Englishman asks "Who won the Bloody War, anyway?"

Madd Finn

Veteran British reporter Peter Taylor has made a new documentary which basically asks "Who won the bloody War anyway?"

Not the first time an Englishman has asked this question

the_syco

IMO, no-one won. The loser is the one with the highest body count.

But from the article you linked to;

Former IRA hunger striker Gerard Hodgins, who has become disaffected from the Adams- McGuinness leadership, said: “We lost,” adding: “It’s a crazy situation where you set out to be revolutionaries to overthrow the state and ended up being caretakers of the state . . . 3,000 plus dead is a hell of a price to pay to become part of the state you were supposedly trying to overthrow. You could have become a part of that state a long, long time ago.”

This is something I agree with, but at the same time I acknowledge that without the violence it'd probably have taken a lot longer for any changes to have happened.

maccored

its not over yet really as its now moved from violence to politics. the process is still on-going so its impossible to label anyone a winner.

maccored

I would completely disagree that joining the 'state' running the north 30 years ago or more is the same as agreeing to the gfa and going into stormont. two different things, which is mainly why there was an agreement in the first place.

the_syco wrote: »

IMO, no-one won. The loser is the one with the highest body count.

But from the article you linked to;


This is something I agree with, but at the same time I acknowledge that without the violence it'd probably have taken a lot longer for any changes to have happened.

Sand

Not sure who won, but given they're ruled by an alliance of bigots and terrorists its pretty clear the people of Northern Ireland lost.

fryup

i'm surprised peter taylor is doing a programme like this....

i mean we're in the middle of a peace process and programmes like this don't help matters...it kinda stirs the pot

Richard

fryup wrote: »

i'm surprised peter taylor is doing a programme like this....

i mean we're in the middle of a peace process and programmes like this don't help matters...it kinda stirs the pot

I haven't seen it but there have been very many more provocative programmes about NI at far more sensitive times that this.

Don't think things will come crashing down in the strength of one programme.

fryup

Richard wrote: »

I Don't think things will come crashing down in the strength of one programme.

Yes i know that, but still its not helpful

Iwasfrozen

There wasn't a war to win.

There were decades of civil disobedience that was resolved through diplomacy but no war.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There wasn't a war to win.

There were decades of civil disobedience that was resolved through diplomacy but no war.

Yep, every morning RUC men would come out and check under their cars for acts of civil disobedience.

DarkyHughes

It was a revolution not a war. Like most revolutions it started out peaceful but it turned violent & reactionary forces got involved.

Foxmint

There were no winners, only loosers, and the ordinary people of NI paid the price, while the killers and gangsters got rich, powerful and famous.

MakeEmLaugh

I thought this was on BBC 1 tonight at 9pm, but it doesn't seem to be (I'm using BBC iPlayer live). Anyone else having problems?

RED L4 0TH

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I thought this was on BBC 1 tonight at 9pm, but it doesn't seem to be (I'm using BBC iPlayer live). Anyone else having problems?

Just seems to be on BBC 1 NI according to the schedules.

Esel

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Just seems to be on BBC 1 NI according to the schedules.

Because no-one in real BBC-land cares.

Killings were mentioned; the only really graphic footage was at the very end of the programme which showed dismembered bodies being shovelled into plastic bags.

People should be exposed to the full gamut of film and stills, including those thousands of previously unseen police photographs, which would be especially graphic. So, to question ourselves, we need to see the result: the bodies, and the bereaved.

Integrated education is one way forward. Religion should be catered for outside of regular school hours.

Someday, sometime, we will realise that no-one wins a zero-sum game.

Happyman42

Adams pointlessly hounded again about his 'membership' while Prior, Tebbit, Robinson etc etc not asked about their involvement in wrongdoings.
BBC making programmes with a very transparent slant again.
Why was the guy with IRA tattooed on his hand not brought to neutral surroundings for his interview I wonder? Shameful exploitation is the answer.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Adams pointlessly hounded again about his 'membership'

No need for the scare quotes, surely? He wasn't hounded, and some of the footage was from older interviews, so more of a repeat than new questioning. As long as he continues to lie about it, it's a valid line of questioning in the context of culpability.

Happyman42 wrote: »

while Prior, Tebbit, Robinson etc etc not asked about their involvement in wrongdoings.

Nor was Adams, for that matter.

Happyman42 wrote: »

BBC making programmes with a very transparent slant again.

How do you reckon that?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why was the guy with IRA tattooed on his hand not brought to neutral surroundings for his interview I wonder?

A number of the interviews took place in people's homes.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Shameful exploitation is the answer.

Exploitation of what or whom? What sinister motivations do you read into the man being interviewed in his gaff?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

No need for the scare quotes, surely? He wasn't hounded, and some of the footage was from older interviews, so more of a repeat than new questioning. As long as he continues to lie about it, it's a valid line of questioning in the context of culpability.

In a programme supposedly about 'Who won' we where treated to a segment where Adams was questioned about his 'membership' and where the interviewer laughed to camera when he responded. I know enough about documentary making to know that that cutaway to Taylor laughing was very deliberate.
Impartial reporting? Really? :rolleyes:

Nor was Adams, for that matter.

Why was he looking for Adams to admit to membership? He asked Adams was the violence (As if Republicans where the only violent people) worth it.
Did he ask Prior or Tebbit or Trimble or Robinson?

How do you reckon that?

See above.

A number of the interviews took place in people's homes.



Exploitation of what or whom? What sinister motivations do you read into the man being interviewed in his gaff?

