Nelson's Pillar - 46th anniversary

thecommietommy

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The main promoters for putting Mary up there were the fanatics in the Irish League of Decency, headed by JB Murray and Mary Kennedy. However, long before them there were several other attempts. (Years later - 1978 - Murray had a heart attack while on the phone to de papers complaining about RTE’s first televised nude scene in ‘The Spike’ .) Also:-

Dublin Corporation frequently discussed the removal of Nelson from the top of the Pillar, with unimplemented plans announced in 1876, 1881, 1891, 1923 and 1928. Thomas Bodkin, a former director of the National Gallery was invited in the 1950s by the government to give a lecture on the Pillar. He was critical of the idea of replacing Nelson with a statue of the Virgin Mary: ‘I can’t help thinking that she would not like to take charge of a column that was subscribed for and erected to the memory of someone else.’ Yvonne Whelan, Reinventing Modern Dublin (Dublin, 2003), p.204.

Thank you for the information, Murray sounds like Mary Whitehouse in England so beloved by the Monty Python crew etc in the 70's

You are entitled to your views - however emotive and bigotted. The facts speak from themselve, the subscription was filled extremely quickly and the Pillar was arguably the second one erected - the first was in Scotland. The RN pressed sailors everywhere, including out of American ships (read up on HMS Leopard) which was one of the factors that fuelled the start of the British American war. You might also consider researching the economic merits of the RN to the poorer population of Munster (victualling, butter markets) and the bases in Queenstown and Berehaven, or even the horse trade from Ireland during the Napoleonic wars.

Well your entitled to your views, you may see my views as "emotive and bigotted" but I don't happen to warm to the distorted views which try and portray British occupation of Ireland or anywhere else as some sort of benevolent patronage and something to be admired. As for the economic merits of the RN to the poorer population, they mightn't have been so poor if the British weren't extorting the country in the first place and under any occupation their has to be some economic activity of some kind even if it has secondary unintended consequences that may benefit a small number.

And as for the funding to the pillar, the majority of the money would have come form the establishment parasites with the money and normally spent it on yachts, mansions, parties, expensive art etc Like I stated previously, it would be logical to assume that the ordinary person was more concerned with feeding and clothing their children than give money or any admiration for the British military just 7 years after the 1798 rebellion when approx 30,000 Irish people were murdered by British forces.

You obviously don't know your history - you have your Goughs confused:rolleyes:

Well we’re getting a bit off topic but in my humble opinion to give the knob his full title, General Sir Hubert de la Poer Gough GCB, GCMG, KCVO would have sprung to my mind as the most signifcant Gough regarding Ireland and erecting a statue to this unionist bigot would be par for the course when it came to unionist bigots.

CDfm

The main promoters for putting Mary up there were the fanatics in the Irish League of Decency, headed by JB Murray and Mary Kennedy. However, long before them there were several other attempts

I dunno about the Mary idea, would it not have been looking out over Monto.

pedroeibar1

thecommietommy wrote: »

And as for the funding to the pillar, the majority of the money would have come form the establishment parasites with the money and normally spent it on yachts, mansions, parties, expensive art etc Like I stated previously, it would be logical to assume that the ordinary person was more concerned with feeding and clothing their children than give money or any admiration for the British military just 7 years after the 1798 rebellion when approx 30,000 Irish people were murdered by British forces.

Well we’re getting a bit off topic but in my humble opinion to give the knob his full title, General Sir Hubert de la Poer Gough GCB, GCMG, KCVO would have sprung to my mind as the most signifcant Gough regarding Ireland and erecting a statue to this unionist bigot would be par for the course when it came to unionist bigots.

You still have not got it right. The statue we have been discussing is that of Field Marshal Viscount Sir Hugh Gough, KP, PC, GCB, GCSI (who was born in 1779) seated on his horse. He was not a ‘knob’ as you describe him; he was a brave man with an impressive record but an unimaginative leader, of the frontal assault variety. Nelson was of the same school, telling his captains ''Never mind manoeuvres, always go at them'' although he did show the occasional flash of brilliance.

