Will there ever be a Bobby Sands Street in the country?

Rodin

Let me make my position clear. I'm a nationalist from Northern Ireland.
For those saying Bobby Sands on the basis that he was a British Citizen, would they please tell me what country Padraig Pearse and Michael Collins were born in? They were born in Britain, hence the point to their struggle for Ireland's freedom! this is an indisputable fact. There wasn't even a free state until after the Government of Ireland Act, never mind a Republic that didn't arrive till the 40's. and as for James Connolly, he wasn't even Irish, never mind being British.

My point is obvious. Would anyone say that James Connolly doesn't deserve the respect he has gained and his great position in our country? Like ****. So don't denigrate a nationalist from Northern Ireland, who is as Irish as anyone else on the island.

Personally, I don't think we should have any streets named after Sands, because I don't think he should be mentioned in the same breath as Pearse, Collins, Connolly. But to say that he doesn't deserve recognition because he is British is quite frankly, ridiculous.

InFront

Rodin wrote:

For those saying Bobby Sands on the basis that he was a British Citizen, would they please tell me what country Padraig Pearse and Michael Collins were born in? They were born in Britain, hence the point to their struggle for Ireland's freedom! this is an indisputable fact. There wasn't even a free state until after the Government of Ireland Act, never mind a Republic that didn't arrive till the 40's. and as for James Connolly, he wasn't even Irish, never mind being British.

What's your point, where do we stop? Can people of a minority Irish ethnicity like Newfoundland seek Irish unification? It has to stop somewhere, most people in NI are satisfied, as they were in Sands' time, with the united kingdom. That's democracy for you. Why not just speak straight, Sands, and his associate provisionals, basically threw a hissyfit about that.

My point is obvious. Would anyone say that James Connolly doesn't deserve the respect he has gained and his great position in our country?Like ****.

Yes, see the 800 years thread.

I don't think anyone denies nationalists' rights to argue until the end of time for a united Ireland. That is their right. The use of terrorism to demand it, not to mention adding suicide to the mix, isn't likely to progress their cause, and certainly not with dignity.

vesp

csk wrote:

A little anecdote for you vesp.

When Bobby Sands started his hungerstrike, the late Fr. Faul asked him, "Bobby why do you continue to take Salt and water, why not go all the way? To which Bobby answered, "it's because I don't want to die, Father".

Please answer my questions and finish the story csk . How did Fr. Faul reply to that ? ( " Go on, go on, go on " ?)
If he did not want to die why did he not eat the tasty and free food provided to him by the taxpayer ? Did he really want to see tensions raised so much in N. Ireland and many other people killed as a result ? And all for what ? Nothing.

vesp

csk wrote:

Is that not you equating support for the hungerstrikers with support for the Provisional IRA ?

I can assure you the majority of people in Northern Ireland had no sympathy or support for either the Provisional IRA or the hungerstrikers, the majority of whom were in the IRA. Those hungerstrikers which were not in the PIRA were in another terrorist organisation called the INLA, which like the PIRA was also widely condemned around the world. Really csk, you should pay more attention.

csk

vesp wrote:

And all for what ?

The Hungerstrikers were protesting against Britain's attempt to criminalise their struggle.

vesp wrote:

I can assure you the majority of people in Northern Ireland had no sympathy or support for either the Provisional IRA or the hungerstrikers, the majority of whom were in the IRA. Those hungerstrikers which were not in the PIRA were in another terrorist organisation called the INLA, which like the PIRA was also widely condemned around the world. Really csk, you should pay more attention.

Please point out were I have ever disagreed with any of that.

I asked the question earlier:
Is President Mitterand offering his condolences indicative of support ?

Your refusal to answer is an admittance that yes it was indicative.

vesp wrote:

I never said anyone was angles throughout the trouble and I never claimed anyone or any organisation was infallible.

So you are admitting that the British Government did bad things in the North east of Ireland ?

Am I to take this further refusal to answer, as a Yes then ?

vesp

csk wrote:

The Hungerstrikers were protesting against Britain's attempt to criminalise their struggle.