I didn't see anybody interviewed in the fashion that this man was interviewed. Most of the interviews where head and shoulder shots. Again it was a very deliberate attempt to depict him as a loser.
Tabloid stuff.

walshb

I would argue that the fact that nationalists now have so much more freedom and harmony up North that it was the IRA that won the war.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

In a programme supposedly about 'Who won' we where treated to a segment where Adams was questioned about his 'membership' and where the interviewer laughed to camera when he responded. I know enough about documentary making to know that that cutaway to Taylor laughing was very deliberate.
Impartial reporting? Really? :rolleyes:

Who claimed that Taylor was impartial on Adam's claim? Taylor, along with everyone else is quite clear in recognising Adams's denials as a lie.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why was he looking for Adams to admit to membership?

Because he was asking for reflection on people's culpability for their decisions and choices. If Adam's isn't prepared to admit to his choices, that's pertinent to the programme.

Happyman42 wrote: »

He asked Adams was the violence (As if Republicans where the only violent people) worth it.

He also asked Loyalist leaders, and the Bloody Sunday Para the same thing. So that would be equal inquiry across all the players in violence.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did he ask Prior or Tebbit or Trimble or Robinson?

Which of them was directly involved in violence?

Happyman42 wrote: »

See above.

I see selective recall on your part.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't see anybody interviewed in the fashion that this man was interviewed. Most of the interviews where head and shoulder shots. Again it was a very deliberate attempt to depict him as a loser.
Tabloid stuff.

Rubbish. They filmed inside Gerard Hodgins's gaff as well - we got the full, through the keyhole treatment. There were interviews in Paisley's, Tebbit's, Mallon's, and Trimble's homes too iirc, maybe more.

Godge

Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it to remain part of the UK. All have agreed to that.

I certainly don't expect any change to that during my lifetime.

The conclusion is obvious.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Who claimed that Taylor was impartial on Adam's claim? Taylor, along with everyone else is quite clear in recognising Adams's denials as a lie.

Everyone else? This is the damage not impartially reporting does, you can make everyone (I would say the gullible ones) believe anything you want, especially with snide little laughs to camera.

Because he was asking for reflection on people's culpability for their decisions and choices. If Adam's isn't prepared to admit to his choices, that's pertinent to the programme.

Why is Adams membership or not of an organisation pertinent to a programme about perceptions of who won or lost? You have been played...simple as.

He also asked Loyalist leaders, and the Bloody Sunday Para the same thing. So that would be equal inquiry across all the players in violence.

Which of them was directly involved in violence?

Did I claim he didn't ask loyalist leaders?
Prior was certainly responsible for the violence perpetrated by the RUC and Army in his time there. Tebbit as a member of the British government is also answerable for his governments part.
Seems the BBC and others are still in denial that they where just as much a part of the conflict and crucially, by refusing to negotiate (publically) prolonged it.

Rubbish. They filmed inside Gerard Hodgins's gaff as well - we got the full, through the keyhole treatment. There were interviews in Paisley's, Tebbit's, Mallon's, and Trimble's homes too iirc, maybe more.

Nonsense, no other subject was treated or filmed in that exploitative way. As I said...simple, lazy and slanted tabloid journalism.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Everyone else? This is the damage not impartially reporting does, you can make everyone (I would say the gullible ones) believe anything you want, especially with snide little laughs to camera.

Yes - as you're well aware - everyone knows Adams is a liar in this regard. Impartial reporting can, and should, involve the highlighting of public figures' lies. Not quite sure what manner of journalism you believe is supposed to accept BS at face value.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why is Adams membership or not of an organisation pertinent to a programme about perceptions of who won or lost? You have been played...simple as.

Sure, it has no bearing at all.:rolleyes:

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did I claim he didn't ask loyalist leaders?

You said:

He asked Adams was the violence (As if Republicans where the only violent people) worth it.

Sounds like an accusation of one-sidedness to me. YMMV.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Prior was certainly responsible for the violence perpetrated by the RUC and Army in his time there. Tebbit as a member of the British government is also answerable for his governments part.

Were they directly engaged in violence? If not, that should answer your question.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Seems the BBC and others are still in denial that they where just as much a part of the conflict and crucially, by refusing to negotiate (publically) prolonged it.

Seems like you're unable to distinguish the distinction between participants in violence, and democratic politics.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nonsense, no other subject was treated or filmed in that exploitative way. As I said...simple, lazy and slanted tabloid journalism.

Simply saying it doesn't make it true. It's not true.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Yes - as you're well aware - everyone knows Adams is a liar in this regard. Impartial reporting can, and should, involve the highlighting of public figures' lies. Not quite sure what manner of journalism you believe is supposed to accept BS at face value.



Sure, it has no bearing at all.:rolleyes:

In a programme that had nothing to do with Adams membership and presented itself as a vox politic review of attitudes to who won or lost, you believe it was alright to badger ONE interviewee about what he did?
I know you have a track record for stoutly defending institutions of the British state's behaviour in an Irish context, but that, as they say, takes the biscuit. It was a fairly typical, at this stage, BBC attempt to slant. Sounds like you bought it too.

You said:
Sounds like an accusation of one-sidedness to me. YMMV.

No...here is what I said:
He asked Adams was the violence (As if Republicans where the only violent people) worth it.
Did he ask Prior or Tebbit or Trimble or Robinson?

Nice try.

Were they directly engaged in violence? If not, that should answer your question.

So only those 'directly' engaged are answerable now...brilliant! :rolleyes:

Seems like you're unable to distinguish the distinction between participants in violence, and democratic politics.

Perfectly able to distinguish and to see how politicians can also create circumstances where conflict arises and grows and to see how they can order violent reactions.

