Conference tallis::celt

    This reminds me of the time John Hume took  the British Govmt to court to
    establish that British Army troops had no legal right to be on the
    streets of Northern Ireland.  I think the case was called Hume v.
    Regina, and Johnny the bright spark won the case ....
    
    So the troops all went home did they ?
    
    Well no, the Houses of Parliament stayed up even later than usual and
    by breakfast time the Government of Ireland Act had been changed.
    
    This was about 25 years ago so my recollection may not be spot on.
    
    Kevin  
         

    Re .1
    
    Kevin,
    
    I don't think this action is intended to stop them. I expect that if
    Robbie wins his case then it will do two things :-
    
    1) Raise awareness of some of the problems the people of Scotland face.
    2) Add to the growing list of Human Rights abuses by the British Govt.
    
    
    Ed.

not wishing to bring a downer on the whole thing, but...

>    1) Raise awareness of some of the problems the people of Scotland face.

Scotland has a far better time of it than many parts of the UK (just look
a few miles beyond the border if you don't believe me)

>    2) Add to the growing list of Human Rights abuses by the British Govt.
    
so go find a perfect government, then; the British government is no
worse than most in this aspect, in fact a hell of a lot better than
many.  It'd be interesting to see what Human Rights violations an elected
SNP gov't would be accused of, having heard the not too subtle views of
some of its resident nutters (don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go
at the SNP particularly, all political groups have them - it just depends
how good they are at covering things up)

I wonder what positions those nice Scottish gentlemen now hold, who
smashed my face in when I was a kid for being English?

Chris.

 re .2
    
    �1) Raise awareness of some of the problems the people of Scotland face.
    
    I doubt very much if anyone will take much notice to be honest.
    
    �2) Add to the growing list of Human Rights abuses by the British Govt.
 
    Thats just anothe 'Sun' comment again. Such comments do little to help
    support an already strained peace in NI.....
    
    Shaun

>>     �2) Add to the growing list of Human Rights abuses by the British Govt.
 
>    Thats just anothe 'Sun' comment again. Such comments do little to help
>    support an already strained peace in NI.....

  Right, better to sweep those ugly Human Rights abuses under the rug so
  they don't muddy the British Government's position.

                          Mark

>  Right, better to sweep those ugly Human Rights abuses under the rug so
>  they don't muddy the British Government's position.

...just like Iraq, Libya, the USA, Argentina, etc etc... eh?

Chris.

This could be a very interesting case, guaranteed to give the "Euro-Sceptics"
fits!

It probably has quite  a basis even in English Law! Going back to my 
favourite historical period of the moment, before the "American Revolution"
was a period where legal argument was being used to achieve the colonists
goals of independence. They argued, that in English Common Law, the London
Parliament was only the legitimate goverment of England. 

This was based upon a case which was ruled upon by Justice Coke (who is still
regarded on both sides of the Atlantic as *the* most important exponent of
English Common Law). This is known as 'Calvin's Case'. It dates back to
the original union of Scotland and England about 1603 when King James became
king of both countries. At the time it was very important to determine the
nature of the union because such matters as property inheritance and even
the right to own land were at stake.

Coke's ruling was essentially that being a subject of the king gave you the
identity and rights of an Englishman. You could own land, at least if you 
had the right religion, and you could inherit property. He further ruled
that the lawmaking right for Scotland was with the Scotish Parliament, 
the Lawmaking right for England was with the London Parliament. 

Extrapolating from this the Colonists argued that the London Parliament was
not their Government (nor of Scotland, Ireland, ...) and this was in the
the English constitution (of which the Common Law is a major element).
They argued that the London Parliament was simply trying to exercize powers
it never had.  

I think if the SNP ever do get serious about independence, their legal grounds
are a lot stronger than the current British Govt. would like you to believe.

Mark

    re .5
    
    No Mark, I do not think it better to sweep any country's human rights
    abuses under the carpet but i do fail to see what good one is trying to
    achieve by linking a legitimate legal challange to England's
    administration of the legal system in Scotland to 'Human Rights
    Abuses'.
    
    I can only conclude that the noter was making a 'dig' at previous
    discussions concerning the Human Rights Abuses by the British
    Government in Northern Ireland and thus effectively adding to the
    already negative atmosphere propogated in this conference.
    
    It is, in my oppinion, unproductive to pour dirt on any party that is
    striving to bring a peacefull resolution to 'the Troubles' - such dirt
    only serves to relight the same fires of hate that have fed the
    troubles for the last 26 years.
    
    These troubles are not some 'romantic cause', to be championed by
    closet causeless rebels from afar. They are very real and affect the
    lives of a few million people....people who have endured and suffered
    the consequences of ingrained hatred caused by bigoted and
    properganderal remarks that even you have declared distastefull. Surely
    these people who are now trying to sustain peace in NI deserve a little
    more for their efforts than a few simple lines of misguided
    one-up-manship.
    
    Shaun

    It gets it off his chest, bless his little cotton socks.
    
