Sinn Fein in a huff over new signs

lugha

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In what way am I not honouring the GFA??

I would suggest that anyone who voted for GFA and thus accepted for now, NI as a political entity but demands or even appeals that anything that exhibits or emphasises this political status be toned down is reneging on the agreement they endorsed.

These border signs are just another manifestation, albeit trivial, of this. Other examples by some nationalists is the continued use of terms like the six counties, principally to convey the view that they do not recognise NI. Some took issue with Derry being identified as a UK city of culture. And so on. They even have a new made up insult word, partitionist, to describe those that do respect the agreement that they voted to support.

The clear impression this gives to me is that, much like Dev taking the oath, nationalists have gone though the motions of supporting GFA, but nudge nudge, wink wink, we all know that in reality they only really supported the bits they like.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There was a nasty conflict to quell and that was perhaps the principle driving force behind voting yes to the GFA for most. The GFA is not akin to some sort of biblical map to utopia. The GFA is not the end-game for republicans, rather, a step on the path to their ideological goal of a UI.

No it is not the end game and if they can bring about change, within the parameters of GFA, they let them go for it. But if they supported GFA, and they did, they should for now, honour their commitments, even for the bits they don’t like.

Many of us, the majority I would say, found prisoner release a bitter pill to take but there is no wide-spread (or even narrow) campaign to re-prison those who committed what many of us regarded as criminal acts. And there wasn’t because we endorsed this agreement and are prepared to accept the unpalatable bits.

TheChizler

KeithM89 wrote: »

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

Like yourself? The majority of people in Northern Ireland support the link with the Union. That is all there is to it. You can't deny facts. The rights of those counties to belong to that Union are being upheld and away from Dublin.

Mod:
Genghis Bhan(ed)

/awful

Was that person actually banned? I thought the posts were pretty rational and were analysing other posts reasonably.

Back on topic, what would be acceptable to both sides? Some say mph signs are enough to distinguish a boundary. If these admit there's a national boundary, why not put a name to them and end all ambiguity? Posters say that if you put jurisdiction names on the signs you should but relevant laws and descriptions on as well, but go on to say that mph signs do all this. To me this seems like a code only to be understood by people of this island.

Speaking as someone who isn't fully aware of the situation in the border areas, and for all intents and purposes qualifies as a tourist when driving about in those areas, I would desire some non-cryptic form of signage distinguishing the jurisdictions. I have given many reasons on the thread why many would desire to know what juristiction they are in. For practical purposes, emotions and politics aside, I think signage would be at minimum, handy.

Cú Giobach

lugha wrote: »

I would suggest that anyone who voted for GFA and thus accepted for now, NI as a political entity but demands or even appeals that anything that exhibits or emphasises this political status be toned down is reneging on the agreement they endorsed.

These border signs are just another manifestation, albeit trivial, of this. Other examples by some nationalists is the continued use of terms like the six counties, principally to convey the view that they do not recognise NI. Some took issue with Derry being identified as a UK city of culture. And so on. They even have a new made up insult word, partitionist, to describe those that do respect the agreement that they voted to support.

The clear impression this gives to me is that, much like Dev taking the oath, nationalists have gone though the motions of supporting GFA, but nudge nudge, wink wink, we all know that in reality they only really supported the bits they like..

Well you clearly have no understanding how compromises, treaties or agreements work in the real world by expecting the sun to rise on some sort of perfect telly tubby world the very next day with all the issues vanished forever, unfortunately here on planet Earth that isn't how it works.
The "NI question" hasn't gone away you know and telling people to basically shut up about it just shows a grave (and ultimately dangerous) naivety regarding how such conflicts progress.

Consider something, if all the people who have and talk about the issues you mention hadn't voted for the GFA so as not to be branded hypocrites by certain people, resulting in rejection of the agreement; How do you think the situation in the north would have developed, bearing in mind how thing were going on the ground in the year or two prior to the agreement.
I can tell you one thing, there would be a lot more grieving families in both communities, and for many of us that would be considered quite a negative thing, and concerns such as yours utterly, completely, totally even infinitely irrelevant in the face of such a situation.
Get your priorities in order.

