The Fine Gael thread

[Nally Stand]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

The south was as divided as the north during the troubles? Really???

"Really" what?

There are still families that won't speak to or have any dealings with other families because of what happened 90 years ago.
About 20 years ago, I was seeking office in my teaching organisation. Two Mayo county councillors were members of the Mayo delegation to the convention where the voting took place.
One was Fine Gael and the other was Fianna Fail- if you follow me.
Both approached me the night before the voting and offered to give me a dig out.
Together we worked every restaurant and watering hole around Salthill and its surrounds and, believe me, there are lots of restaurants and watering holes around Salthill and its surrounds.
The two lads were far more used to the "press the flesh" stuff that I was and they had far more contacts amongst the delegates than I had.
(They were damn good canvassers too because I won the next day on a show of hands- no need for a count to be taken.)
We finished off in the bar o the hotel where all of us were staying. After (quite) a few drinks, we decided to stagger off to our beds. As we attempted to stand out, one turned to the other and said ,"Jaysus, do you know realise we can't be seen together in public again until this time next year?"
That was 70 years on from the Civil War and old wounds in Mayo hadn't healed by then. I  can tell you much of the old bitterness is still there and will be for a long time yet.
I don't know what criteria you use to measure degrees of bitterness but, down here, it wasn't a case of "ussuns" against "themmuns"
It was very often father v son and brother v brother  and you think we had an easier time that your lot??

Some people don't speak to eachother, therefor the bitterness was "as bad" as it was in the north where many hundreds of sectarian murders took place? As claims go, you're verging on lunacy with that one!! Take a wee stroll down sandy row in your mayo jersey and tell me if you still think the same afterwards.

[Lar Naparka]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

The south was as divided as the north during the troubles? Really???

"Really" what?

There are still families that won't speak to or have any dealings with other families because of what happened 90 years ago.
About 20 years ago, I was seeking office in my teaching organisation. Two Mayo county councillors were members of the Mayo delegation to the convention where the voting took place.
One was Fine Gael and the other was Fianna Fail- if you follow me.
Both approached me the night before the voting and offered to give me a dig out.
Together we worked every restaurant and watering hole around Salthill and its surrounds and, believe me, there are lots of restaurants and watering holes around Salthill and its surrounds.
The two lads were far more used to the "press the flesh" stuff that I was and they had far more contacts amongst the delegates than I had.
(They were damn good canvassers too because I won the next day on a show of hands- no need for a count to be taken.)
We finished off in the bar o the hotel where all of us were staying. After (quite) a few drinks, we decided to stagger off to our beds. As we attempted to stand out, one turned to the other and said ,"Jaysus, do you know realise we can't be seen together in public again until this time next year?"
That was 70 years on from the Civil War and old wounds in Mayo hadn't healed by then. I  can tell you much of the old bitterness is still there and will be for a long time yet.
I don't know what criteria you use to measure degrees of bitterness but, down here, it wasn't a case of "ussuns" against "themmuns"
It was very often father v son and brother v brother  and you think we had an easier time that your lot??

Some people don't speak to eachother, therefor the bitterness was "as bad" as it was in the north where many hundreds of sectarian murders took place? As claims go, you're verging on lunacy with that one!! Take a wee stroll down sandy row in your mayo jersey and tell me if you still think the same afterwards.

