Is there room for decency in politics or does that concept have to be abandoned completely? Is a “decent politician” in reality , an oxymoron? It’s a while since I heard the expression.”He was a decent man”.The word “decent ” or even the word “decency” seem like very old -fashioned words these days.They’re the kind of words you’d apply to characters that long ago would have been played by actors such as Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart or Gregory Peck in morality screen-plays . There are probably plenty of people who would not even know who those actors were. They have long since been supplanted by the concept of the “anti-hero”.Anyway , the old-fashioned words “decent” and “decency” roughly translate as “conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behaviour” and “behaviour that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability” .These might seem abhorrent qualities in a man or woman in the modern world; they might not even be recognisable as qualities at all.Sometimes you are forced to think about these things.
Right!!! With those words ringing about our ears, let’s get down to business. Where is Jonathan Bell? It’s really just another scandal that we don’t actually see and hear more of him !!! You’ll remember him as a DUP minister with a particularly furrowed forehead ,crinkly brows and a sort of worried, sanctimonious cut to his jib. Was he a decent man? He was, in a previous life, a good friend of the ex- First Minister Arlene Foster until they disagreed on the details of the RHI heating scandal, at which point he was suspended from the party.He said he was telling the whole truth and that she had lied.Yes…that’s right . If he was telling the truth , then she must be lying or at least “mis-remembering”, as President Bush might have said. So either he is “a decent man” or he is a liar or at least somewhat deluded, or Arlene Foster is. You can’t have it both ways.That’s about it isn’t it?
There’s an election coming up in a few days and the man right near the core of the very reason as to why it is happening at all ,seems to have taken a vow of silence as far as the media is concerned; you might say that between Stephen Nolan and himself they were the catalyst that lit the very touch-paper for the need of an election at all.The DUP are currently enjoying the fantasy that it is part of some grand plan by the dastardly Sinn Fein green crocodiles , but the truth is much more simple fare. Sure…Arlene Foster finally made it an impossibility for herself to be taken seriously as a First minister for everyone anymore, and not just unionists ; she left everyone in no doubt that she thought she was running the place on her own and Sinn Fein may have inadvertently and unwittingly fed her that illusion either on purpose or by simple default, but it was Mr Bell who got down on his knees and prayed to his god live on television, who provided the perfect image as to her unsuitability for governance. Dear, dear …If you have to get down on your knees and pray to the stars to prove you’re doing the right thing, you might bely a certain naivety and know no shame , but you are also physically calling down some really big metaphorical guns in your quest for aid , decency and truth.You may or not believe it but Jonathan and God seemingly know what Arlene did and so does Arlene , is the scenario.
Maybe Mr Bell has actually been silenced and is tied up and gagged in some castle keep .Certainly our local media are not falling over themselves to find this lost whistle-blower and interview him as the last days of campaigning tick away. ….to get off a final salvo as it were.
The RHI,” Loot for Soot” scandal which toppled Arlene Foster from her position in the Office of FMDFM at the top of local government concerned revelations made by Mr Bell live on television just weeks ago on the “Nolan Show”.He was the sacrificial lamb that his party, the DUP ,slaughtered in an effort to protect their leader, Arlene Foster . He was the one, right or wrong, who was banished to the wilderness. Why him and not her? Arlene Foster is running an election to put herself back into that very same position that he has already blamed her for messing up .His future appears to be as an independent politician but she , on the other hand , has already forgotten about Mr Bell’s claims and is instead blaming Sinn Fein for closing down the government , but surely it was actually Mr Bell’s revelations which did that deed .
Mrs Foster’s Co-leader Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein simply pressed the necessary button to switch off the power before the Office of FMDFM was damaged any further.. It was something that many people across the spectrum of political opinion could really see no alternative to at the time. Many thought that the FM Arlene had actually gone slightly insane .
Here we were at the very apex of a long series of scandals and idiotic political moves, carried out by the DUP in a list stretching back through the years.Indeed if anyone else had gone out to look for a series of scandals such as the DUP found under every stone they upturned, they would have been hard -pressed to find even one and would never have been half as successful at finding them. It’s a bit like waiting for that elusive bus , to find four or five arriving at the exact same time. .Most people …and most parties would have been hard-pressed to invent the very number of mad and damaging scenarios that the Democratic Unionist Party rustled up in a few short years in the centre of our local government.Take any major political party throughout the world and who among them them would have the sheer inventiveness to stack up such a feast of delinquency while in power? The Dear knows it was hard to keep up with the nefarious schemes that turned and twisted the fledgling power-sharing government out of any recognisable shape.; each new mishap speedily followed the one before….
Other national parties might come up with maybe one scandal in a generation.Some minister at Westminster might have bullied up his taxi or hotel expenses , he might have lain with small boys, or enjoyed being whipped in a dungeon by three dominatrices(!) or might have soaked away cash to build his duck-pond back at his country estate in the Home Counties , but these were small -fry compared to anything the DUP party dipped their thirsty beaks into. Some might argue that we all encouraged them to be like that.Did we give them carte blanche to rob us?.After all …didn’t we roll over and just let them hop from one scandal to the next without censure until Arlene Foster finally crashed with the biggest scandal of them all…the RHI “Cash for Ash” which offered those willing to indulge the outrageous cash prize of £1.60 for every £1.00 spent and the sky was the very limit .There was no cap on it and there was no end to it .A contract was a contract after all and the only contracts the DUP had ever been able to break were political agreements.Contracts concerning money were a different thing entirely. Playing politics was one thing , but money was a serious business.How could this contract ever be broken and that money retrieved? Somehow they had no problem breaking down the Belfast and St Andrews Agreements ,but they couldn’t countenance reneging on the RHI contracts. No one had any easy answers to that one , but Arlene Foster’s office had been responsible for setting it all up and no matter how she twisted in the wind and blamed everyone else, the buck always stops with the Boss…..except when you are Arlene Foster and leader of the DUP!
The shock and surprise of the First Minister when she was told that it was a step too far was remarkable. Her attitude and body-language spoke volumes and everyone finally understood why exactly government was in such a crisis.”It’s only another scandal , so what’s the Big Deal?” was the message we were being asked to swallow. At the very same time her party had also spent the best part of half a million pounds sterling on their own private Brexit campaign to take the UK out of the EU while the majority of citizens under their actual control voted against it.
Well, you can see why she might think in that omnipotent way when her party had already cruised through a list of financial criminalities and odd, convoluted corruptions that would make any other corrupt politicals anywhere else in the world ,weep with envy. Ministers had previously been protected , hadn’t they ? They had been inviolate , hadn’t they? They had always been untouchable and had always been able to get their way before.There was the “Petition Of Concern” that had been designed to protect minorities.That was easily used to protect political ministers such as Nelson McCausland and advisors found wanting in the past .Well…what the hell ? Were n’t politicians a minority group, after all? Wasn’t Nelson McCausland a minority of one? What was a minority anyway?
So it had rolled out …scandal following scandal, as night followed day and as the seasons and years rolled by it took in a cornucopia of delights in no particular order ,which included issues of integrity , possible theft,lack of respect and decency and outright political boorishness such as :
1.RED SKY SCANDAL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sky_scandal ,
2. RENEWABLE HEAT INCENTIVE SCANDAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive_scandal
3.THE CHARTER NI DEE STITT MONEY FOR PARAMILITARIES AND GANGSTERS SCANDAL
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/uda-boss-dee-stitt-lied-on-his-charter-ni-application-35256779.html
4. THE ROBINSON FAMILY ‘S HOME INDUSTRY OF VARIOUS SCANDALS WHICH INCLUDED PROPERTY DEALS, “IRISGATE” AND A SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN NAMA , topped off when the DUP’s Peter Robinson as First Minister defended a Christian pastor who had described Islam as “heathen” and “satanic”, and who said he did not trust Muslims.
Mr Robinson faced criticism for saying that he personally would not trust Muslims involved in violence or those devoted to Sharia law, but would “trust them to go to the shops” for him.” That phrase said everything.
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/07/07/news/peter-robinson-s-son-worked-for-nama-deal-law-firm-171805/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34775465
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Robinson_scandal
5. THE NAMA SCANDAL
http://www.judecollins.com/2016/09/what-is-this-nama-thing-all-about/
Oh there was so much more,such as the disrespect for anything Irish , vaguely “foreign” or gay but the aforementioned DUP man Jonathan Bell really upset the rotten applecart because of his own personal well -entrenched fear of his religious fires of eternal damnation .
Never let it be said that the power of the imagination might not have life-altering applications.Here he was …a stout believer in God , who was also a member of the DUP and he was finding some difficulty in weighing what it meant to be a working DUP politician with a belief in any form of Christianity. Well you could see his dilemma couldn’t you ?All those ten commandments being broken ; that decalogue of sensible tribal wisdom that had been handed down through the ages of pre-history to eventually find itself the basis of a a set of social principles relating to ethics and even worship. They played a fundamental role in the origins and focus of Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. These commandments included instructions to worship only God, to honour one’s parents, and to keep the sabbath, as well as including neat prohibitions against idolatry and blasphemy to protect the basis of the various religions themselves, but also social laws concerning murder, adultery, theft, dishonesty, and coveting (especially such as wives, children and animals, which were considered your neighbour’s property). I have no idea which version of these basic tenets he adhered to .They had been hammered out(!) possibly before there was even a language to write them in , but the eventual written gist of them goes something like this in modern English and in no particular order of preference:
Ten Commandments
1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.You shall make no idols.
3.You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4.Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5.Honor your father and your mother.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10.You shall not covet.
Even leaving aside the questionable supernatural aspects of numbers 1,2 ,3,and 4 , the citizen or simple believer still has a goodly six rules left by which to base an ordered life on.
#5 Honoring your mum and dad makes a lot of good sense and should be standard practice to keep the family unit intact.
Numbers 6 to number 10 cover every possible social and civic pitfall and crime which any person might encounter during their life; murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness against your neighbour and finally coveting that which is not your own which is one stage just before stealing it for yourself.
