PDA

View Full Version : APP - Ted Kennedy loathed Britain - so why did Gordon Brown knight him? Read more: http://



cancel2 2022
08-27-2009, 02:59 PM
By Ruth Dudley Edwards (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Ruth+Dudley+Edwards) (Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1209324/Ted-Kennedy-loathed-Britain--did-Gordon-Brown-knight-him.html))


Last updated at 8:00 AM on 27th August 2009

Sometimes it is right to speak ill of the dead. The truth matters, even when it is deeply unsavoury. The truth about Ted Kennedy is certainly unsavoury.

Not that you'd know it from yesterday's tributes, dominated by sycophantic humbug.
'A great and good man,' said a fawning Tony Blair. 'A true and constant friend of the peace process in Northern Ireland,' said Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/27/article-1209324-06304562000005DC-290_468x315.jpg Eulogised: The tributes left for Ted Kennedy were full of praise but a lot of his past was unsavoury

Gordon Brown was 'proud to have counted him as a friend and proud that the United Kingdom recognised his service earlier this year with the award of an honorary knighthood'.

Proud? He should be ashamed. Kennedy was a formidable and Machiavellian political operator in the U.S., but he was no friend of Britain. In fact, he was one of our most committed and unrelenting enemies on Capitol Hill.

In his anti-British sentiments, he took after his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, who was unable to hide his bigoted views during a shameful spell as U.S. ambassador to Great Britain.

Ted did his father proud. As a politician dependent on Irish-American votes, this master of empty rhetoric had no scruples about spreading the bitter message of Irish republicanism, especially if there was an election at stake.


More...



CHARLES LAURENCE: The Senator of Sleaze was a drunk sexual bully... and left a young woman to die (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1209313/Ted-Kennedy-The-Senator-Sleaze-drunk-sexual-bully--left-young-woman-die.html)
End of a dynasty: As Ted Kennedy dies a 'heartbroken' Obama leads tributes to 'the greatest U.S senator of our time' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1209107/Ted-Kennedy-Heartbroken-Obama-leads-tributes-greatest-U-S-senator-time.html)


Indeed, his pro-republican record was unblemished, though he was never in favour of violence. When Northern Ireland descended into violence, it was Kennedy who, in 1971, gave aid and comfort to the IRA by comparing British attempts to prevent civil war with the U.S. invasion of Vietnam.

He, like the IRA, supported the republican Troops Out movement, and demanded that Ulster Protestants opposed to a united Ireland should 'go back to Britain'.

He also blamed the 1981 hunger strikes on the 'insensitivity' of the Thatcher government rather than cynical republican leaders sacrificing prisoners for electoral advantage.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/27/article-1209324-062FDC75000005DC-496_468x421.jpg Gerry Adams and Kennedy - the U.S. senator was a big supporter of the Irish nationalist cause

Later in life, as he came under the influence of the Irish government, he began to moderate his stance on Northern Ireland. But he remained a vociferous critic of the British government and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

It was never enough that he occupied a safe Senate seat, 'inherited' from his father, who had bought it with a fortune made from bootlegging.

He believed he was entitled to the U.S. presidency, too. And had he not caused the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969, he may well have been able to ride his brothers' reputations all the way to the White House.

While it cost him the presidency, it failed to dampen his obscene sense of entitlement.

And so, in 1993, in a breathtaking example of nepotism, he persuaded President Bill Clinton to appoint his shamefully ill-qualified sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, as U.S. Ambassador to Ireland.

Kennedy wanted his sister in the job for two reasons. First, he owed her. In 1991, Ted had spent the evening drinking heavily with her son, William Kennedy Smith. Later that night, William took a woman to the beach, who went on to accuse him of rape. Though found not guilty, the trial was lurid and his mother was distraught.

Second - and more importantly - Ted Kennedy had his Irish nationalist agenda to pursue. And how better to do this than through a sister who would defer to a bullying male relative?

By this time, Sinn Fein and their IRA masters were on their knees, militarily, financially and electorally. But Ted was committed to using his influence to support the nationalist cause. And Jean was only too happy to help.

She made no secret of where her loyalties lay - as ambassador, she represented the interests not of the U.S., but of the Irish nationalists.

The U.S. State Department would later rebuke her for the way she treated diplomats who dared to question her. Ireland would tellingly reward her with honorary citizenship.

After all, she was, like her brother, an enemy of Britain and devoted to the nationalist cause.

While his sister supported the nationalists and republicans in Ireland, Ted worked to bolster their cause in the U.S.

In 1994, he persuaded Bill Clinton to go against the express wishes of Prime Minister John Major and grant former terrorist Gerry Adams a U.S. visa.

It's always suited nationalist interests to claim this decision was instrumental in bringing about an IRA ceasefire. In fact, it merely set a precedent for the weak-willed appeasement that would be adopted as British government policy once New Labour were elected.

Indeed, as Tony Blair took over the peace process, everyone seemed to forget that Ted Kennedy was an enemy of Britain. He was suddenly repackaged as a friend.

The truth is that the warm words for Kennedy - not to mention the honorary knighthood - are shameless exercises in self-justification.

Like Ted Kennedy and other nationalist sympathisers, Blair and Brown would have us believe they forged a peace to be proud of - rather than just handing over the keys of power to bigots and terrorists.

And so, working on the Goebbels principle that if a lie is big enough and is repeated often enough then people will come to believe it, Blair tells us that the life-long Brit-hater Kennedy's 'passionate commitment was matched with a practical understanding of what needed to be done to bring about peace and to sustain it'.

Well, sorry Mr Blair, Ted Kennedy was neither great nor good. And sorry, Mr Woodward, he was a friend of Irish nationalism, not of the peace process.

Nor did he serve the interests of Britain, Mr Brown. He served only the interests of Edward Kennedy. By singing his praises, they are all betraying Britain.

Cancel5
08-27-2009, 03:12 PM
By Ruth Dudley Edwards (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Ruth+Dudley+Edwards) (Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1209324/Ted-Kennedy-loathed-Britain--did-Gordon-Brown-knight-him.html))


Last updated at 8:00 AM on 27th August 2009

Sometimes it is right to speak ill of the dead. The truth matters, even when it is deeply unsavoury. The truth about Ted Kennedy is certainly unsavoury.

Not that you'd know it from yesterday's tributes, dominated by sycophantic humbug.
'A great and good man,' said a fawning Tony Blair. 'A true and constant friend of the peace process in Northern Ireland,' said Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/27/article-1209324-06304562000005DC-290_468x315.jpg Eulogised: The tributes left for Ted Kennedy were full of praise but a lot of his past was unsavoury

Gordon Brown was 'proud to have counted him as a friend and proud that the United Kingdom recognised his service earlier this year with the award of an honorary knighthood'.

Proud? He should be ashamed. Kennedy was a formidable and Machiavellian political operator in the U.S., but he was no friend of Britain. In fact, he was one of our most committed and unrelenting enemies on Capitol Hill.

In his anti-British sentiments, he took after his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, who was unable to hide his bigoted views during a shameful spell as U.S. ambassador to Great Britain.

Ted did his father proud. As a politician dependent on Irish-American votes, this master of empty rhetoric had no scruples about spreading the bitter message of Irish republicanism, especially if there was an election at stake.


More...



