Paisley

[Cold tea]

Appleisapples, I'm not a WUM at all. You come across as someone who genuinely engages in an argument...

Coming from someone who says this?...

So you dont think Gerry Adams is a coward for not admitting he played a leading role in an organisation that killed almost 2,000 (innocent) people?

Were Mick Collins' victims innocent?

Michael Collins was a different period in history, one which I wasnt around for, so I'll pass on judging that.

He must be constructing some reply!

[lawnseed]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accomodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

The difference is simple.. Ian paisley = brilliant politician who enjoyed the support of thousands and the support of a world superpower..
Gerry Adams = decent bloke who took an interest in politics and found himself as the face of republican movement.. With minuscule political muscel no funds, jailed and up against that same world superpower and all its dirty tricks. Not to mention paisley and his lot or various treacherous 'freestatus quo' governments who banned him from the media. Emmm.. Maybe Ger didn't do too bad?

[Applesisapples]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.

[magpie seanie]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.

Well said.

[Hereiam]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.

Well said.

A bit of sense at last.

[Maguire01]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.

Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.

Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.

[trileacman]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.

Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.

Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.

I'd echo that, to credit the provos with the "relaxation of discriminatory policies" is something similar to crediting the success of the American civil rights movement solely to the action of the Black Panthers.

[Main Street]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.

Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.

Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.

It's not deluded to state that Adams and McGuinness tried to end the conflict and move things on. They participated in serious talks with the british government from the end of the 1980's. I presume the talks  were about ending the conflict and the talks continued in earnest.
Around the same time, can you recall any positive statement from Paisley about ending the conflict? or is it more correct to state that most ALL of his actions and words were divisive and about continuing the conflict.

[reddgnhand]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.

Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.

Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.

I'd echo that, to credit the provos with the "relaxation of discriminatory policies" is something similar to crediting the success of the American civil rights movement solely to the action of the Black Panthers.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong but the only time the British engaged was when bombs were going off in England. You only have to look at their attitude towards the recent talks. They couldn't care less.

My recollections of the peace process was of Adams & co inside talking whilst big Ian led a mob up to stormont.

[lawnseed]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.

Some truth in what you say - yes, we know the context from which the PIRA emerged - to protect nationalist communities under attack at that time, and to force the 'Brits out' - it wasn't a campaign for civil rights and to suggest that the 'relaxation of discriminatory policies' was "as a result of IRA activities" is deluded. For example, the 'one man, one vote' for council elections was passed by Stormont in April 1969 (before the PIRA was even formed) and the NI Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's not to suggest that discrimination was anywhere near sorted, just that change was starting to happen. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it was the PIRA campaign that furthered progress. And there's nothing to suggest that progress wouldn't have continued on such fronts without the troubles.

Again, I agree with you on the attitude of the main unionist parties, to this day - and left to their own devices, it's likely that little would have changed - but to suggest that McGuinness and Adams "tried to end the conflict" whilst Paisley "perpetuated the troubles" is deluded. Yes, Paisley played his role in perpetuating the troubles - a major role, despite his denials - but so did McGuinness and Adams. In the end, they came to a settlement, and they deserve their dues for brining the majority of republicans with them, but to suggest they spent 30 years trying to end the conflict whilst Paisley was perpetuating it is far off the mark.

I'd echo that, to credit the provos with the "relaxation of discriminatory policies" is something similar to crediting the success of the American civil rights movement solely to the action of the Black Panthers.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong but the only time the British engaged was when bombs were going off in England. You only have to look at their attitude towards the recent talks. They couldn't care less.

My recollections of the peace process was of Adams & co inside talking whilst big Ian led a mob up to stormont.

yes yes and yes the London bombs really hurt the brits. the thought of the same shite going on in the big cities of England put the shit sideways in the british public.
just like castlederg put the shit sideways in the marching orders of nordie land. the thoughts of thousand of republicans gathering to march around banging drums and mimicking the orange order all over the six counties especially with 2016 on the way is something they just cant handle.

[muppet]

Mayo, I'm not a great fan of Gerry but I can't let this uninformed crap go. Gerry in fairness to him from as far back as 1972 along with McGuinness was trying to reach accommodation with the Brits. Paisley on the other hand stoked the flames that burnt Catholics out of their homes.

Just rewind there a minute. If someone didn't know better, they'd read that thinking Gerry was some sort of angel. It matters little that Gerry / the IRA were in negotiations with the British government in 1972 - why would you give them credit for using another avenue to further their objectives? - the IRA was wrecking the country at the same time, and killing scores of people, many of them innocent civilians.

There's no doubt Paisley has a hell of a lot to answer for - there's just as much blood on his hands as on those of any paramilitary leader - but it's not a case of Paisley was a demon and Adams wasn't too bad.

I would not suggest that Gerry was an angel. However the IRA did not appear out of know where. There was bigotry, bias and discrimination against Catholics on the grounds of religion from the inception of the statelet. there would have been significant support for the IRA initially, it peaked with the hunger strikes and then dissipated in response to some of their needless atrocities and a growing affluence in the Catholic middle class resulting from the relaxation of discriminatory policies bizarrely as a result of IRA activities. You can see it still today in the PUL community and in the two unionist parties the hark back to the good old days when the taigs new there place. It now suits political parties on both sides of the border to paint this picture of the troubles only being the fault of the IRA and SF. Paisley, whatever he now says was at the forefront of resisting any move towards equality as is still the policy of the DUP. McGuinness and Adams at least tried to end the conflict and move things on, Paisley on the other hand perpetuated the troubles. It is total hypocrisy for the descendants of Collins and Dev to Laud the men of 1916 yet denigrate Northern Republicans or maybe it is to wish away their abandonment of fellow Irishmen to the sectarian statlet created by partition.

This is generally correct but I would have a couple of issues.

I don't think people in the South are painting the troubles as exclusively 'being the fault of the IRA & SF'. Even the most biased or stupid down here would see the IRA's re-emergence as reactionary and could empathise to a certain extent with why it happened. Everyone has their limit.

As for those 'who laud Dev & Collins' & yet denigrate Northern Republicans: Dev & Collins were neither lauded nor thanked for their activities at the time. They were probably less popular with the wider Irish public in 1916 than the IRA is now. Comparing, on one hand hand, how history judges one set of revolutionaries with, on the other hand, how peers judge another set of revolutionaries is misleading. For example, if Collins was responsible for a Warrington equivalent, we wouldn't hear much about it nowadays but it would have been big news then.

History may judge them all similarly down the tracks, but then at least that would be a fair comparison.

[Minder]

DUP coming out to slam Paisley tonight before screening of second part of the documentary.

The Punt - "Rather than return insult for insult, let me bless him with the mercy of my silence and wish him well."

[ziggysego]

Apparently Paisley tells Mallie, "No matter about Robinson, I still have a wife and she loves me".

I wonder what this is in reference to...

[armaghniac]

its like the old joke about someone meeting Mrs Paisley coming out of the dentist
"How's the mouth"
"He's at home having his tea"

[orangeman]

Apparently Paisley tells Mallie, "No matter about Robinson, I still have a wife and she loves me".

I wonder what this is in reference to...

Dirty one by Paisley.

He's not so slow. He's 80 something and his ability to insult remains undiminished.

But fair play to Paisley for not lying down to the Punt ( this could have been another word ).