Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Caught Drinking On Facebook, Remanded In Custody.

Options
  • 16-11-2012 11:25am
    #1
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭


    A MAN who was warned by a judge not to consume alcohol has been remanded in custody after he was seen drinking on Facebook.

    Last month John Sinnott (57), of Coolamurray, Davidstown, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, was sentenced to two years for harassment.

    Judge Barry Hickson, at Wexford Circuit Criminal Court, had adjourned sentence until yesterday on condition the accused attended Alcoholics Anonymous and stayed off alcohol.

    But Sergeant Tom Murphy told the court he had received pictures, which were downloaded from Facebook, showing Sinnott appearing to consume alcohol.

    He said this was not disputed by the defendant.



    http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-breaks-drink-rule-on-facebook-3294546.html&sa=U&ei=oxCmULT8FI2XhQekmYDYAQ&ved=0CBkQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFTiRmung3MUEgnhkU7ZhpXPsbD2Q


    Is this a good thing or not, should pictures on facebook be used in court?
    If he was drinking in the privacy of his own home or someone else's home is this the same as drinking in public?

    I'm sure he did not post the pictures himself and who ever did might not know he should not be drinking.

    Are the Gardai looking through facebook to catch people out ?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    A MAN who was warned by a judge not to consume alcohol has been remanded in custody after he was seen drinking on Facebook.

    Last month John Sinnott (57), of Coolamurray, Davidstown, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, was sentenced to two years for harassment.

    Judge Barry Hickson, at Wexford Circuit Criminal Court, had adjourned sentence until yesterday on condition the accused attended Alcoholics Anonymous and stayed off alcohol.

    But Sergeant Tom Murphy told the court he had received pictures, which were downloaded from Facebook, showing Sinnott appearing to consume alcohol.

    He said this was not disputed by the defendant.



    http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-breaks-drink-rule-on-facebook-3294546.html&sa=U&ei=oxCmULT8FI2XhQekmYDYAQ&ved=0CBkQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFTiRmung3MUEgnhkU7ZhpXPsbD2Q


    Is this a good thing or not, should pictures on facebook be used in court?
    If he was drinking in the privacy of his own home or someone else's home is this the same as drinking in public?

    I'm sure he did not post the pictures himself and who ever did might not know he should not be drinking.

    Are the Gardai looking through facebook to catch people out ?

    He was on bail on condition that he did not consume alcohol, he broke that condition, serves him right!
    Garsai can and should use any lawfully available source of evidence.


  • Options
    #3
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    He didn't dispute it, so fúck him!


  • Options
    #4
    Faolchu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    if people are too stupid to change the privacy settings on facebook they deserve what they get.

    if the man in question is twice as stupid to A) not change the privacy settings and B) post pictures of himself drinking when expressly told as part of his sentencing to stay off the gargle the he deserves what he gets.

    stupid is as stupid does.


  • Options
    #5
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    A MAN who was warned by a judge not to consume alcohol has been remanded in custody after he was seen drinking on Facebook.

    Last month John Sinnott (57), of Coolamurray, Davidstown, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, was sentenced to two years for harassment.

    Judge Barry Hickson, at Wexford Circuit Criminal Court, had adjourned sentence until yesterday on condition the accused attended Alcoholics Anonymous and stayed off alcohol.

    But Sergeant Tom Murphy told the court he had received pictures, which were downloaded from Facebook, showing Sinnott appearing to consume alcohol.

    He said this was not disputed by the defendant.



    http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-breaks-drink-rule-on-facebook-3294546.html&sa=U&ei=oxCmULT8FI2XhQekmYDYAQ&ved=0CBkQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFTiRmung3MUEgnhkU7ZhpXPsbD2Q


    Is this a good thing or not, should pictures on facebook be used in court?
    If he was drinking in the privacy of his own home or someone else's home is this the same as drinking in public?

    I'm sure he did not post the pictures himself and who ever did might not know he should not be drinking.

    Are the Gardai looking through facebook to catch people out ?
    If he was told not to drink, he shouldn't have drank irrespective of where he did the drinking. Alcohol addiction was clearly central point in the trial either in regards to his defence or his offence.

