Martin Guinness

[Maguire01]

Did Tubs ask Guiness about Paul Butler packing it in?

I'd say 90% of people in the North couldn't pick him out of a line-up, nevermind those in the South.

[Maguire01]

Just watched the interview and can't believe any Shinners would get excited about that - I thought he got a pretty handy time of it.

[ross matt]

Just watched the interview and can't believe any Shinners would get excited about that - I thought he got a pretty handy time of it.

Completely agree. He got a very easy ride. Love the bit where he was "shocked & horified" about Birmingham and Enniskillen.

[Myles Na G.]

Thought MMcG's opposition to a state visit to Ireland by Liz was fairly poor stuff. He cited the fact that the the Prince of Wales is the Commander in Chief of the Parachute Regiment, and that no apology had ever been made by the Royal family for Bloody Sunday. He knows rightly - or should do - that the British royal family isn't permited to get involved in politics. They are figureheads only. The British government does the politics for them and in that context, David Cameron made a fairly decent apology for Bloody Sunday last year, to the extent that the Bloody Sunday families themselves are making this year's commemorative march the final one. They see the matter as closed. Move on, Martin.

Funny how this would be your advice for McGuinness yet you're crying all day because he wasn't asked for the hundred millionth time about La Mon, Bloody Friday etc

Not for the first time, you've completely missed the point. My original post was about McGuinness' refusal to let go of the past and his demand for another apology from the British to put with the other fairly comprehensive apology they've already made. A few Shinners jumped in and started complaining about what a hard time poor Martin was given, how that nasty Mr Tubridy had the temerity to ask an international statesman and cricket fan about his involvement with the mob that outkilled any other armed group in the course of the troubles. I was simply pointing out that McGuinness had, in fact, being given an easy ride, that Tubridy could've raised any number of killings and deaths and atrocities and asked for a comment on these. St Marty, apparently, is allowed to keep on crying about a tragedy for which the British have apologised and for which they shelled out millions in order to uncover the truth, but if anyone asks him about the IRA  and all its murders, it's bad form.

[pintsofguinness]

Thought MMcG's opposition to a state visit to Ireland by Liz was fairly poor stuff. He cited the fact that the the Prince of Wales is the Commander in Chief of the Parachute Regiment, and that no apology had ever been made by the Royal family for Bloody Sunday. He knows rightly - or should do - that the British royal family isn't permited to get involved in politics. They are figureheads only. The British government does the politics for them and in that context, David Cameron made a fairly decent apology for Bloody Sunday last year, to the extent that the Bloody Sunday families themselves are making this year's commemorative march the final one. They see the matter as closed. Move on, Martin.

Funny how this would be your advice for McGuinness yet you're crying all day because he wasn't asked for the hundred millionth time about La Mon, Bloody Friday etc

Not for the first time, you've completely missed the point. My original post was about McGuinness' refusal to let go of the past and his demand for another apology from the British to put with the other fairly comprehensive apology they've already made. A few Shinners jumped in and started complaining about what a hard time poor Martin was given, how that nasty Mr Tubridy had the temerity to ask an international statesman and cricket fan about his involvement with the mob that outkilled any other armed group in the course of the troubles. I was simply pointing out that McGuinness had, in fact, being given an easy ride, that Tubridy could've raised any number of killings and deaths and atrocities and asked for a comment on these. St Marty, apparently, is allowed to keep on crying about a tragedy for which the British have apologised and for which they shelled out millions in order to uncover the truth, but if anyone asks him about the IRA  and all its murders, it's bad form.

So you would prefer if McGuinness wasn't asked about IRA actions 30/40 years ago and the interviewer concentrated on the future?

[Myles Na G.]

Thought MMcG's opposition to a state visit to Ireland by Liz was fairly poor stuff. He cited the fact that the the Prince of Wales is the Commander in Chief of the Parachute Regiment, and that no apology had ever been made by the Royal family for Bloody Sunday. He knows rightly - or should do - that the British royal family isn't permited to get involved in politics. They are figureheads only. The British government does the politics for them and in that context, David Cameron made a fairly decent apology for Bloody Sunday last year, to the extent that the Bloody Sunday families themselves are making this year's commemorative march the final one. They see the matter as closed. Move on, Martin.

Funny how this would be your advice for McGuinness yet you're crying all day because he wasn't asked for the hundred millionth time about La Mon, Bloody Friday etc

Not for the first time, you've completely missed the point. My original post was about McGuinness' refusal to let go of the past and his demand for another apology from the British to put with the other fairly comprehensive apology they've already made. A few Shinners jumped in and started complaining about what a hard time poor Martin was given, how that nasty Mr Tubridy had the temerity to ask an international statesman and cricket fan about his involvement with the mob that outkilled any other armed group in the course of the troubles. I was simply pointing out that McGuinness had, in fact, being given an easy ride, that Tubridy could've raised any number of killings and deaths and atrocities and asked for a comment on these. St Marty, apparently, is allowed to keep on crying about a tragedy for which the British have apologised and for which they shelled out millions in order to uncover the truth, but if anyone asks him about the IRA  and all its murders, it's bad form.

