Re: Anger as Holy Cross case dismissed
puggy
> challenging in a very public way the complete failure by the PSNI to
> provide adequate protection for the children.
So what did they want the police to do? Force the protestors to stay away?
That would really have worked wouldn't it, not only would there have been
riots if they did that but the chances are a lot of people, including
children would have been hurt.
Maybe she also forget that the police organised bus's to take the children,
but the parents decided to bring there children though the protestors, which
put there children in danger.
Thank god the case was dropped as the police did everything they could to
keep things as civilised as possible.
NOW COMES THE ONE SIDED ARGUEMENTS OF THE REPUBLICANS................
Wild Colonial Boy
Uhuh?
They were wee girls going to school for fuck's sake. The protestors
had no place doing what they did. They should have been arrested. Sure
as hell people who throw dog shit at little girls in New Zealand would
be locked up.
Nik
Nik
puggy
>
> They were wee girls going to school for fuck's sake. The protestors
> had no place doing what they did. They should have been arrested. Sure
> as hell people who throw dog shit at little girls in New Zealand would
> be locked up.
The nationalist community in that area had no right to attack and intimidate
the much smaller unionist community there either, hence the protest.
Also, do you really think the police could have arrested the protester's?
Were not talking of 10 or 20 people here you know, there were a lot of
protester's.
Why did the parents walk there wee girls along there and putting them in
danger when they could have just put them in the bus?
If they had put them in the bus and hence mean't no one going past the
protester's then the protest would probably not lasted that long.
I'm not condoning the protester's, but the parents and the nationalist
community in that area were just as bad as the protester's, with both sides
antagonising each other to a point where these problems arose, with the
police stuck in the middle trying to make the best of a bad situation.
The only people who can hold there heads up in honor in this situation are
the police!!!
Wild Colonial Boy
<ntl...@nospamsopissoffpugland.com> wrote:
>> Uhuh?
>>
>> They were wee girls going to school for fuck's sake. The protestors
>> had no place doing what they did. They should have been arrested. Sure
>> as hell people who throw dog shit at little girls in New Zealand would
>> be locked up.
>
>The nationalist community in that area had no right to attack and intimidate
>the much smaller unionist community there either,
Who was being intimidated when the wee girls were walking to school?
> hence the protest.
The protest should be aimed directly at the one's doing the "attacking
and intimidating". How intimidating can a 6 year old girl be?
>Also, do you really think the police could have arrested the protester's?
Of course they could.
>Were not talking of 10 or 20 people here you know, there were a lot of
>protester's.
Lots of people to arrest.
>Why did the parents walk there wee girls along there and putting them in
>danger when they could have just put them in the bus?
Because that would be to admit that they were wrong to want to talk
unmolested to school. That, is patently unjust.
>If they had put them in the bus and hence mean't no one going past the
>protester's then the protest would probably not lasted that long.
Indeed less opportunity for the hateful bigots to vent their
collective spleen at 5 year old girls...
>I'm not condoning the protester's, but the parents and the nationalist
>community in that area were just as bad as the protester's, with both sides
>antagonising each other to a point where these problems arose, with the
>police stuck in the middle trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Can you provide some support information for this claim please?
>The only people who can hold there heads up in honor in this situation are
>the police!!!
How the hell are the wee girls dishonourable?
You've got a warped perspective.
Nik
puggy
>
> Of course they could.
>
> >Were not talking of 10 or 20 people here you know, there were a lot of
> >protester's.
>
> Lots of people to arrest.
Where would they put all the arested people? How would they transferre them?
how would they even keep control of the protester's once they started to
arrest them? There were a lot of police there, but they were still severly
outnumbered. Theres no way they could have arrested anyone without causing a
serious riot, in which the wee girls would have been the most hurt! If you
don't realise that your more etarded than i thought!!!
> >Why did the parents walk there wee girls along there and putting them in
> >danger when they could have just put them in the bus?
>
> Because that would be to admit that they were wrong to want to talk
> unmolested to school. That, is patently unjust.
So whats more important, the safty and wellfare of there children or making
a political point? Personally i would have taken the safty of the kids
first!
> >If they had put them in the bus and hence mean't no one going past the
> >protester's then the protest would probably not lasted that long.
>
> Indeed less opportunity for the hateful bigots to vent their
> collective spleen at 5 year old girls...
exactly, thats why they walked there kids, to gain a lot more tv coverage,
which is sickening becuase they put politics infront of there childens
safety!!!
> >I'm not condoning the protester's, but the parents and the nationalist
> >community in that area were just as bad as the protester's, with both
sides
> >antagonising each other to a point where these problems arose, with the
> >police stuck in the middle trying to make the best of a bad situation.
