General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

John Brereton
Irish History Podcast
comments

Comments by "John Brereton" (@johnbrereton5229) on "Irish History Podcast" channel.

@frunomaol5069 It wasn't because of the English ! England had ceased to exist as a seperate country since the Act of Union of 1707. This was brought about by the Scottish Stuart dynasty who had been trying since the Union of Crowns in 1603. So at this time it was the British state.
21
This sign was put up and photographed to be used in the Irish centre in London. So It wasn't really an actual room to let sign at all .
10
@philipocarroll 'Nah' ????????? how quaint 🤣🤣🤣🤣 The English resisted the Scottish Stuart union for 100 years before finally succumbing in 1707. The English Parliament became a British Parliament and unlike all the regions of the UK to this day, they all have their own Parliaments, England still doesn't ! Also the Queen at the time of the famine was Victoria, how English was she ? Not very, at all it seems with her German descended father and her mother from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, even her first language was German and raised by a German governess. She later married her German cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and the couple privately spoke German together. Though I'm sure you will find any convoluted way to blame the English.
9
@anthonykaiser974 No, British policy wasn't the major cause of the famine. The famine was created by crop failures all over Europe, which you agree did happened. Ireland suffered worse because of their reliance on one crop, the potatoe. The British response could have been better but they did buy grains from the USA and India which they took to Ireland. However, because of the crop failures all they could get was maize and the Irish were unfamiliar with this grain and didnt know how to cook it. The British also opened soup kitchens which fed millions. While British charities collected the equivalent of £55million which they used to provide relief in Ireland, this was all why they were also suffering from the same famine and financial slump themselves. This is rather strange behaviour from a country engaged in 'genocide' as some Irish nationalists like to claim.
8
@laoch5658 No, not all of them were English and many English people tried to help even though they were suffering the same Hungry Forties as the rest of Europe was at the time. They were also suffering from the same Corn Laws which made their daily bread unaffordable.
7
@DaraghCarroll British control, not English.
7
@jamesleonard7439 She will probably find a way to try and blame that on the 'English' too.
6
@emcc8598 Yes , but it wasn't an actual sign it was a mock up.
6
@georgebarnes8163 The whole of Britain as well as the rest of Europe suffered, it was known as the Hungry Forties it wasn't just Ireland.
5
@paudieokeeffe3739 The Hungry Forties as this famine was called, raged all across Europe, it wasnt a genocide. Famines occurred regularly in Europe since ancient times.
5
@jacquelynpekar How could they be under English rule when England didnt exist from 1707 ?
4
@jamesleonard7439 Yes James, in fact there are more people of Irish descent living in England today than there are in Ireland itself. Rather strange behaviour towards your supposed oppressors, wouldn't you agree ?
4
@emcc8598 The only photograph of this image is held at the Irish Studies Centre of London Metropolitan University. The photograph emerged in the 1980s but the University has conceded that it is of 'somewhat uncertain provenance' they don't even know where or when it was taken or by whom. However, old news paper clippings shows that it was mocked up for a Exhibition at the now defuct Irish centre at Islington, called an 'Irish Experience'.
4
@emcc8598 Provenance merely means where an object originated, the provenance of this photograph is unknown. Its authenticity as a photograph is not disputed it does exist. However, the authenticity of the original poster that is depicted in this photograph is disputed and can not be proven to have actually existed. Also the Commission for Racial Equality in 1997 used this very same image that we are discussing. It therefore isn't a validation of its authenticity, quite the reverse. However, at this moment in time there is a concerted attempt to denigrate Britain and its past by inventing history. A recent book called 'A Black King of Anglo Saxon England: King Offa' claims that the Anglo/Brythonic King Offa was in fact neither, but a black African. The cover is even adorned with a picture of King Offa suitably depicted as such. No doubt in the future, people will be having this same conversation and claiming this book and picture are evidence that he was African. Both are of course nonsense.
4
@TheCho-k4m Did your Irish parents also tell you that the Irish were Europes largest and longest slave traders for over 800years, many of the slaves they traded were English ?
4
@nutrocker62 The cause was a Europe wide famine together with s financial crash and both these were exacerbated by the Corn Laws that made bread too expensive across the British isles.
4
@laoch5658 You mean British .
