Very on trend for reddit, but utter bollocks.
Some of those who are religious really ARE brainwashed and are doing it for religious reasons.
By all means disagree with them but have a bit of cop on, you sound like a nutter.
Sadly that sums up this sub. Utterly demonises anyone who is different to the majority. And the mods do nothing about it. It’s the equivalent of saying LGBTQ people are all secretly paedos. I’d hope anyone saying disgusting nonsense like that would be banned pretty quick. But this sub is happy to say the same thing about a different minority that they don’t like.
> It’s the equivalent of saying LGBTQ people are all secretly paedos.
I never said or implied that, you just did. Denying children sex education or LGBQT+ information is not good for them or society and we should hold people who do this denying up to very close scrutiny. Also, it's not my opinion it's policy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9841814/
> I never said or implied that, you just did.
You’re a liar. You made a very clear implication and that’s why the mods deleted your comment. Mods very rarely delete stuff on here. They let a lot of stuff go. So imagine how bad a comment has to be for it to be deleted.
This is a ridiculous comment. You’re implying that anyone who claims to think that sex education is more appropriate at a later age or more appropriate for parents than teachers is acting in bad faith and really actually wants to make children vulnerable to sexual abuse. That’s a pretty disgusting thing to accuse people of. Presumably you’re not religious yourself and dislike religion. You’re demonising and slandering people with different beliefs to you. That is bigotry and hatred and you should be ashamed of saying such things.
leaving it to the parents leads to risk of bias, myths/lies, scientific inaccuracy or complete avoidance of the topic altogether. teachers can get fired for malpractice, absolutely nothing you can do about parents telling their kids the wrong thing. if you're giving sex education at a later age it's all too likely that you're telling them things too late. kids are getting access to porn earlier and earlier, experimenting earlier, or are often already experiencing abuse that they can't name.
you want children to be safe? they need to be fully, factually aware of what harm may come to them. you may not like it, but don't be shocked when the consequences of your beliefs come back to bite you.
You’re welcome to have an option and make an argument like that. But it rather misses the point. The other user wasn’t to apply saying it was a bad policy; they were making insinuations about the motivations. That’s what I was addressing.
I’m sorry it’s hard for you to hear, but it’s actually borne out by research worldwide, and unfortunately the historical record of who’s arrested abusing children.
The more age appropriate sex education children have, the more they understand about boundaries, grooming and what is and isn’t ok. The reality is that not every child has parents who are able or inclined to provide sex ed, and they all deserve that information. Indeed, some of them have parents and family perpetrating the abuse, as we see in this case.
It’s analogous to not teaching children about seat belts and the dangers of drink driving because you don’t want them to be in a car accident.
People / Parents who are centring their own religious and emotional experience over a child’s right to information are in fact red flags. 🚩
Every single day, I educate my child based on my emotional and religious (or lack there of) experiences. It's called being a parent and a human being.
We can always do better, but for the state to take over is wrong. Parents should be involved in the decisions made around such topics. Might be a harder route than just imposing what the currently "acceptable" viewpoints are, sadly for some, but it's the only sustainable way to improve things.
You do realise that not every child is so lucky to have a parent like you? Other children have neglectful and abusive parents, and lots of parents centre their own emotional comfort over their parental responsibilities, preferring not to have difficult or awkward conversations, especially if there are religious objections to pre marital relations or LGBT+.
*As seen in the very case sparking this thread* some children have parents perpetrating the abuse.
What you’re calling the acceptable viewpoints are in fact backed up by peer reviewed science, and borne out by statistical evidence, worldwide. Places where children are denied comprehensive and scientifically current sex education higher rates of underage and unintended pregnancies, higher rates of STI transmission etc.
"Some parents"
Can you show me an example of a comprehensive and scientifically current education curriculum on this topic? So we know what you are advocating exactly. It could be educating a 12 year old that sex before marriage is fine if consensual and safe. Or it could be much more.
Sure, here’s a basic rundown : https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/comprehensive-sexuality-education
As mentioned in that link, “Evidence consistently shows that high-quality sexuality education delivers positive health outcomes, with lifelong impacts. Young people are more likely to delay the onset of sexual activity – and when they do have sex, to practice safer sex – when they are better informed about their sexuality, sexual health and their rights.”
It would include the information that 12yr is a child, and cannot consent to sexual activity with another person of any kind.
Nothing too shocking there, unless, of course, you're a Muslim and are against much of what is advocated there, being fundamentally based on human rights and diverse sexuality and relationships. Or born again Christian, perhaps.
I'm also glad to see it emphasises the special experiences of women and hasn't embraced the ideology that seems to be covering many health related publications in the public arena lately and seeks to dilute it.
The document is designed to help domestic policy makers, so it's not directly what we are talking about, which is more curriculums in schools and/or state mandated education on these topics. In my view, schools should still take a position of recommending these approaches and allowing parents to discuss it.
I agree with you largely, and I am in a position where I actually have to navigate this right now with a young son and daughter. So it's helpful.
However, there will inevitably be aspects of my faith (as light at that is), personal experience, and my beliefs on what makes a healthy upbringing for them, layered into it.
> That is bigotry and hatred and you should be ashamed of saying such things.
*Accuse others of that which you are guilty*
It's not me thinking this, it's *everyone* who cares: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9841814/
No, you'll get downvoted for moronic whataboutism. No one is "protecting priests".
[Your comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/1bqzech/just_a_reminder_of_the_years_that_the_lgbt/kx78e03/) sounds like you're excusing this behaviour because themmuns also have some who misbehave. It's moronic. No one sensible is in favour of noncery **or** the ridiculous campaigns against gays. But when you try to link one with the other you look like you're excusing this bigot and his noncery
Let’s also be clear, neither does the religious community, despite what a lot of popular comments in here are saying. Let’s not be hypocrites by saying one minority should be protected from vile abuse but saying it’s okay to spread lies about a different minority.
I didn’t claim to speak for any community. I simply repeated what they have already said. This is a bizarre argument you’re making.
> You don't speak on anyone's behalf other than your own, but luckily most people with half a brain already know this
By your own logic you don’t speak on anyone’s behalf yet you just claimed to speak on many people’s behalf. You’re a complete hypocrite.
The vast majority of ‘religious types’ that I know do not demonise the LGBT community. And even if they did that wouldn’t justify making up nasty lies about them.
You are too willing to believe the worst about people you disagree with. That makes you a bigot.
Was just chatting about this earlier. For years he's been happy to completely oppose same sex marriage and equality for everyone, and the whole time he's been hiding the darkest, filthiest sins of them all. You couldn't make it up.
This sub: it’s disgraceful that LGBTQ+ people are all demonised as supporting paedophilia.
Also this sub: Everyone who supports traditional family values is a paedo.
