RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

Nift wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah here i have answered it. It seems like its weaving cause you are entrenched in your thinking.

Can you point me to where?

'Confident' in my thinking, because it is backed by historical fact, is not to be confused with 'entrenched'. If you can change the fact that the RIC/DMP where organisations of our oppressors and who had a vested interest in brutally suppressing the emergence of our independent state then I will happily change my mind. While you are at it, also change the fact that when the RIC/DMP were not up to the job, the Black and Tans were attached to aid them and vice versa. Then alter the facts of the carnage and brutality they engaged in.

BTW Had Charlie the same confidence he wouldn't have wilted so quickly.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised to see this commemoration re-arranged, after a suitable period of PR messaging to avoid any upsets the second time round.
You can see both on this thread and in the media that this messaging has already begun.


The better alternative is that a more nuanced remembrance in line with the EAG's recommendation is held. But I wouldn't bank on it. I get the impression Charlie's made some fairly binding commitments to the boys in blue who want their great grandfathers to be reinstated as Irish Heroes.

And like I said, if that's the case then he can expect to have that brought up again when the election is underway.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Charlie was on Pat Kenny this morning with the sympathy bucket out for the "nastiness" and "vitriol" he got in the last 48 hours, which is a bit of a distraction from the substantive issue here.

Standard MO really. He can't absolve himself of the blame here. It's like someone dousing wood in petrol and then throwing a lit match onto it and blaming the wood for singeing him when it went up in flames.

Nift wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ok this one ."but what possible conclusions could Leo, Charlie etc have garnered had this plan succeeded and the commemoration had gone ahead?"

I suppose now they know how difficult this UI question will be. And the possible rewards.

Perhaps the backlash will actually galvanise them to climb out of the ditch and plant the tri color in no mans land and declare a border poll if they win the election.

As I suspected. Your depiction that this was some sort of cunning counter plan is spurious to say the least!

The actual factual evidence suggests it was a monumental miscalculation which, as is par for the course for this government, they haven't even sealed off properly, when the opportunity was there and will fester away up to and during an election. FG **** it up again alá so many other **** ups.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Nift wrote: »

I wouldn't be too sure on the Leo front, it looks like this is, or at least being made to look like a Flannigan thing. I wonder are there many in FG would mind seeing the back of him?
They pulled the plug and this won't be revisited or happen before an election now so FG will be hoping it dies down before that.
I don't think Francie votes for SF, he just defends their every move .

Francie doesn't 'defend their every move'. If he does, find me a quote from Francie defending SF economic policy?

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Regarding any United Ireland negotiations would anybody be happy with Varadkar and Flanagan negotiating on our behalf? I wouldn't, and I suspect a lot of people might agree with me.

What this has shown them, and it is timely, they get a boost when they stand up for Irish people north and south (Leo's ratings soared for a while) and they get an embarrassing 24 hour ****show necessitating a complete volte face, if they try to appease Unionism by sanitising our history.

Nathaniel Greasy Warrior wrote: »

I wonder how many people raging about this idea are unknowingly descended from the same people.

The civil war wasn't baddies versus goodies. The Irish state hasn't demonstrated itself to be morally superior than the UK. Horrific levels of corruption and abuse have been present throughout its history.

The root of the war was that northern Unionists promised to march on Dublin Castle if Home Rule was granted. So the British caved and Pearse et al took the opportunity to drum up support for their alternative movement. The reason the northern unionists gave for opposed home rule was they were concerned about an undue level of influence by the RC Church. This was pretty accurate in hindsight.

The idea of a separate state altogether was not a popular one before that. Plenty of Irish people disagreed with the notion even when it gained momentum. Of course that's not how they write about it now.

The root of the whole mess though was the Act of Union which dissolved our home rule parliament in 1800, which was implemented specifically as a punitive measure following the 1798 rebellion - and that rebellion was primarily fuelled by anger at the routine discrimination against Catholics by the ruling Protestant class. So regardless of how the independence movement morphed from demanding home rule to a separate Republic, the actual root cause of the whole mess was, again, a ruling class desperately clinging to their unequivocally evil ideology that it's morally acceptable to oppress another class of people just because you can. In that sense, yes, those fighting for independence were indeed morally superior to those fighting against it. I'd be the first here to condemn not only the Catholic Church but the Irish state and how it behaved post-independence in conjunction with the Church, but none of that changes the fact that the root of the whole issue was, indeed, a black and white "baddies vs goodies" issue - those of one class who had power over others and didn't want to give it up, versus those who were sick of having another class exercise power over them.

Desiring power over people who openly and clearly are not happy with you having power over them makes you a scumbag, it's as simple as that. Anyone who actually wants their people to control other people against their wishes is ultimately opposing human nature which desires overwhelmingly to be free. If that's the cause you're fighting for, you are the "baddies" - and literally no other factor can change that in any way whatsoever. Fighting to maintain your class's power over others who don't want you to have power over them is morally wrong, end of story.

Nift wrote: »

And if they don't appease Unionism at all in any sense, that's the issue. And where all this started at least for me. Many posters can recognise the need for some appeasement, if not a whitewashing of history.

Here's where I diagree with you Nift, no to any whitewashing or appeasement. Agreement of course, but appeasement no. Words are important. If someone like Bertie was in charge of our negotiating team like for the Good Friday Agreement then I'd be more hopeful of a constructive outcome.* Some kind of constructive ambiguity will be needed. I think that Varadkar and Flanagan would definitely look to appease the lunatic fringe of Unionism and throw out the (Irish) baby with the bathwater, leaving nobody happy.

*Please note, I'm not a Bertie fan and I thought that he should have at least faced trial for corruption, but I can recognise that he played a blinder with the GFA and negotiations like these play to his strengths. One reason why the UN appointed him to oversee the independence referendum in Bougainville.

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Charlie Flanagan 'shocked by nastiness and vitriol' he received over RIC commemoration

The chair of the Expert Advisory Group also described the planning as ‘a bit of a mess’.

Flanagan also said that he was shocked by some of the responses he received as result of the controversy.

“Can I just say that I was struck over the last 48 hours at the nastiness, at the vitriol at the emails that I got, the phone calls that I got, you know this is this is far from a programme of reconciliation. I was quite shocked,” he said.

https://www.thejournal.ie/ric-commemoration-4957484-Jan2020/

Poor old Charlie

This is the oh crap we ****ed up response, consults with the media team and they are like go for the sympathy angle.

Trying to turn himself into the victim here aint going to work. Just like using language to shame people into being against it didnt work.

I am glad they are keeping it going though as it keeps it in the news cycle that bit longer.

Calhoun wrote: »

This is the oh crap we ****ed up response, consults with the media team and they are like go for the sympathy angle.

Trying to turn himself into the victim here aint going to work. Just like using language to shame people into being against it didnt work.

I am glad they are keeping it going though as it keeps it in the news cycle that bit longer.

Fine Gael have been getting vitriol and abuse on Twitter and FB for a couple of years now, of the most extreme kind depending on the issue/**** up.

But suddenly it is shocking? Charlie is backing up like crazy to get himself out of his self dug hole but still hasn't figured out how to let go of the shovel.

If Flanagan is shocked by what has been said on social media and the criticism directed at him in this democracy, wait until he hears about what his heroes in the RIC got up to.