nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Plebbit

From the Belfast Telegraph.

Apparently a new Irish recruit signs up every 4 1/2 days. Can't blame the young Irish lads. If it's a choice between wasting your life away on the dole in some grim village in the backarse of Cavan or traveling the world on global deployments with the British Army, I'd choose the latter. I hear the pay is decent and there are lots of opportunities for advancement.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The role of the Air Corps under the Defence Act is to contribute to the security of the State by providing for the Military Air Defence of its airspace. However in times of peace it is more usual for the Air Corps to fulfil the roles assigned by Government through the deployment of a well motivated and effective Air Corps.

Primary Roles of the Air Corps
The primary role of the Air Corps is to support the Army, this includes the following:

Observation and Reconnaissance
Local Fire Support
Command and Control
Limited Tactical Mobility and Logistic Support
Casualty Evacuation
In Support of the Naval Service
Maritime Surveillance and Defence
National Security
Economic Zone Surveillance
Protection of Natural Resources
In Aid to the Civil Power
Maintaining and flying Garda Support Unit Aircraft
Observation Reconnaissance and Search Operations
Photographic Reconnaissance
Industrial Explosives Escorts
Prisoner Escorts
Cash Escorts
Protection of Airspace Operations

there are roles there that the air corp can't currently do, such as fire support Protection of Airspace and maritime defence.

It could, if it had jets.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Sending children to laundry camps which are controlled by the church. Recipe for disaster. All on him.

A disaster that happened right around the world. Look what happened young footballers going to clubs in Britain or to children going to the BBC and the duty of care they should have had towards their employees.

Not a great deal of awareness. But let's lay it all at the door of one man, shall we? Because we cannot prove what we are saying about his war time activity with actual facts. And let's throw a conspiracy theory in there too that he was kept in power by a church.

Fabulous.

It was one of the first things he did. Make the Church have more influence over Irish life.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there are roles there that the air corp can't currently do, such as fire support Protection of Airspace and maritime defence.

It could, if it had jets.

I presume we hire in anything we can't provide because I haven't noticed an air attack in a while.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

It was one of the first things he did. Make the Church have more influence over Irish life.

So he brought in the church to abuse children? Really, you must have evidence of this startling revelation. (Gets popcorn) :rolleyes:

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

It was one of the first things he did. Make the Church have more influence over Irish life.

So he brought in the church to abuse children? Really, you must have evidence of this startling revelation. (Gets popcorn) :rolleyes:

Every action has a consequence. De Valera legacy has to include this.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Every action has a consequence. De Valera legacy has to include this.

What happens in any country, under any leader is part of their legacy.

And sensible reasonable people can assess their part in that legacy. Did Dev knowingly consign children to abuse at the hands of the church?
Who knows, but it is a serious allegation and it requires a bit more than generalising and cheap shots because you are patently losing the argument about his activities elsewhere.

Lt Dan

A Little Pony wrote: »

Sending children to laundry camps which are controlled by the church. Recipe for disaster. All on him.

For the third time, cite actual evidence please that De Valera knew of criminal activity within the Hierarchy and ignored it

Lt Dan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A disaster that happened right around the world. Look what happened young footballers going to clubs in Britain or to children going to the BBC and the duty of care they should have had towards their employees.

Not a great deal of awareness. But let's lay it all at the door of one man, shall we? Because we cannot prove what we are saying about his war time activity with actual facts. And let's throw a conspiracy theory in there too that he was kept in power by a church.

Fabulous.

Last I checked it was the people who kept the man in powa . "Up Dev" , "Up The Republic".

Was not long ago when the Church thought Fianna Fáil were commies

FrancieBrady

Lt Dan wrote: »

Last I checked it was the people who kept the man in powa . "Up Dev" , "Up The Republic".

Was not long ago when the Church thought Fianna Fáil were commies

I would just have a good giggle at what is gonna come from his keyboard next.
This is a poster who is on the site all day, roundly countering any criticism of the DUP. Seriously, the DUP, a party who make fundamentalists look good!

