Sinn Fein in a huff over new signs

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 10:39AM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Whatever about what everyone else thinks, the people in the areas where the signs went up don't want them there and therefore there is no hope of them remaining in place. That is the reality. The one outside Clones only lasted a couple of hours. As soon as they go up they will be taken back down again, it is not possible to enforce something like this without the cooperation of the local community and that will not be forthcoming anytime soon so might as well wave goodbye to the signs idea

Well as I said earlier, vadalism and damage play right into the hands of those who seek to brand catholics as barabaric savages.IMO the signs are justified and should be put in place. A coompromise to have bilingual in some areas may be acceptable if the communities accept it.However, those who vandalise or uproot the signs should be prosecuted for the damage and be forced to pay for the cost of reinstatement. Vandalism and criminal damage is NEVER acceptable from anyone form any community. The local council should erect temporary CCTV covering the signs and have the PSNI on speeddial to respond if some little toerag tries to damage it. The Police should keep and eye on it for a week or so after erection and if they catch someone damaginging, there is a good chance that person is connected to Nationalism/Republicanism and they would problably warrant further investigation to see do they have any contraband at their homes or are in any way connected with dissidents. Damaging public property is a crime, whether you like the sign or not, and it should be punished by the courts. I certainly would take a very dim view of anyone who goes out to intentionally damage a sign erected for the benefit of tourists and other travellers.

R P McMurphy · 09-08-2012 10:49AM

haulagebasher wrote: »

Well as I said earlier, vadalism and damage play right into the hands of those who seek to brand catholics as barabaric savages.IMO the signs are justified and should be put in place. A coompromise to have bilingual in some areas may be acceptable if the communities accept it.However, those who vandalise or uproot the signs should be prosecuted for the damage and be forced to pay for the cost of reinstatement. Vandalism and criminal damage is NEVER acceptable from anyone form any community. The local council should erect temporary CCTV covering the signs and have the PSNI on speeddial to respond if some little toerag tries to damage it. The Police should keep and eye on it for a week or so after erection and if they catch someone damaginging, there is a good chance that person is connected to Nationalism/Republicanism and they would problably warrant further investigation to see do they have any contraband at their homes or are in any way connected with dissidents. Damaging public property is a crime, whether you like the sign or not, and it should be punished by the courts. I certainly would take a very dim view of anyone who goes out to intentionally damage a sign erected for the benefit of tourists and other travellers.

Does not matter if you think they are justified, the local communities do not and therefore they stand no chance of remaining in place. That is the reality. You obviously are unaware of the border areas as policing these areas provides significant problems for the authorities already let alone trying to divert resources to keep up signs that are unwanted by the local populace. The very nature of the border is that is police arive on one side, a couple of steps to the other and you are out of reach. They only way something like this could be done in a sustainable manner is in cooperation with the people that live there. If you bother to look into the background of the person that sanctioned them you might see that the erection of the signs may not have been done solely for 'the benefit of tourists and travellers'
"there is a good chance that person is connected to Nationalism/Republicanism and they would problably warrant further investigation to see do they have any contraband at their homes or are in any way connected with dissidents"

Only really saw that bit now. I am not engaging with you as are obviously too ill informed to enter any dialogue with, talk about painting an entire commnuity with a large brush. Do yourself a favour and go and educate yourself

fasttalkerchat · 09-08-2012 10:56AM

TheChizler wrote: »

Do you think there is a particular wording that they might be ok with or is it more the act of marking a border at all? Cause if it was opposition to any kind off marking I'd expect the mph warning signs to be taken down.

For me its a case of enforcing division unnecessarily. If there is a need to use the term Northern Ireland I'm fine with it although I'm not 100% comfortable with it myself. Border areas such as Crossmaglen came under attack from the British Army throughout the troubles and are staunchly republican, these signs were meant as a dig to remind people along the border that the border still exists.

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 10:59AM

^^^The whys and whatabouts of the erections of the signs and the background of the proposer are irrelevant to the point I was making - you cannot just go outside and smash up a public sign just becasue you don't like the look of it. Its a crime and the police should deter potential vandals by prosecuting those who damage them and that would be achievable with CCTV. If someone doesn't like the signs, fair enough, but there are proper channels for dealing with these things and going out with a sledge hammer is not one of them. Like I said, they don;t do themselves any favours by acting in such a manner.Anyway, presumably the local council would have had to have had voted for and approved the erection ofthem. If groups are that set against them, they should get onto their council instead of going out vandalising public property. I think my proposal for bilingual signs in catholic areas would be a compromise acceptable to most sound minded people.

fasttalkerchat · 09-08-2012 10:59AM

lugha wrote: »

And all parties to the agreement, agreed to recognise the state of Northern Ireland. If that was step to far for them then they should not have supported GFA.

