I’m fascinated to find out who will be the scapegoat for all that is wrong in the country when we aren’t in the EU anymore and this sort of thing continues. Almost as if Irish travellers were around before the EU and will be around after we leave.
78 year old pensioner targetted for revenge
- Thread starter GGizmo
- Start date
I’m fascinated to find out who will be the scapegoat for all that is wrong in the country when we aren’t in the EU anymore and this sort of thing continues. Almost as if Irish travellers were around before the EU and will be around after we leave.
yes you said both of them and where i was asking for some humanity to be shown towards his family mainly his daughter at no point did i defend him or his actions. yet you included him
so prove it
https://news.sky.com/video/shove-it-up-your-backside-11326672
To be honest I wouldn't be at all surprised if our wonderfully impartial police arrested someone for tearing them down.
To be honest I wouldn't be at all surprised if our wonderfully impartial police arrested someone for tearing them down.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,514
- Location
- ST4
https://news.sky.com/video/shove-it-up-your-backside-11326672
To be honest I wouldn't be at all surprised if our wonderfully impartial police arrested someone for tearing them down.
Of course they will. They can't be expected to arrest the violent scum who're actively issuing death threats to pensioners now can they? So they'll just go for the easy targets and get another tick in the crime solved column.
/le sighyes you said both of them and where i was asking for some humanity to be shown towards his family mainly his daughter at no point did i defend him or his actions. yet you included him
so prove it
You said "why should people take down the flowers/shrine". Yes/no?
The shrine is not wanted by the locals, who feel intimidated by it. Yes/no?
The shrine is considered to have been deliberately sited where it was to make a statement. They could have created a shrine in their compound and held whatever remembrance they wanted. They chose to site the shrine opposite the OAP's house...
... you know what, I'm tired of repeating the same words in different ways
I've made my point - the fact is by defending the shrine you are saying that the traveller's rights trump the locals rights. End of.this is a funny conversation....i added some effects in
oh dear.....
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 116
It wasn't the same old guy he jist used that name to make a point. He clearly wasnt nearly 80 lol
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 1,343
Do you have any memory of what they were like before the EU? It certainly will continue whilst they're protected under EU human rights; thank goodness we've got a chance to break the mould. The "scapegoat" will be Remainers forcing us to retain as many EU laws as possible including the most unfavourable ones to make it seem like it was pointless leaving.
He was wrong but he never deserved to die, nor should the old man be prosecuted.
His family put some flowers up at the site of his death as people often do when there loved ones die, no need to be vindictive and tear them down.
His dead what more do people want?
His family put some flowers up at the site of his death as people often do when there loved ones die, no need to be vindictive and tear them down.
His dead what more do people want?
For the rest of the criminal family to **** off and stop coming back to the neighbourhood he used to bugle, stop intimidating the local residents.
If you break into a home and threaten someone's life with a weapon then yes you do deserve to die.
The one gibbering on the news about putting the flowers back up didn't sound very Irish...
Because we're better than they are. Or would you rather live in a "society" that wasn't a society at all because people didn't give a damn about anyone else's rights?
Apparently to many people there isn't. You ask why society should give a damn about criminal's rights. Other people, like the person I replied to, said that criminals should have any rights at all. If someone has no rights (or nobody gives a damn about their rights, which effectively means they have no rights), then it's absolutely fine to imprison them for years, rape them, torture them and kill them. That's what "no rights" means - no rights, so anyone can do anything to them with definitely no legal repercussions and probably no social repercussions. If you don't give a damn about someone's rights, you won't care if they're chained up in a cellar for years being raped and tortured by their owner. Who would be their owner, of course. If they have no rights, they can be owned. Legally. So there's slavery relegalised too. Which would lead to slave labour because there would be plenty of people who would keep slaves if it was legal and socially acceptable but who wouldn't want to rape, torture or kill their slaves. History proves that all too well.
But there are many people, like the person I replied to, who would go much further than even that. Back in the days when England had outlawry as part of the legal system, it was a severe sentence that could only be given out by a judge after a trial or after a person had escaped, had had several opportunties to stand trial and chose not to do so. Many people today (like the person I replied to, but they're far from the only person, not even in this thread) advocate for everyone to have the power to make a declaration of outlawry and to do so without any kind of trial or investigation at all!
Obvously not. Amnesia has explained their position very clearly and has very obviously not defended the burglar. Who, just to remind you again, he called "a scumbag".
By what bizarre convolutions of thought do you interpret calling someone a scumbag as defending them?
Safety, equality under the law, lack of intimidation, criminal gangs to be dealt with by the police (or, if really necessary, the army) rather than being allowed to operate with impunity, effectively above the law because they have a protected group status...little things like that.
People don't generally put flowers up at the home of the victim of a crime to commemorate the criminal who attacked them. While simultaneously threatening the victim. Which is, of course, why the flowers are there - it's a statement of presence, of territorial marking, and therefore a statement of continued threat. It's hardly unheard of for someone who kills a member of a violent gang to then be killed by other members of the violent gang.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 157
Also from all the news reports i have seen the guy never died in the house.. or even outside the house.
He ran from the house into a nearby street where the other burglar tried to get him into the van. he failed and left him in the road to die and drove off..
So if they want to put up any ''shrines'' they should put them up in the other street where the guy actually died.
Doing it outside the oap's house is clear intimidation..
But as usual the plod is totally pathetic in response to it. i called them out earlier in this thread saying they would soon be threatening the locals with arrest for removing the flowers.
and oh what a suprise they are doing just that.
they and the chief constable that probably ordered it should hang there heads in shame.. they are no longer fit for purpose in my opinion.