David McKittrick; These protests are NOT over the flag.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is missing in the thinking of Unionists is the fact that the GFA bestows special status on NI, it is not wholly British and not wholly Irish either. It is imperative that both identities construct a society that fairly reflects the shared identities. Beligerent displays like this one are not and should not, be allowed in the spirit of the agreement. Seems to me a simple acceptance of the fact (that the Union Jack is an antagonistic emblem if used in this way) would be a huge leap forward. It is no accident that we are plunging into an abyss here.

i think you will find the loyalists think the same about the tricolour that the republicans wave in the name of ireland,me i am all for a shared ireland,as long as citizens of the republic are prepared to pay their part of the cost in running that mixed up part of the country.

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

... me i am all for a shared ireland,as long as citizens of the republic are prepared to pay their part of the cost in running that mixed up part of the country.

Do you have some more explanations about that?

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

i think you will find the loyalists think the same about the tricolour that the republicans wave in the name of ireland,me i am all for a shared ireland,as long as citizens of the republic are prepared to pay their part of the cost in running that mixed up part of the country.

It's 'mixed up' because it isn't a normal society. Robinson and Nesbitt need to realise (and I think they now do) that you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. This crisis lies firmly at their door.

Thomas_I

maccored wrote: »

'democracy' ... thats a bit of a dirty word at present.

It´s no dirty word at all. The "dirt" is on the side of these thugs using the Union Flag as a stick to assault Police men and by doing so, bringing the flag down on the ground. They´ve no respect for their own flag because if they had, they´d behave different. A bunch of ignorants.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's 'mixed up' because it isn't a normal society. Robinson and Nesbitt need to realise (and I think they now do) that you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. This crisis lies firmly at their door.

for once we both agree on the same thing,only i was thinking of the sinn fein MPs refusing to sit in parliament to represent their constituents,what was it,run with the ....

VinLieger

Thomas_I wrote: »

Do you have some more explanations about that?

Well the fact that UK parliament have to subsidise NI every year is one explanation, were already ****ed economically why take on the money pit up north?

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

Do you have some more explanations about that?

just responding to happyman 42 quote by the GFA.its not wholly british and not wholly irish,then they should share the costs ?

Thomas_I

VinLieger wrote: »

Well the fact that UK parliament have to subsidise NI every year is one explanation, were already ****ed economically why take on the money pit up north?

That´s their duty, I suppose. I see no reason (except in the case of Irelands unification) for why the citizens of the RoI should pay for a part of the Irish Island which isn´t part of their own state at all. As long the British keep it, as long they´re obliged to pay for it.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

That´s their duty, I suppose. I see no reason (except in the case of Irelands unification) for why the citizens of the RoI should pay for a part of the Irish Island which isn´t part of their own state at all. As long the British keep it, as long they´re obliged to pay for it.

But not fly the British flag?

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

just responding to happyman 42 quote by the GFA.its not wholly british and not wholly irish,then they should share the costs ?

I don´t see it that simple as that. The GFA has its terms and conditions to run a shared government, but I don´t believe that it says anything in any way that NI would be such thing like an "external associated country to the UK".

I also think that you´d hardly find many people in the RoI willing to pay for NI.

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

for once we both agree on the same thing,only i was thinking of the sinn fein MPs refusing to sit in parliament to represent their constituents,what was it,run with the ....

How does that impact ordinary Unionists would you say?

Again, you have to allow people maintain and stay true to their identities, that is what everybody signed up to in the GFA. SF have been at pains to say that they have no problem with Unionists expressing and celebrating their identity in a fair and non-antagonistic way. They compromised on the flag issue, that is what being democratic is about. They realise that they cannot 'dictate' what that identity should be.

Any more whataboutery to avoid criticising the elephant in the room?

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

But not fly the British flag?

Of course it´s natural that they can fly it, but I know at least some people on here who already disagreed with me on that. But no matter their disagreement, it´s still part of the UK and therefore it is normally legitimate to have it on public buildings.

So "if the RoI" would share the costs in running NI, would it also be appropriate to fly the Irish tri-colour alongside the Union flag? It would be rather perceived to pay a huge price for having the Irish flag flown there. That´s too expensive for a bargain, isn´t it?

By the way, there are some interesting statements made by Mr Robinson and Mr McGuinness in NIA recently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21015778

The claim that there is some sort of "BNP" involved in these riots is an new remark in the whole thing.

maccored

gallag wrote: »

But not fly the British flag?