PS. You specifically quoted a part of my post, but did not answer the actual question.

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Get your priorities in order.

So - just to clarify what it amounts to is:

"See that agreed resolution we all signed up to? - unless you go along with our selective reading of it - things could get nasty - very nasty."

I don't think so. It's the kind of blackimail strategy that the OO gets lambasted for (rightly) and has no place in NI politics. The NI question has been resolved on a number of fronts - two of them being the existence of a discreet jurisdiction and territory - Northern Ireland, and of a separate Nation -Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland. The legitimacy of the existing sovereign status of NI within the UK is accepted and uncontested. That might change one day through the mechanism of the democratic franchise, but until then - it's a national border, and anyone who has a problem with that demarcation (or signs to that effect) really needs to remind themselves what the people of this island agreed was a resolution to the NI question years ago.

Are signs at the border neccessary? Probably not. Are they so contentious that local community sensitivities would be offended? Not in any rational world.

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

So - just to clarify what it amounts to is:

"See that agreed resolution we all signed up to? - unless you go along with our selective reading of it - things could get nasty - very nasty."
.

What a load of shite, nothing remotely about what I said.

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What a load of shite, nothing remotely about what I said.

The "NI question" hasn't gone away you know and telling people to basically shut up about it just shows a grave (and ultimately dangerous) naivety regarding how such conflicts progress.

Seems like much of a muchness. I'm loving the sneaky RA reference btw - how's that conflict progressing for you?

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

Seems like much of a muchness. I'm loving the sneaky RA reference btw - how's that conflict progressing for you?

Christ you are paranoid, reading things into every little statement. :rolleyes:
The "conflict" is between two communities in NI and the situation on the ground has not changed much with regard to ongoing tensions, as can be witnessed by the increase in the number of "peace lines" since 1998.
Sneaky RA reference, FFS get a grip.

MagicSean

Sound of Silence wrote: »

They wouldn't be able to tell which Country they're in? I'll ignore the fact that the MPH/KPH sign is a clear indicator of what side of the border they're on and the fact that such signs happen to appear everywhere, not just in select locations like the "Welcome to.." sign.

Some signs happen to be necessary. The sign in question happens not to be, which is clearly indicated by the fact that it won't appear on every stretch of road that happens to cross the border.

You are looking at it like a local. You can't see it from any kind of rational side. I don't know how you can reasonably argue that people shouldn't be notified when they are crossing a national border into a national jurisdiction. Hoping they'll notice the different speed signs and recognise that this means they are in a new country is just ignoring the problem so you can ignore the border.

Some signs are necessary. A sign telling you its 30 miles to Newry in a certain direction is not necessary. Are you campaigning for the removal of these because they are not necessary?

Fenian Army wrote: »

As if an ideological member of the heavy gang like yourself wants to see reunification MagicSean.

I wish people like yourself and Lord Sutch would be honest.

You have an anti SF agenda which is why you started this thread as an attack on a SF member. I don't see anything wrong with his comments, he said that people should have been consulted and seen as they didn't putting up signs was a waste of money as anyone could see that they would be removed by residents.

You don't give a damn about tourists, or giving people information. (signs dealing with that are of course already there)

Yawn. I don't agree with Sinn Fein so I must be a unionist right? Pathetic.

I support a unified Ireland. I think it will be brought about by cooperation and integration, not by ignoring the current reality and looking for any reason to have a fight. I despise the use of violence or illegality to bring about the unification. I dislike the hypocricy of Sinn Fein because I am smart enough to see they are nothing but populists.

