Messages

One mentally unhinged cleric makes a regrettable statement in response to a regrettable statement to another mentally unhinged cleric.....newsworthy???

Paisley hides bigots and religious nutjobs in his party and Benny hides kiddy-fiddlers in the Vatican.

Two hateful kuntz................

/Jim.

On RTE news yesterday they had a report from Antrim Town about the annual Hatefest.
There were shots of a sixty foot high bonfire with a large Tricolour on it with the lettere KAT.
I believe this stands for "Kill all Taigs"

Interestingly enough RTE did not see fit to speculate on the meaning of K.A.T. preferring to dwell on the family aspects of the day.

It's hard to buy into the whole "family carnival" thing though when it seems to stoke up so much anti-Catholic feeling amongst loyalists.  

/Jim.

On a side issue i don't think too many Clare people will be hankering after Davy Fitz much longer if their new keeper keeps up those levels of performance. (Another kiss of death after my John Lee comment)

Brennan has a much better-directed puckout than Fitz ever had.   Fitz drove it long/high but never accurately.  Cost Clare the game against Cork in 2005 and made Gardiner's life a lot easier.  Presuming Laois are beaten then a Clare victory against Limerick will ensure a second year for Tony Considine.  This in turn will cement Brennan's place and Davy's retirement.   All achievable compare to Ger who'll have to get Galway past the All-Ireland champions to save the bacon!


As for John Lee, Diarmuid McMahon did very well on him.  Diarmuid will never give you a Dan the man 3-3 performance but as a classic "stopper" he will limit the influence of a centre-back.  It's an important task and should never be underestimated.

/Jim.

Why is it seen as reinforcing a Protestant ethos? Not trying to be awkward (well no more than usual) but I've asked this question dozens of times and no-one can answer it.

I don't think it is and wasn't claim it was.   It just reminds some people of Protestants running the show so the speak and people having to put up with it.   I never referred to an overall ethos to be reinforced.

Surely a"Seldom on a Sunday" rule would be acceptable.  Remove the outright ban but continue to observe the practicalities of GAA fixtures, Sky Sports etc..

/Jim.

On the subject of the ban generally, I actually think it more symbolic than anything else (though symbolism is a good enough reason for ending it for me, I should add). This is for two reasons. First, it is increasingly being "more honoured in the breach than the obeservance".
Second, in practical terms, few soccer teams would actually want to play on a Sunday.

EG,

I have no doubt that this is about symbolism rather than practicality.   In the GAA I can relay countless examples of Rule 42 been broken.  I can also give oodles of practical examples of how keeping our grounds to ourselves is advantageous.  However due to origin and symbolism (Banning "foreign" games) the GAA regular gets beaten with that particular stick.

My point is that said symbolism can be interrpeted as a Protestant ethos which bugs people.  Of course, I may just be making it up      

/Jim.

Sorry but that's bollix. It's a throwback to a time when NOBODY went to parks or shopped on a Sunday, it is nothing to do with Protestants or Catholics or Hindus or Atheists or Jedis. In the late 1800's Sunday observance was the 'normal practice'. And as I've pointed out several times the late Pope is on record as wanting a return to those times.

Sammy,

I don't live in Northern Ireland but my understanding that far from the 1800s but as recent as the 70/80s Protestant controlled council ordered playgrounds locked on Sundays.  I was told this by people living in Northern Ireland.  I have no reason to doubt them or doubt the fact that they felt put upon by this.

So you make up a reason and then use that made up reason as your reason not to like something. It's a bit like the people who complain about Windsor Park being named after the Queen, even though WP was built and named about 50 years before the Royals changed their name to Windsor.

I'm not making it up.  I am relaying what people have told me.  I have no doubt that the rule was around from the 1800's but the fact is for those people who are offended by it, it reminds them of these times.   That's what I mean by a throwback.

/Jim.