I said a lot more than that and you know it damn well.
Trying to have a sensible discussion with you is like trying to play handball against a hay stack; I can try all I like but I'm going to have sweet fa success no matter how long I stay at it.
You're comparing events of the recent past with ones that happened 90 years ago.
Why would I want to walk down the Sandy Row for any reason? If you stick your paw in a hornet's nest, you know you'll get stung. Why would I or you for that matter want deliberately provoke anyone on the "other" side when the violence only stopped less than 20 years ago?
What do you think the levels of hatred were like 90 years ago when it still lingers on to this day?
Try comparing like with like for a change.
We had hundreds of killings too in case you didn't know. Not near as many as you had but the time frame involved was much shorter.
The levels of ferocity were even greater than you could imagine. How many deaths does it take to make your sense of bitterness greater than ours?
In case you didn't notice I as referring to the levels of bitterness and hate and not attempting to go by body counts.
How many times in the north throughout the 40 years or so of strife, did a father coldly shoot his own son or a son murder his father?  We had dozens of such cases and if you add in brother v brother and uncle v nephew and the likes, you'd go well over the two hundred mark. (I know because I checked and even at that there were many others that I didn't find out about.)
Ever hear of Ballyseedy and what happened there?
In case you haven't, here's a potted version.
Govt. forces took 9 republican prisoners from their place of detention and forced them to start removing a road block, knowing damn well that the roadblock was boobytrapped. 8 of the 9 were killed in the resulting explosion.
Can't think of a single where the security forces ever did anything like that up your way, can you?
I think you just count the capitals and full stops in my posts and then you're off once again on your hobby horse.

BTW, you haven't come back to me yet about Wee Marty's attempts to get elected last year? We're not talking of events around 90 years ago.
I'm a patient man, if you haven't noticed that already.
Take your time by all means but in the meantime, I won't go any further with this "we deserve more sympathy than youse" sort of crap.

[Nally Stand]

You say a whole lot without saying anything but your quote I referred to read like you were talking about the more recent past than 90 years ago. And i'm writing on a phone and have no more intention of going googling Presidential speeches. Your references to McGuinness' promises through the campaign can be put down to simple electioneering. As happens during elections. As a man with more experience in his wee toe at Head of State roles, I have no doubt he would have been the best candidate but that is neither here nor there. You also referred to SF and how they might have trouble "fiddling the system down here". A totally groundless allegation of SF being involved in regular electoral fraud. When challenged the best you could do to support your argument was a document by the brits, 30 YEARS AGO, which also contained zero proof of this seemingly routine SF boogieman practice. And you say you aren't sucked in by the anti SF media??

[boojangles]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

The south was as divided as the north during the troubles? Really???

"Really" what?

There are still families that won't speak to or have any dealings with other families because of what happened 90 years ago.
About 20 years ago, I was seeking office in my teaching organisation. Two Mayo county councillors were members of the Mayo delegation to the convention where the voting took place.
One was Fine Gael and the other was Fianna Fail- if you follow me.
Both approached me the night before the voting and offered to give me a dig out.
Together we worked every restaurant and watering hole around Salthill and its surrounds and, believe me, there are lots of restaurants and watering holes around Salthill and its surrounds.
The two lads were far more used to the "press the flesh" stuff that I was and they had far more contacts amongst the delegates than I had.
(They were damn good canvassers too because I won the next day on a show of hands- no need for a count to be taken.)
We finished off in the bar o the hotel where all of us were staying. After (quite) a few drinks, we decided to stagger off to our beds. As we attempted to stand out, one turned to the other and said ,"Jaysus, do you know realise we can't be seen together in public again until this time next year?"
That was 70 years on from the Civil War and old wounds in Mayo hadn't healed by then. I  can tell you much of the old bitterness is still there and will be for a long time yet.
I don't know what criteria you use to measure degrees of bitterness but, down here, it wasn't a case of "ussuns" against "themmuns"
It was very often father v son and brother v brother  and you think we had an easier time that your lot??

Some people don't speak to eachother, therefor the bitterness was "as bad" as it was in the north where many hundreds of sectarian murders took place? As claims go, you're verging on lunacy with that one!! Take a wee stroll down sandy row in your mayo jersey and tell me if you still think the same afterwards.

