The Race for the ARAS.....

[tbrick18]

I can understand (to an extent) why Northern Nationalists are fixated with themselves and their place in the world (and Ireland) and am happy enough to co-exist with that.  I understand that they feel 'betrayed' by a bad political decision made some ninety years ago. 

What I don't 'get' is how they feel that this 'betrayal' ninety years ago should form the cornerstone of their relationship with the country they want to be a part of in the future; as neither they nor us have (nor should have) any real relationship with or understanding of the Ireland of 1922.  I don't see either how this fixation with the past should shape how we move into the future, together, if that is indeed how we progress.  It strikes me as trying to gain some greater-than-equal status in a larger political 'pool' than that to which they're accustomed - I'm not impressed by that.

Billy, you've only had a few weeks of Marty telling you how you should think and behave as he roves the 32(!) counties in his shiny new Battle Bus etc.

But after 30 years+ of him and his type trying to bomb and shoot the sh1t out of us, we in NI have been witness to a process whereby all the gunmen and bombers got released early (half of them to take up their seats in Government on an as-of-right basis); whilst all the time they have been lecturing everybody on how hard done by they are with their designer suits, lavish allowances and Ministerial cars etc.

How do you think your 1 million fellow Irishmen and women who are of the Unionist persuasion feel?

Quite honestly, if it were not for the fact that in 2016, the Shinners will be "celebrating" 100 years of failure to achieve a United Ireland, whilst 5 years later, Unionists will be celebrating 100 years of a United Kingdom, I suspect that we might be getting just a tad miffed...

I think you need to remember that there were quite a few loyalist\unionist gunmen and bombers also released from prison to take up their seats in government on an as of right basis. How do you think your fellow Nationalist Irishmen and women of the 6 counties feel about that?
There are quite a few Unionists who still cling to the old "we run this country" ideal. It was this type of attitude that at least partially led to the need for conflict in the north in in the first instance (coupled with the fact that Nationalists and Catholics in general were treated as 2nd class) and they are the people who cannot abide power sharing with SF or any nationalist party now. You're right, there is not a united ireland....yet.....but Catholics/Nationalist/Republicans in the 6 counties now have parity with the Unionist/Loyalist/Protestant community and I for one think if it had not been for the conflict this would not have happened. MMG was part of that....he used the gun when it was needed and used politics when it was permitted and has progressed into a peacemaker first and foremost. Of course all deaths were a tragic loss.....no-one would debate that....but it was war. People die in war. Most of the time the innocents are the people who suffer most but why should that make the war waged by the IRA any less legitimate that say the uprising in Libya where a people felt persecuted by their government? Are the fighters for the Libyan NTC murderers or are they common people fighting for a common cause. It's not always clear.

IMO, politically MMG has more experience than any of the other candidates. He has a world wide profile and I think could do a lot of good for the economy in the 26. No doubt, it would also further the cause of the SF party should he be elected, but even if he's  not this campaign has already been a success for SF and it opens the door to the possibility that a SF candidate could at some point become President. From what I can see of this, SF are still working towards a united ireland and they are using politics to do so.

[Evil Genius]

Instead of wanting someone you like to win this competition, we should all stand back and picture Ireland if each one won. Their personality could envelope us as we're crying out for a hero.

If Sean Gallagher wins he'll have us all working 20 hours a day for pittance wage maybe evening imprisoning slackers. I'd say he'd be a real dictator and wouldn't be smiling at jokes if his aides made one. Even they might live in fear. If Martin McGuinness wins we'll be a lot harder. However there's a chance he'll ban drink altogether as the loose talk costs lives posters all over the country will make us a bit more reserved. If Michael Higgins wins it'll be like the movies with fiddling music playing over loudspeakers on every road and people saying top of the morning to you and poteen making under bridges. If Gay Mitchell wins it could be a very proud day to be gay and the exposure of an Irish Gay being accepted will make it a gay day for seven years. If Dana wins then I think we could become more sensitve to things. I can see men crying at knocking down badgers on the roads and maybe knitting competitons being won my musclebound Mayomen etc. If Mary Davis won I think we'll probably just walk about waiting for the next election. If Norris wins we might become a more literate nation with people from Derry and Kerry both making inroads at learning the language and how to speak it universally. The downside would be the length it takes for him to say I declare this Spar open etc. Be careful what we wish for. Look at America and their initial amazement at the instant meals at MacDonalds. Now they're fighting a rampaging obesity epidemic and it's spreading.

