BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland

Subject: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: GUEST,Ron Edwards
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:56 PM

I guess thet the USA will be involved in Iraq like the brits are involved in Northern Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 03:43 PM

No. The difference is that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom so, unlike Iraq, the presence of British troops there is perfectly legal.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:38 PM

Both places start with IR.............

IRAQ, IRAN............

If Bush is playing happy families.....IRELAND would give him three of a kind.

I'd watch out over there in Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:41 PM

And it hasn't done the Brits a whole hell of a lot of good over time.....

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 07:29 PM

The thing I find odd is that many in the US supported bombers from Ireland as "freedom fighters" even though the war of conquest by England on Ireland was won (in the sense that the English were the major military power on the ground) in the 1600s or before - but now at least the official US line is that those in Iraq seeking by bombs to repel an invading army are terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 08:06 PM

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It depends on where you are looking from.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: GUEST,Jackie Doyle
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:14 PM

Richard, Big difference is many of those of us in the States are from Irish backgrounds, arrived here starving due to the British inspired famine in Ireland, (wheat and corn shipped from Ireland to England).

Ask those living in Aden, India or South Africa their opinion of British rule and you may also find they refer to them as terrorists.

Yes the struggle in Ireland was funded from the States, just like in Iraq, to remove a government responsible for crimes against it's people. European courts of Human Justice upheld the cases brought against Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:45 PM

"Big difference is many of those of us in the States are from Irish backgrounds, arrived here starving due to the British inspired famine in Ireland."

Well not according to Cecil Woodham-Smith's history "The Great Hunger", which is regarded by most acedemics as being the definitive history of the famine of 1847 to 1851. The bulk of emmigration at that time was to Canada as passage was free on UK registered vessels. Anyone wanting to travel directly to the US had to pay their passage, be in sound health and had to prove that they had at least £10 in cash or assets prior to boarding.

I would draw attention to the organisation known as the Commonwealth of Nations, the second largest international organisation after the United Nations. The Commonwealth of Nations is not listed as a terrorist organisation. Countries with no previous connection (historical or political) to the United Kingdom have applied to join Rwanda, Yemen and Cambodia.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: number 6
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:47 PM

"I guess thet the USA will be involved in Iraq like the brits are involved in Northern Ireland"

I don't think so.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 11:53 PM

Not even Bush wants to consider Iraq part of the US.   The parallel with Northern Ireland does not hold. Bush just wants to be able to claim "victory" before the US leaves Iraq--no matter how many "Coalition" soldiers or Iraqis have to die so that he can do it.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 12:15 AM

Those that can't or won't see a difference; I'm not sending you to the store to buy the milk, might come home with an elephant & no change.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:18 AM

I suppose if you've never owned a passport - both places look virtually identical.

I wonder if there are any other countries who would value your wise intervention. The idea of arming Saddam Hussein and the IRA were resounding successes - a sort of double whammy - a modern democracy in Iraq and a United Ireland. A couple of real masterstrokes

Congratulations by the way, on achieving the perfect society in your own country. One can see how it would make you impatient to export that demi paradise to the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:08 AM

The misconception that former British colonies bear some kind of grudge keeps arising.
We have the warmest relations with them and they remain in what was until recently called The British Commonwealth.

Iraq is a poor analogy to Ireland.
What we did was to annexe, by force of arms, a nearby piece of territory.
A better analogy was the seizure by the USA, by force of arms, of the territories of California, Texas and New Mexico.
Since you did that in 19th century, it ill behaves Americans to get on their moral high horse about what England did nearly a thousand years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:39 AM

behoves.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:48 AM

...or there is the example of the Phillipines, a tale of courage, honour and fairmindedness known to every American schoolchild.

There had been an active campaign by many Filipinos against the Spanish colonial powers in the last two decades of the 19th century, which had ended in an uneasy truce.

Then came the Spanish American war - that noble conflict promoted by the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pullitzer and catalysed by fake telegrams. It was a conflict notable for plans drawn up by the US Navy to invade the Phillipines a year before war was actually declared (sound familiar?).

When it broke out, the guerilla leader Emilio Aguinaldo returned to the Phillipines from exile in Hong Kong to take up arms once again against the Spanish to win independence In this he was actively encouraged by the US.

The war was short-lived and ended with the Phillipines being "bought" from the Spanish under the terms of the Treaty of Paris (along with Puerto Rico and Guam) and declared a US colony in 1898.

Once the war was over, however, the US was no longer willing to back Aguinaldo's calls for independence. The Phillipines was to be a colony of the proposed American Empire, and would not be allowed to rule themselves.

Tension came to a head in February 1899 when an American soldier shot a Filipino soldier who was crossing a bridge into Filipino-occupied territory in San Juan del Monte.
President William McKinley later told reporters "that the insurgents had attacked Manila" in justifying war on the Philippines. The Battle of Manila that followed resulted in 2000 casualties for Filipinos and 250 for the US forces. It marked the beginning of a brutal and bloody war of oppression by the US.

There was, however, no formal declaration of war. The US was anxious to call it an 'uprising' to make the conflict appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government.
Aguinaldo was captured after the battle of Tirad Pass in 1901 and threatened with death if he didn't swear allegiance to the US. Under duress Aguinaldo pledged allegiance to America on April 1, 1901, formally ending the First Republic and acknowledging the sovereignty of the US over the Philippines. In all, some 250,000 Filipinos are thought to have been killed.

The islands did not gain their independence until 1946.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:19 AM

Maybe it's time for the Native American Freedom Fighters to start blowing away the descendants of the terrorists who stole their land and committed genocide against their people - you know, the Brits, Irish, Scots, Italians, Spaniards, Germans, French, Poles, Chinese, Japanese, Viet-Namese, and any other f**king -ese you care to name, that now makes up the bastardised population of that once-great country?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:22 AM

Sorry, pressed the go button by mistake. Meant to finish with:-

The definition of 'Terrorist' depends very much on where you're looking at him from.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Alba
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 10:24 AM

Jackie there was a Famine due to the Potato Blight and the British played an very real roll in Irish History during this time.

Interesting perspective here, if anyone feels inclined to read it.

Irish Potato Famine
Best Wishes
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 10:39 AM

Not really - we did it, as Lenny Bruce said about the Jews and the death of Christ - I think maybe there should be sort of statute of limitations.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Shaneo
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 10:54 AM

A famine suggests insufficient amounts of food to feed a population.
As Ireland was exporting large amounts of grain, beef, and other food stuff to England during the great hunger then the situation could not be classed as a famine

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:42 AM

That's another one, like 'terrorist' that depends on where you're looking from - 'famine'. I bet the starving Irish viewed it as famine. Why split hairs now?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 12:37 PM

It was a horrendous situation and the English government didn't do enough. They acted like shits. They did that quite a lot. It wasn't treatment reserved for other races, the English people took a lot of stick also.

However, how sending a load of guns and bombs to Ireland was ever going to help Irish people sort out the fact that largeish portion of the population want to remain part of the United Kingdom, whilst most Irish people want Ireland to be independent is another matter.

If you wanted to make a worthwhile contribution to the debate - start a newspaper, or a TV station. They persuade better than guns. Offer a free set of Carry On DVDs and Ian Paisley would be saving up the vouchers for a United Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Den
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 01:30 PM

After all they were just a bunch of Paddy's, who'd miss them?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 01:39 PM

Most governments handle disasters badly.
Witness Katrina.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 01:57 PM

Den, I have to ask, what prompted that outburst?

After all, for once, we've had an Irish-related thread thats got up to 20-odd posts without the usual acrimony, then you post that, as if somebody had said 'let them eat cake'.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM

Queen Victoria sent ten pounds to Ireland during the famine to help the starving, says it all. Could she possibly have been a role model for Margaret Thatcher ?

Well done America.

Well, in eighteen and fourteen we took a little trip
along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississippi.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,
And we caught the bloody British near the town of New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, I see'd Mars Jackson walkin down the street
talkin' to a pirate by the name of Jean Lafayette [pronounced La-feet]
He gave Jean a drink that he brung from Tennessee
and the pirate said he'd help us drive the British in the sea.

The French said Andrew, you'd better run,
for Packingham's a comin' with a bullet in his gun.
Old Hickory said he didn't give a dang,
he's gonna whip the britches off of Colonel Packingham.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, we looked down the river and we see'd the British come,
and there must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made their bugles ring
while we stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
if we didn't fire a musket til we looked 'em in the eyes.
We held our fire til we see'd their faces well,
then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave a yell.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, we fired our cannon til the barrel melted down,
so we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls and powdered his behind,
and when they tetched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

We'll march back home but we'll never be content
till we make Old Hickory the people's President.
And every time we think about the bacon and the beans,
we'll think about the fun we had way down in New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin,
But there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast the hounds couldn't catch 'em
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
But there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in NI
From: Den
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:08 PM

If you have to ask Paul there's a good chance you wouldn't understand the answer. My bet is you don't need to ask.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:52 PM

Who would miss them........?

Well its not as though I'm advocating moving the place....its still going to be there. Its still only going to be 40 quid from East Midlands Airport. Theres still going to be thousands of Irish people in every English city. there could still be Irish regiments within the British army even.

But if you don't sort out some sort of better coexistence agreement between the two sets of people in Ireland - something that satisfies everybody - the tories will be getting in before long, and they will be crawling to the unionists to preserve their electoral majority and once more the feelings will get hurt, the shit will hit the fan and angry words and worse will fly once more.

wartime and sentimental versions of history produce some catchy songs like the Jimmy Driftwood piece, but try bloody singing when you're digging the arms and legs out of someplace where a bombs gone off. If it were happening in an American town, you wouldn't be such a quick smartarse handing out the arms to anybody dumb and cruel enough to use them.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:47 PM

Well said, WLD.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:20 AM

Right on the button WLD.

When you're 5,000 miles from Ireland, sitting out on the front porch eating mom's apple pie, overpaid, undertaxed and brainwashed, it's dead easy to be an armchair critic and send money to fuel a civil war that will never result in your own physical harm.

If those pricks cared so much about The Owld Country, why were they so hell-bent on ensuring the early and violent deaths of so many of its inhabitants?

In the history of the USA, their en

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:22 AM

.... as I was saying, their involvement in ensuring the longevity of the 'Troubles' is a very black episode indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Jim Lad
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:20 AM

Sure: The Americans did eventually defeat the British but let's face it; the enemy had to cross the broad Atlantic in wooden boats and there weren't really that many of them. Could've done it myself.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:11 AM

No point in looking back.....but the future is worrying. Cameron is alot more personable than Brown. You can see the tories getting in, and you can see that he can't muzzle that awful right wing of his party who are always squaring up the Irish, the trade unions, the idea of full employment, and looking for ways to pillage the public services for their mates.

I just wish all the parties concerned would show some sense of urgency in settling this question.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 09:50 AM

1) Keith--"behooves"

2) I'd like to assure our UK posters that many Americans don't subscribe to the twisted history and twisted attitudes of "Jackie Doyle"--we make no excuses for the funding by US citizens of terror in Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:00 PM

Regarding the potato famine and the British contribution to the starving people why did the London Times take delight in the Irish peoples plight by headling, "Soon an Irishman will be as rare on the banks of the Shannon, as an Indian on the Hudson".

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:31 PM

typical shit stirring racist response to an Irish thread....

I would say open your history books. look up Tonypandy, Pentridge, Tollpuddle, the 84 miners strike, the General Strike of '26......

The English ruling class isn't a uniquely Irish problem.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:49 PM

I see Gordon Brown has come out as a unionist.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:39 PM

Ard--


Where is your proof that the London Times quote, even if accurate--(no source was given)--was meant to "take delight" in the lack of Irishmen on the Shannon? And was that the official view of the newspaper? If a headline--why do you not think it was just reporting news--in the way a newspaper seeks to grab your attention?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 09:42 PM

It probably was Ron. their attitudes were quite as foul as Ard has said. However, the sort of deranged racist bitching that goes on in these threads is not going to butter any parsnips.

