SPAD fad

Crooked Jack

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ........................

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

Crooked Jack

Are you insinuating kavanagh is not a victim?

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.

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.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

How? Exactly and precisely, please.

Paramilitaries are by their nature radical and unsavory people.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

El Alamein.

I don't see the big problem with this either. It is now in law and that is that. Sinn Fein and Republicans can moan and cry about it all they want. It got passed. A bit like the flag decision at Belfast City hall. Accept democracy.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Firstly, the goals of the legislation.
Secondly, what points?

You said anyone who would kill for their beliefs was a radical and an unsavoury type.
I asked if you applied this to those who killed for their beliefs in WW1 or WW2.

Crooked Jack

El Alamein. wrote: »

I don't see the big problem with this either. It is now in law and that is that. Sinn Fein and Republicans can moan and cry about it all they want. It got passed. A bit like the flag decision at Belfast City hall. Accept democracy.

Restricting the flying of the british flag over Belfast City Hall was a step towards equality (one that even came with concessions to the unionist feeling of superiority.) This bill is a step away from equality. It's a law targeted at a specific party and a specific combatant in the conflict with a further aim of creating a hierarchy of victims, something that will push the chance of reconciliation back another ten years.

El Alamein.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Restricting the flying of the british flag over Belfast City Hall was a step towards equality (one that even came with concessions to the unionist feeling of superiority.) This bill is a step away from equality. It's a law targeted at a specific party and a specific combatant in the conflict with a further aim of creating a hierarchy of victims, something that will push the chance of reconciliation back another ten years.

This bill is equality. It stops criminals from being in special advisor positions at Stormont. This isn't a bill just for terrorists. You are wrong to say it is aimed at Sinn Fein.

To the point of hierarchy of victims argument. You really need to get away from this attempt to try and convince people that people who planted bombs are in some way on the same level with the people they blew to pieces.

What is disturbing is you try and actually play down what Lenny Murphy did to try and suit your disturbing logic and argument. It holds no weight for the majority of rational people.

The majority of people in Northern Ireland just will not have it that the guy who planted the bomb on the Shankill road is somehow a victim and on the same level as the people he blew apart.

The people who got murdered in these bombings didn't stand a chance. The argument of the bomb planters being victims is probably one of the most psychotic and disturbing arguments you will see which have no rationality behind them.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

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.

That's not true at all, there are people who vote for SF who would never vote for a paramilitary. Northern Ireland is a big place you can't say this or that doesn't exist.

Nodin wrote: »

The party supported the armed struggle.

Indeed they did but this law doesn't ban people who lended political support to paramilitaries. Only a paramilitaries themselves.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You said anyone who would kill for their beliefs was a radical and an unsavoury type.
I asked if you applied this to those who killed for their beliefs in WW1 or WW2.

One word, conscription.

Crooked Jack

El Alamein. wrote: »

This bill is equality. It stops criminals from being in special advisor positions at Stormont. This isn't a bill just for terrorists. You are wrong to say it is aimed at Sinn Fein.

You are naive to think it wasnt aimed at Sinn Fein. Unionism was always careful to incite and encourage loyalist murderers but the mainstream parties never brought them on board. Meanwhile state forces were rarely punished for their crimes and when they were they still conveniently qualify to be SPADs. The Brit that shot 12 year old Majella O'Hare in the back as she walked to Mass was acquitted. The Brit that shot 13 year old Kevin Heatley in the head as he sat on a wall out side his house was found guilty of unlawful killing and sentenced to three years (well under the five year limit of this bill) and then released a week later. This bill is aimed squarely at Sinn Fein and has nothing to do with victims or equality. No victim benefits from it and as i pointed out, the only victim affected by it is Paul Kavanagh, who will lose his job.

El Alamein. wrote: »

To the point of hierarchy of victims argument. You really need to get away from this attempt to try and convince people that people who planted bombs are in some way on the same level with the people they blew to pieces.