Many in Norneverland, Ireland pride themselves on their “Christianity” and sometimes even refer to the place as a “Christian country”. As of late , so do many across the water in England, Scotland and Wales.Some in England consider themselves living in a “Christian country” even though it is a country of many beliefs and none , but these same ten rules are still the root basis for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and all our civic laws. That is simply because they make perfect sense and provide us with a stable community whether or not anyone believes in god or not.
If Mr Bell had really properly believed in those tenets he might never have joined any political party , least of all the DUP , especially as regards their track record on numbers 7.8 and 9.
Obviously stealing and committing adultery are one thing and loving your neighbour is another . Even #6 , the one about “murdering” is a bit iffy too, considering the historical record of some of our political parties.Go back into Irish history only a little bit and the” commandments “will not have much real traction in that respect, so there is a lot of quiet hypocrisy involved too .The hypocrisy stretches back hundreds of years.
As far as I can tell , Ireland itself was the victim of coveting, theft and murder by England in the first place and many of its citizens have been the victims and also the progenitors of killings and murders on every side and of every description ever since. How can that circle ever be squared? Better still , how then can “Christians” side with the original thieves and murderers of the country as the DUP always do when they cosy -up to the British Establishment and especially the very ,Conservative end of it ? It goes without saying that the British Empire itself was built by a process of breaking those very same commands right across the globe while enslaving the indigenous people of many lands and stealing all of their assets. They did that everywhere they went in the name of their Christian ideals.Some of that is now coming back to haunt them, of course .C’est la vie …..
But no matter …Mr Bell was happy enough to join in with this dubious gang in their political game ,where a more moral man , for example, might have had second thoughts. It ended badly for him in that he accused Arlene Foster of bullying him about the RHI scandal which he had inherited from her and she in turn accused him of bullying her and possibly also of sexism and misogyny. It is an unlikely scenario in that Arlene Foster appears to be a character of such obstinacy and recalcitrance as to be incapable of being persuaded about anything never mind , being bullied about it . This was proven when she refused to take some sound advice from her Co-Minister which would have saved her job.
Given that Mr Bell was at the very heart of this scandal that had finally toppled a government, surely it is time for him to reveal to everyone exactly what his former companions in the DUP were doing and why he even decided to work with them in the first place. None of it seems to be anything like so-called “Christian” behaviour of any ilk……and as for the Ten Commandments?…Well ….politicians would probably prefer to renegotiate those , I’d imagine …..
So, character assassination now, as well as bigotry almost everywhere else on the site?
Whaddaya mean “character assassination” PF …it’s a question …what’s your honest answer, old bean?
Yea, it’s a question, sure.
Is this a question:
“But no matter …Mr Bell was happy enough to join in with this dubious gang in their political game ,where a more moral man , for example, might have had second thoughts.”?
My view? My view is that’s it’s quite possible to have the debate and point out what should and what should not have happened without personalising it, especially in the way done here, old bean.
But it’s OK, I know how this website works now.
Endless, stereotypical harassment of a single community whilst not ever quite resorting to blatant sectarianism.
If I said half of what has been said about Unionists, in relation to the Nationalist or Republican community, or the Catholic community, my comments would be blocked – and rightly so.
No PF ..I don’t think any comments of yours would be blocked at all.You do it any way you want to do it. I’m not sure you can do it without digging into the motivations of the personalities you might want to discuss or their qualities or failings both mental and physical .All those things matter in the modern world no matter what some might think.I actually want to hear the personal point of view and I want to hear valid criticism , warts and all. Just let us know the positives you see in the DUP’s behaviour and we’ll go from there.What are they exactly? How would you sort out the spat between Arlene Foster and Jonathan Bell without referring to their personality types, their apparent belief -systems , their tempers and their physicality ? by the way , this is not about “a single community” .It is about a section within our entire community of people , some of whom have some very odd ideas about reality and even morality.Like I say , PF, you are free to pen your own version as to how you see it at any time .As far as I can see.I’m sure Jude has already invited anyone with a story to tell to get up and tell it .
Here’s the thing, PK, you don’t know what an individual’s motives are; you can’t look into anyone’s heart and we can discuss facts and morality without resorting to maligning an individual or questioning his character.
And it isn’t that difficult to do.
I’ve got to tell it again PF …As far as I’m oncerned , politicians are fair game to be hunted ..You are right , nobody knows what their motives are but their wish is ultimately to control our lives so i have no problem hoking away at the public image they all present to see what they might be hiding inside …and you know what …..sometimes we are all there to watch when the mask slips..the question still stands …do you consider Jonathan a decent man or was he the one telling the lies? it’s a fair enough question. Personally , in this case I think he was the one telling the truth but I’m open to another persuasive argument to the contrary , if there is one out there..
So you are happy going after someone’s character?
That’s what I meant by assassination.
“do you consider Jonathan a decent man or was he the one telling the lies?”
How would I know if he was telling lies or not? The point is I believe in people being innocent until proven guilty, and you have zero, i.e., no, evidence he was telling lies.
” it’s a fair enough question.”
Perhaps; but safer if you had a reason to point to, i.e. more than an opinion.
And you went beyond questions in your piece.
…But PF ..you’ve got to understand the simple fact that i have no rule -book.I can write in any way that i want to write . I’m not writing to make you happy.i’ll leave that to you. I do it my own way and that’s the only way it is ever going to be. Are you applying for a position as my editor? You still haven’t attempted to give your opinion on the question, so I’m wondering why you bother at all.
“You still haven’t attempted to give your opinion on the question, so I’m wondering why you bother at all.”
My view would be that Peter feels more then a little let down by the leadership of unionism, that they have sullied the good name of british unionism in Ireland in Peters eyes and he still holds out hope that there are good people within the DUP and its like minded politicians who can restore his faith in politics here.
In my view. the nationalist community has had enough and while many are still holding a candle that the other side of the election will result in Arlene getting the heave over the losses the DUP are sure to face and that devolved institutions can be restored to help alleviate the impact of brexit, to reclaim back the money being paid out over RHI which really should be left to the DUP to resolve through windfall taxes which would be the only recourse there is that would not end up defeated in court and simply wasting more money in legal battles.
I don’t think they have learned anything and that they will see their still being the largest party as a license for them to continue from where they left off which will mean no return to stormont.
I would also say the costs are only going to go up from the fallout of RHI and that the barristers will soon be getting their share of public money over it.
“But PF ..you’ve got to understand the simple fact that i have no rule -book.I can write in any way that i want to write .”
No, PK, I get that; I just find relative morality distasteful, especially when it points fingers.
“Are you applying for a position as my editor?”
Not at all, just pointing out bias when I see it.
“You still haven’t attempted to give your opinion on the question, so I’m wondering why you bother at all”
Oh but I did give you my opinion. But if you missed it’s clarity, here it is again:
The point is I believe in people being innocent until proven guilty, and you have zero, i.e., no, evidence he was telling lies.
That was, character-assassination-without-evidence.
You’ll notice that I even placed this opinion under you question, which I quoted.
As for bothering, I rather think that flagging up hypocritical sectarianism is worth the time; indeed, unlike Jude, I don’t think that answering questions on Jude’s blog is a waste of time.
Of course, neither does he – instead his responses strike me as something akin to those of an old-school academic/educationalist who doesn’t like to be challenged.
“That was, character-assassination-without-evidence.”
I don’t agree at all Peter.
Let me explain why.
Both Jonathan and Arlene were highly paid public servants given positions of great responsibility to lead our people. RHI is 100% either incompetence that should be treated as criminal negligence or more likely and as claimed by Jonathan Bell, was corruption pure and simple. He has also claimed to have a lot more than what has been released already which I am guessing we wont hear about until the public inquiry concludes at some point in the future.
Jonathan has in no uncertain terms accused Arlene and others of deliberately controlling this scheme to allow third parties to benefit. Jonathan may not have been responsible for coming up with the scheme which was under Arlene’s watch but he was implementing it after it was known to be flawed and throwing public money at the businesses claiming for it.
I believe Jonathan wanted to stop it before it exceeded the London funding as he realised the risk of it costing money here in NI. I don’t believe it was meant to go so far over budget but it did and he has struggled to live with the consequences.
The DUP have allowed him to take the blame in the short term but he will have to prove his own level of involvement in the investigation so I expect Arlene is going to have to explain some sticky emails and other evidence he claims to have.
I am sure Arlene has a bus of her own coming down the road.
What Harry is saying, I think anyway, is that cant both be good people.
One is lying, accusing the other of something they deny and putting the blame at one another.
I think in light of the position both these people held and the huge cost they have imposed on ALL of the people here not only unionists, that we are entitled to explore what type of people they are and to ask is wither worth believing or are they both rotten to the core.
It is most certainly NOT character assassination to do so.
You may not like unionists being so heavily criticised but they damn well deserve it.
Jessica,
When you use the words, “I believe…”, it means you have no evidence.
That is correct, almost everything I write is my opinion and I could not provide evidence of any of it.
It is really only my views I am giving, everyone is free to make their own mind up.
To me we are only having a conversation, not a court hearing
Jessica
Well at least that’s that cleared up.
I think you are actually somewhat confused about this , PF. You said that your “opinion” was :
“The point is I believe in people being innocent until proven guilty, and you have zero, i.e., no, evidence he was telling lies.That was, character-assassination-without-evidence.”
I never said he was telling lies .I was asking the big wide world , including your own good self , whether or not you think he might be telling lies or truth.
That little paragraph of yours in itself is not an opinion .An opinion may be be based on evidence or it might be based on your personal feelings about a given situation.What you have provided is a fudge and it is not an opinion at all about anything, or is he deluded or a scoundrel. The question being asked is “do you think in your “opinion” that the man is decent or moral. We may or may not know anything about the man other than what we have seen of him in the media and possibly in some small part of real life but we will base or “opinions” on him with the evidence available to us.That’s is how we arrive at an opinion about anyone. You will have opinions about friends , lovers, politicians , film actors , writers , musicians based on your critical faculties.These are your opinions .What you have not provided is an opinion of any sort either way. Instead you choose to hide behind a non-opinion. In that respect you are basically saying that you haven’t got an opinion on this or that you do not want to express your opinion in public.That is your right , but let’s not pretend that you have expressed an opinion on this in any way . You haven’t..
