Domitianus

I think you make a number of good points there Santerme. Incidents don't happen in a vacuum and, whilst I think we agree the individual actions of soldiers on the ground were unacceptable, there should also quite rightly be a finger pointed at those at a higher level who tried to 'police' or control a public order situation in a modern democracy with a mentality that seemed to come straight out of 'Zulu'. As you quite rightly point out, 1st Batt of the Paras are a hard-nosed, highly-aggressive force not well suited at all to a policing role. The British Army had already taken casulaties over the previous weeks and months and a senior military commander (can't remember who) had already expressed his dissatisfaction that British soldiers had been taking abuse and attacks from rioters like "Aunt Sallies". I think there is little doubt that a number of units were ready to unleash a lot of frustrtion and that should have been appreciated higher up. THe police commander of Derry realised this and was strongly opposed apparently to the Paras being deployed. Also worth remembering the frustrations of the people of the Bogside. The Civil Rights Association grew out of frustration about grave, institutionalised anti-Catholic discrimination in the apparatus of state (and I speak as a Protestant so have no axe to grind) and this was exaccerbated by the introduction of internment which was almost exclusively used against Nationalists. Many families had sons, husbands, brothers etc arrested and put in internment camps for indeterminate periods of time with no indication of what they were supposed to have done or right to challenge their detention. CRA marches had been attacked many times by Loyalists (often with the police standing by) and Nationalists had sealed off the Bogside as a result of sectarian attacks by the official police force, the RUC. THen the government had banned marches so the Nationalists felt that their avenue of legitimate protest was already being closed to them. Tempers and feelings were clearly at fever pitch on both sides. Responsible political and military command at a higher level should have been seeking to depotentiate the situation rather than exaccerbating it by sending in military units that were trained for highly aggressive action that was bound to provoke further conflict. The law makes it clear that every individual soldier is accountable for every bullet he fires, so the individual responsibility remains. You are quite correct in pointing out that an appreciation of the larger system is also useful to cpnsider. I am glad that lessons were learnt at the time. I think it's a crying shame that those lessons were learnt in private so to speak, behind closed doors,whilst the official version via Widgery was that there really was nothing significant to be learnt. If the Widgery Report had admitted what we all now know and had clearly set out a need for urgent reform I think that the impact of Bloody Sunday would have been less than it was.

I was born and bred in Northern Ireland and was a toddler at the time of Bloody Sunday. Technically, although not political or religious myself, I came from the 'other side' of the community from the victims on Bloody Sunday. Nonetheless I don't think there has ever been any doubt in the minds of anyone I have ever spoken to that Bloody Sunday was an inexcusable massaacre and that the Widgery Report was a shameful and shoddy document that should never have seen the light of day. No-one in Northern Ireland, Protestant or Catholic, Republican or Loyalist, was served by the actions of the British Army that day or by Widgery's discredited findings. The distrust of government and state that was generated at that time drove hundreds into the arms of the paramilitaries and was a catalyst for many more years of violence and hurt on all sides. Nor, ironically, was the Parachute Regiment served. A distinguished regimental history was badly smeared that day and members of the Parachute Regiment were particualrly prized targets for the IRA over the subsequent years. The equally inexcusable murder of 18 Paras at Warrenpoint was cause for considerable celebration by the IRA as much for the identity of the victims as for the number killed. I would like to make a few specific points. 1. I accept that being a soldier in a highly charged situation is stressful and split-second decisions often need to be made. It is equally clear, however, that many of the shots fired were calculated, intended and discharged at people who posed no threat whatsoever. Furthermore the shooting continued over time. The law requires that soldiers only engage clearly identifiable gunmen or people posing an immediate threat to life. None of the victims came even close to being in this category. Many of them were running or crawling away and one was shot whilst lying on the ground, already shot and dying. 2. If the soldiers were placed in a situation where they felt stressed and under threat (a big 'if' in my book) that was the fault of the officer on the ground who ordered them into the Bogside despite receiving orders not to enter that area for the very reason that threat and conflict was possible. 3. The lad who was found to have nail bombs in his pocket? I fully believe he was carrying those and I doubt they were planted afterwards. Bottom line - he should not have been carrying them and he was guilty of a crime. The fact remains, however, that when he was shot the soldiers had absolutely no idea he was carrying nail bombs. He was running away and was NOT shot due to the contents of his pockets which the Paras were then unaware of. As far as they knew his pockets might have contained nothing but tissues, his house key and a bar of chocolate. All the other victims appear to have been completely unarmed. 4. I fully agree that forgiveness is the only way forward and I am delighted to see the progress that my province has made over the last decade or more. Forgiveness can only come, however, when crimes have been acknowledged and brought to light. As long as the Widgery findings were the state's offical version of events and innocent victims were officially labelled as being the orchestrators of their own deaths, it would have been too big an ask for people to forgive that. I believe that the Saville Report, as long and expensive as it has been, has lanced a boil in the Ulster soul and drained away a poison that lurked there. I believe that after the initial grumblings from some quarters it will constitute a watershed moment, a coming to terms with the past in a mature way and will allow a great deal of healing to take place. As I said, I am no enemy of the army. I have friends who were soldiers and police officers in Northern ireland and who behaved with great heroism and humanity whilst serving. I went to school in the centre of Belfast when the troubles were still active and often had to divert my way home due to bomb scares or actual explosions. My belder brother was first on the scene on his University campus after two police officvers on foot patrol were blown up by a hidden bomb. One of his best friends was in a phone booth yards away when the bomb went off and she was showered with glass. You can imagine the state of her family who she was phoning at the time. He told me that his abiding memory of that incident was the fact that one of the dead policemen's beard was on fire. ANother time he was held hostage in his student digs while the IRA used the house as a look out post for a bomb ambush which fortunately they aborted. No-one is saying that the Paras on Bllody Sunday were the only bad guys but the event was so impactful that it has remained in memory for a long, long time. There has been sin and suffering on both sides - now perhaps there can be salvation.

