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

RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

ZuluDawn2020

Apparently a ceremony is going to be held attended by the Minister for Justice and Garda Commissioner to comemorate members of the DMP (Dublin Metropolitan Police) and RIC (Royal Irish Constabulary) killed during the Irish Revolution.

Does anyone else think this is grotesque?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Nift

Bambi wrote: »

The democratic process is relatively straightforward. The ramifications are not. The GFA made clear that a border poll would be decided via simple majority in both jurisdictions , as is normal with referenda. Obviously if you're a committed partitionist that's a problem but partition no longer has a screed of credibility if those referenda are passed.

The democratic process is not relatively straightforward at all. A cursory glance at America, Britain, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Northern Ireland and tons of other places would be enough to see that this is a glib statement, and soon Ireland when people will be decrying de corruption that returns a FG government.

I'm aware what the GFA stated, in return for peace. We are now seeing some ramifications on the border for that agreement with the "lads" and the backtracking now with more garda presence.. I don't think there is many committed partionists in the South, just realists and people who can look at the situation objectively and with honesty. In theory its a 50 plus one majority, in practical terms this will be chaos. Fine Gael know it, SF know it. I mean Michael Martin knows it as well hence his silence on this.

If we can't have a conversation without Charlie Flanagan being labeled a tan we haven't a hope about a UI. Its amazing people can't join the dots here.

Just scrap the whole thing now its pointless.

the RIC did do many a bad thing, particularly in the tithe wars and evictions etc. i think everyone can agree there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Irish_Constabulary

gormdubhgorm

buried wrote: »

Hold on a minute g, if the British authorities did not in fact deem this atrocity to be acceptable, as you claim, then who within the ranks of this gang were arrested or a court martial held for it?

I'll tell you shall I?

Nobody.

A murderous disgrace on par with the worst terrorist filth this planet has ever spewn.

You could say the same for any atrocity committed where where the actual perpetrators were not brought to justice. Ireland has a long history of that on both sides of the divide. Even in more recent times.

banie01

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What you are seeing is an honest distaste for what is proposed. There are memes doing the rounds of the queen commemorating the IRA, they are funny because it would be inconceivable that she would do that and not even expected.

100% Agreed.
The "Forces of the crown" in this particular context is quite appropriate.

Leo has waffled on regarding our celebrating Irish Soldiers who served in the 1st and 2nd world wars as a precedent for our doing the same with the RIC/DMP.

It is absolutely not analogous and his attempt to paint it as such needs to be called out.

In WW1 Ireland was still a constituent part of the U.K, even though there was a rising nationaistl sentiment.
Employment in an Agrarian economy was hard to find and British Army recruitment success can be seen in the sheer number of "Garrison" towns in Ireland.

WW1 at its commencement, was seen and indeed presented as a matter of honour.
The German aggressor had flaunted Belgian neutrality and commited atrocities including bayoneting Nurses and Prisoners.

Many Irish enlisted to fight the evil actions that were portrayed to them via Empire news.
Many fought in the hope that their "loyal" service would speed the implementation of Home Rule.

You would be very hard pressed to find any Irish that signed up in WW1 to ensure the continued oppression of their compatriots at home.

In WW2, again economics played a large part in the numbers of Irish that both served in UK forces and worked in UK War industry.
And again, I think one would be hard pressed to find Irishmen that served in UK forces with the intent to return to Ireland and commit oppressive action or atrocity.

The RIC/DMP were not an organ of the Irish State. They were a paramilitary, gendarmerie.
A force whose primary purpose was the maintenance of UK primacy in Ireland and enforcement of Anglo-Hiberno laws and in particular the primacy of UK based or financed landlords and industrialists.

It was a force that is responsible for actions that to this day still rise the hackles.

People have spoken in this thread about being descendants of people who served in those forces.
Many of us are, I am myself.

