ISD [Read MOD NOTICE in post #10 before replying]

Darr

Hi guys
Did anyone else read Des's artical in the digest , which also showed the recent judgment ..
Looks like he thinks the FCP was a bit of a bust , was a very intresting artical and defo backs up what some people (inc some here) were saying about the FCP a few months- years back ..

cetainly worth a read .
Darr

rowa

no commitee or board is any use unless it has some teeth and the fcp doesn't have any , they can sit and yap , which is what they did and the minister can ignore it all and do what he was going to do in the first place , which lets face it is exactly what he did too .

J.R.

Darr wrote: »

Hi guys
Did anyone else read Des's artical in the digest , which also showed the recent judgment ..
Looks like he thinks the FCP was a bit of a bust , was a very intresting artical and defo backs up what some people (inc some here) were saying about the FCP a few months- years back ..

cetainly worth a read .
Darr

Very interesting read.

Despite the fact that the judge didn't like firearms and openly declared so in the court, stating that he would have all banned if he had the power to do so, he looked at the case under the legal issues & rights of the shooter & made judgement against the Gardaí, awarding the reissuing of the 4 pistol licences to the applicant.

dCorbus

Despite the fact that the judge didn't like firearms and openly declared so in the court, stating that he would have all banned if he had the power to do so, he looked at the case under the legal issues & rights of the shooter & made judgement against the Gardaí, awarding the reissuing of the 4 pistol licences to the applicant.

Which case was this? Any link to the decision online? Thanks.

The advantage / disadvantage of the FCP is indicated in the name: "Firearms Consultancy Panel" - It's a consultancy panel and by definition cannot enforce policy or legislation changes, but can only advise and provide some informed direction to the Powers-That-Be. If the P'sTB then choose to overrule / ignore / contradict the advice and direction they have been given, that's surely the fault / responsibility of the P'sTB and not the FCB? And bearing in mind (AFAIK) that the P'sTB don't seem to even listen to the Gardai's own "Firearms Policy Unit", the fault would appear to lie squarely at the foot of the Minister and not the FCP.

That said, I haven't read DC's article in the ISD - I'll sneak a read in easons later - and will stand corrected if totally wrong.

Darr

This was the recent case that was been discussed here (now locked I belive) , but the Judgement is in the ISD .

dCorbus , read the peice if you get the chance .. certainly nothing to do with blame just DC opinion on the FCP or more to the point his opinion on it now ..

Darr

dCorbus

Thanks Darr

This was the recent case that was been discussed here (now locked I belive)

That's not the one up before the Supreme Court? - I thought that was put back to April? I presume this is a different one.

I'll get my hands on a copy in the Easons or Reads Reading & Lending Library (Don't buy the ISD anymore myself - Too much bumpf by far! And seldom if anything on target shooting disciplines!:mad:)

certainly nothing to do with blame just DC opinion on the FCP or more to the point his opinion on it now

Was DC on the FCP?

rowa

J.R. wrote: »

Very interesting read.

Despite the fact that the judge didn't like firearms and openly declared so in the court, stating that he would have all banned if he had the power to do so, he looked at the case under the legal issues & rights of the shooter & made judgement against the Gardaí, awarding the reissuing of the 4 pistol licences to the applicant.

i don't see how the judge should be allowed to give his personal opinion on the ownership of firearms in court like that "he would have them all banned if he had the power to do so" after all its the stupid statement made by charlton that started all this in the first place, if he feels strongly about it run for a seat in the dail and start it there.

Cass

Case that was discussed here and in ISD - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055800536 .

dCorbus

Thanks Ez.

But I thought that case was still open and had not been decided yet.
The thread is still locked and no further postings - so does anyone know what the decision was, if any, or whether this case is still sub judice and running its legal course?

If it's still in court, ISD may be sailing v close to the legal wind and doing the plaintiff no favours.

I'm confused...... For a change:rolleyes:

i don't see how the judge should be allowed to give his personal opinion on the ownership of firearms in court like that

As I understand it, a Judge can say pretty much as they wish in their own courtroom. In fact, IMHO his expressing his opinion that he is personally "anti-gun" and yet defending the letter and spirit of the law in support of a sports shooter, actually is a very good thing - This means that the law is not a one-way street against the "rights" of shooting sports-men and -women.