Right! That's it!

I'm off with the mortgage down to Paddy Power and I'm going to put the whole lot on www.Olly4Prez2018.ie

In fact, I'd even vote for him myself, if I only had a vote...

[Evil Genius]

As Appliesisapples has said, if there is to be a United Ireland, it's not going to be a utopia for anyone.
For us in the south, it won't be carry on as normal with the 6 northern counties merely slotting in to our existing structures.
For those in the north, it's not going to be some northern nationalist republic that extends into and consumes the 26.

In fact it will probably be the current Northern Unionist population who will be in permanent government, tacked on to FG, SF, Labour or another party that may arise, switching their alleigence as they see fit. Indeed they may be the lead party in a coalition of fractured nationalist parties. What might prevent this if the middle class ones break away into a seperate party or join up with an existing party in the Republic.

At last!

At least one Irishman is able to recognise that there are one million irish people who will have a vote (and the casting vote, at that) in determining how Ireland is going to turn out.

Now if you could just make the further step and accept that that vote is only ever going to be cast so as to prevent  any United Ireland taking place, then you'd be right there (with only another 4 million? of your fellow Irish men and women to catch up...)

So you can speak for ALL unionists forEVER? 

No, and I should apologise if I gave that impression.

I can only speak for myself. But as a Unionist, I feel entitled to express the opinion that after nearly a century of resisting the threat to NI's very existence, including during a World War and decades of civil strife etc, I see no prospect of any significant number of Unionists ceasing to be so, in the foreseeable future.

And every recent election and opinion poll backs up that up, even including during the years when the Celtic Tiger was roaring, and the NI economy was stagnant.

In fact if anything, the evidence points to significant numbers of NI Nationalists retreating from their previously strong views on the Border etc, which may only be expected as their Civil and Political Rights in NI are protected, whilst the relative economic superiority of the ROI over NI is reversed.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Whoever should win this election, should consider what has been lost in the process. The Irish media industry stand exposed as partisan, untruthful and incompetent. Irish society has been exposed as devoid of vision, and an inability to learn from past mistakes. Northern Nationalists have seen their aspirations trampled upon and are now totally abandoned. When your colonial masters treat you with more respect than your fellow countryman, the time has come to consider your position. Michael D has behaved with presidential decorum and dignity and will probably succeed to the presidency. Sadly he will preside over a bankrupt,fractured state, that has turned its back on its history and culture, and has no future other than a pleasant playground for rich european elites

Right. The presidential election is all about Northern Nationalists. Their rights are trampled upon because the people refuse to do Sinn Féin's bidding. Everything we do down here must be pre-approved by the few self-appointed cultural censors who not only see themselves as our betters but constantly go out of their way to proclaim it here.

I'm sorry, but I'm not accepting any lectures today from people who are capable of the simultaneous condemnation of one liar and blind idolatry of the liar who trapped him. And I'm never accepting lectures, today or any other day, from anybody who has the barefaced hubris and gall to proclaim himself and/or his community superior to me and/or mine.

Instead of a hyperbolic rant Hardy, if you are going to reply why not attempt a reasoned response to his/her points instead?

I offered this explanation (at least from my view point) which Lynchboy pointed out was a common held view:

I know i've not always seen eye to eye with you Jim, but you are 100% right above.
I'd like to hear what your view on mcguinness is also.

Lynchboy,
I suspect this where you go back to not seeing eye to eye with you but as you asked:
1.  I think MMcG is a liar.  I'd actually buy that a former member of a subversive organisation may need to be coy about his past.  That said, I find MMcG partial revelations too much.  For example I just don't believe he left the IRA on some arbitrary date in 1974.  If he is proud of his past then why this kind of nonsense?  What changed in 1974?  I just don't buy it.

