No Dogs, No Irish….No Terrorists?

Two years ago today Ann Travers, sister of IRA victim Mary, met with Peter Robinson over the appointment of Mary McCardle (one of those involved in her sister`s murder ) to a highly paid Stormont Special Adviser position. Today Twitter is awash with raging Sinn Fein activists aghast at the possibilty of discrimination being perpetrated against rapists, murderers & bombers as Jim Allister`s SPAD bill looks likely to be voted through.

I realise it is a delicate & sensitive subject with relation to the definition of a victim but the immediate Sinn Fein reaction seems to be to rally round the perpetrators of evil acts whilst belittling the victims.

There is little question that grief is equally felt on all sides and that there are victims on all sides.

I doubt you would find anyone who would disagree that those killed and injured by the Real IRA Omagh bomb or the UVF Dublin & Monaghan bombs were victims and their families grief stricken.

On 2nd June 1982, 16 year old Catholic boy Patrick Smith was killed and 2 of his friends injured by an INLA bomb attached to a stolen motorcycle .  INLA member Jimmy Brown is believed to have organised the bomb and was later killed in an internal Republican feud.

According to the Sinn Fein narrative the 3 boys and the INLA man are all victims.  At best I can see 3 innocent victims and a victim of his own making.  There are many similar stories.

– On the 5th March 1973 A UDA member dies when the bomb he was handling prematurely exploded.

– On the 17th March 1973 A UDA member dies when his car bomb explodes prematurely outside Kirk’s Bar in Cloughfinn, County Donegal.

Are these really the same as:

– On 3rd June 1975 2 Protestant civilians and a part time UDR man were shot dead  by Republicans whilst in a car returning from a dog show near Newry

– On 3 June 1991 3 IRA men were killed in a SAS ambush on their car as they prepared an attack in the small rural `planters den` of Coagh, Co Tyrone .

– On 29th December 1973 the UDA and UVF shot dead a Catholic RUC officer after robbing a supermarket to lure his police patrol to the scene in retaliation for the security forces earlier shooting dead a UVF member.

– On the 29th May 1977 Rowland Hill a 66-year-old Protestant died from bullet wounds he received 6 days earlier in a robbery at the Ewarts Social club by 4 masked UDA/UFF men.

– On the 13th September 1972 The Royal Ulster Constabulary shot dead a UDA member during an armed robbery.

Slightly more complex, but are the bomber and his intended UDA target really the same as the innocent people in the chippy?

– On 23rd October 1993, a PIRA bomb prematurely exploded in a fish shop killing 8 Protestant civilians, one UDA member and one of the IRA bombers.

I can only speak for myself but I can see a clear distinction.  Call it a heirarchy if you like.

Comparisons by Sinn Fein reps with the American civil rights struggle and historical anti-Irish signage abound.

 

 

 

Leaving aside the fact that 3 of the MLA`s I quote are convicted IRA bombers, it seems they are concerned that MEP Martina Anderson`s husband and Special Adviser to Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, Paul Kavanagh, will lose his 90k/year job. Kavanagh, a convicted IRA bomber injured 20 Irishguards and killed 18 year old John Breslin as well as 59 year old Nora Field (who was out shopping with her mother) when he bombed Chealsea Barracks. Days later he left a bomb in a toilet at a Wimpy restaurant in Oxford which killed a Metropolitan police bomb disposal officer trying to disarm it.

Kavanagh complains that he too is a victim because his 18-year-old brother Albert was an `unarmed` IRA member shot dead by the Royal Ulster Constabulary during an attempted bomb attack on commercial premises in south Belfast.  I would disagree.  He and his family may well be bereaved and grief stricken from their loss like many others but I am afraid I would not class them as victims. IRA victim Ann Travers has it right when she says:

There is a Sinn Fein special advisor who could lose his job. My reply to that would be that Paul Kavanagh can use the same appeals process that anybody can if he helps the police.

You know victims didn’t get an appeals process. Paul Kavanagh’s three victims who were blown up, a father of two small children, an 18 year old boy, and a middle lady, did not get any appeals process. My sister did get an appeals process. Thousands of victims didn’t get it.

One minute they were alive, the next minute they were dead.

With regards to the claims of discrimination against ex prisoners.  Let us remember that prisoners do not get to vote. Let us remember the SPAD bill applies to anyone convicted to more than 5 years in prison not just paramilitaries.  Let us not forget that numerous jobs require applicants to be vetted and to declare unspent & spent convictions and that the Independent Safeguarding Authority keeps a list of people who are barred from working with vulnerable people so ex prisoners are already `discriminated` against.

