BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'

Subject: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Fiolar
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 09:19 AM

Am I just being paranoid or is there a ban in certain areas of the UK on the film. I have been looking forward to seeing it, but it appears that it is not being shown in any cinema in East Anglia and unless I travel to London, it looks like I might have to wait until it comes out on DVD. Any body else have the same problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 09:22 AM

It may have only a limited distribution. Many films that are perceived to be special interest films, never achieve general distribtion. You need to query it with the film's distributor I'm afraid, it's all down to bums on seats with them.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 09:23 AM

First page I found:

here

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 05:59 PM

I think I should quite like to see the Tim Spall film Pierrepoint - about the hangman. Supposed to be the greatest performance of Spall's career, and its nowhere.....

I love Timothy Spall....loved Aubrey in Life is Sweet. that's another work of genius that never got much distribution.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: freda underhill
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 10:09 PM

'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'- was the closing film for the Sydney Film Festival in June, it will be shown around Australia in September. I'll go and see it, for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 01:03 AM

Not a ban, Fiolar, but only 30 theatres/smaller distributors showed an interest. The big boys stayed away, scared of what public opinion would say and preferring to avoid controversy. Putting business interests first has the same effect as ban, sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Fiolar
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 09:47 AM

Thanks Jon.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Sorcha
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:28 AM

So, what's it about then?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:35 AM

We had a whole thread about it.
Actualy, mostly not about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:40 AM

I wondered that, too, Sorch, and I wondered if it was a song or film or what that was banned. Here's what Eric the Red says in the other thread.

Thread #91676   Message #1745292
Posted By: eric the red
22-May-06 - 07:33 AM
Thread Name: BS: The Wind That Shakes The Barley
Subject: BS: The Wind That Shakes The Barley


Just been revued at Cannes the new Ken Loach film, ' The Wind That Shakes The Barley 'it won't be popular in England, it's about the IRA and the true nature and actions of the Black and Tans.

eric

Sounds like it isn't a ban - just a "limited release" because it is not expected that the film's appeal will be universal.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:49 AM

Joe, What a pity, this is a brilliant film, see for yourself and then come back and give an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 12:57 PM

Social comment movies are like social comment folk songs, they get very limited "air play"!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Kaleea
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 01:25 PM

It seems to me that the best way to get people out to the theatres to see a film is to get some people together to protest it in the name of one religion or another. Well, at least that's what seems to work here in the states.
   I first noticed this when the stage production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" was first making it's way to the midwest USA, the hardcore fundamentalists (the local majority) started saying how evil it was, & got interviewed for the tv & newspapers, & by the time it got to Tulsa, every kid in town-including myself-wanted to see it!
Perhaps with enough protesters yelling "don't bring it to our village," The Wind that Shakes the Barley will make it to the less populated areas of so that people can see it & decide for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 02:15 PM

you mean we should go round saying we don't want to see it, when in actual fact, we do want to see it.

well......its an idea

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 02:53 PM

We have a number of "art house" theaters in the Sacramento area that are likely to carry this type of film. I'll watch for it. Thanks for the recommendation.
When it comes out on DVD, it would be a good idea to refresh this thread and let us know.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 03:08 PM

Actually showing in the loyalist town of Lisburn over here ! It's an excellent film, the acting is outstanding. Several of the events are based on fact such as the Kilmichael ambush and the landmine Tom Barry's men set up. It's not a pro IRA film. Shows the events that took place in Ireland around that time.A gentleman who wrote a book about the Tans was an adviser. His father was in charge of one of the barracks in and around Cork city and he worked from his fathers recollections. Spoke to him by phone a few years ago when he was writing the book, he required some information on uniforms and headwear. Lovely old guy, doubt he would have got it wrong.

The pirate dvd no doubt will be on the streets shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 04:46 AM

When it's shown on television we will hear the voices of descent on the B.B.C.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 02:42 PM

Seems to be great movie, not over here yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 03:24 PM

Where?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 04:14 PM

Hertford?.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 07:04 PM

Sorry, America. Read it shows up the pro-treaty guys as Irish Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 06:03 PM

This is a must see film,pitty in isnt opened in wide release.I have seen lower class movies making more money at the box office,and this film is best discribed as a little masterpiece.
if you havnt seen it i suggest you do your utmost,as it will give all a bigger insight into the irish rebellion.
catholic or protestant,this is truth,this is history.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 07:28 PM

I think it gives an insight as to how some people who could not have cared less about the political situation in Ireland found themselves in the middle of something that up until then did not concern them. It shows the brutality dished out to ordinary people, not IRA men and thus creating a breeding ground for resentment and hatred.

Something I can relate to when the British army arrived on our streets and stamped their authority in much the same manner as the tans in 1920.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 03:19 AM

We all know that the Tans dished out some brutality to ordinary people, but the IRA were responsible for some appalling atrocities too, and this is a dimension of the conflict that Loach chose not to explore in his film. By all means see it, but do not suppose that you are getting a balanced historical view.

The Tans may have created some "resentment and hatred" but less than 20 years later that had evaporated as free Irishmen in their tens of thousands turned their backs on the IRA who were in alliance with Nazi Germany, and flocked to join the British forces to fight against them.

Re your experience with the British Army, it would be helpful to know if you were a volunteer with PIRA or related Republican group in the armed struggle.
As you keep telling us, the war is over now and you need not be coy or ambiguous in your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 03:58 AM

That's an awfully silly thing to ask Keith. And impertinent. DS tells us probably more than he feels comfortable telling us, as it is.

And what possibly can it have to do with all the nonsense that goes on in this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 04:20 AM

He chose to tell us about how the army behaved to him.
He tells us that to influence our opinion.
His role at the time, however, is highly relevant to how he would be treated.
It is therefor reasonable to ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 05:34 AM

Al, Funny how history repeats itself, never understood the fascination Englishmen seem to have with that question. Remember getting it put to me numerous times over three day periods. Didn't think much of their manners or accommodation either ! Remember several guys who used to get really frustrated at my lack of conversation ! Ah long time ago, they left Ireland, I remained !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 05:41 AM

Not a fascination Sweeney, but a natural response to your reference to how you were treated by the army.
I was asked if I had a military background in a very recent thread. No one talked about impertinence and fscination then.
At least tell us why you prefer not to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 05:47 AM

From what I know of DS, Keith - I think he realises that he is not going to change your opinion, or my opinion.

we're like those three old farts on the village green in last of the Summer wine - we are at that stage in our lives - we have made up our minds, rather like some people make up a bed and we are lying there relatively happily.

mixed metaphors, but I think you'll get the drift.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 05:56 AM

Sometimes, in my old man's delusions, I imagine that someone else may sometimes read our ramblings.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 05:58 AM

(Woops, doddery old rheumatic fingers hit submit)


...and those others may yet have open minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:04 AM

bloody hell, i hope not!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:15 AM

I remember treating a guy in a psychiatric unit who had been a serving soldier in the North of Ireland. He came over to spread the word of God. Very nice guy, clearly unwell,very psychotic. We got on great together. He had a total religious fixation and wanted to bring to two communities together. Anyway he responded well to treatment and in time became well again. Remember these two guys who used to visit him a lot asked to see me. They asked had he gone into his service over here much ? I said just a few times, nothing detailed. One replied that we would prefer if you tried to discourage any conversation. Best no one knows his background or what he belonged to in the interest of personal security.

So good enough for them, so it's good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:20 AM

Fair enough Sweeney, but it would be fairer to stick to general rather than personal experiences if we are not allowed to know the full story.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:28 AM

Most general accounts and recollections are born from personal experiences, is that correct ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:45 AM

You are being disingenuous here.
You wrote that you had been mistreated by the army to draw an analogy between the behavior of the army in your time, and the Tans of old.
However, if you were an activist, you would almost certainly be known as a suspect by the army, who would then be right to hassle you at every opportunity in the hope of preventing you committing your next act of terror.

Also, they would know that if they fell into your hands they would be killed without mercy. PIRA always killed them, and usually tortured them first.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 07:31 AM

Remember talking to four guys from Wales who came over here fishing. They came out of a well known Irish bar in the town and were heading back to their B&B. They never even got a chance to speak, they got the lining kicked out of them by a six man foot patrol who waited on any unsuspecting group coming out of the bar. Doubt they were activists !

No mercy shown here either.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 11:05 AM

Keth A of Hereford "the army would be right to hassle you at every opportunity"

So you agree with foreign soldiers brutally attacking locals who they feel are terrorists ?

Hassle by British soldiers seen in Iraq last year. Kicking the shit out of young men.

Do you support British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

What is an acceptable an level of hassle without breaking the law, or is breaking the law okay ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 11:22 AM

Much as I agree with the sentiment, Guest, in a situation like there was in NI and there is in Iraq - Ie a mainly guerilla force fighting a standard army the law does get broken on both sides. I doubt very much whether the Iraqi freedom fighter or the PIRA man before him considers the Geneva convention when planting a bomb in a crowded shopping area. This is not an excuse for the British army, just a fact of life.

When you think about it both sides are breaking one of the fundemental laws of most lands and, as far as I know, all religions. Thou shalt not kill. Seeing as breaking that law is considered the most serious of crimes by most people do you think anyone is worried by a bit of extra violence?

Whether Divis or Keith has the right of it will never be agreed. Pity that important historical documentation, such as this film, always seems to fire people up so much. Better they discuss it here though than throw rocks and petrol bombs at each other!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 11:45 AM

Yes Guest I do support British troops in the Gulf.
Re the incident you mentioned in Iraq, we discussed it in 2 threads.
The whole video showed mortars and grenades exploding in the British compound and a section of soldiers going out, without firearms, to seize the ringleaders. They treated them much too roughly but they were not injured.
The British Army has proved much more restrained in peace keeping than their US comrades.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:32 PM

How could anyone support a miliatry presence on that soil ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 08:47 AM

living in northern ireland for 40 years,i have seen the ups and downs of this country,no one can justify the damage that the british army has caused over here,i could name you hundreds of incidents,that have occured over the years,and not one of them can be justified,through my own personal experiences,my friends,and my lost friends.
after watching this movie,i find it accurate in my accounts of the troubles here,past and present.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Den
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 10:16 AM

Interesting article here.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 05:07 PM

From the article.

"In memory of the civilians murdered by British forces,"

From the Sutton index
-

Civilian deaths caused by British Security - 188

Civilian deaths caused by Republical Paramilitary - 710

Civilian deaths caused by Loyalist Paramilitary - 846

Civilian deaths caused by Other (not known) - 54

Total civilian deaths - 1798

So, out of the nearly 2000 civilain deaths around 10% were caused by British Forces while nearly 90% were cuased by Paramiltaries from both camps?

Where are the memorials to the civilians murdered by their fellow Irishmen?

Just wondering.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 05:11 PM

Keith will get them for you !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 07:18 PM

if you understand colusion,my good man you will understand that these stats are far from true,it is well known that british intelligence has played a big role in our own politics.while this country had been at war for many years,sources suggest,deals done on both sides,ie bombings,murders,and attacks on civilians,to justify there policy for being here,so the stats you read are fictionalised, simply to apeese british duristiction in northern ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 07:30 PM

What about stockings and suspenders ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 03:57 AM

Interview with Ken Loach on RTE

"The IRA of the 60s and 70s was a product of the despicable treaty that the British imposed at the point of a gun. If the British hadn't imposed partition, there would be no Provisional IRA. The entire responsibility lies with the British state. The entire responsibility. Everything that has emerged has been a protest, sometimes a violent protest, sometimes an aberrant protest, but nevertheless a protest, from the brutality of the British and the brutality of the British Empire embodied in bastards like Churchill, who not only sent the troops into Ireland, he sent the troops against Welsh miners in his own country when they wanted a decent wage. So I mean we should have no tolerance at all for these questions that try to indicate that somehow the resistance to British brutality is not acceptable."

Not only a great director, but a logical man too.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 05:04 AM

if you understand colusion,my good man you will understand that these stats are far from true

I undestand collusion very well dear guest. Even if half the Loyalist paramilitary mureders were down to collusion it still means that only around 600 of the civilians killed were down to British security. Roughly 33%. Still means that 66% were killed by other civilians from their own lands.

I am not commenting on the rights and wrongs of the attrocities if you notice. Just asking why there is a big play about memorials to those killed by British security when twice as many were killed by others. Perhaps the people making these comments want to draw the eye away from the other statistics?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 06:06 AM

Ken Loach is a great director. Undoubtedly.
His "logic" is that of the extreme left wing of politics.
He despises not just Britain but all western democracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Lil' Kiwi
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:05 PM

Just like 'In the Name of The Father' and 'Bloody Sunday' heck, even 'Braveheart' for that matter - I again observe (yes, even from NZ) British people having issues dealing with their shameful history.

I have just seen this movie for the second time. It has had 2 screenings here in Auckland (New Zealand) as part of the 'International Film Festival' we have here annually.

The first screening was pretty much sold out and received solid applause, the final screening in Auckland, at least 85% of seats were attended (I understand this goes on to another city or 2 in NZ too).

This is a well written and (rarely) honestly written piece of such a tragic historic era of a country.

I had to see it a second time as I was too blown away emotionally seeing it the first time to get a grip on the underlying story. There were people visibly upset by this movie throughout the theatre too.

New Zealand could not be socially or geographically further from Ireland than it is - however I feel Loach if anything, toned down the Black & Tans violence in the film (which I understand RTE Live Line listeners would have heard Loach himself say too about 2 weeks back).

I don't think the debate/arguement of who killed how many of who is relevant here in this instance. For those of you pro-Brit or what-not hung up on such figures - why doesn't the Republican case throw in the number of civilians that died from famine too? (rhetorical question!)

The fact there is an unlawful military and opppressive (continuing) pressence in a sovereign country is just plain wrong and the history does nothing less of illustrating this. (bring on November!)

Upon seeing this film (and following up with some studying of my own), how else does one wonder why the IRA has had so much public support?

So few movies (or even documentaries for that matter!) have made one think so much.

Good on ya Ken.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:26 PM

Glad you enjoyed it GUEST,Lil' Kiwi. Wonderful film and very true to fact. Yes this is what the people of my Island had to live with and let me tell you it was no easier throughout the 70's and 80's. The British really hate to see films like this, as the truth hurts !
Best wishes from Ireland
Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:51 PM

Still looking forward to seeing here in Manchester - Can't seem to find it though.

How did 'Braveheart' get through to that list, L'il Kiwi - I could take your post a lot more seriously if you did the same;-) Out of interest though, while Longshanks was stuffing the Scots in the south of Scotland the Irish were doing similar in the North. Funny the film glosses over that by showing them as allies against the English isn't it:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:44 PM

Two questions Li'l kiwi.
Why "unlawful"?
What made you think that the IRA ever had a lot of support?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:49 PM

Sorry, I just thought of a third question.
Would you support an armed terrorist struggle by the Maori people against white domination?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:58 PM

Very sorry, one more.
You posted at 0405 local time.
Trouble sleeping?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 05:07 PM

Lil Kiwi, It is no surprise that the film played to a large audience in NZ, and it is also no surprise that this great film won the top prize at Cannes.
To those people who haven`t seen the film, don`t form an opinion until you do, you may be surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,beachcomber
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 05:24 PM

Keith, you asked Lil Kiwi why he thought that the IRA were well supported. I do not know very much about the IRA, their activities, policies or membership from 1956 up to date but, I have lived with the stories of too numerous relatives, friends and acquaintances not to be certain that the Volunteers of the "Tan War" were given 90 - 95% support by the populace back then. They could not have struggled for as long as they did without that , nor without the tactics that they were forced to employ. (This was in spite of some of their leaders exhortations, that they should fight a "legitimate" War (whatever that is) against a vastly superior force)

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 05:41 PM

but less than 20 years later, tens of thousands of young men from the free Republic of Ireland, flocked to join British forces to fight against Hitler and his ally, the IRA.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 06:10 PM

Good point beachcomber, the support has always been there for the I.R.A. When you consider the number of nationalist people that attended the funeral of Bobby Sands in 1981. The campaign would ever have ran without the support of the people, believe me unlike some I was there on the ground. Always best to address any questions to those here that know what they are talking about, otherwise you will attract the type that have to search the net for some British sponsored report and then select little bits out of it, if this happens just ignore it, the rest of us do.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Lil' Kiwi
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 06:14 PM

1: Why 'why unlawful?' Did they not arrive by force in the first place?...

2: The existence/survival of such a group for so long requires this from the general population around it. And people like beachcomber have answered this better than I probably could. (Thanks beachcomber)

The IRA is longer 'fighting' as times have changed in Ireland. In my opinion there is Sinn Fein as the best alternative to the gun for Republicans. The reunification of Ireland is on its way and I do not see how the current situation of the Peace Process as such could have been attained without those that chose to fight on since the 20's.

3: The Maori were treated 'better' and differently than most other 'native' people in colonial days. Apart from their language I believe being banned from schools at some point in time, they were/are free to be completely open with their culture. NZ was much more 'settled' rather than colonised or invaded/conquered. The Land Wars that followed were about sovereignty not 'oppression vs resistance' as such. Under the right sort of oppressive conditions I would 'suppport armed terrorism' however with the country and conditions I live in, it is not necessary. On the Maori topic - they have their own seats in parliament AND their own political party with candidates for both those and the 'normal' seats. A Maori person can go on the General Electoral Roll or Maori Electoral Roll, but not both.

4: Guh. Stupid question. pog mo thoin! (did I get that right?) I mean really?! Who cares 'when' someone makes a post? Maybe I'm a shift worker for all you know. Maybe I'm not. Maybe it's a really ^&*&^%&^!!! question. Actually it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 06:32 PM

*I meant to say "....people like beachcomber AND Divis"

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 06:33 PM

* and "...IRA no longer fighting..."

