Adam Barton

[paul_oshea]

And you'd still be wrong. I inferred nothing about posts I wasn't replying to.



I didn't realise this thread was a court of law, military or otherwise. Even if it was, I haven't even replied to (or been answered by) Messrs Invincible and Predator, and merely corrected Fly who seems to think I was replying/ referring to one poster when I clearly addressed another. But if that's what floats Lord Justice Ardee's boat, fine.

Fly knew well, he was saying he holds inference as in EG speaks in flowery language.

[DannyInvincible]

"Any Association which is responsible for organising and supervising football
in its country may become a Member of FIFA. In this context, the expression
“country” shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international
community. Subject to par. 5 and par. 6 below, only one Association shall be
recognised in each country"

Unfortunately, "territory" is left undefined, so we just have precedent to help us understand what FIFA deem it to mean.

[DannyInvincible]

Ha ha.
;)

Good to see Danny Invincible, Predator and The Fly all over this thread.

Our 'barrack room lawyers' are way ahead of the EG/GR's of this world.
Men against boys and all that.

Hehe, why thank you. Although in fairness to GR, I find his contributions to be generally fair, rational and reasoned even if he does happen to have differing interests from the majority posting here. Certainly a relief from the disingenuity of EG.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Maybe you're right but clearly you've not read his, er, input, on a certain Glaswegian football club.
Which would disprove that theory fairly quickly!!

[Predator]

Hehe, why thank you. Although in fairness to GR, I find his contributions to be generally fair, rational and reasoned even if he does happen to have differing interests from the majority posting here. Certainly a relief from the disingenuity of EG.I agree.


Ha ha.
;)

Good to see Danny Invincible, Predator and The Fly all over this thread.

Our 'barrack room lawyers' are way ahead of the EG/GR's of this world.
Men against boys and all that.I think you flatter me AB! Or are you cheekily denigrating my contribution?! :)

[The Fly]

I think you flatter me AB! Or are you cheekily denigrating my contribution?! :)

Perhaps he's making special reference to our combined contributions towards the debate over on OWC. ;)

[Not Brazil]

so we just have precedent to help us understand what FIFA deem it to mean.

Really?

And what "precedent" is that?

I'll give you a clue - Bruce did not acquire a new nationality.

However Barton may be eligible for the Republic Of Ireland, it is not because Northern Ireland is the territory of the FAI.

[The Fly]

Belfast Telegraph article on Barton's call-up (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/bartonrsquos-republic-call-is-latest-snub-for-northern-ireland-15115409.html)

[Predator]

What little credibility the Belfast Telegraph sports writers had, has, in my opinion, been torn to shreds by their last few articles on the affair.

[DannyInvincible]

Really?

And what "precedent" is that?

I'll give you a clue - Bruce did not acquire a new nationality.

However Barton may be eligible for the Republic Of Ireland, it is not because Northern Ireland is the territory of the FAI.

Are you saying Bruce qualified to play for us under article 15 then? That's kind of the idea I was mulling over in post #131 regarding Barton. I can certainly see how it's possible.

Is Barton acquiring a new nationality?

[SwanVsDalton]

Bel Tel's sports coverage has always been similarly one-sided. Their news coverage might have moved out of the dark ages of bias, but it doesn't reach the back pages, particularly not when it comes to football.

Edit - Oh yeah, and their ignorance of statutes is fairly shocking as well of course. Don't be letting facts get in the way of a good ranticle.

[Charlie Darwin]

This classic from the comments:


How does THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT fit in this instance, as another post says politics should be kept out of football, there is nothing good about the GFA if all it encourages is poaching our mainly catholic players.

Because the GFA was mainly a football agreement.

[Predator]

Edit - Oh yeah, and their ignorance of statutes if fairly shocking as well of course. Don't be letting facts get in the way of a good ranticle.Ranticle. I like that portmanteau.

[DannyInvincible]

Belfast Telegraph article on Barton's call-up (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/bartonrsquos-republic-call-is-latest-snub-for-northern-ireland-15115409.html)


Londonderry-born Duffy was capped at under-16, 17, 19 and 21 levels, by Northern Ireland, but stunned his coaches when he declared for the Republic — the country of his father’s birth — last year.

Stunned? Wasn't the possibility of Duffy switching allegiance a well-known and long-running worry for the IFA?

