What's the view on this SPAD Bill at Stormont by Jim Allister, trying to prevent those convicted of serious crime (ie murder) from taking up positions of Special Advisors to Stormont Ministers?
Also what's your view of Ann Travers? It was a terrible loss she suffered, but surely she has at least had the comfort of knowing that Mary Mc Ardle was convicted and served time for her involvement in the murder of her sister. Has she a right to expect more, and that people like Mc Ardle should never be permitted to become a Special Advisor at Stormont?
I believe Ann Travers is being used as a pawn to further the agenda of Jim Allister and others.
After 600 years of occupation, troubles and strife everyone has an axe to grind - so why give one victim higher priority than another?
Maybe someone could bring in a Bill to prevent bigots being MLAs or Advisors.
My thoughts entirely.I think she is losing sympathy for her case, and ignoring anomalies like Allister sharing platforms with loyalist killers. Seems like the only victim she cares about is herself
I also think special advisers should be required to sign a declaration that the Plantation of Ulster was Ethnic Cleansing.
As a matter of interest what exactly was Mary McArdles role in the killing? Did she pull the trigger or had she a 'supportive' role?
Took the guns from the scene.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 21, 2013, 04:36:01 PM
My thoughts entirely.I think she is losing sympathy for her case, and ignoring anomalies like Allister sharing platforms with loyalist killers. Seems like the only victim she cares about is herself
Her sister was murdered. That has to be one of the most unpleasant sentences posted on this board in some time.
Quote from: michaelg on May 21, 2013, 08:50:50 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 21, 2013, 04:36:01 PM
My thoughts entirely.I think she is losing sympathy for her case, and ignoring anomalies like Allister sharing platforms with loyalist killers. Seems like the only victim she cares about is herself
Her sister was murdered. That has to be one of the most unpleasant sentences posted on this board in some time.
Possibly, but if you read the sentence before it then it's a perfectly rational conclusion to come to.
to be honest, in all the time i applied for a jobs, any criminal record counted badly against you and rightly so, so why should the same law not apply to others, who already think they are above the law. If you murdered some one or attempted to, how can anyone take that person seriously whether reformed or not. Sinn Fein never coped on to do a clear out of their members serving that bring controversy and go with younger people with no criminal records that appeal to more of the nationalist population.
and in all honesty what qualifications do these special advisor have for the job, its more like a job for the lads, in this case woman scenario
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 21, 2013, 09:09:35 PM
to be honest, in all the time i applied for a jobs, any criminal record counted badly against you and rightly so, so why should the same law not apply to others, who already think they are above the law. If you murdered some one or attempted to, how can anyone take that person seriously whether reformed or not. Sinn Fein never coped on to do a clear out of their members serving that bring controversy and go with younger people with no criminal records that appeal to more of the nationalist population.
it didn't do Tony Blair's employment chances any harm
That's what ten men died for on hunger strike " we'll wear no convicts uniform nor meekly serve our time". Thatcher tried to criminalise Republican prisoners and failed so think again.You,Jim Allister nor anyone else will change that.
This woman Travers is getting on my nerves.Of course she suffered a terrible tragedy,that you wouldn't wish on anyone,but unlike many victims and their families,she had the satisfaction of seeing at least one person involved in the murder of her sister jailed.What more does she want or indeed has a right to expect?
She seems to have unfettered access to the media and Stormont Committees too.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 21, 2013, 09:09:35 PM
to be honest, in all the time i applied for a jobs, any criminal record counted badly against you and rightly so, so why should the same law not apply to others, who already think they are above the law. If you murdered some one or attempted to, how can anyone take that person seriously whether reformed or not. Sinn Fein never coped on to do a clear out of their members serving that bring controversy and go with younger people with no criminal records that appeal to more of the nationalist population.
[/quote
Maybe Sinn Fein have a policy of rewarding ex prisoners/ volunteers?
Some day all criminal records relating to the troubles will be wiped clean.
As a Unionist, maybe sound strange to some others, i'm in favour off.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 21, 2013, 09:30:36 PM
This woman Travers is getting on my nerves.Of course she suffered a terrible tragedy,that you wouldn't wish on anyone,but unlike many victims and their families,she had the satisfaction of seeing at least one person involved in the murder of her sister jailed.What more does she want or indeed has a right to expect?
She seems to have unfettered access to the media and Stormont Committees too.
+1
she can breeze from nolan to talkback and then on to jao meebollix in one day with ease. never heard the reaveys do it
Quote from: lawnseed on May 21, 2013, 10:15:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 21, 2013, 09:30:36 PM
This woman Travers is getting on my nerves.Of course she suffered a terrible tragedy,that you wouldn't wish on anyone,but unlike many victims and their families,she had the satisfaction of seeing at least one person involved in the murder of her sister jailed.What more does she want or indeed has a right to expect?
She seems to have unfettered access to the media and Stormont Committees too.
+1
she can breeze from nolan to talkback and then on to jao meebollix in one day with ease. never heard the reaveys do it
When she has run her course like the McCartney sisters she will be dumped by them all,and the Reaveys would not be attacking SF.Nolan and the rest don't give two fecks about her pain.
Can't be easy dealing with a loss under needless circumstances and let's not forget she's dealing with a serious illness herself.it's the shower that's exploiting her grief for political gain that are worthy of contempt
Quote from: T Fearon on May 21, 2013, 10:25:29 PM
Can't be easy dealing with a loss under needless circumstances and let's not forget she's dealing with a serious illness herself.it's the shower that's exploiting her grief for political gain that are worthy of contempt
+1
Quote from: glens abu on May 21, 2013, 10:21:29 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 21, 2013, 10:15:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 21, 2013, 09:30:36 PM
This woman Travers is getting on my nerves.Of course she suffered a terrible tragedy,that you wouldn't wish on anyone,but unlike many victims and their families,she had the satisfaction of seeing at least one person involved in the murder of her sister jailed.What more does she want or indeed has a right to expect?
She seems to have unfettered access to the media and Stormont Committees too.
+1
she can breeze from nolan to talkback and then on to jao meebollix in one day with ease. never heard the reaveys do it
When she has run her course like the McCartney sisters she will be dumped by them all,and the Reaveys would not be attacking SF.Nolan and the rest don't give two fecks about her pain.
glens i know the reaveys would not be attacking sinn fein. i merely used them as an example of a family who have also suffered a loss and who were slagged off under parliamentary privilege by our former first minister WRONGLY and yet they have not chosen to chase the culprit through the media for eternity. even though he couldn't be arsed to apologise
Remember the "de-baathification" policy in Iraq? Anybody that was deemed a part of Saddam's regime (even lowly civil servants) were turfed out of work and thrown into poverty. Wasn't exactly a roaring success. Was a great way to build up the insurgency though.
The north is full of people with shady histories and it's going to be like that for a generation. If we exclude them from political office or politics completely then what are they going to do? They're still going to want to effect change, and if you leave violence as the only option open to them then you needn't start crying when the ranks of the so-called dissidents start to swell. This business of personalizing politics is very dangerous.
It's another creeping revisionism of the Good Friday Agreement.
I have a lot of sympathy for Ann Travers but anyone who has looked at her twitter account would be able to see the kind of reactionary, contradictory human being that she is. I don't blame her for it - rather I blame those who killed her sister in a senseless act of violence - but when it comes to her being given a voice which she uses to vilify other victims like the Finucane family, I draw the line. As has been said above she is being utilised for political aims, an ironic and awfully sad twist given that her sister's death was justified by the perpetrators as a political act.
However, this is the uneasy peace that a majority of people on this island voted for, and this is the platform from which we have to move forward. Few at the time were prepared to consider the logical and illogical consequences of that document, and while it was agreed on the basis that no more victims would be created, the end result was that many of the more traumatised victims like Ann were completely ignored. Sadly, that's what happened, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to rip up the basis upon which our present peace is built.
But surely the point is that someone was convicted in relation to the Travers murder. Not many victims' relatives have had that much satisfaction even.
I honestly do not see anything else that can be done to help her. I feel sorry for her needless loss,but an awful lot of people suffered a lot more and had no closure in terms of convictions etc.
The irony is that if Mary Mc Ardle hadn't been caught and convicted, she would probably still be a SPAD and no one would have been any the wiser.
Quote from: stibhan on May 22, 2013, 08:52:52 AM
It's another creeping revisionism of the Good Friday Agreement.
I have a lot of sympathy for Ann Travers but anyone who has looked at her twitter account would be able to see the kind of reactionary, contradictory human being that she is. I don't blame her for it - rather I blame those who killed her sister in a senseless act of violence - but when it comes to her being given a voice which she uses to vilify other victims like the Finucane family, I draw the line. As has been said above she is being utilised for political aims, an ironic and awfully sad twist given that her sister's death was justified by the perpetrators as a political act.
However, this is the uneasy peace that a majority of people on this island voted for, and this is the platform from which we have to move forward. Few at the time were prepared to consider the logical and illogical consequences of that document, and while it was agreed on the basis that no more victims would be created, the end result was that many of the more traumatised victims like Ann were completely ignored. Sadly, that's what happened, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to rip up the basis upon which our present peace is built.
Good post. While I think we can all agree that it's dispiriting to see the way she is being used by Jim Allister, the problem is - how do you stop her? She's angry, and it's not for people who either don't know what it's like, or those who in some way contributed to the reason for her anger, to tell her to pull herself together.
I think the point in general is should someone with a criminal record for a serious crime be fit to hold a post for a govt Representative. In any other country in the free world, tax evasion, an affair attracting media attention, mishandling and not knowing to do your job would lead to dismissal / resignations. We live in a small minded country were mps call openly downgrade gay people (and not be fired as would be the case in the rest of the uk) can be involved in underhand land grab schemes and still not get sacked, can believe the world was created 6000yrs and still keep a straight face. Force their bigoted believes on other people, believe they are more british than the english, until it doesnt suit them like flying the flag or gay marriage. just cause some political parties are unjust does than mean Sinn Fein can do the same putting people with shady backgrounds in key positions, naming playparks that cause controversy. just cause one side is a political jellyfish thats rakes of bitterness with a sting in their tail does not mean nationalist parties should join them in this war of attrition ( i believe we better than this)that is politics in northern ireland without doing any actual work that is to the benefit of its people
There are some elected MLAs and some who stood but weren't elected,who did far worse than Mary Mc Ardle.It boils down to what Trimble once said,Just because someone has a past doesn't mean they can't have a future.Surely all convicts upon completion of their sentence deserve to be rehabilitated and therefore should not be debarred from employment as a SPAD
when with that in mind, why are u asked about a criminal record when applying for a jobs, if the same criteria is not to be applied to the same people supposedly running the country, to coin a phrase hierarchy of victims but a hierarchy of employment terms? why should a wrong that joe bloggs done in everyday life exclude him from a job but not the elite? Another point is what qualification she had to do the job and it wasn't a job for the lads policy?
There's an inner thing in every man,
Do you know this thing my friend?
It has withstood the blows of a million years,
And will do so to the end.
It was born when time did not exist,
And it grew up out of life,
It cut down evil's strangling vines,
Like a slashing searing knife.
It lit fires when fires were not,
And burnt the mind of man,
Tempering leadened hearts to steel,
From the time that time began.
It wept by the waters of Babylon,
And when all men were a loss,
It screeched in writhing agony,
And it hung bleeding from the Cross.
It died in Rome by lion and sword,
And in defiant cruel array,
When the deathly word was 'Spartacus'
Along the Appian Way.
It marched with Wat the Tyler's poor,
And frightened lord and king,
And it was emblazoned in their deathly stare,
As e'er a living thing.
It smiled in holy innocence,
Before conquistadors of old,
So meek and tame and unaware,
Of the deathly power of gold.
It burst forth through pitiful Paris streets,
And stormed the old Bastille,
And marched upon the serpent's head,
And crushed it 'neath its heel.
It died in blood on Buffalo Plains,
And starved by moons of rain,
Its heart was buried in Wounded Knee,
But it will come to rise again.
It screamed aloud by Kerry lakes,
As it was knelt upon the ground,
And it died in great defiance,
As they coldly shot it down.
It is found in every light of hope,
It knows no bounds nor space
It has risen in red and black and white,
It is there in every race.
It lies in the hearts of heroes dead,
It screams in tyrants' eyes,
It has reached the peak of mountains high,
It comes searing 'cross the skies.
It lights the dark of this prison cell,
It thunders forth its might,
It is 'the undauntable thought', my friend,
That thought that says 'I'm right!'
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 22, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
naming playparks that cause controversy
Ignoring the fact that those from that area support the naming of the park after Raymond McCreesh.
Quote from: ranch on May 22, 2013, 11:01:15 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 22, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
naming playparks that cause controversy
Ignoring the fact that those from that area support the naming of the park after Raymond McCreesh.
Did someone go around the doors asking peoples opinions about the name?
If some IRA/ Community leaders came to my door and said do you mind if we name the park after R. McCreesh? Would i or most others say, yes i do?
Don't really think so.
Quote from: dillinger on May 23, 2013, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: ranch on May 22, 2013, 11:01:15 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 22, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
naming playparks that cause controversy
Ignoring the fact that those from that area support the naming of the park after Raymond McCreesh.
Did someone go around the doors asking peoples opinions about the name?
If some IRA/ Community leaders came to my door and said do you mind if we name the park after R. McCreesh? Would i or most others say, yes i do?
Don't really think so.
There was a proper consultation done in the immediate area at the time and there was only one objection.
I live in the area and have no problem with the park being named after Raymond McCreesh.
The "reaching out to unionists" policy continues to deliver.
Quote from: stibhan on May 22, 2013, 08:52:52 AM
It's another creeping revisionism of the Good Friday Agreement.
I have a lot of sympathy for Ann Travers but anyone who has looked at her twitter account would be able to see the kind of reactionary, contradictory human being that she is. I don't blame her for it - rather I blame those who killed her sister in a senseless act of violence - but when it comes to her being given a voice which she uses to vilify other victims like the Finucane family, I draw the line. As has been said above she is being utilised for political aims, an ironic and awfully sad twist given that her sister's death was justified by the perpetrators as a political act.
However, this is the uneasy peace that a majority of people on this island voted for, and this is the platform from which we have to move forward. Few at the time were prepared to consider the logical and illogical consequences of that document, and while it was agreed on the basis that no more victims would be created, the end result was that many of the more traumatised victims like Ann were completely ignored. Sadly, that's what happened, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to rip up the basis upon which our present peace is built.
Good post.
Quote from: ranch on May 23, 2013, 02:33:37 AM
Quote from: dillinger on May 23, 2013, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: ranch on May 22, 2013, 11:01:15 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 22, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
naming playparks that cause controversy
Ignoring the fact that those from that area support the naming of the park after Raymond McCreesh.
Did someone go around the doors asking peoples opinions about the name?
If some IRA/ Community leaders came to my door and said do you mind if we name the park after R. McCreesh? Would i or most others say, yes i do?
Don't really think so.
There was a proper consultation done in the immediate area at the time and there was only one objection.
I live in the area and have no problem with the park being named after Raymond McCreesh.
I don't think it is an appropriate name for a play park. In fact, I don't see why a play park would be named after
any 'political' figure.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 23, 2013, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: ranch on May 23, 2013, 02:33:37 AM
Quote from: dillinger on May 23, 2013, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: ranch on May 22, 2013, 11:01:15 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 22, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
naming playparks that cause controversy
Ignoring the fact that those from that area support the naming of the park after Raymond McCreesh.
Did someone go around the doors asking peoples opinions about the name?
If some IRA/ Community leaders came to my door and said do you mind if we name the park after R. McCreesh? Would i or most others say, yes i do?
Don't really think so.
There was a proper consultation done in the immediate area at the time and there was only one objection.
I live in the area and have no problem with the park being named after Raymond McCreesh.
I don't think it is an appropriate name for a play park. In fact, I don't see why a play park would be named after any 'political' figure.
anyone think of a new name for casement park? or pearse stadium?
Quote from: lawnseed on May 23, 2013, 10:27:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 23, 2013, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: ranch on May 23, 2013, 02:33:37 AM
Quote from: dillinger on May 23, 2013, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: ranch on May 22, 2013, 11:01:15 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 22, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
naming playparks that cause controversy
Ignoring the fact that those from that area support the naming of the park after Raymond McCreesh.
Did someone go around the doors asking peoples opinions about the name?
If some IRA/ Community leaders came to my door and said do you mind if we name the park after R. McCreesh? Would i or most others say, yes i do?
Don't really think so.
There was a proper consultation done in the immediate area at the time and there was only one objection.
I live in the area and have no problem with the park being named after Raymond McCreesh.
I don't think it is an appropriate name for a play park. In fact, I don't see why a play park would be named after any 'political' figure.
anyone think of a new name for casement park? or pearse stadium?
Are they play parks?
Quote from: lawnseed on May 23, 2013, 10:27:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 23, 2013, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: ranch on May 23, 2013, 02:33:37 AM
Quote from: dillinger on May 23, 2013, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: ranch on May 22, 2013, 11:01:15 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 22, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
naming playparks that cause controversy
Ignoring the fact that those from that area support the naming of the park after Raymond McCreesh.
Did someone go around the doors asking peoples opinions about the name?
If some IRA/ Community leaders came to my door and said do you mind if we name the park after R. McCreesh? Would i or most others say, yes i do?
Don't really think so.
There was a proper consultation done in the immediate area at the time and there was only one objection.
I live in the area and have no problem with the park being named after Raymond McCreesh.
I don't think it is an appropriate name for a play park. In fact, I don't see why a play park would be named after any 'political' figure.
anyone think of a new name for casement park? or pearse stadium?
Ahhh ya can't be giving sensible examples to this daft non argument - especially since you haven't lifted your info straight out of google !!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 24, 2013, 12:37:47 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 23, 2013, 10:27:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 23, 2013, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: ranch on May 23, 2013, 02:33:37 AM
Quote from: dillinger on May 23, 2013, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: ranch on May 22, 2013, 11:01:15 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 22, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
naming playparks that cause controversy
Ignoring the fact that those from that area support the naming of the park after Raymond McCreesh.
Did someone go around the doors asking peoples opinions about the name?
If some IRA/ Community leaders came to my door and said do you mind if we name the park after R. McCreesh? Would i or most others say, yes i do?
Don't really think so.
There was a proper consultation done in the immediate area at the time and there was only one objection.
I live in the area and have no problem with the park being named after Raymond McCreesh.
I don't think it is an appropriate name for a play park. In fact, I don't see why a play park would be named after any 'political' figure.
anyone think of a new name for casement park? or pearse stadium?
Ahhh ya can't be giving sensible examples to this daft non argument - especially since you haven't lifted your info straight out of google !!
What are you talking about? Are either of those children's play parks?
Compassion - that's what Alex Attwood stressed in that rather stressful encounter with the BBC's Gareth Gordon yesterday. Alex was feeling more than a little tetchy at the time. He'd come from a meeting with Ann Travers, the woman whose sister was shot dead by the IRA 29 years ago as it attempted to kill her father Tom Travers, a judge. As you probably know, Ann is on a mission, now that Mary McArdle is no longer a special adviser in Stormont, to have anyone who's served five years or more barred from acting as a special adviser in Stormont. The SDLP has said it will not support a bill to this effect; Ann Travers has said that means they are "putting up two fingers to victims". Hence her meeting to get them to change their minds.
Compassion. Who could not feel compassion for a woman who has clearly suffered deeply since the day and hour that her sister was killed in 1984? However, compassion is one thing and judgement is another. The SDLP has already made a judgement not to support a bill precluding from special adviser office all those who've served five years or more. Ann McArdle is intent on changing that judgement by drawing on the SDLP's compassion.
A dangerous mix. It is never wise to allow victims to make decisions about punishment, for the good reason that they are victims. A victim feels the pain of loss and anger against those who have inflicted that loss; a judge is one who can detach him or herself from that pain and make a dispassionate decision on fitting punishment. If Alex Attwood or the SDLP allow Ann Travers to decide what the party's views on this matter should be, they will have allowed compassion to over-rule judgement.
A final and important point on this. Twice yesterday in her TV interview, Ann Travers declared she was speaking on behalf of all victims, in her pursuit of this matter. She's wrong. There are literally thousands of people who are victims of the conflict here. Not all of them feel that their pain calls for the barring from office of anyone who has served five years or more. Some of them feel the very opposite. Ann Travers has every right to speak for herself. She has no right to say she speaks for all victims.
Excellent post Glens Jude.
Seems Ms Travers is not ready for "moving on".
What next - anyone who didn't condemn e.g Enniskillen at the time can't serve in Stormont??
