General Election Predictions

[Bentley Bullet]

But isn't there a difference? Didn't Corbyn have links with the IRA at the time it was actively committing acts of terrorism, whereas the present Tory deal with the DUP is almost half a century after any alleged paramilitary activity?

Here you go, from just over a week ago

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2017/dup-chief-arlene-foster-met-uda-boss-days-after-loyalist-murder-in-bangor-35776873.html

It seems that my definition of  'having links' is different to yours. OK so you found an article about  Arlene Foster meeting a UDA chief. There are also pictures out there of the Queen, and Theresa May meeting Martin Mcguinness, Neville Chamberlain meeting Hitler, and Churchill meeting Stalin.

I don't know of any of them treating the events as anything more than protocol, and the reason for them certainly wasn't to be sympathetic.

On the other hand, Corbyn's meetings with the IRA suggest differently.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Check the facts Filo, unlike Sinn Fein, they have never been associated with loyalist paramiltaries.

Of course Ian paisley was associated with them.

I'm confused...which one of these is the truth?

As i said Glyn, you choose selective quotes and put your spin on them.
Let me explain so you can come out of your confused state:

The first quote of mine that you highlighted was in relation to the fact that the DUP have never been associated with terrorist organisations.

The second quote you highlighted is a response to Filo's question and my answer was to say that Paisley was associated with the DUP.

So clearly the quotes of mine that you highlighted are not a contradiction of each other but are responses to different questions and you have decided to try to discredit me by linking the two together as two answers to a single question.

That should make it clear to an man as educated as yourself.

Before you say that the DUP are or have been a terrorist group, no less than the Independant Online have said today that "there is no suggestion that the DUP actively sought the endorsement from the group (paramilitaries) or that in turn it supports the UDA.

I hope that strikes a chord too pal.

Then you really should have read what Filo wrote.

Filo was writing in direct response to your quote saying that there were no DUP associations with paramilitaries.

Filo then talked about various DUP personnel's possible links to a paramilitary organisation.

And now your response is to say that you weren't answering what Filo wrote, but talking about Paisley's association to the DUP??

What is clear to a man as educated as myself is that you're trying to be as slippery as ****. And failing.

[Bentley Bullet]

Just to give the fan club on here a much needed update, Diane Abbott was elected once again with an increased majority.

 And it's only the weak, vulnerable and gullible Tory supporters who are brainwashed!

[drfchound]

Check the facts Filo, unlike Sinn Fein, they have never been associated with loyalist paramiltaries.

Of course Ian paisley was associated with them.

I'm confused...which one of these is the truth?

As i said Glyn, you choose selective quotes and put your spin on them.
Let me explain so you can come out of your confused state:

The first quote of mine that you highlighted was in relation to the fact that the DUP have never been associated with terrorist organisations.

The second quote you highlighted is a response to Filo's question and my answer was to say that Paisley was associated with the DUP.

So clearly the quotes of mine that you highlighted are not a contradiction of each other but are responses to different questions and you have decided to try to discredit me by linking the two together as two answers to a single question.

That should make it clear to an man as educated as yourself.

Before you say that the DUP are or have been a terrorist group, no less than the Independant Online have said today that "there is no suggestion that the DUP actively sought the endorsement from the group (paramilitaries) or that in turn it supports the UDA.

I hope that strikes a chord too pal.

Then you really should have read what Filo wrote.

Filo was writing in direct response to your quote saying that there were no DUP associations with paramilitaries.

Filo then talked about various DUP personnel's possible links to a paramilitary organisation.

And now your response is to say that you weren't answering what Filo wrote, but talking about Paisley's association to the DUP??

What is clear to a man as educated as myself is that you're trying to be as slippery as ****. And failing.

...............in YOUR opinion of course.
But not strictly true.
I have to admit that your are brilliant with the twisting of words and quotes.

[Filo]

Check the facts Filo, unlike Sinn Fein, they have never been associated with loyalist paramiltaries.

Of course Ian paisley was associated with them.

I'm confused...which one of these is the truth?

As i said Glyn, you choose selective quotes and put your spin on them.
Let me explain so you can come out of your confused state:

The first quote of mine that you highlighted was in relation to the fact that the DUP have never been associated with terrorist organisations.

The second quote you highlighted is a response to Filo's question and my answer was to say that Paisley was associated with the DUP.

So clearly the quotes of mine that you highlighted are not a contradiction of each other but are responses to different questions and you have decided to try to discredit me by linking the two together as two answers to a single question.

That should make it clear to an man as educated as yourself.

Before you say that the DUP are or have been a terrorist group, no less than the Independant Online have said today that "there is no suggestion that the DUP actively sought the endorsement from the group (paramilitaries) or that in turn it supports the UDA.

I hope that strikes a chord too pal.

Then you really should have read what Filo wrote.

Filo was writing in direct response to your quote saying that there were no DUP associations with paramilitaries.

Filo then talked about various DUP personnel's possible links to a paramilitary organisation.

And now your response is to say that you weren't answering what Filo wrote, but talking about Paisley's association to the DUP??

What is clear to a man as educated as myself is that you're trying to be as slippery as ****. And failing.

...............in YOUR opinion of course.

I have to admit that your are brilliant with the twisting of words and quotes.

I saw it as Glyn saw it, even reading back again to see if I missed something and it looks the way Glyn see's it. Also in previous posts you seem to be confusing convicted and associated with each other. Not once did I suggest anyone had been convicted of being a terrorist as you were trying to imply. What I did say after you made that implication was that Mr Paisley had been convicted of public order offences, that in todays world would be an offence under anti terror laws

[drfchound]

Why am i not surprised that you and Glyn see it the same way, what a shock.
Well guess what, i have read it again and i don't agree with you.
I have never confused the two(convicted and associated).
You had implied that the PM was a terrorist sympathiser.
I asked you whether Paisley had been convicted of a terrorist offence.