I said a lot more than that and you know it damn well.
Trying to have a sensible discussion with you is like trying to play handball against a hay stack; I can try all I like but I'm going to have sweet fa success no matter how long I stay at it.
You're comparing events of the recent past with ones that happened 90 years ago.
Why would I want to walk down the Sandy Row for any reason? If you stick your paw in a hornet's nest, you know you'll get stung. Why would I or you for that matter want deliberately provoke anyone on the "other" side when the violence only stopped less than 20 years ago?
What do you think the levels of hatred were like 90 years ago when it still lingers on to this day?
Try comparing like with like for a change.
We had hundreds of killings too in case you didn't know. Not near as many as you had but the time frame involved was much shorter.
The levels of ferocity were even greater than you could imagine. How many deaths does it take to make your sense of bitterness greater than ours?
In case you didn't notice I as referring to the levels of bitterness and hate and not attempting to go by body counts.
How many times in the north throughout the 40 years or so of strife, did a father coldly shoot his own son or a son murder his father?  We had dozens of such cases and if you add in brother v brother and uncle v nephew and the likes, you'd go well over the two hundred mark. (I know because I checked and even at that there were many others that I didn't find out about.)
Ever hear of Ballyseedy and what happened there?
In case you haven't, here's a potted version.
Govt. forces took 9 republican prisoners from their place of detention and forced them to start removing a road block, knowing damn well that the roadblock was boobytrapped. 8 of the 9 were killed in the resulting explosion.
Can't think of a single where the security forces ever did anything like that up your way, can you?
I think you just count the capitals and full stops in my posts and then you're off once again on your hobby horse.

BTW, you haven't come back to me yet about Wee Marty's attempts to get elected last year? We're not talking of events around 90 years ago.
I'm a patient man, if you haven't noticed that already.
Take your time by all means but in the meantime, I won't go any further with this "we deserve more sympathy than youse" sort of crap.

Lar do ya mind me asking where you got this sort of info?

[Lar Naparka]

You say a whole lot without saying anything but your quote I referred to read like you were talking about the more recent past than 90 years ago. And i'm writing on a phone and have no more intention of going googling Presidential speeches. Your references to McGuinness' promises through the campaign can be put down to simple electioneering. As happens during elections. As a man with more experience in his wee toe at Head of State roles, I have no doubt he would have been the best candidate but that is neither here nor there. You also referred to SF and how they might have trouble "fiddling the system down here". A totally groundless allegation of SF being involved in regular electoral fraud. When challenged the best you could do to support your argument was a document by the brits, 30 YEARS AGO, which also contained zero proof of this seemingly routine SF boogieman practice. And you say you aren't sucked in by the anti SF media??

You say a whole lot without saying anything but your quote I referred to read like you were talking about the more recent past than 90 years ago.

Janey Mac! I thought I could never be accused of not saying anything about everything!
Now, you may be reading too fast or I may be writing to slow but I thought I was backing up all points I had made with logical arguments to support them.
Maybe you wouldn't mind throwing up a few so I can see the errors of my ways?

And i'm writing on a phone and have no more intention of going googling Presidential speeches.

And I have no intention of backing away from what I said.
FFS, we're talking about an election that took place less than two years ago. It got massive coverage in all sorts of media, local, national and international. Surely An Phoblacht ran a few articles on it. What about the Andersonstown News?
I'm not fussy about the source.  Just link to or copy a relevant article about Marty's campaign that casts him in a favourable light and I'll come back with t least two that says otherwise.

Your references to McGuinness' promises through the campaign can be put down to simple electioneering. As happens during elections.

Hah? Says who?
I give plenty of reasons to put it down to ineptitude and arrogance and you won't make an effort to prove me wrong.

As a man with more experience in his wee toe at Head of State roles, I have no doubt he would have been the best candidate but that is neither here nor there.