[Not Brazil]

What little credibility the Belfast Telegraph sports writers had, has, in my opinion, been torn to shreds by their last few articles on the affair.

I have to agree - I shook my head in disbelief when I read a recent article in the BT by Stuart McKinley about Paul George choosing the Republic.

It was patently obvious that he hadn't read or understood the CAS findings.

[Not Brazil]

Is Barton acquiring a new nationality?

Not sure.

[DannyInvincible]

Not sure.

Likewise. Is anyone possible to shed some light on this?

[Bungle]

Have to say that if Barton played senior football for the North, you can't blame them for being peeved about him coming over to us. On the other hand, they should recognise that the likes of Duffy or George are a special case.

[DannyInvincible]

Have to say that if Barton played senior football for the North, you can't blame them for being peeved about him coming over to us.

But less peeved if he had been called into the England under-21 squad apparently. I think Barton had always been open with regard to his intentions; that his trip over to play for Worthington was just to test the water and see what the experience would be like. Worthington understood his wish to keep his options open and, from what I've read, appeared sympathetic, albeit Worthington's understanding seemed to be that Barton was holding out for an England call-up, or was at least undecided between Northern Ireland and England. But why should we be viewed any differently from England when it transpires that we were in the frame for Barton as another option? Not the fault of the FAI if Barton wasn't completely transparent with Worthington.


On the other hand, they should recognise that the likes of Duffy or George are a special case.

Oft forgotten or overlooked amongst the confused furore that is the eligibility issue is that Duffy's father is of course Donegal-born, so even if the FAI had been instructed by FIFA or CAS that calling up northern-born Irish nationals with no family links to the Irish state, as it were, was contravening rules - and such instruction was what the IFA and the majority of their fans sought from the Kearns case - Duffy would still have been perfectly eligible to play for us. I always thought it a bit tawdry to have launched the Kearns case off the back of the publicity generated from exploiting an 18-year-old as a scapegoat in the media. Especially as they're meant to be the good guys...

[DannyInvincible]

Spot on.

Funnily enough, I was having a wee gander on OWC this morning and came across this (http://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/football/worthy_has_to_concede_defeat_in_o_hara_bid_1_18635 74) article about Jamie O'Hara posted by EG himself just over a month ago in a thread on Adam Hammill (Wolves player with a northern-born grandparent who has represented England at under-19 level).


In spite of the unsuccessful bid [to acquire the services of Jamie O'Hara], Worthington said he would continue to monitor players on the mainland.

“It sends out the message that if there are any players available for Northern Ireland then we will be on their case,” he added.

“There are no players we are looking into at this moment in time, but we are always fishing to see who is where and doing what, and if they are available.

“I’m not in a position to turn down potential players for Northern Ireland. If a Roy Keane, a Berbatov or a Whiteside is out there and eligible for this country then we will do what we have to do to get them .

“We will look down all avenues and if players are quality and can play for Northern Ireland then it would be wrong of us to sit back and do nothing.

Bear in mind that the piece itself is from 2008 prior to when the age limit of 21 imposed upon a player as the threshold before which he had to decide who he wished to represent internationally was lifted, but it outlines pretty clearly and straight from the horse's mouth how actual IFA policy nullifies any self-perceived right of the IFA/NI fans to take a moral high ground when it comes to international player recruitment.

The following from the same thread also caught my eye as the circumstances of Hammill and Barton are somewhat similar - the Irish connection of both being a northern-born grandparent - although I don't know whether or not Hammill played in a competitive game for the England under-19s.


If Hamill's only Irish connection is an NI-born grandparent, I simply cannot see how he can be eligible for them.

The basic eligibility provision is to be found in FIFA's Article 15. This states:
1. Any person holding a permanent nationality which is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country.
The CAS/Kearns case confirmed, and Blatter later reiterated at an IFAB meeting in the Slieve Donard, that this (appallingly phrased) Article means that anyone who holds Irish nationality automatically from birth, may represent the FAI.

On article 15, here is what CAS had to say from the Kearns judgment (http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4385/5048/0/Award%202071.pdf):


Two general principles emerge from Article 15 of the 2009 Application Regulations:

• The first one is that a player can be selected for the representative teams of the association of the country of which he holds the nationality. The nationality must be permanent and not dependent upon residence in the country concerned (Article 15 par. 1). Exceptions to this principle are found in Articles 16 and 17.

