Poet, Activist, Parkinson's sufferer and Granny (79) gets jailed for 6 months.

bumper234

bumper234 wrote: »

I think he claimed to have posted them on her FB page but there is no sign of them there, Another lie i suppose.:rolleyes:

I wonder how he would respond if people here were to repost his comments on other forums or facebook?

I would assume that both he and herself were posting from an ethically manufactured device. After all it would be a bit hypocritical to protest wars and then use a device that people were killed to manufacture

Skylinehead

Happyman42 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88638044&postcount=617


No jet was cleared to land that day.
He did drop saying it on questioning but hasn't corrected or apologising for attempying to mislead readers of the thread.

I see. Jets were definitely placed in a holding pattern, do you know for a fact that this wasn't after the clearance?

Because demonstrating that ATC routinely 'scan' (the ATCO's testimony about what he was doing) the runway shows that by chosing the gate nearest the Tower implies that the protesters where making it as easy as possible to be seen.

It doesn't matter how easy they were to see, you're not getting it. The main thing that should be taken into account - they were on an active runway. I don't care if they had a light show going on, it's still irrelevant.

No emergency plane lands without clearance and if you believe like I and the protesters believe, that part of the duty of the ATC is to make sure the runway is clear for landing then they knew that they would be seen and would be cleared off the runway long before a jet actually got down.

Things happen quickly. And I don't see how clearance changes anything with the protesters being there, seeing as they're not the ones giving clearance. They knew nothing about what was going on, they were completely blind.

The idea btw was not to die themselves (which they almost certainly would in a tangle with a jet) but to be arrested. They had no intention of tangling with moving aircraft.

Intention, again, is irrelevant.

Now I've answered your questions. Answer mine please: Why is everybody who's an actual expert, or a qualified judge, wrong and you are right?

weldoninhio

Most questions posted towards Happyman seem to be rhetorical, as they never get an answer. But i'll try.

If this woman and her ilk have so much support*, such principled backing*, and the majority of Irish people are so against "CIA trained killers"* using Shannon airport as a base for terrorism*, would it not make sense to use this alleged support to run for election, to put herself in a position where her voice would be heard???

Where she would have a national voice as a democratically chosen representative of the people, rather than pulling pointless silly stunts to feed her own ego. Surely her huge support* would easily vote her in.



* all unproven

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

I think he claimed to have posted them on her FB page but there is no sign of them there, Another lie i suppose.:rolleyes:

Mis-information again bumper234

Kinda cute that you went to her FB page, did you hit 'like'?;)

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder how he would respond if people here were to repost his comments on other forums or facebook?

Knock yourself out, I have said nothing I'm ashamed off, about this incident or a gender or the old.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Most questions posted towards Happyman seem to be rhetorical, as they never get an answer. But i'll try.

If this woman and her ilk have so much support*, such principled backing*, and the majority of Irish people are so against "CIA trained killers"* using Shannon airport as a base for terrorism*, would it not make sense to use this alleged support to run for election, to put herself in a position where her voice would be heard???

Where she would have a national voice as a democratically chosen representative of the people, rather than pulling pointless silly stunts to feed her own ego. Surely her huge support* would easily vote her in.

Despite the fact that I never claimed any of the above about her 'support' (words in my mouth again) Clare Daly, Richard Boyd Barrett and Mick Wallace who testified would run on the same platform, that hasn't stopped the illegality of the Shannon situation so I guess the protests will ramp up. It isn't going away.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you agree with all this

ATC couldn't see that gate because of the 'treeline'
ATC would not have been looking at that Gate because all the activity would have been at the other end of the runway.

...

What's the problem with either of those statements? All true. Just because it doesn't fit with your version of reality, doesn't take away from its correctness.

Happyman42 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88638044&postcount=617


No jet was cleared to land that day.
He did drop saying it on questioning but hasn't corrected or apologising for attempying to mislead readers of the thread.



Because demonstrating that ATC routinely 'scan' (the ATCO's testimony about what he was doing) the runway shows that by chosing the gate nearest the Tower implies that the protesters where making it as easy as possible to be seen.





