The glorious 12th

_blaaz wrote: »

It literally is,and more i read of your posts the more im.near certain yous arent what.you claim to be....i know quite a wide section of unionist commuinty and none have the contempt of me to try and tell outright utter lies to me like the rest of this post

Bonfires are light well before 12 o clock....yous are a joke,cant even lie realisitically.......like i said i know a wide variety from ex soldiers to former paramilitaries and fair bit inbetween of unionists,from blackest of prods to complete athesits....one thing shines through is none would put up with bull/chancers representing them that yous are pedeling here

Now blazz a simple check of the facts will enlighten you.
There has been an attempt to bring a few fires forward to 9 or 10 pm to suit kids and ensure better control.
The vast majority are lit at exactly 12 midnight after people have been partying all iffy in local pubs.
So you are simply wrong blaaz. I would imagine francie etc can confirm this

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I can fully support the idea of there been a difference between Civic Unionsm celebrating the 12th in a peaceful way and the hooliganism that burns flags. I have no problem with McDonalds having an orange milkshake for the 12th, for example, like they have a green milkshake down here for Paddy's day.

Hopefully you can see the difference between Irish speakers wanting their language to be part of a shared society and a scumbag shouting "Tiocfaidh ár lá".

Yeah that’s helpful. Thanks

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The language of the island telling you themuns are in charge would not be a legitimate cause for complaint. You would need counselling help for that.

:-)

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

So do you think Irish should be kept out of the workplace also? Or is this another case of , if it offends my ones

Speaking it? Or Irish language signage?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Speaking it? Or Irish language signage?

Signage

downcow wrote: »

Signage

On what grounds?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

On what grounds?

You want the context?

This was the statement by a poster

“Fair play to the guy.

There are very strict employment laws in the north that were designed to help dismantle the sectarianism ingrained in the environment unionists created for themselves.

The workplace must remain a neutral place free from tribal symbolism and rightly so. I'd imagine some 'patriot' decided to hang portraits of Mrs Windsor around the gaff to 'piss on the lampposts', as it were.

No more of that nonsense downcow. Those days are over.”

And this was my question

“So do you think Irish should be kept out of the workplace also? Or is this another case of , if it offends my ones”

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Signage

I'm not sure to be honest. What's the story with it in Wales?

Edit: Just had a look. Why not follow the Welsh example?

downcow wrote: »

You want the context?

This was the statement by a poster

“Fair play to the guy.

There are very strict employment laws in the north that were designed to help dismantle the sectarianism ingrained in the environment unionists created for themselves.

The workplace must remain a neutral place free from tribal symbolism and rightly so. I'd imagine some 'patriot' decided to hang portraits of Mrs Windsor around the gaff to 'piss on the lampposts', as it were.

No more of that nonsense downcow. Those days are over.”

And this was my question

“So do you think Irish should be kept out of the workplace also? Or is this another case of , if it offends my ones”

Irish is spoken by sections of both communities and seen as important by both. Unionists think it is important enough to include it in an act with Scots Irish.

So on what grounds is it or could it be 'offensive' in a workplace?

Pedro K

downcow wrote: »

You want the context?

This was the statement by a poster

“Fair play to the guy.

There are very strict employment laws in the north that were designed to help dismantle the sectarianism ingrained in the environment unionists created for themselves.

The workplace must remain a neutral place free from tribal symbolism and rightly so. I'd imagine some 'patriot' decided to hang portraits of Mrs Windsor around the gaff to 'piss on the lampposts', as it were.

No more of that nonsense downcow. Those days are over.”

And this was my question

“So do you think Irish should be kept out of the workplace also? Or is this another case of , if it offends my ones”

I'll ask again. What if the signage had both English and Irish? Equal prominence. Surely a happy compromise?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So on what grounds is it or could it be 'offensive' in a workplace?

In N. Ireland the Irish language is associated with Republicanism. As another poster said, if he went in to McDonalds and it had "Fir" on the toilet door, he would go to KFC or Burgerking next time.

janfebmar wrote: »

In N. Ireland the Irish language is associated with Republicanism. As another poster said, if he went in to McDonalds and it had "Fir" on the toilet door, he would go to KFC or Burgerking next time.

Do you think that is a reasonable attitude? Some unionists want to politicise the language because they see it as a threat. Other unionists do not see the language as a threat and are happy to see Irish used as part of a shared society.

janfebmar wrote: »

In N. Ireland the Irish language is associated with Republicanism. As another poster said, if he went in to McDonalds and it had "Fir" on the toilet door, he would go to KFC or Burgerking next time.

Unionists think the Irish language is important enough to protect it in a Minority Languages Act.

There seems to be some confusion here.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Some unionists want to politicise the language because they see it as a threat.

The Irish language was politicised already because of those who chose to use it and why. Many saw those who use it as a threat. A bit like how the Irish tricolour was hijacked by the Republican community and used to drape the coffins of pira members. Some people associated the Irish tricolour then as a threat because it was used by members who threatened their community.

What do you think of the civil servant, working for the queens shilling, who got offended because her photo was up in the workplace and he had to walk past it? He was paid £10,000 out of court and was consulted on what photo he would like in its place. Do you think people who have to walk past RC statues or pictures or crosses, or pictures of 1916 leaders, should get 10k each too?

janfebmar wrote: »

The Irish language was politicised already because of those who chose to use it and why. Many saw those who use it as a threat. A bit like how the Irish tricolour was hijacked by the Republican community and used to drape the coffins of pira members. Some people associated the Irish tricolour then as a threat because it was used by members who threatened their community.

