The Falls alight on Friday night…
From your roving reporter David Vance… Though it comes with little detail…
Tags: Society
Advertise
-
Books
-
“You can see Newton’s mind at work…”
To add to the open access treasure trove at the Royal Society, Cambridge University Library is putting online some of its collection of books, maps, manuscripts and journals. We have called the first phase of our work on the Cambridge Digital Library the Foundations Project, which runs from mid-2010 to mid-2013 and has been made possible [...] read our review » -
Kevin Myers’ ‘Watching the Door’: Book Review
This reads as if a mad picaresque tale. Myers as first a reporter for RTÉ and then as a freelance journalist with no real experience, finds himself wandering into savagery as he hastens north as the Troubles explode. A soldier dies next to him; he witnesses an IRA ambush; he sees children shot to death [...] read our review »
-
Do Words Matter?: Book Review of Political Discourse and Conflict Resolution – Debating Peace in Northern Ireland
I share many of the concerns of Andy Pollak, whose recent post ‘My Response to the Slugger Begrudgers’ zeroed in on the ‘relentless flow of negativity’ of some Slugger commentators. Pollak’s post was largely concerned with the medium of the blog. Indeed, I think the anonymity of the online world encourages extreme discourse and allows [...] read our review »
-
“I am pointing out that there is a negative side to blogging…”
Well, thank you for that revelation.
No JO
Percy with a few short but elegant questions had Dave admit that no one other than unioinists should be in government
Hi Sean, well that would be interesting to capture and preserve. I’m sure Percy can enlighten us.
Jo
Can we have a list of acceptable newspapers, magazines, TV programmes, websites etc that you feel are OK for us to look at.
In your own (or rather Civil Service)time.
Sean
“Got me to admit”? lol.
Listen, I believe in the Union and seek good government for all people here in Northern Ireland, first and foremost. I think that those who are committed to the destruction of the Union do not make ideal candidates for good government. Is that a surprise to you? Is that a shocker? Self evidently Sinn Fein/IRA do not. The SDLP continually fail to impress but perhaps under new leadership they may rise to the challenge of putting the interests of all of the people first and not the issue of trying to outgreen the Provos.
Jo,
Have you informed the NICS as to the amount of time you atre spending on the net in the time that we taxpayers are funding? I would be obliged if you do not respond to this unless you do so in your own time as I just can’t afford it. Savage cutbacks, y’know.
‘I believe in the Union and seek good government for all people here in Northern Ireland, first and foremost. I think that those who are committed to the destruction of the Union do not make ideal candidates for good government.’
So, David, is that not an admission that you don’t want to see Nationalists or Republicans in government? You don’t want an opposition?
Seimi
I think that Sinn Fein are utterly unfit for government. I can think of 200 good reasons. This is not an “admission” – I have said it since 1996.
I think the SDLP could be fit for government but only if they focus on delivery of what is best for the people of Northern Ireland as opposed to the “people of Ireland” drivel they tend to spout.
I don’t believe that good government can be delivered by parties diametrically opposed to each other, do you? How can there be a common agenda when the policies are entirely conflicting.
Mandatory power sharing is entirely unacceptable to any true democrat and if we then suggest that any replacement systems are based on voluntary agreement, that means that each Party must carefully consider what it wants to do.
“Mandatory power sharing is entirely unacceptable to any true democrat and if we then suggest that any replacement systems are based on voluntary agreement, that means that each Party must carefully consider what it wants to do. ”
And why would the parties agree under Voluntary agreement when they cannot agree under mandatory agreement,to which they have signed up?
The idea seems to be that parties don’t like being pressured into agreeing but if we give them space to decide themselves they would do just that.Ever get the feeling that people are free-riding and making excuses.
Unless,of course there a whole other agenda here.And someone is mad enough to believe that northern Ireland can be run as a democracy without one side ruling to the disadvantage of the other side on a continual basis.
I don’t recall such principled objection from this brand of democrat to the old Stormont system where Catholics were utterly excluded from power for fifty years.
Oh wait, there was the Wild Birds Act.
Silly me…there I was thinking that the “principled” objection to mandatory coalition was a veneer of sophistication over naked sectarian bigotry.
Guest
The point is simple. Political Parties should be FREE to decide if and with whom they will share power. The second point is that the concept of an OPPOSITION to the Executive is denied the people of Northern Ireland. Why should WE settle for such a miserable failure of a system such as that at Stormont?
Jo,
I hope you are on a break and I am not funding your revisionism of history. Now, in your spare time ONLY, have you the contact for me in the NICS so I can engage on the hate site allegation you made.
David Vance,
Why should we settle for such a miserable failure of the system at stormont?
first of all, I don’t believe that it is a miserable failure.
Northern Ireland is a miserable failure.And any political system will be made of the same miserable stuff-which makes mandatory coalition quite a success.
