Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[Applesisapples]

Martina Anderson needs to be ditched by the Shinners, she is out of touch with reality. it is time that SF began to hold members to account, this type of garbage is self defeating. If she had welcomed the pension but put the onus on the British to fund it whilst raising concerns that the killers of Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy could benefit that would be understandable but this tweet was inexcusable. Eastwood revelling in putting the boot in but I didn't hear him express any concern over funding or beneficiaries. The two main nationalist parties are well short of where they need to be.

[Armamike]

She's an embarrassment. Unable to make a point without causing huge insult.

[johnnycool]

She's an embarrassment. Unable to make a point without causing huge insult.

Mary Lou needs to pension Martina off come the next assembly elections.

Most republicans let alone anyone else must cringe every time she spouts something on social media.

[Evil Genius]

Martina Anderson offending half the country again.  She really is a liability.

Only "half"?

I'd have hoped that a whole lot more than that could distinguish between Perpetrator and Victim.

You know people like this man, Edde O'Neill, who lost his father and was himself badly injured along with his brother in the Dublin bombings of 1974:

In his email [to Anderson and other SF MLA's], Mr O'Neill accused the Sinn Féin MLA of causing untold misery to mankind and told her to to stop referring to IRA members as victims.

He told BBC NI's Good Morning Ulster on Friday:"This is just part of an overall agenda by Sinn Féin to try and legitimise the likes of gunmen, bombers, child killers and murderers.

"This is not just about me this is about every other person that suffered as a result of these people."

He said he had told Ms Anderson she has to stop referring to "IRA bombers, gunmen, murderers and child killers as victims, because they aren't".

"I went out on 17 May 1974 as a child myself and I watched my father die in front of me," he said.

"The constant chipping away and the reference from Sinn Féin is that people like (Shankill bomber) Sean Kelly have the same rights and entitlements as me," he said.

"They don't, they are not entitled to that pension, none of them are loyalist or republican.

"Anybody convicted, anybody injured through acts of terrorism should not be entitled to that pension - in no way shape or form."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-53947629

[Franko]

In short, when Unionists don't pay [Bryson] any attention, why on earth do Nationalists?

They do though.  Or are they not 'true' unionists?

Whether 'true' or not, when are you going to get it into your head that the vast majority of Unionists don't pay any attention to wankers like Bryson, he's just an embarrassment.

And if you want stone-cold proof of that, just look what happened when he stood for election in 2011, in his own backyard of Bangor West:

Brian Wilson, (Ind) 1458
Alan Graham, (DUP) 1087
Alan Leslie, (DUP) 931
Anne Wilson, (Alliance) 808
Marion Smith, (UUP) 688
Tony Hill, (Alliance) 441
Joanne Dunlop, (Green) 301
Lian Logan, (SDLP) 298
James McKerrow, (UUP) 288
Alison Blayney, (Cmty Prtshp) 192
Julian Robertson, (Con) 181
Jamie Bryson, (Cmty Prtshp) 167
Ade Benson, (UKIP) 151

These are the facts, the rest is just blether - like Bryson himself comes out with.

So the goalposts move to the 'vast majority' now.

There were plenty who listened to his call to action when the big bad nationalists took away his fleg.

[Franko]

He himself is quoted as saying he was asked to review the "agreement" that wasn't an agreement because Arlene couldn't sell it to her base a few years back. The OO, Mervyn Gibson said the same thing at the time, so Arlene must have valued their contributions at the time as well.

Far be it for me to speak for Arlene, but she talks to lots of people about lots of things - eg Michelle O'Neill.

Whether she heeds them is another thing entirely.

I know Nolan is a gobshíte but he's got Jamie on quite a lot as the voice of unionism. Would that no rankle with you?

Who elected Bryson to be "the voice of Unionism"?

Certainly not Unionists.

Fact is, most people have better things to be doing than appearing on Nolan every five minutes (or listening to him, for that matter).

So he's hardly going to introduce his next guest as "Some ignorant wee gobshite that no-one of any intelligence or judgement gives a f**k about"

It rankles with me when Martina Anderson is spouting some utter balls and it's deemed that all republicans/nationalists think like her as I've said on this thread and other threads manys a time.

Funny enough, I was going to mention Martina as being the Republican equivalent of Wee Jamie, but thought better of it, since the comparison* doesn't really hold.


* - Thousands of people vote for her, in case you're wondering 

She spoke to Michelle O'Neill in her capacity as JFM.

