Martin McGuinness and aggressive lecturing

Sinn Fein and the CUs seem none too fond of one another at the moment. The BBC are reporting that a CU delegation went to see Martin McGuinness in his office. Accounts differ but Sinn Fein’s Gerry Kelly (who was not there) claims:

“Early in the meeting Fred Cobain stated that he wasn’t at the meeting with Martin McGuinness to listen to anything the deputy first minister wanted to say,
Martin correctly pointed out that if that was the case there was little point in Mr Cobain continuing to be there.
At that point Mr Cobain left the meeting followed in dribs and drabs by his party colleagues.”

The CUs have a different slant suggesting that McGuinness “aggressively lectured” the delegation and then told them to “get out.”

The CUs in question might reflect on the fact that “aggressive lecturing” must be one of the mildest forms of unpleasantness Martin McGuinness has ever been accused of.

  • IRIA

    I think I know who’s side you believe.

  • Driftwood

    Fred Cobain is lucky he didn’t get the same treatment as Joanne Mathers.

  • Fabianus

    Could the truth lie somewhere between those differing accounts?

  • bohereen

    It’s all great crack, though, isn’t it?
    Last week’s Ford leak, a crappy NIO poll and now M McG showing that Stormont may indeed be a cold house for unionists. So many gaffes, all in the space of a week.

    A week is indeed a long time in ploitics.

  • FitzjamesHorse

    Lets face it there are some on that delegation Id love to see thrown out…by anybody.

    Following on the “three day ultimatum” fom the Sinn Féin-IRA conference, it is hard to see how the UUP can afford to be seen giving into SF “threats”.
    Which tends to make me think that the three day ultimatum is deseigned to push the UUP into a corner. That UUP rejection is actually what SF want.

    Whatever the truth of this meetin today, the ovious fact is that it was confrontational, probably deliberately so. Making it more difficult for UUPto say “yes”.
    Thus the UUP can go into the Election with the rallying call that unlike the DUP they did not give in to SF “threats and bullying”

  • Macanna

    So fitz unless I am mistaken you are saying this is sinn fein strategy to split unionism further come the election?

  • How the mighty have fallen.

    Ah, the anti-agreement UUP, not content with embrassing poor Davey Cameron by out DUPing the DUP and claiming that the SOS for Ulster should not be doing his own job they are now wandering the corridors of Stormont trying to pick a fistfight.

    Put’s one in mind of the Trading Places fill-im where Dan Aykroyd cannot come to terms with his loss of status and goes on the rampage.

    It would not be suprising to see a big circus tent, correction a small circus tent, erected in the grounds of Stormont and Wee Reggie donning a red nose and the leading the rest of his diminishing troop in there with their buckets and ladders.

    There is no doubt about it – headless Reg is some fecking entertainer.

  • alan56

    You’d almost think that Woodward and SF wanted Reg and Co to vote against P&J..hmmmm..

  • Comrade Stalin

    I can just picture the UUP marching in and then declaring that they’re not there to hear anything the DFM has to say. McGuinness then, I suspect, told them to go fuck themselves and the horse they rode in on. Which is exactly what I’d have done in the circumstances.

    The UUP said several weeks they were saying “no”, and now they’re merely playing to a crowd.

  • FitzjamesHorse

    No…..I dont even know what Im saying LOL.
    I think the UUP strategy is to link the DUP to SF-IRA.
    The SF strategy is to divide unionism. I dont think they much care about how.
    But I think that one unionist party agreeing to P&J and one against it is something SF would consider a result.

  • alan56

    There has been a lot of logic turned on its head since Hillsborough and this just adds to the intrigue. Woodwards poll, Hilary’s phone call, MMG conference ultimatum and now this. It would be hard to construct a more compelling scenario to ensure UUP would vote against. What’s going on?

  • Comrade Stalin

    The UUP have a strategy ?

    Fragmented unionism = potential for Stormont collapse = not in SF’s interests. Otherwise why are they wasting their time with the whole thing to begin with ?

  • Driftwood

    Comrade Stalin
    it’s a pity Mcguinness didn’t just tell Joanne that in 1981 instead of what he did then.

  • Comrade Stalin

    alan56, the UUP declared their hand in public several weeks ago when they said they were going to vote against the thing. What’s the motivation for others to try to bring them on board ? A clever leader would have gone to Robinson and said “here’s the price for our support”. There’s no evidence that this band of misfits did this.