    
    CHARLEY

Re .3
    
> so go find a perfect government, then; the British government is no
> worse than most in this aspect, in fact a hell of a lot better than
> many.  It'd be interesting to see what Human Rights violations an elected
> SNP gov't would be accused of, having heard the not too subtle views of
> some of its resident nutters (don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go
> sat the SNP particularly, all political groups have them - it just depends
> how good they are at covering things up)

I couldn't agree more. It would be great to see what an "elected SNP 
Government would be accused of".

> I wonder what positions those nice Scottish gentlemen now hold, who
> smashed my face in when I was a kid for being English?

I'm afraid that many people reading that statement may be mis-led into 
thinking that you have not made your mind up on world political affairs by
reasoned argument and worldly wisdom but because some wee boys slapped you 
about a bit in the playground. I think you should take the time to debunk
that opinion.

Chris.
    
    

Re .7

Thank you for that very informative note. However, there is just one
tiny error:- 1603 was the union of the crowns. Scotland and England were
joined by act of parliament with the Act of Union in 1707.

Re .8

>    No Mark, I do not think it better to sweep any country's human rights
>    abuses under the carpet but i do fail to see what good one is trying to
>    achieve by linking a legitimate legal challange to England's
>    administration of the legal system in Scotland to 'Human Rights
>    Abuses'.

It is not Mark who is accusing the British Government of human rights 
abuses in this instance. It is Robbie the Pict who is bringing this case
to the European Court of Human Rights.
    
>    I can only conclude that the noter was making a 'dig' at previous
>    discussions concerning the Human Rights Abuses by the British
>    Government in Northern Ireland and thus effectively adding to the
>    already negative atmosphere propogated in this conference.
    
>    It is, in my oppinion, unproductive to pour dirt on any party that is
>    striving to bring a peacefull resolution to 'the Troubles' - such dirt
>    only serves to relight the same fires of hate that have fed the
>    troubles for the last 26 years.
  
I hope as fervently as every reasonable person in this conference that a 
just and lasting peace is brought to the Island of Ireland. You may have
misunderstood my reasoning in highlighting these human rights abuse 
allegations being aimed at the British Government. I did not comment on the
latest accusations to destabilise the Irish peace process (gosh could I 
really do that! - I must be more powerful than I think ;-). I was trying to
point out that the British Government are guilty of human rights abuses in
every country they govern. These abuses are not limited to NI.
  
Eddie.
    

    What proportion of the vote does the SNP have compared to Labour,
    Tories, Liberals etc?  What sort of policies do they have on social
    affairs, taxations, business.... Are they Socialist or otherwise?
    Do they get support from workers, professionals, farmers, business
    people or just some of the above?
    
    Paul

    Re -.1
    
    You'll find the answers to those questions at :-
    
    http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~alba/snp/
    
    The SNP are and have been some time, more socialist than the Labour
    Party.

>Thank you for that very informative note. However, there is just one
>tiny error:- 1603 was the union of the crowns. Scotland and England were
>joined by act of parliament with the Act of Union in 1707.

I don't think it's an error (but I'll just double check tonight to make sure!)
It was an argument that the Act of Union was in some way "unconstitutional".
It, assuming I have the date right, meant that Scots could own and inherit land
in England. Or are you saying that Scots didn't have that right until 1707?

Mark

>I'm afraid that many people reading that statement may be mis-led into 
>thinking that you have not made your mind up on world political affairs by
>reasoned argument and worldly wisdom but because some wee boys slapped you 
>about a bit in the playground. I think you should take the time to debunk
>that opinion.

the `wee boys' in question were a couple of blokes in their 20s who found
me & my mate, about 8 or 9 years old at the time, minding our own business
trying to catch fish in a local stream.  They started going on (briefly)
about how great Scots were, decided to teach us `English pigs' a lesson
and kicked the crap out of us.

This was my first impression of Scottish Nationalists, and subsequent
meetings with such people have not shown them in much more of a favourable
light.

Hope this clears the air as to my opinion.

Chris.

Re .15

Awww. what a shame.

Chris,

    I'm afraid it does clear the air about your opinion.
    
Where you and I seem to differ is that my attitudes to most things have
changed since I was 8 years old. But that would of course explain those
attitudes of yours.

It's a shame that your opinion of all Scottish nationalists was formed
in such a shameful way and at such a young age. How do you know that
they were Scottish nationalists?

Do you advocate this method of opinion forming?

If so then on whom should I choose to base my opinions of English
nationalists? - You and CHARLEY perhaps? or on those National Front yobs
or the "English football fans" who regularly show their warm hospitable
temperaments to their foreign neighbours? - but then I'm too late to form
any opinions now since I am not 8 years old anymore.

Eddie.
    

    Read .15 again.
    
    
    ..and grow up.
    
