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

Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Options
1…3435373940

Comments

  • Options
    #1082
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I'm glad the OO are not important because a sectarian organisation like that will rightly be outlawed if it doesn't reform itself.

    I agree that the OO is a nasty little outfit populated by dullards, bigots and sectarians but outlawing it would surely play into its persecution/superiority complex and siege mentality and could well have the opposite effect of getting rid.

    I say let the OO die a natural death like conservative Catholicism.


  • Options
    #1083
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »

    But you can certainly state that a sizeable majority of voters intend rejecting a united Ireland, as measured by their voting intention.

    There you go again, forgetting the 'if a poll was held tomorrow' qualifier.
    Karl Stein wrote: »
    I agree that the OO is a nasty little outfit populated by dullards, bigots and sectarians but outlawing it would surely play into its persecution/superiority complex and siege mentality and could well have the opposite effect of getting rid.

    I say let the OO die a natural death like conservative Catholicism.

    Everybody will have to leave stuff behind and pandering to a sectarian organisation would be suicidal for any new republic.
    Stand up for what is right from the get go, 'Tough titty' I would say to thoe looking to preserve that particular divisive and sectarian institution.


  • Options
    #1084
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Everybody will have to leave stuff behind and pandering to a sectarian organisation would be suicidal for any new republic.
    Stand up for what is right from the get go, 'Tough titty' I would say to thoe looking to preserve that particular divisive and sectarian institution.

    I think it would have the opposite effect and only cause it to dig its heels in.

    Sure we'll agree to disagree. Not much of that going on here. :)

    And with that, I'm out. Enjoy.


  • Options
    #1085
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There you go again, forgetting the 'if a poll was held tomorrow' qualifier.



    Everybody will have to leave stuff behind and pandering to a sectarian organisation would be suicidal for any new republic.
    Stand up for what is right from the get go, 'Tough titty' I would say to thoe looking to preserve that particular divisive and sectarian institution.

    I guess your republic has failed even before it was created, personally speaking IF there where ever to be any negotiations over unification, one of my criterias will be the protection of those institutions that my community holds as important to its culture


  • Options
    #1086
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There you go again, forgetting the 'if a poll was held tomorrow' qualifier.
    It's no qualifier. It's a poll of voter intentions. And it tallies with previous polls - including long term preferences. 2010 NILT survey:
    Do you think the long-term policy for Northern Ireland should be for it…


    %

    to remain part of the United Kingdom with direct rule 15
    to remain part of the United Kingdom with devolved government 58
    or, to reunify with the rest of Ireland? 16
    Independent state 3
    Other answer 3
    Don't know 6



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1087
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    junder wrote: »
    I guess your republic has failed even before it was created, personally speaking IF there where ever to be any negotiations over unification, one of my criterias will be the protection of those institutions that my community holds as important to its culture
    Can't be that important, it's membership has been in steady decline.
    alastair wrote: »
    It's no qualifier. It's a poll of voter intentions.
    ...about what they would do 'tomorrow'.


  • Options
    #1088
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »

    ...about what they would do 'tomorrow'.

    About how they would vote in a referendum. The date of the vote is no qualifier. It's the voter intent that matters.


  • Options
    #1089
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    About how they would vote in a referendum. The date of the vote is no qualifier. It's the voter intent that matters.


    If I asked you 'Would you vote for Fianna Fail' in a Yes or No poll, then I would expect to get a good overall picture of the electorate's ideological stance on that issue.

    If I ask 'Would you vote for Fianna Fail if a poll was held tomorrow' I get an entirely different answer related to current situation impinging on a voter's decision. I only get an impression of what they will do tomorrow. And I also imply that voter intent is liable to change if the situation influencing their vote on the 'morrow' changes.

    The only thing you can say for definite is that 'tomorrow' is not the time for some of those polled to vote for Fianna Fail.

    The next question in the BBC poll, 'when do you think a poll should be held' shed's light on the nuances of the first question and the phrase that qualifies the question.