Alex didnt show much "compassion" for the BBC reporter who stuck a microphone in his face after the meeting. He's our answer to John Prescott ;D
Quote from: Rossfan on May 24, 2013, 11:04:18 AM
Excellent post Glens.
Seems Ms Travers is not ready for "moving on".
What next - anyone who didn't condemn e.g Enniskillen at the time can't serve in Stormont??
It isn't Glens post, it is Jude Collins.
Ann Travers is angry and has not come to terms with her loss. Yes McArdle was jailed for her part in it but the actual killers remain at large. Her reactions are understandable but no more or less relevant than those of the Cairns and Reavy families or any other victims. She is being used by media and politicians for their own ends. My objection to some spads and McArdle in particular is a lack of actual expertise in the area to which they are appointed. SF in particular share the jobs out to the boys and girls, it's like a military pension.
Quote from: Saffrongael on May 24, 2013, 12:09:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 24, 2013, 11:04:18 AM
Excellent post Glens.
Seems Ms Travers is not ready for "moving on".
What next - anyone who didn't condemn e.g Enniskillen at the time can't serve in Stormont??
It isn't Glens post, it is Jude Collins.
Yes - it's not on to be posting stuff without attributing it.
Quote from: Hardy on May 24, 2013, 03:50:29 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on May 24, 2013, 12:09:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 24, 2013, 11:04:18 AM
Excellent post Glens.
Seems Ms Travers is not ready for "moving on".
What next - anyone who didn't condemn e.g Enniskillen at the time can't serve in Stormont??
It isn't Glens post, it is Jude Collins.
Yes - it's not on to be posting stuff without attributing it.
Sorry about that just copied and pasted this morning and as Saff said its Jude Collins blog
Quote from: glens abu on May 22, 2013, 10:42:02 PM
There's an inner thing in every man,
Do you know this thing my friend?
It has withstood the blows of a million years,
And will do so to the end.
It was born when time did not exist,
And it grew up out of life,
It cut down evil's strangling vines,
Like a slashing searing knife.
It lit fires when fires were not,
And burnt the mind of man,
Tempering leadened hearts to steel,
From the time that time began.
It wept by the waters of Babylon,
And when all men were a loss,
It screeched in writhing agony,
And it hung bleeding from the Cross.
It died in Rome by lion and sword,
And in defiant cruel array,
When the deathly word was 'Spartacus'
Along the Appian Way.
It marched with Wat the Tyler's poor,
And frightened lord and king,
And it was emblazoned in their deathly stare,
As e'er a living thing.
It smiled in holy innocence,
Before conquistadors of old,
So meek and tame and unaware,
Of the deathly power of gold.
It burst forth through pitiful Paris streets,
And stormed the old Bastille,
And marched upon the serpent's head,
And crushed it 'neath its heel.
It died in blood on Buffalo Plains,
And starved by moons of rain,
Its heart was buried in Wounded Knee,
But it will come to rise again.
It screamed aloud by Kerry lakes,
As it was knelt upon the ground,
And it died in great defiance,
As they coldly shot it down.
It is found in every light of hope,
It knows no bounds nor space
It has risen in red and black and white,
It is there in every race.
It lies in the hearts of heroes dead,
It screams in tyrants' eyes,
It has reached the peak of mountains high,
It comes searing 'cross the skies.
It lights the dark of this prison cell,
It thunders forth its might,
It is 'the undauntable thought', my friend,
That thought that says 'I'm right!'
What's that got to do with the price of fish?
Quote from: glens abu on May 24, 2013, 10:58:30 AM
Compassion. Who could not feel compassion for a woman who has clearly suffered deeply since the day and hour that her sister was killed in 1984? However, compassion is one thing and judgement is another. The SDLP has already made a judgement not to support a bill precluding from special adviser office all those who've served five years or more. Ann McArdle is intent on changing that judgement by drawing on the SDLP's compassion.
A dangerous mix. It is never wise to allow victims to make decisions about punishment, for the good reason that they are victims. A victim feels the pain of loss and anger against those who have inflicted that loss; a judge is one who can detach him or herself from that pain and make a dispassionate decision on fitting punishment. If Alex Attwood or the SDLP allow Ann Travers to decide what the party's views on this matter should be, they will have allowed compassion to over-rule judgement.
Or maybe they will just make a more informed judgement? Is it any different to a victim impact statement being heard in court?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 25, 2013, 08:03:49 AM
Quote from: glens abu on May 24, 2013, 10:58:30 AM
Compassion. Who could not feel compassion for a woman who has clearly suffered deeply since the day and hour that her sister was killed in 1984? However, compassion is one thing and judgement is another. The SDLP has already made a judgement not to support a bill precluding from special adviser office all those who've served five years or more. Ann McArdle is intent on changing that judgement by drawing on the SDLP's compassion.
A dangerous mix. It is never wise to allow victims to make decisions about punishment, for the good reason that they are victims. A victim feels the pain of loss and anger against those who have inflicted that loss; a judge is one who can detach him or herself from that pain and make a dispassionate decision on fitting punishment. If Alex Attwood or the SDLP allow Ann Travers to decide what the party's views on this matter should be, they will have allowed compassion to over-rule judgement.
Or maybe they will just make a more informed judgement? Is it any different to a victim impact statement being heard in court?
Vastly.
Surely when any prisoner who has committed a crime,no matter how serious,completes his or her sentence and is deemed fit to re enter society again by the authorities,should have access to any form of employment? (Except working with children in the case of those convicted of sexual abuse).
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2013, 04:10:22 PM
Surely when any prisoner who has committed a crime,no matter how serious,completes his or her sentence and is deemed fit to re enter society again by the authorities,should have access to any form of employment? (Except working with children in the case of those convicted of sexual abuse).
Exactly.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2013, 04:10:22 PM
Surely when any prisoner who has committed a crime,no matter how serious,completes his or her sentence and is deemed fit to re enter society again by the authorities,should have access to any form of employment? (Except working with children in the case of those convicted of sexual abuse).
Subject to the requirements of the employer. They should be allowed to enter employment but employers should legitimately be allowed to discriminate against them on the basis of their conviction. Hardly makes for harmony on a mixed building site, office or shop if someone convicted of, for example, a sectarian murder is parachuted in.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 25, 2013, 08:57:24 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 25, 2013, 08:03:49 AM
Quote from: glens abu on May 24, 2013, 10:58:30 AM
Compassion. Who could not feel compassion for a woman who has clearly suffered deeply since the day and hour that her sister was killed in 1984? However, compassion is one thing and judgement is another. The SDLP has already made a judgement not to support a bill precluding from special adviser office all those who've served five years or more. Ann McArdle is intent on changing that judgement by drawing on the SDLP's compassion.
A dangerous mix. It is never wise to allow victims to make decisions about punishment, for the good reason that they are victims. A victim feels the pain of loss and anger against those who have inflicted that loss; a judge is one who can detach him or herself from that pain and make a dispassionate decision on fitting punishment. If Alex Attwood or the SDLP allow Ann Travers to decide what the party's views on this matter should be, they will have allowed compassion to over-rule judgement.
Or maybe they will just make a more informed judgement? Is it any different to a victim impact statement being heard in court?
Vastly.
Please elaborate.
TB,I didnt say everyone would like it,but at which point is a prisoner's sentence spent,his or her debt to society fully paid,and the rehabilitation process complete?
Looks like Big Al has done a U Turn. No mean feat given his frame size.
Typical of the SDLP they chop and change according too the way the wind is blowing. What about some consistent policies. The SDLP in the GFA agreed to allow convicted terrorists into government so why not as SPADS...hypocrisy. That said SF are ripping the arse out of the oul jobs for the boys and girls. Appointments should me made on merit not active service records and time served!
Pathetic climbdown by the Stoops.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 28, 2013, 03:33:25 PM
Typical of the SDLP they chop and change according too the way the wind is blowing. What about some consistent policies. The SDLP in the GFA agreed to allow convicted terrorists into government so why not as SPADS...hypocrisy. That said SF are ripping the arse out of the oul jobs for the boys and girls. Appointments should me made on merit not active service records and time served!
What makes you think the appointments aren't made on merit? The party SPADs we're talking about here (ex-prisoners) are usually educated to third level, some with doctorates. They've spent many years in policy units, community groups and voluntary services. Many have been actively involved in conflict resolution, are seen as leaders in their communities and are extremely dedicated. Let's face it, most others with similar qualifications and experience who haven't served time in gaol wouldn't get out of bed for the kind of money the Shinners are offering.
Good man big Al. Leadership at it's finest! Allowing policy to be dictated by a man who was the party's deputy leader twelve years ago! What a laughing stock of a party they really are!
Quote from: Ulick on May 28, 2013, 03:48:44 PM
Pathetic climbdown by the Stoops.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 28, 2013, 03:33:25 PM
Typical of the SDLP they chop and change according too the way the wind is blowing. What about some consistent policies. The SDLP in the GFA agreed to allow convicted terrorists into government so why not as SPADS...hypocrisy. That said SF are ripping the arse out of the oul jobs for the boys and girls. Appointments should me made on merit not active service records and time served!
What makes you think the appointments aren't made on merit? The party SPADs we're talking about here (ex-prisoners) are usually educated to third level, some with doctorates. They've spent many years in policy units, community groups and voluntary services. Many have been actively involved in conflict resolution, are seen as leaders in their communities and are extremely dedicated. Let's face it, most others with similar qualifications and experience who haven't served time in gaol wouldn't get out of bed for the kind of money the Shinners are offering.
I've always wondered whether this job was advertised so anyone could have applied for it, and whether the records of such applications and interviews have been kept so that SF could stand up and say "hey, we did everything by the book here"? Did Mary McArdle officially beat off other competition?
Also, when there is a change in minister, does the special advisor's position change? Are they sacked? What happened to Nelson's advisor when he moved from the minister's post in DCAL?
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
I think if anyone comes out of this looking bad, it's the stoops. Aligning themselves with the discriminatory, criminalization politics of Jim Allister, and having their policies dictated to them by a deputy leader from over a decade ago? Laughable. Between maggie ritchie and big sleepy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiEUDeLX-hY) al, I think the biggest issue for stoops should be the appointments to their party "leadership" rather than the appointments of SPADs.
Quote from: Rois on May 28, 2013, 04:50:50 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 28, 2013, 03:48:44 PM
What makes you think the appointments aren't made on merit? The party SPADs we're talking about here (ex-prisoners) are usually educated to third level, some with doctorates. They've spent many years in policy units, community groups and voluntary services. Many have been actively involved in conflict resolution, are seen as leaders in their communities and are extremely dedicated. Let's face it, most others with similar qualifications and experience who haven't served time in gaol wouldn't get out of bed for the kind of money the Shinners are offering.
I've always wondered whether this job was advertised so anyone could have applied for it, and whether the records of such applications and interviews have been kept so that SF could stand up and say "hey, we did everything by the book here"? Did Mary McArdle officially beat off other competition?
Also, when there is a change in minister, does the special advisor's position change? Are they sacked? What happened to Nelson's advisor when he moved from the minister's post in DCAL?
SF handle the SPAD positions differently from other Parties. As with all other resources SF SPADs are centrally managed and as such work primarily for the Party rather than the Minister. To fill the positions SF carries out a trawl of members and activists and individuals are encouraged to put themselves forward for a full time position. Interviews are held to decide whether or not the individual is suitable to be appointed to a full time position. The Party decides where the successful candidate would be best suited, though the Minister is free to make a case to have someone in particular appointed to them. If there are enough suitable positions open then candidates can be appointed to start work, otherwise put on an waiting list. In SF the SPAD doesn't necessarily move with the Minister and may stay in place to read the new person in.
My understanding is that in other Parties the Minister directly appoints SPADs at their discretion. The SPAD will move with the Minister.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2013, 04:10:22 PM
Surely when any prisoner who has committed a crime,no matter how serious,completes his or her sentence and is deemed fit to re enter society again by the authorities,should have access to any form of employment? (Except working with children in the case of those convicted of sexual abuse).
Mary McArdle probably wouldn't concede that she'd committed a crime, therefore rules as they apply to ODCs don't apply to her. Your point about sex abuse cases is probably of more relevance. If those convicted of crimes against against children aren't permitted to work with children, should those convicted of acts of violence against officials of the British state be permitted to work alongside officials of the same state?
Was there not a requirement that any Laws etc passed in Stromont had to have at least 40% support from both Unionist and Nationalist Camps?
According to RTE's Tommy Gorman this Travers woman is next going to try and get a similar Act passed in the 26 Cos.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 28, 2013, 07:22:20 PM
Was there not a requirement that any Laws etc passed in Stromont had to have at least 40% support from both Unionist and Nationalist Camps?
According to RTE's Tommy Gorman this Travers woman is next going to try and get a similar Act passed in the 26 Cos.
SF are one vote short of forcing a cross-community vote in the Assembly.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
"So what" ;)
Quote from: Count 10 on May 28, 2013, 08:45:28 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
"So what" ;)
Another election next year,that's what ;)
circling the plughole.. as seamus mallon the dinosaur shows hes still pulling the strings.
lets face it things would be alot easier for sinn fein without the history of ex-prisioners/combatants popping up day and daily. but as has already been said these are the people who have dedicated their lives to the struggle they have trained up in politics and educated themselves they are not motivated by money but believe they can lend a hand via their experience to make this place better. all that will happen is that the party will use them in another role.
Ann Travers may be able to push the stoops around but they'll eventually knife her in the back when her profile eclipses theirs
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
28,000?! All still alive? And if so, what proportion do you reckon voted SDLP?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2013, 04:10:22 PM
Surely when any prisoner who has committed a crime,no matter how serious,completes his or her sentence and is deemed fit to re enter society again by the authorities,should have access to any form of employment? (Except working with children in the case of those convicted of sexual abuse).
Actually depending on the crime and the employment there are plenty of jobs where the crime is never spent - teachers, some healthcare professionals, police, accountants, lawyers, pharmacists...
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
28,000?! All still alive? And if so, what proportion do you reckon voted SDLP?
Don't be ridiculous of course they are not all alive but many of their families will be,as for voting SDLP I would say going by the last lot of elections it's their voters who are dying.
What now for the SDLP/TUV,
No ex prisoners,no blacks ,no dogs ,no Irish need apply
So much for equality and no discrimination
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 10:46:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
28,000?! All still alive? And if so, what proportion do you reckon voted SDLP?
Don't be ridiculous of course they are not all alive but many of their families will be,as for voting SDLP I would say going by the last lot of elections it's their voters who are dying.
So there aren't over 28,000 ex-prisoners in the north. And basically, the way ex-prisoners and their families vote is likely to have little or no bearing on the SDLP's vote.
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
What now for the SDLP/TUV,
No ex prisoners,no blacks ,no dogs ,no Irish need apply
So much for equality and no discrimination
Would a dog be otherwise eligible as a SPAD?
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
What now for the SDLP/TUV,
No ex prisoners,no blacks ,no dogs ,no Irish need apply
So much for equality and no discrimination
Murder is discriminatory.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 28, 2013, 10:57:11 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
What now for the SDLP/TUV,
No ex prisoners,no blacks ,no dogs ,no Irish need apply
So much for equality and no discrimination
Murder is discriminatory.
Ah now, don't be introducing uncomfortable truths!
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 28, 2013, 05:12:53 PM
I think if anyone comes out of this looking bad, it's the stoops. Aligning themselves with the discriminatory, criminalization politics of Jim Allister, and having their policies dictated to them by a deputy leader from over a decade ago? Laughable. Between maggie ritchie and big sleepy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiEUDeLX-hY) al, I think the biggest issue for stoops should be the appointments to their party "leadership" rather than the appointments of SPADs.
I agree. Major f**k-up by the SDLP here. It'll be interesting to see how well it's received by the voters. I couldn't see them benefitting from aligning themselves with that anti-agreement p***k Allister and allowing GFA-violating legislation to go through.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:53:13 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 10:46:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
28,000?! All still alive? And if so, what proportion do you reckon voted SDLP?
Don't be ridiculous of course they are not all alive but many of their families will be,as for voting SDLP I would say going by the last lot of elections it's their voters who are dying.
So there aren't over 28,000 ex-prisoners in the north. And basically, the way ex-prisoners and their families vote is likely to have little or no bearing on the SDLP's vote.
Oh I can assure you it will,maybe it will it not effect Alastair's vote in the leafy suburbs of S.Belfast but it will help us chip away at their vote in the North and West of the city and other areas.U-turns on the GFA and siding with Jim Allister will do them no good at all.Happy days the sooner they are away the better. ;D
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Tony I have to disagree here, SF took the hurt when they originally appointed McArdle. The Stoops once again have managed to score an own goal. There appears to be a split once again with Atwood, Al and McDevitt once again done over by Deputy Dolly. If she can run rings round Al it's time the SDLP gave up. Moderate nationalists with UI ambitions have no-one capable of representing their views which leaves SF as the only reluctant home of their vote. It is disgusting to see the SDLP line up to cheer on Jim Allister. Don't get me wrong I think McArdle was a mistake and SF corrected it quickly enough so even they'd agree on that, but it is sickening to see Allister gloating. He doesn't give a flying fcuk for Ann Travers or victims that don't fit his narrow definition. She set her self up as mechanism which he used to the full to embarrass the DUP and attack the GFA. I don't like the SF policy of jobs for the ex-combatants as I have said before, but this legislation is anti GFA and provided ex prisoners are appointed on merit I can live with that. In the face of the quiet dignity shown by many other victims and relatives Ann Travers comes accross to me as mean spirited and vindictive, although not everyone grieves the same.
Quote from: glens abu on May 29, 2013, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:53:13 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 10:46:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
28,000?! All still alive? And if so, what proportion do you reckon voted SDLP?
Don't be ridiculous of course they are not all alive but many of their families will be,as for voting SDLP I would say going by the last lot of elections it's their voters who are dying.
So there aren't over 28,000 ex-prisoners in the north. And basically, the way ex-prisoners and their families vote is likely to have little or no bearing on the SDLP's vote.
Oh I can assure you it will,maybe it will it not effect Alastair's vote in the leafy suburbs of S.Belfast but it will help us chip away at their vote in the North and West of the city and other areas.U-turns on the GFA and siding with Jim Allister will do them no good at all.Happy days the sooner they are away the better. ;D
Maybe the voters in North Belfast will cast their mind back to Girdwood.
Quote from: Saffrongael on May 29, 2013, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 29, 2013, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:53:13 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 10:46:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
28,000?! All still alive? And if so, what proportion do you reckon voted SDLP?
Don't be ridiculous of course they are not all alive but many of their families will be,as for voting SDLP I would say going by the last lot of elections it's their voters who are dying.
So there aren't over 28,000 ex-prisoners in the north. And basically, the way ex-prisoners and their families vote is likely to have little or no bearing on the SDLP's vote.
Oh I can assure you it will,maybe it will it not effect Alastair's vote in the leafy suburbs of S.Belfast but it will help us chip away at their vote in the North and West of the city and other areas.U-turns on the GFA and siding with Jim Allister will do them no good at all.Happy days the sooner they are away the better. ;D
Maybe the voters in North Belfast will cast their mind back to Girdwood.
SF record in North Belfast is second to none so confident we will still win the 5 seats we hold in council and maybe even get a sixth,just you worry about the big vote Martin og will get if he stands ;)
Two ex-POWs Gerry and Caral will still out poll Alban in North Belfast.
Is there a list of each MLA's SpAds available anywhere?
Quote from: glens abu on May 29, 2013, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:53:13 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 10:46:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
28,000?! All still alive? And if so, what proportion do you reckon voted SDLP?
Don't be ridiculous of course they are not all alive but many of their families will be,as for voting SDLP I would say going by the last lot of elections it's their voters who are dying.
So there aren't over 28,000 ex-prisoners in the north. And basically, the way ex-prisoners and their families vote is likely to have little or no bearing on the SDLP's vote.
Oh I can assure you it will,maybe it will it not effect Alastair's vote in the leafy suburbs of S.Belfast but it will help us chip away at their vote in the North and West of the city and other areas.U-turns on the GFA and siding with Jim Allister will do them no good at all.Happy days the sooner they are away the better. ;D
Do you really think that the modest number of voters in North and West Belfast who have stayed with the SDLP to this point will desert them because of an ex-prisoner issue? If issues relating to ex-prisoners were so high on the agenda for such voters, would they have been voting SDLP up to now?