In the end I never said that the man was telling lies. In fact …it is my “opinion”, based on the same things that we all have seen and heard , that the man is very likely telling his own ” truth” in this case, from his own viewpoint, which may or may not be faulty, but I believe he is either a naif enmeshed in a Machiavellian moral maze way beyond his intellectual capabilities or he is manipulating the emotions rather than the intellect of those who may not have any other insight.Had he not had this moral ambiguity and sense of self-preservation , he would already have known that it was his duty to fall on his sword to protect Arlene Foster and ultimately the party of which he was part of.
“Had he not had this moral ambiguity and sense of self-preservation , he would already have known that it was his duty to fall on his sword to protect Arlene Foster and ultimately the party of which he was part of.”
I think his wife would have something to say about that also Harry.
I am sure when the sums involved became known, his biggest grilling he received may have been under his very own roof and Ms Foster was not the most important female in his equation.
If he was honest with her, and I am sure he was, then I don’t think he had any option but to protect their own name as much as he could and to distance himself from the whole affair as much as possible, including protecting himself from possible custodial sentence when the scheme faces criminal investigations which it will.
Oh, quit slipping about, PK.
Yes, you asked me if I thought he was telling lies – here’s your question again:
“sometimes we are all there to watch when the mask slips..the question still stands …do you consider Jonathan a decent man or was he the one telling the lies? it’s a fair enough question.”
And I replied:
“The point is I believe in people being innocent until proven guilty, and you have zero, i.e., no, evidence he was telling lies.”
I suppose I could have said ‘we’, but you, me, whomever, none of us have any evidence he was telling lies, yet you are happy to raise the question, happy to ask if he is decent and happy to write:
“But no matter …Mr Bell was happy enough to join in with this dubious gang in their political game ,where a more moral man , for example, might have had second thoughts.”
But it’s all OK, you think he was “telling the truth”: “Personally , in this case I think he was the one telling the truth but I’m open to another persuasive argument to the contrary , if there is one out there..,”
But he’s not quite ‘moral’: “a more moral man , for example, might have”…
And you don’t even know if there is a version out there in which he wasn’t telling the truth.
So, you raised a question about his character, made some insinuations about him, suggested masks might slip, state think he is telling the truth anyway – but it was for ‘self-preservation’ in the end.
And you ask me why I bother.
But it’s OK, I know how propaganda works – twist, turn, twist again and name people without actually accusing them of any, much, but just enough – and for most people they probably stopped reading at the title.
Away on, PK.
Between Arlene and Jonathan, one of them is telling lies Peter.
The only way everyone can be exonerated is by covering up what is behind the whole mess which would put the justice system on the dock.
And it is not beyond the boundaries of reasoning that may be needed next
I never said anything about propaganda PF. There is no agenda .It’s just me on my own thinking out loud.You still don’t get it do you ? You think it’s all some great conspiracy ,when it is only one person asking another a question based on their own very individual opinions in expectation of another point of view on the subject. What is required to enable conversation to continue is for the recepient at the other side of the table to respond with their own version or opinion of what they are experiencing.You have still not given one so no one reading your replies is any the wiser.The question still hangs in the air.Of all those contributing to these pages , there is only yourself and possibly MT who appear to have no actual opinion about anyone’s thoughts. Many do not agree with each other but it is difficult to agree or disagree with someone who appears to have very little to say. You will have to sometime understand thta public figures who want to win control over our lives are not untouchable sacred cows. They have to be studied and dissected in every manner and way available .That is standard practice in every political life. If you think otherwise how do you develop a your own critical opinions about anything?
PK
“You think it’s all some great conspiracy”
No, I don’t.
I merely comment on the endless stereotyping of Unionism on this website.
“it is only one person asking another a question based on their own very individual opinions in expectation of another point of view on the subject”
And I responded to your ‘own very personal opinion’, which I called ‘character-assassination-without-evidence. I maintain that view.
“What is required to enable conversation to continue is for the recepient at the other side of the table to respond with their own version or opinion of what they are experiencing.”
You see, PK, I don’t have a version of events or an opinion on the man in question because I have no *evidence*, neither do you; but as I have already pointed out that doesn’t stop you maligning a man’s character.
” there is only yourself and possibly MT who appear to have no actual opinion about anyone’s thoughts.”
Ah, right, I see – we have to talk about other people? Hadn’t realised that. You know, PK, I air my own views, and my own views about *issues* rather than my views about others ***Especially when I have no evidence*** – it’s safer that way – but if you wish to keep on about others, that’s up to you.
It’s also, incidentally why I used the term propaganda – not because I think there is a conspiracy, but because maligning a man’s character without evidence, and when it feeds into the constant flow of intolerance on this site (which masquerades as equality), is propaganda.
” public figures who want to win control over our lives are not untouchable sacred cows. ”
Where did I say people were untouchable?
“They have to be studied and dissected in every manner and way available”
And? And you have come up with? Oh yes, you have come up with – zero, because you have no evidence. All you have is an opinion which, without evidence, maligns another’s character.
“If you think otherwise how do you develop a your own critical opinions about anything?”
I refer to the available *evidence*.
And in case you missed the point, the point is *evidence*.
Now, when you have some, I’ll respond to it.
Peter, no one does more to stereo type unionism than the leadership you elect to represent you.
I understand you don’t like that and are not with the majority on this, but that is hardly our problem and you wont change it on this site.
This is a unionist problem which you need to take up with other unionists and this site would not be an appropriate platform on which to do this.
We are entitled to our own opinions, unless you feel us crocodiles should not be afforded the right to hold negative opinions on unionists unless accompanied with evidence that you can use british control of legislation to deny access to and cover up such evidence.
The evidence is being i hope collected now and the findings reported after 6 months but freedom of speech does not require us to wait until then to hold an opinion or discuss our views on those involved.
The money being squandered isn’t on hold until the evidence is delivered, we are paying for it 85K per day for the whole 6 months.
That is over 15 million pounds over the period of the investigation only.
I think our entitlement to discuss all of those involved has been paid for with a hefty price tag.
You strike me PF, as the kind of guy who never leaves home without at least two pairs of boxers on …just in case……I get the distinct impression that before you formulate an “opinion” (and I’ll use the word advisedly) about something , your first instinct is to run it past a committe or a court of your peers.Are you always like this in conversation? What are you like with art , music or literature. Does someone have to first approve of something before you can make up your own mind and voice your own view on it ? What about eating a meal? Does someone taste your food , first before you think it is safe to eat it? Do you then think it’s safe enough or do you get another “opinion” first?What about the taste of it itself ? Do you trust your own taste or has someone to tell you that the food is good or bad?
You seem to be a man or maybe a woman (I’ve no idea, either way ) who never , ever speaks out about anything without supporting “evidence” about it, so you’ll hardly be in line for “Visionary of the Year” award, then. The supporting “evidence” has first to be collated.I get it .I get it, okay? You are not a person who will ever rely on your own instincts. You will always need a safety blanket before you jump.That’s fine , but life is not always like that. In this case we are looking at two individuals with starkly opposing readings of a specific situation .At this moment in time you are not actually being asked to judge which of them is telling lies, because in this little play ….let’s face it , going on what has been said by both of them about each other …..one of them has to be lying. Would that be right? You are being asked to assess whether or not there is the likelihood , given what is “known” of the two characters’ public personas, which one of the two might be telling lies and which one isn’t (public personas may well be different to the reality of their actual “real”personas, of course, but imagine for a moment for the sake of the conversation ,that they are two actors performing their individual roles and you’ll get the gist) it’s a bit like playing Cluedo or trying to figure out a murder in a crime thriller before the end …It is an exercise in observational skills if you like….and no you will not get punished if you get the wrong answer…okay?
That might be a bit harsh Harry
His name is Peter, he holds strong Christian values, is not anti Irish by any means, he does consider himself a unionist and is comfortable within the UK.
He would like to see a united Ireland within the UK and a prosperous UK with equality for all.
Peter is concerned that the GFA which allows for Irish unity means the deal has already been done and that it is only a numbers game before we leave the UK anyway.
He would not be a traditional DUP supporter.
What I feel is the issue for him, is actually quite similar to my own issue.
I dislike the things that are said against republicans, in particular when we are called terrorists and the like.
When Theresa May called us terrorists the other week, it was the british PM telling us we are nothing but Irish fenian scum to my ears.
It basically gets my backup.
I have a feeling that our criticism of a unionist over his religious values effects Peter in a similar way.
“You strike me PF, as the kind of guy who never leaves home without at least two pairs of boxers on …just in case……I get the distinct impression that before you formulate an “opinion”…”
To be honest, I didn’t read past the first paragraph.
Opinions about everyone, I see; where I come from, it’s called gossip – and some of it can be quite malicious.
Guess what, PK, you have zero right to tell me who you think I am; but if discussing other people makes you happy; who am I to stand in your way.
Thank you, Jessica.
You stand out as Republican on this site who tries to understand, and one who listens.
I suspect that is why we, despite are very clear differences, manage to keep up conversation.
Well there you go PF, Jessica has just informed me that you are actually a male called Peter.I ‘m not sure where she got her information about that because I must have been looking the other way when you revealed it.I suppose it’s one of those things like you not reading to the end and missing something, eh ,or maybe I was away for a while?
As you can gather , if you never say what you are actually thinking ,how would I have any idea? Jessica also tells me that you are a unionist but are not a DUP supporter and that you believe in a religion of some Christian sort.Well, that’s your right .There’s nothing wrong with that if it suits your worldview. I know lots of people with all kinds of beliefs from Buddism to Hindu. You’ll already know , probably, that I am an atheist , but that’s a perfectly valid view too in the sense that the unbelief is based on the known and not the unknown.Should someone come along and prove otherwise, I’ll listen to their argument. It doesn’t have much to do with any politics I might have or haven’t got , of course.
