Belfast Disturbances

caveat emptor

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I wonder if the Tories planned this ...i would not be surprised if they invade the ROI sometime soon!

They tried it before a few times and it didn't work out.

Apparently they are focusing on the info-pacfic region whatever that means.

https://twitter.com/NikkeiAsia/status/1359996911864938500?s=20

downcow

caveat emptor wrote: »

My sincere Apologies down cow. I've never heard of that band or that instrument (the big drum). Sorry for my ignorance. Not what I had in my head.

That looks very good indeed and I'd pay to listen to them.

As the other poster put it though. I wouldn't necessarily like to have a 12th of July parade marching down a road where nobody wants to listen to it.

No more than I'd want the Cork hurling team to do a victory parade down O'Connell street. A parade in Cork I'd probably attend for the craic though.

Music is super important on this island and there is probably much common ground that could be used to help both communities understand each other.

Particularly young people playing in the same band would be great. I'm not sure on the rules on joining etc.

People love it here when someone who is from a different culture plays GAA etc.

Apologies. I misunderstood and thought you were goading.
I assumed a knowledge of loyalist bands in the south but I suppose why should I. I have little knowledge of the gaa or the Irish dance scene.
I appreciate your response
I am busy now but later I will post a flavour of the diversity ‘good and bad’ of the loyalist band scene Those that are interested can view it, those that hate my culture will have the usual go at it. But that’s ok.
I’d be interested what ordinary southerners thought of it, warts, excellence and all

Apologies again caveat

banie01

downcow wrote: »

Apologies. I misunderstood and thought you were goading.
I assumed a knowledge of loyalist bands in the south but I suppose why should I. I have little knowledge of the gaa or the Irish dance scene.
I appreciate your response
I am busy now but later I will post a flavour of the diversity ‘good and bad’ of the loyalist band scene Those that are interested can view it, those that hate my culture will have the usual go at it. But that’s ok.
I’d be interested what ordinary southerners thought of it warts, excellence and all

Apologies again caveat

There are a large number of pipe and drum bands down here too Downcow.
The primary differences really would be the lack of the Lambeg.
The big drums down our way would be quite a bit smaller.

St Mary's prize band, Corpus Christi Pipe band, Boherbouy Band and St John's band would all be pipe and drum bands of fairly high standard( a few world championship entries recently enough among them iirc)within 15minutes of my home and there are more marching bands in the same radius but directed towards US style bands.

Assuming that us down south won't appreciate or understand the affectation of your community for Fyfe and drum is unfortunate.
The issue many people on the opposite side of the idealogical fence have with PUL bands isn't the band's.
It's the association with triumphalism and the deliberate provocation often involved in marching through non PUL communities.
Much like I assume the PUL feel when they are having rebel songs screamed back at them, it's just a matter of perspective.

There are many, many bands in the south that are staffed by talented and driven volunteers and who love both the music and the competition.

lurleen lumpkin

RandomViewer wrote: »

They use it to refer to themselves
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/crime/another-night-of-violence-despite-calls-for-halting-of-protests-after-prince-philips-death-3195739

The own goals just keep coming. Be nice if he could learn a bit about his own community before besmirching others.

downcow

lurleen lumpkin wrote: »

The own goals just keep coming. Be nice if he could learn a bit about his own community before besmirching others.

Not sure what this is about or who it refers to ?

cameramonkey

Realistically this rioting is at a very manageable level. It is not widespread and there are been few if any serious injuries.
It is more a political (financial) message. The loyal terrorists want more money and they don't want their drugs enterprises upset. The DUP are happy enough with it because the message is look the protocol is just not working, look at the unrest, they think it will put pressure on the EU to change the protocol. The UK government doesn't really care but it also serves their purposes with the EU and they might try to get a wider deal that will be some advantage to the UK rather than specifically NI. It is well established that the loyal terrorists are counter gangs run by the UK security services. Even Mad dog Adair was saying at the weekend that they were heavily infiltrated (shorthand for run by them) by the UK services. If the riots get out of hand or are not in the interests of wider UK policy then they will be shut down.

Choochtown

banie01 wrote: »

There are a large number of pipe and drum bands down here too Downcow.
The primary differences really would be the lack of the Lambeg.
The big drums down our way would be quite a bit smaller.