Kavanagh was recently due to be appointed to the school board of top Catholic Grammar School, Lumen Christi College in Derry/Londonderry.

  • Granni Trixie

    These facts (thanks Kilsally) serve to remind us of the reality ‘lest we forget’.

    One point I would add:surely a reason for vetting of some posts is the level of clearance needed for accessing particularly sensitive documents,vetting anyone would have to agree to submit to to be appointed to publically advertised posts, I imagine. Sounds like SF want to be privileged over others in this practical necessity.

  • tomthumbuk

    It would appear that Paul Kavanagh considers himself a victim because his brother was shot by the police when planting a bomb.
    So if there is no hierarchy of victims he is to be considered equivalent to Ann Travers sister murdered coming from mass.
    What a load of crap.
    Don’t insult ordinary peoples’ intelligence.

  • iluvni

    Sinn Fein have had fifteen years of rubbing the noses of the decent people of NI n it. If this is a long overdue step in the right direction, good.
    Still, will SDLP bottle it……

  • Morpheus

    I hope this doesn’t come across as flippant but when we talk about a hierarchy of victims do we mean the most important group, innocent civilians, at the top and then the rest or does other categories come below them?

    Is there anything wrong with a hierarchy? We could treat all deaths the same ie. every family on the list lost a loved one but then as Tom says, that puts Ann Travers on a par with bombers and murderers. In that context is a hierarchy so bad?

  • Comrade Stalin

    SF are only just getting started.

  • Jack2

    The ability to hand someone a job with no application process or interview stages is a lot of power. Especially as it pays some enormous sums of money – typically beyond what most NI citizens could hope to earn.
    Sinn Fein abused the power and is now having its wings clipped.

  • Morpheus

    Jack, the practice of handing out jobs is nothing new in politics:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15463472

    But it’s par for the course, handing out jobs is done all over the world because those with the power need like-minded individuals who they can trust in key positions. I’m not saying it is right but it happens

  • socaire

    Ms Travers is not a victim in this case. Do we really mean that those relatives left behind should occupy a place in the hierarchy of victim’s relatives with those related to the insurgents occupying the lower rungs?

  • OneNI

    Cant help thinking that many SDLP voters will be insulted by the ‘No blacks, etc’ the fact that they vote SDLP shows that they can distinguish between fighting discrimination and excusing politcal violence and rewarding those who carried it out

  • SK

    “Do we really mean that those relatives left behind should occupy a place in the hierarchy of victim’s relatives with those related to the insurgents occupying the lower rungs?”

    _____

    That’s exactly what should happen. Patience will run out with Sinn Fein amongst the nationalist community if they insist on pushing this idea that stopping a bomber caught in the act is somehow equivalent with shooting an unarmed girl outside a church.

    It isnt.

  • Cric

    Indulge me, if you will:

    The State murders civilians and the State still stands.

    Republicans murder civilians and they are not allowed to take part in the State.

    The state demands a monopoly on murder?

  • tacapall

    Lets put it in a nutshell SK, the Sinn Fein point of view is the natives are being portrayed as the aggressors.

  • Alias

    Most peadophiles are also victims of peadophiles. It doesn’t follow that their victim category erases their victimiser category and thereby escape the consequence of their crimes.

    The difference between Paul Kavagagh and Ann Travers is that he is a murderer and she isn’t. Apart from that, the death of his brother would only be relevant if he was murdered and if the convicted murderer was seeking a well-paid state job as a reward for the crime.

    They are living up to their ‘ourselves alone’ marker since the only ‘victims’ they are concerned about are the members of their own murder gang.

  • quality

    If Sinn Féin narrative is that it was a war against the British establishment, how is a soldier killed in the line of duty (i.e. placing a bomb) a victim? He’s a combattant, killed in war.

  • toaster

    Ms Travers is a traitor to her own community. Why can’t she just accept the SPAD’s right to her job without campaigning to take it away?

  • Am Ghobsmacht

    Tacapall

    “Lets put it in a nutshell SK, the Sinn Fein point of view is the natives are being portrayed as the aggressors.”

    What?

    Natives?

    Who isn’t a native here? Travers? Allister? What?