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 06:39 PM

Ignore this idiot, LK. He seeks to whitewash the history of the North of Ireland at any cost. His favorite tactic, as in the question as to why you were up at that hour, is to shift the premise that the discussion is based on. I am not sure what relevance the hour you post at has, but it really demonstrates the intent of the question.

K of A, no matter how you attempt to shift the argument to what's wrong with the IRA, the fact is that it was spawned by centuries of repression, occupation, and outright anti Catholic, anti Irish, bigotry. The Orange card, like the race card here in the States, was brought out to divide a people with like interests, namely the value of their labor. Later the Orange card was played for political reasons, namely maintaining the Orange MP's in this camp or that.

But the end is near, and all the stuff being put out won't matter. The North of Ireland will have its government, and ultimately will be part of the Republic. And the way will be lead by Sinn Fein politicians who have dedicated themselves to the power of the ballot over the way of the gun. The so called Loyalists will continue to try and provoke them to return to violence, but the world is watching.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 06:50 PM

I did fall for that 4th one didn't I? (learnt my lesson!)

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 06:57 PM

Well said Mick. We are all aware of the Brussells plan to solve the situation here, British and Irish ministers are using the Europeans to pave a little deal within five years which will allow both governments to walk away with face, let time tell the tale !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 07:17 PM

Most of Ireland has been for the Irish since early last century. Hopefuly all of it will be in the very near future. Will New Zealand be owned by the Maori people in the same period? Much as I agree with lots of your argument LK I think you need to remove the beam from your own eye...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 07:24 PM

Ken Loach just on telly a minute ago BBC4 - talking about his early days as an actor alongside Kenneth Williams in West End Review.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 07:30 PM

Ta DtG.

However, the Maori people have no desire to 'own' the whole country.

Their 'issue' as I understand it is that the Treaty of Waitangi has not in some areas been fully honoured by the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 07:57 PM

Christ just had a guy tell me on another thread that the British concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer war were a one off, never repeated-hence,and was not British government policy. I must have f...... imagined that camp at Long Kesh that held hundreds of men for over four years without any charge or court appearance, known to most of you as internment !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 08:57 PM

The Kesh, the Blocks, this is exactly what I am talking about. There is this concerted effort to try and whitewash all that by changing the premise. Who was it that said if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 02:01 AM

L Kiwi,
If you had been following these discussions in recent weeks, you would know that we have been plagued by Guests who turn out not to be who they claim to be.
There is no reason why you should not make your first ever post at 4 o'clock on a winter's morning, but it made me wonder.
Beachcomber, my reply to you was too brief. I know that the Tans were at least as bad as Loach portrays them.
Revulsion at their behaviour should have driven people to support the IRA.
But the IRA committed apalling atrocities too that also revolted decent people. I have read that the film glosses over this and therein lies its imbalance.
When support for IRA was put to the test in 1939, the people turned their backs on them.

Nationalists will soon be the majority vote in NI.
Unity will follow.
Good.
Previously IRA were a minority of a minority.
Unity was not brought a day nearer by any of the bombs they planted or people they shot. It is literally true that they would have achieved it sooner by making love instead of war.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 02:42 AM

I don't agree at all. I think British & Unionist actions have proven much otherwise.

If you really feel as such though, I'd like to know then what was the alternative before recent times?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 03:21 AM

http://www.historyireland.com/magazine/features/13.3FeatA.html

Kiwi, Ithink that unity would have had to wait for a Nationalist majority, but everything else up to and beyond good Friday agreement etc. could have been achieved decades ago by the non violent Civil Rights movement had it not been hijacked by IRA.
Such a belief in not conducive to proof, but look at what the US Civil Rights movement achieved.

Sweeney, did you mean me when you said"the type that have to search the net for some British sponsored report and then select little bits out of it," If so please say so and withdraw it.

I have only posted one such in recent years.
It was from an Irish History journal, by a lecturer in Irish History at the Irish University. Pro British?
His sources are all given and are all Republican publications.
I did cut some bits but only because there is a maximum 2 screen paste in rule.
Here is a link to the article.http://www.historyireland.com/magazine/features/13.3FeatA.html

I hope that people will read and see if I changed the meaning with my small cuts.
To those who say I am too confrontational, I ask how you would respond to lies told to discredit you.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 04:11 AM

Two grat books on the Net, John McGuffin`s Internment and The Guinea Pigs.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 05:15 AM

Yes Lil' Kiwi you are correct in your views of the situation here.I remember the actions of the british forces of occupation in the North throughout my lifetime all too well. Read up on Plastic and rubber bullet murders of children, shot at point blank range by these brave men. Please read up on how the British worked hand in glove with the Loyalist paramilitaries in the murders of innocent Catholics. Never allow yourself to be put off by the odd irritant here, great to see you. Best wishes from Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 05:16 AM

Pure rubbish, Keith. Had there not been an armed struggle bringing light to the plight of the Catholic in the North of Ireland, the same old gerrymandered crap would have gone on and on. Had not the struggle gone on, there would have been nothing to draw the world's attention to the collusion between Crown forces, RUC, and the Orange militias. What dear old England wanted was for the Irish to be nice wee lads and lasses and let her exercise her mandate from God over their lives, property and country like good little colonials.

And no one has told lies to discredit you, but rather the policies of your government. Your use of this tactic also discredits your arguments. You attempt to claim victim status, and thereby shift the focus. The focus must remain with the root of all the troubles.

Your approach shows how disengenous your arguments are.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 05:44 AM

Keith, I think we're at the point where "versions of history" play an important part. I don't think the Civil Rights movement was hijacked by the IRA. Indeed, the Official IRA was not campaigning at the time. It's more that the Civil Rights approach was killed by the reaction of the RIC- remember the B Specials? The IRA split when ethnic cleansing by the "Loyalists" started, and some people (in my opinion understandably) thought fighting back was more likely to stop it than singing We Shall Overcome. The siege of Bogside finally confirmed PIRA as the defenders of Nationalist areas. If what has happened since has been a rake's progress to gangsterism as many say, it wasn't how it started.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:05 AM

Yes Paul and Mick.
Alternate versions of history.
Who knows.
But the B Specials and the Stormont government were got rid of before the IRA killing machine got into high gear.
I think and believe that steady progress would have followed any way, and quicker without the killing.
I believe that the page of history had turned against the sectarian bigots of NI, just as it had against the racist bigots of the US southern states.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:19 AM

Five European families either burned out or stoned out of their homes over the weekend here. All in Loyalist areas. A fifteen year old boy was beaten to death in a loyalist area five weeks ago, police said his only crime was being a Catholic. At the 12th bonfire in the area where this child was murdered, they burnt a mock up of him with the sign around his neck "Another good Cathoilc " History turning where exactly ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:28 AM

I'm not to sure, Mick. These arguments about how things would have happened had things been different are nothing but speculation and have little use apart from an excercise in philosophy. I think that the British government today is as different from the ones of the 60's as can be and we would get a lot further now anyway but that, as I say, is beside the point. As you quite rightly say the governments involved should be concentrating on getting things right as soon as possible.

This type of film and documentary will always raise blood pressures on all sides. I class myself as English (even though I am only 1/4 that nationality!) and do not find any shame in anyone pointing out that the successive governments of my country committed some shameful acts. They committed the same acts on the ordinary working people of their own country. It should be understood, by everyone, that the ordinary man in the street in Manchester, Munster or Mumbai has nothing to do with these ridiculous power struggles. That our governments have got an enormous ammout of people hating the British/Irish/Moslem/Jew is a testament to how effective they have been. What we need to do is to stop believeing their lies and unite against any form of oppression.

Fat chance unfortunatley. The bastards have us too well controlled for that:-(

One point in the favour of the British government. They have shown how well things can be done. Ask our friend from New Zealand - he has already pointed out that the Maoris are quite happy. It was a British treaty that gave them their status so perhaps they are not all bad after all:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:59 AM

That's pretty much it regarding NZ. They were treated from equals right from the start. Never oppressed and quite openly took on European ways into their own culture too whether that be clothing or games etc. A sort of integration/assimilation (right words?) and even mixed marriages from very early on too. (I once had a girlfriend of Maori/Welsh mix, and damn is she a hot thang!)

Yes, let's unite against oppression. Fight for freedom, justice & peace. A world of different cultures, but equal peoples.

Dreams are free, but we can do stuff - just gotta get out there and actually DO IT :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 07:03 AM

Sweeney, I know that there are still some bad people.
There always will be.
And some racists still in Alabama too I expect.
But things have changed.
No thanks to IRA.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 08:28 AM

K.A.H. Who's it down to then ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 08:38 AM

The changes in my Ireland have been brought about by public opinion throughout the world. The fact that Irishmen would NEVER lay down under your hate filled army told the world what we were made of. I honour each and every one of our volunteers.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Fiolar
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 08:58 AM

I'm not sure if I posted this recently but I understand that some of the top folk in the Orange Order are considering turning the 12th of July marches into a carnival type operation in the same way as the Notting Hill one in London. Pigs might fly?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 09:04 AM

Fiolar, this is a old ploy to get government grants. The nationalists in Belfast make a great carnival each March and the world attend it. So they are trying to get in on the act. They are hate filled beyond belief. I worked with two of them for years and got on well. When my mother died a few years back both of them came to my home to pay their respects. They told me together that they would not be attending the funeral as they do not enter the Catholic Church ! Christ better if they had said nothing. I go to all funerals, even D.U.P. ones ! Says more about them I feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 09:09 AM

The changes in my Ireland have been brought about by public opinion throughout the world.

I absolutely agree sweeney.
IRA atrocities alienated some public opinion, but the old bigotted regime would not have been tolerated any more.

L'il Kiwi,
Your last post made me think of a song I sometimes do. Somewhere in Otago by Martin Wyndham- Reeves.
Do you know it?
It has the lines
I met a girl of Maori blood,
She'll be good for me I know,
Think I'll wed and settle down,
Somewhere in Otago.


Sorry I was supicious of you at first.
We really have had some frauds on here.

I hope you will think about joining. We are not always like this.
If you do, expect some Mr. Nice Guy private messages from sweeney.
You have just seen how slickly he tells a lie, and when confronted, ignores it and carries on.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 09:22 AM

I've already 'joined' - well, enough so that there is no longer 'guest' attached to my nic.

I think that's rather sly of you to add
"We are not always like this. If you do, expect some Mr. Nice Guy private messages from sweeney. You have just seen how slickly he tells a lie, and when confronted, ignores it and carries on."

Tut tut tut! Not cool dude.

I shall freely make up my own mind as I always do. I never let petty things such as that sort of comment of yours influence me one way or other.

One thing I like about the geographic isolation of NZ is that it allows significant events to be 'viewed' as part of the bigger picture (unless something happens here or to us directly) and things like bias and coersion can be left aside, well once you've sifted through the news media that isn't controlled by certain groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 09:37 AM

Blimey.
I don't often get called dude.
Welcome to Mudcat.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 09:45 AM

He may have seen that photo of you playing at soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 09:59 AM

Oh dear.
I got off lightly then.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 10:43 AM

Lil' Kiwi hope you got my message this morning okay ? Please take the advice ! Don't feel you have to ever answer any stupid silly questions here, like "Can't you sleep" we all just ignore them.

It's always nice to see people from other countries visit and listen to the true facts about that the English did in Ireland.

Sometime you should consider starting a thread of your own, but be warned, a certain member is well noted for posting as a guest to support his rubbish claims when he finds it's going against him ! don't be put off by this, it's the norm to the rest of us here and we expect it.

Anything you want to know about Ireland please just ask, those of us who know what we are talking about are always glad to help.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 11:16 AM

Fair enough, DtG. I will buy that as an honest explanation. I have always said that when one looks at the history of Ulster fairly, then they will understand that historically this has very little to do with Catholic/Protestant or Loyalist/Republican Nationalist. It's roots lie in the industrialist mentality that felt as though their rights to profits were God given and that the working class were the tool given to them to be used as they saw fit. When the working class, Protestant and Catholic alike, started to realize they had more in common than not, the English industrialists played the card that is with us today. As this whole phenomenon interbred with itself it was twisted into the intellectual wreckage that is strewn all about 6 counties. At the very root, of course, it goes all the way back to the plantation policies, but the catalyst, or straw that broke the back, lies squarely in the industrial age. That is why it is easy for the English apologists to use demagogery to make their points. There is several centuries of acts to choose from. But when one approaches it with an overview, it is clear who the villain is and what the solution is. It is also clear where, thanks be to God, it will end.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 11:40 AM

Still happening today, Mick. I would hazzard a guess that given the choice of George W or Osama Bin Laden most of your countrymen (and mine for that matter!) would choose the former.

Hide your evils by giving people a greater one to hate. Happens all the time. Even here on mudcat! ;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 01:59 PM

A load of IRA worshipping rubbish. Hang the murderers I say!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 05:27 PM

Go on guest DB, get it off your chest, I really love to hear it !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 05:33 PM

I guess that is the same 'GUEST,DB' that refers to Moslems as 'fermenting leper shit'?

A fine caring human being if ever there was one.

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 10:34 PM

Keith A, the King of Thread Drift and the Prince of Petty...

A 'more balanced' account would involve re-writing history, Keith, and I know how you would hate to be accused of being guilty of such.

Do people who get mistreated by the British Army, automatically become guilty of subversion, in your eyes?
Supporting your boys in the Gulf would lend tacit support for such an inference

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 10:34 PM

100 so there!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 01:15 AM

Tir Chonaill
Welcome back.
Re your 2 questions
1 To be balanced, an historical film should look at the rights and wrongs of both sides of a conflict.

2 No. What ever made you think that I did?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 03:13 AM

I leave for a bit and things are relatively the same!

Kiwi, welcome to the group.Have you read Tom Barry's "Guerilla Days"? If not, I'd be happy to post it over to you. I'm amassing quite a library of Irish history books.

Good to see we're multiplying, hey Tir? On the serious side, though, for centuries, the people in power have been the ones to dictate the contents of history. The lives of the poor or insignificant were forgotten, discarded. Our lives today, though, have given us the opportunity to tell our stories or those that have been forgotten. Keith, this film tells a moving and important piece of history. It may not speak to your taste or sensibilities, but it doesn't make the film any less valuable to society. If his work makes even one person think about the Irish struggle for freedom then it's done its job.

Great to see you guys again! Welcome aboard, Kiwi.

E

PS Forgive any spelling mistakes. I'm doing this on my Blackberry.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 04:17 AM

Epona, Nice to see you are still observing, You enjoyed the movie I must make an effort to see it. I have never tried it yet on a Blackberry, must try it sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 04:19 AM

Nice to see you here again Epona. "Doing this on my Blackberry" Sounds nice ! Yes things haven't changed much, the loyal few with a mind and voice for the truth is still here, and of course there is still Haemorrhoids (also known as Piles) here too.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 04:27 AM

and there are those who tell fibs about what other members say.
Welcome back Epona.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 05:35 AM

For once the truth has been said.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: stallion
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 06:21 AM

alluded to inan earlier post
Big Mick
"I have always said that when one looks at the history of Ulster fairly, then they will understand that historically this has very little to do with Catholic/Protestant or Loyalist/Republican Nationalist. It's roots lie in the industrialist mentality that felt as though their rights to profits were God given and that the working class were the tool given to them to be used as they saw fit."
THe real tragedy of the film was the civil war, which appears to be a straight fight between socialists and the Irish elite driven opposition. I know, that is a gross over simplification, I am aware that "battle fatigue" etc come into the equation. What did come across is the hopelessness of ordinary people caught up in it, if you cracked under torture then you were branded a quisling and, if enduring that wasn't enough, shot by the people you had "informed on". We are not talking sophisticated Machevelian politico freedom fighters we are talking simple folk, in simple jobs who probably had little experience of the outside world other than that which was taken to them, the whole business was a tragedy.
Relating to the "encouraged by Industrialisation"(my words), it was surely that that put paid to slavery, slave owning required land to feed them at "no cost" during hard times, having slaves in factories would have been uneconomic as they had a value one would have to spend money to maintain ones investment, as soon as it was realised that "wage slavery" had all the benefits of slavery without any of the responsibilities, then slavery was dead in the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 06:43 AM

An example of this in my own town was the four main Linen producing factories. They were all English owned and the conditions and wages paid to the employees was simply slavery.I have no doubt this was the same in other parts of the U.K. The only difference we had was Catholics worked the looms and the protestants worked in the offices.And when it came to the elections, catholics were not allowed to vote. The factory owner got the votes of the number of catholics he employed ! We must remember both traditions fought the English together in the 1798 rebellion. A wise man said then, "The Irish get on well when they have a common enemy".

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,JAck Campin
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 06:54 AM

Back to this:

: I remember treating a guy in a psychiatric unit who had been a serving soldier in the North
: of Ireland. He came over to spread the word of God. Very nice guy, clearly unwell,very psychotic.
: [...] Remember these two guys who used to visit him a lot asked to see me. They asked had he
: gone into his service over here much ? I said just a few times, nothing detailed. One replied
: that we would prefer if you tried to discourage any conversation. Best no one knows his
: background or what he belonged to in the interest of personal security.

What that reminds me of is the conscripted soldiers who were used as guinea pigs for nuclear
or chemical warfare experiments and then silenced by the Official Secrets Act, preventing
them getting appropriate treatment because they couldn't tell their doctors what had
happened to them. In the case of the nerve gas experiments, there is a treatment window of
a few weeks after which the damage becomes irreversible; the Army's policy of secrecy
had the effect of turning a serious but treatable injury into a lifelong crippling disability.

