Liam Lawlor is dead

kstanl

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The only one embarrassing themselves here is you. What a vile thing to say about a man who has recently died.

Honestly, your argument is getting more and more twisted and nonsensical. You're running around accusing everyone of 'lacking moral fibre' and asserting that those who don't agree with you feel that Lawler deserved to die. It's pathetic.

Mr. Nice Guy, as was pointed out earlier, you are a hypocrite. I suspect that you would be perfectly accepting of criticism of Lawler two days ago and yet today people who criticise him are somehow 'lacking in moral fibre'. I ask you why? There is nothing that can be done. We can't bring him back from the dead and none of us are responsible for his death so we're simply reflecting on his life and heinous raping of us as a nation. If you want to be remembered fondly in death, don't screw people over in life! As for us being nasty pieces of work for slating him when his corpse is still warm... well.. what difference does it make? Tell me Mr. Nice Guy, when would it be acceptable for us to criticise Lawler's actions again? One week? A month? A year? Is there anything in The Mr. Nice Guy Handbook that will give us some indication? Or can we never criticise him again because he's dead now? Please tell me your stance on this issue as I am genuinely curious.

MrJoeSoap

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Has it been confirmed that she was as old as that ?

I've seen 15/16/teenager. Seems very young for someone to be an interpreter to me.

black_jack

kstanl wrote:

I don't know if she was diseased.

Then don't call her a diseased whore.

No more than you know that she was a victim of trafficing.

She is more than likely to be.

If she was in fact working as a prostitute, then she's a whore. It's a fact albeit a matter of semantics. If you find that offensive then I suggest you crawl back under your rock. :rolleyes:

Crawl back under my rock? You're the one dehumanising a child by calling her a diseased whore. I'd suggest you'd look at her more as a victim in all this than some tramp.

Hagar

The best part of this whole thread is that I get an email
every few mins telling me "Liam Lawlor is dead".

kstanl

black_jack wrote:

Then don't call her a diseased whore.

Okay, then she's (allegedly) a just whore.

black_jack wrote:

She is more than likely to be.

She's more than likely to be diseased too if she's working as a prostitute. Neither of us know what % of prostitutes are infected with disease nor do we know what % of prostitutes in that part of the world are victims of trafficing so we'll just stop speculating now shall we? Besides, we're off the point... which was that Lawler was (allegedly) sleeping with a prostitute behind his wife's back.

black_jack wrote:

Crawl back under my rock? You're the one dehumanising a child by calling her a diseased whore. I'd suggest you'd look at her more as a victim in all this than some tramp.

Like I said, neither of us know whether she was a victim of trafficing or a willing prostitute by choice. Maybe she was a victim, maybe she was greedy - who knows. But at the end of the day, if you're a prostitute then you're a whore... it's just a matter of semantics. If you don't like the term then crawl under a rock/stick your fingers in your ears/do whatever it is you do to escape from reality. There's nothing offensive about calling a prostitute a whore, black_jack. They're the same thing. My remark about diseases was more to illustrate the point that Lawler may well have been taking some nasty diseases back to his wife - and I thought it was a point worth illustrating. Sorry if the harsh reality of my comment was too cruel for you. :rolleyes:

At the end of the day, this woman may well have been a translator and this whole prostitute thing could just be a smear campaign by the media. Again, we don't know.

MrJoeSoap

kstanl you are making a terrible argument. Saying that a teenage prostitute (if she is in fact a prostitute) might be "greedy" is just ridiculous. Your "diseased whore" remark was uncalled for.

black_jack

kstanl wrote:

Okay, then she's (allegedly) a just whore.

Well thats the first part of my issue.

She's more than likely to be diseased too if she's working as a prostitute. Neither of us know what % of prostitutes are infected with disease nor do we know what % of prostitutes in that part of the world are victims of trafficing so we'll just stop speculating now shall we?

You're the one speculating, I know a bit about people trafficking

One of the areas of the world where trafficking is growing fastest is the former Soviet Union. Human trafficking from Ukraine , especially for sex work, is a serious and increasing problem for the country. Evidence exists from a wide variety of sources including police, NGOs, health care providers, prosecutors and international organizations of the widespread and increasing nature of the problem. Following a recent study by the International Organization of Migration (IOM), reference is now being made to 420,000 women having been trafficked out of the country in the last few years alone

from
www.american.edu/traccc/resources/publications/pyschu01.doc

While it's possible she's diseased, it's likely she's been trafficked. All the more likely as when found at the scene she had no papers.

