Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SPAD fad

Options
  • 04-06-2013 2:35pm
    #1
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭


    So this SPAD Bill has passed. What an absolutely farcical episode.
    Shameless flip-flopping from the SDLP, Ann Travers got another go in the spotlight to spout anti-SF rhetoric wrapped up in the guise of victimhood and now we're left with an utterly worthless law that serves no purpose save to get a man fired and take another step towards creating a hierarchy of victims.

    For me this whole episode raised a few questions. Such as why, of all victims, is Ann Travers constantly wheeled out by the media (Belfast Telegraph in particular) and treated as the definitive voice on victim's issues?

    Are all SDLP policies up for discussion with a bit of emotional blackmail?

    How are we going to definitively address the issues of dealing with the past and victims, by which, of course, I mean all victims?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Can't see what the fuss is about to be honest. There's plenty of jobs that have a bar on people with criminal convictions, so I don't see what so special about this.


  • Options
    #3
    mcc1
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭mcc1


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    take another step towards creating a hierarchy of victims.

    That because there quite frankly is a hierarchy.

    Sinn Fein like to believe for example that a bomber in the process of planting a bomb and gets blown up when it detonates early is just as much a victim as those his bomb blew up and killed even if they were civilians with no links to any of the security forces...

    Tell me something as your Republican, do you believe that Lenny Murphy and his Butcher mates are equal victims to those those Catholic civilians they went round brutally murdering???

    Because thats what Sinn Fein clearly think.... SICK


  • Options
    #4
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    mcc1 wrote: »
    That because there quite frankly is a hierarchy.

    Sinn Fein like to believe for example that a bomber in the process of planting a bomb and gets blown up when it detonates early is just as much a victim as those his bomb blew up and killed even if they were civilians with no links to any of the security forces...

    Tell me something as your Republican, do you believe that Lenny Murphy and his Butcher mates are equal victims to those those Catholic civilians they went round brutally murdering???

    Because thats what Sinn Fein clearly think.... SICK

    The British government carefully fostered sectarian differences here for centuries. Their presence in Ireland is the root cause of every conflict we have seen here for the past 400 years. Everyone who fell victim to that conflict is a victim.
    I may not like it, particularly when the issue is applied to Murphy and his ilk, but when we start saying who is a more worthy victim we descend into these arguments.
    Of course the person blown up with their own bomb is a much a victim as others killed in the blast. What drove them to do it? What was so bad they felt the need to plant a bomb?
    The only way to move past this issue is to acknowledge that all those hurt in the conflict, in whatever way, were victims.
    Murphy is a particularly hard one to stomach given his despicable actions, but I assume when he was born he was just like anybody else. A blank sheet.
    But then he was brought up in a sectarian environment that taught him to have a bloodthirsty hatred for his neighbour. He fell foul to centuries of british propoganda and he acted on it.
    Yes, even he's a victim. He's still a person who died, he still left behind a family.
    Creating a hierarchy of victims merely gets us caught up in these arguments and prevents us from ever moving forward.


  • Options
    #5
    Bigdeadlydave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Bigdeadlydave


    So they can get elected but can't be advisors? Bit stupid really, its a special case in the north.

    Murderers like Bernard Lynch must be sweating hoping they don't bring this in in the south.

    People need to accept that there were particular circumstances which led to political crimes - the way to move on from this is to act in an inclusionary manner and not to exclude ex prisoners from employment. Leinster house is trying to exclude ex political prisoners from being taxi drivers - how stupid can you get.

    The idea of the GFA is for it to be a line under things and a fresh start, the British seem to have forgotten this


  • Options
    #6
    mcc1
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭mcc1


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    I may not like it, particularly when the issue is applied to Murphy and his ilk, but when we start saying who is a more worthy victim we descend into these arguments.
    Of course the person blown up with their own bomb is a much a victim as others killed in the blast. What drove them to do it? What was so bad they felt the need to plant a bomb?
    The only way to move past this issue is to acknowledge that all those hurt in the conflict, in whatever way, were victims.
    Murphy is a particularly hard one to stomach given his despicable actions, but I assume when he was born he was just like anybody else. A blank sheet.
    But then he was brought up in a sectarian environment that taught him to have a bloodthirsty hatred for his neighbour. He fell foul to centuries of british propoganda and he acted on it.
    Yes, even he's a victim. He's still a person who died, he still left behind a family.
    Creating a hierarchy of victims merely gets us caught up in these arguments and prevents us from ever moving forward.

