Conference tallis::celt

    Can I suggest that anyone (in fact everyone) who is neither impressed nor
    interested in this juvenile demented drivel, does not enter further
    replies to this note. If it has been studiously ignored (say) in 1
    week, maybe the lunatic who entered it may begin to receive a subtle
    message.
    
    Ian
    

    
    Ian,
    
      Is it the content or the method of delivery that has you upset?
    
    For myself, I think the content is just further proof HMG is not able to
    treat all peoples of North Ireland equally.  I think the old saying 
    "can't see the forest because the trees are in the way" may be in full
    bloom again.
    
    paddy
    

    RE: .1
    
    >Can I suggest that anyone (in fact everyone) who is neither impressed nor
    >interested in this juvenile demented drivel, does not enter further
    >replies to this note. If it has been studiously ignored (say) in 1
    >week, maybe the lunatic who entered it may begin to receive a subtle
    >message.
    
    By the act of replying, your studiously ignorant note defeats its
    intended purpose.
    

    
Re.<<< Note 1104.1 by FIELD::LOUGHLINI "If it is to be, it's up to me" >>>

>    Can I suggest that anyone (in fact everyone) who is neither impressed nor
 
    I don't think the note was posted to impress anyone.
    
    
>replies to this note. If it has been studiously ignored (say) in 1
    
    Sounds to me  like you would prefer to ignore the whole problem and maybe
    it will go away. We're talking about peoples' lives here. They're being
    descriminated against and YOU don't want to hear about it. I suggest
    you use your NEXT-UNSEEN key in future.
    
    
    Tony.

    
    The original note is confusing (or confused).
    
    It seems to me perfectly sensible for a government agency to
    vet (in the sense of "investigate") where it is going to spend 
    taxpayers money. Any agency which didn't should have its director
    fired, at least.
    
    It is also well know that taxpayers money has found its way into
    the wrong hands in Northern Ireland, mainly through racketeering
    in the building trade.
    
    If the base note is saying that the vetting is pre-judged, or
    the decisions are made on criteria other than those explicitly
    laid down, then I don't think enough information has been
    provided to prove the case.
    
    However, the cases mentioned do seem to be reasonable candidates
    for grants. Witholding aid does seem mean-spirited on the face
    of it.
    
    Toby

    The document in .0 was dated 1985. It is now 1992. What is the purpose
    in raking up this obsolete nonsense except to perpetuate prejudice(s)
    and continue to polarise attitudes?
    
    I have no first-hand knowledge of the events in .0 but I would suspect
    it was not done without reason. My principle objection to notes of that
    kind is that they are negative, biassed, largely untrue when taken out
    of local context, and these notes contribute NOTHING towards a
    solution.
    
    My own personal opinion is that these notes are more closely related
    to Boston politics than a sincere desire to improve the "Irish"
    situation. It must place a tremendous burden on Irish folks to reject
    Boston intervention and interference in local affairs (on the one hand)
    whilst gladly accepting financial aid from the same quarter. I would
    regard that as a most untenable position.
    
    Ian
    
    

    
    re .6
    
     I suppose then you figure those "Boston politics" folks should be
    content to accept the injustices elsewhere in the world as well, eh?
    Maybe we should just keep our mouths shut and let war, murder and
    oppression happen without interference.
    
     

    >My own personal opinion is that these notes are more closely related
    >to Boston politics than a sincere desire to improve the "Irish"
    >situation. It must place a tremendous burden on Irish folks to reject
    
    I too have no first-hand knowledge of the events in the base note
    Ian, but regardless, I don't think it is fair to label Boston as
    negatively interfering or intervening in Irish politics.  Boston
    supports Ireland in many different and peaceful ways including
    among others:
    
    	The annual Boston-Galway-Derry Trade fair
    	Various MacBride legislation
    	Many Irish American civic groups such as the Irish Heritage
    		Society, Irish Cultural Center, Cumann na Gaeilge, etc.
    
    Not to mention serving as a friendly entry way into the US for many
    Irish emigrants.  Ask Irish people what they think of Boston - that
    will give you a better view.  In many cases the Boston folks you
    speak of *are* the Irish folks.
    
