Bonfires, flags and murals

Here, as change is often incremental it is not always noticed. The BBC examines the changes to the bonfire tradition. Overall the number of bonfires are down, more sites are properly managed and the number of paramilitary displays has been declining. The one which attracted the most attention last year, Pitt Park (East Belfast), this year will have no paramilitary display and will be reduced in its scale. Paul Hoey of the Crown Project points out:

“We’ve come a long way over the last 10 or 15 years. There was a bonfire on every street corner, now we’re down to a small number of bonfires that are organised and, I have to say, pretty well organised.”

In Larne they have a early planning process:

“…we’ve been meeting for several years now all the bonfire organisers plus statutory agencies from very early on to talk about issues.”

In Donaghcloney the bonfire is so small now it is largely symbolic with an Ulster-Scots festival ran instead. One County Antrim village is considering introducing a beacon. Although an Ulster version of this Spanish event still appeals to me.

On the issue of paramilitary flags and it is also worth noting that independent surveys about the display of loyalist paramilitary flags have shown a consistent drop in the number put up. In East Antrim, a flags and emblems protocol has been developed. It aims to have flags:
1. To negotiate the limited display of UVF and YCV 1912 flags solely during the period of school holidays.
2. Find fixed sites (away from mainroutes and junctions) for the Union flag to be displayed throughout the marching season and UVF and YCV 1912 flags to commemorate the Somme and Ulster Day (28th September) rather than lamp-posts.
3. Flags put up for a parade to be up for a maximum of seven days.
4. Organise the removal of tattered flags.

With murals it aims to negotiate the “permanent removal of murals depicting armed men from the present conflict, excluding memorial murals, with a view to erecting cultural murals in their place.”

In the Village area of Belfast in the past six weeks 3 UVF murals have been replaced by one historical and two sporting murals.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    TAFKABO

    “If all the concerns raised here are genuine, and not just as some of us secretly fear, another prod bashing excercise, then why don’t those who express these concerns try to offer some solutions that allow for the concerns to be met and this form of cultural expression to continue?”

    I made a few suggestions earlier today. Page 2, my 2.50 post. I’d be interested to hear what you make of them.

  • Proud

    No harm to anyone but I think it’s going a bit far to expect people living on the ground to take demographic shifts in population into account when they are dumping wood for a bonfire on their local bit of wasteland.

    I don’t think the argument that a formerly majority loyalist area has become predominantly Catholic would really affect bonfire placement in those circumstances, if anything it would make loyalists locally more determined to reassert themselves. I’m not arguing either way on this, simply pointing out what I believe would be the likely outcome.

  • Bemused

    El matador, Billy Pilgrim et al. Sorry to say it bu judging by the evasive waffling of TAFKABO and Fair Deal you’re both wasting your time on this one. Annadale is an utter fucking disgrace. The dogs on the street know it (they ought to – it’s where they forage for their dinner most evenings). The pathetic antics of Fair Deal in particular merely confirms the utter bankruptcy of aspiration and intellect within Northern loyalism.

  • TAFKABO

    Bemused.

    evasive waffling ?

    Waffler I may be, but don’t flatter yerself that I ever feel the need to evade you or anyone else here.
    How many times have I aknowledged a problem with bonfires on this thread?
    How many times have I agreed that there needs to be a solution to the problems raised?
    Didn’t I concur with the person who lived in the vicinty of the Annandale embankment?

    What exactly do you mean by the use of the word evasion?

  • Proud-

    I agree. But it just raises an additional issue which unionist leaders ought to take into account.

    Either way, the ones who organise the Annadale bonfire are likely to want to assert their authority over the area.

  • fair_deal

    BP

    “I have referred to a specific example, rebutting your thesis.”

    I never claimed the progress on these matters was universal or evenly spread e.g i said “more sites are properly managed” I did not say all “the number of paramilitary displays has been declining” I did not say they had stopped entirely. Your specific example thus disproves nothing as I didn’t make the claim you imagine I did in the first place.

    “Why won’t you discuss that specific example? Or even say whether or not you are familiar with it?”

    Tell me what part of “I don’t like badly managed bonfire sites” you don’t understand? There is something called logical application of a consistent principle. I don’t like badly managed bonfire sites ergo…

  • Bemused

    TAFKABO “If all the concerns raised here are genuine, and not just as some of us secretly fear, another prod bashing excercise, then why don’t those who express these concerns try to offer some solutions that allow for the concerns to be met and this form of cultural expression to continue?”

    Had you actually READ any of Billy’s posts you’d have known that he and others have been suggesting solutions all day. To write off the general thrust of this thread as a ‘prod bashing exercise’ without apparently having read it is the pits.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Proud

    “No harm to anyone but I think it’s going a bit far to expect people living on the ground to take demographic shifts in population into account when they are dumping wood for a bonfire on their local bit of wasteland.”

    You’re right, but surely you’d agree that it’s an issue that is going to be forced, sooner or later? The fact is that realities on the ground in Ballynafeigh HAVE changed utterly loyalists are now in a minority in the area? They are outnumbered, yes by Catholics, but overwhelmingly, by people of all faiths and political persuasions who view this bonfire – and indeed the festooning of the area with flags, as we saw last year and no doubt will see again very soon – as (in Bemused’s inimitable phrase) an utter fucking disgrace.

    So we have a minority that uglifies and ghettoises the area for several months of the year, intimidating other residents and harming their property and property values. Yes, I can understand that those building the bonfire would prefer to pretend that nothing has changed, but the truth is that things have changed. Something will have to give.

    “I don’t think the argument that a formerly majority loyalist area has become predominantly Catholic would really affect bonfire placement in those circumstances, if anything it would make loyalists locally more determined to reassert themselves.”

    You may be right, which suggests to me that at some point in the future, conflict of some sort seems inevitable in the area, unless the problem can be contained by strict regulation and stiff penalties for transgressions. (See again my proposals earlier.)

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Fair Deal

    Tell me what part of “I don’t like badly managed bonfire sites” is specific to the instance I have repeated tried to discuss with you?

    “There is something called logical application of a consistent principle. I don’t like badly managed bonfire sites ergo…”

    But you haven’t said whether you regard the Annadale Embankment as a “badly managed site”, or even whether you are familiar with it. I have asked many times. You have not answered.

    Look, I’ll just ask you this – a yes or no should suffice: are you familiar with the situation at Annadale?

