Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: So what is the deal with Jorge's emergence as a bona fide social justice warrior on

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    ‘Nothing said’? Fùckers wouldn’t shut up about it for 40 years.
    Actually, that reminds me. Speaking of left-footers have you seen Lucy Worsley's programme on The Glorious Revolution? Neither glorious, nor a revolution, was her take on it, which is fair comment, I think, but she did downplay the importance of the Bill of Rights imo. Probably because of her general fawning over royalty, and I suspect a secret papist traitor to boot.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    Actually, that reminds me. Speaking of left-footers have you seen Lucy Worsley's programme on The Glorious Revolution? Neither glorious, nor a revolution, was her take on it, which is fair comment, I think, but she did downplay the importance of the Bill of Rights imo. Probably because of her general fawning over royalty, and I suspect a secret papist traitor to boot.
    Yeah, it’s hardly a new take, tbh. The Glorious Revolution is best described as the very conscious decision of GB plc to appoint a non-executive chairman of the board. It was a masterpiece of political and religious pragmatism.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    ‘Nothing said’? Fùckers wouldn’t shut up about it for 40 years.
    Cold blooded murder of innocents for which no person has ever been held responsible or convicted.

    It's a fúcking disgrace is what it is, but let's not go down that road again.

    Tiocfaidh ar lá.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by SWv2 View Post
    Cold blooded murder of innocents for which no person has ever been held responsible or convicted.

    It's a fúcking disgrace is what it is, but let's not go down that road again.

    Tiocfaidh ar lá.
    No such thing as 'innocents', sw. What were they doing on the street at an illegal march? Looking for trouble, that's what. And they got it.

    Granted, it came in the form of 7.62mm rounds from rifles with quite phenomenal stopping power - which might have been a bit excessive, but if they couldn't take a joke, they shouldn't have joined.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    No such thing as 'innocents', sw. What were they doing on the street at an illegal march? Looking for trouble, that's what. And they got it.

    Granted, it came in the form of 7.62mm rounds from rifles with quite phenomenal stopping power - which might have been a bit excessive, but if they couldn't take a joke, they shouldn't have joined.
    Harsh, in the extreme.

    It is an incident for which your so called Great Britain should forever hang it's metaphorical head in shame.

    "The civil rights march on Bloody Sunday was not, in fact, illegal and the British armed forces had no legal power to arrest anyone on the march, the inquiry has been told.

    In a lengthy written submission to the Saville tribunal, the organisers of the march, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), allege that the then Stormont administration failed to give proper consideration to the legal situation.

    NICRA has asked the inquiry to invite the former attorney general to the Stormont government of 1972, Sir Basil Kelly, to make a statement about whether he was, at any time, consulted on the legal aspects of the march and, if so, what advice he gave.

    The march held on January 30th, 1972, was organised primarily as a protest against internment, which had been introduced the previous August. The submission now made on behalf of those who were executive committee members of NICRA in 1972 says it has invariably, but wrongly, been assumed that the march was the subject of an order banning all processions and marches.

    However, no copy of any relevant ministerial order has been uncovered, it points out, and no order was promulgated at the time.

    In the absence of any formal instrument under the hand of the relevant minister (then the unionist politician, Mr John Taylor), no order was legally in force, NICRA argues. "The march . . . was not, in fact, banned, even if the citizenry of Derry thought that it was defying a ministerial order in joining the march."

    The submission notes the inquiry's solicitors have acknowledged that every effort has been made to discover a copy of the order, without success. Although it was an executive act of the Stormont government, there is no record of it in the Public Records Office in Belfast.

    There is also nothing in the archives of the Widgery tribunal to indicate that a ministerial order was produced to show that the march was illegal."

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by SWv2 View Post
    Cold blooded murder of innocents for which no person has ever been held responsible or convicted.

    It's a fúcking disgrace is what it is, but let's not go down that road again.

    Tiocfaidh ar lá.
    If it happened in Syria or Yugoslavia there would be calls for invasions, regime changes, war crimes tribunals and so on.

    No reason to start talking foreign at us though.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    If it happened in Syria or Yugoslavia there would be calls for invasions, regime changes, war crimes tribunals and so on.

    No reason to start talking foreign at us though.
    Well quite. Now I was brought up during the troubles but am no flag waving republican, however to try and deny it as anything other than what it was, which is cold blooded murder, is blinkered and indeed extremely ignorant.

    For shame Britain.

    My final words on this subject.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by SWv2 View Post
    Harsh, in the extreme.

    It is an incident for which your so called Great Britain should forever hang it's metaphorical head in shame.

    "The civil rights march on Bloody Sunday was not, in fact, illegal and the British armed forces had no legal power to arrest anyone on the march, the inquiry has been told.

    In a lengthy written submission to the Saville tribunal, the organisers of the march, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), allege that the then Stormont administration failed to give proper consideration to the legal situation.

    NICRA has asked the inquiry to invite the former attorney general to the Stormont government of 1972, Sir Basil Kelly, to make a statement about whether he was, at any time, consulted on the legal aspects of the march and, if so, what advice he gave.

    The march held on January 30th, 1972, was organised primarily as a protest against internment, which had been introduced the previous August. The submission now made on behalf of those who were executive committee members of NICRA in 1972 says it has invariably, but wrongly, been assumed that the march was the subject of an order banning all processions and marches.

    However, no copy of any relevant ministerial order has been uncovered, it points out, and no order was promulgated at the time.

    In the absence of any formal instrument under the hand of the relevant minister (then the unionist politician, Mr John Taylor), no order was legally in force, NICRA argues. "The march . . . was not, in fact, banned, even if the citizenry of Derry thought that it was defying a ministerial order in joining the march."

    The submission notes the inquiry's solicitors have acknowledged that every effort has been made to discover a copy of the order, without success. Although it was an executive act of the Stormont government, there is no record of it in the Public Records Office in Belfast.

    There is also nothing in the archives of the Widgery tribunal to indicate that a ministerial order was produced to show that the march was illegal."
    Meh. We've done much worse than that. Mind you, so has pretty much everyone else.

    In fact, the rioters - who caused the soldiers to open fire in the first place - broke off from the legal path of the march and started attacking soldiers with stones, etc. Turns out that attacking heavily-armed members of 1 Para wasn't a terribly good idea.

    Ultimately, these were for the most part young men who were seeking trouble and trying to be billy big-bòllocks by rioting and attacking soldiers. I've little sympathy for people who do that and, if they don't like the consequences of their actions, that's too fùcking bad.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    If it happened in Syria or Yugoslavia there would be calls for invasions, regime changes, war crimes tribunals and so on.

    No reason to start talking foreign at us though.
    Don't you believe it. In Paris in 1961, the police murdered 300 Algerian immigrants and chucked them in the Seine. No-one gave a fück. These things happen as part of the 'savage wars of peace'.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by SWv2 View Post
    Well quite. Now I was brought up during the troubles but am no flag waving republican, however to try and deny it as anything other than what it was, which is cold blooded murder, is blinkered and indeed extremely ignorant.

    For shame Britain.

    My final words on this subject.
    The joke, of course, is that the rioters were banking on the idea that, if they attacked our troops, they wouldn't shoot back. On this occasion, they lost that particular bet. Too bad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •