New Irish case reported by the Irish times

Morrisj · Post by **Morrisj** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:08 pm

haha what question did you ask?cos am ready to answer but you havent answered mine ,i asked who where you referring to as Pump parish idiots?who cos to me it sounds as if IRISH TOM which is also you prepared the way for you to make comments using walsgrumble.be honest and dare tell us who were refering to as pump parish idiots cos that would give a clear picture to people.Am still waiting for the moderator to give me a proof you aint same person until then it is what it is. burned,threat,racecard ????????

IQU · Post by **IQU** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:18 pm

warls i am sorry i didnot mean to hurt somebody feelings.i didnot mean that.come on lads move on.

Morrisj · Post by **Morrisj** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:23 pm

and when where how did i call u a dearly beloved,please go back and read previous comments before disgracing yourself.you and the others cant stop me,just accept your shame and stop disgracing yourself,now you are confused with the user-id u were called a dearly beloved.Well you as Irishtom was called a dearly beloved by IQU but to my surprise you as walgrumble is now giving out and what made it more funny,IQU had to apologize to walsgrumble instead of Irishtom lol,are u gona log in as Irishtom tomorrow and say loadza crap now?

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:40 pm

Morrisj wrote:haha what question did you ask?cos am ready to answer but you havent answered mine ,i asked who where you referring to as Pump parish idiots?who cos to me it sounds as if IRISH TOM which is also you prepared the way for you to make comments using walsgrumble.be honest and dare tell us who were refering to as pump parish idiots cos that would give a clear picture to people.Am still waiting for the moderator to give me a proof you aint same person until then it is what it is. burned,threat,racecard ????????

This is the first time that you asked who I was referring to when I said Parish Pump Idiots. And if it is not, I simply did not understand what you were on about in the last post.

The answer to your question, is the Irish Electorate ie Irish Voters ie Irish Citizens. If you have lived in Ireland long enough, and Monife herself shall confirm this, you would understand what that means (Politics is not always decided in the interest of the State but focused on more localized, short term or narrow minded vision). There was no reference to immigrants at all, so whatever point that you were trying to make, is irrelevant.

The reason for my comment was to respond to Irish Tom who seems to be in favour of the recent Constitutional Amendment on Judges Pay. I am totally against the wording of the current bill because of the nature of Irish Politics. It lives Judges in a very dangerous position if, Ireland became a non democratic country, and judge can't punished when making judgment that they don't like. (No one is against reduction in judges pay, but this bill provides a dangerous and vague manner for doing so)

Considering my comment in relation to that, it seems rather odd that you are picking up on it in your attempt to scrap the end of the barrel on whatever argument you are now trying to condure up.

Keep searching as hard as you can. There is no proof that we are the same, and not one other regular contributor will back you up on this. The same shall be said for your allegations of beloved. There have been a few occassions that ridiculous, dearly beloved, ill founded and self serving comments have been made by people like you on this site against Irish people, yet we don't jump on you or them. My comment to ICQ was simply to see whether there was double standards involved (something I despise), I never actually said he was, nor do I.

So when you are proven wrong,again, you undertake to either (a) Leave this site or (b) cease making groundless allegations against other posters, unless you can prove it and question him / her on them, before your peers?

With regard to questions put to you, I simply say that instead of trying to move the goals posts and trying to clock up more posts for your counter and making comments towards me, that are utterly irrelevant, deal with my first post on this thread. Is there anything there, that you can dispute against. I say that there is nothing validly that could be argued.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:44 pm

Morrisj wrote:and when where how did i call u a dearly beloved,please go back and read previous comments before disgracing yourself.you and the others cant stop me,just accept your shame and stop disgracing yourself,now you are confused with the user-id u were called a dearly beloved.Well you as Irishtom was called a dearly beloved by IQU but to my surprise you as walgrumble is now giving out and what made it more funny,IQU had to apologize to walsgrumble instead of Irishtom lol,are u gona log in as Irishtom tomorrow and say loadza crap now?

I will appologise to no one. I have said nothing to that poster. That posters comments on that issue were ridiculous. That poster made a sweeping remark. I simply questioned him on what he meant by the comments that he made. You actually are the person to brand IQU a dearly beloved. Look, you said

"@wals listen i dont really care if you are Irishtom and to be completely honest IQU shouldnt have gone far calling irishtom(which i think is you) a dearly beloved ..........."

By the way, what do you mean by "which I think is you".?

