“It is for the parties to decide when the time is right..”
With all the coverage of the New Year message from the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Shaun Woodward, MP, it’s worth pointing to the one key line on devolving policing and justice powers to the Assembly – full statement here
“It is for the parties to decide when the time is right, but the Government will be ready to make the transfer of powers next May as envisaged in the St Andrews Agreement.” [added emphasis]
It is something he has said before.. and he’s also admitted that the target date might not be met. But the time will only be right when those parties stop pre-empting ongoing police investigations.. or interviews for that matter. [And is Alex Maskey still "thoroughly baffled"? - Ed] Adds And, on a related point, I had neglected to mention Strabane..
You’ve some neck on ye, boy! For Irish unionists to lecture anybody on the administration of justice is an impertinence of the highest order, right up there with them presuming to lecture the world on the finer points of democracy.
People, including an increasing number of loyalists know that this is pious humbug. The Troubles were an all-out struugle for power. That is over and we’re now in a political contest. If unionists think that the way to win back their lost support is to stick with the old hypocritical bullshit then they are seriously underestimating the electorate.
Then that’s what people who have never really accepted democracy do. It’s your funeral.
“but the Government will be ready to make the transfer of powers next May”
Would Dublin be agreeable? Would it be prepared to forgo its current role in poling and justice?
OOPs policing not poling!!
I used to think that the DUP would be agin it because they don’t want SF to have the post. Given recent events, maybe they don’t want the post either.
I’m having trouble understanding why anyone thinks it’s a good idea to transfer these highly-contentious departments over, given that our local clique can’t get themselves organized to properly run the less contentious ones that we’ve already got.
Well, you might consider the history of British ‘Law and Order’ complete with sectarian paramilitary policeforces, widespread torture and all the other excesses, right down to the names wrongly given under Parliamentary protection.
The only way to build a system in which the whole NI community can have faith is to build a system which involves the whole NI community.
If that takes time then so be it. Northern Ireland is a relatively lawabiding society with hopeless disenfranchised youth from deprived areas giving most of the trouble.
One boxing club/football team can do more to combat crime than all the thuggish police tactics which sound so good on the telly. Too many of us are aware of what ‘highly motivated’ means in the context of a police officer’s annual report.
By all means let us have a debate on the heavy handed policing needed during the Troubles and the current need for lots of community policing. There is lots of help out there for young people in trouble – the problem is getting them to acess it when they have been brought up to fear authority all their lives.
Britain and the USA have huge crime and prison problems. It’s not beyond us to take the best of European and British practice and build something new and better.
Comrade Stalin,
Sinn Fein would not have signed up to policing if
the transfer of policing and justice from British to Irish hands had not been ‘promised’ as part of the GFA/STA deal.
I suspect that DUP will agree its implementation when the Provos agree to the winding up the ‘army council’.
The British will probably encourage Unionists down this path by increasing security cooperation ( such as that which allows Gardai into South Armagh ) with the ROI.
I’m all in favour of the idea of moving policing and justice powers over here. The sooner the better.
My point is that our local politicians are too crap to deal with it. If you thought the Margaret Ritchie/UDA funding thing was bad, wait until an SF or SDLP justice minister orders a crackdown on the UDA. Or, alternatively, if a unionist justice minister orders a crackdown on dissidents in South Armagh.
I suspect that DUP will agree its implementation when the Provos agree to the winding up the ‘army council’.
Yes. Though, like the whole decommissioning issue in the past, it’s all a bit of a red herring, really. Winding up the army council will not disband the organizations that are still active in parts of the country. The council is little more than a talking shop these days. I doubt it has the authority or the power to enforce it’s will anymore, for better or for worse.
Lib 2016′s latest outing here is really quite elegant spin. Better than his usual. Here we see the suggestion that Northern Ireland is a pretty decent place with a few problem areas. Then throw in a bit about clubs and activities for young people and of course the fact that every society has its problems. Finally we have this bit “brought up to fear authority all their lives”.
Of course what is not said is that the “authority” which many young people have to fear now is the IRA or alphabet soup dependent on where these young people live. We also have the repetition albeit in more subtle form of the criminality slur on Mr. Quinn on the “Sinn Fein, their faltering game and one big European chance for glory” thread.
We may, however, be beginning to see the latest SF spin on policing etc.
