• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

You mean if the side with no need to give up anything gives up everything to the terrorists, we can have peace?

I'd like to think the Israelis have learned from our mistakes.
Israel aren't being asked to give up anything other than their settler incursions into non-israeli territory and their free reign to enter gaza and the west bank and throw their weight around whenever they feel like it.
 
But the vast majority of Palestinains do support a 2 state solution so you work on that and side-line ('eliminate') Hamas.

Failing that a one state solution with equal demographic rights for all citizens would be fair, right? Or only after the Palestinians are cleared out of the way??
I did suggest giving them the opportunity to vote Hamas out, but I don't think it would happen.

I think a one state solution would work, do you think all Palestinians would live peacefully under Israeli rule? After all, the security of Israeli civilians would have to be paramount
 
Israel aren't being asked to give up anything other than their settler incursions into non-israeli territory and their free reign to enter gaza and the west bank and throw their weight around whenever they feel like it.
You brought up NI as a comparison. I was simply pointing out that the terrorists only stopped because Blair gave them everything and took nothing.
 
You brought up NI as a comparison. I was simply pointing out that the terrorists only stopped because Blair gave them everything and took nothing.
Blair didn't give them everything. The IRA wanted a united Ireland. That never happened. What was achieved was a Northern Ireland with Catholic republicans and Protestant unionists living together peacefully in a territory recognised as part of the UK but heavily devolved in most areas of governance with power shared by both sides.
 
It would be fairly simple for a group of people to reduce the policing in their area by continually making baseless allegations if that were how it worked.
But the answer would still be no as a parent.

If an accusation is made then it needs investigating.

Also anecdotally cops being terrible with vulnerable people is an experience that exists in the UK. The same way it exists in education.

So the answer is still no.

Be clever enough not to let it get abused. Don't let r*pisrs slip through the net at the same time.
 
IF the police were about to offer someone a job today and saw that person had accusations against their name they would not be hired.

Innocence would not matter. Any kind of caution would set alarm bells ringing.

For any job private companies will likely be searching your social media profiles before hiring you.

Anything unsavoury is fair grounds for them to withdraw a job offer - or not offer one.

Private companies won’t go through your socials what do you mean?
 
Blair didn't give them everything. The IRA wanted a united Ireland. That never happened. What was achieved was a Northern Ireland with Catholic republicans and Protestant unionists living together peacefully in a territory recognised as part of the UK but heavily devolved in most areas of governance with power shared by both sides.
Nobody in Ireland truly wants a united Ireland.

NI is a financial basket case and would bankrupt the republic almost immediately. The economy there doesn't have the heft to take on such a drain.
 
It being a bad idea isn't the same as people not wanting it. See Brexit. Over 60% of Irish people in recent polls wanted a Utd Ireland.

Over 60% in the Republic of Ireland may want that (although once the financial realities of that became clear to the population I’m not sure that figure would hold up) - but that’s certainly not the case in Northern Ireland, which also has to have a clear majority in favour of unity for it to be considered, according to the central concept of The Good Friday Agreement.

 
Over 60% in the Republic of Ireland may want that (although once the financial realities of that became clear to the population I’m not sure that figure would hold up) - but that’s certainly not the case in Northern Ireland, which also has to have a clear majority in favour of unity for it to be considered, according to the central concept of The Good Friday Agreement.

Agreed

It needs that majority. However I did respond to Scaras point about Ireland. NI is much more conflicted of course.
 
The Irish unity polls are 64% yes in the south, and have held steady on that number for a few years. I think financial implications are somewhat baked into that poll and may be overstated anyway. I heard a Sunday morning radio show discussing a breakdown showing it is not half as bad as being made out.
In the north it is 48% no and 34% yes but the trend is to yes for the last few years. The increase of about 2.5% a year on the yes side. I guess the implications of all that is that it is probably just a matter of time.
 
Nobody in Ireland truly wants a united Ireland.

NI is a financial basket case and would bankrupt the republic almost immediately. The economy there doesn't have the heft to take on such a drain.
The IRA wanted a united Ireland and were willing to kill people and die for that cause. The peace is achieved by isolating the hardiners and forcing them to the table. The biggest achievement Blair did wasn't bringing the IRA to the table, it was getting the US to cut their covert support for the IRA. That forced the IRA to the table. If the US and western states recognised Palestine as a sovereign state and made support for Israel conditional on them doing the same i think you'd find peace would happen very rapidly.

The other party to consider is Russia. The middle east is and always has been a proxy conflict. We need Russia and the US round a table and we need the US to pull unconditional support for Israel and we need the Russians to pull support for Iran (and by proxy Hamas and Hezbollah).
 