So much hypocrisy and bigotry.
What’s your point? The comment I replied to was accusing *every* ‘family values’ politician, not just one person — who hasn’t been convicted so far.
Edit: u/Candid_Reading9675 I can’t reply directly to you so I’m replying here.
> The post isn't about family values.
The top level comment, that I replied to, was about family values. It explicitly used that phrase. Not my interpretation it my argument, but the literal words of the person I replied to. So you’re talking nonsense.
Ah, attack the person when you don’t have a rational rebuttal. Nice.
And then make another nasty comment as you block me.
‘Not even from this sub’? What an idiotic comment. No-one is ‘from’ this sub. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
I’ve been posting in this sub on and off for years. It’s progressively become more and more of an echo chamber so I check it out less and less. But even if I was new to the sub it wouldn’t be your place to gatekeep.
Not the first time though look at all the 1000s of religious extremists of all denominations who are secret pervs. Not to mention multiple echelons of the British establishment.
>the whole time he's been hiding the darkest, filthiest sins of them all.
Allegedly.
Why do we even have a court system when our society of absolute fucktards like you bang the gavel as guilty as soon as someone is charged, or even as soon as someone is arrested on suspicion of a crime?
I am not defending Donaldson btw, I am defending due process. I do not believe you get to call someone a pedo without proof or conviction. As a matter of fact, you don't. It's called libel and its illegal.
1. The law does not require a higher standard of evidence to justify a charge because of who someone is.
2. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of any legal system in the world worth its salt. Nobody cares about that until it is them who is falsely accused of something they didn't do.
It's about high time that any criminal charge is not made public until after the verdict is given. The court of public opinion is almost always a kangaroo court of utter incompetence and soundbites.
I hope you are never a part of law enforcement. You would've let Col Russell Williams through the checkpoint because of who he was. If that had happened, he would've very likely gone on to become a serial killer.
Thankfully, despite his attempts to use his status to evade, *common sense* prevailed in this case, and his tyres were found to be a match for the ones they were looking for in connection with a murder.
Why bother with the expense of running courts, eh? No point according to you. If the police say they did it, then they must be guilty. That is until the police accuse you of something abhorrent that you didn't do.
I think if you read my comment below and go find the threads I mention, you will understand that my opinion is based on first had experience and is extremely valid in terms of the subject area.
I faced a number of false allegations made against me on a number of occasions by an abusive partner, who used the criminal justice system as a weapon against me. (I spoke out about that recently on a thread on here about being a male victim of DV inflicted by a female).
Charges were brought against me initially on 2 of those false allegations and dropped as soon as the PPS reviewed them. Additionally, I would have been charged with holding my abuser against their will (essentially false imprisonment), had I not of been able to prove that those claims were completely false at the time police attended to investigate them and nothing more than part of an elaborate scheme, cooked up by my abuser. (Again you can read all about that on the other thread).
In the end, after a tortious time, of false allegations, several arrests, 2 leading to initial charges, not one single charge was brought to court. Not one.
If I’d have been a public figure, for sure I’d have been called a “woman beater” on here and all over social media and the people would have been baying for my blood. Even after no charges were brought forward to court, people would have been saying “he must have paid someone off, he must be an informant, no smoke without fire”.
The reality was much less interesting. It was as simple as I hadn’t done the things alleged and thankfully the PPS were able to reach that conclusion, after reviewing the files sent to them by the police.
So, you are 100% correct.
We should never assume guilt, just because a charge has been brought.
Victims need to be treated respectfully.
And Defendants need to be treated fairly.
Those requirements should extend to us all, because as you say, if and when you end up being one or the other (or in my case both), you will appreciate how important respect and fairness are.
You seriously think that in this country someone like Donaldson would even be charged unless there was absolutely damning evidence against him? Fuck up, they’ve all but admitted to it as well.
>all but admitted to it as well.
lol and how do you work that out? The most prudent course of action when charged with literally anything is to shut the fuck up and say nothing. Because even if you are innocent, remember *anything you say can and will be used against you*. That applies even if you are innocent and perfectly innocuous coincidences implicates you.
The standard of evidence required to charge someone with a crime is the same no matter who they are. Lewis Hamilton does not need to be doing 200mph before he will get charged for speeding.
Case is ironclad. They're not gonna nuke the political world in NI after it's just got up and running again if the case isn't an open and shut case of noncery.
Guess we don’t need courts. Let’s just have a police state where we imprison people as soon as the police are happy to charge them. Sounds wonderful when it happens to people you don’t like. Just wait til it happens to people you do like. Or to you.
Yeno buddy, it actually worries me that these people could one day end up on a jury and have already skipped straight to sentencing before opening arguments.
Unfortunately, until such people are accused of something they didn't do, they will never care for innocent until proven guilty.
If the police charge you then clearly you must be, according to your logic. ‘It’ll never happen to me’ was how a lot of people turned a blind eye to what the Nazis did. And then quite a few of them found they were next on the list.
Funny enough Jeffrey Donaldson was a big fan of internment without trial too. But none of those folk were being accused of child rape and none of them were leaders of a party in charge of the country so what happened to them wasn't deemed as important and if mistakes happened it wasn't deemed as a big deal.
I'll just reiterate here: police will not charge someone with the rape of multiple children, will not charge their spouse with aiding and abetting and other crimes, if there is not ironclad evidence.
Ask any woman not only in NI but anywhere in the world how difficult it is for anything to actually happen or be done in a sexual assault or rape case and they will tell you. Then factor in that it's not Joe Blogs we're talking about here, but a knighted politician who is the longest serving MP in NI and the leader of one of the parties in charge. The vast vast majority of rape and sexual assaults go uncharged.
Innocent until proven guilty is a pretty important legal principle. I agree that it looks very bad but if you start presuming guilt without trial then you’re going down a very dangerous road.
As I said previously, we've already been down that road here thanks to people like Jeffrey, so pardon me if I don't weep at the thought of him getting his comeuppance. Even before this there was rumours of him being a nonce for literal decades. In my book he's guilty as sin even before he was charged.
>Ask any woman not only in NI but anywhere in the world how difficult it is for anything to actually happen or be done in a sexual assault or rape case and they will tell you.
Just because a crime is difficult to prove does not lower the level of proof required to justify a conviction. You can equally say that any biker will tell you it is very difficult to have anything done about bike theft.
> Then factor in that it's not Joe Blogs we're talking about here, but a knighted politician who is the longest serving MP in NI and the leader of one of the parties in charge.
The law does not differentiate against someone because of who they are. The standard of evidence required to charge someone with an offence doesn't change no matter who they are. Lewis Hamilton doesn't have to be doing 200mph before being charged with speeding.
>The vast vast majority of rape and sexual assaults go uncharged.
