30 years ago today....

tonysea

PeteEd wrote: »

Do you want a sausage supper Bobby Sands

You are a ****ing moron!!

Fratton Fred

tonysea wrote: »

I hate people like you, even the loyalist prisoners respected the strikers for their courage but people like you think you can sit up on your moral high horse and label other men criminals, murderers etc. If you read the op you'll see that Bobby got 14 yrs for having a gun. If I remember correctly I think Bobby and 2 or 3 others were all charged for possession of the same gun. Dont forget the reason for many young lads who joined the IRA in the 70's was Bloody Sunday. But of course a SOLDIER murdering is ok isnt it? thats all above board in your eyes right? Another point Id like to make is, how can you say it wasnt war when the British Army are on the streets? The hunger stikers were pows and they achieved their goal in the end.

so you are claims they were POWs, ie soldiers in a war?

Surely then the 14 year sentence is irrelevant. My understanding is that captured POWs don't get a trial and are detained until the war is over.

Edit: having seen you last post, I don't expect you to be replying for a few days.

tonysea

thats "some mothers do av'em"

tonysea

You mean like internment?

Notorious97

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so you are claims they were POWs, ie soldiers in a war?

Surely then the 14 year sentence is irrelevant. My understanding is that captured POWs don't get a trial and are detained until the war is over.

Edit: having seen you last post, I don't expect you to be replying for a few days.

Yes and POWs arent treated like common criminals.

Fratton Fred

Notorious97 wrote: »

Yes and POWs arent treated like common criminals.

Sorry, I'm getting confused here. One minute they are political prisoners, the next prisoners of war.

If they were prisoners of war, why did they not wear a uniform or distinctive markings, or bear arms openly?

R P McMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Really? I'm sorry you feel like that. I'm not a troll, I just see things a lot differently to you. I suppose we can both agree though that it is difficult to have sympathy with anyone who bombs your country.

However, I'll ask again, what would political status have given the hunger strikers?

I can see how that would be the case, and I am sure you would agree also that it is difficult to have any sympathy for anyone associated with the oppression and dirty war carried out by the British government on this island.

And to answer the question, you have to look at the hunger strikes in the context of Thatcher's policy of normalisation and the attempt to portray the republican movement as a criminal conspiracy. The prisoners in the maze did not view themselves as criminals as they were imprisoned for being part of a political and military organisation, not for engaging in activities to enrich themselves materially

Notorious97

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry, I'm getting confused here. One minute they are political prisoners, the next prisoners of war.

If they were prisoners of war, why did they not wear a uniform or distinctive markings, or bear arms openly?

Sorry i meant political prisoners, i took POWs from reading your post, thank you for correcting me Fred, whatever would i do without you.

Fratton Fred

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I can see how that would be the case, and I am sure you would agree also that it is difficult to have any sympathy for anyone associated with the oppression and dirty war carried out by the British government on this island.

And to answer the question, you have to look at the hunger strikes in the context of Thatcher's policy of normalisation and the attempt to portray the republican movement as a criminal conspiracy. The prisoners in the maze did not view themselves as criminals as they were imprisoned for being part of a political and military organisation, not for engaging in activities to enrich themselves materially

It doesn't matter what their motivations were, or how noble the cause. The reality is that their activities (ie deliberately targeting civilian targets, concealing their identities, not wearing a uniform etc) meant that they were never going to get anything other than criminal status.

Throwing your toys out if your pram and refusing to eat isn't going to change that.

I accept that no prisoner should be beaten or tortured (although the IRA did regularly murder prison officers, so I can't imagine their was an awful lot of love going on in long kesh), but just because you call yourself an army doesn't mean you are and doesn't mean you should get privileges over anyone else.

Fratton Fred

Notorious97 wrote: »

Sorry i meant political prisoners, i took POWs from reading your post, thank you for correcting me Fred, whatever would i do without you.

life would be boring wouldn't it.;)

R P McMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It doesn't matter what their motivations were, or how noble the cause. The reality is that their activities (ie deliberately targeting civilian targets, concealing their identities, not wearing a uniform etc) meant that they were never going to get anything other than criminal status.

Throwing your toys out if your pram and refusing to eat isn't going to change that.

I accept that no prisoner should be beaten or tortured (although the IRA did regularly murder prison officers, so I can't imagine their was an awful lot of love going on in long kesh), but just because you call yourself an army doesn't mean you are and doesn't mean you should get privileges over anyone else.

You have a very simplistic viewpoint, life is black and white. The Brits were engaged in a very dirty war. They employed members within the republican organisation to carry out actions on their behalf, think stakeknife and the orders that he had been given down through the years.

The fact is that at the stroke of a pen the British governemnt changed the status of republican prisoners at a certain point in time. So if you were conviced before march 76 you had political status and after that date none.

By your rationale the SAS are not members of the British armed forces(ie deliberately targeting civilian targets, concealing their identities, not wearing a uniform etc)

Fratton Fred

R P McMurphy wrote: »

You have a very simplistic viewpoint, life is black and white. The Brits were engaged in a very dirty war. They employed members within the republican organisation to carry out actions on their behalf, think stakeknife and the orders that he had been given down through the years.

The fact is that at the stroke of a pen the British governemnt changed the status of republican prisoners at a certain point in time. So if you were conviced before march 76 you had political status and after that date none.

By your rationale the SAS are not members of the British armed forces(ie deliberately targeting civilian targets, concealing their identities, not wearing a uniform etc)

No, its not about being a member of an armed force, it is about being classed as a privileged combatant under the Geneva convention. Sabateurs, spies etc are not, so the sas would not be afforded that status. Not that it mattered, the IRA didn't exactly take prisoners did they, except ones they wanted to torture.

In your opinion, did the IRA treat British soldiers with the same respect they demanded themselves? Did they operate a shoot to kill policy? When they shot RUC officers in cold blood, or bombed an army bandstand, did they give those people the chance to surrender? The chance of a free trial, or the right if appeal?

Yes, it was a dirty war, but you can't criticise one side for not sticking to the rules, but ignore the fact that the other side had no intention of even reading the rule book.

R P McMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, its not about being a member of an armed force, it is about being classed as a privileged combatant under the Geneva convention. Sabateurs, spies etc are not, so the sas would not be afforded that status. Not that it mattered, the IRA didn't exactly take prisoners did they, except ones they wanted to torture.

In your opinion, did the IRA treat British soldiers with the same respect they demanded themselves? Did they operate a shoot to kill policy? When they shot RUC officers in cold blood, or bombed an army bandstand, did they give those people the chance to surrender? The chance of a free trial, or the right if appeal?

Yes, it was a dirty war, but you can't criticise one side for not sticking to the rules, but ignore the fact that the other side had no intention of even reading the rule book.

I don't think a lot of IRA volunteers had a serious issue with the shoot to kill policy. Those concerns were prevailant among other members of the nationalist community, as more and more innocents started to be gunned down. If you take the shooting of the unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar as an example, the IRA did not really have a serious problem with the evident shoot to kill policy, I however would have. Is your argument here that as the IRA were doing it, it was ok for the British Army and its lackies

I don't hold these men as heros. But I don't hold their captors as such either.

These were dark days we must be thankful to have put behind us, and work our utmost to make sure behind us those days remain.

Fratton Fred

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I don't think a lot of IRA volunteers had a serious issue with the shoot to kill policy. Those concerns were prevailant among other members of the nationalist community, as more and more innocents started to be gunned down. If you take the shooting of the unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar as an example, the IRA did not really have a serious problem with the evident shoot to kill policy, I however would have. Is your argument here that as the IRA were doing it, it was ok for the British Army and its lackies

As you pointed out earlier, I see things fairly black and white. If you join an army, you have to accept that you are a potential target. As much as I think some of the IRA's actions were cowardly and despicable, such as the Deal barracks bombing, or the shooting of William Davis at Lichfield train station, I accept that yes, they were military targets. What passes me off is when people defend these (and actually brag about them) then refer to the Loughall or Gibralter deaths as murder and use them to maximum effect.

Yeah, I'd rather the Gibralter three weren't killed and I have deepest sympathy for their families, but **** it, they went to Gibralter looking for trouble, found it and came off second.

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry, I'm getting confused here. One minute they are political prisoners, the next prisoners of war.

If they were prisoners of war, why did they not wear a uniform or distinctive markings, or bear arms openly?

IIRC one of the demands they got was a uniform and not the usual clothes issued. As part of the deal done it wasn't quite a POW uniform. I could be wrong but that's my recollection.

