[article] Are you of 'good stock' and should it matter?

mike65

Full Story

THE politician who agreed to a request from the family of double-rapist to write a supportive letter to a judge before he was sentenced last night apologised to his victims, and admitted she should never have gotten involved in the case.

Cork TD Kathleen Lynch provided the letter to Mr Justice McCarthy on behalf of the family of Trevor Casey, saying he came from "good stock".

Casey, of Closes Road, Fair Hill, Cork, was jailed for 13 years last week after he was convicted of rape and sexual assault against the 14 and 16-year-old sisters of his then girlfriend.

The family of the two victims -- who cannot be identified for legal reasons -- said they were appalled to realise that such support was being shown for Casey after what he had done to two vulnerable young girls.

I am, but not posh

Whatever about the crass invertention by a local TD in a matter of law, the use of such a term as Good Stock makes me wonder about if the spirit of a republic actually counts for much in this republic.

Does Kathleen Lynch judge all interventions on the percieved "quality" of members of the public?

Mike.

nacho libre

So any paedophile before the court coming from ''good stock'' should have this as a mitigating factor taken into consideration. It would be interesting to see what sort of crimes you would have to commit for this TD to consider you of 'bad stock'.

This case just underlines why many abuse cases never make it to the court. I suspect every effort was made to keep this in-house by his well-regarded parents. Awful stuff.

Latchy

If it proved one thing in this case it is that Politicians shouldent always be relied upon to pass a reference on just about anybody .

Beruthiel

That comment angered me.
If you are a convicted rapist, what the hell difference does it make where you came from, you're still scum.

Latchy

Distorted view of what actually makes 'good stock ' .Anybody can be a rapist, murderer ,thief , regardless of class .

carolmon

I think this case just highlights the lack of awareness re certain crimes i.e. sexual crimes and domestic violence.

There is still a mindset in Ireland that links criminality with social class. An extension of this thinking is that criminality can be linked genetically ie that we have a sort of criminal sub class that can easily be identified through knowledge of "bad" stock and it's offspring.

I think this thinking is detrimental to all of us. Viewing people in terms of "stock" reduces all our humanity.

It stigmatises children of criminal parents, seeing their options in life as pre-determined with little regard for personal choice/ nature/ morality.

This ideology also fails to acknowledge the impact on a child of societal factors ie exposure to educational and work opportunities/ peer influences/ community norms and values etc.


The flipside of this ideology is that criminality does not occur in "good" stock.

Whilst this may be true for some crimes that are linked to poverty and deprivation, it is certainly not true for crimes of violence against women.

Rape and domestic violence are not confined to a criminal sub class.

Gender crimes occur across all the social classes.

A person's "stock" is no indication of how likely they are to be a perpetrator of these crimes.

Politicians should either educate themselves on these issues or keep the fcuk out of the legal system!

Actually on reflection they should do both.

Latchy

Politicians should either educate themselves on these issues or keep the fcuk out of the legal system!

Actually on reflection they should do both.

+1 .It's a bit like the throwback to the days when if you did not come from a two parent catholic family then you might be considered not of ' good stock '

blue shimmering

latchyco wrote: »

+1 .It's a bit like the throwback to the days when if you did not come from a two parent catholic family then you might be considered not of ' good stock '

What about that other case where the judge let the rapist off - who had gone into the girls apartment, she was deaf, raped her with her children sleeping in the other room! The judge said he was from a 'good family' and let him off with a suspended sentence - he was on the same train as her and flicked a cigarette at her as if to say 'up yours' and she decided to go public and get his 'sentence' reversed!

If you are from a 'good family', 'good stock' etc should it not go much harder on you - the book thrown at you, because you should have known better than someone who was uneducated and so on... This whole situation really makes my blood boil because instead of giving these spoilt brats a chance we should be giving the benefit of doubt to others who may have not known better! NO EXCUSE I KNOW but at least their upbringing should maybe excuse how they acted later in life?

Latchy

blue shimmering wrote: »

What about that other case where the judge let the rapist off - who had gone into the girls apartment, she was deaf, raped her with her children sleeping in the other room! The judge said he was from a 'good family' and let him off with a suspended sentence - he was on the same train as her and flicked a cigarette at her as if to say 'up yours' and she decided to go public and get his 'sentence' reversed!

Yes i do remember the case from last year i think

If you are from a 'good family', 'good stock' etc should it not go much harder on you - the book thrown at you, because you should have known better than someone who was uneducated and so on...

I agree

This whole situation really makes my blood boil because instead of giving these spoilt brats a chance we should be giving the benefit of doubt to others who may have not known better! NO EXCUSE I KNOW but at least their upbringing should maybe excuse how they acted later in life?

Education does go a long way but we need to have heavy punishments for serious crimes .That sends out the strongest message.Sadly to often nowadays we see people get off lightly with a slap on the hand and in a lot of cases commit reoffend time and time again.

metrovelvet

It shows the feudal, nepotistic ideology which still saturates Ireland.

Tigrrrr

Lets not be so pessimistic eh, I think the above comment is exaggeration.

It has limited relevance to this particular case, but i do believe that consideration of an individuals background should sometimes play a role in handing out punishments by the court... this goes for children of deprived or criminally active parents as much as for decent hardworking parents of 'good stock'.
One might argue that having a good background ought to be a case for being harder on the accused in terms of handing down punishment, or sentencing. However it might similarly be argued (not unreasonably) that the accused who is from a better socio-economic and more responsible background is being released into the custody or influence of decent and honest members of society and may be persuaded into their way of living moreso than the children of unemployed shoplifters, for example.

To put it briefly, if I were a judge in a sort of Pontious Pilot scenario where I could free either the son of decent parents or the son of layabouts, both sons having committed the same crime, I would free the son of decent parents.

blue shimmering

Tigrrrr wrote: »

Lets not be so pessimistic eh, I think the above comment is exaggeration.

It has limited relevance to this particular case, but i do believe that consideration of an individuals background should sometimes play a role in handing out punishments by the court... this goes for children of deprived or criminally active parents as much as for decent hardworking parents of 'good stock'.
One might argue that having a good background ought to be a case for being harder on the accused in terms of handing down punishment, or sentencing. However it might similarly be argued (not unreasonably) that the accused who is from a better socio-economic and more responsible background is being released into the custody or influence of decent and honest members of society and may be persuaded into their way of living moreso than the children of unemployed shoplifters, for example.

To put it briefly, if I were a judge in a sort of Pontious Pilot scenario where I could free either the son of decent parents or the son of layabouts, both sons having committed the same crime, I would free the son of decent parents.