If we stop going at each other like a terrier after a rat - who knows, perhaps we might come up with an idea that helps the situaion - instead of making it look more impossible than it appears already.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:58 AM

Ard, the vast majority of people on the UK mainland have no problem with the Irish. Please don't assume that the attitudes of a toffe-nosed newspaper from two centuries ago are indicative of Joe Public-UK's views today.

Most of us want an end to your problems, troops out and happy days for the Irish. Sadly, some of our politicians and some of your countrymen are determined it will never happen.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:45 AM

'Our countrymen' don't necessarily feel that they're our countrymen, Strollin'.

Some historical background to how this all came about.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Taffy
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 05:22 AM

Littleweedrummer, there was no English government during the Irish famine, it dissappeared more than a hundred years beforehand (1707), cancelling England's status as a nation state.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:09 AM

Ah, thanks for that bombshell, Guest Taffy.

So, where does that leave us now, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:00 AM

'Littleweedrummer, there was no English government during the Irish famine, .....'


I don't understand that. I usually think of the famine, they taught us about in junior school in England as black '49 and 1848. they taught us also about England's shamefully inadequate response.

It was a cruel age when they hanged and transported people for not very much, and sent little kids to work down coalmines and up chimneys. there was much casual cruelty everywhere that most citizens (most of whom were hardly living high on the hog) were desensitised to.

There was a government. Are we talking at cross purposes - the above is what I think I'm talking about......?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:12 AM

Ron Davies is right I misquoted the London Times, what it said in an editorial was, "soon a Celt in Ireland will be as rare as a red Indian on the streets of Manhattan", and Ron if you take the time and Google, "The great Irish famine" , you can read all of this editorial.
While you are on the Site read of the Penal Laws, quite an eye-opener for anyone ignorant of the most draconian laws ever instituted.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:20 AM

According to this site http://www.faqs.org/faqs/cultures/irish-faq/part06/
Queen Victoria made a personal contribution to famine relief of £2000, and not £5.
One of the English charities who contributed raised over £450 000.
If all correct it suggests that the Engish cared more than Ard thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:46 AM

Some interesting information there Keith, & gives the lie somewhat to the prevailing opinion (which I held too) that the British Govt. had been overwhelmingly indifferent to the crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:57 AM

'Russell's government can be justly accused of callousness,
        miserliness, negligence, ignorance, slowness, fickleness,
        complacency and fatalism. Unlike genocide, this does not
        amount to murder.'

sounds like murder to me

PS There was a government, then!

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:29 PM

WLD - was he making the point that it was a British, not English, government? I'm not sure about it, but it's a possibility.
Johnny the Peacemaker.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:04 PM

Yes they were a really caring nation Keith, population drop from 8 million to 2 1/2 within 8 years, did you go to that Site I outlined, very good information, there will be a lot you will learn, try it.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:17 PM

Your guess is as good as mine SJ. I wasn't outraged, just mystified by his comment.

I see GUEST who said that after Ard's comment has had his comment pulled. So now it looks like I was accusing Ard of being a shit stirrer. As if I would.........

I think its quibbling when you say that England didn't commit genocide. There are sins of ommission, and don't we all turn the other way - think my own life's depressing enough, why should I care about these people. I'm sure we all turn our faces away from suffering every night on the news.

The extraordinary thing about the famine was that it was on our doorstep. I suppose literally in my case - my family would have been Irish at that point. You think of Anthony Trollope riding round Ireland doing some sort of Inspector's job for the post office. And he comes home and makes his name writing comedies of manners set in an English cathedral close. You'd think an experience like that would burn itself onto the soul of a great writer forever. In Trollope perhaps you can see a microsm of the English reaction.

Some writers gain from their historical perspective. Think of Isherwood in Berlin creating Fraulein Sally Bowles, and we can almost taste the decadence and threadbare misery of the era.

I suppose writers are like the rest of us - unique in their reactions.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Taffy
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:31 PM

The government at the time was the British government as England was now a part, a region of Great Britain. I would have thought this was perfectly clear.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:32 PM

All deaths Ard?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:40 PM

Ard, in the great Dust Bowl, hundreds of thousands, possibly milliions of Okies were displaced.
Is that evidence that nobody cared?
In New orleans, hundreds of thousands were warned to evacuate, but offered no transport. Thousands of survivors were left in a stadium for days with no supplies, then trivial amounts were thrown from helicopters and they were left to fight over it.
The government failed, but people did care and charities did what they could.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:26 PM

Yeh....okay, no English government. A British one.....got it.

Thanks Taffy Guest for getting back. Do you see that as impacting on the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:34 PM

According to "The Great Hunger" main source of assistance during the years 1846 to 1851 was the British Government, the second largest contributer was "The Society of Friends" (Quakers) in Britain.

Ard's figures are way off, and not all died, yearly figure without famine, before the blight was 250,000 to 300,000 dead from malnution. As Keith has pointed out even with all the resources at our disposal in modern times people die in natural disasters. The one I recall most vividly was Ethiopia in 1985. With the entire world mobilised to help, with fast modern ships, ports with fast modern unloading facilities, aircraft, helicopters and trucks, hundreds of thousands died every day.

Now compare that to the conditions that prevailed on west coast of Ireland in the mid-1800's - bad roads, only horse drawn transport, very few harbours, sailing ships, labour intensive and time consuming unloading, distribution alone must have been a nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Taffy
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:38 AM

LWD I don't think it changes the situation but we should acknowledge that it wasn't just the English to blame and also that the Scots were represented in the British parliament. To call it English is totally incorrect ... no wonder the world thinks everybody from the UK is English.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 08:08 AM

I think you're labouring an unneccessary point Taffy. We (the Brits) know that England isn't the same thing as Britain, and the Yanks don't care about anything outside their own borders (unless it's to do with the 'Owld Country' that they've never visited and don't even know where it is, or it has oil they can appropriate for bugger-all).

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 09:10 AM

You are right in that Taffy!

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Snuffy
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:03 PM

The British Parliament in Westminster in the 1840s had MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But I would imagine the Irish MPs were every bit as unrepresentative of the people as were those who sat for English seats.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 06:45 AM

A few notes from Cecil Woodham-Smith`s book the Great Hunger, the English lady notes that, "No issue provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation"

To further quote her, "although the potato crop failed Ireland was still producing and exporting more than enough grain crops to feed the population.
Burt that was a "money crop" and not a"food crop", and could not be interfered with.

One of the most remarkable facts about the famine period is that there was an average monthly export of food from Ireland worth 100,000 pounds sterling, throughout the famine years Ireland remained a net exporter of food.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:15 AM

I agree Ard, except that the site I linked to gave these figures for grain exports.

        Grain exports and imports 1844-48 (in thousands of tons)

                        Exports        Imports        Net Export
                        ------- ------- ----------
                1844        424        30        +394
                1845        513        28        +485
                1846        284        197        +87
                1847        146        889        -743
                1848        314        439        -125

I do not dispute how it was for the people.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 09:50 AM

Dr Christine Kinealy a fellow at the University of Liverpool the publisher of two books on the famine states in the 1998 "History Ireland", "that almost 4,000 vessels carried food from Ireland to the ports of Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool and London during the worst period of the famine 1847, a year when 400,000 Irish died of starvation and related diseases.
The food was shipped under guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland, Ballina, Ballyshannon, Bantry, Dingle, Killala, Kilrush, Limerick, Sligo, Tralee and Westport.

A wide variety of commodities left Ireland during 1847, including peas, beans, onions, rabbits, salmon, oysters, herring, lard, honey, tongues, animasl skins,etc.

Dr Kinealy`s detailed research proves beyond doubt that there was sufficient food in Ireland to prevent mass starvation, and that food was brought through the worst famine-stricken areas on its way to England.
British regiments guarded the ports and warehouses in Ireland to guarantee absentee landlords and commodity speculators their "free market" profits.

Trevelyan the British Minister in charge put the blame on the will of God and offered this comforting advice, let nature take its course.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,bob
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 03:00 PM

Arguing over something that happened 170 years ago? Put the same energy and passion into your future.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 03:11 PM

If you don`t learn from history you repeat it.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 03:13 PM

Compromise is a good lesson to learn from history.
G

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM

If you don`t learn from history you repeat it.
And from the other side of the wall came the answering cry;
No surrender!
And so the dinosaurs continued to writhe in their death throes, horns locked together in a futile, deadly embrace.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,bob
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 06:30 PM

ard the unprecedented rise in racist and homophobic assaults in Northern Ireland are happening now. What is being done about that? Will the children there ever be allowed to live in peace and free from fear.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 07:58 PM

More interstingly Ard, is there any specific lesson we can learn from the fact that without doubt (for most of us) the British government behaved abominably on this occasion.

Is there really anything we can take from the history of the famine that will help us get through to a more peaceful future?

I think possibly we can take one thing, without a great expense of imagination.

Namely that we (the English) have to tread as sensitively as possible if we do not wish to offend. I think, nearly everybody knew that putting English soldiers onto the streets of Northern Ireland was a mistake. The uniform was simply too offensive and emotive a symbol. Perhaps not quite as bad as SS men doing police duty in Tel Aviv, but getting on that way. For a variety of historic reasons, they were simple unacceptable.

But I'm sure theres more. Maybe you can point them out to us.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:45 AM

"Is there really anything we can take from the history of the famine that will help us get through to a more peaceful future?"

Losing the collective arrogance would help no end, weelittledrummer, whether it be from the soccer terraces or from the armchair.

The Irish are so well liked around the World precisely because we do not exude such qualities in our natural way of being.

If the British were like the Irish (oxymoron though it may be), people might be actually happy to see them when they go travelling,

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 04:06 AM

The family of three brothers murdered 31 years ago have received an apology for their treatment at the hands of members of the security forces.

Catholic brothers John Martin, Brian and Anthony Reavey were shot dead in 1976.

Their brother, Eugene, said the Historical Enquiries Team Director, David Cox, had accepted that none of his brothers were in the IRA.

He said he had shown regret for the harassment his family later endured from the RUC and British army.

The brothers, aged 24, 22 and 17, were shot dead in their home at Whitecross in south Armagh by the loyalist paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force in January of 1976.

Mr Reavey said that after the murders there had been a "whispering campaign" that his brothers were in the IRA and that no-one from the authorities had ever talked to his mother about the killings.

"They apologised for no-one from the government or the police ever going to see her (his mother).

"Secondly he apologised to her for harassment by the Army, and thirdly he said to her that there was no credible evidence anywhere to suggest that her sons were members of the IRA or any other illegal activity.

"They were completely innocent victims."

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:37 AM

And what about,
The day after the Reavey brothers were killed, 10 Protestant workmen were murdered by the IRA at Kingsmills in south Armagh. Two people survived the attack.

AND WHAT ABOUT.....

and what is the point?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:33 AM

I will endeavour to keep a check on my collective arrogance. In future, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,bob
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:43 AM

ard and tir the unprecedented rise in racist and homophobic assaults in Northern Ireland are happening now. What is being done about that? Will the children there ever be allowed to live in peace and free from fear.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:59 AM

Bob, [or member in hiding] have a good look through this Thread and see how often the replies are in favour of the British role in the famine, also Britain learning by it`d past deeds was put to bed when 14 civil rites marchers were gunned down in Derry, we didn`t take that warning,as the Brits learned to their cost.

I suppose the Jews will let bygones be bygones in 100 years time, we would have if you had cleared out and leave us to run our own affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:09 AM

In favour of the British role?
Who?
I said that the government failed.
Some Victorians, like Trevellyan, believed like Scrooge and Malthus that famine would decrease the surplus population. No one now would subscribe to such a philosophy. Even then Dickens made Scrooge an anti hero for having such an opinion.
Who would not argue that the government could and should have done more?
(Maybe Teribus)

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:15 AM

Was it a tenner Queen Victoria sent over to help famine relief in Ireland or eight pounds ?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:26 AM

If you read the thread you will see that it was £2000.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,bob
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:58 AM

ard and tir the unprecedented rise in racist and homophobic assaults in Northern Ireland are happening now. What is being done about that? Will the children there ever be allowed to live in peace and free from fear.

ard - for the third time of asking, what is being done NOW in N.I to curb the above?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:58 AM

There seems to be concensus here that the British governnment showed criminal indifference, at the very least, to Ireland's population during those harrowing years. (Even Ard and Teribus are in agreement.) Incidentally there was some parliamentary opposition to the government line. I think that Robert Peel, for instance, protested, but can't check just now.

