Former soldier convicted of manslaughter in NI troubles 1988
Originally Posted by NutLoose
Agreed
And as long as this goes on there will be "sourness" on both sides, it really does need to be put to bed once and for all for both sides of the troubles, so the Country and everyone can move on to a brighter future, dragging it up over and over again does no one in the whole period in our history any good.
And as long as this goes on there will be "sourness" on both sides, it really does need to be put to bed once and for all for both sides of the troubles, so the Country and everyone can move on to a brighter future, dragging it up over and over again does no one in the whole period in our history any good.
"but rather than castigating the soldier all these years later put yourself in his shoes, your 19, on your first tour in the province, you have been told that they are all terrorists or sympathisers and that you have protect your mates. Are you so sure you wouldn't have had your finger covering the trigger just that little bit too close."
It was a checkpoint , the deceased had gone through it properly . There was no indication he was a "terrorist" and he was shot in the back at point blank range. There is no way it can be excused I'm afraid
It was a checkpoint , the deceased had gone through it properly . There was no indication he was a "terrorist" and he was shot in the back at point blank range. There is no way it can be excused I'm afraid
I keep seeing references to pulling the trigger. Is this what is taught?
I have never fired a shot in anger, but fired a fair bit of 303 rifle and 22 rifle and a little pistol.
Currently all I have are air weapons, rifle and pistol, just as well as old age sets in!
If I had pulled the trigger I would have missed by a country mile, thats for sure.
Just asking.
I have never fired a shot in anger, but fired a fair bit of 303 rifle and 22 rifle and a little pistol.
Currently all I have are air weapons, rifle and pistol, just as well as old age sets in!
If I had pulled the trigger I would have missed by a country mile, thats for sure.
Just asking.
Originally Posted by langleybaston
I keep seeing references to pulling the trigger. Is this what is taught?
I have never fired a shot in anger, but fired a fair bit of 303 rifle and 22 rifle and a little pistol.
Currently all I have are air weapons, rifle and pistol, just as well as old age sets in!
If I had pulled the trigger I would have missed by a country mile, thats for sure.
Just asking.
I have never fired a shot in anger, but fired a fair bit of 303 rifle and 22 rifle and a little pistol.
Currently all I have are air weapons, rifle and pistol, just as well as old age sets in!
If I had pulled the trigger I would have missed by a country mile, thats for sure.
Just asking.
House of Commons, July 1989:
Mr. Canavan : What is the likely effect on the British-Irish talks and on Britain's reputation throughout the world when the British soldier who killed an innocent young man, Aidan McAnespie, is simply given a token fine and returned to normal duties, and when the British Government refuse reasonable demands from respectable organisations such as Amnesty International for a full judicial inquiry into that disputed killing and into the SAS killings of three unarmed people in Gibraltar?
Mr. [Tom] King : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman bothered to study the facts before seeking to make such outrageous allegations. He may not be aware that the matter was investigated, not only as the absolute requirement on which I insist and as the absolute practice, by the RUC in a full criminal investigation, but on this occasion by the deputy commissioner, now the commissioner, of the Garda on behalf of the Irish Government. On this exceptional occasion, they wished to investigate, too. As no evidence was forthcoming, on either side of the border, that the incident was anything other than an accident, I am appalled that the hon. Gentleman chooses to raise the matter in this way.
Mr. [Tom] King : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman bothered to study the facts before seeking to make such outrageous allegations. He may not be aware that the matter was investigated, not only as the absolute requirement on which I insist and as the absolute practice, by the RUC in a full criminal investigation, but on this occasion by the deputy commissioner, now the commissioner, of the Garda on behalf of the Irish Government. On this exceptional occasion, they wished to investigate, too. As no evidence was forthcoming, on either side of the border, that the incident was anything other than an accident, I am appalled that the hon. Gentleman chooses to raise the matter in this way.
