10 Responses to “I thought that war finished years ago…”

1. The war in Ireland was finished years ago… thanks in no small part to the efforts of Mr Adams.

   Bob Piper said this on June 5th, 2006 at 7:20 pm

2. standard little England rubbish.

   the reason we are where we are in the peace process is because of Messrs. Adams and McGuiness. if we had waited for the Unionsits to blink first we would have waited a long time.

   there’s no doubt that they both have in the past some blood on thier hands. but between them they dragged Republicanism from armalite to ballot box.

   should be guests of honour, not banned! (perhaps thats going too far!)

   Manchester's Finest said this on June 6th, 2006 at 10:07 am

3. The question is: Is it acceptable for the V&A to ban Gerry Adams from its premises?

   Frankly, the V&A can ban who it likes.

   But this case is not so clear cut.

   Adams was originally on the guest list. He was then ‘unaccredited’, not because the ‘war’ is or is not over, not because he is not a personal friend of senior V&A staff (Adams is a personal friend of the exhibition’s curator, Trisha Ziff). No, the official reason Adam was ‘unaccredited’ is because his presence at a Che Guevara event would be neither “relevant [nor] appropriate”.

   It’s not clear why the presence of Adams at an exhibition opening about a political revolutionary is not relevant when other MPs have been invited (perhaps the V&A subscribe to the theory that Adams is in the pay of MI6).

   The V&A was kind enough, however, to elaborate on why the presence of Adams at the exhibition opening was not “appropriate”. The reason it is deemed inappropriate for Adams to attend is that there is a Miss Selfridge-sponsored event on the same evening to be attended by “models and actresses” and to have Mr Adams there “may not be appropriate”.

   This is a quite absurd reason. Whatever you think of Adams, and I think little, he is one of the most glamorous politicians of the modern age. In particular, he appeals to the literati as well as to models and actresses who – though I suspect they prefer his Aran jumper chic to his newfound Tiocfaidh Ar-Mani - are no strangers to rubbing shoulders with the SF Pres.

   The V&A has not banned Adams from visiting the exhibition at a later date. Its attempt to ban for one night only a man with Guevara-esque appeal, on the basis that he will put model-types off, is a farce.

   EW said this on June 6th, 2006 at 11:09 am

4. Yes because Adams and his cronies ARE muderous scum

   S Penketh (Also from manchester) said this on June 6th, 2006 at 11:32 am

5. may i say what a well considered, well argued reposte that was, Mr/Ms Penketh?

   Manchester's Finest said this on June 6th, 2006 at 2:41 pm

6. As I say, the V&A is perfectly entitled to ban whatever category of visitor it wishes, not least murderers.

   That being the case, it would make more sense for the V&A to come clean and ban Adams on the basis that he is a murderer.

   Banning Adams because the V&A – allegedly - reckons Guevara is less relevant to him than to other MPs (not true), or because Adams won’t get on with the Miss Selfridge models (also wrong) is a farce. It also ducks the cold truth that he is a murderer.

   Why is the V&A rushing to make excuses for barring a killer?

   EW said this on June 6th, 2006 at 3:04 pm

7. Is it only appropriate for the V&A to be associated with marxist terrorists once they are dead for 30 years? Guevara was, after all, rather apt to promote killing for his political ends too…

   Dr Maybe said this on June 6th, 2006 at 4:19 pm

8. To anyone who feels the V&A is right to disapprove, try having him and his pals run your kids’ schools for sickening.

   Messrs Adams and McGuiness have indeed made great strides for peace and I don’t wish to demean that work BUT but if it was your friends and relatives that they and a large percentage of their party’s elected representatives had murdered, would they still be so chic?

   Pat McGroin said this on June 6th, 2006 at 7:44 pm

9. they arent chic. its merely saying that i believe in the principal that even the most heinous individuals can make some sort of amends. it doesnt change what they did but how they responded to it is a mark of character.

   also, the irony is mindblowing. are we to remember Che as Gandhi’s even more peaceful brother? its bullshit.

   as ever it shows that you can pick your revoluntionary/murderer, your gang leader/Robin Hood.

   Manchester's Finest said this on June 7th, 2006 at 11:13 am

10. Pat, of course no Miss Selfridge dolly would think the Shinners chic if - like me - they had seen McGuinness single-handedly try to destroy one of Northern Ireland’s greatest assets - its schools.

    I’m sure their view of Adams would also change if the IRA had murdered their close friends and relatives.

    But be under no illusion - the SF leadership’s association with crime does give them a sort of terrible glamour which makes them more appealing to certain sections of society than run-of-the-mill politicians. We may not like that, but we cannot deny it.

    My primary problem with the V&A is the excuse it has used. It implies that the presence of Adams may be a turn off to the Miss Selfridge crowd, yet other political ’suits’ would somehow not.

    This is a lame excuse. That is my problem. It doesn’t mean I am not fighting to try to save my old school. It doesn’t mean I am unaware of or think chic the murderous work of many in the SF hierarchy.

    If the V&A wants to ban Adams from the opening of an exhibition about the political revolutionary Che Guevara because of his association with murder, it should say so directly. Of course, the irony in that would indeed be mindblowing.

    EW said this on June 7th, 2006 at 11:34 am