Gerry Conlon has died

LorMal

FTA69 wrote: »

That has nothing to do with anti-Irish sentiment in England.

It does but there is no convincing those that dont want to be

LorMal

end of the road wrote: »

the signs existed, they were common, end of discussion

You got me!! I am defeated by your powerful logic there pal

FTA69

LorMal wrote: »

It does but there is no convincing those that dont want to be

It doesn't ya lunatic the article concerns NINA signs in the States in the 1800s. England isn't mentioned once in the article, did you even read your own source?

There are photos and first hand accounts of people who moved here in the 1960s. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to back up your position bar a baseless repetition of "nuh uh".

OldRio

FTA69 wrote: »

It doesn't ya lunatic the article concerns NINA signs in the States in the 1800s. England isn't mentioned once in the article, did you even read your own source?

There are photos and first hand accounts of people who moved here in the 1960s. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to back up your position bar a baseless repetition of "nuh uh".

I was in England in the 60's and 70's. I vividly remember walking down some road in Middlesbrough (1965ish) looking for digs late at night with my mother. Along with the vacancy/ no vacancy signs existed the No blacks. no dogs, no Irish.
We even went to a small hotel and were turned away.
We spent the night in a bus shelter with my mother crying. (It was at the end of an awful day. With lots of crap going on in her life)

To the day I die I will never forget that.
and then we get LorMal saying it didn't exist.

FTA69

OldRio wrote: »

I was in England in the 60's and 70's. I vividly remember walking down some road in Middlesbrough (1965ish) looking for digs late at night with my mother. Along with the vacancy/ no vacancy signs existed the No blacks. no dogs, no Irish.
We even went to a small hotel and were turned away.
We spent the night in a bus shelter with my mother crying. (It was at the end of an awful day. With lots of crap going on in her life)

To the day I die I will never forget that.
and then we get LorMal saying it didn't exist.

You're lying. Or something.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you were alive in the 70s, then you'd know that there was no anti Irish hysteria, certainly not compared to the anti Muslim hysteria today.

Birmingham six? Complete hysteria.

OldRio

The truth. I don't do lies.

FTA69

OldRio wrote: »

The truth. I don't do lies.

I'm joking. In effect what LorMal is doing is labelling the many, many people with first hand accounts of these signs as liars for some bizarre reason.

OldRio

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm joking. In effect what LorMal is doing is labelling the many, many people with first hand accounts of these signs as liars for some bizarre reason.

Sorry. Replied to quick. Apologies.

Following on from that incident. I found a good job. Married an English lass and have many great English friends. We returned back to Ireland 20 years ago and are now semi retired.
But never forget what happened to Gerry could have happened to any of us. Wrong place at the wrong time. Again RIP Gerry.

pO1Neil

old hippy wrote: »

Not entirely true, Fred. A friend of mine has his flat in Shepherds Bush raided in the early 70s and he was arrested by the police - all on the say so of a curtain twitching neighbour. Incredibly he bore neither the police nor the neighbour any malice (he was entirely innocent) and he stayed here, happily until his death some years back.

When I first came over in the 80s I was the subject of taunts and bigotry and some prejudice, simply because of where I came from.

But yes, the anti-Muslims hysteria is widespread and shockingly so.

Which is strange because the threat from the IRA was much more serious to the British state than the threat from Muslim militants.

Lastlight.

FTA69 wrote: »

http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/no-blacks-no-dogs-no-irish-era-recalled-at-global-irish-economic-forum-226440311-238256891.html

Numerous first hand accounts of them existing. They weren't universal but they weren't hugely uncommon either. It's far from a myth.

No different from the Brits out signs you saw all the time in Republican areas in reference to British Protestants.

end of the road

OldRio wrote: »

then we get LorMal saying it didn't exist.

the denialists will always deny, even though the evidence exists

steddyeddy

Guys I think you bother too much with what some of the posters on this thread think. If there's no anti Irish hysteria then the Birmingham six travesty of justice wouldn't have happened.

twowheelsgood

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys I think you bother too much with what some of the posters on this thread think. If there's no anti Irish hysteria then the Birmingham six travesty of justice wouldn't have happened.

Even if there was no negative attitude to the Irish in Britain (there was) it was inevitable that it would arise or increase in the wake of the IRA’s murder campaign.