  • TAFKABO

    1. Public money should not be used to repair/replace nearby PVC windows / drainpipes etc when they are melted. The Housing Executive should discontinue its practice of replacing them annually. Nor should minor and residential roads destroyed after the tar is melted be repaired.

    A stupid suggestion.Why not say that people who are assaulted should be denied healthcare unless they stump up the funds?

    (Communities must be challenged to either come up with non-destructive ways of celebrating their culture, or take responsibility for their choice to destroy their own areas and homes.)

    Shit, that’s a whole discussion right there.Who and what delineates ‘community’?
    Isn’t Ballynefeigh a very mixed area?
    At least it was two years ago when I lived there.

    All bonfires should be licensed events.

    A pointless statement, put it up there with “No one should break the law”.

    There should be a limited number of bonfire licences available, and sites designated subject to planning permission. As with any planning applications, local residents would be entitled to object. Each application would be assessed on its own merit.

    See my last point.

    Bonfire licences should be granted only to named individuals, with whom sole responsibility would lie. The licensee would be regarded as effective proprietor of the bonfire site for the period specified by the license (ie a period of material-collection prior to the bonfire followed by a clear-up period. So, for example, the most common licence might be from, say 20 June – 14 July.)

    See my last point.

    The licensee would be responsible for everything that takes place on the site – eg paramilitary paraphernalia, illegal or underage drinking, drugs, assaults, the presence of illegal weaponry etc. Of course the perpetrators, if identified, would also face the penalties laid down by law.

    On the night itself, the events should be as closely policed as a football match at Windsor – after all, there is a much-documented prevalence of drink/drug-fuelled anti-social behaviour and violence at such events, not to mention paramilitary “shows of strength”. Surely no law-abiding citizen could object to police being present, ensuring that law-abiding citizens could enjoy the spectacle?

    I agree, they SHOULD be policed at this level, but logistically it is not possible to police them at this level.

    The burning of all effigies, flags and paraphernalia relating to an identifiable group of people should be punished by criminal proceedings under existing hate crime legislation. Burning of the Pope, tricolour. election posters, Union Jack etc clearly constitutes criminal behaviour.

    No, it’s an unworkable law and breaches peoples basic human rights.Burning flags is as importatnt a right as the ability to fly one.

    The licensee should be regarded as being responsible for any such crimes, unless it can be demonstrated that identified others carried out the crime, against the best efforts of the licensee.

    See above point

    In such circumstances the licensee should be disbarred from applying for future licences. Bonfires at the site should be suspended for one year, and no alternative site in the area may be considered.

    See above point.

    Would anyone object to these provisions? If so, why?

    Yes, I strongly object on the grounds that you presume the law is there to be administered by the few who know better than the many.
    Remember that whole Democracy deal?
    All those Chavs may grate on your and my nerves, but their vote is just as valid as either of us.

    Frankly, I find it hard to disagree with the stuff people say about the bonfires, but I rather live in a world where they existed as they do now, than a live in your Nanny state.

    you simply cannot legistlate in the manner you propose, it would be unworkable and counter productive.

    Remember that litte event back in the olden days, when a certain individual tried to stop a solitary tricolour from being exhibited in a shop window?

    Well look what happened there and imagine a situation where the number of bonfires were exponentialy increased in a similar fashion.
    If you don’t believe that this would be the effect of your legislation, then you don’t understand loyalists.

    Let me put it another way.

    You have before you the carrot and the stick.
    You must choose one or the other.

    Take my advice, go for the orange solution.

  • Proud

    El Matador – fair point. I think a lot hinges on the ability of loyalism in general to learn from past mistakes and play the game a bit more, NI’s Although that’s been the case for a long time now…

    Still, if these latest moves are indicative of a general shift then all the better. The momentum needs to be maintained though, hopefully with the backing of local authorities.

    To me loyalism has two choices on the issue – change nothing and lose everything, or take measured steps to ensure a better atmosphere at bonfires and thus further our tradition.

  • Bemused

    *Reads TAFKABO’s post in open-mouthed disbelief, turns to El Matador and Billy Pilgrim and says*
    As I said folks – you’re wasting your time.

  • TAFKABO

    Bemused.

    you chose that name wisely.

  • Reg et al have talked about reaching out to the loyalist community. The DUP get their votes. So can either of them not actually step up to the mark and do something?

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the DUP to do anything, but the only way to regulate sites such as Annadale is if someone of authority within that community (preferably not a terrorist leader) actually starts providing some leadership.

    If they care about unionist culture, then they should stop these thugs defecating over it with displays such as that seen at Annadale.

    Just as I deplore the bastardisation of Irish culture for idiotic ends, presumably ‘true’ unionists would feel the same about their culture.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    TAFKABO: “A stupid suggestion.Why not say that people who are assaulted should be denied healthcare unless they stump up the funds? ”

    That’s not a bad idea, but insurance policy is a whole different conversation.

    But seriously, what part of “fire hot” don’t the Chavs grok? Why should the ordinary decent rate-payer pick up the tab for this stupidity?

    As for your objections to unlicensed bonfires, I repeat — its not as if they can be hidden. In some cases, all a body has to do is follow their nose, and that’s before its lit…

    As for the rest, it sounds as if you want a solution, but resist any real solutions. Folks have to take responsibility for their actions. If one group’s bonfire damages the estate, why shouldn’t they pay for the damages they caused? If the regulations have no teeth, they will be ignored.

    TAFKABO: “You have before you the carrot and the stick.
    You must choose one or the other. ”

    Stuff and nonsense. Both can be chosen and presented to the Loyalists as a choice. If they choose poorly, then be it on their own heads. The British nanny-state has created an entitlement mentality and a grand number of folks who do not understand that with liberty comes responsibility. If they do not live up to those responsibilities, should they not find their liberties curtailed? Nothing proposed here is draconian — no outright ban on bonfires, simply suggestions on “better management,” to quote Faie_Deal.

    Again, if you have a better alternative than either letting the Chavs have their way again wilst crossing your fingers that maybe they’ll get it right eventually or anything suggested thus far, by all means, share.

  • TAFKABO

    El Matador.

    I sympathise with your sentiments, but part of me feels tat culture exists to be bastardised for whomsoever feels the need to raise a bastard.

    Hasn’t it always been thus?

    but the only way to regulate sites such as Annadale is if someone of authority within that community (preferably not a terrorist leader) actually starts providing some leadership.

