Irish flag – illegal in Ireland?

An Garda Síochána attempt to confiscate Irish National flag under public order legislation during British Queen’s visit:

, ,

  • ranger1640

    would this fall into the category of MOPERY????

  • cavanman

    From a garda friend..
    ” That legislation is invoked whenever there is a large gathering, including at matches, concerts etc and covers the taking of any item that can be used as a weapon including bottles, glasses and Flagpoles. The flagpole one is usually more controversial because of importance attached to it..”

    Instead of talking to the garda, she proceeds to play to the gallery. Can’t say she deserves much sympathy….

  • Longridgeofthecow

    Poor show, simply because the young Gard doesn’t understand the legislation. I would call that a training issue. How often are they called upon to invoke Public Order legislation in such a high profile manner? I wonder will the Stars & stripes be banned from poles when Obama arrives?

  • Mark McGregor

    cavanman,

    That argument works well until you actually watch the video and see it’s a small flag held in her hand and bystanders end up pointing out to the Gard there is no flagpole there.

  • Mark McGregor

    Longridgeofthecow,

    I like this idea of feeling sympathy for the Gards – how can we expect them to have an understanding of such complex things like the law.

  • Longridgeofthecow

    I agree with cavanman, as much as she was playing to the crowd. Of course she was, what a ridiculous situation to be in! In your own state, being told by your own public servvants that you cannot carry your own national banner! What’s up with that?

  • GoldenFleece

    From what I head, the protesters after they were done/got bored flung their banners and flags to the ground.

  • Longridgeofthecow

    Mark,
    They are simply people trying to do a job. No one is 100% in any job. There are always grey areas that are open to interpretation. Unfortunately without experience the interpretation can be wrong, I also feel the blame lies with superiors in placing inexperienced/ naive officers on the front line. She may well find herself inspecting public toilets and on litter duty for the next few weeks.

  • Longridgeofthecow

    GoldenFleece,

    I find the Garda use that technique on a regular basis. They normally bore you into submission/going home. In my personal experience the RUC/PSNI would already have her bundled to the ground, handcuffed and booked in for court at 10 am tomorrow!

  • JH

    Seriously guys?

    SERIOUSLY?

    They confiscated the pole. The pole fell out of the flag off camera and they lifted it, because they had been used as weapons the night before.

    This woman does this deliberately, watch her other videos where she winds up gardaí off the Corrib. She does nothing for either Republicanism or the Corrib issue by making a mockery of legitimate protest.

  • Cynic2

    Do stop drooling Mark. It’s unedifying

  • Alias

    She should be dismissed. If she deems the symbol of Irish sovereignty to be an “offensive article” then she is not a fit person to be a member of the Garda Síochána, violating of Section 16(1) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 in regard to constitutional rights. Perhaps she should have joined the PSNI…

  • Longridgeofthecow

    JH,

    She does not have to be affiliated to express her views.

    Then surely if, as per the legislation, the pole was illegal(which I admit I did not see) once that was taken then the protest was perfectly legal?

    Dissent is always a good thing. If everyone agreed with you what would you do with your evenings?

  • Mark

    It was a cheap stunt , the ban garda could clearly be heard saying the flag ploe . The woman had preplanned the whole thing and was recording it ……. and from what JH was stating , she has form .

  • Alias

    “If everyone agreed with you what would you do with your evenings?”

    Reconsider all of my views, and try to correct the fundamental errors…

  • JH

    Longridgeofthecow,

    I’m not attacking her right to express her views, affiliated or not.

    I’m criticising the blatant setup, the crying wolf that is at least disingenuous and at worst the protest equivalent of entrapment. The video is devoid of any content.

  • Alias

    “It was a cheap stunt , the ban garda could clearly be heard saying the flag ploe .”

    That’s not what subsection C refers to. It refers only to the confiscation of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks and their containers.

    Therefore, “offensive article” means a drink container, and nothing else.

