 |
| Is it BBC1 or not? |
So digital switch
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
The morning after the night before #BBCNI
Last night BBC Northern Ireland apparently only turned off the signal to BBC2 Analogue. While there was some fear about what would happen to RTE services as part of the switch over it appears the matter is a little closer to home.
Well trying to find anything on the BBC here this morning today you will be hard pressed. I can only get a signal on one station (apparently BBC1) although it appears to be CBeebies and is currently scrambled. Heaven help all those mothers who are having to reconcile toddlers that their favourite programme just isn't available today. So I could not watch David Cameron's speech from my TV. Could not watch the news.
So digital switchover off is going exceedingly well here in Northern Ireland. All those days of disturbances in the force signal in advance of this day obviously eased over all none of the problems that turning off the analogue signal would cause to Freeview viewers. So in two weeks time do I look forward to being in a house with six TV (two Digital ready, four with Freeview boxes) and nothing to be seen on any of them?
So digital switch
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Dear Lord Carey reach for your dictionary
So at the Coalition for Marriage rally on the fringe of the Conservative Party conference the former Archbishop of Canterbury resorted to inferring many involved in the campaign for equal marriage Nazis including the Deputy Prime Minister. He seems to have lost the plot as well as the dictionary when he said in response to the press release that was retracted by Nick Clegg over the word bigot he said:
Now a dictionary definition:
So let me get this straight. Those wanting legislation that allows everyone the right to marry in a civil manner and allows the religious groups that want to do so to also carry out same sex marriage is totalitarian. Isn't treasuring that Christian inheritance to the extent of imposing your will as the only way just that. They have used words such as unnatural, not traditional against same sex marriages. And indeed in the recent debate in Stormont politicians said the idea was 'greedy', in it for 'temporary gain', a threat to 'civil and religious liberties', 'pointless', a 'worthless course', a 'slippery slope'.
The sensible debate about this is that there are some religious groups in this nation that are prepared to carry out same-sex marriages. What has been proposed for England & Wales, in Scotland and was debated here in Northern Ireland was the lifting of the States prohibition on marriage being between a man and a woman only. There was no lifting of the number of people nor the inclusion of a creature of another species in the TWO that would be married. Also in none of the three places this is being discussed is there any requirement on religious groups to carry it out, that is left to the governance of those religious groups separately.
So far from being totalitarian the equal marriage proposals are not centralising all control on this issue.
"Let’s have a sensible debate about this, not call people names. Let us remember the Jews in Nazi Germany. What started against them was when they started to be called names.
Apart from the fact that Lord Carey, like so many others, forgets that the Holocaust included not just the Jews but the gays, there is also the mistaking of what totalitarianism is especially in light of how equal marriage is being discussed and introduced here across the UK.
"And that was the first stage towards that totalitarian state. We have to resist them. We treasure democracy. We treasure our Christian inheritance and we want to debate this in a fair way."
Now a dictionary definition:
to·tal·i·tar·i·an (t-t
l
-târ
-
n)
adj. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed from the Free Dictionary
So let me get this straight. Those wanting legislation that allows everyone the right to marry in a civil manner and allows the religious groups that want to do so to also carry out same sex marriage is totalitarian. Isn't treasuring that Christian inheritance to the extent of imposing your will as the only way just that. They have used words such as unnatural, not traditional against same sex marriages. And indeed in the recent debate in Stormont politicians said the idea was 'greedy', in it for 'temporary gain', a threat to 'civil and religious liberties', 'pointless', a 'worthless course', a 'slippery slope'.
The sensible debate about this is that there are some religious groups in this nation that are prepared to carry out same-sex marriages. What has been proposed for England & Wales, in Scotland and was debated here in Northern Ireland was the lifting of the States prohibition on marriage being between a man and a woman only. There was no lifting of the number of people nor the inclusion of a creature of another species in the TWO that would be married. Also in none of the three places this is being discussed is there any requirement on religious groups to carry it out, that is left to the governance of those religious groups separately.
So far from being totalitarian the equal marriage proposals are not centralising all control on this issue.
- Each religious groups governing body is free to make up its own mind.
- Religious freedom is not being suppressed either by the state or by any other branch of religion.
- Individuals are not being coerced into whom they can marry although the opposite is true as Michelle McIlveen stated during her speech in Stormont:
"Moreover, everyone is free to choose to marry. There is no bar or prohibition on marriage. People are free to marry provided they marry someone who is of the opposite sex."
