FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans
Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Just a few hours after the Taoiseach told Boris Johnson that Dublin would oppose Direct Rule from London. Earlier this year, Mrs May told the House of Commons that Direct Rule would be needed before Brexit day unless the power-sharing agreement in NI is revived. This is because the civil service in NI cannot draw up and implement the necessary regulations unless and until it has political direction to do so. So, Brexiteers, why do you want to impose on the people of Northern Ireland a policy that is expressly contrary to what the majority voted for? " " police target dissident republicans" Ah, 'dissident republicans'. I remember in the old days, that we used to call them terrorists. They only became 'dissident republicans' after September 2001, when their U.S backers had a taste of terrorism and declared 'war' on it as a concept. Yes, 'NorAid' and Gerry Adams in The White House EVERY St. Patricks Day - those were/are the days my friend! | |||
| |||
"Just a few hours after the Taoiseach told Boris Johnson that Dublin would oppose Direct Rule from London. Earlier this year, Mrs May told the House of Commons that Direct Rule would be needed before Brexit day unless the power-sharing agreement in NI is revived. This is because the civil service in NI cannot draw up and implement the necessary regulations unless and until it has political direction to do so. So, Brexiteers, why do you want to impose on the people of Northern Ireland a policy that is expressly contrary to what the majority voted for? " Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The majority of the UK voted to leave. Hence Northern Ireland leaves. If they want to stay in the EU let them have a binding vote supported by Westminster and Dublin on a unified Ireland. At the same time let the Scots and Welsh have a binding vote on independence. If such a vote breaks up the UK then all the Brexiteers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can move to England to live and all the remainers can move to Ireland, Scotland or Wales on the provision they learn Gaelic Irish/Scots or Welsh when they move there. The Brexiteers can then have their little England while the rest of us can forget about Boris, Rees Mogg, Farage and Corbyn | |||
" Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The majority of the UK voted to leave. Hence Northern Ireland leaves. If they want to stay in the EU let them have a binding vote supported by Westminster and Dublin on a unified Ireland. At the same time let the Scots and Welsh have a binding vote on independence. If such a vote breaks up the UK then all the Brexiteers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can move to England to live and all the remainers can move to Ireland, Scotland or Wales on the provision they learn Gaelic Irish/Scots or Welsh when they move there. The Brexiteers can then have their little England while the rest of us can forget about Boris, Rees Mogg, Farage and Corbyn" They trie that approach in India in the late forties. It did not end well - i would not advise that approach  | |||
"Just a few hours after the Taoiseach told Boris Johnson that Dublin would oppose Direct Rule from London. Earlier this year, Mrs May told the House of Commons that Direct Rule would be needed before Brexit day unless the power-sharing agreement in NI is revived. This is because the civil service in NI cannot draw up and implement the necessary regulations unless and until it has political direction to do so. So, Brexiteers, why do you want to impose on the people of Northern Ireland a policy that is expressly contrary to what the majority voted for? " . It's a great shame that Northern Ireland has as useless cunts for politicians that all the rest of us have  .
That being said I don't see how murdering police officers changes anything except making you as big a cunt as your politicians. | |||
| |||
"The beautiful thing about the Belfast Agreement was that it allowed nationalists to feel like they were living on the island of Ireland (no border) and it allowed unionists to be confident in their Britishness (no change without a referendum). The place has been relatively calm for 20 years since. Now we have a situation where politicians in London insist on removing the north from the single market it shares with the south. Effectively, pulling the north closer to the British and creating a division - emotionally and mentally, if not necessarily physically - with the republic. They threw out the clever idea called a backstop which gave assurance of no change in the north. Now the hotheads are beginning to agitate again, because that equilibrium of the last 20 years is being pulled from under their feet. Not by the people of Northern Ireland, who voted to remain, but by the people of England who seem unwilling or unable find a way to accommodate that fine balance in the north. Toxic Brexit it really is. " Brexit is an excuse NOT a reason | |||
" Brexit is an excuse NOT a reason" You voted for it. Your choice to drive a coach and horses through the Belfast Agreement. You did not have an answer to the conundrum then. You still don't today. But of course, none of this clusterf*ck has anything to do with Brexiteers. That much has been obvious for three years. Complete denial of reality, always someone else to blame. | |||
""police target dissident republicans" Ah, 'dissident republicans'. I remember in the old days, that we used to call them terrorists. They only became 'dissident republicans' after September 2001, when their U.S backers had a taste of terrorism and declared 'war' on it as a concept. Yes, 'NorAid' and Gerry Adams in The White House EVERY St. Patricks Day - those were/are the days my friend!" They are called dissident republicans because they are republicans not signed up to the peace process. Republicans are signed up to the process. They were also called "New IRA" which are a listed terrorist group, so they were called terrorists. Also, loyalists said they would shoot cops a few weeks ago, and they were called "Loyalists", and not "terrorists". I believe their terrorist groups might have also been named but cant recall. Old IRA = The group that fought on the streets of Dublin for freedom and became the Army of Ireland. Provo IRA = The group that fought for Northern Ireland. They differed from the Old IRA in that they targeted mainland UK and civilian buildings. For example the london docklands bombing, while keeping civilian casualties as low as possible. The New IRA/Dissident Republicans = A group that would happily murder all innocent people in the UK if it got them a united Ireland. In the event of a no-deal brexit there will likely be a new group who are not added to any terror watch list, who can be given funding and weapons. Thats just the reality of breaking a peace deal and breaking democracy. People in the UK did not vote for a hard brexit, that is a decision they are making. That decision breaks the GFA, and breaks a previous vote in the North on the GFA. They actually voted for the GFA. It's not that leaving the EU breaks their democracy, its doing it without honoring their previous vote and the UK's previous commitment. This was spelled out very clearly before the vote. That concessions would need to be made, that promises would have to be given, that the north might need to remain aligned with the EU. People voted for brexit knowing this. They did not vote for brexit knowing it meant WTO trade deal and a hard border in the north. In fact even the staunchest brexit politican has been saying from day 1 that a border would be avoided at all cost in the north. So no one in the UK at all can say they voted for the tearing up of the GFA. | |||
 | |||
"If Shag was here, he would say: Justice to Northern Ireland ". Yea there's all sorts of idiocy peddled for truth in this place. The new IRA which tried murdering and bombing there way to power was formed in 2012...4 years before we even had a vote. So much for that wonder agreement keeping the peace | |||
| |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part. "Let me guess, another of her majesty’s murdering uniformed terrorists  | |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part. "No, I took it from the BBC. No mistake, unless the BBC made a mistake. The BBC didn't called the man convicted of terrorism of muslims today a "terrorist". They called him a white supremacist. Do you think he is a terrorist or a white supremacist? Or is terrorist such a hackneyed expression today that it has lost any true meaning? | |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part.