So you would prefer if McGuinness wasn't asked about IRA actions 30/40 years ago and the interviewer concentrated on the future?

Tubridy did ask about the future i.e a possible visit of the Queen of England. McGuinness answered it by linking it to an event which happened nearly 40 years ago. If he's going to cling on to the past, then neither he nor his followers can cry when others ask him about his involvement in murder and mayhem from the same period.

[pintsofguinness]

Thought MMcG's opposition to a state visit to Ireland by Liz was fairly poor stuff. He cited the fact that the the Prince of Wales is the Commander in Chief of the Parachute Regiment, and that no apology had ever been made by the Royal family for Bloody Sunday. He knows rightly - or should do - that the British royal family isn't permited to get involved in politics. They are figureheads only. The British government does the politics for them and in that context, David Cameron made a fairly decent apology for Bloody Sunday last year, to the extent that the Bloody Sunday families themselves are making this year's commemorative march the final one. They see the matter as closed. Move on, Martin.

Funny how this would be your advice for McGuinness yet you're crying all day because he wasn't asked for the hundred millionth time about La Mon, Bloody Friday etc

Not for the first time, you've completely missed the point. My original post was about McGuinness' refusal to let go of the past and his demand for another apology from the British to put with the other fairly comprehensive apology they've already made. A few Shinners jumped in and started complaining about what a hard time poor Martin was given, how that nasty Mr Tubridy had the temerity to ask an international statesman and cricket fan about his involvement with the mob that outkilled any other armed group in the course of the troubles. I was simply pointing out that McGuinness had, in fact, being given an easy ride, that Tubridy could've raised any number of killings and deaths and atrocities and asked for a comment on these. St Marty, apparently, is allowed to keep on crying about a tragedy for which the British have apologised and for which they shelled out millions in order to uncover the truth, but if anyone asks him about the IRA  and all its murders, it's bad form.

So you would prefer if McGuinness wasn't asked about IRA actions 30/40 years ago and the interviewer concentrated on the future?

Tubridy did ask about the future i.e a possible visit of the Queen of England. McGuinness answered it by linking it to an event which happened nearly 40 years ago. If he's going to cling on to the past, then neither he nor his followers can cry when others ask him about his involvement in murder and mayhem from the same period.

That's not answering my question, I'll state again:
Would prefer if McGuinness wasn't asked about IRA actions 30/40 years ago and the interviewer concentrated on the future?

and as you well know there is a world of difference between bloody sunday and Guilford, Birmingham etc. 

[Trout]

Just watched the interview and can't believe any Shinners would get excited about that - I thought he got a pretty handy time of it.

Completely agree. He got a very easy ride. Love the bit where he was "shocked & horified" about Birmingham and Enniskillen.

Shocked and horrified that more innocent people didn't die.

[Myles Na G.]

Thought MMcG's opposition to a state visit to Ireland by Liz was fairly poor stuff. He cited the fact that the the Prince of Wales is the Commander in Chief of the Parachute Regiment, and that no apology had ever been made by the Royal family for Bloody Sunday. He knows rightly - or should do - that the British royal family isn't permited to get involved in politics. They are figureheads only. The British government does the politics for them and in that context, David Cameron made a fairly decent apology for Bloody Sunday last year, to the extent that the Bloody Sunday families themselves are making this year's commemorative march the final one. They see the matter as closed. Move on, Martin.

Funny how this would be your advice for McGuinness yet you're crying all day because he wasn't asked for the hundred millionth time about La Mon, Bloody Friday etc

Not for the first time, you've completely missed the point. My original post was about McGuinness' refusal to let go of the past and his demand for another apology from the British to put with the other fairly comprehensive apology they've already made. A few Shinners jumped in and started complaining about what a hard time poor Martin was given, how that nasty Mr Tubridy had the temerity to ask an international statesman and cricket fan about his involvement with the mob that outkilled any other armed group in the course of the troubles. I was simply pointing out that McGuinness had, in fact, being given an easy ride, that Tubridy could've raised any number of killings and deaths and atrocities and asked for a comment on these. St Marty, apparently, is allowed to keep on crying about a tragedy for which the British have apologised and for which they shelled out millions in order to uncover the truth, but if anyone asks him about the IRA  and all its murders, it's bad form.

So you would prefer if McGuinness wasn't asked about IRA actions 30/40 years ago and the interviewer concentrated on the future?

