Afghan hunger strike in St Patricks.

Pal

does anybody seriously believe the Taliban stuff ?

we're not gullible like Yanks.

Heinrich

Pal wrote:

does anybody seriously believe the Taliban stuff ?

we're not gullible like Yanks.

Some here are, unfortunately!

AngryAnderson

Saintly wrote:

Wonderful logic. Can you seriously stand over this?! Only two of these people have reported links to the Taliban, one has definitely (matter of public record) lost his father as a result of Taliban violence. On the basis of this information, you apparently (and correct me if I am wrong), feel that people who believe that the rest of the Afghans were also members of the Taliban can be completely exonerated - due the petty criminal actions of the entire group?!! If you're wicked enough to trespass in a church, you've probably got a murderous streak too, is that it?!!

Correct you if you're wrong? Yeah, you are wrong. And, it would seem, completely thick. WHAT I DID SAY, was that it would be perfectly excusable to expect the worst of these guys because of their criminal actions and inexcusable behaviour and, indeed, what's transpired since. Now we pretty much have confirmation that several of them had links to the Taliban regimen and there are no longer screams of "rrrrraaaaacism" for this assertion anymore. Oh how we liberals like to backtrack :rolleyes:

Saintly wrote:

Honestly, people are just hysterical about this entire thing.

Particularly you it would seem. I've never read such a moronic and out of context rant since that dude who got banned a few pages back.

Saintly wrote:

A group of people make an ill advised protest in a church, it's hardly the first time that's happened. Suddenly, it's Assumption city. 'They abandoned their poor wives and eighteen children!' 'They were in the Taliban, hell they probably ran it!' 'They toured Europe in first class conditions!' 'Funded by their ill gotten gains!!' I keep swaying between annoyed and bemused, can people just get some perspective on this?! Just quit making stuff up, there are plenty of valid points to discuss about the Afghan situation without having to stray into fantasyland.

People were mostly asking questions, not making assertions. The Afghan's circumstances were certainly odd. All male? No women or young kids? Admission to crimes, etc, etc? Hijacking a church and threatening to end it all in a mass orgy of violence. Or should we just take them at their word... oh that's right, they refused to talk about their unique circumstances in most cases. Hmmm.

Saintly wrote:

Says loads, says nothing.

Pal

ahhhh the old Taliban chestnut again.

Terry

Pal wrote:

does anybody seriously believe the Taliban stuff ?

we're not gullible like Yanks.

maybe most of us here imagined the news reports about one of them admitting to being a former taliban official. maybe it was a group dream. yeah. that's it, a group dream.
nobody in this entire thread has once made the assertation that every one of them were members of the taliban.
as for people asking questions about where they came from, what's the problem with that?
are we to admit everyone who comes knocking at our door, or is it racist to do a background check on people entering our country?
they have already shown that they have no regard for the asylum procedure. taliban or not, they are not good people.

Saintly

AngryAnderson wrote:

Correct you if you're wrong? Yeah, you are wrong. And, it would seem, completely thick. WHAT I DID SAY, was that it would be perfectly excusable to expect the worst of these guys because of their criminal actions and inexcusable behaviour and, indeed, what's transpired since. Now we pretty much have confirmation that several of them had links to the Taliban regimen and there are no longer screams of "rrrrraaaaacism" for this assertion anymore. Oh how we liberals like to backtrack :rolleyes:

My post had nothing to do with liberalism (read my previous posts if you want to know what I think of the entire scenario) or racism. My point is it is NOT IMO perfectly excusable to expect the worst of these guys because of their criminal actions and inexcusable behaviour. You specifically mentioned that it was fathomable that people would think they were members of the Taliban and that such people could be exonerated re same, based on the criminal activities of the group. It's a huge leap from knowing that someone is trespassing/making an illegal protest to assuming on the basis of that information that they are members of the Taliban (or thinking it is excusable that someone would make that assumption.) I find that kind of mentality illogical. I prefer reasoning based on evidence and concrete knowledge. If that's your definition of thick, so be it. Personally, I don't care if the entire group are exposed as raging Taliban fanatics or peace loving tree-huggers... I'd rather whatever the truth is, as opposed to idle speculation.

Angry Anderson wrote:

People were mostly asking questions, not making assertions. The Afghan's circumstances were certainly odd. All male? No women or young kids? Admission to crimes, etc, etc? Hijacking a church and threatening to end it all in a mass orgy of violence. Or should we just take them at their word... oh that's right, they refused to talk about their unique circumstances in most cases. Hmmm.

