FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
27m ago
By this definition you are a Dean Alt.
What?
You are kinda telling on yourself, go touch grass.
How am I telling on myself?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
45m ago
You're right, I should have DM'd him, I apologise.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1hr ago
I think I read somewhere that the Digwa family told the police that Nowak had attempted to climb over a fence, on which he'd cut himself, hence his injuries.
Grafton Street, a bustling pedestrianised street in Dublin's city centre, is one of the biggest shopping streets in the country. It's often one of the first places tourists go to when they arrive in Ireland, and accordingly on weekends will be thronged with buskers looking to make a few bob from Americans who can afford to splash out.
On South Anne Street, just off Grafton Street, there's an establishment called Club 22. I've been in there once, and the clientele was overwhelmingly made up of black men and white women (many of the latter, to my eyes, looked underage). Last February, the club was hosting a gig when an argument erupted outside in which a 34-year-old Nigerian asylum seeker, Quaham Babatunde, was stabbed to death. One of the perpetrators fled to Belfast where he was picked up by the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) and returned by them to Dublin. All four perpetrators were eventually charged and convicted:
Bruno Tache with an address at Trimleston, Balbriggan in Co Dublin, Rory Carr from Ard Na Gréine, Seapoint Lane in Balbriggan, David Oloo Omee of The Lawn, St Marnock's Bay, Dublin 13 and Sean Forde from Bath Road in Balbriggan, pleaded guilty to affray and assault charges.
All four are convicted violent drug dealers...
All four men have previous convictions for violent crimes and drug dealing.
Mr Carr has 34 previous convictions, Mr Oloo Omee has 25, Mr Tache has 20 and Mr Forde has 8.
Mr Carr, Mr Tache and Mr Oloo Omee were on bail on other charges at the time of the attack while Mr Carr and Mr Tache were serving suspended sentences for other offences.
Tache and Carr received three years each. Reports from earlier in the year claim that Oloo Omee and Forde were due to be sentenced in April, but I can't find any articles about their sentencing.
(Without wishing to speak ill of the dead, the victim was no angel, having been scheduled for deportation from Italy owing to a rape allegation.)
Last weekend, history repeated itself as tragedy. The Bewley's café on Grafton St was hosting a hip-hop gig when a fight erupted outside. A 21-year-old club promoter, Qayyam Balogun, was chased to nearby Clarendon St (less than 300 metres from Club 22) and stabbed to death. Police have arrested a suspect (whose name they have yet to release), who apparently fled to Northern Ireland and then Scotland immediately after the stabbing. In the immediate aftermath of the stabbing, he apparently bragged about it online, and is well-known to the police, being out on bail for a different stabbing at the time. Police have also arrested his girlfriend.
The whole thing is just a bit eerie. Two Nigerian men stabbed to death in a very affluent part of Dublin, separated in time and space by less than eighteen months and 300 metres, by killers with mile-long rap sheets who subsequently fled to Northern Ireland.
I know progressives tend to be big believers in "rehabilitative justice", but I have to ask the obvious question. Does anyone actually believe that any of these five men will ever go on to be productive, law-abiding members of society? How much of a hardened criminal do you have to be to rack up thirty-four previous convictions by the age of 22? This most recent perpetrator stabbed someone, got arrested and charged, was mercifully granted bail, almost immediately stabbed someone else, then went on social media and bragged about it. This is a lack of forethought and impulse control I'd expect from a prepubescent. It's extremely difficult for me to avoid the conclusion that this man will be in and out of prison for his entire life, every few years getting out only to stab someone else and be back inside within a year. His life will end in one of two ways: either someone will finally stab him before he manages to stab them, or he'll realise he's getting too old for this shit and live out the rest of his miserable life on some combination of social welfare and disability payments for a fictitious medical condition. His entire life will be lived at the taxpayer's largesse.
What the hell does one do with a person like this?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
This is a tedious diversion. I'm not criticising anyone for being too busy to reply to comments. I was pointing out a commonality in language and phrasing which strongly suggest to me that you are a Darwin sockpuppet: specific language and phrasing that I don't recall anyone other than another Darwin sockpuppet using. You know exactly what I meant, stop pretending otherwise.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
No, it doesn't. Not every post made here is a reply to a comment specifically addressed to me. Do you know how "threads" work? You made a top-level post less than 24 hours ago. That was not a reply to anyone.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
That's why I said "(perhaps not immediately)" in the paragraph immediately below the one you're quoting. Do you have attention-deficit disorder or something?
These seem to imply that you do not respond to every comment because of "times in which I was so occupied" and "routinely having more important things".
They don't, actually. I said "(I routinely have more important things to do than to be posting here)." I did not say "I routinely have more important things to do than to reply to comments here." Your reading comprehension is profoundly lacking.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
They inherently did when they took the self defense claim from the shooter legitimately (despite what we know now, it was not legally legitimate).
The responding officers did not take the self-defense claim from the shooter legitimately. The individuals responsible for prosecuting him did. The responding officers brought the shooting victim to the hospital as soon as they arrived on the scene. Why are you pretending not to understand this extremely simple distinction?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
No. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever posted a comment here which I intended to reply to, but which I didn't have time to because "I have a job and family and stuff".