It would have been in that man's interest for you to get those "two guys" photographed,
frogmarched to the door by some large strong nurses and told never to come back. His
problem at that point wasn't with the IRA any more (if it ever had been), it was with the
Army.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 12:28 PM

To a point I can understand why they may have wanted to protect his security and if they were fearful of him talking and saying something he shouldn't have, why then do the army or police not provide their own units for vets with mental health problems ?

Sadly the troubles kept us busy with many security force members on our books. Found they dropped them like stones once they had been in with us. Medical retirement was offered very quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 05:21 PM

Thanks Epona!

I have not read that book, will pm you my details

Many thanks! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 05:34 PM

:)

No problem.

E

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 06:36 PM

Thanks Keith for the welcome, and to all the 'lads'... ;-)

"2 No. What ever made you think that I did?"

This....
"Re your experience with the British Army, it would be helpful to know if you were a volunteer with PIRA"

Why should you make such a correlation?

Are all Iraqi's, for instance, who are against 'The Allied Occupation', viewed as subversives...
... or just potential ones?

It is one thing to re-write history, Keith, quite another fettle of kish however, to invent it.... like that craic about the Civil Rights Movement putting a United Ireland agenda forward quicker than the Armed Struggle could have done.

Remember that all the nationalist people of Ireland, Keith, were always known as 'The Enemy'. Brookeborough said it in so many words, and refused point blank (pun intended) to consider the Nationalist goal of self-determination. In the post-9/11 World such nomenclature was, and is, reserved for Al Q and the bhoys.

What your take on the phenomenon of the 'Thought Police', Keith?
Do you pander to it by any chance, yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 06:43 PM

"Fettle of kish"...cute.

E

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 06:52 PM

United Ireland by 2016, Keith, what do you reckon?

It would be some Independence Day celebration Easter Monday that year, wouldn't it?

It's taken 800 years to get this far, Keith (... are you in, or outside the Danegeld, by the way....?)

10 extra years maximum, Keith, and by then, Please God Linfield Football Club will have abandoned their wicked ways, and field a half decent GAA team every Sunday, just for good measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 06:55 PM

Ahhhh, the old roonerspisms are still the best, E...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 07:00 PM

Linfield 0.11 Armagh 3.9
Great to see the truth has brought the Irish back to the site, somehow I imagine the pm's are flying today to get the odd dosser who knows sweet F.A. about Ireland to come on board to defeat this rabble of rebels !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 07:11 PM

The comment "why then do the army or police not provide their own units for vets with mental health problems ?"
Reminds me of my experience with someone close to me. I don't know about other countries, but the NZ army has a system and I've seen it work. My mate was in the NZ army for some years and served in Bosnia with the UN Peace Keepers and NATO, he had a particular role there so he came back 'messed up' and was so for some years. Fortunately support was (and still is) there to help him out.

In general, if a country expects people to fight and die, there should at least be quality support for those that return home.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 07:14 PM

Indeed, Divis, a reasonable scoreline to be sure.... as I say a 'half decent' team..... there's an apprenticeship to be served, in fairness......

It's all about 'saving face', Keith....

How stupid do you think we actually are?
It must be an awful embarrassment, though to those of you who sing 'Rule Britannia' at the drop of a hat, a football..... or a cricket ball.

....like, I mean "HAllO????"
... or as GWB would say "Yo!"

Sad, man.

Sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 07:31 PM

"....to defeat this rabble of rebels"
In a nutshell, Divis.
... and look how far that thinking has got them....

Post-Colonial-Hangover-syndrome, they call it
It still is the basis for the disease of Neo Nazism.

Keith thread-drifts too much to allow himself to be drawn into that black hole, though

UVF handed in their weapons yet?
Anyone give a toss?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 07:34 PM

Loyalist play three sports over here that nationalists don't follow, Cricket, Hockey and Rugby. These are all "Ireland" not "Northern Ireland" teams, if they dislike us so much then why did they stand under the tri colour on tour, considering two of the Hockey team are strong D.U.P. members and one D.U.P. councillor is big in rugby circles. D.U.P. mouthpiece Peter Robinson was on television tonight here speaking about the respect the loyalist community gave to the R.U.C. over the years ! He forgot to add that it was loyalists who shot dead the first R.U.C. man Constable Arbuckle, and it was loyalists that killed the last R.U.C. man with a pipe bomb at Drumcree, another one with a selective memory, should join us here !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 07:57 PM

"These are all "Ireland" not "Northern Ireland" teams"

Nutshells seem to be the order of the day, this evening.

... even during the Armed Struggle, they still were All-Ireland teams.
........ And let's not forget the Sunday escapades 'Down South' to get the chape buttir at Jonesboro', and the few pints before the Dundalk United home games....

Give my head pace, will ya?

When all the inconsistencies are counted up, and the emotional attachment to the situation taken out of the equation, any reasonable person would be understandably confused.

No wonder people '.... don't understand the situation over there'

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 08:48 PM

Guest, there is a lady called McBride who does a bit of chanting on behalf of the D.U.P. a party which hates catholics and Ireland and makes no bones about it may I add. Last year she brought her hockey team on tour to australia. When they ran the Irish tri colour up the pole and the band played Amhrán na bhFiann she stood with the rest of the team of loyalists. This was great, I of course admired that. When she got home, sadly for her the news of this treason had reached the ears of her party. She was that thick she said they went along with it because she said they thought if the Australians thought we were Irish we would get a better crowd !

No idea why I am explaining this to someone who clearly is recovering from a lobotomy.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 09:39 PM

... forgot to put my name on the 7.57 post...

Not content with chape buttir and the few Sunday pints, even if it mesnt killing the Holy hour at a football game they couldn't care less about, the so-called Unionists are now running in hordes down to Dublin to get the best passport in the World.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 09:46 PM

Keith?

There's a few inconsistencies we'd love you to have a stab at explaining away.

Points will ve awarded for the best laughs generated.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 01:42 AM

To avoid thread drift in another thread about this film, I reluctantly agreed to start this thread.
If the things you want explaining are not relevant to the film, please use it.

Briefly
I already answered why it mattered to the army if Sweeney was a terrorist.
Your celebrations on Unity day will be dwarfed by those in England and Wales.
Like everyone in England, I was always against discrimination.
When you get unity it will be by democratic means. Every shooting and bombing alienated british public opinion and made it harder for the government to negotiate with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 03:48 AM

Sweeney,
It was cruel to make that remark about Tir Chonail's lobotomy.
He should have remembered to put his name on the post though.
How were you to know he was on your side?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 04:08 AM

Tir, don't be too hard on yer man Sweeney.
He has benn under a lot of pressure.
Also it was vey late.
Sorry, should not mention that should I?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 04:42 AM

Refference was not to Tír Chonaill as you are aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 04:44 AM

I think it was!
But don't blame yourself.
I was not sure which side he was on either.
The gargle dimmed his brain?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 04:46 AM

Well did I ever worry what you thought ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 04:51 AM

I was addressing You, Keith; I assumed it was you that Divis was accusing of not being possession of your full faculties.

Thankfully we seem to be both of sound mind & body.

You, and your 'reluctant' thread starting.... I believe it was you who took this thread off topic.

Just jot down in 1, 2 & 3 form, basically your thoughts on what we have asked you...

... if you don't mind, that is

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 05:24 AM

IT IS ALL ABOUT SAVING FACE, ISN'T IT

You thought you were talking to me.
I had no idea who you were talking to.
Sweeney thought you were talking to him, and was VERY rude in reply.
We don't get many laughs in these threads.
Bless you both, you have brightened my day.

Now, back to the BS.
I am not sure from all your rambling posts what you are asking me.
Please put your questions in form 1, 2, 3, etc. and I will give my honest answers as best as I can.
BUT, it they are not relevant to this thread, ask them elsewhere as requested.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 05:35 AM

Hello ! I think if you care to read the above you will see that you will see Tír Chonaill and I are clearly singing from the same hymn sheet.

Really haven't seen you so cornered since you dug a hole for yourself on another thread last month !

You could always pm that couple of terminal bores who don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to Irish politics for moral support !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 05:54 AM

Question for you Tir.
Why do you say I took the thread off subject?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 07:06 AM

Because you always do it Keith !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 07:09 AM

Examples?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Fiolar
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 08:57 AM

When I was growing up in Ireland many of my neighbours and people I knew were members of what is now known as the "Old IRA". In fact my eldest uncle was one and I have still got his service medal. I even was familiar with some who took part in the Kilmichael Ambush and went to school with their children. They were ordinary decent people and the War was hardly ever discussed. Looking back it must have very difficult to take part in such an action and to leave your family open to retaliation. Not that the Tans and Auxies needed any as people who are familiar with murder of Canon Magner know.
I wonder if the IRA hadn't fought would Ireland be like it is today. Many Irishmen fought because of the propoganda given out about the rights of small nations and how the "dastardly Huns" had invaded little Belgium. Funny how the peace conference after the World War One refused to do anything about Ireland.
Lil' Kiwi" I wonder what would have happened to New Zealand if it was say a few thousand miles nearer England?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 09:02 AM

Tir, you said "it was you who took this thread off topic."

Neither you, nor the last Guest, nor anyone else has been able to back up that statement.
You have been back one day, and already you are making false accusations against me.
You and Sweeney are indeed singing from the same hymn sheet!

And what of this morning's other fibs?
The ones about the lobotomy post.
Sweeney said,"Refference was not to Tír Chonaill as you are aware"
Shame on you Sweeney.
Tir said," assumed it was you that Divis was accusing of not being possession of your full faculties."
Tut tut Tit.
That post was addressed to Guest.
And Tir said that Guest him.
No room for misunderstanding.
True to form you resort to lies to save face.
Well keep them coming boys.
Each whopper you tell sends your credibility even deeper down the Mudcat toilet.

Believe me, life is much easier when you are honest.
And sleeping too.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 09:13 AM

Good post Fiolar.
The men you speak of were brave and driven by honest conviction.
I do feel that you denigrate the WW1 volunteers.
The propaganda about what the german army did was largely true.
I am sure that Irishmen are as good as Englishmen at seeing through propaganda.
Then there was WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 09:43 AM

I am seeing someone here getting very frustrated with those around him. I also get the the image of a man who could not lie straight in bed.

Yet again you are digging a hole for yourself, get out before it caves in around you.

Listen to the above posters as I find you are deaf as far as I'm concerned.

Getting hot again today isn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 10:14 AM

I am not feeling the heat too much.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 12:44 PM

Epoma and Li Kiwi, Try Amazon for what I consider the best book of the period 1916-22, it is Ernie O`Malleys, `On another mans wound`.
The last time I went to Amazon a second hand copy was available.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 12:50 PM

Quite a bit on O`Malley, by Googling his name youcan read the book on the net, don`t forget John McGuffins account of his internment.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 05:21 PM

Fiolar please don't scare me like that! I'd much rather not think what lil' NZ would be like if we were closer to England. The 'Black & Tans' were dirty words in my Grandparents home as it is.....

Thanks for the Amazon reference ard mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 07:41 PM

Great minds, Ard! Already part of my collection.

E

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 02:57 AM

Good on you Epona and wlcome back, Lil`Kiwi the book is also on full on the net.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 08:14 AM

Thanks! Good to be back...it's like I've never left. It seems to me that before my hiatus there were a few threads in which Keith was taking a beating from the boys; I come back and see history repeating itself. Keith, I'm starting to wonder if you enjoy it... ;)

E

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Fiolar
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 08:41 AM

Another one I can reccomend is "Bloody Sunday" by James Gleason. Originally published in 1962, it was republished in 2004 in the USA. ISBN: 1-59228-282-2. Very interesting to read as Gleason's father was an RIC man and he himself was familiar with the time he covers. Available from Amazon.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 10:21 AM

Epona,
I can not remember any threads like that,
but I did enjoy the boys beating each other up yesterday!

Tir said, "Points will ve awarded for the best laughs generated."
Who's winning so far?
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 10:38 AM

Yes Epona, we all wonder why he keeps coming back for more !
It's as if he reads what isn't there and just makes up the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 11:31 AM

Keith A.Hereford. Maxine Carr, ex-girlfriend of Soham murderer Ian Huntley in living in Larne Northern Ireland with a senior Ulster Loyalist who was involved in many acts against the Nationalists in Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 11:36 AM

Why tell me, and why in this thread guest?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 11:44 AM

Keith A. Hereford because you had asked to know her whereabouts.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 12:17 PM

Guest. Think we have enough problems over here without her.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 12:24 PM

Guest, where and when did I ask?
I think that you may be delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 01:04 PM

Have a nice weekend all.
I am away for a couple of days.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 01:41 PM

Enjoy your weekend Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 01:48 PM

Thanks Sweeney.
You too.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 01:59 PM

Hey, if you're going anywhere, wear your seat belt! I saw two unbelievable traumas at work last night because these kids weren't buckled in.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Oh, and I'd say the good guys are winning... ;)

E

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,beachcomber.
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 12:05 AM

It sometimes really pisses me off to read the constant whinge of those posters who cannot see any view point other than their own.
Keith, I really do hope you are enjoying your break away from what , increasingly, appears to be your self-appointed mission to justify each and every action of your British establishment against all and any of it's former subjects who might have made efforts to gain measures of self determination.
You may not think so but we, here in Ireland as in so many other former colonies of your Empire, are now quite sophisticated enough to be able to understand that you did need to maintain the Empire, in order to maintain the standard of living that it gave you.
You, in turn, should be sophisticated enough to understand that such an arrangement is too one-sided to be acceptable for long, to a modern society. That stage had come in Ireland, even as far back as 1916.
The IRA was founded in a legitimate attempt to redress the imbalance that Imperialism was causing , socially, commercially and culturally, in Ireland.
It was opposed by Imperialism and, when the normal Imperialistic agencies (the RIC, Militias and Imperial Army) appeared to be failing to regularise matters within an acceptable timeframe, panic set in and "bully boy " tactics seemed the proper alternative for a "super power" to use.
Do not forget that the British Government saw Ireland as a part of the UK , just as much so as, Wales, Scotland or , even Lancashire and consequently attempted to redress matters by stronger policing. (Remember also that it's police force was an armed,garrisoned professional one.). We, Native Irish, on the other hand , NEVER saw ourselves as anything other than an invaded people who were determined to regain our sovreignty.
The methods we employed were in no way different than those of the British Government , then or later, to defend it's territory or, it's commercial interests, throughout it's Empire. Please do not quote Soloheadbeg or Knocklong as having been the catalysts that sparked the War of Independence. The executions of the 1916 leaders was of a far more significant nature, Indeed the deaths of some civilians after the "Howth Gun Running", at RIC hands, was probably an act that gave pause for thought to many an Irishman teethering on the brink of an involvement in his country's future.
This great emphasis on the "blood sacrifice" reputedly so beloved of Pearse , Plunkett and others is a red herring. It was merely an expression of the prevailing attitude of those times to warfare. We have only to read the poets, so revered of the era, Owem, Sassoon and our own Ledwidge on their experiences of the "Great" War. There was also an upsurge of Gaelic interest and feeling at the time, which turned many young men's ideas towards having a Gaelic country of their own. We must remember that , even though the British controlled Press said otherwise, (and still says so today) the vast majority of Rural IRA volunteers were from the ranks of the small farmers sons and the sons of shopkeepers , tradesmen and self employed. Yes propaganda was employed by both sides, as it is today, but , there is no denying that Ireland was being subjugated by an armed , occupying force, for the benefit (whatever it was) of a Great Imperial Power who considered,just as it had for many decades,that the indigenous population was an inferior race. Whatever those compelling reasons were back then, they no longer apply, and we have the situation now where this (declining though still overwhelming) power continues to prop up the pomp of a section of Irelands people.
Those who see their history as one of triumph over conquered foes. Lambeg drums and fifes, can recall the ancient victories of one section of society over another, but, they can never guarantee that this status quo can be maintained. Let us all be sensible and accept that we need to be united to succeed, Commercially, Socially and Sportingly.
Really, What would be so wrong about IRELAND as one Nation, with Protestant, Catho;ic,Dissenter, Moslem, Jew , Budhist , etc all being proud to live on this Island , together? It must happen in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,William Frazer
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 11:22 AM

Having been told about this site I cannot start to imagine how so many republicans mass together on one site under a hidden site name that is nothing more than a mouthpiece for republican murders. I have worked all my adult life to bring peace and justice to the decent people of Ulster. Clearly you have on idea of what the republicans did in Ulster. If you want to read the truth about events over the past 30 years visit our site at www.victims.org.uk and read our stories for a change. We are known as F.A.I.R. Please view and sign our guestbook on your visit.
Thank you
William Frazer

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 12:10 PM

>a href=http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=92760&messages=162#1781576>Open your eyes, Keith, for Christ sakes

2nd last, and last paragraphs...

... short attention span, Keith....

Not good...

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 12:18 PM

Hey Bill?

......................./´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........'\'...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 05:07 PM

I don't think I have ever seen a site filled with so much hate. It has worked wonders for me Mr Frazer. I previously did not fully understand what the Catholic and Republican community in Northern Ireland had to put up with. I do now. I am surprised they have shown so much restraint.

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 08:12 PM

I've had a look at that site just now. I feel exactly the same as DtG.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 08:40 PM

'we, here in Ireland as in so many other former colonies of your Empire, are now quite sophisticated enough to be able to understand that you did need to maintain the Empire, in order to maintain the standard of living that it gave you.'

