Hate the English??

Xavi6

Seillejet wrote: »

San Marino people though. Delighted we inflicted Brian Kerr on them.

He's actually with the Faroe Islands but anyway....no dwelling on the past for me. What's done is done. In summary, the English - a great bunch of lads (not a racist).

Terrontress

Johnny Utah wrote: »

LOL, where do I start with this one?

The UK didn't stand up to the Third Reich alone. They had a bit of help from the Soviets too, you know.

Who else was fighting against the Germans following the fall of Paris and before the bombing of Pearl Harbour and Barbarossa?

The Commonwealth states I suppose but that was driven from London. I don't think it is an unreasonable assertion that for part of the war the UK stood up to the Nazis alone.

The Yanks and Soviets only joined WW2 after being attacked.

Hitler was also not only interested in Mainland Europe. The war spread in to Africa. He wanted global domination. Do you think if he had successfully invaded Russia he would have stopped at the Caucasus line?

Many Irish rubbed their hands with delight at the thought of a Nazi led world. The IRA even lit fires in the hills around Belfast to guide the German bombers in and as a result Belfast suffered the second heaviest aerial bombardment in the UK after London. Following the fall of many of the Nazi propaganda radio stations, Irland-Redaktion continued to send long wave Nazi broadcasts to Europe, encouraging young men and women to bear arms and give up their lives in an already lost war.

It's a wonder that it is not the English who hate the Irish for the behaviour of our forefathers.

An Fear Aniar

Lots of men from the Free State fought in WW2 - something like 48,000, as far as I know.

.

me_right_one

Terrontress wrote: »

It's a wonder that it is not the English who hate the Irish for the behaviour of our forefathers.

That line there missus, that line. Thats the pompous, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant, attitude that lead to people hating. Are you for real? I dont hate english people, but now I'm not so sure about YOU. How dare you.

And by the way, the Polish were the first army to fight the nazi's.

Terrontress

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Lots of men from the Free State fought in WW2 - something like 48,000, as far as I know.

.

Of course, I have mentioned it in an earlier post.

Lots of men from the free state were hoping for the Third Reich and the holocaust to come to the island of Ireland in the form of a Quisling government.

Do you see what I am getting at? Firstly it was the actions of previous generations which came before us so we cannot be blamed on them just as today's English cannot be blamed on the past.

Secondly not every Irish person was ready to sign up to the SS, although condolences for Hitler's death might make you thien otherwise. Just as not every English person was not responsible for the actions of their ruling classes in Ireland.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

People with hatred are usually self-defeating. Nevertheless, opposing a régime is often entirely legitimate and moral. The very foundation stone of the British (i.e. English and conquered Welsh and Scots) régime in Ireland rests upon a profound hatred of the Irish, a nomenclature which later was changed to 'Catholic'.

No amount of revisionism can revise the course and policies of British rule, and yes the British people who ruled over us, over a period of centuries. It was not, and indeed is not for a part of the Irish people, a mere flash in the pan, or even a selfless civilising campaign, as fashionable as both views may be for the "poppy day" school of benign British imperialism.

The British may be the nicest people in the world when they are over in Britain. That is neither here nor there. On the other hand, I have no evidence to support a similar contention about those people when they organise in Ireland (or anywhere else outside of Britain). If somebody has evidence of the nice peace-loving and selfless British saving the Irish from themselves, then please tell us what this evidence is.

It is entirely legitimate for any Irish person to be wary (to put it mildly) of organised groups of British people and their intentions in Ireland. There is a current phase of "the past is the past" (while part of Ireland remains under British rule but shhh), and then there is the unmistakable historical record over centuries of the British and all their cultural supremacism in Ireland. Hope meets reality.

What would the rational person trust in?

Maybe, as you are such a history expert, you could tell us when England conquered Scotland, or Wales for that matter.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Wind-up merchant.

is this a confession for the next part of your post.....

Johnny Utah wrote: »

LOL, where do I start with this one?

The UK didn't stand up to the Third Reich alone. They had a bit of help from the Soviets too, you know.