  • FitzjamesHorse

    Comrade Stalin,
    Fragmented unionism…..TUV, DUP, PUP, UUP is exactly what SF-IRA want.

  • Comrade Stalin


    What do you think SF’s objective is in the short and medium term, and how do you think fragmented unionism serves this ?

  • alan56

    You are assuming that they did not go to Robbo. Dodds seemed to be keen for UUP support but Robbo was not so insistent that it was vital. Is it possible that this may reflect internal DUP issues?

  • Salem

    The UUP didnt go not to listen to the – McGuinness & co played hardball and the UUP told them to stick it! Good on the UUP for sticking to their decision.

  • Comrade Stalin

    You are assuming that they did not go to Robbo.

    A safe assumption, especially given that they didn’t turn up at Hillsborough when the deal was announced. Even the Stoops managed that.

    I did, however, notice the difference as you have noted between Dodds and Robinson. I suspect that’s more to do with internal politicking than it is anything to do with Dodds’ concern for the UUP opinion.

  • old school

    A pity Martin didn´t play hardball in the Good Friday Agreement talks.
    From demanding revolution to demanding devolution.
    How the mighty have fallen indeed.

  • alan56

    Agree with your second point.
    I do think though that FST and SB were up for discussion and might even still be.

  • Comrade Stalin

    old school, you’re a bit like Jim Allister. You think that one party can decide to hold talks, dictate what the terms are, and then determine what will be agreed in advance. Just like we had it back in the old USSR.

  • If the account is true, I really couldn’t blame MMcG for hunting the UUs out of the room. It’s clear that they’re involved in a bit of a drama in which they alone see themselves as the star act. Maybe they see themselves as the Jeff Bridges character in Crazy Heart, a country singer on the road for the sake of one last good tune to retire on. They ain’t got that kind of talent, I’m afraid.

    I don’t doubt that SF are playing them so they will vote against and then have to attack the DUP from the same flank which the DUP used to launch repeated attacks on the UUP during The Trimble Error {my proposal for a biography of Trimble – awaiting a response from a publisher but am concerned that they’ve forgotten who Trimble was?].

    This will further fragment unionism but ultimately it will lead to the failure of all agreements heretofore agreed and a return to Dublin oriented direct rule. By which time the delusional SFers believe they will be in coalition government down south and therefore defacto rulers of a United Ireland.

    As a theory it’s based on delusional logic of the Sinn Fein variety – but then again as a party they’re making the mistake of believing their own propoganda.

  • pinni

    The old fogies of the UUP trying to pick a fight. What a farce!

  • old school

    So i´m like Jim Allister?
    What a ridiculous analogy.
    In that case Martin Mc Guinness is a bit like Peter Robinson, or Durkan is like Empey.
    You don´t have to go back to the USSR to find a comparison to your allegation.
    The British Govt predetermined what was to be discussed in the GFA, and set down preconditions to all who took part prior to the commencement.
    Nationalist had to drop their claim of jurisdiction and accept the legitimacy of the British presence BEFORE they could take part.
    that was the quantum leap for Republicans at the time.

    So don´t compare me ( a humble poster) with the USSR when it´s apparent who is.

  • Surely some senior Tory is going to break ranks and say out loud what Cameron is surely telling Headless Reg behind the scenes.

    This is a vote loser for the Tories and in a very tight contest though Labour will wait until after the vote before puting the boot in. There is no advantage to anyone cosying up to the UUP after the Westminsters as they will probably have berween 0 and 1 seats.

    Ridiculous project UCUNF, losing Sylvia, aborted merger/unit talks with the DUP, disappearing Catholic members and now becoming an anti-agreement party and all this with the DUP still trying to come to terms with the Iris saga.

    …how have they the fecking nerve to accuse anyone lese of being dysfunctional.

  • Panic, these ones like it up em.

    Unionists trying to be Boss Hogg again ! !

    Will they ever learn ? ?

  • alan56

    What do Reg and Co gain from voting ‘yes’ ? (in electoral terms I mean)

  • As usual the posts of Comrade Stalin are laughable, he fails to let us know what his Alliance/Lib Dem colleagues have “gained” since they failed to support the transfer of P&J. I’d love to know what they claim has changed since it was first offered to them, because there has been no change in the legislation!

  • Intelligent Insider,

    1) The minister will be a full member of the executive
    2) There has been movement with the Shared Future strategy. Ok, we don’t know what it is yet but it’s moved further in the bast couple of weeks than what it has in the past 12 years.
    3) Assurances on policies for the Department of Justice.