• The second principle is that a player who has already been selected for the
team of an association and participated in any match (either in full or in CAS 2010/A/2071 IFA v/ FAI, Kearns & FIFA - Page 22 part) in an officia1 competition may not thereafter switch to another association for which he would also be eligible (Article 15 par. 2). However, if the player satisfies the conditions specified in Article 18, he can make on a single occasion only a request for change of association.

If EG could outline where in the judgment CAS "confirmed" that article 15 related to those holding Irish nationality "automatically from birth", I'd be very appreciative. I wouldn't be surprised if his claim regarding Blatter's "reiteration" is also a figment of his imagination. Of course, it doesn't strictly mean that Blatter didn't single out article 15 for discussion and analysis, but this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7917738.stm) is all I can find on that meeting, besides other articles which say pretty much the same thing worded differently. Sometimes, I worry that EalingGreen, gradually over time, actually begins to believe some of the lies and deceit he peddles.

[Gather round]

Sometimes, I worry that EalingGreen, gradually over time, actually begins to believe some of the lies and deceit he peddles

Sometimes, I worry that DI may be playing man rather than ball here.

[DannyInvincible]

Sometimes, I worry that DI may be playing man rather than ball here.

Hehe, touché. I won't deny that one-upmanship may provide a bit of a guilty pleasure for me from time to time when it comes to EG. However, I didn't actually go fishing though OWC for EG quotes with the intention of challenging them here, but I thought the above items were relevant to this discussion when I stumbled across them as there are a couple of things I think he ought to clear up. From my brief skim through the threads on OWC that caught my attention, there appeared to be a consensus of sorts that EG's interpretations and musings were correct on the general eligibility matter, or at least were in no need of correction. I don't think it's a help to anyone, other than those who wilfully delude themselves to the relief of having to face up to unwelcome truths, that such misapprehension or intentional misrepresentation of the facts (I'm never sure which it is with EG) be allowed to go unchallenged, never mind receive positive appraisal. I do try to deal with the issues as well from time to time. ;)

[ArdeeBhoy]

Sometimes, I worry that DI may be playing man rather than ball here.

Hardly.

As I said, DI, P & TF are the most objective commentators on this thread. They're not infallible, but unlike some (myself included, you, EG etc) they don't bring it on themselves.....

[Gather round]

Hehe, touché. I won't deny that one-upmanship may provide a bit of a guilty pleasure for me...such misapprehension or intentional misrepresentation of the facts (I'm never sure which it is with EG) be allowed to go unchallenged

The playing -the-man isn't in the oneupmanship (which is fair enough), but in accusing other posters of lies and deceit. Particularly not when- as you make clear above- you're not sure whether they ARE lies and deceit?


]As I said, DI, P & TF are the most objective commentators on this thread. They're not infallible, but unlike some (myself included, you, EG etc) they don't bring it on themselves...

It's a bit subjective suggesting those you agree with are more objective than others ;)

No-one is infallible, as Ronnie Biggs almost sang. And of course anyone posting on a web board can expect to be challenged to defend their point of view.

Unless they get banned before doing so, perhaps...

[The Fly]

And of course anyone posting on a web board can expect to be challenged to defend their point of view.

Unless they get banned before doing so, perhaps...

Is that a dig at OWC? ;)

[Predator]

Unless they get banned before doing so, perhaps...


Is that a dig at OWC? ;)

Those were my thoughts initially...

[The Fly]

SwanVsDalton...don't let that put you off.

(I noticed your username is listed as OWC's latest member)

[ArdeeBhoy]

No, do.

The paranoia on there makes our friends up thread, look 'reasonable'....

[awec]

Barton was unbelievably rubbish in the friendly he played for us, he will never be good enough for England and I think most of our fans knew what he meant when he said he wanted to hold out to try and get a game for them (i.e. he wanted the ROI to give him a chance).

To be honest, he's not good enough to play for the ROI either.

While I'm not particularly annoyed at losing this specific player, I really think the age limit of defections needs lowered. That has been my point all along, I've said it in all the threads on this subject. I understand why some players born in NI want to play for the ROI and I have no problem with that. What i have a problem with is people taking the **** and just trying to use us as a stop gap.

