Messages

rainy night in soho gets my vote but Nancy Spain is also one of my favorites.  But there is nothing Irish about it. interestingly it was written about a real woman called  Nancy Spain she was an upper class english journalist, wrote for the telegraph i think. she was killed while on the way to the grand national in a private plane which crashed. she was among other things in a public lesbian relationship which was most unusual at the time.

Just wiki'ed that there - it seems it is more Irish than you think. Written by an Irishman, Barney Rushe, he simply needed a name for the woman in the ballad and decided to use "Nancy Spain" because he liked the sound of her name. The song is not about her though.

Apparently he had a regular gig in Jersey when Christy Moore stopped in one night in 1969. He loved Barney's song and asked permission to cover it and Barney said yes, promising to make a tape and send it on. He didn't end up doing it until 1976, and Christy didn't cover it until 1979.

I live very close to where Anna was discovered. I think when people think of Lucan, they think of Adamstown and miles upon miles of boxy estates. Where she died is on the Clonee Road between Lucan and Westmanstown - there is St. Catherine's Park and loads of farmland - very isolated at night.

On the road where I live, there would be herds of kids and toddlers, always out playing. The day after she disappeared every child was accompanied by a parent. The search was ongoing but even at that early stage, most agreed that she had been abducted, and most thought she was already dead - perhaps another JoJo Dollard, Fiona Pender or Deirdre Jacob, just vanishing away up a motorway or from an estate. Terrible to say, but that is an easier thing to compute than to face what actually happened when she was found, literally just yards from where we all stood.

We all know that there are wolves in the wood, that you hurry after dark, that there are creatures found on the roads and byways that are best not met. But what happens when the beast comes home, takes off his mask and is revealed as a 13 year old child, doing his homework, playing X Box, falling asleep under Man U or Liverpool posters?

This trial will be absolutely horrific not just because of the nature of the crimes, but of the banality of the killers. They will look and behave in almost every way as our own sons, yet they ended up in dark farmhouse in a pool of a young girl's blood.

Almost as horrific will the revelations of just how cruelly this girl was treated in general. I don't like setting up straw men - I've seen too many moral panics revealed over the years to be nothing, but I don't think it can denied that social media has changed how we communicate with each other. Whilst bullying has always existed, the ease of access to victims and the (perceived) anonymity of the bully has surely changed and amplified how this abuse is felt.

My little fella is 7. He is asking me for a phone already. He can continue asking for as long as he likes.

I see Yvette Cooper is going to use tomorrow to try and kill no deal once and for all.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/02/mps-seek-to-stop-no-deal-brexit-by-tabling-article-50-bill

I think that last reply deals with some of your questions as well trailer.

Upshot of the GFA was that Northern Irish residents could choose to be either British or Irish or both - that was the essential fudge that got it over the line. With Brexit that now changes to being British or European or both.

If a hard border materialises (and whilst I'd say the odds of it appearing are slightly increasing, the odds of it being permanent are vanishingly small) than the first thing that will happen is that NI nationalists will sue for their rights as European citizens, which were guaranteed under the GFA. Than you would have the spectacle of HM Government defending itself for repudiating a treaty it signed and ratified under international law. It won't go that far, even in a world of Trump, Johnson and disrespect for institutions. The pendulum swings slow but it does swing, and a revitalised international system a la the post WWII settlement may just be the result of all the facist flirtations of the past decade. And the UN won't want a permanent member of the security council reneging on UN registered treaties.

The "backstop" is a fact. The DUP are now prepared to sacrifice Brexit to maintain the Union. The irony here is delicious - if the DUP support a no-deal Brexit, they precipitate a border poll. If they support a soft Brexit, they risk being knifed in the back by the ERG and cut adrift by the Conservatives, and facing the possibility of the most left wing and republican-sympathetic Prime Minister ever - who might just call a border poll.

It is remarkable that the only principled stand they could have made, was also the one that was most effective for protecting the status quo - opposing Brexit from the outset. They took Arron Bank's soup despite knowing that leaving the EU, in any form, was poisonous for NI business and agriculture and they did it because they could foresee no consequences - Brexit would be defeated but they would be poster children for the burgeoning far right with dark money for all. Unfortunately for them, they won. And now they are squirming.

If I was Sinn Fein, I wouldn't be doing anything. When your opponents are setting themselves on fire, do not hand them a bucket of water. Theresa May said last week that NI was unprepared for a hard Brexit because of the lack of an assembly. The DUP cried foul straight away. Because they know what it coming. There will be a reckoning after all this is over, and the hegemony the Unionists currently enjoy in NI because of their numbers in Westminster will come to an end, and the Tories will be looking for any scape goat they can find.