The UK was on the brink of defeat by the Germans in WWII. The RAF was absolutely decimated as the Luftwaffe had destroyed most of their airplanes. The Germans then switched their attention from bombing RAF airfields to bombing London. This was a big mistake by the Luftwaffe, as it gave the RAF time to repair the small number of planes it had left. Had the Germans concentrated their attacks on the remaining RAF planes, they would have had total air superiority over Britain and the War would most certainly have taken a different outcome. As it happened, the RAF ultimately defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, but most of their major cities were flattened, and Hitler then concentrated on the Eastern front as he didn't really see Britain as a major threat.

However, the truth is that Hitler actually never wanted to invade Britain at all. The Nazis wanted to control Contitnental Europe and wanted to be an ally of Britain and the US. This is on record, but is probably not widely known. Hitler never wanted war with Britain. Even after the Nazis conquered France, Hitler wanted peace with Britain. The only reason Britain intervened was because they recognised that there was a new continental empire emerging and they wanted to stop it. In reality, it was a war between the old British empire (which was once impressive 200-300 years ago) and an emerging superpower.

If you look back through history, Britain has always resisted such attempts to build a European empire, even going all the way back to the time of Napolean. The US intervened because it wasn't in their interest either to have a single European superpower.

Even today, the US/Britain only take military action for their own vested interest (oil).

The UK is not a global superpower anymore and hasn't been for some time. Post WWI, the British Empire fell into decline.

Incidentally, you do realise that the british Army is in Afghanistan, along with 41 other countires, one of which is Ireland, at the request of the UN. There is also no oil in Afghanistan, or Bosnia for that matter.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Your friends were right not to salute the Queen. Why would you salute a foreign monarch? A monarch that has oppressed this country for centuries?

Would you stick your head in the fire if everyone else did it too?

Toasting the Queen is a sign of respect to a country. the Americans do it to their flag as do the French. If people are so opposed to the British monarchy, then they should stop working in Britain and paying her taxes.

Refusing to toast the Queen shows a distinct lack of respect and TBH, would be viewed by most people as simply childish.

The Irish actually have a tradition of loving the British monarchy and Vice Versa, Queen Victoria set up three major colleges in Ireland, Belfast, Cork and Galway, to encourage further education in Ireland. the trouble was, because teaching of Catholic doctrine was banned from these colleges (Catholics were welcomed, in fact, they were set up with the main goal being increasing education amongst catholics who could not attend trinity) the pope considered them godless and the Cardinal of Ireland forbade Catholics from attending. IE, contrary to common belief that Catholics were banned from education, it was actually Rome that was holding back education of Catholics, not the British.

This caused a bit of a problem for republicans though, how could you convince the population that they should leave a country when a lot of people loved their monarch, so the Irish Republican spin machine set about demonising the Monarch and ridiculing everyone who supported them.

Bonavox

Yup, down with the English! I kid, I kid [Not!!!]

But seriously, the queen has to be hauling the biggest arse that ever skulked its was around Buck palace haha

partyguinness

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe, as you are such a history expert, you could tell us when England conquered Scotland, or Wales for that matter.

is this a confession for the next part of your post.....




Incidentally, you do realise that the british Army is in Afghanistan, along with 41 other countires, one of which is Ireland, at the request of the UN. There is also no oil in Afghanistan, or Bosnia for that matter.



Toasting the Queen is a sign of respect to a country. the Americans do it to their flag as do the French. If people are so opposed to the British monarchy, then they should stop working in Britain and paying her taxes.

Refusing to toast the Queen shows a distinct lack of respect and TBH, would be viewed by most people as simply childish.

The Irish actually have a tradition of loving the British monarchy and Vice Versa, Queen Victoria set up three major colleges in Ireland, Belfast, Cork and Galway, to encourage further education in Ireland. the trouble was, because teaching of Catholic doctrine was banned from these colleges (Catholics were welcomed, in fact, they were set up with the main goal being increasing education amongst catholics who could not attend trinity) the pope considered them godless and the Cardinal of Ireland forbade Catholics from attending. IE, contrary to common belief that Catholics were banned from education, it was actually Rome that was holding back education of Catholics, not the British.

