Great stuff Danny. Now all we need is for Wilson and Gibson to actually turn up.
They probably don't bother with verifying new accounts at times when an an influx of Ireland fans/"beggars"/"trolls" might be likely given a recent FAI-related story breaking in the news or something. Username and IP address might also prove a red light. It's a very strict vetting process.
![]()
DI's detailed, and well researched, analysis of the eligibility issue, stands in stark contrast to this pile of smouldering, bigoted, sectarian, ****e.
http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/06/1...t-in-the-room/
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
I like how he links to Danny's article as if Danny actually agrees with him.
...and how in the same sentence as highlighting ROI fans' good reputation, he drops in the term "Prodestan".
"Smouldering, bigoted, sectarian and ****e" doesn't do it justice NB. It's way worse.
My whole point is that, unlike the assertion made by the Minister, that those of us born in Northern Ireland do not have an "either, or" Nationality.
People born in Northern Ireland are British Citizens - they can also be Citizens of the Republic of Ireland in addition, as of birthright, therefore having Dual Nationality.
FIFA's eligibility rules are based on Nationality.
That is not to be confused with how people choose to identify - either "British" or "Irish", or both.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
Interesting article about player eligibility posted today on Wales Online.
Issue between the WRU and the IRFU about two dual nationals.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbyna...1466-28885563/
What an odd article. It has nothing to do with Faletau, except that he happened to be playing in the relevant game.
I'd say more what an odd headline...
Yeah, spotted that in the comment beneath the piece on my own page and it reads somewhat like a conspiracy theory site. Neil Lennon's treatment and bullets addressed to Lennon intercepted in Mallusk seem to form crucial arguments, but to be fair, it can't be said that other nationalists playing for NI have shared Lennon's experiences of Windsor Park. Well, at least not in the modern day anyway. I don't know what it would have been like pre-Lennon. And isn't the Royal Mail's general sorting office for the UK based in Mallusk, so intercepting them there doesn't necessarily indicate their origin at all?
I may respond to it as I notice a poster on OWC posted the two up at once as well, as if associated. Or would deleting it outright be the way to go? I'd rather strike down an argument in words rather than censor it, if you will. As GR has often pointed out, as long as the FAI can legitimately select players born anywhere on the island, it's somewhat disingenuous to complain about the lack of movement on an all-island team and to try and force the IFA into this. We pretty much have a de facto all-island team where those born north of the border who wish to play for us can play for us. I'd have faith that anyone with a half a brain should be able to distinguish between the two pieces as clearly separate.
I'd also like to write a piece - much shorter, mind - on the eligibility of the likes of Adam Barton, because that's obviously something I haven't touched upon. I just wouldn't have any concrete words or evidence to back such a piece up, nor can I even say with 100 per cent certainty under which article such players would qualify; be it article 15 or article 17. I'd just be speculating really based on FIFA seemingly being OK with it.
first off congrats on the blog, but as i said earlier , the one in the comments section really is embarassing drivil and i fear you would be wasting your time trying to reason with him. Personally I would delete it, as he seems to be trying to link the two . I wouldnt give him the publicity
I've just clarified my own position there and will leave it at that rather than trying to reason. The implied association or agreement - "well-researched article on this subject is here..." - still exists on his own page so at least if people come across my own piece from there and think there's a link between the two pieces, I've left no room for such an assumption.
Edit: I also meant to say cheers all for the supportive words. The response seems to have been overwhelmingly positive. Despite the length, it's clear that people are interested and thankful for the new ideas expressed. If anything, the response is an indictment of how poor media coverage and analysis of the issue has been to date. The length was an obvious worry but at least as more people read it, pick out the main points that mightn't have been aired already in the mainstream media and they're debated, they'll spread.
Nobody on OWC has really had a major go at it yet. It's been described as "very interesting" and the response appears fairly mellow so far.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 16/06/2011 at 8:26 PM.
It probably appears mellow cos they have absolutely nothing to say against it as it is a wonderful treatise on the whole issue.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Bookmarks