? They have the right to fly the flag as much as anywhere else has - the same number of designated days.

There seems to be a lot of half hidden support for these rioters on this forum.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

How does that impact ordinary Unionists would you say?

Again, you have to allow people maintain and stay true to their identities, that is what everybody signed up to in the GFA. SF have been at pains to say that they have no problem with Unionists expressing and celebrating their identity in a fair and non-antagonistic way. They compromised on the flag issue, that is what being democratic is about. They realise that they cannot 'dictate' what that identity should be.

Any more whataboutery to avoid criticising the elephant in the room?

is this the same SF who was protesting outside the PSNI headquarters while at the same time asking people to co-operate with the PSNI over the murder of david black ?as the leader of irelands fianna fail,micheal martin said quote sinn fein had a problem in their credibility,

maccored

Any more whataboutery to avoid criticising the elephant in the room?

Yes, I think there is:

getz wrote: »

is this the same SF who was protesting outside the PSNI headquarters while at the same time asking people to co-operate with the PSNI over the murder of david black ?as the leader of irelands fianna fail,micheal martin said quote sinn fein had a problem in their credibility,

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

is this the same SF who was protesting outside the PSNI headquarters while at the same time asking people to co-operate with the PSNI over the murder of david black ?as the leader of irelands fianna fail,micheal martin said quote sinn fein had a problem in their credibility,

I am critical of the Irish government on some things and on other things I applaud them. Which is what SF do, which is what any 'normal' democratic political party do. That is what happens in the mind of a normal democrat, I don't shout NO, bring my community to a standstill, destroy the hard work of moderates and the image of my political alliegences and then crawl home to bed and forget about it. Which is what happens in Unionism/Loyalism again and again, they cannot resist, they cannot progress because nobody is leading them, nobody has a vision of what normality actually is but more importantly, I think, they have no desire for normality, because they themselves will become redundant in a 'normal' society.

R P McMurphy

Thomas_I wrote: »

Of course it´s natural that they can fly it, but I know at least some people on here who already disagreed with me on that. But no matter their disagreement, it´s still part of the UK and therefore it is normally legitimate to have it on public buildings.

So "if the RoI" would share the costs in running NI, would it also be appropriate to fly the Irish tri-colour alongside the Union flag? It would be rather perceived to pay a huge price for having the Irish flag flown there. That´s too expensive for a bargain, isn´t it?

By the way, there are some interesting statements made by Mr Robinson and Mr McGuinness in NIA recently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21015778

The claim that there is some sort of "BNP" involved in these riots is an new remark in the whole thing.

Seems to be some BNP types on involving themselves on the internet at least

SoulandForm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Seems to be some BNP types on involving themselves on the internet at least

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scots-ex-bnp-chief-seen-fuelling-1525117

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scots-ex-bnp-chief-seen-fuelling-1525117

Interesting article and after reading it, it´s no surprise that these kind of polticial extremists use the opportunity to get some "publicity". To mix with these sort of people doesn´t give the Unionist / Loyalist credit. The fact that some "Unionist thugs" even refuse to listen to their own people from the UDA / UVF to stop the rioting makes it even worse, let alone to have a differencial view on the protesters. First they hijacked the Union Flag for their porposes, now they´re hijacked by these Fascists and by this bearing the disgrace to be used by a "convicted" Ex-BNP leader. Otherwise I´m not so sure whether that suites some Unionists / Loyalists to be in that bad company.

Thomas_I

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Seems to be some BNP types on involving themselves on the internet at least

I don´t know very much about their activities. It´s just another occation that Martin McGuinness is telling things which later on are proved right. One can say about him what one likes, but I think that Mr McGuinness has some talent. Aside from this topic it springs to my mind that it was him who confronted Sean Gallagher during the presidential election campaign with that "€5000" cheque, collected by Gallagher when he was the man for the fundrising of FF. Not one of the other candidates did and so in this flag issue, not one of the other parties within the NIA mentioned any connection of the rioters to the BNP. Had the others no knowledge about that?

Crooked Jack

Check out the guy on the left. Frazer's right hand man, you could say

Lingua Franca

Is the BNP connection news to this forum? That's very surprising, I thought everyone knew about it already. There have been plenty of articles articles, photographs and videos published since this began pointing out the BNP connection to the protests.

As well as teh well documented Jim Dowson we have Glen Kane and Paul Golding.