Besides, we're off the point... which was that Lawler was (allegedly) sleeping with a prostitute behind his wife's back.

Refering to the girl as a diseased whore, is offensive, Lawler sleeping with a near child, who's not doing this of her own free will makes this that little bit worse.

Like I said, neither of us know whether she was a victim of trafficing or a willing prostitute by choice. Maybe she was a victim, maybe she was greedy - who knows.

Greedy? Channel four showed a remarkable and disturbing documentary on this subject a few weeks ago, I very much doubt she saw most of her money.

But at the end of the day, if you're a prostitute then you're a whore... it's just a matter of semantics. If you don't like the term then crawl under a rock/stick your fingers in your ears/do whatever it is you do to escape from reality. There's nothing offensive about calling a prostitute a whore, black_jack. They're the same thing.

Yes there, the term whore is degroitory, offensive, and dehumanising, and suggests she was a willing partner in all this.

My remark about diseases was more to illustrate the point that Lawler may well have been taking some nasty diseases back to his wife - and I thought it was a point worth illustrating. Sorry if the harsh reality of my comment was too cruel for you. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah you be keeping it real.

At the end of the day, this woman may well have been a translator and this whole prostitute thing could just be a smear campaign by the media. Again, we don't know.

A smear campaign by the media? The Moscow police idenitified her as a possible prostitute. Have you been following this at? :rolleyes:

Pigman II

MrJoeSoap wrote:

I've seen 15/16/teenager. Seems very young for someone to be an interpreter to me.

Maybe she wasn't a professional interpreter? Perhaps she just had a smattering of English and was giving Liam some oral relief to earn herself a few extra roubles.

kstanl

MrJoeSoap wrote:

kstanl you are making a terrible argument.

What part of my argument do you find flaw with please? Or do you just like to make silly sweeping comments. :rolleyes:

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Saying that a teenage prostitute (if she is in fact a prostitute) might be "greedy" is just ridiculous.

We don't know that she was a teenager first of all. And saying that she's greedy is no more ridiculous than saying that she is a victim of trafficing. Are you completely naive or do you in fact realise that many prositiutes choose to work as prostitutes because the money can be very good? I know you probably can't fathom that any woman would choose to be a prostitute - neither can I to be honest - but there are plenty of prostitutes out there who work in brothels rather than get a minimum wage job because the money is good.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Your "diseased whore" remark was uncalled for.

Which part was uncalled for? Prostitute = Whore. I would imagine a considerably high percentage of prostitutes have STD's. I'm sorry, but the moral wankery/thought police brigade argument is wearing thin. Whether you call her 'a prostitute that may have sexually transmitted diseases' or 'a diseased whore' makes fook all difference. If she's a victim of trafficing then I have sympathy for her; of course I do. Stop with your pathetic, self-perpetuating moral arguments. None of us have enough information on the circumstances of her life as yet but the allegation is that this woman was a prostitute. What more do you want???? :rolleyes:

kstanl

black_jack wrote:

Well thats the first part of my issue.



You're the one speculating, I know a bit about people trafficking


from
www.american.edu/traccc/resources/publications/pyschu01.doc

While it's possible she's diseased, it's likely she's been trafficked. All the more likely as when found at the scene she had no papers.



Refering to the girl as a diseased whore, is offensive, Lawler sleeping with a near child, who's not doing this of her own free will makes this that little bit worse.



Greedy? Channel four showed a remarkable and disturbing documentary on this subject a few weeks ago, I very much doubt she saw most of her money.



Yes there, the term whore is degroitory, offensive, and dehumanising, and suggests she was a willing partner in all this.

Again you're assuming that she was a victim of trafficing. What if she wasn't? How is it likely? How do you know what % of sex workers in Russia are trafficing victims? You don't. You only know what you've Google'd or seen on telly; i.e. you know no more than me. We're both speculating, we're both making assumptions and we're both miles off-topic. :rolleyes:

black_jack wrote:

Oh yeah you be keeping it real.

Pretty much, yeah.

black_jack wrote:

A smear campaign by the media? The Moscow police idenitified her as a possible prostitute. Have you been following this at? :rolleyes:

What? That the police have identified her as a possible prostitute? Yeah. I have. What's your point? :rolleyes:

MrJoeSoap

Okay, the situation as presented by the Irish Independent is that she is a teenage Ukranian, most likely a prostitute. If this is the case, then she is more than likely a victim of traficking.