I can highlight plenty of posts in which people made assumptions (lots of inaccurate ones too). I agree that some aspects of Afghan situation was odd. However, asylum seekers are frequently single males/ males arriving in a country solo. Two admitted to crimes? Or is it more since, haven’t had a chance to update on the news today. If some among the group *are* genuine and we won't know either way until the completion of the process, there may be very good reasons as to why they left without their family (family killed, socially ostricised etc.)

Personally, I think there was clearly planning and orchestration in this affair (given that some of them were in Ireland for five years, some less than a week, living in different parts of the country and they all miraculously got together in a church) but I guess we will just have to see who the puppetmasters among them were as time goes by… once actual evidence emerges…

Saintly

Saintly

julep wrote:

i'm sorry that i annoyed you so much that you felt the need to leave your finger on the shift key as you typed my username

Apologies, typo - that is annoying.

julep wrote:

yes, the HSE were responsible for the safety of the minors after recieving a court order, but the minors remained in the cathedral.

Which was okay with their legal guardians, the HSE. The HSE could have gone to court on day one, had they wished to do so.

julep wrote:

the fact of the matter is that these people were an annoyance and wasted resources that could have been put to better use, all because of their own selfishness. as per EU law, they should not have been in this country, but they were and should have respected the laws of this land, whether or not their lives were in danger. they did themselves absolutely no favours with this debacle. going through the proper channels would have given them a better chance of asylum and a new beginning here, but they seemed to think that they could emotioally blackmail the government into granting them that asylum. they deserve no respect for their blatant disregard of both the laws of this country and the sanctity of a place of worship.thankfully we had a positive outcome and others will not be tempted to try a similar approach in the future.

Absolutely. This stunt doesn't deserve any respect, it was foolish, I agree with you! I simply wanted to raise some of the inaccuracies or IMO outlandish generalisations that were appearing on this thread.

Saintly

powermac

Ag marbh wrote:

The cheek of you labeling people like that, you racist. Keep your bitterness and bad experiences inside yourself.

I think the real scum are people like you who feel they have the right to label people like that.

suck it 'til it's soft!!

Terry

powermac wrote:

suck it 'til it's soft!!

ha!
i hadn't noticed that post.

The cheek of you labeling people like that

ok. fair enough

you racist.

that's too funny.

AngryAnderson

Saintly wrote:

This stunt doesn't deserve any respect, it was foolish, I agree with you! I simply wanted to raise some of the inaccuracies or IMO outlandish generalisations that were appearing on this thread.

The question begs... why? To make you feel better about yourself? You're clutching at straws to be honest.

Several dozen non-nationals hijack a church because they may or may not be allowed to stay in this country as is is applicable with the asylum system. They break the law and they threaten to kill themselves. Some have, apparently, admitted to membership of a terrorist organisation (which is what the Taliban is, no matter what kind of bent you try to put on it). People are completely exhonerated from making wild, albeit possibly inaccurate, accusations about these idiots. They lined themselves up for it, they deserve whatever mud is thrown at them. At the very least, they all deserve to be kicked out of the country for pulling a stunt like this. This isn't a case of "rrrrraaaaacism.... aaaaargh", this is a case of respecting the laws of the country they wish to stay in. They haven't. They should be deported immediately. As far as I'm concerned it's too late for asylum application. Inaccurate accusations or not - the FACTS remain.

Ag marbh

julep wrote:

ha!
i hadn't noticed that post.

ok. fair enough
that's too funny.

If you go back and read the post it was in reply to ya might not find it all too funny or maybe you will because <insert something retard here>

Terry

you still don't see the irony in your post?

let me explain it to you.
you gave someone grief for labelling people and went on to label that person yourself in the same sentence.
think about that for a while and then you might see what i found humourous about it.
if your post was meant as a sarcastic remark, then i apologise for laughing at you and will laugh with you instead.

Degsy

Ag marbh wrote:

If you go back and read the post it was in reply to ya might not find it all too funny or maybe you will because <insert something retard here>

You're still flogging yourself against a brick wall in this thread.And insulting people.

Saintly

AngryAnderson wrote:

The question begs... why? To make you feel better about yourself? You're clutching at straws to be honest.

