So 4 travellers walk into a bar.....

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

Let's be frank here, you work in the legal profession so can you enlighten us as to how many traveller clients you have ?
You do not have to go into specifics, but roughly how many times have you helped them in a legal case, a criminal legal case.

JMayo, because of your fixation in following me around from thread to thread with references to my job and the Bull, I kinda don't bother with your questions.

I'm being nice here to save you the effort and to explain the lack of reply. You could raise it another 50 times...in fact I expect you will...and you'll probably get the same...indifference.

CosmicJay

Deleted User wrote: »

They have faced oppression and discrimination for decades. It has been 30 years since the EU said they were the most discriminated against ethnic group in Europe. It hasn't improved. If I was part of that group, at the receiving end of bigotry decade after decade, I'd laugh at your expectation that I should respect your litter laws, your road traffic laws and your education system. Violence, alcoholism...well isn't that how ethnic groups who faced discrimination all over the world have reacted, do you expect some miracle in Ireland whereby the ones we treat with prejudice should learn to love and respect us?

So what is the solution?

We all need to be super nice to travellers and let them rob us blind?

We need to keep building them houses and halting sites which they can destroy time and time again.

Let them race up and down on roads because its their culture.

If you see one carting stuff out of your shed say, ah shure well, some lad on the internet said they are horribly oppressed. I should just do nothing.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We all know you've led a fairly sheltered life Conor, and that's fine, I'm not in any way mocking you by saying that...

You are, it is the essence of ad hominem. You don't know the first thing about me.

As with JMayo, is the standard MO to start digging into another poster's personal life and start working off assumptions?

Its a very very lame argument. It suggests you know how poor your position is when you reach for it. It just dilutes any point you are trying to make.

CosmicJay

CosmicJay wrote: »

So what is the solution?

We all need to be super nice to travellers and let them rob us blind?

We need to keep building them houses and halting sites which they can destroy time and time again.

Let them race up and down on roads because its their culture.

If you see one carting stuff out of your shed say, ah shure well, some lad on the internet said they are horribly oppressed. I should just do nothing.

Not at all, we respond to crime each and every time it happens, in any community. We don't profile any group and make assumptions.

I wouldn't really invoke the housing and halting sites stuff when we are not even meeting their basic human rights in that regard. Is it less than 50 sites of the 1,000 it was felt would be necessary?

CosmicJay

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all, we respond to crime each and every time it happens, in any community. We don't profile any group and make assumptions.

I wouldn't really invoke the housing and halting sites stuff when we are not even meeting their basic human rights in that regard. Is it less than 50 sites of the 1,000 it was felt would be necessary?

It's a very nice soundbite to throw around that we're not meeting their basic human rights.

What rights are we not meeting?

The only one I can think of is the right to accommodation, the state isnt providing enough halting sites to an adequate standard causing overcrowding.

By that logic than anyone who is homeless is having their human rights abused by the state.

Ash.J.Williams

CosmicJay wrote: »

It's a very nice soundbite to throw around that we're not meeting their basic human rights.

What rights are we not meeting?

The only one I can think of is the right to accommodation, the state isnt providing enough halting sites to an adequate standard causing overcrowding.

By that logic than anyone who is homeless is having their human rights abused by the state.

There's absolutely no point in halting sites. If an official government halting site is required than its Time for housing..

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

You are, it is the essence of ad hominem. You don't know the first thing about me.

As with JMayo, is the standard MO to start digging into another poster's personal life and start working off assumptions?

Its a very very lame argument. It suggests you know how poor your position is when you reach for it. It just dilutes any point you are trying to make.

Well I apologise if that's the way you took it, it's not how I intended it.

But seeing as we're doing logical fallacies, my making an assumption about you (rightly or wrongly) could in no way effect the legitimacy of a separate argument about travellers!

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all, we respond to crime each and every time it happens, in any community. We don't profile any group and make assumptions.

I wouldn't really invoke the housing and halting sites stuff when we are not even meeting their basic human rights in that regard. Is it less than 50 sites of the 1,000 it was felt would be necessary?

2 things.

1: Only idiots don't profile groups and make assumptions. You have heard tell no doubt of nice areas and bad areas. If you can't see there is difference in the probability of coming to grief while walking down a leafy street in foxrock at 2am, or an alleyway in Darndale at the same time of night then I just can't help you.
In fact I'm going to say you can see the difference (Stevie Wonder could see it after all), you probably just don't want to admit it!

