Heard him on radio 4 at 6pm tonight resigning as Deputy First Minister. He sounded like a man not long for this world and the picture I have just seen of him on BBC News confirms that.
Hadn't noticed any news of him being ill before today. Has anyone else?

No Comment ..

Lovely man

Yes, the press have been speculating his resignation for a while due to ill health. He's stepped down for a different reason, of course.

Blast..

Will now get a nice index linked pension for the rest of his life, courtesy of the British taxpayer. Quite ironic really.

Was hoping this was a RIP post.

Jamesy wrote:Will now get a nice index linked pension for the rest of his life, courtesy of the British taxpayer. Quite ironic really.

Not for long is my guess but of course his wife will get half of it

Hope your guess is pretty accurate.

His past is ******* awful, but things like this show that he at least made an effort in a region that desperately needed people to make efforts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36438976" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If there truly is a God in heaven, then I'm sure there will also be a hell. And that's where this ******* will end up.

I hope his illness is a long and painful one.

How on earth that monster is allowed to walk around free is beyond me.

I can only hope your wishes come true.

Not only was it very brave for the Queen to invite him to Buckingham Palace, it was also very brave of him to accept.

Terrible past but there is only one way forward.

Yes, he looks quite ill and i hope his steps forward do not lead to 2 steps back.

Some disgusting comments on here about a sick man who I have just seen on Newsnight, shaking hands with the Queen and at least three British Prime Ministers.

In terms of his past, which I know plenty about, he was attempting to defend his country from a heavily armed and unwanted invading foreign aggressor.

I, and many others would do the same.

Disagree with the rationale Hampstead and have some understanding for others views but, if it wasn't for his eventual forward thinking, things could have turned out rather more unpleasant.

I wish him ill will no longer.

hampsteadclaret wrote:
In terms of his past, which I know plenty about, he was attempting to defend his country from a heavily armed and unwanted invading foreign aggressor.

I, and many others would do the same.

For f**ks sake, you can pack that black and white sh1te in for a start.

I'm pretty sure some of the civilians and policemen that he murdered, and/or had murdered were his fellow countrymen.

We have moved on, which has mostly been for the better, but that man should have had a bullet in his head over 40 years ago.

Let's hope it's nothing trivial.

It truly beggars belief that this man was elected to office in British govt.

Hampsteadclaret showing true to form. You must have a breathtaking ignorance of the troubles if you think "his" country was " invaded by a foreign aggressor" don't you think the Protestant population also valued " their" country?

16/17 Ha...I don't need any history lessons from you two, especially from you lakesclaret whose grasp of many topics seems minimalist.
We did plenty of murdering ourselves...do you want me to list them all?

Yes he was elected, it's called democracy, and it matters not one jot what your opinion is of that.

'We have moved on'...True.

- and Martin McGuinness played a full part in that process.

hampsteadclaret wrote:minimalist.

Yes you were, in your first post.

lakesclaret wrote:Let's hope it's nothing trivial.

It truly beggars belief that this man was elected to office in British govt.

Hampsteadclaret showing true to form. You must have a breathtaking ignorance of the troubles if you think "his" country was " invaded by a foreign aggressor" don't you think the Protestant population also valued " their" country?

Would that be the protestant population that were transported over from Scotland and have names like Paisley and Irvine?

19...'Yes you were, in your first post'..


Not quite hitting the spot there are you?
Not one of your best efforts.
- your attempt to be caustic and cutting, witty and informed..just hasn't done it.

It's a FAIL from me.

minnieclaret wrote:Would that be the protestant population that were transported over from Scotland and have names like Paisley and Irvine?

I don't think someones transported ancestors 3/400 years ago to Ireland, is a justifiable reason for terror and murder in the 1970's.

If you go far enough back then you'll find that some Irish people (however they weren't called Irish or Catholics then) transported themselves to Scotland.

hampsteadclaret wrote:
Not quite hitting the spot there are you?

Well yes, I'd say that I jabbed it right on the beak.

Someone who describes Martin McGuinness' involvement in terror and murder in such simplistic terms as .... 'he was attempting to defend his country from a heavily armed and unwanted invading foreign aggressor'.... has either a very thin history book with more pictures than words in it, or, that he isn't quite all there upstairs.

People move on and most want peace in the North and Martin and SF like it or not was part of that process .

How much blood is there on the hands of Blair and company ?

Tribesmen wrote:People move on and most want peace in the North and Martin and SF like it or not was part of that process .

How much blood is there on the hands of Blair and company ?