Until we know for certain, which we may never do, I would personally refrain from calling her a "diseased whore". It shows a serious lack of sympathy.

secret_squirrel

Can we all drop the issue of the Ukranian girl now lads it getting tiresome.

The fact is we dont know for certain whether she was any of the below :

whore
diseased
trafficked
or
an interpreter

Until we get concrete proof of one or more of them can we finish the flame wars and get back to Lawlor?

MrJoeSoap

No problemo squirrel, getting a bit tired of it myself anyway. I heard a Lawlor interview on rte.ie earlier from 2002 where he was saying how his conscience was completely clear and he had no trouble sleeping. Thats one of the main reasons people are getting so worked up about his death, he showed no guilt over what he had done, even after his few weeks in the joy.

HelterSkelter

The online edition of the Independent have removed all references to the girl being a prostitute.

The General

Ireland is full of people who moan non stop and this thread proves it

MrJoeSoap

Nice contribution there general. I'm sure plenty of people on this thread have been involved in lots of upbeat discussions today too. This just happens to be a topic that annoys people one way or another, if you don't like hearing people "moan" maybe you should steer clear of threads about corrupt politicians. But then I guess this post proves your point!

Lisapeep

The latest news says that the woman passenger in the car was a legal secretary and interpreter. It's a terribly sad story and must be so tough for the family.

kstanl

The General wrote:

Ireland is full of people who moan non stop and this thread proves it

Ironic. Thanks for that ground-shattering contribution. Haha. You're right though, I don't plan on moaning about corrupt politicians who screw the entire country again. In fact, they should just be allowed do what they want. :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy

black_jack wrote:

I never said Lawlor deserved to die.

As I say, your position is quite clear.

black_jack wrote:

No it's not. Again you're mispresenting me.

LOL.

black_jack wrote:

No, thats not hyporcrisy. If I was berating Lawlor's behaviour while I was on the take that'd be hyprocrisy. Is english your second language?

Your hypocrisy is evident. By the way, I love the irony of someone who cannot spell hypocrisy asking me if English is my second language. LOL!

black_jack wrote:

Mocking spelling in an internet debate is the last act of a failing argument.

black_jack wrote:

as for the clueless muppet part, hey if the hat fits.

Resorting to insults is the last act of a failing argument although I think your argument failed long ago considering you argue that the man's family don't deserve our respect on the grounds that Lawlor didn't show them respect.:rolleyes:

black_jack wrote:

I was merely putting your attitude into its wider context.

You were putting words in my mouth. Sad that you resort to that.

black_jack wrote:

Is his family on this message board?

I should hope not considering it was you who said:

"he didn't have much respect for his family, so why should I?"

black_jack wrote:

Ah the euphemism are already in.Now the teenager with Lawlor is a "translator". Do you really think you get a teenage Ukraninan girl to act as a translator for a former Irish TD in Moscow?

Ah the conspiracy theorists are in!

black_jack wrote:

Hey Niceguy did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the english dictionary.

You mean you looked? That doesn't surprise me.:D

kstanl wrote:

Honestly, your argument is getting more and more twisted and nonsensical. You're running around accusing everyone of 'lacking moral fibre' and asserting that those who don't agree with you feel that Lawler deserved to die. It's pathetic.

What's pathetic is this quote from you:

"he was a f**king scumbag who stole from us all and who, it turns out, may have been humping diseased whores behind his wife's back."

kstanl wrote:

Mr. Nice Guy, as was pointed out earlier, you are a hypocrite.

Actually no one pointed out why I am a hypocrite, just that I am one. If you can explain to me why I'm a hypocrite I'll gladly hear you out.:)

kstanl wrote:

I suspect that you would be perfectly accepting of criticism of Lawler two days ago and yet today people who criticise him are somehow 'lacking in moral fibre'.

Eh? I'm criticising the callous disregard shown to the man's family by certain people on this thread. Keep up.

kstanl wrote:

we're simply reflecting on his life and heinous raping of us as a nation.

Raping of us as a nation? Dear oh dear.:rolleyes:

kstanl wrote:

As for us being nasty pieces of work for slating him when his corpse is still warm... well.. what difference does it make?

LOL. Unbelievable.

kstanl wrote:

Tell me Mr. Nice Guy, when would it be acceptable for us to criticise Lawler's actions again? One week? A month? A year? Is there anything in The Mr. Nice Guy Handbook that will give us some indication? Or can we never criticise him again because he's dead now? Please tell me your stance on this issue as I am genuinely curious.