    @ Quality

    That’s a good point, what is the SF bottom line: Was it a war?
    Then in that case tough titty for the would be bomber, he doesn’t deserve the same status as some one caught in a bomb blast (or a ‘non combatant’ shot by soldiers, tacapall…)

  • Granni Trixie

    Toaster:why sectarianise this issue and indeed victims? Don’t you get it…Ann Travers spoke truth to power and for a morality which crosses the divide.

  • tacapall

    Who isn’t a native here?

    Obviously these people – British soldiers Lee Clegg Mark Wright and James Fisher, indeed these people too –

    A tale of two mothers and the grief that never ends

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamonn-mccann/a-tale-of-two-mothers-and-the-grief-that-never-ends-28631562.html

    “The men’s commanding officer at the time of the murder, Colonel Tim Spicer, declared himself “absolutely delighted” that they were back with their regiment.

    Their jailing in the first place, he said, had been “absolutely disgraceful”.

    On the night of the killing, he recalled for the Army board, “It was my inclination that they should be rearmed, re-zero their rifles and return to the streets.”

    “Martin Bell said that a refusal to reinstate would have been “inconceivable”.

    But here’s the Unionist response, enlightening.

    Ulster Unionist Party security spokesman, Ken Maginnis declared himself “absolutely delighted”.

  • toaster

    What’s there to sectarianism Granny Trixie?

    Ann Travers objects to expats from her own side being able to take part in the new NI and benefit from the settlement…and has even imposed this view unto an entire party from the nationalist community.

    Truly disgraceful

  • Am Ghobsmacht

    Righto

    They’re not natives.

    However, most of the people supporting or indeed not obstructing the SpAd bill are natives too.

    Are they being portrayed as aggressors?

    If no, then your SF nutshell doesn’t make any sense.

  • Granni Trixie

    You really don’t get it,right? Keep digging.

  • toaster

    Care to explain it then?

  • Granni Trixie

    Ok. Although ones religious/cultural background inNI has bearing in ones worldview and morality,there are many who weigh things up on the basis of whats right and wrong which can go counter to which ‘side’ you are supposed to support. For instance, I always thought that although there was discrimination in a one party state and a need for reform, violence was not the way to address the problems. Also, when I heard of anyone being killed in the troubles I did not have to consult a community background barometer to feel sympathy for the family left behind. So I do not see why any Catholic has to take a certain line to support their ‘tribe’ if their conscience tells them otherwise.

  • Reader

    toaster: Ann Travers objects to expats from her own side…
    Please explain precisely what you mean by “from her own side”. And then tell me how I can decide whether the IRA were on my side.

  • weidm7

    The issue is who did bad things during the troubles. Yes, the IRA did bad things, innocent people died from their actions who shouldn’t have. But the fact also is, the British Army, the RUC and the British state did bad things. By passing this bill, Stormont is enforcing the incorrect, head in the clouds notion that only the IRA and loyalists paramilitaries did wrong and state forces did nothing. This is wrong and shouldn’t be allowed.

  • looneygas

    Congratulations to Kilsally and all the loyal proddies for maintaining the ceremony of innocence all this time. Surely the Guinesss record-keepers will want to record this epic treading of water.

  • Granni Trixie

    Weidm7

    Yes, there was wrongdoing in the dirty awful business by many actors and groups but but what you say implies that we have no right to decide guilt for ourselves or that we are all guilty and so have no right to judge.

    And another thing,I am not saying that I could not have got involved in violence for the opportunity was all around but if I had I trust I woud not be debating now from the stance of ‘I did nothing wrong because other people did’ or have the brass neck to argue against people whose lives were ruined because of my actions.

  • socaire

    Good job Ole Nelson wasn’t trying to get a SpAD job.

  • cynic2

    “the IRA did bad things, innocent people died from their actions who shouldn’t have”

    Yeah. About 2500 of them shot blown to pieces buried in hidden graves and your attempt to equate that murderous campaign with other isolated pockets of incidents is shameful;

  • cynic2

    Republicans murder civilians and they are not allowed to take part in the State.

    Yep and that right and fair and just that murderers shouldn’t benefit from their crimes by being handed £90k salaries like sweeties

  • News_Meister

    Mick,
    Slugger is not what it once was; it’s become riddled with way too much “whataboutery” and ‘playing the man’ instead of the ball.

    It also amazes me that many of the clearly intelligent minds contributing to Slugger can’t reach consensus on the neverending ‘hierarchy of victims’ issue.

