Stoops support SPADS, Sinn Fein sad and mad.

[Hardy]

Did you break that bottle before you shoved it in my face? I need to know whether I need cyber stitches or it's just a virtual black eye.

[Nally Stand]

Did you break that bottle before you shoved it in my face? I need to know whether I need cyber stitches or it's just a virtual black eye.

Thank you for ably demonstrating my previous point once again.

[Hardy]

There's nothing so hurtful as having a compliment rejected.

[Evil Genius]

But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.

So tell me, Apples, do you feel that eg the two UVF members who blew themselves up in the Miami Show Band Massacre should be accorded the same "victim" status as the three band members who were murdered?

Yes

Which leads on to my next question.

Are those UVF members who managed to get through the Troubles without getting killed, injured or imprisoned also to be considered as "victims", with the same status as eg the dead Miami Showband members?

[Myles Na G.]

The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).

No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.

[Nally Stand]

The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).

No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.

Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.

[EC Unique]

Oh i have no criminal record and have no problem beating the way up the ladder in the ciivl service as am actually qualified to do the jobs unlike them freeloaders at stormont who couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag fore by run govt. If they knew what the f**k they were doing they woudnt need special advisors. See your part of the problem, general sinn fein supporters see no problem killing children or people in the cross fire to get their objectives, with the simple excuse they were doing it to us so that makes it right. But for right thinking people we know the difference between right and wrong, and killing someone is wrong no matter what way you want to powder coat it. Instead of giving it large to the SDLP what wrong with your buddies in the DUP saying both parties are having alove in and dont want to hear the vews of any other party

Lots of politicians in lots of countries employ special advisors. How are they meant to be 100% up to speed with all matters? They need researchers advisors etc to make difficult decisions. (Though they do seem to get a fair few wrong!)

[Maguire01]

According to this morning's Irish News, Mr Kavanagh is to a £60k payoff if he is dismissed and a pension in excess of £5K per annum for life. Given that he will be replaced and with the new incumbent receiving the same salary, all funded by the taxpayer, it seems even when Sinn Fein "lose", they still win.

Strange that there hasn't been much focus on the actual SPAD salary. The top of the SPAD band is £91,809. That's approx €108,000. SF was proposing a public sector pay cap of €100,000 in the south - and that was for all public servants. Where's the consistency in proposing a €100,000 pay cap for the General Secretary of a Department in the south (serving a much bigger population and leading a significant workforce), when a SPAD in the NI Assembly (with much less responsibility or accountability) can earn more? Another example of the difference between opposition and power?

[Myles Na G.]

The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).

No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.

Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.

You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.

[Nally Stand]

The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).

No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.

Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.

You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.

I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.

[Myles Na G.]

The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).

No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.

Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.

You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.

I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.

I'm not interested in what the British thought or stated they were involved in. I am interested to hear a republican accuse the British Army of murder on the basis that they weren't at war. Either there was a war or there wasn't. 

[Nally Stand]

The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).

No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.

Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.

You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.

I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.

I'm not interested in what the British thought or stated they were involved in. I am interested to hear a republican accuse the British Army of murder on the basis that they weren't at war. Either there was a war or there wasn't.

Convenient that.

[Myles Na G.]

The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).

No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.

Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.

You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.

I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.

I'm not interested in what the British thought or stated they were involved in. I am interested to hear a republican accuse the British Army of murder on the basis that they weren't at war. Either there was a war or there wasn't.

Convenient that.

You're the person who alleged that the British Army 'murdered' 300 innocent people. Would you like to comment on how you square the fact that nearly half of this 300 were republicans on active service and who viewed themselves as being combatants engaged in a war with the British? Alternatively, feel free to continue ducking the issue.

[Nally Stand]

The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).

No, but Irish republicans have always claimed that was the case. Hence their use of the words 'combatants', 'prisoners of war', legitimate targets, etc. Since you're an Irish republican (I presume) you should at least be consistent. Either you were at war or you weren't. I agree that the number of convictions of security force personnel is nowhere near as high as it should've been, but I also think that there are many hundreds of republicans and loyalists who were guilty of terrible crimes but who never faced a court.

Whatever term republicans used has f**k all bearing on what the british regarded themselves as being involved in. By their own rules and repeated insistence, they were not at war. Therefor they fell well short of their self-imposed responsibilities by carrying out the sheer number of killings they did.

You're a republican. Republicans called themselves an army, claimed they were fighting a war against the British and demanded the same rights as regular soldiers - prisoner of war status being just one of these. Yet you also want to claim that your 'soldiers' who were killed on 'active service' were 'murdered', as opposed to being killed in battle. Nothing like wanting to eat your cake and still have it.

I direct you again to the opening line of my last post.

I'm not interested in what the British thought or stated they were involved in. I am interested to hear a republican accuse the British Army of murder on the basis that they weren't at war. Either there was a war or there wasn't.

Convenient that.

You're the person who alleged that the British Army 'murdered' 300 innocent people. Would you like to comment on how you square the fact that nearly half of this 300 were republicans on active service and who viewed themselves as being combatants engaged in a war with the British? Alternatively, feel free to continue ducking the issue.

You've ducked it for the past two or three posts. Reminding me why I stopped replying to you in the first place, long long ago.

[Applesisapples]

The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.

No hardy, the moral argument here is parity of esteem for the victims. While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term -  "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter. This makes their suffering so much more accute and their marginalisation so much more official. Very few SPADs will be effected by this law, so aside from the fact that it goes directly against the GFA commitment "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", all it does is create ill-feeling among victims. It categorises and divides them. This law was nothing more than a stunt by Jim Allister. How many times have we heard it described as "a defeat for SF" or a "victory for Jim Allister" or "defeat for the SDLP". It was a political stunt, which (due to the tiny number of spads it will impact upon) uses and abuses and divides victims. Permitting an ex-prisoner to be a minister, but not to advise a minister says it all about this complete farce and underlines the petty political nature of it, where victims as a whole were a long way down the priority list for Jim Allister.

Well it's nice to see the SF technical group here exerting themselves for a full nine pages on behalf of victims. It was clearly unworthy of me to suspect that it was a sordid squabble over who gets snouts in the trough. Sorry about that.

That is a seperate issue. It is somewhat unedifying to see how SF dole out the jobs, but there is a principle at stake here and as I've already said the stoops have sided with a unionist narritive on the troubles and cemented a hierachy of victims.