    To the Garda, however, it means any symbol of Irish sovereignty that those who reject the right of the Irish nation to self-determination might find offensive.

  • Mick Fealty

    Alias,

    Here’s the relevant section (http://url.ie/bh8i):

    “2) Where a barrier has been erected in accordance with subsection (1), a member of the Garda Síochána in uniform may by oral or manual direction or by the exhibition of any notice or sign, or any combination thereof—

    “(c) indicate that to proceed beyond the barrier while in possession of any intoxicating liquor, disposable drinks container or offensive article will render such liquor, container or article liable to confiscation.”

    For some reason you have chosen to ignore the use of ‘or’ in the sentence. That makes ‘intoxicating liquor’ and ‘offensive article’ two separate clauses.

    Which means you are talking nonsense. In fact, not for the first time, you’re just plain trolling. Red card next!

  • joeCanuck

    Seems that contrarianism is now verboten. A comedy of errors leading to Love’s Labour’s Lost. But, all’s well that ends well.
    Farewell to arms.

  • Mick Fealty

    No Joe. Mr Alias is using a selective and highly misleading quotation from Irish statute in order to allow him ‘legitimately’ play the man, or in this case, the bangarda…

  • Dixie Elliott

    It seems they haven’t gone away you know…The Brits that is. They still run the Free State like they do the North.

  • joeCanuck

    The security around the Queen’s visit has been excellent. Do people make errors of judgement? Of course. I think most of us are guilty of that on occasion; now move along.

  • Kadfoomsa

    Look, this was a set up, and the Garda fell for it but still…..

    However the Irish language paper Gaelscéal carried a story today where a native Irish speaker claims that Gardaí mocked him for speaking Irish and forced him to anglicise his name for them or be arrested ….

    … was feeling the breeze of reconcilation …not anymore. West Brits just took things too far Im afraid.

  • Kadfoomsa

    I have also seen a blog suggesting that Irish speaking families have been targeting in the security crackdown.

    Seriously disturbed by this.

    Who actually ran the security?

  • Alias

    Mick, let’s look at all of that section and not just the part that you have chosen to take out of context (presumably for the purposes of trolling a poster):

    http://www.acts.ie/en.act.1994.0002.4.html

    What you you think the theme of Part 3 is? Is it hand grenades, knifes, bricks, etc, or is “surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor”? Give a look at it, and then give an informed guess this time.

    Here’s a helpful hint in the interpretation:

    20.—In this Part—

    “container” does not include a container for any medicinal product;

    “disposable container” includes—

    (a) any bottle, can or other portable container or any part thereof (including any crushed or broken portable container or part thereof) for holding any drink which, when empty, is of a kind normally discarded or returned to, or left to be recovered by, the supplier, and

    (b) any crate or packaging designed to hold more than one such bottle, can or other portable container;

    “event” has the meaning assigned to it by section 21 (1);

    “intoxicating liquor” includes any container containing intoxicating liquor, whether or not a disposable container.

    Part 3 has 3 sections, 20, 21, and 22 and all of them relate to “surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor” and nothing else.

    As your grasp of grammar is no better than your grasp of law, “offensive article” is used as a catch-all alternative to “container” and it is to be interpreted exclusively in that context as defined in the quoted section 20.

    Now hurry up with your apology…

  • babyface finlayson

    Aren’t flags for children really? What adult trots about with a national flag in their purse. ‘Look everyone, my rights are being infringed.’
    Perhaps the Gard was being over zealous, it’s hard to tell. But god save us from flag wavers.

  • Alias

    Is that just Irish flags, or does it include the ones that Her Majesty stands beside?

    Although, in fairness to her, I notice that she forbade the EU to fly its flag among those that adorned the recent wedding of her grandson.

  • perseus

    alias:
    act in haste, repent in leisure
    you do talk alot of nonsense e.g
    “that those who reject the right of the Irish nation to self-determination might find offensive.”
    not a day goes by without you trolling that inaccuracy.
    you’re confusing the Nation with the people, who comprise the nation.
    Its they who would be sent a voting paper for unity.
    The Nation itself does nothing, it simply is ..

