McDaid killing: Shadow of Robert Hamill murder looms ever larger with explosive new claims
The Sunday World’s front page today carries allegations that a serving PSNI officer goaded loyalists about the presence of Irish Tricolours in the nationalist Heights area of Coleraine ahead of the violent loyalist attack which killed one catholic man, Kevin McDaid, and has left another fighting for his life.
The alleged text message read: THE TRICOLOURS ARE STILL UP IN THE TOWN- ARE YIS REAL MEN OR WHAT?
The paper further alleges that PSNI officers stood chatting with loyalists in the Scotts Bar area prior to the attack, with some PSNI officers goading the loyalists about the presence of tricolours.
Prior to these revelations, the PSNI were already in the dock for their handling of this killing. These new claims will not only serve to heap more pressure on the PSNI, it will also strengthen the dissident republican narrative that the PSNI remain a deeply partisan, sectarian force and immediately recall the actions of RUC officers during and in the aftermath of the murder of Robert Hamill in Portadown.
In this regard, the role of nationalist politicians in the coming period will be crucial. It will be extremely important for them to provide strong leadership in holding the PSNI to account at the highest level for the persistence of what appears to be a pervasive sectarian mentality within the police service at a local level within Coleraine.
I have already listed a number of questions which must be addressed by the Police Ombudsman in relation to this killing in a previous thread. Naturally, with these allegations there are a number of new questions which instantly arise regarding the name and rank of the PSNI officer concerned, but also his role in events on the day. Furthermore, the revelations also confirm suspicions raised about why the PSNI did not simply inform loyalists threatening violence on a predominantly nationalist community due to the presence of a couple of flags that they would not be permitted to invade the area and inflict such violence and could be arrested for making threats with such implications: clearly, a number of the PSNI officers shared the same objective as the murderous loyalists.
Paul Kielty
For almost a year, the UK was alone in the fight against Nazism. Churchill, despite your anti-British hatred, seen through the Nazi regime (supported by De Valera).
I suggest you watch the episode from ‘The World at War’- Britain Alone. Then confront your own prejudices. If that’s possible.
Paul,
Yes, you stated that we had a classic colonial situation. However, you’ve been very light on the detail of what that actually means. And any evidence that there are other ways of looking at the situation, or that there might be more than one version of colonialism or imperialism over the course of one thousand years is apparently mere pedantry.
Well it seems that the leaders and movements that successfully fought against imperialism (and some that lost) in the C20th disagreed with you as they had several different definitions of what it was, most based on the work by Lenin I mentioned earlier. Hence there ability to defeat it, allied to the support provided by the anti-imperialist forces of the USSR and the socialist countries. But maybe where they went wrong was in not looking at how the Normans did things in Ireland, instead of looking at their own conditions.
I’ll ask you again. What makes this a simple and straightforward colonial situation?
How would you describe the southern state by the way since its inception?
And you might find that some within the CPI have a vision closer to yours than you think.
Driftwood,
How did Dev support the Nazis? Give details. I’ve already provided evidence of how he facilitated the allied war effort while not doing the same for the Nazis. So far you’ve come up with obeying diplomatic nicieties on the death of a head of state, and accusations that no historian and no reasonable person believes about submarines, and for which there is no evidence.
As for this year alone. That would be – with the exception of the air war – the period known as the phony war right?
obeying diplomatic nicieties on the death of a head of state
How many other democracies followed suit here on the death of Hitler, who you admirably refer to as a head of state.As if it was the PM of Luxembourg. And what was the western response to the death of General Franco? Excluding the RoI.
get a grip Garibaldy, De Valera knew that he and his ‘people’ preferred Hitler to that nasty man Churchill.
So it goes….
So one visit versus lots of officers released back to join the allied war effort? What else have you got? Because judging on the evidence, it appears you are defying logic here.
I think we can safely say that there were people who preferred the Germans to the British. There were also people who preferred the British. As the relative recruitment rates might hint. Equally, there is no question that people in the south liked the Americans almost universally.
Was Hitler or was he not head of state? Perhaps we can ask the English football team instructed to give him the Nazi salute by the British government?
