Saturday, February 25, 2006
News special on RTE Radio One at 6.30pm
Newstalk has suspended sport and is just covering the riots. RTE is doing a special round up at 6.30. Latest figures: 40 arrested; 14 brought to hospital, 6 ofthem Gardai.
Mick Fealty @ 05:19 PM
40 arrests suggests that a considerable dent was made in the number of the est. 200/300 who were there creating this trouble - let’s hope prosecutions and jail terms are brought for every single case. Great job there by the Gardai.
While I would like to see more people getting behind the Gardai on this it is heartening to see how both nationalists and unionists are singing more or less fromt he same hymnsheet on this. Gerry Adams and Alban M are out defending the right of the FAIR group to have it’s march peacefully - this is surely postive. Equally, instead of using the opportunity to attack the RoI, Jeffrey Donaldson praised the warm welcome from “ordinary Dubliners” and rounded on the fact that the troublemakers had come down from the North.
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 05:57 PMIt sounds like it was considerably more than 200. As others have said on other threads it was a lot more than simply RSF supporters who organised the action in the first place.
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 06:01 PM‘Jeffrey Donaldson praised the warm welcome from “ordinary Dubliners” and rounded on the fact that the troublemakers had come down from the North.’
Mealy mouthed words from Donaldson will not shadow the fact that he and this paramilitary related group pushed ahead with this deliberately provocative coat trailing exercise.
Once again their insistence on their right to march has led to violence. As usual these people light the blue touch paper, then walk way and shrug their shoulders once the trouble starts.Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 06:41 PMPat.
You’re coming across like the kind of person that thinks any woman wearing a short skirt deserves it if she gets sexually molested.
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 06:47 PMOnce again their insistence on their right to march has led to violence.
Pat, I think you’re on your own here. Everyone agrees that the Love Ulster idiots had a right to have their demonstration, including Sinn Fein; not one organization other than RSF has issued a statement this evening blaming that group.
By the way, when there were riots instigated by loyalists following civil rights demonstrations in the 1960s, the Stormont government blamed the trouble on the civil rights movement. I guess you could say that the civil rights movement was provocative; subsequently they banned civil rights marches on that basis. We’ve been down the road you seem to be advocating already, and I don’t think we should go there again. People with provocative views must be allowed to express them in a functioning democracy.
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 06:52 PM‘You’re coming across like the kind of person that thinks any woman wearing a short skirt deserves it if she gets sexually molested.’
Puerile stuff that is unsurprising.
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 06:52 PMI’m sorry if you feel that way Pat.
But I stand by my comments about the type of argument you are trying to advance.Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:01 PMAnswer the points raised Pat.
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:01 PM‘Pat, I think you’re on your own here. Everyone agrees that the Love Ulster idiots had a right to have their demonstration, including Sinn Fein; not one organization other than RSF has issued a statement this evening blaming that group.’
If you read the other threads carefully you will see that I too said these people had a right to their march. That does not negate the fact that it was deliberately provocative for a group that was launched in the presence of (and with the support of)senior UVF and UDA figures to insist in coat trailing through a city that didn’t want them.
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:04 PMSRR,
what points?
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:07 PMoul school! and not a mini-skirted slapper in sight
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:07 PMjayzus comrade you took the words roight outa me mout
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:10 PMPat :
That does not negate the fact that it was deliberately provocative
So what ? Isn’t that allowed ?
I doubt you would let anyone get away with saying that Burntollet was the consequences of provocation. So why are you trying to pull the same crap ?
for a group that was launched in the presence of (and with the support of)senior UVF and UDA figures to insist in coat trailing through a city that didn’t want them.
The city didn’t want them ? Can you explain how you worked that out ? Do you mean to say, or have I misunderstood, that you think the rioters the voice of Dublin ?
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:23 PMPat, one further point :
If you read the other threads carefully you will see that I too said these people had a right to their march.
Yes Pat, but you also said :
Once again their insistence on their right to march has led to violence.
.. which could be a sentence more or less straight out of the mouth of Bill Craig. If you accept that people have rights, why would you suggest they avoid exercising them ?
Consider a person (such as one of the several unionist politicians in the East Antrim area) who might tell the priest up at Carnmoney Cemetery that his burial blessing was clearly provocative and led to violence. The facts are indeed there; loyalist thugs wearing hooded tops complain of the provocation; and the violence is there for all to see. Would you say that was a person who respected the rights of the priest ? Or would you say it was a person working to undermine them ? What would you say if someone suggested that the rioting showed that the cemetery did not want the ceremony to take place there ?
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:34 PM‘So what ? Isn’t that allowed ?’
Of course it is allowed but the possible consequences have to be pointed out. Republicans could insist on their ‘right to march’ along the Shankill and by the scene of the bombing at Frizzells. Would such a parade be benignly received? It wouldn’t and it shouldn’t.
‘The city didn’t want them ? Can you explain how you worked that out ? Do you mean to say, or have I misunderstood, that you think the rioters the voice of Dublin ?’
You have misunderstood
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:35 PMCS,
your attempts to link firstly the Civil rights movement and secondly ordinary Catholic worshippers with a group launched by unionist paramilitaries is bizarre.
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:39 PM‘The city didn’t want them ?
So what’s this United Ireland I’ve been hearing so much about then?
Is it envisaged as some type of apardheid Republic?.Because that’s the distinct impression I get from some of the comments on Slugger.
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:41 PMComrade, if the Pats of this grand wee island are now abusing *other folk* for their ‘paramilitary related group’, well think on the progress we’ve made. Gentlemen, charge your glasses: a toast to John Hume and the Peace Process: hip hip!
Posted by on Feb 25, 2006 @ 07:43 PM