  • Alias

    “you’re confusing the Nation with the people, who comprise the nation.” – perseus

    That is one of the dumbest things you have yet posted, but I’m sure you’ll continue to surpass yourself in that regard…

    That’s like saying “you’re confusing six with half a dozen.”

    Or, as Mick would have it, six OR half a dozen are not the same because there is an ‘or’ between them. 😉

    Now why don’t both of you trolls address the topic and stop playing the man?

  • joeCanuck

    It’s Mick’s blog (with guest bloggers) and it’s his rules. No complaint.
    But I, for one, having been commenting for many years, no longer understand the rules or limits. Playing the ball rather than the man is clear and simple. I have had 3 yellow cards recently and as many other comments embargoed. If there are new nuances, I think they should be explained in the Comments Policy.

  • Mick Fealty

    Joe. Try paragraph 1 of the comments policy.

    Alias. Interesting legal point. You’re commuted to Yellow. For now.

  • Cynic2

    Mick

    I agree with you but his quotation isn’t ‘selective’ its plain false and defamatory of the ban Garda.

    As for the issue, a flag on a pole (even the Irish Flag) may be an offensive weapon. Using the flag in the way it was used and having it seized doesn’t demean An Garda Siochana – it demeans the flag and those who would seek to use it for their own bigoted or sectarian agenda or asa cover for attacking the Garda

  • Cynic2

    Alias

    Thank you so much for such a strong argument that in the North the Orange Order must be allowed to parade where they want carrying the Union Jack

  • Henry94

    The Garda made a mistake which she corrected in a week when the force hardly put a foot wrong.

    But I do think we need a conversation about the proper way to treat the flag. It gets trailed around for protests and matches in a way that would have been completely unacceptable in pervious generations.

    There are guidelines which are widely ignored and that is a shame.

    The national flag should never be defaced by placing slogans, logos, lettering or pictures of any kind on it, for example at sporting events. The flag should not be draped on cars, trains, boats or other modes of transport; it should not be carried flat, but should always be carried aloft and free, except when used to drape a coffin; on such an occasion, the green should be at the head of the coffin. The tricolour is draped across the coffins of Presidents of Ireland (including former Presidents), soldiers and Garda Síochána personnel killed in the line of duty, and other notables accorded state funerals, such as Roger Casement in 1965, or Kevin Barry in 2001. Care should be taken at all times to ensure that the national flag does not touch the ground, trail in water or become entangled in trees or other obstacles.”

  • NOT NOW JOHN

    Alias,

    Your interpretation of the law is indeed an interesting one as Mick points out.

    However it would appear to me that the theme of Part III is clearly crowd control at public events (rather than the surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor) and is designed to allow people to attend major events without their personal safety being put in jeopardy.

    While Part 3 has indeed three sections 20, 21 and 22, it is incorrect to say that “all of them relate to “surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor” and nothing else”.

    Section 21 clearly relates to matters other than the surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor. For example paragraph 21(2)(a) relates to powers to divert persons attending an event while paragraph 21(2)(b) relates to powers to prohibit persons without a ticket from attending an event. These powers are separate and independent of the powers contained in paragraph 21(2)(c) which relate to the confiscation of intoxicating liquor, disposable drinks containers or offensive articles. We know this by the use of the word “or” at the end of paragraphs (a) and (b).

    It is also worth noting that the commentary in the margins of Section 22 refers to the “surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor, etc.”. The use of the comma and the term “etc.” are key here. These indicate that this section includes, but is not limited to, the surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor.

