Bloody Sunday 30 January 1972 40th Anniversary Today

CDfm

Lots of people were surprised in 1985 when U2 who had yet to be really famous opened their set with this - a stadium rocker about peace.

The opening lines say it all "I can't believe the news today"

There was incredulity that it happened.

Here is an introduction from a University of Ulster resource so just follow the link

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/index.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]CAIN Web Service - Conflict and Politics in Northern Ireland[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The CAIN (Conflict Archive on the INternet) Web site contains information and source material on 'the Troubles' and politics in Northern Ireland from 1968 to the present. There is also some material on society in the region. CAIN is located in the University of Ulster and is part of INCORE and ARK.[/FONT]

So I am posting this for those who know very little about it and would prefer to avoid a political discussion as the events speak for themselves.

dave2pvd

Remarkable isn't it? In Wembley Stadium of all places. Poignant stuff.

As an Irishman living in the US, it still amazes me how Irish independence is barely acknowledged. By Ireland. Perhaps that's another thread.....

CDfm

dave2pvd wrote: »

As an Irishman living in the US, it still amazes me how Irish independence is barely acknowledged. By Ireland. Perhaps that's another thread.....

The 1916 centenary is just 4 years away and we still have problems talking about it. It would make for an interesting thread alright.

dave2pvd

CDfm wrote: »

The 1916 centenary is just 4 years away and we still have problems talking about it. It would make for an interesting thread alright.

Speaking of separate threads, surely Bono's high-heeled boots and superbly coiffed mullet count as worthy?

MarchDub

dave2pvd wrote: »

Remarkable isn't it? In Wembley Stadium of all places. Poignant stuff.

As an Irishman living in the US, it still amazes me how Irish independence is barely acknowledged. By Ireland. .

Not only not acknowledged but what is even more egregious for the spirit of a nation, it is frequently thrashed.

CDfm

dave2pvd wrote: »

Speaking of separate threads, surely Bono's high-heeled boots and superbly coiffed mullet count as worthy?

From Cuban heels to Cuban lookalike



Fidel Castro



U2 Publicity Shot

Fenian Army

Whats truly astounding is that there has not been one prosecution over it, not have the commanding officers been stripped of their medals etc. Fair enough if no one is getting prosecuted over stuff from the troubles, but republicans and to a lesser extent loyalists are. Thats why many of the family members are still marching, they want actions to back up words.

Its often portrayed as an aberration, but they got up to the same murderous craic in Ballymurphy and Springhill, you don't hear about those massacres as much but those families should have justice too.

The actions don't speak for themselves I'm afraid. Many loyalists and Unionists still maintain that the army were justified and that those killed were involved with the IRA, the Brit line at the time. The root of this persistent claim is that so many IRA men cite Bloody Sunday as the reason they joined the organization. In many peoples minds the admission that Bloody Sunday was a barbarous illegal event is saying that these IRA men and women were justified in joining.

Just on that song, I have a unionist friend, he is quite a moderate guy, we get on great despite me being quite the republican, but he regards that U2 song as a "rebel song" and won't listen to it.

R.Dub.Fusilier

just in regard to the U2 song , i think bono is given too much credit for the song. the main reason he did that song was to mirror john lennons song "Bloody Sunday" which had much better lyrics. i have never heard the JL version but have the Eire Og one and its well worth a listen. sorry slightly off topic.

Fenian Army

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

just in regard to the U2 song , i think bono is given too much credit for the song. the main reason he did that song was to mirror john lennons song "Bloody Sunday" which had much better lyrics. i have never heard the JL version but have the Eire Og one and its well worth a listen. sorry slightly off topic.

Well it was Sunday bloody Sunday
When they shot the people there
The cries of thirteen martyrs
Filled the Free Derry air
Is there any one amongst you
Dare to blame it on the kids?
Not a soldier boy was bleeding
When they nailed the coffin lids!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

You claim to be majority
Well you know that it's a lie
You're really a minority
On this sweet emerald isle
When Stormont bans our marches
They've got a lot to learn
Internment is no answer
It's those mothers' turn to burn!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

You anglo pigs and scotties
Sent to colonize the North
You wave your bloody Union Jack
And you know what it's worth!
How dare you hold to ransom
A people proud and free
Keep Ireland for the Irish
Put the English back to sea!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Well, it's always bloody Sunday
In the concentration camps
Keep Falls Road free forever
From the bloody English hands
Repatriate to Britain
All of you who call it home
Leave Ireland to the Irish
Not for London or for Rome!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!