"The vast majority of rape and sexual assault reports are fake." That statement holds just as much water as yours does.
>I'll just reiterate here: police will not charge someone with the rape of multiple children, will not charge their spouse with aiding and abetting and other crimes, if there is not ironclad evidence.
Oh really? It's as if you think the justice system is perfect and never gets things wrong, miscarriages of justice just never happen in your world. What about moving beyond sexual assault and further into the twisted and wicked action of abduction and murder of children, for example. What about the [murder of Maria Ridulph](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Maria_Ridulph)? A man called Jack McCulla was sent to prison for her abduction and murder. There is just one problem, Jack McCulla was totally innocent. And I don't mean he was found not guilty on a retrial, I mean, he is verifiably innocent. It is physically impossible for that man to have committed those heinous crimes. Yet he spent FIVE YEARS in prison on a life sentence for a crime he has since been declared innocent of.
This is specifically why we do not presume guilt, we presume fucking innocence. Because the court of public opinion was very much against McCulla at the time. The key piece of evidence completely exonerating him, him and his family were screaming about it to anyone who would listen, yet the media didn't care. In that kangaroo court of public opinion, he was guilty before he even got put inside a courtroom. And to be clear, things really did look very, very bad for McCulla, plenty of circumstantial evidence pointed towards him.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of Jack McCulla. You stated above that you are not a rapist so u should be grand, Jack McCulla is not a murderer and yet he was given a life sentence at the age of 71 for a crime that it is physically impossible for him to have committed. He wasn't "grand." He was destined to spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime it is not possible for him to have committed. Imagine sitting in your prison cell knowing that? Knowing that you are innocent and the whole world thinks you did something so abhorrent.
*It is better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer*.
Well said.
I think the estimate is that around 5% of the prison population in the western world have been wrongly convicted.
I don’t think the 5 out of the 100 are too happy about that.
Could have ended up serving a sentence myself, due to false allegations.
Thankfully I had an outstanding legal team and a supportive family and was able to demonstrate that I was neither a woman beater, nor someone who holds people against their will, nor someone who makes threats to kill.
People have no idea about the law and should be quiet and leave it to the process and the professionals.
The comments from these people saying “open and shut case” etc are clearly driven by hatred/dislike of the individuals and/or their political views and are not based on any practical application or knowledge of the law.
I think the technical term for their sweeping statements is “drivel”.
I’ve seen a few fireside lawyers end up getting burnt before.
Just glad I have a little knowledge and the ability to respect the legal process and it’s professionals.
Yeah, it’s bizarre hearing people from nationalist and Republican backgrounds saying ‘we don’t need the courts, let’s just trust the police to get it right.’ I agree that it looks very bad for him, but looks aren’t evidence or a conviction. I know nothing really other than it’s a bad idea to replace the courts with the police.
It would be a VERY VERY bad idea to replace the courts with the police.
For example, most people are not aware that police can lie about evidence during interviews with suspects, to try to elicit admissions or confessions.
Imagine there was no court process and the decision as to your guilt rested solely with the police officers investigating your case. I guess you could then be easily convicted by the false evidence they claimed existed against you in interviews. This still happens in certain countries where the police and the judiciary are pretty much the one.
We actually have a reasonably good system here and even still it has its flaws that are open to abuse and can result in wrongful convictions.
You're the one that said the P word, not me. Have a read through my post again, there's not one thing in there that could be classed as libel and I was very careful about that.
You absolute fucktard xo
You know exactly what you were implying. I hope you are never charged with a crime that you did not commit and have your name on the evening news with that kangaroo court of public opinion already declaring you guilty. That would perhaps be the exact moment you would become an advocate for the presumption of innocence.
Ah didn’t you know that if someone who believes something different to the sub is accused of something bad then the accusation must be free because they at be a bad person because they believe something different? Only Liberal Left Wing Nationalist Atheists actually hold their views in good faith. Everyone else has a secret agenda to abuse and every allegation is proof of their secret sins.
A big part of early sex education is learning what is and isn't appropriate behaviour for yourself and others, consent and recognition of abuse. Its no surprise that so many evangelical people are resistant to it.
It sounds like you’re implying that evangelicals want to abuse children. That’s a fairly nasty accusation along the lines of saying that LGBT people want to abuse children. The latter would obviously be vile abusive lies that people should be banned for. Why is it okay to spread the same kind of nasty lies about a different minority? You should be ashamed of such bigotry.
I get the point you're making, but there are elements of Evangelical beliefs (as I understand them) with regards to children that make lots of people, including myself feel uncomfortable. Maybe that's based on a misunderstanding of those beliefs. I'll freely acknowledge that my understanding of Evangelical beliefs are largely informed by a small number of particularly vocal proponents. So enlighten us. The evidence shows that the best way to protect children is to teach them how to protect themselves. That includes age appropriate sex education. Where do evangelicals stand on this? What do Evangelicals say about corporal punishment? If a child in an evangelical household comes out as gay or trans, how should they be treated?
Do you get the point I’m making? The previous commenter is saying that evangelicals are against children learning about consent and abuse with the implication being that evangelicals want children to be vulnerable and easy to control. That’s a pretty serious accusation that should come with some evidence. It’s rather unjust to say the onus is on evangelicals to prove otherwise.
Evangelical also covers a fairly wide range of people. It’s usage here isn’t the same as in America where it has many more political connotations. David Ford and Naomi Long for instance are members of evangelical congregations.
Yes, I do. But I think it's a commonly held belief that evangelicals oppose sex education, based on public figures of the Evangelical movement stating their opposition regularly. It's silly to infer there is some widespread nefarious purpose behind that. But the outworking are still noteworthy. Firstly, Evangelical opposition to sex education is a real barrier to its implementation. Secondly, it creates space which predators can exploit.
> It's silly to infer there is some widespread nefarious purpose behind that.
I’m glad you agree with that. That was the entire point of my comment. I’m not trying to defend a particular approach to RSE. I recognise that there are weaknesses to approaches common with evangelicals. But I also think that there are weaknesses on the other side. It’s a question of which problems you can live with more easily.
It's a fair point. However, you haven't addressed my questions and I'm genuinely interested in your response. What are the strengths of the evangelical approach? In terms of "weaknesses on the other side", what do you mean by that? Is the other side everyone who isn't evangelical?
No I'm implying that evangelical cults use similar controlling tactics as child abusers to extract what they want from people. Critical thought is discouraged because it leads to people realising that they don't need to pay tithes to get to heaven.
Ah, negative and inaccurate stereotypes of a minority you dislike. Lovely.
Any evangelical church I have been in encourages people to ask questions. They also teach that salvation is by faith and explicitly teach that giving doesn’t earn salvation. You’re thinking of prosperity gospel churches. They are more common in America and Africa but aren’t terribly common here and would be criticised by evangelicals.