2
@emcc8598 Despite the fact that the Irish were present in all walks of British life right up to Prime Minister, which rather blows emcc's anti British narrative to pieces. 😊
2
The largest Irish Famine was much earlier in 1740–1741 and is known as the Bliain an Áir, ( the Year of Slaughter) and is estimated to have killed between 13% and 20% of the Irish population of 2.4 million people, a far greater loss than during the Hungry Forties that raged across Europe during the 1840s .
2
@sonjawhite5815 Yes , agreed ! I think a lot of what is claimed about the so called bad relationship between the English and the Irish is invented for political reasons.
2
@DasTubemeister It's often difficult renting a room when you have a pet.
2
 @mervconlan3450 'England' ceased to exist in 1707 after the Scottish Act of Union, it was Britain afterwards.
2
@hanout6683 Racist Nonsense !
2
So why did the British set up soup kitchens feeding millions of Irish people and bought in grain from the USA and India. Unfortunately the only grain available was Maize that the Irish were not used to and so they couldnt cook it properly and so much was wasted. Even British charities collected £11million in aid and all at a time when Britain was also suffering from the Hungry Forties as well as a financial crash.
1
@gerardkelsh1011 Thats right ! England doesnt exist, and hasn't done since the act of Union in 1707.
1
@jacquelynpekar England didn't exist, you mean Britain but your anti English racism wont allow you to admit it.
1
@rightiswrongrightiswrong806 Yes, but the Act of Union that abolished the Kingdom of England was a Scottish idea that the English resisted for 100 years. But yes you are correct the Germans house of Hanover ruled during the famine years, but they were descended from the Stuart King James I and III .
1
@tishtosh-v5c As I've stated so many times before,England ceased to exist as a separate state after 1707. The 1707 Act of Union was a Scottish Stuart initiative that had been denied by the English for 100 years. The European Hungry Forties was during the 1845s long long after England and its Parliament ceased to exist. These are historical facts and simple mathematics, showing that the Scots played a leading role in the new state of Britain. I'm sorry that your anti English racism blinds you to this, but it seems a very common affliction in Ireland judging by these comments.
1
@irishmom6x The same 'Englishmen' who owned the landed estates in Ireland also owned most of the land in England and were in fact descended from the Norman Invaders. In fact 75% of land in England is STILL owned by them even today. Also many of the great landed estates in Irelabd owned by Protestant absentees were in Ulster and the east of Ireland and not all of these men were grasping landlords. For example, the Marquess of Rockingham who owned vast estates in Wicklow - was a caring man who did his best for his Irish tenants. However, in contrast the Norman's who invaded England really did commit genocide, during the 'Harrowing of the North' they murdered all males, including children and destroyed their homes and villages, burnt their crops and salted the land making it infertile. This led to homeless starving people desperatly searching for food and shelter during a bitter winter. Contemporary writer, John of Worcester, reported that food was so scarce that people were reduced to eating not just horses, dogs and cats but also the human flesh or their dying countrymen. This led to hundreds of thousands of deaths of the remaining families, leaving the North of England a desolate unpopulated wilderness which took generations to recover. Yet despite such brutality and a real intended genocide you don't hear the English still whingeing about it hundreds of years later.
1
@emcc8598 More fact free anti British propaganda from Mr or Mrs no name, he/she is obvious too ashamed to write under his/her own name. Which is not surprising when you read the racist nonsense this person writes.
1
@emcc8598 More nonsense from emcc who is too ashamed to use his own name when writing such racist drivel.
1
Polish involvement in the Battle of Britain though welcomed was towards the end of the battle and is over exaggerated, as is their involvement in breaking the codes. Also more Poles fought for the N4zis than on our side against them. Of course we should thank those Poles who helped, but its nonsense to over exaggerate their involvement.
