BS: Queen honours regiments of shame.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?