[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Erm. is it right that this whole thing could possibly breach the Good Friday Agreement? :/

A hard Brexit and removing Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights would almost certainly destroy the Good Friday Agreement.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

A hard Brexit and removing Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights would almost certainly destroy the Good Friday Agreement.

It could Vicky.

Re living the past Irish problems helps no one.
The atrocities were awful and unacceptable but unionists whipped up hatred just as much as nationalists did.

We should have moved on by now,with the power sharing peace process and the IRA at long last halting their grossly wrong bombing campaign.

However,Sinn Féin and the Unionists have worked together for heading on near 2 decades now and all should be grateful for that.
Rightly or wrongly, people felt support for the IRA position,minus the killings of course.
While others supported the Unionists cause too, even to the orange order,celebrating yearly the defeat of Catholic causes over 300,yes 300 years earlier, by orange marches parading down Catholic resident areas taunting and baiting.
They still do when they can and have grievances with the parades commission as to no go Catholic areas for such marches.

So if the DUP start to expect favours from the Cons for keeping them in govt or are suspected of getting any special concessions in any way, this could threaten the not taking sides of UK govts as to N Ireland and cause major issues with the hard-earned peace process of over 15 years ago.
It could.

That is why having the DUP officially on board in any capacity as to being tied to the UK govt,is a real risk to stability.
Sinn Féinn have already personal issues with the DUP leader at Stormont anyway.
So the power sharing is having difficulty at present with no agreement for the way forward.

As for Martin Mcguinness,he was deputy first Minister, he worked with the peace process and even worked with Ian Paisley.
His past is chequered of course but his contribution to the peace process,like or detest him,is fact.
Acknowledged by Labour,Conservative govts alike.

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

It could Vicky.


While others supported the Unionists cause too, even to the orange order,celebrating yearly the defeat of Catholic causes over 300,yes 300 years earlier, by orange marches parading down Catholic resident areas taunting and baiting.
They still do when they can and have grievances with the parades commission as to no go Catholic areas for such marches.

This is a bit one sided Joey. Catholics also have marches to commemorate the Easter Rising (all those years ago!), the IRA Hunger Strikers, Republican Culture etc.
The Protestant Orange parade is the biggest, and before the Troubles many a Catholic brought their kids along for a good day out at the festivities. I went as a kid, and I brought my kids along with our Protestant friends. It wasn't until the Troubles that it all changed.
Actually, the reason the Orangemen parade near Catholic areas is because that was their traditional route when those areas were actually Protestant (and it is just a few areas). Their argument is that it is the Queens Highway and we have always walked this way, why should we have to re - route. Silly really. The Catholics feel the Protestants are taunting them by continuing to march nearby. Also silly really.
As far as I know it's been mainly sorted out by some re - routing and if not Orange bands ceasing playing as they pass a Catholic area.

[Vicky.]

A hell of a lot of Irish people seem angry that people in the rest of the UK don't know anything/much about either party...

I am staying out of it all as as I said, I don't know enough about Irish Politics (seems really complicated...and apparently peace is shaky to start with without Westminster backing one side over another?) but its really fascinating to watch. People on both sides seem so passionate and both sides seem to think the others were horrendous. Its very very different to the politics I know. I am trying to learn by watching others..but my heads getting a bit messed up :S

I don't remember anything about the IRA..either I am too young or I was totally shielded from it, or it didn't affect my area (didn't really watch news when younger either..however apparently 'loyalist' bombing went completely ignored in the UK media which has angered another of my friends...) but my mother claims I was nearly caught up in one of their bombings. In the metrocentre. But they phoned a warning in or something/. All seems a bit weird, if your plan is to just kill people, why warn?!

Sorry if I come across as insensitive on the subject. But I genuinely do want to learn :S

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

A hell of a lot of Irish people seem angry that people in the rest of the UK don't know anything/much about either party...

I am staying out of it all as as I said, I don't know enough about Irish Politics (seems really complicated...and apparently peace is shaky to start with without Westminster backing one side over another?) but its really fascinating to watch. People on both sides seem so passionate and both sides seem to think the others were horrendous. Its very very different to the politics I know. I am trying to learn by watching others..but my heads getting a bit messed up :S

I don't remember anything about the IRA..either I am too young or I was totally shielded from it, or it didn't affect my area (didn't really watch news when younger either..however apparently 'loyalist' bombing went completely ignored in the UK media which has angered another of my friends...) but my mother claims I was nearly caught up in one of their bombings. In the metrocentre. But they phoned a warning in or something/. All seems a bit weird, if your plan is to just kill people, why warn?!

Sorry if I come across as insensitive on the subject. But I genuinely do want to learn :S

There is a list on Wikipedia giving details of all the bombings.
Not a pleasant read.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by smudgie

There is a list on Wikipedia giving details of all the bombings.
Not a pleasant read.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-1537349.html

The devices are thought to be similar to those planted by the IRA in the Gateshead shopping centre in May.

All I can find about Metro, but it seems yes it did happen. I would have only been 5 or something though

[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.

[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]

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!

[user104658]

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.

[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.

[user104658]

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.

[bots]

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.

[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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

Well indeed. Its a bit ridiculous isn't it. The right wing papers and apparently most right wing voters can all see that he is a huge threat to the country. But...the authorities ignore it. Yeah, because that would happen

Maybe he is on the 3000 people watch list and will be reported if he tries to rent a vehicle

[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.

[bots]

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.

[user104658]

I genuinely think you've lost sight of reality Brillo. You might not agree with or understand many of Corbyn's attitudes towards the political issues surrounding terrorism, and that's fair enough really, but this idea that he's actually some sort of ISIS sleeper agent who has slithered to the top of UK politics and hoodwinked 40%+ of the population... It's just pure fantasy. Ludicrous fantasy.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I genuinely think you've lost sight of reality Brillo. You might not agree with or understand many of Corbyn's attitudes towards the political issues surrounding terrorism, and that's fair enough really, but this idea that he's actually some sort of ISIS sleeper agent who has slithered to the top of UK politics and hoodwinked 40%+ of the population... It's just pure fantasy. Ludicrous fantasy.

Did he not say that we should alliow Jihadist fighters who have most likely killed Members of the British armed forces, or if not, not through want of trying, back into our country. Do you really not think that such people pose a threat to all of us? I really cannot fathom that thought process.

Corbyn does sound like a terrorist sympathiser to me.