Would be much better without Yoko Ono.

dave2pvd

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

just in regard to the U2 song , i think bono is given too much credit for the song. the main reason he did that song was to mirror john lennons song "Bloody Sunday" which had much better lyrics. i have never heard the JL version but have the Eire Og one and its well worth a listen. sorry slightly off topic.

U2 lyrics have never really made it to legendary status. What is remarkable about the song, and IMO could stand up against any Beatles song is what Adam, Larry and Dave are doing with their instruments.

CDfm

dave2pvd wrote: »

U2 lyrics have never really made it to legendary status. What is remarkable about the song, and IMO could stand up against any Beatles song is what Adam, Larry and Dave are doing with their instruments.

And their intro was "this is not a Rebel song ".

At that time, 3 of them were born again christians and they also did a homage to Martin Luther King.

3 of the 4 Beatles were of Irish extraction and McCartney did "Give Ireland back to the Irish".

I imagine the U2 song is relative to how it looked to an idealistic young christian who bought into peace as opposed to the oft cynical Lennon and Liverpool Irish McCartney who grew up post WWII.

Its a question of perspectives and Lennon did pipe down once his US Visa was in the balance.

The Scientician

I've read a bit about the reaction to the massacre in the Republic. Both Eamon McCann writing in the Irish Times (I think) and Brian Hanley in History Ireland magazine. What fascinates me is just how much this country has changed in the intervening years.

MarchDub

The Scientician wrote: »

I've read a bit about the reaction to the massacre in the Republic. Both Eamon McCann writing in the Irish Times (I think) and Brian Hanley in History Ireland magazine. What fascinates me is just how much this country has changed in the intervening years.

Not much mystery about that IMO - having lived through the times [I remember Bloody Sunday very well and the reaction in Ireland] it's easy to see how that 'change' came about when you have in the intervening years the press, the educational system, politicians, etc all spouting the same anti-nationalist rhetoric. That's my opinion anyway.

Although I do feel that much of the 'change' may in fact be on the surface.

The Scientician

It's not even anti-nationalism I'm talking about. I think it's the general communitarianism of what happened. Work-centred union groups all converged on various spots. Sure the unions still exist but if something outrageous happened tonight that I wanted to protest about tomorrow I wouldn't be looking to a union for organisation and I'm not sure you'd ever see the same numbers of people here protesting over something like that now as happened in '72. I think as a society, north and south, we're just a bit more atomised now.

Edited to add: Here's a link to McCann's comments http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310867377.html

eire4

Fenian Army wrote: »

Whats truly astounding is that there has not been one prosecution over it, not have the commanding officers been stripped of their medals etc. Fair enough if no one is getting prosecuted over stuff from the troubles, but republicans and to a lesser extent loyalists are. Thats why many of the family members are still marching, they want actions to back up words.

Its often portrayed as an aberration, but they got up to the same murderous craic in Ballymurphy and Springhill, you don't hear about those massacres as much but those families should have justice too.

The actions don't speak for themselves I'm afraid. Many loyalists and Unionists still maintain that the army were justified and that those killed were involved with the IRA, the Brit line at the time. The root of this persistent claim is that so many IRA men cite Bloody Sunday as the reason they joined the organization. In many peoples minds the admission that Bloody Sunday was a barbarous illegal event is saying that these IRA men and women were justified in joining.

Just on that song, I have a unionist friend, he is quite a moderate guy, we get on great despite me being quite the republican, but he regards that U2 song as a "rebel song" and won't listen to it.

I would suggest that maybe the reason nobody has been prosecuted is because the English cannot afford to have any trials for fears they would expose how far up the tree the orders and knowledge of this atrocity go.

HavingCrack

CDfm wrote: »

The 1916 centenary is just 4 years away and we still have problems talking about it. It would make for an interesting thread alright.

