What is it with Mickey Harte?

Happyman42

There are soccer supporters that support the National Front, therefore.....

dizzywizlw

Rasheed wrote: »

Dizzy, I'm not arguing that the history of the GAA promoted nationalism in the past. Of course it was associated with nationalism, it was sporting association that was invented in Ireland and there was a massacre during the war of independence on Croke Park pitch, the home on GAA. But this is the thing Dizz, that was nearly 100 years ago. I think we've gotten over it Imagine, they even played God Save The Queen in Croke Park! And nobody started World War III about it!

You then destroy your argument by saying that members of the GAA 'support (note the present tense) provisional Sinn Féin and the PIRA.'

How do you make that assertion? Are you trying to say that only GAA members support aforementioned associations? Do you mean to say that no other member of any other sporting group supports Sinn Féin or the PIRA? You are trying to coyly imply that if you support the GAA you are, whether you like it or not, a supporter of terrorist groups promoting a united Ireland. You might want to tell that to my U.12's that we a breeding new little Brit haters, that includes three Polish girls. Sure I even play The Wolftones before every training, but that's just our secret.

And can you tell me what is wrong with promoting the use of the Irish language? Is that subliminally telling us we want a united Ireland too? Gerry Adams must love TG4!



I love this quote, talk about codswallop! So you could say the same about soccer in Dublin. They're are jackeens in Dublin, that are thick as bottled shiite, soccer is popular in Dublin, ergo thick Dubs are prevalent in the league of Ireland!

Were you left off a GAA team in your youth Dizzy? Your hatred of the whole association is quite unnerving.......

Funnily enough, I've played Football (GAA) in my youth (under 10s maybe? twas ages ago), no other sports. Stopped due to travel reasons.

About the jackeens you're pretty much on the money I have to concede :pac:

Again I want to point out, Nationalism not in the sense of Nationalist Politics throughout our history, I'm talking about Nationalism at its most simple as nation-building. What I am asserting is that the National ideals founding the GAA are manufactured and assist but do not create tribalism.

Let me state again that I think the GAA is a great sporting organisation, its success in promoting sport is envied worldwide and rightly so. Organisational culture is my problem.

The problem is that SF Nationalism and the 'Nation' of Ireland born in the 19th century are so similar that people tend to confused Nationalists with Provos/Shinners. It's got nothing to do with a united ireland it's got to do with what 'Ireland' means and the GAA toes the same cultural line as Sinn Fein. That's why I have a problem with the organisation, because it represents a Nation that is manufactured and created to enforce sectarian unity. Yes the really bad things are in the past, but the ideals remain.


There are a lot of thick jackeen scumbags playing soccer in Dublin, there are a lot of thick boggers playing GAA and indeed vice-versa.

Happyman42

This is Irish Society For Dummies territory. :rolleyes:

wonderfullife

Grayson wrote: »

I see what you mean and i only half disagree.

It's always said that repeat offenders should get higher sentances. So conversly people who haven't committed a crime before should get lower sentances.

But, it's only a small part of what should be considered. The crime itself & the impact to the victim should carry far, far more weight.

I know but i think it should work this way:

Crime: Sexual in nature
Mitigating Circumstances: Good character None
Sentence: Maximum permissible

The way you punish repeat offenders should be through the parole/early release process. It should be a parole/release issue that repeat offenders serve more of the sentence.

If we want to get serious as a society on the vile nature of sexual crimes, then we should start by sending out a clear message: It does not matter who you are, how well you lived your life to date or where you come from - if you commit rape or any other sexual crime, you'll be getting the maximum sentence allowable under the law.

Rasheed

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Funnily enough, I've played Football (GAA) in my youth (under 10s maybe? twas ages ago), no other sports. Stopped due to travel reasons.

About the jackeens you're pretty much on the money I have to concede :pac:

Again I want to point out, Nationalism not in the sense of Nationalist Politics throughout our history, I'm talking about Nationalism at its most simple as nation-building. What I am asserting is that the National ideals founding the GAA are manufactured and assist but do not create tribalism.

Let me state again that I think the GAA is a great sporting organisation, its success in promoting sport is envied worldwide and rightly so. Organisational culture is my problem.

The problem is that SF Nationalism and the 'Nation' of Ireland born in the 19th century are so similar that people tend to confused Nationalists with Provos/Shinners. It's got nothing to do with a united ireland it's got to do with what 'Ireland' means and the GAA toes the same cultural line as Sinn Fein. That's why I have a problem with the organisation, because it represents a Nation that is manufactured and created to enforce sectarian unity. Yes the really bad things are in the past, but the ideals remain.


There are a lot of thick jackeen scumbags playing soccer in Dublin, there are a lot of thick boggers playing GAA and indeed vice-versa.

What ideals remain the same? Is it that the inter county competition involves the 32 counties?

Yeah, there were definitely aspects in the GAA's past that weren't ideal like the ban on 'foreign sports' and the not allowing if playing those sports in Croke park. Things still aren't perfect but I think they've left that sectarian codology behind! They're always be Neanderthals that hold that sectarian ideas but I hope and am fairly sure the GAA as an organisation has left that part of their history in the past.