    How you want to interpret those 'nuances' is a matter of debate.
    In my opinion I don't think I have ever seen or been aware of a group of voters, happy with the status quo, 'requesting' a referendum to be held on that issue. Therefore I can infer that that electorate, who think a referendum on a UI should be held within a given timeframe, expects the impediments governing their decision 'tomorrow' to change.


  • Options
    #1090
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    If I asked you 'Would you vote for Fianna Fail' in a Yes or No poll, then I would expect to get a good overall picture of the electorate's ideological stance on that issue.

    If I ask 'Would you vote for Fianna Fail if a poll was held tomorrow' I get an entirely different answer related to current situation impinging on a voter's decision. I only get an impression of what they will do tomorrow. And I also imply that voter intent is liable to change if the situation influencing their vote on the 'morrow' changes.
    Except that the poll isn't intended to capture 'ideological stances' - it's capturing voter intention. I'm sure that people might hold some affection for green policies, but if they don't intend to vote for the Green Party, then that's a rejection of the Greens by the voters. The poll, and headline, are accurate and straightforward.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The only thing you can say for definite is that 'tomorrow' is not the time for some of those polled to vote for Fianna Fail.
    And that the FF option has been rejected by those voters.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The next question in the BBC poll, 'when do you think a poll should be held' shed's light on the nuances of the first question and the phrase that qualifies the question.
    No it doesn't. If you extrapolate out from political ideology, there's nothing to suggest that those poll timing preferences have any influence on voter preference. This is unsurprising, given that you get pretty much the same results on voter intention from previous polls (with different, or no stated poll times).
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    How you want to interpret those 'nuances' is a matter of debate.
    In my opinion I don't think I have ever seen or been aware of a group of voters, happy with the status quo, 'requesting' a referendum to be held on that issue. Therefore I can infer that that electorate, who think a referendum on a UI should be held within a given timeframe, expects the impediments governing their decision 'tomorrow' to change.
    No-one is requesting anything. Voters were asked when they felt was the best time for a poll. If you're seriously suggesting that those voters who support the status quo have no interest in their preference being captured in a referendum, then you've a very short memory (Eight, Twelfth, Twenty-Fifth Amendments anyone?). There's two voting possibilities in this poll, and it's important to both sides to assert their case.


  • Options
    #1091
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Can't be that important, it's membership has been in steady decline.


    ...about what they would do 'tomorrow'.

    Membership stands at about 30,000, then there are the other loyal orders and bands, and supporters I think you will find its still important to a significant amount of people


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1092
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    alastair wrote: »
    I understood what you meant. Again - what question would you ask that could be able to account for all the possible rationales for voting one way or another? Polls aren't by their nature suited to open- answers.

    People were given 4 options for Q3. A question explaining why they gave such answers could also have more than 1 option to choose, e.g.:

    a. The NI economy is better than the RoI's currently
    b. Political/ideological aspiration etc etc
    The poll is pointless unless there's a chance that it might pull a majority yes vote. No-one believes it would do so at this point. When it reaches that point, a poll then is mandated.

    You said this already. And as I've said, Unionism would never see such an outcome as 'pointless', especially when related to the continued existence, or not, of NI.
    If you're seriously suggesting that those voters who support the status quo have no interest in their preference being captured in a referendum, then you've a very short memory

    So why not have a border poll then? Why is it 'pointless' in light of what you said here?


  • Options
    #1093
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    People were given 4 options for Q3. A question explaining why they gave such answers could also have more than 1 option to choose, e.g.:

    a. The NI economy is better than the RoI's currently
    b. Political/ideological aspiration etc etc
    It's the etc, etc bit that doesn't work. You think you can encapsulate all rationales in 4 options?
    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    You said this already. And as I've said, Unionism would never see such an outcome as 'pointless', especially when related to the continued existence, or not, of NI.
    It doesn't really matter what unionists or nationalists think about it. The basis of calling the poll is clear and everyone has signed up to that basis.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    So why not have a border poll then? Why is it 'pointless' in light of what you said here?
    Because the agreed basis for holding the poll is not to reaffirm ideological preferences, but to test them when there's a possibility of a shift in the majority.


