Murphy takes Fews…

The news from that byelection in South Armagh:

Willie Frazer: 1,427

Turlough Murphy: 4,092The SDLP, for reasons of its own, did not contest the seat.

  • Garibaldy

    What a waste of money. And the same councillors who insisted on this will be yapping next week about lack or resources and the misspending of funds by central government

  • Nathan

    I’ve never heard of the latter, but contragulations anyway. Any politician, even a Shinner, is a better alternative than Willie Frazer.

  • Elvis Parker

    So Sdlp is ‘One man, one vote … but dont use it’

  • Londonderry_loyal

    We all know why the SDLP didnt stand?? It would have split the nationalist vote in Souith Armagh and mabye let Willie into the seat!!

  • dantheman

    Londonderry_loyal

    Even if they had split the vote 50%-50 Willie Frazer would have finished third. I hope the maths teachers in Derry are better than those in Londonderry.

  • few that was close

    He is Conors brother

  • darth rumsfeld

    “Any politician, even a Shinner, is a better alternative than Willie Frazer.

    Posted by Nathan on Aug 03, 2006 @ 01:53 PM”

    eh? So Slab Murphy’s mates are preferable to the prickly but principled Frazer? And even after the bygotry of SF causes tehby-election in the first place!

    Update of Barnum’s dictum –
    You can fool 4092 of the people all of the time

    Well done Willie! Keep socking it to ’em!

  • Mick Fealty

    dtm,

    Except on the face of it the man is right, that seems to be the reason they didn’t stand. Unless someone knows better?

  • offer it up

    The results are in and speak for themselves. Murphy polled 500 votes more than the total SF vote in 2005, and Frazer polled 900 less than the total unionist vote in the same election. In 2005, the SDLP vote was c2200, so if SF have increased its vote by 500 this time that suggests that almost 25% of SDLP supporters from 2005 voted SF yesterday.

    The SDLP were wrong to call for a boycott of this election. It was about defending the nationalist mandate and the wishes of the people of Newtownhamilton who didn’t want Frazer and his loyalist paramilitary cronies using their community centre. The big question now is for the auditor (whose decision to ban councillors for five years led to the pre-emptive resignation of Lewis): how can an unelected official so blatantly ignore the wishes of the electors in Newry and Mourne?

  • Keith M

    Interesting result. Obviously several SDLP voters decided to exercise their franchise despite party instructions.

  • offer it up

    Just to clarify that the 2005 election I refer to is the Local Government one.

  • kensei

    “Interesting result. Obviously several SDLP voters decided to exercise their franchise despite party instructions. ”

    Against Willie Frazer? I surprised it isn’t more.

    My favourite Willie quote of all time is in Susan McKay’s book Northern Protestants “If a Paki came over form India…….”

  • Garibaldy

    Those 500 voters may or may not come from the SDLP. There will have been new voters, people who didn’t come out last time etc.

    Darth,

    Did Frazer’s standing in the eyes of unionists dip over his comments regarding loyalist terrorists around the time of the march in Dublin do you think? It seems not in your eyes giving that you call him principled. I think most nationalists view him as the opposite after those comments.

  • Bushmills

    Is Frazier’s percentage higher or lower than the Protestant percentage of population in the area?

  • Dec

    Obviously several SDLP voters decided to exercise their franchise despite party instructions.

    Getting ‘voters’ and ‘members’ mixed up there, I think.

    We all know why the SDLP didnt stand?? It would have split the nationalist vote in Souith Armagh and mabye let Willie into the seat!!

    Remind me why the UUP and the DUP didn’t stand again…

  • Yokel

    Are you telling me that Willie ‘Soft Shoe Diplomatic Genius’ Frazer would possibly polarise opinion?

    I’m shocked…

  • pid

    Election?

    Please don’t dignify a tribal headcount with the word ‘election’.

  • Mick Fealty

    That struck me too Dec. Despite the wishes of some politicians to the contrary, voters don’t generally take instructions!

  • heres hoping

    The good thing about this election from a Sinn Fein point of view is that they increased their actual vote which is rare in a byelection and the fact that some SDLP voters may have voted SF this time will make it easier in the future.

  • mickhall

    heres hoping

    Good point, it could be that the SDLP refused to stand because they thought they might come a poor third. What they in reality appear to have done is wave good by to those who voted for them in the past.

  • darth rumsfeld

    “Did Frazer’s standing in the eyes of unionists dip over his comments regarding loyalist terrorists around the time of the march in Dublin do you think? It seems not in your eyes giving that you call him principled.”

    Sorry, must have missed this. What did he say?

  • dantheman

    Good lad Willie, now you have more time to continue your vendetta against Ambulance Service/Sinn Fein and their balaclava wearing drivers.

    What a waste of 20,000 pounds

  • Gum

    Does anyone know whay Willie stood here? Does he have an issue with Murphy (aside from his being a republican)? I’m just wondering because there must be other seats in Armagh that he’d stand a better chance of getting elected in.

  • lib2016

    “…why Willy stood…”

    Looks good on the CV when you’re passing the hat in the States but you wouldn’t want the hassle of having to turn up for meetings.

  • Urquhart

    ”…why Willy stood…”

    Maybe he has an eye on the vacant DUP Assembly nomination and was getting a dry run out.

    Interesting also to read in last Sunday’s Sunday Life that he is planning a Love Ulster victim’s march on the Garvaghy Road – stirring up shit in Portadown (not even in Newry & Armagh) was also a much loved tactic of former N&A DUP MLA Paul Berry.