Lt Dan

A Little Pony wrote: »

It was one of the first things he did. Make the Church have more influence over Irish life.

"More influence"?

I dread to know where you got your history education.

The Catholic Church had influence and power in Ireland LONG BEFORE 1916!!! Ask the family of CS Parnell.

I am going to assume that you will try to cite the old Article 44 of Bunreacht na hÉireann ... :rolleyes::D

Still waiting on the evidence about Dev

Moreover, the fist thing Dev did when he got into powa was get rid of the Governor General , abolish the oath and withheld land annuities

Boom_Bap

Lt Dan - quit asking for evidence, it is obviously not forthcoming and there is absolutely no need for anyone to provide evidence on thread.

Lt Dan

Moral of the story , folks: You can make any allegation that you want, you will not be held accountable for it. Apparently debates and discussions do not require the statements to be remotely factual . Just as well the subject is dead because defamation laws seem to be irrelevant.

But you will receive bans, infractions, pms etc from moderators for not being "nice".

A Little Pony

Lt Dan wrote: »

Moral of the story , folks: You can make any allegation that you want, you will not be held accountable for it. Apparently debates and discussions do not require the statements to be remotely factual . Just as well the subject is dead because defamation laws seem to be irrelevant.

But you will receive bans, infractions, pms etc from moderators for not being "nice".

If you don't understand the power the Church had on the Irish state, then I can do nothing for you. De Valera wanted the Church to have major influence on Irish life. We saw an example of that when the Pope made a visit and the huge crowd.

The Church was given a reign on the citizens of the Republic to do as they pleased. It was well known at the time the abuse of children in these institutions. De Valera set the tone and ultimately turned a blind eye to this. You need to go read [font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]The Carrigan Report.[/font]

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you don't understand the power the Church had on the Irish state, then I can do nothing for you. De Valera wanted the Church to have major influence on Irish life. We saw an example of that when the Pope made a visit and the huge crowd.

The Church was given a reign on the citizens of the Republic to do as they pleased. It was well known at the time the abuse of children in these institutions. De Valera set the tone and ultimately turned a blind eye to this. You need to go read [font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]The Carrigan Report.[/font]

Where in that report does it say Dev knowingly engaged the church to abuse children?

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you don't understand the power the Church had on the Irish state, then I can do nothing for you. De Valera wanted the Church to have major influence on Irish life. We saw an example of that when the Pope made a visit and the huge crowd.

The Church was given a reign on the citizens of the Republic to do as they pleased. It was well known at the time the abuse of children in these institutions. De Valera set the tone and ultimately turned a blind eye to this. You need to go read [font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]The Carrigan Report.[/font]

Where in that report does it say Dev knowingly engaged the church to abuse children?

'Blind eye'. An article in the Irish times points out that the establishment in the 1930s turned a blind eye to this and knew well about the abuse.

Lt Dan

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you don't understand the power the Church had on the Irish state, then I can do nothing for you. De Valera wanted the Church to have major influence on Irish life. We saw an example of that when the Pope made a visit and the huge crowd.

The Church was given a reign on the citizens of the Republic to do as they pleased. It was well known at the time the abuse of children in these institutions. De Valera set the tone and ultimately turned a blind eye to this. You need to go read [font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]The Carrigan Report.[/font]

Oh dear oh dear. When you make an allegation and have no actual evidence eg reports being forwarded to Dev or Department of Justice or Education and nothing done about it...........just quit!

"f you don't understand the power the Church had on the Irish state, then I can do nothing for you"

Oh God, you do not even bother to read what was said, not to mention your curious idea of who is "The State" and the extent of power politicians hold on the people, or even the extent of the power that the Church , any Church holds on the People.

. Rather naive, stupid and embarrassing actually.