What does Blair have to do with Irish terrorism in the 70's? Blair is as much of a criminal as McGuinness, won't be upset when either of the c*nts are dead.

Hamstead proves there is someone out there for everyone, even a turd like McGuinnes.

Was it ever decided who was the biggest coward between him n that other odious **** Adams

Dom wrote:
What does Blair have to do with Irish terrorism in the 70's? Blair is as much of a criminal as McGuinness, won't be upset when either of the c*nts are dead.

What, without resorting to the language of the sewer, is your informed view of Arthur Harris ?

Depends on whether you are know what you are talking about or not Ralph.

Using Hindsight (a great tool, but sadly not available at the time), the massed allied bombing raids on civilian targets by Harris for the RAF and Curtis Le May for the USAAF were a waste of resources and caused horrific civilian casualties.

However AT THE TIME, the belief was that heavy bombing of civilian targets would help shorten the war and save more lives in the long run.

The judging of people using 21st century morality is completely pointless btw

mdd2 wrote:Heard him on radio 4 at 6pm tonight resigning as Deputy First Minister. He sounded like a man not long for this world and the picture I have just seen of him on BBC News confirms that.
Hadn't noticed any news of him being ill before today. Has anyone else?

Murderer turned Politician. He won't be missed.

I met him last year, I was working at a Posh girls school in Oxford and it was parents evening. I found him a very intimidating character and his kids were running amok. He arrived late in a chauffeur driven car, telling everyone he had come from Westminister and he looked like Edward Woodward in a trench coat, slightly mafia looking. (same evening I met the more attractive Suzie Dent, also a parent).

Don't understand all the history but I thought he was a two-hat.

Should have been held accountable for his involvement in Bloody Sunday.The press were quick to critise the paras but he was invloved in fanning the flames.Those involved on the Republican side are getting off lightly.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Depends on whether you are know what you are talking about or not Ralph.

Using Hindsight (a great tool, but sadly not available at the time), the massed allied bombing raids on civilian targets by Harris for the RAF and Curtis Le May for the USAAF were a waste of resources and caused horrific civilian casualties.

However AT THE TIME, the belief was that heavy bombing of civilian targets would help shorten the war and save more lives in the long run.

The judging of people using 21st century morality is completely pointless btw

The point being that a lot of people take important decisions during times of conflict that they may later regret .. without reconciliation there is no future .. as you know I was challenging the innocent victims card that we all like to play when discussing these "characters" it isn't my job to decide whether their actions are justifiable or not just to present a case ...

Anyone else been to West Belfast? I was there in 2009 on The Shankill Road and also The Falls Road and around Andersonstown. I was interviewing people about The European Union. Also interviewed people near Windsor Park.
I meet some really nice people, but the thing that struck me was if you had no knowledge of the convoluted history of Belfast and were just basing things on Murals in the City - you have one set of murals about conflict with men in balaclavas with machine guns and another set of murals featuring men who starved themselves to death and slogans about justice. It's a minefield of atrocities on both sides for the better part of 400 years, unless you have people who draw a line somewhere and say let's forget the past you'll have people on both sides saying "well you started it" or "your atrocities were worse than ours" As everyone seems to hate Oliver Cromwell these days we can give him the prize for worst atrocities committed in Ireland.

Or can we?

http://www.historytoday.com/tom-reilly/ ... h-question" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well said Ralph

23..BOT..'he was attempting to defend his country from a heavily armed and unwanted invading foreign aggressor'....

Well..which bit don't you like?
Which bit is a lie? Which word is wrong.
You don't like what I've written because it tells it as it was..that's why you don't like the words...because as you say, I have put it down there in black and white terms....it doesn't read well for you does it?

Would you say it was the first time that British armed forces have gone blundering in somewhere, where they weren't wanted...usually making the situation worse..?
How many examples do you want?


'might is right' for our lot usually..that's all they need to know.

Thatcher and the General Belgrano anyone [May 1982]..?...323 Argentinians died in that unwarranted sinking of a ship that was trying to get the hell out of there...was trying to escape danger.
- for those screaming abuse at Martin McGuinness...think on.


BOT..I was brief in my description, because there are hundreds of years of complex Irish history to go at, and I really didn't have the time.

The Troubles in Northern Ireland were a difficult and complicated affair that were going to struggle to bring out the best in some people's Humanity.

Much like this thread topic.

26..claretdom

Your post is just a straightforward 'hate' post aimed at MM and GA...yes I've seen those before.

