GAA Outreach in Action...

[deiseach]

Times have changed since Dungiven named their club, if it was to renamed today I am not it would happen but I don't think that you can retrospectively change these things.

I think the GAA/Ulster Council should be harder on clubs that host tournaments in honour of terrorists etc..  (Looking at the example that started this thread).  As a GAA member I entitled to have an opinion on what a club does if I feel it reflects on the rest of the organisation.

I also think the GAA should engage with those that want to constructively engage with them, accept their suggestions and act on them where appropriate.  There is no point in engaging with the Jim McAllisters of the world.  Nothing the GAA could ever do will appease them (short of disbanding). However someone who is genuninely interested in supporting/playing the games should always be listen to.

Myles Na G is one that there is no point engaging with and will take umbrage with everything.  Previously he has criticised the GAA for not having a formal view on candidates for the Irish Presidency and eligibility rules of international soccer.  Not only did he want them to have such formal views but ranted that members were no disciplined for expressing contrary positions to these views.

That's what you are dealing with here.

/Jim

Can you provide a link to those posts? They don't ring a bell with me.

Search out the topic on Michael O Neill and Gerry Armstrong's efforts to recruit nationalists to play for OWC. You criticized the GAA for not dealing with Joe Brolly for an article saying nationalist would not be happy playing for OWN. Equally you proposed that Jarlath Burns be disciplined for attending a canvassing event for Martin McGuinness.

/Jim

I don't want to go searching for them, thanks - too much like hard work.  The onus is on you to do that. I'm happy to stand over what I've written on here, but I don't think I should be expected to defend edited versions of what I'm alleged to have said, or to go trawling through pages of old stuff to find out what I actually did say.

Here you go.

In the course of this thread I've already named 2, namely Brolly and Burns. How many do you want? These two may or may not hold an official post within the organisation, but in many ways they are the public face of the GAA. They are broadcasters and journalists who talk about the GAA on television and at public functions. They are both columnists for 'Gaelic Life'. So far, I've yet to hear of the GAA publicly distancing itself from their comments. When Burns went on a pro IRA rant on behalf of MMcG, I didn't hear any GAA 'official' step forward and say that he wasn't speaking on behalf of the organisation. Until I do, I'll assume his comments meet with general approval within the organisation. Ditto Brolly's anti NI rant.

[Nally Stand]

You only felt threatened by the IRA and nobody else because...

I was too young to be targeted  by loyalists, but I wasn't too young to be caught up in a no warning bomb.

OK so ignoring the facts that:

- Loyalists planted countless no warning bombs
- Loyalists/security forces between them were responsible for many more children's deaths than the IRA (almost twice as many)

Can I also ask, were loyalists/security forces no threat to your older family members and neighbours, or was your only concern for yourself?

[Franko]

You only felt threatened by the IRA and nobody else because...

I was too young to be targeted  by loyalists, but I wasn't too young to be caught up in a no warning bomb.

OK so ignoring the facts that:

- Loyalists planted countless no warning bombs
- Loyalists/security forces between them were responsible for many more children's deaths than the IRA (almost twice as many)

Can I also ask, were loyalists/security forces no threat to your older family members and neighbours, or was your only concern for yourself?

MNaG's argument lies in tatters yet again... 

[Myles Na G.]

Were the IRA the only group who bombed? Were the other groups not responsible for the deaths of children in nationalist areas?
I'm genuinely baffled by this.

Loyalists did plant bombs - McGurks Bar and the Dublin and Monaghan bombs spring immediately to mind - but  they were nowhere near as prolific as the provos.

Only because they did not have the capability to have a prolonged bombing campaign rather than their conscious got the better of them

Absolutely right.

[Myles Na G.]

Times have changed since Dungiven named their club, if it was to renamed today I am not it would happen but I don't think that you can retrospectively change these things.

I think the GAA/Ulster Council should be harder on clubs that host tournaments in honour of terrorists etc..  (Looking at the example that started this thread).  As a GAA member I entitled to have an opinion on what a club does if I feel it reflects on the rest of the organisation.