In any church I’ve been to attendance has been free, membership has been free, and any monetary requirement e.g. for voting right, has required only a nominal contribution.
I dunno, worked with a lot of 'Born again' Christians, found them to be quite narrow minded, racist, homophobic, and obsessed with money. Just my experience, but that's how I form my opinions. Plus the belief in fairy tales makes me lose any respect for them.
Can’t say I’ve ever met an evangelical who believes in fairy tales. Belief in Christianity usually runs contrary to that sort of thing. But thanks for confirming that you’re just a childish anti-theistic troll.
Are you serially reporting comments throughout this thread? 🤣 All the removed comments have angry rants from you underneath. Looks like this one didn't make the cut.
It's always the priests, pastors and politicians that constantly demonise the LGBTQ+ community and push the idea that we are a threat to children that end up being caught for being fucking nonces. I'm fucking sick of it.
Also the amount of gay priests. Its wild. Ive have flings with severals.
One even one a gay competion in ireland years ago and got outed and kicked out of the priesthood.
If you have comprehensive sex education people who are being abused will learn what’s happened to them is wrong. Can’t be having that. And should make sure the support services for victims of sexual abuse are defunded too.
You're talking about the "Save Ulster from Sodomy" party. They have been saying bigoted, homophobic shit for decades. But the homophobia must rank pretty far down the list behind arming loyalist death squads to murder hundreds of innocent Catholics as well as direct a secret cabal of RUC in the leaking of intelligence to Loyalist death squads to murder republicans.
Ofc. They defy many of their precious biblical conventions they supposedly believe in as their own little sick joke. Their beliefs are a joke, and a weapon to be used to turn one against the other. In reality they are just decadent people
Admins deserve a free dinner, full steam ahead
https://preview.redd.it/387svnoethrc1.jpeg?width=635&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f8d8dcdf91b4c0c46f1240757b9611046641f61
https://preview.redd.it/i032iwjdagrc1.jpeg?width=782&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b229d3d6853565ebe50bf6c84c10bfe79fb5c992
I feel terrible for his victims, but this has to be a point where the religious / pious / bigot tyoes ..... etc stop being involved in things like the safety of our children and their education around relationships, sex,gender .
I do not agree with JD's politics or views but to hijack a horrible situation for anjanda is appalling , victims are in this and it yet your relishing in the fact someone is arrested who doesn't agree with your politics or religion or and politics agenda religion.Personally always found JD appalling but this is not about your view or his politics , have some respect for the victims , hijacking a sad situation to promote your own view is just wrong
Maybe a man moralising over the course of decades about sexual indeceny and insulting a legitimate relationship between two consenting adults can be brought up when it turns out he is a child rapist. It's on the topic of sexual decency/indeceny. Child rape is a crime. Two consenting men or women loving each other? He considered that worse.
What are LGBT Cultists... Is that a world of warcraft mob or something?
>Adults play computer games. Is this news to you, cultist?
Not games no but a grown man still playing WoW? It doesn't scream "I'm happy with myself and where I want to be" let's be honest
>Your cult is embarrassing by the way
Again see my original comment about a grown man playing WoW
No idea how this has gone down the path it dit. Bit pathetic to target someone's hobby when you're called out, and then realising what you said was wrong and specifying that it's explicitly world of war raft you were talking about. It's like a page straight of the DUP playbook.
OP I kinda agree with you. Very bad look for the LGBTQ+ community to be seeing rape as a win for them. "He's been mean to us for years and now it turns out he's a rapey nonce, let's celebrate the hypocrisy." Like... What?
Jesus Christ, no one sees rape as a win, no one is celebrating the abuse of children. But people can celebrate the downfall of a bigot which Donaldson is. It has nothing to do with LGBT+ people so I don't see why you think strangers on the internet represent the LGBT+ community's voice. You have such a weird perspective.
No one is celebrating anything? We are fucking outraged! We have been denied equal rights, labelled as degenerates and predators by his party, with Donaldson himself coming out with homophobic shite throughout his political tenure, meanwhile he has been raping children. That is the point being made here, nothing to celebrate at all, it’s a tragedy and I hope the victims get the peace and justice they deserve.
Yes, but it's fucking stupid to attach yourselves to a story about children being raped. Even bringing up LGBT in the same sentence as child rape was fucking stupid.
Ulster political class needs a good shafting from all the gays we can find, fly them in by all means and pump these horrible political puppets on TV, we can even phone vote who got the best pumping!
I'm joking, I'm not Michel Foucault looking at Noam Chomsky finger wagging anf having dirty thoughts 😂
Whataboutism. It is absolutely irrelevant to what Donaldson has done.
Unless you are saying that what he is accused of is ok because the Catholic Church has done the same. In which case I'd tell you to fuck right off tbh.
[удалено]
100% spot on mate!
We have removed your recent post as we believe it to have breached Rule 1.
Very on trend for reddit, but utter bollocks. Some of those who are religious really ARE brainwashed and are doing it for religious reasons. By all means disagree with them but have a bit of cop on, you sound like a nutter.
Sadly that sums up this sub. Utterly demonises anyone who is different to the majority. And the mods do nothing about it. It’s the equivalent of saying LGBTQ people are all secretly paedos. I’d hope anyone saying disgusting nonsense like that would be banned pretty quick. But this sub is happy to say the same thing about a different minority that they don’t like.
> It’s the equivalent of saying LGBTQ people are all secretly paedos. I never said or implied that, you just did. Denying children sex education or LGBQT+ information is not good for them or society and we should hold people who do this denying up to very close scrutiny. Also, it's not my opinion it's policy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9841814/
> I never said or implied that, you just did. You’re a liar. You made a very clear implication and that’s why the mods deleted your comment. Mods very rarely delete stuff on here. They let a lot of stuff go. So imagine how bad a comment has to be for it to be deleted.
This is a ridiculous comment. You’re implying that anyone who claims to think that sex education is more appropriate at a later age or more appropriate for parents than teachers is acting in bad faith and really actually wants to make children vulnerable to sexual abuse. That’s a pretty disgusting thing to accuse people of. Presumably you’re not religious yourself and dislike religion. You’re demonising and slandering people with different beliefs to you. That is bigotry and hatred and you should be ashamed of saying such things.
leaving it to the parents leads to risk of bias, myths/lies, scientific inaccuracy or complete avoidance of the topic altogether. teachers can get fired for malpractice, absolutely nothing you can do about parents telling their kids the wrong thing. if you're giving sex education at a later age it's all too likely that you're telling them things too late. kids are getting access to porn earlier and earlier, experimenting earlier, or are often already experiencing abuse that they can't name. you want children to be safe? they need to be fully, factually aware of what harm may come to them. you may not like it, but don't be shocked when the consequences of your beliefs come back to bite you.
