Messages

But what issue?
If you are talking about Rule 25 on Club names, then it would appear that you are making assumptions and turning them into facts to support your idea that an issue existed.

When did the rule come into the constitution?  What were the reasons for introducing the rule in the first place?
The rule on the book as I read it, states that a club shall not be named after a living person.
It shall not be named after an existing political or semi political organisation.
The rule reads to me as pretty basic and common sense.

What has this all got to do with bigots threatening kids in GAA tops in Antrim?
Next we will hear that the reason Blacks are racially attacked is because people perceive black to be evil and we will have people on here saying Blacks should lighten their skin a bit so that the threat of aggro would lessen.

The rule is of course pretty basic and common sense.   It is there because some people won't show basic and common sense sometimes and name a club controversially.  Equally I think that the reasoning in the Strategic Plan is pretty obvious too.  What's your point?

As what has it to do with bigots threatening kids in GAA tops in Antrim?   If you read my post in it's entirety it's obvious enough.

But it is the "they" that I'm talking about Jim, the GAA can do whatever the hell it likes re names, there are a group of unionists/loyalists who would never be happy with whatever names, even if the GAA changed everything about itself to placate these wasters do you ever see them lifting a hurl or soloing with a football? Answer: No.

I agree there are people who don't want anything to do with the GAA no matter what.

However, there are those (some already in the GAA) that have an issue.  I have outline how.   The strategic review group have outlined the issue.

The GAA should proceed with what's right, because it's right.

If you changed the names their crying about now, "they" would just start gurning about the fact that clubs are named after Catholic saints!

It is not a "they" it's about the GAA's own 5 year vision.

Jim_Murphy, good post and clear understanding about a problem with the 2016 vision.
One question, if Unionists feel discomfort at the Political bits, which are well documented, attributed to the GAA then why does the GAA not just change them?  If it isn't Political and is now all about kids in the community and fundraising and sport etc then it wouldn't be an issue at all to make the changes.

Most "political" aspects that people have issue with are of tradition/culture aspects as far as I can see.  For example if the people of Dungiven choose to commemorate a hunger striker through the medium of sport, they are doing it because they think it is appropriate, not because the GAA told them to.  

Hence the changes required are not a case of changing a few rules.  Actually it isn't even a case of changing mindsets but really a case of getting people to compartmentalise their views and keep politics in their place.

Also I believe the motivation should be to fulfill the GAA's own (documented) vision, not try to placate a bunch of people who will never give them the time of day, regardless of what they do.

[However]

I would agree with almost all of the above (albeit with some debate/discussion on who/what is a 'terrorist' and why/how GAA clubs are named after 'suitable' patrons)
but I still think that the last bit is possibly the wrong course of action....allowing a handful of bigots to dictate the age old policy of club naming after historical Irishmen/women (will there be objections to clubs named after 'Catholic' saints ?).

The fact that there is a rule already on the books viz a viz naming of clubs is an acknowledgement an issue exists.  Also if you read the GAA vision document, the document itself refers to club, trophy and tournament names.  So you don't have to go outside the GAA itself to see there is some issue there.   

I don't think it is a huge issue and I think that (within reason) a local community should be able to name their club/tournaments and accept donations of cups without central interference.   Equally I accept it is an Irish tradition to name clubs (not just sporting ones) after historical figures. 
However having a tournament to commemorate dead IRA volunteers is a bit recent (even still) and close to the bone for many (be they unionist or not).

You may wish to argue what a terrorist is or is not but the GAA themselves have through the rulebook and 2016 vision document have said that there is an issue here.

A few things:

1) The idiots that complained about the kids collecting most likely did it because the saw them as "Taigs".  The "reasonably minded, moderate" unionist with a heartfelt objection to the exclusionist nature of the GAA would surely find a better avenue than getting a few kids horsed out of Tescos.

2) Tesco were in a difficult position and it's hard to see how it could easily deal with the situation.

3) There are no doubt naming issues and attitudes adopted by some clubs that cause discomfort to some. ( I would include myself in that category)  That said, it would I would never feel precluded from the GAA as a whole due to the actions of these clubs/people.  Looking at the GAA and it's work in it's totality I think it's a very worthy association, promoting enjoyable games and an association I'm proud to be a member of.   

4) I think that the history and association to nationalism makes some in the unionist community feel uncomfortable.  This discomfort is embarrassing for them and it's easier to blame on the issues above than accept that it may be borne out of prejudice.

Finally, someone here quoted the GAA vision for inclusiveness for 2016.  That vision will not be met without tackling the naming of cups/tournaments/clubs.   So the issue should be addressed for that reason, not to placate some bigots that object to kids in jersies.

[only]

Gnevin I would say opposed is too strong a word but it amuses me that with football being the one game where players use their feet, that it somehow finds itself being called soccer.  Strange.

May be if you said that "football" is the one game that players only use their feet you'd be closer to the truth (leaving the keepers out....).  However I think that rugby, gaelic, australian and even American footballers do actually use their feet on occasion.

I notice that similar to Ireland countries like the US and Australia that have other popular codes regularly use the term soccer.  Indeed the Australian had a "soccer associations" and their international team was called the "socceroos" until order to change it by FIFA.  Maybe it's a convenience thing??

It's certainly seems to be an "OWC" habit to bristle every time soccer is mentioned (and indeed prompts the question "What's soccer").  I suspect that this comes from a reluctance to accept Gaelic football as a valid sport because it is run by the GAA.

/Jim.

they think it'll somehow bring "justice for Robert". Life moves on, get over it...

Maybe the pub should not be targetted but surely you are happy for these women to campaign for justice, no matter how much life moves on?

Particularly when your profile has a link to a campaign website about events that happen over 25years ago?   Or should I be saying "Life moves on, get over it......"?