Although, I am extremely surprised that a judge would make a statement that "he would have them all banned if he had the power to do so", as this is a very thin tightrope to walk - the laws and constitution strictly separate the legislature and the judiciary - their Lords & Ladyships in the 4Courts are always "banging on" about this, when it suits them (Ref. The debacle and failure of the Elected Government to reduce their pay, the debacle and failure of the Elected Government in trying to remove a certain convicted pervert from their judicial post, and the various issues which have arisen over the years in relation to the pensions payable to members of the judiciary, etc. etc. etc.:mad:).

So which is it to be, your honour: Separation of Powers? Some other "if he had the power to do so" world? You don't. We the People do, through the democratic processes (OK, OK, I know that doesn't really work too well - but we've already been around the houses on that one!:D)

(NOTE TO MODS: Delete this if you think I'm sailing v close to the legal wind myself)

Rovi

I haven't seen the latest ISD so I have no idea what's published there, but as far as we're concerned here, the case is still sub judice.

The Judge found in favour of the shooter, but adjourned the case until 3rd March to allow the Respondent (the Chief Superintendent) time to deal with an "issue" of "concern" that arose during the hearing.

[MOD NOTICE]
Can we ask everyone to please not go quoting material here from the ISD until we've had a chance to have a look at it and run it by the Boards.ie legal folks, in case we wind up perpetuating an error?
[/MOD NOTICE]

dCorbus

but as far as we're concerned here, the case is still sub judice

Thanks for clarifying that. So it is the same case. My confusion has been resolved.

Not going to comment on the case so. (Although I don't think I did)

Fair point on quoting of quotes about quoted quotes, as published in ISD.
We may all indeed be misquoting misquotes about misquoted misquotations.:rolleyes:
And thus, perpetuating a endless spiral of quotes! Oh god, I need to get out more.......:eek:

If we are quoting from an already published article, is this not in the public domain and open to fair comment though?

Rovi

dCorbus wrote: »

If we are quoting from an already published article, is this not in the public domain and open to fair comment though?

I don't know, that's why we want to run this by the legal folks here before quoting stuff.

Just for clarification, I/we don't know what's in the ISD, as we haven't seen it yet.
I'm going on ezridax's post above that they ARE the same case, and am taking precautions.

patbundy

rovi its the same case, im just looking at it now

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

If we are quoting from an already published article, is this not in the public domain and open to fair comment though?

Nope. Repeating libel is libel in and of itself; likewise with repeating a violation of a court order. Likewise with repeating any illegal act in fact - the second person stopped on a tuesday for speeding doesn't get off because the guy in front of him was speeding two, they just issue two tickets.

Leaving all that aside, we were informed that the plaintiff in this case was rather anxious that it not be discussed here until it was done and dusted. That Des is chatting about it in the Digest... well, I wouldn't have done it with the plaintiff's views being so reasonable.

And Des talking about the FCP is... odd to hear. I mean, this is Des, who shut down a very promising discussion on deregulating airguns by bringing the 1J limit up to 7J at the first FCP conference "because we have more important things to talk about". It's not that he sank the FCP -- because (a) it hasn't sunk, it's done quite well when you look at what it was meant to do, and (b) the Minister sank it the same way you sink a rubber duckie with a kilo of high explosives when he decided to present the pistol ban as a fait accompli to the papers before the department -- but Des can't exactly stand back now and point to clear blue water between the FCP and himself, because there isn't any. At all.

cavan shooter

I read the article at the begining of the week and was going to post but had second thoughts because maybe certain topics shouldnt be discussed on the open forums of boards.

What I did find unfortunate, is that we appear to be heading for the courts again

jwshooter

Sparks wrote: »

Nope. Repeating libel is libel in and of itself; likewise with repeating a violation of a court order. Likewise with repeating any illegal act in fact - the second person stopped on a tuesday for speeding doesn't get off because the guy in front of him was speeding two, they just issue two tickets.

Leaving all that aside, we were informed that the plaintiff in this case was rather anxious that it not be discussed here until it was done and dusted. That Des is chatting about it in the Digest... well, I wouldn't have done it with the plaintiff's views being so reasonable.

