If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Man raped and abused 3 MN preteen girls, fled to Ireland and abused 2 more. US: Can we have him back, please? Britain: No. You'll just be mean to him. Besides, we already gave him a good talking to, and he's promised not to do it again   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 248
    More: Asinine, Ministry of Justice, Extradition Act, United States, senior judge, Gary McKinnon, Home Secretary, Fort Benning, Ireland  
•       •       •

19440 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2012 at 6:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



248 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-29 12:16:33 PM
But Julian Assange is going to be extradited, right?
 
2012-06-29 12:16:51 PM
As much as I despise child molesters, the Civil Commitment law, which can be used for other criminal acts, is essentially a way to toss folks in jail without due process, something the US has violently and angrily protested in other nations for decades.

You also need to consider the fact that this bugger raped two more kids over there and was basically told not to do it again, pinky swear! So apparently they have a whole different outlook on child molesters.

Now, if you mess with a soccer match, they throw you in jail and toss away the key. Priorities, people!

Seriously, though, the Civil Commitment law is scary. Please note also that after the right of a trial by a jury of your peers was violated, the US bastardized Eminent Dominion Laws, meaning your land which could be taken only for the good of the nation can now be taken for the good of a developer and his backers.

A similar law to Civil Commitment, used far back in the 40's and 50's mainly for mental patients, was struck down as being unconstitutional.
 
Heb
2012-06-29 12:17:41 PM

OscarTamerz: The limey cocksuckers have denied extradition on 9 people while we've never denied them their criminals. In addition they released the Lockerbie bomber early. Too bad it's their kids who are going to be the ones paying the price instead of the asswipe liberturds in the government.


Is Limey a generic term for people from all countries in the UK? I thought it was just for the English (and it was the Scottish who released the Lockerbie bomber)

As an aside, there has always been a HUGE doubt over al-Megrahi's conviction. Seems a bit of a stich up, though we'll never now know for sure

Link
 
Heb
2012-06-29 12:24:13 PM

Benjamin Orr: smokinmic: so he's 34 now the "child molesting happened 18 years ago (1994) that means he was 16 and having sex with a 14 year old. i think i saw that 3 times on Jerry springer just last week.

The wife is 34... he is 43. So he was 25 and having sex with a 14 year old. See that on Springer very often?

Link


Not unless Jerry Lee Lewis did a special celebrity guest episode (though I think that was 13 and 22)

Come to think of it we hounded Lewis out of the UK when that came out. Oh how we've changed...
 
2012-06-29 12:27:55 PM
JackieRabbit : Yeah, I agree with the British judges on this one. We set a dangerous precedent with our civil commitment of sex offenders. Some of them are criminally insane and, for the safety of all, they must be committed. But to make a person serve a lengthy prison sentence, with no effort to rehabilitate him/her, and then lock them up for life after their sentence has been served is just wrong, not to mention a burden to society. And state governments have way too much leeway in defining who and what constitutes a "violent" offender. Pedophiles cannot be cured, but they can learn impulse control and to redirect their sexual impulses. We are so freaked out about this issue that we do very little to help pedophiles. Instead, we just throw them in jail and then put them on a sex offender list. Some of the civil commitment programs do attempt to help offenders, but others are just a sham.

I agree, so much so that I think it bears repeating. (My underlining)

footshot :Heh, I'm not one of those guys, I'm one of you guys :P And did you just present your opinion in an eloquent and respectful manner? You're aware this is fark, right? ;)
Oh yeah, I got that. Sorry was in a hurry.

If "the public's concerns and interests" mean you'd like tougher sentencing? I personally think we strike a reasonable balance in the UK, whereas the attention to public concerns in the US leans more towards punishment than rehabilitation. Lock them up and throw away the key doesn't hold well with me, neither does trial by media, but I'm admittedly a big soft lefty type :)
Generally I agree, although a little more punishment in cases with clear victims would deter some of the worst I think.