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I don't think a lot of IRA volunteers had a serious issue with the shoot to kill policy. Those concerns were prevailant among other members of the nationalist community, as more and more innocents started to be gunned down. If you take the shooting of the unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar as an example, the IRA did not really have a serious problem with the evident shoot to kill policy, I however would have. Is your argument here that as the IRA were doing it, it was ok for the British Army and its lackies

I think the concern was a couple of innocent people were killed and that's where the Stalker inquiry came from. There were also concerned RUC men that knew about the cover up and wanted to out the truth. The Stalker book goes into it in details, it's staggering, autopsy reports changed so that it wasn't shown that some were shot at point blank range etc.

The view of the RUC men was that they shouldn't be above the law and they should be held to a higher standard as anything else was going down to the IRA's level. I'd completely agree with that as it backfires anyway and becomes another IRA recruitment drive!

R P McMurphy

It is at this point that the traditional British argument falls to pieces around the IRA and criminality.

If the 3 shot dead in Gibraltar were unarmed criminals why were they shot dead by a special forces team. Should they not have been arrested, or is it common practice in Britain to shoot dead people suspected of criminal actions without attempting to arrest them and bring them to trial. It is a more understandable response if they are engaged in a conflict and those people shot dead are combatants. In any event it is clear that the British government supported extra judicial killings during this period

fryup

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yeah, I'd rather the Gibralter three weren't killed and I have deepest sympathy for their families, but **** it, they went to Gibralter looking for trouble, found it and came off second.

yes even the IRA themselves said they were on "active service" ..they were out there to plant a bomb

if you play with fire you're gonna get burned

tonysea

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry, I'm getting confused here. One minute they are political prisoners, the next prisoners of war.

If they were prisoners of war, why did they not wear a uniform or distinctive markings, or bear arms openly?

Clearly in uniform, clearly openly bearing arms:rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

Anyone read "One Day in my life" by Bobby Sands?

Or

"Nor meekly serve my time, the H Block Struggle 1976-1981"?

Got the pair of them out of the library today.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Anyone read "One Day in my life" by Bobby Sands?

Or

"Nor meekly server my time, the H Block Struggle 1976-1981"

Got the pair of them out of the library today.

No, who wrote the second one?

Fratton Fred

tonysea wrote: »

Clearly in uniform, clearly openly bearing arms:rolleyes:

I don't think showboating counts.

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

No, who wrote the second one?

It is a series of accounts compiled together written by people who "lived through and survived those years of protest and hunger strike"

Its compiled by Brian Campbell.

Heres a review I found..... The copy I have here is a 1st edition.

Not just a new generation of educated, confident, young nationalists will be delighted by the reprint of Nor Meekly Serve My Time: The H-Block Struggle 1976-1981, but also an older generation who bought it when first published in 1994 but then lent it out to other avid readers never to have it returned. Nor Meekly Serve My Time surely stands as one of the most powerful books to have come out of the conflict. Powerful, because it was written by those who experienced the blanket protest, no-wash protests and finally the hunger strikes during the years 1976-1981. Ingenious, because the book was written in the prison by the prisoners who were still in Long Kesh ten years after the hunger strike then smuggled out to the outside world, as a gift to us. Fascinating, as it batters your emotions – laughing loudly at one page to sobbing openly at the next, the book takes us into the H-block cells and into the hearts, minds, and everyday life of those who endured those torturous years.
The most amazing aspect of the book, however, is the sense of warmth you get from it, the dignity of those who wrote their accounts, and the feeling of deepest comradeship that shines through. The prisoners in the H-blocks and Armagh Jail smashed the attempts to criminalise them – at a terrible cost – but they also achieved much more than that. They overcame the attempts to dehumanise them.
In Nor Meekly Serve My Time you don’t hear bitter or angry voices but very personal, intimate, almost bashful accounts of people who while still in their teenage years were placed on the frontline of battle. British military strategists had thought them the weakest link, the ideal front upon which to launch an attack upon the revolutionary republican forces. How could they ever have known that what they were going up against was something more powerful than prisons, tanks, and guns. They were challenging the will of a people to be free.
Laurence McKeown, one of the editors of Nor Meekly Serve My Time, and a weekly columnist with Daily Ireland, spoke of his experiences writing the book:

