Arlene Foster and the RHI scandal

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think sticking to religiously fundamentalist and culturally oppressive policies should be lauded, no. So you laud away to your hearts content.

I'm not lauding them. I am just pointing out that some parties are lauded for sticking to pre-election promises (Sinn Fein) and some are castigated for sticking to pre-election promises (DUP).

Differential treatment in other words.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I'm not lauding them. I am just pointing out that some parties are lauded for sticking to pre-election promises (Sinn Fein) and some are castigated for sticking to pre-election promises (DUP).

Differential treatment in other words.

They (DUP) promised to block progress just to spite one other party. They cared less about the people who need that progress for archaic bigoted values.
SF are just another political party, as cynical and vote conscious as any, but old, archaic and bigoted they are not.
The decent world press know it and Dublin and Westminster know it.

RicePat

A Little Pony wrote: »

No one has to listen. Give and take, Unionists have issues we would like looked at. Its not the Sinn Fein show even if you want it to be.

Such as? I'm not being facetious, I'd genuinely like to know because so far the only thing that's come out is that the DUP tried to insert a law that would give preferential treatment to ex brits when it came to public services, into an Irish language act

RicePat

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you believe Sinn Fein will get all they want then dream on, it isn't going to happen. You have to give and take. By all accounts the DUP wanted a military covenant which was rejected I read and as a Unionist the military is important to us. We want equality please.

A military covenant is the opposite of equality. It gives preferential treatment to people because they went to somebody else's country and shot at them

RicePat

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course they are, I wasn't disputing that. I was just suggesting that a period of direct rule where the types of things you were suggesting were implemented by London that the people of Northern Ireland might learn the virtues of rejecting the extremists on both sides.

Can't abide lazy sentences like this.

SF's key demands in this election are either equality based or the very reasonable request that someone who orchestrated the biggest financial scandal in the history of the north kindly step aside temporarily while an inquiry takes place.

SF are not "the extremists" here

RicePat

blanch152 wrote: »

Similarly, there is no express provision in the GFA for an Irish Language Act and the DUP have never promised one, yet SF keep accusing the DUP of breaking promises. All spin, and all provocative from SF.

Putting new issues on the table dressed up as false broken promises is one sure way of antagonising the other side and ensuring there won't be progress.

I am leaving it there as this has the potential to go on and on.

There is in St. Andrew's though, which the DUP very much signed. Now either they are lying or they didnt read it before signing it. Which is it? Liars or incompetent?

blanch152

RicePat wrote: »

There is in St. Andrew's though, which the DUP very much signed. Now either they are lying or they didnt read it before signing it. Which is it? Liars or incompetent?

I don't know how many times this has to be posted up here. The St. Andrews Agreement provides for a Strategy, not an Act. A Strategy may or may not include an Act.

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-irish-language-act-3209218-Jan2017/

"The DUP’s claim that they never agreed to establish an Irish Language Act as part of St Andrews Agreement is true, as the legislation refers to the British government’s commitment to an Irish Language Act, not the DUP’s.
Although they signed up to the St Andrews Agreement, this includes a commitment by the UK government, and not the DUP. After devolution, responsibility for a language policy was transferred to the Northern Ireland Executive, but this did not include a commitment to establish an Irish Language Act.
What was legislated for was a language strategy, which could include, but is not the same as, an Irish Language Act.
Apart from the St Andrews Agreement, there’s no evidence that they’ve ever agreed to establish an Irish Language Act.
Claim: “The DUP at no point has ever agreed to establish an Irish Language Act with the UK government, with the Irish government, with Sinn Féin or anybody else.”
Verdict: TRUE"


There are a number of urban myths circulating about the North. For the purposes of clarity I can set out my take on them:

Firstly, the DUP did not agree to an Irish Language Act (see above link)

Secondly, the GFA does not mandate a border poll. The Schedule 1 test requires the SOS to hold a poll only if "it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland". Therefore no party can request or demand a border poll (see this link for text of Good Friday Agreement - click on Good Friday Agreement).

https://www.dfa.ie/our-role-policies/northern-ireland/the-good-friday-agreement-and-today/

Strangely enough, the Sinn Fein website version of the text omits Schedule 1. Are they trying to spin this issue?

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/15244

Thirdly, it is often stated that the phrase "recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland" means that no other person can have a say in a referendum. The phrase "without external impediment" means that nothing such as a House of Lords veto or royal declaration can stop a united Ireland if the people so decided. That is all, straight and simple. It does not mean "without external interference". You don't find "interference" among the synonyms for "impediment".

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/impediment

As a result, if they so wish, British political parties, the Queen, the Prime Minister etc. can all campaign or express desires in respect of such a referendum, however, they can do nothing to block whatever result. See above GFA links for exact text.

Fourthly, it is said that once one referendum is held, there will be one every seven years. Again, not so. The same test, that the SoS must have formed an opinion that the referendum would be passed must be passed. It is a minimum of seven years, not an automaticity. See above GFA links for exact text.

Fifthly, the phrase used in the Downing Street Declaration is often cited as meaning the UK wants rid of Northern Ireland. Here is what was said: "he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the totality of relationships" Notice the careful phrasing. The words in bold show the conditionality of the commitment. It is restricted to a "selfish" interest and the secondary interests of the British government are not noted. Of course, the primary interest of any government of any State is peace and stability in their territory - it goes without saying everywhere else in the world. What is most interesting is that the Prime Minister never said that the UK doesn't have any economic interest in Northern Ireland. Neither did he say they didn't have political, cultural or defence interests in Northern Ireland. Once again, a link to the text so you can read for yourself:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/dsd151293.htm

Interestingly, the phrase "without external impediment" also appears with much more clarity and similar to my interpretation.

Finally, you often hear it said that the British admitted that the IRA were never militarily defeated. Here is Ed Moloney's take on that which puts it better than I could:

http://thepensivequill.am/2015/08/so-was-ira-defeated-or-not.html

Where did the phrase come from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

An 18-second youtube clip? Hardly convincing, one man's view, possibly out of context.