Clearly they continue to whisper the weasel words that Mr. Quinn was a criminal with the unspoken implication to some that hence, his murder is of lesser relevance; but there is also now the idea that if policing and justice were devolved to local parties then SF would somehow be able to assist the police more. I suppose the implicit suggestion is that if SF were involved in policing then there would be a higher chance of bringing Mr. Quinn’s murderers to justice. A truly surreal lie but the republican movement has always been good at repeating lies time and again until at least some believe them.
All this is of course a repetition of the line following the murder of Mr. McCartney with a bit of added nonsense about the need to devolve policing to the best mates of the murderers. Not forgetting, of course, the fact that the IRA continue to be a very major source of criminal activity in Northern Ireland (along of course with the alphabet soup) and in the RoI.
I think Sammy’s suggestion seems sensible, however, that the army council might go away at least a bit in order to allow the DUP to accept devolution of policing. It would also be republicanism handing the DUP a stick with which to beat one of the DUP’s real enemies namely the TUV. It would also help the DUP in explaining that subsequent IRA crimes were not the “corporate responsibility” of the IRA.
So a new year beckons with the love in full steam ahead and no real chance of justice for people like Mr. Quinn’s family. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
TUV?, Turgon. Is that the new Allister grouping?
Yes Joe it is “Traditional Unionist Voice”, I am not sure about the name but at least it is not something UP; and on an utterly unrelated note belated Happy Christmas.
Thank you Turgon.
Same to you and a very happy new year.
Turgon
“..the IRA continue to be a very major source of criminal activity in Northern Ireland”
If you have any evidence of this then please take it to the nearest police station. I’ve never denied that ‘demobilising’ the IRA has been a difficult process but in comparison to other revolutionary movements such as the ANC it has been performed with a comparative lack of disorder. And damn you for putting me in this position again!
I hated and opposed physical force from both the republicans and the British. If we don’t want it to happen again then we better face up to the reality that it became inevitable.
Trying to understand violence and the reasons for it does not in any way mean that I excuse it.
I abhorred the
Sorry for the unfortunate typing – new laptop.
and Turgon,
Happy New Year.
I accept your genuineness and integrity. Please try and accept mine.
lib 2016
“I hated and opposed physical force from both the republicans and the British.”
Mr. Fealty has previously asked me not to mount personal attacks on you. This being his web site I have complied. However, I hope he will indulge a direct answer to your proclaimed views.
You lib are the one who distinguishes between the morality of different examples of what you call physical force and I call murder viz this quote:
“I don’t accept any moral equivalence between organisations founded to defend the cause of liberty, equality and fraternity and those founded to defend inherited privilege.” or this one “As for Enniskillen itself – the nationalist population was under attack from the British Army and the community which backed them. They fought back and when there is violence innocent people get hurt….end of story. citations here.
So yes I accept your genuine integrity and support for murder and murderers whatever spin you now try to put on it.
Mr. Fealty, I am sorry if the above is unacceptable but lib has directed a specific question to me and I have explained why I do not accept his “genuineness and integrity”. If I am to be banned from the site for this then that is up to you.
Devolved policing could mean less interference in Provo ‘business’ operations and loyalist criminality. How would you prevent tip offs to cronies and stifling legitimate police activities? The record of both the DUP and SF do indicate success is likely in this regard.
If things are done properly, there should be no problem in devolving this responsibility.
By done properly I mean that operational control has to be solely in the hands of the Chief Constable with him being accountable to the proper authority.
This was never the case pre-direct rule and, sadly, they is some appearance of it continuing to be the case in certain “inconvenient” cases.
Turgon,
You are right at least in part. I do believe in republicanism and respect those who were prepared to give their lives and liberty in that cause…and I’m sure that I’ve contradicted myself countless times.
This is a political blog not some kind of declaration of fundamental truths but a pleasant diversion from the everyday problems of life. Frankly if I took it too seriously I’d find another hobby.
I don’t pretend to be any kind of theologian but the fact is that I also believe that British and European colonialism has become widely recognised as evil.
If I were silly enough to conclude that every unionist was therefore an evil person then that would reflect more on me than on unionism.
If you can’t find a way to respect the likes of me and mine as I respect you and yours then you are truly in trouble. I am honestly sorry that you find it impossible to see past your grief and anger but that is your problem, not mine.
This never-ending bitterness seems to be a peculiar form of ‘Britishness’ and has destroyed their position in the EU. On a smaller scale it will destroy the unionist position here and it has already lost them all support in England.