Either I reply to a comment (perhaps not immediately), or I don't bother replying because I have nothing to contribute.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
My other issue is that, by talking about how Drejka wasn't charged until after public outcry, you're completely missing the point of my request .
In the Nowak case, I and others are criticising the conduct of the police officers who arrived on the scene. Those first responders bear no responsibility for determining whether Digwa should be prosecuted and, if so, for what offenses. That responsibility falls to the director of public prosecutions. From what I can see, the people responsible for prosecuting Digwa did their jobs perfectly: they charged him with murder, they collected evidence with which to mount a case against him, and they presented that case to the jury, who were persuaded.
In the McGlockton case, you are criticising the conduct of the people responsible for prosecuting Drejka. By all accounts, the police officers who arrived on the scene of the shooting did their jobs perfectly: they correctly identified McGlockton as in need of urgent medical care and brought him to the hospital, and also brought the cooperative perpetrator to a police station for questioning.
So, to bring it back to that phrase "vaguely analogous": what I'm specifically looking for is a violent crime with the racial valence reversed in which the responding police officers behaved poorly in a manner similar to the Nowak case. I am not looking for a violent crime with the racial valence reversed where any member of the criminal justice system behaved poorly. I am specifically looking for a case in which the responding police officers behaved poorly.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
I pity the poor children whose father thinks that sophomoric word games like this are a productive use of his time.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
Oftentimes because I have nothing to contribute in reply.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
More specifically:
- They didn't treat the victim as a criminal; and
- They immediately took the perpetrator to a police station for questioning
so it doesn't count.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
I don't do that either, except in the specific situation where someone asked me why I don't reply to everything like their comment.
"I don't do that thing either, except on those occasions when I do."
Thanks for spelling that out for me dude, really appreciate it.
Let's recap. In the Nowak case, a brown man stabbed a white man. When the police came, they assumed that the mortally wounded white man was the aggressor, and went to arrest him, putting him in handcuffs and reading him his rights, rather than attempting to render medical care. I and many others think that this is outrageous. The essence of what makes it outrageous is that the victim was treated like a criminal.
You would have us believe that there's nothing "unique" about this case, and that things like it happen all the time with the racial valence reversed. I asked you to cite a specific example thereof, and the best you can come up with is a case in which a black man assaulted a white man, the white man shot him, and when the police arrived on the scene they immediately realised the black man was in urgent need of medical care and raced him to the hospital.
Henry Nowak: Mortally wounded. When the police arrive on the scene, they immediately move to read him his rights and put him in handcuffs. When he tells them that he's been stabbed, they tell them he hasn't. They only realise the gravity of their mistake when it's too late.
Markeis McGlockton: Mortally wounded. When the police arrive on the scene, they immediately recognise that he's been mortally wounded and race him to the hospital. At no point do they put him in handcuffs, read him his rights or arrest him.
darwin/guesswho/magicalkittycat: OMG, these two cases are exactly the same! It's like I'm seeing double here!
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
Woah, you are a Darwin alt. Your pattern of behavior claiming you have other things to do is just what he did! Holy shit.
Poor reading comprehension in addition to being obnoxious (yet another thing you have in common with @guesswho – what a coincidence!). Go through my entire comment history and you will never, not once, find an instance in which I claimed the reason I could not reply to someone's comment was because I was too busy with my job and family. There have been times in which I was so occupied, but I never announced it in the sneering tone of dismissive condescension which is your favourite. That specific tic is a dead giveaway. So too is your defensive shit-slinging when you realise your subterfuge wasn't quite as convincing as you thought it was.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
I still find it a more natural and coherent reading of the text that the strife he perceives in Britain's future is the political oppression of white racists by an electoral majority of brown anti-racists.
I can't find any point in the speech where Powell claims that white Britons will ever be outnumbered by brown migrants or their descendants. He specifically predicts that, by the year 2000, one-tenth of the UK will be Commonwealth immigrants or their descendants. (The 2001 census found that 8.6% of the UK was Asian*, black or mixed.)
I don't actually think there's any textual evidence that he was envisioning a plague of acts of personal brown-on-white violence like Digwa's.
In the speech, he describes the experiences of a lady living in Wolverhampton which has recently become much more ethnically diverse:
The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out. The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door... She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant.
The clear implication of this anecdote is that Wolverhampton is becoming vastly more dangerous and unpleasant to live in (to the point that an old woman who has lived there her whole life now feels afraid to leave the house) as a direct consequence of its recent influx of immigrants, and that Britons across the country can reasonably expect the same to happen to their communities should contemporary trends in immigration continue. I don't think you can remotely accuse him of being a "mealy-mouthed coward" when he includes the anecdote above to illustrate his point.
I think you actually have a much better case in the other sub-thread when linking his doomsaying, not to modern crime statistics, but to the rise of anti-free-speech legislation, which can legitimately be seen as a slippery slope from the concerns he voices.
And he explicitly voiced this specific concern in the speech itself:
When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.
