you not have any English friends Jim?
I can possibly suggest why that might be.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 01:06 PM

Scrap what I said earlier - you are becoming childishly snide agin - adulthood seems as far away as ever
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 01:25 PM

"When the Troubles were on we just wanted rid of the lot of you."
.......verging on exactly the sort of racism I was referring to earlier.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 02:01 PM

That is not racism Jim.
That is how people here felt.
For the most part people here simply can not comprehend the sectarianism that fueled the conflict.
It seemed nothing to do with us and having NI as part of Britain brought us nothing but death, destruction and crippling costs.
If you do not feel any of that, you are not like the rest of us.
The way you talk about the Unionist people makes you unmistakenly part of that divided community.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 03:09 PM

Your racist remark clearly makes you a racist.
I have to confess, I have been trying to work out what makes you the unpleasant individual your postings suggest you to be. At first I put it down to an inferiority complex, or some other insecurity.
Then the mask slipped, "we just wanted rid of the lot of you".
You are a sieg heiler, a goose-stepper, an anti-Irish racist, plain and simple, revealed by a slipped out remark.
If, as you say, "That is how people here felt", this only confirms what I said earlier - Britain is a deeply racist country - which is probably one of the few points we agree on.
This last couple of postings has been of tremendous assistance to me - for which, many thanks.
You only compound your dishonesty throughout this debate as referring to 'us' when discussing you and I.
I was born and brought up in Liverpool as was my mother, my father was born in Glasgow and his mother and father were born in Ireland and Liverpool respectively.
I have no problem with being described as 'Irish' but it would be a pretentious conceit on my part to accept it as accurate - show you my birth certificate and passport if you don't believe me.
Anyway, it seems far more important to you than it is to me - but that's the way racism, isn't it?
"The way you talk about the Unionist...."
Every thing I have said about the Unionists has come with examples of their behaviour in the six counties - feel free to dispute them should you not agree with them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 03:52 PM

I have used invective Jim.
All based on what I considered to be foolish in your posts.
But this is just disgusting.
"You are a sieg heiler, a goose-stepper, an anti-Irish racist, plain and simple"
I have loved Ireland since I walked and camped in the Wicklows aged 15 in 1965.
I have returned many, many times North and South.
I may have been fortunate, but I have yet to meet an Irish person I have not liked and got on with.
One of my boys married a Catholic Irish girl and they have just presented me with my first grandson.
A nephew is married to a protestant Irish girl.

You called me all those things for describing honestly how people here felt in the dark days.
McGrath will back me up I am sure.
It was part of PIRA strategy to make people feel like that
I also said that those feelings have subsided since the end of the troubles.
You talk of the Unionist as if they are all one breed. The sins of any of them damns them all.
That is sectarianism jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 04:08 PM

"I have loved Ireland....."
Then what the **** is "we just wanted rid of the lot of you" all about if not racism pure and simple, whatever circumstances it was uttered in; as is "you are not like the rest of us"
"Us" - "them" - out of the mouths....
Your posting is very reminiscent of "some of my best friends are Irish, black, Jewish, Asian.... whoever racists pick on as a target for your viciousness.
You have spent a great deal of time accusing me of fascism, yet squeal like a stuck pig when your own words allow the mask to slip for a second.
Please return to your bunker.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 04:18 PM

Rid of the lot of you refers to not wanting any part of Ireland to be part of Britain politically.
You acknowledged that that is the commonly held view of mainland Brits.
It is, and that is how I feel and I have been saying that on this forum for years and years.

Your position was stated to be that NI should be forced into the Republic. That was how I justified calling you a bully.
That attitude could also be described as fascist, and I used that because you usually regard yourself as anti fascist.
I have never said anything that could justify what you have said about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 04:42 PM

Your statement reeks of anti-Irish racism of the worst kind as does your attempted taunting of my supposed Irishness - the type of racism I have encountered all my life - you said it, live with the consequences. You're quick enough to dish it out so take it like a man my son!!!
"Your position was stated to be that NI should be forced into the Republic".
My position is and always was that all parties concerned with the partitioning of Ireland and are affected by the consequences should have a democratic say in the matter.
You have deliberately misinterpreted that in order to score some kind of points and to make me out a fascist - I have never used the term them and us and I have never wished to be "rid" of anybody as you have stated you have been.
Nor have I ever attempted to taunt anybody for being Irish, Welsh. British, Martian.... whatever.
People should never be 'wished' back anywhere - that's what us Internationalists believe anyway, unlike.... well, if the cap fits!
As I said, back to your bunker.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 06:56 PM

So far you've abuse people who disagree with you, you've distorted the arguments of others, you have still offered nothing orgiginal to this subject, but rather, fed of the contributions of others, you've shown no understanding of Irish politics, in spite of your camping holiday in Wicklow (at 15 even) and you've given us a blatent display of racism (and thrown a wobbler when you were found out).
Macrame seems your safest bet, don't you think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: ollaimh
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 08:40 PM

as afaras i can see there has never been any forensic evidence of any one , ira or not firing at the paras. no bullets that are not military issues nothing.

the evidence seems to be the testimony of the paras who perjured themselves before the wiggery commission.

i remember seeing interviews on a documentary a few years ago with the paras who refused to perjurre themselves before the wiggery commission and were thus ship out to hing king(or some such place far asway) and they--three of them said there were no shots from anyone but paras.

unless i read otherwise i find it hard to believe the saville report it anything but a partial white wash to replace the total stich up. but at least there is finally admission of wrong doing.

as too racist remarks on mudcat i won't spend the time going to thread after thread. but there was a discussion of the boy scouts and a couple of anglos accused those who saw the boy scouts as part of imperialist propaganda of being pira. then on a bloddy sunday discussion the same occured. (i'm just repeating recent stuff)

on a canadian political discussion a guy called me a slur for useing a gaelic word as my name tag.

on another list a guy gratutiuosly attacked acadiens(they are mostly breton and accepted as celt at the world celt conferences).we adadiens were ethniclly cleansed by the british. remember evangeline--its based on a true story. they rounded up about half of us with no notice and no possetions and split families and shipped us the the far corners of the world(lousianna to st malo france). the guy slured that we were abusing the idians so deserved it . hello we got along with the natives. they recall us as the friends who didn't want all the land, traded european and agricultural goods they didn't have and freely intermarried.

there are a few others.

but the big two to me are the ignorance of le grand derangement(as we call it)

and the repeated assumption that because one opposses the violence and injustice of the british empire past and present you must be a terrorists.

well i've got new for you, we victums of imperial violence and injustice have a very different opinion of who were terrorists.

and yes the british army on bloody sunday came to kill because they also saw no difference between peacrefull position to injustice and terrorists, and thats; racism, hard and cold as it comes

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: ollaimh
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 08:55 PM

and for te record i think britian should hand over the six counties to an independent political authority. a provisional government with european soldiers rto police and let the whole place decompress for a few years. if not a decade.

a europen government would let neutrals apply neutral governance and justice and neutral commissions on the past and present. then when all voters are enumerated have real free elections. and yeas the tripartite commission did find that there has never been a free election in northern ireland. that was 1986 and they included members of the european commission on human rights the european high court of justice and the united nations commission on human rights.

there's too much violence for a free election and there has been hsitorical underenumeration of the irish community.

for those who wonder i'm not irish. franco gael yes but not irish. half highland scotts gael and have acadien. we scotts gaels also were ethnically cleansed from our homes in the highlands and the hebrides, and it was very tough for decades.

however for the record its pretty freaking good over here once you get roots down. of the probable three hundred thousand scotts gaels who surrivived the crossing(and hald died of disease on many ships--the empire saw no need for health care for the an duariane--dispossed) we are now over seventeen million on this side of the pond.

we were used to rotten weather hard work, poor conditions no health care and hostile governments and everything in north america was easy after that.

i'd like to see us all love one another. drop the discrimination and never stop in the search for justice

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 01:13 AM

Jim, some of the invective you have used against me.
Eejit, not sharpest knife in box,idiocy, fool, redneck, troll (you took that back though I never asked you to), flat on arse, infantile.

