Stoops support SPADS, Sinn Fein sad and mad.

[Maguire01]

And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.

Well given that there is no constitution...

[Maguire01]

Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace. 

Manipulated? I don't think so. She has exactly what she wants from this process. So has Jim Allister. Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.

[stibhan]

And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.

Well given that there is no constitution...

This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.

Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.

[stibhan]

Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace. 

Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.

Are you just a contradiction machine?

[Maguire01]

Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace. 

Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.

Are you just a contradiction machine?

It was mutually beneficial arrangement, but neither was being controlled by the other. There's no contradiction there.

[Maguire01]

And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.

Well given that there is no constitution...

This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.

Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.

Explain then, how this law might not be constitutional.

[stibhan]

And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.

Well given that there is no constitution...

This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.

Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.

Explain then, how this law might not be constitutional.

It's unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the most recent and significant addition/alteration to the Constitution of the north, namely the Good Friday Agreement. What I meant by my surprise at its being constitutional is that I'm astounded that measures weren't put in place to renege upon key tenants of that agreement without the express consent of Westminster and the Dail.

[firestarter]

Could someone explain to me what her qualifications are that led to her appointment as 'special advisor'?

[Myles Na G.]

Would much rather they supported the democratic institutions, but I draw the line at paying them £90K per year of taxpayers money to do so. Ex combatants should be rehabilitated into society, of course they should, but they shouldn't be rewarded for their past mistakes and failures with top jobs that Joe Public can only dream of.

But not all of them are. In fact, very few are. I agree in principle that ex-combatants shouldn't be rewarded for the things that they did, but I don't agree with denying them the right to public appointments.

The simple logic behind this is that, actually, Mary McCardle's appointment was made by a politician who was democratically elected. Does anyone actually believe that, should Special Advisors be put up for election, they wouldn't be filled by ex-prisoners in certain cases? Isn't it a democratically elected politician's right to make the appointments that they choose?

But these aren't public appointments, in so far as the general public can't apply for them. And the argument that politicians should be able to appoint whoever they please to these kind of jobs and others, is precisely the argument trotted out by the DUP whenever they add yet another family member to the payroll.

[stibhan]

Would much rather they supported the democratic institutions, but I draw the line at paying them £90K per year of taxpayers money to do so. Ex combatants should be rehabilitated into society, of course they should, but they shouldn't be rewarded for their past mistakes and failures with top jobs that Joe Public can only dream of.

But not all of them are. In fact, very few are. I agree in principle that ex-combatants shouldn't be rewarded for the things that they did, but I don't agree with denying them the right to public appointments.

The simple logic behind this is that, actually, Mary McCardle's appointment was made by a politician who was democratically elected. Does anyone actually believe that, should Special Advisors be put up for election, they wouldn't be filled by ex-prisoners in certain cases? Isn't it a democratically elected politician's right to make the appointments that they choose?

But these aren't public appointments, in so far as the general public can't apply for them. And the argument that politicians should be able to appoint whoever they please to these kind of jobs and others, is precisely the argument trotted out by the DUP whenever they add yet another family member to the payroll.

By public appointments I meant appointing someone to a position within the Civil Service. The point about their being entitled to make this appointment on the basis of whom they choose is underlined in the UK Government's job description of the Special Advisor's role:

The sorts of work a special adviser may do if their Minister wants it are:
i. reviewing papers going to the Minister, drawing attention to any aspect which
they think has party political implications, and ensuring that sensitive political
points are handled properly. They may give assistance on any aspect of
departmental business, and give advice to their Minister when the latter is
taking part in party political activities;
ii. "devilling" for the Minister, and checking facts and research findings from a
party political viewpoint;
iii. preparing speculative policy papers which can generate long-term policy
thinking within the Department, including policies which reflect the political
viewpoint of the Minister‟s Party;
iv. contributing to policy planning within the Department, including ideas which
extend the existing range of options available to the Minister with a political
viewpoint in mind;
v. liaising with the Party, to ensure that the Department's own policy reviews and
analysis take full advantage of ideas from the Party, and encouraging
presentational activities by the Party which contribute to the Government's and
Department's objectives;
vi. helping to brief Party MPs and officials on issues of Government policy;
vii. liaising with outside interest groups including groups with a political allegiance
to assist the Minister's access to their contribution;
viii. speechwriting and related research, including adding party political content to
material prepared by permanent civil servants;
ix. representing the views of their Minister to the media including a Party
viewpoint, where they have been authorised by the Minister to do so;
x. providing expert advice as a specialist in a particular field;
xi. attending Party functions (although they may not speak publicly at the Party
Conference) and maintaining contact with Party members;
xii. taking part in policy reviews organised by the Party, or officially in conjunction
with it, for the purpose of ensuring that those undertaking the review are fully
aware of the Government's views and their Minister's thinking and policy.