Ah, another assumption. Why on earth would you think I was trying to feel better about myself?!! How about you ask me why I raised it, rather than revealing another inaccurate assumption? I raised these points because I'm a fan of intelligent, informed discussion. Inaccuracies (in this case re suicide being a criminal act/cowardly) and illogical conclusions irritate me and I am perfectly entitled to raise them in a discussion thread. Read a few threads, people do it around here all the time. Inaccuracies and generalisations irritate lots of people. Apparently, you're not one of them. That's fine. You really don't need to personalise things whenever you have a difference of opinion with someone, in just two posts you've decided I am completely thick and that I feel badly about myself!! How about you just stick to the discussion at hand? Or, just chill out.

AngryAnderson wrote:

Several dozen non-nationals hijack a church because they may or may not be allowed to stay in this country as is is applicable with the asylum system. They break the law and they threaten to kill themselves. Some have, apparently, admitted to membership of a terrorist organisation (which is what the Taliban is, no matter what kind of bent you try to put on it). People are completely exhonerated from making wild, albeit possibly inaccurate, accusations about these idiots. They lined themselves up for it, they deserve whatever mud is thrown at them. At the very least, they all deserve to be kicked out of the country for pulling a stunt like this. This isn't a case of "rrrrraaaaacism.... aaaaargh", this is a case of respecting the laws of the country they wish to stay in. They haven't. They should be deported immediately. As far as I'm concerned it's too late for asylum application. Inaccurate accusations or not - the FACTS remain.

Why do you keep raising the racism card?! This has nothing to do with race. I absolutely did not support these guys, believe they broke the law and should be treated accordingly - just like everybody else in the country. End of story. I raised the various inaccuracies of some of the posts 'charge them with suicide' and other unfounded generalisations that had been made. That clear enough yet? Let's separate individual perspectives on the debate from how people actually justify their positions...

I have no issue with the Taliban link either way, just want evidence regarding the two alleged members. Who by the way, has implied that the Taliban is NOT a terrorist organisation? Are you reading posts or just guessing what people think? I simply want evidence before an entire group of people are labelled as being part of such an organisation, or as anything else. How on earth does that translate into clutching at straws?! The front pages of the newspapers 'quoting unnamed garda sources', is hardly absolute proof of two alleged Taliban members and there has been nothing to suggest that the rest of the group are Taliban members. That situation may very well change, one way or another but that's how the FACTS stand right now. The rest is all made up. So if you want to have discussions based on made up stuff, great, just don’t expect everyone to agree with you.

You feel people can make wild and 'albeit possibly inaccurate accusations' about the Afghans and are entirely justified in doing so, based on what is essentially petty criminal behaviour. I completely disagree. For a start, that kind of logic lacks any credibility, where people are essentially supporting their positions with hot air - kind of like Rosanna Flynn. I don't see the logic in making ‘wild’ assumptions about any group of people (look at the few scraps of information in this case) and IMO, there's no justification for it. That's the kind of thinking where people can essentially make any kind of accusation they like, without evidence, without knowledge, without substantiated information. Isn't that one good way to define thick?! That's also why I avoid crappy rag papers that thrive on wild and inaccurate accusations and try and get my hands on a decent broadsheet - for informed, educated perspectives. Even at that, I'd take most of the written word with a pinch of salt in the aftermath of a situation like this one, the truth generally comes out a little down the line, once the dust settles and the hysteria fades.

You're entitled to your own theories about what should happen to these chaps now. FACT is, they are entitled to remain in this country pending outcome of their application process. That's the law. That's democracy, where people in this country, even visitors, can make an illegal protest and retain their rights.

Saintly.

Degsy

Saintly wrote:

Ah, another assumption. Why on earth would you think I was trying to feel better about myself?!! How about you ask me why I raised it, rather than revealing another inaccurate assumption? I raised these points because I'm a fan of intelligent, informed discussion. Inaccuracies (in this case re suicide being a criminal act/cowardly) and illogical conclusions irritate me and I am perfectly entitled to raise them in a discussion thread. Read a few threads, people do it around here all the time. Inaccuracies and generalisations irritate lots of people. Apparently, you're not one of them. That's fine. You really don't need to personalise things whenever you have a difference of opinion with someone, in just two posts you've decided I am completely thick and that I feel badly about myself!! How about you just stick to the discussion at hand? Or, just chill out.



Why do you keep raising the racism card?! This has nothing to do with race. I absolutely did not support these guys, believe they broke the law and should be treated accordingly - just like everybody else in the country. End of story. I raised the various inaccuracies of some of the posts 'charge them with suicide' and other unfounded generalisations that had been made. That clear enough yet? Let's separate individual perspectives on the debate from how people actually justify their positions...

