elperello wrote: » I was more thinking about the reaction of the present day London Met Police who guard the Palace of Westminster. But seeing as you ask. Just picture your average Dublin policeman out and about on that fateful day. He's watching out for overloaded carts, beggars, or maybe young scallywags stealing bulls eyes from a sweet shop. Suddenly someone rushes up and plugs him shouting War or whatever. There he is, gone for all eternity and the other side get redemption and commemoration. That's the beauty of history it's multi-faceted.
Jawgap wrote: » In 1916? How do you think he'd have managed that and just how long would they have taken to arrive.....and if there was such a cadre of armed men available how come it took the authorities and the Brits so long to organise a response to any of the occupied sites around the city? .....never mind that Malin's command numbered over 100 and was well on its way to digging in - you really think a single unarmed police officer could have whistled up 300 armed men (assuming the usual ratio of 3:1 was required to dislodge an entrenched adversary?) Also the nature of his injuries - one bullet passed through both lungs and his left arm - suggests more a bushwhacking than a confrontation (as some accounts suggest there was).....sounds like she had the jump on him but was unwilling to take him prisoner.....since she ran back to the rest of the garrison shouting trimuphantly (in the words of one witness) "I got him" before accpeting the congratualtions of others. Although at that point its unclear if she knew whether she left Lahiff for dead, or thought she had just wounded him.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Zebra3 wrote: » I had no idea London was under occupation today.
riffmongous wrote: » But what's the source for all this? One diary page written over a year after the event iirc. With quite a few holes in the story if you look through it which has been done, repeatedly, especially last year.
Jawgap wrote: » I don't think I ever suggested anything except that it was reputed that she shot the officer - what might Fitzgerald's motive be to lie about what she saw? And Markievicz herself mentioned shooting a police officer in the arm - I don't believe she said which arm, but Lahiff was shot in the left arm.
riffmongous wrote: » Who knows, but the flaws are therehttps://m.independent.ie/irish-news/1916/just-who-was-constance-the-misunderstood-countess-34555881.html
Deleted User wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » Should have been hanged for her crimes against Irish policemen. You realise that shortly after 1916 it was generally recognised that shooting the leaders was considered to be a grave strategic error. You get the prize for being the slowest learner yet as regards Irish history.
A Little Pony wrote: » Should have been hanged for her crimes against Irish policemen.
Collie D wrote: » Can't wait to see the DUP reaction to this. The pram won't have any toys left in it.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » May disappointed me in many ways. I wanted to her to be like Maggie, a true leader and implenter. The greatest ever British PMs were Churchill and Thatcher.
Jawgap wrote: » Not Gladsone? Or Campbell-Bannerman - hugely, hugely under-rated, imo.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What made you think that? Her previous work shows she was far from a decisive leader. Like Thatcher she has found a way to divide and wreck her country though.
Jawgap wrote: » DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » May disappointed me in many ways. I wanted to her to be like Maggie, a true leader and implenter. The greatest ever British PMs were Churchill and Thatcher. Not Gladsone? Or Campbell-Bannerman - hugely, hugely under-rated, imo.
A Little Pony wrote: » Gladstone didn't know what he believed, shifting parties all the time. Maybe he gets more respect due to him not being Jewish like Disraeli.
steddyeddy wrote: » I think a reaction was sought rather than an informed discussion TBF. I don't know much about Campbell-Bannerman, can you tell us why you think he should be better remembered?
A Little Pony wrote: » Not that it makes much difference to some people though.
steddyeddy wrote: » Thanks to people like her we're not in the sinking ship that is Brexit.
Berserker wrote: » Given the level of dependency that the RoI has on the UK when it comes to trade, I would hold fire on statements like that.
Jawgap wrote: » Indeed, but if you don't mind I'll stick with the monograph written by the historian as opposed to the Indo piece written by the novelist
riffmongous wrote: » A monograph that relies on a testimony that couldn't stand up in a court of law? That twas typed up a year afterwards and disagrees with the DMP report and other witnesses?
Atoms for Peace wrote: » The peelers weren't exactly favour of the month at the time of the rising. The RIC was an armed paramilitary force despised by tenent farmers following their actions in the landwar, likewise the Dublin met's heavy handed tactics during the lock-out. It's not hard to imagine some wanted retribution.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If it tallies with your general view...bingo...hang em!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