No, I took it from the BBC.
No mistake, unless the BBC made a mistake.
The BBC didn't called the man convicted of terrorism of muslims today a "terrorist".
They called him a white supremacist.
Do you think he is a terrorist or a white supremacist?
Or is terrorist such a hackneyed expression today that it has lost any true meaning?
"A terrorist is another person's freedom fighter | |||
| |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part.
Let me guess, another of her majesty’s murdering uniformed terrorists ". No just the legal definition. Your for legality aren't you?. I mean your not one of them who's been balling all week about Johnson not upholding the law and saying he should be interned for 30 years but when others do it say there freedom fighters. | |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part.
No, I took it from the BBC.
No mistake, unless the BBC made a mistake.
The BBC didn't called the man convicted of terrorism of muslims today a "terrorist".
They called him a white supremacist.
Do you think he is a terrorist or a white supremacist?
Or is terrorist such a hackneyed expression today that it has lost any true meaning?
". That doesn't surprise me to be honest, the BBC has an even bigger agenda than you and that takes some beating. Terrorist works fine for me in both cases, there people looking to further a political agenda, I'd also say there mainly stupid people almost always being a cannabis or psychotropic drug user and easily influenced by idiots on the internet who push racial,ethnic, religious agendas for political gain. Thank goodness your not one of them hey, oh no no no no, you just report news articles with a flavour. You know why you hate trump, you see yourself in him , you've got all the same bigotry and racism but just different targets and colours | |||
| |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part.
Let me guess, another of her majesty’s murdering uniformed terrorists .
No just the legal definition.
Your for legality aren't you?.
I mean your not one of them who's been balling all week about Johnson not upholding the law and saying he should be interned for 30 years but when others do it say there freedom fighters.
"So a terrorist can also wear her majesty’s uniform and beret? Right? | |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part.
Let me guess, another of her majesty’s murdering uniformed terrorists .
No just the legal definition.
Your for legality aren't you?.
I mean your not one of them who's been balling all week about Johnson not upholding the law and saying he should be interned for 30 years but when others do it say there freedom fighters.
So a terrorist can also wear her majesty’s uniform and beret? Right? ". Not if there following the law no, it's rule of law we work under, if somebody in the military does something there not allowed to under the rules set by courts and laws they should be held accountable like everybody. Terrorists by definition are civilians using violence to forward there political agenda. Trust in politicians and law is important otherwise we get civilians becoming terrorists and not me or probably you want that do we. | |||
| |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part.
Let me guess, another of her majesty’s murdering uniformed terrorists .
No just the legal definition.
Your for legality aren't you?.
I mean your not one of them who's been balling all week about Johnson not upholding the law and saying he should be interned for 30 years but when others do it say there freedom fighters.
So a terrorist can also wear her majesty’s uniform and beret? Right? .
Not if there following the law no, it's rule of law we work under, if somebody in the military does something there not allowed to under the rules set by courts and laws they should be held accountable like everybody.
Terrorists by definition are civilians using violence to forward there political agenda.
Trust in politicians and law is important otherwise we get civilians becoming terrorists and not me or probably you want that do we."So going by your explanation a lot of her majesty’s uniformed terrorists are in fact terrorists, just rarely get put through your courts.. | |||
"Anyway my point was about this heading "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It hardly portrays the reality." So what is your version of reality? | |||
"Anyway my point was about this heading "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It hardly portrays the reality. So what is your version of reality?" . It should read Petrol bombs,IEDs and riots used by dissident republicans to target police. | |||
| |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part.
Let me guess, another of her majesty’s murdering uniformed terrorists .
No just the legal definition.
Your for legality aren't you?.
I mean your not one of them who's been balling all week about Johnson not upholding the law and saying he should be interned for 30 years but when others do it say there freedom fighters.
So a terrorist can also wear her majesty’s uniform and beret? Right? .
Not if there following the law no, it's rule of law we work under, if somebody in the military does something there not allowed to under the rules set by courts and laws they should be held accountable like everybody.
Terrorists by definition are civilians using violence to forward there political agenda.
Trust in politicians and law is important otherwise we get civilians becoming terrorists and not me or probably you want that do we.
So going by your explanation a lot of her majesty’s uniformed terrorists are in fact terrorists, just rarely get put through your courts..