This caused a bit of a problem for republicans though, how could you convince the population that they should leave a country when a lot of people loved their monarch, so the Irish Republican spin machine set about demonising the Monarch and ridiculing everyone who supported them.

Oh for the love of God...here we go again..

We all know where this is going and has been done ad nauseum...

ps Just to further the point...Catholics were allowed in Trinity but you had to get permission from the Catholic Church to attend.

You are getting mxed up with Trinity and the other NUI colleges which had a majority of Catholics..the medical school in UCC had the first female graduate in either Ireland or the UK in 1898. My year might be a bit out.

It is well known that a "safe" Afganistan is needed so that oil pipes are not flowing through Iran. I think there are 7 or 8 Irish personal in Afganistan with a UN Peackeeping force which had UN approval.

To suggest that Ireland is part of the 41 country...'coalition of the willing' led by the US is wrong and misleading.

People who sit around in football jerseys bitching about the English are just ignorant twats. It's like the Islamic extremists plotting to blow up Western countries while sipping on Coca-Cola and listening to their iPod...

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

Oh for the love of God...here we go again..

We all know where this is going and has been done ad nauseum...

ps Just to further the point...Catholics were allowed in Trinity but you had to get permission from the Catholic Church to attend.

It is well known that a "safe" Afganistan is needed so that oil pipes are not flowing through Iran.

People who sit around in football jerseys bitching about the English are just ignorant twats. It's like the Islamic extremists plotting to blow up Western countries while sipping on Coca-Cola and listening to their iPod...

http://www.military.ie/overseas/ops/asia/isaf/index.htm

partyguinness

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.military.ie/overseas/ops/asia/isaf/index.htm

I have alluded to that fact in the above post which clarified the confusing statement you made.

getz

Bono Vox wrote: »

Yup, down with the English! I kid, I kid [Not!!!]

But seriously, the queen has to be hauling the biggest arse that ever skulked its was around Buck palace haha

thats not a very adult post now is it ?. just think what people from around the world who use these posts now think about you .show a bit of respect for other nations and people and they will show respect for you,dont tarnish the republic.

Terrontress

me_right_one wrote: »

That line there missus, that line. Thats the pompous, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant, attitude that lead to people hating. Are you for real? I dont hate english people, but now I'm not so sure about YOU. How dare you.

And by the way, the Polish were the first army to fight the nazi's.

It doesn't matter who fought first or last. For the third time, following the fall of France, the British led UK and Commonwealth, of which there were Irishmen fighting, were the lone force at war with Nazi Germany.

As for the how dare Is, I don't dare. What I have written is on public record if you only look for it.

me_right_one

Terrontress wrote: »

It doesn't matter who fought first or last. For the third time, following the fall of France, the British led UK and Commonwealth, of which there were Irishmen fighting, were the lone force at war with Nazi Germany.

As for the how dare Is, I don't dare. What I have written is on public record if you only look for it.

So your point is..........???

partyguinness

Terrontress wrote: »

It doesn't matter who fought first or last. For the third time, following the fall of France, the British led UK and Commonwealth, of which there were Irishmen fighting, were the lone force at war with Nazi Germany.

As for the how dare Is, I don't dare. What I have written is on public record if you only look for it.

Was that the lone force that stood and fought at Dunkirk...;)

That was the only thing that saved Britain that day..being an island nation. They has somewhere to escape to and this was combined with Hitlers strange decision (from his prespective) not to wipe out the retreating forces.

Plus Germany then turned their attention to Russia thus allowing Britain to rearm (with no small help from the US)

If you are going to pontificate about Britain fighting Germany in WWII then Britains failure to police and enforce the Treaty of Versailles in the inter war years should also be addressed.

Where was Britain when the Luftwaffe were practising in Guernica?

I think the US forces after Dec. 1941 might have something to say about Britain being the "lone force" after the fall of france.

getz

irishmen joined the british army at the start of WW11 with the blessing of the leader of the nationalists[then got abused when they came back home after the war] many others who were resident in the uk, got called up,they dident have to join they could have gone back to ireland and stayed safe,but they chose to fight for the freedom of europe,and many died,let us never forget that.