Originally Posted by Asturias56
... he was shot in the back at point blank range. There is no way it can be excused I'm afraid
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Beloved Province
Age: 61
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Now, I normally stand back and chuckle at the ‘experts’ on PPRuNe when it’s obvious they don’t really understand the situation/. And I’m constantly amazed how normally rational, knowledgeable, and erudite individuals regurgitate the same hoary old nonsense about a subject they know little, or nothing about viz Northern Ireland! But in this case I couldn't really ignore the crass generalisations. So…
Firstly, contrary to what ‘melmothtw’ asserts Ireland was no more a sovereign country to be invaded as was England when the Danes’, Viking, Saxons’ and Norman invasions took place from the 8th Century onwards. Ireland was an island composed of a large number of warring clans, septs, tribes and ‘minor Kings’, and immigration both ways across the North Channel and the Irish Sea had been going on for generations. For evidence of both of these facts then please see the ‘Táin Bó Cúailnge’ aka ‘The Cattle Raid of Cooley’. In fact, before the ‘arrival’ of the ‘English’ in 1155 there had already been Viking, Danish, and Norman incursions into Ireland.
It was only in 1155 that Pope Adrian IV issued the papal bull ‘Laudabiliter’, commissioning King Henry II to intervene in Ireland to assist in the reform of the Irish Church, and the Irish system of governance according to the Roman (Latin Rite) ecclesiastical system. So ironically, ‘England’s’ (sic) engagement in Ireland was at the behest of a Pope – somewhat ironic, don’t you think?
Secondly, was Northern Ireland, in the words (again) of ‘melmothtw’ ‘…calved off and annexed’? No, it was ultimately formed as a result of the 1918 General Election where, in what became the Republic of Ireland there were massive Sinn Fein returns viz they won 73 out the 105 seats contested. But in the old Province of Ulster (the nine counties) Unionists won 23 of the 38 seats contested, and within the area that eventually formed the six counties of the new Northern Ireland, Unionists won 23 out of the 30 seats contested. It’s called democracy!
However, this obvious, ahem, shall we say, difference of opinion led to the introduction of ‘The Government of Ireland Act 1920’ aka The Fourth Home Rule Bill. The Act was intended to partition Ireland into two self-governing polities: the six north-eastern counties were to form ‘Northern Ireland’, while the remainder of the country was to form ‘Southern Ireland’. Both territories were to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for the future reunification of the island through a Council of Ireland; but the island would remain part of the UK with a Dublin Parliament - in effect a sort of pre-1800 Act of Union model. The Act was passed by the British Parliament in November 1920, received Royal Assent in December 1920, and came into force on 3 May 1921.
As a result of a stalemate in the Irish War of Independence (1919 – 1921) between the (old) IRA, and the British Forces, ‘peace talks’ were held between Sinn Fein and the British Government leading to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921. This provided for the establishment of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) as a self-governing Dominion within the ‘community of nations known as the British Empire’; in effect a status ‘the same as that of the Dominion of Canada’. However, following a referendum in the 26 counties of The Irish Free State in 1937, a new constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann) was adopted, that eventually led to the formation of the Republic of Ireland in 1949, when Commonwealth membership was terminated. Consequently, the hoped for re-unification of the island within the Commonwealth would never happen
So, Northern Ireland, far from being ‘calved off and annexed…’ actually remained a part of the United Kingdom, whilst the Republic of Ireland seceded from the same Union!
Now as for the assertion from ‘Una Due Tfc’ that, ‘bare (sic) in mind Catholics were not allowed to vote…’, and ‘Nutloose’s’ statement ‘Allowing them the vote would have been a start.’ What a load of old tosh! Catholics always had the right to vote in Northern Ireland. Some Catholics in the Kingdom of Ireland gained the right to vote with the partial relaxation of the Penal Laws in the 1790s, and all restrictions on Catholics voting in the United Kingdom were removed in 1829. This carried over into Northern Ireland in 1922 for General Elections, and thus, as a matter of law, there was no distinction between Catholic and Protestant voters.