That's fine Jim. Colourful debate.
Accusing me of racism is quite different and not acceptable as a debating tactic.
I had been addressing you as an Irishman. I referred respectfully to "your countrymen."
You said that was "peurile" and "prattish" because you lived in Liverpool.

We were discussing the attitudes of the English to Ireland, and I pointed out that yours was not typically English.
There is no racism in anything I have posted.

Your blanket condemnation of the Protestant/Unionist community does seem bigoted and sectarian.
I first used the "rid of the lot of you" expression way back when you claimed that Britain wanted to cling to NI as Empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 01:16 AM

Ollaimh, Saville said there was "no doubt" that IRA had fired earlier.
We have discussed this at some length earlier in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 02:11 AM

Jim, you say,
"My position is and always was that all parties concerned with the partitioning of Ireland and are affected by the consequences should have a democratic say in the matter.
You have deliberately misinterpreted that in order to score some kind of points and to make me out a fascist"

But, NI's "say" would be overwhelmed by the numerically greater "say" of any of the other parties.
So, their say would make no difference.
So, their democratically expressed preference would be stamped down.
So, I described your position accurately.
On the old thread you actually stated that they had no right to choose for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 03:34 AM

"Jim, some of the invective you have used against me."
Keith; I think you've nailed your particular colours to the mast clearly enough with recent statements to show us exactly where you are coming from, so perhaps we should move on.
A quick recap,
The six county state was set 80-odd years ago, under the threat of immediate invasion, giving the Unionist (Protestant) faction domination over the Nationalist (Catholic); this was never regarded as anything other than a temporary measure..
The Unionists abused the power they were given and prevented the Nationalists from having any effective say in the running of the State, by intimidating them with violence and the constant threats of violence, the threat and actual action of keeping them out of jobs, condemning them to poor-quality housing, rioting, house burning and general intimidation which persisted throughot the thirties, forties and well into the fifties, all backed up by massive triumphal, threatening marches and demonstrations by the Unionists.
This led to peaceful protest marches in the late 60s by the Nationalists which were met with baton charges by the RUC, who directed the marchers through screaming mobs of missile-hurling Unionists,
All this made it obvious to the Nationalists that they were never voluntarily going to be given a significant say say in the running of their state, so it erupted into open warfare throughout the 60s, 70s and into the 80s, causing massive suffering on both sides of the sectarian divide and on Mainland Britain - the latter more-or-less bringing about a huge opposition by a significant majority of the British people against the six states remaining in the Union.
It was early in the last period that British soldiers shot down unarmed Loyalist demonstraters, killing 13 a second BLOODY SUNDAY.
The 'Troubles' dragged the Unionists reluctantly to the conference table and some progress has been made on 'power sharing'; both sides have been forced into a position of accepting the situation as it stands, though in the long term, the Unionists wish to retain their dominance over the six counties and the Loyalists still wish for a United Ireland. A sort of peace has been arrived at, but it is so fragile that it could disintegrate into open violence at any time.
There has been violence on the streets of Belfast, and the Unionists are at present proceeding with intimidating triumphal marches, and are constantly demanding to take those marches through Nationalist areas thus stretching the fragile peace to breaking point.
The one significant thing that has happened on the Catholic side is that the Church has lost virtually all of its politial influence in the rest of Ireland due to the Clerical Abuse scandals - thus it has been removed from the six counties problem as a religious barrier.
That seems to be the way matters stand at the present time.
If you think that is 'peace' or 'settlement' or in any way a satisfactory position for a state to remain in for too long....... please tell us how?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 04:18 AM

I hope I have showed exactly where I am coming from.
Just in case, I will reiterate.
I enjoy and welcome colourful invective, but to accuse me of racism is a despicable lie that can not be sustained by anything I have ever said.

Moving on.
Your long and rambling post contains much that I would challenge.
Picking out those bits and challenging them all would require an even longer post.

JIM, NO ONE READS POSTS LIKE THAT.
If you want my response, maximum of two points per post please.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 05:54 AM

My thoughts on this are simple and need no explanation.
Let the people of NI decide for themselves.
And the Dublin government agrees with me.
And the people of the Republic overwhelmingly agree with me.
And the British government agrees with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 12:38 PM

"but to accuse me of racism is a despicable lie"
I've given you the examples - and as you had no problem in describing me as a fascist, I really don't see you have any room to complain, especially as I at least provided proof of your philosophy - but let's move away from this cess-pit.
Both the Dublin and the British, Governments' stated attitudes were taken in the shadow of the violence of 'The Troubles' - pretty much, "anything for a quiet life"; no basis to build a future policy.
The same with the Irish people I live amongst, but I do not know one Irishman here who doesn't envisage a United Ireland as a reality, even a necessity for the future of the country. Decisions taken and opinions formed under duress and threat are liable to constant change and the more things settle down, the more you are likely to see an upsurge in the movement towards a United Ireland.
You must tell us sometime when you were able to discuss the matter with the Dublin Government, the people of the Republic and the British Government to be able tpo state so catergorically that they all agree with you.
You still don't tell us your alternative for ensuring a lasting peace - but I don't suppose that you ever shall.
I do notice that you haven't challenged my analysis, so can I assume that you agree with it - if not, where?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 01:39 PM

The example you gave of my racist statement was just me expressing the wish, common here, that NI would leave the UK.
I have expressed that, using the same words, much earlier in this thread, and in similar words on previous threads.
You can have no substance for your allegation because it is false.

You are well known for your liberal views and for being anti fascist.
That is why I kept emphasising your illiberal attitude here.
You try to dress it up, but your belief is that a small population should have an unwanted regime forced upon it. Fascist is a reasonable description of that intention.

You said, "You must tell us sometime when you were able to discuss the matter with the Dublin Government, the people of the Republic and the British Government to be able tpo state so catergorically that they all agree with you"
They do agree that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.
That is my view too.

You say,
"I do notice that you haven't challenged my analysis, so can I assume that you agree with it - if not, where? "

Did you not see,
"Your long and rambling post contains much that I would challenge.
Picking out those bits and challenging them all would require an even longer post
If you want my response, maximum of two points per post please."

