RIC History

Fuinseog

Judgement Day wrote: »

Really interesting pictures. It won't surprise some posters here that I had family in the RIC but it was they who caught the emigrant ship rather than the Fenians.

My great grandfather was in the RIC, but also supplied information to the local IRA, which probably saved him from getting a bullet.


there seems to be lobby forming, which wishes to rehabilitate the RIC, which is very progressive. I cannot see the French rehabilitating the milice francaise, the paramilitary police force of Vichy.

from todays IT

Sir, – I was saddened to read Michael McArdle’s letter (September 5th). I am currently working on Document CO762 in the Kew Archives (The Irish Claims Commission files – 3,632 of them). I would guess that Mr McArdle’s grandfather fitted into one of the more common claims: ex-RIC men, returned to their homes after disbandment in 1922 to be woken-up – usually between midnight and 4 am – given 24 hours to leave the country and, in most cases, their wives and families being given an extra 48 hours to leave. A quick check on the first 300 files gives 30 ex-officers and six widows claiming. This does not include quite a number of parents, brothers and sisters who were boycotted because of their relatives’ membership. In that first 300, there was at least one pregnant wife who miscarried as a result of the treatment she got from these “heroes’. There was also the case of ex-Constable James Reilly of Tipperary (aged 64) who was exiled. His son was later warned that he had better not return as a senior member of Sinn Féin wanted his house.

Sadly for Mr McArdle, no one of that name claimed.

As to de Valera and McNeill’s statements of April 10th, 1919, surely this was the usual war-chiefs winding their soldiers up to deeds of gaiscidheacht – Brian Boru did it, famously, before Clontarf. The police in many European countries were armed at that time to protect them from Bolsheviks and other undesirable elements. – Yours, etc,

CAL HYLAND,
Closheen Lane,
Rosscarbery,
Co Cork.

Rebelheart

Fuinseog wrote: »

there seems to be lobby forming, which wishes to rehabilitate the RIC, which is very progressive.

One published letter from a person with strong links to Britain does not a "lobby" make. Given your description of an agenda to rehabilitate the group of spies, thugs, military police, collaborators, facilitators and partakers in counter-revolutionary murder that was the RIC as "progressive" your own politics is clear and indicates why you'd like to believe a "lobby" of apologists is forming.

But just for the record, please do explain why you believe commemorating this armed wing of the British Empire's thuggery in, and control over, Ireland is "progressive". And do you support commemorating all other thugs in Irish society? What makes these agents of the armed British occupation of Ireland so worthy in your eyes?

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

And do you support commemorating all other thugs in Irish society? What makes these agents of the armed British occupation of Ireland so worthy in your eyes?

The RIC & DMP were police forces, you are mixing them up with the British army. For example when there was large scale rebellion against British rule such as 1916 it was the British army who attempted to enforce the occupation.

Fuinseog

Rebelheart wrote: »

One published letter from a person with strong links to Britain does not a "lobby" make. Given your description of an agenda to rehabilitate the group of spies, thugs, military police, collaborators, facilitators and partakers in counter-revolutionary murder that was the RIC as "progressive" your own politics is clear and indicates why you'd like to believe a "lobby" of apologists is forming.

But just for the record, please do explain why you believe commemorating this armed wing of the British Empire's thuggery in, and control over, Ireland is "progressive". And do you support commemorating all other thugs in Irish society? What makes these agents of the armed British occupation of Ireland so worthy in your eyes?

if you read the papers more, there were several letters to the Times on the matter. a gathering was also held. The rest of what you are saying goes over my head.

pedroeibar1

Rebelheart wrote: »

..........an agenda to rehabilitate the group of spies, thugs, military police, collaborators, facilitators and partakers in counter-revolutionary murder ............this armed wing of the British Empire's thuggery in, and control over, Ireland .......... commemorating all other thugs in Irish society? ....... these agents of the armed British occupation ............

Fuinseog wrote: »

if you read the papers more............

For more than a week there were several letters every day in Irish newspapers and in the Sunday Times both for and against the ceremony/RIC. Rebelheart’s repetitive hysterical invective and diatribes would suggest a newspaper reading list confined to An Phoblacht.

Rebelheart

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The RIC & DMP were police forces, you are mixing them up with the British army. For example when there was large scale rebellion [sic] against British rule such as 1916 it was the British army who attempted to enforce the occupation.

I'm clearly not. The RIC, which was an infamously armed force, was an armed wing of the British state in Ireland or, as I accurately put it, 'agents of the armed British occupation of Ireland'. In its upper echelons, it was deeply if not rabidly anti-Catholic, with power there overwhelmingly reserved for those from the British Protestant colonial class. The RIC's apologists like to gloss over this institutional sectarianism. The RIC was spying, attacking and organising campaigns against the Irish both in the aftermath of the Rising and during the War. It was the RIC and not the British Army, that the Black and Tans and Auxies, "reserve police forces", were part of.

Are you denying this role of the RIC in the armed forces of the British state in Ireland? If not, why bother replying to this point?

Rebelheart

Fuinseog wrote: »

if you read the papers more, there were several letters to the Times on the matter. a gathering was also held. The rest of what you are saying goes over my head.

Letters published in The Irish Times, the paper in which the former Independent Newspapers employee Stephen Collins wrote his article? That constitutes a "lobby"? I can see a revolution in the offing - not.

Moreover, you still haven't explained why you think commemorating this bunch of pro-British Empire/anti-Irish independence thugs is "progressive", or even "very progressive", as you put it.