Where the difference came was that the Parliament of Northern Ireland (Stormont) did not follow Westminster in changes to the Parliamentary franchise from 1945 - one man, one vote (or, if we’re being all 2020s ‘one person, one vote’). And up until 1969, plural voting was still allowed for local government elections in Great Britain and Northern Ireland - strangely, no taking to the streets and the murder of your neighbours in GB! - but in addition, also it also applied to for Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland.
This meant that that, as in Great Britain, all people over the age of 21, could vote in Parliamentary elections, however, unlike the situation in Great Britain, non-ratepayers did not have a vote in local government elections, and certain individuals such as Company Directors, could warrant an extra vote depending on the size of their company.And this is why the NI Civil Rights Movement had a genuine grievance.
However, the lack of local Government votes for non-ratepayers was not deliberately aimed at Roman Catholics, it affected many Protestants as well – my father included. However, what did not help Roman Catholics was the gerrymandering of Local Government electoral boundaries, nor discrimination in the allocation of houses to Catholic families. Nevertheless, as a friend of mine said - 'Protestants may have got their slum quicker...but it was still a slum'. As a personal example, my 86 year old Grandmother had an outside toilet at her house until she died in the mid-1980s, and my uncle, aunt and six cousins lived beside my Granny in a three-bedroomed 'cellar; house, also with an outside loo!
In summary, can what happened in Northern Ireland from 1921 to the imposition of direct rule following the prorogation of Stormont in 1972 ever be excused? Never!
However, are there explanations why this discrimination took place – well, yes, possibly, and thankfully they are of a different time. When the state of Northern Ireland came into being in May 1921 one third of places in the Judiciary, the Civil Service and the Police were set aside specifically for Roman Catholics. However, Catholic churchmen such as Cardinal Joseph McCrory preached that Catholics should have nothing to do with the new structures or the new country. Furthermore, in 1931 he stated that ‘the Protestant Church in Ireland – and the same is true of the Protestant Church anywhere – is not only not the rightful representative of the early Irish Church, but it is not even a part of the Church of Christ. That is my proposition’. Consequently, for the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland a Trojan Horse was apparently amongst them, and the days of 1641, 1688, 1798, and 1916 would be played out all over again. And from 1969 onwards they could have been said to be correct!
However, to end on a positive note I would like to echo the words of ‘Hovis’ – and not only did I live through the daily news reports…I lived through the actualities on the streets - ‘I prefer the NI of today. It isn't perfect but it's light years away from the mess that was the 1970/80s.’ Spot on!!!
Firstly, contrary to what ‘melmothtw’ asserts Ireland was no more a sovereign country to be invaded as was England when the Danes’, Viking, Saxons’ and Norman invasions took place from the 8th Century onwards. Ireland was an island composed of a large number of warring clans, septs, tribes and ‘minor Kings’, and immigration both ways across the North Channel and the Irish Sea had been going on for generations. For evidence of both of these facts then please see the ‘Táin Bó Cúailnge’ aka ‘The Cattle Raid of Cooley’. In fact, before the ‘arrival’ of the ‘English’ in 1155 there had already been Viking, Danish, and Norman incursions into Ireland.
It was only in 1155 that Pope Adrian IV issued the papal bull ‘Laudabiliter’, commissioning King Henry II to intervene in Ireland to assist in the reform of the Irish Church, and the Irish system of governance according to the Roman (Latin Rite) ecclesiastical system. So ironically, ‘England’s’ (sic) engagement in Ireland was at the behest of a Pope – somewhat ironic, don’t you think?
Secondly, was Northern Ireland, in the words (again) of ‘melmothtw’ ‘…calved off and annexed’? No, it was ultimately formed as a result of the 1918 General Election where, in what became the Republic of Ireland there were massive Sinn Fein returns viz they won 73 out the 105 seats contested. But in the old Province of Ulster (the nine counties) Unionists won 23 of the 38 seats contested, and within the area that eventually formed the six counties of the new Northern Ireland, Unionists won 23 out of the 30 seats contested. It’s called democracy!