CHARLES LAURENCE: The Senator of Sleaze was a drunk sexual bully... and left a young woman to die (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1209313/Ted-Kennedy-The-Senator-Sleaze-drunk-sexual-bully--left-young-woman-die.html)
End of a dynasty: As Ted Kennedy dies a 'heartbroken' Obama leads tributes to 'the greatest U.S senator of our time' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1209107/Ted-Kennedy-Heartbroken-Obama-leads-tributes-greatest-U-S-senator-time.html)


Indeed, his pro-republican record was unblemished, though he was never in favour of violence. When Northern Ireland descended into violence, it was Kennedy who, in 1971, gave aid and comfort to the IRA by comparing British attempts to prevent civil war with the U.S. invasion of Vietnam.

He, like the IRA, supported the republican Troops Out movement, and demanded that Ulster Protestants opposed to a united Ireland should 'go back to Britain'.

He also blamed the 1981 hunger strikes on the 'insensitivity' of the Thatcher government rather than cynical republican leaders sacrificing prisoners for electoral advantage.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/27/article-1209324-062FDC75000005DC-496_468x421.jpg Gerry Adams and Kennedy - the U.S. senator was a big supporter of the Irish nationalist cause

Later in life, as he came under the influence of the Irish government, he began to moderate his stance on Northern Ireland. But he remained a vociferous critic of the British government and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

It was never enough that he occupied a safe Senate seat, 'inherited' from his father, who had bought it with a fortune made from bootlegging.

He believed he was entitled to the U.S. presidency, too. And had he not caused the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969, he may well have been able to ride his brothers' reputations all the way to the White House.

While it cost him the presidency, it failed to dampen his obscene sense of entitlement.

And so, in 1993, in a breathtaking example of nepotism, he persuaded President Bill Clinton to appoint his shamefully ill-qualified sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, as U.S. Ambassador to Ireland.

Kennedy wanted his sister in the job for two reasons. First, he owed her. In 1991, Ted had spent the evening drinking heavily with her son, William Kennedy Smith. Later that night, William took a woman to the beach, who went on to accuse him of rape. Though found not guilty, the trial was lurid and his mother was distraught.

Second - and more importantly - Ted Kennedy had his Irish nationalist agenda to pursue. And how better to do this than through a sister who would defer to a bullying male relative?

By this time, Sinn Fein and their IRA masters were on their knees, militarily, financially and electorally. But Ted was committed to using his influence to support the nationalist cause. And Jean was only too happy to help.

She made no secret of where her loyalties lay - as ambassador, she represented the interests not of the U.S., but of the Irish nationalists.

The U.S. State Department would later rebuke her for the way she treated diplomats who dared to question her. Ireland would tellingly reward her with honorary citizenship.

After all, she was, like her brother, an enemy of Britain and devoted to the nationalist cause.

While his sister supported the nationalists and republicans in Ireland, Ted worked to bolster their cause in the U.S.

In 1994, he persuaded Bill Clinton to go against the express wishes of Prime Minister John Major and grant former terrorist Gerry Adams a U.S. visa.

It's always suited nationalist interests to claim this decision was instrumental in bringing about an IRA ceasefire. In fact, it merely set a precedent for the weak-willed appeasement that would be adopted as British government policy once New Labour were elected.

Indeed, as Tony Blair took over the peace process, everyone seemed to forget that Ted Kennedy was an enemy of Britain. He was suddenly repackaged as a friend.

The truth is that the warm words for Kennedy - not to mention the honorary knighthood - are shameless exercises in self-justification.

Like Ted Kennedy and other nationalist sympathisers, Blair and Brown would have us believe they forged a peace to be proud of - rather than just handing over the keys of power to bigots and terrorists.

And so, working on the Goebbels principle that if a lie is big enough and is repeated often enough then people will come to believe it, Blair tells us that the life-long Brit-hater Kennedy's 'passionate commitment was matched with a practical understanding of what needed to be done to bring about peace and to sustain it'.

Well, sorry Mr Blair, Ted Kennedy was neither great nor good. And sorry, Mr Woodward, he was a friend of Irish nationalism, not of the peace process.

Nor did he serve the interests of Britain, Mr Brown. He served only the interests of Edward Kennedy. By singing his praises, they are all betraying Britain.

Tom, I had no idea, thanks for the interesting article, I hear this comment that he was only out for himself, but if that were truly the case, why was he re-elected for so many years? I guess I just don't understand being in Congress for that long.

Ted Stevens also served for a very long time, and I never felt the man was in it just for himself. I think he really did have a need to serve. He may have liked the power that came with the job, but he also felt he could do well for Alaska. It was always at the heart of what he did. I may not have agreed with him and his pork, but he did serve Alaskans.

cancel2 2022
08-27-2009, 03:28 PM
Tom, I had no idea, thanks for the interesting article, I hear this comment that he was only out for himself, but if that were truly the case, why was he re-elected for so many years? I guess I just don't understand being in Congress for that long.

Ted Stevens also served for a very long time, and I never felt the man was in it just for himself. I think he really did have a need to serve. He may have liked the power that came with the job, but he also felt he could do well for Alaska. It was always at the heart of what he did. I may not have agreed with him and his pork, but he did serve Alaskans.

She is coming from the view that he was no friend of the UK in the war against the IRA, remember that it was US organisations like Noraid that were supplying money for arms from places like Libya, I do not ever remember Ted Kennedy speaking out against this.

As you know I am from an Irish Catholic background and I have seen the damage that the IRA inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland, I suspect if even one bomb had been let off in Boston or New York by the IRA then the whole lot of them would have been banished to Gitmo.

Cancel5
08-27-2009, 03:36 PM
She is coming from the view that he was no friend of the UK in the war against the IRA, remember that it was US organisations like Noraid that were supplying money for arms from places like Libya, I do not ever remember Ted Kennedy speaking out against this.

As you know I am from an Irish Catholic background and I have seen the damage that the IRA inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland, I suspect if even one bomb had been let off in Boston or New York by the IRA then the whole lot of them would have been banished to Gitmo.

Thanks, I was also Catholic and am still of Scot/Irish ancestry, but I am guilty of not paying very close attention to what was happening then. I did not like the IRA, either, what I knew of them. I don't like any organization that kills in order to obtain their objectives.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-27-2009, 05:13 PM
Gerry Adams is a terrorist? He's a member of parliament. People with criminal records can't even run for parliament.

The person who wrote this article has a tremendous bias. Sorry, I'm going with Brown on this one.

cancel2 2022
08-27-2009, 05:45 PM
Gerry Adams is a terrorist? He's a member of parliament. People with criminal records can't even run for parliament.

The person who wrote this article has a tremendous bias. Sorry, I'm going with Brown on this one.

He hasn't got a criminal record but it is well known, at least in the UK, that he was and probably still is high up in the hierarchy of the IRA, why this is not common knowledge in the US is fairly astounding to me. Martin McGuinness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_mcguinness)was the quartermaster for the IRA in the 70/80s and is the current deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_First_Minister_of_Northern_Ireland), I bet you never knew that as well. Another fact is that Sinn Fein/IRA members of Parliament have never actually attended Westminster yet continue to claim all the expenses regardless.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/08/sinn-fein-expenses-martin-mcguinness

FUCK THE POLICE
08-27-2009, 06:09 PM
He hasn't got a criminal record but it is well known, at least in the UK, that he was and probably still is high up in the hierarchy of the IRA, why this is not common knowledge in the US is fairly astounding to me. Martin McGuinness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_mcguinness)was the quartermaster for the IRA in the 70/80s and is the current deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_First_Minister_of_Northern_Ireland), I bet you never knew that as well. Another fact is that Sinn Fein/IRA members of Parliament have never actually attended Westminster yet continue to claim all the expenses regardless.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/08/sinn-fein-expenses-martin-mcguinness

Why would anything that happened 40 years ago in the UK be common knowledge in the US? Especially to a 20 year old?

