Policing Debate Tonight in Derry

UPDATE: Early reports are that the meeting is packed, standing room only with people trailing out the door. Gerry McGeough, Tony Catney, Eddie McGarrigle, Francie Mackey and Tony McPhillips are on the platform with John Kelly acting as chair. Sinn Fein, who were invited, did not show up.

Concerned Republicans will be hosting a public meeting to discuss and debate the issue of Sinn Fein’s support for the PSNI. The meeting will take place in the Tower Hotel, Derry City, tonight, 17th January, at 7pm. The meeting is open to the public and media.

  • seabhac siúlach

    “By the way – not all of us voted (and I am glad to say it) for the GFA, opposed it from the start. ”

    That makes two of us…

  • lib2016

    Darth,

    I remember the fight for fair employment practices in Queens. It’s being won there and elsewhere.

    Too many former Orangemen have begun to realise that the same class who think of the President of Ireland as an ‘uppity taig’ also dismiss them and their representatives as uppity loyalists.

    Equality is in the interests of everybody who wants to see the growth of a stable democratic society here. You can decide for yourself whether that includes you.

  • BeardyBoy

    Both the South and Britain are stable democracies which are not about to permit a vacuum to emerge in NI, even if there weren’t other interested parties in NATO, the EU, the USA and elsewhere who want to see us grow up and learn to govern ourselves.

    That is the point – create the vacuum and tell them their solutions make it unavoidable – get the to talk a reality of our making

    There can be no British withdrawal until they have working institutions to hand over to.
    Every republican should see that or does anyone really think that republicans could or should have support for a mini-Civil War after a British withdrawal?

    If/when the English state their intention to withdraw the onus on us all is to agree an Ireland between us – no one has the inclination for war – it would only be a rerun of 1640-41. Too terrible for all sides. Unionists and nationalists both have a vested interest to ensure it does not happen.

    Until the dissidents can give us some sort of clue how they would build a functioning civil society they really don’t seem to have a clue. The old unionist Establishment is fading away whether they want to admit it or not – hence the temporary phenomenon of Paisleyism.

    I agree that old unionism (really the relic of big houseism) is dying, hence the travelling of unionism to its extremes to find an answer(drowning man syndrome) but why through it a lifeline – push it under.

    It’s time for republicans to start dealing with the unionist community to build whatever comes next.

    Agreed

  • middle-class taig

    BeardyBoy

    I understand the strategy of resist and destroy. I just think it’s to easy to read and too easy to counter. They’d feed us a load of motions to embarrass ourselves on, and we’d look unprepared to take the responsibility of governing. We’d be cast as the perpetual villains of the piece – unruly, ungovernable, recalcitrant and unsatiable. That, in my eyes, would be a real lifeline to unionism – we’d make them look reasonable. Plus we’d rip each other apart opposing things that made sense, and I think the electorate would reject it.

    Maybe I’ve gotten it wrong. Tell me how you think such a strategy would assist attempts to grow the republican movement, secure greater influence, make the border illusory and achieve republican goals. And how would it encourage unionists that we want to build anything with them.

    In all fairness, though, it would be quare craic.

  • darth rumsfeld

    Eh????
    what Fair Employment practices in Queens? That would be Queen’s the bastion of liberalism for 40 years and more, which has a Students’ Union that has been told to act on the chill factor against protestants, where the Students’ Union hasn’t had a Unionist president since the last ice age, and where the most recent high profile discrimination case I can recall was from a leading freemason, alleging he was passed over for promotion (he lost BTW)-or is there another Queen’s, perhaps the suburb of Noo yawk?

    And another thing.Just who are these former Orangemen of whom you speak? I’ll not be too hard on you- one name will do.

    Ye gods. If you think Queen’s is Orange Central, you probably think the Falls is a loyalist enclave

  • seabhac siúlach

    “You then go on to mention national identity as a key part of a person’s self-definition. (As a unionist, I can understand that!). But I was asking about values and principles – not the same thing at all. That’s why I mentioned ‘tribal loyalties’ as the alternative.”

    The values and principles of republicanism…well, I could recommend reading the 1916 proclamation for a summary (4th paragraph if I remember correctly). Fundamentally, though, republicanism means that the people are the state, that there is no need for a king/queen, royalty/nobility or any form of class structure. It is one where the people are sovereign, not some old lady in a nice hat…
    Taking executive roles in Stormont is to accept the Queen as head of state, no matter how symbolically and thus, it is against the very tenets of republicanism…

  • listener

    u all have gud points but i stick to my opinion like u all are entitled to stick to urs. but EL we are united, and we will be next month and thereafter. A united ireland is for all people. We irish have a right to answer to our own government as well as making the police accountable for their actions over this past countless years.

  • BeardyBoy

    I just think it’s to easy to read and too easy to counter. They’d feed us a load of motions to embarrass ourselves on, and we’d look unprepared to take the responsibility of governing.

    It we say we are not playing their game what they do really is immaterial. As for being unprepared they would be right – we would say that – we are not prepared to contribute to our demise.

    We’d be cast as the perpetual villains of the piece – unruly, ungovernable, recalcitrant and unsatiable.

    Seems a fair description
    Unruly – they cannot rule us
    Ungovernable – they cannot govern us
    Recalcitrant – yes
    Unstatiable – until you English stop rulling in Ireland

    That, in my eyes, would be a real lifeline to unionism – we’d make them look reasonable.