  • correction:
    2) There has been movement with the Shared Future strategy. Ok, we don’t know what it is yet but it’s moved further in the *past* couple of weeks than what it has in the past 12 years.

  • FitzjamesHorse

    Comrade Stalin
    “What do you think SF’s objective is in the short and medium term, and how do you think fragmented unionism serves this ?”

    Taking the second part of your question first its always in the interest of one side to divide the other.
    The aim of unionism is to destroy nationalism.
    the aim of nationalism is to destroy unionism.

    this is much better achieved if the other side is divided. For example unionism was at its most invincibile in the post WW2 years, the monolitic unionist party which all calls to unionist unity still have as a core belief.
    (note here I am dismissing NILP in lat 1950s early 1960s).
    Conversely nationalism/republicanism is at its strongest post cease fire when the crucial division line of violence was removed (and indeed before that when the Hunger Strikes brought SF-IRA and their proxies into the political process.

    In crude terms unionism and nationalism are enemies. Elections disguise this fact because they are not electoral rivals.
    Enemies but not rivals.

    SF/SDLP and AP are rivals. Votes can and do change between them.
    Likewise DUP/UUP/AP and now TUV.
    This is crucial.
    It means that most vitriol against say (your) AP is directed by SDLP or UUP supporters.
    And indeed most (say) anti SDLP rhetoric comes from SF-IRA or AP.
    Realistically any political party can only lose votes to its rival(s) NOT its enemy.
    The mandated coalition re-onforces this.
    Not on a point scoring exercise with this particular post so I urge you to consider it.

    The person who voted SF-IRA in 2007 might well abstain in 2010 or vote SDLP or possibly AP……but he/she is not going to vote TUV.
    This is the crucial point about Norn Iron…understanding the difference between rival and enemy.

    While SDLP would protest otherwise in a “new Ireland mode” that they are not out to destroy unionism…..the reality is few SDLP supporters would mourn the demise of unionism.
    Likewise while UUP would publicly state their acceptance of the aspiration of a united Ireland as legitimate, they would not mourn its demise as a philosophy.

    Therefore the swings and roundabouts scenario shows that the ivided philosophy is the losing one.
    Republicanism/nationalism has already seen off moderate leaders (well occasional ones such as Faulkner and Trimble) Molyneaux was relatively unscathed as there was an ascendency to unionism for much of his and Harry Wests years.

    SF short/mid term strategy?
    I dont know is the simple answer.
    The first target is May 2010 Election. If SF thinks it can keep 5 seats by sinking the Agreement then I suspect it will…..possibly thru playing the “unreasonable unionist card”.
    Mid term……the next Stormont Election…..and/or Plan B/C/D.

    Frankly Comrade Stalin the events of the past few days have taken me by surprise and Im not sure whats going on. And I havent been able to talk to anyone who really seems to know.

    But crucially as you start your canvass for May, look out for the fact that “enemies” will actually be more polite than “rivals” (theoretically closer to your position).
    As an example I was in Bangor, County Down a few years back when the SDLP rolled into town and frankly they were received with polite pleasantness.
    Likewise I have seen UUP canvassers in Newry having an easy time.

  • IRIA

    So we have posters on here claiming that McGuinness killed Ms. Mathers. Have you submitted your evidence to the PSNI?

  • FJH,

    Your enemy/rival analogy might work with the FPTP system in the General Election but votes get transferred from and to enemies when STV is used.

    The only thing splitting unionism will do for SF is to make it the biggest party in the Assembly. Ironically, this is the last thing SF should want as the Assembly will collapse until the unionists change from their “We’ll power share as long as we’re the First Minister” stance.
    This would then lead to suspension, which is the last thing SF wants.

  • wild turkey

    i never thought i would say, or write this.

    but where is Richard Nixon, and his tape technology, when we need him?

    in the corpus of shakespeare’s dramatic works, which character(s) comes closest to embodying the salient characteristics and self inflating importance of Reginald Empey and Fred Cobain?

    Tom Stoppard wrote a play about them. and it wasn’t called Useless Fuckers. Stoppard was not that polite

  • “So we have posters on here claiming that McGuinness killed Ms. Mathers. Have you submitted your evidence to the PSNI?
    Posted by IRIA on Mar 08, 2010 @ 09:44 PM”

    IRIA – Are you calling on any people with information regarding this callous murder to come forward with information to the police? Or would you rather they said nothing?