Sinn Fein is not the IRA.

They have a right to claim expenses, just as any politician does, and they use this for political purposes. They do not attend parliament, but people that do are usually just wasting their time anyway.

cancel2 2022
08-28-2009, 02:21 AM
Why would anything that happened 40 years ago in the UK be common knowledge in the US? Especially to a 20 year old?

Sinn Fein is not the IRA.

They have a right to claim expenses, just as any politician does, and they use this for political purposes. They do not attend parliament, but people that do are usually just wasting their time anyway.

With just a few clicks of the mouse you could have found out all about Gerry Adams and his involvement in the IRA if you wanted to, but apparently you'd rather not bother. First point in your education is that the Troubles started around 40 years ago but they carried on through until the late 90s and arguably still do. As to saying that Sinn Fein is not the IRA that's truly laughable when Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness were both on the IRA General Council and in Sinn Fein at the same time.

I guess also that you missed the great MP expenses row this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7840678.stm

FUCK THE POLICE
08-28-2009, 01:15 PM
With just a few clicks of the mouse you could have found out all about Gerry Adams and his involvement in the IRA if you wanted to, but apparently you'd rather not bother. First point in your education is that the Troubles started around 40 years ago but they carried on through until the late 90s and arguably still do. As to saying that Sinn Fein is not the IRA that's truly laughable when Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness were both on the IRA General Council and in Sinn Fein at the same time.

I guess also that you missed the great MP expenses row this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7840678.stm

No, I enjoyed how much Labour got tackled until I realized how much the Conservatives benefited.

Minister of Truth
08-29-2009, 02:37 PM
Wow, awesome story!

Minister of Truth
08-29-2009, 03:59 PM
Thanks, I was also Catholic and am still of Scot/Irish ancestry, but I am guilty of not paying very close attention to what was happening then. I did not like the IRA, either, what I knew of them. I don't like any organization that kills in order to obtain their objectives.

Apparently Kennedy was not as disconnected from his Irish roots as I had previously thought. While I understand the anger of the Irish people, I can never condone the behavior of the IRA; particularly post-independence.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-29-2009, 04:24 PM
Wow, awesome story!

It's pseudo-journalism, written much more like an opinion piece than a news story.

Epicurus
08-29-2009, 04:44 PM
WM I had no idea you were so ignorant about the Troubles.

I assumed you would have obsessively researched it by now.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-29-2009, 04:46 PM
WM I had no idea you were so ignorant about the Troubles.

I assumed you would have obsessively researched it by now.

Why?

Just because my family descends from northern Ireland and I know a lot about foreign politics doesn't mean anything.

Epicurus
08-29-2009, 04:50 PM
I guess my predisposition towards researching conflicts just led me to it. As you claim to be able to give a decent summary of each country's political parties and leanings, I can give a decent summary of almost every conflict across the globe.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-29-2009, 06:31 PM
I guess my predisposition towards researching conflicts just led me to it. As you claim to be able to give a decent summary of each country's political parties and leanings, I can give a decent summary of almost every conflict across the globe.

I couldn't give you a summary of Tanzania's political situation. :)

I could probably tell you the ruling party or coalition in every European or developed Asian country, though, and with most of them I could give you a summary of the deeper political situation.

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 03:28 AM
It's pseudo-journalism, written much more like an opinion piece than a news story.

Allow me to enlighten you as to the background of the writer, you might just agree that she is likely to know a lot more about Irish politics than some others including yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Dudley_Edwards


Here is what she wrote about Ken Loach's polemical film The Wind That Shakes the Barley (http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2006/story/0,,1778788,00.html) back in 2006 in the Guardian.

What about making Black and Tans: the movie?

Ken Loach is being predictable and morally lazy in making yet another sympathetic portrayal of Irish republicanism. As an Irish historian living in England, I have become inured to the self-flagellation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1791178,00.html) of nice, well-meaning, leftish people like George Monbiot when it comes to Ireland. They see only negatives when they consider the record of Britain in Ireland and are blinkered by ignorance and blinded by romance when they look at violent republicanism.
I began my career as a biographer of Patrick Pearse and James Connolly - two leaders of the 1916 rebellion. I viewed them sympathetically, as I view all my subjects, but I could not but conclude that they had no more justification for revolution than did the Provisional IRA more than sixty years later nor the Real and Continuity IRAs now. They were leaders of a tiny cabal: Ireland was a democracy, and Home Rule was on the statute book.
The British reaction to a revolution in the middle of a world war was harsh enough to alienate Irish public opinion, while too mild to smash violent nationalism. (Salient figures: 450 deaths, of which 116 were soldiers, 16 policemen, 242 civilians and 76 insurgents.)
Although there were only 16 executions, they aroused the sympathy of the hitherto unbellicose Irish and in 1918 won the election for Sinn Fein, though there was no mandate for future violence. Yet violence had become respectable. The unnecessary war of independence began when in January 1919, a handful of Irish Volunteers took it on themselves to kill two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. From then on it was a war on anyone in uniform - British or Irish - or with unionist sympathies. Ken Loach set The Wind That Shakes the Barley (http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2006/story/0,,1778788,00.html) in County Cork, but I'm told there is no mention in it of the ethnic cleansing of Protestants in several villages.
To deal with IRA terror, early in 1920 the British government dispatched ex-servicemen to join the RIC. Inadequately trained and ill disciplined and without even a proper uniform (they became known as the Black and Tans because of their odd mixture of khaki and black), they met terror with counter-terror and raids with reprisals: violence and brutality escalated on both sides during 1920 and 1921. (About 1,400 died, including 600+ security forces and 550 IRA).
This was a terrible period, though not as damaging for the Irish psyche as the civil war that followed, when a minority of republicans showed their contempt for the Irish electorate by taking to the gun rather than accept the Treaty with Britain, which the Irish parliament had ratified. The atrocities of previous years were exceeded in the war of republican against republican. (Around 1,500-2,000 died.)
Ken Loach spoke (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5029334.stm) of the "legendary" brutality of the Black and Tans, and indeed their nastiest deeds have gone down in story and song and have never knowingly been understated. The reason why I won't be going to his film (which I couldn't see before I wrote about it (http://www.ruthdudleyedwards.co.uk/Journalism06/DMail30May.htm) as it had been shown only at Cannes) is because I can't stand its sheer predictability.
All films dealing with Irish republicans show them as tormented idealists who sometimes do things they shouldn't: the British or unionists are portrayed as cynical, brutal and despicable (for example Loach's Hidden Agenda and Neil Jordan's Michael Collins). So Loach was doing nothing brave in taking a sympathetic look at republicans: he was being morally lazy. What would have been interesting and worthwhile would have been for this champion of the underdog to look at events from the standpoint of some wretch of a Black and Tan who had survived years of war only to end up in Ireland being shot at from behind hedges.
Loach has explained (http://dailyireland.televisual.co.uk/home.tvt?_ticket=1XR0K65SBHSJ53J94NNAD0VEIKLAFS6DJ QRFL1PAATTKARNDHKUNTRRITAXM9NTHNLL9CHUTUXQFIQ0FLMT ECY0DBHSI7USEIOPNHUSEAOW4UURGUU4GISR9ANWP4879CHVTT RRLMNNAGWSEAOWX1&_scope=DailyIreland/Content/News&id=31003&_page=&opp=1) to the republican Daily Ireland that partition has failed and that the "unionist veto on change must be removed". He is, therefore, even more militant than is post-agreement Sinn Fein. The only republicans who now oppose the principle of consent in determining the future of Ireland are the dissidents who are still trying to kill and maim for Ireland. That puts Loach on the side of those who murdered 29 people and unborn twins in Omagh in 1998.

charver
08-31-2009, 04:15 AM
Allow me to enlighten as to the background of the writer, you might just agree that she is likely to know a lot more about Irish politics than some others including yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Dudley_Edwards

From the small piece about criticising Ken Loach, she also appears to be a typical Daily Mail contributor, preferring to raise herself into a lather of self-righteous outrage and bluster over films which she hasn't even bothered to watch.

