How cosy is this?
When MSM is basically a press office branch for the establishment in this country, itâs very worrying for politics in this country. Itâs no wonder extremism is on the rise when ordinary people can see the corruption, lack of accountability and brazen arrogance of the perpetrators that exists in this country.
So basically what some lads want to do here is to ban any councillor who at any point in the future may want to buy or even inhabit a house, from voting on anything to do with land.
Workable.
No. Youâre not very bright or else just wildly pro corruption for the elite class.
The councillor in this case had a conflict of interest as his wife had expressed an interest in buying public land, bid on and purchased public land that her husband voted to put up for sale, aware of this fact, that his wife is now likely to profit immensely off through in the way of public funds for what once was a public asset.
Collins also lied on a planning application, giving a fake name and making false declarations to circumvent planning regulations. Politicians using deceptions and false declarations to override the laws they are meant to implement and uphold is a route and branch failure of good governance.
I havenât seen any mention of that anywhere. Have you a link? In general I canât see why anyone would have issues with hate speech or hate crime legislation.
What is hate speech?
Go fuck yourself you malignant limerick cunt!
We have laws on it already but theyâre due to be updated as you noted. It will be redefined under the new act I presume. Currently I think itâs an offence to communicate threatening, abusive or insulting material that is likely to âstir upâ hatred against a group of people. The types of groups are specified. Where did you get the bit about the gardai and social media?
The new legislation also seems to, bizarrely, shift the burden of proof to the the accused. Which is bonkers
(Iâm trying to find the link to the piece about searching. I canât locate it now. Iâll hold my hands up if thatâs not true)
Why is that bonkers?
It reads as guilty until proven innocent.
The land was disposed of on the open market. Entirely legal. No conflict of interest. No pecuniary interest. It is impossible for there to be when land is disposed of on the open market.
Youâre perfectly entitled to shout until your little face turns green but it doesnât alter the facts.
Again, in your world, any councillor who ever plans to inhabit a dwelling in future is guilty of a conflict of interest by voting on whether a council should even consider disposing of land on the open market.
Collins wasnât even on the council that voted to dispose of the land. He was on the council that voted to consider whether the council should dispose of the land.
There are pieces of wet tissue paper hold up better than the Ditchâs âstoryâ.
Itâs not that but if you post something - say critical of trans activists. A complaint is made to Gardai. Theyâll investigate some of these as theyâll have to. You may well have a defence under legislation. You may well not be convicted but a criminal investigation against you wonât be pleasant, involves seizure and analysis of all electronic devices, explaining that to work, friends and family (explaining is losing etc ).
It wonât affect most people but anybody who fancies a debate should stay away from Twitter and do it in a pub to avoid any risk of this.
I think this is the section youâre talking about:
Itâs been bandied about that you can be prosecuted fir failing to provide passwords for phones to the gardai under new legislation⌠Is this true?
Putting the onus of guilt onto the accused off the bat seems a bit bizarre and an attempt to control free speech from the left (surprise surprise)
Itâs absolutely mental if thatâs true⌠All you have to do is accuse someone and youâll fuck their life up whether thereâs substance or not to the claim⌠This is straight out of the lefty control handbook.
Yeah you are probably unlikely to be convicted but a criminal investigation ainât where you want to be and has all sorts of knock on effects on travel and vetting
Iâm sure some set of criteria have to be met before then⌠But itâs still a very bizarre law to bring in.
@Batigol has bandied something like that about alright. I donât see that anywhere in the bill but I havenât looked very hard. Where has this suggestion come from?
Your second sentence appears to be incoherent gibberish.
What dont you understand about his second sentence? It seems fairly easy to me.
Itâs not my fault you canât read 
