The British Empire Thread

ejmaztec

Judgement Day wrote: »

Incidentally, my passport was issued in the IoM and doesn't say we are allowed to take the piss out of ourselves!! :):)

It's a special dispensation in very small print in the apathy clause. I paid extra just for the priviledge. :cool:

guinnessdrinker

Judgement Day wrote: »

Well if climbing is not a sport what is it - stamp collecting??

Yeah I'm looking forward to the montain climbing event in the olympics this year

Fratton Fred

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Yeah I'm looking forward to the montain climbing event in the olympics this year

I think actually it is the "making mountains out of molehills" event.

Ireland are tipped for glory

Judgement Day

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Yeah I'm looking forward to the montain climbing event in the olympics this year

Just because a sport is not included in the current Olympics programme does not mean it is no longer a sport - e.g. Rugby Union, Cricket... I'm sure 'montain' and indeed mountain climbing may be included someday .. now please excuse me I must ignore the hose pipe ban and go and water the garden. :D:D

guinnessdrinker

Judgement Day wrote: »

Just because a sport is not included in the current Olympics programme does not mean it is no longer a sport - e.g. Rugby Union, Cricket... I'm sure 'montain' and indeed mountain climbing may be included someday .. now please excuse me I must ignore the hose pipe ban and go and water the garden. :D:D

I know, I was joking, hence the smiley

Snickers Man

ejmaztec wrote: »

Yes, but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint), the other countries found out how to play their newly imported games better than their teachers.:pac:

Well that is precisely the point. The Brits came along and said. Here, learn to play this game and then we'll take you on. The motivation to stick it to the colonial masters on the sports field is what most Australians, new Zealanders, South Africans, West Indians etc etc live for.

Oh and let's not forget the Irish, Scottish and Welsh.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think actually it is the "making mountains out of molehills" event.

Ireland are tipped for glory

And this coming from the nation that likes to pump itself up with the conceited lies that it alone defeated Germany in WW2

And also goes on about the IRA doing this, the IRA doing that, the IRA doing the other, when the wrongs of the IRA are but the tinyest fraction of britain's ??

Fratton Fred

Your honour, I rest my case

ejmaztec

This is kind of historical, being as it mentions the past and the present.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4724617.ece

Here's a bit of it:

Six men who signed up in Enniskillen last week came from as far afield as Cork, Limerick and Dublin, taking an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Four of them are joining the Royal Irish Regiment, one is joining the Royal Engineers and another the Parachute Regiment.

Lieutenant Colonel Dick Rafferty, the head of recruitment, said he was delighted. "There is an ever-increasing awareness of what the Army can offer any young person. In addition to this the young soldier is going home and telling others what he is doing. This generates interest."

One of the new recruits, 22-year-old Andrew Warrington from Co Mayo, said: "I know that I could end up in Iraq or Afghanistan but I have intensive training to do before that happens."

Mr Warrington joined from the regular Irish army, where he spent three years. He wants to become an Army sniper and is being assigned to the Royal Irish Regiment.

“I wanted to see more missions, travel and to be more active. Joining is an advantage as there is more I can do with the British Army,” he said.

His friends were not surprised by his career move, and his relatives were not opposed. His grandfather served in the Army in England during the Second World War.

“That did influence me when I heard about it, I thought I might go to the Army and I’m looking forward to it as it’s a good career.”

Anthony Kerins, from Dublin, said his great uncle was in the British Army. “I always wanted to be a soldier, It’s a life less ordinary, and I wanted to see more of the world, and more people, and action and be trained with the best,” he said.

“I went to the British Army website. I then rang Enniskillen and they sent out the application forms straight away.”

A series of despatches from Lieutenant Paddy Bury, describing his service in Afghanistan, has generated a lively debate on the letters pages of The Irish Times, prompted by a reader’s disgust that the newspaper described him as an Irish soldier.