But WLD is spot on. British governments of the day were equally indifferent to its own population. Michael Sadler MP spent years trying to gt the working hours of children in the mills restricted to ten hours a day, but his bill was not passed till 1833. In 1832 and inquiry heard testimony about children as young as six working from 3am to 10pm during the "brisk time." In most cases parents wereunemployed and were refused parish relief if they had children of working age.By the time of the Irish famine, conditions were much better -but only relatively speaking.

It is an unfortunate part of the human condition that people in such desperate circumstances will take succour from finding others even less fortunate, to whom they can feel superior. The Irish were thus stigmatised by elements of the Brit working class, in much the way that non-whites in South Africa who were fortunate enough to be clasified as "coloured" were inclined to abuse blacks as "kaffirs". Pathetic, but it's the way we are.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 08:18 AM

"Bob", The racists attacks you refer to are taking place in Loyalists areas, the few migrants that remain in these districts are finding safety in Nationalists areas, our small street, houses 8 migrant families at present and the surrounding area is a united nations of migrants who are made welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,bob
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 09:04 AM

But ard the immigrants live predominantly in South Belfast so the attacks would be higher there wouldn't they? Northern Ireland is 99% white, not this melting pot of culture you allude to at all.

You are unable to enter into a discussion or answer a question without using political affiliations as descriptors. Yoy are part of the problem not the solution.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 09:10 AM

Ard macha is right - in my experience of Belfast it's the Protestant areas where you find the racism; the Catholic areas are extremely tolerant. I remember one 12 July seeing a marching band that had come over from Glasgow making, en masse, the most disgusting racist remarks at an Asian man, and being loudly cheered on by the local Orange youth. Let's face it, for several generations the Catholics were victims of a form of racism themselves, so they know what it's like. In that sense they are the exception to PeterK's maxim of those on the bottom rung needing someone further down to kick.
Would, however, that there could be some form of reconciliation along the South African lines in Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:45 AM

According to one DUP/Free Presbyterian politician/minister (and I quote) "These Muslims eat their children. We don't want them here, do we?" (Sky News in May of last year

Read this article from the BBC Website, bob

If the DUP/Free Presbyterians don't want Roman Catholics in their midst, they certainly do not want 'The Infidel' poisoning their own little WASP furnace (I would have written 'melting pot', but that might only give them other ideas)

We want Peace, bob, and othere.

Peace With Justice

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:48 AM

... and weelittledrummer..., I was thinking in the autonomous form... (I should have probably said 'ons should lose the collective arrogance)

My apologies

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:05 PM

In fact a Devolved Parliament in the north would have us back to the Stone Age again before you could say 'Sunday Opening'
(...ONE should lose...)

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:30 PM

So "Bob" knows all of the answers , just where are you coming from, I know that all of the mid-Ulster towns have more migrants per head of the population than Belfast, you do get them on Mudcat.
I once informed a Thread that the Bronte sisters father came from near Bandbridge in County Down, I was called a liar by Penguin Egg and no amount of fact would persuade him that I was right, next I stated that Soccer was the term used in Ireland from as far back as almost the founding of the Fooball Aassociation I was hounded by Shields Folk to give him proof, all he had to do was go to the RTE Site and he would see it written thus in the sports section.
Just a few little insignificant facts to prove that your average Brit is as sensitive as the rest when their feathers are ruffled.
I see some stupid programme on C4 TV [UK] has been accused of racialism by one of the Indian contestant, it has made headline news on BBC tonight, the pot and the kettle come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:49 PM

no apopogy necassary Tir. just me letting the sarcasm rip as usual. Its an ugly trait like the collective arrogance.

Sometimes I say cruel and racist things to Ard also. being the flower of Celtic courtesy that he is, he always forgives me.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,bob
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:05 PM

ard you can not discuss withoout petty rancour, which is a shame as you may have good points, but they are so entrenched in bitterness your eloquence and reason escape you.

You are the king of the sweeping generalisation and grown ups tend to dismiss those.

Very interesting site tir. It would be refreshing to think the fight against racism spreading in NI could bring together catholics and protestants. They are carried out by a MINORITY of people, whatever their faith.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:17 PM

If anyone brings logical understanding to Irish topics on this site bob it's ard mhacha. Sorry can't share your views on this one.

Steven.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:31 PM

is this the ten minute argument?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:59 PM

They are carried out by the followers of the MAJOR political party in the north of Ireland as 'that very interesting site' denoted when a Gay Rights motion was defeated, bob.

"They are carried out by a MINORITY of people, whatever their faith."
That has to be not only the King of sweeping generalisations, but one of its most misinformative ones.

Its the bluenoses, bob.
They have been the problem since 1921, over here.
Have you forgotten the 'Protestant State For A Protestant People'?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,bob
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:36 PM

They are carried out by a minority of people tir. The loyalists are too busy running the drug rings to worry about throwing a brick through an Asian's window.

Let's all generalise eh?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:04 PM

What is it that is actually being carried out, bob?
Racist and homophobic assaults?

The main party in the north is both racist and homophobic, and they preach it from the pulpit.

What's that guy's name with the hook?
Hamza?

We've had right-wing extremist clerics like him for years.

See the DUP?
They're the biggest collection of Christian Ayatollahs you will ever have the grave misfortune to meet,

The Loyalists DON'T WANT THEM THERE, bob.
None of them do!

And if the assaults have died down of late, it is only because the ethnic cleansing of the housing estates has worked.
Same way they drove the Catholics out in the '60's & '70's

What I am saying, bob (and with full sincerity, from knowing the situation on the ground) is that it is far from the minority who want this state of affairs.

You can either accept that, or not

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 08:23 AM

"Bob",no, it should be boob, you are the makings of a great comic, the last post says it all.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM

Keith A of Hertford, have I actually argued that the British Government of the day could not have done more? Have I argued that the British Government of the day should not have done more?

In my first post I pointed out that the bulk of emigration to America was from the UK to Canada aboard British registered vessels because it was offered free, not Ireland direct to the United States of America as most fondly imagine. Because the latter cost money, the passengers had to prove they were in good health and have at least £10 in cash or assets on arrival (a lot of money in those days).

The second post pointed out two things, the first that the British Government was the largest relief contributer followed by the British Quakers, the impression being given is that the British Government did nothing, which is quite wrong. US grain was being bought up by every major state in Europe, it was in short supply and commanding extremely high prices.

The second thing pointed out was that conditions for transporting and distributing aid were not exactly easy in the mid-1800's. In 1985 in Ethiopia people still died by the hundreds of thousands, with the entire world helping.

People also tend to forget that this blight affected the whole of Europe, the British Government had to cope with famines in Ireland (1846 to 1851) and in Scotland (1847 to 1857) simultaneously.

Queen Victoria's personal contribution was £2000 (the equivalent of over 70,000 euros in todays money), and it should be remembered that at the time the monarchy was by no means wealthy. The private wealth of the present Queen is due in no small part to the efforts and efficient estate management of Queen Victoria's husband Prince Albert.

As far as lessons learned go, those quick to condemn Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan should take a look at his later career in India, as Governor of Madras, where his experiences of what measures worked in Ireland and what didn't saved hundreds of thousands of lives when he was faced with the problems of famine and drought.

As early as 1830, the Duke of Wellington was complaining of the number of people dying as a result of malnutrition in Ireland. Every year there was a spate of deaths amongst the poor that ran in the thousands, in the gap period between last years crop running out and the first of the new seasons crop being ready pick. The repeal of the corn law by Peel's Tory Government was achieved in May 1846 in an attempt to lower the price of bread, the repeal was hastened through the House of Lords with the assistance of the Duke of Wellington. Unfortunately Peel's Government fell and the Whigs came to power on a free trade/laissez-faire ticket, just at the time the blight was about to get worse.

Could they (the British Government) have done more, of course they could, had they been able to predict, at the time, what the next five years was about to bring. They hadn't a clue about what was going to hit them, because it was new. What caused the "blight", like the potato itself, came across the sea from America, on a ship that made an exceptionally fast passage at, coincidentally, just the wrong time of year. The "blight" first appeared in South Dorset and the Isle of Wight then spread. It had not occured before because normally the passage time across the Atlantic was long enough to kill the spores off (Ref: The Great Hunger).

Should they have done more, again of course they should, once the true magnitude of what was happening had dawned upon them. Now in real terms translate into actions. First of all who are "They" - the British Government. The Potato Famine/The Irish Potato Famine, gives the impression that the people died of hunger. Obviously a great number did, but more died of disease. Unfortunately "They" the British Government have got to convince members of the public - healthy members of the public, i.e. the likes of you and me at the time - to roll our sleeves up and get stuck in. Now back in the mid-1800's, and I dare say nowadays, when confronted with killers like typhoid,typhus and cholera, healthy members of the public, by and large, would be somewhat reluctant to get involved - after all "They" can't force us. On the food issue, stop exporting food from Ireland and turn it all towards those who needed it before it goes rotten. How do you get it there? Who delivers it? That leaves the measure of evacuation, get people away, and that was done.

By the bye Ard, Cecil Woodham-Smith was born in Wales of a family of Irish descent, she was not English. And according to the 1851 census of Ireland the population at that time (towards the end of the Famine) was counted as being 6.6 million.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 02:12 PM

Teribus sorry for the population figures what I meant to say was the population dropped by 2 million in 1851.
The following laws which remained on the statute book until 1829 the year of Catholic emancipation, these laws enacted from the 15th century to 1829 reduced the native Irish to destitution.

The Irish Catholic was forbidden the exercise of his religion.

He was forbidden education.

He was forbidden to enter a profession.

He was forbidden to hold public office.

He was forbidden to in engage in trade or commerce.

He was forbidden to live in a town or within five mile thereof.

He was forbidden to own a horse of greater value than five pounds.

He was forbidden to purchase land.

He was forbidden to lease land.

He was forbidden to accept a mortgage on land in security for a loan.

He was forbidden to vote.

H

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 03:01 PM

Why was my reply cut, the Penal Laws contain half as much again.

In 1839 a French visitor to Ireland, Gustave de Beaumont, wrote, " In all countries, more or less, paupers may be discovered, but an entire nation of paupers is what was never seen until it was shown in Ireland.
To explain the social condition of such a country, it would be only necessary to recount its miseries and its sufferings, the history of the poor is the history of Ireland.

From the 15th through the 19th centuries, successive English monarchies and governments enacted laws designed to suppress and destroy Irish manufacturing and trade.
These repressive Acts, coupled with the Penal Laws, reduced the Irish people to dire poverty in a direct and puposeful way.

The destitute Irish then stood at the very brink of the bottomless pit.When the potato blight struck in 1845, it was time for the final push.

The famine initiated a century of population decline, the famine was responsible for the great fow of emigration, so that by 1900 the Irish population was 4 and a half million, the English population in that time rose from 12 million to 50 million.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 10:00 PM

Back in the 15th Century Ard, why were those laws enacted. In fact Ard, I believe those Laws were enacted during the reign of Henry VIII or later, which makes it the 16th Century at the earliest.

Popular misconception in Ireland is that Chief O'Niel was a patriot who played Elizabeth in order to win Ireland (That fuzzy Hollywood creation of Irish American dreams) her freedom. In actual,fact the guy was trying to turn Ireland over to Spain (The Super Power of the age) as a colony, but a colony that Chief O'Neil was to rule as Governor.

While England might put up with Spanish shennanigans in Ireland and French shennanigans in Scotland the long term of aims of Spain or France were never going to be allowed to come to fruition, not as long as one English butt pointed downwards - and remember that both Spain and France were the super powers of this time.

