Paddywagon Attacked Again

[Evil Genius]

I have no idea whatever who did it this time.

"But still mistaken.....blah.de blah....who know sod all about it"

Infering that you do know all about it, how do you know they are mistaken?  how can you say people are mistaken and know sod all about it when you know sod all about it? - no-one including the owner knows who did it - but it isn't difficult to guess a motive, be it organised or drunken teenagers

A straight question - what do thee, sherlock, think was the motive? tell us the first thought that comes to YOUR mind - no blustering, no filibustering, nor any other kind of "ustering" - try honesty instead of wishy washy wafflery

If, as I quite clearly stated (above) "I have no idea whatever who did it this time", how can I comment on their motive? 

There has been a lot of speculation on these disgraceful events, much of it from people who don't know what's going on, but imply they do. One such example is His Holiness, whose vague comment about Fitzwilliam and "its proximity to the Loyalist neighbourhood" indicates he's talking through his hoop - to use a good Belfast phrase. 

[his holiness nb]

I have no idea whatever who did it this time.

"But still mistaken.....blah.de blah....who know sod all about it"

Infering that you do know all about it, how do you know they are mistaken?  how can you say people are mistaken and know sod all about it when you know sod all about it? - no-one including the owner knows who did it - but it isn't difficult to guess a motive, be it organised or drunken teenagers

A straight question - what do thee, sherlock, think was the motive? tell us the first thought that comes to YOUR mind - no blustering, no filibustering, nor any other kind of "ustering" - try honesty instead of wishy washy wafflery

If, as I quite clearly stated (above) "I have no idea whatever who did it this time", how can I comment on their motive? 

There has been a lot of speculation on these disgraceful events, much of it from people who don't know what's going on, but imply they do. One such example is His Holiness, whose vague comment about Fitzwilliam and "its proximity to the Loyalist neighbourhood" indicates he's talking through his hoop - to use a good Belfast phrase. 

Actaullly it was on OWC where I saw guys state the stupidity of parking so close to a loyalist neighbourhood 

You made two interesting statments though

1) "I have no idea whatever who did it this time"

2) "Similarly, there was the general assumption this time that it was Loyalists.

Which, because of the circumstances (name, Tricolours etc) is not such an unreasonable piece of supposition, but still mistaken"

Now if you have no idea who did it, how can you state that the supposition that is was Unionists was "mistaken"  

Although I note that you have reverted to "playing the man, not the ball" with me. You presumed previously on OWC that I know nothing about the North being a Dub, despite the fact that half my family hails from Belfast and I spent much of my youth there. Now you are saying I am "talking through my hoop" for taking a statement from a Unionist on OWC, stating that the attack was close to a Unionist neighbourhood as fact.

I note however you like to harp on about my "unanswered questions" on OWC. While there are three unanswered questions on my last post to you.
Dont ask which questions, they are the sentences with question marks at the end 

[SammyG]

HHNB

Two things

1) Unionist and Loyalist aren't the same thing (but then you probably knew that already)

2) It was Mr McPhemly (Owner of Paddywagon) who said that he had been mistaken and he now accepted that Loyalists weren't involved. I've no idea who did it or how he knows but that's what he said.

[his holiness nb]

HHNB

Two things

1) Unionist and Loyalist aren't the same thing (but then you probably knew that already)

2) It was Mr McPhemly (Owner of Paddywagon) who said that he had been mistaken and he now accepted that Loyalists weren't involved. I've no idea who did it or how he knows but that's what he said.

Whats the weather like up Evil Genius' hole today Sammy?

[SammyG]

HHNB

Two things

1) Unionist and Loyalist aren't the same thing (but then you probably knew that already)

2) It was Mr McPhemly (Owner of Paddywagon) who said that he had been mistaken and he now accepted that Loyalists weren't involved. I've no idea who did it or how he knows but that's what he said.

Whats the weather like up Evil Genius' hole today Sammy?

One of the all-time great comebacks. Great to know that the spirit of Shaw, Wilde and Macgowan is alive and well, on the GAABoard.