    George 
                                   

  re. .6

  Ian, Do you have some facts to back up your erroneous
  assertion that the document is "obsolete nonsense"?

  I see later that you admit you have "no first-hand
  knowledge of events in .0".  Do you have second-hand
  knowledge, say third-hand, maybe fourth-hand, maybe
  information out of the Sunday funnies, kiddie cartoons?

  What is your "own personal opinion" about Boston politics
  based on?  What do you know of Boston politics?  
  
                           Mark

  

    
>  I suppose then you figure those "Boston politics" folks should be
>  content to accept the injustices elsewhere in the world as well, eh?
>  Maybe we should just keep our mouths shut and let war, murder and
>  oppression happen without interference.

No of course not, but why on earth do you think this applies to UK and
Northern Ireland? Sorry, I don't see the relevance of your reply to
this topic. Are you thinking about Serbia, Iraq, or Grenada maybe ?

>  Ian, Do you have some facts to back up your erroneous
>  assertion that the document is "obsolete nonsense"?

I have as much visibility of the true situation as you do from 3500 miles
away.

>  I see later that you admit you have "no first-hand
>  knowledge of events in .0".  Do you have second-hand
>  knowledge, say third-hand, maybe fourth-hand, maybe
>  information out of the Sunday funnies, kiddie cartoons?

Talking about kiddie cartoons I do read the Boston Herald occasionally.

>  What is your "own personal opinion" about Boston politics
>  based on?  What do you know of Boston politics?  

It is based on 2 years working and living in Framingham. Most political
decisions were taken in Liam's Bar (whilst p*s***). The Republic of South
Boston, like other Mass areas, relies heavily on the "Irish" vote. This is
why you continue to perpetuate and stir-up trouble - to elicit the
"sympathy vote" for the poor ole folks back home...

The base note may be true, it may not be. Taken out of the historical
context it IS irrelevant and obsolete. When there is a "security situation"
it is necessary for the elected government to take action(s) which would be
unpalatable in normal situations. I guess the curfew in LA recently was not
a pleasant experience but the US Government deemed it necessary at the
time. My point is, as always, why do you insist on being part of the problem?

Ian

  Ian, my British friend, I quess the Boston tea party 
  really got up your nose. 

                       Mark  
 

  
    

    
    re .10 (Ian)
    
     You don't think that war, murder and oppression pertain to northern
    Ireland???
    
    

>     You don't think that war, murder and oppression pertain to northern
>     Ireland???
    
    Of course not, you silly clown. If there was a war on, I would not be
    able to freely travel to Galway every 2 or 3 weeks nor would zillions
    of Irish people be able to freely live in UK. There is an internal
    security sitation in one part of the UK which currently requires that
    the local police force is backed up by the military (again similar
    to LA recently). In hindsight, with perfect retrospective vision, the
    decisions made in 1921 were not the best solution for a peaceful
    future. Neither did those same 'partition' policies work in Palestine,
    Cyprus and God knows where else. However they were probably the best
    that people (with their then current attitudes) could decide at that
    time. If the siuation is to change it will be through political and
    social action, not terrorist campaigns.
    
    What really annoys me about your protaganistic attitude and opinions is 
    that you say you live (and uphold) democracy yet apparently deny that 
    democracy to other people (NI). You are squandering your birthright to be 
    a free democratic nation under God, that we Brits granted to you back in 
    1776.
    
    If you want to help the NI situation then seek out the people who want
    to positively move forward. In the meantime put your anti-Brit
    fertilizer on your garden where it belongs.
    
    Several of my HQ buddies here have just got the package so I have to
    pick up their work for a while (maybe my package comes next week...)
    so I won't be participating in this conference again.
    