Fratton Fred

it does amuse me seeing WWII debated on boards. some people would rather cut off their own arm than admit that, yes in WWII, Britain did good.

partyguinness

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it does amuse me seeing WWII debated on boards. some people would rather cut off their own arm than admit that, yes in WWII, Britain did good.

Britain did good. Sure yer still going on about it..that and the World Cup in 1966 which everyone knows was rigged anyway..:D

What some people might find objectionable is the cherry picking expedition through history.

While the reasons for the start of WWII are varied and complex, there is no mistaking that Britains (they are not alone) fingerprints are all over the place.

Yes Britain did a good job in fixing a problem that arose when they (along with others) should have done more to prevent the situation arising in the first place.

None of the Allied powers are blameless.

partyguinness

getz wrote: »

irishmen joined the british army at the start of WW11 with the blessing of the leader of the nationalists[then got abused when they came back home after the war] many others who were resident in the uk, got called up,they dident have to join they could have gone back to ireland and stayed safe,but they chose to fight for the freedom of europe,and many died,let us never forget that.

Yeah I think that is WWI that you are getting confused with...

getz

partyguinness wrote: »

Yeah I think that is WWI that you are getting confused with...

yes it could be,some dates for all 1st sept 1939 german invasion of poland ,3 sept britain/france declared war on germany,1940 italy declares war on britain and france,7th dec 1941 japan attackes the usa, 8th december the usa declares war on japan, 11 december germany and italy declare war on the usa,22 june 1941 germany attacks ussr,8th decenber 1943 italy surrenders,then on the 13th of october 1943 ITALY DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY [how is that for making sure they join the winning side ?]

partyguinness

getz wrote: »

yes it could be,some dates for all 1st sept 1939 german invasion of poland ,3 sept britain/france declared war on germany,1940 italy declares war on britain and france,7th dec 1941 japan attackes the usa, 8th december the usa declares war on japan, 11 december germany and italy declare war on the usa,22 june 1941 germany attacks ussr,8th decenber 1943 italy surrenders,then on the 13th of october 1943 ITALY DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY [how is that for making sure they join the winning side ?]

No I am referring to your previous post where by you stated the plenty of Irish went off to fight in WWII with the blessing of Nationalist leaders and were abused when they got back.

That happened during and after WWI not WWII.

Ireland was officially neutral during WWII so it would have been rather strange for political leaders to encourage its peopls to join other armies.

canine

lets not forget the Romans

bertintheshed

and racist....

blinding

I think that the british goverment should repeal the law that prevents the British Monarch from marrying a catholic to improve relations between our two countries.

This suggests that the British establishment considers Catholics to be some kind of second class citizens.
This law singularily forbids catholics from marrying the British Monarch.
Considering the history between our two countries and the religious bigotry that catholics (in NI and western Scotland) have had to endure in relatively recent times the symbolic removal of such a law would be a great catylist for better relations between our two countries.

partyguinness

blinding wrote: »

I think that the british goverment should repeal the law that prevents the British Monarch from marrying a catholic to improve relations between our two countries.

This suggests that the British establishment considers Catholics to be some kind of second class citizens.
This law singularily forbids catholics from marrying the British Monarch.
Considering the history between our two countries and the religious bigotry that catholics (in NI and western Scotland) have had to endure in relatively recent times the symbolic removal of such a law would be a great catylist for better relations between our two countries.

Yes the law is hilarious...it's a form of religious fundamentalism.

TBH who in Ireland actually cares and why should we?

Relations between the countries are very good. I wasnt aware of bad relations. I personally cldnt care less about the religion of a foreign monarch.

I thought we had moved well away from this "Catholic Country" mentality.

I dont see how it has anything to do with Ireland what so ever. Sure Spain and Italy could make the same argument.

Quality

Oh dont get me started...

I hate what the British Government did to us in the past as a country.


But I dont hate the English people, tbh they are quite ignorant of Irish History.


I have been doing a lot of reading about the Irish famine lately and it makes my blood boil as the way we were treated by the british constituted an act of genocide...

Terrontress

blinding wrote: »

I think that the british goverment should repeal the law that prevents the British Monarch from marrying a catholic to improve relations between our two countries.

