What are you reading tonight?

[bobo the clown]

Halfway through Ten men dead, the story of the Republican hunger strikers. Rather worryingly, it's given me a grudging admiration for Thatcher

Stay with it ... see the light.

[Harry Genshaw]

Halfway through Ten men dead, the story of the Republican hunger strikers. Rather worryingly, it's given me a grudging admiration for Thatcher

Stay with it ... see the light.

the book is written with a republican bias, so being an Englishman it's easy to side with the opposing view. She certainly showed balls in that instance, more than any of her successors would, I imagine

[William the White]

Halfway through Ten men dead, the story of the Republican hunger strikers. Rather worryingly, it's given me a grudging admiration for Thatcher

Stay with it ... see the light.

the book is written with a republican bias, so being an Englishman it's easy to side with the opposing view[/b]. She certainly showed balls in that instance, more than any of her successors would, I imagine

I'm an Englishman. I found it easy to side with the hunger strikers then and I do now.

I'm happy to explain why if anyone is interested. I just wanted to challenge the view that nationality was a determining factor on that issue. I was one of a number of English men (and women) who found themselves opposing Thatcher on the hunger strikers - and, for sure, you didn't have to be a supporter of the Provos to do that!

[Bruce Rioja]

Halfway through Ten men dead, the story of the Republican hunger strikers. Rather worryingly, it's given me a grudging admiration for Thatcher

Stay with it ... see the light.

the book is written with a republican bias, so being an Englishman it's easy to side with the opposing view[/b]. She certainly showed balls in that instance, more than any of her successors would, I imagine

I'm an Englishman. I found it easy to side with the hunger strikers then and I do now.

I'm happy to explain why if anyone is interested. I just wanted to challenge the view that nationality was a determining factor on that issue. I was one of a number of English men (and women) who found themselves opposing Thatcher on the hunger strikers - and, for sure, you didn't have to be a supporter of the Provos to do that!

Yeah, but you'd have opposed Thatcher on anything and everything anyway. So you're not speaking from a balanced position.

[William the White]

Halfway through Ten men dead, the story of the Republican hunger strikers. Rather worryingly, it's given me a grudging admiration for Thatcher

Stay with it ... see the light.

the book is written with a republican bias, so being an Englishman it's easy to side with the opposing view[/b]. She certainly showed balls in that instance, more than any of her successors would, I imagine

I'm an Englishman. I found it easy to side with the hunger strikers then and I do now.

I'm happy to explain why if anyone is interested. I just wanted to challenge the view that nationality was a determining factor on that issue. I was one of a number of English men (and women) who found themselves opposing Thatcher on the hunger strikers - and, for sure, you didn't have to be a supporter of the Provos to do that!

Yeah, but you'd have opposed Thatcher on anything and everything anyway. So you're not speaking from a balanced position.

No one speaks from a balanced position. They speak for themselves honestly or they lie or dissemble or evade.

[Bruce Rioja]

No one speaks from a balanced position. They speak for themselves honestly or they lie or dissemble or evade.

So from which of those positions do you assimilate yourself with Republican hunger strikers and coal miners then?

[William the White]

No one speaks from a balanced position. They speak for themselves honestly or they lie or dissemble or evade.

So from which of those positions do you assimilate yourself with Republican hunger strikers and coal miners then?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I'll clarify as best I can.

On these two issues I speak for myself honestly, the person I was then, and am now.

I supported the striking miners in many ways, financially, in political meetings, on demonstrations, fundraising and, as it happens, enabling miners families to attend a Christmas play I'd written free of charge (the company opened its final dress rehearsal to them). I was less active on the hunger strikers - but I contributed money to their solidarity campaign, went on at least one demonstration, and watched with real sadness as one by one their lives ended and Thatcher was unflinching.

In general, I don't think I lie or dissemble about my views. I do constantly evade discussing them - I do not want my entire conversations to be political quarrels, or, worse, to mingle only with people that share my views.

[Harry Genshaw]

I realise the Irish question was complex with entrenched views on all sides, but I couldn't shed any tears over the deaths of murderers

[William the White]

I realise the Irish question was complex with entrenched views on all sides, but I couldn't shed any tears over the deaths of murderers

I'm not looking for an argument here, Harry, but 'murderers' is not I feel an adequate description of the IRA prisoners who starved themselves to death in their struggle against the British state.

I think it's more complex than that. And I'm surprised if, having read that book, you don't agree with that.

So, for instance, I don't think it's appropriate to call the soldiers firing on unarmed people on Bloody Sunday 'murderers' ....

