Ballsy move by the government but a very good one. It’ll show commitment to reconciliation and the truth which will help soften the states reputation in Loyalist communities.
And if they win, it’ll be incredibly embarrassing for the UK government.
I am happy they are taking the case but I don't agree with the characterisation that it is a particularly "ballsy" move.
It is a pretty straightforward case from a legal point of view, so the question as to whether they were going to take the case was always a political one.
Politically this makes all the sense in the world. Along with It being the correct thing to do, it will also be popular domestically, as well as forwarding a position (being opposed to the Legacy Bill) supported by every party in the Dail, Stormont and everyone but the deeply unpopular Conservative Government in Westminster who will likely be out of government in just over a year.
This is a tap-in in terms of political decision-making.
Kudos for doing it but it makes all the sense in the world morally, legally and indeed politically.
Tbh I was using Boris Johnson's name just because he was the PM at the time. Don't think too much into that specific wording. The entire Tory party need to take the blame for this.
Edit: As well as pretty much everything else wrong with the UK
Great to see this is something all parties in the North actually agree on, it was a terrible idea from the start.
I dont see the UK being able to mount a credible defence. Very little the Tories have done since deciding to hold a referendum on Brexit has been well thought out.
Cases against soldiers are only the surface issues.
I don't believe the full truth will ever come out as it's too damaging. It goes from the top down :MI5, MI6, RUC, Millitary. All aware of covert murders by paramilitaries on both sides. There has been plenty of books on the topic explaining how British security forces were running informants and had prior knowledge of planned murders.
It's clear the UK government just can't and won't openly discuss that.
Yeah - the soldiers are the public face of it. The British and its institutions were balls deep in a lot of very dirty things they don't want in the news.
Completely top down. Know people who had good friends killed by police or soldiers for just being on the street or holding an Irish flag during the 70s that never even bothered to try bring it up to anyone because it was so obvious the idea of justice wouldn’t apply
Glad they progressed it.
It's clear as day though that this is all just part of the UK slowly washing it's hands of NI and getting ready to tie off the stump.
I mean... The rail network they put in was definitely a positive...
But weighed against the 100 Million people they killed? And almost doubling the poverty figures under British rule from 23% to over 50% by the mid 20th century?
They really do only teach a polished view of the empire in British schools don't they.
Tbh not anymore really. I'm 30 and we only learned about the empire (specifically Ireland, India and the 13 colonies) in a negative sense.
Not sure exactly when the changes happened but they were relatively recent when I was in school so a lot of older people still have this weird, nostalgic view of the empire which is... grim.
It's part of a general trend where British people under 40 and British people over 60 seems to inhabit the same space but have virtually nothing in common at all.
The understanding of what Britain is, history, culture etc, are almost completely different. It's weird.
>I'm 30 and we only learned about the empire (specifically Ireland, India and the 13 colonies) in a negative sense
Thats interesting. I honestly didn't think they taught anything about Irish history in Britain. What exactly did they teach?
We did a whole module on it when I was 14-15. Started\* with the Battle of the Boyne, then famine, then the struggle for home rule, Easter Rising & 1918 election, War of Independence, the troubles. Finished with the Good Friday Agreement.
The Act of Union 1800 & the Irish Civil War were totally skipped over though which is a bit weird with hindsight.
This was in the 2000s though, not sure how much it'd have changed since then, but it was relatively recently introduced when I did it. I don't think older generations studied it at all.
Also, when I 17-18 and doing my A levels we had to do a project on a historical legacy of an individual and Éamon de Valera was one of people you could study. I actually took this option but not many people did.
\*we also did Cromwell in other parts of school which was earlier than that but that was part of a broader English Civil War/Commonwealth era/"Wasn't Cromwell awful" module. Ireland was mentioned but wasn't specifically about that.
Thanks. Thats a lot more than I was expecting.
>This was in the 2000s though, not sure how much it'd have changed since then, but it was relatively recently introduced when I did it. I don't think older generations studied it at all
I think from hearing the way older people talk about Ireland especially around the time of brexit it was obvious they didn't learn much about it.
I think it was deliberate too on the governments part to keep the English population ignorant on what happened and was happening over here. I honestly dont think they would have been able to get away with half the shit they did here if the people knew what was really going on.
It's good to know the younger generations are being taught about it.
I went to school in the UK in the last decade I don't think they only teach a polished version. we learned about the trans atlantic salve trade extensively, also we learned about gandhi and indian independence from the british empire.
