"Arguably"???

Was Kelly really in breach of his license or was Hain made a fool of by locking up Kelly and then releasing him again after the statement. It would seem that the pro-consul (to use Brian Feeney's great term) has only succeded in pissing off republicans by locking him and pissed off loyalists by letting him go.
Quel Spa?

Yes, David, as in "it is reasonable to propose".

Jeremy

One point, technically Kelly was released just prior to the statement being issued.

peteb,

"Reasonable" as in to assume anything other would require self-delusion on a scale one can only find amongst the pro-Agreement brigade.

A Secretary of State trying to defend a blatant display of double standards to appease the Republican Movement. Shurely Shume Mistake.

The republican movement get enticements for any movement. Unionism get a lecture about how the world works and how they are gonna have to lump it (after they claim they have listened to our concerns of course).

Anyone remember Mo Mowlam promising at the King's Hall that she would try and address the concerns of those who voted NO. Same bull, different face.

As usual, from David Vance, a couple of one-line dismissals of anything he deems to be against his peculiarly right-wing view of how his 'Ulster' should be run. No argument, just one-line 'slags'. It's amazing. For a man who normally takes quite a robust and voluble stance toward Nationalist/Republican transgressions in the law and order field, he seems to have been remarkably coy with regard to the mayhem on Belfast's streets perpetrated by those most loyal subjects of HMQ - the 'Loyal' Orange Order, 'Loyalist' paramilitaries, et al, who, for 'God and Ulster', have been actually photographed in their attempts to eliminate members of those same institutions they claim to support - police and RIR. What has happened, David? Did the verbal athletics of Johnny McQuaid, Sammy Adair, Dawson Bailie - those role models of articulate Ulster - freeze your tongue?

Plum Duff,

Here's a beginner's course in condemnation for the hard of thinking. It may assist you in framing more coherent responses to my comments.

1. I condemn ALL terror groups. (In detail, at length, daily, on ATW)

2. I condemn ALL who resort to street violence. It is an abomination in a democratic society.

3. I condemn ALL who insist on elevating the apologists for IRA violence into Government and then smugly declare that "violence doesn't pay" Mr Hain falls into that camp.

The evidence is that violence does pay, and pay big time, when one is dealing with moral equivocaters and appeasers such as successive British Governments. Pointing this out seems to annoy Republican apologists who like to pretend that three and a half decades of carnage never hapened - tough.

Further, not sure where your little hang up on the term "Ulster" comes from -it's not one I employ with any frequency.

Finally, my tongue is far from frozen but your common sense is evidently in deep chill. Perhaps the heat from the street may warm it up?

David, I think you mean pro-agreement - with a lower-case "a".

Thank you, David Vance, for your clarification. And let's put my cards on the table as well. I am not an apologist for Republican violence. I abhor and condemn violence from wherever it comes - State, Loyalist, Republican or from low-lifes of the ODC (sic) kind who violate the property and persons of old folk, etc, etc, etc.

My problem lies with Unionist apologists who, over the years, have perpetrated the myth that Loyalist/Unionist violence was merely reactive to that carried out by Republicans. And it can clearly be seen in the responses to the recent Loyalist/Unionist violence from the various Unionist leaders (again, sic!) where, rather than condemn the outrages outright and where, for a change, they couldn't lay blame on Republicans, pleaded for understanding and sympathy for their misguided electorate. It was all due to their lack of education, the loss of the watchtowers, the disbanding of the RIR - you name it. Oh, my bleeding heart!

No 'A' levels? - let's petrol bomb the police. No security on the border? - let's torch a score of cars. No RIR? - let's burn a pensioners' bus and rob them. If it wasn't so serious, it would be ridiculous.

I'm not sure what that last remark about 'the heat from the street' means. It seems to me to be slightly sinister and in conflict with what you said previously.

And, finally, apologies to all for being 'off' the original topic.