[Harry Genshaw]

I realise the Irish question was complex with entrenched views on all sides, but I couldn't shed any tears over the deaths of murderers

I'm not looking for an argument here, Harry, but 'murderers' is not I feel an adequate description of the IRA prisoners who starved themselves to death in their struggle against the British state.

I think it's more complex than that. And I'm surprised if, having read that book, you don't agree with that.

So, for instance, I don't think it's appropriate to call the soldiers firing on unarmed people on Bloody Sunday 'murderers' ....

No arguments on most of that Will. Of the hunger strikers who died, several of them were murderers (can't say how many yet as I've not finished it). Their victims weren't 'just' soldiers, there were ordinary Irish & British folk in there too. Like I say - I wouldn't shed tears over any of them

[William the White]

I realise the Irish question was complex with entrenched views on all sides, but I couldn't shed any tears over the deaths of murderers

I'm not looking for an argument here, Harry, but 'murderers' is not I feel an adequate description of the IRA prisoners who starved themselves to death in their struggle against the British state.

I think it's more complex than that. And I'm surprised if, having read that book, you don't agree with that.

So, for instance, I don't think it's appropriate to call the soldiers firing on unarmed people on Bloody Sunday 'murderers' ....

No arguments on most of that Will. Of the hunger strikers who died, several of them were murderers (can't say how many yet as I've not finished it). Their victims weren't 'just' soldiers, there were ordinary Irish & British folk in there too. Like I say - I wouldn't shed tears over any of them

These murders they committed (and, believe me, I view every death in this conflict as its own tragedy) were different from most 'murders' weren't they? They were committed in a struggle centuries old to rid Ireland of British rule. I feel they have to be seen in that light.

In that long, long struggle far more Irish people were killed, starved, forced into exile than died on all sides in the 'troubles'. Ireland was the only European nation in the 19th century whose population declined as people emigrated rather than starve.

My view was that these were prisoners of a long and bloody political conflict, many, initially, political prisoners, interned without any kind of trial, others imprisoned by political 'Diplock' trials without jury. Treating them as 'ordinary' criminals was ludicrous. I still think this.

[bobo the clown]

I realise the Irish question was complex with entrenched views on all sides, but I couldn't shed any tears over the deaths of murderers

I'm not looking for an argument here, Harry, but 'murderers' is not I feel an adequate description of the IRA prisoners who starved themselves to death in their struggle against the British state.

I think it's more complex than that. And I'm surprised if, having read that book, you don't agree with that.

So, for instance, I don't think it's appropriate to call the soldiers firing on unarmed people on Bloody Sunday 'murderers' ....

No arguments on most of that Will. Of the hunger strikers who died, several of them were murderers (can't say how many yet as I've not finished it). Their victims weren't 'just' soldiers, there were ordinary Irish & British folk in there too. Like I say - I wouldn't shed tears over any of them

These murders they committed (and, believe me, I view every death in this conflict as its own tragedy) were different from most 'murders' weren't they? They were committed in a struggle centuries old to rid Ireland of British rule. I feel they have to be seen in that light.

In that long, long struggle far more Irish people were killed, starved, forced into exile than died on all sides in the 'troubles'. Ireland was the only European nation in the 19th century whose population declined as people emigrated rather than starve.

My view was that these were prisoners of a long and bloody political conflict, many, initially, political prisoners, interned without any kind of trial, others imprisoned by political 'Diplock' trials without jury. Treating them as 'ordinary' criminals was ludicrous. I still think this.

Yep Will, because laying bombs under cars, in streets, in shops, at cenotaphs, bombing ceremonial soldiers, people sitting in pubs, kids shopping for presents for their parents ... kidnapping, torture and execution of "collaborators", intimidation, running drugs and prostitution rackets and many other activities are noble acts of the oppressed.

I agree with your earlier assertion that deeply held views in these matters will never be overturned by someone else's arguments. I've managed to not miss Bobby Sands or any of the gang and I originate from a family deeply ingrained in Irish Republican thought. I just grew out of it.

[William the White]

Yep Will, because laying bombs under cars, in streets, in shops, at cenotaphs, bombing ceremonial soldiers, people sitting in pubs, kids shopping for presents for their parents ... kidnapping, torture and execution of "collaborators", intimidation, running drugs and prostitution rackets and many other activities are noble acts of the oppressed.

Well, bobo, I don't know which William the White you are talking to.

Because, simply, nowhere did I state anything remotely approaching this, and neither is it my view, and I genuinely do resent your saying it is.

Genuinely. I'd like you to step back from this. And then, if you wish, engage with the point I actually did make.

'Noble acts of the oppressed'. What???????????

