Cherie Blair reveals Paisley snub
Cherie Blair revealed that Rev Ian Paisley never once shook her hand during her husband's time in power because of her Catholic faith.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was shown the courtesy by the veteran Northern Ireland politician because he had yet to convert, she said.
Mrs Blair said: "From beginning to end Ian Paisley never shook my hand. His wife would but Ian Paisley wouldn't because I was Catholic. Of course, Tony wasn't (Catholic) at the time.."
I'm sure she was devestated by it.
Although I find it hard to believe that he hasn't shaken hands with a Catholic in this country at the same time.
In fact...
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/IanPaisleyPA_468x361.jpg)
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
In fact...
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/IanPaisleyPA_468x361.jpg)
is that a picture of paisley shaking hands with cherie blair?
Bertie got excommunicated for going out with Cecelia Larkin
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 11, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
In fact...
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/IanPaisleyPA_468x361.jpg)
is that a picture of paisley shaking hands with cherie blair?
Clearly not. Are you confused? If you read the previous post, you would know that I was questioning if he wouldn't shake hands with
any Catholic.
For what it's worth, Blair's claim has been denied:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/11/cherie-blair-ian-paisley
Quote from: Capt Pat on October 11, 2009, 11:30:33 AM
Bertie got excommunicated for going out with Cecelia Larkin
was he really excumunictaed for that? I believe Cherie... because I want to... :P
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
Infacta...
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/IanPaisleyPA_468x361.jpg)
Quote from: aontroim on October 11, 2009, 04:00:57 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
Infacta...
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/IanPaisleyPA_468x361.jpg)
Bertie probably told him he was a protestant, no better man to tell people what they want to hear!
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
In fact...
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/IanPaisleyPA_468x361.jpg)
Is that the second or third knuckle Bertie's pressing? Hmmmm!
Did he shake Pat Kenny's hand? I'm assuming Pat is a catholic? Is catholicism contagious?
Maybe she's getting her wires crossed. Maybe he wouldn't shake her hand because she's a bitch?
Big Ian and Arthur Guinness. 2 of a kind.
He does shake hands when hes asked to. This is another Blair lie. :-\
Looks like Cherie was talking sh**e... too bad. might have to delete this thread now... :-\
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 11, 2009, 09:39:49 PM
Looks like Cherie was talking sh**e... too bad. might have to delete this thread now... :-\
You'd rather it was true?
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 09:41:22 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 11, 2009, 09:39:49 PM
Looks like Cherie was talking sh**e... too bad. might have to delete this thread now... :-\
You'd rather it was true?
Aye- Paisley has been lauded as someone who became a very reasonable decent man reaching out across the community. That is far from what his legacy is or what he should be remembered for... his hatred and rhetoric against Catholics caused a lot of gullible people to do terrible things... So, aye if not shaking hands with Catholics keeps us reminded of what he really stood for... good.
Paisley's years of hate won't be forgotten because he mellowed out a bit in his latter years.
But by that logic of keeping us reminded of what people really stood for in case we forget, would it be preferable that certain people were still involved in an active IRA, just so that we wouldn't forget?
Surely it's better that Paisley does "reach out", even if it's pretty late in the day... better late than never. He wasn't the only one who took his time.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 10:20:10 PM
Paisley's years of hate won't be forgotten because he mellowed out a bit in his latter years.
But by that logic of keeping us reminded of what people really stood for in case we forget, would it be preferable that certain people were still involved in an active IRA, just so that we wouldn't forget?
Surely it's better that Paisley does "reach out", even if it's pretty late in the day... better late than never. He wasn't the only one who took his time.
Paisley caused more hatred, division and destruction during the Troubles than anyone. Often cited as the IRA's best recruiting officer. As Hardstation says absolute scum.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 11, 2009, 11:54:15 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 10:20:10 PM
Paisley's years of hate won't be forgotten because he mellowed out a bit in his latter years.
But by that logic of keeping us reminded of what people really stood for in case we forget, would it be preferable that certain people were still involved in an active IRA, just so that we wouldn't forget?
Surely it's better that Paisley does "reach out", even if it's pretty late in the day... better late than never. He wasn't the only one who took his time.