Need it hardly be said that her concern was well-founded? White Britons have been sent to prison for "racist" offenses far less serious than refusing to rent out rooms in their house to immigrants.
*Which, in the British context, primarily refers to people from the Indian subcontinent.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
4hr ago
I agree, that's why I was saying I don't think "spinster" is the female equivalent to "manchild".
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
4hr ago
I am a well-adjusted individual with an active life. I was pointing out that you and @guesswho (if we're still maintaining the pretense that you are separate individuals) have an eerily similar tic where you have seemingly limitless time to expound on your opinions (seriously dude, you post an average of 2.5 comments per day here, you're in no position to throw stones), but the second you get any significant amount of pushback, you instantly claim to be far too busy with your other responsibilities to reply to them. I'm not criticising you for not replying to every comment (I routinely have more important things to do than to be posting here). I'm pointing out that the pattern of behaviour is so uncannily similar that I would be flabbergasted if you aren't yet another Darwin alt/sockpuppet. And I really, truthfully, do not understand this weird urge you feel to periodically flounce off, only to reappear some time later under a new username. It's just such phenomenally strange behaviour. I wonder what your next username will be.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
4hr ago
What goalposts am I moving? Compare the first request I made to you:
Show me an example of a white Briton (or hell, let's make it easier for you: a white person from anywhere) stabbing a brown man, the police arriving on the scene to find the white aggressor clearly uninjured and the brown man visibly incapacitated, the white man claiming to have been attacked first, and on his word alone, the police handcuffing the visibly incapacitated brown man. If you can show me that, or even something vaguely analogous, I will consider the possibility that there are no real CW aspects to this awful case.
with the most recent one:
I asked for an instance in which a white man attacked a brown man (though the sexes are irrelevant, and I would have accepted any person of colour), police arrived on the scene, immediately assumed that the visibly injured brown victim was the aggressor (perhaps because the white aggressor was acting "calmly" or cooperatively, as you claimed) and put him in handcuffs, while declining to put the white aggressor in handcuffs.
You realise that the example you provided does not meet that description, right?
The victim was dead then! Your only nitpick here is that the victim was too dead to be put in handcuffs so it didn't count?
It's not a "nitpick". It's the exact thing I was repeatedly asking you for, which you have yet to provide.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
4hr ago
I find it profoundly petty that, when someone makes a prediction which, decades hence, is soundly vindicated, you rap them on the knuckles for not showing their workings.
Well, the reason I think Powell's speech was so prophetic was that he understood perfectly the kind of slippery slope the UK had begun toboganning down. You are entirely correct that, at the time of writing, no one was calling for the execution (or even imprisonment) of white Britons who don't want to rent out rooms to black people. But in modern Britain, plenty of people have been arrested, convicted and even imprisoned for vastly less severe "infractions" than this, "infractions" which amount to thoughtcrime against the prevailing regime.
Maybe you think that a woman who doesn't want to rent out rooms in her boarding house to black men is just a racist and if she doesn't like it, tough. But you don't have to sympathise with her in particular to recognise Powell's broader point: if you think it's going to stop there, you are staggeringly naïve. And he was absolutely right – it did not stop there.
As I mentioned in the above links, a man was jailed for eight weeks for the "crime" of sharing a meme depicting Pakistani men armed with knives arriving to the UK in boats, with the caption "coming to a town near you". In my view, he should have not been sent to prison, and the fact that he was is a grotesque, unconscionable violation of his civil rights. Maybe you think forcing women to rent out rooms to black people doesn't inevitably lead to white Britons being arrested and imprisoned for any and all criticisms of diversity, immigration etc. Maybe it doesn't lead "inevitably" to police officers handcuffing a white stabbing victim while his Indian murderer gloats about how he done a racism. But at this point, whether the one "inevitably" leads to the other is sort of academic. Powell predicted that, at least in this case, one would lead to the other. He was right and it did. That's why it's called the "rivers of blood" speech, because Powell felt a great foreboding: not that the anecdotes he described are bad in and of themselves (they are, as you put it, almost quaint), but that they bode extremely ill for the direction the UK would take in the coming decades.
No, I'm pissed at him for moving the goalposts then accusing me of doing the same thing.
Multiple people have independently expressed the opinion to me that MKC is an alt account. Initially, I didn't believe it. However, on multiple occasions @guesswho wrote a very long and poorly argued comment for which he received a great deal of pushback, most of which he didn't bother replying to, airily announcing that he's too busy to because of his job and family. (Strange how his professional and familial obligations only ever seem to spring up when people are criticising his specious reasoning.) And that pattern of behaviour is so specific that when MKC used exactly the same line in the same circumstances, that clinched it for me: there's no longer any doubt in my mind. I replied to that specific comment because that specific comment was a dead giveaway: I am not "following him around" picking fights on every comment he leaves.
I think using alt accounts is fundamentally opposed to the ethos of this space: you should know who you're arguing with. Creating a new account so you can express the exact same opinions but without the baggage of the old account hardly seems like arguing in good faith. Although the mods have banned sockpuppets before, they don't seem to think that alt accounts in general are bad, but that's their prerogative. But I think there's no harm in people being aware of who they're interacting with.
More options
Context Copy link