“Lt Bury may well be an Irishman but he most certainly is not an Irish soldier,” wrote Tom Cooper, saying it was “an affront to those who fought, many making the ultimate sacrifice, to free this country from British rule”.

That view was strongly contested by other correspondents seeking a more nuanced approach to Ireland’s relations with its neighbour, not least through the links forged by service in a British regiment.

As Rudyard Kipling, who lost his son, Lt John Kipling of the Irish Guards, in the Great War, famously wrote:

“For where there are Irish there’s bound to be fighting,

And when there’s no fighting it’s Ireland no more.”

Shinji Ikari

Quis Separabit wrote: »

.....You mean British (most likely Irish Catholic) soldiers protected gombeen Catholic storekeepers from potential rioters as well as food from being stolen, lets get the facts straight.

Didnt see the Catholic church doing much either.

Aid came from the church of Ireland and Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria gave sod all. However, yes many middle class Catholic merchants artificially rose prices to screw the peasantry. However it did not start as a famine. Like most countries around this time it was a potatoe plight, nothing uncommon about that. It's no coincidence that only in Ireland did it develope into a famine...surprise surprise...:rolleyes:. Around this time there was alot of pseudo-science with political agenda. Notice how in newpaper illustrations the Irish are drawn with ape like features. Yes many Irish people served in the British army but when your family are denied an education because of your religion you're pretty much limited to; A. Farm labourer/Fisherman B; Drink yourself to death C; Revolutionary D; preisthood E; Emigrate or F; Join the Army. The army gave good pay and an opportunity to see exotic places so no wonder so many Irish people joined.
Ireland was not a colony...unless you happened to be a native Celt.....

Anyway no offense to any British people reading but I'm glad their gone(The empire) and I hope the Union falls apart.:D....with the success of the S.N.P. and with so many young Ulster Unionist settling in Scotland after finishing their studies it may happen sooner rather than later!

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Your honour, I rest my case

Don't give it out - if you cann't take it

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

Queen Victoria gave sod all. However, yes many middle class Catholic merchants artificially rose prices to screw the peasantry. However it did not start as a famine. Like most countries around this time it was a potatoe plight, nothing uncommon about that. It's no coincidence that only in Ireland did it develope into a famine...surprise surprise...:rolleyes:. Around this time there was alot of pseudo-science with political agenda. Notice how in newpaper illustrations the Irish are drawn with ape like features. Yes many Irish people served in the British army but when your family are denied an education because of your religion you're pretty much limited to; A. Farm labourer/Fisherman B; Drink yourself to death C; Revolutionary D; preisthood E; Emigrate or F; Join the Army. The army gave good pay and an opportunity to see exotic places so no wonder so many Irish people joined.
Ireland was not a colony...unless you happened to be a native Celt.....

Anyway no offense to any British people reading but I'm glad their gone(The empire) and I hope the Union falls apart.:D....with the success of the S.N.P. and with so many young Ulster Unionist settling in Scotland after finishing their studies it may happen sooner rather than later!

Here, here. The british army have one of the most appalling records around the world of their so called ' peace keeping '.

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

This is kind of historical, being as it mentions the past and the present.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4724617.ece

Here's a bit of it:

Six men who signed up in Enniskillen last week came from as far afield as Cork, Limerick and Dublin, taking an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Four of them are joining the Royal Irish Regiment, one is joining the Royal Engineers and another the Parachute Regiment.

Lieutenant Colonel Dick Rafferty, the head of recruitment, said he was delighted. "There is an ever-increasing awareness of what the Army can offer any young person. In addition to this the young soldier is going home and telling others what he is doing. This generates interest."

One of the new recruits, 22-year-old Andrew Warrington from Co Mayo, said: "I know that I could end up in Iraq or Afghanistan but I have intensive training to do before that happens."

Mr Warrington joined from the regular Irish army, where he spent three years. He wants to become an Army sniper and is being assigned to the Royal Irish Regiment.

“I wanted to see more missions, travel and to be more active. Joining is an advantage as there is more I can do with the British Army,” he said.