Don't think this is in any way relevant to the thread because none of us will have this choice of picking "good stock" from "bad stock" in the court room! There are a lot of very decent people who were not given a very good upbringing and there are also a lot of spoilt brats who think they can do what they want and get away with it!

If I was given the choice of picking from two who had done the same crime - the only difference being they were from "Good Stock" and "Bad Stock" - I would bang them up for the whole time they were put down for! If I had any pity at all it would be someone who was not brought up well rather than someone who should have known better and had all the chances in the world but decided to put his/her fingers up at the rest of us good decent living people who are a mixture of "Good & Bad Stock"!

It is not fair to decide that one person should get preferencial treatment over another and if there was it should be weighed in favour of the disadvantaged!

Tigrrrr

blue shimmering wrote: »

Don't think this is in any way relevant to the thread because none of us will have this choice of picking "good stock" from "bad stock" in the court room! There are a lot of very decent people who were not given a very good upbringing and there are also a lot of spoilt brats who think they can do what they want and get away with it!

And vice versa. In fact, moreso vice versa in terms of the type of characters you tend to some across in courtrooms like at the Bridewell for example.

It is not fair to decide that one person should get preferencial treatment over another and if there was it should be weighed in favour of the disadvantaged!

Why in favour of the disadvantaged? Perhaps you shouldn't confuse 'bad stock' with 'disadvantaged'.

The issue here perhaps depends, perhaps on what you see as mainly being the aim of the criminal justice system.
It is an outdated position to view criminal justice as being merely about punishing crime and criminal, there must be a 'therapeutic' element to it in terms of what the criminal gets out of it. The criminal from a good background living in his or her family environment is more likely to benefit from release than the prisoner from a bad family returning to his or her area and connections.
I don't think that prisons as they currently stand are ideal therapeutic institutions by any stretch of the imagination, I don't think they serve anybody particularly well, criminal or victim or society.
Perhaps a better alternative for those coming from a good background might to place them under the good influence of that family and home place. It doesn't make much sense to do the same for those from a bad or criminally involved family (bad stock), does it?

johnnyskeleton

What posters here seem to be forgetting is that he was sentenced by a judge to 13 years imprisonment for his crimes. The politician involved had no role in sentencing him (and judging by the sentence passed had little influence on the judge either). The politician, who appears to have been some kind of family friend, was asked to write a character reference in his favour, and did so.

While as a general proposition I don't think TDs (other than the Minister & Minister of State for Justice) should try to have any input in sentencing, it seems to me that this is a great tabloid newspaper story, but the public outrage is somewhat artificial.

The politican said what she knew about the guy - i.e. that his parents were good people. A lot of people when being sentenced have character witnesses who say things like "He is a good father", "He is trying to kick his habit" "He is a good worker" etc.

What seems to have happened here is that the papers have latched onto this phrase and are trying to suggest that there is something underhand, or that the elite are closing ranks. But all it is is that a letter, which didn't have much influence over the judge, explained that the accused came from a good background.

Whether a good background is something in mitigation or aggravation is a matter for the judge to decide; but no one is saying he should be excused or treated more favourably than someone from another background. The issue is that knowing his background is relevant for the judge in deciding how best to balance punishment/rehabilitation/retribution and preventing other crimes.

nacho libre wrote:

This case just underlines why many abuse cases never make it to the court. I suspect every effort was made to keep this in-house by his well-regarded parents. Awful stuff.

Are you suggesting that abuse cases are covered up by TDs? Have you any evidence to support this?

nacho libre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What posters here seem to be forgetting is that he was sentenced by a judge to 13 years imprisonment for his crimes. The politician involved had no role in sentencing him (and judging by the sentence passed had little influence on the judge either). The politician, who appears to have been some kind of family friend, was asked to write a character reference in his favour, and did so.

While as a general proposition I don't think TDs (other than the Minister & Minister of State for Justice) should try to have any input in sentencing, it seems to me that this is a great tabloid newspaper story, but the public outrage is somewhat artificial.

The politican said what she knew about the guy - i.e. that his parents were good people. A lot of people when being sentenced have character witnesses who say things like "He is a good father", "He is trying to kick his habit" "He is a good worker" etc.

What seems to have happened here is that the papers have latched onto this phrase and are trying to suggest that there is something underhand, or that the elite are closing ranks. But all it is is that a letter, which didn't have much influence over the judge, explained that the accused came from a good background.

Whether a good background is something in mitigation or aggravation is a matter for the judge to decide; but no one is saying he should be excused or treated more favourably than someone from another background. The issue is that knowing his background is relevant for the judge in deciding how best to balance punishment/rehabilitation/retribution and preventing other crimes.




Are you suggesting that abuse cases are covered up by TDs? Have you any evidence to support this?

No, i'm not suggesting that at all.

blue shimmering

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What posters here seem to be forgetting is that he was sentenced by a judge to 13 years imprisonment for his crimes. The politician involved had no role in sentencing him (and judging by the sentence passed had little influence on the judge either). The politician, who appears to have been some kind of family friend, was asked to write a character reference in his favour, and did so.

While as a general proposition I don't think TDs (other than the Minister & Minister of State for Justice) should try to have any input in sentencing, it seems to me that this is a great tabloid newspaper story, but the public outrage is somewhat artificial.

The politican said what she knew about the guy - i.e. that his parents were good people. A lot of people when being sentenced have character witnesses who say things like "He is a good father", "He is trying to kick his habit" "He is a good worker" etc.

What seems to have happened here is that the papers have latched onto this phrase and are trying to suggest that there is something underhand, or that the elite are closing ranks. But all it is is that a letter, which didn't have much influence over the judge, explained that the accused came from a good background.

Whether a good background is something in mitigation or aggravation is a matter for the judge to decide; but no one is saying he should be excused or treated more favourably than someone from another background. The issue is that knowing his background is relevant for the judge in deciding how best to balance punishment/rehabilitation/retribution and preventing other crimes.




Are you suggesting that abuse cases are covered up by TDs? Have you any evidence to support this?

No one should write a character reference for someone who has committed a serious crime like rape, murder etc.., it is completely irrelevant to the case and I am glad that the judge didn't take any notice of the letter written to him! I think in this case it was made worse by having the victims living as close to the TD as the CRIMINAL is, she penned the character reference with the victims living close by without seeming to think through what she was doing - I don't know how she could do this in all concienceness and be able to sleep at night, she is completely wrong and to be honest I think anyone who would do this for someone who commits horrendus crimes should be ashamed of themselves!

Maybe in the case of someone doing petty crimes and it is a once off, they should be given the benefit of doubt - but if they are before the courts again in a year or so the book should be thrown at them?