And not because of anything peculiar in the British character but because it is how any people would respond. Muslims become radicalised in response to US aggression against them, we burnt down the British embassy in response to bloody Sunday. This is pretty much how all peoples react.

Anyway, has all pretence that this is an RIP thread now being abandoned?

steddyeddy

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Even if there was no negative attitude to the Irish in Britain (there was) it was inevitable that it would arise or increase in the wake of the IRA’s murder campaign.

And not because of anything peculiar in the British character but because it is how any people would respond. Muslims become radicalised in response to US aggression against them, we burnt down the British embassy in response to bloody Sunday. This is pretty much how all peoples react.

Anyway, has all pretence that this is an RIP thread now being abandoned?

Well based on that assumption English people shouldn't be able to travel to most of their former colonies based on their treatment of peoples there. The same goes with countries like Argentina, Iraq, India, Northern Ireland and India who experienced the attack from The British army.

People generally have the sense to know that the actions of an army, legal or otherwise does not represent a nation.

Shakespeare's Sister

LorMal wrote: »

having liveD through the entire troubles in the uk and here, I experienced incredible tolerance from English people and huge goodwill to Irish people generally.

I don't doubt it. I don't doubt the people who had a bad time either though.

We love to be a victim of imagined hatred.

Some do, yes - I find the "800 years" stuff a pain in the face too.
But there's the other side of the same coin - the forelock-tugging "Aren't we Irish so ridiculous and inferior?! Bloody Sunday, pffft get over it!" stuff.

Shakespeare's Sister

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Even if there was no negative attitude to the Irish in Britain (there was) it was inevitable that it would arise or increase in the wake of the IRA’s murder campaign.

So what? Doesn't justify it in the least.

we burnt down the British embassy in response to bloody Sunday

"We"? Really hate the misuse of that word.

Maybe check whether the OP was pretending this is a RIP thread before stating that's what's being done.

LorMal

FTA69 wrote: »

It doesn't ya lunatic the article concerns NINA signs in the States in the 1800s. England isn't mentioned once in the article, did you even read your own source?

There are photos and first hand accounts of people who moved here in the 1960s. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to back up your position bar a baseless repetition of "nuh uh".

Yes it does talk about the myth of 'No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish' signs in the USA. They never really happened (apart from one documented instance) but that did not stop it becoming a commonly held belief. It made a nice song.

I did not suggest that there were no 'No Irish Need Appl'y signs in some windows in Boarding Houses in England in the 50s/60s. I feel terrible for anyone who experienced that.

I do however fully contend that they were 'No Irish Need Apply' rather than the mythological 'No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish'.
Secondly, I contend that NINA signs were not widespread as it is generally posited here.

Thirdly, I think the reaction of the average British person was on the whole incredibly tolerant when the troubles were at their peak in the 70s,80s and early 90s. Might I sugest more tolerant than we would be if the circumstances were reversed.

I did not experience any serious issuess throughout that time living or working in the UK and that is the reason I have expressed these genuinely held opinions.

This does not make me a 'lunatic' or 'requiring professional help'.

This country has little tolerance for anyone who steps out of line with the cozy concensus.

LorMal

end of the road wrote: »

the denialists will always deny, even though the evidence exists

denialists? Are they like damazonians?

LorMal

OldRio wrote: »

I was in England in the 60's and 70's. I vividly remember walking down some road in Middlesbrough (1965ish) looking for digs late at night with my mother. Along with the vacancy/ no vacancy signs existed the No blacks. no dogs, no Irish.
We even went to a small hotel and were turned away.
We spent the night in a bus shelter with my mother crying. (It was at the end of an awful day. With lots of crap going on in her life)

To the day I die I will never forget that.
and then we get LorMal saying it didn't exist.

I am sorry that happened to you. I hope it worked out eventually for you. I did not mean to cause any hurt.

Sound of Silence

LorMal wrote: »

I did not claim any such thing. Get over yourelf. Argue the facts. Why were there thousands of us Irish over there in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s? Because this kip could not support us.
The IRA bombed, killed and maimed in London, Birmingham, Warrington and elsewhere - innocent men, woman, children. Thats a fact.

Where is the evidence for all the No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs? Proven to be a myth.