1
@emcc8598 Mr Draper is not the only person to make these claims, there are others, including Simon Webb the well know author of historical books, who has also doubted the signs authenticity. I explained in my last comment the difference between Provenance and Authenticity and therefore it seems it's you, not Mr Draper who still doesn't seem to know the difference. The London Metropolitan University confirmed it received the photograph in the 1980s, so whether the mocked up, allegation is right or not is irrelevant as there is still no proof it is a genuine photograph of an actual sign. However, it can't be proved catagorically one way or the other its merely anecdotal. I can offer my own personal anecdotal evidence, I was born in London in 1950 and lived much of my life there and I never saw any such sign and so always disputed their existence. Therefore, my own personal experience is probably as valid as the anecdotal case you are pursuing, and its my first hand recollection. I'm am of course fully aware that the Race Equalty report isn't a photograph ????? What I said, is that they used it as part of their evidence, despite it not being proved as ever existing. Also, it is impossible to deny that there are countless examples of people inventing stories to denigrate and destroy British culture and History. Because there are so many and unlike the photograph we are discussing, they are very easy to prove. King Offa is merely one example that can be catagorically proved, that he was not a black African.
1
@emcc8598 The 'evidence' is only anecdotal and repeating an anecdote doesnt make it evidence. The Irish have a history of inventing anti British propaganda, like the so called 'Irish Potatoe famine' where they claim the British committed genocide by starving them to death. They fail to admit however that this famine was a part of a Europe wide famine called 'The Hungry Forties' where many people died across Europe, including in Britain itself. Or that the British opened up soup kitchens that fed millions in Ireland and even bought grain from America that they distributed to the starving. That's a strange way to starve people. As they say, a lie goes all around the world before the truth has even got its boots on.
1
@emcc8598 They did mention it in their reports and this gave it more legitimacy, though there is no evidence it ever existed. The actual photograph was exhibited circa 1989 and a contemporary news paper clipping named the photographer as someone in the 1980s picturing what she believed to be common in the 1960s. Yet a previous landmark Race relations study in the 1960s never mentioned any such signs, which they certainly would have done, if they existed. In fact, there have been many reports both in Britain and Ireland that reveal that the Irish were welcomed by the British and there was never any discrimination against them, far from it. Even the Irish News photographer Paddy Fahey who chronicled the Irish in Britain from the 1940s to the 1970s said he had recorded no such photographs any where in his collection. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that this is nothing more than anti British propaganda, because if you go back looking for the actual contemporary 'evidence' there is none !
1
@emcc8598 Some people will never accept the truth if it contradicts their pre ordained prejudices. There were indeed reports of signs saying 'No Coloured' but none saying 'No Irish' or 'no Blacks'. When restriction were suggested to stop Irish immigration to Britain even Oswald Mosely leader of the fascist black shirts wrote in 'Action' the fascist newspaper 'hands off the Irish' and went on to complain of the Coloured invasion, but went on to say the Irish are welcome here. Though these posters were later claimed to say the more offensive 'No Blacks' Therefore we can just see how these real events can be manipulated to prove a point. Just as the claimed 'No Irish' myth has. My own family has deep Irish roots and I just don't recognise the story you are telling. Also neither did the reports I have mentioned which you chose to ignore. However, when ever you discuss Irish history with people like yourself they will never accept the reality, they always want to highlight conflict, even, as in this case it didn't exist.
1
@emcc8598 Though you always berate Draper, he is far from being the only acedemic that makes this claim, a claim backed up by lots of contemporary evidence. As I stated earlier, even in my own personal experience I've never seen or heard anyone being anti Irish, even during the troubles. Let alone posting these signs and that's despite living in London at the time it was supposed to be common place . In my experience the Irish are considered family by most Brits, thats because we have far more in common than we do in contrast and many Brits like myself have deep Irish roots.
1
@emcc8598 You seem obsessed with John Draper an academic and journalist on History reclaimed. Yet fail to contradict any of the other people who have made exactly the same claims, including the contemporary Irish photographer or even my own personal experiences. I wonder why !
1
@emcc8598 History Reclaimed is a group of academics and historian who are countering the stream of misinformation (from people like you) with evidenced based facts.
1
@emcc8598 I never mentioned any Book by Paddy Fahey only that he had recorded no such photograph in his collection of Irish experiences in Britain. Which of course he would have done if they existed. In any case, even if someone else had published a book with his photos and made this claim it would still be more valid than your claim about the original sign. At least we would know who the photographer was and where and when the photograph was taken. Unlike with the claim that you are making that contains not even one of these facts.
1
@emcc8598 No the 'collection' is over 5,000 negatives that his wife donated after his death. Paddy came to London in 1940s and found work on a building site. However, Paddys passion was photography and he stated taking photographs of the many Irish people living in London. After he started recording their lives he sold the imagines to Irish newspapers back home. In 1992 he showed some of his images to another Irish man Finbar Whooley the curator of Community History in Brent. It was Whooley who recognised their value as a social record and it was he who published the book. However, the collection is the 5,000 negatives and the book doesn't contain them all, and neither are all the photographs in the book Paddys, the book is Finbars.
