SDLP call for the release of Marian Price.

laoch na mona · 30-05-2013 9:40pm

according to facebook she has been released

getzls · 30-05-2013 10:09pm

No doubt there will now have yet another miracle recovery.

The Grim Reaper cheated again.

.jacksparrow. · 30-05-2013 10:15pm

getzls wrote: »

No doubt there will now have yet another miracle recovery.

The Grim Reaper cheated again.

Give over, let go of the bitterness.

Happyman42 · 30-05-2013 10:44pm

You really have to question the sense of this from day one. The stupidity.

pablomakaveli · 30-05-2013 10:48pm

I hope it was made clear to her before release that she shouldn't associate with dissidents again.

I wouldnt get my hopes up that she won't but hopefully she'll get locked up again if she does as there'll be no "i was only holding a piece of paper excuse".

Happyman42 · 30-05-2013 10:59pm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I hope it was made clear to her before release that she shouldn't associate with dissidents again.

I think she won that one.
Taking on battles you have no stomach to win has been the hallmark of the conflict. Maggie negotiating secretly while a campaign was ongoing etc etc. Ridiculous stance.

pablomakaveli · 30-05-2013 11:14pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think she won that one.
Taking on battles you have no stomach to win has been the hallmark of the conflict. Maggie negotiating secretly while a campaign was ongoing etc etc. Ridiculous stance.

I have no idea what that has to do with what i said.

Are you saying she's right in supporting the dissidents?

Happyman42 · 30-05-2013 11:21pm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I have no idea what that has to do with what i said. Are you saying she's right in supporting the dissidents?

She has a cause. 'Dissident' like 'terrorist' is a conveinence term to allow the ignoring of human rights.
She can support whatever she likes, you cannot deny her human rights though, the British got it wrong AGAIN.

pablomakaveli · 30-05-2013 11:31pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

She has a cause. 'Dissident' like 'terrorist' is a conveinence term to allow the ignoring of human rights.
She can support whatever she likes, you cannot deny her human rights though, the British got it wrong AGAIN.

She can't support who she likes. If she's aiding dissidents she's a criminal. It's pretty simple.

Just because some criminals claim a cause doesn't make supporting and aiding them ok.

Cody Pomeray · 31-05-2013 12:00am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I hope it was made clear to her before release that she shouldn't associate with dissidents again.

The law is not a Headmistress.

Whatever about a headmistress, no other British authorities have the power to deny Price's Constitutional right to freedom of association, also a civil right for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Happyman42 · 31-05-2013 12:01am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

She can't support who she likes. If she's aiding dissidents she's a criminal. It's pretty simple.

Just because some criminals claim a cause doesn't make supporting and aiding them ok.

'Dissident' is a perjorative term. She has a cause, just as the IRA had a cause, the British capitulated to the IRA and now they have capitulated to the 'dissidents'. Why does it take needless suffering over and over again?

Iwasfrozen · 31-05-2013 12:07am

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Dissident' is a perjorative term.

I'm far from republican but even I wouldn't use the term dissident as provocative.

She has a cause, just as the IRA had a cause, the British capitulated to the IRA and now they have capitulated to the 'dissidents'. Why does it take needless suffering over and over again?

Difference being the dissidents are trying to over throw our hard fought for peace.

getzls · 31-05-2013 6:46am

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Dissident' is a perjorative term. She has a cause, just as the IRA had a cause, the British capitulated to the IRA and now they have capitulated to the 'dissidents'. Why does it take needless suffering over and over again?

If it was possible to ask the dead hunger strikers do you think the British capitulated, do you think they would say yes?

Fratton Fred · 31-05-2013 7:31am

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Dissident' is a perjorative term. She has a cause, just as the IRA had a cause, the British capitulated to the IRA and now they have capitulated to the 'dissidents'. Why does it take needless suffering over and over again?

Last time I was in the north they used sterling and Martin mcguinness was taking the queen's shilling. Not much of a capitulation.

The people of this island overwhelmingly rejected violence. The dissidents have not. The only people intent on causing needless suffering are the people Marian Price supports.

it is right that a sick woman is released on licence. It is wrong that she is being held up as a shining beacon of da cause.

pablomakaveli · 31-05-2013 7:33am

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The law is not a Headmistress.

Whatever about a headmistress, no other British authorities have the power to deny Price's Constitutional right to freedom of association, also a civil right for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Oh come off it. You know as well as I do that it's against the law to help members of an illegal organisation.

pablomakaveli · 31-05-2013 7:37am

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Dissident' is a perjorative term. She has a cause, just as the IRA had a cause, the British capitulated to the IRA and now they have capitulated to the 'dissidents'. Why does it take needless suffering over and over again?

I know from your previous posts you'd rather we appease the dissidents and give in to them which is ridiculous.

This isn't exactly capitulation. This isn't the British declaring defeat in combatting dissidents is it? And it doesn't matter what her cause is. My cause could be to start killing people. Just because its my cause and I fully believe in it doesn't make it justified.

Happyman42 · 31-05-2013 11:57am

getzls wrote: »

If it was possible to ask the dead hunger strikers do you think the British capitulated, do you think they would say yes?

If you are not aware of what the Hunger strikers achieved because of British intransigence then god help you.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Last time I was in the north they used sterling and Martin mcguinness was taking the queen's shilling. Not much of a capitulation.