Your figure of 30,000 'murders' is not accurate - firstly, the total death toll for 1798 is believed to be in the region of about 10,000 (Bartlett). Secondly most deaths were not 'murder' as they were between combatants. And before you start on atrocities, yes there were, but they took place on both sides.

Clearly your use of emotive language and boards name show you have an agenda rather than an interest in historical fact – as the above examples show. Also, your comment ‘establishment parasites with the money and normally spent it on yachts’ is inaccurate as yachts and pleasure sailing did not become generally popular until a decade or so after Nelson’s death, although there were a few around in Ireland at that time.

thecommietommy

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You still have not got it right. The statue we have been discussing is that of Field Marshal Viscount Sir Hugh Gough, KP, PC, GCB, GCSI (who was born in 1779) seated on his horse. He was not a ‘knob’ as you describe him; he was a brave man with an impressive record but an unimaginative leader, of the frontal assault variety. Nelson was of the same school, telling his captains ''Never mind manoeuvres, always go at them'' although he did show the occasional flash of brilliance.

Your figure of 30,000 'murders' is not accurate - firstly, the total death toll for 1798 is believed to be in the region of about 10,000 (Bartlett). Secondly most deaths were not 'murder' as they were between combatants. And before you start on atrocities, yes there were, but they took place on both sides.

Clearly your use of emotive language and boards name show you have an agenda rather than an interest in historical fact – as the above examples show. Also, your comment ‘establishment parasites with the money and normally spent it on yachts’ is inaccurate as yachts and pleasure sailing did not become generally popular until a decade or so after Nelson’s death, although there were a few around in Ireland at that time.

Fine, maybe if you had been more specific in the first place the mix up wouldn't have happened with the other unionist knob invovled in the Curragh mutiny General Sir Hubert de la Poer Gough GCB, GCMG, KCVO.

As for the rest, we are getting off topic.

annieoburns

My memories of the pillar...

Was it sixpence to go up the top? once was enough for me.

I recall the embarrassement of having to try and explain Irish politics to a perplexed German family that I stayed with that summer as an exchange student.

In 1978, I was interested to find a pile of the salvaged stones from the pillar all carefully numbered and stored in the stable block of Kilkenny Design Studios in Kilkenny town. On a recent visit to Kilkenny, I see a selection of these has been incorporated into a feature of the nearby garden of the Butler house. DSCF0121.JPG

Wicklowrider

Anyone interested in the facts can of course do what I did.
Go to the national archives.
Note the names and nationalities of the companies invited to tender for the job. Note they declined to tender. Check the lists of claims and check how few were actually paid. Its very interesting to note the mostly paltry payouts ( which were never challenged in court) and its obvious they constituted mainly nuisance money. Of the legitimate claims, most were for glass that couldn't easily be removed and stood a "fair chance" of survival. Some window sashes were replaced but it was noted on some of these claims that they had been damaged by gunfire (1916 presumably).

Its also interesting to note that not a single qualified opinion ( civil engineer, military engineer, demolition expert...) is on record suggesting that the army behaved in anything other than a professional manner that day.

A piece of propaganda circulated at the time became an urban myth.I think its disgraceful that people today continue to slur the names of the soldiers on duty that day. Those soldiers names and the officers' Engineering credentials are also a matter of public record. I know that two of the soldiers survive today and are obviously old men.Its highly disappointing to see that their reputations are not at least considered equal to those of anonymous people posting hearsay on this thread.

MarchDub

annieoburns wrote: »

I recall the embarrassement of having to try and explain Irish politics to a perplexed German family that I stayed with that summer as an exchange student.

You were embarrassed talking Irish politics in the 1960s with GERMANS?

How did their own political talk go then? Don't mention the war?

CDfm

annieoburns wrote: »

My memories of the pillar...