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Tony I have to disagree here, SF took the hurt when they originally appointed McArdle. The Stoops once again have managed to score an own goal. There appears to be a split once again with Atwood, Al and McDevitt once again done over by Deputy Dolly. If she can run rings round Al it's time the SDLP gave up. Moderate nationalists with UI ambitions have no-one capable of representing their views which leaves SF as the only reluctant home of their vote. It is disgusting to see the SDLP line up to cheer on Jim Allister. Don't get me wrong I think McArdle was a mistake and SF corrected it quickly enough so even they'd agree on that, but it is sickening to see Allister gloating. He doesn't give a flying fcuk for Ann Travers or victims that don't fit his narrow definition. She set her self up as mechanism which he used to the full to embarrass the DUP and attack the GFA. I don't like the SF policy of jobs for the ex-combatants as I have said before, but this legislation is anti GFA and provided ex prisoners are appointed on merit I can live with that. In the face of the quiet dignity shown by many other victims and relatives Ann Travers comes accross to me as mean spirited and vindictive, although not everyone grieves the same.
Well actually they won't be cheering him on. They tabled a number of amendments, all of which were voted down. As far as I understand, they have decided to abstain rather than support.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 29, 2013, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Tony I have to disagree here, SF took the hurt when they originally appointed McArdle. The Stoops once again have managed to score an own goal. There appears to be a split once again with Atwood, Al and McDevitt once again done over by Deputy Dolly. If she can run rings round Al it's time the SDLP gave up. Moderate nationalists with UI ambitions have no-one capable of representing their views which leaves SF as the only reluctant home of their vote. It is disgusting to see the SDLP line up to cheer on Jim Allister. Don't get me wrong I think McArdle was a mistake and SF corrected it quickly enough so even they'd agree on that, but it is sickening to see Allister gloating. He doesn't give a flying fcuk for Ann Travers or victims that don't fit his narrow definition. She set her self up as mechanism which he used to the full to embarrass the DUP and attack the GFA. I don't like the SF policy of jobs for the ex-combatants as I have said before, but this legislation is anti GFA and provided ex prisoners are appointed on merit I can live with that. In the face of the quiet dignity shown by many other victims and relatives Ann Travers comes accross to me as mean spirited and vindictive, although not everyone grieves the same.
Well actually they won't be cheering him on. They tabled a number of amendments, all of which were voted down. As far as I understand, they have decided to abstain rather than support.
Same difference.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 29, 2013, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:53:13 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 10:46:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2013, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 28, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Yeah and Alban Maginness's wife went to St.Marys along with Ann Travers,but on the other hand Nicola Mallon the stoops rising star in N.Belfast has two ex-prisoners as parents.There are over 28,000 ex-prisoners and their families in the North who will not be too happy with them.
28,000?! All still alive? And if so, what proportion do you reckon voted SDLP?
Don't be ridiculous of course they are not all alive but many of their families will be,as for voting SDLP I would say going by the last lot of elections it's their voters who are dying.
So there aren't over 28,000 ex-prisoners in the north. And basically, the way ex-prisoners and their families vote is likely to have little or no bearing on the SDLP's vote.
Oh I can assure you it will,maybe it will it not effect Alastair's vote in the leafy suburbs of S.Belfast but it will help us chip away at their vote in the North and West of the city and other areas.U-turns on the GFA and siding with Jim Allister will do them no good at all.Happy days the sooner they are away the better. ;D
Do you really think that the modest number of voters in North and West Belfast who have stayed with the SDLP to this point will desert them because of an ex-prisoner issue? If issues relating to ex-prisoners were so high on the agenda for such voters, would they have been voting SDLP up to now?
Don't underestimate the anger over this with them standing shoulder to shoulder with the anti agreement Allister,who now is on a mission to get ex-POWs barred from all employment at council level and all government agencies.Soon statement will be issued by 4 victim groups stating that the stoops never asked their opinion on this law but instead just took on board what Travers and Allister told them.Another own goal.Great
Lads anybody applying to work in the civil service if they have a criminal record for anything worthwhile will not get a job, its always been like that simple, why has nobody ever complained about this?? Why should a special advisory post who has not been elected by anybody and comes under the civil service rule basically have different rules to the common mucker on the ground. People seem to want general exceptions to the rule to suit themselves
Quote from: glens abu on May 29, 2013, 09:06:56 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 29, 2013, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Tony I have to disagree here, SF took the hurt when they originally appointed McArdle. The Stoops once again have managed to score an own goal. There appears to be a split once again with Atwood, Al and McDevitt once again done over by Deputy Dolly. If she can run rings round Al it's time the SDLP gave up. Moderate nationalists with UI ambitions have no-one capable of representing their views which leaves SF as the only reluctant home of their vote. It is disgusting to see the SDLP line up to cheer on Jim Allister. Don't get me wrong I think McArdle was a mistake and SF corrected it quickly enough so even they'd agree on that, but it is sickening to see Allister gloating. He doesn't give a flying fcuk for Ann Travers or victims that don't fit his narrow definition. She set her self up as mechanism which he used to the full to embarrass the DUP and attack the GFA. I don't like the SF policy of jobs for the ex-combatants as I have said before, but this legislation is anti GFA and provided ex prisoners are appointed on merit I can live with that. In the face of the quiet dignity shown by many other victims and relatives Ann Travers comes accross to me as mean spirited and vindictive, although not everyone grieves the same.
Well actually they won't be cheering him on. They tabled a number of amendments, all of which were voted down. As far as I understand, they have decided to abstain rather than support.
Same difference.
The same outcome, given the numbers. But they're not "cheering him on".
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 29, 2013, 10:06:23 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 29, 2013, 09:06:56 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 29, 2013, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Tony I have to disagree here, SF took the hurt when they originally appointed McArdle. The Stoops once again have managed to score an own goal. There appears to be a split once again with Atwood, Al and McDevitt once again done over by Deputy Dolly. If she can run rings round Al it's time the SDLP gave up. Moderate nationalists with UI ambitions have no-one capable of representing their views which leaves SF as the only reluctant home of their vote. It is disgusting to see the SDLP line up to cheer on Jim Allister. Don't get me wrong I think McArdle was a mistake and SF corrected it quickly enough so even they'd agree on that, but it is sickening to see Allister gloating. He doesn't give a flying fcuk for Ann Travers or victims that don't fit his narrow definition. She set her self up as mechanism which he used to the full to embarrass the DUP and attack the GFA. I don't like the SF policy of jobs for the ex-combatants as I have said before, but this legislation is anti GFA and provided ex prisoners are appointed on merit I can live with that. In the face of the quiet dignity shown by many other victims and relatives Ann Travers comes accross to me as mean spirited and vindictive, although not everyone grieves the same.
Well actually they won't be cheering him on. They tabled a number of amendments, all of which were voted down. As far as I understand, they have decided to abstain rather than support.
Same difference.
The same outcome, given the numbers. But they're not "cheering him on".
Yeah but he is cheering them on and you can be sure that the sneaky stoops that they are they will be patting him on the back in private.
The Nolan Show:
I dont understand why Ann Travers is a more important victim than others. Or maybe it is just because Jim Alistar has given her a leg up and the other unionists have to be seen to be better than Jim.
Quote from: Orior on May 29, 2013, 11:22:00 PM
The Nolan Show:
I dont understand why Ann Travers is a more important victim than others. Or maybe it is just because Jim Alistar has given her a leg up and the other unionists have to be seen to be better than Jim.
- Civilians in Britain
- British soldiers
- Northern protestants
- Northern catholics
That has always been the hierarchy of victims. The only time 4 gets a promotion is when they're killed by the provos. You can bet your bottom dollar that Jim "hurry up and take the goddamn picture already because I can't keep this grimace up for much longer" Allister has a considerably less understanding relationship with the families of the Bloody Sunday victims than he does with Ann Travers. If Mary Travers had been shot by a "stray" bullet from a British soldier's rifle he'd be griping about how much money the investigation is costing and wouldn't give a toss about the surviving family's emotional wellbeing.
well done jim allister.what a blow for unionism. in one simple move he cornered the stoops, who are mostly teachers which makes them dumb, and while they teetered on the edge of a cliff he pushed them over with the help of the self serving mallon of course who saw the chance to grab the limelight and took it.
you dont see the dup dragging out big ian they are way too smart for that.
roll on the election and bye bye stoops
Winners here are Ms Travers,Alisdair himself (will most likely hold his S Belfast Westminster seat) and biggest of all,Allister,who appears to achieve more as a one man band than some parties do.
I don't think Ms Travers is being used as a pawn.It is to her and Allister's mutual benefit that they co operate,and both have played their cards extremely well.As I said before,if you had a sibling shot dead,and years later one of those convicted in connection with their murder is shoehorned in to a £90K per annum job as a result of that involvement,you'd hardly be pleased.Whatever you think of this bill,you can hardly fault this woman and her quest for vengeance.
Also can't see it doing the Stoops much damage electorally.Those who vote for them wouldn't vote fir SF under any circumstances.
Letter to media re SPAD Bill by Director Mark ThompsonWritten by: Admin May 28th, 2013 During the course of the conflict the state consistently acted outside of the rule of law, including in contravention of international humanitarian law, in taking hundreds of lives. The majority of those killed were uninvolved civilians including scores of women and children. Of the combatants killed many were unarmed. Of those armed we know that ample opportunity for safe and effective arrest within the rule of law existed in quite a number of instances yet they were killed.
The state used its sovereignty as a shield to protect those responsible and ultimately its political and military policy objectives that included the use of lethal force; extra-judicial killings; summary executions; shoot-to-kill; and collusion yet no one was held to account. Collusion claimed hundreds of lives.
The state constructed the legislative framework that governed the entire criminal justice system that enabled the administration of impunity to those who wore uniforms, its agents, and those within the corridors of power who designed these policies and provided the official lies. The official position regarding the overwhelming majority of direct state killings is that of 'justifiable homicide'. The impunity that accompanied this violence was a purely political act and has its origins in the Frank Kitson era of the early 1970's.
Such was the scale of illegality within UDR that it was eventually disbanded. A significant number of former RUC, including Special Branch, are back within the policing system and its mechanisms for dealing with legacy killings. They are effectively circumventing any attempt to examine collusion and state killings. The policy of impunity continues.
The current Special Advisors bill being passed through the Assembly ignores totally this reality despite many former members of the UDR and RUC working within the Assembly and civil service.
The de Silva report states that 85 percent of all intelligence going to loyalist paramilitaries, at a time when they were killing more people than republicans, was coming from the 'security' and intelligence agencies. The bill also ignores the fact that many senior civil servants worked alongside the various 'security' and intelligence services within Stormont and the NIO.
So in keeping with the logic of the bill why then should only those loyalists and republicans convicted of offences be the subject of this bill?
Why does it not take into account the wider macro problem and simply say that any person connected to any grouping or agency involved in illegality during the conflict should be subject to the bill irrelevant of whether or not they were convicted?
The key question is why should those who availed of impunity be treated differently when the logical demand is that they should now face the same rigors of the law applied to those who were convicted?
Why should the needs of those victims who had prosecutions be considered above and beyond those who had no prosecutions and who had to also endure impunity and its legacy?
There is a very strong and legitimate argument that the violence deliberately perpetrated by a state and for which impunity is granted is much worse.
The reality is that the proposed bill is a process of selective lustration in the absence of a truth recovery process. It also violates enshrined rights. If the Assembly wants to apply lustration then they need to do so across the broad range of actors and institutions to the conflict instead of being politically selective.
This bill will, whether by intention or not of those adding their support to it, define the hurt and pain caused by some combatants to the conflict as being more important than that of those of us who experienced state violence and collusion.
The bill is divisive beyond the political make-up of our society and in part is connected to recreating a hierarchy of victimhood without truth or examination of our past. The proposer of the bill is an opponent to truth when concerning the state, oftentimes seeking to vilify victims of the state with odious comments.
The bill is a direct consequence of the failure to independently deal with the past in an inclusive and holistic way and as such should not be progressed in isolation to a wider process of inclusive truth recovery.
Ideally this issue should be the opportunity to now convene meaningful and substantive discussions on how best we deal with the past.
Mark Thompson
Director
Relatives for Justice
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 29, 2013, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Tony I have to disagree here, SF took the hurt when they originally appointed McArdle. The Stoops once again have managed to score an own goal. There appears to be a split once again with Atwood, Al and McDevitt once again done over by Deputy Dolly. If she can run rings round Al it's time the SDLP gave up. Moderate nationalists with UI ambitions have no-one capable of representing their views which leaves SF as the only reluctant home of their vote. It is disgusting to see the SDLP line up to cheer on Jim Allister. Don't get me wrong I think McArdle was a mistake and SF corrected it quickly enough so even they'd agree on that, but it is sickening to see Allister gloating. He doesn't give a flying fcuk for Ann Travers or victims that don't fit his narrow definition. She set her self up as mechanism which he used to the full to embarrass the DUP and attack the GFA. I don't like the SF policy of jobs for the ex-combatants as I have said before, but this legislation is anti GFA and provided ex prisoners are appointed on merit I can live with that. In the face of the quiet dignity shown by many other victims and relatives Ann Travers comes accross to me as mean spirited and vindictive, although not everyone grieves the same.
Well actually they won't be cheering him on. They tabled a number of amendments, all of which were voted down. As far as I understand, they have decided to abstain rather than support.
Amounts to one and the same. Abstaining was an attempt at keeping party unity. Not surprised to here Brid Rogers supporting Allister, but Mallon not for the first time disappoints me.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 30, 2013, 04:26:30 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 29, 2013, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Tony I have to disagree here, SF took the hurt when they originally appointed McArdle. The Stoops once again have managed to score an own goal. There appears to be a split once again with Atwood, Al and McDevitt once again done over by Deputy Dolly. If she can run rings round Al it's time the SDLP gave up. Moderate nationalists with UI ambitions have no-one capable of representing their views which leaves SF as the only reluctant home of their vote. It is disgusting to see the SDLP line up to cheer on Jim Allister. Don't get me wrong I think McArdle was a mistake and SF corrected it quickly enough so even they'd agree on that, but it is sickening to see Allister gloating. He doesn't give a flying fcuk for Ann Travers or victims that don't fit his narrow definition. She set her self up as mechanism which he used to the full to embarrass the DUP and attack the GFA. I don't like the SF policy of jobs for the ex-combatants as I have said before, but this legislation is anti GFA and provided ex prisoners are appointed on merit I can live with that. In the face of the quiet dignity shown by many other victims and relatives Ann Travers comes accross to me as mean spirited and vindictive, although not everyone grieves the same.
Well actually they won't be cheering him on. They tabled a number of amendments, all of which were voted down. As far as I understand, they have decided to abstain rather than support.
Amounts to one and the same. Abstaining was an attempt at keeping party unity. Not surprised to here Brid Rogers supporting Allister, but Mallon not for the first time disappoints me.
Abstaining was refusing to support a flawed bill but at the same time refusing to ignore people like Ann Travers.
Quote from: lawnseed on May 30, 2013, 07:22:21 AM
well done jim allister.what a blow for unionism. in one simple move he cornered the stoops, who are mostly teachers which makes them dumb, and while they teetered on the edge of a cliff he pushed them over with the help of the self serving mallon of course who saw the chance to grab the limelight and took it.
you dont see the dup dragging out big ian they are way too smart for that.
roll on the election and bye bye stoops
Mr Mensa speaks again.
But out of interest, how many of their 17 MPs/MLAs are teachers. And what are the backgrounds/professions of the elected representatives in your party that makes them less dumb?
Also interested to know how Mallon's intervention can be deemed 'self serving' - what's in it for him?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 06:09:18 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 30, 2013, 04:26:30 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 29, 2013, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Tony I have to disagree here, SF took the hurt when they originally appointed McArdle. The Stoops once again have managed to score an own goal. There appears to be a split once again with Atwood, Al and McDevitt once again done over by Deputy Dolly. If she can run rings round Al it's time the SDLP gave up. Moderate nationalists with UI ambitions have no-one capable of representing their views which leaves SF as the only reluctant home of their vote. It is disgusting to see the SDLP line up to cheer on Jim Allister. Don't get me wrong I think McArdle was a mistake and SF corrected it quickly enough so even they'd agree on that, but it is sickening to see Allister gloating. He doesn't give a flying fcuk for Ann Travers or victims that don't fit his narrow definition. She set her self up as mechanism which he used to the full to embarrass the DUP and attack the GFA. I don't like the SF policy of jobs for the ex-combatants as I have said before, but this legislation is anti GFA and provided ex prisoners are appointed on merit I can live with that. In the face of the quiet dignity shown by many other victims and relatives Ann Travers comes accross to me as mean spirited and vindictive, although not everyone grieves the same.
Well actually they won't be cheering him on. They tabled a number of amendments, all of which were voted down. As far as I understand, they have decided to abstain rather than support.
Amounts to one and the same. Abstaining was an attempt at keeping party unity. Not surprised to here Brid Rogers supporting Allister, but Mallon not for the first time disappoints me.
Abstaining was refusing to support a flawed bill but at the same time refusing to ignore people like Ann Travers.
Or to put it another way, to abstain was, in reality, to support the bill.
Brid has spoken,Seamus has spoken,it would be interesting to hear John's (Hume) views.After all it was his talks with Gerry Adams that started the process.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 30, 2013, 06:39:17 PM
Brid has spoken,Seamus has spoken,it would be interesting to hear John's (Hume) views.After all it was his talks with Gerry Adams that started the process.
Ah and if Mallon had his way that wouldn't have happened either,one bitter man.Him and Trimble were well matched.
If the SDLP really are concerned about the rights of victims then they have a very funny way of showing it. Because this is a hierarchy of victimhood in action, a law written by the most latent bigot that this land could provide and given safe passage by an act of political cowardice which parallels some of their 'politicians' disgusting abstention in the gay marriage vote in Westminster. And the worst thing is, they tried to actually change the f**king thing and failed, then didn't have the balls to stick by their revisions.
Abstaining in a vote which underpins one of the key cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement - the second chance for convicted political prisoners - is an act of revisionism which will come back to bite them in the arse when it comes to the next election. And there's so many sores on their arse from all the various political blunders that they have made, this last one may prove the final nail in their coffin.
Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace. The often told story of the Travers family's horrific ordeal is brutal and harrowing but as it is only one in the complex, interweaving tapestry of the northern conflict, it cannot alone be allowed to stand as the justification for a law. If it should be justification for a law, then so should there be a law compelling the release of all documents pertaining to state murder and collusion with loyalist murder gangs as a commensurate act of justice - otherwise it is clearly biased to one side.
And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional. The obvious fact about this is that it firstly leaves an outrageous amount of power in the hands of a judiciary who were rabidly attempting to impose harsh sentences on those convicted of minor offences. Perhaps a less obvious one is that the conviction rate for agents of British State Murder, and their loyalist aides and abetters, is much lower. Finally, having performed the first incision on this particular cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement, further chips will inevitably follow.
Besides all of this, what would you rather have an ex-con doing, supporting a democratically elected ministry in an inclusive power-sharing government, or aiming a rifle at a policeman?
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
If the SDLP really are concerned about the rights of victims then they have a very funny way of showing it. Because this is a hierarchy of victimhood in action, a law written by the most latent bigot that this land could provide and given safe passage by an act of political cowardice which parallels some of their 'politicians' disgusting abstention in the gay marriage vote in Westminster. And the worst thing is, they tried to actually change the f**king thing and failed, then didn't have the balls to stick by their revisions.
Abstaining in a vote which underpins one of the key cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement - the second chance for convicted political prisoners - is an act of revisionism which will come back to bite them in the arse when it comes to the next election. And there's so many sores on their arse from all the various political blunders that they have made, this last one may prove the final nail in their coffin.
Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace. The often told story of the Travers family's horrific ordeal is brutal and harrowing but as it is only one in the complex, interweaving tapestry of the northern conflict, it cannot alone be allowed to stand as the justification for a law. If it should be justification for a law, then so should there be a law compelling the release of all documents pertaining to state murder and collusion with loyalist murder gangs as a commensurate act of justice - otherwise it is clearly biased to one side.
And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional. The obvious fact about this is that it firstly leaves an outrageous amount of power in the hands of a judiciary who were rabidly attempting to impose harsh sentences on those convicted of minor offences. Perhaps a less obvious one is that the conviction rate for agents of British State Murder, and their loyalist aides and abetters, is much lower. Finally, having performed the first incision on this particular cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement, further chips will inevitably follow.
Besides all of this, what would you rather have an ex-con doing, supporting a democratically elected ministry in an inclusive power-sharing government, or aiming a rifle at a policeman?