The people of this island overwhelmingly rejected violence. The dissidents have not. The only people intent on causing needless suffering are the people Marian Price supports.

it is right that a sick woman is released on licence. It is wrong that she is being held up as a shining beacon of da cause.

Is that Martin McGuinness, deputy First Minister of N.I., you are referring to? Somebody capitualted to allow him get there don't you think?

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I know from your previous posts you'd rather we appease the dissidents and give in to them which is ridiculous.

This isn't exactly capitulation. This isn't the British declaring defeat in combatting dissidents is it? And it doesn't matter what her cause is. My cause could be to start killing people. Just because its my cause and I fully believe in it doesn't make it justified.

I never said anything about 'appeasement'. I am saying they are tragically stupid to take on battles they can't win and have no stomach for winning and routinely swell the ranks of revolutionary organisations by doing so. They never learn.
Nothing to do with what I personally think of Marion Price or her aims.

Cody Pomeray · 31-05-2013 12:19pm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Oh come off it. You know as well as I do that it's against the law to help members of an illegal organisation.

"Oh come off it" yourself?

Nobody here is psychic. Use the words you mean. I have not raised extending assistance to members of an illegal association; I raised freedom of association as a British Constitutional right and as a civil right under the European Convention.

This was in response to a silly little comment about it being "made clear" who Marian Price should not "associate with" upon release. I'm genuinely concerned you are mistaking prison with Cheltenham Ladies' College. Nobody has a right to warn an individual in such a way.

pablomakaveli · 31-05-2013 12:43pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never said anything about 'appeasement'. I am saying they are tragically stupid to take on battles they can't win and have no stomach for winning and routinely swell the ranks of revolutionary organisations by doing so. They never learn.
Nothing to do with what I personally think of Marion Price or her aims.

Then the only alternative is to let a convicted terrorist associate with other terrorists and do nothing about it in case it "swells" the ranks of the dissidents. What does more damage is people crying about "internment" every time a republican is arrested and trying to paint them as a poor victim of injustice.

laoch na mona · 31-05-2013 1:23pm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

She can't support who she likes. If she's aiding dissidents she's a criminal. It's pretty simple.

.

if she is a criminal then convict her don't intern and torture her without trial

Fratton Fred · 31-05-2013 1:59pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

if she is a criminal then convict her don't intern and torture her without trial

Torture her? When did that happen?

Fratton Fred · 31-05-2013 2:01pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is that Martin McGuinness, deputy First Minister of N.I., you are referring to? Somebody capitualted to allow him get there don't you think?.

Martin McGuinness did by the sound of things.

Cody Pomeray · 31-05-2013 2:05pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Martin McGuinness did by the sound of things.

The point is there was compromise. You can interpret that as both parties capitulating if it *somehow* makes you feel better.

Fratton Fred · 31-05-2013 2:15pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The point is there was compromise. You can interpret that as both parties capitulating if it *somehow* makes you feel better.

That would be my interpretation.

Happyman42 · 31-05-2013 2:55pm

There was only one side who said they would never give in to 'terrorists', yet......

Iwasfrozen · 31-05-2013 2:58pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

There was only one side who said they would never give in to 'terrorists', yet......

They didn't. The terrorists wanted a UI but they'll only get it if the majority of people want it.

Happyman42 · 31-05-2013 3:00pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They didn't. The terrorists wanted a UI but they'll only get it if the majority of people want it.

And a UI is still available, a Unionist suprematist state isn't however.

Iwasfrozen · 31-05-2013 3:08pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

And a UI is still available, a Unionist suprematist state isn't however.

But supremacism was never a unionist goal. They were just bigots being bigots. True unionism concerns itself only with the maintenance of the Union. A Union that is secure for the forseeable future.

Nationalism wants a United Ireland but that likely won't come about within the next 50 years if ever. Neither side can claim total victory, it was more of a truce.

Happyman42 · 31-05-2013 3:21pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But supremacism was never a unionist goal. They were just bigots being bigots. True unionism concerns itself only with the maintenance of the Union. A Union that is secure for the forseeable future.

Nationalism wants a United Ireland but that likely won't come about within the next 50 years if ever. Neither side can claim total victory, it was more of a truce.

A UI is an achievable goal, fact. A Unionist controlled suprematist state (call it what you will) has been defeated and will never happen again.
Unionism is a dead ideology, given that those whom they want to be unified with have no interest in N.I. and have signed an intenational agreement giving conrol of the future to the people of the island.

Iwasfrozen · 31-05-2013 3:31pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

A UI is an achievable goal, fact.

I didn't disagree. It's always been an achievable goal.

A Unionist controlled suprematist state (call it what you will) has been defeated and will never happen again.

A Unionist controlled supremacist state was never the goal of unionism. In it's purest form unionism is interested only in the preservation of the union. Of course a person can be both bigoted and unionist, just as a person can be bigoted and nationalist but it's not an official part of either ideology.

Unionism is a dead ideology, given that those whom they want to be unified with have no interest in N.I. and have signed an intenational agreement giving conrol of the future to the people of the island.

How do you know the British don't want to maintain the Union? Will you still be saying this after the Scots (inevitably) vote to maintain the union next year?

But what are you even trying to say here, are you trying to claim the provos won the war even though a UI is at least 50 years away if ever?

SDLP call for the release of Marian Price.

Comments