I was watching the Andrew Marr show on BBC ONE about half an hour ago – or part of it. They had Gerry Adams on. It was a good example of how the north is dealt with by the English media.
I knew Adams was going to be on, which was why I made a point of catching the programme. (I rarely watching morning television – it always strikes me as a bit like drinking whiskey before lunch.) For some reason, I’d assumed he would be appearing in the London studio alongside Marr. Uh-uh. He was coming in a link with Belfast, which always has a distancing effect. In addition, while Marr’s questions were sensible they were few, and Adams’s answers covered ground we here in our NE nest have known for some time – RHI was the key cause of the recent election, Sinn Féin are happy to go into an Executive with the DUP again when matters that have been agreed to but not fulfilled have been addressed, Brexit demands a special status for NE Ireland.
Marr was far from hostile in his questions but it was still mildly depressing. The exchange can’t have lasted ten minutes, and there was no follow-up in the studio with other guests. In short, it was like the traditional British attitude to here: pay attention if there’s a full-blown crisis, otherwise say a few civilized words and leave it at that. Maybe as the months go by, they’ll see that Brexit has all the ingredients for a full-blown Irish crisis.
The other thing I found interesting is that Owen Jones, who was on reviewing the newspapers, is giving up his online blog. Actually I hadn’t been aware he had one, but I’ve checked since and it’s called ‘Owen Jones’ Ramblings’, with a subtitle ‘Stuff I haven’t whacked in my Guardian column.’ He’s giving up the online stuff, he says, because he doesn’t see the point in online exchanges. Some of these exchanges are rational and reasonable, but there are enough which are venomous and spiteful, in ways that people aren’t in face-to-face encounters. He figures walking the dog or hanging out with one’s mates makes more sense.
I must confess those are views which I find myself increasingly sharing. On this blogsite there are some contributors in the comments section – people like Perkin Warbeck, Paddykool and Am Ghobsmacht – who, through their form of engagement, make reading a pleasure and often thought-provoking experience. However, there are enough people commenting here whose only motivation seems to be the undermining and sometimes insulting anyone they disagree with. Punch and Judy stuff. I find it increasingly time-absorbing to keep track of this latter group, and have begun to wonder if it mightn’t be better to have a blogsite where the blogs go up and that’s it – no comments section. It might be a more worthwhile and less time-consuming way of spending my day. And yours.
I’d be interested in the views on this of those commenters who actually like to think about things.


I agree Jude that the comment section often turns into a Punch and Judy show, which often makes depressing reading.
A case in point would be a recent blog you did about the Irish Language Act which should have provoked a debate around the need and pros/cons of the ILA.
As usual though it quickly descended into a slagging match with people belittling Nelson McCauslands Oxford education.
Perhaps though it’s simply human nature. We all love a good bun fight and the veil of secrecy the internet provides let’s us all engage in a good bitching session. I have found myself from time to time not even reading the blog and just scrolling down to read the comments for the pantomime of it all.
Jude, I don’t know whether you approve or disapprove with comments I make on occasion, however, without the comment section, I think it would cease to be the go-to place for opinion informed or otherwise.
My understanding of Owen Jones position is that he was taking a break from social media, in particular Twitter owing to threats of violence and murder. I think we’ve a little while to go yet before things get that bad here.
I enjoy reading the range of opinions expressed here, and as online commentary goes there is a lot worse out there. Tit for tat exchanges are never helpful but an unfortunate aspect of online debate. In the main, I find the comments on Slugger far more nourishing than that posted above the line. Collins here is a proud Republican and I imagine all who visit the site know that, while Fealty’s editorial line is somewhat more, eh…disingenuous shall we say. The commentary on Slugger at least pulls him up on that.
Dialogue is an integral part of moving things forward here, and whilst I might not always agree with others’ opinions and the way in which they are expressed, they help me to better understand my neighbour. I’d be sorry to see the comments section go.
RJC
Jude provides a SF friendly viewpoint we all know that. Not a problem.
Slugger is much broader and has bloggers from both sides and many from other perspectives too.
I don’t know why it (slugger) gets vilified so much here, when it is by far the best and most balanced blog we have.
Mick Fealty is often accused of being a unionist but I have never heard him say so, have you?
Or perhaps as Jude maintains, it is virtually impossible for a Catholic from Holywood to be a republican
“Or perhaps as Jude maintains, it is virtually impossible for a Catholic from Holywood to be a republican” – that’s the kind of comment that makes me despair, gio. Untrue and pointless, other than to deliver a jab. I do think you touch on something important when you talk of the variety of viewpoints that are blogged on slugger (although I confess I haven’t followed it more recently). I’ve appealed before to people such as yourself to contribute blogs, so we get just the range you commend with Mick. What’s holding you back? I’d appeal again – finally – for people with a unionist/non-republican/alliance/anarchist position to gather your courage in your hands and put a blog together and I’ll publish it. I can’t commend highly enough Harry, the two Donals, Joe McVeigh (have I left someone out? ) for giving us their thinking so frequently and freely. I don’t always agree with all they write but they do write it. If we continue to hear the unionist perspective from the sidelines only, it’ll begin to look as though they secretly don’t believe they have a case to make…
Jude
Your own words
“. If you’re going to be a Holywood Catholic, chances are you’ll have a comfortable income, chances are you’ll not be a red-eyed nationalist, and chances are very high you’re not a rabid republican.”