If political parties should be free to decide if and with whom they share power then why would they share power with parties who do not agree on constitutional matters.You may say that should be free to not share power with said parties,but then isn’t it fairly obvious that you’re suggesting that northern Ireland can be run by unionists for the good of all.That is not true.And you know it.
The right to an opposition is quite amusing when one considers that they unionists and republicans oppose each other on nearly every matter.One of the interesting factors in mandatory coalition which is often overlooked is that there is an executive which often disagrees with itself,and indeed does so in public.There is no whip;that most annoying political cholesterol.There is freedom for politicians that you will not find in “voluntary” government.
One may then argue that this freedom limits there ability to get things done.That is the problem with northern Ireland.Everything is worked on the basis of what is lesser of the evils.If you want good government why not sign up to be part of Germany?
Or is it all about the Union?
David I believe the exchange went like this but I am not tolling your archives from a year and a half ago
Percy: Do you think SF should be allowed in government
Dave: NO
Percy: Do you think the SDLP should be allowed in government
Dave: No
Percy: do you believe any nationalist should be allowed in government
Dave: No
David, whether you like it or not, Sinn Féin are in government. All you can do is accept that, and hope they all get voted out next time round, which is unlikely to happen. There are many on the Nationalist side who are opposed to sharing power with the DUP, however, there is nothing they can do about that either.
‘I think the SDLP could be fit for government but only if they focus on delivery of what is best for the people of Northern Ireland as opposed to the “people of Ireland” drivel they tend to spout.’
So, only if they agree with your viewpoint? That would make them a Unionist party then, wouldn’t it?
‘Mandatory power sharing is entirely unacceptable to any true democrat…’
Do you consider yourself a democrat, David? You fully support the Union, as is your right, but you don’t believe that those who, in your words ‘… are committed to the destruction of the Union…’, and there are many of them, should have ANY say at all in the running of this place. Strange definition of a democrat…of course, perhaps I read you wrong. Maybe you aren’t a democrat?
Guest,
If we believe the Belfast Telegraph poll, two thirds of people disagree with you that it is not a miserable failure.
Sean
Thanks for that – it sounds stimulating.
Seimi
Explain how a government consisting of those on the one hand seeking to preserve the Union and those dedicated to destroying it can work. After ten years, we know this model does not work so why would any sane person seek to retain it. It is mediocre in terms of performance, never mind the immorality of having an IRA godfather as co First Minister. It has failed and will keep failing UNTIL either it changes fundamentally or – if local refuse to work positively for Northern Ireland – is replaced by Direct Rule (and the awesome fear inducing “Plan B” that the DUP so wisely warned us about)
‘Explain how a government consisting of those on the one hand seeking to preserve the Union and those dedicated to destroying it can work.’
What is your solution? To exclude those ‘dedicated to destroying it’? Not very democratic.
‘After ten years, we know this model does not work…’
And the previous model DID work? How many people died under the previous model?
‘…never mind the immorality of having an IRA godfather as co First Minister.’
You have no such qualms about Israel and its leaders David. Double standards? As well you know, SF are the 2nd largest party here, and the largest Nationalist party at the moment. You don’t like it? Vote them out. Or at least, campaign for the SDLP. Oh wait, they aren’t Unionist enough, are they?
“.never mind the immorality of having an IRA godfather as co First Minister.”-
well,If we believe the Belfast Telegraph poll….
Seimi
The organisation that was KILLING the people you make reference to are now in power! Don’t you get the irony of what you are stating? Putting murderers, bombers and bankrobbers into government might ring your bell, doesn’t ring mine. It was wrong ten years ago and it is still wrong.
The Israel comparison – so beloved here on Slugger – is fatuous. Having had 6 million Jews slaughtered, I think the need for their State was moral and indeed entirely legal.
The IRA had no excuse for what they did and that justice remains unfilled is a disgrace.
Face it – the Stormont model has failed and will keep failing and you – and the others who cheer-lead for it – better start facing into this reality.
And that’s not me saying it – it is the pro-Agreement Belfast Telegraph.
Menachem Begin was a mass murderer and was Prime Minister of Israel.
‘The organisation that was KILLING the people you make reference to are now in power!’
The British government? Unionist parties? Oh. You mean Sinn Féin, don’t you? Cos they killed each and every one of those people didn’t they?
‘Having had 6 million Jews slaughtered, I think the need for their State was moral and indeed entirely legal.’
And the people they killed in getting that state? The towns and villages bulldozed, the people displaced? That was moral and entirely legal? Two wrongs don’t make a right, David. And having contributors to your site who proudly assert that they would like to piss on the graves of the people killed in Gaza really weakens your argument.
‘The IRA had no excuse for what they did and that justice remains unfilled is a disgrace.’
