Messages

My favourite comedian is Sligoian

How about Rossfan as the warm up guy?
I can just imagine it; one night in Bellaghy and the next one in Ballagh..

[i had a wee bit of a giggle]

must admit i had a wee bit of a giggle when i saw that advertisement during the week. he must have meant world club tour of mayo  09 

Apparently real men don't giggle 

Oh didn't realise that . i had a small wee laugh to myself when i saw that advertisement . is that ok ?

Not having a go at you  I giggle all the time and get castigated for it by people on here

Jasus Zig, you gave me one hell of a shock!
I just glanced through your message and I thought it was another word you were talking about. 
Hold on to your jewels as you won't get another set.
While I'm at it you might pass a message on to Ross4life as none of the sheepstealers seem to take advice from me. I wonder why!
Tommy's career might be in decline but it hasn't reached the stage where he would admit he has to go to Roscommon to earn a few bob.
He saw what happened to John Maughan and said , "No, thank you, things aren't that bad.."

Roger, I would never regard your opinions as offensive or personally vindictive in any way to anyone but you have your perspective and I have mine.
So what? After all, this is a discussion board, isn't it?
Bearing this in mind, I have no disagreement with your analysis above. I agree that you have summed up what happened accurately but I'd be concerned about the reasons for this being so.
Certainly, the nationalists challenged the forces of law and order but that was because they perceived them to be neither lawful nor orderly. I need only refer back to the (then) recent events at Burntollet to say that their reaction was quite in order.
When St Matthew's Church and Bombay Street were burnt down, there was little or no sign of police protection and in fact there were widespread suspicions that the large sections of the security forces were acting in collusion with the loyalist extremists.
The IRA in the area at the time were taunted by nationalists for their inability to protect their areas and were told that IRA = I Ran Away. They were to set about rectifying this, probably with help from the hawks in the Irish cabinet.
I would respectfully suggest that the prime reason for the major upswing of support for 'the boys' was that there was no one else the nationalists could turn to for protection.
The calls for army intervention came, first and foremost, from nationalist spokespeople and it was damn slow in arriving. When it did, they first arrivals were welcomed with open arms by the nationalist community in the areas under threat.

Well apparently what I wrote was offensive, insulting, has no credibility and in fact I am like the KKK in the 50s / 60s in the deep south of USA. There seems no basis for this other than bigotry and prejudice because I have a different opinion on the future of our country.

Leaving that aside, I see where you are coming from regarding the reasons for demanding civil rights.  Fair enough, but this thread has focussed on the mobilisation of troops which put NI on alert.  I think your analysis does not regard the sequence of events.  For example I always though that Bombay Street occurred after Lynch's mobilisation of the Republic's army and the perceived invasion threat never mind the orchestrated violence by nationalists which stretched the security forces to breaking point? Loyalists across the country perceived rightly or wrongly that there was a threat to the state and HMG believed the region was in serious danger of descending into anarchy.  Hence the intervention that Jim Murphy asked about.  Any intervention by the ROI would have been bad for both main communities in NI and possibly for the ROI too.  It's hard to call what the result might have been.

I certainly wouldn't use those words to describe you or any other members of the 'cavalry.' You are all entitled to express your opinions but I would point out that Rossfan has said:
"I never insulted YOU. I commented on the similarity of your comments/views with those of American white racists."

I think the matter is best left to the pair of you to sort out.

Fair enough, but this thread has focused on the mobilisation of troops which put NI on alert.  I think your analysis does not regard the sequence of events.  For example I always though that Bombay Street occurred after Lynch's mobilisation of the Republic's army and the perceived invasion threat never mind the orchestrated violence by nationalists which stretched the security forces to breaking point?