I believe you said that "we" blamed others for our troubles. I'm guessing this also applies to Gerry Conlon, despite the fact that he was for all intents and purposes a UK citizen.

I'm sorry, what is in bold in reference to, as far as my post is concerned?

And why are you talking to me about "No Irish" signs?

All your posts seem to be steeped in rhetoric. You've argued hypothetical situations, claiming that the Irish would have been more intolerant toward the English had the situation in the Troubles been reversed. Again, more vast generalisations. The entire foundation of your argument seems based on a few positive experiences you had whilst living in England, yet it seems that any other first hand accounts of discrimination expressed by posters here is immediately dismissed as either lies or freak occurrences. You then demand more evidence, as if your word is somehow irrefutable. You do realise how bizarre this form of argument is?

And also your constant use of the word "we" in every post is grating. As I said before, speak for yourself.

twowheelsgood

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well based on that assumption English people shouldn't be able to travel to most of their former colonies based on their treatment of peoples there. The same goes with countries like Argentina, Iraq, India, Northern Ireland and India who experienced the attack from The British army.

Well another trait, a fairly universal one IMO, is that the intense and widespread anger after such atrocities dissipates fairly quickly.

Are you disagreeing with my assertion? That these atrocities provoke anger and hatred, albeit some times misplaced?

steddyeddy wrote: »

People generally have the sense to know that the actions of an army, legal or otherwise does not represent a nation.

Interesting viewpoint. I guess those that burnt down the British embassy wouldn’t have agreed with you. (Nor would I)

Magaggie wrote: »

So what? Doesn't justify it in the least.

No it doesn’t. Anymore that someone radicalised by American aggression would be justified in taking innocent life in a subsequent act of terrorism.

But it is silly to deny that this is a possible consequent of such aggression. And it is dishonest to suggest that only in Britain would such hostility arise in the wake of an atrocity.

LorMal

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I believe you said that "we" blamed others for our troubles. I'm guessing this also applies to Gerry Conlon, despite the fact that he was for all intents and purposes a UK citizen.

I'm sorry, what is in bold in reference to, as far as my post is concerned?

And why are you talking to me about "No Irish" signs?

All your posts seem to be steeped in rhetoric. You've argued hypothetical situations, claiming that the Irish would have been more intolerant toward the English had the situation in the Troubles been reversed. Again, more vast generalisations. The entire foundation of your argument seems based on a few positive experiences you had whilst living in England, yet it seems that any other first hand accounts of discrimination expressed by posters here is immediately dismissed as either lies or freak occurrences. You then demand more evidence, as if your word is somehow irrefutable. You do realise how bizarre this form of argument is?

And also your constant use of the word "we" in every post is grating. As I said before, speak for yourself.

By 'we', I mean fellow Irish people. In this context, perfectly valid usage. My entire argument is not based on ' a few positive experiences' but on my 40 years experience.
I have not dismissed any first hand experiences of any other poster. I have in fact been sympathethic to one poster who did recount a terrible personal experience. I have not demanded more evidence at all. I never said my word was irrefutable. Otherwise, spot on....

Sound of Silence

LorMal wrote: »

By 'we', I mean fellow Irish people. In this context, perfectly valid usage. My entire argument is not based on ' a few positive experiences' but on my 40 years experience.
I have not dismissed any first hand experiences of any other poster. I have in fact been sympathethic to one poster who did recount a terrible personal experience. I have not demanded more evidence at all. I never said my word was irrefutable. Otherwise, spot on....

I really can't see the difference between someone who feel capable of speaking on behalf of their own Nation with those who speak in general and degrading terms about other Nations and peoples. This sort of attitude is pretty much the basis of all "Us and them" debates, where both sides are gross caricatures of themselves, ground down to their most distinct and horrible traits.

Forgive me, but you didn't seem particularly sympathetic when you first entered the thread (http://goo.gl/EcEfDG) and (http://goo.gl/VY2eDo). Your response to both posters was that they needed to provide some evidence to support their claims - "Unbiased" evidence as you said. All the while your own positive experiences trumped those of others; otherwise you wouldn't have been quite so willing to attribute these posters views to "Victimhood", the failure to take "responsibility for ourselves" and "pointing the finger at the Brits".