2: Since when do we have a basic human right to land?
Is there a form I can fill out to claim mine?

CosmicJay

CosmicJay wrote: »

It's a very nice soundbite to throw around that we're not meeting their basic human rights.

Matter was fought out in the Council of Europe, the decision was made.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

1: Only idiots don't profile groups and make assumptions. You have heard tell no doubt of nice areas and bad areas. If you can't see there is difference in the probability of coming to grief while walking down a leafy street in foxrock at 2am, or an alleyway in Darndale at the same time of night then I just can't help you.
In fact I'm going to say you can see the difference (Stevie Wonder could see it after all), you probably just don't want to admit it!

2: Since when do we have a basic human right to land?
Is there a form I can fill out to claim mine?

Actually when it comes to law and order, the Gardai cannot profile people based on race, ethnic group etc. You may think they are idiots and choose to do it all the time, that is your prerogative.

Profiling an area based on crime stats in that area is very very different to profiling based on race, ethnicity. You surely understand that? Your analogy was very poor, particularly as you started with the "only idiots..."!

We don't have a human right to land. But then again, who said there was? The issue is not about providing land, or indeed property. It is the provision of accommodation.

the_syco

Omackeral wrote: »

But why? Why them? Why does it seem that Travellers have an awful reputation to the general public more than any other group?

Because they still trespass on peoples land, on public land, litter said land, intimidate people nearby, and ignore any laws that everyone else lives by.

Deleted User wrote: »

They have faced oppression and discrimination for decades.

They should try staying in school. And should leave their kids in school. As it stands, everyone hates school, but taking their traveller kids out of school ensures that they'll face discrimination by employers who ask everyone for the same; a pass in their LC.

=-=

Where I grew up, I had multiple good experiences with a certain traveller family (known locally as the Castletown travellers, as they worked on the Castletown land). They'd come up ever summer, and work hard. Keep their site clean. They stopped coming after another traveller family started to harass them, and would dump rubbish at their site.

Every single traveller I've met after that family went out of their way to intimidate me, my neighbours, my community. Would destroy any public facilities nearby.

Deleted User wrote: »

I always enjoy the whole "travellers drove very fast the other day, if that was you and me there'd be a SWAT team in helicopters" ones.

Actually, they need the ARU, multiple armed Gardai, etc, if they wanted to arrest one of their ilk!

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't really invoke the housing and halting sites stuff when we are not even meeting their basic human rights in that regard. Is it less than 50 sites of the 1,000 it was felt would be necessary?

They refuse to goto the halting sites if there's a family that they have a feud with is there. Which seems to happen quite often in Maynooth halting site. If they want to be treated equally, they'll take a house offered to them, but hell no; they want to be treated equally, but at the same time they want more stuff than the Irish... a house with land for their horse/caravan/etc, and/or a halting site that they may not use.

end of the road

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If the whole industry was awash with tales of how every time you let a few gays drink in your bar, they smashed the place up, I wouldn't let gays drink in my bar. Simple FACT is the majority of gays will behave themselves, the majority of travellers wont. There are always exceptions to every rule, but as I've repeatedly said it's a numbers game. Travellers have proven time and time again that if you take a chance on them it will likely backfire. Gays haven't proven that, black people haven't.

The place I work in has been robbed literally dozens of times over the years by one of the 3 groups mentioned above - can you guess which group it was?

I have no problem with either gays, nor blacks, travellers I do not want anything to do with. They are bad news as a group, there may well be exceptions, but so what, they are in such a small minority that they aren't worth bothering with. In the off chance that you meet Paddy the decent traveller, you may bet full well that his mate Paddy the scummy traveller will rob you blind or hit you with a hatchet at the drop of a hat. Bad news, end of story.

ultimately that doesn't matter. anti-discrimination laws will always come before a business.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You say over and over that you've had plenty of dealings with them. I can see only 2 possibilities here - you are lying about the number of times you've had to deal with them, or you are lying about how pleasant an experience it was. Nobody who has had to deal with these people, has too much good to say about them.

well you are wrong, so what possibilities you can see are false and irrelevant to me. i don't actually give a damn whether you do believe me or not, i don't tell lies so if i say i have had plenty of dealings with travelers both good and bad, then i did. nothing you or anyone says can change that fact.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not. It's a too much hassle, it's not like they're going to get jobs and pay taxes anyway so we'd rather not bother issue.

it very much is down to resourcing. it is well known raids have been caried out against travelers.

sbsquarepants

end of the road wrote: »

ultimately that doesn't matter. anti-discrimination laws will always come before a business..

