Saturday, December 29, 2007
“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..
Pete Baker @ 08:30 PM
lib 2016,
“Their day is past. Roll on the next generation.”Since you are into the next generation: care to tell me what use you have for our children? Or do you fancy denying making that comment?
Posted by on Jan 01, 2008 @ 11:08 PMUlsterfan,
the constitutional blurring that has taken place post GFA/STA has in my opinion definitely weakened the union - there is now an institutional link to the south that Unionists are obliged to administer. But I would say that wouldn’t I?
Re. Sinn Fein - if they dont get their act together (e.g in Quinn case) they will hopefully botted up the jacksie by the Nationalist/Republican electorate.
Lib2016.
What I would like to see is truth tribunal/commission where the public could ask the Provos to justify some of their appalling choices of target without them trotting out the lame mantra of “it was Brits what made us do it”.
Clearly other combatants should also be included but for me as a Nationalist/Republican I would like to know why stuff I completlely disapproved of was carried out as a part of the ‘National struggle’.
Posted by on Jan 01, 2008 @ 11:31 PMSammy,
I wish you would change your name. I can’t be bothered typing out the whole thing and I feel a little bit silly calling you “Sammy” when you’re not. Or are you?
Posted by on Jan 01, 2008 @ 11:38 PMTurgon - please cool it - you are the funniest and friendliest poster on here. But we need to relate to all opinions. Myself I got absolutely mad with Concerned Loyalist and bitterly regret my observations to this day. It’s a new year, and a good one so let’s start again ?
Posted by on Jan 01, 2008 @ 11:44 PMjoeCanuck,
in this computer age cutting and pasting is your only man for long names.
But in emergencies (ie world wars) and church holidays ‘Sammy’ will suffice.
And talking of funny days has anyone ever heard of “Nollaig na Mna” - a post xams day where the female of the species gets to on the pop and quare fellah has to do the housework? Clealry a potentially dangerous custom which luckily only holds sway in Cork and other such rare places.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 12:12 AMDewi,
Flattery will get you everywhere. Even with dour Ulster Prods.You must remember Dewi one of the things I am about on this web site is demonstrating a hard line unionist position whilst trying to keep my personal bigotry to a minimum. I will not say I am not bigoted; I think there is some bigotry in all of us, there certainly is in me. However, I recognise it for what it is, namely a sin and try with the help of God to expunge it whenever it rears its ugly head.
I gave up politics in the late 1990s at least in part because I felt it had made me too nasty and sharp which I felt was wrong. I have said before that I stumbled upon this site by accident and post so much because of being away from home a lot.
You know that I regard the killing of people as awful. The idea of destroying a family, creating widows, widowers, orphans, childless parents is awful; but far, far worse in my view is the possibility of sending a soul into eternity before it might have had the opportunity to accept Christ.
As such on this site I attack the cheerleaders for terrorism pretty mercilessly. I abhor any position which gives any support to the criminal killers of either side. Incidentally I also have grave difficulties with anyone laughing at or celebrating the deaths of terrorists eg the hunger strikers. I can never feel happy that people died at Loughgall and the only SAS operations which really gave me pleasure are those like when the IRA sniper was captured when, I believe, the only injuries the terrorists suffered was one broken nose. Even then people spent wasted years in gaol for their foolish and immoral actions.
So I am sorry Dewi, I will not “cool it”. I will comfront, attack and annoy the cheerleaders whenever they raise their heads. In no way would I liken myself to my Saviour but I try to follow Him and He was not particularly backward in His attacks on the Pharisees “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?” Matthew 3:7.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 01:20 AMThe republican leadership has already said that targeting innocent people was wrong and that they regret all the deaths.
Further inquiries might take us a little further but I doubt that we would get much useful information.
As we saw during the ‘Bloody Sunday’ inquiry the secrecy oaths of the IRA stop them from giving useful testimony and the British sources not only destroyed what evidence they had but were also extremely mendacious.
The best one could hope for is emotional relief for the dead or injured and their relations. I’ve been attacked here regularly for my lack of insight into their grief so maybe it would be better if I asked you. Would digging up the past do more good or harm?
PS I know a couple of lowlevel republican excombattants who are extremely repentent - mostly because they felt they had strayed from the ideals of Tone and Emmet. They still wouldn’t break their oaths of secrecy.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 02:19 PMlib
If they would not break their oaths how could they be repentant?
