Slugger O'Toole

This user has not yet written a description

Latest comments from MonkDeWallyDeHonk (see all)

MonkDeWallyDeHonk has commented 104 times (1 in the last month).

1. Comment on Willie Flags Up An Interesting Question
   on 21 May 2012 at 11:53 am

   Dwatch

   “William Fraser may be a political nobody, as I am likewise. However, I don’t know how I would react today if so many members of my own family were murdered by the IRA during the time of the recent troubles”

   Yeah right. Like all right thinking people, I deplore all violence. It’s funny how Frazer is only interested in victims of Republican violence and is happy to make excuses for “Loyalist violence” – see his comment about “Loyalist” prisoners should never have been in prison in the first place re “Loyalist “prisoners being released under the GFA
   quote live on Radio Ulster.

   Likewise – he was turned downed for a firearms licence (twice) by a British Judge – because of his links with “Loyalist” terrorists.

   I was lucky enough to be a friend of the late Paddy McGurk – a decent man who didn’t trade on his loss to (RUC covered up sectarian “Loyalist” terrorism) and didn’t excuse or associate with any Terrorists (unlike your mate Frazer).

   I’m truly sorry for Frazer’s loss but (having lived in England for many years), he’s been exposed for what he is – a bitter hypocrite – only interested in condemning terrorism from “Catholics” but not Protestants – see Radio Ulster.

   Now he’s been exposed for his stupidity as well – exposing innocent Catholic school children to danger because of his ignorance about flags.

   Do you really think you would get away with that pathetic half assed “contribution” you made. The days of ‘Croppie lie down” are gone forever and people like myself will always point out the hypocrisy of Frazer and you – if you don’t like it, tough – pre 1968 was along time ago wasn’t it.

   Go to comment

2. Comment on Bell first DUPer to address Fine Gael ArdFheis…
   on 2 April 2012 at 2:46 am

   BluesJazz

   It’s also a fact that it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland but sensible people aren’t childish and make an issue out of that. Antamadan is right – Bell couldn’t resist a few digs at Ireland in the guise of outreach.

   I like the way relations have been strained purely because of PIRA terrorism – so 50 odd years of Unionist misrule, widespread discrimination and so-called “loyalist” terrorism had nothing to do with it then.

   I also agree with London_Irish – as an Economics graduate. I could write a thesis on the greed and stupidity that has reduced the Irish economy to its knees. However, I’m not too interested in being lectured by someone from the North. The UK economy would be a lot better off if it didn’t have to continually bail out the “wee pravince”.

   I guess that this is a step forward however I don’t think Bell was the best choice for the DUP. Trying to blame the IRA (and by extension Irish nationalists) for everything, making thinly veiled attacks on the Irish economy and trying to act as if the North was some sort of economic success story (instead of relying on British govt subsidies) was childish and painfully transparent.

   I welcome the progression of the DUP in recent months. However, they are a long way off attracting any Catholic votes and I don’t think putting people like Bell up as a spokesperson will advance that cause by one iota.

   Go to comment

3. Comment on Tom Elliott’s first post resignation interview…
   on 11 March 2012 at 5:38 am

   IJP

   I would agree that the majority of Unionists would be in favour of Unionist Unity. However, in the long run, I can’t see this benefitting the Union.

   As a moderate Nationalist, I have to laugh at the faith so many Unionists here place in the NILT “survey”. This was the same survey that concluded the SDLP had more support among Nationalists than SF – funny how that (clearly laughable) “fact” isn’t mentioned by those beating the drum for the NILT.

   I would accept that a greater number of Catholics than ever would vote for the Union – I also think that is largely explained by the economic situation in the Republic.

   However, in the medium term, say 20 – 40 years (as David Trimble foresaw) the Union will be dependent on Catholic votes.

   I truly believe that a large percentage of those Catholics who would be prepared to vote UUP would have a hard time voting for a United Unionist party that had the likes of Campbell and the McCreas in it. Peter Robinson is making some good moves and I applaud him for that.

   However, I believe the DUP Catholic vote is negligible (at best!) and not likely to improve while some of the current generation of DUP representatives stay around.

   A United Unionist party may benefit in the short term by gathering in some of the “Garden Centre” unionist votes but it would almost certainly nip any fledgling success with Catholics in the bud. In the medium or longer term, I believe it would prove to be a flawed decision.

   The big winners, in my opinion would be Alliance, they would pick up the majority of Catholic Unionists, now and in future.

   Go to comment

4. Comment on A Deja Vu moment from Dunphy to set up the summer
   on 3 March 2012 at 3:59 am

   Heinz

   Frankly I’d be amazed if the Republic get a point given the group they’re in.

   I’m not making excuses, I appreciate the fact that Trap got us through a tough group and I’ll enjoy all the Republic games – it’s nice to be there.

   Good luck with your bets – like all fans of the North, your only interest will be in picking another team to support since your team has as usual failed to qualify.

   I see your new management team is off to a flier. If I were you, I’d start thinking about which team to support at the 2014 World Cup.

   Your “Great British” pounds may be easily earned – well over 70% of them come from British subsidies – the late Harold Wilson summed up so-called NI Unionists very succintly.

   One good thing – at least fans of the North won’t have to lay out their easily earned “Great British” pounds on tickets to watch the North in Brazil in 2014.

   Go to comment

5. Comment on Newt hears echoes of Lawrence in PSNI probe of sectarian attack; UUP mixed messages exposed
   on 15 January 2012 at 10:31 am

   SonofStrongbow

   While I don’t agree with a fair amount of your post (although I do accept sectarianism is a two-faced coin) at least you have the decency and honesty to recognise this as a sectarian hate crime and condemn it as such.