    
    
    CHARLEY

re .16,

not really, just redressing the balance for those who may see the SNP
as whiter than white.  I'm quite happy to accept what the SNP has to
say (in fact I'd be quite interested to know exactly what the pros and
cons are), but thought I'd point out that the SNP, or at least its
supporters, contains the usual undesirable thug element, who'd no
doubt also be as capable as the British for comitting atrocities (which
you highlighted as part of the report)

And, do you really think it benefits the discussion to continually try
to be so patronising?  It's a bit pathetic when you accuse other people
of not coming across convincingly.  I also wonder if I'd have got the
`ah, diddums' rhetoric from you if I was an eight year old Scot who'd
been given a kicking by adult Tory supporters, eh?  We'd probably never
hear the end of it.

Chris.

 
  Come on Charley and Chris, it's quite obvious to the rest of us noters
  that you two have some kind of anti-Scot, anti-Irish chips on your shoulders. 
  Chris has just explained where he got his.  How about you Charley, why
  don't you come clean?

                       Mark

>  Come on Charley and Chris, it's quite obvious to the rest of us noters
>  that you two have some kind of anti-Scot, anti-Irish chips on your shoulders. 

Obvious?  That's odd, it wasn't at all obvious to me.  Should I denounce
my Irish and Scottish ancestry, then?  Wipe the phone numbers of any Irish
and Scottish friends, acquaintances and workmates from my address book?
Get real, the only people I have a problem with are those who have a problem
with me for being English and proud of it (yes, some of us can find pride
in our birthplace Mark, some of us do have the courage to stand up for it.
Unlike others.)

>  Chris has just explained where he got his.  How about you Charley, why
>  don't you come clean?

As I've explained (and unnecessarily clearly again, but that becomes a
necessity in this conference because of the danger of being quoted out
of context) I *don't* have a problem with my `neighbours', but sometimes
need to point out that perhaps their spokespersons may be less than
perfect, when they choose to take the moral high ground.

Now, on the other hand, you make such sweeping statements about me, a
person who you know nothing about, who has generally been careful not to
make ridiculous comments about an entire nation, because either a) I don't
have an undying sheep-like faith in everything that you say, or b) that
I'm English.  So what is it?  Paranoia?  Anglophobia?  Do tell, I'd be
most interested to know.

Chris.

    re .19
    
    Speak for yourself Mark, don't hide behind the rest of us noters. I
    don't think you have a clue what makes Chris and CHARLEY tick, and I
    don't think you care much either. You have a one-dimensional view of
    what is causing the problems in Northern Ireland and you are not
    concerned with broardening your view through discussion with others.
    As someone who is part Irish and part English, I find plenty to be
    proud about, and plenty not to be proud about, in both parts of a
    heritage which is closely intertwined and has been for millenia. Nor do
    I feel the need to reject any part of that heritage, although there are
    innumerable tedious people who insist you must be one thing or another.
     
    Everone has the right to be accepted as they are, and not put down as
    in .19. If you have differences of opinion, why can't you stick to
    discussing those?
    
    On the subject of the SNP: I don't think they are more socialist than
    the Labour party, but that would not be difficult. Of course British
    capitalism benefits the rich south-eastern parts of the islands, so the
    profits of North Sea oil end up in the stockbroker belts of Surrey, but
    please don't tell me there are no Scottish tories and there are no
    class differences in Glasgow.  Would you like Tony O'Reilly and Michael
    Smurfit to come and look after things for you? You'll have baked beans
    to eat a lots of nice racehorses to cheer.
    
    Kevin

    .20
    
    Wot 'e said.
    
    
    CHARLEY�JOCK.

    RE: .21
    
    Wot 'e said
    
    Laurie$�Irish_amd_�English.

>However, there is just one
>tiny error:- 1603 was the union of the crowns. Scotland and England were
>joined by act of parliament with the Act of Union in 1707.

I checked and it looks good. Except it may be Coke only wrote this up in
his 'Reports' rather than made the decision.

Interestingly this book says that 1707 was the "union of crowns".

M

Excerpt from An Phoblacht (June 15th 1995)
 
  * Democratic principles of justice and equality are set aside; 
  * The state has a shoot-to-kill policy against its political opponents; 
  * The state arms death squads to kill political dissidents and spread terror; 
  * The state can arrest and intern without trial; 
  * Internal exile is used to control the movement of political opponents; 
  * Torture by state forces has been commonplace; 
  * A heavily-armed paramilitary police force backed by a standing army
    is encamped on top of a civilian population; 
  * Special laws provide state forces with immeasurable power and protect
    them from the legal consequences of their behaviour; 
  * There are special courts with no juries and where the rules of evidence
    are weighed against the defence; 
  * Discrimination in employment, in language and culture is both structured 
    and deep-rooted; 
  * Every major Human Rights Agency - UN/Amnesty/Helsinki Watch have year 
    after year condemned its abuses;
  * Political prisoners languish in prisons.. 

"Apartheid South Africa? No! What I have described is the British occupied
 part of my country." These were the words of Gerry Adams at a packed press
 conference on his arrival in South Africa on Wednesday.