Their struggle of murder and bombings, including civilian targets like the LeMons restaurant atrocity , Bloody Friday bombings etc etc. Do not forget when our own minister for Justice was asked a year or two ago if he thought the IRA were criminals, he replied " Yes ". The British govt treated the Republican terrorists the same as the Loyalist terrorists, except they locked up / imprisoned a higher percentage of those responsible for loyalist terrorism.

vesp

csk wrote:

Am I to take this further refusal to answer, as a Yes then ?

I have already commented on this e.g. " Would you seriously expect mistakes not to have been made, or everyone to have acted 100% properly all of the time, out of hundreds of thousands of security force people who served there over the years ?". As I have said before, it depends what you define as " bad " ? Letting a person die on a hospital trolley is bad. Garda / PIRA collusion which resulted in the murder of perople during the troubles was bad. Political involvment in arms smuggling was bad ( the arms trial, Blaney, Haughey etc ). Do you think the British government should have done to the PIRA what DeValera did in the early forties to the IRA then -take out prisoners out of prison and shoot them ? Define what you mean by "bad". As I said before a few posts back, I never said anyone was angles throughout the trouble and I never claimed anyone or any organisation was infallible. Overall the British government has been remarkably tolerant over the last few generations. They have also pumped an awful lot of money in to Ireland.




Now, As I have already asked, please answer my questions and finish the story csk . How did Fr. Faul reply to that ? ( " Go on, go on, go on " ?)
If he did not want to die why did he not eat the tasty and free food provided to him by the taxpayer ? Did he really want to see tensions raised so much in N. Ireland and many other people killed as a result ? And all for what ? Nothing.

csk

Overall the British government has been remarkably tolerant over the last few generations.

Oh yes, when they wanted to implement direct rule in 1969 and thus avoid a bloodbath and the Unionists wouldn't allow it, they were remarkably tolerant.

When the British Gov. propped up a sectarian authoritarian State, they were remarkably tolerant.

When Loyalist/Crown agents ran amok carrying out their butcher's work, the British Gov were remarkably tolerant.

When Peace Protestor's marched in Derry (Bloody Sunday), the British Gov. were remarkably tolerant.

When the Unionists threw a hissy fit and refused to implemement the reformed Stormont in the 80's, the British Gov were remarkably tolerant.

When even today almost ten years after the GFA and Dr. Paisley is still dragging his neanderthal feet, British Gov is remarkably tolerant.

vesp wrote:

I have already commented

Commented? Yes. Answered ? No.

So far you have listed off some baseless accusations, (Arms smuggling? were the politicans not acquited ? PIRA/Garda collusion ? lol why, if they were bosom buddies shoot dead Gerry McCabe ? )

If you don't understand "bad" maybe Grievous wrongs would be more suitable?
You had no problem understanding that earlier.

So were the British Government responsible for grievous wrongs ? Yes or No ?

But I don't expect an answer, you have made it perfectly clear already your stance nor do I have any wish to get into another round of "whataboutery".

Everyone can reel off atrocities but what does it prove ?

walrusgumble

well csk far point, but as for paisley hey thats democracy, his community voted him in and he had a huge involvement from day one etc.

at least blair or should i say mo mowlem (rip) did their best. blair made a huge apology on behalf of former governments actions as far back as the famine. he also met gerry conlon, it might be akin to politcans kissing the babies head on their election roadshows, but it was a nie gesture, more we got (and british people with their own concerns) than 14ish years of conservative rule.

csk

walrusgumble wrote:

well csk far point, but as for paisley hey thats democracy, his community voted him in and he had a huge involvement from day one etc.

at least blair or should i say mo mowlem (rip) did their best. blair made a huge apology on behalf of former governments actions as far back as the famine. he also met gerry conlon, it might be akin to politcans kissing the babies head on their election roadshows, but it was a nie gesture, more we got (and british people with their own concerns) than 14ish years of conservative rule.

Fair point about paisley, but it's still frustrating, like if Sinn Féin do sign up to policing he'll probably just throw some other obstacle in their path and we'll be back at square one.