Tubridy did ask about the future i.e a possible visit of the Queen of England. McGuinness answered it by linking it to an event which happened nearly 40 years ago. If he's going to cling on to the past, then neither he nor his followers can cry when others ask him about his involvement in murder and mayhem from the same period.

That's not answering my question, I'll state again:
Would prefer if McGuinness wasn't asked about IRA actions 30/40 years ago and the interviewer concentrated on the future?

and as you well know there is a world of difference between bloody sunday and Guilford, Birmingham etc.

If people like McGuinness are going to make decisions about the future by referencing the past, then they must expect to be questioned about the past. And not just the British Army's past, but their own too. The day that McGuinness and Adams welcome the proposed visit of a British monarch to Ireland on the grounds that it's time to forget the past and move on - that'll be the day I think its time to stop asking them about IRA actions.

[pintsofguinness]

If people like McGuinness are going to make decisions about the future by referencing the past, then they must expect to be questioned about the past. And not just the British Army's past, but their own too. The day that McGuinness and Adams welcome the proposed visit of a British monarch to Ireland on the grounds that it's time to forget the past and move on - that'll be the day I think its time to stop asking them about IRA actions.

Why though, McGuinness past has been done to death. There were investigations held at the time in the IRA actions you listed, the IRA apologised for civilian victims years ago. I don't know what other line of questioning anyone would have for the likes of Adams and McGuinness that hasn't already been done hundreds of times.

On the other hand the Brits have only admitted the truth about bloody sunday recently and they got a man, who was about 3 years old at the time, to apologise when it would have been more appropriate for the sitting monarch at the time to apologise.  They know who done the shooting that day but where are the criminal proceedings? These boys probably living it up with their army pensions and medals handed to them. and that's not even to talk about the other innocent victims of British forces whose families are still waiting on apologises!

Even you can see the difference. 

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Even you can see the difference.

Don't bet your savings on it Pints.

[Myles Na G.]

So you think Gerry Adams has been truthful about his past? Odd. Last I heard, he was still claiming not to have been a member of the IRA. Do you think we should just accept that? And you talk as if investigations into IRA activities are done and dusted. While no criminal prosecutions resulted from Saville, at least the guilty soldiers had to come forward and be questioned about their actions. Have those who bombed Birmingham ever been held to account in that way? What about Bloody Friday? Adams should know a bit about that. Oh, right. He wasn't a member. Republicans insist that the past should be an open book when ever it involves British soldiers. When it comes to their own actions, they become surprisingly coy and start crying that we should all move on.

[Myles Na G.]

That would be the Christmas broadcast she has to run past Downing Street before recording, right? And those soldiers she decorates with medals, those would be the ones nominated by Downing Street, right? Okay. 

What's your point? It doesn't make it any less political. Fine by me if Downing street tell her to apologies. I'll accpept that and you can still claim it isn't a political act.

If Downing street told her to say sorry to the innocent victims on behalf of her country and she did it would you then tell me that's not political?

EDIT

I think you're talking shyte. This is the level it has come to excuse an apology, i can't believe we are even debating this crap. The Queen of England is a political figure. ANyone that says otherwise is stupid. Me spending time explaining how the Queen is a political figure is a stupid waste of my time. If you can't agree with that then you either are unable to understand it or just don't want to. Either way I'm wasting my time.

Always a clincher, that one.

[Evil Genius]

That would be the Christmas broadcast she has to run past Downing Street before recording, right? And those soldiers she decorates with medals, those would be the ones nominated by Downing Street, right? Okay. 

What's your point? It doesn't make it any less political. Fine by me if Downing street tell her to apologies. I'll accpept that and you can still claim it isn't a political act.

If Downing street told her to say sorry to the innocent victims on behalf of her country and she did it would you then tell me that's not political?

EDIT

I think you're talking shyte. This is the level it has come to excuse an apology, i can't believe we are even debating this crap. The Queen of England is a political figure. ANyone that says otherwise is stupid. Me spending time explaining how the Queen is a political figure is a stupid waste of my time. If you can't agree with that then you either are unable to understand it or just don't want to. Either way I'm wasting my time.

By calling on the Queen to apologise for Bloody Sunday etc, you completely fail to understand the British Constitution, in two ways.
First, it is incompatible with her position as Head of State for her to express (partisan) political opinions, since those could conflict with the policies of the Government of the day, or a future government.
Second, the quid pro quo of this is that when Cameron apologised in the Commons, as her First Minister who was invited by her to form a Government, he was apologising on her behalf.

As such, his apology was no different from eg when she makes her speech at the State opening of Parliament, outlining the programme of legislation her  Government intends to introduce in the forthcoming session.

[Peter Solan the Great]

The British state has already apologised for it. By the looks of things you nordie savages want every single person in Britain to file past past Northern Ireland and apologise for 800 years of rape murder and oppression.