Stay out of the way and let them at it.

So let a "no deal" Brexit happen and f**k all the people in NI? Is that what you think is a good plan?

I'd say the first element of any plan is learning to read. I did not suggest the above. I said that I think that the risk of a No Deal has only increased slightly and even if it does happen, it is completely unsustainable under international law and would not be permanent. Given that, there is no political advantage to Sinn Fein intervening.

The right of all people in Northern Ireland to declare themselves European (Irish) is guaranteed under international law, and can be prosecuted under that law. Which means no deal Brexit for NI is a non runner. And no amount of Brexiteer bluster is going to change that.

The immovable force of the DUP/ERG is about to be introduced to the irresistible force of reality. Stay out of the way of the collision and make sure that you are ready to exploit the situation after the smoke clears.

Which international law are you referring to? Is there a clause, page or section you can refer us to?

What part of a hard Brexit would stop people declaring themselves Irish?

GFA became international law when it was registered with the UN. Any breach of it can be prosecuted at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, which is under the auspices of the UN.

GFA presents two main problems to proponents of a hard brexit - firstly it states that there must be regulatory alignment between ROI and NI, plainly impossible under the no deal Brexit envisaged by the ERG.

Secondly, and dealing with your last question, the paradox presented by the GFA's solution to identity is incompatible with a hard brexit. Look at this way, a Northern Irish person declares themselves as Irish and gets an Irish passport. However, the holding of that passport, under the GFA,  in no way takes away their right to citizenship of the UK. Are they to be considered like Polish ex pats in London, where it is envisaged there will be a derogation of their standing or the rights accruing to them under UK law as EU citizens living in the UK? Do they still have full access to the welfare state as UK citizens do? But as Europeans, do they have the right to access the EU legal system whilst living in NI, all the way up to and including the ECJ and the ECHR?

These are big questions and I'm not a lawyer but you can guarantee that the UK does not want to have to defend the derogation of these rights in court, no matter where it is.

Corbyn is the wildcard alright. If he had even a tenth of Blair's retail skills, he would be 30 points clear in the polls. People go on about Labour's dithering on this - but even their convoluted policy, if presented with real communication skills, would still command a hefty lead on the Tories. Corbyn just doesn't have "it"

However, spokespeople like Emily Thornberry yesterday very skilfully set out what was effectively a U-turn on their manifesto (supporting Common Market 2.0 is in direct opposition to their stated support for ending freedom of movement) by basically saying "when the facts change, we change our minds".

A rational approach like that may just be the thing to attract voters disillusioned with the Maybot's "Brexit means Brexit" and the ERG's doctrinaire and dogged attachment to the 17.2 million.

I still think that May hasn't found her floor yet, and even a charisma free zone like Jeremy can be elected on the back of it.

Upshot of the GFA was that Northern Irish residents could choose to be either British or Irish or both - that was the essential fudge that got it over the line. With Brexit that now changes to being British or European or both.

If a hard border materialises (and whilst I'd say the odds of it appearing are slightly increasing, the odds of it being permanent are vanishingly small) than the first thing that will happen is that NI nationalists will sue for their rights as European citizens, which were guaranteed under the GFA. Than you would have the spectacle of HM Government defending itself for repudiating a treaty it signed and ratified under international law. It won't go that far, even in a world of Trump, Johnson and disrespect for institutions. The pendulum swings slow but it does swing, and a revitalised international system a la the post WWII settlement may just be the result of all the facist flirtations of the past decade. And the UN won't want a permanent member of the security council reneging on UN registered treaties.

The "backstop" is a fact. The DUP are now prepared to sacrifice Brexit to maintain the Union. The irony here is delicious - if the DUP support a no-deal Brexit, they precipitate a border poll. If they support a soft Brexit, they risk being knifed in the back by the ERG and cut adrift by the Conservatives, and facing the possibility of the most left wing and republican-sympathetic Prime Minister ever - who might just call a border poll.

It is remarkable that the only principled stand they could have made, was also the one that was most effective for protecting the status quo - opposing Brexit from the outset. They took Arron Bank's soup despite knowing that leaving the EU, in any form, was poisonous for NI business and agriculture and they did it because they could foresee no consequences - Brexit would be defeated but they would be poster children for the burgeoning far right with dark money for all. Unfortunately for them, they won. And now they are squirming.

