Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The glorious 12th

Options
1…7172747677…166

Comments

  • Options
    #2192
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    To save readers I will ignore the above and make the main point again.
    .

    No, the main, in fact only point was you claimed the Nazis had no plan to invade the UK. They clearly had," Unternehmen Seelowe" (Operation Sea Lion).

    You were caught out yet again. We all know the main part of the operation was postponed due to the failure of the first part, to get air superiority over Britain during the Battle of Britain, but nevertheless a huge amount of time, effort and money went in to preparing for it (training troops, modifying vessels and transport methods, developing specialised weapons, assembling a large fleet of barges and transport vessels in the channel etc).

    Why did you clearly say there was no plan when there was a plan?


  • Options
    #2193
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    janfebmar wrote: »
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    To save readers I will ignore the above and make the main point again.
    .

    No, the main, in fact only point was you claimed the Nazis had no plan to invade the UK. They clearly had," Unternehmen Seelowe" (Operation Sea Lion).

    You were caught out yet again. We all know the main part of the operation was postponed due to the failure of the first part, to get air superiority over Britain during the Battle of Britain, but nevertheless a huge amount of time, effort and money went in to preparing for it (training troops, modifying vessels and transport methods, developing specialised weapons, assembling a large fleet of barges and transport vessels in the channel etc).

    Why did you clearly say there was no plan when there was a plan?

    Once more, Jan, Operation Sealion at NO POINT was considered a viable plan. While air superiority was considered a necessary factor for the success of the plan, it was not postponed due to the Battle of Britain. It was ALWAYS considered a last resort, at best. Even if the preconditions for Operation Sealion had been met at some point, it wouldn't have been given major consideration as a viable option

    I suspect you're aware of this though, and are focusing on the minutae of a plan which has about as much significance and likelihood of happening as my plan to go back to the gym this week.

    You're at your usual deflection tactics. While Francie wasn't accurate with his statement that there was NO plan, the core point behind it regarding Dunkirk was correct.


  • Options
    #2194
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,482 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    When a parade is by a conquering invader to remind the conquered of their place it is probably not wanted by the vanquished.
    Which is also exactly where the interest in the parade lies for the conqueror.

    That is some spin on what happened on the 11th July 1690 or the siege of Derry which is what much of the parading commemorates (although we all know the parades have moved on to a cultural event with little attachment to 300 year old battles)
    an ex-english king was gathering support and forces in Ireland by stirring up sectarian fears, with the intention of invading England. The newly installed English king (funded by the pope) pre-empted it and came over and spanked him before he could get enough locals signed up to his plan
    And we all no who the aggressor was in siege of derry.

    So you may want to do a little history lesson


  • Options
    #2195
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    janfebmar wrote: »
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    To save readers I will ignore the above and make the main point again.
    .

    No, the main, in fact only point was you claimed the Nazis had no plan to invade the UK. They clearly had," Unternehmen Seelowe" (Operation Sea Lion).

    You were caught out yet again. We all know the main part of the operation was postponed due to the failure of the first part, to get air superiority over Britain during the Battle of Britain, but nevertheless a huge amount of time, effort and money went in to preparing for it (training troops, modifying vessels and transport methods, developing specialised weapons, assembling a large fleet of barges and transport vessels in the channel etc).

    Why did you clearly say there was no plan when there was a plan?

    Once more, Jan, Operation Sealion at NO POINT was considered a viable plan. While air superiority was considered a necessary factor for the success of the plan, it was not postponed due to the Battle of Britain. It was ALWAYS considered a last resort, at best. Even if the preconditions for Operation Sealion had been met at some point, it wouldn't have been given major consideration as a viable option

    I suspect you're aware of this though, and are focusing on the minutae of a plan which has about as much significance and likelihood of happening as my plan to go back to the gym this week.

    You're at your usual deflection tactics. While Francie wasn't accurate with his statement that there was NO plan, the core point behind it regarding Dunkirk was correct.
    It appears Simon Schama and Dan Snow have two rivals as British military historians-francie and fionn...
    The story about operation sealion not being important sounds suspiciously like the German response to Britain's 'bouncing bomb'attacks on important dams in Germany as "not really of any importance"-yes ok...