". A lot? How many is alot 6? 60? 400? Either way none of them are using violence for political gain although some of them maybe using unlawful violence for other reasons so none of them are terrorists by definition. | |||
"Anyway my point was about this heading "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It hardly portrays the reality. So what is your version of reality?. It should read Petrol bombs,IEDs and riots used by dissident republicans to target police." Once again the timing of police searches and arrests have a lot to be desired.. one arrest and none charged from all the searches clearly shows one community being targeted, sounds like the 70s again, is internment next? | |||
"I think you made a mistake in your heading anyhow. "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It should read as murdering law breaking power Hungry terrorist scum target innocent police. Probably an innocent mistake on your part.
Let me guess, another of her majesty’s murdering uniformed terrorists .
No just the legal definition.
Your for legality aren't you?.
I mean your not one of them who's been balling all week about Johnson not upholding the law and saying he should be interned for 30 years but when others do it say there freedom fighters.
So a terrorist can also wear her majesty’s uniform and beret? Right? .
Not if there following the law no, it's rule of law we work under, if somebody in the military does something there not allowed to under the rules set by courts and laws they should be held accountable like everybody.
Terrorists by definition are civilians using violence to forward there political agenda.
Trust in politicians and law is important otherwise we get civilians becoming terrorists and not me or probably you want that do we.
So going by your explanation a lot of her majesty’s uniformed terrorists are in fact terrorists, just rarely get put through your courts..
.
A lot? How many is alot 6? 60? 400? Either way none of them are using violence for political gain although some of them maybe using unlawful violence for other reasons so none of them are terrorists by definition."An interesting opinion.. | |||
"Anyway my point was about this heading "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It hardly portrays the reality. So what is your version of reality?. It should read Petrol bombs,IEDs and riots used by dissident republicans to target police. Once again the timing of police searches and arrests have a lot to be desired.. one arrest and none charged from all the searches clearly shows one community being targeted, sounds like the 70s again, is internment next? " . It's not the 70s trust me. Go to the IPCC put a complaint in for unlawful searches, police can only search with set rules and information, it's probably more than likely they had leads on bombs, explosives and weapons, you know like the ones just used on them .
Either way I'm afraid lots and lots of other people are sometimes illegally searched (the police ain't perfect) but they don't shoot and bomb police officers they just get on with life and put legal complaints in.
That's what you should do, if you feel like bombing and murdering innocent people go seek psychiatric help because your head is obviously disturbed. | |||
"Anyway my point was about this heading "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It hardly portrays the reality. So what is your version of reality?. It should read Petrol bombs,IEDs and riots used by dissident republicans to target police. Once again the timing of police searches and arrests have a lot to be desired.. one arrest and none charged from all the searches clearly shows one community being targeted, sounds like the 70s again, is internment next? . It's not the 70s trust me. Go to the IPCC put a complaint in for unlawful searches, police can only search with set rules and information, it's probably more than likely they had leads on bombs, explosives and weapons, you know like the ones just used on them .
Either way I'm afraid lots and lots of other people are sometimes illegally searched (the police ain't perfect) but they don't shoot and bomb police officers they just get on with life and put legal complaints in.
That's what you should do, if you feel like bombing and murdering innocent people go seek psychiatric help because your head is obviously disturbed."You do remember who done the shooting in the back on Bloody Sunday, right? The 70s started with biased searches against one community, and given the collusion that still goes on I’m glad you can see it won’t go back to that.. I’m sure the Tory/DUP led police force don’t want anything to disrupt the GFA.... oh wait.. | |||
| |||
"Anyway my point was about this heading "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It hardly portrays the reality. So what is your version of reality?. It should read Petrol bombs,IEDs and riots used by dissident republicans to target police. Once again the timing of police searches and arrests have a lot to be desired.. one arrest and none charged from all the searches clearly shows one community being targeted, sounds like the 70s again, is internment next? . It's not the 70s trust me. Go to the IPCC put a complaint in for unlawful searches, police can only search with set rules and information, it's probably more than likely they had leads on bombs, explosives and weapons, you know like the ones just used on them .
Either way I'm afraid lots and lots of other people are sometimes illegally searched (the police ain't perfect) but they don't shoot and bomb police officers they just get on with life and put legal complaints in.
That's what you should do, if you feel like bombing and murdering innocent people go seek psychiatric help because your head is obviously disturbed.
You do remember who done the shooting in the back on Bloody Sunday, right?
The 70s started with biased searches against one community, and given the collusion that still goes on I’m glad you can see it won’t go back to that.. I’m sure the Tory/DUP led police force don’t want anything to disrupt the GFA.... oh wait.. ". If you have to go back forty years to justify your violence your already in need of help. Seek it out before it's too late is my only advise | |||
| |||
"Intelligence-led policing. I read that MI5 moved 500 extra agents into Northern Ireland in the run-up to March 29. Presumably this is repeating now. " . You know why they need 500 agents?. Just take a look at half the posts on here trying to justify violence.  | |||
"Anyway my point was about this heading "Petrol bombs, IEDs and riots in Derry as police target dissident republicans". It hardly portrays the reality. So what is your version of reality?. It should read Petrol bombs,IEDs and riots used by dissident republicans to target police. Once again the timing of police searches and arrests have a lot to be desired.. one arrest and none charged from all the searches clearly shows one community being targeted, sounds like the 70s again, is internment next? . It's not the 70s trust me. Go to the IPCC put a complaint in for unlawful searches, police can only search with set rules and information, it's probably more than likely they had leads on bombs, explosives and weapons, you know like the ones just used on them .
Either way I'm afraid lots and lots of other people are sometimes illegally searched (the police ain't perfect) but they don't shoot and bomb police officers they just get on with life and put legal complaints in.