[his holiness nb]

Come on Sammy, take a joke 

You get the comeback you deserve, you have been caught out telling lies on here too many times for me to take you seriously any more.

[SammyG]

Come on Sammy, take a joke 

Err I did take the joke, that's why I posted a (obviously not very) witty response.

[

[his holiness nb]

Err I did take the joke, that's why I posted a (obviously not very) witty response.

[

Dont worry, being witty is something I would never accuse you of 

[Evil Genius]

Actaullly it was on OWC where I saw guys state the stupidity of parking so close to a loyalist neighbourhood 

Fitzwilliam is NOT in, or even particularly close to, a Loyalist neighbourhood. In fact, it is in the University area, one of the most mixed areas in the whole of Belfast. I had thought maybe that with your Belfast background and experience you cited elsewhere, you might have known that?

Anyhow, instead of taking your information from one poster on a site whose reliability you are quite happy to disparage the rest of the time, did you never wonder why Paddywagon were content for years to park their vehicles there, if it was so dangerous a location? Duh!

You made two interesting statments though

1) "I have no idea whatever who did it this time"

2) "Similarly, there was the general assumption this time that it was Loyalists.

Which, because of the circumstances (name, Tricolours etc) is not such an unreasonable piece of supposition, but still mistaken"

Now if you have no idea who did it, how can you state that the supposition that is was Unionists was "mistaken"  

There is no contradiction. I don't know who did it this time. However, I am prepared to accept it likely wasn't "Loyalists", because of what 'Yer Ma' pointed out earlier in this thread:
"Should be noted that your guy McPhelimy has now said that he doesn't believe that it was loyalists did this attack"
Try and keep up.

I note however you like to harp on about my "unanswered questions" on OWC. While there are three unanswered questions on my last post to you.
Dont ask which questions, they are the sentences with question marks at the end 

Assuming these are the questions, here goes:
"Do you think it was nationalists that might have done it EG?"
I doubt that whoever did it was inspired by Nationalism (for obvious reasons). As I've said, though, it may not have been motivated by "Loyalism", either, since the bus owner seems to think that. Possibly some pissed up wee spide, out to "amuse" himself, or gain a degree of notoriety with his spidey mates? Maybe even an 'ordinary, decent arsonist', who took his opportunity in the knowledge that torching a Paddywagon would gain him greater publicity for his endeavours than just another vehicle? Who knows.


"And do you think it would have received similar attention if it were a plain white bus?"
No, if for no other reason than that whoever is doing these things - and it may not be the same individual(s) each time - presumably wouldn't be able to identify a plain white van.


"Even the folks on OWC beleive it was because of the tricolours etc on the van and its proximity to the Loyalist neighbourhood.
Call it sectarian, political, racist, whatever, but the likelyhood is this bus would not have been burnt in this area by these people had it been emblazoned with a Union Jack.
Thats not to say others wouldnt have targetted it in this case.
Will you throw them onto the list of "demonisers" ?"
Of course the OWC'ers won't have been motivated into accepting that it may have been "Loyalists" by a desire to "demonise" themselves. Just as certain  other commentators may have jumped to that conclusion from precisely that motive. Different people can arrive at the same conclusion for entirely different reasons, you know.

[Rossfan]

Is there anyway the moderators can limit EG to 5 or 6 lines only in his contributions 

[his holiness nb]

Fitzwilliam is NOT in, or even particularly close to, a Loyalist neighbourhood. In fact, it is in the University area, one of the most mixed areas in the whole of Belfast. I had thought maybe that with your Belfast background and experience you cited elsewhere, you might have known that?

I dont know that area of Belfast EG.
It would be logical to take the word of a Unionist guy from Belfast, who says its in a loyalist areas, as reliable. He would know these areas better than me. And I cant think what political reasons he would have for telling this lie.

I like how you are now doubting (cleverly enough not to outright say it) my previous posts about spending time in Belfast. Playing the man not the ball EG.

Did you never wonder why Paddywagon were content for years to park their vehicles there, if it was so dangerous a location? Duh!

Until recently I didnt know where they parked EG. It was the OWC guys who said it was a "dangerous location".

