[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No one is saying that the DUP shouldn't take their seats as normal, though? There's a pretty big difference between that, and them getting a place at the top table when deciding on the biggest issues facing the country. Which is what they will have, formal coalition or not - in fact, they will have even more negotiating power outside of a coalition when they can make requests / demands on an issue-by-issue basis.

Obviously it would be just as much of a problem if Sinn Fein was in that position. But you're arguing a strawman point there. "Sun Fein is worse!!" is really irrelevant to whether or not the DUP being at the center of Westminster is a good idea.

On the absolute most basic of levels, it completely undermines (effectively nullifies??) the Good Friday agreement and I can't understand how anyone could fail to be worried by that alone.

I was simply asking Joey why he said he would actually LIKE Sinn Fein to take their seats when they are well known terrorist sympathisers. Should any terrorist sympathisers have seats at Westminster?

I am extremely worried about the fate of the Good Friday Agreement, believe me nobody wants a return of the hell we lived in for so many years.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jet

Why then Joey did you say elsewhere that you would like Sinn Fein to take their seats at Westminster? There is no doubt at all that they are terrorist sympathisers. As you no doubt know their late leader was the IRA Chief of Staff who ordered murders. He and Gerry Adams attended IRA funerals in plain sight. The DUP, as much as I loathe some of their policies, couldn't touch Sinn Fein for the blood on their hands.

Because I believe in democracy, pure and simple.
I believe anyone elected democratically in a UK election should take their seats in Westminster.
Sinn Féinn are not a banned party they are a legitimate party and strongly involved and vital in the power sharing assembly in N Ireland.

I believe we have to move on as much as is possible from the troubles of the past.
You again mention Mcguinness,rightly saying the late leader, exactly he is dead,what is the point of his being mentioned.

I have been in N Ireland,my Grandparents were Irish.from Southern Ireland they lived in Mullingar.
I have also been in N Ireland many times as a child and teen.

My Grandparents had family and friends in N Ireland, I see little point in those orange marches myself.
For me moving on is far more important.

Wrongs were done on all sides,killings and bombings are wrong no matter who does it.
However for me anything inflammatory is not helpful,and that's how I see the orange marches.

By all means try to make it a day as an event without the taunting and baiting but some orange marches do try to intimidate.
That also is likely to happen from the other side too but honestly it's time to move on from the religious overtones to marches and events.

There will always be suspicion and resentment even on both sides to the other's side.
Which is why I am against this even very casual deal by the Cons with the DUP.
If the DUP support Con policy,fair enough but to engage in securing support always should be avoided in my view.
It is only going to alienate possibly Sinn Féinn who even moreso after winning 7 seats in this election, are equally vital to N Ireland peace process continuing.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by jet

I haven't been on this site for some time, excuse me for being so neglectful.
What accusations are incorrect, exactly?
We in N.Ireland know Corbyn well from long long ago. The article I linked to brings back many memories of Corbyn in the 70's and his speeches at IRA rallies mourning the loss of murderers, witnessed by people who actually live here. Did you even read it?

Corbyn had peace talks with Sinn Fein in the 80's? I bet they did. I wonder what kind of talks they were having. He opposed the Anglo Irish Agreement.

John Hume, David Trimble, Martin McGuiness brought about the Good Friday Agreement. Hume and Trimble were awarded the Nobel Peace prize for their efforts, it was nothing to do with Corbyn.

Bury your head in the sand if you must.

I never bury my head in the sand, just examine and scrutinize some very reliable sources. Hume and Trimble took the glory but they couldn't of done it without men like Corbyn. I can't stress this enough, Corbyn met with the 'Ras political representatives when there was a war on to try and open the way towards a peaceful political solution to the violence. Arlene foster met Jackie McDonald, a UDA terrorist leader, last week, now long after the end of the shooting war when the paramilitaries exist as organised crime syndicates who rule their own communities with an iron fist and don't do much else.