One look at your username will tell anyone what kind of person you are. You run around playing soldiers all you want and support the murder of innocents. The mature people will keep working towards a unified and integrated Ireland where everyone has a say and everyone feels welcome.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're making less and less sense here. A sign saying 'Welcome to NI' will not educate people on the differences in laws and that's certainly not the purpose, or function, of the recently erected one's.

My objection to a unionist minister not consulting with the local community on provocative and useless signing is standing in the way of reunification? What a truly bizarre thing to say.

It will notify them they are in a different country and not just a different county. Simple speed signs are not sufficient for this. Ignore it all you'd like.

And you all ignored the rest of my questions so I'll post them again.

MagicSean wrote: »

If it is the case that the problem is solely with the use of the wording "Welcome to Northern Ireland" then what alternative wording would you suggest to inform people they are entering a seperate political and legal entity?

And if the name Northern Ireland is so offensive then why is there no campaigns against its use in other areas such as torism or the Northern Assembly?

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Sneaky RA reference

They haven't gone away you know. :rolleyes:

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

They haven't gone away you know. :rolleyes:

And your point is?

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And your point is?

I doubt anyone missed your inference - they'd have to have their head in the sand. Unless you rather pretend it's a purely coincidental choice of phrase. :rolleyes:

Curly Judge

The sign should read: WATCH OUT FOR LOW LYING SHINNERS

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

I doubt anyone missed your inference - they'd have to have their head in the sand. Unless you rather pretend it's a purely coincidental choice of phrase. :rolleyes:

What choice of phrase??
It was you how said "They haven't gone away" not me, I said the "NI question hasn't gone away" which it hasn't, as can be witnessed by anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence.
What inference??
Are you referring to my factual statement that there is still ongoing conflict between two communities in NI??

Again, get a grip. Try for once to use a little bit of logic and your ability to read English in order to differentiate between people who discuss the ongoing situation and people who are militantly or intransigently stuck "on a war footing".

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What choice of phrase??
It was you how said "They haven't gone away" not me, I said the "NI question hasn't gone away" which it hasn't, as can be witnessed by anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence.
What inference??

You echoed Gerry Adams' familiar meme on the IRA - "They haven't gone away you know" (The "NI question" hasn't gone away you know) in a sentence that warned of the consequences of "grave (and ultimately dangerous) naivety" - ie: actual commitment to the terms of the already agreed resolution legislation - the GFA.

You can spin all you like - but I think anyone with an ounce of familiarity with the iconic soundbite would laugh at the claim there was no inference at play.

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

You echoed Gerry Adams' familiar meme on the IRA - "They haven't gone away you know" (The "NI question" hasn't gone away you know) in a sentence that warned of the consequences of "grave (and ultimately dangerous) naivety" - ie: actual commitment to the terms of the already agreed resolution legislation - the GFA.

You can spin all you like - but I think anyone with an ounce of familiarity with the iconic soundbite would laugh at the claim there was no inference at play.

You're nuts.

R P McMurphy

Whatever about what everyone else thinks, the people in the areas where the signs went up don't want them there and therefore there is no hope of them remaining in place. That is the reality. The one outside Clones only lasted a couple of hours. As soon as they go up they will be taken back down again, it is not possible to enforce something like this without the cooperation of the local community and that will not be forthcoming anytime soon so might as well wave goodbye to the signs idea

TheChizler

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Whatever about what everyone else thinks, the people in the areas where the signs went up don't want them there and therefore there is no hope of them remaining in place. That is the reality. The one outside Clones only lasted a couple of hours. As soon as they go up they will be taken back down again, it is not possible to enforce something like this without the cooperation of the local community and that will not be forthcoming anytime soon so might as well wave goodbye to the signs idea

Do you think there is a particular wording that they might be ok with or is it more the act of marking a border at all? Cause if it was opposition to any kind off marking I'd expect the mph warning signs to be taken down.

R P McMurphy

TheChizler wrote: »

Do you think there is a particular wording that they might be ok with or is it more the act of marking a border at all? Cause if it was opposition to any kind off marking I'd expect the mph warning signs to be taken down.

