Peter Casey believes Travellers should not be recognised as an ethnic minority

Omackeral

tayto lover wrote: »

Settled people dont live in halting sites or wreck them.

Oh but they do according to joeytheparrot here.

PikeyPoint

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What penalty would you like for people found guilty of incitement to hatred?

I know you think Casey is eligible for sainthood but generally, what do you think the penalty should be?

So you have him convicted for incitement to hatred because he says what most of us think. Should we all be locked up with him for harbouring such thoughts?

tom1ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not it isn't.
I and another poster have already pointed out the hate speech on this thread. Are you saying those comment are not just hate filled bile?

It is also hate speech to accuse an entire community because a number of them engage in anti social and criminal behaviour, especially when members of the settled community behave exactly the same way.

I don’t hear many members of the settled community turning down houses that haven’t got stables or land attached, do you?

You did not point out the hate speech in mr Casey’s comments or even how his comments incite hate.
His comments are what’s called truths.

Did the travelers turn down tax payer funded houses because those houses didn’t have land and stables for horses? TRUE.

Is he correct to call into question a decision the government made last year when there are conflicting arguments in the scientific community? YES.

Explain to me what he’s done wrong?

CinemaGuy45

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What penalty would you like for people found guilty of incitement to hatred?

I know you think Casey is eligible for sainthood but generally, what do you think the penalty should be?

What do you think the penalty for burglary animal cruelty intimidation dumping shoplifting sponging off the state should be?

PikeyPoint

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

What do you think the penalty for burglary animal cruelty intimidation dumping shoplifting sponging off the state should be?

A free house but no stable.

PikeyPoint

tom1ie wrote: »

I don’t hear many members of the settled community turning down houses that haven’t got stables or land attached, do you?

You did not point out the hate speech in mr Casey’s comments or even how his comments incite hate.
His comments are what’s called truths.

Did the travelers turn down tax payer funded houses because those houses didn’t have land and stables for horses? TRUE.

Is he correct to call into question a decision the government made last year when there are conflicting arguments in the scientific community? YES.

Explain to me what he’s done wrong?

He disagrees with Francie. He should be locked up.

FrancieBrady

tom1ie wrote: »

I don’t hear many members of the settled community turning down houses that haven’t got stables or land attached, do you?

You did not point out the hate speech in mr Casey’s comments or even how his comments incite hate.
His comments are what’s called truths.

Did the travelers turn down tax payer funded houses because those houses didn’t have land and stables for horses? TRUE.

Is he correct to call into question a decision the government made last year when there are conflicting arguments in the scientific community? YES.

Explain to me what he’s done wrong?

He said travellers are not ethnically different, wrong: the Irish state (you and me technically) recognise their ethnic status.
He said they camp on land that doesn't belong to them: wrong - 83% of travellers are in permanent housing. So only 'some' camp on land that doesn't belong to them.

He basically generalised about a community and incited the hate speech you see here and elsewhere.
He then backed away from his comments and may withdraw from the election completely.

FrancieBrady

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

What do you think the penalty for burglary animal cruelty intimidation dumping shoplifting sponging off the state should be?

The penalty should be what is laid down in the laws of the land of course. :rolleyes:

Hitman3000

FrancieBrady wrote:

What penalty would you like for people found guilty of incitement to hatred?

You seem to wish to have someone jailed that has not committed any crime

FrancieBrady wrote:

I know you think Casey is eligible for sainthood but generally, what do you think the penalty should be?

Never once suggested Casey is a saint, back to usual tactics of claiming people have alluded to something?

PikeyPoint

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He said travellers are not ethnically different, wrong: the Irish state (you and me technically) recognise their ethnic status.
He said they camp on land that doesn't belong to them: wrong - 83% of travellers are in permanent housing. So only 'some' camp on land that doesn't belong to them.

He basically generalised about a community and incited the hate speech you see here and elsewhere.
He then backed away from his comments and may withdraw from the election completely.

He didn't back away from his comments. He is refusing to back down from his view that Travellers should not be considered an ethnic minority.

But Mr Casey admitted to being shaken by the reaction from rival candidates, interest groups and politicians.

FrancieBrady

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You seem to wish to have someone jailed that has not committed any crime

Never once suggested Casey is a saint, back to usual tactics of claiming people have alluded to something?

It is my opinion he incited hatred and I presented the proof of that hatred. I said if he was found guilty I would wish to see him pay a penalty - a custodial sentence imo.

PikeyPoint

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is my opinion he incited hatred and I presented the proof of that hatred. I said if he was found guilty I would wish to see him pay a penalty - a custodial sentence imo.

In your opinion. Nuff said!

Uncharted

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is my opinion he incited hatred and I presented the proof of that hatred. I said if he was found guilty I would wish to see him pay a penalty - a custodial sentence imo.

You're embarrassing yourself.

tayto lover

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The indo are really stooping to their usual gutter excuse for journalism against this guy.

They've a more than misleading headline, that might (if dumb enough to not see through their bullsh1t) initially give one the impression that Casey made derogatory or racist comments about Varadkar, with a headline such as this.



It's only when you drill down into the nitty gritty of the article, it doesn't look like Casey said any such thing.