You won't find mainstream Southern political parties crowing about defeating the IRA (as bad as they can be, they wouldn't be so crass) but here is the Workers Solidarity Movement's take on this:

http://www.wsm.ie/c/ira-undefeated-army-myth

""IRA Undefeated Army" is a myth propagated by the Sinn Fein and IRA leadership to cover their retreat from republican politics and enable them to hold as much of their power base together as possible. The truth was that the IRA was on the verge of defeat, heavily infiltrated by the British, diminishing in terms of volunteers, experience, capacity and support, more and more isolated politically and without a strategy or hope for a breakthrough. This is not to question the willingness or courage of those wishing to continue the armed struggle. It is simply to state the facts, the IRA was defeated in all but name."

Pretty hard to disagree with that part of their analysis.

A rather long post, but just setting out the primary source material behind some of the common Republican myths to allow people to make up their own mind about what the phrases mean. The Sinn Fein interpretation is well known, the alternative and the source material are less well-known.

LuckyLloyd

blanch152 wrote: »

What is progress? It is a subjective rather than objective place.

You define progress a certain way and from that perspective and opinion the DUP are the only ones blocking progress. You can then say that anyone disputing that is guilty of a falsehood.

However, the whole position is based on a definition of progress, while not arbitrary, which is constructed from a green tinted view of the world.

From the orange tinted view of the world, there may well be some acknowledgement that the DUP are not the most helpful, but there will also be a strong view that SF are playing their part in blocking progress. For example, at a time when support for a united Ireland in the immediate future remains at a low, calling for a border poll could be seen as provocative.

I am not saying I agree with either tinted view of the world, but any perspective that only blames one side in a dispute is usually wrong, and often very wrong.

Marriage equality is social progress, right? Any party blocking that must be an awfully regressive bunch, right?!

blanch152

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Marriage equality is social progress, right? Any party blocking that must be an awfully regressive bunch, right?!

In my opinion, it is social progress.

In the opinion of fundamental Christians and many Muslims, it is social regression.

There are no objective measures of such issues, only subjective.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know how many times this has to be posted up here. The St. Andrews Agreement provides for a Strategy, not an Act. A Strategy may or may not include an Act.

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-irish-language-act-3209218-Jan2017/

"The DUP’s claim that they never agreed to establish an Irish Language Act as part of St Andrews Agreement is true, as the legislation refers to the British government’s commitment to an Irish Language Act, not the DUP’s.
Although they signed up to the St Andrews Agreement, this includes a commitment by the UK government, and not the DUP. After devolution, responsibility for a language policy was transferred to the Northern Ireland Executive, but this did not include a commitment to establish an Irish Language Act.
What was legislated for was a language strategy, which could include, but is not the same as, an Irish Language Act.
Apart from the St Andrews Agreement, there’s no evidence that they’ve ever agreed to establish an Irish Language Act.
Claim: “The DUP at no point has ever agreed to establish an Irish Language Act with the UK government, with the Irish government, with Sinn Féin or anybody else.”
Verdict: TRUE"


There are a number of urban myths circulating about the North. For the purposes of clarity I can set out my take on them:

Firstly, the DUP did not agree to an Irish Language Act (see above link)

Never mind any of that, the simple fact is they are refusing to implement an Irish Language act which does not threaten them or their identities one iota.

Secondly, the GFA does not mandate a border poll. The Schedule 1 test requires the SOS to hold a poll only if "it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland". Therefore no party can request or demand a border poll (see this link for text of Good Friday Agreement - click on Good Friday Agreement).

https://www.dfa.ie/our-role-policies/northern-ireland/the-good-friday-agreement-and-today/

Strangely enough, the Sinn Fein website version of the text omits Schedule 1. Are they trying to spin this issue?

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/15244

Conversely, there is nothing to stop anyone asking for for a border poll and it is not a redline issue with regard to forming an Executive anyway.

Thirdly, it is often stated that the phrase "recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland" means that no other person can have a say in a referendum. The phrase "without external impediment" means that nothing such as a House of Lords veto or royal declaration can stop a united Ireland if the people so decided. That is all, straight and simple. It does not mean "without external interference". You don't find "interference" among the synonyms for "impediment".http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/impediment

As a result, if they so wish, British political parties, the Queen, the Prime Minister etc. can all campaign or express desires in respect of such a referendum, however, they can do nothing to block whatever result. See above GFA links for exact text.

Wrong as another clause deals with the possibility of a decision to unite being blocked.

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise
their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii)
above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on
both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments
legislation to give effect to that wish;

The wording is in relation to 'being able to choose, without 'outside impediment'.
Also, how does 'it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone...' work if the British government is going to weigh in making promises and entreaties to remain?
At one point in the peace process great importance was made of getting Britain to admit they had 'no selfish strategic or economic interest' anymore. It actually stalled progress for some time. Their interest was always 'selfish'.

Look this stuff up in the chronologies, you are under-informed.

Fourthly, it is said that once one referendum is held, there will be one every seven years. Again, not so. The same test, that the SoS must have formed an opinion that the referendum would be passed must be passed. It is a minimum of seven years, not an automaticity. See above GFA links for exact text.

I never heard or seen anyone claim there 'had' to be one every seven years.

Fifthly, the phrase used in the Downing Street Declaration is often cited as meaning the UK wants rid of Northern Ireland. Here is what was said: "he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the totality of relationships" Notice the careful phrasing. The words in bold show the conditionality of the commitment. It is restricted to a "selfish" interest and the secondary interests of the British government are not noted. Of course, the primary interest of any government of any State is peace and stability in their territory - it goes without saying everywhere else in the world. What is most interesting is that the Prime Minister never said that the UK doesn't have any economic interest in Northern Ireland. Neither did he say they didn't have political, cultural or defence interests in Northern Ireland. Once again, a link to the text so you can read for yourself:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/dsd151293.htm

Interestingly, the phrase "without external impediment" also appears with much more clarity and similar to my interpretation.

The very signing of the GFA signifies to me that the British are no longer interested much and other factors.
They have admitted in the GFA that NI is somewhere other than Britain or an integral park of the UK in their willingness to abide by the decision of the majority.
Harold Wilson, Maggie Thatcher, all reviewed the feasibility of getting rid of it for expediency. The latest is Davis who blithely suggested that NI could just join the republic if it didn't like Brexit.