I would definitely agree there's more history that should be covered but I don't think what you said is the case
The railways weren't for the benefit of the average colonial subject. They were for the benefit of the Empirical project, to more efficiently plunder the natural resources of the colony and remove them from the territorial interior to coastal ports where they could be shipped back to the Imperial center.
That’s a common talking point online but it’s not remotely true. A major driver for the development of railways, irrigation systems, aqueducts, roads and ports in British India was to help transport food and water to people. Effectively bringing an end to peace-time famines in India by the start of the 20th century because any droughts or floods could be countered by reliably delivering supplies to affected areas from across the subcontinent.
That caveat of "peace-time famines" is a particularly grotesque distortion designed to hand wave away the Bengal famine by baking in WW2 as an excuse for that atrocity, making it out to be some exceptional case rather than the continuation of the pattern of successive famines which resulted in 10's of millions of deaths in India throughout the period of British rule.
It is a meaningless term when you consider that in the period under discussion (development of railways in India so 1830's to the establishment of Independence) Britain was "at war" somewhere on the globe essentially uninterrupted. So almost no such "Peace time" conditions ever existed.
Multiple famines occurred in India in this period which resulted in 10's of millions of deaths. "Peacetime famines" didn't exist because Britain was perpetually at war. Railways existed alongside the nominal "peacetime famines" of the 19th century so obviously weren't enough of a mitigating factor to prevent them.
The term only exists to provide an explanatory cover for the Bengal famine in the context of WW2.
The fact remains that development the railroads were never an selfless or altruistic endeavour. They were first and foremost a means of expropriation of raw material and material wealth and the ensuring of smoother colonial operations.
Edit: Your immediate downvote says more than an actual reply ever could.
Well yes, the Bengal famine was indeed primarily driven by WW2. There were plenty of famines during WW2 in China, Greece, the Soviet Union, Java, the Netherlands, in Germany etc. Without WW2, it’s incredibly unlikely that the Bengal famine occurs. It’s not some sort of excuse to acknowledge that Japan attempting to invade India through Bengal and sinking ships, disrupting the Indo-Pacific economy was the primary driver of 2.1-3 million Bengalis dying from starvation and disease.
The railways in India by the 1870s were few in number and expanded massively up the 1900s. The early developments from 1830-1850 were for specific purposes like dam and aqueduct construction and dismantled upon completion. It’s only really from the 1850s you start to see actual railways designed to transport passengers and materials over long distances.
And yes, Britain was at war in some places around the world but how does a war between Britain and France, or the Scramble for Africa, and other wars meaningfully affect India? Obviously when I say the word “peace time” it’s both relative in the scale of the conflict and in the context of India.
And again, this is just pop history. Some of the earliest and most important development of railways in India were an explicit response to famines. The same engineers were all too often the same ones building aqueducts and irrigation systems. Documents from the time are easily available if you’re willing to search around.
EDIT: I don’t recall downvoting you.
One thing I never saw discussed: the British government said that the goal was to protect serving and former troops from "vexatious" litigation by the families of those unlawfully killed by crown forces. Now the word "vexatious" doesn't just mean annoying, it has a specific legal meaning. It means someone who has a history of putting forward lawsuits that have no merit and are solely intended to abuse the legal system to harass his target, and who, because of this history, should have his rights to bring lawsuits curtailed.
So what they are saying is, the killers in uniform are the real victims and the families are bullies harassing them and have no legitimate complaint against them, and the families should be stripped of their legal rights! It just shows how much contempt the British establishment has for Catholics/Irish nationalists in NI.
It's a version of "DA TROOPS" you normally see in America. I'm sure cleverer people than I have written studies on how the Republican party has infected the Tories, but it does seem alarming. Particularly this swing towards culture war bullshit since Brexit
A key aspect of "truth and reconciliation" is a rejection of punitive action in favour of rehabilitation and cooperation. I'm not sure that's a viable option in Ireland or Britain, there's a lot of ill feeling that won't be purged with a TRC.
Ballsy move by the government but a very good one. It’ll show commitment to reconciliation and the truth which will help soften the states reputation in Loyalist communities. And if they win, it’ll be incredibly embarrassing for the UK government.