  • Jo

    I predicted in February that WF has his eye on Paul Berry’s seat…ahem…

    In view of the comments on Loyalist paramilitaries I see no reason to regret my somewhat bellicose description of him on Joblog.

    At least I ensured that anyone Googling “Willie Frazer” and “Sh*te” will find my esteemed blog 🙂

  • Garibaldy

    Darth,

    I need to be careful here due to the fact that I can only half remember, and don’t want to say anything that would be unfair to Frazer or get Mick into trouble.

    But the Daily Ireland editorial on 4th March this year said that he had expressed regard for Billy Wright and a belief that no loyalist should ever have been gaoled. If true, this would suggest a double standard regarding paramilitaries rather than a principled position.

    On top of that, the police revoked his gun licence because of the loyalist company he was keeping. That doesn’t necessarily mean or prove anything in itself, but usually unionists would regard it as sufficient proof that a person had suspicious links.

    I’m not trying to get at Wille Frazer here, but what I am interested in is if these things, which are regularly referred to by nationalists when his name comes up, are well-known within unionism and are ignored. It’s part of my interest in whether people ever stop to think how they look to other people.

    Hence unionist praise for Frazer would provoke instant remarks about hypocrisy etc.

  • mnob

    “Hence unionist praise for Frazer would provoke instant remarks about hypocrisy etc.”

    … and there has been precious little of that.

    As for unionists ignoring Frazers dodgy actions, they have – right the way to the ballot box. (UUP take note)

  • Gum

    “I predicted in February that WF has his eye on Paul Berry’s seat…ahem…”

    lol!

    Would the DUP take him? Surely they have more PR sense than that?

  • bertie

    If Willie is planning a march I would be very suprised if it would be a Love Ulster one.

    Well done Willie for trying and darth – I quite agree!

  • Slartibuckfast

    STANDING WILLY FLOPS
    Shock as people of Fews won’t take the Willy

  • Moochin photoman

    Last years gay pride had a placard declaring…
    ” Who busted Berrys’ Cherry?
    Might be a few more around on this Sat.

  • Slartibuckfast

    Has that high profile gay politician of whom you speak been publicly forced to admit engaging in acts of bigotry yet? I heard he was caught on tape saying things like ‘vote DUP’, and ‘Ian Paisley is a great lad’. Vile and unnatural behaviour and it should not be encouraged. There must be something against it in the Bible.

  • Moochin photoman

    Dunno, all i was doing was reporting on what i saw last year…i didn’t know that he had an allotment, i presumed it was reference to his cherry tomatos!

  • bertie

    I can’t see WF being interested in standing for any party. He has cuurently got contacts in both the DUP and UUP who take up issues on his behalf. Why risk alienating either of them?

  • slug

    Willie Fraser and I have little in common.

    One thing which I don’t have in common with him is that unlike Willy Fraser I escaped the troubles without any loss of family or friends.

    Willie Fraser suffered more losses than it is even possible for me to imagine.

    I cannot even begin to understand his suffering.

  • From the Belfast Telegraph article:

    DUP MLA Jim Wells said: “The SDLP has a mandate in the Fews and it is double standards not to have contested it. However, we call on all unionists, and nation-alists, to come out in force and vote for Willie Frazer.”

    Laugh, I tell ye! Willie doesn’t consider the relatives of nationalists/republicans killed by the state or loyalists to be “innocent relatives” vote for him?

    slug,

    Willie Fraser suffered more losses than it is even possible for me to imagine.

    I don’t expect the guy to behave rationally either. Even though I subscribe to the pacifist philosophy if a british soldier had killed my kid brother I’d have joined the PIRA in a heartbeat. Emotions quite often overrule our intellect. I don’t expect Willie to be the most rational commentator on The Troubles but I do expect those who did not suffer what he did to be able to detect and criticise the offensive double standards he applies to “innocent relatives”.

    Luckily I grew up in a quiet town in North County Dublin where all we had to worry about was Ray-guhn’s administration nuking Dublin airport.

  • It just struck me what the name of the winning candidate means – why for the love of crunchies would you call your kid “Turlough”. Is that the nationalist equivalent of the Johnny Cash “A man called Sue”?

  • bertie

    WF did not do the equivalent of join the Provos.

    “Willie doesn’t consider the relatives of nationalists/republicans killed by the state or loyalists to be “innocent relatives” ”

    In that interview with the American right wing evangelist that was blogged here recently he did talk about loyalist terrorists. I hold more faith in things that I hear the man say directly than how he is often misreported.

  • slug

    Robert:

    I did not say that I thought Willie was behaing irrationally.

    I said that he had suffered more personal losses in the troubles than I could even begin to understand.

    His personal losses were on a very deep scale.

  • Chris Donnelly

    2005
    The Fews
    Sinn Fein 3,571
    SDLP 2,209
    UUP 1,765
    DUP 681

    2006 By-election
    Sinn Fein 4,092
    W Frazer 1,427

    A number of things strike me from reading the results.

    1. Sinn Fein will be very pleased that, on a lower turnout, the party vote has significantly increased – by 500 votes.

    2. The SDLP will be kicking themselves for not contesting this election. As all political parties have found out in the past, not contesting an election means that “your” voters get into the habit of voting for other parties- a dangerous habit which they can quite easily get used to (have the SDLP really learnt nothing from the days when they deluded themselves- and the media- into believing the rising Sinn Fein vote was really just “borrowed” SDLP voters?)