I'd say that NI was on the brink long before Lynch opened his mouth.
When he did it was to say that we could no longer stand by and he was going to direct the Irish army to set up field hospitals along the border to treat wounded nationalists that were coming across the border in their hundreds. He was also going to ask the UN to send in a peacekeeping force. He did not mention any sort of physical invasion. That may have been read into his speech by some Unionists and by his political enemies at home but I am satisfied that Lynch did not say allude to an armed intervention. Footage of him making this famous speech has been have been shown on TV in recent days and confirms that he made no such threat.
A recent RTE report says that the army drew up contingency plans to invade the North in September '69; this was the month following the violence that prompted Lynch's speech.  I would contend that examining all the options open to it in the event of a Doomsday event is what any rational army command would have done.  The TV report also stated that the army had decided against any invasion.
I can't say at this time whether his speech preceded the Bombay Street burning or not but both happened within a matter of a day at most. I think it logical to assume that Lynch's speech was in response to this escalation of violence but I don't think this really matters. There had been literally hundreds upon hundreds of people fleeing from nationalist areas and many were coming with serious injuries and accounts of organised attacks by loyalist mobs while the security forces failed to intervene. Mosney holiday camp had been filled with refugees and rows of tents had been erected in most border areas. There were long tailbacks at border crossings and hospitals, guesthouses, public buildings etc, were filled to capacity.
Certainly, there was orchestrated violence coming form the nationalist areas but in ferocity and scale it nowhere matched that coming from loyalist mobs that seemed to be ignored or even encouraged by the forces of 'law and order.'
Was the nationalist rioting led by the IRA? I doubt it as the IRA was totally disorganised and ineffective at this time. I have no way of knowing but all reports I have come across since that time put the number of IRA men  with guns of any sort at 20 or less. The security forces may very well have been stretched to the limit during the middle of August '69 and Stormont may have called for British intervention but nationalist have been looking for this intervention along time before that. 
You may remember too that Ian Paisley and his followers had defied the security forces more times than the nationalists ever could and would continue to do so long after the British soldiers arrived to a rapturous reception from the Nationalists of Belfast.

['It is hard to sumarise it as simplistically as you put it but imo nationalists and unionists demanded their rights. Predominantly nationalists though. The small number of unionists involved quickly backed out when these demands were interpreted as a threat to the existence of the state. Nationalists continued with street politics and raised it to a level that violent confrontation with security forces occurred. Heavy handed retaliation was the result and this fueled the uncertainty within the entire unionist community. The security forces were overstretched by a calculated campaign of violence strategically around NI to have this result. The army intervened as the security forces were too small and couldn't cope with the situation. The nationalists saw this a success on their part. According to people on here it wasn't success because they didn't make it happen. If people think that the army on the streets in NI because of policies of the Stormont government or that an invasion by the Republic would take place because of that then they are laughable. The intervention that did take place happened because of the security situation which nationalists calculatingly created and boasted about afterwards and the army came in because the security forces could not keep law and order or both sides apart. ']

'It is hard to sumarise it as simplistically as you put it but imo nationalists and unionists demanded their rights. Predominantly nationalists though.  The small number of unionists involved quickly backed out when these demands were interpreted as a threat to the existence of the state.  Nationalists continued with street politics and raised it to a level that violent confrontation with security forces occurred.  Heavy handed retaliation was the result and this fueled the uncertainty within the entire unionist community.  The security forces were overstretched by a calculated campaign of violence strategically around NI to have this result.  The army intervened as the security forces were too small and couldn't cope with the situation.  The nationalists saw this a success on their part. According to people on here it wasn't success because they didn't make it happen.  If people think that the army on the streets in NI because of policies of the Stormont government or that an invasion by the Republic would take place because of that then they are laughable.  The intervention that did take place happened because of the security situation which nationalists calculatingly created and boasted about afterwards and the army came in because the security forces could not keep law and order or both sides apart.  '

I don't think the 'threat to the state' bit came from nationalists, Roger, at least not initially. The Civil Rights marches were a demand for basic democratic rights and an end to discrimination in housing. There was nothing sinister in this, which is why a small number of protestants felt able to take part. The threat to the state bit came from Ian Paisley, who in his usual manner stirred the fears of the protestant people by talking about IRA uprisings, croppies under the bed and so on. It was Paisley's followers who upped the ante by attacking the Civil Rights marchers at Burntollet, while the RUC stood by and watched. The Civil Rights marchers, remember, were following the example of Martin Luther King and his followers. Non violence was at the heart of their campaign. The tragedy is that their protest set off a chain of events which led to the troubles, but I'd blame Paisley for this before I'd blame the Civil Rights people.