However, this obvious, ahem, shall we say, difference of opinion led to the introduction of ‘The Government of Ireland Act 1920’ aka The Fourth Home Rule Bill. The Act was intended to partition Ireland into two self-governing polities: the six north-eastern counties were to form ‘Northern Ireland’, while the remainder of the country was to form ‘Southern Ireland’. Both territories were to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for the future reunification of the island through a Council of Ireland; but the island would remain part of the UK with a Dublin Parliament - in effect a sort of pre-1800 Act of Union model. The Act was passed by the British Parliament in November 1920, received Royal Assent in December 1920, and came into force on 3 May 1921.
As a result of a stalemate in the Irish War of Independence (1919 – 1921) between the (old) IRA, and the British Forces, ‘peace talks’ were held between Sinn Fein and the British Government leading to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921. This provided for the establishment of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) as a self-governing Dominion within the ‘community of nations known as the British Empire’; in effect a status ‘the same as that of the Dominion of Canada’. However, following a referendum in the 26 counties of The Irish Free State in 1937, a new constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann) was adopted, that eventually led to the formation of the Republic of Ireland in 1949, when Commonwealth membership was terminated. Consequently, the hoped for re-unification of the island within the Commonwealth would never happen
So, Northern Ireland, far from being ‘calved off and annexed…’ actually remained a part of the United Kingdom, whilst the Republic of Ireland seceded from the same Union!
Now as for the assertion from ‘Una Due Tfc’ that, ‘bare (sic) in mind Catholics were not allowed to vote…’, and ‘Nutloose’s’ statement ‘Allowing them the vote would have been a start.’ What a load of old tosh! Catholics always had the right to vote in Northern Ireland. Some Catholics in the Kingdom of Ireland gained the right to vote with the partial relaxation of the Penal Laws in the 1790s, and all restrictions on Catholics voting in the United Kingdom were removed in 1829. This carried over into Northern Ireland in 1922 for General Elections, and thus, as a matter of law, there was no distinction between Catholic and Protestant voters.
Where the difference came was that the Parliament of Northern Ireland (Stormont) did not follow Westminster in changes to the Parliamentary franchise from 1945 - one man, one vote (or, if we’re being all 2020s ‘one person, one vote’). And up until 1969, plural voting was still allowed for local government elections in Great Britain and Northern Ireland - strangely, no taking to the streets and the murder of your neighbours in GB! - but in addition, also it also applied to for Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland.
This meant that that, as in Great Britain, all people over the age of 21, could vote in Parliamentary elections, however, unlike the situation in Great Britain, non-ratepayers did not have a vote in local government elections, and certain individuals such as Company Directors, could warrant an extra vote depending on the size of their company.And this is why the NI Civil Rights Movement had a genuine grievance.
However, the lack of local Government votes for non-ratepayers was not deliberately aimed at Roman Catholics, it affected many Protestants as well – my father included. However, what did not help Roman Catholics was the gerrymandering of Local Government electoral boundaries, nor discrimination in the allocation of houses to Catholic families. Nevertheless, as a friend of mine said - 'Protestants may have got their slum quicker...but it was still a slum'. As a personal example, my 86 year old Grandmother had an outside toilet at her house until she died in the mid-1980s, and my uncle, aunt and six cousins lived beside my Granny in a three-bedroomed 'cellar; house, also with an outside loo!
In summary, can what happened in Northern Ireland from 1921 to the imposition of direct rule following the prorogation of Stormont in 1972 ever be excused? Never!
However, are there explanations why this discrimination took place – well, yes, possibly, and thankfully they are of a different time. When the state of Northern Ireland came into being in May 1921 one third of places in the Judiciary, the Civil Service and the Police were set aside specifically for Roman Catholics. However, Catholic churchmen such as Cardinal Joseph McCrory preached that Catholics should have nothing to do with the new structures or the new country. Furthermore, in 1931 he stated that ‘the Protestant Church in Ireland – and the same is true of the Protestant Church anywhere – is not only not the rightful representative of the early Irish Church, but it is not even a part of the Church of Christ. That is my proposition’. Consequently, for the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland a Trojan Horse was apparently amongst them, and the days of 1641, 1688, 1798, and 1916 would be played out all over again. And from 1969 onwards they could have been said to be correct!
