"Citizen's arrest" of US soldiers in Shannon

Liam Byrne

An issue which still appears to be under some dispute when it comes to Ennis, but is under no dispute when it comes to Shannon Airport which appears to be your primary point of objection.

Huh ? MY PERSONAL primary objection is that Shannon is being used for an illegal war without the approval of the people of Ireland. But since Bertie & Co have already decided that's a done deal, then MY PRIMARY OBJECTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS THREAD is that walking around Ennis in uniform is illegal, and is a two-fingers to the actual derogation to which you refer.

They were on a plane, then on a bus to the hotel, then in the hotel. If I was them I'd be glad of a little walk to stretch my legs, around some GREEN countryside where no-one was trying to shoot me.

So then, if they had to take a bus, it's safe to assume that they were not in the "immediate vicinity" ?

jhegarty

Liam Byrne wrote:

So then, if they had to take a bus, it's safe to assume that they were not in the "immediate vicinity" ?

Q.E.D.

Immediate vicinity is relative ....without talking to minister who wrote the order I can't see how you (or me) can say what the exact area covered...

Akrasia

jhegarty wrote:

Immediate vicinity is relative ....without talking to minister who wrote the order I can't see how you (or me) can say what the exact area covered...

Yes, Earth is in the 'immediate vicinity' of the sun, (if you're viewing us from a trillion miles away)

Get real would you.The Immediate vicinity of Shannon Airport is Shannon town, not Ennis.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote:

it's not illegal to make a citizens arrest.

It most certainly can be. I've already cited the relevant legislation.

leninbenjamin

f*ck sake lads, what kind of reputation are we going to gain for ourselves if we get thick with some poor saps holed in a hotel, who most likely dont really want to be there and are simply out for a stroll in their work clothes. Sure if i were in there shoes i'd like to be able to go for a walk and have a smoke without fear of being arrested.

your hostility should be aimed at Bertie and co. both sides of this argument are a complete and utter waste of time.

edit: apologies if some find my tone offensive but this just seems to be one of the pettiest arguments i've ever seen regarding the whole troops in shannon issue

Akrasia

leninbenjamin wrote:

f*ck sake lads, what kind of reputation are we going to gain for ourselves if we get thick with some poor saps holed in a hotel, who most likely dont really want to be there and are simply out for a stroll in their work clothes. Sure if i were in there shoes i'd like to be able to go for a walk and have a smoke without fear of being arrested.

your hostility should be aimed at Bertie and co. both sides of this argument are a complete and utter waste of time.

edit: apologies if some find my tone offensive but this just seems to be one of the pettiest arguments i've ever seen regarding the whole troops in shannon issue

Would you support British soldiers stationed in N. Ireland if they were wandering around Dundalk in full uniform?

Do you think all of the U.S. troops who go through Shannon should be allowed to roam around Ennis in their full uniform? Do you think Ennis should be turned into a U.S. military base?

leninbenjamin

hang on you missed my point entirely. i never expressed any opinion on whether i agree or disagree with troops moving through shannon, andi dont plan on revealing it in this discussion. all i said is that i would rather see the energy, and conviction of certain people directed against those actually responsible for the situation as it is, i.e. our government. whats the point of taking it out on your average soldier like manic moranor thosesoldiers outside the hotel? complete and utter waste of time

jbkenn

Akrasia wrote:

Would you support British soldiers stationed in N. Ireland if they were wandering around Dundalk in full uniform?

Yes, I dont have a problem with it, provided they were not armed and patrolling the area, I would presume we have matured sufficiently as a Nation to not get our nickers in a twist over it. I find the armies of gob****es who parade around in their ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea or whatever Premiership team regalia you care to mention, more offensive.

Do you think all of the U.S. troops who go through Shannon should be allowed to roam around Ennis in their full uniform?

Yes, why not, they pose no threat, you have to understand the logistics of combat troop deployment, you don't get to pack your Levi's and Nike's, all you have got is your uniform.

Do you think Ennis should be turned into a U.S. military base?

By the wildest stretch of the imagination, no one is suggesting such a situation.

jbkenn
p.s. I am old enough to remember Soviet and Cuban troops transiting through Shannon, on their way to a little war in Angola, Aeroflot was'nt always a passenger airline

eoin5

Manic Moran wrote:

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=379&docID=1416

Does anyone else here feel like this is a big two fingers up to the people of Ireland.