  • Options
    #2196
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    janfebmar wrote: »
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    To save readers I will ignore the above and make the main point again.
    .

    No, the main, in fact only point was you claimed the Nazis had no plan to invade the UK. They clearly had," Unternehmen Seelowe" (Operation Sea Lion).

    You were caught out yet again. We all know the main part of the operation was postponed due to the failure of the first part, to get air superiority over Britain during the Battle of Britain, but nevertheless a huge amount of time, effort and money went in to preparing for it (training troops, modifying vessels and transport methods, developing specialised weapons, assembling a large fleet of barges and transport vessels in the channel etc).

    Why did you clearly say there was no plan when there was a plan?

    Once more, Jan, Operation Sealion at NO POINT was considered a viable plan. While air superiority was considered a necessary factor for the success of the plan, it was not postponed due to the Battle of Britain. It was ALWAYS considered a last resort, at best. Even if the preconditions for Operation Sealion had been met at some point, it wouldn't have been given major consideration as a viable option

    I suspect you're aware of this though, and are focusing on the minutae of a plan which has about as much significance and likelihood of happening as my plan to go back to the gym this week.

    You're at your usual deflection tactics. While Francie wasn't accurate with his statement that there was NO plan, the core point behind it regarding Dunkirk was correct.
    It appears Simon Schama and Dan Snow have two rivals as British military historians-francie and fionn...
    The story about operation sealion not being important sounds suspiciously like the German response to Britain's 'bouncing bomb'attacks on important dams in Germany as "not really of any importance"-yes ok...

    Can you point me to a single source that would disagree with my description of Operation Sealion as, 'a last resort', or indeed any argument against my point, beyond your usual snark with no substance whatsoever?

    It's pretty clear that Operation Sealion existed, that is not disputed. It's also pretty clear it wasn't considered to have much prospect of success, so it was never considered a viable plan, or anything other than am absolute last resort. The existence of Operation Sealion was completely irrelevant with regards to Dunkirk. This isn't controversial, this doesn't undermine the heroics of Dunkirk or Britain's actions in WWII.

    You've already had to retract inaccurate comments you've made towards me in the last 24 hours, will we add another to the list?

    Or are you suggesting that because I don't agree with a lot of what Britain did in Ireland, I'm somehow not allowed to be interested in world history, or that I can't discuss their military operations elsewhere?

    You're an absolute mug and a shining example of the old saying, 'an empty vessel makes the most noise'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2197
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    Fionn1952 wrote: »

    It's pretty clear that Operation Sealion existed, that is not disputed.

    It was more than disputed by Francie, who clearly said a plan did not exist. The Germans were a formidable fighting machine, not to be underestimated. They were successful in many other plans they had in the early years of the war. They nearly won the first stage of Operation Sea Lion, getting air superiority over UK.


  • Options
    #2198
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    janfebmar wrote: »
    Fionn1952 wrote: »

    It's pretty clear that Operation Sealion existed, that is not disputed.

    It was more than disputed by Francie, who clearly said a plan did not exist. The Germans were a formidable fighting machine, not to be underestimated. They were successful in many other plans they had in the early years of the war. They nearly won the first stage of Operation Sea Lion, getting air superiority over UK.

    In the context of Dunkirk, Operation Sealion was not relevant, and the Battle of Britain was not part of Operation Sealion.

    Absolutely agree that the Nazis were successful in many plans in the early stages of the war. Part of this success was that they didn't actually engage every plan discussed. Operation Sealion was one such plan that was not engaged, but was a last resort. By the time the Battle of Britain concluded, Operation Sealion had already been shelved.

    I shouldn't HAVE to say it, but I never know with some of you - I'm discussing this as a matter of historic accuracy, not support for the Axis forces during WWII.


  • Options
    #2199
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,159 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Can you point me to a single source that would disagree with my description of Operation Sealion as, 'a last resort', or indeed any argument against my point, beyond your usual snark with no substance whatsoever?

