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

Gemma O'Doherty and her unicorns

Infernal Racket

I see that Gemma is now mentioning unicorns in almost everything she speaks about. She even thinks the Guards will be riding around on Globalist unicorns very soon and that Avoca woolen mills are trying to indoctrinate children into their new world order by putting colourful stripes on beige jumpers. Does she not have any family or friends at all that might seek the help she needs?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

Back in the day it was a good ol' dog whistle term for "the Jews".
Seems most conspiracy theorists these days have kinda glossed over the racist foundations of the idea.

Still is the Jews. Everything with her is Soros.

ohnonotgmail

King Mob wrote: »

Back in the day it was a good ol' dog whistle term for "the Jews".
Seems most conspiracy theorists these days have kinda glossed over the racist foundations of the idea.

While it is entirely possible that that is the "they" she is referring to, her tweet makes no sense at all, even for her. Its a case of "lets see how much crazy **** i can fit in one tweet".

Overheal

She’s angling for that Trump train popularity

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

In addition my point is that according to the link supplied by Red, the majority of non-stun slaughters are due to kosher methods and this is despite the huge discrepancy between the populations of Jewish and Muslim people in the UK.

Those stats and that pre-stunning method of Halal slaughter only apply to the UK. Not Ireland.

We are aren't given a breakdown or reason for it, but presumably it is because British beef exporters have historically had contracts tied in with Israel while Irish ones have had strong links with Libya and Egypt (notably the politically well connected beef barons such as Albert Reynolds and Larry Goodman) The pre-stunned halal beef is almost certainly for the UK domestic market, where high animal welfare standards are the norm.

King Mob wrote: »

Yet we have been told that some people not only have no issue with kosher certified products like Irish Pride, but in fact enjoy frequenting kosher bakeries.

Yes and several people including myself have already stated that they find kosher slaughter equally as repugnant as regular halal slaughter.

But in the matter of bakeries bagels and pretzels, Jewish bakers have a long and valued tradition in most western cities, including Dublin and Cork.
Its a pity to see them being replaced by halal shops, which in fairness tend not to be the most tidy or hygienic looking of shops. I have never seen a halal bakery or coffee shop.

There are however plenty of coffee shops in France and Belgium frequented solely by men of North African muslim origin (no women allowed) so I suppose that would be the nearest thing to a Halal coffee shop.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Those stats and that pre-stunning method of Halal slaughter only apply to the UK. Not Ireland.

And?
You were the one bringing up Australia only a few posts ago.

recedite wrote: »

The pre-stunned halal beef is almost certainly for the UK domestic market, where high animal welfare standards are the norm.

I don't blieve anything you claim without sources.
I barely believe what you claim with sources as they never seem to line up with that you say they say.

recedite wrote: »

Yes and several people including myself have already stated that they find kosher slaughter equally as repugnant as regular halal slaughter.

But in the matter of bakeries bagels and pretzels, Jewish bakers have a long and valued tradition in most western cities, including Dublin and Cork.

Ok. So by that token you should also be avoiding kosher certified bread.
It's "supporting" the "repugnant" practice of kosher slaughter in the same way that halal certified bread does for halal slaughter.
But you don't because animal welfare isn't the issue. You bringing up animal welfare is simply a smokescreen for the real issue you have, which is illustrated below.

recedite wrote: »

halal shops, which in fairness tend not to be the most tidy or hygienic looking of shops.

Basic racism here.

Overheal

I brought up Australia...

[Deleted User]

Overheal wrote: »

I brought up Australia...

I was referring to this post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110598188&postcount=399

Overheal

Tbf it was 6 days ago not a few posts ago

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

But in the matter of bakeries bagels and pretzels, Jewish bakers have a long and valued tradition in most western cities, including Dublin and Cork.

Unlike those new upstarts Brennans :rolleyes:

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

And?
You were the one bringing up Australia only a few posts ago..

Anyone who mentioned Australia made it clear they were talking about Australia. No problem there, its just making valid comparisons.