I also think the GAA should engage with those that want to constructively engage with them, accept their suggestions and act on them where appropriate.  There is no point in engaging with the Jim McAllisters of the world.  Nothing the GAA could ever do will appease them (short of disbanding). However someone who is genuninely interested in supporting/playing the games should always be listen to.

Myles Na G is one that there is no point engaging with and will take umbrage with everything.  Previously he has criticised the GAA for not having a formal view on candidates for the Irish Presidency and eligibility rules of international soccer.  Not only did he want them to have such formal views but ranted that members were no disciplined for expressing contrary positions to these views.

That's what you are dealing with here.

/Jim

Can you provide a link to those posts? They don't ring a bell with me.

Search out the topic on Michael O Neill and Gerry Armstrong's efforts to recruit nationalists to play for OWC. You criticized the GAA for not dealing with Joe Brolly for an article saying nationalist would not be happy playing for OWN. Equally you proposed that Jarlath Burns be disciplined for attending a canvassing event for Martin McGuinness.

/Jim

I don't want to go searching for them, thanks - too much like hard work.  The onus is on you to do that. I'm happy to stand over what I've written on here, but I don't think I should be expected to defend edited versions of what I'm alleged to have said, or to go trawling through pages of old stuff to find out what I actually did say.

Here you go.

In the course of this thread I've already named 2, namely Brolly and Burns. How many do you want? These two may or may not hold an official post within the organisation, but in many ways they are the public face of the GAA. They are broadcasters and journalists who talk about the GAA on television and at public functions. They are both columnists for 'Gaelic Life'. So far, I've yet to hear of the GAA publicly distancing itself from their comments. When Burns went on a pro IRA rant on behalf of MMcG, I didn't hear any GAA 'official' step forward and say that he wasn't speaking on behalf of the organisation. Until I do, I'll assume his comments meet with general approval within the organisation. Ditto Brolly's anti NI rant.

Thanks for that. I'm happy to stand over what I wrote there. I also think it shows that Jim's summary of my views was a misrepresentation.

[deiseach]

Times have changed since Dungiven named their club, if it was to renamed today I am not it would happen but I don't think that you can retrospectively change these things.

I think the GAA/Ulster Council should be harder on clubs that host tournaments in honour of terrorists etc..  (Looking at the example that started this thread).  As a GAA member I entitled to have an opinion on what a club does if I feel it reflects on the rest of the organisation.

I also think the GAA should engage with those that want to constructively engage with them, accept their suggestions and act on them where appropriate.  There is no point in engaging with the Jim McAllisters of the world.  Nothing the GAA could ever do will appease them (short of disbanding). However someone who is genuninely interested in supporting/playing the games should always be listen to.

Myles Na G is one that there is no point engaging with and will take umbrage with everything.  Previously he has criticised the GAA for not having a formal view on candidates for the Irish Presidency and eligibility rules of international soccer.  Not only did he want them to have such formal views but ranted that members were no disciplined for expressing contrary positions to these views.

That's what you are dealing with here.

/Jim

Can you provide a link to those posts? They don't ring a bell with me.

Search out the topic on Michael O Neill and Gerry Armstrong's efforts to recruit nationalists to play for OWC. You criticized the GAA for not dealing with Joe Brolly for an article saying nationalist would not be happy playing for OWN. Equally you proposed that Jarlath Burns be disciplined for attending a canvassing event for Martin McGuinness.

/Jim

I don't want to go searching for them, thanks - too much like hard work.  The onus is on you to do that. I'm happy to stand over what I've written on here, but I don't think I should be expected to defend edited versions of what I'm alleged to have said, or to go trawling through pages of old stuff to find out what I actually did say.

Here you go.

In the course of this thread I've already named 2, namely Brolly and Burns. How many do you want? These two may or may not hold an official post within the organisation, but in many ways they are the public face of the GAA. They are broadcasters and journalists who talk about the GAA on television and at public functions. They are both columnists for 'Gaelic Life'. So far, I've yet to hear of the GAA publicly distancing itself from their comments. When Burns went on a pro IRA rant on behalf of MMcG, I didn't hear any GAA 'official' step forward and say that he wasn't speaking on behalf of the organisation. Until I do, I'll assume his comments meet with general approval within the organisation. Ditto Brolly's anti NI rant.

