Garret FitzGerald RIP

[Evil Genius]

Stagg wasn't charged with any bombing. He was charged with conspiracy to commit arson, and as The Bobby Sands Trust mentions, "There was little or no evidence to connect him with the charge. He was convicted under the notorious British Conspiracy Laws, brought in during the latter half of the 19th century to imprison Irish political activists without a fair trial."

You're quite correct. I should have said Fire-bombing:

"In April 1973, Stagg was arrested with six others alleged to comprise an IRA unit planning a campaign in Coventry. He was tried at Birmingham Crown Court. The jury found three of the seven not guilty; the remaining four were all found guilty of criminal damage and conspiracy to commit arson. Stagg and English born priest, Father Patrick Fell, were found to be the unit's commanding officers; Stagg was given a ten-year sentence and Fell twelve years. Thomas Gerald Rush was given seven years and Anthony Roland Lynch, who was also found guilty of possessing articles with intent to destroy property, namely nitric acid, balloons, wax and sodium chlorate, was given ten years"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Stagg

(Btw, sorry to have to quote Wiki - I appreciate it doesn't have the authority or independence of a body like 'The Bobby Sands Trust'... )

Every so often you drop your mask of the mature, moral high-grounder, forward thinking Unionist, EG.

And where have I ever claimed to be a "mature, moral high-grounder, forward thinker"? ("Unionist" I'll accept).

Stagg's body was hijacked by the state and buried under six foot of concrete to ensure he wouldn't be buried where he stated he wanted to be buried, and you say he deserved it because of something which happened in 1939?

No, I do not say that. The fact is, the democratically elected Government of the Republic determined that his funeral would not be exploited by the proscribed organisation to which he belonged, as part of a campaign to subvert the State.
As such, I believe they (the State) were quite entitled to do so.

The reference to Coventry came because when I looked up Stagg, I saw that he was conspiring in Coventry, which brought to mind previous Republican "active service" in that same city, a mere generation before.

You clearly revere the memory of Stagg, yet my point was that he was only following in a long tradition of murder and mayhem etc. Do you hold the two IRA men who were hanged in Coventry in 1940 in the same reverence? Are they, too, heroes of yours? (We may assume they were the sort of people who inspired Stagg, after all)

Or did your education in the History of Irish Republicanism perhaps gloss over such inconvenient operations as the Coventry bombing? 

And you find he state's treatment of his remains funny?

Well, it's hardly Comedy Store material, but I was mildly amused by the contrast between a "State Funeral" and a "State-Funded" one.

Unless, of course, you mean that it was disrespectful of me to introduce (ahem) levity to such (ahem) grave matters. To which I would reply that to be disrespectful to someone requires that that someone deserved some respect in the first place. And this "mature, moral high-ground, forward thinking" Unionist accords none of that to the likes of Stagg...

Don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to a cretin like you.

I know - it must be embarrassing to be outwitted by a cretin... 

[Nally Stand]

Stagg wasn't charged with any bombing. He was charged with conspiracy to commit arson, and as The Bobby Sands Trust mentions, "There was little or no evidence to connect him with the charge. He was convicted under the notorious British Conspiracy Laws, brought in during the latter half of the 19th century to imprison Irish political activists without a fair trial."

You're quite correct. I should have said Fire-bombing:

"In April 1973, Stagg was arrested with six others alleged to comprise an IRA unit planning a campaign in Coventry. He was tried at Birmingham Crown Court. The jury found three of the seven not guilty; the remaining four were all found guilty of criminal damage and conspiracy to commit arson. Stagg and English born priest, Father Patrick Fell, were found to be the unit's commanding officers; Stagg was given a ten-year sentence and Fell twelve years. Thomas Gerald Rush was given seven years and Anthony Roland Lynch, who was also found guilty of possessing articles with intent to destroy property, namely nitric acid, balloons, wax and sodium chlorate, was given ten years"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Stagg

(Btw, sorry to have to quote Wiki - I appreciate it doesn't have the authority or independence of a body like 'The Bobby Sands Trust'... )

Every so often you drop your mask of the mature, moral high-grounder, forward thinking Unionist, EG.

