BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:56 PM

UK Unionist leader BOB MCCARTNEY stood aside to allow the DUP a clearer run in the 2005 General Election, after the DUP assured him there was "no question" of it entering a D'Hondt-style coalition government with Sinn Fein. However, last week DUP MP Peter Robinson said his party may accept D'Hondt for a limited period. Today, Mr McCartney warns that many unionists will never trust the DUP again if it breaches this manifesto pledge.

Wednesday, I was accosted by an irate lorry driver on a filling station forecourt. Waving a copy of the News Letter; he demanded to know "what are the DUP playing at?".

His anxiety, which many thousands of unionists will share, was caused by Peter Robinson's suggestion that, in exceptional circumstances, an enforced coalition with Sinn Fein under D'Hondt might be accepted, for a strictly limited period, to get devolution off the ground. This limited period is believed to be for no more than four years.

The overwhelming vote of confidence which the DUP received in June 2005 was on the basis of the electorate's rejection of the Government's concessions to Sinn Fein and the guaranteed places which that party would get in government under the D'Hondt arrangement. The electorate's perception of the DUP's total opposition to Sinn Fein in government, was confirmed by its 2005 manifesto which categorically stated that enforced coalition with Sinn Fein under the terms of D'Hondt or any other such arrangement was out of the question for the foreseeable future. Indeed, I stood aside for a DUP candidate in North Down on the basis of a personal assurance to that effect from the DUP leadership.

The electoral meltdown of the Ulster Unionist Party in 2005 was largely due to its pursuit of a devolution policy under the terms of the Belfast Agreement which included guaranteed ministries for Sinn Fein under D'Hondt. The electorate put their trust in the DUP on the basis of manifesto commitments that it would not to do likewise. Many unionists inside and outside the DUP will view Mr Robinson's suggestions as a breach of those assurances.

For years, successive British Governments have waited for the day when the DUP's ambition for power would overcome its declared aversion for Sinn Fein as coalition partners. Many unionists will fear that the dawn of that particular day may now be about to break.

The DUP should remember that only two players in Northern Ireland politics have a clear strategic objective. The British Government, which wants disengagement from Northern Ireland, and Sinn Fein which wants Irish unity. Both of these goals are entirely consistent with each other. Both objectives require the outflanking of the unionist road block, and enforced coalition under D'Hondt in a devolved Assembly is the preferred route to their achievement.

DUP acceptance of Sinn Fein as partners in government on whatever terms would give an enormous boost to Sinn Fein in the Republic's 2007 elections. Indeed, as Pat Doherty recently claimed, the prospect of Sinn Fein ministers, North and South, in cross border bodies remains more than a possibility. The impetus that this would give to the concept of a united Ireland would be massive as unionist encirclement would be a prelude to its surrender.

Many DUP members may well view a U-turn on the manifesto promises as a betrayal of the electorate's trust and a massive blow to their faith in the integrity of Ian Paisley's leadership. Many others will question if he is fully aware of the strategic implications of the ideas now being floated.

The mechanisms for gaining what would be a "claimed" grassroots approval appear to have been carefully worked out already, with a party consultation reminiscent of David Trimble's routine and a chronology of events so refined as to indicate careful planning.

The DUP will not enter into an Agreement before November 24.But a deal, which it has reason to believe will be acceptable to the two governments and Sinn Fein, will be crafted. This will, of necessity, include enforced D'Hondt power sharing with Sinn Fein.

Then the prepared package will be heavily sold in the consultation process with unionists, though - unsurprisingly -its results will be assessed by party officers themselves, who will make the final decision. And there will be a lurking suspicion that the DUP leadership may well, like David Trimble in similar circumstances, only hear what it wishes to hear.

Since the 2005 manifesto is an obstacle to this whole scenario, an election sometime in 2007 will be necessary. A fresh manifesto will include terms that will permit the DUP to enter government with Sinn Fein under D'Hondt or a similar arrangement. The DUP will claim that it has forced Sinn Fein to accept in full the democratic process and has secured safeguards that it will continue to do so.