You make such remarks and then affect shock when people put them back to you…?
whats the point of somebody wasting their time doing a blog when they are censored or threatened with a ban for using the everyday language they speak.ive seen the racist word threw about for nothing,because the political correct dont like certain names.it wouldnt be a true blog when you cant speak your mind.so your offer is out the window before it starts.
That’s a cop-out, billy. No matter who you write for or broadcast for …for that matter…. you’ll still have to have a facility with language and you will never be able to simply break the law with your words or utter simple profanities just for the hell of it , because to do so would put you in court anywhere and in any place you might do that publicly. You have to have the skills to make your point of view in “everyday language” and not also appear as a criminal or a fool …that’s all. Simple as that. Have you not seen the recent court case where a particular loud-mouthed lady , who constantly stirs the shit and has made a nice little earner doing it for such rags as the Sun, was busted on Facebook to the tune of some six -figure sum for hurting another lady’s feelings by saying something about her that was untrue?
no laws are getting broke thats the point,because some find some words socially offensive in their world doesnt mean their offensive in the other peoples lives.forums all over social media are full of profanities as you call them and not a word about them.the example you give is a personal dispute and is irrelevant here.is anybody in court for describing sf supporters as reptiles for example.or unionists as bastards,
““Or perhaps as Jude maintains, it is virtually impossible for a Catholic from Holywood to be a republican” – that’s the kind of comment that makes me despair, gio. Untrue and pointless, other than to deliver a jab.”
But that’s what you said, Jude. It’s not untrue. You published it for all to see.
Really? Where and when?
must be hard sometimes for people to come to terms with when the world they thought they knew falls in round their ears.trying to argue against change and defend the way things were cant be blamed on other people not agreeing.
You’ve a point Jude. I can understand anyone stepping back from some of the commentary. Sometimes that amounts to engaging in a christmas pantomime along the lines of “Oh yes you did!!…..Oh no I didn’t !!!”…which in all truth , is a waste of anyone’s time, I’d imagine. It’s a apparent too , as Scott pointed out , that there is sometimes not the attention -span required (possibly a side -effect of too much information in these modern times) to read some of the articles fully in the first place before making comment.The sad truth is that we can be inclined to wade into the usual bun-fight and end up arguing about points that are alien to the original intent of the article.That all said, without some comeentary we may as well be inside a space -capsule with no connection at all.At bottom it is supposedly a virtual meeting-place for conversation , except that conversation is not always forefront in the minds of some contributors.Some seem to believe it is set up to be a simple propagandist’s tool for nationalism or republicanism , whereas i see it more a forum for information and knowledge…even humour… right across the board without specific favour…That is not how it is always perceived , of course.
paddy
‘right across the board without specific favour’
You are surely having a laugh!
I don’t know if that is what Jude aspires to but it is certainly not the reality.
The vast majority of atl pieces are from a republican/SF point of view and the vast majority of comments are the same,frequently along the lines of
‘unionists…are’n’t they a bunch of neanderthal bigots’
Coming from people who supposedly espouse a uniting of catholic protestant and dissenter I find that depressing.
Perhaps this is why no-one accepts the offer Jude makes to unionists to submit pieces.
As I have said before it is people who claim to be republicans who post the majority of the abuse (anyone care to contradict that?) and perhaps that is why Jude is reluctant to come down hard on such stuff.
For it seems obvious that a few simple rules followed by a period of zero tolerance and swift bans would soon clear out the worst offenders, so I wonder why that is not done
I only ever speak for myself, gio and always have done. just as your opiion is your own.I’ve no idea how many with differing opinions read any of thisIn the end , I’m not writing for a “tribe”….It’s only me .
paddy
What do you mean ‘without specific favour’?
You are not trying to suggest that Jude is a disinterested observer.
Or indeed yourself for that matter.?
What is your own opinion on my suggestion
Three simple rules say and a ban if you break them,
eg
No personal abuse.
Stick to the topic
Respect the opinion of others.
Others may have better suggestions.
You’re wrong on a number of points, gio. I am not ‘reluctant’ to come down hard on abuse or libellous statements – if you think I am you’ve a tenuous grasp of reality. In fact I have urged people to point me to instances of same (without much success). As to ‘The vast majority of atl pieces are from a republican/SF point of view ‘ – really? You, PF, Argenta, MT – you’re among the most constant posters on the site and it’d be a particularly addle-brained individual who’d accus you of being republican/SF’. I still am truly disappointed at the way you and other unionist-inclined posters duck back onto the sidelines wheen it’s suggested you do a blog. It’s increasingly hard to read that any other way than insecure thinking.
Jude
I can only say that some nasty stuff seems to sit for a long time. Maybe a clearer line on what is acceptable would help and as I say zero tolerance might quickly get rid of the worst offenders.
I specifically referred to atl pieces (above the line) as being on the whole republican/SF so perhaps you misunderstood that point.
Also I have made it clear to the point of tedium that I not a unionist. I am broadly republican although I don’t particularly like labels, so I feel sure you must know this about me by now.
Because I criticise SF (they do not own republicanism) does not make me a unionist, but I am frequently called such by posters and now yourself too.
It is clearly man playing and no doubt intended to wind me up
Is that not the sort of thing you should be clamping down on, as you do when SF are labelled provos?
You have suggested many times that I or others submit a blog and I know that is a genuine offer which I appreciate.
However because I decline that offer does not mean insecurity (manplaying) or anything else. It simply means that I am happy to post comments and leave it at that.
