I know that the woman is sick. Anyway. As she is to get a state funeral on a week day, does that mean that we in the Occupied Six will get the day off work? I mean, if anything, I wouldn't complain if I got a 'duvet day' while all the Tories wailed and sobbed. It would be quite ironic if she passed away and, say for example, Clint Eastwood died also. That would mean that we could sit up and have a few beers and then the next day stay in bed and watch re-runs od Dirty Harry etc on RTE or Channel 4. Thanks ..
To Quote Christy Moore "some great songs were written during Thatcher's Time"
Interesting website
Is Thatcher Dead Yet? (http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/)
Quote from: Orior on October 21, 2010, 10:43:00 PM
Interesting website
Is Thatcher Dead Yet? (http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/)
Thanks - have subscribed. I remember the night she was overthrown and I recall that it was sheer drama. Expect more dissent when she pops it. A woman who was totally devoid of humour and humanity. .. I think that the four lettered 'c' word that must not be uttered in polite company was invented for her specifically ..
Quote from: Zapatista on October 21, 2010, 11:26:14 PM
I'd say it's probably best to give everyone the day off. I know many who are waiting a long time for this to happen (Just like the wait for Tyrone to win an AI) and i'd say they won't be turning up for work when it does. They can then hide the fact that everyone is celebrating and claim they are mourning.
Personally, it's a non event for me. She did enough while alive for me to not let her have an effect on my life when she's dead too.
I could name ten men who, perhaps, could argue this point.
If ye Northern boys do get a day off, should her fineral be on a weekday, ye should go to work to spite her.
It makes sense.
Well said Shamrock. I remember bursting myself to get to work during the Drumcree demonstrations just to sicken the ba*tards who were blocking off the roads. Mind you I also used it as an excuse to get off home early but that's a different story
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on October 21, 2010, 11:37:37 PM
If ye Northern boys do get a day off, should her fineral be on a weekday, ye should go to work to spite her.
It makes sense.
LOL
We should take a day off down here to celebrate/mourn. We did a national day of mourning for 9/11 when they didn't even do that in the states.
I think that when she pops her clogs we should have an Official GAABoard Gadderin' to celebrate/mourn(delete as appropriate) the event.
count me in, the sooner the better!
A lot of talk about her kicking the bucket of late which is not fair if you ask me. It just keeps getting my hopes up unduly.
f**king bitch.
(http://i3.bebo.com/010a/large/2006/04/26/21/416621073a696289082b386883297l.jpg)
Does nobody here think this thread is in bad taste?
Yes, she was an evil cow, but why stoop to this level?
I was actually down near Finchley at the weekend. The resemblance with the North was uncanny.
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
Does nobody here think this thread is in bad taste?
Yes, she was an evil cow, but why stoop to this level?
no, i find it humorous
She'll probably end up out-living the lot of us.
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
Does nobody here think this thread is in bad taste?
Yes, she was an evil cow, but why stoop to this level?
I bet she never stole your milk at school!!!! :P
This video always brings a smile to my face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOy23MLY1I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOy23MLY1I)
Margaret Thatcher owned by a Housewife
Ta grain agam ar Thatcher fos
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
Does nobody here think this thread is in bad taste?
Yes, she was an evil cow, but why stoop to this level?
You'll get no fake moral outrage at bad taste from this crowd. For that you need to be over on the kangaroo thread.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on October 22, 2010, 12:08:20 PM
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
Does nobody here think this thread is in bad taste?
Yes, she was an evil cow, but why stoop to this level?
I bet she never stole your milk at school!!!! :P
the milk was well appreciated when the birds had pecked through the top or in the spring/summer when it was warm!
Quote from: leenie on October 22, 2010, 12:05:29 PM
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
Does nobody here think this thread is in bad taste?
Yes, she was an evil cow, but why stoop to this level?
no, i find it humorous
What exactly do you find humorous leenie? The fact she's dying?
118cmal, you have NO idea. I for one will be f**king elated and along with many, many Scots and irish will be celebrating here on the other side of the world when she is dragged into Hades. she is a fcukin tyrant
Would love it if Paisley and her kicked the bucket on the same day. What a party that would be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsq3H_6XuFA
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 12:20:45 PM
Quote from: leenie on October 22, 2010, 12:05:29 PM
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
Does nobody here think this thread is in bad taste?
Yes, she was an evil cow, but why stoop to this level?
no, i find it humorous
What exactly do you find humorous leenie? The fact she's dying?
118cmal - What's the view like up there? On your moral high horse?! ;)
Anyway....
Frankie Boyle on Mock the Week in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFzNhLRAgEU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFzNhLRAgEU)
I'm not a moral high horse. In my opinion she was a bitch, and someone who inflicted a lot of unnecessary suffering on a lot of people.
But I take no rejoice in her suffering or impending death. It shocks me that so many here do.
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 12:20:45 PM
Quote from: leenie on October 22, 2010, 12:05:29 PM
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
Does nobody here think this thread is in bad taste?
Yes, she was an evil cow, but why stoop to this level?
no, i find it humorous
What exactly do you find humorous leenie? The fact she's dying?
Leenie has already demonstrated her poor taste in humour on other threads this week :P
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 01:39:54 PM
I'm not a moral high horse. In my opinion she was a bitch, and someone who inflicted a lot of unnecessary suffering on a lot of people.
But I take no rejoice in her suffering or impending death. It shocks me that so many here do.
Catch a grip she was is an evil Bast##d were you sorry to see PolPot,Hussein,Karadzic,Ceausescu,etc,etc die.Cant wait have a bottle of Champers on ice to pop when the good news breaks.
QuoteQuote from: 118cmal on Today at 01:39:54 PM
I'm not a moral high horse. In my opinion she was a bitch, and someone who inflicted a lot of unnecessary suffering on a lot of people.
But I take no rejoice in her suffering or impending death. It shocks me that so many here do.
Catch a grip she was is an evil Bast##d were you sorry to see PolPot,Hussein,Karadzic,Ceausescu,etc,etc die.Cant wait have a bottle of Champers on ice to pop when the good news breaks.
+1
I take it you weren't a child of the seventies/eighties living in the north 118cmal, the suffering she caused is immeasurable
I support a state funeral for her, providing she's buried alive.
Quote from: Banana Man on October 22, 2010, 02:23:00 PM
QuoteQuote from: 118cmal on Today at 01:39:54 PM
I'm not a moral high horse. In my opinion she was a bitch, and someone who inflicted a lot of unnecessary suffering on a lot of people.
But I take no rejoice in her suffering or impending death. It shocks me that so many here do.
Catch a grip she was is an evil Bast##d were you sorry to see PolPot,Hussein,Karadzic,Ceausescu,etc,etc die.Cant wait have a bottle of Champers on ice to pop when the good news breaks.
+1
I take it you weren't a child of the seventies/eighties living in the north 118cmal, the suffering she caused is immeasurable
I was. But I still won't be rejoicing at her death.
What about a military funeral and a volley of shots into the coffin to make sure she is dead.
Count me in for the celebration. I remember her well. An evil woman. Dying is too good for her.
QuoteQuote from: Banana Man on Today at 02:23:00 PM
Quote
Quote from: 118cmal on Today at 01:39:54 PM
I'm not a moral high horse. In my opinion she was a bitch, and someone who inflicted a lot of unnecessary suffering on a lot of people.
But I take no rejoice in her suffering or impending death. It shocks me that so many here do.
Catch a grip she was is an evil Bast##d were you sorry to see PolPot,Hussein,Karadzic,Ceausescu,etc,etc die.Cant wait have a bottle of Champers on ice to pop when the good news breaks.
+1
I take it you weren't a child of the seventies/eighties living in the north 118cmal, the suffering she caused is immeasurable
I was. But I still won't be rejoicing at her death.
That my friend is your choice, just like it is ours to do the opposite, having said that how you couldn't have been affected by her I cannot fathom, the absolute personification of Lucifer himself
I never said I wasn't affected by her, of course I was. Look, have your wee party whenever she dies. I think it's a wee bit sad to be honest. You're entitled to do what you want and I'm entitled to my opinion. Happy days
Quote from: glens abu on October 22, 2010, 02:09:20 PM
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 01:39:54 PM
I'm not a moral high horse. In my opinion she was a bitch, and someone who inflicted a lot of unnecessary suffering on a lot of people.
But I take no rejoice in her suffering or impending death. It shocks me that so many here do.
Catch a grip she was is an evil Bast##d were you sorry to see PolPot,Hussein,Karadzic,Ceausescu,etc,etc die.Cant wait have a bottle of Champers on ice to pop when the good news breaks.
An Oul **** but comparable to Pol Pot etc? Catch a grip.
Quote from: thebigfella on October 22, 2010, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: 118cmal on October 22, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
Does nobody here think this thread is in bad taste?
Yes, she was an evil cow, but why stoop to this level?
You'll get no fake moral outrage at bad taste from this crowd. For that you need to be over on the kangaroo thread.
Haven't been over but I'll bet they're hopping mad.
A rotten gypsy tr**p, hope she suffers for years!!!!
suffer?
Looks like she will end up with a fate worse than Hell.
(http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/images/newsimages/maggie_thatcher/scousers_dance_on_thatchers.jpg)
I normally don't speak ill of the dead and the dying but I make an exception in this case. I hope she dies roaring.
She stole my milk! ;D
I think it's wrong to gloat over someone's death or even their impending death no matter what they have done in their lives. I also don't believe for one second that the Iron Lady herself was responsible for all legislation or even policy under her reign. That tends to be dictated by civil servants, in the main. In relation to Ireland, she probably made the situation worse with her intransigence at times yet she would have overseen the deal in Long Kesh in 1981 but she would also have been influenced by little things like the Brighton bombing. An interesting lady certainly, I never agreed with her policies but I wouldn't wish anything bad on her.
She's a **** alright but hating people is so pointless, I try not to.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 06:03:26 PM
She stole my milk! ;D
I think it's wrong to gloat over someone's death or even their impending death no matter what they have done in their lives. I also don't believe for one second that the Iron Lady herself was responsible for all legislation or even policy under her reign. That tends to be dictated by civil servants, in the main. In relation to Ireland, she probably made the situation worse with her intransigence at times yet she would have overseen the deal in Long Kesh in 1981 but she would also have been influenced by little things like the Brighton bombing. An interesting lady certainly, I never agreed with her policies but I wouldn't wish anything bad on her.
I've heard it all from you now ardmhacha. It's only "probable" that she made the situation in Ireland worse?? Just when it seems you couldn't stoop lower, you expose yourself as an apologist for maggie thatcher of all people!? Catch a grip man dear. She was hardly the sort of woman/specimen who would have let civil servants tell her what her policies were going to be. (I hardly imagine she had Civil Servants at her side in 1998 either when she visited Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to drink tea and shower praise on him for his support and for his "bringing democracy" to Chile).
And blaming her intransigence during the 1981 hunger strikes on her having been influenced by the IRA bombing in Brighton is a bit far fetched. Not least because this bombing happened three years after the Hunger Strike.
I do my own thinking, thanks. You support killers, you have no room to preach to anyone
You know what i hate. Some total bastard dies and at his/her funeral the priest, who probably knows full well what a hoor the person was, spends 20 minutes talking dung about what a great person has passed on. Thatcher was a **** whose ignorant actions meant a lot of people dies while she had tea with mass murderers from South America and elsewhere. If there is a hell it was built for people like her.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 22, 2010, 07:13:10 PM
You know what i hate. Some total b**tard dies and at his/her funeral the priest, who probably knows full well what a hoor the person was, spends 20 minutes talking dung about what a great person has passed on. Thatcher was a **** whose ignorant actions meant a lot of people dies while she had tea with mass murderers from South America and elsewhere. If there is a hell it was built for people like her.
The priest at her funeral will probably be Fr Brian D'Arcy. He loves the old limelight
Quote from: Gaffer on October 22, 2010, 07:18:14 PM
The priest at her funeral will probably be Fr Brian D'Arcy. He loves the old limelight
:D :D
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 22, 2010, 07:13:10 PM
You know what i hate. Some total b**tard dies and at his/her funeral the priest, who probably knows full well what a hoor the person was, spends 20 minutes talking dung about what a great person has passed on. Thatcher was a **** whose ignorant actions meant a lot of people dies while she had tea with mass murderers from South America and elsewhere. If there is a hell it was built for people like her.
You know what myles, I agree. I never agreed with her. I will tell you a story, no word of a lie in it. A distant relative of mine was in Downing St with Cardinal O'Fiaich when O'Fiaich was trying to interject on behalf of the hunger-strikers. At one point he put his pen down (he was the note-taker) and told her in no uncertain terms that what she was doing would lead to the nationalist community being won over by the men of violence. She didn't care what her actions were doing to people on the ground even when he calmly explained that his own family was split down the middle because of her attitude
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 06:32:26 PM
I do my own thinking, thanks. You support killers, you have no room to preach to anyone
First of all I support freedom fighters not "killers". Typical old sensationalist word games when you have nothing better to say.
Could I ask, if you want to play word games, is it fair to say that you support "killers" due to being an apologist for the activities and policies of maggie thatcher?
I still await your explanation as to how something which happened in 1984 influenced her attitude in 1981, by the way. Come to think of it, I await a non-sensationalist, word-game free
constructive response to every point I made in my initial post, e.g. on Civil Servants etc.
I await with interest.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 22, 2010, 07:46:38 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 06:32:26 PM
I do my own thinking, thanks. You support killers, you have no room to preach to anyone
First of all I support freedom fighters not "killers". Typical old sensationalist word games when you have nothing better to say.
Could I ask, if you want to play word games, is it fair to say that you support "killers" due to being an apologist for the activities and policies of maggie thatcher?
I still await your explanation as to how something which happened in 1984 influenced her attitude in 1981, by the way. Come to think of it, I await a non-sensationalist, word-game free constructive response to every point I made in my initial post, e.g. on Civil Servants etc.
I await with interest.
Where did he ever say that? He was clearly speaking about her politics and attitude to the north as a whole.
As usual, I have to refer to you to what I actually said and not what you think I said.
Oh and you support murderers in my view and that will never change. By the way, I don't have to answer everything you say. You are not a toddler, don't act like one.
'As usual, I have to refer to you to what I actually said and not what you think I said.'
Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle
Quote from: red hander on October 22, 2010, 09:24:29 PM
'As usual, I have to refer to you to what I actually said and not what you think I said.'
Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle
You are rather tiresome, you never contribute yet you see fit to nitpick, out of context. That makes you a WUM
Look I started it and perhaps it is in bad taste. So maybe I should delete the post.
However, on second thoughts: she was a an bad-natured, evil, indifferent, Irish-hating, poor-despising, egotistic, petty, spiteful, blood-thirsty, insane apologist for hatred and moneterist policies that plunged millions into poverty. Also, she was a tyrant who suffered from delusions of grandeur and meglomania; had no idea about the real world and was out of touch with absolutely everyone. She got 'lucky' at the Falklands and lived on that for almost a decade. Beyond all that she was probably okay and even her family might have liked her.
Now, I am not into irony. But, imagine if through lack of nourishment her organs closed down one by one and she slipped into a coma and HER family had to watch her wither away .... :'(
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 07:51:53 PM
As usual, I have to refer to you to what I actually said and not what you think I said.
Oh and you support murderers in my view and that will never change. By the way, I don't have to answer everything you say. You are not a toddler, don't act like one.
I don't think for one minute you have to answer every point I made, but my post was in reply to the specific points you made, so I just thought that you might act with the same mature manner and not have some childish refusal to engage in constructive discussion but rather use sensationalist word games to avoid my points. You are not a toddler after all are you? Is rational discussion beyond you?
Quote from: gallsman on October 22, 2010, 07:49:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 22, 2010, 07:46:38 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 06:32:26 PM
I do my own thinking, thanks. You support killers, you have no room to preach to anyone
First of all I support freedom fighters not "killers". Typical old sensationalist word games when you have nothing better to say.
Could I ask, if you want to play word games, is it fair to say that you support "killers" due to being an apologist for the activities and policies of maggie thatcher?
I still await your explanation as to how something which happened in 1984 influenced her attitude in 1981, by the way. Come to think of it, I await a non-sensationalist, word-game free constructive response to every point I made in my initial post, e.g. on Civil Servants etc.
I await with interest.
Where did he ever say that? He was clearly speaking about her politics and attitude to the north as a whole.
Are you ardmhaca's spokesman? That's nice. What's the pay like? Recession busting scheme you have there.
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on October 22, 2010, 09:55:49 PM
Look I started it and perhaps it is in bad taste. So maybe I should delete the post.
However, on second thoughts: she was a an bad-natured, evil, indifferent, Irish-hating, poor-despising, egotistic, petty, spiteful, blood-thirsty, insane apologist for hatred and moneterist policies that plunged millions into poverty. Also, she was a tyrant who suffered from delusions of grandeur and meglomania; had no idea about the real world and was out of touch with absolutely everyone. She got 'lucky' at the Falklands and lived on that for almost a decade. Beyond all that she was probably okay and even her family might have liked her.
Now, I am not into irony. But, imagine if through lack of nourishment her organs closed down one by one and she slipped into a coma and HER family had to watch her wither away .... :'(
Well said.
Such is the extent of Sinn Feins sellout McGuiness and Adams will probably be pall bearers at her funeral. Sure isn't McGuiness great mates with the Tories.
I don't like the Thatcher death celebratory mentions either but I understand why some feel that way. Celebrating a death just doesn't sit well with me.
I'd probably would like to have seen Hitler reprieved too if caught.
If the Second Coming does occur in my lifetime I'll probably tell the Big Man to ease off on the devil and give him another chance.
where did i say i found someone dying humorous....
the thread is what i found humorous.........
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 22, 2010, 02:48:25 PM
What about a military funeral and a volley of shots into the coffin to make sure she is dead.
Count me in for the celebration. I remember her well. An evil woman. Dying is too good for her.
+1. an evil cnut.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 06:03:26 PM
She stole my milk! ;D
I think it's wrong to gloat over someone's death or even their impending death no matter what they have done in their lives. I also don't believe for one second that the Iron Lady herself was responsible for all legislation or even policy under her reign. That tends to be dictated by civil servants, in the main. In relation to Ireland, she probably made the situation worse with her intransigence at times yet she would have overseen the deal in Long Kesh in 1981 but she would also have been influenced by little things like the Brighton bombing. An interesting lady certainly, I never agreed with her policies but I wouldn't wish anything bad on her.
There was nothing ladylike about the woman,in my opinion she was an evil narcissist who fcuked up the british economy in unparalled fashion, she amped up the sectarianism the north and she was a notorious bigot, may she rot in hades and be held acountable for the lives she destroyed.
Quote from: ONeill on October 22, 2010, 11:03:29 PM
I don't like the Thatcher death celebratory mentions either but I understand why some feel that way. Celebrating a death just doesn't sit well with me.
It doesn't sit that well with me either but then I remember the lives that would not have been destroyed had the ould tart been shot years ago.
As soon as she was booted out of office she became insignificant, no more important than a shriveled dried prune. She was only significant as long as her political party thought her useful. She did not introduce internment, nor come up with the H Blocks, nor did she remove political status. Policy was already defined for her.
With arrogance she fronted the destructive policies of a privileged elite. Other UK leaders, before her and after her, have have done the same and worse, albeit with a smile and lying through their teeth.
Quote from: Main Street on October 24, 2010, 07:45:14 PM
As soon as she was booted out of office she became insignificant, no more important than a shriveled dried prune. She was only significant as long as her political party thought her useful. She did not introduce internment, nor come up with the H Blocks, nor did she remove political status. Policy was already defined for her.
With arrogance she fronted the destructive policies of a privileged elite. Other UK leaders, before her and after her, have have done the same and worse, albeit with a smile and lying through their teeth.
True, I suppose the only difference in her and several of her predecessors is that she didn't try to hide her contempt for the people she was destroying.
Quote from: trileacman on October 24, 2010, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: ONeill on October 22, 2010, 11:03:29 PM
I don't like the Thatcher death celebratory mentions either but I understand why some feel that way. Celebrating a death just doesn't sit well with me.
It doesn't sit that well with me either but then I remember the lives that would not have been destroyed had the ould tart been shot years ago.
Was she a tart as well ?
Never thought she would two-time Ronnie Reagan!!!
Quote from: Main Street on October 24, 2010, 07:45:14 PMShe did not introduce internment
No - that was Al Gore.
Oh sorry.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 09:33:37 PM
Quote from: red hander on October 22, 2010, 09:24:29 PM
'As usual, I have to refer to you to what I actually said and not what you think I said.'
Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle
You are rather tiresome, you never contribute yet you see fit to nitpick, out of context. That makes you a WUM
Tiresome? F**k, you'd know all about that all right. :-*
My contribution ... Hell will not be full till the old b**tard's in it, and to quote Elvis Costello, 'Tr**p The Dirt Down' - to make sure she can't climb out of the hole
Quote from: red hander on October 25, 2010, 10:30:09 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 09:33:37 PM
Quote from: red hander on October 22, 2010, 09:24:29 PM
'As usual, I have to refer to you to what I actually said and not what you think I said.'
Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle
You are rather tiresome, you never contribute yet you see fit to nitpick, out of context. That makes you a WUM
My contribution ... Hell will not be full till the old b**tard's in it, and to quote Elvis Costello, 'Tr**p The Dirt Down' - to make sure she can't climb out of the hole
You need serious and urgent psychiatric help to be getting on like that over someone you don't know, have never met and never will :-*
Www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk
Gives list of parties planned for the big event,great website
;D
No matter whats said, she was good for economy! Smashing the unions was the right decision. You can see recently how disruptive this shower of work shy hewers are ! And she also allowed of the ordinary 5/8ths to own their own home through the housing executive buy off schemes.
Oh that's all right then Tory boy
There was more of an organised civil opposition in the 1980s which is why so much contempt is felt for Thatcher while Blair and Brown continue to get a much more favourable press despite unleashing far more mayhem in Iraq and afghanistan. Thatcher economics became labour economics so I don't see how she was much different to later overlords.
People want their nice lifestyles and shopping opportunities and they don't want to know all of the upheavals that are necessary to make the system work for them. There is a lot of hypocrisy in singling out Thatcher when in reality it is the system she was a part that still exists that people vote for time and again.
Personally i find that rejoicing in a death lacks a certain class.
Quote from: seafoid on October 26, 2010, 11:23:58 AM
There was more of an organised civil opposition in the 1980s which is why so much contempt is felt for Thatcher while Blair and Brown continue to get a much more favourable press despite unleashing far more mayhem in Iraq and afghanistan. Thatcher economics became labour economics so I don't see how she was much different to later overlords.
People want their nice lifestyles and shopping opportunities and they don't want to know all of the upheavals that are necessary to make the system work for them. There is a lot of hypocrisy in singling out Thatcher when in reality it is the system she was a part that still exists that people vote for time and again.
Personally i find that rejoicing in a death lacks a certain class.
Her economic policies are probably not the main reason she is hated in Ireland. Her murder of the Hunger Strikers and her "Shoot to Kill" policy are just two more reasons why I wish nothing but ill upon her.
To paraphrase General Philip Sheridan, "The only good Tories I ever saw were dead."
I will crack open a bottle of champagne the night the oul bitch dies.
The sister in law's oul fella has a bottle of 40 year old single malt he's keeping for the occasion and he's English.
I've quite a few English mates who are of the same opinion, one from a former mining town in Yorkshire would do the job himself if he got the chance
f**k her, and damn her to hell.
Quote from: fer fox ache on October 27, 2010, 12:00:14 PM
To paraphrase General Philip Sheridan, "The only good Tories I ever saw were dead."
I will crack open a bottle of champagne the night the oul bitch dies.
The sister in law's oul fella has a bottle of 40 year old single malt he's keeping for the occasion and he's English.
I've quite a few English mates who are of the same opinion, one from a former mining town in Yorkshire would do the job himself if he got the chance
f**k her, and damn her to hell.
A quite rounded and considered response. Whatever the opinions, she is a fascinating creature. Her personality had no understanding of humour. Her speeches were written by a former script writer for BBC comedy and all the jokes were above her head. She did the conference sppech in '88 when she compared Socialism to the 'Dead Parrot' - not only had she never heard of the sketch, but she had no idea what 'Monty Python' was. Basically she was handed a speech and advised to that 'this is funny'. Funny thing is about these politicians is how out of touch they are with the so-called real world. David Trimble, for example. He was so out of touch. The time Ulster won the European Rugby Cup in 1999 at Lansdowne Road he had to have a guy to explain the rules to him as the game progressed - and he had attended a rugby playing grammar school. In fact, I recall being at Queens in 1990 on the day that the Republic played England in a European qualifier - the place was packed solid with football fans on the pish. Biggest match in the history of Irish football. Lo and behold in their shirts and ties arrived the Young Unionists into the Speakeasy wanting to know who was playing?
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on October 27, 2010, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: fer fox ache on October 27, 2010, 12:00:14 PM
To paraphrase General Philip Sheridan, "The only good Tories I ever saw were dead."
I will crack open a bottle of champagne the night the oul bitch dies.
The sister in law's oul fella has a bottle of 40 year old single malt he's keeping for the occasion and he's English.
I've quite a few English mates who are of the same opinion, one from a former mining town in Yorkshire would do the job himself if he got the chance
f**k her, and damn her to hell.
A quite rounded and considered response. Whatever the opinions, she is a fascinating creature. Her personality had no understanding of humour. Her speeches were written by a former script writer for BBC comedy and all the jokes were above her head. She did the conference sppech in '88 when she compared Socialism to the 'Dead Parrot' - not only had she never heard of the sketch, but she had no idea what 'Monty Python' was. Basically she was handed a speech and advised to that 'this is funny'. Funny thing is about these politicians is how out of touch they are with the so-called real world. David Trimble, for example. He was so out of touch. The time Ulster won the European Rugby Cup in 1999 at Lansdowne Road he had to have a guy to explain the rules to him as the game progressed - and he had attended a rugby playing grammar school. In fact, I recall being at Queens in 1990 on the day that the Republic played England in a European qualifier - the place was packed solid with football fans on the pish. Biggest match in the history of Irish football. Lo and behold in their shirts and ties arrived the Young Unionists into the Speakeasy wanting to know who was playing?
That was some day's craic.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 26, 2010, 12:37:05 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 26, 2010, 11:23:58 AM
There was more of an organised civil opposition in the 1980s which is why so much contempt is felt for Thatcher while Blair and Brown continue to get a much more favourable press despite unleashing far more mayhem in Iraq and afghanistan. Thatcher economics became labour economics so I don't see how she was much different to later overlords.
People want their nice lifestyles and shopping opportunities and they don't want to know all of the upheavals that are necessary to make the system work for them. There is a lot of hypocrisy in singling out Thatcher when in reality it is the system she was a part that still exists that people vote for time and again.
Personally i find that rejoicing in a death lacks a certain class.
Her economic policies are probably not the main reason she is hated in Ireland. Her murder of the Hunger Strikers and her "Shoot to Kill" policy are just two more reasons why I wish nothing but ill upon her.
Sorry Nally but we are always fed the republican line about how 30 years of terrorism was a "war". Well if it was a war, people "shoot to kill". If you are yapping about that maybe it's about time republican admitted that their terror campaign was as much a war as the Dunblane Massacre. This doublespeak really gets me. The sad thing is you don't even see the double standards.
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on October 27, 2010, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: fer fox ache on October 27, 2010, 12:00:14 PM
To paraphrase General Philip Sheridan, "The only good Tories I ever saw were dead."
I will crack open a bottle of champagne the night the oul bitch dies.
The sister in law's oul fella has a bottle of 40 year old single malt he's keeping for the occasion and he's English.
I've quite a few English mates who are of the same opinion, one from a former mining town in Yorkshire would do the job himself if he got the chance
f**k her, and damn her to hell.
A quite rounded and considered response. Whatever the opinions, she is a fascinating creature. Her personality had no understanding of humour. Her speeches were written by a former script writer for BBC comedy and all the jokes were above her head. She did the conference sppech in '88 when she compared Socialism to the 'Dead Parrot' - not only had she never heard of the sketch, but she had no idea what 'Monty Python' was. Basically she was handed a speech and advised to that 'this is funny'. Funny thing is about these politicians is how out of touch they are with the so-called real world. David Trimble, for example. He was so out of touch. The time Ulster won the European Rugby Cup in 1999 at Lansdowne Road he had to have a guy to explain the rules to him as the game progressed - and he had attended a rugby playing grammar school. In fact, I recall being at Queens in 1990 on the day that the Republic played England in a European qualifier - the place was packed solid with football fans on the pish. Biggest match in the history of Irish football. Lo and behold in their shirts and ties arrived the Young Unionists into the Speakeasy wanting to know who was playing?
I suspect they knew righty who was playing and were letting youse know how disinterested and insignificant they saw the game as being. I remember sharing a house and this unionist student in it and when BBC Sunday GAA came on about 15 years ago or so he left the room. One nite I went upstairs during it and cud hear it coming from his TV in his room. He didn't want us to know he was watching it.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 26, 2010, 12:37:05 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 26, 2010, 11:23:58 AM
There was more of an organised civil opposition in the 1980s which is why so much contempt is felt for Thatcher while Blair and Brown continue to get a much more favourable press despite unleashing far more mayhem in Iraq and afghanistan. Thatcher economics became labour economics so I don't see how she was much different to later overlords.
People want their nice lifestyles and shopping opportunities and they don't want to know all of the upheavals that are necessary to make the system work for them. There is a lot of hypocrisy in singling out Thatcher when in reality it is the system she was a part that still exists that people vote for time and again.
Personally i find that rejoicing in a death lacks a certain class.
Her economic policies are probably not the main reason she is hated in Ireland. Her murder of the Hunger Strikers and her "Shoot to Kill" policy are just two more reasons why I wish nothing but ill upon her.
Murder?
They could have eaten if they wanted.
Quote from: 118cmal on October 28, 2010, 12:24:10 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 26, 2010, 12:37:05 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 26, 2010, 11:23:58 AM
There was more of an organised civil opposition in the 1980s which is why so much contempt is felt for Thatcher while Blair and Brown continue to get a much more favourable press despite unleashing far more mayhem in Iraq and afghanistan. Thatcher economics became labour economics so I don't see how she was much different to later overlords.
People want their nice lifestyles and shopping opportunities and they don't want to know all of the upheavals that are necessary to make the system work for them. There is a lot of hypocrisy in singling out Thatcher when in reality it is the system she was a part that still exists that people vote for time and again.
Personally i find that rejoicing in a death lacks a certain class.
Her economic policies are probably not the main reason she is hated in Ireland. Her murder of the Hunger Strikers and her "Shoot to Kill" policy are just two more reasons why I wish nothing but ill upon her.
Murder?
They could have eaten if they wanted.
If Thatcher had gone on hunger strike and vowed not to come off it until the Provos had gave in to her demands, I wonder what the outcome would have been ???????
Quote from: 118cmal on October 28, 2010, 12:24:10 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 26, 2010, 12:37:05 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 26, 2010, 11:23:58 AM
There was more of an organised civil opposition in the 1980s which is why so much contempt is felt for Thatcher while Blair and Brown continue to get a much more favourable press despite unleashing far more mayhem in Iraq and afghanistan. Thatcher economics became labour economics so I don't see how she was much different to later overlords.
People want their nice lifestyles and shopping opportunities and they don't want to know all of the upheavals that are necessary to make the system work for them. There is a lot of hypocrisy in singling out Thatcher when in reality it is the system she was a part that still exists that people vote for time and again.
Personally i find that rejoicing in a death lacks a certain class.
Her economic policies are probably not the main reason she is hated in Ireland. Her murder of the Hunger Strikers and her "Shoot to Kill" policy are just two more reasons why I wish nothing but ill upon her.
Murder?
They could have eaten if they wanted.
That post does not warrant a response.
Quote from: Tonto on October 27, 2010, 11:18:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 26, 2010, 12:37:05 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 26, 2010, 11:23:58 AM
There was more of an organised civil opposition in the 1980s which is why so much contempt is felt for Thatcher while Blair and Brown continue to get a much more favourable press despite unleashing far more mayhem in Iraq and afghanistan. Thatcher economics became labour economics so I don't see how she was much different to later overlords.
People want their nice lifestyles and shopping opportunities and they don't want to know all of the upheavals that are necessary to make the system work for them. There is a lot of hypocrisy in singling out Thatcher when in reality it is the system she was a part that still exists that people vote for time and again.
Personally i find that rejoicing in a death lacks a certain class.
Her economic policies are probably not the main reason she is hated in Ireland. Her murder of the Hunger Strikers and her "Shoot to Kill" policy are just two more reasons why I wish nothing but ill upon her.
Sorry Nally but we are always fed the republican line about how 30 years of terrorism was a "war". Well if it was a war, people "shoot to kill". If you are yapping about that maybe it's about time republican admitted that their terror campaign was as much a war as the Dunblane Massacre. This doublespeak really gets me. The sad thing is you don't even see the double standards.
Tonto you are just anti-republican, full stop. The issue was not about the
republican terming of it as a war. Republicans were openly admitting to having been at war. The
British were also at war but would not publicly admit it. The debate therefore being that if they are not at war, why shoot-to-kill?
P.s. Point to ONE occasion where an IRA Volunteer walked into a primary school and committed mass murder of children before turning the gun on himself? Trying to draw a parallel between the entire IRAs campaign and the murder of 15 children in the Dunblane Massacre is the most disgusting, blatant, pathetic, shameless and sensationalist piece of anti-republican propaganda as ever I've heard. Thatcher would be proud of you.
She didn't murder the hungerstrikers.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 28, 2010, 11:47:06 AM
She didn't murder the hungerstrikers.
She did nothing to prevent their deaths and seemed happy to let them die as part of her agenda but she did not murder them no matter how you twist it Nally.
It was the hunger strikers only 'weapon' to resist being criminalised. She certainly was responsible for their deaths but is more complicated. If it was a war as Nally states, then there are no murders tho both sides were guilty of War Crimes, that's for sure. Republicans talked of executions so can't very well claim in the same 'war' the other side 'murdered.'
Is complex... very... now same people are calling Republicans who say they are still at war, 'traitors.'
During her term as British PM, Britain and the USA overtly supported the Khmer Rouge TERRORIST regime of Pol Pot and actively supported it's recognition as the "legitimate" government of Cambodia at the U.N., above all places (but then again, it is acknowledged that this is but a frontispiece for the illegal attrocities of the so-called righteous western world powered by the terrorists of the Pentagon and their cohorts in Whitehall).
For some on here to suggest she was only the PM is a seriously blinkered view.
She is an evil hag who will no doubt be dictating to the devil himself.
P.[/quote]
s. Point to ONE occasion where an IRA Volunteer walked into a primary school and committed mass murder of children [/quote]
I remember one IRA 'volunteer' walking into a primary school classroom and murdering the teacher in front of his pupils.
Not much respect for the effect that would have on children. Will never forget that as long as I live.
Quote from: Gaffer on October 31, 2010, 09:30:39 AM
P.
s. Point to ONE occasion where an IRA Volunteer walked into a primary school and committed mass murder of children [/quote]
I remember one IRA 'volunteer' walking into a primary school classroom and murdering the teacher in front of his pupils.
Not much respect for the effect that would have on children. Will never forget that as long as I live.
[/quote]
Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the
ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even
ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on October 31, 2010, 09:30:39 AM
P.
s. Point to ONE occasion where an IRA Volunteer walked into a primary school and committed mass murder of children
I remember one IRA 'volunteer' walking into a primary school classroom and murdering the teacher in front of his pupils.
Not much respect for the effect that would have on children. Will never forget that as long as I live.
[/quote]
Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the
ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even
ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.
[/quote]
***Point well made Nally but there were many actions could be catagorised as war crimes. Forcing civilians to drive cars with bombs into army barracks, no warning bombs in pubs in England and here... both sides did very dastardly deeds including the killing of innocent children. (Cue.... 'there will will civilian casualties in war' comment)
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 31, 2010, 10:08:37 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on October 31, 2010, 09:30:39 AM
P.
s. Point to ONE occasion where an IRA Volunteer walked into a primary school and committed mass murder of children
I remember one IRA 'volunteer' walking into a primary school classroom and murdering the teacher in front of his pupils.
Not much respect for the effect that would have on children. Will never forget that as long as I live.
Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the
ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even
ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.
[/quote]
Point well made Nally but there were many actions could be catagorised as war crimes. Forcing civilians to drive cars with bombs into army barracks, no warning bombs in pubs in England and here... both sides did very dastardly deeds.
[/quote]
Couldn't agree more. In war, both sides will always end up doing immoral acts. In my view however, one side's campaign in general was much more morally justifiable. It is up to both sides to accept responsibility for it's immoral actions. The IRA made an immediate acknowledgement of it's role and upon it's standing down, made a full apology to all it's civilian victims. The British government have yet to make such an apology and have yet to concede that they were even an active protagonist in the conflict, and not the "peacemaker" between troublesome Irish hooligan tribes which it claims.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 31, 2010, 10:15:13 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on October 31, 2010, 09:30:39 AM
P.
s. Point to ONE occasion where an IRA Volunteer walked into a primary school and committed mass murder of children
I remember one IRA 'volunteer' walking into a primary school classroom and murdering the teacher in front of his pupils.
Not much respect for the effect that would have on children. Will never forget that as long as I live.
Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the
ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even
ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.
[/quote]
***Point well made Nally but there were many actions could be catagorised as war crimes. Forcing civilians to drive cars with bombs into army barracks, no warning bombs in pubs in England and here... both sides did very dastardly deeds including the killing of innocent children.
(Cue.... 'there will will civilian casualties in war' comment)[/quote]
I think you jut covered that bit yourself in your own post!
Nally clearly on the run here and as always is unable to back up his own points. For anyone of Republican sentiment, Thatcher's merciless handling of the hungerstrikes is disgraceful and will leave a lasting stain of resentment for generations. I wasn't born until six years after the strikes but feel anger and hatred building up inside me every time I see my copy of David Beresford's "Ten Men Dead."
But murder?? You're a f**king delusional idiot.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 10:17:09 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 31, 2010, 10:08:37 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on October 31, 2010, 09:30:39 AM
P.
s. Point to ONE occasion where an IRA Volunteer walked into a primary school and committed mass murder of children
I remember one IRA 'volunteer' walking into a primary school classroom and murdering the teacher in front of his pupils.
Not much respect for the effect that would have on children. Will never forget that as long as I live.
Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.
Point well made Nally but there were many actions could be catagorised as war crimes. Forcing civilians to drive cars with bombs into army barracks, no warning bombs in pubs in England and here... both sides did very dastardly deeds.
[/quote]
Couldn't agree more. In war, both sides will always end up doing immoral acts. In my view however, one side's campaign in general was much more morally justifiable. It is up to both sides to accept responsibility for it's immoral actions. The IRA made an immediate acknowledgement of it's role and upon it's standing down,
made a full apology to all it's civilian victims. The British government have yet to make such an apology and have yet to concede that they were even an active protagonist in the conflict, and not the "peacemaker" between troublesome Irish hooligan tribes which it claims.
[/quote]
They weren t one bit sorry about the civilian victims.
Quote from: Gaffer on October 31, 2010, 10:36:10 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 10:17:09 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 31, 2010, 10:08:37 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on October 31, 2010, 09:30:39 AM
P.
s. Point to ONE occasion where an IRA Volunteer walked into a primary school and committed mass murder of children
I remember one IRA 'volunteer' walking into a primary school classroom and murdering the teacher in front of his pupils.
Not much respect for the effect that would have on children. Will never forget that as long as I live.
Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.
Point well made Nally but there were many actions could be catagorised as war crimes. Forcing civilians to drive cars with bombs into army barracks, no warning bombs in pubs in England and here... both sides did very dastardly deeds.
Couldn't agree more. In war, both sides will always end up doing immoral acts. In my view however, one side's campaign in general was much more morally justifiable. It is up to both sides to accept responsibility for it's immoral actions. The IRA made an immediate acknowledgement of it's role and upon it's standing down,
made a full apology to all it's civilian victims. The British government have yet to make such an apology and have yet to concede that they were even an active protagonist in the conflict, and not the "peacemaker" between troublesome Irish hooligan tribes which it claims.
[/quote]
They weren t one bit sorry about the civilian victims.
[/quote]
What an intelligent, detailed, structured, well evidenced response. Thank you.
Quote from: Gaffer on October 31, 2010, 10:36:10 AM
They weren t one bit sorry about the civilian victims.
I agree, they didn't care what trauma they put families through, some even had to witness their loved ones being murdered
No point in beating about the bush, is there?
FFS! they are still denying some of the disapeared killings! Some use an apology when you put a no warning bomb in a bar knowing what the outcome will be.. hardly a mistake.
Typical of the sentiments of many of this board. The IRA apologised but they get roundly attacked by you, yet each of you have ignored my point that the british army have yet to even admit they were an active protagonist let alone apologised to it's victims.
As for the victims of the disappeared, haven't you noticed a steady increase in the numbers being found. They aren't being found by chance.
So easy to criticise the group which reacts to the aggressor isn't it?
In fairness to Nally at least he tries to debate unlike another Sinn Fein mouthpiece on this site who disappears if there are any uncomfortable threads. Yes Glens Abu I am talking about you.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 11:01:07 AM
Typical of the sentiments of many of this board. The IRA apologised but they get roundly attacked by you, yet each of you have ignored my point that the british army have yet to even admit they were an active protagonist let alone apologised to it's victims.
As for the victims of the disappeared, haven't you noticed a steady increase in the numbers being found. They aren't being found by chance.
So easy to criticise the group which reacts to the aggressor isn't it?
Considering their actions it is very easy to critisise the Provos. Always did and always will.
It only took them 8 years to acknowledge that they owed an apology ::)
Loyalists included an apology in their ceasefire announcement! That's what the provos should have done!
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 11:01:07 AM
Typical of the sentiments of many of this board. The IRA apologised but they get roundly attacked by you, yet each of you have ignored my point that the british army have yet to even admit they were an active protagonist let alone apologised to it's victims.
As for the victims of the disappeared, haven't you noticed a steady increase in the numbers being found. They aren't being found by chance.
So easy to criticise the group which reacts to the aggressor isn't it?
wat about the Brits is not a reasoned arguement. We know what they are and wat to expect from them. So now those who do the same as the Provos are 'traitors' according to Sinn Fein... is hard to figure out the logic.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 31, 2010, 11:23:13 AM
It only took them 8 years to acknowledge that they owed an apology ::)
Loyalists included an apology in their ceasefire announcement! That's what the provos should have done!
Oh am I not being ignored again?
I wasn't referring to loyalists, I was referring to the british government when I used the term "the british government". I think I would drop dead from shock if the British government even eight years from now, accepted that it was a protagonist and issued an apology to it's victims, like the IRA has already done.
Quote from: Gaffer on October 31, 2010, 11:13:15 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 11:01:07 AM
Typical of the sentiments of many of this board. The IRA apologised but they get roundly attacked by you, yet each of you have ignored my point that the british army have yet to even admit they were an active protagonist let alone apologised to it's victims.
As for the victims of the disappeared, haven't you noticed a steady increase in the numbers being found. They aren't being found by chance.
So easy to criticise the group which reacts to the aggressor isn't it?
Considering their actions it is very easy to critisise the Provos. Always did and always will.
Gaffer, are you not capable of actual debate? Is it not very easy to criticise the british government for their actions? You just chose not to or what?
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 31, 2010, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 11:01:07 AM
Typical of the sentiments of many of this board. The IRA apologised but they get roundly attacked by you, yet each of you have ignored my point that the british army have yet to even admit they were an active protagonist let alone apologised to it's victims.
As for the victims of the disappeared, haven't you noticed a steady increase in the numbers being found. They aren't being found by chance.
So easy to criticise the group which reacts to the aggressor isn't it?
wat about the Brits is not a reasoned arguement. We know what they are and wat to expect from them. So now those who do the same as the Provos are 'traitors' according to Sinn Fein... is hard to figure out the logic.
My point is not a simple "what about the brits" argument. That would suggest I am trying to completely deflect attention from Republicans. I am not trying to do that in the slightest.
Myself, and yourself Fox, seem to have been the only people in the latest discussion on the thread, to make even a passing reference to the fact that the IRA were not the only ones to have carried out immoral acts. I am stressing that while both sides did carry out certain reprehensible acts; many posters, on a thread about thatcher of all people, are still intent on focusing exclusively on the IRA and are happy to blissfully ignore the simple fact that the IRA issued an apology (whether you accept it or not) while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to
apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 12:36:30 PM
while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.
Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 31, 2010, 12:57:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 12:36:30 PM
while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.
Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.
Didn't Blair offer an apology as well?
14 deaths. I would imagine I don't need to remind you both that they were responsible for considerably more carnage than that.
Also, as mentioned, they have yet to admit they were a fully fledged protagonist in the conflict which is a 100% necessary precursor to an apology, if they are to be taken seriously.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 09:57:16 AM
Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.
Nally, "likening" the IRA campaign to a massacre does not mean that an exact event occurred during the Troubles. But shooting unarmed people dead in front of their families (whether or not they are defined as "combatants"), bursting into a church and shooting worshippers, murdering 10 unarmed workers simply because they are Protestant, forcing civilians to drive bombs etc. etc. etc. constitutes war crime. If it was a "war"; can we expect Adams et al in the Hague in the near future? No - because it wasn't a f**king war and we expect acts like I have listed from the IRA because they are nothing but a terrorist gang who engaged in 30 years of mindless terrorism and achieved exactly NOTHING. But sure it was all a bit of craic wasn't it.
As for me being "anti-republican". No, I am not. I am anti-murder; I'll let you make up your own mind as to whether you think that makes me anti-republican.
Edit: Just noticed your "morally justified" comment. Take a look at yourself.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 31, 2010, 12:57:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 12:36:30 PM
while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.
Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.
After 38 years of lies and cover up, 12 years of an inquiry and nearly 200 million - fair play to the brits for that.
and still not a sign of charges.
People having issue with things the IRA done I can understand, people backing up and sweeping over the Brit's role - f**king hell ::)
Would you liken the Brit's role in the conflict to Dunblane Tonto?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 01:50:37 PM
Would you liken the Brit's role in the conflict to Dunblane Tonto?
I didn't liken the IRA to Dunblane. I said it was as much of a war as Dunblane. In other words; NOT a war.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 31, 2010, 12:57:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 12:36:30 PM
while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.
Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.
After 38 years of lies and cover up, 12 years of an inquiry and nearly 200 million - fair play to the brits for that.
and still not a sign of charges.
People having issue with things the IRA done I can understand, people backing up and sweeping over the Brit's role - f**king hell ::)
I'm not backing them up at all, or sweeping over anyone's role. Just pointing out an inaccuracy in Nally Stand's statement.
Quote from: Tonto on October 31, 2010, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 09:57:16 AM
Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.
Nally, "likening" the IRA campaign to a massacre does not mean that an exact event occurred during the Troubles. But shooting unarmed people dead in front of their families (whether or not they are defined as "combatants"), bursting into a church and shooting worshippers, murdering 10 unarmed workers simply because they are Protestant, forcing civilians to drive bombs etc. etc. etc. constitutes war crime. If it was a "war"; can we expect Adams et al in the Hague in the near future? No - because it wasn't a f**king war and we expect acts like I have listed from the IRA because they are nothing but a terrorist gang who engaged in 30 years of mindless terrorism and achieved exactly NOTHING. But sure it was all a bit of craic wasn't it.
As for me being "anti-republican". No, I am not. I am anti-murder; I'll let you make up your own mind as to whether you think that makes me anti-republican.
Again, you make sweeping generalisations by way of pure sensationalism. The IRA's campaign was not based on "bursting into Churches to murder worshipers" or on sectarian killings. Critics of the IRA are always intent on singling out individual immoral acts and using them to characterize the entire campaign and to do that is deliberately dishonest, deceptive and sensationalist. The IRA didn't come about because a group of men decided they wanted to go out and shoot people "for a bit of craic" (to use your words). The IRA came about as a reaction to the circumstances of the day. The IRA were at war, the British (despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as collusion and shoot-to-kill operations) claimed they were not, therefore the Hague clearly wouldn't be taking anybody up for war crimes. Like it or not though, the fact that for the majority of the conflict IRA prisoners had political status, was a closet acceptance by the british government of the fact that they simply couldn't be treated like ODC's.
Furthermore, if you are anti-murder like me, does your condemnation only apply to republicans or are you silently accepting of the murderous regime the british government had in place here? Do you think the IRA became such a big force because of this regime or just by accident and "for a bit of craic"?
Quote from: Tonto on October 31, 2010, 01:38:27 PM
Edit: Just noticed your "morally justified" comment. Take a look at yourself.
Get off your high horse and stop trying to be condescending, I have no need to take any "look at myself" your Holiness. I have repeatedly stated that certain IRA actions were completely and totally morally reprehensible. I do not however use those instances to characterise the entire IRA campaign and ignore the very reason for the IRA having existed in the first place and ignore the reasons that drove so so many people into it's ranks.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 31, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 31, 2010, 12:57:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 12:36:30 PM
while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.
Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.
After 38 years of lies and cover up, 12 years of an inquiry and nearly 200 million - fair play to the brits for that.
and still not a sign of charges.
People having issue with things the IRA done I can understand, people backing up and sweeping over the Brit's role - f**king hell ::)
I'm not backing them up at all, or sweeping over anyone's role. Just pointing out an inaccuracy in Nally Stand's statement.
An inaccuracy? I said the British Government needs to admit that it was a protagonist in the conflict and not a peace-keeper, and apologise for it's activities. Failing to admit it was a protagonist and issuing an apology to the families of just 14 of those victims might suffice to you, but not for me or thousands of others.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 02:46:54 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 31, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 31, 2010, 12:57:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 12:36:30 PM
while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.
Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.
After 38 years of lies and cover up, 12 years of an inquiry and nearly 200 million - fair play to the brits for that.
and still not a sign of charges.
People having issue with things the IRA done I can understand, people backing up and sweeping over the Brit's role - f**king hell ::)
I'm not backing them up at all, or sweeping over anyone's role. Just pointing out an inaccuracy in Nally Stand's statement.
An inaccuracy? I said the British Government needs to admit that it was a protagonist in the conflict and not a peace-keeper, and apologise for it's activities. Failing to admit it was a protagonist and issuing an apology to the families of just 14 of those victims might suffice to you, but not for me or thousands of others.
I've highlighted what you said. That was the inaccuracy I was pointing out.
And I never said that an apology to 14 families was sufficient.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 02:43:50 PM
Again, you make sweeping generalisations by way of pure sensationalism. The IRA's campaign was not based on "bursting into Churches to murder worshipers" or on sectarian killings. Critics of the IRA are always intent on singling out individual immoral acts and using them to characterize the entire campaign and to do that is deliberately dishonest, deceptive and sensationalist. The IRA didn't come about because a group of men decided they wanted to go out and shoot people "for a bit of craic" (to use your words). The IRA came about as a reaction to the circumstances of the day. The IRA were at war, the British (despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as collusion and shoot-to-kill operations) claimed they were not, therefore the Hague clearly wouldn't be taking anybody up for war crimes. Like it or not though, the fact that for the majority of the conflict IRA prisoners had political status, was a closet acceptance by the british government of the fact that they simply couldn't be treated like ODC's.
Furthermore, if you are anti-murder like me, does your condemnation only apply to republicans or are you silently accepting of the murderous regime the british government had in place here? Do you think the IRA became such a big force because of this regime or just by accident and "for a bit of craic"?
Get off your high horse and stop trying to be condescending, I have no need to take any "look at myself" your Holiness. I have repeatedly stated that certain IRA actions were completely and totally morally reprehensible. I do not however use those instances to characterise the entire IRA campaign and ignore the very reason for the IRA having existed in the first place and ignore the reasons that drove so so many people into it's ranks.
Nally, do you accept that shooting unarmed people, 'combatants' or not, constitutes a war crime?
And btw you said that Thatcher 'murdered' the hunger strikers so cut out these accusations of 'sensationalism' bollix.
Quote from: Tonto on November 01, 2010, 10:16:56 AM
Nally, do you accept that shooting unarmed people, 'combatants' or not, constitutes a war crime?
War crimes? Did we not already establish that the Hague is hardly likely to be involved here? The IRA fought a guerrilla campaign, the shooting of unarmed combatants comes as part of such a campaign. In the case of non combatants then why would I condone that? Maybe these are questions you should be also seeking an answer to from the British government. Or does it's involvement in up to (according to the number of families who regard themselves as collusion victims) 900 sectarian murders (most of which of unarmed non-combatants) not bother you?
Quote from: Tonto on November 01, 2010, 10:16:56 AM
And btw you said that Thatcher 'murdered' the hunger strikers so cut out these accusations of 'sensationalism' bollix.
"Margaret Thatcher and the British Government have murdered my brother and his blood is on Margaret Thatcher's hands."(Brother of Hunger Striker Francis Hughes)
The Hughes family are not the only family to feel this way. In such a complex thing you can open it to any interpretation you feel appropriate. I go along with the families in their view that thatcher put them into a position of hunger strike and forced them to see it through to the end. In my view that's murder. In your's it's not. I don't give a toss what way you look at it to be honest. I also don't see how it is sensationalist. Maybe if i took a leaf out of your book and drew a parallel between the entire british army campaign and the Dunblane massacre and said something like how the brits campaign was about bursting into Churches to shoot worshipers, I might have been sensationalist.
p.s. resorting to personal abuse? ::)
Where's the personal abuse there?
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 06:42:03 PM
Where's the personal abuse there?
My SINCERE apologies Maguire01, I thought the word "bollix" was a stand alone comment aimed at me, but it seems it was not. This obviously upset you. Or maybe not. Maybe you are once again (weirdly) stalking me, in which case, I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 06:42:03 PM
Where's the personal abuse there?
My SINCERE apologies Maguire01, I thought the word "bollix" was a stand alone comment aimed at me, but it seems it was not. This obviously upset you. Or maybe not. Maybe you are once again (weirdly) stalking me, in which case, I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.
I don't need any apologies! And i've responded to a lot of posts on this board, so i'm sorry to disappoint you, but you're not that special to me. :P
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 07:07:48 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 06:42:03 PM
Where's the personal abuse there?
My SINCERE apologies Maguire01, I thought the word "bollix" was a stand alone comment aimed at me, but it seems it was not. This obviously upset you. Or maybe not. Maybe you are once again (weirdly) stalking me, in which case, I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.
I don't need any apologies! And i've responded to a lot of posts on this board, so i'm sorry to disappoint you, but you're not that special to me. :P
:-*
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:25:49 AM
Quote from: Tonto on November 01, 2010, 10:16:56 AM
Nally, do you accept that shooting unarmed people, 'combatants' or not, constitutes a war crime?
War crimes? Did we not already establish that the Hague is hardly likely to be involved here? The IRA fought a guerrilla campaign, the shooting of unarmed combatants comes as part of such a campaign. In the case of non combatants then why would I condone that? Maybe these are questions you should be also seeking an answer to from the British government. Or does it's involvement in up to (according to the number of families who regard themselves as collusion victims) 900 sectarian murders (most of which of unarmed non-combatants) not bother you?Quote from: Tonto on November 01, 2010, 10:16:56 AM
And btw you said that Thatcher 'murdered' the hunger strikers so cut out these accusations of 'sensationalism' bollix.
"Margaret Thatcher and the British Government have murdered my brother and his blood is on Margaret Thatcher's hands."
(Brother of Hunger Striker Francis Hughes)
The Hughes family are not the only family to feel this way. In such a complex thing you can open it to any interpretation you feel appropriate. I go along with the families in their view that thatcher put them into a position of hunger strike and forced them to see it through to the end. In my view that's murder. In your's it's not. I don't give a toss what way you look at it to be honest. I also don't see how it is sensationalist. Maybe if i took a leaf out of your book and drew a parallel between the entire british army campaign and the Dunblane massacre and said something like how the brits campaign was about bursting into Churches to shoot worshipers, I might have been sensationalist.
p.s. resorting to personal abuse? ::)
I know an elderly lady who thinks that MI5 have placed listening devices in her roof space, that the Housing Executive have cut into her oil pipe and rerouted it to one of her neighbours, that the PSNI have taken copies of her door keys, and that someone is coming into her house when she's out and is drinking her coffee. She's changed her locks 3 times in the past couple of months. I think she's wrong on all these things, but I'm giving it to you so that you can quote her in any future posts in which you wish to bash MI5 / PSNI /Housing Executive. She thinks it's true, ergo it's okay to quote her in support of your argument. No need to thank me. ;)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:25:49 AM
Quote from: Tonto on November 01, 2010, 10:16:56 AM
Nally, do you accept that shooting unarmed people, 'combatants' or not, constitutes a war crime?
War crimes? Did we not already establish that the Hague is hardly likely to be involved here? The IRA fought a guerrilla campaign, the shooting of unarmed combatants comes as part of such a campaign. In the case of non combatants then why would I condone that? Maybe these are questions you should be also seeking an answer to from the British government. Or does it's involvement in up to (according to the number of families who regard themselves as collusion victims) 900 sectarian murders (most of which of unarmed non-combatants) not bother you?Quote from: Tonto on November 01, 2010, 10:16:56 AM
And btw you said that Thatcher 'murdered' the hunger strikers so cut out these accusations of 'sensationalism' bollix.
"Margaret Thatcher and the British Government have murdered my brother and his blood is on Margaret Thatcher's hands."