Funny that; I am opposed to Turgon’s political beliefs and we have had quite a few conversations over the past year. He is certainly very forthright in his views, which he is entitled to be, but he has never ever come across to me as full of anger and bitterness.
Go figure.
Lib 2016,
Yes you see I take killing people extremely seriously. That is why I do not dismiss the deaths of anyone here. That is why I do not slur the deceased whatever or whoever they are. That is why I do not dismiss the deaths of the hunger strikers nor those killed at Loughgall etc.
I will respect many positions but not one which uses terms such as yours above for murders in this community.
That is why I will hold you in the same contempt as I do the supporters of the alphabet soup.
As for yourself, lib2016, I have noticed a sea change in your posts this past year, towards what I would consider the better (from my personal point of view).
But as you yourself admit, sometimes you can be self-contradictory.
Anyway, best wishes for the new year to everyone.
Turgon,
It’s hardly anybody’s fault if the disbandment of the IRA council is sufficient to damage TUV. If they’ve hung themselves on that hook then they can hardly blame anyone else. I have a feeling the council probably will disband, but when it happens there’ll not be very much fuss over it. Business as usual.
The trouble with the remaining gangs of IRA people who are ignoring the army council’s policy has several facets; the main one being the difficulty in persuading people to co-operate with the police in order to get them off the streets, out of either intimidation, or out of sympathy. The exact same situation exists in areas where loyalist paramilitaries are active. I think the way out of it is reasonably simple – a good old law and order crackdown. Imaginative policing will get the results which are required.
The existence or non-existence of the Council seems irrelevant to those gangs who seem to wish to exercise power without the blind eye/approval which they previously enjoyed.
What always struck me as the paradox about decommissioning – to be fully effective, it required the continued existence of weaponry in order that those refusing to decommission could, if needs be, be coerced.
In the de facto absence of a continuing paramilitary command structure, should coercion be required, it can only come from one source in a democracy – the force of law and order, popularly backed by the people.
I believe in 2007-08, the forces of law here have a historically unprecedented level of support and indeed, unprecedented cross-community participation. No longer need a police officer be 100% unionist to be a member.
Whatever political reasons there may have once been to turn a blind eye to lawlessness, those reasons have been overtaken by the unfolding of democracy and representative, power sharing government.
joeCanuck,
Thanks for your kind post. You are right to notice that I am consciously trying to leave the bitterness behind, not always successfully.
Perhaps I should be more tolerant of those who cling grimly to their hate rather than embrace the changes of the last twelve months.
As I understand it this blog has always been about challenging unionism to recognise that the old ways just won’t work.
Personal attacks and stalking are no substitute for political discussion and unless unionism can combine around some kind of modern idealogy we will all have to pick up the pieces.
If people don’t like my political beliefs that’s fine but let’s not pretend that this blog is about venting emotions. Mick is a very intelligent unionist who saw the need for calm discussion long before most of us and who still manages to get it right most of the time.
It was the only possible alternative to LuvUlster and it and other similar venues are the only way most of us have to talk politics with the other side.
I wasn’t going to respond to your initial attempt at labelling, lib.
But since you’ve decided to continue with that theme by labelling both Mick and Slugger as “unioinst” I feel obliged to point out that such labelling is only used by those who prefer to pigeon-hole the messenger rather than addressing the message.
In a ‘man not ball’ way.
You’d be better advised to look outside of the boxes you wish to place others, and yourself into, and deal with the actual detail of the posts you disagree with.
btw, lib.
While Mick is, undoubtedly, “very intelligent”.
I’m not so sure he’d appreciate being labelled, by you, as a “unionist”.
And finally..
“As I understand it this blog has always been about challenging unionism to recognise that the old ways just won’t work.”
You understand incorrectly..
And not for the first time..
I for one have every confidence that these matters can be dealt with better on a local level, than by Shaun talkin to himself. Lets remember that, when we (rightfully castigate) our own Assembly.
I would like to point out that the above post was not made by me.
Although on this occasion it is relatively innocuous, it does indicate that someone is intent on impersonating me – for reasons best known to themselves.
For the sake of authenticity I would appreciate it if Slugger would indicate that indeed there is a case of personation here – and not for the first time either, Pete. Thanks.
Pete,
I’ve forgotten when I first stumbled across ‘Slugger’ but I do remember reading ‘A Long Peace’ and being deeply impressed that this was a new kind of unionist thinking.