Jude I understand your frustration so I suggest again that you put up a few very simple rules of engagement as I suggested above, no more than 3, and come down hard on offenders with substantial bans after the first warning.
I think after a short while you would have little policing to do.
Thanks for your thoughts, gio. I wasn’t’man-playing’ or winding up – I assumed from your consistent anti-republican stance that you were a unionist. As to blogging, you’re entitled to say ‘No’ but I’m likewise entitled to conjecture why you say no. And others who I might make the mistake (?) of classifying as unionist. I just don’t see the logic of complaining that a site is republican-dominated and then doing nothing to right the balance, especially when you are a constant reader. As to the house-rules, sounds like good advice to me. Would you like to suggest what they might be? (Again, as always, I ask openly and without spin…)
Jude
You seem to be conflating criticism of SF (guilty as charged) with being anti-republican. I am certainly not anti-republican.
I don’t expect you to remember such things but when commenters know I have explained this and still call me unionist they are basically calling me a liar at which point the conversation is dead.
I am not complianing about the site being republican, I have no problem with that.
I was responding to paddy’s comment that it was,
“a forum for information and knowledge…even humour… right across the board without specific favour”.
I do not think you could or would claim that you show no favour?
Anyway as to the rules I made a couple of suggestions above in my post to paddy but they could probably be improved on.
I would say keep it simple and as unambiguous as possible.
Np personal abuse being the main priority I assume.
I think you would have to police it closely for an initial period and ban a few people which you may not want to do, but it might make life easier for you in the long run.
A blog without comment would be a dud in my view, the equivalent of vanity publishing, and you would quickly lose readers
But that is just my view.
Don’t heed Owen Jones. The reason he is giving up his blog might be to do with his championing of NATO terrorism in Syria. This guy for years set himself up as an opponent of western imperialism/terror but showed his true colours when the west began to lose the narrative and battle for ‘regime change’ in Syria. He’s another fraud. He may criticise western/Uk govts on domestic issues etc but when it comes to the crunch on the real juicy life and death stuff he will roll in behind them obediently.
The solution seems obvious.
Do the blog and open comments only for Perkin paddyk and AmG.
The rest of us riffraff will gaze on in quiet wonder.
Or go out for a walk.
Frankly, I am more concerned at the expressed threat, by the lord lieutenant, of another election, the 2016 election cost the taxpayer c. £5,000,000, one must suppose the recent one cost slightly more, in essence, we could be spending .£16,000,000 on electing drab individuals, some of whom are accused of facilitating corruption by their own parties, a sum which could more easily, and better, be applied to recruiting Nurses, Doctor’s, special need’s assistants and additional teachers rather than buoying the ego’s of a political class unable to advance anything but dog licencing, that of course being a municipal authority’s task.
I never found Punch & Judy funny, less so the idiots we elect.
One point Adams did make made me humorous, the reference to how the Brit’s used to resolve matters, never let them forget, again, time for peace, time to go!
Well, that would be a shame.
There are very few blogs which deal with issues from an Irish viewpoint.
the Irish media seem to be in a race to see who can be a better Daily Mail. than even the Daily Mail is.
As for the comments. If you ever read the ones in the Irish Independent. They are far worse.
From reading them I believe that Irish Society is not far from the British Daily Mail reader.
Not that even the Daily mail reader is the average Briton.. they are not.
But that paper leads Tony Blair and Theresa May by the nose.
So, it’s worth a mention.
The occasion of 100 years of 1916, proves that there is a real deficit in seeing things from an Irish view point as When Boris Johnson approves of it… You know something is wrong.
As for the North East of Ireland… well Switzerland it isn’t. So there’s always going to be more heat than light.
Until it is either dissolved totally or repartitioned or the nationalists give up and become British. Or the unionists become Swiss. It’s hard to see it any other way.
Blogs like this are interesting to me as most Irish people seem more interested in english football teams than sorting out their own nation.
I can’t fathom it. It seems like a waste of energy to me.
For the blog point of view. It is sad to hear the owner feel that it is not fulfilling it’s original purpose.
But rather than close the comments down . I have an idea.
Since most of us haven’t been here since day one. Perhaps another article explaining to the readers what the purpose is of reading and commenting. If readers like myself had a better understanding of the objective and aims are. Then perhaps it may raise the quality of the posts.
My view as an Irish nationalist is just something that speaks to me and for me.
Jude,if you went regularly to a pub with the same-ish bunch of people and the conversation consisted of long,, factual, well thought out set pieces you wouldn’t be long in changing your company. Bun fights have their place. The rough and tumble sometimes comes up with a few gems. You can police the site like they do at MacFool but who wants to read it. I know this probably has become a millstone around your neck but it’s gaining you points for the next world where you won’t have to put up with any of us. Beir bua.
fiosrach
If you were in the pub and were called a racist bigot or told someone to get back on the boat and go home I suggest fisticuffs would soon ensue.
As for slugger it has currently 75000 readers a month.
If I called you a bigot over there I would be gone.
I’m not quite sure what the right words is, perhaps, ‘rhetoric’; perhaps, ‘hyperbole’. ‘Pejorative’ is too strong; ‘provocation’ in the ‘prodding’ sense, might get us closer, but I’m not sure.
However the thing is this:
When the Boys Brigade is compared with masked dissidents; when comments by the Sinn Fein President about unionists and bastards can be explained away; and when articles have a history of always blaming unionism, then one shouldn’t be surprised if people react.
Having said that, some progress has been made. Just recently Jessica wrote an article in which she noted that not all unionists are sectarian bigots.