Fortunately for England, neither the French, or the Spanish, EVER had any real confidence in either the Scottish or Irish to back them in order to bring the matter to a head. And at the time, poor bankrupt, destitute, England won the game of high stakes poker being waged internationally, mainly thanks to Wallsingham - Elizabeth's spy master, who ensured that poor though she was, Elizabeth out manoeuvred the opposition, be it French, or Spanish, throughout her reign. As the complete and utter underdog, the rank outsider, she saw them both into oblivion and managed to co-opt their surrogates to her country's cause for the next four hundered years.

The discussion has been mainly about the Famine (1846 to 1851) and Ard talks about 1829 and Catholic Emancipation?

However Ard regarding Catholic Emancipation:

"The first Catholic Relief Act was passed in 1778; subject to an oath against Stuart claims to the throne and the civil jurisdiction of the Pope, it allowed Roman Catholics in Great Britain and Ireland to own property, inherit land, and join the army. Reaction against this led to the Gordon Riots in 1780. Further relief was given in 1791. The Irish Parliament passed similar Acts between 1778 and 1793. Since the electoral franchise at the time was largely determined by property, this relief gave the votes to Roman Catholics holding land with a rental value of £2 p.a. They also started to gain access to many professions from which they had been excluded.

The issue of greater political emancipation was considered in 1800 at the time of the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland: it was not included in the text of the Act because this would have led to greater Irish Protestant opposition to the Union, but it was expected to be a consequence given the proportionately small number of Roman Catholics in the UK as a whole.

William Pitt the Younger, the Prime Minister, had promised Emancipation to accompany the Act. However, no further steps were taken at that stage, in part because of the belief of King George III that it could violate his Coronation Oath. Pitt resigned when King George's opposition became known, as he was unable to fulfill his pledge. Catholic Emancipation then became a debating point rather than a major political issue.

In 1823, Daniel O'Connell started a campaign for repeal of the Act of Union, and took Catholic Emancipation as his rallying call, establishing the Catholic Association. In 1828 he stood for election in County Clare in Ireland and was elected even though he could not take his seat in the House of Commons. He repeated this in 1829.

The resulting commotion led the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, against their previous judgements, to introduce and carry the major changes of the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, removing many of the remaining substantial restrictions on Roman Catholics in the UK.

Ard, you quote your French visitor of 1839, Gustave de Beaumont. Scottish Act of Union with England in 1707, widely unpopular with the Scottish people at the time. By 1800 the country (Scotland) was thriving and continued to do so. 1801 Irish Act of Union with the United Kingdom, for Ireland as a whole the result was zip, absolutely nothing, now why was that Ard. You have just become one quarter part of the greatest trading Empire the world has ever known. England benefits from it, Scotland benefits from it and Wales benefits from it. Northern Ireland benefits from it, but the rest of Ireland becomes "a nation of paupers". How come Ard? What did all the others take advantage of that the rest of Ireland didn't? couldn't? or wouldn't?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:53 AM

This bitterness against people long dead, and the condemnation of acts by governments that existed in less enlightened days, is nursing a grievance with a vengeance. South Africa has it's Truth and Reconciliation committees, and in most cases the descendants of slaves have put the hatred behind them, and learned to live with the descendants of those who oppressed their forefathers.
Why do there seem to be so many warmongers and so few peacemakers in the NI conflict?
One side accuses the other of bitterness and intransigence, and truth to tell, one side is a guilty as the other.
For Christ's sake grow up the lot of you!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 05:45 AM

Couldn't agree with you more John. Which is why when discussing deeds and events of the past, those taking part in that discussion should take into account the difference in time and the realities, attitudes and conditions that prevailed at that time. Too often 20th & 21st century thinking is applied and used to judge events of history.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 06:02 AM

"one side is a guilty as the other."

Couldn't disagree with you more, John.
That kind of talk tries to equate British Imperialism with Irish Resistance.
Apples & Oranges

One has no need to be bitter when one relates history.

One can only hope that that the message gets through that suppression and subjugation is not the way forward,
The 'Colonials' resisted, the Irish resisted, in fact everywhere one goes in the World, occupation is met with resistance.

The British have been very wrong over the aeons.
Trying to load guilt in equal measure to the peoples they occupied and used, in order to make their 'Great' Britain is ludicrous.
Resistance only comes from Occupation. It's a Cause & Effect scenario.

"England benefits from it, Scotland benefits from it and Wales benefits from it. Northern Ireland benefits from it"
You are talking about the Priviliged Classes here, I take it, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 06:30 AM

Anyone who's interested in the Great Famine should read Cathal Poirtear's books, in which he collects contemporary documents and word-of-mouth accounts. Very interesting.

Thing is, the British government of the time was kind of Thatcherite. They were in thrall to the doctrines of Malthus, who believed in the survival of the fittest - the idea that if you allowed the strongest to survive and breed, it was better for the race.

This was applied to the famine in Ireland, on the basis that the country was overcrowded and full of lazy, workshy people who would starve because they wouldn't lift a hand to help themselves.

As in all famines, most deaths were not from starvation but from the cholera and typhus that follows on a huge number of corpses.

As for Queen Victoria, there was a tragically funny incident when an Indian maharajah offered a large contribution to help the famine-stricken people, and was tactfully told that he shouldn't give more than Her Majesty.

One of the groups that helped greatly - forming a tie that has never been broken - was the Choctaw nation, who collected money and sent it.

However, as people have pointed out, this is thread drift.

In relation to Northern Ireland at the moment, it seems to me that the unionists are stalling until a unionist-favourable prime minister comes in in England and the whole idea of devolved rule is sidelined.

Of course, then we'll probably be back to red war. Alas.

What a lost opportunity, when the people of the North could get together so well if they'd just have the generosity to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 07:05 AM

It's like a Tom & Jerry cartoon, Guest - the title is irrelevant; all that matters is the good old cat'n'mouse ding-dong, and here we have the usual suspects at it again, egged on by the usual plastic Paddies from across the Atlantic (which, I suppose, gives some relevance to the title).

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 07:27 AM

Tir, in keeping with the thread title, what do you feel about my comparison of Imperialist USA occupying the Mexican lands of Texas, California and New Mexico.
Would you advise Mexican Americans to detonate car bombs in US town centres and back shoot police officers as a show of resistance?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 07:59 AM

Resistance is the right of any oppressed people. And if they feel oppressed enough, they will react in due measure.
They did their share of it at the time, Keith, the old Mexicanos, with the weapons of the day.

I am not, however in the business of 'advising' anyone to do anything of a sort, Keith.
That scenario may or may not happen of itself.
I would never relish the thought, however, of anyone having to grow up the way I did, but like all forms of resistance, weapons appear only when the oppressor will not stop oppressing.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 08:06 AM

So you are not advising it, but you would not consider it unreasonble?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 08:39 AM

One of the excuses was the bad roads and that the food was impossible to transport to the starving people, this excuse was laid to rest when you see the vast amounts of food transported along these roads to the many ports, all of the food on its way to the fill the coffers of the absentee landlords in Britain.

Trevelyan`s great work in India, this wasn`t much compensation for the dead and starving he left behind in Ireland, this religious fanatic will be forever remembered in Ireland when he deemed the potato famine to be, the will of the Lord, and of course India was a much more fertile area for plunder than Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:05 AM

No, it is always right to fight an invader.
Harold and his housecarls were right to fight the Normans in 1066, but we stopped killing Normans centuries ago.
Like the Mexican fighters.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:10 AM

Also we would not have had the opportunity to vote out the German Army.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:30 AM

Well, obviously you wouldn't consider it unreasonable, Keith, if it is always right to fight an invader

Maybe 800 years hence, after regaining 4/5ths of your Country, you may be able to outbreed the remaining German descendants who still have clung on to the old oppressionist ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:34 AM

Knowing German mentality at the time, though, I would imagine quite a lot of English people would have ended up in the Gas Chambers.

Nothing would quite focus the mind, I'd say, as envisaging the prospect of that.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:41 AM

Nationalists have full voting rights and are still in a minority.
Using violence to impose an unwanted regime on an unwilling population is what the Nazis wanted to do.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:42 AM

"Using violence to impose an unwanted regime on an unwilling population is what the Nazis wanted to do."

It is also what the British have done over the years, Keith.

No?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:48 AM

Such a pity really, this started off as a sensible lucid thread, but has once again become a series of nit picking personal comments, agendas, and hobby horses.
Why must you lot live in the past, is your everyday life as bloody boring and predictable as this thread has become?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:52 AM

We are discussing the past, Giok.

Feck off with your patronising, you don't have a high horse anywhere in your vicinity, so stop acting like you have.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:06 AM

Ard, your post of 19 Jan 07 - 08:39 AM, is typical of the emotional rubbish and oversimplification, wracked with inaccuracies that manages to completely misrepresent the situation.

Let's logically and unemotionally, take a look at what problems would have faced those transporting and distributing food to the areas worst affected by the blight.

Where were those areas Ard? Were those the same areas in which those vast amounts of food were grown? I don't think so. There are some very good maps of Ireland illustrating the areas affected. There are also statistics showing population movement and deaths in the various counties. They tend to support my line of reasoning. Not all land was owned by absentee English landlords, much of it was owned by the ancient Irish aristocracy - those who took the soup - they were as much to blame as the others.

How much do you know about shifting loads using horse drawn transport Ard? What is the ratio of wagons carrying food for the starving people to wagons carrying food for the horses, food for those delivering the aid, spares for the wagons, etc? Depending on distance to travel its somewhere in the order of 1:5. I know there is some comical assumption that horses eat grass, and that there was plenty of grass in Ireland, but you will not get any work out of horses that just eat grass, because just to survive the horse must eat grass all day, if it is eating all day it can hardly be delivering vital aid to starving people.

Name the developed deep-water ports on the west coast of Ireland in the mid-1800's Ard. There were not many, compare their location to the parts worst affected by the famine. West coast, Atlantic coast of Ireland Ard, could you foresee any problems for sailing ships of the size required to transport the amount of food required? The first two steam powered ships of the Royal Navy were put to relief work to overcome problems related to wind and weather.

Judging the remarks made by yourself in the post referred to above, reasonably and logically, far from problems of transport and distribution being laid to rest, you illustrate that you haven't ever really considered them - Most likely because they form no part of your myth.   

The point made earlier that no-one learns from experience/history was incorrect, Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan did. As for India being a much more fertile area for plunder. I think that you overlook the vast amounts that Britain invested in India. Niall Ferguson covers this aspect of the Raj very well. At the height of the Mogul Empire 5% of the land in India was irrigated, and famines and droughts were common. By the time that the British left that percentage was up to 25%, with subsequent improvement in agriculture and crop yield.

In an earlier post you compared the decline in the population of Ireland to the growth in England, but omit to mention either the agricultural or industrial revolutions that fuelled that growth.

TC asked regarding this quoted passage:

"England benefits from it, Scotland benefits from it and Wales benefits from it. Northern Ireland benefits from it" (Teribus)

You are talking about the Priviliged Classes here, I take it, Teribus?

Not at all TC, taking into account the origins of my own family I would say that their lot in life has continually improved over the course of the last 300 years, and that I would say is fairly common.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:08 AM

Plenty of violence was meeted out to Mexicans in Texas since half of their country was taken.
But no, I do not think it reasonable that they should detonate huge bombs in shopping malls and murder police and GIs.
They gained their Civil Rights with peaceful dignified protest and pursue their cause now by the voting system.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:18 AM

I wouldn't tell them to do one thing or another, if they are happy enough, then let them off.
Civil Rights in America is another issue, Keith.
That discussion would take an entire website.

Thanks for that, Teribus. It almost sounds like Socialism, the way you put it.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:32 AM

A number of points made by GUEST,JTT, in his post of 19 Jan 07 - 06:30 AM

"This (Law/theory of survival of the fittest) was applied to the famine in Ireland, on the basis that the country was overcrowded and full of lazy, workshy people who would starve because they wouldn't lift a hand to help themselves."