“The book was part of a creative process within the prison whereby we were telling our own history, not allowing others to interpret it for us. I think it was unique in that sense.There are very few other liberation struggles where those engaged in it are also recording their thoughts and feelings at the time and then making those available to the public. In fact when the book was eventually released there were some republicans who were a little uneasy that maybe too much was revealed. But I think that our struggle can only be made stronger by showing how it is real people who are involved in it. Real people with all the fears, anxieties, weaknesses, strengths, hopes and failings that only real people can have.
As we wrote at the end of the book, there was no blueprint for what happened in the prison and it would be all too easy in hindsight to tell the history of the struggle there as one built on careful analysis on our part. It wasn’t. We were all fairly naive when we first were put in prison. Our response to the policy of criminalisation was more instinctive than analytical, but that’s what real people around the world do when first engaging in struggle. The analysis and political maturity come later, developed as a result of struggle and it was as an outcome of that process that we believed we should get our message out to a wider world.
If we were going to make history by our actions then we should write that history using our own words.”

Speaking for the publishers, Beyond the Pale Publications, Bill de Laval said: “It is hard to believe that 12 years have passed since the first edition of Nor Meekly Serve My Time.The book is an outstanding read but has been out of print for a number of years.We are delighted to have produced this special 25th anniversary edition with new cover and introductions, including a foreword dedicated to Brian Campbell, the original book’s compiler who died aged 45 last October.”
The book is available from bookshops (including Sinn Féin bookshops in Dublin and Belfast), Coiste na nIarchimí, on-line from the publishers (www.btpale.com), and at hunger strike 25th anniversary commemorative events.

http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2006/05/02/nor-meekly-serve-my-time-the-h-block-struggle-1976-1981/

Hannibal

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If they were prisoners of war, why did they not wear a uniform or distinctive markings, or bear arms openly?

That probably has got something to do with the fact that they were fighting against one of the most heavily armed armies in the world, if they came out into the open they wouldve been slaughtered.

"Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery." Che Guevara

K-9

Just thinking about Gibraltar, seeing as it was out there and they wouldn't have had much experience dealing with the IRA, it makes sense that the SAS and MI6 was involved. MI6 is the international one isn't it?

MI6 would have had responsibility for the cold war at that time and counter terrorism so they could cover it that way.

Fratton Fred

Nice and impartial then.:S

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, its not about being a member of an armed force, it is about being classed as a privileged combatant under the Geneva convention. Sabateurs, spies etc are not, so the sas would not be afforded that status. Not that it mattered, the IRA didn't exactly take prisoners did they, except ones they wanted to torture.

In your opinion, did the IRA treat British soldiers with the same respect they demanded themselves? Did they operate a shoot to kill policy? When they shot RUC officers in cold blood, or bombed an army bandstand, did they give those people the chance to surrender? The chance of a free trial, or the right if appeal?

Yes, it was a dirty war, but you can't criticise one side for not sticking to the rules, but ignore the fact that the other side had no intention of even reading the rule book.

Yes, it was a dirty war, but you can't criticise one side for not sticking to the rules,

one side pertains to be the mother of parliaments , the founder of democracy, a fighter for the freedom of small nations (you have to laugh), the other is an underground guerilla army , but if your happy enough to equate your country ,your army, your people with what you consider terroists then thats good enough for me , its something we have known all along just great to see you admit it

Fratton Fred

Dotsey wrote: »

That probably has got something to do with the fact that they were fighting against one of the most heavily armed armies in the world, if they came out into the open they wouldve been slaughtered.

"Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery." Che Guevara

So they resorted to terrorism, ergo they were terrorists and not covered by the Geneva convention

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It is a series of accounts compiled together written by people who "lived through and survived those years of protest and hunger strike"

Its compiled by Brian Campbell.

Heres a review I found..... The copy I have here is a 1st edition.
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2006/05/02/nor-meekly-serve-my-time-the-h-block-struggle-1976-1981/

Looks a good read, it's a fascinating story.

Just on Gibraltar again, MI6 had been tracking them in Spain IIRC so it would make sense that they and the SAS carried over to Gibraltar, with some cooperation from the authorities there.