Finally, you often hear it said that the British admitted that the IRA were never militarily defeated. Here is Ed Moloney's take on that which puts it better than I could:

http://thepensivequill.am/2015/08/so-was-ira-defeated-or-not.html

Where did the phrase come from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

An 18-second youtube clip? Hardly convincing, one man's view, possibly out of context.

You won't find mainstream Southern political parties crowing about defeating the IRA (as bad as they can be, they wouldn't be so crass) but here is the Workers Solidarity Movement's take on this:

http://www.wsm.ie/c/ira-undefeated-army-myth

""IRA Undefeated Army" is a myth propagated by the Sinn Fein and IRA leadership to cover their retreat from republican politics and enable them to hold as much of their power base together as possible. The truth was that the IRA was on the verge of defeat, heavily infiltrated by the British, diminishing in terms of volunteers, experience, capacity and support, more and more isolated politically and without a strategy or hope for a breakthrough. This is not to question the willingness or courage of those wishing to continue the armed struggle. It is simply to state the facts, the IRA was defeated in all but name."

Pretty hard to disagree with that part of their analysis.

A rather long post, but just setting out the primary source material behind some of the common Republican myths to allow people to make up their own mind about what the phrases mean. The Sinn Fein interpretation is well known, the alternative and the source material are less well-known.

Heavily infiltrated by the British eh but they couldn't find enough evidence to prove so many things alleged about Adams and others, couldn't stop pivotal bombings that brought the British to the table and to quietly dispense with the need to decommission to get a deal done?
Exactly who are you trying to fool here?
When have an army ever surrendered and held on to their arms until they got an internationally binding agreement?

Everybody in the republican knows about Ed Moloney and his hard on for Adams and SF. His association with the Boston Tapes affair destroyed the last shreds of his credibility.
Look at the facts as I laid them out, they are the bare source facts of what happened, and try making your own mind up:
1. A supposedly 'heavily infiltrated IRA' exploded massive bombs in the heart of the UK that moved the negotiations forward towards an agreement.
2. The requirement to decommission was quietly dropped (by Major I think) when the IRA simply refused to do it and the talks continued to agreement.
No myths there.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wrong as another clause deals with the possibility of a decision to unite being blocked.

The wording is in relation to 'being able to choose, without 'outside impediment'.
Also, how does 'it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone...' work if the British government is going to weigh in making promises and entreaties to remain?

And it will be without outside impediment - the referendum decision will be final.

Enda expressed his view on the American Presidential election. Why can't outsiders have a view and express it? That isn't an impediment, they don't have a vote so they are not choosing.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

And it will be without outside impediment - the referendum decision will be final.

Enda expressed his view on the American Presidential election. Why can't outsiders have a view and express it? That isn't an impediment, they don't have a vote so they are not choosing.

Yes, I have already said, individuals can say what they want and many in the British gov will urge Irish unity.

But the British government cannot and will not get involved with promises and carrots like they did in Scotland in return for a remain vote. That is the difference here, that is why the GFA is referred to as 'the long goodbye'.
That is why when the IRA went on their final ceasefire Jim Molyneaux said 'this is the worst thing that ever happened to us'.

RicePat

blanch152 wrote: »

"The DUP’s claim that they never agreed to establish an Irish Language Act as part of St Andrews Agreement is true, as the legislation refers to the British government’s commitment to an Irish Language Act, not the DUP’s.
Although they signed up to the St Andrews Agreement, this includes a commitment by the UK government, and not the DUP. After devolution, responsibility for a language policy was transferred to the Northern Ireland Executive, but this did not include a commitment to establish an Irish Language Act.
What was legislated for was a language strategy, which could include, but is not the same as, an Irish Language Act.
Apart from the St Andrews Agreement, there’s no evidence that they’ve ever agreed to establish an Irish Language Act.
Claim: “The DUP at no point has ever agreed to establish an Irish Language Act with the UK government, with the Irish government, with Sinn Féin or anybody else.”
Verdict: TRUE"

As preposterously pedantic a political fudge as ever I've heard. They signed up to St Andrews which included an Irish Language Act, they're insistence on blocking one now is utterly disingenuous

FrancieBrady

RicePat wrote: »

As preposterously pedantic a political fudge as ever I've heard. They signed up to St Andrews which included an Irish Language Act, they're insistence on blocking one now is utterly disingenuous

I agree with you but whether they agreed or not, they are blocking a parity of esteem piece of legislation for no other reason but they cannot give in to a community they still hold in contempt. They have expressed no other reason for their objection to normalisation of legislation that is in place in the rest of the UK.

That is anti everything contained in the GFA.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree with you but whether they agreed or not, they are blocking a parity of esteem piece of legislation for no other reason but they cannot give in to a community they still hold in contempt. They have expressed no other reason for their objection to normalisation of legislation that is in place in the rest of the UK.

That is anti everything contained in the GFA.

To be honest, I would repeal the Irish Language Act down here in a flash. It is one of the most retrograde pieces of legislation I have ever seen.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

To be honest, I would repeal the Irish Language Act down here in a flash. It is one of the most retrograde pieces of legislation I have ever seen.

If you convince the legislature then that is your right. Nobody would get away with opposing you on the basis that if you get that you will be back for more, because 'that is what you are like'. i.e. discriminate against you.

Alf Stewart.

The enquiry must be well under way, as I see SF have started emailing members of the public to start submitting documents for same.

a chara,

The RHI Inquiry is in the process of gathering documentation from Departments, organisations and individuals. As part of this work the Inquiry solicitor has contacted me in my capacity as Sinn Fein National Chairperson to request relevant documentation within the party?s custody or control. Documentation is defined as information recorded in any form. Party press releases, internal briefings, and lines to take are being collated centrally so can be disregarded. Compliance with this request is a legal requirement.

In order for the party to fully assist the Inquiry please ensure that you have provided me with all relevant information by midnight this Wednesday 3rd May 2017.

You can contact me at national.chair@sinnfein.ie.

Is mise,

Declan Kearney
Chairperson

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

The enquiry must be well under way, as I see SF have started emailing members of the public to start submitting documents for same.

Reading that, the request to Sinn Fein is for Sinn Fein documentation. Why then would they be emailing members of the public? Only members and supporters would be getting that email.

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

The enquiry must be well under way, as I see SF have started emailing members of the public to start submitting documents for same.