Likewise, I had little doubt about his abilities until the little fecker arrived and started up his campaign machine. Plenty of hot air, smoke, grinding gears and backfiring to beat the band but he went nowhere fast from start to finish on his little foray south of the border. I had and still have a lot of respect for Marty the bridge builder and Marty the statesman. It's a pity he left his finer qualities behind him when he decided to head south and show the natives how things should be done.
BTW when I presented you with a (considerable) list of his shortcomings, I omitted what was, arguably, the worst of the lot.
Apparently, he did not seem to realise that questions would be put to him about his terrorist/freedom fighter days. When placard- carrying protestors started appearing at his rallies, Marty handled things rather badly; in fact, he almost invariably lost his cool.
(I can't remember a single instance where he didn't but, in the interests of objectivity, I'm sticking "almost" in.)
When RTE presenter Miriam O'Callaghan asked him on national TV if he had any trouble reconciling his devout Catholicism with his activities as an activist (or something like that,) Marty was stuck for words.
He had no problem finding words to express his feelings afterwards when he confronted Miriam backstage after the gig was over. Again, that's all on public record but since you have no intention of checking out anything I put to you, you'll just have to take my word for this.

You also referred to SF and how they might have trouble "fiddling the system down here".
A totally groundless allegation of SF being involved in regular electoral fraud. When challenged the best you could do to support your argument was a document by the brits, 30 YEARS AGO, which also contained zero proof of this seemingly routine SF boogieman practice. And you say you aren't sucked in by the anti SF media??

I was challenged to do sweet FA!
Here's what you said:
Lar, apart from the indo propaganda rehashing and the boogieman stories about how SF get their vote out in nationalist areas (I live in a nationalist area of the six counties and you don't, so I'll wager I have a better idea of the topic you speak of)

Naturally enough, I accepted your word without question. It's obvious that you should know more about the "carrying on" up there than I do!
But you left it at that, my good man, and proceeded to ask me about some things I had already covered in exhaustive detail:
what exactly do you think mcguinness didn't understand about the role of the presidency, considering it is a meet-and-greet, public appearances, head of state type role, which is a a role he has more experience in than the other candidates had put together?
  No sign of a challenge anywhere in all of that; is there?[/b]
The document I referred to was prepared 30 years ago alright but it was a confidential document prepared for the British Cabinet. It wasn't intended for mass distribution and was or publicity purposes of any sort.
Now who should I choose to believe: A confidential report by British Intelligence prepared for the Cabinet or you, a less than impartial observer?

[Lar Naparka]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

The south was as divided as the north during the troubles? Really???

"Really" what?

There are still families that won't speak to or have any dealings with other families because of what happened 90 years ago.
About 20 years ago, I was seeking office in my teaching organisation. Two Mayo county councillors were members of the Mayo delegation to the convention where the voting took place.
One was Fine Gael and the other was Fianna Fail- if you follow me.
Both approached me the night before the voting and offered to give me a dig out.
Together we worked every restaurant and watering hole around Salthill and its surrounds and, believe me, there are lots of restaurants and watering holes around Salthill and its surrounds.
The two lads were far more used to the "press the flesh" stuff that I was and they had far more contacts amongst the delegates than I had.
(They were damn good canvassers too because I won the next day on a show of hands- no need for a count to be taken.)
We finished off in the bar o the hotel where all of us were staying. After (quite) a few drinks, we decided to stagger off to our beds. As we attempted to stand out, one turned to the other and said ,"Jaysus, do you know realise we can't be seen together in public again until this time next year?"
That was 70 years on from the Civil War and old wounds in Mayo hadn't healed by then. I  can tell you much of the old bitterness is still there and will be for a long time yet.
I don't know what criteria you use to measure degrees of bitterness but, down here, it wasn't a case of "ussuns" against "themmuns"
It was very often father v son and brother v brother  and you think we had an easier time that your lot??

Some people don't speak to eachother, therefor the bitterness was "as bad" as it was in the north where many hundreds of sectarian murders took place? As claims go, you're verging on lunacy with that one!! Take a wee stroll down sandy row in your mayo jersey and tell me if you still think the same afterwards.