I’m not sure why you are getting hot under the collar about two members of the DUP, mind, if you have no time for them.I simply think that they have behaved abysmally ever since the formation of their party and have continued to do so these past years while in government. There is precious little in them I can find that gives me any joy and I couldn’t care less what happens to their politicians ,after the scandals and nonsense that they loosely call politics .I do see a lot of comedic worth in them of course because amid their usual corruptive nonsense they have done some seriously funny stuff ,albeit mostly unwittingly. So yes I laugh at corruption when it masquerades as sanctimony , and should it happen live on television before our eyes, I laugh even harder .That is not to say i approve of the religious bigotry , racism and waste of the public’s money that is inherent in that party.
“I’m not sure why you are getting hot under the collar about two members of the DUP, mind, if you have no time for them.”
Because I believe in a person’s right to be treated well, and presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even then, I believe in a degree of mercy.
“I simply think that they have behaved abysmally ever since the formation of their party and have continued to do so these past years while in government.”
Which is fine, except you also say:
“So yes I laugh at corruption when it masquerades as sanctimony , and should it happen live on television before our eyes, I laugh even harder .”
Care to clarify? That sounds like an accusation to me. Which means you’re not getting the point, yet.
“Well there you go PF, Jessica has just informed me that you are actually a male called Peter.I ‘m not sure where she got her information about that…”
Well, she’s used my name often enough on this very thread; just like she calls you Harry. But what she doesn’t do is presume the right to probe into my character and personality, which you are still doing.
I might just be easier to avoid your articles in future.
Jessica has sometimes used the name “Peter ” for you PF , but I do not recall you ever acknowledging that as your name as such. When did you do this? You might be called Phillip ,Paul, Paulo,Palladin, Palmer, Pancho Pancras,Pepe …any number of names or none of the above…but if it’s Peter , well fair enough.
As for your quote :
“Which is fine, except you also say:“So yes I laugh at corruption when it masquerades as sanctimony , and should it happen live on television before our eyes, I laugh even harder .”Care to clarify? That sounds like an accusation to me. Which means you’re not getting the point, yet.”…
I’ve no problem clarifying any of it.When I see both Arlene and Jonathan each putting on their “holier than thou” performances to exact sympathy from the audience out there it makes me laugh out loud working in front of your eyes at the lowesrt level. This is raw politics What explanation do you need ?This is the stuff that all politicians do as they cling to the trappings of power. In this case , it has been taken to lucicrous levels of cheap theatrics. Do you not see that? …or are you ignoring it?We have Jonathan on his knees praying live on television , which frankly, a lot of peope felt was at best , a little creepy. From my perspective it could be read as either deluded or manipulative . At best it was like a public declaration that he was prostrating himself before his god…which again I find personally somewhat creepy . By the same token Arlene Foster took her unilateral punt along with the Speaker in tow in her final days , and finally shattered the cooperative Joint authority of the office she was to be sharing power in. That was also so crass and laughable that everyone but the DUP thetrically turned their backs on her. I’ve got to say that if Martin McGuinness had acted as stupidly as this , i would have turned my back on him too.
The truth is, it is so comedic and foolish for two adults to indulge in, that it set new low-levels of low , unsophisticated comedy .The next thing we’ll know is that they might even start throwing custard- pies at each other. At bottom though, there is the matter of stupidity and/or corruption at the heart of the particular party and even in this specific RHI incident.I’m thinking that it is a bit of both, “but not necessarily at the same time” to quote Eric Morcambe .
Someone is guilty here .Jonathan has been put in the frame by Arlene .He is fighting back with whatever he has in his war-chest.Part of that weaponry is his own personal sense of morality which he attaches to his idea of his god.He has used that as a weapon in his attack.From my perspective , I think he has been framed and in that respect, if that is the case, logic follows that Arlene is in the wrong .if she is wrong , the question actually is “is Arlene a decent person?”
The point is that there are two players in this scenario and one of them has a moral case to answer.So there is no problem in asking thse questions about these well-paid people .It is our collective right to do so and it is our right to have opinions about them.
As for reading or debating any of this , that has always been your personal choice PF.
Sammy Wilson has just confirmed the DUP see Sinn Fein the exact same way as they do ISIS.
How can we share power with people who see their political opposition as terrorists to be defeated?
The only possible solution in my view is for the last remaining part of Ireland to leave the UK and to go our separate ways until GB matures enough to have a working relationship with a country once part of its empire that no longer fears it or is prepared to play second fiddle to it.
If Sammy and the DUP see Sinn Fein in the same way as they see ISIS, then they will never be allowed to sit in government again, it seems.They will have a major problem ahead which will put them into a corner.Having reneged on any past agreements , they’ll be lucky to have anyone sharing power with them anyway ,so it looks like they’ll be in the wilderness for a long ,long time.They couldn’t do power-sharing before and they’ve just proved that mere weeks ago and I can’t see these old dogs learning any new tricks anytime soon. Welcome to the future!
Then that’s what needs to happen Harry.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-assembly-election/watch-i-agree-with-sinn-fein-islamic-state-comparison-says-dups-sammy-wilson-35486188.html
PK
You haven’t actually clarified anything yet, at least not in relation to the notion of “corruption”. Her’s what I meant, but first, an aside.
“Jessica has sometimes used the name “Peter ” for you PF , but I do not recall you ever acknowledging that as your name as such.”
Why would I? I mean, who on earth goes around clarifying their name all the time?
Then you say:
“I’ve no problem clarifying any of it.”
I’ll not copy/paste everything, but from the sentence beginning, “.When I see both Arlene and Jonathan each putting on their “holier than thou” performances…”
to the sentence: “The next thing we’ll know is that they might even start throwing custard- pies at each other.”
you have clarified precisely nothing.
Then you say this:
“At bottom though, there is the matter of stupidity and/or corruption at the heart of the particular party and even in this specific RHI incident”
Ah, but you said, “So yes I laugh at corruption when it masquerades as sanctimony” – which is what I asked you to clarify. Now you are saying “stupidity and/or corruption” – which is not a clarification, but a qualification.
So, you have no evidence of corruption?
Just as well you’re not making accusations.
Oh, but are you?
“I’m thinking that it is a bit of both, “but not necessarily at the same time” to quote Eric Morcambe .”
And you evidence is? Oh, that’s right, you have none.
“It is our collective right to do so and it is our right to have opinions about them.”
Yes, that’s fine except you also say:“So yes I laugh at corruption when it masquerades as sanctimony.”
And you have yet to clarify what you mean.
PK
I’l put this directly.
In your opinion, who, if anyone, was involved in what kind of corruption and what evidence do you have to back up any assertions you might make?
I see PF . You still have no opinion and yet you don’t seem to understand what it is to have an opinion. You want clarification as to why the stink of corruption hangs around a specific party when there is already a long list of references to at least five well -known scandals relating to the party .They are all referenced above with links and they are laid out in in some detail. None of this is an unknown quantity , so the question is how can anyone ….yourself included, have any need to ask about them when all you have to do is read or simply remember when they happened.When you have finished readingall of it ,that notion that you will have in your mind will be a formulating opinion as to whether or not this is real some wilfd fantasy or has actually really happened or at a stretch is possibly another conspiracy theory for the tin -hat brigade, made up by a lot of journalists just for the fun of it..
These “revelations”, theories and opinions (!) are the very things that have lain waste to a government , so they are worth studying. One of them is the reason why Mr Bell is persona non gratis in the DUP and why he is running as an independent.They each originated from a specific party which the two worthies whom we are discussing ad finitum , once shared .Frankly if you have no thoughts or opinions on any of this, that is perfectly fine . You can very obviously get through your day without worrying or thinking about any of it …and that’s just fine by me .To have no opinion is to have a completely blank slate .Everyone else has their opinions and they might be called “gossip” at times but they are still opinions an dsometimes there is a truth in them . I can understand that you will banish any such opinions from your mind and that is your right.It does make me wonder why you would want to read anything though because everything written is someone’s opinion just as history is the survivor’s story.
By the way , I’m glad you clarified that your name is “Peter”. I thought it possible that Jessica made a wild guess and you simply let her run with it.
Evidence, PK, evidence.
Who, What, Where, When? Anything else is hear-say, speculation, and insinuation – but if you are happy with that, fine – you’re the one who has to live with it.
One more thing.
“It does make me wonder why you would want to read anything though because everything written is someone’s opinion just as history is the survivor’s story.”
Nonsense, facts can be known – not everything is relative – there is such a thing as evidence, which we apply in many ways to different areas of our lives.
You really do need to think this through.
It is difficult to believe that someone such as yourself PF, who has a religion and believes in a god ,as you apparently do , would tell anyone that they need exact evidence to have an opinion about something in the material world.No offence to you and your belief- system but that really does not make a lot of sense to me.,frankly..Someone needs to think this notion of having an opinion right through ….and it’s not me .
Oh, PK, please.
First, if you are going to claim corruption, evidence would be helpful.
Secondly, if you wish to discuss evidence, belief and religion, I’m more than happy to.
Thirdly, even if I granted you that religious belief was ‘belief without evidence’, that in no way removes your need to provide evidence for acclaim of corruption in the ‘matetial world’; if anything it only heightens your need of providing it.
Whether or not you can make sense of my religious faith has nothing to do with your assertions of corruption which you have not and cannot back up.
I’m more than clear on this; so, whenever you’re ready, let’s start defining terms:
Opinion, belief, evidence, faith, allegation, corruption…
I’m afraid not PF .I’ve wasted enough of my time on this particular roundabout.i’ve said everything i need to say on the topic.
So, PK, you are happy to give your opinion about politicians, corruption, me, my faith, their faith, who you think they are and who you think I am, whether you have any evidence or foundation for that or not; but when it comes down to specifics about any of it, suddenly you have nothing to say.
It all sounds like a lot of loose talk to me.
I am interested in Harrys opinion on many things, including RHI, the behaviour of the DUP, the strange scenes of Jonathan Bell calling on God to his side before the interview with Nolan. It was weird and eerie to me and makes me feel better to know others did not consider that normal behaviour.
If you think it is normal Peter I would be interested in hearing your views also.
If you think it is wrong for us to be discussing it as we don’t know what is in his head when he oked this to go onto our screens I can respect that, but simply don’t read what we say rather than disrupt the whole conversation because you don’t agree with it.