Well done, Myles; that's as succinct an analysis as I have come across.

Then theres you wonderful justification for attacking nationalists and so on - they brought it upon themselves.

I have never said that nationalists brought anything on themselves.  What I have said is that nationalists challenged the authorities and the results led to a security situation that needed intervention to restore law and order.  Nationalists at the time considered this to be a victory.  What part of that is so inaccurate or offensive?

Roger, I would never regard your opinions as offensive or personally vindictive in any way to anyone but you have your perspective and I have mine.
So what? After all, this is a discussion board, isn't it?
Bearing this in mind, I have no disagreement with your analysis above. I agree that you have summed up what happened accurately but I'd be concerned about the reasons for this being so.
Certainly, the nationalists challenged the forces of law and order but that was because they perceived them to be neither lawful nor orderly. I need only refer back to the (then) recent events at Burntollet to say that their reaction was quite in order.
When St Matthew's Church and Bombay Street were burnt down, there was little or no sign of police protection and in fact there were widespread suspicions that the large sections of the security forces were acting in collusion with the loyalist extremists.
The IRA in the area at the time were taunted by nationalists for their inability to protect their areas and were told that IRA = I Ran Away. They were to set about rectifying this, probably with help from the hawks in the Irish cabinet.
I would respectfully suggest that the prime reason for the major upswing of support for 'the boys' was that there was no one else the nationalists could turn to for protection.
The calls for army intervention came, first and foremost, from nationalist spokespeople and it was damn slow in arriving. When it did, they first arrivals were welcomed with open arms by the nationalist community in the areas under threat.

I was in my late teens at the time and I remember clearly the state of confusion and fear that was evident in the Republic. I really don't recall much of the details as the situation seemed to be changing up North by the hour.
Most homes had TVs by this time and the footage coming through of mob rioting had everybody up in a heap. The sight of St. Matthew's church being burnt down and Bombay Street on fire really spooked everyone down here.
Everyone was convinced that huge numbers of Catholics were going to be murdered and there was no sign of Britain getting involved to curb the violence.
The sight of Paisley in his trademark long white coat, ranting and raving, was terrorising enough but William Craig was the devil himself as far as we were concerned.
It was obvious that the government here was in a heap and that Lynch seemed unsure of what he was doing, never mind what he planned to do next.
It's against that background that you'd need to consider the plans to invade the area around Newry. Looking back, I feel it was never really on. The hard wing activists in the cabinet, Blaney in particular, were in overdrive and had absolutely no respect whatsoever for Lynch and their 'cowardly' colleagues.
I'd say that the army did meet to draw up contingency plans alright- but for them to assess the situation was what you'd expect. There were rumours alright about the army being mobilised and units had been dispatched to the border areas to control the flood of refugees and to set up tents for them. But the army was in no fit state to advance as far as Dundalk, never mind Newry. Much of its vehicles had been lying about unused for ages and was obsolete and second hand anyway. The top brass and the politicians said very little but ordinary soldiers and service personnel were reporting that they army was searching like mad to get tyres for the lorries and we knew that many of the lorries being sent to Dundalk were breaking down on the way up.
In spite of the panic and confusion, I doubt if anyone really expected the Irish army to invade although Blaney & co. were calling for this every day.