For a local example, I'd consider the Bulger case. The public interests (as reported by certain elements of the media at least), would be along the lines of "keep them locked up for life, they're evil". I'd question how that serves society in any way, especially given the age of the offenders at the time of the offence. I think too much emphasis can be placed on the public opinion and that sometimes works in contrary to the needs of society as a whole.
All just opinion of course :)


Which I share. However we need to distinguish between what interests the public (public opinion) and the public interest (the needs of society), not something our tabloid press is particularly good at. In my opinion.
 
Heb
2012-06-29 12:31:10 PM

Mouser: That's okay, I figure that when the Euro collapses and the Europeans start eating each other, he'll be among the first to be torn apart by the angry mobs.


When we "start" hating each other?

"Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?

Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.

Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?

Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.

Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?

Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.

Hacker: What appalling cynicism.

Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister."
 
2012-06-29 12:43:09 PM
And yet they're express extraditing that kid for copyright infringement, for linking to pirated material he didn't even host.
i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-29 12:45:25 PM

You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: What the fark are you talking about?

Sweden hasn't been asked to guarantee Julian Assange will not be locked up indefinitely without trial because no one is alleging that Sweden locks people indefinitely without trial and no-one else is currently seeking to extradite Julian Assange.

If in the future the US were to seek the extradition of Julian Assange, then he has the same right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights from Sweden as he would in the United Kingdom.


You should read more. From this page:

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden's "restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody", including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

Also

For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.
 
2012-06-29 12:48:03 PM
So I see Britain has sunk to providing safe-havens for Pedophiles as well. Hope you all are proud of yourselves. Don't blame us when all the Pedos here flee convictions to start diddling your kids over there.
 
2012-06-29 12:52:38 PM
where in Ireland did he go? Just wondering.
 
2012-06-29 12:56:46 PM

Moonlightfox: And yet they're express extraditing that kid for copyright infringement, for linking to pirated material he didn't even host.
[i.imgur.com image 320x270]


and Mr. Dotcom didn't even SHARE MUSIC. he just designed the system for doing so.
 
2012-06-29 12:56:58 PM
Sullivan, who has joint Irish/US nationality - who also goes under the name O'Suilleabhain - was given a suspended jail sentence in Ireland in 1996 for sexually assaulting two 12-year-old girls.

WTF, Ireland? You give a suspended sentence for sexual assault of children?
 
2012-06-29 12:59:10 PM

patrick767: Sullivan, who has joint Irish/US nationality - who also goes under the name O'Suilleabhain - was given a suspended jail sentence in Ireland in 1996 for sexually assaulting two 12-year-old girls.

WTF, Ireland? You give a suspended sentence for sexual assault of children?


He must have claimed to be a priest
 
2012-06-29 01:02:42 PM
God Europe sucks. Their laws are so farking stupid.
 
2012-06-29 01:05:57 PM

AntiNerd: You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: What the fark are you talking about?

Sweden hasn't been asked to guarantee Julian Assange will not be locked up indefinitely without trial because no one is alleging that Sweden locks people indefinitely without trial and no-one else is currently seeking to extradite Julian Assange.

If in the future the US were to seek the extradition of Julian Assange, then he has the same right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights from Sweden as he would in the United Kingdom.

You should read more. From this page:

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden's "restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody", including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

Also

For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.


Read it last week; it's a load of speculative horseshiat and in no way addresses the points I noted.

Assange will enjoy the same protections in Sweden as he does in the UK.
 
Heb
2012-06-29 01:10:35 PM

CrappityCrap: So I see Britain has sunk to providing safe-havens for Pedophiles as well. Hope you all are proud of yourselves. Don't blame us when all the Pedos here flee convictions to start diddling your kids over there.


Pfff. Like that's going to happen. Most of you lot don't even have a passport :)
 
2012-06-29 01:15:31 PM

Rik01: As much as I despise child molesters, the Civil Commitment law, which can be used for other criminal acts, is essentially a way to toss folks in jail without due process, something the US has violently and angrily protested in other nations for decades.