This suggests that the British establishment considers Catholics to be some kind of second class citizens.
This law singularily forbids catholics from marrying the British Monarch.
Considering the history between our two countries and the religious bigotry that catholics (in NI and western Scotland) have had to endure in relatively recent times the symbolic removal of such a law would be a great catylist for better relations between our two countries.

I think there should be a separation between church and state. That way a law forbidding marriage between the monarch and the Catholic will be seen as just that. A law discriminating against Catholics. Not the affront to Ireland which you seem to think it is!

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

Britain did good. Sure yer still going on about it..that and the World Cup in 1966 which everyone knows was rigged anyway..:D

What some people might find objectionable is the cherry picking expedition through history.

While the reasons for the start of WWII are varied and complex, there is no mistaking that Britains (they are not alone) fingerprints are all over the place.

Yes Britain did a good job in fixing a problem that arose when they (along with others) should have done more to prevent the situation arising in the first place.

None of the Allied powers are blameless.

true.

The cause of WWII goes back to WWI and the armistice. If any one country could be blamed more than the others then it should be France, but all are to blame in some form.

partyguinness

Yes, most English people I meet are quiet dim when it comes to their own history not to mind Irish history. Similarly a lot of irish people are dim when it comes to Irish history and seem to repeat the same old tired rant..

But in their defence, why should they know anything about Irish history..havent they got enough of their own to be getting on with..all that imperialism, invasions, world wars, navel battles....:D

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

Yes the law is hilarious...it's a form of religious fundamentalism.

TBH who in Ireland actually cares and why should we?

Relations between the countries are very good. I wasnt aware of bad relations. I personally cldnt care less about the religion of a foreign monarch.

I thought we had moved well away from this "Catholic Country" mentality.

Terrontress wrote: »

I think there should be a separation between church and state. That way a law forbidding marriage between the monarch and the Catholic will be seen as just that. A law discriminating against Catholics. Not the affront to Ireland which you seem to think it is!

There were very good reasons why the law was brought in in the first place considering the political climate at the time. there have been discussions on this recently but it is a minfield and difficult to unpick. it very rarely becomes an issue though and the last time it did, the person in question chose to forego Catholicism in favour of a grand wedding in Windsor castle and the remote chance of one day being Queen. Incidentally, there is nothing that prevents a monarch from being married to a catholic, so once the wedding is over the affected person can easily convert back to believing in transubstantiation if they like.

The Dutch and Spanish have similar laws by the way and i believe the relations between tham and Ireland are just dandy.

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

Yes, most English people I meet are quiet dim when it comes to their own history not to mind Irish history. Similarly a lot of irish people are dim when it comes to Irish history and seem to repeat the same old tired rant..

But in their defence, why should they know anything about Irish history..havent they got enough of their own to be getting on with..all that imperialism, invasions, world wars, navel battles....:D

You forgot world cups as well

blinding

partyguinness wrote: »

Yes the law is hilarious...it's a form of religious fundamentalism.

TBH who in Ireland actually cares and why should we?

Relations between the countries are very good. I wasnt aware of bad relations. I personally cldnt care less about the religion of a foreign monarch.

I thought we had moved well away from this "Catholic Country" mentality.

With regard to Northern Ireland how can Britain have such a law that relates to something so symbolically important as the Monarchy.
There is approx 45% of the population of NI catholic and quite a number of catholics in other parts of Britain as well.
The vast majority of the people in the republic of Ireland are Catholic as well. Now i know that many of these people are just nominally catholic but the symbolic significance of a law that treats you as second class citizens is not lost on many of them.
We do not have any such law in Ireland against any religion and if we had we would change it.

I do not see any progress in britain in dumping this law into the dust bin of history.

blinding

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You forgot world cups as well

Is'nt that just one world cup and that was at home anyway:D

Fratton Fred

blinding wrote: »

Is'nt that just one world cup and that was at home anyway:D

Rugby as well

partyguinness

blinding wrote: »

With regard to Northern Ireland how can Britain have such a law that relates to something so symbolically important as the Monarchy.
There is approx 45% of the population of NI catholic and quite a number of catholics in other parts of Britain as well.
The vast majority of the people in the republic of Ireland are Catholic as well. Now i know that many of these people are just nominally catholic but the symbolic significance of a law that treats you as second class citizens is not lost on many of them.
We do not have any such law in Ireland against any religion and if we had we would change it.