St Mary's prize band, Corpus Christi Pipe band, Boherbouy Band and St John's band would all be pipe and drum bands of fairly high standard( a few world championship entries recently enough among them iirc)within 15minutes of my home and there are more marching bands in the same radius but directed towards US style bands.

Assuming that us down south won't appreciate or understand the affectation of your community for Fyfe and drum is unfortunate.
The issue many people on the opposite side of the idealogical fence have with PUL bands isn't the band's.
It's the association with triumphalism and the deliberate provocation often involved in marching through non PUL communities.
Much like I assume the PUL feel when they are having rebel songs screamed back at them, it's just a matter of perspective.

There are many, many bands in the south that are staffed by talented and driven volunteers and who love both the music and the competition.

What I find very interesting is the tunes that Loyalists and Republicans have in common.
A few years ago I visited the Apprentice Boys museum in Derry and was amused to hear one of their tunes is identical (not "similar" but note for note identical) to the well known rebel song "Sean South" (also known as "Roddy McCorley).
I pointed this out to the guide but unfortunately he wouldn't even entertain the possibility.
From listening to other tunes played by Loyalist marching bands this isn't a unique occurrence although obviously any lyrics on the Loyalist side would be different I presume.

RandomViewer

downcow wrote: »

Not sure what this is about or who it refers to ?

You claimed PUL was a media term when the protesters are referring to themselves as such making it a sectarian not political cause

downcow

cameramonkey wrote: »

Realistically this rioting is at a very manageable level. It is not widespread and there are been few if any serious injuries.
It is more a political (financial) message. The loyal terrorists want more money and they don't want their drugs enterprises upset. The DUP are happy enough with it because the message is look the protocol is just not working, look at the unrest, they think it will put pressure on the EU to change the protocol. The UK government doesn't really care but it also serves their purposes with the EU and they might try to get a wider deal that will be some advantage to the UK rather than specifically NI. It is well established that the loyal terrorists are counter gangs run by the UK security services. Even Mad dog Adair was saying at the weekend that they were heavily infiltrated (shorthand for run by them) by the UK services. If the riots get out of hand or are not in the interests of wider UK policy then they will be shut down.

Peppered with accurate truths and total nonsense.

cameramonkey

downcow wrote: »

Peppered with accurate truths and total nonsense.

It would be more interesting and informative if you gave a more reasoned view. Such posts as yours do not lead to reasoned debate they just lead to over and back insults. Why not just point out what you think is wrong with my post.



We can all cry nonsense at the top of our lungs but then where do we get?

RobMc59

cameramonkey wrote: »

Realistically this rioting is at a very manageable level. It is not widespread and there are been few if any serious injuries.
It is more a political (financial) message. The loyal terrorists want more money and they don't want their drugs enterprises upset. The DUP are happy enough with it because the message is look the protocol is just not working, look at the unrest, they think it will put pressure on the EU to change the protocol. The UK government doesn't really care but it also serves their purposes with the EU and they might try to get a wider deal that will be some advantage to the UK rather than specifically NI. It is well established that the loyal terrorists are counter gangs run by the UK security services. Even Mad dog Adair was saying at the weekend that they were heavily infiltrated (shorthand for run by them) by the UK services. If the riots get out of hand or are not in the interests of wider UK policy then they will be shut down.

For whatever reason there does appear to be an effort from both sides to resolve these problems with the protocol.About time common sense prevailed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/0412/1209211-northern-ireland-protocol/

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

For whatever reason there does appear to be an effort from both sides to resolve these problems with the protocol.About time common sense prevailed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/0412/1209211-northern-ireland-protocol/

Quelle suprise: the world moves on without the belligerents again.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quelle suprise: the world moves on without the belligerents again.

The protocol is an advantage for NI,the sooner people realize that the better,the EU willing to parly is the cherry on the top.Collapsing it would be folly.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

The protocol is an advantage for NI,the sooner people realize that the better,the EU willing to parly is the cherry on the top.Collapsing it would be folly.

I fancy the EU are going through the Protocol with a red pen and luminous highlighter and highlighting the flexibilities within it already for the UK, who have been ignoring them.

overshoot

In fairness the protocol is a potential advantage, long term, but right now for brexit, Boris has cut NI from their biggest trading partner. That is an issue.