His friends were not surprised by his career move, and his relatives were not opposed. His grandfather served in the Army in England during the Second World War.

“That did influence me when I heard about it, I thought I might go to the Army and I’m looking forward to it as it’s a good career.”

Anthony Kerins, from Dublin, said his great uncle was in the British Army. “I always wanted to be a soldier, It’s a life less ordinary, and I wanted to see more of the world, and more people, and action and be trained with the best,” he said.

“I went to the British Army website. I then rang Enniskillen and they sent out the application forms straight away.”

A series of despatches from Lieutenant Paddy Bury, describing his service in Afghanistan, has generated a lively debate on the letters pages of The Irish Times, prompted by a reader’s disgust that the newspaper described him as an Irish soldier.

“Lt Bury may well be an Irishman but he most certainly is not an Irish soldier,” wrote Tom Cooper, saying it was “an affront to those who fought, many making the ultimate sacrifice, to free this country from British rule”.

That view was strongly contested by other correspondents seeking a more nuanced approach to Ireland’s relations with its neighbour, not least through the links forged by service in a British regiment.

As Rudyard Kipling, who lost his son, Lt John Kipling of the Irish Guards, in the Great War, famously wrote:

“For where there are Irish there’s bound to be fighting,

And when there’s no fighting it’s Ireland no more.”

Looks like a sneaky advertisement for a recruitment drive to me as most of the ordinary bloke's in England aren't so stupid to go off fighting a war that the brits were happy to fund and train these 'terrorists' 20 years ago or so and sell Saddam as much hardware as he could buy. Jayus, this news snippet has been flogged to death all over the place. Are we supposed to conclude that their are hoards of young Irish men dashing to the border, lining up in ques to join the brits.The brits or the Yanks or any of the rest of them couldn't give a rats ar$e about the welfare of the people out there.

Maybe if rain becomes an esstenial source or if the Corrib gas field turns out to be huge, we can expect a revisit from our lovely british friends down south , and if we resist we'll be - guess what - terrorists ofcourse ( I wouldn't blame the nationalists in the six counties to sit back and have a good chuckle ). I despise anyone who would join such a group of cowardly scumbags to act like a legalised skanger, which is what they are anyway, so that's why they join the brits.

As for Rudyard Kipling ( is that the fella who used to make the exceddingly good cakes ) and his kind regard for Ireland - this is the same bigot who stated in his will that he didn't want any of those who inheritied from him to invest any money in the newly formed Soviet Union and Irish Free State, says it all doesn't it. He's a good one to be quoting alright, the bard of the Empire as he liked to call himself, it's sooo touching and we're sooo honoured :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

What kept you? I thought that you'd be a lot quicker than this to comment.:D

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Looks like a sneaky advertisement for a recruitment drive to me as most of the ordinary bloke's in England aren't so stupid to go off fighting a war that the brits were happy to fund and train these 'terrorists' 20 years ago or so and sell Saddam as much hardware as he could buy. Jayus, this news snippet has been flogged to death all over the place. Are we supposed to conclude that their are hoards of young Irish men dashing to the border, lining up in ques to join the brits.The brits or the Yanks or any of the rest of them couldn't give a rats ar$e about the welfare of the people out there.

Maybe if rain becomes an esstenial source or if the Corrib gas field turns out to be huge, we can expect a revisit from our lovely british friends down south , and if we resist we'll be - guess what - terrorists ofcourse ( I wouldn't blame the nationalists in the six counties to sit back and have a good chuckle ). I despise anyone who would join such a group of cowardly scumbags to act like a legalised skanger, which is what they are anyway, so that's why they join the brits.