I have no issue with the Taliban link either way, just want evidence regarding the two alleged members. Who by the way, has implied that the Taliban is NOT a terrorist organisation? Are you reading posts or just guessing what people think? I simply want evidence before an entire group of people are labelled as being part of such an organisation, or as anything else. How on earth does that translate into clutching at straws?! The front pages of the newspapers 'quoting unnamed garda sources', is hardly absolute proof of two alleged Taliban members and there has been nothing to suggest that the rest of the group are Taliban members. That situation may very well change, one way or another but that's how the FACTS stand right now. The rest is all made up. So if you want to have discussions based on made up stuff, great, just don’t expect everyone to agree with you.

You feel people can make wild and 'albeit possibly inaccurate accusations' about the Afghans and are entirely justified in doing so, based on what is essentially petty criminal behaviour. I completely disagree. For a start, that kind of logic lacks any credibility, where people are essentially supporting their positions with hot air - kind of like Rosanna Flynn. I don't see the logic in making ‘wild’ assumptions about any group of people (look at the few scraps of information in this case) and IMO, there's no justification for it. That's the kind of thinking where people can essentially make any kind of accusation they like, without evidence, without knowledge, without substantiated information. Isn't that one good way to define thick?! That's also why I avoid crappy rag papers that thrive on wild and inaccurate accusations and try and get my hands on a decent broadsheet - for informed, educated perspectives. Even at that, I'd take most of the written word with a pinch of salt in the aftermath of a situation like this one, the truth generally comes out a little down the line, once the dust settles and the hysteria fades.

You're entitled to your own theories about what should happen to these chaps now. FACT is, they are entitled to remain in this country pending outcome of their application process. That's the law. That's democracy, where people in this country, even visitors, can make an illegal protest and retain their rights.

Saintly.

Well if thats democracy,it doesnt work!:rolleyes:

emma6606

Hey all,
My views might be harsh but here goes anyway...
If we gave them asylum status now after their "performance", and let them stay, then everyone in Afghanistan would come over and do the same thing - it would never end.
It needs to be nipped in the bud now,
If they want to starve themselves then let them.
If they do starve, then it will be alot less likely to happen again.
I feel that they are trying to bully our government into this - the cheek of them, and thats my tax money that would be spent on them.

They are saying they cant go back to Afghanistan, but we dont care where they go as long as its not here...

I think that we as a counrty have been very fair in granting assylum seekers their status and giving them a place to stay, in fact we have been very generous.
Im sure there will be many more people coming in that do deserve assylum and will be granted it. I dont think these guys deserve it after the way they carried on.
:mad:
Emma

emma6606

emma6606 wrote:

then everyone in Afghanistan would come over and do the same thing - it would never end.

Absolutely. And with over 30 million of them it might get a little cramped around the place. On the other hand what a boost to the rental sector.

emma6606 wrote:

Hey all,
If they want to starve themselves then let them.

A Margaret Thatcher impersonation! Very good.

emma6606 wrote:

If they do starve, then it will be alot less likely to happen again.

I guess if they died they wouldn't do it again.

emma6606 wrote:

Hey all,
but we dont care where they go as long as its not here...

And that, I think, sums up the case for the prosecution and the difference between the two sides. It's not really about racism or the right to protest or bullying the Government, it's about people who care and people who don't care...

juslookin

Deleted User wrote:

And that, I think, sums up the case for the prosecution and the difference between the two sides. It's not really about racism or the right to protest or bullying the Government, it's about people who care and people who don't care...

Conor, you were doing OK until there. It's one individual comment from one single individual, their own personal opinion, not that of anybody else.

Funnily enough, while good old Maggie T would have said kill yourself if you want, some of the anarchists we have had on here, or the lefty libertarians would have said that they would respect their rights to to whatever they wanted, so same end result ...

AngryAnderson

Saintly wrote:

Ah, another assumption. Why on earth would you think I was trying to feel better about myself?!! How about you ask me why I raised it, rather than revealing another inaccurate assumption? I raised these points because I'm a fan of intelligent, informed discussion. Inaccuracies (in this case re suicide being a criminal act/cowardly) and illogical conclusions irritate me and I am perfectly entitled to raise them in a discussion thread. Read a few threads, people do it around here all the time. Inaccuracies and generalisations irritate lots of people. Apparently, you're not one of them. That's fine. You really don't need to personalise things whenever you have a difference of opinion with someone, in just two posts you've decided I am completely thick and that I feel badly about myself!! How about you just stick to the discussion at hand? Or, just chill out.



