Messages

[The membership of the police may have changed but the top brass remain the same.]

The IRA have been on ceasefire for years and decommissioned, yet still people are arrested for past membership, meanwhile the uvf basically does whatever it likes, shooting people, dealing drugs, burning down alliance members offices, orchestrating civil unrest when the notion takes. They don't get arrested though, they get invited on to tv and radio shows, or to meetings with the first minister about marches and flags. No money for an enquiry into Ballymurhy, Loughinisland etc but plenty to facilitate loyalist protests at Twadwell. The membership of the police may have changed but the top brass remain the same.

Correct.

the 30% Myles is rattling on about are low level grunts, very ,very few even remotely in middle management let alone the policy making levels where its still the sole preserve of the Mervyns and the likes.

Remember, the only time the cops waded into loyalist protestors was when yer man who has just left brought in cops from UK police forces for the G8 in Fermanagh and kept them here for a week or two thereafter for the Ardoyne parade.
The PSNI pussyfoot around them.

Correct about the very top tier of management in the PSNI - it'll take a while for those who came in after 2000 to work their way through - but it's already happening at middle management level.

The IRA have been on ceasefire for years and decommissioned, yet still people are arrested for past membership, meanwhile the uvf basically does whatever it likes, shooting people, dealing drugs, burning down alliance members offices, orchestrating civil unrest when the notion takes. They don't get arrested though, they get invited on to tv and radio shows, or to meetings with the first minister about marches and flags. No money for an enquiry into Ballymurhy, Loughinisland etc but plenty to facilitate loyalist protests at Twadwell. The membership of the police may have changed but the top brass remain the same.

That's nonsense. How many hundreds of loyalists have been arrested and charged after various riots in the past couple of years? Who do you think did the arresting and charging - traffic wardens maybe? Odd that you think the PSNI are biased against republicans. Loyalists think exactly the opposite:
http://www.u.tv/News/HET-denies-anti-loyalist-bias-claim/b160e330-142e-444d-81ab-9773e676ccbc

[Rule 21 should have been brought in for the 26 counties and phased in to the 6 counties]

Rule 21 should have been brought in for the 26 counties and phased in to the 6 counties as a mark of respect for the suffering caused to northern Gaels .

Daftness with a capital D. How exactly would it be "phased in" ? County by County?
The ban was removed as a result of the new Political agreement ion the 6 Cos and because a new(ish) Police service was being introduced.
It was mainly so young Nationalists could join the new Service and remain members of the GAA.
Anyway it was the removal of a ban NOT making it compulsory for members of the RUC/British Army to become members of the GAA.

I agree with lynchboy on rule 21. Most in the 26 have no idea about the North's security forces situation. That's like me voting on a law involving Maoris.

And it wasn't a new police force. Different name, same scum.

Complete ballacks.

read Brian Fenny s colume in today's Irish News.

It's too late to buy it and unavailable online - care to summarise his main points?

£500 million patten pay off, £250 million compo for hearing loss for RUC men, £250 million udr/rir payoff,  £20 million ruc reserve, £100 million rehiring those who were retired through patten.  Yet they can't find £340,000 for the ombudsman s budget.

While shambolic, that's not really anything related to your "Differerent name, same scum" comment, is it?

Just as a matter of interest - what has changed? How are they different - apart from the name change?

All New top hierarchy ?
Sacked all old cops and hired completely new set?
New cop shops and abandoned all the old ones?
Etc....

Police numbers down from over 13,000 to just over 7,000.
Over 30% of that 7,000 is now made up people from a catholic/nationalist/republican background, compared to about 9% in RUC days.
New accountability mechanisms (PCSPs, Policing Board) consisting of elected representatives such as Gerry Kelly and other Shinners.
Huge number of 'cop shops' closed, nearly 40% according to this report: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15971776
Police patrols no longer accompanied by the British Army.
No real change my arse.