And Des talking about the FCP is... odd to hear. I mean, this is Des, who shut down a very promising discussion on deregulating airguns by bringing the 1J limit up to 7J at the first FCP conference "because we have more important things to talk about". It's not that he sank the FCP -- because (a) it hasn't sunk, it's done quite well when you look at what it was meant to do, and (b) the Minister sank it the same way you sink a rubber duckie with a kilo of high explosives when he decided to present the pistol ban as a fait accompli to the papers before the department -- but Des can't exactly stand back now and point to clear blue water between the FCP and himself, because there isn't any. At all.

who deleted my last post . is it des crofton your talking about .?

if any one posted this you would ban them ,did you post this as a mod for boards or a poster

Sparks

Yes, it's Des Crofton, no, I wouldn't as it's not libellous, and jw you know what the dispute resolution procedure is if you have issues with a moderator - and that's the last time that that drags a thread off topic if you don't mind.

BornToKill

dCorbus wrote: »

the debacle and failure of the Elected Government in trying to remove a certain convicted pervert from their judicial post

What case was that? I can't recall any convictions.

jwshooter

Sparks wrote: »

Nope. Repeating libel is libel in and of itself; likewise with repeating a violation of a court order. Likewise with repeating any illegal act in fact - the second person stopped on a tuesday for speeding doesn't get off because the guy in front of him was speeding two, they just issue two tickets.

Leaving all that aside, we were informed that the plaintiff in this case was rather anxious that it not be discussed here until it was done and dusted. That Des is chatting about it in the Digest... well, I wouldn't have done it with the plaintiff's views being so reasonable.

And Des talking about the FCP is... odd to hear. I mean, this is Des, who shut down a very promising discussion on deregulating airguns by bringing the 1J limit up to 7J at the first FCP conference "because we have more important things to talk about". It's not that he sank the FCP -- because (a) it hasn't sunk, it's done quite well when you look at what it was meant to do, and (b) the Minister sank it the same way you sink a rubber duckie with a kilo of high explosives when he decided to present the pistol ban as a fait accompli to the papers before the department -- but Des can't exactly stand back now and point to clear blue water between the FCP and himself, because there isn't any. At all.

sorry mark i miss the point hear .


now thats polite ,im asking a question so dont delete it .

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

sorry mark i miss the point hear .
now thats polite ,im asking a question so dont delete it .

The point(s) are:

• Just because the ISD publishes something doesn't mean it's publishable (legally, or morally, or ethically, or in good taste, etc, etc);
• Just because the ISD publishes something doesn't mean that the court orders restricting reporting on the case while it was sub judice (and it remains sub judice right now) have gone away;
• Just because the ISD publishes something where we were told that the person involved didn't want the case risked by public debate before the case was closed, doesn't mean we're about to;
• Given the expressed wishes of the plaintiff, I'm a bit surprised that this was published by shooters, who are traditionally meant to show more regard for shooters' expressed wishes than the rest of the media;
• And Des decrying the FCP is a bit out-and-out wierd, as he was enormously involved in it and if it sinks or swims, he's still involved in it - you don't get it both ways.

rowa

the relationship between des crofton and the isd is a bit bizarre , after all it was in the isd that he had the article decrying practical pistol etc that ahern quoted before he banned centrefire pistols , dc only seems to appear in the isd when he wants to have a go at irish shooters or now a body that was there to represent us to the government .

Grizzly 45

Dont see who youse are getting the idea that Des is complaining about the FCP being useless!
Read the article,specifically his commentary he states that as far as he is concerned the members of the FCP inc the Gardai on the panel played fair.But this has not been reciprocated by the Garda Cheif supers,and that of matters the FCP was assured on have been turned on their heads and ignored.
MORE IMPORTANTLY is the statement that there has been collusion by Cheif Supers on this matter.And that it looks like there has been no individual "careful consideration" of each case.
Should we not be concentrating on the content of the message,rather than the messanger?????
Dont shoot the messanger lads.Good messangers are hard to come by!:pac:


Later
I'm pretty sure Des and the ISD are pretty clued up on Irish libel law at this stage,as not to be publishing libellous or defamatory articles,or anything that would/could be used against us at this stage.