    3. The UUP are losers in this election, more so than the DUP on the unionist side. The Fews is one of a small number of DEAs across the 6 counties where the UUP remained in 2005 significantly stronger than the DUP. In fact, 2005 saw the DUP take their first council seat in the DEA, which up until then returned two UUP councillors.

    Willie Frazer has become identified to the public as a ‘proxy’ DUP representative, through his associations with DUP elected reps and his public hardline stance. Were he to contest the new DEA formed in the RPA shake-up, he is more likely to run for the DUP than the UUP, and he has accustomed more than 1,400 voters to putting a tick beside his name.

    All in all, this election should just confirm to most observers that Sinn Fein and the DUP remain light years ahead of the SDLP and UUP, both in terms of strategy and public support.

  • Gum

    Whats wrong with Turlough? Irish for Terry (although I think ‘purer’ spelling would be Tearlach)

  • bertie

    WF has associations with UUP represntative too. There are just fewer of them to chose from.

  • BooBoo

    [Play the ball, BooBoo – edited moderator]

  • Marcus

    Darth, Keith M

    The “prickly but principled” Frazer – I don’t think so.

    Unlike Willie Frazer, I condemn ALL murders and would like to see justice for ALL victims. I’m truly sorry for what Frazer has suffered but, let’s face facts, he’s not the only one.

    Unfortunately, Frazer wants revenge not justice. He has openly defended Billy Wright (surely one of the most vile people on either side) and there are leading members of the UDA and other convicted Loyalist terrorists in Love Ulster.

    He also stated, on the release of Loyalist terrorists under the GFA, that they should not have been jailed in the first place.

    I have never voted for Sinn Fein and I greatly admire people like Alan McBride who (despite great personal loss) wants to see fairness and justice for all.

    If someone came along who represented only Catholic victims but wanted to airbrush the Protestant victims out of history, I would have no time for them. If you listen to Fraser, there were no innocent Catholics killed in South Armagh – really!! – I seem to remember the Miami Showband and the O’Dowd family to name but two.

    If you want “principled” – try David Vance. Although I don’t agree with everything he says, he is consistent in his condemnation of both “Loyalist” and “Republican” terrorists

    Personally, my definition of principled means maintaining a consistent stance in defence of your beliefs against anyone who disgarees.

    Fraser’s “principled” condemnation of only one side while ignoring (and on occasion making excuses for) the other side doesn’t seem to fit this definition to me.

  • bertie

    “Unfortunately, Frazer wants revenge not justice”

    Can you give us any evidence of his and what would you deem revenge and what justice.

    WF is part fo a group that supports victims of republican violence . The MSB were not victims of republican violence and so are not part of his victims group. He has condemned loyalist violence.

    “If someone came along who represented only Catholic victims but wanted to airbrush the Protestant victims out of history”

    Not focusing on victims of loyalist terrorism is not airbrushing them out of history. Re your quote, I would imagine that designation a group on the basis of the religon of the perpetrator as opposed to the political aims of the perpetrator would not be helpful but if there is a market/need for such a group then who am I do say that it shouldn’t exist. I wouldn’t automatically consider it a threat.

  • Marcus

    Bertie

    Your definition is not quite accurate – his group represents only Protestant victims of republican violence NOT Catholic ones. On the occasions that he has been interviewed by an impartial reporter i.e Channel 4 news or Newsnight – this has been put to him and he just vaguely waffles through it – mind you, he is truly an appalling public speaker – mostly vague waffle with the occasional anti-nationalist rant.

    I live abroad and most of my colleagues are UK ex-pats. Based on my experience, when people with no great vested interest in NI see Frazer, he comes across as a bitter man who indulges in blatently one-sided condemnation.

    I personally have never seen or heard him condemn “loyalist” terrorism. However, as I assume that you live in NI and I don’t, you may have seen coverage that I haven’t. If he has indeed publicly condemned “loyalist” terrorism -then I stand corrected.

    However, his comments on Billy Wright and the “loyalist” terrorist prisoners are a matter of public record. Are you seriously telling me that, if I defended Sean Kelly or said that Patrick Magee should never have been jailed, you wouldn’t see me as an apologist for “Republican” violence?

    I really can’t see how any open minded person can see Frazer as anything other than someone who condemns “Republican” terrorism unreservedly (as do I!) but indulges in moral equivalence when it comes to “Loyalist” terrorism.

    Frazer is free to form a group representing who he likes – I have no issue with that. However, if you’re going to put yourself in the public eye criticising terrorism from one side of the community and are then ambivalent about terrorism from the other side, you can’t expect neutral or open-minded people to respect your opinion.

  • bertie

    Marcus

    “his group represents only Protestant victims of republican violence NOT Catholic ones” I doubt that if this is true in practice that it is by design. Are there many RC vcitims of republican terrorism in S. Armagh? If so can you be sure that they are not associated with FAIR in some way. I would imagine that it would be hard for them to publically be so.

    On the interview that was blogged on here that so many people condemned WF for he did condemn loyalist terrorists onless ,y memory plays me false as I seem to remember that it was typical that this was over looked when condemning WF for anti RC rhetoric that was actually coming from the interviewer.

    The comments that you say are of public record are not something that I have heard himself and he has been misquoted on other things so why not this.

    Marcus there are many people whos critisism of WF is down to their own narrow prejudice and a total bloody heartlessness regarding what he has been through, I don’t consider that that is your motivation but I really would like to press you to answer the point I asked before.

    “”Unfortunately, Frazer wants revenge not justice”

    Can you give us any evidence of his and what would you deem revenge and what justice. ”

    I am really interested in unpicking this.