I sat down last night and had a good hard look at the video. When you already know what has happened and you are looking out for certain things, you might see things that weren't obvious during the actual game.
During the first half Down has being going for points and didn't make a good fist of it. They were dominant around the middle of the field but weren't turning their advantage into scores. Coming up to the end of this half they did have a fairly impressive spell alright and did same capable of pulling ahead –if they kept the pressure on when the second half began.
Brolly was spot on in his analysis at half time; but tow things were needed for this to happen.
Down would need to get on top at the start and Mayo would have to buckle.
Neither thing happened.
Mayo kept their shape throughout the first half and Ray Dempsey was directing them very effectively. With limited possession, we seemed to have a few good forwards whom I knew would stay calm and were quite capable of doing damage if they got a better supply of ball.
I think Dempsey was able to keep them focussed for the second half and Down got rattled when Mayo didn't throw in the towel. It seems to be that Down changed tactics and went for goals because they hadn't been effective at going for points in the first half. Hindsight is wonderful alright but here is absolutely no reason to say the Down forwards would have put the game out of Mayo's reach if they kept on banging in shots from out the field.
Maybe poor tactics did cost Down the game but tactics have won and lost games before and there is no guarantee that Armagh will get things right all through the final either.
Ray Dempsey has the confidence of his players and he made damn good use of his resources throughout. He knows the pressure his lads will be under for the final but Armagh will be feeling the same pressure. Form in preliminary games means damn all in an All Ireland in front of a sell-out crowd. I saw nothing in the last game to suggest Mayo will be overawed by the atmosphere the next day. They will certainly feel the pressure but so will the Armagh lads. Both sides had to prove their worth on the path to the final and are there on merit but a lot is going to depend on the direction from the sideline.
I'm happy that ray will get the last ounce out of his team and that we will have enough good lads out there to keep the show on the road from start to finish and it will be up to Armagh to be able to do the same if they are to win.
If we are to be beaten, Armagh will have to win the game on merit and can't rely on Mayo folding up
I can't see Mayo doing that.

Armagh's only minor win was in 1949.

yes time you won another don't you think, & if  Mayo lose another Final that would make it 6 final defeats in a row....i would suggest them to stand aside & let others have the opportunity to win a All Ireland

You don't have any particular  team in mind now, do you?

the mixture of down delusion fueled by mayo pessimism here is hilarious.
down panicked when mayo got a few goals and took crazy shots at a keeper in top form . not  the hallmark of a quality team  .
since when are the gaa giving out credit for teams who 'should have won  but cant score' if that was the case mayo would be over burdened  with allireland medals and unlike those losers in tyrone some of them would have been back to back too

Good man, ros!
That just about sums it up.

Well done to Mayo, they took their scores yesterday whereas Down didnt. Down took the wrong option almost everytime when going for goal. They had more than enough chances to win the game and have only themselves to blame.
Good luck to Mayo in the final.

Thanks for your good wishes and I think your analysis is spot on. It was up to Down to maintain the pressure in the second half but for a variety of reasons they were unable to do this. Mayo on the other hand took their chances when they got them and stayed focused enough to win. Neither Down slipping up or Mayo upping their game seemed possible at half time but they both came to pass. That's the way often with underage teams and no one can blame the Down lads for lack of effort. All in all, the game was played in a proper spirit throughout and all the lads and management on both sides concerned are to be commended.
I'll worry about the final when the time comes and not before that.
The supposed form line would suggest that we will be hockeyed off the field the next day but that was expected to happen yesterday as well. The game did the lads a power of good and I expect them to be willing and able to give it their best shot in the final.
That's all anyone can ask of them and I'm quite happy to see them put it up to Armagh and to hell with forecasts of doom and disaster.
Now, if it was trhe senior shower, I'd be feeling worried.

Driving through Armagh city there were Union Jacks everywhere - I didn't realise this was a mainly protestant city?

Armagh would actually be about 70% Catholic I think.