I do not see any progress in britain in dumping this law into the dust bin of history.

From what I can gather (and I spend a lot of time in the UK) Catholics in Britain are not that interested or even care so why should we?

Yes it is archaic and peculiar etc but who cares?

I wouldnt take it so personally.

I dont see it as being offensive to Ireland and therefore not an issue when it comes to Ire/Uk relations.

Yes it is valid point re NI Catholics and I am sure they are some that would be very quick to use it as a stick to hit the Authorities with but really...who cares at the end of the day?

The monarchy is just a very large museum that generates a lot of cash...

Hydroquinone

The idea that people who live in a Republic should give a flying fart about whether or not any bloody monarch anywhere can marry a Catholic or not is ridiculous.
Why does it matter to anyone who lives in Ireland?
I can see how - idealogically - it could bother a British Catholic, but I've never heard any of them bleat on about it. The only time you ever hear a peep about it is in one of these threads on here.

declanx

That's one more world cup than us....
As for hating the English: I got over that hangup a long time ago. Lots of English friends in work and on xbox. Most English have Irish connections. So to hate English people is to hate ourselves...oh wait that's been Irish.

Fratton Fred

blinding wrote: »

With regard to Northern Ireland how can Britain have such a law that relates to something so symbolically important as the Monarchy.
There is approx 45% of the population of NI catholic and quite a number of catholics in other parts of Britain as well.
The vast majority of the people in the republic of Ireland are Catholic as well. Now i know that many of these people are just nominally catholic but the symbolic significance of a law that treats you as second class citizens is not lost on many of them.
We do not have any such law in Ireland against any religion and if we had we would change it.

I do not see any progress in britain in dumping this law into the dust bin of history.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/anglicanism.catholicism1

most people see this law for what it is, a hangover from a past era and it is not high on anyones list of things to do.

blinding

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Rugby as well

Oh damn how could I have forgotten.:D

The rugby crowd are slipping up.

blinding

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/anglicanism.catholicism1

most people see this law for what it is, a hangover from a past era and it is not high on anyones list of things to do.

I was very pleased to see this (the link above) but am a little disappointed that it is slipping down the agenda.

A catholic might think that the establishment was not too bothered about something that offends catholics.

Hopefully it will be sorted because I believe people greatly under estimate the symbolic significance of this out dated law.

Fratton Fred

blinding wrote: »

I was very pleased to see this (the link above) but am a little disappointed that it is slipping down the agenda.

A catholic might think that the establishment was not too bothered about something that offends catholics.

Hopefully it will be sorted because I believe people greatly under estimate the symbolic significance of this out dated law.

i think you mifgt be overestimating the importance of religion in Britain. It is not worn like a badge as it is on this island.

ejmaztec

I think that 1990 must be Ireland's 1966, because people here are still banging on about it, but I can't remember who won what against who, or even what sport it was.

ch750536

What I hate about the English.

I hate the way they assume they are a world power and must be treated as such (Link)

I hate the way they behave when overseas with no respect for the locals (Link)

I hate the way the people of England lie down when they should be standing up (Link)

I hate the way they refuse to integrate when moving overseas (lots of 'Little Englands' all over the place)

I hate the way they lie about foreign policy, then do nothing when the lie is proven.(Link)

I hate they way they look down on others (seen this many times myself)

I hate the way the create rules for fun (link)

I could go on, but there is a lot to hate.

I was born in England & lived there till I was 30, I was one of the few who constantly thought we were wrong, so I left.

Hopefully the attitudes will change, then I may return.

Fratton Fred

ch750536 wrote: »

I hate the way they refuse to integrate when moving overseas (lots of 'Little Englands' all over the place)

you weren't born in kilburn by any chance were you?

mike65

Self hater!

/edit, indeed County Kilburn. Little Ireland as was (dunno if it still is)

blinding

Fratton Fred wrote: »

i think you mifgt be overestimating the importance of religion in Britain. It is not worn like a badge as it is on this island.