    Aye, sure them communites are just brimming over with non affiliated well respected community leaders, just like west Belfast is as well.

    There is a flaw in your argument here, can you see what it is?
    You, like so many others, keep dreaming of the day when a nice friendly cuddly able to see all the nationalist viewpoints unionist leader is going to emerge and solve all the problems before us.

    It’s not going to happen Davy Trimble was the best you were ever going to get, and you shat all over him.

    Stop dreaming, wake up and realise that the unionist bastards currently in control are the selfsame unionist bastards you are going to have to reach a solution with.

    Let this information sink in, have good cry,and then get on with accepting that fact that what you have is all you’re gonna get.

  • TAFKABO

    Dread.

    Are you really suggesting catholic residents in Annadale be penalised for Loyalist bonfires?
    Or should the DOE and housing executive check for mass cards before repairing scorch damage?

    C’mon, be real here.

    Of course you are right, a bonfire can’t be hidden, but the materials for a bonfire can be hidden,and once you have thousands of the fuckers, there’s only so many police to go around.

    I said it before, it’s a logistics problem.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    TAFKABO

    “A stupid suggestion. Why not say that people who are assaulted should be denied healthcare unless they stump up the funds?”

    I don’t do analogies. They are almost always misleading and idiotic. This one certainly is. Bonfires cost the taxpayer fortunes every year in repairs to roads, Housing Executive property and so on. This should end. I don’t care if the bonfire builders pay it or if people simply fix their own property – but it’s not my problem, and I resent being made to pay a penny towards subsidising the practice. If these bonfires start costing local residents money, I’m betting it’ll soon focus the minds of local people, and we’ll soon have a consensus on reform.

    “Shit, that’s a whole discussion right there. Who and what delineates ‘community’?”

    By community I mean the people who live there. People whose houses are damaged who seek recompense should be able to demonstrate that they were opposed to the bonfire in the first place, and then be able to sue those who damaged their property. Which brings me to my next point.

    If bonfires are licensed, then residents know the person or persons from whom they make seek recompense. If they are licensed at designated sites, subject to planning permission, then residents have an opportunity to register their protest at the siting of the bonfire.

    If someone supports the bonfire, why should they be entitled to compensation from the public purse? Why should they be shielded from taking responsibility for their choices?

    “A pointless statement, put it up there with “No one should break the law”.

    Why so? Bonfires aren’t exactly hard to spot. They are hard to hide though. Why is it pointless to suggest the licensing of bonfires? Many other posters, including some unionists, have expressed an interest in the idea.

    “See my last point.” (x2)

    I don’t understand why you are rejecting these suggestions out of hand, but of course I know that you simply haven’t had enough time to give them any thought.

    “I agree, they SHOULD be policed at this level, but logistically it is not possible to police them at this level.”

    The PSNI should be able to police a limited number of licensed bonfires at designated bonfire sites. Their ability to police the bonfires should, of course, be a factor taken into consideration at the planning stage.

    “No, it’s an unworkable law and breaches peoples basic human rights.”

    It’s not up to you or me or any bonfire organiser to decide whether a law is workable or not. Laws against incitement to hatred exist, they are on the statute books, they just aren’t enforced here. They should be. If you want to argue that these laws infringe human rights, take it up with your MP. Regardless of whether you agree with a given law, no-one has a right to ignore it.

    Nor is it unworkable to hold a licensee responsible for a bonfire. Why do you think it is?

    “Yes, I strongly object on the grounds that you presume the law is there to be administered by the few who know better than the many.”

    No, the law is supposed to be upheld by police. The licensing of large public events is also supposed to be administered by civil authorities. Outdoor concerts are. Football matches are. Parades are. Bonfires ought to be too – and given that we’re talking about massive conflagrations that do damage with monotonous regularity every year, I think it’s crazy that they presently enjoy lawless status.

    “Remember that whole Democracy deal?”

    Democracy is the means by which we make laws. However, democracy is kept as far as possible from the enforcement of law – and rightly so. The making of law is subject to debate – the enforcement of law is not.

    “All those Chavs may grate on your and my nerves, but their vote is just as valid as either of us.”

    Yes, but if you want to reduce this debate to such absurdities, let me retort – they are a minority.

    “I rather live in a world where they existed as they do now, than a live in your Nanny state.”

    Nanny state? Jesus wept.

    “it would be unworkable and counter productive.”

    Why would it? You have made the “unworkable” assertion several times – but why? Don’t you think the rule of law can be applied to loyalist areas?

    “Remember that little event back in the olden days, when a certain individual tried to stop a solitary tricolour from being exhibited in a shop window?”

    My God, that’s just such a lop-sided analogy that I don’t even know where to begin. My God, do you actually know anything about the Divis Street riots?

    “You have before you the carrot and the stick. You must choose one or the other.”

    I have neither. I don’t know what the “carrot” would be. How can one argue against accountability and safety, against the protection of persons and property?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    TAFKABO: “Are you really suggesting catholic residents in Annadale be penalised for Loyalist bonfires? ”

    Quite the contrary. I am suggesting that the Unionists who pile up the trash and cause the damage be held responsible for the bonfires.

    TAFKABO: “Or should the DOE and housing executive check for mass cards before repairing scorch damage? ”

    Again, you seem determined to inject an absurdist spin on any suggestion made — have you any of your own, other than letting the Chavs do as they will, hoping against hope that someday they will grow up, ala Fair_Deal?

  • Betty Boo

    “You have before you the carrot and the stick. You must choose one or the other.”

    Can I stick the carrot ..?

  • TAFKABO

    I don’t understand why you are rejecting these suggestions out of hand, but of course I know that you simply haven’t had enough time to give them any thought.

    Ooh, you bitch.

    OK, joking aside and also taking into consideration that I was playing Devils advocate to a degree.

    I think it’s unworkable because I simply can’t see how on earth it is going to work.

    Don’t you think the rule of law can be applied to loyalist areas?

    No, I don’t, not to all loyalist areas all the time, for all time.
    I simply don’t believe it is possible to enforce a situation where the majority of people who want to have bonfires can be coerced.
    I daresay if you really put your mind to it, you could stop it for one year, but the next year you would have twice as many to stop and so on….

    Ultimately you have to measure the cost of repairing the damage caused by bonfires against the money it takes to stop bonfires from taking place, and if your argument is mainly a financial one, then I think the letting the bonfires go ahead argument wins out in the long run.

