Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Sv, i kept seeing this ridiculous argument that Corbyn backs the IRA or similar, he held open talks with Sinn Fein, not the IRA, there is an actual difference.
What the mainstream UK media seems to have forgotten in the run up to the GE is their own reporting of the Conservatives numerous dealings and negotiations with the IRA/Sinn Fein including a Tory peer laundering money for them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2601875.stm
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/18/northernireland.past
And a Tory peer that laundered money for the IRA
Why is OK for one and not the other?
Your implication is that he quietly supports/supported IRA violence, isn't it? Thats what you're insinuating?
Not insinuating anything, it would appear in the eighties he chose to support the Nationalist/Republican agenda, certainly didn't support the pro unionists (you know the ones that are fellow British citizens with the English/Scottish/Welsh).
He certainly would be a compromised PM on any NI affairs in the future.
svHe certainly would be a compromised PM on any NI affairs in the future.
Yeah? He wouldn't be alone....
[img] 
[/img]
So it's fine to have Corbyn but not May borrowing 10 votes from Foster?
Democracy eh
sv
it would appear in the eighties he chose to support the Nationalist/Republican agenda, certainly didn't support the pro unionists (you know the ones that are fellow British citizens with the English/Scottish/Welsh).
I would just point out that Nationalists/Republicans are also British Citizens.
See if you can find a single person on here who thinks it's ok for any mainstream party to be propped up by either the DUP or SF.
I'd be very surprised if you can.
If so, please crack on.
If not, I can see no point in raking up the past.
[quote=sv ]So it's fine to have Corbyn but not May borrowing 10 votes from Foster?
Yes, congratulations on finally working out the difference.
Well, that's me told.
🙂
I would just point out that Nationalists/Republicans are also [s]British Citizens[/s] Satan Worshipers.
fify
Klunk - MemberI would just point out that Nationalists/Republicans are also British Citizens Satan Worshipers.
fify
Ah yes, I had completely forgotten that they do literally worship the anti-christ. Which means they have no souls, so it's no sin to kill them. If only they could be rounded up into camps and somehow disposed of like DUP MP Sammy Wilson would advocate.
Not insinuating anything, it would appear in the eighties he chose to support the Nationalist/Republican agenda, certainly didn't support the pro unionists (you know the ones that are fellow British citizens with the English/Scottish/Welsh)
I think you need some perspective..
Corbyn spoke to the them yes....but what about the ex-terrorist in the Tory ranks?
I don't see you getting your knickers in a twist over that?
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Gatland ]Maria Gatland[/url]
Now, you tell me......which one broke the fing law??
Any criticism of Corbyn HAS TO BE SEEN bearing her past in mind.
[img] 
?oh=023ce9a96e285cdf27d602dda8f9b3db&oe=59D8A262[/img]
[Tinfoil hat]
Is May more cunning than we think? Perhaps she can see the potential for a bit of terrorist activity by stirring up the Irish situation.
If you can't have a war to boost the govt's position, a terrorist threat that you can monitor must be the next best thing...
[/Tinfoil hat]
For some reason I'm getting ads for paramilitary apparel and night vision goggles 😯
Ads you say? Hang on, let me check my phone. Yes, I'm getting intruder alarms.
Voting is indeed pointless
Sure, that's why so many seats were decided by a few hundred votes or less. 🙄
As others have said: do crack on. It's funny to watch ch, but don't be under the illusion that you're being taken seriously.
epicyclo - Member
[Tinfoil hat]Is May more cunning than we think? Perhaps she can see the potential for a bit of terrorist activity by stirring up the Irish situation.
If you can't have a war to boost the govt's position, a terrorist threat that you can monitor must be the next best thing...
[/Tinfoil hat]
You're accrediting them with a plan. 😆
See if you can find a single person on here who thinks it's ok for any mainstream party to be propped up by either the DUP or SF.
Yes, absolutely, I do
You lot still don't seem to get that there's a difference between [b]before[/b] the ceasefire and after.
Once Can't believe it's Not IRA and the Red hand Gang, and the rest of them, renounced and permanently abandoned violence as a means to an end they became legitimate politicians*, because that's the only way a peace process is ever going to work, see South Africa as another example
The DUP, as elected politicians have as much right to participate in the UK government as they do in NI government, the same as SF have a perfect right to be in government in NI, or here if they chose to take their seats in Westminster.
some of they may well have been odious bastards that I wouldn't shed a tear for their passing, as I said about McGuinness when he died [i]"I have to give him credit for changing his ways, and being instrumental in the success of the peace process, the common ground, and indeed friendship, he seems to have found in his work with Ian Paisley is nothing short of remarkable. Despite this I don't think a thousand lifetimes in hell will make up for the misery he caused in the past."[/i] - my objection to Corbyn is that he, and Abbott, didn't just speak to (on a partisan basis) but publically supported and repeatedly gave a public stage to PIRA-SF [u]whilst[/u] they were engaged in armed struggle against the Democratically elected government, Abbott even saying it herself, [i]"is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”[/i] - Corbyn entirely rejected the will of the people of NI, claimin that a United ireland was the only means to a peaceful outcome, incidentally, something that the UK & Irish governments, the armed groups and the people of NI have ultimately proved him wrong in.