ChrisOWC,

The were was an interesting report wrtitten on this site one time by a first-time OWC attendee.  He made very valid points about the symbolism and identity of the OWC soccer team and support.   While acknowledging the efforts made and putting to bed the Fearon-type allegations of blatant sectarianism, he pointed out how he as a nationalist would never be comfortable with the flags, anthems and identity on display.

I have no doubt a Unionist at a GAA match would feel a similar discomfort.(I also have no doubt they would not find blatant sectarianism either).

Unfortunately the majority of OWC soccer supports are of a Unionist background and the majority of GAA supporters are of a Nationalists background.  I'd even accept that the latter even more so for historical reasons.

At the end of the day only a denuding of sports events of all symbolism would solve these issues.  Naturally many would baulk at this because identity is a huge part of following teams.

So while Fearon and his ilk should drop the excessive and blatantly wrong criticisms of OWC and it's fanbase, OWC supporters should stop their bleating over those that are more comfortable following the FAI's XI.   

/Jim.

SammyG,

I think you are sticking your head in the sand about the "Never on a Sunday" rule.   It is a throw back to a time when Catholics were locked out of parks and couldn't shop because their Protestant betters decided how the Sabbath would be observed.

That's what people don't like about it.

Of course to call it sectarian/concession to a sect etc, etc.  is over the top completely.

However it is inescapable that some find it offensive and also inescapable that some that voted to maintain it, voted for that very reason.

/Jim.

While being a member of the board is an admirable vocation in itself  How many people here are members of the GAA?  This is the true constituency for any vote.

Centrally at Congress last year any Ulster delegates I spoke to were dead set against this idea, regardless of location.  The want their own county grounds to get more, not less matches.

I for one would not like my provincial board sending matches to a non-GAA ground if my county ground was left idle.

I'd wager that those who have committed work to Breffni, Casement and Clones grounds will be well impressed to lose matches and revenue to an outside stadium.

I'm a bit of Rule 42 man in both ways.  Let other sports build and use their grounds.  GAA grounds for GAA sports has served us well to date.

Leave the Maze to the other sports, thank them for their inclusiveness etc... but no thanks,

/Jim.

As our OWC are continually asking about a "GAA for All" campaign I give you:

http://www.downgaa.net/downgaa/general/news/2007/june/june6th1.htm

An excellent initiative and well done to all!

/Jim.

["I suppose from a GAA perspective, a lot of GAA people are puzzled at the approach the Ulster Council have taken because of the amount of great stadiums we have already - do we need another one at the Maze?"But, my own belief in it is that there was a sort of an unwritten, unsaid agreement between Sinn Fein and the GAA where the republicans said they would allow the GAA to make up its own mind without interference on Rule 21 and Rule 42, and allow them to reflect on that IF the GAA, as a sort of a quid-pro-quo, would be supportive of the Maze Stadium because, of course, it is part of the project which includes H3 and the prison hospital which was of deep emotional significance to republicans".]

Sorry to start a new thread but I though this deserved a wider audience (if admin doesn't agree then feel free to close it).

Jarlath Burns was interviewed on the BBC Politics Show at the weekend and said

"I suppose from a GAA perspective, a lot of GAA people are puzzled at the approach the Ulster Council have taken because of the amount of great stadiums we have already - do we need another one at the Maze?

"But, my own belief in it is that there was a sort of an unwritten, unsaid agreement between Sinn Fein and the GAA where the republicans said they would allow the GAA to make up its own mind without interference on Rule 21 and Rule 42, and allow them to reflect on that IF the GAA, as a sort of a quid-pro-quo, would be supportive of the Maze Stadium because, of course, it is part of the project which includes H3 and the prison hospital which was of deep emotional significance to republicans".


Just wandering what the GAA heads on here (especially the Southern ones) think of the idea of the Ulster GAA doing deals with SF, for purely political rather than sporting reasons. Or was Jarlath talking bollix?

SammyG,

A couple of points:

Jarlath is entitled to his view but certainly this seems idle speculation on his part.