What is disturbing is you try and actually play down what Lenny Murphy did to try and suit your disturbing logic and argument. It holds no weight for the majority of rational people.

Liar. I in no way "played down" what that monster did.

El Alamein. wrote: »

The majority of people in Northern Ireland just will not have it that the guy who planted the bomb on the Shankill road is somehow a victim and on the same level as the people he blew apart.

The people who got murdered in these bombings didn't stand a chance. The argument of the bomb planters being victims is probably one of the most psychotic and disturbing arguments you will see which have no rationality behind them.

The guy who planted the bomb on the Shankill Road is as much a victim as anyone else. The people who died are dead. For those they left behind, wether they were killed in a gun battle with the brits or out doing their shopping, the pain is no less real.
If they were killed in the conflict they were a victim of the conflict and any other attitude will only see us bogged down in these "who is more worthy" arguments and set reconciliation back further.
This bill attempts to say that one persons pain is more valid than another. That's despicable, discriminatory and completely against the spirit of the GFA and equality.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

One word, conscription.

That was a close one Murray, it was coming up on him fast but he locked the steering wheel, pulled up the handbrake and managed to dodge the issue.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

That was a close one Murray, it was coming up on him fast but he locked the steering wheel, pulled up the handbrake and managed to dodge the issue.

I'm not dodging the issue at all, you're trying to deflect from the issue by bringing up the world wars.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not dodging the issue at all, you're trying to deflect from the issue by bringing up the world wars.

Indeed i'm not. You said anyone who kills for their beliefs is a radical and unsavoury. Now do you still stand by that statement, or, as I suspect, does it only apply to republicans, with the odd nod towards loyalists thrown in so you come across as balanced?

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Indeed i'm not. You said anyone who kills for their beliefs is a radical and unsavoury. Now do you still stand by that statement, or, as I suspect, does it only apply to republicans, with the odd nod towards loyalists thrown in so you come across as balanced?

When paramilitaries start fighting an upfront war and bind themselves by the Geneva convention then you may have a point.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When paramilitaries start fighting an upfront war and bind themselves by the Geneva convention then you may have a point.

So i take it you're not going to answer the question then? Why didn't you just say that at the start and save us all this messing?

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's not true at all, there are people who vote for SF who would never vote for a paramilitary.

.

....they'd be few and far between.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Indeed they did but this law doesn't ban people who lended political support to paramilitaries. Only a paramilitaries themselves.

....it doesn't ban paramilitaries. It bans people who have served time for paramilitary offences from acting as advisors - a dig, essentially, considering this doesn't affect MLA's, MP's or TD's, county councillors or anything else.

Dunrum Arbella.

You are naive to think it wasnt aimed at Sinn Fein. Unionism was always careful to incite and encourage loyalist murderers but the mainstream parties never brought them on board. Meanwhile state forces were rarely punished for their crimes and when they were they still conveniently qualify to be SPADs. The Brit that shot 12 year old Majella O'Hare in the back as she walked to Mass was acquitted. The Brit that shot 13 year old Kevin Heatley in the head as he sat on a wall out side his house was found guilty of unlawful killing and sentenced to three years (well under the five year limit of this bill) and then released a week later. This bill is aimed squarely at Sinn Fein and has nothing to do with victims or equality. No victim benefits from it and as i pointed out, the only victim affected by it is Paul Kavanagh, who will lose his job.

Look at what is in the bill, it doesn't just rule out terrorists. It rules out criminals regardless. So you are just wrong.

Crooked Jack, the majority of people in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic do not care if the bill upsets you. Most people agree with it and really aren't bothered about the fascination you seem to have with terrorists and the apologist attitude towards them.

Liar. I in no way "played down" what that monster did.

Yes you did, you called Lenny Murphy a victim!. Only in the warped mind of an extremist Republican like yourself would you label Lenny Murphy a victim.