Once you play for the senior side, friendly or not, that should be you. Even earlier than that if I had my way (when you are over the age of 18 for example).

If he turns out for Ireland in a senior friendly and then declares for England I can't imagine too many roi fans being happy at that one either.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Aye, but the CAS have not set any age limit for this and probably never will.
Everyone's thus in the same boat.

The four Brit.associations should just be grateful they don't insist on a combined team....

[Gather round]

Is that a dig at OWC? ;)

No, it was a reply to Ardee Bhoy. If I want to dig at OWC, I'll address them direct.

PS no need to repeat that gag, I understood it the first time.


Barton was unbelievably rubbish in the friendly he played for us

A bit harsh? He didn't stand out either way in a scratch side, and we did actually manage to draw the game.


I think most of our fans knew what he meant when he said he wanted to hold out to try and get a game for them (i.e. he wanted the ROI to give him a chance)

Really? Maybe I'm naive but I took what the press reported NW claiming he said back in September at face value. Clearly that was the point we should have told him to bugger off.

[SwanVsDalton]

SwanVsDalton...don't let that put you off.

(I noticed your username is listed as OWC's latest member)


No, do.

The paranoia on there makes our friends up thread, look 'reasonable'....

Figured it was about time I saw what all the fuss was about...

[boovidge]

why don't owc let unregistered users see their forum?

[Gather round]

why don't owc let unregistered users see their forum?

Past experience suggests that this deters sh*t-stirring. Of course, it might also put off a lot of potential posters, as well as encouraging something of a siege mentality. Swings and roundabouts.

[Not Brazil]

Gerry Armstrong, in his Sunday Life piece yesterday, stated that Barton had played at Under Age level for the Republic Of Ireland, before he played for Northern Ireland v Morocco.

Gerry talking rubbish?

[tetsujin1979]

Gerry Armstrong, in his Sunday Life piece yesterday, stated that Barton had played at Under Age level for the Republic Of Ireland, before he played for Northern Ireland v Morocco.

Gerry talking rubbish?
possibly, no mention of him on fai.ie, other than the call up for the U21s, or on soccerscene.ie
While not definitive, those are the sites I use most often to find any underage appearance information for players

[awec]

A bit harsh? He didn't stand out either way in a scratch side, and we did actually manage to draw the game.

I don't think it's harsh. He didn't do anything, he was an empty shirt. Maybe that's because his head wasn't in it but he certainly did nothing to suggest he can play for England or the ROI.

[DannyInvincible]

The playing -the-man isn't in the oneupmanship (which is fair enough), but in accusing other posters of lies and deceit. Particularly not when- as you make clear above- you're not sure whether they ARE lies and deceit?

I don't think I've ever directed such an accusation at any other poster, bar EG. Anyhow, what I'm uncertain about regarding Barton's status is whether or not he was originally registered with the IFA in the eyes of FIFA given that he never played in a competitive game for Northern Ireland and whether declaring for us amounts to a change of association or acquisition of a new nationality. Presumably it doesn't if he never effected his registration with the IFA in the first place by lining out for them in a competitive fixture. In light of that, it's entirely plausible, if not likely, that he may qualify to play for us under article 15.

And that's where EG comes in; he asserts with apparent clarity that article 15 permits only those with an automatic birthright to Irish nationality to represent us* because, he claims, both CAS and the head of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, confirmed and reiterated this to be the case on more than one occasion. I've no problem with him possessing a particular agenda - it's the spin, dishonest logic and twisting of uncertainty into apparent fact to conform with that agenda time and time again that gets me - and, fair enough - I'll divest myself of my cynicism in order to give him the benefit of the doubt here - he may not fully understand the application of article 15 and can make an honest interpretative error, as can anyone, including myself, but if he's telling the truth with regard to what CAS and Blatter have supposedly said, I'll eat my hat. It's rather difficult to prove a negative in this instance as I don't have the time to read through the whole Kearns judgment again nor can I sift through the internet in search of minutes from the IFAB AGM at the Slieve Donard Hotel in 2009 that probably don't even exist, but from what I know and have read I think it likely in the extreme that he isn't being the slightest bit frank.