As for Rudyard Kipling ( is that the fella who used to make the exceddingly good cakes ) and his kind regard for Ireland - this is the same bigot who stated in his will that he didn't want any of those who inheritied from him to invest any money in the newly formed Soviet Union and Irish Free State, says it all doesn't it. He's a good one to be quoting alright, the bard of the Empire as he liked to call himself, it's sooo touching and we're sooo honoured :rolleyes:

you should get off your bar stool and take your views to the Military forum, see what they think. There are several guys on there who are either ex British Army, Currently serving or applying to join.

Should make an interesting debate.

ApGriffith

Hi all, I found this thread from a note someone posted in Wikipedia. The thing about the British Empire is that the only time Ireland was ever part of it was after 1922, as a Dominion within the Empire. From 1801 to 1922 it was part of the UK itself, and before 1801 its status was similar to that of the Isle of Man. Why are there so many people here who want Ireland to have been part of the Empire?

During the Dark Ages the Irish conquered and settled large areas of Britain, and regularly carried out slave raids against the British population (St. Patrick was a victim of one of these). So if you want to cultivate a long memory for offenses, then be prepared to have it countered with a longer memory still. Ireland was a barbaric, uncivilised place in a state of constant internal warfare. The pope gave Ireland to Henry II to sort it out. I think in many ways the main problem of the English is that they were too lenient or half-hearted about this.

ApGriffith

ApGriffith wrote: »

Hi all, I found this thread from a note someone posted in Wikipedia. The thing about the British Empire is that the only time Ireland was ever part of it was after 1922, as a Dominion within the Empire. From 1801 to 1922 it was part of the UK itself, and before 1801 its status was similar to that of the Isle of Man. Why are there so many people here who want Ireland to have been part of the Empire?

During the Dark Ages the Irish conquered and settled large areas of Britain, and regularly carried out slave raids against the British population (St. Patrick was a victim of one of these). So if you want to cultivate a long memory for offenses, then be prepared to have it countered with a longer memory still. Ireland was a barbaric, uncivilised place in a state of constant internal warfare. The pope gave Ireland to Henry II to sort it out. I think in many ways the main problem of the English is that they were too lenient or half-hearted about this.

Hmmm! Red flag to the green bulls! Republicans simply didn't recognise the union.

Shinji Ikari

ApGriffith wrote: »

Hi all, I found this thread from a note someone posted in Wikipedia. The thing about the British Empire is that the only time Ireland was ever part of it was after 1922, as a Dominion within the Empire. From 1801 to 1922 it was part of the UK itself, and before 1801 its status was similar to that of the Isle of Man. Why are there so many people here who want Ireland to have been part of the Empire?

During the Dark Ages the Irish conquered and settled large areas of Britain, and regularly carried out slave raids against the British population (St. Patrick was a victim of one of these). So if you want to cultivate a long memory for offenses, then be prepared to have it countered with a longer memory still. Ireland was a barbaric, uncivilised place in a state of constant internal warfare. The pope gave Ireland to Henry II to sort it out. I think in many ways the main problem of the English is that they were too lenient or half-hearted about this.

Yes I agree! We Irish are a bunch of inbred savages! We were eating our children for breakfast before our divine ubermensch masters from England civilised us. We could'nt defacte correctly without help from the Catholic Church and the English crown. I agree, the English were not hard enough on us! Not only should they have took our estates during the plantations they should have castrated us also.(No more genitically inferiror Gaels.)
....Now thats sarcasm!lol!

ApGriffith

No one has addressed the fact that in the early Middle Ages the barbarian Irish posed a serious threat to Britain. The British have a right to defend themselves. The fact that the Irish still exist is a testimony to British compassion when dealing with them.

dresden8

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you should get off your bar stool and take your views to the Military forum, see what they think. There are several guys on there who are either ex British Army, Currently serving or applying to join.

Should make an interesting debate.

They swore an oath of loyalty to their queen. We don't have one. They're Brits now.

ejmaztec

ApGriffith wrote: »

No one has addressed the fact that in the early Middle Ages the barbarian Irish posed a serious threat to Britain. The British have a right to defend themselves. The fact that the Irish still exist is a testimony to British compassion when dealing with them.