I mentioned in one of my posts that the Irish potato Famine did not happen in isolation. The same event happened in Scotland, but lasted longer. In the west of Ireland fishermen sold their boats and gear to buy food, then subsequently became dependent. On the west coast of Scotland the fishermen did not.

"One of the groups that helped greatly - forming a tie that has never been broken - was the Choctaw nation, who collected money and sent it."

The Choctaw nation contributed approximately $1 million. Generous and welcome gesture as it was, this was overplayed and highlighted by Irish Americans at the time for political purposes to such effect that many now believe that contributions from the US by far outweighed aid supplied by the British Government and other sources - nothing could be further from the truth.

"In relation to Northern Ireland at the moment, it seems to me that the unionists are stalling until a unionist-favourable prime minister comes in in England and the whole idea of devolved rule is sidelined.

Of course, then we'll probably be back to red war. Alas."

No JTT, there will never be a return to "The Armed Struggle". Those who supported it somehow fondly believed that they had a mandate to do so (i.e. bomb, maim, murder and torture their fellow Irishmen in the cause of Unification), but that myth was exploded in the all Ireland referendum held at the time of the GFA, in which 98% of the people of Ireland condemned the use of violence to further political ends. Should some idiots opt to return to "The Armed Struggle" they will find out exactly what a bad enemy the USA can be, and a large number of Irish American armchair republican warriors will find themselves in slightly downgraded accommodation courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM

And, sure even now, all the Status Quo'ers (not the Rock Band) wont even go down the road of integration.

But the British Empire of old can be likened to the European Union of new. The inclusion of the poorer Nations to provide the resources and cheaper labour for the more effluent is precisely the same premise.

Innit?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:43 AM

The dynamics of the situation would have changed by the time that may come around again, Teribus.
You should never compare 20th Century demographics with the potential of what the 21st may give us.

America's not looking too healthy these days.
Every Empire comes to an end sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:33 PM

One aspect not mentioned here was the number of evictions which took place during the famine, over a quarter of a million people were removed from their homes, they found what refuge they could in the fields and roadside hedges, the landlords agents made sure they wouldn`t regain entry to their abodes, when they had them flattened to the ground.
All in all the British should have been proud of their handiwork, the fools gloated in their mistaken belief that the Irish had gone the way of the red Indians, thanks to brave men that never happened.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:25 PM

Thousands of dust bowl farmers were evicted too, when the banks foreclosed on them.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:57 PM

During what in Ireland was termed "black 47", 9.992 calves were exported to England, an increase of 33% from the previous year.
In the twelve months following the second failure of the potato crop, 4,000 horses and ponies were exported.. The export of livestock to Britain increased during the famine. The export of bacon and ham increased. In total, over three million animals were exported from Ireland between 1845-50, more than the number of people who emigrated during the famine years.
Dr Christine Kinealy states that almost 4,000 vessels carried food from Ireland to the ports of Bristol, Glasgow Liverpool and London during 1847, when 400,00 Irish men, women and children died of starvation and related diseases.

The food was shipped, under guard,. from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland, Ballina, Ballyshannon, Bantry, Dingle, Kilrush, Limerick,Sligo, Tralee, and Westport.
Bad roads didn`t hinder the trek to these ports.

Dr David Irvine has his contemporaries on this Thread regarding denying Britain`s role in the great hunger in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:42 AM

Terebus writes: Should some idiots opt to return to "The Armed Struggle" they will find out exactly what a bad enemy the USA can be, and a large number of Irish American armchair republican warriors will find themselves in slightly downgraded accommodation courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security.

(I hope my attempt to italicise worked.)

By "slightly downgraded accommodation", I assume Teribus means America's torture chambers in Guantanamo Bay?

You may indeed be right. It would be interesting to see the effect of America turning its torturers on Irish people, with an estimated 40 million Americans being Irish-American. Way to form an internal enemy, man!

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 05:04 AM

There ya go Ard, what's so unique about the Irish that evictions should be quoted as a justification for indiscriminate bombings like Omagh?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 05:17 AM

Read what was written Guest JTT. I intimated that those who would find themselves in slightly downgraded accommodation courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security would be Irish American armchair republican warriors. Who, between the years 1969 and 1996, sat back fat, dum and happy in their Boston Bars recalling the myths and stories of the Ould Country, and who then shoved their hands into their pockets to pay for another Enniskillen/Bloody Friday/Omagh.

Subsequent to 911, Guest JTT, when New York, Washington and the USA experienced exactly what it felt like, I think that you will find attitudes of the American people in general have turned against terrorists - of any description.

In 1998 the Irish people throughout the country told the paramilitaries exactly where to get off. They totally rejected the use of violence, should there be any attempt to turn the clock back, I would be really interested to hear the excuses given for that, I would certainly be interested in hearing what mandate such paramilitary forces claimed for the resumption of violence. I think that the paramilitaries would be astounded at the reaction of the general public in Ireland to such a resumption.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:30 AM

Guest that may have a great deal to do with the fact that they managed to persuade the PIRA to go follow a political route to attain their aims, instead of blowing people up.

If however they did return to the gun and the bomb, they would be universally condemned and rightly so.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:59 AM

Sinn Fein did not overtake SDLP until PIRA ended its violent campaign.
The so called armed struggle has held back the aspirations of the Nationalist people and produced nothing but a lack of prosperity and loss of life to the province.
See how much things have improved already.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 02:01 PM

PIRA have been on ceasefire since 1997.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 03:21 PM

Giok's point is beyond argument. There were far greater iniquities in South Africa, and much more recently, yet that nation has found a way forward through the truth and reconciliation process.

Around the world millions can look back on hideous behaviour by colonising nations, the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians, Spanish, Germanm, French, Portuguese... and latterly the Americans. Often these nations also treated their own underclasses despicably.

The wonder is how readily many victims or such behaviour, or whose ancestors were victims,have been prepared to work for reconciliation as the best prospect for the future.

The tragedy is the few who let their lives be eaten up with a bitterness that does no good to anyone. For some reason, nearly all of those few are to be found in Northern Ireland. Certainly there are many more of them in Northern Ireland than in the Republic of Ireland, whose population suffered just as greatly from those historic wrongs that Ard harps on about.

But then perhaps the true cause of catholic bitterness in the north is not the Brits at all, but their fellow catholics in the south - the freestaters, by whom they believe they were sold out. Yet if Dev had accepted the will of Collins and the freestaters (which incidentally was the will of the elected Irish parliament) a united, independenet Ireland would have been achieved decades ago. In the event, the rebels caused such mayhem in the south that a "protestant parliament for a protestant people" was free to run amok in the north, almost unnoticed beyond the bounds of its own legislature.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 05:00 PM

Ah, the past,that is a dirty word.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM

I haven't had time to read every post on this thread, so if someone else has said this already, please forgive me.

Some points that spring to mind on this topic, tho' I am not an authority on Irish history.

1.       "A famine suggests insufficient amounts of food to feed a population.
As Ireland was exporting large amounts of grain, beef, and other food stuff to England during the great hunger then the situation could not be classed as a famine"

I was under the impression that absentee English landlords were responsible for the exporting of foodstuffs to England, and that they insisted that their requirements be met in spite of being told that this would leave insufficient food for the survival of the Irish tenants, This, from the POV of said tenants, would undoubtedly qualify as a famine.

2.       The situation in Northern Ireland can certanly not be compared with Iraq, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the way in which British troops became involved in the latest troubles was not by invasion, but at the insistence of the predominantly protestant loyalist majority, who did then, and still do, wish to remain part of the UK.

The mainly catholic minority simply wanted fair treatment, a measure of respect, and a say in the running of the country commensurate with their contribution to the economy of the six counties.

An even smaller republican minority wanted nothing less than the transfer of government to Dublin, and a united Ireland, though this faction had remained peaceful through most of the twentieth century.

Given the proportions involved, the United Ireland scenario was to say the least unlikely, and had the loyalists been willing to compromise, there might never have been any fighting, but with the breakdown of law and order and the collapse of the Stormont government, Westminster had no choice but to step in to what was a part of the UK, to ensure the safety of all its citizens.

On the subject of the establishment of a united Ireland, I think there is considerable doubt as to whether Dublin is all that keen on taking over Westminster's role, but as the proportion of catholic republicans is steadily increasing, there will in the not too distant future be a change of population balance which could bring this about.

I really don't think, if the majority want a United Ireland, Westminster will be too upset.

I realise that there will be many who will scream about my bias to one side or the other. None such exists. I was born in England, to Irish parents, and can trace my ancestors back to the three kingdoms. I owe my education, and livelihood to England.

My only bias is against the stupidity that constantly picks at old wounds till they bleed anew, when, with concern and respect for others points of view a better way is not just possible, but certain.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 05:06 AM

Excellent post Don.
I would only quible on two points.

1 "British troops became involved in the latest troubles was not by invasion, but at the insistence of the predominantly protestant loyalist majority"

I would have said that they came to protect the Catholic people from that majority protestant population, especially from the B Specials.
The reason that they had to stay after that was sorted out, was to counter the insurgency of the PIRA.

2"I really don't think, if the majority want a United Ireland, Westminster will be too upset."

I think that Westminster, and the whole country, will be overcome with glee!

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 05:40 AM

The Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman's report is out tomorrow morning (21/1/7).

This is a report on one single unit of the RUC/PSNI, the police service in Northern Ireland. It will reveal police involvement in 18 murders of non-unionists; it will apparently also reveal that several of the police officers involved are still serving.

(Incidentally, someone talked about Irish fishermen selling boats and nets, while Scots fishermen didn't. I'd like to point out that this isn't comparing like with like. Irish fishermen on the west coast used currachs
- tarred canvas rowing boats that were rowed out into the broad Atlantic, requiring enormous strength and fitness. They were the boats of the very poor. Scots fishermen had wooden sailboats - a very different proposition. And while it is also true that there were famines in Scotland, there was not the devastating series of famine after famine for over a decade that struck Ireland in the 1840s to 1850s. Oh, by the way, if you'd like to hear contemporary accounts - voiced by modern actors - Cathal Poirtear's series Famine Echoes
is being repeated on RTE Radio and the latest programme is available for download.)

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 07:32 AM

Never heard "The Mingulay Boat Song" then Guest JTT.

Goik pointed out the Highland Clearances, in Scotland but these were not the only "clearances" in Scotland. There were those of the mid-1600's - take a look at the names Graham and McHarg and the reason how the latter came into being - that at the hands of a Scottish Stuart King. There were further clearances in the Scottish Borders brought about by seven years of famine between 1700 and 1707.

Irrespective of type of boat once the boat and gear was sold the fishermen and their families were in a very perilous situation. Are you trying to tell us JTT, that you can't get the strength you need to row a light boat from eating fish? How did they survive all those hundreds of years before the potato arrived on the eastern shores of the Atlantic?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:57 AM

Exactly Don, & likewise the 2 points that Keith made!

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:58 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4207057.stm
Plenty of English fishermen fall foul of these absurd EU regulations.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 10:28 AM

Just to show those parochial small minds in Northern Ireland that it is possible to move forward, here's an extract from a BBC report about elections now underway in Serbia:

"The BBC's Nick Hawton in Belgrade says the campaign has been largely devoid of the issues that have dominated in the past, such as co-operation with The Hague war crimes tribunal and Kosovo."

The troubles in Northern Ireland - what the provos liked to call a war - was a pea on the drum of what went on in the Balkans 1991-95. At least those parochial small minds are in a dwindling minority. For instance those of them on the republican side of the argument are going to have to come to terms with Sinn Feinn, any day now, giving its support to that police service they love to revile, as though it's not changed a bit since the days of Inspector Nixon and co.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:37 PM

I suspect it felt like a war if you were involved.

peas, drums, notwithstanding.....

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:34 PM

Wld, It felt like a war when your house was raided on the slightest suspicion, and the RUC and the Brits took great delight in pulling your home apart, aged parents and children weren`t considered, also when the wreckers departed any money you had on your person disappeared.