 While recognising that there are differences between Ireland and South Africa,
 Adams pointed to the similarities
 "in colonial conquest; dispossession of land; mass movements of people;
 genocide; division; repression;
 discrimination and the denial of our most basic and fundamental right to
 self-determination". 

 The degree of militarisation of the Six Counties is one of the issues Sinn Fein
 is highlighting in South Africa. The
 British army presence of 16,000 operating troops would translate into 320,000
 troops on the ground in South
 Africa. The total crown forces presence including the paramilitary RUC force,
 would amount to 640,000 troops
 and armed partisan police in South Africa. 

 Figures show that prior to the first democratic elections last year, there was
 one police officer for every 300
 people in the then apartheid state. In the same period there was one RUC
 officer for every 110 people in the Six
 Counties, but bearing in mind that British forces numbers are almost
 exclusively focused on nationalist areas,
 even this figure doesn't give the true ratio. 

 The common experience of many Irish and ANC political prisoners and the role
 of the prison struggle in both
 countries is another theme of the South African trip. All the Sinn Fein
 delegation members have spent time in jail
 as political prisoners. 

    I see Gerrys selective propaganda has taken control of you Mark.
    
    Besides all of the examples listed in the early part of the note could
    be attributed to the I.R.A. anyway
    
    Come on son, you CAN break free of this psycological barbed wire that
    surrounds your cerebral matter.
    
    Or are you *really* a racist???
    
    
    CHARLEY

So what's your point?  So Britain doesn't have an exemplary record, but
what country does?  I can still be proud about where I was born and the
people I grew up with, which is what my nationality means to me.

I'd really like to know what your aim is here.  Time and time again you
take the trouble to find something with which you can attempt to undermine
the credibility of this country; often this is related to Northern Ireland,
where we are all aware of your entirely biased and unrealistic opinion,
sometimes not, but it is obvious that your main aim is to discredit an
entire country (ie everybody who lives there, not just the government),
and this is what I feel so difficult to understand.

What, exactly, do you have against England?  Tell us straight, without
sidestepping the question, without reeling off a whole list of alleged
or otherwise human rights abuses, without merely resorting to insult or
patronising comment.

Go on.  Tell us.  We're waiting.  Do you have anything to say?  Or is it
the case that without your shield of irrational hatred, and stacks and stacks
of research for things you can point the finger at, you lack the credibility
to explain to us?

So come on then, tell us, instead of just pissing us all off.

Chris.

    I don't think he can Chris.
    
    Btw. he doesn't piss ME off, I think it's great entertainment, best
    comedy act in Notes
    
    CHARLEY

>    Or are you *really* a racist???
    
I've often wondered this myself.  Picture modern day USA: a country where
PC is rife, and every minority in existance has an interest group set up
to protect it.  No bad thing in many ways, until you consider a person
who *must* have someone to direct their hatred toward.  Now, ethnic minorities,
women, the disabled, the young and elderly are now all protected against such
people's unwanted attentions, which are typically violent, be it in either
a physical or psychological way.  So they have to look a bit farther afield
to find a soft target against which they can orchestrate a campaign of hate
which is so deep rooted in their psyche.  And hey, look, just across the
pond is a country that is the opposite of what PC stands for.  England!
Easy target!

So, in summary, I don't know whether our Mark is merely a racist (highly
probably IMO), or has some deep seated need for someone, anyone, to despise.
I'm sure a psychologist would find it quite interesting.

Chris.

> So come on then, tell us, instead of just pissing us all off.

  Well, you see Chris, it's like this.  It all started when I was a wee
  lad of about 8.  A mate and I were busy minding our own business, 
  trying to shoot spit-wads at the 'Dumbo' ears on this fellow named 
  Prince Charley (I think he's spokesman for feminine hygene products now).
  A couple of English blokes in their 20s found me & my mate, started
  going on about how great England was, and decided to teach us 'American pigs'
  a lesson as they kicked the bejesus out of us.
  This was my lasting impression of Englishmen.


  Sorry, wrong story.

                       Mark

    Please, children. Stop squabbling.
    

>    Please, children. Stop squabbling.
    
fair comment.  I first entered this conference as I was interested in
Celtic lore, mythology, peoples, cultures; you know the sort of stuff,
just what you'd expect from a conference called CELT I guess.

Sadly, I found little of this, just a load of rhetoric about how crap
England is.  Okay, I've spent most of my time in here arguing the toss,
but the original ideal behind this conference seems to have died out
long ago, ever since the pro IRA/Anti England loonies who would be laughed
out of Soapbox and the like found that they could shout away to their
hearts' content, either because of a more sympathetic audience of Irish
Americans who've been fed on this sort of stuff all their lives, or people
who don't argue and silently leave in disgust.

Well, it's time to admit to myself: This conference is dead.  It serves
no purpose either in its original role or as a debating medium.  Perhaps
I might look in again sometime to see if things have changed, but I
don't expect that they will.

