He doesn't. Anyone, even with contrary view, with a real interest in the topic wouldn't spout such ill informed nonsense.
Maybe but I think what I'm trying to angle at is even if his view is ill informed, why the contrary view he does have, there has to be some reason why he has an historical interest point of view unless he is just copying and pasting google stuff. Most Brits (or should that be English) including myself are pretty thick when it comes to knowledge of Ireland, apart from mainland bombings, so was just curious his reasons.
Thanks for the question brb. I'm no historian. I just get interested in certain topics, and this was one that I took an interest in. I've read the Richard Kee book, which is the base source of my information, and then just researched stuff online. Watched the Kee docu too, but it covers pretty much the same stuff. Obvs that doesn't sound like a position of expertise, but Kee's is regarded as the seminal work on Irish history, so it's not a bad starter, and probably more than 90% of Irish (or British) have learned about it. And tbf, I wouldn't call myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I've only scratched the surface really in what I've put on here. One thing that Kee doesn't mention in his work btw, is that Ireland was sold to the King of England (then Henry viii) in perpetuity by the Pope, and that as a result, the Pope (in the 20th century) refused Ireland's request for the Papacy to recognise Ireland's declaration of independence. I would thoroughly recommend watching the Kee docu on youtube btw. It's probably my favourite docu history, tied with Death of Yugoslavia, which is another BBC multi part docu, also on youtube.
My understanding is that most people involved in the criminal justice system were amazed at the length of Johnson's sentence, and typically seem to think he should have got a something from a suspended sentence to 18 months inside.
When I say I've done online research btw, that included reading transcripts of debates in Parliament from the period etc, so I'm not talking about googling a keyword and reading a one pager with a picture of a leprachaun on it.
Your knowledge on it I thought was shocking to say the least and I'm not saying that to insult you. As you appear to like research did you actually bother to research the official summing up of the case/sentencing, because if your level of factual knowledge about Ireland is on par with your research on AJ, then no wonder the Irish lads are saying it's ill informed nonsense.
It's interesting you say that actually. Because my comments on Johnson were of a philosophical/jurisprudence nature. I'm fairly confident in saying, that I did not make one single comment about what sentence Johnson could expect, based on the applicable sentencing guidelines. And seeing as I didn't make a single comment on that point, it seems a little odd you accusing me of making comments on the point without researching it. You are accusing me of commenting inaccurately, on something I never commented on. Your critique can therefore be considered to be totally and utterly without merit.
Archers Road had a pop about the Irish citing historical grudges which is anecdoteally (is that a word) true from an English perspective. The reason is that when Irish history is discussed, it necessarily has to involve the story of colonialism. From an Irish perspective, that's just history. For some, because of partition, it a remains a contemporary issue. A way to attack that is to try and tear down the legitimacy of that history and those involved. It's an old trick. It was tried with Sir Roger Casement who was put to death as a result of his role in Easter 1916. His sexual peccadilloes were highlighted in the media of the day to make him look bad. It's exactly what Rob Spur tried to do with Patrick Pearse except Rob Spur lacks the knowledge to actually apply it to the guy whose head fit the cap. You try and damage a narrative to weaken a contemporary argument. Except you'd need to be a lot better versed than RobSpur to achieve it.
So you watched a few documentaries of a biased view point and suddenly you are more versed on the event that 90% of the Irish population **** you do talk some ****e. With your bitter, emotive language in stating your opinion (which you somehow have construed as irrevocable fact) you have shown yourself as the type of person who is unable to form a neutral view on the subject, and specifically the type of person to only sound out sources of information which you agree with. And who gives a flying **** what the pope thinks anyway - yet another irrelevant point
Sorry I can't let this go, names and proof....the guy admitted grooming, not only did he admit it, he changed plea...ffs suspended to 18 months, seriously and you call yourself philosophical!!!!!
please log in to view this image It had previously occurred to me that the pikey had taken the demise of his people rather lightly. For every action, there is a reaction. And a pikey reaction … is quite a ****ing thing.
I have been perfectly objective though. I said earlier, that I could argue that the violence achieved nothing, but instead I voluntarily put forward a suggestion that it did 'achieve' something. That comment alone proves that your analysis of my input is invalid. It probably sounds bias to you, because it is the truth, and the truth is radically different to the common understanding of events. And yes, I would wager that ai know more about Irish history than 90% of Irish people. .... In response to your final point/question. Well, obviously those seeking to declare indepence cared what the Pope thinks. Otherwise they wouldnt have formally requested his ratification !!!!!!!! Ffs
Take it onto the Johnson thread. While you're at it, the first thing you can do is direct the readers to the comments that you allege I have made without researching them.
Got as far as Richard Keys. Is that where you got your info on the referendum you made an absolute balls of?
