SDLP’s ‘Stop Speeding’ campaigner caught, erm, speeding…

A bizarre week for nationalist politicians and road safety issues. If what Slugger hears turns out to be true, then the SDLP’s all island Stop Speeding (link courtesy of SuperSoupy) campaign may have gotten off with a fairly bizarre footnote this morning. We have an unconfirmed report that Alex Attwood, the SDLP’s man on the Policing Board, was caught speeding outside, of all places, PSNI headquarters at Knock, in East Belfast on the very day the campaign was supposed to start. Some mistake, surely? We hope for Alex’s sake it’s ours!!

  • tra g

    So thats a ‘Stoop Stop Speeding’ campaign :.)

  • SuperSoupy

    Eh? The SDLP’s campaign?

    “Some mistake, surely?”

    http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motors/2007/0418/1176454817558.html

  • Mick Fealty

    Stand by for strike through…

  • SuperSoupy

    Mick,

    The irony is he was just appointed SDLP spokesperson for North South Development and he immediately fell foul of one.

  • SuperSoupy
  • unionist

    I see Burns has been given social development which is the same as gagging him with Ritchie as Minister. even the sdlp recognise the mans “talent”

  • Yokel

    Thats his cred on this issue up the shute.

  • Marcellinus

    Yet another specious thread, clearly designed entirely for those wishing to continue with yet more SDLP bashing. Other threads show it is what SouperSoupy does best, but now Mick is in ion the act and trying to cover his tracks with his “Stand by” but here’s an idea…, why not wait and get the facts straight first eh?

  • eranu

    what speed was he doing? everyone drives at a bit over the limit on every road everywhere, we all do it. i expect hes been caught a little over the limit, nothing too serious.
    it will be interesting to see if anyone in the assembly can come up with some funny one liners when they are next in session..

  • wee slabber

    Maybe Alex is one of those “slow learners” the SDLP is always on about?

  • “everyone drives at a bit over the limit on every road everywhere, we all do it. “

    That’s not the point eranu. We don’t all preach to the rest of the population about how dangerous it is.

  • Marcellinus,

    You are getting just a wee bit carried away with your claims of widespread SDLP “bashing”. For the most part, the SDLP are rarely mentioned on most of these threads anymore.

    The apathy of bloggers towards them seems to reflect the general apathy of the public who are giving them a greatly-diminishing mandate with each succesive election.

    It takes a bit of scandal like this for them even to get a mention these days…

  • Marcellinus

    Open your eyes MACSWINEY…, you are talking shite. (Shinner shite I suspect.) For too long here on the Slug, the Shinner sycophants have been sniping and jeering at the SDLP. This thread is just one more example.

    ”The apathy of bloggers towards them seems to reflect the general apathy of the public..”

    Who you are you, the voice of Slugger bloggers? I don’t think so. If decreasing numbers of bloggers sympathetic to the SDLP are commenting on here, it is because of the reception they know they will get – specious vitriolic, snipes coupled with invective jeers.

    A whole thread about the man and not the ball. Pathetic. I doubt very much that AA was doing 100mph in a 30 but whatever speeding offence he may have committed; he will face the same courts as everyone else. However, if, (and that’s one big IF), AA was speeding, does it then exclude him from commenting on speeding offences? If you think so then you clearly haven’t read the ad hominem rule.

  • Marcellinus,

    As The SDLP have (in the past few minutes!) just dropped Alex Attwood from The Policing Board, then Im afraid your somewhat paranoid tirade has been altogether in vain…

  • Marcellinus

    MACSWINEY, what the feck are you wittering on about? Big feckin’ deal that he is no longer on the Policing Board… Am I supposed to give a shit? That’s entirely a matter for AA and the SDLP. Fact is, the SDLP has just announced a list of new spokesmen/women. Objective visitors to the site will see past your vituperation and note that the ad hominem rule means shit to you.

    The point is clear, Slugger has become a cold house for anyone other than supporters of the Shinner/Dupper combo’ and you prove my point!

  • Marcellinus,

    Revisionism (regarding your earlier comment)and also memory-loss are apparent in that somewhat mystifying and confused reply…

    I also think that I have respected this forum’s ethos much more than yourself and the foul-mouthed nature of your comments (i.e. describing another person as “Shinner Shite”). Deplorable language my friend and not something that the high standards of this site are accustomed to…

    Three Hail Marys and an Our Father should help get rid of your Angry Young Man syndrome methinks…

  • Marcellinus

    MACSWINEY, if you are going to try and patronise me, you will have to do better than that. If you get off on believing that any argument you think you have is strengthened by the register of language used to express it, then more the fool you. I prefer to judge an argument on it’s merit.