We knew we could rely on you, ninfan
ninfan - Member
See if you can find a single person on here who thinks it's ok for any mainstream party to be propped up by either the DUP or SF.
The latter is impossible. But aye, why not, politics needs some hilarity! 😆
Shame I could rely on you to whinge about me rather than actually come forward with a coherent argument against any of the points I made though, eh aracer?
The latter is impossible.
Oh dear, Joseph failed to read on as far as the bit where I point out that SF could easily choose to take up their westminster seats if they wished
ninfan - Member
Yes, absolutely, I doYou lot still don't seem to get that there's a difference between before the ceasefire and after.
Once Can't believe it's Not IRA and the Red hand Gang, and the rest of them, renounced and permanently abandoned violence as a means to an end they became legitimate politicians*, because that's the only way a peace process is ever going to work, see South Africa as another example
The DUP, as elected politicians have as much right to participate in the UK government as they do in NI government, the same as SF have a perfect right to be in government in NI, or here if they chose to take their seats in Westminster.
some of they may well have been odious bastards that I wouldn't shed a tear for their passing, as I said about McGuinness when he died "I have to give him credit for changing his ways, and being instrumental in the success of the peace process, the common ground, and indeed friendship, he seems to have found in his work with Ian Paisley is nothing short of remarkable. Despite this I don't think a thousand lifetimes in hell will make up for the misery he caused in the past." - my objection to Corbyn is that he, and Abbott, didn't just speak to (on a partisan basis) but publically supported and repeatedly gave a public stage to PIRA-SF whilst they were engaged in armed struggle against the Democratically elected government, Abbott even saying it herself, "is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.” - Corbyn entirely rejected the will of the people of NI, claimin that a United ireland was the only means to a peaceful outcome, incidentally, something that the UK & Irish governments, the armed groups and the people of NI have ultimately proved him wrong in.
It's extremely funny watching ninfan twist himself in knots. 😆
ninfan - MemberOh dear, Joseph failed to read on as far as the bit where I point out that SF could easily choose to take up their westminster seats if they wished
They could but they won't, ever. Ergo, impossible.
They could but
Thanks for agreeing with me, and destroying your own argument that it's impossible 😆
Describe to me the circumstances where Sinn Fein would take up seats in the UK parliament?
These knots should be funny, go on! 😆
You appear to misunderstand ninfan's argument - clearly it's no more impossible for SF to take their seats at Westminster than for ninfan to vote Labour.
Well, one situation might be where the alternative was letting the DUP get their own way, but by taking up their seats they could team together with a certain old ally to defeat them
clearly it's no more impossible for SF to take their seats at Westminster than for ninfan to vote Labour.
You mean like I did in '97 ?
(aracer runs up to the ball... he shoots, and he misses 😆 )
If you can't have a war to boost the govt's position, a terrorist threat that you can monitor must be the next best thing...
We already have one of those, just not enough people to do the monitoring. (So clearly, what we need is a load more suspected terrorists to keep an eye on.)
You mean like I did in '97 ?
Weren't we just holding Corbyn to account today for his politics in the 80s not half a breath ago?
I'm going to agree with Ninfan here, that the past is the past and while there may be issues with siding with one part of the NI 'divide' leading to problems over impartiality when it comes to the GFA and resolving the Stormont impasse currently, working with people who now renounce violence despite their past is technically OK. Even if I'd be watching like a hawk that the say-do ratio remains appropriately balanced.
Still doesn't satisfactorily answer why it's OK to work with a party that has their views on other matters such as sexuality, religion, etc.
still wouldn't happen. next scenario?ninfan - Member
Well, one situation might be where the alternative was letting the DUP get their own way, but by taking up their seats they could team together with a certain old ally to defeat them
twist and shout, twist and shout! 😆 Could have taken that stance, pre-election, no? 😆theotherjonv - Member
I'm going to agree with Ninfan here, that the past is the past
btw the past ain't in the past, you've still got the small matter of the DUP's utterly odious [b]current[/b] world view, but as I say crack on. Going to great watching the tories infect themselves with it.
queens speech delayed! negotiations not going well ?
theotherjonv - Member
I'm going to agree with Ninfan here, that the past is the past
Which is exactly why he spent hours trying to post pics of jc meeting people and bringing it up at every opportunity as a reason not to vote for him.
Still doesn't satisfactorily answer why it's OK to work with a party that has their views on other matters such as sexuality, religion, etc.
