Prince Albert II of Monaco visits Ireland

petroltimer

Will people be out to protest against this visit of this unelected head of state of a tax heaven?
Although with the Queen of England and USA President coming you got to pace yourself.

I hear Prince Albert is 1/8 a Mayo Man so he should be well at ease meeting Mayo's favorite son Enda.

Iwasfrozen

petroltimer wrote: »

Will people be out to protest against this visit of this unelected head of state of a tax heaven?
Although with the Queen of England and USA President coming you got to pace yourself.

I hear Prince Albert is 1/8 a Mayo Man so he should be well at ease meeting Mayo's favorite son Enda.

Silly petroltimer you have it all wrong. The armchair republicans of boards where only ever against the Queen's visit because she's the British head of state. The whole worrying about democracy thing was only a mask.

petroltimer

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Silly petroltimer you have it all wrong. The armchair republicans of boards where only ever against the Queen's visit because she's the British head of state. The whole worrying about democracy thing was only a mask.

well i was being sarcastic, everybody knows its sectarianism that drives "armchair republicans" certainly not a love for democracy

Corsendonk

petroltimer wrote: »

Will people be out to protest against this visit of this unelected head of state of a tax heaven?
Although with the Queen of England and USA President coming you got to pace yourself.

I hear Prince Albert is 1/8 a Mayo Man so he should be well at ease meeting Mayo's favorite son Enda.

I am waiting for the Prince of Andorra to turn up before I drag the banners out.

mike65

Prince Albert? ooh-er missus

Poochie05

It's like the 46A bus, none for ages and then 3 come along at once!

sensibleken

hee hee....prince albert

later12

I really don't mind this guy visiting but you have to admire the eternal ability of politicians and bureaucrats to pull random buzzwords and industries out of a hat

Department officials have said the programme for next week's visit will reflect the long-standing ties between Ireland and Monaco

What long standing relations? Monaco is a jagged promontory of rock on the Mediterranian whose borders one could stroll around an one hour; it's about the size of Donnybrook but a lot more salubrious, genuinely rich, and the people are actually beautiful. We have nothing in common!

and will underline the potential for future co-operation in the areas of business, the environment, research, education, tourism and culture.

See above. What on Earth are they talking about! Apart from tourism, Monaco hardly even has these industries itself.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Silly petroltimer you have it all wrong. The armchair republicans of boards where only ever against the Queen's visit because she's the British head of state. The whole worrying about democracy thing was only a mask.

Can you drop the "armchair republicans" nonsense. People should be able to hold a Republican viewpoint without being chastised as an "armchair Republican". Every single Republican I know is thoroughly active in the grassroots movement, and in community projects and are far from armchair anything. They live and breathe their views every single day.

The criticism for the Queen's visit isn't because she is unelected. That is another debate. The criticism is because she was the symbolic head of state while her troops massacred Irish civilians, and later awarded some of these soldiers with honourary titles. Even in lieu of the Saville Inquiry findings, none of these soldiers have been stripped of these honourary titles and she has not commented on the suffering that has been caused as a direct result of her troop's actions in the north.

It is therefore a perfectly valid criticism based on these grounds to protest against her visit. Whether you agree with the criticism or not is another matter, but to routinely attack people with varying viewpoints as "armchair" anything is immature, belittling and smacks of elitism.

Nodin

petroltimer wrote: »

well i was being sarcastic, everybody knows its sectarianism ...................

News to me.

later12

dlofnep wrote: »

Can you drop the "armchair republicans" nonsense. People should be able to hold a Republican viewpoint without being chastised as an "armchair Republican". Every single Republican I know is thoroughly active in the grassroots movement

Just to exapnd upon this point, not all Republicans are Nationalists, myself included. It is perfectly reasonable to be opposed to Monarchy, feudalism or any other form of nonrepresentative government while still respecting the rights of others to disagree.

It's not unlike religion. I am not a Catholic but I think that Catholic Priests and clergy should be afforded respect just the same as any other citizen, and their 'celebrity' amongst some older members of the population should be tolerated if it is still the desire of such people to hold that clergy in esteem.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Silly petroltimer you have it all wrong. The armchair republicans of boards where only ever against the Queen's visit because she's the British head of state. The whole worrying about democracy thing was only a mask.