As for Franco. How did the democratically-elected government get on when it approached the democracies Britain and France for help, or even to sell them weapons? Where was the high-mindedness when it mattered? And how did Pincohet get on with the British government while we are discussing Spanish-speaking fascists guilty of mass murder?
And so it goes indeed. One person uses the weight of evidence, the other prejudice.
part of Dev’s reply to Churchill:
“Allowances can be made for Mr. Churchill’s statement, however unworthy, in the first flush of victory. No such excuse could be found for me in this quieter atmosphere. There are, however, some things it is essential to say. I shall try to say them as dispassionately as I can. Mr. Churchill makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his actions by Britain’s necessity. It seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count… that is precisely why we had this disastrous succession of wars — World War No.1 and World War No.2 — and shall it be World War No.3? Mr. Churchill is proud of Britain’s stand alone, after France had fallen and before America entered the war. Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone not for one year or two, but for several hundred years against aggression; that endured spoliations, famine, massacres, in endless succession; that was clubbed many times into insensibility, but each time on returning to consciousness took up the fight anew; a small nation that could never be got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?”
driftwood
Ireland was nuetral but cooperated with the Allies and passed on intelligence to the Allies. They took in refugees from the Blitz, allowed down allied airmen to go to NI, imprisoned downed Axis airmen, and interned IRA men. Many free staters, like my grandfather, volunteered and fought in British and American units.
They did not refuel U-boats. Give it a rest man.
I am looking forward to reading Beevers book on Normandy as well. His book on Stalingrad was masterful
Now that this thread has gone off on a completely different tangent can I ask Driftwood (seeing as he is supplying the WSC quotations) whether he ever came across the Churchill quote where he said following the Dunkirk evacuations that the only armed and equipped body of men in the entire United Kingdom was the Ulster Special Constabulary?
It sounds like a delightful piece of windbaggery on the old man’s part (there were two divisions of well equipped Canadians) but I suspect it is an apocryphal story made up after the war.
“Hmm, so according to you warped logic, this hotel is guilty of treason on a grand scale.” – Big Maggie
Is the hotel engaged in a dispute with another nation over sovereign territory and making a political statement about which nation controls the state or is it touting for business? Can you spot the none-too-subtle difference ?
“Peculiar interpretation of the GFA. ‘british nationality has supremacy by default’? Since when?” – Paul Kielty
Since sovereignty first resided with the Crown. Until the GFA, the Irish nation disputed the legitimacy of British sovereignty over Northern Ireland. That is no longer disputed. There is nothing peculiar about my interpretation of the GFA. It states that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Unless I miss my guess, the Union Jack is the flag of the UK, not the Irish tricolour. Under the GFA (and the British-Irish Agreement), you are born British but have the right to apply for Irish citizenship. Therefore, your default nationality is British.
The GFA tries to obfuscate that by using the term “birthright” as the right to apply for Irish citizenship in such a way that it reads like it is saying that you are born Irish and therefore do not need to apply. That’s just clever word play, as the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act confirms. A birthright requires no action on your part because you are born with it. Since you must act to apply for Irish citizenship if you are born in Northern Ireland post-GFA, Irish citizenship cannot, by definition, be your birthright.
Lurig, it’s a mistake to assume that constitutional documents are just meaningless pieces of paper or that oaths are just “empty formulas of words.” I think that mentality was put out there by those who wanted you to sign up to those documents despite your reservations about the content of them.
Prior to the GFA, it was the case that nationalists insisted that no nation has the right of veto over another nation. That was the principle that self-determination should be inalienable and unfettered. You have now accepted that the British nation has a right of veto over you. You may have received some internal improvements as a result of accepting the legitimacy of that veto but you have dispensed with your Irish national rights by doing so.
The way loyalist would look at it is that it is they have made the practical concessions in return for nationalists accepting the legitimacy of British sovereignty but that nationalists are acting contrary to the agreement by making bogus claims about the Irish nation controlling a state that they have formally declared is not rightfully theirs. You could argue that flying the Irish flag is an expression of culture (and for many it is) but that ignores the actual political context where it is a de jure claim to sovereignty over the state – a claim to sovereignty that was supposedly renounced in return for those internal concessions.
