Friday, November 30, 2007
“It seems to me there is an arguable case..”
The BBC reports that Mr Justice Weatherup has granted leave for a judicial review of the withdrawal of funding from the UPRG-negotiated CTI project following a legal challenge by an employee of Farset.
Granting leave for a judicial review, Mr Justice Weatherup referred to the challenge to the minister’s authority to make the decision on her own. He said: “It seems to me there is an arguable case she made the decision herself without referring it to the executive.”
Which would appear to point us back to those disputed minutes of that Executive meeting.. and, no doubt, there’ll now be renewed examination of what was said at the time.
Pete Baker @ 03:56 PM
joeCanuck,
Well yes of course but to some in the outside world I think it looked like unionists were just as bad as republicans. Indeed Adams an co have become very good at the term “unionist paramilitary” which demonstrates how the loyalist campaign has allowed the IRA and its cheerleaders to try to tar all unionists with the one brush, just as they are trying to tar all nationalists with the brush of having actually supported the IRA.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 11:33 PMjoe,
Further failing on my part. I did not realise that if you type more than 5000 characters when you edit and re preview the page forgets your earlier changes. Hence the tying and grammar worse than usual.Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 11:35 PMTurgon, I take it all back your not Mark Durkan, you are Ken McGenniss with a spellcheck.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 11:39 PMI do prefer to be called joe.
I only call myself joeCanuck, mainly to distinguish myself from another Joe who occasionally comments.
Also it’s fair that people should know that I’m in self-imposed exile and my views should legitimately carry less weight than people living over there.Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 11:42 PMMekong,
Oh no I am a lot less liberal than Ken. Try this thread http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/anti-powersharing-party-pokes-head-above-parapet/
joe,
I think your views are always sensible and carry weight. They do that on their own merits. Your location is a very secondary indeed in my view an irrelevant issue.I am still a bit annoyed with myself about the 5000 characters and the typos. The corrected post was much better.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 11:47 PM‘One of the very reaons the IRA committed vile sectarian murders such as Kingsmills, enniskillen and darkley was to provoke a response from the loyalists so allowing the IRA to mascurade as the defenders of the nationalist people.’ - Turgon
really turgon is that so? so there was nothing happening in the weeks and months leading up to kingsmill? it was the IRA who were trying to draw loyalists into a tit for tat not the other way about. well im not sure if that is advocated in the ‘Green book’, but it has been been advocated by the british army in their colonial wars. i assume you have at least heard of General Kitson, if not read his rather unsavoury tactics and methods. after all wasn’t the miami showband gang lead by someone with a rather haughty english accent, Nairac. Unionism likes to dupe itself into believing the british govt would never employ such tactics on ‘british’ soil. Didn’t a kingsmill survivor also speak of hearing an english accent among their attackers? kinda makes you think doesn’t it?
‘The anti catholic discrimination etc. (which you and I probably agree was over hyped before 1969) had in large measure been removed by the mid 1970s. As such had Prods never retaliated for the murders by the IRA the world would have seen a peaceful, decent community attacked by sectarian bigots from within another community. Instead because of the loyalists the world looked on and said that both sides were as bad as one another.’-Turgon
amazing how a member of a community call readily say that oppression of another community was over hyped. i don’t think even FW deClerk had the balls for that one. oh and had prods never retaliated...??? it seems you have no grasp of the history of the troubles. who were the first people killed? who was responsible for the first death of a member of the security services? didn’t the uvf have the first bombing campaign with the aim of implicating the IRA. if the ira started the violence, what was with the I Ran Away taunt, reagrading the absence of the IRA? if the IRA started it all, why was the british army brought into to protect Nationalists?
Turgon you have just shown your true colours by posting such offensively inaccurate and i suggest, inciteful nonsense. I at least have the decency to state my basic position in my username, yet you put up a pretense, which has now been lifted.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 01:13 AMRepublicanStones,
The post you dislike is there for the stated reason, namely to get a young man who proclaims support for loyalist paramilitaires to think about the error of that position. To appeal to morality is pointless in such regard. To give a complex analysis of the troubles is pointless. One must address a person where they are. As such pointing out various grivances of the nationalist community and episodes of collusion (no matter how rreal any of them many be) is pointless.I knew the above post would incite nationalist anger. That is an unfortunate side effect of trying to debate with loyalist supporters at their own level of support for loyalism.