(Brother of Hunger Striker Francis Hughes)
The Hughes family are not the only family to feel this way. In such a complex thing you can open it to any interpretation you feel appropriate. I go along with the families in their view that thatcher put them into a position of hunger strike and forced them to see it through to the end. In my view that's murder. In your's it's not. I don't give a toss what way you look at it to be honest. I also don't see how it is sensationalist. Maybe if i took a leaf out of your book and drew a parallel between the entire british army campaign and the Dunblane massacre and said something like how the brits campaign was about bursting into Churches to shoot worshipers, I might have been sensationalist.
p.s. resorting to personal abuse? ::)
I know an elderly lady who thinks that MI5 have placed listening devices in her roof space, that the Housing Executive have cut into her oil pipe and rerouted it to one of her neighbours, that the PSNI have taken copies of her door keys, and that someone is coming into her house when she's out and is drinking her coffee. She's changed her locks 3 times in the past couple of months. I think she's wrong on all these things, but I'm giving it to you so that you can quote her in any future posts in which you wish to bash MI5 / PSNI /Housing Executive. She thinks it's true, ergo it's okay to quote her in support of your argument. No need to thank me. ;)
OK, so collusion is just a figment of the imagination to the families of the victims? Myles, it is about time Unionism faced up to a few inconvenient truths.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01751/Thatcher_1751199f.jpg)
Looking well, don't you think? ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 09:51:05 PM
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01751/Thatcher_1751199f.jpg)
Looking well, don't you think? ;)
Not exactly a stunner , is it?
Quote from: Gaffer on November 01, 2010, 10:00:38 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 09:51:05 PM
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01751/Thatcher_1751199f.jpg)
Looking well, don't you think? ;)
Not exactly a stunner , is it?
Should this not be for the new and improved hot ladies thread?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 09:51:05 PM
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01751/Thatcher_1751199f.jpg)
Looking well, don't you think? ;)
There's a likeness, isn't there ;)
(http://matriarchy-international.org/wp-content/files/2009/08/492_medusa_design5b15d.jpg)
Quote from: Gaffer on November 01, 2010, 10:00:38 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 09:51:05 PM
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01751/Thatcher_1751199f.jpg)
Looking well, don't you think? ;)
Not exactly a stunner , is it?
Not what I'd call a "stunner", no.
Then again, she is 85...
Here's a more accurate likeness
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01751/Thatcher_1751199f.jpg)
(http://www.horseproblems.com.au/Photo%27s/Veterinary%20Photos/Manure.jpg)
She must have eaten a Snickers
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on November 01, 2010, 10:18:53 PM
She must have eaten a Snickers
You like the old ones LL, don't you?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 10:09:27 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on November 01, 2010, 10:00:38 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 09:51:05 PM
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01751/Thatcher_1751199f.jpg)
Looking well, don't you think? ;)
Not exactly a stunner , is it?
Not what I'd call a "stunner", no.
Then again, she is 85...
But will it see 86 ?????????????
Quote from: Gaffer on November 01, 2010, 11:43:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 10:09:27 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on November 01, 2010, 10:00:38 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 09:51:05 PM
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01751/Thatcher_1751199f.jpg)
Looking well, don't you think? ;)
Not exactly a stunner , is it?
Not what I'd call a "stunner", no.
Then again, she is 85...
But will it see 86 ?????????????
More to the point, do you think she'll survive until 2016, and the (much-promised) reunification of Ireland?
Or will the readmission of the Free State into the United Kingdom be permanently blocked before then, on the basis that its debts make it more trouble than it's worth? ;)
A short excerpt from an article by John Pilger.....what a lovely woman. You can read the full thing here.
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/vietnam-the-last-battle-john-pilger-reports-from-saigon
"And when it was all over on May Day, 1975, Hollywood began its long celebration of the invaders as victims, the standard purgative, while revenge was policy. Vietnam was classified as "Category Z" in Washington, which imposed the draconian Trading with the Enemy Act from the first world war. This ensured that even Oxfam America was barred from sending humanitarian aid. Allies pitched in. One of Margaret Thatcher's first acts on coming to power in 1979 was to persuade the European Community to halt its regular shipments of food and milk to Vietnamese children. According to the World Health Organisation, a third of all infants under five so deteriorated following the milk ban that the majority of them were stunted or likely to be. Almost none of this was news in the west."
hope she dosent see the 16 of this month the auld bastard
May that cuntess die roaring in agony
Quote from: the waffler on December 07, 2010, 07:46:55 PM
hope she dosent see the 16 of this month the auld b**tard
Not being funny or anything, but what's the 16th?
It's the day after the 15th, but that's not important right now.
Quote from: Puckoon on December 07, 2010, 09:14:18 PM
It's the day after the 15th, but that's not important right now.
That genuinely made me laugh :)
Quick check...
http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/ (http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/)
Damn it. Still hanging in there the aul bitch.
The rumour in the London media is that she'll not last the night!
M. Streep might get an Oscar now!
She did make one massive contribution to Ireland by putting that crook and chancer Haughey in his place while the sycophantic Irish media fawned all over him.
Plenty of Tweets on this. 'Thatcher' trending in London.
Apparently unconfirmed reports from AP and Reuter, again from Twitter. Who knows.
spitting image never would have been the same without her :D
It could be a great weekend for Scotland!
Seeing as the leaders of the free world have declared that dancing on the grave of hate figures is acceptable, what would the media reaction be if I ran about the street of DC shouting something equally moronic as "USA, USA"?
Why would you do that? Did she kill 1000's of Americans??
Quote from: new devil on May 08, 2011, 02:35:25 AM
Why would you do that?
Go and look up "hypothetical" in a dictionary.
So just ignore the rest of the post then?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/08/article-1384726-0BE4629D00000578-593_468x510.jpg)
Quote from: new devil on May 08, 2011, 02:38:06 AM
So just ignore the rest of the post then?
Sorry, I don't bother to answer pointless, idiotic questions.
Is tat real photo passedit?
Quote from: gallsman on May 08, 2011, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: new devil on May 08, 2011, 02:38:06 AM
So just ignore the rest of the post then?
Sorry, I don't bother to answer pointless, idiotic questions.
Is tat real photo passedit?
Aye big hooha about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384726/Ed-Milibands-regret-link-Maggie-grave-man.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384726/Ed-Milibands-regret-link-Maggie-grave-man.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
Is that not Ray Romano?
Quote from: gallsman on May 08, 2011, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: new devil on May 08, 2011, 02:38:06 AM
So just ignore the rest of the post then?
Sorry, I don't bother to answer pointless, idiotic questions.
Is tat real photo passedit?
So you just ignore the questions that make you look like an asshole!!! I understand!!!!
I love this tshirt
http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/John-Stuart-Mill-T-Shirt-%281568%29.html?id=Sp5jKwz5
Is she dead yet?
FFS, lads I thought we had agreed not to post about the auld fcuker until the divvil has her in his warm caress. Damned. I was about to go celebrate. Bah humbug.
Quote from: Aerlik on May 12, 2011, 11:34:07 AM
FFS, lads I thought we had agreed not to post about the auld fcuker until the divvil has her in his warm caress. Damned. I was about to go celebrate. Bah humbug.
Why'd you bump the thread again?
What ever happened to Mark Thatcher who made millions of selling arms to the dictators of north africa, including Iraq. Then there's also the bribery and corruption he was involved in, in South Africa.
I suppose justice doesn't catch up with people like him, like Haughy although worse.
Shock, horror !!!!!!!! ::)
Margaret Thatcher 'negotiated with IRA'
Mr Taylor said the files show Margaret Thatcher was involved in negotiations with the IRA
Files just released by the National Archives show Margaret Thatcher took part in negotiations with the IRA during the 1981 Hunger Strikes, BBC investigative journalist Peter Taylor has said.
The contacts took place through an MI6 officer and a secret back-channel to the IRA code-named Soon.
Soon was Londonderry businessman Brendan Duddy.
Mr Taylor said he was astonished when he saw the documents.
"I think that they are revelatory and of genuine historical importance because they give lie to all sorts of assumptions that were made incorrectly about the Hunger Strikes and the relationship between the government and the IRA.
"These documents spell it our large that Mrs Thatcher was involved in negotiations with the IRA," he said.
The documents contain details of eight phone calls between the MI6 officer and Mr Duddy during the weekend from 4 July to 6 July 1981.
Among the proposals coming from IRA prisoners was that senior republican Martin McGuinness, now Northern Ireland's deputy first minister, be allowed in to see them in the Maze.
This was turned down by the government.
Continue reading the main story
"
Start Quote
This letter represents the government's final negotiating position"
End Quote
Peter Taylor
Investigative journalist
"That was all to do with the government's insistence, Mrs Thatcher's insistence, that she did not negotiate with terrorists, she did not and would not negotiate with the IRA.
"The documents clearly indicate that that was nonsense, that was going on all the time behind the scene."
In the final call from Mr Duddy on Monday 6 July, he said the IRA endorsed their earlier demands and wanted to see a government response before it was made public. The government sent a statement straight away.
"This letter represents the government's final negotiating position," Mr Taylor said.
"Margaret Thatcher made changes to it in her own hand.
Republicans were on hunger strike at the Maze prison "The issue of clothing is resolved, the issues of parcels and visits is resolved, but again, critically, the issues of work and association are not resolved.
"It's Mrs Thatcher who crosses out the relevant parts of the document that indicate she, the British government, is not prepared to give in on work and association."
At the end of the statement was a message.
It read: "If we receive a satisfactory response to this proposal by 9am on Tuesday 7 July we shall be prepared to provide you with an advance text of the full statement.
"If the reply is unsatisfactory and there is subsequently any public reference to this exchange we will deny it took place."
Mrs Thatcher's former chief press secretary Sir Bernard Ingham said he was completely unaware of any negotiations involving the prime minister.
"As far as I can see, there wasn't a great deal of negotiation here," he said of the newly released documents.
When this thread popped up anyone else thought she died?
I did.
of course thatcher's government were negotiating with the Hunger Strikers.
This only proves to the doubters and naysayers that this is true.
her offers were turned down by the Hunger Strikers themsleves during the course of the Hunger Strike until the british gov finally agreed to give the full 5 demands at a later stage as long as they would call off the Hunger Strike first and not to triumphalise this result. this was after ten brave men had died.
The full 5 demands were met some months after the Hunger Strike ended with some demands starting with immediate effect.
plenty other snippets came out of those negotiations also - as in how the british gov wanted to jettison the money haemmoraging north ! The likes of sf are working on this as the only (as yet) all Ireland party. The brits will be delighted to offload the north back to us - but the economy will have to vastly improve first - as well as the sweetner of money from them to do so must be worth our while!
Quote from: Captain Obvious on December 30, 2011, 05:48:14 PM
When this thread popped up anyone else thought she died?
que chrous of ding dong the wicked witch is dead ;)
No news on Richard O'Rawe deal :D :D he must have made that up to sell his book.
Quote from: Captain Obvious on December 30, 2011, 05:48:14 PM
When this thread popped up anyone else thought she died?
I wouldn't say thought, more that I hoped.
I hate this sense of revelry in Thatcher's death. How does the death of an 86-year old women make you happy? She is probably willing the grim reaper herself. What she did in the past cannot be rectified. How does her death as an aged woman, living longer than most, make you happy? I know that when she dies the amount of gloating over it (which makes no sense at all, as it suggests her death will make you feel better yet she has managed to live to the ripest age) will be unbearable. I understand her death not being mourned but to celebrate it makes no sense.
Quote from: ONeill on December 30, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
I hate this sense of revelry in Thatcher's death. How does the death of an 86-year old women make you happy? She is probably willing the grim reaper herself. What she did in the past cannot be rectified. How does her death as an aged woman, living longer than most, make you happy? I know that when she dies the amount of gloating over it (which makes no sense at all, as it suggests her death will make you feel better yet she has managed to live to the ripest age) will be unbearable. I understand her death not being mourned but to celebrate it makes no sense.
I can't really understand it either, perhaps if she died in the mid 80's at the height of her powers you could kind of understand the gloating, but she is 86 ffs. What difference does it make to anyone now living here whether she is alive or dead ?
I don't hold this opinion of any other aged woman as you say and maybe it is wring of me. But as far as in concerned she will always be a murderous war mongering bitch and a harbourer of war criminals and despots. She derserves to die roaring and I think what i will enjoy most is the fact that most brits won't even give a damn and won't glorify her legacy.
QuoteI can't really understand it either, perhaps if she died in the mid 80's at the height of her powers you could kind of understand the gloating, but she is 86 ffs. What difference does it make to anyone now living here whether she is alive or dead ?
That is like telling the NAZI hunters to give up as time heals all wounds.
Quote from: Windmill abu on December 30, 2011, 09:11:05 PM
QuoteI can't really understand it either, perhaps if she died in the mid 80's at the height of her powers you could kind of understand the gloating, but she is 86 ffs. What difference does it make to anyone now living here whether she is alive or dead ?
That is like telling the NAZI hunters to give up as time heals all wounds.
It mightn't heal all wounds but it will sort them out either way as they would be some age now if they were adults in 1939-1945.
Quote from: Windmill abu on December 30, 2011, 09:11:05 PM
QuoteI can't really understand it either, perhaps if she died in the mid 80's at the height of her powers you could kind of understand the gloating, but she is 86 ffs. What difference does it make to anyone now living here whether she is alive or dead ?
That is like telling the NAZI hunters to give up as time heals all wounds.
You comparing Thatcher, as loathsome as she was, to the Nazis that gassed millions of people ? Are you also telling us that Thatcher is wanted by the Hague or some international court? Otherwise your comparison is strange.
QuoteYou comparing Thatcher, as loathsome as she was, to the Nazis that gassed millions of people ? Are you also telling us that Thatcher is wanted by the Hague or some international court? Otherwise your comparison is strange
what I am saying is that some people detest Thatcher as much as the Jewish people detest the nazi's.
QuoteI can't really understand it either, perhaps if she died in the mid 80's at the height of her powers you could kind of understand the gloating, but she is 86 ffs. What difference does it make to anyone now living here whether she is alive or dead ?
Your post suggested that her actions have been mitigated by time.
If time forgives past actions then by your standards the nazi's deserved the same.
Are you seriously proposing that time for gives the holocaust
No one is forgiving her sins. She was a hateful individual. But Godwin's aside, she was hardly as bad as the Nazis.
QuoteNo one is forgiving her sins. She was a hateful individual. But Godwin's aside, she was hardly as bad as the Nazis.
you are right there
As far as the Nationalist/republican population of northern ireland was concerned, from their perspective, she was worse
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on December 30, 2011, 10:47:27 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 30, 2011, 10:28:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on December 30, 2011, 10:26:17 PM
No one is forgiving her sins. She was a hateful individual. But Godwin's aside, she was hardly as bad as the Nazis.
The Nazis never did me a bad turn.
They did outlaw vivisection, created the Volkswagen, made numerous scientific, medical and film advances, invented the sex doll, crime rates were low, and their uniforms were quite stylish.
Then again there was the attempted extermination of the Jewish people (he got to six million), the Lebensraum policy, the persecution of gays, disabled, mentally ill and nearly anyone not Aryan (Slavic people suffered hard, the Dutch didn't have an easy time either), banned all other political parties sending their leaders into exile, attempting to use the 1936 Olympics as a Nazi show-piece etc.
At best, a mixed bag. But then no one remembers Gary Glitter much for his Glam Rock music these days for obvious reasons. :o :o :o
Are you related to Galvin?
Quoteattempting to use the 1936 Olympics as a Nazi show-piece
It worked as a nazi show-piece
It is also the weakest argument for defending the free world against naziism put forward for world war 2
I am 60 years old next Oct and she was the greatest aul Bastard that ever lived in my lifetime so if I am still around when she dies I will open a couple of bottles and enjoy them.Can't come soon enough,
Quote from: Minder on December 30, 2011, 06:49:56 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 30, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
I hate this sense of revelry in Thatcher's death. How does the death of an 86-year old women make you happy? She is probably willing the grim reaper herself. What she did in the past cannot be rectified. How does her death as an aged woman, living longer than most, make you happy? I know that when she dies the amount of gloating over it (which makes no sense at all, as it suggests her death will make you feel better yet she has managed to live to the ripest age) will be unbearable. I understand her death not being mourned but to celebrate it makes no sense.
I can't really understand it either, perhaps if she died in the mid 80's at the height of her powers you could kind of understand the gloating, but she is 86 ffs. What difference does it make to anyone now living here whether she is alive or dead ?
hell isnt hot enough and will never be full until shes in it. and glens if i'm near you i'll buy you a drink maybe a double
Quote from: lawnseed on December 31, 2011, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Minder on December 30, 2011, 06:49:56 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 30, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
I hate this sense of revelry in Thatcher's death. How does the death of an 86-year old women make you happy? She is probably willing the grim reaper herself. What she did in the past cannot be rectified. How does her death as an aged woman, living longer than most, make you happy? I know that when she dies the amount of gloating over it (which makes no sense at all, as it suggests her death will make you feel better yet she has managed to live to the ripest age) will be unbearable. I understand her death not being mourned but to celebrate it makes no sense.
I can't really understand it either, perhaps if she died in the mid 80's at the height of her powers you could kind of understand the gloating, but she is 86 ffs. What difference does it make to anyone now living here whether she is alive or dead ?
hell isnt hot enough and will never be full until shes in it. and glens if i'm near you i'll buy you a drink maybe a double
Thanks lawn but even if we dont meet up I would say we will have plenty of company that day
Quote from: lawnseed on December 31, 2011, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Minder on December 30, 2011, 06:49:56 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 30, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
I hate this sense of revelry in Thatcher's death. How does the death of an 86-year old women make you happy? She is probably willing the grim reaper herself. What she did in the past cannot be rectified. How does her death as an aged woman, living longer than most, make you happy? I know that when she dies the amount of gloating over it (which makes no sense at all, as it suggests her death will make you feel better yet she has managed to live to the ripest age) will be unbearable. I understand her death not being mourned but to celebrate it makes no sense.
I can't really understand it either, perhaps if she died in the mid 80's at the height of her powers you could kind of understand the gloating, but she is 86 ffs. What difference does it make to anyone now living here whether she is alive or dead ?
hell isnt hot enough and will never be full until shes in it. and glens if i'm near you i'll buy you a drink maybe a double
Drinking to celebrate her death (at 86), to me, seems like a recognition of her life's 'achievements'. I can't get my head around that. I'd reflect on her horrendous legacy and curse her but not pop open champagne to remember what she did.
Quote from: glens abu on December 31, 2011, 04:40:25 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 31, 2011, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Minder on December 30, 2011, 06:49:56 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 30, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
I hate this sense of revelry in Thatcher's death. How does the death of an 86-year old women make you happy? She is probably willing the grim reaper herself. What she did in the past cannot be rectified. How does her death as an aged woman, living longer than most, make you happy? I know that when she dies the amount of gloating over it (which makes no sense at all, as it suggests her death will make you feel better yet she has managed to live to the ripest age) will be unbearable. I understand her death not being mourned but to celebrate it makes no sense.
I can't really understand it either, perhaps if she died in the mid 80's at the height of her powers you could kind of understand the gloating, but she is 86 ffs. What difference does it make to anyone now living here whether she is alive or dead ?
hell isnt hot enough and will never be full until shes in it. and glens if i'm near you i'll buy you a drink maybe a double
Thanks lawn but even if we dont meet up I would say we will have plenty of company that day
You can both do the Provo chuckle.
QuoteDrinking to celebrate her death (at 86), to me, seems like a recognition of her life's 'achievements'. I can't get my head around that. I'd reflect on her horrendous legacy and curse her but not pop open champagne to remember what she did.
How stupid are you, it is not a recognition of her life's achievements and nobody is opening champagne to remember what she did. It will be simply celebrating the death of a tyrant.
I must be very stupid indeed.
Does this also apply to the Queen? Her being the head of the British War machine, as we were continually told when she visited in May.
Quote from: Minder on December 31, 2011, 09:09:32 PM
Does this also apply to the Queen? Her being the head of the British War machine, as we were continually told when she visited in May.
Eh...no....what we were continually told was that her visit heralded a new dawn and a mutual respect between Britain and Ireland and that we were showing a "maturity" by welcoming her and thus we would all be helping to develop this magical newfound relationship. Then she spoke a few words of Irish and we were told how honoured we were and how special we were to be afforded the opportunity to hear such a thing and how we would be rude to expect any kind of apology for centuries of genocide... (well, she did speak some Irish after all, isn't that enough!).
Then the day after she left, her government announced it would not release their files into the Dublin-Monaghan Bombings. The mutual respect didn't last long did it?
Quote from: glens abu on December 31, 2011, 02:48:46 AM
I am 60 years old next Oct and she was the greatest aul b**tard that ever lived in my lifetime
Hmm. Sounds like your lifetime overlapped with that of Stalin...
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 01, 2012, 02:07:56 AM
Quote from: Minder on December 31, 2011, 09:09:32 PM
Does this also apply to the Queen? Her being the head of the British War machine, as we were continually told when she visited in May.
Eh...no....what we were continually told was that her visit heralded a new dawn and a mutual respect between Britain and Ireland and that we were showing a "maturity" by welcoming her and thus we would all be helping to develop this magical newfound relationship. Then she spoke a few words of Irish and we were told how honoured we were and how special we were to be afforded the opportunity to hear such a thing and how we would be rude to expect any kind of apology for centuries of genocide... (well, she did speak some Irish after all, isn't that enough!).
Then the day after she left, her government announced it would not release their files into the Dublin-Monaghan Bombings. The mutual respect didn't last long did it?
Still, seemed to be enough to convince McGuinness to meet her if she comes back. Is that "maturity"?
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 01, 2012, 12:50:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 01, 2012, 02:07:56 AM
Quote from: Minder on December 31, 2011, 09:09:32 PM
Does this also apply to the Queen? Her being the head of the British War machine, as we were continually told when she visited in May.
Eh...no....what we were continually told was that her visit heralded a new dawn and a mutual respect between Britain and Ireland and that we were showing a "maturity" by welcoming her and thus we would all be helping to develop this magical newfound relationship. Then she spoke a few words of Irish and we were told how honoured we were and how special we were to be afforded the opportunity to hear such a thing and how we would be rude to expect any kind of apology for centuries of genocide... (well, she did speak some Irish after all, isn't that enough!).
Then the day after she left, her government announced it would not release their files into the Dublin-Monaghan Bombings. The mutual respect didn't last long did it?
Still, seemed to be enough to convince McGuinness to meet her if she comes back. Is that "maturity"?
You may ask him. I've said many times I disagreed with him on it.
As soon as she exited from Downing Street, she became a shriveled irrelevance.
When she was in power she represented the government. Should she have died in the Brighton bomb, I might well have raised a glass or two in celebration, but now she doesn't matter.
Does it matter that much which party was in government in the UK parliament, or what individual was in which position, over any period of the troubles?
The once powerful British empire has been reduced to an England and a few others doubtfully hanging onto their coat tails. The government of the empire these days is reduced to fighting for the interests of foreign capital and saving the skin of their free market capitalism by imposing the burden of their losses onto the serfs.
Quote from: Main Street on January 01, 2012, 01:28:08 PM
As soon as she exited from Downing Street, she became a shriveled irrelevance.
When she was in power she represented the government. Should she have died in the Brighton bomb, I might well have raised a glass or two in celebration, but now she doesn't matter.
Does it matter that much which party was in government in the UK parliament, or what individual was in which position, over any period of the troubles?
The once powerful British empire has been reduced to an England and a few others doubtfully hanging onto their coat tails. The government of the empire these days is reduced to fighting for the interests of foreign capital and saving the skin of their free market capitalism by imposing the burden of their losses onto the serfs.
Given that it's New Year's Day, I'm amazed that anyone is in a fit state to come up with analysis such as this !!
Thatcher was my first introduction to politics; remember "Maggie Thatcher Milk Snatcher".
With regards to celebrating her death, I shall be doing it unashamedly.
The only really horrible / bad / sad memories I have of my childhood are:
Being scared shiteless of all hell breaking loose (I'm from the 6 counties), civil war / genocide; I was 9yrs old
Driving to Dublin airport to emmigrate (we didn't board the plane thank God), and thinking no more gaa and bursting into tears
Watching a man being publicly beaten to death (Arthur Scargill)
Not knowing how one person could allow 10 others to die when they (the one person) had the power to stop it
Not knowing why one person could allow 100's more to die; see above, in a small irrelavant place like the north.
A female Ian Paisley
Like Elvis Costello, I shall trample the dirt down
QuoteLike Elvis Costello, I shall trample the dirt down
From tr**p the dirt down
Well I hope I don't die too soon
I pray the lord my soul to save
Oh I'll be a good boy, Im trying so hard to behave
Because there's one thing I know, I'd like to live
Long enough to savour
That's when they finally put you in the ground
Ill stand on your grave and tr**p the dirt down
Elvis Costello singing for the people
Died this morning...according to the BBC....
Ding dong the wicked witch is dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg)
She will now meet her maker to atone for the murders that were committed under her watch
:)
I wonder will the old Irish tradition of not speaking ill of the dead be respected?
good riddance. Now if Big Ian would do the same it would be a good week.
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on April 08, 2013, 12:58:40 PM
She will now meet her maker to atone for the murders that were committed under her watch
Assuming there is a maker ?
Armagh stay up and now she has gone..great two days
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 08, 2013, 01:00:49 PM
I wonder will the old Irish tradition of not speaking ill of the dead be respected?
I think in this case, the answer to that will be no considering her treatment not only of Irish men and women but her own people as well.
I heard some stories recently about the miners' strike and the abject poverty she imposed on those people.
Some mining familes were literally left with nothing to eat.
May she rot in hell, evil aul b...ard
It's just a pity she did not die screaming.
The lady is not for turning returning ;D
(http://www.dietdiva.com/sites/default/files/1215-feature-champagne-bottle-opening_0.jpg)
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 08, 2013, 01:00:49 PM
I wonder will the old Irish tradition of not speaking ill of the dead be respected?
No, unless of course they give the occupied six a day off for the state funeral. Well, even then...
What is really disappointing is that once again, Paisley outlives his enemies.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 08, 2013, 01:00:49 PM
I wonder will the old Irish tradition of not speaking ill of the dead be respected?
I think that only applies to those who had a shred of humanity in them in life. Get me my dancing shoes, I have a grave to visit.
Got to learn how to dance. Have a feeling i will be visiting a graveyard in the near future.
Do the Cross men remember this ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11598877
Thatcher's tenure shaped by Ireland A newly elected Margaret Thatcher arrives in Crossmaglen in 1979
Margaret Thatcher came to office as British prime minister with Ireland nowhere near the top of her list of priorities.
But she found that somehow Irish affairs demanded her attention, helped to define the age she dominated and were to play a role in determining how history remembers her.
Republicans saw her as an enemy from the very start.
In the months before she took office, an INLA car bomb killed her close political ally Airey Neave as he drove out of the underground car park at the Palace of Westminster.
Neave, a former intelligence officer who once escaped from the Nazi prison camp at Colditz, believed in taking much tougher security measures against republican paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
It was a view that fitted in with Mrs Thatcher's own and may well have helped to shape it.
Union belief
The great irony of her period in office is that she managed to alienate unionists too, even though she will probably turn out to be the last prime minister of the UK to have had old-fashioned unionist instincts.
She was always ready to point out that the official title of the party she led was "Conservative and Unionist" - just as she was herself.
This was a woman to whom Northern Ireland was every bit as British as her Finchley constituency.
Signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement with Garret FitzGerald in 1985
Whatever narrative thread you follow through her years in office - radical economic change, her struggle with trade unionism, or the battle for the Falklands and the fallout from that - events in Ireland are always there in the background.
As she was settling into office, a series of IRA murders claimed the Queen's cousin Lord Mountbatten and killed 18 British soldiers in a single day.
The Troubles were at their height, and in Margaret Thatcher the IRA found an implacable foe.
She was convinced that any settlement would have to include a decisive and lasting victory for the security forces over the IRA.
Uncompromising
It was the hunger strike in 1981 which defined her attitude towards republican violence.
Inside the Maze Prison complex near Lisburn in County Antrim, republican paramilitary prisoners were engaged in a long campaign to secure a set of privileges which would, in effect, have given them prisoner-of-war status.
It was a dispute that went to the heart of The Troubles - were imprisoned members of the IRA terrorist murderers, or guerrilla fighters whose actions in pursuit of their cause were legitimate?
Margaret Thatcher was in no doubt.
Bobby Sands's funeral. He was one of 10 hunger strikers to die
"Crime is crime is crime. It is not political," she said, as the republican prisoners, one by one, starved themselves to death.
To her supporters, it was exactly the kind of uncompromising stand on a matter of principle that made her great.
To many in Ireland, it was a display of brutal inflexibility that the deaths of 10 of the hunger strikers over a period of months did nothing to soften.
She became a figure of hate to Irish republicans - and in 1984 they tried, with devastating consequences, to assassinate her.
Security backing
An IRA bomb exploded at the Conservative Party conference in Brighton, killing four delegates and seriously injuring many others.
But Mrs Thatcher survived - and so did her unwavering determination to give the security forces the political support and the equipment they needed to crush republican terrorism.
To persuade the Irish government in Dublin to improve security co-operation and extradition arrangements, she signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985.
It was a curious step, which she took against her own political instincts, as it enshrined the right of the Irish Republic to a role in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Norman Tebbit being rescued after the Brighton bomb
Unionists in the province, who should have been natural allies of Margaret Thatcher, were furious and began a campaign of street protests to attempt to overthrow the agreement.
Mrs Thatcher, already a figure of hate to one side in Northern Ireland, had now alienated the other.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was a substantial political achievement in many ways and helped to pave the way for the improved relationships that eventually gave birth to the peace process.
But it was not an achievement of which Margaret Thatcher was proud - in her memoirs she wrote of how she had been misled about the likely extent of unionist anger it would provoke.
Defining moment
The events of 1987 summed up the atmosphere of the Thatcher years in Northern Ireland.
In May, British SAS commandos shot dead eight IRA members at Loughgall in County Armagh as they set out to ambush two officers in a sleepy part-time rural police station.
Six months later, 11 civilians were killed when a no-warning IRA bomb exploded as they gathered for a Remembrance Day service at Enniskillen in County Fermanagh.
Mrs Thatcher's belief in the use of tough tactics never wavered - in 1988 she introduced a broadcasting ban which made it illegal to broadcast the views of the likes of Sinn Fein, "to deny terrorists the oxygen of publicity on which they thrive".
Eleven people died in the 1987 Enniskillen Poppy Day bombing
That, remember, is just 10 years before one of her successors signed the Good Friday Agreement - a document which made it British policy to create political institutions where Sinn Fein would share power with Northern Ireland's other main political parties.
Mrs Thatcher, it was clear, was not enthusiastic about the messy political compromises that the peace process required.
'Bulwark against terrorism'
She once said that she did not see why one should make concessions in order to persuade people to honour commitments they had already given - a phrase that might almost describe the approach to peace-making of the administrations that followed her.
But we cannot judge politicians by the standards of other ages; only by the standards of the ages in which they lived and governed.
In Irish affairs Margaret Thatcher was a tough and uncompromising believer in the Union, and instinctively loyal to the security forces she saw as society's bulwark against a slide into the anarchy of terrorism.
She was hated by republicans and despised them in return, and her blunt-speaking style won her few friends on either side of the border, even if many had a sneaking admiration for her status on the world stage.
If it never seemed likely that British policy would be overturned by violence on her watch, it never seemed likely either that the path to a more peaceful overall solution would be found.
Quote from: ballinaman on April 08, 2013, 01:14:07 PM
(http://www.dietdiva.com/sites/default/files/1215-feature-champagne-bottle-opening_0.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXi-VYy_Yw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXi-VYy_Yw)
God this is a great feeling,have waited a long time but just might be worth it to hear how the Brits try and paint her as a Saint,there will be joy in Ireland,and in many cities in England and the Welsh valleys.Up the Ra.
If Crossmaglen was as british as Finichley then why did she arrive by helicopter and wear Army Surplus gear?
Denied the oxygen to breath. ;D
The old bag isnt even worth 5 pence
CNN running with this obit pic. They'll meet again soon enough
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHVCdg-CIAA1NI2.jpg)
Imagine she's hung on for two more days....which would have been 32 years to the day of Bobby Sands' election as MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
I don't think it's right to gloat after someone loses their life but on this occasion.... ;D
Quote from: passedit on April 08, 2013, 01:30:00 PM
CNN running with this obit pic. They'll meet again soon enough
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHVCdg-CIAA1NI2.jpg)
First Jimmy Saville and now Margaret Thatcher.
It's been a great 12 months for minors.
Quote from: passedit on April 08, 2013, 01:30:00 PM
CNN running with this obit pic. They'll meet again soon enough
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHVCdg-CIAA1NI2.jpg)
Jimmy wouldn't have touched her.
They've just announced they're going to burn the bitch, shame it wasn't done at birth.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 08, 2013, 01:00:49 PM
I wonder will the old Irish tradition of not speaking ill of the dead be respected?
was about to post a while ago and got distracted- and the thought of not speaking ill of the dead did strike me, however this evil vile sc**bag does not deserve that respect.
I expect she will be feeling quite hot where she is now.
I expect the english media to re-write history and portray her as a decent person and daughter of the greengrocer etc etc but she was a despicable old ratbag.
plenty of people I know especially in the north of England and scotland will feel the same way about her.
If I were really bad, I'd say that I'd hope she died in pain to feel a minute portion of what she directly or indirectly assisted in inflcting on her victims !
she is no loss to the planet.
she will be remembered alongside hitler, stalin, pol pot, osama bin laden, sadam hussein etc etc
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHVFmTwCMAAOk5h.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-BZIWSI5UQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-BZIWSI5UQ)
Robbed shamelessly from another forum
(http://i.imgur.com/h1r8mwv.jpg)
RIP Maggie. Best PM since Churchill. Would have gladly swapped the likes of Bertie for her.
At times like this I try to find something good to say about someone and then post it.
This might take a while.
I'll be back later.
Quote from: glens abu on April 08, 2013, 01:25:55 PM
God this is a great feeling,have waited a long time but just might be worth it to hear how the Brits try and paint her as a Saint,there will be joy in Ireland,and in many cities in England and the Welsh valleys.Up the Ra.
Argentina? Malvinas (well, not the Brits)
I appreciate that the British TV media will be re-writing history over the next few days to make out that Thatcher was some sort of saint and the greatest leader of our time, but on Sky news they just said that she was such a very attractive lady and used this attribute to manipulate other male world leaders - now that's just taking revisionism too far!
RIH Maggie
Elvis might be busy this week:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy3-R97wDKs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy3-R97wDKs)
Tr**p the dirt down
I saw a newspaper picture from the political campaign
A woman was kissing a child, who was obviously in pain
She spills with compassion, as that young child's
Face in her hands she grips
Can you imagine all that greed and avarice
Coming down on that child's lips
Well I hope I don't die too soon
I pray the lord my soul to save
Oh I'll be a good boy, I'm trying so hard to behave
Because there's one thing I know, I'd like to live
Long enough to savor
That's when they finally put you in the ground
I'll stand on your grave and tr**p the dirt down
When England was the whore of the world
Margaret was her madam
And the future looked as bright and as clear as
The black tarmacadam
Well I hope that she sleeps well at night, isn't
Haunted by every tiny detail
'Cos when she held that lovely face in her hands
All she thought of was betrayal
And now the cynical ones say that it all ends the same in the long run
Try telling that to the desperate father who just squeezed the life from his only son
And how it's only voices in your head and dreams you never dreamt
Try telling him the subtle difference between justice and contempt
Try telling me she isn't angry with this pitiful discontent
When they flaunt it in your face as you line up for punishment
And then expect you to say thank you straighten up, look proud and pleased
Because you've only got the symptoms, you haven't got the whole disease
Just like a schoolboy, whose head's like a tin-can
Filled up with dreams then poured down the drain
Try telling that to the boys on both sides, being blown to bits or beaten and maimed
Who takes all the glory and none of the shame
Well I hope you live long now, I pray the lord your soul to keep
I think I'll be going before we fold our arms and start to weep
I never thought for a moment that human life could be so cheap
'Cos when they finally put you in the ground
They'll stand there laughing and tr**p the dirt down
Wishful thinking from someone at the bbc.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHVGRAACcAAI2Tu.jpg)
A horrible ****. No shred of decency or humanity in her. I try not to speak ill of the dead but on this occasion it's an exception. A few drinks will be had tonight.
George Galloway put it very eloquently on twitter
Havnt' been to the pub in months but i have always said that when she perished i'm going. Think the pubs in north of england will be packed tonight. She wont be missed.
Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle 2m
Thatcher is the reason that the tweets saying you shouldn't joke about her death are riddled with spelling mistakes
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2013, 02:18:22 PM
Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle 2m
Thatcher is the reason that the tweets saying you shouldn't joke about her death are riddled with spelling mistakes
::)
Cue the celebrations in many parts of the North, Argentina, the mining communities, and those with calcium deficiencies...
Would it be too much to hope that Nelson Mandela has enough left in him to break out his dancing shoes?
I saw a survey last week that said only 46% of Irish people believed in hell; today it suddenly jumped up to 100%.
More Frankie Boyle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xmmomV-ax-s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xmmomV-ax-s)
Do many people really care about her at this stage?
She has been irrelevant for over 20 years now.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Do many people really care about her at this stage?
She has been irrelevant for over 20 years now.
She won 2 Oscars in 2011.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Do many people really care about her at this stage?
She has been irrelevant for over 20 years now.
That bitch did more than most to keep the Troubles in the North going, she was a war mongering, power hungry, milk-snatching whore. It was on her instructions that certain things happened in the North and they leave very deep scars in many peoples' memories. Rot in hell you evil bitch!
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Do many people really care about her at this stage?
She has been irrelevant for over 20 years now.
Her legacy isn't irrelevant. The people who lost their loved ones, jobs, homes etc due to her policies won't just forget what she stood for. Did you really expect people not to mention her passing?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/24/miners-strike-photo-don-mcphee
and hillsborough
and the hunger strikers
and monetarism and the worship of greed
and now it is all in bits, Thatcherism
QuoteTHT @TheHumanTorpedo 7m
Mark Thatcher has volunteered to drive the hearse so it could be six weeks before the funeral takes place.
Expand
Was checking a few of the LFC forums, mass celebration, #JFT96 trending on twitter as well, burn baby, burn.
Quote from: seafoid on April 08, 2013, 02:47:47 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/24/miners-strike-photo-don-mcphee
and hillsborough
and the hunger strikers
and monetarism and the worship of greed
and now it is all in bits, Thatcherism
Actually a great point seafoid. It's good she lived long enough to see everything she believed in exposed for the rubbish it was.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Do many people really care about her at this stage?
She has been irrelevant for over 20 years now.
I think you're being disingenuous there.
QuoteSinn Féin President Gerry Adams commenting on the death today of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said:
"Margaret Thatcher did great hurt to the Irish and British people during her time as British Prime Minister.
Working class communities were devastated in Britain because of her policies.
Her role in international affairs was equally belligerent whether in support of the Chilean dictator Pinochet, her opposition to sanctions against apartheid South Africa; and her support for the Khmer Rouge.
Here in Ireland her espousal of old draconian militaristic policies prolonged the war and caused great suffering. She embraced censorship, collusion and the killing of citizens by covert operations, including the targeting of solicitors like Pat Finucane, alongside more open military operations and refused to recognise the rights of citizens to vote for parties of their choice.
Her failed efforts to criminalise the republican struggle and the political prisoners is part of her legacy.
It should be noted that in complete contradiction of her public posturing, she authorised a back channel of communications with the Sinn Féin leadership but failed to act on the logic of this.
Unfortunately she was faced with weak Irish governments who failed to oppose her securocrat agenda or to enlist international support in defence of citizens in the north.
Margaret Thatcher will be especially remembered for her shameful role during the epic hunger strikes of 1980 and 81.
Her Irish policy failed miserably.
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 08, 2013, 02:51:26 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 08, 2013, 02:47:47 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/24/miners-strike-photo-don-mcphee
and hillsborough
and the hunger strikers
and monetarism and the worship of greed
and now it is all in bits, Thatcherism
Actually a great point seafoid. It's good she lived long enough to see everything she believed in exposed for the rubbish it was.
England is in a really bad way 30 years on. They put all their eggs in the City basket and the City tore the arse out of it.
France has the TGV. England has 20 something train companies using the same lines they had in the 70s. Very little industry left. They didn't need it. The north of England fell way behind. And the tories can't fix it.
@Ken Livingstone -
She created today's housing crisis. She created the banking crisis. And she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefit rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly full employment. She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed, and the benefits bill, the legacy of that, we are struggling with today. In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact that she was fundamentally wrong.
I think she was also indirectly responsible for Throne winning 3 all Irelands
Probably the only British leader to visit Cross', although she did not avail of the opportunity for a walkabout.
Quote from: seafoid on April 08, 2013, 03:02:04 PM
@Ken Livingstone -
She created today's housing crisis. She created the banking crisis. And she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefit rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly full employment. She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed, and the benefits bill, the legacy of that, we are struggling with today. In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact that she was fundamentally wrong.
I think she was also indirectly responsible for Throne winning 3 all Irelands
Wow, Ken knows his football!
Somebody on the RTE website with a sense of humour.
(http://i47.tinypic.com/311x98x.jpg)
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 08, 2013, 02:41:28 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Do many people really care about her at this stage?
She has been irrelevant for over 20 years now.
That bitch did more than most to keep the Troubles in the North going, she was a war mongering, power hungry, milk-snatching whore. It was on her instructions that certain things happened in the North and they leave very deep scars in many peoples' memories. Rot in hell you evil bitch!
I don't dispute that she left a severe legacy behind her, but what is the point in getting revved up about it now?
She "died" in a sense when she left politics. Whatever damage was already done.
A significant cohort of people went along with her policies by continually voting her back in. It wasn't a dictatorship.
Whatever about the North of Ireland, I'm not sure why the squeezing of the Northern English working class, or the closure of coal mines in towns we're unlikely to ever set foot near seems to madden Irish people in the context of Thatcher. Is there really such an affinity between the two isles that I've missed?
Say Bertie Ahern dies in 20 years time, how many English will be raging about 'ghost estates' in Leitrim and Anglo bankers?
I'm uncomfortable with all this talk of drinking to her death or celebrating today. Any small joy I can think of deriving from the passing of a tyrant is immediately banished by the memory of those people she had killed, the ones she had tortured and the prolonging of needless suffering in all four corners of the globe.
If I take a drink today to mark her death it won't be to celebrate her death but to remember the countless, truly countless number of good men and innocent women and children whom she killed or ruined.
Argentinians, Chileans, South Africans, people of the North, the miners; it's a figure that could run into millions.
My only hope is that people will see her legacy as it is and those who write her flowing eulogies are ignored in the history books. May the world look back and see those days for what they really were.
Margaret Thatcher
Born: Grantham 13/10/1925
Died: London 08/04/2013
Sadly missed Brighton 12/10/1984
Listen and enjoy lads.........................
I'll dance on your grave Maggie Thatcher.....................
Good man Joe McCullagh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bJbeeKBPCU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bJbeeKBPCU)
Got the news today when doing a bit of studying in the library, believe it or not I was listening to an oul Billy Bragg number on my ipod called 'Thatcherites' about the minors strikes when Real Food Real People sent me a message with the news.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
I don't dispute that she left a severe legacy behind her, but what is the point in getting revved up about it now?
She "died" in a sense when she left politics. Whatever damage was already done.
A significant cohort of people went along with her policies by continually voting her back in. It wasn't a dictatorship.
Whatever about the North of Ireland, I'm not sure why the squeezing of the Northern English working class, or the closure of coal mines in towns we're unlikely to ever set foot near seems to madden Irish people in the context of Thatcher. Is there really such an affinity between the two isles that I've missed?
Say Bertie Ahern dies in 20 years time, how many English will be raging about 'ghost estates' in Leitrim and Anglo bankers?
A completely false equivalence. Margaret Thatcher was a significant figure in world politics whose slash-and-burn policies had a legacy that endure to this day, and her significance was magnified when it came to Ireland where successive governments followed her particular policy prescription to the letter. And yes, we follow British politics much more than the British follow Irish politics. I don't see anything wrong with that, even if the North were not an issue. I'm sure the Belgians give close attention to events in France while the French only pay passing interest to what happens in Belgium. Personally speaking, if I'm wrong for feeling a particular sense of hostility towards her for the manner in which she slandered the people of Liverpool every which way she could, then I'd rather not be right.
I did have a chuckle at the Guardian,
QuoteMargaret Thatcher's state funeral to be privatized
Quote from: deiseach on April 08, 2013, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
I don't dispute that she left a severe legacy behind her, but what is the point in getting revved up about it now?
She "died" in a sense when she left politics. Whatever damage was already done.
A significant cohort of people went along with her policies by continually voting her back in. It wasn't a dictatorship.
Whatever about the North of Ireland, I'm not sure why the squeezing of the Northern English working class, or the closure of coal mines in towns we're unlikely to ever set foot near seems to madden Irish people in the context of Thatcher. Is there really such an affinity between the two isles that I've missed?
Say Bertie Ahern dies in 20 years time, how many English will be raging about 'ghost estates' in Leitrim and Anglo bankers?
A completely false equivalence. Margaret Thatcher was a significant figure in world politics whose slash-and-burn policies had a legacy that endure to this day, and her significance was magnified when it came to Ireland where successive governments followed her particular policy prescription to the letter. And yes, we follow British politics much more than the British follow Irish politics. I don't see anything wrong with that, even if the North were not an issue. I'm sure the Belgians give close attention to events in France while the French only pay passing interest to what happens in Belgium. Personally speaking, if I'm wrong for feeling a particular sense of hostility towards her for the manner in which she slandered the people of Liverpool every which way she could, then I'd rather not be right.
I remember listening to our Belfast correspondent Poilin ni Chiarain when I was growing up in the 80s and the amount of pure evil she was behind up North was sizeable. The nordies are our muintir and it was hard going just listening to it never mind living through it. And there was all the overseas stuff. If it wasn't the hunger strikes it was the Falklands, the breaking of the unions, Nicaragua side by side with Ronnie , lobbying to keep Mandela in jail, the Hillsborough cover up etc . She was malevolent. She didn't believe in compromise. And the poison she sowed is in full bloom now with most of the banks FUBR. England's dancing days are done .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tFBo1QunlA
Just a few points.
Margaret Thatcher was a great British politically leader for her time. I don't necessarily mean this as a compliment from the "man on the street" point of few.
In her reign she needed to pull Britain out of the slump and control the unions. She destroyed unionism in Britain and through her belligerent attitude dragged Britain back into being a political world power. The Hunger strike, the Miners strike, las Malvinas war( the Falklands), I'll press the big red button first, The Iron Lady persona etc.
She was my first introduction to politics; who can remember " Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher"?
Unfortunately I am only human, and there shall not be a tear of sorrow wept in my house today. Personally she personifies all that is evil in this world and I shall celebrate her death but also hope that the rest of us learn from her monstrous errors.
I'll leave the rest to Elvis C:
Songwriters: COSTELLO, ELVIS
I saw a newspaper picture from the political campaign
A woman was kissing a child, who was obviously in pain
She spills with compassion, as that young childs
Face in her hands she grips
Can you imagine all that greed and avarice
Coming down on that childs lips
Well I hope I don't die too soon
I pray the lord my soul to save
Oh I'll be a good boy, Im trying so hard to behave
Because there's one thing I know, I'd like to live
Long enough to savour
That's when they finally put you in the ground
Ill stand on your grave and tr**p the dirt down
When england was the whore of the world
Margeret was her madam
And the future looked as bright and as clear as
The black tarmacadam
Well I hope that she sleeps well at night, isnt
Haunted by every tiny detail
Cos when she held that lovely face in her hands
All she thought of was betrayal
And now the cynical ones say that it all ends the same in the long run
Try telling that to the desperate father who just squeezed the life from his only son
And how it's only voices in your head and dreams you never dreamt
Try telling him the subtle difference between justice and contempt
Try telling me she isn't angry with this pitiful discontent
When they flaunt it in your face as you line up for punishment
And then expect you to say thank you straighten up, look proud and pleased
Because youve only got the symptoms, you haven't got the whole disease
Just like a schoolboy, whose heads like a tin-can
Filled up with dreams then poured down the drain
Try telling that to the boys on both sides, being blown to bits or beaten and maimed
Who takes all the glory and none of the shame
Well I hope you live long now, I pray the lord your soul to keep
I think I'll be going before we fold our arms and start to weep
I never thought for a moment that human life could be so cheap
Cos when they finally put you in the ground
They'll stand there laughing and tr**p the dirt down
Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson has paid tribute to the former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher who has died at the age of 87.
Lady Thatcher was Conservative prime minister from 1979 to 1990. She was the first woman to hold the role.
Mr Robinson said he had learned of her death "with great sadness".
He described her as a "transformative and powerful prime minister".
"She was undoubtedly one of the greatest political figures of post-war Britain and she changed the face of our United Kingdom forever," he said.
"As our first female prime minister, she made history and as 'The Iron Lady' she was at the frontline of winning The Cold War as well as ensuring the freedom of the Falklands Islands.
"Whilst we disagreed over the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Mrs Thatcher was committed to the union and later described the Anglo-Irish Agreement as one of her greatest regrets."
Mr Robinson said the passing of Baroness Thatcher "draws to an end a remarkable life devoted to the service of the United Kingdom".
'Colossus'
"She was one of a kind: tough, possessed of a supreme intellect and driven by conviction," he added.
"The entire country is indebted to her for all that she achieved.
"I know that her accomplishments will not soon be forgotten by a grateful nation."
The SDLP MP Mark Durkan said Baroness Thatcher had made a "controversial impact" on political life and "divided opinion".
Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams said she had caused "great hurt to the Irish and British people" during her time as Prime Minister.
"Working class communities were devastated in Britain because of her policies," he said.
However, Ulster Unionist Party leader Mike Nesbitt said Baroness Thatcher was "a colossus of conviction politics".
"Whilst we in the Ulster Unionist Party would not have agreed with her on everything, particularly the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Northern Ireland has reason to be eternally grateful for her stance against terrorism, not least during the hunger-strikes when Northern Ireland was on the edge of something catastrophic," he added.
Which side are you on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbddqXib814
Micheal D didn't get carried away.
Statement from Áras an Uachtaráin
"I am sorry to learn of the death of Lady Thatcher. To have been Great Britain's first female Prime Minister means that Margaret Thatcher's place in history is secure. She will be remembered as one of the most conviction-driven British Prime Ministers who drew on a scholarship that demanded markets without regulation.
The policies of Mrs Thatcher's Government in regard to Northern Ireland gave rise to considerable debate at the time. However, her key role in signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be recalled as a valuable early contribution to the search for peace and political stability.
Lady Thatcher's political career, its impact and legacy will be discussed and debated for many years. What is undeniable is that the strength of conviction in her beliefs was acknowledged by those who robustly opposed her, as well as by those who enthusiastically supported her.
I extend my condolences to Lady Thatcher's family, her friends and political colleagues."
Feels like spring has finally arrived ... what a lovely day it is
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Quote from: deiseach on April 08, 2013, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
I don't dispute that she left a severe legacy behind her, but what is the point in getting revved up about it now?
She "died" in a sense when she left politics. Whatever damage was already done.
A significant cohort of people went along with her policies by continually voting her back in. It wasn't a dictatorship.
Whatever about the North of Ireland, I'm not sure why the squeezing of the Northern English working class, or the closure of coal mines in towns we're unlikely to ever set foot near seems to madden Irish people in the context of Thatcher. Is there really such an affinity between the two isles that I've missed?
Say Bertie Ahern dies in 20 years time, how many English will be raging about 'ghost estates' in Leitrim and Anglo bankers?
A completely false equivalence. Margaret Thatcher was a significant figure in world politics whose slash-and-burn policies had a legacy that endure to this day, and her significance was magnified when it came to Ireland where successive governments followed her particular policy prescription to the letter. And yes, we follow British politics much more than the British follow Irish politics. I don't see anything wrong with that, even if the North were not an issue. I'm sure the Belgians give close attention to events in France while the French only pay passing interest to what happens in Belgium. Personally speaking, if I'm wrong for feeling a particular sense of hostility towards her for the manner in which she slandered the people of Liverpool every which way she could, then I'd rather not be right.
Politician in bad policies shocker.
Obviously Eire is insignificant to Britain. The point was not so much the interest level and why Irish person seems to care so much about Ernie the miner from Leeds? Her policies were misguided, but perhaps it's a stretch for blaming her for Irish political stupidly.
Granted, she was in a different league for callousness and intransigence back in the day.
I just find the current circus around her death is great for internet bravado.
Or will champagne corks really be popping like machine fire tonight?
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 04:32:45 PM
Politician in bad policies shocker.
Obviously Eire is insignificant to Britain. The point was not so much the interest level and why Irish person seems to care so much about Ernie the miner from Leeds? Her policies were misguided, but perhaps it's a stretch for blaming her for Irish political stupidly.
Granted, she was in a different league for callousness and intransigence back in the day.
I just find the current circus around her death is great for internet bravado.
Or will champagne corks really be popping like machine fire tonight?
I don't know what point you are trying to make. People in Ireland are interested in what happens in British politics. If they sneeze we catch a cold and all that. I don't give Irish politicians a pass because they followed her down the road to ruin of living in a world run by bankers for bankers, but she was the standard bearer for those policies. And so what if there aren't actual physical live parties being staged up and down the land on the occasion of her demise. Are people not permitted to use figures of speech on the internet without having to field the accusation of being a keyboard warrior?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Im waiting for McGuinness to offer his condolences any time now.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 04:32:45 PM
Obviously Eire is insignificant to Britain.
Not even the English call this State that any more FFS. >:(
By the way good riddance to that oul Cnut..... although she did stand up to Paisley and the Unionist bullies when they were trying to get the Anglo Irish Agreement scrapped.
Quote from: highorlow on April 08, 2013, 04:26:40 PM
Micheal D didn't get carried away.
Statement from Áras an Uachtaráin
"I am sorry to learn of the death of Lady Thatcher. To have been Great Britain's first female Prime Minister means that Margaret Thatcher's place in history is secure. She will be remembered as one of the most conviction-driven British Prime Ministers who drew on a scholarship that demanded markets without regulation.
The policies of Mrs Thatcher's Government in regard to Northern Ireland gave rise to considerable debate at the time. However, her key role in signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be recalled as a valuable early contribution to the search for peace and political stability.
Lady Thatcher's political career, its impact and legacy will be discussed and debated for many years. What is undeniable is that the strength of conviction in her beliefs was acknowledged by those who robustly opposed her, as well as by those who enthusiastically supported her.
I extend my condolences to Lady Thatcher's family, her friends and political colleagues."
Tube.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 08, 2013, 04:50:30 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 04:32:45 PM
Obviously Eire is insignificant to Britain.
Not even the English call this State that any more FFS. >:(
I read that as being ironic. Maybe I was wrong.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 08, 2013, 02:41:28 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Do many people really care about her at this stage?
She has been irrelevant for over 20 years now.
That bitch did more than most to keep the Troubles in the North going, she was a war mongering, power hungry, milk-snatching whore. It was on her instructions that certain things happened in the North and they leave very deep scars in many peoples' memories. Rot in hell you evil bitch!
That's my favourite ;D
Quote from: BennyCake on April 08, 2013, 04:54:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 08, 2013, 02:41:28 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Do many people really care about her at this stage?
She has been irrelevant for over 20 years now.
That bitch did more than most to keep the Troubles in the North going, she was a war mongering, power hungry, milk-snatching whore. It was on her instructions that certain things happened in the North and they leave very deep scars in many peoples' memories. Rot in hell you evil bitch!
That's my favourite ;D
Well said BC1...
Statement by Fianna Fáil leader Mícheál Martin:
"Today, on hearing of the death of Margaret Thatcher, our first thoughts are thoughts of condolence for her family. Our personal sympathy is also with her friends and colleagues within the Conservative Party and the British Government.
Speak for yourself, Mícheál.
Quote from: deiseach on April 08, 2013, 04:47:54 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 04:32:45 PM
Politician in bad policies shocker.
Obviously Eire is insignificant to Britain. The point was not so much the interest level and why Irish person seems to care so much about Ernie the miner from Leeds? Her policies were misguided, but perhaps it's a stretch for blaming her for Irish political stupidly.
Granted, she was in a different league for callousness and intransigence back in the day.
I just find the current circus around her death is great for internet bravado.
Or will champagne corks really be popping like machine fire tonight?
I don't know what point you are trying to make. People in Ireland are interested in what happens in British politics. If they sneeze we catch a cold and all that. I don't give Irish politicians a pass because they followed her down the road to ruin of living in a world run by bankers for bankers, but she was the standard bearer for those policies. And so what if there aren't actual physical live parties being staged up and down the land on the occasion of her demise. Are people not permitted to use figures of speech on the internet without having to field the accusation of being a keyboard warrior?
The point is, this affinity with some vague English working classes is feigned just to suit the sort of keyboard warriorism that you mention. When the same oiks are getting water cannoned at England away games, we'll be tut-tutting at what ill-reared blackguards they are.
I'd go to a Thatcher party of there was one happening nearby though. Might be a bit of fun.