PS: That you think by "read[ing] the papers [Letters page?] more" one would become more enlightened about the world is, well, slightly disturbing. Whatever merits The Irish Times has, when it's not defaming the name of Kate Fitzgerald RIP, the rest of the privately-owned Irish media is largely owned by two Irish-born, egomaniac oligarchs in tax exile. I'd get more enlightenment in a slurry pit on a dark winter's night.

Rebelheart

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

For more than a week there were several letters every day in Irish newspapers and in the Sunday Times both for and against the ceremony/RIC. Rebelheart’s repetitive hysterical invective and diatribes would suggest a newspaper reading list confined to An Phoblacht.

Oh. My. God. Not just one letter but "several letters". Wow. Letters were published in The Irish Times on this issue on a massive eight days, actually. Two of these were written by the organisers of this attempt to rehabilitate these enemies of Irish sovereignty/supporters of the British Empire in Ireland.
A third was written by one Peter Mulvany - apologies: "Peter Mulvany BCL HDip Arts Admin" (a sure sign of educational insecurities!) - who lobbied to get deserters of the Irish Army recognised. Classy.
One was written by a descendant of a member of this ignominious force. And another was written by one Derek Reid, a British citizen in Ireland who was/is a member of Robin Bury's ironically named unionist party, the Reform Movement, and a self-confessed member of the Orange Order. Ah such "impartial" and "open-minded" people out supporting the rehabilitation of Britain's RIC. At least in the world according to pedroeibar1.

You're kinda struggling here, to be euphemistic about it, to show how the demands of these people for the RIC to be honoured by this sovereign Irish state are "progressive".

By the way, given that you're consistently intellectually and educationally inferior to most people here, I really would desist from trying to look down your nose at anybody on this forum. For the record, An Phoblacht has at least as much intellectual vigour as your beloved Sunday Independent. Thankfully, it has substantially less pomposity and conceit than yourself.

dubhthach

Rebelheart you are verging on soap-boxing here. Tbh I do agree in the importance of the RIC when it came to maintenance of British rule. However you should at least argue your case using and providing sources.

The ownership of Irish newspapers isn't relevant to the thread in either way.

-Mod

Judgement Day

In years to come, when peoples memories have dimmed (even further), and histories of the recent "Troubles" are written people like Rebelheart will maintain that the Gardai were agents of the British state too. :rolleyes:

Rebelheart

Judgement Day wrote: »

In years to come, when peoples memories have dimmed (even further), and histories of the recent "Troubles" are written people like Rebelheart will maintain that the Gardai were agents of the British state too. :rolleyes:

Clearly, there are instances of this being factually correct. Similarly, when British forces act upon warrants issued by the Irish state they are agents of this state. I don't see why acknowledging this is wrong.

Moreover, your post appears to equate Britain's Royal Irish Constabulary with An Garda Síochána as a legitimate force in Ireland working for the good of the Irish people rather than for the British colonial state. It wasn't. If you sincerely believe that it was, it is unfortunate that you should contextualise your post within a framework of ostensibly opposing people with 'dimmed memories' of historical reality.

pedroeibar1

Rebelheart wrote: »

Oh. My. God. Not just one letter but "several letters". Wow. Letters were published in The Irish Times on this issue on a massive eight days, actually. Two of these were written by the organisers of this attempt to rehabilitate these enemies of Irish sovereignty/supporters of the British Empire in Ireland.
A third was written by one Peter Mulvany - apologies: "Peter Mulvany BCL HDip Arts Admin" (a sure sign of educational insecurities!) - who lobbied to get deserters of the Irish Army recognised. Classy.
One was written by a descendant of a member of this ignominious force. And another was written by one Derek Reid, a British citizen in Ireland who was/is a member of Robin Bury's ironically named unionist party, the Reform Movement, and a self-confessed member of the Orange Order. Ah such "impartial" and "open-minded" people out supporting the rehabilitation of Britain's RIC. At least in the world according to pedroeibar1.

You're kinda struggling here, to be euphemistic about it, to show how the demands of these people for the RIC to be honoured by this sovereign Irish state are "progressive".

By the way, given that you're consistently intellectually and educationally inferior to most people here, I really would desist from trying to look down your nose at anybody on this forum. For the record, An Phoblacht has at least as much intellectual vigour as your beloved Sunday Independent. Thankfully, it has substantially less pomposity and conceit than yourself.

You are endeavouring to attribute to me comments and views that I neither made nor hold. You have also descended into personal attack. Your inclusion of a tragic suicide (totally unrelated to the topic) is a new low. You do not merit a response, let alone a reasoned one on this or any other of your diatribes. Goodbye to you.

Gee Bag

My two cents on this subject,

I don't know how you could have a commemeration of the RIC that would be free from controversy. But I do think that we should acknowledge that the RIC/DMP were not composed entirely of anti-nationalist thugs.

Ned Broy and David Neligan spring to mind.

dubhthach

Rebelheart wrote: »

By the way, given that you're consistently intellectually and educationally inferior to most people here, I really would desist from trying to look down your nose at anybody on this forum. For the record, An Phoblacht has at least as much intellectual vigour as your beloved Sunday Independent. Thankfully, it has substantially less pomposity and conceit than yourself.

I obviously should have read your post more clearly, personal abuse such as the above won't be tolerated. As a result enjoy a ban from the forum when you come back I don't want to see this type of muppetry.

-Mod

pedroeibar1

Gee Bag wrote: »

My two cents on this subject,

I don't know how you could have a commemeration of the RIC that would be free from controversy. But I do think that we should acknowledge that the RIC/DMP were not composed entirely of anti-nationalist thugs.

Ned Broy and David Neligan spring to mind.

Agreed. The RIC after Independence is comparable to the banking sector after NAMA. Not all RIC were thugs, not all bankers are crooks.