  • EWI

    prickly but principled Frazer?

    Oh, yeah. That would be the Willie Frazer who believes that no Loyalists should be in prison for killing Catholics, right? The “principled” Willie Frazer who turned up in dublin with a bunch of Loyalist marching bands in tow for his Love Ulster/victims/Orange Order/whatever march?

  • EWI

    In that interview with the American right wing evangelist that was blogged here recently he did talk about loyalist terrorists. I hold more faith in things that I hear the man say directly than how he is often misreported.

    He said it to Susan McKay. And – for good measure – Mammy Frazer added her tuppence as well, in the same vein.

  • bertie

    ” bunch of Loyalist marching bands in tow for his Love Ulster/victims/Orange Order/whatever march? ”

    If you mean loyalist as in terrorist then what evidence do you have for this?

    It was a victims rally. Not a Love Ulster or an OO one.

    “He said it to Susan McKay” Oh and of course I believe her …..not!

  • EWI

    If you mean loyalist as in terrorist then what evidence do you have for this?

    You said “loyalist as in terrorist”, not me. They’re certainly the junior admirers’ club, though.

    It was a victims rally. Not a Love Ulster or an OO one.

    It was many different things, depending on who was interviewing the slippery Mr. Frazer at the time.

    “He said it to Susan McKay” Oh and of course I believe her …..not!

    Being a professional journalist, who was able to transcribe verbatim for her book the accounts of what was said to her, I am certain that Ms. McKay has interview tapes in her possession.
    Just so you know.

  • bertie

    “You said “loyalist as in terrorist”, not me. They’re certainly the junior admirers’ club, though. ”

    I asked so as to find out what you problem with the bands was? I still don’t know. Junior admirers? of what? do you mean terrorists? if so on what evidence? or do you just not like victims?

    “It was many different things, depending on who was interviewing the slippery Mr. Frazer at the time.”

    I do know that it was not a Love Ulster or an OO rally and that he has said so. It is also repeated on his site. The fact that so many people are saying it was, is part of the misinformation and sloppy journalism that surronds WF.

    “Being a professional journalist, who was able to transcribe verbatim for her book the accounts of what was said to her, I am certain that Ms. McKay has interview tapes in her possession.
    Just so you know”

    What? just so I know that you are sure of something?

  • bertie

    I actually meand to say “or do you just not like unionists? but victims workd just as well as a question.

  • slug,

    didn’t mean to put words in your mouth – I unconsciously presumed you were making the point that suffering and emotions can occlude one’s rationality. A viewpoint I agree with. That’s why I went on to make the point about being a pacifist but how that intellectual decision could be overturned by emotions. It wouldn’t make the action moral and it wouldn’t invalidate the pacifist principle.

    Gum,

    Turlough is a seasonal lake that appears in the winter and disappears in the summer. I’m sure you can see the endless possibilities for teasing in that.

  • Marcus

    Bertie

    I am not on a “Witch Hunt” against Willie Frazer i.e. I listened to the US Interview and, in all fairness, the interviewer was clearly fervently anti-Catholic and was steering the whole conversation in that direction.

    However, I have checked the comments that I referred to (those that I didn’t hear myself) and I’m completely satisfied that Willie Frazer did make them.

    Willie Frazer’s comment about loyalist prisoners was made to David Dunseith on TalkBack. I’m pressed for time so can’t post the link but it should be easy to find. I don’t know where he originally made the Billy Wright comment but he has repeated it in a number of interviews. I think he still defends Billy Wright to this day.

    He also made the classic “if a paki comes over from India” comment in an on the record newspaper interview.

    He also claims that Robert McConnell (a UDR man and friend of his) wasn’t involved with loyalist terrorism. It has been proved beyond doubt that McConnell was a member of the Glenanne gang and murdered the Catholic Reavey brothers in South Armagh the day prior to the KingsMill massacre.

    It’s not just Willie Frazer who (in my opinion) is a bad representative for relatives. Jim Dixon -another prominent member of FAIR is another “classic” who openly espouses the virtues of apartheid in South Africa and believes that there should be a segregated health care system in the British Isles – again his comments are all on the record in various interviews.

    I completely sympathise with anyone who has lost relatives to terrorists in NI. However, I believe that if their representatives are making comments that could be interpreted (to put it mildly) as racist and/or being ambivalent to terrorism ( from “their” side of the community) then they lose all their credibility.

    I sympathise with Willie Frazer’s loss. However, as a (very moderate) Catholic – how can I trust anyone who defends Billy Wright or thinks that “Loyalist” terrorists (such as the Shankill Butchers) shouldn’t have been locked up in the first place.

    Also, the obvious involvement of leading UDA members in Love Ulster doesn’t endear it to observers.

    Personally I think that Willie Frazer is a bitter man and a poor representative for the relatives. While all decent non-partisan people would sympathise with them, that will soon be lost because their leaders are seen as prejudiced and hypocritical on “loyalist” terrorism.

  • bertie

    Marcus

    Thanks for your answer but I would really like an answer to the revenge/justice point.

    “Jim Dixon -another prominent member of FAIR” I’m pretty sure that he isn’t. Apartfrom anything else, FAIR is a S.Armagh group and JD is a Fermanaghman.

