Westminster General Election 2024

[Truthsayer]

Could Patsy not just have answered the question truthfully?

Surely she could have condemned the Enniskillen bombers as poisonous rats and the scum of the earth and then demanded Diana do the same for the murderers of Patsy Kelly (or numerous others)?

Anyone with common decency would have done this. Regrettably that decency is absent in more places than you would care to imagine and various excuses are given to refuse to condemn.

Why should she condemn something that happened 37 years ago that was nothing to do with her I'm sure. You'd be there for a month back and forward with all happened here those 30 years or so. Armstrong was using those deaths back then to whip up her constituency. Totally cynical.

[smelmoth]

Could Patsy not just have answered the question truthfully?

Surely she could have condemned the Enniskillen bombers as poisonous rats and the scum of the earth and then demanded Diana do the same for the murderers of Patsy Kelly (or numerous others)?

Anyone with common decency would have done this. Regrettably that decency is absent in more places than you would care to imagine and various excuses are given to refuse to condemn.

Why should she condemn something that happened 37 years ago that was nothing to do with her I'm sure. You'd be there for a month back and forward with all happened here those 30 years or so. Armstrong was using those deaths back then to whip up her constituency. Totally cynical.

Any significance to the 37 years or is there a cut off beyond which date we just ignore events?

There would be some craic if a politician or public figure said they would condemn an activity but wouldn't condemn a particular atrocity because it was beyond their cut off date. It's absolute horseshit and you know it.

But as I said above it it's incredible the excuses people will use to avoid using the decency they were born with.

[Armagh18]

Why are people being asked to condemn stuff they weren't involved in or in some cases no age when it happened. Horrible stuff was done by both sides. Obviously anyone would be disgusted at the killing of innocents no matter who they were or who killed them.

This attitude is doing nothing for the future of this place and why it'll never move on from the past.

[smelmoth]

Why are people being asked to condemn stuff they weren't involved in or in some cases no age when it happened. Horrible stuff was done by both sides. Obviously anyone would be disgusted at the killing of innocents no matter who they were or who killed them.

This attitude is doing nothing for the future of this place and why it'll never move on from the past.

The problem with that position is that it is abused. It's is used as a cover to gloss over things done by "your own side". To move on we need to call things for what they are.

[Armagh18]

Why are people being asked to condemn stuff they weren't involved in or in some cases no age when it happened. Horrible stuff was done by both sides. Obviously anyone would be disgusted at the killing of innocents no matter who they were or who killed them.

This attitude is doing nothing for the future of this place and why it'll never move on from the past.

The problem with that position is that it is abused. It's is used as a cover to gloss over things done by "your own side". To move on we need to call things for what they are.

If every politician had to call out even a 10th of the bad things done by either side they'd get even less done than they do now!

[smelmoth]

Why are people being asked to condemn stuff they weren't involved in or in some cases no age when it happened. Horrible stuff was done by both sides. Obviously anyone would be disgusted at the killing of innocents no matter who they were or who killed them.

This attitude is doing nothing for the future of this place and why it'll never move on from the past.

The problem with that position is that it is abused. It's is used as a cover to gloss over things done by "your own side". To move on we need to call things for what they are.

If every politician had to call out even a 10th of the bad things done by either side they'd get even less done than they do now!

Your right. There was was an awful power of good that Pat achieved in the time she shaved of the interview. 🙈

[Truthsayer]

Could Patsy not just have answered the question truthfully?

Surely she could have condemned the Enniskillen bombers as poisonous rats and the scum of the earth and then demanded Diana do the same for the murderers of Patsy Kelly (or numerous others)?

Anyone with common decency would have done this. Regrettably that decency is absent in more places than you would care to imagine and various excuses are given to refuse to condemn.

Why should she condemn something that happened 37 years ago that was nothing to do with her I'm sure. You'd be there for a month back and forward with all happened here those 30 years or so. Armstrong was using those deaths back then to whip up her constituency. Totally cynical.

Any significance to the 37 years or is there a cut off beyond which date we just ignore events?

There would be some craic if a politician or public figure said they would condemn an activity but wouldn't condemn a particular atrocity because it was beyond their cut off date. It's absolute horseshit and you know it.

But as I said above it it's incredible the excuses people will use to avoid using the decency they were born with.

37 years ago was the Enniskillen bombing she was asked to condemn. What had it to do with Pat Cullen? So Pat says do you condemn... ? and yer woman replies and do you condemn? It's endless and using the trauma of decades ago cynically to try and win an election.. and you know it!

[marty34]

Could Patsy not just have answered the question truthfully?

Surely she could have condemned the Enniskillen bombers as poisonous rats and the scum of the earth and then demanded Diana do the same for the murderers of Patsy Kelly (or numerous others)?

Anyone with common decency would have done this. Regrettably that decency is absent in more places than you would care to imagine and various excuses are given to refuse to condemn.

Why should she condemn something that happened 37 years ago that was nothing to do with her I'm sure. You'd be there for a month back and forward with all happened here those 30 years or so. Armstrong was using those deaths back then to whip up her constituency. Totally cynical.

Any significance to the 37 years or is there a cut off beyond which date we just ignore events?

There would be some craic if a politician or public figure said they would condemn an activity but wouldn't condemn a particular atrocity because it was beyond their cut off date. It's absolute horseshit and you know it.

But as I said above it it's incredible the excuses people will use to avoid using the decency they were born with.