Personally, I don’t see this supposed shared nation of Northern Irish emerging that must emerge if the dysfunctional dynamic of two nations competing with each other for control of one state is ever to be ameliorated. There were some attempts have a flag for this nation post-GFA. The British government had a working design for a flag and the Alliance Party also came up with a few designs.
The two flags, the Union Jack and the Irish Tricolour, will remain as symbols of two nations. They will also, of course, remain as symbols of two states – and that’s the only practicable solution in my opinion. Because two nations cannot share one state, it was always maintained that the unionists were a tradition within the Irish nation rather than a separate nation. Post-GFA, no one really maintains that fiction anymore. It is now recognised that there are two nations, not two traditions, on the island of Ireland. So while there is that recognition there is also, paradoxically, a farcical denial of the old mantra that two nations cannot share one state. That will fizzle out in due course. What you will be left with is the option of repartition.
Incidentally, the GFA is not about extending the right to Irish national self-determination into Northern Ireland but is about removing it from the rest of Ireland. It was devised by Whitehall to be a vehicle for dismantling the Irish nation-state and replacing it with a replica of Northern Ireland. And, as I said before, good luck with that. Article 1 (v) of the British Irish Agreement states:
[b]Continued[/b]
(v) [The two Governments] affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities;
This rules out a nation-state of Ireland, declaring that the British nation should have a veto over the right to self-determination of the Irish nation. In this clause, the government is mandated to act with “rigorous impartiality” between British nationalism and Irish nationalism. A government that is partial to Irish nationalism and duly acts to promote the Irish national interest would fall foul of its requirement to act with “parity of esteem” for British nationalism. This would result in every second decision it tries to make ending up in the courts, and would also result in intense animosity for the British nation among the duly fettered Irish nation, resulting in an unavoidable civil war where a majority nation wipes out the minority nation. That is a totally unacceptable clause, and madness of the part of Bertie “I won sterling on the horse” Ahern and Martin Mansergh to agree to it. The only way around that clause is for Northern Ireland to become part of a federal republic but to have a devolved government where the national government can then act with “rigorous impartiality” between the two nations who will, of course, continue to struggle within the federal state for control of it.
But I could be completely wrong.
Dave et al,
You’re worrying over nothin’. On Spike TV the RA just beat the Taliban with Caddies .
Fuck the Irish Whingers on here
They are a bunch of crying pussies who don’t have the intelligence or the balls to retake their island.
yap yap yap yap, its quite nauseating tbh
All they are is a bunch of keyboard commandos, who come on here and spout BS, glorifying a bunch of hungry cunts who could do the crime but didn’t have the balls to do the time.
The brits will soon be here for a millenium, and won’t be going any time soon.
“what we have in the north of Ireland is a colonial situation”
So what if it is ??? what go gonna do ? bore us all to death with your inanely boring posts ? or are you gonna do something “big guy” ?
Anyone got anymore jokes to cheer this thread up a bit, it really is getting flat?
CD
“It is about the PSNI’s attitude to dealing with the incident, and what it reveals about the underlying sectarian prejudices which persist within the organisation, which contributed to a man’s death.”
Surely Chris you would agree that your statement here is sensationalist and without foundation. We now see record numbers of applicants from a non unionist background, legislation to ensure a 50% recruitment of Catholics. If sectarian predjudices persisited within the PSNI, surely there would be discontent amongst these Catholic recruits. There is no such evidence to back this up.
” explosive new claims”
No, rumour.
“clearly, a number of the PSNI officers shared the same objective as the murderous loyalists.”
Horrendous and without foundation, the officers that are reported to have stood by during the fatal assault of Kevin McDaid, would be far more likely to be in turmoil at this time. A man lost his life and they are being implicated as complicit in the event, by rumour mongers and opportunists.
Chris far from asking questions of the office of the Police Ombudsman, you seem more intent on giving them the answers.
Dave,
“Is the hotel engaged in a dispute with another nation over sovereign territory and making a political statement about which nation controls the state or is it touting for business?”