And all parties agreed on a clear protocol for the ending of the state when the time is right. That was the compromise. It was agreed in the short term in exchange for a long term agreement from the other side.

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 11:07AM

Only really saw that bit now. I am not engaging with you as are obviously too ill informed to enter any dialogue with, talk about painting an entire commnuity with a large brush. Do yourself a favour and go and educate yourself

I am not tarring everyone with one brush. I;m just saying that they type of person who will go out and intentioally destroy public property becasue they disagree with it are porobly possibly more lightly to be those sort of people who could potentially get involved in more serious dissident activity. I am not saying defineitely, I am just saying potentially.I seriously hope you are not suggesting that vandals shoudl be let away with or that damage to public property shoudl be tolerated? My point still stands that anyone caught interfereing with the signs shoudl be prosecuted for vanalism. Like so many things, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was to be loyalist thugs vandalising signs for a GAA field (or whatever) would there be the same acceptance? I doubt it.

R P McMurphy · 09-08-2012 11:09AM

haulagebasher wrote: »

^^^The whys and whatabouts of the erections of the signs and the background of the proposer are irrelevant to the point I was making - you cannot just go outside and smash up a public sign just becasue you don't like the look of it. Its a crime and the police should deter potential vandals by prosecuting those who damage them and that would be achievable with CCTV. If someone doesn't like the signs, fair enough, but there are proper channels for dealing with these things and going out with a sledge hammer is not one of them. Like I said, they don;t do themselves any favours by acting in such a manner.Anyway, presumably the local council would have had to have had voted for and approved the erection ofthem. If groups are that set against them, they should get onto their council instead of going out vandalising public property. I think my proposal for bilingual signs in catholic areas would be a compromise acceptable to most sound minded people.

No the signs were not approved by the local councils as they would not have received approval.

You are missing the point that it is impossible to police the signs unless you have the police standing beside them 24 hours a day. In a place like Belcoo beside Blacklion in cavan, how on earth are they to be kept in place. CCTV won't deter people in the slightest. ]

And you inferrence about people from the nationalist community being involved in criminality is beyond contempt

fasttalkerchat · 09-08-2012 11:11AM

haulagebasher wrote: »

^^^The whys and whatabouts of the erections of the signs and the background of the proposer are irrelevant to the point I was making - you cannot just go outside and smash up a public sign just becasue you don't like the look of it. Its a crime and the police should deter potential vandals by prosecuting those who damage them and that would be achievable with CCTV. If someone doesn't like the signs, fair enough, but there are proper channels for dealing with these things and going out with a sledge hammer is not one of them. Like I said, they don;t do themselves any favours by acting in such a manner.Anyway, presumably the local council would have had to have had voted for and approved the erection ofthem. If groups are that set against them, they should get onto their council instead of going out vandalising public property. I think my proposal for bilingual signs in catholic areas would be a compromise acceptable to most sound minded people.

There was a decision that the signs would be bad for tourism and unwelcome in most border areas. The signs idea was dropped a year ago under criticism from the Tourism Board. One man decided that they should still go ahead for his own reasons. They were removed by the community after they were shown on the news.

Richard · 09-08-2012 11:12AM

The signs should have been bilingual. It would have given unionists partial "ownership" of the Irish language whist not setting a precedent for Irish roadsigns throughout NI as they could argue it was a "border thing".

It would also have muted the opposition from Sinn Fein etc.

fasttalkerchat · 09-08-2012 11:14AM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

You are missing the point that it is impossible to police the signs unless you have the police standing beside them 24 hours a day. In a place like Belcoo beside Blacklion in cavan, how on earth are they to be kept in place. CCTV won't deter people in the slightest. ]

Agreed. When helicopters flew overhead and army patrols ventured into south Armagh no amount of CCTV could deter the locals from taking on the British Army, the poor sign posts never stood a chance!

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 11:15AM

^^^^^Please reread the post - i did not infer that all people from the NC are involved in criminality. I said that the MINORITY of people who engage in vandalism could be more likely to be involved in more serious crimes. ie. more liklely than someone who just drives past and goes "meh" and doesn't really care.Again, if they don't like them, they should get together and petition the local council rather than taking the law into their own hands. That is not acceptable in a civilised society.Whoever it is that does it, it is still a crime regardless and it should be punished by the courts. Do you not at least agree with that?