    No great sympathy from me, but that's my general line on people who commit crimes anyway. Unlucky bugger all the same.

    Well the Garda told the court that he received the photos not that he actually went checking. I'd imagine a Garda has more things to be doing than randomly trawling Facebook.

    However, it wouldn't surprise me if Facebook was monitored as part of wider and or more specific investigations


  • Options
    #6
    westendgirlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,125 ✭✭✭westendgirlie


    What if the picture in many years old? Would you have to prove the age of the piccy?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Surely it would be hard to prove when the pictures were taken just by looking at them on facebook?


  • Options
    #8
    PizzamanIRL
    Registered Users Posts: 5,148 ✭✭✭PizzamanIRL


    The world is gone mad.


  • Options
    #9
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Faolchu wrote: »
    if people are too stupid to change the privacy settings on facebook they deserve what they get.

    if the man in question is twice as stupid to A) not change the privacy settings and B) post pictures of himself drinking when expressly told as part of his sentencing to stay off the gargle the he deserves what he gets.

    stupid is as stupid does.

    Was it his own facebook page or someone else's ? Did he post the pictures?


  • Options
    #10
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

    Was it his own facebook page or someone else's ? Did he post the pictures?
    Don't know the answers to your questions but I still conclude that the guy is stupid... For breaking a Court condition


  • Options
    #11
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,322 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Huh? Can't see any problem here at all. He was warned by the Judge not to consume alcohol and his sentencing was delayed to see if he would comply with that court order. He didn't do so and as a result the sentence will be passed down.

    Even leaving aside the fact that he's going against court orders, Facebook is the public domain and of course it should be used in evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Dartz
    Registered Users Posts: 4,371 ✭✭✭Dartz


    Moron.


    This is why I don't use facebook.


  • Options
    #13
    castletownman
    Registered Users Posts: 11,111 ✭✭✭✭castletownman


    He should be punished for being a 57 year old man on Facebook anyway!


  • Options
    #14
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Uriel. wrote: »
    Don't know the answers to your questions but I still conclude that the guy is stupid... For breaking a Court condition

    I agree and don't feel sorry for him but is this what facebook has become, are our lives private anymore?


  • Options
    #15
    Faolchu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    personally i think he needs to be buggered with a cactus for being so stupid. it matters not if the pictures were on his or someone elses facebook page the fact was he's as dumb as a doorknob for breaking the conditions placed by a judge.


  • Options
    #16
    Faolchu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    I agree and don't feel sorry for him but is this what facebook has become, are our lives private anymore?


    not when people put every little detail of their lives on social media right down to the fragrence of their farts or the fact they are having a cup of coffee. they befriend hundreds and thousands of "friends" most of which they wouldnt recognise on the street or be able to hold a two minute conversation with. they dont make their profice private and dont adjust settings to prevent others from sharing their pictures. I blame MTV and its ilk with their "im a dumb cnut and got up teh pole at 12" TV shows.


  • Options
    #17
    Treha
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭Treha


    castletownman wrote: »
    He should be punished for being a 57 year old man on Facebook anyway!

    Yeah, why doesn't he stop using fun websites and just act his age? :mad::mad::mad:


  • Options
    #18
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Dartz wrote: »
    Moron.


    This is why I don't use facebook.
    Because you're afraid the Gardaí will find out that you drink alcohol?


  • Options
    #19
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    westendgirlie wrote: »
    What if the picture in many years old? Would you have to prove the age of the piccy?

    Not necessary to prove age of pic if he didnt dispute it


  • Options
    #20
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    castletownman wrote: »
    He should be punished for being a 57 year old man on Facebook anyway!

    Is he on facebook or was it from someone else facebook the guard got the picture?

    If you do something in the privacy of your own home should someone be able to post it on facebook without your permission ?


  • Options
    #21
    r3nu4l
    Registered Users Posts: 17,399 ✭✭✭✭r3nu4l


    westendgirlie wrote: »
    What if the picture in many years old? Would you have to prove the age of the piccy?
    Almost all digital photographs these days contain plenty of information including the date and time a photo was taken* and the make and model of the camera that was used to take it.

