Rapist of 12 year old goes free

Elmo

From the Irish Times

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/0530/breaking7.htm


"four Bacardi Breezer drinks and two vodkas"


He ****ing drugged her.

What the hell is going on in this country?

Hobbes

Ok I can understand the other guy who claimed he didn't know the age of the girl, but this guy knew full well what he was doing when he raped the girl.

Can't read the link, do you have a text or alternate version?

Zulu

Link doesn't work.

constitutionus

cant say im surprised, in fact this will be the first of at least 6 . when the law was struck out it not only rendered the law illeagal but means it never existed at all because it violates a constitutional right, which is the supreme law of the land, and as such ALL convicted under it WILL be freed. no matter how sick the offence
the **** boys and girls is seriously about to hit the fan :mad: my question now is, where the **** is the government. they eneacted law in single day to protect the banks and the beef industry and these feckers are going on holiday now

scrattletrap

I am so ashamed of our government. How long did it take them to ban "magic mushrooms" after a Joe Duffy show, but this that effects the lives of thousands of people and their families is allowed to go unchecked.
I for one feel a protest coming on, whose with me!!

Schuhart

The judgement in the original case is here:

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/877f6b6773b3dcee80257177003c6586?OpenDocument

They seem to say that, while it is constitutional to have some law making consent irrelevant in the case of an underage girl, the details of such a law would need to be set out in an Act, and not just made up by the Court looking into its own heart. Presumably this means there is no valid law in existence.

This law was identified years ago as being potentially unconstitutional for the reason found. But, presumably, no Minister up to this would have been rushing to make the required change to say that a person having biblical knowledge of a young wan with her consent might claim a defence that he thought she was old enough. Hardly a point that's easy to explain in a charged agenda.

ISAW

scrattletrap wrote:

I am so ashamed of our government. How long did it take them to ban "magic mushrooms" after a Joe Duffy show, but this that effects the lives of thousands of people and their families is allowed to go unchecked.
I for one feel a protest coming on, whose with me!!

The decision is not a week old and government cabinet meet on Tuesdays. Legislation will arrive. It took more than a week to ban magic mushrooms. they were been sold for over a year in fact in Cork.

It isnt going unchecked. One can not make a retroactive penal law. It isnt the governments fault. courts struck down the law which existed before the Irish constitution was written. It was a government in the 1920s I think that brought it in.

Solair

It shows that there is an urgent need to proactively test our criminal legislation for constitutionality. There are plenty of laws that are fundemental to the criminal justice system that predate the constitution.

It seems to me that the Department of Justice, Equality and *LAW REFORM* isn't doing its job very well.

Nevyn

The law was placed on the books in 1935.

these links show what happened from last thurday to today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0523/sex.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0524/sexoffences.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0530/rape.html

There are several cases pending that have been but on hold as well until this is sorted out.

the_syco

Seemingly they're trying to also add in to law a bit that says "if the person is within 2 years" of age of the other person (if one is underaged, and its consensual), its OK, but other than that, it'd be illegal. This would mean that the 38yo man would be able to be rearrested and sentenced under the new law. If they held him, couldn't the state could be sued for false imprisonment, as the law that originally bound him no longer existed?

The "2 year" law would enable a 18 year old to shag a 16 year old. It also "equalizes" the law that says that girls can't have sex @ a certain age (I think its 16) whilst boys legally could.

Finally, the law also said that if a woman had sex with an underaged boy, she'd face the same criminal charges that a man would have taken against him if he had sex with an underaged girl.

metrovelvet

At what age is it considered child rape?

dahamsta

ISAW wrote:

The decision is not a week old and government cabinet meet on Tuesdays.

The cabinet doesn't meet in emergencies? We can schedule the coup d'etat for a Wednesday.

ISAW

Hobbes wrote:

Ok I can understand the other guy who claimed he didn't know the age of the girl, but this guy knew full well what he was doing when he raped the girl.

Can't read the link, do you have a text or alternate version?

As I see it he cant be charged or convicted under the old law i.e. the State can not automatically assume rape and he is entitled to a defence. Sa they could in theory still charge him with rape.

He is entitled to a defence. Assuming a person of about 40 did ply a twelve year old with drink and took her from a pub for the purpose of sex then I think it would be difficult for that person to convince a jury that it was consentual sex.