As I have already , clearly pointed out Catholic Church had the Irish people under their thumb for DECADES before De Valera!! Even the British Administration in Ireland found the Church useful. In 1925, while DeV was in opposition, the Church and the State started the seriously restrictive censorship laws

There is justifiable reasons for Unionists to have issues with the threat of Rome Rule. Considering their behaviour towards Catholics for a good century or so, they knew that it would be pay back. One did not need a man like De Valera to incite anything there. Why would Cumann na nGaedheal bother getting the Church to declare that Fianna Fáil were Commies in 1926 but to discourage people from voting Fianna Fáil.

Don't know the power of the Church? Plenty of Anti Treaty IRA men knew the power of the Church as many feared Ex - Communication if they carried on the Civil War more than actually facing the Firing Squad of the Free State Troops.

One of the first major Catholic events that occurred the year that De Valera became leader of the Free State........the Eucharistic Congress, which had been organised a year or so in advance. The island of Ireland was then home to 3,171,697 Catholics. Look at how many attended the Phoenix Park Mass, about half a million lined out in O'Connell Street . It was one of the first major display of Catholicism in Ireland without fear of as per the Dundalk Democrat " persecution and spoliation" Like it or not Catholicism was linked to Southern Irish identity. No leader was going to stop that, not even W. T. Cosgrave (who would never have even contemplated that)

The 1930's was also a time when new churches were built around the country , big massive yolks akin to Rome. Some people have mistaken some churches as Cathedrals. It was a time for Catholic Ireland to show off.

A majority of the Population with a Devoutly Catholic Majority was always going to have a Catholic centered society and Constitution. In the UK as you know, Catholics can not (or could not - not sure about now) be Prime Ministers or members of the Monarchy. In 1937 , the Special Recongition of the Church was merely a recongition of fact , it actually added nothing to the influence of the RC that it did not already enjoy. You keep ignoring that fact that while the RC had "the special position" , the Constitution also recognised other denominations including the Church of Ireland and Jewish congregations, while guaranteeing the religious freedom of all citizens.

De Valera also resisted an attempt to make Roman Catholicism the State religion and his constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion. In the UK the King/Queen is also head of his /her church, the Church of England (of course, only in England) . If De Valera, as per your contention , really wanted Catholicism to have the place that you apparently think was new in 1937, then RC would have been a State Religion,. It was not however. In fact, that actually angered hard line Catholic laity and Clerics in the Hierarchy

The definition of family ie Catholic Definition , being the married family was/is no different to other Constitutions in other Countries at the time, some of whom are NOT remotely Catholic eg Germany ! Some countries still have the married family as their Constitutional Family.

Divorce ban was not entirely uncommon but there was hardly much support for Divorce back then in the 1930's. By the way in 1937, even the Church of Ireland senior heads opposed Divorce!!!! Italy only removed the divorce ban in the 1970's.

Lastly, who is "The State"? But the people! If the people did not want the RCC interfering they would have revolted, like people have done in the last 20 years. We saw what the French did in the 1960's, yet Ireland , 20 years later saw over 1 million people turn out for Pope JP II.

You saw what happened in 1986, Dev being long dead, when there was an attempt to bring in Divorce by Garreth Fitz. It nearly ruined the man politically. Over 25 % of those who voted said No to divorce (obviously farmers risking the loss of land shat themselves) Only for Alan Shatter in 1989 with his Separation Agreement Act, Irish families would have had big problems. The 1994/1995 Divorce Referendum scraped home with a tiny majority , less than 1%. It was not De Valera that went to the High Court AND Supreme Court to challenge the validity of the Referendum (Des Hanafin) But shure, you probably blame De Valera for apparently allowing the RCC to control Ireland :rolleyes:

We all saw what has been said about retaining the stupid blasphemy laws.

As for that report, (I will get back with that later, running out of time here,things to do ) Cumann na nGaedheal and Fine Gael (the lack of time in power compared to FF) did nowt either until Brendan Smith.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did Dev knowingly consign children to abuse at the hands of the church?