Would much rather they supported the democratic institutions, but I draw the line at paying them £90K per year of taxpayers money to do so. Ex combatants should be rehabilitated into society, of course they should, but they shouldn't be rewarded for their past mistakes and failures with top jobs that Joe Public can only dream of.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 30, 2013, 08:34:06 PM
Would much rather they supported the democratic institutions, but I draw the line at paying them £90K per year of taxpayers money to do so. Ex combatants should be rehabilitated into society, of course they should, but they shouldn't be rewarded for their past mistakes and failures with top jobs that Joe Public can only dream of.
But not all of them are. In fact, very few are. I agree in principle that ex-combatants shouldn't be rewarded for the things that they did, but I don't agree with denying them the right to public appointments.
The simple logic behind this is that, actually, Mary McCardle's appointment was made by a politician who was
democratically elected. Does anyone actually believe that, should Special Advisors be put up for election, they wouldn't be filled by ex-prisoners in certain cases? Isn't it a democratically elected politician's right to make the appointments that they choose?
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
Besides all of this, what would you rather have an ex-con doing, supporting a democratically elected ministry in an inclusive power-sharing government, or aiming a rifle at a policeman?
So we buy them off or they go back to killing people?!
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.
Well given that there is no constitution...
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace.
Manipulated? I don't think so. She has exactly what she wants from this process. So has Jim Allister. Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.
Well given that there is no constitution...
This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.
Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace.
Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.
Are you just a contradiction machine?
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace.
Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.
Are you just a contradiction machine?
It was mutually beneficial arrangement, but neither was being controlled by the other. There's no contradiction there.
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:02:12 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.
Well given that there is no constitution...
This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.
Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.
Explain then, how this law might not be constitutional.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 09:14:55 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:02:12 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.
Well given that there is no constitution...
This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.
Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.
Explain then, how this law might not be constitutional.
It's unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the most recent and significant addition/alteration to the Constitution of the north, namely the Good Friday Agreement. What I meant by my surprise at its being constitutional is that I'm astounded that measures weren't put in place to renege upon key tenants of that agreement without the express consent of Westminster and the Dail.
Could someone explain to me what her qualifications are that led to her appointment as 'special advisor'?
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:52:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 30, 2013, 08:34:06 PM
Would much rather they supported the democratic institutions, but I draw the line at paying them £90K per year of taxpayers money to do so. Ex combatants should be rehabilitated into society, of course they should, but they shouldn't be rewarded for their past mistakes and failures with top jobs that Joe Public can only dream of.
But not all of them are. In fact, very few are. I agree in principle that ex-combatants shouldn't be rewarded for the things that they did, but I don't agree with denying them the right to public appointments.
The simple logic behind this is that, actually, Mary McCardle's appointment was made by a politician who was democratically elected. Does anyone actually believe that, should Special Advisors be put up for election, they wouldn't be filled by ex-prisoners in certain cases? Isn't it a democratically elected politician's right to make the appointments that they choose?
But these aren't public appointments, in so far as the general public can't apply for them. And the argument that politicians should be able to appoint whoever they please to these kind of jobs and others, is precisely the argument trotted out by the DUP whenever they add yet another family member to the payroll.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 30, 2013, 09:53:36 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:52:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 30, 2013, 08:34:06 PM
Would much rather they supported the democratic institutions, but I draw the line at paying them £90K per year of taxpayers money to do so. Ex combatants should be rehabilitated into society, of course they should, but they shouldn't be rewarded for their past mistakes and failures with top jobs that Joe Public can only dream of.
But not all of them are. In fact, very few are. I agree in principle that ex-combatants shouldn't be rewarded for the things that they did, but I don't agree with denying them the right to public appointments.
The simple logic behind this is that, actually, Mary McCardle's appointment was made by a politician who was democratically elected. Does anyone actually believe that, should Special Advisors be put up for election, they wouldn't be filled by ex-prisoners in certain cases? Isn't it a democratically elected politician's right to make the appointments that they choose?
But these aren't public appointments, in so far as the general public can't apply for them. And the argument that politicians should be able to appoint whoever they please to these kind of jobs and others, is precisely the argument trotted out by the DUP whenever they add yet another family member to the payroll.
By public appointments I meant appointing someone to a position within the Civil Service. The point about their being entitled to make this appointment on the basis of whom they choose is underlined in the UK Government's job description of the Special Advisor's role:
QuoteThe sorts of work a special adviser may do if their Minister wants it are:
i. reviewing papers going to the Minister, drawing attention to any aspect which
they think has party political implications, and ensuring that sensitive political
points are handled properly. They may give assistance on any aspect of
departmental business, and give advice to their Minister when the latter is
taking part in party political activities;
ii. "devilling" for the Minister, and checking facts and research findings from a
party political viewpoint;
iii. preparing speculative policy papers which can generate long-term policy
thinking within the Department, including policies which reflect the political
viewpoint of the Minister‟s Party;
iv. contributing to policy planning within the Department, including ideas which
extend the existing range of options available to the Minister with a political
viewpoint in mind;
v. liaising with the Party, to ensure that the Department's own policy reviews and
analysis take full advantage of ideas from the Party, and encouraging
presentational activities by the Party which contribute to the Government's and
Department's objectives;
vi. helping to brief Party MPs and officials on issues of Government policy;
vii. liaising with outside interest groups including groups with a political allegiance
to assist the Minister's access to their contribution;
viii. speechwriting and related research, including adding party political content to
material prepared by permanent civil servants;
ix. representing the views of their Minister to the media including a Party
viewpoint, where they have been authorised by the Minister to do so;
x. providing expert advice as a specialist in a particular field;
xi. attending Party functions (although they may not speak publicly at the Party
Conference) and maintaining contact with Party members;
xii. taking part in policy reviews organised by the Party, or officially in conjunction
with it, for the purpose of ensuring that those undertaking the review are fully
aware of the Government's views and their Minister's thinking and policy.
Furthermore, the next point in that advice booklet regarding special advisors speaks absolute volumes:
QuoteSpecial advisers are temporary civil servants appointed under Article 3 of the Civil
Service Order in Council 1995. They are exempt from the general requirement that civil
servants should be appointed on merit and behave with impartiality and objectivity so that
they may retain the confidence of future governments of a different political complexion
To me, this seems fairly cut and dried. Although people are asking what her specific qualifications are regarding Cultural studies/experience, it's pretty clear that the ins and outs of her role actually require the appointment by the minster or the minister's party.
Quote from: firestarter on May 30, 2013, 09:49:12 PM
Could someone explain to me what her qualifications are that led to her appointment as 'special advisor'?
Does that matter? If SinnFein want to employ low-brow knuckle-draggers as advisors they can do so if they want, but it wouldnt really be in the party's interest, would it?
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 09:14:55 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:02:12 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.
Well given that there is no constitution...
This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.
Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.
Explain then, how this law might not be constitutional.
It's unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the most recent and significant addition/alteration to the Constitution of the north, namely the Good Friday Agreement. What I meant by my surprise at its being constitutional is that I'm astounded that measures weren't put in place to renege upon key tenants of that agreement without the express consent of Westminster and the Dail.
The constitutional element of the GFA relates the status of NI. The elements relating to prisoners are not part of the constitutional question.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 10:33:26 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 09:14:55 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:02:12 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.
Well given that there is no constitution...
This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.
Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.
Explain then, how this law might not be constitutional.
It's unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the most recent and significant addition/alteration to the Constitution of the north, namely the Good Friday Agreement. What I meant by my surprise at its being constitutional is that I'm astounded that measures weren't put in place to renege upon key tenants of that agreement without the express consent of Westminster and the Dail.
The constitutional element of the GFA relates the status of NI. The elements relating to prisoners are not part of the constitutional question.
I'm sorry but you are not fit for this conversation if you're telling me that a clause within the Good Friday Agreement, a multiparty endeavour and effectively an international treaty, is not an element of the constitution of the UK, Ireland, or the north of Ireland.
The 'question' frames the constitution of the 6 counties; it does not embody it.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 06:12:52 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 30, 2013, 07:22:21 AM
well done jim allister.what a blow for unionism. in one simple move he cornered the stoops, who are mostly teachers which makes them dumb, and while they teetered on the edge of a cliff he pushed them over with the help of the self serving mallon of course who saw the chance to grab the limelight and took it.
you dont see the dup dragging out big ian they are way too smart for that.
roll on the election and bye bye stoops
Mr Mensa speaks again.
But out of interest, how many of their 17 MPs/MLAs are teachers. And what are the backgrounds/professions of the elected representatives in your party that makes them less dumb?
Also interested to know how Mallon's intervention can be deemed 'self serving' - what's in it for him?
a little less of the personal abuse please. its not my fault if your party is going down the plughole. the fact that the teacher training establishments sought to select stoops to teach our kids from stoop backgrounds and those who would lick the clergy's arses and seek to turn our kids into stoops is common knowledge.
what makes the shinners less dumb is that despite 35 years of struggle against the political and military might of the UK, who started and funded the stoops we have totally wiped them out through honesty and integrity and actual blood and sweat. bring on an election! i cant wait
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace.
Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.
Are you just a contradiction machine?
thats all he does ::)
In fairness to teachers (and I would say that calling teachers stupid is crass in light of the subject of this thread), they are the backbone of the GAA.
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 11:21:32 PM
In fairness to teachers (and I would say that calling teachers stupid is crass in light of the subject of this thread), they are the backbone of the GAA.
maybe stupid is a little strong. savvy might sit better with any posters who teach. but you have to admit allister whipped their stoop asses
http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/214/sinn-f%C3%A9ins-paul-kavanagh/%E2%80%9Chow-will-sacking-me-help-victims%E2%80%9D-asks-sinn-f%C3%A9in-special-adviser (http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/214/sinn-f%C3%A9ins-paul-kavanagh/%E2%80%9Chow-will-sacking-me-help-victims%E2%80%9D-asks-sinn-f%C3%A9in-special-adviser)
"How will sacking me help victims?" asks Sinn Féin Special Adviser
By Steven McCaffery
A former IRA bomber who risks losing his job as an adviser to deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness because of tough new legislation says the move will call the political process into question.
Paul Kavanagh was sentenced to five life terms for his role in an IRA bombing campaign that included the killing of an army explosives expert and a 1981 attack on Chelsea military barracks in London.
He was released from jail following the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, and four years ago he was chosen by Sinn Féin to be a Special Adviser in the joint of Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
The 57-year-old recounts how events including the shooting of his brother who was also a republican led him into the IRA, details his longstanding support for the peace process, and says his current role is one he sees as helping to build a better society.
But with his Stormont job under threat because of the bill drafted by Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) leader Jim Allister, which is supported by IRA victim Ann Travers, the republican has spoken out.
"Would me being sacked benefit victims?" he says.
"Or will it actually say to people outside, `the political process doesn't work'?
"Twenty years into a peace process and the victimisation goes on and we're still going to exclude people?
"Exclusion was part of the problem that we had and why we ended up in conflict.
"Is the message out there, that's what we're going back to, exclusion?"
He says Sinn Féin may consider a legal challenge to the legislation, which appears set to secure its final passage in the Assembly, before then going for Royal Assent.
The Special Advisers bill emerged after the outcry in 2011 when Sinn Féin Culture Minister Carál Ní Chuilín chose an adviser jailed over the murder of 22-year-old teacher Mary Travers, seen as one of the most shocking killings of the Troubles.
Sinn Féin faced heavy criticism for the appointment and was accused of insensitivity to victims.
But Mr Kavanagh says his family has also suffered loss. His 18-year-old brother Albert was an unarmed IRA member shot dead by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) during an attempted bomb attack on commercial premises in south Belfast, but in circumstances which are still under investigation.
The Sinn Féin Special Adviser argues that the debate around victims has become skewed.
He says of his own bereavement: "It had a massive affect, not just on myself but my whole family.
"The shock of having someone killed and feeling that loss, I think it's almost impossible to describe. I understand that.
"But where does this stop? If Jim Allister brings a bill tomorrow that says ex-prisoners cannot be teachers, well will the SDLP support that?
"This notion of what sensitivity is – the difficulty was that there was a particularly high profile case with Ann Travers, and that just seemed to be the whole focus of it.
"That's one person's issue, one person's sensitivity, but it isn't the whole story of victims."
He adds: "My brother was killed in March 4, 1972. He was shot dead by the police. He was an IRA volunteer and we still carry the scars from that.
"The case is still with the Police Ombudsman's office being re-investigated, because my brother was unarmed when he was shot.
"There was shock, horror, sorrow, and it is just something we carry with us every day."
Did his brother's death influence his decision to join the IRA?
"It was a factor – there's no point me saying it was the deciding factor.
"I was born and reared in Belfast. I remember Civil Rights marches being beaten off the streets.
"I remember the pogroms in August '69. I was in Conway Street when it was being burnt down by loyalists mobs and supported by the B Specials [police]. I was in Bombay Street [burned down] on August 15.
"So I have seen a state that just uses violence against its people. I remember the Lower Falls curfew. I remember those things because of my age.
"Those are all things that had an impact on me.
"I had a state that was governed by sectarianism, discrimination, violence, and I responded."
Asked about the lives taken and relatives bereaved by his actions and those of the IRA bomb team he was linked with, he says: "There has been almost 4,000 people killed in this conflict and all those deaths are to be regretted.
"And even the ones that I was involved in are to be regretted.
"But I didn't create the cause of this conflict."
He adds: "I have to get on with my life. There are things I can't change [but] I was released in 1999, and even prior to my release I was very supportive of the peace process.
"I have worked very hard to make sure that we stay on that road and we don't go back to violence.
"But there are many people out there saying, ` Whose job goes next?'.
"We are working damn hard to try and make sure that we don't go back to violence.
"We're working on the interfaces, we're working in communities.
"I worked in the community and voluntary sector for seven years before coming to the Assembly, working with some of the most deprived communities, trying to help build a better society.
"I have continued to be a very strong supporter of the peace process.
"Ex-prisoners are saying to me `why are we being victimised?'
"I remember a former UUP leader saying `because you have a past, it doesn't mean you can't have a future'.
"I think that is what ex-prisoners are saying."
Critics have questioned the appointment of ex-prisoners to key Stormont posts.
He said he was appointed as a Special Adviser due to his experience – including a Social Sciences degree studied for while in prison, seven years working in the voluntary sector, and experience writing policy papers used by his party in its work in government.
He is married to Sinn Féin MEP and former republican prisoner Martina Anderson and says her previous role as a Stormont Junior Minister makes a mockery of the proposed new law.
"My wife was a minister and could make decisions, but under this law she couldn't be employed to advise people making the same government decisions."
TUV leader Jim Allister says his legislation – which he wants to be known as `Ann's Law' in honour of Ann Travers' campaign – would prevent anyone sentenced to five years or more in jail for serious offences from becoming a Special Adviser – known in government circles as `Spads'.
Applicants could overcome the ban by meeting criteria including showing contrition and assisting police investigations.
In 1984 an IRA gang opened fire on magistrate Tom Travers as he and his family left Sunday Mass in Belfast, killing his 22-year-old daughter Mary.
Ann Travers has recounted how she felt physically sick at the news that a republican linked to the IRA gang that killed her sister had been placed in a key Stormont adviser post.
She supported the bill brought forward by Mr Allister and gave evidence to the Stormont Finance committee which scrutinised the legislation and spoke of the deep pain felt by victims whose needs she said often appeared to be low on the list of political priorities.
She now sits on the Victims' Forum, a group advising on the services provided to those bereaved and injured by the Troubles.
Ms Travers has drawn a distinction between elected politicians with a paramilitary past, who have a mandate to take on their roles, with the cases of unelected ex-prisoners being placed into key posts.
The legislation faced road blocks, as previously reported here.
And it sparked bitter debates in the Assembly, as also reported by The Detail here and here.
The SDLP indicated it might support Sinn Féin calls to sign a Petition of Concern over the draft legislation, which would have ensured the bill required the support of both unionists and nationalists and, as a result, would have been blocked.
But lobbying from veteran SDLP figures and by Ann Travers, led to an internal party debate.
The private discussions came after some SDLP members were critical of the legislation in Assembly debates, but the party has opted to effectively allow the legislation to proceed as a measure of support for victims.
Mr Kavanagh is highly critical of the SDLP and questions why the party has made its decision.
Critics of the bill have complained that, while it is drafted to cover ex-prisoners guilty of a range of serious crimes, it will in real terms only impact upon Sinn Féin.
The party's ranks include former prisoners. And a number, including former IRA commander Martin McGuinness, have been elected to the Assembly and then appointed by their party to hold ministerial portfolios.
The added criticism is that other victims, including the victims of state violence, have seen those associated with the murder of their loved ones go unpunished.
Mr Kavanagh, who now lives in Derry, said: "There is no single view of what victims want. I can understand loss because my family have been victims.
"If you talk to the families of Bloody Sunday people – the craziness of this now is that what could happen is that the paratroopers that killed 14 people on Bloody Sunday, who have never been prosecuted, could act as Special Advisers – but yet, I can't.
"Different victims have different views about how such things should be worked out."
He adds: "But how will sacking me help victims?"
Quote from: lawnseed on May 30, 2013, 10:59:40 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace.
Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.
Are you just a contradiction machine?
thats all he does ::)
I've already demonstrated how there was no contradiction there. Do keep up.
Quote from: lawnseed on May 30, 2013, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 06:12:52 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 30, 2013, 07:22:21 AM
well done jim allister.what a blow for unionism. in one simple move he cornered the stoops, who are mostly teachers which makes them dumb, and while they teetered on the edge of a cliff he pushed them over with the help of the self serving mallon of course who saw the chance to grab the limelight and took it.
you dont see the dup dragging out big ian they are way too smart for that.
roll on the election and bye bye stoops
Mr Mensa speaks again.
But out of interest, how many of their 17 MPs/MLAs are teachers. And what are the backgrounds/professions of the elected representatives in your party that makes them less dumb?
Also interested to know how Mallon's intervention can be deemed 'self serving' - what's in it for him?
a little less of the personal abuse please.
Was it not you who referred to people as dumb?
Quote from: lawnseed on May 30, 2013, 10:58:34 PM
its not my fault if your party is going down the plughole. the fact that the teacher training establishments sought to select stoops to teach our kids from stoop backgrounds and those who would lick the clergy's arses and seek to turn our kids into stoops is common knowledge.
what makes the shinners less dumb is that despite 35 years of struggle against the political and military might of the UK, who started and funded the stoops we have totally wiped them out through honesty and integrity and actual blood and sweat. bring on an election! i cant wait
Two points.
1 - When you say 'we', how significant was your part?
but more importantly...
2 - If they had been "totally wiped out" then we wouldn't be having this discussion as SF would have been able to block this bill on its own.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 07:19:53 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 30, 2013, 10:59:40 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace.
Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.
Are you just a contradiction machine?
thats all he does ::)
I've already demonstrated how there was no contradiction there. Do keep up.
Manipulation doesn't actually have to mean 'control', and given that I was the one who actually used the phrase in the first place, I can vouch that it was used in its proper context. To get into a semantic battle when the essence of the words are similar is pointless.
The SDLP handling of this is the political equivalent of high fielding the ball out of midfield, soloing the ball down the pitch and scoring a goal into your own net. Let's face it, no one in SF is really going to lose their job, the Party will simply reshuffle personnel and it'll be as you where. However from a position where it should have been easy to score off SF the Stoops have shown themselves to be a bunch of unprincipled, weak-willed, middle-class charlatans who will enact terrible, discriminatory and possibly unlawful legislation because they're afraid of Sunny Jim Allister. Now after the team captain has scored into his own net the rest of the team are compounding the embarrassment by standing around looking bewildered as the opposition toy with them (Paul Kavanagh's emergence in the media today). The SDLP train wreck is becoming almost painful to watch these days. I honestly can't see any way back for them.
Quote from: Ulick on May 31, 2013, 10:59:51 AM
The SDLP handling of this is the political equivalent of high fielding the ball out of midfield, soloing the ball down the pitch and scoring a goal into your own net. Let's face it, no one in SF is really going to lose their job, the Party will simply reshuffle personnel and it'll be as you where. However from a position where it should have been easy to score off SF the Stoops have shown themselves to be a bunch of unprincipled, weak-willed, middle-class charlatans who will enact terrible, discriminatory and possibly unlawful legislation because they're afraid of Sunny Jim Allister. Now after the team captain has scored into his own net the rest of the team are compounding the embarrassment by standing around looking bewildered as the opposition toy with them (Paul Kavanagh's emergence in the media today). The SDLP train wreck is becoming almost painful to watch these days. I honestly can't see any way back for them.
Good
Is this not the SDLP looking after the interests of a member of an upper middle class Catholic family - one of their own as it were?