And where have I ever claimed to be a "mature, moral high-grounder, forward thinker"? ("Unionist" I'll accept).

Stagg's body was hijacked by the state and buried under six foot of concrete to ensure he wouldn't be buried where he stated he wanted to be buried, and you say he deserved it because of something which happened in 1939?

No, I do not say that. The fact is, the democratically elected Government of the Republic determined that his funeral would not be exploited by the proscribed organisation to which he belonged, as part of a campaign to subvert the State.
As such, I believe they (the State) were quite entitled to do so.

The reference to Coventry came because when I looked up Stagg, I saw that he was conspiring in Coventry, which brought to mind previous Republican "active service" in that same city, a mere generation before.

You clearly revere the memory of Stagg, yet my point was that he was only following in a long tradition of murder and mayhem etc. Do you hold the two IRA men who were hanged in Coventry in 1940 in the same reverence? Are they, too, heroes of yours? (We may assume they were the sort of people who inspired Stagg, after all)

Or did your education in the History of Irish Republicanism perhaps gloss over such inconvenient operations as the Coventry bombing? 

And you find he state's treatment of his remains funny?

Well, it's hardly Comedy Store material, but I was mildly amused by the contrast between a "State Funeral" and a "State-Funded" one.

Unless, of course, you mean that it was disrespectful of me to introduce (ahem) levity to such (ahem) grave matters. To which I would reply that to be disrespectful to someone requires that that someone deserved some respect in the first place. And this "mature, moral high-ground, forward thinking" Unionist accords none of that to the likes of Stagg...

Don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to a cretin like you.

I know - it must be embarrassing to be outwitted by a cretin... 

More long windedness and multiple smilies, while saying nothing of substance. Your very first point for instance - does that wikipedia quote contradict anything I originally posted?
Good luck to you. I'd rather not taint the name of Frank Stagg by discussing his "trial" and the FG hijacking of his remains with a cretin who finds it funny. Adios.

Ohhh, better not forget the multiple smilies...
   

[Donnellys Hollow]

I think it was Emmet Stagg and his sister in law (Frank's wife) who went against his wishes and wanted him buried in the family plot, rather than in the republican plot.

[Nally Stand]

I think it was Emmet Stagg and his sister in law (Frank's wife) who went against his wishes and wanted him buried in the family plot, rather than in the republican plot.

While his own stated wish, and that of two of his brothers, and the man he entrusted to look after his remains all were ignored by FG.

[Donnellys Hollow]

I think it was Emmet Stagg and his sister in law (Frank's wife) who went against his wishes and wanted him buried in the family plot, rather than in the republican plot.

While his own stated wish, and that of two of his brothers, and the man he entrusted to look after his remains all were ignored by FG.

Emmet Stagg is a Labour man. Not Fine Gael.

[Gaffer]

[

So you didn t like Fitzgerald attitude to the Hunger Strikers. Maybe he didn t see them as freedom fighters but as part of organisations who were only good at killing people whom he found abhorrant !
[/quote]

Got it at last Gaffer,so as I said I will pay him the same respect as he paid the Hunger strikers,but I would have thought the leader of a country and someone who was supposed to be a humanitarian could have at least agreed to meet their families afterall they had killed none.Then again to do that he might have had to grow a pair before he faced Maggie who no doubt would have slapped his wrist for going against her instructions.So no respect from me as I found him abhorrent.
[/quote]

 

Oh I got you first time Glen. I realised  that you were a provo lover who felt that Garrett Fitzgerald should have done what the Provos wanted him to do. Garett was representing the views of the majority of nationalists both north and south at that time who were totally opposed to the provos. He ll did what he believed to be right. I wouldn t think he would have cared two hoots what you thought .
[/quote]



Well, if Garrett had decided to murder people , go to jail , go on hunger strike, die then maybe people wouldprobably  have been singing about him.