There are a great many things wrong in our society and most of it I could not produce evidence for, but I use this site because I still want to discuss them and share my own and listen to others opinions. If you don’t like that you are missing the whole point of this blog site, It is to encourage debate and talking.
It is when we stop talking the real problems start.
Jessica
Your comments and your wonderings indicate quite clearly the difference between PK’s opinions and yours.
Your comment about the televised prayer is based on what you saw and heard, and I suspect also your own experiences of Christianity.
Your comments about the DUP concern their ‘behaviour’.
And your comments about RHI relate to wondering what went on with RHI.
At no point in this post have you made any comment on a man’s character, his morality, nor have you insinuated corruption – your comments are clearly different.
Neither have I disrupted anything on this thread. The conversation has been between me and PK only, but what I have done is draw attention to unsubstantiated claims against a person’s character.
No one here would like to be spoken of like that, and inspite of repeated requests to provide evidence for a really quite strong opinion, none has been provided.
Free speech doesn’t mean we get to say whatever we like about others- and to point that out is not disruptive.
Neither is it disruptive to point out that PK has no right to tell me what he thinks of me, my personality or my own views. And this illustrates again the reason you and I have been able to communicate: for all the strengh of your views (and mine) you grant me the dignity of asking and listening, I trust I have reciprocated.
Christianity is a personal thing, to me it is about doing the right thing.
Even a child knows what is right and what is wrong, we have to learn from others how to do evil.
I have never really bothered with the church. It just doesn’t appeal to me and I get nothing from it.
The path to God is through helping others which offers spiritual wellbeing and invigorates our soul.
Those who have experienced this, have felt the holy spirit.
These are my views on Christianity, I am sure Hsrry has his own explanations for it that don’t involve God and this may sound bizarre to many including him.
But I just don’t get the extreme public displays that smack of zealousy to me.
That is not to say that I am not the one totally wrong and we should all be seeking one anothers approval.
If I am being honest, nothing Harry said jumped out at me as being unsubstantiated claims against a person’s character.
Though I wouldnt have a lot of respect for Jonathan Bell and it probably wouldnt have jumped out at me for that reason.
As for RHI.
I most certainly do think there was corruption going on.
I guess you are correct and the right thing to do would be to allow the investigation to take its course and then when evidence has been brought forth, then have a pop.
But then, I don’t trust the british justice system.
I know what went on here, what the british state deny. I worked for years with a relative of billy wright who told me that new recruits were all told to join the police and army reserves to receive training before joining loyalist paramilitaries. Has anyone ever checked the names of reservists against the known membership of loyalist groups which are heavily infiltrated?
shouldn’t be difficult to prove or disprove.
On the DUP.
Well, what can you say when Sammy Wilson has now been aired claiming he considers republicans to be no better than ISIS including his old partners in government.
I could live in a united Ireland within the UK with people like yourself Peter, quite happily.
But how do we build bridges with that type of hate. Should we keep trying or just give up and lets have it out and get it over with once and for all?
But then, Theresa May is still calling us terrorists and encouraging such behaviour and language, so how can I accept remaining within the UK?
We are seen as terrorists, ISIS, crocodiles, rogues, renegades, the stench to hold noses over, whatever will be next?
Peter, the british PM stands up in Westminster regularly referring to us as terrorists.
Recently she did so on specific request from Nigel Dodds.
I don’t hear anyone in the Dail even scrutinising the actions of the british or unionists over the past century.
As article 50 is triggered, I will be expecting that to change and the gloves to come off in Dublin.
If you think this is bad, you are in for a very uncomfortable few years before Ireland finally leaves the UK.
“As article 50 is triggered, I will be expecting that to change and the gloves to come off in Dublin.”
I have no idea what you mean, Jessica; especially as so many on this blog keep going on about how ‘British’ the Southern-West-Brits are.
Either way, as I don’t expect that either the British or the Unionists are without sin, it won’t be that uncomfortable for me.
I mean the good relationship that has been built up between Ireland and Britain could go down the swanny
Jessica, it could, yes; but that might come down to Ireland’s economic needs, and the degree to which the West-Brits really are guilt of fawning over the British.
Tough one to call.
But at least you are more straightforward to converse with.
I don’t believe there us much chance that the west brits will be in power for much longer Peter.
There is a changing attitude throughout Ireland, a gradual interest in reuniting the country
and even to a small degree in Cork for example of a re emergence of anti british sentiment.
There was a willingness to explore even Ireland re-joining the UK, but Britain really have no interest in that. I think the DUP played a part in destroying this, the conservatives in shoring up votes for post brexit decisions have allowed them to lead them and they have pissed a lot of people off in Ireland.
Theresa May is out of her depth and is damaging many relationships as she tries to please too many different views in her party. She is putting the conservative party above not only the UK staying together but the relationship with Ireland and the EU.
Trying to please both sides will I believe result in the growth of English nationalism and move more towards a standalone England independent from the rest of the UK.
On a more positive note, I could see David Milliband coming back to lead the labour party back into power and get rid of this chump May.
He would have the media backing and I don’t think Jeremy is going to get a fair crack with them. The sooner article 50 us triggered the better.
If there is any delay in March it will be a sign of british incompetence and indecision..
“Peter, the british PM stands up in Westminster regularly referring to us as terrorists.”
You keep saying this. Can you provide even one link?
PF, what gets me about all this hoo ha you’ve thrown up over this article, is that, IN MY OPINION, you wouldn’t be half so outraged if the names in the article, (blog, call it what you will) were changed to Gerry Adams, Marin Mc Guinness etc etc let’s face it, you’re miffed that your unionist heroes have once again disgraced themselves.
Why do you say that?
In fact I made it perfectly plain earlier in the discussion that “The point is I believe in people being innocent until proven guilty,”
That was an unqualified reference to people.
If there is evidence, fair enough; if there is no evidence then we must assume innocence.
That protects everyone whether we agree, disagree or even like people.
I’m very clear on this: innocence until proven guilty protects everyone.
In terms of supposed unionist heroes, I’ve also made it plain that I am not a DUP supporter, so this assumption falls on that point too.
very one sided on the scandals as usual.seems a bit strange for somebody who says they arnt voting.
Right billy …stack up your own list of scandals and let’s see how they balance out .I think the DUP are the champions for weight, heft , size and quality.I’d put them in the ring with any scandal -makers in the world..the Profumo Scandal has nothing on this lot.
sure we cant use our everyday language on here so how can anybody do a blog,maybe thats the whole idea with the censor.
billy ,if you can write a story that scans and makes any kind of sense ,Jude has promised he will give it a fair hearing , whatever it is you might mean by your “everyday language”. What do you think this is?
Stop the garbage about censorship, Billy. You mentioned others involved in scandals and PK asked about those. Now either put up or shut up (that is not censorship – just calling you out on bull shít).
Now, without looking up Youtube, enlighten us.
eh.
Right, Billy. List the scandals that he missed. And I don’t recall him saying that he wasn’t going to vote. I think you did,however.
well we could start with the scandal of who was giving them political cover through all the scandals he listed,and telling us its a fresh start all is fine.i think refrain was the word he used for not voting.
Have you picked out a nice place to live in GB when we leave the UK to remain in the EU billy?
Somewhere there will be no immigrants to get up your nose and closed borders?
Some place called boston in lincolnshire might be your cup of tea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36616740
no.like anybody over fifty ile be well planted by the time we leave the uk so no need to be moving among the brussel sprout pickers of boston.not a bit of wonder they voted leave.
Hey paddy
I admit I couldn’t get through all that.
Is there anything on Mr Bell’s beauty or lack thereof, and what about how masculine he seems?
This is the important stuff.
You’ll have to try harder gio.Make some effort …there’s the lad! It’s a question , by the way, requiring answers…
So his looks are not relevant then?
What’s with all the lad stuff?
When anyone uses it I feel it is meant to be patronising.
Maybe knock it off there’s a good lad!
No gio , his looks might be very relevant too in these days of image -makers. A lot depends on context.A smile always works better than a sour grimace…. I mean we might all have a soft spot for the Elephant Man ,but he’ll never win a beauty contest, for example.Similarly a good -looking person or politician with the exact same poltical policies as another less well designed , might be rewarded with more votes because he’s more attractive .Think of George Clooney going up against your favourite politician …who do you think would get the ladies (and the gay) vote.Never let anyone fool you into thinking that looks don’t count.They always count.That’s a huge misconception and lie.
I hope you’re not feeling insecure about being addressed, old man(!) It was not meant to be in any way insulting. you’ll understand that i have no real idea of your age or anybody’s age out there .Many give little away about anything , never mind anything so personal as their age ….. but “lad” can be understood to be a friendly,, chummy sobriquet in many parts…as in “He’s a good , lad, that fellow”….or “old man ” might not have any relevance to age also….just a friendlyy address…Man !….er youth….er middle-aged fellow …this English language can be something of a minefield!
I thought the praying bit was a sneaky shot by Nolan, a low ball in my view
Nolan asked Bell did he want the praying bit removed and Bell said keep it in.
It shouldn’t have been filmed, it was off set and obviously a private act. The man was also emotionally vulnerable and Nolan had a duty of care since it was his programme.
Bullshit, it was deliberate and staged. Jonathan chose to have it aired
If it was private why on earth would he have done that
Clearly you can fool some fools all of the time
How do you know?
The BBC would have legally required his permission to show the melodramatic hand on head bleeding heart God show.
How do you know it was staged, it was off set and someone had to turn the camera round to film it. It was done for dramatic effect, even if permission was sought later from an obviously upset individual.
Because if it was a private thing, you would 1 tell the cameras not to film the private moment and 2 if they did anyway, you would not giver permission to air it
The fact permission was given to air it in public, entitles me to come to a conclusion.
You can believe whatever you want to Dominic but in my view it was for dramatic effect and to make it memorable for what was coming down the road
You don’t have to agree with me, but that is how I see it
Nolan has form in trying to promote himself in this way. Look at the way he treated Conor Murphy at the SF manifesto launch when he talked about everything except the manifesto. This is the same man who checks everyone for using SF/IRA yet he doesn’t apply the same rules to himself. He had no right to put Jonathan Bell in the position he put him in when he wasn’t able to defend himself properly and open him up to ridicule from people with their own agenda.