If her dad had been a lorry driver or factory worker would anyone from the SDLP be bothered?
Are they not trying to ensure that upper middle class Catholics will continue to vote for them rather than switch to Alliance?
Just asking like.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 31, 2013, 11:14:35 AM
Is this not the SDLP looking after the interests of a member of an upper middle class Catholic family - one of their own as it were?
If her dad had been a lorry driver or factory worker would anyone from the SDLP be bothered?
Are they not trying to ensure that upper middle class Catholics will continue to vote for them rather than switch to Alliance?
Just asking like.
Yeah as I stated earlier Alastair looking after his South Belfast seat.
Quote from: stibhan on May 31, 2013, 08:17:28 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 07:19:53 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 30, 2013, 10:59:40 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: stibhan on May 30, 2013, 08:03:27 PM
Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace.
Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.
Are you just a contradiction machine?
thats all he does ::)
I've already demonstrated how there was no contradiction there. Do keep up.
Manipulation doesn't actually have to mean 'control', and given that I was the one who actually used the phrase in the first place, I can vouch that it was used in its proper context. To get into a semantic battle when the essence of the words are similar is pointless.
You'll have to explain your definition of manipulation then. To me, it implies one person controlling / influencing / leading another in some underhand or sly way. If you have an alternative meaning, do tell.
Quote from: Ulick on May 31, 2013, 10:59:51 AM
The SDLP handling of this is the political equivalent of high fielding the ball out of midfield, soloing the ball down the pitch and scoring a goal into your own net. Let's face it, no one in SF is really going to lose their job, the Party will simply reshuffle personnel and it'll be as you where. However from a position where it should have been easy to score off SF the Stoops have shown themselves to be a bunch of unprincipled, weak-willed, middle-class charlatans who will enact terrible, discriminatory and possibly unlawful legislation because they're afraid of Sunny Jim Allister. Now after the team captain has scored into his own net the rest of the team are compounding the embarrassment by standing around looking bewildered as the opposition toy with them (Paul Kavanagh's emergence in the media today). The SDLP train wreck is becoming almost painful to watch these days. I honestly can't see any way back for them.
If you're going to accuse the SDLP of fear in this case, then surely it's fear of Ann Travers? Surely she's the one who could damage them if they blocked the bill. Her opposition is most likely to resonate with their constituency. Why would they be afraid of Jim Allister?
Also, not understanding what position they were in that would have been easy to score off SF. Can you elaborate?
Quote from: glens abu on May 31, 2013, 11:01:44 AM
Quote from: Ulick on May 31, 2013, 10:59:51 AM
The SDLP handling of this is the political equivalent of high fielding the ball out of midfield, soloing the ball down the pitch and scoring a goal into your own net. Let's face it, no one in SF is really going to lose their job, the Party will simply reshuffle personnel and it'll be as you where. However from a position where it should have been easy to score off SF the Stoops have shown themselves to be a bunch of unprincipled, weak-willed, middle-class charlatans who will enact terrible, discriminatory and possibly unlawful legislation because they're afraid of Sunny Jim Allister. Now after the team captain has scored into his own net the rest of the team are compounding the embarrassment by standing around looking bewildered as the opposition toy with them (Paul Kavanagh's emergence in the media today). The SDLP train wreck is becoming almost painful to watch these days. I honestly can't see any way back for them.
Good
It's undeniable that the SDLP handled this badly, indicating they'd go one way and then going the other. But do you think that backing a petition of concern would have brought them votes? If so, from who?
From my perspective, the SDLP had two choices - to appear to support a victim, or to appear to support ex-prisoners. There may be more 'devil in the detail', but the majority of the electorate will see it in those simple terms.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:34:22 PM
the SDLP had two choices - to appear to support a victim, or to appear to support ex-prisoners.
In the end, they appeared to not have a f***ing clue what they support. Again.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 31, 2013, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:34:22 PM
the SDLP had two choices - to appear to support a victim, or to appear to support ex-prisoners.
In the end, they appeared to not have a f***ing clue what they support. Again.
Agreed that the apparent indecision was poor management on the SDLP's part.
But the electorate at large will remember them as having sided with the victim. Having someone as articulate as Ann Travers remind the electorate that the SDLP sided with ex-prisoners would have been much more damaging to the party come election time, in my opinion.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 31, 2013, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:34:22 PM
the SDLP had two choices - to appear to support a victim, or to appear to support ex-prisoners.
In the end, they appeared to not have a f***ing clue what they support. Again.
Agreed that the apparent indecision was poor management on the SDLP's part.
But the electorate at large will remember them as having sided with the victim. Having someone as articulate as Ann Travers remind the electorate that the SDLP sided with ex-prisoners would have been much more damaging to the party come election time, in my opinion.
I think the public will remember two things from this. The ineptitude of the SDLP's handling of it, and that they sided with Jim Allister to prioritise
one victim, in something which is a contradiction of the GFA.
"The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities."
So it's ok for SF to side with the DUP, but not for SDLP to do so with TUV....do you make the rules up as you go along? ???
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 31, 2013, 02:19:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 31, 2013, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:34:22 PM
the SDLP had two choices - to appear to support a victim, or to appear to support ex-prisoners.
In the end, they appeared to not have a f***ing clue what they support. Again.
Agreed that the apparent indecision was poor management on the SDLP's part.
But the electorate at large will remember them as having sided with the victim. Having someone as articulate as Ann Travers remind the electorate that the SDLP sided with ex-prisoners would have been much more damaging to the party come election time, in my opinion.
I think the public will remember two things from this. The ineptitude of the SDLP's handling of it, and that they sided with Jim Allister to prioritise one victim, in something which is a contradiction of the GFA. "The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities."
Is it a contradiction? I can't see anything there that says they should have opportunities for
any post - just that they should be given assistance in getting a job. They can't, for example, join the police. Does that contradict the GFA?
And again, I doubt that clause of the GFA was a 'must have' for SDLP supporters.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 31, 2013, 02:19:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 31, 2013, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:34:22 PM
the SDLP had two choices - to appear to support a victim, or to appear to support ex-prisoners.
In the end, they appeared to not have a f***ing clue what they support. Again.
Agreed that the apparent indecision was poor management on the SDLP's part.
But the electorate at large will remember them as having sided with the victim. Having someone as articulate as Ann Travers remind the electorate that the SDLP sided with ex-prisoners would have been much more damaging to the party come election time, in my opinion.
I think the public will remember two things from this. The ineptitude of the SDLP's handling of it, and that they sided with Jim Allister to prioritise one victim, in something which is a contradiction of the GFA. "The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities."
Is it a contradiction? I can't see anything there that says they should have opportunities for any post - just that they should be given assistance in getting a job. They can't, for example, join the police. Does that contradict the GFA?
And again, I doubt that clause of the GFA was a 'must have' for SDLP supporters.
You didn't say SDLP supporters, you said "for the electorate at large". As for whether it is contradictory to the GFA, it's open to individual interpretation of course, but I think the fact that an ex-prisoner can be a minister holding power, but cannot be an adviser to a minister is such a farcical situation, that to me it is most definitely a contradiction of this paragraph of the GFA.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 31, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 31, 2013, 02:19:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 31, 2013, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 31, 2013, 01:34:22 PM
the SDLP had two choices - to appear to support a victim, or to appear to support ex-prisoners.
In the end, they appeared to not have a f***ing clue what they support. Again.
Agreed that the apparent indecision was poor management on the SDLP's part.
But the electorate at large will remember them as having sided with the victim. Having someone as articulate as Ann Travers remind the electorate that the SDLP sided with ex-prisoners would have been much more damaging to the party come election time, in my opinion.
I think the public will remember two things from this. The ineptitude of the SDLP's handling of it, and that they sided with Jim Allister to prioritise one victim, in something which is a contradiction of the GFA. "The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities."
Is it a contradiction? I can't see anything there that says they should have opportunities for any post - just that they should be given assistance in getting a job. They can't, for example, join the police. Does that contradict the GFA?
And again, I doubt that clause of the GFA was a 'must have' for SDLP supporters.
You didn't say SDLP supporters, you said "for the electorate at large". As for whether it is contradictory to the GFA, it's open to individual interpretation of course, but I think the fact that an ex-prisoner can be a minister holding power, but cannot be an adviser to a minister is such a farcical situation, that to me it is most definitely a contradiction of this paragraph of the GFA.
Well the electorate at large, bar SF and PUP voters.
Home > Media Centre > News > Byrne Challenged to Block Allisters Bill
Byrne Challenged to Block Allisters Bill
Published: 31 May, 2013
The British soldier who murdered Aidan Mc Anespie on his way to a football match in 1988 would be eligible to be a Special Advisor, yet under the terms of this Bill, Political Ex prisoners would be excluded.
Local Councillor Anne Marie Fitzgerald has issued a direct challenge to SDLP MLA Joe Byrne to 'stand up and be counted' and sign a petition of concern to block Jim Allisters Special Advisers Bill.
Speaking this week, Councillor Fitzgerald said:
'With the position now adopted by the SDLP you have a bizarre situation whereby the British Soldier who murdered my cousin Aidan on his way to a football match in 1988 would be eligible to be a Special Advisor, yet Political Ex prisoners, who number in their hundreds in this constituency would be excluded.
'Furthermore, the British Soldiers who shot dead 14 innocent people in Derry on Bloody Sunday and who butchered Republicans at Loughgall, Drumnakilly, Strabane and in other parts of the country and who have never been prosecuted, would also not be affected by this bill.
'Joe Byrne is the SDLP MLA for West Tyrone, which has hundreds of Political Ex Prisoners and throughout the north there are over 25,000 nationalists who have spent long years in jail as a result of the conflict.
'Most of these people were convicted on the basis of forced confessions, falsified evidence and diplock courts and have served long years in Jail.
'I am therefore calling on Joe Byrne to stand up for these political ex prisoners and their families and sign the petition of concern. The 29 Sinn Féin signatories are lined up and only one additional signature is needed to block this bill. I am therefore calling on Joe Byrne to stand up and be counted and be the 30th signatory on the petition which will block this piece of repressive legislation'.
For a minute I thought it was an SDLP Councillor. That would have been a story. This is just another SF press release.
Its from a cousin of Aidan McAnespie that's all that matters.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2013, 06:09:18 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 30, 2013, 04:26:30 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 29, 2013, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 28, 2013, 04:58:42 PM
Dont think any of them are advertised, that's why all of the DUP have their families working for them.
However that's not the point in this case (valid enough as it may be in practically every other area of employment). Big Al was the Travers' family Doctor as well. Looks like Ann Travers has played a blinder here all the same, and has hurt SF.You have to admire her courage and persistence in the face of a serious illness as well, regardless of your views on this SPAD issue.
Tony I have to disagree here, SF took the hurt when they originally appointed McArdle. The Stoops once again have managed to score an own goal. There appears to be a split once again with Atwood, Al and McDevitt once again done over by Deputy Dolly. If she can run rings round Al it's time the SDLP gave up. Moderate nationalists with UI ambitions have no-one capable of representing their views which leaves SF as the only reluctant home of their vote. It is disgusting to see the SDLP line up to cheer on Jim Allister. Don't get me wrong I think McArdle was a mistake and SF corrected it quickly enough so even they'd agree on that, but it is sickening to see Allister gloating. He doesn't give a flying fcuk for Ann Travers or victims that don't fit his narrow definition. She set her self up as mechanism which he used to the full to embarrass the DUP and attack the GFA. I don't like the SF policy of jobs for the ex-combatants as I have said before, but this legislation is anti GFA and provided ex prisoners are appointed on merit I can live with that. In the face of the quiet dignity shown by many other victims and relatives Ann Travers comes accross to me as mean spirited and vindictive, although not everyone grieves the same.
Well actually they won't be cheering him on. They tabled a number of amendments, all of which were voted down. As far as I understand, they have decided to abstain rather than support.
Amounts to one and the same. Abstaining was an attempt at keeping party unity. Not surprised to here Brid Rogers supporting Allister, but Mallon not for the first time disappoints me.
Abstaining was refusing to support a flawed bill but at the same time refusing to ignore people like Ann Travers.
Obviously you weren't listening to news reports. Big Al, Attwood and McDevitt wanted to sign th POC. Once again big Dolly who is mates with Rodgers managed to force the issue. Abstention was a compromise. The Kelly/Rodgers/Mallon axis wanted to support it. For a Unionist view on how bad this looks for the stoops read Alex Kane in yesterday's IN. For an alternate victims view read Jude White.
Big Al does it again, there is a hierarchy of victims...Dolly dancing on a pin head can't support Al. Stoops are definitely imploding.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 02:58:58 PM
Big Al does it again, there is a hierarchy of victims...Dolly dancing on a pin head can't support Al. Stoops are definitely imploding.
they bear no resemblence to the people that were lead by Hume in the dark old days.
These days they are more akin to gerry fitt who was borderline getting the boot from the sdlp for so long.
it appears to me that the longer things progress, sf are becomming the hybrid of old sdlp and sf.
Still a few headbangers in sf, but they seem to be heading the right direction.
sdlp are heading for oblivion - or a merger with the alliance (same thing)
so eventually it will be a three party situation. sf, dup and neutered basterdised sdAp buffoons.
I know there are certain posters on this board who openly support the SDLP but I fail to see how any of them can justify the actions of their party in relation to this bill.
Absolutely disgusting from the SDLP. Wouldn't have happened under John Hume's watch.
They deserve to be electorally wiped out for that.
This is some craic here on thread I tell ye! ;) ;) ;) ;)
Its a real Traversty. ;D
SF are some craic when they don't get their own way
Is this not democracy in action in the same way as the flegs debate in BCC? I must have missed something.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell is probably the worst leader of any party that I have ever seen.
Their only way to survive is to get rid of him and make Conall McDevitt leader. If they do this quickly then they have a chance, otherwise it is the end.
Quote from: Orior on June 03, 2013, 09:37:52 PM
Dr Alasdair McDonnell is probably the worst leader of any party that I have ever seen.
Their only way to survive is to get rid of him and make Conall McDevitt leader. If they do this quickly then they have a chance, otherwise it is the end.
Too right he's all over the place. He also lets big Dolly walk all over him. I would not be a fan of SF's appointments procedure. But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims. There cannot be a unionist only version of the troubles. But that's what the stoops have now signed up to. The IRA didn't fire the first shot...Gusty Spence did. Nationalist were discriminated against which led to the past 40 years. The GFA is a flawed settlement now being rewritten by the TUV and the stoops. McDonnell is a joke, he wants to get down and dirty with SF hell he can't even get down and dirty with his own party.
SDLP def going backwards,tonight we had our 1st SF councillor an ex-POW voted in as the Chair of a committee on Newtownabbey council.After many weeks of debate and meeting with Unionists on equality he was proposed by the DUP and seconded by the UUP,also the only SDLP member on the council was also given the vice-chair.
Quote from: glens abu on June 03, 2013, 10:03:38 PM
SDLP def going backwards,tonight we had our 1st SF councillor an ex-POW voted in as the Chair of a committee on Newtownabbey council.After many weeks of debate and meeting with Unionists on equality he was proposed by the DUP and seconded by the UUP,also the only SDLP member on the council was also given the vice-chair.
;D
lads LOOK at the situation where some body like Johnny Adair was a special advisor for the dup / pup if they ever got votes, would we be happy with that knowing his background, that would be from our point of view. Now if u a die hard to middle of the road unionist, u can see why they would have a problem with some certain appointments. Sinn Fein shot themselves in the foot here, there is plenty of people in the party with a clean background who could do this job which a certain lady was not qualified to do anyway. Its was a job for the lads policy. Sinn Fein is bitching at the SDLP the same way the DUP bitched at the alliance party during the flags craic. And to listen to someone on the nolan show the day trying to say someone going to blow up a army barracks is as much a victim as the teenager who got caught in the blast and killed is the biggest load of crap i ever heard.You discussed this with someone outside this country and they would laugh at this statement
Quote from: sheamy on June 03, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
Absolutely disgusting from the SDLP. Wouldn't have happened under John Hume's watch.
They deserve to be electorally wiped out for that.
That happen years ago..
Don t know what the Shinners are yapping about here.
They will still have the same number of advisors.
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:00:02 PM
Don t know what the Shinners are yapping about here.
They will still have the same number of advisors.
So you think it is OK or an ex-RUC man who was involved in the conflict here and could have been involved in killing Julie Livingstone or Carol Ann Kelly but never served a day for doing it can be a spad but an ex IRA man who served over 5 years cannot .Thats what wrong with this bill simple.
Quote from: glens abu on June 03, 2013, 11:06:11 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:00:02 PM
Don t know what the Shinners are yapping about here.
They will still have the same number of advisors.
So you think it is OK or an ex-RUC man who was involved in the conflict here and could have been involved in killing Julie Livingstone or Carol Ann Kelly but never served a day for doing it can be a spad but an ex IRA man who served over 5 years cannot .Thats what wrong with this bill simple.
ex Provos who were never caught for killing people can be a spad.
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 03, 2013, 11:06:11 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:00:02 PM
Don t know what the Shinners are yapping about here.
They will still have the same number of advisors.
So you think it is OK or an ex-RUC man who was involved in the conflict here and could have been involved in killing Julie Livingstone or Carol Ann Kelly but never served a day for doing it can be a spad but an ex IRA man who served over 5 years cannot .Thats what wrong with this bill simple.
ex Provos who were never caught for killing people can be a spad.
Yes but Republicans who were arrested tortured and jailed for things they didn't do can't and RUC and Brits who were never charged can.Bad law
Quote from: EC Unique on June 03, 2013, 10:54:28 PM
Quote from: sheamy on June 03, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
Absolutely disgusting from the SDLP. Wouldn't have happened under John Hume's watch.
They deserve to be electorally wiped out for that.
That happen years ago..
More or less did.
That said, they'd be hoping to maybe sneak a seat from SF in Newry and Armagh at the next assembly elections. I'd say Megan Fearon and Boylan will be safe enough in south Armagh and Armagh City, but Micky Brady could struggle due to SDLP having a bit of support in Newry itself. Holding on to three seats against only two SDLP candidates will be a big ask, although Sinn Fein just about held on last time around.
The actions of today certainly wouldn't have benefited them however.
Quote from: glens abu on June 03, 2013, 11:17:42 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 03, 2013, 11:06:11 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:00:02 PM
Don t know what the Shinners are yapping about here.
They will still have the same number of advisors.
So you think it is OK or an ex-RUC man who was involved in the conflict here and could have been involved in killing Julie Livingstone or Carol Ann Kelly but never served a day for doing it can be a spad but an ex IRA man who served over 5 years cannot .Thats what wrong with this bill simple.
ex Provos who were never caught for killing people can be a spad.
Yes but Republicans who were arrested tortured and jailed for things they didn't do can't and RUC and Brits who were never charged can.Bad law
And Provos who intimidated tortured and murdered innocent people and were never brought before a court can be a spad.
We could go on here all day. Just accept the democratic vote.
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 03, 2013, 11:17:42 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 03, 2013, 11:06:11 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:00:02 PM
Don t know what the Shinners are yapping about here.
They will still have the same number of advisors.
So you think it is OK or an ex-RUC man who was involved in the conflict here and could have been involved in killing Julie Livingstone or Carol Ann Kelly but never served a day for doing it can be a spad but an ex IRA man who served over 5 years cannot .Thats what wrong with this bill simple.
ex Provos who were never caught for killing people can be a spad.
Yes but Republicans who were arrested tortured and jailed for things they didn't do can't and RUC and Brits who were never charged can.Bad law
And Provos who intimidated tortured and murdered innocent people and were never brought before a court can be a spad.
We could go on here all day. Just accept the democratic vote.
is that not what happened when we voted for the gfa. this outcome fuels the dissys cause
Quote from: lawnseed on June 03, 2013, 11:50:52 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 03, 2013, 11:17:42 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 03, 2013, 11:06:11 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 03, 2013, 11:00:02 PM
Don t know what the Shinners are yapping about here.
They will still have the same number of advisors.
So you think it is OK or an ex-RUC man who was involved in the conflict here and could have been involved in killing Julie Livingstone or Carol Ann Kelly but never served a day for doing it can be a spad but an ex IRA man who served over 5 years cannot .Thats what wrong with this bill simple.
ex Provos who were never caught for killing people can be a spad.
Yes but Republicans who were arrested tortured and jailed for things they didn't do can't and RUC and Brits who were never charged can.Bad law
And Provos who intimidated tortured and murdered innocent people and were never brought before a court can be a spad.
