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; } } }

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

Comments

ohnonotgmail

SoundsRight wrote: »

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

really? there are plenty of people who dont have irish blood who are irish citizens. are they really irish?

cookie1977

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

really? there are plenty of people who dont have irish blood who are irish citizens. are they really irish?

He never answered the question of his ancestry. I wonder does it reveal things he's not to happy with?

SoundsRight

Stark wrote: »

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

The response was to someone asking about birthright citizenship, which was done away with after hordes of heavily pregnant women from the third world exploited it. Yes, you can also get citizenship as an adult.

The Nal

cookie1977 wrote: »

He never answered the question of his ancestry. I wonder does it reveal things he's not to happy with?

All of the "Hazel Chu isn't really Irish" lot have dodged that question.

They're not really Irish either.

batgoat

SoundsRight wrote: »

The response was to someone asking about birthright citizenship, which was done away with after hordes of heavily pregnant women from the third world exploited it. Yes, you can also get citizenship as an adult.

Eh, as already pointed out. Children born here with parents who are long term residents are also entitled to it.

SoundsRight

batgoat wrote: »

Eh, as already pointed out. Children born here with parents who are long term residents are also entitled to it.

Yeah, so where did the parents come from? If you regard every Tom, Dick and Harry who steps off the boat as Irish them what about us?

cookie1977

SoundsRight wrote: »

Yeah, so where did the parents come from? If you regard every Tom, Dick and Harry who steps off the boat as Irish them what about us?

Steps off the boat? What is this New York 1860??

recedite

Blood and soil.
These are the two main ways people get their citizenship.
Jus soli and Jus sanguinis.
Its correct that we cut back on jus soli (birthright or "law of the soil" citizenship) because it was being abused. That was done in a democratic referendum of the Irish people.

That leaves Jus Sanguinis (right of blood) as the main one.

We also have citizenship by naturalisation, when foreign people have been living here legally for 5 or more years.

super_furry

recedite wrote: »

Blood and soil.
These are the two main ways people get their citizenship.
Jus soli and Jus sanguinis.
Its correct that we cut back on jus soli (birthright or "law of the soil" citizenship) because it was being abused. That was done in a democratic referendum of the Irish people.

That leaves Jus Sanguinis (right of blood) as the main one.

We also have citizenship by naturalisation, when foreign people have been living here legally for 5 or more years.

Ahh yeah Blood and Soil, that lovely slogan expressing Nazi Germany's ideal of a "racially" defined national body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_soil

batgoat

SoundsRight wrote: »

Yeah, so where did the parents come from? If you regard every Tom, Dick and Harry who steps off the boat as Irish them what about us?

So, They can still be citizens of Ireland... To use an example, I have Indian friends. They have children who are Irish as they meet the criteria for citizenship. You have a problem with that?

recedite

super_furry wrote: »

Ahh yeah Blood and Soil, that lovely slogan expressing Nazi Germany's ideal of a "racially" defined national body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_soil

Am I wrong about jus soli and jus sanguinis?
BTW, seeing as you have diverted to nazis, did you know they pioneered a social welfare system? Does that mean social welfare is evil?

Mr E

Mod: We've derailed slightly here, I think. Let's get back on track please.

PopePalpatine

super_furry wrote: »

Ahh yeah Blood and Soil, that lovely slogan expressing Nazi Germany's ideal of a "racially" defined national body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_soil

The mask must be getting really greasy.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

What Joey is advocating here is a 2-tier justice system, with women and ethnic minorities getting more protection from the law than white men.
That in itself is a racist and sexist proposition.
Its important to point out that not everyone agrees this would be a good thing.
Even so, I'm aware there is a strong push going on at the moment from various NGO groups in Ireland to change our laws to suit this agenda.
Of course some types of motivation, such as self-defence have a bearing on things. But that is a total red herring, because what he's talking about is an extra punishment for the exact same crime, based only on the race or sex of the victim.

Now the above is a good example of how joey sees things panning out.
According to the Gardai, this gang was going around Dundrum randomly assaulting and/or robbing people. One of the victims happened to be a Muslim.

Thankfully the Gardai are treating all the assaults equally seriously.
But when Joey's racist new "hate crime" laws come in, the assault on the Muslim will be treated (and punished) much more seriously than the assault on the native Irish person.

No

I dont advocate that at all.

If a pakistani man is mugged and is not subject to racial abuse - that would not be a hate crime.

If a pakistani man is mugged and during the mugging is racially abused e.g. "You paedo paki scum" that would be a hate crime.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

That gang wandering around assaulting people was motivated by hate. But the Gardai said it was not racially motivated.
If it was one standalone assault on the Muslim girl, they would not be able to say that, yet it would be the exact same assault.