Most people don't need a time frame. They have enough decency and respect within themselves to be able give the man's family respect.

Lisapeep

This thread is becoming very insensitive, anyone want to do something about this?

Retr0gamer

You're a bit too politically correct for your own good Mr. Nice Guy. You need to get yourself some balls and be able to say what people really are. There is no point in being delusional. Death doesn't forgive a person of the wrongs they have done. In the same way if a person doesn't command respect in life then you are not obliged to repect him in death. It's wrong to say he deserved it but the vast majority of people here haven't said that. Liam Lawlor was a criminal in life and death doesn't change any of that. The biggest mistake would be to forget it all just because of a tragic accident.

Crazy Newbie

Pigman II wrote:

Dies aged just 61 and he was going thru some hard stuff at the end. First there was the windscreen, then there was the lamppost.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Utterly tasteless. Regardless of the bad things the man did in his life he is a human being and he has died leaving behind a wife and kids.

You're dead right. And so soon after the death

He should have waited till monday to post such a classic.

Hagar wrote:

I hope she got her money up front.:D

Hagar wrote:

The best part of this whole thread is that I get an email
every few mins telling me "Liam Lawlor is dead".

I personally found those remarks distaseful and very very funny.

Hagar wrote:

@ Mr Nice Guy -
Quote me all you want, I only say what I believe is true, I'm not a hypocrite like he was.

Sadly being a hypocrite is part of the human condition. Taking a brown envelope... or just parking on that double yellow line for a few mins.

No one who has lived past the age of being a child can never say they were "not a hypocrite"


Will they still play the classic Liam Gift grubs was my first thought.

nlgbbbblth

Lisapeep wrote:

This thread is becoming very insensitive, anyone want to do something about this?

Like locking the thread?:rolleyes:

From reading other sites Boards.ie has the reputation of being a very heavily policed set of bulletin boards. Not necessarily a good thing.

ek942

If the Russian police say she was a hooker,it must be true.They never make mistakes,do they?

kstanl

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

What's pathetic is this quote from you:

"he was a f**king scumbag who stole from us all and who, it turns out, may have been humping diseased whores behind his wife's back."

Why is that pathetic? He was a scumbag and, allegedly, he was shagging hookers. How is this stating this fact pathetic? Tell me because I'm really curious to know. Do you think that Liam Lawler's corruption was a 'slight hiccup' in an otherwise benevolent career or something?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Actually no one pointed out why I am a hypocrite, just that I am one. If you can explain to me why I'm a hypocrite I'll gladly hear you out.:)

I guess you should have read the rest of the post before replying then. :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Eh? I'm criticising the callous disregard shown to the man's family by certain people on this thread. Keep up.

How is there a callous disregard for his family? You think they read boards.ie? I haven't said anything negative about his family. I don't understand your logic at all I'm afraid.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Raping of us as a nation? Dear oh dear.:rolleyes:

So he was innocent then? I wasn't aware of this. :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

LOL. Unbelievable.

A two-word, two-sentence reply. Superb. I suggest your pathetic debating skills would go down well in any tribunal.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Most people don't need a time frame. They have enough decency and respect within themselves to be able give the man's family respect.

Okay, now you're talking ****e. What you seem to be suggesting is that 'decent people' shouldn't criticise deceased criminals and/or deceased corrupt politicians out of respect for their families? That's idiotic. Not only should people like Lawler be criticised and lambasted but we should never forget what he did - we should remember for the good of our country. Rather than being any more moral than me, I suspect you're probably a religious person with a docile and forgiving nature. I on the other hand am not and when justice is pissed away to save someone like Lawler, I would bear that grudge permanently in mind until the corruptions in our government are wiped out permanently.

Anyway, this is where I bail out. If you argue with hypocritical idiots they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

black_jack

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

As I say, your position is quite clear.

So you've resorted to making stuff up. Fair enough. Everyone see you for what you are.

LOL.

Thats not a rebuttal. Where the fu*k do you get off claiming I wanted him dead.

Your hypocrisy is evident. By the way, I love the irony of someone who cannot spell hypocrisy asking me if English is my second language. LOL!

No its not. See if I was a corrupt politican ranting about his corruption that'd be hyprocrisy. The concept just seems to fly far above your head. You can spell it you just don't understand it.

