Fight, fight, fight, fight...

I love a good ruck.

It is a damn good fight.

Personally I'm always instantly dubious about anyone who deploys "stultifying" or its variations with a straight face.

In my experience, this is what pisses off the Northern Irish: the total and utter comprehension failure of the English.

Well it's complicated. I think I know a bit about who's on what side but other than their religion and/or position towards GB or ROI, I know nothing about any other their actual policies. I assume the SD of the SDLP is a reasonable indicator but that's about it. When, say, A Tangled Web goes into great detail about the intricacies of the UU leadership I must confess to scrolling on. Also I'm somewhat staggered that David Vance can go on NI TV and roundly denounce the IRA/Sinn Fein without fearing a bullet. Maybe he does and he's very brave or perhaps NI isn't the Dodge City we've been led to believe. Shocking that we should be so clueless about part of our own country.

Wow. Postgrad at Oxford. Sad.

Reading elsewhere on his site, he got a distinction as an undergrad, if you can believe it. And he thinks George Galloway has better insight into the war on terror than Nick Cohen. It is a parody; it's just an unconscious one by a half-wit.

Mark,

The point is that, recognising the gap in your own knowledge, you don't blog about the issue with an assumed air of authority. I don't mind ignorance — we can't all know everything — but authoritative ignorance invites derision.


> Also I'm somewhat staggered that David Vance can go on NI TV and roundly denounce the IRA/Sinn Fein without fearing a bullet. Maybe he does and he's very brave or perhaps NI isn't the Dodge City we've been led to believe.

Bit of both. It's far more civilised over here than the mainland media lead you to believe (and was during the Troubles, too), but there are plenty of people who wouldn't risk doign what Vance does. Kind of depends on the type of denouncing and the position from which it's done. General denunciations from Joe Public: water off the IRA's back. More specific denunciations from peaceful Republicans and people living in IRA-controlled areas: watch your back. Broadly speaking.

you don't blog about the issue with an assumed air of authority

Well not all the time.

OK; more precisely: when you do blog about the issue with an assumed air of authority, I take the piss in your comments.

I confess to a complete lack of authority on the subject of the late 'Mo' Mowlem, but your summary covered most of my gut suspicions.

Also, I despair at the number of people who equate Mr. Paisely with Gerry Adams. Whilst the former is not some-one with whom I would wish to share dinner, the only way I would like to see the latter is through the sights of a rifle!

Absolutely, David, yes.

The mainland media always portray NI's political parties thusly: SDLP = moderate Republican; UUP = moderate Unionist; SF = extremist Republican; DUP = extremist Unionist. The implication — or, often, the assertion — is always that the DUP are SF's counterparts. And that's just bollocks. The DUP may be more extremist than the UUP, but they're actually the third centre party — compared to SF, it's difficult not to be. It's like saying that, because the Lib Dems are further left than Labour and Combat 18 are further right than the Tories, the Lib Dems are just as extremist as Combat 18, only in the other direction.

SF do have Unionist counterparts, such as the PUP, with their "links to" Loyalist paramilitaries. The difference between them and Sinn Fein is that so few people support the likes of the PUP that they barely register on the political map.

Quite so! And as I keep pointing out to anyone bored enough to be listening, the other big difference is that Paisely never murdered anyone.

Er, that's not the other difference; that's exactly the difference I just outlined. That's what "links to paramilitaries" means.

I thought the reactionary, right-wing, pro-DUP views you and others posted in reply were a parody myself. Funny old world, ain't it?

As for Mo Mowlem, if she'd really had integrity and courage she'd have walked out on New Labour.

"such as the PUP, with their "links to" Loyalist paramilitaries"

Ian Paisley has had "links to" half the Loyalist paramilitary groups in NI. He started the other half. This information is freely available if you look for it. Why not try looking for the facts, rather than parroting the pro-Union stance of the establishment, Mr oh-so Daring And Different?

It's sad that so many people can't tell the difference between pro-DUP and anti-IRA, and think that being against the killing of innocent civilians is right-wing. Most people over here were unhappy that large numbers of unrepentant murderers were allowed out of prison regardless of how much of their sentences were left unserved. That's nothing to do with Right versus Left or Republican versus Unionist: it's a matter of people who don't like murderers on the streets (the majority on both sides) versus people who do.

Why is it that you think that complaining about the Peace Process because it put Johnny Adair back amongst the public is a right-wing Unionist position? Really; that's a genuine question.


> Mr oh-so Daring And Different

What's your point here? I couldn't give less of a fuck whether my opinions are unusual or ordinary; I care about how people are treated. It would be different and possibly daring to adopt a pro-serial-killer stance. Would that make it right?

An explanation of just how pro-DUP I am.

> It's sad that so many people can't tell the difference between pro-DUP and anti-IRA
Are you implying that I can’t?