    It's pretty clear that Operation Sealion existed, that is not disputed. It's also pretty clear it wasn't considered to have much prospect of success, so it was never considered a viable plan, or anything other than am absolute last resort. The existence of Operation Sealion was completely irrelevant with regards to Dunkirk. This isn't controversial, this doesn't undermine the heroics of Dunkirk or Britain's actions in WWII.

    You've already had to retract inaccurate comments you've made towards me in the last 24 hours, will we add another to the list?

    Or are you suggesting that because I don't agree with a lot of what Britain did in Ireland, I'm somehow not allowed to be interested in world history, or that I can't discuss their military operations elsewhere?

    You're an absolute mug and a shining example of the old saying, 'an empty vessel makes the most noise'.


    Regardless if there was a plan or not ( Hitler was more interested in Russia.) regardless of how heroic the fighters on either side were (they always are in any war) the fact remains (unless I am mistaken :D) that the Germans didn't invade.
    And that was lucky for Britain. It was broke and out of options - only to resist.

    It was Britain's darkest hour, but no more than they are propagandizing Brexit as the 'evil' 'bad' EU against the plucky Britisthey did the same about the war.

    Churchill, having had a fairly disastrous military career (Galipoli almost ending his career and the lives of 1000's) was lucky. The stars lined up for him.


  • Options
    #2200
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    In the context of Dunkirk, Operation Sealion was not relevant, and the Battle of Britain was not part of Operation Sealion.

    .

    Operation Sealion had nothing to do with Dunkirk, which was earlier in the war. The Battle of Britain was an attempt by the Nazis to get air superiority over Britain, which they very nearly did. Air superiority was considered necessary for a successful land invasion. Such a plan did exist, Operation Sea Lion. Francis clearly said it did not. He was proved wrong yet again. We are not talking about the viability of the plan or otherwise, or if the plan was executed or not; we discussed the existence of the plan. Francie clearly said such a plan did not exist.
    He should read one of the books on the plan.


  • Options
    #2201
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,261 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If somebody objects and the Parades Commission upholds their objection on the criteria in their terms. Here is their legally binding determination on one parade.

    http://www.paradescommission.org/fs/files/det-district-no-2-20-july-13.pdf

    Ignored, as expected, by the poster asking the question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2202
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,159 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Ignored, as expected, by the poster asking the question.

    Not for the first time either.

    We will probably get a stock deflection about something else though. Par for the course in these discussions.


  • Options
    #2203
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    janfebmar wrote: »
    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    In the context of Dunkirk, Operation Sealion was not relevant, and the Battle of Britain was not part of Operation Sealion.

    .

    Operation Sealion had nothing to do with Dunkirk, which was earlier in the war. The Battle of Britain was an attempt by the Nazis to get air superiority over Britain, which they very nearly did. Air superiority was considered necessary for a successful land invasion. Such a plan did exist, Operation Sea Lion. Francis clearly said it did not. He was proved wrong yet again. We are not talking about the viability of the plan or otherwise, or if the plan was executed or not; we discussed the existence of the plan. Francie clearly said such a plan did not exist.
    He should read one of the books on the plan.

    Was Francie not quite clearly talking about in the context of Dunkirk? Which you agree Operation Sealion had no relevance towards whatsoever? I.e. at the time of Dunkirk, no such plan existed?

    As I said, I fully agree that Operation Sealion existed, and with your parameters around it. We disagree on whether the Battle of Britain was an attempt to engage Operation Sealion (as far as I'm aware, it was considered and dismissed, and if the Battle of Britain had been successful, the Nazi plan was still to sue for peace treaties with Britain).

    I would fully agree with your last point, because it does make for good reading.


  • Options
    #2204
    Dytalus
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Dytalus


    janfebmar wrote: »
    Operation Sealion had nothing to do with Dunkirk, which was earlier in the war. The Battle of Britain was an attempt by the Nazis to get air superiority over Britain, which they very nearly did.

