I like this

No. You don't have to accept my point. I would hope that you would appropriate it at face value rather than invent a different narrative.

 

Thanks for your critique. I'll take it on board.

However having already explained why it would be wrong to make that assertion before the point was even made, I was surprised that Pud would then make that suggestion.

Pud is wrong because the fact that the hunger strikers came from more than one protesting group is no accident. That these men came from the IRA and INLA was by design to highlight that this was not an "IRA thing", rather about the issue of the criminalisation and treatment of Republicans. This is well documented.

The song is about those men. So when Pud made the assertion that this is about the IRA, he is wrong. It is not about disagreeing with his opinion, it is a fact that he is wrong.

 

Yes.

I drive through Dungiven, home town of Kevin Lynch, 5 days a week.

Most weekends i drive past the home area of Micky Devine.

It is quite obvious that people acknowledge the difference.

 

@officialcharts: Second new entry of the week at No.33, Roll of Honour by Irish Brigade.

My radiators are fine.... My boiler is ****ed.

 

I don't know how to answer that question. Because I don't see how it can be relevant. I'll have a go though if you will indulge me.

Apart from the complete and utter a sense of a guilty mind, in effecting this legislation, we talk of a reasonable person. I suspect this is "average Joe".

We are talking about criminalising people for singing the Roll of Honour. I would think it reasonable to suggest that "average Joe" wouldn't be offended by the lyrics.

I think it reasonable to suggest average Joe wouldn't be offended by the subject of the song.

I think reasonable for that to be as far as any expectation in seeking a prosecution under this ****ty legislation can go. That is where it should end. For anything beyond that is not reasonable.

But no. The crown want to extend that further to add an extra layer to that to the point that Pud is presenting. This is already in unreasonable territory. There is zero hope of getting a safe conviction in these circumstances. None whatsoever. And a man from your background knows this to be true.

This brings me to your question of whether average Joe would care if there is a difference. If average Joe is representative of a "reasonable" person and is being relied upon to convict people for singing this song, then absolutely they should care about what the song is about. I still don't know what you are getting at with average Joe caring if there is a difference between INLA and IRA, but this rests in the same territory. If you are going to convict, you need to be sure..... Under this law, you just can't.

In any case, the other mandatory part of this act is that the "offensive act" must be likely to incite public disorder. I would contend that given that the song has been sung by Celtic supporters for the best part of 30 years with zero public disorder that this part of the offence cannot be satisfied either.

 

Mine is only 5 years old. ****ing thing is ****ed.

We have oil here. I never heard of such a think in Londonshire. It's probably easy to fix. Something they teach kids in school or some **** but poor old me knows **** all.