Sense will always prevail over the law in my book.

end of the road wrote: »

well you are wrong, so what possibilities you can see are false and irrelevant to me. i don't actually give a damn whether you do believe me or not, i don't tell lies so if i say i have had plenty of dealings with travelers both good and bad, then i did. nothing you or anyone says can change that fact..

Tell us more about some of these bad experiences you've had. They don't seem to have coloured your views much!

end of the road wrote: »

it very much is down to resourcing. it is well known raids have been caried out against travelers.

They have - but largely speaking, cops just don't want the hassle of dealing with them. Have you ever witnessed a raid on a halting site - it's like invading another country!

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually when it comes to law and order, the Gardai cannot profile people based on race, ethnic group etc. You may think they are idiots and choose to do it all the time, that is your prerogative. .

You don't think the police would proceed differently to a call out from shrewsbury road or labre park?

Deleted User wrote: »

Profiling an area based on crime stats in that area is very very different to profiling based on race, ethnicity. You surely understand that? Your analogy was very poor, particularly as you started with the "only idiots..."!

We don't have a human right to land. But then again, who said there was? The issue is not about providing land, or indeed property. It is the provision of accommodation.

The denial is strong in this one!

The analogy is fine, it's your perception that's poor.
Areas don't commit crimes Conor, the people who live in those areas do.
When we say somewhere is a bad area, we mean the area is full of bad people. We could be grouping them by ethnicity, social class, whatever - but we are referring to people, not geography!

by8auj6csd3ioq

Why does it say the intoxicating liquor act when it is the equal status act that governs travellers refused service on traveller status

end of the road

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Sense will always prevail over the law in my book.

i'm afraid nonsense won't prevail over the law in the law's book. ultimately the law and what it states is all that matters here.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Tell us more about some of these bad experiences you've had. They don't seem to have coloured your views much!

they haven't coloured my views, that is correct, as i'm not in the business of judging whole groups of people on the basis of some people, i judge the individual on their own actions. i'm consistent on that viewpoint.

RasTa

Do love when the ladies sing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlTxNgdFhiY

tedpan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5nVES2dQW0

Currently #trending on YouTube 😀

Omackeral

That was culturally enriching.

ShooterSF

Well the court case has had an effect. There was a group of Travellers in town tonight and a lot of places flat out closed up. We were told by management that people were "here before and there was trouble on that night" as opposed to the "Regulars Only" signs going up.

up for anything

sbsquarepants wrote: »

1: Only idiots don't profile groups and make assumptions. You have heard tell no doubt of nice areas and bad areas. If you can't see there is difference in the probability of coming to grief while walking down a leafy street in foxrock at 2am, or an alleyway in Darndale at the same time of night then I just can't help you.
In fact I'm going to say you can see the difference (Stevie Wonder could see it after all), you probably just don't want to admit it!

It might not be Foxrock but it's not that shabby.

It actually doesn't matter which road you walk down at 2am while there are people out there who are out of control on cholesterol medication or painkillers and who get away with serious sexual offences. Pathetic bloody justice system and then people wonder why #MeToo.

It's a bit like Dr Seuss.... on a PLANE... down a lane! :mad:

sbsquarepants

up for anything wrote: »

It might not be Foxrock but it's not that shabby.

It actually doesn't matter which road you walk down at 2am while there are people out there who are out of control on cholesterol medication or painkillers and who get away with serious sexual offences. Pathetic bloody justice system and then people wonder why #MeToo.

It's a bit like Dr Seuss.... on a PLANE... down a lane! :mad:

Cholesterol medicine - I remember that twat alright!

It's down to the numbers though. You are MUCH more likely to come to grief down that lane in Darndale than you are in foxrock.
It's something to do with the geography!

pilly

Tipperary animal lover wrote:

I see EOTR has found this thread, give it a few days and the thread will be shut down, debate will go round I'm circles as per previous threads and mods will get pissed off with it and it'll be the the end of the road for yet another good thread, Long live good conversation either if you agree or disagree with it.

I've complained about this already. Nothing done.

pilly

pilly wrote: »

I've complained about this already. Nothing done.

I presume the mods take the view that having an opinion, and expressing it civilly, is pretty much the whole point of AH.

