Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[muppet]

More embarrassment for the Bomber:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/32/enacted/en/print#sec1

'a rape offence' means any of the following, namely, rape, attempted rape, burglary with intent to commit rape, aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring rape, attempted rape or burglary with intent to commit rape, and incitement to rape and, other than in sections 2 (2) and 8 of this Act, rape under section 4 , attempted rape under section 4 , aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring rape under section 4 or attempted rape under section 4 and incitement to rape under section 4 ;

[Il Bomber Destro]

Do you understand this: 'penetration (however slight) by any object held or manipulated by another person'
and this: 'A person guilty of rape under section 4 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.'

Full Rape is covered under a different section. Section 4 expands for 'however slight' and has a maximum sentence of life. Attempted rape could, depending on the case, easily fall under section 4.


Again, I have condemned Ring over an over again.

Once again, I condemn John Ring for his sexual assault.

Quote this post and say I didn't.......again. 

You cannot condemn sexual assault if it involves your own. That is the double standard you live by.

Keep them coming. 

That's the first time you have actually condemned him, so quit your fibbing about having previously done it.

The facade of smileys do not camouflage the conflicition of double standards you hide behind. You've had to be brought round in circles to come out and finally condemn actions of sex offenders in your own back yard:

a) you claimed to be unaware of them
b) you tried to hide behind catch all statements
c) you attempted to debate semantics on the charge

Finally after all these steps you eventually came out and condemned it along with a barrage of smileys and an incorrect statment that you had done it before.

This fits in with the pattern we see of you being at the forefront of any sort of  any sort of allegation with regard the IRA or Adams yet how you hope other scandals closer to home and that deal with establishment parties and their potential influence go without comment of outrage or disgust on at the time.

Do you think he got away with it? Do you think his probationary sentence was a shocking injustice?

[muppet]

Yes, I never heard of it until now.

I condemn all sexual abuse. But you won't.

I have already condemned any sexual abuse, as described in the article. I note you have only condemned political opponents sexual abuse, but not SF/IRA sexual abuse.

I can happily condemn every sexual abuser from any party and every murderer from anywhere. But you can't if they are associated with your party.

Regardless of your confusion though, sexually assaulting a 17 year old girl is despicable behaviour.

Bring up any case of murder, sexual assault, drug dealing and racketeering or whatever, and I will condemn it. You can't do that, just in case it involves one of your boys. That is the double standard.

As for condemning John Ring, I have done that over and over and you ignore it as usual, because you have to ignore Sinn Féin terrible failures in this area. I condemn all sexual abuse, whether it is any someone from Fine Gael, Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein.

Again, I have condemned Ring over an over again.

Once again, I condemn John Ring for his sexual assault.

That's the first time you have actually condemned him, so quit your fibbing about having previously done it.

[muppet]

On a very serious note........to all sensible posters.

This post:

You believe Brian Stack's murder had nothing to do with the violent beatings he was responsible for dishing out to republican prisoners?/

Not that it justifies it but it clearly wasn't an indiscriminate murder.

Is this information in the public domain?

[Il Bomber Destro]

Yes, I never heard of it until now.

I condemn all sexual abuse. But you won't.

I have already condemned any sexual abuse, as described in the article. I note you have only condemned political opponents sexual abuse, but not SF/IRA sexual abuse.

I can happily condemn every sexual abuser from any party and every murderer from anywhere. But you can't if they are associated with your party.

Regardless of your confusion though, sexually assaulting a 17 year old girl is despicable behaviour.

Bring up any case of murder, sexual assault, drug dealing and racketeering or whatever, and I will condemn it. You can't do that, just in case it involves one of your boys. That is the double standard.

As for condemning John Ring, I have done that over and over and you ignore it as usual, because you have to ignore Sinn Féin terrible failures in this area. I condemn all sexual abuse, whether it is any someone from Fine Gael, Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein.

Again, I have condemned Ring over an over again.

Once again, I condemn John Ring for his sexual assault.