Hagar

So what's new? :mad:

eoin5

eoin5 wrote:

Does anyone else here feel like this is a big two fingers up to the people of Ireland.

Not really.
The two main parties that make up 130+ of the 166 seats in the Dáil are not opposed to the use of shannon...
It's not as big an issue as most activists/protagonists are making it out to be.
But I suppose it is a big issue to any individual or group of individuals that so feel that way inclined.
To each their own.

Liam Byrne

Guys - remember the thread title; we're not debating about what's acceptable or desirable.....if we were the whole Iraq invasion and the entire use of Shannon would be up for debate; while I'd love to debate them with Bertie and George W, that's not the topic of this thread.

Likewise, if this were a discussion about 2 guys arrested for smoking cannibas, then discussing whether or not cannibas "should" be legal would be pointless.....their actions would be illegal at the time of the arrest and their arrest would be 100% justified.

As is the case in this scenario. The guys overstepped their rights and gave two fingers to our laws, despite our Government (misguidedly, IMHO) bending over backwards to give them extra rights.

I DON'T CARE what logistics the U.S. Army have to organise to abide by the law.....THAT'S UP TO THEM, and it's a direct consideration required as a result of invading Iraq.

If a mate told you that you could sleep over if you brought your own sleeping bag, then you'd bring a sleeping bag. The alternative is that you've nowhere to stay.....you don't abuse his hospitality.

If "logistics" indicate that you can't get a cab home, so you drive home after a few drinks and get pulled, you get arrested. Logistics ain't a legal argument; it was your choice to drink and then drive, thereby breaking the law.

P.S. I can't believe that I was in Melbourne, Australia and didn't go to Darwin.....according to some posters, it seems like Darwin is in the "immediate vicinity" of Melbourne because there's definitely "nothing in between"........

P.S.2 Does this mean that George W's left ear is in the "immediate vicinity" of his right ear ?

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote:

If a mate told you that you could sleep over if you brought your own sleeping bag, then you'd bring a sleeping bag. The alternative is that you've nowhere to stay.....you don't abuse his hospitality.

Sorry am I missing something here? Has the hotel in question refused the money being paid for the accomadation ? Are they being forced to stay there against the hotel managements wishes?Whose hospitality is being abused exactly?
You are deciding that hospitality is being abused in this case.
Thats your opinion but it doesn't make it the law and it certainly doesn't mean most people would agree with you.
But hey Rant on...

If "logistics" indicate that you can't get a cab home, so you drive home after a few drinks and get pulled, you get arrested. Logistics ain't a legal argument; it was your choice to drink and then drive, thereby breaking the law.

P.S. I can't believe that I was in Melbourne, Australia and didn't go to Darwin.....according to some posters, it seems like Darwin is in the "immediate vicinity" of Melbourne because there's definitely "nothing in between"........

P.S.2 Does this mean that George W's left ear is in the "immediate vicinity" of his right ear ?

I'll have to say LoL now at some of this bluster.
Regardless of whether 13 miles is in whatever immediate vicinity sanctioned,we don't know what immediate vicinity has been sanctioned.

Liam Byrne

Tristrame wrote:

Sorry am I missing something here? Has the hotel in question refused the money being paid for the accomadation ? Are they being forced to stay there against the hotel managements wishes?Whose hospitality is being abused exactly?

No, I somehow don't think you're missing anything, but you're twisting the example.

What I was getting at is that, for whatever reason, Bertie & Co allowed the use of Shannon and also allowed the "immediate vicinity" exception. That was extending the hand of hospitality.

The conditions on going beyond the immediate vicinity included not wearing uniforms, and that condition was ignored, abusing the hospitality.

One of the previous posters asked if the troops were not entitled to get accommodation; the obvious answer is that they were. They were also entitled to go to Ennis to do so. But to do so involved not wearing uniforms, and they ignored/abused that condition.

You are deciding that hospitality is being abused in this case. Thats your opinion but it doesn't make it the law and it certainly doesn't mean most people would agree with you.

Absolutely not, but then I haven't "ranted" as you so eloquently put it. My own personal opinion is that Bertie should not have granted the troops the use of Shannon, let alone extended that with the "immediate vicinity" exception.....but like I said, that's not the issue being discussed, so I won't argue that point here.

The troops were (unfortunately) entitled to do both of the above, but they were not entitled to wear uniforms in Ennis, 13 miles from Shannon; by any stretch of the imagination, 13 miles is not the "immediate vicinity".

I'll have to say LoL now at some of this bluster.