We could go on here all day. Just accept the democratic vote.
is that not what happened when we voted for the gfa. this outcome fuels the dissys cause
Why would the dissidents give a shit about a few SF cronies losing out on these jobs?
Shinners blaming the SDLP for what is a huge error on their part. Surely this should have been included in the Good Friday Agreement.
No doubt the stoops will present their shameful decision as being out of concern for victims as a whole and that they don't treat victims in any hierarchy. Which is odd because this morning, (and not for the first time) they refused to meet the families of collusion victims who were in stormont before the debate. An absolutely pathetic, pathetic bunch of hypocritical weaklings they truly are. Stoops will always stoop.
Big Dolly knows the game is up for her, she only scraped home by the skin of her teeth on the final count last time out, and being the vindictive maniac that she is, she wants to take as many as she can with her
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 04, 2013, 12:17:24 AM
No doubt the stoops will present their shameful decision as being out of concern for victims as a whole and that they don't treat victims in any hierarchy. Which is odd because this morning, (and not for the first time) they refused to meet the families of collusion victims who were in stormont before the debate. An absolutely pathetic, pathetic bunch of hypocritical weaklings they truly are. Stoops will always stoop.
Sore loser eh?
SDLP are entitled to vote as they see fit.
I would imagine that a number of non ex-jailbird Sinn Fein workers will be delighted with this as well. It gives them an opportunity to get one of these advisor jobs that otherwise would have gone to others as a reward for 'services rendered'
Who does this bill discriminate against? Against people who've spent 5 years or more in jail. That's it. Doesn't discriminate on the grounds of whether you're an ex member of a republican or loyalist murder squad, or whether you're an ODC. The shinner panty-wetting over this issue has nothing to do with discrimination, but rather because their project to rewrite the history of the troubles according to chucky ar la myths and legends has been temporarily derailed. Victims of collusion? What about the victims of countless IRA murders and bombings who've never had justice either? How are the collusion victims any worse off than these? All this legislation will do is prevent a tiny handful of victims having to watch the killers of their loved ones being rewarded with highly paid, tax payer funded jobs. Dry your eyes, chuck.
Quote from: EC Unique on June 03, 2013, 10:54:28 PM
Quote from: sheamy on June 03, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
Absolutely disgusting from the SDLP. Wouldn't have happened under John Hume's watch.
They deserve to be electorally wiped out for that.
That happen years ago..
If that had happened years ago then SF wouldn't have needed the SDLP to support their petition.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
I don't understand this idea at all. There absolutely should be a hierarchy of victims. As has been said many times, a paramilitary killed planting their own bomb and an innocent child who happened to be passing the scene - both equal victims? I don't think so.
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 07:30:47 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on June 03, 2013, 10:54:28 PM
Quote from: sheamy on June 03, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
Absolutely disgusting from the SDLP. Wouldn't have happened under John Hume's watch.
They deserve to be electorally wiped out for that.
That happen years ago..
If that had happened years ago then SF wouldn't have needed the SDLP to support their petition.
Actually they didn't. They could have got it through had Steven Agnew of the Greens signed the POC. He chose not to but bizarrely he voted against the Bill
Quote from: Gordon Brittas on June 04, 2013, 07:59:04 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 07:30:47 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on June 03, 2013, 10:54:28 PM
Quote from: sheamy on June 03, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
Absolutely disgusting from the SDLP. Wouldn't have happened under John Hume's watch.
They deserve to be electorally wiped out for that.
That happen years ago..
If that had happened years ago then SF wouldn't have needed the SDLP to support their petition.
Actually they didn't. They could have got it through had Steven Agnew of the Greens signed the POC. He chose not to but bizarrely he voted against the Bill
I can't understand why a North Down MLA wouldn't want to openly back up SF on this one, can you?
Anyway, my point is that the SDLP could have secured the POC. That wouldn't have been possible if they'd been 'electorally wiped out'.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 03, 2013, 09:34:50 PM
Is this not democracy in action in the same way as the flegs debate in BCC? I must have missed something.
There are quite a few parallels:
Flegs: Fake 'Alliance' leaflets distributed
SPADs: Fake SDLP 'racist' flyer doing the rounds on Twitter
Flegs: Alliance accused of supporting SF, just because they were voting the same way
SPADs: SDLP accused of supporting TUV, just because they were voting the same way... even though they actually weren't
Flegs: Unionists not very happy at losing democratic vote
SPADs: SF not very happy at losing democratic vote
Flegs: Alliance told they'll be electorally wiped out
SPADs: SDLP told they'll be electorally wiped out
Aside from the many more killed through collusion, the British Army itself shot dead over 300 innocent Irish men, women and children during the troubles. Only four were ever convicted. Two were released within six years, reinstated into the army and promoted, and two were released within TWO years and received full pay while imprisoned. In stoop land therefor, if you are a british soldier convicted of murder there's still a 50/50 chance of being eligable to be SPAD.
And just to really demonstrate how grossly insulting the stoops have been to state victims (aside from refusing to meet a group of them before yesterdays debate), it's worth remembering a British Army document from 1972, leaked earlier this year.
In 1972, 79 Irish people were shot dead by the British Army on Irish soil. The vast majority of these were civilians. In July 1972, a strategic government and security meeting at Stormont Castle was held, involving the Secretary for State William Whitelaw MP, the North's most senior British Army officer the General Officer Commanding (GOC) General Ford, the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC, plus Lord Windlesham the British government's representative in the House of Lords, British MP's, and senior civil servants from the NIO. Relatives for Justice earlier this year unearthed a document from this meeting. The document includes some striking quotes:
* That the GOC (the Head of the British Army in the north) "would see UDA leaders that afternoon" to let them know that their "efforts as vigilantes" were "acceptable".
* And crucially, 'The (British) Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified."
That year 79 people were shot by the British Army. The meeting took place in July. That month the British Army killed 20 innocent civilians. Not one British soldier faced a conviction for ANY of these killings throughout 1972.
Will this lead to Dolly Partin'...from the SDLP?
Quote from: Gaffer on June 04, 2013, 06:02:51 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 04, 2013, 12:17:24 AM
No doubt the stoops will present their shameful decision as being out of concern for victims as a whole and that they don't treat victims in any hierarchy. Which is odd because this morning, (and not for the first time) they refused to meet the families of collusion victims who were in stormont before the debate. An absolutely pathetic, pathetic bunch of hypocritical weaklings they truly are. Stoops will always stoop.
Sore loser eh?
SDLP are entitled to vote as they see fit.
I would imagine that a number of non ex-jailbird Sinn Fein workers will be delighted with this as well. It gives them an opportunity to get one of these advisor jobs that otherwise would have gone to others as a reward for 'services rendered'
I would have understood had they actually had the courage of their convictions and actually voted for the bill. In essence they have assisted Unionists in the undermining of the GFA. On the Unionist side once again they have shown that a large proportion of Unionists are not interested in a shared future unless it is strictly on their terms. If the SDLP really had the interests of victims at heart what about Jude White, the Bloody Sunday relatives, Ballymurphy, and the many others. The SDLP have prioritised the feelings of one victim. Listening to the debate on radio Unionists legitimise Unionist violence/resistance in quite a hypocritical fashion.
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 07:36:26 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
I don't understand this idea at all. There absolutely should be a hierarchy of victims. As has been said many times, a paramilitary killed planting their own bomb and an innocent child who happened to be passing the scene - both equal victims? I don't think so.
Very simplistic but ignorant post, you need to research the history of the north before espousing this type of comment. Violence is not the preserve of just one faction. Partition came about through loyalist paramilitary violence.
Unionist side only on Nolan this morning.
How many current advisors does this new rule affect apart from the 2 already named?
Special advisors in a puppet state, good old leftist ideals right there.
Quote from: the_daddy on June 04, 2013, 02:58:03 PM
Maybe I've missed it somewhere amidst all the furore, but since all the SF party workers are on an average industrial wage what's the big deal? I'd have thought one 90k role would equate to 3 or 4 industrial wages - wouldn't naming someone else as the 'special adviser' get around this on a technicality and allow the man in question to continue in the same role as an employee of SF rather than ofmdfm?
Read the thread before you make your 1st post,it's about equality and barring people from doing a job because of their past while allowing others with a similar past or maybe even worse to do the job.
Quote from: the_daddy on June 04, 2013, 02:58:03 PM
Maybe I've missed it somewhere amidst all the furore, but since all the SF party workers are on an average industrial wage what's the big deal? I'd have thought one 90k role would equate to 3 or 4 industrial wages - wouldn't naming someone else as the 'special adviser' get around this on a technicality and allow the man in question to continue in the same role as an employee of SF rather than ofmdfm?
I'd imagine that his privileges / access would be removed. It's a civil service role after all, not a party role.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 09:32:25 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 07:36:26 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
I don't understand this idea at all. There absolutely should be a hierarchy of victims. As has been said many times, a paramilitary killed planting their own bomb and an innocent child who happened to be passing the scene - both equal victims? I don't think so.
Very simplistic but ignorant post, you need to research the history of the north before espousing this type of comment. Violence is not the preserve of just one faction. Partition came about through loyalist paramilitary violence.
I'm well aware of the history. Play the ball.
By your logic, Lenny Murphy, leader of the Shankill Butchers and killed by the IRA, is as much a victim as those horrendously murdered at the hands of the Shankill Butchers. That doesn't sit right with me.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 09:44:27 AM
Unionist side only on Nolan this morning.
I only heard the start of the show. Did I not hear Jude Collins and Malachi O'Doherty?
Quote from: glens abu on June 04, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
Quote from: the_daddy on June 04, 2013, 02:58:03 PM
Maybe I've missed it somewhere amidst all the furore, but since all the SF party workers are on an average industrial wage what's the big deal? I'd have thought one 90k role would equate to 3 or 4 industrial wages - wouldn't naming someone else as the 'special adviser' get around this on a technicality and allow the man in question to continue in the same role as an employee of SF rather than ofmdfm?
Read the thread before you make your 1st post,it's about equality and barring people from doing a job because of their past while allowing others with a similar past or maybe even worse to do the job.
No it's not about that at all. The 5 year jail rule applies to everyone - loyalist, republican, ODC - so how does that equate to '
others with a similar past or maybe even worse to do the job.'?You think there might be a few unionists/loyalist SPADS who are guilty of something but have never been convicted? Maybe so. But there might also be a few more IRA killers who just never got caught kicking about the place too. No, this isn't about equality. It's about the Shinners trying to rewrite history by seeking to normalise the deeds and atrocities carried out by the IRA.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 04, 2013, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 04, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
Quote from: the_daddy on June 04, 2013, 02:58:03 PM
Maybe I've missed it somewhere amidst all the furore, but since all the SF party workers are on an average industrial wage what's the big deal? I'd have thought one 90k role would equate to 3 or 4 industrial wages - wouldn't naming someone else as the 'special adviser' get around this on a technicality and allow the man in question to continue in the same role as an employee of SF rather than ofmdfm?
Read the thread before you make your 1st post,it's about equality and barring people from doing a job because of their past while allowing others with a similar past or maybe even worse to do the job.
No it's not about that at all. The 5 year jail rule applies to everyone - loyalist, republican, ODC - so how does that equate to 'others with a similar past or maybe even worse to do the job.'?You think there might be a few unionists/loyalist SPADS who are guilty of something but have never been convicted? Maybe so. But there might also be a few more IRA killers who just never got caught kicking about the place too. No, this isn't about equality. It's about the Shinners trying to rewrite history by seeking to normalise the deeds and atrocities carried out by the IRA.
There are ex-RUC men working as special advisors is that OK with you?
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
Evening All.
Since I've neither the time nor inclination to post these days (or even browse much), this must be a flying visit.
However, having logged on to view the reaction to the SPAD's vote, my attention was particularly caught by the above assertion.
So tell me, Apples, do you feel that eg the two UVF members who blew themselves up in the Miami Show Band Massacre should be accorded the same "victim" status as the three band members who were murdered?
(It's a simple Yes/No question, btw)
Quote from: glens abu on June 04, 2013, 06:41:52 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 04, 2013, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 04, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
Quote from: the_daddy on June 04, 2013, 02:58:03 PM
Maybe I've missed it somewhere amidst all the furore, but since all the SF party workers are on an average industrial wage what's the big deal? I'd have thought one 90k role would equate to 3 or 4 industrial wages - wouldn't naming someone else as the 'special adviser' get around this on a technicality and allow the man in question to continue in the same role as an employee of SF rather than ofmdfm?
Read the thread before you make your 1st post,it's about equality and barring people from doing a job because of their past while allowing others with a similar past or maybe even worse to do the job.
No it's not about that at all. The 5 year jail rule applies to everyone - loyalist, republican, ODC - so how does that equate to 'others with a similar past or maybe even worse to do the job.'?You think there might be a few unionists/loyalist SPADS who are guilty of something but have never been convicted? Maybe so. But there might also be a few more IRA killers who just never got caught kicking about the place too. No, this isn't about equality. It's about the Shinners trying to rewrite history by seeking to normalise the deeds and atrocities carried out by the IRA.
There are ex-RUC men working as special advisors is that OK with you?
Have they been convicted of an offence for which they served 5 years or more? If they have, throw them out. If not, let them keep their jobs. There are ex IRA men and women serving in government. Is that ok with you?
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 04, 2013, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
Evening All.
Since I've neither the time nor inclination to post these days (or even browse much), this must be a flying visit.
However, having logged on to view the reaction to the SPAD's vote, my attention was particularly caught by the above assertion.
So tell me, Apples, do you feel that eg the two UVF members who blew themselves up in the Miami Show Band Massacre should be accorded the same "victim" status as the three band members who were murdered?
(It's a simple Yes/No question, btw)
Welcome back, EG.
MAYBE EVEN WORSE? i didnt know what martin McGuinness advisor did to this week, but i like to hear whats worse that blowing up a teenager, too many men on her with the party blinkers on, catch a grip lads. I have met and dealt with gerry adams though work and got on fine with him although that doesnt mean i forget what he was involved in. Lenny Murphy was the lowest of the low, the last thing he ever was is a victim
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 04, 2013, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
Evening All.
Since I've neither the time nor inclination to post these days (or even browse much), this must be a flying visit.
However, having logged on to view the reaction to the SPAD's vote, my attention was particularly caught by the above assertion.
So tell me, Apples, do you feel that eg the two UVF members who blew themselves up in the Miami Show Band Massacre should be accorded the same "victim" status as the three band members who were murdered?
(It's a simple Yes/No question, btw)
AFAIK one of the two 'UVF' members were also in the UDR, as were another three of those convicted of the killings, and were responsible for a host of murders in mid-Ulster while serving with the so-called forces of law and order. Were UDR members who colluded with loyalist murder gangs and were then killed by the IRA victims? Should I wear a wee poppy to remember those scum? Nothing's as simple as yes and no in this place
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 04, 2013, 07:10:22 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 04, 2013, 06:41:52 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 04, 2013, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: glens abu on June 04, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
Quote from: the_daddy on June 04, 2013, 02:58:03 PM
Maybe I've missed it somewhere amidst all the furore, but since all the SF party workers are on an average industrial wage what's the big deal? I'd have thought one 90k role would equate to 3 or 4 industrial wages - wouldn't naming someone else as the 'special adviser' get around this on a technicality and allow the man in question to continue in the same role as an employee of SF rather than ofmdfm?
Read the thread before you make your 1st post,it's about equality and barring people from doing a job because of their past while allowing others with a similar past or maybe even worse to do the job.
No it's not about that at all. The 5 year jail rule applies to everyone - loyalist, republican, ODC - so how does that equate to 'others with a similar past or maybe even worse to do the job.'?You think there might be a few unionists/loyalist SPADS who are guilty of something but have never been convicted? Maybe so. But there might also be a few more IRA killers who just never got caught kicking about the place too. No, this isn't about equality. It's about the Shinners trying to rewrite history by seeking to normalise the deeds and atrocities carried out by the IRA.
There are ex-RUC men working as special advisors is that OK with you?
Have they been convicted of an offence for which they served 5 years or more? If they have, throw them out. If not, let them keep their jobs. There are ex IRA men and women serving in government. Is that ok with you?
Problem is RUC and UDR who murdered and colluded in murder never got charged,they all got off with mass murder,so that's the problem I have with this and why SF will fight it through the courts.Bad law.I am very happy with IRA men in government as a matter of fact over the next couple of years I will be working to get more elected so that we will never need another party to help us prevent bad laws being passed in the future.As the IRA said they only needed to be lucky once,now it's not about luck it's about strategy of turning 29 into 30.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 07:55:14 PM
MAYBE EVEN WORSE? i didnt know what martin McGuinness advisor did to this week, but i like to hear whats worse that blowing up a teenager, too many men on her with the party blinkers on, catch a grip lads. I have met and dealt with gerry adams though work and got on fine with him although that doesnt mean i forget what he was involved in. Lenny Murphy was the lowest of the low, the last thing he ever was is a victim
RUC and UDR men who colluded with Murphy and his ilk can work as special advisers,because they never served a day in their lives as the state protected them.Paul Kavanagh took his war to England,got caught and was jailed.Now the stoops discriminate against him.
yeah Glens abu dont forget about the teenager he blew up, oh right sorry forgot Pauls the victim here. Who are the special advisers from the RUC at stormont and who up there do they advise? Why does a criminal record affect my job chances going for a general job in the civil service for many a offense which aint remotely near 5yrs, but it shouldn't affect the bigwigs up on that hill. oh thats right we dont want to rock the boat
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 09:57:56 PM
yeah Glens abu dont forget about the teenager he blew up, oh right sorry forgot Pauls the victim here. Who are the special advisers from the RUC at stormont and who up there do they advise? Why does a criminal record affect my job chances going for a general job in the civil service for many a offense which aint remotely near 5yrs, but it shouldn't affect the bigwigs up on that hill. oh thats right we dont want to rock the boat
There are plenty of ex-RUC and UDR as special advisers and as MLAs in both the DUP and UUP but sure nobody gives a fiddlers,and there would be no peace process if it wasn't for people like Paul Kavanagh so I really don't care about your problems in the civil service,if you can't get promotion that's your problem I want equality for Spads and this bill doesn't give it.You should also know by now that SF will always rock the boat. ;)
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 09:57:56 PM
yeah Glens abu dont forget about the teenager he blew up, oh right sorry forgot Pauls the victim here. Who are the special advisers from the RUC at stormont and who up there do they advise? Why does a criminal record affect my job chances going for a general job in the civil service for many a offense which aint remotely near 5yrs, but it shouldn't affect the bigwigs up on that hill. oh thats right we dont want to rock the boat
Look if there was any sort of equality in convictions, then your argument would be worthy of debate. As I previously mentioned, not even including collusion with loyalists, the British Army itself murdered over 300 innocent Irish men & women yet only four soldiers ever saw the inside of a prison cell. Four. All were on full British Army pay for the duration of their convictions. Two were released within two years, reinstated in the army and promoted, and the other two were released after six years.
Also as mentioned earlier, in 1972, in a meeting between Secretary for State William Whitelaw, the North's most senior British Army officer the General Officer Commanding (GOC) General Ford, the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC, plus Lord Windlesham the British government's representative in the House of Lords, British MP's, and senior civil servants from the NIO, it was stated that
'The (British) Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified."That month the British Army murdered 20 innocent Irish people. They murdered 79 that year. As I said, this doesn't include the hundreds more victims of collusion.
So while the level of convictions for a highly active participant in the conflict was almost nil, then this legislation is exclusive of a huge number of victims. As such it is divides victims, it prioritises sections of victims, and is bordering on sectarian. On top of this, the status of prisoners as political was recognised in the fact that they were granted early release under the GFA, so to pass this law, bizarrely, is to exclude them from a specific role in the political process. Even more bizzarly when it means an ex prisoner can't be an advisor to a minister, but can
be a minister. It is a textbook example of bad law.
"The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including
assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities." (Good Friday Agreement).
Oh i have no criminal record and have no problem beating the way up the ladder in the ciivl service as am actually qualified to do the jobs unlike them freeloaders at stormont who couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag fore by run govt. If they knew what the f**k they were doing they woudnt need special advisors. See your part of the problem, general sinn fein supporters see no problem killing children or people in the cross fire to get their objectives, with the simple excuse they were doing it to us so that makes it right. But for right thinking people we know the difference between right and wrong, and killing someone is wrong no matter what way you want to powder coat it. Instead of giving it large to the SDLP what wrong with your buddies in the DUP saying both parties are having alove in and dont want to hear the vews of any other party
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 10:38:27 PM
general sinn fein supporters see no problem killing children...