    No, they didn't. The Luftwaffe did consistently underestimate the RAF's industrial capacity and active air fleet, and Fighter Command for the RAF also massively overestimated the power and industrial capacity of the Luftwaffe.

    But the RAF pretty roundly defeated the Luftwaffe during the Battle for Britain. There was a heavy cost, yes, but it's regarded by historians as a pretty near total victory. Germany simply never had the potential to overpower the RAF.
    Richard Evans, Immoral Rearmament wrote:
    Irrespective of whether Hitler was really set on this course, he simply lacked the resources to establish the air superiority that was the sine qua non-of a successful crossing of the English Channel. A third of the initial strength of the German air force, the Luftwaffe, had been lost in the western campaign in the spring. The Germans lacked the trained pilots, the effective fighter aircraft, and the heavy bombers that would have been needed
    +++
    It's pretty clear that you're sticking to this course of pedantic (and I can only assume willful) misunderstanding of the different between 'having a plan' and actually planning to do something. The US had a military plan to invade Canada (and vice versa), but at no point was it ever discussed as being put into action. It's incredibly disingenuous (even if technically accurate) to say the US therefore planned to invade Canada.


  • Options
    #2205
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Thanks for phrasing that much better than I, Dytalus.


  • Options
    #2206
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,159 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Was Francie not quite clearly talking about in the context of Dunkirk? Which you agree Operation Sealion had no relevance towards whatsoever? I.e. at the time of Dunkirk, no such plan existed?

    As I said, I fully agree that Operation Sealion existed, and with your parameters around it. We disagree on whether the Battle of Britain was an attempt to engage Operation Sealion (as far as I'm aware, it was considered and dismissed, and if the Battle of Britain had been successful, the Nazi plan was still to sue for peace treaties with Britain).

    I would fully agree with your last point, because it does make for good reading.

    Operation Sealion was brought to Hitler - it wasn't his plan like the one (also rejected) to invade on the East Coast. There was also one for invading Ireland should Britain invade it.

    Military plans are made all the time.
    If you have been brought up on a diet of British propaganda I can see how you would have the opinion that Hitler had a serious interest in invading Britain. His main interest was neutralising it and hemming it in so that he could concentrate on Russia. Luckily for Britain.


  • Options
    #2207
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Was Francie not quite clearly talking about in the context of Dunkirk? Which you agree Operation Sealion had no relevance towards whatsoever? I.e. at the time of Dunkirk, no such plan existed?

    As I said, I fully agree that Operation Sealion existed, and with your parameters around it. We disagree on whether the Battle of Britain was an attempt to engage Operation Sealion (as far as I'm aware, it was considered and dismissed, and if the Battle of Britain had been successful, the Nazi plan was still to sue for peace treaties with Britain).

    I would fully agree with your last point, because it does make for good reading.

    Operation Sealion was brought to Hitler - it wasn't his plan like the one (also rejected) to invade on the East Coast. There was also one for invading Ireland should Britain invade it.

    Military plans are made all the time.
    If you have been brought up on a diet of British propaganda I can see how you would have the opinion that Hitler had a serious interest in invading Britain. His main interest was neutralising it and hemming it in so that he could concentrate on Russia. Luckily for Britain.
    It's laughable that there are two self proclaimed 'fonts of knowledge'who won't hesitate to tell "the English visitor"his opinion is irrelevant as he's not from Ireland or NI yet continue to put everyone straight on how Churchill was no different than vlad the impaler,the British couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag and the nazis left them alone because they felt sorry for them.
    Francie,you don't seem particularly full of your self but your mate appears to be having a love affair...with him/her self :)


  • Options
    #2208
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Was Francie not quite clearly talking about in the context of Dunkirk? Which you agree Operation Sealion had no relevance towards whatsoever? I.e. at the time of Dunkirk, no such plan existed?

    As I said, I fully agree that Operation Sealion existed, and with your parameters around it. We disagree on whether the Battle of Britain was an attempt to engage Operation Sealion (as far as I'm aware, it was considered and dismissed, and if the Battle of Britain had been successful, the Nazi plan was still to sue for peace treaties with Britain).