>
> Can you provide some support information for this claim please?
Can you prove me wrong? It was quite clear that the protests were becuase of
what was happening to the unionist community there and it's quite clear that
the protest's were affecting the children and it was quite clear the parents
were advised to put there childdren on the bus for there own safety. All the
actions pushed each side further and further!
> >The only people who can hold there heads up in honor in this situation
are
> >the police!!!
>
> How the hell are the wee girls dishonourable?
OK, the only ones who can hold there heads up in honor in this situation are
the police and the children. The nationalist community should hold there
heads down for intimidating the unionist community, the unionist community
should hold there heads down for the protest against the children and the
parents should hold there heads down for dragging there children though the
protester's!!
> You've got a warped perspective.
No, I just look at things objectivly unlike most people here who twist
things to make there side come out smelling of roses when in reality niether
side can!
Wild Colonial Boy
<ntl...@nospamsopissoffpugland.com> wrote:
>> >Also, do you really think the police could have arrested the protester's?
>>
>> Of course they could.
>>
>> >Were not talking of 10 or 20 people here you know, there were a lot of
>> >protester's.
>>
>> Lots of people to arrest.
>
>Where would they put all the arested people?
For a start, inside the multitude of PSNI vehicles designed to offer
temporary...ahem...accomodation.
> How would they transferre them?
By placing those arrested in the back of their black vans, closing the
doors, driving off...etc etc you get the idea, I'm sure...
>how would they even keep control of the protester's once they started to
>arrest them?
The same way that they control Republican protesters...with baton
rounds...or is that not ok since the protesters were "pro-British"?
> There were a lot of police there, but they were still severly
>outnumbered. Theres no way they could have arrested anyone without causing a
>serious riot, in which the wee girls would have been the most hurt!
Possibly, but I doubt it. The Loyalists would be too distracted by the
Peelers and the "prominent republicans" would have been looking after
the wee bairns.
> If you don't realise that your more etarded than i thought!!!
Really, if you mean to insult my intelligence then you could at least
spell "retarded" correctly.
>> >Why did the parents walk there wee girls along there and putting them in
>> >danger when they could have just put them in the bus?
>>
>> Because that would be to admit that they were wrong to want to talk
>> unmolested to school. That, is patently unjust.
>
>So whats more important, the safty and wellfare of there children or making
>a political point? Personally i would have taken the safty of the kids
>first!
Its not up to you though is it? Good job.
>> >If they had put them in the bus and hence mean't no one going past the
>> >protester's then the protest would probably not lasted that long.
>>
>> Indeed less opportunity for the hateful bigots to vent their
>> collective spleen at 5 year old girls...
>
>exactly, thats why they walked there kids, to gain a lot more tv coverage,
>which is sickening becuase they put politics infront of there childens
>safety!!!
Because those children's safety is threatened regardless? Your grasp
of necessary and sufficient conditions needs some attention.
For your edification re: causal relations, a necessary condition for
the occurence of an event is a state of affairs without which the
event cannot happen, while a sufficient condition is a state of
affairs that guarantees that it will happen.
The moral resposibility lies with those who create the intimidation in
the first place, the Loyalists who throw the pipebombs, the dogshit,
the urine, the porn because they are the necessary cause.
>> >I'm not condoning the protester's,
Are you sure of that? Sounds like you are to me.
>> > but the parents and the nationalist
>> >community in that area were just as bad as the protester's, with both
>sides
>> >antagonising each other to a point where these problems arose, with the
>> >police stuck in the middle trying to make the best of a bad situation.
>>
>> Can you provide some support information for this claim please?
>
>Can you prove me wrong?
Again, you show your lack of philosophical education. The onus of
proof is on the claimant. *You* are the claimant therefore it is
*your* responsibility to support your claim, not mine to refute it.
> It was quite clear that the protests were becuase of
>what was happening to the unionist community there
Yes, the Unionist community was affronted by the brazen display of six
year olds walking to school....fuck off will ya? Do you look at stupid
as you sound?
> and it's quite clear that
>the protest's were affecting the children and it was quite clear the parents
>were advised to put there childdren on the bus for there own safety.
By whome? By British authorities...are you trying to make me laugh?
> All the actions pushed each side further and further!
Yes, 6 year old girls walking to school is deeply offensive...your
bigotry isn't made any better by your apparent lack of
self-consciousness about it.
>> >The only people who can hold there heads up in honor in this situation
>are
>> >the police!!!
>>
>> How the hell are the wee girls dishonourable?
>
>OK, the only ones who can hold there heads up in honor in this situation are
>the police and the children.
Nah, not the police. They'd have been firing baton rounds at a
Nationalist crowd had it been the other way around...