   I’ll certainly take your word that the vast majority of Unionists would also do so.

   I’m afraid that the comments (and total lack of condemnation) from Decimus and Cynic2 while entirely predictable rather undermine your laudable stance.

   I’m afraid the the comments from McNickle are even worse.

   I’m a little surprised that anyone expected anything other than silence from the DUP – they haven’t changed that much!

   Their so-called Catholic outreach campaign is totally farcical.

   Go to comment

6. Comment on What if David Ford and the Alliance ruling council did walk away from justice? Allister? Agnew? Hay?
   on 13 January 2012 at 3:22 am

   AyeYerMa

   You’re a card – thanks for the Friday humour.

   Whoever gets the job (assuming it becomes vacant) has to have a degree of cross-community support.

   Across my Catholic family and friends, there are SF, SDLP, Alliance (and probably a couple of Conservative) voters.

   I can honestly say that even the most moderate of them (quite rightly) wouldn’t accept Allister.

   If he had his way, we’d go back to a pre 1968 situation (the “good old days” from an Orange perspective).

   His level of acceptance in the Catholic/Nationalist community is Zero. He is widely despised and completely distrusted.

   I sincerely hope that we are reaching the point where a moderate UUP or SDLP person could get the job (although I don’t think that we are quite there yet).

   IMO we are a long way off reaching a point where a DUP or SF would be acceptable cross community. Even then, there are certainly DUP people who will never be acceptable to Catholics/Nationalists (McCrea and Campbell spring to mind). Obviously and quite rightly Unionists would find certain members of SF unacceptable.

   As for Allister ever being accepted by the Nationalist community – there’s more chance of me replacing Lionel Messi in the Barcelona team!

   Go to comment

7. Comment on Can Irish soccer ‘swing’ both ways?
   on 6 January 2012 at 2:53 am

   Hopping The Border

   Even if some sort of compensation scheme were worked out (which I doubt). NI fans would want money paid to the IFA but somehow (given that most of them don’t seem to count it as poaching when NI do it), I doubt they’d see any reason for the IFA tp pay compensation when they do it.

   Go to comment

8. Comment on Can Irish soccer ‘swing’ both ways?
   on 6 January 2012 at 12:52 am

   SonofStrongBow

   I didn’t say that it was a protest against NI.

   The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Catholics/Nationalists don’t see NI as their team and will always support the RoI.

   However, had the IFA and NI supporters behaved decently towards Catholics fans/players in the past then there may be less of a rejectionist attitude from the Nationalist community.

   The fact is that they never saw the day coming when players would be allowed to exercise their right to opt for the RoI. Therefore, the IFA just stuffed GSTQ, Union Jacks etc down the throats of Nationalist players and fans. Now they are suffering the consequences.

   Frankly I couldn’t care less about NI. However, I believe that if they stick with GSTQ then they will continue to lose talent to the RoI. It’s the right of the IFA and NI fans to choose whatever anthem and flags they want – just don’t whinge about the consequences. If Nationalist players opt not to stand for GSTQ (incorporating No Surrender)as “their” anthem – they now have an alternative option so live with it.

   BTW, I’m sick of the hypocrisy of NI fans bleating about “their” players being “poached”. NI have a number of players they “poached” who have represented other countries at lower levels.

   It seems to be an issue when NI players are “poached” but it’s no problem when NI do it.

   Carlsberg don’t do hypocrisy – but if they did, it wouldn’t be a patch on the IFA and NI fans.

   Go to comment

9. Comment on Can Irish soccer ‘swing’ both ways?
   on 5 January 2012 at 9:16 pm

   SonofStrongBow

   “green prism of sectarian bitterness.

   Of course there is no history of “loyalist” sectarian bitterness at Windsor park.

   No UDA/UVF flags, no vile anti-Catholic chants, no Rangers and Linfield scarves (during the many decades that those clubs had sectarian signing policies).

   Throw that in with the rousing rendition of GSTQ (including the obiligatory “No Surrender”), the flaunting of the Union Jack, the booing of Catholic players and the odd death threat.

   I really don’t know what’s wrong with these damn Taigs – imagine opting for another team where the supporters welcome all players as long as they want to play for the shirt.

   BTW, please don’t bother with the shite about it always being a cross-community team and there was never any sectarianism at Windsor.

   I think you’ll find that many NI fans on “Our Wee Country” and those behind “football for all” – fully accept that NI support was rife with anti-Catholicism for a long time and, to their eternal credit, have tried to improve the situation.

   I always laugh when we get the deniers on from among the NI fans. It was a different story when players had no choice but to opt for NI if they wanted to play internationals.

   Now (despite the pathetic efforts of the IFA), they do have that choice.

   Perhaps if the IFA and NI support hadn’t behaved so abysmally for many years, they wouldn’t have such a problem attracting Catholic players now.

   Go to comment

10. Comment on Contradictory claims from former British handler?
    on 24 December 2011 at 3:58 am

    Alias

    “I am quite confident that everything I stated is true, or, on the preponderance of the evidence, more likely to be true than false”

    So what?, anyone could say that – in short you are offering your opinion. No matter how arrogantly you put it – it’s your opinion and nothing more.

    As someone else pointed out, you have a strong tendency to equate your opinions to facts – they are not.

    Your singular theme is Republicans/Nationalists = stupid (and a lot less to say on “Loyalist” terrorists).

    No matter how loudly and arrogantly you express your opinion, it remains your singular point of view

    You seem to throw your toys out of the pram because people don’t agree with your opinions. If you actually backed them up with real facts, you might have a case.

    The truth is that you don’t or more probably can’t.

    Go to comment