Paisley caused more hatred, division and destruction during the Troubles than anyone. Often cited as the IRA's best recruiting officer. As Hardstation says absolute scum.
That may well be (although there's hardly much point in trying to measure who was worse than who). And it's not about defending him - he did indeed stir up hatred in this country for decades. But i'd rather he changed, and maybe brought a few people with him, than continue as he was and drag another generation further into the gutter. As i've said, we're not going to forget his past just because things have moved on.
I don't believe he changed... his ego saw the opportunity to be the First Minister of OWC. A bad man...
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 12, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
I don't believe he changed... his ego saw the opportunity to be the First Minister of OWC. A bad man...
I don't disagree that his discovery of the 'Yes' word was ego-fuelled.
Quote from: hardstation on October 12, 2009, 12:13:57 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 12, 2009, 12:02:27 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 11, 2009, 11:54:15 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 10:20:10 PM
Paisley's years of hate won't be forgotten because he mellowed out a bit in his latter years.
But by that logic of keeping us reminded of what people really stood for in case we forget, would it be preferable that certain people were still involved in an active IRA, just so that we wouldn't forget?
Surely it's better that Paisley does "reach out", even if it's pretty late in the day... better late than never. He wasn't the only one who took his time.
Paisley caused more hatred, division and destruction during the Troubles than anyone. Often cited as the IRA's best recruiting officer. As Hardstation says absolute scum.
That may well be (although there's hardly much point in trying to measure who was worse than who). And it's not about defending him - he did indeed stir up hatred in this country for decades. But i'd rather he changed, and maybe brought a few people with him, than continue as he was and drag another generation further into the gutter. As i've said, we're not going to forget his past just because things have moved on.
Changed.......bollix! He has instilled a hatred in his followers that will last for generations. What he does in his senile years isn't worth a fcuk. He can kiss the Bishop's ring but he will always be the most bitter, hate-filled b**tard that ever walked this earth.
So you think he might as well still be up to his antics of previous decades?
Any small glimmer of progress from a dinosaur is positive surely, regardless of how little and how late.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 12, 2009, 12:22:56 AM
Quote from: hardstation on October 12, 2009, 12:13:57 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 12, 2009, 12:02:27 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 11, 2009, 11:54:15 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 10:20:10 PM
Paisley's years of hate won't be forgotten because he mellowed out a bit in his latter years.
But by that logic of keeping us reminded of what people really stood for in case we forget, would it be preferable that certain people were still involved in an active IRA, just so that we wouldn't forget?
Surely it's better that Paisley does "reach out", even if it's pretty late in the day... better late than never. He wasn't the only one who took his time.
Paisley caused more hatred, division and destruction during the Troubles than anyone. Often cited as the IRA's best recruiting officer. As Hardstation says absolute scum.
That may well be (although there's hardly much point in trying to measure who was worse than who). And it's not about defending him - he did indeed stir up hatred in this country for decades. But i'd rather he changed, and maybe brought a few people with him, than continue as he was and drag another generation further into the gutter. As i've said, we're not going to forget his past just because things have moved on.
Changed.......bollix! He has instilled a hatred in his followers that will last for generations. What he does in his senile years isn't worth a fcuk. He can kiss the Bishop's ring but he will always be the most bitter, hate-filled b**tard that ever walked this earth.
So you think he might as well still be up to his antics of previous decades?
Any small glimmer of progress from a dinosaur is positive surely, regardless of how little and how late.
He is too old to be at his antics of previousy years. He is a phoney... he did everything he could to stop the peace process and then smelt the big job and went for it. The likes of Davy Ervine were more genuine in leaving their past behind... Paisley has never yet acknowleged the poisin he pumped and much of it into working class Protestants. B*****d!
I read a book a while back called "Loyalists". Anyway to make a long story short a meeting was set up by the Loyalist leadership of how to respond to the IRA ceasefire. A letter was sent out to Paisley not to attend. But of course Paisley turned up and sat at the head of the table, he was asked to leave but refused. Some of the people in attendance had to actually physically lift Ian while still in his chair out of the room. The author asked his source why did they do this? The responce was that Loyalists in Belfast were delighted by the ceasefire and felt they had more in common with their Republican neighbors and felt enough suffering was enough. They felt it was mostly the working class suffered and Paisley was a threat to peace.