The only way that I can see that the original concept of a CELT conference
could be restored would be to delete this whole thing and start over, and
for the politically obsessed to be directed to a more appropriate forum.
Even that's probably too late though, as most of the prospective audience
and potential contributors have already shied away from here.

This will be my last note in here.  Goodbye to Mark and Eddie, and a
special goodbye to everyone else.

Chris.

    Regrettably, Chris is correct. I left this conference some months ago
    for the same reasons he did. Well, specifically because I couldn't
    stand reading Holohan's blatant terrorist propaganda, and his insulting
    and offensive statements about the British, any longer. However he
    tries to cut it, he is a self-evident apologist for illegal terrorist
    acts by an illegal terrorist organisation. He is blatantly
    anti-British, and is blessed with an extremely closed mind. There is
    plenty of evidence for this right here in this conference.
    
    I came back to this conference to add something I felt would be of
    value to readers who may be considering a holiday in Ireland with their
    children; something which, I believe, this conference could and should
    be doing. I stayed, RO, because there was some new blood, specifically
    someone actually living in Ireland, who although politically far to the
    left of me, displayed a mature, balanced and reasonable view on the
    whole Irish problem. Like many people of Irish heritage, this problem
    is one I take a keen interest in. However, in addition to the voice
    from the front, so to speak, I noticed that the terrorist propaganda
    machine is still in full swing, and I further noted that the two main
    proponents, at least, those who have left the closet, are still wearing
    their bigotry, prejudice and hatred with pride.
    
    I watched people trying to get an answer to specific questions and
    failing, I saw the lack of original notes, simply the regurgitation of
    cleverly-wrought propaganda. I watched people like Chris attempt to
    debate the issue in the face of pig-headed hatred and bigotry. Still I
    resisted becoming involved again. In all that time I saw precious
    little of the stuff this conference could and should be doing. Sure,
    loads about football and hurling which is fun for those involved, but
    aside from that, nothing but the use of this conference to promote a
    political and terrorist agenda, in full and flagrant disregard for
    Digital's PP&P.
    
    Well moderators, despite your occasionally partisan views, DO SOMETHING
    ABOUT IT BECAUSE THIS CONFERENCE, AND SOME OF THOSE USING IT ARE A
    DISGRACE TO THIS COMPANY, AND TO FREE-THINKING, NORMAL PEOPLE
    EVERYWHERE.
    
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
    
    C'mon all you read-only noters, speak up, let's deal with this crap
    once and for all.
    
    Regards, Laurie.

    Happily, I visited Eire on a football tour two years ago and found the
    people to be extremely friendly, courteous and the Irish girls LOVE
    English lads;^).
    
    So I know what REAL Irish people are like.
    
    It's a shame that certain individuals that have large chips on their
    shoulders try to detract from the good things that I already know about
    their race.
    
    
    CHARLEY 

Having read the recent replies in this conference I decided to go back over
this topic and re-read the notes in an attempt to analyse where the hot-
headedness and negativity came from. It was a very interesting exercise.

In summary:- 

The note started out with an informative article on a man
taking the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights. This 
started off what initially seemed like being a constructive discussion 
with a few people contributing their opinions. (Pretty good so far).
However, it all started to break down at reply 8 when someone managed to 
turn the discussion to N.I. (This note mentions "negativity" for the first
time in this topic. This note also contains the phrases, "ingrained hatred 
caused by bigoted and properganderal remarks that even you have declared
distastefull." and "misguided one-up-manship."
By this point things are starting to break down into the usual arguments.
Then the disparaging remarks started in reply 9. Replies 10-14 continue
the original discussion among parties who are genuinely interested in the 
topic. More negativity is poured in via reply 15 (negative comments about
Scottish Nationalists). Note 16 questions the validity of forming opinions
about important matters at the age of 8 years old and then closing your 
mind. Reply 17 is a complete waste of time and space and it is completely
negative. reply 18 contains more negative comments about the SNP. Based on
all the negative entries entered by CHARLEY and Chris, Mark Holohan draws a
logical concluson in reply 19. In reply 10 Chris wildly over-reacts to
Mark's reply. A hint of racism is unfortunately dragged into the topic in 
replies 22 and 23 by people quoting how much of them is which "nationality".
The note has now been set on a downward spiral. Reply 24 optimistically
tries to get back to the subject. Note 25 is about Gerry Adams' speech in
South Africa which draws parallels with the base note by talking about
Human Rights abuses. reply 26 contains disgraceful and unwarrantied 
accusations of racism (more negativity). Reply 27 unfortunately contains
accusations of "irrational hatred" against a fellow employee. Reply 28
attempts to lighten the bad atmosphere but again more negativity is brought
into the note. Reply 30 is a light hearted parody on a previous reply. By 
reply 32 one of the people most guilty of injecting the negativity "spits
the dummy" and leaves. 

