Messages

Couldn't agree more. The League is the answer to the fixture problem and do away with the Championship. Provincial championships could be a pre-season competition.

The amount of money here is not material, we all pay taxes for things that we personally will never use.

When it's public money being spent of course it's material and a genuine need should be demonstrated. It's called governance which unfortunately isn't always done competently here (three new publicly funded stadiums in Belfast  )   Especially when it comes to looking at who exactly will benefit financially from it.

If you are of Irish orientation then you can use the service, if not then you don't.

Don't know what you're getting at here.

People have a right not to have their own language repressed in their own country and this is not dependent on how many have gone over to the English.

'Gone over to English'. Sorry to burst your bubble but people of 'Irish orientation' have been speaking English as a first language for hundreds of years now. And the Irish textbook language as it is today isn't repressed in my view. I did is as a GCSE and I have loads of access to it. For free, without having to spend public money. The old dialect that my ancestors spoke died at least 100 years ago. In the north the last two dialects to die out were Rathlin (1960's) and the Glens of Antrim.

Having your own culture might be as important as having a bigger council house, not everyone is mercenary.

It's not about wanting bigger 'council house'. It's a need provide people with homes. There's a massive gap between need and budget and yes, it is more important to put a roof over homeless peoples heads.

As for an Irish Language Act. Just another example of the soft corruption that goes on in politics the world over. Many of the people other than teachers who benefit financially from public money being put into the Irish language in the north are friends of Sinn Fein some of which here in Derry City are ex-prisoners. It's just a case of Gerry looking out for some of his old comrades and their relatives. To have it as a 'red line' and something that could actually bring down the so called government here is utterly ridiculous in my view.

Why, other than bigotry, should it bring the government down or be contentious at all?

It definitely shouldn't be contentious because of bigotry. But the cost and who will benefit from it could easily be contentious. Me or my family certainly won't benefit from it but our taxes will be spent on it. I have nothing against the Irish language but I don't see why public money should be thrown at it while the country's broke. I'm getting sick of my taxes being spent on cultural and sporting organisations that should really be privately financed while the NHS is collapsing and the social housing need can't be met for a lack of available funds. 

Now that Martins funeral has passed I think it's becoming more obvious that he was holding the mess together. Sinn Fein with an unelected Gerry Adams back in the north undermining their elected northern leader is definitely a backward step. Seeing him on TV in recent weeks it's obvious that he can't lace Martins boots in dealing with the DUP.

As for an Irish Language Act. Just another example of the soft corruption that goes on in politics the world over. Many of the people other than teachers who benefit financially from public money being put into the Irish language in the north are friends of Sinn Fein some of which here in Derry City are ex-prisoners. It's just a case of Gerry looking out for some of his old comrades and their relatives. To have it as a 'red line' and something that could actually bring down the so called government here is utterly ridiculous in my view.

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Necessary for what?

And violence by whom?

It wasn't necessary in achieving equality for Catholics and I don't think it was effective in protecting communities either on both sides and didn't stop innocent civilians getting killed in crossfire. It just turned into tit for tat killings some of which were extremely sinister. Obviously it didn't achieve a United Ireland either.

It was good for keeping drugs off the streets and policing very deprived communities but that's about it for me.

I think you missed the point. What happened the civil rights marches?

They took hidings from the police and of course Bloody Sunday but they were seriously effective as a propaganda tool!! More effective than any bomb ever planted! If the IRA hadn't taken over and Civil Rights movement continued I've no doubt that it would have taken much less than 30 years.

You're an idiot, and a naive one at that

Are you willing to say that to my face?

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Necessary for what?

And violence by whom?

It wasn't necessary in achieving equality for Catholics and I don't think it was effective in protecting communities either on both sides and didn't stop innocent civilians getting killed in crossfire. It just turned into tit for tat killings some of which were extremely sinister. Obviously it didn't achieve a United Ireland either.

It was good for keeping drugs off the streets and policing very deprived communities but that's about it for me.

I think you missed the point. What happened the civil rights marches?