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 03:17 PM

"common here, that NI would leave the UK."
Then you agree that Britain should have the option to vote on whether to intervene militarily, I take it?
"That is why I kept emphasising your illiberal attitude here."
I'm afraid infantile name-calling won't do - if my views are illeberal, counter them instead of relying on behaviour that belongs in the schoolyard. As you continue this behaviour here, that negates everything you say anyway.
If it is 'fascist' to suggest that the Republic should have a say in whether it continues to have six of its counties usurped, then I wouldn't begin to know how to describe the suggestion that the people of the UK should have NO say in whether they send their children and their money to support a regime that has kept one third of its population under its thumb as I described above.
"They do agree that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people...."
No argument as long as that consent is sought under normal circumstances (not after a bloody, twenty-odd year long war where both sides were traumatised into submission) and as long as the WHOLE OF THE POPULATION OF THE SIX COUNTIES HAVE AN EQUAL SAY IN THE PROCEEDINGS. This has yet to happen - power sharing is nowhere near in place yet, and the Unionists continue to behave like thugs towards the Catholic third. If you believe that the situation in the State is 'normal' I suggest you take a look at the Orange marches or the Belfast riots but more typically, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Cross_dispute - (or simply search for Holy Cross dispute.)
Any decision on the permanent or continuing partition is bound to produce a distorted result in the present situation and is certain to lead to further violence in the future.
"Picking out those bits and challenging them all would require an even longer post"
So you can't even be bothered - says it all really.
"If you want my response, maximum of two points per post please."
Pathetic - but you choose.
You continue to feed off the posts of others, you have no ideas of your own and display no knowledge of the Irish situation - wonder if you support Celtic or Rangers - let me guess....
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 04:14 PM

Then you agree that Britain should have the option to vote on whether to intervene militarily, I take it?

This seems to be an important point for Jim, he somehow feels that it is an imperative, what a pity then that Ireland didn't get a chance to vote on whether or not to sanction military intervention by the PIRA way back in 1971, the vote would have been a massive NO (That was the Official IRA's reading of the situation)

But as with everything about Jim, he has one set of rules for his side and a completely different set for whoever he sees as their opponents. One law for the goose another for the gander.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 04:32 PM

"whether or not to sanction military intervention by the PIRA"
Nobody here has spoken up in support of illegal paramilitary organisations. They are terrorist organisations who are answerable to nobody but themselves - none of us get a vote on their behaviour.
The British army is armed and paid by and made up of British people.
To suggest that anybody should or could have a vote on the actions of any paramilitary organisation is diversive nonsense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 05:18 PM

I have no ideas of my own.
On this that is true.
Let the people of NI choose their government.
That's it, and all the parties agree on it, and without your ridiculous proviso that the Troubles must be unhappened first.
WHOLE OF THE POPULATION OF THE SIX COUNTIES HAVE AN EQUAL SAY IN THE PROCEEDINGS.
Er, obviously Jim.

"Then you agree that Britain should have the option to vote on whether to intervene militarily, I take it?"
Like most countries we vote in elections Jim.
That is how democracy works.

It is funny that you can not get your head around me not being part of your sectarian lunacy.
I give not a toss about your teams.

And no, I can't be bothered with your long posts.
If you want me to respond, one or two points at a time please, and nothing before 1970 on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 02:48 AM

"And no, I can't be bothered with your long posts."
As I say, you accept my analysis of the situation in Ireland and its origins - even if it is only by default.
"That is how democracy works."
So the people of Britain did 'vote' to invade Iraq?
"If you want me to respond, one or two points at a time please, and nothing before 1970 on this thread."
No ideas of your own, as I said, you can't even select points of your own to discuss - ah well1
I wonder if you read up the Holy Cross incident - isn't that what the suspect always says - "No comment"?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 03:16 AM

Sorry - very early in the morning here after a heavy night of music and song. I was silly enough to take your suggestion seriously.
Let me get it straight;
YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT I CHOOSE WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH IN ORDER TO DISCUSS IT - IS THAT RIGHT?
This is all getting rather silly.
I stand by everything I have said about the situation prevailing in the six counties and its causes.
I also stand by my suggestions for an improvement of the situation.
Yours are????
Put up or shut up!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 03:18 AM

Jim, in Britain we do not have a referendum about every troop deployment.
Can you think of any countries that do?
Irish Republic? No.
Compile another of your lists. It would not take you any time at all.

Anyway Jim, the days of military intervention are long gone.
Where have you been?
We have PSNI officers over here now helping our police in Northumberland.

Those scuffles around the marches may have been big stories in your Irish Times, but they got no mention anywhere else.

I told you I have no ideas of my own about this.
I agree with the people of Ireland and our governments.
You are the one thinking out of the box.

I do not need to look up Holy Cross. I have discussed it in the forum before. Sectarianism is an evil that breeds evil.

I told you I did not accept your "analysis."
I challenge much of it, but I am not going to wade through it all again.
Once was enough.
Now, anything you want to put to me, post 1960?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 03:21 AM

Cross posts.

"YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT I CHOOSE WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH IN ORDER TO DISCUSS IT - IS THAT RIGHT?"

No Jim. Your points should be good enough to stand alone or in pairs.
It is not reasonable to put up a page full and expect me to work through them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 04:16 AM

"I challenge much of it, but I am not going to wade through it all again."
Game, set and match, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 04:29 AM

Thanks Jim, but must you give up.
Surely you have one argument that could stand up on its own.
Think another "own thought".

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 04:33 AM

As I said, you have my arguments - put up or shut up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 04:47 AM

Its up to you Jim.
One at a time, or at least in pairs, but you can not expect anyone to debate with a whole page of stuff.

I brought myself up to date on Holy Cross School.
There has been no trouble for seven years.
Why bring it up now?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 10 - 02:49 AM

I have an apology to make to the members of this forum for the fact that our squabbling has dominated what I believe to be an important subject and prevented others from taking part – for me it ends here.
I have stated what I believe to be the causes of the Bloody Sunday massacre of unarmed demonstrators by British troops in Derry and I believe the fact that the situation that caused the massacre remains unchanged makes it possible, even likely that such incidents could happen again. Keith, Terribus, anybody is perfectly at liberty to challenge anything I have said and produce evidence that I am wrong; should they choose not to do so doesn't in any way make me right or wrong, it just means my analysis goes unchallenged. It is not up to me to second-guess and select what people might or might not disagree with – that's up to them.   I believe what I have said is well documented, but I'm happy to look at alternative documentary evidence, should anybody care to produce it.
Nobody here has a right to tell us how we must discuss this subject and draw time-lines around it; ("we can't go there; that happened seven, twenty, thirty, ninety years ago). If they want that power they must apply for the job of forum adjudicator – as far as I'm concerned, the ones we've already got do a good enough job, despite the problems people like me give them.
Nuff sed on the squabble – sorry for my part in it!
As I understand it, Bloody Sunday happened because of the prevailing situation caused by the partitioning of six counties of Ireland 88 years ago. The threat of invasion it was introduced under, the manipulation of the border, giving the Unionists a majority, the consolidation of the already long-established inequality of the Catholic population, poor housing and employment opportunities and an unequal say in the running of the State meant that the new situation created a resentment from the beginning. The anti-Catholic riots in 1932 and 1936, the constant persecution of and discrimination against Catholics right up to the 1950s, the attacks on the Civil Rights marches in the sixties and the 20/30 years of bloody sectarian warfare in Ireland and mainland Britain that followed has led to the continuation of that resentment that has not been dissipated, and the present-day acceptance of the border creates a misleading picture of the situation. Visitors from Belfast and Derry, here in Clare for the music this week have told me that many Catholics or neutrals like myself in the position to do so, leave their homes around this time of year to avoid the menace of the parades. The fact that 'The Troubles' have not gone away is evidenced by the persistent aggressive behaviour of militant Unionists which manifests itself in massive intimidatory marches, particularly around this time of year. Proof enough of the aggressive nature of these marches is the constant demand by the organisers that they should be allowed to take place through Catholic areas. A particularly shameful example of Unionist aggression was the cowardly terrorising of Catholic schoolchildren at Holy Cross School in the Ardoyne seven years ago. Just how current the threat of violent trouble is is shown by the rioting on the streets of Belfast this week.
So unless people can prove otherwise, for me the problem still exists and can break out at any time. The British people are paying to maintain the fragile peace in partitioned Ireland and, should trouble break out again, it is they who will provide the cannon-fodder and the cash to force the lid back on it yet again.
As I have repeated throughout, if the border is to remain it must do so on the basis, and, if possible, with the full agreement of all concerned, the majority of the British population, the people of the other twenty-six counties, and the population of the six counties. The decision has to be taken under normal circumstances and not with the threat of further violence and bloodshed, as it has in the past, otherwise it will have no lasting validity.
If the overall decision is to keep the border then some other way has to be found to establish a lasting peace – none has been found yet and there is little evidence of one being suggested on this thread so far.
Jim Carroll
Up-to-date news; Five dissident Republicans were arrested in County Louth yesterday; they were caught smuggling explosives across the border into the six counties.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 10 - 12:22 PM

