This user has not yet written a description
Blue Hammer has commented 238 times (0 in the last month).
Gillespie is a leading member of a Police Service which is perceived to do nothing when presented with actionable, filmed, offences by republicans, but can’t act quick enough to bring spurious charges against Loyalists.
Would beg the question, why? I think we all know.
Go to comment
Calm yourself FO
As a “planter”, I am happy to utterly condemn this gang and call for the full weight of the law to fall upon them where evidence exists.
SOS nailed it just as I was typing.
Interesting that your whataboutery is good, yet mine is bad. Read much Orwell do you?
I have been quite clear in my unambiguous condemnation of the Robinson marches. He chose to kill an innocent man and got his just reward courtesy of our brave armed forces. He should be held in contempt, not memorialised as any kind of hero.
Coleraine likewise. Unambiguously condemned.
If it’s not simply about a single drumbeat at 9:00am on a Saturday morning, what, pray tell, is it about if not keeping Orange feet off a main road?
I seriously doubt you have any links to the OO, as your disparaging remarks show no grasp of the Loyal Orders or what they stand for.
There’s a disproportionate number of Etonians in Westminster. So what? It’s not illegal. Or do you want to ban Eton now too?
It’s about no orange feet near “Ardoyne”. Getting your own back for the fabled 50 years of unionist misrule.
And in the interests of your “shared future” bollocks, sure why not commemorate mass murdering child killer Thomas Begley on the 20th anniversary of his vile atrocity, and why not do so within a mile of the site of his act of infamy? That act which was definitely more anti-Protestant than it was pro-UI.
You know nothing of the OO and nothing of its raison d’être.
How is it whataboutery to comment about what others perceive to be a disproportionate incidence of OO membership in the higher echelons if unionism?
Membership of the OO is entirely legal, and hardly secret given tha nature of the organisation. Not one elected OO member has a terrorist conviction.
Membership of PIRA is, by contrast, illegal, and none of that organisations deeds were planned in public. Your army of Ireland was such an exclusive band of heroes that it’s membership numbered much less than the OO, yet they make up around the same number of MLAs than the OO does.
In conclusion, membership of a religious/cultural group should be no bar to political career. Membership if a sectarian murder gang should.
Well indeed. OO membership is no secret, and nothing to be ashamed of. PIRA membership, aside from that proven in the courts, is harder to ascribe, but I’d be confident that a significant proportion of SF’s assembly members didn’t “dodge the draft”.
Better being bored by OO, than gratuitously offended by PIRA. The latest intentional offense to be foisted on civilisation by these vermin is the Thomas Begley memorial, just announced for the 20th anniversary of the Shankill bomb. This from the people offended by a single drumbeat at 9:00am on a Saturday morning.
“But of course the big thing, Morpheus, is the matter which you identify. An organization whose members comprise a tiny fraction of NI’s population is ludicrously over-represented in Stormont. Is that fair?”
Indeed, I would agree that PIRA is disproportionately represented in Stormont. Smashing it from the inside out? And a lot more dangerous and offensive to common decency than the OO I’d contend.
No. All of Stone’s victims were just that – victims. Mr Brady’s PIRA membership did not lead to his death apart from placing him at the scene where he was attacked.
Now, had the funeral been, say an RUC one, and Mr Brady acting in a PIRA capacity attacked it and as a consequence been shot “in action”, I would not then class him as a victim.
A reasonably clear distinction.
I think Barnshee is responsible for the “excellent explanation”, but I am happy to echo his comments.
No one can rationally argue that those killed on Bloody Sunday or in Milltown or any of the losses of life related to the Troubles, and indeed their relatives, were not victims. The arguable point is to what extent they contributed to their own victimhood.
I’ll leave it there.