Ahem. First, the flag is not “sectarian” as was claimed earlier; it’s the flag of a nation containing many sects and not a few atheists and agnostics.
Second, it’s not a “foreign” flag as Driftwood suggested but the flag of a neighbouring nation, whose capital is just down the road and whose natives are friendly and won’t cook you in the pot along with the shpuds. Honest.
Third, by signing up to the GFA the tricolour’s nation ended the territorial dispute you refer to.
Fourth, those who feel they belong to that nation, no matter where they live, have every right to fly that flag—or would in any civilized country.
Now let’s move on, shall we? And by “on” I don’t mean 60 years into the past as others would wish but into the future.
“I had heard of this bell ring in Coleraine being rang as a warming for all catholics to leave the town centre, did this really happen?”
@highlander: My feeling is that it was to tell people who didn’t live in the town proper to leave – I’d vaguely assumed because they closed the gates at night. But I don’t remember ever being taught that – it’s just an impression I had. I’ll look it up for you.
Big Maggie
Flags are not sectarian themselves, whatever colour they may be. It is when they are used by individuals or groups for the pupose of antagonising others they know may find that sort of behaviour offensive, then it becomes sectarian.
Of course flags are essentially cloth and can be used when one runs out of toilet paper. Words and statements I find far more offensive such like the quote attributed to you on page 3 of this thread.
“There’s enough of that among the Unionist terrorists in Coleraine.”
Big Maggie it´s about time you took responsibility for the things you write and recognise that such a statement is not just a generalisation, but an offensive and sectarian one at that.
Doctor Who,
As you know “There’s enough of that among the Unionist terrorists in Coleraine” refers to intolerance.
The Unionist terrorists are those who beat Mr McDaid to death.
I fail to see why you take offence to this. What would you call them, boy scouts?
Doctor Who,
Nearly forgot. The flying of the tricolours in Coleraine and elsewhere is not a sectarian statement. It’s an expression of Nationalism.
DW:”Flags are not sectarian themselves, whatever colour they may be. It is when they are used by individuals or groups for the pupose of antagonising others they know may find that sort of behaviour offensive, then it becomes sectarian.”
F****g surreal coming from a unionist! Can you put that exact wording on a petition, get all your unionists mates to sign it, and send it the Parades Commission?
Big Maggie
Is it useful to present a “paralax view”. I would be equally offended by an expression for example the nationalist terrorists in Craigavon.
“What would you call them, boy scouts?”
If it had´ve been a troop of boy scouts that murdered Mr. McDaid then that would be fair. It was however no more a troop of boy scouts responsible for the murder than it was the unionist people of Coleraine.
It is your vague generalisations which I take offence to and your inability to seperate unionist from loyalist. I notice you have no such inability in seperating nationalist from republican.
Mayoman
“F****g surreal coming from a unionist! Can you put that exact wording on a petition, get all your unionists mates to sign it, and send it the Parades Commission?”
It does however apply to all flags of all colours and therefore you and others would have obvious problems in defining what was sectarian.
Thanks for the completely un-enlightening reply! Is there text missing?
Doctor Who,
We’ve been over this ground before but here goes one more time.
“It was however no more a troop of boy scouts responsible for the murder than it was the unionist people of Coleraine.”
I did not say that “the” Unionist people of Coleraine murdered Kevin. That would suggest he was murdered by the entire Unionist population.
A Loyalist is a Unionist. Or is he a Nationalist? You’re being silly.
“I notice you have no such inability in seperating nationalist from republican.”
Then you notice more than I do. Why not pay more attention to the issue at hand? Find out why your fellow Unionists behaved in such a savage way towards innocent people.
Doctor Who,
What in god’s name is a “paralax view”?
Big Maggie if I say I am offended by your vague generalisations, why do you think then im deluded.
“Then you notice more than I do.”
But Big Maggie in your reply to Dread C on a related thread you stated “I hope you don´t think I am a Republican, i´m a Nationalist.”
“A Loyalist is a Unionist. Or is he a Nationalist? You’re being silly.”
Loyalism is undoubtedly connected to Unionism. Nationalism is undoubtedly linked to Republicanism, there are also fundamnetal differences that are irreconciable. I and many other unionists have no affiliation with anything loyalist. So why make that generalisation?