Those words are in brackets, would it be correct to assume that they are your words and opinions?

You are not even commenting directly in response to any of my posts, nor are you dealing with what say in response. One can only resume that you have nothing to say.

Unless you have anything constructive to say, or willing to deal with the issues, I am not going to respond to any more retarded comments . At least have the intelligence and grace to back them up.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:52 pm

IQU wrote:warls i am sorry i didnot mean to hurt somebody feelings.i didnot mean that.come on lads move on.

Not at all, I never took it as abuse. My point was, why go down the same route as Irish Tom, if such allegations are true.

There are better and intelligent ways to criticical (and even abuse - but not here) and respond to comments appropriately .

It was only on the basis of your normal regular contribution that, there was no issue with it. I knew where you stood. Its sound.

Now people see the importance of backing up what they say. They (ye) don't like the gun being pointed straight back. Again, for those who trived on the race card to get yer way in the last number of years (not you) its a reminder that those days are long over. (ie when issue of race etc has nothing to do with the issue)

Post by **Obie** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:35 pm

We expect members to show respect and courtesy towards each other.

This forum is not a war forum or Stormfront, it is for advice and discussion.

We live in a supposedly civilize nation. Therefore i will expect people to behave in a cordial and harmonious manner to each other.

This is an advice to all the usual culprits. I implore you to change your ways.

It will be deeply regrettable if some people were to wake up one day and realise they are no longer part of this wonderful community of decent people.

They will have only themselves to blame in those circumstances.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:48 pm

Obie wrote:We expect members to show respect and courtesy towards each other.

This forum is not a war forum or Stormfront, it is for advice and discussion.

We live in a supposedly civilize nation. Therefore i will expect people to behave in a cordial and harmonious manner to each other.

This is an advice to all the usual culprits. I implore you to change your ways.

It will be deeply regrettable if some people were to wake up one day and realise they are no longer part of this wonderful community of decent people.

They will have only themselves to blame in those circumstances.

Well, make sure when people comment, they actually have something to support their view/opinion etc. If they purport to talk about the law, this is very important because it stops others making groundless claims or misunderstanding a poster's views for a statement of fact. Such manner also gets rid of bluffers who alleged another person's interpretation is incorrect, they should provide some sort of link or credible opinion. It tends to dampen any discussion going wayward.

Some of that would be a first, even you Obie.

Potentially libelous and unsupported comments should also be stamped out.

Morrisj · Post by **Morrisj** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:55 pm

@@@ moderators and webmaster i honestly would like to know why my account has been saying "you are banned contact webmaster or moderator since 2 days ago on me mobile" i reserve further comment until i get a proper explanation regarding my statement above.

I dislike partiality, Mr wals have been the one using the abusive words yet he wasnt banned precise i havent done anything wrong yet some individuals using offensive words are still members (Il call that discrimination on the highest order) like Mr wals is your lil god here.

I am still repeating myself Irishtom is same person as walsgrumble,one might wonder why hasn't Irishtom showed up all this while or has he not seen the comments made? really funny

Morrisj · Post by **Morrisj** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:11 pm

walrusgumble wrote:
Morrisj wrote:and when where how did i call u a dearly beloved,please go back and read previous comments before disgracing yourself.you and the others cant stop me,just accept your shame and stop disgracing yourself,now you are confused with the user-id u were called a dearly beloved.Well you as Irishtom was called a dearly beloved by IQU but to my surprise you as walgrumble is now giving out and what made it more funny,IQU had to apologize to walsgrumble instead of Irishtom lol,are u gona log in as Irishtom tomorrow and say loadza crap now?
I will appologise to no one. I have said nothing to that poster. That posters comments on that issue were ridiculous. That poster made a sweeping remark. I simply questioned him on what he meant by the comments that he made. You actually are the person to brand IQU a dearly beloved. Look, you said

"@wals listen i dont really care if you are Irishtom and to be completely honest IQU shouldnt have gone far calling irishtom(which i think is you) a dearly beloved ..........."

By the way, what do you mean by "which I think is you".?

Those words are in brackets, would it be correct to assume that they are your words and opinions?

You are not even commenting directly in response to any of my posts, nor are you dealing with what say in response. One can only resume that you have nothing to say.

Unless you have anything constructive to say, or willing to deal with the issues, I am not going to respond to any more retarded comments . At least have the intelligence and grace to back them up.

@Mr wals now i know something is wrong with you, you know why?