Was it sixpence to go up the top? once was enough for me.

My mother climbed up it too and is fairly nationalist but she has always thought it a shame that it was blown up as it was an amenity and of its time.

I kind of agree with her, and unless anyone want's to burn down the Vice Regal Lodge or demolish Dublin Castle they do too.

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Anyone interested in the facts can of course do what I did.
Go to the national archives.
Note the names and nationalities of the companies invited to tender for the job. Note they declined to tender. Check the lists of claims and check how few were actually paid. Its very interesting to note the mostly paltry payouts ( which were never challenged in court) and its obvious they constituted mainly nuisance money. Of the legitimate claims, most were for glass that couldn't easily be removed and stood a "fair chance" of survival. Some window sashes were replaced but it was noted on some of these claims that they had been damaged by gunfire (1916 presumably).

Its also interesting to note that not a single qualified opinion ( civil engineer, military engineer, demolition expert...) is on record suggesting that the army behaved in anything other than a professional manner that day.

A piece of propaganda circulated at the time became an urban myth.I think its disgraceful that people today continue to slur the names of the soldiers on duty that day. Those soldiers names and the officers' Engineering credentials are also a matter of public record. I know that two of the soldiers survive today and are obviously old men.Its highly disappointing to see that their reputations are not at least considered equal to those of anonymous people posting hearsay on this thread.

I agree with you that the Army did a splendid job and it is great that you care enough to bring it to our attention. The IRA had no right to do what they did.

The IRA action was reckless and it was pure luck that no-one was either killed or injured.

If that had been the case , the events would have been remembered differently and I have always thought that the idea behind the Dublin bombings of 1974 originated with that. I am not saying it did but to me the idea's are not mutually exclusive.

The armies job was to make things safe so that people could go about their daily lives , shops could open etc.

jonniebgood1

Wicklowrider wrote: »

A piece of propaganda circulated at the time became an urban myth.I think its disgraceful that people today continue to slur the names of the soldiers on duty that day.

Who circulated this 'propaganda' and what was their purpose, i.e. who were they trying to influence and why?

Pike in the Thatch

The IRA did not blow up the pillar.

This seems to be a common myth, but republicans, some of whom may have previously been in the IRA, blew it up off their own bat.

It's a shame that the authorities would still chase people for this, as it's a fascinating story. I know lots of "rumours" about the pillar and the people who did it, some of which are fairly reliable, but the history forum is probably not the place for them.

Personally I think that it was a disgrace that a statue of a British imperialist warmonger lasted for so long in the center of Dublin. The accounts I've heard from Dubliners who were present are similar to marchdubs. My father tells of the great joy that young people had at the time, with people rushing to see it and to grab some rubble. Generally people had a good laugh about it.

It had large public support, the year was 1966, 50 years after the declaration of the republic. An example of this support is the fact that the following song was number one in charts for a number of weeks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__3v0eKHB_s

Personally I think it was a good way to mark the anniversary as well as a poignant metaphor that reminded people that while it may have been fifty years since the rising but the job wasn't done, remnants of British imperialism (i.e the occupation in the North) still needed to be removed. Thats what I suspect was the motivation the individuals involved had.

It being done in the dead of night, there was little risk to the public. Fair play to the individuals involved I say.

Pike in the Thatch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pZK121lOhc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty3UdFd3hlI

CDfm

Pike in the Thatch wrote: »

Personally I think that it was a disgrace that a statue of a British imperialist warmonger lasted for so long in the center of Dublin. The accounts I've heard from Dubliners who were present are similar to marchdubs. My father tells of the great joy that young people had at the time, with people rushing to see it and to grab some rubble. Generally people had a good laugh about it.

It had large public support, the year was 1966, 50 years after the declaration of the republic. An example of this support is the fact that the following song was number one in charts for a number of weeks:

It being done in the dead of night, there was little risk to the public. Fair play to the individuals involved I say.