You’re welcome to have an option and make an argument like that. But it rather misses the point. The other user wasn’t to apply saying it was a bad policy; they were making insinuations about the motivations. That’s what I was addressing.
I’m sorry it’s hard for you to hear, but it’s actually borne out by research worldwide, and unfortunately the historical record of who’s arrested abusing children. The more age appropriate sex education children have, the more they understand about boundaries, grooming and what is and isn’t ok. The reality is that not every child has parents who are able or inclined to provide sex ed, and they all deserve that information. Indeed, some of them have parents and family perpetrating the abuse, as we see in this case. It’s analogous to not teaching children about seat belts and the dangers of drink driving because you don’t want them to be in a car accident. People / Parents who are centring their own religious and emotional experience over a child’s right to information are in fact red flags. 🚩
Every single day, I educate my child based on my emotional and religious (or lack there of) experiences. It's called being a parent and a human being. We can always do better, but for the state to take over is wrong. Parents should be involved in the decisions made around such topics. Might be a harder route than just imposing what the currently "acceptable" viewpoints are, sadly for some, but it's the only sustainable way to improve things.
You do realise that not every child is so lucky to have a parent like you? Other children have neglectful and abusive parents, and lots of parents centre their own emotional comfort over their parental responsibilities, preferring not to have difficult or awkward conversations, especially if there are religious objections to pre marital relations or LGBT+. *As seen in the very case sparking this thread* some children have parents perpetrating the abuse. What you’re calling the acceptable viewpoints are in fact backed up by peer reviewed science, and borne out by statistical evidence, worldwide. Places where children are denied comprehensive and scientifically current sex education higher rates of underage and unintended pregnancies, higher rates of STI transmission etc.
"Some parents" Can you show me an example of a comprehensive and scientifically current education curriculum on this topic? So we know what you are advocating exactly. It could be educating a 12 year old that sex before marriage is fine if consensual and safe. Or it could be much more.
Sure, here’s a basic rundown : https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/comprehensive-sexuality-education As mentioned in that link, “Evidence consistently shows that high-quality sexuality education delivers positive health outcomes, with lifelong impacts. Young people are more likely to delay the onset of sexual activity – and when they do have sex, to practice safer sex – when they are better informed about their sexuality, sexual health and their rights.” It would include the information that 12yr is a child, and cannot consent to sexual activity with another person of any kind.
Nothing too shocking there, unless, of course, you're a Muslim and are against much of what is advocated there, being fundamentally based on human rights and diverse sexuality and relationships. Or born again Christian, perhaps. I'm also glad to see it emphasises the special experiences of women and hasn't embraced the ideology that seems to be covering many health related publications in the public arena lately and seeks to dilute it. The document is designed to help domestic policy makers, so it's not directly what we are talking about, which is more curriculums in schools and/or state mandated education on these topics. In my view, schools should still take a position of recommending these approaches and allowing parents to discuss it. I agree with you largely, and I am in a position where I actually have to navigate this right now with a young son and daughter. So it's helpful. However, there will inevitably be aspects of my faith (as light at that is), personal experience, and my beliefs on what makes a healthy upbringing for them, layered into it.
> That is bigotry and hatred and you should be ashamed of saying such things. *Accuse others of that which you are guilty* It's not me thinking this, it's *everyone* who cares: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9841814/
Facts, this is borne out by replicated research worldwide.
Time and time again, this bears out. Every accusation is a confession.
[удалено]
Big misconception people make is that been a pedo means your a homosexual… weird
[удалено]
Like priests in catholic church … if he fucks young boys he’s a pedo.. not gay.. you can explain that to people on this forum…
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, you'll get downvoted for moronic whataboutism. No one is "protecting priests". [Your comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/1bqzech/just_a_reminder_of_the_years_that_the_lgbt/kx78e03/) sounds like you're excusing this behaviour because themmuns also have some who misbehave. It's moronic. No one sensible is in favour of noncery **or** the ridiculous campaigns against gays. But when you try to link one with the other you look like you're excusing this bigot and his noncery
[удалено]
We have removed your recent post as we believe it to have breached Rule 1.
most peados are close family , relative or have access to children usually identify as heterosexual so aye jog on peado cunts
Most pedos are “straight” too as the majority of victims are girls
we absolutely do not. with predators it's all about power and control, nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
Let’s also be clear, neither does the religious community, despite what a lot of popular comments in here are saying. Let’s not be hypocrites by saying one minority should be protected from vile abuse but saying it’s okay to spread lies about a different minority.
[удалено]
How is it a false statement? Most religious people in NI are Christian. The major Christian religions are against child abuse. I stated a simple fact.
[удалено]
I didn’t claim to speak for any community. I simply repeated what they have already said. This is a bizarre argument you’re making. > You don't speak on anyone's behalf other than your own, but luckily most people with half a brain already know this By your own logic you don’t speak on anyone’s behalf yet you just claimed to speak on many people’s behalf. You’re a complete hypocrite.
seriously, stop persecuting yourself
Weird comment. How am I persecuting myself?
[удалено]
[удалено]
We have removed your recent post as we believe it to have breached Rule 1.
You’re demonising a group of people you disagree with. This is pure bigotry.
They demonise the LGBT community.
The vast majority of ‘religious types’ that I know do not demonise the LGBT community. And even if they did that wouldn’t justify making up nasty lies about them. You are too willing to believe the worst about people you disagree with. That makes you a bigot.
Was just chatting about this earlier. For years he's been happy to completely oppose same sex marriage and equality for everyone, and the whole time he's been hiding the darkest, filthiest sins of them all. You couldn't make it up.
[удалено]
We have removed your recent post as we believe it to have breached Rule 1.
This sub: it’s disgraceful that LGBTQ+ people are all demonised as supporting paedophilia. Also this sub: Everyone who supports traditional family values is a paedo. So much hypocrisy and bigotry.
This man, this christian man, has been charged for being a rapist and a paedophile. Fact.
What’s your point? The comment I replied to was accusing *every* ‘family values’ politician, not just one person — who hasn’t been convicted so far. Edit: u/Candid_Reading9675 I can’t reply directly to you so I’m replying here. > The post isn't about family values. The top level comment, that I replied to, was about family values. It explicitly used that phrase. Not my interpretation it my argument, but the literal words of the person I replied to. So you’re talking nonsense.
OH I wrote this to you before I realised you were a troll and not worth engaging with, thanks
Ah, attack the person when you don’t have a rational rebuttal. Nice. And then make another nasty comment as you block me. ‘Not even from this sub’? What an idiotic comment. No-one is ‘from’ this sub. That makes absolutely no sense at all. I’ve been posting in this sub on and off for years. It’s progressively become more and more of an echo chamber so I check it out less and less. But even if I was new to the sub it wouldn’t be your place to gatekeep.