However, to end on a positive note I would like to echo the words of ‘Hovis’ – and not only did I live through the daily news reports…I lived through the actualities on the streets - ‘I prefer the NI of today. It isn't perfect but it's light years away from the mess that was the 1970/80s.’ Spot on!!!
Originally Posted by OJ 72
Now, I normally stand back and chuckle at the ‘experts’ on PPRuNe when it’s obvious they don’t really understand the situation/. And I’m constantly amazed how normally rational, knowledgeable, and erudite individuals regurgitate the same hoary old nonsense about a subject they know little, or nothing about viz Northern Ireland! But in this case I couldn't really ignore the crass generalisations. So…
Firstly, contrary to what ‘melmothtw’ asserts Ireland was no more a sovereign country to be invaded as was England when the Danes’, Viking, Saxons’ and Norman invasions took place from the 8th Century onwards. Ireland was an island composed of a large number of warring clans, septs, tribes and ‘minor Kings’, and immigration both ways across the North Channel and the Irish Sea had been going on for generations. For evidence of both of these facts then please see the ‘Táin Bó Cúailnge’ aka ‘The Cattle Raid of Cooley’. In fact, before the ‘arrival’ of the ‘English’ in 1155 there had already been Viking, Danish, and Norman incursions into Ireland.
It was only in 1155 that Pope Adrian IV issued the papal bull ‘Laudabiliter’, commissioning King Henry II to intervene in Ireland to assist in the reform of the Irish Church, and the Irish system of governance according to the Roman (Latin Rite) ecclesiastical system. So ironically, ‘England’s’ (sic) engagement in Ireland was at the behest of a Pope – somewhat ironic, don’t you think?
Secondly, was Northern Ireland, in the words (again) of ‘melmothtw’ ‘…calved off and annexed’? No, it was ultimately formed as a result of the 1918 General Election where, in what became the Republic of Ireland there were massive Sinn Fein returns viz they won 73 out the 105 seats contested. But in the old Province of Ulster (the nine counties) Unionists won 23 of the 38 seats contested, and within the area that eventually formed the six counties of the new Northern Ireland, Unionists won 23 out of the 30 seats contested. It’s called democracy!
However, this obvious, ahem, shall we say, difference of opinion led to the introduction of ‘The Government of Ireland Act 1920’ aka The Fourth Home Rule Bill. The Act was intended to partition Ireland into two self-governing polities: the six north-eastern counties were to form ‘Northern Ireland’, while the remainder of the country was to form ‘Southern Ireland’. Both territories were to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for the future reunification of the island through a Council of Ireland; but the island would remain part of the UK with a Dublin Parliament - in effect a sort of pre-1800 Act of Union model. The Act was passed by the British Parliament in November 1920, received Royal Assent in December 1920, and came into force on 3 May 1921.
As a result of a stalemate in the Irish War of Independence (1919 – 1921) between the (old) IRA, and the British Forces, ‘peace talks’ were held between Sinn Fein and the British Government leading to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921. This provided for the establishment of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) as a self-governing Dominion within the ‘community of nations known as the British Empire’; in effect a status ‘the same as that of the Dominion of Canada’. However, following a referendum in the 26 counties of The Irish Free State in 1937, a new constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann) was adopted, that eventually led to the formation of the Republic of Ireland in 1949, when Commonwealth membership was terminated. Consequently, the hoped for re-unification of the island within the Commonwealth would never happen
So, Northern Ireland, far from being ‘calved off and annexed…’ actually remained a part of the United Kingdom, whilst the Republic of Ireland seceded from the same Union!
