Heâd fit in great here.
A complete active service unit? Wow.
Theres a fella that looks like ibrahim halawa aftrr asking him about reconciliation there now.
Emre Can?
1 Like
@ChocolateMice
You just knew that rastooler would be onto Joe alright.
1 Like
These lads are incapable of compartmentalizing.
And debating.
Joe Brollyâs piece yesterday was about the dysfunction in Northern Ireland.
Despite the fact that in 1998 a comprehensive agreement was reached which included language of inclusivity as well as structural, since then both sides have dragged their heals over things that both sides were often last to make concessions on at the negotiating table.
The DUP like being in power, but they donât like sharing it. Then drag their heels over what appear to be the simplest of things, a recognition of a different culture and language. We all sneer at that and rightfully so, particularly as these were core parts of spirit of the agreement and subsequent agreements. These were things that hardline Unionists found hardest to tolerate. However, on the other side, Republicans dragged their heels for years on policing and decommissioning. A militant culture took years and years to get over the idea of themselves as the police force of Catholics and recognise the reality of what they signed up for. You find that understandable, but no doubt have no time for the DUPâs positions. Both though are simply reflections of hardliner attitudes and aspects that both sides â both are culture problems within each respective community. If you sign up for something, you go through with it.
Even if one wants to give a free pass to this GGA club for much of their members attitudes back in 2002, what was the issue in 2010? Was there ever a fundraiser organised for this guy? GGA clubs had no problem organising bucket collections for Provo volunteers, why by 2010 long after all policing issues had been solved, was there nothing done in that club for him (and yes, I know well about the PSNIâs treatment of him too, but thatâs a separate point)? Why did it take 7 years to condemn the attack publically?
The Real IRAâs stated position was that the Good Friday Agreement was wrong. When they reacted at Omagh, there was widespread revulsion at them at going back to a mass bombing such that they went into their shells for years. The attacks on Catholic police officers though, that started as soon as the PSNI started back up. Why did they return to an old Provo tactic of going after Catholics joining the law and order system of Northern Ireland and not go to the many other Provo activities and instructions of the Green Book of yesteryear? You could say the simplicity of these attacks was one, but the reality is that where there was a soft support for their activities amongst an element of the community. Nobody was interested in going back to the days of the Troubles, but Catholic police officers were seen by traitors by many. These attacks kept up for years until they finally killed one. Since then, nothing, as the wider community finally shouted stop.
2 Likes
I think Brollyâs article yesterday should be read in conjunction with the first one. Iâve already outlined why I regarded it as a duplicitous piece in its attempts to cover himself for making the scurrilous allegations in the initial article. âWe are all to blameâ. 
But leaving that point aside, the CNR community had every right to insist that the reforms recommended by the Patten Report be implemented in full before giving any cautious backing to the PSNI. Thereâs no need to reiterate why.
It partly explains why acceptance wasnât immediately forthcoming because these reforms werenât put in place for a number of years after 2002. In addition, the CNR community was naturally going to be circumspect and guarded in their dealings with the new force against the backdrop of their experience of the previous one. Trust was going to have to be earned and there remains ongoing challenges there. Itâs overly simplistic to think that the entire CNR community should/would have been satisfied and supportive of the PSNI until they had seen how they operated.
While things have progressed, the caution of the CNR appears to have been well founded when you see the families of the Glenanne Gang victims, coincidentally enough, back in court today. Only last summer the high court ruled that the PSNIâs decision to halt an investigation into the gangâs killing spree was contrary to its human rights obligations. The gang included British soldiers, RUC members and loyalist paramilitaries. Separately, the current PSNI Chief Constable and two of his senior colleagues are facing an inquiry into misconduct, criminal conspiracy and criminality. The PSNI appears to be far from perfect but it still doesnât mean that GAA clubs are facilitating dissident republican attacks on members.
As regards the Republican / DUP point, the former delivered on material things like decommissioning (2005) and policing (2007) while the latter wonât deliver on Irish language grants to school children in 2017. I think one side has embraced the GFA in good faith and it isnât the DUP.
I disagree with your contention that the attacks by dissidents point to soft community support. Most of my reading on the dissident groups post GFA suggested that they consisted of a minority of dangerous hardliners, were quite fractured and lacked the structure and organisational capability of the Provisionals before them.
They came with a renewed flurry of attacks around the time Peadar Heffron was targeted but it didnât seem to be sustainable based on the small numbers involved (lack of support for their aims in a post GFA environment) and the police intervening to disrupt their plans. It could conversely be argued that the small number of actual attacks on PSNI officers (though grave) showed how little support they garnered from the CNR community rather than assuming that these attacks were supported and then not supported.
4 Likes
This isnât a situation of âUnionistsâ vs âNationalistsâ, this is just using the example of the DUPâs culture dodging to show the impact of the hardliners. You seem to think this is an attack on the Nationalist/Republican side, when the point of the article on Sunday was to show the dysfunction on both sides over the years. You are desperate to just defend the club here and are hiding behind the reforms proposed that hadnât gone through yet.
Part of the reason these reforms hadnât fully gone through was because in 2002 the IRA were still holding onto weapons that they promised to decommission. The reason they were slow was because this was something the hardliners did not want to do. This goes onto the police force, the simple fact is that many Republicans were NEVER going to accept being apart of a police force in the United Kingdom - and hence the split when SF eventually did agree to support policing. Hardline Republicans did not to give up their special status in the community.
The fact is that in 1998 though all side agreed to basic principles on policing. In 1999 you had the proposals and even in 2001 the GGA got rid of Rule 21. Itâs called making progress but as that vote showed - northern GGA types were not in favour of this reform. The 6 counties representatives voted against removing this and it was the Republicâs membership who brought the repeal through. You are defending many of this GGAâs club for their attitude to this guy as the reforms werenât fully the way through - when the GGA up north itself voted wholesale against one of the major reforms of the Patton Commission. That reflects a culture and attitude that was there.
This guy did not deserve to be ostracised for looking to make some progress. You give them the benefit of the doubt when it has been shown that Ulster GGA looked to block repeal of R21. You are unable to see behind the hardline position on this, you give them the benefit of the doubt when like the DUPâs current antics, it was looking backwards and not forward.
1 Like
This sentence here is ridiculous. All youâve proved there is that there was widespread acceptance that reforms had not yet taken place. The GAA werenât going to lead the way in changing the RUC!
1 Like
Both of you have valid arguments eloquently put. The truth is often somewhere in the middle.
Thats the 3rd time you have said that this week.
Often its right.
In this case i do not believe so. I believe the IRA and to a lesser extent the club are wholky responsible.
Joe is laying it out. The silence (and that really is what that statemebt is, a wall of silence) from the club is deafening.
They facilitated isolating this man. Had they aupported him who knows what positive effect it would have.
Would the IRA kill them all? Would they fuck.
Which IRA are you talking about
The Real IRA⌠Itâs important to distinguish.
Itâs like any relationship that breaks down between a couple. One has their truth, and the other their own. The real truth usually lies somewhere in the middle in my experience.
Did you create the silence from the club?
They have denied the allegations put forward by Brolly in the strongest terms.
Heffron lost many friends over his decision, the club did not issue a memo to its players telling them to ostracise Heffron, they chose to as many nationalist people would have done to someone in their community in a similar situation. Itâs very understandable why people would have chose to have little to do with Heffron after he made that decision.
1 Like
At that time and place, most people would have rightly spat on him.
Its absolutely not right.
Real men would duscuss it.
Alot of ye lads would want to read this.
Why would a club have to issue a memo?
Tgats straw manning at its highest level.
Easy you have no idea how clubs or communities work