- Location
- Cheltenham
Yup from no where to no where!
Has big Arlene been bridging the gap?
- Thread starter M-J-G
- Start date
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
I'd rather do a mile in tight shoes than either of them.
M-J-G
Member
Only a mile?I'd rather do a mile in tight shoes than either of them.
caveman
Member
- Location
- East Sussex.
That's a maybe once your warmed up then?I'd rather do a mile in tight shoes than either of them.
- Location
- Near Derby
For the life of me I can't understand why you make this remark about one of our best ever Prime Ministers, who left office 29 years ago. She would eat Varadkar for breakfast.
- Location
- Beragh, Co Tyrone, Northern Ireland
You would have to understand the level of unionist anger towards the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
- Location
- Near Derby
The Unionists always seem rather angry. What has Arlene supposed to have done?
M-J-G
Member
That's what happens when you love someone who doesn't love you back.
Paisley hated Maggie and called her for everything and masses followed, he also hated the Pope
He had a soft spot former IRA members though, money talks.
Two of a kind!
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
- Location
- Northern Ireland
Please don't give the impression to our friends here that Ian Paisley represented the majority of Unionists. For most of his life, he didn't, and only got the majority of unionist votes at the end of his time in protest at, after the huge concessions that Unionists made to violent republicans, continual IRA refusal to hand in their arms.
I'm not sure what the chip is on your shoulder against unionism, because for most of the DUPs existence, they did not represent moderate unionism in any way, and existed on the sidelines as real life spitting image puppet show (think Paisley snowballing the visiting Irish foreign minister, while the statesman O'Neill remained dignified and cool). You don't seem to have a bad word to say about the people who cynically engineered about 1800 murders and thousands of awful injuries and mental scars, all to jog alongside their political mouthpiece. If you want to blame anyone for the rise to the mainstream of the DUP, blame Adams Maginnis and the IRA. The last straw for many moderate Unionists was the throwing back in their face of the good Friday agreement. Now, unfortunately, many feel they are unable to return to the UUP, simply because they fear it would not win enough votes to take seats. Yes, the IRA destroyed the moderate Unionists party which made the peace deal. They also destroyed decent, moderate, democratic irish nationalism too. So why you spend your time ranting about the DUP is a mystery.
@Qman Your problem is you have not (through no fault of your own I'm sure) followed the progression of events that has brought us here. Its not unlike the situation in Scotland, which, though infinitely more peaceful, must feel like a siege for those Scottish Unionists who are being shouted down at every turn around by the two fish. They have nothing to gain from independence, only to lose from the severing of the Union. Unionism in Northern Ireland has spent the last fifty years only giving. It's tiresome and creates resentment.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Enoch Powell was correct ?
M-J-G
Member
What an eye opening post.
I don't rant at all, I find the modern-day small mindedness of it all quite comical.
When you are brought up with unionism and the church in your face from an early age and then escape to somewhere where people are more open minded, you learn to take any amusement that you can from the pantomime.
Why would you feel a need to blame the IRA for the strengthening of the party that the majority of unionists vote for these days? Was the DUP simply the balancing out of the IRA and that's why people turned to them, because a clean act wasn't going to cut it?
I know big Ian always sat on an ivory tower while his mate Gusty did the dirty work, but wasn't the party (on paper) separate?
And why do the unionists still vote for a party founded by an extremist and a hate monger when he then betrayed everything he stood for and ended up sitting beside his opposite number giggling like two cats who got the cream, which of course they did.
How can people support the the party of someone who proved himself to have no belief in what he preached oh so loudly.
I guess some people don't vote for what they believe in, the site for who can win, which is such a shame. Maybe a less extreme party will be able to represent the moderate unionist some day.
I am anti terrorism, I am anti violence, I am anti political leaders encouraging people who know no better to take up terrorism and then turn out to be great pals, hence my disrespect for the pair of terrible people in the photo, but those are only 2 of them, both had lots of friends and accomplices.
I feel no differently about the 2000 or so murders carried out by the Republican terrorists than I do about the 1000 or so murdered by Loyalists or any others for that matter. Albeit that I know some of both. Yet you seem keen - in some line of defence of unionism to want to blame terrorism and use murders as some kind of balance to my post which was about a politician who befriended an IRA leader.
And the fact that you only want to mention the 1800 that you referred to, that says a lot.
- Location
- Northern Ireland
It doesn't say a lot at all, because it's to make a point that you only decry unionism, as if all Unionists are DUP, without any regard to how it got to that point. They walked into a trap, which I do not think was deliberately set, and I still don't believe the DUP is it's natural bed, despite the DUP having moved slightly toward the centre. It's now hard for unionist electorate to escape that trap, because it all but burned it's bridge of escape.
Regarding loyalist murders, there was never any excuse for that tit for tat madness, despite the IRA provocation. You have not heard, and never will hear anything other than utter disgust and condemnation from me on that matter. Most Unionists are, as you know but won't give them credit for, entirely peaceful, and would not knowingly vote for a political party that was involved in violence, or refused to condemn violence. This stands in stark contrast to the nationalist electorate, which worryingly appears to have no such conscience.