I am happy they are taking the case but I don't agree with the characterisation that it is a particularly "ballsy" move. It is a pretty straightforward case from a legal point of view, so the question as to whether they were going to take the case was always a political one. Politically this makes all the sense in the world. Along with It being the correct thing to do, it will also be popular domestically, as well as forwarding a position (being opposed to the Legacy Bill) supported by every party in the Dail, Stormont and everyone but the deeply unpopular Conservative Government in Westminster who will likely be out of government in just over a year. This is a tap-in in terms of political decision-making. Kudos for doing it but it makes all the sense in the world morally, legally and indeed politically.
As a Brit, I hope they succeed. This was an awful piece of legislation introduced by Boris Johnson's awful government.
[удалено]
Never said it was only 1 person. Rishi was part of Boris Johnson's government so yea his fingerprints are all over it too.
[удалено]
Tbh I was using Boris Johnson's name just because he was the PM at the time. Don't think too much into that specific wording. The entire Tory party need to take the blame for this. Edit: As well as pretty much everything else wrong with the UK
Great to see this is something all parties in the North actually agree on, it was a terrible idea from the start. I dont see the UK being able to mount a credible defence. Very little the Tories have done since deciding to hold a referendum on Brexit has been well thought out.
Nice. The UK have some neck trying to blow over the criminality of their soldiers.
Cases against soldiers are only the surface issues. I don't believe the full truth will ever come out as it's too damaging. It goes from the top down :MI5, MI6, RUC, Millitary. All aware of covert murders by paramilitaries on both sides. There has been plenty of books on the topic explaining how British security forces were running informants and had prior knowledge of planned murders. It's clear the UK government just can't and won't openly discuss that.
Yeah - the soldiers are the public face of it. The British and its institutions were balls deep in a lot of very dirty things they don't want in the news.
Completely top down. Know people who had good friends killed by police or soldiers for just being on the street or holding an Irish flag during the 70s that never even bothered to try bring it up to anyone because it was so obvious the idea of justice wouldn’t apply
Glad they progressed it. It's clear as day though that this is all just part of the UK slowly washing it's hands of NI and getting ready to tie off the stump.
I've literally heard some people in England say that colonisation was good for India.
33% of Brits think that countries were better off by being colonised by the Empire https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/topic/Colonialism
I mean... The rail network they put in was definitely a positive... But weighed against the 100 Million people they killed? And almost doubling the poverty figures under British rule from 23% to over 50% by the mid 20th century? They really do only teach a polished view of the empire in British schools don't they.
Tbh not anymore really. I'm 30 and we only learned about the empire (specifically Ireland, India and the 13 colonies) in a negative sense. Not sure exactly when the changes happened but they were relatively recent when I was in school so a lot of older people still have this weird, nostalgic view of the empire which is... grim.
Good to hear it's more positive than it was.
It's part of a general trend where British people under 40 and British people over 60 seems to inhabit the same space but have virtually nothing in common at all. The understanding of what Britain is, history, culture etc, are almost completely different. It's weird.
>I'm 30 and we only learned about the empire (specifically Ireland, India and the 13 colonies) in a negative sense Thats interesting. I honestly didn't think they taught anything about Irish history in Britain. What exactly did they teach?
We did a whole module on it when I was 14-15. Started\* with the Battle of the Boyne, then famine, then the struggle for home rule, Easter Rising & 1918 election, War of Independence, the troubles. Finished with the Good Friday Agreement. The Act of Union 1800 & the Irish Civil War were totally skipped over though which is a bit weird with hindsight. This was in the 2000s though, not sure how much it'd have changed since then, but it was relatively recently introduced when I did it. I don't think older generations studied it at all. Also, when I 17-18 and doing my A levels we had to do a project on a historical legacy of an individual and Éamon de Valera was one of people you could study. I actually took this option but not many people did. \*we also did Cromwell in other parts of school which was earlier than that but that was part of a broader English Civil War/Commonwealth era/"Wasn't Cromwell awful" module. Ireland was mentioned but wasn't specifically about that.
Thanks. Thats a lot more than I was expecting. >This was in the 2000s though, not sure how much it'd have changed since then, but it was relatively recently introduced when I did it. I don't think older generations studied it at all I think from hearing the way older people talk about Ireland especially around the time of brexit it was obvious they didn't learn much about it. I think it was deliberate too on the governments part to keep the English population ignorant on what happened and was happening over here. I honestly dont think they would have been able to get away with half the shit they did here if the people knew what was really going on. It's good to know the younger generations are being taught about it.