- Gay people of faith have the right to invite their deity into a marriage which they cannot do in a civil partnership again no suppression of civil or cultural expression
- The Church is seeking control on civil society
- It wants outright control on marriage something it hasn't had since civil marriage was allowed outside of the Anglican Church
- The individual is subordinate to the Churches teachings even those that do not follow those teachings or who view them in a different light
- Opposing political views, even if they allow the churches views freedom, are to be blocked at all costs
Thursday, 4 October 2012
UKIP now has an MLA
In much the same way that UKIP managed to get short lived first representation in the House of Commons and also its three members in the House of Lords so it now has a Member of the Legislative Assembly sitting at Stormont.
Nigel Farage tweeted yesterday "Off to Stormont tomorrow and looking forward to welcoming David McNarry as UKIP's first MLA". So the former Ulster Unionist MLA would appear to set to become the first member of UKIP in any of the devolved Assemblies.
McNarry is a former UUP party whip and ran for the leadership in 2005 when Reg Empey won and he pooled poorly. He was removed as Vice Chair of the Assemblies Education Committee by then leader Tom Elliott, after going to the press about talks with the DUP. He was to have had the whip suspended for a period of nine months but when new leader Mike Nesbitt took over he did envision a return of the whip even after the period of suspension. So in a week when the whole debate about the UUP sleepwalking into unionist unity flares up again one of the earlier whistle blowers is making his own news.
Bizarrely his defection to UKIP comes in the one jurisdiction of the UK that has land boundaries with another European Union member that his new party wants out to step out of. The amount of cross border trade and employment especially in our border regions can only be harmed by a United Kingdom outside of the agreements of the European Union. Yet this is the party that David McNarry has chosen to cosy up to. Also if he has to the £ page as part of UKIPs campaign to safe the pound would have have to avoid any local shops that say €uros accepted here. Just think he couldn't buy a paper at Belfast Central or use all manner of stores.
Bob Spink the only Member of Parliament that UKIP had following his defection from the Conservatives in 2008 only stayed with the party less than five months (including the summer recess) so we wait and see if Mr McNarry lasts as long as a representative of UKIP here in Northern Ireland.
The people of Strangford now after the Iris Rosbinson scandals have a MLA who wants them out of Europe, the leader of the party he has defected from, an Alliance member who cannot bring himself to vote for marriage equality and three members of the DUP representing them.
 |
| David McNarry now of UKIP |
McNarry is a former UUP party whip and ran for the leadership in 2005 when Reg Empey won and he pooled poorly. He was removed as Vice Chair of the Assemblies Education Committee by then leader Tom Elliott, after going to the press about talks with the DUP. He was to have had the whip suspended for a period of nine months but when new leader Mike Nesbitt took over he did envision a return of the whip even after the period of suspension. So in a week when the whole debate about the UUP sleepwalking into unionist unity flares up again one of the earlier whistle blowers is making his own news.
Bizarrely his defection to UKIP comes in the one jurisdiction of the UK that has land boundaries with another European Union member that his new party wants out to step out of. The amount of cross border trade and employment especially in our border regions can only be harmed by a United Kingdom outside of the agreements of the European Union. Yet this is the party that David McNarry has chosen to cosy up to. Also if he has to the £ page as part of UKIPs campaign to safe the pound would have have to avoid any local shops that say €uros accepted here. Just think he couldn't buy a paper at Belfast Central or use all manner of stores.
Bob Spink the only Member of Parliament that UKIP had following his defection from the Conservatives in 2008 only stayed with the party less than five months (including the summer recess) so we wait and see if Mr McNarry lasts as long as a representative of UKIP here in Northern Ireland.
The people of Strangford now after the Iris Rosbinson scandals have a MLA who wants them out of Europe, the leader of the party he has defected from, an Alliance member who cannot bring himself to vote for marriage equality and three members of the DUP representing them.
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
David Ford issues apology for Monday
The leader of the Alliance Party David Ford has issued an apology following the way only half his party voted in line with the party policy on marriage equality on Monday and one actually voted against.
I would also like to apologise to anybody who was unhappy with the outcome of the vote on the Assembly motion on equal marriage. I recognise that many people, particularly those in the LGBT community, are disappointed that not all Alliance MLAs voted in support of the motion. At the September meeting of our Party Council, an overwhelming majority of 81% voted for our policy in support of equal marriage, with robust legislative recognition of the right of churches, faith groups and clergy to opt out of conducting such marriages if that is their wish. It is therefore the formal policy of the party.