    You will note that paragraph 22(1)(b) has three distinct sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and that sub-paragraph (iii) refers to “any other article which, having regard to the circumstances or the nature of the event, could be used to cause injury”. There is nothing to indicate that the interpretation of sub-paragraph (iii) relates to, or is dependent upon, sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii). The fact that the items referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) are interpreted in Section 20 has no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of sub-paragraph (iii). In the absence of the inclusion of any specific interpretation of the term “any other article which …. could be used to cause injury” in the legislation, we have to rely on a literal interpretation of the term. It is clear to me that the term “any article …. which could be used to cause injury” refers literally to any article which could be used to cause injury and consequently would include items such as “hand grenades, knifes (sic), bricks etc”. It would also include a flagpole.

    I see nothing whatsoever that would indicate that the term “offensive article” is used as a catch all alternative to the word “container” or that it is to be interpreted exclusively in that context as defined and quoted in section 20.

    It is normally best to seek to interpret the law objectively unless of course one is a very smart lawyer which, I assume, you are not.

  • PaulT

    slightly confused, are we discussing a flag or flagpole.

    I disagree with some of the earlier comments, I’ve watched the clip several times, the flag appears to be folded, the garda defo refers to the ‘flag’ and the garda in the background who makes a reference to ‘flagpole’ seems to be making a sarcastic remark ie

    Woman : ….Irish flag illegal in Ireland

    Garda : You won’t need a flagpole then.

    Mick/Alias, perhaps I’m wrong but unless the flag had been defaced or altered the garda is committing an offence by considering the flag offensive.

    HOWEVER, this story was at the back of my mind (not the reasons why, but the ability to ban)

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2331271.ece

  • vanhelsing

    Seriously MMG is this the best you can do?
    HM The Queen has a great visit to the Republic, bags of reconciliation, plenty of forward movement, she even speaks in Irish, the Loyal Orders want their picture taken under a Tricolour and you find some poor young female, Garda Officer who was a bit confused about legislation. Clearly it was planned, videoed by a confederate and then posted on youtube. Get over yourself!!
    Cavanman had it right on the second post “Instead of talking to the garda, she proceeds to play to the gallery. Can’t say she deserves much sympathy….”

  • Mick Fealty

    Someone seems to have further annotated the video to assert the flag is not attached to a pole. So, I concede that Alias’ point appears to have been proven.

    The Yellow card still stands though.

  • babyface finlayson

    Alias
    In reply to your question at 3.27. I was indeed talking about all flags. Tricolours, Union flags, Old Glory etc. etc. Not saying it shouldn’t be allowed, I just think it’s silly.
    However I suppose that is another issue. I apologise if I was trolling.
    On topic, it looks to me that the garda made an innocent mistake, which like Ken Clarke’s gaffe, brought on an immediate hysterical over reaction.

  • Drumlins Rock

    Mark, agree with Vanhelsing, this is a petty thread and if anything hilights how successful the visit was, if that’s all you can come up with then you really should reconsider your position and hail the success it was.
    With regards the flag issue, I have a confession, while watching the events at the National War Memorial I gained a real respect for the Tricolour, not as the flag of my country, but as the flag of a close neighbour and land of some of my ancestors.
    Flags are important, and up to now I like many unionist tolerated the flag as that of any other nation, but also in many ways hated it because of its close association with ruthless killers and terrorists, like what happened at Omagh only weeks ago, provoking a knee jerk response.
    This week has certainly, I believe, helped neutralised much of that hate, and once again shows that the biggest obstacles to Irish unity of any sort is the Republican movement in its various hues.

  • NOT NOW JOHN

    Paul T,

    Your understanding of that particular exchange differs significantly from mine. As I understand it the exchange is as follows (although I accept that the male Garda’s contribution is not entirely clear) :

    Woman: ‘…… the Irish flag has been outlawed, okay everyone’

    Garda: ‘Your flagpole dear’

    Woman ‘I am going to be arrested for having an Irish flag … can you believe it?’