  • nerdy, I’m still waiting on what the nerds actually gained! You haven’t posted anything new to what was on offer when it was turned down.

  • UlsterScotty

    If we don’t know what has happened on Shared Future, how can anyone judge what movement, if any, there has been. Illogical, Captain.

  • FitzjamesHorse

    I take your point and I could have gone further as it is something about which I have written a lot about (even before Blogs).
    The short answer to the FPTP thing (and STV) is to say that it really depends how “committed” a voter is to his/her Party.
    Back in 1973 when STV was being rolled out for Council and first “Assembly” elections, the publicity campaign featured “voting the ballot paper” and “plumping”.
    Again its a matter of preference (literally).

    is it better to defeat your enemy by voting for your rival (in FPTP) or as a second preference to keep out the bad guy.
    Or is it better to think of a enemy as having no real relevance.

    Frankly there are a lot of scenarios and whether this is actually on topic or not….the postings could become divisive.
    The only real point that Id want to make without polarising opinion is to emphasise that we have RIVALS and ENEMIES.
    But does tactical voting actually give our rivals a boost which enables them to be triumphalist.

    You pays your money and makes your choice.
    If “soft” AP votes in South Belfast went to SDLP in South Belfast did McDonnell overdo the triumphalist “break thru” speech.
    If “soft” SDLP votes go to AP in East Belfast and are enough to boost AP would AP overdo the “break thru” speech.

    In truth even if we “lend” votes to parties (rivals), it tends to backfire and the party we vote for tactically will always look on it as a vote FOR them not a vote AGAINST.
    In fairness the only person I can actually think of who recognised this was Joe Hendron.

  • Intelligent Insider,

    How can you say nothing has changed since points (2) and (3) happened in the couple of days before Alliance agreed to nominate a candidate?

    as for point (1), this is from August 2008

    “Apparently all the DUP and Sinn Fein have proposed is a Minister who would not even be a member of the Executive. How could anyone fulfil a role as important as Justice Minister in those circumstances?”

  • UlsterScotty,

    DUP and SF have agreed a CSI strategy and it has been sent to the departments for consultation.
    It will then go to the OFDFM committee and published for public consultation.

  • Turgon

    I like that explanation of rivals versus enemies. It is difficult to explain but you have done so very impressively. I am afraid I may have to steal it some time.

  • drunk as a rule

    Looks like the UUP-CONs will be reclaiming the DUP’s ground with this strategy. With the DUP being viewed by many of their voters as having sold out by sitting with Sinn Fein, the UUP can’t be said to have been two-faced to theirs.

    Only thing is, where do we go from here and has Sinn Fein gone as far as they can go?

    I can see a storm brewing, batten down the hatches.

  • Who can blame MMcG for throwing the UUP out his office. It would be feel good stuff for the ‘home crowd’ and do him no harm with the DUP. Another win, win for MMcG.

  • drunk as a rule

    But pippakin, no devolution of policing & justice for the lack of some manners. Not really a big win if it stays in London. Win, win for UUP.

  • alan56

    Heard it all now. George W asking the unionists to say yes. It just gets more surreal!

  • RepublicanStones

    Did they at least get some supper?

  • alan56

    Go back to my earlier posting. Obviously the main establishment figures are putting pressure on Reg. They must realise that he cannot be seen to succoumb to that pressure. So what is their real game?

  • Alan 56

    They say they have the votes. I think maybe they want it to look unanimous, that why when it all goes pear shaped (as usual) they are all responsible.

  • FitzjamesHorse

    PLease feel free to use it.
    The examples I used were SDLP/AP but obviously it works for all parties in all constituencies.
    If for example in South Belfast “soft” DUP/TUV votes go to rival UUP to unseat enemy SDLP…..then I woul assume that the victorious UUP candidate would claim it was a stunning victory over SDLP AND TUV and DUP.

  • alan56

    If all parties agree then there wont have to be a division. Thats what I think some people fear most. Again I ask. What is in it for UCUnf to vote for it?

  • Driftwood

    Martin McGuinness was directly responsible for the murder of Joanne Mathers. Not only as the PIRA commander in Londonderry at the time.
    Census collectors, indeed non-Catholics were considered fair targets under his leadership.

    I doubt it ever troubled him any more than La Mon did Gerry Adams.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Intelligence Insider,

    As usual the posts of Comrade Stalin are laughable, he fails to let us know what his Alliance/Lib Dem colleagues have “gained” since they failed to support the transfer of P&J.