    As to the comments about Wright and the shankhill butchers I would want to hear them and in the context. I can undertand someone in WF’s shoes getting p***d off if people start bringing up the loyalist terrorists if done on a way that makes him think that they are trying to diminish the evil of the IRA. IT is also arguable that if it were not for the IRA, the Shankhill butchers and Billy Wright etc would not have done what they did. In that context they shouldn’t have been locked up in the first place, because the IRA terrorism to which they responded and got locked up for shouldn’t have happened. BTW, that does not excuse in any way the evil of the Shankhill butchers and being in jail is the least of what they deserved. If they wouldn’t have done it if not for the IRA, is irrelevant, they still did it.

    A set of thugs turned up uninvited to the launch of LU and that has done it immersurable harm, understandably. However LU is not FAIR. The fact that the victims rally in Dublin was nothing to do with LU, beyond it expressing support did not stop most of the journalists and commentators calling it that anyway, which is part of the reason that I don’t beleive everything else they print about WF..

  • SpellingBee

    “IT is also arguable that if it were not for the IRA, the Shankhill butchers and Billy Wright etc would not have done what they did.”

    If that’s the case Bertie then it’s also possible that had it not been for the sectarianism of the Unionist government at Stormont, the pogroms by unionists in 1969 and various other factors then the IRA would not have existed. See? It’s just as easy to lay the blame for everything at the door of “youse’uns”

  • jaun

    perhaps frasier would have done better if those preffered options hadn’t been engaged in pogroms against his people (and therefore potential supporters) for three decades, good on him . it must take some balls to stand up to totaliterian maniacs. it is the priviliage all young protestant men secretly yern for, that one day we may do the same and at last break the facists backs.

  • abc

    Jaun, it might have been a good idea for you to have spent some part of the last three decades learning to spell, mate.
    I had a great edukayshun myself…

  • Jo

    It is surely a mark of an ineffective spokesperson for victims if the way he/she behaves and acts (as distinct from the way in which they are portrayed) actually works against generating sympathy and support for the genuine needy victims.

    I would like to think of myself as emphathising with all who have suffered, but the behaviour and attitudes or Willie Frazer and certain others who have misrepresented prominent victims have not helped sustain that empathy in respect of those who have (mis)placed theeir trust in him. He simply prevents any chance they ever have or ever will have of moving on.

  • Garibaldy

    Bertie,

    I have to say I’m shocked by your comments about loyalist terrorism only being responsive. I assume you do know that the UVF had been reformed and had killed a Catholic and carried out several other sectarian attacks as early as 1966. Then there were the bombings that they carried out too. Not only did loyalists outside the government respond with violence to the Civil Rights marches – the classic case being Burntollet – but the state did too. Yet does that excuse what the Provos did? I think not.

    I find it incredible that someone who takes a hard line on all terrorists should come out with this. Whatever your intentions, to others it appears a lot like excusing loyalism.

  • kensei

    “What? just so I know that you are sure of something?”

    Just so you know what a fool you are being. The comments attributed to Frazer in the book are so damaging that there are only two reasons why there hasn’t been a lawsuit

    1. He said them, and he knows they it can be categorically proved in court.

    2. He didn’t say them, but believes them anyway

    You may not like Susan McKay, but that is no reason for believing she is unprofessional.

  • The Devil

    jaun

    “perhaps frasier would have done better if those preffered options hadn’t been engaged in pogroms against his people”

    Which episode was this? I must have missed it. Was it the one where Niles’s apartment is burgled?

  • cladycowboy

    bertie, bertie, lovely intergration of Jesuitical reasoning and rhetoric to mitigate the worst excesses of Loyalist terrorism. United at last.

  • Steaky

    I find it unbelievable that Frazer can generate so much attention as has been shown on this post. Ignoring the usual is he,isnt he (connected to terrorists? B*g*ted? The anti-christ?) he is, at best an inarticulate, soap box mounter who seems to have had his outlook on N Ireland polarised by his (regrettable) losses.
    At worst he is a fire starter who brings up the past in an effort to stir up problems that others are striving to move past.
    Either way I think he warrants none of this attention and is most definately ignored in favour of more intellectable and forward thinking men.
    That being said, the fair (victims.org.uk)website is always entertaining in nothing else as a lesson to extremists (of any cause) in how propaganda should be carried out.

  • Steaky

    And Before abc reprimands me with some witty remark about learning to spell (always a valuable addition to any debate), I noticed that I made up a word in there, should have read “intellectual”.

  • abc

    steaky, don’t worry about the spelling-we know you’re trying your best.
    As a self-espoused representative of victims, you would expect Willie to bring up the past.It is the selective nature of what Willie chooses to bring up that is the biggest indictment of him.
    I can’t help feeling that this guy is hell-bent on causing as much trouble as he can with no regard to the damage that his reckless actions do to the credibility of the cause that he is meant to be garnering public sympathy for.

  • Nathan

    Darth,

    I think Garibaldi and Marcus have answered your question – he is very complacent when it comes to loyalist extra-curricular activities. In fact, he supported loyalist terrorism as a counterbalance to the PIRA campaign.

    Moreover, Willie is a man who acts according to impulse rather than thinking things through first e.g. his insults to Rev David Frazer, an Anglican minister from Co.Meath. Rather than criticising his intolerance and Uncle Tom mentality, he preferred to declare him a non-Protestant. Pathetic!

    Therefore, those traumatised individuals who have suffered immensely at the hands of the PIRA should refrain from mixing their grievances with politics.

    Rather than trying to quench the sectarian fire alot of them only ever want to fuel it further – we should not allow them to do this, hence my support for everyone else other than Willie in a political context.

  • Jo

    I take it Turlough might be a relative of Conor ?