Also, while they don't quite have the same relationship with the Loyalist terror organisations that Sinn Fein have with the PIRA, they do funnel funds to their leadership from the public purse through the Social Investment Fund (which is basically a vehicle for bribing the leaders of the paramilitary organisations not to shoot people from the other side) and were publicly endorsed by the UDA, UFF and UVF leadership the week before this election.

They were also responsible for the flag protests that crippled Belfast city centre during 2013 and have been the vehicle of knuckle dragging reaction since they sucked up all the hard line unionist micro-parties and brought over the hard liners from the UUP. They are the embodiment of the reasons why Northern Ireland have not been able to move on.

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Because I believe in democracy, pure and simple.
I believe anyone elected democratically in a UK election should take their seats in Westminster.
Sinn Féinn are not a banned party they are a legitimate party and strongly involved and vital in the power sharing assembly in N Ireland.

I believe we have to move on as much as is possible from the troubles of the past.
You again mention Mcguinness,rightly saying the late leader, exactly he is dead,what is the point of his being mentioned.

I have been in N Ireland,my Grandparents were Irish.from Southern Ireland they lived in Mullingar.
I have also been in N Ireland many times as a child and teen.

My Grandparents had family and friends in N Ireland, I see little point in those orange marches myself.
For me moving on is far more important.

Wrongs were done on all sides,killings and bombings are wrong no matter who does it.
However for me anything inflammatory is not helpful,and that's how I see the orange marches.

By all means try to make it a day as an event without the taunting and baiting but some orange marches do try to intimidate.
That also is likely to happen from the other side too but honestly it's time to move on from the religious overtones to marches and events.

There will always be suspicion and resentment even on both sides to the other's side.
Which is why I am against this even very casual deal by the Cons with the DUP.
If the DUP support Con policy,fair enough but to engage in securing support always should be avoided in my view.
It is only going to alienate possibly Sinn Féinn who even moreso after winning 7 seats in this election, are equally vital to N Ireland peace process continuing.

I have moved on, but it's hard to read misconceptions about your country and say nothing. Living here throughout the whole of the Troubles and visiting here are vastly different things. What I can never forget are my friends killed by the IRA and I never will. Reading anything to do with the IRA or anyone sympathising with them makes my blood boil. They killed thousands of people to get hold of six little counties, choosing to murder instead of using the ballot box which they were forced to do in the end when they finally realised their murderous activities where getting them nowhere.
The irony of it all is that many Catholics don't even WANT a United Ireland, myself included! We are N.Irish, and want to stay that way.
But yes, thank God for the peace process, and I sincerely hope that Sinn Fein don't use this new development as another stick to stir up trouble which they take every opportunity to do and that the DUP don't use their position to try to gain support for their causes over Sinn Fein.
N. Ireland affairs should be run internally and Sinn Fein need to get their asses into Stormont and start doing the jobs they are getting paid to do for their country and quit hindering the process. How is anything going to be resolved if they keep up their "I'm not talking to you" stance? That they do so now is vitally important given the recent developments.

[DemolitionRed]

Jet, I'm sorry for what you have been through and I understand what its like when people come along with misconceived ideas about an entire country and its people. I have to listen to those misconceived ideas nearly every time I come to these boards.

Believe me, I condemn the IRA for what they did and I condemn the RUC for their ruthless aggression and shoot to kill policies. Innocents on both sides were murdered. But just like what we now see in Palestine/Israel, depending on which side your on, you will only condemn those who oppose you.

Corbyn has always been a peace atavist. He tries to find a cause before trying to find a solution and that's why he and others like him, were ideal candidates to send in when Margaret Thatchers government were having secret talks with the IRA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413 and so I will continue to defend him. Defending him is not the same as defending the IRA.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Jet, I'm sorry for what you have been through and I understand what its like when people come along with misconceived ideas about an entire country and its people. I have to listen to those misconceived ideas nearly every time I come to these boards.

Believe me, I condemn the IRA for what they did and I condemn the RUC for their ruthless aggression and shoot to kill policies. Innocents on both sides were murdered. But just like what we now see in Palestine/Israel, depending on which side your on, you will only condemn those who oppose you.