But it still wasn't their decision to make and, whatever your personal position , nobody elected them.

I don't know if Nelson ever set foot in Dublin or Ireland for that matter. Wellington is commemorated with an obelisk in the Phoenix Park and no-one seems offended.

Jellybaby1

Pike in the Thatch wrote: »

The accounts I've heard from Dubliners who were present are similar to marchdubs. My father tells of the great joy that young people had at the time, with people rushing to see it and to grab some rubble. Generally people had a good laugh about it.

It had large public support, the year was 1966, 50 years after the declaration of the republic. An example of this support is the fact that the following song was number one in charts for a number of weeks:

It being done in the dead of night, there was little risk to the public. Fair play to the individuals involved I say.

Among the accounts you heard from Dubliners, were not the accounts of all Dubliners. Sounds like you were not living in Dublin at the time so. I was. I lived 10 minutes from the pillar. At 14 years of age I had to walk past it that morning, and from what I remember, there was no laughter when I stood in front of it. When I stood there, there was silence, shock, and nervousness mainly because we wondered what else these people were capable of, and what more was coming, and there was a chill in the air. They frightened us and our neighbours. Yes, I did step forward and took a small piece of the stone and I still have it. I wish the pillar was back in O'Connell Street. The street is nothing to be proud of. It has never looked right since. I liked the pillar being there and I am sorry that I never got a chance to climb it. These are my opinions, I do not apologise for them, and I have every right to have them. That is all I will say.

dubhthach

CDfm wrote: »

But it still wasn't their decision to make and, whatever your personal position , nobody elected them.

I don't know if Nelson ever set foot in Dublin or Ireland for that matter. Wellington is commemorated with an obelisk in the Phoenix Park and no-one seems offended.

Wellington was at least born in Dublin (in what is now the "Merrion Hotel") of course an obelisk in itself is a more abstract concept then a statue. As a result perhaps it was too cerebral a monument to blow up. Either that or just too big for anyone to think it economical to do so!

thecommietommy

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Among the accounts you heard from Dubliners, were not the accounts of all Dubliners. Sounds like you were not living in Dublin at the time so. I was. I lived 10 minutes from the pillar. At 14 years of age I had to walk past it that morning, and from what I remember, there was no laughter when I stood in front of it. When I stood there, there was silence, shock, and nervousness mainly because we wondered what else these people were capable of, and what more was coming, and there was a chill in the air. They frightened us and our neighbours. Yes, I did step forward and took a small piece of the stone and I still have it. I wish the pillar was back in O'Connell Street. The street is nothing to be proud of. It has never looked right since. I liked the pillar being there and I am sorry that I never got a chance to climb it. These are my opinions, I do not apologise for them, and I have every right to have them. That is all I will say.

Well I am not from Dublin and would have been too young at the time to take in what was happening but from what I can gather from documentary's and talking to old Dubliners, I would have to agree with Pike in the Thatch, that in general the whole thing was greeted with a bit of mirth Why else would the song Up Went Nelson have gone to number 1 for several weeks and was sung in pubs etc around the country.

Personally I glad that this symbol of a British imperialism is gone off the main street of Dublin, the Spire is now in the place where the pillar was and O'Connell street looks the very much better for it.

Wicklowrider

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Who circulated this 'propaganda' and what was their purpose, i.e. who were they trying to influence and why?

Subversive supporters were the first people that I heard it from.
People who did not believe in democracy and believed it was OK to explode bombs among innocent people. They were trying to influence the ordinary person. They succeeded to a minor extent, mainly through people incapable of thinking for themselves . As for why? to subvert democracy and its legal servants.