This wasn`t 170 years ago, when you have former RUC men still serving in the new police force who were in collusion with gangs of loyalist killers, this gives the lie to past Inspectors Of the RUC who constantly were in denial of collusion, to-morrows report will go some way to revealing the truth about the Mount Vernon loyalist murder gangs, and this is only one district, how many other areas were in collusion?.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:58 PM

Ard, just to balance the picture up, tell us about Jean McConville and Kathleen Feeney. Who was it burst into the former's home and what did they then do to her? Who was it that killed the latter and then lied about it?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:11 PM

Thread creep again - I have to say that I don't find regulations protecting fish from overfishing to be stupid.

There's a brilliant book called Cod, which has descriptions of the cod commonly caught of the Maine coast in the 16th century - five feet long, six feet around.

We have an irreplaceable resource, and we're raping it.

(As for who has suffered more in the North, well, I'll leave you to your whining competition.)

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:06 AM

The instances you give Teribus confirm really Ard's point about it feeling like a warzone.

is that a point of agreement....?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 02:39 AM

What's the point, Guest?

The whole point of a war is that both sides are up to whatever dirty tricks will hurt the enemy. If its over, its over.

its a big 'if' though, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:06 AM

JTT, the regulations are absurd because fishermen can not choose what swims into their nets. Throwing back dead fish does nothing for the stocks.
http://www.rip-off.co.uk/hastings_fishing.htm
Also certain EU ports notoriously turn a blind eye to catch quotas for their own vessels.
A better system would be no fishing zones where fish could breed, but certain EU countries will not agree because breaches could not be hidden.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:13 AM

The fishing is a complete mess. We should tear up the rules and start again - something that suits us and Ireland. Sod everybody else - bollocks to the EU on that one.

One week I was in Looe harbour about '90, this guy was telling that week the bank has repossessed every single fishing boat in the harbour that week.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:19 AM

We had a thread devoted to collusion just a couple of weeks ago.
USA has not had a comparable terrorist war to draw comparisons.
In the Indian wars, government colluded with prospecters and others to break treaties protecting Indian lands, and in the extermination of the buffalo.
The well armed mobsters of the 20s and 30s were a kind of terroris.
Collusion within local government and the police was absolutely rife.

SinnFein worked in close co operation with PIRA, so you could say that Sinn Fein politicians colluded in most or all PIRA murders.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:30 AM

Bad argument Keith...Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Also the latest report concerns official collusion...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:39 AM

Ok Ake, but if Sinn Fein officials colluded it would be hypocrisy for them to complain of it in the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 04:43 AM

Was there no 'collusion' in the Republic, by the turning of blind eyes at the least, to Republican activities on the south side of the border?
Or is it assumed that all citizens of the Republic of Ireland were ipso facto, anti British, and supported the activities of the bombers, and the smugglers?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 04:50 AM

Sinn Féin organiser Danny Morrison at the party's Ard Fheis (Annual Conference) in 1981, said, "Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?" This statement confirmed the relationship between the IRA and Sinn Féin.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:07 AM

GUEST (22 Jan 07 - 02:19 AM)

I am absolutely sure that there was collusion between the Security Forces and ALL paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland to some extent or other. They were all, after all, completely riddled with informers. On the republican side they "used" the Security Forces to set up their own in order the "clean house", the Loyalists did the same. All very local and low level.

Was there collusion on the part of the British Government in the bombing of Coventry? They after all knew it was going to happen and did nothing to evacuate the people. Nothing was done, because at all costs the secrets of "Ultra" and "Enigma" had to be protected for the greater good.

"Tell us about Bobby Niarac?"

Oh yes, Captain Robert Niarac, late of the Guards and Ampleforth School. Now this slightly connects with the disappearance and treatment of Mrs Jean McConville, of whom the staunch repulicans an PIRA apologists are so reticent about. Now neither Niarac's body or Jean McConville's bodies were EVER meant to be found (There are still five such cases - the RC Church has launched an appeal for information as those who carried out these abductions and murders, the PIRA, seem to have forgotten where they buried the bodies). Jean McConvilles body was found completely by accident, the PIRA had deliberately led the authorities to the wrong area to search for her remains knowing full well that none would be found.

Now remember the time to all this is as follows:
- December 1972 Jean McConville
- 1974 Abduction of Robert Niarac
- December 1977 Strasbourg Human Rights Court Case No. 5310/71

It sort of weakens your case considerabley if you go the Humans Rights Court complaining about "inhuman and degrading treatment" if it can be clearly shown that you yourselves are actually torturing people to death. That's why the bodies were never meant to be found.

Jean McConville:
This recently widowed 5ft tall mother of 10 was abducted from her house on the 12th December, 1972, by 12 PIRA stalwarts. They dragged her from her bath (she had been viciously beaten the night before courtesy of the bold PIRA - Gerry Adams commanding) screaming in front of her terrified children, four of her abductors didn't even bother wearing masks. She was then taken across the border beaten, tortured, mutilated and shot. Her body was then dumped in an unmarked grave, with the express intention that it should never be revealed. Now those actions constitute two chargable offences as "War Crimes" - they are not covered under the terms of the GFA - and Gerry could still find his collar felt for them - That is why you will not get any PIRA discussing this case.

Unfortunately for the PIRA, Jean's body was discovered by accident. The Coroner revealed that she had been tortured, her body mutilated and finally shot. Her fingers had been cut off during her "interrogation". After having first lied to her family with some cock-and-bull story about their mother having run off with a British Soldier, the PIRA delivered three of her four rings and her purse to her eldest daughter, the message was plain, your mother is gone, she will never be coming back. I have always wondered what happened to that fourth ring, did some PIRA scumbag, given it to his mother/sister/girlfriend/wife as a Christmas present that year (1972). If they did they'd better get rid of it, that ring could come back and bite them rather badly. To justify the death the PIRA then claimed that Jean McConville was an Army informer, this charge was thoroughly investigated by the Police Ombudsman, and found to be patently false. The PIRA still adhere to this "informer" myth, because they have to, that would be the only justification that would make Jean a legitimate target under the GFA, lose that and it becomes what it undoubtedly was plain murder, and good ol' Gerry being the officer commanding would be responsible for it.

Robert Niarac: (following from a reliable source)
"Robert Niarac was NOT SAS, but a member of the FRU (Force Research Unit) The FRU gained a rather nefarious reputation when they tried to carry-out a bogus laundry service known as Four Squares; their purpose was to gather forensic evidence from clothing. Pretty smart, huh? Anyway, that FRU unit was ambushed in the Juniper Park area of Twinbrook, in Belfast in 1974. It has been widely believed that this was an operation carried out by Bobby Sand's unit. But that is mere speculation.

Niarac was born a Catholic in Northern Ireland and after joining the Army and getting into the FRU, he went deep undercover to break up IRA cells. For awhile, his plan was working. Then apparantly after having a bit much to drink with some Republicans, either someone got a bad vibe from him or he said the wrong thing. A fight broke out outside the pub. There was one IRA man present who had a pistol. I am told he later joined the INLA (I also heard that this was Dominic McGlinchey, but who knows?) Niarac was beated pretty badly by a gang of Republicans, mostly teenagers and he was then bundled into a car to be taken for interrogation.

The IRA attempted for several hours to interrogate him, promising medical help if he complied. Niarac never said a word. In fact, one of the Provos present admitted "He was a damned fine soilder; he told us nothing. He was a very brave man." Niarac later died from internal injuries due to the excessive beating he recieved outside the pub.

His body was then given to a group of three or four men not in the IRA. The injuries he sustained were in fact so horrendous, the group were too afraid to leave his body at a hospital and he was instead taken across the border to Dundalk where one of the men had an uncle who operated a sausage factory. Niarac's body was then ground up in a sausage grinder and fed to pigs.

How true this is, I don't know. I have been told this same story by several reliable people and this seems to be the "offical" word on his fate.

Strasbourg Case No. 5310/71:
In December 1977, the court ruled that the government of the United Kingdom was guilty of "inhuman and degrading treatment", of men interned without trial, by the court, following a case brought by the Republic of Ireland (Case No. 5310/71). The court found that while their internment was a violation of the convention rights, it was justifiable in the circumstances; it however ruled that the practice of the five techniques and the practice of beating prisoners constituted inhumane and degrading punishment in violation of the convention, although not torture.

Now at the time the Republic of Ireland would have been pretty reluctant to bring this case if they'd viewed Jean McConvilles body, and it would not have been the great propaganda victory for the PIRA if it could have been demonstrated in very graphic terms what they were practicing and continued to practice to date (The punishment beatings still go on).

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:22 AM

"...four of her abductors didn't even bother wearing masks..." Your point being, er, WHAT, Teribus? Why do you have to pad everything out with such pretentious twaddle? Aren't the facts good enough for you?

"Now at the time the Republic of Ireland would have been pretty reluctant to bring this case if they'd viewed Jean McConvilles body..." Crap. There is no basis for such gratuitous speculation, beyond your own febrile imagination.

Well the ombudsman's report is out, and does indeed find that there was collusion between loyalist gangs and the police (as John Stevens also concluded four years ago). It will be interesting to see whether Teribus and perhaps Keith attempt to explain it away. But for me, facile retaliation along the lines of "what about Jean McConville?" is not good enough. The fact that it is good enough for Teribus is merely confirmation that he expects no better standards from the police than he expects from criminals and terrorists.

It is regrettable that no police officers, serving or retired, will be brought to account for what they have done, but as we know from the sabotaging of the Stevens inquiry, and from what the ombudsman has now said in her report, the guilty have destroyed the evidence. And of course they were well-placed to do so.

I will settle for the fact that Peter Hain, unlike for instance the retired police officers' association in NI, has accepted the report. I am not a fan of new Labour but I do believe that Hain is genuinely appalled at what has been uncovered and would have wanted prosecutions to follow had that been possible. That such an attitude now exists at British cabinet level is a far cry from the days when Stormont could behave as it liked, and Harold Wilson, and British prime ministers before him, simply referred any complaints about Stormont back to.... Stormont.

It is time that those who continue to whinge about the past recognised that the future is a different country. They should not let their bitterness jeopardise prospects for the succeeding generations.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:46 AM

"...four of her abductors didn't even bother wearing masks..." Your point being, er, WHAT, Teribus?

The point being Fionn - Is that Jean's eldest daughter has seen at last four of her mothers abductors and can possibly identify them.

As to collusion between paramilitaries and the Security Forces/RUC, I believe I made it perfectly clear that such a thing would not surprise me in the least, considering how far these groups had be infiltrated.

Far from being facile retaliation, Peter, I feel as anxious to know the truth about the circumstances of Jean McConville's death as others on this forum seem to be about those guilty of colluding with paramilitaries. I want the truth to be known about those who authorised the abduction, torture and murder of Jean McConville, I would dearly like to see them brought to book for it. The same goes for those who killed fourteen year old Kathleen Feeney, then blamed the British Army for it, they even murdered a British soldier in "relatiation" for a murder that they committed, and those who attacked and killed Mr. McCartney.

Robert McCartney, who may or may have not made a remark about a female friend of the lying, killing, thieving, sub-human Provos in a Belfast pub. They took him outside, slit his throat like swine in the slaughterhouse. Then they stepped through the blood, went back in the pub, locked the door, and swore their countrymen and women to secrecy in the name of Irish republicanism.

But the secrecy didn't hold. Robert McCartney had sisters, five to be exact, and as the world knows, courage lives in the hearts of Irishwomen. They talked. They named names. They called out Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness for the Arafat-like liars and cowards that they are.

The Daily Mail named the following men as three of the four men, all acknowledged members of the Belfast Brigade, whom the PIRA offered to shoot in retailation for the murder of Robert MacCartney:

Jim "Dim" McCormack, aged about 42, is the Officer Commanding of the Belfast Brigade of the PIRA.

Gerard "Jock" Davison, 41, is a current and senior member of the Belfast Brigade, and its former O.C.

