Sammy Wilson’s #dupconf routine – complete with doubtful gags about SF’s Long Creche
Sammy Wilson’s speech was billed as ‘finance’, but was in reality his usual mid-afternoon comic turn to pick up the spirits of the delegates who were still in the hall.
You can hear the full 20 minute routine over on Audioboo (mp3 download).
In one section about 5 minutes in, he was commenting on the recent Sinn Fein Ard Fheis in Belfast’s Waterfront Hall. He referred to the crèche – labelled by Sinn Fein (rather than Sammy) as ‘Long Crèche’ – and tastelessly suggested: (mp3 download)
The babies were in cages, wrapped in blankets. They wouldn’t eat their dinner either – and you want to see what they did with the nappies.
Can you imagine, Ah wee Seamus’ dad would’ve been proud of him, 15 months, he’s mastered a dirty protest already.
Tasteless. And not in the spirit of the party leader’s speech.
Update – BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback picked up on Sammy’s comments at lunchtime (6 min 35 secs in) …
Decimus
I think it’s revealing about Wilson’s character and presumably tells us something about the character of what he regards as at least part his audience, that’s to say the party of which he’s a prominent and long-standing member. That it confirms for us that he hasn’t much of a sense of humour, well, that’s to say the very very least of it.
“They did it for reasons of hygiene.”
Yes extremely hygenic: I can see the World Health Organisation proposing it any day now.
As far as I understand the problem was that the prisoners refused to leave their cells to shower and were provided with wash hand basins: these refused to use and many of them they then smashed. Then they refused to leave their cells or empty their chamber pots. At that point they began their own unique form of modern art.
what is indecent about ridiculing terrorists who wallowed in their own filth? the only thing indecent is that we as a society endured their activities for too long
Nun,
The guy doesn’t like republicans and he finds their habit of er, muck spreading both disgusting and amusing. He likened it to the behaviour of incontinent cry babies. The joke may not have been side splitting, but what exactly was so bad about it otherwise?
The prisoners refused to wear prison uniforms, since prison uniforms are for criminals, a designation that republican prisoners refused to accept. So they were forced to live naked, with only their blankets across their shoulders to keep out the cold. The prison authorities upped the pressure by refusing to allow prisoners to leave their cells unless in prison uniform – so prisoners could not do so, even to use the toilet.
Eventually the prison authorities ratcheted up the issue by refusing to remove the buckets into which prisoners urinated and defecated. Faced with such extreme sanitary hazard, prisoners took the horrific but necessary step of smearing their faeces across the wall – had they left piles of shit in the corner, the prison blocks would soon have become pestilential cesspools and men would have started to die very quickly. By spreading it thinly across a wide area (ie walls and ceiling), the sanitary threat was dissipated, as much as it can be under such circumstances.
Prison authorities cleaned the walls only very rarely – usually when there was a TV crew around.
You seem to be under the impression that the prisoners positively chose to live in such extreme degradation, as if they were participating in some sort of nihilistic performance art.
In fact they were responding, as best they could, to the quite breathtakingly inhumane actions of the prison authorities and the British government. Her Majesty’s Government was prepared to do great evil within Her Majesty’s Prisons in order to break her enemies. Her enemies responded by suffering great evil while refusing, with a degree of will that must surely astonish anyone with a trace of empathy in their hearts, to be broken.
Mandela did not wish to live on Robben Island. Christ did not wish to be scourged at the pillar. The Blanketmen did not wish to live among their own bodily fluids.
In each case, these political prisoners endured the evil inflicted upon them by their captors, rather than surrender to that evil. That is the root of their enduring power.
those in the maze were worse than criminals – they were terrorists who should have been allowed to die in their own filth.
Decimus
‘…what exactly was so bad about it otherwise?’
That’s the thing. You just don’t get it, do you?
dennis the menace,
I disagree: the stuff on the walls was not able to decide what it was or how it behaved: the people putting it on the walls were able to make the decisions; as such they are worse.
Billy Pilgrim,
Even wikipedia, famously less than unionist friendly or impartia,l disagrees with your claims about the dirty protest. There you go: a project for this evening: why not modify the wikipedia entry to make it more to your liking. Revisionism on a Sunday evening: what could a republican find more fun.
The prisoners refused to wear prison uniforms, since prison uniforms are for criminals, a designation that republican prisoners refused to accept.
Billy,
Apart from when they wanted to take visits. Then they managed to temporarily suspend their principles. Indeed prisoners from the north west found that they could suspend their principles for a lot longer in order to get transfers to HMP Magilligan where ODC rules applied.
You seem to be under the impression that the prisoners positively chose to live in such extreme degradation
That is exactly what they did do. That’s why nobody outside of their own gene pool cared.