Unless Blair stands up to him and threatens joint Rule. Then we'd see how quick he'd be to say yes. But of course that will never happen.

csk

InFront wrote:

That's democracy for you.

Did Kevin Myers include a chapter on Captain Terence O'Neil in his mighty tome ?

Surely such a chapter would illustrate perfectly what kind of democracy existed in the north east of Ireland ?

vesp

vesp wrote:

Do you think the British government should have done to the PIRA what DeValera did in the early forties to the IRA then -take out prisoners out of prison and shoot them ?


Now, As I have already asked, please answer my questions and finish the story csk . How did Fr. Faul reply to that ? ( " Go on, go on, go on " ?)
If he did not want to die why did he not eat the tasty and free food provided to him by the taxpayer ? Did he really want to see tensions raised so much in N. Ireland and many other people killed as a result ? And all for what ? Nothing.

Come on csk, answer my questions. I have already asked you numerous times.

vesp

csk wrote:

So were the British Government responsible for grievous wrongs ? Yes or No ?

In the overall scale of things, and while no governments - just like society - were ever perfect , over the past few generations, no. Of course you can whinge about Bloody Sunday, but this was a few frightened young soldiers on the ground under pressure. Sure it was a mistake, but there are those who believe it was not the army who fired first. Besides, its not as if the army was ordered in to massacre people. Do not forget the society south of the border was far from perfect either. There was collusion between the PIRA and security forces here which led to the deaths of people along the border. Do not forget the arms trial. Do not forget that in 1931 DeValera stood up in the Dail and gave a speech ( during the controversy about the sacking of the Protestant librarian in Co. Mayo ) and said that if he had two applicants for only one job, and one applicant was Protestant and one Catholic, he would always give the job to the Catholic. This was noticed up North and the following day it was commented on in Stormont.

The minority population ( ie Protestant ) decreased from 10% of the population to 3 % in the Republic of Ireland, where in N. Ireland in the same period the minority population there ( ie Catholic ) increased from 31% to forty something per cent. What does that tell you ?

csk

vesp wrote:

no.

So your answer is no ? Bloody Sunday was not a grievous wrong ?

Shooting dead fourteen people, was not a grievous wrong ?

Included in this was six minors, this was not a grievous wrong ?

One person was to live in agony for four and a half month before succumbing to injuries sustained from this day, this was not a grievous wrong ?

Four or Five were shot in the back while running away, this was not a grievous wrong ?

All were unarmed, this was not a grievous wrong ?

You said earlier you were not defending the indefensible yet here you are doing just that.

No wonder there was thirty years of horrendous violence when people like you populate this island. Disgusting.

Then you try and sully the good name of An Garda Síochána and bring up the Arms Trial. So yes lets take the arms trial, as it illustrates perfectly the proper manner this State conducted itself during the difficult period that was "the Troubles".

Allegations of senior cabinet members involved in illegal arms smuggling were uncovered. An Taoiseach Jack Lynch sent a file to the DPP who investigated fully these allegations. At the trial all defendants were cleared.

Contrast this with the British Government's handling of the Lee Clegg affair, where after shooting dead two teenagers and attempting to cover it up, his conviction for murder was quashed.

To defend the actions of the British Government in Bloody Sunday is disgusting and morally reprehensible.

vesp

Come on csk, answer the questions that have been put to you many times. Your failure to answer them speaks volumes.

csk

I'm not going to dignify your peurile attemts at humour with an answer.

With regards De Valera and those executions, I don't believe in the Death penalty.

The rest I have already answered.

Dontico

no. terrorists arnt cool.

vesp

csk wrote:

I'm not going to dignify your peurile attemts at humour with an answer..

Why do you not finish the story csk? Otherwise why mention it ? How did Fr. Faul reply to Sands ?
If Sands did not want to die ( as you wrote ) why did he not eat the tasty and free food provided to him by the taxpayer ? Did he really want to see tensions raised so much in N. Ireland and many other people killed as a result ? And all for what ? Nothing. Answer the questions.

csk wrote:

With regards De Valera and those executions, I don't believe in the Death penalty..