Go tell that to the families of the victims of Lenny Murphy and you will get a slap in the face. Trying to legitimise terrorism regardless of the sides to defend PIRA terrorism. The lowest of the low. The problem you have Crooked Jack, is the majority of people don't agree with you and frankly just see it as typical Republican loony views.

The guy who planted the bomb on the Shankill Road is as much a victim as anyone else. The people who died are dead. For those they left behind, wether they were killed in a gun battle with the brits or out doing their shopping, the pain is no less real.
If they were killed in the conflict they were a victim of the conflict and any other attitude will only see us bogged down in these "who is more worthy" arguments and set reconciliation back further.
This bill attempts to say that one persons pain is more valid than another. That's despicable, discriminatory and completely against the spirit of the GFA and equality.

Absolutely laughable to try and claim the Shankill bomber was a victim. Never heard a bigger load of horse sh*t in all my life. The innocent victims had NO CHANCE. Blow apart because of warped fascist Republican ideology. Most Irish people don't care and don't agree with this mentality.

Crooked Jack

Dunrum Arbella. wrote: »

Look at what is in the bill, it doesn't just rule out terrorists. It rules out criminals regardless. So you are just wrong.

No, I'm not. There are all sorts of stipulations on this bill. http://relativesforjustice.com/?p=1501 The SDLP were opposed to it until the draw of opportunistic point scoring and the emotional blackmail of Ann Travers u-turned their already directionless political outlook.
They know this bill is flawed and pointless.

Dunrum Arbella. wrote: »

Crooked Jack, the majority of people in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic do not care if the bill upsets you. Most people agree with it and really aren't bothered about the fascination you seem to have with terrorists and the apologist attitude towards them.

This is the third political thread you've commented on since joining today and in each one you have claimed to know what the people want. mind if I ask how you "know" all this. See, Im a democrat so I have this pesky desire to do totally unnecessary stuff like ask the people what their opinion on something is before I claim to speak for them.

Dunrum Arbella. wrote: »

Yes you did, you called Lenny Murphy a victim!. Only in the warped mind of an extremist Republican like yourself would you label Lenny Murphy a victim.

The place is coming down with liars today. Obviously I dont need to defend against the allegation that I downplayed what Lenny murphy did because the posts are there and anyone can go read them, so this whole strawman argument is obviously just a deflection.
As for being a victim. Well, yeah, he was a victim. The IRA executed him and I'm delighted they did. He deserved it and a lot more, but he's still a victim of the IRA and a victim of the conflict. That doesnt mean I agree with him, doesnt even mean I respect him, but he was a victim of the conflict.

Dunrum Arbella. wrote: »

Go tell that to the families of the victims of Lenny Murphy and you will get a slap in the face. Trying to legitimise terrorism regardless of the sides to defend PIRA terrorism. The lowest of the low. The problem you have Crooked Jack, is the majority of people don't agree with you and frankly just see it as typical Republican loony views.

Hard to tell what you're accusing me of here. Am I a PIRA apologist? Am I a Shankill Butchers fanboy? Or are you just a raving loon who set up an account today (possibly a re-reg, you arent called Keith by any chance?) so you could have some sort of outlet for your hysterical nonsense?

Dunrum Arbella. wrote: »

Absolutely laughable to try and claim the Shankill bomber was a victim.

Thomas Begley was a victim of the conflict as much as anybody else. His family felt the same pain as anyone else's and deserve the same respect.

Dunrum Arbella. wrote: »

Never heard a bigger load of horse sh*t in all my life. The innocent victims had NO CHANCE. Blow apart because of warped fascist Republican ideology.

Fascist republican ideology? Is that like up down ideology? Or black white ideology? Or is it perhaps the case that you dont actually know what fascist means, it's just a nice buzz word to throw out there?

Dunrum Arbella. wrote: »

Most Irish people don't care and don't agree with this mentality.