I don't really have much affinity for the English working classes, but I do have affinity for Irishmen and women that suffered under her administration. I'll not speak ill of the dead, but I won't be contributing to any book of condolences, put it like that.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 08, 2013, 03:34:06 PM
Whatever about the impact of her government's economic policies which still run to this day, and her way of dealing with domestic and international issues like the Cold War etc. One thing that strikes me the most about her was distinct lack of empathy in her tenure. Unlike in other countries like France and Australia whom also in the 80's underwent upheavals of their own, she never really sought to help bring along those people who struggled to adapt to the radical changes of the time she helped implement, made no concern of the plight of those in formerly thriving mining communities with their families who were made redundant, told the British public to rejoice in the deaths of conscripted Argentine sailors etc. One of the few times I noted her concerns was when she apologised to a friend who was in charge of TV-am when they lost their ITV franchise thanks to the rules she brought in for their award. She helped break down a militant bunch of union leaders that could threaten to hold Britain to ransom but filled the vacuum with a bunch of cronys and reckless spivs that were too big to crash and fail, and that the UK became too dependent on for its economy. Ironically, the troubles in the north perhaps shielded a lot of the associated social upheaval here compared to much of Britain and arguably over here we still have a more communitarian social structure (with the GAA being a major pillar in many places) compared to brash individualism that is present in many parts of England, to the point that when she was getting old and senile neither of her children wanted her to move in with them to care for her, forget about "No such thing as...", her own offspring didn't want her as a burden on their own lives. And for all that I've typed so far, to me that is why it is explainable that many people see no reason to have empathy in her passing, because when she was living she never showed any herself to them.
Great post.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 05:11:50 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 08, 2013, 04:47:54 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 04:32:45 PM
Politician in bad policies shocker.
Obviously Eire is insignificant to Britain. The point was not so much the interest level and why Irish person seems to care so much about Ernie the miner from Leeds? Her policies were misguided, but perhaps it's a stretch for blaming her for Irish political stupidly.
Granted, she was in a different league for callousness and intransigence back in the day.
I just find the current circus around her death is great for internet bravado.
Or will champagne corks really be popping like machine fire tonight?
I don't know what point you are trying to make. People in Ireland are interested in what happens in British politics. If they sneeze we catch a cold and all that. I don't give Irish politicians a pass because they followed her down the road to ruin of living in a world run by bankers for bankers, but she was the standard bearer for those policies. And so what if there aren't actual physical live parties being staged up and down the land on the occasion of her demise. Are people not permitted to use figures of speech on the internet without having to field the accusation of being a keyboard warrior?
The point is, this affinity with some vague English working classes is feigned just to suit the sort of keyboard warriorism that you mention. When the same oiks are getting water cannoned at England away games, we'll be tut-tutting at what ill-reared blackguards they are.
I'd go to a Thatcher party of there was one happening nearby though. Might be a bit of fun.
I don't agree with your comparison. British Imperialism has been punctuated across the globe by absolutely shitting on the ordinary man. I think a lot of Irish people are actually astounded that this creation was such a tyrant that she visited that hateful behaviour on her own people.
On top of that it's quite clear there is little difference betwen the ordinary folk of the north of England and the vast majority of us over here. Irish people have gone and worked and lived side by side with these people for generations. Many of the people in the mines had Irish backgrounds & links.
So I think to call it a feigned affinity is unfair and incorrect. My main reasons for hating her are related to the north and seafoid eloquently put how I'd feel myself on that score. Outside of that in practically everything she did she proved herself to be a hateful person without an ounce of humanity.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 05:11:50 PM
The point is, this affinity with some vague English working classes is feigned just to suit the sort of keyboard warriorism that you mention. When the same oiks are getting water cannoned at England away games, we'll be tut-tutting at what ill-reared blackguards they are.
I'd go to a Thatcher party of there was one happening nearby though. Might be a bit of fun.
I think most people can distinguish between someone having their skull cracked for being in a picket line and someone having their skull cracked for ripping up seats at a soccer match. There would be overlap between the two subsets. But I find it strange that someone would look at one and instinctively see the other. Thatcher certainly did.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 05:11:50 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 08, 2013, 04:47:54 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 08, 2013, 04:32:45 PM
Politician in bad policies shocker.
Obviously Eire is insignificant to Britain. The point was not so much the interest level and why Irish person seems to care so much about Ernie the miner from Leeds? Her policies were misguided, but perhaps it's a stretch for blaming her for Irish political stupidly.
Granted, she was in a different league for callousness and intransigence back in the day.
I just find the current circus around her death is great for internet bravado.
Or will champagne corks really be popping like machine fire tonight?
I don't know what point you are trying to make. People in Ireland are interested in what happens in British politics. If they sneeze we catch a cold and all that. I don't give Irish politicians a pass because they followed her down the road to ruin of living in a world run by bankers for bankers, but she was the standard bearer for those policies. And so what if there aren't actual physical live parties being staged up and down the land on the occasion of her demise. Are people not permitted to use figures of speech on the internet without having to field the accusation of being a keyboard warrior?
The point is, this affinity with some vague English working classes is feigned just to suit the sort of keyboard warriorism that you mention. When the same oiks are getting water cannoned at England away games, we'll be tut-tutting at what ill-reared blackguards they are.
I'd go to a Thatcher party of there was one happening nearby though. Might be a bit of fun.
It 's not nice to see ordinary people being shafted. I would have a lot of sympathy for the families of the Hillsborough disaster even though I wouldn't be a big fan of Liverpool.
Can anyone in Ireland listen to a song such as "a town called malice" and understand it or do you have to be born in England ?
There are a lot of Irish people in England too.
You could even argue that the opposition to Thatcherism in Ireland was one of the reasons the social welfare system is different. 53 quid a week is savage compared to what people get in the 26 counties.
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on April 08, 2013, 12:58:40 PM
She will now meet her maker to atone for the murders that were committed under her watch
Nah, she'll go to hell instead.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 08, 2013, 05:24:34 PM
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on April 08, 2013, 12:58:40 PM
She will now meet her maker to atone for the murders that were committed under her watch
Nah, she'll go to hell instead.
She'll be reincarnated as an untouchable.
Quote from: highorlow on April 08, 2013, 04:26:40 PM
Micheal D didn't get carried away.
Statement from Áras an Uachtaráin
"I am sorry to learn of the death of Lady Thatcher. To have been Great Britain's first female Prime Minister means that Margaret Thatcher's place in history is secure. She will be remembered as one of the most conviction-driven British Prime Ministers who drew on a scholarship that demanded markets without regulation.
The policies of Mrs Thatcher's Government in regard to Northern Ireland gave rise to considerable debate at the time. However, her key role in signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be recalled as a valuable early contribution to the search for peace and political stability.
Lady Thatcher's political career, its impact and legacy will be discussed and debated for many years. What is undeniable is that the strength of conviction in her beliefs was acknowledged by those who robustly opposed her, as well as by those who enthusiastically supported her.
I extend my condolences to Lady Thatcher's family, her friends and political colleagues."
Fair fucks to him, he can't exactly write the ould **** off since he is a figure head of a neighboring state but still managed to snipe at her. "
demanded markets without regulation"
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Higgins by the look of things. Unlike Gerry who is a leader of a minority party, the government can't come out and say, "ah yeah good riddance ya bitch".
http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 08, 2013, 05:19:42 PM
I don't agree with your comparison. British Imperialism has been punctuated across the globe by absolutely shitting on the ordinary man. I think a lot of Irish people are actually astounded that this creation was such a tyrant that she visited that hateful behaviour on her own people.
On top of that it's quite clear there is little difference betwen the ordinary folk of the north of England and the vast majority of us over here. Irish people have gone and worked and lived side by side with these people for generations. Many of the people in the mines had Irish backgrounds & links.
So I think to call it a feigned affinity is unfair and incorrect. My main reasons for hating her are related to the north and seafoid eloquently put how I'd feel myself on that score. Outside of that in practically everything she did she proved herself to be a hateful person without an ounce of humanity.
Historically they did treat their own badly, almost as badly as us. 'To hell or the Bahamas' was about the Irish sold into slavery in the Carribean, but it was also about the Scots, Welsh and English who were sent down the same route. The ruling classes in Britain treated their own lower classes and in particular English Catholics abominably. Remember
The Penal Laws didn't just apply in Ireland. Thatcher was simply 'old school' in that regard.
Quote from: trileacman on April 08, 2013, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Higgins by the look of things
:o Bearing in mind the sheer amount of blood which dripped from her hands, what specific piece of Higgins' statement do you see as being him calling a spade a spade? I fail to see a single bad word about her throughout. (Whether or not he should say a bad word isn't my point, I'm just asking what you see in in his statement as him calling a spade a spade).
They say you should only speak good about the dead. She's dead, good.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 05:35:19 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 08, 2013, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Higgins by the look of things
:o Bearing in mind the sheer amount of blood which dripped from her hands, what specific piece of Higgins' statement do you see as being him calling a spade a spade? I fail to see a single bad word about her throughout. (Whether or not he should say a bad word isn't my point, I'm just asking what you see in in his statement as him calling a spade a spade).
There's an element of diplomacy you have to expect from the likes of the President/Taoiseach.
I for one will not be shedding any tears over Thatcher, and tonight I will raise a glass in memory of the thousands of people she directly and indirectly killed, and to the millions worldwide who suffered under her rule.
Maggie Thatcher R.I.H.
Sure didn't Mick O'Leary say only for Thatcher we'd all be penniless and governed by Germany, (someone should tell him most of his 26 county compatriots already are!)
Argentinian Pope...Thatcher dies...coincidence, I think not, twas a miracle!
I suppose if i have nothing good to say something about somebody it best to say nothing at all. No love lost up here for her or for most of the miners and trade unions in the uk which she trampled all over in the 80`s
Miners on BBC1 just after saying good riddance and not be missed. if thats working class Britain attitude to her, we can safely assume any Irish person opinion we be alot worse.
Thatcher had nothing on Tony Blair when it comes to being responsible for innocents dying yet we had every politician from the North & South running over to get a pat on the head in Downing Street.
I really, really hope that utter bastard suffered before the devil took her
Pity it never happened 29 years ago ya f**king sc**bag
Not one for speaking ill of the dead, but when heard first she died felt genuine euphoria. An utterly horrible person, destroyed communities, trashed the NHS, started a war with Argentina to win an election, brought misery to the working classes, a friend of tyrants, not to mention her role here. The effect of her policies are still being felt, the greed culture prevails and continues to bring misery to working class people. That's why I shall raise a glass and toast her passing. Good riddance you bitch - you stole my milk.
Won't shed any tears on her passing.
One good thing she will be remembered for is the re-taking of the Falklands.
I'd say she's warm enough - Cnut.
One lad said "She ruined the city I grew up in, I am glad she is dead".
I can remember being at a bonfire in the Bogside in mid 80s. The first thing thrown on the boney was a life size Sun newspaper( big roar), second was a wooden RUC land rover (bigger roar), ans lastly a full size effifgy of maggie ( unrelentless hysteria).
She was despised in Derry and that will always stick with me
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2013, 05:34:06 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 08, 2013, 05:19:42 PM
I don't agree with your comparison. British Imperialism has been punctuated across the globe by absolutely shitting on the ordinary man. I think a lot of Irish people are actually astounded that this creation was such a tyrant that she visited that hateful behaviour on her own people.
On top of that it's quite clear there is little difference betwen the ordinary folk of the north of England and the vast majority of us over here. Irish people have gone and worked and lived side by side with these people for generations. Many of the people in the mines had Irish backgrounds & links.
So I think to call it a feigned affinity is unfair and incorrect. My main reasons for hating her are related to the north and seafoid eloquently put how I'd feel myself on that score. Outside of that in practically everything she did she proved herself to be a hateful person without an ounce of humanity.
Historically they did treat their own badly, almost as badly as us. 'To hell or the Bahamas' was about the Irish sold into slavery in the Carribean, but it was also about the Scots, Welsh and English who were sent down the same route. The ruling classes in Britain treated their own lower classes and in particular English Catholics abominably. Remember The Penal Laws didn't just apply in Ireland. Thatcher was simply 'old school' in that regard.
They had the workhouses as well.
The funny thing about England is they get almost everyone back in line with either a focus on the Royals or else a war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-editorial
Margaret Thatcher: the lady and the land she leaves behind
Her legacy is public division, private selfishness and a cult of greed that together shackle the human spirit
The Guardian, Monday 8 April 2013 18.35 BST
Whether you were for her or against her, Margaret Thatcher set the agenda for the past three and a half decades of British politics. All the debates that matter today in the public arena, whether in economics, social policy, politics, the law, the national culture or this country's relations with the rest of the world, still bear something of the imprint she left on them in her years in office between 1979 and 1990. More than 20 years after her party disposed of her when she had become an electoral liability, British public life is still defined to an extraordinary degree by the argument between those who wish to continue or refine what she started and those who want to mitigate or turn it back. Just as in life she shaped the past 30 years, so in death she may well continue to shape the next 30. These are claims that can be made about no other modern British prime minister. She was in many ways the most formidable peacetime leader this country has had since Gladstone.
The fact that Mrs Thatcher was Britain's first and so far only woman major party leader, chosen entirely on merit, and then Britain's first woman prime minister, were of course huge landmarks. But her gender, though fundamental to her story, was in the end secondary. It was at least as significant, in the evolution of the late 20th-century Tory party, that she came from a petit-bourgeois background, a shopkeeper's daughter, though the man she overthrew in 1975, Ted Heath, had similarly middling origins and John Major an even humbler start. There was something of the rebel and outsider about her, as well as much that was stultifyingly conventional.
Mrs Thatcher's transcendent quality, however, was that she was a political warrior. She had a love of political combat, a zealotry for the causes she believed in, a reluctance to listen to advice, a conviction that she was always right and never wrong, and a scorn for consensus that set her apart from almost all her predecessors and, with the occasional exception of Tony Blair, from those who came after.
Mrs Thatcher was proof positive that personality matters in politics. As a young minister she did not seem destined for greatness. Even her election as Tory leader was something of a surprise, though her audacity in going for the top job while so many more senior figures hesitated was an indication of what was to come. Early on in her leadership, she was much patronised by male colleagues and adversaries. But as the social democratic consensus faltered in the 1970s and then cracked in the 1980s she rode the wind of history with an opportunist's brilliance. A Britain led by Willie Whitelaw or Michael Heseltine would have faced most of the same challenges that the one led by Mrs Thatcher faced. But the response would have been completely different. For good or ill, she made a difference.
The late Guardian columnist and Thatcher biographer Hugo Young, reflecting on her overthrow in 1990, identified five large events that would not have happened the way they did without her.
The first was the Falklands war of 1982, which Young described as "a prime example of ignorance lending pellucid clarity to her judgment". Surrounded by sceptical men who had fought in the second world war and knew what combat involved, she went for it. The result was an astonishing and absurd military triumph followed by an electoral one, which elevated Mrs Thatcher from the ordinary to the extraordinary.
A second, which would not have been possible without the authority conferred by the first, was the dethroning of trade union power. Once again, against the instincts of ministers – and the grandest of grandees, Harold Macmillan – who all preferred compromise to confrontation, she fought the miners' strike to the bitterest of finishes, in a contest that was always about industrial strategy rather than just coal.
Arguably even more important than these headline events was the third example, the conduct of economic policy. There had been a New Right before Mrs Thatcher, but it was the ideas of Friedrich von Hayek, as articulated to her by a series of domestic rightwing ideologues, on which she seized. It was Mrs Thatcher, abetted by her chancellors Sir Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson, who drove the policy that the public sector was an unproductive burden on the wealth-creating sector and on taxpayers, and must therefore be reduced and privatised. It was she who insisted that the chief aim of government economic policy should be price stability, and that it should not give priority to reducing unemployment or to stimulating demand.
And it was she again who seemed to believe, far more than those around her, that the market economy required not a minimal state to protect it but a strong state, marked by everything from the abolition of local government autonomy to the enhancement of police powers, intolerance towards gay rights, the broadcasting ban on Sinn Féin, and increased defence spending. She made enemies without flinching, and they reciprocated. Her rule was marked by the most serious urban riots of the 20th century, one of the most divisive strikes in recent times, and the century's most audacious prime ministerial assassination attempt, which thankfully she survived.
Mrs Thatcher's unique mark was also felt in the two confrontations that ultimately undid her. The first was the poll tax, which was disastrous, unjust and was her policy alone. The poll tax came to embody a prime minister who ruled from conviction not sense, and who did not care about, indeed gloried in, a confrontation that destroyed the Tory party in Scotland and may indirectly come to destroy the union she otherwise championed. Similarly, and less easily disposed of after her fall, was Europe. Mrs Thatcher began her prime ministership as a pragmatic, if often acerbic, European. But as she became a bigger figure on the world stage, feted both by Mr Reagan and by Mikhail Gorbachev, she became increasingly strident and disruptive towards Europe. Her style became the policy, cementing the love affair with an already overmighty press but with disastrous effects for her leadership (which was ended by Sir Geoffrey's resignation over the issue), her party (which became obsessed with the subject) and for Britain. Except for Mr Blair in his early years, every British leader since has felt Mrs Thatcher at his shoulder in dealings with Europe, to the lasting national loss.
When she arrived in Downing Street in 1979 she talked about replacing discord with harmony. She may briefly have meant it, but the harmony she sought in the long term was one whose terms were set overwhelmingly in the interests of the British business class as she perceived them. She disdained the public realm and presided over the growth of the cult of marketplace success as the foundation of a good society – a low-tax, home-owning, privatised, high-carbon, possessive, individualist, winner-takes-all financial model whose failure haunts the choices still facing this country today. Much was wrong with the Britain she inherited in 1979, undemocratic union power among them, and many things, though not wrong in themselves, were unsustainable without radical change, including some nationalised utilities. Britain would have had to alter radically in the 1980s and 90s, and the process would have been hard and controversial. But, as Germany and other northern nations have shown, economic dynamism has been possible without the squandering of social cohesion that Mrs Thatcher promoted.
In the last analysis, though, her stock in trade was division. By instinct, inclination and effect she was a polariser. She glorified both individualism and the nation state, but lacked much feeling for the communities and bonds that knit them together. When she spoke, as she often did, about "our people", she did not mean the people of Britain; she meant people who thought like her and shared her prejudices. She abhorred disorder, decadence and bad behaviour but she was the empress ruler of a process of social and cultural atomism that has fostered all of them, and still does.
The governments that followed have struggled to put a kinder and more cohesive face on the forces she unleashed and to create stability and validity for the public realm that yet remains. New Labour offered a first response. The coalition is attempting a second draft in grimmer circumstances, and there will be others. There can certainly be no going back to the failed postwar past with which Margaret Thatcher had to wrestle. But there should be no going back to her own failed answer either. She was an exceptionally consequential leader, in many ways a very great woman. There should be no dancing on her grave but it is right there is no state funeral either. Her legacy is of public division, private selfishness and a cult of greed, which together shackle far more of the human spirit than they ever set free.
there's a rumour that it's £1 a pint in the Bogside Inn this evening to celebrate the good news
There are occasional moans about the number of 6 county posters on the board but lads youse are playing a blinder today.
Nothing like lived experience to explain what it was really like.
Quote from: Kid Twist on April 08, 2013, 07:42:43 PM
there's a rumour that it's £1 a pint in the Bogside Inn this evening to celebrate the good news
It's true, bog inn, maileys, brandywell bar, Celtic bar, Abercorn, shantallow house, basically every bar on West Bank of foyle
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 08, 2013, 07:51:50 PM
Quote from: Kid Twist on April 08, 2013, 07:42:43 PM
there's a rumour that it's £1 a pint in the Bogside Inn this evening to celebrate the good news
It's true, bog inn, maileys, brandywell bar, Celtic bar, Abercorn, shantallow house, basically every bar on West Bank of foyle
Seriously?
The dog's days are over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvqsw3tbKP4
Quote from: trileacman on April 08, 2013, 08:05:02 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 08, 2013, 07:51:50 PM
Quote from: Kid Twist on April 08, 2013, 07:42:43 PM
there's a rumour that it's £1 a pint in the Bogside Inn this evening to celebrate the good news
It's true, bog inn, maileys, brandywell bar, Celtic bar, Abercorn, shantallow house, basically every bar on West Bank of foyle
Seriously?
I'm on my 5th now
Parties at Free Derry Corner and in Glasgow, apparently. Pity I'm working, but I'm off tomorrow and there's a fridge full of Beck's that's going to get some touch tonight when I get home ;D
Looking at a review of her on yahoo. G maybe the english hated her more than we thought, barely a good word about her.
Quote from: red hander on April 08, 2013, 08:10:59 PM
Parties at Free Derry Corner and in Glasgow, apparently. Pity I'm working, but I'm off tomorrow and there's a fridge full of Beck's that's going to get some touch tonight when I get home ;D
As if you need an excuse ;)
The reason people hate is the same as why people love her. She had bigger balls than any politician, was ruthless and wasn't afraid to take the hard road, no matter how unpopular. Great if you're a businessman but shit if you're a miner.
I hear she has closed three furnaces already..........
Recall either reading or seeing a documentary where thatcher 'took the hard road' mostly to prove she wasnt a soft touch woman.
So turned into a feckin psychotic deranged but job that caused misery and left future Britain in tatters!
I see they are trying to make out she had a big role to play in the peace agreement in the north- no fecking way, she put it back a decade. John major stumbled over ghe line but did more in days than she did in years!
Am cracking open a drink now to toast her welcome passing, and thoughts to my relations and their brother , one of the heroic hunger strikers that thatcher tried to beat, only to give in to the five demands a matter of months later - the peace is due a million times more to the ten men than any deeds of that evil that her bitch!
i wonder if the party at Free Derry is an official UK City of Culture Event
12 months ago I was at the superb play about the IRA War of Independence leader Tom Barry, Guerilla Days in Ireland. One bloke in the audience was resplendent in a T shirt bearing the legend........"I STILL hate Thatcher".
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 08, 2013, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 08, 2013, 08:05:02 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 08, 2013, 07:51:50 PM
Quote from: Kid Twist on April 08, 2013, 07:42:43 PM
there's a rumour that it's £1 a pint in the Bogside Inn this evening to celebrate the good news
It's true, bog inn, maileys, brandywell bar, Celtic bar, Abercorn, shantallow house, basically every bar on West Bank of foyle
Seriously?
I'm on my 5th now
Still three quid in liverpool. Massive painted posters in a bar with lads clebrating.
Quote from: Kid Twist on April 08, 2013, 08:53:11 PM
i wonder if the party at Free Derry is an official UK City of Culture Event
Now now .....sure dont ye know all the shinners in the city love the uk city of culture title , the shinners like having it two ways .
Did they have a silence at the Manchester Derby?
Ken Loach 15 minutes ago. "Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and destructive Prime Minister of modern times.Mass Unemployment, factory closures, communities destroyed – this is her legacy. She was a fighter and her enemy was the British working class. Her victories were aided by the politically corrupt leaders of the Labour Party and of many Trades Unions. It is because of policies begun by her that we are in this mess today.Other prime ministers have followed her path, notably Tony Blair. She was the organ grinder, he was the monkey.Remember she called Mandela a terrorist and took tea with the torturer and murderer Pinochet.How should we honour her? Let's privatise her funeral. Put it out to competitive tender and accept the cheapest bid. It's what she would have wanted."
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Im waiting for McGuinness to offer his condolences any time now.
McGuinnes was a member of an organisation that tried to kill her,what was your contribution dickhead
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 08, 2013, 08:52:24 PM
Recall either reading or seeing a documentary where thatcher 'took the hard road' mostly to prove she wasnt a soft touch woman.
So turned into a feckin psychotic deranged but job that caused misery and left future Britain in tatters!
I see they are trying to make out she had a big role to play in the peace agreement in the north- no fecking way, she put it back a decade. John major stumbled over ghe line but did more in days than she did in years!
Am cracking open a drink now to toast her welcome passing, and thoughts to my relations and their brother , one of the heroic hunger strikers that thatcher tried to beat, only to give in to the five demands a matter of months later - the peace is due a million times more to the ten men than any deeds of that evil that her bitch!
Enjoy your bottle Lynchboy and thoughts with the families of those brave men tonight.
Quote from: glens abu on April 08, 2013, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Im waiting for McGuinness to offer his condolences any time now.
McGuinnes was a member of an organisation that tried to kill her,what was your contribution d**khead
Sure he promotes every aspect of the British insitution in ireland.
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 10:07:58 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 08, 2013, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Im waiting for McGuinness to offer his condolences any time now.
McGuinnes was a member of an organisation that tried to kill her,what was your contribution d**khead
Sure he promotes every aspect of the British insitution in ireland.
That's your opinion,but answer my question .
Quote from: glens abu on April 08, 2013, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Im waiting for McGuinness to offer his condolences any time now.
McGuinnes was a member of an organisation that tried to kill her
And killed countless others in the process,he is a f**king dirty terrorist.
Quote from: Jonah on April 08, 2013, 10:13:42 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 08, 2013, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Im waiting for McGuinness to offer his condolences any time now.
McGuinnes was a member of an organisation that tried to kill her
And killed countless others in the process,he is a f**king dirty terrorist.
Ha ha good man Jonha,enjoy the celebrations,tickle is in Liverpool why not look him up and have a pint. ::)
Ohh ah, up the ra
Quote from: glens abu on April 08, 2013, 10:12:15 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 10:07:58 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 08, 2013, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Im waiting for McGuinness to offer his condolences any time now.
McGuinnes was a member of an organisation that tried to kill her,what was your contribution d**khead
Sure he promotes every aspect of the British insitution in ireland.
That's your opinion,but answer my question .
WAS
What was Adams smoking when he said her "Irish policy failed miserably" ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-editorial?commentpage=4&per_page=50&orderby=oldest#comment-22590015
MildredPlotka
08 April 2013 8:55pm
Ironically, she may in her death bring together communities, as they commemorate this day with bonfires and fireworks.
So we will remember.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4BCUWopQQ4
Some craic all the young white, probably middle class, ones in Brixton partying, I would say they got it tight from the stop and search tactics of the police in the 80's
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 08, 2013, 10:20:53 PM
What was Adams smoking when he said her "Irish policy failed miserably" ?
Sure you would love to know that so that Martin Óg and the boys could buy some ;)
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 08, 2013, 10:24:55 PM
Some craic all the young white, probably middle class, ones in Brixton partying, I would say they got it tight from the stop and search tactics of the police in the 80's
I think the great unwashed of The Socialist Workers Party are involved in a lot of these "parties".
Fox news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP6_UIYE7uU
god love them
Would you`s quit arguing ffs, its a time of joy and celebration. Quit ruining the mood
Quote from: glens abu on April 08, 2013, 10:26:30 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 08, 2013, 10:20:53 PM
What was Adams smoking when he said her "Irish policy failed miserably" ?
Sure you would love to know that so that Martin Óg and the boys could buy some ;)
Ah jesus lads; tis getting serious here. Keep er going glens abu. Ye are making a complete ejet of yourself.
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 10:29:59 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 08, 2013, 10:26:30 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 08, 2013, 10:20:53 PM
What was Adams smoking when he said her "Irish policy failed miserably" ?
Sure you would love to know that so that Martin Óg and the boys could buy some ;)
Ah jesus lads; tis getting serious here. Keep er going glens abu. Ye are making a complete ejet of yourself.
Good lad tickle,don't tell me you know saff and Matin Óg as well.all part of the Marty appreciation society
http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk - Spotify playlist and all for the occasion.
Not without its controversies though. Apparently Cher fans on Twitter think she has popped her clogs because of their hash tag #nowthatchersdead :D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/04/margaret-thatcher-state-funeral-protests
"What she did succeed in doing was to restore class privilege, boosting profitability while slashing employees' share of national income from 65% to 53% through her assault on unions. Britain faced a structural crisis in the 1970s, but there were multiple routes out of it. Thatcher imposed a neoliberal model now seen to have failed across the world."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-transform-britain-economy
"On the other hand, growth has been depressed because weak trade unions can no longer ensure wage increases keep pace with inflation. The government's welfare bill has been swollen by tax credits and housing benefit caused by the labour market reforms and council house sales of the 1980s. Britain's record on innovation and investment have been extremely poor, while the hollowing out of manufacturing left the economy over-dependent on the de-regulated City. Oil helped Thatcher paper over the cracks, but Britain's age-old problem – finding a way to pay its way in the world – remains. The last time the UK ran a trade surplus was the year of the Falklands war."
It is no wonder the Loyalists feel betrayed BTW. Britain is not what it used to be. There isn't much to be loyal to really.
It lies in the hearts of heroes dead,
It screams in tyrants' eyes,
It has reached the peak of mountains high,
It comes searing 'cross the skies.
It lights the dark of this prison cell,
It thunders forth its might,
It is 'the undauntable thought', my friend,
That thought that says 'I'm right!'
A beautiful piece of music about someone from the other side.
The mother of the Price sisters.
But there won't be many in Ireland mourning Thatcher.
Faoí scaíl dhubh an bháis
Briseann an croí faoí dheireadh
Ar mháthair óg ón dTuaisceart.
Na garlaigh dís, iníonacha óga
Anois faoí cheo i bpríosún Lincoln.
A Mharian, A Dholorus, Slán go deo
Ní chloinnfidh sibh, ná ní fheicfidh sibh
Torann clochach na cré bui
Ag titeam ar chónra bhúr máthar.
A shaoirse, nach íobairteach
Scaradh clainne is deora faóí.
A Mharian, A Dholorus, Slán go deo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUjp5-TqaXc
No fan of thatcher or her works but some of the nonsense on here is dispicable and grossly ill-informed particularly on the Falklands. By all means hall her name and reputation over he coals for the Belgrano but anybody who thinks she had a choice not to go to war or that the argentinian conduct was anything less than illegal and disgusting suffers from some form of idiocy
Quote from: LCohen on April 08, 2013, 10:46:56 PM
No fan of thatcher or her works but some of the nonsense on here is dispicable and grossly ill-informed particularly on the Falklands. By all means hall her name and reputation over he coals for the Belgrano but anybody who thinks she had a choice not to go to war or that the argentinian conduct was anything less than illegal and disgusting suffers from some form of idiocy
Seafoid will set you straight with some carefully chosen Guardian excerpts.
I (and many others on this board) found it more than a little distasteful when Americans turned out en masse to celebrate the death of bin Laden at the gates of the White House. No doubt to Stew that makes me an al-Qaeda sympathiser or something. I'll shed no tears for the hoor and have no sympathy, but reveling in Thatcher's ultimate demise the way some are on here makes my stomach turn.
The death of Margaret Thatcher has sent a cacophony of sound, a kaleidoscope of colour and a feel good factor that could have us confuse this Monday morning for a Friday evening at the beginning of a bank holiday weekend among the working classes worldwide.
The mainstream media outlets will eulogise a tyrant in both British and (semi-British) Irish media outlets that will have little reflection on how the masses viewed the greatest narcissist in World politics in the last half century. But it will not reflect the general feeling of the masses who greeted the news of her demise with a huge,
'Thank f@#k for that'.
In South America she is hated for her resolute support for the detested Chilean dictator, General Pinochet, her support for right-wing Contras in Nicaragua and of course the abdominal sinking of the Argentine Navy light cruiser, the General Belgrano. The Belgrano was sailing away from the war zone of the Malvina's in 1982 when she was sunk on the orders of Thatcher with the loss of 323 souls. The action was a war crime.
In other notable International affairs she labelled Nelson Mandela a Terrorist and supported covertly the Apartheid rule in South Africa. Given her support for Pinochet and the right wing Contra's and her recourse to label the ANC terrorists, it's a relief to note Ireland's best shared the same stable with the ANC, PLO etc. Thatcher failed to hide her racist tendencies.
Ireland
In Ireland there will be those who uncompromisingly support the actions of Thatcher throughout the 32 counties. They are some of the few individuals who done exceedingly well from her neo-liberal policies that destroyed the lives of millions from the working classes, destroyed the welfare state and ensured greed, 'loads a money' and a mentality of 'me first' took over from the need for collective wellbeing.
But when the book on Thatcher is authored by the enlightened, it will make difficult reading for those who fought Thatcher only to surrender and embrace her political philosophy in the pursuit of that age-old fiendish crime, preoccupation with self.
In Ireland, few in politics are immune. The demolishing of the welfare system has been resumed by her greatest advocate, David Cameron and delivered with alarmingly little fuss by his contemporaries in the N.I Executive.
The closing of Residential Care Homes, Venerable Adult Day Care facilities, Specialist Care facilities, longer waiting lists for healthcare, Social housing, bedroom taxes, the removal of thousands from disability living allowance schemes, public services run into the ground etc. can be traced directly to Thatcher's policy of attacking the working classes and the poor. It is Thatcher's economic policies via her 'chomp' Cameron that the present Stormont Executive is administering.
Some of the great moral and intellectual capacity that once inspired the more heroic in the political mainstream has evaporated like a puddle in the Sahara. Ireland no longer enjoys visionaries like Connolly or Larkin.
While we have watched the appallingly ignorant diatribe of bombast and crocodile tears flood from the eyes and mouths of representatives of the five party Executive, only a complete failure to grasp the most basic in economics could prompt this strange inversion of logic while attempting to support the parties that administer these cuts. To be fair the shallowness is not evenly distributed and some members are beginning to question policy. But on the day of Thatcher's ultimate demise, it is important to show where the 'Left' resides.
The one question we all must ask ourselves, and we may wish to ignore the answer, Did Maggie Thatcher defeat Republicans & Socialists in Ireland?
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2013, 10:52:10 PM
I (and many others on this board) found it more than a little distasteful when Americans turned out en masse to celebrate the death of bin Laden at the gates of the White House. No doubt to Stew that makes me an al-Qaeda sympathiser or something. I'll shed no tears for the hoor and have no sympathy, but reveling in Thatcher's ultimate demise the way some are on here makes my stomach turn.
Dont confuse the Internet Warrier celebration with actual dancing on the street (or grave).
Quote from: Apparently so on April 08, 2013, 10:20:09 PM
Ohh ah, up the ra
Is this the kind of place the gaaboard is these days? Or whitty 3 liners about narrowly missed at Brighton?
Death is the greatest of levellers - and she has met hers.
Quote from: Puckoon on April 08, 2013, 11:05:51 PM
Quote from: Apparently so on April 08, 2013, 10:20:09 PM
Ohh ah, up the ra
Is this the kind of place the gaaboard is these days? Or whitty 3 liners about narrowly missed at Brighton?
Death is the greatest of levellers - and she has met hers.
Aye it's a bit of a hollow victory alright.
Quote from: Puckoon on April 08, 2013, 11:05:51 PM
Quote from: Apparently so on April 08, 2013, 10:20:09 PM
Ohh ah, up the ra
Is this the kind of place the gaaboard is these days? Or whitty 3 liners about narrowly missed at Brighton?
Death is the greatest of levellers - and she has met hers.
Ah ffs get over yourself, people are just happy that she has gone and will post 1,2or3liners just for the craic.
[/quote]I think the great unwashed of The Socialist Workers Party are involved in a lot of these "parties".
[/quote]
The lazy bastards don't have to get up for work in the morning. ;)
Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on April 08, 2013, 10:55:22 PM
The death of Margaret Thatcher has sent a cacophony of sound, a kaleidoscope of colour and a feel good factor that could have us confuse this Monday morning for a Friday evening at the beginning of a bank holiday weekend among the working classes worldwide.
The mainstream media outlets will eulogise a tyrant in both British and (semi-British) Irish media outlets that will have little reflection on how the masses viewed the greatest narcissist in World politics in the last half century. But it will not reflect the general feeling of the masses who greeted the news of her demise with a huge,
'Thank f@#k for that'.
In South America she is hated for her resolute support for the detested Chilean dictator, General Pinochet, her support for right-wing Contras in Nicaragua and of course the abdominal sinking of the Argentine Navy light cruiser, the General Belgrano. The Belgrano was sailing away from the war zone of the Malvina's in 1982 when she was sunk on the orders of Thatcher with the loss of 323 souls. The action was a war crime.
In other notable International affairs she labelled Nelson Mandela a Terrorist and supported covertly the Apartheid rule in South Africa. Given her support for Pinochet and the right wing Contra's and her recourse to label the ANC terrorists, it's a relief to note Ireland's best shared the same stable with the ANC, PLO etc. Thatcher failed to hide her racist tendencies.
Ireland
In Ireland there will be those who uncompromisingly support the actions of Thatcher throughout the 32 counties. They are some of the few individuals who done exceedingly well from her neo-liberal policies that destroyed the lives of millions from the working classes, destroyed the welfare state and ensured greed, 'loads a money' and a mentality of 'me first' took over from the need for collective wellbeing.
But when the book on Thatcher is authored by the enlightened, it will make difficult reading for those who fought Thatcher only to surrender and embrace her political philosophy in the pursuit of that age-old fiendish crime, preoccupation with self.
In Ireland, few in politics are immune. The demolishing of the welfare system has been resumed by her greatest advocate, David Cameron and delivered with alarmingly little fuss by his contemporaries in the N.I Executive.
The closing of Residential Care Homes, Venerable Adult Day Care facilities, Specialist Care facilities, longer waiting lists for healthcare, Social housing, bedroom taxes, the removal of thousands from disability living allowance schemes, public services run into the ground etc. can be traced directly to Thatcher's policy of attacking the working classes and the poor. It is Thatcher's economic policies via her 'chomp' Cameron that the present Stormont Executive is administering.
Some of the great moral and intellectual capacity that once inspired the more heroic in the political mainstream has evaporated like a puddle in the Sahara. Ireland no longer enjoys visionaries like Connolly or Larkin.
While we have watched the appallingly ignorant diatribe of bombast and crocodile tears flood from the eyes and mouths of representatives of the five party Executive, only a complete failure to grasp the most basic in economics could prompt this strange inversion of logic while attempting to support the parties that administer these cuts. To be fair the shallowness is not evenly distributed and some members are beginning to question policy. But on the day of Thatcher's ultimate demise, it is important to show where the 'Left' resides.
The one question we all must ask ourselves, and we may wish to ignore the answer, Did Maggie Thatcher defeat Republicans & Socialists in Ireland?
Her most evil bedfellow was surely Pol Pol and the Khmer Rouge. Sending the SAS to Cambodia to train the Khmer Rouge in technical areas such as planting landmines had devasting results for decades.
Quote from: blanketattack on April 08, 2013, 11:29:50 PM
Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on April 08, 2013, 10:55:22 PM
The death of Margaret Thatcher has sent a cacophony of sound, a kaleidoscope of colour and a feel good factor that could have us confuse this Monday morning for a Friday evening at the beginning of a bank holiday weekend among the working classes worldwide.
The mainstream media outlets will eulogise a tyrant in both British and (semi-British) Irish media outlets that will have little reflection on how the masses viewed the greatest narcissist in World politics in the last half century. But it will not reflect the general feeling of the masses who greeted the news of her demise with a huge,
'Thank f@#k for that'.
In South America she is hated for her resolute support for the detested Chilean dictator, General Pinochet, her support for right-wing Contras in Nicaragua and of course the abdominal sinking of the Argentine Navy light cruiser, the General Belgrano. The Belgrano was sailing away from the war zone of the Malvina's in 1982 when she was sunk on the orders of Thatcher with the loss of 323 souls. The action was a war crime.
In other notable International affairs she labelled Nelson Mandela a Terrorist and supported covertly the Apartheid rule in South Africa. Given her support for Pinochet and the right wing Contra's and her recourse to label the ANC terrorists, it's a relief to note Ireland's best shared the same stable with the ANC, PLO etc. Thatcher failed to hide her racist tendencies.
Ireland
In Ireland there will be those who uncompromisingly support the actions of Thatcher throughout the 32 counties. They are some of the few individuals who done exceedingly well from her neo-liberal policies that destroyed the lives of millions from the working classes, destroyed the welfare state and ensured greed, 'loads a money' and a mentality of 'me first' took over from the need for collective wellbeing.
But when the book on Thatcher is authored by the enlightened, it will make difficult reading for those who fought Thatcher only to surrender and embrace her political philosophy in the pursuit of that age-old fiendish crime, preoccupation with self.
In Ireland, few in politics are immune. The demolishing of the welfare system has been resumed by her greatest advocate, David Cameron and delivered with alarmingly little fuss by his contemporaries in the N.I Executive.
The closing of Residential Care Homes, Venerable Adult Day Care facilities, Specialist Care facilities, longer waiting lists for healthcare, Social housing, bedroom taxes, the removal of thousands from disability living allowance schemes, public services run into the ground etc. can be traced directly to Thatcher's policy of attacking the working classes and the poor. It is Thatcher's economic policies via her 'chomp' Cameron that the present Stormont Executive is administering.
Some of the great moral and intellectual capacity that once inspired the more heroic in the political mainstream has evaporated like a puddle in the Sahara. Ireland no longer enjoys visionaries like Connolly or Larkin.
While we have watched the appallingly ignorant diatribe of bombast and crocodile tears flood from the eyes and mouths of representatives of the five party Executive, only a complete failure to grasp the most basic in economics could prompt this strange inversion of logic while attempting to support the parties that administer these cuts. To be fair the shallowness is not evenly distributed and some members are beginning to question policy. But on the day of Thatcher's ultimate demise, it is important to show where the 'Left' resides.
The one question we all must ask ourselves, and we may wish to ignore the answer, Did Maggie Thatcher defeat Republicans & Socialists in Ireland?
Her most evil bedfellow was surely Pol Pol and the Khmer Rouge. Sending the SAS to Cambodia to train the Khmer Rouge in technical areas such as planting landmines had devasting results for decades.
Without a doubt
Quote from: seafoid on April 08, 2013, 07:37:47 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-editorial
Margaret Thatcher: the lady and the land she leaves behind
Her legacy is public division, private selfishness and a cult of greed that together shackle the human spirit
The Guardian, Monday 8 April 2013 18.35 BST
The English media don't comment negatively (or even at all) about Thatcher's Government record in the North, do they?
Strange one that, don't you think?
@skearon: @niallboylan4fm Thatcher deserves our gratitude for ensuring Provo thugs & criminals who didn't like prison food deservedly died painfully
I believe this **** Stephen Kearon is a former FF special advisor, special **** more like. ****
I had never heard of Thatcher's connection to the Khmer Rouge. Does anyone have a source to corroborate that link. Pinochet yes, but Pol Pot!
Shoot to kill policy.
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 09, 2013, 02:51:44 AM
I had never heard of Thatcher's connection to the Khmer Rouge. Does anyone have a source to corroborate that link. Pinochet yes, but Pol Pot!
Hadn't heard of it myself until today, but it makes sense in a "cold war politics" way. Link here:
http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/07/30/cocktails-with-khmer-rouge-killers/ (http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/07/30/cocktails-with-khmer-rouge-killers/)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHWwqRbCEAEolNV.jpg:large)
Cavalcade of cars leaving Twinbrook the home estate of Bobby Sands MP Tuesday night at 7pm to Divis tower avoiding Blacks Road via the Michael Ferguson roundabout into Poleglass and onto Glen Road, Shaws Road, Andersonstown Road, Falls Road in respect of the men of "81"
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 09, 2013, 02:51:44 AM
I had never heard of Thatcher's connection to the Khmer Rouge. Does anyone have a source to corroborate that link. Pinochet yes, but Pol Pot!
http://www.newstatesman.com/node/137397 (http://www.newstatesman.com/node/137397)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jan/09/cambodia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jan/09/cambodia)
and leaving the best to last
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G4dHRN2Dug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G4dHRN2Dug) so kids there was the good Khmer Rouge and the naughty bad Khmer Rouge, this is jaw dropping stuff even from this aul ****.
May she burn in hell the bastard.
George doesn't miss
http://redmolucca.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/tr**p-the-dirt-down/ (http://redmolucca.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/tr**p-the-dirt-down/)
Quote
"tr**p the Dirt Down"
This entry was posted on April 8, 2013, in Britain and tagged New Labour, Blair, Ireland, London, Thatcher, Poll Tax, Miners, Privatisation, Manufacture Industry, Tory, Liberal Democrats. Bookmark the permalink.
The old saw that one shouldn't speak ill of the recently dead cannot possibly apply to controversial figures in public life. It certainly didn't apply to President Hugo Chavez who predeceased Margaret Thatcher amidst a blizzard of abuse.
The main reason it must not preclude entering the lists amidst a wave of hagiographic sycophantic tosh of the kind that has engulfed Britain these last hours is that otherwise the hagiographers will have the field to themselves.
Every controversial divisive deadly thing that Thatcher did will be placed in soft focus, bathed in a rose-coloured light, and provide a first draft of history that will be, simply, wrong.
As is now well-known, I refused to do that today on the demise of a wicked woman who tore apart what remained good about my country, and set an agenda which has been followed, more or less, by all of her successors. I certainly wasn't prepared to leave the obituaries to those who profited from her rule or those who have aped her ever since.
So here is my own memory of Thatcher and what she did in her time on this earth.
On one of my first political demonstrations – against the Conservative government of Edward Heath (1970-74) the slogan of the day was "Margaret Thatcher- Milk snatcher". It was the first but not the last time I spat out her name in distaste.
Before Thatcher, every primary school pupil received 1/3 of a pint of milk every morning. For some it was the difference between breakfast and no breakfast. I was sometimes one of those. I grew up in a brief period of social democracy in Britain, being dosed by the state with free cod-liver oil, orange juice and malt to build up my strength. Having been born in a slum tenement into a one-room attic in an Irish immigrant area, I needed all of that and more. And like millions I got it, until Thatcher took it away.
She became the Conservative leader after Heath's two electoral defeats in 1974 and his subsequent resignation.
She was a new type of Tory leader, entirely lacking in anything resembling "noblesse oblige". She was nasty, brutish and short of the class previously thought obligatory in Britain amongst leaders of the ruling elite. She was vulgar, money-worshipping, and blasphemous. She believed the important part of the Biblical story of the "Good Samaritan" was not that he refused to pass by the suffering on the other side of the road but that he had "loadsamoney".
In the infamous sermon on the Mound in Edinburgh addressing the Church of Scotland she opined that there was "no such thing as society"..."only individuals"
As the Labour leader Neil Kinnock, in one of his better efforts, retorted: "No such thing as society? Only individuals? No such thing as honouring other people's parents? No such thing as cherishing other people's children? No such thing as us and always? Just ME and NOW? ME and NOW?"
She was the living embodiment of Marx's prediction that under capitalism "all that is solid will melt into air... all that is sacred will be profaned"
Upon her election as prime minister (with just 40% of the vote, her position ensured by the treacherous defection from the Labour cause of the rats now squirming on the Liberal-Democrat ship) she set about "transforming" Britain allright. She privatised Britain's key industries, enriching her friends, and robbing the public of their birthright. When she took over "Financial Services" represented 3% of the British economy; when she left office it was 40%.
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/battle-of-orgreave-010.jpg?w=283&h=170)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/287581.jpg?w=255&h=170)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/574polltaxdemo.jpg?w=299&h=366)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/images-5.jpeg?w=239&h=228)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/574polltaxdemo.jpg?w=299&h=366)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/images-6.jpeg?w=246&h=164)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/images-7.jpeg?w=292&h=164)
She destroyed the coal industry, the steel, car, bus and motor-cycle manufacturing, truck and bus-making, ship-building and print-industry, the railway workshops... she destroyed more than a third of Britain's manufacturing capacity, significantly more than Hitler's Luftwaffe ever achieved.
She did this not just because she prefered the spivs and gamblers in the city -they were her kind of people. But because above all, she hated trades unionism, and was determined to destroy it.
I was a leading member of the Scottish Labour Party at the time she came into office, and a full-time Labour organiser. Scotland was to become an industrial wasteland in the first years of her rule.
I was also, from 1973, a member of the then Transport and General Workers Union, one of her key targets – especially our Docks section.
Importantly, for me, I was an honorary member of the National Union of Mineworkers too.
In all of these capacities I was a front-line short-sword fighter in the rearguard action against Thatcherism.
I fought her at Bathgate, at Linwood, when she was sacking the automotive industry. I fought her at Wapping – every Saturday night when she destroyed the Print workers on behalf of her friend, the organised crime firm owner, Rupert Murdoch. I fought every day of the Miners strike when she destroyed the Miners Union and the communities they represented. I fought her at Timex in Dundee at Massey Ferguson in Kilmarnock, and at the aluminium smelter in Invergordon.
I fought against her poll tax – imposed first in Scotland – as a refusenik of the most iniquitous tax in Britain since mediaeval times, the tax which ended in flames – literally – whilst I was on the platform at Trafalgar Square. And which finally produced her political demise.
And I toured – as a political activist – the desolation in Britain's post-industrial distressed areas which she left behind. The City of London – deregulated by her – boomed whilst the coalfields and steel areas sank into penury. I saw the rusted factories the flooded mines the idle shipyards and the devilish results of millions of newly and enforced idle hands.
I faced her in parliament from 1987 as well, on these and other issues.
You see it wasn't just Britain that Thatcher made bleed.
Her withdrawal of political status from Irish republican prisoners and her brutal, securocratic, militarisation of the situation in the north led to much additional suffering in Ireland.
State collusion in the murder of Catholics became endemic during her rule. And ten young men were starved to death for the restoration of political status, before our eyes in her dungeons. She finally died on the anniversary of their leader, Bobby Sands, being elected to parliament as he lay on his death-bed.
During the Falklands War, she sent hundreds of young Argentinian conscripts to a watery grave when she shot the Argentine warship the Belgrano in the back – as it was speeding away from the conflict. She mercilessly exploited the sacrifice of them, and our own soldiers sailors and airmen, to save her own political skin. A lot of brave men had to leave their guts on Goose Green to keep Thatcher in power.
She pushed her alter ego – the semi-imbecilic US president Ronald Reagan – into Cold War fanaticism and burgeoning expenditure on more and more terrifying weapons – many of them stationed on our soil.
She pushed his successor George Bush Sen into the first Iraq War.
I was there, I saw her lips move, when she described Nelson Mandela as a "common terrorist".
She continued to recognise the genocidal and deposed Pol Pot regime in Cambodia – insisting that Pol Pot was the real and recognised leader of the Cambodians, even as they counted his victims in millions.
And she was the author of the policy of military, political, diplomatic and media support of the Afghan obscurantists who became the Taliban and Al Qaeda. She even produced them on the platform of the Tory Party conference, hailing them as "freedom-fighters".
I was one of the last men standing in parliament opposing this immoral policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
On the eve of the triumph of these "freedom Fighters" I told Thatcher to her face; "You have opened the gates for the barbarians....and a long dark night will now descend upon the people of Afghanistan". I never said a truer word.
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nelson-mandela.jpg?w=313&h=307)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/bobby-sands.jpg?w=225&h=168)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/taliban-kabul-1005-008.jpg?w=225&h=135)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/220px-polpot.jpg?w=191&h=260)
(http://redmolucca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/images-4.jpeg?w=347&h=260)
I hated Margaret Thatcher for what seems like all my life. I hated her more than I hated anyone – until the mass murderer Tony Blair came along.
It would have been utter hypocrisy for me to have remained silent about her crimes today whilst the political class – including New Labour – poured honeyed words, lies actually, over her blood-spattered record.
I could not do it. I believe I spoke for millions. The wicked witch is dead. tr**p the dirt down.
George Galloway MP
House of Commons
London
Design by Gayatri
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHZAlw8CAAAcEhg.jpg)
Quote from: passedit on April 09, 2013, 09:52:50 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHZAlw8CAAAcEhg.jpg)
that is a keeper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPzzgE34YQY
Where there was discord, she did not bring harmony.
Bobby Sands was elected 32 years ago on this day with 30,493 votes as MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone. That was about 10,000 votes more than Margaret Thatcher got in Finchley.
The people of West Belfast seem to be coping well with the news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U)
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 12:18:49 PM
The people of West Belfast seem to be coping well with the news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U)
Like a lot of these parties across the UK there wouldn't be too many there getting up to do a days work today.
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 09, 2013, 12:48:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 12:18:49 PM
The people of West Belfast seem to be coping well with the news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U)
Like a lot of these parties across the UK there wouldn't be too many there getting up to do a days work today.
::)
Having a party for someone dying strikes me as being like having a party for beating the Kilkenny footballers.
Quote from: deiseach on April 09, 2013, 12:52:08 PM
Having a party for someone dying strikes me as being like having a party for beating the Kilkenny footballers.
The difference of course being that that Kilkenny footballers weren't/aren't inhumane war criminals.
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 09, 2013, 12:48:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 12:18:49 PM
The people of West Belfast seem to be coping well with the news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U)
Like a lot of these parties across the UK there wouldn't be too many there getting up to do a days work today.
A lot of people were there remembering those who suffered at her hand, i think Patsy O Hares mum was at free Derry corner last night and expressing the joy that at long last Thacher is were she belongs, may the fires of hell burn long and hot on her. I called to the chapel last night for a few prayers then I had a few beers for those people and will be going out next wednesday to do the same.
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 09, 2013, 12:48:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 12:18:49 PM
The people of West Belfast seem to be coping well with the news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U)
Like a lot of these parties across the UK there wouldn't be too many there getting up to do a days work today.
There's a certain irony in the above post.
Quote from: qubdub on April 09, 2013, 01:06:52 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 09, 2013, 12:48:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 12:18:49 PM
The people of West Belfast seem to be coping well with the news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U)
Like a lot of these parties across the UK there wouldn't be too many there getting up to do a days work today.
There's a certain irony in the above post.
Yeah Saffongael loves being part of the UK. :-[
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 12:53:54 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 09, 2013, 12:52:08 PM
Having a party for someone dying strikes me as being like having a party for beating the Kilkenny footballers.
The difference of course being that that Kilkenny footballers weren't/aren't inhumane war criminals.
Like Sinn Fein and the IRA.....
Read something earlier that Harold Wilson closed 93 pits compared to 20 under Mags.
Freestatism >:(
Primetime last night wheeled out Gerry Collins former FF minister ("The Republican Party!!") and Ronan Fanning (UCD) to eulogise the bitch and to excuse her policies in the north. I wonder if men like that had seen their close neighbours murdered as a direct result of Thatcher's policies, would they be spouting the same horseshit.
Quote from: qubdub on April 09, 2013, 01:06:52 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 09, 2013, 12:48:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 12:18:49 PM
The people of West Belfast seem to be coping well with the news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlJgngmV8U)
Like a lot of these parties across the UK there wouldn't be too many there getting up to do a days work today.
There's a certain irony in the above post.
I was thinking that too. She put enough out of work and created the welfare culture in her drive to get people off the dole.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 01:31:10 PM
Freestatism >:(
Primetime last night wheeled out Gerry Collins former FF minister ("The Republican Party!!") and Ronan Fanning (UCD) to eulogise the bitch and to excuse her policies in the north. I wonder if men like that had seen their close neighbours murdered as a direct result of Thatcher's policies, would they be spouting the same horseshit.
I didn't see it because I was in the pub ;D but a mate of mine texted after watching it and he was raging. Gerry Collins is a joke anyway. Hope he didn't start crying!
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 01:31:10 PM
Freestatism >:(
Primetime last night wheeled out Gerry Collins former FF minister ("The Republican Party!!") and Ronan Fanning (UCD) to eulogise the bitch and to excuse her policies in the north. I wonder if men like that had seen their close neighbours murdered as a direct result of Thatcher's policies, would they be spouting the same horseshit.
Kelly was well able for them. ;D
What home for the aged did they find 'Gerard' Collins in?
Albert - you'll burst the party :'(
What I found odd was that there was little celebration when Maggie Thatcher was ousted as PM when she was a huge threat and influence, but there was big celebrations when she died even though at 87 years old, suffering from dementia and numerous strokes she had very little influence and was no threat to anyone. Surely being ousted from the role of PM or even when she bowed out of politics were more a cause for celebration than her death?
The other thing I found odd is how young John Major looks, he looks more like 50 than 70.
Quote from: blanketattack on April 09, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
What I found odd was that there was little celebration when Maggie Thatcher was ousted as PM when she was a huge threat and influence, but there was big celebrations when she died even though at 87 years old, suffering from dementia and numerous strokes she had very little influence and was no threat to anyone. Surely being ousted from the role of PM or even when she bowed out of politics were more a cause for celebration than her death?
What's different is the internet. There was much rejoicing when she left Number 10 with her (pointy) tail between her legs, but how would you have organised an impromptu party? Placed an ad in the Daily Mail? Called the BBC?
Quote from: blanketattack on April 09, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
What I found odd was that there was little celebration when Maggie Thatcher was ousted as PM when she was a huge threat and influence, but there was big celebrations when she died even though at 87 years old, suffering from dementia and numerous strokes she had very little influence and was no threat to anyone. Surely being ousted from the role of PM or even when she bowed out of politics were more a cause for celebration than her death?
The other thing I found odd is how young John Major looks, he looks more like 50 than 70.
I remember it being a huge relief.
Quote from: Orior on April 09, 2013, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: blanketattack on April 09, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
What I found odd was that there was little celebration when Maggie Thatcher was ousted as PM when she was a huge threat and influence, but there was big celebrations when she died even though at 87 years old, suffering from dementia and numerous strokes she had very little influence and was no threat to anyone. Surely being ousted from the role of PM or even when she bowed out of politics were more a cause for celebration than her death?
The other thing I found odd is how young John Major looks, he looks more like 50 than 70.
I remember it being a huge relief.
Me too. Went to see Billy Bragg in the Olympia shortly afterwards, and the biggest cheer of the night was for his "ding dong the witch is dead" dance of joy.
Bump!!!! ;)
Think everything has been said.
Quote from: Armaghgeddon on April 09, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Think everything has been said.
I agree, im sick of listening about the aul bastard
I Waited a long time before posting on here before commenting because my emotions were very strange to me, rather than hate on her I simply want to take time to think of her and her hateful legacy, after that I simply want to forget she existed because she does not merit any of our time. Shane said a while back that she was on old woman and he wasn't going to celebrate her death, I am amazed to find I could not find it in my heart to do so either.
Interesting that she spent her last few months in The Ritz and now some shithole privatised nursing home
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 09, 2013, 12:53:54 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 09, 2013, 12:52:08 PM
Having a party for someone dying strikes me as being like having a party for beating the Kilkenny footballers.
The difference of course being that that Kilkenny footballers weren't/aren't inhumane war criminals.
