Stoops support SPADS, Sinn Fein sad and mad.

[Nally Stand]

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."

[Count 10]

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?

[Maguire01]

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.

[Nally Stand]

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.

[Maguire01]

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.

[glens abu]

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'.

[Maguire01]

For a minute I thought it was an SDLP Councillor. That would have been a story. This is just another SF press release.

[glens abu]

Its from a cousin of Aidan McAnespie that's all that matters.

[Applesisapples]

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.

[Applesisapples]

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.

[lynchbhoy]

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.

[ranch]

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.

[sheamy]

Absolutely disgusting from the SDLP. Wouldn't have happened under John Hume's watch.

They deserve to be electorally wiped out for that.

[theticklemister]

This is some craic here on thread I tell ye!

[All of a Sludden]

Its a real Traversty.