LOL just have this vision of disgruntled republicans having to make anti-monaco posters and learning about their history just to make it clear they weren't being selective about protesting monarchs.

Seriously though, most people protesting aren't pretending its about the monarchy. Like the Eirigi campaign poster is "No withdrawal...No royal visits" - that's clearly a reference to Northern Ireland and not constitutional monarchy.

Fratton Fred

Wasn't princess Grace of Irish descent?

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

Can you drop the "armchair republicans" nonsense. People should be able to hold a Republican viewpoint without being chastised as an "armchair Republican". Every single Republican I know is thoroughly active in the grassroots movement, and in community projects and are far from armchair anything. They live and breathe their views every single day.

The criticism for the Queen's visit isn't because she is unelected. That is another debate. The criticism is because she was the symbolic head of state while her troops massacred Irish civilians, and later awarded some of these soldiers with honourary titles. Even in lieu of the Saville Inquiry findings, none of these soldiers have been stripped of these honourary titles and she has not commented on the suffering that has been caused as a direct result of her troop's actions in the north.

Those reasons just show how pathetic republicans are. If German and Russians can accept each others heads of state visiting their respective countries after approx 35 million combined casualties in WW2 then republicans should be able to accept the Queens visit here.

Republicans need to take a big dose of Get the F**k over it!

mike65

Yeah but she only married into the optuent tax dodging decadence. Twasn't her fault.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Those reasons just show how pathetic republicans are.

That's all you ever have, ad hominem nonsense.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If German and Russians can accept each others heads of state visiting their respective countries after approx 35 million combined casualties in WW2 then republicans should be able to accept the Queens visit here.

Neither of their heads of state presided over the wars in question. The Queen however was the head of state, and honoured soldiers that were directly involved in the murder of Irish civilians. They have every right to protest against her visit.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Republicans need to take a big dose of Get the F**k over it!

Yeah - how dare they address the reality that British troops murdered Irish civilians and were never held accountable for it. How dare they address the fact that some of those said soldiers were given honourary titles from the Queen. How dare the likes of the families of those slaughtered in Ballymurphy, Derry & Springhill continue to press for accountability and apologies.

Although I don't expect to ever see empathy from you. You're incapable of it when it comes to Irish civilians who saw serious oppression under the direct rule of Britain.

dlofnep

petroltimer wrote: »

Just be honest your a bigot, its simply your hate that defines you opinions.

I'm far from a bigot. I have a legitimate qualm with Britain's role in Ireland, both past and present. I'm perfectly content with my character, and most rational posters on boards regardless of whether they agree with my views - accept that I am a reasoned poster, and give rational explanations for why I feel how I feel.

It would make it easier for you to just label me as a bigot, and not acknowledge the merit of my argument. But the reality is - you're unable to attack my argument, which leaves you no other option but to attack my character. It is the sign of a weak basis of argument, and a stance well acknowledged in the field of public debating.

petroltimer wrote: »

The British had Saville inquiry and then the prime-minister made an apology from the house of commons

Firstly, it took 40 years for the Saville inquiry to exonerate innocent civilians. For 40 years, the British state's official stance was that the innocent civilians who were murdered in Derry were responsible for their own deaths, and that their troops had acted accordingly. An apology, while welcomed - does not address the issue of accountability, nor does it address the issue of honourary titles given to some of the main characters involved in Derry.

It also doesn't address the families of Springhill and Ballymurphy, who experienced the same events as what occurred on Bloody Sunday - but the British Government, has yet to apologise, hold their soldiers accountable for their actions, or even admit that the civilians involved were innocent. The likes of 13 year old Margaret Gargan who was shot in the head for absolutely no reason, or Joan Connolly who was left to die in a pool of her own blood - when British troops refused her medical assistance as she lay crying with half of her face missing.

And you wonder why people might wish to call these events into question?

petroltimer wrote: »

When is the SF section of the NI government going to hold an inquiry into what they personally did???

Sinn Féin welcomes a full impartial international inquiry into all of the deaths that took place during the troubles, without exception. I can't say the same about the British Government however. This is the usual whataboutery I've become accustomed to hearing anytime someone tries to highlight the plight of the families bereaved by the actions of the British army.

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

Although I don't expect to ever see empathy from you. You're incapable of it when it comes to Irish civilians who saw serious oppression under the direct rule of Britain.