  • few that was close

    refers jo to post 6..Its his brother. He works in Daisy Hill Hospital

  • Jo

    Ta, Few! Another dynasty emerges.
    Thankfully, Willy looks like a one-off.

  • Fanny

    So, nothing to Tom “Slab” Murphy then? Just curious, not casting any aspersions whatsover. I thought: Murphy… South Armagh….

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Garibaldy: “I have to say I’m shocked by your comments about loyalist terrorism only being responsive. I assume you do know that the UVF had been reformed and had killed a Catholic and carried out several other sectarian attacks as early as 1966. Then there were the bombings that they carried out too. Not only did loyalists outside the government respond with violence to the Civil Rights marches – the classic case being Burntollet – but the state did too. Yet does that excuse what the Provos did? I think not. ”

    Ah, but by Bertie’s espoused “logic,” it does, as there would have been no need for republican violence without the state’s violence and the the UVF and other Loyalist violence… unless, of course, Bertie’s has one set of “logic” of Loyalists and another for Republicans… which seems likely, given the meat of his post.

  • Jo

    At least Bertie’s logic wasn’t quite as mindbending as the Unionist who argued that really, the Troubles in their entirety and Gusty Spence’s murders in particular, were just a reaction to the Republic’s celebrating the 50th anniversary of 1916.

    I suppose we should be grateful that the 90th anniversary didn’t result similarly in another set of hopelessly Pavlovian murders.

  • Slartibuckfast

    ‘“He said it to Susan McKay” Oh and of course I believe her …..not!’

    Of course he didn’t say it, Bertie. Willy’s not a dribbling moron, is he?

    I’m sure he’ll get around to suing her over it some day.

  • Fanny

    “Willy’s not a dribbling moron”

    That’s a relief!

  • bertie

    This is fascinating! I have my point illustrated beautifully!
    I wondered if despite the fact that I specifically said
    “BTW, that does not excuse in any way the evil of the Shankhill butchers and being in jail is the least of what they deserved. If they wouldn’t have done it if not for the IRA, is irrelevant, they still did it.”

    that I would be accused of what I have been and what WF has been accused of too. In my case I am just a name on a blog, that I don’t think anyone would have much of an interest in deliberately trying to discredit and what I actually said is available for scrutiny. How much more likely is it that someone in WF’s situation will be misrepresented.

    First of all I used the term “arguably” meaning “it can be argued not that I am actually arguing it, just exploring the possibilities about what might have been said and what it might have meant.

    Secondly, as my comment that I actually made makes clear, whether or not the UVF etc did what they did because of the IRA does not excuse it.

    I might miss somethings but I’ll try to answer a few points.

    Garibaldy
    I didn’t know that about the UVF.
    “…Yet does that excuse what the Provos did? I think not.
    I find it incredible that someone who takes a hard line on all terrorists should come out with this. Whatever your intentions, to others it appears a lot like excusing loyalism. ”

    No Of course the provos activities weren’t excusable. I think that it is entirely possible that there is an IRA man who got involved because the UVF/UDA or whoever murdered a member of his family. And who carried out acts of terrorism. And was imprisoned for it. Arguably if it hadn’t been for that murder of a member of his family he would not have turned to terrorism and, in that context, as the first murder should not have happened then he shouldn’t have ended up in prison. However given that fact that he did commit acts of terrorism, then he like the Shankhill butchers deserved prison. am I now going to be accused of being a Provo apologist?

    I am indeed someone who takes a hard line on all terrorism and yet even so my words have been misinterpreted and in your case, with no malign intention.
    .
    Kensei
    But for the fact that I have been reading your comments on an other thread about the OO, and although I don’t agree with all you say, I am impressed by the willingness to engage positively on the matter, that I can detect, I would be temoted to be very rude in my reply. I will just say though that there is another reason, ie that you have other things on your plate, and you are focusing your energies on challanging those who more directly supported terrorism.

    Claddycowboy

    “bertie, bertie, lovely intergration of Jesuitical reasoning and rhetoric to mitigate the worst excesses of Loyalist terrorism. United at last. ”

    I remember you of old 😉

    You are probably right about the Jesuitical bit.LOL! I missed my calling” But sorry to disappoint. Nothing I said would or could have “mitigated” the worse (or even the mildest) excesses of Loyalist terrorism. I suspect you meant excuse. Even then as I said in the post, it does not excuse it

    Dread
    “Ah, but by Bertie’s espoused “logic,” it does, as there would have been no need for republican violence without the state’s violence and the the UVF and other Loyalist violence… unless, of course, Bertie’s has one set of “logic” of Loyalists and another for Republicans… which seems likely, given the meat of his post. ”

    Sorry but that is not my logic. There is not “need” for any terrorism and nothing that I said says any different. It ain’t my logic that is flawed here! If a man kills his wife after going into a rage when his boiled egg wasn’t runny. He may not have killed her if it wasn’t for what she did of didn’t do to his egg, but even so, he certainly didn’t NEED to.

    Just to make it clear, if WF or anyone else actually said that loyalist terrorism is excused (which is a different thing than is the result of ), IRA terrorism and meant just that, then that would indeed be worthy of the strongest condemnation!

  • bertie

    Nathan

    Victims have a right to make their greivances public!

  • Garibaldy

    Bertie,

    Thanks for the clarification

  • bertie

    Garibaldy

    no problem mate 😉

  • Dread Cthulhu

    bertie: “Sorry but that is not my logic.”