1 yes i have asked you the meaning of pump parish idiots previously,that wasn't my first time maybe u have problem with sight so i give you that

2.No you dummy, i wasn't thinking you were referring to immigrants as pump parish idiots, of course am not that f''''lish like you, i know that parish means Irish which is a disgrace calling Irish such a new nickname,am disappointed.anyways when you said pump parish idiots i thought you meant the present government which i honestly think it is you smart mule.

3 what you trying to do?trying to cause an argument between me and IQU ?haha yes i said he shouldnt have gone far calling IrishTom(you) a dearly beloved,whats wrong with that?does that mean i said IQU was a dearly beloved, you are really good with words, am glad IQU didn fall for that crap you invented (mr wals invention of enemity)

dearly beloved to the Irish people? hahaha thats the funniest statement ever made,you know why?anyways i keep that to myself cos u dont even know who you are dealing with.

is like you still not getting it,can you go back and read previous comments then you will know who exactly called you a dearly beloved please stop accusing me or cant you read? Irish tom(you) was the only one that was called a dearly beloved by IQU, it wasn't even to walsgumble (also you) so can you tell me whats your problem and stop accusing me i called you a dearly beloved mr.

stop crying like baby.....acting as a superman that knows everything, you know nothing Mr

You said you knew Irishtom was Irish because he is on other sites as well which made me laugh,you know why?because Mr wlasgumlble is also on every other site you find Irishtom what a coincidence mmmmmmmmmm..

IrishTom · Post by **IrishTom** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:39 am

Africa for the Africans; Asia for the Asians, White countries for everybody.

No one is flooding African countries with millions of non-Africans, and giving them Affirmative Action, special rights, privileges, benefits and free health-care.

No one is flooding Asian countries with millions of non-Asians, and giving them Affirmative Action, special rights, privileges and free health-care.

Only White countries are being forced to do this.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:52 am

This thread is getting ridiculous. Irish tom should be banned. Morris should be suspended. Deal with the discussion.The topic was this ase. It was as I pointed out based only on Irish law and not E U law. If no one is willing to discuss the case. This link should close.MOdeither rators should dwere or edit posts that are irrelevant or not supported

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:00 pm

IrishTom wrote:Africa for the Africans; Asia for the Asians, White countries for everybody.
No one is flooding African countries with millions of non-Africans, and giving them Affirmative Action, special rights, privileges, benefits and free health-care.
No one is flooding Asian countries with millions of non-Asians, and giving them Affirmative Action, special rights, privileges and free health-care.
Only White countries are being forced to do this.

you seem to ignore history . How is that relevant here. If people play by the books and come here and stay here legally,thus invited by the state,then they are welcome.Your comments undermine the legitimate right to deal with illegals,regardless of their colour or nationality.you have evidence that all get free stuff? no you don't

IQU · Post by **IQU** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:06 pm

irish tom .i think you just born yesterday.your sense of rumour is useless.what are you talking africa for africian.asia for asain.eu is for white people ok.just let you know last week china and india making the plan to help eu to bailout some 3 trimillion euro.

Monifé · Post by **Monifé** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:30 am

IrishTom wrote:Africa for the Africans; Asia for the Asians, White countries for everybody.

No one is flooding African countries with millions of non-Africans, and giving them Affirmative Action, special rights, privileges, benefits and free health-care.

No one is flooding Asian countries with millions of non-Asians, and giving them Affirmative Action, special rights, privileges and free health-care.

Only White countries are being forced to do this.

Do you think before you type? You claim you are not a dearly beloved, that is one of the most dearly beloved comments I have heard.

Walrus is right, IrishTom should be banned. He poses no importance to this forum and has been given fair warning.

Morrisj · Post by **Morrisj** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:16 am

hahahahahaha what a funny joke.Wals i must comment u are trying a lil bit with your smartness.Mm. Irishtom didnt appear all these while but he chose to reappear on sunday(same day i told him as walsgrumble doesnt come online)i guess that was to fool people.Now Irishtom didnt give out to all the comments made about him,he couldnt even defend himself instead he made ridiculous comment and him as wals was the first to reply Irishtom(him again)using strong words,so people will think they are diff individuals

Morrisj · Post by **Morrisj** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:23 am

@wals how come u made such a mistake,thinking that it was you they called a dearly beloved?It was Irishtom that was called a dearly beloved but your previous comments about you being called a dearly beloved is enough to prove you are Irishtom aswell.Why should the moderator edit comments?oh you dont want people to see your mess?Moderators now you can ban me.The truth is the truth.Wish every1 of you the best out there.peace.
p.s Walsgumble is same as Irishtom take it or leave it

Rip v Winkle · Post by **Rip v Winkle** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:08 am

I completely agree with Walrusgumble on this. the discussion has degenerated into a very nasty form of internet pingpong.