What position did Nolan put Jonathan in that he wasn’t comfortable with?
I struggle to understand where you are coming from at times Dominic.
This is 490 million pounds of money squandered and you are worried about being unfair on one of the people central to the running of this scheme.
I have no sympathy for any of them whatsoever and I think it only right that whoever is found to be responsible receives a custodial sentence at the end of the inquiry.
Never mind the overspend, if this was as it looks, helping themselves to a pot of money.
It is in effect a 1 billion pound heist on the public purse
Surely that is some sort of criminal record the DUP could go down in history for?
People have to get a fair hearing and the emphasis was on ridiculing one man and judging him on his religious beliefs which have nothing to do with the issue. The enquiry will apportion blame and, hopefully, the electorate because it was a 100% DUP affair. I’m not side tracking but making a valid point about the way this man’s faith is being exposed to unfair ridicule, since the subject was brought up.
“The BBC would have legally required his permission to show the melodramatic hand on head bleeding heart God show.”
Really? What law requires a person’s permission before such a piece of film can be shown?
I thought the praying stuff was a pathetic effort by Bell to elicit sympathy and support from a certain evangelical section of his community. The whole whitewash act was excruciatingly and embarrassingly self serving. His action plunges him below Foster imo, who at least wears her superciliousness with pride.
You have to consider that the man might also be dead serious and very genuine and that he really believes he is talking to a god.He might not see it in the same cynical way that others might .After all , if he believes it , no matter how inprobable , that might make him a very genuine person ….but that is the question that is being asked isn’t it ? Who is the genuine person here and which of the two is telling little porkies.Is it Arlene or is it Jonathan…or are they both lying in different ways?It’s a fair question given that a government has fallen and no one else has asked it.
So are you saying that Irish passport holders are not citizens of the Irish state when the passport declares them to be such? Is that it MT? Are you saying that they have been issued their passports under false pretence and that my passport is an illegal document? I’d like to hear how you reach the conclusion that my travel documents are somehow not legal.I hate to do this lazy cut-and -paste thing which you have a tendency to over-use but you said these words…
.”What’s called an ‘Irish citizen’ is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and what are called ‘Irish passports’ are available only to such citizens. A UK citizen is a citizen of the UK. There is no citizenship of the island of Ireland: there can’t be, because one can only be a citizen of a state.”
That is completely false, i’m afraid and it is far from being fact….So if an Irish passport is , as you say,is only available to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland , then why can I legally have one anywhere in the island of island without having been born in the Republic of Ireland and not having ever lived there? I repeat..I can have that document simply because I am an Irishman and that fact alone allows me to have it .You really need to think that through again.
“So are you saying that Irish passport holders are not citizens of the Irish state when the passport declares them to be such?”
No. I’m saying precisely the opposite. They *are* citizens of thr Irish (26-county) state.
“Is that it MT?”
No.
“Are you saying that they have been issued their passports under false pretence and that my passport is an illegal document?”
Eh?
“I’d like to hear how you reach the conclusion that my travel documents are somehow not legal”
I haven’t reached such a conclusion. Why are.you making things up?
“You said .”What’s called an ‘Irish citizen’ is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and what are called ‘Irish passports’ are available only to such citizens. A UK citizen is a citizen of the UK. There is no citizenship of the island of Ireland: there can’t be, because one can only be a citizen of a state.””
Yes I know I said that.
“That is completely false, i’m afraid and it is far from being fact…”
It’s not completely fake. On the contrary it’s completely true.
“So if an Irish passport is , as you say,is only available to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland , then why can I legally have one anywhere in the island of island without having been born in the Republic of Ireland and not having ever lived there?”
Because you don’t have to be born in the Republic of Ireland or to have lived there to be a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. You’ve quoted the legislation yourself!
“I repeat..I can have that document simply because I am an Irishman and that fact alone allows me to have it .You really need to think that through again.”
No. You can only get an ‘Irish passport’ if you are a ROI citizen. It’s the same the world over: states only issue passports to their citizens. People in NI are entitled to ROI citizenship: that’s why you are able to have an ROI passport.
Harry, you know we get the politicians we vote for. When the DUP comes back with an increased mandate would it be fair to say that she represents x% of the unionist electorate. So we are going to be faced with disrespect all over again from that electorate? Are you in agreement that the policies and behaviour of the DUP have the backing and support of a majority of the unionist community and will continue to have? What other conclusion can you come to? Btw, not having been born in Britain I feel reluctant to call myself British. (As is my right under the GFA)
Well , if like me you have your Irish passport fiosrach, that’ll tell you esactly what you are .You’re an Irish member of the EU for as long as you want to be .now if you shouldalso get a British passport as you also have every right to do , you’ll still be an Irish EU citizen but you can then also claim to be British as well if that’s what you might want to do..As for the the elecctiion should huge numbers vote for the DUP again , that’ll simply mean that those who voted for them want to be represented by the same shower of idiots that got us into this pickle in the first place and they will be expecting another long list of scandals should the old bus ever start again. That part is what is in debate , of course, because who’s going to let them near the controls if that is the result? DUP supporters are not in any way visionaries shall we say , kindly. They still live in a world of paranoia and the price for that fear is to be shafted day and daily by poor political representation who haven’t a clue ,don’t want society to move on ,while they await the slowly coming acopalypse
Pardon the “stickykeys” on that last one fiosrach…this deck needs an overhaul…
“Well , if like me you have your Irish passport fiosrach, that’ll tell you esactly what you are .You’re an Irish member of the EU for as long as you want to be .now if you shouldalso get a British passport as you also have every right to do , you’ll still be an Irish EU citizen but you can then also claim to be British as well if that’s what you might want to do.”
You don’t need a passport to be a Southern Irish or EU citizen. Not do you need one to ‘claim’ to be British.
No MT . Of course you don’t “need” a passport at all.You might sit in your room forever and never travel beyond your front door.That is correct.On the other hand , if you live in the current jurisdiction that is ultimately ruled by Westminster, you can still claim to be a member of the EU simply by buying your Irish passport which allows you all those eU benefits should you wish to go and live beyond these shores for a time .You would do that if you wanted to personally claim to be an Irishman first and also by default also a member of the EU which the passport gives you the right to be and remain. You wouldn’t be forced to do any of this of course but you’d have that choice. Should you also want to claim to be British as well , say for reasons of identity , you could proclaim that too by buying a British passport which would also be your right, given that you have that facility.You would not be forced to do that either .Obviously none of this matters at all should you never wish to travel anywhere at all, but you might want that security of identity anyway in the way that flags can sometimes mean so much to the various tribes. When the hard/soft border comes in there may be need of a passport of either kind to enter the Republic of Ireland , just as we currently use our passports every time we get on an Easyjet bound for England.
“On the other hand , if you live in the current jurisdiction that is ultimately ruled by Westminster, you can still claim to be a member of the EU simply by buying your Irish passport which allows you all those eU benefits should you wish to go and live beyond these shores for a time ”
As already stated, you don’t need a passport to be a Southern Irish citizen and thus, post Brexit, remain an EU citizen (not member). You would only need a passport if you wished to travel abroad, and a UK passport would also serve that purpose. If you were ever in a position that you needed to prove one’s EU citizenship, an EU passport is one possible means of doing so, but not necessarily the only one.
“You would do that if you wanted to personally claim to be an Irishman first and also by default also a member of the EU which the passport gives you the right to be and remain.’
Wrong.
First, possessing a passport is not a necessary condition for ‘claiming to be an Irishman first’. You can make such a claim without possessing a passport.
Second, it is not a passport that gives you the right to be an EU citizen, but the other way round: being a Southern Irish (and thus EU) citizen gives you the right to a Southern Irish (and thus EU) passport.
“Should you also want to claim to be British as well , say for reasons of identity , you could proclaim that too by buying a British passport which would also be your right, given that you have that facility.”
Wrong again. One doesn’t need a passport to ‘claim’ to be British for reasons of identity.or.any other reason. In terms of British citizenship, everyone in NI is a British citizen regardless of whether or not they have a passport.
“When the hard/soft border comes in there may be need of a passport of either kind to enter the Republic of Ireland , just as we currently use our passports every time we get on an Easyjet bound for England.”
Highly unlikely there will be a passport requirement to cross the border and I have never used my passport when travelling to England.
Who mentioned being a southern Irish citizen? The Irish passport ,which every Irish person can hold anywherei n the world , is also an EU passport, providing the bearer with any benefits within the EU that might follow from that .I assume it is why there is an upsurge of people with Irish lineage thoughout the UK applying for them prior to eventual Brexit. That passport gives you the right to be a member of the EU community unless there is some change made sometime in the future.As for travelling to England ,an identifier is usually required and checked and one of those chosen for convenience is usually a passport of some kind. These are generally issued after completing a form specifying the bearer’s claims of identity.
As you say , anyone can claim to be any damn thing until some kind of proof is required but post Brexit I think that Easyjet and all the various airlines will be requiring passports in future…. and it’s a possibility that identity checks will return to the border as they did in the past .I can’t see how that will be avoided.I clearly remember requiring identity documents crossing into the republic in the past and there wasn’t nearly the same kind of traffic by a long shot..There will be even greater economic need now with it being the only EU land -border. Of course it might eventually be decided that the only thing that will actually work is keep us and Scotland within the EU and have a new EU outreach beyond England and Wales .That might solve the problem in the end I suppose.I’ve a notion that it might work more smoothly than any other solution.
“Who mentioned being a southern Irish citizen?”
I did expressly and you did implicitly.
“The Irish passport ,which every Irish person can hold anywherei n the world , is also an EU passport, providing the bearer with any benefits within the EU that might follow from that .”
I know. That’s why I stated exactly that.
“That passport gives you the right to be a member of the EU community unless there is some change made sometime in the future.”
Wrong. Citizenship of an EU state means you are an EU citizen. Through that citizenship you are entitled to an EU passport, not the other way round.
“As for travelling to England ,an identifier is usually required and checked and one of those chosen for convenience is usually a passport of some kind. These are generally issued after completing a form specifying the bearer’s claims of identity.”