Gerard Montgomery, is also a long standing PIRA member, and has acted as a bodyguard to both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.

All three men have close ties with Gerry Adams.

OK Peter K, let's hear the hue and cry for an inquiry into that from supporters of the republican cause. After all what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But then again maybe denounciation, knee-capping, punishment beatings and murder are the forms of law and order that the people of Northern Ireland must get accustomed to, the PIRA are well versed in that sort of thing and have been meeting it out for the best part of five decades now. They are collectively the greatest child abusers in the UK according to one study to do with violence against children in the age group 0-16.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:55 AM

The Goose and the gander are coming at the situation from two different viewpoints, Teribus.

No British Imperialism, no IRA.
No getting around that, Teribus.

Check outThe Biggest Cover-Up Of Them All!

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:17 AM

Tir, Do you also condemn PIRA's shoot to kill policy?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:27 AM

No State sponsored Terrorism, no need for one.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:30 AM

Tir, by British Imperialism are you referring to what happened in the 11th century?
If you mean the oppression of the Catholic people of NI under the old Stormont regime, I have pointed out before that similar oppression of African American and Tejano people in the Southern States of USA did not lead to an equivalent of IRA.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: bubblyrat
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:37 AM

The Americans absolutely HATED the British Empire, partly because of the former British colonial prescence in the US,and partly because of competition in world trade.At around the beginning of WW2 ,in fact, the US was all set to invade Canada !! The plans were drawn up, the troops on standby, everything !! If it wasn"t for the war, they would have gone ahead,too !! Why do you think the US stayed out of the war for so long ?? To give the Germans a chance to mess up the British Empire,that"s why !!!Many Americans still hate Britain even today----In New York schools,I believe,they actually teach young children that British biologists created the fungus that wiped out the potato crop in Ireland ,as a form of biological warfare against the Irish people !! Why aren"t the people who peddle this garbage arrested for hate-crimes ?? Or,God forbid,do they ACTUALLY believe it ??? I always thought that the Americans loved Democracy ?? So why support the most ANTI-DEMOCRATIC organisation the world has ever seen----The IRA ?????

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:42 AM

So what, Keith?
Similar is not exact.

The example up the thread considering England's defences against a possible German invasion, would not rule out any form of resistance.

You also must remember, Keith, Teribus and others, that not everyone who was opposed to British oppression took up a gun.

That leaves an enormous groundswell of people who just couldn't bring themselves to do it, no matter how extreme they were in their opposition. Quite a lot of these were first preference SDLP voters, and Sinn Féin second preference.

Yes folks, Proportional Representation.

The Volunteer was (as it always is in conflicts Worldwide), the tip of the iceberg

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:02 PM

Tir, I know well that most Nationalists did not take up the gun, and would not vote Sinn fein while the killing went on.
They knew that was not the best way, like the African Americans and Tejanos who won equal rights and equal opportunities without killing a single human being.
Not exact? What significant differences can you think of Tir?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:02 PM

Keith back in the eye of the present troubles Sinn Fein`s vote was as strong then as it is now.
The collusion issue long denied by Sir Ronnie Flanagan Head Constable of the RUC is at last being exposed, despite the fact that many police refused to help in the inquiry and disposed of most of the evidence dealing with collusion.
The Special Branch and their UVY killers were in the pay of the British Government, after all the RUC weren`t paying them out of their own pocket.
Collusion was rife throughout the six counties, mid-Ulster was the hot-bed for collusion, week after week the Sunday World newspaper has printed the names of the killers of their reporter Martin O`Hagan, the paper has never had a writ served on it, they name the local LVF as the killers and they also hint that this breakaway branch of the UVF as being in collusion with the Special Branch.

Collusion with the Police and the Loyalist paramilitaries has been going on from the start of the present conflict, it comes as no surprise to the people here.
You can view the video content of the report Google, www.irishnews.com

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 02:15 PM

"Tir, I know well that most Nationalists did not take up the gun, and would not vote Sinn fein while the killing went on"

You know nothing of a sort, Keith.
The phrase: "May you never want for a string for your fiddle, while there's guts in an Englishman", was not a warcry of any movement for political change, remember.

The British never understood fully the depth of opposition.

You need to work on your Empathy, Keith, not look for obtuse common denominators by which you seek to absolve your own disgraceful history abroad over the Centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 02:41 PM

"UVF members in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for Special Branch."

No shit, Sherlock, that is about as surprising as picking up a paper and reading the headline "Dog Bites Man".

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:41 PM

Ard, 2001 was the first time SF beat SDLp for the Nationalist vote (21.7%-21%)

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM

You're forgetting Danny Morrison, Keith: 1982-86

Thanks, Teribus, for justifying the Armed Struggle

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 04:31 PM

Mark Haddock UVF serial killer in British employ received £80,000 in payments, Sir Ronnie Flanagan now the official overseer to police forces in Britain refused along with other police heads to meet the Ombudsman, he was advised by RaYmond McCord sr father of Raymond McCord jr, murdered by Haddock, to resign and also advised the government to strip Sir Ronnie of his knighthood.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 04:54 PM

TC lot less damning than the following with regard to collusion:

"Members of the Special Branch in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for the UVF."

After all, I would imagine that, those involved were UVF members first and informers second.

By the bye TC, please explain to all regarding the non-participation in the "troubles" by the IRA, tell us why the Provisional IRA was formed, because had they not been formed, had they followed the lead given by the IRA, then over three thousand men women and children would be alive today.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:47 PM

"After all, I would imagine that, those involved were UVF members first and informers second."

Ahem... You're forgetting the part played by the UDR. and the Police Reserve.

Perhaps you might like to spill a few more beans, now that the can is open....?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:13 PM

The point being Fionn - Is that Jean's eldest daughter has seen at last four of her mothers abductors and can possibly identify them.

Oh, Teribus, I do believe you're lying! That is NOT the point you were making with the phrase I questioned, and I fear you would never persuade anyone on this planet that it was.

Keith, what if oppression in the southern states did not spawn an IRA equivalent? Maybe it should have done. Or are you suggesting that the oppressed in that example got a fair result through their passivity? Northern Ireland by the late 60s was crying out for direct action, with Westminster turning a blind eye to criminal abuse of power by the ruling unionists. But for NICRA and the IRA - later PIRA - the abuses would have continued unchecked.

Oppression seldom produces a chief terrorist/freedom-fighter strong enough to fine-tune the scale of response until it is precisely proportionate to the prevailing circumstances. Neither is there any one correct, guaranteed-effective, way to respond to oppression.

What do you and Teribus say about the fact that Ronnie Flanagan, the chief constable who presided over the collusion now acknowledged at British cabinet level, has so far not been suspended from his present job as HM Chief Inspector of Police? Will you still cling to the worn-out line that he's no worse than "the lying, killing, thieving, sub-human Provos"? By the way, Ard, Ronnie did present himself to the ombudsman's inquiry. He just wasn't in a particularly helpful frame of mind.

Teribus, abandoning facts has worked wonders for your prose style, as in that wee bit I just quoted. But how about this: "...as the world knows, courage lives in the hearts of Irishwomen." Surely the high-watermark of pretentious humbug?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Den
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:16 PM

Lets not forget the FRU. Maybe Teribus can tell us why they only killed catholics.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:19 PM

"...then over three thousand men women and children would be alive today"

Pure speculation, Teribus. After Burntollet, nothing was certain

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:28 PM

Really, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

I think who has made which choices is obvious. Really, the fascinating bit would be why they arrived at such choices.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 02:08 AM

Peter K Your question:

"...four of her abductors didn't even bother wearing masks..." Your point being, er, WHAT, Teribus?"

The original passage the quote in the question came from:

"This recently widowed 5ft tall mother of 10 was abducted from her house on the 12th December, 1972, by 12 PIRA stalwarts. They dragged her from her bath (she had been viciously beaten the night before courtesy of the bold PIRA - Gerry Adams commanding) screaming in front of her terrified children, four of her abductors didn't even bother wearing masks. She was then taken across the border beaten, tortured, mutilated and shot."

My answer to your question:

"The point being Fionn - Is that Jean's eldest daughter has seen at least four of her mothers abductors and can possibly identify them."

In fact Peter, should you ever ask Helen, and Seamus, her husband, she has seen one of the people who abducted her mother while shopping in Belfast. Like the ring, the presence of these four people who can be identified, may yet come back to roost. Remember that this kidnapping and murder are still open investigations, people can still be arrested, tried and convicted - that includes those who authorised and sanctioned the "operation". The Police Ombudsman is being hailed as the font of all truth and wisdom with regard to Security Forces/RUC collusion, but for some reason when she investigates extensively as to whether or not Jean McConville was an informer and takes the unprecedented step of categorically stating that she was not, SF mouthpieces denounce such inquiries as bogus.

You asked why I mentioned that aspect of Jean's abduction and I believe that I have explained it. If you do not like the answer Fionn all well and good, that is no skin off my nose, however can you tell me why you think that I am lying in my answer, and share with us what point you thought I was trying to make?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 03:33 AM

Peter, I am suggesting that US Civil Rights Movement got a fair result by massive, peaceful, dignified protest.
20 years later their struggle was a fading memory, while the killing in NI carried on unrelenting.
If an African American terror group had killed in the same proportion, millions of US people would have died, and what else would they have achieved but revulsion and hatred.

Yes, the situation in late 60s was unacceptable to the vast majority in these islands, and it was right that the Civil Rights movement brought it in to the open.
By early 70s, B Specials had been disarmed and disbanded, Stormont had been thrown out and the unfair voting system swept away.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 04:46 AM

No Guest, once NICRA had exposed the situation to the people of mainland Britain, they were pushing against an open door.
There was no support for the Stormont regime outside NI.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Den
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:37 PM

Can we please dispel with the myth that the disbandment of the 'B' Specials was some kind of significant event for the benefit of nationalists. The 'B' Specials simply became the Ulster Defense Regiment, an even bigger parcel of bigoted rogues than their predecessors. Better equipped, better trained, the loyalists own version of Homeland Security.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 02:01 PM

1969, B Specials disbanded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/10/newsid_3146000/3146929.stm

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 03:24 PM

Keith, that doesn't address Den's point that many of the thugs from the B Specials were subsequently re-employed in the UDR. I would add however that the UDR, for all its faults, was not remotely comparable with the B Specials.

Teribus, I was quibbling about one very specific phrase, and you've not dealt with it. Within that phrase you used three words ("even bother wearing") where one ("wear") would have done the job you now say you were trying to do. The three words were spawned by your ill-contained hatred, and must have been intended to suggest that the maskless ones were behaving with contempt or disdain in not wearing masks. But in the event you merely sounded incoherent, which is what happens when you let hatred drive your behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:52 PM

"The three words were spawned by your ill-contained hatred"

Oh no Peter K (Fionn), I feel no hatred, ill-contained or otherwise, for any of the paramilitary groups, just complete and utter contemp for them, and total revulsion for what they did.

And while tables are being produced as being relevant, here's the one that puts things into perspective:

British Security 362
Irish Security 5
Loyalist Paramilitary 1020
not known 80
Republican Paramilitary 2056
TOTAL 3523

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 06:39 PM

See the thread of British Collusion in Ireland disappeared from here. How strange ! Seems there are more Pro - British moderators here than many thought. Keep up the good work chaps, tally ho and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:22 AM

Patsy, that thread was not deleted or closed.
People just stopped posting to it a couple of weeks ago.
Here it is if you want it.
Collusion Thread

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 02:08 AM

We feel utter contempt for what you lot did Teribus.

We are relieved however to know that the scum you represent will never again sully our lands.
We are finally getting rid of you, Allah be praised.

All you have is contempt and sour grapes.

Na na na na na!

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 02:13 AM

Condie Rice recently said that every American life lost in Iraq was worth it, Teribus

Would you say the same about your tally in the North?

"(... you slipped up badly there totally overlooking Danny Morrison, Keith...)
Is it any wonder you get the reactions you get.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 02:29 AM

Now let's see TC, 3,500+ killed, over 32,000+ injured.