    I contend ‘a victim’ must be defined applying the test of ‘natural justice’ and not merely the laws of a particular states. Consequently, a victim will normally fall into one of the following classifications:-

    i) a civilian injured or killed by the unlawful actions of the perpetrator of a crime;

    ii) any relative and/or witness affected by the above.

    iii) any citizen deprived of their liberity via use of draconian measures such as internment without trial.

    In my humble opinion – if we’re going to apply the standards of a civilised and decent society – members of paramilitries and state forces ought not normally to be regarded as ‘victims’ save in the most exceptional of circumstances e.g. if an unarmed paramilitary is killed instead of being arrested and subjected to due process such conduct must be deemed to offend the values of a civilised and decent society. Furthermore, if a known paramilitary reasonably suspected of being engaged in the commission of a crime was wounded for the genuine purpose of preventing them fleeing justice then they arguably aren’t a victim of an unlawful wrong.

  • socaire

    The next thing – was it a war or not? Are all soldiers who kill murderers? And one for the fundaments – Thou shalt not kill.

  • belfasthobo

    Frankly I feel that special advisers should not be appointed anyway. It should be a public application and a process much like a confirmation hearing we see in the US should be followed. £90k is too much to pay someone who is handed the job for undisclosed reasons.

    Regarding the SPAD bill, I won’t shed a tear for any republican or loyalist who is effected by it. But it is a damning example of how immature our politics is that a bill like this needs to exist and that it has even gotten as far as it has in the chamber

  • 241934 john brennan

    Socaire
    “The next thing – was it a war or not? Are all soldiers who kill murderers? And one for the fundaments – Thou shalt not kill.”

    In the final analysis each individual must take responsibility and be accountable for his own actions –“for what I have done and for what I have failed to do.”
    Yes a soldier, in a just war situation, can commit murder eg if he shoots someone, when he has choice of taking him a prisoner. A man with a gun may claim to be acting in self defence, but not if he waslying in ambush to shoot some who is not attacking him. How can anyone, or any cause, justify the planting of an indiscriminate car bomb. What cause can ever justify the treatment of the disappeared?

    For some physical force fundamentalists, there is no hierarchy of victims. So are people like Hitler, Pol Pot, the Skankill Butchers and the Enniskillen Bombers all equally victims? – All conditioned and programmed by their politics, life experiences and upbringing?

  • socaire

    As I noted before – there is a definite hierarchy of victim’s relatives. What about a sniper,john?

  • socaire

    Two people have now been hounded out of their jobs by Ms Travers. Has justice been done? Can she settle now?

  • Congal Claen

    There is obviously a hierarchy of victims. Most normal people recognise that Fred West wasn’t a victim.

    Then again SF/IRA think that there is a hierarchy of perpetrators. On the one hand you have loyalist death squads, on the other brave volunteers. I’m not sure they’ll ever get it…

  • Comrade Stalin

    Frankly I feel that special advisers should not be appointed anyway. It should be a public application and a process much like a confirmation hearing we see in the US should be followed. £90k is too much to pay someone who is handed the job for undisclosed reasons.

    I prefer to deal with it democratically. If you don’t trust the politician to employ the right sort of SpADs, don’t vote for them.

    Regarding the SPAD bill, I won’t shed a tear for any republican or loyalist who is effected by it.

    Which is pretty much none of them. Sinn Féin could, tomorrow, appoint almost the entire IRA leadership (or at least, those who are still alive) as SpADs and this bill wouldn’t be able to prevent it.

  • mac tire

    “A man with a gun may claim to be acting in self defence, but not if he was lying in ambush to shoot some who is not attacking him. How can anyone, or any cause, justify the planting of an indiscriminate car bomb…”

    Or flattening cities (and its inhabitants) from 20,000 feet in the air. Or the use of drones. Or any of the many Black Ops which take place on a regular basis.

    Reading through many of the posts here this last week has shown me that the problem some people have is NOT “evil acts” themselves per se but WHO carried them out. At least being honest and consistent about it would be a start. (With apologies to any posters who are genuinely pacifist and anti-war – to all the rest you are just hypocrites).

  • ayeYerMa

    Once again we see the usual suspects shouting the word “discrimination” to cover any decision they don’t like, illustrating further the meaningless and utterly subjective nature of this word.

    For this particular case though, this particular OED definition is rather apt:

    “discriminating
    adjective

    having or showing refined taste or good judgement “

  • @cric,

    “The state demands a monopoly on murder?”