2.  I don't believe his answers to David Kelly about what happened in Ballinamore.  I won't for one minute claim that Marty knows everyone who killed anyone but for such a high-profile incident, I believe all senior members of the Republican movement know who was involved.

3.  ( On this point I must point out that I know some of Ben O'Sullivan's family) I think that (caused by others) MMcG as a president would run into huge issues with the kind of verbal gymnastics that he has used to date when pushed on his views of Jerry McCabes killers.  I believe that there is more to that story (ie why it was murder, not manslaughter) and this could still come out in time.    It would be a huge issue if some ever found a link to damery or roche for example.

4. For various reasons of policy and experience I don't have time for Sinn Féin just as some people have no time for other parties.
/Jim.

That is 100% Jim. While I might not fully agree with it all, this is what a lot if not most people think.
Dont have a gra for sf myself, but I feel that same way about all the political parties.
thanks for your answer. This is what sf have to address if they ever want to get where they want to go politically.

So this Southerner (with a vote) wouldn't vote for Gallagher or McGuinness.  It has the square root of fcuk all to do with my thoughts on partition, Northern Ireland, unionists or nationalists. 

Is it not fair enough to say that some people just aren't comfortable with Marty's past or his explanations?

For example if John Hume was a candidate on Friday I'd wager he would walk the vote?  I'm guessing in terms of a vision of United Ireland he'd be a fair match for Marty (but his methods to get there were different).  Where would that leave us on the main thrust of Pangurban's post?

[haranguerer]

All very well, I'm sure, but it completely fails to take into account the "elephant in the room" - namely 1 million NI Unionists, without whose willing co-operation, no-one will be going anywhere.

Don't hold your breath...

Have you considered that their willing cooperation may be a lot easier to come by if they realise that contrary to their fears, they would not be going into a Sinn Fein ruled republic, and that the current presidential campaign may actually be an act of political martyrdom to demonstrate to (at present) unionists that their fears are unfounded, that Sinn Fein have as many (at least) opposers in the south than the north, thus bringing Sinn feins ultimate goal of unification closer? True selflessness....! 

[Evil Genius]

How do you think your 1 million fellow Irishmen and women who are of the Unionist persuasion feel?

The problem here is that some people are telling others how they should and shouldn't feel - I wouldn't for a miiute presume to tell you, as: (a) a Unionist, (b) an Irishman, (c) a British subject, or (d) a wind-up merchant, how you feel.

Other Irish people may feel however they like. They may also vote that way, too (or at least some of them).

I am merely observing that when it comes to Partition at least, none of those other views will count for anything* so long as there are 1 million Unionists (i.e. a majority) who are determined to resist change.

And in the opinion of this particular Unionist, that is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.


* - It's explicit in the Good Friday Agreement, don't forget. 

[lynchbhoy]

No, and I should apologise if I gave that impression.

I can only speak for myself. But as a Unionist, I feel entitled to express the opinion that after nearly a century of resisting the threat to NI's very existence, including during a World War and decades of civil strife etc, I see no prospect of any significant number of Unionists ceasing to be so, in the foreseeable future.

And every recent election and opinion poll backs up that up, even including during the years when the Celtic Tiger was roaring, and the NI economy was stagnant.

In fact if anything, the evidence points to significant numbers of NI Nationalists retreating from their previously strong views on the Border etc, which may only be expected as their Civil and Political Rights in NI are protected, whilst the relative economic superiority of the ROI over NI is reversed.

hold on a minute there - this statelet was only created in 1921.
It was left pretty much alone until the late 60's when persistent state sponsored terrorism on Catholics gave rise to the retaliation and thus the whole question again of reunification came back up.
so its not 90 years or the lengthy duration you are trying to push - its still too long all the same , but that will change - most definitely(and I have always said it will be linked with money and economic upturn! - those 1million as well as the sdlp/sf types will have no problem changing their principles for a few shekels lke before)

This below is also a bit of a climbdown from you again !
Imo, thanks to those 1 million Unionists,"it" won't happen in your or my lifetime.

while it was your original mantra , its far removed from your more recent never never never rants !
flip flopping again !

