Not much nutrition at Dublin Castle

Screen Shot 2016-01-03 at 09.33.28

Well, it’s started. I glimpsed it first in a news clip, which showed politicians, performers and audience at Dublin Castle, playing and peering through the rain. Then I got a more detailed account in yesterday’s Irish Independent. This was the coalition government’s start of its commemoration events for 2016. They can’t say the Indo didn’t give them a fair wind: “A stroke of genius to kick off 2016 celebrations” is the headline. The description of events continues in the same effusive tone:

“An explosion of passion, youthful verve, energy and sheer talent. With a dollop of U2, Horslips, heart-stirring sean nos airs and bodhrans – topped off with bagpipes and the Lambeg drum”. And, I gather, there was ‘Danny Boy’ near the start and an end-up with ‘Ireland’s Call’. The paper explains that it was all Arts Minister Heather Humphrey’s idea and “it turned out to be a stroke of inclusive and harmonious genius – starting the year off on an uplifting and exciting note.”

Well as they say, not in my name, Heather. Just as the arrival of a policeman always makes a bad situation worse, according to Brendan Behan, a musical recital of U2 can only get worse by rounding off with ‘Ireland’s Call’.

At the moment I’m reading a biography of Thomas Clarke, the first signatory of the Easter Proclamation. He spent fifteen years in an English prison, which explains his sunken features and bent form in any of the pictures you may see of him. The book raises a number of interesting points which I hope to come back to another time, but one thing it makes very clear: the Easter Rising was about armed resistance and self-sacrifice, not U2 or ‘Danny Boy’ or – God between us and all harm – ‘Ireland’s Call’.

We got a whiff of how the south’s coalition government planned to bake the Easter Rising cake  when they issued that ghastly video which didn’t even mention the signatories of the Proclamation and had to be withdrawn. This  recent unappetising smorgasbord shows that they’re still intent on including the same ingredients with the full weight of Indo behind its every effort.

What was it Shakespeare said? “Methinks the lady doth protest too much”. The Irish public – and that includes those of us north of the Black Sow’s Dyke (thanks, Perkin) – couldn’t possibly protest too much about the saccharine-sweet gruel Enda and Co are clearly intent on serving the public throughout this New Year.

I feel a little ill already.

 

 

 

 

135 Responses to Not much nutrition at Dublin Castle

  1. Jim.hunter January 3, 2016 at 11:02 am #

    Great story.jude.

  2. Ciarán January 3, 2016 at 11:34 am #

    Post-nationalists pretending to love their country and everything the rising stood for. Fine Gael would turn any Irishman’s stomach, especially the Irishmen north of the black- sows dyke!

  3. Brian Patterson January 3, 2016 at 11:54 am #

    I mean why bother with a statue of Cú Chullain? Would a leprechaun with a stovepipe hat and a claw hammer coat not do rightly? And a plastic pair of britches revealing a bare arse to symbolise austerity. No need for a tricolour (or Eire trickeler as Radio Ulster called it) Sure would n’t a pint of Guinness and a picture of Terry Woebegone or Gaybo do the trick?

  4. Iolar January 3, 2016 at 11:54 am #

    It was a choice between the inarticulate and the unelectable on RTÉ radio this morning. The administration’s video, now withdrawn, was referred to on a number of occasions as “ahistorical sxxxe”, one commentator was unable to articulate a coherent response to the seminal events of 1916, while others pondered what Sinn Féin’s response might be in the conversation. Was an invitation to join the discussion extended to anyone in the party? Most people accept there was a culture of violence in the years 1914 – 1918. Violence for political reasons was legitimised in the years 1914 – 1918. The war fought in defence of small nations certainly did not to apply to Ireland.

    The ramble continued with arrogant statements about individuals who, “are not ready to govern.” The track record of many politicians in this country proves they were not fit to govern. At a time when parts of the country remain flooded, some politicians are spending time caricaturing same sex marriage on posters in an attempt to gain political advantage over political opponents and other right wing politicians do not favour the concept of a living wage.

    Will the values enshrined in Forógra na Poblachta guide electoral choices in 2016 or will the the cult of “What’s in it for me” prevail? Time will tell.

    • angela January 3, 2016 at 12:13 pm #

      lolar

      You’re listening to MF as I am I Had to double mt bllod pressure tablets ….how do they get away with it?

      • Iolar January 3, 2016 at 4:12 pm #

        Peadar O’Donnell once berated Mr De Valera about the numbers of people obliged to leave the country for economic reasons. Mr De Valera demanded to know what Peadar would do if he was in government. Peadar insisted that it would be different people leaving the country. There is enough work in this country associated with flood defences, hydroelectric power and sewage facilities to put a stop to economic migration. What is it to be, more of the bonus culture with bankers basking in the Bahamas or full employment with decent working conditions and quality public services? It is a matter for the electorate. Relax and go easy on the blood pressure tablets.

  5. Sherry January 3, 2016 at 12:02 pm #

    The government’s version of the 1916 commemorations will be totally sanitised.
    Part of the reason is that, as they owe the Brits a couple of £billion, and a natural propensity for forelock tugging, they will not do anything which might be construed as anti-Brit.
    The other part of the reason is that if they did or said anything in the spirit of the 1916 uprising that might cause a halo effect for Sinn Fein, and that would never do.
    Fortunately we will have Sinn Fein to tell the unvarnished truth and commemorate the uprising in a proper and dignified manner.
    The other hope is that after the February general election the Fine Gael/Labour coalition will not be in a position to run any further events!

    • Jude Collins January 3, 2016 at 12:07 pm #

      If wishes were horses, Sherry….

  6. Brian D'Arcy January 3, 2016 at 12:22 pm #

    Oh yes, let us up ease the insationable hatred of the Unionist hierarchy, the one who wished to create civil war, with help from the British army in Larne and the setting up of the UVF by that great Unionist, apparently, who stands in defiance outside Stormont house. Is history to be raped to present a false history of Ireland. You yourself put up a link by an author who set out clearly Paisleys links to a Loyalist paramilitary but yet is seen in a far greater light than Adams, the man who risked life and death to obtain peace in the North. We need to redress who we see as great leaders in Ireland but yet it only seems in Ireland, and Britain of course, well, we do have the Irish Tories in power here in dear old Éire, that Adams the likes of Adams and McGuinness are vilified for being forced to fight for basic rights in a sectarian state

  7. Mary Whelan January 3, 2016 at 1:09 pm #

    Did you expect anything else from this Government and their Civil Servants. Note Rugby is the new God so expect a lot of Irelands call.

  8. MT January 3, 2016 at 1:14 pm #

    Self-sacrifice?

    And also the unwilling sacrifice of others. 500 people killed.

    Nothing to celebrate here.

    • Jude Collins January 3, 2016 at 1:34 pm #

      Do you see nothing of worth in the Easter Rising, MT?

      • MT January 3, 2016 at 2:45 pm #

        I don’t think so. As a democrat, and one who is opposed to violence and death unless necessary and reasonable, I can’t see any worth. Especially given its horrific legacy of terrorism.

        100 years in surely we should have grown up and moved on?

        • pointis January 4, 2016 at 9:31 am #

          Laudable sentiments indeed MT maybe you will let us all how democracy saves the day when your country is invaded and its people oppressed by a foreign power?

          It is easy to be a knocker why not give us your opinion of what should have occurred?

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 11:18 am #

            Eh? There was no invasion in 1916.

            What should have happened? Nothing. The Home Rule Act had been passed in accordance with the contemporary democratic wishes of the people.