    No, not on murder just on violence. It is part of the standard political science definition of a state that it has a monopoly on violence that it can then sublet as in defining the circumstances under which individuals can use violence to defend themselves, other people, and even property.

    The definition of murder is killing which is not legally permitted. Therefore if a soldier or policeman kills someone within the rules of engagement that by definition is not murder. If individuals kill other individuals or agents of the state except in legitimate self defense that is considered murder as it violates the state’s monopoly on violence.

  • cynic2

    “Two people have now been hounded out of their jobs by Ms Travers”

    Just 2. Thats a lot more who need to go. But at least one murderer wont be picking up a British Government Paycheck this month. Sure for the love of the cause he can always continue to give Marty advice from the sidelines

  • cynic2

    “you are just hypocrites”

    No I am not. I recognize that war is sometimes necessary – for example I think that the UN should by now have destroyed the Syrian Air Force and Armour Divisions to stop them being used in genocide

  • cynic2

    “Sinn Féin could, tomorrow, appoint almost the entire IRA leadership (or at least, those who are still alive)”

    Come on now. There is a ban n double jobbing at Stormont and i suspec that a shocking number of them would also have to declare that they are already on the Brits payroll

  • Morpheus

    I think it’s pretty obvious the levels of abhorrence that Sluggerites have for Sinn Fein. Can I ask, how do these same Sluggerites view the average Sinn Fein voter?

  • sonofstrongbow

    Morph,

    Always happy to help with your questioning in pursuit of understanding.

    Sinn Fein support their x years murder campaign (with its ‘soldiers’ making up its front bench). Indeed its leading lights regularly take part in street theatre commemorations where participants having raided the dressing up box stamp up and down to honour their fallen ‘heroes’ and the ‘battles’ of their ‘war’.

    You know the sort if thing: the ‘Battles’ of ‘La Mon’, ‘Enniskillen Cenotaph’, ‘Teebane’ etc.

    Sinn Fein continues to have an ‘unusual’ relationship with law and order. Specifically so long as the PSNI look pretty on the street but stay away from organised crime, fuel laundering and such like, and very much understand that ‘republicans’ who ‘support the peace process’ are out of bounds, ‘political policing’ is the catch-all name for the policy, then the Shinners will leave them to it.

    I assume as SF voters continue to vote for SF they too have no problem with these two manifestations of Shinnerdom.

    I’ll not bother to revisit the Spads thingamajig.

    I’ll liken the situation to another gather up of thugs-in-suits. The BNP is a Rightwing racist gang that surrounds its malodorous message with ‘concerns’ about welfare costs and unemployment. It may be that some BNP voters share these bread and butter concerns. However how could any rational person ignore the BNP’s antecedents when casting their vote?

    Is it not more likely that they are completely comfortable with the racist nature of the BNP?

    I have exactly the same view of the average SF voter (and should you be considering the ‘only lending votes to SF’ or the ‘too young to know what happened in the past’ arguments spare me. The matters I have mentioned are contemporary examples of SF’s position).

  • Morpheus

    So you think the average Sinn Fein voter – 26.2% of the voters in the last election – supports murder and endorses organised crime. Gotcha.

    Is this a common feeling?

  • 241934 john brennan

    They haven’t gone away you know.

    Going by Siinn Fein’s anti-SDLP poster at the top of this post shows that the Provo graffiti writers haven’t decommissioned their paint brushes and aerosol cans.

    “No blacks -No dogs – no Irish – No ex-prisoners” is in the same inglorious tradition of Provo propoganda artists (vandals) e.g.:
    SDLP – Stoop Down Low Party
    SS – RUC
    Brits out
    Touts beware
    Sniper at work
    Etc etc

  • tacapall

    John you see some of that sort of graffiti on walls in loyalist areas too its not just a Sinn Fein thing and I dont think anyone has decommissioned their Brits out or no surrender mindsets. Theres nothing wrong with Ann’s Law in principle just that its hard to understand why we passed a law where we can have a sign saying, some murderers need not apply, wtf, what sort of people are we. anyone, anyone at all convicted of murder should not be an adviser regardless of how many years they served.

  • sonofstrongbow

    Morph,

    You appear to be uncomfortable with the facts.

    Of course you may be able to direct me towards motions at SF annual meetings which condemned the parties involvement at terrorist commemorations. Or motions criticising the party’s pickets outside police stations.

