The intrigue continues…

Slugger hears, though it has yet to be confirmed, that Ministers from three parties did not accept the Minutes of the last Executive meeting as a true statement of what passed there. Both Ulster Unionist ministers and Ritchie voted against. Intriguingly, Michelle Gildernew abstained. The rest of Sinn Fein and the DUP stood by them as accurate.

Update: Even more intriguingly, BBC reports that she did vote with SF, UTV reports she didn’t!

Someone is blowing smoke!

  • Pete Baker
  • URQUHART

    This is alice in wonderland stuff. Surely if Ministers from 3 of 4 parties object to the minutes of a meeting they were at, they cannot reasonably be seen as accurate minutes?

  • Nevin

    Rare stuff, Urquhart. It looks like 8/3 against Ritchie with 1 abstention – assuming Slugger’s ‘hearing’ is sound.

  • URQUHART

    Nevin: “It looks like 8/3 against Ritchie with 1 abstention – assuming Slugger’s ‘hearing’ is sound”

    Or half of the coalition parties, with another split.

  • veritas

    congratulations connor no comment murphy ,martin chuckle, catriona et alfor your support of the uda. why dont you organise an eco study trip to columbia for them while you’re at it.at least gildernew didn’t support the minutes although she lacked the courage to oppose them.

  • Frank Sinistra

    Was Gildernew at the last Executive meeting? Would explain the vote very simply if she wasn’t.

  • Minutes passed by Exec. 9-3 according to the BBC.

    Maybe would be should be taking about Sinn Féin/UDA these days?

  • Frank Sinistra

    You lot are getting carried away. The minutes have nothing to do with endorsing or rejecting the decision, they are about if Ritchie committed to come back to the Executive on the issue or not.

    Spinning is just spinning even when you are doing it for the best of intentions.

    Or is spinning just telling lies?

    I always get those two miuxed up. It’s lies isn’t it?

  • The devil is in the detail. You’re giving us a important question that may have an important baring on the meaning of this Frank, and I am following it up.

    But as I have already said on this subject, there are too many missing pieces of the puzzle missing for anyone to snap prematurely to the end. Even your good ‘saintly’ self!

  • Frank Sinistra

    btw: if the Executive is still meeting, how is this information filtering out? That’s standard procedure is it?

  • Frank Sinistra

    Mick,

    If Gildernew abstained, maybe you could ask Newton Emerson was she busy at court on the day the minutes relate to?

  • Mick Fealty

    If you have information you could just provide it without playing silly ad hominem games.

  • fourwinds

    Edwin Poots and Martina Anderson both said that Ritchie had to come back to the executive in the TV interview blogged below.

    So maybe SF and the DUP are trying to remain consistent on this issue at least.

  • Frank Sinistra

    Eh? You said she abstained. I’m trying to provide a reason, the last Executive meeting was on 8th October which was two days before the Daily Mirror published Newton’s apology. Perhaps Gildernew went to the courts on behalf of her and Ruane missing the Executive meaning she wasn’t at a meeting and now unable to give an opinion on minutes.

    It’s speculation just like much of today’s posts. Just because it mentions a news story you and the rest of the media chose not to cover doesn’t make it any less valid as speculation while we wait for the facts to be established. (see the question marks, they are the give-aways)

    Ad-hominem your big hairy over-sensitive hole.

  • Your efforts would appear to be in vain Frank. BBC reports she voted with, UTV says she didn’t vote at all.

  • Definitely not LCJ Kerr

    FS – What was the courtcase about? don’r recall hearing about it.

  • Frank Sinistra

    DNLCJKerr,

    This

  • Consider that site bookmarked. Good find Frank.

  • fourwinds.

    Fair enough. But this issue has been live since a memo went round on Monday. Ritchie has been fighting her corner since then.

  • Ian

    “Update: Even more intriguingly, BBC reports that she did vote with SF, UTV reports she didn’t!”

    Mick, that update is ambiguous to those who haven’t read the full thread – “she” is presumably Gildernew not Ritchie? Also, for clarity, ‘UTV reports she didn’t’ should read ‘UTV reports she didn’t vote’ [as opposed to ‘voted in contradiction of the rest of SF’].

    And if UTV are correct, that isn’t inconsistent with FS’s suggested reasoning as to [i]why[/i] Gildernew abstained.

  • Mick Fealty

    Ian,

    You are right. The ambiguity is striking (and that is not simply to do with my rushed grammar). But I shouldn’t have ruled it out.

  • Definitely not LCJ Kerr

    Being an ex-prisoner, ‘though never having been convicted of being in the IRA, despite previous unionist accusations (repeated in the media) of the same, I wonder if I and few others are due a handsome payday, courtesy of the courts. I think not!!