And, of course if they had withdrawn from the area and the GAA club had gone up in smoke, who would've been to blame?

Why can no one in the South or London challenge S.F. on their blatant and irresponsible manipulations of their own community?
I know the answer by the way,
but it just makes it even worse.

Paul hit on something.

SF's control in communities is akin to that of a paramilitary force in working class estates. I live in a loyalist working class estate and see instances when people prefer to go to paramilitaries when you have the odd child molester etc. moved into the area.

My area is bordered by a republican waste land and we are sometimes attacked with golf balls, bricks, lumps of metal etc from the 'other' side.

When this happens the paramilitaries gather and mediate/retaliate, whatever the situation requires in their eyes.

My point in all of this is that when trouble flares in my area it is rare to see and elected representative (unionist) on the ground at the material time. I do not necessarily think that this is a 'bad' thing. Police usual are responsible for dealing with public order. But something else I read into it is that unionist politicians on the whole tend not to thrive of inter communal tensions (with the exception of serious warfare - cluan place, north belfast etc.)

What I can see is that SF take on the role of paramilitaries, eg. the forces of law and order, judicial authority - just plain authority, in nationalist/republican areas.

This level of control, for control is what it is, not influence or being close to the ground, is in my view totally fascist with tints of socialist cohesion and introspection.

The only problem with this method - when we see that you can turn estates into 100% SF voting blocks, recruiting ground for SF/IRA, organise a riot when you want - is that sometimes, afetr organising a tightly knit sub-polity, control can sometimes be lost. Eg. Ardoyne on occasions.

The way in which areas are communised (is that a word???), I feel, is totally irresponsible and goes against the grain of an individualist and pluralist democratic society. People are not cattle, and should not be hearded as such. Fed on a diet (and I am certainly not tarring a religion or section of NI society with one brush, I am speaking in general terms) of sectarianism, historical narritive of struggle and sacrifice etc., people can be moulded (stalinist style).

I know my point is not well made but if you follow, I would like to know your thoughts on the responsibility on politicians in such arenas. Is it right to create a mob? Do these people need to have their views represented or do they need to be molded so that representatives can acquire the mandate and put forward the views which they are seeking to put forward whether their voters care about them or not???

I don't think SF control is like paramilitary control - it is paramilitary control.

The problem is that if the IRA really do fade away, so too will SF's control/influence, call it what you like.

Could it be that Lurgan and Ardoyne are examples of could happen on a wider scale in the future? As the IRA fades into insignificance the SF grip loosens, and communities that are used to being 'herded' by SF/IRA start to look for other shepherds in the CIRA or other 'dissidents' who seem more than happy to take over?

If you create a monster it is always a possibility that you will lose control. Perhaps this is a different dimension to SF's concern over policing and justice? Their irresponsible behaviour in creating a mob, in my view does not entitle them to any special concessions in policing and justice, but I can see their difficulty.

I suppose as society comes together (if it ever will, sometinmes I thin k that we are further apart than ever), it will be 'our' problem - socvieties. At the minute these areas are beyond wider societies influence.

I do think that the Catholic faith as practiced in thisa country and the gaelic identity does lend itself to usurption.

To be honest, I am not even sure how such a prickly issue can be tackled. Sometimes all people have is their community and a shared sense of deprivation and/or suffering/ persecution. It would take some honest and benevolent leadership to lift people out of this perdiciment, but then again, what party or political force would benefit from this???

I suppose someone somewhere will always have a use for a rent a mob, and when you are trying to maintain control over an area, it doesn't pay to try to loosen your grip on the power base.

A sorry situastion indeed. For the lenght of time it has taken to forge such a scenario, it is difficult to imagine anything else emerging for generations.

Sorry. To answer your point - I do now think that the mob has developed it's own identity of forever lawless, beyond societal influence - SF could be swallowed by the monster it created.

Yes. There is a real risk that the mob will flock to whoever fits their identity best, and influence can shift in such circumstances.

A worrying prospect. But looking down the line, we may at least have SF's influence batting on societies side???

Who knows, for now (given the original post's story) it seems they're more concerned with trying to show how they're still the hard men and still rebels by laying the blame for everything and anything with the police.

At least someone likes me :}

I don’t think we could hit on an accurate conception of the damage S.F. do on a broad social scale in these wee comments.........
However if you accept (as I do) what Orlaith is saying about 'Stalinisation' or the huge degree of peer pressure/ mob control exerted in certain communities,
Then surly this phenomenon could be observed in the behaviour of individuals in these areas...........
Attacking the police when their trying to defuse a bomb outside one of 'your buildings' (i.e. a G.A.A. clubhouse or whatever they are called) seems to me the most near at hand example of the destructive influence of S.F. and their romancing of violence has upon the individual or a group of individuals.
What I’m saying is that even if we get every person who is complicit in social control or violence and put them on the moon we're still going to have generations of brutalised thugs.
Appeasing S.F. won’t solve this and it strikes me as one of the most glaring failures of the peace process, in that you (*fingers crossed*) remove the guns but make no effort to remove or even undermine those who inoculate the combatants......
Indeed the two governments seem more intent on legitimising those who have destroyed the communities they represent.

As Gerry would say "We need to decommission mindsets."

Agreed. Good debate. Something for the politicians of tommorrow to start thinking about.

Once you remove conflict, what do you do with a country full of combatants? - applies to loyalists et al...

Paul: I am afraid that Orlaith is a name of convenience. I am not five ft something, sexy, nor female. Better luck next time ;-)

LOL oh god now I'll get even more people hitting Everything Ulster when they're searching for pics of 'yer woman' from Big Brother whose name I dare not speak.

What I mean is the whole thing could go much better, bringing people together and tackling the trauma and mistrust in our communities if the party of confrontation would just 'go away, you know'
- Popularity is not morality or proof that you’re a legitimate or benevolent group -
and if 'objective' parties made more of an effort to challenge Gerry in his own backyard maybe his control would not be so absolute as we think, the free hand their given to impose their version of events is scary - and we must ask ourselves what 'responsible' Nationalist politicians, who these communities might (just) listen to, (i.e. those good men in the Dail) have to gain (or lose) by not taking the Sinners to task........

Damn ! that was my best smoothie-man line as well, oh dear!
(it was of course a platonic gesture)
*wipes slobbers off key board*
you dont think id be the kinda guy who'd go in for a dolly bird like "yer woman" do you?
(i feel sorry for her , she must be getting some stick you know)