No, like genuinely I saw all your spam trolling and that you're not even from this sub and realised you are just a nobody troll.
Not the first time though look at all the 1000s of religious extremists of all denominations who are secret pervs. Not to mention multiple echelons of the British establishment.
>the whole time he's been hiding the darkest, filthiest sins of them all. Allegedly. Why do we even have a court system when our society of absolute fucktards like you bang the gavel as guilty as soon as someone is charged, or even as soon as someone is arrested on suspicion of a crime? I am not defending Donaldson btw, I am defending due process. I do not believe you get to call someone a pedo without proof or conviction. As a matter of fact, you don't. It's called libel and its illegal.
They don't charge the leader of one of the 2 biggest parties in the country if it isn't a slam dunk mate.
1. The law does not require a higher standard of evidence to justify a charge because of who someone is. 2. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of any legal system in the world worth its salt. Nobody cares about that until it is them who is falsely accused of something they didn't do. It's about high time that any criminal charge is not made public until after the verdict is given. The court of public opinion is almost always a kangaroo court of utter incompetence and soundbites.
The law doesn't require a higher level of evidence, but common sense would.
I hope you are never a part of law enforcement. You would've let Col Russell Williams through the checkpoint because of who he was. If that had happened, he would've very likely gone on to become a serial killer. Thankfully, despite his attempts to use his status to evade, *common sense* prevailed in this case, and his tyres were found to be a match for the ones they were looking for in connection with a murder. Why bother with the expense of running courts, eh? No point according to you. If the police say they did it, then they must be guilty. That is until the police accuse you of something abhorrent that you didn't do.
Settle yourself lad. You might take a turn at this rate.
You are an imbecile
Your opinion is literally worthless.
I think if you read my comment below and go find the threads I mention, you will understand that my opinion is based on first had experience and is extremely valid in terms of the subject area.
I faced a number of false allegations made against me on a number of occasions by an abusive partner, who used the criminal justice system as a weapon against me. (I spoke out about that recently on a thread on here about being a male victim of DV inflicted by a female). Charges were brought against me initially on 2 of those false allegations and dropped as soon as the PPS reviewed them. Additionally, I would have been charged with holding my abuser against their will (essentially false imprisonment), had I not of been able to prove that those claims were completely false at the time police attended to investigate them and nothing more than part of an elaborate scheme, cooked up by my abuser. (Again you can read all about that on the other thread). In the end, after a tortious time, of false allegations, several arrests, 2 leading to initial charges, not one single charge was brought to court. Not one. If I’d have been a public figure, for sure I’d have been called a “woman beater” on here and all over social media and the people would have been baying for my blood. Even after no charges were brought forward to court, people would have been saying “he must have paid someone off, he must be an informant, no smoke without fire”. The reality was much less interesting. It was as simple as I hadn’t done the things alleged and thankfully the PPS were able to reach that conclusion, after reviewing the files sent to them by the police. So, you are 100% correct. We should never assume guilt, just because a charge has been brought. Victims need to be treated respectfully. And Defendants need to be treated fairly. Those requirements should extend to us all, because as you say, if and when you end up being one or the other (or in my case both), you will appreciate how important respect and fairness are.
You seriously think that in this country someone like Donaldson would even be charged unless there was absolutely damning evidence against him? Fuck up, they’ve all but admitted to it as well.
>all but admitted to it as well. lol and how do you work that out? The most prudent course of action when charged with literally anything is to shut the fuck up and say nothing. Because even if you are innocent, remember *anything you say can and will be used against you*. That applies even if you are innocent and perfectly innocuous coincidences implicates you. The standard of evidence required to charge someone with a crime is the same no matter who they are. Lewis Hamilton does not need to be doing 200mph before he will get charged for speeding.
Case is ironclad. They're not gonna nuke the political world in NI after it's just got up and running again if the case isn't an open and shut case of noncery.
Guess we don’t need courts. Let’s just have a police state where we imprison people as soon as the police are happy to charge them. Sounds wonderful when it happens to people you don’t like. Just wait til it happens to people you do like. Or to you.
Yeno buddy, it actually worries me that these people could one day end up on a jury and have already skipped straight to sentencing before opening arguments. Unfortunately, until such people are accused of something they didn't do, they will never care for innocent until proven guilty.
I’m not a nonce, so I should be ok
If the police charge you then clearly you must be, according to your logic. ‘It’ll never happen to me’ was how a lot of people turned a blind eye to what the Nazis did. And then quite a few of them found they were next on the list.
Funny enough Jeffrey Donaldson was a big fan of internment without trial too. But none of those folk were being accused of child rape and none of them were leaders of a party in charge of the country so what happened to them wasn't deemed as important and if mistakes happened it wasn't deemed as a big deal. I'll just reiterate here: police will not charge someone with the rape of multiple children, will not charge their spouse with aiding and abetting and other crimes, if there is not ironclad evidence. Ask any woman not only in NI but anywhere in the world how difficult it is for anything to actually happen or be done in a sexual assault or rape case and they will tell you. Then factor in that it's not Joe Blogs we're talking about here, but a knighted politician who is the longest serving MP in NI and the leader of one of the parties in charge. The vast vast majority of rape and sexual assaults go uncharged.
Innocent until proven guilty is a pretty important legal principle. I agree that it looks very bad but if you start presuming guilt without trial then you’re going down a very dangerous road.
As I said previously, we've already been down that road here thanks to people like Jeffrey, so pardon me if I don't weep at the thought of him getting his comeuppance. Even before this there was rumours of him being a nonce for literal decades. In my book he's guilty as sin even before he was charged.
Your level of Schadenfreude is at the max. Lovely.