I said a lot more than that and you know it damn well.
Trying to have a sensible discussion with you is like trying to play handball against a hay stack; I can try all I like but I'm going to have sweet fa success no matter how long I stay at it.
You're comparing events of the recent past with ones that happened 90 years ago.
Why would I want to walk down the Sandy Row for any reason? If you stick your paw in a hornet's nest, you know you'll get stung. Why would I or you for that matter want deliberately provoke anyone on the "other" side when the violence only stopped less than 20 years ago?
What do you think the levels of hatred were like 90 years ago when it still lingers on to this day?
Try comparing like with like for a change.
We had hundreds of killings too in case you didn't know. Not near as many as you had but the time frame involved was much shorter.
The levels of ferocity were even greater than you could imagine. How many deaths does it take to make your sense of bitterness greater than ours?
In case you didn't notice I as referring to the levels of bitterness and hate and not attempting to go by body counts.
How many times in the north throughout the 40 years or so of strife, did a father coldly shoot his own son or a son murder his father?  We had dozens of such cases and if you add in brother v brother and uncle v nephew and the likes, you'd go well over the two hundred mark. (I know because I checked and even at that there were many others that I didn't find out about.)
Ever hear of Ballyseedy and what happened there?
In case you haven't, here's a potted version.
Govt. forces took 9 republican prisoners from their place of detention and forced them to start removing a road block, knowing damn well that the roadblock was boobytrapped. 8 of the 9 were killed in the resulting explosion.
Can't think of a single where the security forces ever did anything like that up your way, can you?
I think you just count the capitals and full stops in my posts and then you're off once again on your hobby horse.

BTW, you haven't come back to me yet about Wee Marty's attempts to get elected last year? We're not talking of events around 90 years ago.
I'm a patient man, if you haven't noticed that already.
Take your time by all means but in the meantime, I won't go any further with this "we deserve more sympathy than youse" sort of crap.

Lar do ya mind me asking where you got this sort of info?

Sorry Bo,, I didn't spot this until now.
Are you referring to all the shite historical research I'm presenting here or to a specific portion?

[boojangles]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

The south was as divided as the north during the troubles? Really???

"Really" what?

There are still families that won't speak to or have any dealings with other families because of what happened 90 years ago.
About 20 years ago, I was seeking office in my teaching organisation. Two Mayo county councillors were members of the Mayo delegation to the convention where the voting took place.
One was Fine Gael and the other was Fianna Fail- if you follow me.
Both approached me the night before the voting and offered to give me a dig out.
Together we worked every restaurant and watering hole around Salthill and its surrounds and, believe me, there are lots of restaurants and watering holes around Salthill and its surrounds.
The two lads were far more used to the "press the flesh" stuff that I was and they had far more contacts amongst the delegates than I had.
(They were damn good canvassers too because I won the next day on a show of hands- no need for a count to be taken.)
We finished off in the bar o the hotel where all of us were staying. After (quite) a few drinks, we decided to stagger off to our beds. As we attempted to stand out, one turned to the other and said ,"Jaysus, do you know realise we can't be seen together in public again until this time next year?"
That was 70 years on from the Civil War and old wounds in Mayo hadn't healed by then. I  can tell you much of the old bitterness is still there and will be for a long time yet.
I don't know what criteria you use to measure degrees of bitterness but, down here, it wasn't a case of "ussuns" against "themmuns"
It was very often father v son and brother v brother  and you think we had an easier time that your lot??

Some people don't speak to eachother, therefor the bitterness was "as bad" as it was in the north where many hundreds of sectarian murders took place? As claims go, you're verging on lunacy with that one!! Take a wee stroll down sandy row in your mayo jersey and tell me if you still think the same afterwards.