    In other words what your trying to say as usual, is its all Britain fault.. *yawn*.

    Its something I no doubt you continue to spout as is a way of trying to legitimise in your case quite a number of sick actions carried out by the IRA and so on

    Thankfully I was brought up with morals. I accept that all sides were in the wrong on a quite a number of occasions but I would in no way label the perpetrators as equals to their victims. Whether they be Republican, Loyalist or members of the security forces.

    They were all born with brains, nothing forced them to pick up a gun or plant a bomb, they did it because they wanted to.

    Their victims didn't choose to be shot dead or blown to pieces, they didn't have a choice. Like I said to even try and call them equal is disgusting.

    Thats all im gonna say on the matter because I know fine well that im wasting my time with you and your SInn Fein buddies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,676 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    I'm not familiar with the SPAD bill, beyond a quick google search -BBC. But rather reluctantly, I'd say that the purpose of prison is to rehabilitation of the detainee and once time has been served (barring exception cases where reoffence is a near certainty) then that person's debt to society has been served. Ironically in a way, such ex-prisoners do have human rights, the right to work being one of those and for it to be breached in such a fashion is potentially a breach of European law.


  • Options
    #8
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Can't see what the fuss is about to be honest. There's plenty of jobs that have a bar on people with criminal convictions, so I don't see what so special about this.


    ...because it goes against the spirit of the GFA, and is rather ridiculous given the history of many Sinn Fein MLA's.


  • Options
    #9
    notbrazil
    Registered Users Posts: 117 ✭✭notbrazil


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...because it goes against the spirit of the GFA, and is rather ridiculous given the history of many Sinn Fein MLA's.

    I don't recall there being an appendix to the GFA labelled "yeah, that's what it says, but this is the 'spirit' of it all". The SPAD affair was clearly divisive since SF appointed McArdle to the role, causing obvious upset to the family of the person she murdered. MLAs are different as the public, for whatever reason, consider them the best people to vote for, giving them a democratic mandate. SPADs are MLA's mates who latch on to the £90k gravy train for a ride up the hill.

    Yes, we're post conflict, and yes, we've all got bitter pills to swallow. However, I think there needs to be more consideration from both sides in Stormont otherwise we're not going to get anywhere. Seamus Mallon summed it up perfectly for me, and I'm glad his party respected him enough to follow his advice.


  • Options
    #10
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,297 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    But then he was brought up in a sectarian environment that taught him to have a bloodthirsty hatred for his neighbour. He fell foul to centuries of british propoganda and he acted on it.
    Or he just might have been the matter of antisocial personality disorder, psychosis or a psychopathy.

    And propaganda (and importantly dogma) goes both ways.
    Bigdeadlydave wrote: »
    People need to accept that there were particular circumstances which led to political crimes
    It is interesting that one of the principles of civil disobedience is that you should take responsibility for your actions and accept any corresponding ramifications. Why can't violent paramilitaries accept the same?


  • Options
    #11
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    notbrazil wrote: »
    I don't recall there being an appendix to the GFA labelled "yeah, that's what it says, but this is the 'spirit' of it all"..

    They let prisoners out. Nobody who is subsequently convicted will do more than two years.
    notbrazil wrote: »
    Yes, we're post conflict, and yes, we've all got bitter pills to swallow. However, I think there needs to be more consideration from both sides in Stormont otherwise we're not going to get anywhere..

    It seems the bitterest pill is reserved for some.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Victor wrote: »

    It is interesting that one of the principles of civil disobedience is that you should take responsibility for your actions and accept any corresponding ramifications. Why can't violent paramilitaries accept the same?


    The woman did her time. If she'd been convicted after the GFA she wouldn't have served more than two years.