Cú Giobach · 09-08-2012 11:17AM

haulagebasher wrote: »

That is not acceptable in a (semi) civilised society.

fasttalkerchat · 09-08-2012 11:21AM

haulagebasher wrote: »

^^^^^Please reread the post - i did not infer that all people from the NC are involved in criminality. I said that the MINORITY of people who engage in vandalism could be more likely to be involved in more serious crimes. ie. more liklely than someone who just drives past and goes "meh" and doesn't really care.Again, if they don't like them, they should get together and petition the local council rather than taking the law into their own hands. That is not acceptable in a (semi) civilised society.Whoever it is that does it, it is still a crime regardless and it should be punished by the courts. Do you not at least agree with that?

The decision had nothing to do with local councils and councils would most likely want the signs removed. There is no point in taking on the politician who put up the signs since he's a UUP politician and Orange Order member.

R P McMurphy · 09-08-2012 11:24AM

haulagebasher wrote: »

^^^^^Please reread the post - i did not infer that all people from the NC are involved in criminality. I said that the MINORITY of people who engage in vandalism could be more likely to be involved in more serious crimes. ie. more liklely than someone who just drives past and goes "meh" and doesn't really care.Again, if they don't like them, they should get together and petition the local council rather than taking the law into their own hands. That is not acceptable in a (semi) civilised society.Whoever it is that does it, it is still a crime regardless and it should be punished by the courts. Do you not at least agree with that?

If there are to be signs erected then they should be done in a manner that is acceptable to the people that live in the area where they are to be erected. Otherwise is a futile exercise. If you look at the signs themselves they are not exactly welcoming and are there for one reason only. I am sure that if an information sign was developed in conjunction with the local communities that they would stand a better chance of survival.

What is the point of petitioning the local council when it was not the councils decision to put them up? What would be the point of petitioning the person that sanctioned them when the perception is that his motives are disingenuous? I would safely say that no person will ever be prosecuted for the removal of the signs as it is impossible to police.

And please do explain what you mean by a semi-civilised society

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 11:24AM

Anyone caught interfering with, removing or damaging the signs should be prosecuted for vandalism/theft

Chuck Stone · 09-08-2012 11:29AM

Communities agree to be policed. When the police become the tool of one side then they aren't a civilian police force any more.

The communities who populate the border areas (and who happen to be predominately non-Unionist in heritage) should have been consulted on the issue and an agreement reached or the trolling prevented plan shelved.

As for forcing the community to accept them? Yep, just keep banging your head against that wall. If the people of the border have proved one thing it's that they will not be pushed around. The British army had to travel in and out of there by helicopter at one stage FFS do people really think a few CCTV cameras are going to stop them from turning the signs into scrap?

Slow learners.

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 11:38AM

I feel as if i'm flaking my head off a wall. The locals going out and knocking down the signs is playing into the hands of the loyalists/trolls. They are giving them the reaction they are looking for. They are as bad as them for taking the bait and rising to it.Frustrate the troll by ignoring the sign. Having said that, anyone caught should be punished.

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 11:43AM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

And please do explain what you mean by a semi-civilised society

It was merely a jest. Historically NI can harly be held up as the pinnacle of restraint and calm and civilised behaviour. It was a small joke lad, jeez.

What is the point of petitioning the local council when it was not the councils decision to put them up? What would be the point of petitioning the person that sanctioned them when the perception is that his motives are disingenuous? I would safely say that no person will ever be prosecuted for the removal of the signs as it is impossible to police.

Rather that go out all irate and knock them, they should at least try and go through the proper channels to have them removed. Can you please confirm your position on whether individuals, if caught, should be prosecuted?

fasttalkerchat · 09-08-2012 11:44AM

haulagebasher wrote: »

I feel as if i'm flaking my head off a wall. The locals going out and knocking down the signs is playing into the hands of the loyalists/trolls. They are giving them the reaction they are looking for. They are as bad as them for taking the bait and rising to it.Frustrate the troll by ignoring the sign. Having said that, anyone caught should be punished.

Ignoring partition won't make it go away. I don't see how anyone could have expected the nationalist people to ingnore many of the things that happened during the troubles. If we hadn't risen up (peacefully or otherwise) we would still have unfair housing distribution, fewer job prospects, and even if we had the right to vote, gerrymandering to lessen the effect of Catholic votes.

MagicSean · 09-08-2012 11:47AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Communities agree to be policed. When the police become the tool of one side then they aren't a civilian police force any more.

The communities who populate the border areas (and who happen to be predominately non-Unionist in heritage) should have been consulted on the issue and an agreement reached or the trolling prevented plan shelved.