And "duh!" to you too  

There is no contradiction. I don't know who did it this time. However, I am prepared to accept it likely wasn't "Loyalists", because of what 'Yer Ma' pointed out earlier in this thread:
"Should be noted that your guy McPhelimy has now said that he doesn't believe that it was loyalists did this attack"

You are prepared to accept the one post on here that suits you best eh  
You have no idea who did it, so in that case you must accept that it could possibly have been loyalists.
Since when did you accept the opinion on someone (McPhelimy) "whose reliability you are quite happy to disparage the rest of the time" ?  

Try and keep up.

Again with the patronising little personal digs  

Grow up.

[Evil Genius]

Fitzwilliam is NOT in, or even particularly close to, a Loyalist neighbourhood. In fact, it is in the University area, one of the most mixed areas in the whole of Belfast. I had thought maybe that with your Belfast background and experience you cited elsewhere, you might have known that?

I dont know that area of Belfast EG.
It would be logical to take the word of a Unionist guy from Belfast, who says its in a loyalist areas, as reliable. He would know these areas better than me. And I cant think what political reasons he would have for telling this lie.

I like how you are now doubting (cleverly enough not to outright say it) my previous posts about spending time in Belfast. Playing the man not the ball EG.

I considered that there were people speculating on this topic, including you, who clearly know little or nothing of the particular circumstances. You replied by saying that you have knowledge and experience of Belfast, to which I responded that your knowledge was obviously valueless in this case. Don't make a personal claim, then when someone takes you up on it, complain that they are being personal.

Did you never wonder why Paddywagon were content for years to park their vehicles there, if it was so dangerous a location? Duh!

Until recently I didnt know where they parked EG. It was the OWC guys who said it was a "dangerous location".

Selective. Others were more careful to comment on the location, including the poster who cited official Electoral statistics which demonstrate that the Windsor ward is actually one of the most mixed in the whole of NI.

There is no contradiction. I don't know who did it this time. However, I am prepared to accept it likely wasn't "Loyalists", because of what 'Yer Ma' pointed out earlier in this thread:
"Should be noted that your guy McPhelimy has now said that he doesn't believe that it was loyalists did this attack"

You are prepared to accept the one post on here that suits you best eh  
You have no idea who did it, so in that case you must accept that it could possibly have been loyalists.
Since when did you accept the opinion on someone (McPhelimy) "whose reliability you are quite happy to disparage the rest of the time" ?  

Now even I'm getting bored. I've clearly said I don't know who carried out this latest attack. However, I accept it likely wasn't Loyalists, based on what McPhilemy said, since McP would likely be in a position to know (he's only the bloody owner of the bus!), plus he would have no reason for excusing Loyalists that I can think of. If there's a flaw in my reasoning or judgement over this, feel free to point it out.

Try and keep up.

Right behind you, old boy!  

[nifan]

Fitzwilliam is not in a dangerous area, but it is close enough to a few areas not renowned for vehicle safety.

It was only a few months ago that there was numerous vehicles burned out in the holylands in a single night, and there are enough knuckledraggers hanging around sandy row who would be more than capable of the short walk to fitzwilliam street.

Personally my initial reaction was hoods from sandy row, and they would still be my prime suspect, but you cant be sure.

[Yer Ma]

Just for reference, McPhelimy was quoted as saying it wasn't loyalists in the latest edition of that fine rag, South Belfast News.

I'll let you all get stuck into each other now

[his holiness nb]

. Don't make a personal claim, then when someone takes you up on it, complain that they are being personal.

Personal claim? I didnt say who did or didnt do it 

I made a guess that it was highly likely to have been "unionists", but didnt say I know this for sure.

Now even I'm getting bored. I've clearly said I don't know who carried out this latest attack. However, I accept it likely wasn't Loyalists, based on what McPhilemy said, since McP would likely be in a position to know (he's only the bloody owner of the bus!), plus he would have no reason for excusing Loyalists that I can think of. If there's a flaw in my reasoning or judgement over this, feel free to point it out.

I dont need to point out the flaws in that, they are obvious for all to see.