The Eglish language was used by the soldiers who murdered people on bloody sunday, is English a threat to nationalists as a result? That unionist polititions choose to associate the Irish language with a small minority of those who use it was a choice they made. This after they took significant steps to marganilse the use of the language in NI before the troubles ever started. The language was politicised by those who tried to kill it, not a handfull of terrorists who used it.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The Eglish language was used by the soldiers who murdered people on bloody sunday, is English a threat to nationalists as a result?

Everyone uses English. It is not associated mostly with a particular community or political outlook.

janfebmar wrote: »

The Irish language was politicised already because of those who chose to use it and why. Many saw those who use it as a threat.

Like this lassie?

As usual you are talking rubbish. Many people from all communities use Irish, and nobody finds it offensive.

Unionists themselves consider it important enough to include in a Minority Languages Act.

There are no grounds therefore to find it arbitrarily 'offensive', unless of course it reminds you that 'themuns are running the place'.

janfebmar wrote: »

Everyone uses English. It is not associated mostly with a particular community or political outlook.

Neither is Irish, except in the minds of Unionist propagandists and their hangers on. Irish is part of the shared herritage of NI and does not belong to one community or the other. You were as likely to find Irish speakers on the Shankill Road as on the Falls in the recent past. Protestants faced a lot of pressure to not speak Irish when political leaders decided to see it was a threat to Britishness.

A few token words now and again, fine. I use a cupla focail myself sometimes. A different matter to wanting Irish language signs up in the UK where everyone understands English.

Maybe you should advocate Boards.ie to make its home page headings bi-lingual?

janfebmar wrote: »

A few token words now and again, fine. I use a cupla focail myself sometimes. A different matter to wanting Irish language signs up in the UK where everyone understands English.

Maybe you should advocate Boards.ie to make its home page headings bi-lingual?

Boards is a private company and can do what it wants, NI is not. A language act is a matter of enshrining protection for peoples rights in law.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Boards is a private company and can do what it wants, NI is not.

It would not be practical or cost effective or look right to have the headings on boards.ie bi-lingual. Same as government signs. The only people who promote Irish in N. Ireland do so for political reasons. A generation or 2 ago in N. Ireland Irish was virtually never heard of at all.

janfebmar wrote: »

It would not be practical or cost effective or look right to have the headings on boards.ie bi-lingual. Same as government signs. The only people who promote Irish in N. Ireland do so for political reasons. A generation or 2 ago in N. Ireland Irish was virtually never heard of at all.

There is nothing impractical about having bilingual signage. Bilingual/multilingual signage is the norm in most of the world, perhaps you should try to broaden your horizons.

As for Irish not being widely heard in public in NI, that was for fear of getting your head bashed by the RUC and facing what was entrenched discrimination from the Orange state.

janfebmar wrote: »

It would not be practical or cost effective or look right to have the headings on boards.ie bi-lingual. Same as government signs. The only people who promote Irish in N. Ireland do so for political reasons. A generation or 2 ago in N. Ireland Irish was virtually never heard of at all.

According to the 2001 Census, 658,103 people (36% of the population) had "some knowledge of Irish" – of whom 559,670 were Catholics and 48,509 were Protestants and "other Christians".

You are again talking ill informed rubbish.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Bilingual/multilingual signage is the norm in most of the world

No it is not. Everyone in the UK understands English, no need for the extra expense of bi-lingual signage.

Maybe you should ask Ryanair to make all its info and signage bi-linguial in Irish and English?

Charles Babbage

janfebmar wrote: »

A few token words now and again, fine. I use a cupla focail myself sometimes. A different matter to wanting Irish language signs up in the UK where everyone understands English.

Maybe you should advocate Boards.ie to make its home page headings bi-lingual?

So you think the Irish government is sectarian then? And the Scottish?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

According to the 2001 Census, 658,103 people (36% of the population) had "some knowledge of Irish" – of whom 559,670 were Catholics and 48,509 were Protestants and "other Christians".

"Tiocadh ar La" that is some knowledge of Irish. Means nothing.

janfebmar wrote: »

"Tiocadh ar La" that is some knowledge of Irish. Means nothing.

An anti Irish person assumes and denegrates Irish speakers. What a surprise.

Like SSM and abortion rights Unionists have turned into a cul de sac. An ILA is coming as a result, as sure as SSM and abortion rights are coming, as we approach equality in northern Ireland, even if some belligerent Unionists have to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

janfebmar wrote: »

No it is not. Everyone in the UK understands English, no need for the extra expense of bi-lingual signage.

Maybe you should ask Ryanair to make all its info and signage bi-linguial in Irish and English?

Yes, it is. Most of the world is bi/multi-lingual. Monolingualism is not very common.

Again you seem to not understand the difference between a private company and the state. There is need to provide bilingual sigange. The British state has an obligation under the European Charter on Minority and Regional Languages to do this, not to mention the obligation to provide an Irish language act under the Belfast Agreement.

What is the basis of your claim of an extra expence by the way? There is no additional signage, just the same number of signs that have both languages.