You can LoL all you want - if that's the only response you have. The two examples quote quoted in and described as "bluster" were an attempt at pointing out the actual issue being discussed based on what other people had posted, regarding logistics and the "immediate vicinity" meaning "nothing in between"....despite the existence of 3 towns along the way.

Regardless of whether 13 miles is in whatever immediate vicinity sanctioned,we don't know what immediate vicinity has been sanctioned.

Then maybe we should get it clarified, but given the Government's head-in-sand response to previous issues as to how the U.S. are (ab)using Shannon, I would reckon that the non-clarification of an exact distance was deliberate. But in the absence of that clarification, we have to rely on standard definitions and common sense, which dictate that Ennis is not in the "immediate vicinity" of Shannon.

Then again, apparently the word "not" is disposable, as in "Iraq does [not] have weapons of mass destruction".

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote:

You can LoL all you want - if that's the only response you have. The two examples quote quoted in and described as "bluster" were an attempt at pointing out the actual issue being discussed based on what other people had posted, regarding logistics and the "immediate vicinity" meaning "nothing in between"....despite the existence of 3 towns along the way.

I'll lol all I like to be honest when you are stating some gospel that you have there with no reference to either the law or what has been approved or disapproved.
You are basically talking out of your hat without that.

Then maybe we should get it clarified, but given the Government's head-in-sand response to previous issues as to how the U.S. are (ab)using Shannon, I would reckon that the non-clarification of an exact distance was deliberate. But in the absence of that clarification, we have to rely on standard definitions and common sense, which dictate that Ennis is not in the "immediate vicinity" of Shannon.

Who are you to say whether it's ok for them to be in a hotel 2 miles from shannon or 22 miles ? There is an elected government who have the authority to decide.You are but one vote.

I could see your point if they weren't actually operating under the sanction of the UNSC.

Then again, apparently the word "not" is disposable, as in "Iraq does [not] have weapons of mass destruction".

Whats that got to do with what is currently a UNSC mandated opperation?
I suggest you take this bluster of yours to the U nighted Naaaaaaaations.

eoin5

Tristrame wrote:

Not really.
The two main parties that make up 130+ of the 166 seats in the Dáil are not opposed to the use of shannon...
It's not as big an issue as most activists/protagonists are making it out to be.
But I suppose it is a big issue to any individual or group of individuals that so feel that way inclined.
To each their own.

I think its a state vs citizens case. Theres been a few opinion polls showing that there are more people against the troops using shannon than there are in favour. Heres a pretty recent one: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82233 and heres an old one from RTÉ: http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0214/iraq02.html

Brian Cowen: "We are bound to America by close ties of blood and history." Some neutral country we are

Hagar

eoin5 wrote:

I think its a state vs citizens case.

The State is the Citizens, the Citizens are the State. Already established in law.

Are the TDs not listening? For those of you who don't know a TD is NOT a member of Parliment he is a Téactaire Dáil, quite literallly a messenger to the Dáil, a messenger on our behalf with no authority of his own.

They forget that sometimes and need to be reminded. Upity bastards.

jhegarty

If you don't like the troops in Shannon, then you know what you need to do... vote green.... oh wait a second :rolleyes:

eoin5

Hagar wrote:

The State is the Citizens, the Citizens are the State. Already established in law.

Are the TDs not listening? For those of you who don't know a TD is NOT a member of Parliment he is a Téactaire Dáil, quite literallly a messenger to the Dáil, a messenger on our behalf with no authority of his own.

They forget that sometimes and need to be reminded. Upity bastards.

Honestly its like theyre all going around with their fingers in their ears going "lalalala cant hear you ".

Liam Byrne

Who are you to say whether it's ok for them to be in a hotel 2 miles from shannon or 22 miles

I'm stunned.....why do you constantly return to asking that question and misrepresenting my point ?

For the last time - I have no opinion on what bloody hotel they stay in....I don't care....you're actually dead right - I have no right to say what hotel they can or can't stay in....but then, I didn't offer an opinion about that.

But whatever hotel the U.S. troops stay in, if it's not in the immediate vicinity of Shannon, they are - by law - under obligation not to wear a uniform.

FACT.

And while there is a grey area as to what constitutes the immediate vicinity, I don't believe it includes a 13-mile radius.

We can try to get that clarified, if necessary, but that is the ONLY point that was being argued.....I can't see how 13-miles constitutes "immediate vicinity", and I even asked the apparent troop member whether 13 miles inside the Mexican/U.S. border would be viewed as "immediate vicinity", but got no reply.