    On the other hand, if your argument is that the rue of law must prevail at all costs, then I’m not sure we’re even talking about the same place to begin with.

  • Mick Fealty

    TBM:

    “As I said a slabbering board for republicans.”

    I’ll put that together with the “Unionist Talkshop” epithet. There certainly seems to be a lot of ‘blood up on here in the last week or two.

    Bemused:

    It doesn’t help promote civil conversation when you as the first poster on this thread used the word ‘scum’ to describe members of another community. I’ve given you considerable lattitude in recent weeks and you’ve taken more and more liberties with it.

    So that’ll be a Yellow Card for you then.

    No one is saying that you cannot legitimately express your animus on the internet. But you have been around long enough to know the rules. If you can’t play by those rules, a Red will follow in very short order!

  • elfinto

    What is most sickening about these matters is the collusion of the authorities with the paramilitary thugs who organise these forms of intimidation – whether it’s the PSNI turning a blind-eye to thugs with cherry pickers erecting flags and painting kerbstones, the DED refusing to maintain its own property, the City Council funding the goons, or the Arts Council funding blood and thunder bands. Loyalist paramilitaries control most of the city and the authorities are happy to let them do it.

  • esmereldavillalobos

    When did we start talking about “chavs” instead of what I had always found to be the preferred monicker for hoodlums in sportswear and cheap jewellery in Belfast: “spides”? Did I miss a meeting?

  • Bangor calling : someone torched the Clandy Road boney last week. the attempts to re build are a bit sad.

    Kilcooley has 2 bonfire sites, so both communities have a chance to take part in the gay pagentry of the 11th night.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    TAFKABO: “No, I don’t, not to all loyalist areas all the time, for all time. ”

    Gee, and if one of the “Nationalist Front” uttered such a sentence…

    TAFKABO: “I simply don’t believe it is possible to enforce a situation where the majority of people who want to have bonfires can be coerced. ”

    Assumes we’re discussing outlawing bonfires, which hasn’t been suggested. What has been suggested — establishing a baseline of regulations, along with penalties for criminal and civil levels of stupidity — is simple common sense. Of course, the fact that someone *NEEDS* to have it explained to them that turning one’s own neighborhood into an impromptu waste incineration cite is not a good idea and, as “fire hot,” all bonfire should be a minimally safe disctance away from houses makes me wonder a few other thing… Now, what, pray tell, is keeping the various and sundry city fathers from simply regulating matters? Announce a safe and sane location for wood to be dumped off, provide the fire brigade and constables to prevent things from getting out of hand and keeping things on an even keel?

    I daresay if you really put your mind to it, you could stop it for one year, but the next year you would have twice as many to stop and so on….

  • http://tinyurl.com/nl4hw
    Scroll down here for Danny Morrisson’s take on bonfires. Going out of fashion with uppity Taigs but it’s really all the trailer trash have.

  • Why

    Bonfires are sectarian hate fests the Nationalist estate i live in done away with bonfires, flags, murals, kerb painting eight years ago people now live in a normal environment away from the territory marking ugliness of a sectarian estate and it’s done the house prices a lot of good also
    They do bring the community together but they also divide us further as a society so what we done was replace it with a three day festival and we even had people showing the kids how to play a lambeg drum.

  • TAFKABO

    Gee, and if one of the “Nationalist Front” uttered such a sentence…

    Gee, what if they had?

    I rather think you missed my point.I’m not condoning or boasting, simply giving my view on the actualité

    On the one hand we get complaints when we don’t engage fully in these discussions or we get lambasted for being a bit too honest.

    Make yer minds up ferfuxsake.

  • the facts

    Bob McGowan

    The Pilgrims’ Master tells us that “The provos killed thousands”, displaying the all too usual unionist ignorance of the violence. So, here we go again:

    The Provisional IRA did not kill “thousands” since the count of those killed by the PIRA is, accrding to the Sutton database, 1,706. Now, that’s NOT “thousands”.

    Ahhh you see bob, that doesnt include the hundreds they killed in the 20’s

    Your attempt to justify the IRA’s terrorist activities are utterly despicable. These are human lives we are talking about here, not just numbers on a database.

  • Taigs,

    “…but it’s really all the trailer trash have”.

    Please note my note to Bemused above.

  • Garibaldy

    The facts,

    PIRA did not exist in the 1920s.

  • the facts

    Garibaldy

    I never said PIRA, I said IRA, which in my book covers all flavours of IRA inc PIRA, CIRA, RIRA, OIRA etc etc etc

  • Dread Cthulhu

    TAFKABO: “I rather think you missed my point.I’m not condoning or boasting, simply giving my view on the

    Then why are not Republicans afford such an “actualité,” TAFKABO? IF a certain level of criminality is to be expected, if not assumed, then why do Unionists, such as yourself, carry such a double standard between the communities?

    As you say, make up your mind…

  • Garibaldy

    The facts,

    hate to be pedantic, but here is what you said

    ‘The Provisional IRA did not kill “thousands” since the count of those killed by the PIRA is, accrding to the Sutton database, 1,706. Now, that’s NOT “thousands”.

    Ahhh you see bob, that doesnt include the hundreds they killed in the 20’s’

    The next sentence you referred to ‘the IRA’ but the subject of the above sentence is obviously the PIRA, particularly given that the comment Mc Gowan was responding to said the provos.

    Anyway. The pertinent point remains that the Provos fought a squalid terrorist campaign, that was characterised by sectarianism in self-definition and intent. I do think that historically that was different from 1919-21, for reasons you’ll have heard before.

  • elfinto

    Anyway. The pertinent point remains that the Provos fought a squalid terrorist campaign, that was characterised by sectarianism in self-definition and intent. I do think that historically that was different from 1919-21, for reasons you’ll have heard before.

    Let me guess, Garibaldy. You are a Free Stater? Garibaldy of Gardiner Street, perhaps?

  • Garibaldy

    Elfinto, I most certainly am not a free stater I’m glad to say.

  • Garibaldy tells us:

    [i]”The pertinent point remains that the Provos fought a squalid terrorist campaign, that was characterised by sectarianism in self-definition and intent.”[/i]

    Nice generalization there. Too bad the facts simply do not support it.