Simply saying it doesn't make it true. It's not true.

It's there in technicolour...no other interviewee was treated in the quite the same way. If they where, show us.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

In a programme that had nothing to do with Adams membership and presented itself as a vox politic review of attitudes to who won or lost, you believe it was alright to badger ONE interviewee about what he did?

That's not what happened however. A number of participants in paramilitarism and one para were asked about what they were culpable in, and whether they felt is was justified/worthwhile, and had their attitude changed. One of those people continues to pretend they weren't personally culpable. That's entirely relevant to the subject at hand.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I know you have a track record for stoutly defending institutions of the British state's behaviour in an Irish context,

I just don't like baseless accusations being thrown about.

Happyman42 wrote: »

but that, as they say, takes the biscuit. It was a fairly typical, at this stage, BBC attempt to slant. Sounds like you bought it too.

Nothing slanted about it. You're just continuing to 'buy into' tunnel vision.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No...here is what I said:
He asked Adams was the violence (As if Republicans where the only violent people) worth it.
Did he ask Prior or Tebbit or Trimble or Robinson?

Nice try.

Oh dear. Since when have any loyalists or Paras been representatives of republicanism?

Happyman42 wrote: »

So only those 'directly' engaged are answerable now...brilliant! :rolleyes:

For their direct culpability in violence? Sure.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Perfectly able to distinguish and to see how politicians can also create circumstances where conflict arises and grows and to see how they can order violent reactions.

Also perfectly able to distinguish armed campaigns from constitutional politics.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's there in technicolour...no other interviewee was treated in the quite the same way. If they where, show us.

I already have.

MakeEmLaugh

walshb wrote: »

I would argue that the fact that nationalists now have so much more freedom and harmony up North that it was the IRA that won the war.

"This war is to the end. There will be no interval... When we put away our guns, Britain will be out of Ireland and an Irish democracy will be established in the 32 counties with a national government."

IRA Statement, January 1984

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

That's not what happened however. A number of participants in paramilitarism and one para were asked about what they were culpable in, and whether they felt is was justified/worthwhile, and had their attitude changed. One of those people continues to pretend they weren't personally culpable. That's entirely relevant to the subject at hand.

Why weren't Robinson and Trimble asked about their proven connections to the Orange Order and how it inflamed and added to the conflict? That is much more of a 'direct' connection than unproven claims about Adams?

Was the programme fair in that respect?

I just don't like baseless accusations being thrown about.

Name one 'baseless' accusation? Just because you cling to the notion that Britain and it's BBC's motives and actions where always pure, doesn't mean it is.

Nothing slanted about it. You're just continuing to 'buy into' tunnel vision.

Again, why were Robinson and Trimble and Prior not questioned about their past deeds and allowed to pontificate like statesmen they are not?

Oh dear. Since when have any loyalists or Paras been representatives of republicanism?

Your attempts at semantics are tiresome sometimes.

For their direct culpability in violence? Sure.

So the only people responsible for the violence where those who actually carried it out?

Also perfectly able to distinguish armed campaigns from constitutional politics.

Yes I am able to as well but I can also see how political systems masquerading as democracies can unleash tragic violence. Anybody with a smattering of knowledge of world and Irish history can see that.

I already have.

No you haven't, because nobody's living conditions where shown in quite the same way.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why weren't Robinson and Trimble asked about their proven connections to the Orange Order and how it inflamed and added to the conflict? That is much more of a 'direct' connection than unproven claims about Adams?

Was the programme fair in that respect?

Trimble has never disputed his membership of the OO. Robinson was never a member afaik. Neither have attempted to hide their connections with the OO.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Name one 'baseless' accusation? Just because you cling to the notion that Britain and it's BBC's motives and actions where always pure, doesn't mean it is.

Your entire post on the programme is a series of baseless accusations.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, why were Robinson and Trimble and Prior not questioned about their deeds and allowed to pontificate like statesmen they are not?

They're not statesmen? Pontificate? Sounds like you've a serious dose of partisan bitterness at play there.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Your attempts at semantics are tiresome sometimes.

Just pointing out your erroneous attempts at republican victimhood.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So the only people responsible for the violence where those who actually carried it out?

People are responsible for their own actions. There's many more people, faced with the same circumstances, who didn't opt to participate in campaigns of violence.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes I am able to as well but I can also see how political systems masquerading as democracies can unleash tragic violence. Anybody with a smattering of knowledge of world and Irish history can see that.

I'm guessing the implication is that either the UK or Republic of Ireland were not, in fact, functioning democracies? If so, eh, no.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No you haven't, because nobody's living conditions where shown in quite the same way.

Except that they were.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Trimble has never disputed his membership of the OO. Robinson was never a member afaik. Neither have attempted to hide their connections with the OO.

Again: Why weren't they asked about the OO's role in the conflict? The OO where serious players in it and are still agitating on the streets.
You where not asked about Trimble's membership. And btw Robinsin invaded and terrorised a Monaghan village with his OO and paramilitary friends.

Your entire post on the programme is a series of baseless accusations.

It isn't and your attempts to sidestep what I am actually saying kinda proves it.

They're not statesmen? Pontificate? Sounds like you've a serious dose of partisan bitterness at play there.

Why should Adams and McGuinness be treated differently to Triimble and Robinson?

People are responsible for their own actions. There's many more people, faced with the same circumstances, who didn't opt to participate in campaigns of violence.

Which is not what I was getting at.
Again, do you think the only people responsible for the conflict are those who where actually involved in the violence?
Answer the question please.