Here's my idle speculation based on talking to delegates at annual conventions.  The Ulster Council were against getting involved in the Maze.  They have invested in Breffni, Clones, Casement and other grounds.  They have county board screaming out for games at their grounds.  The GAA central council have told them to back the Maze.  Both Sean Kelly and Nickey Brennan have made statements on their support.  The GAA wants to be seen to be involved in a cross-community activity.  Once pushed to get involved the Ulster Council have driven a hard bargain in getting what they want.  I say fair-play.

At the end of the day my speculation is as likely as Jarlath's but not fit some people's prejudices. 

/Jim.

Some might say the lady doth protest too much. But I wonder how many gay and lesbian people Ian Paisley Jnr actually knows...

Some of my best friends...............etc.

He truly is a hateful kunt.

/Jim.

Could a DUP'er fall foul of their pledge???

No surprise really given who you are dealing with.  Particularly daft to say it to "Hot Press" of all publications.

The man's bigotry seem to know no end.

/Jim.

A Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive was under pressure tonight to apologise for allegedly saying he was repulsed by gays and lesbians.

The Democratic Unionist Party's Ian Paisley Jr has caused outrage with his apparent assessment that homosexuality damages society.

Sinn Féin representatives accused him of dangerous homophobia and demanded a complete withdrawal of the remarks.

The party is also understood to be examining whether Mr Paisley has breached his ministerial pledge of office.

Sinn Féin MLA Martina Anderson said: "Whatever about his personal beliefs, the fact is that he now has ministerial responsibility for this issue.

"Ian Paisley Jr should withdraw these comments and apologise.

"The fact is that comments such as this cause great harm and distress.

"They feed into the attitudes that fester and lead to homophobic violence."

Mr Paisley, appointed a Junior Minister at Stormont, came under fire over comments in Hotpress magazine.



"I am, unsurprisingly, a straight person," the North Antrim MLA is quoted as saying.

"I am pretty repulsed by gay and lesbianism. I think it is wrong.

"I think that those people harm themselves and – without caring about it - harm society.

"That doesn't mean to say that I hate them. I mean, I hate what they do."

But Ms Anderson insisted that as a Junior Minister within the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) at Stormont with responsibility for equality he should not have made the remarks.

"OFMDFM has a responsibility to promote equality and protect the rights of everyone in our society regardless of religion, sex, race, disability or sexual orientation," she added.

"This is the law; it is the statutory equality duty that rests on all Ministers in the Executive."

Mr Paisley was tonight unavailable for comment.

Jim I recognize some of the IRAs actions may leave them open to accusations of sectarianism, I have never denied that. I'm sure some of their actions leave them open to accusations of Marxism or anti-Catholicism. What I am saying is that the vast majority of their members were not motivated by sectarianism and it is unfair to label Sands as sectarian when the evidence points to the opposite.

The IRA was a huge organization backed up by support groups, a very large section of the community and other sympathizers. I know there is a case for claiming collective responsibility, but in such a secretive organization where many units through necessity had to act autonomously it can is unfair to label all members, supporters and sympathizers because of the actions of a few. 

BTW, my input on this thread was to refute Sammy's insistence that Sands was Belfast OC in the 70's.

Donagh,

I concur with assertion about Sands not being an OC or anywhere near it.  Nothing I have read of the time would point to that.

As for evidence of Sands sectarianism, I still think his invovlement in Balmoral Furniture store is enough of grounds to warrant the accusation. 

/Jim.

Donagh,

I am not at all confused about the IRA of any period.  Whether or not the IRA and it's members said it or meant it many, many of their attacks were at least open to the accusation of being motivated by sectarian reasons.

In the context of Sands can you not agree that the Balmorral furniture attacks could be painted as sectarian and that this was as likely a reason as it being an "economic" target?

What about the biggy: Enniskillen???  Do you want to seriously dismiss people who saw this as attacking protestants rather than military targets?

The Balcombe Street gang:  London's West End and it's restaurants, military targets.

I'm not asking you to share SammyG's views or anyone else but at least recognise where they are coming from.

/Jim.