Like I said "GET THE F**K OVER IT", move on, get a job, have an icecream, whatever as long as ye quit banging the same ould tired drum for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever......

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Like I said "GET THE F**K OVER IT", move on, get a job, have an icecream, whatever as long as ye quit banging the same ould tired drum for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever......

I'm not interested in what you want me to do. If people were worried about what you wanted them to do, the families of Bloody Sunday would have never had even seen their family members exonerated or would have never seen an apology from the British Government.

Part of the moving on process requires healing, transparency, accountability sympathy and exoneration. It doesn't however involve someone incapable of empathy trying to dictate what someone can or cannot feel, or how they may express themselves.

These are my views and feelings. Deal with it.

KeithAFC

dlofnep, you keep naming victims. I could name victims who were taken away by people now WORKING in our government. When those people apologise for what they done, the Queen should then apologise too.

dlofnep

petroltimer wrote: »

Yes i attacked you personally because your opinions are just selfish and dim

There is nothing selfish about wanting to make an army accountable for it's actions. You've been reported however, as personal attacks are not acceptable on this forum. I'm not interested in furthering a discussion with anyone who is more intent of attacking character, rather than discussing the issues that have been raised.

petroltimer wrote: »

If SF are so open, well then tell us where the all the bodies are buried and shergar too

That is the responsibility of the IRA, not Sinn Féin. And I would personally welcome full transparency on any murder at the hands of the IRA. Sinn Féin welcomes an impartial international inquiry into the matter to look at both sides and their losses. I have already addressed this point.

Iwasfrozen

petroltimer wrote: »

Yes i attacked you personally because your opinions are just selfish and dim,

Ah now that's not on. Politically I don't agree with dlofnep but he has never resorted to name calling to express his opinions.

KeithAFC

Shankill Butchers documentary on last night

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zx9x2/Shankill_Butchers/

Horrible but shows you what those times were like.

caseyann

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Wasn't princess Grace of Irish descent?

The Head of Monaco will open an exhibition in honour of his late mother at Farmleigh House and the prince will host a reception to highlight Irish literature and art. In addition to honouring the royal visit a state dinner will be held by President Mary McAleese.

She is indeed and therefore so is he.
Grace Kelly (Princess Grace of Monaco) was of Irish descent, born in Philadelphia to John and Margaret Kelly. John's ancesters had emigrated from County Mayo and he established himself as a wealthy contractor.

I would prefer if he came here as a non royal as he is not a royal in my eyes.
If he came as just someone who was honouring his mothers name and not with a title.
How much is this going to cost the country.
Weird it has become now all in one year lol That CT is starting to look a bit more plausible now.

Mayo are sluts they get around dont they

alan85

petroltimer wrote: »

Just be honest your a bigot, its simply your hate that defines you opinions. The British had Saville inquiry and then the prime-minister made an apology from the house of commons, the queen could not with out the permission of the prime-minister make a public apology.
When is the SF section of the NI government going to hold an inquiry into what they personally did???

I'm certainly no fan of monarchy's but i rather shake the hand of the British queen than the blood soaked hand of the deputy first minister of NI

1. Moderators, I got an infraction for calling somebody a bigot before. I hope this will apply here too?
2. I'm a republican and I have better things to do with my life than be out protesting about the queeny or prince of Monaco visiting. I would not be supportive of either. I would be more against the queen coming here than any other queen because I think people will turn it into something it's not saying us and Britain are bestest buddies bla bla bla... The shooting dead of a 12 year old girl (O'Hare) was only apologised for yesterday after 30 years and her family had to collect the apology themselves. That's only 2 apologies for all the crimes committed by a state's force in the North of Ireland.

To me, she is not welcome and more so than any other sham head of state(monarch).

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

That is the responsibility of the IRA, not Sinn Féin. And I would personally welcome full transparency on any murder at the hands of the IRA. Sinn Féin welcomes an impartial international inquiry into the matter to look at both sides and their losses. I have already addressed this point.

Wow you've really been drinking the SF kool-aid. Sinn Fein and the provos are inextricably interlinked. Any denial of that is laughable.

BlaasForRafa

alan85 wrote: »

1. Moderators, I got an infraction for calling somebody a bigot before. I hope this will apply here too?

If you want to report a post theres a little red triangle in the lower left of each post.