I don't know, suppose the only way to ascertain that is through local community consultation. The existing ones are clearly unacceptable to the local communities hence their removal. The main problems with the existsing ones are the to do with the person who sanctioned them and his perceived reasons in doing so

lugha

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Well you clearly have no understanding how compromises, treaties or agreements work in the real world by expecting the sun to rise on some sort of perfect telly tubby world the very next day with all the issues vanished forever, unfortunately here on planet Earth that isn't how it works.

I do know how agreements work (the clue is in the name). If you sign up to a agreement then you are morally compelled to abide by it. If it goes to far or demands too much then you don’t sign up. Simples.

GFA patently was not the final solution, indeed part of its appeal is that it promised incompatible outcomes to the two communities (a road map for a united Ireland and the safe guarding of NI within the union).

What it actually was was an arrangement where everybody who signed up to it gave some ground, much less that the amount that one side will ultimately have to give, and they did so because the benefits (peace) ultimately outweighed any concession that they had to make. But once you agreed to concede something then you clearly should not try to subsequently row back on it or dilute it.

It would have been wrong for either government to circumvent the release of prisoners by finding some flimsy pretext to ensure that none were released.

It would have been wrong for an Irish government to try and reinstate articles 2 and 3, were this possible.

It would have been wrong for a British government to try to reconstitute the RUC.

It would have been wrong for the PIRA to use violence for political ends.

It all cases because they agreed to the agreement (excuse my poor sentence construct but I think you are missing the key word in all of this)

And all parties to the agreement, agreed to recognise the state of Northern Ireland. If that was step to far for them then they should not have supported GFA.

Cú Giobach

lugha wrote: »

And all parties to the agreement, agreed to recognise the state of Northern Ireland. If that was step to far for them then they should not have supported GFA.

Grand that is your opinion, but for many of us the prospect of more violence especially the escalating tit for tat killings that were occurring prior to the agreement was of grave importance and something that was of a slightly more important nature than the "major" issue you have.

haulagebasher

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Whatever about what everyone else thinks, the people in the areas where the signs went up don't want them there and therefore there is no hope of them remaining in place. That is the reality. The one outside Clones only lasted a couple of hours. As soon as they go up they will be taken back down again, it is not possible to enforce something like this without the cooperation of the local community and that will not be forthcoming anytime soon so might as well wave goodbye to the signs idea

Well as I said earlier, vadalism and damage play right into the hands of those who seek to brand catholics as barabaric savages.IMO the signs are justified and should be put in place. A coompromise to have bilingual in some areas may be acceptable if the communities accept it.However, those who vandalise or uproot the signs should be prosecuted for the damage and be forced to pay for the cost of reinstatement. Vandalism and criminal damage is NEVER acceptable from anyone form any community. The local council should erect temporary CCTV covering the signs and have the PSNI on speeddial to respond if some little toerag tries to damage it. The Police should keep and eye on it for a week or so after erection and if they catch someone damaginging, there is a good chance that person is connected to Nationalism/Republicanism and they would problably warrant further investigation to see do they have any contraband at their homes or are in any way connected with dissidents. Damaging public property is a crime, whether you like the sign or not, and it should be punished by the courts. I certainly would take a very dim view of anyone who goes out to intentionally damage a sign erected for the benefit of tourists and other travellers.

R P McMurphy

haulagebasher wrote: »

Well as I said earlier, vadalism and damage play right into the hands of those who seek to brand catholics as barabaric savages.IMO the signs are justified and should be put in place. A coompromise to have bilingual in some areas may be acceptable if the communities accept it.However, those who vandalise or uproot the signs should be prosecuted for the damage and be forced to pay for the cost of reinstatement. Vandalism and criminal damage is NEVER acceptable from anyone form any community. The local council should erect temporary CCTV covering the signs and have the PSNI on speeddial to respond if some little toerag tries to damage it. The Police should keep and eye on it for a week or so after erection and if they catch someone damaginging, there is a good chance that person is connected to Nationalism/Republicanism and they would problably warrant further investigation to see do they have any contraband at their homes or are in any way connected with dissidents. Damaging public property is a crime, whether you like the sign or not, and it should be punished by the courts. I certainly would take a very dim view of anyone who goes out to intentionally damage a sign erected for the benefit of tourists and other travellers.