You also need to consider the fact that this bugger raped two more kids over there and was basically told not to do it again, pinky swear! So apparently they have a whole different outlook on child molesters.

Now, if you mess with a soccer match, they throw you in jail and toss away the key. Priorities, people!

Seriously, though, the Civil Commitment law is scary. Please note also that after the right of a trial by a jury of your peers was violated, the US bastardized Eminent Dominion Laws, meaning your land which could be taken only for the good of the nation can now be taken for the good of a developer and his backers.

A similar law to Civil Commitment, used far back in the 40's and 50's mainly for mental patients, was struck down as being unconstitutional.


So? I don't care. Throw them in there without due process and trial whatsoever and mock up some paperwork about attempting to "assassinate political leaders" and "threatening the integrity of the State." I was never a huge fan of the Constitution anyway. Gets in the way of actually getting things done.
 
2012-06-29 01:40:03 PM

Hydra: ransack.: They are "human" rights. Kiddy diddlers are humans.

...Who violated the rights of other humans by diddling them underage. They forfeit their rights once they have done this.

Some

rights. We do not become a witchhunting mob, which actually is the problem Britain seems to be having. The 'cure' the US is advocating actually might be snake oil, and hasn't released anyone since 1988. A court ordering someone to go through it is, in fact, a violation of human rights, more so than a finite prison sentence.

We cannot ever lose our humanity, or we become the people we condemn. Worse, actually, because we think we have the high moral ground--and trust me, people who hurt others in the name of good? They're usually capable of much more than your normal sickos.
 
2012-06-29 01:43:28 PM

PsiChick: The 'cure' the US is advocating actually might be snake oil, and hasn't released anyone since 1988. A court ordering someone to go through it is, in fact, a violation of human rights, more so than a finite prison sentence.


This isn't generally a topic I'm terribly familiar with, but that point right there, that it hasn't actually resulted in anyone's release in nearly 25 years, certainly seems damning.
 
2012-06-29 01:45:07 PM
A legitimate use for a drone?

YYYyyyoooowwwwww!! TATATATATATATATAATATAT!
 
2012-06-29 02:10:41 PM

PsiChick: Hydra: ransack.: They are "human" rights. Kiddy diddlers are humans.

...Who violated the rights of other humans by diddling them underage. They forfeit their rights once they have done this.

Some rights. We do not become a witchhunting mob, which actually is the problem Britain seems to be having. The 'cure' the US is advocating actually might be snake oil, and hasn't released anyone since 1988. A court ordering someone to go through it is, in fact, a violation of human rights, more so than a finite prison sentence.

We cannot ever lose our humanity, or we become the people we condemn. Worse, actually, because we think we have the high moral ground--and trust me, people who hurt others in the name of good? They're usually capable of much more than your normal sickos.


AAAAND? I don't see the problem with this. At least they would be mistreated.
 
2012-06-29 02:50:51 PM

MythDragon: [i47.tinypic.com image 306x607][www.filehurricane.com image 494x395]


That's why the British saying is "keep a stiff upper lip".
 
2012-06-29 02:52:45 PM

Heb: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Actually, it reads to be more like:

Britain: Promise that won't lock him up for life without convicting him in a trial first
America: No

Quite. I just read about the programme and cannot believe it happens in a democracy. If he's a paedo, put him on trial and sentence him. But a programme that potentially allows life in jail without a trial hearing?

That is farked up.