[ross matt]

Whoever should win this election, should consider what has been lost in the process. The Irish media industry stand exposed as partisan, untruthful and incompetent. Irish society has been exposed as devoid of vision, and an inability to learn from past mistakes. Northern Nationalists have seen their aspirations trampled upon and are now totally abandoned. When your colonial masters treat you with more respect than your fellow countryman, the time has come to consider your position. Michael D has behaved with presidential decorum and dignity and will probably succeed to the presidency. Sadly he will preside over a bankrupt,fractured state, that has turned its back on its history and culture, and has no future other than a pleasant playground for rich european elites

So Martin wont be in the Aras for 2016 and the whinging and blame game starts. Pick up your toys and the dummy you spat out and go home.

[highorlow]

She is unlocked now.

[Ulick]

Summary of the Gallaghers lies - taken from p.ie
http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/174295-gallagher-misses-radio-interview-now-has-no-mobile-phone-41.html

Updated list:
Can we now safely list these untruths and inaccuracies, and confirm sources:
1. Not deleting comments on facebook - East Coast radio interview/politics.ie threads listing comments which have been deleted
2. Only mentioned €5k dinner to a few friends, did not call anyone - Claimed in interview with Aine Lawlor, admitted on Six one yesterday
3. Did not solicit €5k donations - Aine Lawlor interview, admitted cold call to person he didn't know on Six One
4. Did not collect any €5k donations - Hugh Morgan statement and his own admission on Frontline debate
5. Re Directors Loan in contravention of Companies Acts - On the Last Word, he said the Beach House accounts "were never filed with the technical breach" and so no breach of company law occurred. - The Directors Loan was only picked up from filed accounts in the CRO. They were filed.
6. Re number 5 above, The loan is clearly a breach of Company Law. (today's Irish Times also)
7. On the Last Word on Today FM yesterday he said the cheque was lodged to the account of a company he had with a "very similar" name. The monies should have been lodged to Beach House Training and Consulting Ltd. His other companies at the time were Smartwatch Ltd, Smarthomes Ltd, Smarthomes Group Ltd - none of which names are similar to "Beach House" . - Irish Times today
8. Alleged that a businessman who had contributed 5k to FF had been investigated by CAB. Denied by businessman. Unsubstantiated allegation from SG
9. He said the Morgan event was his first fund raising event, check him out in 1992 with Albert Reynolds.
10. "I've never said one negative thing about any other candidate in this race" says Gallagher - D Cochrane post#324 on this thread. Yesterday he referred to Martin McGuinness "pulling the trigger" on him on Primetime debate, and also referred to debate ambush as "a military style timebomb" from SF

[Evil Genius]

I think you need to remember that there were quite a few loyalist\unionist gunmen and bombers also released from prison to take up their seats in government on an as of right basis. How do you think your fellow Nationalist Irishmen and women of the 6 counties feel about that?

You make a fair point about those "Loyalist" [sic] terrorists gaining early release and I, for one, am every bit as disgusted by it as by the release of their Republican counterparts. But with both, I am persuaded that if that was to be the price to be paid for achieving some sort of settlement, then it was (just about) worth paying.
As for NI Nationalists, I accept that they are likely even more repulsed by the sight of those thugs walking free, to resume their life of drug-dealing, extortion and general gangsterism, whilst at the same time demanding ever more taxpayer-funded "community" jobs and grants etc

There are quite a few Unionists who still cling to the old "we run this country" ideal. It was this type of attitude that at least partially led to the need for conflict in the north in in the first instance (coupled with the fact that Nationalists and Catholics in general were treated as 2nd class) and they are the people who cannot abide power sharing with SF or any nationalist party now.

Indeed.
But as a Unionist who would hope never to be included in their ranks, I take comfort from the fact that sooner or later, these Dinosaurs will become pretty much extinct.