Funny I never hear FFG being asked to condemn stuff that happened decades ago?

[Snapchap]

Why are people being asked to condemn stuff they weren't involved in or in some cases no age when it happened. Horrible stuff was done by both sides. Obviously anyone would be disgusted at the killing of innocents no matter who they were or who killed them.

This attitude is doing nothing for the future of this place and why it'll never move on from the past.

The problem with that position is that it is abused. It's is used as a cover to gloss over things done by "your own side". To move on we need to call things for what they are.

As opposed to the use of victims for political point scoring?

If you want to "call things for what they are", then maybe start by dropping the pretence that the UUPs antics have anything to do with the Enniskillen Bomb and everything to do with using and abusing the victims for he most cynical of purposes. And when you're doing so, bear in mind why Pat Cullen might be the candidate Unionism is so particularly determined to bring down.

[Pub Bore]

Diana Armstrong would be better condemning her Da's role in us ending up where we are today.

[Milltown Row2]

These are marginal seats and the voters that she is looking to stoke up wouldn't be voting for SF anyways, Pat was very dignified and held her own while this one was pulling faces, She'll gain some votes with how she approached it.

As regards to apologies or showing remorse, that's down to those that carried that out, or those that organised it. But a simple "what happened that day was wrong and any loss of life is wrong" and moved on"

Pat will have known for sure that that would have been thrown up in her face and to use the death of the nurse as a means to get one-upmanship will backfire

[smelmoth]

Could Patsy not just have answered the question truthfully?

Surely she could have condemned the Enniskillen bombers as poisonous rats and the scum of the earth and then demanded Diana do the same for the murderers of Patsy Kelly (or numerous others)?

Anyone with common decency would have done this. Regrettably that decency is absent in more places than you would care to imagine and various excuses are given to refuse to condemn.

Why should she condemn something that happened 37 years ago that was nothing to do with her I'm sure. You'd be there for a month back and forward with all happened here those 30 years or so. Armstrong was using those deaths back then to whip up her constituency. Totally cynical.

Any significance to the 37 years or is there a cut off beyond which date we just ignore events?

There would be some craic if a politician or public figure said they would condemn an activity but wouldn't condemn a particular atrocity because it was beyond their cut off date. It's absolute horseshit and you know it.

But as I said above it it's incredible the excuses people will use to avoid using the decency they were born with.

37 years ago was the Enniskillen bombing she was asked to condemn. What had it to do with Pat Cullen? So Pat says do you condemn... ? and yer woman replies and do you condemn? It's endless and using the trauma of decades ago cynically to try and win an election.. and you know it!

Complete balls.

Nobody said Pat Cullen was involved. But republicans were and SF proclaim their republican credentials.

The reason SF politicians don't want to talk about atrocities is because it's awkward for them. The Enniskillen bomb didn't do Ireland, catholics or indeed Republicanism much good. It was roundly rejected by decent people. SF now reach well beyond their traditional base who would want nothing to do with the tramps that bombed Enniskillen or similar. Surely SF (and all) politicians should be open and vocal on their positions. Admittedly it will be easier for some than others. Pat should have been one of the ones who found the question easy to answer. And yes she should also have thrown the challenge back to her opponent.

[smelmoth]

Could Patsy not just have answered the question truthfully?

Surely she could have condemned the Enniskillen bombers as poisonous rats and the scum of the earth and then demanded Diana do the same for the murderers of Patsy Kelly (or numerous others)?

Anyone with common decency would have done this. Regrettably that decency is absent in more places than you would care to imagine and various excuses are given to refuse to condemn.

Why should she condemn something that happened 37 years ago that was nothing to do with her I'm sure. You'd be there for a month back and forward with all happened here those 30 years or so. Armstrong was using those deaths back then to whip up her constituency. Totally cynical.

Any significance to the 37 years or is there a cut off beyond which date we just ignore events?

There would be some craic if a politician or public figure said they would condemn an activity but wouldn't condemn a particular atrocity because it was beyond their cut off date. It's absolute horseshit and you know it.

But as I said above it it's incredible the excuses people will use to avoid using the decency they were born with.

Funny I never hear FFG being asked to condemn stuff that happened decades ago?

Well ask them. See how it goes. They will probably be ok with it.

[smelmoth]

Why are people being asked to condemn stuff they weren't involved in or in some cases no age when it happened. Horrible stuff was done by both sides. Obviously anyone would be disgusted at the killing of innocents no matter who they were or who killed them.

This attitude is doing nothing for the future of this place and why it'll never move on from the past.

The problem with that position is that it is abused. It's is used as a cover to gloss over things done by "your own side". To move on we need to call things for what they are.

As opposed to the use of victims for political point scoring?

If you want to "call things for what they are", then maybe start by dropping the pretence that the UUPs antics have anything to do with the Enniskillen Bomb and everything to do with using and abusing the victims for he most cynical of purposes. And when you're doing so, bear in mind why Pat Cullen might be the candidate Unionism is so particularly determined to bring down.

By all means hold both to account.
By all means call both actions out.

But failures to call out the wrongful actions of your own side (whichever side that may be) is not only cowardly but it does nothing to get this place sorted.

[NAG1]

The act of asking the question in the first place, come from a background of inherent bias.

If you don't or won't call out one side for past atrocities it is completely unfair to call out the other.

By all means ask the question but ask the questions of both sides or not at all.