Mick Wallace and Clare Daly reportedly arrested at Shannon airport.

loh_oro

Must be some security operation in Shannon if you can just hop the fence. What a joke

Mr. G

What's worrying to me is that if two nut cases can break into Shannon Airport and get close to military planes in a restricted area, god only knows what's actually going through the airport if you think about it, security clearly isn't tight.

My name is URL

conorh91 wrote: »

Ming, Wallace and Daly had nothing to lose

Having something to lose is why so many people opt to shut their mouths and turn a blind eye to things that are happening around them.

They did highlight the issues experienced by members of AGS, but they did so without risk to their own professional or political careers, or indeed personal liability (they did so under immunity from suit, via the Oireachtas).

Where should they have voiced their concerns, and those of whistle-blowers if not under privilege from the Dail.. a quiet word with a well placed minister.. a formal complaint to gardai?

That was one of a very few instances in which Dail privilege was put to good use...

Muahahaha

Mr. G wrote: »

What's worrying to me is that if two nut cases can break into Shannon Airport and get close to military planes in a restricted area, god only knows what's actually going through the airport if you think about it, security clearly isn't tight.

Apart from running electricity through the fence I'm not really sure what they can do. I cycle the back roads around the runway at Dublin airport and if I wanted to get on that runway I'd be pretty sure I could, the fence is not unscaleable. There's security patrols around the perimeter but sure you could just time them and you'd have an idea of the gap between them.

I always find it gas that at Irish airports all you need to do to get on the runway is to climb one fence. One fence. Iwe never taken notice of perimeter fences at other countries airports but I'd imagine many have two fences and some three.

conorh91

My name is URL wrote: »

Having something to lose is why so many people opt to shut their mouths and turn a blind eye to things that are happening around them.

Yes, very often, but not in this case.

Anyone who thinks anti-establishment TDs face electoral ruin for having criticized An Garda Siochána is codding themselves.

Where should they have voiced their concerns, and those of whistle-blowers if not under privilege from the Dail

What they did was probably technically advisable.

I would simply stop short of calling them heroes on any level. That's all. They risked nothing. They had nothing to lose. They had everything to gain from their respective constituencies.

They have personally profited, and I believe that was their intention at the outset.

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

Ming, Wallace and Daly had nothing to lose.
.

Would Daly not be putting her return to work at Aer Lingus at risk by her actions?

Banjo String

Deleted User wrote: »

Would Daly not be putting her return to work at Aer Lingus at risk by her actions?

She would be. ( If she planned returning.)

losthorizon

bajer101 wrote: »

They were attempting to inspect a US military aircraft.

Why don't they target aeroflot planes? That would make a good political statement at the moment. I reckon the Russians have shot down four planes recently including one carrying an Irish citizen or does that not matter to them?

Dyr

smurfjed wrote: »

Paramite Pie, thanks for the links, but have a look at these and then tell me why i should respect the human rights of the people transported.....

You see the theres the thing, if you have to have one of the basic principles of a society explained to you then its a waste of someones time.


It tends to be that people respect human rights because they're not complete c***s

conorh91

Bambi wrote: »

You see the theres the thing, if you have to have one of the basic principles of a society explained to you then its a waste of someones time.


It tends to be that people respect human rights because they're not complete c***s

The most fundamental questions like "what does the 'rule of law' mean, and why does it even matter?" are the most important.

We should be able to provide clear answers to them off-hand.

If a response is difficult to articulate without resorting to swearing and insulting, as you have done, then there's a problem.

My personal opinion is that there is scope for a legitimate debate as to whether extraordinary rendition is morally wrong at all.

Awkward Badger

conorh91 wrote: »

The most fundamental questions like "what does the 'rule of law' mean, and why does it even matter?" are the most important.

We should be able to provide clear answers to them off-hand.

If a response is difficult to articulate without resorting to swearing and insulting, as you have done, then there's a problem.

My personal opinion is that there is scope for a legitimate debate as to whether extraordinary rendition is morally wrong at all.

There is only scope if you think nobody should have any basic human rights at all. Its a foreign nation abducting, detaining and torturing people at will without due process and only suspicions to go by. If you agree with that or think its justified then you are opposed to anyone anywhere having any rights to begin with including yourself.