PeterIanStaker

mike65 wrote: »

Yeah but she only married into the optuent tax dodging decadence.

The same stategy adopted by that guy from Westlife that married Bertie Ahern's daughter?

petroltimer

alan85 wrote: »

1. Moderators, I got an infraction for calling somebody a bigot before. I hope this will apply here too?
2. I'm a republican and I have better things to do with my life than be out protesting about the queeny or prince of Monaco visiting. I would not be supportive of either. I would be more against the queen coming here than any other queen because I think people will turn it into something it's not saying us and Britain are bestest buddies bla bla bla... The shooting dead of a 12 year old girl (O'Hare) was only apologised for yesterday after 30 years and her family had to collect the apology themselves. That's only 2 apologies for all the crimes committed by a state's force in the North of Ireland.

To me, she is not welcome and more so than any other sham head of state(monarch).

And here me thinking that the only thing going for you "republicans" (IRA Murders) was you were not informers, be careful you could be called a TOUT

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Like I said "GET THE F**K OVER IT", move on, get a job, have an icecream, whatever as long as ye quit banging the same ould tired drum for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever......

petroltimer wrote:

And here me thinking that the only thing going for you "republicans" (IRA Murders) was you were not informers, be careful you could be called a TOUT ......

I can see the standard in this thread is much as I expected it would be from the offset.

Bottle_of_Smoke

KeithAFC wrote: »

Shankill Butchers documentary on last night

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zx9x2/Shankill_Butchers/

Horrible but shows you what those times were like.

Even by the standards of the time they were in another league altogether. Torture did occur in other areas such as interrogations carried out by the IRA and RUC but at least there was a point to those. Poor Hugh Murphy's papish name must have really got to him

dlofnep

petroltimer wrote: »

how on earth could he say he is anything other than the definition of a bigot? "someone that is totally intolerant of ideas which don't match his own"

maybe if dlofnep recognizes that he/she is a bigot they can take first steps to redemption, sackcloth and ashes would be a start

This is the second time you have been reported for personal attacks. I'm not sure if you have read the charter, but if you haven't - now would be a good time.

I have expressed my views in a very clear and logical fashion. The only person who has demonstrated an intolerance of a poster's ideas is you - as you have attacked my character for me attempting to express a view which is contrary to your own.

It's perfectly obvious you have no intentions of veering outside the comfort zone of argumentum ad hominem that you have created for yourself. So on that note, I have nothing further to say to you.

caseyann

It will not be the first time the 52-year-old has visited his mother's ancestral home. Last June, he and Ms Wittstock holidayed on the west coast, taking time out to socialise with locals at Durty Nelly's pub in Bunratty, Co Clare


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/you-wait-ages-for-a-head-of-state-and-then-three-come-along-2598189.html

Seems he has very strong links with his family routes.
I wonder who in mayo can actually say they are related to them.
Must check family history I was told i look like Grace kelly when i was small by students


However the Dali lama i must say is a proper decent person.
Meanwhile, the Dali Lama will arrive on April 13 for two days, at the invitation of a number of charities, the first time he has been here in 20 years.

"It's a private visit, not a state visit, and he won't be meeting any ministers, so the government won't be providing any cars for him or anything," said Neil Steedman, chairman of the Tibet Support Group Ireland.

"He's a man who asks for very little anyway. On his last visit in 1991, he was asked by airline cabin crew what he wanted during his journey and all he asked for was hot water

eia340600

Petroltimer,

Seeing as you clearly have no idea what the word "republican" means I took the liberty of looking it up: One who favors a republic as the best form of government.

There.Now before you post another word about republicans being murderers or bigots or whatever, I suggest you think again..I myself am a republican with no objection to the Queen of England's or the Prince of Monaco's visit.I am not a nationalist or unionist and I find people's arguments in relation to England still occupying "our" soil pathetic.That was all dealt with in the Good Friday Agreement.While I'd prefer to see monarchies everywhere abolished, that is up to the citizens of those countries.Both those in question are "popular", democratic monarchies, where the crown holds little real power.

FR.Ted Crilly

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Those reasons just show how pathetic republicans are. If German and Russians can accept each others heads of state visiting their respective countries after approx 35 million combined casualties in WW2 then republicans should be able to accept the Queens visit here.

Republicans need to take a big dose of Get the F**k over it!