I'm guessing the implication is that either the UK or Republic of Ireland were not, in fact, functioning democracies? If so, eh, no.

Northern Ireland wasn't a functioning democracy, so yes, the UK was not a fully functioning democracy.
How could you call a place where gerrymandering is practiced a 'democracy'?

Except that they were.

Describe Billy Hutchinson's house and what he was doing while the interview took place?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again: Why weren't they asked about the OO's role in the conflict? The OO where serious players in it and are still agitating on the streets.
You where not asked about Trimble's membership. And btw Robinsin invaded and terrorised a Monaghan village with his OO and paramilitary friends.

The OO weren't a paramilitary organisation. Taylor spoke with the actual paramilitaries (like Adams).

Happyman42 wrote: »

It isn't and your attempts to sidestep what I am actually saying kinda proves it.

Sure. If you say so.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why should Adams and McGuinness be treated differently to Triimble and Robinson?

Because they had people killed, planted bombs, engaged in a campaign of violence for decades?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is not what I was getting at.
Again, do you think the only people responsible for the conflict are those who where actually involved in the violence?
Answer the question please.

Taylor was quite clear on the relationship between the various political ideologies, and the various agents of violence. He spoke to those directly responsible for the violence, because there wasn't any war without those individuals opting to inflict that violence. Maybe you weren't paying much attention to the programme if you missed that.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Northern Ireland wasn't a functioning democracy, so yes, the UK was not a fully functioning democracy.
How could you call a place where gerrymandering is practiced a 'democracy'?

Gerrymandering was a local authority concern, not a UK democratic issue. The UK provided exactly the same franchise to Catholics as Protestants. No masquerade needed.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Describe Billy Hutchinson's house and what he was doing while the interview took place?

Oh please. Pretend you don't know what Gerard Hodgin's flat looks like then, or is part of your 'biased tabloid exploitation journalism' fantasy too?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The OO weren't a paramilitary organisation. Taylor spoke with the actual paramilitaries (like Adams).

Where the OO involved in and generators of their own violence or not?
Who got to cherry pick and decide who was responsible for the war...Taylor? :rolleyes:

Because they had people killed, planted bombs, engaged in a campaign of violence for decades?

Prior's police and Army killed people, wrongly. What is your point exactly?

Taylor was quite clear on the relationship between the various political ideologies, and the various agents of violence. He spoke to those directly responsible for the violence, because there wasn't any war without those individuals opting to inflict that violence. Maybe you weren't paying much attention to the programme if you missed that.

The Army,and RUC killed people as well, severely exacerbating the conflict. Why weren't their representatives and controllers questioned about that?

Gerrymandering was a local authority concern, not a UK democratic issue. The UK provided exactly the same franchise to Catholics as Protestants. No masquerade needed.

[/QUOTE]
Maybe you are too young to remember why the Civil Rights organisation got started.
I think 'gerrymandering' would be a concern for most people who consider themselves to be living in a democracy.
We won't even mention plural votes for business owners and a vote only if you owned property in your 'democratic fantasy' :rolleyes:

Oh please. Pretend you don't know what Gerard Hodgin's flat looks like then, or is part of your 'biased tabloid exploitation journalism' fantasy too?

So you can't describe ...why? Because, firstly, we didn't see anything but a talking head and secondly, Hodgin's circumstances where important to the slant the presenter and producers wanted to give.
But I think at this stage you already knew that.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where the OO involved in and generators of their own violence or not?
Who got to cherry pick and decide who was responsible for the war...Taylor? :rolleyes:

The OO aren't, and weren't a paramilitary group, engaged in a campaign of violence. That's what distinguishes them from a paramilitary group, engaged in a campaign of violence. Kind of hard to have a war without militias.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Prior's police and Army killed people, wrongly. What is your point exactly?

They're not Prior's police or army. They're the security forces of the state, and any members of those forces that acted illegally were not acting on the orders of Prior.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Army,and RUC killed people as well, severely exacerbating the conflict. Why weren't their representatives and controllers questioned about that?

Because their controllers didn't actually authorise anyone's killing, unlike the paramilitaries like Adams et al?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe you are too young to remember why the Civil Rights organisation got started.
I think 'gerrymandering' would be a concern for most people who consider themselves to be living in a democracy.
We won't even mention plural votes for business owners and a vote only if you owned property in your 'democratic fantasy' :rolleyes:

I'm probably older than you, given your naive reading of the conflict - it smacks of precious little actual experience of the troubles. Gerrymandering had nothing to do with national elections, and Stormont was shut down for the entirety of the troubles, so it had no selective bearing on anyone's franchise. The UK was a democratic state.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you can't describe ...why? Because, firstly, we didn't see anything but a talking head and secondly, Hodgin's circumstances where important to the slant the presenter and producers wanted to give.
But I think at this stage you already knew that.

I'm not sure you actually know who Gerard Hodgin is. Clue - he's not the guy you're talking about.

DarkyHughes

Everyone in the conflict has their 3 worst.

Loyalists - Dublin & Monaghan 35, Mcguriks Bar bomb 15 & Greysteel 8 & the 6 murders leading in the week leading up to greysteel. That's 64 dead.

IRA - Birmingham21, Enisskillen 11 & Bloody Friday 9- That's 41 dead.

British - Ballymurohy Massacre 11, Bloody Sunday 14 & Springhill Massacre 7 - That's 32 dead not to to memtion all the people they helped loyalists murder mostly innocent people. to the extent of which we will not know.

Nobody could claim in the end to hold their heads high after it was over.