Nick Griffin tweets:
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/291149078207795200
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/291150017526394880
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/290793018548690944
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/290794312596336641
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/289295096959086593
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/278241735379935233 "400 on demo in Larne tonight v attacks on British identity. Hundreds of BNP leaflets well received. Well done local team."

...etc. He's tweeting regularly on the subject, it seems to be an issue very close to his heart. Or at least a means to garnering support and votes.

R P McMurphy

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Is the BNP connection news to this forum? That's very surprising, I thought everyone knew about it already. There have been plenty of articles articles, photographs and videos published since this began pointing out the BNP connection to the protests.

As well as teh well documented Jim Dowson we have Glen Kane and Paul Golding.



Nick Griffin tweets:
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/291149078207795200
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/291150017526394880
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/290793018548690944
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/290794312596336641
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/289295096959086593
https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/278241735379935233 "400 on demo in Larne tonight v attacks on British identity. Hundreds of BNP leaflets well received. Well done local team."

...etc. He's tweeting regularly on the subject, it seems to be an issue very close to his heart. Or at least a means to garnering support and votes.

Just when I thought my opinion of the protests couldn't get much lower. Would like to hear Griffin's incisive insight into the affair, could he even point Belfast out on a map

GRMA

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Just when I thought my opinion of the protests couldn't get much lower. Would like to hear Griffin's incisive insight into the affair, could he even point Belfast out on a map

Your opinion can get a bit lower I think...

I hear loyalists are planning a "Unionist Civil Rights March" at the same time and place as the Bloody Sunday Commemoration march in Derry...

Similar happened on Bloody Sunday when a loyalist mob protested at the Guildhall, where the NICRA march was headed to.

junder

Bnp has no involvement in the protests where I live and they would not be welcome to either

ColinHassard

Sane people still exist upon this island. This is an anthem for those who feel disillusioned and let down by the rioters and the politicians. One mob destroy our streets and our image, the other mob destroy everything else from the economy to healthcare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAIbHIG2luo

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

Bnp has no involvement in the protests where I live and they would not be welcome to either

Because they suspect that he is still anti-Zionist? Would David Irvine or Billy Wright they were alive be welcome? Those men were a good deal more hate filled and murderously so than Nick Griffin. The correct comparison between Loyalists on the mainland would not be with the BNP but with Combat 18.

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

Bnp has no involvement in the protests where I live and they would not be welcome to either

You demand a much higher quality of thug, eh?

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

Because they suspect that he is still anti-Zionist? Would David Irvine or Billy Wright they were alive be welcome? Those men were a good deal more hate filled and murderously so than Nick Griffin. The correct comparison between Loyalists on the mainland would not be with the BNP but with Combat 18.

Is that the David ervine who had members of the British and Irish governments attend his funeral, the same David ervine who had Gerry Adams and other members of Sinn Fein at his funeral as well, whose wife is promoting Irish within the unionist community?

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

Is that the David ervine who had members of the British and Irish governments attend his funeral, the same David ervine who had Gerry Adams and other members of Sinn Fein at his funeral as well, whose wife is promoting Irish within the unionist community?

The Irish government invited the UDA down to meet the Queen. The Provisionals have their own sectarian blood on their hands so that might explain why they didnt have a problem attending his funeral. And as for the British government...

The man was involved in sectarian murder and never repented of the fact.

Chuck Stone

SoulandForm wrote: »

Would David Irvine or Billy Wright they were alive be welcome?

I don't think the two men's names should be in the same sentence unless they're being used for contrast.

One was an unrepentant bloodthirsty degenerate and the other was a former paramilitary turned peacemaker.

SoulandForm

There were nasty sectarian elements in the RUC; but there were also a lot of honourable men and women who sincerely believed that they were doing their best for society, the same can be said about the PIRA. The Loyalists are completely other story.

SoulandForm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't think the two men's names should be in the same sentence unless they're being used for contrast.

One was an unrepentant bloodthirsty degenerate and the other was a former paramilitary turned peacemaker.

Nah maybe they were both unrepentant bloodthirsty degenerates just one was in the pocket of the UK state and the other was is own man which is why they colluded with his killing/murder in the highest security prison in western Europe?

Chuck Stone

SoulandForm wrote: »

Nah maybe they were both unrepentant bloodthirsty degenerates just one was in the pocket of the UK state and the other was is own man which is why they colluded with his killing/murder in the highest security prison in western Europe?

Here you go.

SoulandForm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Here you go.

Read the whole From the Grave texts...Brendan Hughes is brutally honest and in places shows himself in a very bad light indeed, though he makes excuses. Compare that to the text that David Irvine came out with. His sudden emergence was interesting to say the least.