    Now, every army that has fought an extended campaign, and especially those who fought in urban areas, have killed civilians, some by accident, some by carelessness, some by intent. Now, 30% of the victims of the Provisional IRA were cvilians. Some were killed by accident, some by carelessness, and some probably intentionally. Does that maie their campaign a terrorist campaign? Or, does it speak well for the efforts of the PIRA top [b]avoid[/b] civilian casualties. And, you have no proof of intent, do you?

    I suggest you re-examine how you arrived at your conclusions. I suggest that your opinion is more dependent on British propaganda than actual fact. And, of course, you just have to apologize for the PIRA becaise bpth they and you are Irish.

    With all due respect, I suggest that you examine the record of the groups the PIRA fought, i.e. the British security forces and the unionist death squads and direct some of your ire at them

    Face the factsL First, the PIEA was justified in resorting to violence, i.e. in staging an armed rebellion or revolution. Second, by and large, the PIRA fought a much cleaner military campaign than any of their opponents.

    Them’s the facts, Garibaldy. Live with them

  • Again, garibaldy tells us that the PIRA campaign was characterized by sectarianism.

    But, the numbers say otherwise. The PIRA killed 1.706 people, all told. Sutton identifies 134 of those as sectarian killings, i.e. in which the solitary or primary motivation was the relibious belief of the victim. It is further worth noting that all 134 were credited to another group which Sutton claims was a nom d’guerre for the PIRA.

    On the other hand, the unionist deqath squads are credited with 713 sectarian killings.

    So, Garibaldy, who fought the sectarian campaign?

    i suggest you redirect your rhetoric and invective at the reall villains in NI.

  • Willie Frazer still goes on about a group of South Armagh Prods whacked by Frank Aiken’s men in 1922.

  • And, of course, Willie conveniently ignores the 850 Catholic civilians killed by the security forces and the unionist death squads since 1969.

  • TAFKABO

    Then why are not Republicans afford such an “actualité,” TAFKABO? IF a certain level of criminality is to be expected, if not assumed, then why do Unionists, such as yourself, carry such a double standard between the communities?

    WTF are you talking about?

    I was talking about the logistics of policing hundreds, if not thousands of bonfires, dispersed over a very large area.

    Isn’t it just silly to expect me to offer some comment on ‘republican’ criminality as a counterbalance to that comment?

    Can’t we have a conversation without having to cme up with a version for each community and offering a viewpoint that is seen as evenhanded on every occasion?

    And whilst we’re at it, where is your comdemnation of some republican criminality to counterbalance your condemnation of this ‘unionist’ criminality?

    Or is this just another one of those rules that just applies to unionists?

    I genuinely think you have serious sectarian issues that hamper your ability to have a normal discussion.

  • Jo

    ..erm, ARE there any tyres in the Annadale bonfire or not? 🙂

  • No, but the spirit of Tyrie is kept lit 🙂

  • Garibaldy

    Bob,

    Did or did not the Provos define themselves explicitly as the defenders of the Catholic community? I think you’ll find that they did. In my book, as someone who believes in the philosophy of Tone and Connolly, this is sectarian, and a violation of republican principles.

    As for the notion that my experience of the Provos is based on British propaganda, laughable. Let’s look a few facts. For example, during the Provo ceasefire in 1974-5, they and their loyalist counterparts amused themselves by engaging in a massive bout of sectarian murder. Were any of the Provos who did this punished? Were they expelled? Or are large numbers of them now in the leadership? What does that say about intent? What about the people who fired across the peaceline at Tiger’s Bay after the ceasefire?
    Maybe the tactic of blowing up smaller overwhlemingly Protestant towns that lacked the British superstores that characterised the bigger towns was aimed at economic disruption. Or maybe it had the mixed motive of harming Protestant interests as well. I don’t remember any 800lb bombs in Newry, though you can correct me if I’m wrong.

    As for condemning other groups, I consistently condemn all those who contributed to sectarian violence. Not only those who pulled the triggers, but those who created the context in which such acts were regarded as respectable. i.e. any politician, either nationalist or unionist, who defines themselves as the representative of one section of the people of Ireland. Too many of the middle class hyped up sectarian tension, and then sat back and denied any responsibility. I also have condemned murders and collusion by the state.

    So to conclude, by republican principles, to define oneself as the representative of one section of the Irish people is sectarian. The Provos, like the SDLP, DUP, UUP and loyalists, did and still do this. In addition, the Provos carried out numerous sectarian killings, as well as bombings that can be interpreted as having mixed motives. There is no evidence whatsoever of any punishment for any of these during the Troubles (I think after the ceasefires somebody in the Short Strand and possibly Ardoyne was punished for taking part in a sectarian shooting, but more because it violated discipline than the principle). Sectarian attitudes have been integral to the motivation of the Provos since day one. One need only look at their rhetoric and their actions to see this. More of their operations may have been aimed at members of the security forces (although of course some of these are potentially grey areas) but throughout their campaign sectarianism was present. I’d say then you could say it characterises their rhetoric and actions.

  • Bemused

    Mick – sorry for referring to the Annadale U.F.F./U.D.A. as ‘scum’ – perhaps you could publish a list of acceptable forms of address?

  • [i]”Did or did not the Provos define themselves explicitly as the defenders of the Catholic community?”[/i]

    Nope. If you check your history, that Catholic community was under attack by both the British security forces and unionist death squads. The Catholic community was targeted for sectarian reasons — and then you come along and claim that the defenders were sectarian because they defennded a community under attack.

    The dog don’t hunt. It is hardly sectarian to defend a community against sectarian attacks by both the government and the thugs. Do get real.

    Now, it’s all very well to condemn all sectarian attacks, but to say that both are equally bad is pure nonsense.

    Point: As i pointed out above, sectarian killings by tghe PIRA came to 134. Sectarian killings by the unionist death squads came to 715. That’s a BIG difference, Garibalfdy which you ca not seem to address.

    Point: Even those 134 killings are attributed to the PIRA by claiming that the PIRA used a nom d’guerre. But, from what I can gather, that identification is based upon evidence provided by the RUC. And there are persistent rumors of the unionist death squads killing some Protestants in order to blacken the name of the PIRA. Hmmm, British propaganda????

    Point when all is said and done, the British security forces and their death squads killed some 1,020 civilians from 1969 to 2001. The PIRA, from the same source and over the same period, killed 516. Again, a BIG difference which you conveniently ignore.

    If we look at the facts instead of the propaganda, I say that the real terrorists in NI were HMG and its security forces and death squads.