  • Options
    #1094
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    alastair wrote: »
    It's the etc, etc bit that doesn't work. You think you can encapsulate all rationales in 4 options?

    Why should the pollsters account for 'all rationales'? 4 options were given for Q3. A limited number of what the pollsters think are the most common reasons could be given. Why are you so reticent about not wanting to know why people gave their responses to Q3?
    It doesn't really matter what unionists or nationalists think about it.

    Most of the people?
    Because the agreed basis for holding the poll is not to reaffirm ideological preferences, but to test them when there's a possibility of a shift in the majority.

    So you believe the following (your own words), aren't valid then in all cases?
    If you're seriously suggesting that those voters who support the status quo have no interest in their preference being captured in a referendum

    The 8th & 12th amendments were decided by 2 to 1 (large) majorities to maintain a status quo. Were they 'pointless'?


  • Options
    #1095
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Why should the pollsters account for 'all rationales'? 4 options were given for Q3. A limited number of what the pollsters think are the most common reasons could be given. Why are you so reticent about not wanting to know why people gave their responses to Q3?
    Question 3 has obvious and clearly limited set of possibilities. That's not the case for possible rationales for question 4.


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Most of the people?
    Correct - it's not a poll predicated on popularity, but on the potential for constitutional change.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    So you believe the following (your own words), aren't valid then in all cases??
    In the case of rolling out this poll - no. As agreed in the GFA. As a motivation for voter participation - of course.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    The 8th & 12th amendments were decided by 2 to 1 (large) majorities to maintain a status quo. Were they 'pointless'?
    No - because they weren't devised on anything like the same terms as the NI poll is. They were not predicated on the basis of their chances of passing or otherwise.


  • Options
    #1096
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    alastair wrote: »
    That's not the case for possible rationales for question 4.

    How come? The pollsters framed Q3. It's in their power to frame a 'why did you' question similarly. Surely you yourself at some stage wondered why they answered as they did? Why are you reticent about this?
    the potential for constitutional change.

    A poll would establish such 'potential' in reality.
    As a motivation for voter participation - of course.

    Then have a poll.
    They were not predicated on the basis of their chances of passing or otherwise.

    So why not have a poll then? Do you not think that this question which keeps on emerging has an unsettling effect overall, and that a poll may end it for now? And if a closer result should emerge than currently being indicated, so what, that's the electorate's view on the matter.


  • Options
    #1097
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    How come? The pollsters framed Q3. It's in their power to frame a 'why did you' question similarly. Surely you yourself at some stage wondered why they answered as they did? Why are you reticent about this?.
    I'm not remotely reticent. I've tried twice now to explain that the multiplicity of rationales can't be encapsulated in a limited number of options - unlike question 3. I'm not sure how to restate that fact.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    A poll would establish such 'potential' in reality.
    It would. But it would be both costly and divisive without any benefit. No-one believes the poll would pass currently - even those advocating a border poll.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Then have a poll.
    Making people happy isn't any sort of good reason for a poll.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    So why not have a poll then? Do you not think that this question which keeps on emerging has an unsettling effect overall, and that a poll may end it for now? And if a closer result should emerge than currently being indicated, so what, that's the electorate's view on the matter.
    Because the conditions are not there for calling a poll. No, and no.


  • Options
    #1098
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm not remotely reticent. I've tried twice now to explain that the multiplicity of rationales can't be encapsulated in a limited number of options - unlike question 3. I'm not sure how to restate that fact.

    So you don't want to know why they gave the answers they did? Curious.
    divisive

    And if a poll is called, it's going to be that, regardless. If you're worried about division, would you ever call one yourself?
    No, and no.

    Reminds me of a certain PM in office from 1979 to 1990.


  • Options
    #1099
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »



    Reminds me of a certain PM in office from 1979 to 1990.

    :) Indeed. You are now firmly in the realms of Alastair's curious Never Never Neverland.
    I'm emigrating!