Thanks for that. I'm happy to stand over what I wrote there. I also think it shows that Jim's summary of my views was a misrepresentation.

White is black...

[Myles Na G.]

You only felt threatened by the IRA and nobody else because...

I was too young to be targeted  by loyalists, but I wasn't too young to be caught up in a no warning bomb.

OK so ignoring the facts that:

- Loyalists planted countless no warning bombs
- Loyalists/security forces between them were responsible for many more children's deaths than the IRA (almost twice as many)

Can I also ask, were loyalists/security forces no threat to your older family members and neighbours, or was your only concern for yourself?

I said that loyalists planted many fewer no warning bombs than the provos, not that loyalists didn't plant any no warning bombs. Go read the post again.

Likewise, read this:
'Of that list, only the IRA was a threat to me personally. The others were more of a threat to my father and older members of my family, but IRA bombs killed children too.' Your wee fingers are so desperate to get typing your responses, that you don't stop to read what's been posted. Or, you just make up your own version. Which is it?

[Nally Stand]

You only felt threatened by the IRA and nobody else because...

I was too young to be targeted  by loyalists, but I wasn't too young to be caught up in a no warning bomb.

OK so ignoring the facts that:

- Loyalists planted countless no warning bombs
- Loyalists/security forces between them were responsible for many more children's deaths than the IRA (almost twice as many)

Can I also ask, were loyalists/security forces no threat to your older family members and neighbours, or was your only concern for yourself?

I said that loyalists planted many fewer no warning bombs than the provos, not that loyalists didn't plant any no warning bombs. Go read the post again.

Likewise, read this:
'Of that list, only the IRA was a threat to me personally. The others were more of a threat to my father and older members of my family, but IRA bombs killed children too.' Your wee fingers are so desperate to get typing your responses, that you don't stop to read what's been posted. Or, you just make up your own version. Which is it?

You said you did not fear the security forces and that they were no threat to you or your family. Would that be the same security forces who colluded so deeply with loyalists in order to carry out the attacks which you saw as a threat to older family members? Odd that you didn't fear such a threat.

You also said that "only the IRA" was a threat to you personally. Surely the fact that combined loyalists & security forces killed almost twice as many children as the IRA did, means that the IRA was not the only threat?

[Myles Na G.]

You only felt threatened by the IRA and nobody else because...

I was too young to be targeted  by loyalists, but I wasn't too young to be caught up in a no warning bomb.

OK so ignoring the facts that:

- Loyalists planted countless no warning bombs
- Loyalists/security forces between them were responsible for many more children's deaths than the IRA (almost twice as many)

Can I also ask, were loyalists/security forces no threat to your older family members and neighbours, or was your only concern for yourself?

I said that loyalists planted many fewer no warning bombs than the provos, not that loyalists didn't plant any no warning bombs. Go read the post again.

Likewise, read this:
'Of that list, only the IRA was a threat to me personally. The others were more of a threat to my father and older members of my family, but IRA bombs killed children too.' Your wee fingers are so desperate to get typing your responses, that you don't stop to read what's been posted. Or, you just make up your own version. Which is it?

You said you did not fear the security forces and that they were no threat to you or your family. Would that be the same security forces who colluded so deeply with loyalists in order to carry out the attacks which you saw as a threat to older family members? Odd that you didn't fear such a threat.

You also said that "only the IRA" was a threat to you personally. Surely the fact that combined loyalists & security forces killed almost twice as many children as the IRA did, means that the IRA was not the only threat?

The level of collusion wasn't understood by the general public in those early days, so your point is only valid with the benefit of hindsight.

[Nally Stand]

You only felt threatened by the IRA and nobody else because...

I was too young to be targeted  by loyalists, but I wasn't too young to be caught up in a no warning bomb.

OK so ignoring the facts that:

- Loyalists planted countless no warning bombs
- Loyalists/security forces between them were responsible for many more children's deaths than the IRA (almost twice as many)

Can I also ask, were loyalists/security forces no threat to your older family members and neighbours, or was your only concern for yourself?