The IRA wanted a united Ireland and were willing to kill people and die for that cause. The peace is achieved by isolating the hardiners and forcing them to the table. The biggest achievement Blair did wasn't bringing the IRA to the table, it was getting the US to cut their covert support for the IRA. That forced the IRA to the table. If the US and western states recognised Palestine as a sovereign state and made support for Israel conditional on them doing the same i think you'd find peace would happen very rapidly.

The other party to consider is Russia. The middle east is and always has been a proxy conflict. We need Russia and the US round a table and we need the US to pull unconditional support for Israel and we need the Russians to pull support for Iran (and by proxy Hamas and Hezbollah).

I'm sceptical of how much much the politicians claiming credit for the peace are really the ones we should thank.
Two events that are now barely mentioned but had a large impact IMHO are obviously 9/11, but also the family/mothers peace movement that effectively said "we have had enough of this, it's time to bury the past and look to the future."
The terrorists on both sides were losing support and the public were becoming sick of it.
That is no environment to live a life and certainly not one in which bring up your children.
I heard someone on the radio one day say, we can't grab a future while we are hanging onto the past.
That for me is a rather profound statement, and one we could and should be preaching in certain other trouble spots.
It's never the leaders or the politicians who suffer in these conflicts, it's the poor punters.
One day I'm sure Ireland will be united, and it will be when the people want it, not when the politicians dictate it.
 
I'm sceptical of how much much the politicians claiming credit for the peace are really the ones we should thank.
Two events that are now barely mentioned but had a large impact IMHO are obviously 9/11, but also the family/mothers peace movement that effectively said "we have had enough of this, it's time to bury the past and look to the future."
The terrorists on both sides were losing support and the public were becoming sick of it.
That is no environment to live a life and certainly not one in which bring up your children.
I heard someone on the radio one day say, we can't grab a future while we are hanging onto the past.
That for me is a rather profound statement, and one we could and should be preaching in certain other trouble spots.
It's never the leaders or the politicians who suffer in these conflicts, it's the poor punters.
One day I'm sure Ireland will be united, and it will be when the people want it, not when the politicians dictate it.

The IRA was riddled by informers and British secret agents by the late 80s/early 90s, and Adams and McGuinness had come to realise there couldn’t be a military victory.

Added to that, loyalist terrorists were carrying out incredibly violent and relatively large scale random gun attacks on pubs, bookmakers and shops, seeing ordinary Catholics targeted as they went about their lives, something which meant the IRA’s continuation of ‘the war’ (to which the terrible loyalist atrocities were a response) became extremely unpopular in their own communities.

Both things were major drivers in bringing Republicans to the table.

As to unity, I doubt that it will be in the lifetime of anyone posting on here. It may happen at some point far down the line - but it’s hard to know what the future holds in a year or two, given the precarious position of the world at present, never mind what might be happening in 50 or 60 years time.
 
From my memory Omagh was the big turning point. The brutality of that seemed to lose the IRA the support of a big chunk on their own community. And then the World Trade Centre thing a few years later permanently cut off the IRA's funding, when America experienced the consequences of their funding.

I think the reunification will happen sooner rather than later. I think emotionally Brexit was a big shock to the loyalists, realising how little England and Wales actually wants them and seeing how readily it threw them under a bus. Sein Fein also seem to be doing a decent job of governing for, rather than against them, and assuaging a lot of the fears of what a united Ireland will look like
 
The IRA was riddled by informers and British secret agents by the late 80s/early 90s, and Adams and McGuinness had come to realise there couldn’t be a military victory.

Added to that, loyalist terrorists were carrying out incredibly violent and relatively large scale random gun attacks on pubs, bookmakers and shops, seeing ordinary Catholics targeted as they went about their lives, something which meant the IRA’s continuation of ‘the war’ (to which the terrible loyalist atrocities were a response) became extremely unpopular in their own communities.

Both things were major drivers in bringing Republicans to the table.

As to unity, I doubt that it will be in the lifetime of anyone posting on here. It may happen at some point far down the line - but it’s hard to know what the future holds in a year or two, given the precarious position of the world at present, never mind what might be happening in 50 or 60 years time.

I think the natural world means there is a more less spoken about peace as new generations are born who respectfully care less and look to leave both Ireland and NI to go abroad. The Irish have always had itchy feet and the more the world has opened up the more it happens. Huge communities in the Middle East, Canada, America (always but growing) and Aus. The more that happens the less people really care about politics at home IMO. Peace then becomes a natural progression
 
Back