  • Options
    #13
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Glad this bill has passed, it will keep some of the more radical, and frankly unsavoury, people on both sides out of a position of influence. What's the problem?


  • Options
    #14
    COYW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭COYW


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Glad this bill has passed, it will keep some of the more radical, and frankly unsavoury, people on both sides out of a position of influence. What's the problem?

    Agree, I bet there are plenty of decent law-abiding people in NI who would be delighted to accept these positions. Glad this bill passed, it is a small victory for the relatives of those who suffered at the hands of terrorists.


  • Options
    #15
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    COYW wrote: »
    Agree, I bet there are plenty of decent law-abiding people in NI who would be delighted to accept these positions. Glad this bill passed, it is a small victory for the relatives of those who suffered at the hands of terrorists.

    Rubbish, this law will have no positive effect on the life of any victim. in fact the only victim this law will effect is paul kavanagh, who'll lose his job over it. id also have serious concerns about any law which can be applied retrospectively. it sets a dangerous precedent.


  • Options
    #16
    COYW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭COYW


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Rubbish, this law will have no positive effect on the life of any victim. in fact the only victim this law will effect is paul kavanagh, who'll lose his job over it. id also have serious concerns about any law which can be applied retrospectively. it sets a dangerous precedent.

    It will help victims in that they won't have to stomach looking at the individual who slaughtered their loved one in a highly paid public role.

    How is the fact that it can be applied retrospectively, a dangerous precedent? If it turned out that someone employed in such a position played a key role in some appalling atrocity, such as the Enniskillen bombing, I believe that such a person should be removed from their role. You don't agree?

    As for Paul Kavanagh. He should count himself very lucky actually. He can appeal if he wants, unlike his victims ........................


  • Options
    #17
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    COYW wrote: »
    It will help victims in that they won't have to stomach looking at the individual who slaughtered their loved one in a highly paid public role.

    How is the fact that it can be applied retrospectively, a dangerous precedent? If it turned out that someone employed in such a position played a key role in some appalling atrocity, such as the Enniskillen bombing, I believe that such a person should be removed from their role. You don't agree?

    As for Paul Kavanagh. He should count himself very lucky actually. He can appeal if he wants, unlike his victims ........................

    Who are these victims who are currently having to stomach this and what is this public role? A SPAD is a behind the scenes role and paul kavanagh gets the average industrial wage, same as any SF worker.
    How is a retrospective law not dangerous. the spanish are notorious for using them to suppress basque political expression.
    And why should paul kavanagh count himself lucky. he served his time. he abides by the requirements of his release licence. should he never be allowed to work again? If he gets a job in a shop should ann travers be able to get him fired in case she goes to buy bread there some day.
    This is a bullsh!t law, designed by travers and the tuv to attack SF and supported by spineless weasels and flip flopping opportunists in the Stoop Down Low Party


  • Options
    #18
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Are you insinuating kavanagh is not a victim?


  • Options
    #19
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Glad this bill has passed, it will keep some of the more radical, and frankly unsavoury, people on both sides out of a position of influence. What's the problem?


    How? Exactly and precisely, please.


  • Options
    #20
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Glad this bill has passed, it will keep some of the more radical, and frankly unsavoury, people on both sides out of a position of influence. What's the problem?

    Both sides me hole. this was targeted at republicans. few if any loyalists are involved in that level of government and state forces rarely, if ever, went to jail for their crimes.


  • Options
    #21
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nodin wrote: »
    How? Exactly and precisely, please.
    Paramilitaries are by their nature radical and unsavory people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Paramilitaries are by their nature radical and unsavory people.


    ....you said "more radical" initially, which rather makes me suspect the above wasn't your original meaning. Nor does your answer address what I asked. The bill also requires persons to express "remorse" for what they did. Given the nature of the conflict this is clearly an attempt at humiliation.

    The Deputy First Minister of NI is a former paramilitary. The second largest party in the North has in its membership and support base many former paramilitaries. It's thus a nonsense to target advisors and doing so is sheer spite on behalf of Jim Mc Allister et al.

    Would you favour the exclusion of Martin McGuinness as well?