Are we allowed to call people Stalinist? IMHO Stalin was probably worse than Hitler but he won the Second World War so no-one got to slag him off.

Am sure all the replies above have done the options to death but I fly frequently and either take 185 to Victoria then Gatwick Express or Peckham Rye to London Bridge, then Liverpool Street, then Stansted.

Le Chandalier seems to be doing ok!

sillywoman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I was in the shop once when he refused > > to refund a customer for some sort of faulty > goods > > - he insisted that the chap return it to the > > manufacturer even though the customer quite > > rightly pointed out that his contract was with > the > > shop. > > Oooh, that might have been me. Was it 12 years > ago? I stood my ground though & threatened trading > standards. He gave me the refund though he made > his cowed looking lady assistant give it to me > from her personal purse (!! what was that about?). > Then he banned me from his shop forever. It hasn't > really had a negative impact on my life, but I'm > glad to see the nasty little man go finally. Twas much more recent than that Sillywoman so obviously he hasn't learnt his lesson.

I am inclined to agree that the proprietor was his own worst enemy. I never had a problem with him personally but always got the sense that I was never more than a moment away from some sort of patronising or offensive comment. There was a little of the Basil Fawlty about his attitude in the sense that being a shop owner would be wonderful if only one didn't have to deal with riff-raff. I was in the shop once when he refused to refund a customer for some sort of faulty goods - he insisted that the chap return it to the manufacturer even though the customer quite rightly pointed out that his contract was with the shop.

i*Rate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot, > > I really admire your eloquent argument on this > issue - but you've put and extra 'e' in > unbelievable. > I get sick of the noise at times, but I like plane > spotting. > > ANORAKS OF THE WORLD UNITE! > > Incidentally; I'd love to see BA collapse, just to > see their greedy, pompous, arrogant directors lose > their jobs. But of course we all know that most of > the ordinary staff would probably end up jobless > for some time and suffer hardship. Meanwhile, > Willy and his pals will get new high-power jobs > from their mates in the City. That's the world we > live in today. And such an event would, of course, make you feel better about your own achievments and place in the world? Why do I detect bitterness and envy in your post?

Here's an idea - if these twats are being paid commission for the number of tickets they issue, let's introduce a 'negative marking scheme'. In other words they get their pay docked ?5 or something for every ticket they issue improperly and that is subsequently overturned on appeal. It might encourage them to be a bit more diligent in future instead of ticketing everything and hoping for the best! Anyone care to join a petition on the subject? Could James Barber perhaps comment?

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not to mention cigarettes during those insomnia > spells. What a wonderful opportunity you have been gifted to tackle your smoking and insomnia issues.

Folks, Go to Hounslow, spend a few hours walking around the streets there and then come back and complain. When I canvassing door-to-door there some years ago you would literally have to stop talking to people on their own doorstep for about 30 seconds ever few minutes as a plane came in and it was literally impossible to hear someone a few feet away from you. Once plane had passed, conversation could resume, until the next plane. What we get in ED is NOTHING compared with some areas and I continue to be amazed that anyone is surprised to get airplane noise when you live in a major city.

PandG Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have just moved into SE22 and enjoyed a > blissful few days when the planes weren't flying - > now we have Heathrow inbound running flights down > over our road, Heathrow outbound over the next > road up the hill and very low City airport planes > flying in over the hosue in the gaps when Heathrow > planes are queing further out ! Is it us, is there > a problem or not in East Dulwich with plane > noise? > > P and G How exactly did this manage to come as a surprise to you? I am sorry but I am gobsmacked by the OP!!!

Again, all of this is interesting but IMO no amount of debate about whether individuals are hard up, destitute, should have known better, can't speak the language etc etc, alters the fact that taking over another person's property and using it without permission is morally abhorrent. Any government that had guts would introduce legislation that squatting become illegal and that property owners have the right to use any reasonable force to expel them from their premises. In fact, I would welcome any government move to make the act of squatting a criminal offence and give police the right to remove squatters from a building instantly and prosecute them. Btw, I am not sure if the spokesperson for the GGT answered my question as to how they had gained access to the house in the first place. I don't plan to trawl back over a dozen pages but did anyone see an answer?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cate: > > > Why would they think it is OK to make > > a new prosperous life in a place where you don't > > > speak the language? Hopefully the message has > got > > through now. > > Something no Briton would ever consider, right? Reminds me of a time many moons ago when I worked for a charity based in Belfast. The Director, a ghastly woman who allowed her politics to permeate the workplace once declared, whilst drunk, her objection to English people moving over to Northern Ireland and taking Irish people's jobs!!! The irony of her statement seemed lost on her.