German Army against Russian Army is a lot different to British Army against Irish Civilians

Wake the F**k up take your head out of the sand before you type Gobsh1te:D

caseyann

FR.Ted Crilly wrote: »

German Army against Russian Army is a lot different to British Army against Irish Civilians

Wake the F**k up take your head out of the sand before you type Gobsh1te:D

Not to mention in earlier years when they sat down with Irish chieftains over for dinner,fed them and then cut their heads off afterwards.

petroltimer

dlofnep wrote: »

This is the second time you have been reported for personal attacks. I'm not sure if you have read the charter, but if you haven't - now would be a good time.

I have expressed my views in a very clear and logical fashion. The only person who has demonstrated an intolerance of a poster's ideas is you - as you have attacked my character for me attempting to express a view which is contrary to your own.

It's perfectly obvious you have no intentions of veering outside the comfort zone of argumentum ad hominem that you have created for yourself. So on that note, I have nothing further to say to you.

Of course i have never read the charter and not about to, i never attacked you personally, i just called you what you are the same as a calling a person from england english, a person from ireland is irish or a person from northern ireland is northern irish. I just stating facts.

I'm the one who was opened minded, i started the tread to see why SF/IRA don't object the same to the prince of monaco visit like the queen of England(and as it happens Northern Ireland) visit. The reason you give is you just you hate her more,

petroltimer

eia340600 wrote: »

Petroltimer,

Seeing as you clearly have no idea what the word "republican" means I took the liberty of looking it up: One who favors a republic as the best form of government.

There.Now before you post another word about republicans being murderers or bigots or whatever, I suggest you think again..I myself am a republican with no objection to the Queen of England's or the Prince of Monaco's visit.I am not a nationalist or unionist and I find people's arguments in relation to England still occupying "our" soil pathetic.That was all dealt with in the Good Friday Agreement.While I'd prefer to see monarchies everywhere abolished, that is up to the citizens of those countries.Both those in question are "popular", democratic monarchies, where the crown holds little real power.

I know what a republican is, i'm one as well. SF/IRA long ago hijacked this name, anyone these days saying they are a republican you expect to see the ak47 behind their back and a line of dead children in their wake.

Fratton Fred

FR.Ted Crilly wrote: »

German Army against Russian Army is a lot different to British Army against Irish Civilians

Or the Irish (republican) army against British citizens.

Atrocities were carried out by both sides in the name of their countries up north. Surely now is as good a time as any to move on.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

The criticism for the Queen's visit isn't because she is unelected. That is another debate. The criticism is because she was the symbolic head of state while her troops massacred Irish civilians, and later awarded some of these soldiers with honourary titles. Even in lieu of the Saville Inquiry findings, none of these soldiers have been stripped of these honourary titles and she has not commented on the suffering that has been caused as a direct result of her troop's actions in the north.

It is therefore a perfectly valid criticism based on these grounds to protest against her visit. Whether you agree with the criticism or not is another matter, but to routinely attack people with varying viewpoints as "armchair" anything is immature, belittling and smacks of elitism.

The Queen is a figurehead.
She has no hand act or part in UK democratically elected government decisions about the UK army.
She is directed at all times by the Boss ie the UK prime minister of the time.
This disdain at a visiting figurehead of state of our nearest neighbour looks to me like living in the past and more of the refusal to move on.

caseyann wrote:

Not to mention in earlier years when they sat down with Irish chieftains over for dinner,fed them and then cut their heads off afterwards.

jesus mary and joseph,would you like me to go back to what popes did in the past? Spanish inquisitions anyone?
Or Germany's former leader worse.

Maybe we should all crawl under a rock,forgive no people and become cave people because well we're the highest of the high?

This type of tautology in the modern world belongs in the dustbin of history.
Read about it,learn about it yes but drop the grudge like most people have done.
Otherwise,anytime you go into mcdonalds,it won't be the quality of the food you are worried about,it will be all the black fellahs that were slaves in the south or killed in the name of Texas...

It really is the biscuit and a tiny minority view in the modern world.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or the Irish (republican) army against British citizens.

Atrocities were carried out by both sides in the name of their countries up north. Surely now is as good a time as any to move on.

There was a very good radio column by Olivia O' Leary yesterday evening regarding the situation of NI, there was no mention of Prince Albert but a small mention of the Queen.