You're right, there is not a united ireland....yet.....but Catholics/Nationalist/Republicans in the 6 counties now have parity with the Unionist/Loyalist/Protestant community and I for one think if it had not been for the conflict this would not have happened.

I agree, without "conflict" it would not have happened nearly so quickly. But imo that definition of "conflict" should have been confined to the Civil Rights campaign etc.

For if it had been, then I have little doubt that following the examples eg of Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King in the USA etc, by the early 1970's, the government in Westminster would have intervened to impose this on NI over the heads of Stormont.

However, the transformation of the "conflict" by people like McGuinness from (peaceful) Civil Rights to (paramilitary) "Brits Out" etc, served only to delay this process by 30-odd years, and at the cost of thousands of lives.

And even then the eventual GFA settlement was on the table in 1974 at Sunningdale, only the Shinners rejected it.

MMG was part of that....he used the gun when it was needed

"When it was needed". 
And who determined it was "needed"? What mandate did he have? 

... and used politics when it was permitted

"When it was permitted"?
And I suppose the likes of John hume were not "permitted" to engage in politics? Or gain the overwhelming majority of the Nationalist vote during the period when McGuinness felt compelled to use the gun?
I keep posting this clip from YouTube, but no-one else seems to think it remarkable that McGuinness should have been coming out with stuff like this in 1985 - a full 11 years after he "left" the IRA for a political career:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzvpMlHuIrs&feature=related

... and has progressed into a peacemaker first and foremost.

He "progressed into a peacemaker" [sic] only when it finally became clear that his vicious campaign of terrorism necessary war would never actually achieve the UI he craved (in fact by driving Unionists in the opposite direction, it was only proving ever more counter-productive).
Hence his decision to take the road of the "peacemaker". now don't get me wrong, I'd rather he did that than had carried on the "war", however belatedly.
But when I observe his demeanour and study his words since, I have ever less doubt that if he thought that Terrorism might yet achieve his aims, the callous b**tard would still be at it even now - 37 years after he "left the IRA"... 

Of course all deaths were a tragic loss.....no-one would debate that....but it was war. People die in war. Most of the time the innocents are the people who suffer most but why should that make the war waged by the IRA any less legitimate that say the uprising in Libya where a people felt persecuted by their government? Are the fighters for the Libyan NTC murderers or are they common people fighting for a common cause. It's not always clear.

Which is where we must differ.

For as far as I'm concerned, this was no "war", but a nasty, murderous and squalid attempt by various groups of armed thugs (Loyalist as well as Republican) to impose their will by gun and bomb upon anyone who disagreed with them, as often as not directly impacting on their "own" community, and with complete disregard for law, electoral support or morality.

In fact, the only thing which might persuade me that this was in fact some sort of "war" is the thought that that might lead to the leading players being indicted for War Crimes in The Hague.

But on the Shinner "cake and eat it" principle, I can't ever see McGuinness accepting that logical conclusion to his earlier prosecution of the "war"...

IMO, politically MMG has more experience than any of the other candidates. He has a world wide profile and I think could do a lot of good for the economy in the 26. No doubt, it would also further the cause of the SF party should he be elected, but even if he's  not this campaign has already been a success for SF and it opens the door to the possibility that a SF candidate could at some point become President. From what I can see of this, SF are still working towards a united ireland and they are using politics to do so.

So the "Independent"  Mr. McGuinness is "using politics" to achieve a UI, is he?

You see, I thought this was a Presidential  election i.e. to a position which is meant to be above party politics?

Anyhow, I hope that if he shouldn't win, it will be because at least some of the voters in the Republic now see him better for what he really is, and so disdain to elect a cynical and unrepentent former Terrorist to represent them on the world stage.

And conversely, if he should somehow win, I will be happy that he will be constitutionally confined into an entirely ceremonial role, with little or no opportunity to further effectively his narrow, partisan Shinner agenda.

Indeed if nothing else, a victory for "The Bogside Butcher" would mean that the people of NI would see a whole lot less of his attempts to control their day-to-day lives - just like the late and unlamented Gerry Adams! 

[highorlow]

Which one is a lie? I don't understand? Mistakes under pressure perhaps, but no lies.