I have RIC and IRB members on both sides of my family.
I acknowledge that, I remember that as being part of what brought me here.
But I'm not going to ask the state to celebrate my Great Grandfather that swung a ram, that assisted in killing O'Callaghan and Clancy and many other actions across North Munster.

Asking Irish People to commemorate those forces is akin to asking the Vietnamese to commemorate the Colonial Police.
The Congolese to memorialize the Force Publiqué.
The Israelis to memorialize the concentration camp Kapos and ghetto mayor's!

It is a disgusting capitulation to political correctness that is a step too far IMO.

Truth, yes.
Reconciliation, yes
Rebuilding relationships, certainly.

But not at the expense of our national dignity.

James Brown

This event hosted by Leo Varadkar K.B.E. is like the Germans hosting a commemoration for the Stasi.
He should just burn the flag and replace the word Irish with British in all government documents and be done with it.
It's Tory apologist scutter.

gormdubhgorm

J Mysterio wrote: »

Wow. Now you are justifying that. Incredible.

I did not justify it I merely stated well established and researched facts.
You seem to be of the mindset that history is like a fantasy film good v evil.
Bad guys v Good guys
Nothing could be further from the truth.

buried

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is a misconception the British did not deem it 'acceptable' to shot innocent people.

Hold on a minute g, if the British authorities did not in fact deem this atrocity to be acceptable, as you claim, then who within the ranks of this gang were arrested or a court martial held for it?

I'll tell you shall I?

Nobody.

A murderous disgrace on par with the worst terrorist filth this planet has ever spewn.

Junkyard Tom

I don't think people realise that when they say 'but they were Irishmen' when referring to the RIC it makes what they did worse.

gormdubhgorm

Hamsterchops wrote: »

... but that was said in the context of the time (1983). Hopefully "an agreed" Ireland would be a peaceful and economically viable country.

1993 when the British government and Irish government were in talks.
It is a fantasy land to believe it will be a peaceful country, if the Unionists are not made feel part of any UI.
The reaction to the idea of this memorial to the RIC/DMP shows the true colours of people.

Sean.3516

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Ignored, troll is obvious

Trolling? Really?

Because you can’t bear to hear a view on history that you’re not used to hearing.

Dyr

Nift wrote: »

Sure and good luck with that.

It's not.

Would be great if life was so simple. Brexit is a prime example of how complicated the democratic process can be.

The democratic process is relatively straightforward. The ramifications are not. The GFA made clear that a border poll would be decided via simple majority in both jurisdictions , as is normal with referenda. Obviously if you're a committed partitionist that's a problem but partition no longer has a screed of credibility if those referenda are passed.

J Mysterio

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is a misconception the British did not deem it 'acceptable' to shot innocent people.

When the British approached Croke Park the IRA Volunteers did not fire at them. But warning shots were fired in the air by the IRA this caused a panic and a stampee all around CP.

That first British raiding party was composed of hyped up temporary cadets who were not following orders when they opened fire on the crowd.

Major Mills thier commanding officer got them back, under control. But after 3 minutes the damage was done.

The whole idea of the raid on Croke Park was to get the crowd to file out so they could search them for weapons. Not to go in shooting like mad eejits.

There was a subsequent attempt by Dublin Castle to falsely claim they were fired on by the IRA. But this was never proven.

You should read this book -

THE BLOODIED FIELD
Croke Park. Sunday 21 November 1920
By Michael Foley

It covers all the individuals involved in detail not just the Republican side or even both forces, but the civilians as well.

Wow. Now you are justifying that. Incredible.

Sean.3516

marieholmfan wrote: »

Weird that someone should be both pro RIC and pro Israel in this country - both non normative opinions.

Does boards.ie have a xenophobic undercurrent?

I’m not complaining. It’s kind of hilarious really. I was once accused of being an American because I used the word MOM in a post once.

Now I’m a foreigner because I hold a minority opinion.