    Even some reportage about disagreements between SF voters and the party about its stance on support for terrorist atrocities of the past would suffice.

    Of course you may be suggesting that SF voters simply ignore the central core of the SF mindset and focus on its desire for a UI; bypassing the SDLP and its own UI stance on their way to the voting booth.

  • Morpheus

    Oh no SoS, I gotcha loud and clear, you think SF voters support murder and endorse organized crime.

  • sonofstrongbow

    Morph,

    So that’ll be a ‘no’ then. Gotcha.

  • Morpheus

    The fact that you think that more than 1 in 4 voters, fellow citizens of Northern Ireland, support murder and organized crime tells me all I need to know SoS, don’t you?

  • Am Ghobsmacht

    Morpheus

    I’m not particularly thrilled with the idea of being in agreement with SoS, but you did open that can of worms and (as usual) he has some good points.

    Whilst with some it might be sheer contempt, with others SF voters are held in a baffling regard:

    A party that was supposedly spawned (in it’s latest off shoot) from a community that was getting a hard time and felt the need to ‘fight back’ (though the demographic of perpetrators who deserved the receiving end of said fight back was broad to the point that many were indistinguishable from ‘joe public’) for some reason conveniently forgets all the hurt and suffering they endured through decades of unfair Northern Irish (not British per se) rule whenever it suits them e.g. McCreesh ‘playground’.

    The neurosis of the ‘PUL’ community is well known yet the party who apparently ‘made so many sacrifices for peace’ excel in doing exactly the things that the unionists fear thereby exacerbating their paranoia and hostility to a UI (a welcome exception being the new mayor’s attitude to the Royal portraits).

    So, in much the same way that NI is still part of the UK DESPITE unionist politicians a similar summary could be used for SF: A plan for a ‘peaceful harmonious’ UI is still on the cards despite SF’s best efforts to make sure that it is only palatable to one tribe.

    This bafflement and illogical stance is then splattered onto their voters.

    I dabble with a hypothetical UI sometimes (as you know) but that soon goes out the window as soon as a SF goon starts their MOPEish double speak.

    Ergo, some people (well probably just me) wonder why, if SF voters want a peaceful UI then why do they vote for a party that is unlikely to deliver it (as in the peaceful aspect).

    I sometimes wonder how they would fair if a slick, non-religious, Gaelic orientated political party would appear on the scene, especially one that would take a pan-Gaelic view on things (such as links with Scotland and rejuvenating Antrim gaelic).

  • sonofstrongbow

    It would take a much better person than me to fathom what you may “need” Morph.

    But I’m guessing that you disagree with my view.

    Therefore in that vein I asked earlier where is the evidence to the contrary? Where are the public debates that seek to distance SF from its genuflecting to nationalist terrorism and its in/out ‘support’ for the police?

    There are numerous examples of SF’s central presence at terroristfests, and others of party activists picketing police establishments when (in their eyes) the ‘wrong’ people were arrested.

    Either you base your position on wishful thinking about the mindset of the SF base, or you believe that SF voters simply ignore the realities I referred to.

    Whichever is the case I can’t say I’m much bothered either way.

  • Morpheus

    Am Ghobsmacht

    “Ergo, some people (well probably just me) wonder why, if SF voters want a peaceful UI then why do they vote for a party that is unlikely to deliver it (as in the peaceful aspect).”

    I’ve already said on here that I think an increasing number vote for SF because the SDLP are bland and verging on invisible not because more and more of them all of a sudden support murder and organized crime.

    The SDLP lack any sort of leadership that the average voter can get behind. The average nationalist wants a United Ireland but in my opinion thinks that the SDLP have become too insignificant to do anything about it.

    Take the Belfast City Hall debacle – in the absence of any form of equality they tried to implement neutrality but instead of grabbing the issue and leading it the SDLP were in the background and came out relatively pain free even though the Alliance kopped the majority of the flack with firebombs and death threats.

    That said I know plenty of Sinn Fein voters and I can honestly say that not one of them supports murder or organized crime. Shockingly they are not 2-headed and don’t have horns . They are ordinary people like you and me and do not deserve to be scorned for who they vote for. To label them all as supporters of murder not only breaks the rules of Slugger but is simply wrong.

  • Am Ghobsmacht

    Morpheus

    Is there then room for another nationalist party? (why not, it’s NI, just what we need, MORE parties…)

    Actually, don’t answer that;

    GONE DRILLIN’.