No, but there was very widespread serious abuse by the RCC in Ireland on his watch / when he was Taoiseach, and when he was best buddies with the infamous Archbishop McQuade. Anyway, what has that to do with the thread? Do try to stay on topic.

maryishere

Johnboner wrote: »

Of course people would want to join british army, at least they have proper equipment not the equipment from world war 2. Lol just look at our ''jets''

At least you are getting the thread back on track. Interesting to note the list of aircraft it has had over the years. A short list, worth reading. It includes aircraft like hurricanes which "crash landed" here in Ireland during the "emergency"! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Irish_Air_Corps#Fighter_and_attack_aircraft

Mr. FoggPatches

Soup taking ****s.

feargale

maryishere wrote: »

At least you are getting the thread back on track. Interesting to note the list of aircraft it has had over the years. A short list, worth reading. It includes aircraft like hurricanes which "crash landed" here in Ireland during the "emergency"! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Irish_Air_Corps#Fighter_and_attack_aircraft

The list will do fine for a people that chose to live in a small state with no imperial ambitions.

maryishere

feargale wrote: »

The list will do fine for a people that chose to live in a small state with no imperial ambitions.

Especially when we could rely on the generousity of the British to defend us, to sometimes rescue sailors in distress further offshore than our rescue services can reach etc,
British Tornado fighter jets will shoot down aircraft in Irish airspace if they are hijacked by terrorists for a 9/11-style attack, according to The Irish Examiner.

muddypaws

maryishere wrote: »

Especially when we can rely on the generousity of the British to defend us, to rescue sailors in distress further offshore than our rescue services can reach etc, as they have always done.
British Tornado fighter jets will shoot down aircraft in Irish airspace if they are hijacked by terrorists for a 9/11-style attack, according to The Irish Examiner.

So that they crash in Ireland, instead of in the UK, thereby keeping their citizens safe?

feargale

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Catholic Church had its grip on the Irish state.

Before you make that kind of statement you should study the part played by Cosmo Lang in the deposition of King Edward VIII.

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you don't understand the power the Church had on the Irish state, then I can do nothing for you. De Valera wanted the Church to have major influence on Irish life.

I take it you are not majoring in history. The fact is that Dev resisted attempts by McQuaid and others to make the Constitution even more Catholic. In fact it caused a serious rift between both men who had been firm friends before that (connections to the same school, a common interest in rugby etc.) Make what you like of that but study the facts before you post.

A Little Pony wrote: »

We saw an example of that when the Pope made a visit and the huge crowd.

I dare say a bigger crowd than the head of the Church of England ever drew in Northern Ireland. But credit that to smaller numbers rather than to less triumphalism.

A Little Pony wrote: »

'Blind eye'. An article in the Irish times points out that the establishment in the 1930s turned a blind eye to this and knew well about the abuse.

It ill behoves a DUP supporter to point the finger. Read up on Paisley's attempts to deflect attention from Kincora House. If you have any doubts ask Ed Moloney about it.

maryishere

muddypaws wrote: »

So that they crash in Ireland, instead of in the UK, thereby keeping their citizens safe?

Who knows of a possible scenario....If a hijacked executive jet was heading towards, for example Air Force One when it was last here, or heading across the sea towards Shannon, or Facebook hq. ...

Quote:
British Tornado fighter jets will shoot down aircrafts in Irish airspace if they are hijacked by terrorists for a 9/11-style attack, according to The Irish Examiner.
The Department of Defence has refused to comment on claims by a number of Irish Examiner sources that an agreement was reached some years ago between the Irish and British governments about protecting this country’s airspace from terrorist threats.
Five well-placed sources in Ireland and one in Britain have pointed to the agreement being in place, with a number saying the Defence Forces was not involved in negotiating it, despite the RAF asking for its inclusion.
Civil servants from the Department of Defence and Department of Foreign Affairs with the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) entered into a bilateral agreement with British counterparts: the RAF, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Ministry for Defence, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The agreement permits the British military to conduct armed operations in Irish sovereign or Irish-controlled airspace in the event of a real time or envisaged threat of a terrorist-related attack from the skies on either this country or a neighbouring state.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/raf-to-defend-ireland-in-event-of-air-terror-748619.html

feargale

maryishere wrote: »

Especially when we could rely on the generousity of the British to defend us, to sometimes rescue sailors in distress further offshore than our rescue services can reach etc,
British Tornado fighter jets will shoot down aircraft in Irish airspace if they are hijacked by terrorists for a 9/11-style attack, according to The Irish Examiner.