Joey wants to establish a hierarchy of victimhood, with "ethnic" lesbians at the top, and white hetero men on the lowest rung.

Come back to me when Straight white men get beaten up because they are straight white men.

Annasopra

Omackeral wrote: »

Joey explicitly said crimes against women should carry harsher sentences did he not?

Yes. If it is a hate crime that targets the woman because she is a woman.

Annasopra

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.

You clearly didnt read fully what I said. Punished and punished more where there is a hate crome involved.

Stephen15

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

I dont advocate that at all.

If a pakistani man is mugged and is not subject to racial abuse - that would not be a hate crime.

If a pakistani man is mugged and during the mugging is racially abused e.g. "You paedo paki scum" that would be a hate crime.

That would be difficult to prove surely. A person of colour could easily play the race card make up that they were racially without any evidence or proof to back up their claims. To me calling someone a derogatory name for their race to me that would constitute a form of verbal which may be a public order offence but again that's something which is hard to prove.

If a bald man is muggged and then called a baldy bastard would that be hate crime under your hate crime laws?

cookie1977

Stephen15 wrote: »

That would be difficult to prove surely. A person of colour could easily play the race card make up that they were racially without any evidence or proof to back up their claims. To me calling someone a derogatory name for their race to me that would constitute a form of verbal which may be a public order offence but again that's something which is hard to prove.

If a bald man is muggged and then called a baldy bastard would that be hate crime under your hate crime laws?

Pathetic response.

Stephen15

cookie1977 wrote: »

Pathetic response.

Enlighten me? This sums why certain people accuse your side of the political spectrum as not willing to debate but prefer to shout names like little children.

Annasopra

Stephen15 wrote: »

That would be difficult to prove surely. A person of colour could easily play the race card make up that they were racially without any evidence or proof to back up their claims. To me calling someone a derogatory name for their race to me that would constitute a form of verbal which may be a public order offence but again that's something which is hard to prove.

If a bald man is muggged and then called a baldy bastard would that be hate crime under your hate crime laws?

Oh look its more whataboutery.

recedite

Stephen15 wrote: »

If a bald man is mugged and then called a baldy bastard would that be hate crime under your hate crime laws?

Or somebody from the country gets called a culchie cnut, or a red haired person is called a ginger tosser. Nope, none of these things count under Joey's law.
Because they don't feature on his hierarchy of victimhood.

But most if not all assaults are going to be accompanied by some form of personal verbal abuse.

Stephen15

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Oh look its more whataboutery.

Honestly is whataboutery the excuse you use when you don't have an answer to the questions I put in front of you?

Blueshoe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Oh look its more whataboutery.

Let's just expel all white men from this island. Problem solved

Are you a white man Joey?

Crock Rock

In fairness, the woman didn't get a fair chance that other candidates got. She was silenced by the Vintners Association and the British Royal Family. She would have been a fine candidate.

[Deleted User]

Crock Rock wrote: »

In fairness, the woman didn't get a fair chance that other candidates got. She was silenced by the Vintners Association and the British Royal Family. She would have been a fine candidate.

Conspiracy theory forum is two doors down

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

Or somebody from the country gets called a culchie cnut, or a red haired person is called a ginger tosser. Nope, none of these things count under Joey's law.
Because they don't feature on his hierarchy of victimhood.

But most if not all assaults are going to be accompanied by some form of personal verbal abuse.

Are you so ill informed that you're oblivious to the fact that people have faced harassment and violent attacks because of their race, religion, orientation etc? Meanwhile culchies and red haired people do not. No shocker that you choose to be oblivious to the obvious though.

Eric Cartman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Come back to me when Straight white men get beaten up because they are straight white men.

Lots of african countries white people are robbed, mugged and tortured for being white, south africans being kicked off their farms etc... does happen, just not here , well except anecdotal evidence of the roaming african gangs in some estates targeting white lads

Eric Cartman

recedite wrote: »

Or somebody from the country gets called a culchie cnut, or a red haired person is called a ginger tosser. Nope, none of these things count under Joey's law.
Because they don't feature on his hierarchy of victimhood.

But most if not all assaults are going to be accompanied by some form of personal verbal abuse.

To be fair I used to work with a ginger lad who got a payout off transdev because a luas ticket inspector called him 'ginger pubes' or some crap.

recedite

Loads of culchies have been attacked because they opened their mouths and were identified as culchies.
But the point is, what difference does it make why they were attacked? Maybe the attacker is just in the mood for attacking somebody.
If its a serious assault, treat it like one.
If not serious, less punishment is needed.

Joey thinks more punishment is needed if the victim is from one of his preferred groups.