Corbyn has always been a peace atavist. He tries to find a cause before trying to find a solution and that's why he and others like him, were ideal candidates to send in when Margaret Thatchers government were having secret talks with the IRA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413 and so I will continue to defend him. Defending him is not the same as defending the IRA.

Corbyn a peace activist in Northern Ireland.

[jet]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Jet, I'm sorry for what you have been through and I understand what its like when people come along with misconceived ideas about an entire country and its people. I have to listen to those misconceived ideas nearly every time I come to these boards.

Believe me, I condemn the IRA for what they did and I condemn the RUC for their ruthless aggression and shoot to kill policies. Innocents on both sides were murdered. But just like what we now see in Palestine/Israel, depending on which side your on, you will only condemn those who oppose you.

Corbyn has always been a peace atavist. He tries to find a cause before trying to find a solution and that's why he and others like him, were ideal candidates to send in when Margaret Thatchers government were having secret talks with the IRA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413 and so I will continue to defend him. Defending him is not the same as defending the IRA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...rns-ira-links/

Negotiating and sympathising are worlds apart. Thatcher negotiated, she certainly didn't sympathise.

Corbyn was an IRA friend and sympathiser, if you don't mind defending that, that is your right. I don't think there is any more to be said without going round in circles.

[Brillopad]

I agree Jet negotiating and sympathising are very different and Britain does not need a terrorist sympathiser as PM. I don't understand how he can even run for office with his history - he is a potential security thtreat. Politics in this country has become a total joke.

[JTM45]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I agree Jet negotiating and sympathising are very different and Britain does not need a terrorist sympathiser as PM. I don't understand how he can even run for office with his history - he is a potential security thtreat. Politics in this country has become a total joke.

So what do you think about 'Bloody Sunday' and similar incidents that happened in Northern Ireland ?

The biggest joke that's occured in British Politics in recent years is Theresa May calling a snap Election with extremely short notice that was predicted to result in a massive landslide victory for the Tories and still managing to screw it up in a massive fashion resulting in Labour with Corbyn at the helm being the strongest they have in years!

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I agree Jet negotiating and sympathising are very different and Britain does not need a terrorist sympathiser as PM. I don't understand how he can even run for office with his history - he is a potential security thtreat. Politics in this country has become a total joke.

The reason he's allowed to run is because, in the real world, he is neither a terrorist sympathiser nor a security threat. I appreciate that for whatever reason, this is something that genuinely scares / concerns you but it's just not realistically a risk.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by jet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...rns-ira-links/

Negotiating and sympathising are worlds apart. Thatcher negotiated, she certainly didn't sympathise.

Corbyn was an IRA friend and sympathiser, if you don't mind defending that, that is your right. I don't think there is any more to be said without going round in circles.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The reason he's allowed to run is because, in the real world, he is neither a terrorist sympathiser nor a security threat. I appreciate that for whatever reason, this is something that genuinely scares / concerns you but it's just not realistically a risk.

It concerns a lot of people and rightly so. He has a questionable history and you can deny that all you like, but many are simply not prepared to overlook it. There's too much at stake.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The reason he's allowed to run is because, in the real world, he is neither a terrorist sympathiser nor a security threat. I appreciate that for whatever reason, this is something that genuinely scares / concerns you but it's just not realistically a risk.

Exactly TS.
This old chestnut is tediously being run endlessly, it may get applause from some just because Corbyn is a leader of Labour.
They were the same with Ed Miliband too,especially when the Mail cast aspersions on Ed's Father.

At least you restore a fair balance and coming from you is strong as you are not really a Labour/ Corbyn supporter.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Exactly TS.
This old chestnut is tediously being run endlessly, it may get applause from some just because Corbyn is a leader of Labour.
They were the same with Ed Miliband too,especially when the Mail cast aspersions on EU's Father.

At least you restore a fair balance and coming from you is strong as you are not really a Labour/ Corbyn supporter.