          • pointis January 5, 2016 at 12:27 pm #

            MT,

            I ASKED YOU TO EXPLAIN HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS WHEN A COUNTRY IS INVADED I DIDN’T GIVE A DATE!

            The British were kicked out of every colony where they were unwelcome! Ireland was no different. At that stage in history violence was inevitable to get rid of the British it was just unfortunate that democracy was turned on its head to partition the country!

          • MT January 5, 2016 at 2:06 pm #

            I presume you are talking about Ireland, which was invaded in previous centuries before democracy, so the question doesn’t make sense.

            I’m afraid Ireland *was* very different to British colonies. For a start, it wasn’t a colony: it was part of the UK. It also had democratic elections, being part of a parliamentary democracy.

            Violence wasn’t inevitable.

          • jessica January 5, 2016 at 5:43 pm #

            “I’m afraid Ireland *was* very different to British colonies. For a start, it wasn’t a colony: it was part of the UK. It also had democratic elections, being part of a parliamentary democracy.
            Violence wasn’t inevitable.”

            Ireland was England’s first colony since the Norman invasion in 1169 with the king of England granting himself the Lordship of Ireland in 1177.
            Rebellion and violence have been constant and very inevitable features for every foreign ruler in Ireland ever since.
            The first union per se was in 1542 and was an attempt to prevent uprisings.
            By the 16th century, a more formal union led to not only democracy and elections but the plantation where land was seized and electoral boundaries were redrawn to give Protestants a majority even though 80% of the population were catholic.

            If you think Ireland had democracy and violence was avoidable, you are no more than a gullible ignoramus with seriously misguided loyalties to enlgand.

          • MT January 5, 2016 at 6:58 pm #

            Jessica, you do realise the Easter “rising” took place in 1916?

          • jessica January 5, 2016 at 7:32 pm #

            “Jessica, you do realise the Easter “rising” took place in 1916?”

            The proclamation of 1916 was based on the proclamation and rebellion of 1803, which was built on the numerous rebellions that preceded it.

            You need to understand MT, the desire for an end of British rule in Ireland is not limited to the past 100 years and not limited to 6 counties.

            It is a movement which unionism has not got a chance in hell of opposing and a determination that will break the will of England, through force of arms if necessary.

          • MT January 5, 2016 at 7:45 pm #

            Why do you keep referring to things from centuries earlier? The rebellion took place in 1916.

          • jessica January 5, 2016 at 8:00 pm #

            “Why do you keep referring to things from centuries earlier? The rebellion took place in 1916.”

            It wasn’t a spur of the moment thing MT

            Imagine Germany had won WW2 and occupied these islands. Under German rule, England might well be better off through German efficiencies and might even have fairer democracy than afforded by England in Ireland consider the 1918 elections for example. Would you support armed insurrection to remove German rule under such conditions MT?

          • MT January 5, 2016 at 10:20 pm #

            Not if the people had voted for continued German rule, no, of course not.

          • jessica January 6, 2016 at 9:01 am #

            “Not if the people had voted for continued German rule, no, of course not.”

            Good, now we are getting somewhere MT.

            So what if the vast majority of England had for decades voted democratically for a nationalist party making it quite clear that home rule not German rule was the clearly expressed wish of the vast majority but was continuously ignored to maintain an anti democratic supremacy for those in favour of German rule who were given a privileged existence in return for their support to the Kaiser?

            Imagine this then resulted in a rebellion declaring an independent republic of England rejecting the German Kaiser, and by force of arms declaring a new flag and new party to lead the republic of England which was then democratically supported by an overwhelming majority of the electorate but the Germans still stubbornly refused to accept the will of the English people and used threat of force to prevent any further uprisings.

            What then?

          • MT January 6, 2016 at 9:19 am #

            Eh? That didn’t happen in Ireland. The Home Rule Act had been passed.

          • jessica January 6, 2016 at 12:40 pm #

            “Eh? That didn’t happen in Ireland. The Home Rule Act had been passed.”

            Now read the post on this thread by Joe Nolan and once again imagine now, that the Kaiser was still refusing to accept the democratically expressed wishes of the majority and listening to the German supporters who wanted to maintain control in England under threat of violence.

            What do you think they should do?

            Would you partition the country and give the Germans a gerrymandered 70% majority to do as they please in the north of England or convince the German minority that democracy and the rule of law has to be maintained?

          • pointis January 5, 2016 at 5:59 pm #

            MT,

            I was not referring to Ireland in particular! Democracy only works in a free society, Ireland was not a free country in 1916!

            You are of course correct about the colony but only from your own “British perspective”.

            Ireland in 1916 was not a democracy as was so eloquently explained by Joe Nolan further down the thread.

            Violence was inevitable because there were still Irish men and women in 1916 who were never willing to collude in the British subjugation of their fellow countrymen and women.

          • MT January 5, 2016 at 7:12 pm #

            Democratic elections operated rather smoothly in Ireland on the same basis as elsewhere in the UK and in sharp.contrast to most other countries so your point doesn’t stand, I’m afraid.

          • Pointis January 6, 2016 at 11:46 pm #

            You are having a laugh, fair play to you! The British would not tolerate democracy in Ireland which is why more than half the electorate were not allowed to vote.

            As Jim Royle would say “democracy my arse”!

          • MT January 7, 2016 at 2:13 pm #

            Pointis

            “The British would not tolerate democracy in Ireland which is why more than half the electorate were not allowed to vote. ”

            You clearly don’t realise that the same franchise existed in Ireland as it did I’m Great Britain? By the standard of the day a very progressive one.

      • MT January 3, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

        I don’t think so. As a democrat, and one who is opposed to violence and death unless necessary and reasonable, I can’t see any worth. Especially given its horrific legacy of terrorism.

        100 years on surely we should have grown up and moved on?

        • Jude Collins January 3, 2016 at 6:52 pm #

          So you’d settle for a united Ireland ruled from Westminster?

          • MT January 3, 2016 at 7:11 pm #

            Not sure what point you’re trying to make, but if the people in the South wanted that then I’d be happy too.

        • Ryan January 3, 2016 at 7:01 pm #

          ” and one who is opposed to violence and death unless necessary and reasonable”

          when is violence/death necessary and reasonable in your opinion MT?

          “Especially given its horrific legacy of terrorism”

          Define terrorism MT?

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 11:43 am #

            When is violence/death reasonable and justified? When it meets just ear criteria: surely that is obvious.

            Define terrorism? Take your pick there are plenty of definitions out there. But I should imagine the kind of terrible acts committed subsequently by those Irish republicans inspired by 1916 would fall within most if not all.

          • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 12:23 pm #

            That’s (in your opinion,MT) an example, not a definition.

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 12:43 pm #

            As I said: take your pick of whatever definition you want. I’m not sure how it matters::the point was surely obvious.

          • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 12:45 pm #

            I’m sorry to say it, MT, but that’s a silly response. If I said “Terrorism is a form of rabbit-catching involving wild-cats’, would that fit? Obviously not. So since you’ve used the word, can you not then define it?

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 12:47 pm #

            I’m not aware of any definition of terrorism that involves rabbits.

            As I already said, the point is obvious. I’m referring to subsequent crimes of violence committed by republicans inspired by 1916. If you don’t regard those crimes as terrorism it doesn’t matter. The point remains regardless

          • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 1:53 pm #

            I’ll take that as a refusal then, Mt…

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 2:09 pm #

            If you wish, though I said I’m happy to use any (sensible) definition that’s out there. It’s an irrelevant point.

    • Joe Nolan January 3, 2016 at 2:32 pm #

      Most of the civilians killed were shot by Crown Forces. That is often conveniently overlooked.