Still waiting for their core voter to arrive
Could have taken that stance, pre-election, no?
The stance that I, and I am sure many other people, took both before and after the election, is that you can't trust the judgement of someone who allied himself with numerous terrorist groups (not just spoke to, allied himself with, categorically and publically aligning himself with their stated aims) [u]whilst they were still engaged in a campaign of violence[/u] - Rather than anything to do with his relationship with those people [u]after[/u] they had renounced violence, which is where, as part of the peace process, you have to accept that the past is the past.
You'll be hammering the tories for talking to sinn fein pre decommissioning/pre ceasefires? Do you even have a scooby as to the timeline of decommissioning/ceasefires?
If everyone took your, quite ridiculous, stance. We'd still be stuck in the 1980s.
Dialog is the only way forward.
allied himself with numerous terrorist groups (not just spoke to, allied himself with, categorically and publically aligning himself with their stated aims) whilst they were still engaged in a campaign of violence
You're talking about Corbyn? He supported Irish unification through violence?
....which is where, as part of the peace process, you have to accept that the past is the past.
If members of all parties waited for a ceasefire on all sides before talking to all the groups involved, we'd still be waiting now.
How many more murders would have occurred in the past 30 years if we'd not tried?
i) Talking to and negotiating with all sides, privately, in an official capacity as elected government, in order to achieve peace
Ii) publically aligning yourself, in an unofficial capacity, and openly supporting the stated aims of one single side of the conflict, repeatedly giving a public stage and publicity to their aims and onjectives, including opposing steps towards achieving a bipartisan agreement to achieve a peaceable outcome by the respective governments.
You don't see the difference?
If Corbyn had been talking to and working, impartially, as a go between or facilitator between both republicans and unionists, it might be different - He wasn't, and both his own, and his bedfellow's (arf!) statements from the time prove this
Ninfan.
I've posted it before, but i'll post it again, why is it better to have held numerous talks in secret rather than in the open, these articles go back to 1981:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2601875.stm
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/18/northernireland.past
And a Tory peer that laundered money for the IRA
no wonder the Weak & Wobbly Tory/DUP coalition is in trouble
Davis admitted earlier that Brexit talks might be delayed
I wasn't there and neither were you.
I find some of the remarks made by JC, JM and DA at the time extremely distateful and difficult to reconcile.
But it would appear these talks helped to save lives.
I'm glad they (and all the other parties involved in the dialogue) were involved.
As a wise man once said, jaw jaw is better than war war.
You don't see the difference?
Yes, I can see the difference there. So he was in favour of unification. Isn't he allowed to have an opinion, as a backbencher?
I would like to know if you can see a difference between supporting an aim held by many, some of whom are terrorists; and condoning terrorism?
But it would appear they helped to save lives.
Spherical objects - if they had been impartial facilitators they might have stood a chance of doing so, all they succeeded in being was useful idiots lending credence to terrorism as part of a propaganda war
You think we'd have a ceasefire now if we'd not negotiated with all sides whilst they were still murdering people?
We certainly wouldn't have it without the Anglo-Irish agreement
Can you remember who opposed that?
Can you remember who opposed that?
The DUP?
Can you remember who opposed that?
The DUP?
Yes, both sides.
For god's sake man, it's a matter of public record.
If you had a shred of decency you'd stop trolling about this.
It's seriously unpleasant and unhelpful.
SF will not sit in Westminster for one very very simple reason, it would be accepting Westminster rule, the whole raison d'etre of SF is rule from Dublin.
openly supporting the stated aims of one single side of the conflict,
show me where corbyn supported the IRA, he may well have sympathy towards the goal of a united Ireland, struggling to see why that's a bad thing?
Also are you still incapable of separating the IRA from Sinn Fein?
Why don't you refer to the DUP as DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
From what I can gather the deadline for forming a power sharing government in NI is 29th June. After that, if no deal is made, NI come under home rule again. I stand to be corrected but if it is as I understand it, the current cluster**** is going to have serious consequences.
The DUP/Tory "understanding" will cause serious problems to this.
Yes, both sides.For god's sake man, it's a matter of public record.
So, you've successfully demonstrated that unlike the British and Irish governments, who were seeking peace
Jezza was successfully mired in continuing the fight along with the rest of the terrorists and their supporters from both sides
Well done 😀
Also are you still incapable of separating the IRA from Sinn Fein
Of course not
IRA:
[img] 
[/img]
Sinn Fein:
[img] [/img]
The difference is obvious
Ii) publically aligning yourself, in an unofficial capacity, and openly supporting the stated aims of one single side of the conflict, repeatedly giving a public stage and publicity to their aims and onjectives, including opposing steps towards achieving a bipartisan agreement to achieve a peaceable outcome by the respective governments.