Jim says "I have stated what I believe to be the causes of the Bloody Sunday "
So why tell us all over again Jim?
And why wrap it up in TWO SCREENFULLS of solid text!
AGAIN!

How can anyone reply to the one sided, partisan and blinkered view of history that you have regurgitated, when there is SO MUCH of it in one post.

I do not think you have to go back 88 years to discuss the Saville Report.
Nor did Saville.
I can not stop you wallowing in all that ancient stuff but I will not be joining in.
If you want to know why I think you are talking shite, call my bluff and start another Irish History thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 10 - 12:40 PM

I will say what really led to Bloody Sunday.
Under the old Stormont regime, the Nationalist people were discriminated against and denied basic civil rights.
As in USA, a Civil Rights movement (NICRA) began to challenge the old prejudices.
Their dignified, peaceful protests were often violently attacked, as in USA.
The people of mainland Britain were surprised and disgusted by what had been going on.
Stormont was shut down and all NICRA's demands were met.
I believe that, but for PIRA's campaign, progress would have continued and we would have been where we are now 30 years ago and thousands of deaths and mutilations avoided.
That Sunday's demonstration was in a tense and violent time.
The previous evening, a few minutes walk away, two policemen were killed in cold blood, just because they were policemen.
Both family men. One catholic and one protestant.
A thompson gun was used. Who could that have been?
The soldiers on duty would have known that there were well armed people right there looking for a chance to kill soldiers, and shots were fired at them.
No excuse for firing on demonstrators but Saville says it was only four of them and there was no premeditation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 10 - 01:55 PM

I may have misled over the policemens' murder.
A thompson was just one of the guns used to kill them.
There was quite a gang in who shared in the death of the two helpless men.

Jim you also keep trying to bring up present day violence, even though there is little of it now, and PSNI seems to have it under control.
I am going to place your comment on the "Peace Process" thread.

Big Mick described the dissidents thus,

Coninuity IRA - this is a splinter group of dissidents that is estimated to have 50 to 80 members, according to Reuters.

RIRA - a splinter off CIRA that has even fewer members.

IRLA - according to the Independent Monitoring Commission this group is "not terrorist in nature" and is essentially a group of folks involved in criminal activity.

INLA - estimated to have a couple of dozen members, and a few hundred supporters.

Oglaigh na hEirrean - one of a number of groups using the name, but the one I suppose you refer to is the splinter off of CIRA. They have few weapons, have committed some robberies, and use pipe bombs from time to time.

Add it all up and you have a few hundred, then stack that against the Republicans that have embraced the peace process, and you see that they will make a few headlines but the day of the gun is essentially over. It is now about the ballot box.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 02:13 AM

Keith,.
Our bickering seems to have sent this subject nose-diving into the sea and out of sight - shame on us both; as ard mhacha aptly observed on the other thread you opened, "you are talking to yourself" (on two threads).
A quick last word before I ride off into the sunset with the rest of the contributors to this thread that we have driven away with our monopolising.
You have not put forward one original thought on the subject of the Irish situation, instead, you have based your responses on the ideas of others.
"I will say what really led to Bloody Sunday...."
I had very little problem in finding the net article that you cut-and-pasted your 'analysis' (almost verbatim) from - doesn't count as an original thought I'm afraid.
The nearest you came to hitting any sort of mark was in raising the behaviour of the PIRA (which were still there two days ago and active as ever).
Paramilitaries are illegal terrorists, answerable to no one and acting only for themselves. The paratroopers who deliberately shot down unarmed demonstrators showed themselves as being no different than the terrorists they claimed to be fighting - their actions and the aftermath shamed the British Army, the British Government, the British judicial system and the British people - they are two sides of the same coin.
You understandably veer away from discussing the 'Holy Cross' incident because it happened "seven years ago". The Saville enquiry has just presented an enquiry on an incident that took place 38 years ago; equally relevant to the Irish situation today. Holy Cross serves to illustrate not only the continued presence of Loyalist belligerance (this time directed against children) but also the bestial nature of their behaviour.
You rightly say that the marches will continue, in spite of the fact that each 'little scuffle' takes Ireland a step nearer to the brink, also an exellent example of the nature of militant Unionism.
If I have learned anything from this thread it is never to become involved with people who use serious subjects to hang their egos on - won't happen again.
Happy trails pardner!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 03:16 AM

I was talking to myself on the "Peace process" thread because no one wanted to discuss it.
Similarly Irish history.
There used always to be a current thread on it, but for the last few years no one wanted to discuss it anymore.

People DID want to discuss Saville. This thread is a composite of three.
But Jim does not let people have what they want.
They HAD to discuss partition, Falklands, Thatcher, current issues.
Anything but Bloody Sunday.

Now you tell us that Ireland is being "taken to the brink" by "militant unionism"
Because they want to hold their traditional marches.
No blame on militant Repubs who endanger everyone with their bombs, and who mercilessly gun down pizza delivery boys and unarmed soldiers on route to Afghanistan!
No sectarian bias and double standards from you then Jim!

And you leave us with a filthy lie to undermine my credibility.
My piece on Bloody Sunday was my own.
I am flattered that you thought it that good, but it was my own.
You said you found it on the web.
You lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jul 10 - 03:27 AM

Jim Carroll, you are an accomplished collector of songs, and respected as one of the most knowledgeable authorities on folk song that we have.
Not least by me.
On this thread you have shown yourself also to be a domineering bully, full of sectarian prejudice, and prepared to lie to discredit anyone who dares disagree with you.

"I had very little problem in finding the net article that you cut-and-pasted your 'analysis' (almost verbatim) from"

A blatant lie, and you have chosen to slink away rather than face up to it.
Your behaviour shames you Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: ollaimh
Date: 14 Jul 10 - 03:48 PM

it's really unbearable that the british should be subjected to such bigotry and racism on this discussion

because they were subjected to foreign occupation and suspension of civil law for centuries--oh whoops that didn\t happen

ok then their religious majority were barred from all public offoce holding and mosy professions--oh whoops that didn't happen

well then they were rounded up onto ships and transported against their will to foreigh lands where they were reduced to contractual servitude--oh whoopd that didn't happen

then at least they were musdered by the soldiers who were sent to keep order==whoops that didn't happen

but we all know what bigotry and racism the british have suffered under/

i\ve got, they've had to take back saSS FROM THE COLONISTS. its so horrible, to horrible for words, its a shame and tragedy thast no human rights organization defends people from backsass from the colonies. its too much sob sob sbo.. i can't go on sob sob sob................sob............sob sniffle

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 14 Jul 10 - 04:20 PM

Now they can investegate the bloody 11th night incidents. What fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 11:15 AM

because they were subjected to foreign occupation and suspension of civil law for centuries--oh whoops that didn\t happen

ok then their religious majority were barred from all public offoce holding and mosy professions--oh whoops that didn't happen

well then they were rounded up onto ships and transported against their will to foreign lands where they were reduced to contractual servitude--oh whoopd that didn't happen

then at least they were musdered by the soldiers who were sent to keep order==whoops that didn't happen

Errrrrrr. The English, Scots and Welsh (being the components of Great Britain) have been subject to all these things in the past. As were many other nations. The big difference is that no-one expects an enquiry about them and they are not regurgitated at every opportunity. Until all sides learn to forgive, if not forget, then the province will continue to suffer from the riots and violence that seems to plage it.