      • Ryan January 3, 2016 at 7:08 pm #

        “Most of the civilians killed were shot by Crown Forces. That is often conveniently overlooked.”

        Oh Joe, that can be excused. They were Crown Forces, after all, they could do no wrong….all those innocent Irish civilians killed by Crown Forces and the many more killed and mistreated by the Black and Tans must’ve did something wrong, they didn’t get it for nothing!…..Much like all those Boer women and children, 10% of the total Boer population in South Africa at that time, that starved to death in British concentration camps, they must’ve did something wrong and deserved what they got!……

        • MT January 4, 2016 at 11:32 am #

          Nobody is seeking to justify any mistreatment, misbehaviour or crimes by “Crown forces” in Ireland or anywhere else. Straw man.

          • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 12:27 pm #

            I don’t think you’re right there, MT. Again and again I’ve heard, in so many words, that it was the IRA that did all the bad stuff.

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 1:55 pm #

            I don’t appear to be able to reply directly to your latest comment, Jude, but you seem to be suggesting that some of the commentstors are arguing that the IRA (which didn’t exist in 1916) did all the bad stuff.
            Perhaps you could point to these posts?

          • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 1:59 pm #

            Dunno why you can’t reply directly. Let me know if it continues to be a problem. Re bad IRA doing it: I was referring to the standard unionist politician’s perspective on the Troubles. I’ve rarely if ever heard a unionist politicians concede that the IRA of the Troubles came out of misrule and oppression. I wasn’t referring to 1916. You’re quite right – IRA didn’t feature in 1916.

      • MT January 3, 2016 at 7:12 pm #

        Nobody would have been killed if there had been no rebellion.

        • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 11:17 am #

          Nobody would have been killed if England/Britain had stayed at home…

          • neill January 4, 2016 at 11:34 am #

            Following your logic there wouldn’t have been any troubles or partition if the Ulster Scots had stayed in Scotland.

          • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 12:26 pm #

            Almost certainly right, neill. And if your mother had stayed at home to wash her hair the night she met your father, you wouldn’t be posting on this site today…

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 11:37 am #

            A schoolboy “argument”. Equally nobody would have been killed if the Gaels had “stayed at home” and Ireland had been an uninhabited island.

            But it wasn’t.

            The rightness or otherwise of Ireland’s acquisition by the English Crown is a debate in its own right the outcome of which either way doesn’t justify or otherwise subsequent events which should be judged in their own contexts.

          • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 12:26 pm #

            Sorry, MT. Enough with the name-calling. You make the point that nobody’d have been killed if there’d been no Easter Rising. That’s factually incorrect, as Perkin pointed out in a post a week or two back. In addition, you’ve said ‘X wouldn’t have happened if Y hadn’t preceded it’. I’m showing how that can be applied to any action or non-action.

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 2:07 pm #

            I’m not sure that describing an inane moment as “schoolboy” amounts to name-calling.

            You appear to have missed my point, so I shall have another go.

            I said that had there been no “Easter Rising” then nobody would have been killed in an Easter rising (by “Crown forces” or anyone else). That is *not* factually incorrect!

            The killings in the Easter Rising were a direct and inevitable consequence of the Easter rising taking place. They were not a direct or inevitable consequence of Ireland’s acquisition by the English Crown many centuries previously. Those who decided to stage a violent rebellion are directly responsible for that rebellion and those killed during it.

          • Ceannaire January 4, 2016 at 3:00 pm #

            “The rightness or otherwise of Ireland’s acquisition by the English Crown is a debate in its own right…”

            No it’s not – it’s directly linked to the violence, strife and division in Ireland. That is not to say that everything is Britain’s fault but it is entirely relevant here.

            Why should the other events be judged in their own contexts? Though, I have a feeling I know the answer.

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 6:04 pm #

            All events should be judged in their own contexts.

            The fact that Ireland had been invaded several centuries before 1916 doesn’t make the 1916 rebellion inevitable. The decision to stage a violent rebellion was made in a very different context to that of an invasion and those who made such a decision are responsible for it.

          • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 6:26 pm #

            It’s a point of view, MT. And a misguided one, in my estimation.

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 7:56 pm #

            It’s a misguided opinion that all events should be judged in their proper context?

            Goodness me. The lengths people go to try to justify the unjustifiable.

          • giordanobruno January 4, 2016 at 10:48 pm #

            MT
            I have tried to make a similar point many times here. Any killings must first and foremost be the responsibility of those doing the killing. Others may share the responsibility by their own actions or inactions, but the man or woman pulling the trigger must acknowledge their choice.
            Context may help to explain how events came about, but individuals must still take responsibility for their own actions

          • Jude Collins January 5, 2016 at 8:39 am #

            You’re right, gio – but if you talk to Bernadette McAliskey or the Finucane family, you’ll find they’re not interested in bringing to book those who pulled the trigger, they are more interested in the people behind the scenes. They see that as the deciding factor of lethal attacks.

        • Joe Nolan January 4, 2016 at 2:42 pm #

          “As…one who is opposed to violence and death unless necessary and reasonable”
          Your caveat says everything….you are not so peace-loving after all.
          “If there was no Rising, no one would have been killed.”
          Not so, 40,000 Irishmen were butchered in World War 1, but I suppose in your distorted view, these deaths were “necessary” and “reasonable”.
          “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” (Voltaire)
          Nor does your double-standard absolve Crown Forces from the atrocities committed by them at Batchelor’s Walk, North King Street or Portobello in 1916 where innocent civilians were shot dead.
          There are many forms of violence and it suits some such as yourself to overlook the all-pervasive forms of State violence. As Brendan Behan said, “the terrorist is the one with the small bomb”.
          I recommend that you read Donal Kennedy’s article on this site to educate yourself in respect to the “legacy of terrorism” and physical violence.
          Furthermore, you are incorrect in regard to Home Rule and the nature of “democracy” in Ireland in 1916.
          So-called Home Rule (the Government of Ireland Act 1914) was indeed “passed” by the British parliament however it was immediately suspended rendering its passing irrelevant. Furthermore it included clauses that imposed a de facto partition of Ireland by excluding all or part of the province of Ulster from the Act. This suspension was a result of the threat of violence from the Ulster Volunteers who illegally imported 25,000 rifles and 3-5 million rounds of ammunition from Germany in 1913 and the Curragh Mutiny of 1914.
          The 1918 Representation of the People Act tripled the electorate in Ireland from 700,000 to 2 million. Prior to that the right to vote was effectively related to property ownership thereby excluding the great mass of the people. In 1916 women did not have the right to vote. The revolutionary First Dáil of 1918 declared an independent Irish Republic in existence, whose sovereignty was based on the popular vote given to Sinn Fein the 1918 election. In effect, the first injection of democracy into Ireland supplemented the Easter Rising of 1916 and led directly to Irish independence (for the 26 Counties).
          I am sure all these events will strike a chord with you as a “democrat”.
          Differences in opinion are one thing; historical inaccuracy and rank hypocrisy are another.

          • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 5:47 pm #

            ““It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” (Voltaire) – Hadn’t come across that one, Joe. Grma…

        • jessica January 4, 2016 at 7:24 pm #

          “The killings in the Easter Rising were a direct and inevitable consequence of the Easter rising taking place. They were not a direct or inevitable consequence of Ireland’s acquisition by the English Crown many centuries previously. Those who decided to stage a violent rebellion are directly responsible for that rebellion and those killed during it.”