On the other hand, post after post about EOTR are off topic.

What's with all the efforts to personalise the matter? If you're comfortable with your opinion on the topic, there should be no need to analyse others posters personally.

the_syco

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well the court case has had an effect. There was a group of Travellers in town tonight and a lot of places flat out closed up. We were told by management that people were "here before and there was trouble on that night" as opposed to the "Regulars Only" signs going up.

Yeah, heard this happening this in some villages, where everyone shuts up shop, and maybe one bar only lets people in that they personally know, and the other bar owners.

Dr Brown

Bit off topic but there is a traveller protest planned for next year calling for the legal recognition of traveller "ethnic status".

Non travellers are banned from speaking at this event.

Can anyone tell me how this is not discrimination ?

It seems that the human rights brigade have no problem when travellers discriminate against other people.

Ash.J.Williams

Dr Brown wrote: »

Bit off topic but there is a traveller protest planned for next year calling for the legal recognition of traveller "ethnic status".

Non travellers are banned from speaking at this event.

Can anyone tell me how this is not discrimination ?

It seems that the human rights brigade have no problem when travellers discriminate against other people.

Was that not last year?

Dr Brown

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Was that not last year?

No there is another one planned for next year.

https://www.facebook.com/events/310311392793008/

Irish Mincéirs is the real name of what is more commonly known as, Irish Travellers.

On the 18/1/18 at the Irish Dáil we (Irish Minceirs) will protest and demand that the Irish Government formally recognises Mincéir Ethnicity. The government tokenistic, symbolical right to exist acknowledgement is without any real protection.

We demand that the Irish State allow 'our' human rights as Irish Minceirs and be afforded "ethnic legal protection" and these rights be written into statutory law and the Irish constitution.
On the day it will be "Travellers only speakers" on the day. This is not to offend any non Mincéirs, but it's more inline with "Mincéir Empowerment" and getting our voice heard!.

We hope that you can make it on the day and stand with

manonboard

Dr Brown wrote: »

Bit off topic but there is a traveller protest planned for next year calling for the legal recognition of traveller "ethnic status".

Non travellers are banned from speaking at this event.

Can anyone tell me how this is not discrimination ?

It seems that the human rights brigade have no problem when travellers discriminate against other people.

It makes alot of sense. Its a rally to give a voice to a marginalized section of society, having a non marginalized voice speak for them is not a great approach.
Whilst various disciplines like science can be spoken of equally, subjective experiences cannot, and so arent.

Advocacy groups try to give voice to who ever they advocate on. It causes more harm than good to play it 'equally' as minorities would be drowned in the sea of majority.
We purposefully give extra voice to less powerful groups or else they'd never get heard, and everyone would have to stick an extremely strict mainstream or else get left behind.

It could indeed be classed as discriminatory by technicalities, but we only care when we view it as more harmful than beneficial. Similarly, we turn a blind eye to a beggar stealing a loaf of bread.

Dr Brown

manonboard wrote: »

It could indeed be classed as discriminatory by technicalities, but we only care when we view it as more harmful than beneficial. Similarly, we turn a blind eye to a beggar stealing a loaf of bread.

It is discrimination and complete double standards.

why can't business owners use the same "technicality" to protect their businesses from travellers ? if they feel their livelihood may be threatened.

manonboard

Dr Brown wrote: »

It is discrimination and complete double standards.

why can't business owners use the same "technicality" to protect their businesses from travellers ? if they feel their livelihood may be threatened.

Yes it is a double standard by some measurements. However my answer to your question was an explanation of it n why we allow it. The benefits we gain from allowing it. You are of course welcome to decide it doesn't bring more benefit than harm, n welcome to share why in that context.

The business owners can't use the same because they get sued as it's illegal. They dont wish to lose money n get shut down so they abide by the law. There is a huge difference in benefits/harm that comes from allowing selection of speakers at rally that give voices to minorities than businesses not serving entire groups of people by profiling so broadly.
The risk to the rally is that they may miss a great speaker who is a non traveller but they accept that risk. The risk to society of businesses refusing is isolation n further non integration n suffering to a section of the population.

I cast no opinion on the livelihood issue. Its certainly a difficult situation. Certain customs in the traveller population are harmful, but our current solution may be less harmful than isolating them as a community. Lots of innocent travellers would be tarred with the same brush.