Monday's vote reflects the fact that this has been a difficult issue for some party members and elected representatives. The Party will consider the decisions made by its Assembly Members through an internal process, but regardless of last Monday's vote the party policy will remain unchanged.
Notwithstanding what happened on Monday, the party will continue to promote support for its policy at every opportunity, and efforts will continue to persuade those inside the party who have their own concerns with the policy and those in wider society who are opposed to equal marriage.
The DUP*, Equal Marriage and Me
Whilst you may have read that I am upset about the Alliance Party's votes on equal marriage yesterday by far the biggest concern was the attitude of the majority of unionists. The obvious exceptions being Basil McCrea for his words and vote, plus Danny Kinahan and Michael Copeland. I would have expected to see long time friend of LGBT equality John McCallister on that list had he not been otherwise distracted by events yesterday.
Roy Beggs opened his contribution to the debate with the words "I declare an interest as a committee member of Raloo Presbyterian Church." Danny Kennedy also mentioned in his that he had "responsibilities as clerk of session and Sunday school superintendent at Bessbrook Presbyterian Church". I take it their interest came from the letter they received from their church about yesterday's debate and while they may be willing to support fracking and the demolition of the environment, they don't want to take a risk on demolishing society by letter people of the same sex enter into marriage like they have. It is bizarre then that two other Presbyterian Church elders David Ford and Stewart Dickson, both from the Alliance Party, did not feel bound by such advice from their church but voted yes.
Mike Nesbitt says that this is matter of conscience for his party, earlier in the day he had sacked John McCallister for seemingly disagreeing with him on something. So the fact that he is on record as also saying there is no need for Equal Marriage may have swayed a few consciences for the fear of future exclusions.
Of course the main villains of the piece were the the DUP.
For a start they made sure that one of the movers of the motion and the Alliance couldn't affect the outcome from a petition of concern. In other words even if every non-Unionist had voted for the motion there was no way it would pass despite having a majority in the house. Last time I looked the LGBT community in Northern Ireland was catholic and protestant, nationalist and unionist. Our rights are hardly one that will adversely affect either community more than the other.
Then there are three personal stories of DUP elected representatives.
Of the three that represent North Down only one had bothered to write to me on the two occasions I have written to all my six MLAs on the subject of equal marriage. At 9:44 as I was getting off the train at Central Alex Easton sent me this:
That is the full email bar the greeting and salutation at the end. I had linked the issue to the civil and religious freedoms fought far in the Ulster Covenant, both of which were present in this motion. I brought up the cherished rights of equal citizenship and how failing to address LGBT issues left me feeling second class not equal in my own land, yet nothing. No acknowledgement of these concerns.
Another Peter Weir and me have had a long 'dispute' over this since the vote, via Facebook.
He said things such as:
Yeah that would be me again. As I said I got response from any MLA of his party. He went on to say later in the same thread:
Bingo! They you go an admission that they were out to block but also an admission that there is no point writing to the DUP to get them to change their minds about anything. Strange that I wrote to The Rev. Dr. I. K. Paisley many years ago telling him that he was fundamentally wrong to want to work with members of the nationalist or republican communities for the future of a peaceful Northern Ireland. I may have been a naive young student then, especially as I got a letter back saying "I will never enter in talks with IRA/Sinn Fein. You will never see the DUP under my leadership supping at the same table as those terrorists." But that is another story.
There was also another story about after the debate and before the vote while I was getting something to drink in the cafeteria at Stormont. I ran into a DUP MLA who I know would go to the same wedding as me, if not necessarily mine. The reason being that he did invite me to his daughter's wedding when she married a close relative of mine. I was in the queue behind him and said "Hello." He turned around and there was recognition there for a minute his voice started to speak before his eyes took me in more fully and said "Hel......oh, you're one of them!" and turned his back on me walking off. He had looked away from my face and spotted my LGBT+ Lib Dems I'm Liberal badge on its rainbow flag.
Now I am all for the DUP having an opposing view to mine but I'd at least like them to be civil about it, even those that aren't somehow related to me, or have been taught by my mother or taught me. Yeah my DUP connections are too often at first and second degrees of separation.