  • Garibaldy

    Bob,

    Defending your street from someone trying to burn it down is one thing. Identifying yourself as the representative of one section of the community, and attacking people from other parts of the community because of their religion is entirely different.

    I have not ignored the sectarian killings by anybody. In fact, rather than fixate solely on murders (that database excludes the majority of violence, sectarian and otherwise btw, where people weren’t killed) I have analysed and attacked sectarianism in fuller terms, spreading the responsibility to everybody who bears it.

    I never said the Provos committed more sectarian murders than loyalists. Clearly they did not. Perhaps you can explain to me how one sectarian killing is not as bad as another?

    As I’ve said, I haven’t ignored any wrong acts from anybody. On the other hand, you’ve ignored the argument that the Provos violate fundamental republican principles, nor have you addressed my point about violence that had mixed motivation.

    And your claim that the Provos didn’t define themselves explicitly as the defenders of the Catholic community is unadulterated nonsense. Look at their propagadanda from the time and since. Look at interviews with senior people like Morrison or Mc Guiness. Or just about any interview with any Provos ever that addressed the question. This is on top of my own experience of talking to members of PSF, and from living in NI.

    Statistics can tell some things about motivation, but then again maybe not. On top of which, the statistics you are using are far from comprehensive for the violence of the Troubles. Perhaps you ought to take a more holistic approach to further butress your argument.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    No, TAFKABO, what I am doing is questioning your tolerance of criminality. You have suggested that it is unreasonable to expect Loyalists to live within the limits of civil society on a daily basis and that some amount of criminality is to be assumed. What I asked you, and I ask again, is the Nationalist community entitled to the same “safe harbor” of criminality? If no, why or why not?

    Now, as for Republican criminality, I have stated in threads on this blog that where the evidence is sufficient, any and all thugs should be run in and tried. For me, there are two different issues. While I am unabashedly Republican, I am sick and tired of the thugocracy. I have argued against the “Red Queen” foolishness on this board — being fussy, I prefer trial first and punishment afterwards, rather than the sectarian assumptions that run amok on this board.

    That said, other than in response to your thesis that the damage and the sectarianism and the filth associated with the bonfires should be tolerated — sort of a “lie back and think of England” approach — I haven’t had much to say about Unionist or Loyalist criminality. In fact, my only purpose here has been for a rational and controlled bonfire — one that does not damage estate housing, unduly inflame sectarian passions and lead to a festering mound of filth in the street, as occurs in some areas. If wanting to put some teeth to the mores of civilized society makes me a sectarian, in your eyes, so be it. If wanting to shift power out of the hands of the street fathers and return it to the city fathers makes me part of the “Nationalist Front,” then so be it. Personally, in light of your commentary, I think it may make me a trifle idealistic, no more, no less. But sitting and waiting for some folks to have an epiphaney and civilize themself is a trifle too optimistic for my tastes.

  • [i]”Defending your street from someone trying to burn it down is one thing. Identifying yourself as the representative of one section of the community, and attacking people from other parts of the community because of their religion is entirely different.”[/i]

    The Protestant community was not under attack, the Catholic community was. So, according to your “logic”, it is sectarian to defend a community that is being attacked by both the forces of the state and organized thugs for the sole reason that the beseiged community is Catholic. Sorry, Garibaldfy, you’re spouting nonsense.

    [i]”Perhaps you can explain to me how one sectarian killing is not as bad as another?”[/i]

    Don’t have to since I never said that. But, there is a BIG difference between 700 sectarian killings and 150 sectarian killings which you ignore.

    [i]”that database excludes the majority of violence, sectarian and otherwise btw, where people weren’t killed”[/i]

    And, it is reasonable to assume that the count of injured will pretty much breakl down the same way as the count of the dead. So, do give us your statistical analysis of the injured victims. With supporting citations.

    [i]”As I’ve said, I haven’t ignored any wrong acts from anybody.”[/i]

    I don’t hear you criticizing the sectarian attacks by the security forces and the death squads. In fact, your silence is deafening. BTW, the security forces killed 191 civilians, of which 163 were Catholic — that’s more than 85%. Who did the sectarian killing? Your silence again is deafening.

    [i]”On the other hand, you’ve ignored the argument that the Provos violate fundamental republican principles, nor have you addressed my point about violence that had mixed motivation.”[/i]

    Such is your argument but you have provided little or no evidence to support it when it comes to sectarianism. IN point of fact, your claims that the PIRA fought a sectarian military campaign are contradicted by the facts.

    Face it, garibaldy. The PIRA was and defined itself as defenders of the Catholic community because that community was being attacked because they were Catholics. They were defenders of a community under violent attack that happened to be defined by the attackers as all Catholics.

    [i]”Statistics can tell some things about motivation, but then again maybe not.”[/i]

    Never did say that they did. In fact, very carefully said that they did not. Read what I said and answer that instead of misquoting me.

    [i]”On top of which, the statistics you are using are far from comprehensive for the violence of the Troubles. Perhaps you ought to take a more holistic approach to further butress your argument.”[/i]

    The statistics are comprehensive as far as deaths are conderned. And, you have yet to provide any support that the statistics on injured would be any different. Until then, they are the best we have. Live with it. The statistics simply do no support your allegations.

    And, that does not even address the issue of whether or not the 134 victims were victims of the PIRA.

  • Reader

    Bob McGowan: And, it is reasonable to assume that the count of injured will pretty much breakl down the same way as the count of the dead.
    No it isn’t – bombing is likely to produce a far higher ratio of injured to dead than shooting is, and the great majority of civilian victims of the IRA were bomb victims.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Reader: “No it isn’t – bombing is likely to produce a far higher ratio of injured to dead than shooting is, and the great majority of civilian victims of the IRA were bomb victims. ”

    Got a citation for that, or is this simply your own inductive conclusion?

  • [i]”No it isn’t – bombing is likely to produce a far higher ratio of injured to dead than shooting is, and the great majority of civilian victims of the IRA were bomb victims.”[/i]

    Hmmm…. And the baton beatings and running trucks into crowds and all the other little bits of terrorism by the security forces are going to result in a lot of injuries. Along with house fires from petrol or blast bombs.

    Sorry, Reader, I don’t think your comment is accurate.

  • TAFKABO

    No, TAFKABO, what I am doing is questioning your tolerance of criminality.

    And I am pointing out that your perception is clouded by your failing, since I have not posted a single thing which suggests I wish to tolerate criminalty.

