37 replies · 2,159 views
Now that Dave has appologised.
I hope Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness do the same to the 100's of innocent people that the IRA have murdered or injured.
I wonder if Martin McGuinness still has that sub machine gun he was carrying on that peaceful protest march. 
I'm waiting on dave apologising for iraq and arsestan....cos if troops under fire aren't meant to fire back, there's a lot more to answer for there than in (London)Derry.
White terrorist=apology and well paid govt. job Brown terrorist=carpet bomb his kids.
TBH the only person truly at fault over bloody sunday was whatever idiot pulled a regiment out of a genuine urban combat environment and put them in essentially a crowd control role.....then wondered why they responded to incoming fire.
I never understood the "who shot first" debate, even if the paras had sprayed the city, nobody at a peaceful protest should actually be carrying anything to shoot back with.
FFS nowdays the cops beat you to death for carrying a camera.
Nice to see Cameroon come down so heavily against the Army. What the fuck is that all about?
If they were any sort of army, they'd now grease back their hair and advance on Downing St in shiny cars, cut off the ridiculous bastard's head, put it on a large spike and drive around London making everyone do a new salute.
It's a political decision, Bloody Sunday is a festering wound to republicans, this report will perhaps bring them in from the cold a little. Of course "my" lot will naturally go bananas, taking exactly what Ger said to the level of a foamy mouthed, dragged knuckle jihad.
Isn't the army always the Govt's whipping boy? Usually goes like this.....
Govt: We have a problem, go and sort it out, and we don't care how you do it. Army: Well, we'd usually do X, but if you REALLY want it fixed we could do Y Govt: Don't wanna hear it, just get it done. Armay: Sah!
One outcry later. Govt: OMG you army twats did Y??? That's unforgivable, shame on you, if you'd told us we'd NEVER have sanctioned it. Army: Yes sirs
Ish
Incidental history note, it was that lot who begged for the army to come in to save them from the nasty huns, and in return they fed them broken glass sarnies, nice. (was kinda shit to be a papist back then tho, very shit in fact, probably only a few steps up from being a Jew in nazi germany.....it's why there is such panicked terror among uberprods, they fear they'll get some of their own right back, I'm fuckin surrounded by them and I hear it all the time).
So it took 12 years and cost £200 million (Thanks Blair). Not to mention the compensation the families will be after.
This report is an absolute insult to the British people. In 1972 the same year as Bloody Sunday, over 60 British soldiers and policemen were killed by the IRA.
Wheres the justice?
I'm sure the West Belfast IRA supporters club could provide compensation out of their dole, and incap benefit and DLA and child benefit x15.
i tell you what's next....prod terrorists asking for compo for all the times they shot their own feet, blew up their own bomb etc.
always amuses me that the likes of the Faily Fail will rant and rave about johnny foreigner getting 80 bells a week cos if we send him home some cunt will shoot him for nowt.....but never see a whisper about the fat taxpayer funded salaries the murdering cunts who constitute the govt in NI.
Ger Boy wrote: So it took 12 years and cost £200 million (Thanks Blair). Not to mention the compensation the families will be after.
This report is an absolute insult to the British people. In 1972 the same year as Bloody Sunday, over 60 British soldiers and policemen were killed by the IRA.
Wheres the justice?
Stereotypical post from you.
14 innocent people were shot dead that day and the truth after 38 years has finally been released and put their poor families mind at peace, after years of knowing their relatives were innocent.
You single out the IRA, but surprise, surprise no mention of the Red Hand Commando's, UVF, UDF, UDA and other loyalist groups, nevermind the RUC & British Army itself on how many innocents they murdered.
Come back when ye've grown up.
in fairness the prod terrorists are fairly incompetent by and large, and spend most of their time shooting each other.
I would repeat the question raised above, why carry arms on a peaceful protest?
Do you have the same sympathy for the chaps who did London a few years ago, or are we back to white murderers being better than brown ones.
Another £200 million and 12 years might come up with something that all sides could agree to, accord about what's happened before, who was to blame and how everyone can be friends in the future.
Oh no that's right, it wouldn't.
