English absentee landlords look to claim Irish lands back !!!!

some_dose wrote: »

In all fairness you cannot really compare the settling of the Irish in America and Oz to this. I mean, the guy's family hasn't even lived there for years and then all of a sudden decides he wants "his land" back. I'm not a republican by any stretch of the imagination, but this kind of carry on will only serve to inflame anti-British sentiment in certain areas of our society

I was responding to sherydan's simple minded vitriol more than anything else. The fact remains though, that if he owns the title to the lands, then he can claim them. Might not be fair, but then life is often unfair, and those involved should really have sorted this out long ago.

scientific1982 wrote: »

The fcukin cheek of some people. Tell them their family also owns some plots in South Armagh.

Well fair enough if they have the title deeds to prove it.

I sympathise for the families involved but legal title is legal title, and unless they can claim squatters rights which I'm not sure they can, then there's not much they can do about it.

Einhard wrote: »

I was responding to sherydan's simple minded vitriol more than anything else. The fact remains though, that if he owns the title to the lands, then he can claim them. Might not be fair, but then life is often unfair, and those involved should really have sorted this out long ago.

Im sure theres documents somewhere in britain that claim ireland belongs to the british and look where that got them.

jezko wrote: »

Why can't they claim Squatters Rights? some of these people have been on these sites for generations..

As for the Vicar and wife go buy an Irish History book and learn what happened to other absentee Landlords.... lease the same happens to them!!

Forget squatters rights they should just ignore the letter, the vicar seems completly ignorant of what irish history says about people who take our land.

As regards people talking about america and austrailia both these came under british rule if the irish played a part in slaughtering natives then it was over shadowed by how many the british killed.

zenno wrote: »

that comment doesn't make any sense at all.

there is a difference, in entering a different country and forcibly trying to conquer it compared to being given asylum in said country.

It'd be naive in the extreme to think that Irish settlers in the New World did so in in harmony with the indigenous population. The Irish were a major component of the federal armies which massacred Indian tribes, and forced them into reservations.

jezko wrote: »

Why can't they claim Squatters Rights? some of these people have been on these sites for generations..

Yeah but AFAIK the locals may own the houses, but not the land on which they're built. The vicar owns the ground rent and so has a claim to the land, but can't claim the whole property outright which means squatters' rights moot. That's my understanding of it anyway. I may be wrong.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im sure theres documents somewhere in britain that claim ireland belongs to the british and look where that got them.

I'm not sure what that means exactly. Look, if the man has a legal title to the sites, then their his to do with as he pleases. Unless the locals can claim squatters' rights which I hope they can, but I'm not sure it'll be possible.

steddyeddy wrote: »

As regards people talking about america and austrailia both these came under british rule if the irish played a part in slaughtering natives then it was over shadowed by how many the british killed.

So it was ok for the Irish to massacre indigenous peoples and occupy their lands just so long as they didn't do it quite so much as the Brits?

Einhard wrote: »

It'd be naive in the extreme to think that Irish settlers in the New World did so in in harmony with the indigenous population. The Irish were a major component of the federal armies which massacred Indian tribes, and forced them into reservations.



Yeah but AFAIK the locals may own the houses, but not the land on which they're built. The vicar owns the ground rent and so has a claim to the land, but can't claim the whole property outright which means squatters' rights moot. That's my understanding of it anyway. I may be wrong.



I'm not sure what that means exactly. Look, if the man has a legal title to the sites, then their his to do with as he pleases. Unless the locals can claim squatters' rights which I hope they can, but I'm not sure it'll be possible.

Depends on the legality of the documents and what laws they were printed under, documents were made up that claim britian owns :


Aden
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Basutoland - see Lesotho
Bechuanaland - see Botswana
British Antarctic Territory
British Central Africa
British East Africa
British Guiana - see Guyana
British Honduras - see Belize
British Indian Ocean Territory
British New Guinea (Papua)
British Somaliland - see Somaliland
British South Africa Company
Brunei
Burma - see Myanmar
Canada
Cape Colony - South Africa
Ceylon - see Sri Lanka
Cook Islands
Cyprus
Dominica
East India Company
Federated Malay States
Fiji
Gambia
Gilbert and Ellice Islands - see Kiribati and Tuvalu
Gold Coast - see also Ghana
Ionian Islands
Grenada
Heligoland
Hong Kong
India
Ireland
Jamaica
Kenya
Labuan
Lagos (Nigeria)
Leeward Islands
Liu Kung Tau - see China
Malacca
Malaya - see Malaysia
Maldives
Malta
Mauritius
Mosquito Coast - see Nicaragua
Natal
Nauru - see Western Pacific High Commission
New Hebrides - see Vanuatu
Newfoundland
New South Wales
New Zealand
Niger Coast Protectorate - see British Nigeria
Nigeria
Niue - see Western Pacific High Commission
North Borneo - see Sabah
Northern Nigeria - see British Nigeria
Northern Rhodesia - see Zambia
Nyasaland - see Malawi
Orange River Colony
Palestine
Penang
Queensland
Rhodesia - see Zimbabwe
Royal Niger Company
Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sarawak
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Africa
South Australia
Southern Nigeria - see British Nigeria
Southern Rhodesia - see Zimbabwe
Straits Settlements
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanganyika
Tasmania
Tonga
Transvaal
Trinidad and Tobago
Turks and Caicos Islands
Uganda
Unfederated Malay States - see Historical Flags in Malaysia
Victoria Colony
Weiheiwei - see China
West African Settlements
West Indies Federation
West Pacific High Commissioner
Western Australia
Western Samoa - see Samoa
Windward Islands
Witu Protectorate
Zanzibar

the world has moved on since the times you could make a document claiming you own land and use force to remove the occupants, some people might think that this gives you rightful ownership of land but unfortunatly for the vicar and any other archaic remnants of colonialism the rest of the civilised world doesnt repect their view.

feelingstressed wrote: »

In the 19th century, the Irish were up to one third of the British army.
Mainly due to poverty and lack of employment.
An army job was secure and steady, even nowadays the applications to the BA from Irish people are well up.

However, it's still following orders from their officers who were the British elite.
And pretty much the WASP elite in the US army in their Indian wars. You've heard of General Custer and the Irish was one of the largest groups of the US 7th cavalry.

Some Irishmen made it to the top as Generals also, well done

yes i concour there was a irish presence in the removal of natives from there land in america such as the trail of tears it was not done in the name of our country but it is something we should agknowledge happened and was wrong we should be ashamed of the irish that took part in that, i think we can safely say that our country however can be free of colonial guilt

Stinicker wrote: »

If you know your History you will see that the majority of early Irish "settlers" to Australia were not settlers at all but simple ordinary people who were deported en-masse from their own country under duress by British occupying forces, for supposed "crimes" such as not paying rent on the land that British imperialist forces claimed to be their god given right.

The Irish that went to America went mainly to avoid starvation in the mid 1840's as a result of the targeted British genocide in this country so conveniently airbrushed from History as a famine.

The Irish in "the colonies" were treated as 2nd class citizens and had more in common with the oppressed natives than than the British war mongers. Irish and Cherokee lineage is one of the most common admixtures in America today, take Megan Fox for instance, so as you can see it was a case of the Irish and Natives making love and not war!

yes the irish were seen as akin to the natives