    You have suggested that it is unreasonable to expect Loyalists to live within the limits of civil society on a daily basis and that some amount of criminality is to be assumed.

    Again I have said no such thing.In fact I distinctly remember saying in this thread that people be allowed to practice their culture as long as it is within the bounds of the law.

    What I asked you, and I ask again, is the Nationalist community entitled to the same “safe harbor” of criminality? If no, why or why not?

    I really don’t know WTF you are talking about.I honestly think you attributing to myself the opnions that you assume I hold, rather than the opinions expressed.

    Now, as for Republican criminality, I have stated in threads on this blog that where the evidence is sufficient, any and all thugs should be run in and tried. For me, there are two different issues. While I am unabashedly Republican, I am sick and tired of the thugocracy. I have argued against the “Red Queen” foolishness on this board—being fussy, I prefer trial first and punishment afterwards, rather than the sectarian assumptions that run amok on this board.

    Pardon me whilst I straighten the buckle in my eye.Seems to me that you do plenty of talking about Unionists being drug dealers when it suits you, in marked contrast to the amount of time you spend talking about nationalist criminality.Did youread that report in another thread here which states that the republic has a bigger drug problem?
    When will we see you use the same language to talk about those Irish drug dealers?

    I’ll not hold my breath waiting.

    That said, other than in response to your thesis that the damage and the sectarianism and the filth associated with the bonfires should be tolerated—sort of a “lie back and think of England” approach—I haven’t had much to say about Unionist or Loyalist criminality. In fact, my only purpose here has been for a rational and controlled bonfire—one that does not damage estate housing, unduly inflame sectarian passions and lead to a festering mound of filth in the street, as occurs in some areas. If wanting to put some teeth to the mores of civilized society makes me a sectarian, in your eyes, so be it. If wanting to shift power out of the hands of the street fathers and return it to the city fathers makes me part of the “Nationalist Front,” then so be it. Personally, in light of your commentary, I think it may make me a trifle idealistic, no more, no less. But sitting and waiting for some folks to have an epiphaney and civilize themself is a trifle too optimistic for my tastes.

    Let me repeat my views on the situation.

    The law should be upheld, but it would be foolish to introduce new laws that were impossible to enforce, and which might have a counter effect to their stated purpose.
    As far as the proposals put forward by Billy Pilgrim go, my main problem is that they couldn’t be made to work, not that I necessarily disagree with what they are trying to achieve.
    Any solution has to be a workable solution, taking into account the realities of the situation.

  • and…
    We can go on safari to see them…

    More than just murals
    (Welcome to the New Lodge)
    Location: North Belfast

    Trek Time: 1 1/2 to 2 hours

    Cost: On Request

    Booking: The Belfast Safaris Office – 02890 222 925

    Visit the famous New Lodge Road murals
    See army barracks old and new
    Get an insight into life today on a Belfast peace line
    http://www.belfastsafaris.com/newlodge.php

  • DK

    Bob McGowan,

    I just went on the sutton database and did deaths crosstab organisation by status:
    Republicans killed 710 civilians; Loyalists killed 846 and Security forces killed 188.

    Where are you getting 134 from?

  • Cybez

    1. 1,2.1,2,3.testing 🙂

  • [i]”Republicans killed 710 civilians; Loyalists killed 846 and Security forces killed 188.”[/i]

    Without checking since I have to go out 5 minutes ago, I suspect you are using an earlier version of the sutton database. Check to make sure you are using the 1969-2001 version and I.m sure you’ll find the figures I cite.

  • [/b} back to normal, I hope!

  • [/b] second attempt

  • Garibaldy

    Bob,

    “Now, it’s all very well to condemn all sectarian attacks, but to say that both are equally bad is pure nonsense.”

    That sounded like saying one is sectarian killing is not as bad as another to me. Perhaps I was mistaken. You’ve accused me of not condemning sectarian attacks by loyalists and the B Specials etc, but reacted to me condemning all sectarian attacks in the above quote, so you acknowledge that I have in fact condemned all sectarian violence regardless of where it came from.

    I don’t have statistics for injuries, nor do I know of any. However, not all sectarian attacks result in injury anyway. e.g. the burning of empty Catholic churches or Orange Halls, bombs that don’t explode, shots that miss etc.

    The Catholic section of the community was attacked because it was Catholic. How does that mean that shooting a Protestant for his religion is not sectarian? If said Protestant is engaged in attacking you, then it’s self-defence. If, however, he is an innocent man in a van on his way home from work, it’s a sectarian killing. The fact that loyalists were carrying out sectarian killings does not in the least justify nationalist ones.

    The statistics support the belief that the Provos carried out sectarian killings. We’re not talking about 1 or 2 here. we’re talking nearly 10% of deaths caused by the Provos. As I said, if these were unacceptable, why was no-one expelled or punished for them? Why are those who carried them out now in leadership positions? If the Provos were not sectarian, why did these take place over so many years?

    Provo ideology, rhetoric and violence has been characterised since the beginning by sectarianism. Show me the evidence that sectarianism was unacceptable to the Provos and was not a central part of their ideological makeup and I’ll withdraw the claim. Citing figures for deaths does not address the question of ideology.

    Seeing as DK raised the issue, I haven’t been able to get 134 either, accessing Sutton from CAIN. Can you tell us how you got it?

  • Reader

    Dread Cthulhu:Got a citation for that, or is this simply your own inductive conclusion?
    Just an inductive conclusion from:
    this sort of data
    compared with the results of shooting and bombing attacks throughout:
    1993
    I was looking for Greysteele, but the whole year illustrates my point – which I has thought was obvious enough, by the way.

  • Garibaldy

    Reader, those links aren’t working unfortunately. Can you try again?

  • Reader

    Sorry about the links, but if I tried it again, I would just do the same again! I see that they don’t work.
    In Firefox I can use right click and CopyLinkLocation to get a link that I can edit down, in IE I use right click and CopyShortcut to get an editable link.
    If even that doesn’t work, the first is a link to Cain/events/Bloody Friday, the second in a link to Cain/chronology/1993

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Reader: “If even that doesn’t work, the first is a link to Cain/events/Bloody Friday, the second in a link to Cain/chronology/1993 ”

    I had been going to say that if you had data and were going from a set of discrete facts to a conclusion, that was not an inductive process.

    However, seeing as you are cherry-picking data, you have a different problem in your process.