          Those involved in the Easter Rising knew very well they would not survive the aftermath and indeed the very success of the Rising was reliant on the “blood sacrifice” they expected to face from an enemy who acted in the same fashion so many times in the past.

          They may have underestimated the response in terms of civilian casualties which was the reason it was so short lived. The slaughter of those innocent men, women and children in the indiscriminate bombing of Dublin was to reduce British army casualties and has always been the inevitable consequence of British rule in Ireland. We do not have to look back 100 years for evidence of that.

          • MT January 4, 2016 at 11:01 pm #

            So you agree that the rebels knew that innocent civilians would be killed as a result of their actions.

          • jessica January 5, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

            “So you agree that the rebels knew that innocent civilians would be killed as a result of their actions.”

            If we stick to facts MT, the rebels knew they would be killed and in using the term blood sacrifice, they referred to their own lives and not that of civilians so I would have to say no.

            Civilians did die in the indiscriminate bombing to save British army lives, as I am sure you would agree this was because the British soldiers saw them as irrelevant losses.

          • MT January 5, 2016 at 5:34 pm #

            So you’re saying they thought that only they would be killed and that they would not kill anyone themselves?

            One wonders why they were armed.

            And you’re saying that only the ‘Crown forces” killed civilians?

          • jessica January 5, 2016 at 6:08 pm #

            “So you’re saying they thought that only they would be killed and that they would not kill anyone themselves?
            One wonders why they were armed.”

            The stupidity of this hardly deserves a response.

            They were armed to kill British soldiers and I believe they did so very well.
            Perhaps too well based on the artillery response which killed so many innocent civilians.

            Some things don’t change eh MT

            Hopefully the Iraq historical investigation team will have more success bringing the butchers apron to bear for the civilians it has murdered in more recent times

          • MT January 5, 2016 at 7:10 pm #

            So you admit that they went out with the intention of killing people. And you think that was OK?

          • jessica January 5, 2016 at 7:47 pm #

            “So you admit that they went out with the intention of killing people. And you think that was OK?”

            People were being killed MT, both in the years prior and for centuries before.
            What do you think the rebellion was about?

            Perhaps you should read a history book before asking any more stupid questions.

          • MT January 5, 2016 at 9:36 pm #

            People weren’t being killed. The rebels initiated the violence.

            But at least you’re honest enough to admit you think it was OK for them to kill and injure people. And so we see the mindset that has sustained the horrific violence since.

          • jessica January 6, 2016 at 12:35 am #

            “People weren’t being killed. The rebels initiated the violence.
            But at least you’re honest enough to admit you think it was OK for them to kill and injure people. And so we see the mindset that has sustained the horrific violence since.”

            Not sure if you are referring to my mind-set or the rebels of the rising, or just asking a load of stupid questions awaiting the opportunity to post that little ditty MT?

            Unfortunately conflict is always more complex than that.

            Would you accept that protestants had enjoyed privileged existence in Ireland and feared that home rule was going to end that supremacy to which they have always responded violently?

            By the time the Tories blocked Gladstones First Home Rule Bill in 1886, there were up to 50 people killed in riots in Belfast that started when a catholic worker was thrown in the lagan and drowned.

            Unionism always initiated violence in Ireland, and then after starting the trouble would tremble like the cowards they are when faced with the nationalist backlash which always sends them running to the English for help. All very easy to threaten violence if you don’t get your way, signing names in blood might impress the English parliament and the lily livered west brits running things on their behest but was probably more a homosexual fetish so common amongst the elite unionist leaders.

            Carson established the UVF in 1912 and was serious about civil war until the nationalists responded with the IVF and he shit his pants.
            WW1 gave him the opportunity to diffuse things persuading the UVF to join the British army as irregulars as the British army would have no longer been available to do their dirty work for them in Ireland. They must have crapped themselves realising they were going to face a real fight anyway.

            With home rule delayed again, many Irish volunteered to join the British army to fight with them to gain their favour for home rule, but I don’t believe England has a loyal bone in its body and cares nothing for Ireland. They would have been betrayed.

            I accept there are two trains of thought on this, but my own belief is the rebels were right to take action and when it fell apart, showed courage that no unionist in Ireland has ever shown in laying down their lives for their country in full knowledge they would be executed if not killed in the stand they took.

            The people they killed were British soldiers whom they fought honourably even taking an injured soldier to safety, unlike the brutal response from the artillery of the British army who took likes indiscriminately to save their worthless asses.

            Perhaps you will research it a little yourself MT and give me your own perspective on the events.

            There is no 1 right or wrong narrative, only facts and interpretations of which you now have mine.

          • MT January 6, 2016 at 8:50 am #

            Who gave the rebels the right or authority to kill and injure people?

            Nobody. They were no different in that respect to the Provisional IRA, the current dissidents or indeed loyalist gangs.

            Tring to argue that sectarian violence in Belfast thirty years previously (never mind invasions 750 years previous or proclamations 100 years previous!) justified killing and injuring people in 1916 is simply inane.

            As for the claim that the rebels killed only British soldiers (as if that were OK), it is simply a lie.

          • jessica January 6, 2016 at 9:36 am #

            “Who gave the rebels the right or authority to kill and injure people? ”

            I don’t believe in any authority to kill and injure people, only unionists believe there is an authority for such behaviour.

            The decision to take up arms is personal and when sufficient numbers choose such a terrible option, it is usually for a good reason rather than for selfish interest.
            When this results in conflict, then military involvement is inevitable and the results are catastrophic which is why such actions are not taken lightly and should never be at the behest of any individual authority who is unlikely to be among those who suffer as a consequence.

            “Tring to argue that sectarian violence in Belfast thirty years previously (never mind invasions 750 years previous or proclamations 100 years previous!) justified killing and injuring people in 1916 is simply inane. ”

            In the years and months prior to the rising, violence was described as spontaneous in nature with tensions so high expectations were that civil war was inevitable, had it not been for WW1 civil war would have ensued.

            The lie here is that Ireland was a peaceful democratic and willing member of the UK until a bunch of rebels rocked the boat. It was not and had sought independence for centuries prior and therefore the history of those years is very relevant.

            As for the rebels randomly killing innocent people, yes I do dispute that. They received support on the streets of Dublin which doesn’t tally with your claims

            The example I gave of rebels tending to the British soldier can be easily verified, they acted with honour and yes killing British soldiers during the conflict is of course acceptable, why wouldn’t it be? The fire power was greater on the British side so it is puerile point you are making.

          • MT January 6, 2016 at 6:55 pm #

            You appear to be somewhat naive.

            Disturbing that the logic of your views means that you think the violence of the loyalist and republican death squads was justified.

            Your views are dangerous.

          • Jude Collins January 6, 2016 at 10:37 pm #

            What are you saying – that Jessica should control her thoughts? Change them to be more in line with yours?

          • MT January 6, 2016 at 11:55 pm #

            No.

            She should consider the logic behind what she’s saying (e.g. that it’s OK for a group of people to kill without proper authority), apply it to other situations and consider whether or not she is comfortable with that. If she’s not, she should perhaps reassess hee views on 1916.

          • Jude Collins January 7, 2016 at 8:31 am #

            Have you ever thought of becoming a psychoanalyst, MT? Telling people how they should think. Thought policeman also comes to mind

          • jessica January 7, 2016 at 8:37 am #

            “She should consider the logic behind what she’s saying (e.g. that it’s OK for a group of people to kill without proper authority), apply it to other situations and consider whether or not she is comfortable with that. If she’s not, she should perhaps reassess hee views on 1916.”

            Who are you saying has the “proper” authority for killing to be “OK” MT?