That that point had to be acknowledged at all, is something of a pity.
But the good news is this: we’re not all bigots – who knew? Perhaps now there is hope of some conversation.
PF.
if you have a spare 40 minutes watch this.
Firstly it’s about gun control in Switzerland.
But that’s NOt the reason I suggest you watch it.
If you ignore the subject matter.
You will see two people.
An Italian Swiss and a French Swiss.
If you watch it the differences are highlighted between these cultures
They sort of poke each other in the ribs a bit.
Couldn’t Ireland be like Switzerland one day.
Like I say,. it’s the people rather than the guns I am highlighting.
Oz
Thank you for the link. As you say, if we look beyond the immediate subject of gun control and focus on the people and form of government, there is much to consider.
You asked about Ireland. I don’t know how much of my previous conversations with Jessica you are aware of but one idea I have presented on the pages of this blog is that of a Federal British Isles – or it you prefer, a Federal British and Irish Isles.
I am not against a United Ireland, and I am not against Ireland, but I am a Unionist. And what I mean by that is that I favour some kind of Union of the constituent parts which make up these primarily English speaking islands (I put it that way to note that the islands also include a variety of Celtic languages).
Could we have a form of federal government within these islands which included a United Ireland? I see no reason why not. Could this be more than the four nations of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales? Why not? Why not include either other larger regions to reflect the differences within England, or to reflect the larger cities, which in England, like London, have mayors with powers?
And why not also include some kind of regional devolution of local government in Ireland, by county council, larger region (similar to the Provinces), or to reflect particular interests – like the Gaeltacht or the Orange culture of Ulster (and indeed the rest of the island)?
What I am not, is a little-nation Republican – anymore than I think that Ulster Unionism can survive if its sole aim is to try to preserve Northern Ireland. I am not interested in a United Ireland if it is to be ‘Ireland Alone’. I don’t mind the idea of an all-Ireland government, but it must also look outwards to the rest of the British and Irish Isles. Indeed it already does given the number of Ireland’s citizens who live and work in England, Scotland and Wales, and the historical, economic and family ties which already exist. Surely this can be reflected more formally?
I suspect too, that there must be Northern Nationalists who have more (or as much) in common with their Northern Unionist neighbours than they do with their fellow Irish citizens in Cork or Kerry – there would be many regional differences in Ireland aside from the question of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
If, as the clip you posted suggests, the German, Italian and French cultures of central Europe can co-exist as Switzerland, then surely the the various cultures of these islands can co-exist as both autonomous and United regions of the Isles?
I’ve said it before PF, you ‘ve got some interesting points of view and you should really do a blog based on some of those ideas.I certainly think there is merit in discussing them rationally and chewing them over. That’s a much better approach from what we are hearing coming out of most of the DUP, isn’t it? Let’s face facts. we are in the 21st century and some in the DUP do not believe in science and are science -deniers…. and that party is unionism’s main guiding light.
That’s frankly ridiculous and doesn’t appear to be capable of any kind of change.With an attitude like that there is no future for unionism .The DUP simply do not know how to change tack in a storm. They just plough on battering their heads against the future while everything in the world around them has changed. They need a clear modern strategy which they appear to be resolutely opposed to . If they thought at all, they’d be trying to convince nationalists that there might be merit in something radically new that everyone could somehow live with that would protect everyone regardless of their identity , but all they’ve done so far is insult the people who will very possibly be the majority voice very soon.
There is nowhere in modern England that wants to be like the DUP’s version of modern Britain. There simply isn’t.There’s the business of homophobia, racism, anti-Irishism(Is that an ism?) and a whole raft of stuff that is frankly very un-British (in the broadest sense), that unionism here haven’t got their heads around .Where are they going to get voters from in an increasingly secular future Ireland north and south? Sure , they still got huge nimbers voting from them even though we’ve just sailed through ten years with the stink of numerous scandals hanging off them , but increasingly more people are getting very fed up with their attitude.They are fed up with First Ministers like Arlene Foster who think that the law of the land isn’t for them….that’s for all you lot!…Not me!.The only place they can look for support from is a wedge of uneducated people in the shadows , who would rather settle the debate by pulling out the guns again. You know how that always ends , don’t you? Well , that’s what willl ultimately happen right before our eyes. There’ll be no new thinking …only big shows of strength that’ll take them right out of the union.
PF.
You are obviously very passionate about Ireland.
I respect that. We all should.
It’s quite clear that your unionism is based on this belief.
Whilst I disagree I can also say I believe you are genuine
And this deserves respect.
I am very excited about your passion for Ireland as I share this.
Like what Paddy says.
There is much you have to say is interesting.
From My view your Irishness makes me question. How many unionists feel the same???
I ask not to score points.
But if Unionists and nationalists were to both admit to a passion for Ireland.
And If Ireland is defined as it’s own right and not anti English.
I hope we can be a Switzerland.They have got a system that allows for difference but also works as a unit.
We need this.
We have brutalised each other in so many ways.it’ll be hard.
I think history needs to be retold… And the parts we have forgotten to remember may shed some light.
we need to end the zero sum game that You win I lose or I win you lose.
We both win together or we both lose together.
The board is broken.
we must make a new board.. Free from zero sum game.
Oz
“The board is broken.
we must make a new board.. Free from zero sum game.”
From a Unionist point of view this makes complete sense, if only they could see it; for if there is going to be a loser in a ‘zero sum game’, it will be my community who lose.