Does not matter if you think they are justified, the local communities do not and therefore they stand no chance of remaining in place. That is the reality. You obviously are unaware of the border areas as policing these areas provides significant problems for the authorities already let alone trying to divert resources to keep up signs that are unwanted by the local populace. The very nature of the border is that is police arive on one side, a couple of steps to the other and you are out of reach. They only way something like this could be done in a sustainable manner is in cooperation with the people that live there. If you bother to look into the background of the person that sanctioned them you might see that the erection of the signs may not have been done solely for 'the benefit of tourists and travellers'
"there is a good chance that person is connected to Nationalism/Republicanism and they would problably warrant further investigation to see do they have any contraband at their homes or are in any way connected with dissidents"

Only really saw that bit now. I am not engaging with you as are obviously too ill informed to enter any dialogue with, talk about painting an entire commnuity with a large brush. Do yourself a favour and go and educate yourself

fasttalkerchat

TheChizler wrote: »

Do you think there is a particular wording that they might be ok with or is it more the act of marking a border at all? Cause if it was opposition to any kind off marking I'd expect the mph warning signs to be taken down.

For me its a case of enforcing division unnecessarily. If there is a need to use the term Northern Ireland I'm fine with it although I'm not 100% comfortable with it myself. Border areas such as Crossmaglen came under attack from the British Army throughout the troubles and are staunchly republican, these signs were meant as a dig to remind people along the border that the border still exists.

haulagebasher

^^^The whys and whatabouts of the erections of the signs and the background of the proposer are irrelevant to the point I was making - you cannot just go outside and smash up a public sign just becasue you don't like the look of it. Its a crime and the police should deter potential vandals by prosecuting those who damage them and that would be achievable with CCTV. If someone doesn't like the signs, fair enough, but there are proper channels for dealing with these things and going out with a sledge hammer is not one of them. Like I said, they don;t do themselves any favours by acting in such a manner.Anyway, presumably the local council would have had to have had voted for and approved the erection ofthem. If groups are that set against them, they should get onto their council instead of going out vandalising public property. I think my proposal for bilingual signs in catholic areas would be a compromise acceptable to most sound minded people.

fasttalkerchat

lugha wrote: »

And all parties to the agreement, agreed to recognise the state of Northern Ireland. If that was step to far for them then they should not have supported GFA.

And all parties agreed on a clear protocol for the ending of the state when the time is right. That was the compromise. It was agreed in the short term in exchange for a long term agreement from the other side.

haulagebasher

Only really saw that bit now. I am not engaging with you as are obviously too ill informed to enter any dialogue with, talk about painting an entire commnuity with a large brush. Do yourself a favour and go and educate yourself

I am not tarring everyone with one brush. I;m just saying that they type of person who will go out and intentioally destroy public property becasue they disagree with it are porobly possibly more lightly to be those sort of people who could potentially get involved in more serious dissident activity. I am not saying defineitely, I am just saying potentially.I seriously hope you are not suggesting that vandals shoudl be let away with or that damage to public property shoudl be tolerated? My point still stands that anyone caught interfereing with the signs shoudl be prosecuted for vanalism. Like so many things, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was to be loyalist thugs vandalising signs for a GAA field (or whatever) would there be the same acceptance? I doubt it.