Maybe now we can get on with discussing the topics which interest those of 
us who can debate a topice wisely and fairly and without the people who
can only force it into a barny full of bad feeling.

To Chris - a special goodbye.

 1520   TAGART::EDDIE        23-OCT-1995    34  UK Gov't in Euro challenge over
        MKTCRV::KMANNERINGS  23-OCT-1995  1520.1  That'll stop them alright...
        TAGART::EDDIE        23-OCT-1995  1520.2  I don't expect the Govt to re
        CBHVAX::CBH          23-OCT-1995  1520.3
          BIS1::MENZIES      23-OCT-1995  1520.4
          GYRO::HOLOHAN      23-OCT-1995  1520.5  No peace without justice.
        CBHVAX::CBH          23-OCT-1995  1520.6
        METSYS::THOMPSON     23-OCT-1995  1520.7
          BIS1::MENZIES      23-OCT-1995  1520.8
         CHEFS::TRAFFIC      24-OCT-1995  1520.9
        TAGART::EDDIE        24-OCT-1995  1520.10  so face smashing didn't work?
        TAGART::EDDIE        24-OCT-1995  1520.11  1707 not 1603
          ESSB::BREE         24-OCT-1995  1520.12  SNP Query
        TAGART::EDDIE        24-OCT-1995  1520.13  Check the WEB
        METSYS::THOMPSON     24-OCT-1995  1520.14
        CBHVAX::CBH          24-OCT-1995  1520.15
        TAGART::EDDIE        24-OCT-1995  1520.16  opinion forming
         CHEFS::TRAFFIC      24-OCT-1995  1520.17
        CBHVAX::CBH          24-OCT-1995  1520.18
          GYRO::HOLOHAN      24-OCT-1995  1520.19
        CBHVAX::CBH          24-OCT-1995  1520.20
        MKTCRV::KMANNERINGS  25-OCT-1995  1520.21  Viva la quinte brigada...
         CHEFS::TRAFFIC      25-OCT-1995  1520.22
        PLAYER::BROWNL       25-OCT-1995  1520.23
        METSYS::THOMPSON     25-OCT-1995  1520.24
          GYRO::HOLOHAN      25-OCT-1995  1520.25  This England (something to b
         CHEFS::TRAFFIC      25-OCT-1995  1520.26
        CBHVAX::CBH          25-OCT-1995  1520.27  re the propaganda in .25
         CHEFS::TRAFFIC      25-OCT-1995  1520.28
        CBHVAX::CBH          25-OCT-1995  1520.29
          GYRO::HOLOHAN      25-OCT-1995  1520.30  Well, you see Chris, it's li
        XSTACY::BDALTON      25-OCT-1995  1520.31  Or go and play somewhere else
        CBHVAX::CBH          25-OCT-1995  1520.32  Goodbye ::CELT, sadly you wo
        PLAYER::BROWNL       26-OCT-1995  1520.33
         CHEFS::TRAFFIC      26-OCT-1995  1520.34
    

    I looked in this notesfile yesterday, for the very first time.
    
    This morning what do I find, but LBROWN & CBH leaving because of
    the anti-British sentiments that they say is so pervasive in here.
    (I don't know, of course, not having been in long enough to see).
    
    I did smile, though, at reading that they don't like being on
    the receiving end of it....I left their little notesfile, most
    inappropriately named (at least in the spring) Euro_Forum, because 
    of their anti-American sentiments.
    
    To LBROWN & CBH - don't worry gentlemen...you'll find in about 10 
    minutes that you forget all about the bigots & that their opinions 
    really don't matter one bit.    
    
    Sue

    Sue,
    
    I didn't say I was leaving, I said:
    
    1) that I will no longer attempt to debate with a person who is:
       a) an apologist for terrorism
       b) a supporter of an illegal terrorist organisation
       c) a propgandist for an illegal terrorist organisation
       d) a self-confessed hater of the British and all things British
       e) refuses to answer simple yes/no questions
       f) show no inclination to listen or even acknowledge an alternative
          view
    
    2) that I feel that this conference has been ruined by persons such as the
       above, and their agenda, which is, quite simply, to push as much
       pro-terrorist and anti-British propaganda as they can get away with.
    
    3) That this has happened to such an extent that the conference has
       effectively been ruined for any purpose other than as a platform for
       extremist Republican views.
    
    4) All of the above is on contravention of the spirit and letter of
       Digital's PP&P, and that the moderators, as responsible individuals
       should do something about it before Corporate gets wind of it.
    
    Now, you may disagree with my statements, that's your right, however, I
    believe there is more than enough evidence in this conference for those
    statements to stand up as facts, however unpalatable they may be to
    certain noters.
    
    This conference is nothing more than a vehicle for certain people to
    promote an agenda of pro-terrorist propaganda, and it is a disgrace to
    us all.
    
    Lastly, I can take the anti-British stuff as well as the next man, it
    isn't that I have an issue with. I have an issue with the fact that
    underlying every note from some quarters, is an element of hatred and
    bigotry, nicely topped off by the promotion of those attitudes, with a
    zest of propaganda to make them nice and palatable for the gullible.
    