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 02:58 PM

"The big difference is that no-one expects an enquiry about them and they are not regurgitated at every opportunity. "
They would if soldiers shooting down unarmed Englis, Scots or Welsh demontrators and I'd be one of the first; I hope you wouldn't be far behind me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 03:20 AM

Now you have shown your face again Jim, remember that you lied to undermine and discredit my post.
If you do not acknowledge the lie, you still perpetrate it.
Are you not an honest man?
Do the right thing please.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 10 - 07:53 AM

Curious.
When I challenged the opinion of others on what led to BS, people lined up to tell me I knew nothing, could not think for myself, was in a hole, etc., etc.
A few posts up I gave my version of what led to it.
Not one person has challenged a word.
Invective is easier I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: ollaimh
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 01:46 PM

anyone who claims racism must know that the essential component is actual oppression and or loss or depravation. bnoit just i was insulted. for the british on this thread to claim that those who oppose the racist killings are themselves racists is tyhe height of ignorance and hypocracy.

WAKE UP, NO BRITISH WERE KILLED only irish.

furthermore the idea that the paras wer fired upon is some justification assumes they are mad dogs--perhaps convient for me --but i don't believe that. i have served in a military unit and i have many friends who served overseas as peace keepers. they took hundreds of incomming rounds without responding. whay? because there were civilians there. its called military discipline.

i supose its possible the paras have no discipline but i don't believe it fort as second.

they were motivated to killand they were ordered to kill by officers who were motivated to kill, because they all believed a iriah man protesting isa terrorist and should be killed.

several of the paras who refused to perjure themselves before the widgery commission (and were shipped out) said later they tried to stop the firing and were threatened by their own officers.

this is no different that amritsar nand many other civilian murders by the british army in its imperial violence acrtoss most of the world.

many british can'y acknowledge this because if they werw rong in ireland they were wrong everywhere.

well they were. they committed genocide in africa and in north america but british people forget.

if any of you read other languages you should read what other europeans think, not very complimentary. the french compare it to algeria where they pulled out to end the civil war, even though they had a few departments where the settlers were a majority and the right wanted to keep those. they resettled two and a half million people.

the british establishment has covered up the abuses in ireland from the beg8inning. lortd denning--the master of the rolls--siad it ewould have been better that the birmingham six and the macguires have been tried when they had the death penality as then the abuse would never have come out and brought the admisstration of justice into disrepute. in other words better to kill the innocent than admit they were framed. this has happened at every level.

the british criminal laws were found not to meet european union standards of human rights and britasin was found guilty of torture. etc etc. really if you want to claim clean hands you actually have to clean them not continue the cover ups , frame ups torture and killings.

because they had to alter the offenses against the state act and the terroridsts acts the british government rescinded the presumption of innonence so they could get conviction. they abandoned their oldest civil liberties protection to continue the cover up frame up torture and killings of irishmen and women.

forgive and forget would be nice but you actuaslly have to stop first. prosecute the framers and troturers and hold public enquiries into all levels of those involves not just tell others forgive us so we can do it again

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:47 AM

Ollaimh,
"i supose its possible the paras have no discipline but i don't believe it fort as second"

Only 4 of them Ollaimh.

"they were ordered to kill by officers who were motivated to kill,"
No they were not. Why do you state that?

"said later they tried to stop the firing and were threatened by their own officers."

Not true. Why do you make these statements?

"well they were. they committed genocide in africa and in north america but british people forget."

I certainly can not remember that.

"because they had to alter the offenses against the state act and the terroridsts acts the british government rescinded the presumption of innonence so they could get conviction. they abandoned their oldest civil liberties protection to continue the cover up frame up torture and killings of irishmen and women."

You are simply making this stuff up. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:03 PM

You are simply making this stuff up. Why?

Basicaly, Keith, because some people just do not want peace. They do not want to let it lie. They just want to perpetuate the fight between ordinary everyday Englishmen and Irishmen. Whether they know it or not they are just the lackeys of the landowners and the media barons that have surpassed the wildest dreams of every bastard who wants to keep the ordinary folk in their place. As long as we are fighting each other they hope we will not notice that they are still stealing our very lives.

Jim - They would if soldiers shooting down unarmed Englis, Scots or Welsh demontrators and I'd be one of the first;

Peterloo, St Georges Fields, Laha Airfield, Chenogne, Mai Lai. Just a few at random. Need I go on? Worse massacres have happened over the centuries in every single country in the world I expect. I am half Polish and would never dream of bringing up the attrocities suffered in that country over the years. Why should the Irish troubles carry more weight than those of my people?

To all the shitstirrers out there - Why don't you just put a sock in it and, in Lennons words, give peace a chance?

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 07:42 AM

A footnote:
Today's Irish Times carries the report of one of the largest demonstrations ever seen in Derry, when yeterday tens of thousands of marchers marked the 39th aniversery of Bloody Sunday by completing the original march route to the city's Guildhall. The march was headed by relatives who carried a large banner bearing the word VINDICATED.
The commemoration is intended to be the last such rally following the Saville report last year which overturned the original investigation by Lord Widgery and exonerated the dead and injured, but some of the vicims' relatives broke away from the main demonstration, and some vowed they would return every year.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: ollaimh
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 04:47 PM

isn't ot terriblethat that several arab governments are using the army to shoot their own citizens for protesting--oh was that the united emirates or the united kingdom--it get hard to keep track.!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 04:57 PM

there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie.

Now known to be true. See above.

I believe you've even put forward similar excuses for the massacre yourself (another lie, no doubt).

No, I have never claimed it was self defence.
Who here ever has?

The deliberate targeting of civilians by Israeli troops has bacome commonplace

I am not aware of this, please substantiate.

The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian fighters has been a commonplace for years.
Do you need that substantiated?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 05:28 PM

I hadn't realised that following my last comment on this thread there was no addition for over six months and then another gap of the best part of year before it was poked into life once more. Maybe I should try it again -


To all the shitstirrers out there - Why don't you just put a sock in it and, in Lennons words, give peace a chance?

Or, maybe better still, from a wonderful man and songwriter from that troubled province -

Well there were investigations,
Five minutes on the news
And the mass card wore a picture of John's face
There was outrage; two letters in the paper
And both sides of the fence;
They sensed disgrace
And sure enough there were elections
Familiar cowboys tried to steal the show
Men spoke of changing attitudes,
While thirteen tired platitudes
Pushed hope and John's lorry off the road.