  • Garibaldy

    Cheers reader

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Billy Pilgrim: “Don’t you think the rule of law can be applied to loyalist areas? ”

    TAFKABO: “No, I don’t, not to all loyalist areas all the time, for all time.”

    Your words, TAFKABO — not all Loyalist areas can have the rule of law applied to them all the time. In fact, you sound decidedly against even making the effort. Ergo, some baseline level of criminality is permissable / acceptable in your eyes, per your words, Posted by TAFKABO on Jun 19, 2006 @ 10:27 PM.

    My question, if you truly believe the above, is whether or not you believe the rule of law can be applied to all Republican areas, all the time, why or why not?

    Me, I’m fairly straight-forward. A crook is a crook is a crook, whether a Loyalist drug-dealer, a Republican bank-robber or an unaffiliated knee-breaker. If it makes you feel *ANY* better, we can try it with a Republican drug-dealer, a Loyalist knee-breaker and an unaffiliated bank-robber — you still get the same answer. Try them, convict them and lock them up. If there is credible evidence of wrong-doing, from Slab to whomever is in charge of the Loyalist rackets this week, that a trial can be convened and justice be done.

    The problem, as I see it, is there is too much politics in law enforcement and, unlike peanut-butter being on chocolate, ala the Reese’s commercial, politics and law enforcement do not go well together. In recent months, several high profile prosecutions have been dumped, with either a cryptic commentary regarding “for the good of the state,” if I may paraphrase, or else through supposed incompetence — prosecutor’s failing to file documents on time.

    If I seem cynical, its because I am. If I seem to see more Loyalist criminality of late, its because I read the news and the IMC reports and, for whatever reason, be it Republican’s “turning it on and off” or Loyalists feeling frisky, there seems to be more Loyalist crime than Republican crime… If you believe some sources, the whole LVF / UVF foolishness is about to start up again, with LVF members and associates being targetted by the UVF. Given that these are supposed to be the defenders of Unionist neighborhoods, what are these fellows fighting over, TAFKABO?

  • Reader

    Dread Cthulhu: Ergo, some baseline level of criminality is permissable / acceptable in your eyes, per your words
    Blimey – he answered a ‘can’ question, not a ‘should’ question. Are you two talking at cross purposes here?
    For instance, Dread – Do you think all the Kingsmills murderers can be convicted? Therefore, ‘is some baseline level of’ sectarian murder ‘permissable/acceptable in your eyes’? It’s the same logic…

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Reader: “For instance, Dread – Do you think all the Kingsmills murderers can be convicted? Therefore, ‘is some baseline level of’ sectarian murder ‘permissable/acceptable in your eyes’? It’s the same logic…”

    Now you’re talking at cross purposes, trying to compare a specific case to a broad rule. There is a world of difference between “can” all the criminals in a given act be apprehended (in my book they certainly should be.) and can the rule of law be applied to all of N.I. — it certainly can and should. All that is required is sufficient political will on the part of the city fathers to stand up and do the jobs they were elected to do, rather than yielding power to the street-fathers and their criminal cohorts.

    In criminal justice, its called the “broken window” theory. Imagine a vacant house — empty, but otherwise intact. It will be left alone, by and large, until it starts to look abandoned / empty – say a broken pane of glass. Once this happens, folks who would have otherwise ignored the house will break other windows, etc. The same sort of logic occurs in law enforcement — if you enforce the small laws, you will find you net many of the bigger fish, since the folks breaking the small laws are the same folks committing some of your larger crimes.

    There is no area in Northern Ireland where the rule of law can’t be enforced. Now, there are times when the political will doesn’t exist to do what is necessary to enforce the law, but that is a different problem.

    That said, we’re not discussing law, per se, we’re discussing whether or not the mounds of refuse that get piled up for these bonfires should be regulated. Even TAFKABO says they should, he just doesn’t like any of the suggestions put forth on how to regulate and hold folks accountable for their actions. He has been invited to make his own suggestions, but has, for reasons of his own, chosen not to. He has preferred to spin — I’m simply returning the favor. I would prefer a discussion or a debate, rather than the simple nay-saying of every idea put forward, but you have to work with what you get.

    This is really a matter of zoning and health regulation — apparently, folks need to be taught not to put whomping big fires so close to buildings as to melt the vinyl, not putting tires in the bonfires, not piling up refuse into the streets in the name of a bonfire, etc. I’d laugh were it not so.. tragic isn’t the right word, but its close. What sort of idiot turns their estate into a garbage dump for a couple of months then torches the pile, damaging the estate what they live in? Waht is so damned radical about findings a safe place to pile wood and other relatively clean flammables, having the fire-brigade and police on hand to keep affairs under control and holding folks responsible for their own actions?

  • TAFKABO

    Billy Pilgrims question was specifically related to his proposed law regarding bonfires, and it was this proposed law that I said I din’t think could be apllied to all areas all of the time.

    To make the leap from the answer I gave and claim I was excusing all criminality by Loylaists is just willful misinterpretation of what I said.

    Reader, you are spot on regarding the words ‘could’ and ‘should’

    I have repeatedly made it clear that the law ‘should’ be obeyed, but also said that I didn’t think it ‘could’ always be enforced.

    I come here to have discussions, not to enage in these games of trying to trip people up with their words.
    Dread, I’m sorry to say it, but I put you on ignore for a good reason, it seems I was too hasty in deciding to enage with you again.

    By all means have your replies to anything I say, but don’t expect any more answers from me.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    You read what you want to read, TAFKABO, whether or not I write it.

    Now, have I been playing some semantic games — yeah, I have. But so have you. Likewise, you try to infer what hasn’t even been implied, let alone stated.

    As for a single question, let us try this one, slightly re-ordered:

    “What is so damned radical about finding a safe place to pile wood and other relatively clean flammables, having the fire-brigade and police on hand to keep affairs under control and holding folks responsible for their own actions? What sort of idiot turns their estate into a garbage dump for a couple of months then torches the pile, damaging the estate what they live in? This is really a matter of zoning and health regulation—apparently, folks need to be taught not to put whomping big fires so close to buildings as to melt the vinyl, not putting tires in the bonfires, not piling up refuse into the streets in the name of a bonfire, etc.”

  • dave

    The good people of Annadale flats have now erected a large uda banner near the bonfire site, hopefully the police will act against the scum responsible.

    Funding ??