Messages

Well I can only assume that an appeal was lodged by Rasharkin and the appeal was partly upheld.  Ulster Council is a democratic layer of the GAA so I can only presume that this body gave Rasharkin their hearing and decided that the Antrim Boards punishment was either harsh or illegal or something like that.

Let me begin my research by asking you what went on instead of being all secretive about it.  What WASN'T right about the UCs decision?

when they themselves have done nowt

What a ridiculous presumption.

Then British Empire is an evil concept and a person of moral principle would not wish to be associated with it, especially a person from a place at the receiving end of the Imperial project. Anyone should thinks there is something wrong with saying that should examine their own 'principles'.

The History of the Catholic Church is longer and just as bloody. Does the same apply?

Yes

Then British Empire is an evil concept and a person of moral principle would not wish to be associated with it, especially a person from a place at the receiving end of the Imperial project. Anyone should thinks there is something wrong with saying that should examine their own 'principles'.

That's true, i agree wholeheartedly.  But what about Niall O Donnghaile presenting the Duke of Edinburgh award in the first place never mind not presenting it to a future murderer sorry solider.

I am all in favour of a shared future, but it seems that sharing is a one way street in NI.

I think the term "Castle Catholic" is best used to describe the likes or Rory.

He is a castle catholic.  Who cares?  Who really is surprised that Rory McIllroy will accept his MBE?  Let's face it, he was always going to get one. 

Now if he happened to be a catholic born in my side of town, the chances of him playing golf would be extremely limited.  The whole castle catholic thing is a class thing, not a religious thing.

I don't understand this "democratic decisions" point.

If the county set up a set of fixtures for the weekend, then the Referees' Committee will allocate those matches to particular referees.

A referee has the ultimate right to expect that if he goes out to do a match, then he will come home in the same shape as he went out.

That is what it's all about - it's a basic health & safety issue, For far too long, people who abused referees [either verbally or physically] got away with it. Now, it's got to a level that's completely unacceptable. What I'd like to know is why would anyone basically want to go out to officiate, if there's any chance that they'll get the crap kicked out of them?

The disincentives now far outweigh the incentives for going out & refereeing, in my view, & it will be v difficult to get new recruits, let alone hang on to the dwindling numbers who want to do it.

While I agree with most of your points in terms of how unacceptable it is to be under threat and that it may well prove difficult to get new referee's.  No physical or verbal abuse should ever be tolerated.  If anything, it is an opportunity for clubs in Antrim to send motions to GAA convention around how to tackle the issue on a national level. 

You say you don't understand the 'democratic decisions' point i'm making.  It really is simple.  The GAA has decision making bodies and within that process, individuals, clubs and county boards have right to appeal decisions.  The referee's committee is as much part of the GAA as is any club, county board or individual member which means we all must accept the decisions taken by the GAA once they reach their conclusion.  That is not to say that there could be a counter appeal and if that goes against Rasharkin then the club must accept that after exhausting any other avenues.  No if the referee's committee are talking about a wholesale strike (which the rumours are suggesting), then that means that no clubs will get games regardless of fee's paid, exemplary past behaviour or anything else which in my opinion would be bringing our association into disrepute.  For example, if McDermott's GAC felt they were hard done by in suspensions and appeals and if that club decided disrespect the democratic decisions taken (democratic by means of elections, votes, national democratically accepted rules etc) and go on strike, the in my opinion McDermott's GAC would be bringing the association into disrepute.  Other teams suffer because of their actions.  In the referee's case, if they decide to go on strike, then nobody will get games and that is wrong.

I agree something needs to happen on a national scale around respect for refs and the rugby idea is a great example of how it can work but that is up to clubs, referee's committees or individuals to put forward those idea's to be decided upon.

[If referee's are talking about a strike or any other action against the democratic decisions taken, then they too are bringing the GAA into disrepute if you ask me.]

If referee's are talking about a strike or any other action against the democratic decisions taken, then they too are bringing the GAA into disrepute if you ask me.  

How come? Would you willingly go out to do a job, on a voluntary basis, if you knew you were going to get the crap beat out of you?
Referees do a good job & purely because they want to. By definition, they can walk away, any time they want, particularly if they are not being protected.

The rumours aren't suggesting that they are going to walk away though.  I respect any mans right to walk away and especially RM who I know and respect very much.  But if they are talking about striking, then they are not accepting the democratic decisions of the GAA and are disrupting the games schedule which, in my humble opinion brings the GAA into disrepute.

If you look at a list of the world's famines in the last 150 years three main causes seem to emerge: Imperialism.

Corrected that for you.

Is that your best argument?

Yes Muppet, its the crux of it anyway.  Adios mi amigo.

If you look at a list of the world's famines in the last 150 years three main causes seem to emerge: Imperialism.

Corrected that for you.

Christ, you are very shy all of a sudden. You were very belligerent a while back   

Yea I shit myself when I saw you coming.  I realised I spent nearly a full day on this yesterday.  I'm not going back there.  All the points have been made.  You all won't change, neither will I.  What's the point in continuing it?

Oh. 

that provo, communist,  gobshite 4father

Guilty on all 3 charges 

I would imagine on a matter of principle wouldn't want them on white line pickets along with her 32 county comrades

But if its the right thing to do, surely it should be done?

Ah the sovereign state of Ireland that belongs to the world bank.

Is economic sovereignty more important than human rights?

4 father?

They are both very important.

Having read this thread with great interest, here's a little tale that should provoke debate:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equaliser.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Marx's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Thanks for your contribution.   

But its still ok for Shinners to character assassinate?  Let's face it, we both know that the Shinners can't come out and form some sort of campaign to release Marian Price.  First reason is because they don't like her, second reason is that this would seriously offend Unionists, particularly in the aftermath of the killing of Ronan Kerr and the Masserene incident, and the Shinners don't really want to upset the apple-cart in Stormont. 

On a human level, there are genuine SF activists who do care about Human Rights and in particular Marian's human rights and dignity not to mention that it is disgraceful that she is incarcerated at the behest of the Secretary of State (I thought SF had guaranteed accountability on policing matters like this?  Oh aye, it was civic policing they secured accountability on and not political policing.)  But let's face it, there's not going to be too many white line pickets for her.