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 04:44 AM
From the small piece about criticising Ken Loach, she also appears to be a typical Daily Mail contributor, preferring to raise herself into a lather of self-righteous outrage and bluster over films which she hasn't even bothered to watch.

She also contributes to the Guardian and I would suggest that she, as a professional historian, is better equipped than many to know the true facts about Irish Nationalism. I have seen that film by the way and it is so predictable it is just tedious and I speak as the son of Irish immigrants from the auld sod.

I'll never understand why Ken Loach is so revered as his films are almost always just long winded polemical discourses. I might also add that her father was also a distinguished Irish historian but I can't tell you if he wrote for the Daily Mail, no doubt if he did you would rubbish him as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dudley_Edwards

charver
08-31-2009, 04:51 AM
She also contributes to the Guardian and I would suggest that she, as a professional historian, is better equipped than many to know the true facts about Irish Nationalism. I have seen that film by the way and it is so predictable it is just tedious and I speak as the son of Irish immigrants from the auld sod.

I'll never understand why Ken Loach is so revered as his films are almost always just long winded polemical discourses. I might also add that her father was also a distinguished Irish historian but I can't tell you if he wrote for the Daily Mail, no doubt if he did you would rubbish him as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dudley_Edwards

Well, as a "professional historian" you'd expect a certain level of professionalism wouldn't you?

Whether Ken Loach's film was predictable, or tedious, i don't know. I haven't seen the film in question and therefore don't consider myself in a position to offer any sort of critique on it. Perhaps if i were a "professional historian" then i'd feel more qualified to do so?

FUCK THE POLICE
08-31-2009, 04:55 AM
Allow me to enlighten you as to the background of the writer, you might just agree that she is likely to know a lot more about Irish politics than some others including yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Dudley_Edwards


Here is what she wrote about Ken Loach's polemical film The Wind That Shakes the Barley (http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2006/story/0,,1778788,00.html) back in 2006 in the Guardian.

What about making Black and Tans: the movie?

Ken Loach is being predictable and morally lazy in making yet another sympathetic portrayal of Irish republicanism. As an Irish historian living in England, I have become inured to the self-flagellation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1791178,00.html) of nice, well-meaning, leftish people like George Monbiot when it comes to Ireland. They see only negatives when they consider the record of Britain in Ireland and are blinkered by ignorance and blinded by romance when they look at violent republicanism.
I began my career as a biographer of Patrick Pearse and James Connolly - two leaders of the 1916 rebellion. I viewed them sympathetically, as I view all my subjects, but I could not but conclude that they had no more justification for revolution than did the Provisional IRA more than sixty years later nor the Real and Continuity IRAs now. They were leaders of a tiny cabal: Ireland was a democracy, and Home Rule was on the statute book.
The British reaction to a revolution in the middle of a world war was harsh enough to alienate Irish public opinion, while too mild to smash violent nationalism. (Salient figures: 450 deaths, of which 116 were soldiers, 16 policemen, 242 civilians and 76 insurgents.)
Although there were only 16 executions, they aroused the sympathy of the hitherto unbellicose Irish and in 1918 won the election for Sinn Fein, though there was no mandate for future violence. Yet violence had become respectable. The unnecessary war of independence began when in January 1919, a handful of Irish Volunteers took it on themselves to kill two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. From then on it was a war on anyone in uniform - British or Irish - or with unionist sympathies. Ken Loach set The Wind That Shakes the Barley (http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2006/story/0,,1778788,00.html) in County Cork, but I'm told there is no mention in it of the ethnic cleansing of Protestants in several villages.
To deal with IRA terror, early in 1920 the British government dispatched ex-servicemen to join the RIC. Inadequately trained and ill disciplined and without even a proper uniform (they became known as the Black and Tans because of their odd mixture of khaki and black), they met terror with counter-terror and raids with reprisals: violence and brutality escalated on both sides during 1920 and 1921. (About 1,400 died, including 600+ security forces and 550 IRA).
This was a terrible period, though not as damaging for the Irish psyche as the civil war that followed, when a minority of republicans showed their contempt for the Irish electorate by taking to the gun rather than accept the Treaty with Britain, which the Irish parliament had ratified. The atrocities of previous years were exceeded in the war of republican against republican. (Around 1,500-2,000 died.)
Ken Loach spoke (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5029334.stm) of the "legendary" brutality of the Black and Tans, and indeed their nastiest deeds have gone down in story and song and have never knowingly been understated. The reason why I won't be going to his film (which I couldn't see before I wrote about it (http://www.ruthdudleyedwards.co.uk/Journalism06/DMail30May.htm) as it had been shown only at Cannes) is because I can't stand its sheer predictability.
All films dealing with Irish republicans show them as tormented idealists who sometimes do things they shouldn't: the British or unionists are portrayed as cynical, brutal and despicable (for example Loach's Hidden Agenda and Neil Jordan's Michael Collins). So Loach was doing nothing brave in taking a sympathetic look at republicans: he was being morally lazy. What would have been interesting and worthwhile would have been for this champion of the underdog to look at events from the standpoint of some wretch of a Black and Tan who had survived years of war only to end up in Ireland being shot at from behind hedges.
Loach has explained (http://dailyireland.televisual.co.uk/home.tvt?_ticket=1XR0K65SBHSJ53J94NNAD0VEIKLAFS6DJ QRFL1PAATTKARNDHKUNTRRITAXM9NTHNLL9CHUTUXQFIQ0FLMT ECY0DBHSI7USEIOPNHUSEAOW4UURGUU4GISR9ANWP4879CHVTT RRLMNNAGWSEAOWX1&_scope=DailyIreland/Content/News&id=31003&_page=&opp=1) to the republican Daily Ireland that partition has failed and that the "unionist veto on change must be removed". He is, therefore, even more militant than is post-agreement Sinn Fein. The only republicans who now oppose the principle of consent in determining the future of Ireland are the dissidents who are still trying to kill and maim for Ireland. That puts Loach on the side of those who murdered 29 people and unborn twins in Omagh in 1998.

Thanks, Mr. Argument From Authority.

She's a hack and she wrote an opinion piece. It's no more reputable than any other opinion piece that makes such flimsy and unjustified assertions.

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 05:03 AM
From the small piece about criticising Ken Loach, she also appears to be a typical Daily Mail contributor, preferring to raise herself into a lather of self-righteous outrage and bluster over films which she hasn't even bothered to watch.