They took hidings from the police and of course Bloody Sunday but they were seriously effective as a propaganda tool!! More effective than any bomb ever planted! If the IRA hadn't taken over and Civil Rights movement continued I've no doubt that it would have taken much less than 30 years.

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Necessary for what?

And violence by whom?

It wasn't necessary in achieving equality for Catholics and I don't think it was effective in protecting communities either on both sides and didn't stop innocent civilians getting killed in crossfire. It just turned into tit for tat killings some of which were extremely sinister. Obviously it didn't achieve a United Ireland either.

It was good for keeping drugs off the streets and policing very deprived communities but that's about it for me.

so you believe that Unionists would have started to share power with their catholic neighbours out of good will. lol

Well my view is that the British were brought to the peace table as a result of the war and particularly the attacks that were being specifically targeted in England, which were becoming more regular towards the latter end of the troubles.

Power sharing didn't come until armed struggle ended. 30 years after it started! None of us can be 100% certain but I think it would have taken less than 30 years without violence.

Equality in terms of housing and jobs (public sector at least) came in the first half of the conflict but by then it was too late. And that equality was thanks in a large part to the first generation of educated Catholics and not the ra.

So you do believe that Unionists would have started to share power with their catholic neighbours out of the goodness of their hearts. lol

Do you think they started sharing power out of fear? lol

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Necessary for what?

And violence by whom?

It wasn't necessary in achieving equality for Catholics and I don't think it was effective in protecting communities either on both sides and didn't stop innocent civilians getting killed in crossfire. It just turned into tit for tat killings some of which were extremely sinister. Obviously it didn't achieve a United Ireland either.

It was good for keeping drugs off the streets and policing very deprived communities but that's about it for me.

so you believe that Unionists would have started to share power with their catholic neighbours out of good will. lol

Well my view is that the British were brought to the peace table as a result of the war and particularly the attacks that were being specifically targeted in England, which were becoming more regular towards the latter end of the troubles.

Power sharing didn't come until armed struggle ended. 30 years after it started! None of us can be 100% certain but I think it would have taken less than 30 years without violence.

Equality in terms of housing and jobs (public sector at least) came in the first half of the conflict but by then it was too late. And that equality was thanks in a large part to the first generation of educated Catholics and not the ra.

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Necessary for what?

And violence by whom?

It wasn't necessary in achieving equality for Catholics and I don't think it was effective in protecting communities either on both sides and didn't stop innocent civilians getting killed in crossfire. It just turned into tit for tat killings some of which were extremely sinister. Obviously it didn't achieve a United Ireland either.

It was good for keeping drugs off the streets and policing very deprived communities but that's about it for me.

[no amount of harassment at UDR checkpoints or guns being waved in your face is worth the lives of innocent children.]

I understand what drive men of the 60's and 70's to join the IRA but I can't countenance some of their actions once they had joined it. Had they stuck to strictly military or strategic targets most of that would have been defensible but most of the time innocents were targeted. What did the deaths of Nicholas Knatchbull or Paul Maxwell have to do with republicanism or Irish independence? Posters regularly round on Fearon when he defends how the church abused and caused the deaths of hundreds of children but yet can find room to defend the IRA who were complicit in the deaths of many innocent women and children. Many here have recounted stories about the troubles but no amount of harassment at UDR checkpoints or guns being waved in your face is worth the lives of innocent children.

Leaving that aside, I had great time for Martin McGuinness. Too much has been made of his chuckle brother routine with Paisley and using Paisley as a counter-point. His nearest equivalent would have been David Ervine who was also also a paramilitary turned politician and also a man whom held my respect. To their credit both seen the futility of the bloodshed and had a humility in the post-troubles years that to me dictated a sense of remorse for the years of slaughter. That humility I find lacking in Adams, Robinson, Foster and to a certain extent Paisley who all appear/appeared to think that the peace process was their accomplishment as opposed to how they should feel; that the troubles was their fault.

Sadly the highlighted part is not the case.
There were many bad decisions and bad actions. Running the risk of being seen as heartless I do want to add some context.