Of course if you consider the conflict here to have been a war, republicans are guilty of numerous inhumane war crimes.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 09, 2013, 12:25:11 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 08, 2013, 10:46:56 PM
No fan of thatcher or her works but some of the nonsense on here is dispicable and grossly ill-informed particularly on the Falklands. By all means hall her name and reputation over he coals for the Belgrano but anybody who thinks she had a choice not to go to war or that the argentinian conduct was anything less than illegal and disgusting suffers from some form of idiocy
The Falklands War was certainly avoidable, and if you believe in the conspiracies surrounding it then the Conservative government of the time was engineering the Argentines to take the bait by withdrawing most of the UK armed forces from the islands in the early 80's. Thatcher's government at the time was unpopular as her monetarist economic strategy (initially started under the previous Callaghan Labour government - Thatcher just ramped it up a bit more) was not showing signs of improving the British economy and the SDP/Liberal alliance was surging ahead in opinion polls - the war ended up giving Thatcher a major rub and ensured her victory in the general election the following year. But as mentioned earlier, it was avoidable - one in that had the military presence not been scaled down it could have provided an effective deterrent to the Junta in the first place
Presumably if you don't believe the conspiracy theories (that the junta were entrapped into the war) then the war was not unavoidable. I'm not sure anbody credible believes that the british demilitarised the Falklands in order to entice an ontherwise peaceable right wing brutal junta with severe domestic issues to invade and the troops to turn right around and travel back across the world and win a war in time for an election. I think the idea that the election was called early to capitalise on her new found popularity (ultimately disasterous for the british people) is a lot more plausable.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 09, 2013, 12:25:11 AM
also much of Argentina's debt was to the governments of the USA and UK. When you think about the relationship she had with Ronald Regan, if both countries had decided to tell the Argentines that they were calling their debt in then the Junta wouldn't have had any money to finance an invasion outside of the gimmick of landing on South Georgia.
What was the Thatcher/Reagan relationship like at that time? We know what it was like later but back then was it strong enough?
A significant body of credible comemtators would point to the Argies true motives - a distracting attack against a foreign enemy. Debt foreclosue by that same enemy as a means of preventing an attack on that enemy is interesting. Have a strange feeling the argies would have launched their attack with greater ugency in that scenario.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 09, 2013, 12:25:11 AM
She pretty much smashed the Munroe Doctrine dead by the finish.
It doubtful whether the original british occupation of the Falklands was a breach of the convention. The decision to re-militarise it in 1982 certainly was not a breach. How could it have been?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 09, 2013, 12:25:11 AM
In the end many British lives (leaving aside any Argentine ones - they should be left in the hands of their Junta really) were lost either though a naive overseas territory policy or a deliberate bit of international grandstanding. And for many British soldiers who fought to expel the Argentine forces, they later ended up being regarded as "the enemy within".
Naive? Explain how Britain could have ignored the islander' pleas?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 09, 2013, 12:25:11 AM
Without the Falklands war happening Thatcher would very likely have been either a one-term PM with a historical profile of ineptitude, or leading a minority government after the next election depending on support & concessions with the SDP & Liberals.
Agree. And lets be clear I would rather she and the argentinian junta had never came to power
On balance:
1 - Falklands - She went against the advice of the weaker members of her cabinet and military advisers and insisted on a forceful response. In hindsight I think that turned out to be the correct response from a British point of view. If the Brits are going to hold on to these random bits of rock all over the place, they have to be prepared to defend them, and in fairness you can't really let people take territory by force in this day and age. Galtieri was actually a friend of the Reagan administration too, so the dynamics there are quite interesting.
Their fleet was old and decrepit though, a result of her own spending cuts.
The sinking of the Belgrano was uncalled for. That was more about making a political statement than dealing with an actual threat.
D+.
2 - Labour relations - A lot of people forget how strong the unions had gotten by the 70s. Trade union leaders were the most powerful men in the country and they could hold the place to ransom. Down tools at the drop of a hat. She pushed back against this culture of "how dare you make us be more productive" which was necessary up to a point, but then she went too far and swung the pendulum too far to the point where unions became too weak IMHO. There was no need for that. The Germans were able to make their economy more competitive without taking a shit on the working man.
C-
3 - Economy - Fighting inflation was necessary, I'll give her that. But she stubbornly stuck to monetary policy and refused to take other stimulatory measures for ideological reasons.
De-industrialisation was very badly handled, no measures were taken to move the economy in a new direction. Could have invested in R&D and new technologies, but instead left it up to market forces. Market fundamentalism is not a good basis for policy.
C-
4 - Ireland - Maggie's record in Ireland is a perfect illustration of why Britain should not be governing any part of the country. They've never governed it properly because they don't understand the place, and they don't understand the place because it's not their country.
She found herself on a learning curve. Thought she could throw her weight around and be as stubborn as she liked with the Irish, but didn't realise who she was dealing with or the history of the situation. Stubbornness and incompetence are a deadly combination. The hunger strikes were an almighty blunder on her part, it was completely unnecessary to let that situation escalate the way it did, the Brighton bomb* woke her up to the importance of what she was dealing with, and the Anglo Irish Agreement was a sign that she eventually realised that you can't exclude the free state from the process.
*Proceeding with the Tory Party conference as scheduled was interesting. Didn't let it stop her. You have to tip your hat to her determination there on a personal level, I couldn't see any American politician acting like that. They'd be crying in front of the TV cameras before hiding in a concrete bunker.
F-
5 Taxation - Poll tax: the less that's said the better.
F--
6 - Europe - Looks like a lot of what she said about Europe has turned out to be more insightful than we thought. Her fear was a "federal Europe through the back door." Now if you're in favour of a federal Europe, by all means go out and campaign for it, convince people, and let them vote on it, but be open about it. But to gently ease the people into it without them realising through a succession of complex treaties? That's just sneaky. "Sign here mate" at the bottom of a very long contract should be the start of a long reading process, and if it's too long to read then send it back and tell them to simplify it so you can see exactly what you're signing up to. You don't want people waking up one morning needing to adjust their interest rates and suddenly realising that at last night's party they gave that power away to the European Central Bank.
She was also opposed to Britain joining the single currency, and given Ireland's woes as a result of Eurozone membership, that would seem to have been the right choice for Britain.
B
7 - Foreign policy - This is where her right wing market fundamentalism clouded her judgment, big time. Support for Augusto Pinochet's murderous regime in Chile was inexcusable. Her dismissal of Nelson Mandela and the ANC as "terrorists" and refusal to apply sanctions on apartheid South Africa was a disgrace. Helping the US to drop bombs on Libya only strengthened Gadaffi's hand, probably added another ten years to his grip on the Libyan people.
F--
8 - Overall - Yeah, definitely a transformative figure, made a lot of necessary reforms, but had no compassion for the working man and did nothing to soften the blow. It's alright saying what industry can no longer produce economically, but you have to replace it with something and you can't just leave it up to the "magic of the market" when people need to put food on the table for their families. Government can play a role there, and has a duty to step in when the market doesn't. It's all right making industry more competitive by not letting the unions hold the country to ransom, but workers still need some sort of reasonable protection from exploitation.
Policy in Ireland has to be more imaginative than repeating the mantra "we will defeat terrorism," and she seemed to get it in the end, but a Prime Minister should understand these things straight away, Number 10 is no place for on-the-job training. You have responsibilities, you have to live up to them.
It's all right being decisive and showing leadership, but that sort of thing can go to your head after a while to the point where you stop listening to good advice. One good thing about the parliamentary system is that while a PM has a lot of power, he/she still can't govern without the support of their own party and if she's been in power for so long that she starts getting cocky enough to rob from the poor to give to the rich with a poll tax, she can be ousted.
She did a lot of things that were necessary for the time, but went to far with a lot of it. Decisiveness and determination can be admirable traits when applied correctly in certain situations, but when it stops you from listening then it becomes a problem.
So I don't know if I'll go as far as joining in with the street parties, but I won't be putting her on a pedestal either. And I certainly don't agree with the gushing and fawning eulogies that the US media are cranking out at the minute.
D-
Decent post Eamon.
Although linking Ireland's economic woes to the Euro, and giving her credit for not joining, when Britain is in as bad a position financially, all on its own, doesn't add up for me. She put all her eggs into the City and it hasn't worked, Europe or no Europe.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2013, 08:32:01 PM
Decent post Eamon.
Although linking Ireland's economic woes to the Euro, and giving her credit for not joining, when Britain is in as bad a position financially, all on its own, doesn't add up for me. She put all her eggs into the City and it hasn't worked, Europe or no Europe.
She was very divisive. The Tories still can't deal with Europe. It will tear them apart again in a few years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHYOXyy1ToI
And the UK economy is a total mess. They can't blame the ECB either.
Triple dip. Austerity just made everything worse.
my sympathies to her family may she rest in peace..
(http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/04/blogs/graphic-detail/20130413_gdc402_1.png)
Oh I'm sure the Thatcher apologists will put a spin on that.
Quote from: theticklemister on April 08, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 08, 2013, 04:27:51 PM
Adams aside, have any Irish politicians called a spade a spade today?
Im waiting for McGuinness to offer his condolences any time now.
Not quite. But he doesn't want any celebrations either.
The dancing in the streets puts me in mind of the people who line up outside court houses to take a kick at prison vans carrying the latest Fred West/ Myra Hindley/ Mick Philpott type character. For total half wits only.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 09, 2013, 10:22:33 PM
The dancing in the streets puts me in mind of the people who line up outside court houses to take a kick at prison vans carrying the latest Fred West/ Myra Hindley/ Mick Philpott type character. For total half wits only.
I am glad the bitch is no longer breathing and I wish she had died in Brighton that unlucky night but I must agree that street parties are not what is called for. Reminds me of the stupid Americans dancing on the streets when Binladen was shot.
It is the language she understood, distasteful as this may seem to many.
Saw graffiti, huge lettering, behind St Mary's teacher training college this morning
"Rot in hell Tatcher scum"
;D
The more I think about these parties, the more I don't have an issue with them (caveat...as long as those celebrating have truely been affected by her policies). People whose lives have been ruined by her have every right to paint her in a bad light as distasteful as it is to the main stream out there. At least history will have a record of the contempt people had for her and thats no bad thing IMO. I'm sure there are many considerate individuals who've thought long and hard about breaking the norms of society and have came out to "celebrate" to make a point (as much as it doesn't sit well with them what their doing).
****Tony Blairs comments about the revelers made me think about their actions in a different way........Imagine using a mass murderer like him as a moral compass.
Quote from: theskull1 on April 10, 2013, 09:35:45 AM
****Tony Blairs comments about the revelers made me think about their actions in a different way........Imagine using a mass murderer like him as a moral compass.
Good point. Listening to the spluttering outrage in his voice at such a crime against humanity . . . rancid.
Ding Dong the witch is dead, by Judy Garland from the the Wizard of Oz is No.2 on the I-tunes chart.
Also heard there is a proposal to rename Port Stanley to Port Margaret. That'll go down well with the Argies...
Quote from: deiseach on April 10, 2013, 09:40:41 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 10, 2013, 09:35:45 AM
****Tony Blairs comments about the revelers made me think about their actions in a different way........Imagine using a mass murderer like him as a moral compass.
Good point. Listening to the spluttering outrage in his voice at such a crime against humanity . . . rancid.
The spluttering was more to do with him just realising he'd had a visit from the ghost of christmas future. The street parties are a welcome and necessary antidote to the rewriting of history in the mainstream media, not least the coal strike Riefenstahls in the BBC. I hope they try the minute's silence at this weekends football games, then the world will see what her own people thought of her.Ten million they're going to spend seeing her off. It would have been better spent 87 years ago.
Edit, antidote to Orwellian shit like this
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHekHSiCQAAGepq.jpg)
Parliament recalled so a few patsies can line up to tell the world what a great person she was.
War is Peace
Seems to me that we're in for the mother of all street parties here, when the likes of Paisley and Adams shuffle off this mortal coil, now that the precedent has been established. We'll probably end up with another quango to sort it all out, The Street Party Commission :-\
Quote from: passedit on April 10, 2013, 09:54:52 AM
The spluttering was more to do with him just realising he'd had a visit from the ghost of christmas future. The street parties are a welcome and necessary antidote to the rewriting of history in the mainstream media, not least the coal strike Riefenstahls in the BBC. I hope they try the minute's silence at this weekends football games, then the world will see what her own people thought of her.Ten million they're going to spend seeing her off. It would have been better spent 87 years ago.
You're probably right. I was thunderstruck at the worshipful tone of Nick Robinson on the Beeb last night. Whatever became of the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation?
Quote from: deiseach on April 10, 2013, 10:10:41 AM
Quote from: passedit on April 10, 2013, 09:54:52 AM
The spluttering was more to do with him just realising he'd had a visit from the ghost of christmas future. The street parties are a welcome and necessary antidote to the rewriting of history in the mainstream media, not least the coal strike Riefenstahls in the BBC. I hope they try the minute's silence at this weekends football games, then the world will see what her own people thought of her.Ten million they're going to spend seeing her off. It would have been better spent 87 years ago.
You're probably right. I was thunderstruck at the worshipful tone of Nick Robinson on the Beeb last night. Whatever became of the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation?
Always the Establishment dear boy, just hid it well (In Britain anyway, no one in the north was ever fooled).
QuotePaul Waugh @paulwaugh 6m
Mirror reports MPs can claim £3,750 each to get back to UK for tday's special Lady Thatcher session of Parliament http://polho.me/10Jia9p (http://polho.me/10Jia9p)
Retweeted by Ian Fraser
View summary
Raj Rattu Raj Rattu @rajkumar128
QuoteMargaret Thatcher dead: Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead tops download charts after campaign by late PM's critics
9 Apr 2013 20:03
The Judy Garland version of the Wizard of Oz song has raced to number 1 on the Amazon charts and number 2 with iTunes users
Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead has soared to the top of the download charts after an online campaign by Margaret Thatcher's critics.
The Judy Garland version of the Wizard of Oz song tonight raced to number 1 on the Amazon charts and number 2 on the iTunes charts.
While many mourned the former Prime Minister who died aged 87 yesterday, many others saw her death as a cause for celebration.
The latest figures from the Official Charts Company - which compiles sales from all online and high street retailers - were released yesterday.
Those showed Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead had reached number 54 within 12 hours of the death of Baroness Thatcher being announced.
Given its continuing success with users of Amazon and iTunes, two of the biggest online music stores, the song is expected to have climbed much higher when sales figures are updated.
The Official Charts Company midweek sales chart will be released tomorrow and then on Sunday evening the traditional top 40 chart will be revealed.
In the 1939 musical Dorothy, played by Garland, sings the song with the Munchkins and Glinda the Good Witch after the death of the Wicked Witch of the East.
(http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1819610.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Margaret-Thatcher-Oz-620-1819610.jpg)
There had been some speculation that the track might be too short to qualify at just 51 seconds, but chart bosses say it is eligible.
In 2007 the track The Ladies Bras by Wisbey made the chart despite lasting just 36 seconds.
But Garland's version is not the only one to be selling: A version by Ella Fitzgerald is at 146 and one by the Munchkins is at 183.
A spokesman for the Official Singles Chart told the Mirror today: "If the sales of all three were combined, the song would be in 40th place today, with almost 2,500 sales."
The Facebook group campaigning for Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead to hit the top of the charts now has over 4,000 members
There had not been a post for three months until the news broke this morning that the former Prime Minister had died.
The divisive former PM's death has also led to a burst of sales for Elvis Costello's track about Baroness Thatcher - tr**p The Dirt Down.
The song, from his 1989 album Spike, was at number 85 in the iTunes chart this afternoon.
Respect MP George Galloway referred to the track in a message on Twitter in the wake of her death.
Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-ding-dong-1821155#ixzz2Q3ChPLyS (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-ding-dong-1821155#ixzz2Q3ChPLyS)
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Quote from: T Fearon on April 10, 2013, 09:58:21 AM
Seems to me that we're in for the mother of all street parties here, when the likes of Paisley and Adams shuffle off this mortal coil, now that the precedent has been established. We'll probably end up with another quango to sort it all out, The Street Party Commission :-\
That would be a bit too close to home IMO
Quote from: passedit on April 10, 2013, 09:54:52 AM
Edit, antidote to Orwellian shit like this
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHekHSiCQAAGepq.jpg)
Parliament recalled so a few patsies can line up to tell the world what a great person she was.
War is Peace
So the Respect MP doesn't want to show respect :-\
Respect has to be earned Leo and Thatcher wasn't overly concerned about respecting people herself so its good enough for her.
I was never so sure about the street partying but it has brought into focus the ill she brought upon a lot of people which may have been airbrushed out of history if the media had been given a free hand to report as they say fit.
I think it was Johnny Vegas on Ryan Tubridy the other morning talking about how she devastated communities and left nothing to replace these industries she was set on destroying and remembers his father dragging a piece of scrap metal for miles to a scrap yard to get a few quid, its no wonder she's a hate figure to so many in England let alone the shoot to kill policy, two faced dealings with the hunger strikers and what not over here.
On a similar vein it was either Shirley Williams or Ken Livingstone on Newsnight pointed out that in the light of George Osbournes comments on the Philpotts the previous week that indirectly Thatcher was the creator of the benefits culture when you create an economy heavily reliant on the finance sector (coupled with Scottish Oil) then you are accepting of having 2 to 3 million unemployed as a consequence.
I thought that was a very valid point not being discussed about her 'legacy'.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 10, 2013, 09:58:21 AM
Seems to me that we're in for the mother of all street parties here, when the likes of Paisley and Adams shuffle off this mortal coil, now that the precedent has been established. We'll probably end up with another quango to sort it all out, The Street Party Commission :-\
They wouldn't be in the same league as Thatcher for most people I'd imagine.
WHEN Mark Thatcher went missing in the Sahara while taking part in an international motor race in January 1982, his ashen-faced mother, upset and distressed, appeared on television close to breaking down. She prayed to God that Mark wouldn’t die, that he would be rescued.
Six months earlier, Rosaleen Sands appeared on television, interviewed in the car park of Long Kesh, and prayed for her son, Bobby, and asked Margaret Thatcher to compromise and resolve the hunger strike. We all know how Thatcher answered, and the mountain of suffering that nationalists in the North experienced under her premiership.
Ironically, this is the day, 32 years ago, that Bobby Sands was elected MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Thatcher’s mantra to republicans before that was: “‘How can I talk to you, you don’t have a mandate.” But when Bobby got elected (with almost 10,000 more votes than Thatcher got in her constituency!), the British Prime Minister rushed through an amendment to the Representation of the People Act to prevent any other prisoner being elected in his place.
When Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, and I were elected to the Assembly in 1982, Thatcher issued exclusion orders against us, banning us from entering Britain on pain of a five-year prison sentence. My ban lasted 13 years. In 1988, she introduced the Broadcasting Act banning Sinn Féin elected representatives from being interviewed on radio and television. Yes, she was the ‘Queen of Democracy’ for sure.
I remember the 10 men who died on hunger strike but also women and children her forces killed with impunity and immunity, people like:-
• 14-year-old Julie Livingstone, shot dead by the British Army the day Francis Hughes died in jail;
• 11-year-old Carol Ann Kelly, shot dead a week later while getting milk for a neighbour;
• And on the morning of Joe McDonnell’s death in jail, my childhood friend, Nora McCabe, a mother of three, shot dead seconds after going to buy a packet of cigarettes to calm her nerves.
These are just some of the names. The list runs to hundreds when we add to it those killed by loyalist groups that were rearmed and reorganised by British Military Intelligence, which reported to Prime Minister Thatcher until her resignation.
Thatcher sanctioned the use of supergrass trials which completely undermined the justice system. She authorised the shoot-to-kill policy and her colleagues subsequently undermined the attempt by Deputy Chief Constable John Stalker to get to the truth. She authorised the attacks on republican funerals and created an atmosphere of hatred and bitterness which ultimately led to the attempt on her life by the IRA in the Brighton bombing in 1984.
Of course, she also destroyed proud working-class communities in Britain with her social and economic policies. And over lunch one Sunday she ordered the sinking of the Argentinian vessel Belgrano during the Malvinas/Falklands War even though it was outside the 200-mile exclusion zone and was sailing away from the area of conflict. More than 323 sailors died, many of them teenage cadets.
When Carol Thatcher, Margaret’s journalist daughter, travelled to the Malvinas/Falklands and Argentina to make a documentary on the 25th anniversary, one woman whose son died on the Belgrano said to her: “I never saw him again because your mother killed him.”
In 1986, she and US President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya, which took the lives of over 130 civilians.
Some have argued that Thatcher stood up to the unionists when she signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement in November 1985 and should be given credit. But her motives were two-fold: she expected extradition to be made easier and increased security collaboration in the fight against republicanism. She was, indeed, also responding to the warnings from then Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald that something needed to be done to halt the electoral rise of Sinn Féin.
In reality, it was the suffering and determination of the Northern nationalist community which forced change.
When Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 we know that on her desk was a secret assessment of the IRA by the British Army’s Brigadier James Glover, commander of land forces in the North. He said the IRA would continue with its war until there was an acceptable political settlement.
He rejected the official propaganda line which was the basis for the treatment of the men in the H-Blocks and the women in Armagh Jail. He said that IRA Volunteers were not criminals but were talented and dedicated.
Thatcher put my community through hell and her policies unnecessarily protracted the conflict. When it came to a political agreement on Good Friday 1998, the prisoners in the H-Blocks were given early release (an ‘amnesty’) which was recognition that the British knew they were political prisoners all along.
I was in jail (again as a result of her dirty war and use of agents provocateurs) when she resigned in 1990. One newspaper told this story:
“‘The bad news,’ said a voice over the public-address system in a north London railway station, ‘is that a signal failure means another delay. The good news is that Thatcher’s resigned! Hip, Hip, Hooray!’ Most of the commuters cheered.”
I once might have cheered her passing. But now I am indifferent — though I will never forget what she did, and all those who died on her watch.
• This article first appeared in the Irish Examiner by Danny Morrison
Quote from: johnneycool on April 10, 2013, 10:57:45 AM
Respect has to be earned Leo and Thatcher wasn't overly concerned about respecting people herself so its good enough for her.
I was never so sure about the street partying but it has brought into focus the ill she brought upon a lot of people which may have been airbrushed out of history if the media had been given a free hand to report as they say fit.
I think it was Johnny Vegas on Ryan Tubridy the other morning talking about how she devastated communities and left nothing to replace these industries she was set on destroying and remembers his father dragging a piece of scrap metal for miles to a scrap yard to get a few quid, its no wonder she's a hate figure to so many in England let alone the shoot to kill policy, two faced dealings with the hunger strikers and what not over here.
On a similar vein it was either Shirley Williams or Ken Livingstone on Newsnight pointed out that in the light of George Osbournes comments on the Philpotts the previous week that indirectly Thatcher was the creator of the benefits culture when you create an economy heavily reliant on the finance sector (coupled with Scottish Oil) then you are accepting of having 2 to 3 million unemployed as a consequence.
I thought that was a very valid point not being discussed about her 'legacy'.
Shoot-to-kill, collusion, death squads, brutality, supergrass trials, diplock courts... all under her watch. It makes the blood boil to stop and think of what life was like here during her time. And to listen to a successive line of Irish politicians, from the likes of Brid Rodgers of the SDLP to FF "republicans" like Gerry Collins, Stephen Kearon etc, lining up to excuse her policies here and talk about the Anglo-Irish Agreement being her lasting legacy and how she sewed the seeds for eventual peace!! Then in today's Irish News, we hear about Alan
"Londonderry" Shatter lambasting Gerry Adams for stating that Thatcher had a negative impact here and Stephen Collins in The Irish Times proclaiming that "Thatcher did more for Ireland than other UK leaders"! My little quote from Christy Moore at the foot of my posts seems so f***ing apt sometimes.
http://www.fsf.org.uk/latest-news/view/fsf-statement-on-a-minutes-silence-for-margaret-thatcher (http://www.fsf.org.uk/latest-news/view/fsf-statement-on-a-minutes-silence-for-margaret-thatcher)
Quote"The FSF backs the decision made by the football authorities not to impose a minute's silence across all fixtures this weekend to mark the death of Margaret Thatcher. Should individual clubs wish to hold a minute's silence or commemorate the passing of Margaret Thatcher in their own manner that is a matter for them.
"We would expect that most fans' thoughts this weekend will turn to the friends and families of those 96 fellow supporters who lost their lives at Hillsborough 24 years ago."
Malcolm Clarke, FSF Chair
While I thought Gerry Adams' comments were measured and generally stuck to the facts, anyone who can't see even a small sense of irony in his observation that she "did great hurt to the Irish and British people" needs to get out more.
I see London Irish fans are going to be asked to observe a minute's silence as part of their match against Exeter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22090358). Should be . . . interesting. Fair play to David Mellor for his sense of realpolitik.
Quote from: deiseach on April 10, 2013, 09:40:41 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 10, 2013, 09:35:45 AM
****Tony Blairs comments about the revelers made me think about their actions in a different way........Imagine using a mass murderer like him as a moral compass.
Good point. Listening to the spluttering outrage in his voice at such a crime against humanity . . . rancid.
Is he not the peace advisor for the UN in the middle east????????????????????????
QuoteFair play to David Mellor for his sense of realpolitik.
Jaysus his understanding of peacetime must be different to mine!
Mellor, the first person to fulfil the role of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, said: "I think it's a hopeless request.
"I see both sides of Margaret Thatcher, but it doesn't matter if she was the greatest peacetime prime minister, there is no point in asking football to have a minute's silence that lots of people will not observe.
Quote from: Declan on April 10, 2013, 12:14:30 PM
Jaysus his understanding of peacetime must be different to mine!
Mellor, the first person to fulfil the role of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, said: "I think it's a hopeless request.
"I see both sides of Margaret Thatcher, but it doesn't matter if she was the greatest peacetime prime minister, there is no point in asking football to have a minute's silence that lots of people will not observe.
It sure is.
This is well worth 10 minutes of your time.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/thatcher-westminsters-last-authentic-class-warrior.2013043781 (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/thatcher-westminsters-last-authentic-class-warrior.2013043781)
Quote
Thatcher: Westminster's last authentic class warrior
Ian Bell
Columnist
Tuesday 9 April 2013
MARGARET Thatcher did not believe in consensus.
She made no bones about that. Criticism, antagonism, even contempt, seemed to invigorate those fixed, sparking eyes. She was the last authentic class warrior in Westminster politics, and she gloried in the combat.
Mrs Thatcher treated dissent as affirmation. Accusations of divisiveness were taken as proof: she was right; they – a multitude – were wrong. There was her Britain – conterminous, despite all denials, with a mythologised England – and there was the rest. One way or another, she turned a great many people into "the enemy within". By the end, there were a lot of us about.
Never enough, however. Mrs Thatcher won her elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987 fair and square. If the ability to succeed at the polls is the definition of political stature, she stood as high as any Westminster figure in the 20th century. If the ability to generate abhorrence counts as an achievement, meanwhile, she was an over-achiever. But she was, undeniably, a winner.
For all that, the map of Britain traced by her popularity was an odd, distended affair, the true blue leeching away with each minute of latitude, south to north. On May 4, 1979, she stood on the steps of Downing Street and paraphrased the so-called Prayer of St Francis ("Where there is discord, may we bring harmony ... Where there is despair, may we bring hope"). For most of Britain north of Watford her policies meant the opposite, in every particular.
This was nowhere more true than in Scotland. Few of the eulogies below the Border will mention the fact she single-handedly destroyed a Conservative tradition once embedded in Scottish life. The myth persists she was rejected because of her Englishness – her predecessors encountered no such prejudice – but in truth she was inimical, by conviction. She was detested for her actions, not her accent.
Mrs Thatcher was a lucky prime minister. She had the luck to see the Social Democratic Party born in the spring of 1981, stripping support from Labour when her approval ratings were dire. She had the luck – and it was often touch and go – to win the Falklands war, despite 1000 deaths and the gratuitous sinking of the Belgrano, as a prelude to the 1983 election. She had the luck that bequeathed a 90% North Sea output tax when her "productivity miracle" required four million unemployed, and when dole money was due.
She had more vastly luck than her predecessor, Ted Heath, with the press. Mrs Thatcher gave extraordinary, still-unexplained, latitude to the ambitions of Rupert Murdoch, and helped him at every turn, generally by bending then-existing media ownership rules. Favours were returned. We have lived with the lurid consequences, the capsizing of democratic pretence, ever since.
Despite her elocution class manner, this millionaire's wife was the first tabloid prime minister. Jingoism; judicious racism ("The British character has done so much for democracy, for law, that if there is any fear it might be swamped, people are going to react ..."); a visceral dislike of unions; a contempt for the public sector; a veneration of wealth and a hatred of tax; a suspicion of culture and "permissiveness"; latterly the use of "Europe" as a cipher for xenophobia ... redtop culture fitted "Maggie" – never to her face – like a glove puppet.
Long before her death, Mrs Thatcher's admirers were insisting on her greatness. They said she had saved Britain, indeed the western world, with her stubbornness and self-belief. Her enemies, meanwhile, called her a blind ideologue, and heartless with it. Both descriptions were wide of the mark.
Ideologues must think: Margaret Thatcher never bothered. Her tendency to translate the ideas of Friedrich von Hayek and the monetarist "Chicago school" into the language of the Grantham grocer's shop did no service to either. Despite the ravages of her "economic experiment" – manufacturing output cut by one-third, botched privatisations, mass unemployment – she never did balance the books. Contrary to legend, government spending increased in real terms during the 1980s. Income tax cuts, of special benefit to the better off, were not free.
Nor did Mrs Thatcher do much – for how could she? – to bring down the Soviet "evil empire". The bankruptcy of the USSR was self-inflicted, hastened by a futile arms race with the United States. In welcoming Cruise missiles to Greenham Common, and in purchasing the Trident missile system at extraordinary cost, Mrs Thatcher sealed Britain's subservience to America. Whether her peculiarly intense relationship with Ronald Reagan counted as self-reliant patriotism – the bizarre invasion of Grenada aside – is a matter of partisan opinion.
Nevertheless, her ideology, like her geo-political activities, never approached consistency. Mrs Thatcher's politics was a visceral thing, formed of a belief in a natural order, in the assumption Britain needed restoration, and in a nostalgia for some never-defined golden age. She was, in the purest sense, a reactionary politician. Hence her failure, for long decades, to take apartheid seriously, and her willingness to dismiss Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Hence her revulsion at the very idea of trade unionism. Hence her embrace of the casino economy.
She had the streak of vanity usual in prime ministers, one enlarged by three election victories. Her statements, in power and after, suggest Mrs Thatcher believed herself indispensable. She enjoyed the unlikely idea of the Iron Lady, a suburban Britannia, the politician who was "not for turning". She felt entitled to invoke Churchill, as though "Winston" had been a blood relation. In truth, her sense of destiny was near-Gaullist. And she had no sense of humour: laboriously, her speechwriters had to explain the Python dead parrot joke.
You can judge her, as is customary, by her legacy. The Thatcher years altered Britain for good, if not for better. Part of her bequest was an unthinking complicity, as an article of foreign policy, in America's adventures. Tony Blair could have followed the example of Labour's Harold Wilson during the Vietnam years, and spared Britain the Iraq debacle. Instead, Blair, like John Major, did as "Maggie" would have done, and went to war under American command.
Mrs Thatcher's heirs had neither the wish nor the desire, meanwhile, to unpick her privatisation programme, that mass transfer of wealth from the public realm to the private. In the case of the utilities, state assets were exchanged, often at absurd prices, for monopoly capitalism. The myth of choice and a "share-owning democracy" did not outlast her premiership. But the idea the private sector will always perform more efficiently than the public became tenacious thanks to Mrs Thatcher.
Modern Britain is in large part her creation. Banking gone bust? Those excesses can be traced to the deregulation of the financial sector, the "Big Bang", of 1986 and after. The tabloid press run amok? The privileges allowed to Murdoch count as exhibit A. All hope of an independent foreign policy gone? Maggie thought she had a duty, no less, to Ronnie, leader of a foreign country.
Housing bubbles and housing crises? Mrs Thatcher believed council schemes bred socialist councils. She sold the houses cheap – but raised £20 billion in the process – and turned property into a British obsession, and generated a froth of asset bubbles. Her economic reforms were parasitic, at every turn, upon the public's state-secured estate. She put nothing in its place.
Her allies and patrons said she "put Britain back on its feet". The evidence is thin. Those of Mrs Thatcher's class prospered greatly from her tax cuts in the 1980s. Those in and around the City of London luxuriated in easy money. But wealth, however "created", did not often trickle down, as theory demanded. The poor paid.
Inequalities, narrowing before her arrival, became a fact of British life in the Thatcher years. There were riots, a glut of heroin, and hopelessness. Her insistence on "management's right to manage" served only to demonstrate, meanwhile, British management left something to be desired. To her slim credit is the fact she opposed rail privatisation. A despiser of trains, she sensed a debacle in the making.
History takes a shorthand note. It says: miners, then a poll tax, then (for a northern minority) a prime minister who reneged on the promise of devolution. So official memory and folk memory diverge. Two dozen profitable pits were shut simply to make a point, and kill a trade union. The British state was put at risk just to ease Scottish Tory complaints over ratings valuations, and establish all must "pay their way". And Scotland was lost, in irredeemable constitutional terms. Mrs Thatcher did not apologise.
Commentary upon her funeral will lose that detail. Mrs Thatcher broke Britain. Thanks to her madcap deregulation, the banks went bust in 2008. Thanks to her taste for confrontation – with her own people, to labour the point – trust in the British state was dissevered. Thanks to her indulgence towards redtop papers, media corruption flowed. Her poll tax was class war in bold caps. After Mrs Thatcher, no prime minister enjoyed trust for long. And gross domestic product did not improve.
Hindsight will call her comical figure. She destroyed every enemy, and made herself ridiculous. At the end, her ego vast, she called her overthrow "betrayal". But the truth was mundane: she was less popular than her party; Labour would certainly have won a general election; her rhetoric had become risible. In the last days of 1990, the bombast of 1979 had become unseemly, even among the erstwhile Tory acolytes. The moment had passed.
By the end, there were a lot of us about. The unreconciled, the persecuted, the insulted, the poor, or those who simply took it for granted – strange to remember – the prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was mad. That's a legacy. The fact that eccentricity became institutionalised was telling, too. The idea that impersonating Mrs Thatcher was a sane and inevitable course, as an electoral ploy, Labour or Tory, is another of history's shorthand notes.
She picked a fight. Those she conscripted will speak well of her, no doubt. Those who stood on the other side, on painted lines at pitheads, in the reeking Wapping mist, when the City casino echoed like a fair, when the Greenham women were being carted off, when pensioners were intimidated to bolster community charge propaganda, provide other memories. Truth persists.
Mrs Thatcher's every victory was a defeat, as it happens. She altered Britain merely to end Britain. In demanding respect, she never dared hope for love. Her economic miracles left us where we are now: a second-rate power, with Third World debts, and a banking class stripping £14bn in self-awarded bonuses from the commonweal.
Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, no-one even thinks that a crime. In a grubby, disturbed, discontented country, her spirit prevails.
The dirt needs no tramping.
Quote from: Minder on April 10, 2013, 09:11:27 AM
Saw graffiti, huge lettering, behind St Mary's teacher training college this morning
"Rot in hell Tatcher scum"
;D
Was probably one of the Ranchers did it too ;)
David Winnick, MP for East Walsall in the English Midlands said: "It would be absolutely hypocritical if those of us who were opposed at the time to what occurred – the mass unemployment, the poverty – were to remain silent when the house is debating her life. This will be an opportunity to speak frankly.
"Obviously when a person dies one regrets it. But what I do regret first and foremost is the immense harm, certainly in the West Midlands where deindustrialisation occurred.
"Even if it could be argued that some of it was inevitable, the manner in which it was done – the brutal contempt towards those who were innocent victims – was absolutely disgraceful."
The more I read about her the more odious she becomes. Especially on Norn Irn. What a waste of 11 years.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 10, 2013, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: Minder on April 10, 2013, 09:11:27 AM
Saw graffiti, huge lettering, behind St Mary's teacher training college this morning
"Rot in hell Tatcher scum"
;D
Was probably one of the Ranchers did it too ;)
Will you leave teachers alone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher
Russell Brand on Margaret Thatcher: 'I always felt sorry for her children'
The actor and comedian recalls a bizarre recent encounter with the Iron Lady, and how it prompted him to think about growing up under the most unlikely matriarch-figure imaginable
One Sunday recently while staying in London, I took a stroll in the gardens of Temple, the insular clod of quads and offices between the Strand and the Embankment. It's kind of a luxury rent-controlled ghetto for lawyers and barristers, and there is a beautiful tailors, a fine chapel, established by the Knights Templar (from which the compound takes its name), a twee cottage designed by Sir Christopher Wren and a rose garden; which I never promised you.
My mate John and I were wandering there together, he expertly proselytising on the architecture and the history of the place, me pretending to be Rumpole of the Bailey (quietly in my mind), when we spied in the distant garden a hunched and frail figure, in a raincoat, scarf about her head, watering the roses under the breezy supervision of a masticating copper. "What's going on there, mate?" John asked a nearby chippy loading his white van. "Maggie Thatcher," he said. "Comes here every week to water them flowers." The three of us watched as the gentle horticultural ritual was feebly enacted, then regarded the Iron Lady being helped into the back of a car and trundling off. In this moment she inspired only curiosity, a pale phantom, dumbly filling her day. None present eyed her meanly or spoke with vitriol and it wasn't until an hour later that I dreamt up an Ealing comedy-style caper in which two inept crooks kidnap Thatcher from the garden but are unable to cope with the demands of dealing with her, and finally give her back. This reverie only occurred when the car was out of view. In her diminished presence I stared like an amateur astronomer unable to describe my awe at this distant phenomenon.
When I was a kid, Thatcher was the headmistress of our country. Her voice, a bellicose yawn, somehow both boring and boring – I could ignore the content but the intent drilled its way in. She became leader of the Conservatives the year I was born and prime minister when I was four. She remained in power till I was 15. I am, it's safe to say, one of Thatcher's children. How then do I feel on the day of this matriarchal mourning?
I grew up in Essex with a single mum and a go-getter Dagenham dad. I don't know if they ever voted for her, I don't know if they liked her. My dad, I suspect, did. He had enough Del Boy about him to admire her coiffured virility – but in a way Thatcher was so omnipotent; so omnipresent, so omni-everything that all opinion was redundant.
As I scan the statements of my memory bank for early deposits (it'd be a kid's memory bank account at a neurological NatWest where you're encouraged to become a greedy little capitalist with an escalating family of porcelain pigs), I see her in her hairy helmet, condescending on Nationwide, eviscerating eunuch MPs and baffled BBC fuddy duddies with her General Zodd stare and coldly condemning the IRA. And the miners. And the single mums. The dockers. The poll-tax rioters. The Brixton rioters, the Argentinians, teachers; everyone actually.
Thinking about it now, when I was a child she was just a strict woman telling everyone off and selling everything off. I didn't know what to think of this fearsome woman.
Perhaps my early apathy and indifference are a result of what Thatcher deliberately engendered, the idea that "there is no such thing as society", that we are alone on our journey through life, solitary atoms of consciousness. Or perhaps it was just because I was a little kid and more interested in them Weetabix skinheads, Roland Rat and Knight Rider. Either way, I'm an adult now and none of those things are on telly any more so there's no excuse for apathy.
When John Lennon was told of Elvis Presley's death, he famously responded: "Elvis died when he joined the army," meaning of course, that his combat clothing and clipped hair signalled the demise of the thrusting, Dionysian revolution of which he was the immaculate emblem.
When I awoke today on LA time my phone was full of impertinent digital eulogies. It'd be disingenuous to omit that there were a fair number of ding-dong-style celebratory messages amidst the pensive reflections on the end of an era. Interestingly, one mate of mine, a proper leftie, in his heyday all Red Wedge and right-on punch-ups, was melancholy. "I thought I'd be overjoyed, but really it's just ... another one bites the dust ..." This demonstrates, I suppose, that if you opposed Thatcher's ideas it was likely because of their lack of compassion, which is really just a word for love. If love is something you cherish, it is hard to glean much joy from death, even in one's enemies.
Perhaps, though, Thatcher "the monster" didn't die yesterday from a stroke, perhaps that Thatcher died as she sobbed self-pitying tears as she was driven, defeated, from Downing Street, ousted by her own party. By then, 1990, I was 15, adolescent and instinctively anti-establishment enough to regard her disdainfully. I'd unthinkingly imbibed enough doctrine to know that, troubled as I was, there was little point looking elsewhere for support. I was on my own. We are all on our own. Norman Tebbit, one of Thatcher's acolytes and fellow "Munsters evacuee", said when the National Union of Mineworkers eventually succumbed to the military onslaught and starvation over which she presided: "We didn't just break the strike, we broke the spell." The spell he was referring to is the unseen bond that connects us all and prevents us from being subjugated by tyranny. The spell of community.
Those strikes were confusing to me as a child. All of the Tory edicts that bludgeoned our nation, as my generation squirmed through ghoulish puberty, were confusing. When all the public amenities were flogged, the adverts made it seem to my childish eyes fun and positive, jaunty slogans and affable British stereotypes jostling about in villages, selling people companies that they'd already paid for through tax. I just now watched the British Gas one again. It's like a whimsical live-action episode of Postman Pat where his cat is craftily carved up and sold back to him.
"The News" was the pompous conduit through which we suckled at the barren baroness through newscaster wet-nurses, naturally; not direct from the steel teat. Jan Leeming, Sue Lawley, Moira Stuart – delivering doctrine with sterile sexiness, like a butterscotch-scented beige vapour. To use a less bizarre analogy: if Thatcher was the headmistress, they were junior teachers, authoritative but warm enough that you could call them "mum" by accident. You could never call Margaret Mother by mistake. For a national matriarch she is oddly unmaternal. I always felt a bit sorry for her biological children Mark and Carol, wondering from whom they would get their cuddles. "Thatcher as mother" seemed, to my tiddly mind, anathema. How could anyone who was so resolutely Margaret Thatcher be anything else? In the Meryl Streep film, The Iron Lady, it's the scenes of domesticity that appear most absurd. Knocking up a flan for Denis or helping Carol with her algebra or Mark with his gun-running, are jarring distractions from the main narrative; woman as warrior queen.
It always struck me as peculiar, too, when the Spice Girls briefly championed Thatcher as an early example of girl power. I don't see that. She is an anomaly; a product of the freak-onomy of her time. Barack Obama, interestingly, said in his statement that she had "broken the glass ceiling for other women". Only in the sense that all the women beneath her were blinded by falling shards. She is an icon of individualism, not of feminism.
I have few recollections of Thatcher after the slowly chauffeured, weepy Downing Street cortege. I'd become a delinquent, living on heroin and benefit fraud.
There were sporadic resurrections. She would appear in public to drape a hankie over a model BA plane tailfin because she disliked the unpatriotic logo with which they'd replaced the union flag (maybe don't privatise BA then), or to shuffle about some country pile arm in arm with a doddery Pinochet and tell us all what a fine fellow he was. It always irks when rightwing folk demonstrate in a familial or exclusive setting the values that they deny in a broader social context. They're happy to share big windfall bonuses with their cronies, they'll stick up for deposed dictator chums when they're down on their luck, they'll find opportunities in business for people they care about. I hope I'm not being reductive but it seems Thatcher's time in power was solely spent diminishing the resources of those who had least for the advancement of those who had most. I know from my own indulgence in selfish behaviour that it's much easier to get what you want if you remove from consideration the effect your actions will have on others.
Is that what made her so formidable, her ability to ignore the suffering of others? Given the nature of her legacy "survival of the fittest" – a phrase that Darwin himself only used twice in On the Origin of Species, compared to hundreds of references to altruism, love and cooperation, it isn't surprising that there are parties tonight in Liverpool, Glasgow and Brixton – from where are they to have learned compassion and forgiveness?
The blunt, pathetic reality today is that a little old lady has died, who in the winter of her life had to water roses alone under police supervision. If you behave like there's no such thing as society, in the end there isn't. Her death must be sad for the handful of people she was nice to and the rich people who got richer under her stewardship. It isn't sad for anyone else. There are pangs of nostalgia, yes, because for me she's all tied up with Hi-De-Hi and Speak and Spell and Blockbusters and "follow the bear". What is more troubling is my inability to ascertain where my own selfishness ends and her neo-liberal inculcation begins. All of us that grew up under Thatcher were taught that it is good to be selfish, that other people's pain is not your problem, that pain is in fact a weakness and suffering is deserved and shameful. Perhaps there is resentment because the clemency and respect that are being mawkishly displayed now by some and haughtily demanded of the rest of us at the impending, solemn ceremonial funeral, are values that her government and policies sought to annihilate.
I can't articulate with the skill of either of "the Marks" – Steel or Thomas – why Thatcher and Thatcherism were so bad for Britain but I do recall that even to a child her demeanour and every discernible action seemed to be to the detriment of our national spirit and identity. Her refusal to stand against apartheid, her civil war against the unions, her aggression towards our neighbours in Ireland and a taxation system that was devised in the dark ages, the bombing of a retreating ship – it's just not British.
I do not yet know what effect Margaret Thatcher has had on me as an individual or on the character of our country as we continue to evolve. As a child she unnerved me but we are not children now and we are free to choose our own ethical codes and leaders that reflect them.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-thatcher-myths/13236
Thatcher fact check - the Thatcher myths
Thatcher the milk snatcher
The nickname was coined by Labour in opposition and the press after the government abolished free school milk for over-sevens in 1970 when Margaret Thatcher was education secretary.
But according to her memoirs and archives, Lady Thatcher herself had argued in cabinet against getting rid of free milk altogether. It was a policy driven by the Treasury, first under Iain Macleod, then Anthony Barber.
So in Barber's first budget of October 1970, the policy was limited to children above the age of seven, and special schools and children with medical needs were excluded.
She was an arch-eurosceptic
It certainly wasn't always that way.
During the 1975 referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EEC, this was her opening gambit as she launched the Conservative campaign: "I welcome this opportunity to launch the Conservative campaign to keep Britain in Europe."
In 1978, while still in opposition, she called for consideration of a common European approach to defence, and criticised the Labour government for failing to sign up to the exchange rate mechanism.
In 1986, she signed the single European act, which set a deadline of 1992 for the full completion of the single market to allow the free movement of goods, capital and people within Europe.
She had, however, fought for Britain's position in Europe. In 1984, Thatcher threatened to stop payments to Europe unless the UK won its rebate – the "We want our money back" moment often misquoted as "I want my money back" .
Her position became more entrenched,culminating in the Bruges speech of 1988 in which she criticised an apparent "European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels".
She took a hard line with the IRA
Thatcher was known for her uncompromising position on the IRA and the Maze prison hunger strikers in 1981. Ten men – seven IRA and three Irish National Liberation Army members - died during a campaign to secure political status for republican prisoners. Thatcher refused to budge as the men starved themselves to death, one by one.
But files of cabinet discussions released under the 30-year rule reveal that she negotiated directly with the republican leadership in an apparent attempt to resolve the crisis, and she considered whether compulsory "intravenous feeding" could be used to keep prisoners alive.
Messages were sent between MI6 and the IRA, with details concessions on clothing, parcels and visits the government would offer if the strike was called off.
One note appeared to carry Thatcher's distinctive handwritten alterations. The following day, the Northern Ireland secretary, Humphrey Atkins, confirmed that she had approved the messages.
The economy boomed
Only for a while. In the late 1980s GDP growth was topping 5 per cent. But the Thatcher era was book-ended by two recessions, from 1980 to 1981 and from 1990 to 1991.
Annual GDP growth averages out at about 2.3 per cent over the whole of Baroness Thatcher's time in office compared to 2.5 per cent under Tony Blair.
She destroyed the welfare state
Wrong again.
Persistent high unemployment was part of the reason why total spending on benefits rose from £53bn in today's prices in 1979/80 to £77bn in 1990/91.
Public spending overall went up in cash terms every year under Lady Thatcher, generally keeping up with inflation. In 1982/83 the government was spending 48 per cent of GDP, more than in any year under Blair or Brown.
Spending had fallen dramatically as a share of GDP by the late 80s, but that was mainly because the economy grew quickly, not because spending was cut.
She cut taxes
No. She did lower taxes for the rich – lowering the top rate from 83 per cent to 60 then 40 per cent. But that was offset by a rise in VAT from 8 to 15 per cent.
Total tax and national insurance receipts as a percentage of GDP were actually slightly higher in 1989/90 than in 1979/80: 35 per cent rather than 33.7.
She destroyed manufacturing
The Thatcher era certainly saw de-industrialisation, but that process began before she became prime minister and accelerated under Blair and Brown.
Manufacturing output fell from 25 per cent of the economy in 1980 to 23 per cent in 1990.
The decline was much faster under Labour – manufacturing fell from 17 per cent of the economy to just 11 per cent between 2000 and 2010.
Most advanced economies have experienced a similar decline in manufacturing as a share of GDP.
The poor got poorer
It depends what you mean by "poor".
The gap between rich and poor certainly got wider. Relative poverty and earnings inequality went up under Lady Thatcher.
That doesn't mean the poor actually lost money, it's just that the top earners did considerably better - a point Lady Thatcher made forcefully in her last appearance at the Commons dispatch box.
Median earnings went up faster than under John Major or in Labour's second and third terms, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
And while wages among the very lowest earners didn't increase as fast as the top earners, they did go up too, according to Treasury data.
Of course we have to remember your wages could only go up if you had a job. Unemployment reached 3.2 million in 1984, a rate of 11.8 per cent – both record highs.
Quote from: gallsman on April 08, 2013, 10:52:10 PM
I (and many others on this board) found it more than a little distasteful when Americans turned out en masse to celebrate the death of bin Laden at the gates of the White House. No doubt to Stew that makes me an al-Qaeda sympathiser or something. I'll shed no tears for the hoor and have no sympathy, but reveling in Thatcher's ultimate demise the way some are on here makes my stomach turn.
That's a bit unfair Gallsman, I would not have done what Americans did that night but I understood the sentiment and was delighted they blew the fcukers head off.
With thatcher the deal is different in that she was a decrepit old bitch that was found out for what she was, her beloved party dumped her and she lived long enough to know she was reviled by many, if not most in her country, that said, enough time had passed for me that when I got the news I had strange feelings on the matter.
She lived into her dotage and she ruined many peoples lives with abandon, not least the Hunger Strikers, she leaves a legacy that is as divisive as she herself was as a leader.
I am going to think nothing of her from her funeral on because she is nothing and was nothing for nigh on thirty years and yes, I wished at the time the Ra had got the aul cnut when they blew the shite out of that hotel in Brighton.
Nice one :)
@WelshIrvine Minute's silence held b4 jags game in memory of miners, Dockers, shipyard workers, car plant workers, & Hillsborough victims." -- Dougie Mccann, (@scots_wa_hey)
Powerful stuff from Glendale Jackson yesterday
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=IE#/watch?feature=g-logo-xit&v=XDtClJYJBj8 (http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=IE#/watch?feature=g-logo-xit&v=XDtClJYJBj8)
"I suppose, that if you opposed Thatcher's ideas it was likely because of their lack of compassion, which is really just a word for love. If love is something you cherish, it is hard to glean much joy from death, even in one's enemies."
Great quote.
Quote from: trileacman on April 11, 2013, 01:50:47 PM
"I suppose, that if you opposed Thatcher's ideas it was likely because of their lack of compassion, which is really just a word for love. If love is something you cherish, it is hard to glean much joy from death, even in one's enemies."
Great quote.
In a lots of way Russell Brand annoys the shite out of me but he is a talented man especially with his use of words.
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 11, 2013, 01:57:36 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 11, 2013, 01:50:47 PM
"I suppose, that if you opposed Thatcher's ideas it was likely because of their lack of compassion, which is really just a word for love. If love is something you cherish, it is hard to glean much joy from death, even in one's enemies."
Great quote.
In a lots of way Russell Brand annoys the shite out of me but he is a talented man especially with his use of words.
100% correct Seanie, he annoys the shite out of me too however I might have to look at him differently with efforts like that!
Was just thinking that myself. Brand seems to have a talent as a writer. Who knew?
http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2013/04/11/400511-exclusive-gerry-adams-i-can-forgive-thatcher-/
EXCLUSIVE: Gerry Adams: I can forgive Thatcher
SINN Fein President Gerry Adams who spoke so critically of Margaret Thatcher following her death this week has told The Impartial Reporter that he forgives the former British Prime Minister.
On Monday, just hours after her death, Mr Adams hit out at Baroness Thatcher for the way in which she dealt with republican prisoners such as Bobby Sands, who was elected Fermanagh and South Tyrone MP in 1981 while on hunger strike.
"Her failed efforts to criminalise the republican struggle and the political prisoners is part of her legacy," he said.
Mr Sands made a number of demands on behalf of republican prisoners but Mrs Thatcher refused to meet them, saying: "Crime is crime, not political."
On May 5, Mr Sands died after 66 days on hunger strike.
At the time, Mrs Thatcher said: "He chose to take his own life; it was a choice that his organisation did not allow to many of its victims."
Speaking to this newspaper yesterday - on the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement -- Mr Adams said Bobby Sands had shown "bravery, unselfishness and sure courage" during the hunker strike.
The Sinn Fein President said he was was "very philosophical" about Mrs Thatcher's death and despite standing by his earlier comments, he said he could "forgive" her.
"It isn't up to me to forgive her for what she did to the prisoners; that's up to them and their families. I can forgive her, because I think we have to be about forgiveness. I can forgive her for anything that was done to me under her rule and I don't have any problem with that - I actually believe in forgiveness. I just know as an individual; hatred or failure to forgive is most corrosive to the person involved as opposed to the perpetrator who mightn't even be conscious of what you are thinking about him or her."
He added: "We Irish are very forgiving people, we don't speak ill of the death."
And he criticised those involved in "Thatcher parties", celebrating her death.
"I think it is demeaning to celebrate anyone's death. It might be understandable at a certain level, but that doesn't say whether it should be encouraged or not encouraged."
Mr Adams said his thoughts were with Mrs Thatcher's family: "As one would with anybody who suffers a bereavement, I would feel it for her children and any other family members, because few people are one dimensional so one presumes as a grandmother or great grandmother, or mother, that the grieving process is the same for every single person, no matter the reputation or historical legacy."
Reacting to Mrs Thatcher's death on Monday, Mr Adams told reporters that the former Prime Minister had caused "great hurt to the Irish and British people."
"Here in Ireland her espousal of old draconian militaristic policies prolonged the war and caused great suffering," he said.
Yesterday, Mr Adams reiterated those views, telling this newspaper: "I think her position was quite shameful."
His earlier comments have sparked anger, with Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLA Arlene Foster saying: "On the day that somebody has died it is really quite disgraceful that they should use it to score political points."
"The reality is that Margaret Thatcher wasn't afraid to stand up to terrorists which is why we have this outburst today. I can't say I am surprised because that's the sort of people you are dealing with. She did what was right at the time."
"She is someone who stood firm and showed that politics wasn't just for the male of the species. She had a presence in all aspects of politics when I was growing up and in many ways she was an inspiration."
Ulster Unionist MLA Tom Elliott said Baroness Thatcher "had a very strong political viewpoint and wasn't afraid to remain firm."
In relation to the comments by Mr Adams, Mr Elliott responded: "It highlights the venom that is being pushed from republicans -- she was their Prime Minister whether they liked it or not. Margaret Thatcher didn't starve Bobby Sands to death, he chose to do that himself. She didn't treat him any different to any other criminal."
But yesterday Mr Adams rejected the criticism he received from the Fermanagh politicians.
"I think it is a bit rich. I am giving an opinion. I am very conscious that this was another human being, I am very conscious that she had her own family, very conscious that she was a formidable figure, I think my statement was quite measured."
Asked if he thought it was appropriate to make sure comments so soon after Mrs Thatcher's death, Mr Adams said: "Of course it was, of course it was - the media can't have it both ways. The media can't look for comments, then raise issues around the comments."
Asked for his reaction, Sinn Fein MLA Phil Flanagan said: "I fully agree with Gerry's thoughts on the matter."
He said: "The people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone sent a very clear message to Margaret Thatcher with the election of Bobby Sands MP 32 years ago. That election and that message will remain to the fore in her legacy in the eyes of the people of this constituency."
Mark Steel: You can't just shut us up now that Margaret Thatcher's dead
Maybe a more modern way of broadcasting the news would have been for Davina McCall to announce it, saying: "She's gone, but let's have a look at some of her best bits." Then we could see her denouncing Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and befriending General Pinochet.
Instead it began as expected, with the Hurds, Howes and Archers phoning in their "remarkables" and "historics", and we were reminded how she brought down the Berlin Wall and rescued Britain, then an article in The Times claimed she was responsible for ending apartheid, and it seemed by today we'd be hearing she stopped Gibraltar being invaded by Daleks and made our goldfish feel proud to be British and took 8 for 35 against Australia to win the Ashes.
"Even those who disagreed with her, respected her as a conviction politician", it was said many times, as if everyone would participate in the mourning. But soon it was impossible to pretend there was a respectful consensus, not because of the odd party in the street, but from a widespread and considered contempt. In many areas it must have been confusing for Jehovah's Witnesses, as every time they knocked on a door and asked, "Have you heard the good news", they'd be told "Yes mate, I have, do you want to come in for a beer?"
Before long came the complaints, such as Tony Blair saying: "Even if you disagree with someone very strongly, at the moment of their passing you should show some respect." Presumably then, when Bin Laden was killed, Blair's statement was: "Although I didn't agree with Osama's policies, he was a conviction terrorist, a colourful character whose short films were not only fun but educational as well. He will be sadly missed."