    I would fully agree with your last point, because it does make for good reading.

    Operation Sealion was brought to Hitler - it wasn't his plan like the one (also rejected) to invade on the East Coast. There was also one for invading Ireland should Britain invade it.

    Military plans are made all the time.
    If you have been brought up on a diet of British propaganda I can see how you would have the opinion that Hitler had a serious interest in invading Britain. His main interest was neutralising it and hemming it in so that he could concentrate on Russia. Luckily for Britain.
    It's laughable that there are two self proclaimed 'fonts of knowledge'who won't hesitate to tell "the English visitor"his opinion is irrelevant as he's not from Ireland or NI yet continue to put everyone straight on how Churchill was no different than vlad the impaler,the British couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag and the nazis left them alone because they felt sorry for them.
    Francie,you don't seem particularly full of your self but your mate appears to be having a love affair...with him/her self :)

    The empty vessel sounds off again.

    Where the bejaysus have I said anything about Churchill, or the British war effort?

    As far as I was aware, the height of my contribution to this thread was referring to the relevance of discussing Operation Sealion in relation to what Francie was mentioning about Dunkirk. Your issue seems to be based on some bizarre extrapolation that because I stated that the Nazis did not want to invade Britain, but rather wanted a peace treaty with the British so they could focus elsewhere, that this is some comment on British efforts during WWII?! Quite the opposite, from my perspective in fact. I'm firmly of the belief that the plans to sue for peace with Britain were based on fear of the damage the British could do to them.

    You keep on keeping on though pal.


  • Options
    #2209
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,159 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    It's laughable that there are two self proclaimed 'fonts of knowledge'who won't hesitate to tell "the English visitor"his opinion is irrelevant as he's not from Ireland or NI yet continue to put everyone straight on how Churchill was no different than vlad the impaler,the British couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag and the nazis left them alone because they felt sorry for them.
    Francie,you don't seem particularly full of your self but your mate appears to be having a love affair...with him/her self :)

    Come on Rob...no need to go 'total janfebmar' with the misrepresentation of what was said.

    It isn't called The Darkest Hour for nothing. There are realities there that you cannot give the Pinewood Studios treatment to and still call yourself credible.
    Britain was on it's knees and broke = reality.
    There is another respect in which Britain got lucky too - the reception in America to pleading for loans. Had America elected the isolationist Hoover instead of Roosevelt then things would have been very different too.

    Britain fought bravely, and Churchill led them well during this period too but there were many other factors at play as well. Denying it is futile and a bit funny/sad too.


  • Options
    #2210
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,482 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Ignored, as expected, by the poster asking the question.

    Because you keep posting a link that has be clear criteria as to when a parade is not wanted It’s a simple question. No need to post links to an organisation that is condemned by all sides for not giving the criteria upon which it makes its decision. All it says there is that the commission believes community relations may be damaged by that parade going ahead. It could make exactly the same statement about it being prevented.
    CRITERIA. That’s all I want. People are claiming they shouldn’t walk when they are not wanted and not a single poster has said how we could measure that.


  • Options
    #2211
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    downcow wrote: »
    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Ignored, as expected, by the poster asking the question.

    Because you keep posting a link that has be clear criteria as to when a parade is not wanted It’s a simple question. No need to post links to an organisation that is condemned by all sides for not giving the criteria upon which it makes its decision. All it says there is that the commission believes community relations may be damaged by that parade going ahead. It could make exactly the same statement about it being prevented.
    CRITERIA. That’s all I want. People are claiming they shouldn’t walk when they are not wanted and not a single poster has said how we could measure that.

    There are lots of ways we COULD measure it, anything from a single complaint to a defined critical mass of complaints, to a majority, through to a single voice in favour and it goes ahead.

    My own personal suggestion would involve initially at least, focusing on those parades considered, 'controversial'. We could start by polling of local residents in areas the parade would pass through and firstly get a grasp of which particular parts of the parade are causing tension, and also whether that tension is actually coming from local residents, or if its part of a....strategy of sorts to undermine general Orangeism. Once we know which parts of the parade are causing tension, the OO would be given the opportunity to engage with locals in the area and to voluntarily agree to compromise at first before any degree of enforcement.