1
@emcc8598 Thanks for confirming what I said. Also as I also said, the book wasn't exclusively Paddy's Photographs, it was compiled by Finbar. Paddy's Collection contains over 5,000 negatives, only a fraction are in Finbars book.
1
@emcc8598 So, are you now conceding that Paddys photographic collection is not Finbars Book as you previously claimed, but Paddys archive of 5,000 photographs ? Which is what I claimed.
1
@emcc8598 Oh dear, denying reality seems to be your modus operandi.
1
@sonjawhite5815 Not really . Though there has always been movement of peoples throughout the British isles, the population of London has always been higher than the total population of the whole of Ireland. The 2011 census shows that out of a population of 8,899,375 the total white population was 4,887,435 and the irish element was only 174,974 .
1
@emcc8598 Yes and you have taken the whole packet. But I was referring to facts rather than Nationalist perpetrated myths.
1
@emcc8598 No they don't, all my German friends are deeply ashamed, though I tell them they have nothing to be ashamed of, they weren't even born. I think you need to read real historical facts, not racist propaganda spread by Irish nationalists. Or indeed the contents of a satirical magazine like Punch, have you seen their caricatures of the King at the time, or indeed English yokels or the poor ?
1
@emcc8598 The past was brutal across the globe, in Britain as well as in Ireland too. Though if the British 'ethnically cleansed Ireland' they didnt do a very thorough job of it, the Irish population has remained consistent for centuries. Also the British Empire was not as brutal as many others and that's why their colonies still voluntarily remain as members of the Commonwealth. No other Empire can boast this, in fact many couldn't wait to leave theirs.
1
@emcc8598 Life was brutal for everyone that wasn't rich in the past all over the world, including in Britain itself the worlds richest country in the world at the time. However, Irish officials destroyed the census data in order to protect privacy and hide personal details from prying eyes so the population for Ireland is not so easy to find. However, by using birth and death records a consensus of the population of Ireland can be gleaned and they do not support your claims. The population of Ireland has remained pretty consistent for centuries. In the 17th century the population was around 3million. After that it rose to around 4.5 million in 1800 and has remained around that figure right up untill today. Though the claim is often made that the population has never recovered from the famine that raged across Europe in the 1840s. It is claimed that the population in 1844 was 8 million yet as I have said the figures are not reliable. Nevertheless, let's accept this figure for the pupose of this debate. If true, the 8million figure is an outlier which has never been achieved before or since. The claim is made that this is because of the brutal treatment by the British, yet after 50 years membership of the EU which many claim to be beneficial to Ireland this figure has never been equalled. So either the British were dreadful brutes, or under their control Irelands population doubled, a feat never to be repeated. Add to this the fact that the Irish have always had the right to live and work in anywhere in Britain and still do to this day. If the British really hated them, would they really grant them such a privaledge ? In the 2011 British census over 6 million Brits claimed Irish descent, would Irish people really move to the country of their oppressor ? You tried to compare the Brits to the Nazi's, but the Jews didn't rush to live in Germany after their brutal treatment, they ran the other way. Yet many Irish have sought refuge in Britain for centuries and are now proud Brits themselves. Therefore, the narrative you are trying to promote is not supported by the facts.
1
@emcc8598 My detailed reply seems to have disappeared, strangely ????? However, let's try again, the population of Ireland has stood around 4.5 million from the late 18th century onwards and has never fallen as drastically as you claim. Though In 1844 it is claimed the population was 8million, and it is this figure that is used to justify the claim. Yet this figure is an outlier and if true it has only been achived during Brtish administration and yet despite 50 years of EU membership it's never been equalled. Does this mean the EU has been a disaster for Ireland and only under British rule Ireland had its golden era ? You can't have it both ways. Also the plantation of Ulster was under the Scottish Stuart king and most of those who arrived there were Scots, not English. The Scoti people of course, originally came from Ireland and invaded Alba and colonised the whole country even changing its name to Scot- land. Also this brutal image you like to propagate about England is not supported by the facts. The Irish have always had the right to live and work anywhere in Britain which many Irish people have taken the opportunity to do. In the 2011 census over 6 million Brits claim Irish descent, that's around the same as the current Irish population. Would these Irish men and women really go and live in the land of their brutal oppressors and even become Brits themselves? I sincerely doubt it, I certainly cant image a certain persecuted religion setting up home in Germany after they really were brutalised there in the 1930-40s. Yet you have been trying to equate their treatment by the Germans to the Irish treatment by the Brits. But again the actual facts don't support your claims .