I find that somewhat offensive. My mother and father both grew up in the town of St Helens, lancashire in - born 1919, an 1916 repectively. They both knew literal starvation as children. The streets in which they lived had people die of TB in every single house - theirs included. The whole town was covered literally in a pall of rain clouds containing sulphuric acid from the glass and chemical factories.

When my mother got ill with rheumatic fever as child - the only place they could send her to recuperate was her Irish family, where apparently a more wholesome diet and relatively cleaner environment was apparently still within the reach of some of the ordinary people.

having big estates over in Ireland might have benefited a few rich English bastards, but surely you are sophisticated enough to understand the folksinger Dick Gaughan's point when he wrote:-

'Irish and Scottish people are sometimes slow to recognise that the first victims of the British Empire were in fact the English people themselves.'

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 02:28 AM

Don't take these guys serious lads, they are simply crackers ! no one over here listens to them. They keep going to the government seeking funding and get chased. Most of the time they make the news here is for being caught in public toilets wearing french maid outfits and stockings (men I mean) or something with an under age kid. Yes they have a following of ex policemen or members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and individuals that have been thrown out of loyalist paramilitaires, all with a grudge. Nothing to worry about.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 04:41 AM

Regarding Families Acting for Innocent Victims (FAIR). That crew could export hate !

William Frazer and FAIR claim as a victim is Robert McConnell of the UDR (a regiment of the British Army) and the UVF (a unionist paramilitary organisations) who was charged with the the killing of the Catholic Reavey brothers in 1975. McConnell had a long sectarian history.

Frazer's web site includes reference to a speech made by Ian Paisley in which Paisley said under parliamentary privilege that Eugene Reavey, another brother of the dead Reaveys, was responsible for the Kingsmill massacre. This is a lie that Frazer and Paisley refuse to either apologise for or to delete from their sites, the police said this was rubbish.


The attack on the brothers in their home at Whitecross, Co Armagh, on January 4, 1976 and the simultaneous murder of three members of the O'Dowd family near Gilford, Co Down was believed to be done to provoke the IRA - then officially on ceasefire . William Frazer said both incidents "were no big deals" !

The attacks started the second worst annual death toll in the Troubles, with another 290 people dying before 1976 was finished.

No one has been convicted for any of these two attacks.

The 24-hour spasm of violence began with the attack on the Reavey home. Two of the brothers, John and Brian, died immediately. Their 17-year-old brother Anthony died three weeks later.

A Luger pistol and a 9mm sub-machinegun used in the murders were matched by ballistic traces to a gun and bomb attack on the Rock Bar, outside Keady, which took place five months later. One man was wounded in that attack when the bomb failed to explode.

Three serving officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were convicted in 1980 for the Rock Bar attack. One - who was already serving a life sentence for another sectarian murder.

The judge who passed sentence, the then Lord Chief Justice Lord Lowry, said "powerful motives" had pushed these officers, including "the feeling that more than ordinary police work was needed and justified to rid the land of the pestilence which has been in existence".

The RUC did not reveal the ballistic link between the Reavey murders and the Rock Bar attack for almost 25 years.

William McCaughey, the constable jailed for the Rock Bar attack, said it was "perfectly natural" for loyalists to be in the UVF and the RUC."

Fair and the DUP insist the war is not over and that the enemy can still be hunted and defeated (they sound like Keith A. of Hertford). A previous effort led by Drumcree stalwarts to rally Protestants around a new Ulster covenant was launched in Ballymena in 2001 with calls from one speaker for "B52 bombers over Dublin".

Willie Frazer said of Billy Wright the notorious unionist paramilitary and sectarian killer, "I have a lot of time for Billy Wright", because he "called a spade a spade". Presumably Wright called a taig a Fenian and vice versa, before he shot them.

At a protest against the release of republican prisoners under the Good Friday Agreement, Willie was asked about the release of loyalist unionist prisoners. Frazier said, "They should never have been locked up in the first place". Frazier said that the unionist paramilitaries were a necessary part of the 'war' against the IRA, and did a good job – which included hundreds of blatantly sectarian murders.

F.A.I.R. have not been without their own problems. Four senior members have appeared in court for either lude behaviour or acts of perversion within the last two years.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 06:03 AM

WLD - Maybe it's not just the Irish and Scottish, but the English too? For as much as I appreciate your post, I think one point is missing. It doesn't matter who the first victims were or who the last ones will be. What matters is that there were victims at all! What matters is it's an ongoing assault on people and one that many choose not to recognize and stand up against. It's been happening in Ireland for hundreds of years, in England and Scotland for the same. In the British "colonies" too. To use a line from a song that the English were perhaps the first victims of their own rulers doesn't divert attention from the fact that in every country that has tasted British rule, the citizens have been treated as less then human. And that, WLD, is the problem, regardless of who the Brits brutalized first.

This movie only showed a minute part of the what the Irish faced. There are SO MANY more stories that haven't been told, and I'm sure you've glimpsed that from some that you hear on Mudcat. What I'm asking is not for anyone to play the "who was hurt first and who suffered most" game, but for everyone here to see that there was and still is a problem and that it has to be stopped, whether it's in England, Ireland or even New Zealand. It doesn't help to say, "yes, we've been victimized. Maybe things will change." You must admit that there is a horrific abuse of power and determine IT HAS TO BE CHANGED. If not for you, for you children, for your grandchildren.   

Rant is done. Off to work.

E

And WLD, for the record, I think your parents story is just as worthy as being remembered as the story that was told in the movie. History too often forgets those not in power, so don't let anyone forget how they suffered BUT survived.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,William Frazer
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 06:53 AM

I never heard so much tripe and pro-republican guff. NO SURRENDER

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 07:43 AM

Yay! I have been posting for years that the working class and poorer English copped as much shite as the Irish and Scottish - Nice to see that at last some people are agreeing. I keep saying over and over again on various threads that the ordinary folk like you and I are not enemies. Never have been. Never will be. It is the landlords, money-men and power brokers that are causing all this grief. The sooner we stop arguing amongst ourselves and face the real problem the better off everyone will be!

Having said that (and having a love of rhetoric anyway!) I must take you up on a point, Epona. The British have not treated everyone as sub-human. By the admission of Lil' Kiwi on this thread (I think!) the Maori peoples of New Zealand have always been fairly teated and have in fact benefited from a British drawn treaty which entitled them to their own lands and stopped others invading them! Wonder what was different then? Perhaps we realy were at the zenith of our empire? Gone steadily downhill since;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 08:05 AM

Would be interesting to see if the Maori think they were always treated as equals...

E

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 08:11 AM

Don't ask me, Epona, I'm not a Kiwi. Read back up the thread and see what a native of NZ says. Speculation without the facts to confirm or deny is worthless.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 08:12 AM

Excellent points from both of you. This thread has become interesting. Once Keith re-appears i'm off !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 09:15 AM

Dave I read a book by the last of the native Tamans on the genocide which was practised by the early British settlers on the native population of Tasmania.

This lady was the last recorded native of this island, the writer states that the natives were hunted down until she was believed to be last of the aboriginal inhabitants, it was a book I found very hard to finish.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 09:36 AM

The Maori mostly have been treated equal, nowadays of course they completely are.

I think they even had the right to vote before women in a lot of countries. It certainly hasn't been perfect over the years but there is the 'Waitangi Tribunal' that is tying the loose ends up of any grievences that some Iwi (tribes) still have. That's basically a court especially for Maori affairs arising from the treaty. I might add that this treaty was actually signed by Maori chiefs and taken up and down the country for them all to consider. The Maoris leaders, NZ government and opposition are all working towards everything sorted out within the next several years at the latest (a timeframe has been offcially set but that date escapes me right now).

The cultures have integrated/assimilated and there's never really been a Maori vs. European issue as such (aside from the Land Wars I may have previously mentioned). Maori words and place names are common. Basically every major official even has Maori content with a specific protocol. Even orientation at university for example has a Maori ceremony to welcome all new students.

Our key sports teams perform the Haka before games particularly The All Blacks for example (I'm not at all a rugby fan unlike most NZers), most of us have no problems singing the Maori part of our anthem, and many Maori chose to fight in all major conflict that we have been involved in from WW1 to the present.

There's also Maori taught in schools as well as schools that are completely Maori and Maori radio stations and tv channels.

And that's all I can think of right now at 1:30am. Off to try to sleep.
Have a grand week everyone!
Lil' Kiwi x.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 09:47 AM

Ard, my ex-fiance is Tasmanian, and my mother is from mainland Australia, so I know a bit about the aboriginal people being literally hunted. They were pretty much wiped out in Tas. and not far from it on the mainland of Aussie. People would even go "abo hunting" after church on sundays! (I kid you not).

nitie nite all.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 01:54 PM

Tir Chonail,
Please take the trouble to read your own posts.
You have made another unintelligable one.
My name is mentioned but I don't know what you are saying. (12.10)

Beachcomber, in your post largely directed at me you say "Really, What would be so wrong about IRELAND as one Nation,"

It is frustrating that I am so often assumed to believe things that I have so often denied.
Many of you are shouting at an imaginary bogey man you give my name to.
AGAIN.
I am a supporter of the cause of Irish Nationalism.
Get it?
I am opposed to the paramilitaries of both sides.
I look forward to Irish unity.
This last should surprise no one. The whole population of England and Wales, and most of Scotland long for the day when NI becomes someone else's problem.
If you have been told that Britain wants to keep NI as a vestige of Empire, you have been lied to.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 04:46 PM

Dave I read a book by the last of the native Tamans on the genocide which was practised by the early British settlers on the native population of Tasmania.

Ard, exactly what has that got to do with the price of fish? Were they Maoris? Were they Irish? Why are you talking about Tasmania? Medication need adjusting perhaps?

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 05:25 PM

Hey y'all,

I have started a thread for anyone that wants to talk or ask things about NZ stuff :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,beachcomber
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 05:37 PM

Keith I am sorry if I misunderstand you but you will admit that your postings (at least those that I have read ) on the topic of Irish unity and the methods that have been employed by Irishmen to regain it, have generally been adverse. You say that you are opposed to paramilitaries of both sides. Fine, but you make no such claim concerning the activities of the "legal" paramilitaries nor, of the British Army. I include among those such as the former B-Specials, UDR and RUC , now PSNI, all of whom have been involved in "extra curricular activity" down the years.
The political path to unity was , I believe, well explored in the years up to and including WW1 only to fail under the implacable opposition of the Loyalists, Orange Order and "Covenanters". Surely that was, and still is, obvious. Even if Ian Paisley were to stand down tomorrow, can you say that the succession would not be equally against Irish Unity ?
I would like to think that unity is now a possibility but I need to hear more reassuring words from the people in the 6 counties of both sides.
What would your opinion be Divis ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 05:40 PM

Good weekend away Keith ? good post above, nice to see your views on Ireland in above post. Great to see we are starting to agree on something. So it's only me and the Provo's you don't like ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 07:43 PM

You made some very valid points there beachcomber. when you consider 27 full and part time members of the security forces were charged and jailed for the murders of innocent nationalists/Catholics. Now that's not counting those murdered by the British army including all the children they killed with plastic or rubber bullets.

When someone with reason such as yourself looks into the situation over here, you can see the roots of the problem. We did not start this, but we did rise to defend our families. Expect the usual chants from Keith, about bombs in litter bins and Warington, sometimes think he must have been here that day because he recalls it that often.

I have attended the funerals of children who were shot at point blank range with rubber bullets by the soldiers who wore the same uniform you will find him wearing in the members photos section here. Never heard him condemn that.

Anyway having lived here all my life and been subjected to the Orange jackboot in employment application and saw my fathers business burnt out because we were a catholic family living in a Protestant area when the troubles started. When the police arrived they told my father " well what you expect" When my father pointed to the ones standing yards away from him and told them they did it, he was told, sorry we didn't see it and doubt any witnesses will come forward either.

Simple as this, we would never have gained anything if it wasn't for the armed struggle. The unionists had the power and the blessing to keep nationalists in the North of Ireland under heel. The IRA campaign brought the torture to the table. I use the word torture because any catholic who lived here in the 1960's will know it as nothing else. We were not allowed to vote, we were not allowed to own houses, we were refused work because the then prime minister in Northern Ireland told protestants not to employ catholics.

Listening to the like of Keith here beachcomber rabbit on about the honour of meeting great men who served in the Paras or who the IRA killed in attacks should really just be ignored, it's rabble to me, he knows f... all about it. He said recently he was here to ensure that Divis Sweeney would never get an easy ride here ! What is supposed to make me rethink my position ?

My position is very clear and simple to understand. We fought for what we have today. Do I support the peace process ? Yes 100%. Did I support the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Yes I did and I will honour and defend every last volunteer to the day I die.


Thanks for your understanding beachcomber.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 02:55 AM

Beachcomber, I have always posted in favour of ultimate unity, i.e. when nationalists have the majority.
I have always posted against the use of political violence by all sides.
I remember describing B Specials as sectarian thugs.

Sweeney, armies make bad policemen. Putting heavily armed young men into a volatile situation leads to bad things happening.
but
British army is least worst, most restrained of all.
IRA kept army there for 30 years. IRA stopped, army left.
IRA killed HUNDREDS MORE innocents than army.
(See chart)
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html#statusperpetrator

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 03:05 AM

Sweeney,
I did post that I felt honoured to have known a man who did some extraordinarily brave things in WW2
It was in a thread about meeting war heroes.
What is your objection?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 04:44 AM

So the collusion and orange intimidation,
the plastic bullets and blatant slaying of civilians,
the protection and rewarding of their killers,
a brutally biased police force,
and the politicians holding peace to ransom,
and division and apathy long instilled...

Could only be met by peaceful means?! Yeah right.

I truly doubt how the conditions now for peace and progress could have been without those volunteers.

Even from over here I can see why they fought, and good on them. I'd certainly have done the same if I was Irish born, or faced a similar situation here in NZ.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 04:52 AM

Really don't want to know about your respect of a tosser who was part of a murder gang regiment who killed innocent people on the streets of Derry. He was in the North of Ireland in the early seventies.

I really have no desire to go into any point with you Keith here. Al tried to get you to see reason and I offered the hand of friendship, which was rejected with the reply that you were going to make sure I didn't get an easy ride on mudcat.

Go for it Keith, Game on.

Recently so many posters from all over the world have tied you in knots, and it was once pointed out to you, "You dig a hole for yourself".

Think it's best you stick with the like of Guest William Frazer above, he also honours ex soldiers.

See your back to your charts again, well it wasn't the IRA that killed members of my family Keith, it was the British security forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:04 AM

Tex Banwell
did not serve in Ireland.
Let us call that a "mistake" on your part.
Sweeney, you came to this site saying that you did not like our music but you just wanted to inform us about how good the IRA were.

Why do you deserve an easy ride?
I never start anti Republican threads, I just challenge propaganda.
And how you hate to be challenged!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:24 AM

So why did he wear a Northern Ireland bar on his GSM ????
Did they just give it to him ?

So is Mudcat police officer Keith telling me to leave this site because I am not interested in your music ?

The hole you are digging for yourself gets deeper !

No Keith it's not I hate being challenged, I just don't like the fact you call me a murderer on this site, without proof, even after the site informed you there was no proof of your allegation.

Let us call it YET another mistake on your part !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:35 AM

Read about Tex.
He was not even in the army in "early seventies" or even the sixties.
I think that you also made up me calling you a murderer.
We did have a lot of discussion around the post you made that appeared to be about killing by sniping.
The one you first apologised about, then joked about, then denied making, then accused me of making under your name.

I have never said you should be banned from the site.
We have no way of banning people anyway.
There is no reason why someone who hates folk music should not use this site as a platform for political propaganda.
There is also no reason why such a person should be given a free ride here.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:36 AM

Such a nasty welcome to new member Lil Kiwi

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:58 PM

Very sorry, one more.
You posted at 0405 local time.
Trouble sleeping?

The guy lived in New Zealand for Christ sake!

Classic Keith at his finest.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:38 AM

I see one of his obits says he served into the seventies.
I think that is a mistake, but excuses you.
I will check.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:41 AM

So are you saying he was out of the army in the early seventies ? Think you need go check your facts again Keith, it's okay I can wait.

I was invited onto this site by another member who told me about the propaganda you post, so really had to make sure people knew the truth about over here, as you will see they are if you read some of the above posts !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 06:12 AM

He left the army after the war, but served as a territorial afterwards.
I think that is where the confusion has arisen.
I have looked at a picture of his medals and can not see the GSM and clasp, but I have e mailed the museum to make sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Fiolar
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:10 AM

Came across this news item.

"Controversy surrounds the carrying of a banner commemorating a UDA killer in the Twelfth of July Orange parade in Belfast city centre. It is widely accepted that Joe Bratty, who was eventually killed by the IRA in 1994, murdered Teresa Clinton in a sectarian attack a few months earlier. He is also believed to have been involved in the murder of five Catholics in Seán Graham's Bookmakers in 1992. An Orange Order spokesman refused to comment other than to say that everything that happened on the Twelfth would be reviewed."

Nothing changes or is likely to.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:57 AM

Keith try this site,http://cryptome.org/john-dignam.zip

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 10:09 AM

guest, that is a file not a site.
I prefer not to open it, not knowing anything about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 03:40 PM

Copy & Paste the link, Keith.

Spoonfed, that's what you need to be.

Once you exhibit a bit of intelligence, I'll start to take you a bit more seriously.

You only think you are being clever, Keith.

When in fact you're being incredibly tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 03:41 PM

.... eh...