[Rule 21 should have been brought in for the 26 counties and phased in to the 6 counties]

Rule 21 should have been brought in for the 26 counties and phased in to the 6 counties as a mark of respect for the suffering caused to northern Gaels .

Daftness with a capital D. How exactly would it be "phased in" ? County by County?
The ban was removed as a result of the new Political agreement ion the 6 Cos and because a new(ish) Police service was being introduced.
It was mainly so young Nationalists could join the new Service and remain members of the GAA.
Anyway it was the removal of a ban NOT making it compulsory for members of the RUC/British Army to become members of the GAA.

I agree with lynchboy on rule 21. Most in the 26 have no idea about the North's security forces situation. That's like me voting on a law involving Maoris.

And it wasn't a new police force. Different name, same scum.

Complete ballacks.

read Brian Fenny s colume in today's Irish News.

It's too late to buy it and unavailable online - care to summarise his main points?

£500 million patten pay off, £250 million compo for hearing loss for RUC men, £250 million udr/rir payoff,  £20 million ruc reserve, £100 million rehiring those who were retired through patten.  Yet they can't find £340,000 for the ombudsman s budget.

While shambolic, that's not really anything related to your "Differerent name, same scum" comment, is it?

+1

[Rule 21 should have been brought in for the 26 counties and phased in to the 6 counties]

Rule 21 should have been brought in for the 26 counties and phased in to the 6 counties as a mark of respect for the suffering caused to northern Gaels .

Daftness with a capital D. How exactly would it be "phased in" ? County by County?
The ban was removed as a result of the new Political agreement ion the 6 Cos and because a new(ish) Police service was being introduced.
It was mainly so young Nationalists could join the new Service and remain members of the GAA.
Anyway it was the removal of a ban NOT making it compulsory for members of the RUC/British Army to become members of the GAA.

I agree with lynchboy on rule 21. Most in the 26 have no idea about the North's security forces situation. That's like me voting on a law involving Maoris.

And it wasn't a new police force. Different name, same scum.

Complete ballacks.

read Brian Fenny s colume in today's Irish News.

It's too late to buy it and unavailable online - care to summarise his main points?

[Rule 21 should have been brought in for the 26 counties and phased in to the 6 counties]

Rule 21 should have been brought in for the 26 counties and phased in to the 6 counties as a mark of respect for the suffering caused to northern Gaels .

Daftness with a capital D. How exactly would it be "phased in" ? County by County?
The ban was removed as a result of the new Political agreement ion the 6 Cos and because a new(ish) Police service was being introduced.
It was mainly so young Nationalists could join the new Service and remain members of the GAA.
Anyway it was the removal of a ban NOT making it compulsory for members of the RUC/British Army to become members of the GAA.

I agree with lynchboy on rule 21. Most in the 26 have no idea about the North's security forces situation. That's like me voting on a law involving Maoris.

And it wasn't a new police force. Different name, same scum.

Complete ballacks.

Britain is becoming more and more like America every year, where the armed forces are put on a pedestal and hero worshipped. It has nothing to do with looking after ex soldiers. It has everything to do with governments winning unquestioning approval for their foreign policy decisions by brainwashing the public into thinking that everyone in military uniform is a hero deserving of its support. They do this by conflating in peoples' minds the heroism of conscripts who stopped the Nazis, or the tragedy of 14 year olds signing up for the Great War, with less heroic, more controversial conflicts, such as the illegal war in Iraq. I have nothing against individuals wearing poppies, but I do find obnoxious the tv companies and the football teams who buy into the government's insidious agenda by making it compulsory for anyone appearing on the box or playing in a match to wear one.

There was a women wearing one in the canteen where I work today - in Dublin.
In fairness, she was an English women only over for the day.

Ignorance isn't an excuse. I've seen plenty of brits in work wearing poppies and seem oblivious that it offends or they enjoy the wind-up.

People are entitled to wear a poppy if they want to. It's the pressure placed on people to wear one that annoys me.