Darr

jeez and I just thought it was an intresting artical and people should have a look at it .. this place must be built on a snowy slope , cause talk about a snow ball effect ..

anyways like I said , people should probably read it. its INTRESTING is ALL ..

Darr

EDIT : if you read it the area where he mentions the FCP is not what some people here are thinking , its NOT negative about the FCP , its more what happend .. Read first , then comment (if allowed due to legal req's)

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Dont see who youse are getting the idea that Des is complaining about the FCP being useless!
Read the article,specifically his commentary he states that as far as he is concerned the members of the FCP inc the Gardai on the panel played fair.But this has not been reciprocated by the Garda Cheif supers,and that of matters the FCP was assured on have been turned on their heads and ignored.
MORE IMPORTANTLY is the statement that there has been collusion by Cheif Supers on this matter.And that it looks like there has been no individual "careful consideration" of each case.
Should we not be concentrating on the content of the message,rather than the messanger?????
Dont shoot the messanger lads.Good messangers are hard to come by!:pac:

i have to agree about the lack of careful consideration , my application for my .45 was refused out of hand , despite me ticking the necessary boxes and it seems the chief supers have colluded to write their own rules ,

Kryten

rowa wrote: »

the relationship between des crofton and the isd is a bit bizarre , after all it was in the isd that he had the article decrying practical pistol etc that ahern quoted before he banned centrefire pistols , dc only seems to appear in the isd when he wants to have a go at irish shooters or now a body that was there to represent us to the government .

I have read the article and what I READ IS . Des has recognised the fact( in my opinion) that the FCP was used as a source of information. Were played for fools, not by the other Gardai reps on the panel but their superiors,and made many recommendations .The Department and senior Gardai had other ideas and this is why we are in this prediciment. Not the fault of the association reps on the panel, but the authorities who have not gone with the spirit of the aims of panel or the letter of the commisioner's guidlines. How can Des or any of the other association members be slated for this!!!

Kryten

rowa wrote: »

i have to agree about the lack of careful consideration , my application for my .45 was refused out of hand , despite me ticking the necessary boxes and it seems the chief supers have colluded to write their own rules ,

Same story here. Had a meeting with the chief super. His bottom line was that " the minister dosent want any of these pistols so I am not for turning on my decision".

Bo***x

chem

Why do I feel like im in China, while posting on this site? Big brother is watching you

Grizzly 45

Ah! But you could post about this in China all you want Chem.So long as it doesnt mention Tibet,Tinamen square or Tiwan [all garunteed to get your isp account blocked].Shooting is no biggie out there.Different pirorities for different secret police forces I guess.:)

knockon

Interesting point made there.

Take this thread - 12 people (some more than one) posted on it but it was viewed by almost 1000 in 3 days. Grizzly press clip on Thurs was viewed by 78 people in 2 hours. I don't have the stats but you would have to say they are impressive figures viewing this forum.

dCorbus

I have read the article and what I READ IS . Des has recognised the fact( in my opinion) that the FCP was used as a source of information. Were played for fools, not by the other Gardai reps on the panel but their superiors,and made many recommendations .The Department and senior Gardai had other ideas and this is why we are in this prediciment. Not the fault of the association reps on the panel, but the authorities who have not gone with the spirit of the aims of panel or the letter of the commisioner's guidlines. How can Des or any of the other association members be slated for this!!!

I have just had the opportunity to read the article - IMHO Kryten has pretty much hit the nail on the head!

As ever, we was all getting our panties in a palaver :D:D:rolleyes: without actually reading the article (Entirely Guilty here myself!;)), so having cooled my own jets and actually read the article - IMHO It's quite well written, DC gets his points across rather fairly to all concerned - and as I read it: He is not slating the FCP, just a certain section of the "law-enforcement" heirarchy, and one gentleman in particular;)

The Judge seems to have made a fair and reasonable decision based on the law and the facts of the case - and not on the individual personal biases of others. There are still matters before the courts in relation to this case, so I won't comment further!

PS The full judgement as published makes for some interesting (and possibly optimistic) reading.