NotSubby: goatan: Compared to me you are a Fark whippersnapper do you even know what Rotsky is? Anyway back in my day we used to have some serious discussions and the discussion was usually more interesting than the story but boring trolls ITGs pony posters and others have changed that. and the comments that try to be humorous have mostly become repetitive and derivative with only a handful of individuals like pocket ninja making them worth Readingreeding. Most posts made are variations of the same thing again and again perhaps it's time to change it back bring back vaguely intelligent discussion.
The US government representative could not guarantee that he would receive due process so it would seem that both child molestation and due process are very trivial in your part of the world. If child molestation was taken seriously he would have gladly given the guarantee that they would do the right thing yet he didn't. It seem that keeping a legally, morally and scientifically dubious scheme going is more important to punishing/treating Child molesters.

Sorry, pet peeve.

Does that answer your question?

That you think due process is actually trivial is in itself humorous. Sure we do things different and our system has flaws (as all do) but you're painting the US as some sort of NAZI state where the gestapo can detain and shoot you for fun.

Your perceptions of the U.S. are as coloured by the media as our sense of the surrender mon, err French. When I was in Germany, people were convinced that we were having shootings OK corral style in every neighborhood.

As I've stated in my Weeners, you guys are welcome to keep the dude IMO. What shocks and disturbs me is that the Irish let him off after two rapes. To me, that's how rape is trivialized, not my inane comments on the intarwebs.


How is defending due process in every post mean I think it is trivial? If I thought it was trivial I would not have bothered with any of my posts. The whole point of my posts is that Due process is not trivial. Yes the Irish decision is weird but all your doing is pointing over there going look the Irish there the ones who are wrong not me, well you both wrong.

No you don't find it humorous you got called out and are now trying deflect criticism by making untrue statements and trying to pretend my point is the exact opposite of what it is. Please do show where I said the US was Nazi state where people are detained and shot at will and where I said Due Process is trivial.

My perceptions on this particular issue come solely from this thread and there are Americans on both side of the argument so I see it as being pretty balanced there are some like you who are wrong and some like heb who posted above you and they get it.
 
2012-06-29 02:59:23 PM

Titanius Anglesmith: ChubbyTiger: He should have his testicles removed and hung from the highest gate in London as a warning to others. That said, civil commitment is an unamerican and unconstitutional farce. I dislike the outcome, but justice in general must outweigh justice for this one arsehat.

Will you wave like this?

[i75.photobucket.com image 400x225]


Ah, yes. Vir. I loved him.

I went to the rock to hide my face, but the rock cried out "no hiding place"

Here is one solution: Tell England we are not going to lock him up forever. We are going to hold him in a special jail for those accused of such crimes. It is one in which he will not be hurt or abused by inmates or guards. We will hold him at Alcatraz. He only has to stay at Alcatraz for 5 years or 1 year for each of the victims of his crime, whichever is less. If he escapes and makes it to the mainland, then we will put him in jail forever; this makes it up to him how much time he serves.
 
2012-06-29 03:35:39 PM
 
2012-06-29 03:54:02 PM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: cman: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Actually, it reads to be more like:

Britain: Promise that won't lock him up for life without convicting him in a trial first
America: No

You do understand what civil confinement is, dont you?

It does not involve the court system after one is made a patient. While there, the doctors decide when you are good to leave the program.

Actually, I didn't, which is why I said "reads to me"

Colour me entirely unsurprised that the Daily Fail is sensationalising another bullshiat argument then.


No, they have it right this time. The guy is accused of raping 3 girls in the US, and was CONVICTED of raping 2 more in Ireland. I say again: CONVICTED.

Around these parts, that is what is known as a Serial Rapist. Those kinds of people NEED to be locked up for the rest of their natural lives, because they have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they WILL keep raping until they are killed or jailed.
 
2012-06-29 04:07:32 PM

thisone: dnrtfa

but if he abused kids in Ireland, how'd he end up in British custody?

Surely the Irish government would be asking for extradition as well as the US?

/are we confusing Ireland with Northern Ireland again?


He was tried, convicted, and eventually released for the crimes he committed in Ireland. He still has yet to stand trial for the 3 rape charges in the US.
 