Why do you keep raising the racism card?! This has nothing to do with race. I absolutely did not support these guys, believe they broke the law and should be treated accordingly - just like everybody else in the country. End of story. I raised the various inaccuracies of some of the posts 'charge them with suicide' and other unfounded generalisations that had been made. That clear enough yet? Let's separate individual perspectives on the debate from how people actually justify their positions...

I have no issue with the Taliban link either way, just want evidence regarding the two alleged members. Who by the way, has implied that the Taliban is NOT a terrorist organisation? Are you reading posts or just guessing what people think? I simply want evidence before an entire group of people are labelled as being part of such an organisation, or as anything else. How on earth does that translate into clutching at straws?! The front pages of the newspapers 'quoting unnamed garda sources', is hardly absolute proof of two alleged Taliban members and there has been nothing to suggest that the rest of the group are Taliban members. That situation may very well change, one way or another but that's how the FACTS stand right now. The rest is all made up. So if you want to have discussions based on made up stuff, great, just don’t expect everyone to agree with you.

You feel people can make wild and 'albeit possibly inaccurate accusations' about the Afghans and are entirely justified in doing so, based on what is essentially petty criminal behaviour. I completely disagree. For a start, that kind of logic lacks any credibility, where people are essentially supporting their positions with hot air - kind of like Rosanna Flynn. I don't see the logic in making ‘wild’ assumptions about any group of people (look at the few scraps of information in this case) and IMO, there's no justification for it. That's the kind of thinking where people can essentially make any kind of accusation they like, without evidence, without knowledge, without substantiated information. Isn't that one good way to define thick?! That's also why I avoid crappy rag papers that thrive on wild and inaccurate accusations and try and get my hands on a decent broadsheet - for informed, educated perspectives. Even at that, I'd take most of the written word with a pinch of salt in the aftermath of a situation like this one, the truth generally comes out a little down the line, once the dust settles and the hysteria fades.

You're entitled to your own theories about what should happen to these chaps now. FACT is, they are entitled to remain in this country pending outcome of their application process. That's the law. That's democracy, where people in this country, even visitors, can make an illegal protest and retain their rights.

Saintly.

Wow, you can type a hell of a lot without actually saying anything. By the way, in a democracy when people protest illegally they retain their human rights and not civil rights. As they are criminals. :rolleyes:

WhiteWashMan

either get back on point people, ad less of the pointless point scoring.

i dont give a crap that you all think youre right and everyone else is wrong, either discuss the topic at hand, or argue points.

attack the opinions and the reasons for those opinions, calling other people names just doesnt justify the discussion that has gone on in this thread.

im going to mass ban here pretty shortly.

i think youve all made your points at this stage. if youre just going to paraphrase yourself at this stage, dont bother replying.

Saintly

Fair enough, I won't go over old ground, so here's my swan song...

AngryAnderson wrote:

By the way, in a democracy when people protest illegally they retain their human rights and not civil rights. As they are criminals. :rolleyes:

First off, even convicted criminals retain civil rights, obviously prisoners have restrictions on liberty and other rights but they do retain many of their civil rights, as set out in the Constitution and subsequent legislation. For example, even convicted criminals retain their right to education, family access, limited privacy, right to trial by jury, legal representation, right to own property etc. Efforts are presently being made to enable prisoners vote in prison, as is their civil right. There are even watchdog bodies about to ensure that prisoners retain these rights.

More to the point,the Afghans are not Irish citizens and are not entitled to full civil rights set out in the Constitution to begin with. What they do retain (as they are not convicted criminals) in this wonderful democracy of ours, are all the rights they had before this debacle. Right to accommodation, right to appeal, right to education for those under 18. And obviously, all of their human rights. Until they are given leave to remain and acquire further rights or are deported, in which case they lose them all.

There are plenty of websites about, demonstrating the definitions, differences and commonalities between civil and human rights.The ICCL. Irl.gov, Amnesty, various UN sites which back up the above.

Saintly

AngryAnderson

Saintly wrote:

as they are not convicted criminals

They will be later today. I'm not going to continue with this 'intellectual' muscle exercising as, as WhiteWashMan said, we're miles off topic and achieving nothing by being childish discussing semantics.