Ger Boy wrote:
This report is an absolute insult to the British people.
apart from the ones who COULDN'T GIVE A F*CK ABOUT THE PLACE AND WISH IT WOULD F@CK OFF AND DEAL WITH IT'S OWN CRAP, a minority of people in 'Britain' give a toss about what happens there, mostly hard core Catholics or Protestants, the majority of 'Britain' is secular, and just wishes they could cut the place loose and leave it alone to sort out its own problems, but interfering f*ck ups can't resist sticking there noses in...
Cambo gets my vote to run the place, kick them all out, the Protestants back to England and Scotland, and alll the Catholics to the Republic, and live in peace with himself.
Do you really expect me to give you an answer on that Steve? I wasn't even born. Why were some people armed? I am sure they could tell you. The report clearly states none of the murdered were carying weapons and surely this is the crux of the matter. In the McGuiness case that Ger Boy mentions, the report says he was PROBABLY carrying a sub machine gun. What the fuck does that mean? For £200m you would expect a definitive YES or NO.........
Saville said that none of the victims were armed "with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghy".
A police photograph showed nailbombs on Mr Donaghey's body. His family said they were planted - Saville disagreed.
But the inquiry added: "We are sure that Gerald Donaghey was not preparing or attempting to throw a nail bomb when he was shot; and we are equally sure that he was not shot because of his possession of the nail bombs. He was shot while trying to escape from the soldiers."
A member of the Official IRA told the inquiry that they had shot at soldiers very early on in retaliation to the shooting of two of the protesters. Saville said: "These two Official IRA members had gone to a pre-arranged sniping position in order to fire at the soldiers; and probably did so when an opportunity presented itself rather than because two civilians had been injured."
"In the course of investigating the activities of the Provisional and Official IRA on the day, we considered at some length allegations that Martin McGuinness, at that time the Adjutant of the Derry Brigade or Command of the Provisional IRA, had engaged in paramilitary activity during the day.
"In the end we were left in some doubt as to his movements on the day. Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire."
Mc Guinnes shouldn't have had a gun at a CIVIL RIGHTS PROTEST, and the ARMY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SENT IN TO DEAL WITH CROWD CONTROL. END OF
Old Lead Foot wrote: Mc Guinnes shouldn't have had a gun at a CIVIL RIGHTS PROTEST, and the ARMY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SENT IN TO DEAL WITH CROWD CONTROL. END OF
Yer missing the point, there is no evidence he did have a gun. This is why I copied and pasted the above from a BBC site.
We could argue all day about the rights and wrongs of the past, but this thread was supposed to be about the innocent people that were murdered and its report. Instead the original poster used this report as a way of point scoring in past troubles and only mentioning one side of it.
Shug, I'm not missing the point at all he was a member of th IRA, he was caught in possesion of over 5000 rounds of ammunition and over 100kg of explosives during his time as an IRA leader in Derry, if he DIDN'T have a gun on that day, WHAT WAS HE DOING BEING IN CHARGE OF THE DERRY BRIGADE????????, the washing up?, the FACT is that at least 12 people that day DIDN'T have guns or nail bombs and were needlesly shot, and trigger happy paras were sent into the bogside to a job the police should have done, oh hang on, that means the RUC......oh dear
I know he was a member of the IRA and in charge of the Derry Brigade, but the facts are there is no evidence to suggest he was carrying a gun on that fateful day. Full stop.
Old Lead Foot wrote: Mc Guinnes shouldn't have had a gun at a CIVIL RIGHTS PROTEST, and the ARMY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SENT IN TO DEAL WITH CROWD CONTROL. END OF
Bingo.
Though with reference to your other post......you lot caused it remember, yous wanted to have a war about who would run england, but didn't want to mess england up having it, so you had an away match. You've moved on, most people here are too fucking stupid to do so (demonstrated by the local fondness for sky fairies)
You're right, put me in charge, I'll get all the ones who care in a field and arm them, anyone too chicken to attend the fight has no further right to whine and will simply be executed if they do. Then we can all get back to getting hammered.
Doctor? wrote:
Old Lead Foot wrote: Mc Guinnes shouldn't have had a gun at a CIVIL RIGHTS PROTEST, and the ARMY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SENT IN TO DEAL WITH CROWD CONTROL. END OF
Bingo.