200!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 04:39 PM

Eh...201! :)

E

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:16 PM

Greetings Keith. To give you a better understanding of the people of Ulster you must look into it's history. What lies behind this new loyalist campaign, and what does it tell you Keith about how unionism is evolving in the current situation? In the first place, the symbolism of Ulster should not be missed. You are aware of the UVF's importation of German arms in 1914? One of those doing the heaving was South Belfast man called Patsy Cooper. Orange Order Grand Master Jocky Keenan was speaking at the press conference next day, was asked what he thought of Tommy Jordans participation? Bro Keenan replied that he wasn't aware of any paramilitary involvement. It must be assumed that Jocky didn't read the Whig, which the British was trying to ban from sale in Belfast at that time because of unflattering stories about the governments leadership. But still, even without the benefit of John Spellman's scandal sheet, the world and its dog know that Patsy Cooper was a leading member of the UVF. We shall return to Mr Cooper in due course Keith. Other figures in your charts Keith are not quite clear about paramilitary involvement in murders in Ireland. John McVicar of the Daily Mirror said: "The reality is that loyalist paramilitaries are part of the Protestant community. They along with a lot of other people were part of the conflict we have been involved in and they need to be part of the resolution. We have come out of 35 years of violence, things aren't going to change overnight and we need to influence everyone in our community positively and that includes loyalist paramilitaries." One of the principal spokesmen for the campaign is Willie Frazer of the group FAIR, which claims to speak for "real victims" – that is, Protestant victims of republican violence. Frazer stated that loyalist paramilitaries would be welcome at the October rally, providing they attended in a personal capacity. Under questioning, Frazer argued that the rally was all about Protestant victimhood and loyalists hadn't been killing Protestants, so that was all right then. Maybe Frazer's brass neck is inhibiting his peripheral vision – not only does he refuse to call on loyalists to end attacks on Catholics, or ethnic minorities for that matter, but he doesn't seem to have noticed that the UVF has killed four Protestants in recent months. Love Ulster, hate taigs What is the programme of Love Ulster? The special edition of the Shankill Mirror holds the key to this. One of the more eyecatching elements of the campaign has been a poster that abuses the memory of Pastor Martin Niemöller, imprisoned by the Nazis, a famous poem attributed to whom says, "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me." The Shankill Mirror transmutes this to "In the 1970s they came for the B Specials – I did nothing; in the 1980s they came for the UDR – I did nothing; in the 1990s they came for the RUC – I did nothing; 2005, and they've come for the RIR – what can I do? Just say, 'Enough is enough!'" The rest of the paper is a brilliant exhibit of whinging and paranoia. "They" get everything. The job market is rigged against us by equality legislation – in particular, Protestant small businesses aren't free to employ only Protestants. We've lost the police. We can't march through areas where we aren't wanted any more. Any reforms – even the mildest ones – are concessions to terrorism. To the extent that Catholics even appear in Love Ulster literature, it is invariably as crazed gunmen whose sole ambition is to commit genocide against Protestants who never did them any wrong – or if they did, they deserved it. What is the programme? The programme is a return to the old Stormont, except they would do it right this time. No concessions. No restrictions on discrimination. It is no coincidence that Willie Frazer is a former election candidate for the Ulster Independence Movement, a small cult that specialises in spinning fantasies about the wee Orange utopia loyalists could have if they were free of British interference. The implicit demand for a return to an all-Protestant police force shows an acute understanding of the nature of the Northern statelet. The RUC played a double role, not just in repressing the Catholic minority, but in providing social employment for unskilled Protestants. This is why the 50/50 recruitment policy recommended in the Patten report and adopted in a watered-down form by the British – the age cohort for police recruitment is 50/50, after all – has been a persistent target of unionist wrath. In fact, there is a popular urban myth doing the rounds in middle-class unionist areas to the effect that a friend of a friend's son passed the police exam with flying colours, but didn't get a job because he was Protestant. The story usually ends with a senior officer taking the kid aside and saying that he would love to have him in the force, but this quota... The triple alliance The launch of Love Ulster has met with a cautious response from the two main unionist parties. However, there is little doubt that if the campaign picked up significant support they would jump on the bandwagon – some low-level DUP people are already involved. After all, the content of Love Ulster, from the whinging over minimal police reforms to the lying about levels of deprivation, derives directly from unionism's arsenal of grievances. And the 10-day loyalist riot in September merely underlined the close connections binding the unionist parties, the Orange Order and the paramilitaries – from the provocation of the Springfield Road march by the Orange, to the heavy involvement of the paramilitaries in the rioting, to the cover provided by respectable politicians in both the DUP and UUP. The triple alliance of the parties, the Orange and the paramilitaries has come to the fore on innumerable occasions in recent years. But, while the presence of bands with paramilitary links on Orange marches is plain to see, the constant apologetics for armed loyalism by respectable politicians, displaying their symbiotic relationship, is too often ignored. The Holy Cross affair in 1998 was a clear instance. The roots of Holy Cross lay in the expulsion of UDA members from the Lower Shankill by the UVF in a paramilitary feud. These UDA men then settled in the Glenbryn estate and sought to flex their muscles, their chosen vehicle being the mass intimidation of Catholic children walking to school. This action was defended – or, what amounts to the same thing, explained away – by politicians of both UUP and DUP. Chris McGimpsey, a supposed UUP "liberal", was prominent among those saying that the small Catholic schoolgirls walking to their school were provocative; the same Chris McGimpsey sees nothing provocative in Orangemen, accompanied by paramilitary flute bands, marching through Catholic areas. There have been other examples. The racist pogrom against the Chinese community in South Belfast in 2003-04 appears to have started as a dispute between the Donegall Road UVF and the local Chinese business community, who had put up some resistance to extortion demands. The UDA, not to be outdone, got stuck in as well, not just on the level of violence but with the production of the notorious "Yellow Invasion" leaflet circulated in Donegall Pass. There have been few charges and virtually no convictions resulting from the pogrom, with hardly anybody willing to blame the perpetrators and even anti-racist campaigners spinning the fantasy that English Nazis were responsible for racist attacks in loyalist-controlled areas. Again, the political wing of the triple alliance played its role. DUP councillor Ruth Patterson opined that residents of Donegall Pass felt the Protestant character of their area was under threat. How that was possible when the local Chinese population had gone from over forty families to under ten due to loyalist intimidation, she did not say. Meanwhile, liberal unionist poster boy Steven King argued that to blame loyalists was to smear the entire Protestant community, and speculated about whether the Chinese were entirely innocent. The racist pogrom was followed in short order by mass intimidation aimed at the Whitehall Square flats complex at the top of the UDA stronghold of Sandy Row. This culminated in several hundred people, including bands, marching on the flats in a clear UDA show of strength. The young population of the complex may include some Catholics – nobody knows its sectarian makeup, which infuriates the loyalists even more. The UDA's action was publicly defended by UUP liberal Michael McGimpsey, who claimed the paramilitary demonstration was a spontaneous expression of concern by Sandy Row residents. Furthermore, McGimpsey claimed that anyone who attributed a sectarian motivation to the intimidators was an anti-Protestant bigot. He sought to back up his position by recycling various urban myths – some wee woman told him a young lad on a flats balcony had shouted at her; somebody else claimed to have seen someone in a Celtic jersey on a balcony. This, on Planet McGimpsey, was proof positive of sustained republican provocation which had sparked off an understandable and moderate reaction by respectable Protestants. Sandy Row and the anti-Chinese pogrom are worth mentioning as they took place in the South Belfast fiefdom of Jackie McDonald, who is currently being built up as the acceptable face of the UDA. McDonald is said to be on first-name terms with Free State president Mary McAleese and regularly plays golf with her husband. More importantly, he is being heavily courted by both London and Dublin governments, to the extent that he could be described as British imperialism and Irish capital's favourite paramilitary. But as we have seen, touting of McDonald as a loyalist Mr Clean is some considerable way wide of the mark. It seems more likely that he is being built up because of his political usefulness than any intrinsic merits he might have. British policy and loyalism There have been a number of strands to British policy, and they have not always sat together harmoniously. For the last ten years, for instance, the Northern Ireland Office has been attempting to encourage the growth of a loyalist equivalent to Sinn Fein. This scheme has been almost a complete failure – the loyalist groups have never managed to create a political wing that even their own members would take seriously, let alone that significant numbers of people would support. In the early 1970s, during a time of massive sectarian polarisation, UDA-sponsored candidates in hardline areas like Sandy Row would routinely poll fewer votes than the UDA had members in the area. Even in the mid-1990s, huge amounts of sympathetic press coverage could not create a mass electoral base for the death squads. The few paramilitary-linked figures who were elected to local councils or Stormont were invariably people with a record of activism around bread-and-butter issues in deprived areas – candidates who were seen as simply paramilitary frontmen received derisory votes. But in recent years even this limited base has largely evaporated. The UDA has bowed to the inevitable and dissolved its front party, the UDP. The UVF-linked PUP has lost much of its support, and is rapidly succumbing to the Paisleyite tide. It was instructive that in the recent local elections, the DUP polled over two thirds of the vote on the Shankill Road while the PUP's Hughie Smyth, who once had the highest personal vote of any councillor in the North, could only scrape back to City Hall on DUP transfers. The mathematics only confirm the underlying political trend, that the programme of Paisley is now the programme of unionism as a whole. The PUP's fake "socialism" – so much ballyhooed by the more gormless elements of the far left – was always trumped in any case by its commitment to remaining part of the "unionist family", and, having provided the muscle for Trimble and got precious little in return, it is now somewhat grumpily adapting to the new Paisleyite dispensation. This is not to say that the loyalist paramilitary groups themselves, as distinct from their satellite parties, have not prospered under the Good Friday process. Both of the main groups, but particularly the UDA, have been in receipt of vast sums of British government money in the guise of community development. Meanwhile, the UDA and UVF have recruited massively, using the flute band culture to bring in an entire layer of youth (paramilitary-linked bands also forming a crucial part of the alliance with the Orange Order). They have extended their empires into small towns and villages with no history of paramilitary activity – most notably the UVF in North Antrim towns like Dervock, Bushmills and Ahoghill, which forms the immediate background to the recent sectarian pogrom in the area. People in these North Antrim towns might like to look at the heroin epidemic in nearby Ballymena as a harbinger of what the UVF's expansion is going to bring them. But while the British have aided the expansion of these organisations, this expansion also poses problems for them. The essential features of armed loyalism – bigotry, criminality and indiscriminate violence – have by no means abated over the past decade. As a result, the security apparatus has been preoccupied with managing loyalism. This has intersected with the need to either protect their assets within loyalism – or liquidate them if they go rogue. A definite pointer to British policy is the list of figures targeted by the Assets Recovery Agency. While the UDA's North Belfast boss Andre Shoukri flaunts his wealth despite never having worked a day in his life, the ARA's targets are marginal figures, dead men and people connected to the LVF. This last group is too small to be useful to the British, but significant and active enough to be an embarrassment, which would explain why the British are apparently happy enough to let the UVF wipe it out. The support being extended to the UDA may well flow from a "balance of terror" theory, according to which the UVF should be prevented from becoming the hegemonic loyalist group. It is worth pointing out that, in defiance of its own monitoring commission, the British government continues to recognise the UDA's non-existent ceasefire. Fall of the godfathers These military considerations, taken along with the fact that the loyalist groups are riddled with informers, help to shed some light on the sudden falls from grace of prominent figures in the murky world of paramilitarism. The late Billy Wright is a case in point. The charismatic Wright – mass murderer, drug dealer, born-again Christian, Orangeman and almost certainly a British agent – was responsible for the indiscriminate slaughter of dozens of Catholics in the Portadown area for many years. For most of this time he and his Mid-Ulster UVF appeared untouchable. Then, following the Good Friday Agreement, Wright denounced the peace process and split from the Shankill-based leadership of the UVF – who he described, incredibly, as "communists" – to form the small but vicious LVF. Wright expressed his support for the analysis of the DUP, who reciprocated by defending him against threats from the UVF. Following this, Wright was convicted of intimidation – which calls to mind Al Capone's imprisonment on tax evasion charges – and then assassinated in prison under dubious circumstances. Then there was Johnny Adair, UDA boss of the Shankill. Adair, like his friend Wright, was untouchable. Then in 1995 he was convicted of "directing terrorism", an offence specifically designed to put him behind bars. Quickly, however, he became useful to the British in their efforts to keep the UDA on side – he was visited in prison by secretary of state Mo Mowlam and freed in 1999. Eventually, however, he got to be too much of a loose cannon for the British. Coincidentally, he had also made many enemies by his megalomaniac attempt to make himself supreme leader of the UDA, expanding his empire by putting the Shoukri brothers in charge of North Belfast and cutting into other bosses' fiefdoms. This ended with the assassination of the UDA's East Antrim leader John Gregg. In 2003 the British returned him to prison, whereupon the UDA majority – now including the Shoukris, who were smart enough to see which way the wind was blowing – moved into the Shankill, kicked out Adair's family and closest associates, and took over his empire. Adair is now free again, but exiled in England. Most recently we have seen the UDA's murder of Jim Gray, formerly the organisation's leader in East Belfast for 14 years. The media coverage, in true Sunday World fashion, has concentrated on the flamboyant Gray's love of chunky gold jewellery and pastel knitwear. But there is much more to it than that. Gray, who was never convicted of any offence despite his very public role in the UDA, became a key figure in the Good Friday process. He made several trips to Stormont to meet successive British proconsuls, and fronted up a UDA PR exercise called the John Gregg Initiative. Then, in March 2005, he suddenly fell from grace and lost his position in the UDA. This was immediately followed by two noteworthy statements – one from Jackie McDonald stating that the UDA wouldn't tolerate criminality in the ranks, and another from the Assets Recovery Agency that they were investigating Gray. The ARA investigation was generally taken as a reason for his fall, but the other way around is a more likely sequence. Now Gray is dead, gunned down outside his home while apparently under 24-hour police surveillance. Why British strategy won't work Britain's immediate plans regarding the UDA are clear. Proconsul Hain, while announcing drastic cuts in the public sector in the North, has made it clear that big sums – £200 million has been mentioned – will be available to help loyalism "take the political road". The money is being dressed up as going to regenerate poverty-stricken loyalist areas, but it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines. The Provos have surrendered. The UDA will now be aided to legitimise its business interests, provided it can stop the more blatant criminality – such as its heavy dependence on drug dealing, pimping and protection rackets – while ridding itself of some of its more outré characters. Then if the UVF can be persuaded to follow suit, the North will be pacified. There will be lavish rewards for those who play ball. That's the plan. It won't work, for two reasons. First, it depends on the assumption that the UDA will clean itself up and stay on the straight and narrow. This is rather unlikely. Paradoxically, the Provos have been easier to buy off because they were less corrupt. Although they always had an element of corruption, this was relatively minor and subordinated to their political goals – the racket served the movement and not vice versa. So once the Provos had surrendered politically, the legitimisation of their assets and winding down of paramilitary structures – what is currently going on – was relatively straightforward. By contrast, criminality is so much part of the essence of the loyalist groups that the chances of them going straight are minimal. The more important point is linked to Britain's overall strategy. What do the British want? They want the North stabilised, but they don't want just any stability. They want to keep partition as well – this is also the programme of Dublin, hence the defeat of the Provos, who had no defence against Southern capital. They need to incorporate the Catholic middle class as a bulwark against a resurgence of anti-imperialist politics. But the nature of the Northern statelet means that any stabilisation must rest on unionism, as Britain's popular base in the North. This gives us the outline of British strategy since Sunningdale in 1973. The SDLP – both the party of the Catholic middle class and an instrument of the Dublin government – was always reliably on side, as was the NIO's front organisation, the small Alliance Party. The need was for a moderate unionism to cut a deal with the Catholic middle class. The trouble with that scenario is that unionism is not so much a political movement as a conspiracy to defend sectarian privilege. You can't have a moderate unionism for the same reason you can't have a liberal Pope. In the world of unionism the biggest bigot always wins. So we have had a succession of unlikely figures, from Brian Faulkner to David Trimble, painted up as great moderates only to be overthrown from the right. The impasse of unionism Now we have a situation where the DUP forms the leadership of unionism. This puts paid to the search for moderates who could "consolidate the centre". Instead, we have somewhat desperate talk about a "pragmatic" wing of the DUP – people like Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds – who, unlike the arch-bigot Paisley, might be willing to do business with Catholics. This is a wild misreading of the situation. In the first place, Peter Robinson already had a chance to modernise when he, along with the late Harold McCusker MP and UUP officer Wee Frankie Millar (son of legendary Belfast councillor Big Frankie) produced the Task Force report in 1987. This document was suppressed by party leaders Jim Molyneaux and Ian Paisley, on the reasonable grounds that modernising unionism was a dead end. What we have we hold. Shortly afterwards, McCusker died, Millar left politics for journalism, and Robinson has never said another word about it. This is the point about accommodating Catholics. Catholics always had a place under the old Stormont, only a subordinate one. As Lord Kilclooney has said, Catholics could have rights but not equal rights. There can't be – as Love Ulster is demanding – a return to unalloyed supremacism because some crucial things have changed since 1967. Most crucially, the Catholic population is much more assertive and much larger. Unionism can't impose its will on a 45% minority as it could on a 30% minority. The more intelligent Paisleyites – Robinson and Dodds among them – recognise this, but don't have a solution. Britain's approach at the moment has been to hand the DUP various goodies that don't matter much in the scheme of things. Big Ian has been made a privy councillor and the DUP is getting seats in Blair's appointed House of Lords. The DUP is also getting extra seats on the Policing Board, an oversight body with few teeth but many opportunities for grandstanding. But this doesn't go anywhere towards the DUP programme. As DUP MP Gregory Campbell pointed out in an important statement, the DUP welcomed these goodies but wanted movement on crucial issues like parades, jobs and policing. Campbell's position could be translated as follows. Exempting Orange halls from rates is all very well, but we want the Parades Commission scrapped and the right to march through Catholic areas guaranteed. We want the Fair Employment Act scrapped and measures put in place to restore Protestant privilege in the job market. And extra seats on the Policing Board are fine, but what we really want is an end to 50/50 recruitment and a return to an all-Protestant police force. The impasse is clear. The DUP can't impose their programme on the British, and the British can't implement the DUP programme without endangering the stability they desperately want. But British policy depends on keeping their loyalist base loyal, which is why the post-Good Friday process keeps being shifted to the right. It is quite obvious that there can be no solution within this process. The defeat of reactionary unionism is the precondition for any kind of political progress that benefits working people. Keith you have cliamed here you will make a stand against republicianism and I like many other are grateful. GOD SAVE ULSTER AND OUR QUEEN.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:43 AM

Perhaps my posts are too short.
I do argue against violent Republicanism, and I would argue against violent Loyalism too if anyone here proposed it.
But they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:57 AM

Tir
I pasted your url into my address box and it did not work.
I am no expert in IT.
I am not prepared to make further effort and doubt anyone else will.
You show contempt for forum users by leaving it like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:58 AM

Paragraphs, Guest, paragraphs.