Sorry, I tried engaging in serious debate with you. My mistake.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 10:38:27 PM
Oh i have no criminal record and have no problem beating the way up the ladder in the ciivl service as am actually qualified to do the jobs unlike them freeloaders at stormont who couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag fore by run govt. If they knew what the f**k they were doing they woudnt need special advisors. See your part of the problem, general sinn fein supporters see no problem killing children or people in the cross fire to get their objectives, with the simple excuse they were doing it to us so that makes it right. But for right thinking people we know the difference between right and wrong, and killing someone is wrong no matter what way you want to powder coat it. Instead of giving it large to the SDLP what wrong with your buddies in the DUP saying both parties are having alove in and dont want to hear the vews of any other party
Paul Kavanagh will be grand, he will be parachuted in to some pseudo "community" job that is awash with public money.
Watching Shinners of all people trying to claim the moral high ground gives me a warm glow inside. ;D
Your a tyrone man Nally, you believe you win the all Ireland ever yr, sure how could we have a serious debate lol
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 08:19:47 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 03, 2013, 09:34:50 PM
Is this not democracy in action in the same way as the flegs debate in BCC? I must have missed something.
There are quite a few parallels:
Flegs: Fake 'Alliance' leaflets distributed
SPADs: Fake SDLP 'racist' flyer doing the rounds on Twitter
Flegs: Alliance accused of supporting SF, just because they were voting the same way
SPADs: SDLP accused of supporting TUV, just because they were voting the same way... even though they actually weren't
Flegs: Unionists not very happy at losing democratic vote
SPADs: SF not very happy at losing democratic vote
Flegs: Alliance told they'll be electorally wiped out
SPADs: SDLP told they'll be electorally wiped out
and another one...
Flegs: Intimidation of party rep who couldn't have voted on the issue at hand because she isn't a City Councillor (Naomi Long)
SPADs: Intimidation of party rep who couldn't have voted on the issue at hand because she isn't an MLA (Nichola Mallon)
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 09:32:25 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 07:36:26 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
I don't understand this idea at all. There absolutely should be a hierarchy of victims. As has been said many times, a paramilitary killed planting their own bomb and an innocent child who happened to be passing the scene - both equal victims? I don't think so.
Very simplistic but ignorant post, you need to research the history of the north before espousing this type of comment. Violence is not the preserve of just one faction. Partition came about through loyalist paramilitary violence.
I'm well aware of the history. Play the ball.
By your logic, Lenny Murphy, leader of the Shankill Butchers and killed by the IRA, is as much a victim as those horrendously murdered at the hands of the Shankill Butchers. That doesn't sit right with me.
Yes he was. The real point I am making is that the current position of the SDLP supports the notion that victim hood is the preserve only of those killed by republicans and that the sole blame for violence in NI can be laid at nationalist doors. It ignores the nature of the violence used by Unionists from the plantation. We all need to accept that victim hood is shared and no one has a monopoly on the commission of violent acts.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 04, 2013, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
Evening All.
Since I've neither the time nor inclination to post these days (or even browse much), this must be a flying visit.
However, having logged on to view the reaction to the SPAD's vote, my attention was particularly caught by the above assertion.
So tell me, Apples, do you feel that eg the two UVF members who blew themselves up in the Miami Show Band Massacre should be accorded the same "victim" status as the three band members who were murdered?
(It's a simple Yes/No question, btw)
Yes
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 10:38:27 PM
Oh i have no criminal record and have no problem beating the way up the ladder in the ciivl service as am actually qualified to do the jobs unlike them freeloaders at stormont who couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag fore by run govt. If they knew what the f**k they were doing they woudnt need special advisors. See your part of the problem, general sinn fein supporters see no problem killing children or people in the cross fire to get their objectives, with the simple excuse they were doing it to us so that makes it right. But for right thinking people we know the difference between right and wrong, and killing someone is wrong no matter what way you want to powder coat it. Instead of giving it large to the SDLP what wrong with your buddies in the DUP saying both parties are having alove in and dont want to hear the vews of any other party
Sounds like you are not getting your promotion quick enough as you seem to have a chip on your shoulder regarding people getting paid more than you who are " not as clever as you" the hard working civil servant.Also a a civil servant you should know that all ministers in most governments have special advisers,think even direct rule ministers have civil servants doing that job and they with all their brains didn't do too well.
For the Shinners on here you can't claim that IRA men killing or bombing were victims of circumstances and on the other deny that others on the unionist side aren't.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 10:47:59 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 09:32:25 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 07:36:26 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
I don't understand this idea at all. There absolutely should be a hierarchy of victims. As has been said many times, a paramilitary killed planting their own bomb and an innocent child who happened to be passing the scene - both equal victims? I don't think so.
Very simplistic but ignorant post, you need to research the history of the north before espousing this type of comment. Violence is not the preserve of just one faction. Partition came about through loyalist paramilitary violence.
I'm well aware of the history. Play the ball.
By your logic, Lenny Murphy, leader of the Shankill Butchers and killed by the IRA, is as much a victim as those horrendously murdered at the hands of the Shankill Butchers. That doesn't sit right with me.
Yes he was. The real point I am making is that the current position of the SDLP supports the notion that victim hood is the preserve only of those killed by republicans and that the sole blame for violence in NI can be laid at nationalist doors. It ignores the nature of the violence used by Unionists from the plantation. We all need to accept that lovely big pot of victims hood cash is shared and no one has a monopoly on all these well paid jobs for doing fcuk allthe commission of violent acts.s
Quote from: Saffrongael on June 04, 2013, 10:42:16 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 10:38:27 PM
Oh i have no criminal record and have no problem beating the way up the ladder in the ciivl service as am actually qualified to do the jobs unlike them freeloaders at stormont who couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag fore by run govt. If they knew what the f**k they were doing they woudnt need special advisors. See your part of the problem, general sinn fein supporters see no problem killing children or people in the cross fire to get their objectives, with the simple excuse they were doing it to us so that makes it right. But for right thinking people we know the difference between right and wrong, and killing someone is wrong no matter what way you want to powder coat it. Instead of giving it large to the SDLP what wrong with your buddies in the DUP saying both parties are having alove in and dont want to hear the vews of any other party
Paul Kavanagh will be grand, he will be parachuted in to some pseudo "community" job that is awash with public money.
Don't be jealous now Saff if you and Martin og did a bit of community work you might get a wee backhander ;)
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 10:47:59 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 09:32:25 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2013, 07:36:26 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
I don't understand this idea at all. There absolutely should be a hierarchy of victims. As has been said many times, a paramilitary killed planting their own bomb and an innocent child who happened to be passing the scene - both equal victims? I don't think so.
Very simplistic but ignorant post, you need to research the history of the north before espousing this type of comment. Violence is not the preserve of just one faction. Partition came about through loyalist paramilitary violence.
I'm well aware of the history. Play the ball.
By your logic, Lenny Murphy, leader of the Shankill Butchers and killed by the IRA, is as much a victim as those horrendously murdered at the hands of the Shankill Butchers. That doesn't sit right with me.
Yes he was. The real point I am making is that the current position of the SDLP supports the notion that victim hood is the preserve only of those killed by republicans and that the sole blame for violence in NI can be laid at nationalist doors. It ignores the nature of the violence used by Unionists from the plantation. We all need to accept that victim hood is shared and no one has a monopoly on the commission of violent acts.
Well if you really believe that, there's not much point in discussing it further. I draw a distinction between those who were 'involved' and those who were just trying to live their lives.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 10:52:36 PM
For the Shinners on here you can't claim that IRA men killing or bombing were victims of circumstances and on the other deny that others on the unionist side aren't.
I for one never claimed such a thing. :o
Quote from: glens abu on June 04, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 07:55:14 PM
MAYBE EVEN WORSE? i didnt know what martin McGuinness advisor did to this week, but i like to hear whats worse that blowing up a teenager, too many men on her with the party blinkers on, catch a grip lads. I have met and dealt with gerry adams though work and got on fine with him although that doesnt mean i forget what he was involved in. Lenny Murphy was the lowest of the low, the last thing he ever was is a victim
RUC and UDR men who colluded with Murphy and his ilk can work as special advisers,because they never served a day in their lives as the state protected them.Paul Kavanagh took his war to England,got caught and was jailed.Now the stoops discriminate against him.
One of the SDLP's failed amendments was that the legislation would not be retrospective - i.e. it wouldn't be applied to those already in post - SF refused to support the amendment.
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 04, 2013, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 09:57:56 PM
yeah Glens abu dont forget about the teenager he blew up, oh right sorry forgot Pauls the victim here. Who are the special advisers from the RUC at stormont and who up there do they advise? Why does a criminal record affect my job chances going for a general job in the civil service for many a offense which aint remotely near 5yrs, but it shouldn't affect the bigwigs up on that hill. oh thats right we dont want to rock the boat
Look if there was any sort of equality in convictions, then your argument would be worthy of debate. As I previously mentioned, not even including collusion with loyalists, the British Army itself murdered over 300 innocent Irish men & women yet only four soldiers ever saw the inside of a prison cell. Four. All were on full British Army pay for the duration of their convictions. Two were released within two years, reinstated in the army and promoted, and the other two were released after six years.
Also as mentioned earlier, in 1972, in a meeting between Secretary for State William Whitelaw, the North's most senior British Army officer the General Officer Commanding (GOC) General Ford, the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC, plus Lord Windlesham the British government's representative in the House of Lords, British MP's, and senior civil servants from the NIO, it was stated that
'The (British) Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified."
That month the British Army murdered 20 innocent Irish people. They murdered 79 that year. As I said, this doesn't include the hundreds more victims of collusion.
So while the level of convictions for a highly active participant in the conflict was almost nil, then this legislation is exclusive of a huge number of victims. As such it is divides victims, it prioritises sections of victims, and is bordering on sectarian. On top of this, the status of prisoners as political was recognised in the fact that they were granted early release under the GFA, so to pass this law, bizarrely, is to exclude them from a specific role in the political process. Even more bizzarly when it means an ex prisoner can't be an advisor to a minister, but can be a minister. It is a textbook example of bad law.
"The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities." (Good Friday Agreement).
That's not the first time you've used that statistic . CAIN database shows that the British Army were responsible for roughly 300 deaths during the troubles, so I'm presuming that's what your getting at. It also shows that about 125 of these were republican paramilitaries, while 14 others were loyalists. These were combatants, therefore, to use the description favoured by republicans themselves and therefore legitimate targets (to use another). Don't let the facts get in the way of a punchy phrase though. ;)
The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).
Quote from: glens abu on June 04, 2013, 10:56:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 10:52:36 PM
For the Shinners on here you can't claim that IRA men killing or bombing were victims of circumstances and on the other deny that others on the unionist side aren't.
I for one never claimed such a thing. :o
No but many do
The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.
According to this morning's Irish News, Mr Kavanagh is to a £60k payoff if he is dismissed and a pension in excess of £5K per annum for life. Given that he will be replaced and with the new incumbent receiving the same salary, all funded by the taxpayer, it seems even when Sinn Fein "lose", they still win.
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2013, 11:11:16 AM
The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.
Are you suggesting that we have to address all 4,963 injustices before we can move forward?
Part of that problem appears to be a complete failure by the (ahem.. well-paid) Victim Commissioners.
Quote from: Orior on June 05, 2013, 11:18:24 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2013, 11:11:16 AM
The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.
Are you suggesting that we have to address all 4,963 injustices before we can move forward?
I'm not suggesting anything.
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2013, 11:11:16 AM
The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.
No hardy, the moral argument here is parity of esteem for the
victims. While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term - "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter. This makes their suffering so much more accute and their marginalisation so much more official. Very few SPADs will be effected by this law, so aside from the fact that it goes directly against the GFA commitment
"to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities", all it does is create ill-feeling among victims. It categorises and divides them. This law was nothing more than a stunt by Jim Allister. How many times have we heard it described as "a defeat for SF" or a "victory for Jim Allister" or "defeat for the SDLP". It was a
political stunt, which (due to the tiny number of spads it will impact upon) uses and abuses and divides victims. Permitting an ex-prisoner to
be a minister, but not to advise a minister says it all about this complete farce and underlines the petty political nature of it, where victims as a whole were a long way down the priority list for Jim Allister.
The situation here is complex. I don't think anyone would say that the grief of a victim of an IRA bomb can be equated to the bomber themselves. However the grief of anyone who has lost a loved one is the same no matter the circumstances. We also have to recognise unpalatable as it may be that everyone here has a responsibility for the situiation we found ourselves in through the 60's 70's 80's and early 90's. That is not to justify the taking of innocent lives, but many were killed and injured on all sides. unfortunately we now have a situation where the Unioist view that the troubles started with the IRA in 1970 and that all paramilitary violence by loyalists going back over the centuries was legitimate because they run the state, and all violence from the nationalist side was reprehensible and without cause. This is contrary to what the GFA recognises. In that context as Brian Feeney points out in the IN today they have distanced themselves from an element of the agreement which they themselves negotiated.
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 12:14:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2013, 11:11:16 AM
The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.
No hardy, the moral argument here is parity of esteem for the victims. While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term - "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter. This makes their suffering so much more accute and their marginalisation so much more official. Very few SPADs will be effected by this law, so aside from the fact that it goes directly against the GFA commitment "to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities", all it does is create ill-feeling among victims. It categorises and divides them. This law was nothing more than a stunt by Jim Allister. How many times have we heard it described as "a defeat for SF" or a "victory for Jim Allister" or "defeat for the SDLP". It was a political stunt, which (due to the tiny number of spads it will impact upon) uses and abuses and divides victims. Permitting an ex-prisoner to be a minister, but not to advise a minister says it all about this complete farce and underlines the petty political nature of it, where victims as a whole were a long way down the priority list for Jim Allister.
Well it's nice to see the SF technical group here exerting themselves for a full nine pages on behalf of victims. It was clearly unworthy of me to suspect that it was a sordid squabble over who gets snouts in the trough. Sorry about that.
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2013, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 12:14:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2013, 11:11:16 AM
The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.
No hardy, the moral argument here is parity of esteem for the victims. While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term - "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter. This makes their suffering so much more accute and their marginalisation so much more official. Very few SPADs will be effected by this law, so aside from the fact that it goes directly against the GFA commitment "to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities", all it does is create ill-feeling among victims. It categorises and divides them. This law was nothing more than a stunt by Jim Allister. How many times have we heard it described as "a defeat for SF" or a "victory for Jim Allister" or "defeat for the SDLP". It was a political stunt, which (due to the tiny number of spads it will impact upon) uses and abuses and divides victims. Permitting an ex-prisoner to be a minister, but not to advise a minister says it all about this complete farce and underlines the petty political nature of it, where victims as a whole were a long way down the priority list for Jim Allister.
Well it's nice to see the SF technical group here exerting themselves for a full nine pages on behalf of victims. It was clearly unworthy of me to suspect that it was a squalid squabble over who gets snouts in the trough. Sorry about that.
That's it, ignore my every point and engage in snide, sarcastic, arrogant nonsense. It's what you do best.
Did you break that bottle before you shoved it in my face? I need to know whether I need cyber stitches or it's just a virtual black eye.
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2013, 12:28:56 PM
Did you break that bottle before you shoved it in my face? I need to know whether I need cyber stitches or it's just a virtual black eye.
Thank you for ably demonstrating my previous point once again.
There's nothing so hurtful as having a compliment rejected.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 10:49:13 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 04, 2013, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
So tell me, Apples, do you feel that eg the two UVF members who blew themselves up in the Miami Show Band Massacre should be accorded the same "victim" status as the three band members who were murdered?
Yes
Which leads on to my next question.
Are those UVF members who managed to get through the Troubles without getting killed, injured or imprisoned also to be considered as "victims", with the same status as eg the dead Miami Showband members?
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:30:44 AM
The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).
No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:30:44 AM
The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).
No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.
Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 04, 2013, 10:38:27 PM
Oh i have no criminal record and have no problem beating the way up the ladder in the ciivl service as am actually qualified to do the jobs unlike them freeloaders at stormont who couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag fore by run govt. If they knew what the f**k they were doing they woudnt need special advisors. See your part of the problem, general sinn fein supporters see no problem killing children or people in the cross fire to get their objectives, with the simple excuse they were doing it to us so that makes it right. But for right thinking people we know the difference between right and wrong, and killing someone is wrong no matter what way you want to powder coat it. Instead of giving it large to the SDLP what wrong with your buddies in the DUP saying both parties are having alove in and dont want to hear the vews of any other party
Lots of politicians in lots of countries employ special advisors. How are they meant to be 100% up to speed with all matters? They need researchers advisors etc to make difficult decisions. (Though they do seem to get a fair few wrong!)
Quote from: T Fearon on June 05, 2013, 11:15:39 AM
According to this morning's Irish News, Mr Kavanagh is to a £60k payoff if he is dismissed and a pension in excess of £5K per annum for life. Given that he will be replaced and with the new incumbent receiving the same salary, all funded by the taxpayer, it seems even when Sinn Fein "lose", they still win.
Strange that there hasn't been much focus on the actual SPAD salary. The top of the SPAD band is £91,809. That's approx €108,000. SF was proposing a public sector pay cap of €100,000 in the south - and that was for all public servants. Where's the consistency in proposing a €100,000 pay cap for the General Secretary of a Department in the south (serving a much bigger population and leading a significant workforce), when a SPAD in the NI Assembly (with much less responsibility or accountability) can earn more? Another example of the difference between opposition and power?
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:30:44 AM
The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).
No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.
Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.
You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:30:44 AM
The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).
No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.
Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.
You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.
I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 07:41:08 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:30:44 AM
The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).
No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.
Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.
You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.
I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.
I'm not interested in what the British thought or stated they were involved in. I
am interested to hear a republican accuse the British Army of murder on the basis that they weren't at war. Either there was a war or there wasn't.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 08:03:43 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 07:41:08 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:30:44 AM
The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).
No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.
Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.
You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.
I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.
I'm not interested in what the British thought or stated they were involved in. I am interested to hear a republican accuse the British Army of murder on the basis that they weren't at war. Either there was a war or there wasn't.
Convenient that.
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:04:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 08:03:43 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 07:41:08 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:30:44 AM
The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).
No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.
Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.
You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.
I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.
I'm not interested in what the British thought or stated they were involved in. I am interested to hear a republican accuse the British Army of murder on the basis that they weren't at war. Either there was a war or there wasn't.
Convenient that.
You're the person who alleged that the British Army 'murdered' 300 innocent people. Would you like to comment on how you square the fact that nearly half of this 300 were republicans on active service and who viewed themselves as being combatants engaged in a war with the British? Alternatively, feel free to continue ducking the issue.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 10:24:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:04:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 08:03:43 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 07:41:08 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 05, 2013, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 08:30:44 AM
The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).
No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.
Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.
You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.
I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.
I'm not interested in what the British thought or stated they were involved in. I am interested to hear a republican accuse the British Army of murder on the basis that they weren't at war. Either there was a war or there wasn't.
Convenient that.
You're the person who alleged that the British Army 'murdered' 300 innocent people. Would you like to comment on how you square the fact that nearly half of this 300 were republicans on active service and who viewed themselves as being combatants engaged in a war with the British? Alternatively, feel free to continue ducking the issue.
You've ducked it for the past two or three posts. Reminding me why I stopped replying to you in the first place, long long ago.
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2013, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 12:14:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2013, 11:11:16 AM
The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.
No hardy, the moral argument here is parity of esteem for the victims. While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term - "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter. This makes their suffering so much more accute and their marginalisation so much more official. Very few SPADs will be effected by this law, so aside from the fact that it goes directly against the GFA commitment "to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities", all it does is create ill-feeling among victims. It categorises and divides them. This law was nothing more than a stunt by Jim Allister. How many times have we heard it described as "a defeat for SF" or a "victory for Jim Allister" or "defeat for the SDLP". It was a political stunt, which (due to the tiny number of spads it will impact upon) uses and abuses and divides victims. Permitting an ex-prisoner to be a minister, but not to advise a minister says it all about this complete farce and underlines the petty political nature of it, where victims as a whole were a long way down the priority list for Jim Allister.
Well it's nice to see the SF technical group here exerting themselves for a full nine pages on behalf of victims. It was clearly unworthy of me to suspect that it was a sordid squabble over who gets snouts in the trough. Sorry about that.
That is a seperate issue. It is somewhat unedifying to see how SF dole out the jobs, but there is a principle at stake here and as I've already said the stoops have sided with a unionist narritive on the troubles and cemented a hierachy of victims.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 05, 2013, 12:47:49 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 04, 2013, 10:49:13 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 04, 2013, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 03, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.