However, the way they went about things yesterday was far from civil. Sammy Wilson, for it was he who once taught me, said "I do not agree with the Civil Partnership Act 2004....Whether you accept it or believe that it was a correct piece of legislation or not, it encapsulates a range of protections for people who believe that they want to have same-sex relationships." Wow, talk about taking a step into the past. It is almost but not quite as bad as Mrs Robinson's comments. We only believe we want to be in same-sex relationships!
But that is fine according to Miss McIlveen I am free to marry "everyone is free to choose to marry. There is no bar or prohibition on marriage. People are free to marry provided they marry someone who is of the opposite sex." That would really be a bit of an upset for my wife-to-be, as it has been for many who have conformed to societal norms down the years especially before 1982 when it was illegal here to engage in active gay sex between men, to cover their tracks.
But then when you quote 1866 legal precedence against polygamy, not homosexuality, because the 'divorce', as a result of his excommunication from the Church of Later Day Saints,as her first husband was not recognised by law. Well there couldn't be a dodgier piece of marriage legislation to bring up and pin your objections on. When only men could divorce on grounds of unfaithfulness, the whole issue of the Mormon Church back then, and the fact that it was her 'non-Christian' marriage that had fallen apart and didn't allow her to benefit from 'remedies'.
Update Below was the only unionist voice speaking in favour of the motion on Monday from Basil McCrea
* I know the title mentions only the DUP and I start with the UUP but I'd like Mike Nesbitt to be able to tell me and John McCallister just what is the difference these days.
Roy Beggs opened his contribution to the debate with the words "I declare an interest as a committee member of Raloo Presbyterian Church." Danny Kennedy also mentioned in his that he had "responsibilities as clerk of session and Sunday school superintendent at Bessbrook Presbyterian Church". I take it their interest came from the letter they received from their church about yesterday's debate and while they may be willing to support fracking and the demolition of the environment, they don't want to take a risk on demolishing society by letter people of the same sex enter into marriage like they have. It is bizarre then that two other Presbyterian Church elders David Ford and Stewart Dickson, both from the Alliance Party, did not feel bound by such advice from their church but voted yes.
Mike Nesbitt says that this is matter of conscience for his party, earlier in the day he had sacked John McCallister for seemingly disagreeing with him on something. So the fact that he is on record as also saying there is no need for Equal Marriage may have swayed a few consciences for the fear of future exclusions.
Of course the main villains of the piece were the the DUP.
For a start they made sure that one of the movers of the motion and the Alliance couldn't affect the outcome from a petition of concern. In other words even if every non-Unionist had voted for the motion there was no way it would pass despite having a majority in the house. Last time I looked the LGBT community in Northern Ireland was catholic and protestant, nationalist and unionist. Our rights are hardly one that will adversely affect either community more than the other.
Then there are three personal stories of DUP elected representatives.
Of the three that represent North Down only one had bothered to write to me on the two occasions I have written to all my six MLAs on the subject of equal marriage. At 9:44 as I was getting off the train at Central Alex Easton sent me this:
There is no point in me dodging the issue I just don't agree with MLA Steven Agnew's motion on Equal Marriage and will never support it, this does not mean that I would be rude or mistreat anyone and will always try to help everyone that comes to me but on this issue I am unable to help, sorry
That is the full email bar the greeting and salutation at the end. I had linked the issue to the civil and religious freedoms fought far in the Ulster Covenant, both of which were present in this motion. I brought up the cherished rights of equal citizenship and how failing to address LGBT issues left me feeling second class not equal in my own land, yet nothing. No acknowledgement of these concerns.
Another Peter Weir and me have had a long 'dispute' over this since the vote, via Facebook.
He said things such as:
Got just 2 e mails from constituents in favour of gay marriage ahead of the vote. Ironically from 1 man and 1 woman
Yeah that would be me again. As I said I got response from any MLA of his party. He went on to say later in the same thread:
my views wouldn't have changed, and I think that it was a little naive/going through the motions to e mail members of the DUP on the issue when our views are particularly clear, and also after we had put down a petition of concern to block it
Bingo! They you go an admission that they were out to block but also an admission that there is no point writing to the DUP to get them to change their minds about anything. Strange that I wrote to The Rev. Dr. I. K. Paisley many years ago telling him that he was fundamentally wrong to want to work with members of the nationalist or republican communities for the future of a peaceful Northern Ireland. I may have been a naive young student then, especially as I got a letter back saying "I will never enter in talks with IRA/Sinn Fein. You will never see the DUP under my leadership supping at the same table as those terrorists." But that is another story.