Don't be silly. There is near perfect cooperation between both jurisdictions in these matters. And it works to the benefit of both. Their advantage in equipment is complemented by our geographical proximity. Show me a life lost due to lack of cooperation, apart, that is, from fishing trawlers dragged under by submarines.

Honestly the level of tendentiousness in this and similar threads is pathetic, and not all on one side.

It's a bit rich for some people to expect those Northerners wrongfooted by partition to reconcile themselves to the status quo when they themselves, wrongfooted on this side, are so bloody curmudgeonly about it.

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

Before you make that kind of statement you should study the part played by Cosmo Lang in the deposition of King Edward VIII.

I take it you are not majoring in history. The fact is that Dev resisted attempts by McQuaid and others to make the Constitution even more Catholic. In fact it caused a serious rift between both men who had been firm friends before that (connections to the same school, a common interest in rugby etc.) Make what you like of that but study the facts before you post.

I dare say a bigger crowd than the head of the Church of England ever drew in Northern Ireland. But credit that to smaller numbers rather than to less triumphalism.

It ill behoves a DUP supporter to point the finger. Read up on Paisley's attempts to deflect attention from Kincora House. If you have any doubts ask Ed Moloney about it.

If somebody is 'evil' or 'corrupt' because of the things that happen while they are Taoiseach or PM, is there a non-evil non-corrupt PM or Taoiseach in history that could be shown?

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If somebody is 'evil' or 'corrupt' because of the things that happen while they are Taoiseach or PM, is there a non-evil non-corrupt PM or Taoiseach in history that could be shown?

There is no doubt that he presided over a government which turned a blind eye to what was happening, not least for financial expediency. Was he personally aware? Probably. Would any Irish other politician at that time have acted differently if elected Taoiseach? With a few possible exceptions, probably not.

FrancieBrady

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is no doubt that he presided over a government which turned a blind eye to what was happening, not least for financial expediency. Was he personally aware? Probably. Would any Irish other politician at that time have acted differently if elected Taoiseach? With a few possible exceptions, probably not.

I totally agree, I am no fan of Dev. But his handling of the war as a fledgling nation was exemplary. He saved thousands of lives and the very state itself imo.

If I had to choose between the moral probity of Dev or Churchill the choice is very simple, it would be Dev all the way.

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I totally agree, I am no fan of Dev. But his handling of the war as a fledgling nation was exemplary. He saved thousands of lives and the very state itself imo.

If I had to choose between the moral probity of Dev or Churchill the choice is very simple, it would be Dev all the way.

That Dev did. I would disagree on Churchill though. From a British perspective, he was exactly what they needed - a statesman for his time. An extremely intelligent man, he had great affection for Ireland and its people. Though he did support reprisals in Ireland during the troubles, he supported Home Rule and subsequently supported Michael Collins. He also wished for Irish unity with consent. He even said that he liked Dev.

I like his quote about the Irish: "We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English".

FrancieBrady

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That Dev did. I would disagree on Churchill though. From a British perspective, he was exactly what they needed - a statesman for his time. An extremely intelligent man, he had great affection for Ireland and its people. Though he did support reprisals in Ireland during the troubles, he supported Home Rule and subsequently supported Michael Collins. He also wished for Irish unity with consent. He even said that he liked Dev.

I like his quote about the Irish: "We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English".

I wasn't talking about his war activity (large parts of it were luck imo) I was talking about his career in general and he ended the war with a couple of atrocities that he should have faced trial over imo. Britain being on the winning side and with it's UN veto probably saved him from that.