You have to remember in terms of human history even 1916 is still very close.

I always think a good comparison is the French Revolution which was ignored or not spoken of in much of France right through the 1800s, especially by conservatives.

There were similar hangovers in the US from the Civil War right up until the Civil Rights Movement, in fact you could argue looking at the US political and cultural landscape today that the hangover has never really gone away.

Indeed if we're talking of a simialr time frame we're really only starting to 'get to grips' with WW1 in the last decade or so. I suspect we'll begin to see 1916 and indeed the Civil War more talked about as the centenary approaches. Bloody Sunday and the Troubles in general are still very much in living memory so I suspect it could be another 20 or 30 years before real 'discussion' on it begins.

Apologies to everyone if my post is a bit hard to follow, I'm finding it quite hard to express myself in words.

snafuk35

Now you know and I know that there is a high probability that a group of men within Support Company, 1 Para actually wanted to get 'kills' and were prepared to gun down innocents to show the IRA operating in the Rossville area who was boss but it would be very very hard to prove that intention in court.

The reason there were no convictions so far is because the defense council would point out that Northern Ireland was in the middle of an insurrection against British rule and the troops going into the Rossville area were going into an area where IRA gunmen and bombers operated on a regular basis.

The Saville Report says that the whole thing kicked off when a Lieutenant was making an arrest and fired three shots in the air which set off a chain reaction among the rest of the troops who acted out of quote 'fear and panic' as the report puts it.

Most of shootings are understood in this way - the actions of stone throwers could have been misinterpreted as that of people throwing bombs or a person stepping out in the open to reach someone lying on the ground could be interpreted as a person stepping out to fire a shot.

Four of the soldiers broke free from the main body of soldiers and followed some of the crowd into Glenfada Park. No doubt the defense would argue they believed they were pursuing gunmen and bombers mixed up with stone throwers and protesters and because the 'contact' had kicked off (fooled by the shots of their own guys) they took no chances and fired at 'targets' that they took to be in a life or death situation to be enemy IRA.

One of the troops shot one of the victims on the ground as he lay wounded - a normal occurance when a soldier has shot an 'enemy' and makes sure he is not playing dead or concealing a weapon. His defense counsel would argue that he wasn't to know he was actually shooting an innocent person.

So a civilian jury could very well be swayed - not that the Paras were really innocent but that they couldn't be sure and they couldn't safely convict.

The Paras would claim that they were front line combat troops trained to be dropped behind enemy lines so their training would have kicked in when they perceived a contact had begun. They would shoot and ask questions later.

CDfm

HavingCrack wrote: »

Apologies to everyone if my post is a bit hard to follow, I'm finding it quite hard to express myself in words.

You are in good company, lots of people find it hard to discuss.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

You are in good company, lots of people find it hard to discuss.

It is very difficult to write about and think about, especially for those of us who lived through it all. Memories of TV reports, people screaming in terror, bodies lying on the ground, the British press denying any wrong doing; the frustration and anger of Irish people [some older people with memories of the Black and Tans] who recognised this as business as usual.

Speaking personally I will never see it as ‘troops dropped behind enemy lines’ who, because of their particular training somehow ‘got out of control’. Might as well say that about any massacre of innocent civilians. It was a civil rights march by people looking for constitutional rights that they ought to have had in any modern free society - and the victims were unarmed, many of them shot in the back as they were actually fleeing the scene.

snafuk35

MarchDub wrote: »

It is very difficult to write about and think about, especially for those of us who lived through it all. Memories of TV reports, people screaming in terror, bodies lying on the ground, the British press denying any wrong doing; the frustration and anger of Irish people [some older people with memories of the Black and Tans] who recognised this as business as usual.

Speaking personally I will never see it as ‘troops dropped behind enemy lines’ who, because of their particular training somehow ‘got out of control’. Might as well say that about any massacre of innocent civilians. It was a civil rights march by people looking for constitutional rights that they ought to have had in any modern free society - and the victims were unarmed, many of them shot in the back as they were actually fleeing the scene.