[why does Northern Ireland still exist?]

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

Because the majority within the six counties want it to exist as demonstrated by the fact there are more unionists than nationalists in Stormont. As demographics change Stormont will change and there will be a United Ireland.

And why should a majority within the 6 counties trump a majority in the 32?

You've heard about the Good Friday Agreement?

What about the Good Friday Agreement? Like many others, I voted in favour of it, as it was the best deal on offer at the time and a way of ending the political violence on our streets. That doesn't mean that I gave up my right to want a reunited Ireland, or to believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island.

You asked why a majority within the six counties should trump a majority in the 32. That question seemed to ignore the current reality that the Agreement is the way forward approved by a huge majority in the six, the twenty-six and the thirty-two. It doesn't include any clause that limits your right to "want a reunited Ireland" or any provision that restricts your right to "believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island".

It was approved by a huge majority throughout the island as the best of what was on offer at that time, but the reality is that the GFA was a bit of a Henry Ford type offer i.e the people could have any colour of car they wanted so long as it was black. There was no option in the GFA to vote for a 32 county, independent Ireland. A partitionist solution was the only game in town, proof if ever it was needed that the Provos lost their so called long war. But that brings me back, in a roundabout way, to my question:the fact that the only option offered to people was a partitionist one demands an explanation. Why are the wishes of a group of people clustered in 3 or 4 counties of the island forever elevated above the wishes of all other citizens? Would this have been allowed to happen in the Scottish referendum? If not, what's the difference?

The reason the wishes of a group of people clustered in 3 or 4 counties of the island were elevated a century ago above the wishes of all other citizens is simple. They threatened mayhem and violence if they were forced into a united Ireland. The reason their wishes continue to prevail is the same.

The Good Friday Agreement took four years or so to hammer out and clearly represents the acceptance of this state of affairs as the reality, however much we would wish it to be otherwise. I know that there's a wider consensus that's also been accepted - that even if there were no threat of violence, these days it's unreasonable, unworkable and counter-productive to force a large section of the population into a constitutional arrangement they don't want. That's leaving aside whether it's reasonable to force another large section of the population to remain in a constitutional arrangement THEY don't want.

Whether or not it (the unionist veto, with its implicit threat of violence) is "acceptable" is moot, depending on your definition of acceptability. One definition would be that the democratic decision of the people defines acceptability. We've accepted it. There you are.

I'm not sure, though, that large swathes of unionism have REALLY accepted the corollary that they signed up to. We'll find out if a referendum ever mandates unification.

So in order to avoid the murder and mayhem, the British government chose to go down a road which led to the War of Independence, the Civil War and 25 years of the troubles. Some might say that they didn't do a very good job of avoiding the murder and mayhem! Moreover, establishing a state on the basis of threats of violence from a minority of a country's population is hardly the way to guarantee long term stability. Had NI proven to be successful, I would be inclined to say let it run, but no matter which way you look at it, it's a failed state. It can't pay it's own way in the world and, given its size and its position on the periphery of the UK, is unlikely ever to do so. It has a political system which only functions through a series of checks and balances which guarantee that nothing ever gets passed; it has a population which continues to live separately, go to school separately and which still requires scores of so called peace walls to keep people apart. Northern Ireland as a state doesn't work, and yet the British government continues to hand a veto to the people who stand in the way of real change which could transform the lives of everyone on this island. 44% of the Scottish electorate wanted an independent Scotland, but they had to accept that a slightly larger number wanted to stay within the UK. That's democracy. Can we have some please?

[why does Northern Ireland still exist?]

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

Because the majority within the six counties want it to exist as demonstrated by the fact there are more unionists than nationalists in Stormont. As demographics change Stormont will change and there will be a United Ireland.

And why should a majority within the 6 counties trump a majority in the 32?

You've heard about the Good Friday Agreement?