There is and alway will be a two tier society in Ireland - and these of "good stock" will look after their own, even if they are guilty of terrible acts of violence against women and against humanity!

I say shame on this TD - she should have known better!

nacho libre

"The issue is that knowing his background is relevant for the judge in deciding how best to balance punishment/rehabilitation/retribution and preventing other crimes."

why should it be revelant? are you suggesting the likelihood of a paedophile to be rehabiliated or reoffend is largely determined by his background? Futhermore punishment/rehabilitation/retribution should not be based on an individuals background when a judge is deciding upon a custodial sentence for a serious crime. It should obviously be based on the severity of the crime and the person's plea.


also, the issue for many people is; should TD's be allowed to give character references to a court in a bid to influence sentencing in serious crimes.
You could perhaps understand it if it was a minor crime but it still would be inappropriate in my view.

blue shimmering

nacho libre wrote: »

"The issue is that knowing his background is relevant for the judge in deciding how best to balance punishment/rehabilitation/retribution and preventing other crimes."

why should it be revelant? are you suggesting the likelihood of a paedophile to be rehabiliated or reoffend is largely determined by his background? Futhermore punishment/rehabilitation/retribution should not be based on an individuals background when a judge is deciding upon a custodial sentence for a serious crime. It should obviously be based on the severity of the crime and the person's plea.


also, the issue for many people is; should TD's be allowed to give character references to a court in a bid to influence sentencing in serious crimes.
You could perhaps understand it if it was a minor crime but it still would be inappropriate in my view.

I agree wholeheartedly with you - his crime is what he is being punished for not if he is of "good or bad blood" and TD's, doctors, priests etc should not be getting involved in these cases at all. Character references are for job applications and so on not in the court of law where the judicial system should be the norm!

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote: »

It shows the feudal, nepotistic ideology which still saturates Ireland.

I don't believe it, I agree with metrovelvet

I think this is also a great case in point of my biggest gripe about TD's: they act as glorified county councillors instead of legislators.

AngryBadger

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The issue is that knowing his background is relevant for the judge in deciding how best to balance punishment/rehabilitation/retribution and preventing other crimes.

Excellent point, and far more relevant than a lot of the other speculation being put forward in this thread.

blue shimmering wrote:

No one should write a character reference for someone who has committed a serious crime like rape, murder etc.., it is completely irrelevant to the case and I am glad that the judge didn't take any notice of the letter written to him!

Why not? As stated above characters references/witnesses are relevant considerations.

nacho libre wrote:

why should it be revelant? are you suggesting the likelihood of a paedophile to be rehabiliated or reoffend is largely determined by his background?

Whether or not ANYONE is likely to re-offend is irrefutably tied to their background.

Sleepy wrote:

I don't believe it, I agree with metrovelvet

Me too, although I do seem to be runing a low grade fever.....:p

dr_manhattan

"It has limited relevance to this particular case"

So in otherwords we are not all equal under law: those of us who can find the "right people" to write a character reference for us are in fact better citizens?

So I should make friends with TDs in case I commit a crime?

I find this repulsive: and this is not tabloid outrage.

We're apparently so happy with our "equal" and "deomcratic" society that we force it on other countries, yet we accept without question that in the most serious of circumstances - where we are being sent to prison, deprived of our rights and futures - that it's all about who you know?

So tomorrow, I rape a woman and so does my mate steve: but he knows a TD so his chances of a lenient sentence should be higher....?

EXPERT WITNESSES with PSYCHIATRIC, SOCIOLOGICAL or otherwise QUALIFIED SKILLS are the only people whose testimony should mitigate.

If a shrink or social worker can tell me what kind of person the criminal is, NOT who his parents are or who he knows, THEN sentencing can be legitimately affected.

But a politician? The least trustworthy - and often least educated - in our society? Those who are constantly caught using their precious connections and family friends to steal from us?

You have got to be kidding me.

Tabloid sauce or not, this is a very serious issue.

Honestly, the type of people regarded as "scumbags" by our supposedly decent society: know how they get so hard and so angry? Know why they don't care about courts, cops or our opinions?

Cos they know they've never had a chance without the right parents, schooling or family connections. They *know* this and we keep insisting that it's a free and fair society... ever think what we look like to people on the outside?

A stack of nepotistic liars... in case you can't work that one out.

Oh and PS:

I disagree that someone who is a convicted rapist is "a scumbag".

If someone has committed a crime - no matter how heinous - and has paid their debt then they are just a citizen to me.

Besides which: how do I know they even raped anyone? It could be just that they don't know any TDs or didn't grow up the right side of the tracks.

Until you have someone's arrest record and case history, you don't know *anything* about them: what you're saying by calling all convicted rapist "scumbags" is as naive as calling everyone without a criminal record "honest".

Our "scumbag" politicians are enough to prove the latter to be unreliable...

blue shimmering

dr_manhattan wrote: »

"It has limited relevance to this particular case"

So in otherwords we are not all equal under law: those of us who can find the "right people" to write a character reference for us are in fact better citizens?

So I should make friends with TDs in case I commit a crime?

I find this repulsive: and this is not tabloid outrage.

We're apparently so happy with our "equal" and "deomcratic" society that we force it on other countries, yet we accept without question that in the most serious of circumstances - where we are being sent to prison, deprived of our rights and futures - that it's all about who you know?

So tomorrow, I rape a woman and so does my mate steve: but he knows a TD so his chances of a lenient sentence should be higher....?

EXPERT WITNESSES with PSYCHIATRIC, SOCIOLOGICAL or otherwise QUALIFIED SKILLS are the only people whose testimony should mitigate.

If a shrink or social worker can tell me what kind of person the criminal is, NOT who his parents are or who he knows, THEN sentencing can be legitimately affected.

But a politician? The least trustworthy - and often least educated - in our society? Those who are constantly caught using their precious connections and family friends to steal from us?

You have got to be kidding me.

Tabloid sauce or not, this is a very serious issue.

Honestly, the type of people regarded as "scumbags" by our supposedly decent society: know how they get so hard and so angry? Know why they don't care about courts, cops or our opinions?

Cos they know they've never had a chance without the right parents, schooling or family connections. They *know* this and we keep insisting that it's a free and fair society... ever think what we look like to people on the outside?

A stack of nepotistic liars... in case you can't work that one out.

Oh and PS:

I disagree that someone who is a convicted rapist is "a scumbag".

If someone has committed a crime - no matter how heinous - and has paid their debt then they are just a citizen to me.

Besides which: how do I know they even raped anyone? It could be just that they don't know any TDs or didn't grow up the right side of the tracks.