As for forcing the community to accept them? Yep, just keep banging your head against that wall. If the people of the border have proved one thing it's that they will not be pushed around. The British army had to travel in and out of there by helicopter at one stage FFS do people really think a few CCTV cameras are going to stop them from turning the signs into scrap?

Slow learners.

good attempt at justifying violence and criminality there. Stay classy.

Chuck Stone · 09-08-2012 11:52AM

MagicSean wrote: »

good attempt at justifying violence and criminality there. Stay classy.

Sorry, but you stopped being coherent in this thread a few pages back.

Defiler Of The Coffin · 09-08-2012 11:53AM

MagicSean wrote: »

good attempt at justifying violence and criminality there. Stay classy.

Around and around the MagicSean Roundabout we go. Where it stops nobody knows. The signs are "practical and necessary" and that's end of that. Nothing else factors into the equation at all.

You pulled the same tricks in the Legalise Cannabis thread as well, constant circular arguments and strawmen.

Waste of time.

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 11:56AM

I've asked this question but people keep conveniently avoiding it. Do you agree that those caught dmaging or removing the shigns should be prosecuted for theft/vandalism? Or perhaps you think it acceptable do you?

Chuck Stone · 09-08-2012 11:56AM

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Waste of time.

Indeed.

A person utterly obsessed with enforcing 'law and order' regardless of how patently stupid/immoral/abusive those laws are.

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 12:00PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Indeed.

A person utterly obsessed with enforcing 'law and order' regardless of how patently stupid/immoral/abusive those laws are.

Can you please just answer the question. Otherwise I shall have to assume you wish to avoid it becasue you condone the theft and damage of public property. As I said before, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a GAA sign being targetted by loyalists certain posters might not be so placid and would have a change of heart and be up in arms about it.............
Are you seriously suggesting that anti vadalism laws are stupid and abusive?This thread has gone to the circus. I'm done here.

SocSocPol · 09-08-2012 12:05PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sorry, but you stopped being coherent in this thread a few pages back.

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Around and around the MagicSean Roundabout we go. Where it stops nobody knows. The signs are "practical and necessary" and that's end of that. Nothing else factors into the equation at all.

You pulled the same tricks in the Legalise Cannabis thread as well, constant circular arguments and strawmen.

Waste of time.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Indeed.

A person utterly obsessed with enforcing 'law and order' regardless of how patently stupid/immoral/abusive those laws are.

Whats this, national attack the poster not the post day?:mad:

Chuck Stone · 09-08-2012 12:06PM

haulagebasher wrote: »

Can you please just answer the question. Otherwise I shall have to assume you wish to avoid it becasue you condone the theft and damage of public property.

It's a meaningless after-the-fact question.

The border communities should have been consulted before the signs were erected.

Do you agree with the above statement?

Chuck Stone · 09-08-2012 12:09PM

SocSocPol wrote: »

Whats this, national attack the poster not the post day?:mad:

I didn't attack the poster I called his views into question. I've never met the guy. He could be a perfect gentleman for all I know, probably is?

I just find his letterbox view of law and order limited and not worth engaging with in any substantive manner.

MagicSean · 09-08-2012 12:10PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sorry, but you stopped being coherent in this thread a few pages back.

Perfectly coherent. I reposted the questions for you and you still refused to answer them. The reason being you cannot. And don't even pretend your comment about the police not being a civilian police force was anything other than an attempt to justify the use of violence against them.

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Around and around the MagicSean Roundabout we go. Where it stops nobody knows. The signs are "practical and necessary" and that's end of that. Nothing else factors into the equation at all.

You pulled the same tricks in the Legalise Cannabis thread as well, constant circular arguments and strawmen.

Waste of time.

Tricks? You call it circular, I call it sticking to my point. I'm not the one who has brought strawmen into this thread. I posted about the need for practical and necessary signage to advise people when moving from country to country and I've stayed with that as much as possible and ye have brought in 700 years of opression and accused everyone else of being a unionist because they don't follow your views.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Indeed.

A person utterly obsessed with enforcing 'law and order' regardless of how patently stupid/immoral/abusive those laws are.

I'd rather be accused of that than be justifying murder and criminal damage because someone put up a sign I don't like.

haulagebasher · 09-08-2012 12:14PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's a meaningless after-the-fact question.

The border communities should have been consulted before the signs were erected.

Do you agree with the above statement?

No it's not. It is relevant as I feel a lack of wiliingness to prosecute means an acceptance of [admittely mild] dissident criminal activity. Can you please answer it.I asked the question first, so ......, I also want to be given an answer to the "if the shoe was on the other foot" question. Then I shall answer your question.

Sinn Fein in a huff over new signs

Comments