  • Options
    #1100
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    So you don't want to know why they gave the answers they did? Curious.
    The real curious thing is why you have to resort to a straw man argument? I'm mildly interested in the whys, but accept that a poll can't capture them all. As already stated repeatedly.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    And if a poll is called, it's going to be that, regardless. If you're worried about division, would you ever call one yourself?.
    There's not much divisiveness about the possibility of a united Ireland at the moment, because there's no popular demand for it amongst voters. I'd call a poll as soon as it looked like it was going to be anything other than a rubber stamp for the status quo.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Reminds me of a certain PM in office from 1979 to 1990.
    You asked the questions - those are my answers.


  • Options
    #1101
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    :) Indeed. You are now firmly in the realms of Alastair's curious Never Never C
    I'm emigrating!
    Says the man who's utopian republic can't emerge until it has an entire landmass to sustain it? I know where the advocate for a Neverland is in this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1102
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    alastair wrote: »
    straw man argument

    Enquiring as to why people gave their answers is not a straw man in this context. Why did you need a picture to illustrate the headline result in post #1043?
    I'm mildly interested in the whys

    Might have saved us both some time if you said this earlier.
    but accept that a poll can't capture them all.

    As I've said, the pollsters could choose what they thought might be the most common reasons and work from there. Remember it was an opinion poll, not an election.
    I'd call a poll as soon as it looked like it was going to be anything other than a rubber stamp for the status quo.

    Which still reads oddly to me in light of your previous statement:
    If you're seriously suggesting that those voters who support the status quo have no interest in their preference being captured in a referendum


  • Options
    #1103
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Enquiring as to why people gave their answers is not a straw man in this context. Why did you need a picture to illustrate the headline result in post #1043?
    Try reading what I actually wrote, eh? The straw man argument is pretending my point was an invented lack of curiosity, and not the stated reasons why multiple choice answers would work in the poll.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Might have saved us both some time if you said this earlier.
    You didn't ask, and it has no bearing on my point.

    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    As I've said, the pollsters could choose what they thought might be the most common reasons and work from there. Remember it was an opinion poll, not an election.
    I really don't need to explain (again) why that makes no sense whatsoever, do I?
    RED L4 0TH wrote: »
    Which still reads oddly to me in light of your previous statement:
    Sorry about that - work on it a little longer. You'll get it at some point.


  • Options
    #1104
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    alastair wrote: »
    Try reading what I actually wrote, eh? The straw man argument is pretending my point was an invented lack of curiosity, and not the stated reasons why multiple choice answers would work in the poll.

    I'm just curious as to why the answers to Q3 were given.
    You didn't ask, and it has no bearing on my point.

    Pedantic.
    I really don't need to explain (again) why that makes no sense whatsoever, do I?

    Again, I'd just like to know as to why the answers of Q3 were given.


  • Options
    #1105
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    alastair wrote: »
    Again - your sectarian maths isn't actually proving terribly useful when it comes to people's actual polled opinions. A catholic majority is not a nationalist majority.
    Well coming from a unionist criticizing someone as been sectarian is like a red neck from Alabama having a go at someone for been a racist, the very same unionists who used to brag about not having a “ Catholic about the place “. As you know very well in the six counties Catholics vote nationalist, Protestants vote unionist with little overlap, even the Alliance has orange and green branches. And just remember, for unionists the outcome of the only sort of poll that counts which are elections and not pro unionist tv and news paper polls - is going to get worse with every passing year.

    And as the results from the recent Mid Ulster election show, the migration of nationalist votes to unionism is a sad little fantasy for unionists to try to cling to for another while. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/rw2013.htm


  • Options
    #1106
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    gallag wrote: »
    You seem obsessed with the Queen and the orange order, the royal family at best generates a bit of revenue and at worst costs a couple of quid a year, it does not affect my every day life also I don't really give a flying **** about the orange order, you must believe every unionist has a large picture of the queen above the fire and a sash around the neck.

    Do you believe if Bertie had been in charge we in the north would be better of? Why can you not put your energy into a new republic that I might want to join you in? Why should I believe this new republic will be possible only with the added challenge of uniting the north? Why does it have to be in that order? If you can't do it now what will change if me family are dragged into it?