Replace IRA with British government, UVF, RHC, etc etc…
I happen to agree with you that one death is one too many, however my view is not so blinkered as to attribute all those deaths to one organisation.
‘Face it – the Stormont model has failed and will keep failing and you – and the others who cheer-lead for it – better start facing into this reality.’
I’m not cheer-leading for it David. It is deeply, deeply flawed. It needs changes. But it is part of a system which is still better than what we had. I know you don’t believe that, but I, and the majority of people here, do.
“…have you the contact for me in the NICS so I can engage on the hate site allegation you made.”
David
She won’t be giving you that contact because, as I pointed out, this morning neither the person nor the policy exists.
Seimi
You are a sensible and reasoned contributor here and elsewhere and I take on board your points but will not agree with any of them. The contributor before your 3.26pm post had better been on tea-break or we may need to enquire why those on the NICS have so much time on their hands, given their high salaries.
‘You are a sensible and reasoned contributor here and elsewhere and I take on board your points but will not agree with any of them.’
Fair enough, didn’t really expect you to David
It’s enough that you read and responded.
Don’t fawn, Seimi. Its unbecoming.
Fawn? It’s called manners, Jo. You should try it
Good manners and civil servants don’t mix.
Driftwood
“Good manners and civil servants don’t mix.”
That’s not true! The civil servants who charged me £60 for travelling at the reckless speed of 52mph on the A1 when a 40mph limit was imposed referred to me as their “client”. Surely that’s a sign of manners. Not sure what exactly it was they thought they were selling me.
BTW the speed limit was imposed to protect the road workers, who were conspicuously absent at 19.03, the time I committed my horrendous act of criminality.
Why they weren’t selling you anything, Fabianus, they were counselling you; instructing you that the speed limit signs really mean what they say and that, “Yes”, they also applied to Fabianus as well as to every other driver on the road. A nice lesson in the democratic imperative for which you might feel suitably grateful if also somewhat chastened.
Rory
You don’t get it. The speed limit of 40mph was imposed to safeguard the road workers, who asaik were there from 9.00 to 17.00. In any case they weren’t there when I drove that stretch of road. I was therefore driving safely and endangering no one.
Face it, my fine (and 3 penalty points) was simply a greedy council’s grabbing of easy money.
Stop it, Fabianus. You’ll have me on the brink of tears.
Here’s a little tip to help you avoid such crushing injustice in the future: THE SIGNS REALLY DO MEAN WHAT THEY SAY. Honestly, it’s nothing personal.
“…had 6 million Jews slaughtered, I think the need for their State was moral and indeed entirely legal”
If murdering 6 millions European jews during the 1930′s & 1940′s is justification for establishing a Jewish state in Asia………Shurely the murder of unknown millions of Irish catholics (plantations and penal laws, and artificially created famines, and just for fun) during the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s provides a much more powerful justification for an irish catholic state in the here and now?
‘Having had 6 million Jews slaughtered, I think the need for their State was moral and indeed entirely legal.’
Zionism predated the holocaust. Making a plan to steal someones land is not given retrospective legitimacy just because you get seven bells knocked out of you before you can execute the plan in full. And as regards legality, it was devoid of that also.
‘provides a much more powerful justification for an irish catholic state in the here and now?’
Ulster, Davids logic is self-defeating and he knows it. Your point regarding an irish state is actually more logical because the irish all come from the same place, language, culture etc.
RS
“Zionism predated the holocaust”
The Holocaust was the first documented persecution of Jews? What do you think was the driving force behind Zionism, pure racism?
Anonymous. it seems you haven’t read my post properly.
Can you see the quote in italics above the text you have quoted from me?
Zionism, which actually created the idea of a jewish nation/race sought to create a homeland for world jewry. There is no doubt that jews suffered persecution before the holocaust, but unfortunately for zionism there were no empty spaces left on the globe. But as regards zionism = racism, unfortunately the likes of Ahad Ha’am’s cultural zionism wasn’t the winning ideology. It was the political zionism of Herzl mixed with the labor zionism of Ben-Gurion et al. Unfortunately all too often zionist leaders revealed their rather racist tendencies toward the indigenous people of the country they coveted. And such racism extends today and can be regularly witnessed in statements and laws emanating from the Knesset.
“Anonymous. it seems you haven’t read my post properly”
No, don’t worry, I see exactly where you’re coming from RS.
Bottom line, you have no right as an Irishman and European to pass moral judgements on a people that you collectively have treated as shit throughout your and their shared history.
Anonymous you have a right to claim others have no right to speak out against immoral ideologies wherever they may originate from, just as those people have a right to be critical of those idologies. BTW i have never treated any Jew as shit.
And i like the way you lump world jewry in as being some unified collective who share the same views. Way to go.