But when you and timberr kept mentioning the stats regarding kosher slaughter and the pre-stunning for Halal slaughter there was a deliberate attempt to portray them as referring to "here".
Now I don't know whether timberr actually lives in the UK or whether it was an attempt to mislead, but regardless of that my only complaint with your constant references to the UK was to point out that the stats for countries such as Ireland and France were separate and were given separately in that EU parliament briefing document.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Back in the day it was a good ol' dog whistle term for "the Jews".
Seems most conspiracy theorists these days have kinda glossed over the racist foundations of the idea.

The Nal wrote: »

Still is the Jews. Everything with her is Soros.

Funny thing is, the people criticising "the Jews" in this thread are the same ones that are cheerleading for Islam.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Anyone who mentioned Australia made it clear they were talking about Australia. No problem there, its just making valid comparisons.

But when you and timberr kept mentioning the stats regarding kosher slaughter and the pre-stunning for Halal slaughter there was a deliberate attempt to portray them as referring to "here".

Now I don't know whether timberr actually lives in the UK or whether it was an attempt to mislead, but regardless of that my only complaint with your constant references to the UK was to point out that the stats for countries such as Ireland and France were given separately.

Firstly, you are once again ignoring points in my post.

Secondly you are misrepresenting my actual argument and side stepping it.
You concede that kosher slaughter is as bad to you as halal slaughter.
Whereever it takes place is kind of irrelevant.
Does kosher slaughter become acceptable just because it happens to in the UK?
Presumably not, thus eating kosher certified bread is supporting kosher slaughter in the same way halal certified bread supports halal slaughter.
You are a hypocrite in this regard. Or else animal welfare is just a smokescreen issue for your racism.

Thirdly you are forgetting some points I made earlier that you ignored. Namely I point out that since the vast majority of nonstun slaughters in the UK are for kosher reasons it raises the question of how that same proportion breaks down in Ireland. This is highlighted by how your link only refers to non-stun slaughters and does not differentiate between halal and kosher.
You counter by ASSUMING that because the Jewish population was small in Ireland, there must be a equally small amount of kosher slaughters. I pointed out that your link showed that a disproportionate of kosher slaughters were occuring in the UK. It was almost equivalent numbers despite Muslim people outnumbering the Jewish people by an order of magnitude. Hence your ASSUMPTION does not necessarily hold true.

So do you have figures for the level of Halal slaughter in Ireland and a good reason why they are relevant to your position won't making you a massive hypocrite?
Not going to hold my breath for an answer or those figures.

Fourthly, you've ignored all the points made against your Australian link, specifically the lies you told about it.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Funny thing is, the people criticising "the Jews" in this thread are the same ones that are cheerleading for Islam.

Please point to examples of anyone doing either of these things.
You seem to be inventing stuff from whole cloth now to excuse your very silly position...

Overheal

I really don’t see that as a criticism of “the Jews” rather a ‘mirror’ on people who our outrage at Jews Muslims or indeed sometimes both.

I can assure folks that ‘these people’ making “the Jews” references weren’t the ones denying the Holocaust a few months back (quite the opposite) for example. For the sake of adult discussion we can distinguish between antisemitic and islamaphobic remarks and discussing islamaphobia and antisemitism.

Infernal Racket

I think [snip]

No ****posting please. /mod

Annasopra

Blueshoe wrote: »

All foods.

Vegan
Vegetarian
Gluten
Halal

?

Doesn't address my question

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Firstly, you are once again ignoring points in my post.

What points would they be?

King Mob wrote: »

Secondly you are misrepresenting my actual argument and side stepping it.
You concede that kosher slaughter is as bad to you as halal slaughter.

Everybody on this thread has agreed that from the beginning.
But you keep resurrecting it as a strawman.

King Mob wrote: »

Does kosher slaughter become acceptable just because it happens to in the UK? Presumably not...

No.

King Mob wrote: »

thus eating kosher certified bread is supporting kosher slaughter in the same way halal certified bread supports halal slaughter.

That's batshít crazy. I have asked you before to stop trying to conflate breadmaking with animal slaughter.

King Mob wrote: »

You are a hypocrite in this regard. Or else animal welfare is just a smokescreen issue for your racism.

Or maybe Option 3; "none of these".