Calhoun

McMurphy wrote: »

A few of the independent ministers now saying they're boycotting it too.

Finnian McGrath
Boxer Moran
Sean Canney.

This is a clusterfcuk for Charlie and the boys.

I don't understand how stupid they can be so close to an election.

gormdubhgorm

buried wrote: »

Yeah I know exactly what you are saying, they were caught up supporting a regime that deemed it acceptable to shoot multiple rounds of machine gun fire into a crowd of innocent people. That is the actual reality and the actual history. Just because you don't want to acknowledge it, well, that's on you.

That is a misconception the British did not deem it 'acceptable' to shot innocent people.

When the British approached Croke Park the IRA Volunteers did not fire at them. But warning shots were fired in the air by the IRA this caused a panic and a stampee all around CP.

That first British raiding party was composed of hyped up temporary cadets who were not following orders when they opened fire on the crowd.

Major Mills thier commanding officer got them back, under control. But after 3 minutes the damage was done.

The whole idea of the raid on Croke Park was to get the crowd to file out so they could search them for weapons. Not to go in shooting like mad eejits.

There was a subsequent attempt by Dublin Castle to falsely claim they were fired on by the IRA. But this was never proven.

You should read this book -

THE BLOODIED FIELD
Croke Park. Sunday 21 November 1920
By Michael Foley

It covers all the individuals involved in detail not just the Republican side or even both forces, but the civilians as well.

The high horse brigade

Sean.3516 wrote: »

We’re arguing past each other when we resort to indignation.

I didn’t use the word misbehaviour specifically to downplay things the RIC did. I’ve never denied that they’ve done the things you listed.

Maybe focus on the point I was actually making which is that Ireland was not under a military occupation. I’m going by the actual definition of what a military occupation is as opposed to the hyperbolic, broad and emotionally charged definition that people on here are using.

People are conveniently ignoring the fact that words have definitions.

A military occupation is “effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory, which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity.”

NOT UNDER THE FORMAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THAT ENTITY. Ireland was under the formal sovereignty of that entity since the Act of Union in 1801. Therefore we were not living under an occupation.

Now this by itself doesn’t mean that there weren’t legitimate reasons for a rebellion. But being “under occupation” isn’t one of them.

Ignored, troll is obvious

McMurphy

A few of the independent ministers now saying they're boycotting it too.

Finnian McGrath
Boxer Moran
Sean Canney.

This is a clusterfcuk for Charlie and the boys.

Sean.3516

Zebra3 wrote: »

Misbehaviour?

Burning down cities?

Raping women?

Murdering people by exploding grenades in their mouths?

Helping to evict starving people?

Torture?

That's what decent people refer to as crimes.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

We’re arguing past each other when we resort to indignation.

I didn’t use the word misbehaviour specifically to downplay things the RIC did. I’ve never denied that they’ve done the things you listed.

Maybe focus on the point I was actually making which is that Ireland was not under a military occupation. I’m going by the actual definition of what a military occupation is as opposed to the hyperbolic, broad and emotionally charged definition that people on here are using.

People are conveniently ignoring the fact that words have definitions.

A military occupation is “effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory, which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity.”

NOT UNDER THE FORMAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THAT ENTITY. Ireland was under the formal sovereignty of that entity since the Act of Union in 1801. Therefore we were not living under an occupation.

Now this by itself doesn’t mean that there weren’t legitimate reasons for a rebellion. But being “under occupation” isn’t one of them.

FrancieBrady

marieholmfan wrote: »

Significant violence is inevitable and we need to begin preparing for that event.

[/QUOTE]

And significant violence has been threatened if there is a border in the Irish Sea.

