Posted by Terence McManus on April 22, 2002 at 08:08:44 from 202.108.48.20:
In Reply to: Re: Erskine Childers: WasDo Agents Have to be Consistent..? posted by Andy Morley on April 22, 2002 at 06:53:10:
< Sorry - this was my first posting on this thread. I did not put forward any principle. I replied because, firstly, I don't believe that Childers was an agent and his case does not support the premise that agents do not need to be consistent He was an open advocate of Irish home rule, resigning his Commons post in 1910 to devote his time to promoting independence for Ireland. His only clandestine act that I'm aware of was the gun-running episode and I guess that even in 1914 things were not so relaxed that he could bring them into Ireland openly:- Dublin Custom's Officer "Anything to declare sir?" And secondly, since I have always admired Erskine Childers, I wanted to clarify the circumstances under which he was executed as a traitor by the Irish government. He found himself on the loosing side of a civil war having acted in what he saw as the country's best interests: nothing, clandestine or despicable in that. In fact I do agree with the premise that secret agents are often not consistent - but neither are their political masters. :-)}
REC "Only 120 Mauser rifles and some gun cotton".
DCO "No spirits or tobacco? Thank you sir."