The troops wouldn't have known what the Irish wanted or known anything about the civil rights struggle or Irish history.
These guys went into the army straight out of school. All they would ever know is the Paras and it would be their family.
1 Para were told that Derry was a warzone and they were told to expect to be shot at. That's all they would want to know or need to know.
Most of them went in with safeties off and one soldier fired more than than the single 20 round magazine they were issued with before the off. He probably nicked an extra one and brought it with him because they were expecting trouble.
10 years later on the Falklands 2 Para were in the Battle of Goose Green and later the Battle of Wireless Ridge and 3 Para were in the Battle of Mount Longdon. An eye witness to the battle saw his fellow paras shooting dead surrendering Argentinians or finishing off wounded men. That's because aggression is pounded into the paratroopers from day one when they join up.
So a unit like 1 Para simply should not have been used to police the demonstration. They were trained for frontline combat against Soviet forces if WW3 broke out. In Derry they only did what they were trained to do - kill. Sadly innocent people paid the price.

CDfm

snafuk35 wrote: »

So a unit like 1 Para simply should not have been used to police the demonstration. They were trained for frontline combat against Soviet forces if WW3 broke out. In Derry they only did what they were trained to do - kill. Sadly innocent people paid the price.

But they were and it is not the victims fault.

snafuk35

CDfm wrote: »

But they were and it is not the victims fault.

Nobody said it was the victims fault.
I am merely pointing out that what the paratroopers did is understandable considering the situation in Derry in 1972 and what happens when gunfire - the three shots fired by a junior officer - erupts in a built up area when soldiers are alert for possible gun or bomb attacks.
The Saville Report exonerates most the soldiers who acted out of fear and panic.

CDfm

snafuk35 wrote: »

Nobody said it was the victims fault.
The Saville Report exonerates most the soldiers who acted out of fear and panic.

Ah sure, that's fine so .

MMMMMMmmmmm.

But then didn't a huge number of people join the Provos and the whole thing escalated. Nobodies fault. A misunderstanding.

snafuk35

CDfm wrote: »

Ah sure, that's fine so .

MMMMMMmmmmm.

But then didn't a huge number of people join the Provos and the whole thing escalated. Nobodies fault. A misunderstanding.

The Provos only used that as an excuse - their aim wasn't to right any wrongs. They sought to bring about a united Ireland through terrorism. Most the victims of Bloody Sunday did not support republican violence and there were pleas for the violence to stop for years by the victims' families.

CDfm

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Provos only used that as an excuse - their aim wasn't to right any wrongs.

Can you see how the event's and the aftermath fostered the conditions for it to happen.

A cursory glance of Dublin 1916 which no doubt is taught to the military and politicians would have made them well aware would have told them how this would play out.

It wasn't rocket science.

snafuk35

CDfm wrote: »

Can you see how the event's and the aftermath fostered the conditions for it to happen.

A cursory glance of Dublin 1916 which no doubt is taught to the military and politicians would have made them well aware would have told them how this would play out.

It wasn't rocket science.

The Bloody Sunday deaths do not legitimise 30 years of barbarity and murder by the Provisional IRA.
That's not rocket science.

CDfm

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Bloody Sunday deaths do not legitimise 30 years of barbarity and murder by the Provisional IRA.
That's not rocket science.

I am not pro the Provisional IRA & have posted about that.

My point here is different. A little context on 1916 is that the Rising was not popular and became popular as a result of civilian casualties which at over 220 exceeded the combined total of the military & rebel casualties.

http://irishmedals.org/gpage47.html

The reaction in 1916 was that the civilians felt they were targeted by the authorities.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72158599&postcount=1

And here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056252706&page=10

So my point is & it is not original that in 1972 because the authorities reacted in the way they did -the killings and cover up - sections of the population abandoned parliamentary/peaceful politics for extremist politics and methods.

An awareness of 1916 would have shown the authorities that the use of deadly force on civilians causes that reaction and that a rise in support for paramilitarism and terrorism was predictable and inevitable.

The Civil Rights Movement ended that day and while there was a peace movement for a few years afterwards, the momentum was gone.

HavingCrack

CDfm wrote: »

An awareness of 1916 would have shown the authorities that the use of deadly force on civilians causes that reaction and that a rise in support for paramilitarism and terrorism was predictable and inevitable.