R P McMurphy

haulagebasher wrote: »

^^^The whys and whatabouts of the erections of the signs and the background of the proposer are irrelevant to the point I was making - you cannot just go outside and smash up a public sign just becasue you don't like the look of it. Its a crime and the police should deter potential vandals by prosecuting those who damage them and that would be achievable with CCTV. If someone doesn't like the signs, fair enough, but there are proper channels for dealing with these things and going out with a sledge hammer is not one of them. Like I said, they don;t do themselves any favours by acting in such a manner.Anyway, presumably the local council would have had to have had voted for and approved the erection ofthem. If groups are that set against them, they should get onto their council instead of going out vandalising public property. I think my proposal for bilingual signs in catholic areas would be a compromise acceptable to most sound minded people.

No the signs were not approved by the local councils as they would not have received approval.

You are missing the point that it is impossible to police the signs unless you have the police standing beside them 24 hours a day. In a place like Belcoo beside Blacklion in cavan, how on earth are they to be kept in place. CCTV won't deter people in the slightest. ]

And you inferrence about people from the nationalist community being involved in criminality is beyond contempt

fasttalkerchat

haulagebasher wrote: »

^^^The whys and whatabouts of the erections of the signs and the background of the proposer are irrelevant to the point I was making - you cannot just go outside and smash up a public sign just becasue you don't like the look of it. Its a crime and the police should deter potential vandals by prosecuting those who damage them and that would be achievable with CCTV. If someone doesn't like the signs, fair enough, but there are proper channels for dealing with these things and going out with a sledge hammer is not one of them. Like I said, they don;t do themselves any favours by acting in such a manner.Anyway, presumably the local council would have had to have had voted for and approved the erection ofthem. If groups are that set against them, they should get onto their council instead of going out vandalising public property. I think my proposal for bilingual signs in catholic areas would be a compromise acceptable to most sound minded people.

There was a decision that the signs would be bad for tourism and unwelcome in most border areas. The signs idea was dropped a year ago under criticism from the Tourism Board. One man decided that they should still go ahead for his own reasons. They were removed by the community after they were shown on the news.

Richard

The signs should have been bilingual. It would have given unionists partial "ownership" of the Irish language whist not setting a precedent for Irish roadsigns throughout NI as they could argue it was a "border thing".

It would also have muted the opposition from Sinn Fein etc.

fasttalkerchat

R P McMurphy wrote: »

You are missing the point that it is impossible to police the signs unless you have the police standing beside them 24 hours a day. In a place like Belcoo beside Blacklion in cavan, how on earth are they to be kept in place. CCTV won't deter people in the slightest. ]

Agreed. When helicopters flew overhead and army patrols ventured into south Armagh no amount of CCTV could deter the locals from taking on the British Army, the poor sign posts never stood a chance!

haulagebasher

^^^^^Please reread the post - i did not infer that all people from the NC are involved in criminality. I said that the MINORITY of people who engage in vandalism could be more likely to be involved in more serious crimes. ie. more liklely than someone who just drives past and goes "meh" and doesn't really care.Again, if they don't like them, they should get together and petition the local council rather than taking the law into their own hands. That is not acceptable in a civilised society.Whoever it is that does it, it is still a crime regardless and it should be punished by the courts. Do you not at least agree with that?

Cú Giobach

haulagebasher wrote: »

That is not acceptable in a (semi) civilised society.

fasttalkerchat

haulagebasher wrote: »

^^^^^Please reread the post - i did not infer that all people from the NC are involved in criminality. I said that the MINORITY of people who engage in vandalism could be more likely to be involved in more serious crimes. ie. more liklely than someone who just drives past and goes "meh" and doesn't really care.Again, if they don't like them, they should get together and petition the local council rather than taking the law into their own hands. That is not acceptable in a (semi) civilised society.Whoever it is that does it, it is still a crime regardless and it should be punished by the courts. Do you not at least agree with that?

The decision had nothing to do with local councils and councils would most likely want the signs removed. There is no point in taking on the politician who put up the signs since he's a UUP politician and Orange Order member.