[lynchbhoy]

I think you need to remember that there were quite a few loyalist\unionist gunmen and bombers also released from prison to take up their seats in government on an as of right basis. How do you think your fellow Nationalist Irishmen and women of the 6 counties feel about that?

You make a fair point about those "Loyalist" [sic] terrorists gaining early release and I, for one, am every bit as disgusted by it as by the release of their Republican counterparts. But with both, I am persuaded that if that was to be the price to be paid for achieving some sort of settlement, then it was (just about) worth paying.
As for NI Nationalists, I accept that they are likely even more repulsed by the sight of those thugs walking free, to resume their life of drug-dealing, extortion and general gangsterism, whilst at the same time demanding ever more taxpayer-funded "community" jobs and grants etc

There are quite a few Unionists who still cling to the old "we run this country" ideal. It was this type of attitude that at least partially led to the need for conflict in the north in in the first instance (coupled with the fact that Nationalists and Catholics in general were treated as 2nd class) and they are the people who cannot abide power sharing with SF or any nationalist party now.

Indeed.
But as a Unionist who would hope never to be included in their ranks, I take comfort from the fact that sooner or later, these Dinosaurs will become pretty much extinct.

You're right, there is not a united ireland....yet.....but Catholics/Nationalist/Republicans in the 6 counties now have parity with the Unionist/Loyalist/Protestant community and I for one think if it had not been for the conflict this would not have happened.

I agree, without "conflict" it would not have happened nearly so quickly. But imo that definition of "conflict" should have been confined to the Civil Rights campaign etc.

For if it had been, then I have little doubt that following the examples eg of Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King in the USA etc, by the early 1970's, the government in Westminster would have intervened to impose this on NI over the heads of Stormont.

However, the transformation of the "conflict" by people like McGuinness from (peaceful) Civil Rights to (paramilitary) "Brits Out" etc, served only to delay this process by 30-odd years, and at the cost of thousands of lives.

And even then the eventual GFA settlement was on the table in 1974 at Sunningdale, only the Shinners rejected it.

MMG was part of that....he used the gun when it was needed

"When it was needed". 
And who determined it was "needed"? What mandate did he have? 

... and used politics when it was permitted

"When it was permitted"?
And I suppose the likes of John hume were not "permitted" to engage in politics? Or gain the overwhelming majority of the Nationalist vote during the period when McGuinness felt compelled to use the gun?
I keep posting this clip from YouTube, but no-one else seems to think it remarkable that McGuinness should have been coming out with stuff like this in 1985 - a full 11 years after he "left" the IRA for a political career:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzvpMlHuIrs&feature=related

... and has progressed into a peacemaker first and foremost.

He "progressed into a peacemaker" [sic] only when it finally became clear that his vicious campaign of terrorism necessary war would never actually achieve the UI he craved (in fact by driving Unionists in the opposite direction, it was only proving ever more counter-productive).
Hence his decision to take the road of the "peacemaker". now don't get me wrong, I'd rather he did that than had carried on the "war", however belatedly.
But when I observe his demeanour and study his words since, I have ever less doubt that if he thought that Terrorism might yet achieve his aims, the callous b**tard would still be at it even now - 37 years after he "left the IRA"... 

Of course all deaths were a tragic loss.....no-one would debate that....but it was war. People die in war. Most of the time the innocents are the people who suffer most but why should that make the war waged by the IRA any less legitimate that say the uprising in Libya where a people felt persecuted by their government? Are the fighters for the Libyan NTC murderers or are they common people fighting for a common cause. It's not always clear.

Which is where we must differ.

For as far as I'm concerned, this was no "war", but a nasty, murderous and squalid attempt by various groups of armed thugs (Loyalist as well as Republican) to impose their will by gun and bomb upon anyone who disagreed with them, as often as not directly impacting on their "own" community, and with complete disregard for law, electoral support or morality.

In fact, the only thing which might persuade me that this was in fact some sort of "war" is the thought that that might lead to the leading players being indicted for War Crimes in The Hague.