Until you have someone's arrest record and case history, you don't know *anything* about them: what you're saying by calling all convicted rapist "scumbags" is as naive as calling everyone without a criminal record "honest".

Our "scumbag" politicians are enough to prove the latter to be unreliable...

Yes I agree that it shouldn't be who you know when you are in a court of law it should be the judge, jury and the crime that you have committed that should be taken into account! Just because you are from a good or bad family should be irrelevant and if push came to shove being from a good background should be all the more reason that the book of law should be thrown at you!

I know of a young fella - seemed very nice, quiet who murdered a old man! The man came home and caught him, he killed him because he didn't want to go to jail and so on... He was from a very well respected family and even today his mother will not accept that he did it - the old man said he was the person who attacked him before he died! Forensics also confirmed that he was in the house with finger prints on the murder weapon - a saucepan and other household utencils!

This young man is now due for release and before that he was in college going forward for an Engineering degree! I do feel sorry for his family but not for him, he did a terrible thing to a man who had never done any harm and who lived alone! I for one would not have liked a character reference by anyone brought up to the judge - there were a lot of victims there and they deserved to see a proper punishment delivered to the killer of their uncle! This was a local case too but as far as I am aware no such letter was entered into the court on his behalf and if it had been I think there would have been an outcry from the local people and I can see where these young girls and their family are coming from - it is a disgrace!

johnnyskeleton

nacho libre wrote: »

No, i'm not suggesting that at all.

So what is it about this case that "underlines why many abuse cases never make it to the court" and what is it about this that makes you "suspect every effort was made to keep this in-house by his well-regarded parents"?

johnnyskeleton

blue shimmering wrote: »

No one should write a character reference for someone who has committed a serious crime like rape, murder etc.., it is completely irrelevant to the case and I am glad that the judge didn't take any notice of the letter written to him!
...
There is and alway will be a two tier society in Ireland - and these of "good stock" will look after their own, even if they are guilty of terrible acts of violence against women and against humanity!

nacho libre wrote: »

why should [an offender's background] be revelant? are you suggesting the likelihood of a paedophile to be rehabiliated or reoffend is largely determined by his background? Futhermore punishment/rehabilitation/retribution should not be based on an individuals background when a judge is deciding upon a custodial sentence for a serious crime. It should obviously be based on the severity of the crime and the person's plea.

Taking these points together, the suggestion is that a person's background is not a relevant factor to be considered in sentencing, with perhaps a slight misunderstanding of what role such background information plays.

Firstly, to explain the relevance of background / character information, if you accept that a person's previous convictions are relevant in determining the appropriate sentence (which they are, the more and more serious previous convictions the higher the sentence should be) then it is a double standard not to accept that the absence of previous convictions is a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence. If you accept that if a convicted person continues to harrass or beset the victim after the offence is an aggravating factor, you must also accept that signs of genuine remorse (including pleading guilty) are mitigating factors. Thus, as a general proposition, character evidence is highly relevant in determining sentence. Sometimes this character evidence is that the convicted person has begun rehabilitating themself, other times it is that they have done other good things with their lives. Usually it is that they are otherwise a normal working person who just (due to drink, drugs or whatever) lost control and did something completely wrong. But a convicted person is entitled to have their background and character (whatever they might be) considered, and moreover, the judge is required to have this evidence before him when determining sentence. So no matter how serious the offence, the offender's background is relevant.

I should also clarify the limited role which is played by character evidence. It is used to show something of the offender's life, to put in context whether it was a once off moment of madness or if it is part of a life of continuous criminal activity. Even for serious offences, such as rape, the likelihood of reoffending is highly relevant. So while the judge in this case imposed a 13 year sentence (which despite the Evening Herald calling this a short stretch and demanding a 100,000 year sentence incarcerated in a dark damp hole or whatever is a very long sentence) which imposed a high tariff for the seriousness of the offence but may well have given some small credit for the background of the offender.

As regards the likelihood of a person with a good background rehabilitating themself, this stands to reason. A person who has never been in trouble before is much less likely to reoffend than someone who has a string of previous convictions, and in any event they should be given the chance to prove this (which wouldn't be given to someone with a background of violence and criminality).

nacho libre wrote: »

also, the issue for many people is; should TD's be allowed to give character references to a court in a bid to influence sentencing in serious crimes.
You could perhaps understand it if it was a minor crime but it still would be inappropriate in my view.

blue shimmering wrote: »

I think in this case it was made worse by having the victims living as close to the TD as the CRIMINAL is, she penned the character reference with the victims living close by without seeming to think through what she was doing..
I say shame on this TD - she should have known better!

I agree that TDs (other than those involved in the Department of Justice) shouldn't take any part in sentencing, but be that as it may this TD decided to do so on a personal rather than official capacity, and people seem to be forgetting this.

On a purely political level it was an ill advised thing to do, but that in itself does not make it wrong from a societal point of view, and certainly there is no suggestion (as some posters seem to try to make out) that there was anything underhand or corrupt about the sentence. If a suspended sentence was imposed then there might be justification for all this hue and cry, but seeing as the sentence imposed was arguably on the harsh side (I don't know the facts of the case, but over 10 years for rape is only given in the most extreme cases) I don't see what all the fuss is about other than people voicing a vacuous notion of discontentment towards the criminal justice system.

nacho libre

AngryBadger wrote: »

Whether or not ANYONE is likely to re-offend is irrefutably tied to their background.

It doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to sex crimes. As i can attest to several cases in my aera where men from 'good stock' were convicted for reoffending. However, you'll quite likely cite these instances as exceptions to the rule.

johnnyskeleton

dr_manhattan wrote: »

So in otherwords we are not all equal under law: those of us who can find the "right people" to write a character reference for us are in fact better citizens?

So I should make friends with TDs in case I commit a crime?

I find this repulsive: and this is not tabloid outrage.
etc etc

The whole point though is that the TDs reference had a very minor impact on the sentence, and the sentence was a heavy one, so there is nothing genuinely wrong here. It is just tabloid outrage.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

So tomorrow, I rape a woman and so does my mate steve: but he knows a TD so his chances of a lenient sentence should be higher....?

If your parish priest and his local TD both give character references then I think they should have equal weight in mitigating the offence.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

EXPERT WITNESSES with PSYCHIATRIC, SOCIOLOGICAL or otherwise QUALIFIED SKILLS are the only people whose testimony should mitigate.

I disagree, mostly on the basis that the vast majority of people who give evidence in mitigation are probation workers, employers, drug counsellors, the injured parties, family members of the convicted person and/or someone else who knows the person. Psychiatrists are only relevant where the person has a mental problem, and sociologists are concerned with the general causes of crime rather than the individuals.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Honestly, the type of people regarded as "scumbags" by our supposedly decent society: know how they get so hard and so angry? Know why they don't care about courts, cops or our opinions?