“That that point had to be acknowledged at all, is something of a pity.”
Yes it is Peter, but if a majority of unionists can still vote the DUP and Arlene in such numbers after their behaviour over the last 10 years and in particular over recent months, then is it any wonder. How can it be seen as anything other than support for bigotry?
I saw a glimmer of hope, but not everyone does.
Unionism does precious little to change its own ways but is very quick to condemn others.
“If anti-English sentiment is all a United Ireland can offer then that is no better than the anti-Irish rhetoric of some in Unionism.”
While England covers up its true role in the conflict here while calling everyone else terrorists, you cant really be surprised there is anti-English sentiment growing in Ireland.
But desire for a United Ireland is not the cause of anti-English sentiment.
Only the behaviour of England causes that and every bit as much in Scotland as in Ireland, if not further afield.
As you say, it is harder to see the flaws in your own thinking than in others.
“Yes it is Peter, but if a majority of unionists can still vote the DUP and Arlene in such numbers after their behaviour over the last 10 years and in particular over recent months, then is it any wonder. How can it be seen as anything other than support for bigotry?”
Yet s majority of nationalists stlil vote for PSF: support for legitimising terror. How can that be seen as anything other than support for bigotry? Yet, far from condemning this, you are actually one of those who supports PSF.
Right. I’ve told you several times, MT – don’t call the political party ‘Sinn Féin’ ‘Provos’. PSF stands for ‘Provisional Sinn Féin’. Please don’t post again until you can give me an assurance of modified language. If you do, I’ll take it down.
“Right. I’ve told you several times, MT – don’t call the political party ‘Sinn Féin’ ‘Provos’. PSF stands for ‘Provisional Sinn Féin’. Please don’t post again until you can give me an assurance of modified language. If you do, I’ll take it down.”
Still you won’t explain why you want to censor this term.
I will not be censored. If you wish to ban me, that is your choice.
When the bigotry was at its height, not too long ago, I do not recall the good unionist people demanding change. The peace people stood up against the violence, but I don’t recall the blatant discrimination being challenged by way of street protest or anything else by our unionist brethren. Does that go any way to attending your confusion?
Sorry, Freddie, I’m not getting sucked in; other than to say that it’s easy to spot the fault in another community, much more difficult to see the fault in your own.
was the peace people not in the 70s.
Jude if you blog where only you can comment it takes the fun out of it, I’m guessing it would be less appreciative on your behalf also. Surely you can issue a warning then bar anyone who is sbusive or fails to follow norms! I seldom comment on public forums now but rest assured I admire people like yourself that put across a republican perspective in a dignified manner! Keep up the good work
England’s shabby treatment of Ireland over 800 years has irreparably soured future relations. There can be no federal Uk/Ireland. There is zero trust between nationalist Ireland and England ( because that’s who is control). To suggest otherwise is frankly insulting.
Why do you think that in a federal set up England would be in charge?
Anyway, things have moved on a bit from the opposing theocratic, anti-British or anti-Irish politics of the 20th Century.
The visit of HM Queen Elizabeth to Ireland and the welcome given by Sinn Fein demonstrates that.
If anti-English sentiment is all a United Ireland can offer then that is no better than the anti-Irish rhetoric of some in Unionism.
Ireland is bigger than that.
as here come on Jude! article 50 may be triggered as early as this Tuesday if ever there was a time to keep all lines of communication open it’s now. I just think of those contributors as your very own, “Thomas in North Belfast” or “George from the Shankill” et al.
It would be a shame to stop people commenting Jude. I’m in favour of a United Ireland and from a Nationalist background but i don’t mind reading differing viewpoints from people even if they cross the line sometimes. After all it would be boring if we all agreed on the same things.
Maybe adding an ignore button so people could block comments from posters they deem offensive could be the way to go?
Of course all unionists are not knuckle dragging Neanderthals – just the ones who vote for knuckle dragging Neanderthal parties and continue to do so for whatever reason.
If I’m not mistaken, fiosrach, that’s another example of progress on this site.
Just as long you don’t conflate Protestant with unionist. Sometimes one gets the opinion that Protestants vote shrewdly and thoughtfully while Catholics are just sheep who vote for the tricoloured sheep. Maybe this election has opened your eyes- maybe not. Everybody is trying to seduce the nationalists from their aberrant, irrational, unreasonable behaviour and learn to love the union but maybe we have weighed the union and found it wanting. Labour doesn’t take up arms against the Conservatives even though their hatred is tangible. Republicans don’t kill Democrats. What is the underlying cause in Ireland?
I’m afraid, fiosrach, you’ll need to be clearer.
I enjoy reading people’s comments, even those from people on the opposite side politically, yes giordanobruno I mean you! As a great old imperialist warmonger said Jaw jaw and all that. It would be a shame if comments were not put up on your excellent site Jude.
AJ
I agree with the point you are making, though I never had you pegged as a unionist!
Stop telling lies MT.
How have Sinn Fein supported the legitimisation of terror?
Sinn Fein have stood with the PSNI against all violent actions against them or any violence.
Unionists on the other hand have stood beside active UDA and terror groups as you call them with both UUP, DUP and the orange order in toe.
Hardly comparable.
Sinn Fein have been reaching out to the unionist community for at least the last 10 years and bent over backwards to accommodate an obstinate and deeply prejudiced mentality.
What has unionism done to reach out to Irish nationalism all over this island in return?
Sinn Fein do not refer to themselves as PSF.