But on the Shinner "cake and eat it" principle, I can't ever see McGuinness accepting that logical conclusion to his earlier prosecution of the "war"...

IMO, politically MMG has more experience than any of the other candidates. He has a world wide profile and I think could do a lot of good for the economy in the 26. No doubt, it would also further the cause of the SF party should he be elected, but even if he's  not this campaign has already been a success for SF and it opens the door to the possibility that a SF candidate could at some point become President. From what I can see of this, SF are still working towards a united ireland and they are using politics to do so.

So the "Independent"  Mr. McGuinness is "using politics" to achieve a UI, is he?

You see, I thought this was a Presidential  election i.e. to a position which is meant to be above party politics?

Anyhow, I hope that if he shouldn't win, it will be because at least some of the voters in the Republic now see him better for what he really is, and so disdain to elect a cynical and unrepentent former Terrorist to represent them on the world stage.

And conversely, if he should somehow win, I will be happy that he will be constitutionally confined into an entirely ceremonial role, with little or no opportunity to further effectively his narrow, partisan Shinner agenda.

Indeed if nothing else, a victory for "The Bogside Butcher" would mean that the people of NI would see a whole lot less of his attempts to control their day-to-day lives - just like the late and unlamented Gerry Adams! 

your personal opinions are indeed 'interesting' if not somewhat bemusing.

rather than rubbishing your entire piece - it is after all only your own personal opinion and you are entitled to it.
Lets just say that you are looking at it from your orange tinted glasses - wheras a hell of a lot of people would be seeing it very differently as having been on the receiving end from the war started by the ruc/unionist &loyalist sectarian statekeepers.

[Nally Stand]

Which one is a lie? I don't understand? Mistakes under pressure perhaps, but no lies.

He wasn't a liar. He just made a mistake under pressure!!

[muppet]

The Irish media industry stand exposed as partisan, untruthful and incompetent.

True but nothing new. People need to understand the background of the current state of the Irish media. I think we in the north sometimes over-react to the media treatment of Sinn Fein and northerners in general on RTE/TV3 etc. This can result in sweeping statements about Irish people in general (the type Tubberman just got offended by), and can come across as offensive to ordinary irish citizens looking in. I think if we can all see the media in the correct context, understand that they are not without agenda, then we might all understand each other a bit better.

'Eoghan Harris was a secret member of the Workers Party (previously Official Sinn Fein, then Sinn Fein the Workers Party) from the early 1970's. For most of the period during which he was a secret member he threatened media organisations and journalists (including this journalist) with libel actions if they asserted what was in fact true – ie his membership of the party. In addition, he was instrumental in establishing a secret branch of the party within the Workers Union of Ireland (WUI) membership at RTE and this branch attempted and succeeded in slanting RTE current affairs programmers on radio and television through the judicious placement of its members and associates in key roles. In doing so they gravely damaged the credibility of RTE's current affairs output especially in relation to northern coverage, on which it sought to exclude any voice that it considered sympathetic to Provisional Sinn Fein (not just members of Sinn Fein).

The current President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, worked as a reporter on RTE television's flagship current affairs programme at the time, Today Tonight, and came into conflict with others on the programme who either were secret members of the Workers Party or associates of those. She was accused of being a Provo and ridiculed because of her northern nationalist background. She was personally witness to an extraordinary episode which illustrated the bias that had infected RTE current affairs at the time.'

http://politico.ie/politics/4442-eoghan-harris-and-the-workers-party.html

When you hear Charlie Bird or Marian Finucane witter on on some rant, remember Harris hired all them and schooled them in the same agenda as above. When you establish a culture in an organisation then it tends to get passed down to younger members of that organisation.

Now, 2 days ago bbc ni reported the re-opening of a case of the shooting of an RUC man in 1974 by the Official IRA at a time when Harris was developing his project as part of Official Sinn Fein. Compare and contrast the silence on this with similar cases in which the provisional movement were involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15423091

Thanks for that post Sheamy. Rather than the usual broad brush outrage on lots of posts here, backed up with nothing, you at least have provided focus for the argument.