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have Irish relatives and friends who emigrated > to the US and the Caribbean. They did not work in > low paid jobs for long. > > I think the Irish you are talking about doing > badly paid menial jobs are a good generation or > two away. People who would be in their seventies > or eighties now. From what I saw a lot of them > had terrible alcohol problems and were quite > possibly their own worst enemies. I am also > guessing that they weren't as well educated as > recent economic migrants from Ireland are. By > recent I mean the Seventies and Eighties. After > the Irish economy took off there were far less > Irish needing or wanting to come over. > > The reason I brought this up in the first place > was because the GGT mentioned that there were > Polish people living in the squat because they > didn't get paid very much. Then you tried to > align Irish immigration with that and I believe > that the language difference means that it is not > comparable. > > I never saw signs forbidding Irish people in B&Bs > although I understood that they existed. Black > people were also forbidden. Wasn't that in the > Fifties and Sixties? Obviously that would be > illegal now. What difference does language make in terms of whether it is right or not to squat in other people's property? If an Englifh speaker moved to Germany or France or Greece would they therefore be entitled to squat? Furthermore, do we know that these polish people don't speak ENglish? I know many Polish people with superb English. Pop into any number of places on LL.

None of the posts about homelessness or financial hardship or destitution or whatever make the slightest bit of difference IMO. The owner of a property is the owner of a property and whatever he/she decides to do with it is up to him/her (as long as it doesan't actively harm others of course). If those putting forward the homelessness/social conscience-type argument really believe that entitles people to use other people's belongings as they see fit - let me ask you a question. Do you have a spare room, piece of floor, couch etc in your own home that a homeless person could sleep on? That would be better than sleeping on the street, even if it isn't high luxury? If you do, how would you feel if a homeless person turned up on your doorstep, demanding the right to sleep in your house because there was sleeping space available that you weren't fully using? I doubt you would be very happy. WHat would you say if they pointed out that they needed shelter and you weren't using that box-room or corner of the lounge anyway?

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > its not like stealing a car though is it. Theyre > not going to sell it on. Its more borrowing.And I > mean that as an analogy by the way. I wasnt suggesting that the hypothetical car was being 'stolen'. I was saying it was being used without the owner's consent simply by virtue of the fact that the owner wasn't him/herself actively using it. Whether or not the person taking the vehicle intended to leave it back afterwards or not is irrelevant. If you think that it is ok in principal for someone to access and use someone else's possessions simply because the owner isn't actively using them at that point in time (which effectively is what happens with squatting), then logically you are obliged to extend the same principle to all possessions. If you balk at doing so you are clearly sensing something wrong with the basic moral principle. If that is so...why is squatting acceptable? I wonder if these squatters would be very happy if I sneaked into their squat, took their laptop and borrowed it for a few days if they were away at a music festival or something? I bet they would kick off like h**l! Yet, morally, I would be applying exactly the same principle they are using to justify squatting.

May I apologise for my mother's behaviour. She doesn't get out much.

Bottom line is, as far as I am concerned, if I own something (a house or anything) it is entirely up to me to decide what I do with it. If I want to leave it empty - so be it. That is my right. If I chose to leave my car parked in my driveway for a considerable period of time without using it, would someone else be entitled to come along, use it, drive around in it and treat it as there own and justify the fact on the grounds that they had replaced the brake-pads, topped up the oil and generally avoided crashing it? Of course not. Why should houses be different? I have always found the notion of squatting intrinsically morally repugnant - simply because of the act of theft that is implicit in the act.

goosegreenteam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, we know who the owner is. > > It is quite cheeky but i get your point. the > majority of us are studying full time and are > pretty much broke and currently all our funds are > being drained by the resources we need to make the > house liveable. > > We will have to see how we are approached by the > owners, if they are forcefull and agressive then > we will be less reluctant to cooperate. > > We have quite alot of rights, if you are intersted > and want to read up more about squatting visit: > http://www.squatter.org.uk/ > > Thanks for your interest > The Goose Green Sqautters. x How did you get into the building in the first instance?

now we can hear the wonderful sound of the traffic

My understanding of the situation (which I do not pretend is authorative or current) is that squatters are not allowed to break into a property to occupy it. Equally, they are not allowed to occupy the propertry if that prevents the owner from using it for its proper purpose. e.g. someone cant squat in your house if it prevents you living in it. Am I near the mark anyone?

Can someone please take a pic of this women on their phone and publish it on here? Would help folk to know what she looks like and if someone spots her the police might be able to scoop her.

Whole load of people killed on Barry Road (or was that last year?)

Where is Fireman's Alley please?