Gript-A source of misinformation. **Read OP before posting**

Although I'd share more of the same opinions with Mcguirk, I listen to Path to Power as well, which was usually quite balanced with Ivan Yates but my god the latest episode was outrageous. If you asked AI to produce a FFG approved script it would have ticked all the boxes. Just like regulars in here, no attempt whatsoever to differentiate between legal hard working immigrants and illegal/asylum seeking extremists.

They accuse the far right of putting all immigrants in together and then they do the same when defending them. Equating hard working nurses and doctors with someone who wants to cut the heads off of non Muslims.

They have every right to slam the riots that endanger innocent immigrants, but they should also attempt to be more nuanced in talking about the trigger, but they'd rather the outrage just like the other side.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2026/06/14/there-is-fear-in-my-home-up-to-2000-attend-anti-racism-march-in-dublin/

I didn't notice Gript/Youth Defence covering this.

I tend to not trust sites like Gript …… knowing who founded them makes me believe a lot of misinfo will exist …… and reporting biased by the beliefs of the owner …… though Gript is not as 'extreme' as some of the others that came after it ……

Theyre still tiny numbers for someone who says a large percentage of the population agrees with him. Would be in the tens of thousands if he still wasn't viewed as a kooky and fringe.

To put it in perspective, my friend's 13 year old's son has a youtube channel with more views than that.

You realise the victim was previously horribly tortured by the loyalist community so them rioting is pretty ironic TBH. Similar to Gript you seem to be dodging the fact that completely innocent people faced a pogrom.

It was a horrific attack, there are plenty of horrific attacks in Northern Ireland btw. Incredibly high domestic violence incidents, same for femicide. A man was convicted only a week prior for the murder of a woman. Not once have any of the rioting loyalists called out these issues which are far endemic to the community.

I'm not dodging the fact that innocent people were targeted during the riots. If people were attacked, intimidated, or driven from their homes because of who they were, that was wrong and should be condemned unequivocally.

But that is a separate question from why this particular attack generated such a strong public reaction in the first place.

Pointing out that Northern Ireland has serious problems with domestic violence, sectarian violence, or other violent crime doesn't actually answer that question. It just establishes that other serious problems exist as well. We know they exist.

My point was never that riots were justified, nor that immigration-related violence matters more than violence against women. My point was that people clearly did not perceive this incident as equivalent to the typical stabbing, assault, or murder that sadly occurs every year. Whether that perception was correct or not, it is an important part of understanding the reaction.

As for the claim that loyalists don't speak out about domestic violence, that may be a fair criticism of some individuals. But inconsistency or hypocrisy doesn't explain why this incident provoked a different response either. People can be hypocritical and still have genuine concerns about immigration, just as people can be genuinely concerned about violence against women while paying less attention to other forms of violence.

If we're trying to understand events rather than simply assign moral labels, we need to distinguish between explaining a reaction and justifying it. I've been attempting to do the former, not the latter.

I never claimed that the attack last week was uniquely brutal in the history of NI, nor that it was worse than the murder of Natalie McNally. The Natalie McNally case was absolutely horrific. The judge's remarks and the post-mortem evidence make that abundantly clear.

But that's not actually the question I asked you.

My question was whether there was an almost identical crime that produced a completely different public reaction. What you've now shown is that there have been other exceptionally brutal crimes that did not produce riots.

You appear to be arguing that because equally horrific crimes committed by locals did not produce riots, the riots must therefore have been motivated primarily by the nationality or immigration status of the suspect. That's a perfectly reasonable argument and, frankly, probably contains a good deal of truth.

But it doesn't follow that concerns about immigration played no role in why people reacted so strongly. In fact, it arguably demonstrates the opposite: that people were responding not just to the crime itself, but also to who they believed committed it and what wider issues they associated with that.

Again, that may explain the reaction, but it doesn't justify attacks on innocent people. Explanation and justification are two different things.

I don't think we're actually that far apart on this.

I agree that some people exploited the incident as an excuse to target innocent people. I agree that extremists and agitators can amplify tensions. I agree that outside figures can pour fuel on the fire.

What I don't accept is that this fully explains the scale of the reaction.

If it was simply a case of a few loyalist extremists looking for an excuse, then the question remains: why did this particular incident resonate with so many people in the first place?

Extremist groups don't create public anxieties out of thin air. They usually latch onto concerns that already exist and attempt to exploit them for their own purposes.

So I think there are two things that can be true simultaneously:

1. Innocent people were wrongly targeted and some individuals used the incident as a pretext for sectarian or racist violence.
2. The attack also tapped into pre-existing public concerns about immigration, integration, crime and social change that many people hold, whether one agrees with those concerns or not.

As for Gript, a media outlet can be criticised for what it chooses to cover or not cover. The rest of the mainstream media are being to criticised by many for describing the incident as a "stabbing".

This is an example of the deliberate blindness and deafness we often see in trying to ignore the points made and pretending the argument is about something that it is not about.

You know the riots were not about a brutal crime but you're bringing up another brutal crime to WIN. You must WIN at all costs.

We all know the riots were not about a brutal crime. They were about who committed it. That is correct.

The riots were about a brutal crime being committed by someone who is not a legal immigrant, who is supposedly an asylum seeker who didn't seek asylum in the first safe country he landed, and ended up sauntering freely around Europe.

I mean I don't defend the rioters, and I wouldn't p*ss on most of them if they were on fire. But, it's a real shame and hypocritical that governments and mainstream media are blaming social media for fanning the flames here, when they've contributed just as much to the riots with their sh*t unwanted immigration policies, ignoring the social problems those policies create, and calling anyone expressing frustration as far right.

Now at least Ireland and Europe are starting to look at getting their house in order.

Legal immigrants welcome.

You asked for an example of an ‘equally brutal attack carried out by someone from the parish’.

I’m not even entertaining the rest of the post because it’s clear to me you actually have no interest in arguing in good faith.

In relation to your point about how the media are reporting it. The media are reporting it as they report any other crime. I'd also imagine they're intentionally being careful with wording as a court case still has to happen. Gript have an issue of not being careful when they report on cases, that's irresponsible.

These riots are very much so loyalist extremists and the fact they're commiting pogroms is just them repeating history. They want an excuse for violence. Imagine if they had the same preexisting anxieties about violence against women which is a far more serious issue in the north. The riots have served to make any outsiders feel unwelcome in Belfast. That's an act of terror.

You asked for evidence that similar attacks have taken place by locals, but then you say murders don't count.

It's the definition of bad faith.

Correct, the media isn't doing enough when covering the issue of gruesome violence committed by men.