[bobo the clown]

Yep Will, because laying bombs under cars, in streets, in shops, at cenotaphs, bombing ceremonial soldiers, people sitting in pubs, kids shopping for presents for their parents ... kidnapping, torture and execution of "collaborators", intimidation, running drugs and prostitution rackets and many other activities are noble acts of the oppressed.

Well, bobo, I don't know which William the White you are talking to.

Because, simply, nowhere did I state anything remotely approaching this, and neither is it my view, and I genuinely do resent your saying it is.

Genuinely. I'd like you to step back from this. And then, if you wish, engage with the point I actually did make.

'Noble acts of the oppressed'. What???????????

I'm making the point that these people were not ordinary folk, were not good decent people caught in a struggle, their actions were not normal or acceptable, or excusable.

As a supporter of the cause I took it that you felt they were. If you don't I freely, and happily step back and withdraw.

[William the White]

Yep Will, because laying bombs under cars, in streets, in shops, at cenotaphs, bombing ceremonial soldiers, people sitting in pubs, kids shopping for presents for their parents ... kidnapping, torture and execution of "collaborators", intimidation, running drugs and prostitution rackets and many other activities are noble acts of the oppressed.

Well, bobo, I don't know which William the White you are talking to.

Because, simply, nowhere did I state anything remotely approaching this, and neither is it my view, and I genuinely do resent your saying it is.

Genuinely. I'd like you to step back from this. And then, if you wish, engage with the point I actually did make.

'Noble acts of the oppressed'. What???????????

I'm making the point that these people were not ordinary folk, were not good decent people caught in a struggle, their actions were not normal or acceptable, or excusable.

As a supporter of the cause I took it that you felt they were. If you don't I freely, and happily step back and withdraw.

I'd just like you to take another look at what I actually said - and then at the magnitude of what you implied I supported... Bombs in pubs, kids shopping for presents... you think it's ok to imply I supported things like this from what i actually posted?

[thebish]

These murders they committed (and, believe me, I view every death in this conflict as its own tragedy) were different from most 'murders' weren't they? They were committed in a struggle centuries old to rid Ireland of British rule. I feel they have to be seen in that light.

Leaving aside the very plausible possibility that some of the hunger-strikers may have been wrongly convicted - which is a differnent (though, important) issue,

just to be clear in what you are saying...

these murders (you say) were "different"...

you are still saying that they were inexcusable and heinous and monstrous, yes? but - they are somehow in a different category because they were commited within the context of a cause that the perpetrators believed in and were brought up within?

[bobo the clown]

I'm making the point that these people were not ordinary folk, were not good decent people caught in a struggle, their actions were not normal or acceptable, or excusable.

As a supporter of the cause I took it that you felt they were. If you don't I freely, and happily step back and withdraw.

I'd just like you to take another look at what I actually said - and then at the magnitude of what you implied I supported... Bombs in pubs, kids shopping for presents... you think it's ok to imply I supported things like this from what i actually posted?

OK, Will. We disagree on almost every political level, but we disagree fairly and reasonably. I'm not, and never will, accuse you of being a supporter of evil acts. I withdraw completely from any inference that you do.

Where I took a severe difference, and the words you used I maybe misinterpreted or overreacted to, were ;

These murders they committed (and, believe me, I view every death in this conflict as its own tragedy) were different from most 'murders' weren't they? They were committed in a struggle centuries old to rid Ireland of British rule. I feel they have to be seen in that light.Treating them as 'ordinary' criminals was ludicrous. I still think this.

I don't agree. Whatever the context these people were involved in activities similar to some or all the long list of heinous crimes I put. That some of them viewed their actions in a political context doesn't in my view excuse them.

I appreciate you don't attempt to excuse the actual crimes but, to my reading, however intended, that was how I interpreted it ... obviously wrongly. I apologise for misreading what you meant.

[Harry Genshaw]

^ Must admit I made the same mistake. I once heard someone try to justify the actions of the Shankhill butchers using similar wording. Whatever side of the divide, the actions of the terrorists resulted in hundreds of children growing up without parents

[William the White]

^ Must admit I made the same mistake. I once heard someone try to justify the actions of the Shankhill butchers using similar wording. Whatever side of the divide, the actions of the terrorists resulted in hundreds of children growing up without parents

Indeed, that is true, Harry.

As did the actions of the British military. And the RUC.

[thebish]

I have a memory of a radio play about Bobby Sands and the life that ushered him into the arms of the IRA... it's the kind of story that genuinely has you wondering if in the same situation and the same provocation, you'd have ended up walking a simlar path... we all like to hope not, but...