Nigel Dodds has an unfortunate face. Shakespeare was right when he said “There’s no art/To find the mind’s construction in the face”, but looking at Nigel one can’t help thinking that here is a man who, if you don’t mind what you say, is going start shouting stuff at you. Such thoughts are totally unfair – as I say, we all have the face God gave us, we’d no choice in the matter – but on Question Time from Belfast last night, Nigel looked a bruiser. In fact he said nothing that was bruiserish, although he managed to squeeze in the usual thumb-nail of the Troubles as being thirty years of terrorism. And yet you could feel that the audience wasn’t for the greater part on his side.
Declan Kearney looked lean and earnest and focused, and he’d had a fresh haircut for the occasion. And he didn’t pick up on the comment from the audience, that Britain was hypocritical in talking about banning Putin because he appeared to have been involved in the poisoning of an opponent, given Britain’s record of dirty and lethal tricks here. Instead Kearney chose to focus on the West’s slaughter of people through drone strikes and other means, pointing up that as the area of hypocrisy. Shakespeare again:“Yond Cassius has a mean and hungry look. He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous”. I suppose thinking can be dangerous.
Which may not be a charge that’s levelled against Theresa Villiers, although she did show that she could avoid answering a question – in this case was she for or against BREXIT – despite Kearney and David Dimbleby both trying to pin her down.
The former British Secretary of State Peter Hain was on the panel. He has a magnificent head and beautifully manicured hair and a sonorous voice. The only disconcerting feature was that his head looked like it belonged on a man twice his height – beside Dimbleby he looked almost tiny, and Dimbleby’s no giant. Funny the things you notice on telly.
But in some ways, actually, the most interesting face on display was Dimbley’s. Normally a consummate presenter, witty and at ease, ready to press home a question or deflate a pompous voice, he looked…uneasy last night. Maybe he wasn’t feeling totally well. Or maybe he just didn’t feel at home – and who could blame him? When he said at the end of a lackluster hour “We’ve run out of time – it hasn’t seemed like an hour!”, you could tell that not even he believed that. And when he said “Next week we’ll be in Stamford, with an audience just like this one”, I half-expected to hear the audience start laughing. You could almost imagine him climbing on the plane and sighing “Bring me a large brown one. What a bloody awful place!”
For better or worse, the audience and the panel last night were a long, long way from Finchley.
“Next week we’ll be in Stamford, with an audience just like this one”
Went to see Stewart Lee at the Opera House last year. At one point he lay on the floor and turned his back to the audience in a bit he was doing about multiculturalism in London (he spends a lot of time taking the piss out of himself for being so right-on) and said “not like here – just two kinds or people shouting at each other”. People loved that.
Northern Ireland is as British as Alabama and the unionist mentality is indeed a long, long way from that of Finchley.
I was bored the other night Jessica and decided to watch “Mississippi Burning” on the PS4. Now I’ve watched the movie many times before but this time I noticed a lot of similarities between good old Alabama and our own dear staletet in this corner of Ireland and many (but not all) of its Unionist cheerleaders.
For example, I saw the following connections:
Racist KKK members (made up by Police officers and others) going out at night to kidnap and beat, torture or murder Black people. ——> The Shankill Butchers and the UDA, who were known to go out at night, kidnap Catholics and torture and murder them. The UDA had what was called “Romper Rooms” where they brought Catholic civilians back and beat and tortured them to death. The RUC, just like the Police in Alabama, had many members who were in the UDA or colluded with them and also colluded with likes of the Shankill Butchers.
Louisiana/Alabama/etc were oppressive, racist and unjust states which discriminated against black people, which prevented Justice and protected whose responsible for attacks against Black churches, Black homes, etc ——–> Unionist Stormont was an oppressive, sectarian and unjust state which discriminated against Catholic people, which prevented Justice and protected those responsible for sectarian attacks against Catholics.
The Ku Klux Klan calls itself a Religious organisation, it is against black people, catholics, non-white immigration, etc. Many of the most senior members of Government in Alabama/Louisiana and a large percentage of the police force are members of the Ku Klux Klan. ——–> The Orange Order calls itself a Religious organisation, it is against Catholics and the Catholic religion. Many, at one point nearly all, of the senior politicians, MP’s, MLA’s, etc from the Unionist political parties here are members of the Orange Order. The RUC/UDR also had a lot of officers who were members of the Orange Order.
