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 not taking enforced retirement too well

[Deleted User]

She's permanently on twitter now tweeting links to wacky stories from a few years ago and every single conspiracy theory she can get her hands on

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

recedite

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'll await the completion of the investigation. I dont know. Direct link? probably not, contributory link? probably so. Hate speech has been shown to cause increases in levels of attacks on minorities. Trumps past few years can back up that.

So you're saying this gang "probably" targeted the Muslim girl partly because Gemma advised her followers to wear scarves not headscarves when on a protest.
But the gang targeted the other victims nearby for other reasons. Reasons which you have no interest in. Because Trump.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No what Joey is saying is that crimes motivated by hate should be punished more. entirely reasonable to me.

Joey explicitly said crimes against women should carry harsher sentences did he not? That's bollox. Even when you include minority groups in it, it's daft. All laws should apply to all people on an equal footing. It's morally reprehensible to beat up an 89 year old man and steal his belongings, just as it's disgusting to do it to a 25 year old woman. Let extenuating circumstances be a part of judgement by all means but having justice tiers written into law based on skin colour and religion is a step backwards. It kind of smack of affirmative action in a sense. Harsh punishments for anyone assaulting anyone should be the way. Different but Equal.

Boom_Bap

recedite wrote: »

So you're saying this gang "probably" targeted the Muslim girl partly because Gemma advised her followers to wear scarves not headscarves when on a protest.
But the gang targeted the other victims nearby for other reasons. Reasons which you have no interest in. Because Trump.

I'm not saying anything is directly related to this incident, but having the rhetoric of attacking others from leaders or influencers is going to resonate.

ohnonotgmail

Omackeral wrote: »

Joey explicitly said crimes against women should carry harsher sentences did he not? That's bollox. Even when you include minority groups in it, it's daft. All laws should apply to all people on an equal footing. It's morally reprehensible to beat up an 89 year old man and steal his belongings, just as it's disgusting to do it to a 25 year old woman. Let extenuating circumstances be a part of judgement by all means but having justice tiers written into law based on skin colour and religion is a step backwards. It kind of smack of affirmative action in a sense. Harsh punishments for anyone assaulting anyone should be the way. Different but Equal.

Perhaps go back and actually read what they said.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Perhaps go back and actually read what they said.

Yeah I did. ''Punished, and then punished more'' was actually what was said if the victim happens to be of certain subsection of society. There's scope there already to invoke the Criminal Justice Act as it stands, no need for tiers based on who you are.

Whoever it was that intimidated, attacked and embarrassed this girl are scrotes of the highest order.

ohnonotgmail

Omackeral wrote: »

Yeah I did. ''Punished, and then punished more'' was actually what was said if the victim happens to be of certain subsection of society. There's scope there already to invoke the Criminal Justice Act as it stands, no need for tiers based on who you are.

Whoever it was that intimidated, attacked and embarrassed this girl are scrotes of the highest order.

Perhaps read the whole sentence that included the word "woman".

recedite

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I'm not saying anything is directly related to this incident, but having the rhetoric of attacking others from leaders or influencers is going to resonate.

Even the idea that Gemma advocated attacking people has been concocted by those who hate her.
Her comments re burning headscarves were taken completely out of context.
It was just one of those unfortunate throwaway remarks, which is plainly obvious to any reasonable person.

cookie1977

recedite wrote: »

Even the idea that Gemma advocated attacking people has been concocted by those who hate her.
Her comments re burning headscarves were taken completely out of context.
It was just one of those unfortunate throwaway remarks, which is plainly obvious to any reasonable person.

She explained all of this to you directly? Why didn't she tell the rest of us?

Boom_Bap

recedite wrote: »

Even the idea that Gemma advocated attacking people has been concocted by those who hate her.
Her comments re burning headscarves were taken completely out of context.
It was just one of those unfortunate throwaway remarks, which is plainly obvious to any reasonable person.