    Ian
    
    
    
    

    
    re .13
    
     Your definition of war must be extremely selective.  It is an armed
    conflict fought for political ends and that fits the definition.  That
    you can travel freely has to do with the fact that one or more of the 
    opposing factions sees no strategic benefit in disrupting it, or at
    least simply hasn't yet disrupted your particular journey.  :)
    
     As for your tantrum over anti-British attitudes, I will only ask that
    you point out where I expressed them.  That I argue the fact that the
    status quo in northern Ireland is unacceptable to a large percentage,
    if not a majority, of the population there and that the British 
    government bears most of the responsibility for the situation will only
    be seen as "anti-Brit" either by someone utterly ignorant of the nature
    of the war or by someone who has an interest in seeing the war continue.
    Which one are you?
    
     And, of course, Americans are very appreciative of your "gift" of
    freedom.  We are also extremely grateful to have buried the thousands 
    of British troops sent to peresent that generous bequest.  That it was
    doubly bestowed in 1812 with the graves of thousands more is as great
    a reason for appreciation.
    
    Frank
    
     

    RE: .13
    
    >What really annoys me about your protaganistic attitude and opinions is 
    >that you say you live (and uphold) democracy yet apparently deny that 
    >democracy to other people (NI). 
    
    Northern Ireland is as much a democracy as Latvia was after WWII.  As
    the Russian empire recedes, so must all armies of occupation depart
    from captive lands and peoples.
    

  Since Ian brought up the mention of the British
  "gift" to America, I thought this article appropriate.

     English Influence in America
      by James Lavelle, Texas

There is a certain monument in a churchyard in a big city of a great
country that memorializes several thousand people who were starved to
death in a prison governed by an occupying army in that country.
This stone does not commemorate the victims of Nazi aggression or the
countless victims of communist pogroms or the hapless innocents who
stood in the path of invaders.  It is located in downtown
New York City.
This monument is in the Trinity Church Cemetery located on lower
Broadway.  Among the hundreds of graves located within the cemetery are
those of American heroes Robert Fulton and Alexander Hamilton.  The
memorial is dedicated to the several thousand Continental soldiers who
were starved to death by the British in a New York prison known as the
Sugarhouse during the American Revolutionary War.
Several Americans have been working for years to have a postage stamp
issued to commemorate those brave men plus the thousands who died as
prisoners-of-war during this period in other rat-infested jails and
British prison ships.  Their efforts have been successfully blocked by
the British government through the British Embassy in Washington.  The
credit for this blockage must go to the British Information Services,
the propaganda arm of the embassy which works out of the British
Consulate in the City of New York.
These brave Continental soldiers, many of them Irish immigrants, were
the guerrillas, the freedom fighters of their day.  They died a horrible
death for their young country, much worse than a death incurred in
battle.  Today in Ireland, the freedom fighters are called terrorists
and are jailed by this same British government for attempting to expel
the British trespasser and occupier from Ireland.
There is little mention of the atrocity today in our history books.  Our
British cousins have successfully seen to that.  I suspect that some day
soon, the memorial stone in Trinity Church Cemetery will also be gone.

    Ian,
    
    Better said, the British decisions made in 1921 were against the wishes
    of the majority of the people of Ireland - and unfortunately Britain
    and Ireland have been paying a heavy price from those undemocratic,
    ill-formed decisions ever since.
                                    
    Good luck in your future endeavors,
    /George

    
    re. 17 and the British decisions in 1921, let us not forget that the
    1921 was not a british decsion but an agreement ie treaty with the
    Irish people.
    
    The best Irish negiaiator who later became president conveniently was
    forgotten to be sent by the Nationalists. the question is why????
    
    

    
    re .18
    
     The treaty was signed under duress; forced on Ireland at one of her
    weakest hours.  It was NOT by mandate of the Irish people, but a 
    partition shoved down their throats under threat of even greater war.
    
     That anyone can at this late date fall back on the "treaty" as any
    kind of true agreement between Britain and Ireland is ludicrous.
    
    

The Anglo-Irish Treaty (actually of 1922) was offered by HMG.
Ireland could either ratify or reject it.  The treaty was not
drafted by the Irish people.  Therefore, it's validity is suspect.

Also, it is widely accepted that had there been a plebiscite on
partition (which there was not) then there would have been a
large majority for a unified Ireland.

/George