Hamsterchops wrote: » Legit post independence, when carried out by whom? By the Irish army, or a Terrorist group? A terrorist group cannot attack UK forces inside the UK and not expect universal condemnation. Lord Mountbatten also died that day as did two children and their Nanny, no legitimacy about any of it, hence Stanley was made to delete and apologies for his disgusting tweet. There is a big difference between legitimate force as used by one country against another, and Terrorist attacks which have no mandate for their actions. Irish people up and down this island were disgusted and ashamed of what the Provos did that day, same in Britain where so many decent Irish people had to explain that the Provos did not speak for the people of Ireland. The legitimate Defence forces of this State were in a constant tussle with the illegitimate IRA during the Troubles.
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-claims-sinn-fein-supporters-are-targeting-him-for-homophobic-abuse-39820352.html "Fine Gael MEP Maria Walsh has asked Mr Stanley to explain a Twitter comment he made when Mr Varadkar was elected Fine Gael leader. In the post on June 2, 2017, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairperson wrote: “Yippie 4 d tory. it’s Leo. U can do what you like in bed but don’t look 4 a pay rise in the morning.” The comment was made just after Mr Varadkar said his successful election showed “prejudice has no hold on this republic”. Ms Walsh, who is a prominent LGBTI campaigner, asked why Mr Stanley was connecting the Tánaiste’s “sexual orientation and his democratically elected position”. “Is it just another flippant straight comment or is there a more sinister meaning behind the tweet?” she asked. Sinn Féin did not respond to requests for comment." It seems that your comment on context is just distraction and a disgusting attempt to deflect. The comment was made after Leo became leader of Fine Gael, and not in the context you referenced. It also seems I am not alone in concern about the tweet, and my concern is shared by a prominent LGBTI campaigner. Are you suggesting she is seeing something that isn't there as well? Time for Stanley to crawl back under his rock.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Even if it was in relation to that, where is the 'homophobia'?
"There would have been a lot of Orange lodges in Dublin and Wicklow at a time – and all over the country – so if we’re serious about respecting each other’s identities, each other’s values; if we’re serious about parity of esteem, it’s not the sort of thing you can pick and choose," he said, speaking to the News Letter
The Orange Order is standing behind anti-gay remarks made by Fermanagh County Grand Master Stuart Brooker, who said gay people could not join the organization because "homosexuality is wrong.”
General Law No. 4 of the Orange Loyal Institution of Ireland states "Any member dishonouring the institution by marrying a Roman Catholic shall be expelled and it shall be deemed an offence for any member to facilitate in any way Sunday sports, amusements or dances by Roman Catholics."
FrancieBrady wrote: » If you see homophobia because somebody mentioned 'bed' in reply to somebody talking about 'people who get up early in the morning' tis you guys need help tbh.
Hamsterchops wrote: » No, what I said was that like many Irish people I too had family in WWI and WWII. Navy & RAF.
expectationlost wrote: » I think Varadkar's first said his line about 'wanting to lead a party for people who get up early in the morning' around May 20th Stanley was referencing that but not just that.
expectationlost wrote: » I think Varadkar's first said his line about 'wanting to lead a party for people who get up early in the morning' around May 20th https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-wants-to-lead-party-for-people-who-get-up-early-in-the-morning-1.3090753 Stanley was referencing that but not just that.
blanch152 wrote: » His tweet was the morning after Leo's election as party leader, and had nothing to do with the get up early in the morning remark. You are stretching credibility that he waited over two weeks to tweet about the get up in the morning remark and thought that more important to tweet about than Leo actually becoming leader. Give it up, nobody believes it.
In the tweet sent in 2017, the now head of the Public Accounts Committee wrote “yippee 4 d tory. it’s Leo. U can do what u like in bed but don’t look 4 a pay rise the next morning.” Asked to explain the tweet, he said: “What I meant in that tweet was, we were trying to push legislation and measures regarding worker’s rights and minimum wage and minimum wage. The point I was making was it is great that we have achieved the rights for gay people and women and yippee to that. But the point I was making was we still had the missing piece as a Republican, the missing piece, to try and advance the rights of workers.”
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where in that tweet is 'attention drawn to Varadkar's sexual orientation'? WTF it was in response to Varadkar's 'people who get up early in the morning' gaff, that even Coveney criticised.