By doing so you are being insulting and proving you are incapable of respect for republicans and especially Sinn Fein and their supporters.
Whatever glimmer of hope there was that unionism may be capable of respect, people like yourself MT are always on hand to trample all over it and to ensure it doesn’t take hold.
“Stop telling lies MT.”
I haven’t begun telling lies therefore it’s not possible for me to stop.
“How have Sinn Fein supported the legitimisation of terror?”
Are you being serious? They’re out most weekends glorifying and honouring terrorists. They regularly argue in support of the Provisional IRA and seek to legitimise it. Michelle O’Neil was out eulogising a death squad a few weeks ago. They were the political wing of the Provisional IRA and continue to support its crimes retrospectively. They are stacked full of former PIRA members who talk about their pride in being members of the Provo death squads. They sport ‘Easter lilies’, which seek to legitimise and normalise dead Provos. Etc srv
“Sinn Fein have stood with the PSNI against all violent actions against them or any violence.
Unionists on the other hand have stood beside active UDA and terror groups as you call them with both UUP, DUP and the orange order in toe.
Hardly comparable.”
They’ve always opposed terrorism by others. It’s their own movement’s terrorism that they seek to legitimise.
“By doing so you are being insulting”
How?
“Whatever glimmer of hope there was that unionism may be capable of respect, people like yourself MT are always on hand to trample all over it and to ensure it doesn’t take hold.:
It is those who seek to legitimise terror (and those who support them doing so) who are disrespectful, not those who oppose them doing so.
Well said, MT. Unfortunately, those who vote for SF just don’t seem to care.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
As I said the nationalist voters are all sheep. Show them a tricolour or a whiff of cordite and out they come, like sheep, to vote for murderers, terrorists, etc. Whereas the unionIst voters are shrewd, reasonable,country before party people who can think for themselves. Highly religious and principled with an eye to economic advancement. That’s what it is to be the chosen people. Quite a few letsgetalongeristsatanyprice are now emerging to explain to the wood kernes how much better off they are in the UK. People who would not have felt it wort their while to intervene but for the imminent rise of the nationalist vote. I have quite a few Protestant friends who I assume vote unionist of some hue and I would not discuss politics to their face as bad feeling usually surfaces and a ‘coolness’ begins. This is a good reason for an open forum where these things can be teased out without any lasting harm.
Careful with the irony ,fiosrach.It doesn’t always translate in the cold light of the text…
Irony? I don’t do irony. Anything you agree with?
MT, I note you have now used the word retrospectively,
Do you accept that the PIRA have stood down and are no longer engaged in conflict?
Do you accept the word of the chief constable of the PSNI who has said its past membership are totally supportive of the peace process?
Are you accepting that Sinn Fein are not supporting any use of terror in the present but you are referring only to the commemoration of a past conflict?
I fully support peace and I have constantly criticised continuity republicans, yet I wish to commemorate and show respect for dead “Provos” as you call them MT.
Are you therefore calling me a terrorist sympathiser?
MT, was the founding of the state “Northern Ireland”, not “legitimising terrorism” or threat thereof.
I voted for Sinn Fein, what do I not seem to care about Joe?
Gio, the reason I believe you are pro union has nothing to do with your dislike of Sinn Fein.
You supported on this site the idea that unionists should refuse to even discuss unification because in their eyes it is defeat.
That is not only a pro union stance, it is supporting unionist intransigence and disrespect towards nationalists.
It is also ignoring what might be in the best interests of all for the appeasement of unionism.
But more importantly, it is support for the exact same arrogance shown by the DUP and Arlene Foster in recent times.
So your views are not only unionist in my eyes, but the same vein of unionism expressed by DUP and Arlene Foster for the reasons provided.
You know what……. I really feel that everyone has consistantly missed is that Martin Mcguinness was attempting to give Arlene Foster the very same equality that anyone in a similar position to the one she found herself in would get .He couldn’t have been clear or have treated her more equally than to advise her to stand aside like anyone else would similarly be asked to do. He was trying to say that she was no better and no worse than anyone else and deserved to be treated just as anyone else doing a job would simply be treated.
I wonder if Foster’s refusal to do so was bridling at her perception that she would be “taking orders” from McGuinness/SF OR was it that when she stepped into Robinson’s shoes briefly she was able to set in motion her eventual crowning and feared the same fate?
But what i essentially mean is that if Arlene wanted an equality in society and a level playing field for everyone, unionists, nationalists …or dissenters, that “equality” of treatment in the outside world or in the workplace should start at the very top of government and be shown to work by anyone from the top to the bottom. In other words,, the law would be seen to work whether you were a first minister or a humble factory worker. It was essential that a First Minister in the highest office understood this and showed that she understood it.That was what she did not understand or simply refused to accept.
why are you not directing your comments to all parties..none of them have stepped aside to show example,yet you only give one example.
“I am certainly not anti-republican.”
How is supporting a unionist veto on even discussing unification not anti-republican?
Not all Unionists want the monarchy, some of them ARE republicans.
jessica
I have been over this with you before.
I do not support Unionism refusing to discuss unification or anything else with other parties North or South..
I think it is their right not to discuss it and since they are unionists I don’t see why they would be in a hurry to discuss the very thing they exist to prevent.
Here is an analogy.
If my team is playing another team at football say and the opposition choose to defend all the time packing their penalty box and not coming forward,well I would not be happy about it but I would say they are entitled to take that approach if they wish.
Basically Unionists have a right to be Unionists in their own way.