I could go on. It was certainly suitable for the founders of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement to take inspiration from the American Civil Rights Movement since both of their opponents were so similar, you couldn’t tell the difference between the two in many ways….
My only correction to your great response is to bring the statements out of the past tense and into the present re: south. Alabama has fully embraced curtailment of the voting rights act going so far as to eliminate driver licensing centers in counties with majority black populations. Yes loads of parallels
The hatred is the very same Ryan, but thanks to the PIRA, they have shown there is a limit to what we will tolerate.
Twice in one century, Irish men and women have sacrificed their lives or liberty and fought the British army to a standstill.
No mean feat for any nation of the world.
jessia
sacrificed their lives…..and the lives of others!
“sacrificed their lives…..and the lives of others!”
How can you sacrifice someone else’s life gio?
They sacrificed only their own lives to take up arms against a superior military force who brought the conflict to them.
As with all conflicts, all participants took many lives, there aren’t many conflicts that don’t.
“How can you sacrifice someone else’s life gio?”
By killing him or her. What a strange question.
“They sacrificed only their own lives to take up arms against a superior military force who brought the conflict to them.”
They didn’t. The PIRA sacrificed over 1700 lives of others who didn’t want to be sacrificed.
“As with all conflicts, all participants took many lives, there aren’t many conflicts that don’t.”
So you admit that the PIRA murdered many people who didn’t want to die.
“”How can you sacrifice someone else’s life gio?”
By killing him or her. What a strange question. ”
Well, unless you follow gios thinking that there was some ritual sacrifices going on, to my thinking, a sacrifice is to give up something precious to you.
Killings committed in conflicts I personally would not describe as sacrifices.
Out of curiosity, do you think the British forces in the middle east are committing human sacrifices when they kill innocent civilians in their homes or on their own streets?
“So you admit that the PIRA murdered many people who didn’t want to die.”
I don’t think anyone who lost their lives in the conflict wanted to die MT.
Are you saying the people killed by the state forces either directly or through collusion wanted to die?
Whether you use the term sacrifice or not, the point remains. The PIRA destroyed many many more lives of others than they “sacrificed themselves”, yet the PIRA apologists here conveniently choose to focus only on PIRA lives.
PIRA had a choice. Nobody forced them to join the death squads or to starve themselves. Their victims had no choice.
“Whether you use the term sacrifice or not, the point remains. The PIRA destroyed many many more lives of others than they “sacrificed themselves”, yet the PIRA apologists here conveniently choose to focus only on PIRA lives.
PIRA had a choice. Nobody forced them to join the death squads or to starve themselves. Their victims had no choice.”
You have a strange understanding of the concept of conflict MT.
I fully support the right to use arms to defend against the use of military arms as was the case in the early 70s.
The blame for the conflict lasting as long as it did is as much the blame of unionism and the British state as it is of republicans.
The PIRA wasn’t defensive. The hunger strikers topped themselves in the 80s not the early 70s.
Other members of PIRA death squads also “sacrificed ” themselves at times other than the early 70s and not while “defending” themselves from military fire.
PIRA would not have existed had it not been for the armed attacks on the catholic communities, initially they had a defensive role but their strength was their ability to adapt and strategise in offense which often outmatched that of the British army.
The only way to respond to your deliberately insulting and ignorant remarks would be to remind you that their greatest successes were bombing the heart of London and hitting England in its pocket. To attack Heathrow 3 times in 5 days was simply master class.
That seems to be an admission that they weren’t defensive and that they destroyed many many more lives than those of their own whom they “sacrificed”.
“That seems to be an admission that they weren’t defensive and that they destroyed many many more lives than those of their own whom they “sacrificed”.”
I have never said the IRA were purely defensive. They may have been born out of attacks and took up arms to defend their communities, but once the conflict started, they were at war with the british army and the aim of all sides in any conflict is to kill as many of the enemy as possible and to cause as much damage to their state.
Britain cares nothing of human lives though, bombing england and in particular their financial sectors had much better impact than any killings ever did.