If I was Sinn Fein, I wouldn't be doing anything. When your opponents are setting themselves on fire, do not hand them a bucket of water. Theresa May said last week that NI was unprepared for a hard Brexit because of the lack of an assembly. The DUP cried foul straight away. Because they know what it coming. There will be a reckoning after all this is over, and the hegemony the Unionists currently enjoy in NI because of their numbers in Westminster will come to an end, and the Tories will be looking for any scape goat they can find.

Stay out of the way and let them at it.

I have no problem with your analysis of DUP, the mess they are in and their role in creating their own mess.

But the way you let SF off the hook is shameful.

If we are economically crippled through a hard Brexit what do you say to those who can least afford to take that hit. This idea at look at DUP squirming that will feed and clothe the kids is as ideological hardline, blinkered and morally corrupt as DUP themselves

Again, the reading and comprehension skills here aren't great. I'm not letting Sinn Fein off anything. I've been on this board 20 years and I am as far from a SF sympathiser as you could get. Check back my posts.

However, that doesn't prevent me analysing what their strategy should be. And there is a big difference between strategy and ideology.

I really don't understand your last line, your grammar is all over the shop, but I'm assuming that my view that DUP should be let squirm is ideologically hardline, corrupt, blinkered etc and that I am advocating for children not being fed or clothed?

Parliament has only found a majority for only one position re Brexit in the past 4 months - and that is to rule out a no Deal Brexit, which it has done on two occasion, both with large majorities. So, the odds are very long on a No Deal, even now. And even if Theresa May stumbles the UK into No Deal - either by prevaricating too long or deliberately taking it as an option (which would pit her against Parliament in the worst schism since Charles I), then, as I stated above, NI, uniquely in the UK, has guaranteed its people EU citizenship under the GFA. It couldn't last under international law.

Then throw in the fact that the DUP are now putting the "Union" (or de facto staying as close to the staus quo, including EU alignment) before "Brexit" (in other words a No Deal Brexit led by ERG) and it means that the DUP have accepted the need for a "backstop" and are now simply insisting it apply to the entire UK.

So, given all that, the odds of children going unfed and naked in the streets of Newry are quite small, in my opinion and please tell me if you think I'm wrong.

But at least then we would be arguing about my opinions and not the wrong headed and dishonest interpretation yourself and Trailer are putting on them.

Upshot of the GFA was that Northern Irish residents could choose to be either British or Irish or both - that was the essential fudge that got it over the line. With Brexit that now changes to being British or European or both.

If a hard border materialises (and whilst I'd say the odds of it appearing are slightly increasing, the odds of it being permanent are vanishingly small) than the first thing that will happen is that NI nationalists will sue for their rights as European citizens, which were guaranteed under the GFA. Than you would have the spectacle of HM Government defending itself for repudiating a treaty it signed and ratified under international law. It won't go that far, even in a world of Trump, Johnson and disrespect for institutions. The pendulum swings slow but it does swing, and a revitalised international system a la the post WWII settlement may just be the result of all the facist flirtations of the past decade. And the UN won't want a permanent member of the security council reneging on UN registered treaties.

The "backstop" is a fact. The DUP are now prepared to sacrifice Brexit to maintain the Union. The irony here is delicious - if the DUP support a no-deal Brexit, they precipitate a border poll. If they support a soft Brexit, they risk being knifed in the back by the ERG and cut adrift by the Conservatives, and facing the possibility of the most left wing and republican-sympathetic Prime Minister ever - who might just call a border poll.

It is remarkable that the only principled stand they could have made, was also the one that was most effective for protecting the status quo - opposing Brexit from the outset. They took Arron Bank's soup despite knowing that leaving the EU, in any form, was poisonous for NI business and agriculture and they did it because they could foresee no consequences - Brexit would be defeated but they would be poster children for the burgeoning far right with dark money for all. Unfortunately for them, they won. And now they are squirming.

If I was Sinn Fein, I wouldn't be doing anything. When your opponents are setting themselves on fire, do not hand them a bucket of water. Theresa May said last week that NI was unprepared for a hard Brexit because of the lack of an assembly. The DUP cried foul straight away. Because they know what it coming. There will be a reckoning after all this is over, and the hegemony the Unionists currently enjoy in NI because of their numbers in Westminster will come to an end, and the Tories will be looking for any scape goat they can find.

Stay out of the way and let them at it.

So let a "no deal" Brexit happen and f**k all the people in NI? Is that what you think is a good plan?

I'd say the first element of any plan is learning to read. I did not suggest the above. I said that I think that the risk of a No Deal has only increased slightly and even if it does happen, it is completely unsustainable under international law and would not be permanent. Given that, there is no political advantage to Sinn Fein intervening.