Why don't you buy a good book and read a bit more about the pair of them, and inform yourself.

It's 'hampstead' not Hamstead.

Apologies hamstead

Well played, hampstead, I was beginning to despair until you came along.
God, there are some nutjobs on here, people whose sole outlook on life is based purely on what their paper/dad/mates down the pub tell them.
No questions, no acceptance of there, perhaps, being another side to an argument.

post 31..Woodley

'Should have been held accountable for his involvement in Bloody Sunday'..

Even the most uninformed and disinterested punter knows what happened on Bloody Sunday..try this -


'Bloody Sunday – sometimes called the Bogside Massacre – was an incident on 30 January 1972 in the Bogside area of Derry, County Londonderry, Northern Ireland. British soldiers shot 26 unarmed civilians during a peaceful protest march against internment. Fourteen people died: thirteen were killed outright, while the death of another man four months later was attributed to his injuries. Many of the victims were shot while fleeing from the soldiers and some were shot while trying to help the wounded. Other protesters were injured by rubber bullets or batons, and two were run down by army vehicles. The march had been organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association and the Northern Resistance Movement. The soldiers involved were members of the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, also known as "1 Para".

Two investigations have been held by the British government. The Widgery Tribunal, held in the immediate aftermath of the incident, largely cleared the soldiers and British authorities of blame. It described the soldiers' shooting as "bordering on the reckless", but accepted their claims that they shot at gunmen and bomb-throwers. The report was widely criticised as a "whitewash". The Saville Inquiry, chaired by Lord Saville of Newdigate, was established in 1998 to reinvestigate the incident. Following a 12-year inquiry, Saville's report was made public in 2010 and concluded that the killings were both "unjustified" and "unjustifiable". It found that all of those shot were unarmed, that none were posing a serious threat, that no bombs were thrown, and that soldiers "knowingly put forward false accounts" to justify their firing. On the publication of the report, British prime minister David Cameron made a formal apology on behalf of the United Kingdom. Following this, police began a murder investigation into the killings.

Bloody Sunday was one of the most significant events of "the Troubles" because a large number of civilian citizens were killed, by forces of the state, in full view of the public and the press. It was the highest number of people killed in a single shooting incident during the conflict. Bloody Sunday increased Catholic and Irish nationalist hostility towards the British Army and exacerbated the conflict. Support for the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) rose and there was a surge of recruitment into the organisation, especially locally' [WIKI]


**Woodley - you probably just read the Widgery and not the Saville..that's where the confusion comes from.

Hampstead, IIRC, the army was asked to come over by the Catholics to, effectively, protect them from the Protestants so (if I am right) they didn't go blundering in as heavily armed 'invaders'. Either way, they were operating in a part of the U.K so couldn't have been invaders.

The General Belgrano was a significant threat to the task force and wether or not it was steaming away is irrelevant. We were at war and people get killed, hopefully more of theirs than ours. They started it and we did what was necessary to finish it. Revisionism by people, like yourself who seem to hate the UK and it's forces, is nothing new and almost always wrong.

Bloody Sunday was unpleasant for both sides and, unless you were actually there, we will never get yo the bottom of it. Saville took 12 years to form an opinion of what was happening without anybody shooting at him whereas the Paras had about 12 seconds. Confusion reigned and with a mindset that they were going to be attacked fired at anyone they thought might be hostile. Had Saville been there at the time he may well have formed a different opinion as to what the Paras should have done.

Though I agree with you Benny on that if you are fighting a war, then you should fight to win, a couple of points on the Belgrano

1) Its was the USS Phoenix, and it survived Pearl Harbour but its combat value in 1982 would have been nil (unless of course it got close enough, but it was being tracked by Conqueror, so it wouldn't have

2) An exclusion zone that allows us to attack inside it was declared, the Belgrano was outside it.

We made the rules (wrongly, we should have made the exclusion zone just outside Argentine territorial waters then there couldn't have been any argument) and broke them.

So mid 1960s onwards sectarian violence against Catholics gets really bad so what do you do?

A - send in humanitarian aid and try to reform and put an end to prejudice

B- send in troops (who the catholic minority already think are the enemy) who are likely to side with the people committing the violence

C - Something else.

(this is not about subsequent terrorism it's about the civil rights issues only and how not to go about dealing with civil rights issues)

All this over a disagreement about which end of the egg to eat from.

Bin Ont Turf wrote:I don't think someones transported ancestors 3/400 years ago to Ireland, is a justifiable reason for terror and murder in the 1970's.