If a non-violent nationalist / republican was debating with an IRA supporter they would use a similar strategy. I make no apology for trying to persuade CL that his path is in error. If you are offended by what I have said I am sorry. It was of necessity short and simplified. One does not harp on about nationalist grivances when trying to explain why unionist grivances do not justify violence and indeed that loyalist violence was a not only a moral but also a political error. If I failed in this aim it was in my opinion at least worth a try.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 09:13 AMi had seen CL’s comment, i just thought you could have been a little more factual, so i’ll reciprocate and offer my apologies for losing it a little, though it angered me, your intentions were good.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 10:29 AMRepublicanStones,
In fairness it is not a great post. The corrected version as said above was better but due to stupidity and the late hour I failed to send the corrected one.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 10:52 AMRS,
The post was not even that late. Okay stupidity alone.Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 10:54 AMit seems Miss Ritchie is going to get egg all over her face
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:15 PMit seems Miss Ritchie is going to get egg all over her face
Posted by Truth & Justice on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:15 PM
How so?
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 07:36 PMMr. Chip - I guess Concerned Loyalist and Truth & Justice saw the skinhead, tattooed gentleman winking at them from the court gallery. From this they believe they know the result of a case whose evidence has yet to be heard.
I know this is cruel - but guys - the judge is the guy sitting in the big chair wearing a wig.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 08:37 PMForget all the c**p Richie did the right thing, and she should be applauded for it.
SF, DUP and the law will not change public opinion.
Posted by on Dec 02, 2007 @ 08:27 AMFrustrated democrat- you’re suggesting we should just ignore the law. All democrats will end up frustrated if Government Ministers ignore the legal consequences of their actions. What moral high ground is there over the lawbreaking thugs when you break the law yourself?
Posted by on Dec 02, 2007 @ 11:40 AMgordon
Sometimes the law is an ass especially if it was to be based on, at best, questionable minutes, this is one of those times when I hope the law as applied is not an ass.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:12 AMffs- Ritchie did the right thing but went about it unlawfully and thanks to her stupidity the UDA and their hangers on are going to get our tax pounds. The same result could easily have been arrived at without the danger of the High Court delivering a career killing judgement. One has to ask why Ritchie, her advisors and party (Alban BL and one time solicitor Atwood) didn’t see this coming.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:30 AMRitchie did the right thing but went about it unlawfully
Just because SF-DUP say so doesn’t make it true.
One has to ask why Ritchie, her advisors and party didn’t see this coming.
Of course they saw this coming.
However, unlike you, they understand what ‘this’ is.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 08:48 AMWouldn’t any contract have been one between the Government and Farset.
Does an employee have any right in law to challenge the completion or not of a contract between his employer and a third party.
I would have thought not.?Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 04:26 PMMekong: “the position of every sane person should have been that the UDA should get no money whatsoever, not even if they decommission in 60 days or longer, Maggie made the money conditional on decommissioning.”
Sometimes you have to play the hand you’re dealt, Mekong. You can’t shoot the moon every hand.
With the DUP trying to anything and everything to protect the UDA’s place at the trough, mayhap she thought it a reasonable compromise to bring in the two major parties—SF, rationally would have no ground to object and DUP could take solace in the jobs for the boys.
That said, given the joint membership between CTU and UDA/UPRG—a quarter of the staff, minimum, iirc—there are likely a few legal outs left for Ms. Ritchie.
Concerned Loyalist: “Ritchie’s decision was a points-scoring exercise playing to the nationalist/republican gallery.”
Only if you’ve been drinking the UDA / UPRG kool-aid, CL. You might want to check the polling data. IIRC, the approval rating for Ms. Ritchie’s move is far higher than this collection of mobsters and sock-puppets.
Concerned Loyalist: “It wasn’t only illegal, but was also narrow-minded and discriminatory against the deprived Loyalist communities this money was intended for, i.e. basically sectarian… “
Anti-hood is not Anti-Protestant, or even anti-Loyalist. A college-educated fellow like you ought to be able to grasp that, CL. As noted aboov, a quarter of the “professional staff” of CTI were UDA thugs or their UPRG sock-puppets, including Frankie G., the sock-monkey in chief himself.
If the UDA wanted this program to run smoothly, they should have done a better job lying about it.
Turgon: “Now Dread will not doubt take you to task on several issues but my business tonight with you is a little broader than usual.”
Truth be told, Turgon, I think stole most of my thunder, leaving me to point out the obvious.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:21 PM