    It’s all a bit of a grey area, that. Alliance were never formally offered, as far as I know, the job. Instead the party was informed through the media that the DUP and SF were considering asking them to participate. There was an air of expectation that the party would simply jump up and say yes and do the bidding of the master, hence the need to given a stark indication that those tactics would not wash.

    I’m not much of a party insider but, as far as I know, between that point (about eighteen months ago) and Hillsborough there were one or two sporadic and not-very-detailed meetings on the subject. The party wasn’t involved seriously until those talks, AFAIK. So it’s a bit misleading to suggest that Alliance are somehow responsible for the long delay.

    What did the party gain ? The original ideas floating about were that the minister wouldn’t be a full member of the executive. Instead, he would be some sort of offshoot of OFMDFM. There were a range of variations on that theme. Alliance insisted that the minister be a full member of the executive. That has now been conceded in the Hillsborough document. As others have said here, Alliance also insisted in progress on Shared Future. There has also been progress on that, and given that there was none in the several years past, accepting that this progress is nothing to do with pressure from Alliance is to be willing to accept some remarkable coincidences.

    I’d love to know what they claim has changed since it was first offered to them, because there has been no change in the legislation!

    I don’t think Alliance have any significant objections to the legislation. Do you think there is anything there which either works against the general interest, or the party’s interest ?


    Things are certainly a bit weird but my view is not a million miles away from yours, with a couple of extra bits added on.

    I think that SF’s short and medium term objective to eliminate the SDLP (as you have said) – but also to be in government, as this is their buffed-up version of locally elected Irish politicians taking responsibility for their own affairs. The wheels came off the project a bit in the RoI, but they evidently still believe they can correct this – witness the Ard Fheis, and indeed the last Euro election where all of their strength was focussed in the South. There may yet be an early election or a reorganization of the coalition in the Dail, and it’s not inconceivable for SF to capitalize on this.

    This is the core reason why they want policing and justice devolved – to them it’s about politicians on the island of Ireland governing their own affairs which they can present as the republican goal of reunification being realized in a gradual fashion. I think there’s also a perception in republican circles that local control over the policing will allow them to make the police get really tough on anti-social behaviour and related domestic crime. Unfortunately I think they are likely to be disappointed, but there you go.

    The DUP are like SF in that (again, as you have said) the idea is to eliminate the UUP. Eliminating the UUP is much harder if they find themselves granted the justice ministry; that’s why the DUP don’t want them to have it. Likewise, that is why SF don’t want the SDLP to have it. Both the DUP and SF perceive that Alliance are not a threat to their core vote, but are a threat to that of the UUP and SDLP. They therefore see Alliance in the justice minister hotseat as a means to help squeeze the SDLP and UUP out from the centre.

    I’m quite happy with this rather cynical picture of things. On several occasions in the past, Alliance bolstered the interests of our two “moderate” parties. The party acted to keep the SDLP/UUP executive in place. It stood aside to ease the pressure on UUP Westminster candidates in 2001 and laid the ground to allow Sylvia to paint herself as a centre middle ground candidate, ground that Alliance was never able to recover. What did the party get in return for these sacrifices ? “thanks a lot, now sod off”. And nowadays, with the UUP allowing the David McNarry attack dog to speak for it in public and the SDLP having Attwood complain about too many prods being on the executive as well as in the police, I’m personally no longer minded to regard these parties as moderate. It’s clear to me that neither of them want my transfers. Especially when both of them are willing to put all the work that has gone into the institutions at risk over their own petty party political concerns.

  • If anyone has information that would lead to the arrest of the murderer/s of Ms J Mathers I urge them to contact the police/gardai and simultaneously give the same information to the media.

  • UlsterScotty

    Wonder what the numbers would be like if some of the Snowmen couldn’t curb their gag reflex and threw in with Reg’s Themselves Alone? Alister has been unusually quiet methinks.

  • Driftwood

    Everyone knows who murdered Joanne Mathers. Just like they know who murdered Stephen Lawrence.
    But in Joanne’s case it would upset the applecart if her killer were to be revealed, given his Stormont position. the PSNI know this as do MI5.

    Justice is sometimes given 2nd place to pragmatism. Professor von Braun could explain, as could Menachim Begin. Or Radovan Karadzic or Ian Paisley. on and on it goes.
    Cookie crumbles etc.