King Mob wrote: »

Thirdly you are forgetting some points I made earlier that you ignored. Namely I point out that since the vast majority of nonstun slaughters in the UK are for kosher reasons it raises the question of how that same proportion breaks down in Ireland. This is highlighted by how your link only refers to non-stun slaughters and does not differentiate between halal and kosher.
You counter by ASSUMING that because the Jewish population was small in Ireland, there must be a equally small amount of kosher slaughters. I pointed out that your link showed that a disproportionate of kosher slaughters were occuring in the UK. It was almost equivalent numbers despite Muslim people outnumbering the Jewish people by an order of magnitude. Hence your ASSUMPTION does not necessarily hold true.

There you go mixing and matching the UK and Ireland again.
They are two different markets, with different laws and different practices.

King Mob wrote: »

So do you have figures for the level of Halal slaughter in Ireland and a good reason why they are relevant to your position won't making you a massive hypocrite?
Not going to hold my breath for an answer or those figures.

I already answered that last week.In Ireland, with 1% of consumers Muslim, 6% of cattle and 34% of sheep were killed without stunning, and In France 40% of calves, 25% of bovines (cattle) and 54% of ovines (sheep etc.) were killed without stunning according to a survey done in 2006-07.

Here's another one.

It is believed deals amounting to at least 40,000 cattle have been agreed. Deals worth 100,000 cattle are already in place with Egypt

King Mob wrote: »

Fourthly, you've ignored all the points made against your Australian link, specifically the lies you told about it.

Resorting to personal attacks and defamation now?
I answered your allegation again yesterday (for the second or third time) but you just ignored my reply again.
Here it is again. As I said there, anyone can read the original post, check the link, and see whether I quoted from the link accurately.
It then becomes obvious which of us is being dishonest here.

Now here's one simple question for you. Can you point to a single instance of an animal killed by Halal ritual slaughter in Ireland that was stunned unconscious before having its throat cut?
No, I didn't think so.

The Nal

The mad scone has been banned from making vids by youtube

Stephen15

The Nal wrote: »

The mad scone has been banned from making vids by youtube

Funny thing is she has a backup account

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

What points would they be?

The ones in the post that you editted out. In particular me pointing out your very racist remarks.

recedite wrote: »

Everybody on this thread has agreed that from the beginning.
But you keep resurrecting it as a strawman.

No.
That's batshcrazy. I have asked you before to stop trying to conflate breadmaking with animal slaughter.

Again, you guys brought up halal slaughter in relation to halal certified bread.

You have made similar conflations between halal practices as I do with kosher practices. I bring them up to highlight the absurdity and hypocrisy of your claims about halal certified bread.

But again, you've already conceded that animal welfare is not the reason why you are so upset about Halal certified bread.

recedite wrote: »

Or maybe Option 3; "none of these".

Ok, what's option 3 then?
I've been asking this entire time and you've been very tight lipped about it and gave some false hypocritical or racist reasons in it's place.

recedite wrote: »

There you go mixing and matching the UK and Ireland again.
They are two different markets, with different laws and different practices.

You avoid the point I made.
I was not mixing and matching. I was pointing out how the figures in the UK call into question several of your claims, positions and assumptions.
In particular, I was pointing out that the figures cast doubt on your assumption that all non-stun slaughters are due to halal practices.
Your assumption is faulty and without good basis and is not supported by the figures you supplied.

recedite wrote: »

I already answered that last week.In Ireland, with 1% of consumers Muslim, 6% of cattle and 34% of sheep were killed without stunning, and In France 40% of calves, 25% of bovines (cattle) and 54% of ovines (sheep etc.) were killed without stunning according to a survey done in 2006-07.

How come they say "killed without stunning" here and not "halal slaughter"?
Of those percentages, how many are killed by halal methods over kosher methods? Of the other percentages, how many animals are killed by halal methods that allow stunning?
You link comes with none of this information.
So perhaps you, seeing as you are the one concerned by this issue should find this data and perhaps something a bit more recent than 13 years ago.

recedite wrote: »

Here's another one.

Why are you linking this?
This story has nothing to do with slaughter in Ireland at all. Are you conflating Ireland with other places?
Also, the practices detailed in the story are pointedly NOT halal.

Animals International makes the point that the methods of killing is not Halal which, it says, requires that the animals do not suffer and which allows for animals to be stunned before being killed.