          • MT January 7, 2016 at 9:54 am #

            In the case under discussion, only the people of Ireland can give authority to people to act on behalf of Ireland, whether that be killing or anything else.

          • jessica January 7, 2016 at 12:01 pm #

            “In the case under discussion, only the people of Ireland can give authority to people to act on behalf of Ireland, whether that be killing or anything else.”

            Sounds reasonable MT.

            How would that be implemented in reality do you think?

            Should there not then have been a referendum in britain before deciding to bomb syria, iraq or more importantly, have the people of england been offered a referendum on whether they want england to have any part in the division of Ireland?

            Perhaps they should be asked if they are ok for 10 billion of their hard earned taxes each year to be used in enforcing a sectarian statelet within Ireland?

            What do you think?

          • MT January 7, 2016 at 2:03 pm #

            In the case in question, by republicans standing for election and seeking a mandate. Surely that is obvious.

          • jessica January 7, 2016 at 2:51 pm #

            “In the case in question, by republicans standing for election and seeking a mandate. Surely that is obvious.”

            Republicans did do that right the way through both periods of the troubles?

            Since then, the IRA have stood down, the British army have ended its campaign in Ireland and Sinn Fein have committed to exclusively peaceful means having been provided a means of achieving independence through the GFA.

            What are you going to do when there is a 50% + 1 nationalist majority?

          • MT January 7, 2016 at 5:33 pm #

            Eh? The Easter “Rising” was in 1916. Over 50 years before the Troubles!

          • jessica January 7, 2016 at 6:02 pm #

            “Eh? The Easter “Rising” was in 1916. Over 50 years before the Troubles!”

            MT, there were two periods of conflict in the last century which are referred to as “the troubles”

            Jude, you should create a history section on your site containing links to the excellent posts on your site such as those by Ciaran on the rising and others providing an overview of Irish history for our ill educated unionist and brit propagandist friends.

            You could perhaps apply for a grant from the education minister as the degree of knowledge of their own countries history is pretty appalling. 🙂

          • MT January 7, 2016 at 6:27 pm #

            But you were referring to the second period which, as I said, was over 50 years after the Easter “Rising”.

          • jessica January 7, 2016 at 8:52 am #

            “She should consider the logic behind what she’s saying (e.g. that it’s OK for a group of people to kill without proper authority), apply it to other situations and consider whether or not she is comfortable with that. If she’s not, she should perhaps reassess hee views on 1916.”

            I will say it again though.

            Ireland has the legitimate right to take up arms against England and any state who by use of arms seeks to suppress the people of Irelands desire for a free and independent country of our own, like the people have done so many times in the past.

            To do so, must be a last resort as the consequences for the people are often severe and that is why the only authority can come from those communities which will be directly involved in supporting the combatants from within that community.

            Without their support, there is no authority can be given from any quarter.

            You might consider some pompous pricks in Westminster voting as “proper authority” to drop bombs killing thousands of civilians in Iraq or elsewhere the middle east, I do not.

          • MT January 6, 2016 at 11:57 pm #

            Incidentally I’m intrigued by the implication that controlling one’s own thoughts is undesirable!

          • Jude Collins January 7, 2016 at 8:30 am #

            No need to if you’ve got others who tell you how and what…

          • jessica January 6, 2016 at 10:48 pm #

            “Disturbing that the logic of your views means that you think the violence of the loyalist and republican death squads was justified.”

            To them they were MT.

            The loyalist death squads were trained, armed and instructed to kill innocent Catholics by the British state in their war against the IRA.

            Insult them if you like as many so called unionists here do, but they have been dumped on by the dirtiest and lowest of the low, the British state.

          • MT January 7, 2016 at 9:59 am #

            So as long as the individual killers believe they are justified, then Jessica also believes they are justified.

            Goodness me.

            By that logic you must consider the Paris ISIS attacks to be justified.

            Shocking.

          • jessica January 7, 2016 at 11:54 am #

            “By that logic you must consider the Paris ISIS attacks to be justified.
            Shocking.”

            Is that what your argument has been reduced to MT.
            That says it all.

          • MT January 7, 2016 at 2:10 pm #

            Jessica

            “… imagine now, that the Kaiser was still refusing to accept the democratically expressed wishes of the majority and listening to the German supporters who wanted to maintain control in England under threat of violence. What do you think they should do”?

            Again, that’s not what happened in Ireland. The home Rule Act had been passed.

            “Ireland has the legitimate right to take up arms against England.”

            Only when certain conditions apply and when the people of Ireland so decide.

            “To do so must be a last resort. ”

            I’m glad you agree and that you now accept that the Easter “rising” was unjustified.

            “Is that what your argument has been reduced to MT.”

            It’s not my argumsnf: it’s yours. You’re the one arguing that violence is OK so long as those carrying it out believe it to be justified. I’m arguing very strongly against that.

          • jessica January 7, 2016 at 4:42 pm #

            “Again, that’s not what happened in Ireland. The home Rule Act had been passed.”

            Yes it is MT, the home Rule Act may have been passed. but under the threat of unionist violence it was never implemented and the democratic wishes denied.

            4 counties had a unionist majority and the offer to have them excluded for a period of 6 years before coming in to the home rule bill which is what the home rule bill that was passed meant.

            i.e. Had the home rule bill been implemented, northern ireland would not exist.

            Britain continuously denied Ireland its democratic wishes.

            Unionism created the first paramilitary groupings. with the UVF having 2000 members in Dublin and 100,000 members by 1914.
            The were bringing in arms and talking about civil war.

            Not only was the Easter rising justified, but the PIRA defence of their communities was also justified.

            You really need to get your facts up to speed MT

          • MT January 7, 2016 at 5:49 pm #

            Eh? The implementation of the Home Rule Act was deferred until after the war. The war hadn’t ended in 1916.

          • jessica January 7, 2016 at 6:28 pm #

            “Eh? The implementation of the Home Rule Act was deferred until after the war. The war hadn’t ended in 1916.”

            Why was it deferred, what was the problem with its immediate implementation?

            Was it simply a coincidence the UVF were formed in the same year?

            What was the blood covenant about if all was hunky dory?

          • MT January 7, 2016 at 7:14 pm #

            It was deferred because of the war

          • jessica January 7, 2016 at 11:00 pm #

            “It was deferred because of the war”

            It was never implemented you tube.
            If it wasn’t for the war in Europe, there would have been a civil war in Ireland.

          • MT January 8, 2016 at 11:20 am #

            The position in 1916 was that the Act had been passed with commencement deferred until after the war.

          • jessica January 8, 2016 at 2:45 pm #

            “The position in 1916 was that the Act had been passed with commencement deferred until after the war.”

            So it wasn’t enacted in 1914 after all, now there’s a surprise?

            Keep reading MT, it is never too late for education.

          • MT January 8, 2016 at 7:21 pm #

            Eh? It was enacted in 1914. On 18 September.

          • pointis January 7, 2016 at 6:07 pm #

            Jude,

            I would nearly swear that ‘sweet William’ has had a miraculous transformation and come back to us!

          • giordanobruno January 8, 2016 at 8:36 pm #

            jessica (you tube)
            It seems to me (I might be wrong) that MT is applying just war theory as a way of examining the justification for violence.
            It is a fairly good way to test conflicts objectively.
            Do you agree or do you think there is a better way?
            What criteria would you suggest for determining in general the justification for taking up arms.
            Not specific conditions relating to Ireland but general criteria we might apply

          • Jude Collins January 9, 2016 at 10:37 am #

            gio – in the gentlest of tones – was that ‘you tube’ remark really necessary? I know you’re not the only one here who name-calls but I really think if we’re grown-up we shouldn’t do that. I suspect you see that as reasonable yourself, although you’ll probably accuse me of picking on you…Well maybe not. Anyway…

          • jessica January 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm #

            “MT is applying just war theory as a way of examining the justification for violence.”

            gio (you tube), no he isn’t.