Her self righteous lather is all about how these films are shown in the US and the poor demented fools who take them as gospel and help perpetuate the myth of the iRA as freedom fighters not psychotic killers. It is a shame that Eamonn de Valera wasn't executed in 1916, the history of Ireland may well have taken a different and better course. He was the bastard that offered his condolences to the German Minister in Dublin on the death of Hitler in 1945. He was even offered a united Ireland in exchange for use of the Irish ports in WW2 but he turned it down ensuring that many thousands of merchant seaman lost their lives because of his intransigence and stupidity.

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 06:11 AM
Thanks, Mr. Argument From Authority.

She's a hack and she wrote an opinion piece. It's no more reputable than any other opinion piece that makes such flimsy and unjustified assertions.

You have already freely admitted that you know nothing about Ireland and yet you still feel able to to say that her claims are unjustified. Here are a few facts on saint Gerry Adams.

http://www.residentgroups.fsnet.co.uk/adams.htm

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 06:15 AM
Well, as a "professional historian" you'd expect a certain level of professionalism wouldn't you?

Whether Ken Loach's film was predictable, or tedious, i don't know. I haven't seen the film in question and therefore don't consider myself in a position to offer any sort of critique on it. Perhaps if i were a "professional historian" then i'd feel more qualified to do so?

She was speaking from the heart albeit with an impressive hinterland of academic works to her credit, I would suggest that you grab a copy yourself and then tell me what you think. Many facts have been glossed over down the years like the fact that the Germans had an embassy in Dublin throughout the war and the IRA was staunchly pro German. I have no doubt that Hitler would have known how to deal with them if Germany had won the war.

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 06:40 AM
I was in Belfast the night that those brave freedom fighters aka fucking psychotic bastards slit Robert McCartney from arse to tit in Magennis's bar.

http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/Robert_%20McCartney_Part_two.htm

tinfoil
08-31-2009, 06:48 AM
Tom, I had no idea, thanks for the interesting article, I hear this comment that he was only out for himself, but if that were truly the case, why was he re-elected for so many years?

think of it as "brand name" politics. He's elected because the Kennedy name is popular in Mass.
Oh he was. LOL

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 07:02 AM
think of it as "brand name" politics. He's elected because the Kennedy name is popular in Mass.
Oh he was. LOL

How can you lose in somewhere like Boston by sucking up to the iRA?

charver
08-31-2009, 07:19 AM
She was speaking from the heart albeit with an impressive hinterland of academic works to her credit, I would suggest that you grab a copy yourself and then tell me what you think. Many facts have been glossed over down the years like the fact that the Germans had an embassy in Dublin throughout the war and the IRA was staunchly pro German. I have no doubt that Hitler would have known how to deal with them if Germany had won the war.

I'm well aware of the romantic portrayal of the IRA among various American communities and i'm not opposed to the author's criticisms of Ted Kennedy or the decision to award him an honorary knighthood but the whole "it is a betrayal of Britain" tommyrot is more than i could stomach.

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 11:04 AM
I'm well aware of the romantic portrayal of the IRA among various American communities and i'm not opposed to the author's criticisms of Ted Kennedy or the decision to award him an honorary knighthood but the whole "it is a betrayal of Britain" tommyrot is more than i could stomach.

Well a little bit of hyperbole is allowed from time to time especially when so much bullshit is spouted about the good old Oirish in places like the USA.

Damocles
08-31-2009, 11:52 AM
I'm well aware of the romantic portrayal of the IRA among various American communities and i'm not opposed to the author's criticisms of Ted Kennedy or the decision to award him an honorary knighthood but the whole "it is a betrayal of Britain" tommyrot is more than i could stomach.
I'm telling you, it was a betrayal! Like sending your dog out without a hat to leave a gift on the neighbor's lawn it is!

FUCK THE POLICE
08-31-2009, 01:36 PM
You have already freely admitted that you know nothing about Ireland and yet you still feel able to to say that her claims are unjustified. Here are a few facts on saint Gerry Adams.

http://www.residentgroups.fsnet.co.uk/adams.htm

Calm down tom.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-31-2009, 01:37 PM
It is a shame that Eamonn de Valera wasn't executed in 1916, the history of Ireland may well have taken a different and better course.

http://shop.airsealed.com/prod_images_blowup/xanax1mg1.jpg

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 02:09 PM
http://shop.airsealed.com/prod_images_blowup/xanax1mg1.jpg

It is a subject that I feel passionately about and I get very angry when others expose their ignorance and indeed indifference to all the suffering down the years.

Minister of Truth
09-01-2009, 06:43 PM
Not sure what you two have been discussing, but I will say that the Irish have done plenty of suffering over the years. That the IRA remained active long after independence is unfortunate, but obviously, something that happened in 1916 happened before independence...

Socrtease
09-02-2009, 09:24 PM
So you brits were all just standing around one day and the Irish came over to "peck a fight?" Oh sorry that was Mel Gibson doing shitty Scottish dialect about another time the British were just milling about minding their own business when the Scots rose up against you. Seems like you chaps across the pond have the most dreadful luck, always being someplace, minding your own, when someone out of the blue and without slightest provocation slaps the shit outta you. Well all I know is that if someone from ANOTHER fucking country came to mine and then did a good job of alienating everyone but their loyalists, I would blow their shit up too til they left my soil and the thought of ever coming back caused their bollocks to crawl past their stomach and into their lungs.

EDIT: I am only the tiniest bit Irish, I don't identify with the irish, and but for a charming woman with an Irish accent, I really don't give two shits about the Irish. But I do know that throughout history the Brits have, from time to time done a bit of whining about how put up they were by the people in the country that they were OCCUPYING! I mean really, the Indians brought all that shit upon themselves.

What's white and flies over the atlantic?

Lord Mountbatten's shoe.

cancel2 2022
09-08-2009, 12:59 PM
So you brits were all just standing around one day and the Irish came over to "peck a fight?" Oh sorry that was Mel Gibson doing shitty Scottish dialect about another time the British were just milling about minding their own business when the Scots rose up against you. Seems like you chaps across the pond have the most dreadful luck, always being someplace, minding your own, when someone out of the blue and without slightest provocation slaps the shit outta you. Well all I know is that if someone from ANOTHER fucking country came to mine and then did a good job of alienating everyone but their loyalists, I would blow their shit up too til they left my soil and the thought of ever coming back caused their bollocks to crawl past their stomach and into their lungs.

EDIT: I am only the tiniest bit Irish, I don't identify with the irish, and but for a charming woman with an Irish accent, I really don't give two shits about the Irish. But I do know that throughout history the Brits have, from time to time done a bit of whining about how put up they were by the people in the country that they were OCCUPYING! I mean really, the Indians brought all that shit upon themselves.

What's white and flies over the atlantic?

Lord Mountbatten's shoe.

First off I will say that I find myself agreeing with you usually, so I can't understand how you can be so wrong headed.