1
@Adaman368 As I said, if it's true that the population reached 8million it was an outlier that only happened under the golden age of British rule. Under the 50 years of rule by the EU dictatorship it's never reached such dizzying heights. However, with the EU imposed immigration rules Ireland might finally return to 8million. Only they wont be Irish .
1
@emcc8598 I'm English , but I have deep Irish roots. Just like many English people do, we are after all, one people. Though Irish nationalists like to create devisions to justify their racist hatred. England has been invaded many times by various peoples but we don't hate their descendents like the Irish do. In the 11th century the Norman's committed the brutal 'Harrowing of the North' which was an actual genocide. Nevertheless, we don't still bear a grudge on their descendents or invent other atrocities to justify racism against them. It was the same Norman's who invaded Ireland too, but you prefer to blame the English. Also I was referring to the Jews, not the Poles. More Poles fought for the N4azis than fought against them. However, the persecuted Jews didn't rush back to Germany like the Irish did to England, proof if ever there was that they never hated us, as you and others like to claim.
1
@Adaman368 No, not denial , actual facts !
1
@emcc8598 Ireland still hasn't recovered its British era population and that's after 50 years of EU dictatorship rule. But don't worry, the rate your EU masters are sending over immigrants you'll soon be full to bursting.
1
@Adaman368 Deny reality and invent fiction , what's new !
1
@emcc8598 Only in one year 1844 did they reach 8.4 million before falling back to 4.5million. Therefore, if you believe that 8.4 million figure you also have to accept it was only under British rule. Because after 100 years of independence and 50 years of EU membership it has NEVER reached that figure before or since. The latest population figures of ireland are 7million but 24% of that is because of Immigration only 76% of them (5 million) are actually Irish. Also as I, said more Poles fought FOR the N4zis than fought against them, so of course they didn't mind moving there after WW2. However, during WW2 many irish men fought for Britain even deserting from the neutral Irish Republican Army to do it, a strange thing to do if they really hated them as you claim.
1
@emcc8598 No, 200,000 joined the British forces alone, and as I said many deserted the neutral Irish army to do it. A strange thing to do if you hate the British, as is 6milliom of Irish descent who live in Britain. It seems nothing you say adds up either mathematically, or logically. Perhaps that's because something else is influencing your conclusions, racism !
1
@emcc8598 5,000 Irish soldiers deserted the Irish army to fight in British forces and when they returned they were stripped of all their pension rights and black listed from employment. There are many tales of suffering due to these 'starvation policies' tales of children living in a slice of bread a day to survive as their families were forced to move from slum to slum trying to scrape a meager living. It wasn't untill 2013 that the Irish Government apologised and offered compensation, but by this time many were dead.
1
@Adaman368 Pardoned after they and their innocent children were persecuted and starved for 70 years.
1
@emcc8598 British deserters were given an amnesty in 1953 by Winston Churchill, Irish deserters had to wait 70 years until 2013 for theirs from the Irish Government.
1
@emcc8598 That's probably because the 'ethnic cleansing' is either exaggerated or didn't happen. Why would so many Irish men volunteer to fight for Britiain for centuries, if this was really the case ?
1
@Adaman368 I don't claim to know more history than historians, I'm just repeating historical facts, not those that have been twisted by Irish nationalist to further their cause. The colonisation of Ireland started with the Normans who had already colonised England. The 'Irish Potatoe Famine' was in reality European wide. Its known as the Hungry Forties and affected all Europe, even Britain. I've seen videos here on YouTube thanking American indians for sending them grain during the crisis. Yet Britain gave far more help, both Government led and private charities, the biggest one raised £52million which they distributed to the Irish poor. Yet the British are never thanked, they are accused of purposefully starving the Irish instead, despite much evidence to the contrary. Across the world many countries have suffered real abuses and far worse than the Irish, yet don't carry a grudge for centuries. So perhaps it's time this hostility was finally buried, and we learn to get on, we have far more in common than many will admit.