So quit trying to make it look like I'm saying they can't stay anywhere. It's completely misleading and dragging the discussion off-course.

kowloon

Enough of the argument, stop picking on the Americans, i need them to come back to buy the wooly jumpers ive been knitting for the last year in preparation for the @rse falling out of the economy.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote:

I'm stunned.....why do you constantly return to asking that question and misrepresenting my point ?

For the last time - I have no opinion on what bloody hotel they stay in....I don't care....you're actually dead right - I have no right to say what hotel they can or can't stay in....but then, I didn't offer an opinion about that.

But whatever hotel the U.S. troops stay in, if it's not in the immediate vicinity of Shannon, they are - by law - under obligation not to wear a uniform.

Have you seen government documents to that effect or are you continuing to talk out of your hat?

And while there is a grey area as to what constitutes the immediate vicinity, I don't believe it includes a 13-mile radius.

Irrelevant.

We can try to get that clarified, if necessary, but that is the ONLY point that was being argued.....I can't see how 13-miles constitutes "immediate vicinity", and I even asked the apparent troop member whether 13 miles inside the Mexican/U.S. border would be viewed as "immediate vicinity", but got no reply.

LoL- you "even" asked the apparent troop member involved...

So you are Conor Cregan then? I see...
Not that "even" asking a troop member and getting no answer means anything.

So quit trying to make it look like I'm saying they can't stay anywhere. It's completely misleading and dragging the discussion off-course.

I'll ask you anything I like thats on topic.
Perhaps you could stop posting opinion as fact before I put my moderator hat on and enforce that rule.

Manic Moran

Liam Byrne wrote:

I even asked the apparent troop member whether 13 miles inside the Mexican/U.S. border would be viewed as "immediate vicinity", but got no reply.

Sorry, I missed that one.

It could be, depending on context. Difference there is that there is a clearly defined and marked change of jurisdiction: Anything the US State Dept might say for the vicinity of San Diego would have no force 300 yards away in Tijuana.

NTM

Liam Byrne

Tristrame wrote:

Have you seen government documents to that effect or are you continuing to talk out of your hat?

See linked transcript from a couple of pages ago.

Irrelevant.

Well, I'm aware that political opinions can be irrelevant or ignored, but it's a lot more relevant to the discussion than your attempting to change what I was saying.

So you are Conor Cregan then? I see...

No, you're wrong there, I'm not.

Not that "even" asking a troop member and getting no answer means anything.

Well, it would give an indication of what "immediate vicinity" meant to him when it wasn't of benefit to him; and, to be fair, he did reply above.

Perhaps you could stop posting opinion as fact before I put my moderator hat on and enforce that rule.

Since I know well that I didn't do that, I'll save you the hassle and moderate myself....I would have been on for having a decent discussion about this, but being dragged into side issues or discussions about hotels or accommodation or being credited for god-knows what else that I didn't actually say is getting really frustrating.

So count me out, and in order not to be misrepresented in my absence, I'll do a quick recap on my position:

1) In general, no foreign troops are allowed to wear uniforms - FACT
2) The U.S. got a derogation for "the immediate vicinity of Shannon" - FACT
3) In general terms, 13 miles would not be considered "immediate vicinity" - OPINION, BUT ALSO PUT FORWARD BY OTHER POSTERS AND BACKED UP EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF THE PHRASE, HOWEVER I'M SOMEHOW THE ONLY ONE PULLED UP ON THIS ?? :rolleyes:
4) The soldiers involved were therefore breaking the law BY WEARING UNIFORMS - NOT FOR SIMPLY STAYING IN ENNIS :rolleyes: . Easily avoided by wearing normal clothes
5) Given our Government's already "over-assistance" in the U.S. invasion, and it's aversion to checking things that were reported, it's important that they were pulled up on it to avoid ongoing abuses and because of that aversion it took a citizen to do it.

Those are my points, despite attempts to alter what I said (particularly #4). Ye can continue the discussion without me, because even having to repeat those above in order to clarify/avoid misrepresentation was irritating - a discussion should get closer to, not farther from, a conclusion or key point (of which there should have been 2):

1) What did the Government mean by "immediate vicinity" ?
This would clarify whether the troops were indeed breaking the law

2) Is there any reason why the Gardai wouldn't act in the case of item 1 ?
And by the way, if a Garda just had a word in their ear - "ye're breaking the law, lads, head back to the hotel and change" - it would have been OK.....we've all gotten away with some sort of ticking off in our lives.