2012-06-29 04:20:29 PM
Honestly. If Britain wants the guy to be the first tourist attraction to involve beating the shiat out of him whenever a U.S. citizen visits, just say so.
 
2012-06-29 04:21:08 PM
Or whatever other country he shiats in just by existing.
 
2012-06-29 05:05:20 PM

Nem Wan: Americans are often shocked to learn they have a harsher and less fair laws than other countries


Only if they haven't been paying attention.

Then, when they do find out, instead of getting angry, they just shrug and go back to watching Jersey Shore.
 
2012-06-29 05:13:21 PM

Joe Blowme: He raped multiple children, he should be facing the death penalty.


He deserves the harshest penalty allowed by law, AFTER first being accorded a fair and impartial trial by a jury of his peers, the right to challenge evidence and witnesses presented against him, and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the factual evidence of the case.

Even if the person is guilty as fark, they are still entitled to due process. That's what makes us a nation of laws and not (yet) a police state where anyone can be deprived of life, liberty, and property on a mere accusation or suspicion.

Innocent until proven guilty. Keep repeating that until it sinks into your thick, vengeful, Neanderthal skull.
 
Heb
2012-06-29 05:33:36 PM

ParaHandy: On the other hand, if you have a powerful enough lobby group, then you can extradite someone who never set foot in the USA, and never broke any UK laws, just for posting some links on the web


Don't think it will happen. Enough cross-party support that I suspect home secretary to refuse to extradite. Trying to extradite a British person for crimes supposedly committed in Britain on a British hosted website used mostly by British people hasn't been seen in very positive terms.
 
2012-06-29 06:11:51 PM

theBigBigEye: PsiChick: Hydra: ransack.:

AAAAND? I don't see the problem with this. At least they would be mistreated.


He's mentally farking ill, numbskull. There might not be a way to treat it, but the fact that you want to enact any form of mistreatment on someone who is seriously sick in the head says a lot about you.

Yes, he should be punished, since we have no other way of dealing with his type of mental illness, but good lord. You're a sane human being. Try and act like it.
 
2012-06-29 06:27:27 PM
Under civil commitment someone could be held with no hope of release even if not convicted of any offence

Aaaaand there's yer relevant sentence right there. Nice Land of the Free you've got there.
 
2012-06-29 06:33:04 PM

Suede head: Under civil commitment someone could be held with no hope of release even if not convicted of any offence

Aaaaand there's yer relevant sentence right there. Nice Land of the Free you've got there.


You biatch and moan if we let the nutcases walk around free and homeless, you biatch and moan when we confine them for proper treatment... what do you expect us to do? Wave a magic wand that eliminates the mentally ill?

/oh, right, Germany is in charge of the EU now
//off to the "showers" then
 
2012-06-29 07:20:53 PM

Psychomancer: To school the English justice system - What would happen to him back in the USA is that he would most likely be conivcted of two counts of child molestation (no "Civil commitment" or what ever the hell they think). He would probably be sent to prison on one count and to probation (possibly lifetime) on the other when he was released from prison. This would ensure he received sex offender treatment. If he did not honor his probabtion grant, he would probably be revoke to prison on the second grant.


Much the same as what would happen here then. But your system could not assure us that he would not face lifetime detention without trial and We Don't Do That.
 
2012-06-29 07:22:54 PM

Joe Blowme: I'll still take our flawed system over one that has no consequenses for raping children. If he does it again, the parents should sue the UK Gov. for letting him free to rape more children, it will be on their hands.


Our system does have consequences. We prefer to have a trial, though, not just lock people up indefinitely because hell, we know they're guilty.
 
2012-06-29 07:24:24 PM

cman: Chinchan!

From her nude pics, she does have some nice knockers




I really hate you for forcing me to look those up. I hope you're proud of yourself asshole!

heh...
 
2012-06-29 07:28:24 PM

NotSubby:
As I've stated in my Weeners, you guys are welcome to keep the dude IMO. What shocks and disturbs me is that the Irish let him off after two rapes. To me, that's how rape is trivialized, not my inane comments on the intarwebs.