1
@Adaman368 King Henry II was a Norman Angevin King who only spoke French not English. He was the most powerful King in Europe who was not only King of England, Ireland Scotland and Wales but also more of France than the French King. Despite all this you like to think he is English, not Norman French. I suppose it's your anti English bigotry that only believes what you want to believe. You obviously need help.
1
@Adaman368 More exaggerated fact free anti British racism. There appears to be no point trying to have a conversation with such a racist bigot as you obviously are. As I said previously you need psychiatric help.
1
@emcc8598 William the Conqueror took the English crown by force. He was related to Edward the Confessor who was half Norman because his mother was Emma of Normandy a relative of King William. I notice you are prepared to accept that Henry II was King of England by Conquest, but you won't accept he was King of Ireland by conquest ? 😁
1
@Adaman368 No he wasn't crowned but he did rule Ireland . After his invasion he accepted the submissions of many important Irish Kings across Ireland like Mac Carthaigh, Mór Ua Brianin as well as the Gaelic Kings of Leinster etc etc etc . Many of these rulers were Anglo Normans who had now become Irish, but do you accept them as Irish as you so readily accept the Norman's as English ? Henry II, though King of England was born in France and died in France. His father was the Count of Anjou and he didn't even speak English, so how English was he ?
1
@emcc8598 Exactly the same could be said about the Irish. No country is pure bred they are all an amalgam of different peoples. However, the English were one of the earliest countries to form under one Kingdom.
1
@Adaman368 I said they weren't English at this time, they became English later. Henry II though King of England was born in France the son of the French Count of Anjou and even died in France, how was he in anyway English ?
1
@emcc8598 Ha ! Surely it's the Irish who claim to be of pure stock unrelated to anyone else, not the English !
1
@ALavin-en1kr Thanks ALavin, so the Irish are the new Jews are they ? You certainly have a great imagination. I'm English, but like many English people I have deep Irish roots, in fact there are more people of Irish descent in England than there are in Ireland itself. I wonder why they all moved to live in the country of their oppressors????? Answer = what you claim is all bullshit !
1
@ALavin-en1kr Oh Alavin, your maths is as accurate as your history lesson. 700 centuries is 70,000 years ?????? Yet Ireland was under ice then and the concept of a united Ireland was only ever concocted in the 8th century AD. Queen Elizabeth I. was behind setting up Dublin University and Trinity Colledge in 1592, so how exactly were you denied education ? Also the laws in Ireland were exactly the same as in Britain and throughout the Empire, so how exactly were you denied education and human rights ??????
1
Some Irish nationalist have a rather racist attitude to the English who they blame for all their problems despite being a free self governing country for over 100 years. Yet these same 'Englishmen' who they complain owned all the landed estates in Ireland also owned most of the land in England and were in fact descended from the Norman Invaders there. In fact 75% of land in England is STILL owned by them even today. Though many of the great landed estates in Ireland owned by Protestant absentees were in Ulster and the east of Ireland and not all of these men were grasping landlords. For example, the Marquess of Rockingham who owned vast estates in Wicklow - was a caring man who did his best for his Irish tenants. However, in contrast the Norman's who invaded England really did commit genocide, during the 'Harrowing of the North' they murdered all males, including male children and destroyed their homes and villages, burnt their crops and salted the land making it infertile. This led to the remaining 25% left alive now homeless and starving desperatly searching for food and shelter during a bitter winter. Contemporary writer, John of Worcester, reported that food was so scarce that people were reduced to eating not just horses, dogs and cats but also the human flesh or their dying countrymen. Nothing like this happened in Ireland, in contrast they were given £millions by both the British Government and by British Charities. While in England in the 12th century there was no help at all and this led to hundreds of thousands of deaths of the remaining families in a larger proportion of the total English population of only 2million than in Ireland during the Hungry Forties. This left the North of England in particular a desolate unpopulated wilderness which took generations to recover. Yet despite such brutality and a real intended genocide you don't hear the English still whingeing about it hundreds of years later.
1
@alantentevier4018 Yes, of course !
1
@niamhmacmahon3670 Anti British Racist nonsense, not supported by the facts.
1