That's what you should do, if you feel like bombing and murdering innocent people go seek psychiatric help because your head is obviously disturbed.
You do remember who done the shooting in the back on Bloody Sunday, right?
The 70s started with biased searches against one community, and given the collusion that still goes on I’m glad you can see it won’t go back to that.. I’m sure the Tory/DUP led police force don’t want anything to disrupt the GFA.... oh wait.. .
If you have to go back forty years to justify your violence your already in need of help.
Seek it out before it's too late is my only advise"I’m against violence from both sides, where as you are only saying it’s wrong from once side.. But that doesn’t surprise me at all, there’s a lot like that parading around with attitudes.. | |||
"Half your post are probably reportable under the governments prevent programme on how to spot an extremist!. I'm just saying "Knock yourself out  | |||
" . You know why they need 500 agents?. Just take a look at half the posts on here trying to justify violence. "The police chief now is asking for funds to recruit an extra 800 officers. In the run-up to March 29, police forces on the mainland were on stand-by to redeploy officers to assist PSoNI. I imagine that is being repeated now. The first to cross the Irish Sea will be Police Service of Scotland. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Just a few hours after the Taoiseach told Boris Johnson that Dublin would oppose Direct Rule from London. Earlier this year, Mrs May told the House of Commons that Direct Rule would be needed before Brexit day unless the power-sharing agreement in NI is revived. This is because the civil service in NI cannot draw up and implement the necessary regulations unless and until it has political direction to do so. So, Brexiteers, why do you want to impose on the people of Northern Ireland a policy that is expressly contrary to what the majority voted for? . It's a great shame that Northern Ireland has as useless cunts for politicians that all the rest of us have .
That being said I don't see how murdering police officers changes anything except making you as big a cunt as your politicians."Looks like Sinn Fein is getting popular over in Northern Ireland. Also looks like the murdering cunts have moved on from killing police to blowing up irish sea ferries. Isn't it nice that the troubles could be back on. | |||
"Just a few hours after the Taoiseach told Boris Johnson that Dublin would oppose Direct Rule from London. Earlier this year, Mrs May told the House of Commons that Direct Rule would be needed before Brexit day unless the power-sharing agreement in NI is revived. This is because the civil service in NI cannot draw up and implement the necessary regulations unless and until it has political direction to do so. So, Brexiteers, why do you want to impose on the people of Northern Ireland a policy that is expressly contrary to what the majority voted for? . It's a great shame that Northern Ireland has as useless cunts for politicians that all the rest of us have .
That being said I don't see how murdering police officers changes anything except making you as big a cunt as your politicians.
Looks like Sinn Fein is getting popular over in Northern Ireland.
Also looks like the murdering cunts have moved on from killing police to blowing up irish sea ferries. Isn't it nice that the troubles could be back on."Well, more popular in the Republic of Ireland . Which will well and truly fuck the south. | |||
"Just a few hours after the Taoiseach told Boris Johnson that Dublin would oppose Direct Rule from London. Earlier this year, Mrs May told the House of Commons that Direct Rule would be needed before Brexit day unless the power-sharing agreement in NI is revived. This is because the civil service in NI cannot draw up and implement the necessary regulations unless and until it has political direction to do so. So, Brexiteers, why do you want to impose on the people of Northern Ireland a policy that is expressly contrary to what the majority voted for? . It's a great shame that Northern Ireland has as useless cunts for politicians that all the rest of us have .
That being said I don't see how murdering police officers changes anything except making you as big a cunt as your politicians.
Looks like Sinn Fein is getting popular over in Northern Ireland.
Also looks like the murdering cunts have moved on from killing police to blowing up irish sea ferries. Isn't it nice that the troubles could be back on.
Well, more popular in the Republic of Ireland . Which will well and truly fuck the south. "Just so full of HATE Poor boy | |||
| |||
| |||
"By dissident republicans I take you mean PIRA. Gerry Adams wasn't kidding when he made his 'They haven't gone away you know.' comment. And now the terror organisations political arm holds the balance in Eire. Interesting times ahead. I take it that the OP is a supporter of terrorism from his rather provocative post? " They will make the ISIS terrorists look like muppets, when they start up again. | |||
| |||
| |||
"By dissident republicans I take you mean PIRA. Gerry Adams wasn't kidding when he made his 'They haven't gone away you know.' comment. And now the terror organisations political arm holds the balance in Eire. Interesting times ahead. I take it that the OP is a supporter of terrorism from his rather provocative post? They will make the ISIS terrorists look like muppets, when they start up again." I doubt it, they don’t have the support, the numbers or the finances. No one wants them, stain on society | |||
| |||
" I doubt it, they don’t have the support, the numbers or the finances. " Maybe they took out a bank loan for the lorry bomb, that was supposed to be detonated on an Irish ferry on the brexit day then..... | |||
| |||
| |||
"I did two tours. The second was two long years in Londonderry. Not a place I would like to go back to. You could taste the hatred. At the time it did not bother me but it was always there. In the Bogside , Brandywell or the Greggan. I did not want to be there but I took the Queens shilling so there I went. I was glad when the ceasefire came. Twenty years to late but there you are. Strange as it sounds I came still name quite a few of the IRA. Lets hope those days I was in the 80's are long gone." I feel for the guys sent out there, as well as those involved and the majority innocent onlookers. There were no winners at all from the troubles. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I did two tours. The second was two long years in Londonderry. Not a place I would like to go back to. You could taste the hatred. At the time it did not bother me but it was always there. In the Bogside , Brandywell or the Greggan. I did not want to be there but I took the Queens shilling so there I went. I was glad when the ceasefire came. Twenty years to late but there you are. Strange as it sounds I came still name quite a few of the IRA. Lets hope those days I was in the 80's are long gone." I wonder why you could taste the hatred in Derry What could the British army have done to cause this ? Hmmmmm | |||
| |||