So I'm with hardstation on this one. Paisley was even despised by many Loyalists never mind Republicans.
Funny story while were on the subject of Paisley my Aunt actually baptised Rhonda Paisley. It was custom back in the day that if a baby was sick a nurse could baptise a child. Thats how that came a bout.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 11:50:48 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 11, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
In fact...
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/IanPaisleyPA_468x361.jpg)
is that a picture of paisley shaking hands with cherie blair?
Clearly not. Are you confused? If you read the previous post, you would know that I was questioning if he wouldn't shake hands with any Catholic.
For what it's worth, Blair's claim has been denied:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/11/cherie-blair-ian-paisley
yes but why ask such a ridiculous question?
Consistency I suppose!
(ask a silly question and answer it yourself - craving attention I now think the problem is!)
Quote from: hardstation on October 12, 2009, 12:13:57 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 12, 2009, 12:02:27 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on October 11, 2009, 11:54:15 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 10:20:10 PM
Paisley's years of hate won't be forgotten because he mellowed out a bit in his latter years.
But by that logic of keeping us reminded of what people really stood for in case we forget, would it be preferable that certain people were still involved in an active IRA, just so that we wouldn't forget?
Surely it's better that Paisley does "reach out", even if it's pretty late in the day... better late than never. He wasn't the only one who took his time.
Paisley caused more hatred, division and destruction during the Troubles than anyone. Often cited as the IRA's best recruiting officer. As Hardstation says absolute scum.
That may well be (although there's hardly much point in trying to measure who was worse than who). And it's not about defending him - he did indeed stir up hatred in this country for decades. But i'd rather he changed, and maybe brought a few people with him, than continue as he was and drag another generation further into the gutter. As i've said, we're not going to forget his past just because things have moved on.
Changed.......bollix! He has instilled a hatred in his followers that will last for generations. What he does in his senile years isn't worth a fcuk. He can kiss the Bishop's ring but he will always be the most bitter, hate-filled b**tard that ever walked this earth.
throughout the 'war years' paisley and others like him , kept up links with Dublin and through Dublin and traversing the border with their shipping companies and other interests.
The man 'hated' dublin was his public facade, all the time hs did not give a toss, he was always more interested in money.
the first minister thing was a money/ego trip again.
Plentyof people have gone on record to say that as catholics in paisleys constituency , he treated them welland got a lot of things done for catholics/nationalists.
its a pity that his desire to keep up the facade caused so much violence.
I doubt hed refuse to shake Cherie Blairs hand die to being a catholic, when he has shook many others, but what does it matter. refusing to shake hands with a catholic would be well down on the list of bad things paisley has been involved with in his time.
Quote from: nifan on October 12, 2009, 12:59:41 PM
I doubt hed refuse to shake Cherie Blairs hand die to being a catholic, when he has shook many others, but what does it matter. refusing to shake hands with a catholic would be well down on the list of bad things paisley has been involved with in his time.
agreed.
IF he refused to shake hands with her, its because she's a feckin eejit
though it sounds like shes another out attention seeking....does she have a book released or something?
I couldn't sit back and listen to people talk about Paisley. Going to have to choose my words carefully here.
Paisley for many years stirred up the flames of hatred within the loyalist working class communities against catholics. For me, the IRA would never had been as successful (take from that as you want) if it hadn't been for Paisley.
He took and filled his own community full of fears abour Roman rule and Protestants been left out to dry.
Any brave people that did take a hand and tried to bring their community forward, he was there to shout them down and to crush their efforts. Again, building up on his own followers and support.
Paisley didn't change because he got old and started to mellow. Once the DUP became the largest party in the north, he was in a position to be First Minister. Not Prime Minister of Northern Ireland like in the 70s, but still good enough for him.
To me, he will always be the minister that shouted No. The minister that stirred up secertian hatred. The minister who is a minister in all but name. His God was power, authority and money.
Quote from: ziggysego on October 12, 2009, 01:28:18 PM
I couldn't sit back and listen to people talk about Paisley. Going to have to choose my words carefully here.