“I did not say that “the” Unionist people of Coleraine murdered Kevin. That would suggest he was murdered by the entire Unionist population.”
In actual fact you do imply this Big Maggie and the obvious way to remedy this would be to be careful of what way you say things as it is likely to cause offence. I can assure you that the revulsion amongst unionists to the murder of Kevin McDaid is just as much as your own.
Doctor Who,
“But Big Maggie in your reply to Dread C on a related thread you stated “I hope you don´t think I am a Republican, i´m a Nationalist.”
My god, you DO notice these things! Amazing. I barely recall the conversation. But the parallel you wish to draw fails. A Republican is a Nationalist but a Nationalist is not necessarily a Republican.
But… a Loyalist is a Unionist.
< <“I did not say that “the” Unionist people of Coleraine murdered Kevin. That would suggest he was murdered by the entire Unionist population.”
In actual fact you do imply this Big Maggie and the obvious way to remedy this would be to be careful of what way you say things as it is likely to cause offence.>>
Wrong. You infer that. Sorry but I have no control over your inferences.
Now, any chance you’ll discuss why the beating to death of Nationalists by mobs is a Unionist pursuit? What should be done to tackle this savagery?
“Now, any chance you’ll discuss why the beating to death of Nationalists by mobs is a Unionist pursuit? What should be done to tackle this savagery? ”
Fuck all if you ask me. Its like asking how do we stop humans killing each other all over the world.
Its happened before and it will happen again…….cest la vie.
PS Maggie Nationalist death squads also like to go on the rampage too you know leaving 2 soldiers and a policeman dead in their wake.
Also you ignored……
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/killer-gang-link-to-attack-on-candidate-1756659.html
I notice THREE times you have not answered my questions……I don’t need an answer, your silence tells it all.
How can nationalists say the RUC were, and PSNI are sectarian, given the nationalist terrorist group the IRA killed more catholics that anyone else during the troubles ??
This is a fact strangely ignored my many nationalists
Chris,
Did you see the article in the Belfast Telegraph today?
Police have said “no evidence” has been produced to support a allegations that a PSNI officer sent a text to loyalists shortly before Kevin McDaid was killed encouraging them to take action against Catholics who had put up tricolours.
Was it all a hoax then?
Big Maggie
You really let yourself down, after many attempts to point out that your language can cause offence, I now conclude you simply do it to offend.
There is no point going on with the argument, you are simply being obnoxious.
“I had heard of this bell ring in Coleraine being rang as a warming for all catholics to leave the town centre, did this really happen?”
@highlander: My feeling is that it was to tell people who didn’t live in the town proper to leave – I’d vaguely assumed because they closed the gates at night. But I don’t remember ever being taught that – it’s just an impression I had. I’ll look it up for you.
@highlander – sorry, I can’t find anything more exact. There’s a 19thC piece looking back to the curfew bell, which says it was rung for a century and a half – the only date it gives is when it mentions the bell would have been rung in 1642, so if that’s correct, it must have ceased being used as an actual curfew by the 19thC. (If I find anything more exact, I’ll post.)
My mum, who is old enough to remember the bell being rung, says no-one in the town thought anything of it – it was just a custom.
Doctor Who,
“You really let yourself down, after many attempts to point out that your language can cause offence, I now conclude you simply do it to offend.”
And this from the person who from the start subjected me to personal abuse!
Extraordinary. Such double standards.
It would have been a fine gesture had the local MLA, Gregory Campbell, attended the funeral. The message would have been: as a Unionist I’m expressing solidarity with the family.
Actions speak louder and all that….
Bi Maggie
“And this from the person who from the start subjected me to personal abuse”
Nonsense.
“It would have been a fine gesture had the local MLA, Gregory Campbell, attended the funeral. The message would have been: as a Unionist I’m expressing solidarity with the family.”
A Bit like Gerry Adams fine gesture Carrying the coffin of the Shankill bomber………….
Well actions certainly do speak louder……
What do you think Gerry’s message to the innocent protestant familes was Maggie ?