What about the Good Friday Agreement? Like many others, I voted in favour of it, as it was the best deal on offer at the time and a way of ending the political violence on our streets. That doesn't mean that I gave up my right to want a reunited Ireland, or to believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island.

You asked why a majority within the six counties should trump a majority in the 32. That question seemed to ignore the current reality that the Agreement is the way forward approved by a huge majority in the six, the twenty-six and the thirty-two. It doesn't include any clause that limits your right to "want a reunited Ireland" or any provision that restricts your right to "believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island".

It was approved by a huge majority throughout the island as the best of what was on offer at that time, but the reality is that the GFA was a bit of a Henry Ford type offer i.e the people could have any colour of car they wanted so long as it was black. There was no option in the GFA to vote for a 32 county, independent Ireland. A partitionist solution was the only game in town, proof if ever it was needed that the Provos lost their so called long war. But that brings me back, in a roundabout way, to my question:the fact that the only option offered to people was a partitionist one demands an explanation. Why are the wishes of a group of people clustered in 3 or 4 counties of the island forever elevated above the wishes of all other citizens? Would this have been allowed to happen in the Scottish referendum? If not, what's the difference?

[why does Northern Ireland still exist?]

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

Because the majority within the six counties want it to exist as demonstrated by the fact there are more unionists than nationalists in Stormont. As demographics change Stormont will change and there will be a United Ireland.

And why should a majority within the 6 counties trump a majority in the 32?

You've heard about the Good Friday Agreement?

What about the Good Friday Agreement? Like many others, I voted in favour of it, as it was the best deal on offer at the time and a way of ending the political violence on our streets. That doesn't mean that I gave up my right to want a reunited Ireland, or to believe that ultimately a 32 county Ireland would be better for all citizens of this island.

[why does Northern Ireland still exist?]

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

Because the majority within the six counties want it to exist as demonstrated by the fact there are more unionists than nationalists in Stormont. As demographics change Stormont will change and there will be a United Ireland.

And why should a majority within the 6 counties trump a majority in the 32?

The question is not why Ireland should be reunited. The question is why should it not be? Until 90 years ago, Ireland had been viewed as a single country from early days. The Romans called us Hibernia, not Res Publica Hibernia or Hibernia Borealis. We were divided at the behest of a national minority which ignored the democratic wishes of the rest of the people of this island, as well as the wishes of the government of the UK which wanted to grant Ireland Home Rule at that time. A group which constituted a majority in only 3, maybe 4, counties on this island was then permitted to establish a state which included 2 other counties with nationalist majorities. This state has existed for 90 years and has demonstrably failed economically, politically and socially. The numbers of the national minority which established the state have shrunk to the extent where they will soon be a minority even within their own artificially created border. I repeat, the question should not be why Ireland should be reunited, but rather, why does Northern Ireland still exist?

If the bakers had said, 'we're happy to bake you a cake, but we have a policy of refusing to decorate cakes with political slogans' then they may have been within their rights. What is unclear, however, is whether they refused simply because they disapprove of gay weddings. If that's the case, then they're in the wrong, whether they've been the target of spiteful targeting or not. If you allow people providing the public with a service the right to exercise their personal beliefs, where does that stop? Maybe another baker would refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race wedding, or a Catholic-Protestant wedding, or the wedding of an immigrant couple. Then there'd be the bar owner who'd refuse to serve Jews, or people of colour, or Irish...

Wouldnt be Devon Toners biggest fan (has come on rightly though), but I like the look of that team. The back line looks strong.
No harm to Paddy Jackson, but he isnt really international level

That old chestnut . . . the lad is only 22 so has plenty of time!!

It wasn't that long ago I remember Sexton being completely written off as 'not up to it' and now he's probably 2nd best fly half in the world!!

By the way Sexton made his Ireland debut at the age of 24!!!

maybe, and hopefully he does. imo he is holding Ulster back in Europe, along with Marshall. The sooner RP is back the better

Payne at 13 is holding Ulster back, imo.