nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gangland Shootings [Mod Note in Post #1]

JamBur

Nobody cares about scum killing scum, let them eradicate each other

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Stephen15

blinding wrote: »

Why would you bring this carry on in to your Country . Irish Politicians hate Ireland . They prove it all the time .

Nail on the head. If they were true patriots they would adopt foreign policies similar to Hungary, Poland, Austria, Czech Republic and Italy.

Stephen15

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Only a matter of time before European countries are going to put up barriers between each other and start closing their borders.

I don't see Schengen lasting another 10 years.

Schegen would work if Europe had tougher external borders. Let's face it the problems aren't caused by white Europeans they are being caused by people from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. While ordinary Europeans live in poverty migrants are given every welfare benefit decided by the UN and the EU.

Stop wasting money on forgein aid and helping rapefugees and start helping our own.

blinding

Why would you bring this carry on in to your Country . Irish Politicians hate Ireland . They prove it all the time .

Kermit.de.frog

Only a matter of time before European countries are going to put up barriers between each other and start closing their borders.

I don't see Schengen lasting another 10 years.

Wibbs

MFPM wrote: »

Perhaps Ireland doesn't have to 'copy', perhaps 'we' could learn from mistakes made in other countries?

Hope springs eternal. The usual "but this time we'll do it right", with zero evidence of that and zero examples of how "we" might do it better than every other country in Europe. "We" are doing the same as all of the rest of them did and do. Don't see any innovative thinking going on here.

Undoubtedly there have been problems in some countries but you imply that the whole process of immigration has been solely problematic.

I don't mean to imply. I'll state it plainly: In my opinion multiculturalism in its current incarnation is extremely problematic and demonstrably so. And for all groups concerned. Once non indigenous groups reach a certain population size you see problems time and time again. Ghettoisation and its attendant issues the obvious one.

Furthermore by implication again, you seem to lay much of the fault for problems at the feet of the migrants - what about policy makers, poor integration strategies, attitudes of the indigenous population - these play no part in your view?

You must have missed the part where I said: "Not just for the locals either, just as much for the immigrants and especially their kids and grandkids". Multiculturalism affects all. The indigenous types as well as the newcomers.

The problem with the multiculturalist view is a naivete that we can all hold hands and make the world better, if only we did X or Y. It's laudable to be sure, but tends to ignore on the ground realities and basic human nature. We're innately tribal. "Race" just makes it easier to mark one tribe out from another. Look at Ulster. Centuries of strife and they're the exact same "race". Different tribes though. Irish culture as it is can be extremely tribal and local.

Like much of your post this is a somewhat generalised statement - by what do you mean 'social' problems and by what measure do you compare them to other countries and what other countries?

Social problems. The usual ones. Underdeveloped areas, homelessness, unemployment, wealth gaps. Again by most metrics Ireland is ahead of the game compared to most countries in the world. Do we need to increase those existing issues and add to that list ethnic and "racial" divisions?

Again it's hard to discern what point your making as it all very general and non specific but are you suggesting that migration policy should be based on a pejorative view point that ALL migrants bring social problems thus they shouldn't be let in, that's quite an environmentally deterministic viewpoint, no?

No. I'm not that black and white(no pun) about it. Qualified people with skills that we need here from mostly First world countries are no issue, regardless of "race". Larger movements of mostly under or uneducated migrants are.

Oh and I'm only too happy to say I'd be of an environmentally deterministic viewpoint. I am no cultural equivalence type that's for sure. Some cultures are simply better than others and in measurable ways. Those cultures deeply affect those who grow up in them positively and negatively. Take Travellers. Are Travellers innately negative? Certainly not, but their culture largely is. Same "race" as the rest of us, slightly different culture, different outcomes. Look at immigrant populations from the more conservative Islamic cultures. Time after time polls and research shows a conservative lean to their populations compared to background. Negative attitudes to homosexuality an obvious one. That so many self described "liberals" are so keen to import decidedly non liberal ideals and cultures is a head scratcher.

That's true but they did put pressure on the jobs markets, the hospitals, the schools - took charity from the 'native' population. Many, many Irish in the US also turned to criminality too - indeed in a number of cities Irish mobsters dominated - so the Irish weren't the paragons of virtue that your one sided analysis suggests.

Not once did I say they were and I agree with you. Ghettoisation, a lack of social supports and tribalism gave rise to that, just like it did with Italians and Chinese and Russians and Jews among others. In a country founded on immigration.

And like all migrants hey go where they stand a better chance of surviving and thriving

Which is illegal under EU law, which doesn't seem to trouble you. Refugees are legally obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country they find themselves in and unless someone steps off a plane in Shannon airport that isn't Ireland. And never mind that we already have an overstuffed and inefficient social welfare system paid for by the working population of Ireland, we're also expected to pay for migrants too?

why did the Irish emigrate to Australia, the US, London etc why not - Brazil, Mexico, Greece?