He was very successful in elections as well and over many years as well.  His policies got thousands of votes too ,
[/quote]

Very good Gaffer well you and Evil Genius can start your wee commemoration committee for Garret think you three are well matched.I will stick to commemorating the real heroes of Ireland along with thousands every year.
[/quote]

Real heroes?  Do me a favour . Maybe to you and a few hundred others nowadays, Same few hundred every year.



WE

[Nally Stand]

I think it was Emmet Stagg and his sister in law (Frank's wife) who went against his wishes and wanted him buried in the family plot, rather than in the republican plot.

While his own stated wish, and that of two of his brothers, and the man he entrusted to look after his remains all were ignored by FG.

Emmet Stagg is a Labour man. Not Fine Gael.

I don't remember saying he was either to be fair! I was referring to the Cosgrave government of the day.

[Eamonnca1]

.... I completely disagreed with the way he and Mrs. Thatcher tried to impose the Anglo-Irish Agreement over the heads of virtually the entire Unionist population

Play me the world's smallest violin.

Your sympathy is noted, even though it was neither solicited nor needed.

(The key word was "tried"  )

You see here's what gets me about the Anglo Irish Agreement and the collective hysterical nervous breakdown that your crowd had when it was signed. Yiz are fond of whinging about how something could be imposed on the majority against their wishes.  Yet the very partition that your entire political ideology is based upon was a prime example of something being imposed on the majority in Ireland against their wishes (and don't get me started about the threat of "immediate and terrible war" that backed it up).

Yiz are democrats when it suits youse, aren't you?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

RIP Garret. The fact that the SF cabal here can't find it in themselves to exhibit a little generosity of spirit even on the occasion of his wake, in defiance of the best Irish tradition, says a lot about them and indeed about him.

I would give him the same respect he gave the Hunger strikers.

There was more than enough food for them to eat, they committed suicide.

Take me home to Mayo

That probably sailed over his head.

No it did not, I just noticed this as I haven't been on my laptop as much the last 2 days.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

So you didn t like Fitzgerald attitude to the Hunger Strikers. Maybe he didn t see them as freedom fighters but as part of organisations who were only good at killing people whom he found abhorrant !

Got it at last Gaffer,so as I said I will pay him the same respect as he paid the Hunger strikers,but I would have thought the leader of a country and someone who was supposed to be a humanitarian could have at least agreed to meet their families afterall they had killed none.Then again to do that he might have had to grow a pair before he faced Maggie who no doubt would have slapped his wrist for going against her instructions.So no respect from me as I found him abhorrent.

Oh I got you first time Glen. I realised  that you were a provo lover who felt that Garrett Fitzgerald should have done what the Provos wanted him to do. Garett was representing the views of the majority of nationalists both north and south at that time who were totally opposed to the provos. He ll did what he believed to be right. I wouldn t think he would have cared two hoots what you thought .
[/quote]

Your spot on again Gaffer,my respect lies with the Hunger strikers,along with the tens of thousands who voted for them ,the hundreds of thousands who attended their funerals.They will be remembered forever in song and verse,and their names and writings quoted around the world were inslaved peoples struggle for freedom.In years to come heads of state will bow their heads in Remembrance as they do today to the hero's of 1916.Garret,well he will be lucky to fill 1/2 page in our history books.Sinn e
[/quote]

As to the opposed to the hundreds of thousands North and South who voted in direct opposition to these folks. Well I won't ever bow my head for them and will always keep a fond soft for our former Taoiseach.

[Evil Genius]

.... I completely disagreed with the way he and Mrs. Thatcher tried to impose the Anglo-Irish Agreement over the heads of virtually the entire Unionist population

Play me the world's smallest violin.

Your sympathy is noted, even though it was neither solicited nor needed.

(The key word was "tried"  )

You see here's what gets me about the Anglo Irish Agreement and the collective hysterical nervous breakdown that your crowd had when it was signed.

"... the collective hysterical nervous breakdown"?
What on earth does that mean? 