    In your opinion what will this new Ireland look like? My earlier points for example, will my children be forced to learn a dead language? Secular education? Will it be a Catholic country? Health care? Flag and anthem? MPH or KPH? Thanks for taking the time to reply and please don't mention the queen, doffing my cap, 800 years or the orange order in your reply because frankly it is of no relevance to my life now or in the future of a potential new Ireland.
    Doesn't matter what you unionists want as you'd just keep demanding more and more and shifting the goal posts, remember democracy is 50% + 1 !!!! In the meantime unionists can murmur among themselves as the great enemy Sinn Fein gain more and more across in the south.


  • Options
    #1107
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    Well coming from a unionist criticizing someone as been sectarian is like a red neck from Alabama having a go at someone for been a racist

    What unionist called you sectarian then?

    More delusions?

    The union is currently supported by a large majority - including catholics, and which has little bearing on party politics. Unionists, and their sovereignty, are secure enough for quite a time to come.


  • Options
    #1108
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    alastair wrote: »
    What unionist called you sectarian then?

    More delusions?
    Strawman.
    alastair wrote: »
    The union is currently supported by a large majority - including catholics, and which has little bearing on party politics. Unionists, and their sovereignty, are secure enough for quite a time to come.
    Ah yes here we go again, four legs good, two legs bad...Ulster says No.... blah, blah, blah :) There is no evidence whatsever that British occupation is currently supported by a large majority including catholics - except biased media polls such as the Belfast Telegraph with their own agenda. Like I said the only polls that count aren't biased media polls but elections whose results are going to get worse and worse for unionists.

    So in 1921 it was Unionists 67.6% Nationalists 32.4%, a gap of 35.2%
    http://www.election.demon.co.uk/stormont/totals.html

    But now as per the Assembly elections 2011 Unionists – 46.59 % Nationalists – 41.97% a gap of only 4.62%. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/2011nia/ra2011.htm


  • Options
    #1109
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    Strawman.]
    ?? Do you understand what a strawman argument is?
    No unionist called you sectarian on this thread - so where did this take place?

    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    Ah yes here we go again, four legs good, two legs bad...Ulster says No.... blah, blah, blah :) There is no evidence whatsever that British occupation is currently supported by a large majority including catholics - except biased media polls such as the Belfast Telegraph with their own agenda. Like I said the only polls that count aren't biased media polls but elections whose results are going to get worse and worse for unionists.

    So in 1921 it was Unionists 67.6% Nationalists 32.4%, a gap of 35.2%
    http://www.election.demon.co.uk/stormont/totals.html

    But now as per the Assembly elections 2011 Unionists – 46.59 % Nationalists – 41.97% a gap of only 4.62%. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/2011nia/ra2011.htm
    Again these are the same people who intend to keep the status quo as-is (within the union) for at least the next 20 years. You can choose to stick your head in the sand regarding all the polls regarding border polls - but they're remarkably consistent.


  • Options
    #1110
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    Strawman.


    Ah yes here we go again, four legs good, two legs bad...Ulster says No.... blah, blah, blah :) There is no evidence whatsever that British occupation is currently supported by a large majority including catholics - except biased media polls such as the Belfast Telegraph with their own agenda. Like I said the only polls that count aren't biased media polls but elections whose results are going to get worse and worse for unionists.

    So in 1921 it was Unionists 67.6% Nationalists 32.4%, a gap of 35.2%
    http://www.election.demon.co.uk/stormont/totals.html

    But now as per the Assembly elections 2011 Unionists – 46.59 % Nationalists – 41.97% a gap of only 4.62%. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/2011nia/ra2011.htm

    It does make me smile when an American talks of the British occupation.

    When are you colonialist settlers coming back home and giving North America back to the indigenous peoples, the ones you didn't wipe out in the holocaust that is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1111
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Gerry Adams has been arrested over the Jean mcconville killing, can't see anything Conington it though, and suspect he will walk


    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27232731


Advertisement