3) Is a citizen entitled to perform a citizen's arrest if a Garda does absolutely nothing ?

Anyway, work away with the remainder of the discussion, lads.....couldn't be arsed repeating/clarifying every point 5 times.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote:

See linked transcript from a couple of pages ago.

I see post 3 So I challenge you once again-have you seen any government documentation to suggest what their decision as to what is to be the immediate vicinity (2 miles or 22 miles) or are you just talking out of your hat?

Well, I'm aware that political opinions can be irrelevant or ignored, but it's a lot more relevant to the discussion than your attempting to change what I was saying.

Your opinion is irrelevant to the proper implimentation of the law.
You on your own(or I) have no right to interpret the law legally,we can opinionate on it untill the cows come home of course but it has no force.

No, you're wrong there, I'm not.

How can I be wrong when I just asked if you were? I didn't say you were I just asked.

Well, it would give an indication of what "immediate vicinity" meant to him when it wasn't of benefit to him; and, to be fair, he did reply above.

Oh you were referring to "manic moran" when you said earlier that you asked a troop member that was there?
I see because your original post was a tad misleading as it gave the impression that you were either Mr Cregan or that you witnessed the incident and that you were talking to one of the troops that Cregan "arrested".

Since I know well that I didn't do that, I'll save you the hassle and moderate myself....I would have been on for having a decent discussion about this, but being dragged into side issues or discussions about hotels or accommodation or being credited for god-knows what else that I didn't actually say is getting really frustrating.

So count me out, and in order not to be misrepresented in my absence, I'll do a quick recap on my position:

1) In general, no foreign troops are allowed to wear uniforms - FACT

No they can and this case have been given a derogation to that so your point there is irelevant and not factual.

2) The U.S. got a derogation for "the immediate vicinity of Shannon" - FACT
3) In general terms, 13 miles would not be considered "immediate vicinity" - OPINION, BUT ALSO PUT FORWARD BY OTHER POSTERS AND BACKED UP EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF THE PHRASE, HOWEVER I'M SOMEHOW THE ONLY ONE PULLED UP ON THIS ?? :rolleyes:

You directed it to me and I challenged you on it.

4) The soldiers involved were therefore breaking the law BY WEARING UNIFORMS - NOT FOR SIMPLY STAYING IN ENNIS :rolleyes: . Easily avoided by wearing normal clothes

Here again without reference to the governments decision,you are talking completely out of your hat.
You are also posting opinion as fact.

5) Given our Government's already "over-assistance" in the U.S. invasion, and it's aversion to checking things that were reported, it's important that they were pulled up on it to avoid ongoing abuses and because of that aversion it took a citizen to do it.

Theres nothing wrong with challenging legalities but it would be advisable to be fully aware of the ground you are on before doing so and clearly you are not.

Those are my points, despite attempts to alter what I said (particularly #4). Ye can continue the discussion without me, because even having to repeat those above in order to clarify/avoid misrepresentation was irritating - a discussion should get closer to, not farther from, a conclusion or key point (of which there should have been 2):

I see so your definition of a "discussion" is that it should be all one way and when "you" are pulled up on something,you won't discuss it except to scream that you are right because you say so and thats that...
Thats not discussion,thats soapboxing as well as displaying a lot of opinion as fact.

1) What did the Government mean by "immediate vicinity" ?
This would clarify whether the troops were indeed breaking the law

Ask them.The FOI route was suggested to you earlier.

2) Is there any reason why the Gardai wouldn't act in the case of item 1 ?
And by the way, if a Garda just had a word in their ear - "ye're breaking the law, lads, head back to the hotel and change" - it would have been OK.....we've all gotten away with some sort of ticking off in our lives.

Again you are basing your approach completely on assumption and worse devoid of seeing what the government has authorised.

3) Is a citizen entitled to perform a citizen's arrest if a Garda does absolutely nothing ?

That was answered earlier and since you can't define for me what the Government permission on the matter exactly is,then I can only conclude that in this case you've no right to perform a citizens arrest.

Anyway, work away with the remainder of the discussion, lads.....couldn't be arsed repeating/clarifying every point 5 times.

Do come back when you are ready to take part in what this board's funcion is ie discussion.
Don't come back if you simply want to soap box and rant further.
That will not be allowed.