I have done a little bit of digging on this and have gone back to the Inquiry's own website:

https://www.rhiinquiry.org/news/statement-by-rhi-inquiry-chairman-rt-hon-sir-patrick-coghlin-preliminary-hearing-thursday-27


125 organisations have been asked for information:

"The Inquiry’s Procedural Protocol confirms that the Inquiry has determined that, generally, the most expeditious way for the Inquiry to proceed is by using its powers of compulsion in respect of all those who the Inquiry considers may have relevant evidence. The Inquiry has to date served around 125 such notices on individuals and organisations compelling both the production of relevant documents and the provision of information that may assist in identifying further relevant documentation which may exist. "

It is clear that Sinn Fein will have been one of these organisations asked to provide information.

What still isn't clear is why Sinn Fein are asking members of the public for information. Do you have a link to the document you referenced or to any supporting material? It would be interesting to know more about why Sinn Fein are getting the public involved.

Stars and Stripes

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know how many times this has to be posted up here. The St. Andrews Agreement provides for a Strategy, not an Act. A Strategy may or may not include an Act.

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-irish-language-act-3209218-Jan2017/

"The DUP’s claim that they never agreed to establish an Irish Language Act as part of St Andrews Agreement is true, as the legislation refers to the British government’s commitment to an Irish Language Act, not the DUP’s.
Although they signed up to the St Andrews Agreement, this includes a commitment by the UK government, and not the DUP. After devolution, responsibility for a language policy was transferred to the Northern Ireland Executive, but this did not include a commitment to establish an Irish Language Act.
What was legislated for was a language strategy, which could include, but is not the same as, an Irish Language Act.
Apart from the St Andrews Agreement, there’s no evidence that they’ve ever agreed to establish an Irish Language Act.
Claim: “The DUP at no point has ever agreed to establish an Irish Language Act with the UK government, with the Irish government, with Sinn Féin or anybody else.”
Verdict: TRUE"


There are a number of urban myths circulating about the North. For the purposes of clarity I can set out my take on them:

Firstly, the DUP did not agree to an Irish Language Act (see above link)

Yes regarding the ILA and thanks to the DUP's obfuscation they handed SF and Irish nationalism an historic electoral result on March the 2nd with unionism losing it's majority in Stormont. If their too stupid to see that and insist on prevaricating on the ILA then SF will be the ones who gain.

Secondly, the GFA does not mandate a border poll. The Schedule 1 test requires the SOS to hold a poll only if "it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland". Therefore no party can request or demand a border poll (see this link for text of Good Friday Agreement - click on Good Friday Agreement).

https://www.dfa.ie/our-role-policies/northern-ireland/the-good-friday-agreement-and-today/

Strangely enough, the Sinn Fein website version of the text omits Schedule 1. Are they trying to spin this issue?

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/15244

Thirdly, it is often stated that the phrase "recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland" means that no other person can have a say in a referendum. The phrase "without external impediment" means that nothing such as a House of Lords veto or royal declaration can stop a united Ireland if the people so decided. That is all, straight and simple. It does not mean "without external interference". You don't find "interference" among the synonyms for "impediment".

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/impediment

As a result, if they so wish, British political parties, the Queen, the Prime Minister etc. can all campaign or express desires in respect of such a referendum, however, they can do nothing to block whatever result. See above GFA links for exact text.

Fourthly, it is said that once one referendum is held, there will be one every seven years. Again, not so. The same test, that the SoS must have formed an opinion that the referendum would be passed must be passed. It is a minimum of seven years, not an automaticity. See above GFA links for exact text.

Fifthly, the phrase used in the Downing Street Declaration is often cited as meaning the UK wants rid of Northern Ireland. Here is what was said: "he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the totality of relationships" Notice the careful phrasing. The words in bold show the conditionality of the commitment. It is restricted to a "selfish" interest and the secondary interests of the British government are not noted. Of course, the primary interest of any government of any State is peace and stability in their territory - it goes without saying everywhere else in the world. What is most interesting is that the Prime Minister never said that the UK doesn't have any economic interest in Northern Ireland. Neither did he say they didn't have political, cultural or defence interests in Northern Ireland. Once again, a link to the text so you can read for yourself:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/dsd151293.htm

Interestingly, the phrase "without external impediment" also appears with much more clarity and similar to my interpretation.

Correct about the SOS calling a poll and no other poll cannot be called again earlier than 7 years. The GFA is an international legally binding treaty lodged at the UN and sponsored by America and the EU, it's implementation including a border poll etc isn't something the British cannot do willy nilly. I think that the pro British side would win a border poll if one was called for 6 months time but narrowly as the last Assembly election showed there was only about maybe 12,000 votes between the DUP, UUP and TUV versus SF and the SDLP. The fact that both the British and unionists refuse to support a border poll says it all.

Finally, you often hear it said that the British admitted that the IRA were never militarily defeated. Here is Ed Moloney's take on that which puts it better than I could:

http://thepensivequill.am/2015/08/so-was-ira-defeated-or-not.html

Ed Moloney a media hack who earns his living like others such as Paul Williams, Jim Cusack etc for INM comics with a completely blatant anti SF agenda - yeah sure their reliable

Where did the phrase come from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

An 18-second youtube clip? Hardly convincing, one man's view, possibly out of context.

If it was a 18 minute clip or a 180 minute clip you'd still deny it regardless, it's obviously a short quote from a longer interview to counter the bull conspiracy theory's of the Brit fan boys and unionists how they were on the cusp of victory after 25 years but robbed by the British govt etc

You won't find mainstream Southern political parties crowing about defeating the IRA (as bad as they can be, they wouldn't be so crass) but here is the Workers Solidarity Movement's take on this:

http://www.wsm.ie/c/ira-undefeated-army-myth

Oh dear quoting some obscure Marxist group flat earth society from 2010, your obviously just grabbing at any straw here which just shows the weakness of your conspiracy theory.

""IRA Undefeated Army" is a myth propagated by the Sinn Fein and IRA leadership to cover their retreat from republican politics and enable them to hold as much of their power base together as possible. The truth was that the IRA was on the verge of defeat, heavily infiltrated by the British, diminishing in terms of volunteers, experience, capacity and support, more and more isolated politically and without a strategy or hope for a breakthrough. This is not to question the willingness or courage of those wishing to continue the armed struggle. It is simply to state the facts, the IRA was defeated in all but name."