I am just a thick nome - can't read whole tracts without it being broken up. I think one or two others may be the same:-)

Tír Chonaill. I don't think Keith was complaining about the lack of a dynamic link. I think he is as computer literate as the next man. What he said was it is not a link - it is a file. Which it is. If you would care to look rather than just have a go at him whatever he does you will notice it ends '.zip' rather than '.htm' or '.html'.

I don't think I would download and open a file from someone I don't know and is obviously at odds with my postings either.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:07 AM

Please Guest I too favour paragraphs.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:27 AM

The price of fame can be high Keith. You seem to attract the wrong sort of fan ! I never read such a load of long winded crap in my life Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:17 AM

Greetings Keith. To give you a better understanding of the people of Ulster you must look into it's history.

What lies behind this new loyalist campaign, and what does it tell you Keith about how unionism is evolving in the current situation? In the first place, the symbolism of Ulster should not be missed. You are aware of the UVF's importation of German arms in 1914? One of those doing the heaving was South Belfast man called Patsy Cooper. Orange Order Grand Master Jocky Keenan was speaking at the press conference next day, was asked what he thought of Tommy Jordans participation? Bro Keenan replied that he wasn't aware of any paramilitary involvement. It must be assumed that Jocky didn't read the Whig, which the British was trying to ban from sale in Belfast at that time because of unflattering stories about the governments leadership. But still, even without the benefit of John Spellman's scandal sheet, the world and its dog know that Patsy Cooper was a leading member of the UVF. We shall return to Mr Cooper in due course Keith.


Other figures in your charts Keith are not quite clear about paramilitary involvement in murders in Ireland. John McVicar of the Daily Mirror said: "The reality is that loyalist paramilitaries are part of the Protestant community. They along with a lot of other people were part of the conflict we have been involved in and they need to be part of the resolution. We have come out of 35 years of violence, things aren't going to change overnight and we need to influence everyone in our community positively and that includes loyalist paramilitaries." One of the principal spokesmen for the campaign is Willie Frazer of the group FAIR, which claims to speak for "real victims" – that is, Protestant victims of republican violence. Frazer stated that loyalist paramilitaries would be welcome at the October rally, providing they attended in a personal capacity. Under questioning, Frazer argued that the rally was all about Protestant victimhood and loyalists hadn't been killing Protestants, so that was all right then. Maybe Frazer's brass neck is inhibiting his peripheral vision – not only does he refuse to call on loyalists to end attacks on Catholics, or ethnic minorities for that matter, but he doesn't seem to have noticed that the UVF has killed four Protestants in recent months.



Love Ulster, hate taigs What is the programme of Love Ulster? The special edition of the Shankill Mirror holds the key to this. One of the more eyecatching elements of the campaign has been a poster that abuses the memory of Pastor Martin Niemöller, imprisoned by the Nazis, a famous poem attributed to whom says, "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me." The Shankill Mirror transmutes this to "In the 1970s they came for the B Specials – I did nothing; in the 1980s they came for the UDR – I did nothing; in the 1990s they came for the RUC – I did nothing; 2005, and they've come for the RIR – what can I do? Just say, 'Enough is enough!'" The rest of the paper is a brilliant exhibit of whinging and paranoia. "They" get everything. The job market is rigged against us by equality legislation – in particular, Protestant small businesses aren't free to employ only Protestants.



We've lost the police. We can't march through areas where we aren't wanted any more. Any reforms – even the mildest ones – are concessions to terrorism. To the extent that Catholics even appear in Love Ulster literature, it is invariably as crazed gunmen whose sole ambition is to commit genocide against Protestants who never did them any wrong – or if they did, they deserved it. What is the programme? The programme is a return to the old Stormont, except they would do it right this time. No concessions. No restrictions on discrimination. It is no coincidence that Willie Frazer is a former election candidate for the Ulster Independence Movement, a small cult that specialises in spinning fantasies about the wee Orange utopia loyalists could have if they were free of British interference. The implicit demand for a return to an all-Protestant police force shows an acute understanding of the nature of the Northern statelet.


The RUC played a double role, not just in repressing the Catholic minority, but in providing social employment for unskilled Protestants. This is why the 50/50 recruitment policy recommended in the Patten report and adopted in a watered-down form by the British – the age cohort for police recruitment is 50/50, after all – has been a persistent target of unionist wrath. In fact, there is a popular urban myth doing the rounds in middle-class unionist areas to the effect that a friend of a friend's son passed the police exam with flying colours, but didn't get a job because he was Protestant. The story usually ends with a senior officer taking the kid aside and saying that he would love to have him in the force, but this quota... The triple alliance The launch of Love Ulster has met with a cautious response from the two main unionist parties. However, there is little doubt that if the campaign picked up significant support they would jump on the bandwagon – some low-level DUP people are already involved. After all, the content of Love Ulster, from the whinging over minimal police reforms to the lying about levels of deprivation, derives directly from unionism's arsenal of grievances. And the 10-day loyalist riot in September merely underlined the close connections binding the unionist parties, the Orange Order and the paramilitaries – from the provocation of the Springfield Road march by the Orange, to the heavy involvement of the paramilitaries in the rioting, to the cover provided by respectable politicians in both the DUP and UUP.



The triple alliance of the parties, the Orange and the paramilitaries has come to the fore on innumerable occasions in recent years. But, while the presence of bands with paramilitary links on Orange marches is plain to see, the constant apologetics for armed loyalism by respectable politicians, displaying their symbiotic relationship, is too often ignored. The Holy Cross affair in 1998 was a clear instance. The roots of Holy Cross lay in the expulsion of UDA members from the Lower Shankill by the UVF in a paramilitary feud. These UDA men then settled in the Glenbryn estate and sought to flex their muscles, their chosen vehicle being the mass intimidation of Catholic children walking to school. This action was defended – or, what amounts to the same thing, explained away – by politicians of both UUP and DUP. Chris McGimpsey, a supposed UUP "liberal", was prominent among those saying that the small Catholic schoolgirls walking to their school were provocative; the same Chris McGimpsey sees nothing provocative in Orangemen, accompanied by paramilitary flute bands, marching through Catholic areas. There have been other examples. The racist pogrom against the Chinese community in South Belfast in 2003-04 appears to have started as a dispute between the Donegall Road UVF and the local Chinese business community, who had put up some resistance to extortion demands.


The UDA, not to be outdone, got stuck in as well, not just on the level of violence but with the production of the notorious "Yellow Invasion" leaflet circulated in Donegall Pass. There have been few charges and virtually no convictions resulting from the pogrom, with hardly anybody willing to blame the perpetrators and even anti-racist campaigners spinning the fantasy that English Nazis were responsible for racist attacks in loyalist-controlled areas. Again, the political wing of the triple alliance played its role. DUP councillor Ruth Patterson opined that residents of Donegall Pass felt the Protestant character of their area was under threat. How that was possible when the local Chinese population had gone from over forty families to under ten due to loyalist intimidation, she did not say. Meanwhile, liberal unionist poster boy Steven King argued that to blame loyalists was to smear the entire Protestant community, and speculated about whether the Chinese were entirely innocent.



The racist pogrom was followed in short order by mass intimidation aimed at the Whitehall Square flats complex at the top of the UDA stronghold of Sandy Row. This culminated in several hundred people, including bands, marching on the flats in a clear UDA show of strength. The young population of the complex may include some Catholics – nobody knows its sectarian makeup, which infuriates the loyalists even more. The UDA's action was publicly defended by UUP liberal Michael McGimpsey, who claimed the paramilitary demonstration was a spontaneous expression of concern by Sandy Row residents. Furthermore, McGimpsey claimed that anyone who attributed a sectarian motivation to the intimidators was an anti-Protestant bigot. He sought to back up his position by recycling various urban myths – some wee woman told him a young lad on a flats balcony had shouted at her; somebody else claimed to have seen someone in a Celtic jersey on a balcony. This, on Planet McGimpsey, was proof positive of sustained republican provocation which had sparked off an understandable and moderate reaction by respectable Protestants.



Sandy Row and the anti-Chinese pogrom are worth mentioning as they took place in the South Belfast fiefdom of Jackie McDonald, who is currently being built up as the acceptable face of the UDA. McDonald is said to be on first-name terms with Free State president Mary McAleese and regularly plays golf with her husband. More importantly, he is being heavily courted by both London and Dublin governments, to the extent that he could be described as British imperialism and Irish capital's favourite paramilitary. But as we have seen, touting of McDonald as a loyalist Mr Clean is some considerable way wide of the mark. It seems more likely that he is being built up because of his political usefulness than any intrinsic merits he might have. British policy and loyalism There have been a number of strands to British policy, and they have not always sat together harmoniously. For the last ten years, for instance, the Northern Ireland Office has been attempting to encourage the growth of a loyalist equivalent to Sinn Fein. This scheme has been almost a complete failure – the loyalist groups have never managed to create a political wing that even their own members would take seriously, let alone that significant numbers of people would support. In the early 1970s, during a time of massive sectarian polarisation, UDA-sponsored candidates in hardline areas like Sandy Row would routinely poll fewer votes than the UDA had members in the area. Even in the mid-1990s, huge amounts of sympathetic press coverage could not create a mass electoral base for the death squads.



The few paramilitary-linked figures who were elected to local councils or Stormont were invariably people with a record of activism around bread-and-butter issues in deprived areas – candidates who were seen as simply paramilitary frontmen received derisory votes. But in recent years even this limited base has largely evaporated. The UDA has bowed to the inevitable and dissolved its front party, the UDP. The UVF-linked PUP has lost much of its support, and is rapidly succumbing to the Paisleyite tide. It was instructive that in the recent local elections, the DUP polled over two thirds of the vote on the Shankill Road while the PUP's Hughie Smyth, who once had the highest personal vote of any councillor in the North, could only scrape back to City Hall on DUP transfers. The mathematics only confirm the underlying political trend, that the programme of Paisley is now the programme of unionism as a whole. The PUP's fake "socialism" – so much ballyhooed by the more gormless elements of the far left – was always trumped in any case by its commitment to remaining part of the "unionist family", and, having provided the muscle for Trimble and got precious little in return, it is now somewhat grumpily adapting to the new Paisleyite dispensation.



This is not to say that the loyalist paramilitary groups themselves, as distinct from their satellite parties, have not prospered under the Good Friday process. Both of the main groups, but particularly the UDA, have been in receipt of vast sums of British government money in the guise of community development. Meanwhile, the UDA and UVF have recruited massively, using the flute band culture to bring in an entire layer of youth (paramilitary-linked bands also forming a crucial part of the alliance with the Orange Order). They have extended their empires into small towns and villages with no history of paramilitary activity – most notably the UVF in North Antrim towns like Dervock, Bushmills and Ahoghill, which forms the immediate background to the recent sectarian pogrom in the area. People in these North Antrim towns might like to look at the heroin epidemic in nearby Ballymena as a harbinger of what the UVF's expansion is going to bring them. But while the British have aided the expansion of these organisations, this expansion also poses problems for them. The essential features of armed loyalism – bigotry, criminality and indiscriminate violence – have by no means abated over the past decade. As a result, the security apparatus has been preoccupied with managing loyalism.



This has intersected with the need to either protect their assets within loyalism – or liquidate them if they go rogue. A definite pointer to British policy is the list of figures targeted by the Assets Recovery Agency. While the UDA's North Belfast boss Andre Shoukri flaunts his wealth despite never having worked a day in his life, the ARA's targets are marginal figures, dead men and people connected to the LVF. This last group is too small to be useful to the British, but significant and active enough to be an embarrassment, which would explain why the British are apparently happy enough to let the UVF wipe it out. The support being extended to the UDA may well flow from a "balance of terror" theory, according to which the UVF should be prevented from becoming the hegemonic loyalist group. It is worth pointing out that, in defiance of its own monitoring commission, the British government continues to recognise the UDA's non-existent ceasefire.



Fall of the godfathers These military considerations, taken along with the fact that the loyalist groups are riddled with informers, help to shed some light on the sudden falls from grace of prominent figures in the murky world of paramilitarism. The late Billy Wright is a case in point. The charismatic Wright – mass murderer, drug dealer, born-again Christian, Orangeman and almost certainly a British agent – was responsible for the indiscriminate slaughter of dozens of Catholics in the Portadown area for many years. For most of this time he and his Mid-Ulster UVF appeared untouchable. Then, following the Good Friday Agreement, Wright denounced the peace process and split from the Shankill-based leadership of the UVF – who he described, incredibly, as "communists" – to form the small but vicious LVF. Wright expressed his support for the analysis of the DUP, who reciprocated by defending him against threats from the UVF.



Following this, Wright was convicted of intimidation – which calls to mind Al Capone's imprisonment on tax evasion charges – and then assassinated in prison under dubious circumstances. Then there was Johnny Adair, UDA boss of the Shankill. Adair, like his friend Wright, was untouchable. Then in 1995 he was convicted of "directing terrorism", an offence specifically designed to put him behind bars. Quickly, however, he became useful to the British in their efforts to keep the UDA on side – he was visited in prison by secretary of state Mo Mowlam and freed in 1999. Eventually, however, he got to be too much of a loose cannon for the British. Coincidentally, he had also made many enemies by his megalomaniac attempt to make himself supreme leader of the UDA, expanding his empire by putting the Shoukri brothers in charge of North Belfast and cutting into other bosses' fiefdoms. This ended with the assassination of the UDA's East Antrim leader John Gregg.



In 2003 the British returned him to prison, whereupon the UDA majority – now including the Shoukris, who were smart enough to see which way the wind was blowing – moved into the Shankill, kicked out Adair's family and closest associates, and took over his empire. Adair is now free again, but exiled in England. Most recently we have seen the UDA's murder of Jim Gray, formerly the organisation's leader in East Belfast for 14 years. The media coverage, in true Sunday World fashion, has concentrated on the flamboyant Gray's love of chunky gold jewellery and pastel knitwear. But there is much more to it than that. Gray, who was never convicted of any offence despite his very public role in the UDA, became a key figure in the Good Friday process. He made several trips to Stormont to meet successive British proconsuls, and fronted up a UDA PR exercise called the John Gregg Initiative. Then, in March 2005, he suddenly fell from grace and lost his position in the UDA. This was immediately followed by two noteworthy statements – one from Jackie McDonald stating that the UDA wouldn't tolerate criminality in the ranks, and another from the Assets Recovery Agency that they were investigating Gray.



The ARA investigation was generally taken as a reason for his fall, but the other way around is a more likely sequence. Now Gray is dead, gunned down outside his home while apparently under 24-hour police surveillance. Why British strategy won't work Britain's immediate plans regarding the UDA are clear. Proconsul Hain, while announcing drastic cuts in the public sector in the North, has made it clear that big sums – £200 million has been mentioned – will be available to help loyalism "take the political road". The money is being dressed up as going to regenerate poverty-stricken loyalist areas, but it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines. The Provos have surrendered. The UDA will now be aided to legitimise its business interests, provided it can stop the more blatant criminality – such as its heavy dependence on drug dealing, pimping and protection rackets – while ridding itself of some of its more outré characters. Then if the UVF can be persuaded to follow suit, the North will be pacified. There will be lavish rewards for those who play ball. That's the plan. It won't work, for two reasons. First, it depends on the assumption that the UDA will clean itself up and stay on the straight and narrow. This is rather unlikely. Paradoxically, the Provos have been easier to buy off because they were less corrupt. Although they always had an element of corruption, this was relatively minor and subordinated to their political goals – the racket served the movement and not vice versa. So once the Provos had surrendered politically, the legitimisation of their assets and winding down of paramilitary structures – what is currently going on – was relatively straightforward. By contrast, criminality is so much part of the essence of the loyalist groups that the chances of them going straight are minimal.



The more important point is linked to Britain's overall strategy. What do the British want? They want the North stabilised, but they don't want just any stability. They want to keep partition as well – this is also the programme of Dublin, hence the defeat of the Provos, who had no defence against Southern capital. They need to incorporate the Catholic middle class as a bulwark against a resurgence of anti-imperialist politics. But the nature of the Northern statelet means that any stabilisation must rest on unionism, as Britain's popular base in the North. This gives us the outline of British strategy since Sunningdale in 1973. The SDLP – both the party of the Catholic middle class and an instrument of the Dublin government – was always reliably on side, as was the NIO's front organisation, the small Alliance Party. The need was for a moderate unionism to cut a deal with the Catholic middle class. The trouble with that scenario is that unionism is not so much a political movement as a conspiracy to defend sectarian privilege.