Esel

It was a long chess match that ended in stalemate. Many pawns were taken, and a few knights; rooks and bishops too. As usual, the pawns did not really have a clue. No rematch is scheduled. The board may have seemed black and white, but many grey moves were made - by both sides. Advisers whispered, gold glistened, players listened. Palms were crossed, lives were lost. Survivors picked up the pieces.

Maybe, just maybe, part of the untold truth will be told at some date in the distant future. In the meantime, we will all cleave to our own prejudices.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The OO aren't, and weren't a paramilitary group, engaged in a campaign of violence. That's what distinguishes them from a paramilitary group, engaged in a campaign of violence. Kind of hard to have a war without militias.

They where clearly involved in violence and motivated it and are STILL involved in it.

They're not Prior's police or army. They're the security forces of the state, and any members of those forces that acted illegally were not acting on the orders of Prior.

Prior was the British government's representative in NI and was therefore responsible for the forces of that Crown. If the BG where not responsible for the forces it sent here why did the PM finally apologise for the actions of that force in Derry for instance?
You can't have it everyway and select just those people YOU blame for the conflict.
That would be impartial, wouldn't it?

Because their controllers didn't actually authorise anyone's killing, unlike the paramilitaries like Adams et al?

They where responsible for their actions and cannot therefore be absolved.
McGuinness is the only one of the two who has proven links to paramilitaries and has apologised and accounted for what he did.

I'm probably older than you, given your naive reading of the conflict - it smacks of precious little actual experience of the troubles. Gerrymandering had nothing to do with national elections, and Stormont was shut down for the entirety of the troubles, so it had no selective bearing on anyone's franchise. The UK was a democratic state.

Gerrymandering and vote rigging took place in THE UK, BOTH are undemocratic activities...therefore the UK was NOT a fully functioning democracy, no matter how much you want to pretend it was.
Yes or No answers here will sort this out in your head...
Is Gerrymandering democratic?

Is vote rigging to the extent it happened in NI, democratic?

I'm not sure you actually know who Gerard Hodgin is. Clue - he's not the guy you're talking about.

Apologies, if that wasn't the name of the last guy interviewed.
My point about him still stands and you still haven't shown us anybody else who was interviewed in the same way or why it was necessary to interview him and show his circumstances the way they did.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

They where clearly involved in violence and motivated it and are STILL involved in it.

They're not a paramilitary group engaged in a campaign of violence. Those associated with them who were, were interviewed in the programme.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Prior was the British government's representative in NI and was therefore responsible for the forces of that Crown. If the BG where not responsible for the forces it sent here why did the PM finally apologise for the actions of that force in Derry for instance?
You can't have it everyway and select just those people YOU blame for the conflict.
That would be impartial, wouldn't it?

There's quite a distinction for apologising for the unauthorised indiscipline of a militia you're responsible for, and the authorised, sanctioned, strategic actions you intended from your militia. Pretending the two are equivalent in terms of responsibility is yet more evidence of your tunnel vision.

Happyman42 wrote: »

They where responsible for their actions and cannot therefore be absolved.
McGuinness is the only one of the two who has proven links to paramilitaries and has apologised and accounted for what he did.

Let's not pretend that you're ignorant of Adam's role in the paramilitaries. McGuinness continues the farce of pretending he wasn't an IRA member beyond his sentence. Neither take responsibility for their personal involvement in violence. To expect Prior et al to take personal responsibility for acts they didn't authorise, have foreknowledge of, or participate in, seems a tad hypocritical in a circumstance where you're happy enough to lap up patent lies, and evasion of actual responsibility, from Gerry Adams.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Gerrymandering and vote rigging took place in THE UK, BOTH are undemocratic activities...therefore the UK was NOT a fully functioning democracy.
Yes or No answers here will sort this out in your head...
Is Gerrymandering democratic?

Is vote rigging to the extent it happened in NI, democratic?

There was no vote rigging or gerrymandering for UK elections at any stage and for the entirety of the direct Westminster rule, or essentially the entirety of the troubles, that was the only franchise in town - equality of voting rights for all.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Apologies, if that wasn't the name of the last guy interviewed.
My point about him still stands and you still haven't shown us anybody else who was interviewed in the same way or why it was necessary to interview him and show his circumstances the way they did.

Your point doesn't stand. They spent rather more time with Gerard Hodgin, in his flat. You're tilting at windmills.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

They're not a paramilitary group engaged in a campaign of violence. Those associated with them who were, were interviewed in the programme.

Which is NOT the point being made...stop sidestepping.
Should Trimble be called to account for his activity around Drumcree and Garvaghy Road in the same way that paramilitaries are? Did Orange activity lead to death and destruction?
Should Robinson be called to account for his activities with loyalist paramilitaries and the motivation of intimidation in Clontibret?
All the above contributed violently to the conflict. Who gets to pick those who are called to account on a BBC programme that pretends to be 'impartial and balanced'?

There's quite a distinction for apologising for the unauthorised indiscipline of a militia you're responsible for, and the authorised, sanctioned, strategic actions you intended from your militia. Pretending the two are equivalent in terms of responsibility is yet more evidence of your tunnel vision.

The only distinction that matters here is the one you are trying to make. That selected groups and people are the only ones responsible for the conflict.
You have been found out on your partiality and bias.

Let's not pretend that you're ignorant of Adam's role in the paramilitaries. McGuinness continues the farce of pretending he wasn't an IRA member beyond his sentence. Neither take responsibility for their personal involvement in violence. To expect Prior et al to take personal responsibility for acts they didn't authorise, have foreknowledge of, or participate in, seems a tad hypocritical in a circumstance where you're happy enough to lap up patent lies, and evasion of actual responsibility, from Gerry Adams.