This to me is the elephant in the room, the biggest single danger to peace in Northern Ireland. That the nationalist electorate (especially the young generation of voters that never knew the troubles) has become desensitized to the reality and the morality of the Republican campaign should be gravely concerning.
As for your broad-mindedness. I don't doubt you have developed your own thoughts on matters, and you aren't the only one to have spent mind-broadening time away from the microcosm we each grew up in. Mind you, this only serves to demonstrate that you have developed your own prejudices - which is much more noble that inheriting those of your parents of course.. It's ok. We all have them.
As for Paisley, well we seem to share common ground on him. My parents always taught me the louder someone shouts, the less you should be inclined to listen to them. The most reliably principled people I know and trust are perhaps among the least vocal.
Regarding loyalist murders, there was never any excuse for that tit for tat madness, despite the IRA provocation. You have not heard, and never will hear anything other than utter disgust and condemnation from me on that matter. Most Unionists are, as you know but won't give them credit for, entirely peaceful, and would not knowingly vote for a political party that was involved in violence, or refused to condemn violence. This stands in stark contrast to the nationalist electorate, which worryingly appears to have no such conscience.
This to me is the elephant in the room, the biggest single danger to peace in Northern Ireland. That the nationalist electorate (especially the young generation of voters that never knew the troubles) has become desensitized to the reality and the morality of the Republican campaign should be gravely concerning.
As for your broad-mindedness. I don't doubt you have developed your own thoughts on matters, and you aren't the only one to have spent mind-broadening time away from the microcosm we each grew up in. Mind you, this only serves to demonstrate that you have developed your own prejudices - which is much more noble that inheriting those of your parents of course.
. It's ok. We all have them.As for Paisley, well we seem to share common ground on him. My parents always taught me the louder someone shouts, the less you should be inclined to listen to them. The most reliably principled people I know and trust are perhaps among the least vocal.
M-J-G
Member
Provocation shouldn't matter as two wrongs don't make a right, the desire for murder to happen on the scale that it did, has to be there regardless of who provokes.
Paisley was as pivotal in the troubles as anyone, regardless of him claiming to be a man of God, if he was it wasn't any God that was good, but Adams etc. went to mass (At least for funerals anyway) but didn't seem to do much that was Religeous either.
The whole danger to a civilized NI is used as a scare tactics too much these days IMO, if people wanted troubles that's what would be happening, but they don't so I'm not too worried, hopefully I'm right.
Paisley was as pivotal in the troubles as anyone, regardless of him claiming to be a man of God, if he was it wasn't any God that was good, but Adams etc. went to mass (At least for funerals anyway) but didn't seem to do much that was Religeous either.
The whole danger to a civilized NI is used as a scare tactics too much these days IMO, if people wanted troubles that's what would be happening, but they don't so I'm not too worried, hopefully I'm right.
- Location
- Northern Ireland
Mmm. The troubles hardened things significantly, and I'd say we are not yet back to where we were in the fifties. There is more housing segregation now because of the troubles than there was then, which is obviously a huge problem. If violent republicans could start the bombing up after the fifties, they can do it today. And they've been trying of course, to a degree. But that's the extremes. The fact that the mainstream of the nationalist electorate doesn't have a difficulty with voting for a party, which still won't condemn IRA violence, surely speaks volumes about the regard it has for the Unionist community? Is that not a concern? We aren't talking about political differences here, like you have in every society. It says it's ok to use a murder campaign against the other community and the police service. I mean, it's not hard to think of another Western European society where a comparable level of disregard or apathy gave space for sectarian annihilation on an unprecedented scale.
- Location
- East meath/dublin
Whats Arlene been up to ? I actually quite like her , a good natured country woman behind it all .
- Location
- Northern Ireland
I think you're not that far off the mark cowcorn?. I find it hard to dislike fermanagh folks generally. Most of them live in a different time zone to us East of the Bann of course.?. Four hours behind.
That's not to say she wouldn't bring the rolling pin out if you complained about the praeties being overboiled. ?
M-J-G
Member
To me there is little difference between a political party that doesn't condemn violence and a party who condemns it but had involvement back in the day by trying to give the impression they were "clean".
It would be a hard call to say which is worse, being involved in atrocities without being sorry or being involved but not admitting it. Neither is to be applauded IMO.
I do get your point about people voting for a party that doesn't condemn violence, but many younger people won't make that link, just like many younger voters won't make the like between Paisley and the DUP's past associations when voting for them. Things move on.
A handful of wannabe terrorists may be keen to upset things, but many won't remember the troubles and they don't know what comes along with it. They may think it's funny to poke a dog with a stick, but I don't think many would stick to their guns if they knew the dog was going to take their face off.
I don't believe that hard core faction of old is there to support and encourage it.