Pretty hard to disagree with that part of their analysis.

A rather long post, but just setting out the primary source material behind some of the common Republican myths to allow people to make up their own mind about what the phrases mean. The Sinn Fein interpretation is well known, the alternative and the source material are less well-known.

For a fella who posts about urban myths circulating about the North and then goes on to reiterate the very thing that's rich So now are we to believe the Brits ran the whole troubles for 25 years and allowed Warrenpoint, Mountbatten, Brighton, the Billions of damage to London, Manchester and countless thousands of other attacks as some sort of super crafty plan to bring about the Good Friday Agreement 25 years later. Yeah sure, from August '69 every member of the Provos and INLA was in fact a Brit spy - funny enough they seem to want to crack down on the Disso's fairly quick though and this when the Provos had a 1,000 times more capability.

blanch152

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Yeah sure, from August '69 every member of the Provos and INLA was in fact a Brit spy

Now, where did I say that?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Now, where did I say that?

The British will construct a myth around the conflict/war just likje the 'glorious wars' they were engaged in in Europe and so will the Irish construct. In the middle is the truth.
You seem to be buying into the British myth making, be careful who you take as credible. Stick to the facts is the safest way.

Stars and Stripes

blanch152 wrote: »

Now, where did I say that?

No I stated it to show the absurdity of the conspiracy theorists that the IRA were on the verge of defeat Brit fan boys. Meanwhile your DUP friends are already poking the nationalist bear with all sorts of comments about John Finnucane standing for SF in North Belfast inferring that his solicitor father who was shot in front of him in his family home when he was only about 10 or 11 deserved what he got, others publicly stating they hope Gerry Kelly dies soon like Martin McGuinness etc

blanch152

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

No I stated it to show the absurdity of the conspiracy theorists that the IRA were on the verge of defeat Brit fan boys.

It still doesn't make any sense to attribute something I didn't say to me.

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Meanwhile your DUP friends are already poking the nationalist bear with all sorts of comments about John Finnucane standing for SF in North Belfast inferring that his solicitor father who was shot in front of him in his family home when he was only about 10 or 11 deserved what he got, others publicly stating they hope Gerry Kelly dies soon like Martin McGuinness etc

Once again I don't have any DUP friends. They are equally reprehensible as the SF lot in the North as far as I am concerned. To me, comparing SF to DUP is arguing about who is the lowest of the low.

Stars and Stripes

blanch152 wrote: »

It still doesn't make any sense to attribute something I didn't say to me. Once again I don't have any DUP friends.

So I'll repeat and hopefully it will sink in this time - No I stated it to show the absurdity of the conspiracy theorists that the IRA were on the verge of defeat. Well since your pushing the DUP's excuses and British army conspiracy theory's it's appears who your political friendliness with your views lies with.

They are equally reprehensible as the SF lot in the North as far as I am concerned. To me, comparing SF to DUP is arguing about who is the lowest of the low.

So lets look at the RHI scandal. SF were rightly criticized by the SDLP, Alliance, PBP etc for dragging their feet on calling for Foster to stand aside for a proper inquiry. But eventually the penny dropped with SF and the DUP's bluff was called, disastrously for them and unionism. And the Irish Language Act that SF proposed is just similar to what has already been passed by in the Welsh Parliament and in Scotland. With RHI and the ILA it's only nonsense to try and make out that SF are been unreasonable - though doubtless those with their own agenda will disagree regardless anyway.

As for the equivalence of party's with the DUP, well the DUP are carrying on just the same regarding RHI lining the pockets for the chosen few as FG and Harris handing over St Vincents to the nuns. Likewise when it comes to a proper investigation of commissioner Noirin O'Sullivan, FG with the support of buddy's FF are obfuscating on a credible investigation just like the DUP and RHI. So it's quite clear just who the DUP and FG/FF are alike, the lowest of the low etc

Apart from our wee gombeen party's down here for their own agenda, Sinn Fein warts and all are a left wing anti British occupation party are certainly not seen as the mirror image of the pro British right wing DUP who have everything in common with FG/FF/LP/Renua etc

blanch152

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

So I'll repeat and hopefully it will sink in this time - No I stated it to show the absurdity of the conspiracy theorists that the IRA were on the verge of defeat. Well since your pushing the DUP's excuses and British army conspiracy theory's it's appears who your political friendliness with your views lies with.

This reaction appears to be a common defensive response among many commentators in the North - label your opponents with an argument they didn't make or an association they don't have. If you believe SF/IRA were on the verge of defeat when they disarmed, then you are a DUP friend, if you favour some support for civil rights, then you are an IRA apologist.

If I was living up North, I would vote Green/Alliance/SDLP in varying order depending on what the main issues at an election were.

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

So lets look at the RHI scandal. SF were rightly criticized by the SDLP, Alliance, PBP etc for dragging their feet on calling for Foster to stand aside for a proper inquiry. But eventually the penny dropped with SF and the DUP's bluff was called, disastrously for them and unionism. And the Irish Language Act that SF proposed is just similar to what has already been passed by in the Welsh Parliament and in Scotland. With RHI and the ILA it's only nonsense to try and make out that SF are been unreasonable - though doubtless those with their own agenda will disagree regardless anyway.

Except that both Welsh and Scots Gaelic are more widely spoken in Scotland and Wales than Irish is in Northern Ireland and the ILA being proposed is more akin to the rubbish one we have down here than the Scottish and Welsh versions.

Aside from that, in giving equivalence to SF and the DUP, I wasn't just talking about RHI or ILA, I was taking a more global view. Neither party belongs in a modern democracy in my opinion.

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

As for the equivalence of party's with the DUP, well the DUP are carrying on just the same regarding RHI lining the pockets for the chosen few as FG and Harris handing over St Vincents to the nuns. Likewise when it comes to a proper investigation of commissioner Noirin O'Sullivan, FG with the support of buddy's FF are obfuscating on a credible investigation just like the DUP and RHI. So it's quite clear just who the DUP and FG/FF are alike, the lowest of the low etc

Apart from our wee gombeen party's down here for their own agenda, Sinn Fein warts and all are a left wing anti British occupation party are certainly not seen as the mirror image of the pro British right wing DUP who have everything in common with FG/FF/LP/Renua etc

Indeed.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This reaction appears to be a common defensive response among many commentators in the North - label your opponents with an argument they didn't make or an association they don't have. If you believe SF/IRA were on the verge of defeat when they disarmed, then you are a DUP friend, if you favour some support for civil rights, then you are an IRA apologist.