When these people are asked "How much explosive did the army use?"
They look confused and cannot answer, despite claiming the army used "too much".
When they are asked "what explosive should have been used " they look confused and cannot answer.
When they are asked what qualifications they hold that qualifies them to assess a job of this nature they don't answer.
In fact, ask them any question relevant to the army's operation that day and they can't answer. Mostly this is simply because they've never given it any thought.
When they are invited to visit the former site and point out which buildings they believe the army damaged they refuse point blank. When they are invited to view the documents in the national archive they refuse. Its pointless trying to engage logically with these people - their minds are shut to anything other than what they want to believe. I'm sure there were days when the army did make mistakes. This wasn't one of them.

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well I am not from Dublin and would have been too young at the time to take in what was happening but from what I can gather from documentary's and talking to old Dubliners,

But don't you think that there is a certain amount of editorial bias and when people post here anonymously the reaction is not as anti-pillar.

I would have to agree with Pike in the Thatch, that in general the whole thing was greeted with a bit of mirth Why else would the song Up Went Nelson have gone to number 1 for several weeks and was sung in pubs etc around the country.

The Dubliners were known for their comedic folk songs including "7 drunken nights" & " Monto" so because a song is topical etc does not mean people agree with it.

How extremist politicians did in the elections would probably be a better measure of support.

I am not particularly pro having a monument to Nelson but a debate was underway to recycle the pillar and there is a part of Dublin's population whose heritage is "British" and a certain level of sensitivity has to be given to them.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

The Dubliners were known for their comedic folk songs including "7 drunken nights" & " Monto" so because a song is topical etc does not mean people agree with it.

Actually it wasn't the Dubliners who made that recording in 1966 of "UP Went Nelson" - it was the Go Lucky Four and the song was really popular - we sang and danced to it. It stayed on top of the charts for ages. I can still get a chuckle out of the memories of this.

What I remember most though is the jokes - it was the first time that I learned what a Half Nelson was. But it must be remembered that all this joviality was before NI became embroiled in violence - that was the real shock of the 1960s. So there was little sense around in 1966 in Dublin of any potential danger when the Pillar was blown up, as I remember it.

I didn't know anyone who thought that Nelson's statue belonged in O'Connell St - but the Pillar did. But the debate about who to replace him with went on for too long, IMO. And the rest is history....

MarchDub

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Subversive supporters were the first people that I heard it from.
People who did not believe in democracy and believed it was OK to explode bombs among innocent people. They were trying to influence the ordinary person. They succeeded to a minor extent, mainly through people incapable of thinking for themselves . As for why? to subvert democracy and its legal servants.

When these people are asked "How much explosive did the army use?"
They look confused and cannot answer, despite claiming the army used "too much".
When they are asked "what explosive should have been used " they look confused and cannot answer.
When they are asked what qualifications they hold that qualifies them to assess a job of this nature they don't answer.
In fact, ask them any question relevant to the army's operation that day and they can't answer. Mostly this is simply because they've never given it any thought.
When they are invited to visit the former site and point out which buildings they believe the army damaged they refuse point blank. When they are invited to view the documents in the national archive they refuse. Its pointless trying to engage logically with these people - their minds are shut to anything other than what they want to believe. I'm sure there were days when the army did make mistakes. This wasn't one of them.

I don't for a moment doubt what you are saying about the nature of explosives - I know nothing at all about this subject. But I worked on O'Connell St at the time and the army blast did shatter more widows than the original blast. There may be GOOD REASONS for this, and you have outlined it all here. But the fact that this happened is what mostly led to the narrative that emerged from it all.

Wicklowrider

MarchDub wrote: »

the army blast did shatter more widows than the original blast. There may be GOOD REASONS for this, and you have outlined it all here. But the fact that this happened is what mostly led to the narrative that emerged from it all.

I agree.

As I said earlier some owner's of premises didn't leave windows open ( I'd guess this was an effort to cut down on dust?) Some glass was left in place as it would be as economical to replace it as to remove it and some just got broken no matter what care was taken.