If Bryson is only "Some ignorant wee gobshite that no-one of any intelligence or judgement gives a f**k about", why did she feel the need to gain his approval?

[Evil Genius]

In short, when Unionists don't pay [Bryson] any attention, why on earth do Nationalists?

They do though.  Or are they not 'true' unionists?

Whether 'true' or not, when are you going to get it into your head that the vast majority of Unionists don't pay any attention to wankers like Bryson, he's just an embarrassment.

And if you want stone-cold proof of that, just look what happened when he stood for election in 2011, in his own backyard of Bangor West:

Brian Wilson, (Ind) 1458
Alan Graham, (DUP) 1087
Alan Leslie, (DUP) 931
Anne Wilson, (Alliance) 808
Marion Smith, (UUP) 688
Tony Hill, (Alliance) 441
Joanne Dunlop, (Green) 301
Lian Logan, (SDLP) 298
James McKerrow, (UUP) 288
Alison Blayney, (Cmty Prtshp) 192
Julian Robertson, (Con) 181
Jamie Bryson, (Cmty Prtshp) 167
Ade Benson, (UKIP) 151

These are the facts, the rest is just blether - like Bryson himself comes out with.

So the goalposts move to the 'vast majority' now.

There were plenty who listened to his call to action when the big bad nationalists took away his fleg.

If Bryson is only "Some ignorant wee gobshite that no-one of any intelligence or judgement gives a f**k about", why did [Arlene] feel the need to gain his approval?

Straight from the Shinners' Handbook:

When faced with something uncomfortable (Anderson's latest stunt), don't Defend, just Deflect (Bryson) and Attack (Arlene).

Well I will indulge you your tactics, in the hope of getting a comment on Eddie O'Neill's email to SF.

1. You've spotted a difference between "Unionists" as a whole disregarding Bryson and "the vast majority" - well done you! Either way, he got precisely 2.4% of the vote in the only election he ever dared face - and that in his own home Unionist stronghold of Bangor;

2. If Bryson is capable of bringing the usual Rent-A-Mob out onto the streets for his latest flag protest etc, how many are we talking about? Two thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand even? A crowd like that can certainly create big headlines and another heated edition of Nolan etc. But at best they stlll only represent maybe 1%(?) of over 900,000 Unionists in NI. (In Nationalist terms that's Dissident levels);

3. As someone who's proud to say he's never given so much as a 10th Preference vote to the DUP I'm not here to defend Arlene Foster. But if you truly believe that she and her party take their lead from that gobshite Bryson then you really don't understand anything.

So having got that out of the way, do you have anything to say about Eddie O'Neill's email to Martina Anderson?
 

[Evil Genius]

Other than the title, what singles that out as a specific Sinn Féin tactic? That's not to say that they don't do that. They do but isn't it age-old and common?

Whataboutery (has a chapter of its own in the Handbook)

This is the SF thread, their response to the Troubles Pension is clearly current and controversial, and I am inviting peoples comments on it.

If you wish to address other parties' political tactics, whether current or "age-old," there are other threads for that purpose (eg Arlene and SDLP etc).

Meanwhile, any opinion on Eddie O'Neill's email to Martina Anderson?

(Genuine question)

[Evil Genius]

I suggest you yourself have just fallen foul of both the whataboutery and deflection sections of the Sinn Féin handbook.

So as I was saying: "Any opinion on Eddie O'Neill's email to Martina Anderson?"

Same question to "Franko".

[Evil Genius]

I suggest you yourself have just fallen foul of both the whataboutery and deflection sections of the Sinn Féin handbook.

So as I was saying: "Any opinion on Eddie O'Neill's email to Martina Anderson?"

Not really. It's his view, he's very much entitled to it and I'm not going to tell him he's wrong.

OK then.

But from her tweeting, it's clear that Martina Anderson believes that eg Sean Kelly (Shankill Road bomber) was as much a "victim" for the injuries he sustained as the people he killed. And by extension, we must assume that that applies equally eg to Michael Stone (Milltown gunman).

Do you agree with her?

[Franko]

In short, when Unionists don't pay [Bryson] any attention, why on earth do Nationalists?

They do though.  Or are they not 'true' unionists?

Whether 'true' or not, when are you going to get it into your head that the vast majority of Unionists don't pay any attention to wankers like Bryson, he's just an embarrassment.