ISAW

Ken Shabby wrote:

The cabinet doesn't meet in emergencies? We can schedule the coup d'etat for a Wednesday.

emergency legislation such as the Emergency powers Act is not in force. If an attempted coup did indeed happen Emergency powers might then well apply.

Time Magazine

the_syco wrote:

This would mean that the 38yo man would be able to be rearrested and sentenced under the new law. If they held him, couldn't the state could be sued for false imprisonment, as the law that originally bound him no longer existed?

No. If a law in brought in tomorrow that says posting on boards is illegal none of us will face conviction unless we do it from tomorrow on. That is to say, as ISAW said, law is not retrospective. It only takes force from the moment of enactment (or stated day).

So, yes, basically that means you you can go and do things to young children today and not face prosecution.

Time Magazine

Ken Shabby wrote:

The cabinet doesn't meet in emergencies? We can schedule the coup d'etat for a Wednesday.

This isn't that much of an emergency like a coup. At the very least, the govt needs a few days to calm down to think about how exactly they want the law.

Would you rather rushed legislation with a loophole in it on a Monday or an Act that had no loopholes on a Wednesday?

zuma

the_syco wrote:

Seemingly they're trying to also add in to law a bit that says "if the person is within 2 years" of age of the other person (if one is underaged, and its consensual), its OK, but other than that, it'd be illegal. This would mean that the 38yo man would be able to be rearrested and sentenced under the new law.

Cant be tried for the same crime twice.....that film Double Jeopardy taught me that!

The new law will make a 99yo shagging a 16 year old legal.....as well as allowing a 2 year gap between legal...ie 14 yo with a 16yo would be fine.

DublinWriter

constitutionus wrote:

cant say im surprised, in fact this will be the first of at least 6 .

...and more if you consider those that have already served prison terms who will now sue the State for past wrongful imprisonment

They will probably receive 100's of thousands of Euro in compensation.

It will make the Army Deafness claims look like small change.

And to add insult to injury, as it's a bank holiday next week, the Dail is taking *the whole week* off.

We must be the laughing stock of Europe after the whole Curtain affair and now this.

It is just me or can't we make leglislation in this country? Consider how the very well off manage to wriggle out of most drink driving cases through very well paid and high profile Barristers.

constitutionus

not to mention all these sickos will be able to get off the sex offenders list seeing as their crimes didnt "exist" :rolleyes: hell if they lost a job over being on the list theres another court compo case in the making

metrovelvet

Does this mean a lot of the clergy will also be released and get compensation.

I would not like to be a parent in Ireland, knowing these people will walk the streets to do it all over again.

I hope Europeans and Americans will have the sense to boycott travel to Ireland until they fix this.

dahamsta

Ahern's and McDowell's attempts to downplay this issue are just that little bit creepy.

Schuhart

Just to reduce the panic factor a little, legislation is being drafted. That’s not to say the fact we’re in this situation gives great confidence in our maturity as a nation. But such remedial action as can be taken is being taken.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0530/sex.html
Government to draw up new sex legislation
May 30, 2006 19:44
The Taoiseach has said the Government will aim to draw up legislation by the weekend to plug the loophole created by last week's Supreme Court ruling.

metrovelvet wrote:

Does this mean a lot of the clergy will also be released and get compensation.

Rape is still an offence. However, sex with a girl of any age who consents is no longer automatically deemed to be rape. I don’t think any of the cases you have in mind involved consensual sex.

From what is reported in the media there seems to be about half a dozen people currently in prison who probably will be released because this law has been struck out. So, other than those specific cases, anyone jailed for abusing children will serve their time.

DublinWriter

metrovelvet wrote:

I hope Europeans and Americans will have the sense to boycott travel to Ireland until they fix this.

You're right, in a roundabout way.

I've been monitoring the European media over this, and there hasn't been a squeak so far, not even in tabloid-driven UK.

There's huge potential international embarrasment for the Irish Government, especially with Bertie attending a UN conference over the next couple of days.

Having said that, this issue was flagged 16 years ago by the Legal Reform Committee, just as was the whole Nursing Home charges fiasco.