            He is trying to say northern Ireland is a democratically elected state, that Ireland was fair and democratic in 1916 and violence could have been avoided had it not been for the rebellion.

            “What criteria would you suggest for determining in general the justification for taking up arms.”

            Say, a nationalist majority wanted a referendum on unification as outlined in the GFA, but even through there was a nationalist majority, it was denied.

            That would be 1 reason

            Say the referendum was in favour of unification and Britain reneged on their commitment

            That would be another reason.

            How does that sound?

            Was only joking about the tube thing, apologies also to MT if I insulted him.

            I keep forgetting gios sensitivities.

          • MT January 9, 2016 at 1:42 pm #

            No you’re wrong and gio’s right. I am using just war theory. I even referenced it.

            And you didn’t offer any general criteria as gio requested.

          • Jude Collins January 9, 2016 at 2:05 pm #

            Just war theory, MT, is about as convincing as claims that God’s on your side. Virtually any combatant is capable of trotting out all sorts of reasons why the killing they’re doing is noble and necessary. For example, I find it pretty ludicrous that our revisionist historians are smiting their breasts and rending their garments that Pearse and Co engaged in violence in 1916 and were responsible for the loss of so many lives, while at the same time holding solemn commemorations of the ‘sacrifice’ of those men who ‘gave their lives’ by the tens of thousands in various 1914-18 battles. They died needlessly in repeated acts of monstrous slaughter and they died while trying to kill people on the other side.

          • MT January 9, 2016 at 2:09 pm #

            Dear me. So Jude dismisses centuries of western ethics because he wants to support unethical killing in 1916.

            Remembering those who died in the First World War doesn’t mean one is saying the First World War was a just war.

          • giordanobruno January 9, 2016 at 10:56 am #

            Jude
            I made the “you tube” remark, which I would normally never do, to highlight jessica’s use of it earlier towards MT
            Probably you just didn’t notice it again!

          • Jude Collins January 9, 2016 at 11:10 am #

            Point taken, gio. I’ll try to locate MT use also.

          • MT January 9, 2016 at 12:13 pm #

            You won’t be able to locate MT use as I haven’t used it. Go was referring to Jessica using it.

          • jessica January 9, 2016 at 12:36 pm #

            Apologies to gio or MT if I upset them.

          • giordanobruno January 9, 2016 at 3:44 pm #

            Jude
            I agree that just war theory is not a perfect method of testing conflicts but it seems like a pretty good guideline to me. Included within it is the idea that even in a just war individual acts can be considered unjust and in my view the events of WW1 which you mention would fit that criteria.
            But if not just war theory then what objective criteria can you suggest for assessing any conflict?
            Because if it is all simply subjective then we are edging close to ‘might is right’.

          • Jude Collins January 9, 2016 at 5:23 pm #

            I think that pacifism has at least a thorough-going quality to it – no killing, full stop. How Christians have wangled out of that beats me – I suppose the just war concept is their escape route. Personally I’d use situation ethics to judge the rightness or wrongness of violent conflict: that is, concede that every situation is unique and needs to take in that uniqueness in judging it. In the end, people take sides (this site being a fine example) and there ain’t going to be any converts one way or the other, no matter how many just/unjust wars you parade.

          • MT January 9, 2016 at 6:33 pm #

            So explain how situation ethics justify an unrepresentative clique killing people in 1916 for an objective that was not supported by the people on whose behalf they purported to act.

            And do you believe that dissident republican violence is justified. If not why not?

          • Jude Collins January 9, 2016 at 9:18 pm #

            You’re frankly getting boring MT but I’ll give it a final go. ‘Ann unrepresentative clique’ – how do you know that and what’s the difference in a clique and a military grouping? ‘not supported by the people’ etc – how do you know that?Because there were people in Dublin who cat-called and spat at them after their arrest? What about the rest of the country, the thousands of men enlisted in the Irish volunteers? The Citizen Army? ‘Do I believe dissident republican violence is justified?’ I assume you’re referring to now. If by justified you mean is it effective, then clearly no. If by justified you mean morally wrong, is any taking of life morally right? I think it’s morally wrong but then I don’t set myself up to judge the morality of others, something which you’re pretty clearly into in a big way. They may believe they are part of a chain of resistance to British rule and that no other method will result in an independent Ireland. I disagree with that. Now please, MT – if you must ask more questions, ask somebody else, OK? They’ll probably find you quite interesting.

          • jessica January 9, 2016 at 10:55 pm #

            “So explain how situation ethics justify an unrepresentative clique killing people in 1916 for an objective that was not supported by the people on whose behalf they purported to act.”

            So the rebels who gave their lives for Irish freedom are reduced to “an unrepresentative clique killing people in 1916” to justify unionism which has done no wrong?

            Is that offer for civil war still on the table?

          • MT January 10, 2016 at 11:56 am #

            No they’re not reduced to anything: that’s just what they were.

            And I’m not sure what it’s got to do with unionism.

          • jessica January 9, 2016 at 7:00 pm #

            “I agree that just war theory is not a perfect method of testing conflicts but it seems like a pretty good guideline to me.”

            If I am being honest gio, I simply do not understand the terminology you are using or what point you and MT are making.

            My first realisation of the conflict was as a child when the estate where I was playing was suddenly surrounded by the army and police vehicles. The top street facing the estate was totally lined up with tanks and land rovers with two fields on each side between us. The place sent into panic mode. Cars were stopped, the drivers removed and the roads into the estate barricaded with the vehicles set alight.

            I was sitting on a wall watching it all unfold and must have been around 10. Youths were coming out of everywhere, getting petrol bombs and bricks ready for the inevitable rioting. Masked men came out with guns and took up positions at pathways between the houses on the edge of the estate and the firing began.

            Bullets were being fired back into the estate and often, not at the gunmen but towards the crowds of people who probably should not have been there but like myself were. I lived on the other side of the army and police lines so I just sat where I was watching.

            Rubber bullets were hitting off the wall of the house behind me and a masked man came over put down his rifle and lifted me off the wall. I cannot remember what he said exactly but something along the lines of its not a safe place to be. He then picked up his rifle and went back to his position.

            I don’t know how to or who exactly can justify conflict. I personally don’t think it can ever be justified in the manner you suggest.

            I can accept the reality that it happens but the blame has to be higher up the food chain than the people on the ground who experience it first hand.

          • giordanobruno January 9, 2016 at 10:23 pm #

            jessica
            ‘Just War Theory is a long established method of weighing up conflicts and attempting to determine if they are just or unjust.
            There are different versions including the Christian one
            Try looking it up…you tube maybe.(that’s a joke Jude!)
            If the criteria can be broadly agreed then at least it opens the way for discussing various conflicts without simply shouting “I’m RIGHT!!”. To which the reply is usually “No I’m RIGHT”!!!!”.
            However if there is a better way I would be interested to hear about it.

          • jessica January 10, 2016 at 10:08 am #

            “‘Just War Theory is a long established method of weighing up conflicts and attempting to determine if they are just or unjust.
            There are different versions including the Christian one
            Try looking it up…you tube maybe.(that’s a joke Jude!)”

            On that I will concede I am a tube gio, it just does not make sense to me.