Cos they know they've never had a chance without the right parents, schooling or family connections. They *know* this and we keep insisting that it's a free and fair society... ever think what we look like to people on the outside?

I use the word scumbag to mean an incorrigible violent offender, but I'm aware some people use it as a form of social snobbery or class distinction, which I think is the sense you are using it in.

I strongly disagree with both your classification and with the suggestion that someone without the right parents schooling or family connections never had a chance. The vast majority of people from disadvantaged areas and broken homes grow up to be honest, decent, hard working people, usually without even a parking ticket to their name. So to suggest that disadvantage leads to crime is highly offensive.

But to put it another way, everyone no matter how badly their life has gone wrong in its decent into crime, should have someone to stand up for them.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

I disagree that someone who is a convicted rapist is "a scumbag".

A convicted rapist is not a scumbag, but someone from a disadvantaged background is?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Besides which: how do I know they even raped anyone? It could be just that they don't know any TDs or didn't grow up the right side of the tracks.

Because they have either (a) pleaded guilty to a charge of rape or (b) been convicted by 12 jury members good and true. I think this statement shows how you are missing the point entirely. The accused in this case was convicted, and no amount of TD friends could have saved him from that. There is absolutely no suggestion that any TD tried to prevent him being convicted. Moreover, people are twisting the words "good stock" to mean that he was rich, upperclass, well connected etc? I don't know anything about the facts other than what is in the paper, but couldn't the phrase good stock simply mean that he came from good, law abiding parents (who might not have two pennies to rub together and work every hour of the day to put food on the table)? I don't think there is necessarily any class distinction there, so let me ask if it were the case that he were from a disadvantaged but honest background whether anybody would take umbrage with the phrase "good stock"?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Until you have someone's arrest record and case history, you don't know *anything* about them: what you're saying by calling all convicted rapist "scumbags" is as naive as calling everyone without a criminal record "honest".

No no no. With the exception of the few people who have been wrongly convicted of rape over the years, I have no problem calling anybody who commits rape as a scumbag. Your analogy is flawed because "honest" is not synonymous with "not a criminal".

johnnyskeleton

nacho libre wrote: »

It doesn't seem to be case when it comes to sex crimes. As i can attest to several cases in my aera where men from 'good stock' were convicted for reoffending. However, you'll quite likely cite these instances as exceptions to the rule.

If they were reoffending then they did not have a good background insofar as they have a history of criminal offending.

johnnyskeleton

blue shimmering wrote: »

This young man is now due for release and before that he was in college going forward for an Engineering degree! I do feel sorry for his family but not for him, he did a terrible thing to a man who had never done any harm and who lived alone! I for one would not have liked a character reference by anyone brought up to the judge - there were a lot of victims there and they deserved to see a proper punishment delivered to the killer of their uncle! This was a local case too but as far as I am aware no such letter was entered into the court on his behalf and if it had been I think there would have been an outcry from the local people and I can see where these young girls and their family are coming from - it is a disgrace!

Are you suggesting that the victims (or victim's family) should have a say in the issue of sentencing, but the offender should not?

Do you or do you not accept that someone who has been convicted or pleaded guilty to a criminal offence has the right to have mitigating factors put before the court?

People who read the Evening Herald are all too willing to believe that just because an offender has the right to address the court in mitigation that the legal system is tilted in their favour. To be honest, it is tilted very much against the accused, which can be seen by the fact that between 90 and 95% of offences charged result in a conviction. Judges, on the whole, tend to favour the prosecution and while it is very popular at the moment to take the side of victims (by the by, I don't believe people who make these points are genuinely championing the rights of victims but that's a separate issue) but if you look at it from the judge's point of view i.e. from the point of view of someone who has to hear both sides, it is important to hear the points that can be made in the offender's favour, even if those points are as insignificant as he was from a good family.

nacho libre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If they were reoffending then they did not have a good background insofar as they have a history of criminal offending.

ah but the point is before they reoffended they were considered to be men of good stock who because of their background were unlikely to reoffend.

blue shimmering

Yes I am suggesting that the victims or their family should have a say in the issue of sentencing, they are the one's who have been wronged! The offender has the whole court case to paint a picture of how "good" he is - mostly the family of the victim/victims do not get a chance to contribute to the court case at all and are left with a lot of unanswered questions! In most situations the victim would have a fairly good idea if the perpertrator was remorseful or not, I have seen cases where the victim or his/her family have pleaded with the judge for a lenient sentence - even in the bible it is "an eye for an eye", I do know that forgiveness is there to but you have to look for forgiveness to get it!

All the same I do know that these cases are very complicated and it is very difficult to generalise, there is always the human aspect in there - but my view on murderers and rapists is - put them in somewhere and throw away the key! Sometimes jail is too good for them although maybe they will not get things their own way while in there and also could end up getting raped themselves, at least then they would know how it feels!

At the same time I can see your point of view and that is all we can do here, express our personal points of view - it is interesting I think to see how others view things happening in our society! A parting shot now is if I had my own way I would put all the rapist together, all the murderers together and so on and leave them to their own devices - some will become victims and the others will serve longer because of it! I know you are now thinking how cruel is that but they are lucky I don't have a say because even if it was someone I knew well etc., liked and respected if in my heart and soul I knew they had done the terrible crime, I WOULD NEVER WRITE A CHARACTER REFERENCE FOR THEM EVEN IF THEY WERE MY OWN FAMILY!

nacho libre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So what is it about this case that "underlines why many abuse cases never make it to the court"

I was making a general comment on stats relating to the number of incidents of abuse that don't make it to court and drawing a correlation with this case as to why many of them never make it to court.

Granted you will cite a myriad of legal issues in many of these cases. however, i would argue that many others don't make it to court due to pernicious societal attitudes to such crimes. I think the TD'S thinking in writing this letters taps into a wider ignorance on paedophilic crime and its effects.

I have experienced the disturbing ambivalence of an older generation to paedophilic offences in where the child was some how "partially at fault" or the man had a "weak moment" but was otherwise a decent chap.

I am resolute in believing that a TD, whether in a private or public capacity, is wrong to write a character reference for someone who commits a serious crime. Such letters should also have no bearing in determining sentencing for serious crime. Thankfully in this case it didn't


as an example. let's say you have a wealthy barrister, who donates regularly to charity and gives blood, and a person who is poor and a latycho, are up on the exact same charges for sexual abuse and both enter a guilty plea. the wealthy barrister has character references from his distingushed peers entered in mitigation

should not both receive the same sentence regardless of their position in socity and background. i would see it as a gross dereiction of duty by the judge if the barrister got a lighter sentence. I concede that the Barrister is probably less likely to offend.

johnnyskeleton

nacho libre wrote: »

ah but the point is before they reoffended they were considered to be men of good stock who because of their background were unlikely to reoffend.