Is killing in the name of Emmet or Tone acceptable but reprehensible in the name of Pearse and his successors in PIRA.
Lets repeat once again for all the world to hear “ALL KILLING IS WRONG”Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 03:01 PMUlsterfan,
Of course I agree wholeheartedly - all killing is wrong.
On the subject of republican volunteers who may repent certain actions I know only that there seems to have been an incredible cameraderie amongst them. They regard me as much of an outsider as any unionist would. Maybe there is a lurker who could tell us more.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 05:21 PMulsterfan,
You of course expose the truth behind what passes for SF/IRA “repentance”. To you and indeed practically all normal people this definition of repentance is pretty appropriate.For that genre of republicans they may regret the fact that people died. What they mean is that they regret the fact that they (the IRA) “had” to kill people. They regret the fact that unionists / Brits / whoever were so unreasonable and resistant to change etc. that the IRA had to torture and murder them.
If a nationalist points out that their regret and repentance are a sham and a lie then they can be denounced as having a political anti SF agenda. If a unionist rejects their “regret” etc. it shows that the unionists are flat earth bigots and shows why sadly the IRA “had” to kill people. And of course the implicit subtext is that if circumstances changed some republicans might “have” to go back to killing people. Such is the nature of the lies and spin with which SF presents us.
Looking at lib’s comment “Of course I agree wholeheartedly - all killing is wrong.” Yes it looks impressive but what is not being said is that some killing was sadly unfortunately and distressingly necessary. I need not provide any of the numerous citations which demonstrate that lib’s view of the wrongness of killing is entirely dependent on whether or not his mates were the ones who “had” to do it.
Of course the idea that there is a camaraderie amongst violent killers is hardly surprising. Peer group pressure is a good way to keep people who have done such things together and motivate them to do more such evil acts. I know it offends against Godwin’s law but the SS had a famous esprit de corps. Camaraderie amongst criminal thugs and murderers is not something to be lauded it is rather something to be held in contempt.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 06:03 PMLib.
I think it would be extremely benefical if there was a tribunal/commissioin that gave the IRA an opportunbity to explain for example their justification for their ‘legitimate targets’. This would not require individual members to provide information about their involvement - after all they were following orders, but rather offer Sinn Fein ( or IRA members) the chance to explain how targetting included off-duty or retired memebers of the security forces or exactly what was going on at Eniskillen. Simply issuing a blanket statement is not good enough in my view. This would undoubtedly clarify a number of aspects of the campaign and examine the influence (if any) of sectarianism. It should not just be a statement but give the relatives of Le Mon (or their legal representavites ) for example a chance to challenge the evidence that it was a ‘mistake’. This process would be both painful for Unionists who would have to listen to the IRA describing their actions in ‘military’ terms but also painful for Republicans who would have to answer the charges of their campaign being ‘sectarian, ‘murderous’ etc.
Of course Slugger provides a platform for this type of debate - and I suppose a web based medium that took ‘expert opinion’ and allowed submissions from the public might be a half way house to a full tribunal.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 07:18 PMitSammywdi,
Can’t argue with any of that, though the years seem to be sliding past and there seems to be less and less chance of any such Tribunal happening.
One thing which have to happen before any such a Tribunal could begin is that ordinary police and soldiers would have to be given the same sort of legal protection as republicans.
Only if government forces were going to be subjected to the same sort of questioning would there be any possibility of republicans co-operating and to be truthful I still think they would prefer to remain silent.
There are, as shown all too often on this board, enough people trying to put their own words in other people’s mouths. Why give them the chance to whip up more hate?
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 08:23 PMSammy
You are too ambitious and hoping for a lot to think that Slugger could act as a surrogate tribune of inquiry.
A good idea but can you see participants baring all for scrutiny and judgement?Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 08:24 PMUlsterfan,
I have to confess to a mild technical interest in a ‘structured’ debate via the internet.
p.s. Williams would not appear to be the wisest of choices.
Lib.
The hate in my opinion lives on because things are NOT debated and ideas/misconceptions NOT challenged.
Perhaps Slugger could offer this as a topic - but not sure if this has already occurred?
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 08:41 PMLib,
Just to acknowledge the kind thought behind this comment:
“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.”
So long as we continue to use secret balloting rather than caucusing Iowa style, I prefer to keep my constitutional politics to myself.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 05:56 PM