Joey the lips

Fuair siad bas ar son saoirse na hÉireann

Hannibal

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So they resorted to terrorism, ergo they were terrorists and not covered by the Geneva convention

Define terrorism?
As far as I'm aware there's no internationally agreed, legally binding definition of terrorism.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

Yes, it was a dirty war, but you can't criticise one side for not sticking to the rules,

one side pertains to be the mother of parliaments , the founder of democracy, a fighter for the freedom of small nations (you have to laugh), the other is an underground guerilla army , but if your happy enough to equate your country ,your army, your people with what you consider terroists then thats good enough for me , its something we have known all along just great to see you admit it

Hi Dan. I love the way you manage to speak for me.

I don't think anyone can claim the moral highground during the troubles.

tonysea

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It is a series of accounts compiled together written by people who "lived through and survived those years of protest and hunger strike"

Its compiled by Brian Campbell.

Heres a review I found..... The copy I have here is a 1st edition.
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2006/05/02/nor-meekly-serve-my-time-the-h-block-struggle-1976-1981/

I have both them books, they're brilliant reads. In "Nor Meekly Serve My Time" some of the accounts of brutality by the screws in Long Kesh would make your blood boil. The inner strength of the men on the blanket must of been phenomenal, to keep going in those conditions knowing that all they had to do was put on prison uniform to recieve a clean cell, dry clean mattress and warm meals and everything else they lost while on protest.

Fratton Fred

Dotsey wrote: »

Define terrorism?
As far as I'm aware there's no internationally agreed, legally binding definition of terrorism.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

You consider it noble to bomb bus stations, shopping centres, pubs, train stations....?

There may be no agreed definition, but I'm pretty sure these would be called terror tactics.

tonysea

Again on the book, its amazing that the prisoners even retained a good sense of humour and morale was often high. I remember one part of the book I found very funny was the prisoners refering to prisoners gave in and came off the blanket as "squeeky booters" because of the noise made from the new boots as they were led away from the block.

Hannibal

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You consider it noble to bomb bus stations, shopping centres, pubs, train stations....?

There may be no agreed definition, but I'm pretty sure these would be called terror tactics.

As would many acts committed by the British armed forces over centuries on this island. Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy massacre are they acts of terrorism?

tonysea

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You consider it noble to bomb bus stations, shopping centres, pubs, train stations....?

There may be no agreed definition, but I'm pretty sure these would be called terror tactics.

How many schools, shopping centres, pubs and train stations have the British and U.S forces bombed since invading Iraq? Oh but thats legalised terrorism I hear you say.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You consider it noble to bomb bus stations, shopping centres, pubs, train stations....?

There may be no agreed definition, but I'm pretty sure these would be called terror tactics.

You consider it noble to bomb bus stations, shopping centres, pubs, train stations..



of course if you do it from a few thousand feet up in your tornado or lancaster its perfectly acceptable !

Dyr

Yisroel Handsome Preschooler wrote: »

Cool!.. I guess these days they'd be called internally displaced people and not refugee's.

Just thinking now, I'd love to hear from someone who was displaced during the early years of the troubles and who's family settled, and stayed down here.

I never kept in touch with anyone from my childhood after I left Ballymun, and certainly would have had no links to the various republican activists groups from the period either.

Ballymun was rotten with nordies, both stickies and provos but there was a ton of homegrown provo's in the area too. A lot of the northern guys who were in the mun later were blokes that had been kicked out of the north.

I was only about 7 when bobby sands went on hunger strike but I have really vivid memories of the time. Looking up sillogue road and seeing a black flag stuck out of every window in the flats. Standing in the crowd with me da when the H-Block committee was holding a public address from the back of a flat bed lorry with a loud hailer. There was bedraggled fella on the platform wearing a blanket representing one of the hunger strikers, I thought he WAS a hunger striker. Me and my cousins choosing our favourite hunger striker off the posters hanging up ( I thought patsy o'hara was the best). I don't remember this but the older kids in our primary school decided among themselves to form a human chain and block off the main road after bobby sands died. Strange times

major bill

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You consider it noble to bomb bus stations, shopping centres, pubs, train stations....?

There may be no agreed definition, but I'm pretty sure these would be called terror tactics.

well it could be said that the americans are terrorists for dropping two atomic bombs on japan and britain for bombing german cities. There is alot of grey areas in war/conflicts, war is murder.

Anyway thats the last il say on this thread as seeing judea as your location kinda suggests what political mindset you have.