“I have never said the IRA were purely defensive.”
But your justification of the PIRA death squads was that they were defensive. Are you now accepting that the murders by the PIRA death squads were unjustifiable?
“But your justification of the PIRA death squads was that they were defensive. Are you now accepting that the murders by the PIRA death squads were unjustifiable?”
I have never mentioned PIRA death squads which is an emotional term you have used.
I said the PIRA did not exist when the conflict or the British army military campaign began and they were born out of a need to defend catholic communities since the southern state were unable to do more than setup field hospitals along the border.
Once conflict began, killing is what conflict is all about.
I have never said killing in conflict is unjustified.
I would say conflict is always unjustified, but as we cannot always stop the circumstances leading to conflict from happening, I still fully support the right to take up arms when it is thrust upon us.
Who has ever claimed the conflict here was one sided? It may have been David versus Goliath but things would have been so much worse for Catholics and lasted far longer had the IRA not taken the fight right into the heart of England.
“I have never mentioned PIRA death squads which is an emotional term you have used.”
Whether or not you described them as death squads is irrelevant. The point was that you appeared to be justifying PIRA murders on the basis that they were defensive. Now that you’ve acknowledged that the PIRA wasn’t defensive are you also now acknowledging that the murders they committed weren’t justified.
“Once conflict began, killing is what conflict is all about.”
Conflicts don’t just “begin”. People choose to begin them and people choose what actions they take. So the fact that killing happens in conflicts doesn’t remove responsibility away from those who do the killing. The PIRA chose to have a “conflict” and chose to murder and commit other heinous acts.
“I would say conflict is always unjustified,”
So you must accept that the PIRA campaign was unjustified?
“but as we cannot always stop the circumstances leading to conflict from happening, I still fully support the right to take up arms when it is thrust upon us.”
You’re contradicting yourself. If there is a right to “take up arms”, how can that be unjustified?
“Who has ever claimed the conflict here was one sided? It may have been David versus Goliath but things would have been so much worse for Catholics and lasted far longer had the IRA not taken the fight right into the heart of England.”
You appear to be justifying the slaughter of innocents in England as a means of improving the quality of life for Catholics in Northern Ireland. That is surely obscene.
“The point was that you appeared to be justifying PIRA murders on the basis that they were defensive.”
I wasn’t justifying anything MT. I am accepting that the PIRA were involved in a conflict in which both sides killed one another and that I am on most definitely on the side of the PIRA.
I have said time and again, conflict is not justifiable, but I am also saying, is there is a point where someone decides to take up arms and fight back and when that happens, justification goes out the window and it is kill or be killed time.
“People choose to begin them and people choose what actions they take. So the fact that killing happens in conflicts doesn’t remove responsibility away from those who do the killing. The PIRA chose to have a “conflict” and chose to murder and commit other heinous acts.”
Then why are you focussed on PIRA when unionists started the killing?
“So you must accept that the PIRA campaign was unjustified?”
The conflict wasn’t a PIRA campaign it was a conflict started by unionism, backed up by the british army in which PIRA were just one participant. Just because they gave England’s proud military reputation a bloody nose doesn’t mean it was all their fault.
“You’re contradicting yourself. If there is a right to “take up arms”, how can that be unjustified?”
It is down to circumstances, plus that is my point of view. Others are entitled to theirs also. There is no one right or wrong answer.
I have no problem with your pacifist point of view, but does it not also apply to the british side?
“You appear to be justifying the slaughter of innocents in England as a means of improving the quality of life for Catholics in Northern Ireland. That is surely obscene.”
You could say the bombing of Iraq by Britain was the slaughter of innocents in Iraq was a means of improving the quality of life for people in Britain.
Was that any less obscene?
“I wasn’t justifying anything MT.”
You certainly appeared to be. But just to be clear are you now saying that PIRA murders and other crimes were unjustified?
“I am acceptin that the PIRA were involved in a conflict in which both sides killed one another and that I am on most definitely on the side of the PIRA.”
Now this is where it gets confusing. This suggests you do support PIRA murder. You were on the side of the PIRA, which murdered 1700 souls.
“I have said time and again, conflict is not justifiable, but I am also saying, is there is a point where someone decides to take up arms and fight back and when that happens, justification goes out the window and it is kill or be killed time.”