Resorting to insults is the last act of a failing argument although I think your argument failed long ago considering you argue that the man's family don't deserve our respect on the grounds that Lawlor didn't show them respect.:rolleyes:

What respect? Am I saying anything they and everyone else don't know? I'm just laughing at the two faced ness of your position.

And gimp boy keep saying insults is the last act of a failed argument, you may start to believe it yourself.

You were putting words in my mouth. Sad that you resort to that.

Really Motherf*cker I double dare you to show that I wanted him dead. You cannot you're a small childish liar.

I should hope not considering it was you who said:

"he didn't have much respect for his family, so why should I?"

Its a simple enough concept. The man lied cheated and stole his family were aware of this because much of his ill gotten gains were put in there name to protect them, this is not the first instance he's been found with eastern european prostitutes.

And you think they give a rats ass to what is said here? Why should I approve respect to people who haven't shown the irish people any respect.

Ah the conspiracy theorists are in!

How's it a conspiracy theory muppet? The Moscow police identified her as a prostitute? Why would they lie?

You mean you looked? That doesn't surprise me.:D

Almost funny.

Actually no one pointed out why I am a hypocrite, just that I am one. If you can explain to me why I'm a hypocrite I'll gladly hear you out

Well it does seem like you have trouble understanding hypocrisy (though your spell check is in tip top condition) I'll spell it out for you, if Lawlor was injuried in the crash, or this was a week ago, you'd (well maybe not a nicegimp like you) be hard pressed to find a soul with a kind word about that corrupt bloated cheatng thief, now that he's worm food, everyone can't speak ill of him.

Does his death change his life no, but now we're not allowed mention what is common knowledge "out of respect". Thats dishonest, now unless you've always had your tongue firmly up the hole of Lawlor arse, and haven't ever expressed a degoritive opinion of the man, it is hyprocritcal to tell us to stop now "out of respect", when the only thing thats changed in the past two days is the chance of Lawlor recieving justice is gone. So thats hypocrisy.

MrJoeSoap

Right lads lets draw a line here, the endless tennis-like disputes here aren't really going anywhere, if you have given your opinion thats fair enough. There's no point continuing to argue because neither side is prepared to back down, which is fair enough.

If anyone wants to bring new links or stories to the thread that should be grand but there's no point getting upset and bitter about it, regardless of what you thought of Liam Lawlor or other posters in the thread.

Mr.Nice Guy

kstanl wrote:

Why is that pathetic? He was a scumbag and, allegedly, he was shagging hookers. How is this stating this fact pathetic? Tell me because I'm really curious to know. Do you think that Liam Lawler's corruption was a 'slight hiccup' in an otherwise benevolent career or something?

It's pathetic because it's totally insensitive and horribly timed.

kstanl wrote:

I guess you should have read the rest of the post before replying then. :rolleyes:

Translation - you have no evidence that I am a hypocrite.

kstanl wrote:

How is there a callous disregard for his family? You think they read boards.ie? I haven't said anything negative about his family.

You are the guy who said:

"he was a f**king scumbag who stole from us all and who, it turns out, may have been humping diseased whores behind his wife's back"

You don't think the above shows a callous disregard for his family?

kstanl wrote:

So he was innocent then?

You seem unable or unwilling to see my point.

kstanl wrote:

A two-word, two-sentence reply. Superb. I suggest your pathetic debating skills would go down well in any tribunal.

Sorry my replies don't meet your high standards. Replying to people on this thread is like writing an essay. As for my pathetic debating skills, at least I can comprehend what is being said.:rolleyes:

kstanl wrote:

Okay, now you're talking ****e.

Wow you are truly a wonderful debater.:rolleyes:

kstanl wrote:

What you seem to be suggesting is that 'decent people' shouldn't criticise deceased criminals and/or deceased corrupt politicians out of respect for their families? That's idiotic.

Decent people don't feel the need to dance on a person's grave. It's not idiotic, it's called having class.

kstanl wrote:

Not only should people like Lawler be criticised and lambasted but we should never forget what he did - we should remember for the good of our country.

No one is advocating that we forget what he did. What some of us (like myself) have advocated is that you at least wait a short while before tearing into a man who has left this world only recently.

kstanl wrote:

Anyway, this is where I bail out. If you argue with hypocritical idiots they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Judging by your own debating skills, it seems you have argued with quite a few hypocritical idiots in the past. I think I'll take your advice myself however.

black_jack wrote:

So you've resorted to making stuff up. Fair enough. Everyone see you for what you are.