The authors of ‘A Long Peace’ are Trevor Ringland, David Steven and Mick Fealty.
To quote Mr. Fealty;
“Our aim was to focus on the future from a Unionist point of view and how this might be achieved…’
I thought then and still think that Mick has stayed right on target, helped a lot of non-unionists to see things differently in the process and, not least, enabled us all have to have a bit of crack along the way.
I’d be interested to hear your ideas on why this blog has been so successful. If I’m completely wrong about how Mick sees his function then enlighten me, please.
lib2016, the study was merely a piece of research into Unionist ‘thinking’ and involved interviews with Unionists and non-Unionists. Trevor Ringland is perhaps the only author who labels himself Unionist.
Mr. Fealty,
Do you care to comment?
lib 2016′s contributions here follow a fairly familiar pattern for SF members / supporters. Initially we have a denouncement of the first post from Pete Baker. Then, when I dared to point out the inconsistencies of lib’s claims on his opposition to violence we had standard “unionist engagement” stuff. In this we are asked to accept the integrity etc. of cheerleaders. If unionists do; then it can be heralded as an example of unionists becoming more “reasonable”. If, however, unionists do not; then we have some pseudo psycho babble about us not being willing “to see past your grief and anger but that is your problem, not mine.” This of course allows republicans to mascurade as the victims of this unreasonable unionist dislike. Hence, showing their general unreasonableness, flat earthness, bigotry etc; all implying that their views do not need to be taken seriously and of course implying to some that indeed killing them was the only real option and can be covered with comments like this “when there is violence innocent people get hurt….end of story”.
The real truth here is in lib’s comment “And damn you for putting me in this position again!” Of course that is the problem. I did not put lib in that position it was lib himself with his own previous comments. Still why let that get in the way of a good MOPE.
A more interesting bit of spin, however, is the idea that Mick Fealty and indeed slugger in general is a unionist blog. I very much doubt that lib is so stupid that he regards Mick having analysed a unionist position as making him a unionist (by that logic I as I often analyse SF’s position; I am a republican).
To suggest that Mick and slugger are unionsit is, however, an excellent bit of spin. Repeated often enough as with so many republican lies it may even acquire a pseudo truth. It allows republicans a bit more MOPEry; so that when Mick or any other moderator objects to a republican’s comment it can be seen as bad Mick and the bad unionists discriminating against poor republicans. More than that it may be an attempt to force the moderators even subconciously to be more accomodating to republicans, something I trust will fail.
Most importantly, however, by spreading the net of supposed unionist very widely it allows republicans to pronounce some “unionists” as good and progressive and moving towards a rapproachment with republicans. This allows republicans to believe that they are wining partial converts with strategies like unionist engagement, as well as annoying the other unionists (a vitally important part of unionist engagement). It also allows them to present supposed increased divisions within unionism’s view of republicans allowing them to feel that unionism is falling apart and final victory is at hand (maybe as soon as 2016). Finally of course it allows republicans another opportunity to paint unionists who will not engage with them as flat earth bigots who are irrelevant, should be laughed at and of course whose deaths in the past were unfortunate but entirely explainable and indeed probably largely justifable.
The whole thing is of course one long complex spun lie. That does not, however, mean it is not useful to republicans to spin it.
Turgon,
I vote Sluggers to award you an honory doctorate, for your patient, forensic analysis of the republican mindset
Turgon,
At this stage of the game republicans don’t need to discredit traditional unionism. It crashed in flames long ago, as did hardline traditional Catholic republicanism.
We live in an increasingly multicultural society where the majority of us have already recognised the need to work together.
Republicans acknowledge the damage their struggle did and have publicly regretted the hurts done in the struggle for national freedom, though I for one would claim that it had become inevitable by 1972 at the very latest.
The verdict of history is already in and if unionists don’t accept their part in creating the conditions of the last 80 years then they will never be able to build a modern credible identity.
To deny that ‘Slugger’ is an attempt at modernising Unionism I find just incredible. Why do you suppose LuvUlster was an embarrassing disaster and Slugger marches on?
My theory is that LuvUlster was a demonstration of the hatred which seems to be all that traditional unionism has left us.
Mick has managed to raise the bar for at least the more progressive of your community and you aren’t even clued up enough to be aware of what he is about.
Turgon – it’s time for you to engage with Lib2016. The last 40 years ain’t been a lot of fun for anyone. From afar I have to say that resistance at times seemed not only justified but necessary.