Billy Pilgrim,
I know you do not like me: nor I you but can I provide a word of advice.
Few people in the real world equate Nelson Mandella with the IRA.
However, almost no one (apart from yourself and a few true zealots) equate our Lord with the IRA. If you remember our Lord died to save sinners. The IRA committed sin by killing people. Even leaving aside Christ’s divinity the difference is stark.
When it gets to the stage that Wikipedia is presented as an anti-unionist conspiracy; and a comment that ‘they were shit,’ meets the reply: ‘no, they were worse than shit,’ it’s time to slowly back out of the room.
Goodnight gentlemen.
Billy Pilgrim,
Before you go: thanks for trying to equate our Lord with IRA terrorists: another good line to remind you of next time you claim to be a moderate.
That Irish Republicans can actually believe the nonsense reproduced above is on first reading astounding. However on reflection, given their routine ritual justifications for the heinous violence perpetrated by their ‘movement’ over the years, spinning the smearing of shit into an heroic act of defiance is simply power for the course.
If nothing else it sure makes me happy to be a unionist looking in from the outside, although I do confess to a tincture of pity for those who lead such delusional lives.
BP
“The prisoners refused to wear prison uniforms, since prison uniforms are for criminals, a designation that republican prisoners refused to accept.”
there we have it
The murder of Kathleen Eakin (Child age 9?)in Claudy was not a crime
The murder of Nan Davidson pensioner (68) in Coleraine was not a crime
The list continues the people who carried out these acts were criminals ” a designation that republican prisoners refused to accept
“So you’re content for a man of that intellect, witlessness and crassness being accountable for the Finance portfolio. Good for you. That tells us a good deal about how you think as well as what you think.” – Nunoftheabove
It tells you zero about me. But why be so coy? Feel free to ask for whatever you feel is essential information about me. I’ll tell you to mind your own business, of course…
Now, why do you feel an urgent need for other posters to share your disapproval of Mr Wilson and to express it in your terms, such that you solicit it with leading questions and then attempt to malign others who do not respond in the way you led them to respond? Are your seeking an authority in numbers that you lack in logic and fact?
Just as you are entitled to think – wrongly, as it happens – that Mr Wilson is an unintelligent dolt, he too is entitled to think what he likes about others and to express it.
As for being “content” or otherwise that Sammy is a minister in a foreign administration: I don’t vote in that jurisdiction or that particular constituency and, insofar as that jurisdiction competes with Ireland, I see a competitive advantage to it having an incompetent finance minister. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t.
Personally, I wouldn’t mock the dead, but that is just a discretion.
“Elected representatives have a duty to behave in a proper manner. Young Protestant lads in the north can see the finance minster talking like that and assume it’s acceptable, when it’s not acceptable from an elected representative in a normal society.” – Republic of Connaught
It is not acceptable to whom? Only to those with the discretion. His remarks do not violate any legal restriction on the right to free speech. If nationalists were interested in setting examples to youth, they’d be better served to refrain from electing mass-murdeers to public office and to refrain from glorifying criminals in assorted prisons.
[i]In each case, these political prisoners endured the evil inflicted upon them by their captors, rather than surrender to that evil. That is the root of their enduring power.[/i]
Although of the three examples, Mandela isn’t actually worshipped.
Alias
“It tells you zero about me” – I’ll be the judge of that thanks, unless of course you’re posing. Or lying – feel free to clarify if you wish.
“Are your seeking an authority in numbers that you lack in logic and fact? ”
Authority ? Numbers ? ! LOL, no, I’m curious as to whether there is anyone who feels no contradiction between articulating criticism of Wilson for his uncultured, cheap and demagogic remarks, and being entirely unsympathetic to republicanism. You’re not one of those willing or able to discern the difference, it seems to me.
You may wish to argue that Mr Wilson is other than an unintelligent dolt; can you perhaps help me identify the evidence for that with reference to these – almost certainly scripted – remarks though ?
Again, I would support his right to say what he thinks too. You continue to appear not to understand or accept the necessary distinction between defending that right and reserving and exercising the right to criticize what he thinks or says on precisely the same basis.
Well this thread really makes me feel positive about the future of Northern Irish politics.
Sammy Wilson’s comments are not in contradiction to the First Minister wanting members of the Roman Catholic community to join the DUP. Sammy made a joke at republicanism’s expense not against ordinary decent hard-working catholics, personally I think the term catholic unionist is an oxymoron.
[...] Northern Ireland’s Finance Minister, Sammy Wilson MP MLA, providing a warm up act at the DUP annual conference, I attended a panel discussion on “Fixing [...]