"Yeah you are right . Killing innocent civvies was an indefensible mistake. They should only have shot the IRA gunmen such as M McG who was running around with a machine gun." And your excuse when the paras murdered 2 people on the Shankhill road Lest we forget Indeed | |||
"Just a few hours after the Taoiseach told Boris Johnson that Dublin would oppose Direct Rule from London. Earlier this year, Mrs May told the House of Commons that Direct Rule would be needed before Brexit day unless the power-sharing agreement in NI is revived. This is because the civil service in NI cannot draw up and implement the necessary regulations unless and until it has political direction to do so. So, Brexiteers, why do you want to impose on the people of Northern Ireland a policy that is expressly contrary to what the majority voted for? " police target dissident republicans" Ah, 'dissident republicans'. I remember in the old days, that we used to call them terrorists. They only became 'dissident republicans' after September 2001, when their U.S backers had a taste of terrorism and declared 'war' on it as a concept. Yes, 'NorAid' and Gerry Adams in The White House EVERY St. Patricks Day - those were/are the days my friend!" | |||
"Yeah you are right . Killing innocent civvies was an indefensible mistake. They should only have shot the IRA gunmen such as M McG who was running around with a machine gun. And your excuse when the paras murdered 2 people on the Shankhill road Lest we forget Indeed" And your excuse for the fact that the IRA killed 1800 people , the majority being civillians; more than they killed soldiers and police. Brave brave men and women all Lest we forget | |||
"Yeah you are right . Killing innocent civvies was an indefensible mistake. They should only have shot the IRA gunmen such as M McG who was running around with a machine gun. And your excuse when the paras murdered 2 people on the Shankhill road Lest we forget Indeed And your excuse for the fact that the IRA killed 1800 people , the majority being civillians; more than they killed soldiers and police. Brave brave men and women all Lest we forget" Whataboutery Klaxon sounded Are you the chap saying there would be violence in the event of a democratically agreed United Ireland on another thread? Jog on Pal | |||
| |||
"Wish the op would come back they posted some decent threads. " Yep its a shame that one of the regular posters on here got her banned for life - maybe the poster couldn't keep up with her arguments and took the cowards way out ? | |||
"Wish the op would come back they posted some decent threads. Yep its a shame that one of the regular posters on here got her banned for life - maybe the poster couldn't keep up with her arguments and took the cowards way out ? " I didn’t realise she was banned oops. What’s the cowards way out? | |||
"Yeah you are right . Killing innocent civvies was an indefensible mistake. They should only have shot the IRA gunmen such as M McG who was running around with a machine gun. And your excuse when the paras murdered 2 people on the Shankhill road Lest we forget Indeed And your excuse for the fact that the IRA killed 1800 people , the majority being civillians; more than they killed soldiers and police. Brave brave men and women all Lest we forget" The Union Fleg St George , a True Roman Catholic beatified by a Pope of Rome St Andrew , a true Roman Catholic beatified by a Pope of Rome St Patrick a true Roman Catholic but never beatified by a Pope in Rome . What is so scary about being Irish ? ?? | |||
"Yeah you are right . Killing innocent civvies was an indefensible mistake. They should only have shot the IRA gunmen such as M McG who was running around with a machine gun. And your excuse when the paras murdered 2 people on the Shankhill road Lest we forget Indeed And your excuse for the fact that the IRA killed 1800 people , the majority being civillians; more than they killed soldiers and police. Brave brave men and women all Lest we forget The Union Fleg St George , a True Roman Catholic beatified by a Pope of Rome St Andrew , a true Roman Catholic beatified by a Pope of Rome St Patrick a true Roman Catholic but never beatified by a Pope in Rome . What is so scary about being Irish ? ??" Do you actually know the history/ background of St Patrick ? | |||
"Wish the op would come back they posted some decent threads. Yep its a shame that one of the regular posters on here got her banned for life - maybe the poster couldn't keep up with her arguments and took the cowards way out ? I didn’t realise she was banned oops. What’s the cowards way out? " Reporting someone after threatening to do so is pretty low and cowardly I personally think but I believe the poster who did it is well known on here and thinks it is his own personal soapbox - you may not have noticed but he was not on here for 48hrs (probably got the same ban as me) and the forum was far more interesting and less strident imho | |||
"Wish the op would come back they posted some decent threads. Yep its a shame that one of the regular posters on here got her banned for life - maybe the poster couldn't keep up with her arguments and took the cowards way out ? I didn’t realise she was banned oops. What’s the cowards way out? Reporting someone after threatening to do so is pretty low and cowardly I personally think but I believe the poster who did it is well known on here and thinks it is his own personal soapbox - you may not have noticed but he was not on here for 48hrs (probably got the same ban as me) and the forum was far more interesting and less strident imho" Goes over my head mate. I didn’t even know the Op of this thread was no longer on the forums. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I had missed the OP but had not realised she had been banned , obviously I don't know the reason why ,but she always appeared to back up her point of view with a common sense attitude , ,the forum a poorer place without her "It is a great shame as she was always a good read and very sensible. Unfortunately the saddo who got her banned has neither the sense nor the humility to realise that the forum is a much poorer place these days because of his actions but what can you expect from someone as egotistical as him? I guess he just wants to win at any cost even if it means silencing anyone who doesnt agree with his point of view. He always craps on about labour but then behaves like Macarthy - no doubt he will be bitching to the moderators as we chat | |||
"In fact according to her profile is online now so not banned but just not bothering to post here, I know I gave up for a long time due to all the bile, at least there wasnt a big flounce hoping for folk to beg her not to leave" I have chatted with her since she received her lifetime ban so I am afraid its not a holiday. She is using her profile because well, why would you want to lose all your contacts and have to start again just to join in with this forum. | |||
"Can you not be a member but banned from the forums ?" Thats a very innocent question isnt it! | |||
| |||
"Didn’t realise you could get banned just because someone doesn’t like you . I thought it was for contravening forum guidelines. Ach well, you live and learn . " Oh I am sure you know the rules all too well | |||
| |||