Photo identification is usually required if travelling by air. A passport is not required, though it may be used if you so choose. I never use a passport as ID on an internal flight.
“As you say , anyone can claim to be any damn thing until some kind of proof is required but post Brexit I think that Easyjet and all the various airlines will be requiring passports in future…. ”
You weren’t referring to the future.
“and it’s a possibility that identity checks will return to the border as they did in the past ”
It’s also a possibility that they won’t.
“I can’t see how that will be avoided.”
How come?
“I clearly remember requiring identity documents crossing into the republic in the past and there wasn’t nearly the same kind of traffic by a long shot.”
That was for security due to the Troubles.
“There will be even greater economic need now with it being the only EU land -border.”
What economic need is there for an ID check?
“Of course it might eventually be decided that the only thing that will actually work is keep us and Scotland within the EU and have a new EU outreach beyond England and Wales.”
That won’t happen. .
When did i Imention Being an southern Irish citizen” implicity”. ? Where did you get that idea? It never occured to me because I see everyone who was born on the island of Ireland as Irish. It’s plain fact. Are you saying that anyone holding an Irish passport is not an Irish citizen? Is that what you are saying?…just so that we are clear and that I am understanding you properly and not misinterpreting anything.
From my perspective the bearer of an Irish passport , which I’m assured is not handed out lightly (anything but “lightly in fact, from past experience, I might add) requires the bearer to be Irish or of Irish lineage .It also has “European Union” in neat gold lettering right up there in both English and Irish and so on which means that the bearer is a member of the EU.
As for crossing the border into, or out of, the EU , why would someone not need a passport to go back and forth when they are travelling into another a new political and economic jurisdiction, crucially now connected to the greater Europe and unconnected to Britain to which Britain has actually closed its door …for all manner of reasons regarding economics and international security.Yes we have no little local war going on at present but that could easily flip at any moment given the foolishness of some of our politicians and land us back into a nightmare as well which could further harden the border to the point of stasis. We are about to be in a very different place than we ever were before. You conclude by saying emphatically that Scotland and us might not think it a better way to stay inside the EU , stating “That won’t happen”.. None of us knows what will eventually happen ,of course, so I would never be so sure as you appear to be. If the people in England and Wales can make a radical decision to pull out of the EU within a year , they could as easily abandon us with a snap of the fingers at any time if they thought we were an unecessary burden or a complication too far.
“When did i Imention Being an southern Irish citizen” implicity”. ? Where did you get that idea?”
From your references to people being ‘members’ of the EU, by which you can only mean citizens. And post-Brexit people here will only be EU citizens if they are also Southern Irish citizens since there is no stand-alone EU citizenship.
“It never occured to me because I see everyone who was born on the island of Ireland as Irish.”
So do I. But being Irish and being a Southern Irish citizen aren’t the same.thing.
“Are you saying that anyone holding an Irish passport is not an Irish citizen?”
Eh?? I’m saying you don’t have to ‘hold’ a Southern passport to be a citizen. I’m saying you had to be a Southern citizen to be entitled to a Southern passport.
“As for crossing the border into, or out of, the EU , why would someone not need a passport to go back and forth when they are travelling into another a new political and economic jurisdiction, crucially now connected to the greater Europe and unconnected to Britain to which Britain has actually closed its door …for all manner of reasons regarding economics and international security.”
Because of the common travel area.
There is no such item as a southern Irish passport MT. Maybe that’s where the confusion arises.There is only an “Irish passport”. there is no special southern , eastern , western or northern one .There is one which is available to us all .So what I’m asking , just to clear things up is ..Do you believe that holding an Irish EU passport makes the bearer of said passport, a member of the EU or not?…given that any of us can hold one if we are Irish , as i do ?
“There is no such item as a southern Irish passport MT. Maybe that’s where the confusion arises.There is only an “Irish passport”. there is no special southern , eastern , western or northern one .There is one which is available to us all .So what I’m asking , just to clear things up is ..”
Zzzzzzzzz
A so-called Irish passport is a passport of Southern Ireland/26 counties/Republic of Ireland.
“Do you believe that holding an Irish EU passport makes the bearer of said passport, a member of the EU or not?…given that any of us can hold one if we are Irish , as i do ?”
‘Holding’ a Southern passport doesn’t make one an EU citizen: being a Southern Irish citizen (and currently also being a UK citizen) makes one an EU citizen. Whether or not one has a passport is essentially irrelevant. If you’re a Southern citizen (or a citizen of any EU member) then you’re an EU citizen. You don’t need a passport.
As I said before MT and I’m nearly sure you still do not get it .There is no such item in all the world as a southern Irish passport.There is only one Irish passport available and it is the same one that is available to someone living in Antrim as someone living in Cork. It is also by its nature an EU passport , printed the same way for every county throughout the entire island of Ireland and it proclaims itself to be an EU passport in gold lettering in both Irish and English across the front ,lest there be any confusion as to its purpose .The bearer of said passport knows this to be true. A passport issued in the UK after Brexit will not be an EU passport but the irish passport will continue to be an EU passport and I will continue to have one.
That passport will continue to provide any benefits that might be available to holders of an EU passport throughout Ireland and beyond in the rest of the EU.Every person holding the nationality of a Member State of the European Union is, as a result, a citizen of the European Union. Citizenship of the Union supplements national citizenship without replacing it. In this case it merely gives all of that in one package if you happen to be Irish without the need for an additional one. There are also reasons concerning safety, employment and travel mobility and all the rights and priveleges offered in any EU country you happen to stay or work in such as health ,education, unemployment programmes , pensions and so on…not to mention unimpeded travel. The main thing is a sense of freedom ,I suppose.I have found that as far as medical issues and issues of money abroad, the Irish EU passport acted like a magic wand. In many places the legacy of the British Empire hangs heavily and an Irish EU passport works better.
“As I said before MT and I’m nearly sure you still do not get it .There is no such item in all the world as a southern Irish passport.There is only one Irish passport available and it is the same one that is available to someone living in Antrim as someone living in Cork.”
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It is a Republic of Ireland passport. 26 counties. Southern Ireland. There is no all-Ireland state in existence to issue passports.
” It is also by its nature an EU passport.”
I know.
“A passport issued in the UK after Brexit will not be an EU passport”
I know.
“but the irish passport will continue to be an EU passport”
I know.
“and I will continue to have one.”
Congratulations.
“That passport will continue to provide any benefits that might be available to holders of an EU passport throughout Ireland and beyond in the rest of the EU.”
No. It will be your EU citizenship that entitles you to any benefits. A passport is merely a travel and identification document.
“Every person holding the nationality of a Member State of the European Union is, as a result, a citizen of the European Union.”
I know. I already said that.
“Citizenship of the Union supplements national citizenship without replacing it.”
I know.
“In this case it merely gives all of that in one package if you happen to be Irish without the need for an additional one.”
All of what in one package? An additional what?
“There are also reasons concerning safety, employment and travel mobility and all the rights and priveleges offered in any EU country you happen to stay or work in such as health ,education, unemployment programmes , pensions and so on…not to mention unimpeded travel. The main thing is a sense of freedom ,I suppose.I have found that as far as medical issues and issues of money abroad, the Irish EU passport acted like a magic wand. In many places the legacy of the British Empire hangs heavily and an Irish EU passport works better.”
What point are you trying to make with all these statements of the obvious?
Me “obtuse” Mt? Not a bit of it .you on the other hand appear not be firing at full throttle tonight so I’ll lay it out as clearly and as simply as possible before i lay down my head for the evening :
There will be no changes during this period or for the foreseeable future to the entitlement to Irish passports including for people born on the island of Ireland, and for those persons who were born outside Ireland but have Irish-born parents or grandparents.
If you were born outside the island of Ireland and if either of your parents was an Irish citizen who was born in the island of Ireland, then you are entitled to Irish citizenship, and entitled to apply for an Irish passport under Irish law, irrespective of where you reside.
You can also apply for Irish citizenship if one of your parents, while not born in the island of Ireland, was an Irish citizen at the time of your birth. In most cases applications of this type are made through a grandparent who was born in Ireland. You may also qualify if one of your parents obtained Irish citizenship through Naturalisation or Foreign Birth Registration before you were born. In these cases, Irish citizenship can be passed on to the next generation as the parent was an Irish citizen at the time of the applicant’s birth. Citizenship by Foreign Births Registration applies only from the date of registration.
Only Irish citizens may hold an Irish passport, but it is not necessary to have an Irish passport to be an Irish citizen.
A UK exit from the EU does not change anything regarding entitlement to Irish citizenship.
The essential legal position remains as follows:
If you were born on the island of Ireland before 1 January 2005, you are entitled to be an Irish citizen.
If you were born on the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005, your right to Irish citizenship depends on your parents’ citizenship at the time of your birth and the residency history of at least one of your parents before your birth.
As you can plainly see .It is not simply a Republic of Ireland passport .It is an Irish island passport.That point seems to have escaped you.It is a passport available to everyone on the island of Ireland and beyond .
“There will be no changes during this period or for the foreseeable future to the entitlement to Irish passports including for people born on the island of Ireland, and for those persons who were born outside Ireland but have Irish-born parents or grandparents.”
Did someone say there will be? Another statement of the obvious.
“If you were born outside the island of Ireland and if either of your parents was an Irish citizen who was born in the island of Ireland, then you are entitled to Irish citizenship, and entitled to apply for an Irish passport under Irish law, irrespective of where you reside.”
I know. But it is a southern passport. ‘Irish citizen’ means citizen of the 26 counties.
“You can also apply for Irish citizenship if one of your parents, while not born in the island of Ireland, was an Irish citizen at the time of your birth. In most cases applications of this type are made through a grandparent who was born in Ireland. You may also qualify if one of your parents obtained Irish citizenship through Naturalisation or Foreign Birth Registration before you were born. In these cases, Irish citizenship can be passed on to the next generation as the parent was an Irish citizen at the time of the applicant’s birth. Citizenship by Foreign Births Registration applies only from the date of registration.”
I know. But ‘Irish citizenship’ is still citizenship of the 26 counties. There is no all-Ireland state of which it is possible to be a citizen.