I'd be rightly cheesed if a unionist it means strengthening links with Ireland/the EU going forward for growth rather than Britain... The blame for that entirely lays at the feet of those that campaigned for Brexit and Westminster now though. Not the EU/Ireland. Boris could have left on different terms if the union was the most important thing, hard to accept rejection though.

downcow

Republicans reminding very young children that the loyalists are the bad people and that it is ok for young republicans to steal cars
Take a look at there age
https://mobile.twitter.com/R4FcMuK7k8IhUKz/status/1381500685980725248

downcow

RobMc59 wrote: »

For whatever reason there does appear to be an effort from both sides to resolve these problems with the protocol.About time common sense prevailed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/0412/1209211-northern-ireland-protocol/

Well unfortunately it is just more evidence the the threat of violence works.
Roi bigged up the violence should there be a border in Ireland, and it worked 100%
Now loyalists are bigging up the chances of ni violent conflict restarting and everyone is changing the ‘suck it up’ language.

I am glad it’s on the agenda but it’s more bad training for both communities

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Well unfortunately it is just more evidence the the threat of violence works.
Roi bigged up the violence should there be a border in Ireland, and it worked 100%
Now loyalists are bigging up the chances of ni violent conflict restarting and everyone is changing the ‘suck it up’ language.

I am glad it’s on the agenda but it’s more bad training for both communities

No, Loyalists are 'engaging' in violence while their government is in Brussels blithely copperfastening the Protocol.

briany

downcow wrote: »

Well unfortunately it is just more evidence the the threat of violence works.
Roi bigged up the violence should there be a border in Ireland, and it worked 100%
Now loyalists are bigging up the chances of ni violent conflict restarting and everyone is changing the ‘suck it up’ language.

I am glad it’s on the agenda but it’s more bad training for both communities

To put this as simply as I can...

If a border had gone up on the island of Ireland, it's pretty fair to suspect that Republican paramilitaries would have kicked off in some form and provoked a state of heightened tensions in NI.

A border has gone up in the Irish sea and, predictably enough, Loyalist paramilitaries are kicking off over it.

The conclusion is that because of the type of Brexit that the current British Conservative party is looking to achieve, a border is necessary, either somewhere on or around the island of Ireland, and would have undermined the peace process and have had one side questioning whether the GFA is still valid either way.

The only solution is for the UK government to soften its Brexit approach and come into closer alignment with the EU such that a border is necessary. Neither the EU or Ireland, as a constituent part, asked for the kind of Brexit the UK government is bent on pursuing, so it's up to the UK government to figure out how to make it work. We'd all much rather the situation pre-2016 down here, but a choice had to be made and forced our priorities to be chosen, and that priority was no border on the island of Ireland. I can understand how your priority would be no border between NI and Britain, but this is where we are where we cannot have it both ways anymore.

If the idea of a border between NI and the rest of the UK was untenable, Mr. Johnson was free to reject the idea, but he didn't, so maybe at least some of that Loyalist anger can be directed at him, who actually signed off on it.

Choochtown

briany wrote: »

To put this as simply as I can...

If a border had gone up on the island of Ireland, it's pretty fair to suspect that Republican paramilitaries would have kicked off in some form and provoked a state of heightened tensions in NI.

A border has gone up in the Irish sea and, predictably enough, Loyalist paramilitaries are kicking off over it.

The conclusion is that because of the type of Brexit that the current British Conservative party is looking to achieve, a border is necessary, either somewhere on or around the island of Ireland, and would have undermined the peace process and have had one side questioning whether the GFA is still valid either way.

The only solution is for the UK government to soften its Brexit approach and come into closer alignment with the EU such that a border is necessary. Neither the EU or Ireland, as a constituent part, asked for the kind of Brexit the UK government is bent on pursuing, so it's up to the UK government to figure out how to make it work. We'd all much rather the situation pre-2016 down here, but a choice had to be made and forced our priorities to be chosen, and that priority was no border on the island of Ireland. I can understand how your priority would be no border between NI and Britain, but this is where we are where we cannot have it both ways anymore.

If the idea of a border between NI and the rest of the UK was untenable, Mr. Johnson was free to reject the idea, but he didn't, so maybe at least some of that Loyalist anger can be directed at him, who actually signed off on it.

And the big difference between the 2 scenarios is this:
A border dividing Ireland North and South has never and will never be democratically agreed upon, whereas the so-called border down the Irish Sea has been voted for and instigated by a democratically elected British parliament.

downcow

briany wrote: »

To put this as simply as I can...