You can't have a moderate unionism for the same reason you can't have a liberal Pope. In the world of unionism the biggest bigot always wins. So we have had a succession of unlikely figures, from Brian Faulkner to David Trimble, painted up as great moderates only to be overthrown from the right. The impasse of unionism Now we have a situation where the DUP forms the leadership of unionism. This puts paid to the search for moderates who could "consolidate the centre". Instead, we have somewhat desperate talk about a "pragmatic" wing of the DUP – people like Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds – who, unlike the arch-bigot Paisley, might be willing to do business with Catholics. This is a wild misreading of the situation. In the first place, Peter Robinson already had a chance to modernise when he, along with the late Harold McCusker MP and UUP officer Wee Frankie Millar (son of legendary Belfast councillor Big Frankie) produced the Task Force report in 1987.



This document was suppressed by party leaders Jim Molyneaux and Ian Paisley, on the reasonable grounds that modernising unionism was a dead end. What we have we hold. Shortly afterwards, McCusker died, Millar left politics for journalism, and Robinson has never said another word about it. This is the point about accommodating Catholics. Catholics always had a place under the old Stormont, only a subordinate one. As Lord Kilclooney has said, Catholics could have rights but not equal rights. There can't be – as Love Ulster is demanding – a return to unalloyed supremacism because some crucial things have changed since 1967. Most crucially, the Catholic population is much more assertive and much larger. Unionism can't impose its will on a 45% minority as it could on a 30% minority. The more intelligent Paisleyites – Robinson and Dodds among them – recognise this, but don't have a solution. Britain's approach at the moment has been to hand the DUP various goodies that don't matter much in the scheme of things. Big Ian has been made a privy councillor and the DUP is getting seats in Blair's appointed House of Lords. The DUP is also getting extra seats on the Policing Board, an oversight body with few teeth but many opportunities for grandstanding. But this doesn't go anywhere towards the DUP programme.



As DUP MP Gregory Campbell pointed out in an important statement, the DUP welcomed these goodies but wanted movement on crucial issues like parades, jobs and policing. Campbell's position could be translated as follows. Exempting Orange halls from rates is all very well, but we want the Parades Commission scrapped and the right to march through Catholic areas guaranteed. We want the Fair Employment Act scrapped and measures put in place to restore Protestant privilege in the job market. And extra seats on the Policing Board are fine, but what we really want is an end to 50/50 recruitment and a return to an all-Protestant police force. The impasse is clear. The DUP can't impose their programme on the British, and the British can't implement the DUP programme without endangering the stability they desperately want. But British policy depends on keeping their loyalist base loyal, which is why the post-Good Friday process keeps being shifted to the right. It is quite obvious that there can be no solution within this process. The defeat of reactionary unionism is the precondition for any kind of political progress that benefits working people.


Keith you have cliamed here you will make a stand against republicianism and I like many other are grateful.


GOD SAVE ULSTER AND OUR QUEEN.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 08:46 AM

sweeney,
Re Tex Banwell.
I have spoken to a man who was in the terrirorials with Tex in the early 50s. His regular army service was over by then.
Re your post 05.24 on 24th

"So why did he wear a Northern Ireland bar on his GSM ????
Did they just give it to him ?"
Completely false

Re your post 04.52 on 24th

"He was in the North of Ireland in the early seventies."
Completely false.

Your descents into dishonesty devalue your cause Sweeney.

You call Banwell a tosser, so you consider yourself a better man.
This is what the
New York Times said about Tex.
Make your own judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 09:17 AM

What you spoke to another terrirorial, that says it all !

Read below

Sergeant Keith D. Banwell

Tex Banwell joined the British Army and served with the Coldstream Guards with whom he saw action against the Pathans and Kashmiries,


BLA BLA BLA..........



Returning home, Banwell continued to serve in the army until during the 1970's, and was likely to have been amongst Britain's most senior parachutists. At the 25th anniversary of Arnhem in 1969, Banwell stood alongside present day paratroopers in a Dakota and jumped once more over Ginkel Heath, formerly DZ-Y. It was his 650th jump, and far from his last because he felt the experience of parachuting kept him "mentally alert". He donated his battle dress jacket to the Airborne Museum Hartenstein, where it is presently on display.

Did you read that Keith, BANWELL CONTINUED TO SERVE IN THE ARMY UNTIL DURING THE 1970'S.

Has this guy got it wrong ???
I can supply a link if you want to put him right ?

See he did well for himself after a lifetime in a profession only got to rank of Sergeant ! Christ my fathers two brothers who were in the Air force became senior officers in no time, not that their much of an example. In 1969 Banwell WHILE STILL A SERVING SOLDIER was awarded the B.E.M.

Dear dear Keith, how the army like yourself never seem to get the story right !


Do I consider myself a better man ? Of course I do. If you want to meet real hero's, you should be in my living room most nights !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 09:21 AM

Lil' Kiwi so glad the DVD's about the British in Ireland have arrived with you. Now don't forget to let us know what you learned from them !
Always glad to spread the "Word of truth "

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 09:33 AM

He was with the Territorial Army up until the early seventies.
No full time service.
No active service.
No NI tour
No NI clasp.
All made up.
Keep digging.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 09:57 AM

Here
is a link to the piece you quoted from, Sweeney.
It is the link that I gave in the original "I met a War Hero" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Cornish
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 10:07 AM

This pathetic film should remain banned in the UK. It portrays the murdering, cowardly, scum IRA as good people. It does not tell the truth about the heroic Black & Tans who gave up their time to serve the King. We English should stick up for ourselves and not allow foreigners to take the blatant piss!

God Save The Queen.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 10:12 AM

The Guest that signs himself Cornish, and carries the flag for England is unlike some of the Cornishmen I have met, they resented being called English.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Cornish
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 10:22 AM

It's my surname you idiot not where I'm from!

"ard mhacha" sounds like a shit shoveller from the arsehole of botswana!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 10:48 AM

Cornish is not a real person.
Just someone trying to change the subject in a hurry.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 10:52 AM

He was in the army, he wasn't in the army ! This gets better by the minute. Now your saying he was not a real soldier after all, half way through this great career he joined the weekenders! So why do they speak about forty years service in the army ?

Oh how they never get it right ! shouldn't be wearing a GSM ribbon then.

No need to dig Keith. Only time I will be digging is to help you out of that hole your in, YET AGAIN !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Lil' Kiwi
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:05 AM

Yeah, thanks so much Divis! That's my weekend planned.

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Cornish
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:07 AM

Look, I got a bit angry there I am sorry. My granny lived in Cork. While my grandfather was serving with the 16th Irish Division Royal Munster Fusiliers fighting the Turks in the great war, an I.R.A. man was slipping her one. Her family was relieved then this man was killed in a gun battle with the tans. They through it was all over, sadly by this stage she had been introduced to another way of life and broke her fidelity to my grandfather and most of the local I.R.A. men were visiting her home at night. Her family prayed for the tans to rid them from the area, but they didn't. When my grandfather came home in December 1918, he was just no good to her anymore and as a broken man who served King and country in the war to end all wars. Sadly he had to listen to granny in the other room who ignored his screams to stop it, but no granny had got a taste for it. So please give understanding as to my dislike of the I.R.A.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN, he couldn't save granny.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:08 AM

You will enjoy watching the truth about what went on here, always glad to spread the truth !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:11 AM

Divis, you know that I pulled up Keith when he made some points that I felt were untrue? Well, sorry, but having read the article I feel I must pull you up for the same. This guy does seem to be a war hero. He joined the Army in 1931. If we assume he was 16 then by the time he made his 650th jump alongside 'present day paratroopers' in 1969 he would have been 54 years old. Any service he made in the 70s would have been pretty much 'behind the lines'. Surely the comment 'alongside present day paras' also indicates his active service was finished by 1969?

By all means attack those who were responsible for the attrocities in NI. Blame the soldiers who perpetrated the terrible things against your family but targetting this bloke does seem a little unfair. To me anyway.

At the end of the day it is a detraction from the thread anyway. I don't know who started it but surely it is time to agree that some of the soldiers in Northern Ireland were a bad lot but this guy was not amongst them?

Or, as me mum said, 'you two pack it in or I'll knock yer heads together'. :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:11 AM

I will explain in very very simple terms Sweeney.
Tex Banwell left the REGULAR army after the war and took a job with the Post Office.
And he joined the TERRITORIAL Army. This was a continuation of his service. He kept the same service number, but no more full time service.
His first Territorial unit was 11th Battalion Parachute Regt., and then 10th Battalion who he was with until about 1971.
Yes he was what you call a weekend wannabe soldier, just like Epona over there in the Guard.
Territorials were only concerned with conventional warfare training.
No connection at all with Northern Ireland.
You made all that up.
Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:19 AM

Hi Dave all well at that end I hope ? Dave as no doubt you are aware, the British army arrived here in 1969 green as grass to urban warfare. The old school came over to keep them right and pulled the strings from behind the curtains. A waste of time Dave trying to explain these things to some as you know only to well.
Best wishes to the bride.
Divis.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:31 AM

Yes, fine thanks, Divis. You have reminded me to post she is home and well on the 'Mrs is poorly' thread:-)

Do you really think that Mr Banwell was one of the ones 'pulling the strings'? I doubt it myself but you were there. I was not. I would be very surprised indeed if he was. If he is innocent of any crimes against you , your family and countrymen then surely you owe it to Keith to accept that some of your earlier comments may have been made in haste? As Keith once admitted the same to you on another thread? Surely to concede that you may have been wrong on a minor point only adds to the validity of your arguments on the major ones?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Cornish
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:32 AM

This is a forum for blues & folk music not for IRA cowards

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Kenny
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:42 AM

Weren't blackandtans Scotch? Is this the reason to this day, all Irish men hate scotch people with all their hearts.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:46 AM

No. Kenny. Scotch is Whiskey. Black and Tan is a mixture of stout and bitter.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: mindblaster
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:46 AM

Scotch is a drink!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 12:34 PM

Now Dave it's probably best left what we all know. Doubt someone who called me a murderer would accept anything I had to say.

There was a good point you brought up there in an earlier post about hero's. One man's hero Dave can be another mans villain. I grew up listening to bloody DFO's and DFC'S and bar crap, couple of tossers in my family too I am ashamed to say.

Not a week goes week in my life that at least one close friend calls down to visit and I look upon many of them as hero's. Doubt very much some here would, then again some would.

Ah it's down to views Dave, like a dog licking his balls, it's a matter of taste !

Glad the bride is home, health to both of you.

Divis.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Cornish
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 12:40 PM

Sorry made a mistake there, meant to write,

This is a forum for blues & folk music and other topics such as my granny looking a bit of sawing.

My mind just wasn't with it, heavy headed today, was at a reunion dinner last night for Kincora Boys Home.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 12:50 PM

It is alright Cornish you are not the only limey idiot on this Site.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 12:51 PM

The Hyperlink.... which could not be copied and pasted...
Being computer literate, in my eyes, pre-supposes literacy

I didn't post the .zip file link, Dave...
... you should open your eyes too... ;-)

Right-click the link, Keith, open it in a new window, and see where you brought the thrad off topic..., and don't be such a eejit

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 02:40 PM

Tir, that post of mine.
3 paragraphs.
Para 1 and 2 about Tans and IRA
Para 3 responding to Sweeney who had decided to post about his own experiences with the army

No thread creep from me then.

Sweeney, you have said AGAIN that I called you a murderer.
I deny using that word about you.
Am I mistaken or are you being dishonest?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 02:45 PM

Zip-file in the context of the website (no tricks, just one click)

The mystery guest 24 Jul 06 - 09:57 AM wanted Keith to listen to a tape in which John Dignam admits working for the British at the end of an IRA interrogation (including torture) shortly before he was nutted. Doesn't make the intention of the poster much clearer for me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 02:52 PM

Statement from British Government this after.

"One year on the IRA 'has ceased all activity'

The IRA announced an end to its armed campaign in July 2005
The IRA is no longer involved in any centrally organised criminality, the British and Irish governments believe.

Speaking after meeting Irish ministers, NI Secretary Peter Hain said cross-border intelligence indicated the IRA was living up to its commitments.

Mr Hain said individual ex IRA members may be involved in criminal activities, but there is criminal activity in every country in the world, these people can not be called the IRA. Political progress has been made.

However, the DUP's Nigel Dodds, a member of the Third Force said
"This latest assessment from the secretary of state lacks credibility and will be treated by the vast majority of people in NI as yet another ham-fisted attempt to bluff the community and its political representatives into establishing an executive including Sinn Fein." This party knows only one word "NO".


Mr Hain said "What there is not is organised crime by the IRA."
He added, the IRA are delivering on their commitments made last July, not just in respect of shutting down paramilitary activity but also shutting down criminality."

Irish Justice Minister Mr McDowell, who has been strongly critical of republicans in the past, backed Mr Hain's assessment.

Asked if he believed the IRA's war was now over following its declarations and decommissioning last summer, he said: "The Irish government and British government do believe it's over yes, based on the evidence we have."

BBC Northern Ireland political editor Mark Devenport said it was as firm a statement on IRA criminality as the two governments had made since the statement by the IRA last July.


The British and Irish governments have to put pressure on the DUP before the 24th November to reach agreement and then restore devolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 02:53 PM

Errrr, would you explain exactly what you are on about, Tir Chonaill?

Earlier an un-named Guest posted a link of

http://cryptome.org/john-dignam.zip

Keith commented that that is a file, not a link. You then seemed to go off on one to have a go at Keith for being to thick to follow the link. Which was a .zip file that, as a professional computer consultant, I would not follow either.

I am now illeterate apparantly and unable to open my eyes. To prove that point tou provide a perfectly valid hyperlink of

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=92760&messages=162#1781576

My expertise may be high availabilty Unix clusters rather than PCs and HTML but just who is not reading the thread here?

Divis - I still don't agree with your take on the soldier in question but I will bow to your more intimate knowledge of the situation. Is there not something you can give us to show that this guy was indeed a villain? If not don't worry. I am not going to fall out with you or Keith. We all need to get together in the pub for a good session on the music and craic:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:09 PM

Dave, Sweeney can give you nothing because Tex Banwell never served in NI.

Tir's post came just after the Guest file post, but he was referring to his own much earlier posting which was supposed to substantiate his accusation of thread creep against me.

Clear now?

He has just posted a working link and    it shows I did not take thread off subject.
I expect he will apologise soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:41 PM

Dave, Legal position, "Operational service personnal information still remains classified in Northern Ireland".

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Epona
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:20 PM

*sigh*

A wannabe soldier I am, Keith...all those years of training spent so I can show up a weekend here, a weekend there. But, the benefits are great! :)

E

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Martin.
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:27 PM

Keith that name was Dawson Bailie who condoned sectarianism.
Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 06:28 PM

OK, Divis, thanks. I think you may be posting accusations without being able to substantiate them but that is your prerogative. Anyone here could equaly claim they have information but cannot disclose the source because it is secret. At least I understand that the accusations against Mr Banwell are purely speculation but it would have been a lot easier if you had said so in the first place!

Anyhow - like I said before - it is only an aside in this context. I am sure no-one would have any objections if the discussion came back on track to the film in question. Talking of which I believe it was on at the Cornerstone in Manchester but I missed it:-( Anyone know if it is anywhere else nearby me?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 06:32 PM

if anybody's still interested in the film - its coming to The Metro in Derby.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 06:55 PM

Epona,
As a territorial I did some exchanges with National Guard.
Fort Knox KY and RI.
Fine people.
Had a great time.
Plenty of Territorials and National Guard earning their pay in the Gulf tonight.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:01 PM

Yawn

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 03:30 AM

Beg to differ, Keith....

Others noticed the creep at the time. Divis related the Tans' experience to his/our own.
Legitimitate enough in my eyes.

You produced the Straw Man.

Thread drift, Keith.

And you were the first one to do it.
You generally are.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 03:41 AM

Keith - 25/07/ - 03.57:

Tir
I pasted your url into my address box and it did not work.
I am no expert in IT.
I am not prepared to make further effort and doubt anyone else will.
You show contempt for forum users by leaving it like that.

Dave: 25/06 - 03.58

I am just a thick nome - can't read whole tracts.... I don't think Keith was complaining about the lack of a dynamic link. I think he is as computer literate as the next man. What he said was it is not a link - it is a file. Which it is. If you would care to look rather than just have a go at him whatever he does you will notice it ends '.zip' rather than '.htm' or '.html'.

Dave: 25/06 - 02.53

Errrr, would you explain exactly what you are on about, Tir Chonaill?

Earlier an un-named Guest posted a link of

http://cryptome.org/john-dignam.zip

Keith commented that that is a file, not a link. You then seemed to go off on one to have a go at Keith for being to thick to follow the link. Which was a .zip file that, as a professional computer consultant, I would not follow either.


Good morning Dave.
How overworked are we, this fine day?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 03:44 AM

Tír Chonaill, Don't Hold Your Breath waiting for an admission ! You are of course right in what you in above post.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:04 AM

Oh, I know Divis.

Admissions mean nothing to me when the facts are there and speak for themselves.

Keith also maintains that no-one ever calls for Loyalist violence to stop....
I have already made one comment about this up the thread a bit.
... and where did Tiocfaidh's thread calling for a petition, go to.....?

Rheumatic brain, if you ask me...

How on Earth is it possible to conduct a decent, serious conversation on this forum, when one spends most of ones' time putting Keith's collar on, and lead him through his 'little mistakes'

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:08 AM

"...and leading him through his 'little mistakes'"
(just in case Keithh thought that last line was 'unintelligible')

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:21 AM

"Keith also maintains that no-one ever calls for Loyalist violence to stop...."