Dionysius2

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Because the GAA was part of a nationalist strategy to create a unified tribal identity of the Irish people to fight the British. And thick culchies join the GAA in no small number...

As opposed to support for 'the Garrison Game' ?

Ash.J.Williams

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Because the GAA was part of a nationalist strategy to create a unified tribal identity of the Irish people to fight the British. And thick culchies join the GAA in no small number...

Strike this nonsense from the records...absolute bullsh1t

Happyman42

The thick culchies obviously figured out they where being royally trolled.:D

Grayson

wonderfullife wrote: »

I know but i think it should work this way:

Crime: Sexual in nature
Mitigating Circumstances: Good character None
Sentence: Maximum permissible

The way you punish repeat offenders should be through the parole/early release process. It should be a parole/release issue that repeat offenders serve more of the sentence.

If we want to get serious as a society on the vile nature of sexual crimes, then we should start by sending out a clear message: It does not matter who you are, how well you lived your life to date or where you come from - if you commit rape or any other sexual crime, you'll be getting the maximum sentence allowable under the law.

You know, when they hung people for theft, people still stole. The death penalty isn't a deterrent for any crime. Neither is a maximum life sentence. It never has been and never will be, so if you think tougher sentences are going to help prevent sexual assaults, you're deluding yourself.

Sentences for sexual assaults should cover the whole range of options available. That doesn't make any one assault less than it is, but it is reasonable to say that the assault that happened to that indian girl on the bus is probably worse than this (besides the fact that she didn't survive it). That means that when such an assault occurs you need to be able to impose a sentence harsher than before. You can't do that if you impose a maximum sentence every time.

And previous behavior should be taken into account. It directly relates to the likeliness of them re offending.

If there's one issue I'd take with the statement issued is that although I haven't seen it, I get the impression it doesn't mention the victim.
Remember the trial where the locals all came along to cheer on the accused? That's what this reminds me of.
There's a difference between saying "The crime was horrific, and we have no idea why he committed it. They have so far been of good character, this is aberrant behavior and when the time comes we will support them as they go through treatment and therapy so they can rehabilitate." as opposed to "Ahhh go easy on him. He's a grand lad." which this sounds like.
One indicates disapproval for what he did and is offering to help with the rehabilitation. The other is like those people cheering in the courtroom.

And that's the one thing that would help prevent more assaults, is making them less acceptable. Its perfectly possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. But far to many of these gombeens don't seem to care.

Happyman42

Grayson wrote: »

You know, when they hung people for theft, people still stole. The death penalty isn't a deterrent for any crime. Neither is a maximum life sentence. It never has been and never will be, so if you think tougher sentences are going to help prevent sexual assaults, you're deluding yourself.

Sentences for sexual assaults should cover the whole range of options available. That doesn't make any one assault less than it is, but it is reasonable to say that the assault that happened to that indian girl on the bus is probably worse than this (besides the fact that she didn't survive it). That means that when such an assault occurs you need to be able to impose a sentence harsher than before. You can't do that if you impose a maximum sentence every time.

And previous behavior should be taken into account. It directly relates to the likeliness of them re offending.

If there's one issue I'd take with the statement issued is that although I haven't seen it, I get the impression it doesn't mention the victim.
Remember the trial where the locals all came along to cheer on the accused? That's what this reminds me of.
There's a difference between saying "The crime was horrific, and we have no idea why he committed it. They have so far been of good character, this is aberrant behavior and when the time comes we will support them as they go through treatment and therapy so they can rehabilitate." as opposed to "Ahhh go easy on him. He's a grand lad." which this sounds like.
One indicates disapproval for what he did and is offering to help with the rehabilitation. The other is like those people cheering in the courtroom.

And that's the one thing that would help prevent more assaults, is making them less acceptable. Its perfectly possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. But far to many of these gombeens don't seem to care.

How do you get the impression that the statement doesn't mention the victim? I doubt the RCC would have had access to it, I know I was assured that mine was for the judges eyes only.
I agree with what you are saying overall though, you can't just switch a justice system (which it is; 'a system') on and off for different crimes and the RCC should be calling and lobbying for reform of the whole system instead of adding to the the hysteria about one with ridiculous blanket condemnations and hysterical reactions. You can see from this thread that it only brings the extremists out of the woodwork.

NIMAN

Mickey's at it again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21664400

tigger123

NIMAN wrote: »

Mickey's at it again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21664400

Oh dear.

Chicken liver

Mickety Harte is a good man. Those who think otherwise should have been aborted at 6 weeks.

padd b1975

tigger123 wrote: »

Oh dear.

I think what he says is quite measured and reasonable.

Henlars67

Chicken liver wrote: »

Mickety Harte is a good man. Those who think otherwise should have been aborted at 6 weeks.

He speaks at Youth Defence rallies, helps get a reduced sentence for a sex offender, he's against the use of contraception.

Just because he suffered an appalling loss when his daughter was murdered doesn't make him a good man

Happyman42

Henlars67 wrote: »

He speaks at Youth Defence rallies, helps get a reduced sentence for a sex offender, he's against the use of contraception.

