Originally posted by FMFYes so if you know and understand his, why are you insisting that Duchess64 provide a direct quotation for it?
Not giving them political status was a dyed-in-the-wool political response to the fact that they were the most toxic and overtly political prisoners in the UK at the time ~ everyone knew it, the general public knew it, the IRA knew it, and Thatcher and the Tories knew it.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause it seems both you and Duchess64 are interested in what was said rather than delve into the real politics that were going on. If you are happy to settle for the content of calculated statements to the media ~ rather than the political reality as, I think, was known and understood by all sides at the time, even if you may have forgotten ~ then where did Thatcher refer to Joe Mcdonnell, Francis Hughes. Raymond Mccreesh, Patsy O'hara, Kevin Lynch, Martin Hurson and Kieran Doherty as "common criminals". I don't think she did. She said it about Bobby Sands, but I think she was careful not to use the same sound bite again once the political crisis got deeper. I could be wrong. A quote would settle this point.
Yes so if you know and understand his, why are you insisting that Duchess64 provide a direct quotation for it?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFBecause it seems both you and Duchess64 are interested in what was said rather than delve into the real politics that were going on.
Because it seems both you and Duchess64 are interested in what was said rather than delve into the real politics that were going on. If you are happy to settle for the content of calculated statements to the media ~ rather than the political reality as, I think, was know and understood by all sides ~ then where did Thatcher refer to Joe Mcdonnell, Francis Hughe ...[text shortened]... think she was careful not to use the same sound bite again once the political crisis got deeper.
This does not explain why you were insisting on a direct quotation when you already knew and have acknowledged that they were not given political status but were treated as common criminals. No one is disputing the political reality but it seems that in your ardour to land a blow you have been caught insisting that Duchess64 produce a direct quotation for values that you very well know existed. Now why would you do that? Its very peculiar.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI have read your explanation twice and it still makes no sense. I don't disagree with you I simply don't understand why you are asking for evidence for a value that you yourself have acknowledged was the case??? It would make more sense if you thought that the British governments stance was NOT to hold the hunger strikers as common criminals ( a deliberate ploy as you eloquently elucidate) rather than the political prisoners they clearly were.
I think it does, in the circumstances. You should read my explanation again. If you don't accept it, that's ok by me. I don’t need you to agree with me.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm ok with you not understanding.
I have read your explanation twice and it still makes no sense. I don't disagree with you I simply don't understand why you are asking for evidence for a value that you yourself have acknowledged was the case??? It would make more sense if you thought that the British governments stance was NOT to hold the hunger strikers as common criminals ( a de ...[text shortened]... iberate ploy as you eloquently elucidate) rather than the political prisoners they clearly were.