How would you go about resting both sides of the issues? Realistically. How would you protect the business owners and also stop the harm coming from rejecting a population?

Army_of_One

pilly wrote: »

I've complained about this already. Nothing done.

Use the ignore option. The threads still make sense with his sh1te posts removed.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

King George VI wrote: »

"The group had been attending a human rights course when they had decided to go for a drink to a nearby pub."

Dr Brown

manonboard wrote: »

Yes it is a double standard by some measurements. However my answer to your question was an explanation of it n why we allow it. The benefits we gain from allowing it. You are of course welcome to decide it doesn't bring more benefit than harm, n welcome to share why in that context.

The business owners can't use the same because they get sued as it's illegal.

These sort of political correct "laws" are completely undemocratic and should be abolished.

It's the same type of "laws" that turn good people like padraig nally into "criminals" simply for defending their home.

There is a huge difference in benefits/harm that comes from allowing selection of speakers at rally that give voices to minorities than businesses not serving entire groups of people by profiling so broadly.

I agree pub owners and other businesses are much more likely to suffer harm if they don't "discriminate".

The risk to the rally is that they may miss a great speaker who is a non traveller but they accept that risk. The risk to society of businesses refusing is isolation n further non integration n suffering to a section of the population.

Most travellers don't even want to integrate and look down on "settled people".

I cast no opinion on the livelihood issue. Its certainly a difficult situation. Certain customs in the traveller population are harmful, but our current solution may be less harmful than isolating them as a community. Lots of innocent travellers would be tarred with the same brush.

If there are lots "innocent travellers" then should start condemning the criminal element in their community but instead we have traveller groups defending the likes of frog ward.

How would you go about resting both sides of the issues? Realistically. How would you protect the business owners and also stop the harm coming from rejecting a population?

Give business owners the right to refuse anyone for whatever reason.

I was once refushed from a gay bar because I wasn't gay but you won't find any of these human rights do gooders helping me sue the bar for "discrimination".

But its no skin off my nose if a bar refuses me I just take my custom else where.

end of the road

Dr Brown wrote: »

These sort of political correct "laws" are completely undemocratic and should be abolished.

these sort of laws are perfectly fine and are necessary. nothing to do with political correctness, but insuring people don't get discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, sexuality. they are perfectly democratic.

Dr Brown wrote: »

It's the same type of "laws" that turn good people like padraig nally into "criminals" simply for defending their home.

it really isn't. you can defend your home using reasonable force. padraig nally went beyond that, hence was charged and rightly so.

Dr Brown wrote: »

I agree pub owners and other businesses are much more likely to suffer harm if they don't "discriminate".

any service open to the public will be at risk. it's unfortunate but it's a fact of life. hence we need to insure that law enforcement funding and resources are up to scratch and the courts system will implement the longest sentences allowed for all criminality.

Dr Brown wrote: »

Most travellers don't even want to integrate and look down on "settled people".

well, with the treatment travelers get from some people, it's not surprising they look down on us back.

Dr Brown wrote: »

If there are lots "innocent travellers" then should start condemning the criminal element in their community but instead we have traveller groups defending the likes of frog ward.

they do condemn the criminal element when possible. sometimes however travelers are in fear and decide to keep their mouth shut. it's not right that this should be but sadly it is the way it is
no traveler groups "defended" frog ward's criminality.

Dr Brown wrote: »

Give business owners the right to refuse anyone for whatever reason.

can't be done. otherwise we would have to allow discrimination across the board, which would take our country back a century, and in turn make us a place where people will not want to live, and where international companies would not wish to invest in . ireland has modernised and i'm afraid you will just have to go along with it.

Dr Brown wrote: »

I was once refushed from a gay bar because I wasn't gay but you won't find any of these human rights do gooders helping me sue the bar for "discrimination".

you have plenty of "straight" bars to go to. i take your point but it really isn't comparible to the traveler situation.

Omackeral

Would love to see a poll on whether people think Padraig Nally deserved to be charged. I would wager the majority would say no.

falinn merking

Padraig Nally using the shotgun to defend himself was fine.

Chasing Frog Ward off the farm and shooting him in the back along with the statements he made is what landed him in trouble.

I don't understand why so many of you are having a go and End of the Road all he is trying to express is we have to have rules.

Nobody is denying there are big problems in the travelling community but discrimination is not the answer.

Hateful rants turn people off what is needed in enforcement of the rules we have.

