Westminster General Election 2024

[imtommygunn]

It was a stunt to gain attention and to try and to try and make her look bad. That was it.

[Pub Bore]

I took a look at the Bel Tel website last night.  The story didn't feature in its top 7 most read articles.  I watched the UTV news at 10:45pm.  The story wasn't covered in that bulletin. IMHO, I don't think it will cost Pat Cullen a vote.

[smelmoth]

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.

That's fairly helpful for those who want to gloss over the past but there is a major limitation to its helpfulness.

There is a growing body of people in NI who have no problem calling out both sides. What will the answer be when someone from the Green Party or Alliance asks the question?

The old stance of you shouldn't ask difficult questions because it would be difficult for me to answer them will only last so long and only fool so many.

[Milltown Row2]

I don't think the questions are difficult. She could have said something, but it's Political point scoring, if you are going back nearly 4 decades to get a rise you are clearly struggling

Really good questions could have been about

Infrastructure
Roads
Employment
Housing
Education
Child care
NHS
Cost of living
And so on

And how will you help that without being actually at Westminster?

Is there a time limit to when these atrocities can go back to? 40, 50, 75, 100?

[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.

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.

Hold both to account? So people who drag up victims names to use and abuse should be both called out, but also indulged? Nonsense.

The IRA apologised for Enniskillen. Anyone asking Pat Cullen (of all people!!!!) to comment on it at the height of an election campaign is doing so out of 100% cynical opportunism. They are USING victims pain for personal political gain. And then the likes of yourself comes along making excuses for them and backing up their calls for condemnation as if that's that they were really interested in. Thankfully most people don't get sucked in by that sort of guff quite as easily as you seem to have been.

[Tony Baloney]

Mark Carruthers is some operator.

[Franko]

Not a single vote I'd venture

Most people will see it for what it is - petty point scoring

In the same vein that EVERY interview with anyone expressing a supportive view of the Palestinian cause must begin with the obligatory condemnation of Hamas

IRA'ing as Brolly calls it

Should Simon Harris be asked to condemn Richard Mulcahy before every interview?

[red hander]

Had big Lurch going round in circles, unlike that lily livered dose Clarke on UTV.

[smelmoth]

I don't think the questions are difficult. She could have said something, but it's Political point scoring, if you are going back nearly 4 decades to get a rise you are clearly struggling

Really good questions could have been about

Infrastructure
Roads
Employment
Housing
Education
Child care
NHS
Cost of living
And so on

And how will you help that without being actually at Westminster?

Is there a time limit to when these atrocities can go back to? 40, 50, 75, 100?

By all means ask all those questions. The existence of those very good questions is neither a reason nor an excuse to ask other good questions.

[Milltown Row2]

I don't think the questions are difficult. She could have said something, but it's Political point scoring, if you are going back nearly 4 decades to get a rise you are clearly struggling

Really good questions could have been about

Infrastructure
Roads
Employment
Housing
Education
Child care
NHS
Cost of living
And so on

And how will you help that without being actually at Westminster?

Is there a time limit to when these atrocities can go back to? 40, 50, 75, 100?

By all means ask all those questions. The existence of those very good questions is neither a reason nor an excuse to ask other good questions.

But what are we gaining for asking questions on what happened that dreadful morning, which, I can remember very vividly at the time, give me one benefit that it will achieve?

[imtommygunn]

It's not a good question though - it's a stunt.

[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.

Hold both to account? So people who drag up victims names to use and abuse should be both called out, but also indulged? Nonsense.

The IRA apologised for Enniskillen. Anyone asking Pat Cullen (of all people!!!!) to comment on it at the height of an election campaign is doing so out of 100% cynical opportunism. They are USING victims pain for personal political gain. And then the likes of yourself comes along making excuses for them and backing up their calls for condemnation as if that's that they were really interested in. Thankfully most people don't get sucked in by that sort of guff quite as easily as you seem to have been.

I find the rationale that asking difficult questions about the past is abusing the victims both dubious and dangerous. It is of a piece with the government's legacy legislation. It plays on the idea of victim protection but it's really an attempt to cover up and deny the need to deal with the past. It's truly cynical and decent people see through it.

Do you see anyone arguing that the opposing side shouldn't be asked difficult questions because of its impacts on victims? Something to think about.

[smelmoth]

I don't think the questions are difficult. She could have said something, but it's Political point scoring, if you are going back nearly 4 decades to get a rise you are clearly struggling

Really good questions could have been about

Infrastructure
Roads
Employment
Housing
Education
Child care
NHS
Cost of living
And so on

And how will you help that without being actually at Westminster?

Is there a time limit to when these atrocities can go back to? 40, 50, 75, 100?

By all means ask all those questions. The existence of those very good questions is neither a reason nor an excuse to ask other good questions.

But what are we gaining for asking questions on what happened that dreadful morning, which, I can remember very vividly at the time, give me one benefit that it will achieve?

Good things that inter alia, politicians can do:
Recognise the horrors of the past.
Treat the atrocities of the past as atrocities irrespective of which side committed.
Empathising equally with all the victims of the past, irrespective of which side they are on.
Holding the wrongdoers to account irrespective of which side they were on.

Clearly showing that you are on the side of decency and accountability on these issue is a good thing for candidates to do. Many will fail. We should point out that failure.

[smelmoth]

It's not a good question though - it's a stunt.

would that be the case if someone else asked the same question?

[Pub Bore]

Would it be controversial to suggest that the conflict is still going on...in smelmoth's head?