            In my own opinion, justification of the conflict here for most people (on both sides I imagine) was people being killed, living in fear of armed attacks, living with sectarian division, every day being impacted by military presence and abuse of state control and policing.

            The RUC beat me with a gun, a British soldier split a friends head open across the road from a police station, we were both in school uniforms.

            As I keep saying to you Gio, not everything can be justified from reading about it in a book.

          • jessica January 10, 2016 at 10:29 am #

            “However if there is a better way I would be interested to hear about it.”

            Yes there is.
            For a conflict to be justified (if you insist conflict can be justified), there has to be sufficient support on both sides.
            In the case of nationalists, sufficient numbers of people were being directly oppressed, people killed, rights abused that right and wrong goes out the window and because the sheer volume of people impacted was so high, the communities in desperation demanded a defensive response which was supported when it achieved results.

            You can believe all you want that the IRA forced people to support them, but if it wasn’t for the mistrust of the state and unionism, that simply would not be possible.

            In fact, if it weren’t for the continued mistrust of the state and unionism the dissident groups would not be able to cling on to what little support they have.

            Perhaps rather than pointlessly in my opinion, looking at whether is was justified, look honestly and impartially at the causes and the facts about the events that led to conflict and that will usually spell it out.

          • MT January 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm #

            Ironically in attempting to offer an alternative to just war theory you have proposed “sufficient support” as a criterion, which relates to the “proper authority” criterion of just war theory.

            Even more ironically, the Easter “rising” didn’t have sufficient support so by your own reasoning it was unjustified.

          • MT January 10, 2016 at 11:58 am #

            Jessica’s ignorance of ethic has perhaps been significant in shaping her extreme views.

          • giordanobruno January 10, 2016 at 7:34 pm #

            jessica
            It doesn’t really matter if you are not familiar with it, the list of topics about which I am ignorant is long. Here is a link
            //www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm
            Your comment about sufficient support is similar to the criterion listed second which is that it should have proper authority which to me means a legitimate government or the greater part of society.
            Other criteria include
            probability of success’ ‘proportionality’ and ‘last resort’
            all of which in my view are hard to reconcile with the PIRA campaign and to a lesser extent the rising.
            As I say it is not a failproof way of assessing things but at least it helps
            (me anyhow) in trying to make sense of conflict.
            Maybe having looked at the criteria you can come with an alternative set.

          • jessica January 10, 2016 at 11:15 pm #

            “Your comment about sufficient support is similar to the criterion listed second which is that it should have proper authority which to me means a legitimate government or the greater part of society.
            Other criteria include
            probability of success’ ‘proportionality’ and ‘last resort’
            all of which in my view are hard to reconcile with the PIRA campaign and to a lesser extent the rising.”

            My advice gio, is not to try and make sense of it, lets focus on making sure it doesn’t happen again.

            Is there a saying, I googled it but couldn’t find it, but something like
            “if you didn’t live history you will never understand it”

            The same with conflict. It is 90% emotional, very little logic and mostly chaos, paranoia, fear and adrenaline.

            I see once again you refer to the PIRA campaign.

            If you are genuine, you will need to look at the events prior to their existence.

            The UVF had been encouraged to start a conflict against the IRA and began killing and bombing, protests involving the police who were also killing led to severe rioting and disorder in response which got too much for police to handle and the british army came over.

            In my opinion, it was the british army started the conflict in the falls curfew.

            Imagine 1000s of CS gas canisters being shot into your streets, smashing through your windows and choking your children who needed to go to hospital but were not allowed by soldiers. Women would be screaming for the men of the IRA to do something, calling them useless b’s for allowing their children to be harmed, unable to protect them, some army and so on, the PIRA who barely existed threw petrol bombs and 1000s of bullets are shot by the british army killing 10 people in the first battle with the OIRA whom they went after unaware of the split.

            The truth is, they didn’t sit in a council of war meeting and decide what to do, they reacted and once conflict starts and comrades are killed it quickly takes on a life of its own.

            My advice is still, don’t let it start.

    • Ryan January 3, 2016 at 3:51 pm #

      This current Irish Government are maybe the biggest bunch of West Brits the Irish people ever had the unfortunate stupidity ever to vote into Government. They would rather not celebrate the 1916 events if only they could get away with it. They even want to invite Prince Charles to the celebrations. I would understand such a gesture if Britain had already apologized for all its crimes here and they had stopped occupying the North Eastern part of our country but I suppose this is what happens when people with a slavish and inferiority complex mentality are in charge, something I sense from a lot of Unionists when it comes to people from, as they call it: “The Mainland”, especially London. Its pathetic to see some Unionists being on the verge of dropping to their knees and purring to the likes of a slick London Tory toff politician with a County Surrey accent, I was waiting for them to call out: “We’re not worthy!” or “Please accept us! we’re just like you!”.

      The Irish, the True Irish, on the other hand have dignity and self respect as even Winston Churchill remarked: “We have always found the Irish a bit odd, they refuse to be English”.

      Or as the great James Connolly said: “We serve neither King nor Kaiser but Ireland”

      Labour is in for a battering in the upcoming election but I’d rather it have been Fine Gael, who after 5 years of financially butchering the most vulnerable people in society are riding high in the polls. Its incredible. I suppose having the backing of nearly all the media does come in handy.

      Expect the newspapers/news channels to send out a flood of propaganda on how the Irish economy is recovering over the next few weeks and how Fine Gael/Lab are handing out sweeteners to people in order to buy votes. I just hope the Irish people aren’t as gullible as the British people were last year…..

  9. Perkin Warbeck January 3, 2016 at 5:05 pm #

    The past being a foreign country, Esteemed Blogmeister, it is fitting that the commemoration of the events of Easter 1916 are in the inescapable hands of The Department of Foreign Affairs.

    Of which it might be truly said that there is no country more foreign than that which lies overlooked and immediately outside the purlieus of the poison* Iveagh House. This is fundamentally on account of its gaze being firmly focused further afield than St. Stephen’s Green. And in an Oriental direction on the fundament of a particular monarch who boasts a remarkable reptilian-like indifference to the ravages of anno domini, bless ‘er..

    Not only will she (and SHE is a she) be up to 90 this year but that her fanny club in Foreign Affairs will be uniformly up to 90 too. (By way of a rider one would like add that SHE’s haggard consort is still four paces behind but four years ahead).

    So, in fairness, going both backwards and forwards, it is worth mentioning that the Departmental focus will be divided and so may well explain, and indeed, excuse some of the shortcomings already apparent in their long hatched plans for the Big Beast of an Easter Feast.

    One knows this from reading a bowel-moving commissioned piece by a former, erm, distinguished diplomat in The Unionist Times, name of Sean O Donnell. Whose diplomatic career reached the dizzying heights of (gulp) being a look out (third turret) in the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in Maryfield, Belfast, Foreign Land.

    One mentions T.U.T. because it is the extended arms wing of the D.F.A.

    Under the heading (gasp) ‘Gaelic Catholic Nationalism and Corporal Punishment in 1966’ .

    To say it ticks a number of t for toxic boxes is akin to saying that they grow a lot of t for tea in China. And what you get in the t for text is exactly what it says on the t for tin.
    A selected few leaves will suffice: ‘I attended Colaiste Mhuire in Parnell Square. I had enrolled there by choice at the age of 13 due to my love of Gaelic games, language and culture’.

    Eh? He had enrolled there by HIMSELF by choice. Just a lad of (gulp) 13 summers ? We’re talking serious Infant Phenomenon here, folks. Precisely the kind of Black and Tannon fodder the D.F.A. keeps a constant look out for.

