downcow wrote: » This post from a unionist victims group has been circulating today in unionist circles. I think this is very important and does happen regularly on unionist/loyalist social media, where terrible crimes against nationalist are highlighted, acknowledged and condemned. It would be a wonderful step forward if republicans could start describing the horror of what republicans done to people. Sadly republicans just can’t go there as they seem unable to deal with the responsibility. Here is the post which has been circulated on endless loyalist and unionist sites today. Fair play to them. Be aware it is very hard reading SEFF remembers Thomas Madden who was murdered 48 years ago today (13th August 1972) by UDA/UFF terrorists. Thomas was 48-year-old and a Roman Catholic civilian, single and a night watchman and was from Cliftonpark Avenue. Thomas left the Meeting of the Waters pub at 8:45pm to go to work. He was abducted and brought to a garage and was then suspended from a wooden beam. In the torturous attack he suffered a reported 147 stab wounds on all parts of his body. The cause of death was reported as, strangulation. The RUC described Thomas as "a quiet, respectable man with sober habits". A woman near where Thomas’s body was found said she heard someone repeatedly screaming "kill me, kill me". A Police spokesman said: "this was the most sadistic murder yet. These men are psychopaths. They will go on killing until we track them down". The coroner described the murder as one of "the most horrible and ghastly to come before the court". He said he could not believe that any normal human being could commit such an atrocious act. Such a frenzied murder of another human being cannot be said to be ‘political,’ it should never be accepted as anything other than sectarian and ethnic fuelled hatred. Thomas’ death was a horrific act of barbarity and no ‘political cause’ could ever justify such heinous actions. Just as was the case with every other murder committed over the years of the terrorist campaign, it was wrong and without justification. SEFF’s thoughts and prayers are with the Madden family today and everyday.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Honestly, you can't answer simple questions, and in avoiding them you create other tangents and strawmen. It's a typical tactic of the ill-informed or the disingenuous. Honestly, go work out what your thoughts on market rents are first, then work out how social housing rents are calculated and maybe you'll be able to continue down that rabbithole and learn more and more about housing in Ireland. As I said, the first step was realising that no one except you and your ilk talk of free houses. Not SF, not those of us who want to see housing market reform. Anyway, this is the thread where you get to be ill-informed about Irish politics and history as it relates to a UI, so housing policy is a bit off-topic. We'll leave it there.
jh79 wrote: » I asked for tangible differences and you could not offer a single one. Populist nonsense.
BonnieSituation wrote: » You've come a long way for someone who thought people got free houses about an hour ago. I've asked other questions of you that remain unanswered, before you created your strawmen. Anyways, you've a lot to learn grasshopper and this thread ain't the place for that learning. Way OT now. But you've made progress today and that's all that we can ask for.
jh79 wrote: » As i said vague nonsense. So housing stock will be built so their right to housing is fulfilled at age 18 as an adult irrespective of family wealth or prospects? If i have the cash to buy a house is the government constitutionally obliged to provide me with one anyways? Otherwise it's means testing and a need based system which we already have. Don't see how the constitution is going to make houses appear out of thin air. Does "whatever the method" include B&B's, hostels, hotels etc? High rise flats that the country spent years removing? By forcing the government to do something you mean policy documents that all parties have anyways?
BonnieSituation wrote: » A proposed constitutional right to housing would ensure that, whatever the method, a person would not ever be homeless. It would be a constitutional guarantee to that effect. Such a guarantee would fundamentally change housing policy in this State and shift the funding model to ensure that the social housing mix would increase to a more appropriate level than languishing where it does and has done for two decades. That's what that guarantee means. It would force the State to actually do something about the housing shambles we have. The constitution is a pretty powerful document you'll find.
FrancieBrady wrote: » McCord was trying to tie the SoS's hands tighter. He lost. You'll figure it out too.
jh79 wrote: » This? I'm a bit lost at what your point is. Council houses have to be built and therefore funded. While not "free" the rent is a fraction of market rates. So how would a change in the constitution change anything?
jh79 wrote: » Now Francie, i was only made aware of it because that McCord lad thought it was flawed enough to bring it to court. Nice try though.