Though with reference to your other post......you lot caused it remember, yous wanted to have a war about who would run england, but didn't want to mess england up having it, so you had an away match. You've moved on, most people here are too fucking stupid to do so (demonstrated by the local fondness for sky fairies)
You're right, put me in charge, I'll get all the ones who care in a field and arm them, anyone too chicken to attend the fight has no further right to whine and will simply be executed if they do. Then we can all get back to getting hammered.
I'd drink to that.
Doctor? wrote:
You're right, put me in charge, I'll get all the ones who care in a field and arm them, anyone too chicken to attend the fight has no further right to whine and will simply be executed if they do. Then we can all get back to getting hammered.
50/50 on TV rights and then take it on tour, next stop Jerusalem
Shug wrote:
Doctor? wrote:
Old Lead Foot wrote: Mc Guinnes shouldn't have had a gun at a CIVIL RIGHTS PROTEST, and the ARMY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SENT IN TO DEAL WITH CROWD CONTROL. END OF
Bingo.
Though with reference to your other post......you lot caused it remember, yous wanted to have a war about who would run england, but didn't want to mess england up having it, so you had an away match. You've moved on, most people here are too fucking stupid to do so (demonstrated by the local fondness for sky fairies)
You're right, put me in charge, I'll get all the ones who care in a field and arm them, anyone too chicken to attend the fight has no further right to whine and will simply be executed if they do. Then we can all get back to getting hammered.
I'd drink to that.
count me in too
Doctor? wrote:
Though with reference to your other post......you lot caused it remember,
you forget, I'm mancunian, we couldn't give a toss about anywhere else, we live at the centre of the universe, you need to look about 200 miles south, it's them London ones you need to have a word with, there the ones interested in dicking about with other peoples buisness
Old Lead Foot wrote: I'm mancunian, we couldn't give a toss about anywhere else
Correct.
I was only moaning about this to someone else earlier in the week. Moving to Scotland and being attacked for being English was a very strange experience for me as I'd never considered myself to be any such thing, having declared my independence in 1979, severed diplomatic relations in 1982 and refused to recognise that the bastard place existed in 1984.
Still no excuse to have a go at the footie team, mind.
Shug wrote:
Stereotypical post from you.
14 innocent people were shot dead that day and the truth after 38 years has finally been released and put their poor families mind at peace, after years of knowing their relatives were innocent.
After seeing Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness celebrate the outcome of the report.Don't you think they should appologise to the 1000's of innocent people and families that the IRA have ruined?
Or is it one rule for protestors on illegal marches, and another for young children in Warrington?
That was a shit trick in Warrington. My friend was nearly killed, and I walk past the memorial occasionally. The way in which my friend was injured would make anyone sick, it was horrific.
I can see the difference between the two things, but that doesn't make either of them excusable. I'm sure you weren't trying to, Shug.
The only difference in the two is that government sanctioned organisations such as the army are rightly held to a higher standard of behaviour than the rest of us. After all the army are simply our armed avatars, it was the people of the UK who fired if you see what I mean.
Warrington was revolting, Omagh and the memorial service bombs were just vile also.....I fucking hate godtards and even I would respect a memorial service and as for planting a warning designed to make the police herd people into the bomb....that's purest evil.
as I have often said though, a consistent anti terrorist policy in the uk, one that wasn't based on race, would have seen Anderson's town, Poleglass and the Bogside carpet bombed....or Abu Hamza being made secretary for schools.
We played a gig on the night of Omagh, or a day or two later. In the midst of a pounding club, we pulled everything out and just left this perfectly true and perfectly perfect quote.
"We are all born as molecules in the hearts of a billion stars. Molecules that do not understand politics or policies or differences. Over a billion years, we foolish molecules forget who we are and where we came from. In desperate acts of ego, we give ourselves names, fight over lines on maps, and pretend that our light is better than everyone else's."
BTW, please nobody try to equate the likes of the UVF/UDA with the IRA/INLA, not that they're any less evil....stoning children on their way to school the day after the WTC was brought down....that's all you need to know about them right there. But they're too stupid to do bombs, and generally just vegetables. Their usual tactic when upset with the other lot, is to burn down their own shops and burn out their own cars.....seriously they're barely above eating their own shit.