R P McMurphy

haulagebasher wrote: »

^^^^^Please reread the post - i did not infer that all people from the NC are involved in criminality. I said that the MINORITY of people who engage in vandalism could be more likely to be involved in more serious crimes. ie. more liklely than someone who just drives past and goes "meh" and doesn't really care.Again, if they don't like them, they should get together and petition the local council rather than taking the law into their own hands. That is not acceptable in a (semi) civilised society.Whoever it is that does it, it is still a crime regardless and it should be punished by the courts. Do you not at least agree with that?

If there are to be signs erected then they should be done in a manner that is acceptable to the people that live in the area where they are to be erected. Otherwise is a futile exercise. If you look at the signs themselves they are not exactly welcoming and are there for one reason only. I am sure that if an information sign was developed in conjunction with the local communities that they would stand a better chance of survival.

What is the point of petitioning the local council when it was not the councils decision to put them up? What would be the point of petitioning the person that sanctioned them when the perception is that his motives are disingenuous? I would safely say that no person will ever be prosecuted for the removal of the signs as it is impossible to police.

And please do explain what you mean by a semi-civilised society

haulagebasher

Anyone caught interfering with, removing or damaging the signs should be prosecuted for vandalism/theft

Chuck Stone

Communities agree to be policed. When the police become the tool of one side then they aren't a civilian police force any more.

The communities who populate the border areas (and who happen to be predominately non-Unionist in heritage) should have been consulted on the issue and an agreement reached or the trolling prevented plan shelved.

As for forcing the community to accept them? Yep, just keep banging your head against that wall. If the people of the border have proved one thing it's that they will not be pushed around. The British army had to travel in and out of there by helicopter at one stage FFS do people really think a few CCTV cameras are going to stop them from turning the signs into scrap?

Slow learners.

haulagebasher

I feel as if i'm flaking my head off a wall. The locals going out and knocking down the signs is playing into the hands of the loyalists/trolls. They are giving them the reaction they are looking for. They are as bad as them for taking the bait and rising to it.Frustrate the troll by ignoring the sign. Having said that, anyone caught should be punished.

haulagebasher

R P McMurphy wrote: »

And please do explain what you mean by a semi-civilised society

It was merely a jest. Historically NI can harly be held up as the pinnacle of restraint and calm and civilised behaviour. It was a small joke lad, jeez.

What is the point of petitioning the local council when it was not the councils decision to put them up? What would be the point of petitioning the person that sanctioned them when the perception is that his motives are disingenuous? I would safely say that no person will ever be prosecuted for the removal of the signs as it is impossible to police.

Rather that go out all irate and knock them, they should at least try and go through the proper channels to have them removed. Can you please confirm your position on whether individuals, if caught, should be prosecuted?

fasttalkerchat

haulagebasher wrote: »

I feel as if i'm flaking my head off a wall. The locals going out and knocking down the signs is playing into the hands of the loyalists/trolls. They are giving them the reaction they are looking for. They are as bad as them for taking the bait and rising to it.Frustrate the troll by ignoring the sign. Having said that, anyone caught should be punished.

Ignoring partition won't make it go away. I don't see how anyone could have expected the nationalist people to ingnore many of the things that happened during the troubles. If we hadn't risen up (peacefully or otherwise) we would still have unfair housing distribution, fewer job prospects, and even if we had the right to vote, gerrymandering to lessen the effect of Catholic votes.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Communities agree to be policed. When the police become the tool of one side then they aren't a civilian police force any more.

The communities who populate the border areas (and who happen to be predominately non-Unionist in heritage) should have been consulted on the issue and an agreement reached or the trolling prevented plan shelved.

As for forcing the community to accept them? Yep, just keep banging your head against that wall. If the people of the border have proved one thing it's that they will not be pushed around. The British army had to travel in and out of there by helicopter at one stage FFS do people really think a few CCTV cameras are going to stop them from turning the signs into scrap?

Slow learners.

good attempt at justifying violence and criminality there. Stay classy.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

good attempt at justifying violence and criminality there. Stay classy.