The disrespect was inevitable, as millions were opposed to her not because they disagreed with her, but because she'd helped to ruin their lives. If someone robs your house, you don't say: "I disagreed with the burglar's policy, of tying me to a chair with gaffer tape and stripping the place bare, even taking the pickled onions, which I consider to be divisive. But I did admire his convictions."
For example, a Chilean woman living in Britain was quoted in The Nation magazine, saying: "The Thatcher government directly supported Pinochet's murderous regime, financially, via military support, even military training. Members of my family were tortured and murdered under Pinochet, who was one of Thatcher's closest allies and friend. Those of us celebrating are the ones who suffered deeply." Yes, but she was able to buy shares in British Gas so she was better off in other ways. In so many areas, the party that insists we show compassion for their departed heroine made a virtue of showing none when she was their leader. She didn't just create unemployment, she gloried in it. Her supporters in the City revelled in their unearned wealth all the more because they could jeer at those with nothing.
But this week Thatcher fans have been unrestrained in their abuse for anyone not displaying "compassion". Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt and accept they've just discovered it. They're all going to the doctors saying: "I've been getting this strange sort of caring feeling towards someone who isn't me. Do I need antibiotics?" If they're puzzled as to why there isn't universal sadness this week, maybe they should visit Corby. It's a town that was built in the 1930s, entirely round a steelworks, and thousands of unemployed Scots moved there for the work. As a result its people still have a strong Scottish accent, even though it's in Northamptonshire.
But in 1980 Margaret Thatcher's government shut down most of the steel industry, as part of her plan to break the unions, and the effect on Corby was like someone taking control of the Lake District and concreting in the lakes.
I was there to record a radio show about the town, and met Don and Irene, both in their seventies, at the Grampian Club. Don's father had walked to Corby from Larkhall, near Glasgow, in 1932. I mentioned the steel strike and plant closure to Don, but he gestured as if it had somehow passed him by. It would have to be mentioned in the show, so I tried to find someone in the town with a story, an anecdote, something. But no one wanted to say a thing about it. During the recording, I asked if anyone had a story to tell from those days, but no one did, until it felt as if the whole audience collectively passed a motion that went: "I think you'd best move on to another subject, Mark."
Afterwards in the bar, Irene told me: "We weren't being rude, love, when we didn't have a lot to say about the closure. But it wasn't an easy time. Don marched from Corby to London with a banner. It made him angry about everything, we split up for a year because it was too much to live with. But we were lucky, two of our closest friends committed suicide in the months after the closure. So people would rather forget about those times really. But apart from that we really enjoyed the show."
Still, even those who disagree with her policies, will surely commend her achievements.
Strangely, it's now her supporters who are insulting her memory, with a funeral paid for by the taxpayer. Surely it would be more fitting to leave her where she is, and say: "If you can't stand on your own two feet, you can't expect help from the state."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mark-steel-you-cant-just-shut-us-up-now-that-margaret-thatchers-dead-8568785.html
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/4/11/1365699100408/A-wall-in-West-Belfast-009.jpg)
Now that Gerry Adams has officially pardoned her,surely that should be the end of the matter.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHlbt47CMAAOzz3.jpg)
His earlier comments have sparked anger, with Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLA Arlene Foster saying: "On the day that somebody has died it is really quite disgraceful that they should use it to score political points."
"The reality is that Margaret Thatcher wasn't afraid to stand up to terrorists which is why we have this outburst today. I can't say I am surprised because that's the sort of people you are dealing with. She did what was right at the time."
Sweet Baby Jesus. Irene always has been an irony-free and sense-of-humour-free zone but this surely takes it to a new level.
There is going to be a gathering in Trafalgar Square on Saturday to mark her passing. First suggested over 20 years ago. Some people really hate her for what she did to their livelihoods.
Hear the crack about Ding Dong The Witch is Dead reaching Number 1 in the UK? Radio 1's gonna have to play it in their chart show! That was inspired. Have to tip my hat to whoever thought of that little viral campaign, it's driving the clueless right-wingers in America nuts!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
Hear the crack about Ding Dong The Witch is Dead reaching Number 1 in the UK? Radio 1's gonna have to play it in their chart show! That was inspired. Have to tip my hat to whoever thought of that little viral campaign, it's driving the clueless right-wingers in America nuts!
Have been checking profiles of people on facebook defending her, most turn out to be Israel supporting, extreme, biblebashers who keep going "Obama this that and the other". Eastern Europeans who are the ex-Commie version of the nutjob socialists in the West who thought the USSR was great craic and 20 something quasi-femanists who seem to believe everything is ok because she was a woman.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2013, 06:08:41 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
Hear the crack about Ding Dong The Witch is Dead reaching Number 1 in the UK? Radio 1's gonna have to play it in their chart show! That was inspired. Have to tip my hat to whoever thought of that little viral campaign, it's driving the clueless right-wingers in America nuts!
Have been checking profiles of people on facebook defending her, most turn out to be Israel supporting, extreme, biblebashers who keep going "Obama this that and the other". Eastern Europeans who are the ex-Commie version of the nutjob socialists in the West who thought the USSR was great craic and 20 something quasi-femanists who seem to believe everything is ok because she was a woman.
Why would they support Thatcher?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
Hear the crack about Ding Dong The Witch is Dead reaching Number 1 in the UK? Radio 1's gonna have to play it in their chart show! That was inspired. Have to tip my hat to whoever thought of that little viral campaign, it's driving the clueless right-wingers in America nuts!
Very smart move. As your man says it gives a voice to.people who were ignored. And using the mechanism of the market. Surely she would have approvef.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
Hear the crack about Ding Dong The Witch is Dead reaching Number 1 in the UK? Radio 1's gonna have to play it in their chart show! That was inspired. Have to tip my hat to whoever thought of that little viral campaign, it's driving the clueless right-wingers in America nuts!
radio1 wont be playing the song. they have decided to play just 5secs of the song as part of a news item.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2013, 06:08:41 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
Hear the crack about Ding Dong The Witch is Dead reaching Number 1 in the UK? Radio 1's gonna have to play it in their chart show! That was inspired. Have to tip my hat to whoever thought of that little viral campaign, it's driving the clueless right-wingers in America nuts!
Have been checking profiles of people on facebook defending her, most turn out to be Israel supporting, extreme, biblebashers who keep going "Obama this that and the other". Eastern Europeans who are the ex-Commie version of the nutjob socialists in the West who thought the USSR was great craic and 20 something quasi-femanists who seem to believe everything is ok because she was a woman.
Why would they support Thatcher?
I knew that might be misinterpretated. I mean people who lived the other side of the iron curtain who ignored all her bad because she was in opposition to communism, the Easts equivilant of the Moscow arse lickers in the west who ignored the harm communism was doing.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2013, 07:48:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2013, 06:08:41 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
Hear the crack about Ding Dong The Witch is Dead reaching Number 1 in the UK? Radio 1's gonna have to play it in their chart show! That was inspired. Have to tip my hat to whoever thought of that little viral campaign, it's driving the clueless right-wingers in America nuts!
Have been checking profiles of people on facebook defending her, most turn out to be Israel supporting, extreme, biblebashers who keep going "Obama this that and the other". Eastern Europeans who are the ex-Commie version of the nutjob socialists in the West who thought the USSR was great craic and 20 something quasi-femanists who seem to believe everything is ok because she was a woman.
Why would they support Thatcher?
I knew that might be misinterpretated. I mean peoe who lived the other side if the irob curtain who ignored all her bad because she was in opposition to communism, the Easts equivilant of the Moscow arse lickers in the west who ignored the harm communism was doing.
Still don't get you. If they
'ignored all her bad because she was in opposition to communism' then how could they be '
ex-Commie' of any description?
BTW you would love Castlebar tonight, particularly the TF.
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2013, 07:52:36 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2013, 07:48:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 12, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2013, 06:08:41 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
Hear the crack about Ding Dong The Witch is Dead reaching Number 1 in the UK? Radio 1's gonna have to play it in their chart show! That was inspired. Have to tip my hat to whoever thought of that little viral campaign, it's driving the clueless right-wingers in America nuts!
Have been checking profiles of people on facebook defending her, most turn out to be Israel supporting, extreme, biblebashers who keep going "Obama this that and the other". Eastern Europeans who are the ex-Commie version of the nutjob socialists in the West who thought the USSR was great craic and 20 something quasi-femanists who seem to believe everything is ok because she was a woman.
Why would they support Thatcher?
I knew that might be misinterpretated. I mean peoe who lived the other side if the irob curtain who ignored all her bad because she was in opposition to communism, the Easts equivilant of the Moscow arse lickers in the west who ignored the harm communism was doing.
Still don't get you. If they 'ignored all her bad because she was in opposition to communism' then how could they be 'ex-Commie' of any description?
BTW you would love Castlebar tonight, particularly the TF.
ex-Commie country resident, not the person themselves being a communist.
I'm glad to see SF putting money into FG pockets then ;) ;) ;)
Billy Bragg sez
Margaret Thatcher Made Me A Socialist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jLI35_jbK4
I have been in Scotland and England for the past week and the level of hatred towards her is just as bad, and in some cases worse, than in Ireland. She destroyed families and communities here, and the hurt runs deep. Havn't met anyone in the mood to stop celebrating her death, or forgiving her. I guess that is just a northern Irish thing........
Quote from: give her dixie on April 12, 2013, 10:08:45 PM
I have been in Scotland and England for the past week and the level of hatred towards her is just as bad, and in some cases worse, than in Ireland. She destroyed families and communities here, and the hurt runs deep. Havn't met anyone in the mood to stop celebrating her death, or forgiving her. I guess that is just a northern Irish thing........
It will be the same across the Arab world when Ariel Sharon dies . Another sociopath.
Elvis Costello
tr**p the dirt down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-BZIWSI5UQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF-8kGYlt_w
Quote from: seafoid on April 12, 2013, 10:18:55 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on April 12, 2013, 10:08:45 PM
I have been in Scotland and England for the past week and the level of hatred towards her is just as bad, and in some cases worse, than in Ireland. She destroyed families and communities here, and the hurt runs deep. Havn't met anyone in the mood to stop celebrating her death, or forgiving her. I guess that is just a northern Irish thing........
It will be the same across the Arab world when Ariel Sharon dies . Another sociopath.
Here in Liverpool, there is alot of negativity towards her and not just among the the Irish and Scousers.
Margaret Thatcher Protest Planned For Trafalgar Square, Miners, Anarchists To Attend
A party celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death - first organised nine years ago - could see hundreds of ex-miners, activists and anarchists descend on Trafalgar Square this Saturday.
The party was first touted in 2004 by long-defunct anarchist organisation Class War, on the site IndyMedia, but has been spread around social networks since Thatcher's death on Monday.
It will take place at the scene of the 1990 Poll Tax riots, in central London.
The message calls: "On the first Saturday after Margaret Thatcher dies, Class War is calling a mass party to start at 6pm, in Trafalgar Square, scene of the most famous riot against her policies!
"Whether or not you want to remenicse about the good old days of rioting against the poll tax, to toast old friends who fought Thatcherism, or just want to celebrate the death of the most reviled woman in Britain, we hope to see you there.
"Bring your champagne, fireworks, party clothes and yourselves!"
Ding Dong Enters Charts, But Could It Be Beaten By 'I'm In Love With Margaret Thatcher'?
Several Facebook groups have been set up to promote the event, one with almost 1,400 people registering as attending.
Some in the group have also called on activists to protest outside BBC Broadcasting House, to blast "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" song on loudspeakers.The corporation has said it will not play the song in full if it makes the charts, playing only a five-second clip, because it is "distasteful".
The Facebook group announces: "This isn't organised by us, or called by us - but it's been advertised for years, and it would be a great shame if we didn't spread the word - because she'll only die once!"
The Guardian reported that a delegation of ex-miners from Durham is due to attend the protest, which begins at 6pm.
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, has warned that police will crack down on any rioting or disorder. He told LBC Radio: "We live in a democracy where people are entitled to protest, where they are entitled to have fun and do what they want."
"What they can't do is, I think, use the death of an elderly person to begin riot or affray or that sort of thing. So we're getting ready for all that.
"The police are obviously going to be making sure that if people do break the law they will be properly dealt with."
The Telegraph reported that some football fans from Millwall have threatened to confront the anti-Thatcher protesters, following the FA Cup semi-final between Millwall and Wigan.
Ian Bone, a former campaigner with Class War, told the Guardian he was somewhat surprised but pleased that the event he organised almost a decade ago was remembered, calling it "brilliant."
He told the Independent that Johnson was using 2011's riots as an excuse to "hype" the threat that demonstrators might pose on Saturday. "He thinks that it will stop people who were planning a demonstration on the day of the funeral and will give the police a free hand to act at the party on Saturday,"
UK Uncut, an anti-austerity campaign group, is also planning a day of action, which could see the home of cabinet ministers targeted.
The group posted on its website on Friday: "In London hundreds of people will be gathering at the main concourse of King's Cross station at 11.30am.
"They will be heading to the home of a mega-rich politician who is directly responsible for the bedroom tax for a day of resistance.
"Bring an oyster card zones 1 - 2, water and food to share, comfy shoes, flags, pillow cases, paints, balloons and banners!
"We will find ways to get to our target no matter what. It's important that we look after each other and work together to reach our destination."
Quote from: give her dixie on April 12, 2013, 10:55:59 PM
Margaret Thatcher Protest Planned For Trafalgar Square, Miners, Anarchists To Attend
A party celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death - first organised nine years ago - could see hundreds of ex-miners, activists and anarchists descend on Trafalgar Square this Saturday.
The party was first touted in 2004 by long-defunct anarchist organisation Class War, on the site IndyMedia, but has been spread around social networks since Thatcher's death on Monday.
It will take place at the scene of the 1990 Poll Tax riots, in central London.
The message calls: "On the first Saturday after Margaret Thatcher dies, Class War is calling a mass party to start at 6pm, in Trafalgar Square, scene of the most famous riot against her policies!
"Whether or not you want to remenicse about the good old days of rioting against the poll tax, to toast old friends who fought Thatcherism, or just want to celebrate the death of the most reviled woman in Britain, we hope to see you there.
"Bring your champagne, fireworks, party clothes and yourselves!"
Ding Dong Enters Charts, But Could It Be Beaten By 'I'm In Love With Margaret Thatcher'?
Several Facebook groups have been set up to promote the event, one with almost 1,400 people registering as attending.
Some in the group have also called on activists to protest outside BBC Broadcasting House, to blast "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" song on loudspeakers.The corporation has said it will not play the song in full if it makes the charts, playing only a five-second clip, because it is "distasteful".
The Facebook group announces: "This isn't organised by us, or called by us - but it's been advertised for years, and it would be a great shame if we didn't spread the word - because she'll only die once!"
The Guardian reported that a delegation of ex-miners from Durham is due to attend the protest, which begins at 6pm.
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, has warned that police will crack down on any rioting or disorder. He told LBC Radio: "We live in a democracy where people are entitled to protest, where they are entitled to have fun and do what they want."
"What they can't do is, I think, use the death of an elderly person to begin riot or affray or that sort of thing. So we're getting ready for all that.
"The police are obviously going to be making sure that if people do break the law they will be properly dealt with."
The Telegraph reported that some football fans from Millwall have threatened to confront the anti-Thatcher protesters, following the FA Cup semi-final between Millwall and Wigan.
Ian Bone, a former campaigner with Class War, told the Guardian he was somewhat surprised but pleased that the event he organised almost a decade ago was remembered, calling it "brilliant."
He told the Independent that Johnson was using 2011's riots as an excuse to "hype" the threat that demonstrators might pose on Saturday. "He thinks that it will stop people who were planning a demonstration on the day of the funeral and will give the police a free hand to act at the party on Saturday,"
UK Uncut, an anti-austerity campaign group, is also planning a day of action, which could see the home of cabinet ministers targeted.
The group posted on its website on Friday: "In London hundreds of people will be gathering at the main concourse of King's Cross station at 11.30am.
"They will be heading to the home of a mega-rich politician who is directly responsible for the bedroom tax for a day of resistance.
"Bring an oyster card zones 1 - 2, water and food to share, comfy shoes, flags, pillow cases, paints, balloons and banners!
"We will find ways to get to our target no matter what. It's important that we look after each other and work together to reach our destination."
What a bunch of sad bastards. Pretty much any of these tubes I have seen on tv were in nappies when Maggie was doing her worst.
Quote from: hardstation on April 12, 2013, 11:14:30 PM
Tony Baloney suggesting that those in nappies were not affected by Maggie's reign...... Some would suggest that those in nappies were among the most affected....
What a load of auld bollox. Yes they were affected, enough to protest 20 odd years later? Nah.
Just the usual bunch of soap dodgers from SWP etc. Still gives them something to fill their day instead of working.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 12, 2013, 11:33:11 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 12, 2013, 11:01:38 PMWhat a bunch of sad b**tards. Pretty much any of these tubes I have seen on tv were in nappies when Maggie was doing her worst.
I assume by that measure no one is in a position to criticise any politician unless they were an adult living during the time of said politician's height of authoritative power? Does that extend to those of the same age that praise the same politician? Does it mean that no one is able to judge the character and works of historical figures unless you were alive and an adult at the time? That would shite right on a lot of historical research, especially when measuring the long term impact of politicians of all hues and their legacy long after they've left office.
The amount of right-wing political correctness in the British media in the last few days has been noticeable, but too few are able to notice the irony.
What shite are you talking? I got bored halfway through your reply. She was an auld cnut, but if you were in your 20s could you really be arsed travelling to London to celebrate the death of someone you only have indirect knowledge of, whether it through your da being laid off, reading the news etc. Let her rot, grow up and get on with your life is my message. End of sermon ;)
Quote from: hardstation on April 12, 2013, 11:41:21 PM
People get their kicks in different ways, Tony.
Oh aye, hope you enjoy Nathan Carter.
;D
f**k ye ;D
You running a bus?
Quote from: hardstation on April 12, 2013, 11:49:17 PM
Was at a wedding a couple of weeks back and reports are I "was on the dancefloor" for the duration of 'Rock Me Mama..' May have been.
Sounds like a confession to me!
;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 12, 2013, 11:56:00 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 12, 2013, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 12, 2013, 11:33:11 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 12, 2013, 11:01:38 PMWhat a bunch of sad b**tards. Pretty much any of these tubes I have seen on tv were in nappies when Maggie was doing her worst.
I assume by that measure no one is in a position to criticise any politician unless they were an adult living during the time of said politician's height of authoritative power? Does that extend to those of the same age that praise the same politician? Does it mean that no one is able to judge the character and works of historical figures unless you were alive and an adult at the time? That would shite right on a lot of historical research, especially when measuring the long term impact of politicians of all hues and their legacy long after they've left office.
The amount of right-wing political correctness in the British media in the last few days has been noticeable, but too few are able to notice the irony.
What shite are you talking? I got bored halfway through your reply. She was an auld cnut, but if you were in your 20s could you really be arsed travelling to London to celebrate the death of someone you only have indirect knowledge of, whether it through your da being laid off, reading the news etc. Let her rot, grow up and get on with your life is my message. End of sermon ;)
Translation: "I don't wanna hear about it!" To a certain extent, thanks for proving my point ;) ;)
Do you really think 90% of the folk gearing up for this rally will have analysed Maggie's legacy?! You give them too much credit and assume they are like you ;)
You had a point? :P
Looking forward to the Reading v Liverpool game on Sat ::)
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 13, 2013, 12:17:25 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 13, 2013, 12:06:45 AM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 12, 2013, 11:56:00 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 12, 2013, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 12, 2013, 11:33:11 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 12, 2013, 11:01:38 PMWhat a bunch of sad b**tards. Pretty much any of these tubes I have seen on tv were in nappies when Maggie was doing her worst.
I assume by that measure no one is in a position to criticise any politician unless they were an adult living during the time of said politician's height of authoritative power? Does that extend to those of the same age that praise the same politician? Does it mean that no one is able to judge the character and works of historical figures unless you were alive and an adult at the time? That would shite right on a lot of historical research, especially when measuring the long term impact of politicians of all hues and their legacy long after they've left office.
The amount of right-wing political correctness in the British media in the last few days has been noticeable, but too few are able to notice the irony.
What shite are you talking? I got bored halfway through your reply. She was an auld cnut, but if you were in your 20s could you really be arsed travelling to London to celebrate the death of someone you only have indirect knowledge of, whether it through your da being laid off, reading the news etc. Let her rot, grow up and get on with your life is my message. End of sermon ;)
Translation: "I don't wanna hear about it!" To a certain extent, thanks for proving my point ;) ;)
Do you really think 90% of the folk gearing up for this rally will have analysed Maggie's legacy?! You give them too much credit and assume they are like you ;)
What, that I couldn't be arsed if there was a party being thrown for her passing if it was being held next door? ;D ;D I've more constructive things to get on with. Besides when you think about it, if they are the age you say they are then most of those that are taking their arse down to London would have been children that grew up with her as PM and seeing confrontation around them. They are as much Thatcher's children as any other person in their 20's & 30's that are true blues in the southern English suburbs. She helped make them. As I said a few days ago the likes of you and me were more sheltered from it because there were other more pressing problems at the time.
Speaking of which, I wonder when Ian Paisley Sr. croaks it will there be the same parties on the Falls Road?
Heard folk in work talking about Paisley. I can't see it to be honest but many will certainly toast his passing. I have hated seeing the way he has been lionised over the past few years when not that long ago he was a blood thirsty auld cnut. Some of the recent footage of his ambushing Maggie around the time of the anglo-Irish Agreement shows the real Paisley and what he thought of his fellow Irishmen.
I wonder what it will be like when Bertie goes.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 12, 2013, 11:18:53 PM
Quote from: hardstation on April 12, 2013, 11:14:30 PM
Tony Baloney suggesting that those in nappies were not affected by Maggie's reign...... Some would suggest that those in nappies were among the most affected....
What a load of auld bollox. Yes they were affected, enough to protest 20 odd years later? Nah.
Just the usual bunch of soap dodgers from SWP etc. Still gives them something to fill their day instead of working.
Sorry pal but you are just another revisionist. Today's bedroom tax is the poll tax. Today's bankers robbing the country's wealth is the same hoorays who helped decimate the working classes in the 80s. The haves and have more prosper out of Thatcherism, while the working classes, and unable to work classes (due to Tory policy, ala work in Poundland for your dole) is Thatcherism through and through. Those that think you weren't 21 in 1979 and therefore weren't affected are idiots, revisionist idiots, end of
Is it still dead? The coffin should be under armed guard by the Ra just to make sure it stays dead
Better bury her somewhere secret or cremate her. Someone might do what they did to Cromwell and dig her up and hang her.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 13, 2013, 12:06:45 AM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 12, 2013, 11:56:00 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 12, 2013, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 12, 2013, 11:33:11 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 12, 2013, 11:01:38 PMWhat a bunch of sad b**tards. Pretty much any of these tubes I have seen on tv were in nappies when Maggie was doing her worst.
I assume by that measure no one is in a position to criticise any politician unless they were an adult living during the time of said politician's height of authoritative power? Does that extend to those of the same age that praise the same politician? Does it mean that no one is able to judge the character and works of historical figures unless you were alive and an adult at the time? That would shite right on a lot of historical research, especially when measuring the long term impact of politicians of all hues and their legacy long after they've left office.
The amount of right-wing political correctness in the British media in the last few days has been noticeable, but too few are able to notice the irony.
What shite are you talking? I got bored halfway through your reply. She was an auld cnut, but if you were in your 20s could you really be arsed travelling to London to celebrate the death of someone you only have indirect knowledge of, whether it through your da being laid off, reading the news etc. Let her rot, grow up and get on with your life is my message. End of sermon ;)
Translation: "I don't wanna hear about it!" To a certain extent, thanks for proving my point ;) ;)
Do you really think 90% of the folk gearing up for this rally will have analysed Maggie's legacy?! You give them too much credit and assume they are like you ;)
You had a point? :P
Tony
Some crowd that is now defunct agreed 20 years ago that they would gather on the first Saturday after the death of Thatcher. You can say what you like but the woman and what she represents generates a visceral reaction in large parts of the deindustrialised English Midlands and North as well as Scotland and Wales, never mind Norn Irn.
The Ding Dong the Witch is dead song is also telling us something.
It's great that the UK is a democracy where these feelings can be expressed openly.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 13, 2013, 04:37:38 AM
Better bury her somewhere secret or cremate her. Someone might do what they did to Cromwell and dig her up and hang her.
Maybe they'll bury her at sea a la Bin Laden.
I have to say that it is great that she died under a Tory Government. The UK is in a real economic mess in no small part thanks to George Osborne's policies and it might not take much to get people going.
The Tories can't help lionising her but they are 10 points behind Labour in the polls already. Labour doesn't have to do anything.
Quote from: glens abu on April 13, 2013, 12:27:31 AM
Looking forward to the Reading v Liverpool game on Sat ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Cmzvt549Y
I'm no Tory but some people have short memories of what went on in Labours 15 years of government and the state of the economy when they left office. Labour were saying they would impose deeper cuts than the Thatcher era conservatives, before the last General Election. Tony Blair helped invent a war for fucks sake, a bigger rogue you won't find.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 05:47:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 13, 2013, 04:37:38 AM
Better bury her somewhere secret or cremate her. Someone might do what they did to Cromwell and dig her up and hang her.
Maybe they'll bury her at sea a la Bin Laden.
I have to say that it is great that she died under a Tory Government. The UK is in a real economic mess in no small part thanks to George Osborne's policies and it might not take much to get people going.
The Tories can't help lionising her but they are 10 points behind Labour in the polls already. Labour doesn't have to do anything.
Yeah it was in great nick when Labour left office in 2010, what was the note ex-Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne left for his Tory successor ? "There is no money left".
Quote from: Minder on April 13, 2013, 07:52:04 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 05:47:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 13, 2013, 04:37:38 AM
Better bury her somewhere secret or cremate her. Someone might do what they did to Cromwell and dig her up and hang her.
Maybe they'll bury her at sea a la Bin Laden.
I have to say that it is great that she died under a Tory Government. The UK is in a real economic mess in no small part thanks to George Osborne's policies and it might not take much to get people going.
The Tories can't help lionising her but they are 10 points behind Labour in the polls already. Labour doesn't have to do anything.
Yeah it was in great nick when Labour left office in 2010, what was the note ex-Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne left for his Tory successor ? "There is no money left".
The Tories decided on austerity alone, Minder. Not Labour.
Sure Labour made mistakes but they aren't in power now. Osborne promised to bring growth back.
He can't. Thank God the Tories are running the show now. This crisis will destroy the myth
that they are economically competent.
hold on a fukn minute i specifically avoided this thread because i didnt want to be labled the typical bitter shinner. but carol thatcher has been welcomed to the thatcher home by "SIR" mark thatcher. this fuker is a lord, 'lord fukn thatcher' it just gets better by the day ::)
Quote from: lawnseed on April 13, 2013, 10:25:37 AM
hold on a fukn minute i specifically avoided this thread because i didnt want to be labled the typical bitter shinner. but carol thatcher has been welcomed to the thatcher home by "SIR" mark thatcher. this fuker is a lord, 'lord fukn thatcher' it just gets better by the day ::)
Mark Thatcher should be labelled an international terrorist for trying to organise a coup in Equatorial Guinea. An a total clot for not being able to read a map.
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 10:19:45 AM
Quote from: Minder on April 13, 2013, 07:52:04 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 05:47:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 13, 2013, 04:37:38 AM
Better bury her somewhere secret or cremate her. Someone might do what they did to Cromwell and dig her up and hang her.
Maybe they'll bury her at sea a la Bin Laden.
I have to say that it is great that she died under a Tory Government. The UK is in a real economic mess in no small part thanks to George Osborne's policies and it might not take much to get people going.
The Tories can't help lionising her but they are 10 points behind Labour in the polls already. Labour doesn't have to do anything.
Yeah it was in great nick when Labour left office in 2010, what was the note ex-Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne left for his Tory successor ? "There is no money left".
The Tories decided on austerity alone, Minder. Not Labour.
Sure Labour made mistakes but they aren't in power now. Osborne promised to bring growth back.
He can't. Thank God the Tories are running the show now. This crisis will destroy the myth
that they are economically competent.
All of which is true but Labour didn't help by emptying the coffers before they left office. If I was taking over a business I would prefer some money in the pot than starting off in debt. However Labour, like Ireland thought the good times were here to stay and adopted a spend, spend, spend policy. We know how that worked out. I am all for the welfare system but only if they got all the spongers off it and paid those who need it an amount they can live on. If someone has worked for years and paid NI contributions then 60 quid a week is some kick in the teeth.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 13, 2013, 11:15:29 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 10:19:45 AM
Quote from: Minder on April 13, 2013, 07:52:04 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 05:47:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 13, 2013, 04:37:38 AM
Better bury her somewhere secret or cremate her. Someone might do what they did to Cromwell and dig her up and hang her.
Maybe they'll bury her at sea a la Bin Laden.
I have to say that it is great that she died under a Tory Government. The UK is in a real economic mess in no small part thanks to George Osborne's policies and it might not take much to get people going.
The Tories can't help lionising her but they are 10 points behind Labour in the polls already. Labour doesn't have to do anything.
Yeah it was in great nick when Labour left office in 2010, what was the note ex-Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne left for his Tory successor ? "There is no money left".
The Tories decided on austerity alone, Minder. Not Labour.
Sure Labour made mistakes but they aren't in power now. Osborne promised to bring growth back.
He can't. Thank God the Tories are running the show now. This crisis will destroy the myth
that they are economically competent.
All of which is true but Labour didn't help by emptying the coffers before they left office. If I was taking over a business I would prefer some money in the pot than starting off in debt. However Labour, like Ireland thought the good times were here to stay and adopted a spend, spend, spend policy. We know how that worked out. I am all for the welfare system but only if they got all the spongers off it and paid those who need it an amount they can live on. If someone has worked for years and paid NI contributions then 60 quid a week is some kick in the teeth.
Any polls there have been recently Labour voters have agreed the welfare state needs reformed, I think it's obvious and you don't have to be right winger to hold that view.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 09, 2013, 07:12:57 PM
Presumably if you don't believe the conspiracy theories (that the junta were entrapped into the war) then the war was not unavoidable. I'm not sure anbody credible believes that the british demilitarised the Falklands in order to entice an ontherwise peaceable right wing brutal junta with severe domestic issues to invade and the troops to turn right around and travel back across the world and win a war in time for an election. I think the idea that the election was called early to capitalise on her new found popularity (ultimately disasterous for the british people) is a lot more plausable.
By the time the Argentine forces had taken over Port Stanley, then military confrontation was perhaps pretty much unavoidable by that point (or perhaps even by the time they landed on the islands) as we were dealing with two hardcases here. However it isn't discredited that steps in diplomacy, which had been happening between the two governments for a few years prior, were likely not exhausted before an invasion took place. Up until that time the UK government not only reduced the amount of armed personnel on the islands, the British Nationality Act of 1981 also tightened the rights of Falklands residents to claiming the right of abode or to settle in the UK without showing due connection (though this didn't just affect them but also many others in what are now British Overseas Territories).
So we are agreed that at the time of the declaration of War that Britain had no option.
Your point that it was avoidable at an earlier stage is interesting. I can't prove that efforts at diplomacy were exhausted but to lend authority to your argument do you have any evidence that the Argie Junta were or would have yielded to diplomacy. I'm not aware of any evidence and on that basis it hard to accept that your point has any legs.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 09, 2013, 07:12:57 PM
What was the Thatcher/Reagan relationship like at that time? We know what it was like later but back then was it strong enough?
Since Ronald Regan came into office about 18 months prior, one would assume that a decent rapport had been built up especially as both would share many points of ideology. Arguably Thatcher was even more forceful on some foreign policy matters than Regan was.
I'm not aware of any any evidence that Reagan and Thatcher hit it off from the off. In fact Reagan (for his own unpleasant reasons) was against UK's action in the Falklands. Thatcher embarrassed him into changing his mind. His impression of her from that moment is recognised as the key point in triggering their subsequent close political relationship.
Your original point hinges on the close relationship between the 2 individuals being used toprevent the war. That relationship did not exist at the time and consequently your argument is baseless.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 09, 2013, 07:12:57 PMA significant body of credible comemtators would point to the Argies true motives - a distracting attack against a foreign enemy. Debt foreclosue by that same enemy as a means of preventing an attack on that enemy is interesting. Have a strange feeling the argies would have launched their attack with greater ugency in that scenario.
Of course the Argentine Junta invaded as a distraction tacit against poor governance by them which resulted in being very unpopular with the Argentine public, so decided to play the ubernationalist card and invade the Falklands - which ended up as an "epic fail" and they were tossed out soon after. The thing about any attempt at debt foreclosure is that while it might have not stopped enough for an initial invasion, it would clearly not last as no money would be available to keep a meaningful occupation ongoing beyond the short term. It's also worth remembering that the then EEC countries were generally supportive of the UK as well with imposing economic sanctions on Argentina - though in Ireland's case they weakened their support to the UK after the Belgrano sinking.
SO we agree that the Argies were the agressors and Uk had broad and growing international support at the time of the invasion.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 09, 2013, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 09, 2013, 12:25:11 AM
She pretty much smashed the Munroe Doctrine dead by the finish.
It doubtful whether the original british occupation of the Falklands was a breach of the convention. The decision to re-militarise it in 1982 certainly was not a breach. How could it have been?
The original taking of the islands probably wasn't even though it was done after the doctrine declaration. As to 1982, that depends if in your view that the Argentine invasion seen the islands as being Argentine or not. The international political climate at the time concerning the Cold War meant such conflict worried the USA and they themselves tried to help broker a peace deal before siding with the British.
You seem a lot less certain that the Doctrine was breached and have failed to point out any evidence that it was breached. It mot a matter of "depending on your point of view." For your agrument to hold water you need to point out that it was was a breach of the doctrine because ...... (and insert some evidence).
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 09, 2013, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 09, 2013, 12:25:11 AM
In the end many British lives (leaving aside any Argentine ones - they should be left in the hands of their Junta really) were lost either though a naive overseas territory policy or a deliberate bit of international grandstanding. And for many British soldiers who fought to expel the Argentine forces, they later ended up being regarded as "the enemy within".
Naive? Explain how Britain could have ignored the islander' pleas?
One, as I pointed out above, the islanders themselves where mostly not full British citizens. Two, it could be argued that the Argentines did not and had no known plans to target civilian residents on the islands and had assurances been given by the Junta to not harm or expel them then international pressure would be maintained to ensure a more peaceful resolution but ultimately this crossed the point of no return. Third, there had been a continuing policy of decolonisation of many territories from former European powers at the time, and indeed this was one of the tactics that the Argentines tried to play on (clandestine radio broadcasts from them tried to give this impression). But the Argentine line of thinking and democratic wishes couldn't work together for obvious reasons.
Bizarre line of argument. An invasion by a foreign agressor taht promises not to harm civillians could never have been ignored. Firstly did any credible body believe the promise not to harm civilians on a long term basis. Surely the human rights record of the junta utterly explodes that line of argument. Secondly it would have remained and illegal and hostile occupation which can not be tolerated under international law. The pleas of the Islanders includes their pleas not to be subject to Argentian control (harmless or otherwise).
Which European countried de-colonised a foreign territory where the domocratic will was for them to stay?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 09, 2013, 07:12:57 PM
Agree. And lets be clear I would rather she and the argentinian junta had never came to power
Well two wrongs certainly don't make a right.
Good cliché but its relevance here and to any point I've made escapes me.
Quote from: Minder on April 13, 2013, 11:20:40 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 13, 2013, 11:15:29 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 10:19:45 AM
Quote from: Minder on April 13, 2013, 07:52:04 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 05:47:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 13, 2013, 04:37:38 AM
Better bury her somewhere secret or cremate her. Someone might do what they did to Cromwell and dig her up and hang her.
Maybe they'll bury her at sea a la Bin Laden.
I have to say that it is great that she died under a Tory Government. The UK is in a real economic mess in no small part thanks to George Osborne's policies and it might not take much to get people going.
The Tories can't help lionising her but they are 10 points behind Labour in the polls already. Labour doesn't have to do anything.
Yeah it was in great nick when Labour left office in 2010, what was the note ex-Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne left for his Tory successor ? "There is no money left".
The Tories decided on austerity alone, Minder. Not Labour.
Sure Labour made mistakes but they aren't in power now. Osborne promised to bring growth back.
He can't. Thank God the Tories are running the show now. This crisis will destroy the myth
that they are economically competent.
All of which is true but Labour didn't help by emptying the coffers before they left office. If I was taking over a business I would prefer some money in the pot than starting off in debt. However Labour, like Ireland thought the good times were here to stay and adopted a spend, spend, spend policy. We know how that worked out. I am all for the welfare system but only if they got all the spongers off it and paid those who need it an amount they can live on. If someone has worked for years and paid NI contributions then 60 quid a week is some kick in the teeth.
Any polls there have been recently Labour voters have agreed the welfare state needs reformed, I think it's obvious and you don't have to be right winger to hold that view.
So does plutocracy, Minder. There are far too many talentless people at the top in the UK creaming it while the majority have to tighten their belts.
The whole economic model is banjaxed.
60 quid a week when the Tories are sucking demand out of the economy and there are as a result no jobs is just wasting talent.
Thatcher proposed sending Northern Ireland Catholics to the Republic
Margaret Thatcher once horrified her advisers when she suggested shipping Catholics from Northern Ireland to the Republic as solution to the Troubles.
Riots : Belfast. August 1969. Barricades in Divis Street, a man talks to troops over the barricade. (16/8/69)
(http://static.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/migration_catalog/article25866749.ece/ALTERNATES/h342/4a7dda6bf4d68a2c475df0ee9c.jpg)
The Iron Lady made the bizarre proposal in 1985, just a year after she was nearly killed in the IRA's Brighton bomb.
In late-night talks with her advisers, the Baroness said the Oliver Cromwell-style approach would not only solve the Troubles but content nationalists who "wanted to be" in the south.
The divisive recommendation was revealed by British diplomat Sir David Goodall, then adviser to Prime Minister Thatcher.
In 2001 he told a BBC documentary: "She said, if the northern [Catholic] population want to be in the south, well why don't they move over there?
"After all, there was a big movement of population in Ireland, wasn't there?
Sir David added: "Nobody could think what it was.
"So finally I said, are you talking about Cromwell, prime minister?
"She said, that's right, Cromwell."
Cromwell — dubbed the Butcher of Ireland — was responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in the 1640s and 1650s. His forces hounded virtually all Catholic landowners from Ulster through Parliamentary invasion.
The 15th political leader is seen as a hate figure among nationalists — much like Lady Thatcher, whose death saw republican street parties across the province.
The Conservative Prime Minister's "outrageous" plan did not stop at reviving the memory of Cromwell. She also called for the province's border with the Republic to be redrawn because it was too difficult to patrol.
Sir Charles Powell, her then private secretary, also told the programme: "She thought that if we had a straight line border, not one with all those kinks and wiggles in it, it would be easier to defend."
Despite being told of the folly of her idea, Thatcher refused to abandon it and called for a "security zone" on both sides of the border to help the British Army and RUC prevent IRA terrorists slipping over the border after attacks.
Quote from: Minder on April 13, 2013, 11:20:40 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 13, 2013, 11:15:29 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 10:19:45 AM
Quote from: Minder on April 13, 2013, 07:52:04 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2013, 05:47:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 13, 2013, 04:37:38 AM
Better bury her somewhere secret or cremate her. Someone might do what they did to Cromwell and dig her up and hang her.
Maybe they'll bury her at sea a la Bin Laden.
I have to say that it is great that she died under a Tory Government. The UK is in a real economic mess in no small part thanks to George Osborne's policies and it might not take much to get people going.
The Tories can't help lionising her but they are 10 points behind Labour in the polls already. Labour doesn't have to do anything.
Yeah it was in great nick when Labour left office in 2010, what was the note ex-Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne left for his Tory successor ? "There is no money left".
The Tories decided on austerity alone, Minder. Not Labour.
Sure Labour made mistakes but they aren't in power now. Osborne promised to bring growth back.
He can't. Thank God the Tories are running the show now. This crisis will destroy the myth
that they are economically competent.
All of which is true but Labour didn't help by emptying the coffers before they left office. If I was taking over a business I would prefer some money in the pot than starting off in debt. However Labour, like Ireland thought the good times were here to stay and adopted a spend, spend, spend policy. We know how that worked out. I am all for the welfare system but only if they got all the spongers off it and paid those who need it an amount they can live on. If someone has worked for years and paid NI contributions then 60 quid a week is some kick in the teeth.
Any polls there have been recently Labour voters have agreed the welfare state needs reformed, I think it's obvious and you don't have to be right winger to hold that view.
A few years back we were being told that regulation of the financial sector was a must by all the experts yet Cameron and his mates have fought any tightening of regulation in any manner, even using his veto in Europe.
There's a lot wrong with the British economy but the ruling classes aren't being asked to make any sacrifices, if anything they're better off.
Can anyone explain how reducing the high end income tax bands on personal incomes will create more employment, other than maybe more gardeners, nanny's and cleaners?
"Peter Mandelson said today that the only thing Margaret Thatcher ever told him was that the Irish were "all liars" and not to be trusted."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/thatcher-dubbed-all-irish-liars-mandelson-says-591549.html
Live coverage coming up on TV3 so all the liars can pay their respects.
http://www.tv3.ie/3player/live/1/
Quote from: sheamy on April 17, 2013, 09:59:29 AM
"Peter Mandelson said today that the only thing Margaret Thatcher ever told him was that the Irish were "all liars" and not to be trusted."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/thatcher-dubbed-all-irish-liars-mandelson-says-591549.html
Live coverage coming up on TV3 so all the liars can pay their respects.
http://www.tv3.ie/3player/live/1/
Why are TV3 showing this live??
This article says it all about her. Taxes are for poor people.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatchers-6million-townhouse-owned-1828724#.UWl8W_wv5xY.twitter (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatchers-6million-townhouse-owned-1828724#.UWl8W_wv5xY.twitter)
By Andy Lines
Thatcher's £6million townhouse owned by mystery company with links to tax havens
13 Apr 2013 08:49
EXPERTS say financial trail leads to offshore businesses in British Virgin Islands with links to Liechtenstein and Jersey.
Thatcher's home in Belgravia is owned by a company with links in the tax haven Thatcher's home in Belgravia is owned by a company with links in the tax haven
MARGARET Thatcher's £6million townhouse is owned by a mysterious company with links to three notorious tax havens.
Financial experts said it could have been a scheme which would help her estate avoid millions of pounds in inheritance tax. But because the former prime minister's affairs are shrouded in secrecy, it may be impossible to find out.
The trail leads to offshore businesses in the British Virgin Islands with links to Liechtenstein and Jersey.
The £6million property Thatcher lived in for more than 20 years is owned by Bakeland Property Company, based in the Caribbean territory. Their official address is a PO Box in Liechtenstein and they had their original roots in St Helier, Jersey.
The question marks over her home come as police in London prepare for anarchist demonstrations this weekend, following her death on Monday.
Any suggestion of avoiding a £2.4million inheritance tax bill will spark outrage following the row over
who is paying for Thatcher's lavish £10million funeral.
British Virgin Islands in the Caribbean
John Christensen, of the Tax Justice Network, said: "How can a former prime minister spend more than two decades living in a house in London that has been owned for many years by a company based in the British Virgin Islands?
"This does not pass the smell test and simply cannot be allowed to happen in 21st Century Britain.
"We all have a duty to pay our taxes, and that includes former politicians. Politicians and in particular prime ministers have a duty to be transparent with their financial affairs."
Records at the Land Registry HQ show that on March 29, 2006, Bakeland paid £2,395,807 for the house in Belgravia, London.
It is unclear who they purchased the house from, because they were also named on the lease when the house was originally bought on October 30, 1991, for a reported £700,000.
There are two leases on the property, which a Land Registry source described as "unusual". The first one was taken out on October 18, 1991, and lasts until December 25, 2030. The second was taken out on July 29, 1996, and runs out in 2055.
Bakeland Property Company Ltd trustees were originally listed as Jersey-based Hugh Thurston and Leonard Day, her friends and financial advisers. In 2002, The Guardian reported that Bakeland's shares were held by Day and Thurston. Accountants said they were acting as nominees for a trust with concealed beneficiaries.
As Lady Thatcher did not own the house herself it is possible, depending on the terms of her will, that her children Mark and Carol could benefit. If the property was listed in the name of their mother, they would been subject to 40 per cent tax on the value of the home – an estimated £2.4million.
Tax campaigner Christensen added: "There are huge financial benefits for an offshore company to own a property or leasehold, particularly in connection with stamp duty and inheritance tax.
"A company doesn't die. If a person dies, the property has to be passed on to someone else – obviously this isn't the case with a company.
"This can be very beneficial indeed and can save a large amount of money in taxes which would be otherwise due."
Meanwhile, hundreds of police are on standby in the run-up to Thatcher's funeral in London on Wednesday.
Anarchists threatened a mass party to celebrate her death and protesters said a demonstration in Trafalgar Square today will be a focus for discontent.
The decision to grant her a military-themed send-off was questioned again yesterday after claims Buckingham Palace had raised concerns about it.
Labour MP Ronnie Campbell demanded to know why 700 troops will stage a ceremonial funeral for Thatcher when prime ministers who had fought for their country did not.
He said: "They are putting her up there with Winston Churchill."
Black Mountain this morning.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BICxeGbCYAE9eBV.jpg:large)
Jazes.
Her funeral 'mass' is very boring.
If she wasn't already dead she'd be dead from boredom.
Naomi Long said Mrs Thatcher's legacy was "very much a mixed bag".
I could describe her differently.
Apologies if already posted but this was a good one too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqHvAC-mDQg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqHvAC-mDQg)
Quote from: orangeman on April 17, 2013, 12:27:42 PM
Naomi Long said Mrs Thatcher's legacy was "very much a mixed bag".
I could describe her differently.
Ultimately she wasted 11 years regarding norn irn. That was bad for the loyalists especially. She didn't care about the effects of deindustrialisation on such working class communities. There was no reason to be loyal to her.
QuoteApologies if already posted but this was a good one too.
SINEAD O'CONNOR - how dare you >:(
Amanda Thatcher the iron granddaughter didn't catch the ugly evil looking gene.
(http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ay_108056919.jpg?w=650)
She's not as hot as her **** of a granny is feeling right now
To be fair, she was probably including the unionists here:
Quote
Thatcher to Mandelson: 'You can't trust the Irish, they are all liars'
Lord Mandelson said today that the only thing Baroness Thatcher ever told him was that the Irish were "all liars" and not to be trusted, writes Joe Churcher
The Labour former cabinet minister revealed the 1999 exchange as he explained why he did not want to attend the former premier's funeral service.
"I didn't feel I knew her well enough" to apply for the tickets offered to peers, he told BBC Radio 4's Today.
"Although I helped to organise the Labour Party's opposition to her policies throughout the 1980s, I only ever met her once.
"It was the day I was appointed Northern Ireland secretary and our paths crossed.
"She came up to me and she said, 'I've got one thing to say to you, my boy ... you can't trust the Irish, they are all liars', she said, 'liars, and that's what you have to remember, so just don't forget it'.
"With that she waltzed off and that was my only personal exposure to her."
Lord Mandelson, one of the central architects of New Labour, has criticised the scale of the funeral but accepted the Iron Lady "reframed British politics".
"I think what she was right to do was to bring home to us the reality that Britain could not afford rampant inflation, that state monopolies needed commercialising, that personal tax rates were too high and that enterprise was too unrewarding," he said.
"She was also right to argue that deregulation can be a valuable spur to innovation and efficiency and of course she tackled what was then a very disruptive and irresponsible trade union culture.
"But the truth is also that in cutting back the state necessarily, she overlooked what the state can also do successfully."
Belfast Telegraph (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/thatcher-to-mandelson-you-cant-trust-the-irish-they-are-all-liars-29202990.html)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 17, 2013, 06:56:36 PM
To be fair, she was probably including the unionists here:
Quote
Thatcher to Mandelson: 'You can't trust the Irish, they are all liars'
Lord Mandelson said today that the only thing Baroness Thatcher ever told him was that the Irish were "all liars" and not to be trusted, writes Joe Churcher
The Labour former cabinet minister revealed the 1999 exchange as he explained why he did not want to attend the former premier's funeral service.
"I didn't feel I knew her well enough" to apply for the tickets offered to peers, he told BBC Radio 4's Today.
"Although I helped to organise the Labour Party's opposition to her policies throughout the 1980s, I only ever met her once.
"It was the day I was appointed Northern Ireland secretary and our paths crossed.
"She came up to me and she said, 'I've got one thing to say to you, my boy ... you can't trust the Irish, they are all liars', she said, 'liars, and that's what you have to remember, so just don't forget it'.
"With that she waltzed off and that was my only personal exposure to her."
Lord Mandelson, one of the central architects of New Labour, has criticised the scale of the funeral but accepted the Iron Lady "reframed British politics".
"I think what she was right to do was to bring home to us the reality that Britain could not afford rampant inflation, that state monopolies needed commercialising, that personal tax rates were too high and that enterprise was too unrewarding," he said.
"She was also right to argue that deregulation can be a valuable spur to innovation and efficiency and of course she tackled what was then a very disruptive and irresponsible trade union culture.
"But the truth is also that in cutting back the state necessarily, she overlooked what the state can also do successfully."
Belfast Telegraph (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/thatcher-to-mandelson-you-cant-trust-the-irish-they-are-all-liars-29202990.html)
Who gives a f**k whether she was including unionists or not, it still shows the mindset of the racist bitch.
She hardly needed to give Mandleson advice on how to spot a liar.....
That horrible smug lookin **** of a son of her's has a face you would never tire of slapping.
Does anyone remember Cornelius "Neil" Horan, sometimes referred to as The Grand Prix Priest or The Dancing Priest? Well, he escaped from captivity and made an appearance today at Thatchers funeral and performed a short jig.......
https://vine.co/v/bFYwaXFujI9
Surely she shouldn't have judged an entire nation and it's people on the basis of meeting Charlie Haughey a couple of times a year?
Quote from: give her dixie on April 17, 2013, 07:53:49 PM
Does anyone remember Cornelius "Neil" Horan, sometimes referred to as The Grand Prix Priest or The Dancing Priest? Well, he escaped from captivity and made an appearance today at Thatchers funeral and performed a short jig.......
https://vine.co/v/bFYwaXFujI9
sweet jeeezus! what an embarrassment. that lunatic should be shot with a ball of his own dung. why oh why does he have to wear the tricolour?
Quote from: give her dixie on April 17, 2013, 07:53:49 PM
Does anyone remember Cornelius "Neil" Horan, sometimes referred to as The Grand Prix Priest or The Dancing Priest? Well, he escaped from captivity and made an appearance today at Thatchers funeral and performed a short jig.......
https://vine.co/v/bFYwaXFujI9
And the most embarrassing four seconds of my life .... existed.
What's with the Star of David across his chest? Is he Ball de Beaver in disguise?
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on April 18, 2013, 12:10:03 AM
What's with the Star of David across his chest? Is he Ball de Beaver in disguise?
Actually that makes a lot of sense.
Thatcher had balls. I agree with some of her stances and policies but more han that, I admire her for being able to make a brave decision and having the conviction to see it through. In a world of cowardly, vote - buying politicians that was a rare quality. The unions, the IRA, the Argentinians - she stood up to them all. If she's hated in Ireland for standing up to convicted murderers then fair play to her. Ireland needs some brave leaders to turn the country around so our young people will no longer have to choose between emigration and rotting on the dole.
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 12:50:16 AM
If she's hated in Ireland for standing up to convicted murderers then fair play to her.
I suppose its "fair play" to those british leaders that "stood up to" the Old IRA "murderers" too then?
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 12:50:16 AM
Thatcher had balls. I agree with some of her stances and policies but more han that, I admire her for being able to make a brave decision and having the conviction to see it through. In a world of cowardly, vote - buying politicians that was a rare quality. The unions, the IRA, the Argentinians - she stood up to them all. If she's hated in Ireland for standing up to convicted murderers then fair play to her. Ireland needs some brave leaders to turn the country around so our young people will no longer have to choose between emigration and rotting on the dole.
Hitler had conviction too!
I normally stay away from politics and do not like to speak ill of the dead but Thatcher showed no compassion in her time as leader. A great leader for me is not one who tramps on the people to impose their will but rather someone who can lead all the people to work together to achieve the common goal. Thatcher also sowed the seeds of banking deregulation which has us all in the position we are today.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2013, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 12:50:16 AM
If she's hated in Ireland for standing up to convicted murderers then fair play to her.
I suppose its "fair play" to those british leaders that "stood up to" the Old IRA "murderers" too then?
I'm not saying that and my main point wasn't about the IRA. That's another arguement, but what's so great about having your own Republic when you have to leave ithe f**king place anyway to make a decent living. I'm just saying that Thatcher had the courage to make difficult decisions and see them through unlike the gombeen leaders we've had in Ireland forever. Our leaders need to take on the public sector unions and break them the way Thatcher took on the miner's union if our mighty little country is to recover. But that would be way too unpopular a step for any of them to take.
Quote from: Asal Morink=topic=17708.msg1223069#msg1223069 date=1366430623
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2013, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 12:50:16 AM
If she's hated in Ireland for standing up to convicted murderers then fair play to her.
I suppose its "fair play" to those british leaders that "stood up to" the Old IRA "murderers" too then?
I'm not saying that and my main point wasn't about the IRA. That's another arguement, but what's so great about having your own Republic when you have to leave ithe f**king place anyway to make a decent living. I'm just saying that Thatcher had the courage to make difficult decisions and see them through unlike the gombeen leaders we've had in Ireland forever. Our leaders need to take on the public sector unions and break them the way Thatcher took on the miner's union if our mighty little country is to recover. But that would be way too unpopular a step for any of them to take.
Hitler, as Throw Ball said, also had the courage of his convictions. That still left her as a racist, bloodthirsty, hate filled tyrant. A number of close neighbours of mine are in their graves as a
direct result of her decisions. There was nothing to admire about that woman.
P.s. When you said "fair play to her" for when she "stood up to convicted murderers in Ireland', who were you referring to?
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 05:03:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2013, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 12:50:16 AM
If she's hated in Ireland for standing up to convicted murderers then fair play to her.
I suppose its "fair play" to those british leaders that "stood up to" the Old IRA "murderers" too then?
I'm not saying that and my main point wasn't about the IRA. That's another arguement, but what's so great about having your own Republic when you have to leave ithe f**king place anyway to make a decent living. I'm just saying that Thatcher had the courage to make difficult decisions and see them through unlike the gombeen leaders we've had in Ireland forever. Our leaders need to take on the public sector unions and break them the way Thatcher took on the miner's union if our mighty little country is to recover. But that would be way too unpopular a step for any of them to take.
You are well named anyway.
You're probably a great admirer of Latin American "strong leaders" like Pinochet ( he put "the unions" in their place i.e graves) or the Argie Junta.
All I can say is God save us and the world from "Strong " leaders - e.g Thatcher, Pol Pot, Gengis Khan, ....etc....etc
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 12:50:16 AM
Thatcher had balls. I agree with some of her stances and policies but more han that, I admire her for being able to make a brave decision and having the conviction to see it through. In a world of cowardly, vote - buying politicians that was a rare quality. The unions, the IRA, the Argentinians - she stood up to them all. If she's hated in Ireland for standing up to convicted murderers then fair play to her. Ireland needs some brave leaders to turn the country around so our young people will no longer have to choose between emigration and rotting on the dole.
Yeah, we're all liars and can't be trusted.
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 12:50:16 AM
Thatcher had balls. I agree with some of her stances and policies but more han that, I admire her for being able to make a brave decision and having the conviction to see it through. In a world of cowardly, vote - buying politicians that was a rare quality. The unions, the IRA, the Argentinians - she stood up to them all. If she's hated in Ireland for standing up to convicted murderers then fair play to her. Ireland needs some brave leaders to turn the country around so our young people will no longer have to choose between emigration and rotting on the dole.
Never read so much verbal diarrhea. Troll.
No I'm not an admirer of Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao or even De Valera but I do admire Thatcher. I think she was dead right to stand up to the unions and the IRA, when it would have been easier for her to cave. The tail wags the dog too often nowadays, and Maggie wasn't having it. If it makes me a troll to have a different opinion to most of the others on here then so be it.
Quote from: Asal MorIf it makes me a troll to have a different opinion to most of the others on here then so be it.
I'm sure calling yo a troll is against the rules of the forum.
So to keep things positive, let me compliment you on how well your username reflects yor posts.
There are plenty reasons to hate Thatcher but "UK PM stands up to IRA" is not one of them.
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 01:57:44 PM
No I'm not an admirer of Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao or even De Valera but I do admire Thatcher. I think she was dead right to stand up to the unions and the IRA, when it would have been easier for her to cave. The tail wags the dog too often nowadays, and Maggie wasn't having it. If it makes me a troll to have a different opinion to most of the others on here then so be it.
Vichy Paddy, par excellence.
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 01:57:44 PM
No I'm not an admirer of Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao or even De Valera but I do admire Thatcher. I think she was dead right to stand up to the unions and the IRA, when it would have been easier for her to cave. The tail wags the dog too often nowadays, and Maggie wasn't having it. If it makes me a troll to have a different opinion to most of the others on here then so be it.
You are some craic, you admire Thatcher! she destroyed the industrial economy of her country, she has the blood of hundreds of Irishmen, women and Children on her hands, she was a huge supporter of Apartheid, She was an ally to Pol Pot, she failed to keep the word of her Government in relation to the ten men that died on hunger strike (more blood) She lied about murdering the sailors on the Belgrano as well as destroying the NHS and she made life awful tough on the miners and their families because she cared not one shite about anyone who was not an ally.