Sinn Fein will assert that it has forced the DUP to acknowledge its legitimate right to govern. In many cases, the personal ambitions and interests of some will have triumphed over principle and integrity. The question is - will the unionist electorate ever forgive or trust them again?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 06:54 PM

Well my sympathies are with the Levellers also. But I don't think that Cromwell was Puritanical, at least by the standards of the day, nor boorish, nor a goon. He has been a hated figure for years but modern scholarship has proved that he was more tolerant than his (many) opponents have painted him.

His actions in Ireland, though reprehensible, were not unusual for their times and his conduct at Drogheda was governed by what had happened to Protestant settlers killed by Catholics in the 1641 rising. This is the point I was making is that without a firm commitment to peace among mankind people will keep these ethnic, religious or sectarian conflicts going for a hell of a long time.

So ends the thread creep (I hope).

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 03:50 PM

"It appears that you side with the 'wrong but romantic' Charles I"

Egads man, give me some credit. A monarchist I am not and never will be, and certainly not with the likes of Charles I. I side firmly with Winstanley and the Diggers.

Although Cromwell was not directly involved with evicting Digger colonies, The New Model Army under Fairfax did show up and encouraged landowners to pursue the Diggers through the courts, whilst the State supported landowners who had enclosed common land in removing the Diggers from their sites. So he does ultimately bear some responsibility for the actions taken agaist the Diggers, as the state of which he was head was involved in their demise.

"Pity it's all wrong"

What else was wrong?

Shall we start a new thread for this?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 12:54 PM

Only to replace it by his own despotic rule. Hardly worth the trouble really, even for England.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 12:45 PM

Very interesting about Cromwell, Stigweard. Pity it's all wrong, especially about the Diggers, who were brought down by the landowners who unfortunately had the law on their side. It appears that you side with the 'wrong but romantic' Charles I whose attempt to rule as a despotic monarch Old Noll was largely responsible for ending.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 11:45 AM

Thats the thing with Richard Harris for me...he always seems to make whatever/whoever he's playing very likeable.....despite his reputation as a hellraiser off screen!

(Likely there are exceptions to this where he's played a very plausible baddie, but I cant think of any offhand)

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:42 PM

I liked the Richard Harris film. Alec guinness was quite good as Charles 1 also.

I think Harris made him quite sympathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Stu
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 02:18 PM

"And here was me thinking Cromwell, that well known monarchist, was a strong contender for the most hated person in Irish history...."

Hold on a minute - I'm afraid the Irish can't have hating Cromwell all to their selves (just as they can't have the oppression of the Monarchy and the Norman feudal system either - no monopolies on either of these subjects). That boorish puritanical pseudo-republican goon did none of the nations on the Islands any good. Apart from eventually assuming the powers of King in all but name, he was also responsible for the campaign against the Diggers, a movement of progressive smallholders who realised before the industrial revolution that the Earth was a shared treasure for us all. And that's before we even start on Ireland . . .

But anyway, that's thread drift. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 11:03 AM

nolle prosequi
n. 'to be unwilling to prosecute'; withdrawal of suit by plaintiff.


does this have special implications?

I suppose it means that there is no guilt attached to them. Less guilt than the ones who have been convicted and let out of jail.

whatever the hell happens, i suppose there will have to be a degree of backtracking from very entrenched positions on both sides.

I did a gig for the RIR one Patrick's day at Catterick. They said, do you do any rebel songs? I said no, thinking it might be the right answer. It wasn't. At least, they all sing the same songs.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 10:44 AM

Thanks Divis.

The sites I looked at just skimmed over the details, hence my confusion, perhaps.

FOUR Regiments reduced into one seems a very drastic cut...MANY Regiments were amalgamated or disbanded in '68, but it was typically two Regiments merged into one. To reduce 4 Regiments into 1 at a stroke seems to be putting a LOT of trained, weapons-skilled men back into Civvy Street in a very sensitive area....