Big whoop compared to breaking the law & actually being a MEMBER OF THE IRA.....AKA Maria Gatland AKA Tory councillor.
Go get upset about that.
But you won't will you?
You'll conveniently ignore the uncomfortable truth because it doesn't suit your RW narrative.
How pathetic.
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
At least admit you're biased ffs.
NI come under home rule again
With the DUP in power via Westminster, why would they negotiate with SF? At which point those republican factions who do not support the peace process can legitimately state the GFA has failed, SF have failed talking does not work, London has seized control with the assistance of the DUP. The DUP has blocked various parts of the GFA already.
And very very quickly we are back to soldiers on the streets, bombings etc etc.
[quote=ninfan ]You mean like I did in '97 ?
Stop banging on about the past. You'll note I wrote "to vote Labour" rather than "to have voted Labour", and I know how important precise wording is to you.
Back of the net.
Ninfan, i've twice posted up a set of links to numerous news articles going back to the 1980's and the Conservative involvement with the IRA, the Tory government had closed, secretive talks going back to '81?
Have a read of these and see why you feel it is ok for one and not the other?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2601875.stm
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/18/northernireland.past
And a Tory peer that laundered money for the IRA
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
Can you prove Arlene or her deputy leader also lead the UDA/UVF?
Can you tell me the last time Gerry Adams chaired an army council meeting? 😆sv - Member
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
Can you prove Arlene or her deputy leader also lead the UDA/UVF?
There's links all over the shop between both, to deny that is ridiculous, but to continually associate one with their armed wing and to completely omit the other's, is utterly disingenuous.
For the purposes of peace and talks, both should be referred to as separate entities from their armed counterparts. You just show your bias if you refer to one as a whole and not the other.
Scud - and I've already answered you, they were the elected government, and they were talking to [b]both[/b] sides.
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
Because DUP weren't tied to UDA or UVF, they were tied to Ulster Resistance
Can you tell me the last time Gerry Adams chaired an army council meeting?
Depends if you believe the former Irish Justice minister
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/feb/21/northernireland.northernireland
Because DUP weren't tied to UDA or UVF
Utter nonsense, absolute bollocks.
And that's a matter of public record too.
Fwiw, I'll just let you keep posting your nasty, twisted opinions without engaging from here on in.
It would seem you're prepared to say anything for attention.
Go and speak to someone and get some help.
sure! 😆ninfan - Member
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
Because DUP weren't tied to UDA or UVF, they were tied to Ulster Resistance
ninfan - Member
Scud - and I've already answered you, they were the elected government, and they were talking to both sides.
And OK to launder money for the IRA?
ninfan......
[img] 
[/img]
it didnt work b4 the election, it wont work now
Next ninfan will be telling us the UDA are alright since they weren't proscribed until 1992! 😆
way to take the focus off the topic. 🙄
edit: sorry, I'll expand. the troubles - we all hope ( i presume ) = history.
con/dup - GFA and ongoing corruption allegations =/= history.
Ninfan - see Kimbers' post
Anyone else wondering, if the DUP are such objectionable ****s, why do they have more MPs than anyone else in NI?
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/11/labour-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup-last-time-there-was-a-hung-parliament-6701733/amp/
It wasn't right then and it's not right now.
Ninfan - see Kimbers' post
Quiet, mouth, we're on a roll here.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/2839
[i]Gordon is doing whatever he can to hold on to power. Shaun, for his part, is working on an economic package for Northern Ireland to win support from the DUP and other parties for Labour—a package to be proposed in the Queen's Speech. [/i]
😆
If you look at where the seats are situated, SF's are boarder seats and DUP are Northern. SF republican and DUP unionist.
This is why we can't have nice threads 🙁
So what happens if agreement can't be reached and Queens speech is not just delayed but cancelled? what exactly are the next steps?
I see a lot of talk of 'pruning' the manifesto in order to seek agreement and deals, but doesn't this undermine the already slim majority?
If the Conservatives only just 'won' presumably thats becasue the people that voted for them supported their policy/manifesto, so to renege on that undermines their own win doesn't that effectively nullify that majority? (in principle if not in action)
Anyone else wondering, if the DUP are such objectionable ****, why do they have more MPs than anyone else in NI?
Sectarian headcount.
Trimble's (more moderate in some ways) UUP fell apart after the Orange Order withdrew its support when it looked like peace was on the cards. Orangemen eh? Who'd have thought it? Jeffrey Donaldson's (who has written in glowing terms of his time spent working for Enoch Powell, another of Zulu-Eleven's heroes) defection to the DUP didn't help either.
chakaping - Member
Anyone else wondering, if the DUP are such objectionable ****, why do they have more MPs than anyone else in NI?
You could say the same about the Tories on this side of the water, or any other majority party, ever.
😉
Demographics.
And despite their abhorent views they have SOME sensible policies.