“Only Irish citizens may hold an Irish passport, but it is not necessary to have an Irish passport to be an Irish citizen.”
At last! The penny drops. And by extension one doesn’t need an EU passport to be an EU citizen. Get it now?
“A UK exit from the EU does not change anything regarding entitlement to Irish citizenship.”
Of course it doesn’t. Did somebody say that it did?
“The essential legal position remains as follows: If you were born on the island of Ireland before 1 January 2005, you are entitled to be an Irish citizen. If you were born on the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005, your right to Irish citizenship depends on your parents’ citizenship at the time of your birth and the residency history of at least one of your parents before your birth.”
And? ‘Irish citizen’ means citizen of the 26 counties.
“As you can plainly see .It is not simply a Republic of Ireland passport .It is an Irish island passport.That point seems to have escaped you.It is a passport available to everyone on the island of Ireland and beyond ”
Eh? How does quoting 26-county law demonstrate that the passports issued by the 26-county state aren’t 26-county passports?
“Irish citizen’ means citizen of the 26 counties. ”
I am an Irish citizen but I have never lived in the 26 counties.
I live in Co Armagh and have done all my life
“I am an Irish citizen but I have never lived in the 26 counties.
I live in Co Armagh and have done all my life”
Congratulations.
You don’t news to live in the 26 counties to be a 26-county citizen. They have extra-territorial citizenship laws.
I’ve never been called an extra-territorial before.
There you go
Why don’t you all take a chill pill. After tonight’s leaders debate change is coming. Arlene and Michelle on the ropes
“Why don’t you all take a chill pill. After tonight’s leaders debate change is coming. Arlene and Michelle on the ropes”
I hope you’re right. Colum very impressive last night.
To give him his credit, he was very convincing
There’s no need for excitement MT.I think this is a matter of interpretation . It is immaterial who or where the passport is issued .It is issued in Ireland and can be ordered from any post office counter anywhere here .It is the intent and declaration of of the passport itself that we are discussing , not which part of the island it is posted from or even what specific jurisdiction currently offers it.As a document it sees no specific boundaries across Ireland ,of course, just as a passport issued in the UK for those living as Welsh , English or Scottish under the umbrella of “Britishness” can claim that document from anywhere in the world. That specific “british” passport does not allow the bearer to proclaim themselves necessarily to be of a specific nationality (eg Welsh, Scottish or English) but will proclaim them to be “british” subjects , which is fine is that is what they require and want to be ,whereas the Irish passport assumes the bearer is Irish and a citizen of Ireland and does not see any island borders or boundaries anywhere in the world Irish diaspora , in its intent. It has little to do with the current make-up of the existing Republic of Ireland either ; there is every possibility that its size and form will probably gradually change through time anyway and return to the shape it was a hundred years ago , but the intent of the document will still remain making it available to all Irish citizens currently living throughout the island of Ireland and beyond , even those currently ruled by the UK and still bestowing citizenship to them as Irish citizens should they require it…. and currently also making them members of the EU.
“I think this is a matter of interpretation ”
It’s not. It’s a matter of fact.
“It is immaterial who or where the passport is issued .It is issued in Ireland and can be ordered from any post office counter anywhere here .It is the intent and declaration of of the passport itself that we are discussing , not which part of the island it is posted from or even what specific jurisdiction currently offers it.As a document it sees no specific boundaries across Ireland ,of course, just as a passport issued in the UK for those living as Welsh , English or Scottish under the umbrella of “Britishness” can claim that document from anywhere in the world. That specific “british” passport does not allow the bearer to proclaim themselves necessarily to be of a specific nationality (eg Welsh, Scottish or English) but will proclaim them to be “british” subjects , which is fine is that is what they require and want to be ,whereas the Irish passport assumes the bearer is Irish and a citizen of Ireland and does not see any island borders or boundaries anywhere in the world Irish diaspora , in its intent. It has little to do with the current make-up of the existing Republic of Ireland either ; there is every possibility that its size and form will probably gradually change through time anyway and return to the shape it was a hundred years ago , but the intent of the document will still remain making it available to all Irish citizens currently living throughout the island of Ireland and beyond , even those currently ruled by the UK and still bestowing citizenship to them as Irish citizens should they require it…. and currently also making them members of the EU.”
What’s called an ‘Irish citizen’ is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and what are called ‘Irish passports’ are available only to such citizens. A UK citizen is a citizen of the UK. There is no citizenship of the island of Ireland: there can’t be, because one can only be a citizen of a state.
o are you saying that Irish passport holders are not citizens of the Irish state when the passport declares them to be such? Is that it MT? Are you saying that they have been issued their passports under false pretence and that my passport is an illegal document? I’d like to hear how you reach the conclusion that my travel documents are somehow not legal.I hate to do this lazy cut-and -paste thing which you have a tendency to over-use but you said these words…
.”What’s called an ‘Irish citizen’ is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and what are called ‘Irish passports’ are available only to such citizens. A UK citizen is a citizen of the UK. There is no citizenship of the island of Ireland: there can’t be, because one can only be a citizen of a state.”
That is completely false, i’m afraid and it is far from being fact….So if an Irish passport is , as you say,is only available to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland , then why can I legally have one anywhere in the island of island without having been born in the Republic of Ireland and not having ever lived there? I repeat..I can have that document simply because I am an Irishman and that fact alone allows me to have it .You really need to think that through again.
That should read…So are you saying that Irish passport holders are not citizens of the Irish state when the passport declares them to be such? Is that it MT? Are you saying that they have been issued their passports under false pretence and that my passport is an illegal document? I’d like to hear how you reach the conclusion that my travel documents are somehow not legal.I hate to do this lazy cut-and -paste thing which you have a tendency to over-use but you said these words…
.”What’s called an ‘Irish citizen’ is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and what are called ‘Irish passports’ are available only to such citizens. A UK citizen is a citizen of the UK. There is no citizenship of the island of Ireland: there can’t be, because one can only be a citizen of a state.”
That is completely false, i’m afraid and it is far from being fact….So if an Irish passport is , as you say,is only available to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland , then why can I legally have one anywhere in the island of island without having been born in the Republic of Ireland and not having ever lived there? I repeat..I can have that document simply because I am an Irishman and that fact alone allows me to have it .You really need to think that through again.
Spilled the Merlot on it again?
Just digging into glass number one ,fiosrach…almost time to kick off the shoes and relax…….
Pre- the tv exposé Jonathan Bell had always seemed to be an enthusiastic DUP member, never seeming to show any special signs of a higher morality.
But then he found out that his boss Arlene was feeling the RHI heat and was about to dump all the blame onto him, rightly or wrongly.
Then we got the full evangelical Jonathan in the full glare of publicity, and with God as his witness, he pointed the finger right back at Arlene.
Is it possible to have a major Pauline conversion over a financial scandal?
From the outsider’s point of view, either Jonathan or Arlene are telling lies, or even both of them, and as the whole charade is carried out in public, then we can only judge for ourselves, until the outcome of the judicial inquiry.
It beggars belief that Bell actually thinks that anyone of intelligence is going to swallow the holy show that he put on? I mean give us a break. It was the most self-serving, least Christian nonsense I have ever had the misfortune to witness. To me, the guy comes across as a fraud of the highest, but hey I’m sure they’ll be voting for him in their droves in all the usual places.
Yeah Freddie …but if he believes all of that tent-show Christianity , deep in his heart and mind and believes that a god is looking down on his every move…do you think he was telling lies or was he too frightened and affronted to do that?I think that there is delusion there in his belief- system ,but I also think he was so frightened at his potential loss of position and his fear of god that he was actually telling the truth.The logic of that is that if you believe the “morality” and “decency” of Jonathan , then Arlene was actually the one telling the lies….If you follow that piece of string it has to be one or the other .You can’t have it both ways.Who is on the higher moral ground in this scenario?Who is the “decent”, “moral” person? One of them is running for the post of First Minister , remember.
If we look at the facts we know Harry.
Jonathan did want to stop the scheme in October 1st I think it was.
He was opposed to it continuing on which it did until mind November.
It was in this period it changed from helping themselves to the 600 million put up by London and overspent costing the north near 500 million on top.
That would suggest that Jonathan felt that helping businesses of their choice to the London purse was not stealing but keeping british money within the british community.
Where he did see an issue was with NI shared money being directed to the businesses the DUP were trying to get into the action and possibly those who required the letters to the banks to help get the initial investment money.
By going along with this and seeing what the result was, it most definitely pricked Jonathans conscience.
Bearing in mind, there is quite likely a custodial sentence waiting for someone at the end of this and Jonathan decided to put the blame where he felt it was deserved, on Arlene and the advisers who kept the scheme open until November while helping businesses they chose to notify of the opportunity to, to get in on the action.
Arlene knows this and denied giving that instruction, instead saying it was Jonathan who was running the department then, not her and that the matter was between Jonathan and his civil servants.
I don’t think any future member of a jury will have missed the Nolan production of Jonathans praying before coming clean and spilling the beans that the DUP knew what they were doing was wrong but decided to keep it going a while longer anyway to which he apparently has lots of evidence for the inquiry.
I don’t think there was any decency anywhere among any of those involved but I do believe Jonathan wanted to stop the scheme before it started costing Irish people money out of our block grant.
I do believe he is a deeply religious person, the sort you would not want running any country.
I think there should be a morality test to enter Stormont.
Extreme views that discriminate against minorities and those who have different religious views should exclude zealots from office.
There would be no need for a veto of concern in the first place.
Ha ha , Jessica that “Zealotry Exam ” might cause a few problems, methinks.Politicians by nature, are creatures who appear to have that zealotry gene built into their DNA.Would they be politicians in the first place ,without some of that?
FOR WHOM the BEL-TEL TOLLS
Is Jonathan Bee, well, to be or not to be
A rare role model of, erm, DUP decency?
Publicity is the tocsin
Of those Orange oxen
Of the SUN: quasi Q-modos in the key of V..
can’t help noticing that despite the large number of comments (70) that there is none from MT, I wonder why……………………
Maybe you should ask PK – he seems to know a lot about people.
My thoughts exactly Bridget