How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

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.

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.

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.

I wasn't giving you permission though.

Seriously, sit down. This heat is getting to you.

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.

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.

Risk?

jh79 wrote: »

Enlighten me, what tangible difference will it make and how would it differentiate from those who can fund their own housing ?

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?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Risk?

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: »

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?

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.

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?

Back up.

I asked questions. Let's not jump ahead of ourselves here.

Answer them and then we can move on. It's better this way.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Now that you've accepted that the houses aren't free from both sides of the transaction you can also accept that they are assets as well. It's not like they have zero value and 100% cost in their building.

Right, so I would be correct in assuming that you think that "market rates" are the "correct rates"?

Do you know how rent is calculated in social housing?

---

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.

Him as a citizen wouldn't have any part in his proposed legislation. It would have been up to SF/DUP and the government's of the 2 countries to decide what was appropriate. Not necessarily a bad thing for Republicans. Far better for moral if you have a real target and can see progress.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

I asked for tangible differences and you could not offer a single one.

Populist nonsense.

jh79 wrote: »

I asked for tangible differences and you could not offer a single one.

Populist nonsense.

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.

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.

I asked what difference a change in the constitution would make and you failed to offer a single example. Populism at its most insipid.

downcow

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.

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.

Fair play, but why would you use an horrific death and a victim to seek some kind of medal?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fair play, but why would you use an horrific death and a victim to seek some kind of medal?

Who is seeking a medal. I suppose I am showing again that many unionists accept that terrible things were done in their name. They accept that the paramilitaries/ freedom fighters on their side tortured and murdered people simply because of their religion. It would be really helpful if republicans accepted that that the Ira done likewise on many many occasions. Maybe a start would be you accepting that a significant amount of ira activity was torture and murder of Protestants simply because they were Protestants ?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Who is seeking a medal. I suppose I am showing again that many unionists accept that terrible things were done in their name. They accept that the paramilitaries/ freedom fighters on their side tortured and murdered people simply because of their religion. It would be really helpful if republicans accepted that that the Ira done likewise on many many occasions. Maybe a start would be you accepting that a significant amount of ira activity was torture and murder of Protestants simply because they were Protestants ?

It's the state forces atrocities that many of your community have trouble condemning. The whole Soldier F fiasco is perfect evidence of this, Downcow.

The man is accused of murder, there is significant evidence of this.....but rather than acknowledging the absolute injustice that is the protection the likes of this man received, the whataboutery starts, the claims of a witch hunt start, the pseudo-sympathetic, 'old man' talk starts, the, 'just following orders' (where have we heard that before?) starts. ANYTHING to deflect and acknowledge that STATE FORCES carried out actions that were just as bad as either of the paramilitary groups on either side.

Ignoring the Nationalist/Unionist question for a second.....don't you think the state should be held to a higher standard than terrorists?

You tend to jab at Francie for this regularly, but I've seen him unequivocally condemn ALL violence.....yours always seems to be tinged with the view that the British troops and RUC were always, 'the good guys'.

I have no issue whatsoever with calling out the likes of the Enniskillen bombing as completely wrong - I use this as an example because of how close to home it was, not to portray any other specific incidents as right. I don't accept that a significant amount of IRA violence was specifically because the victims were Protestants - I would absolutely accept that a significant amount of IRA violence was because the victims were from a Unionist background, and those from a Unionist background were indeed largely Protestant. By and large, I don't believe their Protestantism was a significant motivating factor, but rather their political leanings.

To be clear, this is an analysis, not a justification, and should not be taken as a statement of support, as I'm aware you're occasionally fond of doing so.

downcow wrote: »

Who is seeking a medal. I suppose I am showing again that many unionists accept that terrible things were done in their name. They accept that the paramilitaries/ freedom fighters on their side tortured and murdered people simply because of their religion. It would be really helpful if republicans accepted that that the Ira done likewise on many many occasions. Maybe a start would be you accepting that a significant amount of ira activity was torture and murder of Protestants simply because they were Protestants ?

You don't need to tell me that many Unionists accept that terrible things were done. Every Unionist I know and have worked with accepts that, they are moderate decent Unionists.
If the IRA killed for sectarian reasons (and they did) I accepted that long ago, as they did. Read any of their statements since the GFA dealing with it.

Despicable use of a genuine post by a victims group to try and earn kudos downcow.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Who is seeking a medal. I suppose I am showing again that many unionists accept that terrible things were done in their name. They accept that the paramilitaries/ freedom fighters on their side tortured and murdered people simply because of their religion. It would be really helpful if republicans accepted that that the Ira done likewise on many many occasions. Maybe a start would be you accepting that a significant amount of ira activity was torture and murder of Protestants simply because they were Protestants ?

I can't wait to hear you condemn Willie Frazer and not make excuses that he was bullied in his youth (which is a complete fabrication), or making excuses that the Quinn boys murder wasn't sectarian, but all the fault of their supposedly drug dealing uncle and mother's protestant boyfriend.

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What oath?

Do you know anything about the Assembly?

EDIT: Seems it was answered in good faith and we'll leave it there despite my doubts of it being questioned in good faith.

---

As an aside I'm sure you were aghast at the taigy Claire Hanna and Colum Eastwood's affirmations' to your fair Queen:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eastwood-swears-true-allegiance-to-derry-in-house-of-commons-1.4121471

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019/sdlps-claire-hanna-lodges-respectful-protest-over-pledge-to-queen-in-commons-38796681.html

I didn't know what 'taig' was until either you,francie or Tom said it some time ago,I'll have to let the missus know that apparently she's a 'taig'.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

I didn't know what 'taig' was until either you,francie or Tom said it some time ago,I'll have to let the missus know that apparently she's a 'taig'.

Your missus is from a Catholic/Irish Nationalist background, Rob?

If that's the case, you won't need to, 'let her know' - she will have been called it more than once, and have seen plenty of graffiti emblazoned with KAT or ATAT when she lived back in the North.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Your missus is from a Catholic/Irish Nationalist background, Rob?

If that's the case, you won't need to, 'let her know' - she will have been called it more than once, and have seen plenty of graffiti emblazoned with KAT or ATAT when she lived back in the North.

She's from Drogheda,so didn't know what it meant

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

She's from Drogheda,so didn't know what it meant

My mistake, I thought you had said that she was from the North, no idea why I had that in my head.

That's an odd one though; very few in Drogheda who wouldn't have at least heard the term....a fair few people who went on the run across the border ended up settling in Dundalk and Drogheda. Being a border county, generally the people there would be a bit more exposed to events in the North than people further South too.

What sort of age was herself when she moved across to the UK? I could understand if she moved as a child, but genuinely it's perplexing to think someone could grow to adulthood along the border during the Troubles and never once hear the term Taig. It would be used in Scotland as well, particularly Glasgow (as I'm sure you could've guessed!).