No emergency plane lands without clearance and if you believe like I and the protesters believe, that part of the duty of the ATC is to make sure the runway is clear for landing then they knew that they would be seen and would be cleared off the runway long before a jet actually got down.
It was a clear day ad I have spent to many days watching jets not to know that from first sight(not to mention first radio contact with authorities) on an approach to actual touchdown would leave time to get well out of the way.
And as I said earlier they may have been monitoring ATC Live as they testified they knew that it was a 'Quiet window' when they did go onto the runway.

The idea btw was not to die themselves (which they almost certainly would in a tangle with a jet) but to be arrested. They had no intention of tangling with moving aircraft.

An aircraft in an emergency certainly will land without clearance, if the crew judge that that is the safest option. Fact.

What you believe or what your criminal friends believe is, believe it or not, of no relevance.
You mentioned your incredulity earlier re the ATCO observing the airfield and logging times. IIRC an aircraft had taken off at the first time, which would be the reason he logged the time (all movements are logged by time, believe it or not) and I assume he looked at the aircraft as it was departing to see it climb away safely - a nice jesture, but not necessary.
I don't know how else to explain to you that it's not ATCs job to constantly scan the airfield and ensure it is secure. But if that's what you want to believe, off you go. Maybe a little less time plane spotting and a bit more researching fact might go a long way.

Happyman42

Skylinehead wrote: »

I see. Jets were definitely placed in a holding pattern, do you know for a fact that this wasn't after the clearance?

As I didn't make the claim it in't up to me to provide sources, bumper234 declined to back it up and it wasn't metioned in anybody's testimony. The fact that it would alter the nature of this protest would lead me to believe that it would have ben mentioned in court and have been recorded....what do you think?

It doesn't matter how easy they were to see, you're not getting it. The main thing that should be taken into account - they were on an active runway. I don't care if they had a light show going on, it's still irrelevant.

They went on there with the express purpose of making it an 'inactive runway'.
They succeeded.
ATC put the jets into a hold which is and was to be expected.

Things happen quickly. And I don't see how clearance changes anything with the protesters being there, seeing as they're not the ones giving clearance. They knew nothing about what was going on, they were completely blind.



Intention, again, is irrelevant.

Now I've answered your questions. Answer mine please: Why is everybody who's an actual expert, or a qualified judge, wrong and you are right?

They were possibly lying or making mistakes? We are left to argue the testimonies because the protesters didn't defend themselves (the point was to go to jail if neccessary)
But there are serious anomalies in the evidence given by APS and The ATC.
Times being another.
The ATCO swore under oath that 'nobody was airside' at 4.01 (a very precise time) while the APS were already alerted to intruders at 4pm after a phone call from somebody else (so a good bit earlier) and where on their way to gate 6.
The protesters say they accessed after a flight departed at 4.01.

As I say lots of anomalies, somebody is telling lies or making huge mistakes. Would that kind of mistake/lie be allowed to happen in an ordinary case where a defence was offered?

Skylinehead

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I didn't make the claim it in't up to me to provide sources, bumper234 declined to back it up and it wasn't metioned in anybody's testimony. The fact that it would alter the nature of this protest would lead me to believe that it would have ben mentioned in court and have been recorded....what do you think?

Maybe it was. I didn't make the claim either. Does it really change anything though?

They went on there with the express purpose of making it an 'inactive runway'.
They succeeded.
ATC put the jets into a hold which is and was to be expected.

Oh, so it was inactive? Making it unavailable to, say, a plane in an emergency? There we go, they put peoples lives in danger.

They were possibly lying or making mistakes? We are left to argue the testimonies because the protesters didn't defend themselves (the point was to go to jail if neccessary)
But there are serious anomalies in the evidence given by APS and The ATC.
Times being another.
The ATCO swore under oath that 'nobody was airside' at 4.01 (a very precise time) while the APS were already alerted to intruders at 4pm after a phone call from somebody else (so a good bit earlier) and where on their way to gate 6.
The protesters say they accessed after a flight departed at 4.01.

As I say lots of anomalies, somebody is telling lies or making huge mistakes. Would that kind of mistake/lie be allowed to happen in an ordinary case where a defence was offered?

Or, and I'm throwing this controversial theory out there....they didn't commit mass perjury, there's no massive cover up and you're just plain wrong. Like I said, I trust those people, who are experts in the field, ahead of you, who is not.

Happyman do you share the sentiments of other Galway based anti war protestors that all war is wrong and that any country that entering into conflict with another, no matter the circumstances is in the wrong?