It would be the same argument as slavery, murder, torture, rape, abuse. They are lesser, our rights are more important, our needs are more important, we can do with them as we please to benefit ourselves.

I get that some people spout shíte without thinking about not caring or it being for the greater good but its a disturbing and scary thing that someone would actually sit down and argue that its morally justifiable that other human beings can be treated like that for the benefit of the interests of others.

conorh91

Awkward Badger wrote: »

If you agree with that or think its justified then you are opposed to anyone anywhere having any rights to begin with including yourself.

Next you're going to tell me i hate your freedom.

There is no single, immutable list of human rights. Human rights are both individual and collective, and to the extent that these categories are in conflict, they compete with one another.

Many people legitimately believe that where there is conflict, a society's right to freedom from terrorism ranks higher than an individual's right to fair procedures, or access to the civilian courts.

It would be the same argument as slavery, murder, torture, rape, abuse. They are lesser, our rights are more important, our needs are more important, we can do with them as we please to benefit ourselves.

But murder and rape are not necessary to meet any legitimate social objective, so that is not a valid comparison.

Its a foreign nation abducting, detaining and torturing people at will

I don't usually read-up on extraordinary rendition, but to the best of my awareness, captives are not tortured anymore.

Awkward Badger

conorh91 wrote: »

Next you're going to tell me I hate your freedom.

What ? I don't know what you hate but if you think you can ignore the law, take anyone's basic human rights away at will without having to justify it then nobody including yourself had any rights to begin with.

I don't keep updating my knowledge of extraordinary rendition, but as far as I am aware captives are not tortured anymore.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. And even if it was true it hardly makes the abducting and and detaining without due process morally justifiable.

conorh91

Awkward Badger wrote: »

if you think you can ignore the law, take anyone's basic human rights away at will without having to justify it then nobody including yourself had any rights to begin with.

Are you opposed to a Garda arresting a person on the basis of a Garda having formed a suspicion, sometimes based on internal Garda intelligence, that a person has committed a crime?

During a period of detention, that person's consititutional rights and human rights will be held in abeyance on the "will" of a police agency which is not readily amenable to public scrutiny, nor does it immediately have to justify
the basis for its suspicions.

In these circumstances, would you not agree that the Gardai are taking away a person's constituitonal and human rights, albeit temporarily, without a judicial process, in the public interest?

Awkward Badger

conorh91 wrote: »

Next you're going to tell me i hate your freedom.

There is no single, immutable list of human rights. Human rights are both individual and collective, and to the extent that these categories are in conflict, they compete with one another.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Many people legitimately believe that where there is conflict, a society's right to freedom from terrorism ranks higher than an individual's right to fair procedures, or access to the civilian courts.

There are laws in place to deal with crime including terrorism. As shown earlier by another poster convictions for terrorism are higher through the courts than from detention centres like Guantanamo. Its not a legitimate belief to think everyone's basic human rights can be compromised when its not necessary to do simply to do.

But murder and rape are not necessary to meet any legitimate social objective, so that is not a valid comparison.

So its justified if its a social objection ? Mass murder/genocide and systematic rape, occupation, slavery etc ect are ok if those doing it believe its in the best interests of society ? As I said society provides a framework to deal with these things already that protects the rights of all citizens. To ignore the law and individuals rights because you believe you have the rights to do so justifies just about anything you want to do to anyone as nobody has any rights any more.

Fortunately for us we live in a society where our rights are protected.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/eu-court-rules-poland-violated-human-rights-of-cia-terror-suspects-276610.html

Awkward Badger

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you opposed to a Garda arresting a person on the basis of a Garda having formed a suspicion, sometimes based on internal Garda intelligence, that a person has committed a crime?

During a period of detention, that person's consititutional rights and human rights will be held in abeyance on the "will" of a police agency which is not readily amenable to public scrutiny, nor does it immediately have to justify
the basis for its suspicions.

In these circumstances, would you not agree that the Gardai are taking away a person's constituitonal and human rights, albeit temporarily, without a judicial process, in the public interest?

The Gardai uphold and operate within the law of this state. Nobodies human rights are violated by being held on suspicion of a crime in accordance with the law while facts are determined. Its a transparent process with the suspect given every opportunity to argue their case and they can only be held for a set period before being released again in accordance with the law.