/Jim.

FAI or will include IFA too?

Ahem, I believe the correct title is Linfield/IFA.   

/Jim.

According to Sunday Tribune, TV3 are to broadcast a documentary on the ugly side of domestic soccer in Ireland.  It will expose the underbelly of organised hooliganism (complete with shocking footage):

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/feb/01/it-was-just-a-riot-with-kicks-and-fists-flying/

On behalf of dublinfella I want to get in first and say:

• sensationalist media
• anti-LOI
• agenda driven independent group

Shame!

There is no culture of soccer hooliganism in Ireland and save for the odd incident at contentious Dublin and Belfast derbies and Linfield v Derry. You get more action down Sumerhill after a Dubs v Meath game.

/Jim.

Humphrey's exclusion is a surprise,

Is it a case of Kidney thinking some game time in the "A" team is better than bench time for the full team?

Humphreys' form may be quite good but it is also quite recent.  His ability to make any kind of tackle is also very recent. 

Kidney may just want to see a bit more of him...

Interestingly the two correspondants in the Sunday Tribune both agree that D'arcy is best option to partner O'Driscoll in midfield.  I find it fascinating that two Magner's League games on the wing for Leinster in almost 12 months represents better current form than that of Wallace, Cave or Earls.

/Jim.

quantification is effectively pointless.
The scenario in the north of Ireland is such that it will take mindsets to change , that gestures etc wont ever affect
eg - if you changed all the GAA clubs names to meaningless nicknames like 'eagles, bulls, rhinos ' etc do you think that would alter unionist/loyalist mindsets towards the GAA?

I dont believe so.
the problem will only be cured after the passing of time and the development of trust and forgetting of reasoning why one side dislikes the other. imo its out of our hands and for th enext generation or so, quiet continuation will be better than making a big song and dance over opinions that vary from household to household either side of the 'divide'.

So,like the ceasefire & subsequent political fudging over 9 years or so, let the time pass and this will no longer be a problem for anyone.

Fair enough, the quantifying question was a genuine one just to see if you thought there was an issue there at all.

In terms of names, I take your point that changing them might not change all mindsets.  That said I think you may underestimate how many of your "side" also see these names as an issue.

Also I think sometimes you should change things because it is right to, not because someone wants you to.

Equally I know what your are saying about time but maybe the GAA could hurry things along.  Reading from there 5 year strategic plan it says "The Association
represented by the Ulster Council promotes links with the Unionist members of our community" as a vision.  Do you think that should be removed and let time do it's thing?

/Jim.

forgive my interjection.
I would believe that it is a view unionsts/loyalists have, but almost all (99.x%) Gaels would not share.
There are a few, like yourself who believe this, but no disrespect to you and your views , its at odds with the humungous majority.

Okay seeing as we are going  to metricate this:  could we quantify how much an issue, if at all you see it as?

/Jim.

[If]

The statement Myles made that what the GAA should acknowledge (Sinn Fein in boots), is not a conditional.
It is a statement of description, according to his opinion, to support his debate.
"But it  (the GAA) should then stop pedalling the 'we want to reach out to unionists' crap and acknowledge that, in the north of Ireland at least, it is basically Sinn Fein in football boots."


As I wrote, he is using Unionist terminology with use of Unionist type reasoning to state his case. It is that evident style imo which is causing some of the level of questioning, arising from some perceptions that he presented himself as something other than that. The Dublinfellow Syndrome.

Okay but.....

The statement I read on the other thread and pasted here reads:

There are still many people, on the other hand, living with the legacy of the recent conflict, people who had family members killed or injured by those Kevin Lynch would have considered his comrades. The GAA needs to recognise this.  If it doesn't want to recognise this, fine. But it should then stop pedalling the 'we want to reach out to unionists' crap and acknowledge that, in the north of Ireland at least, it is basically Sinn Fein in football boots.

I have bolded the word if for emphasis.  I for one (as a member of the GAA) concur wholeheartly with that quote.  I also believe that the GAA strategic plan reflects this belief too.

Do you genuinely believe that anyone that holds the view is a Unionst?

/Jim.

what part of the narrow water historical tours was myles 'debating'
it all went horribly wrong and people only started questioning him when he started making accusations etc about GAA etc.

if you are going to whinge about people being mis-quoted (and I dont think thats been the case here) and taalking about reading peoples posts in their entirety, then maybe you should take measures to actually understand what is being said rather than going off on one incorrectly!

dont give us that old hat that he has been taken out of context, that might work berating children or when the ruc were telling folk what they witnessed didnt actually happen etc , but it wont work here ,as if you read/understand what mylsey said, then the hole he has dug for himself just cannot be glossed over and  put down to all these people being wrong, but you and mylsey being right 


so as I thought, you have nothing of note to add to the 'debate' as per usual !

Narrow Water was in relation to the original topic and title no less.  As for the debate (or spat with Myles), I'll spell out what I thought I read, and what I think:  (just for you old bean!)

• I think it is entirely consistent to say that you could be involved in under-age GAA with zero appreciation of the nature of the association.  (political or no)  but to later, with age, gain that appreciation, form views and then distance oneself from the association.  It's not like anyone hands you a rulebook or asks you to debate the nature of the GAA when you show up with camán in hand to U-10 indoor training some winter time.  So I do think Myles is correct and consistent on that point.
• Also on the "Pat Darcy" thread, I don't think he "accused" the GAA of being political.  I do think that a very few clubs have names and host events of an overtly political nature.   I would agree that if the GAA's ongoing strategic group does not address that then the GAA is open to accusations of being "political".  So I find myslef concurring there too.
• I believe more than unionists/loyalists feel that way which again (at least indirectly) confirms Myles' take on matters and is consistent with his claimed origins

Now are my thoughts acceptable to you?

/Jim.