"Yeah you are right . Killing innocent civvies was an indefensible mistake. They should only have shot the IRA gunmen such as M McG who was running around with a machine gun. And your excuse when the paras murdered 2 people on the Shankhill road Lest we forget Indeed And your excuse for the fact that the IRA killed 1800 people , the majority being civillians; more than they killed soldiers and police. Brave brave men and women all Lest we forget The Union Fleg St George , a True Roman Catholic beatified by a Pope of Rome St Andrew , a true Roman Catholic beatified by a Pope of Rome St Patrick a true Roman Catholic but never beatified by a Pope in Rome . What is so scary about being Irish ? ?? Do you actually know the history/ background of St Patrick ?" Of course i do. A catholic man Who brought catholicsm to Ireland. Not a beatified Saint though. The union fleg . A tribute to catholicism. Well played James 1st. | |||
"In fact according to her profile is online now so not banned but just not bothering to post here, I know I gave up for a long time due to all the bile, at least there wasnt a big flounce hoping for folk to beg her not to leave I have chatted with her since she received her lifetime ban so I am afraid its not a holiday. She is using her profile because well, why would you want to lose all your contacts and have to start again just to join in with this forum. " for someone who only been on here for two weeks you seem pretty familiar with who posted on here a lot.sure you not been on here before and had to come back with a new profile? | |||
"Yeah you are right . Killing innocent civvies was an indefensible mistake. They should only have shot the IRA gunmen such as M McG who was running around with a machine gun. And your excuse when the paras murdered 2 people on the Shankhill road Lest we forget Indeed And your excuse for the fact that the IRA killed 1800 people , the majority being civillians; more than they killed soldiers and police. Brave brave men and women all Lest we forget" Well, the fact is that HMQ and her Government have forgiven past events and want to move forward. It's a pity that more of those who constantly profess their loyalty to the Crown don't remember that. Moving on, in peace, is after all, their best way to isolate the dregs of violent Republicanism. Unless, of course, they believe their Sovereign and her Government mistaken? | |||
"In fact according to her profile is online now so not banned but just not bothering to post here, I know I gave up for a long time due to all the bile, at least there wasnt a big flounce hoping for folk to beg her not to leave I have chatted with her since she received her lifetime ban so I am afraid its not a holiday. She is using her profile because well, why would you want to lose all your contacts and have to start again just to join in with this forum. for someone who only been on here for two weeks you seem pretty familiar with who posted on here a lot.sure you not been on here before and had to come back with a new profile?" Give the man a gold star  | |||
"In fact according to her profile is online now so not banned but just not bothering to post here, I know I gave up for a long time due to all the bile, at least there wasnt a big flounce hoping for folk to beg her not to leave I have chatted with her since she received her lifetime ban so I am afraid its not a holiday. She is using her profile because well, why would you want to lose all your contacts and have to start again just to join in with this forum. for someone who only been on here for two weeks you seem pretty familiar with who posted on here a lot.sure you not been on here before and had to come back with a new profile? Give the man a gold star "getting round a ban by any chance? and nah dont need a goldstar sweetheart xx | |||
| |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again" You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion. | |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion. "You seem to think these bans have only ever been applied to people on one side of the political divide which simply is not true. | |||
| |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion. You seem to think these bans have only ever been applied to people on one side of the political divide which simply is not true."I have no objection to bans being applied for exceptionally bad and aggressive behaviour whatever credo you follow but I think when they are used personally as a means of stifling debate then it becomes a different matter altogether and detracts from the forum. | |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion. You seem to think these bans have only ever been applied to people on one side of the political divide which simply is not true.
I have no objection to bans being applied for exceptionally bad and aggressive behaviour whatever credo you follow but I think when they are used personally as a means of stifling debate then it becomes a different matter altogether and detracts from the forum."Totally agree but think it probably goes a bit deeper with admin im sure they must look at profiles see who are on here for the purpose the site was designed for.I have seen so many people on here in the last couple of years who have been on a year or so not site supporters with no veris several profiles and probably no intention of meeting its pretty obvious to me that they are just trolls. | |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion. "nah not up tight mate and yea u right i dont vote that dont meen i cant comment on these threads though.hey ive had a ban before for a cpl of days.if someone has been kicked for good its either something really offensive or repeat offender.try using the site for what its for mabey u might have fun | |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion.
nah not up tight mate and yea u right i dont vote that dont meen i cant comment on these threads though.hey ive had a ban before for a cpl of days.if someone has been kicked for good its either something really offensive or repeat offender.try using the site for what its for mabey u might have fun "I have done that in the past - paid my subs and all - had some good friends - got booted off and lost all that history - still here to poke about and make people think but probably will be invited to leave soon I expect. All good clean fun isnt it | |||
| |||
| |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion.
nah not up tight mate and yea u right i dont vote that dont meen i cant comment on these threads though.hey ive had a ban before for a cpl of days.if someone has been kicked for good its either something really offensive or repeat offender.try using the site for what its for mabey u might have fun
I have done that in the past - paid my subs and all - had some good friends - got booted off and lost all that history - still here to poke about and make people think but probably will be invited to leave soon I expect. All good clean fun isnt it "Yep this forum is just a little distraction as far as im concerned while either waiting for replies or friends to get in touch.Some take it far to seriously. | |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion. You seem to think these bans have only ever been applied to people on one side of the political divide which simply is not true.