I've made nothing up. I've called a spade a spade.

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

Your hypocrisy is evident. By the way, I love the irony of someone who cannot spell hypocrisy asking me if English is my second language. LOL!

black_jack wrote:

No its not. See if I was a corrupt politican ranting about his corruption that'd be hyprocrisy. The concept just seems to fly far above your head. You can spell it you just don't understand it.

Your hypocrisy has been documented on this thread. I don't think the concept flies over my head. I can both spell it and understand it.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Resorting to insults is the last act of a failing argument although I think your argument failed long ago considering you argue that the man's family don't deserve our respect on the grounds that Lawlor didn't show them respect.

black_jack wrote:

What respect? Am I saying anything they and everyone else don't know? I'm just laughing at the two faced ness of your position.

Yet again you show a deplorable and ignorant attitude towards the man's family. And by the way, I'm laughing at someone who writes 'two faced ness' particularly accusing me of it!

black_jack wrote:

And gimp boy keep saying insults is the last act of a failed argument, you may start to believe it yourself.

Keep talking mate. It just shows you've lost the argument.:)

black_jack wrote:

Really Motherf*cker I double dare you to show that I wanted him dead. You cannot you're a small childish liar.

'Motherf*cker' now? I hope the Mods are reading this trash.

black_jack wrote:

And you think they give a rats ass to what is said here?

I hope his family are not reading. Your comments are beneath contempt.

black_jack wrote:

How's it a conspiracy theory muppet? The Moscow police identified her as a prostitute? Why would they lie?

More insults.:rolleyes:

I'm done trying to speak sense to a guy who doesn't think Mr Lawlor's family deserve respect - on the grounds that Lawlor didn't respect them. The sheer idiocy and hypocrisy associated with that just boggles the mind.

No doubt you'll have plenty to say. (insults, that is)

kstanl

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Right lads lets draw a line here, the endless tennis-like disputes here aren't really going anywhere, if you have given your opinion thats fair enough. There's no point continuing to argue because neither side is prepared to back down, which is fair enough.

If anyone wants to bring new links or stories to the thread that should be grand but there's no point getting upset and bitter about it, regardless of what you thought of Liam Lawlor or other posters in the thread.

That wasn't the least bit condescending. Honestly.

kstanl

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Decent people don't feel the need to dance on a person's grave. It's not idiotic, it's called having class.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

What some of us (like myself) have advocated is that you at least wait a short while before tearing into a man who has left this world only recently.

Like I said, you're a hypocrite. Goodbye. :rolleyes:

Giblet

black_jack banned for personal abuse.

MrJoeSoap

kstanl wrote:

That wasn't the least bit condescending. Honestly.

Why? I was honestly trying to be neutral and save some people a banning but it looks like I'm too late.

bishop brennan

DISGRACE to a lot of people today.A man lies dead ,he did many things which i got very annoyed about,but the way his death has been reported makes me sick.We all have seen the headlines this morning he wasnt even cold.

kstanl

bishop brennan wrote:

DISGRACE to a lot of people today.A man lies dead ,he did many things which i got very annoyed about,but the way his death has been reported makes me sick.We all have seen the headlines this morning he wasnt even cold.

Why is it a disgrace to criticise him today and perfectly acceptable this time last week? Has your opinion of him changed now that he is dead? What does that say about you? Despite the best efforts of some of the less capable contributors to this thread, I don't think anyone is suggesting he deserved to die. Nor is anyone saying that his tragic death is in anyway a good thing. Unfortunately Liam Lawler wasn't a very well-liked man and rightly so in my opinion. Should we not mention this now because he has died in a tragic accident? If so, at what stage in the future is it 'okay' for us to discuss his wrong-doings again without being condemned to the eternal fires of hell in the afterlife? Should I consult a priest on this matter? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry folks, but if you don't see the hypocritical nature of the 'oh, he just died... we should only be digging up one kind of dirt at this moment in time' argument then, well, you're not a very honest person.

bishop brennan

Ksantl? he was not with a prostitute.Read my post again.

MrJoeSoap

bishop brennan wrote:

Ksantl? he was not with a prostitute.Read my post again.

We don't know for sure yet. We may never know for sure.

bishop brennan

:eek: :cool:

MrJoeSoap

What is that supposed to mean?

mad m

His death will probably end up with conspiracy theories.Someone bumped him off over what he did in past etc....

kstanl

bishop brennan wrote:

Ksantl? he was not with a prostitute.Read my post again.