The IRA were hailed as a major organised and guerrilla army. In reality they were not. This was a tag given to them to justify failed British policy and British Army actions.
Many actions carried out by the IRA were done by young men and women who were terrified, unskilled, angry and revengeful. A potent mix for disaster.
Your comment above is sweeping. I can't fathom that anyone ever thought they were going to kill children. Especially an 18 year old and a 19 year old who  tried to take a bomb to a Courthouse in a town they didn't know through a landscape peppered with military security and intelligence.

While you isolate child victims you omit so much else of the context. Regardless if you agree or not history tells us you are wrong. Harassment at check points, in prisons, at protests, in you home, at your place of work (not to mention murder) is cause for for violent reaction. Loyalists were also subject to this and their violent actions in return to IRA actions was also understandable in the real lives of those young people.

It's documented that Martin McGuinness was the top IRA man in Derry at 22 years old.

One aspect of the adoption of violence is that it is hard to turn it off
Another aspect is that it elevates sociopaths to positions they do not have in civilian life.

NI has always been dysfunctional. It would have been much better to restructure things in the 60s but the Unionists didn't want to.
Maybe the violence was inevitable. It wasn't sustainable. And there was an awful lot of cruelty on both sides.

I wrote a dissertation on the gerrymandering of post-war public housing in rural areas and in my research I realised that change was on the way at the start of the troubles but it was far too late and slow to stop what was already set in motion. ie. the Housing Executive was in place by 1972. However, I think that if the Civil Rights movement had started 10 years earlier then the troubles would also have started 10 years earlier. It was always inevitable that violence would follow the Civil Rights movement when change didn't happen fast enough.

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Love gardening when I get the time for it. Did a home maintenance night class a few years ago but forget most of what I was taught at this stage. Managed to tile the kitchen walls and change a couple of lights myself so at least I got something out of it.

[UP]

Latest Lucid Talk Poll shows DUP at 26.3%, actually UP from the last poll.  God save us all - there is no hope for this rotten state!

Local government , assembly , Westminster , European Parliament .  4 levels of government interfering in people's lives .  Two is more than enough TBH .

Europe's going anyway. At this stage I'd probably get rid of the assembly if I had to pick one of the remaining three.

[6 yr old is a sensitive buck, can't for the life of me get him to learn to ride a bike without stabilizers. He just won't do it. Is it a 'he'll just do it in his own time' thing or anyone else have a technique? I know he's only 6 and I shouldn't be judging him against others but I don't want him to be the only one not riding his bike.]

Number 3 is on the way in a few months.
Gonna have to change the wife's car and buy a car that will take 3 car seats.
Not much choice out there really. Leaning towards the 5008 or the Grand Scenic.
What did anyone here in the same situation buy? Would rather just get her a Passat or A4 but everyone tells me you won't fit 3 seats in them.

Congrats LL!!

Is anyone elses place a feckin 'mad house'?? Have a 2, 4 & 6 yr old and itchy and scratchy wouldn't have a look in...if it's not the 4 & 6 year old, it's the 2 & 4 yr old...can't leave them for a minute. We try to limit electronics but sometimes it's the only way to get stuff done.

6 yr old is a sensitive buck, can't for the life of me get him to learn to ride a bike without stabilizers. He just won't do it. Is it a 'he'll just do it in his own time' thing or anyone else have a technique? I know he's only 6 and I shouldn't be judging him against others but I don't want him to be the only one not riding his bike.

Mine aren't that age yet but I'm intending to take them to a park with a grass hill that isn't steep. Have them well padded and send them down it without their feet touching the pedals. It will help them learn how to balance. When they master balancing they can then try to pedal. Theres a good Youtube video of it somewhere.

I seen on Facebook. Alex Maskey advising people to 'fight back' against the DUP by voting for SF. That makes no sense to me because it's a power sharing executive. SF's political opponent is the SDLP and PBP. In order to get the DUP out we'd have to boost the UUP, Alliance or in some cases Green Party vote.

I've never put a number beside a unionist before but I'm seriously considering this time if I think there's a chance of it stopping the DUP getting in.

Unless you go out and vote for the Ulster Unionists your vote won't make a dam bit of difference to the DUP.