Sorry, but you stopped being coherent in this thread a few pages back.

Defiler Of The Coffin

MagicSean wrote: »

good attempt at justifying violence and criminality there. Stay classy.

Around and around the MagicSean Roundabout we go. Where it stops nobody knows. The signs are "practical and necessary" and that's end of that. Nothing else factors into the equation at all.

You pulled the same tricks in the Legalise Cannabis thread as well, constant circular arguments and strawmen.

Waste of time.

haulagebasher

I've asked this question but people keep conveniently avoiding it. Do you agree that those caught dmaging or removing the shigns should be prosecuted for theft/vandalism? Or perhaps you think it acceptable do you?

Chuck Stone

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Waste of time.

Indeed.

A person utterly obsessed with enforcing 'law and order' regardless of how patently stupid/immoral/abusive those laws are.

haulagebasher

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Indeed.

A person utterly obsessed with enforcing 'law and order' regardless of how patently stupid/immoral/abusive those laws are.

Can you please just answer the question. Otherwise I shall have to assume you wish to avoid it becasue you condone the theft and damage of public property. As I said before, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a GAA sign being targetted by loyalists certain posters might not be so placid and would have a change of heart and be up in arms about it.............
Are you seriously suggesting that anti vadalism laws are stupid and abusive?This thread has gone to the circus. I'm done here.

SocSocPol

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sorry, but you stopped being coherent in this thread a few pages back.

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Around and around the MagicSean Roundabout we go. Where it stops nobody knows. The signs are "practical and necessary" and that's end of that. Nothing else factors into the equation at all.

You pulled the same tricks in the Legalise Cannabis thread as well, constant circular arguments and strawmen.

Waste of time.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Indeed.

A person utterly obsessed with enforcing 'law and order' regardless of how patently stupid/immoral/abusive those laws are.

Whats this, national attack the poster not the post day?:mad:

Chuck Stone

haulagebasher wrote: »

Can you please just answer the question. Otherwise I shall have to assume you wish to avoid it becasue you condone the theft and damage of public property.

It's a meaningless after-the-fact question.

The border communities should have been consulted before the signs were erected.

Do you agree with the above statement?

Chuck Stone

SocSocPol wrote: »

Whats this, national attack the poster not the post day?:mad:

I didn't attack the poster I called his views into question. I've never met the guy. He could be a perfect gentleman for all I know, probably is?

I just find his letterbox view of law and order limited and not worth engaging with in any substantive manner.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sorry, but you stopped being coherent in this thread a few pages back.

Perfectly coherent. I reposted the questions for you and you still refused to answer them. The reason being you cannot. And don't even pretend your comment about the police not being a civilian police force was anything other than an attempt to justify the use of violence against them.

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Around and around the MagicSean Roundabout we go. Where it stops nobody knows. The signs are "practical and necessary" and that's end of that. Nothing else factors into the equation at all.

You pulled the same tricks in the Legalise Cannabis thread as well, constant circular arguments and strawmen.

Waste of time.

Tricks? You call it circular, I call it sticking to my point. I'm not the one who has brought strawmen into this thread. I posted about the need for practical and necessary signage to advise people when moving from country to country and I've stayed with that as much as possible and ye have brought in 700 years of opression and accused everyone else of being a unionist because they don't follow your views.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Indeed.

A person utterly obsessed with enforcing 'law and order' regardless of how patently stupid/immoral/abusive those laws are.

I'd rather be accused of that than be justifying murder and criminal damage because someone put up a sign I don't like.

haulagebasher

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's a meaningless after-the-fact question.

The border communities should have been consulted before the signs were erected.

Do you agree with the above statement?

No it's not. It is relevant as I feel a lack of wiliingness to prosecute means an acceptance of [admittely mild] dissident criminal activity. Can you please answer it.I asked the question first, so ......, I also want to be given an answer to the "if the shoe was on the other foot" question. Then I shall answer your question.