*As is well-known, Barton isn't entitled to automatic Irish nationality from birth, but rather, he is entitled to acquire Irish nationality, by virtue of having a grandparent born on the island, from the date of his birth being registered with the Foreign Births Register. This latter form of Irish nationality is no less permanent than the former nor does it rely on residence, thus, it would be reasonable to assume that it falls under the range of article 15, surely?


While I'm not particularly annoyed at losing this specific player, I really think the age limit of defections needs lowered. That has been my point all along, I've said it in all the threads on this subject. I understand why some players born in NI want to play for the ROI and I have no problem with that. What i have a problem with is people taking the **** and just trying to use us as a stop gap.

Once you play for the senior side, friendly or not, that should be you. Even earlier than that if I had my way (when you are over the age of 18 for example).

The morality of switching association after the age of 18/21/whatever or having represented an association in a non-competitive senior fixture aside, I think it was as part of the most recent amendments to FIFA's statutes that saw the age limit of 21 abolished after heavy lobbying from nations mainly in the Francophone north-African bloc (the likes of Algeria) sought to call up players who had played for France prior to turning 21 but were otherwise eligible to play for a north-African nation. In light of that, it's unlikely that FIFA will go back on it any time soon, although the IFA are entirely within their rights to lobby FIFA for a reversion in just the same way. But as it stands, everyone is in the same boat, as AB points out and as FIFA will tell you:


"Regarding the eligibility of players to be selected for a representative team, FIFA implemented a set of rules, which are clear and apply uniformly to each of its 208 member associations. Those rules are global and were not designed for the purpose of a single situation, i.e. not specifically for the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland situation." - FIFA submission to CAS during the Kearns case.

For what it's worth, if FIFA were to revert back to the old way, I wouldn't have any major qualms with it.

Interestingly, from an Irish perspective, former Ireland under-21 international, Éamon Zayed, was able to declare for Libya fairly recently due to the rule change in question.


If he turns out for Ireland in a senior friendly and then declares for England I can't imagine too many roi fans being happy at that one either.

Maybe so, although when Shane Lowry declared for Australia after having represented us all the way through under-age level, the reaction was more one of disappointment that we didn't interest him as a senior option whilst wishing him all the best for the future rather than anything bitter. Likewise, if, say, James McCarthy had, as the fear in the media appeared to be for a while when things got a bit silly, declared for Scotland, I think most of the criticism would have been directed, rather than at McCarthy personally, towards Trapattoni's man-management and the FAI for not having done more to keep such a highly-rated prospect on board. When a player switches from the IFA to the FAI, however, it seems par for the course that they'll be on the receiving end of a scathing and vitriolic barrage of attack, along with the FAI, of course. The initial reaction should be to analyse your own house and make sure it's in order first.


Gerry Armstrong, in his Sunday Life piece yesterday, stated that Barton had played at Under Age level for the Republic Of Ireland, before he played for Northern Ireland v Morocco.

Gerry talking rubbish?

Probably mistaken. Surely would have been mentioned somewhere before now if it was the case, at least here, if not in the media.

[Gather round]

I don't think it's harsh. He didn't do anything, he was an empty shirt. Maybe that's because his head wasn't in it but he certainly did nothing to suggest he can play for England or the ROI

You said above that he was "unbelievably rubbish". Not compared with the rest of our team he wasn't, or he wouldn't have stayed on for the whole 90 minutes.

No-one is claiming he looked like a potential England or even RoI international.

[awec]

You said above that he was "unbelievably rubbish". Not compared with the rest of our team he wasn't, or he wouldn't have stayed on for the whole 90 minutes.

No-one is claiming he looked like a potential England or even RoI international.

He was unbelievably rubbish relative to the talent that we were supposed to be getting. I'm not saying he's a rubbish player, but he's not as good as made out! The lad thought he was good enough for England so you expected him to show what he has at least a bit but we didn't see anything..

I don't know, maybe I am being harsh because of his age, but he wouldn't get into our team at this moment in time and I can't see him getting much better in future.

[Gather round]

I don't think I've ever directed such an accusation at any other poster, bar EG

One accusation of dishonesty-even-when-you're-unsure is enough, surely? Anyway, you're nit-picking. I wasn't suggesting you throw out such accusations willy-nilly. I should have said "accusing another poster" above, to avoid confusion.