There is something that puzzles me about Armagh and places further west and maybe some of the Nordie posters here could help me out.
I used to do a bit of rugby coaching at a school in Dublin (17 and 18 year olds) and one club in East Belfast couldn't do enough to help me out in any way it could. This was Malone and I had a lot of contacts there in my own playing days. Fair enough, a lot of the bigger rugby schools in Dublin, mainly the Proddy ones, were very helpful also and would put out one of their third or fourth sides to give us a game but I have to say the club in East Belfast not only made me and my gang welcome but went out of the way to make contact with any youth side, college or not, from the Republic.
I knew the area is a solid loyalist one but I could never say anything negative about the club; we were advised to drive straight there and to head directly for the border when we were leaving. Apart from that I had no problems at all.
Now what puzzles me is this:
Some of the alicadoos there told me they could line up other youth sides if I wanted to play other teams in the north but the advice was to stick to east of the Bann at all times. The further west I went, the greater the chances of hostility would be, if you know what I mean.
Armagh in particular was a place to shun as a southern school bus was likely to be stoned out of the place and Derry was likely to be even worse.
I would have thought the opposite would be the place but I took the advice I got and I never had any problems bringing a bus with the name of the school in Irish and English emblazoned on the sides, through some strong Unionist areas.
Is it a case that the anti republic  hostility is greatest where the Unionists are in a minority and that it becomes more obvious the further you travel west?

Not half as nauseous as I am when I see my money that I pay to Ros Co Co being given to a club that wont play in its own County.
Anyway best of luck in the final ...hopefully a few more all Ireland medals will come to our County.

Geez, Ross, I am always a bit suspicious that you and Sligonian are one and the same poster.   

Long before county councils became local govt. administration units, Ballagh was playing football in Mayo and may they continue to do so for as long more.
You sheep aficionados (I been waiting to use that word for a long time!) seem to ignore the fact that it says nowhere in any GAA rule book that the GAA should base its county boards on what local politicians come up with. If that was the case, Dublin should be split in three.
I say that Ballagh opted to play in Mayo and only Ballagh has the right to decide if it wants to leave.
Forget it and give Mayo (and Ballagh) due credit for what the lads did today.
That second half fightback was mighty and I hope all the senior players were watching and maybe learn a thing or two.

One has to admire the Connacht council's sense of fair play in finding the exact center of Connacht, which they have located in Bekan. Which also happens to be the middle of nowhere. Every now and again you'll still see old morris minors and box cortinas driving around Urlaur and Kilkelly, Ireland (my dear and loving son John) trying to find the Bekan feis. The 1979 feis. The transformation in viewpoint of the Mayo County Board is remarkable too. They kicked up an awful fuss when Hyde Park was designated to be the main stadium in Connacht in the early 90s and the printing presses of the Western People were hopping mad with some angry editorials. They soon put the Kybosh on that idea. I somehow wonder if the center of Connacht was Tulsk, Carrick or Gurteen, would they be so quick to have the center of Excellence there?

I know Turlough, I know.
Bekan is a place where past and present collide (head on) and of course the connivers on the Mayo county board are responsible- they always are.
Given the present standard of 'Excellence' of Connacht football, I think Bekan is an excellent place to stick locate it.
Maybe the other ones you mentioned might be just as suitable as I think there are lots of bog around the lot of them but I feel Bekan is as suitable as any.

Vicky Mangan taught me Irish and Maths at St Pats in Swinford back in the late 60s. He was an absolute genius and he managed to keep the whole goddamn lot of us in order and focused on our work. That was a hard thing to do with those of us who were in senior classes at the time. I remember that 12 out of 19 managed to fail the Leaving Cert in my final year!
Still, no one could or would point a finger at Vicky. Believe me, some of the other teachers hadn't a clue and couldn't care less. I cried when he died some years ago and so did many of my classmates when we gathered for his burial.

Willie John McBride

Are you mad?

If you were around to see him, HS, on the field or at the bar, you'd say he was something else.
He was genuinely respected wherever rugby was played and he'd be in my top ten.