Could you explain how this unrelated story is support for your position?

It kinda looks like you just threw out a link again either without reading it yourself or hoping that no one else did...

recedite wrote: »

Resorting to personal attacks and defamation now?
I answered your allegation again yesterday (for the second or third time) but you just ignored my reply again.
Here it is again. As I said there, anyone can read the original post, check the link, and see whether I quoted from the link accurately.
It then becomes obvious which of us is being dishonest here.

Ah, I missed that post. However, it still is a dodge and does not address my points.
We'll start with the simplest one:
First, you claimed that Kelloggs did not deny that public pressure was behind their decision.

recedite wrote: »

Of course they don't mention it, they don't want any more adverse publicity. Keeping quiet about a mistake is just good business practice. That is not the same as denying it.
Do you not understand what the word "contradict" means? Its an active denial of something.

However both of your links state:

Kellogg's, which sells popular plant-based cereals like Corn Flakes and Special K, denied it last year changed its halal policies over public pressure.

'They’re inherently halal, so we chose not to renew our certification in 2016 as part of a regular review of all certifications for our foods,' a spokesman said.

'This was a commercial decision, not the result of any public pressure or backlash.'

That looks an awful lot like mentioning it and denying it...

Why did you claim that they didn't make such a denial when they did?
Did you not read the article or were you lying about it's contents?

recedite wrote: »

Now here's one simple question for you. Can you point to a single instance of an animal killed by Halal ritual slaughter in Ireland that was stunned unconscious before having its throat cut?
No, I didn't think so.

No...? I don't know many animals or halal butchers.
Relevance?

Overheal

I already answered that last week.In Ireland, with 1% of consumers Muslim, 6% of cattle and 34% of sheep were killed without stunning, and In France 40% of calves, 25% of bovines (cattle) and 54% of ovines (sheep etc.) were killed without stunning according to a survey done in 2006-07.

Now here's one simple question for you. Can you point to a single instance of an animal killed by Halal ritual slaughter in Ireland that was stunned unconscious before having its throat cut?
No, I didn't think so.

How do these two statements in your post square together, Recedite?

I mean, unless muslims are eating 34x their body weight in Sheep or whatever, it would seem that stunning is not as important to 'humane' non-halal or non-kosher methods as some would like to argue.

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

it would seem that stunning is not as important to 'humane' non-halal or non-kosher methods as some would like to argue.

Wrong. The law requires stunning, but there is an exemption loophole built into the law for "religious ritual slaughter".
Most of the meat is obviously destined for the export market, most likely to some part of the Middle East.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

The ones in the post that you editted out. In particular me pointing out your very racist remarks.

I didn't edit anything out. I multi-quoted your post so as to reply to individual questions.
I don't reply to insults, so I don't include those.
I think were just going around in circles now, so I'll leave it at that.

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

Wrong. The law requires stunning, but there is an exemption loophole built into the law for "religious ritual slaughter".
Most of the meat is obviously destined for the export market, most likely to some part of the Middle East.

My first search on this law turned up this news instead, note the excerpt:

"Animals International makes the point that the methods of killing is not Halal which, it says, requires that the animals do not suffer and which allows for animals to be stunned before being killed."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-cattle-slaughtered-in-conditions-breaching-eu-law-1.3033583

So I'm seeing conflicting information in your claims that Halal forbids stunning of animals, and your extrapolation/assumption that all of this non-stunned livestock is due to halal export.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

I didn't edit anything out. I multi-quoted your post so as to reply to individual questions.
I don't reply to insults, so I don't include those.
I think were just going around in circles now, so I'll leave it at that.

No, we're not going in circles, you are running away from points you can't address and I am chasing you down on them.

We can break it down to a single point to make things simpler

First, you claimed that Kelloggs did not deny that public pressure was behind their decision.

recedite wrote: »

Of course they don't mention it, they don't want any more adverse publicity. Keeping quiet about a mistake is just good business practice. That is not the same as denying it.
Do you not understand what the word "contradict" means? Its an active denial of something.

However both of your links state:

Kellogg's, which sells popular plant-based cereals like Corn Flakes and Special K, denied it last year changed its halal policies over public pressure.