    Alas, it didn’t take long for his love/ gra of the Gaelic thingy to be leathered first into, then out of him. Which brought him up to being just a lad of 14 summers.

    ‘However, the diet served up of Gaelic Catholic Nationalism, backed up by routine severe corporal punishment, acted as powerful aversion therapy’.

    (Pause here, to sob for the poor SOD).

    And here’s a most curious thing. All he had to do was draw on his bottomless well of precocity to escape this Konzentrationlager of Paddy Stinks and Mickey Mudds was one thing. To wit, to stroll around the corner to enroll in that blessed oasis of educational enlightenment, Belvedere College. (Motto:’ Belvo greases the old elbow’)

    Whose countless black and white ganseyed alumni include only one solitary black sheep amongst them. And who will remain nameless, except to say he was just a lamb of eighteen summers. (Lamb being a popular name among the egg-chasers who delight in, erm, pulling up trees).

    Sticking to the sphere of sport (remember this article was commissioned by the ‘Rite and Reason’ editor) SOD managed to throw another b-word on to the barbie. That would be as follows:

    ‘Another Brother, who was our class master, was a bad-tempered man, a product of the pre-ban GAA mentality’.

    Pre-ban.

    Eh? That would make, by Perkie’s inner abacus user, the presumably pro-ban brother in the thin white collar a predecessor of Edmund Ignatius Rice (EIR himself, after whom EIRE is named).

    Funny how the long defunct GAA ban keeps getting a not irregular airing from the Occidental Tourists in the D.F.A. Perhaps, they are above noting another ban, a contemporary ban, an ACTUAL anti-GAA ban.

    Consider the following wee stat from the broadcasting wing of the D.F.A. That would be RTE in general and its Sports Personality of the Year, erm, annual award in particular.
    Bearing in mind that Bogball / Gaelic football is the most attended sport (by an English mile) on the No-man of Ireland, it is instructive to note the number of Bogballers who have been presented with this lusted-after bauble, since its inception in the year of our Lordships, 19 hundred and 85.

    This is a 30 year timespan during which such sorcerers as Ciaran S. McDonald, Peter G. Canavan, Colm G. Cooper, M.M. Donnellan, O Se (x 3), Brogan (x2), D.D. Connolly, B.B. Coulter (no relation of Ireland’s appalling Call) and a host of other turf footers strutted their stuff.

    15? Nope.
    10 ? Try again.
    5 ? One more chance.
    1? One would be a gross exaggeration, loser.

    The answer in fact is Nemo who may well have played for Nemo Rangers. And whose foreshortened fin makes him almost impossible to find in Fine Gal y’are Land, ma’m.
    Expect Maxwell’s Silver Hammer to be the Team and Theme song of Easter 2016 :

    ‘Joan B. was quizzical, studied pataphysical
    Science in the home,
    Late nights all alone with a test tube, Oh, oh, oh, oh’.

    General Maxwell majored in medicine
    Calls her on the phone:
    ‘Can I take you boating, Joa, oa, oa, oan?’

    But as she hangs her leggings out to dry
    A knock came to the door, bye and bye.

    BANG ! BANG! Maxwell’s silver hammer
    Came down on her picket fence.
    BANG! BANG! Maxwell’s silver hammer
    Made sure she was past tense.

    Actually, not.

    Cancel the above, no photographs, puleazze. In fact, the signature tune of Easer 2015 as decreed by the East Coaster of West Britain will in fact be: Poison Iveagh*.

    Already there are rumours (unconfirmed) that stocks of poison iveagh (sic) are running low, as there has been a rush on same in the drugstores on the corner.

    • Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 5:57 pm #

      “Eh? He had enrolled there by HIMSELF by choice. Just a lad of (gulp) 13 summers ? We’re talking serious Infant Phenomenon here, folks. Precisely the kind of Black and Tannon fodder the D.F.A. keeps a constant look out for.” – Just one gem among many, Perkin Maestro. Btw – had you D Rock in mind with that last drugstore thingy??

  10. giordanobruno January 3, 2016 at 7:54 pm #

    Jude
    Let us hope we get none of that saccharine-sweet gruel from Sinn Fein eh?
    No doubt they will be sure to point out, as MT has, the unwilling sacrifice of so many civilians killed by British forces and by the rebellion forces.

  11. Mark January 4, 2016 at 12:38 pm #

    I could have sworn the men and women of 1916 fought for independence, song’s from Germany and some idiocy for fans of foreign sports belittles their sacrifices, then again, Heather Hum pries, a Fine Gael Deputy whose forebear’s played no role in obtaining partial freedom can hardly be expected to realise this, the Irish media though should.

  12. Jude Collins January 4, 2016 at 5:58 pm #

    Perkin – apologies. D Rock warbled of the Candy store on the corner – he wasn’t into drugs..I think.

  13. MT January 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm #

    Jude

    “‘Ann unrepresentative clique’ – how do you know that and what’s the difference in a clique and a military grouping?”

    How do I know they were unrepresentative? Because they didn’t represent anyone but themselves. The difference between a clique and a military grouping? In this case, nothing.

    ” ‘not supported by the people’ etc – how do you know that?Because there were people in Dublin who cat-called and spat at them after their arrest? What about the rest of the country, the thousands of men enlisted in the Irish volunteers? The Citizen Army?”

    How do I know they weren’t supportedby the people? Because the people supported peaceful home rule as evidenced by election results.

    Besides the onus is on those supporting the rebels to demonstrate that they had a mandate not.on those against to demonstrate that they didn’t.

    If the UDA started rebellion tomorrow, and they were accused of lacking a mandate, would you ask for proof and point to their thousands of members/supporters?

    “‘Do I believe dissident republican violence is justified?’ I assume you’re referring to now. If by justified you mean is it effective, then clearly no. If by justified you mean morally wrong, is any taking of life morally right? I think it’s morally wrong but then I don’t set myself up to judge the morality of others, something which you’re pretty clearly into in a big way.”

    So why do you think dissident violence is morally wrong but IRB violence was morally right?

    • jessica January 10, 2016 at 11:53 pm #

      “How do I know they weren’t supportedby the people? Because the people supported peaceful home rule as evidenced by election results. ”

      I thought Sinn Fein won the 1918 elections on an abstentionist basis to form the first Dail against home rule?

      “Besides the onus is on those supporting the rebels to demonstrate that they had a mandate not.on those against to demonstrate that they didn’t. ”

      MT, perhaps you could clarify what mandate did the UVF have when carson formed them to threaten civil war against home rule and later to threaten for partition.

      “If the UDA started rebellion tomorrow, and they were accused of lacking a mandate, would you ask for proof and point to their thousands of members/supporters? ”

      The UVF declared war on an inactive IRA in 1966 starting a killing and bombing offensive at the behest of Ian Paisley, what mandate did they have to do this MT?

      “So why do you think dissident violence is morally wrong but IRB violence was morally right?”

      I think all conflict is morally wrong, as was partition, as was allowing a sectarian state to develop, as is denying all wrongs committed during this period.

      There are lots of wrongs committed in conflict, when are we going to address the core issue, partition?

      • MT January 11, 2016 at 9:41 am #

        “I thought Sinn Fein won the 1918 election. …”

        The “rising” was in 1916.

        “perhaps you would clarify what mandate did the UVF have when Carson formed them. ..”

        The mandate of the unionist people.

        “The UVF declared war on an inactive IRA in 1966 and started a killing and bombing offensive … what mandate did they have to do this …?”

        None.

        “I think all conflict is morally wrong …”

        I’m glad you agree that the 1916 rebellion was morally wrong.