Old chestnut hey! Let's just ignore the facts - that's a real old chestnut for you.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Exactly TS.
This old chestnut is tediously being run endlessly, it may get applause from some just because Corbyn is a leader of Labour.
They were the same with Ed Miliband too,especially when the Mail cast aspersions on EU's Father.

At least you restore a fair balance and coming from you is strong as you are not really a Labour/ Corbyn supporter.

Have to disagree with you there Joey, Corbyn would be considered a security risk from his past behaviour. As much as people would like to pretend that he is an angel spawned from god, his past is there for all to see. History can't be re-written i'm afraid to say.

In case people are in any doubt. Corbyn is still a leader in CND and affiliate with the Stop the war group, both of which would mark him as a security risk, that's not even including his past leanings.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Have to disagree with you there Joey, Corbyn would be considered a security risk from his past behaviour. As much as people would like to pretend that he is an angel spawned from god, his past is there for all to see. History can't be re-written i'm afraid to say.

I disagree with you.
Also it now appears that voters,particularly the majority of future voters in the UK,also disagree with you now too.

Time is now very much on Corbyn's side he has convinced likely millions the real venom.directed at him is wrong.

If any leaders past,true or wrong,good or bad has ever been splashed about by media and prejudiced opponents then Corbyn's has been.
Yet he has brought Labour back,not made it dead as many even on here said it would be when the Cons got their massive landslide.

Your view of him does not stand with those who voted and put their faith in him and his policies.
It is your view and mine opposite to yours is mine obviously.
However those who voted for Labour had no worries as to yours and others accusations as to Corbyn,either to his past or as to him being any nonsensical security risk.
That didn't stand up in this election and neither will it in the future as likely the electorate behind Labour now, grows even more.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It concerns a lot of people and rightly so. He has a questionable history and you can deny that all you like, but many are simply not prepared to overlook it. There's too much at stake.

They all have questionable histories, let's be frank here. I know it's not "our country" - but you seem VERY prepared to overlook Donald Trump's questionable history both personal and political when it suits? You seem very prepared to overlook Theresa May selling billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi that will most likely end up in the hands of terrorists? I'm not saying Corbyn's past is squeaky clean - show me anyone over the age of 40 who DOES have a squeaky clean past and I'll start drawing up the contracts for chocolate teapots - I'm saying he realistically isn't an "ISIS supporter" or a realistic security threat. It's smear-nonsense.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Have to disagree with you there Joey, Corbyn would be considered a security risk from his past behaviour. As much as people would like to pretend that he is an angel spawned from god, his past is there for all to see. History can't be re-written i'm afraid to say.

If he "was considered a security threat" he wouldn't be in his position. It's as simple as that. Unless you believe the authorities to be incompetent to sitcom-levels.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They all have questionable histories, let's be frank here. I know it's not "our country" - but you seem VERY prepared to overlook Donald Trump's questionable history both personal and political when it suits? You seem very prepared to overlook Theresa May selling billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi that will most likely end up in the hands of terrorists? I'm not saying Corbyn's past is squeaky clean - show me anyone over the age of 40 who DOES have a squeaky clean past and I'll start drawing up the contracts for chocolate teapots - I'm saying he realistically isn't an "ISIS supporter" or a realistic security threat. It's smear-nonsense.




If he "was considered a security threat" he wouldn't be in his position. It's as simple as that. Unless you believe the authorities to be incompetent to sitcom-levels.

Thank you TS, your second response put what I wanted to say more succinctly.
Well said.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They all have questionable histories, let's be frank here. I know it's not "our country" - but you seem VERY prepared to overlook Donald Trump's questionable history both personal and political when it suits? You seem very prepared to overlook Theresa May selling billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi that will most likely end up in the hands of terrorists? I'm not saying Corbyn's past is squeaky clean - show me anyone over the age of 40 who DOES have a squeaky clean past and I'll start drawing up the contracts for chocolate teapots - I'm saying he realistically isn't an "ISIS supporter" or a realistic security threat. It's smear-nonsense.