'They’re inherently halal, so we chose not to renew our certification in 2016 as part of a regular review of all certifications for our foods,' a spokesman said.

'This was a commercial decision, not the result of any public pressure or backlash.'

That looks an awful lot like mentioning it and denying it...

Why did you claim that they didn't make such a denial when they did?
Did you not read the article or were you lying about it's contents?

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

My first search on this law turned up this news instead, note the excerpt:

"Animals International makes the point that the methods of killing is not Halal which, it says, requires that the animals do not suffer and which allows for animals to be stunned before being killed."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-cattle-slaughtered-in-conditions-breaching-eu-law-1.3033583

So I'm seeing conflicting information in your claims that Halal forbids stunning of animals, and your extrapolation/assumption that all of this non-stunned livestock is due to halal export.

Your search? That's hardly "news".. that's my link from yesterday : King Mob already commented on it saying..

Why are you linking this?
This story has nothing to do with slaughter in Ireland at all. Are you conflating Ireland with other places?
Also, the practices detailed in the story are pointedly NOT halal.

So just to comment on the issue you raise; its an ecumenical matter.
An animal rights group called Animals International say the standard traditional Halal slaughtering methods as practiced in Palestine, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey is not Halal.

Now, I don't know how many Imams the animal rights group counts among its membership, but let me hazard a guess.
Maybe...ummm... None?

Therefore according to sharia law, they would not not be qualified to rule on the matter.

As for me, well I'll agree with AI that those animals are being treated with unnecessary cruelty, and are being slaughtered in a barbaric way.

But I'll agree with Palestine, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey that they are being slaughtered in accordance with Islamic tradition, just as they always have been. Its the Halal way.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Your search? That's hardly "news".. that's my link from yesterday :Dyou already commented on it saying..
You must have the memory of an Alzheimers goldfish.

So just to comment on the issue you raise; its an ecumenical matter.
An animal rights group called Animals International say the standard traditional Halal slaughtering methods as practiced in Palestine, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey is not Halal.

Firstly, that's my comment, not Overheals.

Secondly, you are misrepresenting my point as well as the quotes from the article.

The practices described in the article are not halal:

Extremely graphic in their content, the videos show animals hoisted by one hind leg, spinning on a chain as a man with a knife makes several slashes at their necks with an knife.

Other images show an animals being stabbed in the eyes, having leg tendons cut while others have their heads and necks restrained by devices covered in the blood from earlier killings.

http://halalcertification.ie/islamic-method-of-slaughtering/

The animal must be slaughtered by the use of a sharp knife. The knife must not kill due to its weight. If it kills due to the impact the meat may not be permissible.
The windpipe (throat), food-tract (oesophagus) and the two jugular veins must be cut.
The slaughtering must be done in one stroke without lifting the knife. The knife should not be placed and lifted when slaughtering the animal.
Slaughtering must be done by a sane adult Muslim. Animals slaughtered by a Non Muslim will not be Halal.
...
Animals should be killed in a comfortable way. Unnecessary suffering to them must be avoided.

Please provide a link to any muslim organisation or Iman that describes halal practices in line with the ones detailed in the article.
I don't think you will find a single example.

You also, once again ignore the additional points I made about this. Particularly your hypocrisy in bringing up slaughter that happens outside of Ireland in the same post when your whinge at me for pointing the slaughter in the UK.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

The practices described in the article are not halal:

So the ordinary Allah-fearing Muslims of Palestine, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey are being conned into eating meat that is Haram?
This is an outrage. You should contact the relevant governments and inform them.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

So the ordinary Allah-fearing Muslims of Palestine, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey are being conned into eating meat that is Haram?

I'm not sure if it meets the exact accepted definition of haram, but it seems that meat from these sources is not halal.

recedite wrote: »

This is an outrage. You should contact the relevant governments and inform them.

Why would I do that?

I'm very confused about what point you are attempting to make.

Why are you calling these methods halal when they are clearly not?
Why did you bring this article up at all?

Are you going to address any of my points or are you going to continue to avoid them?

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure if it meets the exact accepted definition of haram, but it seems that meat from these sources is not halal.

If its not Halal, then its Haram for a Muslim to consume it, unless there is a famine.