I said a lot more than that and you know it damn well.
Trying to have a sensible discussion with you is like trying to play handball against a hay stack; I can try all I like but I'm going to have sweet fa success no matter how long I stay at it.
You're comparing events of the recent past with ones that happened 90 years ago.
Why would I want to walk down the Sandy Row for any reason? If you stick your paw in a hornet's nest, you know you'll get stung. Why would I or you for that matter want deliberately provoke anyone on the "other" side when the violence only stopped less than 20 years ago?
What do you think the levels of hatred were like 90 years ago when it still lingers on to this day?
Try comparing like with like for a change.
We had hundreds of killings too in case you didn't know. Not near as many as you had but the time frame involved was much shorter.
The levels of ferocity were even greater than you could imagine. How many deaths does it take to make your sense of bitterness greater than ours?
In case you didn't notice I as referring to the levels of bitterness and hate and not attempting to go by body counts.
How many times in the north throughout the 40 years or so of strife, did a father coldly shoot his own son or a son murder his father?  We had dozens of such cases and if you add in brother v brother and uncle v nephew and the likes, you'd go well over the two hundred mark. (I know because I checked and even at that there were many others that I didn't find out about.)
Ever hear of Ballyseedy and what happened there?
In case you haven't, here's a potted version.
Govt. forces took 9 republican prisoners from their place of detention and forced them to start removing a road block, knowing damn well that the roadblock was boobytrapped. 8 of the 9 were killed in the resulting explosion.
Can't think of a single where the security forces ever did anything like that up your way, can you?
I think you just count the capitals and full stops in my posts and then you're off once again on your hobby horse.

BTW, you haven't come back to me yet about Wee Marty's attempts to get elected last year? We're not talking of events around 90 years ago.
I'm a patient man, if you haven't noticed that already.
Take your time by all means but in the meantime, I won't go any further with this "we deserve more sympathy than youse" sort of crap.

Lar do ya mind me asking where you got this sort of info?

Sorry Bo,, I didn't spot this until now.
Are you referring to all the shite historical research I'm presenting here or to a specific portion?

No hassle Lar. Any specific information or personal accounts from the Civil War would be helpful? I'm aware of the Bureau of Military records but not sure if there is much on the Civil War.

[Rossfan]

Now who should I choose to believe: A confidential report by British Intelligence prepared for the Cabinet or you, a less than impartial observer?
[/quot

I would take both with a large large dose of salt 

[lawnseed]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

The south was as divided as the north during the troubles? Really???

that's right it was divided between rich and poor and still is. I think you'll find sinn fein will have to wait a very long time until they are accepted as a political party. about 18mths! until the next election or thereabouts. which is a very long time to put up with the gimp kenny

[Itchy]

Where are SF in the polls old bean. I believe they very well could be in the next government if they wish to be, unless some how you have a veto on it. I wouldn't vote for them but then I know a lot who would.

Unless there's a major change in the political order, it won't be a decision for SF.

Who would it be a decision for? If two parties decide to form a coalition it's a decision for both, neither makes the decision for the other. Like it or not SF could take up to 20% of the vote in next election.

[Maguire01]

Where are SF in the polls old bean. I believe they very well could be in the next government if they wish to be, unless some how you have a veto on it. I wouldn't vote for them but then I know a lot who would.

Unless there's a major change in the political order, it won't be a decision for SF.

Who would it be a decision for? If two parties decide to form a coalition it's a decision for both, neither makes the decision for the other. Like it or not SF could take up to 20% of the vote in next election.

My point is that it would initially be the biggest party that would get to approach other parties to form a coalition - I think we can rule out SF being the biggest party and therefore it's difficult to see which party would be approaching them to form a government.

[Lar Naparka]

Now who should I choose to believe: A confidential report by British Intelligence prepared for the Cabinet or you, a less than impartial observer?

I would take both with a large large dose of salt 

Let it be recorded for posterity, Ross; we have finally found something we can agree on.
But all the same, I'd give a bitten more credence to the Brits' report than I normally would. For one thing, it was a cabinet document and wasn't meant for publication so there is no apparent reason to believe that it was intended to mislead anybody.
But, if you don't want to believe anything from the Brits, you could take a lot at what Danny Morrison has to say on the subject of electoral fraud in NI;
"Long before Sinn Fein stood for elections in the North electoral malpractice was common - 'Vote Early, Vote Often', being the legendary catchphrase of campaigners who correctly assumed 'the other side' was equally engaged in impersonation."