OK, even if she is not saying anything about physical violence, look here how it has been perceived. Think further afield and think how it has been received by others.
She smart, she chooses her words very well (apart from counting) and knows how the words will be received.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Even the idea that Gemma advocated attacking people has been concocted by those who hate her.
Her comments re burning headscarves were taken completely out of context.
It was just one of those unfortunate throwaway remarks, which is plainly obvious to any reasonable person.

What context was missing from : "Hijabs? I'd rather you burn any of those that you see."

cookie1977

recedite wrote: »

It was just one of those unfortunate throwaway remarks, which is plainly obvious to any reasonable person.

And the irony of using the term reasonable when discussing Gemma is not lost.

The Nal

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What context was missing from : "Hijabs? I'd rather you burn any of those that you see."

Maybe she meant "kebabs". They do have a high fat content. Once in a while after a few pints sure but not every night.

She has a point there.

Odhinn

The Nal wrote: »

Maybe she meant "kebabs". They do have a high fat content. Once in a while after a few pints sure but not every night.

She has a point there.

What about the spice bag though?

SoundsRight

Odhinn wrote: »

What about the spice bag though?

We don't mind the Chinese so much. They keep themselves to themselves.

cookie1977

SoundsRight wrote: »

We don't mind the Chinese so much. They keep themselves to themselves.

What's this "We" business?

SoundsRight

cookie1977 wrote: »

What's this "We" business?

Irish people

cookie1977

SoundsRight wrote: »

Irish people

Define?

SoundsRight

cookie1977 wrote: »

Define?

People from Ireland. Not sure if it can be any clearer.

cookie1977

SoundsRight wrote: »

People from Ireland. Not sure if it can be any clearer.

You'd be surprised what people can come up with.

ohnonotgmail

SoundsRight wrote: »

People from Ireland. Not sure if it can be any clearer.

so if you are not born in ireland you are not irish. do i have that right?

begbysback

Overheal wrote: »

Not according to stephen15: all outcomes are the same, motive be damned.

Though he is correct in this case when he says the impact on the victim is the same, dead is dead!!

SoundsRight

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so if you are not born in ireland you are not irish. do i have that right?

No. We did away with birthright citizenship. It's a blood right.

Hello....

The Nal wrote: »

Maybe she meant "kebabs". They do have a high fat content. Once in a while after a few pints sure but not every night.

She has a point there.

Shes dead right.... remove kebab.

ohnonotgmail

SoundsRight wrote: »

No. We did away with birthright citizenship. It's a blood right.

and how many generations back do you have to go?

The Nal

SoundsRight wrote: »

We don't mind the Chinese so much. They keep themselves to themselves.

Actually invented by a white Irish bloke from Templeogue.

super_furry

SoundsRight wrote: »

No. We did away with birthright citizenship. It's a blood right.

A blood right? What do you think we are, Klingons?

Boom_Bap

super_furry wrote: »

A blood right? What do you think we are, Klingons?

Only those with a bloodline back to Mary Magdalene are truly Irish.

SoundsRight

super_furry wrote: »

A blood right? What do you think we are, Klingons?

That's how the law works, sorry if that comes as a surprise to you.

Stark

Must have came as a surprise to all these people as well https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/people-from-over-90-countries-to-be-conferred-with-irish-citizenship-1.3874368

batgoat

SoundsRight wrote: »

That's how the law works, sorry if that comes as a surprise to you.

is entitled to be an Irish citizen if at least one of his or her parents is:
an Irish citizen (or someone entitled to be an Irish citizen);[22]
a British citizen;[23]
a resident of the island of Ireland who is entitled to reside in either the Republic or in Northern Ireland without any time limit on that residence;[24] or
a legal resident of the island of Ireland for three out of the 4 years preceding the child's birth (although time spent as a student or as an asylum seeker does not count for this purpose).[25]

That is the criteria for Irish citizenship so some not birthright, children residents of long term residents of the nation are Irish. So not just by blood or ancestry...