    It is interesting that there is no evidence from the video that the woman is indeed going to be arrested or has been threatened with arrest. Neither (in my opinion) is there any evidence from the video to demonstrate whether the flag was or was not connected to a flagpole at the time that the female Garda first sought to exercise her (perceived) powers under section 21 of the 1994 Act. Those interested in an objective analysis of the incident might find it worth pondering the video evidence to seek to determine;

    a) Whether there was a flagpole;
    b) Whether the flag was attached to the flagpole at the point of the first exchange between the female Garda and the woman (presuming there was a flagpole);
    c) If the flag was attached to the flagpole at this point whether it was unreasonable for the female Garda to have used the term ‘flag’ to refer to the object comprising the flag attached to the flagpole;
    d) If the flag was attached to the flagpole at any point, then at what point did the flag become detached from the flagpole and for what reason;
    e) If the flag hadn’t ever been attached to the flagpole, then for what purpose was the flagpole being carried?

  • Greenflag

    Alias ,

    ‘Therefore, “offensive article” means a drink container, and nothing else.’

    The next time I go into a pub I’ll ask for a pint of Guinness in an offensive article .

    Sluggers scraping the bottom of the barrel with this thread 🙁

    It’s obvious that some so called republicans are as batshit crazy about ‘flags ‘ if not more so than some unionists 🙁

    Queenie’s visit was a success and now it’s over .

  • GreenBack

    Mark,
    On her YouTube channel the ‘activist’ MadamK admits in a reply that there was a flagpole, although not attached to theflag, it was stuck in her in her waistband:

  • slappymcgroundout

    “The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 also gives the Gardai the power to search a person going to an event where a barrier has been erected. These rights are set out in Section 22 of the 1994 Act and allow the Gardai to seize intoxicating liquor or any disposable container or any other article which could be used to cause injury.”

    Sorry, Alias, but the purpose isn’t alcohol seizure. The purpose is crowd control. That intoxicating beverages are mentioned specifically is simply owing to the reality that it is within all of human experience that alcohol does tend to make a mockery of notion of impulse control.

    By the way, the relevant part of section 21 makes plain your error:

    and the person has, or the member of the Garda Síochána suspects with reasonable cause that the person has, in his possession—

    (i) any intoxicating liquor, or

    (ii) any disposable container, or

    (iii) any other article which, having regard to the circumstances or the nature of the event, could be used to cause injury,

    See (iii) Any other article… with the key being, having regard…Does the nature of alcohol change depending on the nature of the event? No. But we might allow you bring a baseball bat to the baseball tournament, but not to the arts exhibition.

    For one more, the definition of disposable container:

    “disposable container” includes—

    (a) any bottle, can or other portable container or any part thereof…

    So a Coke bottle can be confiscated as well. Even unopened, when it presumably does not contain any rum (for your rum and coke).

    And learn what “etc.” means, since the subheading is:

    Surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor, etc.

  • GavBelfast

    Great post, Drumlin’s Rock.

    I haven’t heard a mute of negativity from Unionism on The Queen’s visit, has Jim Allister even said anything on it during or since the visit?

    I watched the Irish Tricolour and Union Jack flying alongside, the National Anthems being played consecutively, and the Irish President and HM The Queen walking together and felt a mixture of pride, joy and contentment.

    For both countries were according according conciliation with and respect for the other.

    As to this thread opener, a bit like the protests themselves: utterly neanderthal and pathetic.

  • Cynic2

    “It’s obvious that some so called republicans are as batshit crazy about ‘flags ‘ if not more ”

    Ersatz Orangemen

  • Jimmy Sands

    I found the video confusing. I can understand Sarah Ferguson protesting but why the tricolour?

  • Rory Carr

    I do so agree that it is quite disgraceful that the national flag should be treated in such a disrespectful manner. And Madame K and her cohorts should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for the use to which they applied it here.

    At no time could it be alleged that the ban garda acted in a manner that was disresptful of the flag or that treated it as offensive but it was certainly most offensive of Madame K to employ the flag in such a cheap, conman’s trick in a low attempt to stir up the crowd and gain unearned sympathy.

    I am surprised, Mark, that you would allow youself to be associated in the promotion of such distasteful, dishonest material. It’s the stuff of corner boys and carnival hucksters not of serious, principled political activists.