“Really? Where and when?”
Gio has already told.you.
“You’re wrong on a number of points, gio. I am not ‘reluctant’ to come down hard on abuse or libellous statements – if you think I am you’ve a tenuous grasp of reality. In fact I have urged people to point me to instances of same (without much success).”
If that is so, why have you ignored my complaint (madé about three or.four times on various blogs) about the following abuse by Jessica?
“you ignorant little unionist scumbag prick”
“Right. I’ve told you several times, MT – don’t call the political party ‘Sinn Féin’ ‘Provos’. PSF stands for ‘Provisional Sinn Féin’. Please don’t post again until you can give me an assurance of modified language. If you do, I’ll take it down.”
Could you PLEASE explain why you wish to censor the term Provisional? I’m not.the only.one to ask this yet you won’t explain your reasons. Why is.this?
“Do you accept that the PIRA have stood down and are no longer engaged in conflict?”
Yes. Do you?
“Do you accept the word of the chief constable of the PSNI who has said its past membership are totally supportive of the peace process?”
Yes. Do you?
“Are you accepting that Sinn Fein are not supporting any use of terror in the present but you are referring only to the commemoration of a past conflict?”
Yes, obviously.
“I fully support peace and I have constantly criticised continuity republicans, yet I wish to commemorate and show respect for dead “Provos” as you call them MT. Are you therefore calling me a terrorist sympathiser?”
Yes. You regularly express pro-terror views.
“MT, was the founding of the state “Northern Ireland”, not “legitimising terrorism” or threat thereof.”
No
“I fully support peace and I have constantly criticised continuity republicans, yet I wish to commemorate and show respect for dead “Provos” as you call them MT. Are you therefore calling me a terrorist sympathiser?”
Yes. You regularly express pro-terror views.”
MT, What I would like to say to you in response to this would be below the standard Jude has asked for, so I wont.
But it is acceptable to Jude, for you to call me a terrorist sympathiser and you have done many times now, then Judes site is below the standard I would be prepared to continue engaging on it.
The point you are missing gio, is it is not a game.
Those who treat it all as a game are the worst of the lot in my eyes.
jessica
I know it is not a game I was drawing an analogy.
If I say Unionists are hardly likely to want to discuss a United Ireland that does not somehow mean I support that stance.
I don’t know how else to express this fairly simple idea.
Good night.
“But it is acceptable to Jude, for you to call me a terrorist sympathiser and you have done many times now, then Judes site is below the standard I would be prepared to continue engaging on it.”
If you regularly express support for PIRA terror I’m.not clean why you object to being acknowledged as a terrorist sympathiser.
MT, I don’t consider the IRA to be terrorists any more than any army involved in a conflict who bombs and kills including the british army.
The british army are such cowards they wont even release the evidence of their actions to face up to their murder sprees in both parts of Ireland.
And for you and other unionists to call republicans terrorists when it was unionists who started the conflict in the first place, unionists who still refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for the actions of unionism past or present and unionists who would still defend and support loyalist paramilitaries holding on to weapons and remaining active almost 20 years after the ceasefires.
The only truth you reveal MT, is that there can be no continuation of any peace process if the british do not come clean on their past as it only feeds you and your kinds intransigence, bigotry and blind hatred.
It is not even remotely acceptable that they can cover up the murder of innocent civilians while encouraging such language as calling any Irish people terrorists over their occupation of our country.
You want a win lose situation. I hope you are happy when you eventually get it.
I don’t want Ireland to remain within the UK but I would be happy to debate it and come to an agreement to afford all of our people what would be in all of our best interests.
How you can excuse denial of that right I don’t know but it seems like very british thinking to me. Theresa May is treating the Scots the exact same way and lets see where that gets her.
I don’t even think you comprehend the offence that causes.
Your attitude will do the same here in Ireland. It will feed the determination for unity and for us to exit the UK.
England is growing more and more foreign to both Scotland and Ireland. It is time some people really need to decide what they are doing living on this island at all.
“MT, I don’t consider the IRA to be terrorists any more than any army involved in a conflict who bombs and kills including the british army.”
Maybe you don’t but that doesn’t change the fact that they were terrorists.
Well at least now you are insulting in the past tense MT.
When the british release the evidence blocked by their veto on the farce of national security and Sinn Fein had better not accept anything less than its full removal and movement on legacy, then perhaps we can discuss it on equal terms.
Until then, the current british stance is simply enabling unionist intransigence and damaging the peace process. How can we put the past behind us when your truth is based on cover up and lies.
I think the more relevant point, Gio is that unionism refuses to accept even the aspiration of reunification as legitimate. They call it, ‘destabilising.’They also criticise Sinn Fein for the so called, ‘cultural war.’ That basically means, that we can’t stomach the symbolism of nationalism come what may.
If we drill down into the respective ideologies, is the fatal difficulty for unionism not that their cause is an ignoble one?
Freddie
Yes but that is a different point to the one I was responding to from Jude and jessica,about my own position.
Unionism certainly should by now have accepted the aspiration of a United Ireland as perfectly legitimate and I would say many unionists do
I don’t know that unionism is an ignoble cause although there is much in its history that is ignoble.
I think after so many generations of being here and being part of a de facto British kingdom they are entitled to strive to maintain it.
While nationalists/republicans believe a united Ireland to be a noble cause we can be sure unionists feel exactly the same about the Union.