You cannot be comparing that to the CIA abducting people from other countries, flying them to a detention centre where they will be held indefinitely, tortured and abused in secret on suspicions that do not have to be justified to anyone ?

conorh91

Awkward Badger wrote: »

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

The ECHR is not a single list of immutable rights. It is a convention made up of rights that are often in conflict when litigated, for exampe, the recent high profile hijab case where the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a woman's right to wear the hijab ranked lower than the rights of the collective society in living together.

So you see, even human rights are capable of being extinguished or suspended. At various times, individual human rights need to be suspended in the pursuit of some higher-ranking objective.

So its justified if its a social objection ? Mass murder/genocide and systematic rape, occupation, slavery etc ect are ok if those doing it believe its in the best interests of society ?

You ignored two important words, "valid" and "necessary", as in "where it is necessary to meet a valid social objective".

It is impossible to construct any situation where genocide would be "necessary" as part of some "valid" social objective. Killing, in itself, myay sometimes be necessary, but I think we all agree that mass, indiscriminate extermination of a population is not.

You cannot be comparing that to the CIA abducting people from other countries, flying them to a detention centre where they will be held indefinitely, tortured and abused in secret on suspicions that do not have to be justified to anyone ?

It isn't a comparison, it is a test of your statement about human rights being immutable "at will". I put to you a valid question, would you mind answering it please?

When a person is arrested and detained by AGS, would you not agree that the Garda are suspending a person's constituitonal and human rights, without a judicial process, and doing so in the greater public interest?

And then, were you not wrong when you said that human rights cannot just be taken away at "will"?

Dyr

Awkward Badger wrote: »

You cannot be comparing that to the CIA abducting people from other countries, flying them to a detention centre where they will be held indefinitely, tortured and abused in secret on suspicions that do not have to be justified to anyone ?

if you're into facetious comparisons you can, a predilection for ridiculously stretched moral horse trading help too.

Muahahaha

conorh91 wrote: »

stopped clocks and twice a day and all that.

The real heroes in the Garda whistle blowing campaign were the Garda whistleblowers.

You're a hero if you stand at a risk of some substantial loss, yet you take that chance of loss anyway, in pursuit of a valuable cause.

Ming, Wallace and Daly had nothing to lose.


They did highlight the issues experienced by members of AGS, but they did so without risk to their own professional or political careers, or indeed personal liability (they did so under immunity from suit, via the Oireachtas).

These people are opportunists. They stood to materially gain from their actions in terms of public relations. They did so, and continue to do so.

So if you stand up and campaign for truth and Justice then you're an opportunist ? So what does that make someone who doesn't stand up for it? Your logic is totally warped

For one the Garda whistleblowers used the official channels right up to the Confidential Reciepient. When that still didn't work for them they then approached members of the Oireachteas, as is their right under the law. McCabe and Wilson had a choice of 166 TDs and 64 senators to approach. They chose Wallace, Daly and Ming. I've no ideas why but perhaps they felt they couldn't trust Fianna Fáil as a lot of their allegations happened under FF governments. Wallace, Daly and Ming had a choice of weather to do something or to do nothing. They did something which I'll always be eternally grateful for, finally we might see at least some reform of AGS which by now is a discredited organisation.

Wallace, Daly and Ming were instrumental to making all that happen. Their campaign lasted two long years during which the media first ignored them and then later as the evidence built up and up finally the media switched to their side. They were ridiculed as hippies and crusties but they didn't let that right-wing vitriol get to them and truth and Justice won out in the end when an incompetent Commissioner and Minister were forced to resign in disgrace.

And for all that you call them opportunists? These people stood up for your rights, all our rights. They stood up because a woman had been raped and Gardai tried to cover it up. If I raped your mother or your sister and my mates in the Gardai covered it up how would you feel ? Because that's what Wallace, Daly and Ming stood up for, the right to every citizen to proper administration of Justice before the law.

But for that you call them opportunists, your bias against them is so strong and clouded that it is preventing you from thinking straight on what is logical here.

losthorizon wrote: »

Why don't they target aeroflot planes? That would make a good political statement at the moment. I reckon the Russians have shot down four planes recently including one carrying an Irish citizen or does that not matter to them?