Interestingly the use of deadly force on civilians can neutralise or at least sideline support for terrorism or paramilitarism if it is brutal enough and the regime is immune to outside criticism. Look at modern day Iran or China or Franco's regime in Spain etc. Obviously the UK considered itself a civilised state so wasn't capable of fully implementing such a regime. In the end they chose the worst of all options (from their persepctive) a violent campaign which had no hopes of victory through fear alone.

CDfm

HavingCrack wrote: »

Interestingly the use of deadly force on civilians can neutralise or at least sideline support for terrorism or paramilitarism if it is brutal enough and the regime is immune to outside criticism.Look at modern day Iran or China or Franco's regime in Spain etc

But the system was that of a modern democratic state and its citizens had the same rights as other citizens in the United Kingdom.

. Obviously the UK considered itself a civilised state so wasn't capable of fully implementing such a regime. In the end they chose the worst of all options (from their persepctive) a violent campaign which had no hopes of victory through fear alone.

It was a mad situation that Ulster Unionist Premier Terrence O'Neill found himself in between 1963 & his resignation in 1969.

I am always amazed at the British Labour Party's policies under Harold Wilson UK Premier 1964 to 70 -like they were the socialists and trade unionists.

Politically, citizens were trying to enforce their rights and like it or not citizens like the blacks in Uganda and the coloured folk in the Southern American states were doing the same.

I don't mean to be judgmental,but I can't understand why peace walls should be needed in Belfast either but the leaders of both communities agree that they are needed.

MarchDub

The violence of Bloody Sunday sidelined the real issue of Catholic disenfranchisement in the Northern Ireland state. From there on the narrative became just about all the violent incidents, the violent reactions [were they justified etc] and so on in circles forever - until we got to arguments about who committed the 'worst' deeds etc. Cleverly, the real issues got blindsided by this development.

I personally hate violence which is why Bloody Sunday will forever be burned into my memory as an atrocious deed - and the using of troops against a civilian civil rights parade is egregious to me.

And like I said - the real tragedy was the sidelining of the REAL issue of how Catholics were treated in the Norther Ireland state and how their voices of protest were ignored for decades prior to the 1960s.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I don't mean to be judgmental,but I can't understand why peace walls should be needed in Belfast either but the leaders of both communities agree that they are needed.

They may have agreed to them but I think the up to date views are that they should be removed where possible.

A new £2m fund (€2.4m) has been announced aimed at bringing down so-called peace walls which separate Protestant and Catholic neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland.

The money, being put forward by the International Fund for Ireland, is to be spent on projects that build confidence between divided communities.

The number of separation barriers in the North has grown since the 1994 ceasefire and some 88 peace walls are in place across Northern Ireland, with 40 in Belfast.

Their purpose is to minimise violence at interfaces where Catholic and Protestant communities meet.

Put side-by-side the barriers would stretch to over 21km.

The Peace Walls Programme has been put together following consultation with the North's Department of Justice and the Office of First and Deputy First Minister among others.

The programme will fund a range of relationship building initiatives within and between interface communities to help them arrive at a point where residents feel it is safe and appropriate for the walls to come down.

It is hoped that programme activity will start in June. http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0118/north.html

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

A cursory glance of Dublin 1916 which no doubt is taught to the military and politicians would have made them well aware would have told them how this would play out.

CDfm wrote: »

An awareness of 1916 would have shown the authorities that the use of deadly force on civilians causes that reaction and that a rise in support for paramilitarism and terrorism was predictable and inevitable.

The Civil Rights Movement ended that day and while there was a peace movement for a few years afterwards, the momentum was gone.

Could this have been an aim?

The British army could legitimise its actions if it were taking on a terrorist organisation (it was ligitimate as they were fighting an illegal organisation). Before Bloody Sunday it was fighting against civil rights and this did not look good and was getting harder to legitimise on an international stage in the face of international media. So whilst Bloody Sunday brought criticism of the British army it also led to a situation where there operations in NI became easier to justify.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Could this have been an aim?

It might have been but that would mean that the army was not under the control of the politicians.

