Welsh evolved AFTER the English invasion separated the post-Roman Britons. The evolution of Welsh from can be seen in the surviving manuscripts. Bretons are descendants of Britons that migrated from Britain to Armorica - Gaul, before the Franks invaded and it became France, and before the Welsh were called the Welsh. The British at the time called themselves just that, and that includes all those people in what was the Roman province of Britain in the early 5th century. Try reading the fucking Historia Britonnum - written in the 9th century - and see what the Welsh call themselves in there. I'll give you a hint - it's not Welsh!

Wales comes from the English word for foreigner. It is derogatory slang meaning serf, slave. Just as Scot means "raider, pirate, thief" and was an insulting term for someone who came from Ireland.

The Irish (and thus Scots) spoke Gaelic. That's Q Celtic - just as the Manx do. The British spoke P Celtic. The British tongue split into Breton, Welsh, Cornish and Cumbric. That's the dialect of where I live, Cumbria (Cumberland), which has the same root as Cymru.


You are a fucking idiot and don't even know it.

You fucking colonials are always so bloody protective over what you perceive as your pure Celtic ancestry but you haven't a fucking clue about the real history of the country your ancestors came from. You're the one who deserves the pity.

Sorry if you feel tarred with the same broad brush but this isn't the first time I've had to deal with Americans who play up their "Celtic" heritage but are pretty ignorant of the actual history. It does strike me as odd that the American Irish, Scots and apparently even Welsh all seem to make far more of it than the insular versions do. For example, I'm 1/4 scots and none of my Scottish relatives ever wear a kilt, except I think uncle Andrew once at a wedding when I was 2.

I'm sure Padre knows who I'm thinking of in particular as I let loose with the rant above, but it could be applied to others as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h.../middle_east/8034565.stm

The inquiry says Israel's use of white phosphorous was reckless in Gaza

A United Nations inquiry into attacks by Israeli forces on UN property during the Gaza conflict four months ago has heavily criticised Israel's army.

It found Israel to blame in six out of nine incidents when death or injury were caused to people sheltering at UN property and UN buildings were damaged.

In one case, Palestinian militants were found to have fired at a UN warehouse.

The Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, rejected the report, saying it was biased.

"We have the most moral army in the world," he said.

"IDF [Israeli Defense Force] commanders and soldiers made every effort to avoid hurting uninvolved civilians."

He accused Hamas of hiding its fighters among civilians and in the vicinity of UN installations.

The UN report says the Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside and recommends further investigation into possible war crimes.

One of the incidents highlighted in the document is the firing of artillery shells near a UN-run school in Jabalia where Palestinians were sheltering on 6 January.

The panel says more than 40 people died outside the school - Israel says only 12 were killed, and seven of them were "terror operatives".

The board of inquiry also criticises Israel's use of white phosphorus shells which the UN says caused the incineration of the UN's main food warehouse in Gaza.

Reparations sought

The BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN says it is a hard-hitting report which includes heavy criticism of the Israeli military's actions and subsequent explanations and justifications.

UN REPORT'S MAIN FINDINGS Israeli army responsible in six cases in which UN property was damaged and UN staff and other civilians hurt or killed No military activity was carried out from within UN premises in any of the incidents Israeli military's actions "involved varying degrees of negligence or recklessness" Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside Case studies: Weapons use

The UN board's first recommendation seeks "formal acknowledgment" by Israel that its initial public statement that Palestinians had fired from the school grounds and from within the UN field office compound "were untrue and are regretted".

A later Israeli inquiry said militants had fired from a site about 80m away from the school.

Israel also contends that Hamas militants had positioned themselves near the UN relief agency headquarters.

Another recommendation says the UN should take appropriate action to seek reparation for all deaths and injuries involving its personnel and property.

The report says Israel's actions were in breach of the agreement that UN premises and those sheltering within them should be immune from attack, something which cannot be set aside for military action.

The board says investigating the deaths outside the UN school is outside its remit.

It recommends that this and allegations of war crimes committed in Gaza and southern Israel by Palestinian militants and Israel should be investigated by another inquiry.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has stressed this report is not a legal document.