So do you condemn the comrades of Bobby Sands who carried out the death penalty on numerous members of the security services, among others, for example ?

csk wrote:

The rest I have already answered.

No you have not. I give you two examples of questions you have completely failed to even attempt to answer :
"Would you seriously expect mistakes not to have been made, or everyone to have acted 100% properly all of the time, out of hundreds of thousands of security force people who served there over the years ?"
"The minority population ( ie Protestant ) decreased from 10% of the population to 3 % in the Republic of Ireland, where in N. Ireland in the same period the minority population there ( ie Catholic ) increased from 31% to forty something per cent. What does that tell you ?"

Erin Go Brath

vesp wrote:

"The minority population ( ie Protestant ) decreased from 10% of the population to 3 % in the Republic of Ireland, where in N. Ireland in the same period the minority population there ( ie Catholic ) increased from 31% to forty something per cent. What does that tell you ?"

It tells me Catholics are having more babies.

walrusgumble

my sentiment exactly, breed them out. someone must be listening to he catholic church up there lol.

walrusgumble

seen that certain people referred to the alledged collusion of the ira and this government, i would like to see their opinions of the proved collusion of uvf/uda and the police/army in northern ireland, that has been published recently!

LordSutch

I think that even the notion of re-naming Merrion Road after a dead terrorist would be a disgrace and a slap in the face to all the good law abiding civilised people living on Merrion Road, but maybe SinnFein would consider renaming Parnell Square instead

brianthebard

What did Bobby Sands do for this country? any idiot can starve themselves to death. Just because he felt it was for a "cause" doesn't mean his actions were worthy of having a street named after him or any number of other honours that some people may wish to posthumously give him.

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

Not sur eif this really belongs here in history/heritage but given the political hue of most other posts here why not?

There are plenty of Pearse Streets in the country, Collins has his own Avenue, and there is a Sean Treacy Terrace/Road in Carrick on Suir. IRA figures from the 1940's are commemorated - The GAA club in Tralee and Sean Russells Statue in Fairview etc. So in time what is the likelyhood of or there ever being some sort of Bobby Sands housing estate, street or school. (Terrance MacSwiney has at least a school named after him in Cork).

Also, would it be any different?

One Killer is much the same as the next so why not. But why discriminate against the other nine successful hunger strikers. In the interests of fairness they should be commemorated too. We could also lend an international flavour and organise name twinnings. The Iranians have shown the way here and there's been a Bobby Sands Street in Tehran for many years, the one with the British Embassy on it naturally. So we could have places like Yasser Arafat Avenue, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Terrace and Osama Bin Laden Gardens. We could have Sports Clubs like The Timothy McVeigh Gaels and Saddam Hussein Celtic. Let's do it.

Shutuplaura

Anyway, if people must rant then can I say that comparing anyone or thing in Irish history to current political situations in the middle east is nonesense. No IRA attack was ever as deadly as 9/11 and no British response has ever been as heavy handed as the Isreali or US responses to modern terrorism. To claim otherwise is an insult to the city of New York, citizens of israel the non-citizens of palestine or Iraq etc who see more violence on a weekly basis that Ireland has for a long time.

Snickers Man

Hagar wrote:

Well you better rethink the name of your urinal for my last post was the profile of the recently deceased, and much repected on all sides, DUP Politician David Ervine who died yesterday may he Rest In Peace.

Not really comparable. If Ervine were to have a street named after him, it would not be for driving a car bomb into his enemies' neighbourhood, but for being one of the most tireless workers on the cause of reconciliation and attempting to find a just settlement for the troubles in the north. I would have no objection to a street being named after him.

Sands, on the other hand, did nothing other than kick-start the cause of Sinn Fein who were dead in the water before the blanket protest started. You can't expect an Englishman like Fratton Fred to have any affection for the likes of Sands. But speaking as an Ulster Fenian, I don't have much time for the bollox either. And as for his delightful sister, Ms McKevitt...........