If I was living up North, I would vote Green/Alliance/SDLP in varying order depending on what the main issues at an election were.






Except that both Welsh and Scots Gaelic are more widely spoken in Scotland and Wales than Irish is in Northern Ireland and the ILA being proposed is more akin to the rubbish one we have down here than the Scottish and Welsh versions.

Aside from that, in giving equivalence to SF and the DUP, I wasn't just talking about RHI or ILA, I was taking a more global view. Neither party belongs in a modern democracy in my opinion.






Indeed.

You reference 'democracy ' then wish to proscribe the two main parties in a democracy. Classic stuff.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You reference 'democracy ' then wish to proscribe the two main parties in a democracy. Classic stuff.

Except the North isn't a true democracy.

Firstly, the Stormont Assembly is only a regional government with limited powers.

Secondly, it requires a D'Hondt process to form a government because of the particular nature of the place.

Thirdly, it remains part of a monarchy.

I will maintain my opinion that neither the DUP nor SF belong in a modern democracy. As the North is not a modern democracy, their existence or success there doesn't detract from the point.

IrishSea

blanch152 wrote: »

Except the North isn't a true democracy.

Firstly, the Stormont Assembly is only a regional government with limited powers.

Secondly, it requires a D'Hondt process to form a government because of the particular nature of the place.

Thirdly, it remains part of a monarchy.

I will maintain my opinion that neither the DUP nor SF belong in a modern democracy. As the North is not a modern democracy, their existence or success there doesn't detract from the point.

Your understanding of the word 'democracy' seems limited.

From Wikipedia;
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía literally "rule of the commoners"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.

SF have 23 TD's in The South, democratically elected with almost 300,000 first preference votes.
Fine Gael are in 'government' despite only having 50 TD's elected and depend on Fianna Fail to stay there.
FF claim to be in opposition, yet standby as FG create and oversee one crisis after the next, from housing, to health, to AGS scandal after scandal.

We don't have a 'modern democracy' or a 'true democracy', we have a broken political system where two civil war parties depend on each other for survival.
As for The North being a 'regional government' with limited powers, I'd suggest you look at the southern government and their forelock tugging behaviour towards the EU before you go slagging others off about having a 'regional government'.

blanch152

IrishSea wrote: »

Your understanding of the word 'democracy' seems limited.

From Wikipedia;
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía literally "rule of the commoners"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.

SF have 23 TD's in The South, democratically elected with almost 300,000 first preference votes.
Fine Gael are in 'government' despite only having 50 TD's elected and depend on Fianna Fail to stay there.
FF claim to be in opposition, yet standby as FG create and oversee one crisis after the next, from housing, to health, to AGS scandal after scandal.

We don't have a 'modern democracy' or a 'true democracy', we have a broken political system where two civil war parties depend on each other for survival.
As for The North being a 'regional government' with limited powers, I'd suggest you look at the southern government and their forelock tugging behaviour towards the EU before you go slagging others off about having a 'regional government'.

Are you actually disagreeing with me that Northern Ireland is not a true democracy?

You have made the argument that the South isn't a "modern democracy" or a "true democracy". Fair enough, that is your opinion, but it doesn't answer the question as to whether the North is or isn't.

IrishSea

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you actually disagreeing with me that Northern Ireland is not a true democracy?

You have made the argument that the South isn't a "modern democracy" or a "true democracy". Fair enough, that is your opinion, but it doesn't answer the question as to whether the North is or isn't.

Explain your understanding of a 'true democracy'.

IrishSea

The North (when the assembly is up and running) is actually quite similar to The South at the moment.
The two biggest parties are 'in government' (although FF will claim they're in opposition) and nothing happens in The South these days without the agreement of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.

Much like when SF pulled the plug over the RHI scandal, it's up to FF when they'll pull the plug on FG and force a general election.

Of course, when that general election happens, the same two parties will probably be returned and a FF minority government, supported by FG, may be the result.

At least in The North, they're attempting to move on....

blanch152

IrishSea wrote: »

The North (when the assembly is up and running) is actually quite similar to The South at the moment.
The two biggest parties are 'in government' (although FF will claim they're in opposition) and nothing happens in The South these days without the agreement of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.

Much like when SF pulled the plug over the RHI scandal, it's up to FF when they'll pull the plug on FG and force a general election.

Of course, when that general election happens, the same two parties will probably be returned and a FF minority government, supported by FG, may be the result.

At least in The North, they're attempting to move on....

That's a very big stretch.

Firstly, the current minority government is only the second in modern times, the last being 30 years ago in 1987.

Secondly, I doubt if the same two parties will be returned. If FG are not leading a coalition, their leader will take them into opposition and put it up to FF/SF to form a government.

Thirdly, the North has never had a normal government.

Fourthly, there is a world of difference between the powers (if their area of responsibility can even be called powers) of the Stormont Assembly and that of the Dail.

Finally, there is no evidence that the North is moving on, SF calling for a border poll, DUP still stuck in a 1970s rut, all the signs are that it is getting worse, not better. If SF were moving on, the unification question would be shelved for another generation and a genuine attempt to build cross-community support would have started. If the DUP were moving on, we would see some movement on cultural issues and same-sex marriage etc. Unfortunately, no sign from either entrenched side of such movement.

IrishSea

blanch152 wrote: »

That's a very big stretch.

Firstly, the current minority government is only the second in modern times, the last being 30 years ago in 1987.

Secondly, I doubt if the same two parties will be returned. If FG are not leading a coalition, their leader will take them into opposition and put it up to FF/SF to form a government.

Thirdly, the North has never had a normal government.

Fourthly, there is a world of difference between the powers (if their area of responsibility can even be called powers) of the Stormont Assembly and that of the Dail.