I have no objection to bans being applied for exceptionally bad and aggressive behaviour whatever credo you follow but I think when they are used personally as a means of stifling debate then it becomes a different matter altogether and detracts from the forum.Totally agree but think it probably goes a bit deeper with admin im sure they must look at profiles see who are on here for the purpose the site was designed for.I have seen so many people on here in the last couple of years who have been on a year or so not site supporters with no veris several profiles and probably no intention of meeting its pretty obvious to me that they are just trolls. "If you really think that admins scrutinise the entire conversation in a thread (or in general) to ascertain whether someone has indeed broken rules, you're dreaming. From my understanding, "cliques" gang up on someone they want banned, by co-ordinated reporting of the same post(s) with the same reason(s) and the admins just go on that, which obviously is not only unfair but also abuse in itself. As for SaraJ, I agree with quietlydom. Excellent contributor in general and, as far as I can remember, not only clearly intelligent but also well-mannered. Regardless of whether we agree with others or not, being instrumental in silencing them is, in effect, akin to fascism. Unless there *are* different/differing opinions, rounded *debate* is impossible. We should *encourage* those who disagree with us to share their opinions and not try to silence them. And to go back on topic: Not that terrorists really need an excuse to cause havoc, but when they and their "cause" is being indirectly "helped" by other events, then it's all the more tragic since it could have possibly been avoided altogether or, at least, in part. Actions have consequences and for every action there's a reaction, whichever side you're on. If only *either* side cared about *that* a bit more, if at all. | |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion. You seem to think these bans have only ever been applied to people on one side of the political divide which simply is not true.
I have no objection to bans being applied for exceptionally bad and aggressive behaviour whatever credo you follow but I think when they are used personally as a means of stifling debate then it becomes a different matter altogether and detracts from the forum.Totally agree but think it probably goes a bit deeper with admin im sure they must look at profiles see who are on here for the purpose the site was designed for.I have seen so many people on here in the last couple of years who have been on a year or so not site supporters with no veris several profiles and probably no intention of meeting its pretty obvious to me that they are just trolls.
If you really think that admins scrutinise the entire conversation in a thread (or in general) to ascertain whether someone has indeed broken rules, you're dreaming.
From my understanding, "cliques" gang up on someone they want banned, by co-ordinated reporting of the same post(s) with the same reason(s) and the admins just go on that, which obviously is not only unfair but also abuse in itself.
As for SaraJ, I agree with quietlydom. Excellent contributor in general and, as far as I can remember, not only clearly intelligent but also well-mannered.
Regardless of whether we agree with others or not, being instrumental in silencing them is, in effect, akin to fascism. Unless there *are* different/differing opinions, rounded *debate* is impossible. We should *encourage* those who disagree with us to share their opinions and not try to silence them.
And to go back on topic: Not that terrorists really need an excuse to cause havoc, but when they and their "cause" is being indirectly "helped" by other events, then it's all the more tragic since it could have possibly been avoided altogether or, at least, in part.
Actions have consequences and for every action there's a reaction, whichever side you're on. If only *either* side cared about *that* a bit more, if at all."Yep - she was the sound of reason | |||
"and before you ask im on the same profile ive been on since the site started dont feel the need to keep dissapearing then starting all over again You seem a little uptight about it - I thought you didn’t care that much about politics, voting etc. Truth is I dont really care much about me being judged, I just believe in fair play and I really dont like people being banned for having the “wrong” opinion. Certain people use the forum as if it was their own personal soapbox and have threatened to have people banned and then those people disappear from the site. Putting two and two together I believe I know who the culprit is but the moderators feel that he is just within the rules of the forum. Personally I think banning people for life especially ones who have been such good contributors as SaraJ in order to drown out the voice of any opposition is a pretty cowardly thing to do and I think the forum would be a better place if that kind of behaviour was reined in but thats just my opinion. You seem to think these bans have only ever been applied to people on one side of the political divide which simply is not true.
I have no objection to bans being applied for exceptionally bad and aggressive behaviour whatever credo you follow but I think when they are used personally as a means of stifling debate then it becomes a different matter altogether and detracts from the forum.Totally agree but think it probably goes a bit deeper with admin im sure they must look at profiles see who are on here for the purpose the site was designed for.I have seen so many people on here in the last couple of years who have been on a year or so not site supporters with no veris several profiles and probably no intention of meeting its pretty obvious to me that they are just trolls.
If you really think that admins scrutinise the entire conversation in a thread (or in general) to ascertain whether someone has indeed broken rules, you're dreaming.
From my understanding, "cliques" gang up on someone they want banned, by co-ordinated reporting of the same post(s) with the same reason(s) and the admins just go on that, which obviously is not only unfair but also abuse in itself.
As for SaraJ, I agree with quietlydom. Excellent contributor in general and, as far as I can remember, not only clearly intelligent but also well-mannered.
Regardless of whether we agree with others or not, being instrumental in silencing them is, in effect, akin to fascism. Unless there *are* different/differing opinions, rounded *debate* is impossible. We should *encourage* those who disagree with us to share their opinions and not try to silence them.