The British army could legitimise its actions if it were taking on a terrorist organisation (it was ligitimate as they were fighting an illegal organisation). Before Bloody Sunday it was fighting against civil rights and this did not look good and was getting harder to legitimise on an international stage in the face of international media. So whilst Bloody Sunday brought criticism of the British army it also led to a situation where there operations in NI became easier to justify.

After the event itself the problem was a political issue.

So this was the situation The British armyGovernment could legitimise its actions

Those who always who get off lightly are the British Labour Party who were in power during the 60's and 70's when the civil rights issues should have been dealt with.

Terrence O'Neill was a good man who got no support and gets airbrushed out for his efforts.

Fenian Army

The reality on the ground is that its simply too dangerous for many of the walls to come down unfortunatly.

Fenian Army

The reality on the ground is that its simply too dangerous for many of the walls to come down unfortunatly.

secondopinion

I wonder if U2 will ever release a single called 'Bloody Friday'? Or even 'Bloody Monday to Bloody Sunday' which would be even more appropriate where PIRA were concerned.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

Those who always who get off lightly are the British Labour Party who were in power during the 60's and 70's when the civil rights issues should have been dealt with.

Terrence O'Neill was a good man who got no support and gets airbrushed out for his efforts.

O'Neill was progressive but he did not bring his own community with him. It is hard to put much value on his contribution because of this. I think he was succeeded as MP by Paisley in 1970 which suggests very strongly the direction that the North was headed. 30+ years of troubles followed.

What do you think labour should have done?

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What do you think labour should have done?

The British Labour Party traded on their socialist principles but didn't apply them to Ireland.

secondopinion

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

O'Neill was progressive but he did not bring his own community with him. It is hard to put much value on his contribution because of this. I think he was succeeded as MP by Paisley in 1970 which suggests very strongly the direction that the North was headed. 30+ years of troubles followed.

What do you think labour should have done?

I'll tell you what they should have done - with The Conservatives...

Discrimination in NI was a direct result of fear of a fifth column within the territory, acting in cohorts with a hostile nation to the south. The Free State/ROI should have made it clear to northern nationalists that the border was there to stay and that The Irish nation's territory was complete. Northern nationalists should have been urged to accept UK rule in all it's forms and to abandon forever any hopes of Irish unity. In return The UK State should have insured equality within that part of it's sovereign territory. The issue of the Catholic reproductive rate would have had to have been addressed in some manner, if social equality did not bring it into line with UK norms.

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

I'll tell you what they should have done - with The Conservatives...

Discrimination in NI was a direct result of fear of a fifth column within the territory, acting in cohorts with a hostile nation to the south. The Free State/ROI should have made it clear to northern nationalists that the border was there to stay and that The Irish nation's territory was complete. Northern nationalists should have been urged to accept UK rule in all it's forms and to abandon forever any hopes of Irish unity. In return The UK State should have insured equality within that part of it's sovereign territory. The issue of the Catholic reproductive rate would have had to have been addressed in some manner, if social equality did not bring it into line with UK norms.

What a load of utter nonsense.

Catholics were not concerned with a UI when they were murdered by British soldiers on the streets of Derry. Civil rights was what was sought - remember it was a civil rights movement not a 'unite the island movement'. The IRA were a fringe element of the Catholic population at the time in spite of the experiences of intimidation by the other tradition and it's militias - particularly the feeble minded bully boys that made up the B Specials who subsequently made up a considerable portion of the UDR.

Unfortunately the message received after Bloody Sunday was that if you are seeking equality under British rule you can expect, eventually, to be shot by British soldiers or beaten by loyalist thugs while the state apparatus does nothing. That is what energized the IRA.

Even if Catholics had sought a reunification of the island - so what? They had every right to in a supposed democratic country like the venerable UK.

jonniebgood1

secondopinion wrote: »

I'll tell you what they should have done - with The Conservatives...

Discrimination in NI was a direct result of fear of a fifth column within the territory, acting in cohorts with a hostile nation to the south. The Free State/ROI should have made it clear to northern nationalists that the border was there to stay and that The Irish nation's territory was complete. Northern nationalists should have been urged to accept UK rule in all it's forms and to abandon forever any hopes of Irish unity. In return The UK State should have insured equality within that part of it's sovereign territory. The issue of the Catholic reproductive rate would have had to have been addressed in some manner, if social equality did not bring it into line with UK norms.