The bottom line is that they'll be deported if the system feels they should be and if not, then they're welcome to stay. That was the whole issue in the first place. They decided to break our laws because they don't agree with our laws. I'm certainly hoping that they will be deported as an example to the rest of the world that we won't be held to emotional ransom with threats of suicide. Which is obviously the answer to everything.

Hobbes

AngryAnderson wrote:

They decided to break our laws because they don't agree with our laws. I'm certainly hoping that they will be deported as an example to the rest of the world that we won't be held to emotional ransom with threats of suicide. Which is obviously the answer to everything.

What about those who were hunger striking that weren't looking for Asylum? Deport them too? (there were at least two). tbh I was quite surprised that not everyone there was an Asylum seeker.

Pal

This was a serious international incident with the Taliban in Afghanistan directing the hunger strike by mobile phone.

The Garda SWAT team came to the rescue.

FFS, you couldn't make this stuff up.

Oops. They did.

WhiteWashMan

Pal wrote:

This was a serious international incident with the Taliban in Afghanistan directing the hunger strike by mobile phone.

The Garda SWAT team came to the rescue.

FFS, you couldn't make this stuff up.

Oops. They did.

listen pal......


sorry, i just had to get that in.
i dont know why.
call me childish and purile.....

juslookin

juslookin wrote:

Funnily enough, while good old Maggie T would have said kill yourself if you want, some of the anarchists we have had on here, or the lefty libertarians would have said that they would respect their rights to to whatever they wanted, so same end result ...

As I said, being a member of FF, I don't think I could really be described as your average 'anarchist' or 'lefty libertarians'. I have consistently said they were wrong, they should be turfed out of the Church, and if they have to go then they have to go.

My only beef is the reaction from some posters here, the triumphant gloating as if this has all been a wonderful success. It's a sad story and an unfortunate incident. Of course the law has to be upheld, but there are children involved here too, it's not all about hardened Taliban members holed out against the forces of good. I don't remember too many people whooping and cheering when the girl in the X Case was restrained by the High Court from travelling to England, not too many jumped up and said it was a good day for the rule of law in Ireland.

Terry

Deleted User wrote:

As I said, being a member of FF, I don't think I could really be described as your average 'anarchist' or 'lefty libertarians'. I have consistently said they were wrong, they should be turfed out of the Church, and if they have to go then they have to go.

My only beef is the reaction from some posters here, the triumphant gloating as if this has all been a wonderful success. It's a sad story and an unfortunate incident. Of course the law has to be upheld, but there are children involved here too, it's not all about hardened Taliban members holed out against the forces of good. I don't remember too many people whooping and cheering when the girl in the X Case was restrained by the High Court from travelling to England, not too many jumped up and said it was a good day for the rule of law in Ireland.

two completely different scenarios. your recollection may also be clouded by the fact that not too many people had internet access back then (when was that? late 80's/ early 90's?) to voice their opinions.
there is absolutely no correlation between a child being stopped from having an abortion under archaic laws that were put in place under the influence of the catholic chiurch and 41 afghans holed up in a church of Ireland cathedral, protesting a new and just law that they didn't agree with, nor had any right to disagree with, as they were not citizens of this country and therefore had no right to vote for the elected officials who passed the asylum laws.

julep

julep wrote:

your recollection may be clouded...when was that?

Hmmm. Yes indeed...

julep wrote:

two completely different scenarios.

Well, every case is different. But the rule of law is the rule of law and many seem overjoyed at its application here because gosh its a great day for Ireland.

shnaek

The matter was resolved in the best way possible. Thankfully we had a minister with backbone and prescience, and Gardai who were up to situation - both of whom combined to resolve the situation in a mature and civilised manner. We now avoid the situation that arose in Belgium and the asylum seekers get to exercise their rights under law.
So even though it would have been best if the situation had never arose - all was well resolved - so it was as good a day for Ireland as one could have hoped.

Terry

this is not a matter of every case being different.
they were two completely different laws.
you're comparing apples and oranges here.

yes, people reacted differently to the x case, but that was for a reason.
people were outraged that an archaic law was being forced upon a child whose innocence had been taken by some sick ****.
the reactions here were to the occupation of a cathedral by a bunch of chancers. chancers who had seen the same thing succeed in belgium and thought we would be a soft touch.

sanity won. bleeding heart liberals lost. deal with it.