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I didn't make the claim it in't up to me to provide sources, bumper234 declined to back it up and it wasn't metioned in anybody's testimony. The fact that it would alter the nature of this protest would lead me to believe that it would have ben mentioned in court and have been recorded....what do you think?



They went on there with the express purpose of making it an 'inactive runway'.
They succeeded.
ATC put the jets into a hold which is and was to be expected.




They were possibly lying or making mistakes? We are left to argue the testimonies because the protesters didn't defend themselves (the point was to go to jail if neccessary)
But there are serious anomalies in the evidence given by APS and The ATC.
Times being another.
The ATCO swore under oath that 'nobody was airside' at 4.01 (a very precise time) while the APS were already alerted to intruders at 4pm after a phone call from somebody else (so a good bit earlier) and where on their way to gate 6.
The protesters say they accessed after a flight departed at 4.01.

As I say lots of anomalies, somebody is telling lies or making huge mistakes. Would that kind of mistake/lie be allowed to happen in an ordinary case where a defence was offered?

In who's world is 4pm 'a good bit earlier' than 4:01?

Please don't accuse people of lying under oath. It's illegal unless you can prove it, and I'm sure the judge in the case would have mentioned it if he though the witnesses were lying.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

What's the problem with either of those statements? All true. Just because it doesn't fit with your version of reality, doesn't take away from its correctness.

Look at the pic I posted or the video and tell me the trees where blocking sight of that gate or bit of runway.

The ATCO clearly testified that he saw them at 4.15, are you gonna tell us now he just 'happened to be on his tippytoes?

An aircraft in an emergency certainly will land without clearance, if the crew judge that that is the safest option. Fact.

What you believe or what your criminal friends believe is, believe it or not, of no relevance.
You mentioned your incredulity earlier re the ATCO observing the airfield and logging times. IIRC an aircraft had taken off at the first time, which would be the reason he logged the time (all movements are logged by time, believe it or not) and I assume he looked at the aircraft as it was departing to see it climb away safely - a nice jesture, but not necessary.
I don't know how else to explain to you that it's not ATCs job to constantly scan the airfield and ensure it is secure. But if that's what you want to believe, off you go. Maybe a little less time plane spotting and a bit more researching fact might go a long way.

How could he say that there 'was nobody airside' at 4.01 if he had not 'scanned' all 'of airside'?

And still you won't say who is responsible or jointly responsibile for the runway's integrity.
No harm to you pilot, but I'll stick with the FAA and IAA version of the job. Good luck

Shakti

Deleted User wrote: »

Happyman do you share the sentiments of other Galway based anti war protestors that all war is wrong and that any country that entering into conflict with another, no matter the circumstances is in the wrong?

obvious poster is obvious

jimboblep

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm sorry, don't have time to trawl back through the thread atm.
He said it, I quoted it a number of times and he hasn't denied that he said it.




Relevant because bumper was attempting to say that ATC couldn't and didn't have a view of the gate, firstly because they would be looking at far end of runway and secondly because of the trees.




kupus (I think) said it and bumper234 elaborated and agreed.


Yes, the plan was to be seen, have a very short protest, and to be arrested. They didn't resist arrest so if a scenario happened that a plane absolutely needed to land they didn't envisage a problem.
You clearly see them coming off the runway when they don't get a reaction, minimising the danger to any traffic approaching.
The goal of the protest was TO BE SEEN and be arrested.

Minimising but not totally completely removing the threat so you finally acknowledge their was a threat

Shakti

http://www.connachttribune.ie/galway-news/item/2156-jailed-anti-war-activist-gets-support-in-west-bank-demo

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Look at the pic I posted or the video and tell me the trees where blocking sight of that gate or bit of runway.

The ATCO clearly testified that he saw them at 4.15, are you gonna tell us now he just 'happened to be on his tippytoes?

Bumper said the gate is out of sight. We're they at the gate at 4:15 when the ATC said he saw them?

Happyman42 wrote: »

How could he say that there 'was nobody airside' at 4.01 if he had not 'scanned' all 'of airside'?

And still you won't say who is responsible or jointly responsibile for the runway's integrity.
No harm to you pilot, but I'll stick with the FAA and IAA version of the job. Good luck

I think maybe a turn of phrase - "nobody was airside" would be impossible for him to say, as all of airside is not visible to him. In fact I'd be willing to bet money that there were people airside at the time, just not in the area in question, which is obviously what was under discussion.