FrancieBrady wrote: » As I thought...this is all about uptight people's issues with sexuality more than anything else. Embarrassed for the outrage junkies on this one. Quote:In the tweet sent in 2017, the now head of the Public Accounts Committee wrote “yippee 4 d tory. it’s Leo. U can do what u like in bed but don’t look 4 a pay rise the next morning.” Asked to explain the tweet, he said: “What I meant in that tweet was, we were trying to push legislation and measures regarding worker’s rights and minimum wage and minimum wage. The point I was making was it is great that we have achieved the rights for gay people and women and yippee to that. But the point I was making was we still had the missing piece as a Republican, the missing piece, to try and advance the rights of workers.”https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brian-stanley-says-he-has-nothing-to-apologise-for-over-2017-tweet-1.4426553#.X8jYyDBjg0U.twitter
rdwight wrote: » That's the thing about dog-whistles: they are designed to facilitate operational deniability.
Bowie wrote: » Likely a reference to people who like to get up early? I think denying student nurses money will take over from historic tweets.
FrancieBrady wrote: » As I thought...this is all about uptight people's issues with sexuality more than anything else. Embarrassed for the outrage junkies on this one.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brian-stanley-says-he-has-nothing-to-apologise-for-over-2017-tweet-1.4426553#.X8jYyDBjg0U.twitter
Amirani wrote: » That's all great that he was intending the tweet to support workers rights, but it was a homophobic remark. Catherine Murphy, who's fairly impartial here and was quite balanced on Stanley's previous tweet, seems to think so too.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Saying 'that it is great about gay rights being achieved but whatabout workers rights....' - is homophobic??? This 'woke faux outrage' stuff is what needs to be stamped out I think. :rolleyes:
hatrickpatrick wrote: » @Blanch did you watch the video yet? You can skip to 6 minutes in if you haven't ten minutes to spare. You and anyone else defending the RUC / British Army scumbags and attacking those who resisted them have no leg to stand on if you refuse to comment on why everything kicked off in Northern Ireland to begin with. The people in this video were peacefully protesting against electoral, housing and employment discrimination and demanding an end to it. What followed is the specific catalyst for the entire thirty year conflict which immediately followed. Nothing to say? ]
blanch152 wrote: » But he didn't say that it is great about gay rights being achieved, he said that the then Taoiseach could do what he liked in bed, drawing attention in an inappropriate way to the then Taoiseach's sexual orientation, low-level dog-whistle homophobia. Let's hope he does the decent thing and apologises to the Tanaiste. Glad to see that the excuses of this morning have now been dropped. We were told it was about getting up early in the morning, now it is about gay rights. The brass neck of this posting is incredible.
blanch152 wrote: » I am not defending any scumbags, stop putting words in my mouth. As for the video, I lived through the 1970s and 1980s, I don't need to watch any video reinterpreting my experiences.
blanch152 wrote: » That bit in bold simply isn't true. For a start, there were many actions that the Crown Forces took that were protecting people, many of them risked their lives (e.g. Warrenpoint) for the security and safety of ordinary people. Yes, there were things that they did that were wrong, and they should be rightly condemned for those, but the vast majority of their actions were in defence of law and order. Secondly, they were a legitimate democratically accepted security force. Northern Ireland is and was British by virtue of the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland. That makes them very different to the IRA who had no democratic legitimacy (unless you believe the fable of a history back to 1919). None of that excuses Bloody Sunday or Finucane or any other wrong.
rdwight wrote: » Glad to see SF are back supporting nursing staff I seem to remember they were also front and centre at picket lines the last time nurses took industrial action down here. And soon after were nowhere to be seen when nurses in the North (where SF had the power to do something) were protesting.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » You did, though. Your earlier post on the subject: This is blatantly untrue and that's what I'm asking you to address. There were not merely "things that they did wrong", the organisations to their very core were built around the priority of protecting the Loyalist/Protestant stranglehold on power and violently suppressing everyone who tried to agitate against this through peaceful protest. This is the direct reason the Troubles began. If those protest marches hadn't been baton charged by the c*nts who comprised the majority of the RUC, not just "a few bad apples", there would have been no thirty year conflict and certainly not one as bloody as what ultimately occurred. The RUC as an organisation was a sectarian, British equivalent of the KKK. It's as simple as that. Any and all attacks against either it or the British Army which were subsequent to the events depicted in that video were a legitimate response to state-sponsored police brutality and apartheid. They fundamentally deserved every single bullet or bomb thrown their way after behaving like this, again not as individuals but as an entire organisation. It was rotten and scummy to its very core. Your narrative that it was primarily good, ordinary cops is absolute bullsh!t - it was a paramilitary force whose primary goal was to maintain the system of oppression against the nationalist population. This applies even more so to any element of the British Army which subsequently got involved in the conflict. The entire organisations made themselves fair game for violent resistance after violently putting down a peaceful protest march. Had every RUC station in Northern Ireland been firebombed the following morning, it would have been justified.