(From 'Irish Eyes'. Anthony John Clarke, 1993)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 04:19 AM

I was surprised Kevin decided to bring up this subject here, and that he used it as an example of a self defence claim.
No contradiction jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:10 AM

And contrary to the lies that are maliciously spread, the Pope is not a Catholic, and bears make use of WCs.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:16 AM

Reginald Maudling, British Home Secretary, making a statement to the House of Commons on Monday 31st January 1973 on the events of 'Bloody Sunday': "The Army returned the fire directed at them with aimed shots and inflicted a number of casualties on those who were attacking them with firearms and with bombs".

And that claim of self-defence as justifying the massacre was repeated on many occasions for many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 04:38 AM

"Kevin, I am not aware of anyone claiming Bloody Sunday was self defence."
"The Army returned the fire directed at them with aimed shots and inflicted a number of casualties on those who were attacking them with firearms and with bombs"
"No contradiction jim.".
Are these not contradictions - were not you aware of them, or of the claims that have been made for decades that the British army killed 13 unarmed demonstrators in self-defence - can anybody really be as ignorant as that about Ireland (and spend so long supporting violent sectarian marches by passing them off as pleasant family outings???
As blindly prejudiced here as elsewhere on this forum.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 04:48 AM

Maudling was 40 years ago!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 04:52 AM

The opinions I expressed about the Parades was the exact same opinion being expressed by Sinn Fein.
Where is the prejudice Jim?
They all passed of without problems , but you want them banned.
You can not bear to see THOSE people harmlessly enjoying their culture.
Prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:40 AM

"They all passed of without problems , but you want them banned."
Three nights of rioting before the marches started this year and intermittent rioting afterwards - all attributed to loyalist extremists.
Last years riots you sank as low as to blame children for.
"Maudling was 40 years ago!"
Bloody Sunday happened 40 years ago
Self defence has been given as the cause of the massacre since then right up to the Saville report, which nailed the lie.
You said you had never heard of anybody claiming self-defence. You are either totally ignorant of Irish problems or else you lied.
"The opinions I expressed about the Parades was the exact same opinion being expressed by Sinn Fein."
Sinn Fein said most of the marches were no problem, but the vilolently sectarian ones in Derry and Belfast cause the trouble; "they are the ones that need to cop onto themselves" were the words used.
You have claimed (and just repeated) that "They all passed of without problems" - like the non-existent massacres by Israel.
Your argument does not begin to approach Sinn Fein's.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:11 AM

I know nothing of the book mentioned by "Peter Laban."
I very much doubt it is him.

The British government foolishly tried to explain BS away.
From the famous and brave priest and many other reputable witnesses that spurious claim never stood up and was soon withdrawn.

What had the riots to do with the summer parades Jim, and what makes them "sectarian"?

My opinions WERE just those of Sinn Fein. I quoted officials' statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 08:17 AM

"What had the riots to do with the summer parades Jim, and what makes them "sectarian"?
Have you ever seen one of these marches - not in rural Ireland but in Derry, Belfast or even Liverpool or Glasgow - if you had you wouldn't have to ask such a breathtakingly ignorant question
The most vivid descriptins of sectarianism come from the Leon Uris book I put up and from 'The Troubles' essays based on the ITV series of the same name.
They are sectarian, and even when they are prevented from taking place through Catholic areas (as the organisers demand - see Drumcree) when they end the particpants march unofficially through the areas they have been banned from. They are violent demonstrations of political/religious superiority.
Did you know that several lodges demanded that the Loyalists who attended the funeral the Catholic policeman murdered by the IRA be disciplined and expelled? Neanderthal thugs.
"My opinions WERE just those of Sinn Fein. I quoted officials' statements."
No they weren't - I took my quote from one you put up, more or less as it appeared - do you honestly believe that Sinn Fein would give its support to violently sectarian anti-Catholic demonstrations - they'd last ten minutes in the six counties if they ever came near to doing so.
The claim of "self defence" for Bloody Sunday was never withdrawn - it was part of the first wwhitewash enquiry and remained an excuse for the massacre until the Saville report - Saville directly referred to is as being not true - why do so if it had been wiithdrawn.
You seem to have dropped your claim that there has been no viollence over the last few years - want me to provide the links about the Belfast riots?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 08:51 AM

"I very much doubt it is him."
Whether it is Peter or not (if it is, Peter is one of the most honest and unbiased people I know) - it appears to be worth a look into.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:23 PM

Of the thousand of summer parades, only a handful are even contentious.
Even those have passed peacefully in recent years.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Jul 10 - 11:17 AM

Jim,
"because giant, provocative marches are allowed to take place throughout the North Eastern counties of Ireland at this time of year,"

Gerry Kelly, Sinn Fein MLA for N Belfast said, "There are only a handful of Orange Order parades which are contentious. It is time that the Loyal Orders faced up to this reality and entered into dialogue with local residents to resolve these issues."

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:41 PM

GUEST,Keith A no cookie reset - PM
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 03:55 AM

Even less trouble this year than last, thank goodness.
Fewer rioters and many of them early teens or even younger.

Here is how The Irish Times saw the most contentious parade in Belfast.


IT WAS party time yesterday for the unionist community in Belfast as thousands thronged the city centre streets to watch the annual Orange Order parade.

On what was very much a family day out for most of the crowd, people lined the main route from early morning in rows three and four deep, waving Union Jack and Ulster flags.

Countless stalls selling all sorts of memorabilia from hats and scarves to inflatable Disney character balloons added to the carnival atmosphere.

Two particularly popular items appeared to be children's batons and miniature marching drums, leading to more than one spectator being struck unawares by a flying baton, thrown from the hand of an overexcited youngster practising for his big moment in the parade.

In contrast to the bonfire night on Monday, during which Tricolours were burned in many parts of the city, the atmosphere yesterday morning was much more positive, one mostly of celebration of the Ulster unionist culture.

"It's the best day of our lives, something that we look forward to all year," said Angela Barr, who had secured a good roadside spot with her partner and two young sons.

Ms Barr and her family arrived an hour early as had thousands more who were unfolding deck chairs and unpacking lunches long before the march was due to pass.

It seemed odd to see so many, so early after bonfire night, traditionally a big social event in Northern Ireland that stretches into the early morning.

Motivation to leave home in good time was apparently easy to find, however, as the importance of getting the right spot along the parade route was quickly explained.

"We have been 50 years coming to the same spot," said a member of the Hanvey family from Newtownabbey, six miles outside of Belfast.

They described the Twelfth as their St Patrick's Day, a community day out that gives them a chance to celebrate their culture and history.

The parade itself maintained that family feel with men, women and children of all ages marching the seven-mile route while waving to neighbours in the crowd.

Aside from the loyal Orange lodges that always form the iconic basis of the march, the parade featured countless marching bands from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Canada.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0713/1224300655385.html?via=rel

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:41 PM

That "handful" are in the cities, particularly in Derry and Balfast and cause serious rioting - making your description of "They all passed of without problems" as utterly nonsensical as your "there were no massacres" on the Palestine site.
Not only did they cause serious damage this year in Belfast nf threaten lives of those in the area (a gun was fired) but the cost of policing them has become prohibitive.
This years riots were said to have been the most serious for many years
You are lying when you say that they passed off peacefully, we have discusssed this and you actually blamed children for last years trouble.
The number of troublesome riots maybe small, but they are the major ones, they are provocatively sectarian (and always have been).
Nobody has proposed banning all of them but the deliberately provocative ones have to be cutailed or banned - that is the policy of Sinn Fein - look it up.
Just like chemical weapons, by denying the trouble these viciously provocative parades cause, you are supporting the viciousness they bring about.
No surprise there
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:45 PM

Jim, list all the parades where there was any problem during the parade in recent years.
I can not remember any at all.