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 10:25 AM

Sorry above became the Royal Irish Rangers in 1968, amalgamated with UDR in 1992 to the RIR. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 10:23 AM

Yes Paul, 1968 saw the Royal Irish Fusiliers, Royal Irish Rangers, Royal Ulster Rifles and Inniskillings amalgamation. The Regular service Battn, RIR gave it's members an option. If they came from the area where they were being stationed they could remain at barracks or seek another location. This ruling was in force throughout the conflict for members of all other British army regiments.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 09:48 AM

Ooops, sorry Divis, I think I was getting confused with the amalgamations & such, the Royal Irish RANGERS, & the old Inniskillings etc, as well as not realising the Royal Irish Regt. incorporated Home Service Battalions. Also, it seems pretty strange that the Regular Battn. also served tours in N.I. same as the rest of the Army. Small wonder then that they are resented. Whole thing is ripe for corruption.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 08:42 AM

I wouldn't even blame the Queen. The old trout represents the feudal system that has caused so much misery on these Islands for the past 1000 years( stigwead)

And here was me thinking Cromwell, that well known monarchist, was a strong contender for the most hated person in Irish history....


"Nolle prosequi" The direct translation is: Do not pursue/follow. In legalese, it's an undertaking not to carry on any further with the case aginst that person.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 08:38 AM

nolle prosequi n. 'to be unwilling to prosecute'; withdrawal of suit by plaintiff.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 07:46 AM

I think it was stigweard. There is a lot going on in the background at the moment. I suppose in reality when we weight it up, we have got the removal of this rabble and they now join the B'Specials, UDR and RUC.

By the end of this year I think things will have moved on somewhat. There were serious leadership problems within the UVF/UFF at present, they have been murdering eachother over the past few years, 32 loyalists killed by loyalists since 1998 (several ex members of UDR/RIR).

They need to get their act together. Some may say good enough as long as they are killing eachother, but there are families behind all of this saddness and they are the victims too.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:32 AM

just for those of us who have nothing to show from Latin lessons except the scars. what does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:12 AM

Could you please remove the above post from that old Impotent guy from Hull who is trying to provoke reactions. (How's the wife Ted ?????)

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Stu
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:11 AM

"Was this the soft soap ?"

Perhaps it was Divis, but perhaps that is a price worth paying for removing these regiments from the North?

I wouldn't even blame the Queen. The old trout represents the feudal system that has caused so much misery on these Islands for the past 1000 years which is the reason I'll never be a royalist, but she's just a walking shop window dummy (albeit a costly one) and does whatever the government of the day tells her.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:51 AM

Three cheers for The RIR and Her Majesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 02:49 AM

I`m afraid the "Nolle prosequi" wouldn`t go down well with Paisley`mob, the latin bit is too Roman,and "Noelle prosequi, [thats for sure], they wouldn`t proceed any further"

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 07:57 PM

Awarding pardons - though I imagine they'd be more likely to use some other term, such as declaring a general amnesty, or entering a "Nolle prosequi" in all cases - would be a next logical step in that choreographed progress.

And a parallel announcement might be made by the IRA relating to informers and others who had been "advised" by it to leave the country, or who hadn't been identified as yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 06:25 PM

The Royal Irish Regiment as I said were a disbanded regiment (1922) The UDR was disbanded and renamed the RIR, reason being, during the first world war, many catholics who fought in the Great War joined this regiment as they had barracks in the best parts of the country.

A point worth watching is the fact Tony Blair may be approving a large number of pardons, for those called "On the runs" volunteers that went to America and the police wanted to talk to them. However, this would involve the Queen and it may be embarrassing to the monarch so soon after she awarded the conspicuous gallantry cross to the retiring UDR/RIR. Was this the soft soap ?


What with the IRA inactive and the UDR/RIR home battalions marching into the sunset I hope all sides may soon be to marching in the same direction.

The return of the "wild geese" could be a problem for unionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 06:07 PM

Yes, I take your point, Dave & Divis, that to honour the UDR at all was likely to cause offence....I was just referring to its timing with regard to the 'IRA' announcement.

Having said that, weren't the Royal Irish a Regular Unit?

I know it DID make a distinction between the 2 in the news reports I saw, & thought it odd then.

I should go look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 05:48 PM

My problem was the fact they honoured the regiment. Over here even some protestant friends of mine thought it lacked tact. As I said the 11th UDR/RIR came from my area and were the worst the regiment had to offer, they got the barracks visit from Prince Andrew and also were on the guard of honour. I would imagine if I arrived here and told you I had just received a scroll or medal from Provisional Oglaigh na h-Eireann I doubt "my friends" here would be telling me to have a drink on them.