GRMA

A far as loyalists go Irvine was better than most but that is not saying much.

I think if he hadn't have died he could have redeemed himself further

SoulandForm

GRMA wrote: »

A far as loyalists go Irvine was better than most but that is not saying much.

I think if he hadn't have died he could have redeemed himself further

Really?

The Loyalists were fed a lot of information from elements in the RUC but rather than go after members of the Provisional movement who were involved in violence they decided most the time to pick on very easy targets, but there were elements in the British establishment who were pleased with just that; also what he came out with suited what the British state wanted at that time- do you really think that there were not UK state elements within the Loyalists? And that those state elements would not have come out with his type talk at the time?

A lot of working class Unionists support the Alliance Party. Why is it that Naomi Long doesnt get invited by the Irish President to meet the Queen? I really dont understand the attitude of people from RC backgrounds to Loyalists most of the time. The hardship they inflict on their communities is something to behold.

woodoo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Check out the guy on the left. Frazer's right hand man, you could say

A very irish looking lot in that photo. apart from the flags. Not a stereotypical saxon among them.

SoulandForm

GRMA wrote: »

A far as loyalists go Irvine was better than most but that is not saying much.

I think if he hadn't have died he could have redeemed himself further

Loyalists are akin to neo-Nazies.

Shame on Ireland north and south as well as the English establishment for allowing this political cancer to prosper.

But OWC will always be a freak show until partition ends.

gallag

Soulandform, I am starting to think you dont like the loyalists????

SoulandForm

gallag wrote: »

Soulandform, I am starting to think you dont like the loyalists????

Its not a matter mate of not liking them, I absolutely hate them.

That doesnt go for many people in or who vote for the DUP necessarily . The DUP is a lot more active than the UUP and on economic issues is a lot more left wing. There are a lot of good reasons that people who are Protestant or from a Protestant background would vote for the DUP over the UUP.

gallag

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its not a matter mate of not liking them, I absolutely hate them.

I thought that, I do have a gift for picking these things up though :-)

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its not a matter mate of not liking them, I absolutely hate them.

That doesnt go for many people in or who vote for the DUP necessarily . The DUP is a lot more active than the UUP and on economic issues is a lot more left wing. There are a lot of reasons that people who are Protestant or from a Protestant background would vote for the DUP over the UUP.

The only person I see expressing and facist sentiments is yourself, so what would you do to this community you dispise so much, if you had the chance

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

The only person I see expressing and facist sentiments is yourself, so what would you do to this community you dispise so much, if you had the chance

Did you hear Naomi Long speak about "gate keepers" who claim to speak for Working class Unionist communities?

Well I would remove the gatekeepers and the godfathers from their positions of power.

These communities have some genuine and some over the top fears of the other side, as the other side has of them. I would try to deal constructively with that.

An attack on Loyalism does not equal an attack on the unionist/Protestant working class. You only need to look at the rejection of PUP at the ballot box to see that.

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

Did you hear Naomi Long speak about "gate keepers" who claim to speak for Working class Unionist communities?

Well I would remove the gatekeepers and the godfathers from their positions of power.

These communities have some genuine and some over the top fears of the other side, as the other side has of them. I would try to deal constructively with that.

An attack on Loyalism does not equal an attack on the unionist/Protestant working class. You only need to look at the rejection of PUP at the ballot box to see that.

Alot of working class Protestants class themselves as loyalist

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

Alot of working class Protestants class themselves as loyalist

At the end of the day more working class Protestants and those from a Protestant background vote for the Alliance than they do for the PUP.

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

At the end of the day more working class Protestants and those from a Protestant background vote for the Alliance than they do for the PUP.

Evidence?

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

The only person I see expressing and facist sentiments is yourself, so what would you do to this community you dispise so much, if you had the chance

What would you do to the Republican community if you had a chance? Do you believe in repartition?

I strongly disagree with gallag- but I do understand and respect where he is coming from. With you I neither understand fully, I dont think you do yourself, or respect.

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

Evidence?

Oh catch yourself- you look at the votes cast where and who gets elected and who doesnt. You know well its the truth.

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

Oh catch yourself- you look at the votes cast where and who gets elected and who doesnt. You know well its the truth.

No alliance party mla's elected where I live, and Naomi only got east Belfast because iris couldn't keep her knickers on. Alliance party voters normally hail from cultra and would be middle class soft unionists