Trouble sometimes happens in parts of NI, but you are wrong to link it to parades

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:53 PM

Date: 14 Jul 11 - 05:39 AM

Jim, The Irish Times piece stands against your claim, "the fact that the sectarian and aggressive nature of the larger marches"

From BBC NI news site.

Chief Insp Burrows said the police would be using video footage to identify those involved in the trouble.

"The parade went very well, the return parade went very well. The violence that we saw was less than we saw in Belfast, less than we have seen in years gone by but it is still unacceptable that people are throwing petrol bombs at police, damaging their own communities and hijacking vehicles.

"I'm pleased that we made 12 arrests, I'm pleased that we got community co-operation and we have plenty of CCTV evidence

Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness said the rioters should think of the consequences of their actions.

Mr Robinson said: "As a government we are working together to ensure that Northern Ireland prospers and grows in strength.

"It is saddening to see Ulster in the international news for all the wrong reasons.

"Those involved in Tuesday night's violence and rioting provide nothing to society. Those manipulating the violence will not win."

Mr McGuinness said: "I visited Ardoyne on Monday and met with local people, community and church leaders.

"They made it very clear to me that they did not want to see any violence in their community over the Twelfth parade.

"It is disappointing that a small number of people chose to ignore their demand and instead went about attacking the police and damaging the local community."

Police have said children as young as 10 were involved in rioting in Londonderry on Tuesday night.

Twelve people, including one woman, were arrested after petrol bombs and bricks were thrown at police.

Trouble broke out in the Bogside and Fahan Street areas, in Gobnascale and Ardmore in the Waterside, and in Strabane and Castlederg.

A 14-year old was among those arrested on suspicion of riotous behaviour.

A crate of petrol bombs was recovered in Fahan Street.

Chief Inspector, Jon Burrows, said children were involved in the rioting.

"I saw some very, very young children in the Bogside throwing stones at police. Children under 10," he said.

"That was running towards midnight. Still children under 10 years of age throwing stones at police and I have to say some adults were present and not intervening. That's very, very sad."

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:57 PM

The Parades thread is still open Jim.
Why have you raised it here?
Is it worth repeating exactly the discussion we have already had?
Why do you keep making these backward leaps in every thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:10 PM

"identify those involved in the trouble."
You are distorting your "evidence"
The reprts refer to the day of the march - I pointed out that "the worst trouble for many years" occorred for at least three days before the march and at least a week after - identified by the police as being provoked by Loyalists.
The prohibitavely priced policing prevented trouble on the day - but the rioting "referred to in the press as "the Belfast Riots" were acknowleged as being caused by the provocative nature of the marches - I ask again - have you ever been to a Belfast, Derry, Liverpool or Glasgow parade - I grew up with them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:33 PM

Damn. It didn't work...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:41 PM

"the Belfast Riots" were acknowleged as being caused by the provocative nature of the marches "

By who?

Rioting sometimes happens.
It has not happened on a parade day for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:24 PM

"By who?"
The police, eye-witnesses and the press all attributed the rioting leading up to the event to Loyalists prepering for the march - that's who. The first press reports in Britain described them as Loyalist rioters - they were sectarian riots preceding the 'peaceful day out'..
These riots have always been provocative and insulting towars the Catholic minority, that is the reason for them taking place. Members of my family had their home burnd down and were driven out of Derry one 'Glorious Twelfth' over half a century ago - I mentioned two books (one by a Jewish American and one published by (Thames Television as a follow up to their 4 part series of documentaries 'The Troubles' (both obviously highly biased, no doubt) - go read them - and weep your customary crocodile tears.
You haven't replied, but it is fairly obvious that you have never witnessed one of these blood-lettings; I suggest you book your ticket for next years performance now.
"Rioting sometimes happens."
But you just claimed it didn't happen - make up your mind (or wasn't that a contradiction either).
DtG
If you're trying to say "give peace a chance" as you did so eloquently earlier - 90 years ago a 'temporary' peace treaty was enforced under threat of war in order to paartition Ireland "temporarily". Ninety years later that "temporary" peace treaty is still in place and partitioning still exists, and we are still counting the bodies - many thousands over the last few decades.
I am delighted that progress, is being made, albeit extremely slowly.
One of the first requirements, it seems to me, is to recognise what these marches are - acts of sectarian provocation - and outlaw them when they prove to be this. Failure to do this will mean our children's childrens children will still be mopping up the blood ninety years from now.
Armchair thugs like Keith (our own tame Paisley soundalike) is typical of the mentality that has kept this conflict festering - and they are still burying the dead in continuing troubles he claims to be long over.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:34 PM

Of course rioting sometimes happens.
And every riot is preceded by Christmas.
And Christmas also follows every single riot.
Ban Christmas!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:54 AM

"Ban Christmas! "
Pratt!
You don't come to Ireland (certainly not the South nor the trouble centres); you get your knowledge (sic) from selective dips into the net; and you lend your support to the religious/political fanatics and their triumphalistic marches that cause violence every year at the same time of year, so regular and predictable you could set your clocks by them ("The Glorious 12th already - where's me riot gear")
Violence here is once more on the increase despite your claims that it is a thing of the past - if it continues to grow it stands to wreck any moves towards peace and reconciliation.
The Derry/Belfast and a few other marches provoke violence - they always have and they always will while they take place in the violently aggressive manner that they do (and that you apparently support by claiming in your selective ignorance that violence is a thing of the past)
One minute you're saying the riots aren't taking place, the next, you've backpedalled and tell us they are - you can't even decide which particular line to peddle.
After the troubles of the 70s and 80s the people of the whole of Ireland became shell-shocked - all they wanted was peace - almost at any price.
That generation is being replaced by one that never experienced the bombing and the killing, and, if the politicians don't sort out the fanatics and their thuggish armchair eggers-on (like you) the consequences of the annual triumphalism will be that the generation coming up will will pay the price, - again, just as our generation paid, for the fanatics and their armchair thugs.
Go read a book if you can't get some understanding any other way.
As I said - pratt!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:14 AM

Do Sinn Fein not visit either Jim?
They say only a handful of parades are even contentious, and even they have been peaceful in recent years.

You express so much outrage about the Protestant summer parades, but never any criticism of the murderous activities of the dissidents.

Double standards?
Prejudice?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 09:00 AM

"You express so much outrage about the Protestant summer parades, but never any criticism of the murderous activities of the dissidents."
which particular group of dissidents - the ones who walked into a pub in haloween masks, shouted "trick or treat" and and mowed down the drinkers because they were catholics, or the ones who set a house on fire burning three young brothers to death, or more recently, the ones who forced schoolchildren to run a gauntlet through a "Protestant" road on their way to school.
There are two sides to the dissidence - unlike you, I don't bat for either side - search for "a plague on both your houses" I've said it often enough.
The 20/30 years long 'troubles' started following a civil rights march being directed by the RUC through a screaming mob of stone throwing loyalist - every death that followed can be directly traced back to that event.
Before you accuse anybody of double standards just remember that you have given your open support to Orange bigotry, Israeli war criminals and racists (including a fascist anti-Travellers who you claimed was only exercising his right to free speech - and throwing in your own offering that Travellers were "over-represented" in keeping slaves).
You have also written off the male population of an entire racial/cultural community as potential perverst due to their culture.
"even they have been peaceful in recent years."
As long as you don't count the rioting leading up to and following the parades - are you really claiming that this didn't happen??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 11:02 AM

Jim, you are obsessed with the past.