It astounds me now that when the Supreme Court first overturned the 1937 act, McDowell got on the Pat Kenny show last week and spewed on about there being no loopholes, and Bertie went on the 6-1 news and stated that prisoners would have to take 'individual cases'.

Well Bertie, they are taking 'individual cases'.

The bewigged-wonders better start burning the midnight oil fast on this, including closing any legal mechanisms whereby ex-prisioners can start claiming compensation.

If the current FF/PD Junta think that Irish taxpayers will be happy having their tax Euros spent on compensating child-rapists, then they're in for a *very* rude awakening.

ronbyrne2005

what were the details of the case? why was a 12 year left alone with a 40 year old man and alcohol? how did it come to court? did girl complain of rape or did parents find out? if she comlained of assualt/rape why didnt prosecution go for a normal rape charge(as she was drunk and not in position to consent or did she consent while drunk?) rather than illegal carnal knowledge/statutory rape

constitutionus

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

what were the details of the case? why was a 12 year left alone with a 40 year old man and alcohol? how did it come to court? did girl complain of rape or did parents find out? if she comlained of assualt/rape why didnt prosecution go for a normal rape charge(as she was drunk and not in position to consent or did she consent while drunk?) rather than illegal carnal knowledge/statutory rape

dont know the details on how he got left with the girl but he the DPP is the one who decides what act the guy gets charged with and seeing as the statutory rape charge means they dont have to put the kid in the dock its the one most used in these cases. in fact macdowel was forced to admit that the DPP was still using this act to prosecute people even up to a couple of weeks ago so potentially all those people could get off the hook depending on how far their cases are

trippy30

Way I see it, since 1990 this issue hasnt been dealt with.

Its not good enough, and every party has failed.

Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

The only exception is SF, as they have not been in power.

flogen

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

what were the details of the case? why was a 12 year left alone with a 40 year old man and alcohol? how did it come to court? did girl complain of rape or did parents find out? if she comlained of assualt/rape why didnt prosecution go for a normal rape charge(as she was drunk and not in position to consent or did she consent while drunk?) rather than illegal carnal knowledge/statutory rape

Perhaps (and the DPP never explains itself) they went for statutory rape rather than just rape because they had a better chance of conviction; when alcohol comes into the mix it becomes messy in regards to consent, if you're drunk and you consent, does it count? What if you can't remember if you consented or not?
Basically there was no denying (and the man admitted to) the fact that he had sex with someone under the age of consent, and so it was an easier conviction.

Of course now he can't be re-tried, regardless of any new law, the legislation that does come through runs the risk of being taped together (as emergency legislation often is), and at least one self-confessed rapist (and I suppose paedophile) is on our streets again.
The LRC recommended change in 1990, from what I can see the successive Justice Ministers didn't even make any movements towards change, they say it's a complex law and a delicate issue but it doesn't seem to me that they even tried to tackle it at all.

When was it first warned that the law could be unconstitutional? The LRC in 1990 never used that term, was there any official comment to that effect before the Supreme Court judgement?

ferdi

The Law is an Ass.

flogen

trippy30 wrote:

Way I see it, since 1990 this issue hasnt been dealt with.

Its not good enough, and every party has failed.

Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

The only exception is SF, as they have not been in power.

Fianna Fail have been in power for all but three of the sixteen years since the recommendations; the PD's on the other hand spent just 5 years in opposition since 1990. That's not to say that FG, Labour or the Greens have clean hands in this incident, but IMO the parties in power today had the most consistent chance to make changes, and were in power when the problems were first highlighted.
Also, while it is the job of the government to make legislation, the opposition should act as a monitor of sorts; no party brought the issue up in recent years; McDowell claims he and the Attorney General didn't even know about the Supreme Court case, I would have expected an opposition TD to raise the point over the past few months (to the effect of "the LRC say changes need to be made, are the government reviewing the situation and are you prepared to alter the legislation should it be deemed unconstitutional?")
I think this is a failure for the Oireachtas as a whole and an issue that raises even more doubt on McDowell's abilities

Victor

flogen wrote:

Perhaps (and the DPP never explains itself) they went for statutory rape rather than just rape because they had a better chance of conviction; when alcohol comes into the mix it becomes messy in regards to consent, if you're drunk and you consent, does it count? What if you can't remember if you consented or not?