Fratton Fred

Dotsey wrote: »

As would many acts committed by the British armed forces over centuries on this island. Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy massacre are they acts of terrorism?

They were criminal acts. I certainly wouldn't try and justify them as part of a guerrilla war.

Fratton Fred

major bill wrote: »

well it could be said that the americans are terrorists for dropping two atomic bombs on japan and britain for bombing german cities. There is alot of grey areas in war/conflicts, war is murder.

Anyway thats the last il say on this thread as seeing judea as your location kinda suggests what political mindset you have.

that could be said, yes, but that's a different discussion.

My location needs to be read in conjunction with my signature. I don't actually live there.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Bambi wrote: »

Ballymun was rotten with nordies, both stickies and provos but there was a ton of homegrown provo's in the area too. A lot of the northern guys who were in the mun later were blokes that had been kicked out of the north.

I was only about 7 when bobby sands went on hunger strike but I have really vivid memories of the time. Looking up sillogue road and seeing a black flag stuck out of every window in the flats. Standing in the crowd with me da when the H-Block committee was holding a public address from the back of a flat bed lorry with a loud hailer. There was bedraggled fella on the platform wearing a blanket representing one of the hunger strikers, I thought he WAS a hunger striker. Me and my cousins choosing our favourite hunger striker off the posters hanging up ( I thought patsy o'hara was the best). I don't remember this but the older kids in our primary school decided among themselves to form a human chain and block off the main road after bobby sands died. Strange times

Another one from the time was the voice of Gerry Adams being cencored by both the BBC and RTE.. I remember you'd see him speak (on TV) at a rally, but his voice couldn't be broadcast so the news reader would give a summary of what was said..

This was later changed to the dubbed voice of an actor in sync with Adams.

Hannibal

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They were criminal acts. I certainly wouldn't try and justify them as part of a guerrilla war.

Criminal acts they were and there was an attempted cover up by the British authorities. There is such a thing as state sponsored terrorism you know. Would you regard them two attrocities as terrorist acts?


Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

Ballymun was rotten with nordies, both stickies and provos but there was a ton of homegrown provo's in the area too. A lot of the northern guys who were in the mun later were blokes that had been kicked out of the north.

I was only about 7 when bobby sands went on hunger strike but I have really vivid memories of the time. Looking up sillogue road and seeing a black flag stuck out of every window in the flats. Standing in the crowd with me da when the H-Block committee was holding a public address from the back of a flat bed lorry with a loud hailer. There was bedraggled fella on the platform wearing a blanket representing one of the hunger strikers, I thought he WAS a hunger striker. Me and my cousins choosing our favourite hunger striker off the posters hanging up ( I thought patsy o'hara was the best). I don't remember this but the older kids in our primary school decided among themselves to form a human chain and block off the main road after bobby sands died. Strange times

Meanwhile, CJH wrote himself another cheque Ben Dunne bunged him another few million.

He must have been delighted with the diversion.

Fratton Fred

Yisroel Handsome Preschooler wrote: »

Another one from the time was the voice of Gerry Adams being cencored by both the BBC and RTE.. I remember you'd see him speak (on TV) at a rally, but his voice couldn't be broadcast so the news reader would give a summary of what was said..

This was later changed to the dubbed voice of an actor in sync with Adams.

That was bordering on the comical. How the hell was that supposed to help anything.

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Meanwhile, CJH wrote himself another cheque Ben Dunne bunged him another few million.

He must have been delighted with the diversion.

How is that even slightly relevant or on topic?

Fratton Fred

Dotsey wrote: »

Criminal acts they were and there was an attempted cover up by the British authorities. There is such a thing as state sponsored terrorism you know. Would you regard them two attrocities as terrorist acts?


Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

As I said, I consider them criminal acts. As was the coverup.

To consider them terrorist attacks would imply they were planned and I have yet to hear anyone say they were.

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

How is that even slightly relevant or on topic?

It's true though. Whilst everyone in Ireland was fixed with the troubles, The Irish government were robbing them blind. Us this a coincidence? Were fianna fail using the troubles to mask their own criminality?

Just helping with the historical content you were after.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That was bordering on the comical. How the hell was that supposed to help anything.

It was imposed originally by Thatcher in 1970's, the reason given being to "starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend".

The ban was later adopted by the Irish authorities under section 31 of the broadcasting act.