Asal, I hope you are in Liverpool in a bar some day and happen to mention your gra for the cnut, what she did to the people of that City, the lies she told and the misery she caused is legend, if she is worthy of your admiration you are a sick, sad individual with sand for brains.
Private eye had a funny cover at the time Adams and Danny.Morrison were not allowed to travel to the 82 GLC conference. Picture of Thatcher with 2 colleagues.
She says "we can't let people like that into the uk"
Colleague 1 "I thought they were in it already"
Colleague 2 "It's no good arguing with her, Willy"
No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thather has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 08:27:34 PM
No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thather has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.
Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .
Quote from: seafoid on April 20, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 08:27:34 PM
No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thatcher has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.
Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .
Helpfully you dont deny that the IRA has more Irish blood on their hands than Thatcher but are you arguing that she compelled them to continue murdering Irish people?
Quote from: seafoid on April 20, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 08:27:34 PM
No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thather has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.
Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .
Pretty idiotic post there Seafoid.
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 12:50:16 AM
Thatcher had balls. I agree with some of her stances and policies but more han that, I admire her for being able to make a brave decision and having the conviction to see it through. In a world of cowardly, vote - buying politicians that was a rare quality. The unions, the IRA, the Argentinians - she stood up to them all. If she's hated in Ireland for standing up to convicted murderers then fair play to her. Ireland needs some brave leaders to turn the country around so our young people will no longer have to choose between emigration and rotting on the dole.
Thatcher's policies turned large swathes of Britain into reservations for the lumpen proletariat while tying the fiscal well-being of the rest of the country to the fortunes of a casino. Her intransigence gave the IRA an open goal for winning hearts and minds among the Nationalist population of the North. What good is strong leadership if the policies are terrible?
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 11:17:51 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 20, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 08:27:34 PM
No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thatcher has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.
Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .
Helpfully you dont deny that the IRA has more Irish blood on their hands than Thatcher but are you arguing that she compelled them to continue murdering Irish people?
Were the Old IRA just murderers too?
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 20, 2013, 01:57:44 PM
I think she was dead right to stand up to the..IRA
Were former british leaders right to stand up to the Old IRA too?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2013, 12:46:11 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 11:17:51 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 20, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 08:27:34 PM
No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thatcher has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.
Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .
Helpfully you dont deny that the IRA has more Irish blood on their hands than Thatcher but are you arguing that she compelled them to continue murdering Irish people?
Were the Old IRA just murderers too?
In the war of independence ther were no doubt individual acts of terrorism and criminal murder. There was also a absence of access to any democratic system and any hope that access would be granted.
In the period post partition it was always clear that democracy did not demand a united ireland. Post 1969 it was clear that individual acts if terrorism/murder could not single handedly bring about or alternative edge us towards an united ireland. It was therefore not possible to claim those political ends as justification for acts of murder, rendering them precisely that, acts of murder and their perpetrators murderers
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 12:56:46 AM
In the period post partition it was always clear that democracy did not demand a united ireland. Post 1969 it was clear that individual acts if terrorism/murder could not single handedly bring about or alternative edge us towards an united ireland. It was therefore not possible to claim those political ends as justification for acts of murder, rendering them precisely that, acts of murder and their perpetrators murderers
Such nonsense.
So the non-democratic denial of democracy (as Irish partition was) suddenly endows legitimacy on a contrived and totally false political entity (or entities)?
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 20, 2013, 11:22:17 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 20, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 08:27:34 PM
No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thather has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.
Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .
Pretty idiotic post there Seafoid.
Do you think if Kinnock had been in power in the mid 80s that Northern Ireland would have had the same experience for the rest of the decade?
This "law and order/ you have no grievance/ we have a monopoly on violence" does not solve problems, IMO. It just defers a solution.
Northern Ireland is still "special" but at least the Brits are running a reasonably sane policy now. Thatcher was a conviction politician but some of her convictions were nuts. Complicated regions like NI have very nuanced identity issues and telling everyone on one side of the house to STFU is not very rational.
All that Protestant ideology about NI being fully British didn't stand up to the cold light of day anyway. Even the Tories more or less gave up on it in the end.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 12:56:46 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2013, 12:46:11 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 11:17:51 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 20, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 08:27:34 PM
No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thatcher has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.
Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .
Helpfully you dont deny that the IRA has more Irish blood on their hands than Thatcher but are you arguing that she compelled them to continue murdering Irish people?
Were the Old IRA just murderers too?
In the war of independence ther were no doubt individual acts of terrorism and criminal murder. There was also a absence of access to any democratic system and any hope that access would be granted.
In the period post partition it was always clear that democracy did not demand a united ireland. Post 1969 it was clear that individual acts if terrorism/murder could not single handedly bring about or alternative edge us towards an united ireland. It was therefore not possible to claim those political ends as justification for acts of murder, rendering them precisely that, acts of murder and their perpetrators murderers
Yer re-writing history there to suit your argument !
The IRA etc were fighting to protect the Irish nationalist /catholic/working class- or second class people from the persecution , oppression and though many don't like the reality of this comparison- the systematic state sponsored north of Ireland version of apartheid enforced on these people.
It was believed that in a reunified Ireland , this abhoration against human rights wouldn't happen , so a reunited Ireland became a parallel objective.
There was murder of nationalist Irish Catholics by the state and unionist loyalist forces long before 1969 but the b specials was the step too far and showed the way the unionist loyalists wanted to go.
People were being killed and families lives destroyed for decades before the IRA lead retaliation.
Thatcher was worse than prev British gov leaders - a liar also as under her orders, negotiations were going on with the IRA though she refuted this at all times. The hunger strikers got the 5 demands they wanted but only after the passing of a few months so this forked tongued oul hoor coul try to keep it quiet and save face.
Indeed kinnock would have undoubtedly diffused things a ulot more quickly.
This myth that thatcher contributed and indeed inspired the fledgling gfa is preposterous !
She was dragged reluctantly into the ineffectual hillsborough agreement and even her successor John major was effectively coerced into the peace process talks and eventual gfa signing.
John Hume the only man to drive this. Everyone else was a bit part player loading with their own faction - Irish & eng gov, republicans, unionist & loyalist paramilitaries.
As a good man said, he'll is full now with thatcher arriving!
Proving the point, once equality has been implemented and the persecution/ threat to nationalists Catholics and Irish people in the north has stopped, the IRA have stopped and the reunification is being worked on by democratic means.
That's the reality.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 12:56:46 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2013, 12:46:11 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 11:17:51 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 20, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 08:27:34 PM
No person with the intelligence to cut up their own dinner could argue that Thatcher has more irish blood on her hands than say the IRA.
Thatcher kept it going long past its sell by date. Sunningdale for slow learners. It only finished when she left. I agree with Nally Stand on this one .
Helpfully you dont deny that the IRA has more Irish blood on their hands than Thatcher but are you arguing that she compelled them to continue murdering Irish people?
Were the Old IRA just murderers too?
In the war of independence ther were no doubt individual acts of terrorism and criminal murder. There was also a absence of access to any democratic system and any hope that access would be granted.
In the period post partition it was alwayacy did not demand a united ireland. Post 1969 it was clear that individual acts if terrorism/murder could not single handedly bring about or alternative edge us towards an united ireland. It was therefore not possible to claim those political ends as justification for acts of murder, rendering them precisely that, acts of murder and their perpetrators murderers
Oh dear Lord. I'm not sure which is more astonishing; the level of hypocracy or the "explanation" behind it. So tell me genius, bearing in mind the conditions which catholics in this newly created sectarian state lived in were a hell of a lot worse than those in the south leading up to the tan war, how do you suggest it could have resolved itself? And also tell me this, genius; bearing in mind that the first british soldier killed (Hugh McCabe in 1969) was killed by the RUC, and that the first RUC officer to be killed (Constable William Arbuckle) was killed by loyalists, and that the first sectarian killings (of John Scullion and Peter Ward) were carried out by the UVF; and that the first bombings (in 1969) were carried out by loyalists and that the first of almost a thousand state killings (of Sammy Devenney, in front of his family; and of nine-year-old Patrick Rooney) were carried out by the RUC...and bearing in mind that the biggest population shift in Europe since the Second World War was of Catholics fleeing across the border for safety in the wake of the sectarian pogroms, why the fcuk do you think the IRA came to be?!!
Now lads could you not re-read your posts there and address some of the glaring errors?
The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd. There was a clear majority in a geographically contained area against separation from UK. That democratic expression was recognised in the settlement. Democracy at work
An international border was redrawn to reflect democracy suddenly gets called a "false political entity" - grow up. Must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)?
The abuses of people brought about by both Democratic majority in NI and the British government are shameful. However they can only be used to justify the creation or actions of the modern provos if the actions of the provos could be said to have addressed those abuses. Explain to me how the bombings in Warrington, Omagh, Coleraine, Portadown (this list can go on and on) relieved the oppression of Catholics or achieved a United Ireland? They didn't and they couldn't. They were murders and attempts at murder and their perpetrators murderers. Somehow I am being told this is hypocrisy and a re-writing of history. Anyone care to explain how?
Thatcher's contribution to the GFA ia a myth. I have never argued otherwise.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 11:36:27 AM
Now lads could you not re-read your posts there and address some of the glaring errors?
The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd. There was a clear majority in a geographically contained area against separation from UK. That democratic expression was recognised in the settlement. Democracy at work
An international border was redrawn to reflect democracy suddenly gets called a "false political entity" - grow up. Must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)?
The abuses of people brought about by both Democratic majority in NI and the British government are shameful. However they can only be used to justify the creation or actions of the modern provos if the actions of the provos could be said to have addressed those abuses. Explain to me how the bombings in Warrington, Omagh, Coleraine, Portadown (this list can go on and on) relieved the oppression of Catholics or achieved a United Ireland? They didn't and they couldn't. They were murders and attempts at murder and their perpetrators murderers. Somehow I am being told this is hypocrisy and a re-writing of history. Anyone care to explain how?
Thatcher's contribution to the GFA ia a myth. I have never argued otherwise.
I'll repeat my questions:
1. Bearing in mind the conditions which Catholics in this newly created sectarian state lived in were a hell of a lot worse than in the south leading up to the tan war, how do you suggest it could have resolved itself?
2. Bearing in mind that the first british soldier killed (Hugh McCabe in 1969) was killed by the RUC, and that the first RUC officer to be killed (Constable William Arbuckle) was killed by loyalists, and that the first sectarian killings (of John Scullion and Peter Ward) were carried out by the UVF; and that the first bombings (in 1969) were carried out by loyalists and that the first of almost a thousand state killings (of Sammy Devenney, in front of his family; and of nine-year-old Patrick Rooney) were carried out by the RUC...and bearing in mind that the biggest population shift in Europe since the Second World War was of Catholics fleeing across the border for safety in the wake of the sectarian pogroms, why the do you think the IRA came to be?!!
I'll throw in another for good measure:
3. Do you expect to be taken seriously by using specific examples like Warrington to typify the entire IRA campaign?
P.s. Describing the conditions faced by Catholics as "shameful" but offering no reasoned alternative to the IRA campaign, sort of suggests an attitude of "yes you had it bad, but sorry, you should have just bent over and taken it."
As for the sectarian state being "democratic", I suggest it was about as democratic as the occupation of the whole of Ireland was. I wonder, if it was so democratic, why the entire population of Ireland never were allowed to vote on it as a unit. Hmmmm.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 11:36:27 AM
Now lads could you not re-read your posts there and address some of the glaring errors?
The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd. There was a clear majority in a geographically contained area against separation from UK. That democratic expression was recognised in the settlement. Democracy at work
An international border was redrawn to reflect democracy suddenly gets called a "false political entity" - grow up. Must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)?
The abuses of people brought about by both Democratic majority in NI and the British government are shameful. However they can only be used to justify the creation or actions of the modern provos if the actions of the provos could be said to have addressed those abuses. Explain to me how the bombings in Warrington, Omagh, Coleraine, Portadown (this list can go on and on) relieved the oppression of Catholics or achieved a United Ireland? They didn't and they couldn't. They were murders and attempts at murder and their perpetrators murderers. Somehow I am being told this is hypocrisy and a re-writing of history. Anyone care to explain how?
Thatcher's contribution to the GFA ia a myth. I have never argued otherwise.
That's an astonishing view. Ireland and Yugoslavia are entirely different situations. The island of Ireland was never a country of differing cultures or political identities until England displaced people from their lands and imposed a group of non-Irish people onto the land. The fact that their descendants want to remain part of Britain doesn't mean any part of the island of Ireland is anything other than Irish. To divide the island is certainly not democracy at work.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 11:36:27 AM
Now lads could you not re-read your posts there and address some of the glaring errors?
The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd. There was a clear majority in a geographically contained area against separation from UK. That democratic expression was recognised in the settlement. Democracy at work
Why then , genius, did "Democracy at work" not apply to the majority of people of Tyrone and Fermanagh ( 2 very "geographically contained areas" - whatever that might mean)?
Not to mention - Derry City, South Down, South Armagh.
Anyway the majority of the very geographically contained island of Ireland, a historic unit, ( after all the state then in existence was called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - previous to the "Act of Union it was always referred to as the Kingdom of Ireland)) voted for an Independent Republic in 1918 but that wish was overthrown by force of arms and terror.
Anyway not a lot can be done about all that now except wait for the numbers to stack up in the North ;)
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 11:36:27 AM
Now lads could you not re-read your posts there and address some of the glaring errors?
The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd. There was a clear majority in a geographically contained area against separation from UK. That democratic expression was recognised in the settlement. Democracy at work
An international border was redrawn to reflect democracy suddenly gets called a "false political entity" - grow up. Must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)?
The abuses of people brought about by both Democratic majority in NI and the British government are shameful. However they can only be used to justify the creation or actions of the modern provos if the actions of the provos could be said to have addressed those abuses. Explain to me how the bombings in Warrington, Omagh, Coleraine, Portadown (this list can go on and on) relieved the oppression of Catholics or achieved a United Ireland? They didn't and they couldn't. They were murders and attempts at murder and their perpetrators murderers. Somehow I am being told this is hypocrisy and a re-writing of history. Anyone care to explain how?
Thatcher's contribution to the GFA ia a myth. I have never argued otherwise.
In all my years on this board that post is the biggest load of balls I've ever read, and that is saying something considering all the shite spouted by MnaG!
NI was jerrymandered to give the unionists the best demographics. Like Lebanon for the maronites. Why wasn't it 9 counties?
The gerrymandering comment is interesting. Was/is the problem the precise line of the border?
The reason it was not 9 counties was twofold:
1) Ther was not a majority (or close to a majority) in Cacan, Monaghan & Donegal seeking to remain in UK
2) The ancient provincial borders were irrelvant. It would have been madness to override democracy to preserve such an historic line in the sand.
In Fermanagh & Tyrone there were sizeable tranches of protestant/unionist people who wished to remain in UK. A lot of those people are still there. Unfortunately some desirable elements have resorted to ugly intimidation over the years that has seen their numbers reduce.
Geographically contained is self-explanatory. Enclaves dotted about the country would not be self contained.
Is Ireland an historic political unit? Really? has it it ever been governed as a single unit?
All current indicators indicate that the numbers in NI will not stack up any time soon. There is also the issue of numbers in the south stacking up simultaneously.
Nobody would argue that that the votes of the ethnic serbians across all of the yogoslavian states (which at a time wanted the former yugoslavia to survive as a single country) should have been used to defeat the nationalist desires of other former yougoslav republics. A more regional approach was required. It would have been madness to use an all ireland vote to enforce a united ireland against a sizeable body of people who formed a majority in a geographically contained area.
As far Nally Stand's questions:
1. The idea that violence was the answer or the only answer to the issues facing the catholic population of NI is crazy. Remember that republicism for a long time abstained from the democratic process and stood outside polling station berating Catholic for voting. Its hard to accept republican justifications of violence based on no access to democracy when they decided themselves to not get invole.
The options of democrary, protest (e.g. the civil rights movement) and exposé (embarass the mis-rule internationally) were the obvious routes to go. But is actually more fundamental than that. You need to be certain that you have exhautsed these options before you resort to killing people. You need to certain that any individual act of vilence will either achieve your political goal or edge you closer. The IRA have never had that justification.
2. The IRA of the trouble's era came into existence due the failure of political leadership in the Catholic/nationalist community. They filled tat gap with their poison. As a young boy the knock my door and the doors in my street trying to get lads involved in murder. I still regard that as child abuse.
3. Warrington happened. It was real. It was terrible. How did it advance the rights of Catholic or the unification of Ireland? Whether it typifies the IRA campaign is irrelvant unless you are are arguing that some IRA bombers were heroes and some were murderers.
I am interpreting your comment of "yes you had it bad, but sorry, you should have just bent over and taken it" as that of an idiot. I lived and live in a republican area. Murdering protestants, mudering police, bombing towns can not be justified. I am not actually required to put forward an alternative (though I have answered your questions above).
If are perpetrating or justifying the violence it is up to to prove that its virtues. You have failed to do so.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
The gerrymandering comment is interesting. Was/is the problem the precise line of the border?
The reason it was not 9 counties was twofold:
1) Ther was not a majority (or close to a majority) in Cacan, Monaghan & Donegal seeking to remain in UK
Sorry, you can't even get the name of the Ulster county right, and I've stopped reading, right there.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 21, 2013, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
The gerrymandering comment is interesting. Was/is the problem the precise line of the border?
The reason it was not 9 counties was twofold:
1) Ther was not a majority (or close to a majority) in Cacan, Monaghan & Donegal seeking to remain in UK
Sorry, you can't even get the name of the Ulster county right, and I've stopped reading, right there.
The C & V are right beside each other on the keyboard.
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 03:36:43 PM
There are plenty reasons to hate Thatcher but "UK PM stands up to IRA" is not one of them.
I agree. Her f**k up of Sunningdale. Her hatred of the Irish. The fact she contemplated ethnically cleansing Northern Ireland and creating British army security zones either side of the Irish border are ones though.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2013, 10:37:44 AM
and bearing in mind that the biggest population shift in Europe since the Second World War was of Catholics fleeing across the border for safety in the wake of the sectarian pogroms
Is that true?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2013, 06:57:18 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2013, 10:37:44 AM
and bearing in mind that the biggest population shift in Europe since the Second World War was of Catholics fleeing across the border for safety in the wake of the sectarian pogroms
Is that true?
More than the Balkans during and after the various wars?
East Germans to West Germany?
Ethnic minorities in European Soviet Union to the Steppe and Siberia?
Irish to Britain?
Turks to Germany?
Munster, Connacht, midland, border county folk to Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Wicklow, Louth?
Africans, Asians, West-Indians to European countries?
Brits and Irish to Australia?
Middle-Eastern and North Africans to Europe?
Brazilians to Gort?
Brits to south of Spain?
Russians to Western Europe, Scandinavia, USA, Australia?
Tyrone students to the Holylands?
Irish and Welsh to Liverpool?
Germans, Italians, Maltese, Cypriots, Turks, Croats, Serbs, Greeks to Australia?
Scots to Canada and New Zealand?
Asians to Bradford, Walsall, Birmingham?
Brits to Celtic Tiger Ireland?
Irish to Glasgow?
Poles, Lithuanians, Lativians, Estonianas to Germany, Sweden, Finland, UK, Ireland etc?
Algerians to Italy?
Brits to Canada?
Irish to the United States?
Population shifts in the Caucasus?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 21, 2013, 06:53:04 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 21, 2013, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
The gerrymandering comment is interesting. Was/is the problem the precise line of the border?
The reason it was not 9 counties was twofold:
1) Ther was not a majority (or close to a majority) in Cacan, Monaghan & Donegal seeking to remain in UK
\
Sorry, you can't even get the name of the Ulster county right, and I've stopped reading, right there.
The C & V are right beside each other on the keyboard.
Thanks for that clarification... D'oh! (So yjsy'd PL yjrm?)
Relative to it's size and population it doesn't seem that far fetched.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2013, 06:57:18 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2013, 10:37:44 AM
and bearing in mind that the biggest population shift in Europe since the Second World War was of Catholics fleeing across the border for safety in the wake of the sectarian pogroms
Is that true?
Nope, revistionist shite!
Quote from: qubdub on April 21, 2013, 07:39:49 PM
Relative to it's size and population it doesn't seem that far fetched.
Population of Cyprus 1960-2013
http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:CYP&dl=en&hl=en&q=population%20of%20cyprus (http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:CYP&dl=en&hl=en&q=population%20of%20cyprus)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ethnographic_distribution_in_Cyprus_1960.jpg/800px-Ethnographic_distribution_in_Cyprus_1960.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gwOMhfGyqBk/T9b__wpCCII/AAAAAAAAEGk/JdlLmW9_8QM/s1600/ethnic-cleansing-in-cyprus.jpg)
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 21, 2013, 06:55:17 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 20, 2013, 03:36:43 PM
There are plenty reasons to hate Thatcher but "UK PM stands up to IRA" is not one of them.
I agree. Her f**k up of Sunningdale. Her hatred of the Irish. The fact she contemplated ethnically cleansing Northern Ireland and creating British army security zones either side of the Irish border are ones though.
Sunningdale was 1974 I thought. Thatch became chief boxwalla in 1979
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
Is Ireland an historic political unit? Really? has it it ever been governed as a single unit?
In a word, yes. The Irish Parliament sat from 1297 until 1800. Northern elements of the Orange Order opposed the abolition of what they called "our Irish parliament" under the Act of Union because they feared it would lead to catholic emancipation.
Next question.
Quote from: qubdub on April 21, 2013, 07:39:49 PM
Relative to it's size and population it doesn't seem that far fetched.
Königsberg was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946
Wiki source (yes I know) pop. 2010 "According to the 2010 Census, its population was 431,902[5]—an increase from 430,003 recorded in the 2002 Census.[7] Its ethnic composition is 77.9% Russians, 8.0% Belarusians, 7.3% Ukrainians, 1.9% Lithuanians,[8] 0.6% Germans, and 0.5% Poles"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/East_Prussia_1923-1939.png/556px-East_Prussia_1923-1939.png)
Quote from: qubdub on April 21, 2013, 07:39:49 PM
Relative to it's size and population it doesn't seem that far fetched.
After the Boston bombing how could you forget this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya)
Stalin-Putin
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
:
1) Ther was not a majority (or close to a majority) in Cacan, Monaghan & Donegal seeking to remain in UK
In Fermanagh & Tyrone there were sizeable tranches of protestant/unionist people who wished to remain in UK.
So once there were "sizeable tranches of protestant/unionist people" it was enough and to hell with the majority population of those 2 counties.
Shades of the old Supremacist view that 1 Prod/Unionist > any number of Taigs/Nationalists like we've been seeing from the Minority in Belfast over their oul flag recently.
Iceland with a much smaller population has experienced alot of recent emmigration. Estonia with a smiliar population definitely has.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
The gerrymandering comment is interesting. Was/is the problem the precise line of the border?
The reason it was not 9 counties was twofold:
1) Ther was not a majority (or close to a majority) in Cacan, Monaghan & Donegal seeking to remain in UK
2) The ancient provincial borders were irrelvant. It would have been madness to override democracy to preserve such an historic line in the sand.
In Fermanagh & Tyrone there were sizeable tranches of protestant/unionist people who wished to remain in UK. A lot of those people are still there. Unfortunately some desirable elements have resorted to ugly intimidation over the years that has seen their numbers reduce.
And why couldn't the border have been moved a few miles further north so that the people of Newry, south Down and south Armagh could be a part of the Free State? About 95% of the population in those areas wanted independence and were every bit as entitled to it as somebody from Galway or Cork.
The government in the free state assumed that these areas would be included below the partition line, and it wasn't until the document was leaked at the last minute that these areas would be partitioned. The british govt were reasonably happy with what was presented and enforced it.
Quote from: ranch on April 21, 2013, 08:25:02 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
The gerrymandering comment is interesting. Was/is the problem the precise line of the border?
The reason it was not 9 counties was twofold:
1) Ther was not a majority (or close to a majority) in Cacan, Monaghan & Donegal seeking to remain in UK
2) The ancient provincial borders were irrelvant. It would have been madness to override democracy to preserve such an historic line in the sand.
In Fermanagh & Tyrone there were sizeable tranches of protestant/unionist people who wished to remain in UK. A lot of those people are still there. Unfortunately some desirable elements have resorted to ugly intimidation over the years that has seen their numbers reduce.
And why couldn't the border have been moved a few miles further north so that the people of Newry, south Down and south Armagh could be a part of the Free State? About 95% of the population in those areas wanted independence and were every bit as entitled to it as somebody from Galway or Cork.
Local government boundaries would have to have been redrawn at the same time. Probably doable, but not convenient.
There's pockets of nationalism all over the north. One half of Lurgan is nationalist, do we partition the town? What about the times when the Wakehurst estate was a prod enclave in the nationalist end of the town? Should that have stayed part of the UK? (It's been overrun by fenians now so it's academic.) At the end of the day if you're going to draw a line it has to go somewhere and the chances are that there's going to be pissed off people on either side of it. Far better if the planters had gotten this idea out of their heads that they're some sort of superior ruling class who have to keep having boundaries re-drawn to keep them in power every time they start losing elections.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
The gerrymandering comment is interesting. Was/is the problem the precise line of the border?
The reason it was not 9 counties was twofold:
1) Ther was not a majority (or close to a majority) in Cacan, Monaghan & Donegal seeking to remain in UK
2) The ancient provincial borders were irrelvant. It would have been madness to override democracy to preserve such an historic line in the sand.
In Fermanagh & Tyrone there were sizeable tranches of protestant/unionist people who wished to remain in UK. A lot of those people are still there. Unfortunately some desirable elements have resorted to ugly intimidation over the years that has seen their numbers reduce.
Geographically contained is self-explanatory. Enclaves dotted about the country would not be self contained.
Is Ireland an historic political unit? Really? has it it ever been governed as a single unit?
6 counties by definition is jerrymandering. The protestants only have a stable majority east of the bann but it's too small in terms of area to be viable. They needed more land so it was 6. The geniuses who drew up the border never imagined the brain drain of educated protestants of recent years.
There were protestants in Cavan and Sligo who would have liked to live in a Protestant state but of course it wasn't about them. It was all about a workable demographic majority.
So what if Ireland was never a single political unit. I can't find any mention of a protestant statelet in the north of Ireland in the Táin Bó Cúailnge
Israel was also jerrymandered. lt is dishonourable and often ends in tears
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 11:36:27 AM
Now lads could you not re-read your posts there and address some of the glaring errors?
The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd. There was a clear majority in a geographically contained area against separation from UK. That democratic expression was recognised in the settlement. Democracy at work
An international border was redrawn to reflect democracy suddenly gets called a "false political entity" - grow up. Must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)?
The abuses of people brought about by both Democratic majority in NI and the British government are shameful. However they can only be used to justify the creation or actions of the modern provos if the actions of the provos could be said to have addressed those abuses. Explain to me how the bombings in Warrington, Omagh, Coleraine, Portadown (this list can go on and on) relieved the oppression of Catholics or achieved a United Ireland? They didn't and they couldn't. They were murders and attempts at murder and their perpetrators murderers. Somehow I am being told this is hypocrisy and a re-writing of history. Anyone care to explain how?
Thatcher's contribution to the GFA ia a myth. I have never argued otherwise.
You are hilarious!
Surely you can think for yourself and not rehash old loyalist-unionst tat!
Democracy would have been ascertaining the opinion of the entire country not just a selection of counties one 66% of one province!
Doing this was not democratic - can you not see this!
I think yer having a giraffe!
Even those in the southern gig who accepted this ( the so called free staters) viewed it as temp and a stepping stone to eventual reunification under a completed 32 Irish republic.
It makes me laugh when I hear this loyalist/unionist tripe about the six county takeover being democratic!
The killing that went on in the war in the north was wrong on both sides , but it was tit for tat - as how violent oppression has always ended up worldwide throughout history!
Thankfully it's over now, equality has been won and the oppressors revoked, retaliators ended.
As yes Fear ón Srath Bán you should always ignore any contary opinion that contains a typo. Its how one demonstrates maturity and illustratse the integrity of one's argument.
Nally Stand's claims on population movement seem crazed and demented. Others have a good job in exposing that (see above)
Eamonnca1's claim on the governance of Ireland as a single unit are simply not true. He correctly points out that the parliament sat from 1297 until 1800 but he fails to recognise that it not rule Ireland and made little attempt to rule it as a single entity. He makes no mention of the Celtic kings, the brehon law or the english control of the Irish Parliament for most of this time and their use of it as a means of standardisng taxation. Something they failed to do because of the existance of the Celtic Kings and the brehon laws. Ireland definitively was not ruled as a single entity in this period, certainly not from within Ireland. My original point stands.
Rossfan might well be frustrated with the drawing of the border. There was always going to be frustration. My original point was around IRA terror. You will at least accept that the nuances of the border could never justify murder?
Splitting counties was an option. How seriously was it pushed by pro-treatyites/nationalists?
Seafoid's contention that a 6 county state is automatically gerrymandering is nonsense. As pointed out already there has never been a united Ireland and its not obvious that decisions have to me made on unitary all-ireland basis. Its never happened before. It also worth pointing out that there was a pro-union marjority in a 9 county Ulster. If it was a gerrymandered land-grab they could have taken all 9.
Of course there was no 6 county entity mention in earlier Irish history. The creation of NI did not seek its legitimacy in lore or history but in the democratic will of the majority.
Lynchboy makes the same mistake of just presuming that democracy only works on an All-ireland basis.
A majority in the 6 counties wanted to remain in UK. They remained in the UK. I call that democracy.
How any of this justify IRA murders I do not know. Republicans murdered over 2000 people post '69. Which deaths achieved the IRA's stated goals?
Just before the passage of the Act of Union, was Ireland being governed as a single entity or was it not?
'The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd'.
So, if Derry wished to secede from the Union, along with Fermanagh and South Tyrone, then it would be fine?
Democracy was concieved by Greeks who used the term ochlocracy to distinguish it from 'mob rule'. Partition by its very nature was ochlocratic if you take into consideration the foundation of the UVF as a fairly clear spur towards British appeasement of northern loyalists.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 22, 2013, 11:59:09 PM
Just before the passage of the Act of Union, was Ireland being governed as a single entity or was it not?
It's actually plural - Act(s) of Union. Westminster and Grattan's Parliament had to vote for it both, hence 1800 and 1801 being used as a date.
(EDIT: Sorry, the date confusion is actually owing to the delay of it coming into effect.)
Quote from: LCohen on April 22, 2013, 11:32:05 PM
As yes Fear ón Srath Bán you should always ignore any contary opinion that contains a typo. Its how one demonstrates maturity and illustratse the integrity of one's argument.
Nally Stand's claims on population movement seem crazed and demented. Others have a good job in exposing that (see above)
Eamonnca1's claim on the governance of Ireland as a single unit are simply not true. He correctly points out that the parliament sat from 1297 until 1800 but he fails to recognise that it not rule Ireland and made little attempt to rule it as a single entity. He makes no mention of the Celtic kings, the brehon law or the english control of the Irish Parliament for most of this time and their use of it as a means of standardisng taxation. Something they failed to do because of the existance of the Celtic Kings and the brehon laws. Ireland definitively was not ruled as a single entity in this period, certainly not from within Ireland. My original point stands.
Rossfan might well be frustrated with the drawing of the border. There was always going to be frustration. My original point was around IRA terror. You will at least accept that the nuances of the border could never justify murder?
Splitting counties was an option. How seriously was it pushed by pro-treatyites/nationalists?
Seafoid's contention that a 6 county state is automatically gerrymandering is nonsense. As pointed out already there has never been a united Ireland and its not obvious that decisions have to me made on unitary all-ireland basis. Its never happened before. It also worth pointing out that there was a pro-union marjority in a 9 county Ulster. If it was a gerrymandered land-grab they could have taken all 9.
Of course there was no 6 county entity mention in earlier Irish history. The creation of NI did not seek its legitimacy in lore or history but in the democratic will of the majority.
Lynchboy makes the same mistake of just presuming that democracy only works on an All-ireland basis.
A majority in the 6 counties wanted to remain in UK. They remained in the UK. I call that democracy.
How any of this justify IRA murders I do not know. Republicans murdered over 2000 people post '69. Which deaths achieved the IRA's stated goals?
This is and what the loyalist/unionist problem has been from the outset. A real ostrich perspective of sticking theirs heads in the sand and willingly/knowingly ignoring reality and truth.
It is not democracy to cherry pick a selected section of an overall region where voting follows a certain way and exclude it from the overall vote.
I think lcohen is on the wum here as no one in the modern era could be as Neanderthally closed minded to believe that the gerrymandering annexing of the six counties was democratic.
I'd like to see how he/she can substantiate this , maybe with examples of this being legally done elsewhere - while not the same, we all know the continuing problems that the creation of the Israeli country has caused!
So if lcohen and loyalists/unionists believe in this method of democracy, we need only to stage the referendum for reunification of Ireland in counties Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh- the result will determine whether we reunify or not. The other three counties will have to abide by this result.
I can't see why loyalists/unionists would object to this, as it is conforming to their precedent and application of democracy!
take it a step further and allow voting on a local council level.
That'd leave some mess of a place, but it too would be democracy at work!
Quote from: LCohen on April 22, 2013, 11:32:05 PM
Seafoid's contention that a 6 county state is automatically gerrymandering is nonsense. As pointed out already there has never been a united Ireland and its not obvious that decisions have to me made on unitary all-ireland basis. Its never happened before. It also worth pointing out that there was a pro-union marjority in a 9 county Ulster. If it was a gerrymandered land-grab they could have taken all 9.
This snippet tells us all we need to know about what informs your particular perspective, alas.
- Ireland was a unitary state prior to the Norman invasion of 1169, not a very unified unitary state, but a homogeneous state in geographical, cultural, and traditional terms nonetheless. And judged by contemporary political entities, there was no state that was more unified in the world at that particular time (none of this disingenuous nonsense of comparing Ireland in the first millenium with political norms in the third).
- The 6 Counties were drawn up on a purely crude sectarian headcount basis (predicated on the threat or (copious) use of 'loyalist' violence, which is OK with you it seems) -- Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan would have been included, if the border bigots weren't fearful for their 'majority in perpetuity'. And nationalist Fermanagh and Tyrone were included in their carve-up since they thought their majority in the other 4 counties would always outweigh the nationalist preponderance therein; though they were wrong, as it's demographically dawning on them now.
- Should that eventuality come to pass, where the unionists are outvoted in the 6 Counties, and as looks very likely demographically now, they [some unionists] have indicated they won't accept that expression of wish of the new 'majority', and will either fight to resist or agitate to have the lines of partition redrawn -- you'll find no problem with that perspective either I assume?
Quote from: LCohen on April 22, 2013, 11:32:05 PM
Nally Stand's claims on population movement seem crazed and demented.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qNDx0wXsLC8C&pg=PR41&lpg=PR41&dq=belfast+catholics+biggest+population+since+second+world+war&source=bl&ots=ewh8nVVZZC&sig=tMyr9bPwU1-Bli4QO6IG9h66Clo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xE52UbjNLaGT0AW464D4Dg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=belfast%20catholics%20biggest%20population%20since%20second%20world%20war&f=false (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qNDx0wXsLC8C&pg=PR41&lpg=PR41&dq=belfast+catholics+biggest+population+since+second+world+war&source=bl&ots=ewh8nVVZZC&sig=tMyr9bPwU1-Bli4QO6IG9h66Clo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xE52UbjNLaGT0AW464D4Dg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=belfast%20catholics%20biggest%20population%20since%20second%20world%20war&f=false)
"Hundreds of homes belonging to Catholics were set alight and within days, Belfast witnessed the
largest population displacement since the Second World War."
The Dirty War, Martin Dillonhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_everyday_life (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_everyday_life)
"Northern Ireland saw
the biggest population movement in Europe since the Second World War"
Denis Murray, BBC Ireland Correspondenthttp://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/1/2/6/pages211262/p211262-14.php (http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/1/2/6/pages211262/p211262-14.php)
"Loyalist rioting and violence in response to a peaceful civil rights campaign caused genuine threats to civic order and
the most massive population shift in Europe since the end of the Second World War."
Timothy D. Hoyt US Naval War Collegehttp://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/tt/ch11.html (http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/tt/ch11.html)
"After internment in 1971, the widespread intimidation resulted in
the greatest population shift then seen in Europe since the second world war."
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/frankiequinn/quinn94/ (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/frankiequinn/quinn94/)
"By February 1973, 60,000 people – ten percent of the city's population – had moved out of their homes in what was, at the time,
the biggest population displacement in Europe since World War Two."
http://www.theworkersrepublic.com/brendan-hughes-memoirs---review.html (http://www.theworkersrepublic.com/brendan-hughes-memoirs---review.html)
Loyalist ethnic cleansing of Catholic/Nationalist areas in Belfast, had caused
the largest population displacement in Western Europe, since World War 2
Quote from: johnneycool on April 23, 2013, 09:10:33 AM
take it a step further and allow voting on a local council level.
That'd leave some mess of a place, but it too would be democracy at work!
You could be onto something there. For election purposes we are already divided into wards which can be shifted from constituency to constituency as boundaries are redrawn so we could take it right down to that level. Think of the benefits. All that extra border, think of the smuggling potential! It could be the kick start the economy needs. Why should them Armagh wans get all the diesel income.
Joe Lee performs a magisterial demolition of Unionist pretensions to democracy in the opening chapter of his magnum opus, Ireland, 1912-1985: Politics and Society. The first fifteen pages are available on Google Books (http://books.google.ie/books?id=_Kew5XWPGHUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). It's well worth reading in its entirety, but a summary would be that the rhetoric of the Ulster Covenant and its supporters was quite clear that it didn't matter how many Papists there were. To accept 'democracy' would be to imply that one Catholic was worth one Protestant, and that would never do. And he quite rightly notes later on in the book that the greatest betrayal of all was allowing the Protestants of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan to be placed in the Hell on Earth that was the Rome-ruled Free State, all so Unionism could maintain hegemony over as large a territory as possible without ever having to worry that the mudmen might outbreed them as might have happened had partition included a nine-county Ulster.
Ahh now Nally - you're simply being "unhelpful" and shouldn't be bringing up all that oul guff about the past.
Sure we all know the 6 Cos was a lovely place till for no reason at all a crowd called the Provisional IRA started a mindless campaign of violence in 1971 or so.
And if any of us don't know that won't MichaeleenG, LCohen etc continue to point that out here plus of course the DUP,UUP, Wullie Frazer ( remember him ? ;D ;D ;D) PUP, Ulster(sic) this that and the other will also tell us.
When will they ever learn the blind , head in the sand bigots.
Quote from: stibhan on April 23, 2013, 12:01:14 AM
'The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd'.
So, if Derry wished to secede from the Union, along with Fermanagh and South Tyrone, then it would be fine?
Democracy was concieved by Greeks who used the term ochlocracy to distinguish it from 'mob rule'. Partition by its very nature was ochlocratic if you take into consideration the foundation of the UVF as a fairly clear spur towards British appeasement of northern loyalists.
The boundary commission was* due to report back on its plans to reduce from 18 parliamentary seats to 16 by the end of the year. That could be the easy way to do it ;)
*Postponed to 2018 and to be based on the 2015 electoral register.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
The options of democrary, protest (e.g. the civil rights movement) and exposé (embarass the mis-rule internationally) were the obvious routes to go.
I think Burntollet Bridge and Bloody Sunday tick both those boxes. Funny enough, they didn't spark a revival in fortunes for the Catholic population. Any other suggestions?
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
2. The IRA of the trouble's era came into existence due the failure of political leadership in the Catholic/nationalist community. They filled tat gap with their poison. As a young boy the knock my door and the doors in my street trying to get lads involved in murder. I still regard that as child abuse.
Right!!! So the IRA came about due to a failure of political leadership among Catholics?!! What with the lack of voting rights for Catholics for so long and the gerrymandering of borders, you might have to remind me which of the Catholic political leaders caused the re-emergence of the IRA? Probably just a coincidence that it came about around the same time as 200 Catholic homes were burnt to the ground in this oh so democratic haven of yours.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
3. Warrington happened. It was real. It was terrible. How did it advance the rights of Catholic or the unification of Ireland? Whether it typifies the IRA campaign is irrelvant unless you are are arguing that some IRA bombers were heroes and some were murderers.
Again, you present it in an attempt to present the IRA campaign as just being full of 'Warringtons'. Which is just dishonest, sensationalist bull.
LCohens Quick Step Guide to Contemporary Irish History:
1. Ireland was democratically occupied
2. It was then democratically partitioned along sectarian democratic lines
3. Catholics were democratically discriminated against in voting rights and constituency boundaries were democratically gerrymandered
4. The democratic prohibiting of Catholics from participating in fair elections led to "the failure of the Catholic/Nationalist political leadership" (who ever these Catholic/Nationalist political leaders were) which caused the emergence of the IRA.
5. The IRA ruthlessly murdered thousands of innocent people for no reason whatsoever.
6. Nothing else happened and it was therefor all the IRA's fault.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 23, 2013, 11:20:18 AM
LCohens Quick Step Guide to Contemporary Irish History:
1. Ireland was democratically occupied
2. It was then democratically partitioned along sectarian democratic lines
3. Catholics were democratically discriminated against in voting rights and constituency boundaries were democratically gerrymandered
4. The democratic prohibiting of Catholics from participating in fair elections led to "the failure of the Catholic/Nationalist political leadership" (who ever these Catholic/Nationalist political leaders were) which caused the emergence of the IRA.
5. The IRA ruthlessly murdered thousands of innocent people for no reason whatsoever.
6. Nothing else happened and it was therefor all the IRA's fault.
I wonder if BallDeBeaver and Lcohen know each other.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 23, 2013, 11:20:18 AM
LCohens Many Unionists Quick Step Guide to Contemporary Irish History:
1. Ireland was democratically occupied
2. It was then democratically partitioned along sectarian democratic lines
3. Catholics were democratically discriminated against in voting rights and constituency boundaries were democratically gerrymandered
4. The democratic prohibiting of Catholics from participating in fair elections led to "the failure of the Catholic/Nationalist political leadership" (who ever these Catholic/Nationalist political leaders were) which caused the emergence of the IRA.
5. The IRA ruthlessly murdered thousands of innocent people for no reason whatsoever.
6. Nothing else happened and it was therefor all the IRA's fault.
Fixed that for you ;)
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 23, 2013, 11:20:18 AM
LCohens Quick Step Guide to Contemporary Irish History:
1. Ireland was democratically occupied
2. It was then democratically partitioned along sectarian democratic lines
3. Catholics were democratically discriminated against in voting rights and constituency boundaries were democratically gerrymandered
4. The democratic prohibiting of Catholics from participating in fair elections led to "the failure of the Catholic/Nationalist political leadership" (who ever these Catholic/Nationalist political leaders were) which caused the emergence of the IRA.
5. The IRA ruthlessly murdered thousands of innocent people for no reason whatsoever.
6. Nothing else happened and it was therefor all the IRA's fault.
You do have course know that I have never denied that Ireland was occupied via a plantation and wider military rule. If peolpe's sectarian stance influences their democratic choices then alas dividing a land mass on democratic lines will result in a division on sectarian grounds also.
ically occupied
Have I ever denied that Catholics were discriminated against?
When faced with mis-rule and discrimination I never denied that something had to be done. What I have argued is that there was no excuse for a campaign of murder. The failure of Catholic/Nationalist leadership was to not sustain the peaceful campaign and allowing the provos to put themselves forward as an alternative. I have never blamed Catholic/Nathionalist leadership for the abuses perpetrated by Unionist/Britich rule. I do blame for allowing that void that the provos sought to occupy.
Your 5th point is interesting. And begs the key question -Which IRA murders were worth it and achieved the IRA goals?5. Name names.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 23, 2013, 11:07:22 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
The options of democrary, protest (e.g. the civil rights movement) and exposé (embarass the mis-rule internationally) were the obvious routes to go.
I think Burntollet Bridge and Bloody Sunday tick both those boxes. Funny enough, they didn't spark a revival in fortunes for the Catholic population. Any other suggestions?
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
2. The IRA of the trouble's era came into existence due the failure of political leadership in the Catholic/nationalist community. They filled tat gap with their poison. As a young boy the knock my door and the doors in my street trying to get lads involved in murder. I still regard that as child abuse.
Right!!! So the IRA came about due to a failure of political leadership among Catholics?!! What with the lack of voting rights for Catholics for so long and the gerrymandering of borders, you might have to remind me which of the Catholic political leaders caused the re-emergence of the IRA? Probably just a coincidence that it came about around the same time as 200 Catholic homes were burnt to the ground in this oh so democratic haven of yours.
Quote from: LCohen on April 21, 2013, 06:02:27 PM
3. Warrington happened. It was real. It was terrible. How did it advance the rights of Catholic or the unification of Ireland? Whether it typifies the IRA campaign is irrelvant unless you are are arguing that some IRA bombers were heroes and some were murderers.
Again, you present it in an attempt to present the IRA campaign as just being full of 'Warringtons'. Which is just dishonest, sensationalist bull.
Where peaceful protest does not work you seemingly argue it should cease. I assume you contend the IRA's campaign of violence and murder was successful from the off and throughout. A bizarre contention.
The fact that you can't address the Warrington issue head on is telling. Very.
Quote from: stibhan on April 23, 2013, 12:01:14 AM
'The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd'.
So, if Derry wished to secede from the Union, along with Fermanagh and South Tyrone, then it would be fine?
I'm not against the border changing to reflect democratic will.
I'm not against counties being split.
SF want a single vote at a 6 county level - all or nothing. They are not going to win that any time soon and are not going to go for any further re-drawing of the border.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 23, 2013, 09:07:28 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 22, 2013, 11:32:05 PM
As yes Fear ón Srath Bán you should always ignore any contary opinion that contains a typo. Its how one demonstrates maturity and illustratse the integrity of one's argument.
Nally Stand's claims on population movement seem crazed and demented. Others have a good job in exposing that (see above)
Eamonnca1's claim on the governance of Ireland as a single unit are simply not true. He correctly points out that the parliament sat from 1297 until 1800 but he fails to recognise that it not rule Ireland and made little attempt to rule it as a single entity. He makes no mention of the Celtic kings, the brehon law or the english control of the Irish Parliament for most of this time and their use of it as a means of standardisng taxation. Something they failed to do because of the existance of the Celtic Kings and the brehon laws. Ireland definitively was not ruled as a single entity in this period, certainly not from within Ireland. My original point stands.
Rossfan might well be frustrated with the drawing of the border. There was always going to be frustration. My original point was around IRA terror. You will at least accept that the nuances of the border could never justify murder?
Splitting counties was an option. How seriously was it pushed by pro-treatyites/nationalists?
Seafoid's contention that a 6 county state is automatically gerrymandering is nonsense. As pointed out already there has never been a united Ireland and its not obvious that decisions have to me made on unitary all-ireland basis. Its never happened before. It also worth pointing out that there was a pro-union marjority in a 9 county Ulster. If it was a gerrymandered land-grab they could have taken all 9.
Of course there was no 6 county entity mention in earlier Irish history. The creation of NI did not seek its legitimacy in lore or history but in the democratic will of the majority.
Lynchboy makes the same mistake of just presuming that democracy only works on an All-ireland basis.
A majority in the 6 counties wanted to remain in UK. They remained in the UK. I call that democracy.
How any of this justify IRA murders I do not know. Republicans murdered over 2000 people post '69. Which deaths achieved the IRA's stated goals?
This is and what the loyalist/unionist problem has been from the outset. A real ostrich perspective of sticking theirs heads in the sand and willingly/knowingly ignoring reality and truth.
It is not democracy to cherry pick a selected section of an overall region where voting follows a certain way and exclude it from the overall vote.
I think lcohen is on the wum here as no one in the modern era could be as Neanderthally closed minded to believe that the gerrymandering annexing of the six counties was democratic.
I'd like to see how he/she can substantiate this , maybe with examples of this being legally done elsewhere - while not the same, we all know the continuing problems that the creation of the Israeli country has caused!
So if lcohen and loyalists/unionists believe in this method of democracy, we need only to stage the referendum for reunification of Ireland in counties Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh- the result will determine whether we reunify or not. The other three counties will have to abide by this result.
I can't see why loyalists/unionists would object to this, as it is conforming to their precedent and application of democracy!
A mojority in the 6 counties want to say in UK. Its hardly head in sand stuff to accpet this fairly fundamental fact. This reality is being ignored by many posters but not I.
Do any of you think ther will ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south?
You are still making th mistake that the only constitutency was the entire land mass. I and international law don't accept that. I don't think there will be Scotish independence this time around but it a majority of Scots vote for it I think they should have it and the votes of others on the same land mass should be ignored.
I like your concept that some who was born into a nationalist background in a republican area who challenges what they hear for over 40 years are in fact "Neanderthally closed minded".
I am happy for a referendum to take place and the border to be re-drawn Republicans reject the latter part of that and therefore would not abide by the reult.
I can't see why loyalists/unionists would object to this, as it is conforming to their precedent and application of democracy!
[/quote]
Lcohen-Glad to see you have ran away from the question which was your claim that the north was democratically created!
You realized you couldn't argue that dead dog.
Yes - I fully expect a reunification reasonably soon too, all dependent on the economy.
Nothing changes unionist/loyalist principles like a few dollars- eg Celtic tiger!
The southern electorate will be happy to vote for reunification if it will mean further prosperity along with rejoining the country.
The rest of you reply makes no sense whatever.prob trying to hard to dodge the original question!
Running away from nothing - a majority wanted to stay in the union and they got it. Democracy
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 24, 2013, 11:19:30 PM
Lcohen-Glad to see you have ran away from the question which was your claim that the north was democratically created!
You realized you couldn't argue that dead dog.
Yes - I fully expect a reunification reasonably soon too, all dependent on the economy.
Nothing changes unionist/loyalist principles like a few dollars- eg Celtic tiger!
The southern electorate will be happy to vote for reunification if it will mean further prosperity along with rejoining the country.
The rest of you reply makes no sense whatever.prob trying to hard to dodge the original question!
I would think a lot of people would be wary of this famed Celtic Tiger economy going bust again.
People have long memories and it was very recent.
Quote from: LCohen on April 24, 2013, 11:22:46 PM
Running away from nothing - a majority wanted to stay in the union and they got it. Democracy
A majority wanted independence for the entire country and didn't get it. Democracy?
Quote from: LCohen on April 24, 2013, 11:22:46 PM
Running away from nothing - a majority wanted to stay in the union and they got it. Democracy
Still head in the sand stuff.
How was this determined?
Was there an all Ireland referendum to establish the opinion of the entire island of Ireland before annexing 6 counties of it?
That is the only democratic method of doing so.
Otherwise are we back to having a reunification referendum in counties Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Donegal that will determine the fate of all?
That would equate to unionist/loyalist methodology but I or most people wouldn't countenance this and would prefer a full 6 and 26 county vote to be completely democratic!
Quote from: dillinger on April 25, 2013, 12:15:55 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 24, 2013, 11:19:30 PM
Lcohen-Glad to see you have ran away from the question which was your claim that the north was democratically created!
You realized you couldn't argue that dead dog.
Yes - I fully expect a reunification reasonably soon too, all dependent on the economy.
Nothing changes unionist/loyalist principles like a few dollars- eg Celtic tiger!
The southern electorate will be happy to vote for reunification if it will mean further prosperity along with rejoining the country.
The rest of you reply makes no sense whatever.prob trying to hard to dodge the original question!
I would think a lot of people would be wary of this famed Celtic Tiger economy going bust again.
People have long memories and it was very recent.
The Celtic tiger was a boom that saw previously staunch unionist/loyalists abandoning their principles of never never never crossing the border or going to Dublin - but the jobs and money on offer made these people forget their previous old prejudices and take the cash.
Plenty still work in industry in the south - only parts of the Celtic tiger have stopped booming.
If you think people will refuse work or money then you don't know people.
Ok folk might look at the viability of some new companies, but that should always be the case an pure common sense.
It would be the same for people's from south and north in all of this!
Quote from: LCohen on April 24, 2013, 10:47:16 PM
The failure of Catholic/Nationalist leadership was to not sustain the peaceful campaign and allowing the provos to put themselves forward as an alternative.
The majority of Catholic/Nationalists supported the peaceful campaign throughout the Troubles. This was true even in the six counties. This was despite the fact they never received as much as a crumb from the table of Unionism, whether in Northern Ireland or Westminster. In the face of such intransigence and the state-sponsored violence (please note 'violence' didn't just involve killing people, it included living in constant fear of the police who are supposed to be the first line of defence against criminality), it was a staggering tribute to the political skills of the likes of John Hume and Seamus Mallon that so few followed the alternative.
Quote from: deiseach on April 25, 2013, 08:55:59 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 24, 2013, 10:47:16 PM
The failure of Catholic/Nationalist leadership was to not sustain the peaceful campaign and allowing the provos to put themselves forward as an alternative.
The majority of Catholic/Nationalists supported the peaceful campaign throughout the Troubles. This was true even in the six counties. This was despite the fact they never received as much as a crumb from the table of Unionism, whether in Northern Ireland or Westminster. In the face of such intransigence and the state-sponsored violence (please note 'violence' didn't just involve killing people, it included living in constant fear of the police who are supposed to be the first line of defence against criminality), it was a staggering tribute to the political skills of the likes of John Hume and Seamus Mallon that so few followed the alternative.
This is the truth.
+1
Just wondering .....has anyone within unionist political circles ever acknowledged the shameful way they ran this country to suit themselves after partition? Maybe they're not allowed to
Quote from: theskull1 on April 25, 2013, 11:24:22 AM
Just wondering .....has anyone within unionist political circles ever acknowledged the shameful way they ran this country to suit themselves after partition? Maybe they're not allowed to
From what I can see, this is how it works. There were problems in Northern Ireland from 1922-1969. These were understandable in the context of the threat of the Popish state down south, which then became a fascist-loving state after the Second World War, and not sectarian because they affected working-class Protestants as well. Still, Unionism must accept that there were problems. After 1969 though, all these problems vanished and everything would have been okay but for the Provos, the Loyalists being purely reactive, and the problem was prolonged by decades due to the outrageous unwillingness on the part of the politically correct mainland Brits to shoot the few hundred active members of the IRA. Here endeth the lesson.
The discrimination against Catholics didn't exist according to Wully Frazer because his uncles had no indoor toilet either.
Until Unionism takes off the blinkers and lets the truth shine in their people will never advance from the kind of eejits we saw refusing to accept that the majority of Belfast Councillors had the right to make a decision that didn't cave in to their bullying.
Quote from: deiseach on April 25, 2013, 08:55:59 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 24, 2013, 10:47:16 PM
The failure of Catholic/Nationalist leadership was to not sustain the peaceful campaign and allowing the provos to put themselves forward as an alternative.
The majority of Catholic/Nationalists supported the peaceful campaign throughout the Troubles. This was true even in the six counties. This was despite the fact they never received as much as a crumb from the table of Unionism, whether in Northern Ireland or Westminster. In the face of such intransigence and the state-sponsored violence (please note 'violence' didn't just involve killing people, it included living in constant fear of the police who are supposed to be the first line of defence against criminality), it was a staggering tribute to the political skills of the likes of John Hume and Seamus Mallon that so few followed the alternative.
I also think Deiseach not everyone had the courage to take up arms,many who would not have been that way inclined supported the IRA in many different ways but may also have voted SDLP as there was no other alternative at that time. Generally people don't want to take up arms or want their youth to end up in jails so will always gravitate towards those preaching peaceful means.
Quote from: glens abu on April 25, 2013, 01:36:13 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 25, 2013, 08:55:59 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 24, 2013, 10:47:16 PM
The failure of Catholic/Nationalist leadership was to not sustain the peaceful campaign and allowing the provos to put themselves forward as an alternative.
The majority of Catholic/Nationalists supported the peaceful campaign throughout the Troubles. This was true even in the six counties. This was despite the fact they never received as much as a crumb from the table of Unionism, whether in Northern Ireland or Westminster. In the face of such intransigence and the state-sponsored violence (please note 'violence' didn't just involve killing people, it included living in constant fear of the police who are supposed to be the first line of defence against criminality), it was a staggering tribute to the political skills of the likes of John Hume and Seamus Mallon that so few followed the alternative.
I also think Deiseach not everyone had the courage to take up arms,many who would not have been that way inclined supported the IRA in many different ways but may also have voted SDLP as there was no other alternative at that time. Generally people don't want to take up arms or want their youth to end up in jails so will always gravitate towards those preaching peaceful means.
even then people who took up arms were generally the ones that were on the receving end of the more violent acts from the unionist/loyalist vigilantes or the establishment security forces.
Those I know who enlisted did only out of retaliation to prolonged systematic persecution, death threats and violent oppression.
Theirs was not a romantic view of joining up.
It was retaliation or preventative measures.
I fully believe that if the establishment has not persecuted and kept the nationalist/Irish/catholics as a lower class and kept going at them, instead giving them a peaceful coexistence, then there would have been no IRA retaliating etc.
sad, but thats what I believe. Certainly none of the lads I know who are still alive and no longer banged up dont like what they did but say they felt compelled to do so to protect their families and communities.
Quote from: theskull1 on April 25, 2013, 11:24:22 AM
+1
Just wondering .....has anyone within unionist political circles ever acknowledged the shameful way they ran this country to suit themselves after partition? Maybe they're not allowed to
I remember a program on either UTV or BBC NI about showing old super 8 film footage or some other camcorder effort from viewers and their archives from the 60's, 70's and beyond, one of the opening lines from whoever was narrating it was 'wasn't this a great wee place until the troubles', f**k I near threw the remote at the TV in disgust.