I see today now unionists are suspicious about the award on Friday and said every time the Queen comes over and pats them on the back, a few weeks later the bad news comes knocking on their door. This could well be the case.

As you are all aware the DUP said the cannot sit with Sinn Fein in government as long as they won't accept policing. They may well have to find another excuse shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 05:35 PM

"I would never make a politician!"

My grandma would, but you'll have to buy her the wool.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 05:33 PM

Hmmmm - Good point McG. You could well be right. Could indeed be how these odd people work. I would never make a politician!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 05:26 PM

We're outside the loop. My gut feeling is that rather than being "diplomatic lunacy", that combination of circumstances was probably all pre-planned and intentional.

If the price for having the DUP willing to give up vetoing cooperation with Sinn Fein, and accept the exit from the scene of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Ulster Defence Regiment as a fait accompli, is to have Ian Paisley rubbing his hands with glee, that could be a price worth paying.

And I rather suspect that that might well be how the inner circles of Sinn Fein and the IRA see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:59 PM

Doesn't matter, Keith. All water under the bridge. Nothing will ever come of an argument about who did what in the past. What matters now is peoples perceptions of what happened and the fact that many Nationalists perceive the regiment in question to be dubious to say the least. To award the regiment these honours within days of the PIRA being highly praised is diplomatic lunacy.

Sorry Paul from Hull but regardless of how long this had been planned it should never have gone ahead. It must have been known how many people this would insult and The revererend Ian (who was at the ceremony btw) must be rubbing his hands in glee. If not calculated it was exeedingly stupid.

I'm just sick of how this and previous governments walk all over peoples feelings. There is no excuse.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:15 PM

The wicked crimes mentioned above were carried out by paramilitary scum. They were not UDR operations and the killers were arrested, tried and convicted.
In all the discussions we had about the McCartney killing I always accepted that PIRA were not responsible, although the killer was a PIRA man. Perhaps he was also a member of RAC and Readers Digest Book Club.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 02:36 PM

Agreed, I am lead to believe it was mentioned at a meeting a few years back that Britain would go into the euro by 2009 and international borders would come down and the Anglo Irish joint administration that is already in place will take a greater role.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 02:15 PM

I don't really think so. It's been a rough old time, and there's still; some tricky stuff to negotiate, but the worst is probably over.

Anybody who puts money on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland existing as a political unit for more than a few years stands to lose it.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:04 AM

This thread bears witness to all that is wrong with 'occupied' Ireland.

Divis tells it like it is, no dressing just the facts.

It is time for the British to leave Ireland while there is still some sense of unity between the Irish and the rest of Britain. Staying is sowing the seeds of a civil war which will make all that we have seen to be nothing.

I hope that this war does not spread to Scotland as well.

It is indeed a very dangerous time for peace in Britain!

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 10:45 PM

The 'rights or the wrongs' of the matter not withstanding, this 'Honours Ceremony' has likely been planned for quite a while.

Its 'timing' is therefore likely a moot point really...

...& therefore its neither a calculated insult, nor a matter of 'insensitive' carelessness.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:41 PM

I simply cannot win anywhere.

And that's your problem - you are still fighting. .

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Peace
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:41 PM

"I simply cannot win anywhere. To some of you I am a provo bastard, to the diehard Englishman I am a trouble maker, to once good friends and close republicans I am a coward for my support of getting the bomb and bullet out of politics."

But that's where you're wrong. I have come to have a deep respect for your views and for you personally, Divis. We have been friends--never met, but friends nevertheless--for about a year now. I don't see that changing in this lifetime. It takes a man of courage to lay it out for people, to take a position and hold it when he has to and relinquish it when he sees that's the right thing to do. IMO, you are such a man, and one I am very honoured to call friend. Get some sleep; tomorrow's another day.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:27 PM

Just spent the last few hours in the company of some very close friends and talking about some of the above points.(Not in a pub, I don't drink)

Firstly, the Provisional IRA in our eyes fought a war against an invasion force. We love our country, we want freedom in this land and we want it without killing or bombing.