Surely self-defence is a legitimate justification? But not relevant here since PIRA didn’t kill in self-defence.
“Then why are you focussed on PIRA when unionists started the killing?”
Unionists started the killing? Did they? Anyway, I’m only focused on PIRA because it’s only PIRA whose murders you seem to be supporting. I haven’t come across anyone supporting murders by anyone else.
“The conflict wasn’t a PIRA campaign it was a conflict started by unionism, backed up by the british army in which PIRA were just one participant. Just because they gave England’s proud military reputation a bloody nose doesn’t mean it was all their fault.”
Answer the question: are you saying the PIRA murder campaign was unjustified? Yes or no?
“I have no problem with your pacifist point of view, but does it not also apply to the british side?”
Eh? I haven’t articulated any point of view, pacifist or otherwise.
“You could say the bombing of Iraq by Britain was the slaughter of innocents in Iraq was a means of improving the quality of life for people in Britain.
Was that any less obscene?”
Is that a “yes”, then? You are saying the slaughter of innocents in England was justified in order to improve the quality of life of Catholics in NI? And you also think the Iraq invasion was justified? Or are you saying neither PIRA slaughter in England or slaughter in Iraq was justified?
“You certainly appeared to be. But just to be clear are you now saying that PIRA murders and other crimes were unjustified?”
I think I was pretty clear MT, I said when conflict starts, justification goes out the window and what follows spirals out of control.
I was also pretty clear in saying conflict is always wrong but it is also unfortunately a reality.
If you are asking if I think the PIRA were solely responsible for the conflict then no I dont, I would say unionism and its sectarian actions were the majority cause of the conflict.
If you want a simple who is to blame then we need to look closer at how is started in the first place in which case, yes, unionism has the most blame in the cause of the conflict here.
We can share blame equally among all sides in how long it lasted but it would be unfair to pick on one participant for blame and ignore who started it and every other participant altogether which is what you are doing and shows you have learned nothing from the conflict in the first place.
The full truth will still have to come out, it is also not acceptable that one combatants murders are blamed on someone else, ie. Britain will not be allowed to cover up its story, I assure you that.
Perhaps you could answer the same questions.
Do you accept unionism has the most blame in starting the conflict and yes, it is a fact that they committed the first murders in the 1960s leading to the conflict in 1969?
Do you believe the conflict was justified and if not, why did unionism start it?
As for Iraq, no I don’t think Britain should have got involved or that Ireland should have allowed the use of Shannon to the US.
I’m not sure what “justification goes out the window” means, but you say “conflict is always wrong”. This seems to imply that you do think the PIRA campaign was wrong. Is that correct?
“I’m not sure what “justification goes out the window” means, but you say “conflict is always wrong”. This seems to imply that you do think the PIRA campaign was wrong. Is that correct?”
The conflict was not a PIRA campaign.
You still have not answered whether unionism should acknowledge their responsibility for starting the conflict?
Do you agree that unionism bears the most responsibility for starting the conflict?
Stop deflecting and answer the question. Are you agreeing that the PIRA campaign was wrong? Everything you say seems to suggest that, yet you won’t answer directly.
“Stop deflecting and answer the question. Are you agreeing that the PIRA campaign was wrong? Everything you say seems to suggest that, yet you won’t answer directly.”
You are the only one not answering questions MT, as everyone can see.
I have said quite clearly that there was no PIRA campaign. The PIRA were just one of the participants in a conflict which is something different entirely.
I have also said they they did not start the conflict but that unionism did, and do you think it was justified that unionism started the troubles?
Why aren’t you answering MT?
“You are the only one not answering questions MT, as everyone can see.”
But I’m not. You’re not answering.
Your questions are an attempt to deflect, which is why I won’t answer them until you’ve answered my question.
“I have said quite clearly that there was no PIRA campaign.”
Are you being serious? There was no PIRA campaign? How come they announced a ceasefire, then? Are you saying the various murders and atrocities careered out under the PIRA name were merely random attacks by unconnected individuals, with no control.or organisation? Wow.