This post has no place in a discussion on history. You need to refer to the forum guidelines and forum charter before posting again. It is quite simple, if you continue to post in this manner then you are creating a situation where your posts will be removed and you may be banned from the forum.

If you wish to query this then you should do it by PM and not in this thread.
Moderator.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

The British Labour Party traded on their socialist principles but didn't apply them to Ireland.

They have never participated in NI politics as far as I know.

How much did they trade on socialist principles? In the 60's noone wanted to be overly linked with socialism I would have thought less they be labelled red- open to clarification on that. Also parties who have preached socialist ideals often do not carry them through, just look at our own labour party now! Off topic I know. I think that there were differences in NI that meant it was'nt as simple as applying principles as elsewhere in the UK for the labour party.

Finally there was'nt direct rule in this time, O'Neill was Prime minister of NI, Wilson was Prime minister of Britain. He sent troops to NI in 1969 and his reasons for doing this could be interesting?

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

They have never participated in NI politics as far as I know.

Well some tried. A group formed within the British Labour party in the 1940s - post WWII - calling themselves "Friends of Ireland' and tried to gain some attention at Westminster for the plight of the disenfranchised Catholics of Northern Ireland. This was the result of some nationalists in NI attempting to get the issue of NI and the treatment Catholics in housing and employment brought to Westminster level. The attempt failed however, as they could not gain enough support.

Until the 1960s all attempts to get Westminster to address Catholic concerns within NI were met with refusal and referred back to Stormont.

CDfm

NI was not economically viable and it sent money so when in power it could have cut grant aid.

NI has MP's in Westminster and had then too.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

NI has MP's in Westminster and had then too.

But back then gerrymandering took care of who got elected though.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

But back then gerrymandering took care of who got elected though.

So it was neither accountable to the people or Parliment.

Very convenient.

British Labour Party bears some responsibility or am I being harsh.

secondopinion

MarchDub wrote: »

But back then gerrymandering took care of who got elected though.

Not to Westminster or Stormont. Gerrymandering only occurred at council level - mainly west of The Bann. Remember, there was a 2:1 Protestant majority at that time and Stormont/Westminster were elected under the 'first past the post' system, as with the rest of The UK, hence no need for gerrymandering.

It's interesting to note that SF actually won several Westminster seats in the fifties (I believe).

secondopinion

CDfm wrote: »

NI was not economically viable and it sent money so when in power it could have cut grant aid.

NI has MP's in Westminster and had then too.

I'm not sure when NI became what you call 'not economically viable'. In any case, such a term applied to a region of a state can be misleading. Most state's economies rotate around their capitals, reducing the 'viability' of the regions.

Again, I'm not sure about the legality of The UK State cutting what you call 'grant aid' to The UK regions.

secondopinion

CDfm wrote: »

So it was neither accountable to the people or Parliment.

Very convenient.

British Labour Party bears some responsibility or am I being harsh.

Sorry, what wasn't?

CDfm

secondopinion wrote: »

Sorry, what wasn't?

The system that gave arise to Bloody Sunday. It was allowed to happen.

There was no accountability and there was nobody to take responsibility.

This from the country that organized the D-Day landings.

secondopinion

CDfm wrote: »

The system that gave arise to Bloody Sunday. It was allowed to happen.

There was no accountability and there was nobody to take responsibility.

This from the country that organized the D-Day landings.

'Bloody Sunday' was an event that was preceded by 250 deaths, most caused by militant Irish Republicans and must be seen in that context. Of course, The UK State was not fighting a war (unlike Irish Republicans who murdered at will before and after BS) and as such The UK State had a clear responsibility. The word murder being the correct one, as only soldiers can legally kill soldiers and The IRA rarely, if ever, wore uniforms or openly displayed their weapons as demanded by The Rules of War.

It is safe to say, that had there been no IRA campaign then 'Bloody Sunday' would not have occurred. So, in a way, those that should take responsibility are those militant Republicans active at that time. I believe some of them are very well known.