Now as for the assertion from ‘Una Due Tfc’ that, ‘bare (sic) in mind Catholics were not allowed to vote…’, and ‘Nutloose’s’ statement ‘Allowing them the vote would have been a start.’ What a load of old tosh! Catholics always had the right to vote in Northern Ireland. Some Catholics in the Kingdom of Ireland gained the right to vote with the partial relaxation of the Penal Laws in the 1790s, and all restrictions on Catholics voting in the United Kingdom were removed in 1829. This carried over into Northern Ireland in 1922 for General Elections, and thus, as a matter of law, there was no distinction between Catholic and Protestant voters.
Where the difference came was that the Parliament of Northern Ireland (Stormont) did not follow Westminster in changes to the Parliamentary franchise from 1945 - one man, one vote (or, if we’re being all 2020s ‘one person, one vote’). And up until 1969, plural voting was still allowed for local government elections in Great Britain and Northern Ireland - strangely, no taking to the streets and the murder of your neighbours in GB! - but in addition, also it also applied to for Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland.
This meant that that, as in Great Britain, all people over the age of 21, could vote in Parliamentary elections, however, unlike the situation in Great Britain, non-ratepayers did not have a vote in local government elections, and certain individuals such as Company Directors, could warrant an extra vote depending on the size of their company.And this is why the NI Civil Rights Movement had a genuine grievance.
However, the lack of local Government votes for non-ratepayers was not deliberately aimed at Roman Catholics, it affected many Protestants as well – my father included. However, what did not help Roman Catholics was the gerrymandering of Local Government electoral boundaries, nor discrimination in the allocation of houses to Catholic families. Nevertheless, as a friend of mine said - 'Protestants may have got their slum quicker...but it was still a slum'. As a personal example, my 86 year old Grandmother had an outside toilet at her house until she died in the mid-1980s, and my uncle, aunt and six cousins lived beside my Granny in a three-bedroomed 'cellar; house, also with an outside loo!
In summary, can what happened in Northern Ireland from 1921 to the imposition of direct rule following the prorogation of Stormont in 1972 ever be excused? Never!
However, are there explanations why this discrimination took place – well, yes, possibly, and thankfully they are of a different time. When the state of Northern Ireland came into being in May 1921 one third of places in the Judiciary, the Civil Service and the Police were set aside specifically for Roman Catholics. However, Catholic churchmen such as Cardinal Joseph McCrory preached that Catholics should have nothing to do with the new structures or the new country. Furthermore, in 1931 he stated that ‘the Protestant Church in Ireland – and the same is true of the Protestant Church anywhere – is not only not the rightful representative of the early Irish Church, but it is not even a part of the Church of Christ. That is my proposition’. Consequently, for the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland a Trojan Horse was apparently amongst them, and the days of 1641, 1688, 1798, and 1916 would be played out all over again. And from 1969 onwards they could have been said to be correct!
However, to end on a positive note I would like to echo the words of ‘Hovis’ – and not only did I live through the daily news reports…I lived through the actualities on the streets - ‘I prefer the NI of today. It isn't perfect but it's light years away from the mess that was the 1970/80s.’ Spot on!!!
Firstly, contrary to what ‘melmothtw’ asserts Ireland was no more a sovereign country to be invaded as was England when the Danes’, Viking, Saxons’ and Norman invasions took place from the 8th Century onwards. Ireland was an island composed of a large number of warring clans, septs, tribes and ‘minor Kings’, and immigration both ways across the North Channel and the Irish Sea had been going on for generations. For evidence of both of these facts then please see the ‘Táin Bó Cúailnge’ aka ‘The Cattle Raid of Cooley’. In fact, before the ‘arrival’ of the ‘English’ in 1155 there had already been Viking, Danish, and Norman incursions into Ireland.
It was only in 1155 that Pope Adrian IV issued the papal bull ‘Laudabiliter’, commissioning King Henry II to intervene in Ireland to assist in the reform of the Irish Church, and the Irish system of governance according to the Roman (Latin Rite) ecclesiastical system. So ironically, ‘England’s’ (sic) engagement in Ireland was at the behest of a Pope – somewhat ironic, don’t you think?
