https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pnsi-to-be-barred-from-investigating-troubles-killings-under-uk-government-plan-1.4620157
How does the DUP reconcile being against plans to end Troubles prosecutions and the years old campaign to stop soldier F prosecuted?
It's absolutely fucking bizarre to me. Absolute exceptionalism and hypocrisy.
The potential for further spread of the virus in Ireland from the third worst affected region in the world and our neighbours is very real. Considering most had an issue with Cheltenham going ahead, allowing the potential for mass travel from the UK anytime soon without strict rules in place seems highly irresponsible and ridiculous considering how hard the country has fought to get to where we are now. What is the government likely to do about this?
British governance in Ireland emerged through forcible conquest. Since then, Britain has treated Ireland like a colonial territory and maintained its grip on the territory through oppressive and undemocratic methods.
When Northern Ireland was formed, it was a gerrymandered territory, designed to guarantee support for remaining in the UK despite opposition from many Irish leaders. It was then governed by protestants, for protestants, for most of its history. Because of this, British rule in Ireland remains as a lasting piece of imperialism, is illegitimate and should come to an end.
https://www.parli.co/c/CNRdCZkKHCVgMzDffRgBMVKxf/should-there-be-a-united-ireland?utm_source=reddit%20Irish%20history&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=r%2FIrishHistory
28 June 1920, exactly a hundred years ago, saw the start of a mutiny by Irish soldiers in the Connaught Rangers stationed in India.
I'm commemorating the courageous stand of these men on behalf of the struggle of Ireland for independence with a public talk at 9pm (Irish time).
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84717118556
All Welcome
But I also feel sorry for the older generation like my Gran who had to watch it all be taken away.
“When all of their options had been exhausted they went to the poorhouse in Macroom and within a short amount of time the two children had died. They had all been separated. The wife was gravely ill and they left the place. He had to carry her on his back, for miles back to their little bothán [stone dwelling] up on a hill. They were both found dead the next morning and he was kneeling, with his wife’s feet held to his chest as if he had been trying to warm them. I found it to be the most profound image. It’s so powerful it still rocks me every time, I can hardly even say it out loud”.
And yet a disgraceful ‘priest ‘ dares to claim lack of moral value when starving people were trying to get food ‘protected’ by little england soldiers.... Thankfully, an Irish Times reader, Brian Keenan, answered fulsomely.
“It’s hard to think of a less insightful angle than that chosen by this priest in scrutinizing the ‘morals’ of a famine-stricken people. It speaks volumes on the arrogance and presumption of the clergyman that he actually believes himself qualified to sit in judgment,” Keenan wrote.
“Morals are not an absolute value; they depend on context. It is a well-established fact that in times of famine, some of the starving consume the flesh of the dead. This is not a moral breakdown, it’s a survival mechanism. What is a moral breakdown, however, is the clergy urging the starving not to steal from the well-supplied rich.
“The moral failure was that Sir Charles Trevelyan, the British civil servant in charge of Ireland, believed that the more Irish who died, the better for the British because they could finally expand their holdings and make them even more profitable. Trevelyan’s take was ‘the judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson.’”
“When all of their options had been exhausted they went to the poorhouse in Macroom and within a short amount of time the two children had died. They had all been separated. The wife was gravely ill and they left the place. He had to carry her on his back, for miles back to their little bothán [stone dwelling] up on a hill. They were both found dead the next morning and he was kneeling, with his wife’s feet held to his chest as if he had been trying to warm them. I found it to be the most profound image. It’s so powerful it still rocks me every time, I can hardly even say it out loud”.
And yet a disgraceful ‘priest ‘ dares to claim lack of moral value when starving people were trying to get food ‘protected’ by little england soldiers.... Thankfully, an Irish Times reader, Brian Keenan, answered fulsomely.
“It’s hard to think of a less insightful angle than that chosen by this priest in scrutinizing the ‘morals’ of a famine-stricken people. It speaks volumes on the arrogance and presumption of the clergyman that he actually believes himself qualified to sit in judgment,” Keenan wrote.
“Morals are not an absolute value; they depend on context. It is a well-established fact that in times of famine, some of the starving consume the flesh of the dead. This is not a moral breakdown, it’s a survival mechanism. What is a moral breakdown, however, is the clergy urging the starving not to steal from the well-supplied rich.
“The moral failure was that Sir Charles Trevelyan, the British civil servant in charge of Ireland, believed that the more Irish who died, the better for the British because they could finally expand their holdings and make them even more profitable. Trevelyan’s take was ‘the judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson.’”