Even if Adams was involved, that is STILL not the point being made here.
Widgery was a cover-up organised by the highest echelons of the British establishment,(unless you think the Judge perpretrated it on his ownsome) but of course, when it comes to the UK, you believe they are exempt from personal responsibility.

There was no vote rigging or gerrymandering for UK elections at any stage and for the entirety of the direct Westminster rule, or essentially the entirety of the troubles, that was the only franchise in town - equality of voting rights for all.

Who said anything about UK elections?
Again, in your efforts to sidestep, you distort what is being said. NI is part of the UK, NI was NOT a functioning democracy because of gerrymandering and vote rigging, therefore the entire UK could not be called a 'fully functioning democracy'.
It is ok to admit that Alastair, everybody including those now at Westminister have accepted that. Here is what Ian Paisley had to say about it;

Ian Paisley wrote:

“If you vote down democracy, you are responsible for bringing in anarchy,” he said. “It wasn’t one man, one vote. I mean, that’s no way to run a country. The whole system was wrong”.

Your point doesn't stand. They spent rather more time with Gerard Hodgin, in his flat. You're tilting at windmills.

More sidestepping to avoid the issue presented. Show us another interviewee treated in the same way in the programme?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is NOT the point being made...stop sidestepping.
Should Trimble be called to account for his activity around Drumcree and Garvaghy Road in the same way that paramilitaries are? Did Orange activity lead to death and destruction?
Should Robinson be called to account for his activities with loyalist paramilitaries and the motivation of intimidation in Clontibret?
All the above contributed violently to the conflict. Who gets to pick those who are called to account on a BBC programme that pretends to be 'impartial and balanced'?

A nice run of whataboutery there. Still not a shred of evidence of anything but impartial journalism.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The only distinction that matters here is the one you are trying to make. That selected groups and people are the only ones responsible for the conflict.
You have been found out on your partiality and bias.

Sure. Keep that tunnel vision going.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Even if Adams was involved, that is STILL not the point being made here.
Widgery was a cover-up organised by the highest echelons of the British establishment,(unless you think the Judge perpretrated it on his ownsome) but of course, when it comes to the UK, you believe they are exempt from personal responsibility.

Perhaps you missed the entire Saville inquiry, initiated by the self-same British establishment? The very public airing of the injustice of Widgery is at odds with the ongoing cover-up of the IRA's historic outrages. Who's lacking on the taking responsibility front there?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who said anything about UK elections?
Again, in your efforts to sidestep, you distort what is being said. NI is part of the UK, NI was NOT a functioning democracy because of gerrymandering and vote rigging, therefore the entire UK could not be called a 'fully functioning democracy'.
It is ok to admit that Alastair, everybody including those now at Westminister have accepted that. Here is what Ian Paisley had to say about it;

There was no gerrymandering or vote rigging, beyond local authority elections for the duration of the troubles - direct rule was an entirely equitable and democratic franchise arrangement. Stormont was shut down in'72.

Happyman42 wrote: »

More sidestepping to avoid the issue presented. Show us another interviewee treated in the same way in the programme?

I already did. Not my fault you weren't paying attention.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

A nice run of whataboutery there. Still not a shred of evidence of anything but impartial journalism.

Your hypocrisy on this is on record, there where more than paramilitaries responsible for the conflict. Anybody who selects certain targets for blame in a programme which pretended to be an overview of opinion is not being impartial.

Sure. Keep that tunnel vision going.

You are the one who insists on only blaming selected parties involved in the conflict.

Perhaps you missed the entire Saville inquiry, initiated by the self-same British establishment? The very public airing of the injustice of Widgery is at odds with the ongoing cover-up of the IRA's historic outrages. Who's lacking on the taking responsibility front there?

Once again, the sidestep.
Why did the Widgery sham and cover-up happen? Because the entire state was corrupt and undemocratic, it couldn't happen today.
NI was very definitely NOT a functioning democracy (a FACT admitted to by none other than Ian Paisley) NI was a part of the UK, how anybody can contend that a Union is a fully functioning democracy when that is going on in one of it's constituent parts, beggars belief.

There was no gerrymandering or vote rigging, beyond local authority elections for the duration of the troubles - direct rule was an entirely equitable and democratic franchise arrangement. Stormont was shut down in'72.

So, because it wasn't going on beyond local authorities there is something ok or to be ignored?
Ridiculous sidestepping going on here again.

I already did. Not my fault you weren't paying attention.

I didn't see your description of the house and living conditions of any other interviewee.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Your hypocrisy on this is on record, there where more than paramilitaries responsible for the conflict. Anybody who selects certain targets for blame in a programme which pretended to be an overview of opinion is not being impartial.

No-one was targeted for blame, beyond being asked to account for any change in their attitudes over the years.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are the one who insists on only blaming selected parties involved in the conflict.

I am? Oh, wait. I'm not.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Once again, the sidestep.
Why did the Widgery sham and cover-up happen? Because the entire state was corrupt and undemocratic, it couldn't happen today.
NI was very definitely NOT a functioning democracy (a FACT admitted to by none other than Ian Paisley) NI was a part of the UK, how anybody can contend that a Union is a fully functioning democracy when that is going on in one of it's constituent parts, beggars belief.

Perhaps it's something to do with that not going on? Paisley is referencing the pre-'72 Stormont parliament - which was shut down by the British, and had no role to play in the conflict thereafter. All citizens in NI had an equal franchise within the UK.

I'm curious however, when this remarkable change in the democratic credentials of the UK happened, if it wasn't democratic at the time of Widgery, but is now. What was this crux that I must have missed?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't see your description of the house and living conditions of any other interviewee.