Secondly, was Northern Ireland, in the words (again) of ‘melmothtw’ ‘…calved off and annexed’? No, it was ultimately formed as a result of the 1918 General Election where, in what became the Republic of Ireland there were massive Sinn Fein returns viz they won 73 out the 105 seats contested. But in the old Province of Ulster (the nine counties) Unionists won 23 of the 38 seats contested, and within the area that eventually formed the six counties of the new Northern Ireland, Unionists won 23 out of the 30 seats contested. It’s called democracy!
However, this obvious, ahem, shall we say, difference of opinion led to the introduction of ‘The Government of Ireland Act 1920’ aka The Fourth Home Rule Bill. The Act was intended to partition Ireland into two self-governing polities: the six north-eastern counties were to form ‘Northern Ireland’, while the remainder of the country was to form ‘Southern Ireland’. Both territories were to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for the future reunification of the island through a Council of Ireland; but the island would remain part of the UK with a Dublin Parliament - in effect a sort of pre-1800 Act of Union model. The Act was passed by the British Parliament in November 1920, received Royal Assent in December 1920, and came into force on 3 May 1921.
As a result of a stalemate in the Irish War of Independence (1919 – 1921) between the (old) IRA, and the British Forces, ‘peace talks’ were held between Sinn Fein and the British Government leading to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921. This provided for the establishment of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) as a self-governing Dominion within the ‘community of nations known as the British Empire’; in effect a status ‘the same as that of the Dominion of Canada’. However, following a referendum in the 26 counties of The Irish Free State in 1937, a new constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann) was adopted, that eventually led to the formation of the Republic of Ireland in 1949, when Commonwealth membership was terminated. Consequently, the hoped for re-unification of the island within the Commonwealth would never happen
So, Northern Ireland, far from being ‘calved off and annexed…’ actually remained a part of the United Kingdom, whilst the Republic of Ireland seceded from the same Union!
Now as for the assertion from ‘Una Due Tfc’ that, ‘bare (sic) in mind Catholics were not allowed to vote…’, and ‘Nutloose’s’ statement ‘Allowing them the vote would have been a start.’ What a load of old tosh! Catholics always had the right to vote in Northern Ireland. Some Catholics in the Kingdom of Ireland gained the right to vote with the partial relaxation of the Penal Laws in the 1790s, and all restrictions on Catholics voting in the United Kingdom were removed in 1829. This carried over into Northern Ireland in 1922 for General Elections, and thus, as a matter of law, there was no distinction between Catholic and Protestant voters.
Where the difference came was that the Parliament of Northern Ireland (Stormont) did not follow Westminster in changes to the Parliamentary franchise from 1945 - one man, one vote (or, if we’re being all 2020s ‘one person, one vote’). And up until 1969, plural voting was still allowed for local government elections in Great Britain and Northern Ireland - strangely, no taking to the streets and the murder of your neighbours in GB! - but in addition, also it also applied to for Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland.
This meant that that, as in Great Britain, all people over the age of 21, could vote in Parliamentary elections, however, unlike the situation in Great Britain, non-ratepayers did not have a vote in local government elections, and certain individuals such as Company Directors, could warrant an extra vote depending on the size of their company.And this is why the NI Civil Rights Movement had a genuine grievance.
However, the lack of local Government votes for non-ratepayers was not deliberately aimed at Roman Catholics, it affected many Protestants as well – my father included. However, what did not help Roman Catholics was the gerrymandering of Local Government electoral boundaries, nor discrimination in the allocation of houses to Catholic families. Nevertheless, as a friend of mine said - 'Protestants may have got their slum quicker...but it was still a slum'. As a personal example, my 86 year old Grandmother had an outside toilet at her house until she died in the mid-1980s, and my uncle, aunt and six cousins lived beside my Granny in a three-bedroomed 'cellar; house, also with an outside loo!
In summary, can what happened in Northern Ireland from 1921 to the imposition of direct rule following the prorogation of Stormont in 1972 ever be excused? Never!