Barnshee
You hit the nail on the head. I can’t believe anybody would say that these murders were not criminal. The one that sticks in my mind the most is the murder of baby Tracy Munn in the early 70′s. She was killed by a no warning bomb planted at The Balmoral Showrooms on the Shankill Rd. A totally criminal, sectarian attack.
By the way, Sammy Wilson is a clampet!
Barnshee / Alan
I didn’t say I agreed with them. I said only that the prisoners did not regard themselves as criminals. You or I may disagree with that, but it was THEIR opinion, and all that followed – blanket protest, dirty protest, hunger strikes – flowed from that. That was the only point I was making, and it surely is uncontroversial.
One need not agree with the principle with which they started in order to understand the logic of everything that flowed from that principle.
This issue arose from the point, made by some posters, that the dirty protest took place because the prisoners wished to ‘impress’ some notional outside audience. I simply pointed out that this was false.
Billy Pilgrim,
“I didn’t say I agreed with them.”
However, you said this about them further up the thread
“Mandela did not wish to live on Robben Island. Christ did not wish to be scourged at the pillar. The Blanketmen did not wish to live among their own bodily fluids.
In each case, these political prisoners endured the evil inflicted upon them by their captors, rather than surrender to that evil. That is the root of their enduring power.”
You describe them as political prisoners who “endured the evil inflicted upon them by their captors, rather than surrender to that evil.”
Then when challenged you say that you did not say you agreed with them. You do not say, however, you disagreed with them.
Therein lies the moral bankruptcy at the heart of your position. You make comments lauding the terrorists then say you did not support them but equally do not condemn them.
Test italics off
Turgon-
” The I.R.A committed sin by killing people ”
Did our Lord committ sin when he killed a lot of Egyptian people at the red sea because they went after Moses and the Israelites-
Well this thread really makes me feel positive about the future of Northern Irish politics.
Just as well you wont find the future of Northern Irish politics in this thread.
Turgon’s imaginary Lord’s Da saw to the slaughter of a right few Amalekites too – maybe that was ok on the grounds that they weren’t, as far as we know, unionists.
And let’s not forget that Turgon’s Lord came not to bring peace, but a sword, according to his alleged chum Matthew, at any rate.
Once again, I see that BBC journalists are showing their complete incompetency over this issue.
Julian O’Neill on BBC Newsline tonight has boldly declared that the DUP vision is a long way off due to Sammy Wilson mocking Sinn Fein playing up their prisoner past.
Julian and the BBC, please send a memo to all your journalists to grow a few brain cells and realise that CATHOLICS AND REPUBLICANS AREN’T THE SAME THING. The entire concept of Irish Republicanism is incompatible with Northern Ireland working and deserves to be mocked wholeheartedly by the DUP.
Julian must also somehow seem to think that it is somehow abnormal or unhealthy in a democracy for political parties in to have jabs at their political opponents.
“Authority ? Numbers ? ! LOL, no, I’m curious as to whether there is anyone who feels no contradiction between articulating criticism of Wilson for his uncultured, cheap and demagogic remarks, and being entirely unsympathetic to republicanism. You’re not one of those willing or able to discern the difference, it seems to me.” – Nunoftheabove
Well, let’s hope you don’t get to set the questions in any survey other than your own, since your leading questioning was designed to solicit support for your own conclusion rather to solicit the conclusions of others, i.e. that Sammy is a “cheap, vulgar, crass, parochial, bigmouth disgrace.”
The reason you addressed it to those “unsympathetic to the aims, objectives or modus operandi of the hunger strikers” was simply to avert suspicion that your conclusion – the one for which you were soliciting support – was formed by your own prejudice and not devoid of the expected impartiality of the suveyor.
There is no logic or fact supporting your biased conclusion, and so you acted to seek support for it by a “show of hands.”
When in a hole, stop digging…
“You may wish to argue that Mr Wilson is other than an unintelligent dolt; can you perhaps help me identify the evidence for that with reference to these – almost certainly scripted – remarks though ?” – Nunoftheabove
Well, I can’t help you there. But I can refer you to the study of various IQ testing methods. None of them apply your, ahem, ‘scientific’ method for quantifying intelligence from a single sentence. Perhaps you have discovered the new method you would like to share or perhaps you are have sim[ply arrived at a conclusion with no supporting evidence for it?
“Again, I would support his right to say what he thinks too. You continue to appear not to understand or accept the necessary distinction between defending that right and reserving and exercising the right to criticize what he thinks or says on precisely the same basis.” – Nunoftheabove
On the contrary, you only support his right to say whatever you agree with; and you seek the support of others to condemn him when he falls foul of that idiocyncratic parameter.
Alias
My own prejudice ?! About what or who ? And why ? Why would I go to the bother of constructing a fairly readily understandable question if I simple wished to name-call ?
“There is no logic or fact supporting your biased conclusion, and so you acted to seek support for it by a “show of hands.””