    As regards EURO_FORUM, you mailed me on 11-MAY-1995, and I still have
    a copy of the mail. At the time, you requested that the content of the
    mail remain private, and I shall respect that. However, let me say that
    the mail does not reflect the content or the intimation behind your
    note in this stream, especially in relation to me.
    
    Laurie.

    I just made yet another atempt to defend my .8 note entry but after
    having entered it I thought "Whats the point ?", so i deleted it.
    
    Fortunately, having aquaintences from all sides of the divide I'm aware
    of the fact that the crap written in this conference will have no
    effect to what is really happening in NI.
    
    Amuse yourselves.
    
    Shaun 
     

    .35
    
    More racism, that's good Eddie, get it off your chest mate, don't be
    shy now.
    
    
    
    CHARLEY

    BTW.
    
    The negative entries started after you and Mark (as usual) started
    slagging of the English/British in general.
    
    I can think of loads of slagging remarks I can make about the
    Scottish/Irish, but I don't post them. I'm not that immature. 
    
    
    CHARLEY
    

    RE .37
    
    Laurie,
    
    >b) a supporter of an illegal terrorist organisation
    
    Aren't most terrorist organisations illegal simply because they oppose the 
    regime they operate within ? How would a terrorist organisation go
    about becoming 'legal' ?
    
    Jamie. 

    �Aren't most terrorist organisations illegal simply because they oppose the 
    �regime they operate within ? How would a terrorist organisation go
    �about becoming 'legal' ?
    
    .....................................Lay down their weapons ??

    .......Stop blowing up innocent children???
    
    
    CHARLEY

	'terrorist' and 'legal' are mutually-exclusive.

	If to become legal, they had to lay down their weapons
	and stop blowing up innocent kids, then they couldn't
	really be called a terrorist organisation, could they !

	Donald

A "legal" terrorist organisation might be one which is allowed by the state
to kill unarmed civilians. - Just a suggestion. - I can't think of any such
organisations off hand...
    

    Yeah yeah yeah <<yawn>>
    
    
    CHARLEY

    re .38                                                               [A
    
    No need to defend .8 Shaun, it stands out like a shining light in the
    darkness. 
    
    In fairness to the base noter, I think we should be
    discussing this elsewhere, but for me the point is whether you can take
    the actions of the British Govmt and make personal remarks about
    individuals. For my book I think Mark is doing this deliberately and
    has not shown any regret for a previous disgraceful episode where he
    made a threatening remark. On the other hand, while the true blue  
    British and proud of it fraction, once the bovver starts, are only to
    happy to reply in kind, my own experience sofar is that they will take 
    criticism of the UK and debate it provided it they do not feel it is
    inspired by personal malice and does not indulge in a simplistic
    apologia for terrorist violence. I take the point that some of that
    fraction hold views which are abrasive and there have been excesses. 
    
    Perhaps a code of conduct could be developed which would allow the
    debate to continue without all the muck. I don't think censorship is
    the answer. I also think the debate about racism is relevant, we should
    not ignore the fact that there are those who would tell us there is
    such a thing as the Irish race or the English race, with different
    characteristics such as intelligence, predeliction to alcoholism etc.
    Needless to say it is all crap, racist crap, but it is out there. For
    that reason I don't think any bigoted remarks about the Irish should
    go unchallenged, nor any simplistic "the Brits and their tampax Prince
    are the problem" outbursts.
    
    I shall come back to Gerry Adam's criticism of British Imperialism. In
    fairness to Adams, he would not indulge in the kind of anti-English
    blather which Mark dressed the article with. 
    
    Maybe the base noter would tell us if he wants this debate to move
    elsewhere and get back to Robbie the Pict, his car tax and his court
    case.
    
    Kevin 
     

   LONDON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- British Home Secretary Michael Howard is
considering proposals for cash payments to black Britons who wish to live in
the Caribbean or Africa, the Independent on Sunday reported.

   It said Howard will meet with a black lawmaker from the opposition Labour
Party, Bernie Grant, who first proposed the idea of financial incentives two
years ago amid widespread criticism from black community leaders.

   Grant insists he has had many inquiries from black Britons for advice on
returning to the Caribbean, and he compared his proposals to a recent program
of cash assistance to people returning to Northern Ireland, called "Making It
Back Home."

   "We are not talking about anything compulsory," Grant said. "We are
talking about something voluntary in response to the need which many people
are expressing. A good number of the people are elderly but have no means at
all."

   He said 100,000 pounds ($157,000) should be the limit offered to those
leaving the country.

   The home office was unavailable for comment but officials told the
newspaper it was unlikely there would be enough cash for such a scheme. But
Grant believes it would save money by relieving pressure on health and social
services.