Admittedly you did change your tone later on when NINA signs were brought up, and you were a lot more sympathetic. Not that these signs were any more acceptable than the others. I just took issue with your opening remarks and your willingness to bundle "we" the Irish people into these wild generalisations.

The Golden Miller

LorMal wrote: »

By 'we', I mean fellow Irish people. In this context, perfectly valid usage. My entire argument is not based on ' a few positive experiences' but on my 40 years experience.
I have not dismissed any first hand experiences of any other poster. I have in fact been sympathethic to one poster who did recount a terrible personal experience. I have not demanded more evidence at all. I never said my word was irrefutable. Otherwise, spot on....

Show me any "No English" signs in Ireland, during the British establishments continued persecution of the nationalist community. Maybe it was us who were the more tolerant?

The Golden Miller

RIP Gerry. It makes my blood boil how they can continually get away with this

Shakespeare's Sister

twowheelsgood wrote: »

No it doesn’t. Anymore that someone radicalised by American aggression would be justified in taking innocent life in a subsequent act of terrorism.

But it is silly to deny that this is a possible consequent of such aggression. And it is dishonest to suggest that only in Britain would such hostility arise in the wake of an atrocity.

Of course. But "Well, what can you expect - look at what the IRA were doing" in relation to anti Irish sentiment is a bit "It's just one of those things that has to be put up with."
Obviously hostility in the wake of attack isn't something that's unique to Britain of course though.

LorMal

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Show me any "No English" signs in Ireland, during the British establishments continued persecution of the nationalist community. Maybe it was us who were the more tolerant?

Never saw Brits Out?

LorMal

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I really can't see the difference between someone who feel capable of speaking on behalf of their own Nation with those who speak in general and degrading terms about other Nations and peoples. This sort of attitude is pretty much the basis of all "Us and them" debates, where both sides are gross caricatures of themselves, ground down to their most distinct and horrible traits.

Forgive me, but you didn't seem particularly sympathetic when you first entered the thread (http://goo.gl/EcEfDG) and (http://goo.gl/VY2eDo). Your response to both posters was that they needed to provide some evidence to support their claims - "Unbiased" evidence as you said. All the while your own positive experiences trumped those of others; otherwise you wouldn't have been quite so willing to attribute these posters views to "Victimhood", the failure to take "responsibility for ourselves" and "pointing the finger at the Brits".

Admittedly you did change your tone later on when NINA signs were brought up, and you were a lot more sympathetic. Not that these signs were any more acceptable than the others. I just took issue with your opening remarks and your willingness to bundle "we" the Irish people into these wild generalisations.

I seem to be getting under your skin unintentionally. I had no intention of doing so. You have gone to a lot of trouble to forensically examine my posts.
I think a chill pill might be in order.
I only wanted to make the general point that all Ireland's woes cannot be wholly blamed on external factors. There is easily as much anti British bias here as there is anti Irish bias there. Whataboutery has caused so much suffering.

Sound of Silence

LorMal wrote: »

I seem to be getting under your skin unintentionally. I had no intention of doing so. You have gone to a lot of trouble to forensically examine my posts.
I think a chill pill might be in order.
I only wanted to make the general point that all Ireland's woes cannot be wholly blamed on external factors. There is easily as much anti British bias here as there is anti Irish bias there. Whataboutery has caused so much suffering.

No chill pill required, I can assure you. All of this is par for the course when it comes to forums. I was simply pointing out that making sweeping negative statements does no one any good.

Whilst the basis of this thread was not to discuss Ireland's woes but Gerry Conlon's death, I would still have to agree that the problems that have plagued this Island in the past can not all be laid at the foot of external factors. The conflict in the North (Where I'm from) is a prime example of how internal and external factors can seamlessly intertwine to create a murky and grey situation where the notion of Good and Bad, Right and Wrong become almost redundant terms amongst the chaos and violence. To say that neither the British nor the Irish could learn anything from this conflict would serve as a great injustice to all those who died. To deny that there ever was an enduring sense of fear and suspicion between these two Islands would be to do the same. We can only look at the past, recognise it for what it was, and hopefully learn from it.

I simply felt that your attempt to redress the balance in this thread was to swing the pendulum in the other direction and turn a discussion about how a past conflict could shape how our two peoples interacted into a analysis of a perceived endemic Irish victim-hood.