You say that you don't give two shits about the Irish and then proceed to talk pure bollocks about the British. I am first generation English with Irish Catholic parents and have heard much the same shite over and over again. It is exactly these sentiments which caused Americans to give money to Noraid (http://members.lycos.co.uk/inac/myth.html) so that the fucking IRA could kill and maim thousands of innocent people. I know Northern and Southern Ireland very well having been to both many times and I also know about many of the disgusting acts perpetrated by those brave 'freedom fighters' aka murderous cowards. Perhaps you would care to explain why they are continuing to attempt to kill people even now? I don't suppose you will have an answer as you don't give a shit about the Irish apparently. By the way, the Braveheart film was mostly fiction as well



Massive bomb defused in N.Ireland: police (Source (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090908/tuk-massive-bomb-defused-in-n-ireland-po-a7ad41d.html))



Army experts in Northern Ireland (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/northern-ireland.html) defused a massive roadside bomb on Tuesday, averting what could have been a "devastating" explosion in the long-troubled province, police said.
(http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090908/tuk-massive-bomb-defused-in-n-ireland-po-a7ad41d.html#ynw-article-part2)
Related photos / videos


http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/ne/afp/20090908/18/3353528050-massive-bomb-defused-n-ireland-police.jpg?x=310&y=231&q=75&wc=357&hc=267&xc=41&yc=1&sig=1EPN.jt4vw_imPCoela5Ww--#310,231 (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090908/img/puk-police-patrol-in-northe-a536f1ab437f.html)

Police patrol in Northern Ireland in March Enlarge photo (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090908/img/puk-police-patrol-in-northe-a536f1ab437f.html)





The discovery of the 600-pound home-made device came six months after dissident Republicans shot two British soldiers and a police officer, reviving the spectre of violence a decade after a landmark peace accord.
The bomb was found outside the village of Forkhill near the border with the Irish Republic in South Armagh, along with a command wire from the roadside where it was found to the other side of the border.
"There could have been a devastating outcome to this incident," Newry and Mourne police commander Chief Inspector Sam Cordner said.
"The actions of terrorist criminals in planting this device ... put local people and police officers at significant risk. Their actions were reckless and dangerous in the extreme."
He added: "Their target may have been the police, but they did not care who they killed or injured. It is only through the hard work and professionalism of police officers and their military colleagues that the area has been made safe."
Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson said the bomb showed there was a clear and ongoing terrorist threat of terrorism.
"It shows that there are evil people out there still prepared and with the equipment to take life in Northern Ireland.
"I am delighted it has been defused, but it does show that there is still a very real and present danger. It indicated there are people who still have to be dealt with by the PSNI."
The bomb was the biggest found in Northern Ireland for a long time.
In January a 300-pound bomb was found in Castlewellan, in the southeast of the province, and in May the components of a 100-pound bomb were seized near Rosslea, in County Fermanagh in the south.
The device was found hours after officials said that the last remaining loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland had pledged to decommission weapons within six months.
The Ulster Defence Association and its breakaway faction have given the undertaking to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD), Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward said.
Loyalists are Northern Ireland Protestants who want the province to remain part of Britain and are historic foes of Catholic republicans, who believe it should become part of the Republic of Ireland (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ireland.html).
A 1998 peace accord ended most of the violence which had plagued Northern Ireland for three decades, killing at least 3,500 people.
Devolved self-rule is now in place in the British province after a landmark accord in 2007 between the Protestant Democratic Unionists (DUP) and Catholic Sinn Fein.
The Irish Republican Army (IRA), the main republican paramilitary group, finished destroying its arsenal four years ago, overseen by the commission.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-08-2009, 04:45 PM
Yeah Braveheart didn't make much sense. He cried "freeom" at the end and I was like WTF? Freedom for what? To be a servant to a different king?

Damocles
09-11-2009, 03:57 PM
First off I will say that I find myself agreeing with you usually, so I can't understand how you can be so wrong headed.

You say that you don't give two shits about the Irish and then proceed to talk pure bollocks about the British. I am first generation English with Irish Catholic parents and have heard much the same shite over and over again. It is exactly these sentiments which caused Americans to give money to Noraid (http://members.lycos.co.uk/inac/myth.html) so that the fucking IRA could kill and maim thousands of innocent people. I know Northern and Southern Ireland very well having been to both many times and I also know about many of the disgusting acts perpetrated by those brave 'freedom fighters' aka murderous cowards. Perhaps you would care to explain why they are continuing to attempt to kill people even now? I don't suppose you will have an answer as you don't give a shit about the Irish apparently. By the way, the Braveheart film was mostly fiction as well



Massive bomb defused in N.Ireland: police (Source (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090908/tuk-massive-bomb-defused-in-n-ireland-po-a7ad41d.html))



Army experts in Northern Ireland (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/northern-ireland.html) defused a massive roadside bomb on Tuesday, averting what could have been a "devastating" explosion in the long-troubled province, police said.
(http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090908/tuk-massive-bomb-defused-in-n-ireland-po-a7ad41d.html#ynw-article-part2)
Related photos / videos


http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/ne/afp/20090908/18/3353528050-massive-bomb-defused-n-ireland-police.jpg?x=310&y=231&q=75&wc=357&hc=267&xc=41&yc=1&sig=1EPN.jt4vw_imPCoela5Ww--#310,231 (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090908/img/puk-police-patrol-in-northe-a536f1ab437f.html)

Police patrol in Northern Ireland in March Enlarge photo (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090908/img/puk-police-patrol-in-northe-a536f1ab437f.html)





The discovery of the 600-pound home-made device came six months after dissident Republicans shot two British soldiers and a police officer, reviving the spectre of violence a decade after a landmark peace accord.
The bomb was found outside the village of Forkhill near the border with the Irish Republic in South Armagh, along with a command wire from the roadside where it was found to the other side of the border.
"There could have been a devastating outcome to this incident," Newry and Mourne police commander Chief Inspector Sam Cordner said.
"The actions of terrorist criminals in planting this device ... put local people and police officers at significant risk. Their actions were reckless and dangerous in the extreme."
He added: "Their target may have been the police, but they did not care who they killed or injured. It is only through the hard work and professionalism of police officers and their military colleagues that the area has been made safe."
Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson said the bomb showed there was a clear and ongoing terrorist threat of terrorism.
"It shows that there are evil people out there still prepared and with the equipment to take life in Northern Ireland.
"I am delighted it has been defused, but it does show that there is still a very real and present danger. It indicated there are people who still have to be dealt with by the PSNI."
The bomb was the biggest found in Northern Ireland for a long time.
In January a 300-pound bomb was found in Castlewellan, in the southeast of the province, and in May the components of a 100-pound bomb were seized near Rosslea, in County Fermanagh in the south.
The device was found hours after officials said that the last remaining loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland had pledged to decommission weapons within six months.
The Ulster Defence Association and its breakaway faction have given the undertaking to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD), Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward said.
Loyalists are Northern Ireland Protestants who want the province to remain part of Britain and are historic foes of Catholic republicans, who believe it should become part of the Republic of Ireland (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ireland.html).
A 1998 peace accord ended most of the violence which had plagued Northern Ireland for three decades, killing at least 3,500 people.
Devolved self-rule is now in place in the British province after a landmark accord in 2007 between the Protestant Democratic Unionists (DUP) and Catholic Sinn Fein.
The Irish Republican Army (IRA), the main republican paramilitary group, finished destroying its arsenal four years ago, overseen by the commission.
You did nothing to explain to me what pissed of the Irish enough to want to do this and simply posted about somebody planting bombs.

Socrtease pretty much stated what we understand to be the reason behind their urge to fight your government. If you think they do it just because they want to maim innocents then tell me why you believe that.

It's like posting about Palestinians bombing someplace in Israel, without the reason they want to do something it seems like a horrible act, but these are people and there is a motive behind it. What is that motive?

Have the British always been perfect in how they treated the Irish or the Scotts? Or do they maybe have some reason to be hacked off at y'all, and in fact have incentive to perpetrate these actions?

FUCK THE POLICE
09-12-2009, 01:53 AM
You did nothing to explain to me what pissed of the Irish enough to want to do this and simply posted about somebody planting bombs.