    So what?

    Plus we’d rip each other apart opposing things that made sense, and I think the electorate would reject it.

    We oppose everything – because their would be no local govt so all legislation comes from England – we oppose it because it is not Irish – and they would have to administrate anyway

    Tell me how you think such a strategy would assist attempts to grow the republican movement, secure greater influence, make the border illusory and achieve republican goals.

    Well I am not a republican but I know what you mean. I do not want the border illusory – I want it gone. The only real influence which counts is the English electorate, they have the real power in this situation. Hurt them in their pocket and annoy them and they will want out. keep ramming it home we do not, and never will, accept English rule.

    And how would it encourage unionists that we want to build anything with them.

    They know that we do not want to be handling the unionist problem, I am afraid that we would have to negotiate goods terms (for them) to satisfy them until the need for the satisfaction goes over the generations.

    This is of course not in depth but you can get the general drift.

  • lib2016

    darth,

    You are deliberately putting up false arguments. Discrimination was rife and is now much reduced at Queens as elsewhere. Personally I celebrate those facts but you can make up your own mind.

  • Brainwashed

    BeardyBoy

    ‘Unruly – they cannot rule us
    Ungovernable – they cannot govern us
    Recalcitrant – yes
    Unstatiable – until you English stop rulling in Ireland ‘

    I thought that one had been done and the T-Shirts bought. It did not work as far as I could fathom, thus was the impetus behind Gerrys chats with John Major.

    All that will happen if you start to hit the mainland in its pocket is that it will get fucked off and be well up for sending the army to get stuck in against those paddy bastards.

    Back to every footie club in the country doing the old ‘no surrender to the IRA’ chants again.

    Even through rose tinted specs I can not see how that advances the goal of Irish unity.

  • Emotions and anti-Sinn Fein sentiment ran high at a major rally in the heartland of disaffected republicanism, where support for policing was ruled out but a return to violence was not.

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2163555.ece

  • BeardyBoy

    Brainwashed

    Well you thought wrong – we are talking about non-violent tactics so nothing to do with talks between Mr Adams and Mr Major concerning ending violence and so on.

    I say we stand for every election here – go into Stormont – get our hands on the portfolios and then spend the cash to suit us. Say it was roads – we stop all cash going into roads in North down and transfer it into building a motorway between Derry and Sligo/Cavan for example, same with health – spend everything in a month, no money left, everyone up in arms and the english have to step in to run the place again and the have lost the cash – that is the sort of tactics we should do – go along with them and then just wreck it by doing what suits us. Can you imagine the crack if SF sent all the cash received for their portfolios to Trocaire – now would that not be fun?

    If they stop that then we sit there and do nothing – spend nothing.

    The options are as limited as our imaginations.

    As for sending the army in – who would they be fighting in this scenario.

    And the footie clubs – do not like footie so I do not care.

    They could chant “No surrender to those paddy bastards that spent all my hard earned tax money the freerolling bastards” now that would really Concern me.

  • middle-class taig

    BeardyBoy

    So they reintroduce Direct Rule. What’s your next tactic?

    BTW “unsatiable” – Eugh! I humbly apologise.

  • Reader

    seabhac siulach: Fundamentally, though, republicanism means that the people are the state, that there is no need for a king/queen, royalty/nobility or any form of class structure. It is one where the people are sovereign, not some old lady in a nice hat…
    So, how would I notice the difference? Is it the sort of thing that would make de Valera better than Clem Attlee, for instance? Or how about Haughey, Thatcher, Wilson? It seems as though an electorate can screw up perfectly well whether they are sovereign or not.

  • Reader

    BeardyBoy: Can you imagine the crack if SF sent all the cash received for their portfolios to Trocaire – now would that not be fun?
    Unpopular, in breach of their pledge of office, but more than that, impossible. Do you imagine that Peter Hain will put a large bag of banknotes on their desk in their first day on the job. (“Now, don’t forget to pay the nurses, BeardyBoy”). Do you think that your fellow executive members will approve your spending plans?

  • FClarke

    Are the details in the article below true – to the best of my knowledge from looking at internet discussions they are, and much more. Is this what so-called ‘dissident’ republicanism come to. Are the IRSP happy with this man making the running for them – has republicanism come down to this?

    http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=172

  • darth rumsfeld

    “Discrimination was rife and is now much reduced at Queens as elsewhere.”
    Where????? When???? What????

    “Personally I celebrate those facts but you can make up your own mind.”
    No, personally you wallow in MOPEry as a substitutie for fact-based argument. Noone seriously condones discrimination but too many make broad statements of belief without any facts to back them up.

  • BeardyBoy

    Okay – they stop that one – well we do something else – just keep creating mayhem – the English will not want to be kept in a position where they have to run this place – they have said it since at least 1972 and possibly beforehand (read Willie Whitelaw’s paper on the Future of Ireland).

    We keep reminding them that they cannot legislate and enforce the removal of 800,000 Irish into a United Kingdom.

    The Unionists then have a problem – how can they justify their position of a separate nation if about half of that nation will not contribute to the state. Makes the whole border issue ridiculous – especially in the light of the increasing disintegration of the UK as a whole.