Actually quite the number went to South America, inc. Brazil, Chile and especially Argentina. Indeed Mexico has elected a few presidents of Irish stock. The main reason more went to the US, Oz and the like is they speak the same language and there were existing Irish communities there. Again human nature. We like to stick with "our own kind" for support and a feeling of "home". Naturally. And we're starting to see that in immigrant populations here.

It's entirely logical that people seek out countries with welfare so they can get settled but there is no reason to suggest migrants don't want to work, they are often precluded from doing so and where they are working, they get accused of robbing 'our jobs' so they can't win, you seem to fall in to that trap judging by your post.

There are a load of non Irish people holding down jobs in companies like Google and Intel and the like. No issue there. How many are going to find work coming from subsaharan Africa and the crappier parts of the ME? Their kids might, but as we've seen in every single other EU country that has had generational immigrant populations their kids and grandkids, who should feel Dutch, or French, or German, don't quite feel Dutch, or French, or German enough for themselves or the locals. The first generation of immigrants rarely riot and rarely become radical, it's nearly always their kids and grandkids, as they know they've been sold a pup, the lie of "diversity" and "melting pots".

Africans ‘the most disadvantaged’ group in the Irish labour market, according to ESRI

I don't doubt it for a moment. I've actually met a Nigerian lad with a masters in engineering driving a taxi. And yes it is discrimination. I don't doubt that either, but it is also human nature. We can rail against it for the nonsense it is, but that's largely how many, if not most humans work in reality. No amount of laws or attempts at positive discrimination or quotas will change that by much. If anything it'll rile more people up. How do you propose to change it? Hope?

MFPM

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

The proportion of Africans in Balbriggan is definitely under represented on the morning commute to Dublin either on the train or the motorway. Another thing I’ve seen is African men just pissing on the side of the road during the day as if it’s normal I suppose that’s something you could do in the slums of Africa no bother and it wouldn’t be remarked on.

Perhaps this might partially explain it, you haven't offered any explanation yourself although you've certainly implied on.

Africans ‘the most disadvantaged’ group in the Irish labour market, according to ESRI

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/discrimination-at-work-you-see-africans-with-phds-driving-taxis-1.3692510

Another thing I’ve seen is African men just pissing on the side of the road during the day as if it’s normal I suppose that’s something you could do in the slums of Africa no bother and it wouldn’t be remarked on.

I've seen many, many Irish men pissing on the side of the road too - take a trip down Jones road on any big match day and you'll see plenty. What's their excuse as they can't use the 'slums of Africa' as one.

Oh do stay classy won't you - based on this post you're quite the charmer.

MFPM

Wibbs wrote: »

I know let's have Ireland copy what other (usually ex colonising) nations of Europe have done and attempt the "multicultural" experiment here. Surely this time it'll work? Right? Ehhhh.... no. IMHO it is doomed to failure and we'll have the same crap as England, Germany, France, Holland, Italy etc.

Does Ireland have existing social problems? Hell yes it does, though by comparison to most countries in the world ours are pretty minimal. But it beggars belief why anyone would seriously think of importing more social problems on top. Social problems that are plain to see in any country where this experiment has been run. Not just for the locals either, just as much for the immigrants and especially their kids and grandkids.

Oh and for those who want to trot out the tired old story of "the Irish were immigrants too". At the height of that it was a very different time and culture. The Irish(and everyone else) who showed up at Ellis island didn't have social welfare when they landed. They sank or swam, or relied on charity. Go to the US today, if they'll let you in and you'll get feck all social support if you don't want to or can't find work. Today some "refugee" from wherever, mostly young fighting aged men BTW, once they get into Europe they almost inevitably head for the countries with the best social welfare support, going through several safe countries along the way. Which is apparently illegal, but hey let's ignore that.

Wibbs wrote: »

I know let's have Ireland copy what other (usually ex colonising) nations of Europe have done and attempt the "multicultural" experiment here. Surely this time it'll work? Right? Ehhhh.... no. IMHO it is doomed to failure and we'll have the same crap as England, Germany, France, Holland, Italy etc.

Perhaps Ireland doesn't have to 'copy', perhaps 'we' could learn from mistakes made in other countries? Undoubtedly there have been problems in some countries but you imply that the whole process of immigration has been solely problematic. Furthermore by implication again, you seem to lay much of the fault for problems at the feet of the migrants - what about policy makers, poor integration strategies, attitudes of the indigenous population - these play no part in your view?

Does Ireland have existing social problems? Hell yes it does, though by comparison to most countries in the world ours are pretty minimal.

Like much of your post this is a somewhat generalised statement - by what do you mean 'social' problems and by what measure do you compare them to other countries and what other countries?