Finally, there is no evidence that the North is moving on, SF calling for a border poll, DUP still stuck in a 1970s rut, all the signs are that it is getting worse, not better. If SF were moving on, the unification question would be shelved for another generation and a genuine attempt to build cross-community support would have started. If the DUP were moving on, we would see some movement on cultural issues and same-sex marriage etc. Unfortunately, no sign from either entrenched side of such movement.

The 'government' in The North has come about after 30 odd years of a bitter sectarian conflict.
The vast majority of people voted for the GFA and the current arrangement is the result of that.
Things have moved on, whether you like it or not, and will continue to normalise.

What excuse does The South have for the state of politics here?
The civil war was almost 100 years ago.

The North is moving, slowly, towards a 'true democracy', The south is moving away from that ideal.

In fact, that FF and FG refused to even attempt to talk to, or to try to persuade, SF to form a government after GE 2016 could well be seen as undemocratic. (I know what SF's stated position was too.)
75% of voters did not want FG in government when the results were counted.

blanch152

IrishSea wrote: »

The 'government' in The North has come about after 30 odd years of a bitter sectarian conflict.
The vast majority of people voted for the GFA and the current arrangement is the result of that.
Things have moved on, whether you like it or not, and will continue to normalise.

What excuse does The South have for the state of politics here?
The civil war was almost 100 years ago.

The North is moving, slowly, towards a 'true democracy', The south is moving away from that ideal.

In fact, that FF and FG refused to even attempt to talk to, or to try to persuade, SF to form a government after GE 2016 could well be seen as undemocratic. (I know what SF's stated position was too.)
75% of voters did not want FG in government when the results were counted.

There is one common factor between the failure to form a coalition in the South after the last election and the recent failure of the Northern Executive - and that is the party Sinn Fein.

Now, don't get me wrong on this, I am not seeking to blame SF in full, but it is acting in its own naked self-interest, in the way that all parties do, and certainly isn't giving even ten seconds thought to the national interest.

At one level, it means SF on the outside is becoming more like a normal political party belonging to a normal democracy. If only their opaque internal
leadership was as clear.

Consonata

blanch152 wrote: »

There is one common factor between the failure to form a coalition in the South after the last election and the recent failure of the Northern Executive - and that is the party Sinn Fein.

Now, don't get me wrong on this, I am not seeking to blame SF in full, but it is acting in its own naked self-interest, in the way that all parties do, and certainly isn't giving even ten seconds thought to the national interest.

At one level, it means SF on the outside is becoming more like a normal political party belonging to a normal democracy. If only their opaque internal
leadership was as clear.

I'm curious to see how you can blame SF anymore than you can blame the DUP then on that basis.

SF's list of demands were fairly straight forward. The Irish bill is nearly a no-brainer.

IrishSea

Consonata wrote: »

I'm curious to see how you can blame SF anymore than you can blame the DUP then on that basis.

SF's list of demands were fairly straight forward. The Irish bill is nearly a no-brainer.

Indeed, SF are asking for the GFA to be implemented in full, including the Irish language act and the setting up of a reconciliation forum to deal with the legacy of the troubles.
The British and Irish governments, along with the DUP, refuse to move the latter along for some reason.
I wonder what they have to hide?
A lot of southern Irish individuals find it easy to spend their time attempting to tear down the progress made in The North by SF, the fear or another party breaking up the FF/FG status quo puts the fear of God into these people.

As undemocratic as it gets.

blanch152

IrishSea wrote: »

Indeed, SF are asking for the GFA to be implemented in full, including the Irish language act and the setting up of a reconciliation forum to deal with the legacy of the troubles.
The British and Irish governments, along with the DUP, refuse to move the latter along for some reason.
I wonder what they have to hide?
A lot of southern Irish individuals find it easy to spend their time attempting to tear down the progress made in The North by SF, the fear or another party breaking up the FF/FG status quo puts the fear of God into these people.

As undemocratic as it gets.

A lot of people in the South oppose a reconciliation forum that would allow those responsible for to give just a few examples - the murder of Brian Stack, the sexual abuse of Mairia Cahill and Paudie McGahan, the holding of kangaroo courts etc. - to just walk free. To many like myself, it is not a question of something to hide, it is a requirement that justice still needs to be done and seen to be done in all of those cases.

IrishSea

blanch152 wrote: »

A lot of people in the South oppose a reconciliation forum that would allow those responsible for to give just a few examples - the murder of Brian Stack, the sexual abuse of Mairia Cahill and Paudie McGahan, the holding of kangaroo courts etc. - to just walk free. To many like myself, it is not a question of something to hide, it is a requirement that justice still needs to be done and seen to be done in all of those cases.

I see.
A hierarchy of victims.
And all from the 'republican' side too.
I understand where you're coming from.

It never takes long for your particular type of mask to slip.


Meanwhile, the reconciliation continues, and the backward looking are left behind.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0ahUKEwjgnuzo5OrTAhVFIsAKHWOrBKMQFghdMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fbreakingnews%2Fireland%2Flatest-gerry-adams-meets-prince-charles-at-site-where-ira-killed-british-ambassador-789400.html&usg=AFQjCNEOQKCxnJozZWgSy7vzrUaQicSZ0A&sig2=neLbHqpuE1rnAZ02Zt1spw

"The history's the history and it's really, really important, but the future hasn't been written and we need to write the future"

Gerry Adams TD, 12-05-2017

Consonata

blanch152 wrote: »

A lot of people in the South oppose a reconciliation forum that would allow those responsible for to give just a few examples - the murder of Brian Stack, the sexual abuse of Mairia Cahill and Paudie McGahan, the holding of kangaroo courts etc. - to just walk free. To many like myself, it is not a question of something to hide, it is a requirement that justice still needs to be done and seen to be done in all of those cases.

Agreed, but be consistent with your outrage here, the owness is not all on Sinn Fein. SF did terrible things and should see justice, but at the same time Loyalist para's and the British army in particular need to face justice.

The fact that little is mentioned of the Army atrocities beyond Bloody sunday, saddens me greatly, since ideally we should be holding employed armed forces to a higher standard than paramilitary groupings, don't you agree?

IrishSea

Consonata wrote: »

Agreed, but be consistent with your outrage here, the owness is not all on Sinn Fein. SF did terrible things and should see justice, but at the same time Loyalist para's and the British army in particular need to face justice.