    Ah, but it is the logic you were presenting in your post. “Espouse” might have been too affirmative a word, but I didn’t know we were going to get rabbinical on the issue.

    bertie: “There is not “need” for any terrorism and nothing that I said says any different.”

    In your post, you said: “IT is also arguable that if it were not for the IRA, the Shankhill butchers and Billy Wright etc would not have done what they did. In that context they shouldn’t have been locked up in the first place, because the IRA terrorism to which they responded and got locked up for shouldn’t have happened.”

    If I must type out the long-hand, then I must…

    Now, I present to you, it is, by the same logic you presented, that it is arguable that were it not for the UVF, which was reconstituted in 1966, per Garibaldy, and the violence they, their fellow pro-Unionists, including the state itself, then there would have been no PIRA and, as such, they should not be locked up, as they would not have done what they did but for the actions of the UVF and the state. The timing of the UVF and their activity both invalidates your presented logic (and it *IS* your logic, in so far as you have not qualified as being someone else’s) and presents a new conrundrum — that by the logic you sought to rhetorically diminish the LVF’s culpability in their own crimes, the IRA’s were likewise diminshed. Additionally, as you have not suggested that Willie ever made this particular argument, then who else’s arguement could it be, but your own?

    bertie: “If a man kills his wife after going into a rage when his boiled egg wasn’t runny. He may not have killed her if it wasn’t for what she did of didn’t do to his egg, but even so, he certainly didn’t NEED to. ”

    So… In your mind, state-sponsored violence and the social injustice heaped upon the Catholic community is akin to finding one’s eggs are inappropriately cooked… fascinating way of thinking you have there, bertie.

    bertie: “Just to make it clear, if WF or anyone else actually said that loyalist terrorism is excused (which is a different thing than is the result of ), IRA terrorism and meant just that, then that would indeed be worthy of the strongest condemnation!”

    And yet, rather than spare the keystokes to find-out, you play “slam the journalist” and make excuses and spin for him. If you are going to try and make a defense for wee Willie, why waste time with the whataboutery and spin of your Aug 04, 2006 @ 08:19 AM post? Why not inject some fact, rather than creating scenarios intended to justify Willie’s behavior? As for the last, if what he said is so potentially reprehensible, why all the song and dance?

  • kensei

    “But for the fact that I have been reading your comments on an other thread about the OO, and although I don’t agree with all you say, I am impressed by the willingness to engage positively on the matter, that I can detect, I would be temoted to be very rude in my reply. I will just say though that there is another reason, ie that you have other things on your plate, and you are focusing your energies on challanging those who more directly supported terrorism.”

    Waaaaaaaa?

  • bertie

    I’m answering your earlier post, in fact your

    “Posted by kensei on Aug 04, 2006 @ 11:04 AM”

    post.

  • bertie

    Dread

    “Now, I present to you, it is, by the same logic you presented, that it is arguable that were it not for the UVF, which was reconstituted in 1966, per Garibaldy, and the violence they, their fellow pro-Unionists, including the state itself, then there would have been no PIRA and, as such, they should not be locked up, as they would not have done what they did but for the actions of the UVF and the state. The timing of the UVF and their activity both invalidates your presented logic (and it *IS* your logic, in so far as you have not qualified as being someone else’s) and presents a new conrundrum—that by the logic you sought to rhetorically diminish the LVF’s culpability in their own crimes, the IRA’s were likewise diminshed. ”

    I find it difficult to work my way though that but I was not nor seeking to diminish the LVF (although I thought we were talking about the UVF) ‘s culpability one whit. By the same token my example of an IRA man commiting terrorism because a member of his family was murdered would not have diminished his culpability one whit even if he would never have done it if it had not been for his bereavement. It is not my logic that wrongdoing needs or excuses further wrong doing. As I said they should not be locked up IN THE CONTEXT that the inital incident should not have happened and that the things that happened following that should not have happened. However as I said in my initial post. as the loyalists did commit acts of terrorism, prison was the least of what they deserved. In the same way that if a murder victims widow marries again and has children. In the context of the fact that her husband should never have meen murdered and if he hadn’t she would not have had the children, then the children should never have been borne. It is of course right and proper that the widow found happiness and had children. and before you start to dismiss this I have heard people talk about children in this situation, not with any thought other than pleasure for the widow and delight at the fact that she has these children but the paradox that these children IN ONE SENCE should never have been born

    “So… In your mind, state-sponsored violence and the social injustice heaped upon the Catholic community is akin to finding one’s eggs are inappropriately cooked… fascinating way of thinking you have there, bertie. ”

    no sppry that’s you making stuff up again. The illustration was to drive home the point in another way that saying that the man killed his wife because she did his egg wrong did not mean that you are saying that he needed to and as a matter of fact I was thinking of it in terms of the loyalist terrorists and that even if they did it because of what the IRA did, they didn’t NEED to.

    “And yet, rather than spare the keystokes to find-out, you play “slam the journalist” and make excuses and spin for him”

    I’m not sure what the key strokes thing means. I slam the journalist because people were quoting a journalist that I don’t trust. I don’t know what keystrokes I could have made that are relevant.

    The response to my comments, including yours have convinced me even more about the potential for people to be misunderstood

  • kensei

    “I’m answering your earlier post”

    Yes. Waaa?

  • bertie

    There is a third reason for not sueing – that you have other things which take priority, not just the two you specified

  • kensei

    “There is a third reason for not sueing – that you have other things which take priority, not just the two you specified”

    I would say no, not with such damaging allegations. Racism? Support for Loyalists? That’s kind of credibility destroying.