If military planes are passing through Shannon and there is a suspicion over them then they should be searched under our laws. It doesn't matter what nationality the plane is, human rights are for all, not just for some people and not for others

conorh91

Muahahaha wrote: »

So if you stand up and campaign for truth and Justice then you're an opportunist ?

And for all that you call them opportunists?

But for that you call them opportunists

Calling Wallace and Daly "opportunists", which is a fair and accurate term, was not directly connected to the point I made about their actions on Garda whistleblowers. It was located in the first line of the adjacent paragraph but the two points were not interconnected.

In light of current events, call them "opportunists" for publicity-hunting by breaching security at Shannon Airport. They have also been opportunistic at various times in the past, although this is probably not relevant to the subject matter of this thread.

For one the Garda whistleblowers used the official channels right up to the Confidential Reciepient. When that still didn't work for them they then approached members of the Oireachteas, as is their right under the law.

Again, I said that the TDs in question didn't act contrary to the law. That wasn't a point made by me.

ROCKMAN

Sorry if posted before ,
But WW does it again ,

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/07/23/wallace-and-dalys-parents-forbid-them-from-seeing-each-other-again/

Keep up the good work lads.

jjbrien

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Sorry if posted before ,
But WW does it again ,

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/07/23/wallace-and-dalys-parents-forbid-them-from-seeing-each-other-again/

Keep up the good work lads.

hahaha so funny

Judgement Day

My name is URL wrote: »

Your one D'Arcy pointed that out when she managed to climb a fence and make it on to an active runway without security or tower personnel realising it.

Another protester had to call the tower to tell them what was going on.

And she wasn't the first to breach the perimeter.

Security seems to be utterly shite when it comes to keeping people out of restricted areas.

Not a big fan of lax security in Ireland - one of my many gripes.

Remember the security guard at the Dublin Airport Control Tower with a criminal record: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hijacker-no-threat-to-dublin-airport-26033941.html

and this light fingered member of airport security: http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/im-sorry-for-airport-cash-theft

My own recent experience was at Dublin Port where the Security officer who questioned me about my nationality was clearly Eastern European rather than Irish.....and if you don't think this is odd, don't bother asking why I thought it odd.

Anyway, it all smacks of lazy/non-existent vetting of candidates for these and other security jobs. The authorities will wait for something awful to happen and then set-up a tribunal.

ROCKMAN

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Sorry if posted before ,
But WW does it again ,
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/07/23/wallace-and-dalys-parents-forbid-them-from-seeing-each-other-again/
Keep up the good work lads.

Brilliant!

eeepaulo

Judgement Day wrote: »

My own recent experience was at Dublin Port where the Security officer who questioned me about my nationality was clearly Eastern European rather than Irish.....and if you don't think this is odd, don't bother asking why I thought it odd.

Anyway, it all smacks of lazy/non-existent vetting of candidates for these and other security jobs.

Should the application form have the following question.

Do you have a criminal record OR were you born on a different rock to me?

jjbrien

Judgement Day wrote: »

Not a big fan of lax security in Ireland - one of my many gripes.

Remember the security guard at the Dublin Airport Control Tower with a criminal record: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hijacker-no-threat-to-dublin-airport-26033941.html

and this light fingered member of airport security: http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/im-sorry-for-airport-cash-theft

My own recent experience was at Dublin Port where the Security officer who questioned me about my nationality was clearly Eastern European rather than Irish.....and if you don't think this is odd, don't bother asking why I thought it odd.

Anyway, it all smacks of lazy/non-existent vetting of candidates for these and other security jobs. The authorities will wait for something awful to happen and then set-up a tribunal.

Ah sure with the dail rules its also ok to be a TD and have a criminal record. So why would it be different elsewhere.

Judgement Day

eeepaulo wrote: »

Should the application form have the following question.

Do you have a criminal record OR were you born on a different rock to me?

I should imagine that all would be covered in your CV - and for a security job should be checked properly - what part of that don't you understand or agree with?