“Are you being serious? There was no PIRA campaign? How come they announced a ceasefire, then? ”
As one of the combatants of the conflict or war, their ceasefire was a result of many years of negotiations with the British in attempts to pursue peace and could have happened much sooner.
I will say it again the conflict was no more a PIRA campaign than it was a unionist campaign or a British army campaign and if anything, it was more of a unionist indulgent and driven conflict than anything else.
But if there was no campaign how could they have called a ceasefire? What were they ceasing?
“But if there was no campaign how could they have called a ceasefire? What were they ceasing?”
MT, Is the new unionist strategy to bore us all to death in an inane pursuit to attribute all blame for the conflict on republicans?
All you are doing is reaffirming my belief that unionism is inherently incapable of change.
I’ll take that as a concession.
“As for Iraq, no I don’t think Britain should have got involved or that Ireland should have allowed the use of Shannon to the US.”
You used Iraq as an analogy for PIRA, so therefore if you opposed Iraq you must also have opposed PIRA?
“You used Iraq as an analogy for PIRA, so therefore if you opposed Iraq you must also have opposed PIRA?”
PIRA did not start the conflict and did not even exist when it started.
Unionism did start the conflict.
Do you accept unionism should man up and take its share of the responsibility?
Do you think there can be reconciliation until it does?
Why aren’t you answering the question?
“Why aren’t you answering the question?”
I have answered your question.
The reason you wont answer the same is because you know it was unionism that started the conflict, It was militant unionism who started the killing and bombing in the 60s leading to the conflict, long before the PIRA existed.
It is still unionisms refusal to acknowledge their part in the conflict that is why even today there is as much hatred within the unionist political parties as there was then.
Unionism is the last remains of protestant supremacy and has still some way to go to drop the supremacist bigotry that clings to it and feeds off it.
It is not any geographic border causing division in Ireland, but unionism itself which is the last barrier of reconciliation and just like the berlin wall, it needs to be torn down brick by brick, or bigot by bigot.
You haven’t answered. A yes or no will do: was PIRA murder justified?
Once you answer I’ll happily answer any questions.
“You haven’t answered. A yes or no will do: was PIRA murder justified?
Once you answer I’ll happily answer any questions”
No
Murder is never justified and no conflict whatsoever is ever justified.
There is no such thing as justified murder or war.
jessica
Human sacrifice is an age old ritual.
When you point out that the men and women of the IRA were prepared to sacrifice their own lives don’t you think it worth mentioning that they were prepared to take the lives of others including the innocent too? Or did they slip your mind?
jessica
Your admiration for bombers and killers is depressing but that is up to you.
However when you talk about how they gave their lives in the ‘conflict’ you should expect someone to point out they killed (or sacrificed or murdered) other people.
The phrase ‘lost their lives’ is also mealy mouthed. The victims did not lose their lives they had them taken from them.It was not some passive event that just happened,it was an active choice made by those you so admire to end the lives of others, over a border.
“Your admiration for bombers and killers is depressing but that is up to you.”
Can I ask you gio, do you share the same disappointment at the parades for british soldiers returning from conflicts like Iraq where the bombs were bigger and killed hundreds of times more people?
But just so you fully understand, to me, the conflict was started by unionist aggression over a desire for sectarian supremacy over catholics and cemented by the british army when catholics took up arms to fight back.
Do you understand that I feel the same disappointment to be still under british rule and having to deal with unrepentant unionist bigotry and their refusal to acknowledge their part in the conflict instead whining on about how republicans were solely to blame.
Sorry Jessica but, don’t forget the brave members in the ’50’s campaign, not all of them went to the stick—-ies!
Three times then.
Kearney is a new face to me and I was very impressed. There was plenty of meat in the red herring about State sponsored terrorism, principally Bloody Sunday in Derry , since it is clear that the decision to involve the Paras and the inevitable consequences was taken or confirmed by Whitehall and that surely involves the PM. I failed, despite valiant attempts, to call either of my two daughters, Gráinne, and so I am always pleased to meet one but her contribution was negligible. I think Dimbleby is seated on a rostrum to ensure that can survey the Panel. Hain, I think, is about six foot and full of wind these days but he releases it with the style of experience.