Why didn't this glass get broken in the Inital explosion? Because explosives normally expand in the direction of least resistance and when the bomb was placed it was higher than this glass.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

What I remember most though is the jokes - it was the first time that I learned what a Half Nelson was. But it must be remembered that all this joviality was before NI became embroiled in violence - that was the real shock of the 1960s. So there was little sense around in 1966 in Dublin of any potential danger when the Pillar was blown up, as I remember it.

I didn't know anyone who thought that Nelson's statue belonged in O'Connell St - but the Pillar did. But the debate about who to replace him with went on for too long, IMO. And the rest is history....

Do you think that the lack of prosecution lend some legitimacy to paramilitaries. I remember you posting about terrorist activity in the south and emergence of gun crime, murders etc.

jonniebgood1

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Subversive supporters were the first people that I heard it from.
People who did not believe in democracy and believed it was OK to explode bombs among innocent people. They were trying to influence the ordinary person. They succeeded to a minor extent, mainly through people incapable of thinking for themselves . As for why? to subvert democracy and its legal servants.

When these people are asked "How much explosive did the army use?"
They look confused and cannot answer, despite claiming the army used "too much".
When they are asked "what explosive should have been used " they look confused and cannot answer.
When they are asked what qualifications they hold that qualifies them to assess a job of this nature they don't answer.
In fact, ask them any question relevant to the army's operation that day and they can't answer. Mostly this is simply because they've never given it any thought.
When they are invited to visit the former site and point out which buildings they believe the army damaged they refuse point blank. When they are invited to view the documents in the national archive they refuse. Its pointless trying to engage logically with these people - their minds are shut to anything other than what they want to believe. I'm sure there were days when the army did make mistakes. This wasn't one of them.

I think that you are reading to much into it if you think it was "to subvert democracy and its legal servants". To me it seems more likely that it was simply typical Irish humour and typical Irish folklore based upon windows been broken by the army demolition (and I doubt there was any offence meant to the army either). By this I refer to the same type of humour that comes up with names like 'time in the slime' for the millenium clock in the liffey or many other examples.

jonniebgood1

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Why didn't this glass get broken in the Inital explosion? Because explosives normally expand in the direction of least resistance and when the bomb was placed it was higher than this glass.

The height difference is inconsequential IMO. It would take alot less explosives to blow up a statue on top of a pillar than the actual pillar itself, the pillar would have alot more bulk and would have substantial foundations.

Thus more explosives= more damage.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The height difference is inconsequential IMO. It would take alot less explosives to blow up a statue on top of a pillar than the actual pillar itself, the pillar would have alot more bulk and would have substantial foundations.

Thus more explosives= more damage.

The IRA left the structure unstable and dangerous too, did that affect it. ?

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think that you are reading to much into it if you think it was "to subvert democracy and its legal servants". To me it seems more likely that it was simply typical Irish humour and typical Irish folklore based upon windows been broken by the army demolition (and I doubt there was any offence meant to the army either). By this I refer to the same type of humour that comes up with names like 'time in the slime' for the millenium clock in the liffey or many other examples.

Yes, I agree, which is why I said that the fact that more windows were in fact broken by the army became the narrative - there was nothing 'subversive' about the talk at all.

Wicklowrider

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, I agree, which is why I said that the fact that more windows were in fact broken by the army became the narrative - there was nothing 'subversive' about the talk at all.

Again, I agree

But I'd qualify my agreement by repeating I heard it from Subversive supporters - and believe me there was nothing funny about them.

Pike in the Thatch

CDfm wrote: »

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The height difference is inconsequential IMO. It would take alot less explosives to blow up a statue on top of a pillar than the actual pillar itself, the pillar would have alot more bulk and would have substantial foundations.

Thus more explosives= more damage.

The IRA left the structure unstable and dangerous too, did that affect it. ?

The IRA did not blow up Nelson.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The height difference is inconsequential IMO. It would take alot less explosives to blow up a statue on top of a pillar than the actual pillar itself, the pillar would have alot more bulk and would have substantial foundations.
Thus more explosives= more damage.

