View previous topic | View next topic

Ireland: Mary McAleese and Queen Elizabeth

Page 1 of 7
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Peter Dow
723647.  Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:01 am Reply with quote

Quote:
BBC: Queen's visit would be Anglo-Irish milestone

In the spring of next year, the Queen may make one of the shortest but most significant journeys of her 57-year reign when she travels to Ireland.

Although the trip across the Irish Sea has not been finally agreed, plans for the historic first Dublin visit are gathering momentum.

The Queen has visited more than 100 countries, but not Ireland - even though it is the UK's closest neighbour.

In fact, no British monarch has visited the Republic of Ireland since it gained independence in the last century.

...

A trip to Ireland has not been possible, for historical, political and security reasons. These are too numerous to mention and go back too far, but two incidents in the 1970s illustrate the depth of the more recent divisions.

Mountbatten

After the Bloody Sunday killings by the British Army in Londonderry in 1972, the British Embassy in Dublin was burnt down.

Seven years later, one of the Queen's relatives, Lord Louis Mountbatten, was killed by the IRA while holidaying on the Irish coast.

...

Irish President Mary McAleese has met the Queen on a number of occasions Such was their friendship, few would have been surprised if they ended up going on holiday together. Given the long and deep historical difficulties between their respective countries, that was quite a feat.

...

However, the proposed landmark trip is not without its problems and sensitivities. Sinn Fein have already said they will be opposing it. Radical republican protest groups are likely to organise demonstrations.

...

Prince Charles has visited the Irish Republic, and the Irish president Mary McAleese has met the Queen on a number of occasions in London and Belfast. That has helped to prepare the ground for the Dublin get-together.

For the Irish President to allow this planned visit and the previous visit of Prince Charles to the republic is nothing less than treason against the Irish republic as it exists today and a particular betrayal of Irish republicans living in the 6 northern counties of Ireland garrisoned by the UK military.

Mary McAleese is a disgrace to republicans in struggle against this Windsor monarchy world-wide for entertaining Elizabeth Windsor and her family and if McAleese had any notion of the duties of president she would understand a Queen's visit as an unconstitutional subordination of the rights of the Irish people to an illegitimate monarch.

I can only hope that this planned visit is called off





McAleese must be impeached.

<Edited by Jenny to remove some remarks of questionable legality>

 
djgordy
723655.  Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:22 am Reply with quote

Have a nice time in prison dude.

 
CB27
723671.  Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:44 am Reply with quote

Peter Dow wrote:
<Edited by Jenny to remove some remarks of questionable legality>


I'd change "legality" to "sanity".

 
djgordy
723679.  Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:04 pm Reply with quote

Since the thread heading still appears to contain a call to assassinate the Queen, I'm thinking that the "questionable legality" might still be an issue.

 
Spud McLaren
723697.  Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:25 pm Reply with quote

The point about the English monarchy illegally holding sway over a part of the Irish mainland is one that may have some truth in it. However, I can't see how refusing to parley with your oppressor can possibly further your cause.

“The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend.” Abe Lincoln

“Do good to your friends to keep them, to your enemies to win them.” Ben Franklin

"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on. " Joseph Heller

And the most relevant one:
"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. " Moshe Dayan

 
dr.bob
723816.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:45 am Reply with quote

Is there really much point in allowing Mr Dow to carry on posting his hate-filled rants on this site? They seem to consist solely of absurd anti-monarchist rantings.

Now, in and of themselves, that's not necessarily a reason to ban a user. However, this site is supposed to be about encouraging debate amongst users. Someone posts an opinion, someone else disagrees, and a stimulating and enlightening debate ensues.

By contrast, the only time I've ever seen Mr Dow engage in a debate is with his very second post, where he replied to a few points that Neotenic raised. He then ignored all of the rest of the arguments. Since that time, he's just popped up occasionally to post a new rant.

Now, I don't like banning users as I feel it smacks of censorship. I'm also suggesting this move here in the public forum so that people can defend Mr Dow's actions or, hopefully, so that Mr Dow can argue his own corner (for once).

However, by posting long rants and then not bothering to defend them, I strongly suspect that Mr Dow's sole reason for posting to this site is to get some kind of search engine recognition for his views. I object to someone using this site just to improve the visibility of their arguments without any respect for what this site stands for so, for that reason, I'm seriously considering banning him from this site.

Any thoughts from other users would be welcome.

 
samivel
723838.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:31 am Reply with quote

Assuming you're right about the posts being stuck here solely to achieve search engine recognition, then maybe it'd be quite fun to change them all to pro-monarchist hagiographical slush, but I expect it'd take too much time.