And Leady/Col good point, I stand correctly....tho i must counter that you are in fact the real English people, the contents of the south are nothing more than the bastard offspring of foreign invaders and their collaborators, you really ought not to stoop to speak their language but instead adopt a native British one.
Ger Boy wrote:
Shug wrote:
Stereotypical post from you.
14 innocent people were shot dead that day and the truth after 38 years has finally been released and put their poor families mind at peace, after years of knowing their relatives were innocent.
After seeing Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness celebrate the outcome of the report.Don't you think they should appologise to the 1000's of innocent people and families that the IRA have ruined?
Or is it one rule for protestors on illegal marches, and another for young children in Warrington?
Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry were totally innocent victims of the troubles,as were all the others murdered by the IRA,no sane person would try to justify the violence of the IRA,however,the victims on Bloody Sunday were also totally innocent and did not deserve to die at the hands of the British army and the apology by Cameron was long overdue,as for the IRA apologising for their murder campaign I think such an apology would not be genuine,maybe some sort of truth commission will need to be established,but revisting the past seems to just cause more problems as we see from some of the comments on this thread. Also,it should be noted that the Bloody Sunday events lead to Bloody Friday which occured on 21 July 1972 which led to Operation Motorman and on and on and on...
For those arguing about religious "Godtards" - religion itself has long since ceased to have any true bearing on the situation. It's simply used as a "front" or an excuse. Being an atheist, I always get a bit twitchy when anyone claims to be right because god is "on their side" so I agree with you there Cambo.
During the civil rights marches, the reason for marching wasn't for any kind of true religious reasons per-se, more that the Catholic majority were unfairly discriminated against concerning mainly jobs and housing. The religious labels were used for convenience, rather than the "heritage" and "who's been here longer" argument and a general sense of equality among all people. Anyone heard of Wolfe Tone? One of the most famous Republicans in history, yet he was a Protestant.
Personally, I deplore the violence perpetrated by all sides, but due to some posts here, feel I should point out that more murders in the name of this "conflict" have been committed by Unionist paramilitaries, RUC and British troops than by all Republican factions put together if you take the statistics from 1969 to the present day.
The fact that one inquiry seems to have "dug out the truth" is a good thing - for the families of those involved. I have a vested interest there, I admit.
However, if these families have finally gained some "closure" regarding the events of Bloody Sunday, whatever the cost has been financially, I would argue that the same consideration is owed to the innocent victims and families of victims of violence on all sides - regardless of religious or political affiliation. The current British government has simply reported the findings of an enquiry started by their predecessors - financial constraints are sure to be the reason for no further inquiries into other incidents unless forced by law.
If one investigates further, rather than simply taking British news reports at face value, McGuinness was, at the time, both Quartermaster (weapons controller) and OC (Officer Commanding) of the Derry Provisional IRA. Many reliable Republican witnesses agree that he was carrying a Thompson 1921 model sub-machine gun on the day. This was later removed and hidden by "sympthisers" when it became apparent that he was one of those identified as a "ringleader" and had been marked down for immediate arrest.
To answer your question Cambo, "Why were Provisional IRA members there and why were they armed at a Civil Rights march?" Well, the reason was to cause panic, confusion and fear among their opponents, but above all, to escalate the profile of the situation. They were nothing to do with the true Civil Rights movement at the time. The pity of this is that because of their irresponsible actions, paratroops were called in and this resulted in the killing of peaceful, unarmed civilians, thus completely negating any protestation that they were there to defend - their presence merely worsened the situation.
They claimed at the time (and in subsequent interviews) that they were armed in order to protect marchers from the Protestant opposition - i.e. those who had firebombed houses, thrown bricks through windows and beaten up innocent Catholics in the street and to defend against the RUC and possible reaction by the British Army.
In interviews, many ex-provisionals have condemned the IRA's actions and involvement on that day - from using the Civil Rights march as a cover to transport and re-distribute weapons to the obvious rabble rousing and the later "violent protests" that occurred in the Bogside.
I don't think that any party involved in the whole sorry affair can claim complete innocence, apart from those who truly believed they were marching peacefully to protest for their civil rights and those of their families and community.
Many people that I've interviewed have reiterated the same belief - that anyone who claims to understand the situation in Ireland more than likely, doesn't have a clue.