The PIRA and the INLA claimed that they had a mandate to "protect" the "nationalist/republican" minority in Northern Ireland. The figures given above and the indiscriminate way that the PIRA and INLA went about "protecting" people could have been much, much worst. It was not for the want of trying on the part of the PIRA, was it TC?

So you have nothing but contempt for those who stood in order to save innocent civilian lives, how honest of you to put the paramilitaries contempt for the general population so well - they were after all the people you were supposed to be "protecting". Question for you TC, give me the name of one single paramilitary who sacrificed his/her life to save the life of a single civilian in Northern Ireland?

As to the presence of British troops within the recognised boundaries of the United Kingdom, I think that you will find them there until such time as the people of Northern Ireland vote in a referendum to join the Republic. According to most polls that day is still a long way off. So tell me again why all those people had to die, why were all those people injured? Tell us how and why the PIRA came to exist, tell us what the IRA's take on the situation in 1971/1972 was.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 02:59 AM

scum you represent
ah, the words of reconciliation and the mature thoughts of a peacemaker who wishes to move on!
As I've said TC, you are part of the problem. You don't speak for my family, and I find your attitude sickening. The sooner your raving fades away the better for the whole of Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:14 AM

Tir, you have twice said I should have mentioned Danny Morrison.
I qouted him, in this thread, on 22nd Jan at 0450 AM.
What is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:38 AM

Peter, It was good of you to concede that UDR were a vast improvement on the B Specials.
I accept that they were far from perfect, but it showed that real progress was made as early as 1969.
UDR were disbanded soon after PIRA were disbanded.
But for PIRA they might have been disbanded in early 70s.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:59 AM

Tir, here is that quote again.

Sinn Féin organiser Danny Morrison at the party's Ard Fheis (Annual Conference) in 1981, said, "Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?" This statement confirmed the relationship between the IRA and Sinn Féin.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 05:02 AM

Yes Guest, thanks for the correction.
Actually they were merged with RIR, not disbanded.
RIR and all army units were withdrawn frm the streets when PIRA ceased its "operations"
That could and should have happened decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 05:03 AM

Mark Haddock serial killer referred to as "informant 1" was doing his business during the first five years of this Labour government, Mrs O`Loan tells us that Haddock was being paid his £80,000 between 1990 and 2001, who knew/ who was in charge?. A policeman or a senior figure in Stormont?.

Does anyone imagine that the RUC protected murder gang operating out of Mount Vernon was anything other than one small part of the total British administration`s conspiracy operation across the north.

Are we to believe that successive secretaries did not know of their agents unsavoury actions, and it is impossible to believe that such behaviour wasn`t sanctioned at cabinet level.
Sir John Stevens in his report concluded that the intelligence services, far from advancing the cause of peace, actually prolonged the troubles.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 05:57 AM

The present NI police chief, Hugh Orde, has accepted the report. That itself is terrific progress. Imagine any/i>, of his predecessors accepting such a damning indictment. Without exception they would have taken the Ken Maginnis line that the RUC was a non-sectarian force staffed with exclusively honourable men and women.

Orde's open contempt for senior officers in the RUC who refused to co-operate with the inqiry is evidence of s sea-change in attitudes. (He has refused to name them, but it was for the ombudsman to do tghat. He has pointed out that it is easy enough to find out who they were.)

There will be further evidence of a sea change when Sinn Fein resolves in the immediate future to give its support to the police force that succeeded the RUC.

All this gives me, for one, some cause to be optimistic about the future.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 08:52 AM

SDLP leader Mark Durkan stated yesterday that,"Ronnie Flanagan`s defence that he did not know what was going on, fools nobody.
As the police Ombudsman said this could not have happened without knowledge and support at the highest levels of the RUC, that means Ronnie Flanagan".
Mr Durkan also said" Mr Blair had serious questions to answer because collusion happened on his watch and not just on Margaret Thatchers.

Poor Durkan trying to get the truth from a proven liar will prove impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 10:18 AM

How many journalists, ex or current, here on the Mudcat?

How many of your Editors/sub-editors or colleagues know all your contacts?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 10:47 AM

Latest news, collusion is still rife,and no twisting of the truth by the DUP and Unionists will change that, and no David Ervine clones on a little insignificant internet Site will make an iota of difference.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:41 AM

Why do Republicans feel the need to keep starting these threads then?

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:54 AM

Why do people in the UK have to trash the US in order to make points about Northern Ireland?

Both California and Texas were independant countries before they asked to join the United States. The people of both entities wanted to be part of the US and hated the oppressive and violent leadership of Mexico. That included Spanish-speakers as well as Anglos, but most especially the American Indians who were terrorized by both Spanish and Mexicans.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:15 PM

Basically we're all insecure and crave affection. Every night we suffer agonies of conscience about the wicked things we've done to the Irish and that Ard man - he says the beastliest things and that stops us getting off to sleep. The lack of sleep makes us aggressive and unfair to the Americans, who really we should be grateful to - for winning the the second World war for us.

The fact is we're just contemptible. Thankyou for pointing out our faults so nicely......

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM

Well, you did give us the Beatles. Come to think of it, we are using your language and have never paid one red cent for pinching it. OK, let's call it even.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:32 PM

Teribus... A United Ireland is just around the corner. You know it and I know it.
Names are unimportant, except to say that every Volunteer who took an Oath of Allegiance knows that they might be killed in pursuit of that. Anyone who has, has given his/her life for the greater good of that United Ireland.

My question to you, basically was "Was it worth every British life"

Keith, Keith, Keith...., what are we to do about you?
(... Rhetorical...!!!!)

You would have us believe that prior to 2001, SF had never topped the SDLP vote.
Do you remember that Danny Morrison got elected to the British Parliament

IN 1982

, on the mandate that he would not even take his seat!
In a straight run-off between Nationalist and Unionist the previous year, Bobby Sands was elected MP.

Only scum, Ginger, collude to keep a bad situation worse.
At certain times from '69 to the final IRA ceasefire there had been many moves made under our radar to come to some agreement.
You seem to think the Struggle took place in a vacuum.
Ted Heath met the IRA, for instance. We had Sunningdale, etc.

What normally knocked these talks off the rails was the often-referred to DTB - Dirty Tricks Brigade.
The latest revelations confirm its existence.

Now, if these 'units' could stir the old pot at the drop of a hat, what real chance was there of anything positive or progressive happening, when there was one side constantly trying to throw a spanner in the works, whenever some light seemed to appear at the end of the tunnel.

Only scum do that

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:50 PM

'A United Ireland is just around the corner. You know it and I know it.'

actually now you mention it - I'm not too sure.

AND there was plenty of shit flying round above the radar, below it and all points in between. there are people on both sides who regard any kind of reconciliation as some sort of sell out. Really shit attitudes.

Why don't you modify your ambitions to just getting rid of the English army of Irish soil. A complete split between England and Northern Ireland. negotiate that corner first.

Then try and make yourselves more cuddly to each other. who knows you may get to envisage a United ireland, not just based on the idea that 'my side wins!'

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:03 PM

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
["Date: 21 Jan 07 - 05:06 AM

Excellent post Don.
I would only quible on two points.

1 "British troops became involved in the latest troubles was not by invasion, but at the insistence of the predominantly protestant loyalist majority"

I would have said that they came to protect the Catholic people from that majority protestant population, especially from the B Specials.
The reason that they had to stay after that was sorted out, was to counter the insurgency of the PIRA."]


No Keith, it had little to do with protecting catholics, in the first instance, that came somewhat later. The first move was suspension of the Stormont parliament, and a demand by loyalists that its operations be taken over by the British government. As soon as British soldiers arrived, they became targets for both sides. All the rest followed from that.

I am disappointed to see that a fairly productive discussion has again descended into another Of these boring wrangles about who did what, with which, and to whom. This is precisely what I meant when I referred to picking at old wounds.

This thread was supposed to be about the perception of a similarity between USA in Iraq, and Britain in Northern Ireland.

On that subject, my American friends, not a valid excuse for two reasons

1. Apples and Oranges! Totally different conditions.

2. If a five year old in trouble said to you "Well Charlie did it too", you would not accept that as a reasonable justification.

I suspect that financial support for muslim groups in the US from British Muslims would elicit some pretty angry demands from the state department that we stop them forthwith, but I don't think the state department ever attempted to prevent the PIRA being armed by US donation.

Perhaps if we all agreed to stop trying to have our cake and eat it??

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:05 PM

Guest, your posts are being deleted because you are anon., not because you are Irish.
It is the same with history.
The same shit happens to everyone, not just you.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:15 PM

Pdq, I was not trashing USA, just showing that there are parallels in our histories.
Texas and California were part of Mexico. Mexico did not recognise the self proclaimed independence by the planted Americans. California was only independent a week befote US army marched in.

Tir, I know you had some successful candidates. I was referring to the total vote, even giving percentages for 2001 election.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 05:05 PM

Don, this is a fairly balanced Irish history site.
http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/sligo/93/past/history/19691972.html
Do you agree with this?
The UK government realised in August that Northern Ireland was about to collapse into anarchy because the RUC was simply not large enough to maintain order. So, on 15 August, the UK Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, ordered the British Army into Belfast and Derry to support the RUC. (The Army is still in Northern Ireland today.) Four days later he also ordered the Stormont government to establish better community relations, introduce 'one man one vote', disband the B-specials, and disarm and restructure the RUC. With all their demands now unexpectedly met, the official Civil Rights campaign shut down.

However, this was not the end of the story. The violence that had erupted, directed mainly towards the Catholic community, had prompted many people there to rekindle their old desire for a united Ireland. In 1969 a fierce debate began within the ranks of the IRA. Some members supported the non-violent strategy

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 06:07 PM

True Keith, but when you examine the context, you realise that this is not by any means the start of the affair. Stormont had been up and down several times before that date and demands for a British presence also precede it.

However, this is still off topic, and shows no sign of going back to the point of the thread.

Outa here!

Later.
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 06:35 PM

Don, you've got your history completely wrong. The troops were deployed in August 1969 by the Home Secretary of the day (Jim Callaghan) because of fears for catholic communities in which loyalist gangs were running amok, sometimes led by B Special reservists, or even serving police. Particularly in the Bogside part of Derry and in West Belfast. Direct rule from Westminster replaced Stormont in March 1972. Various memoirs, brfoadcast interviews with Callaghan and Cabinet papers released under the 30-year rule all point to the same motivation for sending the troops in.

The whole business was something of an embarrassment for the IRA, which had been largely moribund and certainly had been in no position to respond quickly when those catholic comomunities came under the loyalist cosh. Obviously they wanted the brits out, and their cause was given huge impetus by various atrocities, but in particular the horror of Bloody Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 07:07 PM

The report of the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman (in which, at the request of the family of a murdered man, Lance Cpl Stephen Restorick, she investigated the collusion of the British authorities with loyalists in killings - her investigation limited to one unit (precinct?) of the Royal Ulster Constabulary) is now available here.

It's a PDF file, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 07:08 PM

Sorry, that should be Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:58 AM

In relation to the top RUC men either not co-operating with Mrs O`Loan or in Ronnie Flanagans case suffering from the early forms of dementia, in 1969 an eldery Derry man Samuel Devenney was attacked in his own home by the RUC, Devenney never recovered from the severe baton attack and died shortly afterwards.
An English detective assigned to the case complained of meeting with " a wall of silence", he encountered what many other English policemen would discover when questioning the RUC, Stevens and Stalker were prime examples of this, nothing has changed.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: GUEST,D
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:54 AM

"What did all the others take advantage of that the rest of Ireland didn't? couldn't? or wouldn't?"

Clearly, what all the rest took advantage of, that the Irish didn't, was "cowardly abdication." For this reason I can remain proud to be Irish, and humiliated to be Welsh or Scottish.

Subject: RE: BS: USA and the brits in Northern Ireland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 04:07 AM

I see you have cowardly abdicated the right to give us a name and an identity. In fact, you're a D-list type of guest.