> and think that being against the killing of innocent civilians is right-wing.
Strawman.
You’re a great one for closing down arguments by throwing phrases like “serial killers” around. What are your views on innocent civilians killed by Loyalist paramilitaries and the British army?

> Why is it that you think that complaining about the Peace Process because it put Johnny Adair back amongst the public is a right-wing Unionist position? Really; that's a genuine question.
I didn’t say that it was.
It's sad that so many people can't tell the difference between anti-DUP and pro-IRA

You rather gave your own position away by describing the DUP as a centre party.

An earlier comment:
> the DUP are SF's counterparts. And that's just bollocks.
Oh, I dunno. Both controlled by dogmatic extremists, both utterly unprepared to compromise, both involved with paramilitaries (SF with the Ra, DUP with most loyalist groups over the years, recently the LVF through the front organisation ACP). Why either of them are allowed in any legislative assembly I don’t know.

> An explanation of just how pro-DUP I am.
You take the Unionist line on Army murders of Catholics, then state that you’re pro-partition for no reason other than Dublin is a bit overrated (I agree with you on that, but I wouldn’t base a political stance on it), before admitting you’d vote DUP because they’re anti-terrorist (even though Paisley has had links with loyalist terrorists for about 40 years). Can one get more pro-DUP than that without joining the party?

> You’re a great one for closing down arguments by throwing phrases like “serial killers” around.

These comments are open. Lee deleted any comments (mine and others') that pointed out his mistakes and then shut the commenting down. You accuse me of "closing down arguments" in a forum I'm providing to you. Go figure.


> What are your views on innocent civilians killed by Loyalist paramilitaries and the British army?

I mentioned Loyalist killings in my comments at Lee's place. Did you detect a note of approval? Can you read?


> It's sad that so many people can't tell the difference between anti-DUP and pro-IRA

Oo, the throwing-my-words-back-at-me trick. Dead clever, that. Except that I didn't say you were pro-IRA, so it doesn't really work here.


> You rather gave your own position away by describing the DUP as a centre party.

Oh, what utter bollocks. Firstly, I described them as further from the centre than the UUP or the SDLP but far nearer than SF. Are you seriously disputing that? Secondly, I think that Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Conservatives are all centre parties, but that doesn't mean I support any of them.


> You take the Unionist line on Army murders of Catholics

Took me a while to figure out what the hell you were on about here. What Unionist line? Then I realised that you could only be referring to my saying that genocide involves killing an entire population and that the British Army has not come even remotely close to doing so. OK, so tell me what the non-Unionist line is. That genocide doesn't mean what we all thought it meant? That there are hardly any Catholics left in Northern Ireland? What?

Of course there are criticisms to be made of the British Army in Northern Ireland (as of any army anywhere), but accusing them of genocide simply makes it clear that you are more interested in histrionic word-throwing than serious consideration of those criticisms.


> then state that you’re pro-partition for no reason other than Dublin is a bit overrated

Really? I said that I had no other reason? Fancy my not seeing that.

I didn't say that I was pro-partition, either; I said I was pro-Union. Partition was, I think, a mistake. However, it was a mistake made one hell of a long time ago, and part of modern life is that we have to live with the mistakes of our ancestors. Do I think that the Spanish should have slaughtered the Aztecs? Of course not. Do I therefore think that all the nations of South America should be disolved, since their boundaries were defined by the Spanish interlopers? Nope.


> I agree with you on that, but I wouldn’t base a political stance on it

Why on Earth not? This particular political stance is a matter of where I live. I don't particularly like the Republic, so don't want to live there. There are lots of other places in the world I don't like — especially the Home Counties — and I don't want to live in any of them either.


> Can one get more pro-DUP than that without joining the party?

Well, yes. I could have voted for them.

>> Can one get more pro-DUP than that without joining the party?

>Well, yes. I could have voted for them.

He he.

Republicans and nationalists alike don't complain about the financial benefits associated with British rule, one thing is certain there wouldn't be the same benefits down south for healthcare, the disabled etc etc etc. In any case presuming the UK merges with the EU superstate we'll practically be all under the one flag - British, Irish/Northern Irish, Germans Frog Legs and all

> there wouldn't be the same benefits down south for healthcare, the disabled etc etc etc.

A Catholic couple of my family's acquaintance are staunchly anti-Nationalist on those very grounds, as it happens. He's in a wheelchair and she works part-time, which is doable in Britain. In the Republic, his entitlement to disability benefits would be assessed as part of a married couple, and her ability to work would mean no government money for him. But her part-time work is quite poorly paid — certainly nowhere near enough to support them — so that would basically mean that they'd be fucked.

It's a weird part of the IRA's argument, that: Catholics are poor, so would be much better off living in a country with fewer and smaller hand-outs for poor people.