He was tried and sentenced in Ireland for sexual assault, not rape. That could cover groping, for example - not good, but not as bad as "rape" rape. The light sentence suggests that his offence was at the lower end of the scale.
 
2012-06-29 07:31:05 PM

JeffDenver: God Europe sucks. Their laws are so farking stupid.


Which one? The one about "due process" and "fair trial" before locking people up? We're quite fond of that one.
 
2012-06-29 07:32:50 PM
America: Police State, Anyone?

;)
 
2012-06-29 07:33:17 PM

Loreweaver:
No, they have it right this time. The guy is accused of raping 3 girls in the US, and was CONVICTED of raping 2 more in Ireland. I say again: CONVICTED.


Where does it say he raped girls in Ireland?
 
2012-06-29 08:06:08 PM

orbister: Loreweaver:
No, they have it right this time. The guy is accused of raping 3 girls in the US, and was CONVICTED of raping 2 more in Ireland. I say again: CONVICTED.

Where does it say he raped girls in Ireland?


FTFA:

"Sullivan, who has joint Irish/US nationality - who also goes under the name O'Suilleabhain - was given a suspended jail sentence in Ireland in 1996 for sexually assaulting two 12-year-old girls."
 
2012-06-29 08:19:07 PM

Indubitably: America: Police State, Anyone?

;)


P.S. I'm not surprised they won't extradite him; perhaps if we were less Police State, Anyone, we might be able to prosecute this man for his REAL crimes.
 
2012-06-29 10:04:09 PM

relcec: Under civil commitment, the court was told, someone could be held with no hope of release even though they had not been convicted of any offence.


Technically true; HOWEVER, there still needs to be a trial that determines that the individual is a substantial risk to himself or others due to mental illness. Normally these are 'bench' trials without a jury, but the decision is still appealable.
 
2012-06-30 12:48:05 AM

NotSubby: I could give a crap if the UK wants to keep our sex offenders but WTF is with Ireland giving this guy his walking papers after raping 12yo girls?


Reading comprehension is a really big problem in America, isn't it? I guess that's why so many of you can't stick to your Constitution or Bill of Rights; even when you've read them, you don't understand them.

If all the articles are accurate he was convicted of 'sexually assaulting' the girls, not raping them. Rape and Sexual Assault are different crimes. Rape is not a subset of Sexual Assault, they are completely different crimes.

Since he wasn't convicted of Rape or Aggravated Sexual Assault all we know is 1. no penetration of any orifice at all (rape) and 2. no serious violence (aggravated).

I tried to find information on his actual crime and came up with nothing. For all we know he grabbed their butts over their clothes. He could have waggled his dick at them. Who the hell knows.

Also I'm suspicious of them calling him a paedophile; 35% of child molesters are not paedophiles, and non-paedophiles commit only about 5-10% of sexual crimes against children.

Who diagnosed him as a paedophile i.e. incurable preferential offender as opposed to a regressed situational offender? Just seems like a deliberately inflammatory choice of words.
 
2012-06-30 01:16:57 PM

shivashakti: Ostman: Indeed, it's a required subject in all levels of school in Ireland up to school leaving age, so about 13 years education. Yet less of the population speaks it now than when we got independence in the 1920s, and the majority leave school actively hating it.


And yet, oddly, it's becoming more popular among Irish-Americans....


Cool, thanks for sharing!
I had no idea anyone outside of Ireland (and Canada strangely enough) taught Irish in schools.
 
2012-06-30 01:26:42 PM

Ostman: Cool, thanks for sharing!
I had no idea anyone outside of Ireland (and Canada strangely enough) taught Irish in schools.


Speaking of Irish spoken in Canada, there was even a Newfoundland Irish dialect due to the large Irish population they had there for years.

Newfoundland Irish
 
Displayed 48 of 248 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report