Sort of. The purpose of a controlled explosion is to use the smallest possible charge to produce the maximum possible effect. A small charge placed under one side of the statue would have removed a part of its support and it would have toppled. The IRA wanted the pillar down, and placed a necklace charge around it (on the inside) which caused the sides to blow out evenly and the weight of the upper structure would have fallen straight down. The blast was mainly confined within a sealed column, at a height of +/- the roof level of surrounding buildings, so surrounding blast damage was minimal. In treating the demolition of the stump, the charges would have had to be placed much lower down, where the blast damage would have been somewhat confined by the surrounding buildings, hence the broken glass. That could have been minimised by building a sandbank wall around the stump to confine and redirect the blast, but I imagine the primary object was to get the main thoroughfare open asap.

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, I agree, which is why I said that the fact that more windows were in fact broken by the army became the narrative - there was nothing 'subversive' about the talk at all.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think that you are reading to much into it if you think it was "to subvert democracy and its legal servants". To me it seems more likely that it was simply typical Irish humour and typical Irish folklore based upon windows been broken by the army demolition (and I doubt there was any offence meant to the army either).

It was the type of rubbish that the gombeen Irishman loves – anything that will ‘knock’ officialdom, the navy that comes home to tea, etc. Successive Governments at the time (and up to the early 1980’s at least) were very aware of the subversive propaganda efforts by the IRA and its fellow travellers. It included rumour-mongering as above and also extended to a concerted effort to discredit the Republic’s legal system whenever possible. Some politicians were more paranoid than others, for e.g. Paddy Cooney, when Justice Minister, was convinced that ‘Tuairsceal’ in the Irish Times was publishing sedition.

My granduncle had an Old IRA pension, a Grandaunt (his sister) was active and is mentioned favourably by Dan Breen in his book, my grandfather was involved with Michael Collins’ intelligence staff. All regarded the IRA of the sixties and seventies as thugs and requested that no IRA presence be allowed at their funerals; as a consequence two of those funerals had an Irish Army presence. Today those of the IRA persuasion have descended from being thugs to mere scum, motivated by drug money and turf.

CDfm

Pike in the Thatch wrote: »

The IRA did not blow up Nelson.

My point exactly.

How did those who did access the explosives. I wouldn't even know where to buy fireworks.

Also, it was not Nelson that was blown up but the column and the taxi driver whose car was destroyed was very lucky. So it was not risk free.

Pike in the Thatch

CDfm wrote: »

My point exactly.

How did those who did access the explosives. I wouldn't even know where to buy fireworks.

Also, it was not Nelson that was blown up but the column and the taxi driver whose car was destroyed was very lucky. So it was not risk free.

Why do you keep repeating the claim, saying the "IRA" did this or that?

Fact is, they didn't. Just because you don't know where to get fireworks doesn't mean that a group of determined individuals nearly 50 years ago with experience with explosives didn't know where to get some.

It wasn't an IRA operation, or do you have evidence to suggest otherwise that it was an "officially sanctioned" operation and not as has been reported consistently, that it was a group of individuals which may have included ex IRA members?

It was unfortunate that his car was damaged but in fairness every precaution they could have taken was.

I find your attempt to portray the destruction of Nelson as the inspiration for the British sponsored UVF bombings in 1974 quite confusing and I have to respectfully disagree, utterly. The motivation for those attacks was simply to massacre fenians, to "bring the war to them" and to discourage support for the IRA. This is what loyalist figures have said in interviews in programs such as "Loyalists" (Provos, Brits, Loyalists).

Had a discussion yesterday with my 90 odd year old grandfather who was a police man in Dublin at the time. His recollection is quite similar to my fathers, initial disbelief followed by mirth. He went further and said that the general feeling at the time was that the pillar should be rebuilt/replaced with an Irish hero on top. Being a Fine Gael man at the time (still is in fact) he championed Collins. He remembered "Up Went Nelson", the words too and he still has the record of it he bought at the time somewhere in his attic.