If a border had gone up on the island of Ireland, it's pretty fair to suspect that Republican paramilitaries would have kicked off in some form and provoked a state of heightened tensions in NI.

A border has gone up in the Irish sea and, predictably enough, Loyalist paramilitaries are kicking off over it.

The conclusion is that because of the type of Brexit that the current British Conservative party is looking to achieve, a border is necessary, either somewhere on or around the island of Ireland, and would have undermined the peace process and have had one side questioning whether the GFA is still valid either way.

The only solution is for the UK government to soften its Brexit approach and come into closer alignment with the EU such that a border is necessary. Neither the EU or Ireland, as a constituent part, asked for the kind of Brexit the UK government is bent on pursuing, so it's up to the UK government to figure out how to make it work. We'd all much rather the situation pre-2016 down here, but a choice had to be made and forced our priorities to be chosen, and that priority was no border on the island of Ireland. I can understand how your priority would be no border between NI and Britain, but this is where we are where we cannot have it both ways anymore.

If the idea of a border between NI and the rest of the UK was untenable, Mr. Johnson was free to reject the idea, but he didn't, so maybe at least some of that Loyalist anger can be directed at him, who actually signed off on it.

Some anger is directed at him

downcow

Choochtown wrote: »

And the big difference between the 2 scenarios is this:
A border dividing Ireland North and South has never and will never be democratically agreed upon, whereas the so-called border down the Irish Sea has been voted for and instigated by a democratically elected British parliament.

In contravention of the gfa

Five Eighth

Has anyone anywhere in any context ever come across this situation:

Two negotiating parties reach agreement.
The group represented by one of the negotiating parties dislikes (some or all) of the agreement.
While they are upset with their own negotiating team, their venom is directed primarily at the other negotiating team.

How is this position defendable?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

In contravention of the gfa

Where has this been decided?

FrancieBrady

Five Eighth wrote: »

Has anyone anywhere in any context ever come across this situation:

Two negotiating parties reach agreement.
The group represented by one of the negotiating parties dislikes (some or all) of the agreement.
While they are upset with their own negotiating team, their venom is directed primarily at the other negotiating team.

How is this position defendable?

The people on the other side of the peace line had no hand in the negotiations.

Mimon

downcow wrote: »

Some anger is directed at him

Less anger more engaging Unionist/Loyalist brains is required.

Painted yourselves in a corner with Boris providing the paint and brush.

Penfailed

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where has this been decided?

AFAIK it hasn't. David Trimble wrote an article saying that it did but that doesn't make it so.

steddyeddy

downcow wrote: »

Well unfortunately it is just more evidence the the threat of violence works.
Roi bigged up the violence should there be a border in Ireland, and it worked 100%
Now loyalists are bigging up the chances of ni violent conflict restarting and everyone is changing the ‘suck it up’ language.

I am glad it’s on the agenda but it’s more bad training for both communities

Let me get this straight D.

You're saying the republic suggested the possibility of violence to Arlene Foster she was so adverse to violence in Northern Ireland to she signed the agreement out of fear. To put it bluntly I don't believe Arlene is particularly averse to violence.



We're also to believe that Boris Johnson and Dominic I don't care if Northern Ireland falls into the ****ing sea' cummings cared so much about the possibility of violence that they also signed the agreement. To put this equally bluntly I don't believe Boris Johnson or Cummings cared or care about the implications of Brexit on Northern Ireland enough to read what he signed properly.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned he would allow a post-Brexit border down the Irish Sea “over my dead body,” just days after pledging to help Northern Irish businesses cope with a new wave of customs red tape after the U.K. leaves the European Union.

Unionists and GB wanted Brexit. Unionists got rid of the Backstop. It is only fair that Unionists and GB pay some price for the thing they wanted.

The rest of the the NI population and Ireland didn't want any of this so it makes no sense that an incredibly damaging land border would be erected.

The former get to avail of the benefits of Brexit. Eat some of the costs that go along with them.

FrancieBrady

Penfailed wrote: »

AFAIK it hasn't. David Trimble wrote an article saying that it did but that doesn't make it so.

David who threatened that violence might be needed to get rid f the Anglo Irish Agreement? He'd know alright.