Socrtease pretty much stated what we understand to be the reason behind their urge to fight your government. If you think they do it just because they want to maim innocents then tell me why you believe that.

It's like posting about Palestinians bombing someplace in Israel, without the reason they want to do something it seems like a horrible act, but these are people and there is a motive behind it. What is that motive?

Have the British always been perfect in how they treated the Irish or the Scotts? Or do they maybe have some reason to be hacked off at y'all, and in fact have incentive to perpetrate these actions?

The Irish and the Palestinians have a motive for doing what they do. Understanding this motive can help us in future situations so as to not provoke things like this. But a motive is not an excuse.

Vengeance is evil. Collective vengeance is especially evil.

charver
09-12-2009, 02:09 AM
You did nothing to explain to me what pissed of the Irish enough to want to do this and simply posted about somebody planting bombs.

Socrtease pretty much stated what we understand to be the reason behind their urge to fight your government. If you think they do it just because they want to maim innocents then tell me why you believe that.

It's like posting about Palestinians bombing someplace in Israel, without the reason they want to do something it seems like a horrible act, but these are people and there is a motive behind it. What is that motive?

Have the British always been perfect in how they treated the Irish or the Scotts? Or do they maybe have some reason to be hacked off at y'all, and in fact have incentive to perpetrate these actions?

Damo, if you want an explanation for the Irish problem then it's going to take a little more than a few paragraphs on a messageboard, even if both Tom and i were channelling the ghost of AJP Taylor. I'm not setting out to do that.

As you've adopted present tense i'm not sure whether you're referring to the actions of the IRA, who have ceased their terror campaign, or the current splinter groups (Real IRA, Continuity IRA, and the rest), or both.

The IRA have no reason to fight our government. They agreed a peace settlement, joined the government of Northern Ireland, decommissioned their weapons and ceased terrorist action. Their representatives now condemn terrorism. Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, still aren't huge fans of being a part of the United Kingdom but campaign through the ballot box now, in preference to the Armalite. One day, they will hold a referendum in Northern Ireland where the majority will express a wish to break with the United Kingdom and unite with the Republic of Ireland. At present that majority expresses a desire to maintain the status quo.

The British government will abide by the decision of the people of Northern Ireland. In fact the British government would like nothing better than to palm off Northern Ireland to the Republic as it costs the UK a bloody fortune. Moreover, if unification occurred tomorrow it would bankrupt the Republic and obliterate its already fragile economy.

The splinter groups carry on their violent campaign to "end British occupation", very much in the same mindset as those who decided it would be a splendid idea to fly those planes into the towers in order to "end American occupation" of Muslim holy lands. They are dinosaurs refusing to accept the reality of 21st Century Ireland. They have no support in the North or the South and their frequent targeting of Irish civilians is universally condemned. They can cite the same grievances the original Irish nationalists and the IRA used but they're fooling nobody, except for those uneducated souls who know nothing of Ireland or its history (that's not intended as a dig btw :)).

All manner of crimes have been committed on Irish soil, whether it was rival monarchist factions killing each other, Republican terror campaigns, loyalist terror campaigns or terror campaigns by the British government itself. The Catholic/Republican minority in Northern Ireland used to face outright discrimination in all walks of life at the hands of a Protestant/Loyalist majority and nobody in their right mind would defend that. Initially British troops were sent into the North to protect the Catholic minority from Protestant rioters and were welcomed as protectors. As we all know, that didn't last long. All sides transgressed, all sides witnessed and perpetrated brutality.

But now we are where we are. With the end of catholic discrimination in the North, the withdrawal of British Army patrols and the dismantling of checkpoints, the end of the IRA's terror campaign, cross border co-operation, Sinn Fein sharing power with Unionist parties, a revamped Police Service of Northern Ireland (comprised of Protestant and Catholics together replacing the Protestant dominated Royal Ulster Constabulary) and absolute self-determination for the people of Northern Ireland to decide their own future, there is now no justification whatsoever for any terrorist violence.

We, the British, have accepted and embraced reality, the people of Ireland have accepted and embraced reality, which only leaves those wistfully romantic souls, who dream of simple Irish folk bravely facing down the behemoth of the British Empire by killing civilians out shopping with their kids. I still hold particular loathing for the past actions of the IRA, but i'm not proud of the past actions of my own nation either. I prefer the present, the peace and the friendship. And for those who want that to end i have only contempt.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-12-2009, 02:44 AM
I read some polls a few months back that said about 60% of the British public think that Ireland should unite and about 60% of the Northern Irish want to stay united with Britain.

Irony.

Anyway, Charv, my ancestors descendants don't cost you as much as the bloody Scottish.

charver
09-12-2009, 03:00 AM
I read some polls a few months back that said about 60% of the British public think that Ireland should unite and about 60% of the Northern Irish want to stay united with Britain.

Irony.

Anyway, Charv, my ancestors descendants don't cost you as much as the bloody Scottish.

As soon as the remaining Scotch oil and gas has been exhausted they can take those massive anti-English chips on their shoulders and deep fry them in an independent Scotchland as far as i'm concerned.

This must be what marriage is like - co-existing with a partner that can't stand the sight of you, constantly whinging to the neighbours about how badly you treat them, but more than happy to pile on the weight, bleeding your cash machine dry to spend it on ciggies and lard.

It really bugs the Scotch that the English just don't give a shit about them. :D

FUCK THE POLICE
09-12-2009, 03:39 AM
As soon as the remaining Scotch oil and gas has been exhausted they can take those massive anti-English chips on their shoulders and deep fry them in an independent Scotchland as far as i'm concerned.

This must be what marriage is like - co-existing with a partner that can't stand the sight of you, constantly whinging to the neighbours about how badly you treat them, but more than happy to pile on the weight, bleeding your cash machine dry to spend it on ciggies and lard.

It really bugs the Scotch that the English just don't give a shit about them. :D

As long as we're less annoying than the Scotch, I'm happy.

charver
09-12-2009, 04:06 AM
As long as we're less annoying than the Scotch, I'm happy.

You could never be annoying, WM.

(although i still can't call you 'The Happy Hippo' without feeling unwell)

FUCK THE POLICE
09-12-2009, 04:42 AM
You could never be annoying, WM.

(although i still can't call you 'The Happy Hippo' without feeling unwell)

Precisely my intent.

Minister of Truth
09-12-2009, 10:52 AM
Out of curiosity, if N. Ireland leaves, will we go back to using the name "Great Britain," or is United Kingdom here to stay?

charver
09-12-2009, 11:51 AM
Out of curiosity, if N. Ireland leaves, will we go back to using the name "Great Britain," or is United Kingdom here to stay?

UK and GB are used interchangeably here already.

I suppose Great Britain would technically be correct if NI went though. I think i prefer Great Britain and, if abbreviating to initials, the G and B keys are slightly closer together than the U and K keys saving vital milliseconds over the course of one's lifetime.

Thorn
09-12-2009, 04:47 PM
UK and GB are used interchangeably here already.

I suppose Great Britain would technically be correct if NI went though. I think i prefer Great Britain and, if abbreviating to initials, the G and B keys are slightly closer together than the U and K keys saving vital milliseconds over the course of one's lifetime.

Isn't Scotland also now technically independent? Though many ties remain, I seem to recall something being signed a few short years ago. Don't know many of the details.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-12-2009, 04:59 PM
Isn't Scotland also now technically independent? Though many ties remain, I seem to recall something being signed a few short years ago. Don't know many of the details.