BonnieSituation wrote: » I don't think you can be enlightened on this subject if I'm honest. You're really getting hung up on this "free" word. When you say fund, do you mean buying a house whether through a mortgage or cash? Can you think of other ways in which people are housed that are not through this method?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You think you spotted a flaw in a couple of hours that all the legals and politicians didn't spot having fought over every word of an agreement for months? A bit of arrogance there. just because you handwave stuff away that undermines your system doesn't make the agreed one a flaw.
jh79 wrote: » Read the post again, unless you are saying that public housing is for all how will this simple addition to the constitution differentiate from those you can afford a house?
jh79 wrote: » The paragraph started with the unionist perspective so obviously it was risk from their perspective. I was responding to a post saying it was an over sight by republicans when it was an over sight by both. That was the context.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Risk?
jh79 wrote: » Enlighten me, what tangible difference will it make and how would it differentiate from those who can fund their own housing ?
jh79 wrote: » No. I said it was a flaw in the agreement for any who wanted true self determination for NI. I think it is better for Unionist as the SoS would more than likely be biased towards them. But there is always a risk of a Corbyn type more sympathetic to Republicans.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Okay. So you think that a Constitutional right to housing means everyone is entitled to a free house? You can't possibly be that ignorant.
timthumbni wrote: » I will call it what I wish. Thanks for the permission. You are one who posted it was a “simple fact” regarding who used Londonderry. I was simply correcting you. In the centenary of Northern Ireland celebration thread another poster called me an “edgelord” for referring to Londonderry. That was today. Maybe they needed a few weeks in the Sligo mountains to calm themselves down. Although it seems even that may still leave a few people a bit on edge.
BonnieSituation wrote: » No one is missing "the point" as you call it, it's just that "the point" you're trying to make is so hamfisted and obtuse. You didn't know about the provision for the SOSNI within the GFA to call a poll nor did you know about the McCord judgement until a few hours ago, and then feigned shock as to how it "slipped by republicans". I'd pack it up now tbh if I were you.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Call it what you wish Timmy. I've read that post a few times now and I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but you seem agitated. I don't think anyone has paid any attention to to your attention-seeking use of Londonderry on here. I know I glossed over it as your posts tend to be a bit impenetrable a lacking in anything of substance to discuss. Maybe that's the issue at hand? Why are Unionists always in need of attention?
jh79 wrote: » So what does a right to housing mean in a constitutional law sense? If i'm not provided a house i can then i can sue the state to force them as per my constitutional rights. If it means nothing more than an aspiration to provide housing then it is vague populist nonsense.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Okay. And where does it say "free" in that?
jh79 wrote: » Both you and Blaaz are missing the point. It is entirely at the mercy of a British SoS to decide what public opinion is without having to give a reason other than he or she doesn't think the time is right. There will always be opinion poles. Put a figure on "likely" and tell me at what point does it fall outside of the GFA? Ask a unionist what figure of support in an opinion poll is enough to say a referendum is justified? Guaranteed it's higher than yours.
timthumbni wrote: » The so called simple fact you refer to is laughable and nonsense.I refer to the city as Londonderry/ Derry and sometimes stroke city and even doire. The county almost always as Londonderry. I don’t know why republicans on here are so insecure in what anyone else refers to it as. Anytime I use Londonderry on here you get some real funny guy/gal posting something like where’s that? Or edgelord (ha) etc. Silly. It’s like me saying anyone using the term the north of Ireland is a rabid Ira supporter. Now they may be but I won’t make a big deal of it. The fact is none of these people would correct me in public If I said it so why act the big testes on a message board.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Why do these suggestions always come with the caveat that a Nationalist vote should essentially count less than a Unionist one? The GFA stated that a majority was required, not 55%, not 60%, not a supermajority, 50% + 1. Requiring three consecutive opinion polls at >60% would be absolutely ridiculous. In your hypothetical scenario, two opinion polls at 75% and one at 59%.....nope, no border poll. Now you're in a situation where the majority of the population have expressed a clear preference for unification, and you're saying it isn't, 'likely' to pass? This wouldn't hold up to the most basic of legal challenges. The fact that you didn't understand the GFA enough at the time to know what you were voting for is quite telling. Don't project your ignorance on to everyone else. Plenty of people thoroughly examined the text of the GFA and knew exactly what they were voting for. It's 35 pages long....lets not pretend there is a University course on the planet so intense that it doesn't leave you the time to read 35 pages. I studied in the STEM field at a postgraduate level and at no point during my studies would I have struggled to find the time to read such a short document.
jh79 wrote: » Constitutional right to housing is a perfect example of vague populist nonsense from SF. Maybe Gerry will get a 3rd house!
BonnieSituation wrote: » : There's a simple fact that no-one really says Londonderry except insecure loyalists when in earshot of a Taig, Gregory Campbell and the BBC and UTV News. That it "naturally rolls off the tongue" as DC would have you believe is laughable. I have no issue with the name per se, .
jh79 wrote: » Because it is a more tangible measure of public opinion. I get where you are coming from but it is open to abuse and not immune to legal challenge either i would imagine.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