The right of all people in Northern Ireland to declare themselves European (Irish) is guaranteed under international law, and can be prosecuted under that law. Which means no deal Brexit for NI is a non runner. And no amount of Brexiteer bluster is going to change that.

The immovable force of the DUP/ERG is about to be introduced to the irresistible force of reality. Stay out of the way of the collision and make sure that you are ready to exploit the situation after the smoke clears.

Upshot of the GFA was that Northern Irish residents could choose to be either British or Irish or both - that was the essential fudge that got it over the line. With Brexit that now changes to being British or European or both.

If a hard border materialises (and whilst I'd say the odds of it appearing are slightly increasing, the odds of it being permanent are vanishingly small) than the first thing that will happen is that NI nationalists will sue for their rights as European citizens, which were guaranteed under the GFA. Than you would have the spectacle of HM Government defending itself for repudiating a treaty it signed and ratified under international law. It won't go that far, even in a world of Trump, Johnson and disrespect for institutions. The pendulum swings slow but it does swing, and a revitalised international system a la the post WWII settlement may just be the result of all the facist flirtations of the past decade. And the UN won't want a permanent member of the security council reneging on UN registered treaties.

The "backstop" is a fact. The DUP are now prepared to sacrifice Brexit to maintain the Union. The irony here is delicious - if the DUP support a no-deal Brexit, they precipitate a border poll. If they support a soft Brexit, they risk being knifed in the back by the ERG and cut adrift by the Conservatives, and facing the possibility of the most left wing and republican-sympathetic Prime Minister ever - who might just call a border poll.

It is remarkable that the only principled stand they could have made, was also the one that was most effective for protecting the status quo - opposing Brexit from the outset. They took Arron Bank's soup despite knowing that leaving the EU, in any form, was poisonous for NI business and agriculture and they did it because they could foresee no consequences - Brexit would be defeated but they would be poster children for the burgeoning far right with dark money for all. Unfortunately for them, they won. And now they are squirming.

If I was Sinn Fein, I wouldn't be doing anything. When your opponents are setting themselves on fire, do not hand them a bucket of water. Theresa May said last week that NI was unprepared for a hard Brexit because of the lack of an assembly. The DUP cried foul straight away. Because they know what it coming. There will be a reckoning after all this is over, and the hegemony the Unionists currently enjoy in NI because of their numbers in Westminster will come to an end, and the Tories will be looking for any scape goat they can find.

Stay out of the way and let them at it.

[I might be wrong but Gavin strikes me as a man that hates to lose. He rolls out the usual platitudes in interviews but I'd be pretty certain he'd have been seriously gunning to get back into a league final.]

Our win over Dublin won't be important come the real stuff in the summer. However, the talk of Dublin coasting and not too bothered about the league doesn't sit with me. I might be wrong but Gavin strikes me as a man that hates to lose. He rolls out the usual platitudes in interviews but I'd be pretty certain he'd have been seriously gunning to get back into a league final.

They're obviously still well ahead of the pack but there is evidence that the gap might not be a wide as I would have thought at the beginning of the year.

That was the most emotion i have seen him show in any after match interview, he looked furious as he remarked about the low level performance Dublin produced on Saturday night and seeing that he is a ruthless manager i wouldn't be surprised if a few high profile players are dropped to the bench for while.

Absolutely. Not getting to the league final was definitely not part of the plan.
Very hard to pinpoint what's not right.
As with the league every year there is always some experimentation, but it's the older lads rather than the younger lads who have dipped.
I'm definitely glad the mark isn't in for the summer!
I'd be very surprised if we don't lose a game in the summer, I just hope it comes before the AI Semi-Final, in which case we'll have a very good chance to bounce back.

Wouldn't completely agree with that diagnosis Hound. I was at the game on Saturday and one of the most frustrating performers for me was Con O'Callaghan. Really couldn't believe some of his decisions in the first half, in terms of continually going for goal rather than taking the score on offer, and when he did, for a man who is well able to kick a point from distance, he was dismal enough. He definitely hasn't pushed on in terms of becoming a dominating player. Davey Byrne also got eaten without salt.

haven't had a chance to see it yet but a mate of mine was saying the two fellas in it didn't seem entirely honest.

Oh well that settles that then. If MoChara's mate says it, you can take it to the bank.

Easy tiger you seem like a very angry person, which is ironic what with your moniker and all.

Well, I don't feel angry about this, but maybe I'm coming across that way? I hate using emoticons, but maybe I should start. I just think it is hilarious when the title of the thread is about a documentary - a visual medium - you and others are coming on to proffer opinions about said documentary - without even seeing it.