Yes, and everyone is entitled to this presumption. It would be completely unworkable if a judge were to say "you have been convicted once, therefore I assume that you will offend again" without anything to indicate either way. Where a person has the support structures of a family, job, or someone (anyone) who will take an interest in them, their chances of reoffending are dramatically reduced.

While you may point to instances where people from otherwise good backgrounds reoffend, you may find many others where they only ever commit one offence.

johnnyskeleton

blue shimmering wrote: »

Yes I am suggesting that the victims or their family should have a say in the issue of sentencing, they are the one's who have been wronged! The offender has the whole court case to paint a picture of how "good" he is

That's wrong. The court case (whether it be a trial or a summary of the facts where the person pleads) is an opportunity for the DPP to outline the seriousness of the offence. The defence are limited to raising a doubt about whether the offence actually happened or not. They do not lead evidence as to how good a person the accused is.

blue shimmering wrote: »

- mostly the family of the victim/victims do not get a chance to contribute to the court case at all and are left with a lot of unanswered questions!

That's a separate issue, and the reason they do not get a chance to contribute to the court case is that they are not bringing the court case, the state is. However, private prosecutions do occasionally happen.

blue shimmering wrote: »

In most situations the victim would have a fairly good idea if the perpertrator was remorseful or not, I have seen cases where the victim or his/her family have pleaded with the judge for a lenient sentence - even in the bible it is "an eye for an eye", I do know that forgiveness is there to but you have to look for forgiveness to get it!

I agree.

blue shimmering wrote: »

All the same I do know that these cases are very complicated and it is very difficult to generalise, there is always the human aspect in there - but my view on murderers and rapists is - put them in somewhere and throw away the key! Sometimes jail is too good for them although maybe they will not get things their own way while in there and also could end up getting raped themselves, at least then they would know how it feels!

Two wrongs don't make a right. But in any event a judge must do what is best for society, not what makes the specific victims feel good about themselves. It is not in society's best interest to lock people up and throw away the key without any attention to the specific circumstances.

blue shimmering wrote: »

I know you are now thinking how cruel is that but they are lucky I don't have a say because even if it was someone I knew well etc., liked and respected if in my heart and soul I knew they had done the terrible crime, I WOULD NEVER WRITE A CHARACTER REFERENCE FOR THEM EVEN IF THEY WERE MY OWN FAMILY!

I don't think that is cruel, but I don't believe that it's true either.

johnnyskeleton

nacho libre wrote: »

I was making a general comment on stats relating to the number of incidents of abuse that don't make it to court and drawing a correlation with this case as to why many of them never make it to court.

The reasons why there is such a high attrition rate for sexual cases are well known and I think you're aware of them too so I won't recite them here. However, political intervention is not one of them, nor has anyone previously suggested that character references from public figures discourages people from proceeding with criminal trials.

The issue of societal attitudes towards sexual offences has meant that until recently, abused children have not been believed by the authorities (and even by their own relatives). That has changed in recent years, but even still that was due to the way people didn't believe (or didn't want to believe) that such things could happen. It was nothing to do with an attitude of covering it up or to do with politics etc, so I don't see how this connects the low conviction rate to the present case.

So while I accept that there is a low rate of conviction to complaints in sexual offences (three noteworthy facts on this are that Ireland has a higher ratio that a lot of other countries, there are more proven false allegations in this area than in others, and even still sexual offences does not have the lowest ratio of this kind - I believe burglary does) I do not in any way see how that is connected to what is discussed herein.

nacho libre wrote: »

Such letters should also have no bearing in determining sentencing for serious crime.

I've already answered this, but I don't see the distinction to be made for serious offences. Everyone has the right to be heard, even if it makes little difference to the sentence.

nacho libre wrote: »

as an example. let's say you have a wealthy barrister, who donates regularly to charity and gives blood, and a person who is poor and a latycho, are up on the exact same charges for sexual abuse and both enter a guilty plea. the wealthy barrister has character references from his distingushed peers entered in mitigation

should not both receive the same sentence regardless of their position in socity and background. i would see it as a gross dereiction of duty by the judge if the barrister got a lighter sentence. I concede that the Barrister is probably less likely to offend.

I think the barrister should get a lesser sentence on the basis of (a) his charity work and, more importantly, (b) the lesser liklihood of reoffending.

Equally, if it was the second person who donates to charity and gives blood, and on the evidence he would be the less likely candidate for re-offending, then he should properly be given the lesser sentence.

The character references will only go to a very limited extend in showing a likelihood of never re-offending. I would also add that in reality the second person is just as likely (if not more likely) to get character references from people in the local community, even if they are not as well known.

blue shimmering

Two wrongs don't make a right. But in any event a judge must do what is best for society, not what makes the specific victims feel good about themselves. It is not in society's best interest to lock people up and throw away the key without any attention to the specific circumstances.

Maybe they don't make a "right" but the way our prison's are filling up what we are doing at the moment doesn't seem to improve the situation at all! These men or indeed women don't seem to be too worried about going to jail, I think our judicial system is much too soft on criminals irrelevant to how many times they have offended in the past or if they are of "good or bad stock"!

johnnyskeleton

blue shimmering wrote: »

Maybe they don't make a "right" but the way our prison's are filling up what we are doing at the moment doesn't seem to improve the situation at all! These men or indeed women don't seem to be too worried about going to jail, I think our judicial system is much too soft on criminals irrelevant to how many times they have offended in the past or if they are of "good or bad stock"!

Your first sentence sounds like you realise prison doesn't solve any problems it just sweeps it under the carpet, but then your second sentence seems to contradict that.

Do you think 13 years is too soft a punishment? On what basis? Or is this an amorphous attack on the judiciary based on newspaper headlines "Shocking judge lets murderer walk free for not paying his tv licence" "Judge lets rapist walk free after he serves 5 years in prison" and the like.

I would suggest that you are incorrect as regards people not being worried about jail - most of the time crimes are committed impulsively, passionately or due to an addiction, and they don't think of the consequences at all. Suggesting longer prison sentences as a deterrent is 19th century thinking, because it doesn't really work.

AngryBadger

nacho libre wrote: »

It doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to sex crimes. As i can attest to several cases in my aera where men from 'good stock' were convicted for reoffending. However, you'll quite likely cite these instances as exceptions to the rule.