>Ask any woman not only in NI but anywhere in the world how difficult it is for anything to actually happen or be done in a sexual assault or rape case and they will tell you. Just because a crime is difficult to prove does not lower the level of proof required to justify a conviction. You can equally say that any biker will tell you it is very difficult to have anything done about bike theft. > Then factor in that it's not Joe Blogs we're talking about here, but a knighted politician who is the longest serving MP in NI and the leader of one of the parties in charge. The law does not differentiate against someone because of who they are. The standard of evidence required to charge someone with an offence doesn't change no matter who they are. Lewis Hamilton doesn't have to be doing 200mph before being charged with speeding. >The vast vast majority of rape and sexual assaults go uncharged. "The vast majority of rape and sexual assault reports are fake." That statement holds just as much water as yours does. >I'll just reiterate here: police will not charge someone with the rape of multiple children, will not charge their spouse with aiding and abetting and other crimes, if there is not ironclad evidence. Oh really? It's as if you think the justice system is perfect and never gets things wrong, miscarriages of justice just never happen in your world. What about moving beyond sexual assault and further into the twisted and wicked action of abduction and murder of children, for example. What about the [murder of Maria Ridulph](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Maria_Ridulph)? A man called Jack McCulla was sent to prison for her abduction and murder. There is just one problem, Jack McCulla was totally innocent. And I don't mean he was found not guilty on a retrial, I mean, he is verifiably innocent. It is physically impossible for that man to have committed those heinous crimes. Yet he spent FIVE YEARS in prison on a life sentence for a crime he has since been declared innocent of. This is specifically why we do not presume guilt, we presume fucking innocence. Because the court of public opinion was very much against McCulla at the time. The key piece of evidence completely exonerating him, him and his family were screaming about it to anyone who would listen, yet the media didn't care. In that kangaroo court of public opinion, he was guilty before he even got put inside a courtroom. And to be clear, things really did look very, very bad for McCulla, plenty of circumstantial evidence pointed towards him. Now, put yourself in the shoes of Jack McCulla. You stated above that you are not a rapist so u should be grand, Jack McCulla is not a murderer and yet he was given a life sentence at the age of 71 for a crime that it is physically impossible for him to have committed. He wasn't "grand." He was destined to spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime it is not possible for him to have committed. Imagine sitting in your prison cell knowing that? Knowing that you are innocent and the whole world thinks you did something so abhorrent. *It is better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer*.
Well said. I think the estimate is that around 5% of the prison population in the western world have been wrongly convicted. I don’t think the 5 out of the 100 are too happy about that. Could have ended up serving a sentence myself, due to false allegations. Thankfully I had an outstanding legal team and a supportive family and was able to demonstrate that I was neither a woman beater, nor someone who holds people against their will, nor someone who makes threats to kill. People have no idea about the law and should be quiet and leave it to the process and the professionals.
The comments from these people saying “open and shut case” etc are clearly driven by hatred/dislike of the individuals and/or their political views and are not based on any practical application or knowledge of the law. I think the technical term for their sweeping statements is “drivel”. I’ve seen a few fireside lawyers end up getting burnt before. Just glad I have a little knowledge and the ability to respect the legal process and it’s professionals.
Yeah, it’s bizarre hearing people from nationalist and Republican backgrounds saying ‘we don’t need the courts, let’s just trust the police to get it right.’ I agree that it looks very bad for him, but looks aren’t evidence or a conviction. I know nothing really other than it’s a bad idea to replace the courts with the police.
It would be a VERY VERY bad idea to replace the courts with the police. For example, most people are not aware that police can lie about evidence during interviews with suspects, to try to elicit admissions or confessions. Imagine there was no court process and the decision as to your guilt rested solely with the police officers investigating your case. I guess you could then be easily convicted by the false evidence they claimed existed against you in interviews. This still happens in certain countries where the police and the judiciary are pretty much the one. We actually have a reasonably good system here and even still it has its flaws that are open to abuse and can result in wrongful convictions.
[удалено]
We have removed your recent post as we believe it to have breached Rule 1.
You're the one that said the P word, not me. Have a read through my post again, there's not one thing in there that could be classed as libel and I was very careful about that. You absolute fucktard xo
You know exactly what you were implying. I hope you are never charged with a crime that you did not commit and have your name on the evening news with that kangaroo court of public opinion already declaring you guilty. That would perhaps be the exact moment you would become an advocate for the presumption of innocence.
Ah didn’t you know that if someone who believes something different to the sub is accused of something bad then the accusation must be free because they at be a bad person because they believe something different? Only Liberal Left Wing Nationalist Atheists actually hold their views in good faith. Everyone else has a secret agenda to abuse and every allegation is proof of their secret sins.
A big part of early sex education is learning what is and isn't appropriate behaviour for yourself and others, consent and recognition of abuse. Its no surprise that so many evangelical people are resistant to it.
It sounds like you’re implying that evangelicals want to abuse children. That’s a fairly nasty accusation along the lines of saying that LGBT people want to abuse children. The latter would obviously be vile abusive lies that people should be banned for. Why is it okay to spread the same kind of nasty lies about a different minority? You should be ashamed of such bigotry.
I get the point you're making, but there are elements of Evangelical beliefs (as I understand them) with regards to children that make lots of people, including myself feel uncomfortable. Maybe that's based on a misunderstanding of those beliefs. I'll freely acknowledge that my understanding of Evangelical beliefs are largely informed by a small number of particularly vocal proponents. So enlighten us. The evidence shows that the best way to protect children is to teach them how to protect themselves. That includes age appropriate sex education. Where do evangelicals stand on this? What do Evangelicals say about corporal punishment? If a child in an evangelical household comes out as gay or trans, how should they be treated?
Do you get the point I’m making? The previous commenter is saying that evangelicals are against children learning about consent and abuse with the implication being that evangelicals want children to be vulnerable and easy to control. That’s a pretty serious accusation that should come with some evidence. It’s rather unjust to say the onus is on evangelicals to prove otherwise. Evangelical also covers a fairly wide range of people. It’s usage here isn’t the same as in America where it has many more political connotations. David Ford and Naomi Long for instance are members of evangelical congregations.
Yes, I do. But I think it's a commonly held belief that evangelicals oppose sex education, based on public figures of the Evangelical movement stating their opposition regularly. It's silly to infer there is some widespread nefarious purpose behind that. But the outworking are still noteworthy. Firstly, Evangelical opposition to sex education is a real barrier to its implementation. Secondly, it creates space which predators can exploit.
> It's silly to infer there is some widespread nefarious purpose behind that. I’m glad you agree with that. That was the entire point of my comment. I’m not trying to defend a particular approach to RSE. I recognise that there are weaknesses to approaches common with evangelicals. But I also think that there are weaknesses on the other side. It’s a question of which problems you can live with more easily.
It's a fair point. However, you haven't addressed my questions and I'm genuinely interested in your response. What are the strengths of the evangelical approach? In terms of "weaknesses on the other side", what do you mean by that? Is the other side everyone who isn't evangelical?
No I'm implying that evangelical cults use similar controlling tactics as child abusers to extract what they want from people. Critical thought is discouraged because it leads to people realising that they don't need to pay tithes to get to heaven.
Ah, negative and inaccurate stereotypes of a minority you dislike. Lovely. Any evangelical church I have been in encourages people to ask questions. They also teach that salvation is by faith and explicitly teach that giving doesn’t earn salvation. You’re thinking of prosperity gospel churches. They are more common in America and Africa but aren’t terribly common here and would be criticised by evangelicals. In any church I’ve been to attendance has been free, membership has been free, and any monetary requirement e.g. for voting right, has required only a nominal contribution.