Dewi
You are wrong—big time!
The form of resistance was neither justified or necessary.
Militant Republicanism lost the “Battle” with the very first murder in which they were involved and then made matters worse by trying to explain it as a necessity.
“From afar I have to say that resistance at times seemed not only justified but necessary.”
Dewi, who was resisting and what were they resisting?
I’ll agree that physical force republicanism was a deadend – the establishment forces in Ireland and Britain were very conservative and saw the Civil Rights campaign as destabilising.
The problem is that the British Army allowed their extensive experience in fighting colonial wars to guide their approach to the troubles in Ireland.
Once the Paras were turned loose on unarmed civilians the die was cast. The teenagers (including many friends of mine) were already reading books like ‘The War of the Flea’ and they had no hesitation in using that knowledge to fight back. One weekend’s training and they were ready to go, and more than willing.
The only alternative was Ghandian civil disobedience which would have involved allowing the Brits to keep on murdering until world public opinion forced their withdrawal. I still believe that it would have been the wisest choice but few agreed with me.
lib2016
I agree entirely that if Ireland had produced a Ghandi we would be living in a different world. We can not turn the clock back or give militants another chance let alone re write history.
Unfortunately Ireland was unable to find a Ghandi.
That is the great pity and history will judge this generation harshly as it deserves.
Lacking in imagination and courage.
And, despite the attempted distraction, getting back to the actual topic..
Pete,
It’s the usual charade – the deal has already been done or Sinn Fein wouldn’t have committed themselves to policing. We know it, you know it, and the British government wouldn’t have raised the subject if they weren’t in the process of preparing unionists to accept the inevitable.
Now if unionists were prepared to be open about their need to modernise we might get somewhere. Instead we have to put up with a potentially useful thread being turned into yet another excuse to attack Sinn Fein.
‘parties pre-empting ongoing police investigations’ indeed? That appears to be the only medium of communication for some unionists on this board.
Unionists need to take the beam out of their own eye.
Dewi,
Firstly Happy New Year. I always try to answer you but I was out last night. I do regard you as someone I greatly enjoy discussing things with and despite our different opinions I would regard my relationship with you as friendly.
I must, however, demur from your telling me that “it’s time for you to engage with Lib2016″
Firstly: I must with respect point out it is for me to “engage with” whomsoever I wish; I have a fairly clear knowledge of my own mind and it is not really for others to tell me what to do or think.
Secondly: I have “engaged with” many nationalist and republican posters on this site. I have discussed many issues and advanced my opinions in a forthright but I hope largely courteous fashion. For the times when I am impolite I seek forgiveness.
You Dewi know full well the specific episode and series of statements made by lib 2016 which I object to. We have yet to see any form of apology for what must be amongst the most insensitive remarks made on this web site. To be perfectly honest to regard lib as anything other than a troll is fairly charitable.
I might also point out that when one is told things like: “And damn you for putting me in this position again!”, “I am honestly sorry that you find it impossible to see past your grief and anger but that is your problem, not mine.”, “Perhaps I should be more tolerant of those who cling grimly to their hate rather than embrace the changes of the last twelve months.”
The above are hardly comments which make it easy to “engage with” lib, they come relatively close to playing the man and not the ball though I am not one to go running to the moderators when people attack me; I have found other slugger members views of me the most effective defence against such attacks.
Engaging with lib would also be a pretty pointless task. His world view is essentially that unionism is almost totally to blame for the troubles, unionism is now falling apart, all our young people are leaving, a united Ireland is an inevitability, the deal is already done and the timetable already mapped out. Well if one has a set of beliefs like that there is little to discuss. Even on this site we have Mick Fealty pronounced as a “good” unionist moving us forward. Lib seems to laud the DUP for knowing that a united Ireland is inevitable and moving unionists towards it. Now whilst I am no supporter of the DUP, I do think that would be something of a minority analysis within the DUP (probably a minority of zero).
Of course traditional unionists are just denounced as hate filled bigots etc. So now Dewi what am I meant to engage with: an individual who has made endless insulting remarks against my community and against what we hold dear, tells us that we are to blame for the troubles, dismisses murders of friends and relatives and proclaims that we are going to loose anyway. Finally we at one stage has a comment the at least our children might be useful for something or words to that effect.
Now Dewi I do not think I am a completely unreasonable man but what on earth am I meant to engege with?
Happy New Year to all – and apologies to Pete for digressing.