    It is of course possible, but clutching at straws, no?

  • bertie

    Kensei

    no I think that it is quite likely. How do you prove that you didn’t say something to someone?

    Mc Kay/Gadaffi. I’d concentrate on Gadaffi too.

  • EWI

    There is a third reason for not sueing – that you have other things which take priority, not just the two you specified

    And Bertie’s credibility takes a nose-dive…

  • kensei

    “no I think that it is quite likely. How do you prove that you didn’t say something to someone?”

    I believe the onus in a civil case is for Susan McKay to prove that he *did* say it. But I may be wrong.

  • bertie

    “There is a third reason for not sueing – that you have other things which take priority, not just the two you specified

    And Bertie’s credibility takes a nose-dive…”

    Eh why?

    firstly I didn’t think that as a name on a blog I had any particular level of credibility and second.

    It would be a major factor for me in deciding whether or not to sue someone.

  • “So, nothing to Tom “Slab” Murphy then? Just curious, not casting any aspersions whatsover. I thought: Murphy… South Armagh….”

    There are numerous Murphy families in South Armagh, the Nelly Murphy´s, the Slab Murphy´s, the Corney Murphy´s etc

    No relation

  • Dread Cthulhu

    bertie: “The illustration was to drive home the point in another way that saying that the man killed his wife because she did his egg wrong did not mean that you are saying that he needed to and as a matter of fact I was thinking of it in terms of the loyalist terrorists and that even if they did it because of what the IRA did, they didn’t NEED to. ”

    bertie, it’s a bad analogy, Loyalist or Republican way about.

    Frankly, when everything is finally out in the open, I fear we are going to find HMG used the same “countergang” tactics they used in Kenya and Aden, putting the dirty end of the stick in HMG’s hands The Loyalist terror groups didn’t need to be formed solely on the basis that tehy were alleged to be protecting the state, which is the role of the paramilitarized police and the Army. It was a needless duplication of effort, put in the hands of ill-trained and ill-disciplined amateurs who have since graduated to drug-running, extortion rackets and the usual “business” of organized crime.

    Now, one *may* argue that the Republican groups were formed in reaction to the state’s permitting of violence against Catholics, the formation of the UVF and subsequent violence and, ultimately, the state’s unwillingness to address either the state-permitted or the state-sponsored violence, let alone the civil rights and human rights issues underlying the Catholic position…

    Did they *have* to form these groups? No, they didn’t. They could have simply taken it and waited for the bodies to pile up to the point they could no longer be ignored. The desire to strike at one’s oppressors, however, is painfully human… and works both ways.

    To get back to Willie, given the ridiculously draconian libel and slander laws in the UK, Willie is foolish not to sue.

  • bertie

    Dread it is a perfectly good analogy as it was used to illustrate that just because some one does A and as a result someone else does B, it does not mean that A is in anyway at fault or that B needed to be done.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    bertie: “it is a perfectly good analogy as it was used to illustrate that just because some one does A and as a result someone else does B, it does not mean that A is in anyway at fault or that B needed to be done.”

    No, bertie, it isn’t, unless you believe the assault upon the Catholic population of N.I. by agents of the state and the Protestant mob was akin to over-cooking the eggs or scortching the kippers.

    The analogy is also flawed, insofar as it illustrates a disproportionate response to a trivial problem. I would suggest that state-sponsored violence is most certainly not a trivial problem and that the Republican response was not as wildly disproportionate as your errant analogy would suggest.

    Likewise, from the Loyalist perspective, it is still flawed, insofar as the Republican activities were not trivial and, while the Loyalist activities were ill-focused, ill-trained and inappropriately armed for the arena they would be fighting in, they were not disproportionate, as such.

  • bertie

    no Dread

    ananlogy only has to work to explain the particular point that you are trying to make. People were trying to say that it you say that someone did B because someone else did A means that you are saying that they needed to. My analogy with the eggs is the counter-example to that point.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    bertie: “ananlogy only has to work to explain the particular point that you are trying to make.”

    To be taken seriously, it has to be half-way illustrative and analagous to what it is attempting to explain. Your analogy fails on that basis.

    Bertie: “People were trying to say that it you say that someone did B because someone else did A means that you are saying that they needed to.”

    And, in the proper context, it is a perfectly rational arguement to make. Your analogy seeks to lampoon matters by choosing two events that, in a sane environment, could not rationally be considered cause and effect. The analogy fails in so far as it “jumps the track” of reason. You are trying to complare grapes and watermelon.

    Bertie: “My analogy with the eggs is the counter-example to that point. ”

    But cannot be taken seriously, as it doesn’t illustrate a thing. The two events are so out of sync as to be either comedy or hyperbole. Its simply not an effective counter.

    Loyalist groups were formed prior to the start of the Troubles, as reckoned by most. They were active and committing acts of violence. The police were either unable (or unwilling) to stem either the Loyalist groups or the Protestant mobs. As such, Catholics had little option than to take matters into their own hands — when the police, the body meant to maintain order, becomes a source of disorder, what other option did they have? They marched for civil rights are were assaulted. The forces of the state became part of the problem.

    Now, for Loyalism, again, I think that you are ignoring basic human impulses — when attacked, retaliate. Republican violence was, within the Loyalist mindset, an affront that had to be responded to. This was not some unconnected dada-esque seperation of cause and effect; it was responding in kind. Loyalist violence is a bare shade more wrong than Republican because they had recourse — the RUC / PSNI, the UDR, the British Army, etc., whilst Republican options were far narrower.