    Had the guy disputed the claim I'm sure a court order would have been secured to obtain the original photo and examine the information.

    *Of course, if you set the date on your camera, for example, to March 2010, then that is what the photo digital information will show ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Duggy747
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    He was warned, if he (or whoever put that pic up of him) had any sort of cop on then the picture wouldn't have been put up on Facebook.


  • Options
    #23
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,322 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    I agree and don't feel sorry for him but is this what facebook has become, are our lives private anymore?

    Not if you choose to put it on public display. Facebook isn't private, never has been.


  • Options
    #24
    Faolchu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    If you do something in the privacy of your own home should someone be able to post it on facebook without your permission ?


    regardless of where it happened he broke a condidtion of teh courts. simples.

    if you really want to go down the road of "they had no right to post my picture" he gave conscent to the photo being taken, the photo then becomes the property of the person who took it who can do with what they like.

    OP are you the individual in question? or you his lawyer and have the worlds dumbest as a client? you seem to be trying to find some way to prevent the use of the picture as evidence of pure dumbassery.


  • Options
    #25
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    super_furry wrote: »
    Not if you choose to put it on public display. Facebook isn't private, never has been.

    This is my question, what if he did not put it on display and had no idea about the picture?

    I agree people are responsible for posting about themselves but not if someone post about you.


  • Options
    #26
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    r3nu4l wrote: »
    Almost all digital photographs these days contain plenty of information including the date and time a photo was taken* and the make and model of the camera that was used to take it.

    Had the guy disputed the claim I'm sure a court order would have been secured to obtain the original photo and examine the information.

    *Of course, if you set the date on your camera, for example, to March 2010, then that is what the photo digital information will show ;)

    And that is why my camera currently thinks it's 1989.


  • Options
    #27
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,196 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    This is my question, what if he did not put it on display and had no idea about the picture?

    I agree people are responsible for posting about themselves but not if someone post about you.

    How does that make a difference? The issue was whether he was drinking, not whether he was putting pics on facebook.


  • Options
    #28
    Gummy Panda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,919 ✭✭✭✭Gummy Panda


    I only have a Facebook account to tell people on facebook what comfortists they are for having facebook accounts.


  • Options
    #29
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Faolchu wrote: »
    regardless of where it happened he broke a condidtion of teh courts. simples.

    if you really want to go down the road of "they had no right to post my picture" he gave conscent to the photo being taken, the photo then becomes the property of the person who took it who can do with what they like.

    OP are you the individual in question? or you his lawyer and have the worlds dumbest as a client? you seem to be trying to find some way to prevent the use of the picture as evidence of pure dumbassery.

    How do you know he gave consent to his photo being taken?

    Have you never had your photo taken without your knowledge?

    I'm not the individual in question and could not care less about him, this is about facebook and what control we have on what is posted about us.


    http://news.sky.com/story/1012303/demoted-christian-wins-facebook-post-ruling

    This happens to be on sky news At the moment.


  • Options
    #30
    D-FENS
    Registered Users Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭D-FENS


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    A MAN who was warned by a judge not to consume alcohol has been remanded in custody after he was seen drinking on Facebook.

    The Prosecution likes this


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,196 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    How do you know he gave consent to his photo being taken?

    Have you never had your photo taken without your knowledge?

    I'm not the individual in question and could not care less about him, this is about facebook and what control we have on what is posted about us.


    http://news.sky.com/story/1012303/demoted-christian-wins-facebook-post-ruling

    This happens to be on sky news At the moment.

    No, this is about his drinking when he shouldn't be. He could have been seen in a pub, or drinking a can on the street and been reported, the fact that a pic went on fb was incidental. You can be on fb as part of a large crowd, people who know you may recognise you, but no-one could be expected to contact every member of the crowd to ask can they put the photo in the newspaper.

    I totally agree about fb though, I have an account solely to keep in touch with a group I belong to, everything else is locked down tight and I almost never even look at my own page, really I would prefer not to be involved at all.


Advertisement