There was also another story about after the debate and before the vote while I was getting something to drink in the cafeteria at Stormont. I ran into a DUP MLA who I know would go to the same wedding as me, if not necessarily mine. The reason being that he did invite me to his daughter's wedding when she married a close relative of mine. I was in the queue behind him and said "Hello." He turned around and there was recognition there for a minute his voice started to speak before his eyes took me in more fully and said "Hel......oh, you're one of them!" and turned his back on me walking off. He had looked away from my face and spotted my LGBT+ Lib Dems I'm Liberal badge on its rainbow flag.
Now I am all for the DUP having an opposing view to mine but I'd at least like them to be civil about it, even those that aren't somehow related to me, or have been taught by my mother or taught me. Yeah my DUP connections are too often at first and second degrees of separation.
However, the way they went about things yesterday was far from civil. Sammy Wilson, for it was he who once taught me, said "I do not agree with the Civil Partnership Act 2004....Whether you accept it or believe that it was a correct piece of legislation or not, it encapsulates a range of protections for people who believe that they want to have same-sex relationships." Wow, talk about taking a step into the past. It is almost but not quite as bad as Mrs Robinson's comments. We only believe we want to be in same-sex relationships!
But that is fine according to Miss McIlveen I am free to marry "everyone is free to choose to marry. There is no bar or prohibition on marriage. People are free to marry provided they marry someone who is of the opposite sex." That would really be a bit of an upset for my wife-to-be, as it has been for many who have conformed to societal norms down the years especially before 1982 when it was illegal here to engage in active gay sex between men, to cover their tracks.
But then when you quote 1866 legal precedence against polygamy, not homosexuality, because the 'divorce', as a result of his excommunication from the Church of Later Day Saints,as her first husband was not recognised by law. Well there couldn't be a dodgier piece of marriage legislation to bring up and pin your objections on. When only men could divorce on grounds of unfaithfulness, the whole issue of the Mormon Church back then, and the fact that it was her 'non-Christian' marriage that had fallen apart and didn't allow her to benefit from 'remedies'.
Update Below was the only unionist voice speaking in favour of the motion on Monday from Basil McCrea
* I know the title mentions only the DUP and I start with the UUP but I'd like Mike Nesbitt to be able to tell me and John McCallister just what is the difference these days.
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
Alliance Party censors criticism
One of the stories of yesterday's debate on Equal Marriage (I know there are more but I've yet to work out how to write this up) in the Assembly at Stormont was the non-appearance of three of the eight Alliance MLAs and the vote of one against the motion.
The Alliance are often called the Liberal Democrats sister party here in Northern Ireland and it often comes as a shock to many both in Alliance and the Lib Dems in the rest of the UK that I am not and have not ever been a member. Earlier this year when the Alliance abstained on the issue in Belfast City Council I openly attacked the Alliance Party, the so-called liberal and self-tagged leading change party, for not living up to either of these monikers. I got slapped down in the public forum of Facebook by their MP Naomi Long for not allowing them time to come up with a party policy position.
Since 1 September there has been a party policy position, it actually reads incredibly close to the motion that was up for debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly yesterday, even with the measures to ensure legal protection for faith groups to make their own position on what they should do. While my own MLA voted in favour and I meet my own Alliance Councillor at the demonstration in support for the motion, the party was seen by many to have failed them.
The biggest failing being in the seat that Naomi represents and Stormont actually sits in East Belfast. It returned two Alliance MLAs in 2011 neither of whom, Chris Lyttle and Judith Cochrane, were present to vote on this issue leading change for LGBT equality. Kieran McCarthy from the neighbouring Strangford constituency was also missing. Trevor Lunn the Lagan Valley MLA voted against meaning.
According to Hansard Mrs Cochrane and Mr McCarthy were both in the chamber both before and after this vote, though Mr Lyttle may have been absent from the house on other business. Update Chris Lyttle on Saturday did release a statement saying that ill health and personal reasons kept him from the chamber for a number of key issues including this. While is personal opinion in the tradional one man one woman his elected role gives him pleasure to support the decision of party council.
There was overnight a lot of criticism on the Alliance Party's Facebook page. Today there is none!
It has all been removed, but it hasn't been answered. Those four votes could have brought the vote up to one vote, indeed knowing what was going on behind the scenes those in support of the motion thought it was that close with about half an hour to go and were looking for one or two more votes.