Various factions of Unionism has being trying to hold these islands to ransom in various ways back as far as the early 1900's. They have been losing steadily and their numbers (belligerents) having also being steadily falling from Carson to Jamie Bryson.

buried

saabsaab wrote: »

I don't think you or many others here understand, you raise a terrible incident that can't be defended and then blacken the name of all the RIC. It is a fact that tens of thousands of today's Irish people are descendants of RIC DMP men myself included and I am not ashamed of him, especially as he died in WWI saving a comrade. Are you asking all these to be ashamed of their kin?

I'm not asking anything from you. I don't need to, I'm giving you facts on a murderous atrocity carried out by the RIC. The organisation of the RIC. What in it is wrong or incorrect about it? Once again I don't care what your relative did or didn't do. That is immaterial to the current situation where the self loathing current government have somehow deemed it acceptable to commemorate the organisation of the RIC that carried out this, and other atrocities. Your relative doesn't come into it for me. And it shouldn't for you. Remember your relative however you want to but I'll be f**ked if I agree to the ruling government I and many others handsomely pay for to commemorate organisations such as the RIC who were responsible for atrocities carried out in Croke Park in 1920, Dublin in 1913 or anywhere else throughout the island in the 100 years prior to that when innocent people were burned out of their homes and left to die in ditches in the thousands.
Some of those innocent people turfed out their own homes were my relatives. So what you think about that? But in fairness, I don't expect you to care and I don't want you to either.

Billcarson

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Only a step too far for those who are a step behind.

Let's not kiss their arses too much though,even they might find it embarrassing.

Iscreamkone

I'll be commemorating Tom Barry and his flying column on 28/11/2020.
They gave the Tans one deserved hammering out in Kilmichael.
For me, this was the victory that ultimately won the War of Independence.

If someone wants to commemorate the RIC, Tans etc... that's their business, just don't expect my approval.

Jimmy Garlic

saabsaab wrote: »

I don't think you or many others here understand, you raise a terrible incident that can't be defended and then blacken the name of all the RIC. It is a fact that tens of thousands of today's Irish people are descendants of RIC DMP men myself included and I am not ashamed of him, especially as he died in WWI saving a comrade. Are you asking all these to be ashamed of their kin?

The RIC were a private police force of the landed gentry. Dispicable individuals who threw people out on the road for money.

I doubt many French people would be commemorating and honouring the Milice.

FrancieBrady

Nift wrote: »

A truth commission as you say. I'd imagine a few. barcelona, parts of Italy, i'm sure there is others.

Unionists would need to accept the same; a shared culture. I would propose, joint capitals in Dublin and Belfast, federalised police, a new anthem, flag, a truth commission, maybe a federal provincial system.

I'm not saying they or we have to do anything. I'm saying nothing will happen because of all these issues. I'd actually bet everything i have on it.

Put yourself in the orangeman shoes. His whole culture dies the day a United Ireland is announced. Now no matter how joyous to some that is, to them its the death of their identity. In my mind, there is a certainty many hardliners would take up a gun. I mean again, online/barstool chatter response would be **** em..they deserve it. But its a simplistic view. As unpalatable as it is to many, these unionists, many who consider themselves Irish, have been connected to Ireland since the 16th century.

I don't know the will of the majority might sound democratic to you, but it comes with alot of heartache and yes bloodshed. Nearly guaranteed.

The Unionists who matter here, the democratic moderate ones have agreed already to what happens when a majority vote for a UI.
What consideration have you given to those who have wanted a UI for 100 years?
Why would ask them to ignore a majority vote?

We all have to work at a UI, which will mean compromises, it should never mean appeasement for the sake of it or to kick a specific issue down a road. That is what leads to outbreaks of violence.

To keep it on topic this RIC is an obvious carrot to Unionists, and a red rag to the rent a mob who think they're Republican. It seems an own goal, but its been flagged a while. The civil war centenrary will be another minefield.

What you are seeing is an honest distaste for what is proposed. There are memes doing the rounds of the queen commemorating the IRA, they are funny because it would be inconceivable that she would do that and not even expected.