You didn't? Perhaps you need to pay closer attention?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

No-one was targeted for blame, beyond being asked to account for any change in their attitudes over the years.

Then why the interrogatory questioning of Adams? What relevance had it, if not to attempt to blame him?
Why was the questioning of Trimble and Prior and Robinson not set in the context of all they had done to exacerbate the conflict?

I am? Oh, wait. I'm not.

Why do you have a problem with the issue I raised about this then?
It was you after all who said this:

Alastair wrote:

Taylor was quite clear on the relationship between the various political ideologies, and the various agents of violence. He spoke to those directly responsible for the violence, because there wasn't any war without those individuals opting to inflict that violence. Maybe you weren't paying much attention to the programme if you missed that.

Trimble, Robinson and Prior where, at certain points responsible for violence but where questioned in an entirely different way.

Perhaps it's something to do with that not going on? Paisley is referencing the pre-'72 Stormont parliament - which was shut down by the British, and had no role to play in the conflict thereafter. All citizens in NI had an equal franchise within the UK.

I'm curious however, when this remarkable change in the democratic credentials of the UK happened, if it wasn't democratic at the time of Widgery, but is now. What was this crux that I must have missed?

Good God the goalposts get shifted again!
At the outbreak of the conflict, was NI a functioning democracy...NO it wasn't.
You will be telling us the Civil Rights Movement didn't happen next.

You didn't? Perhaps you need to pay closer attention?

Enlighten us again...who else's circumstances where portrayed in this way, why this interviewee?

DarkyHughes

Happyman42 wrote: »

They where clearly involved in violence and motivated it and are STILL involved in it.




Prior was the British government's representative in NI and was therefore responsible for the forces of that Crown. If the BG where not responsible for the forces it sent here why did the PM finally apologise for the actions of that force in Derry for instance?
You can't have it everyway and select just those people YOU blame for the conflict.
That would be impartial, wouldn't it?




They where responsible for their actions and cannot therefore be absolved.
McGuinness is the only one of the two who has proven links to paramilitaries and has apologised and accounted for what he did.




Gerrymandering and vote rigging took place in THE UK, BOTH are undemocratic activities...therefore the UK was NOT a fully functioning democracy, no matter how much you want to pretend it was.
Yes or No answers here will sort this out in your head...
Is Gerrymandering democratic?

Is vote rigging to the extent it happened in NI, democratic?






Apologies, if that wasn't the name of the last guy interviewed.
My point about him still stands and you still haven't shown us anybody else who was interviewed in the same way or why it was necessary to interview him and show his circumstances the way they did.

Why should he? Did Tom Barry, Michael Collins, George Washington, Robisphere etc...apologies from their revolutionary armed action.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Then why the interrogatory questioning of Adams? What relevance had it, if not to attempt to blame him?
Why was the questioning of Trimble and Prior and Robinson not set in the context of all they had done to exacerbate the conflict?

Once again - he wasn't interrogated. He denied being a member of the IRA, and Taylor pointed out that no-one believed him. The context was one of IRA - British government dialogue.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why do you have a problem with the issue I raised about this then?
It was you after all who said this:



Trimble, Robinson and Prior where, at certain points responsible for violence but where questioned in an entirely different way.

Because they were not directly responsible for acts of violence.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Good God the goalposts get shifted again!
At the outbreak of the conflict, was NI a functioning democracy...NO it wasn't.
You will be telling us the Civil Rights Movement didn't happen next.

The programme was about the troubles. Given that the British shut down the instrument of gerrymandering in 1972, and the troubles only ended in 1998, you have to wonder what this pretence of an undemocratic UK state is about. The player responsible for ending gerrymandering is that awful British Establishment.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Enlighten us again...who else's circumstances where portrayed in this way, why this interviewee?

Once again - Gerard Hodkins' flat was given the full on through the keyhole treatment. Unless you think that this was also part of your 'exploitation' claim, you'd have to concede that the location of Sean McKinley's interview was unexceptional. Many of the interviews took place in people's homes.

alastair

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Why should he? Did Tom Barry, Michael Collins, George Washington, Robisphere etc...apologies from their revolutionary armed action.

Robespierre had his head chopped off by his fellow revolutionaries, so he hadn't much of a chance. The others had the advantage of some democratic mandate for their actions. I'm struggling to see where any paramilitaries in NI could claim the same.

TheEnigma

Well the average loyalist will only be content if the Gaelic irish moved down South but the fact that we are going nowhere and will still be here in hundreds of years shows that loyalists didn't win, just type into youtube 'crazy unionist woman' to hear her opinion

Berserker

Taking the question in it's simplest form, the answer is simple. NI is still part of the UK today and that isn't going to change any time soon; most likely never. Republicans have been drawn away from their terrorist ways and the people of NI can go about their daily lives in peaceful manner. So, the Unionists won.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Once again - he wasn't interrogated. He denied being a member of the IRA, and Taylor pointed out that no-one believed him. The context was one of IRA - British government dialogue.

It had nothing to do with the remit of the programme. Nor has Taylor's opinion of the answer. Cheap tabloid journalism.

Because they were not directly responsible for acts of violence.

'Directly' is a word you have inserted yourself to avoid having to blame the UK for it's actions and behaviour in Ireland.
Juvenile sidestepping.

The programme was about the troubles. Given that the British shut down the instrument of gerrymandering in 1972, and the troubles only ended in 1998, you have to wonder what this pretence of an undemocratic UK state is about. The player responsible for ending gerrymandering is that awful British Establishment.