Sorry about going back in time, but if Hitler made it over the water in the early 1940's and took away the English way of life as they knew it, I would support their fight against him, Christ if I was about then I would probably of went over and fought for the English !

You really needed to of been here to experience it, sorry if that sounds an old line. It was unpleasant and it wasn't just the provo's or their supports that got it in the neck. Internment without trail was a bastard, I saw families split up and divorce for the first time in my life.

My brother came out with scars all over his body from cigarette burns, picked up during torture which they admitted to in the case he took against them, (he got 1,000 pounds damages). He was never charged with any crime in his life.


I do not and never have hated the British people as a nation, they were great to me any time I was there. It wasn't so much the British as their turning a blind eye to the unionist running of the North and the way they treated us. Yes I am old enough to remember it.

My fathers business was burned to the ground as he was the only catholic tailor in a protestant area, he was not a republican, never held a political view in his life, hated my views. Do you know what it is like to watch a man cry as he watched the suits he worked on for weeks burning on their hangers ?

The police stood beside us as a family that night and told my father, what do you expect? your type has no business living in this area, the others laughed. He had traded there as had his father and grandfather and great grandfather before him for one hundred and twenty two years.

Yes I know some of you are saying, here is Divis with a sob story, just try to get into the mindset and imagine it is you. Yes I supported the withdrawal of bigoted, hate filled Ulstermen who wanted me and my family dead.

I am and will be a republican until my heart stops beating. Do I share the views some of you expressed about Americans like Mick ? No I thank and admire them for their voice and pressure on the British government to make changes in Ireland.

I simply cannot win anywhere. To some of you I am a provo bastard, to the diehard Englishman I am a trouble maker, to once good friends and close republicans I am a coward for my support of getting the bomb and bullet out of politics.

Just think whatever the hell you want to think, all the names you want to call me have already been heard.

And no offence, but I still defend the once Provisional IRA volunteers who are now getting on with their everyday lives and live and sleep with haunting memories.

Goodnight
DS

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 07:03 PM

I wonder if this means that weapons such as the Barrett M82A1 rifle will no longer be smuggled to the PIRA.

But the Afgans can still get hold of them

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 07:03 PM

The Queen does what she's told. Talk about "she still regards", and so forth, as if somehow she had some independent role in all this is giving her a political and constitutional importance she just doesn't have. Figureheads, when they had them, didn't determine where the ship was headed.

I rather assume that all this is part of the elaborate choreography of moving away from the war situation. On the one hand there is a formal recognition that the IRA is out of the business of fighting, and on the other hand there is some degree of winding down the British military machine in Northern Ireland, accompanied by a token gesture to make that more palatable to some people who need to be smoothed down.

I'd not be at all surprised to learn, a few years down the road, that all this had been discussed and cleared with Sinn Fein and representatives of the IRA.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 06:38 PM

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 06:27 PM

I get tired of ignorant people who object to any generalizing about them, yet generalize constantly about the "March 17ers". My guess is that I know more of the history, can speak more of the language, have as many friends from the North and the South of Ireland, and understand the tragedy of armed conflict, as any here. But what has that to do with having an opinion on something as blatant and egregious as this. Stick to the issue, GUEST. If you want to take issue with my opinion, fair enough. How much time I have spent in Ireland has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and shows you for the intellectual weakling you are.

As to my Irishness, what makes you more Irish than I? What did you have to do with it? You are "Irish" by an accident of nature. You were simply born there through no doing of your own. I have made a conscious decision as to honoring the land of my grandparents. I paid attention as I was taught that we are not here in the States by choice. I have invested the time to learn about that land, it's customs, it's music, and the politic. Through the many friends I have in both communities of the North, I have (with much investment of time) come to understand the tragedy of it all. I have said many times that I wish for the children of the North of Ireland to have peace. This peace has taken far too long to achieve, in no small measure, due to the collusion of the police forces, and the British Army, with the Orange militants. You are no more Irish than I by anything other than where you were born. I will give you citizenship, but nothing more.