    ” I also think that I have respected this forum’s ethos…”
    Think again! I know there will be many people who will take offence at your bizarre and irreverent reference to the “Hail Marys” and “Our Fathers”.

    You are wrong to suggest I described ” another person as “Shinner Shite”)” Even a treasonous Shinner would be able to see that my reference to “Shinner shite” refereed to what was said and not the person who said it. There is a difference but then may be you can’t see that.

    Meanwhile, back on topic, I think AA’s record on the Policing Board is to be commended and leaves the Johnny-come-latelys like Martina, a lot to live up to.

  • URQUHART

    Marcellinus, wind your neck in.

    There are plenty here sympathetic to SDLP, but reading this sort of OTT defensive nonsense strains our loyalty to its limit.

    Criticising a public figure for speeding is not ‘ad hominem’ as you suggest. It’s the person who is the story.

  • Marcellinus

    URQUHART, “wind your neck in.” Who the feck are you, a bad Stephen Nolan impersonator?

    My comments here are more to do with arguing for a balanced representation of views and less to do with a defense of the SDLP. If you are happy to leave the sycophantic Dupper/Shinner shite that passes for debate here unchallenged, then good for you. Subject to it’s commenting policy, the Slug invites comment so what I have written is enough to “strain your loyalty”, it says more about you. Remember you are allowed to ignore it and posting is not obligatory.

    I agree that criticising a public figure does not in itself, represent an ‘ad hominem’ transgression but Mick regularly makes as a point of playing the ball and not the man. So when a thread comes along, where It’s the person who is the story.” or rather the man IS the ball, then it is only fair to call this for what it is, hypocrisy.

    Even though it is invited by this thread, it DOES represent an ad hominem transgression. The suggestion is that in the event of someone holding a speeding conviction, they hold no credibility in suggesting others should not speed. What complete and utter rubbish! If that were the case then what right would poacher-turned-gamekeeper SF have to tell the Dissidents to call a halt to their military campaign?

  • DifferentFolks

    The amount of different people using this ‘sycophantic shinner’ term is huge and weirdly these different people often all complain about the ad hominem rule too.

  • DifferentFolks

    Lots of the same different people like to refer to the ‘treasonous shinners’ too.

  • DifferentFolks

    Correct ‘treasonous shinner’ link – different people

  • What’s in a name?

    A rose by any other name… Ad hominem – read and learn.

  • Somebody else

    So there we have, as if any proof were needed, the strength of any argument here on the Slug, relies primarily on a posters identifiable identity and not on it’s merit.

    So what if a person (or people) have a consistent line of argument, you must have a name so that the Dupper/Shinner sycophants can transgress the ad hominem rule in order to discredit it. Pathetic. I missed that rule in the commenting policy.

    Here’s a novel idea, let’s challenge what is said and not who is saying it eh?

  • URQUHART

    It,s not hard to see why the SDLP is struggling.

  • Marcellinus

    URQUHART, you appear to have an OTT hang-up with the suggestion of challenging what is said and not who is saying it. It speaks volumes about you!

  • Comrade Stalin

    Who the feck are you, a bad Stephen Nolan impersonator?

    Jesus, the stoops surely are wound up tight these days.

    One of your boys got nabbed breaking the law in a big way. Part of dealing with it is to expect the media to pounce on it, like they would if it was any other politician. Are you sure the Stoops haven’t had a word to say on Slugger about that incident involving Martin Ferris ?

  • SuperSoupy

    “Part of dealing with it is to expect the media to pounce on it, like they would if it was any other politician”

    This has only appeared on Slugger’s. (hasn’t been denied)

    I think it is a fair assessment that Slugger’s is raising an issue few care about – the SDLP.

  • Padraig

    Comrade Stalin,

    ”One of your boys got nabbed breaking the law…”
    Do you (or Mick) know this for a fact? Marcellinus is making a good point about the premise of a thread based on unconfirmed reports that is about the man and not the ball. Does that make him a stoop?

    Surely it is hypocritical of the Shinners to claim Attwood has no credibility speaking about the speeding campaign when they are telling the Dissadents to call a halt to the military campaign?