I'm a liberal but I don't think the actions of Alliance this morning are very liberal. It may be that someone at party HQ thought it would in some way help the party to hide all the criticism, it just makes people angry and more sceptical of their party's liberal credentials.
Last night I asked Naomi Long on Facebook:
I too have yet to get a response, but I know some within her party agree with me about this. Update she has since responded saying that her position is that as overwhelmingly endorsed by party council.
Update here is Stephen Farry speaking about this on The Nolan Show this morning.
Update 2 It may well be that the Alliance Party had read this blog post as the wording seems to address this post directly. This afternoon on Facebook they wrote the following.
However, the first comment sums it up, the first is from former Chief Executive of the party Gerry Lynch
The Alliance are often called the Liberal Democrats sister party here in Northern Ireland and it often comes as a shock to many both in Alliance and the Lib Dems in the rest of the UK that I am not and have not ever been a member. Earlier this year when the Alliance abstained on the issue in Belfast City Council I openly attacked the Alliance Party, the so-called liberal and self-tagged leading change party, for not living up to either of these monikers. I got slapped down in the public forum of Facebook by their MP Naomi Long for not allowing them time to come up with a party policy position.
Since 1 September there has been a party policy position, it actually reads incredibly close to the motion that was up for debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly yesterday, even with the measures to ensure legal protection for faith groups to make their own position on what they should do. While my own MLA voted in favour and I meet my own Alliance Councillor at the demonstration in support for the motion, the party was seen by many to have failed them.
The biggest failing being in the seat that Naomi represents and Stormont actually sits in East Belfast. It returned two Alliance MLAs in 2011 neither of whom, Chris Lyttle and Judith Cochrane, were present to vote on this issue leading change for LGBT equality. Kieran McCarthy from the neighbouring Strangford constituency was also missing. Trevor Lunn the Lagan Valley MLA voted against meaning.
According to Hansard Mrs Cochrane and Mr McCarthy were both in the chamber both before and after this vote, though Mr Lyttle may have been absent from the house on other business. Update Chris Lyttle on Saturday did release a statement saying that ill health and personal reasons kept him from the chamber for a number of key issues including this. While is personal opinion in the tradional one man one woman his elected role gives him pleasure to support the decision of party council.
There was overnight a lot of criticism on the Alliance Party's Facebook page. Today there is none!
It has all been removed, but it hasn't been answered. Those four votes could have brought the vote up to one vote, indeed knowing what was going on behind the scenes those in support of the motion thought it was that close with about half an hour to go and were looking for one or two more votes.
I'm a liberal but I don't think the actions of Alliance this morning are very liberal. It may be that someone at party HQ thought it would in some way help the party to hide all the criticism, it just makes people angry and more sceptical of their party's liberal credentials.
Last night I asked Naomi Long on Facebook:
A few months ago you told me off for saying the Alliance Party had failed on Equal Marriage in Belfast City Council vote. You said you needed time to form policy.
Well today one of your colleagues and three of your MLAs were missing in action (including both from your constituency). Can I now say that some of the Alliance Party have failed on this without having my head chopped off?
I too have yet to get a response, but I know some within her party agree with me about this. Update she has since responded saying that her position is that as overwhelmingly endorsed by party council.
Update here is Stephen Farry speaking about this on The Nolan Show this morning.
Update 2 It may well be that the Alliance Party had read this blog post as the wording seems to address this post directly. This afternoon on Facebook they wrote the following.
Earlier today the Alliance Party removed a number of posts containing grossly offensive and obscene language. However due to a miscommunication in the attempt to remove these posts, a number of others were mistakenly taken down and the Party would like to apologise for that oversight. The Alliance Party does not believe in censorship and welcomes constructive debate on our Facebook site.
However, the first comment sums it up, the first is from former Chief Executive of the party Gerry Lynch
I didn't see any offensive language. If there was, it was buried deep in one of two very lengthy comments threads. Is there a problem with admitting you screwed this one up, and can we have an explanation for yesterday's debacle?
Monday, 1 October 2012
Just what is worthless
"...it is a motion that is as pointless as it is a worthless course on which to embark....
"A serious Assembly should concentrate its efforts on finding Northern Ireland solutions to Northern Ireland problems with health, education and, most importantly, with the economy."
So said Danny Kennedy today about the motion in equal marriage. He later lodged a motion to fly a flag on Ulster Day.
I kid you not.
More on the Equal Marriage debate later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)