I suppose we can all only go by the information presented to us, or better still, the information that we actively seek out, and attempt to form a reasoned, non-reactionary opinion for ourselves.
It's only when everyone puts aside their bigotry and biased views that the people of the Six Counties and those of the Republic can finally hope for a truly peaceful and optimistic future.
Finally, I don't think it does any of us much good to have any kind of slanging match about it all here. A sensible, reasoned discussion would surely be more productive?
Reasoned discussion? re: NI?
Seriously. Post of the year mate :D
I'd dispute the stat about total killings, mainly since about half those carried out by loyalists were blue on blue. In that respect they were outdone quite well, and very amusingly by the INLA who more or less exterminated each other.
You are right in that there IS no way it can all be understood, that's why I hop from foot to foot so much on the issue, there is ALWAYS another side to anything one cares to bring up.
I think there is a link between the religious mindset and the uberbigot, both require the ability to doublethink to olympic level. I hate the republicans cos they keep making bits of my town vanish, and cos they shot my da's best mate in the face in front of his wife and child. I hate the loyalists cos I live among them and experience their braindamaged nazi bullshit day in and day out to the point where i wanna scream. And I hate everyone else so as not to discriminate.
Doctor? wrote:
I'd dispute the stat about total killings, mainly since about half those carried out by loyalists were blue on blue. In that respect they were outdone quite well, and very amusingly by the INLA who more or less exterminated each other.
Quite right Steve, but they are among the official statistics used by British and Irish Governments and the "impartial" Americans 
It still turns out that those claiming "Republican murders" should have a look at the Loyalist record and think twice before exposing themselves as hypocrites...
They're all murdering scum.
Linked to your response, there's an interesting INLA story about a guy mixing a fertiliser bomb-mix in a shed with a concrete base. For those who don't know, concrete mix often contains pieces of flint - flint creates a spark when hit at an angle by a metal implement...
He'd been told how to do it, but got drunk first and forgot to put down PVC sheeting underneath before mixing. A spark from his shovel while doing the job... ignited the whole lot.
Reports said that bits of shed and bits of INLA fuckwit were found over 400 yards away...
You are quite right Col, I most definitely wasn't trying to distinguish between the two, the lad who posted this thread succesfully gained a reaction from me.
At the end of the day Bloody Sunday was a Civil Rights march as Chris so eleoquently describes above.
It wasn't an IRA parade.
Innocents died and the truth finally came out.
I'm not going to apologise for trying to highlight to there are two sides to the troubles, but this had no place on a thread entitled Bloody Sunday Report.
Side Note : Frads, yer spot on mate.
Shug wrote:
At the end of the day Bloody Sunday was a Civil Rights march .
Which was illegal (marches had been banned by law) ,and featured IRA members carrying guns. Hardly a peaceful gathering.
I'm not defending soldiers shooting innocent people.That is cowardly in it's own right. But £200million on a report ,and then the victims families seen celebrating with terrorists.
The report is an insult to all the innocent victims of the IRA.
Ger Boy wrote:
Shug wrote:
At the end of the day Bloody Sunday was a Civil Rights march .
Which was illegal (marches had been banned by law)
Ok it was an illegal Civil rights march.
Does that make it worse? It was a march for civil rights.
I despair with huns like yourself, I really do.
Feel free to have the last word.
Ger Boy wrote:
Shug wrote:
At the end of the day Bloody Sunday was a Civil Rights march .
Which was illegal (marches had been banned by law) ,and featured IRA members carrying guns. Hardly a peaceful gathering.
Would you say the same about the Civil Rights marches in South Africa, USA, Australia, Cuba, USSR, China, etc. and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan, that were also denounced as illegal by the governments of the time? Many innocent people beaten and some shot for peacefully standing up for their rights? In many of the above cases, there were also some armed militants, but tarring everyone with the same brush serves absolutely no logical or proactive purpose.
Ger Boy wrote:
But £200million on a report ,and then the victims families seen celebrating with terrorists. The report is an insult to all the innocent victims of the IRA.
The families can't control who is seen celebrating alongside them or in their vicinity or making proclamations ostensibly "on their behalf" - we see politicians and other public figures highjacking events for their own ends every day.