What biased conclusion ? I asked a question, you’re the one who’s projecting here to a highly noticeable extent. It’s a stupid, cheap thing to say from an uncultured and unimpressive public figure. As a matter of fact I didn’t suggest that Mr Wilson was or is unintelligent. His remarks do rather suggest he can identify that many of his audience are lacking in intelligence and civility and that his failed attempts at humour are his attempt to identify with them on precisely that basis. You can deny that if you wish but lots of luck disproving it.
“you only support his right to say whatever you agree with; and you seek the support of others to condemn him”
I don’t need anyone else’s support do so, thanks; thus, if you’re as supportive of the right to free speech as I am then you’ll support me in offering my opinion or, in this case, the mere asking of as fairly intelligible question. I’d prefer to know what he thinks than not but I suspect this particular comment tells us more about Wilson and his relationship to his audience than perhaps conceivably he could possibly know himself. To try to explain this, for, oh, the third time though, if you can’t quite grasp that defending that right doesn’t indicate wholehearted support for what he says and that we should esteem public representatives who conduct themselves like street corner layabouts in their use of language then the IQ problem ain’t mine, kid.
If you don’t need support, why did you actively solicit it? Well, we’ve already answered that: you haven’t supported your claim that Mr Wilson is too unintelligent to hold the finance ministry based on his comment.
One other point about your intolerance of views that dissent from your own. It appears to be so extreme that you would like others who fall foul of your narrow parameter to lose their employment/career as a direct consequence of the transgression. Why else would you link Mr Wilson’s comment to his role as finance minister, implying that he should lose his job as a consequence of holding/expressing an opinion about the dirty protestors that you disagree with?
“So you’re content for a man of that intellect, witlessness and crassness being accountable for the Finance portfolio. Good for you. That tells us a good deal about how you think as well as what you think.” – Nunoftheabove
Given that Mr Wilson was talking about babies, perhaps you too should grow up?
Alias
I’ll support the claims which I actually make and the implications which go with them thanks. Those will be the implications I put on them though, not the ones you make up and endeavour to project onto me from within your fairly obviously parochial perspective.
Thanks again for the revelation on how you think. Tells us plenty, babe.
BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback picked up on Sammy’s comments at lunchtime (6 min 35 secs in) …
This retrospective melarkey about whether the IRA prisoners were criminals or POWs is a bit of revisionism gone wierd.
Here’s a bit of convoluted logic from Martin McGuinness In an interview during his Presidential campaign,
“In an interview with the Independent, he said the IRA
“was involved in incidents which resulted in the accidental killing of innocent people”.
Mr McGuinness added “the term used by the relatives of those people who were killed was that they were murdered”.
He said he wouldn’t disagree with that – a significant shift for Sinn Fein.”
Now, forgive me if I’m wrong, but ,in law, if someone is killed accidentally, it’s not murder and if someone is killed deliberately, it’s murder.
Martin has got it the wrong way round.
McGuinness needs to get his “Idiot’s guide to the Law” out.
Anyhow to sum it up, it’s not up to the prisoners to decide if they are criminals or not ,it’s up to the courts.
So there you have it, they were!
Nun, you might find this link helpful.
Alias
Many thanks. Colouring-in book, is it ? Crayons provided ? Is that your review, the one about how utterly unintelligible it all was for you but how you liked the nice shiny cover and so gave it three stars, a great big kiss and an extra large cute smiley sticker ?
Cheer up, xmas is coming and they might issue a special pop-up picture edition just for you. Let’s hope so.
Getting back to the subject – “Long Creche” – still think it’s very clever and funny [even if the Shinners came up with it and not Sammy].
As vanhelsing points out , the origin of the joke is very clever and funny .
There have been some classics down the years . ” Fourteen dead but not forgotten , we got eighteen and Mountbatten ” is another that stands out .
I can remember a Unionist politician cracking a joke about the N.I shooting team at a Commonwealth games .
You can of course spoil a good joke / punchline by laughing at it yourself first and you can totally ruin it by giggling like a little girl .
Thankfully Sammy Wilson did neither.
Surely the real story here is “chuckies made a funny”?
Surely the real story here is “chuckies made a funny”?
Intentionally.
Seems Sammy pandered to the lowest common denominator in the ‘disappointingly uncorrect politician’ (dup) category. Sounded like a sectarian Kevin McAleer. “It’s the way ya tell ‘em – Sammy!” Haahh, arragh! Did like the Blues Brothers raybans, though! Keep that image consultant on contract, she knows what she’s doin’. The papal joke you told Ali G was infinately better. Would get a hoot and a half, even ‘doin soith’. We may be fuckin’ Fenians down here, but were certainly no Taigs.