And to go back on topic: Not that terrorists really need an excuse to cause havoc, but when they and their "cause" is being indirectly "helped" by other events, then it's all the more tragic since it could have possibly been avoided altogether or, at least, in part.
Actions have consequences and for every action there's a reaction, whichever side you're on. If only *either* side cared about *that* a bit more, if at all.
Yep - she was the sound of reason "A lot of people thought so and her presence is missed | |||
"I have no objection to bans being applied for exceptionally bad and aggressive behaviour whatever credo you follow but I think when they are used personally as a means of stifling debate then it becomes a different matter altogether and detracts from the forum.Totally agree but think it probably goes a bit deeper with admin im sure they must look at profiles see who are on here for the purpose the site was designed for.I have seen so many people on here in the last couple of years who have been on a year or so not site supporters with no veris several profiles and probably no intention of meeting its pretty obvious to me that they are just trolls. If you really think that admins scrutinise the entire conversation in a thread (or in general) to ascertain whether someone has indeed broken rules, you're dreaming. From my understanding, "cliques" gang up on someone they want banned, by co-ordinated reporting of the same post(s) with the same reason(s) and the admins just go on that, which obviously is not only unfair but also abuse in itself. As for SaraJ, I agree with quietlydom. Excellent contributor in general and, as far as I can remember, not only clearly intelligent but also well-mannered. Regardless of whether we agree with others or not, being instrumental in silencing them is, in effect, akin to fascism. Unless there *are* different/differing opinions, rounded *debate* is impossible. We should *encourage* those who disagree with us to share their opinions and not try to silence them" ******************** I've only recently seen the comments on this thread relating to the alleged 'ban for life' given to SaraJ and, if the above is actually the case, where she was 'cliqued upon' (my expression), then this forum truly is overseen by idiots. For what I read of Sara's posts, indeed she was very well-informed and, perhaps more importantly, NEVER EVER abusive toward any other contributor. In actual fact I myself have, in the past, been more acidic than ever she was, although I never lowered myself to posting chid-like, insulting scribblings as some on these fora see fit to post. To paraphrase one politician, American, if my memory is correct, regarding SaraJ's posts, (many of I never agreed with, as she may tell you..!)...... "I do not agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it". These fora, for what they indeed are, i.e...., a little sounding board on a politically insignificant website, are definitely much poorer for SaraJ's loss. As usual, just to confound the troll division, this post is merely my own opinion and is directed at no troll(s) in particular. Thanks for reading. D. Eva Nightingale. ( ONE AND ONE only profile in 8+ years, nothing to hide and absolute truth junkie.) | |||
"I have no objection to bans being applied for exceptionally bad and aggressive behaviour whatever credo you follow but I think when they are used personally as a means of stifling debate then it becomes a different matter altogether and detracts from the forum.Totally agree but think it probably goes a bit deeper with admin im sure they must look at profiles see who are on here for the purpose the site was designed for.I have seen so many people on here in the last couple of years who have been on a year or so not site supporters with no veris several profiles and probably no intention of meeting its pretty obvious to me that they are just trolls. If you really think that admins scrutinise the entire conversation in a thread (or in general) to ascertain whether someone has indeed broken rules, you're dreaming. From my understanding, "cliques" gang up on someone they want banned, by co-ordinated reporting of the same post(s) with the same reason(s) and the admins just go on that, which obviously is not only unfair but also abuse in itself. As for SaraJ, I agree with quietlydom. Excellent contributor in general and, as far as I can remember, not only clearly intelligent but also well-mannered. Regardless of whether we agree with others or not, being instrumental in silencing them is, in effect, akin to fascism. Unless there *are* different/differing opinions, rounded *debate* is impossible. We should *encourage* those who disagree with us to share their opinions and not try to silence them ******************** I've only recently seen the comments on this thread relating to the alleged 'ban for life' given to SaraJ and, if the above is actually the case, where she was 'cliqued upon' (my expression), then this forum truly is overseen by idiots. For what I read of Sara's posts, indeed she was very well-informed and, perhaps more importantly, NEVER EVER abusive toward any other contributor. In actual fact I myself have, in the past, been more acidic than ever she was, although I never lowered myself to posting chid-like, insulting scribblings as some on these fora see fit to post. To paraphrase one politician, American, if my memory is correct, regarding SaraJ's posts, (many of I never agreed with, as she may tell you..!)...... "I do not agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it". These fora, for what they indeed are, i.e...., a little sounding board on a politically insignificant website, are definitely much poorer for SaraJ's loss. As usual, just to confound the troll division, this post is merely my own opinion and is directed at no troll(s) in particular. Thanks for reading. D. Eva Nightingale. ( ONE AND ONE only profile in 8+ years, nothing to hide and absolute truth junkie.)"
As opposed to the many with multiple profiles | |||
"Yeah you are right . Killing innocent civvies was an indefensible mistake. They should only have shot the IRA gunmen such as M McG who was running around with a machine gun. And your excuse when the paras murdered 2 people on the Shankhill road Lest we forget Indeed" What was the excuse for Tim Parry & Johnathan Ball deaths? | |||
"Yeah you are right . Killing innocent civvies was an indefensible mistake. They should only have shot the IRA gunmen such as M McG who was running around with a machine gun. And your excuse when the paras murdered 2 people on the Shankhill road Lest we forget Indeed What was the excuse for Tim Parry & Johnathan Ball deaths?" There was no excuse for the murder of any innocent civilians be they be in Derry,in Croke Park,on the Shankhill or Warringgton But your whataboutery is well noted. | |||