    His point is well made. This is a thread about the man and not the ball so it’s not at all surprising that Shinner sycophants like Supersoupy jump at the chance to peddle their dribble.

  • Adèle

    Just because Alex Attwood might have a speeding conviction, that shouldn’t stop him (or anybody else) from asking people to curb their speed.

    Just what is the point of this thread? Is it to suggest that only people with a clean licenses hold any credibility asking people to “slow down”? If that is the case then it is complete and utter rubbish! If the supporters of any party are using this as a political point scoring opportunity, then I think it is reprehensible.

    As someone who has had a friend young killed as a result of a road traffic accident (where speed was a key issue), I would thank posters to focus on the real issue here, not the politician, but the dangerous speeds we are driving at.

  • IJP

    Of course this is a story.

    There’s a difference between a politician arrogantly telling the world to slow down, and a politician making the point that road users are all human and make mistakes and that policy should be developed to limit the consequences of such mistakes.

    I comment frequently in public on road safety issues, but I take the fact we should all slow down a bit as a given. We’re all guilty of it.

    Frankly, telling the world to slow down is lazy and does *nothing* to advance the debate. Instead, I have campaigned for more effective enforcement where it really matters (typically rural single carriageways, not wide dual carriageways), more effective driver education (so that when someone does make a mistake, others are trained to know what to do to limit the danger), and better road structures (more dual carriageways, more barriers, more anti-skid surfaces etc).

    I’m frankly fed up with politicians jumping on the bandwaggon and telling people to slow down as if they never make a mistake themselves. The issue is that road users will make mistakes and will continue to cause accidents. We need to develop the structures to ensure that those mistakes cause accidents much less often than is currently the case, and that those accidents are fatal much less often than is currently the case. And, frankly, politicians in the last Executive did *nothing* to move us in that direction. They would do well to look at their own shameful record first, before lecturing others.

  • Marcellinus

    I would like to echo everything Adele has said but take issue with IJP. Of course this is not a story.

    We the public elect our representatives. It is simply preposterous to suggest that politicians are being arrogant if they say call on drivers to watch their speed. It’s even more ridiculous to suggest that they should deal solely with legislative issues dealing with the resulting carnage! Get in to the real world!

    “…I take the fact we should all slow down a bit as a given…”

    ”…telling the world to slow down is lazy and does *nothing* to advance the debate.”

    It is too simple to “take this as a given” and I would go one step further and say it is arrogantly stupid. There are bigger questions here and IMO, the focus needs to switch to responsible driving that takes in to consideration an array of important factors such as weather conditions, road conditions, the vehicle being used for the journey etc. Calling on people to “slow down” invites people to consider their driving and, more precisely, the safety of their driving. This is not simply “lazy” and if it causes drivers to consider the consequences of their speed then it will help the debate surrounding issues of safety on our roads.

    I’m frankly fed up with politicians jumping on the bandwaggon and telling people to slow down as if they never make a mistake themselves.

    It sounds as though you have a hang up with politicians and this is preventing you from seeing the bigger picture. It should not be left to politicians alone to get this message across but sadly, “the debate” isn’t happening. Sure, people talk about the atrocities for a while after another fatality on our roads but that is short lived and everyone goes back to their old ways. Everybody seems to adopt a kind of “it’s not me” attitude. Someone else is always to blame. Why don’t you get off the back of our politicians (from any party) who are trying to do something to raise this issue? What would you like to see our politicians do? What new legislation (if any) would you like to see?

  • JD

    Is marcellinus latin for Mark (Durkan). I wonder.

  • sheesh

    I see dougal has started to deploy his alternate personae now. Catch a bloody grip man it’s transparent.

  • Observer

    “I would thank posters to focus on the real issue here, not the politician, but the dangerous speeds we are driving at.”

    Absolutely right.
    OK, so you were with Alex. What speed were you doing?