So tell me, Apples, do you feel that eg the two UVF members who blew themselves up in the Miami Show Band Massacre should be accorded the same "victim" status as the three band members who were murdered?
Yes
Which leads on to my next question.
Are those UVF members who managed to get through the Troubles without getting killed, injured or imprisoned also to be considered as "victims", with the same status as eg the dead Miami Showband members?
I would have thought the grief of all families are the same. I would contend that all those caught up in the troubles were victims of their circumstances and upbringing. read some of my other posts and you will see my reasoning. What I am trying to nail is this unionist view that the troubles started with the IRA in 69 or 70. As you well know our history is a little more complex and longer tthan that sort of time frame. I am not for one minute trying to justify the violence of the last century(ies), but it needs to beviewed in context and with a sence of balance. Much as I dislike the outcome of many aspects of the GFA such as the recognition of NI's status within the UK until an internal majority vote differently or the release of loyalist from jail I believe on balance it has led to a better life for my kids than the one I grew up with, and they aren't afraid to be Irish lest it annoy their unionist betters and so I acept it unpalatable bits and all. Unfortunately most unionist haven't or so it would seem.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 06, 2013, 09:53:45 AM
I would have thought the grief of all families are the same. I would contend that all those caught up in the troubles were victims of their circumstances and upbringing. read some of my other posts and you will see my reasoning. What I am trying to nail is this unionist view that the troubles started with the IRA in 69 or 70. As you well know our history is a little more complex and longer tthan that sort of time frame. I am not for one minute trying to justify the violence of the last century(ies), but it needs to beviewed in context and with a sence of balance. Much as I dislike the outcome of many aspects of the GFA such as the recognition of NI's status within the UK until an internal majority vote differently or the release of loyalist from jail I believe on balance it has led to a better life for my kids than the one I grew up with, and they aren't afraid to be Irish lest it annoy their unionist betters and so I acept it unpalatable bits and all. Unfortunately most unionist haven't or so it would seem.
In what way does your viewpoint that Unionism is trying to airbrush the history of the Troubles differ from the Unionist viewpoint that the never-ending cycle of inquiries into various state-sponsored killings is a Republican attempt to lay all the blame on the Brits?
Quote from: deiseach on June 06, 2013, 10:12:15 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 06, 2013, 09:53:45 AM
I would have thought the grief of all families are the same. I would contend that all those caught up in the troubles were victims of their circumstances and upbringing. read some of my other posts and you will see my reasoning. What I am trying to nail is this unionist view that the troubles started with the IRA in 69 or 70. As you well know our history is a little more complex and longer tthan that sort of time frame. I am not for one minute trying to justify the violence of the last century(ies), but it needs to beviewed in context and with a sence of balance. Much as I dislike the outcome of many aspects of the GFA such as the recognition of NI's status within the UK until an internal majority vote differently or the release of loyalist from jail I believe on balance it has led to a better life for my kids than the one I grew up with, and they aren't afraid to be Irish lest it annoy their unionist betters and so I acept it unpalatable bits and all. Unfortunately most unionist haven't or so it would seem.
In what way does your viewpoint that Unionism is trying to airbrush the history of the Troubles differ from the Unionist viewpoint that the never-ending cycle of inquiries into various state-sponsored killings is a Republican attempt to lay all the blame on the Brits?
Nationalists/Republicans admit there were wrong things done all around.
Unionists are still wearing the blinkers that their side did nothing wrong and still seem to really want to turn the clock back to 1967.
Also killings by Provos/INLA etc and many by Loyalists were prosecuted through Courts. The same can't be said of killings by Brits/Pro Brit/Brit sponsored elements. Note how Cameron won't allow full co operation re Finucane or the Dublin/Monaghan mass murder of Irish Citizens.
The Brits could save themselves a lot of money by opening their files. ;)
It might mean Cameron issuing more apologies but he's had good practice at it after Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough etc.
Quote from: Rossfan on June 06, 2013, 10:40:30 AM
Quote from: deiseach on June 06, 2013, 10:12:15 AM
In what way does your viewpoint that Unionism is trying to airbrush the history of the Troubles differ from the Unionist viewpoint that the never-ending cycle of inquiries into various state-sponsored killings is a Republican attempt to lay all the blame on the Brits?
Nationalists/Republicans admit there were wrong things done all around.
Unionists are still wearing the blinkers that their side did nothing wrong and still seem to really want to turn the clock back to 1967.
Also killings by Provos/INLA etc and many by Loyalists were prosecuted through Courts. The same can't be said of killings by Brits/Pro Brit/Brit sponsored elements. Note how Cameron won't allow full co operation re Finucane or the Dublin/Monaghan mass murder of Irish Citizens.
The Brits could save themselves a lot of money by opening their files. ;)
It might mean Cameron issuing more apologies but he's had good practice at it after Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough etc.
Good answer, but I don't see much difference between the attitude of Cameron of apologising for everything while not doing anything to redress the situation, and the Shinner attitude of agreeing that all violence was regrettable but those who committed individual acts of violence were victims of an unjust polity. It all comes under:
(http://images.betterworldbooks.com/006/Dilbert-and-the-Way-of-the-Weasel-Adams-Scott-9780060518240.jpg)
A quote from one of my earlier posts:
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 12:14:28 PM
While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term - "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter.
In stoop land, they say this bill does not create a hierarchy of victims. Which seems odd, when we look at the remarks made in today's Ulster Herlald by West Tyrone stoop MLA, Joe Byrne:
"The innocent victims need to be addressed,
in particular the innocent victims of the Provisional IRA."
Yeah, no hierarchy there ::) I'm sure the countless victims of british state forces/loyalists in Tyrone will be delighted to hear that one Joe. I'd say they appreciate an SDLP MLA telling the media that their needs are not as important. The SDLP really are well beneath contempt.
Quote from: deiseach on June 06, 2013, 10:12:15 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 06, 2013, 09:53:45 AM
I would have thought the grief of all families are the same. I would contend that all those caught up in the troubles were victims of their circumstances and upbringing. read some of my other posts and you will see my reasoning. What I am trying to nail is this unionist view that the troubles started with the IRA in 69 or 70. As you well know our history is a little more complex and longer tthan that sort of time frame. I am not for one minute trying to justify the violence of the last century(ies), but it needs to beviewed in context and with a sence of balance. Much as I dislike the outcome of many aspects of the GFA such as the recognition of NI's status within the UK until an internal majority vote differently or the release of loyalist from jail I believe on balance it has led to a better life for my kids than the one I grew up with, and they aren't afraid to be Irish lest it annoy their unionist betters and so I acept it unpalatable bits and all. Unfortunately most unionist haven't or so it would seem.
In what way does your viewpoint that Unionism is trying to airbrush the history of the Troubles differ from the Unionist viewpoint that the never-ending cycle of inquiries into various state-sponsored killings is a Republican attempt to lay all the blame on the Brits?
Both are valid, Republicans are handy with the oul airbrush too.
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 06, 2013, 02:06:57 PM
A quote from one of my earlier posts:
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 05, 2013, 12:14:28 PM
While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term - "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter.
In stoop land, they say this bill does not create a hierarchy of victims. Which seems odd, when we look at the remarks made in today's Ulster Herlald by West Tyrone stoop MLA, Joe Byrne:
"The innocent victims need to be addressed, in particular the innocent victims of the Provisional IRA."
Yeah, no hierarchy there ::) I'm sure the countless victims of british state forces/loyalists in Tyrone will be delighted to hear that one Joe. I'd say they appreciate an SDLP MLA telling the media that their needs are not as important. The SDLP really are well beneath contempt.
In SDLP land the Reavey's and the Blood Sunday families aren't victims in the same way the Travers family are.
Ridiculous.
Mairtin O'Muilleoir, Belfast's new Lord Mayor, has called it "a victory for victims".
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 08:38:46 PM
Mairtin O'Muilleoir, Belfast's new Lord Mayor, has called it "a victory for victims".
And is it, in your opinion?
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 08:38:46 PM
Mairtin O'Muilleoir, Belfast's new Lord Mayor, has called it "a victory for victims".
What's your source for that comment ?
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 09:40:14 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 08:38:46 PM
Mairtin O'Muilleoir, Belfast's new Lord Mayor, has called it "a victory for victims".
And is it, in your opinion?
For some victims anyway.
Quote from: Saffrongael on June 06, 2013, 09:59:04 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 08:38:46 PM
Mairtin O'Muilleoir, Belfast's new Lord Mayor, has called it "a victory for victims".
What's your source for that comment ?
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/151858/126247
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 10:05:37 PM
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 09:40:14 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 08:38:46 PM
Mairtin O'Muilleoir, Belfast's new Lord Mayor, has called it "a victory for victims".
And is it, in your opinion?
For some victims anyway.
You're practically abstaining!
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 10:05:37 PM
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 09:40:14 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 08:38:46 PM
Mairtin O'Muilleoir, Belfast's new Lord Mayor, has called it "a victory for victims".
And is it, in your opinion?
For some victims anyway.
I fail to see how.
"Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
A victory for victims... Aye right.
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 06, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
"Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
A victory for victims... Aye right.
That's how I understood it too.
The stoops have ensured that jim allister is seen to have got one over on those pesky cafflicks. A sure way to encouage unionists/ loyalists to vote for more people of jims ilk. A final nail in electoral terms for the stoops?
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 11:28:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 06, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
"Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
A victory for victims... Aye right.
That's how I understood it too.
Did he not say that it was "not a victory for unionists, but a victory for victims"? Are we quoting different parts of the interview?
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 10:10:47 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on June 06, 2013, 09:59:04 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 06, 2013, 08:38:46 PM
Mairtin O'Muilleoir, Belfast's new Lord Mayor, has called it "a victory for victims".
What's your source for that comment ?
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/151858/126247
Not exactly as clear as you make it out, he said it would not advance the cause of peace.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/divisions-over-validity-of-spanish-victims-model-for-northern-ireland-1-5169143
Unionists and victims of republican violence have expressed support for the Spanish model of dealing with the Troubles, while nationalists and victims of state violence are much less supportive, they have said.
The issue came to the fore yesterday when Omagh bomb victims' campaigner Michael Gallagher extolled its virtues as he prepared to address a conference on radicalism in Madrid.
The Spanish government says it "defeated" ETA and gave no concessions for its permanent ceasefire in 2006, after the group killed over 800 police and politicians in its campaign for Basque independence. ETA victims are given compensation of over £200,000 and special housing and work privileges. Widows' pensions are also offered. ETA convicts must pay compensation to victims after their jail terms are spent if they wish to clear their criminal record and be eligible for civil service jobs.
Kenny Donaldson is a spokesman for the 8,000-member strong Innocent Victims United coalition, which mainly represents victims of Irish republican violence.
"Our UK Government and Northern Ireland Assembly need to examine the participative approach that Spain as a nation practises in respect of victims issues," he said. "In Spain terrorist victims are firmly placed at the heart of government decision making. The Spanish state and society understands who is a victim and who is a perpetrator.
"However, in this country 'victims' have often been dismissed or bypassed by government around key policy decisions which affect their lives."
SDLP MLA Conall McDevitt has visited Colombia and the Balkans on peacebuilding missions. But he noted that there is no "peace process" in Spain, where he lived for 10 years.
"In fact the current Spanish government, which is made up by the party which inherited the dictator Franco's politics, is against having talks with ETA. They [the government] see all internal conflict in Spain as criminal."
Northern Ireland must, he said, develop a comprehensive and ethical truth and reconciliation process with victims' needs very much at its heart.
But he added: "I do not think the Spanish approach would help meet the needs of our victims or build reconciliation."
Mark Thompson of relatives for Justice, which acts mainly for victims of UK state violence, said comparisons with other models, such as Spain or South Africa, can often be a hindrance. He too cited the unresolved issue of the many "disappeared" in Spain. He believes that victims' issues here should be resolved using international mediators, as happened with policing, decommissioning and the Belfast Agreement.
He added: "All views about victimhood, of who did what to whom, must be at the core of that debate."
Current law 'biggest obstacle'
DUP victims spokesman Jeffrey Donaldson says the main obstacle to the Spanish model being applied in Northern Ireland is the legal definition of a victim here which he says equates victims with perpetrators.
"I would be very interested in exploring the Spanish model," said the MP, who has been on peacebuilding missions to Beirut, South Africa, Buram and Colombia.
"I know the peace process in Spain is still struggling with a settlement and I have been in discussions where it has been considered.
"I'm passionate about caring for victims. The neglect of innocent victims and the decision to release terrorists from prison were central in my decision to resign from the UUP and oppose the Belfast Agreement. Gradually we have sought to undo the damage and hurt of the Belfast Agreement.
"Our greatest difference with Spain is that the UUP, SF and SDLP created a legal definition for a victim which equated the perpetrator with the innocent person who got maimed or murdered. Morally this is wrong and I have consistently opposed it.
"When in the Assembly, I sought to change this by way of a Private Member's Bill. Perhaps the SDLP would now reconsider its opposition to the bill I previously presented."
Sinn Fein slams Madrid over Basque process
Sinn Fein said last night that actions by the Spanish government were frustrating a Basque peace process.
A Sinn Fein spokesman said: "The Irish peace process is held up as a model for resolving conflict across the world. In contrast the Basque peace process has been repeatedly frustrated due to a lack of engagement in particular by the authorities in Madrid.
"Sinn Fein will continue to support the Basque parties in seeking a just and lasting resolution to that conflict."
Sinn Fein MLA Barry McElduff said last night that his party was very much in favour of a truth commission for dealing with the past.
"Our party believes that the way forward is a truth commission that everyone enters into," he said.
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 11:28:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 06, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
"Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
A victory for victims... Aye right.
That's how I understood it too.
Did he not say that it was "not a victory for unionists, but a victory for victims"? Are we quoting different parts of the interview?
""Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 06, 2013, 05:31:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 06, 2013, 10:12:15 AM
In what way does your viewpoint that Unionism is trying to airbrush the history of the Troubles differ from the Unionist viewpoint that the never-ending cycle of inquiries into various state-sponsored killings is a Republican attempt to lay all the blame on the Brits?
Both are valid, Republicans are handy with the oul airbrush too.
Fair play to ye.
Quote from: deiseach on June 07, 2013, 10:04:45 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 06, 2013, 05:31:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 06, 2013, 10:12:15 AM
In what way does your viewpoint that Unionism is trying to airbrush the history of the Troubles differ from the Unionist viewpoint that the never-ending cycle of inquiries into various state-sponsored killings is a Republican attempt to lay all the blame on the Brits?
Both are valid, Republicans are handy with the oul airbrush too.
Fair play to ye.
Anyone who thinks the problems we have had on this Island over 100's of years isn't the fault of the Brits are delusional
Quote from: glens abu on June 07, 2013, 11:44:17 AM
Quote from: deiseach on June 07, 2013, 10:04:45 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 06, 2013, 05:31:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 06, 2013, 10:12:15 AM
In what way does your viewpoint that Unionism is trying to airbrush the history of the Troubles differ from the Unionist viewpoint that the never-ending cycle of inquiries into various state-sponsored killings is a Republican attempt to lay all the blame on the Brits?
Both are valid, Republicans are handy with the oul airbrush too.
Fair play to ye.
Anyone who thinks the problems we have had on this Island over 100's of years isn't the fault of the Brits are delusional
Anyone who thinks that every problem we've had on this island over 100s of years is the fault of the British and the British alone, is a republican
Well if the Brits had kept their noses out of our business for the last 800 years - the problems we'd have had would be our own and of our own making.
Quote from: Rossfan on June 07, 2013, 01:31:11 PM
Well if the Normans and Welsh and Flemish, then the English then the Scots then the Brits had kept their noses out of our business for the last 800 years - the problems we'd have had would be our own and of our own making.
Quote from: Rossfan on June 07, 2013, 01:31:11 PM
Well if the Brits had kept their noses out of our business for the last 800 years - the problems we'd have had would be our own and of our own making.
No doubt
that would have been a great comfort...
http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/03/14/march-1923-the-terror-month/
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 07, 2013, 03:31:08 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 07, 2013, 01:31:11 PM
Well if the Brits had kept their noses out of our business for the last 800 years - the problems we'd have had would be our own and of our own making.
No doubt that would have been a great comfort...
http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/03/14/march-1923-the-terror-month/
Good to see you back EG.
Quote from: Denn Forever on June 07, 2013, 03:32:40 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 07, 2013, 03:31:08 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 07, 2013, 01:31:11 PM
Well if the Brits had kept their noses out of our business for the last 800 years - the problems we'd have had would be our own and of our own making.
No doubt that would have been a great comfort...
http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/03/14/march-1923-the-terror-month/
Good to see you back EG.
Thank You.
Though I'm afraid circumstances dictate that I make it (ahem) a Flying Column...
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 07, 2013, 03:31:08 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 07, 2013, 01:31:11 PM
Well if the Brits had kept their noses out of our business for the last 800 years - the problems we'd have had would be our own and of our own ;Dmaking.
No doubt that would have been a great comfort...
http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/03/14/march-1923-the-terror-month/
And don't forget August 1969 while you're at it.
Blinkered as the rest of them 8)
PS Good to have ya back
y'oul' ******x ;D :P
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 07, 2013, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 11:28:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 06, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
"Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
A victory for victims... Aye right.
That's how I understood it too.
Did he not say that it was "not a victory for unionists, but a victory for victims"? Are we quoting different parts of the interview?
""Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
Are you just repeating yourself? I could do that too. At best he contradicted himself.
Quote from: LeoMc on June 07, 2013, 03:25:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 07, 2013, 01:31:11 PM
Well if the Normans and Welsh and Flemish, then the English then the Scots then the Brits had kept their noses out of our business for the last 800 years - the problems we'd have had would be our own and of our own making.
Not sure about what you are saying is the same thing...
Weren't we taught in history classes that while various factions invaded, they invariably ended up fully integrated with the domestic Irish society!
The English didn't integrate- they just wanted to annex, control and conquer , with all the perils to Irish lives that entailed.
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 07, 2013, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 11:28:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 06, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
"Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
A victory for victims... Aye right.
That's how I understood it too.
Did he not say that it was "not a victory for unionists, but a victory for victims"? Are we quoting different parts of the interview?
""Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
Are you just repeating yourself? I could do that too. At best he contradicted himself.
Well I was only going to put the quote up once, but you asked me to clarify what he said. What could I do other that repeat what he said!
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 07, 2013, 08:31:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 07, 2013, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 11:28:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 06, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
"Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
A victory for victims... Aye right.
That's how I understood it too.
Did he not say that it was "not a victory for unionists, but a victory for victims"? Are we quoting different parts of the interview?
""Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
Are you just repeating yourself? I could do that too. At best he contradicted himself.
Well I was only going to put the quote up once, but you asked me to clarify what he said. What could I do other that repeat what he said!
You could have said yes, you were quoting from another part of the interview.
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 08:35:44 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 07, 2013, 08:31:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 07, 2013, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 11:28:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 06, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
"Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
A victory for victims... Aye right.
That's how I understood it too.
Did he not say that it was "not a victory for unionists, but a victory for victims"? Are we quoting different parts of the interview?
""Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
Are you just repeating yourself? I could do that too. At best he contradicted himself.
Well I was only going to put the quote up once, but you asked me to clarify what he said. What could I do other that repeat what he said!
You could have said yes, you were quoting from another part of the interview.
But he wasn't. You've interpreted what he said differently.
Quote from: ranch on June 08, 2013, 03:11:41 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 08:35:44 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 07, 2013, 08:31:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 07, 2013, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 07, 2013, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: ranch on June 06, 2013, 11:28:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 06, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
"Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
A victory for victims... Aye right.
That's how I understood it too.
Did he not say that it was "not a victory for unionists, but a victory for victims"? Are we quoting different parts of the interview?
""Your report did not say it's a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
Are you just repeating yourself? I could do that too. At best he contradicted himself.
Well I was only going to put the quote up once, but you asked me to clarify what he said. What could I do other that repeat what he said!
You could have said yes, you were quoting from another part of the interview.
But he wasn't. You've interpreted what he said differently.
Apologies, you're right. I was thrown because Nally missed the first past of what he said:
"I saw it reported as a unionist victory which is sort of sad because the report didn't say it was a victory for victims and I think that's true. I think it's a bill which will not advance the cause of peace"
I agree, it's open to interpretation - he wasn't very clear.
Ann Travers now in anti Maze Development Unionist grouping ( i e every shade of unionist out with DUP) and she received a rousing ovation in Lisburn Orange Hall on Thursday night.
It is becoming increasingly hard to have any sympathy for this woman.