The case itself is interesting.
There seems to be strong circumstantial evidence of a sham "marriage", not to mention the the moral implications of possibly having child for this purpose.
However, the Judge has (presumably) applied the law as it stands. If we as a State feel that the law needs changing (and I think Justice Hogan strongly implied that it does last March), then the Minister should have new laws drafted.
He might consider clarifying immigration legisation at the same time. The rules are far too vague and the INIS is a nightmare. Franz Kafka springs to mind.

Regulator56 · Post by **Regulator56** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:57 am

I believe that Walrus and IrishTom is the same person that has registered using different accounts. Just looking at their posts, it is suspicious or remarkably a miraculous coincidence that they seem to post around the same time. Also, Walrus seems to intelligently come to Irishtom's defense without giving himself away.

This is just an hypothesis but because of the divisive nature of this issue on the forum, I would implore the Mods to check the IP address of both posters to determine if they are indeed the same person.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:50 pm

Regulator56 wrote:I believe that Walrus and IrishTom is the same person that has registered using different accounts. Just looking at their posts, it is suspicious or remarkably a miraculous coincidence that they seem to post around the same time. Also, Walrus seems to intelligently come to Irishtom's defense without giving himself away.

This is just an hypothesis but because of the divisive nature of this issue on the forum, I would implore the Mods to check the IP address of both posters to determine if they are indeed the same person.

I call on the Moderators to check all the IP address(s) of both myself and Irish Tom. Once it was confirmed 100% legitimate, and the moderators made themselves known to me, I would have no problem disclosing any information to them in order to proceed with a through investigation. It shall only confirm absolute that such claims are laughable and unfounded.

This should be done within 5 days. Once is it proven to be rubbish, I call on the Moderators to ban those who have made groundless comments for at least 2 weeks and for an unconditional apology in front on their peers.

It is pathetic that some posters, continue their web of illusion and lies since having any association with this country and site, are incapable of dealing with matters that are actually discussed ie comments about a case that the original poster did not read, nor actually read the link, that was responded to. It was taken by as an attack, which it was not. numerous comments have been made, they have been called to confirm the issue, have not bothered, and even one poster blatantly stated that they did not care if their facts were correct.

Sad really. Brutal notion if you think this is a tactic to shut people up.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:57 pm

Regulator56 wrote:I believe that Walrus and IrishTom is the same person that has registered using different accounts. Just looking at their posts, it is suspicious or remarkably a miraculous coincidence that they seem to post around the same time. Also, Walrus seems to intelligently come to Irishtom's defense without giving himself away.

This is just an hypothesis but because of the divisive nature of this issue on the forum, I would implore the Mods to check the IP address of both posters to determine if they are indeed the same person.

Would you mind, considering, by your status as a newbie, to actually point out, in an archive of 3-4 years of comment and even these recent posts, where you get such ridiculous notions?

Funny, how very few regular contributors make any comment or support your contention. Is it a coincidence that a "newbie" has come on after Morris coped on that he does not have a leg to stand on? No, I won't go that far, because I can't prove it, but neither can you prove your allegation.

Strange that comments are made so fast? Really? Go to any discussion website, including here, you will see regular contributors comment in a regular time pattern. Leave the detective work to the professions Sherlock.

Now, newbie, be a good boy/girl and prove it. It should not be hard considering in your mind, and allegedly after actually reading the archive, to confirm this.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:06 pm

Morrisj wrote:@wals how come u made such a mistake,thinking that it was you they called a dearly beloved?It was Irishtom that was called a dearly beloved but your previous comments about you being called a dearly beloved is enough to prove you are Irishtom aswell.Why should the moderator edit comments?oh you dont want people to see your mess?Moderators now you can ban me.The truth is the truth.Wish every1 of you the best out there.peace.
p.s Walsgumble is same as Irishtom take it or leave it

I asked you a question, I did not make allegations. The "?" made that clear. You have not answered the question. You called Irish Tom a dearly beloved, which, to be far would not be an unfair comment to make, in light of the comments made, but you continuously say, and have pointed out from your posts, that Irish Tome is me. Is it a mistake?