[Mr1Croft]

To claim the DUP had no links to the Paramilitary Loyalist Groups is the same as claiming Sinn Fein had no links to the IRA.

To claim the proof of no DUP links is Paisley having no convictions then the same can be said of Gerry Adams - he had links to the IRA but because he never was convicted (spare his capture under internment in the 70s) we can say he wasn't a terrorist or a terrorist sympathiser. Martin McGuiness was only ever convicted in the Republic. He was never convicted on terrorism in the north. Surely we can clear his name too?

What is beyond doubt is where the Provisional IRA infiltrated Sinn Fein for political gains, the same can be said of the Ulster movement forming the DUP. Above all it shows as distinct lack of balance and possibly rewriting of history in the Troubles where the IRA were the evil and the Ulster were the good, which is just not true; it was much more grey than that.

Let's just consider the following: Corbyn forms a minority Government and Sinn Fein break their Westminister Rebellion to give him a majority. How do you think the reaction of the press, the Tories and the Establishment would be? Yet May has done the same and is being let off the hook.

The only good thing about this is the longer an illegitimate Prime Minister holds on the greater their defeat will be.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Check the facts Filo, unlike Sinn Fein, they have never been associated with loyalist paramiltaries.

Of course Ian paisley was associated with them.

I'm confused...which one of these is the truth?

As i said Glyn, you choose selective quotes and put your spin on them.
Let me explain so you can come out of your confused state:

The first quote of mine that you highlighted was in relation to the fact that the DUP have never been associated with terrorist organisations.

The second quote you highlighted is a response to Filo's question and my answer was to say that Paisley was associated with the DUP.

So clearly the quotes of mine that you highlighted are not a contradiction of each other but are responses to different questions and you have decided to try to discredit me by linking the two together as two answers to a single question.

That should make it clear to an man as educated as yourself.

Before you say that the DUP are or have been a terrorist group, no less than the Independant Online have said today that "there is no suggestion that the DUP actively sought the endorsement from the group (paramilitaries) or that in turn it supports the UDA.

I hope that strikes a chord too pal.

Then you really should have read what Filo wrote.

Filo was writing in direct response to your quote saying that there were no DUP associations with paramilitaries.

Filo then talked about various DUP personnel's possible links to a paramilitary organisation.

And now your response is to say that you weren't answering what Filo wrote, but talking about Paisley's association to the DUP??

What is clear to a man as educated as myself is that you're trying to be as slippery as ****. And failing.

...............in YOUR opinion of course.
But not strictly true.
I have to admit that your are brilliant with the twisting of words and quotes.

I used direct quotes so that I couldn't twist them.

[Filo]

To claim the DUP had no links to the Paramilitary Loyalist Groups is the same as claiming Sinn Fein had no links to the IRA.

To claim the proof of no DUP links is Paisley having no convictions then the same can be said of Gerry Adams - he had links to the IRA but because he never was convicted (spare his capture under internment in the 70s) we can say he wasn't a terrorist or a terrorist sympathiser. Martin McGuiness was only ever convicted in the Republic. He was never convicted on terrorism in the north. Surely we can clear his name too?

What is beyond doubt is where the Provisional IRA infiltrated Sinn Fein for political gains, the same can be said of the Ulster movement forming the DUP. Above all it shows as distinct lack of balance and possibly rewriting of history in the Troubles where the IRA were the evil and the Ulster were the good, which is just not true; it was much more grey than that.

Let's just consider the following: Corbyn forms a minority Government and Sinn Fein break their Westminister Rebellion to give him a majority. How do you think the reaction of the press, the Tories and the Establishment would be? Yet May has done the same and is being let off the hook.

The only good thing about this is the longer an illegitimate Prime Minister holds on the greater their defeat will be.

Very well put

[wilts rover]

To claim the DUP had no links to the Paramilitary Loyalist Groups is the same as claiming Sinn Fein had no links to the IRA.

To claim the proof of no DUP links is Paisley having no convictions then the same can be said of Gerry Adams - he had links to the IRA but because he never was convicted (spare his capture under internment in the 70s) we can say he wasn't a terrorist or a terrorist sympathiser. Martin McGuiness was only ever convicted in the Republic. He was never convicted on terrorism in the north. Surely we can clear his name too?

What is beyond doubt is where the Provisional IRA infiltrated Sinn Fein for political gains, the same can be said of the Ulster movement forming the DUP. Above all it shows as distinct lack of balance and possibly rewriting of history in the Troubles where the IRA were the evil and the Ulster were the good, which is just not true; it was much more grey than that.

Let's just consider the following: Corbyn forms a minority Government and Sinn Fein break their Westminister Rebellion to give him a majority. How do you think the reaction of the press, the Tories and the Establishment would be? Yet May has done the same and is being let off the hook.

The only good thing about this is the longer an illegitimate Prime Minister holds on the greater their defeat will be.

Nothing whatsoever to disagree with there Mr Croft. The only point you may have added is that whilst it is without doubt the current UDP leader has never personally been involved in a any terrorist activities - it is also without doubt that the current Sinn Fein leader in Northern Ireland, Michelle O'Neill, has never personally been involved in any terrorist activities.

Interesting to see that there is also now a lot of talk about Sinn Fein abrogating their responsibilities by not taking up their seats in Westminster and being involved in shaping Brexit. We live in interesting times indeed.