What Joe said.

Esel

Liam is probably having a natter with Reggie Perrin and John Stonehouse at this very moment. Maybe Lord Lucan is there too.

joseph brand

taken from:
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2000/10/15/story176713138.asp


Lawlor has been asked to explain a number of matters in detailed correspondence
with the tribunal, including:

his receipt of £3,500 per month for about ten months from Arlington Securities
from May 1988

his receipt from 1991 of amounts up to £48,500 from Frank Dunlop, who acted on
behalf of property developer Owen O'Callaghan

his involvement in the rezoning of Quarryvale in May 1991

his receipt of other money from Dunlop

his business relationship with three unnamed businessmen who were engaged in
developments in north, west and south Dublin

his knowledge of bribes to politicians

his receipt of £74,000 from National Toll Roads in the early 1990s

his alleged presentation of fa'ke invoices from companies for alleged goods
and services that he did not provide.

****************************

[Lawlor's involvement in M50 Toll Bridge. (My favourite bridge)

Lawlor's work for National Toll Roads is also fascinating, with
Lawlor
claiming that he prepared a consultancy report for the company on
its plans to build a toll bridge across the Liffey.

Tenders were sought by Dublin County Council for the project in 1987.

After winning the contract National Toll Roads began construction in 1988.

The bridge was opened by then taoiseach Charles Haughey in March 1990.]

*********************
For people to say anything nice about this guy, is an insult to the good people out there.

But still, I will always feel sorry for children who lose their father, unless he harmed them.

It's weird, if he had been in jail now, he may not have died in a car crash.:rolleyes:

copacetic

MrJoeSoap wrote:

We don't know for sure yet. We may never know for sure.

he was with one of his staff, is that not good enough?

Cianos

black_jack wrote:

he didn't have much respect for his family, so why should I?

Your rationing is seriously flawed here. Do you see why?

Our man in Havana

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1024/lawlorl.html Lying scumbag Journos! :mad:

copacetic

the indo didn't cover themselves in glory either, even today, they have 'mystery women vanishes' where their definition of vanishing is to check out of your hotel without leaving a forwarding address... apparently I have 'vanished' from hundreds of hotels...

Cianos

Yes, true, what someone has done in their lifetimes governs how other people will look upon them, during their life and after their death. And no we should not forget about what Liam Lawlor or anyone else has done. However, at the end of the day, a human life has been lost. Therefore the first reactions to a tragic event like this should not be along the lines of "He was a lying stealing c**t". As a mark of respect for the loss of human life and the effect it would have on his loved ones, people should reserve their negative outbursts for a more appropriate time.

It can be very easy to show such blunt and uncompromising points of view on an internet messaging board, but I doubt if you were face to face with his family you would be composing yourself in the same way, at least I hope you wouldnt.

Sleepy

The irony surrounding this is simply beautiful.

If Lawlor had been properly dealt with by the Irish justice system he'd be happily slopping out his cell in Mountjoy right now instead of dead in dubious circumstances in Moscow (though as the most corrupt place in the world, it's perhaps an apt place for Lawlor to have met his maker).

I also find it ironic that a man who cheated and robbed the Irish taxpayer has probably saved us money in his death. With the tribunal winding up quicker now, it should save us a bundle in solicitors and barristers fees.

As for the details of his companion; interpreter, my arse. I'll take the word of the Moscow police over the press secretary of the Irish embassy who no doubt owed favours to the golden circle Lawlor belonged to.

Of course I feel sympathy for his wife and children. He put them through a lot in life and it would appear he's done so in death now too I'm sure his family and I wouldn't wish the grief they're suffering now on anyone.

That said, I can't help but feel this country is better off without him. His death is just bringing the corruption of this country back into the spotlight. If we lived in a land where our justice system was built around arrests, trials and convictions, Lawlor would be alive today. Unfortunately for his family (though they hardly thought so at the time) we "live in a land where justice is a game" that almost seems to be designed to line the pockets of the country's legal profession while returning no more than the dogs in the street could have told us in the first place.

Prior Of Taize

Retr0gamer wrote:

Liam Lawler is not dead. This is an outrageous accusation against Liam Lawler.

rofl

MrJoeSoap

Given what the Independent newspapers have done, I would at least expect the editor to step down. Not even people of Liam Lawlors low morals deserve what they have done to him.