Liam Byrne

"Under Section 317 of Defence Act, 1954, military personnel are forbidden to enter or land in the state while wearing a uniform, except with written Ministerial permission"......

Tristrame wrote:

No they can and this case have been given a derogation to that so your point there is irelevant and not factual.

?? They can IF given a derogation, so your statement should be, "true, in generalthey can't but in this case they were given a derogation", something which I alluded to in point 2.

Yes, my opinion is irrelevant, but my point was that it is more relevant than changing what I was saying - there were numerous attempts to imply that I was saying that the troops were not entitled to be in Ennis at all.

You did not ask if I were Conor Cregan; the way that you phrased it implied that I was; you added the word "involved", I can vaguely see where you assumed that I meant the actual troops in Ennis, but since I'd said "apparent troop member", and the whole issue is that the guys in Ennis were wearing uniforms - therefore obviously troop members, rather than "apparent" ones, it appears that you didn't read my post correctly before jumping to that conclusion.

Look, I know I've gotten annoyed at this stage, and so I'm going to back off the discussion, but it does appear that everything I say is being changed and picked on, hence my annoyance......other people have posted "there's no way 13 miles could be viewed as 'immediate vicinity'", and yet mine are the only posts that are getting nit-picked.

MY OPINION is that it's not the "immediate vicinity", and so some action was justified - that opinion is the same as other posters whose posts are not being challenged or twisted. Don't know what to call that, really......feels like the equivalent of being shouted down, but since that's only an opinion of mine which has no basis in law, I'll probably get pulled up on that as well.

So as a result, I'm backing off the discussion....if other posters opinions get challenged or twisted as much, then fair enough, it's consistent and I'll contribute again, but until then there's no point, since the discussion and clarification is taking up more of the thread and probably stopping other people - both those who believe 13 miles is way too far and those who might believe that it was reasonable - from contributing.

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote:

4) The soldiers involved were therefore breaking the law BY WEARING UNIFORMS - NOT FOR SIMPLY STAYING IN ENNIS :rolleyes: . Easily avoided by wearing normal clothes

Eye-rollnig aside, this only logically follows if your opinion as offered in point three is correct and if there was no additional dispensation in place.

5) Given our Government's already "over-assistance" in the U.S. invasion, and it's aversion to checking things that were reported, it's important that they were pulled up on it to avoid ongoing abuses and because of that aversion it took a citizen to do it.

Even if this is correct (as its more opinion), the civilian went about it in the wrong way.

3) Is a citizen entitled to perform a citizen's arrest if a Garda does absolutely nothing ?

The conditions under which a citizen's arrest can be utilised are clearly defined and have already been presented in this thread. I take it, therefore, you are asking a rhetorical question here and are aware that the answer is no, a citizen is not entitled to do so in this situation.

Liam Byrne

bonkey wrote:

Eye-rollnig aside, this only logically follows if your opinion as offered in point three is correct and if there was no additional dispensation in place.

Accepted. Bear in mind that I was listing the main points of my opinion.

bonkey wrote:

Even if this is correct (as its more opinion), the civilian went about it in the wrong way.

Phew! Finally we get back on topic! If that is indeed the case, then so be it.

Many thanks, bonkey, for showing sufficient respect to spot what was my opinion and base the discussion on that.

I think we were on topic here all the time , the retreats into obfuscation by you Liam regarding what was fact and what was opinion notwithstanding.

Liam Byrne

Tristrame wrote:

I think we were on topic here all the time , the retreats into obfuscation by you Liam regarding what was fact and what was opinion notwithstanding.

Sorry, that's where you're wrong, Tristrame......numerous posts along the lines of the following....

Tristrame wrote:

Who are you to say whether it's ok for them to be in a hotel 2 miles from shannon or 22 miles

...dragged the discussion WAY off topic and obfuscated/misrepresented what I was saying to a massive degree. If the topic had been stuck to, then at least 3 or 4 of my posts attempting clarification of what I had ACTUALLY said would not have been required.

A discussion of points of view involves putting forward an opinion, and people can have opposing views as to what is "common sense" or various interpretations....but when the expressed opinion is continuously altered and misquoted such as the above example, the original topic or point gets confused and lost.

Not only that, but after all the confusion, even posts where I DID explicit say "Here's where I stand on the topic" ended up losing the emphasis that they were opinion and not necessarily fact.

Anyways, let's please leave the thread on topic at this stage.....it's not entitled "the competition to see who can twist the wording of Liam's opinion the most"......"Being John Malkovich" was less confusing......