Well there we have it folks, a few documentaries later and we have the arbiter of all truth on the subject And you have not been "perfectly objective", instead you have indulged in bitter and emotive language which betrays your entirely unobjective slight on events. With regards to your comment that it didn't achieve anything, well quite a number of historians care to disagree. Many would put forward the view that while the Rising itself "failed", like the leaders had always expected, it was the seminal watershed moment that marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire. At the peak of her geographical reach, the empire lost control of its second city for an entire week. Even before the executions turned much of the population of Dublin (NOTE: Dublin, not Ireland. With the more anglicised population, and high number of British administrative staff - of course Dubliners would have objections to the rising, the majority of the country was broadly supportive of its ideals however) against the British administration, the Rising delivered a terminal shock to the system. One which would reverberate around the empire's territories in the years to come. Sneering British attempts to belittle its impact do not change the historical "facts on the ground"
The Ireland v Slovakia game is coming on. I'll maybe check in during it. The Derry Rebel up front due to injuries.
You just said suspended to 18 months, I therefore asked based on your further response which people in the criminal justice system said that and proof - so show me where your research of your response came from. Because I find it amazing any one worth their £££'s would not know that grooming carries 10 years max. He also changed his plea out of desperation with no remorse to save his neck, did anyone really think changing his plea he would get 18 months or less, and that's without the other actual sexual charge on a child. It seemed to me you took this whole philosophy to heart so then started on the Irish **** as deflection but that's just my opinion, so no, I won't take it elsewhere.
So your accusation that I had made poorly researched comments, was in relation to a comment which at the time you made the accusation, I hadn't yet made, and which didn't yet exist ? Btw, yesterday you claimed that I kept bringing the Johnson issue up and wouldn't stop talking about it. I note that in the space of less than 24 hours, you have done a 180 degree about turn, and formed the complete opposite opinion, that I started talking about Ireland to try to run away from the Johnson conversation.
What is it with people on here ??? Again, you have misrepresented my comments. I have never once said that the easter rising had no effect. All of your words in that comment, are therefore a waste of time.
I've asked you twice now for proof of your criminal experts and you constantly deflect, suppose you are waiting for parlimentry papers
We're going to get this straight, right now, before anyone takes your bullshitting seriously. I do not "deflect". I point out that you are making things up and talking gibberish. This is what happened : Point 1 1. Another poster mentioned - on this thread - the Johnson discussiion. 2. I replied. 3. You criticised me for bringing Johnson up. 4. I told you that I hadn't brought it up, someone else had. 5. You later said I had started commenting on Ireland, to avoid talking about Johnson. Point 2 1. I took part in a conversation about Adam Johnson. I made philisophical arguments about what sentence I thought were suitable for Johnson's crimes. I did not make one single comment about what sentence the sentencing guidelines provided for. 2. You very scathingly criticised my input in the Johnson conversation, suggesting that my comments on what sentence the sentencing guidelines provided for were appallingly researched. 3. Instead of pointing out that you were talking complete bollocks, because I had never even commented on the issue, I made an off the cuff observation about what sentence I had been told those in the know anticipated. 4. I then pointed out that your accusations about my poorly researched comments were total bullshit, because I had never even made such a comment. 5. You totally ignored me pointing this out to you, and asked me to provide proof about what I had been told about Johnson's sentence. On point 1, it seems likely that you have realised that your comments have been exposed as being without merit, on the basis that you have argued completely opposing points, to try to get to the same (unjustified amd invalid) conclusion. On point 2, you have not apologised for your groundless, and very clearly ill founded accusation about my research. Neither have you admitted the very obvious and fundamental error that you made in making what was a wholly erroneous criticism. Instead, you appear to be trying to imply, that your accusation that I had made poorly researched comments (even though I had made no such comments atall, poorly researched or otherwise) is somehow justified by a related subsequent off the cuff remark that I made. It does no such thing at all. The off the cuff remark does not validate your accusation, and there is literally nothing which could validate your accusation, because it was totally baseless. Even when I made the off the cuff remark, I did not say that that is what Imthought the sentence should be, Immerely said that I had been told by others that that's what they thought. I don't need to provide evidence of that to demonstrate that your accusation was utterly baseless and groundless. The off the cuff remark had no bearing whatsoever on your invalid accusation, firstly because I hadn't even made it when you made the accusation, and secondly because it is not a researchable issue anyway. I don't need to research whether I have been told something or not. I know that I was told something. I was not saying the comments were right or wrong, ai was merely saying that they had been made. If I researched whether the comments were right or wrong, that would have no bearing whatsoever on whether the comments had beeen made or not. Therefore even your feeble attempts to justify an accusation, by reference to a later event, are hopeless, because your accusation was that my comments lacked research, and there was no possible research that could have been done, in order for me to validiate the comment that I made, which is that I had been told something. Why don't you just stop this charade, acknowledge the very obvious fact that you are in the wrong, and apologise to me ?
you said... 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. ....... So now you are basing it on something you was told