Manic Moran

Muahahaha wrote: »

If military planes are passing through Shannon and there is a suspicion over them then they should be searched under our laws. It doesn't matter what nationality the plane is, human rights are for all, not just for some people and not for others

Violation of sovereign immunity is a very serious breach of international protocol, you want to have something more than 'suspiscion' to violate it. God knows what routinely comes into/out of countries in the diplomatic bag. It doesn't have to be renditions or weapons. Anyone who has visited New Zealand knows how seriously they take their import inspections, but they still won't check the Irish diplomatic luggage on the quite likely chance that they have some Galtee rashers and sausages.

eeepaulo

Judgement Day wrote: »

My own recent experience was at Dublin Port where the Security officer who questioned me about my nationality was clearly Eastern European rather than Irish.....and if you don't think this is odd, don't bother asking why I thought it odd.

Anyway, it all smacks of lazy/non-existent vetting of candidates for these and other security jobs. The authorities will wait for something awful to happen and then set-up a tribunal.

Checked properly is not what you are saying

Judgement Day

eeepaulo wrote: »

Checked properly is not what you are saying

Explain please?

eeepaulo

Judgement Day wrote: »

My own recent experience was at Dublin Port where the Security officer who questioned me about my nationality was clearly Eastern European rather than Irish.....and if you don't think this is odd, don't bother asking why I thought it odd.

Anyway, it all smacks of lazy/non-existent vetting of candidates for these and other security jobs. The authorities will wait for something awful to happen and then set-up a tribunal.

Why was it odd?

Judgement Day

eeepaulo wrote: »

Why was it odd?

You think it's acceptable for a foreigner (be they naturalised or not) to be entrusted with this area of security - I don't. Sorry if that offends your pc sensitivities.

eeepaulo

Judgement Day wrote: »

You think it's acceptable for a foreigner (be they naturalised or not) to be entrusted with this area of security - I don't. Sorry if that offends your pc sensitivities.

My sensitivites, thanks

by jingo i think you are correct?

cant trust johnny foireigner in these important positions?

Judgement Day

eeepaulo wrote: »

My sensitivites, thanks

by jingo i think you are correct?

cant trust johnny foireigner in these important positions?

Yes, I clearly must be a racist to want to have our security services in the hands of our own people. You have cherry picked one point from my original post so that you can peddle your own agenda but my main point was that serious vetting of security people needs to be carried out not the half assed approach that some organisations seem to apply. No need to reply if you're going to be infantile.

eeepaulo

Judgement Day wrote: »

Yes, I clearly must be a racist to want to have our security services in the hands of our own people. You have cherry picked one point from my original post so that you can peddle your own agenda but my main point was that serious vetting of security people needs to be carried out not the half assed approach that some organisations seem to apply. No need to reply if you're going to be infantile.

My point was that you stated that a foreigner is not allowed to question you on your nationality at the border (not sure why)

I did not call you racist, i called you overly aggressively nationalistic,

darkpagandeath

Are we not all European now and I could get a job on French boarder control if I was experienced ? Same with all EU states never heard this one before. Would be being born here be enough or would you need to have parents born here ?

jjbrien

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Are we not all European now and I could get a job on French boarder control if I was experienced ? Same with all EU states never heard this one before. Would be being born here be enough or would you need to have parents born here ?

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread? This is about Mick Wallace and Claire Daily jumping the fence and breaking into Shannon airport. Weather some people think they were right or like myself thinking they were wrong. Can we get back on topic please?

Muahahaha

jjbrien wrote: »

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread? This is about Mick Wallace and Claire Daily jumping the fence and breaking into Shannon airport. Weather some people think they were right or like myself thinking they were wrong. Can we get back on topic please?

Well it was your human rights they were standing up for- they clearly don't agree with innocent people being lifted off the street and tortured so while you might think that how they highlighted the abuses of human rights was wrong it still doesn't negate the fact that you yourself benefit from any campaign against the torture of innocents. So even if you think the methods they used were wrong you should still be grateful that they are campaigning for your rights as a human.

Piliger

jjbrien wrote: »

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread? This is about Mick Wallace and Claire Daily jumping the fence and breaking into Shannon airport. Weather some people think they were right or like myself thinking they were wrong. Can we get back on topic please?

I agree. Their reasons are irrelevant. Our right to protest does not extend to a right to break the law, and I have no time whatsoever for these publicity seeking gobdaws and their stunt.