As I attempted to point out above, there were more innocent victims of the Loyalist paramilitaries, RUC and British troops than by all Republican groups combined. That is a fact and if you really want me to, I'll dig out the figures, the references, etc. - not from Wikipedia, but from reliable, unbiased authors, historians and commentators, alongside "official" figures.
To claim "insult" and label people "terrorists" (and yes, some are/were) is to stoop to being what people should strive against - ill-informed at best, believing the myths that have been perpetuated by those with a very definite disruptive social, political and/or selfish agenda.
That is what everyone should be striving to overcome if any kind of lasting peace is to prevail.
As for McGuinness, Adams, et al, one could arguably compare them to Mandela & co. - terrorists convicted by a state that they oppose, who have since renounced violence and become a part of the political machine that is working towards peace.
To be fair, also look at Paisley and his famous, "Ulster says 'No!'" speeches. He roused and indirectly encouraged many Loyalists/Unionists to violence, but eventually had the decency, along with Trimble and friends, to sit down, put aside his bigotry, and debate together with past enemies for the good of the whole.
Surely even they have, by their participation, attempted to lay the past down as history and attempt to secure a safer community for all?
Over-emotive partisan rhetoric, repeating the same old "party lines" and the use of perjorative terms such as "Huns", "Left Footers" etc. no longer serves any purpose to anyone, regardless of their beliefs and should no longer have a place in, nor be tolerated by any decent, intelligent society.
Oh, and WIFM is still shite... 
Ger Boy wrote:
Shug wrote:
At the end of the day Bloody Sunday was a Civil Rights march .
Which was illegal (marches had been banned by law) ,and featured IRA members carrying guns. Hardly a peaceful gathering.
I'm not defending soldiers shooting innocent people.That is cowardly in it's own right. But £200million on a report ,and then the victims families seen celebrating with terrorists.
The report is an insult to all the innocent victims of the IRA.
The mere fact that is was illegal proves there was a civil rights issue does it not.
There was rioting planned in advance by the IRA (a famous note left in a milk bottle on the Friday night read "no milk today paddy, but could you leave me 200 bottles".) In many respects I think they engineered the situation.
The celebrating with terrorists bit is disgusting.....I look forward to the enquiry into all the innocents killed in Iraq etc, and loads of happy muslim terrorists celebrating with their families at their new westminster offices.
£200 million seems a bit stupid.....they coulda just said "sorry, our troops were out of order" and saved us all £5 each.
In all honesty the only reason Britain bothered to hang on to us was to keep a hold of the Belfast harbour estate, harlands, short brothers etc. Now the cold war (and indeed the British Navy) is a thing of the past, there is no incentive. Personally I couldn't care less which government taxes me......tho I'd feel better were it the Irish Govt. and it wasn't being used to bomb schools and hospitals in a country that has never harmed us in the least.
Chris mentioned how religion is little to with it any more, but the churches are dick deep in it....hiding weapons, allowing volleys of shots to be fired over graves [1]etc (both sides I might add), but as I see it, if the churches do not ban these people from attending and condemn them with every breath, then they are accessories.
As for the "impariality" of the septics....I have a lovely letter from offtel confirming that a certain show featuring that cock who I only know as "sherriff teeth" (world's wildest videos or something) will never be shown in the UK again. It featured a package about that total cunt michael stone's attack on a funeral. He described stone as a terrorist, but said it was a funeral for "IRA Soldier". Wanker.
[1] there was a catholic girl who lived behind me when I was in Bloomfield, a MAJOR loyalist shitehole, and she actually asked her priest if she could be unconfirmed, or request excommunication. Why? because her local priest where she came from in Bellshaft, had refused to do a service for her sister, who committed suicide (a mortal sin), but a week later allowed the funeral of an IRA bomber, with full military "honours".
Good thread. Nice to see political passion coinciding (mostly) with articulate prose. Having said that, isn't it about time that glib neo-sectarian point-scoring became a banning offence? Not only is it offensive, its also offensively boring - particularly for those of us whose families stem from the moronic-protestant-twat side of Glasgow and have had to put up with this regressive shite their entire lives.
Thanks.
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote:
Having said that, isn't it about time that glib neo-sectarian point-scoring became a banning offence?
Fully agree with you
Not seen any 'sectarian point scoring' in this thread though
Just people having what is called different opinions.