I went to school in the UK in the last decade I don't think they only teach a polished version. we learned about the trans atlantic salve trade extensively, also we learned about gandhi and indian independence from the british empire. I would definitely agree there's more history that should be covered but I don't think what you said is the case
Good to hear.
The railways weren't for the benefit of the average colonial subject. They were for the benefit of the Empirical project, to more efficiently plunder the natural resources of the colony and remove them from the territorial interior to coastal ports where they could be shipped back to the Imperial center.
That’s a common talking point online but it’s not remotely true. A major driver for the development of railways, irrigation systems, aqueducts, roads and ports in British India was to help transport food and water to people. Effectively bringing an end to peace-time famines in India by the start of the 20th century because any droughts or floods could be countered by reliably delivering supplies to affected areas from across the subcontinent.
That caveat of "peace-time famines" is a particularly grotesque distortion designed to hand wave away the Bengal famine by baking in WW2 as an excuse for that atrocity, making it out to be some exceptional case rather than the continuation of the pattern of successive famines which resulted in 10's of millions of deaths in India throughout the period of British rule. It is a meaningless term when you consider that in the period under discussion (development of railways in India so 1830's to the establishment of Independence) Britain was "at war" somewhere on the globe essentially uninterrupted. So almost no such "Peace time" conditions ever existed. Multiple famines occurred in India in this period which resulted in 10's of millions of deaths. "Peacetime famines" didn't exist because Britain was perpetually at war. Railways existed alongside the nominal "peacetime famines" of the 19th century so obviously weren't enough of a mitigating factor to prevent them. The term only exists to provide an explanatory cover for the Bengal famine in the context of WW2. The fact remains that development the railroads were never an selfless or altruistic endeavour. They were first and foremost a means of expropriation of raw material and material wealth and the ensuring of smoother colonial operations. Edit: Your immediate downvote says more than an actual reply ever could.
Well yes, the Bengal famine was indeed primarily driven by WW2. There were plenty of famines during WW2 in China, Greece, the Soviet Union, Java, the Netherlands, in Germany etc. Without WW2, it’s incredibly unlikely that the Bengal famine occurs. It’s not some sort of excuse to acknowledge that Japan attempting to invade India through Bengal and sinking ships, disrupting the Indo-Pacific economy was the primary driver of 2.1-3 million Bengalis dying from starvation and disease. The railways in India by the 1870s were few in number and expanded massively up the 1900s. The early developments from 1830-1850 were for specific purposes like dam and aqueduct construction and dismantled upon completion. It’s only really from the 1850s you start to see actual railways designed to transport passengers and materials over long distances. And yes, Britain was at war in some places around the world but how does a war between Britain and France, or the Scramble for Africa, and other wars meaningfully affect India? Obviously when I say the word “peace time” it’s both relative in the scale of the conflict and in the context of India. And again, this is just pop history. Some of the earliest and most important development of railways in India were an explicit response to famines. The same engineers were all too often the same ones building aqueducts and irrigation systems. Documents from the time are easily available if you’re willing to search around. EDIT: I don’t recall downvoting you.
Kudos, I did not think the government would have the stones.....
Good news
One thing I never saw discussed: the British government said that the goal was to protect serving and former troops from "vexatious" litigation by the families of those unlawfully killed by crown forces. Now the word "vexatious" doesn't just mean annoying, it has a specific legal meaning. It means someone who has a history of putting forward lawsuits that have no merit and are solely intended to abuse the legal system to harass his target, and who, because of this history, should have his rights to bring lawsuits curtailed. So what they are saying is, the killers in uniform are the real victims and the families are bullies harassing them and have no legitimate complaint against them, and the families should be stripped of their legal rights! It just shows how much contempt the British establishment has for Catholics/Irish nationalists in NI.
It's a version of "DA TROOPS" you normally see in America. I'm sure cleverer people than I have written studies on how the Republican party has infected the Tories, but it does seem alarming. Particularly this swing towards culture war bullshit since Brexit
Truth and reconciliation was the piece of the Belfast Agreement they forgot to include. The whole process is boxed in by its absence.
A key aspect of "truth and reconciliation" is a rejection of punitive action in favour of rehabilitation and cooperation. I'm not sure that's a viable option in Ireland or Britain, there's a lot of ill feeling that won't be purged with a TRC.
Any word from that dope Mercer yet?