However, are there explanations why this discrimination took place – well, yes, possibly, and thankfully they are of a different time. When the state of Northern Ireland came into being in May 1921 one third of places in the Judiciary, the Civil Service and the Police were set aside specifically for Roman Catholics. However, Catholic churchmen such as Cardinal Joseph McCrory preached that Catholics should have nothing to do with the new structures or the new country. Furthermore, in 1931 he stated that ‘the Protestant Church in Ireland – and the same is true of the Protestant Church anywhere – is not only not the rightful representative of the early Irish Church, but it is not even a part of the Church of Christ. That is my proposition’. Consequently, for the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland a Trojan Horse was apparently amongst them, and the days of 1641, 1688, 1798, and 1916 would be played out all over again. And from 1969 onwards they could have been said to be correct!
However, to end on a positive note I would like to echo the words of ‘Hovis’ – and not only did I live through the daily news reports…I lived through the actualities on the streets - ‘I prefer the NI of today. It isn't perfect but it's light years away from the mess that was the 1970/80s.’ Spot on!!!
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Beloved Province
Age: 61
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep, that’s right! Google search got me my MLitt in Irish Politics!
By the by, I wonder who it was started the thread drift with totally unfounded allegations in the first place?!? Like I say, I’m normally happy to sit on my hands, except when total nonsense is being purported as fact!!!
By the by, I wonder who it was started the thread drift with totally unfounded allegations in the first place?!? Like I say, I’m normally happy to sit on my hands, except when total nonsense is being purported as fact!!!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Space
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seroiusly you lot?
If this had been a 19 year old, scared and unsupported pilot dropped into a no win scenario and caused a death/deaths would this much judgment be unleashed either for or against?
It's terrible that a poor kid killed another poor kid in circumstances nobody would have chosen, but the difference between a learning system and the blame/politics system is so stark. A more enlightened approach could have saved so many scenarios that followed and arguably 20 plus years of war. If you can't see that, you should be on the Daily Mail website instead.
Just my humble view but you know I'm right.
P
If this had been a 19 year old, scared and unsupported pilot dropped into a no win scenario and caused a death/deaths would this much judgment be unleashed either for or against?
It's terrible that a poor kid killed another poor kid in circumstances nobody would have chosen, but the difference between a learning system and the blame/politics system is so stark. A more enlightened approach could have saved so many scenarios that followed and arguably 20 plus years of war. If you can't see that, you should be on the Daily Mail website instead.
Just my humble view but you know I'm right.
P
Melmothw,
Are you questioning the source of the information or the content offered by OJ 72?
I would like to see more of that kind of posts that are heavy on facts and history.
We are drifting a bit but there is relevance between where we are and how that young soldier found himself in NI.
Are you questioning the source of the information or the content offered by OJ 72?
I would like to see more of that kind of posts that are heavy on facts and history.
We are drifting a bit but there is relevance between where we are and how that young soldier found himself in NI.
We are drifting a bit
Originally Posted by melmothtw
so why are we going down that rabbit hole?
Originally Posted by melmothtw
Surely, the 'ultimate culpability' should be with those who invaded a sovereign neighbouring country and then calved off and annexed a sizeable portion of it to 'protect' an ethnic minority who had been artificially transplanted there centuries before and who now wished to remain citizens of 'the motherland'.
Last edited by ExAscoteer2; 28th Nov 2022 at 20:08.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by melmothtw
We are. The soldier was not giving any thought to a potted history of Ireland at the time of the shooting and neither was the British justice system when it charged and found him guilty of manslaughter 34 years later, so why are we going down that rabbit hole?
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2
Well you started it with your inane and totally inaccurate drivel:
That's all, but I think you already know that.
Originally Posted by NutLoose
He would have been briefed about the ongoing situation though, I know I was.
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2
You really need to do some research on Irish History before you pontificate to us.
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2
Keep going....
What do YOU know about 'The Troubles'? How did they affect you?
What do YOU know about 'The Troubles'? How did they affect you?
That said, my personal experiences of the Troubles are totally irrelevant to this case, as are yours.