What do you mean?
Surely most people call for it all to stop.
DTG and I both supported the Anti Loyalist Weapons thread and wrote to our MPs


So if Sweeney starts posting about late 20th Cent events it's OK, but no one is allowed to challenge him because that is thread creep?!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:37 AM

I am fine, Tir Chonaill, not overworked at all. In fact I am very happy. The sun is shining. I took a drive through Derbyshire yesterday. Going through Yorkshire later. I enjoy what I do. Don't have to put in an appearance that often. Get paid loads of money. You?

I realy must be a thick nome. I cannot follow your line of cut and pastes to me at all. Care to explain? In case I did not make myself clear I will repeat and give the actual text I was refering to. These three posts were right next to each other.

(snip)
Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:57 AM

Keith try this site,http://cryptome.org/john-dignam.zip

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 10:09 AM

guest, that is a file not a site.
I prefer not to open it, not knowing anything about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,T�r Chonaill - PM
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 03:40 PM

Copy & Paste the link, Keith.

Spoonfed, that's what you need to be.

Once you exhibit a bit of intelligence, I'll start to take you a bit more seriously.

You only think you are being clever, Keith.

When in fact you're being incredibly tedious.

(snip)

Those three post were ONE AFTER THE OTHER. Don't believe me? Go and look. Now, how does that make the last post of the three, made by yourself, look?

As to the petition by Tiocfaidh -

BS: Loyalists' Weapons - Off The Streets NOW

You seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that Keith and I were amongst the first to comment and send letters to our MPs. I find that you are often the first to complain about selective memory and careful selection of the right 'facts'. I know you have some sort of ongoing argument with Keith but please give credit where it is due and stop using the same methods you accuse others of employing.

Now can we get back to the film?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:53 AM

Tir, a pattern is emerging here.
You are not being understood.
Slow down a bit.
Proof read before posting, and after posting look to see if someone else has slipped in a post that effects yours.
And avoid name calling. Calling someone else an eejit in a confusing post rebounds on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 05:04 AM

The film has had a great response in Ireland. I was so glad when a nephew of mine came to me last week. He said after he went to see it he spent so much time the next day thinking about it. Now this guy to me was a lost cause, had no interest in Irish history or politics. Now I am glad to say he has seen the light !

I have never been so busy doing talks to local groups and vistors to the my area. The film seems to have sparked off an understanding why the IRA existed. The Irish nation never asked for a fight, the fight came to them. Our country was raped and thankfully our brave men stood up and were counted.

This film more than any other about Ireland in recent times has provoked peoples understanding. Most people could relate to someone in the film. I can understand why it gets up some peoples noses, to many the truth should be hidden, not anymore.

I look forward in years to come to the films that will be made about the war here in recent times. In the mean time I will continue to spread the word about what many like my self lived through.

Film rating 10/10.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 05:22 AM

WooHoo - It's on at Cineworld in Didsbury. Can't do this weekend but I am hopeful for next. Wonder if I can convince the family to see it instead of Superman and Pirates of the Carribean? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Fiolar
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 09:46 AM

Cornish: So your grandparents lived in Cork. I have no wish to be critical of your grandmother or her family for wishing what they did. That was their business, but I would be interested to know what they thought when the tans burned the centre of the city in December 1920. The estimated destruction was in the region of some 3 million pounds. That in today's figures is probably in the region of 60 to 80 million.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:20 AM

Fiolar,
You find Cornish plausible?
Would you like to buy Tower Bridge?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:48 AM

Fiolar, That Cornish paste is a wind up, ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 01:32 PM

You sharpen up Keith.
There are no prizes on this forum for being a short plank.... especially when you keep changing the subject all the time.

Go see the film.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 08:31 PM

Oh well to get back to the original question...

I spoke to a friend who watched it tonight in Norwich (as given in my link to Fiolar).

He described it as a "powerful film" and indicated it was well produced, the acting was great and the film was well worth watching.

I'm not interested enough (I'm not a cinema goer - last one I remember was Dumbo 1980ish when I was late teens/20 and a gang of us were bored..) to go to watch it that way but do look forward to seeing it on tv one day.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 04:12 AM

Now that Film4 is on freeview it may be sooner rather than later as well - All being well.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,beachcomber
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 06:27 PM

Are we to believe that the movie "The wind that shakes the barley" , having been seen by those who have a say in the release of such entertainment, has been deemed a) to be politically inadvisable, b) not likely to generate much revenue, or, c) likely to arouse further rebelliousness in Britain (perhaps among the Scots, or Welsh, Tynesiders or, ...Cornish even) ????

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 08:53 PM

..or RUTLAND, for that matter, to allude to another recent BS thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Alison
Date: 28 Jul 06 - 06:05 PM

I have not seen the film yet as it was not showing in the local cinema in my town, so I am not going to comment on it except to say if it is based on a true story about what happened in Ireland then it will be a good film. It does not matter what side of the fence you are on, what matters is whether it is a true story of Ireland back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 28 Jul 06 - 06:13 PM

Welcome to mudcat Alison. Heard It's a great film. Xtravision will be the first to be getting it out on DVD. If your interested in Irish topics go to the home page here and you will see "filter" type in Irish or Ireland and in the other box it will say 1 Day type in 365 and you will see a lot of Irish subjects.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 10:04 AM

Hi Alison.
It is said to be an excellent film.
Ken Loach is an outstanding director.
I agree with your reservation about its truthfulness.
Not that what it portrays is not true, just that it is selective in what it shows and therefor unbalanced and biased.
But films are not history texts.
People should not go to the cinema to be educated, only entertained.
Enjoy the film,
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 12:46 PM

Excellent film that tells it as it was - as did Loach's other film on Ireland, Hidden Agenda.
It's about time we Brits took a closer look at what was carried out in our name (paid for by our taxes).
I understand a lot of people didn't like the Amritsar massacre being shown in Ghandi - tough!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 01:37 PM

and nobody's ever asked Hull Kingston Rovers about how they feel about their matches being televised.....

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 02:13 AM

*LOL*

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 04:32 AM

True Facts.
Members of the Black and tans gained a reputation for brutality and were not subject to discipline in their time in Ireland. This resulted in many murders of the civilian population. The Black and Tans burned and sacked many small towns and villages in Ireland, beginning with Tuam in county Galway in July 1920 and also including Trim, Balbriggan, Thurles and Templemore amongst many others. In November 1920, the Tans "besieged" Tralee. They closed all the businesses in the town and did not let any food in for a week. In addition they shot dead three local people. On the 14th of November, the Tans abducted and murdered a Catholic priest, Fr. Michael Griffin, in Galway. His body was found in a bog in Barna a week later. Most spectacularly of all, the Black and Tans sacked Cork city, on the night 11th of December 1920, the centre of which was burned out - destroying over 300 buildings. They also shot dead nine civilians in the city that night.These are the true facts.

Keiths Facts.
Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'

From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 10:04 AM

it is selective in what it shows and therefor unbalanced and biased.
But films are not history texts.
People should not go to the cinema to be educated, only entertained.
Enjoy the film,
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 06:17 AM

Guest 4.32
like Loach, you were selective in what you chose to show.
The COMPLETE first sentence of your quote from my post is

"Not that what it portrays is not true, just that it is selective in what it shows and therefor unbalanced and biased."

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 08:41 AM

I'm not ure what youre trying to say here Guest (though thats hardly uncommon with many posts with 'Guest' beside them is it....)

Are you saying that to you, Keith is suggesting that people should be ENTERTAINED by a film set n Ireland, in the era in which the Tans are doing those things? In effect that you think Keith is suggesting that some people would/should be entertained by a film portrayal of some of the things the Tans did (whether the things you have listed above appear in it or not, I dont now).

Maybe you are accusing the film of bias (of the opposite slant to Keith of course) in that it doesnt show those things you have listed above?

Are you claiming that only those facts you have listed are true about the Tans, & no others (no other facts, I mean) & that your list is completely exhaustive?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 06:36 PM

Hi folks just back. Have I missed anything ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 06:38 PM

Not to worry if you have...I'm sure you can fashion your own events in your mind to support your beliefs, even if they didnt actually happen, during your absence.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 06:41 PM

Now isn't that a big mouthful !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 06:48 PM

Dunno really..depends how big one's mouth is...*G*

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 06:51 PM

Good point Paul, mine is very big! Never been to Hull, funny how I get this stereotype image of John Prescott when I think of Hull.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 06:56 PM

Bah...it will be hundreds of years before we live that down...

...& ok, chips do seem very popular, but there have been no fish here since...ooooh...1974 I think..

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:01 PM

Do like my seafood Paul. Was over on West coast of Ireland recently and the seafood was heaven.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:04 PM

I bet...envy you that. Been saying for a long while that I WILL get to see Ireland one day.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:09 PM

Paul if you do, head to the West coast it's beautiful. I covered every county on my 1500 Goldwing, many great memories, but the West Coast from Achill Island, Westport down to Cliffton really does it for me. Arklow and Wicklow also great. Getting a bit pricey I found.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:15 PM

Well, WHEN I get there, not IF, it'll likely be to wherever friends are going, as I know a few people who, assuming they still do regularly go, tend to stay somewhere, & soak up the crack, rather than travelling & seeing scenery per se.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 08:09 PM

Well that's the spot for you, Music, pubs and craic great in Galway

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 08:14 PM

*nods* So I hear, I used to have a mate who was from Galway.... cant recall exactly where though.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 04:12 AM

There can be no comparison between the behaviour of the Black and Tans and that of the rebels during the Irish War For Independence (that's what it was folks!). On the one hand you had a badly armed, poorly trained group of fighters carrying out a guerrilla campaign in order, as they saw it, to free their country; on the other there were the armed representatives of the most powerful nation on earth acting under the orders of their government to subdue the Irish people by whatever means necessary. One of the British military leaders at the time, later to become Montgomery of Alamein, complained that the troops were not "pursuing their orders with enough enthusiasm".
In such circumstances it would be more than a little naïve to expect the opposing sides to shake hands after a hard days fighting and say, "Good, clean fight chaps, same time tomorrow".
Any judgment of the war must be based on whether you believe the Irish were entitled to fight for their independence, nothing more or less.
If there was anything missing from Loach's film, it was the fact that the brutality depicted was taking place all over Ireland and it was officially sanctioned and not just the work of a handful of British thugs.
About ten years ago the BBC put on a play called 'All Around The Empire Room' which was a fictionalised account of a series of meetings between Lloyd George and Michael Collins in order to agree the terms of the treaty. It opened with the narrator saying something like, "In 1922 a treaty for the independence of Ireland was signed. Between that time and this, every bomb exploded, every bullet fired, every man woman and child killed or maimed in the name of Irish freedom, can be traced directly back to a series of meetings that took place at number ten Downing Street at that time".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 04:55 AM

Very good post, Jim. I must say I had half an idea that was the truth but I had never realy formulated the thought properly. Thanks for doing it for me:-)

Didn't know you were a biker, Divis! Makes me want to get the old CX500 going again - Should only need HT leads and Oil but it has been stood there for 2 years:-( It is the custom model but the same engine and running gear that was the Silver Wing. Love to get it over to Ireland but I may wait till I win the lottery and can buy that Harley V-Rod VRSE :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 04:58 AM

I think Montgomery complained that the troops were not "pursuing him with enough enthusiasm".

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 05:45 AM

Dave, had a Silverwing GL500 early 1980's. Then went to BMW R80RT then Honda ST1100 Pan European, then GL1500 Goldwing now onto BMW again. The CX 500 was a great bike once you got the tappets set ! Cam chain is a big problem with them, should change it as when it goes so does your engine. Get her on the road and will meet you at the docks !

Excellent post Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:01 AM

This piece gives this review from The Irish Times.
* IRISH TIMES

Thoughtful, powerful and moving Irish political drama, it is,
unsurprisingly, politically loaded. The Black and Tans are depicted as callous, belligerent oppressors, and there is, perhaps, one scene too many to emphasise their sadism.

The piece also has some fascinting memories from a Mr. Keating who fought against the Tans and in the Civil War. He says that his opponents in the Civil War were much worse than the Tans.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:06 AM

Sorry, here is the link to that piece.
Yes I have quoted selectively.
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=en/node/784

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:27 AM

Those who fought in the Civil War had much more information on those who they were fighting. Arms dumps were uncovered daily because a few years earlier the same ones who found them had filled them.

My grandfather fought the Tans and was a republican in the Civil war and served a jail sentence. He said the Civil War was brutal because the enemy were so well informed and knew everyone. The Tans didn't and tried to hammer information out of people who knew nothing.

I found in my reading of the accounts of both, the period the Tans were here was a lot worse for the innocent civilian population. The IRA never shot Priests either.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:45 AM

Mr Keating does not say that his Civil War opponents were worse because they had more information.
He says that they committed more atrocities then the Tans did.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:19 AM

A couple of points for clarification.

Dave the Gnome believes Scotch is "whiskey": it isn't, it's whisky.

Guest, Kenny reckons all Irish men hate the "Scotch". I have spent many holidays on the west coast of Ireland and have been made to feel very welcome everywhere, albeit with a guitar under my arm rather than a firearm. I happen to be a Scot with an accent which clearly identifies me as such.

wr

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:22 AM

That last post was mine, don't know why I've lost my tag.

wr

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:29 AM

You are indeed quite right weerover - I didn't believe it though. Just miss-spelled it. Probably after taking some..;-)

Incidentaly did you know that the original uisge beatha is phoneticaly very similar to eau de vie? French for water of life or, you've guessed it, Brandy! (Or is it Brandey?)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:54 AM

It's your round Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 11:12 AM

You're not so slim yourself:-D

Eeeeh. The old ones are the old ones...

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 02:21 PM

Yes Dave, also akvavit (Swedish, not sure of spelling)

wr

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 02:30 PM

Like that one Dave, never heard it before.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 05:37 PM

300!
where were you all?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 10:54 AM

I'll be buggered if I can understand how you count them....maybe I'm being thick, but cant see it!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 10:56 AM

Oh God, yes I AM being thick....NOW I see it! *ROFL*

Isnt it typical.... that its only when you have irredeemably damned yourself, you see how to have avoided it...*LOL*

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 10:57 AM

*slinks off, shamefaced*

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:25 AM

Serves you bloody right for being rude about having me and Sweeney for neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:28 AM

Now, about that buggering......

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:29 AM

Ow! HARSH!

I'm sure both you & he would soon be complaining about being only NEXT DOOR to the Village Idiot...

*G*

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:48 AM

No Paul, you would be welcome as long as you dropped the buggering bit !

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 02:24 PM

ok, gladly!

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 06:14 PM

ok... so I don't want to start a new thread but I just got to scream some where.

My darling lovely English (very left wing) husband keeps getting these films and I sit and watch. And innocent little yank I am repeatedly appalled at how inhumane and horrid English power has been not just to the Irish (Wind the Shakes the Barley) and the Scots (Brave Heart) but even to their own in films like Billiy Elliot and Kes.

I just saw In the Name of the Father for the first time. I was shaking and gasping with weeping. I was so angry I kept pushing away my lovely partner who was only trying to comfort me. He is English and bloody well convenient for me to take my rage out on, poor sod.

I have a headache now. How the hell am I going to sleep tonight?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 06:23 PM

So, it was him?

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 05:34 AM

I don't know why I went so mental last night about English injustice in that film. Do the same thing with films like Schindler's List and Dances with Wolves.   Every "Power" has done some injustice to someone or group.

Anyway I have been in weepy state for the last week over lost daughter. Damn. Can't really blame it on that either. It is now properly February isn't it?

My official SADS month.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:10 AM

Virginia, I could never live in the Britain as depicted in those and so many other films.
In the real world, fortunately, there is no such place.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Noreen
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 01:19 PM

Have you seen the film in question, Keith?

It did actually portray atrocities on both sides, as I am sure the Irish Times review you quoted from selectively, made clear (the link you provided no longer works unfortunately- copying the whole review would have been better).

I found it a very moving and upsetting film, at least in part because it showed the callousness engendered in everyone involved in the situation.

(((VirginiaTam)))

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Amergin
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 01:48 PM

If you think the Movie In The Name of The Father was bad....read the book by Gerry Conlon.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 04:00 PM

Noreen, I saw the film thanks to being sent a copy by Divis Sweeney, but it was some time ago.
I remember thinking that all British people portrayed were two dimensional brutes. Only the Irish had personalities and character.
When British people were killed they just went down like skittles, with no visible hurt or pain.
Like the Indians in old fashioned westerns.
I remember that they took an old IRA veteran to see it.
He said that the Free State army were worse than the Tans in their behaviour.
He refused to draw the pension he was entitled to from the irish government.
He sadly died a while back.

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 05:34 PM

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76950
Mr Keating said of his civil war opponents: "They were worse than the Black and Tans, and they committed some awful atrocities. In one week they murdered 19 people - comrades I knew only too well. They were just gone overnight."

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:53 AM

Here is what Dan said about life in Kerry before the Easter rising.

he said that in his early youth, Kerry was peaceful until the 1916 Easter Rising.


Relations with the large British military garrison in Tralee were good, where a soldier from Lancashire who enjoyed music was welcomed to sing in the local pubs.

When one of Dan's own cousins who was in the British Army overstayed his home leave, two uncles were arrested after beating up a visiting military policeman inquiring as to his whereabouts.


But the injured soldier refused to give evidence against the two Kerrymen, saving them from certain jail and earning the respect of locals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7026951.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Ban on 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'
From: GUEST,Long Dong
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:46 AM

Great to see an Irish thread. Keith seems to have it all to himself, YET AGAIN !