The Catholic faith is closely identified with the Irish in britain though there are British Catholics (and many Polish now too).
This is why this law is offensive to Irish people in Britain and to Catholics in NI who are after all British citizens.

If I am over estimating the importance of religion in Britain then it should not be a big deal to get the law removed. But for whatever reason it has not happened which would leave one to consider that retaining a law that is offensive to catholics does not greatly trouble the british establishment.

The removal of this law would be a huge stepping stone in the reconciliation between Catholic and Protestant and between the British and the Irish.

So many people say its no big deal but it still remains in place.

ejmaztec

ch750536 wrote: »

What I hate about the English.

I hate the way they assume they are a world power and must be treated as such (Link)

I hate the way they behave when overseas with no respect for the locals (Link)

I hate the way the people of England lie down when they should be standing up (Link)

I hate the way they refuse to integrate when moving overseas (lots of 'Little Englands' all over the place)

I hate the way they lie about foreign policy, then do nothing when the lie is proven.(Link)

I hate they way they look down on others (seen this many times myself)

I hate the way the create rules for fun (link)

I could go on, but there is a lot to hate.

I was born in England & lived there till I was 30, I was one of the few who constantly thought we were wrong, so I left.

Hopefully the attitudes will change, then I may return.

There was always a problem in days of "Empire", when one went "native" after moving to the jungle.:eek:

ch750536

ejmaztec wrote: »

There was always a problem in days of "Empire", when one went "native" after moving to the jungle.:eek:

I went native before moving, saves time that way.

Quint

What's wrong with england going on about the 66 world cup? They beat germany in a final, a country they were at war with only 20 years earlier in what's probably one of the most famous and exciting finals in the biggest sporting competition in the world.

Now, going on about winning 1 group game in the euros in 88 (when we didn't even get out of the group!) is pathetic!

ch750536

Quint wrote: »

What's wrong with england going on about the 66 world cup? They beat germany in a final, a country they were at war with only 20 years earlier in what's probably one of the most famous and exciting finals in the biggest sporting competition in the world.

Now, going on about winning 1 group game in the euros in 88 (when we didn't even get out of the group!) is pathetic!

That in particular winds me up. Since then England are expected to win at every competition, rugby, cricket etc.

They are a second rate country with second rate teams and should applaud any achievement, take a look at how they were treated in Italy in 1990.

Dudess

I love loads of things about England - the brilliant music, literature, television, film, theatre, broadcasters, newspapers and magazines that come out of there; the fact its population actually appears very diverse rather than this homogenic mass of little Englanders some seem to think it comprises (compare e.g. Manchester to London to Swindon); soccer - it's about the only sport I'd have something of an interest in (apart from a major hurling game with Cork playing - note: that is my only "rebel" tendency... ) and above all, its fantastic sense of humour which is often very self deprecating (the "superiority" thing is not as widespread as some AH contributors would have one believe). I actually often get a sense of overt political correctness and apologetic tones for the sins of the past from e.g. the BBC, Channel 4 and The Guardian. I also find English people can be "ever so" polite and pleasant about stuff that you'd expect to get their tempers flaring.
I love too, how politicians over there will resign immediately for misconduct, unlike here.
As for the whole Daily Mail/Daily Express Middle England thing - I wouldn't be surprised if that was reviled moreso in England itself than anywhere else.

I love living in Ireland as the quality of life is pretty amazing and it's fairly laid-back (with exceptions obviously) and Irish people are generally good fun, but there are things I like about England that you won't get here (and vice versa).

As for England's history, yeah, some pretty heinous stuff there - should today's population be made to atone for it? Ridiculous.
Sure, there are horror stories about racial discrimination against Irish people over there - these are isolated incidents though, and not representative of the bigger picture.

And when it comes to Northern Ireland, yeah, I'd be leaning in the (anti violence) republican direction and I dislike the way there is a lot of dismissiveness/ignorance down here in relation to what went on up there in recent years, but I don't see how English people have anything to do with that.

England provided a haven for Irish people at one time - sure, a lot of those Irish people had to put up with sh1t, but a lot of them absolutely thrived and wouldn't come back here for love nor money.