I don't have to cite them as anything since you pulled that proxy-implication out of thin air.

I didn't say people from certain demogrpahics will never re-offend, or will always re-offend.

I said the likelihood was irrefutably tied to their background.

However, you'll quite likely just make up some other totally random point and redpond to that instead of responding to what I actually said.

blue shimmering

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Your first sentence sounds like you realise prison doesn't solve any problems it just sweeps it under the carpet, but then your second sentence seems to contradict that.

Do you think 13 years is too soft a punishment? On what basis? Or is this an amorphous attack on the judiciary based on newspaper headlines "Shocking judge lets murderer walk free for not paying his tv licence" "Judge lets rapist walk free after he serves 5 years in prison" and the like.

I would suggest that you are incorrect as regards people not being worried about jail - most of the time crimes are committed impulsively, passionately or due to an addiction, and they don't think of the consequences at all. Suggesting longer prison sentences as a deterrent is 19th century thinking, because it doesn't really work.

Yes I do think 13 years was a long sentence but he/or his family were trying to get this lessened down, I do not know if he had other offences committed or if this was his first but I do know that these two young girls will be scarred for life! It doesn't really matter to them whether it is his first or subsequent offences their lives will never be the same again.

I do agree that prison doesn't seem to really work for these offenders and a lot of the time they come out a lot worse than when they went in, but what alternative is there? Could they contribute in some way to the community rather than costing the taxpayers and communities a lot of money?

I don't read tabloid papers so I am only going on what is in this thread and also what is in the more influencial papers - The Times and Independent! I do think all the same that the victims and the impact on their lives should in some way be considered before the convicted criminal!

johnnyskeleton

blue shimmering wrote: »

Yes I do think 13 years was a long sentence but he/or his family were trying to get this lessened down, I do not know if he had other offences committed or if this was his first but I do know that these two young girls will be scarred for life! It doesn't really matter to them whether it is his first or subsequent offences their lives will never be the same again.

It doesn't really matter (or at least it shouldn't) whether he gets a 5 year sentence or a 13 year sentence, but I honestly believe that in recent years the victims of crime have been told by the media and by people like yourself (even if it is with a good intention) that a 5 year or even a 10 year sentence is a mild punishment, and that makes the victims feel like they haven't been served by justice. When there is outcry over a sentence, I doubt the victims create it so much as the media whips it up into a frenzy. But if it doesn't really matter to them whether it is his first or subsequent offence, do you understand that that matters quite a lot to the sentencing judge?

blue shimmering wrote: »

I do agree that prison doesn't seem to really work for these offenders and a lot of the time they come out a lot worse than when they went in, but what alternative is there? Could they contribute in some way to the community rather than costing the taxpayers and communities a lot of money?

If someone who is unlikely to reoffend is given a lesser sentence or a part suspended sentence (e.g. 13 years with the last 5 suspended) they can then go on to work, have a family, do charity work, tell others not to follow their example, and as such will be a benefit to society. But this of course will inevitably be seen by the media as the judges wanting to let criminals walk free (whatever reason a judge might have to let a criminal walk free undeservedly is beyond me). So your point highlights one of the factors a judge will consider which will be twisted out of context by the media.

blue shimmering wrote: »

I don't read tabloid papers so I am only going on what is in this thread and also what is in the more influencial papers - The Times and Independent! I do think all the same that the victims and the impact on their lives should in some way be considered before the convicted criminal!

1) The indo is a rag I'm afraid.
2) If you don't read the tabloids, you make the same point that they make I'm afraid.
3) What evidence do you have (in the specific case or in general) that suggests that the court did not consider the victims before the criminal? I would infer that quite the opposite happened here in that the judge imposed 13 years which places a lot of emphasis on the seriousness of the offence and little emphasis on the letter that sparked the whole controversy.
4) You have to remember as well that while this case is one of the most serious cases of the second most serious offence in Ireland, the victims of more minor offences might also seek to have their pound of flesh, and if for example, a victim of a minor assault (no injuries) wanted the person to be locked up for 13 years it is simply not going to happen. So while judges do have regular regard to the victim and to the seriousness of the offence in general, it is only one factor of many to be considered.

carolmon

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It doesn't really matter (or at least it shouldn't) whether he gets a 5 year sentence or a 13 year sentence,



If someone who is unlikely to reoffend is given a lesser sentence or a part suspended sentence (e.g. 13 years with the last 5 suspended) they can then go on to work, have a family, do charity work, tell others not to follow their example, and as such will be a benefit to society.

It sure as hell matters to the victim how long the sentence is...........
and to society cos there is a guarantee there is no re-offending whilst the perpetrator is locked away.

(And I note the work "unlikely" - not a call I'd be willing to make.)


RE offenders becoming involved in charity work/ aiding society by publicly declaring their wrongdoing - how "likely" is that?
I would think it is more "likely" they will re-offend if you view the stats on recidivism.


Also re the issue of offenders going on to lead productive lives, have families/ career

often victims of crime are not able to achieve all this, in the cases of sexual abuse family life and relationships will be indelibly affected, work options may be damaged if there is ongoing mental health issues after the assault (depression and anxiety are well documented symptoms and can be persistent)

I feel the concern and support belongs with the victim but unfortunately from the very outset the victim is not as important in the system, a witness in a court case, given no legal representation of their own.

Offenders have support systems when leaving prison, there is help with housing, employment and counselling / addiction services.

Victims are left to sink or swim.

johnnyskeleton

carolmon wrote: »

It sure as hell matters to the victim how long the sentence is...........
and to society cos there is a guarantee there is no re-offending whilst the perpetrator is locked away.

Good work selectively editing my post. If you accept that it matters to society that an offender to get the appropriate sentence, do you not accept that that would override the victim's need for vengeance?

I honestly don't believe it makes much difference to a victim of crime whether the offender gets 5 years or 15 years, although from time to time some will say "I want a greater/lesser sentence". But in the last few years the press have gone on a crusade so now everyone is saying that victims want high sentences, to the extent that they have become a political football, and it almost shames victims into wanting higher sentences. But ultimately if a person is convicted and sentenced appropriately, this satisfies most victims.

carolmon wrote: »

(And I note the work "unlikely" - not a call I'd be willing to make.)

Then don't, but by the same token don't therefore decide that all convicted persons are likely to reoffend. We have a long tradition of giving people the benefit of the doubt, a second chance, and support in rehabilitating themselves.

carolmon wrote: »

RE offenders becoming involved in charity work/ aiding society by publicly declaring their wrongdoing - how "likely" is that?