I understand that when the English were fighting amongst themselves and wiping out large groups of peasants, Irish monks were educating mainland Europeans, with their uncivilised usage of Latin.

ApGriffith

ApGriffith wrote: »

No one has addressed the fact that in the early Middle Ages the barbarian Irish posed a serious threat to Britain. The British have a right to defend themselves. The fact that the Irish still exist is a testimony to British compassion when dealing with them.

I don't think that you can compare the early middle ages with the 17-19th century European empires, England in the early middle ages consisted of several independant Kingdoms as did most European "nations".

ApGriffith

dresden8 wrote: »

They swore an oath of loyalty to their queen. We don't have one. They're Brits now.

It's interesting how the dividing line betweem Brit and Irish is so wafer thin that one can become the other just by saying a few words.

ApGriffith

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think that you can compare the early middle ages with the 17-19th century European empires, England in the early middle ages consisted of several independant Kingdoms as did most European "nations".

That's true of course but it didn't stop Irish forces from conquering and colonising vast areas of western Britain. And in some cases these never went home. One such colony, for example, became the Scottish state. Others were entrenched in Wales for centuries. This all happened long before any Briton set foot in Ireland (in anger). The Plantagenet conquest of Ireland can very easily be seen as a necessity in order to remove this troublesome and unruly thorn in its side.

brianthebard

ApGriffith wrote: »

Hi all, I found this thread from a note someone posted in Wikipedia. The thing about the British Empire is that the only time Ireland was ever part of it was after 1922, as a Dominion within the Empire. From 1801 to 1922 it was part of the UK itself, and before 1801 its status was similar to that of the Isle of Man. Why are there so many people here who want Ireland to have been part of the Empire?

During the Dark Ages the Irish conquered and settled large areas of Britain, and regularly carried out slave raids against the British population (St. Patrick was a victim of one of these). So if you want to cultivate a long memory for offenses, then be prepared to have it countered with a longer memory still. Ireland was a barbaric, uncivilised place in a state of constant internal warfare. The pope gave Ireland to Henry II to sort it out. I think in many ways the main problem of the English is that they were too lenient or half-hearted about this.

Firstly, I think you are a troll, but we will give you the benefit of the doubt for another few posts. Secondly, just because an English pope claimed that England had a divine right to control Ireland does not make it so.

ApGriffith wrote: »

That's true of course but it didn't stop Irish forces from conquering and colonising vast areas of western Britain. And in some cases these never went home. One such colony, for example, became the Scottish state. Others were entrenched in Wales for centuries. This all happened long before any Briton set foot in Ireland (in anger). The Plantagenet conquest of Ireland can very easily be seen as a necessity in order to remove this troublesome and unruly thorn in its side.

The problem here is that you regard various families/tribes who carried out raids and settled Scotland to be Irish forces, which is not the case. There was no national Irish identity in the time you are talking about, and they certainly didn't represent the island of Ireland in any conquests they may have carried out.

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

Queen Victoria gave sod all. However, yes many middle class Catholic merchants artificially rose prices to screw the peasantry. However it did not start as a famine. Like most countries around this time it was a potatoe plight, nothing uncommon about that. It's no coincidence that only in Ireland did it develope into a famine...surprise surprise...:rolleyes:. Around this time there was alot of pseudo-science with political agenda. Notice how in newpaper illustrations the Irish are drawn with ape like features. Yes many Irish people served in the British army but when your family are denied an education because of your religion you're pretty much limited to; A. Farm labourer/Fisherman B; Drink yourself to death C; Revolutionary D; preisthood E; Emigrate or F; Join the Army. The army gave good pay and an opportunity to see exotic places so no wonder so many Irish people joined.
Ireland was not a colony...unless you happened to be a native Celt.....

Anyway no offense to any British people reading but I'm glad their gone(The empire) and I hope the Union falls apart.:D....with the success of the S.N.P. and with so many young Ulster Unionist settling in Scotland after finishing their studies it may happen sooner rather than later!