And if you want stone-cold proof of that, just look what happened when he stood for election in 2011, in his own backyard of Bangor West:

Brian Wilson, (Ind) 1458
Alan Graham, (DUP) 1087
Alan Leslie, (DUP) 931
Anne Wilson, (Alliance) 808
Marion Smith, (UUP) 688
Tony Hill, (Alliance) 441
Joanne Dunlop, (Green) 301
Lian Logan, (SDLP) 298
James McKerrow, (UUP) 288
Alison Blayney, (Cmty Prtshp) 192
Julian Robertson, (Con) 181
Jamie Bryson, (Cmty Prtshp) 167
Ade Benson, (UKIP) 151

These are the facts, the rest is just blether - like Bryson himself comes out with.

So the goalposts move to the 'vast majority' now.

There were plenty who listened to his call to action when the big bad nationalists took away his fleg.

If Bryson is only "Some ignorant wee gobshite that no-one of any intelligence or judgement gives a f**k about", why did [Arlene] feel the need to gain his approval?

Straight from the Shinners' Handbook:

When faced with something uncomfortable (Anderson's latest stunt), don't Defend, just Deflect (Bryson) and Attack (Arlene).

Well I will indulge you your tactics, in the hope of getting a comment on Eddie O'Neill's email to SF.

1. You've spotted a difference between "Unionists" as a whole disregarding Bryson and "the vast majority" - well done you! Either way, he got precisely 2.4% of the vote in the only election he ever dared face - and that in his own home Unionist stronghold of Bangor;

2. If Bryson is capable of bringing the usual Rent-A-Mob out onto the streets for his latest flag protest etc, how many are we talking about? Two thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand even? A crowd like that can certainly create big headlines and another heated edition of Nolan etc. But at best they stlll only represent maybe 1%(?) of over 900,000 Unionists in NI. (In Nationalist terms that's Dissident levels);

3. As someone who's proud to say he's never given so much as a 10th Preference vote to the DUP I'm not here to defend Arlene Foster. But if you truly believe that she and her party take their lead from that gobshite Bryson then you really don't understand anything.

So having got that out of the way, do you have anything to say about Eddie O'Neill's email to Martina Anderson?

If you want someone to defend Martina Anderson or SF, you've got the wrong guy.  She is an absolute joke and the party are to be ridiculed for standing her in an election.  Likewise, I cannot understand the mentality of anyone who votes for her.  She must be one hell of a local rep, because, as far as I can see, anything she does on a larger scale, is a total disaster.

Regarding Eddie O'Neill's email, for which you are so anxious for comment on.  I honestly don't know what side of the line I'd be on with this, and I didn't know of it until you posted it.  I 100% struggle to place Sean Kelly in a similar bracket to this man.  I also struggle with the fact that the British Gov't have (and continue to) pay pensions to folks who are every bit a bad as Kelly so it's difficult to accept the moralising attached to it from the usual sources.

To further compound this, it is somewhat ironic that you chose a this man to highlight your point.  Given some of the allegations that have come from within the security services themselves, it may be the case that they are currently paying pensions to those involved in the organisation of the ACTUAL bomb which injured Eddie.

[Evil Genius]

If you want someone to defend Martina Anderson or SF, you've got the wrong guy.  She is an absolute joke and the party are to be ridiculed for standing her in an election.  Likewise, I cannot understand the mentality of anyone who votes for her.  She must be one hell of a local rep, because, as far as I can see, anything she does on a larger scale, is a total disaster.

Thank you - it's good to hear.

Regarding Eddie O'Neill's email, for which you are so anxious for comment on.  I honestly don't know what side of the line I'd be on with this, and I didn't know of it until you posted it.  I 100% struggle to place Sean Kelly in a similar bracket to this man.  I also struggle with the fact that the British Gov't have (and continue to) pay pensions to folks who are every bit a bad as Kelly so it's difficult to accept the moralising attached to it from the usual sources.

To further compound this, it is somewhat ironic that you chose a this man to highlight your point.  Given some of the allegations that have come from within the security services themselves, it may be the case that they are currently paying pensions to those involved in the organisation of the ACTUAL bomb which injured Eddie.

My position is quite clear.

No-one who was injured in the course of carrying out illegal activities ahould be allowed a penny of this funding.

That should apply equally to members of paramilitary organisations AND the security forces.

I imagine Eddie O'Neill thinks pretty much the same, but that was not his point.

Rather it was to highlight the outrageous nature of Anderson's tweeting, which claimed that victims weren't entitled because they were all part of the "Brit Securocrat Statelet etc" (paraphrasing).

Which was just another way of saying that the people that she and her comrades used to shoot and bomb deserved it.