   Howard recently announced that companies would be fined if found employing
illegal immigrants in a bid to stop economic migrants escaping immigration
laws by posing as asylum-seekers. Labour accused him of pandering to
right-wing, anti-foreigner sentiment in time for the next general election.


  Copyright 1995 The United Press International

    Just to put this in its proper light, Bernie Grant is a black Socialist
    MP (Labour Party) of Caribbean origin, who has worked his way up from
    the ranks of the local council solely on the issue of racial matters.
    He has been an activist that some would say has actually fomented
    racial problems in London. It was he that proposed this whole idea.
    Quite how this is "Another example of English racism" is beyond me.
    
    Laurie.

    Mark, explain your reasoning behind the alleged English racism in .48 -
    as I'm at a lost as to where you got it from.
    
    
    CHARLEY

FYI, the 'Make it back home' program is intended to attract back to Northern 
Ireland the professional/business type people who left during the troubles, 
with a view to helping the economic recovery. Do you call this racist?

Dave

    re .49
    
    quite so Laurie. And even if it were an example of racism in Britain,
    the answer would not be to go round screaming about white trash would
    it ?
    
    Racism and neo-fascist activity in London has been consistently met
    with hugh demonstrations and opposition from many different sections
    of the community. Another English London socialist MP, Ken Livingstone has
    done a lot to oppose anti-Irish bigotry. 
    
    It is something I think English people can be proud of.  The pity is
    that a similar mass movement against sectarianisn has not emerged in
    Northern Ireland.
    
    I read in the Irish Times last week that Dick Spring had to cancel a
    visit to the Shankill for security reasons as tension had been caused
    by a Republican march to comemorate the teenage IRA-volunteer who was 
    killed in the Shankill bombing. That would seem to me to be taunting
    the relatives of the victims of that atrocity and it makes me feel that
    the peace process is a charade for some.    
    
    Kevin
      
                                              

    >It is something I think English people can be proud of.  The pity is
    >that a similar mass movement against sectarianisn has not emerged in
    >Northern Ireland.

    Such a movement did emerge, and had such a profound effect on NI
    society that I'm surprised anyone could overlook it!
    
    It was called NICRA, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights 
    Association, and it was bludgeoned to death by a combination
    of the RUC, the B-Specials and 'Paisleyite' mobs (to use the
    terminology then current). The most infamous bludgeoning
    was at Burntollet Bridge. Ring any bells, Kevin?
    

    re .53
    
    
    I think the main impetus of NICRA was against the discrimination of
    Catholics in the area of housing, and voting rights. It faded as these
    abuses were reduced, and also as the nationalist agenda took over.
    
    The point I am making is that there has been little mass political 
    response to the sectarian murders, mostly of Catholics, but also of 
    Protestants in recent years. The provisional Republican movement failed and apparently
    still fails to visibly reject the killing of innocent Protestants and a
    reply to the murder of Catholics, and as I have said already, Unionists
    like John Taylor have a terrible record.
    
    In recent years sectarian murders were an almost daily occurence at
    times with hardly any response. I evenn recall an Irish Time headline
    on a "good year" for violence in Northern Ireland as though it were a 
    vintage of wine. Compare this to the mass movement which arose in
    Germany after the murders at Solingen and the pogroms at Rostock and
    Hoyerswerda, and which enjoyed immense support from all sections of the
    community.
    
    And of course, I would say that such a movement has to be built in spite
    of British Imperialism, just as the mass movement in Germany had to be
    built in spite of those in the CDU/CSU who wanted to join up with the
    racists such as the nazi leader Franz Schoenhuber. 
    
    But I would agree with you that it is a pity that NICRA faded and that
    the pIRA got the political leadership of the struggle.  I don't agree
    that state repression was the cause of NICRA's demise. They made
    enormous propaganda out of it. NICRA certainly achieved more than any
    bombs did, and it was the rent and rates strike which got rid of
    internment.
    
    Kevin 
    

    RE: .54
    
    I agree with what you say, but I don't think you have covered
    the full story.
    
    Orchestrated violence against the marchers by Unionist extremists
    did occur. Whole streets in Belfast were razed to the ground, resulting
    in a fairly large refugee problem for the South. Unionists claimed
    that the NICRA had been infiltrated by Republican elements, and I think
    the propoganda had a measurable effect, if it had not already become
    a self-fulfilling smear.
    
    Up till then, the NICRA had broad cross-community support, a lot of 
    it coming from the middle classes. As the amount of violence grew,
    and the world's news media came along to take pictures, Unionists and
    Nationalists fought out the war of words in Stormount.. and decent
    reasonable people who found themselves trapped, villified and beaten
    up, just left the movement.
    
    Regards,
    
    John Bennett
    
    Born: 1954, Newry. Co. Down.
    Aged 14 in 1968 when the whole thing started to kick off.
    A-levels and English University in 1972.
    
    I voted with my feet, ladies and gentlemen, and I don't regret it.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     

    Still waiting for Mark to justify his accusations in .48.
    
    If he can that is.
    
    
    
    CHARLEY