  • I HATE THE SHINNERS

    SINN FÉIN CALL FOR BRADLEY APOLOGY

    Sinn Féin Newry and Mourne Council Group leader Terry Hearty has called for the SDLP to withdraw what he described as a “scurrilous and grossly misleading” statement in relation to comments made by South Down MLA PJ Bradley. “Whilst PJ Bradley’s bitterness towards Sinn Féin is well documented, he has sunk to what even for him can be described as a poisonous low” said Councillor Hearty. He explained that the SDLP representative had used a very serious discussion about pedestrian and road safety in Newry and Mourne Council to attack Sinn Féin. “He described the discussion and proposals by Sinn Féin Councillors as childish antics and insinuated that Sinn Féins proposal to ask a senior official from Roads Service to come and discuss with Newry and Mourne Council issues such as traffic calming and pedestrian safety in residential areas in both urban and rural settings, and to also outline to Council the programmes that the department intend to roll out to tackle these issues of concern, somehow suggested that we did not take the issue of road safety serious. Sinn Féin also asked that Roads Service also consider using areas in Newry and Mourne for pilot programmes they are launching similar to other areas,” said an angry Councillor Hearty who added “What the SDLP failed to mention was that one of its own Councillors, Frank Feely stated that the motion presented to Council by them was “not practical and stupid”. He supported the Sinn Féin amendment., which was supported by the majority of Councillors in the Chamber. Whoever informed PJ Bradley of the very serious discussion that took place in the Chamber, seemed to forget also to mention that an Ulster Unionist representative described the SDLP the motion as “not too well thought out”. Councillor Hearty said that it was disappointing but not surprising that PJ Bradley was once again prepared to mislead and misconstrue to try to gain some type of smug self-satisfaction at the expense of Sinn Féin. “Mr. Bradley rather than lecture Sinn Féin and its new Ministers on how to treat people should work on personally accepting the political reality and the spirit of respect and positive anticipation about the future that exists. He should also apologise for his scurrilous remarks,” said Councillor Hearty

    For your information below is copy of PJ Bradleys statement- obviously frank feely did not proof read it

    PJ BRADLEY ‘CONCERNED BY SINN FEIN’S ATTITUDE’
    Back to Latest News
    Sinn Fein’s failure to accept a notice of motion by the SDLP has brought comment from local Assembly Member PJ Bradley. Mr. Bradley was referring to an SDLP motion that called for consideration to be given to reducing the speed limit in residential areas to 20MPH

    Mr. Bradley said, “Nothing seems to have changed in Council. Regardless of the merit of a motion Sinn Fein believe they are obliged to reject it or commend it is present by the SDLP.

    “I have an even greater concern in that the new Assembly we have three Sinn Fein Ministers in charge of very important Government Departments. I just hope that the Sinn Fein Ministers will not treat SDLP initiatives or supported projects in a similar manner to the childish antics of their colleagues on the council.

    “My colleagues on Council were simply attempting to make the roads safer for pedestrians and children and Sinn Fein had difficulty with that” he concluded

  • SuperSoupy

    IHTS (marcellinus? dougal?)

    The SF statement seems the more substantive.

    A road traffic issue discussed in detail at council, a minor SDLP contribution rejected by members of the SDLP and everyone else.

    An external voice criticising the will of the wide ranging majority with an angry and reactionary press release.

    Typical SDLP. In this case not even all their party support the bluster.

    It seems there is cross party support to addressing the issues while an unconnected SDLP voice is trying to disrupt things with unelected (in this case) posturing.

    If it was Attwood speaking as the voice of experience, as a SDLP traffic offender, the contribution may be more valid.

  • SuperSoupy

    To put it more simply for you:

    The issue is making dangerous drivers, like Attwood, comply with the rules – that will/do work. Not further restricting those that already drive safely.

  • Marcellinus

    “dangerous drivers, like Attwood”

    Proof? Evidence? This remains, after all, an “unconfirmed report” or do you know something to the contrary?

    Either way, you can’t resist the petty sniping can you Soup? It only serves to makes a complete irrelevancy of anything you post; unless less of course you’re a Shinner! After all, why should we leave a serious issue like road safety free from party point scoring?

  • The World’s Gone Mad

    Of course a politician breaking the law is news-worthy. However, the whole story with its ‘unconfirmed report’ and that last line of ‘Some mistake, surely? We hope for Alex’s sake it’s ours!!’ is sooo Daily Mirror 3am Girls.

  • WB Bob

    When a story of a politician breaking the law arises out of an ‘unconfirmed report’, we need to question who has selected it for our our viewing consideration? More importantly, why, in the abscence of proof, has it been chosen?

    I mean I have heard “unconfirmed reports” that Gerry Adams believes the Provo campaign was in deed a treason act, committed against the Irish people. Shall we have a thread about that?