Certain media outlets have obviously decided that MDH is going to be kept on as president, and they're going to do whatever it takes to keep him there, even if it means labelling a man as a racist.

Can't understand why anyone buys the Indo? It's like the Sun. It should be boycotted. I also wonder what RTE would do if a sizeable percentage of the population refused to renew their t.v. licence in protest of their reporting and unfair treatment of Casey.

Ordinary man

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is my opinion he incited hatred and I presented the proof of that hatred. I said if he was found guilty I would wish to see him pay a penalty - a custodial sentence imo.

The likes of margaret cash with her list of previous crimes walks free from robbing a load of stuff but you want a man jailed for speaking the truth:rolleyes:

tayto lover

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is my opinion he incited hatred and I presented the proof of that hatred. I said if he was found guilty I would wish to see him pay a penalty - a custodial sentence imo.

Get off the stage with your ridiculous comments. Where is the "inciting" in anything he said?

FrancieBrady

Ordinary man wrote: »

The likes of margaret cash with her list of previous crimes walks free from robbing a load of stuff but you want a man jailed for speaking the truth:rolleyes:

This is the kind of bull**** these AH threads are famous for.

There is nowhere anywhere you will find a comment from me that looks for leinency for Margaret Cash. Take your misrepresentation elsewhere please.

CinemaGuy45

Ordinary man wrote: »

The likes of margaret cash with her list of previous crimes walks free from robbing a load of stuff but you want a man jailed for speaking the truth:rolleyes:

Bit boss she is a minority.;)

PikeyPoint

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is the kind of bull**** these AH threads are famous for.

There is nowhere anywhere you will find a comment from me that looks for leinency for Margaret Cash. Take your misrepresentation elsewhere please.

He never said you said that. You want Peter Casey jailed for speaking the truth. He made a comparison with your comments on Peter Casey and the Margaret Cash case. Try to keep up.

FrancieBrady

tayto lover wrote: »

Get off the stage with your ridiculous comments. Where is the "inciting" in anything he said?

Folk baying for this man's 'opinion' to be heard, should take a moment to reflect on the irony of trying to ridicule the 'opinion' of others.

It really is a delicious irony to watch unfold.

PikeyPoint

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Folk baying for this man's 'opinion' to be heard, should take a moment to reflect on the irony of trying to ridicule the 'opinion' of others.

It really is a delicious irony to watch unfold.

The irony is all on you. You want a man jailed for speaking his mind.

Yamanoto

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is my opinion he incited hatred and I presented the proof of that hatred.

Presume you'll be making a complaint to AGS so.

Don't forget to bring your 'proof'.

CinemaGuy45

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is the kind of bull**** these AH threads are famous for.

There is nowhere anywhere you will find a comment from me that looks for leinency for Margaret Cash. Take your misrepresentation elsewhere please.

He did not misrepresent you he said you want Cassy looked up while the likes of Cash with nearly 40 convictions walks free.

Where did he say you were looking for leniency for Cash?


So do you think Cash should have been locked up?

FrancieBrady

PikeyPoint wrote: »

He never said you said that. You want Peter Casey jailed for speaking the truth. He made a comparison with your comments on Peter Casey and the Margaret Cash case. Try to keep up.

No, again. You claim he was speaking the 'truth' and you want to make him President for doing it.

I don't think he was speaking the truth at all, he was generalising and in a dangerous way.
His own step away from his remarks proves the point. He doesn't want to be elected on the basis of them. Time for reflection for those voting for him too maybe?

tayto lover

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Folk baying for this man's 'opinion' to be heard, should take a moment to reflect on the irony of trying to ridicule the 'opinion' of others.

It really is a delicious irony to watch unfold.

You're ducking and diving now. I used to like and respect your posts even if I didn't agree with a lot of them but you're beginning to lose the plot here.

Please point out where Casey was "inciting" hatred as you claimed.

anthonyjmaher

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is nowhere anywhere you will find a comment from me that looks for leinency for Margaret Cash. Take your misrepresentation elsewhere please.

RTE presenter Margaret Cash to us like a normal, hard working, law abiding citizen who has just fallen on hard times. They should correct the record.

Mysterypunter

Casey is telling the truth, typically the leprechaun was outraged.

What actual difference does it make that travellers are an ethnic minority?

PikeyPoint

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, again. You claim he was speaking the 'truth' and you want to make him President for doing it.

I don't think he was speaking the truth at all, he was generalising and in a dangerous way.
His own step away from his remarks proves the point. He doesn't want to be elected on the basis of them. Time for reflection for those voting for him too maybe?

He is not backing away from his comments. He is standing by them. Read the news please. Even the slanted news against him states this.

FrancieBrady

tayto lover wrote: »

You're ducking and diving now. I used to like and respect your posts even if I didn't agree with a lot of them but you're beginning to lose the plot here.

Please point out where Casey was "inciting" hatred as you claimed.

how am I ducking? I explained above why I think what I do. Accept the opinion or don't, that's fine, I just think it a delicious irony to be baying for one man's right to have an opinion while ridiculing another for having one. Which is what you did.