Scotland has devolved powers resting in its parliament. However, I think the powers that the Scottish parliament has are actually less than what a normal US state would have. For one, they don't have the ability to raise taxes, and can only subsist off of what the UK parliament gives them.

Minister of Truth
09-12-2009, 09:06 PM
UK and GB are used interchangeably here already.

I suppose Great Britain would technically be correct if NI went though. I think i prefer Great Britain and, if abbreviating to initials, the G and B keys are slightly closer together than the U and K keys saving vital milliseconds over the course of one's lifetime.

Well, I've only honestly gotten used to the term "UK" over the last two years. Before that, I always said "Britain" or "Great Britain," and when I first came accross the new term, it had me completely befuddled.

I think it would be nice to go back to the old way. And quickly, before I get completely used to "United Kingdom."

:clink:

charver
09-13-2009, 03:36 PM
Well, I've only honestly gotten used to the term "UK" over the last two years. Before that, I always said "Britain" or "Great Britain," and when I first came accross the new term, it had me completely befuddled.

I think it would be nice to go back to the old way. And quickly, before I get completely used to "United Kingdom."

:clink:

As i say, nobody from these fair isles would likely pick you up on it. :)

What really annoys the Scotch, Welsh and Norn Irelanders is when Americans refer to the whole country as England.

It's very funny seeing the faces of American tourists in Scotchland when the locals brusquely inform them Scotch people don't really like to be called English.

charver
09-13-2009, 03:58 PM
Isn't Scotland also now technically independent? Though many ties remain, I seem to recall something being signed a few short years ago. Don't know many of the details.

WM is right, the Scotch voted for devolution from Westminster in 1997.

The Scottish parliament has a certain degree of independent action on things like Education, Health, Environment, Transport etc. The recent release of the chap who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing from a scottish prison was a product of devolution, decided by the Scots justice minister (although even before devolution the Scotch have always retained their own separate legal system)

Westminster retains a firm grip on the purse strings although the Scotch are allowed to vary the basic rate of income tax in Scotchland by (i think) 3p but they have never used it. There's talk of handing more tax raising powers to Scotland as it would allow Westminster to cut back on expenditure.

The last Scottish parliamentary elections produced a minority Scottish nationalist government who desire true independence but it would have to be approved in a referendum of the Scottish people and, so far at least, all polls suggest there aren't the numbers to win such a vote. However, with the prospect of a Conservative government in Westminster this may change (the Scotch have an intense hatred of all things Tory thanks to Margaret Thatcher).

The Nationalists want to hold a referendum after the next Westminster elections and it would be in the Conservatives interests to get rid of Scotland and their many Labour MP's altogether.

If you're still awake at the end of that...well done :)

Thorn
09-13-2009, 04:01 PM
WM is right, the Scotch voted for devolution from Westminster in 1997.

The Scottish parliament has a certain degree of independent action on things like Education, Health, Environment, Transport etc. The recent release of the chap who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing from a scottish prison was a product of devolution, decided by the Scots justice minister (although even before devolution the Scotch have always retained their own separate legal system)

Westminster retains a firm grip on the purse strings although the Scotch are allowed to vary the basic rate of income tax in Scotchland by (i think) 3p but they have never used it. There's talk of handing more tax raising powers to Scotland as it would allow Westminster to cut back on expenditure.

The last Scottish parliamentary elections produced a minority Scottish nationalist government who desire true independence but it would have to be approved in a referendum of the Scottish people and, so far at least, all polls suggest there aren't the numbers to win such a vote. However, with the prospect of a Conservative government in Westminster this may change (the Scotch have an intense hatred of all things Tory thanks to Margaret Thatcher).

The Nationalists want to hold a referendum after the next Westminster elections and it would be in the Conservatives interests to get rid of Scotland and their many Labour MP's altogether.

If you're still awake at the end of that...well done :)


Still awake. Thanks, Charver. :)

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2009, 04:12 PM
WM is right, the Scotch voted for devolution from Westminster in 1997.

The Scottish parliament has a certain degree of independent action on things like Education, Health, Environment, Transport etc. The recent release of the chap who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing from a scottish prison was a product of devolution, decided by the Scots justice minister (although even before devolution the Scotch have always retained their own separate legal system)

Westminster retains a firm grip on the purse strings although the Scotch are allowed to vary the basic rate of income tax in Scotchland by (i think) 3p but they have never used it. There's talk of handing more tax raising powers to Scotland as it would allow Westminster to cut back on expenditure.

The last Scottish parliamentary elections produced a minority Scottish nationalist government who desire true independence but it would have to be approved in a referendum of the Scottish people and, so far at least, all polls suggest there aren't the numbers to win such a vote. However, with the prospect of a Conservative government in Westminster this may change (the Scotch have an intense hatred of all things Tory thanks to Margaret Thatcher).

The Nationalists want to hold a referendum after the next Westminster elections and it would be in the Conservatives interests to get rid of Scotland and their many Labour MP's altogether.

If you're still awake at the end of that...well done :)

My understanding is that a lot of people vote for the SNP for reasons other than independence.

And I know the Scottish hate tories, but aren't these conservatives sufficiently different so that they can get over it?

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2009, 04:14 PM
Well, I've only honestly gotten used to the term "UK" over the last two years. Before that, I always said "Britain" or "Great Britain," and when I first came accross the new term, it had me completely befuddled.

I think it would be nice to go back to the old way. And quickly, before I get completely used to "United Kingdom."

:clink:
When I was a kid I always use to think that England was a country and it was different than the United Kingdom, which I assumed must have been in Africa. It's a pretty weird name for a democratic country, at least.

charver
09-13-2009, 04:25 PM
My understanding is that a lot of people vote for the SNP for reasons other than independence.

And I know the Scottish hate tories, but aren't these conservatives sufficiently different so that they can get over it?

Many people with no desire for independence voted for the Nationalists as they were the main opposition to the Lib Lab government, which had been running Scotland since '97. As i say, the numbers don't exist to win a referendum on leaving the union yet. The recent financial turmoil didn't exactly help the Nationalist's case as they'd been citing Iceland as a model for a future independent Scotland.

Scotland is a no go area for the Tories. They have no Scots MP's at all (although they have a chance of maybe gaining a lowland seat next time round). I don't think the Scotch see the Tories as having changed at all and apart from Cameron himself, who has done a good PR job, a lot of the Tory party hasn't really changed. With the next government inheriting an economic situation requiring cuts and/or tax rises, comparisons are almost certain to be drawn with the Thatcher cuts of the 80s.

cancel2 2022
09-14-2009, 12:41 AM
Out of curiosity, if N. Ireland leaves, will we go back to using the name "Great Britain," or is United Kingdom here to stay?

Maybe this will help you?

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain.html

FUCK THE POLICE
09-14-2009, 12:58 AM
The English: Are They Human?

FUCK THE POLICE
09-14-2009, 06:26 PM
I think I'm going to make a terrorist organization called the Fake IRA that supports union with nonviolent action.

Minister of Truth
09-14-2009, 08:39 PM
Maybe this will help you?

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain.html

Honestly, I had never heard the term "UK" until the present decade. We Americans always said "Great Britain," although I'm not surprised the morons called it all "England."

And I always understood GB vs. British Isles. However, the loss of N. Ireland would make the member kingdoms GB once more...

cancel2 2022
09-15-2009, 12:29 AM
The English: Are They Human?

Are you a dancer?