  • Options
    #23
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....you said "more radical" initially, which rather makes me suspect the above wasn't your original meaning. Nor does your answer address what I asked. The bill also requires persons to express "remorse" for what they did. Given the nature of the conflict this is clearly an attempt at humiliation.
    Yes more radical. It takes a radical person to kill for their beliefs. It also takes a frankly unsavoury person.
    Nodin wrote: »
    The Deputy First Minister of NI is a former paramilitary. The second largest party in the North has in its membership and support base many former paramilitaries. It's thus a nonsense to target advisors and doing so is sheer spite on behalf of Jim Mc Allister et al.

    Would you favour the exclusion of Martin McGuinness as well?
    The unwashed public in their infinite wisdom have chosen to elect these people for some god unknown reason. Special advisers are not elected, they have no mandate from the people.


  • Options
    #24
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Yes more radical. It takes a radical person to kill for their beliefs. It also takes a frankly unsavoury person.

    like those who killed for their beliefs in ww1 and ww2?

    The unwashed public in their infinite wisdom have chosen to elect these people for some god unknown reason.

    Wow! You really are a trollish little man

    Special advisers are not elected, they have no mandate from the people.

    exactly. theyre not elected. its a behind the scenes position for which they are appoibted on merit. nobody should be able to tell a party who they can or cant hire, least of all ann travers and jim allister


  • Options
    #25
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    exactly. theyre not elected. its a behind the scenes position for which they are appoibted on merit. nobody should be able to tell a party who they can or cant hire, least of all ann travers and jim allister
    It's a position of influence and the goal is to keep the more radical elements of both movements out of politics. And before you ask how i determine the threshold for "radicalism" membership of a paramilitary organisation does it for me.


  • Options
    #26
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Yes more radical. It takes a radical person to kill for their beliefs. It also takes a frankly unsavoury person. .

    Judgemental nonsense.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The unwashed public in their infinite wisdom have chosen to elect these people for some god unknown reason. Special advisers are not elected, they have no mandate from the people.

    So why would the voters who put in such people object to special advisors being appointed by those with the same history?


  • Options
    #27
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's a position of influence and the goal is to keep the more radical elements of both movements out of politics. And before you ask how i determine the threshold for "radicalism" membership of a paramilitary organisation does it for me.


    Dear me. You would essentially favour the exclusion of Sinn Fein then.


  • Options
    #28
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's a position of influence and the goal is to keep the more radical elements of both movements out of politics. And before you ask how i determine the threshold for "radicalism" membership of a paramilitary organisation does it for me.

    Firstly, exactly whos goal are you referring to.
    Secondly, i notice you conveniently ignored the other points i made


  • Options
    #29
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nodin wrote: »
    Judgemental nonsense.
    Indeed it is judgemental, judgemental against the scum who joined paramilitaries during the troubles. Though I naturally disagree on the nonsense part.
    Nodin wrote: »
    So why would the voters who put in such people object to special advisors being appointed by those with the same history?
    Maybe they would in some regions and maybe they wouldn't in others but the role of special advisor is not an elected one.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Dear me. You would essentially favour the exclusion of Sinn Fein then.
    No, only the most radical and unsavory of members. Lots of Sinn Fein members had nothing to do with the IRA.
    Crooked Jack wrote:
    Firstly, exactly whos goal are you referring to.
    Secondly, i notice you conveniently ignored the other points i made
    Firstly, the goals of the legislation.
    Secondly, what points?


  • Options
    #30
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,888 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    Nodin wrote: »
    Dear me. You would essentially favour the exclusion of Sinn Fein then.

    I wish people would stop voting for them, leading to their exclusion.

    More than that, I wish that the moderate people, who are disillusioned with the political process in NI, would come out and vote for someone else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »


    Maybe they would in some regions and maybe they wouldn't in others but the role of special advisor is not an elected one.


    Evasion. If they voted for a party that supported the armed struggle and contains many who participated in same, they aren't going to be bothered by the appointment of advisors with the same history.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No, only the most radical and unsavory of members. Lots of Sinn Fein members had nothing to do with the IRA..

    The party supported the armed struggle.


Advertisement