Come on

12 year old + drink = no consent

trippy30

flogen wrote:

I think this is a failure for the Oireachtas as a whole

I agree with that completely, ultimately I think what matters here is child protection. To me it seems govt and opposition are really not ontop of this as an issue.

Im both shocked and saddened its becoming politicised in a way.
Its too serious an issue for what seems to me to be point scoring.

I hope when the legislation is passed its robust - so in some ways the ugency some stress for it might be a little short sighted.

As for the DPP - its a disgrace they dont have to explain themsleves

flogen

Victor wrote:

Come on

12 year old + drink = no consent

I'm not making justifications or excuses here, I'm trying to figure why the DPP chose to pursue it under statutory rape rather than rape; I would assume that his admitance to statutory rape was one factor but the consent issue was another.
In that respect the girls age doesn't factor, regardless of age drink muddies the water in rape cases because it raises questions about the victim; did they consent, or can they even remember?
The guy gave a twelve year old drink and then had sex with her, he's scum alright, but I'd venture a guess that the DPP took an easier route to secure a conviction, it wouldn't be the first time. Think of this exact same case if the girl was 20; guy gets a girl drunk and has sex with her, how hard would it be to get a rape conviction out of that?

SeanW

I've heard about the possibility of these scumbags could now take action for compensation for 'unlawful' detention.

I believe there should now be a law mandating that anyone making such a claim on this basis must stand for it in public court with no option to conceal their identities> Mr. A, would then have to identify himself.

Our man in Havana

He is known as Mr. A only to protect the identity of the young person concerned.

SeanW

oh ... dear. The case must be a right mess.

walshb

flogen wrote:

I'm not making justifications or excuses here, I'm trying to figure why the DPP chose to pursue it under statutory rape rather than rape; I would assume that his admitance to statutory rape was one factor but the consent issue was another.
In that respect the girls age doesn't factor, regardless of age drink muddies the water in rape cases because it raises questions about the victim; did they consent, or can they even remember?
The guy gave a twelve year old drink and then had sex with her, he's scum alright, but I'd venture a guess that the DPP took an easier route to secure a conviction, it wouldn't be the first time. Think of this exact same case if the girl was 20; guy gets a girl drunk and has sex with her, how hard would it be to get a rape conviction out of that?

Very good point. The DPP should have the guy charged with rape, though I would agree that maybe it was too tall an order to secure and as well maybe the 12 yr old would have had to be brought forward as the witness. The governments have apparently been dithering on this issue since 1990? Absolute disgraceful, so now the guy can claim compensation. The governments are despicable. The Irish laws seem to protect the criminal everytime. Let these people have a defense, but then just tear it to shreds and jail the perverts.

hallelujajordan

ferdi wrote:

The Law is an Ass.

Michael Mc'Dowell is an ass . . Isn't it about time that he started to focus on his day job as justice minister and stopped running around having pointless arguments in an effort to position himself for the next election.

Isn't it also about time that we put the PD's onto the opposition benches where they deserve to be. We have Harney and Mc'Dowell in two of the most important positions in the country, with a tiny fraction of national electoral support and both the health service and the justice system are being run into the ground.

On the issue of the 41 year old I really cannot understand why a 41 yr old who slept with a 12 yr old to whom he had plied alcohol would only be charged and convicted of 'statutory' rape . . Surely that is negligent on the part of the DPP . .

Also, in the Dail yesterdary Enda Kenny was talking about a Mr B who had been convicted of the 'statutory' rape of a 6 yr old . . surely this is just Kenny whooping up the crowd and not a real case.

yop

I don't knw much about Politics but just to vent my anger, shock and sorrow at this situation.
This poor girl has been raped by a bas*tard and her life ruined. She has been let down by our ministers, government and Oireachtas.

Personally I think that McDowell has to go but going by past similar situations Bertie will try and brush it under the carpet.

If anyone is getting an email petition going let us know as I think we need to show how much this is an issue with us and even though I have never voted I will be in the next election to dump out these fukn muppets who are ruining our country

mikep

flogen wrote:

I'm not making justifications or excuses here, I'm trying to figure why the DPP chose to pursue it under statutory rape rather than rape; I would assume that his admitance to statutory rape was one factor but the consent issue was another.