You're really gonna have to let me borrow this crystal ball of yours that allows you to know the opinions of the irish nation on all issues without consulting them. Id love to find out what the nation's favourite film is or wether they make crisp sandwiches with or without butter.

Dunrum Arbella.

No, I'm not. There are all sorts of stipulations on this bill. http://relativesforjustice.com/?p=1501 The SDLP were opposed to it until the draw of opportunistic point scoring and the emotional blackmail of Ann Travers u-turned their already directionless political outlook.
They know this bill is flawed and pointless.

It obviously isn't pointless because you would not be commenting on it if it was. The SDLP did what was right. You just don't like it with the extremist Republican view you have.

This is the third political thread you've commented on since joining today and in each one you have claimed to know what the people want. mind if I ask how you "know" all this. See, Im a democrat so I have this pesky desire to do totally unnecessary stuff like ask the people what their opinion on something is before I claim to speak for them.

Make a thread on this issue with a poll in AH and see if they actually a) care about it, b) agree and c) disagree with it. You are just upset that it stops criminals from getting a special advisor position at Stormont. Earth to Crooked Jack, most people dislike criminals.

The place is coming down with liars today. Obviously I dont need to defend against the allegation that I downplayed what Lenny murphy did because the posts are there and anyone can go read them, so this whole strawman argument is obviously just a deflection.
As for being a victim. Well, yeah, he was a victim. The IRA executed him and I'm delighted they did. He deserved it and a lot more, but he's still a victim of the IRA and a victim of the conflict. That doesnt mean I agree with him, doesnt even mean I respect him, but he was a victim of the conflict.

Everyone who read the post will see exactly what you said. You claimed Lenny Murphy was a victim. A complete slap in the face to all the families of the victims he murdered. Absolutely shameful of you. You only said it to try and justify the warped ideology you have.

Hard to tell what you're accusing me of here. Am I a PIRA apologist? Am I a Shankill Butchers fanboy? Or are you just a raving loon who set up an account today (possibly a re-reg, you arent called Keith by any chance?) so you could have some sort of outlet for your hysterical nonsense?

Its clear to most people you are a ranting Republican loony who hasn't got a sense of reality at all. You only defended Lenny Murphy by labeling a murderer as a victim to try and legitimise terrorism. You must think most people on here are thick or something with the drivel you post.

Thomas Begley was a victim of the conflict as much as anybody else. His family felt the same pain as anyone else's and deserve the same respect.

Thomas Begley was a terroist who murdered people in cold blood.

Fascist republican ideology? Is that like up down ideology? Or black white ideology? Or is it perhaps the case that you dont actually know what fascist means, it's just a nice buzz word to throw out there?

Supporting undemocratic ways, fascist like behaviour. Murdering innocent civilians in the name of a warped ideology.

You're really gonna have to let me borrow this crystal ball of yours that allows you to know the opinions of the irish nation on all issues without consulting them. Id love to find out what the nation's favourite film is or wether they make crisp sandwiches with or without butter.

Just look at the vast majority of opinions on this website. They disagree with terrorism, the PIRA and any other group which is involved in terrorism. You support terrorism. Get over it, the "war" is over and the border is in place.

awec

This post has been deleted.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Bigdeadlydave

awec wrote: »

These positions are public sector roles. They are civil servants. To suggest that the public have no right to decide who is hired into these rolls is daft in the extreme. In fact that's barrel scraping.

Serious criminals are barred from the rest of the civil service, why should this lot be treated any differently?

The anger directed toward Ann Travers in this thread is utterly disgusting but not surprising. I guess she's not entitled to speak out cause she's speaking out against SF?

What I find most hilarious is this yapping about a hierarchy of victims. The dripping irony here is that this hierarchy was created by Sinn Fein. Obviously it's totally lost on some.

So the public can elect Gerry Kelly, he can be a minister etc, yet his advisor cannot come from a similar (or even less serious) background? Seems daft to me.

awec

This post has been deleted.