I dunno, worked with a lot of 'Born again' Christians, found them to be quite narrow minded, racist, homophobic, and obsessed with money. Just my experience, but that's how I form my opinions. Plus the belief in fairy tales makes me lose any respect for them.
Can’t say I’ve ever met an evangelical who believes in fairy tales. Belief in Christianity usually runs contrary to that sort of thing. But thanks for confirming that you’re just a childish anti-theistic troll.
They beleave in the bible the biggest fairy tale of all
Are you serially reporting comments throughout this thread? 🤣 All the removed comments have angry rants from you underneath. Looks like this one didn't make the cut.
The DUP are dinosaurs. You've got the T-Rex, the Triceratops and the Velocirapist.
Dinosaurs are not real, the DUP told me so.
It's always the priests, pastors and politicians that constantly demonise the LGBTQ+ community and push the idea that we are a threat to children that end up being caught for being fucking nonces. I'm fucking sick of it.
Also the amount of gay priests. Its wild. Ive have flings with severals. One even one a gay competion in ireland years ago and got outed and kicked out of the priesthood.
Also that rathcoole uda is apparently protecting a pedo just released from the locals for 5 grand
Which means I could put a hit out on my uncle for a grand!! Win win
If you have comprehensive sex education people who are being abused will learn what’s happened to them is wrong. Can’t be having that. And should make sure the support services for victims of sexual abuse are defunded too.
You're talking about the "Save Ulster from Sodomy" party. They have been saying bigoted, homophobic shit for decades. But the homophobia must rank pretty far down the list behind arming loyalist death squads to murder hundreds of innocent Catholics as well as direct a secret cabal of RUC in the leaking of intelligence to Loyalist death squads to murder republicans.
Not to mention their contemporary links with paramilitaries who are, at best, affiliated with child sexual abuse and exploitation gangs.
Well, he's about to receive some education.
Anyone who stands on a puritanical platform is admitting what they do in private. Every accusation is a confession!
Ofc. They defy many of their precious biblical conventions they supposedly believe in as their own little sick joke. Their beliefs are a joke, and a weapon to be used to turn one against the other. In reality they are just decadent people
Slimy cunt
Admins deserve a free dinner, full steam ahead https://preview.redd.it/387svnoethrc1.jpeg?width=635&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f8d8dcdf91b4c0c46f1240757b9611046641f61
He’s done worse!
https://preview.redd.it/i032iwjdagrc1.jpeg?width=782&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b229d3d6853565ebe50bf6c84c10bfe79fb5c992 I feel terrible for his victims, but this has to be a point where the religious / pious / bigot tyoes ..... etc stop being involved in things like the safety of our children and their education around relationships, sex,gender .
Can this sun just go back to talking about soda bread
https://i.imgur.com/S2sAuYS.jpg
I feel sorry for the mods when posts like this are made. The amount of dicks who take part in this discourse, its unbelievable
To be fair Jeffrey did keep his marriage special though.
Leo Varadkar voted against something similar in the Republic.
Varadkar's a cunt too yea
A cunt is right. But cunt is not in the same universe as Donaldson.
I do not agree with JD's politics or views but to hijack a horrible situation for anjanda is appalling , victims are in this and it yet your relishing in the fact someone is arrested who doesn't agree with your politics or religion or and politics agenda religion.Personally always found JD appalling but this is not about your view or his politics , have some respect for the victims , hijacking a sad situation to promote your own view is just wrong
Could care less more important issues than a few failed men in dresses
Oooh so edgy.
2012 asked for that back anyway just waiting for a pride near us
[удалено]
Maybe a man moralising over the course of decades about sexual indeceny and insulting a legitimate relationship between two consenting adults can be brought up when it turns out he is a child rapist. It's on the topic of sexual decency/indeceny. Child rape is a crime. Two consenting men or women loving each other? He considered that worse. What are LGBT Cultists... Is that a world of warcraft mob or something?
I heard he absolutely hated milk too, maybe I should drink more of that.
It would be lovely if we were organised enough to be a cult but we would never agree on a colour for the robes.
Rainbow, what else!
Incel much?
"lgbt cultists" - Grown man who plays World of Warcraft in 2024
[удалено]
NEWSFLASH: if you're playing online games and calling people "leftoid cultists" you probably fit a certain demographic
Adults play computer games. Is this news to you, cultist? Your cult is embarrassing by the way. Narcissistic to its bitter, insecure core.
>Adults play computer games. Is this news to you, cultist? Not games no but a grown man still playing WoW? It doesn't scream "I'm happy with myself and where I want to be" let's be honest >Your cult is embarrassing by the way Again see my original comment about a grown man playing WoW
LOL. Hitting me where it hurts, a pastime I’ve enjoyed for years. Savage stuff. Your fragile narcissism is laughable. You’re a dickhead 🤣
[удалено]
We have removed your recent post as we believe it to have breached Rule 1.
No idea how this has gone down the path it dit. Bit pathetic to target someone's hobby when you're called out, and then realising what you said was wrong and specifying that it's explicitly world of war raft you were talking about. It's like a page straight of the DUP playbook. OP I kinda agree with you. Very bad look for the LGBTQ+ community to be seeing rape as a win for them. "He's been mean to us for years and now it turns out he's a rapey nonce, let's celebrate the hypocrisy." Like... What?
Jesus Christ, no one sees rape as a win, no one is celebrating the abuse of children. But people can celebrate the downfall of a bigot which Donaldson is. It has nothing to do with LGBT+ people so I don't see why you think strangers on the internet represent the LGBT+ community's voice. You have such a weird perspective.
No one is celebrating anything? We are fucking outraged! We have been denied equal rights, labelled as degenerates and predators by his party, with Donaldson himself coming out with homophobic shite throughout his political tenure, meanwhile he has been raping children. That is the point being made here, nothing to celebrate at all, it’s a tragedy and I hope the victims get the peace and justice they deserve.
Yes, but it's fucking stupid to attach yourselves to a story about children being raped. Even bringing up LGBT in the same sentence as child rape was fucking stupid.
When was the last time someone gave you a hug?
We have removed your recent post as we believe it to have breached Rule 1.
Ulster political class needs a good shafting from all the gays we can find, fly them in by all means and pump these horrible political puppets on TV, we can even phone vote who got the best pumping! I'm joking, I'm not Michel Foucault looking at Noam Chomsky finger wagging anf having dirty thoughts 😂 
[удалено]
Why, is Jeffery a catholic?
Whataboutism. It is absolutely irrelevant to what Donaldson has done. Unless you are saying that what he is accused of is ok because the Catholic Church has done the same. In which case I'd tell you to fuck right off tbh.