Furthermore, the next point in that advice booklet regarding special advisors speaks absolute volumes:

Special advisers are temporary civil servants appointed under Article 3 of the Civil
Service Order in Council 1995. They are exempt from the general requirement that civil
servants should be appointed on merit and behave with impartiality and objectivity so that
they may retain the confidence of future governments of a different political complexion

To me, this seems fairly cut and dried. Although people are asking what her specific qualifications are regarding Cultural studies/experience, it's pretty clear that the ins and outs of her role actually require the appointment by the minster or the minister's party.

[Orior]

Could someone explain to me what her qualifications are that led to her appointment as 'special advisor'?

Does that matter? If SinnFein want to employ low-brow knuckle-draggers as advisors they can do so if they want, but it wouldnt really be in the party's interest, would it?

[Maguire01]

And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.

Well given that there is no constitution...

This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.

Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.

Explain then, how this law might not be constitutional.

It's unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the most recent and significant addition/alteration to the Constitution of the north, namely the Good Friday Agreement. What I meant by my surprise at its being constitutional is that I'm astounded that measures weren't put in place to renege upon key tenants of that agreement without the express consent of Westminster and the Dail.

The constitutional element of the GFA relates the status of NI. The elements relating to prisoners are not part of the constitutional question.

[stibhan]

And this is a law so badly written I'm surprised that it's constitutional.

Well given that there is no constitution...

This is hilarious. There's no written constitution but that doesn't mean there isn't a constitution - something you'd learn in GCSE Politics.

Hence why it's refered to as the 'constitutional' question.

Explain then, how this law might not be constitutional.

It's unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the most recent and significant addition/alteration to the Constitution of the north, namely the Good Friday Agreement. What I meant by my surprise at its being constitutional is that I'm astounded that measures weren't put in place to renege upon key tenants of that agreement without the express consent of Westminster and the Dail.

The constitutional element of the GFA relates the status of NI. The elements relating to prisoners are not part of the constitutional question.

I'm sorry but you are not fit for this conversation if you're telling me that a clause within the Good Friday Agreement, a multiparty endeavour and effectively an international treaty, is not an element of the constitution of the UK, Ireland, or the north of Ireland.

The 'question' frames the constitution of the 6 counties; it does not embody it.

[lawnseed]

well done jim allister.what a blow for unionism. in one simple move he cornered the stoops, who are mostly teachers which makes them dumb, and while they teetered on the edge of a cliff he pushed them over with the help of the self serving mallon of course who saw the chance to grab the limelight and took it.
you dont see the dup dragging out big ian they are way too smart for that.

roll on the election and bye bye stoops

Mr Mensa speaks again.

But out of interest, how many of their 17 MPs/MLAs are teachers. And what are the backgrounds/professions of the elected representatives in your party that makes them less dumb?

Also interested to know how Mallon's intervention can be deemed 'self serving' - what's in it for him?

a little less of the personal abuse please. its not my fault if your party is going down the plughole. the fact that the teacher training establishments sought to select stoops to teach our kids from stoop backgrounds and those who would lick the clergy's arses and seek to turn our kids into stoops is common knowledge.
what makes the shinners less dumb is that despite 35 years of struggle against the political and military might of the UK, who started and funded the stoops we have totally wiped them out through honesty and integrity and actual blood and sweat. bring on an election! i cant wait

[lawnseed]

Ann Travers was brave for telling her story last night and her perseverance and humanity is to be admired. But as I stated earlier she has been manipulated by Jim Allister into supporting an act which completely undermines our uneasy peace. 

Maybe they're both using each other, but neither are being manipulated.

Are you just a contradiction machine?

thats all he does