That's the first time you have actually condemned him, so quit your fibbing about having previously done it.

Catch all statement, followed by a catch all statement, followed by a catch all statement, followed by another catch all statement, followed by a fifth catch all statement, then followed by an incorrect assertion you had already condemned John Ring, followed by another incorrect assertion you had condemned John Ring before finally at the 8th attempt eventually condemning John Ring.

It shouldn't have had to have been that hard for you to come out and condemn John Ring, yet it was and it was done in the mire of you trying to diminish the act that he committed.

[muppet]

Do you understand what a 'catch all' statement is? 
There are no caveats. It doesn't exclude anyone. Especially the abuse we have been talking about. 

Then you claimed I tried to diminish what he did. That never happened. You lied about the category of offence and I corrected you, while still condemning all sexual abuse.

The only way John Ring would be exempt from my condemnation in the above posts, would be if he hadn't done it. But, as stated in the link I posted, he admitted his guilt to a charge of sexual assault. I even added the line 'Regardless of your confusion though, sexually assaulting a 17 year old girl is despicable behaviour.'..... and yet still you think I was somehow not criticising him.

The mind truly boggles.

[Il Bomber Destro]

Do you understand what a 'catch all' statement is? 
There are no caveats. It doesn't exclude anyone. Especially the abuse we have been talking about. 

Then you claimed I tried to diminish what he did. That never happened. You lied about the category of offence and I corrected you, while still condemning all sexual abuse.

The only way John Ring would be exempt from my condemnation in the above posts, would be if he hadn't done it. But, as stated in the link I posted, he admitted his guilt to a charge of sexual assault. I even added the line 'Regardless of your confusion though, sexually assaulting a 17 year old girl is despicable behaviour.'..... and yet still you think I was somehow not criticising him.

The mind truly boggles.

You made catch all statements in order to avoid making specific reference to that case. A complete double standard in contrast to your incessant contributions to acts committed by the IRA and inferences made about Adams in this thread. Why has it taken you this long to speak out about John Ring?

Your card has been marked, you will now be held to them in the future.

[muppet]

Do you understand what a 'catch all' statement is? 
There are no caveats. It doesn't exclude anyone. Especially the abuse we have been talking about. 

Then you claimed I tried to diminish what he did. That never happened. You lied about the category of offence and I corrected you, while still condemning all sexual abuse.

The only way John Ring would be exempt from my condemnation in the above posts, would be if he hadn't done it. But, as stated in the link I posted, he admitted his guilt to a charge of sexual assault. I even added the line 'Regardless of your confusion though, sexually assaulting a 17 year old girl is despicable behaviour.'..... and yet still you think I was somehow not criticising him.

The mind truly boggles.

You made catch all statements in order to avoid making specific reference to that case. A complete double standard in contrast to your incessant contributions to acts committed by the IRA and inferences made about Adams in this thread. Why has it taken you this long to speak out about John Ring?

Your card has been marked, you will now be held to them in the future.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/all

Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing

'All sexual abuse' does not exclude ANY sexual abuse cases. How hard can this be for you?

You have to make up the claim that I must have heard this before and am lying when I say I didn't.
You have to make up the claim that by condemning ALL SEXUAL ABUSE, I somehow wasn't condemning this one.


Y'know, I'm guessing you are not a real bomber. 

[Il Bomber Destro]

Do you understand what a 'catch all' statement is? 
There are no caveats. It doesn't exclude anyone. Especially the abuse we have been talking about. 

Then you claimed I tried to diminish what he did. That never happened. You lied about the category of offence and I corrected you, while still condemning all sexual abuse.

The only way John Ring would be exempt from my condemnation in the above posts, would be if he hadn't done it. But, as stated in the link I posted, he admitted his guilt to a charge of sexual assault. I even added the line 'Regardless of your confusion though, sexually assaulting a 17 year old girl is despicable behaviour.'..... and yet still you think I was somehow not criticising him.

The mind truly boggles.

