Controversial views

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Tis.  I just find it hard to support terrorist groups even when I agree with their political goals.  Their murdering of civilians precludes me from saying 'Up the IRA'.  I confess to being surprised to hear you voice support for the UDA.

Boru

I don't think the UDA is what it used to be. Since major figures either died or were exiled from Northern Ireland (Mad Dog and Skelly for example) the UDA has just turned into drug dealing criminals. It's no longer about protecting communities like it used to be. Even Skelly and Mad Dog have said this themselves. And hell not just the UDA, but all loyalist groups these days are like this.

But I still firmly support their political aims; and if violence is nessecary to defend Ulster then so be it.

I am friends with people who have confessed some support for the IRA. I don't like their views and they probably don't like mine but we have a bit of banter over it.

I call him a fenian and they call me an orange bastard. All in fun I guess.

Hmm, and does it really come as a surprise?

It does indeed. Personally, I wouldn't trust a para - from either side, active or not - as far as I could comfortably spit a rat.

And, just for the record, the UDA were never about 'protecting communities'. There were about killing civilians to 'send a message'.

Boru

[account_inactive]

[redacted]

[Tiberius]

Not sure if it's controversial or not, but I don't think that the justice system (from the police all the way to the courts) should publish identifying information about people on trial until they have been convicted.

By "publish", I mean let the general public know, and effectively make it an jailable offence for anyone who does (e.g. journalists).

It's controversial because freedom of the press, etc. However I think that too many innocent people get their lives ruined by media-supported witchhunts, especially when they are wrongly linked to really serious crimes (murder, rape, etc).

[brewer]

I'm one of the few conservatives here.

Comment was a minor joke, unbunch your knickers.

Apologies.

No apologies necessary.

As a white male in the USA, whose families did not immigrate until the early 1900's, I'm associated with race issues my family had nothing to do with simply by being white. Slavery and the native american assimilation/elimination policy naming just two. Am I personally responsible, no. Am I assumed to be a racist, sometimes, which is not necessarily right but I find understandable considering the history. Do I condone the actions of the past, never.

If you want to honor the men/women on an individual level I've got no issue. I would have an issue if the actions were honored. End of story.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not sure if it's controversial or not, but I don't think that the justice system (from the police all the way to the courts) should publish identifying information about people on trial until they have been convicted.

By "publish", I mean let the general public know, and effectively make it an jailable offence for anyone who does (e.g. journalists).

It's controversial because freedom of the press, etc. However I think that too many innocent people get their lives ruined by media-supported witchhunts, especially when they are wrongly linked to really serious crimes (murder, rape, etc).

Too right. I've hear it said - not completely cynically - that a man is innocent until his name appears in the press along with the phrase '...is alleged to have...'.

Boru

[robvalue]

Not sure if it's controversial or not, but I don't think that the justice system (from the police all the way to the courts) should publish identifying information about people on trial until they have been convicted.

By "publish", I mean let the general public know, and effectively make it an jailable offence for anyone who does (e.g. journalists).

It's controversial because freedom of the press, etc. However I think that too many innocent people get their lives ruined by media-supported witchhunts, especially when they are wrongly linked to really serious crimes (murder, rape, etc).

Absolutely! I totally agree. Anyone can be accused of any horse shit. The press should not be allowed to mention any names until someone is found guilty. Up until then, it's just allegations. It makes me sick that people can go through hell, doubly so, for something they didn't do.

The public does not need to know who is on trial.

[Tiberius]

The counterpoint to my own position (other than freedom of the press) is that publishing a name of the accused may allow other victims to come forward which could help strengthen the case against the accused.

[robvalue]

Hmm...

Yeah, I suppose so. It could also encourage false bollocks. I think on balance I'd protect the identity of the accused. There should already be a case in place if it's even going to trial.

[Regina]

Ok this one is probably going to rile people up but it just occurred to me in light of Prince dying

I hate when a celebrity dies, and suddenly all these pseudo-fans, mostly who are too young to remember the celebrities' glory days, come out the woodwork like "OHMARGERD I LURVED [insert celebrity here]"



Bitch no you didn't, you're suddenly just a fan now they're dead so you can be in the loop. Millennials just want to be in the loop, nothing can happen on social media where they're not involved or they feel some type of way.

Pay your respects and be considerate about the death, but all this extraness where you're pretending like you always rode so hard for this celebrity is just too much. You didn't give a shit about a Prince, a David Bowie or a Michael Jackson before they died, let's be real. It's a lot to be giving people when you're 12 and your parents were probably little children themselves when these celebs were at their zenith.

[account_inactive]

Groups like ANTIFA are fascists themselves.