If he "was considered a security threat" he wouldn't be in his position. It's as simple as that. Unless you believe the authorities to be incompetent to sitcom-levels.

I'm sorry, but thats not true. Its a democracy, so people have the right to stand provided they satisfy the rules, but that doesn't mean he will have access once elected to issues related to security if he does not have the clearance for a particular level.

There is precedence in the past, this also happened previously with labour cabinet ministers.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I disagree with you.
Also it now appears that voters,particularly the majority of future voters in the UK,also disagree with you now too.

Time is now very much on Corbyn's side he has convinced likely millions the real venom.directed at him is wrong.

If any leaders past,true or wrong,good or bad has ever been splashed about by media and prejudiced opponents then Corbyn's has been.
Yet he has brought Labour back,not made it dead as many even on here said it would be when the Cons got their massive landslide.

Your view of him does not stand with those who voted and put their faith in him and his policies.
It is your view and mine opposite to yours is mine obviously.
However those who voted for Labour had no worries as to yours and others accusations as to Corbyn,either to his past or as to him being any nonsensical security risk.
That didn't stand up in this election and neither will it in the future as likely the electorate behind Labour now, grows even more.

I wouldn't say he has so much 'convinced' as hoodwinked desperate people who fear more austerity into buying into his WORDS - and let's not 'convince' ourselves into thinking that at his point in time they are anything more than that - WORDS.

Here's a few more for you - free, free, free - nothing comes for FREE.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I'm sorry, but thats not true. Its a democracy, so people have the right to stand provided they satisfy the rules, but that doesn't mean he will have access once elected to issues related to security if he does not have the clearance for a particular level.

You're going to have to provide some sort of reference here for this to be anything more than opinion for me, I'm afraid.

I've done some (admittedly, brief) searching and all I can find is a handful of opinion pieces and quotes from what I would call disgruntled ex-security employees with seemingly a heavy Tory bias. Unless there is something more than that out there, it simply isn't ringing true that Corbyn is a "terrorism threat".

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You're going to have to provide some sort of reference here for this to be anything more than opinion for me, I'm afraid.

I've done some (admittedly, brief) searching and all I can find is a handful of opinion pieces and quotes from what I would call disgruntled ex-security employees with seemingly a heavy Tory bias. Unless there is something more than that out there, it simply isn't ringing true that Corbyn is a "terrorism threat".

I have personally been security vetted in the past, I know the criteria, for reference, check out this link as a starter

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/security...-and-clearance

[jet]

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers - I find that chilling, but then it wasn't their relatives or friends his buddies murdered eh? As long as Corbyn sweet talks them with the dubious promises of a lot more pounds in their pockets, he's their man and they will close their eyes and ears and just refuse to believe or care about so called 'slurs' against His Benevolence. Money certainly does talk and it talks louder than respect for human life - the root of all evil indeed.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I have personally been security vetted in the past, I know the criteria, for reference, check out this link as a starter

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/security...-and-clearance

Linking to the security criteria suggests that I have some pre-knowledge of Corbyn that would violate that criteria enough to make me personally feel like he is a realistic security threat? I'm asking for links to a reliable analysis of Corbyn in security terms that actually makes him seem like a risk.

From what I know of Corbyn, he is clearly not a REALISTIC security risk, whether there would be flags on the official criteria or not. When people are being security vetted I would assume they stay heavily on the side of caution.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Linking to the security criteria suggests that I have some pre-knowledge of Corbyn that would violate that criteria enough to make me personally feel like he is a realistic security threat? I'm asking for links to a reliable analysis of Corbyn in security terms that actually makes him seem like a risk.

From what I know of Corbyn, he is clearly not a REALISTIC security risk, whether there would be flags on the official criteria or not. When people are being security vetted I would assume they stay heavily on the side of caution.

Being an affiliate or member of risk groups is an automatic fail. So, with his current associations he would fail, that's without even looking at anything historical.

Anyway, i'm done with this, if people don't want to accept information that is their right of course