You made catch all statements in order to avoid making specific reference to that case. A complete double standard in contrast to your incessant contributions to acts committed by the IRA and inferences made about Adams in this thread. Why has it taken you this long to speak out about John Ring?

Your card has been marked, you will now be held to them in the future.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/all

Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing

'All sexual abuse' does not exclude ANY sexual abuse cases. How hard can this be for you?

You have to make up the claim that I must have heard this before and am lying when I say I didn't.
You have to make up the claim that by condemning ALL SEXUAL ABUSE, I somehow wasn't condemning this one.


Y'know, I'm guessing you are not a real bomber. 

I said you used catch all statements five times when asked to comment on an individual case - a bizarre response from yourself. I didn't ask you to comment on all cases, I asked you to comment on a specific case you had never discussed before and you felt the need to bring in every case in that regard.

The reality of this matter is the particular case I referred to was carried out by a man from your county who happened to be the brother of a government minister and there wasn't a dicky bird out of you about it?

A blatant double standard, just like how you contributed to the Mary Boyle case but refused to comment on the alleged role of an active establishment party member is thwarting justice.

These are things that you can't change and your card has been marked.

[muppet]

I said you used catch all statements five times when asked to comment on an individual case - a bizarre response from yourself. I didn't ask you to comment on all cases, I asked you to comment on a specific case you had never discussed before and you felt the need to bring in every case in that regard.

It isn't bizarre. It is completely consistent. It is not only condemning what you asked me to condemn, it is condemning everyone else who ever did the same thing. It condemns them all. It is the absolute opposite of double standards. But you are too stupid to understand this. And thus, incredibly, you accuse me of double standards. It is so ridiculous an argument that I can't stop laughing thinking about it. 

[quit yo jibbajabba]

Il Bomber Destro(yed by Muppet)

Ye may stick till the rugby lad

[Il Bomber Destro]

I said you used catch all statements five times when asked to comment on an individual case - a bizarre response from yourself. I didn't ask you to comment on all cases, I asked you to comment on a specific case you had never discussed before and you felt the need to bring in every case in that regard.

It isn't bizarre. It is completely consistent. It is not only condemning what you asked me to condemn, it is condemning everyone else who ever did the same thing. It condemns them all. It is the absolute opposite of double standards. But you are too stupid to understand this. And thus, incredibly, you accuse me of double standards. It is so ridiculous an argument that I can't stop laughing thinking about it. 

It is bizarrre.

On one hand you pursue incidents with the IRA and Adams and express your outrage and disgust at specific incidents very frequently going by your input in this thread.

On the other hand, you ignore incidents with links to establishment parties, refuse to make comments on them until cornered into, then proceed to make catchall statements rather than address the issue you have been asked to apply your standards too.

Why did we not hear a dicky bird out of you in the Mary Boyle thread regarding your outrage and disgust? You posted on the thread but you made no judgement, instead you proffered libel. Libel hasn't stopped you making unsubstantiated claims against Gerry Adams. Libel seems to be yet another double standard of your, a nice accompaniment to your double standards of outrage and disgusts. With John Ring you dealt in catchall statements and not specific reference to that case, you also looked to delve into the world of semantics, neither come into the equation with Adams and the IRA .

It's bizarre when it's stacked up with your protestations.

The facade of smileys don't hide your inability to explain this.

[Orior]

Does Adams know the damage he is doing to the party by hanging around? He should have stepped down over 5-6 years ago.

What is he waiting on?

[maigheo]

Bomber give it up.You are going around in circles and you had lost this argument about 3 pages ago.I am from Mayo ,tho living outside the county and had never heard of the Ring case until now.

[muppet]

I have explained this. Over and over again as I have demonstrated over and over again.

I have condemned all murders and all sexual abuse.

You can't do the same, so you are trapped in your own sad circular logic. 

Furthermore, you are also guilty of reductio ad absurdum because you pretend that if I haven't condemned every murder, then I can't condemn any.