This is the line trotted out by most unionists as they just either were far removed what was happening nationalists/catholics or they just didn't care. This mentality is still embedded into them as they did nothing wrong and all the bad came from the IRA who didn't really exist in a meaningful way when all this came to a head.
Just look how they react to the historical inquiries investigations.
Quote from: johnneycool on April 25, 2013, 01:44:55 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 25, 2013, 11:24:22 AM
+1
Just wondering .....has anyone within unionist political circles ever acknowledged the shameful way they ran this country to suit themselves after partition? Maybe they're not allowed to
I remember a program on either UTV or BBC NI about showing old super 8 film footage or some other camcorder effort from viewers and their archives from the 60's, 70's and beyond, one of the opening lines from whoever was narrating it was 'wasn't this a great wee place until the troubles', f**k I near threw the remote at the TV in disgust.
This is the line trotted out by most unionists as they just either were far removed what was happening nationalists/catholics or they just didn't care. This mentality is still embedded into them as they did nothing wrong and all the bad came from the IRA who didn't really exist in a meaningful way when all this came to a head.
Just look how they react to the historical inquiries investigations.
I think John Hewitt's poem "the Coasters" nails that particular argument
http://virtualmethodist.blogspot.ch/2009/09/coasters.html
You coasted along
To larger houses, gadgets, more machines
To golf and weekend bungalows,
Caravans when the children were small,
the Mediterranean, later, with the wife.
You did not go to Church often,
Weddings were special;
But you kept your name on the books
Against eventualities;
And the parson called, or the curate.
You showed a sense of responsibility,
With subscriptions to worthwhile causes
And service in voluntary organisations;
And, anyhow, this did the business no harm,
No harm at all.
Relations were improving. A good
useful life. You coasted along.
You even had a friend of two of the other sort,
Coasting too: your ways ran parallel.
Their children and yours seldom met, though,
Being at different schools.
You visited each other, decent folk with a sense
Of humour. Introduced, even, to
One of their clergy. And then you smiled
In the looking-glass, admiring, a
Little moved by, your broadmindedness.
Your father would never have known
One of them. Come to think of it,
When you were young, your own home was never
Visited by one of the other sort.
Relations were improving. The annual processions
began to look rather like folk-festivals.
When that noisy preacher started,
he seemed old-fashioned, a survival.
Later you remarked on his vehemence,
a bit on the rough side.
But you said, admit, you said in the club,
'You know, there's something in what he says'.
And you who seldom had time to read a book,
what with reports and the colour-supplements,
denounced censorship.
And you who never had an adventurous thought
were positive that the church of the other sort
vetoes thought.
And you who simply put up with marriage
for the children's sake, deplored
the attitude of the other sort
to divorce.
You coasted along.
And all the time, though you never noticed,
The old lies festered;
the ignorant became more thoroughly infected;
there were gains, of course;
you never saw any go barefoot.
The government permanent, sustained
by the regular plebiscites of loyalty.
You always voted but never
put a sticker on your car;
a card in the window
would not have been seen from the street.
Faces changed on posters, names too, often,
but the same families, the same class of people.
A Minister once called you by your first name.
You coasted along
and the sores supperated and spread.
Now the fever is high and raging;
Who would have guessed it, coasting along?
The ignorant-sick thresh about in delirium
And tear at the scabs with dirty finger-nails.
The cloud of infection hangs over the city,
A quick change of wind and it
Might spill over the leafy suburbs.
You coasted along.
Quote from: LCohen on April 24, 2013, 11:22:46 PM
Running away from nothing - a majority wanted to stay in the union and they got it. Democracy
The majority of Ireland wanted independence.
The majority of Ulster wanted independence.
All based on Unionist/Loyalist threats of Civil War and Paramilitary war against the majority community and the forces of the British crown. Sectarianism, bigoted bias, Impearlism meant that the minority got their own little way as per usual. It is the exact same as if the Afrikaners had been allowed to get their own white majority country which submitted large amounts of other majority and minority groups to their eternal rule and domination. The Afrikaners tried it, but South Africa and the International community was having none of it.
LCohen has demonstrated himself to be nothing more than an adherent of Protestant supremacy in Ireland, rather sinisterly, alas.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Have I denied protestant misrule?
Have I attempted to justify misrule/discrimination?
If so, point out the references.
I have asked you lot to identify the murders by the IRA that were justified. Not one single reply. Yous are struggling with that one seemingly. Very hard to take you seriously.
To run away from the question admitting the north was I democratically founded, and reply with a request for a fit for tat justification of all the killing done by IRA against the killing and persecution and generations of lives ruined by unionist/loyalist killer gangs/ruc/British army/b specials/ colluding unionist & political parties and their killing squads.
Some might say that none of the deaths were justified.
Others might say that they were all justified as retaliation especially when the ultimate goals of peace and equality have been realized.
It doesn't matter what is said as your blinkered outlook won't deviate from the unionist/loyalist party line!
Simple for me all those involved with the RUC,UDR,British Army,RIR,UDA,UVF,UFF,SAS,informers,prison officers,and all others who assisted in any way the upkeep of these thugs and oppressed the Nationalist people.
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 07:54:53 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Have I denied protestant misrule?
Have I attempted to justify misrule/discrimination?
If so, point out the references.
I have asked you lot to identify the murders by the IRA that were justified. Not one single reply. Yous are struggling with that one seemingly. Very hard to take you seriously.
You justify the unionist/loyalist 'right' to carve up territory, however small, wherein they constitute a 'majority', however construed and constructed, at every turn. Yet, not once, not one measly time, have you defended the right of the natives to protect their polity. (And you've also ignored those posts hereon for which you have no answer.)
You're a fairly nasty piece of work in my book.
The Provo's first came about for protection of the catholic population not to fight the Brits for a united ireland it was protection from the loyalists,ruc ,b specials.Yes then the situation changed but the Provo's were in part a creation of the unionist regime that ran the place for themselves,but ya dint hear that that's why they are afraid of the maze long kesh project because people will question why the Provo's started wont look kindly on the unionist c***ts
Sorry, Lcohen, I've somehow overlooked your answer to this:
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 22, 2013, 11:59:09 PM
Just before the passage of the Act of Union, was Ireland being governed as a single entity or was it not?
Care to repeat it?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 25, 2013, 08:37:40 PM
To run away from the question admitting the north was I democratically founded, and reply with a request for a fit for tat justification of all the killing done by IRA against the killing and persecution and generations of lives ruined by unionist/loyalist killer gangs/ruc/British army/b specials/ colluding unionist & political parties and their killing squads.
Some might say that none of the deaths were justified.
Others might say that they were all justified as retaliation especially when the ultimate goals of peace and equality have been realized.
It doesn't matter what is said as your blinkered outlook won't deviate from the unionist/loyalist party line!
How have I ran away from the question about the foundation of NI. A majority of people in the 6 counties wanted to stay in UK. They stayed. The will of majority obviously impacted on the minority. Thats democracy.
Retaliation cannot be a justification for murder. What good does it do?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 25, 2013, 08:53:05 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 07:54:53 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Have I denied protestant misrule?
Have I attempted to justify misrule/discrimination?
If so, point out the references.
I have asked you lot to identify the murders by the IRA that were justified. Not one single reply. Yous are struggling with that one seemingly. Very hard to take you seriously.
You justify the unionist/loyalist 'right' to carve up territory, however small, wherein they constitute a 'majority', however construed and constructed, at every turn. Yet, not once, not one measly time, have you defended the right of the natives to protect their polity. (And you've also ignored those posts hereon for which you have no answer.)
You're a fairly nasty piece of work in my book.
Presumably if there was a vote in France and Spain on Catalan independence and a majority of Catalan's voted for indepence but that majority was not carried in wither Spain, France or both you would deny the democratic voice of the Catalans?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 09:38:54 PM
Sorry, Lcohen, I've somehow overlooked your answer to this:
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 22, 2013, 11:59:09 PM
Just before the passage of the Act of Union, was Ireland being governed as a single entity or was it not?
Care to repeat it?
Apologies Eamonnca1, An oversight on my behalf (though there some other unanswered question you should address your attention to - in the interests of fairness).
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:10:36 PM
Presumably if there was a vote in France and Spain on Catalan independence and a majority of Catalan's voted for indepence but that majority was not carried in wither Spain, France or both you would deny the democratic voice of the Catalans?
WUM, feck off.
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:07:13 PM
. A majority of people in the 6 counties wanted to stay in UK. They stayed. The will of majority obviously impacted on the minority. Thats democracy gerrymandering ;).
A majority of people in Fermanagh and Tyrone wanted to be part of a free Ireland.
A majority of the people of the "Ireland" part of the then "United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland" voted for independence in 1918.
Neither of those majorities of exoisting official units got their way.
I suppose when a majority of the 6 Cos voters vote to join the rest of Ireland ye'll dream up another " area" where a majority won't want to leave the UK and look for another re Partition.
Tough - the Good Friday agreement has prevented that oul trick..
I am not against A united Ireland. I am just against any of the guff that is spouted about it being achieved in any circumstance other than a majority of the people in the 6 counties voting for it (and presumably a similar vote in the republic) or that violence/murder can be justified in persuit of it (as it will need a democratic vote). Anybody who thinks these are unreasonable views needs urgent help.
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what part of Ireland wasn't under the jurisdiction of those Viceroys/Lords Lieutenants that the Brits used to send over to live in what's now Aras an Uachtatáin between 1801 and 1921/2 ????
1172 or thereabouts England's King Henry appointed himself " Lord of Ireland".
sometime in the 1500's England and Wales's King Henry 8th appointed himself " King of Ireland".
After 1603 the English ( or their colonists/lackeys) ran IRELAND as a separate single entity.
Until the Act of Union in 1800/1801 They always referred to the "Kingdom of Ireland".
What part of Ireland did they leave out??
I suggest Cohen you learn some real history - not some blinkered bit of unionistic make believe.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 25, 2013, 10:23:48 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what part of Ireland wasn't under the jurisdiction of those Viceroys/Lords Lieutenants that the Brits used to send over to live in what's now Aras an Uachtatáin between 1801 and 1921/2 ????
1172 or thereabouts England's King Henry appointed himself " Lord of Ireland".
sometime in the 1500's England and Wales's King Henry 8th appointed himself " King of Ireland".
After 1603 the English ( or their colonists/lackeys) ran IRELAND as a separate single entity.
Until the Act of Union in 1800/1801 They always referred to the "Kingdom of Ireland".
What part of Ireland did they leave out??
I suggest Cohen you learn some real history - not some blinkered bit of unionistic make believe.
Agian apologies but I assumed your point was that Ireland had been united under something other than English/British rule
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:07:13 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 25, 2013, 08:37:40 PM
To run away from the question admitting the north was I democratically founded, and reply with a request for a fit for tat justification of all the killing done by IRA against the killing and persecution and generations of lives ruined by unionist/loyalist killer gangs/ruc/British army/b specials/ colluding unionist & political parties and their killing squads.
Some might say that none of the deaths were justified.
Others might say that they were all justified as retaliation especially when the ultimate goals of peace and equality have been realized.
It doesn't matter what is said as your blinkered outlook won't deviate from the unionist/loyalist party line!
How have I ran away from the question about the foundation of NI. A majority of people in the 6 counties wanted to stay in UK. They stayed. The will of majority obviously impacted on the minority. Thats democracy.
Retaliation cannot be a justification for murder. What good does it do?
how could it have ben democratic when the whole (at that point) single country was not asked for their opinion - only a portion of the entire electorate was seemingly lobbied.
thats not democracy in any meaning of the word.
its a selection of the electorate.
you keep running away from this fact.
what good did the retaliation to the killing and murder by the state and its agents- well peace and equality have been bourne out of it! it wasnt there when the establishment and their death squads ruled the six counties.
Machevellian I know but !
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 25, 2013, 10:23:48 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what part of Ireland wasn't under the jurisdiction of those Viceroys/Lords Lieutenants that the Brits used to send over to live in what's now Aras an Uachtatáin between 1801 and 1921/2 ????
1172 or thereabouts England's King Henry appointed himself " Lord of Ireland".
sometime in the 1500's England and Wales's King Henry 8th appointed himself " King of Ireland".
After 1603 the English ( or their colonists/lackeys) ran IRELAND as a separate single entity.
Until the Act of Union in 1800/1801 They always referred to the "Kingdom of Ireland".
What part of Ireland did they leave out??
I suggest Cohen you learn some real history - not some blinkered bit of unionistic make believe.
Agian apologies but I assumed your point was that Ireland had been united under something other than English/British rule
it was a single country prior to cromwellian forces. various kings ruled and at times areas (must be careful not to use the word states) were often ruled by lesser lords or kings.
go read.
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:22:53 PM
I am against A united Ireland. I just agianst any of the guff that is spouted about it being achieved in any circumstance other than a majority of the people in the 6 counties voting for it (and presumably a similar vote in the republic) or that violence/murder can be justified in persuit of it (as it will need a democratic vote). Anybody who thinks these are unreasonable views needs urgent help.
Whatever about the past ( about which we can do nothing other than acknowledge facts no matter how unpalatable to us) - that is what we've now agreed under the G F Agreement.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 25, 2013, 10:31:00 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 25, 2013, 10:23:48 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what part of Ireland wasn't under the jurisdiction of those Viceroys/Lords Lieutenants that the Brits used to send over to live in what's now Aras an Uachtatáin between 1801 and 1921/2 ????
1172 or thereabouts England's King Henry appointed himself " Lord of Ireland".
sometime in the 1500's England and Wales's King Henry 8th appointed himself " King of Ireland".
After 1603 the English ( or their colonists/lackeys) ran IRELAND as a separate single entity.
Until the Act of Union in 1800/1801 They always referred to the "Kingdom of Ireland".
What part of Ireland did they leave out??
I suggest Cohen you learn some real history - not some blinkered bit of unionistic make believe.
Agian apologies but I assumed your point was that Ireland had been united under something other than English/British rule
it was a single country prior to cromwellian forces. various kings ruled and at times areas (must be careful not to use the word states) were often ruled by lesser lords or kings.
go read.
Have read a little on the subject matter over the years. Pre-British rule which person/body ruled all of the island?
Quote from: Rossfan on April 25, 2013, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:22:53 PM
I am against A united Ireland. I just agianst any of the guff that is spouted about it being achieved in any circumstance other than a majority of the people in the 6 counties voting for it (and presumably a similar vote in the republic) or that violence/murder can be justified in persuit of it (as it will need a democratic vote). Anybody who thinks these are unreasonable views needs urgent help.
Whatever about the past ( about which we can do nothing other than acknowledge facts no matter how unpalatable to us) - that is what we've now agreed under the G F Agreement.
Which founds the National question in democracy - where it should have been all along
from memory
the high king of eamhain mhaca
diarmuid mcmurrogh from memory might have also ruled as high king also.
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).
Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.
Until around the time of Henry 8th most Kings in most countries were kind of overlords of a crowd of semi independent local chiefs/barons/dukes/Taoisigh or what ever.
The Ard Rí was supposed to be in charge of All Ireland but only as a kind of distant Supervisor.
The Ard Ríthe were from present day Co Roscommon usually ( well of course they would) and were in charge till around the 11th Century when Brian Bóramha seized power and all Hell broke loose from there on.
The last Ard Rí of All Ireland was Ruairi Ó Concúbhair ( from Ros of course) as afterwards the the English King was "Lord of Ireland" so the title faded away.
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).
Why would you assume that? The Irish Parliament sat from medieval times right up to 1800. The Kingdom of Ireland existed from 1542 up to 1800.
Never governed as a single entity?
Now if you're talking about the Lordship of Ireland that came before the Kingdom of Ireland, maybe then you might have a point, since its influence ebbed and flowed and didn't cover the entire island, but if you're suggesting that Ireland has never ever been governed as a single entity then you're talking through your hat.
Quote
Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.
I'm not Lynchboy.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 25, 2013, 11:09:00 PM
Until around the time of Henry 8th most Kings in most countries were kind of overlords of a crowd of semi independent local chiefs/barons/dukes/Taoisigh or what ever.
The Ard Rí was supposed to be in charge of All Ireland but only as a kind of distant Supervisor.
The Ard Ríthe were from present day Co Roscommon usually ( well of course they would) and were in charge till around the 11th Century when Brian Bóramha seized power and all Hell broke loose from there on.
The last Ard Rí of All Ireland was Ruairi Ó Concúbhair ( from Ros of course) as afterwards the the English King was "Lord of Ireland" so the title faded away.
Spot on. England didn't unite as anything resembling a country in the modern sense until about 1485, so by Lcohen's yardstick it would seem that England can't have any claim to being a "real" nation either.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 11:37:57 PM
Spot on. England didn't unite as anything resembling a country in the modern sense until about 1485, so by Lcohen's yardstick it would seem that England can't have any claim to being a "real" nation either.
As Brendan Behan so memorably put it: We (Irish) were "a proud and intelligent people, who had a language, a literature, when the barbarian woad-painted Briton was first learning to walk upright." :)
Quote from: Rossfan on April 25, 2013, 11:09:00 PM
Until around the time of Henry 8th most Kings in most countries were kind of overlords of a crowd of semi independent local chiefs/barons/dukes/Taoisigh or what ever.
The Ard Rí was supposed to be in charge of All Ireland but only as a kind of distant Supervisor.
The Ard Ríthe were from present day Co Roscommon usually ( well of course they would) and were in charge till around the 11th Century when Brian Bóramha seized power and all Hell broke loose from there on.
The last Ard Rí of All Ireland was Ruairi Ó Concúbhair ( from Ros of course) as afterwards the the English King was "Lord of Ireland" so the title faded away.
The Ard Ri could be compared to the Holy Roman Emperor, LCohen do you deny the Holy Roman Empire existed.
Holy Roman Empire? They had no national health service, no national insurance, no national railway network, and no national department of education. Wasn't a country.
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).
Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.
That never ruled as a single entity is from the Israeli hasbara playbook and meaningless.
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).
Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.
I checked afterwards and couldn't even find reference to diarmuid mcmorrough!
Don't know where I got that one from.
However there have been single high kings -elected and by annexing - that have presided over the individual kingdoms, so yes from earliest times ( though undocumented) until medieval to
Ed and up until Cromwell there was a singly governed Ireland.
There were pockets of broken rule in this though.
Check it out.
Then you will have something else to dodge questions on !
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 11:35:33 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).
Why would you assume that? The Irish Parliament sat from medieval times right up to 1800. The Kingdom of Ireland existed from 1542 up to 1800.
Never governed as a single entity?
Now if you're talking about the Lordship of Ireland that came before the Kingdom of Ireland, maybe then you might have a point, since its influence ebbed and flowed and didn't cover the entire island, but if you're suggesting that Ireland has never ever been governed as a single entity then you're talking through your hat.
Quote
Why assume that?? Fantastic point. If your line of argument is that Ireland is a united state because Britain united it then I feel you may incur the considerable wrath of the irish republican movement.
Again I ask - when was Ireland ruled as a stable single entity from within Ireland?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 11:35:33 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.
I'm not Lynchboy.
I do understand that. All post are anotated in this respect. An earlier poster had made a related post. I answered both points in a single post. I name checked Lynchboy to illustrate this point and assumed fellow readers had the intellect to work that one out. Assumptions are fraught with difficulty in this respect.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 26, 2013, 12:37:42 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 11:37:57 PM
Spot on. England didn't unite as anything resembling a country in the modern sense until about 1485, so by Lcohen's yardstick it would seem that England can't have any claim to being a "real" nation either.
As Brendan Behan so memorably put it: We (Irish) were "a proud and intelligent people, who had a language, a literature, when the barbarian woad-painted Briton was first learning to walk upright." :)
As much as I love Behan and his comrades in drink (in my case specifically Kavanagh) quotations from literature are no basis for the foundation of a country or re-writing international law or boundaries.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 11:37:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 25, 2013, 11:09:00 PM
Until around the time of Henry 8th most Kings in most countries were kind of overlords of a crowd of semi independent local chiefs/barons/dukes/Taoisigh or what ever.
The Ard Rí was supposed to be in charge of All Ireland but only as a kind of distant Supervisor.
The Ard Ríthe were from present day Co Roscommon usually ( well of course they would) and were in charge till around the 11th Century when Brian Bóramha seized power and all Hell broke loose from there on.
The last Ard Rí of All Ireland was Ruairi Ó Concúbhair ( from Ros of course) as afterwards the the English King was "Lord of Ireland" so the title faded away.
Spot on. England didn't unite as anything resembling a country in the modern sense until about 1485, so by Lcohen's yardstick it would seem that England can't have any claim to being a "real" nation either.
But England and Britain have been ruled as stable united single entities from within in the period since.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 26, 2013, 03:03:37 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 25, 2013, 11:09:00 PM
Until around the time of Henry 8th most Kings in most countries were kind of overlords of a crowd of semi independent local chiefs/barons/dukes/Taoisigh or what ever.
The Ard Rí was supposed to be in charge of All Ireland but only as a kind of distant Supervisor.
The Ard Ríthe were from present day Co Roscommon usually ( well of course they would) and were in charge till around the 11th Century when Brian Bóramha seized power and all Hell broke loose from there on.
The last Ard Rí of All Ireland was Ruairi Ó Concúbhair ( from Ros of course) as afterwards the the English King was "Lord of Ireland" so the title faded away.
The Ard Ri could be compared to the Holy Roman Emperor, LCohen do you deny the Holy Roman Empire existed.
I don't deny that either the Ard Rí or Holy Roman Empire existed,
I do deny that the Ard Rí ruled the island of Ireland as a stable, united single entity
Just so we're clear, you're conceding the point that Ireland has been governed as a single entity (even if it was under British rule at the time)?
Quote from: seafoid on April 26, 2013, 07:34:48 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).
Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.
That never ruled as a single entity is from the Israeli hasbara playbook and meaningless.
That is ofcourse nonsense. I would suggest that my views on Israel are little different than your own.
The fact remains that many posters above have implied that that there is an obvious single entity of ireland and that all democratic decisions should be judged on this single basis. The absence of any single example of any instance of the island being ruled as a stable single entity belies this.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 26, 2013, 06:57:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).
Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.
I checked afterwards and couldn't even find reference to diarmuid mcmorrough!
Don't know where I got that one from.
However there have been single high kings -elected and by annexing - that have presided over the individual kingdoms, so yes from earliest times ( though undocumented) until medieval to
Ed and up until Cromwell there was a singly governed Ireland.
There were pockets of broken rule in this though.
Check it out.
Then you will have something else to dodge questions on !
I could argue that Ireland was ruled by frogs in an undocumented era. Where is your evidence of these undocumented facts??
I have not dodged questions. If you are on the look out for dodged questions look out for the ones I have asked (and yes documented!!)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 26, 2013, 11:49:40 PM
Just so we're clear, you're conceding the point that Ireland has been governed as a single entity (even if it was under British rule at the time)?
Never denied that. It hardly the basis of a nationalistic agenda though.
Surely you are not arguing that because Bridtain (mis)ruled the whole of Ireland that it is a sngle entity on that basis and that any decision on the constitutional position of the land mass should be based on a single constituency even if there was clear evidence of polar majority positions on different parts of the land mass.
Quote from: LCohen on April 26, 2013, 11:48:07 PM
I do deny that the Ard Rí ruled the island of Ireland as a stable, united single entity
I'll repeat what I've said before on this thread, and which you have studiously ignored:
- Ireland was a unitary state prior to the Norman invasion of 1169, not a very unified unitary state, but a homogeneous state in geographical, cultural, and traditional terms nonetheless. And judged by contemporary political entities, there was no state that was more unified in the world at that particular time (none of this disingenuous nonsense of comparing Ireland in the first millenium with political norms in the third).
- The 6 Counties were drawn up on a purely crude sectarian headcount basis (predicated on the threat or (copious) use of 'loyalist' violence, which is OK with you it seems) -- Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan would have been included, if the border bigots weren't fearful for their 'majority in perpetuity'. And nationalist Fermanagh and Tyrone were included in their carve-up since they thought their majority in the other 4 counties would always outweigh the nationalist preponderance therein; though they were wrong, as it's demographically dawning on them now.
- Should that eventuality come to pass, where the unionists are outvoted in the 6 Counties, and as looks very likely demographically now, they [some unionists] have indicated they won't accept that expression of wish of the new 'majority', and will either fight to resist or agitate to have the lines of partition redrawn -- you'll find no problem with that perspective either I assume?
You realise that you've been demolished here at every turn, what little credibility you might have had on the subject has vanished like the pretensions of a majoritarian unionist to 'democracy' when faced with the prospect of actually being in the democratic minority!
Tell me too, how the
self-avowedly Irish Unionists of 1921 suddenly became
British Unionists in 1922? What piece of magical transmogrification was involved in that particular piece of the intrigue?
a good tester to thrash this one out.
There is no indication that a majority in the 6 counties will vote for a United Ireland at moment. We all have our view on whether/when this will change. All reasonable people must accept that the numbers could change and that the border must change in that scenario. There are certainly unreasonable people within Unionism/Loyalism who don't accept that.
There remains a possibility that a poll on the issue returns a majority in the 6 counties wishing to remain within the Union but a very clear majority wishing to join the Republic of Ireland in certain areas, contiguous with the existing border (some of which will be whole counties and some will not).
Would the people in those areas wish to join the Republic as is (reducing the size of NI and also the chance of there being a Nationalist majority in any further poll in the residual NI)?
Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border for those very reasons?
If they don't could it be argue that that stance is anti-democratic (i.e frustrating the voice of democracy in pursuit of a wider political goal)?
A big issue for SF if they puch for an early referendum (shich they seem intent on doing)
Quote from: deiseach on April 25, 2013, 08:55:59 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 24, 2013, 10:47:16 PM
The failure of Catholic/Nationalist leadership was to not sustain the peaceful campaign and allowing the provos to put themselves forward as an alternative.
The majority of Catholic/Nationalists supported the peaceful campaign throughout the Troubles. This was true even in the six counties. This was despite the fact they never received as much as a crumb from the table of Unionism, whether in Northern Ireland or Westminster. In the face of such intransigence and the state-sponsored violence (please note 'violence' didn't just involve killing people, it included living in constant fear of the police who are supposed to be the first line of defence against criminality), it was a staggering tribute to the political skills of the likes of John Hume and Seamus Mallon that so few followed the alternative.
I have known Seamus almost my entire life. I consider him the outstanding political figure of this island during my life time. I only wish he had achieved greater influence within the wider catholic populace in the 70s and 80s. He won in the end though bt too many had died.
Quote from: LCohen on April 27, 2013, 12:07:29 AM
There remains a possibility that a poll on the issue returns a majority in the 6 counties wishing to remain within the Union but a very clear majority wishing to join the Republic of Ireland in certain areas, contiguous with the existing border (some of which will be whole counties and some will not).
Tell us this, how small would an area have to be for you
not to give the overwhelming weight of your bias to the unionist/loyalist 'right' to carve up territory to create a majority where otherwise they'd be in the minority?
Where's the cut-off point, where it actually dawns on you that maybe they should just suck it up or ship out?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 27, 2013, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 26, 2013, 11:48:07 PM
I do deny that the Ard Rí ruled the island of Ireland as a stable, united single entity
I'll repeat what I've said before on this thread, and which you have studiously ignored:
- Ireland was a unitary state prior to the Norman invasion of 1169, not a very unified unitary state, but a homogeneous state in geographical, cultural, and traditional terms nonetheless. And judged by contemporary political entities, there was no state that was more unified in the world at that particular time (none of this disingenuous nonsense of comparing Ireland in the first millenium with political norms in the third).
- The 6 Counties were drawn up on a purely crude sectarian headcount basis (predicated on the threat or (copious) use of 'loyalist' violence, which is OK with you it seems) -- Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan would have been included, if the border bigots weren't fearful for their 'majority in perpetuity'. And nationalist Fermanagh and Tyrone were included in their carve-up since they thought their majority in the other 4 counties would always outweigh the nationalist preponderance therein; though they were wrong, as it's demographically dawning on them now.
- Should that eventuality come to pass, where the unionists are outvoted in the 6 Counties, and as looks very likely demographically now, they [some unionists] have indicated they won't accept that expression of wish of the new 'majority', and will either fight to resist or agitate to have the lines of partition redrawn -- you'll find no problem with that perspective either I assume?
You realise that you've been demolished here at every turn, what little credibility you might have had on the subject has vanished like the pretensions of a majoritarian unionist to 'democracy' when faced with the prospect of actually being in the democratic minority!
Tell me too, how the self-avowedly Irish Unionists of 1921 suddenly became British Unionists in 1922? What piece of magical transmogrification was involved in that particular piece of the intrigue?
An accusation that I have studiously ignored questions can be exploded by an a review of the answers I have given. Your entitlement to even raise the point is underminded by the questons you have left unanswered.
On your first point you admit yourself that Ireland was not ruled as a "very unified unitary state." At least we can move on from the pretence that it was was from within the Ireland. What then is the basi that Ireland must be viewed as a single unitary entity and that when a clear majority exists in one part of the island that it should have been ignored by a a contary majority on the island as whole? Where does the obvousness of the united island come from?
On your second point I have stated that I am happy for the border to be redrawn now or at any time to reflect a proper vote under the terms of modern universal adult suffrage. Ar republicans? Will they answer the questions I have posed in earlier posts on this specific matter?
I find your third point absoultely incredulous. Should there be a majority in NI wishing to join RoI in a single nation and elements within NI resist this with violence I would expect that full force of the law to come down on them. What specific evidebce do you have that my view would be othe than that? Really you must answer that point.
Rather than being demolished I think I have answere every point. Questions I have asked remain unanswered and inferences drawn
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 27, 2013, 12:18:29 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 27, 2013, 12:07:29 AM
There remains a possibility that a poll on the issue returns a majority in the 6 counties wishing to remain within the Union but a very clear majority wishing to join the Republic of Ireland in certain areas, contiguous with the existing border (some of which will be whole counties and some will not).
Tell us this, how small would an area have to be for you not to give the overwhelming weight of your bias to the unionist/loyalist 'right' to carve up territory to create a majority where otherwise they'd be in the minority?
Where's the cut-off point, where it actually dawns on you that maybe they should just suck it up or ship out?
The post of mine that you have quoted illustrates a scenario where the majority in the 6 counties want to stay in the UK. Surely you would have no difficulty with that vote being respected?
The post goes on to illustrate that that could well be "a very clear majority wishing to join the Republic of Ireland in certain areas, contiguous with the existing border (some of which will be whole counties and some will not)". You do realise that I have no problem with that area enjoyin the fruits of their democratic vote. The residual NI would by implication have an even bigger unionist majority and therefire the likelihood of international law accepting an overrideing of a democratic vote an impossibility.
The scenario you seem to be advocating is this:
1) Have a vote.
2) Move the border to reflect those areas with majority in favour of joining international law.
3) Ignore the will of the majority in the residual areas
4) Ask the international community to accept point 3.
Why has nobody put theri face in front of the cameras and advocated such a plan?
Truth is SF don't support such a plan.
On your first point you admit yourself that Ireland was not ruled as a "very unified unitary state." At least we can move on from the pretence that it was was from within the Ireland. What then is the basi that Ireland must be viewed as a single unitary entity and that when a clear majority exists in one part of the island that it should have been ignored by a a contary majority on the island as whole? Where does the obvousness of the united island come from?
Nowhere on the planet was ruled as you suggest here, so it's a straw man argument -- Ireland was as evolved politically as anywhere else on the globe at that particular time, as a single political, cultural, traditional and geographical entity.
On your second point I have stated that I am happy for the border to be redrawn now or at any time to reflect a proper vote under the terms of modern universal adult suffrage. Ar republicans? Will they answer the questions I have posed in earlier posts on this specific matter?
Why the feck should the border (that should never have been in the first place) be redrawn repeatedly? Your questions are a nonsense, since they implicitly embody this 'right' of the unionist/loyalist population of Ireland to continually redefine boundaries to contrive sectarian majorities. Your head's up your arse on that one.
I find your third point absoultely incredulous. Should there be a majority in NI wishing to join RoI in a single nation and elements within NI resist this with violence I would expect that full force of the law to come down on them. What specific evidebce do you have that my view would be othe than that? Really you must answer that point.
Well, you called Nally Stand 'crazed and demented' when he pointed up the forced population migrations involved when partition was imposed in 1922, when state sponsored unionist/loyalist pogroms weren't just tolerated but very actively encouraged. Just because you're in very obvious denial about this doesn't mean it didn't happen and that a recurrence isn't a distinct probability (given some of the sounds already emanating from some unionist/loyalist quarters).
Rather than being demolished I think I have answere every point. Questions I have asked remain unanswered and inferences drawn
Your arse.
Ireland did evolve. You might wish to consult the views on the north west part of the island on how it evolved. These democtratic views cannot be ignored in the modern era. Be clear - are you argueing that they should be?
The issue of the rights of the people of Fermanagh, Southe & West Tyrone, Newry and South Armagh have been raised elsewhere on the this thread. I merely confirm that I am open to there suggestions.
I have never denied that there were populations movements (including protestants intimated out of my own border area). I have never denied that there will be a loyalist force that resists future change. I do and have condemed all of this. All.
Give a list of unanswered questions on this thread. Name those who have asked them and shame those who have not answered them.
Ireland did evolve. You wish to consult the views on the north west part of the island on how it evolved. These democtratic views caanot be ignored in the modern era. Be clear - are you argueing that they should be?
I'm not saying that Ireland did not evolve (and never have). Again, another straw man argument. I've said that the unionist/loyalist minority had no right to hold sway over the native majority (of which they were once a part), consistently, all along, and nor have they. (And do you mean the north-east?)
The issue of the rights of the people of Fermagh, Southe & West Tyrone, Newry and South Armagh have been raised elsewhere on the this thread. I merely confirm that I am open to there suggestions.
Yes, but always on the 'right' of the unionist/loyalist faction to redefine their boundaries -- that's not democracy, it's a recipe for sectarian chaos.
I have never denied that there were populations movements (including protestants intimated out of my own border area). I have never denied that there will be a loyalist force that resists future change. I do and have condemed all of this. All.
Yes you did, 'crazed and demented' isn't exactly in agreement, not even obliquely.
Give a list of unanswered questions on this thread. Name those who have asked them and shame those who have not answered them.
Maybe I've enough to be dealing with here.
Quote from: LCohen on April 26, 2013, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 26, 2013, 06:57:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).
Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.
I checked afterwards and couldn't even find reference to diarmuid mcmorrough!
Don't know where I got that one from.
However there have been single high kings -elected and by annexing - that have presided over the individual kingdoms, so yes from earliest times ( though undocumented) until medieval to
Ed and up until Cromwell there was a singly governed Ireland.
There were pockets of broken rule in this though.
Check it out.
Then you will have something else to dodge questions on !
I could argue that Ireland was ruled by frogs in an undocumented era. Where is your evidence of these undocumented facts??
I have not dodged questions. If you are on the look out for dodged questions look out for the ones I have asked (and yes documented!!)
You misunderstood my post.
The earliest rulers of Ireland were undocumented ( up until approx 100ad)
The rest were documented after that.
I believe FOSB have given you more evidence of singly ruled entire country.
You still run away from answering everyone on the undemocratic taking of the six counties.
But you have painted yourself into a corner here!
FSOB. You point out yourself that Ireland was was politically evolved. I echo this by stating that "Ireland did evolve". You some how construe this as an accusation by myself against yourself that you have claimed Ireland did not evolve. Your thought processes on that one would be interesting.
You correctly point out that i should have stated the North East rather than the North West.
The unionist minority on the overall island did not hold sway over the majority post partition.
I don't believe anyone within Unioism is calling for a referendum or a redrawing of the border. Where are you getting that idea from?
Can you provide with a quote within which I denied there were population movements? I may have desribed the claims of the degree of population movement in the context of international comparisons were crazed and demented but surely you can see that that is not the same as saying there were not population movements at all. Its not that subtle a difference - you do see that?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 27, 2013, 01:02:30 AM
Give a list of unanswered questions on this thread. Name those who have asked them and shame those who have not answered them.
Maybe I've enough to be dealing with here.
So not in any way running away from arguments that you find uncomfortable
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 27, 2013, 09:25:09 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 26, 2013, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 26, 2013, 06:57:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 25, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 25, 2013, 10:13:58 PM
No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.
So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?
It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).
Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.
I checked afterwards and couldn't even find reference to diarmuid mcmorrough!
Don't know where I got that one from.
However there have been single high kings -elected and by annexing - that have presided over the individual kingdoms, so yes from earliest times ( though undocumented) until medieval to
Ed and up until Cromwell there was a singly governed Ireland.
There were pockets of broken rule in this though.
Check it out.
Then you will have something else to dodge questions on !
I could argue that Ireland was ruled by frogs in an undocumented era. Where is your evidence of these undocumented facts??
I have not dodged questions. If you are on the look out for dodged questions look out for the ones I have asked (and yes documented!!)
You misunderstood my post.
The earliest rulers of Ireland were undocumented ( up until approx 100ad)
The rest were documented after that.
I believe FOSB have given you more evidence of singly ruled entire country.
You still run away from answering everyone on the undemocratic taking of the six counties.
But you have painted yourself into a corner here!
Yes I did misunderstand your post. Having said that I really not certain that any of your (or FSOB's) claims of a single ruler/body having control over the entire island before English/British rule standing up to academic rigour.
Again I am not running away from any arguments.
A majority of people in the NW of the Island (at the time of partition and today) wanted to remian in the UK. Honouring the views of the mahority is the modus operandi of a democracy. I am not exactly in a corner when defending that viewpoint.
Yet another 'typo'. Pull out before you exceed your own bullshit LCohen.
Quote from: LCohen on April 27, 2013, 10:47:03 AM
A majority of people in the NW of the Island (at the time of partition and today) wanted to remian in the UK. Honouring the views of the mahority is the modus operandi of a democracy. I am not exactly in a corner when defending that viewpoint.
Yes you are, you're very much in the minority, unless of course you engage in your seemingly favourite pastime of carving up territory to create majorities out of minorities (also presuming that you mean the NE of Ireland, again!). That's not democracy, that's a charter for political dystopia, which we've had in spades since the original iniquitous partition of this island.
The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union. Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not. Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.
I wonder if Scotland votes for independence will Rangers, Hearts and say 4 others who don't want to be independent stay under direct rule?
Quote from: muppet on April 27, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
I wonder if Scotland votes for independence will Rangers, Hearts and say 4 others who don't want to be independent stay under direct rule?
The people of the ancient and indivisible kingdom of Rangers-Hearts-other-four-land will express their democratic wish to secede, and that wish must be respected in the name of democracy!!!!
You're close, LC, but what you're talking about is de-mock-cracy, not democracy.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 27, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
Yet another 'typo'. Pull out before you exceed your own bullshit LCohen.
I should pay more attention to my spelling when posting.
And you are quite right. Typo = bullshit = factual innacuracy.
Or could it be, Pedantry = diversionary tactic = inability to challenge the content and put forward a credible alternative.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 27, 2013, 03:30:38 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 27, 2013, 10:47:03 AM
A majority of people in the NW of the Island (at the time of partition and today) wanted to remian in the UK. Honouring the views of the mahority is the modus operandi of a democracy. I am not exactly in a corner when defending that viewpoint.
Yes you are, you're very much in the minority, unless of course you engage in your seemingly favourite pastime of carving up territory to create majorities out of minorities (also presuming that you mean the NE of Ireland, again!). That's not democracy, that's a charter for political dystopia, which we've had in spades since the original iniquitous partition of this island.
Tell me more about what you would have expected Britain to do in 1922 and the run up to partition? Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area? How would this have played out internationally?
How would it play out today?
Is is ever going to happen (i.e pull out when a majority in favour of the union exists?
Are those who think it is going to happen deluding themselves?
Were those who thought it in the past doing anything other than deluding themselves?
Where the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a withdrawal? Tell me how that would have have played out internationally?
When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI?
And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?
well they ignored the majority opinion on the entire isand.
the only reason why they retained them (or one of hem) was to get a tranche of votes for the house of common that would be appreciative for this and vote en bloc for them in the house of commons (did work for a while ).
the rest of your ponts are null and void as the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification.
After a while it was thought that reunification would cut to the chase and get rid of all the violence and persecution etc.
The reason for the peace now is that the aim of equality/eradication persecution and the apartheirdesque rule was achieved.
Reunification will come at a later date , mostly when the world economy improves. Lets face it allpeople, especially the unionists/loyalist (and nationalists/working class/middle class) in the north will jump at the chance of better jobs/more money - the precedent was the celtic tiger where all the age old unionist/loyalist principles were rapidly abandoned as they headed south for better jobs and money.
A lot still here (from both sides).
It will happen, and people like yourself will be welcomed and accomodated. But you prob know this already.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 27, 2013, 10:19:43 PM
The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union. Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not. Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.
The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.
The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.
Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.
Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.
I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 06:51:23 PM
Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area?
Partition
was the ignoring of a majority in a defined geographic area.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 06:51:23 PM
And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?
You tell us. Britain's state forces started it.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 27, 2013, 10:19:43 PM
The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union. Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not. Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.
The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.
The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.
Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.
Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.
I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?
I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.
You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.
Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 07:01:03 PM
well they ignored the majority opinion on the entire isand.
the only reason why they retained them (or one of hem) was to get a tranche of votes for the house of common that would be appreciative for this and vote en bloc for them in the house of commons (did work for a while ).
the rest of your ponts are null and void as the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification.
After a while it was thought that reunification would cut to the chase and get rid of all the violence and persecution etc.
The reason for the peace now is that the aim of equality/eradication persecution and the apartheirdesque rule was achieved.
Reunification will come at a later date , mostly when the world economy improves. Lets face it allpeople, especially the unionists/loyalist (and nationalists/working class/middle class) in the north will jump at the chance of better jobs/more money - the precedent was the celtic tiger where all the age old unionist/loyalist principles were rapidly abandoned as they headed south for better jobs and money.
A lot still here (from both sides).
It will happen, and people like yourself will be welcomed and accomodated. But you prob know this already.
Its quite correct to point out that pre-partition that the majority opinion was ignored. Its also the case that majority opinions were being ignored all over britain at the time due to the restrictive voting franchise.
You claim that "the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification." All those claimimg that their friends, family, loved ones and comrades died in the name of Irish unification were not only failures (as the unification was not achieved) but they themseves are liars. Your claims are alos highly questionable given that:
a) less that 3% of the people killed by republicans were loyalist parmilitaries.
b) Innocent non-combatants were targeted and murdered
c) Gardai were targeted and murdered.
d) Fellow repubican combatants were target and murdered.
Categories b), c) & d) were murdered in your view to stop oppression by loyalsits/unionists? Surely that is nonsense?
Also the very idea that the way to stop unionist/loyalist violence was to commit murders/acts of violence and intensify the culture of hatred, mistrust, fear and emnity is interesting. Can you point me in the direction of the peer reviewed works that detail and endores this strategy?
A united Ireland might well happen - but only when a majority in the 2 jurisdictions want it. Not before and not through violence. There will be those that resist it and that will have to be managed.
I have no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved. If current/recent polls are to be trusted (and they have their limitations) I can't see it being achieved anytime soon.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2013, 07:05:06 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 06:51:23 PM
Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area?
Partition was the ignoring of a majority in a defined geographic area.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 06:51:23 PM
And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?
You tell us. Britain's state forces started it.
Interesting that you picked that first point out of a wider post but don't answer any of the questions asked in the post. Absolutely no inferences will be drawn from that or the frequent failure of posters to answer questions on this thread.
You do see that there was a clear majority in one part of the isalnd at odds with the majority view on the overall isalnd. I think you are kidding yourself if that position could have been ignored.
I'm not really in the business of defending violence. Others have attempted to. Iask them for specifics - they fall silent. Again no inferences are being drawn.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:27:38 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2013, 07:05:06 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 06:51:23 PM
Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area?
Partition was the ignoring of a majority in a defined geographic area.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 06:51:23 PM
And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?
You tell us. Britain's state forces started it.
Interesting that you picked that first point out of a wider post but don't answer any of the questions asked in the post. Absolutely no inferences will be drawn from that or the frequent failure of posters to answer questions on this thread.
You do see that there was a clear majority in one part of the isalnd at odds with the majority view on the overall isalnd. I think you are kidding yourself if that position could have been ignored.
I'm not really in the business of defending violence. Others have attempted to. Iask them for specifics - they fall silent. Again no inferences are being drawn.
Remarkably disinterested about the concept of majorities for someone who likes to lecture others on democracy! And I am not actually suggesting you are defending violence. Though you do seem over keen to criticise it from just one side in particular.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:20:31 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 07:01:03 PM
well they ignored the majority opinion on the entire isand.
the only reason why they retained them (or one of hem) was to get a tranche of votes for the house of common that would be appreciative for this and vote en bloc for them in the house of commons (did work for a while ).
the rest of your ponts are null and void as the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification.
After a while it was thought that reunification would cut to the chase and get rid of all the violence and persecution etc.
The reason for the peace now is that the aim of equality/eradication persecution and the apartheirdesque rule was achieved.
Reunification will come at a later date , mostly when the world economy improves. Lets face it allpeople, especially the unionists/loyalist (and nationalists/working class/middle class) in the north will jump at the chance of better jobs/more money - the precedent was the celtic tiger where all the age old unionist/loyalist principles were rapidly abandoned as they headed south for better jobs and money.
A lot still here (from both sides).
It will happen, and people like yourself will be welcomed and accomodated. But you prob know this already.
Its quite correct to point out that pre-partition that the majority opinion was ignored. Its also the case that majority opinions were being ignored all over britain at the time due to the restrictive voting franchise.
You claim that "the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification." All those claimimg that their friends, family, loved ones and comrades died in the name of Irish unification were not only failures (as the unification was not achieved) but they themseves are liars. Your claims are alos highly questionable given that:
a) less that 3% of the people killed by republicans were loyalist parmilitaries.
b) Innocent non-combatants were targeted and murdered
c) Gardai were targeted and murdered.
d) Fellow repubican combatants were target and murdered.
Categories b), c) & d) were murdered in your view to stop oppression by loyalsits/unionists? Surely that is nonsense?
Also the very idea that the way to stop unionist/loyalist violence was to commit murders/acts of violence and intensify the culture of hatred, mistrust, fear and emnity is interesting. Can you point me in the direction of the peer reviewed works that detail and endores this strategy?
A united Ireland might well happen - but only when a majority in the 2 jurisdictions want it. Not before and not through violence. There will be those that resist it and that will have to be managed.
I have no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved. If current/recent polls are to be trusted (and they have their limitations) I can't see it being achieved anytime soon.
have to say that your arguments on this are fanfful if not ridiculous.
your whole reasoning now on the undemocratic carve up is because the british government were undemocratic elsewhere n other (completely unrelated) things !!!
come on !! thats juvenle in the extreme.
as for youre points a, b c d - if they occurred, these were incidents as opposed to systematic targeting.
next.
as for the next point- there is no thinking behind retaliation or defending yourself.
If people were ot under oppression or persecution, then they could think and wouldnt need violent retaliation.
Thats all that everyone is saying now- reunification through democracy (though not your skewed nn democratic ideals!!)
The violence is gone because reunification was not sought by this method - only equality and an end to oppressession and persecution.
It no longer exists now, so it looks like that worked.
Dont know when reunification will happen, as I say it will be down to economy, england pulling its civil service jobs back for its citizens and a deal being done to the IRish Gov to take the six counties back.
The economy surrounding this will be harder for southern electorate to vote for it than the northern electorate !
looks like you havent done your research if you still dont realise that Ireland has ben governed as a single entity aside from english before cromwell !
That will be quite amusing in a few years time- the north voting for reunification and the south deadlocked or deliberating on it !
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 27, 2013, 10:19:43 PM
The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union. Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not. Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.
The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.
The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.
Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.
Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.
I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?
I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.
You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.
Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.
I have pointed out before that I asumed that the nationalist argument was founded on the basis that Ireland had been united by someone other than England/Britain.
The fact that it was not united beforehand removes the absolute imperiative that Britain had to view it entirely as one entity when considering (partial) withdrawal especially when they considered the demographics in the north. Again I ask you to what where Britain to do? How would their ignoring of a vocal majority in the north have been received internationally?
Those who believ that Britain could have fully withdrawn from the island of Ireland then (or in the absence of a majority now or in the future) are deluding themselves.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2013, 07:31:33 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:27:38 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2013, 07:05:06 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 06:51:23 PM
Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area?
Partition was the ignoring of a majority in a defined geographic area.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 06:51:23 PM
And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?
You tell us. Britain's state forces started it.
Interesting that you picked that first point out of a wider post but don't answer any of the questions asked in the post. Absolutely no inferences will be drawn from that or the frequent failure of posters to answer questions on this thread.
You do see that there was a clear majority in one part of the isalnd at odds with the majority view on the overall isalnd. I think you are kidding yourself if that position could have been ignored.
I'm not really in the business of defending violence. Others have attempted to. Iask them for specifics - they fall silent. Again no inferences are being drawn.
Remarkably disinterested about the concept of majorities for someone who likes to lecture others on democracy! And I am not actually suggesting you are defending violence. Though you do seem over keen to criticise it from just one side in particular.
If someone was on here defending/excusing loyalist violence I would be equally vehement in my critique. My track record is clear and defensible. Those who fall silent when asked for specifics can't make that claim.
Yes you seem dis-interest in the majority view in the 6 counties.
LC, you have "no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved," except, of course, that one that was democratically approved just before the creation of that other carved-out chunk of land whose majority opinion you seem to esteem so highly. You're good at the game "Twister," I bet.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 27, 2013, 10:19:43 PM
The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union. Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not. Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.
The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.
The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.
Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.
Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.
I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?
I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.
You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.
Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.
I have pointed out before that I asumed that the nationalist argument was founded on the basis that Ireland had been united by someone other than England/Britain.
The fact that it was not united beforehand removes the absolute imperiative that Britain had to view it entirely as one entity when considering (partial) withdrawal especially when they considered the demographics in the north. Again I ask you to what where Britain to do? How would their ignoring of a vocal majority in the north have been received internationally?
Those who believ that Britain could have fully withdrawn from the island of Ireland then (or in the absence of a majority now or in the future) are deluding themselves.
entirely incorrect I'm afraid.
even then, it is no reason to ignore the wishes of the majority.
any other excuse is just justifying your delusion to yourself.
will we have local councils or Tyrone, Derry and Fermanagh voting whether we have reunification?
As the current six counties is not fully goverened by the six counties and the people in it are not all pleased with the undemocratic methods of the past !
ya cant have it both ways !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:20:31 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 07:01:03 PM
well they ignored the majority opinion on the entire isand.
the only reason why they retained them (or one of hem) was to get a tranche of votes for the house of common that would be appreciative for this and vote en bloc for them in the house of commons (did work for a while ).
the rest of your ponts are null and void as the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification.
After a while it was thought that reunification would cut to the chase and get rid of all the violence and persecution etc.
The reason for the peace now is that the aim of equality/eradication persecution and the apartheirdesque rule was achieved.
Reunification will come at a later date , mostly when the world economy improves. Lets face it allpeople, especially the unionists/loyalist (and nationalists/working class/middle class) in the north will jump at the chance of better jobs/more money - the precedent was the celtic tiger where all the age old unionist/loyalist principles were rapidly abandoned as they headed south for better jobs and money.
A lot still here (from both sides).
It will happen, and people like yourself will be welcomed and accomodated. But you prob know this already.
Its quite correct to point out that pre-partition that the majority opinion was ignored. Its also the case that majority opinions were being ignored all over britain at the time due to the restrictive voting franchise.
You claim that "the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification." All those claimimg that their friends, family, loved ones and comrades died in the name of Irish unification were not only failures (as the unification was not achieved) but they themseves are liars. Your claims are alos highly questionable given that:
a) less that 3% of the people killed by republicans were loyalist parmilitaries.
b) Innocent non-combatants were targeted and murdered
c) Gardai were targeted and murdered.
d) Fellow repubican combatants were target and murdered.
Categories b), c) & d) were murdered in your view to stop oppression by loyalsits/unionists? Surely that is nonsense?
Also the very idea that the way to stop unionist/loyalist violence was to commit murders/acts of violence and intensify the culture of hatred, mistrust, fear and emnity is interesting. Can you point me in the direction of the peer reviewed works that detail and endores this strategy?
A united Ireland might well happen - but only when a majority in the 2 jurisdictions want it. Not before and not through violence. There will be those that resist it and that will have to be managed.
I have no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved. If current/recent polls are to be trusted (and they have their limitations) I can't see it being achieved anytime soon.
have to say that your arguments on this are fanfful if not ridiculous.
your whole reasoning now on the undemocratic carve up is because the british government were undemocratic elsewhere n other (completely unrelated) things !!!
come on !! thats juvenle in the extreme.
as for youre points a, b c d - if they occurred, these were incidents as opposed to systematic targeting.
next.
as for the next point- there is no thinking behind retaliation or defending yourself.
If people were ot under oppression or persecution, then they could think and wouldnt need violent retaliation.
Thats all that everyone is saying now- reunification through democracy (though not your skewed nn democratic ideals!!)
The violence is gone because reunification was not sought by this method - only equality and an end to oppressession and persecution.
It no longer exists now, so it looks like that worked.
Dont know when reunification will happen, as I say it will be down to economy, england pulling its civil service jobs back for its citizens and a deal being done to the IRish Gov to take the six counties back.
The economy surrounding this will be harder for southern electorate to vote for it than the northern electorate !
looks like you havent done your research if you still dont realise that Ireland has ben governed as a single entity aside from english before cromwell !
That will be quite amusing in a few years time- the north voting for reunification and the south deadlocked or deliberating on it !
A little typo there - but I read on.
I did point out the nature of British (and generally western) democracy in the early 20s but is hardly te wholw basis of my argument. The majority positions were clear in the absence of a vote. Having a vote would not have changed this but having a vote was impossible given the nature of democracy at the time.
If they occured?? How could phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? Because the targeting was so broad brush are the acts more justifable? Your thoughts please.
Your views on the thought processes prior to commital of an act of violence are illuminating.
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 29, 2013, 07:50:07 PM
LC, you have "no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved," except, of course, that one that was democratically approved just before the creation of that other carved-out chunk of land whose majority opinion you seem to esteem so highly. You're good at the game "Twister," I bet.
Never played twister.
A majority on all parts of the island has my approval. Enforcing a united Ireland on a sizeable area with a sizeable majority did not & would not carry my support.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 07:53:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 27, 2013, 10:19:43 PM
The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union. Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not. Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.
The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.
The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.
Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.
Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.
I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?
I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.
You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.
Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.
I have pointed out before that I asumed that the nationalist argument was founded on the basis that Ireland had been united by someone other than England/Britain.
The fact that it was not united beforehand removes the absolute imperiative that Britain had to view it entirely as one entity when considering (partial) withdrawal especially when they considered the demographics in the north. Again I ask you to what where Britain to do? How would their ignoring of a vocal majority in the north have been received internationally?
Those who believ that Britain could have fully withdrawn from the island of Ireland then (or in the absence of a majority now or in the future) are deluding themselves.
entirely incorrect I'm afraid.
even then, it is no reason to ignore the wishes of the majority.
any other excuse is just justifying your delusion to yourself.
will we have local councils or Tyrone, Derry and Fermanagh voting whether we have reunification?
As the current six counties is not fully goverened by the six counties and the people in it are not all pleased with the undemocratic methods of the past !
ya cant have it both ways !
I'm happy for border to be redrawn. SF are not.
Amuse me, LC. What would your new ideal border look like?
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:58:56 PM
The majority positions were clear in the absence of a vote. Having a vote would not have changed this but having a vote was impossible given the nature of democracy at the time.
And when a vote was possible, such as when Fermanagh and Tyrone councils expressed their loyalty to the government in Dublin, you ignore it, abolish the body that erred, and gerrymander the entities that replace them (http://books.google.ie/books?id=TGwCEc2DyGgC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=fermanagh+tyrone+councils+partition&source=bl&ots=uWFqYJVFvQ&sig=Te34dlveTxUxJSL3kgpAL2t-vqg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KcZ-UcGPLdGshQeohIGYDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fermanagh%20tyrone%20councils%20partition&f=false). So much for the freedom of small nations.
This is comical!!
Time for a other quick step guide from LCohen. This time, democracy:
1. Majority rules
2. If majority rules makes for an undesirable result, ignore majority and create state where minority can become a majority.
3. Claim minority is now democratic majority.
4. Lecture others about democracy
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 23, 2013, 10:35:18 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 22, 2013, 11:32:05 PM
Nally Stand's claims on population movement seem crazed and demented.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qNDx0wXsLC8C&pg=PR41&lpg=PR41&dq=belfast+catholics+biggest+population+since+second+world+war&source=bl&ots=ewh8nVVZZC&sig=tMyr9bPwU1-Bli4QO6IG9h66Clo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xE52UbjNLaGT0AW464D4Dg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=belfast%20catholics%20biggest%20population%20since%20second%20world%20war&f=false (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qNDx0wXsLC8C&pg=PR41&lpg=PR41&dq=belfast+catholics+biggest+population+since+second+world+war&source=bl&ots=ewh8nVVZZC&sig=tMyr9bPwU1-Bli4QO6IG9h66Clo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xE52UbjNLaGT0AW464D4Dg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=belfast%20catholics%20biggest%20population%20since%20second%20world%20war&f=false)
"Hundreds of homes belonging to Catholics were set alight and within days, Belfast witnessed the largest population displacement since the Second World War." The Dirty War, Martin Dillon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_everyday_life (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_everyday_life)
"Northern Ireland saw the biggest population movement in Europe since the Second World War" Denis Murray, BBC Ireland Correspondent
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/1/2/6/pages211262/p211262-14.php (http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/1/2/6/pages211262/p211262-14.php)
"Loyalist rioting and violence in response to a peaceful civil rights campaign caused genuine threats to civic order and the most massive population shift in Europe since the end of the Second World War." Timothy D. Hoyt US Naval War College
http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/tt/ch11.html (http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/tt/ch11.html)
"After internment in 1971, the widespread intimidation resulted in the greatest population shift then seen in Europe since the second world war."