In light of that, it's unlikely that FIFA will go back on it any time soon

Agreed. If anything, I think they might relax the rules yet further in favor of the 'second' countries- eg by allowing guys to turn out for Algeria etc. even after they've played in a qualifier for France. The Francophone and similar lobbies are powerful in FIFA.

The IFA isn't, unless you count their seat on IFAB. So clearly they're better served in a local agreement with FAI, than trying to change Worldwide rules.

[Gather round]

He was unbelievably rubbish relative to the talent that we were supposed to be getting. I'm not saying he's a rubbish player, but he's not as good as made out!

Glad we sorted that out. I'm not sure what you were expecting from the guy- at the start of this season he'd played a handful of games for Preston. That hardly makes him the next Tom Finney.

[awec]

One accusation of dishonesty-even-when-you're-unsure is enough, surely? Anyway, you're nit-picking. I wasn't suggesting you throw out such accusations willy-nilly. I should have said "accusing another poster" above, to avoid confusion.



Agreed. If anything, I think they might relax the rules yet further in favor of the 'second' countries- eg by allowing guys to turn out for Algeria etc. even after they've played in a qualifier for France. The Francophone and similar lobbies are powerful in FIFA.

The IFA isn't, unless you count their seat on IFAB. So clearly they're better served in a local agreement with FAI, than trying to change Worldwide rules.
I have said this all along...

(Yes, I do want a blue peter badge).

[co. down green]

Gerry Armstrong, in his Sunday Life piece yesterday, stated that Barton had played at Under Age level for the Republic Of Ireland, before he played for Northern Ireland v Morocco.

Gerry talking rubbish?

I presume he meant Johnny Gorman rather than Barton.

[The Fly]

No, it was a reply to Ardee Bhoy. If I want to dig at OWC, I'll address them direct.

PS no need to repeat that gag, I understood it the first time.


I'll hold to the inference, again.;)


P.S...congratulations on your thousandth post.

[Not Brazil]

I presume he meant Johnny Gorman rather than Barton.

Possibly - he might have been getting the two confused.

To the best of my knowledge, Barton has never represented the Republic Of Ireland at any level.

[ArdeeBhoy]

The playing -the-man isn't in the oneupmanship, but in accusing other posters of lies and deceit
Except DI has clarified why.....as certain people seem to want to misrepresent the truth.


It's a bit subjective suggesting those you agree with are more objective than others.
Not really. The no. of acknowledgements (and lack of dispute with their stance) would suggest otherwise.
As is the case with two of your esteemed, er, 'colleagues'.


No-one is infallible.
Amazing! Glad we cleared that up.....


No, it was a reply to Ardee Bhoy. If I want to dig at OWC, I'll address them direct.
As in what?
As for OWB they must be waiting with bated breath....


why don't owc let unregistered users see their forum?
Paranoia and to a lesser extent, so they can 'hate' without being monitored by the wider authorities. So I suppose embarrassment about some of their more 'extreme' posters.....
Which to be fair wouldn't involve any of the posters on here, when they post on there as it were.
:eek:

[Gather round]

.....

[Gather round]

I'll hold to the inference, again.;)

Whatever floats your boat. You're still wrong, mind.


P.S...congratulations on your thousandth post.

Ta. Don't worry, I can take the hint ;)


Except DI has clarified why

I don't think he has, actually. He accused EG of lying, then later in the same post said he wasn't sure whether he was lying or not.


Not really. The no. of acknowledgements (and lack of dispute with their stance) would suggest otherwise

The number of people who agree with you (or thank you for a web board comment) isn't a hard and fast test of objectivity. In Belfast West, for example, 88% think Irish nationalism is broadly objective; acros the Lough in Down North, only 3% do. In any case, as I mentioned to you earlier, I haven't really disagreed with most of the people you suggest are more objective than me on this thread.


So I suppose embarrassment about some of their more 'extreme' posters...Which to be fair wouldn't involve any of the posters on here, when they post on there as it were

The only reason it doesn't involve you is because you've been banned so often for posting incoherent sectarian nonsense.

[awec]

Paranoia and to a lesser extent, so they can 'hate' without being monitored by the wider authorities. So I suppose embarrassment about some of their more 'extreme' posters.....
Which to be fair wouldn't involve any of the posters on here, when they post on there as it were.
:eek:

What a load of rubbish. How are you allowed to post this nonsense and get away with it?