Ian Paisley accepted in his later life that unionists abused their supremacy, I doubt there is a real Unionist that would expect the Irish to honour the forces of the crown either. FG are making fools of us again. Cue: John Bruton crying as he welcomes the queen.

banie01

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The idea that Britain stumped for the Jews and sold out the Arabs is pure revisionist history. Again the Jews started migrating there BEFORE the British took over the mandate.

Long before the Mandate was established the British Government voiced support for the formation of a Jewish state.
The Balfour declaration was the policy announcement that led to a rapid and near immediate growth in the number of Jewish migrants to Palestine.

marieholmfan

Significant violence is inevitable and we need to begin preparing for that event.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

... but that was said in the context of the time (1983). Hopefully "an agreed" Ireland would be a peaceful and economically viable country.

@13:30

"The Loyalists will become the terrorists in a United Ireland situation, Dublin will getting the bombs. Catholic people in the South of Ireland will be getting murdered"

--

Commemorations/Memorials like Varadkar's idea will try and ease the Unionists into the idea of a UI. It clearly is not as simple as a border poll as SF claim.

[/QUOTE]

Hamsterchops

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

A Unionist fella (Pastor Jack McKee Shankhill Road - good singer he is too!) mentioned what would happen if there was a UI way back in 1993.]

"The Loyalists will become the terrorists in a United Ireland situation, Dublin will getting the bombs. Catholic people in the South of Ireland will be getting murdered"

... but that was said in the context of the time (1983). Hopefully "an agreed" Ireland would be a peaceful and economically viable country.

marieholmfan

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Due to them in what way?

Weird that someone should be both pro RIC and pro Israel in this country - both non normative opinions.

I suspect that we are simply dealing with a tedious contrarian autodidact.

Sean.3516

Zebra3 wrote: »

Britain promised European jews Palestinian land. Something they had no right to do.

The idea that Britain stumped for the Jews and sold out the Arabs is pure revisionist history. Again the Jews started migrating there BEFORE the British took over the mandate. The British Mandate heavily favoured the Arabs due to oil interests. The Mufti of Jerusalem incited pogroms against the Jewish population and the Brits let them at it. Their original two-state solution involved giving the vast majority of land to the Arabs. Way more than the UN gave them in 1947.

Worth noting that when the Jews started buying land there was no nation state in Palestine, it was an Ottoman imperial province. There was never a nation state in Palestine that wasn’t Jewish. The Arabs never attempted to form a state there even though they were entitled to under the British plan and the UN plan.

Zebra3 wrote: »

The fact that jews bought some land in Palestine is irrelevant. If enough Poles buy land in Ireland, are they entitled to their own state here?

No they wouldn’t be entitled to form a state because they bought land for the simple reason that at a sovereign state already exists here.

No state had existed in Palestine, the proposed two-state solution was the first attempt at forming one since the Romans kicked the Jews out.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Irish people fought and died in WWI in large numbers for something that was already due to them. Wow.

Due to them in what way?

Sir Oxman

The Expert Group recommended a commemoration for all who died in the WoI for July 2021.

Why is this extra commemoration (state held) going ahead on the 17th?
It looks to me this is Flanagan in particular appeasing the lobby group HARP.

gormdubhgorm

marieholmfan wrote: »

The below is unnecessary - post Brexit 50% +1 is inevitable.

Nift wrote: »

Sure and good luck with that.

It's not.

Would be great if life was so simple. Brexit is a prime example of how complicated the democratic process can be.

A Unionist fella (Pastor Jack McKee Shankhill Road - good singer he is too!) mentioned what would happen if there was a UI way back in 1993.

@12:20 (with intro)

@13:30

"The Loyalists will become the terrorists in a United Ireland situation, Dublin will getting the bombs. Catholic people in the South of Ireland will be getting murdered"

--

Commemorations/Memorials like Varadkar's idea will try and ease the Unionists into the idea of a UI. It clearly is not as simple as a border poll as SF claim.