Very, and the majority of recidivists are for minor offences or are drug/alcohol addicts.

carolmon wrote: »

I would think it is more "likely" they will re-offend if you view the stats on recidivism.

Post your stats if you want to debate them (one very cogent argument is that we have very little in the way of rehabilitation facilities in Ireland, hence the recidivist rate), but you're missing the point entirely. To impose a higher sentence because of a statistic rather than due to the particular circumstances of the offender is a very callous way to look at things. It would be like saying that because statistically men cause more serious accidents then all men should be taken off the road.

carolmon wrote: »

Also re the issue of offenders going on to lead productive lives, have families/ career

often victims of crime are not able to achieve all this, in the cases of sexual abuse family life and relationships will be indelibly affected, work options may be damaged if there is ongoing mental health issues after the assault (depression and anxiety are well documented symptoms and can be persistent)

Misery loves company eh? What exactly is achieved by denying the offender a normal life because they denied someone else theirs? It's pure revenge - in fact it's worse than revenge, it's pure mathematics. This is another problem that seems to be growing in our culture. If you're life hasn't been destroyed by the violent or sexual crime perpetrated against you, you're not a real victim. It's like suggesting that there is no incentive for the victims of crime to get their life back on track, because then they will be denied their pound of flesh.

We want our criminals evil and our victims destroyed. Nothing else will do for the red tops.

carolmon wrote: »

I feel the concern and support belongs with the victim but unfortunately from the very outset the victim is not as important in the system, a witness in a court case, given no legal representation of their own.

Firstly, would you care to state exactly what you mean by concern and support? In sexual cases the complainants are invariably treated with concern and support from the judge.

Secondly, in rape cases and in private prosecutions, the complainants do have their own legal representation.

Thirdly, when someone is brought on trial, they are presumed innocent. This is a bone of contention with victims advocacy groups, and looked at from their point of view it makes sense, but if we were to adopt their views (i.e. that all persons who make a complaint should be believed and no doubt should be cast upon them) as a realistic approach then it is a presumption of guilt, and we would have more false complaints than genuine ones.

To give an example, the new victims rights bill states that when being questioned in court a victim (note not "alleged victim" or "complainant" it is presumed that they are a victim) cannot be asked anything that might undermine their dignity. Calling someone a liar is to undermine their dignity, but what if they actually are a liar?

Fourthly, who should the victim be more important than? The Director of Public Prosecutions? The Judge? The Jury? Or do you mean the accused? To be honest, most accused persons would happily trade places with a complainant any day of the week.

Finally, what do you think they need legal representation for?

carolmon wrote: »

Offenders have support systems when leaving prison, there is help with housing, employment and counselling / addiction services.

Victims are left to sink or swim.

You've never heard of any victims support groups? RCC, 4in1, CARI, etc?

Ultimately, no one is advocating the rights of criminals over victims (or the rights of criminals at all). This debate is divided between victims rights advocates who only look at one side on the one hand, and people who are trying to look at the criminal justice system as a whole on the other. To say that my views are cold is probably correct, but I'd rather have a cold dispationate view of the Criminal Justice system than a biased unreasonable one.

And the one thing that does make me quite passionate in this debate are the people who claim to champion victims rights, because the majority of them are pursuing their own agenda and are only using victims as a means of getting public sympathy. I object to victims being used for such a cynical purpose, and I object even more strongly to the way in which this point of view ultimately negatively impacts victims rather than improving their lot.

nacho libre

AngryBadger wrote: »

I don't have to cite them as anything since you pulled that proxy-implication out of thin air.

I didn't say people from certain demogrpahics will never re-offend, or will always re-offend.

I said the likelihood was irrefutably tied to their background.

However, you'll quite likely just make up some other totally random point and redpond to that instead of responding to what I actually said.

Yawn.
I conceded this already when i mentioned those cases were likely to be exceptions. You purposely missed that of course or didn't understand what i meant. By stating they were exceptions i was acknowledging that background does play a major part in whether a person is likely to reoffend. I also acknowledged this in my reply to johnnyskeleton when i gave the example of a barrister..

To clear a few other thing ups: I was not suggesting political interference was
stopping incidents of sex crimes coming before the courts rather societal attitudes were.
To conclude, while background is a good indictor as to whether someone will likely reoffend, in my opinion, it should be the gravity of the offense and the accused plea that solely determines the length of the sentence handed down.

AngryBadger

nacho libre wrote: »

I conceded this already when i mentioned those cases were likely to be exceptions.

I wasn't making an addition point/argument in my last post, I was responding to points you inferred I was making that weren't contained in the relevant post.

Well done on spelling "yawn" though, shows real maturity.

nacho libre

To repeat..when i finished off my post by saying "....you'll likely cite those cases as exceptions", i was acknowledging i was wrong in my assertion and that your statement is correct. I was not inferring anything else.

Also, I was expressing exasperation(by using the word "yawn") at the somewhat abrasive and patronising nature of your replies. Neither are necessary.
You are right though i was wrong to respond in the manner i did.

AngryBadger

nacho libre wrote: »

To repeat..when i finished off my post by saying "....you'll likely cite those cases as exceptions", i was acknowledging i was wrong in my assertion and that your statement is correct. I was not inferring anything else.

Also, I was expressing exasperation(by using the word "yawn") at the somewhat abrasive and patronising nature of your replies. Neither are necessary.
You are right though i was wrong to respond in the manner i did.

Fair enough, it's not my intention to cause offence in my posts, but I generally respond with what I thinkis a appropriate tone given the nature of the post I respond to, if someone is making an informed point (or even an uninformed one in a manner I consider to be reasonable and courteous then I respond in kind.

Your posts I found to be one-sided and juvenile, so I responded in what i considered to be an appropriate manner, and you found it abrasive/patronising.

Maybe we were both wrong. at any rate, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine, and we both obviously feel strongly about what we're saying.

So let's just agree to disagree

Deep Easterly

mike65 wrote: »

Full Story



I am, but not posh

Whatever about the crass invertention by a local TD in a matter of law, the use of such a term as Good Stock makes me wonder about if the spirit of a republic actually counts for much in this republic.

Does Kathleen Lynch judge all interventions on the percieved "quality" of members of the public?

.

"Quality" in her terms, are those from middle class, financially secure, and brain washed, sociatal deluded idiots. In sum, those who are just like herself.

Those with the lack of "quality", are forced to be that way by deliberate financial oppression, sociatal oppression, social exclusion; the lack of social power etc etc etc.

How dare she judge who is of "quality" and who isn't. She is deluded, and deluded by a contrived political/social construct that means absolutely nothing.

I have spoken.:mad:

(well, written, but you know what I mean..:D)