  • Alias

    NOT NOW JOHN and slappymcgroundout, those are both good amateur attempts at trying to subvert the meaning of Part 3 so that it extends to the confiscation of flagpoles, however neither of you are awarded better than a cheap cigar (no doubt an upgrade).

    That section of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act relates exclusively to the surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor for the purposes of crowd control.

    Other Acts deal with the surrender and seizure of weapons, and other sections of that Act deal other public ordr offences. The big clue is in the title of the Act, kiddies: it is a public order legislation, not anti-terrorist or other.

    Mick’s mistake was innocent enough: it confused grammatical clauses with logical classes, arguing that because the conjunction indicated a seperate clause that it must also denote a seperate class. So the proposition “Six or Half a Dozen” would not, according to the error, denote the same class (a quantity of six) because of said conjunction and seperate clauses.

    I’ll just give myself the Havana cigar…

  • between the bridges

    As others have posted it does seem somewhat staged! However i do have some sympathy re the confiscation of flagpoles…few years’ back my boys insisted on bringing flagpoles to an owc away game…cue extra charges at airport, storage hassle on taxis, trains, buses etc…just to have the bloody things lifted at the entrance to the ground!!

    McMG do you think there is any chance of the psni adopting the same policy re the tricolor? lol

  • Alias

    Between the bridges, given that the pole would have been no bigger than a lollipop stick or a pen, under what legislation were these items and other similiar ‘weapons’ confiscated? And why were cameras not seized when they could also be used as improvised weapons?

    The “offensive” item here was the symbol of Irish sovereignty.

  • between the bridges

    alias..i agree it is offensive improvisation or perhaps street art drama queen…

  • slappymcgroundout

    “NOT NOW JOHN and slappymcgroundout, those are both good amateur attempts at trying to subvert the meaning of Part 3 so that it extends to the confiscation of flagpoles, however neither of you are awarded better than a cheap cigar (no doubt an upgrade).”

    (1) the amateur would be you. I raised my right hand and took the oath to support and defend on 15 May 1990. You can compare that date with today’s date and then discern who has spent some time on the matter of statutory construction.

    (2) please, note the obvious. Disposable container. If the purpose was simply alcohol prohibition, why worry about what kind of container? See item (1) in my recitation of the relevant statutory provision above. “any intoxicating liquor”. Covers all liquor and never mind the container. So the disposable container in item (ii) speaks to some other concern, here, the fact that it is disposable means that nationalist you might be tempted to hurl it an elderly woman from another land in some wholly misguided demonstration of your nationalist fervor. Lastly, item (iii) speaks to any other article that given the nature and/or circumstance might be used to cause injury to another.

    (3) almost forgot, but enjoy your Cuban cigar, while you ponder the implications of your economic support of a regime which incarcerates a rather questionable percentage of its residents and/or citizens who are of either whole or partial African descent. Is here where I say that if you’ve become indentured servant to Brussels and the IMF that such is wholly fitting?

  • NOT NOW JOHN

    “That section (sic) of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act relates exclusively to the surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor for the purposes of crowd control”

    No it doesn’t.

    And your failure to put forward any basis whatsoever for disagreeing with the interpretations of Part III put forward earlier by slappymcgroundout and me would tend to indicate that you have no basis.

    Alias, simply stating that something is true does not make it so. Except perhaps in the mind of those who do not wish to believe otherwise.

  • perseus

    alias,
    the reason you’ve been given a yellow
    is because your original intent was and still is
    to set-up and create
    an opportunity to” play the man”
    so the yellow still stands
    what you say from now on will determine the red
    good luck !

  • Alias

    “Alias, simply stating that something is true does not make it so. ”

    Then why are you repeating your unworkable method?