Apparently (according to media sources) the accused are being offered the option of pleading guilty to unlawful carnal knowledge as they are refusing to plead guilty to rape etc...
Rape carries a far longer sentence than U.C.K. therefore the accused take the option of pleading gulity..

Sparks

Schuhart wrote:

Just to reduce the panic factor a little, legislation is being drafted.

And it will not apply to the men now being held solely on the grounds of an unlawful carnal knowlege charge. Who will be free to walk free, literally from yesterday onwards. And who include one lovely gent, described by the courts as being the worst case they'd ever seen, who raped a six-year-old, an eight-year-old and a ten-year old. Why the DPP accepted a plea of unlawful carnal knowlege while knowing that that law was unsound is beyond me. And how there haven't been resignations from the Minister, the AG and the head of the DPP escapes me as well.

Sparks

hallelujajordan wrote:

Also, in the Dail yesterdary Enda Kenny was talking about a Mr B who had been convicted of the 'statutory' rape of a 6 yr old . . surely this is just Kenny whooping up the crowd and not a real case.

It's a real case. B raped a 6-year-old, an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old and pled guilty to statutory rape and not guilty to rape. The DPP prosecuted him on the statutory rape case and he got four life sentences, all of which are now struck out and he can't be retried for rape as they accepted his not-guilty plea on that so he's already been tried.

flogen

Sparks wrote:

And it will not apply to the men now being held solely on the grounds of an unlawful carnal knowlege charge. Who will be free to walk free, literally from yesterday onwards. And who include one lovely gent, described by the courts as being the worst case they'd ever seen, who raped a six-year-old, an eight-year-old and a ten-year old. Why the DPP accepted a plea of unlawful carnal knowlege while knowing that that law was unsound is beyond me. And how there haven't been resignations from the Minister, the AG and the head of the DPP escapes me as well.

that's just it; in that case you mention it's worrying that the DPP sit back and take the easy road, I can't see (and I don't know the full facts of that case, but still) any possibility that a jury would not convict the man of rape.
I also agree that a call for resignations has been surprisingly limited so far; while I understand that this is not a time for political points scoring, it's also a time that highlights the incompetence of our Government and justice system
@mikep, hopefully if/when the DPP decide to explain their decisions it might start doing its job to the full extent of the law

bk

flogen wrote:

that's just it; in that case you mention it's worrying that the DPP sit back and take the easy road, I can't see (and I don't know the full facts of that case, but still) any possibility that a jury would not convict the man of rape.

I think the reason is that they would have to go to trial and therefore the children would need to appear in court. They wanted to avoid that for obviuos reasons.

flogen wrote:

I also agree that a call for resignations has been surprisingly limited so far; while I understand that this is not a time for political points scoring, it's also a time that highlights the incompetence of our Government and justice system

Probably because this problem has existed for many years and every party (except SF) has been in government during that time and therefore are equally guilty of inaction.

flogen

bk wrote:

I think the reason is that they would have to go to trial and therefore the children would need to appear in court. They wanted to avoid that for obviuos reasons.

That's understandable.

Probably because this problem has existed for many years and every party (except SF) has been in government during that time and therefore are equally guilty of inaction.

I don't think any party is without sin on this one, in Government or not, but to think that the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General were both ignorant to a case which challenged a piece of legislation is baffling; they should be watching these kinds of cases even when it's clear the supreme court will uphold the law, instead they claim they didn't know about it until the judgement was made?!! That is where questions of competency really come in.

gandalf

trippy30 wrote:

Way I see it, since 1990 this issue hasnt been dealt with.

Its not good enough, and every party has failed.

Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

The only exception is SF, as they have not been in power.

While I hear what you are saying about other parties the current Government have been in power long enough to sort this issue out. Mary Harney admitted this morning that the Dept of Justice were warned about this in 2002 and no action occured because of "information deficit". If that is the case then the head of that Department McDowell should be held responsible for this mess and resign or be fired from his position.

You could guarantee if this was a piece of legislation about rezoning that benefits their cronies this government would have sorted it years ago.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0531/sex.html

Gandalf has hit the nail on the head there imho.

I mean McDowell is the head of the dept of justice,he is also a barrister iirc.If he's not keeping a competent eye on the likes of this he shouldnt be in the job.
He hasnt been.
He is not on top of his job and should go.
If this was happening in the UK, he'd be fired.