It's at the bottom for this page http://www.rte.ie/radio1/drivetime/

Some on this board may not like it as it asks the same questions of both sides in NI.

JustinDee

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If German and Russians can accept each others heads of state visiting their respective countries after approx 35 million combined casualties in WW2 then republicans should be able to accept the Queens visit here

Pedantic point admittedly but I'll point out anyway: Germany and the USSR actually kicked that war off together in Europe when they both took Poland in Sept 1939.

'Spud's Law' will rear its head again when some anonymous soul inevitably brings the potato blight of the mid-1800s into proceedings. Always entertaining.

phantom_lord

dlofnep wrote: »

Yeah - how dare they address the reality that British troops murdered Irish civilians and were never held accountable for it. How dare they address the fact that some of those said soldiers were given honourary titles from the Queen. How dare the likes of the families of those slaughtered in Ballymurphy, Derry & Springhill continue to press for accountability and apologies.

Although I don't expect to ever see empathy from you. You're incapable of it when it comes to Irish civilians who saw serious oppression under the direct rule of Britain.

C'mon, 90% of Republicans couldn't care less about any of this. I saw a group protesting along the side of the street a few days ago about the visit and I would happily bet a significant amount of money that no apology or inquiry would make an ounce of difference to them and it's disingenuous to paint that as the reason for their protest, they've just got ingrained backward bigotry.

Bottle_of_Smoke

phantom_lord wrote: »

C'mon, 90% of Republicans couldn't care less about any of this. I saw a group protesting along the side of the street a few days ago about the visit and I would happily bet a significant amount of money that no apology or inquiry would make an ounce of difference to them and it's disingenuous to paint that as the reason for their protest, they've just got ingrained backward bigotry.

You may have a point about motives for protesting*, but it is equally disengenuous to call it ingrained backward bigotry.

They're protesting because they don't see British rule in the north being acceptable. Queen is figurehead of British rule even without any direct responsibilities. Therefore a fair target for protests.

You can argue its irrational and disagree with their views on British rule/Northern Ireland, however I see no reason to use that as justification for labelling it ingrained backward bigotry.


*At the same time there is no doubt an element of people are protesting due to the nature of the British role in the north. Perhaps no apology would dissuade them from protesting, but maybe they wouldn't be there in the first place had the British handled things better

dan_d

phantom_lord wrote: »

C'mon, 90% of Republicans couldn't care less about any of this. I saw a group protesting along the side of the street a few days ago about the visit and I would happily bet a significant amount of money that no apology or inquiry would make an ounce of difference to them and it's disingenuous to paint that as the reason for their protest, they've just got ingrained backward bigotry.

Have to agree.It's like - habit. For want of a better word. England? Bad, horrible, worst thing that ever happened to us, have to hate them all.ALL. Why? Oh well, sure they killed loads of people. And what'll stop the hatred and the IRA killing loads more people? Oh well....erm....get them out!

Seriously. I understand the long history.But at some point we've got to let go, grow up and get on with it. The families of the victims have every right to demand apologies. The rest of us don't need to be involved.

As to the threads original topic....why have we suddenly become the destination of choice?? Seems odd. You think the Government might be paying them to come here and make us look good??:D:D The Queen, the Dali Lama, Prince Albert, and Barack Obama.Some combination.

Bottle_of_Smoke

dan_d wrote: »

Have to agree.It's like - habit. For want of a better word. England? Bad, horrible, worst thing that ever happened to us, have to hate them all.ALL. Why? Oh well, sure they killed loads of people. And what'll stop the hatred and the IRA killing loads more people? Oh well....erm....get them out!

Load of utter tripe. Have to hate them all? You're sexing up the sentiments expressed and thus making them easier to disagree with. Pathetic.

FTA69

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Even by the standards of the time they were in another league altogether. Torture did occur in other areas such as interrogations carried out by the IRA and RUC but at least there was a point to those. Poor Hugh Murphy's papish name must have really got to him

Lenny Murphy. And funnily enough that was one reason given for his hatred of Catholics, the fact he was badly bullied over his name in school.

Bottle_of_Smoke

FTA69 wrote: »

Lenny Murphy. And funnily enough that was one reason given for his hatred of Catholics, the fact he was badly bullied over his name in school.

Lenny was actually his middle name. Hugh was his first name, used it for emphasis there on the point.