We had some chat about this elsewhere gio ,but the nub of it is that unionist insecurity is at the heart of everything here.It’s actually right there on the cover of the current British Passport as hads been pointed out. On the cover of said book ,In very typical British amibiguity (waffle!) Northern Ireland is not actually included in “Great Britain” (ie “Britain” itself) but rather the actual wording states very clearly (but also neatly ambigiously, naturally enough) ……..that the Passport bearer is from the United Kingdom of Great Britain…and (as a sort of an add-on afterthought)…. Northern Ireland too……specifically …….. not actually within the (Great) Britain part of it at all ,but simply part of a(at present) “United Kingdom”. You might say that the powers that be phrased it like that to slightly exclude Northern Ireland , rather than include it as properly “British” at all.
paddy
Certainly there is insecurity in unionism and that is likely to get worse as demographics work against them.
But that does not equate to ignobility which is the term Freddie has used
Both communities obviously feel they are pursuing a right cause,if not exactly noble perhaps so I don’t know if we can make any objective assessment on what is ignoble here.
It could be argued that removing the influence of a colonising power is surely the more noble cause and maybe history will agree.
Personally I think after centuries of strife and violence none of us can lay claim to much nobility.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present an illustration of our difficulties:
“I think the more relevant point, Gio is that unionism refuses to accept even the aspiration of reunification as legitimate. They call it, ‘destabilising.”
“is the fatal difficulty for unionism not that their cause is an ignoble one?”
And that is perfectly reasonable gio.
But we should not use dirty tricks, obstruction and obfuscation to impose our will on others and that is what unionism is doing by refusing to discuss options that might not be to their preference.
In fact, your analogy isn’t even accurate. Unionism is not defending too deeply, they are refusing to even show up for the match so the other side cant even get a game and therefore don’t get the chance to win.
There is no justification for the stance unionism is taking which is why I don’t understand your determination to defend it.
sturgeon is imposing her will on people who have already voted stay,and your showing her support.if may agrees to let her hold another vote and thats a big if she will lose again.if she gets her referendum it should be on condition if she loses she goes into exile in germany.there has to be some sort of penalties for people who want to keep rerunning elections until they get the result they want.
Those who show up to vote should have the final say billy, not those that don’t and things aren’t as simple as you seem to think.
May has already behaved with typical English supremacist attitude. The english will say they are listening to the devolved states, but they show no respect for them, they do not comprehend equality or partnership. They are the master race and the rest of us must know our place.
She has given a very valid reason for another referendum and that should be respected.
Failure to do so will harden Scottish attitudes against the UK and only make it more likely not only that an election will be called but that it will succeed.
Allowing it to go ahead is her only option to avoid turning the pro union Scots against her and at the same time it will turn many english against the UK and they will perhaps be less likely to persuade Scotland to remain. In fact I would suspect that an english movement perhaps from UKIP will provoke an anti Scottish or english nationalist agenda and Scotland could leave as a result.
Just as unionism hold such arrogance and attitude here in the north, conservatives in england are no different.
For the same reason, Ireland should have an all island referendum on unity and perhaps even on the same day.
In fact, both Scotland and Ireland should have a joint approach to the terms of the referendum, perhaps uniting together in a new union with England a separate entity on these islands.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
I prefer objectivity.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
I prefer objectivity.”
That was being objective MT, your view that the state forces were the good guys is not everyone’s experience and is actually bias.
It is fact that the british state are operating a veto over the truth of went on in the conflict, especially around the early years with their engagement with and management of loyalist paramilitaries.
Many journalists have said publically that the truth would be too harmful for them to allow it to come out.
Evidence is being denied to the legal teams of many victims of state violence.
Many people are in need of closure but none of it will happen while the british state refuse to allow justice to take its course to protect their mismanagement of the conflict here.
There is evidence that many more state murders were not properly investigated and wrong doings covered up.
These legacy issues must be addressed.
Until then, your views on this must be considered both subjective at best and more likely dishonest and agenda driven.
“That was being objective MT”
It wasn’t. It was expressly subjective.
I gave reasons for my view MT, you haven’t
“I gave reasons for my view MT, you haven’t”
Your subjective view doesn’t make the inane phrase objective. Merely reinforces that it is subjective.
But I didn’t just give a subjective view , I stated facts.
It is your views that are subjective and based on your unionist pro british bias.
I want the truth to come out, not my views pushed down peoples throats.
It is a pity you couldn’t say the same.
“But I didn’t just give a subjective view , I stated facts.”
To be honest I didn’t really read what you wrote as it was irrelevant.
“We had some chat about this elsewhere gio ,but the nub of it is that unionist insecurity is at the heart of everything here.It’s actually right there on the cover of the current British Passport as hads been pointed out. On the cover of said book ,In very typical British amibiguity (waffle!) Northern Ireland is not actually included in “Great Britain” (ie “Britain” itself) but rather the actual wording states very clearly (but also neatly ambigiously, naturally enough) ……..that the Passport bearer is from the United Kingdom of Great Britain…and (as a sort of an add-on afterthought)…. Northern Ireland too……specifically …….. not actually within the (Great) Britain part of it at all ,but simply part of a(at present) “United Kingdom”. You might say that the powers that be phrased it like that to slightly exclude Northern Ireland , rather than include it as properly “British” at all.”
Why are you going on about Great Britain. Nobody has said that NI is part of GB.
Yes , but some imagine that they are actually part of GB and others aren’t too sure either way, thus the sense of insecurity and also the ambiguity.That’s all.
Well, at least that was honest