I said that loyalists planted many fewer no warning bombs than the provos, not that loyalists didn't plant any no warning bombs. Go read the post again.

Likewise, read this:
'Of that list, only the IRA was a threat to me personally. The others were more of a threat to my father and older members of my family, but IRA bombs killed children too.' Your wee fingers are so desperate to get typing your responses, that you don't stop to read what's been posted. Or, you just make up your own version. Which is it?

You said you did not fear the security forces and that they were no threat to you or your family. Would that be the same security forces who colluded so deeply with loyalists in order to carry out the attacks which you saw as a threat to older family members? Odd that you didn't fear such a threat.

You also said that "only the IRA" was a threat to you personally. Surely the fact that combined loyalists & security forces killed almost twice as many children as the IRA did, means that the IRA was not the only threat?

The level of collusion wasn't understood by the general public in those early days, so your point is only valid with the benefit of hindsight.

The dogs on the street know the level of collusion Myles. Besides, the "security forces" alone, while wearing their uniforms rather than their loyalist balaclavas, killed almost as many children as the IRA, so again, how did that make he IRA the "only" threat?

[Myles Na G.]

You only felt threatened by the IRA and nobody else because...

I was too young to be targeted  by loyalists, but I wasn't too young to be caught up in a no warning bomb.

OK so ignoring the facts that:

- Loyalists planted countless no warning bombs
- Loyalists/security forces between them were responsible for many more children's deaths than the IRA (almost twice as many)

Can I also ask, were loyalists/security forces no threat to your older family members and neighbours, or was your only concern for yourself?

I said that loyalists planted many fewer no warning bombs than the provos, not that loyalists didn't plant any no warning bombs. Go read the post again.

Likewise, read this:
'Of that list, only the IRA was a threat to me personally. The others were more of a threat to my father and older members of my family, but IRA bombs killed children too.' Your wee fingers are so desperate to get typing your responses, that you don't stop to read what's been posted. Or, you just make up your own version. Which is it?

You said you did not fear the security forces and that they were no threat to you or your family. Would that be the same security forces who colluded so deeply with loyalists in order to carry out the attacks which you saw as a threat to older family members? Odd that you didn't fear such a threat.

You also said that "only the IRA" was a threat to you personally. Surely the fact that combined loyalists & security forces killed almost twice as many children as the IRA did, means that the IRA was not the only threat?

The level of collusion wasn't understood by the general public in those early days, so your point is only valid with the benefit of hindsight.

The dogs on the street know the level of collusion Myles. Besides, the "security forces" alone, while wearing their uniforms rather than their loyalist balaclavas, killed almost as many children as the IRA, so again, how did that make he IRA the "only" threat?

There you go again. 'Wasn't understood' - past tense. 'dogs on the street know the level of collusion' - present tense. You can't help yourself, can you?

[Nally Stand]

You only felt threatened by the IRA and nobody else because...

I was too young to be targeted  by loyalists, but I wasn't too young to be caught up in a no warning bomb.

OK so ignoring the facts that:

- Loyalists planted countless no warning bombs
- Loyalists/security forces between them were responsible for many more children's deaths than the IRA (almost twice as many)

Can I also ask, were loyalists/security forces no threat to your older family members and neighbours, or was your only concern for yourself?

I said that loyalists planted many fewer no warning bombs than the provos, not that loyalists didn't plant any no warning bombs. Go read the post again.

Likewise, read this:
'Of that list, only the IRA was a threat to me personally. The others were more of a threat to my father and older members of my family, but IRA bombs killed children too.' Your wee fingers are so desperate to get typing your responses, that you don't stop to read what's been posted. Or, you just make up your own version. Which is it?

You said you did not fear the security forces and that they were no threat to you or your family. Would that be the same security forces who colluded so deeply with loyalists in order to carry out the attacks which you saw as a threat to older family members? Odd that you didn't fear such a threat.

You also said that "only the IRA" was a threat to you personally. Surely the fact that combined loyalists & security forces killed almost twice as many children as the IRA did, means that the IRA was not the only threat?