Yiz are fond of whinging about how something could be imposed on the majority against their wishes.  Yet the very partition that your entire political ideology is based upon was a prime example of something being imposed on the majority in Ireland against their wishes (and don't get me started about the threat of "immediate and terrible war" that backed it up).

Yiz are democrats when it suits youse, aren't you?

Can't/don't speak for all of Unionism (obviously), so you might drop this "yiz" and "youse" etc.

Anyhow, this particular Unionist's views are entirely consistent.

Namely, just as it was wrong to try to override the wishes of the majority of people in the south of Ireland who wanted Independence by 1921, imo it would have been wrong to override the wishes of the majority in the north of Ireland who wanted Union.
Similarly, it was wrong of Fitzgerald and Thatcher to try to ride roughshod over the wishes of the majority with the AIA in 1985. (especially since it was not just the virtual unanimity of Unionists who opposed it, but also SF i.e. the only NI party supporting it were the SDLP and the then tiny Alliance Party).

Of course, I don't expect you to accept Partition, or even the right of people like me to make our case for Partition. However, I would remind you that in the two Referenda on the GFA, the overwhelming majority of people on the island acknowledged and endorsed Partition, both as being acceptable in principle and as the practical basis for government in Ireland.

Bit inconvenient, that, eh? 

P.S. Speaking of which, on another thread you demanded a direct answer to a question you had posed, which I supplied. In return, I asked you for your direct answer to a question, which you continue to dodge. So I will try once more. Namely, you refuse to acknowledge Unionism as being a legitimate and proper political aspiration. Yet all participants to the GFA attest that they recognise all political aspirations and ideologies equally as being legitimate, explicitly including Unionism.
How can you claim to support the GFA, whilst at the same time refusing to accept a key aspect of its fundamental ethos?

[Evil Genius]

More long windedness and multiple smilies, while saying nothing of substance. Your very first point for instance - does that wikipedia quote contradict anything I originally posted?
Good luck to you. I'd rather not taint the name of Frank Stagg by discussing his "trial" and the FG hijacking of his remains with a cretin who finds it funny. Adios.

Ohhh, better not forget the multiple smilies...
   

Whatever.

Meanwhile, any chance of your answering the simple Yes/No question I posed, as follows?
"Do you hold the two IRA men who were hanged in Coventry in 1940 in the same reverence [as Staggs and Gaughan]? Are they, too, heroes of yours?

[glens abu]

So you didn t like Fitzgerald attitude to the Hunger Strikers. Maybe he didn t see them as freedom fighters but as part of organisations who were only good at killing people whom he found abhorrant !

Got it at last Gaffer,so as I said I will pay him the same respect as he paid the Hunger strikers,but I would have thought the leader of a country and someone who was supposed to be a humanitarian could have at least agreed to meet their families afterall they had killed none.Then again to do that he might have had to grow a pair before he faced Maggie who no doubt would have slapped his wrist for going against her instructions.So no respect from me as I found him abhorrent.

Oh I got you first time Glen. I realised  that you were a provo lover who felt that Garrett Fitzgerald should have done what the Provos wanted him to do. Garett was representing the views of the majority of nationalists both north and south at that time who were totally opposed to the provos. He ll did what he believed to be right. I wouldn t think he would have cared two hoots what you thought .

Your spot on again Gaffer,my respect lies with the Hunger strikers,along with the tens of thousands who voted for them ,the hundreds of thousands who attended their funerals.They will be remembered forever in song and verse,and their names and writings quoted around the world were inslaved peoples struggle for freedom.In years to come heads of state will bow their heads in Remembrance as they do today to the hero's of 1916.Garret,well he will be lucky to fill 1/2 page in our history books.Sinn e
[/quote]

As to the opposed to the hundreds of thousands North and South who voted in direct opposition to these folks. Well I won't ever bow my head for them and will always keep a fond soft for our former Taoiseach.
[/quote]

Good man yourself,but have a feeling it will be Garret Who in a couple of years.

[Maguire01]

What the hell is 'Sinn e' meant to mean?

[glens abu]

What the hell is 'Sinn e' meant to mean?

Give me 5 and I will phone your Culture minister