So lay off your weak as hell attempt to shift the argument away from the subject at hand to move it to me. No matter what you think I am, I have an opinion and it is valid. For the monarch, the titular figurehead of Great Britain, to not just recognize, but honor this unit sends a clear message to the Republicans in the North of Ireland. That message is that she still regards them with disdain, and could care less what message that sends.

I don't know you, so I will add one thing. I don't know what tragedy has been in your life. Perhaps you have been touched by this war in a way that scarred you. I do understand that, but at a different level and in a different way. There is no mitigating that, and if it is the case, I am sorry for your suffering. But don't for a minute think that you have a corner on that. You don't know me either.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Peace
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 06:08 PM

Why do Buckingham Palace and Shit for Brains seem to be phrases that deserve each other?

My e-mail to The Queen:

Your Majesty:

I am writing to say that honouring the Royal Irish Regiment and the Ulster Defence Regiment so soon after 'things' getting under control with the IRA was at very least ill considered. Why Great Britain would honour military that was involved in murder is beyond me. I hope the Crown issues an apology to the Catholic people of Ireland and Ulster.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 04:41 PM

I have spent 47 years here and seen a lot more than I care to recall. I have shared many debates about Ireland with people from all over the world and I always enjoyed Micks contribution. His family came from Ireland. I recently completed my family history and found they came from St Kilda in the Scottish Hebrides. So maybe I am not Irish to some. I agreed with what he said, in your eyes I probably stand wrong too.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 04:15 PM

I have spent 32 years in Ireland and despise the March 17th shamrock wavers who have never set foot here, yet pertain to speak with concern and insight. He has neither. If he had lived it he wouldn't be continuing the futile arguments unless he gets off on conflict. People like Mick on both sides are the problem but are too blind to see.

Roll on his next thread glorifying war. With his size 14 footnote that he wants it respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 03:39 PM

Ignore those Mick who hide behind words they are afraid to speak with a face. How much time Guest have you spent in Iraq or Ireland ?

Mick has many friends in Ireland and please advise what the qualifying period should be. On another site I was posting about Nazi Germany, am I too young to be allowed to speak on that subject ?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 02:40 PM

Mick are you going to stop your 'let's remember the vets' threads because 'some' US military are guilty of heinous crimes?

How long have you ever actually spent in Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM

Very well put Mick, yes some true colours already have been displayed.

11 UDR/RIR (Mahon Barracks Portadown) did the guard of honour. This was the barracks where those who killed the Miami Showband (In uniform and on duty,used their Landrovers to set up a road block to stop them) and those responsible for Dublin and Monaghan bombs were based. As was "The Jackal" their ranked comrade.

I do understand and accept the professional soldiers within the British army receiving the campaign service bar to their G.S.M.for tours of duty in the North of Ireland. It is posted out to the individual.

Yesterdays display lacked sensitivity, doesn't make our job any easier. Recently at a meeting in the Dublin City West hotel an ex volunteer asked Gerry Adams if he would suggest to the disbanded army council raising funds to honour ex volunteers with a badge or medal ? His reply was a firm NO. he said can you imagine the message that would sent out to people.


People within republican circles are working their ass off right now, believe me to get dissidents and disillusioned on board only to get this thrown into their faces.

As to hide behind (Guest "sick of it") stay out of debates you can't contribute to. Do you know the UDR/RIR ?

What the hell do some people want ? we are getting it in the neck for wanting peace from a small number over here, that medal and hand shake yesterday didn't help and views here are speaking volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 01:12 PM

Typical apologist bullshit. The thread is a response to an action by the Tart in the Tiara. To try and shift the premise into a debate on the relative crimes of the combatants is to dodge the issue. The issue is, should units that have been proven by independent study to have collaborated and assisted in attrocities be honored by the monarch? To do so seems to me to be saying that it is fine to do this. Any attempt to mitigate this shows true colors. Especially during a time when PIRA is doing everything it can to bring peace and a new day to the North of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 01:04 PM

I agree with you, it was time to let things go not stirring it by honouring this discredited lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.
From: GUEST,sick of it
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 12:17 PM

Neither side played a blinder in the troubles. Both are as guilty as each other on the attrocity scoreboard. To keep needing to score points and play the victim is pathetic.