Wow – I didn’t know Gráinne was your daughter or I’d have acknowledged her presence at least, John. I thought she did very well – even managing to make Dodds smile on several occasions. Mind you, I’m not sure there shouldn’t be a 2-min warning before that happens…I hope other posters here realise the distinguished company they’re in, if only by proxy…
I read it like that Jude. He didn’t mean me failed to phone her so was happy to see her on the telly – he meant he wanted to call her Grainne but was overruled. And you two are old english teachers aren’t you?
I am anyway, BYC – but I try not to think about the ‘old’ bit…
Jude
Surely John is saying this Gráinne was not his daughter?
OK, OK – sloppy reading, my hands are in the air. My apologies, John. As for the rest of you…
Why do you think his daughter was Grainne when he just said he didn’t call either of his two daughters Grainne?
I have to admire yourself Jude for having the stomach to watch those tv shows. I don’t think there is enough wine for me to do it.
Having said that, I did listen to a bit of Nolan this morning for ten minutes as I was driving. The discussion on the flags was pure comedy. Jim Wilson and the caller mark had me laughing out. Luckily I didn’t have to look at their faces.
Question Time is one of the programmes I look forward to on a Thursday night, I can remember it being presented by Robin Day. I thought Nigel was a bit less irritating than normal, he didn`t go on TOO long about the IRA being the only armed group in the conflict. Villiers was her usual hopeless self, probably thinking of how she will be home soon away from those troublesome Paddies. She is a well known Euro sceptic. Those people who say Britain will replace the money Europe takes away from here are living in fantasy land. The simple fact is the six counties has no real economy, it merely survives on hand outs. I found it rather funny when a man in the audience complained of being ruled by` unelected bureaucrats`. Stand up Mrs Villiers. Declan Kearney was quietly impressive but then I would say that, wouldn`t I?
On balance, I thought the constitution of the panel might have generated a question, given the presence of Mr Dodds, a Secretary of State floundering in the Titanic Centre with a member of an unelected assembly. It is said, a picture paints a thousand words, Mr Dimbleby’s countenance was a study of a sinking feeling.
Margaret Thatcher may have had a point about Northern Ireland being as British as Finchley.
During the 1981 Hunger Strikes, at a school in her constituency with a high proportion of Irish pupils, the Careers Master had the bright idea of inviting a British Army Recruiting team to
visit them.
The team rolled up in a Ferret? Scout car, to be confronted with masked and gesticulating
teenagers who told them what they’d do to them if they came in. The Lieutenant in Command
aborted his mission and withdrew, so there were no casualties nor press headlines.
Jude “lean and hungry”. Not often I can correct the Master.
Jude, you seem fascinated by our Nige’s countenance, but I thought you had a better upbringing than to mock the afflicted – and boy is he facially afflicted!
You make the point that he can do nothing to change it, but Theresa is lucky she can do something with hers (a generous dollop of Polyfilla, I think), but despite all the time and effort made to make her look less unappealing, she should be asking for her money back.
You say that she was able to avoid answering the question, but the artful politician can do it so nobody notices.
It was so clear that David Dimbleby and Declan Kearney enjoyed holding her in a pincer movement, causing her to squirm uncomfortably, with the audience enjoying her discomfort.
The less said about Hain the better – it hasn’t been a picturesque journey from an anti-apartheid leader in South Africa to an ex-SOS in N Ireland. Smarmy isn’t excessive enough to describe him.
There is another quotation from Julius Caesar, Esteemed Blogmeister, which one felt was also particularly pertinent to Nigel Dodds. But on closer reading one’s inner locum began to have a second opinion:
-He loves no plays
As thou dost, Anthony; he hears no music;
Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort
As if he mock’d himself and scorn’d his spirit
That could be moved to smile at any thing’.
Whatever about his theatre-going habits up to this moment in time, going f., one can see Nige breaking the habit of a lifetime at a must-to-to-see play next month. The sight of Nige as a delighted First Nighter even as he nudges his way in front of the paparazzi (a word coined in the city of Julius C.) at a world premiere in the Abbey Theatre on Liffeyside next month, is a sight truly to be savoured..
That would be ‘Cyprus Avenue’ by David Ireland. (‘Avenue’ is pronounced ‘Avenoo’ in the manner of drama critic Fintan O’Toole’s icon of authenticity, Van the Man).