Couple of problems with this post; there was a similar famine in Scotland around the same time. There was actually more aid given to Ireland than Scotland. Also there was no denial of education based on religion by 1845, you should know that primary education was introduced in 1832. I'm sure it wasn't universal but I think your education point is moot.

RSF Cill Dara

how come this thread isnt been removed ? when i made a thread about a victim of bloody sunday and the children killed by the crown forces, they were removed ? my threads were not about the IRA they were about those who lost their lives to the cruelty of the british empire

ApGriffith

brianthebard wrote: »

Firstly, I think you are a troll, but we will give you the benefit of the doubt for another few posts. Secondly, just because an English pope claimed that England had a divine right to control Ireland does not make it so.

The problem here is that you regard various families/tribes who carried out raids and settled Scotland to be Irish forces, which is not the case. There was no national Irish identity in the time you are talking about, and they certainly didn't represent the island of Ireland in any conquests they may have carried out.

Couple of problems with this post; there was a similar famine in Scotland around the same time. There was actually more aid given to Ireland than Scotland. Also there was no denial of education based on religion by 1845, you should know that primary education was introduced in 1832. I'm sure it wasn't universal but I think your education point is moot.

I knew someone would bring that old chestnut up. Yes, Adrian IV was English - but he was still pope, right? So all good Catholics should accept his decisions. And the king he granted Ireland to, Henry II, wasn't English, but French, because at the time England was little more than a French colony. In any case, the "English pope" argument is irrelevant, because the grant was confirmed in 1172 by Adrian's successor, Alexander III, who was Italian.

It hardly needs pointing out that the English and British government forces that conquered Ireland were also not representative of England or Britain as a whole, since they were not democratically elected.

brianthebard

To the first one;No.

To the second one, we are still talking about a single unified state with a central government, a very different situation to the Irish settlers/raiders of Scotland. The monarch always claims to be the representative of Britain, and the people who invaded and settled Ireland did so in the name of the monarch, so yes those forces were of course representative of Britain. You are a troll.

ejmaztec

ApGriffith wrote: »

It hardly needs pointing out that the English and British government forces that conquered Ireland were also not representative of England or Britain as a whole, since they were not democratically elected.

In these days of democracy, one could say that the British in Iraq and Afghanistan are not representative of Britain as a whole, given that many people in Britain don't want the troops to be fighting in these places.

ApGriffith

brianthebard wrote: »

To the first one;No.

To the second one, we are still talking about a single unified state with a central government, a very different situation to the Irish settlers/raiders of Scotland. The monarch always claims to be the representative of Britain, and the people who invaded and settled Ireland did so in the name of the monarch, so yes those forces were of course representative of Britain. You are a troll.

No, you're wrong. First about the troll thing, but also about the other. England was conquered in 1066 by a foreign people, and no subsequent English government represented the English people. Rather, it exploited them. You are blaming the English but in fact they are victims too - of the Normans.

Shinji Ikari

brianthebard wrote: »

Firstly, I think you are a troll, but we will give you the benefit of the doubt for another few posts. Secondly, just because an English pope claimed that England had a divine right to control Ireland does not make it so.




The problem here is that you regard various families/tribes who carried out raids and settled Scotland to be Irish forces, which is not the case. There was no national Irish identity in the time you are talking about, and they certainly didn't represent the island of Ireland in any conquests they may have carried out.





Couple of problems with this post; there was a similar famine in Scotland around the same time. There was actually more aid given to Ireland than Scotland. Also there was no denial of education based on religion by 1845, you should know that primary education was introduced in 1832. I'm sure it wasn't universal but I think your education point is moot.

How come Scotlands population was not decimated like Irelands then? I am well aware of the primary education act. However most familys would have been so impoverished by the end penal laws, as well as the subsequent famine, that being able to afford an education, in terms of time and finance, that a career in the military would have been a more feasible option.