    This “story” is not a worthy of thread. It is merely an excuse to allow the Shinner sycos an opportunity to do bit more SDLP bashing.

  • I wonder…

    Is the story true or not, then? I didn’t hear it on the news. Interesting reading the hysterical denials above though. 🙂

  • Question

    Where are the “hysterical denials above”?

  • democrat

    Reverse propaganda by the Shinners? Here is the actual statement by SDLP MLA for South Down, PJ Bradley as it went to the local papers. See if you can spot the difference… 😉

    P.J. BRADLEY CONCERNED BY SINN FEIN’S ATTITUDE TO SDLP INITIATIVES.

    Sinn Fein’s failure to accept a notice of motion by the SDLP at Newry and Mourne District Council has brought comment from local Assembly Member PJ Bradley. Mr Bradley was referring to a SDLP motion that called for consideration to be given to reducing the speed limit in residential areas to 20 mph.

    Mr Bradley, who served on the Council from 1981 until 2005 said, “Nothing seems to have changed in Monaghan Row. Regardless of the seriousness or merit of a motion presented by the SDLP Sinn Fein begrudgingly feel obliged to reject or amend it.

    I have a further concern regarding the Party’s overall attitude to the SDLP in that the new Assembly Executive contains three Sinn Fein Ministers in charge of very important Government Departments. I sincerely hope that the Sinn Fein Ministers will not treat SDLP initiatives or supported projects in a manner similar to the rather childish antics of their colleagues on Newry and Mourne District Council.

    Concluding Mr. Bradley said “My SDLP colleagues were simply attempting to address the issue of speeding in residential areas in order to make the roads safer for pedestrians and in particular little children but because the proposal came from SDLP Councillors it was deemed by Sinn Fein Councillors to be unworthy of their support”

  • SuperSoupy

    Explain this:

    ““What the SDLP failed to mention was that one of its own Councillors, Frank Feely stated that the motion presented to Council by them was “not practical and stupid”. He supported the Sinn Féin amendment., which was supported by the majority of Councillors in the Chamber.

  • Marcellinus

    SuperSoupy (or whatevver name you are using “wee slabber”, “DifferentFolks”, “URQUHART”, “JD”, “sheesh” etc), I really don’t think you can see just what you are doing here and what a fool you are making of yourself. I suspect it was you who made the bogus IHTS post, as it appears to be only you still trying to do some political point scoring on this matter. That is truly reprehensible. Is there no depth to which you will stoop?

    Your make unfounded claims of Alex Attwood being a “dangerous driver”, you disrespect for the mandate given to the SDLP by the electorate, (suggesting “few care” about the SDLP and their 105,164 votes) and you happily ignore the request for none partisan point scoring… People reading this thread will form their own opinions of you but I know many will start to think that you are behind many of the other posts too, (“wee slabber”, “DifferentFolks”, “URQUHART”, “JD”, “sheesh” etc…)

    I am happy to discuss the issue of road safety here on Slug however I will wait until a suitable thread is posted as I don’t think this is it. Furthermore soup, in what is clearly an eagerness to score “political points”, you have plummeted your Shinner sycophancy to new depths… before you start asking questions of others, you should have the courtesy to first answer those put you, (i.e my Apr 29, 2007 @ 11:07 AM). If you are devoid of courtesy and civility, you shouldn’t be surprised if people other than you friends choose to treat your posts with contempt.

    Aurevoir! Till next time… 😉

  • I found the SDLP proposal to NMDC as merely window dressing and am not surprised that SF and even Frank Feely of SDLP to reject the notice of motion.

    http://warrenpoint.blogspot.com/2007/04/slow-down-there-lads.html

  • IJP

    Marcellinus

    1. Reduction of speed limit on rural single carriageways to 50mph
    2. Re-allocation of police resources to patrolling rural single carriageways, not dual carriageways
    3. Closure of all crossing points on dual carriageways (most obviously the A1)
    4. A policy that all new primary roads constructed be to expressway standard (ie dual carriageways with barriers throughout, no crossing points)
    5. Removal of 45mph limit for new drivers
    6. Subsidy of insurance for new drivers who are taking/who have taken advanced training
    7… lots of others.

    “Education, enforcement and structures” are the three things I prioritise, with the objective of “safer drivers on safer roads” (ie both).

    I have no problem with politicians entering the debate to get safer roads and safer drivers. I have an issue with those who just comment to get their name in the papers. This issue is far too important for the latter.