I didn’t really want to get involved in this conversation again however, Big Maggie, in the Northern Ireland context a loyalist is NOT NECESSARILY a Unionist. There are many people I know – including members of paramilitary organisations, ex-members of paramilitary organisations and ex-prisoners – who are definitely NOT unionist but are explicitly loyalist and define themselves as such.
On another point, I find it reprehensible that no political representative from the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist community made the time to attend the funeral today. More and more often I feel embarrassed by the individuals and parties that are meant to represent me.
“And this from the person who from the start subjected me to personal abuse”
Nonsense.
Posted by Doctor Who on Jun 01, 2009 @ 02:08 PM
Big Maggie
Oh! was it in joined up writing. I don´t think so.
As you can´t tell the difference between someone who claims to be unioinist as opposed to loyalist, I doubt then that you can comprehend most things.
Have you ever considered it is possible to be both a NI unionist and a British republican at the same time. Oh no I better not, to much for the big girl.
Posted by Doctor Who on May 27, 2009 @ 05:18 PM
Big Maggie
Keep taking the Prozac. If your “mate” is unionist and a republican, it kind of excludes her from being a loyalist. Two different things. Now if you remember that tomorrow buy yourself a few pastie suppers.
What you might think and what actually is are worlds apart Maggie, you offer nothing to this site and it´s about time you went back to interaction with the Teletubbies.
Sure what´s the point explaining that to the likes of Big Maggie and Paul who have closed sectarian minds.
Posted by Doctor Who on May 27, 2009 @ 07:38 PM
You and Big Maggie should link up. A Jack Russell and a salivating Rotweiller, you could sit and repeatedly watch “Religulous” together, and giggle endlessly because laughing at your own ignorance makes you feel better.
Posted by Doctor Who on May 27, 2009 @ 11:28 PM
HAAAAAA!! yes Paul ok you did “bested” me, but don´t tell fat maggie as she might get jealous.
Posted by Doctor Who on May 27, 2009 @ 11:51 PM
….
And that’s merely a few samples from a SINGLE thread.
“What do you think Gerry’s message to the innocent protestant familes was Maggie ? ”
No idea. Did it begin with “But what about…?”
Bill,
“There are many people I know – including members of paramilitary organisations, ex-members of paramilitary organisations and ex-prisoners – who are definitely NOT unionist but are explicitly loyalist and define themselves as such.”
Are there any Jesuits among them?
[i] Are there any Jesuits among them? [/i]
Perhaps I am more ignorant than I thought that I was, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you explain?
Bill
Yeah the Jesuit thing got me as well. She tends to spontaneously bullshit when she has no idea.
Big Maggie
As ive continuously pointed out that you have and continue to offend unionists and the people of Coleraine, pointing out a few tongue in cheek posts of mine will not change your ignorance.
Only you can open your mind.
Bill,
Apologies. I was a little obscure there. The Jesuits are notorious for the long-winded and never-ending arguments over trivialities:
You might not know the story behind this rivalry between the Jesuits & Dominicans. But, since it’s one of the great stories in Church history, I thought I’d give a brief summary.
In the sixteenth century, when the teachings of Calvin and Luther came to be more widely disseminated, it brought up some questions among Catholic theologians about the relationship between grace and free will. A particularly bitter battle in this vein broke out between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, the Dominicans holding the to what had been the more widely held Thomistic opinion, and the Jesuits proposing a somewhat altered view in hope of better answering the challenges of the Protestant reformers. The first phase of this argument, which began in Belgium, lasted from 1584-1588. In 1588, the matter was referred to Rome and Pope Sixtus V told them to stop arguing about it.
Evidently, the silence didn’t last too long and the controversy broke out anew in Spain, also in 1588. The Jesuit view was condemned by the Dominicans as being Semi-Pelagian. The Dominican view was condemned by the Jesuits as being too Calvinist. In 1594, the new Pope Clement VIII ordered the argument stopped again and began to investigate the matter, seeking opinions from several of the major universities. He even established a commission in 1598 to look into the matter. The superior generals of both orders were commanded to appear with their theologians before the commission the next year. A year or so of such sessions were held, with no resolution. Another series of debates began in the presence of the Pope from 1602-1605, sixty-eight of them in all. Clement died in 1605, followed by the brief papacy of Leo IX, and then Paul V became Pope. Paul V presided over seventeen debates.