The fact that little is mentioned of the Army atrocities beyond Bloody sunday, saddens me greatly, since ideally we should be holding employed armed forces to a higher standard than paramilitary groupings, don't you agree?

To some people, especially in The South, the victims of one side are all that matter.
There's political capital in that for them.
They made Cahill, a dissident with a seriously dodgy history, a senator ffs.

Seth Brundle

IrishSea wrote: »

They made Cahill, a dissident with a seriously dodgy history, a senator ffs.

What "seriously dodgy history" has Cahill?

IrishSea

kbannon wrote: »

What "seriously dodgy history" has Cahill?

She was well up in the RNU, (formerly known as "Ex-POWs and Concerned Republicans against RUC/PSNI & MI5") the secretary of it, for a start.....

IrishSea

In any case, I'm sure there's plenty of threads on the subject of republicanism and all that without dragging this one about 'Arlene Foster and the RHI scandal' off topic.

Seth Brundle

IrishSea wrote: »

She was well up in the RNU, (formerly known as "Ex-POWs and Concerned Republicans against RUC/PSNI & MI5") the secretary of it, for a start.....

No. You're brushing aside something you yourself raised.
You mentioned her link to the RNU "for a start" but you're not providing much on her "seriously dodgy history". Can you elaborate on this please?

IrishSea

kbannon wrote: »

No. You're brushing aside something you yourself raised.
You mentioned her link to the RNU "for a start" but you're not providing much on her "seriously dodgy history". Can you elaborate on this please?

Ok, if you must.

I consider a person who was, and maybe still is, high up in a dissident group who are anti-GFA, anti-PSNI, who don't recognise the courts of The North etc etc and then being brought down to Dublin by her cousin in The Independent, before being given free run of our national parliament and made a senator, as having a seriously dodgy history.

If you don't consider it the same, that's your prerogative.

It's off topic, and the only reason I mentioned her is because a previous poster brought her up, but carry on if you wish.

Seth Brundle

She was at one point a member of that group and she claimed that it was at a low point in her life. Not that much different from MMG being in the IRA I guess.

She also said her involvement with an organisation opposed to the PSNI and the Good Friday Agreement was “the wrong thing to do” and a decision which she “deeply regrets’ and is “deeply sorry” for.
“I am the first person to say it was the wrong thing to do, I regret it deeply and I am deeply sorry for it,” she said in an interview.

Speaking to RTÉ, Cahill said she joined the organisation in 2010 having been at a “very difficult point in my life” when “every aspect” of her abuse came back to her having watched a documentary about the abuse of Aine Adams.

Cahill said her life “went into a spiral”, describing joining the RNU as “completely the wrong thing to do”. She discussed how she had been suicidal and self-harmed.

Coincidentally, Áine Adams who, like Cahill, as a victim of IRA sexual abuse was, like Cahill, further punished by having to endure a IRA kangaroo court, was also allegedly a senior member within the RNU.

So your allegation that Cahill may still be a member of this organisation is nothing more than a weak attempt to portray her in a negative light. Her "seriously dodgy history" is miniscule when compared the revered good republicans.

For the record, I'm not a fan of Cahill. I won't however watch you throw a slur on her though to make your point.

Sources:
http://www.thejournal.ie/mairia-cahill-dissidents-2440794-Nov2015/
https://thebrokenelbow.com/2015/11/13/gerry-adams-niece-now-heads-rnu-in-belfast/

IrishSea

kbannon wrote: »

She was at one point a member of that group and she claimed that it was at a low point in her life. Not that much different from MMG being in the IRA I guess.

She also said her involvement with an organisation opposed to the PSNI and the Good Friday Agreement was “the wrong thing to do” and a decision which she “deeply regrets’ and is “deeply sorry” for.
“I am the first person to say it was the wrong thing to do, I regret it deeply and I am deeply sorry for it,” she said in an interview.

Speaking to RTÉ, Cahill said she joined the organisation in 2010 having been at a “very difficult point in my life” when “every aspect” of her abuse came back to her having watched a documentary about the abuse of Aine Adams.

Cahill said her life “went into a spiral”, describing joining the RNU as “completely the wrong thing to do”. She discussed how she had been suicidal and self-harmed.

Coincidentally, Áine Adams who, like Cahill, as a victim of IRA sexual abuse was, like Cahill, further punished by having to endure a IRA kangaroo court, was also allegedly a senior member within the RNU.

So your allegation that Cahill may still be a member of this organisation is nothing more than a weak attempt to portray her in a negative light. Her "seriously dodgy history" is miniscule when compared the revered good republicans.

For the record, I'm not a fan of Cahill. I won't however watch you throw a slur on her though to make your point.

Sources:
http://www.thejournal.ie/mairia-cahill-dissidents-2440794-Nov2015/
https://thebrokenelbow.com/2015/11/13/gerry-adams-niece-now-heads-rnu-in-belfast/

A selective memory must be a great thing.
Of course, all it does is show up an obvious agenda.

thebrokenelbow??? Give me a break, you might as well post links to Cusack's bile.

As I've already said, this is off topic, so if you want to continue to spar with someone on this, look for someone else.

I note that you are supposed to be a moderator too.

blanch152

Consonata wrote: »

Agreed, but be consistent with your outrage here, the owness is not all on Sinn Fein. SF did terrible things and should see justice, but at the same time Loyalist para's and the British army in particular need to face justice.

The fact that little is mentioned of the Army atrocities beyond Bloody sunday, saddens me greatly, since ideally we should be holding employed armed forces to a higher standard than paramilitary groupings, don't you agree?

Completely agree, but I understand that Army atrocities ARE being investigated.

blanch152

IrishSea wrote: »

Ok, if you must.

I consider a person who was, and maybe still is, high up in a dissident group who are anti-GFA, anti-PSNI, who don't recognise the courts of The North etc etc and then being brought down to Dublin by her cousin in The Independent, before being given free run of our national parliament and made a senator, as having a seriously dodgy history.

If you don't consider it the same, that's your prerogative.

It's off topic, and the only reason I mentioned her is because a previous poster brought her up, but carry on if you wish.

Are you seriously accusing a member of the Labour Party of also being a member of an illegal organisation? If so, the mud-slinging has reached new depths in my opinion.