    If this compromise can't be agreed, at this point, the parades commission would make a decision, based on their polling data, as to what degree of detouring/cancellation of parades should happen - for example, if it is one particular street which strongly objects to the parade, at a critical mass, then a detour to avoid that street would be most appropriate. If it's an entire parade route, causing a huge majority to strongly oppose it, and greatly inconveniencing the local residents, then this parade could be cancelled. If it is a small handful of residents, and the majority are in full support or don't give a toss about the parade, then it goes ahead unrestricted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2212
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,159 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    downcow wrote: »
    Because you keep posting a link that has be clear criteria as to when a parade is not wanted It’s a simple question. No need to post links to an organisation that is condemned by all sides for not giving the criteria upon which it makes its decision. All it says there is that the commission believes community relations may be damaged by that parade going ahead. It could make exactly the same statement about it being prevented.
    CRITERIA. That’s all I want. People are claiming they shouldn’t walk when they are not wanted and not a single poster has said how we could measure that.

    Anyone can object to a parade for any reason. The PC has to respond.
    Very simple.


  • Options
    #2213
    Dytalus
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Dytalus


    downcow wrote: »
    Because you keep posting a link that has be clear criteria as to when a parade is not wanted It’s a simple question. No need to post links to an organisation that is condemned by all sides for not giving the criteria upon which it makes its decision. All it says there is that the commission believes community relations may be damaged by that parade going ahead. It could make exactly the same statement about it being prevented.
    CRITERIA. That’s all I want. People are claiming they shouldn’t walk when they are not wanted and not a single poster has said how we could measure that.

    Here's a document, readily visible on the Commission's website, which details the guidelines by which they make their decision. Naturally (as I'm sure you'll understand) it's not a case of 'tick these boxes and you're fine' because different areas of NI have very different levels of patience for those they see as 'the other side' and there's too many variables that can change from year to year that need to be balanced. There's also a document advising those running a parade on do's/do not's.

    Things like demographics of an area, past histories of public disorder as a result of a parade (either by the parade members itself, or those protesting), the level of expected disruption to the area (the same parade in the same area might double in size, or maybe the town in question has gotten more densely populated in the year between parades, necessitating a change in route or nature of the parade from what was okay the year before), and whether there's any churches or memorials in the area (which limits the type of music that can be played by those marching) all come into the consideration of the Commission.

    I'm generally unfamiliar with how open the Commission is. More openness should always be welcomed, but you also don't want someone being able to point at an old document on a decision and say "but this was/was not fine then why is it ok/not ok now OMGWTFBBQ" (which will happen, because people like to be offended - whether because their parade is being disallowed, or because now they'll have to deal with a parade happening) without reading the full report/consideration.


  • Options
    #2214
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    RobMc59 wrote: »
    It's laughable that there are two self proclaimed 'fonts of knowledge'who won't hesitate to tell "the English visitor"his opinion is irrelevant as he's not from Ireland or NI yet continue to put everyone straight on how Churchill was no different than vlad the impaler,the British couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag and the nazis left them alone because they felt sorry for them.
    Francie,you don't seem particularly full of your self but your mate appears to be having a love affair...with him/her self :)

    Come on Rob...no need to go 'total janfebmar' with the misrepresentation of what was said.

    It isn't called The Darkest Hour for nothing. There are realities there that you cannot give the Pinewood Studios treatment to and still call yourself credible.
    Britain was on it's knees and broke = reality.
    There is another respect in which Britain got lucky too - the reception in America to pleading for loans. Had America elected the isolationist Hoover instead of Roosevelt then things would have been very different too.

    Britain fought bravely, and Churchill led them well during this period too but there were many other factors at play as well. Denying it is futile and a bit funny/sad too.
    I disagree with what you say about this francie but there's been enough said about it by us all-I don't want to bicker over who's interpretation of it is correct.