I was not talking about earlier decades, but today's dissidents.
Likewise the parades of recent years.

You have put up screenfuls of condemnation of the harmless summer parades, but not a word against sectarian, murderous dissidents.
I suspect sectarian prejudice Jim.

open support to Orange bigotry, Israeli war criminals and racists (including a fascist anti-Travellers who you claimed was only exercising his right to free speech - and throwing in your own offering that Travellers were "over-represented" in keeping slaves).
You have also written off the male population of an entire racial/cultural community as potential perverst due to their culture.
Every accusation a lie, except that Travellers, for whatever reason, are the only people yet been charged under the new legislation.
Why can we never discuss one issue at a time Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM

"I was not talking about earlier decades, but today's dissidents."
Yesterdays Loyalist dissidents have turned their attention to torching immigrants houses nowadays - several attacks over the last couple of years.
" I was not talking about earlier decades, but today's dissidents."
Belfast rioters - Loyalists; persecutors of children at Holy Cross School, Loyalists - marchers returning through banned areas to provoke Catholic residents - Loyalists.
"You have put up screenfuls of condemnation of the harmless summer parades"
Please put up where I have ever condemned "harmless summer parades" - I don't give a toss about people parading annually; I object to the massive intimidating and inflamatory parades which are intended to cause trouble and more often than not manage to do so.
You have lied consistently on this forum, about what I have said and about what you have said.
You have claimed that you never made your cultural implant statement, and when it was presented to you, you then claimed that you were quoting somebody else (two different versions in one go) - yet you have been totally unable to produce one single quote of anybody implicating all male Pakistanis in 'cultural paedophelia'
You have claimed that there have been "no massacres" by the Israelis, even though the evidence has been placed before you.
You are denying that you defended Bluesman's fascist outburst against travellers by saying he had a right to express his opinion.
"Every accusation a lie, except that Travellers"
BTW - eight Travellers have been charged - out of a population of 300,000 -that just about sums up your "over-representation" - doesn't even account for one side of one street in Chelsea where the well-to-do ship in their au-pairs from abroad, pay them less than subsitence wages, don't allow them out, beat (and occasionally rape) them, threatening to turn them in as illegals if they don't do as they're told.
You are a liar - what a pity (for you) that you chose to put your lies in writing.
Perhaps you might put up your example of my calling for the banning of peaceful marches on the same message as you provide your source for the cultural implants - just trying to save you time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:42 PM

And BTW
I suppose you are aware that with one single bound you are out of your racist closet
This racist attack on Travellers based on the (possible) behaviour of 8 Travellers (1 single family) is every bit as serious as your claiming that all Pakistani males are culturally implanted with having sex with underage girls.
Please look forward to having it quoted at you many times in the future
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 03:30 PM

I have made no racist attacks on Travellers Jim.
We were discussing the Traveller slavery cases were we not?
Eight Travellers and no non-Travellers were charged.
That was the situation.

All the other stuff you have had explained to you over and over.
I say now, so you know where I stand, no ethnic group is predisposed to any criminality, and, like any sane human, I deplore any and all massacres.
If you have really misunderstood any of my posts, your mind can be at rest now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:33 PM

Please put up where I have ever condemned "harmless summer parades" - I don't give a toss about people parading annually;

They are as 'traditional' as bull-baiting and public hanging once were,

because giant, provocative marches are allowed to take place throughout the North Eastern counties of Ireland at this time of year, and they do just that - provoke.
While they are allowed to continue,

Your post neatly sidesteps the historical reasons for these marches taking place, the effect they have had and are continuing to have on the Catholic minority, and the cost of allowing them to go ahead in their present form, both in providing policing and in the risk they bring to life and the wellbeing of the communities affected.
They are weapons of sectarianism

DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THE ABUSE RISING FROM THE MARCHES, AS QUOTED ABOVE, IS HARMLESS FUN, AND DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT THESE MARCHES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE AS THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST???

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:44 PM

If you say you do not want all the parades banned, then I accept that of course, but you can see how the misunderstanding came about.
You have put my mind at rest, as I have put yours at rest.
Let's start again.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 03:24 AM

I suppose you are to be congratulated in a perverse sort of way; I do not think I have ever come across anybody prepared to denigrate and demonise whole culture to the length you have on this forum
You have viciosly smeared Pakistani immigrants in an attempt to paint them as cultural lepers.
You have attempted the present the evils of a bloody conflict going back centuries on one side of that conflict in spite of all the evidence that has been put before you.
You are now claiming the crime of slavery to be "over-represented" in the Travelling community on the basis of the alleged behaviour of eight members of one family out of a population of 300,000
You really are a racist piece of work.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 03:34 AM

"You have viciosly smeared Pakistani immigrants in an attempt to paint them as cultural lepers."
No. I have not.
"You have attempted the present the evils of a bloody conflict going back centuries on one side of that conflict in spite of all the evidence that has been put before you."
No. I have not.
"You are now claiming the crime of slavery to be "over-represented" in the Travelling community on the basis of the alleged behaviour of eight members of one family out of a population of 300,000"
No. I am not.
The over-representation is only in the convictions under the anti-slavery legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 03:57 AM

Bullshit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 03:59 AM

The "offending" slavery post!

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 12 Sep 11 - 09:16 AM

Jim, I am with you in deploring the use of pejorative names for this or other minorities.
Bluesman, your abusive language makes decent people unwilling to offer their views.

Jim, Bluesman's nastiness aside, this is a serious issue that members will naturally want to discuss.

It is not just this case, but also the Hampshire and Gloucestershire cases since March this year.
I hesitate to use the term "over-representation" but something is going on here.
What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 01:22 PM

I doubt that is really Bluesman.
No-one could read that old post of mine and describe it as racist Jim.
You make yourself ridiculous by doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 02:58 AM

It seems that a number of postings have been removed here - a little like arguing with one hand tied behind your back.
What do you suggest is "happening here" - yet another ethnic community with a "cultural implant"?
There really is no end to it with you, is there?
What is "happening here" is that a group of around 8 Travellers out of a population of 300,000 have been arrested and charged with a crime - what cultural significance to you attach to that to that?
'Coincidentally', the case surfaced around the time when one of the most expensive and controversial evictions of all times was about to take place and equally coincidentally, we have heard virtually nothing in the press or the media about the case now that the Dale Farm eviction has been carried out.
You have already attempted to brand one ethnic community as potential perverts because of their culture - are you really going to repeat the exercise with another?
You've made a start with your "over-representation" and you are already ignoring the points being made of common examples of 'slavery' in Britain today; I suppose the next step is to find an "impeccable expert" to blame for the "over-representation" statement so you can claim it was not your opinion but that of an someone you trust completely because you have no knowlege of the subject yourself!!
Get help!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:04 AM

what cultural significance to you attach to that to that?
None Jim.
It was just the main news story at that time.

Your post was deleted because you were not logged in.
The other deleted posts were all by a nasty troll using the names of true Guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:26 AM

You have accused the Travelling community of being "over-represented" in a crime - that has cultural significance as did your branding Pakistanis as cultural perverts, the only difference being that you have yet to develop your attack on Travellers. I'm sure you'd have got round to it if the thread hadn't been closed, you usually do.
Jim Carroll