Surely the shinners wouldn't ask you and I to believe that Danny was telling porkies?
http://www.dannymorrison.com/wp-content/dannymorrisonarchive/018.htm

I never thought that John Hume and David Trimble could ever agree on anything but I was wrong.

"A bitter row broke out in Northern Ireland yesterday as Unionists and the SDLP accused Sinn Fein of widespread electoral fraud and intimidation, A bitter row broke out in Northern Ireland yesterday as Unionists and the SDLP accused Sinn Fein of widespread electoral fraud and intimidation, and republicans hit back with counter-accusations of malpractice, which they said benefited Unionists.

(This was just after the 2001 election.)
Like Danny Morrison says, the whole lot were "voting early and often."

You can read the details here;
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/06/uk.election200112

If everything was above board up there, why did the Brits feel the need to introduce Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002?
What do you think?

[Nally Stand]

Now who should I choose to believe: A confidential report by British Intelligence prepared for the Cabinet or you, a less than impartial observer?

I would take both with a large large dose of salt 

Let it be recorded for posterity, Ross; we have finally found something we can agree on.
But all the same, I'd give a bitten more credence to the Brits' report than I normally would. For one thing, it was a cabinet document and wasn't meant for publication so there is no apparent reason to believe that it was intended to mislead anybody.
But, if you don't want to believe anything from the Brits, you could take a lot at what Danny Morrison has to say on the subject of electoral fraud in NI;
"Long before Sinn Fein stood for elections in the North electoral malpractice was common - 'Vote Early, Vote Often', being the legendary catchphrase of campaigners who correctly assumed 'the other side' was equally engaged in impersonation."

Surely the shinners wouldn't ask you and I to believe that Danny was telling porkies?
http://www.dannymorrison.com/wp-content/dannymorrisonarchive/018.htm

I never thought that John Hume and David Trimble could ever agree on anything but I was wrong.

"A bitter row broke out in Northern Ireland yesterday as Unionists and the SDLP accused Sinn Fein of widespread electoral fraud and intimidation, A bitter row broke out in Northern Ireland yesterday as Unionists and the SDLP accused Sinn Fein of widespread electoral fraud and intimidation, and republicans hit back with counter-accusations of malpractice, which they said benefited Unionists.

(This was just after the 2001 election.)
Like Danny Morrison says, the whole lot were "voting early and often."

You can read the details here;
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/06/uk.election200112

If everything was above board up there, why did the Brits feel the need to introduce Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002?
What do you think?

This is 2013. Any actual, you know...proof...for your allegation that SF currently "fiddle the system"?

I don't think you really understand the way our electoral system works. We don't have your first past the post model so it's not as easy to fiddle the system as it is for you....This would put the shinners at a disadvantage straightaway.

For the record, brit documents from 30 years ago (which contained zero proof), and claims made 12 years ago by parties viciously opposed to SF, with no evidence to support the claims, do not count as proof of electoral fraud taking place to this day, as you are alleging).

And also for the record, the guardian article you linked to did not contain any details, never mind "all the details". All it contained were (needless to say, unsubstantiated) allegations of electoral fraud and was written before the election in question even took place. So again, if you would like to prove SF currently engage in electoral fraud, you will need to do better than this to substantiate your claim.

As for your Danny Morrison claims, it seems you were being more than a little misleading. What Danny said, was that "vote early, vote often" was the practice "long before Sinn Féin stood for elections". He goes on to describe allegations that the SF's 2001 election vote was down to impersonation and multiple registration as a "myth" and that Joe Hendron of the SDLP was the only one to be charged (and found guilty) of breaking the rules.

[Nally Stand]

If SF can stick with constitutional policies and keep their guns out of politics, I'll be very happy.

You will be? What guns are SF currently using?

As long as splinter IRA groups remain active, the fear is that the Provos haven't really gone away.

Meanwhile back in the real world, everyone else (except maybe Jim Allister) accepts that the Provos have gone away. Been away for quite some time too.

[Syferus]

The Fine Gael thread has turned into a real kick in the Shinns.