  • Options
    #2215
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,159 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Dytalus wrote: »
    Here's a document, readily visible on the Commission's website, which details the guidelines by which they make their decision. Naturally (as I'm sure you'll understand) it's not a case of 'tick these boxes and you're fine' because different areas of NI have very different levels of patience for those they see as 'the other side' and there's too many variables that can change from year to year that need to be balanced. There's also a document advising those running a parade on do's/do not's.

    Things like demographics of an area, past histories of public disorder as a result of a parade (either by the parade members itself, or those protesting), the level of expected disruption to the area (the same parade in the same area might double in size, or maybe the town in question has gotten more densely populated in the year between parades, necessitating a change in route or nature of the parade from what was okay the year before), and whether there's any churches or memorials in the area (which limits the type of music that can be played by those marching) all come into the consideration of the Commission.

    I'm generally unfamiliar with how open the Commission is. More openness should always be welcomed, but you also don't want someone being able to point at an old document on a decision and say "but this was/was not fine then why is it ok/not ok now OMGWTFBBQ" (which will happen, because people like to be offended - whether because their parade is being disallowed, or because now they'll have to deal with a parade happening) without reading the full report/consideration.

    I don't think the OO, in typical belligerence and arrogance has ever engaged with it. So how open it is, is immaterial really.


  • Options
    #2216
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,159 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I disagree with what you say about this francie but there's been enough said about it by us all-I don't want to bicker over who's interpretation of it is correct.

    To suggest anything other than Britain was on it's knees (the Darkest Hour is their own moniker for the period) and profoundly broke (read about what Roosevelt had to do to allow him to loan money and equipment and Churchill's pleading) is to engage in Pinewood Studio type revisionism.

    But you are correct - way off topic.


  • Options
    #2217
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I disagree with what you say about this francie but there's been enough said about it by us all-I don't want to bicker over who's interpretation of it is correct.

    To suggest anything other than Britain was on it's knees (the Darkest Hour is their own moniker for the period) and profoundly broke (read about what Roosevelt had to do to allow him to loan money and equipment and Churchill's pleading) is to engage in Pinewood Studio type revisionism.

    But you are correct - way off topic.
    I'm glad you agree-I find it offensive and watching you getting verbally battered round the ring on this subject by Jan is disturbing in its regularity.


  • Options
    #2218
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,159 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I'm glad you agree-I find it offensive and watching you getting verbally battered round the ring on this subject by Jan is disturbing in its regularity.

    Sure Rob...Hitler, like Baldrick, had a cunning plan... :)


  • Options
    #2219
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »

    Military plans are made all the time.

    The difference with Operation Sea Lion was a lot of planning, work, training, developing new weapons, modifying vessels to carry troops, training for an amphibious assault, assembling a fleet of barges and transport vessels in the channel near England etc was all carried out as part of Operation Sea Lion. You said there was no such plan. You were proved wrong yet again on a simple statement of fact you made. The fact is, there was a plan. Read a book on it, you clearly never did.


  • Options
    #2220
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,159 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    The difference with Operation Sea Lion was a lot of planning, work, training, developing new weapons, modifying vessels to carry troops, training for an amphibious assault, assembling a fleet of barges and transport vessels in the channel near England etc was all carried out as part of Operation Sea Lion. You said there was no such plan. You were proved wrong yet again on a simple statement of fact you made. The fact is, there was a plan. Read a book on it, you clearly never did.

    And Operation Green was a five volume plan - with 75 pages of geographical data.

    What you haven't proven jan, is that it was 'Hitler's plan', which is what I said. It was a Nazi plan (made by Raeder I think, who worked on other scenarios too, NORMAL military behaviour) and it never happened...like many many plans.
    It never happened. That was the point I was making.

    Deal with the point or go away with the pedantry.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2221
    citytillidie
    Registered Users Posts: 22,061 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    I just got to ask what has WW2 got to do with the 12th some goal post moving to get the conversation going there.

    As for criteria where parades should not be is in areas where the majority of the locals would feel uncomfortable and police having to have a big presence just to make sure nothing happens between OO, bands and the locals

    ******



Advertisement