[Applesisapples]

If you want someone to defend Martina Anderson or SF, you've got the wrong guy.  She is an absolute joke and the party are to be ridiculed for standing her in an election.  Likewise, I cannot understand the mentality of anyone who votes for her.  She must be one hell of a local rep, because, as far as I can see, anything she does on a larger scale, is a total disaster.

Thank you - it's good to hear.

Regarding Eddie O'Neill's email, for which you are so anxious for comment on.  I honestly don't know what side of the line I'd be on with this, and I didn't know of it until you posted it.  I 100% struggle to place Sean Kelly in a similar bracket to this man.  I also struggle with the fact that the British Gov't have (and continue to) pay pensions to folks who are every bit a bad as Kelly so it's difficult to accept the moralising attached to it from the usual sources.

To further compound this, it is somewhat ironic that you chose a this man to highlight your point.  Given some of the allegations that have come from within the security services themselves, it may be the case that they are currently paying pensions to those involved in the organisation of the ACTUAL bomb which injured Eddie.

My position is quite clear.

No-one who was injured in the course of carrying out illegal activities ahould be allowed a penny of this funding.

That should apply equally to members of paramilitary organisations AND the security forces.

I imagine Eddie O'Neill thinks pretty much the same, but that was not his point.

Rather it was to highlight the outrageous nature of Anderson's tweeting, which claimed that victims weren't entitled because they were all part of the "Brit Securocrat Statelet etc" (paraphrasing).

Which was just another way of saying that the people that she and her comrades used to shoot and bomb deserved it.

This is a in one post a summation of why the NI state will fail. All blame is heaped on those who took up arms against a corrupt Stormont regime and decades of discrimination. Personally I did not and would not resort to violence as an option. But this is lazy one-sided analysis. The NI state was founded on terrorist threat of violence and purges on the nationalist community. It is easy for a middle-class relatively well of catholic such as myself to look down on the mainly working class people who were involved on both sides. They were all victims of circumstance and as such if they need assistance then it should be given based on need. There can be no onesided British narrative or hierarchy of victims. Understanding is required from all sides.

[Franko]

If you want someone to defend Martina Anderson or SF, you've got the wrong guy.  She is an absolute joke and the party are to be ridiculed for standing her in an election.  Likewise, I cannot understand the mentality of anyone who votes for her.  She must be one hell of a local rep, because, as far as I can see, anything she does on a larger scale, is a total disaster.

Thank you - it's good to hear.

Regarding Eddie O'Neill's email, for which you are so anxious for comment on.  I honestly don't know what side of the line I'd be on with this, and I didn't know of it until you posted it.  I 100% struggle to place Sean Kelly in a similar bracket to this man.  I also struggle with the fact that the British Gov't have (and continue to) pay pensions to folks who are every bit a bad as Kelly so it's difficult to accept the moralising attached to it from the usual sources.

To further compound this, it is somewhat ironic that you chose a this man to highlight your point.  Given some of the allegations that have come from within the security services themselves, it may be the case that they are currently paying pensions to those involved in the organisation of the ACTUAL bomb which injured Eddie.

My position is quite clear.

No-one who was injured in the course of carrying out illegal activities ahould be allowed a penny of this funding.

That should apply equally to members of paramilitary organisations AND the security forces.

I imagine Eddie O'Neill thinks pretty much the same, but that was not his point.

Rather it was to highlight the outrageous nature of Anderson's tweeting, which claimed that victims weren't entitled because they were all part of the "Brit Securocrat Statelet etc" (paraphrasing).

Which was just another way of saying that the people that she and her comrades used to shoot and bomb deserved it.

The major issue here is that the people who are responsible for determining whether an action was illegal are the same people who were involved in the other side of the conflict.  These people would have a history of being economical with the truth around these issues, and indeed, refuse to release files which could help the investigation into the bombing which injured Mr O'Neill.  (No doubt, given your genuine concern for him, you will know this.)  And this is where your clear position becomes, well, not so clear.

I'll also take that as an apology for the repeated labelling of myself as some sort of SF lackey.  There must be a unionist handbook somewhere which contains one rule.  "When faced with any argument from someone which is in any way supportive of a nationalist viewpoint, stick your fingers in your ears and shout Shinnerbot".  Given some of the beautifully written prose you have produced here over the years in the course of debates, I would have expected something so infantile to be beneath you.  It seems not.

[five points]

The major issue here is that the people who are responsible for determining whether an action was illegal are the same people who were involved in the other side of the conflict. 

Why have they not retired?