And then when I point the absurdity of this out - in what I (mistakenly) thought was a jokey way, I get told I'm angry.

Well maybe, I should get angry. No one is coming on here saying "Well I didn't see the documentary, but I completely believe the two lads and everything that they say" - because that is completely unreasonable. Yet we're meant to give equal weight to the inverse statement which has as little validity to it? And because, what? That Michael Jackson deserves to keep his squeaky clean reputation?

As I pointed out before, if you watched the documentary and have a problem with their honesty, then that is a conversation we can have, because I watched it, and I have come to different opinion. And that is a debate.

But please don't come over all offended when I have the temerity to point out the immense pointlessness of giving an opinion on a film you haven't seen and shaming people you haven't listened to.

Only joking! 

Does that help?

How much credibility can you give to the two main contributors if they have said otherwise under oath previously?  Nothing new allegation wise, the only difference now is that he is not alive to defend himself.  Do we respect the fact that he was found innocent in court or just take allegations as gospel?

I find it ironic that in a country with a long and unhappy history with miscarriages of justice that we cannot conceive of people recanting their evidence, or find that someone doing so to be so beyond the pale.

Again, I'm not saying the documentary definitively proves Jackson's guilt. But the protagonists are very detailed and convincing in the recounting of events, and Jackson's absence does not in itself discredit their stories.

If it did, then no historical crimes would ever be investigated.

Wow you are grumpy. So you would perfer to discuss the documentary rather than actual facts which dispute the entire documentary.

I used inverted commas because a documentary is defined as "a film or television or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject." This cannot be a documentary then as it doesn't provide actual facts or evidence. If it did he would have been jailed.

I will watch it this weekend and get back to you. But as i said before unless it provides actual evidence then it simply should not be taken as fact.

Again im not defending him. I am following the rule of the law...iinnocent until proven guilty. Glad your not a judge.

Grumpy???

I thought my response was quite funny.

Whatever, as they say, dying is easy, comedy is hard.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am in someway endorsing the testimony of Safechuk and Robson. I'm not, though I do believe their account.

I'm merely pointing out the utter absurdity of you passing judgement on a documentary .. sorry "documentary"...without even making the minimum effort of watching it.

And the utter absurdity of accusing them of using this documentary as an easy way to make money by lying about abuse by Jackson - which means they went to the trouble of making up some of the most horrible and humiliating details about what was done to them, suffering immense public embarrassment and harassment for financial gain. As I said before, there are far less mortifying ways of making money of an association with Jackson.

I couldn't read the Forbes piece because it seems to be behind a pay wall for me? But I'm still better informed than you in the context of this conversation, because I've actually watched the documentary that this conversation is about.

And the documentary was factual. Safechuk and Robson claim they were abused. That is a fact and it was documented by the film.  Whether the abuse took place or not is for the viewer to decide. I viewed it and I believe them. If you viewed it and didn't, then I'd take your opinion a lot more seriously, and we could have a chat about this film.

But you didn't and we can't.

[To be honest i would rather rewatch the numerous trials that he was put through including an FBI investigation all of which found him not guilty instead of watching a one sided "documentary".]

Wow.

Let's do this quick.

To be honest i would rather rewatch the numerous trials that he was put through including an FBI investigation all of which found him not guilty instead of watching a one sided "documentary".



The clue is in the title of the thread - we are talking about this documentary, not about his trials. And you are perfectly entitled to call it one-sided. Once you watch it. Which you haven't. And using inverted commas to emphasise your "scepticism" is a little "overblown" and "redundant" given the overall tone of your posts. Just a "style tip" for you.

Try believing actual facts and evidence rather than reality tv.

I'll be coming back to this one, but I will just say, as you haven't seen the "documentary" you are in no position to classify it as "reality tv" - you see what I'm doing here?

I am not defending him but anyone can say things about you when your dead. People are too quick these days to believe everything they hear instead of doing some research.



You are defending him. See your point just above about facts and evidence.

Tell me this does the "documentary" answer why they supported him was he was alive and didnt sue him them?


"Yes". It does. You should "watch" it.

The Simpsons, the longest running sitcom in the USA and probably the most popular series ever created, has decided to drop its Jackson episode.  The stripping of Jackson from popular culture has begun in earnest.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/08/michael-jackson-simpsons-episode-pulled-by-producers

Interesting quote there from one of the creators - they don't support bans, but it is their book and they are entitled to drop a chapter if they like.