If you go far enough back then you'll find that some Irish people (however they weren't called Irish or Catholics then) transported themselves to Scotland.

I don't defend anybody who kills for politics but the fact is Ireland was partitioned because of the protestants in what became NI and they came from Scotland.
As with the Palestinians all Sinn Fein want is their country back.
Both causes are just. Their methods are not.

Apart from feeding Hampsteadclarets own fervent self loathing and hatred of anything British what in holy hell has the Belgrano sinking got to do with the former IRA chief of staff?

Plucking facts and wholesale copy and paste from wiki does little to hide your general ignorance of the troubles HC. To offer to list every catholic death at the hands of British forces on a public forum ( to justify your own sordid beliefs) is both disgusting, blase and hugely disrespectful.

You're not discussing a crap ex player or Owen Coyle you're talking about a former IRA chief of staff responsible both directly and indirectly for multiple deaths of British civilians and forces personnel. Yet you appear astounded that emotions should run high when a coward and a murderer is being discussed.

It's far too early to truly assess McGuinness' historical role in what were troubled times.
I couldn't personally defend his actions during the "war", but I had no time for Paisley either. On the other hand both these 2 achieved something that no-one else had done for centuries, and brought relative peace and prosperity to the troubled island.
To put it in some sort of context, people's views of Nelson Mandela have greatly changed over the past 50 years. He also led a violent protest for civil rights against the authorities, (for a cause that the vast majority now believe in). His violent past resulting in many deaths is rarely if ever mentioned nowadays.

Thanks Benny.

I know that the British Army was initially sent over to protect the Catholic population from Protestant attacks.
That situation quickly deteriorated as you know.

The GB was not a significant threat...it was trying to escape from the area as fast as it could recognising superior British naval power....I would have thought that a warship steaming quickly towards an opponent, or trying to escape the other way was VERY RELEVANT.

Mrs Thatcher did not wish it to escape..the massively unpopular Prime Minister saw a Falklands victory as an opportunity to restore her popularity at home, and the Argies running away was not part of that plan. Thatcher gave the order to sink it, and onwards we went.

Revisionism you say...that is funny really. For you to suggest that, you would have had to know me since 1982 and viewed my change in thinking on this one from close-up....unfortunately Benny I don't think we've ever met.
I can honestly say that my views on the Falklands War have barely changed since that war took place..there has been no revisionism from me.

1] see the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gl ... e-16119332" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2] the Argentinians will get the Falklands back in the next 50 years.



**You say..'seem to hate the UK and it's forces.'

This is completely wrong.. 100%...do you believe that..?

I am a proud Burnleyite, Lancastrian, Englishman and Brit.
This applies generally,...culture, music, films, our food and drink, the National Parks, literature, the arts and so on but particularly in sports.

I have total respect for our armed forces...they just get on with their task, no matter how difficult the job is. Any negativity that you spot is nearly always directed at the politicians.

What I am not keen on, is the way we lecture other countries around the world on how to run their affairs and their economies..always sticking our nose in, as if we are superior and as if we know best..telling everyone else how to do it - we generally can't wait to act as the USA poodle, jumping into action alongside them at the earliest opportunity The Empire has largely gone, we have been booted out of a number of places where we used to rule, and there will be more of that. We should be a bit more invisible imo.

Sorry..gone off the OP topic.

46..lakesclaret..looks like I got under your skin with my earlier post.
That was wholly intentional.

Where you say..'hatred of anything British' please see the end of post 48 for clarity.

You say..'To offer to list every catholic death at the hands of British forces on a public forum ( to justify your own sordid beliefs) is both disgusting, blase and hugely disrespectful.

mmmm - you'll have to show me clearly where I did this..?
If you think that I meant this anywhere, then your minimalism goes deeper than I thought.


The problem with the Ireland issue that I always have is the bias that is always on view [in my opinion]..we do not look at it with an open mind..there are two sides to this story but many people only have one version in their heads.
- you can see that on this thread with some of the comments about McGuinness anf Gerry Adams....but Thatcher was OK when she gave the order to sink the Belgrano.

nil_desperandum makes a good point about Nelson Mandela in post 47.

One final point; on 1st May 1982 Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered his fleet to search out and launch a 'massive' attack on the task force the following day. This message was intercepted and, as a consequence, the 'Rules of Engagement' were changed. The fact that the General Belgrano was steaming away is therefore irrelevant as all Argentinian ships had become a legitimate target. Wether you agree with that is also irrelevant as it happened and the winners write history, so appreciate it as such and move on.