The troubles 'where about' bringing down a corrupt and undemocratic statelet. Successfully.
That the British where made to realise that they could not continue to support that regime is the story of the conflict.
Just look at NI today for the proof of that, a democratic society where the people share power...wholly at odds with that of the 1960's and before.

Once again - Gerard Hodkins' flat was given the full on through the keyhole treatment. Unless you think that this was also part of your 'exploitation' claim, you'd have to concede that the location of Sean McKinley's interview was unexceptional. Many of the interviews took place in people's homes.

It was cheap exploitation to frame Taylor's summary. I am not suprised you refuse to see that, it was made for people like you.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

It had nothing to do with the remit of the programme. Nor has Taylor's opinion of the answer. Cheap tabloid journalism.

Eh, no.

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Directly' is a word you have inserted yourself to avoid having to blame the UK for it's actions and behaviour in Ireland.
Juvenile sidestepping.

Kinda hard to highlight British culpability for anything other than what they were responsible for - which Taylor did. That you're blind to that fact, and have bizarre sensitivities about a crowd we're still, this very day, digging up murder victims they hid and lied about, is nothing to do with me - that's entirely your issue to deal with.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The troubles 'where about' bringing down a corrupt and undemocratic statelet. Successfully.
That the British where made to realise that they could not continue to support that regime is the story of the conflict.
Just look at NI today for the proof of that, a democratic society where the people share power...wholly at odds with that of the 1960's and before.

I think you'll find that your boy Gerry's goal was not 'bringing down a corrupt and undemocratic statelet' - he could have signed up to it's democratic successor in Sunningdale. It was the 'bringing about a 32 county eire nua through force of arms'. On that measure, they didn't quite amount to anything other than a long spell of useless violence. The NI of today is the heritage of Hume, not any fantasy of bombing your way into an all-island republic.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It was cheap exploitation to frame Taylor's summary. I am not suprised you refuse to see that, it was made for people like you.

People like me? Who can actually view the thing without naïve ideological blinders? I guess so.

gallag

The "war" achieved absolutely nothing! In fact it was damaging to the republican cause. Some IRA supporters like to justify it by saying it improved living conditions for people of a CNR background but does anybody actually believe it took the IRA to kill loads of catholics and protestants to achieve this? Britain is scared to say boo to a burka ffs, it must be the most liberal right on country in the world scared to cause offence to any minority to a fault, can you actually in visage a seniero where northern catholics would be treated badly today if the IRA never existed? I strongly believe that better condition would have came a lot faster for catholics if the IRA didn't start killing them and killing in their name!

They not only achieved nothing they have actually set the United Ireland moment back.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Eh, no.


Kinda hard to highlight British culpability for anything other than what they were responsible for - which Taylor did. That you're blind to that fact, and have bizarre sensitivities about a crowd we're still, this very day, digging up murder victims they hid and lied about, is nothing to do with me - that's entirely your issue to deal with.

For every 'disappeared' person found (and I will remind you that ICLVR are happy that the IRA have done all they could to help in that process) I will give you the continuing cover-up of events like Dublin-Monaghan, Ballymurphy etc etc.
I agree that 'disappearing' people was abhorrent and should never have happened and all criticisms of the people who did it are valid, but what I do, which you clearly don't, is apportion the blame to all sides.
There are many like you and this programme was made for you and them.

I think you'll find that your boy Gerry's goal was not 'bringing down a corrupt and undemocratic statelet' - he could have signed up to it's democratic successor in Sunningdale. It was the 'bringing about a 32 county eire nua through force of arms'. On that measure, they didn't quite amount to anything other than a long spell of useless violence. The NI of today is the heritage of Hume, not any fantasy of bombing your way into an all-island republic.

You need to get over the fact that Sunningdale didn't happen and come to terms with why it didn't happen. The sad and tragic thing is that the Unionists and Loyalists (who brought down Sunningdale) had to be bombed to the table. They simply where not ready at the time of Sunningdale, to come to the table as equals.
Hume and Mallon, in the context of this programme, are footnotes now, (Mallon still a very bitter one) that is life, the people (electors) have and continue to speak clearly on that fact, even if you continue to live in your denial.
SF are still intent on achieving a UI (and therefore their supporters and electors) and even Taylor could not, in all honesty, deny that it is more than likely inevitable.
You will have to (like 'your' fellow boys, girls, men and women, dog and cat Unionists and Partitionists) come to terms with that too.
The GFA are the divorce papers for separation from the Union. The British have withdrawn their emotional involvement in the relationship, it is there in black and white...'whenever a majority votes for a UI, we are gone'. That is the victory. Robinson knows it, Paisley knew it, most Unionists know it and I suspect you do too, but they will not speak it. Hence their extreme fear of Scotland sundering the Union, they knew it would hasten the day they too would be adrift.

People like me? Who can actually view the thing without naïve ideological blinders? I guess so.

Yes, people like you.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

For every 'disappeared' person found (and I will remind you that ICLVR are happy that the IRA have done all they could to help in that process)

Including putting them in the ground. Yep.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I will give you the continuing cover-up of events like Dublin-Monaghan, Ballymurphy etc etc.

There's no cover up regarding either.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I agree that 'disappearing' people was abhorrent and should never have happened and all criticisms of the people who did it are valid, but what I do, which you clearly don't, is apportion the blame to all sides.

There's no blame to share in the disappeared - that's entirely on the shoulders of your Gerry's boys.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The GFA are the divorce papers for separation from the Union.

Heh. How's that working out then? http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-says-yes-to-a-border-poll-but-a-firm-no-to-united-ireland-30622987.html