> The nationalist community should hold there
>heads down for intimidating the unionist community,
Ah yes, Ireland invaded Britain and still has big watch towers looking
over you everyday, examining everything you do and listening in to
private conversations in the street...
<puke>
> the unionist community should hold there heads down for the protest against the children
I agree wid you dere.
> and the parents should hold there heads down for dragging there children though the
>protester's!!
Nah. They did the right thing, standing up for what was right and not
being cowed.
>> You've got a warped perspective.
>
>No, I just look at things objectivly
<Nik quickly runs outside where he almost collapses laughing>
Yeah right.
> unlike most people here who twist
>things to make there side come out smelling of roses when in reality niether
>side can!
Look up the word "hegemony" will ya?
Nik
k.barrett
hostility was being shown towards them, seeing as there is another means to
enter the school via a very neutral means.....kids were treated as cannon
fodder by so called caring parents....wrong as it was to see the scenes that
transpired,it was very avoidable if the other route was used.....KB
Wild Colonial Boy
<askn...@belfast.com> wrote:
>what parent would insist that youngsters would go up a road were so much
>hostility was being shown towards them, seeing as there is another means to
>enter the school via a very neutral means.
There were Loyalists round the back of the school as well. Don't try
to dress it up as anything other than bigotry and hatred by the
Loyalists for the wee 6 year old girls.
Such pathetic sad scum should be locked up.
>....kids were treated as cannon
>fodder by so called caring parents....wrong as it was to see the scenes that
>transpired,it was very avoidable if the other route was used.....KB
Liar.
Nik
John P. Mullen
What parent would hurl urine, feces, and worse at children?
John Mullen
Whitewolf
Hash: SHA1
Not to mention showing porn, throwing bottles of urine and never
forget the blast bomb... All throw at children who's only crime was
wanting to go to school...
Ray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0
iQA/AwUBQNcrIoDB+AKkijRtEQLF/QCfZvBJiQGv9hdwsmPk1Fq0+PBJIokAnRO/
QFBznHStRkrF9OTZHYINS98+
=B3TA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Everyone, Republican or otherwise has their own
particular part to play. No part is too great or too
small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Bobby Sands (1954-1981), on hunger strike in 1981
Email: ray-AT-eirefirst.com
Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whitewolf
Hash: SHA1
Catholics in Northern Ireland are NOT second class citizens and they
will not be forced to "take the back root" no more then Parks should
have had to sit at the back of the bus because of her color...
Taking children to school along any legal highway you please should
not be impeded by hooligan scum while the police stand around laughing
and doing fuck all to prevent children's lives being put at risk...
Ray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0
iQA/AwUBQNcrm4DB+AKkijRtEQLXkgCdFEDS/+DeZ7NDicuQfWTGY9Pg4eAAn292
6Ydmpg9tRN2f+s93VzwR1DAy
=xc/C
John P. Mullen
Stick with the facts. The PSNI did shield the children, putting their
own well being at risk. Their only failing was in ot going after the
Loyalist agitators.
John Mullen
Whitewolf
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:51:32 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
<jomu...@zianet.com> wrote:
>Hi Ray,
>
>Stick with the facts. The PSNI did shield the children, putting
their
>own well being at risk. Their only failing was in ot going after the
>Loyalist agitators.
>
>John Mullen
>
For months the family bringing their children to school had to
endure this threat... Where else in the UK would such hooliganism and
threats be allowed to carry on for months?
Ray
iQA/AwUBQNm1y4DB+AKkijRtEQKnyQCfQGdEXgVTMmTzrFptdRGyp9QeM+QAoMR0
iC90pVMu2qMPhWMPJPzBphoO
=o/ZM
John P. Mullen
nothing to start with, the cameras will show nothing now. So the
absence means nothing. On the other hand, the Loyalist agitators will
have a much harder time making such a claim. So, regardless of who was
doing what, the cameras do help.
Remember, the primary agitators were from outside the neighborhood.
Remember also, that there was no attempt to report harassment by
Nationalists until *after* the violent protests started.
John Mullen
"telmey哦ntlworld.moc" wrote:
>
> Everyone will notice that since the security cameras (that's the ones
> the Protestants insisted on and Republicans would not accept) were
> put in place the Republican agitators actions have stopped and there
> has been no problems , it is amazing, but then when you can show the
> world the truth and who was really to blame then; republicans stop
> their actions.
>
>
>
> "John P. Mullen" <jomu...@zianet.com> wrote;
Dave Jones
"Wild Colonial Boy" <nos...@iconz.co.nz> wrote in message
news:13m4d09110jicfmed...@4ax.com...
> Nik
>
> Nik