1) I would say that when you and your neighbours are in danger of being burned out of your homes or being killed then self defence is justified.
Nevin and Ulsterfan – that happened historically.
2) Turgon – I certainly agree that Lib’s infamouus Enniskillen remarks were inappropriate. He has come close to apologising for remarks probably made in temper. A specific apology would be useful.
3) I agree with some of the historical analysis of the conflict he posts – which is done in a lucid and logical fashion. There are many trolls of many hues on this site – I don’t regard Lib as one thereof.
4) Turgon – of course you are well able to well able to make your own mind up and express it well and always civilly – apologies if my advice sounded like instruction ! – Certainly didn’t mean it that way. This particular feud has gone on too long however – if you note Lib’s “Ghandian civil disobediance” I suspect that’s his true position which I’m certain you could repect.
5) Lib2016 – an apology for those Enniskillen observations would be a good way to start a(nother) peaceful year and put this to bed.
Dewi
I did not say resistance was wrong but I did say that the form adopted by republicans was not only wrong from a moral point of view but was greatly counter productive.
1/I apologise unreservedly for my tactless and unpleasant dismissal of other peoples grief. I was wrong and I will try not to repeat giving needless offence. This blog should be about breaking down barriers, not making people feel defensive.
2/I do feel that the authorities in NI and in Britain had a great deal of responsibility for the events of the last 80 years. There is no way to say some things pleasantly and I do hold the British authorities guilty of murder. There seems to be no point in not being candid when that’s what is called for.
Turgon,
For most Nationalists/Republicans and non tabloid reading UK mainlanders the Provos campaign is best understood in the context of the then ongoing historical difficulties between Britian and Ireland. The GFA/STA, in reforming the non ireland state, reallinging it’s constitutional position, letting the insurgents out of prison and putting then into government is de-facto recognition of this. However, most Unionists, DUP , UUP etc and Dublin 4 ideologues are in denial about this reality.
An absolute classic piece of SF propaganda from lib 2016 there. An “unreserved apology”. Now any unionist who rejects such an apology can only be an evil flat earth bigot. If a previously sceptical unionist were, however, to accept lib’s comment then it would be another small step in “breaking down barriers”.
Except, of course.
Had lib actually wished to apologise for those remarks he could have done so at the time. The fact that is has taken this long tells us something in and of itself.
Of course, however, lib is not apologising for holding those views, oh no he is apologising for his “dismissal of other peoples grief”. There is a world of difference between being sorry for dismissing people’s grief and being sorry for actually feeling that the cause of their grief was the the sad but completely reasonable consequence of the “nationalist population” having “fought back” and “when there is violence innocent people get hurt….end of story.”
So no: this is no apology; this is a classic piece of weasel worded lying which could have come from Adams himself. Taken with all the other remarks about unionists from lib even on this thread; I doubt any but the most gullible will see this as anything other than more spin.
“This blog should be about breaking down barriers” but you lib are one of the most effective builders of barriers on this web site. Ironically what you fail to understand (or in view of some of your other comments do understand and indeed enjoy) is that attitudes like yours simply help to ensure that there will never be a united Ireland even if by chance one day the border is removed.
Now by all means indulge in a bit of pyscho babble and a bit of good old fashioned MOPEry. Then do not forget to tell me that my views and wishes are hopless and I will soon be defeated as well as being myself an unreconstructed hate filled bigot.
Sammy,
Firstly Happy New Year.
I know well the analysis you put forward.
My most fundamental problems with this purely pragmatic approach are that it is giving in to immorality and evil. You and many others will probably understand (whilst I am sure that lib 2016 will not) that my committment to opposing murder is greater than my committment to the union.
I also believe that the current “solution” is no solution at all as it continues to allow crime to be committed by terrorists of both genres; and of course as I have stated before, I am sadly confident that political violence will re-emerge here in the not very distant future. The current agreement in my view makes that recurrance even more likely.
Turgon, From your 11.53 –
“We have yet to see any form of apology for what must be amongst the most insensitive remarks made on this web site.”
We have now, and specifically relating to the effect of the remarks on others feelings. You asked for an apology for the remarks not for his views – and that’s waht he gave.
You two ain’t ever going to be lovers but surely that’s enough for a truce at least?
lib2016
I was shocked at the “Enniskillen” remarks too.
I accept your apology.
Let’s all make this year better in terms of respecting each other and other’s points of view.