Form what I see as an outsider these days is ordinary people mixing more than ever. When I was the child I used to be in and out of any house along our road regardless of what their beliefs were, but if I spoke about that at school a lot of kids were often critical of that idea.
But that doesn't seem to be the case any more, average people seem to get on better than ever and thankfully mixed marriages and relationships seem to be much more common than when I lived there, when they were heavily frowned upon. But I dont know if that was common in the 50s as it's before I was born.
Brexit has probably been as unsettling as anything, but I'm not sure that political hate makers like Paisley and McGuinness would manage to brainwash and recruit the swathes of young people that they did.
Mixed schools, mixed marriages and the black and white between Religeous groups slowly turning to various shades of grey seems to be slowly allowing young adults to feel how it is to be in a place somewhat more enlightened than in the days of my youth, which were far from the worst in the place.
Last edited:
- Location
- Cheltenham
A lot of people viewed Enoch as an eccentric and too outspoken, but if you look back at many of his speeches he did foresee a lot of what had transpired over the last 50 years or so! I’m some way what Farage says about the EU is similar but I just can’t align with him as he has earned a living from being an MEP!
- Location
- Northern Ireland
I completely agree with mixed schooling. Anything else is madness. But the Roman Catholic church will never want to let go of it's power over that one. That's a big stumbling block going forward.
Mixed marriages occur more now simply because more people consider themselves of no religion, or not active followers. For those that do, mixed marriages are still unlikely to occur. And that's not a problem. It doesn't necessarily imply any prejudice, simply that marriages are hard work, and having common ground on core beliefs is a better place to be when raising children, than falling out about them.
I don't think people get on any better than in the fifties. They got on fine before the troubles. As I said, the troubles did a lot of harm, and brought about segregation. In my case, I live in a mixed area, so travelled on the school bus together for 14 years, and spent my primary years climbing trees with my neighbours, who were of the other gender and the other background. Not so much at secondary though, when clubs and homework took over and we were too busy. My kids go on the same bus with their kids, and my dad walked/cycled to school with their dad in the forties, so not a great deal has changed here in that regard.
I'd personally be cautious about declaring the dawn of enlightenment. History suggests that, over the millennia, not a great deal changes. There are always pockets of enlightenment, and darkness. What is dangerous is for folks to think they are enlightened.
To what degree was the DUP involved with terrorists? We do know they were not terrorists themselves, which is the first difference with Sinn Fein. We do know that SinnFein took it's instructions from the IRA, and still does. The DUP condemns violence without reserve. After that, I'm less clear. Were individual members associating with terrorists, or was the party institutionally supportive of it? I don't know. It does seem that they scared themselves though with the silly Ulster Resistance venture, which they did back out of afterwards. Paisley himself was certainly guilty of a lot of rabble rousing though, which, however bad, is not the same as recruiting young lads and organising them into terrorist cells where they learned to kill and maim. Regarding Gusty Spence. I'm sure you'll recall him seated at the table of the loyalist ceasefire announcement, which was all part of bringing the terrorists in out of the cold in the upcoming good Friday agreement. Paisley continued to stand outside that, shouting, til the end.
Mixed marriages occur more now simply because more people consider themselves of no religion, or not active followers. For those that do, mixed marriages are still unlikely to occur. And that's not a problem. It doesn't necessarily imply any prejudice, simply that marriages are hard work, and having common ground on core beliefs is a better place to be when raising children, than falling out about them.
I don't think people get on any better than in the fifties. They got on fine before the troubles. As I said, the troubles did a lot of harm, and brought about segregation. In my case, I live in a mixed area, so travelled on the school bus together for 14 years, and spent my primary years climbing trees with my neighbours, who were of the other gender and the other background. Not so much at secondary though, when clubs and homework took over and we were too busy. My kids go on the same bus with their kids, and my dad walked/cycled to school with their dad in the forties, so not a great deal has changed here in that regard.
I'd personally be cautious about declaring the dawn of enlightenment. History suggests that, over the millennia, not a great deal changes. There are always pockets of enlightenment, and darkness. What is dangerous is for folks to think they are enlightened.
To what degree was the DUP involved with terrorists? We do know they were not terrorists themselves, which is the first difference with Sinn Fein. We do know that SinnFein took it's instructions from the IRA, and still does. The DUP condemns violence without reserve. After that, I'm less clear. Were individual members associating with terrorists, or was the party institutionally supportive of it? I don't know. It does seem that they scared themselves though with the silly Ulster Resistance venture, which they did back out of afterwards. Paisley himself was certainly guilty of a lot of rabble rousing though, which, however bad, is not the same as recruiting young lads and organising them into terrorist cells where they learned to kill and maim. Regarding Gusty Spence. I'm sure you'll recall him seated at the table of the loyalist ceasefire announcement, which was all part of bringing the terrorists in out of the cold in the upcoming good Friday agreement. Paisley continued to stand outside that, shouting, til the end.