Just because he suffered an appalling loss when his daughter was murdered doesn't make him a good man

So lets get this staight, he is not allowed to speak as his conscience dictates?
And the loss of his daughter means he should conform to your moral code?

I don't agree with his stance on contraception, abortion etc but by jaysus he has every right to express his opinion. Which is all it is, 'his opinion' and can be ignored by you, me, judges and everyone else. A sense of proportion required maybe?

Henlars67

Happyman42 wrote: »

So lets get this staight, he is not allowed to speak as his conscience dictates?
And the loss of his daughter means he should conform to your moral code?

I don't agree with his stance on contraception, abortion etc but by jaysus he has every right to express his opinion. Which is all it is, 'his opinion' and can be ignored by you, me, judges and everyone else. A sense of proportion required maybe?

I have absolutely no idea how you took that meaning from my post.

I see you conveniently haven't mentioned what this whole thread is about, that he helped a sex offender get a lighter sentence.

Happyman42

Henlars67 wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea how you took that meaning from my post.

I see you conveniently haven't mentioned what this whole thread is about, that he helped a sex offender get a lighter sentence.

Nor is it about his stance on contraception, abortion or the loss of his daughter and his ability to be a 'good man'. It's turning into a general witchhunt so beloved by internet warrior/ranters.

Your sugggestion that the loss of his daughter should temper his opinions on abortion and contraception and proclude him from giving character references is how I got the 'idea'. What has the loss of his daughter got to do with it?

Henlars67

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nor is it about his stance on contraception, abortion or the loss of his daughter and his ability to be a 'good man'. It's turning into a general witchhunt so beloved by internet warrior/ranters.

Your sugggestion that the loss of his daughter should temper his opinions on abortion and contraception and proclude him from giving character references is how I got the 'idea'. What has the loss of his daughter got to do with it?

In no way have I suggested that, and again I have no idea how you take that meaning from my post.


If somebody helps get a sex offender a reduced sentence then they are not a good person.
That shouldn't even be up for debate.

NIMAN

Why is his opinion being sought though? Why does he feel the need to give it?

Its because his daughter was murdered, thats why. No-one's asking Pat Kenny, or Trap, or Miriam or Hector or any other GAA manager for their views on abortion, nor do they feel they need to give it. Yet Mickey feels like we, the general public, care about his opinion on it.

I feel very sorry for what happened to him, and I am not on any witch hunt here, but he needs to try to get back to normal living and move on with his life as he did before the murder, and not be in the media all the time.

Ash.J.Williams

starting to go off topic here...the man is religious, therefor has every right to speak about abortion and youth defence etc...It's up to us "not" to listen

NIMAN

There are billions of religious people in the world, but they don't feel the need to offer their opinions.

Ash.J.Williams

NIMAN wrote: »

There are billions of religious people in the world, but they don't feel the need to offer their opinions.

they can if they want..(i'm not one of them but i do not believe in censorship)

Happyman42

Henlars67 wrote: »

If somebody helps get a sex offender a reduced sentence then they are not a good person.
That shouldn't even be up for debate.

You, like everyone else, have no idea what Harte asked for. A character reference is not the same as a plea for leniency.
His daughters loss has nothing to do with the reference or his moral stance, you should be ashamed of yourself for the cheap shooting.

Henlars67

Happyman42 wrote: »

You, like everyone else, have no idea what Harte asked for. A character reference is not the same as a plea for leniency.
His daughters loss has nothing to do with the reference or his moral stance, you should be ashamed of yourself for the cheap shooting.

you're not even worth arguing with.

Everyone, even you knows what the purpose of a character reference in court is.

The fact that his daughter died tragically is the reason a lot of people won't criticise an obviously despicable man.

Happyman42

Henlars67 wrote: »

you're not even worth arguing with.

Everyone, even you knows what the purpose of a character reference in court is.

The fact that his daughter died tragically is the reason a lot of people won't criticise an obviously despicable man.

...and you can't argue.


You might want to tune into Live Line, your moral opposite (a catholic priest) is justifying his own character asassination techniques. Extremists are the same the world over.
I'll leave you to your character assassination, have fun

Chicken liver

Henlars67 wrote: »

a lot of people won't criticise an obviously despicable man.

Hey henny I think you need to cool it.

Henlars67

Happyman42 wrote: »

...and you can't argue.


You might want to tune into Live Line, your moral opposite (a catholic priest) is justifying his own character asassination techniques. Extremists are the same the world over.
I'll leave you to your character assassination, have fun

You're the one refusing to acknowledge the purpose of a character reference, not me.

Happyman42

Henlars67 wrote: »

You're the one refusing to acknowledge the purpose of a character reference, not me.

I have been quite clear what I think the purpose of a character reference might be. And I refuse to be bullied into thinking otherwise by interent warriors/ranters.
Don't let me keep you from the hanging.

dark crystal

NIMAN wrote: »

Mickey's at it again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21664400

"Society is defined by how it treats the most vulnerable in our community"

Like disabled rape victims, Mickey?