Finally, in 1607, the Pope issued a decree which allowed each order to defend its own doctrine, demanded that they not condemn each other, and asked them to await a decision from the Holy See. The decision never came.
(I’m not a historian so the facts may not be exact–my sources might not be right–but I think you get the picture!)
My understanding is that this also ended in an agreement that upon the death of the general superior of either order, the living general of the other order would preside at the funeral mass. I think this may still be the custom today (but I couldn’t find an authoritative source on that).
So, when people talk about rivalry between Dominicans and Jesuits, it’s rooted in this little argument about grace which lasted 23 years and was never resolved!!
If the discussion regarding your use of the terms Loyalist and Unionist is trivial as you suggest, why do you continue to use the terms incorrectly?
Am I the only one here disappointed in Gregory Campbell’s poor showing?
Stop me if I’m wrong. You’re an MP and MLA for Coleraine. One of your constituents is beaten to death in a savage mob attack that also leaves another innocent man on life support. A pregnant woman is also attacked by the mob.
The murder makes the headlines at home and abroad and leads to serious questions being asked of the police force.
Is it not odd then that Gregory chose not to attend the victim’s funeral as a mark of respect to his murdered constituent and the family? Did he have more important business to attend to?
In any civilized country such dereliction of duty would be viewed as disgraceful.
Bill,
“If the discussion regarding your use of the terms Loyalist and Unionist is trivial as you suggest, why do you continue to use the terms incorrectly? ”
Er, it’s others who keep arguing about it. I’m quite prepared to leave it at “Unionist” and move on.
What do you think of Gregory Campbell’s dereliction of duty?
Perhaps it is others who keep arguing about it but it is you who appears somewhat unwilling to recognise that your use of the term is firstly, incorrect, and secondly, quite offensive to some people.
In relation to Gregory Campbell, I wrote in my first post today, [i] I find it reprehensible that no political representative from the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist community made the time to attend the funeral today. More and more often I feel embarrassed by the individuals and parties that are meant to represent me. [/i] I stand by this.
I think it is disgraceful that no political representative from the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist community was there to offer condolences to the family. I have no time for the Church as an institution but I applaud the Protestant clergy for being there, especially when politicians weren’t.
On another point, I find it reprehensible that no political representative from the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist community made the time to attend the funeral today. More and more often I feel embarrassed by the individuals and parties that are meant to represent me.
Posted by Bill on Jun 01, 2009 @ 02:44 PM
Bill, I find your posts to be amoungst the most reasonable.
No point in arguing. A fellow British citisen was murdered by a rabid mob, and now folks that identify with him are fearful, and can you blame them?
Right now, they are expressing themselves, as is their right.
If a family member is killed, his relatives are going to howl with grief. They may even say things that they know are not true, but one doesn’t try to reason with them during their all-too-human God-given irrationality.
Mom used to say, “Actions speak louder than words.”
It’s time for you, and others from the unionist community, to be the bigger man here.
And not just with this horrible murder.
When anyone aspires to be top dog, they are still a dog.
Submit word = fact
Maggie, you are a total embarrassment. Why do you continue on with the “Unionist mob” stuff? Wouldn’t offend you if people said that a Nationalist mob killed those soldiers and Masserene? Apart from that, you are letting people who are using horrible, diversionary tactics to avoid discussing the matter completely off the hook. In every thread about the murder of Mr McDaid, you’ve started this futile and ignorant argument. Act your age.
Majority of NI Protestants hate Catholics. End of .. there are a few who weren’t brought up with the idea that Catholics hate them and want to subject them to the same treatment meted out by prods against taigs. Maybe … but look at the facts, and the past, it’s clear to the whole world. Just the prods still think it’s “us or them, they would do the same to us”. Reminiscent of the Confederates. How long must we sing this song?
How long will you nurse this hatred of us indigenous people?
Cue whataboutery .. remember, we never landed on yous, yous landed on us!