The_Goose135 wrote: » The fact is it was not the ruler of England to give to their ancestor's and when the Republic was formed it should have been taking back for the country.
Sean_K wrote: » Anyone who wants some apparently:pac:http://www.moonshop.com/
The_Goose135 wrote: » Christ you are an idiot. The fact is it was not the ruler of England to give to their ancestor's and when the Republic was formed it should have been taking back for the country. Simple as that.
The_Goose135 wrote: » Now I m not a mad RA head here
nomorebadtown wrote: » as long as they're not building shopping centres and luxury apartments on it, i couldnt give a monkey's/
An Fear Aniar wrote: » Most Irish people, the "moghach" or serf class, had no rights at all under Gaelic law. These people actually found their lives improved under English rule at least for a time.
Irish law recognizes a number of grades of people from unfree up to kings which are ranked within the status tract. Little space is giving to the unfree, which is reflective of the lack of dependence upon slaves as opposed to other societies, such as Ancient Rome. However, there were slaves mentioned in the laws, both male and female, and the term for a female slave, cumal, became a broader currency term. As unfree, a slave could not be a legal agent either for himself or in the case of another In addition to the wholly unfree, there are a few individuals who are semi-free. The sencléithe (hereditary serf) was bound the work the land of his master, whereas the fuidir had no independent status nor land of his own, but could at least leave as he might desire. There are two main ranks of commoners, the ócaire (lit. young lord) and bóaire (cow lord), although Binchy takes the ócaire to be a recent offshot of the latter who would have less property but still be a freeman. In addition are the bóaire febsa (bóaire of quality who had an honor-price of 5 séts. The highest commoner was the mruigfer (land man). Either of the last, according, Binchy, may be the "normal bóaire who appears within the law texts." The three ranks of commoners, at least according to the status tract, vary in the type of clientship they would undertake as well as the property which they would hold, although it is unclear how such would work in practice. The commoners would apparently have to cooperate in farming as they would not have enough property to own a whole plough-share or all the rights in a mill.
ronbyrne2005 wrote: » If Ireland was a militarily powerful country in 1200-1900ad we would have done same to Britain and Europe and Afria and Asia, thats the way things were done back then before this stronger nation state era
Trojan911 wrote: » Congratulations...... but what the F**k has the RA got to do with it?
Minesajackdaniels wrote: » How about the improvements the English lords have done on those lands? (Forestation, drainage, fencing, roads, pathways) - how shall we reimburse them for that work? Shall we simply overlook it?
Minesajackdaniels wrote: » And who shall the title change to? The government? No! Never the government!
Minesajackdaniels wrote: » The deserving people of Ireland! Right. So how do we decide who's deserving? Hey - how about this - what if we simply declare that anyone paying ground rent to an English landowner automatically assumes title to the land they rent.
Minesajackdaniels wrote: » Oh hey hold on, what about the people who've bought their land out? They had to pay for something someone else is getting for free. Oh dear.
Minesajackdaniels wrote: » And worse again!! What happens if the homeowner is a NON NATIONAL??
Kernel wrote: » 800 years is payment enough, who's with me!?? :pac:
Defenestrate wrote: » Is that you Mugabe?
stakey wrote: » And once we're finished running those English divils out of the country we'll head up to Dublin and run those other Johnny foreigners out of their 'embassies' and reclaim our land in Dublin too!!!
Defenestrate wrote: » And then we'll start on the Poles!
Kernel wrote: » Many people in Dublin who own their own homes have to pay ground rent, which basically goes to English landlords of old. You can buy them out, or continue paying them the rent. They must make a nice few quid out of it all the same.
The_Goose135 wrote: » but there s definately a little voice inside me that says hold the **** on mate, surely stealing all the way back doesn't mean they should be still allowed to keep it.
the_syco wrote: » Them wooden ones, or the metal light poles as well?
Kev_ps3 wrote: » Does anyone have any more info on this issue> Is there any link to this article? TBH im shocked about this whole thing. Personally I think we should take back every square inch of land that foreigners own on this island.
SimpleSam06 wrote: » Brehon law has a wide variety of social status levels, and formed the most intriciate and comprehensive legal systems of its day.
The_Goose135 wrote: » Hey all, Just read in then Irish Mail on Sunday (reliable I know) that a group of Lords from England still own thousands of arces here in Ireland since the plantations. Now I m not a mad RA head here but there s definately a little voice inside me that says hold the **** on mate, surely stealing all the way back doesn't mean they should be still allowed to keep it. Then I guess the question is who should get it if it is taken back?