Here’s how a chicken-counting, bridge-crossing press release from the Abbey can barely contain itself :
-Gerry Adams has disguised himself as a newborn baby and successfully infiltrated my family home !!!!
Eric Miller is a Belfast loyalist. He believes his five year old granddaughter is Gerry Adams.
This black comedy takes one man’s identity crisis to the limit as he uncovers the modern day complexity of modern day Loyalism’.
(Certainly if ‘the modern day complexity of modern day Loyalism’ from the p. release is any indication, the script itself should prove to be a real knee-slapping rib-tickler of an aisle roller).
The fact that the play will run concurrently (as distinct from consecutively) with the electioneering campaigns in the Free Southern Stateen has sweet fanny adams to do with the fact this is the bittersweet swan song of the current Big Kahuna of the National Theatre, none other than An Seanadoir Fiach Mac Conghail, Uasal.
And d. all to do with the fact that he was appointed to the Senate by (gulp) Enda the Ennui in 2011. Zilch, nada, tada. Let’s just hope that the Opening Night’s performance is not disrupted by the, erm, Sweet Fanny Adamses of the Dworkin Class in their de rigeur dungarees even as they seek to pursue their ‘The Ladies cannot Protest Too Much’ agenda, again, going f..
As for ‘he hears no music’: just does not apply in the case of Doddsy. The Great Shakes obviously never saw Nige shake, rattle and roll his way through the Pride of Glennane Pipe, Fife and Drum Band’s version of ‘Penny Arcade’ in tribute to The Big O.
-Just ring the bell on the Big Bagatelle
And you’ll make all those coloured lights cascade.
The final part of the quotation from ‘Julius Caesar’ is, however, problematical:
-Seldom he smiles.
Perkie’s inner empathist is indeed prepared to admit that there well could be a grin of truth in this. And indeed who could, in all truth, blame Doddsy for being on the doleful side, betimes. For one can recall a visit to Belfast Zoological Gardens some ten years or so ago now and making a beeline for the Primate Enclosure as is one’s wont on such occasions.
This is a habit Perkie’s inner zoologist first began to cultivate when one chanced upon a framed photograph hanging in an honoured position in the entrance hall to the PrImate Enclosure in Dublin Zoo. It was thus positioned in tribute to a legendary former head keeper who had spent a lifetime’s caring in the same enclosure. That his name just happened to be ‘Mr. Supple’ is neither here nor there, apart, of course, from the Phoenix Park.
In the case of the Primate Enclosure, Belfast Zoological Gardens it was not a photograph but rather a plaque with caught Perkie’s attention, and somehow, stayed there. It referred to the engraved name of an Alderman (or some such ermined official of exalted standing) who had the honour of unveiling the plaque, cutting the ceremonial ribbon and declaring the then shiny new, state of the art Primate Enclosure, open.
You’d be rightly glum too.
A thought struck me as I watched this on Thursday night, Nigel represents a party which, and it was obvious from his analysis, opposes the ever closer debacle which is the EU.
Supposedly, so do Sinn Féin, so why was their national chairman opposing a potential exit of the EU by one of it’s ‘member states’, again, potentially, through democratic means?
Declan Kearney really does need, on behalf of his party, to decide if he is in line with party policy or, is he just sucking up to eurofascism?
There was one young lad who, incorrectly stated, there had been no ‘border controls’ between the six and twenty six counties before the EU-EC-EEC, there were, I well remember them stopping us daily but, and fair play to Nigel, he did mention it, the older ‘Common Travel Area’ would continue to exist, we might, if the brit’s do leave, have to suffer the checkpoints, and removal of certain ‘goods’ by intolerant officials again but, Declan, that’s, or would be, democracy, you will have to learn about it sometime, and, sing from the party hymn sheet, not something you made up just to appeal to Free Stater sentiment in the run into this spring’s poll.
I see the ‘letsgetalongerists’ are out in force on this page revealing what their version of ‘moving on’ means. We must all agree to ‘move on’ once the precondition that the IRA were the baddies has been set. Alas there are those who will wear no convicts uniform……nor sackcloth and ashes, buiochas le Dia.