If a few of these gangs carrying out these home invasions got some serious time if would put others off the same crime.

The number of assaults carried out in Dublin alone is a disgrace and it has nothing to do with Travellers and these people never seem to be in fear of the law either.

Proper enforcement of the laws is the only solution here not rants.

falinn merking

Anyway I have plans for Christmas I need to get ready and I will be off the internet for a few days.
I hope you all have a happy and STRESS free Christmas.:)

Dr Brown

Omackeral wrote: »

Would love to see a poll on whether people think Padraig Nally deserved to be charged. I would wager the majority would say no.

Padraig Nally should of been give a person of the year award.

http://www.peopleoftheyear.com/previous-winners/

Dr Brown

end of the road wrote: »

these sort of laws are perfectly fine and are necessary. nothing to do with political correctness, but insuring people don't get discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, sexuality. they are perfectly democratic.

The law can't be democratic when 90% of people disagree with it.

it really isn't. you can defend your home using reasonable force. padraig nally went beyond that, hence was charged and rightly so.

He should never have been arrested in the first place.

well, with the treatment travelers get from some people, it's not surprising they look down on us back.

Most people try to avoid travelers while travelers on the other hand commit crimes against the "settled people" every day of the week.

My mother paid travelers to do some "work" in her garden they ended up robbing all the tools from her garden shed.

Do think they robbed the tools because of "discrimination".

they do condemn the criminal element when possible. sometimes however travelers are in fear and decide to keep their mouth shut. it's not right that this should be but sadly it is the way it is

I have never heard them condemning other travelers.

no traveler groups "defended" frog ward's criminality.

we had traveler groups calling for Padraig Nally to be jailed.

can't be done. otherwise we would have to allow discrimination across the board, which would take our country back a century, and in turn make us a place where people will not want to live, and where international companies would not wish to invest in . ireland has modernised and i'm afraid you will just have to go along with it.

Companies wouldn't care they are only here because of low tax.

Many of the multinational companies already discriminate against Irish workers.

90% of the workers in googles Dublin HQ are non nationals.

end of the road

Omackeral wrote: »

Would love to see a poll on whether people think Padraig Nally deserved to be charged. I would wager the majority would say no.

that very may well be, but thankfully the authorities work on the basis of the rules rather then whether a prosecution has support or not. they did make the right decisian to prosecute him, even if people don't agree with it.

Dr Brown wrote: »

The law can't be democratic when 90% of people disagree with it.

in a number of cases it very much is democratic even if a majority don't agree with it. a majority would once have agreed with discrimination toards blacks and gays, laws had to be passed to stop it for the greater good, whether society wanted it or not. sometimes laws have to be brought in for the good of society whether society wants them or not.

Dr Brown wrote: »

He should never have been arrested in the first place.

he had to be . it was necessary for the protection of society and to enforce the rule of law.

Dr Brown wrote: »

I have never heard them condemning other travelers.

you might want to listen to news more then because it has happened.

Dr Brown wrote: »

we had traveler groups calling for Padraig Nally to be jailed.

and fair play to them. they weren't the only ones. i and others 100% agreed with them, and thankfully he did serve some time. but this thread isn't about him anyway, so we should probably move on from him.

Annasopra

90%? Really? Are you just making stuff up?

Omackeral

end of the road wrote: »

he had to be . it was necessary for the protection of society

Who was Mr Nally ever a danger to in society exactly? I guarantee you if he wasn't forced to sleep in a barn like an animal by that scumbag Ward harassing him, the answer is nobody.

Dr Brown

my trillion re reg wrote: »

ward should have been skined, the bastard, terrified nally to the point of no return.

the public supported nallys actions out of sheer despairation.

I bet if Nally ever ran for the dail he would top the poll.

The Nally is a hero stuff is a little silly. I appreciate people may feel he didn't deserve to be convicted, but "person of the year" and "run for the Dail" stuff?

Is Tony Martin another great hero who deserves public acclaim for shooting a traveller?

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

The Nally is a hero stuff is a little silly. I appreciate people may feel he didn't deserve to be convicted, but "person of the year" and "run for the Dail" stuff?

I don't think he's a hero. I also don't think he is, or ever was, a danger to the general Irish public.

Jerichoholic

Happened a couple of nights ago in a pub I was in, just out of nowhere they just went crazy, shouting nonsense about 'fightin' min', they're not allowed in pubs for a reason. No manners, no respect.