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/frankiequinn/quinn94/ (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/frankiequinn/quinn94/)
"By February 1973, 60,000 people – ten percent of the city's population – had moved out of their homes in what was, at the time, the biggest population displacement in Europe since World War Two."
http://www.theworkersrepublic.com/brendan-hughes-memoirs---review.html (http://www.theworkersrepublic.com/brendan-hughes-memoirs---review.html)
Loyalist ethnic cleansing of Catholic/Nationalist areas in Belfast, had caused the largest population displacement in Western Europe, since World War 2
A small point, but you did claim the movement was "Catholics fleeing across the border" - these links don't imply crossing the border. And in fact a number of those articles refer to movement in both communities as the place became polarised.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 08:03:29 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 07:53:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 27, 2013, 10:19:43 PM
The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union. Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not. Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.
The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.
The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.
Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.
Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.
I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?
I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.
You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.
Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.
I have pointed out before that I asumed that the nationalist argument was founded on the basis that Ireland had been united by someone other than England/Britain.
The fact that it was not united beforehand removes the absolute imperiative that Britain had to view it entirely as one entity when considering (partial) withdrawal especially when they considered the demographics in the north. Again I ask you to what where Britain to do? How would their ignoring of a vocal majority in the north have been received internationally?
Those who believ that Britain could have fully withdrawn from the island of Ireland then (or in the absence of a majority now or in the future) are deluding themselves.
entirely incorrect I'm afraid.
even then, it is no reason to ignore the wishes of the majority.
any other excuse is just justifying your delusion to yourself.
will we have local councils or Tyrone, Derry and Fermanagh voting whether we have reunification?
As the current six counties is not fully goverened by the six counties and the people in it are not all pleased with the undemocratic methods of the past !
ya cant have it both ways !
I'm happy for border to be redrawn. SF are not.
Neither am I, if a united Ireland is accepted by the majority of the Northern population and a majority of the population of the Republic, Sin é.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 29, 2013, 07:50:07 PM
LC, you have "no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved," except, of course, that one that was democratically approved just before the creation of that other carved-out chunk of land whose majority opinion you seem to esteem so highly. You're good at the game "Twister," I bet.
Never played twister.
A majority on all parts of the island has my approval. Enforcing a united Ireland on a sizeable area with a sizeable majority did not & would not carry my support.
Pity you weren't about when they were forcing the overwhelming majority of Ireland into a United Kingdom they did not want.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2013, 08:26:02 PM
This is comical!!
Time for a other quick step guide from LCohen. This time, democracy:
1. Majority rules
2. If majority rules makes for an undesirable result, ignore majority and create state where minority can become a majority.
3. Claim minority is now democratic majority.
4. Lecture others about democracy
Pretty much sums it up. If you want to convince a unionist to support democracy, get the majority to vote unionist. If the majority vote otherwise, keep rigging the border until unionists are in the majority and they'll support it again. Same as the flag protesting knuckledraggers who can't get it into their thick skulls that a democratically elected council took a democratic vote and won it fair and square. Democrats when it suits them. The only time democracy counts is when they're in the majority.
You can only go on placating this sense of entitlement for so long, they're going to have to lose their privileged position some time and join the rest of the human race. South African whites and slave keepers in the American south weren't ready for justice, but it had to be imposed ready or not because it was the right thing to do. God help us if we slow progress down to the speed of the slowest bigot.
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 29, 2013, 08:10:08 PM
Amuse me, LC. What would your new ideal border look like?
Whatever people voted for. I would only have 1 vote.
I would not necessarily believe that voters in say Fermanagh, S Arrmagh would would want their returned votes to result in a shifting of the border.
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2013, 08:22:33 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:58:56 PM
The majority positions were clear in the absence of a vote. Having a vote would not have changed this but having a vote was impossible given the nature of democracy at the time.
And when a vote was possible, such as when Fermanagh and Tyrone councils expressed their loyalty to the government in Dublin, you ignore it, abolish the body that erred, and gerrymander the entities that replace them (http://books.google.ie/books?id=TGwCEc2DyGgC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=fermanagh+tyrone+councils+partition&source=bl&ots=uWFqYJVFvQ&sig=Te34dlveTxUxJSL3kgpAL2t-vqg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KcZ-UcGPLdGshQeohIGYDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fermanagh%20tyrone%20councils%20partition&f=false). So much for the freedom of small nations.
I would have np problem with the border being redrawn on that basis. As pointed above SF would have real difficulty so direct your query to them
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2013, 08:26:02 PM
This is comical!!
Time for a other quick step guide from LCohen. This time, democracy:
1. Majority rules
2. If majority rules makes for an undesirable result, ignore majority and create state where minority can become a majority.
3. Claim minority is now democratic majority.
4. Lecture others about democracy
So if a majority of Catalans voted for indepence but a majority in Spain and France you would presumably dent the rights of the majority view in Catalonia?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 29, 2013, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 08:03:29 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 07:53:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 27, 2013, 10:19:43 PM
The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union. Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not. Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.
The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.
The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.
Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.
Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.
I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?
I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.
You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.
Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.
I have pointed out before that I asumed that the nationalist argument was founded on the basis that Ireland had been united by someone other than England/Britain.
The fact that it was not united beforehand removes the absolute imperiative that Britain had to view it entirely as one entity when considering (partial) withdrawal especially when they considered the demographics in the north. Again I ask you to what where Britain to do? How would their ignoring of a vocal majority in the north have been received internationally?
Those who believ that Britain could have fully withdrawn from the island of Ireland then (or in the absence of a majority now or in the future) are deluding themselves.
entirely incorrect I'm afraid.
even then, it is no reason to ignore the wishes of the majority.
any other excuse is just justifying your delusion to yourself.
will we have local councils or Tyrone, Derry and Fermanagh voting whether we have reunification?
As the current six counties is not fully goverened by the six counties and the people in it are not all pleased with the undemocratic methods of the past !
ya cant have it both ways !
I'm happy for border to be redrawn. SF are not.
Neither am I, if a united Ireland is accepted by the majority of the Northern population and a majority of the population of the Republic, Sin é.
Some on here diagree with you. Thats all I can say. I'm not calling for a re-drawing of the border but am happfy for it to be permitted should it be called for.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 29, 2013, 08:45:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 29, 2013, 07:50:07 PM
LC, you have "no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved," except, of course, that one that was democratically approved just before the creation of that other carved-out chunk of land whose majority opinion you seem to esteem so highly. You're good at the game "Twister," I bet.
Never played twister.
A majority on all parts of the island has my approval. Enforcing a united Ireland on a sizeable area with a sizeable majority did not & would not carry my support.
Pity you weren't about when they were forcing the overwhelming majority of Ireland into a United Kingdom they did not want.
Have never defended colonisation or plantations. Colonisations in the absence of plantations are relative easy to over turn. Successful plantations are different. I'm not justifying them but they are real and can't be wished away.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 09:12:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2013, 08:26:02 PM
This is comical!!
Time for a other quick step guide from LCohen. This time, democracy:
1. Majority rules
2. If majority rules makes for an undesirable result, ignore majority and create state where minority can become a majority.
3. Claim minority is now democratic majority.
4. Lecture others about democracy
Pretty much sums it up. If you want to convince a unionist to support democracy, get the majority to vote unionist. If the majority vote otherwise, keep rigging the border until unionists are in the majority and they'll support it again. Same as the flag protesting knuckledraggers who can't get it into their thick skulls that a democratically elected council took a democratic vote and won it fair and square. Democrats when it suits them. The only time democracy counts is when they're in the majority.
You can only go on placating this sense of entitlement for so long, they're going to have to lose their privileged position some time and join the rest of the human race. South African whites and slave keepers in the American south weren't ready for justice, but it had to be imposed ready or not because it was the right thing to do. God help us if we slow progress down to the speed of the slowest bigot.
Agree with a lot of that. Unionism will have to wake up to the fact that the Union is not under imminent threat but an element within Unionism have still to get to grips with the fact that mis-rule and some of the perceived entitlements are gone and will not be allowed to re-occur.
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 29, 2013, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 08:03:29 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 07:53:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 27, 2013, 10:19:43 PM
The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union. Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not. Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.
The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.
The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.
Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.
Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.
I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?
I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.
You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.
Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.
I have pointed out before that I asumed that the nationalist argument was founded on the basis that Ireland had been united by someone other than England/Britain.
The fact that it was not united beforehand removes the absolute imperiative that Britain had to view it entirely as one entity when considering (partial) withdrawal especially when they considered the demographics in the north. Again I ask you to what where Britain to do? How would their ignoring of a vocal majority in the north have been received internationally?
Those who believ that Britain could have fully withdrawn from the island of Ireland then (or in the absence of a majority now or in the future) are deluding themselves.
entirely incorrect I'm afraid.
even then, it is no reason to ignore the wishes of the majority.
any other excuse is just justifying your delusion to yourself.
will we have local councils or Tyrone, Derry and Fermanagh voting whether we have reunification?
As the current six counties is not fully goverened by the six counties and the people in it are not all pleased with the undemocratic methods of the past !
ya cant have it both ways !
I'm happy for border to be redrawn. SF are not.
Neither am I, if a united Ireland is accepted by the majority of the Northern population and a majority of the population of the Republic, Sin é.
Nobody could argue against a united Ireland on that basis (of course somebody will but they won't win the argument)
Dance on Thatcher's grave, but remember there has been a coup in Britain
25 April 2013
In the wake of Thatcher's departure, I remember her victims. Patrick Warby's daughter, Marie, was one of them. Marie, aged five, suffered from a bowel deformity and needed a special diet. Without it, the pain was excruciating. Her father was a Durham miner and had used all his savings. It was winter 1985, the Great Strike was almost a year old and the family was destitute. Although her eligibility was not disputed, Marie was denied help by the Department of Social Security. Later, I obtained records of the case that showed Marie had been turned down because her father was "affected by a Trade dispute".
The corruption and inhumanity under Thatcher knew no borders. When she came to power in 1979, Thatcher demanded a total ban on exports of milk to Vietnam. The American invasion had left a third of Vietnamese children malnourished. I witnessed many distressing sights, including infants going blind from a lack of vitamins. "I cannot tolerate this," said an anguished doctor in a Saigon paediatric hospital, as we looked at a dying boy. Oxfam and Save the Children had made clear to the British government the gravity of the emergency. An embargo led by the US had forced up the local price of a kilo of milk up to ten times that of a kilo of meat. Many children could have been restored with milk. Thatcher's ban held.
In neighbouring Cambodia, Thatcher left a trail of blood, secretly. In 1980, she demanded that the defunct Pol Pot regime - the killers of 1.7 million people - retain its "right" to represent their victims at the UN. Her policy was vengeance on Cambodia's liberator, Vietnam. The British representative was instructed to vote with Pol Pot at the World Health Organisation, thereby preventing it from providing help to where it was needed more than anywhere on earth.
To conceal this outrage, the US, Britain and China, Pol Pot's main backer, invented a "resistance coalition" dominated by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge forces and supplied by the CIA at bases along the Thai border. There was a hitch. In the wake of the Irangate arms-for-hostages debacle, the US Congress had banned clandestine foreign adventures. "In one of those deals the two of them liked to make," a senior Whitehall official told the Sunday Telegraph, "President Reagan put it to Thatcher that the SAS should take over the Cambodia show. She readily agreed."
In 1983, Thatcher sent the SAS to train the "coalition" in its own distinctive brand of terrorism. Seven-man SAS teams arrived from Hong Kong, and British soldiers set about training "resistance fighters" in laying minefields in a country devastated by genocide and the world's highest rate of death and injury as a result of landmines.
I reported this at the time, and more than 16,000 people wrote to Thatcher in protest. "I confirm," she replied to opposition leader Neil Kinnock, "that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge or those allied to them." The lie was breathtaking. In 1991, the government of John Major admitted to parliament that the SAS had indeed trained the "coalition". "We liked the British," a Khmer Rouge fighter later told me. "They were very good at teaching us to set booby traps. Unsuspecting people, like children in paddy fields, were the main victims."
When the journalists and producers of ITV's landmark documentary, Death on the Rock, exposed how the SAS had run Thatcher's other death squads in Ireland and Gibraltar, they were hounded by Rupert Murdoch's "journalists", then cowering behind the razor wire at Wapping. Although exonerated, Thames TV lost its ITV franchise.
In 1982, the Argentine cruiser, General Belgrano, was steaming outside the Falklands exclusion zone. The ship offered no threat, yet Thatcher gave orders for it to be sunk. Her victims were 323 sailors, including conscripted teenagers. The crime had a certain logic. Among Thatcher's closest allies were mass murderers - Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, responsible for "many more than one million deaths" (Amnesty International). Although the British state had long armed the world's leading tyrannies, it was Thatcher who brought a crusading zeal to the deals, talking up the finer points of fighter aircraft engines, hard-bargaining with bribe-demanding Saudi princes. I filmed her at an arms fair, stroking a gleaming missile. "I'll have one of those!" she said.
In his arms-to-Iraq enquiry, Lord Richard Scott heard evidence that an entire tier of the Thatcher government, from senior civil servants to ministers, had lied and broken the law in selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. These were her "boys". Thumb through old copies of the Baghdad Observer, and there are pictures of her boys, mostly cabinet ministers, on the front page sitting with Saddam on his famous white couch. There is Douglas Hurd and there is a grinning David Mellor, also of the Foreign Office, around the time his host was ordering the gassing of 5,000 Kurds. Following this atrocity, the Thatcher government doubled trade credits to Saddam.
Perhaps it is too easy to dance on her grave. Her funeral was a propaganda stunt, fit for a dictator: an absurd show of militarism, as if a coup had taken place. And it has. "Her real triumph", said another of her boys, Geoffrey Howe, a Thatcher minister, "was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible."
In 1997, Thatcher was the first former prime minister to visit Tony Blair after he entered Downing Street. There is a photo of them, joined in rictus: the budding war criminal with his mentor. When Ed Miliband, in his unctuous "tribute", caricatured Thatcher as a "brave" feminist hero whose achievements he personally "honoured", you knew the old killer had not died at all.
Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on April 29, 2013, 10:24:21 PM
Dance on Thatcher's grave, but remember there has been a coup in Britain
25 April 2013
In the wake of Thatcher's departure, I remember her victims. Patrick Warby's daughter, Marie, was one of them. Marie, aged five, suffered from a bowel deformity and needed a special diet. Without it, the pain was excruciating. Her father was a Durham miner and had used all his savings. It was winter 1985, the Great Strike was almost a year old and the family was destitute. Although her eligibility was not disputed, Marie was denied help by the Department of Social Security. Later, I obtained records of the case that showed Marie had been turned down because her father was "affected by a Trade dispute".
The corruption and inhumanity under Thatcher knew no borders. When she came to power in 1979, Thatcher demanded a total ban on exports of milk to Vietnam. The American invasion had left a third of Vietnamese children malnourished. I witnessed many distressing sights, including infants going blind from a lack of vitamins. "I cannot tolerate this," said an anguished doctor in a Saigon paediatric hospital, as we looked at a dying boy. Oxfam and Save the Children had made clear to the British government the gravity of the emergency. An embargo led by the US had forced up the local price of a kilo of milk up to ten times that of a kilo of meat. Many children could have been restored with milk. Thatcher's ban held.
In neighbouring Cambodia, Thatcher left a trail of blood, secretly. In 1980, she demanded that the defunct Pol Pot regime - the killers of 1.7 million people - retain its "right" to represent their victims at the UN. Her policy was vengeance on Cambodia's liberator, Vietnam. The British representative was instructed to vote with Pol Pot at the World Health Organisation, thereby preventing it from providing help to where it was needed more than anywhere on earth.
To conceal this outrage, the US, Britain and China, Pol Pot's main backer, invented a "resistance coalition" dominated by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge forces and supplied by the CIA at bases along the Thai border. There was a hitch. In the wake of the Irangate arms-for-hostages debacle, the US Congress had banned clandestine foreign adventures. "In one of those deals the two of them liked to make," a senior Whitehall official told the Sunday Telegraph, "President Reagan put it to Thatcher that the SAS should take over the Cambodia show. She readily agreed."
In 1983, Thatcher sent the SAS to train the "coalition" in its own distinctive brand of terrorism. Seven-man SAS teams arrived from Hong Kong, and British soldiers set about training "resistance fighters" in laying minefields in a country devastated by genocide and the world's highest rate of death and injury as a result of landmines.
I reported this at the time, and more than 16,000 people wrote to Thatcher in protest. "I confirm," she replied to opposition leader Neil Kinnock, "that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge or those allied to them." The lie was breathtaking. In 1991, the government of John Major admitted to parliament that the SAS had indeed trained the "coalition". "We liked the British," a Khmer Rouge fighter later told me. "They were very good at teaching us to set booby traps. Unsuspecting people, like children in paddy fields, were the main victims."
When the journalists and producers of ITV's landmark documentary, Death on the Rock, exposed how the SAS had run Thatcher's other death squads in Ireland and Gibraltar, they were hounded by Rupert Murdoch's "journalists", then cowering behind the razor wire at Wapping. Although exonerated, Thames TV lost its ITV franchise.
In 1982, the Argentine cruiser, General Belgrano, was steaming outside the Falklands exclusion zone. The ship offered no threat, yet Thatcher gave orders for it to be sunk. Her victims were 323 sailors, including conscripted teenagers. The crime had a certain logic. Among Thatcher's closest allies were mass murderers - Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, responsible for "many more than one million deaths" (Amnesty International). Although the British state had long armed the world's leading tyrannies, it was Thatcher who brought a crusading zeal to the deals, talking up the finer points of fighter aircraft engines, hard-bargaining with bribe-demanding Saudi princes. I filmed her at an arms fair, stroking a gleaming missile. "I'll have one of those!" she said.
In his arms-to-Iraq enquiry, Lord Richard Scott heard evidence that an entire tier of the Thatcher government, from senior civil servants to ministers, had lied and broken the law in selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. These were her "boys". Thumb through old copies of the Baghdad Observer, and there are pictures of her boys, mostly cabinet ministers, on the front page sitting with Saddam on his famous white couch. There is Douglas Hurd and there is a grinning David Mellor, also of the Foreign Office, around the time his host was ordering the gassing of 5,000 Kurds. Following this atrocity, the Thatcher government doubled trade credits to Saddam.
Perhaps it is too easy to dance on her grave. Her funeral was a propaganda stunt, fit for a dictator: an absurd show of militarism, as if a coup had taken place. And it has. "Her real triumph", said another of her boys, Geoffrey Howe, a Thatcher minister, "was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible."
In 1997, Thatcher was the first former prime minister to visit Tony Blair after he entered Downing Street. There is a photo of them, joined in rictus: the budding war criminal with his mentor. When Ed Miliband, in his unctuous "tribute", caricatured Thatcher as a "brave" feminist hero whose achievements he personally "honoured", you knew the old killer had not died at all.
Quality post
Catalonia's claim to nationhood is a damn sight more legitimate than something called "Northern Ireland".
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 09:58:49 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 09:12:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2013, 08:26:02 PM
This is comical!!
Time for a other quick step guide from LCohen. This time, democracy:
1. Majority rules
2. If majority rules makes for an undesirable result, ignore majority and create state where minority can become a majority.
3. Claim minority is now democratic majority.
4. Lecture others about democracy
Pretty much sums it up. If you want to convince a unionist to support democracy, get the majority to vote unionist. If the majority vote otherwise, keep rigging the border until unionists are in the majority and they'll support it again. Same as the flag protesting knuckledraggers who can't get it into their thick skulls that a democratically elected council took a democratic vote and won it fair and square. Democrats when it suits them. The only time democracy counts is when they're in the majority.
You can only go on placating this sense of entitlement for so long, they're going to have to lose their privileged position some time and join the rest of the human race. South African whites and slave keepers in the American south weren't ready for justice, but it had to be imposed ready or not because it was the right thing to do. God help us if we slow progress down to the speed of the slowest bigot.
Agree with a lot of that. Unionism will have to wake up to the fact that the Union is not under imminent threat but an element within Unionism have still to get to grips with the fact that mis-rule and some of the perceived entitlements are gone and will not be allowed to re-occur.
There's hope for you yet!
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 10:04:17 PM
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 10:43:32 PM
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
Quality!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 10:36:21 PM
Catalonia's claim to nationhood is a damn sight more legitimate than something called "Northern Ireland".
I am sure London is gearing up to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, not. Be a loyal plastic robot for a UK that doesn't care any more.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 10:36:21 PM
Catalonia's claim to nationhood is a damn sight more legitimate than something called "Northern Ireland".
Interesting comment but your specific answer to my question on Catalonia is.....?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 10:37:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 09:58:49 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 29, 2013, 09:12:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2013, 08:26:02 PM
This is comical!!
Time for a other quick step guide from LCohen. This time, democracy:
1. Majority rules
2. If majority rules makes for an undesirable result, ignore majority and create state where minority can become a majority.
3. Claim minority is now democratic majority.
4. Lecture others about democracy
Pretty much sums it up. If you want to convince a unionist to support democracy, get the majority to vote unionist. If the majority vote otherwise, keep rigging the border until unionists are in the majority and they'll support it again. Same as the flag protesting knuckledraggers who can't get it into their thick skulls that a democratically elected council took a democratic vote and won it fair and square. Democrats when it suits them. The only time democracy counts is when they're in the majority.
You can only go on placating this sense of entitlement for so long, they're going to have to lose their privileged position some time and join the rest of the human race. South African whites and slave keepers in the American south weren't ready for justice, but it had to be imposed ready or not because it was the right thing to do. God help us if we slow progress down to the speed of the slowest bigot.
Agree with a lot of that. Unionism will have to wake up to the fact that the Union is not under imminent threat but an element within Unionism have still to get to grips with the fact that mis-rule and some of the perceived entitlements are gone and will not be allowed to re-occur.
There's hope for you yet!
Any chance of an inquiry into the political financial bribary by the Westminister parliament of the aparthide puppet parliament in Dublin to create a Union of misrule to to replace the colony of misrule.
One trillion €uro in repreations to the Dublin government accounts might get us back on a level negotiation starting point.
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 09:49:30 PM
So if a majority of Catalans voted for indepence but a majority in Spain and France (sic) you would presumably dent the rights of the majority view in Catalonia?
I assume what you meant was the majority in Catalonia voting for independence and the majority in Spain and France opposing it.
If the majority in historic Catalonia vote for independence than that wish should be respected. Same as how when a majority in historic Ireland (not just some contrived 26-county abbreviation of it) vote for independence that wish should be respected.
Of course it'd mean getting the agreement of the French and Spanish governments ahead of any such vote since you're talking about two major countries ceding territory.
Look, I think I see where you're going with all of this. I'm all for the Good Friday Agreement, and I accept that we're a long way off being ready for Irish reunification, there's still a lot of community work to be done on the ground in the north to overcome divisions. If a united Ireland were imposed by decree at midnight tonight there'd be civil war, the knuckleheads in loyalist areas would go berserk. So the GFA is something I see as a means of buying time until that happens. It basically says "put the guns away lads, we'll park the constitutional question for now, we'll concentrate on repairing the damage from the Troubles, but come the time that the majority in the north votes for a united Ireland and the majority in the south agrees, then a united Ireland it will be."
Technically it would be better from the point of view of historic justice if we could just take an all-Ireland vote right now in which the majority could vote for full independence for the whole island, but it's not realistic. The GFA is more realistic and stands a better chance of achieving peaceful and sustainable reunification.
But this business that you're talking about of repartition and gerrymandering the border a second time to placate the "we have a right to be in charge because we're pradistints" crowd? Get that out of your head right now.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 10:43:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 10:04:17 PM
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
My questions have been answered? Where?
An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.
NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?
Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.
Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?
What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?
I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.
When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.
A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.
On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?
Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?
Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)
Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.
What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?
A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.
Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?
In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?
I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.
A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.
I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.
Firstly I acknowledge your response on Catalonia and your welcoming of the GFA.
However
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2013, 07:09:51 PM
Technically it would be better from the point of view of historic justice if we could just take an all-Ireland vote right now in which the majority could vote for full independence for the whole island, but it's not realistic. The GFA is more realistic and stands a better chance of achieving peaceful and sustainable reunification.
is a little bit of an understatement.
Also on
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2013, 07:09:51 PM
But this business that you're talking about of repartition and gerrymandering the border a second time to placate the "we have a right to be in charge because we're pradistints" crowd? Get that out of your head right now.
I'm not the one arguring for this. Others are raising it, I am reacting by pointing out that if they want it and vote fro it in sufficint numbers they can have it.
Quote from: LCohen on May 01, 2013, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 10:43:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 10:04:17 PM
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
My questions have been answered? Where?
An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.
NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?
Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.
Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?
What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?
I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.
When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.
A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.
On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?
Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?
Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)
Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.
What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?
A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.
Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?
In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?
I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.
A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.
I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.
So you ARE Evil Genius :o
LC, you yourself hit the nail on the head in your second response to Eamonn1's post. You write, "I am reacting by pointing out that if they want it and vote fro it in sufficint numbers they can have it." In that statement, you are upholding the primacy of the democratic will of the people, a will that was torpedoed not by a "vocal majority" but by a vocal armed-to-the teeth minority, in an act of terror to which the British government acquiesced.
As for the IRA, I repudiate their methods but at the same time acknowledge the virtual certainty of their formation in the face of state violence against perfectly reasonable civil rights demands, in the face of a violent and sectarian police force, and in the face of the unrestrained violence of loyalist terror gangs. I can't endorse the IRA, but for a while they offered protection to a beleaguered Catholic population experiencing the membership benefits of belonging to that democratic entity that you seem to admire.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 10:43:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 10:04:17 PM
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
I think it may it has been discussed on this board before, but what happened to the Protestant minority in the 26 counties? Did they get a fair crack of the whip and why did their % make-up of the population fall so dramatically in a relatively short space of time?
As for your comment about chips on shoulder and looking to take offence, surely you would concede that this is not a one way street.
Quote from: michaelg on May 01, 2013, 09:10:13 PM
what happened to the Protestant minority in the 26 counties?
Doing well last I heard. Over-represented in the professions and business community. A damn sight better than our crowd did in the north post partition.
Quote
why did their % make-up of the population fall so dramatically in a relatively short space of time?
I'm just guessing here but maybe they had a homeland that they could migrate to in which they'd be guaranteed a job on account of their religion.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2013, 07:09:51 PM
QuoteBut this business that you're talking about of repartition and gerrymandering the border a second time to placate the "we have a right to be in charge because we're pradistints" crowd? Get that out of your head right now.
I'm not the one arguring for this. Others are raising it, I am reacting by pointing out that if they want it and vote fro it in sufficint numbers they can have it.
You say you're not arguing for it and then you turn around and say you'd support it, which is not respecting democracy. You can't go on rigging electoral boundaries until you're in the majority. If you lose a vote, you suck it up. That's what your crowd spent 50 years sanctimoniously lecturing us about.
Quote from: michaelg on May 01, 2013, 09:10:13 PM
I think it may it has been discussed on this board before, but what happened to the Protestant minority in the 26 counties? Did they get a fair crack of the whip and why did their % make-up of the population fall so dramatically in a relatively short space of time?
As for your comment about chips on shoulder and looking to take offence, surely you would concede that this is not a one way street.
They saw the great (preferential) deal their co-religionists were getting on the other side of the border and made the move. Only very slightly flippant in that answer - it was definitely a significant factor.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 01, 2013, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: michaelg on May 01, 2013, 09:10:13 PM
I think it may it has been discussed on this board before, but what happened to the Protestant minority in the 26 counties? Did they get a fair crack of the whip and why did their % make-up of the population fall so dramatically in a relatively short space of time?
As for your comment about chips on shoulder and looking to take offence, surely you would concede that this is not a one way street.
They saw the great (preferential) deal their co-religionists were getting on the other side of the border and made the move. Only very slightly flippant in that answer - it was definitely a significant factor.
This issue of the dwindling protestant numbers in the 26 counties was discussed on another thread at another time.
The dwindling numbers of protestants in the 26 counties and the related timeline, was about the same as the dwindling number of protestants in England.
Outside the NI statelet, protestant faith numbers in the 26co just declined naturally, in the same way and at the same rate as they declined in England.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 01, 2013, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: michaelg on May 01, 2013, 09:10:13 PM
I think it may it has been discussed on this board before, but what happened to the Protestant minority in the 26 counties? Did they get a fair crack of the whip and why did their % make-up of the population fall so dramatically in a relatively short space of time?
As for your comment about chips on shoulder and looking to take offence, surely you would concede that this is not a one way street.
They saw the great (preferential) deal their co-religionists were getting on the other side of the border and made the move. Only very slightly flippant in that answer - it was definitely a significant factor.
What sort of numbers moved North?
Quote from: LCohen on May 01, 2013, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 10:43:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 10:04:17 PM
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
My questions have been answered? Where?
An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.
NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?
Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.
Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?
What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?
I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.
When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.
A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.
On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?
Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?
Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)
Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.
What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?
A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.
Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?
In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?
I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.
A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.
I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.
Yep the majority of those have been dealt with or discussed on the thread I believe, if not in direct answer to your posts.
Others are non questions - such as the drawing up of/re-drawing of the border, only you seem keen on this.
Quote from: michaelg on May 01, 2013, 09:10:13 PM
what happened to the Protestant minority in the 26 counties? Did they get a fair crack of the whip and why did their % make-up of the population fall so dramatically in a relatively short space of time?
Protestant minority still around here the last time I looked.
Round here it declined because a lot of them were "big house" types and that model of farming became totally unsustainable so they sold up to the Land Commission usually and took off.( French/De Freyne, Stafford King Harman, Pakenham Mahons and other not so big houses).
Those who had smaller farms are still around in most cases today in North Ros, on the Ros Sligo border and in parts of Leitrim e.g Mohill area.
More left after the Treaty because they had been too loyal to the previous Government ::) and went off to live under their jurisdiction.
The Catholic Churches "Ne Temere" degree meant that in a lot of mixed marriages the children were brought up Catholic.
And Michaelg for your info - in at least 2 large well known Companies ( and I suspect many more) no Catholic used to get above a certain ceiling. ( Guinness and Mattersons peas in Limerick are 2 I'm aware of).
Thank God that sort of thing died out with the older generation in the late 50s/60s and now except for going to different Churches( for those that go to any) we all consider ourselves the same in these parts.
% of Protestants in the 26 counties fell dramatically in the 50 or so years before 1922 which obviously doesn't get much of a mention. Post 1922 alot of the British army / civil servants and their families went back to Britian thereby reducing the % further.
Quiet a few moved up north and the rest imvho did very well in the Free State.
For all our faults down here I don't think that the Protestants were treated badly and to be fair to them they have never really claimed they were.
michaelg, if you have some theory as to what happened to all the Protestants south of the Border post-partition, please let us know. We've already had Eunan O'Halpin taking a JCB to a field in Laois (http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/separating-fact-from-folklore-226559.html) looking for the bodies of men who he was certain had been 'disappeared' only to find out afterwards that they had survived long past the Troubles. Remember: Google is your friend.
Quote from: Canalman on May 02, 2013, 12:30:50 PM
% of Protestants in the 26 counties fell dramatically in the 50 or so years before 1922 which obviously doesn't get much of a mention. Post 1922 alot of the British army / civil servants and their families went back to Britian thereby reducing the % further.
Quiet a few moved up north and the rest imvho did very well in the Free State.
For all our faults down here I don't think that the Protestants were treated badly and to be fair to them they have never really claimed they were.
Did the protestants who lost the faith in England, in the same numbers as they did Ireland, complain of how badly they were treated by the state?
Quote from: deiseach on May 02, 2013, 12:44:31 PM
michaelg, if you have some theory as to what happened to all the Protestants south of the Border post-partition, please let us know. We've already had Eunan O'Halpin taking a JCB to a field in Laois (http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/separating-fact-from-folklore-226559.html) looking for the bodies of men who he was certain had been 'disappeared' only to find out afterwards that they had survived long past the Troubles. Remember: Google is your friend.
Was some one not using Martin Corrys claims as a bit of a stick to beat FF with not that long ago?
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2013, 08:49:37 PM
So you ARE Evil Genius :o
Being new to this forum it was only today that I read the work of "Evil Genius" on the "1981 Remembered" thread.
I guess he was there only to wind folk up. Is he still going on other threads?
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 01, 2013, 09:04:06 PM
LC, you yourself hit the nail on the head in your second response to Eamonn1's post. You write, "I am reacting by pointing out that if they want it and vote fro it in sufficint numbers they can have it." In that statement, you are upholding the primacy of the democratic will of the people, a will that was torpedoed not by a "vocal majority" but by a vocal armed-to-the teeth minority, in an act of terror to which the British government acquiesced.
As for the IRA, I repudiate their methods but at the same time acknowledge the virtual certainty of their formation in the face of state violence against perfectly reasonable civil rights demands, in the face of a violent and sectarian police force, and in the face of the unrestrained violence of loyalist terror gangs. I can't endorse the IRA, but for a while they offered protection to a beleaguered Catholic population experiencing the membership benefits of belonging to that democratic entity that you seem to admire.
I deal with your first paragrapgh they way I always have. At time of partition partition was the only answer. Majority positions in 2 distinct parts of the island wanting different things. Think what would have happened without partition (surely a bloddy mess of a different hue) and Britain having to answer some serious questions in the international arean. Apply the same questions to 1969 or 2013 and you are still faced with a requirement to address the will of the majority.
As for your second paragraph I like you repudiate the methods of the IRA. By that i don't simply mean that I abstain from utilising their methods but I did and do criticise IRA for using them and work personally with peaceful means. I and my family stood up to the oppression we suffered at the hands a state that was ran on a fundamentally unjust basis but did so on a peaceful basis. In doing so we improved our lot and that of those around us - nobody died as a result of our own actions. I and we also suffered intimidation from republicans because we sought to help families prevent their children becoming involved in terrorism. Whilst the imtidation did not prevent us trying I will always be saddened by the number of (what were then merely) young lads who had their lives ruined/blighted/disrupted by time spent in prison, on the run or the even more tragic circumstances of their own early death or having to live with the memory of how the helped to end someone elses life.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2013, 09:21:12 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2013, 07:09:51 PM
QuoteBut this business that you're talking about of repartition and gerrymandering the border a second time to placate the "we have a right to be in charge because we're pradistints" crowd? Get that out of your head right now.
I'm not the one arguring for this. Others are raising it, I am reacting by pointing out that if they want it and vote fro it in sufficint numbers they can have it.
You say you're not arguing for it and then you turn around and say you'd support it, which is not respecting democracy. You can't go on rigging electoral boundaries until you're in the majority. If you lose a vote, you suck it up. That's what your crowd spent 50 years sanctimoniously lecturing us about.
Eamonca1
Theres very little more I can do to help understand what is a very simple concept. I will try though.
1) I am ot calling for a redrawing of the border.
2) other poster on this thread have called for a redrawing of the border
3) In response to the posters referred to at 2) I have said that if sufficient numbers called for a redrawing of the border then democracy would dictate that the border is re-drawn.
The points at 1 and 3 are not the same.
So to be absolutely clear, I personally am not calling for the border to be redrawn.
Quote from: camanchero on May 02, 2013, 12:29:22 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 01, 2013, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 10:43:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 10:04:17 PM
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
My questions have been answered? Where?
An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.
NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?
Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.
Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?
What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?
I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.
When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.
A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.
On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?
Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?
Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)
Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.
What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?
A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.
Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?
In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?
I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.
A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.
I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.
Yep the majority of those have been dealt with or discussed on the thread I believe, if not in direct answer to your posts.
Others are non questions - such as the drawing up of/re-drawing of the border, only you seem keen on this.
Its not me who is calling for a redrawing of the border.
And no the questions have not been answered. May I should pick 3 or 4 as an initail batch and ask you to pint out where they have been answered?
Christ, he's back
LCohen your just plain wrong, there was no justification for partition at all.
If West Scotland, the Islands, Highlands, Edinburgh, North-East choose independence but some communites in Glasgow, Borders, Orkney and Faroe Islands choose to stay in the UK and one argument wins overall (either way) say by 80% -20% (excluding spoilt votes), are you saying Scotland should be partitioned, or are you suggesting (which seems the more likely) that it should be partitioned if Scotland chooses indepndence, but it all stays in if it chooses the Union?
In your partition what will you do if Counties Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, the South of Armagh, South of Down, North East of Antrim and Belfast City choose to join the Republic, and the rest of the U.K. give you a choice join the Republic or go it alone without all those areas? It's likely with such undemocratic values you will be kicked out of the European Union too.
Should the 2% or so of Falklanders who voted for Argentina get to partition their houses off from British rule and Argentina get to station troops in them?
Anyway, Thatcher.... What a ****!
Quote from: LCohen on May 06, 2013, 06:21:48 PM
Quote from: camanchero on May 02, 2013, 12:29:22 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 01, 2013, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 10:43:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 10:04:17 PM
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to en gage in the dialogue and defend my position.
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
My questions have been answered? Where?
An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.
NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?
Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.
Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?
What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?
I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.
When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.
A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.
On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?
Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?
Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)
Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.
What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?
A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.
Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?
In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?
I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.
A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.
I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.
Yep the majority of those have been dealt with or discussed on the thread I believe, if not in direct answer to your posts.
Others are non questions - such as the drawing up of/re-drawing of the border, only you seem keen on this.
Its not me who is calling for a redrawing of the border.
And no the questions have not been answered. May I should pick 3 or 4 as an initail batch and ask you to pint out where they have been answered?
Your questions have been addressed.
In answer to your question about taxi drivers or betting shops - I don't know whether the targets were legitimate or not.
A lot of innocents were killed too which is terrible, but like the hunger strikers , they were casualties of war whatever way you look at it.it was all avoidable, if only the persecution and oppression on apartheid lines had not been enforced for the decades pre reding the late 1960's retaliation.
Maybe tell us what actions among these by unionist/loyalist/b specials/ruc/udr caused the need for retaliation and why did these people have to try and tread down on the 'second class citizen' Irish/catholic/nationalist? Why did they kill, kidnap, maim and destroy?
We're they any better or worse than the IRA?
Any other people in history who have been violated have generally had to fight back. No different here.
We, the original 'victims' want to move on and are tryi g to 'trust' our former persecutors- that's why I know it's not beyond the unionist/loyalist community to now do likewise- though the fear to do so is more out of knowing it will faster facilitate a reunited Ireland.
Is this oul cows name ever going to leave the fist page of this forum?
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 06, 2013, 07:29:19 PM
Is this oul cows name ever going to leave the fist page of this forum?
Aye I know, someone lock this thread ffs. She's getting more air time now that she's had in the past 20 odd years
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 06, 2013, 06:56:24 PM
LCohen your just plain wrong, there was no justification for partition at all.
If West Scotland, the Islands, Highlands, Edinburgh, North-East choose independence but some communites in Glasgow, Borders, Orkney and Faroe Islands choose to stay in the UK and one argument wins overall (either way) say by 80% -20% (excluding spoilt votes), are you saying Scotland should be partitioned, or are you suggesting (which seems the more likely) that it should be partitioned if Scotland chooses indepndence, but it all stays in if it chooses the Union?
In your partition what will you do if Counties Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, the South of Armagh, South of Down, North East of Antrim and Belfast City choose to join the Republic, and the rest of the U.K. give you a choice join the Republic or go it alone without all those areas? It's likely with such undemocratic values you will be kicked out of the European Union too.
Should the 2% or so of Falklanders who voted for Argentina get to partition their houses off from British rule and Argentina get to station troops in them?
Your refence to the Faroe islands might indicate your grasp of the situation in Scotland.
In the modern era partition of Scotland (like a further re-drawing of the NI/RoI border) would need a more sophisticated question to be asked in the referendum. That question will not be asked in Scotland. SF are the only ones calling for a refernedum in NI and they don't want that questioned asked here either.
On your second paragragh I would clearly state that I am not calling for a redrawing of the border or for there to be a smaller NI.
As for the Falklands. There were 3 votes against continuing there curent status. It is possible that some of those don't even count as a majority in their own household. Talk of redrawing that border seems fanciful.
Quote from: camanchero on May 06, 2013, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 06, 2013, 06:21:48 PM
Quote from: camanchero on May 02, 2013, 12:29:22 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 01, 2013, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 10:43:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 10:04:17 PM
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to en gage in the dialogue and defend my position.
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
My questions have been answered? Where?
An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.
NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?
Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.
Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?
What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?
I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.
When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.
A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.
On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?
Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?
Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)
Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.
What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?
A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.
Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?
In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?
I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.
A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.
I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.
Yep the majority of those have been dealt with or discussed on the thread I believe, if not in direct answer to your posts.
Others are non questions - such as the drawing up of/re-drawing of the border, only you seem keen on this.
Its not me who is calling for a redrawing of the border.
And no the questions have not been answered. May I should pick 3 or 4 as an initail batch and ask you to pint out where they have been answered?
Your questions have been addressed.
In answer to your question about taxi drivers or betting shops - I don't know whether the targets were legitimate or not.
A lot of innocents were killed too which is terrible, but like the hunger strikers , they were casualties of war whatever way you look at it.it was all avoidable, if only the persecution and oppression on apartheid lines had not been enforced for the decades pre reding the late 1960's retaliation.
Maybe tell us what actions among these by unionist/loyalist/b specials/ruc/udr caused the need for retaliation and why did these people have to try and tread down on the 'second class citizen' Irish/catholic/nationalist? Why did they kill, kidnap, maim and destroy?
We're they any better or worse than the IRA?
Any other people in history who have been violated have generally had to fight back. No different here.
We, the original 'victims' want to move on and are tryi g to 'trust' our former persecutors- that's why I know it's not beyond the unionist/loyalist community to now do likewise- though the fear to do so is more out of knowing it will faster facilitate a reunited Ireland.
Just one un-answered question would expose your first statement as a lie.
As for taxi drivers. The ploy was to phone a form. There was no knowing who the driver would be. The only knowledge was their religion. To even contemplate that that could have been a legitimate target is saddening.
The IRA are no better or worse than any loyalist/unionist commiting the same act. Equal in my eyes. I'm really not sure where you think you have evidence that I feel differently? You should point out the evidence as right know you comment looks bizarre.
Quote from: LCohen on May 06, 2013, 07:48:06 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 06, 2013, 06:56:24 PM
LCohen your just plain wrong, there was no justification for partition at all.
If West Scotland, the Islands, Highlands, Edinburgh, North-East choose independence but some communites in Glasgow, Borders, Orkney and Faroe Islands choose to stay in the UK and one argument wins overall (either way) say by 80% -20% (excluding spoilt votes), are you saying Scotland should be partitioned, or are you suggesting (which seems the more likely) that it should be partitioned if Scotland chooses indepndence, but it all stays in if it chooses the Union?
In your partition what will you do if Counties Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, the South of Armagh, South of Down, North East of Antrim and Belfast City choose to join the Republic, and the rest of the U.K. give you a choice join the Republic or go it alone without all those areas? It's likely with such undemocratic values you will be kicked out of the European Union too.
Should the 2% or so of Falklanders who voted for Argentina get to partition their houses off from British rule and Argentina get to station troops in them?
Your refence to the Faroe islands might indicate your grasp of the situation in Scotland.
In the modern era partition of Scotland (like a further re-drawing of the NI/RoI border) would need a more sophisticated question to be asked in the referendum. That question will not be asked in Scotland. SF are the only ones calling for a refernedum in NI and they don't want that questioned asked here either.
On your second paragragh I would clearly state that I am not calling for a redrawing of the border or for there to be a smaller NI.
As for the Falklands. There were 3 votes against continuing there curent status. It is possible that some of those don't even count as a majority in their own household. Talk of redrawing that border seems fanciful.
Shetlands ;D
Quote from: LCohen on May 01, 2013, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 29, 2013, 10:43:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2013, 10:04:17 PM
lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?
You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.
any questions have been answered.
funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.
you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.
My questions have been answered? Where?
An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.
NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?
Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.
Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?
What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?
I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.
When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.
A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.
On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?
Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?
Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)
Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.
What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?
A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.
Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?
In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?
I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.
A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.
I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.
The international border that was under scrutiny at that time did not run through Ireland. It was between Great Britain and Ireland, as in 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. A clear and quite significant majority of people in Ireland wanted out of this union. A minority did not. This minority did not constitute a separate 'people'. Depending on your perspective, they were either Irish or British. If they were Irish, then they should've been bound by the democratic decision of the majority of their fellow citizens. If they were British, then they should've been bound by whatever democratic decision the rest of the British people made. Yet if you look at the history of northern unionism in the latter part of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, what you see is a consistent rejection by Ulster unionists of the decisions by the British parliament. Every attempt at introducing Home Rule was met with shouts of 'Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right'. The UVF was formed to fight, if necessary, any British government attempt to impose Home rule. Ulster unionism, therefore, is not the story of a people asserting their right to self determination. It is the story of a small group determined to assert their own will against democratic decisions on both sides of the Irish sea and being allowed to get away with it.
Make up your mind. You're either for repartition or you're agen it.
(Anyone not interested in this thread is cordially invited to not read it. I'm not terribly interested in all them threads about English soccer clubs but I don't go sticking my neb in there telling people to lock the thread so I don't have to look at the title.)
Thatcher & Ireland - RTÉ now.
Sounds like a chant :D
Quote from: armaghniac on July 02, 2013, 09:31:40 PM
Thatcher & Ireland - RTÉ now.
Did she improve anything since the 80s?
I hear she's throwing the ball in to start the Connaght final in Castlebar?
Quote from: johnneycool on July 03, 2013, 08:22:40 AM
I hear she's throwing the ball in to start the Connaght final in Castlebar?
No, they're getting Prince Harry for that. There will be a minute's silence for Maggie though - or maybe a minute's applause, that seems to be in fashion these days.
Thatcher and the IRA. BBC1 now at 9pm. Might be interesting.
Quote from: EC Unique on April 03, 2014, 08:58:13 PM
Thatcher and the IRA. BBC1 now at 9pm. Might be interesting.
Good programme
Does Gerry Adams have no furniture or carpet in his house?
Quote from: lawnseed on April 03, 2014, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on April 03, 2014, 08:58:13 PM
Thatcher and the IRA. BBC1 now at 9pm. Might be interesting.
Good programme
I'd have to disagree with you there. Contained nothing new whatsoever. The only headline worthy bit of it was in the news already at the time it was filmed, which was Ken Maguinness providing more proof, as if it were needed, that there was a shoot-to-kill policy adapted by the British in Ireland and directed from the very top; after stating that he personally give Thatcher the names of the IRA men whom he believed were behind the attack on a busload of British soldiers at Ballygawley, and his stating how the three men he named were shot dead by the SAS ten days later. (The three in question being the Drumnakilly Martyrs - brothers Vol's Gerard & Martin Harte and Vol. Brian Mullin).
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/files/old-images/2008/09/04/3VOLS.jpg)
Was it the same show that was on RTE last year?
Quote from: Gaffer on April 03, 2014, 10:56:15 PM
Was it the same show that was on RTE last year?
No idea.
Quote from: Gaffer on April 03, 2014, 10:56:15 PM
Was it the same show that was on RTE last year?
Don't think so, not according to this thread anyway
Quote from: armaghniac on July 02, 2013, 09:31:40 PM
Thatcher & Ireland - RTÉ now.
Quote from: EC Unique on April 03, 2014, 08:58:13 PM
Thatcher and the IRA. BBC1 now at 9pm. Might be interesting.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 03, 2014, 10:17:21 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on April 03, 2014, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on April 03, 2014, 08:58:13 PM
Thatcher and the IRA. BBC1 now at 9pm. Might be interesting.
Good programme
I'd have to disagree with you there. Contained nothing new whatsoever. The only headline worthy bit of it was in the news already at the time it was filmed, which was Ken Maguinness providing more proof, as if it were needed, that there was a shoot-to-kill policy adapted by the British in Ireland and directed from the very top; after stating that he personally give Thatcher the names of the IRA men whom he believed were behind the attack on a busload of British soldiers at Ballygawley, and his stating how the three men he named were shot dead by the SAS ten days later. (The three in question being the Drumnakilly Martyrs - brothers Vol's Gerard & Martin Harte and Vol. Brian Mullin).
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/files/old-images/2008/09/04/3VOLS.jpg)
That bit sounded more like Ken trying to big up his own importance a bit. Seriously, you think the British government is going to rely on an MP for its security information?? 'There's been a shooting in Fermanagh - get on the phone and see if Ken knows who's responsible. And what about that bomb in East Belfast? Has Peter Robinson told us who planted it yet?' Please.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 04, 2014, 06:41:03 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 03, 2014, 10:17:21 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on April 03, 2014, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on April 03, 2014, 08:58:13 PM
Thatcher and the IRA. BBC1 now at 9pm. Might be interesting.
Good programme
I'd have to disagree with you there. Contained nothing new whatsoever. The only headline worthy bit of it was in the news already at the time it was filmed, which was Ken Maguinness providing more proof, as if it were needed, that there was a shoot-to-kill policy adapted by the British in Ireland and directed from the very top; after stating that he personally give Thatcher the names of the IRA men whom he believed were behind the attack on a busload of British soldiers at Ballygawley, and his stating how the three men he named were shot dead by the SAS ten days later. (The three in question being the Drumnakilly Martyrs - brothers Vol's Gerard & Martin Harte and Vol. Brian Mullin).
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/files/old-images/2008/09/04/3VOLS.jpg)
That bit sounded more like Ken trying to big up his own importance a bit. Seriously, you think the British government is going to rely on an MP for its security information?? 'There's been a shooting in Fermanagh - get on the phone and see if Ken knows who's responsible. And what about that bomb in East Belfast? Has Peter Robinson told us who planted it yet?' Please.
You neglect to mention that Maginnis was a UDR Major for some time and was the most senior unionist politician with regards to "security". If you think he wasn't privy to information then you're extremely naive.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 04, 2014, 07:59:44 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 04, 2014, 06:41:03 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 03, 2014, 10:17:21 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on April 03, 2014, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on April 03, 2014, 08:58:13 PM
Thatcher and the IRA. BBC1 now at 9pm. Might be interesting.
Good programme
I'd have to disagree with you there. Contained nothing new whatsoever. The only headline worthy bit of it was in the news already at the time it was filmed, which was Ken Maguinness providing more proof, as if it were needed, that there was a shoot-to-kill policy adapted by the British in Ireland and directed from the very top; after stating that he personally give Thatcher the names of the IRA men whom he believed were behind the attack on a busload of British soldiers at Ballygawley, and his stating how the three men he named were shot dead by the SAS ten days later. (The three in question being the Drumnakilly Martyrs - brothers Vol's Gerard & Martin Harte and Vol. Brian Mullin).
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/files/old-images/2008/09/04/3VOLS.jpg)
That bit sounded more like Ken trying to big up his own importance a bit. Seriously, you think the British government is going to rely on an MP for its security information?? 'There's been a shooting in Fermanagh - get on the phone and see if Ken knows who's responsible. And what about that bomb in East Belfast? Has Peter Robinson told us who planted it yet?' Please.
You neglect to mention that Maginnis was a UDR Major for some time and was the most senior unionist politician with regards to "security". If you think he wasn't privy to information then you're extremely naive.
You don't think she'd have summoned the Chief Constable, the Heads of Special Branch, MI5, MI6, etc etc and got her info direct from them, rather than asking Ken to puff out his chest and name names he heard from some dodgy UDR source?
you obviously have no idea what was going on in N.Ireland during the 70's and 80's if you believe that the British were too concerned where their info was coming from as long as it was what they wanted to hear. They interned hundreds of innocent people with no information at all
Quote from: tyronefan on April 04, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
you obviously have no idea what was going on in N.Ireland during the 70's and 80's if you believe that the British were too concerned where their info was coming from as long as it was what they wanted to hear. They interned hundreds of innocent people with no information at all
You think the British state forks out big salaries to a lot of career securocrats, only to ask some ex UDR major to jot down a few names on the back of a fag packet? You think they went to all the trouble and risk of running agents and informers within the ranks of the IRA, when all they had to do was give Ken a call?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 04, 2014, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 04, 2014, 07:59:44 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 04, 2014, 06:41:03 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 03, 2014, 10:17:21 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on April 03, 2014, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on April 03, 2014, 08:58:13 PM
Thatcher and the IRA. BBC1 now at 9pm. Might be interesting.
Good programme
I'd have to disagree with you there. Contained nothing new whatsoever. The only headline worthy bit of it was in the news already at the time it was filmed, which was Ken Maguinness providing more proof, as if it were needed, that there was a shoot-to-kill policy adapted by the British in Ireland and directed from the very top; after stating that he personally give Thatcher the names of the IRA men whom he believed were behind the attack on a busload of British soldiers at Ballygawley, and his stating how the three men he named were shot dead by the SAS ten days later. (The three in question being the Drumnakilly Martyrs - brothers Vol's Gerard & Martin Harte and Vol. Brian Mullin).
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/files/old-images/2008/09/04/3VOLS.jpg)
That bit sounded more like Ken trying to big up his own importance a bit. Seriously, you think the British government is going to rely on an MP for its security information?? 'There's been a shooting in Fermanagh - get on the phone and see if Ken knows who's responsible. And what about that bomb in East Belfast? Has Peter Robinson told us who planted it yet?' Please.
You neglect to mention that Maginnis was a UDR Major for some time and was the most senior unionist politician with regards to "security". If you think he wasn't privy to information then you're extremely naive.
You don't think she'd have summoned the Chief Constable, the Heads of Special Branch, MI5, MI6, etc etc and got her info direct from them, rather than asking Ken to puff out his chest and name names he heard from some dodgy UDR source?
She didn't summon anybody. Maginnis wasn't summoned to Downing St. He and another individual requested the meeting with Thatcher in the wake of Ballygawley. And a meeting was swiftly held.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 04, 2014, 06:43:39 PM
Quote from: tyronefan on April 04, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
you obviously have no idea what was going on in N.Ireland during the 70's and 80's if you believe that the British were too concerned where their info was coming from as long as it was what they wanted to hear. They interned hundreds of innocent people with no information at all
You think the British state forks out big salaries to a lot of career securocrats, only to ask some ex UDR major to jot down a few names on the back of a fag packet? You think they went to all the trouble and risk of running agents and informers within the ranks of the IRA, when all they had to do was give Ken a call?
Why'd the police not give ken a call if he knew so much.. ? Deluded old man
Quote from: lawnseed on April 04, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 04, 2014, 06:43:39 PM
Quote from: tyronefan on April 04, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
you obviously have no idea what was going on in N.Ireland during the 70's and 80's if you believe that the British were too concerned where their info was coming from as long as it was what they wanted to hear. They interned hundreds of innocent people with no information at all
You think the British state forks out big salaries to a lot of career securocrats, only to ask some ex UDR major to jot down a few names on the back of a fag packet? You think they went to all the trouble and risk of running agents and informers within the ranks of the IRA, when all they had to do was give Ken a call?
Why'd the police not give ken a call if he knew so much.. ? Deluded old man
If you think the most senior politician on "security" issues wasn't in regular contact with the RUC, in particular when he's about to meet the PM, and in particular after 8 British Soldiers were killed in an attack in his constituency, then it's you who's deluded.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 04, 2014, 07:46:08 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on April 04, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 04, 2014, 06:43:39 PM
Quote from: tyronefan on April 04, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
you obviously have no idea what was going on in N.Ireland during the 70's and 80's if you believe that the British were too concerned where their info was coming from as long as it was what they wanted to hear. They interned hundreds of innocent people with no information at all
You think the British state forks out big salaries to a lot of career securocrats, only to ask some ex UDR major to jot down a few names on the back of a fag packet? You think they went to all the trouble and risk of running agents and informers within the ranks of the IRA, when all they had to do was give Ken a call?
Why'd the police not give ken a call if he knew so much.. ? Deluded old man
If you think the most senior politician on "security" issues wasn't in regular contact with the RUC, in particular when he's about to meet the PM, and in particular after 8 British Soldiers were killed in an attack in his constituency, then it's you who's deluded.
So, like I asked earlier, why would the UK PM take security briefings from some old buffer from the sticks, rather than the professional securocrats that governments routinely surround themselves with? Why wouldn't she ask the RUC, rather than a 3rd party 'in regular contact with the RUC'? The words monkey and organ grinder spring to mind.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 04, 2014, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 04, 2014, 07:46:08 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on April 04, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 04, 2014, 06:43:39 PM
Quote from: tyronefan on April 04, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
you obviously have no idea what was going on in N.Ireland during the 70's and 80's if you believe that the British were too concerned where their info was coming from as long as it was what they wanted to hear. They interned hundreds of innocent people with no information at all
You think the British state forks out big salaries to a lot of career securocrats, only to ask some ex UDR major to jot down a few names on the back of a fag packet? You think they went to all the trouble and risk of running agents and informers within the ranks of the IRA, when all they had to do was give Ken a call?
Why'd the police not give ken a call if he knew so much.. ? Deluded old man
If you think the most senior politician on "security" issues wasn't in regular contact with the RUC, in particular when he's about to meet the PM, and in particular after 8 British Soldiers were killed in an attack in his constituency, then it's you who's deluded.
So, like I asked earlier, why would the UK PM take security briefings from some old buffer from the sticks, rather than the professional securocrats that governments routinely surround themselves with? Why wouldn't she ask the RUC, rather than a 3rd party 'in regular contact with the RUC'? The words monkey and organ grinder spring to mind.
And maybe she did contact the RUC too. Themselves and aul Ken aren't mutually exclusive.