Satriale

Piliger wrote: »

I agree. Their reasons are irrelevant. Our right to protest does not extend to a right to break the law, and I have no time whatsoever for these publicity seeking gobdaws and their stunt.

There are a whole lot of people wiser than you or i, who would disagree with you...

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/civil-disobedience

jjbrien

Satriale wrote: »

There are a whole lot of people wiser than you or i, who would disagree with you...

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/civil-disobedience

There is no way these two can be compared to the people on that list. There is no proof that Shannon has been used to rendition flights. These two bafoons broke the law, could have put others at risk its unacceptable. They are elected members of the dail and could have well used dail process to look into this, instead they broke the law, plain and simple.

Piliger

Satriale wrote: »

There are a whole lot of people wiser than you or i, who would disagree with you...

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/civil-disobedience

What a load of nonsense. That's what I'd expect from Wallace.

Satriale

jjbrien wrote: »

There is no way these two can be compared to the people on that list. There is no proof that Shannon has been used to rendition flights. These two bafoons broke the law, could have put others at risk its unacceptable. They are elected members of the dail and could have well used dail process to look into this, instead they broke the law, plain and simple.

Can you show me where i compared them? i pointed out that greater minds than ours consider breaking the law necessary.

Since you know there is no proof of rendition, why dont you show us the proof Daly and Wallace put others at risk.

Satriale

Piliger wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. That's what I'd expect from Wallace.

So, all those people are wrong, or just me?

jjbrien

Satriale wrote: »

Can you show me where i compared them? i pointed out that greater minds than ours consider breaking the law necessary.

Since you know there is no proof of rendition, why dont you show us the proof Daly and Wallace put others at risk.

Breaking into a busy international airport could have put others at risk. It shows terroists that our airports are an easy target.

You implied that others who had broken the law in other places did it under the same idea as Wallace and Daly did. When infact they just did it to get their photo in the paper. Ireland has a good relationship with the United States we dont need two vigilantes ruining it for us. We have an Air Core, Army, Customs and Guards whos job it is to protect our country and are more trained in these matters than these two clowns. There is dail process they could have followed and Customs might have taken a look at them planes. At the time the planes were empty so there was nobody on them which debunks their idea of those aircraft being used to rendition. The United States isnt dumb. It would move rendition flights though one of its air bases in Germany or the UK and wouldn't do it at Shannon.

Satriale

jjbrien wrote: »

Breaking into a busy international airport could have put others at risk. It shows terroists that our airports are an easy target.

You implied that others who had broken the law in other places did it under the same idea as Wallace and Daly did. When infact they just did it to get their photo in the paper. Ireland has a good relationship with the United States we dont need two vigilantes ruining it for us. We have an Air Core, Army, Customs and Guards whos job it is to protect our country and are more trained in these matters than these two clowns. There is dail process they could have followed and Customs might have taken a look at them planes. At the time the planes were empty so there was nobody on them which debunks their idea of those aircraft being used to rendition. The United States isnt dumb. It would move rendition flights though one of its air bases in Germany or the UK and wouldn't do it at Shannon.

Again, i didnt imply anything. i pointed out that smarter people than you guys think you are wrong. Yes, Martin Luther King and Ghandi, think you and Piliger are just plain wrong!!

And if by "good relationship with the USA" you mean we would sell our grannies to them for a few bucks you may be right there, but IMO being afraid of economic consequences is not friendship.

Manic Moran

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Are we not all European now and I could get a job on French boarder control if I was experienced ? Same with all EU states never heard this one before. Would be being born here be enough or would you need to have parents born here ?

I believe there are certain exemptions to that, at the top of the list being the security services. A citizenship requirement at least is required for many positions. (If not exclusive citizenship) This is not unique to the EU, it's one of he few exceptions to the Constitution applying to foreigners in the US as well: Discrimination in hiring is legal in such cases.

Judgement Day

Ah but that's discrimination, x% of security staff should be female, y% should be LGBT, Z% should be Roma gypsies etc. - and to hell with their suitability for the job.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The Scarecrow was apparently in a Courtown ale house yesterday. He reminds me of how FF were in the day, immerse yourself with the voters, get down to the common mans level.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The Scarecrow was apparently in a Courtown ale house yesterday. He reminds me of how FF were in the day, immerse yourself into the voting public, get down to the common mans level.