The only thing I pointed out was there are many posters here would not realize the dearly beloved tones that they come out with. No body disputed the comment that I have made towards ICQ, and I even commented that no allegation was made towards that person because that person has a good reputation here.

No disrespect, but it is unlikely that you would know proven truth if it smacked you in the face.

Now deal with the discussion, the reason that you started the post.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:23 pm

Rip v Winkle wrote:I completely agree with Walrusgumble on this. the discussion has degenerated into a very nasty form of internet pingpong.

The case itself is interesting.
There seems to be strong circumstantial evidence of a sham "marriage", not to mention the the moral implications of possibly having child for this purpose.
However, the Judge has (presumably) applied the law as it stands. If we as a State feel that the law needs changing (and I think Justice Hogan strongly implied that it does last March), then the Minister should have new laws drafted.
He might consider clarifying immigration legisation at the same time. The rules are far too vague and the INIS is a nightmare. Franz Kafka springs to mind.

There was no issue of "sham marriages" in the case that you referred to. You should not make such comments if you never read what Hogan J actually said or what the State claimed. There is a difference between coming to Ireland and already being pregnant, and another to actually become pregnant with a partner, who is undisputely together.

The Judge based it on Irish law. The "present status quo" under Irish Law, has been assumed to be Lobe. While that might be so, the State have on a continous basis applied Lobe as a carte blanche in ALL subsequent cases, even if the FACTS of the case are almost identical to Fajunonu. The cases of Dimbo removed some of the veener in Lobe.

It is no surprise that Hogan J came to the conclusion that he did, he has made his views clear in his writings and has been the leading barrister in most of the IBC cases, including, I believe, the Lobe case.

It was easy for the judge to come to this conclusion, in light of Judicial Review, because the Minister failed to properly analysis the couples case. It is not enough, simply to make a few bland sentences to properly consider that persons case. It goes beyond, in some ways, in light of facts of the cases, of old ECtHR cases (that accepted that even EU citizens may have to relocate if they want to be united, if insurmountable obstacles are not present - makes relationship with EU law all the more interesting, in light of Lisbon. Irrespective, Zambrano would be relevant if it was considered, Dercie taken aside.

Had the Minister (old Minister) made properly analysis, it would be difficult to see a judge being able to over rule it. I won't be surprised if this is appealed. Though, depending on the State's interpretation of Zambrano, that might not happen. It is odd, Zambrano was not expressed in the Judgment.

The Immigration Bill has had some "fun" times in the past 2-5 years. I don't see a whole lot of change if enacted, bar it will be in writing. Despite Shatter's comments as an opposition Minister, I can't see the government will reduce Ministerial discretion, as they need to deal with whatever new issues emerge, as amending legislation takes time.

Reform is definitely needed.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:26 pm

Morrisj wrote:hahahahahaha what a funny joke.Wals i must comment u are trying a lil bit with your smartness.Mm. Irishtom didnt appear all these while but he chose to reappear on sunday(same day i told him as walsgrumble doesnt come online)i guess that was to fool people.Now Irishtom didnt give out to all the comments made about him,he couldnt even defend himself instead he made ridiculous comment and him as wals was the first to reply Irishtom(him again)using strong words,so people will think they are diff individuals

where on this thread did he say that?

You do realise, that there is an option that in one's email accounts that notifies a person of an incoming reply to one's previous comments? Morris, get in contact with the Moderators.

walrusgumble · Post by **walrusgumble** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:31 pm

IQU wrote:irish tom .i think you just born yesterday.your sense of rumour is useless.what are you talking africa for africian.asia for asain.eu is for white people ok.just let you know last week china and india making the plan to help eu to bailout some 3 trimillion euro.

That maybe true, but it is not like China are doing it for free. It is kind of a big thing to do if one wants to become a SuperPower, like the Americans after WW2. History repeating itself, Europe now the old world, the future is East.

Why laughing though, suggests a complete failure to understand global economics. I would not be laughing, because it effects every economy in the world. Like what has happened in Ireland, if or when the big mulitnational industries (including the Asians themselves) no longer have a need for cheap labour (and high trained work force) they will move out of Asia etc to exploit another. (no I ain't a Commie / Socialist / anti capitalist hack)

I see the Chinese aren't exactly learning from the folly and idiotic of America and Europe with its deep interest in the property boom. Ah, it will all need in tears, unless the Chinese are smart enough to cop on.

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

New Irish case reported by the Irish times