  • FitzjamesHorse

    Thank you for accepting the broad thrust of my analysis. You wouldnt expect me to agree completely with your own but Id choose to concentrate on those things which would not divide us.
    First of all I think there are 18 different elections and the dynamics in each constituency…..and indeed the personalities ..are different.
    If for the sake of this analysis you accept that AP is “in the middle” and its rivals are SDLP and UUP…….and by extension its enemies are DUP and SF-IRA.
    I wont comment on your perception that SDLP/UUP are no longer middle ground and not seeking your “transfers”. The only thing I would say is that by default this strengthens your enemy. But weakens your rival.
    Alternatively giving those transfers boosts your rival, quite possible at the expense of Alliance itself.
    Of course transfers are reciprocal (to some extent). The AP leadership would never instruct its supporters NOT to transfer………for the very good reason that UUP/SDLP voters may be minded not to transfer to AP.

    So a lot depends on commitment.
    My firm belief (which I have espoused often here) is that ALL parties should at least stand in every onstituency to at least enable its voters to vote for them.
    To that extent I applaud UUP and DUP standing in West Belfast……AP standing in Mid Ulster…and SF and SDLP standing in North Down.
    I think this is a very real public service.
    Of course tactics come into play.
    But the COMMITTED member of a party is less likely to assist a rival than a rank and file voter.

    The SDLP refusal to stand against Bobby Sands was a strategic mistake.
    Probably the UUUC Coalition of the 1980s was a mistake for UUP.
    Quite possibly the AP endorsing candidates from other parties in unwinnable seats was strategically an error.

    Yet it seems to me with respect..that your own individual no transfer to SDLP/UUP policy is too absolute.
    Especially in FPTP Elections.
    For example….I think we would both concede that Foyle is unwinnable for Alliance…….but an AP voter there could well say that he/she can vote AP without it affecting the overall result.
    But I think we would also concede that South Down is not winnable for AP…..but arguably here there is a genuine decision for the AP supporter.
    The contest MIGHT be close enough to at least be tempted to influence the result in favour of the rival.
    The sickening outcome might be the victorious “rival” in the SDLP proclaiming a massive victory and a reduction in APs relevance in that constituency for “quota purposes”, a lowering of morale.
    Now of course there are constituencies where AP has a fighting chance….North Down, East Belfast.
    But again the party is reliant to some extent on its rivals supporters rallying to it.

    Like I said you could play this scenario 18 times…in FST and youd probably ome up with different strategies for each of them.
    I merely stae that “lending a vote” or “tactical voting” is not something you are likely to be thanked for.

  • Driftwood

    I hear what you are saying which is precisely why I said whoever has information should contact the police and the media.

    I understand there has to be some sweeping under the carpet, but not if there is sufficient evidence of such a serious offence.

    It is not enough to ‘know’ who did the evil deed, everyone knows who killed Messrs McCartney and Quinn. It takes evidence and the willingness to take it forward.

  • Driftwood

    understand there has to be some sweeping under the carpet,

    Yeah,we know, but McGuinness and Paisleys’ carpets will not be looked under for a long,long time.
    too many skeletons.

    To be fair to Peter Robinson, I think he’s just a career politician, like Reg, who just wants to make the best of a bad situation.
    But full integration is the best possible way forward. We are Irish but de facto an English county, Cheltenham is forthcoming..Why can we not merge with Avon and Somerset?

  • Driftwood

    Cheltenham, why not, but I will put my money on the Curragh.

  • Driftwood

    The Curragh (mutiny)has fond memories for me pippa
    Will you be backing any of Her Majesty’s horses at Cheltenham? A lot of Irish do.

    No odds on Paddypower on when Iris comes back from Florida though. Or on the content of Jeffrey Donaldson’s ‘premium rate’ (ie non heterosexual)films we all paid for-yet.

  • Driftwood

    Hope you see this, sorry I am late, fell asleep.

    I doubt it, hasnt been the same since QM died.

    As for JD, havent you heard, ‘never back against the book’.

  • granni trixie

    Think about it – if ever there was a sign that NI has moved on its that “aggressive lecturing” is being defined as the problem. Better to look childish in the eyes of the world than that we are grabbing the news headlines for reasons of bombs and bullets.

    (oops, nearly sexist there – nearly said like wee boys pushing against each other as the prelude to a possible fight).

  • Fabianus


    LOL! We’re big boys, you know. We can take it.

    Er… perhaps not.