The recent Sinn Fein Ard Fheis proposed renaming a street in Dublin 4 as Bobby Sands St because the British Embassy is located on it.

That is nothing but provocative **** stirring crap. But it's easy to play at that game.

If they take steps officially to rename Merrion Road Bobby Sands St, I suggest we start renaming streets with Sinn Fein offices on them after the likes of Lee Clegg.

Not too hard to be provocative, is it?

Hoops1888

Rodin wrote:

Let me make my position clear. I'm a nationalist from Northern Ireland.
For those saying Bobby Sands on the basis that he was a British Citizen, would they please tell me what country Padraig Pearse and Michael Collins were born in? They were born in Britain, hence the point to their struggle for Ireland's freedom! this is an indisputable fact. There wasn't even a free state until after the Government of Ireland Act, never mind a Republic that didn't arrive till the 40's. and as for James Connolly, he wasn't even Irish, never mind being British.

My point is obvious. Would anyone say that James Connolly doesn't deserve the respect he has gained and his great position in our country? Like ****. So don't denigrate a nationalist from Northern Ireland, who is as Irish as anyone else on the island.

Personally, I don't think we should have any streets named after Sands, because I don't think he should be mentioned in the same breath as Pearse, Collins, Connolly. But to say that he doesn't deserve recognition because he is British is quite frankly, ridiculous.

Welcome to boards where most people are pro british, pro loyalist, anti IRA.

vesp wrote:

I can assure you the majority of people in Northern Ireland had no sympathy or support for either the Provisional IRA or the hungerstrikers, the majority of whom were in the IRA. Those hungerstrikers which were not in the PIRA were in another terrorist organisation called the INLA, which like the PIRA was also widely condemned around the world. Really csk, you should pay more attention.

Oh well done did you search the net to find that? Did you also find out that Paddy Agnew and Kieran Doherty were elected to the Dail? They had no support no :rolleyes: How many people went to Bobby Sands funeral Im sure alot more than will go to yours

csk wrote:

The Hungerstrikers were protesting against Britain's attempt to criminalise their struggle.

POW's they werent criminals.

The five demands that were won well not won but were giving back after Maggie failed.

Right to wear own clothes at all times
Right to free association within a block of cells
Right not to do prison work
Right to educational and recreational facilities
Restoration of lost remission of sentence

Erin Go Brath wrote:

It tells me Catholics are having more babies.

LMAF

As Clinton said to Gerry Adams why keep fighting as In a few year's there will be more Catholics than Protestants.

mountainyman

csk wrote:

Well Pearse has a street named after him, Collins has an avenue, Connolly has a train Station (come to think of it aren't all of the main stations in the country named after those executed in 1916), Mc Swiney has a school, Cathal Brugha has a street...

All of these were British subjects and entitled to British passports. Only St John Burgess lived to become an Irish citizen.

MM

mountainyman

brianthebard wrote:

What did Bobby Sands do for this country?

That's a valid question. The hunger strikes accomplished nothing except to make compromise and peace impossible for another 10 years.

On the other hand it is well attested that when Bobby Sands died there was a strong smell of incense in the room and his body had wounds on the hands feet and side.

When in an impossible situation pray to Bobby Sands for the courage to endure.

MM

Shutuplaura

I've been thinking about this and I reckon that Bobby Sands legacy for the country was the current peace process (whether he would have supported it or not). The success of the Anti-H Block candidates convinced the republican leadership that there was enough potential political support for the movement for an alternative to the armed struggle to be considered. There was always a debate in republicans as to how far the armed struggle could take them along the road to a united Ireland. Not everyone who was involved was foolish enough to believe that the British army or the RUC could be defeated militarily. Before the hunger strikes SF played second fiddle to the IRA but after 1981 this was never the case again. I'd also argue that the british government under the tories made it impossible for a ceasfire to be declared for a hell of a long time. Not saying there should be a Bobby Sand street and am horriefied by Sinners who want to change the name of Merrion Road to Bobby sands Road but i believe he was a significant modern irish figure.