    It is not I who have declared what Part C refers to, Part C declares it:

    http://www.acts.ie/en.act.1994.0002.4.html

    The Act also declares what its other sections refer to:

    http://www.acts.ie/en.act.1994.0002.1.html

    “You can compare that date with today’s date and then discern who has spent some time on the matter of statutory construction.”

    This is a poor error. If time served equal ability, all the best lawyers would be old ones. Usually the old ones are the ones who have forgotten what they studied. Buy the old whore always thinks she’s the best…

    Now, to dispose of (2) and (3) respectively:

    Who claimed that there was no concern about the container? You have invented this and thereby refuted a point not disputed. As I pointed out, why were cameras not seized on the same pretext, i.e. that one “might be tempted to hurl it an elderly woman”? Do you not see the gaping whole in your, ahem… ‘argument’. Indeed, do you not see such cameras in the video?

    But apart from concern, those camera were not seized because, unlike the container, they do not relate to alcohol as they are required to under Part C. Do you get it now? A camera relates to the “surrender and seizure of intoxicating liquor” in the same way as a flagpole does, i.e. not at all.

    Therefore, contrary to your perverse interpretation of Part C, it provides no authrotiy to the garda whatsoever to confiscate the flag.

    No, with (2) dismisses, let get to the last part of your codswallop (3): hmmm, pardon? You seem to have lost the run of yourself and are now waffling insanely about communisim and the IMF…

  • Alias

    “the reason you’ve been given a yellow”

    Mick can make the rules and apply them as he sees fit.

    So widespread is the cosy concensus that anyone who disputes it is seem as trolling. Indeed, so insidious is it that this young garda should now naturally see the Irish flag as offensive within the Irish state.

  • Cynic2

    By the way cant you just imagine the debate in the Derry Cumman of RIRA

    Fat Bloke with Flag from the Demo ” To demonstrate our anger at the incac ..incarc ..lockin up of Marian Price, and the arrest of all our Comrades attempting to blow things up during the visit fo the Queen Of ENGLAND by the Garda British lickspittles, we need to clearly demonstrate that here in Derry we iscapable of takin’ on the British War Machine of Occupation”

    Second Fat Bloke “Yeah we’s needs a target that will clearly show to the peeple that we has not gone away, You know and where like there’s little chance of us getting caught agin.

    First Fat Bloke “Any ideas from the floor?”

    Festy O’Semtex character in corner “I know. Lets blow up the Santander Bank Branch.”

    First Fat Bloke “A master stroke. No one will suspect that we might further Irish Unity by blowing up a branch of a Spanish Bank. That’ll show ’em. Onward comrades. A republic by 2016”

    Derry – British City of Culchie 2012

  • NOT NOW JOHN

    “Do you not see the gaping whole (sic) in your, ahem … ‘argument’.”

    No Alias, I don’t see it. I don’t see it at all.

    But what I do see is a poorly presented argument incorporating a host of spelling and grammatical errors making whatever point it is you are attempting to demonstrate even more difficult to understand. I also see numerous references to a ‘Part C’ which, for the life of me, I can’t seem to find any reference to in the Act.

  • Cynic2

    ” So widespread is the cosy concensus that anyone who disputes it is seem as trolling. ”

    The only consensus on Slugger is against idiots. Strangely you seem to have united Unionists and Nationalists on their analysis that you fit in that category, So that’s something positive

  • Alias

    “No Alias, I don’t see it. I don’t see it at all.” – NOT NOW JOHN

    Well, to be honest, debating with you was a bit like discussing the meaning of life with my cat: it wastes my time, and the cat just coughs up another hairball or continues licking its nuts.

    Your profile is revealing:

    http://sluggerotoole.com/profile/not-now-john/

    I suppose I should feel flattered that a sockpuppet should register just to address myself, and then disappear after it lost the argument.

    “The only consensus on Slugger is against idiots. Strangely you seem to have united Unionists and Nationalists on their analysis that you fit in that category, So that’s something positive” – Cynic2

    The idiot is more likely to be the one who confuses a sockpuppet and lickspittle (yourself) with a number greater than two.