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

  1. 21
  2. 10
  3. 9
  4. 8
  5. 7
  6. 7
  7. 6
  8. 6
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33.  @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
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49.  @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
  50.  @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