But it beggars belief why anyone would seriously think of importing more social problems on top. Social problems that are plain to see in any country where this experiment has been run. Not just for the locals either, just as much for the immigrants and especially their kids and grandkids.

Again it's hard to discern what point your making as it all very general and non specific but are you suggesting that migration policy should be based on a pejorative view point that ALL migrants bring social problems thus they shouldn't be let in, that's quite an environmentally deterministic viewpoint, no?

Oh and for those who want to trot out the tired old story of "the Irish were immigrants too". At the height of that it was a very different time and culture. The Irish(and everyone else) who showed up at Ellis island didn't have social welfare when they landed. They sank or swam, or relied on charity. Go to the US today, if they'll let you in and you'll get feck all social support if you don't want to or can't find work.

That's true but they did put pressure on the jobs markets, the hospitals, the schools - took charity from the 'native' population. Many, many Irish in the US also turned to criminality too - indeed in a number of cities Irish mobsters dominated - so the Irish weren't the paragons of virtue that your one sided analysis suggests.

Today some "refugee" from wherever, mostly young fighting aged men BTW, once they get into Europe they almost inevitably head for the countries with the best social welfare support, going through several safe countries along the way. Which is apparently illegal, but hey let's ignore that.

And like all migrants they go where they stand a better chance of surviving and thriving - why did the Irish emigrate to Australia, the US, London etc why not - Brazil, Mexico, Greece? It's entirely logical that people seek out countries with welfare so they can get settled but there is no reason to suggest migrants don't want to work, they are often precluded from doing so and where they are working, they get accused of robbing 'our jobs' so they can't win, you seem to fall in to that trap judging by your post.

All Seeing Eye

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Same.

I was surprised at just how fast the change took place.

To say the demographic change on the train to town was noticeable would be a serious understatement.

And not to put to fine a point on it - it was primarily not a "professional" looking demographic - more face half covered, rouge sort of vibe most of the time.

Curiously this seemed only afternoon, evening trains. On the morning trains very few, if any. I don't think it takes much leap of the imagination to know why that might be. I know people work at different times etc but...i'd take a stab in the dark and say most unemployed. Might not be right but that would be my instinct on it.

The proportion of Africans in Balbriggan is definitely under represented on the morning commute to Dublin either on the train or the motorway. Another thing I’ve seen is African men just pissing on the side of the road during the day as if it’s normal I suppose that’s something you could do in the slums of Africa no bother and it wouldn’t be remarked on.

Wibbs

I know let's have Ireland copy what other (usually ex colonising) nations of Europe have done and attempt the "multicultural" experiment here. Surely this time it'll work? Right? Ehhhh.... no. IMHO it is doomed to failure and we'll have the same crap as England, Germany, France, Holland, Italy etc.

Does Ireland have existing social problems? Hell yes it does, though by comparison to most countries in the world ours are pretty minimal. But it beggars belief why anyone would seriously think of importing more social problems on top. Social problems that are plain to see in any country where this experiment has been run. Not just for the locals either, just as much for the immigrants and especially their kids and grandkids.

Oh and for those who want to trot out the tired old story of "the Irish were immigrants too". At the height of that it was a very different time and culture. The Irish(and everyone else) who showed up at Ellis island didn't have social welfare when they landed. They sank or swam, or relied on charity. Go to the US today, if they'll let you in and you'll get feck all social support if you don't want to or can't find work. Today some "refugee" from wherever, mostly young fighting aged men BTW, once they get into Europe they almost inevitably head for the countries with the best social welfare support, going through several safe countries along the way. Which is apparently illegal, but hey let's ignore that.

cursai

That new RTE series Taken Down is gonna change a lot of opinions on race in Ireland...

Kermit.de.frog

Conservative wrote: »

I don't get the commuter train very often these days but I was flabbergasted by the numbers of Africans disembarking at Balbriggan a few years ago.

Same.

I was surprised at just how fast the change took place.

To say the demographic change on the train to town was noticeable would be a serious understatement.

And not to put to fine a point on it - it was primarily not a "professional" looking demographic - more face half covered, rouge sort of vibe most of the time.

Curiously this seemed only afternoon, evening trains. On the morning trains very few, if any. I don't think it takes much leap of the imagination to know why that might be. I know people work at different times etc but...i'd take a stab in the dark and say most unemployed. Might not be right but that would be my instinct on it.

sasta le

Will I Am Not wrote: »

30-40 lads running towards Balbriggan train station about an hour ago. I wonder where it is happening tonight?

Irish Eastern European or African youths?

Commanchie

Criminal informer wrote: »

He's directly involved with Prawo Jazdy, who's also a rat.

Both Scumbags.

(Serious)
If they were been blackmailed, is it totally different than been passing information for personal gain in the eyes of the law?