Paisley for many years stirred up the flames of hatred within the loyalist working class communities against catholics. For me, the IRA would never had been as successful (take from that as you want) if it hadn't been for Paisley.
He took and filled his own community full of fears abour Roman rule and Protestants been left out to dry.
Any brave people that did take a hand and tried to bring their community forward, he was there to shout them down and to crush their efforts. Again, building up on his own followers and support.
Paisley didn't change because he got old and started to mellow. Once the DUP became the largest party in the north, he was in a position to be First Minister. Not Prime Minister of Northern Ireland like in the 70s, but still good enough for him.
To me, he will always be the minister that shouted No. The minister that stirred up secertian hatred. The minister who is a minister in all but name. His God was power, authority and money.
Power 1st and last.
Quote from: Aerlik on October 11, 2009, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 11, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
In fact...
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/IanPaisleyPA_468x361.jpg)
Is that the second or third knuckle Bertie's pressing? Hmmmm!
;D
What are you trying to say :P
I don't think that i'm disagreeing with anyone's views on Paisley here. I was firstly pointing out that Cherie Blair was telling porkies. And yes, Paisley's own 'principles' were, without doubt, quickly pushed to one side when the opportunity for First Minister came around.
At the same time, better him shaking hands with the likes of the Taoiseach, regardless of how sincere it is, than continuing to subject his anti-Catholic rhetoric on the next generation of Protestants...
Sure he has left it in safe hands with Willie McCrea's boy
I heard that David Trimble refused to shake hands with Cathal Brugha's son Ruairi as he said that he would not shake hands with the son of a murderer >:( Trimble had no problem shaking hands with Billy Wright and other loyalists of course.
Paisley was also a total sexist as well as a bigot, maybe that is why he didn't shake her hand. I recall Mo Mowlam saying that he often ignored her and referred to her as "a little woman".
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 12, 2009, 08:34:37 PM
Paisley was also a total sexist as well as a bigot, maybe that is why he didn't shake her hand. I recall Mo Mowlam saying that he often ignored her and referred to her as "a little woman".
Even his own daughter took him to court, as he wouldn't give her a job.
Oh nepotism, that's another thing he does!
Prejudiced old goat he may be, but this story from Cherie Blair was patently untrue.
Looks like she's as familiar with the truth as her husband.
I suspect she was trying to win the audience's favour - "look at me, I've been oppressed by a nasty old bigoted man, please tut tut along with me, aren't we glad we're enlightened".
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on October 12, 2009, 03:15:43 AM
I read a book a while back called "Loyalists". Anyway to make a long story short a meeting was set up by the Loyalist leadership of how to respond to the IRA ceasefire. A letter was sent out to Paisley not to attend. But of course Paisley turned up and sat at the head of the table, he was asked to leave but refused. Some of the people in attendance had to actually physically lift Ian while still in his chair out of the room. The author asked his source why did they do this? The responce was that Loyalists in Belfast were delighted by the ceasefire and felt they had more in common with their Republican neighbors and felt enough suffering was enough. They felt it was mostly the working class suffered and Paisley was a threat to peace.
You've got that story wrong.
The incident happened at a meeting of the strike co-ordinating committee in 1974 (during the Ulster Workers' Council strike).
Quote from: MW on October 12, 2009, 10:42:16 PM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on October 12, 2009, 03:15:43 AM
I read a book a while back called "Loyalists". Anyway to make a long story short a meeting was set up by the Loyalist leadership of how to respond to the IRA ceasefire. A letter was sent out to Paisley not to attend. But of course Paisley turned up and sat at the head of the table, he was asked to leave but refused. Some of the people in attendance had to actually physically lift Ian while still in his chair out of the room. The author asked his source why did they do this? The responce was that Loyalists in Belfast were delighted by the ceasefire and felt they had more in common with their Republican neighbors and felt enough suffering was enough. They felt it was mostly the working class suffered and Paisley was a threat to peace.
You've got that story wrong.
The incident happened at a meeting of the strike co-ordinating committee in 1974 (during the Ulster Workers' Council strike).