I don't think I'd lose too much sleep if these rants were to stop appearing here.

 
Spud McLaren
723840.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:22 am Reply with quote

Well, a google on Peter Dow certainly explains a few things. Here's an example. OK, so he's only saying what he believes. I would suggest that we just let him, and take care not to fall into the trap I just fell into, that of replying unnecessarily.

I hardly think that the few posts he's made here so far are going to boost his web presence any more than is there already - he seems to be an able self-publicist. Don't the mods have the ability to shift posts to a more appropriate thread? If that's so, any posts inappropriate to the thread could be moved, or threads started on the same subject as another could be merged or deleted - there's virtual storage space to consider. But I too would feel reluctant to apply censorship, especially as he's not entirely unanimously opposed here (I would have thought, in terms of legality of reign over "foreign" territories).

Although - this is the QI site, and having done minimal research on Mr Dow (if this is the same person - it appears so) I don't find his views AAI (At All Interesting), as they don't give me any new information.


Last edited by Spud McLaren on Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:19 am; edited 2 times in total

 
legspin
723880.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:11 am Reply with quote

What a thundering Moron.

 
Spud McLaren
723881.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:16 am Reply with quote

Me, or Mr Dow?

Just so's I know...

 
ali
723884.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:24 am Reply with quote

Stripped of the invective, his posts do raise some interesting questions - e.g. in his post above, where do you draw the line between principle and realpolitik? On the other hand, if all he's giving us is diatribe rather than debate, I can't see that he'd be missed...

 
scoot
723885.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:27 am Reply with quote

This idiot needs to be banned if he is going to keep calling for people to break the law as he has done in the thread title. I wonder what legal ramifications this site would face if an assassination attempt was made and the perpetrator mentioned this thread.

 
Peter Dow
723941.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:31 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
<Edited by Jenny to remove some remarks of questionable legality>

How can anyone expect me to defend my position and arguments here if I am not even allowed by Jenny to state them in the original post?

There are a number of forums to debate in on the internet and it stands to reason that I am going to put more effort in where my posts are not summarily censored. Also I am not even allowed to link to my own website in my signature here!

I am barely tolerated in this forum and not at all encouraged by the moderator here.

On the general point of law and politics.

Peter Dow wrote:


Spartacus broke Roman slave law. Jesus broke Roman law. Robin Hood broke the Sheriff of Nottingham and Evil King John's law. Wallace broke Edward I's law. Churchill broke Hitler's law. Nelson Mandela broke Apartheid law.

Sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be broken and overthrown, so that nobody can ever enforce such a law ever again. That's the position every good socialist would defend.


Now Jenny dear if it were not for some law-breaking suffragettes you would not have the vote so I suggest you develop an interest in a political education, get one and stop censoring this forum.


Last edited by Peter Dow on Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total

 
masterfroggy
723943.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:34 am Reply with quote

Peter Dow wrote:
Spartacus broke Roman slave law. Jesus broke Roman law. Robin Hood broke the Sheriff of Nottingham and Evil King John's law. Wallace broke Edward I's law. Churchill broke Hitler's law. Nelson Mandela broke Apartheid law.


You seem to have a hard time telling fact from fiction.

 
Peter Dow
723947.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:40 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Is there really much point in allowing Mr Dow to carry on posting his hate-filled rants on this site? They seem to consist solely of absurd anti-monarchist rantings.

Now, in and of themselves, that's not necessarily a reason to ban a user. However, this site is supposed to be about encouraging debate amongst users. Someone posts an opinion, someone else disagrees, and a stimulating and enlightening debate ensues.

By contrast, the only time I've ever seen Mr Dow engage in a debate is with his very second post, where he replied to a few points that Neotenic raised. He then ignored all of the rest of the arguments. Since that time, he's just popped up occasionally to post a new rant.

Now, I don't like banning users as I feel it smacks of censorship. I'm also suggesting this move here in the public forum so that people can defend Mr Dow's actions or, hopefully, so that Mr Dow can argue his own corner (for once).

However, by posting long rants and then not bothering to defend them, I strongly suspect that Mr Dow's sole reason for posting to this site is to get some kind of search engine recognition for his views. I object to someone using this site just to improve the visibility of their arguments without any respect for what this site stands for so, for that reason, I'm seriously considering banning him from this site.

Any thoughts from other users would be welcome.

Ah so to encourage debate you are considering banning me?

Presumably then you got your doctorate at a university with a royal charter, Dr Bob?

 

Page 1 of 7
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group