The level of collusion wasn't understood by the general public in those early days, so your point is only valid with the benefit of hindsight.

The dogs on the street know the level of collusion Myles. Besides, the "security forces" alone, while wearing their uniforms rather than their loyalist balaclavas, killed almost as many children as the IRA, so again, how did that make he IRA the "only" threat?

There you go again. 'Wasn't understood' - past tense. 'dogs on the street know the level of collusion' - present tense. You can't help yourself, can you?

OK, I'll repost it without the typo, and maybe then you might answer my question:

The dogs on the street knew the level of collusion Myles. Besides, the "security forces" alone, while wearing their uniforms rather than their loyalist balaclavas, killed almost as many children as the IRA, so again, how did that make he IRA the "only" threat?

[theticklemister]

Brits out

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Times have changed since Dungiven named their club, if it was to renamed today I am not it would happen but I don't think that you can retrospectively change these things.

I think the GAA/Ulster Council should be harder on clubs that host tournaments in honour of terrorists etc..  (Looking at the example that started this thread).  As a GAA member I entitled to have an opinion on what a club does if I feel it reflects on the rest of the organisation.

I also think the GAA should engage with those that want to constructively engage with them, accept their suggestions and act on them where appropriate.  There is no point in engaging with the Jim McAllisters of the world.  Nothing the GAA could ever do will appease them (short of disbanding). However someone who is genuninely interested in supporting/playing the games should always be listen to.

Myles Na G is one that there is no point engaging with and will take umbrage with everything.  Previously he has criticised the GAA for not having a formal view on candidates for the Irish Presidency and eligibility rules of international soccer.  Not only did he want them to have such formal views but ranted that members were no disciplined for expressing contrary positions to these views.

That's what you are dealing with here.

/Jim

Can you provide a link to those posts? They don't ring a bell with me.

Search out the topic on Michael O Neill and Gerry Armstrong's efforts to recruit nationalists to play for OWC. You criticized the GAA for not dealing with Joe Brolly for an article saying nationalist would not be happy playing for OWN. Equally you proposed that Jarlath Burns be disciplined for attending a canvassing event for Martin McGuinness.

/Jim

I don't want to go searching for them, thanks - too much like hard work.  The onus is on you to do that. I'm happy to stand over what I've written on here, but I don't think I should be expected to defend edited versions of what I'm alleged to have said, or to go trawling through pages of old stuff to find out what I actually did say.

Here you go.

In the course of this thread I've already named 2, namely Brolly and Burns. How many do you want? These two may or may not hold an official post within the organisation, but in many ways they are the public face of the GAA. They are broadcasters and journalists who talk about the GAA on television and at public functions. They are both columnists for 'Gaelic Life'. So far, I've yet to hear of the GAA publicly distancing itself from their comments. When Burns went on a pro IRA rant on behalf of MMcG, I didn't hear any GAA 'official' step forward and say that he wasn't speaking on behalf of the organisation. Until I do, I'll assume his comments meet with general approval within the organisation. Ditto Brolly's anti NI rant.

Thanks for that. I'm happy to stand over what I wrote there. I also think it shows that Jim's summary of my views was a misrepresentation.

Why, pray tell, would the GAA make a comment on 2 member's views in regard to these matters unless you thought they should have a view on them?


/Jim

[Wildweasel74]

Barry Rogerson: Newcastle United fan who punched police horse jailed for 12 months

He was sentenced to 12 months behind bars - despite his public apology - and was banned from football grounds for six years
The football thug who punched a police horse was jailed today after a judge saw video footage of him getting ready to pounce "like a boxer".
He was captured on film throwing a right hook at West Yorkshire Police Shire cross "Bud" during the soccer riot which followed Newcastle United's 3-0 defeat to arch rivals Sunderland in April.

Video footage shown to His Honour Judge Paul Sloan showed dad-of-one Rogerson, 45, standing with his fists pumping like a prize-fighter before launching his blow at the horse's head.

So if you get a year for punching a horse during a semi riot, how many years do you get for attacking the police with a sword or battering them with bricks, should the fleggers not feel the full force of UK law they hold so dear and want to be a part of??