All those steroids and weight lifting in jail came in handy in the end :D
Quote from: MW on October 12, 2009, 10:42:16 PM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on October 12, 2009, 03:15:43 AM
I read a book a while back called "Loyalists". Anyway to make a long story short a meeting was set up by the Loyalist leadership of how to respond to the IRA ceasefire. A letter was sent out to Paisley not to attend. But of course Paisley turned up and sat at the head of the table, he was asked to leave but refused. Some of the people in attendance had to actually physically lift Ian while still in his chair out of the room. The author asked his source why did they do this? The responce was that Loyalists in Belfast were delighted by the ceasefire and felt they had more in common with their Republican neighbors and felt enough suffering was enough. They felt it was mostly the working class suffered and Paisley was a threat to peace.
You've got that story wrong.
The incident happened at a meeting of the strike co-ordinating committee in 1974 (during the Ulster Workers' Council strike).
I gave the book a way to someone else I know wanted to read it, other wise I would have taken quotes from the book which would have given a more aquarate picture of the actual events. How ever though it wasn't the only time Paisley met with Loyalists. So how can you be so sure I got this story so wrong.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on October 13, 2009, 04:27:41 AM
Quote from: MW on October 12, 2009, 10:42:16 PM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on October 12, 2009, 03:15:43 AM
I read a book a while back called "Loyalists". Anyway to make a long story short a meeting was set up by the Loyalist leadership of how to respond to the IRA ceasefire. A letter was sent out to Paisley not to attend. But of course Paisley turned up and sat at the head of the table, he was asked to leave but refused. Some of the people in attendance had to actually physically lift Ian while still in his chair out of the room. The author asked his source why did they do this? The responce was that Loyalists in Belfast were delighted by the ceasefire and felt they had more in common with their Republican neighbors and felt enough suffering was enough. They felt it was mostly the working class suffered and Paisley was a threat to peace.
You've got that story wrong.
The incident happened at a meeting of the strike co-ordinating committee in 1974 (during the Ulster Workers' Council strike).
I gave the book a way to someone else I know wanted to read it, other wise I would have taken quotes from the book which would have given a more aquarate picture of the actual events. How ever though it wasn't the only time Paisley met with Loyalists. So how can you be so sure I got this story so wrong.
Because it's a well-known story that relates to the 1974 strike meetings.
I've got "Loyalists"* so I'll look it up.
*the book that is :o
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on October 13, 2009, 04:27:41 AM
Quote from: MW on October 12, 2009, 10:42:16 PM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on October 12, 2009, 03:15:43 AM
I read a book a while back called "Loyalists". Anyway to make a long story short a meeting was set up by the Loyalist leadership of how to respond to the IRA ceasefire. A letter was sent out to Paisley not to attend. But of course Paisley turned up and sat at the head of the table, he was asked to leave but refused. Some of the people in attendance had to actually physically lift Ian while still in his chair out of the room. The author asked his source why did they do this? The responce was that Loyalists in Belfast were delighted by the ceasefire and felt they had more in common with their Republican neighbors and felt enough suffering was enough. They felt it was mostly the working class suffered and Paisley was a threat to peace.
You've got that story wrong.
The incident happened at a meeting of the strike co-ordinating committee in 1974 (during the Ulster Workers' Council strike).
I gave the book a way to someone else I know wanted to read it, other wise I would have taken quotes from the book which would have given a more aquarate picture of the actual events. How ever though it wasn't the only time Paisley met with Loyalists. So how can you be so sure I got this story so wrong.
MW is quite correct, the incident in question occurred at a meeting of the UWC i.e. at the time of the 1974 strike which brought down Sunningdale, not in the wake of the IRA ceasefire.
Ian S. Wood gives the following account in his book, "Crimes of Loyalty - A History of the UDA":
"On one occasion during the second week of the strike Paisley arrived late for a full meeting of the UWC. [Glenn] Barr, from the chair, had made it clear that no latecomers would be admitted. Sammy Duddy was authorised to guard the door and was armed. He has already described his altercation with Paisley when the latter arrived and demanded admission. This was refused and Paisley was admitted only after his written request was slipped under the door. His berating of Duddy made little impression on the meeting but there was further acrimony when he occupied Barr's chair during an adjournment of the meeting. On his refusal to vacate the chair, it was lifted with him in it and moved down the table from the chairman's place. Duddy has added that 'a gun up his nose helped to shift him'..."http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0748624279