Not really.

Trevor Gleeson comes to mind and the high court ruling.

Criminal informer

Omackeral wrote: »

He's a rat that fella. If they get him it's game over.

He's directly involved with Prawo Jazdy, who's also a rat.

Both Scumbags.

(Serious)
If they were been blackmailed, is it totally different than been passing information for personal gain in the eyes of the law?

Commanchie

Omackeral wrote: »

Yer man Noel Prosequi. Giving info to everyone.

Youd wanna stay off the 12 hours your delusional

[Deleted User]

Commanchie wrote: »

Which fella?

Yer man Noel Prosequi. Giving info to everyone.

Commanchie

Omackeral wrote: »

He's a rat that fella. If they get him it's game over.

Which fella?

[Deleted User]

Commanchie wrote: »

Nolle Prosequi will no doubt be sought on this by the defence

He's a rat that fella. If they get him it's game over.

Commanchie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't see why this would cause issues in the trial though. The issue seems to be centred more around whether Hutch was actually identified from the CCTV footage, or whether people were prompted to say "It's Patrick Hutch" without actually recognising him in the photo. Supposing the investigator did hand over such details to one of the heads of the rival faction - would that necessarily make the initial identification of the suspect inadmissable in court? As appalling and corrupt as that would be, it strikes me that it wouldn't have a material effect on the legitimacy of the trial, which is obviously the angle the defense are going for given that they've been calling for evidence to be excluded, and the trial has been suspended while that argument is ongoing.

Issues in the trial before colm foxs death was if 2 detectives discussed identification in the same sitting and if 1 email showed that another detective said " that looks like patrick hutch to me" he CCd other detectives and they were then used as IDs. This has been placed in court by the prosecution no secret.

But issue with Colm fox meeting with a convicted member of the david byrnes family providing information while he is a lead investigator is absolute suicide to a case if this is indeed true.

Nolle Prosequi will no doubt be sought on this by the defence as Colm fox was clearly motivated by something or other.

Lets get this straight though Colm fox did not shoot himself because he was gonna be reprimanded over a flawed identification. If that was the case Adrian whitelaw I.E freddie Thompson case would do the same.

hatrickpatrick

Commanchie wrote: »

Quite close to what i heard

I don't see why this would cause issues in the trial though. The issue seems to be centred more around whether Hutch was actually identified from the CCTV footage, or whether people were prompted to say "It's Patrick Hutch" without actually recognising him in the photo. Supposing the investigator did hand over such details to one of the heads of the rival faction - would that necessarily make the initial identification of the suspect inadmissable in court? As appalling and corrupt as that would be, it strikes me that it wouldn't have a material effect on the legitimacy of the trial, which is obviously the angle the defense are going for given that they've been calling for evidence to be excluded, and the trial has been suspended while that argument is ongoing.

Commanchie

Clytus wrote: »

Just what I "heard" or read somewhere..cant remember quite which, was that Fox handed over details of Regency suspects to Jaws Byrne. Think I mentioned this already on this topic someway back!

Quite close to what i heard

pablo128

Clytus wrote: »

Just what I "heard" or read somewhere..cant remember quite which, was that Fox handed over details of Regency suspects to Jaws Byrne. Think I mentioned this already on this topic someway back!

It would be ironic if Jaws fcuked up the trial for his own sons murder.

Clytus

Commanchie wrote: »

The fact he shot himself isnt the issue. The issue is why? What did he hand to the prosecution on morning of trial starting? What gangsters pocket was he in? What information was he caught giving to said gangster? Did he knowingly allow a murder take place?

Stinksss to the high heavens

Just what I "heard" or read somewhere..cant remember quite which, was that Fox handed over details of Regency suspects to Jaws Byrne. Think I mentioned this already on this topic someway back!

Commanchie

Rows Grower wrote: »

Cowboys and injuns.

I hardly have time to operate 1 account never mind 2, nor do I care enough to do that.

Rows Grower

Commanchie wrote: »

Hang on you think me and this poster are same person.

Cowboys and injuns.

Rows Grower

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

We're not anonymous

We are.

Commanchie

Jeff2 wrote: »

Yeah. The lead investigating officer that died.

Yes Colm fox

Rows Grower

paw patrol wrote: »

I don't think you read my reply properly.
that's ok, carry on. keep liking any comment made by your other account.

I read your reply paw patrol, I read exactly what you wrote in the context of the thread.

I don't have any other account on here, what you see is what you get.

Jeff2

Commanchie wrote: »

Cox? Fox maybe.

Yeah. The lead investigating officer that died.

Commanchie

paw patrol wrote: »

I don't think you read my reply properly.
that's ok, carry on. keep liking any comment made by your other account.

Hang on you think me and this poster are same person.