My question now is are this incompetent shower going to sit back and relax after they've sorted this one out?
Or are they going to do what we pay them for and check with a fine tooth comb that there isnt any other potential disasterous judgement going to come to make a mockery of the spirit of the law.
Once is enough.

gandalf

And don't forget he was Attorney General for 3 years before he was the Minister for Justice so he should have been aware of this issue from there as well. If he wasn't then he shouldn't have been in that position either.

If I made an error of a fraction of the magnitude of this debacle in my job I would be unemployed quite rapidally at the very minimum. It begs the question what does a minister have to do in this government to get fired ?

Schuhart

Three years ago, in the absence of any concrete case, if a Minister for Justice introduced a Bill amending the 1935 Act to acknowledge that a potentially valid defence was ignorance that a partner was underage, what would have been the likely public reaction?

In the present situation, no-one will complain about such a solution being put on the statute book. But, ultimately, the reason this flawed law was kept on the books and seven offenders will now go free is because many people cannot get beyond an emotional reaction to this issue. It’s a bit like the Rossport Five issue and many others – politicians go where the electorate lead them, and to hell with the consequences.

trippy30

yop wrote:

I don't knw much about Politics but just to vent my anger, shock and sorrow at this situation.
This poor girl has been raped by a bas*tard and her life ruined. She has been let down by our ministers, government and Oireachtas.

Personally I think that McDowell has to go but going by past similar situations Bertie will try and brush it under the carpet.

If anyone is getting an email petition going let us know as I think we need to show how much this is an issue with us and even though I have never voted I will be in the next election to dump out these fukn muppets who are ruining our country

I think if you were really concerned about this issue you would vote SF. All parties are pretty much to blame. Labour and FG do not have clean hands on this.

I think politicising it will and should backfire on them to be honest.

There is a lot of sound bites used by all politcal parties on this issue as far as Im concerned.

Maybe it is a good thing O'Gorman is standing. maybe if he does get elected something will actually happen on this issue.

flogen

Schuhart wrote:

Three years ago, in the absence of any concrete case, if a Minister for Justice introduced a Bill amending the 1935 Act to acknowledge that a potentially valid defence was ignorance that a partner was underage, what would have been the likely public reaction?

The majority reaction, if the issue was properly explained would have been a fair one, of course you cannot ignore the vocal minority who would make a song and dance about it, but you cannot legislate for idiots.

In the present situation, no-one will complain about such a solution being put on the statute book. But, ultimately, the reason this flawed law was kept on the books and seven offenders will now go free is because many people cannot get beyond an emotional reaction to this issue. It’s a bit like the Rossport Five issue and many others – politicians go where the electorate lead them, and to hell with the consequences.

I know you're not excusing them, but if an issue is made of the fact that the government(s) chose to ignore this because they were worried about votes and image rather than the job at hand, maybe it won't happen again. Politicians sometimes need to make unpopular or controversial decisions, if they don't, the Supreme Court will do it for them; when the Justice Minister is told that a law may be unconstitutional or at the very least is unsound it his/her job to act, even if they must walk on eggshells to do so.

trippy30 wrote:

I think if you were really concerned about this issue you would vote SF. All parties are pretty much to blame. Labour and FG do not have clean hands on this.

Are opposition parties not able to raise issues in the Dail anymore? I see your point in that Lab/FG had the direct chance to make a difference, but their coalition lasted just 3 of the 16 years, it wasn't in power when the recommendations were first made in 1990 and it wasn't in power in 2002 when it was again brought to the attention of the Justice Department. For the most part Sinn Fein have had at least one elected representative in the Dail since 1997 and never (to the best of my knowledge) made a point in regards to this issue; they are not innocent in this either, the job of the opposition is to raise issues on which the Government are failing and hold them to account.

I think politicising it will and should backfire on them to be honest.

Indeed, but they don't need to politicise it, they're giving the Government their support in any new legislation but they want to know why they f*cked up so much until now, and that's not a political question, that's something everyone should be asking their Government.

ronbyrne2005

Serious questions have to be asked of the DPP/AG and McDowell etc,plus why is bertie off in new york when this is happening?