I think I've already explained to you the roles of ATC and A PS/ AFS wrt the runway and the airfield, but you clearly don't want to listen.

PS - and this is your last freebie - the FAA has no authourity in this country so whatever your link says means diddly squat.

Shakti

Shakti wrote: »

obvious poster is obvious

Obvious about what? Can I not ask a poster his feelings on an issue which seems to be very close to his heart?

Shakti

Not stopping you, just commenting on it's transparency

Happyman42

Skylinehead wrote: »

Maybe it was. I didn't make the claim either. Does it really change anything though?

At the very least it casts doubt on everything else he has to say about his special relationship with this case and reveals possible motives.

Or, and I'm throwing this controversial theory out there....they didn't commit mass perjury, there's no massive cover up and you're just plain wrong. Like I said, I trust those people, who are experts in the field, ahead of you, who is not.

That is your perogative. I have a right to mine.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

In who's world is 4pm 'a good bit earlier' than 4:01?

How would somebody scanning at 4.01 (I am sure airport clocks are somewhere near accurate?) mis somebody that he seen 14 mins later and how would APS be un their way to the scene a good few minutes earlier given that phonecalls take time?
It's deserving of at least a clarifying question from a judge in the abscene of a defence from the protesters. But maybe the truth isn't important eh?

Please don't accuse people of lying under oath. It's illegal unless you can prove it, and I'm sure the judge in the case would have mentioned it if he though the witnesses were lying.

I didn't, I said it was possible.
And I know it might be a shock to you but judges have been wrong up until very recently in many cases in Ireland and internationally
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ruling-means-children-must-be-protected-in-schools-1.1670605

Shakti

Shakti wrote: »

Not stopping you, just commenting on it's transparency

Transparency of what? It's a simple question that's easily answered. Nothing underhanded or two-faced about it. And before you assume that I'm some one who instantly hates all protestors, I've been at many myself and support quite a few causes though I do take issue with professional protestors who are more often than not misinformed and lacking the facts

Shakti

Leading questions are more suitable in an interrogation not a debate, I've no interest in your background

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

At the very least it casts doubt on everything else he has to say about his special relationship with this case and reveals possible motives.









That is your perogative. I have a right to mine.



How would somebody scanning at 4.01 (I am sure airport clocks are somewhere near accurate?) mis somebody that he seen 14 mins later and how would APS be un their way to the scene a good few minutes earlier given that phonecalls take time?
It's deserving of at least a clarifying question from a judge in the abscene of a defence from the protesters. But maybe the truth isn't important eh?


I didn't, I said it was possible.
And I know it might be a shock to you but judges have been wrong up until very recently in many cases in Ireland and internationally
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ruling-means-children-must-be-protected-in-schools-1.1670605

How could he miss somebody who was there 14 minutes later? Really? That's your question?

Grasping at straws. Yet again.

Shakti

Shakti wrote: »

Leading questions are more suitable in an interrogation not a debate, I've no interest in your background

Leading questions, interrogation, for fuck sake what ridiculous nonsense.

The only people with any real agenda here are yourself and Happyman42 who came here with preconceived notions and refuse to look at anything else.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Bumper said the gate is out of sight. We're they at the gate at 4:15 when the ATC said he saw them?

The tower can clearly see the gate and the runway, watch the film posted earlier. Try and spot a 'heavily laden jet trying to land' as well.




'

I think maybe a turn of phrase - "nobody was airside" would be impossible for him to say, as all of airside is not visible to him. In fact I'd be willing to bet money that there were people airside at the time, just not in the area in question, which is obviously what was under discussion.

So that is two 'turns of phrase' now in a court case. Somebody explained away another piece of testimony using the same reasoning.
At least we have established that he was definately looking at the area.

I think I've already explained to you the roles of ATC and A PS/ AFS wrt the runway and the airfield, but you clearly don't want to listen.

PS - and this is your last freebie - the FAA has no authourity in this country so whatever your link says means diddly squat.

So you have a link to the duties of ATC in Ireland?

Shakti

Deleted User wrote: »

Leading questions, interrogation, for fuck sake what ridiculous nonsense.

The only people with any real agenda here are yourself and Happyman42 who came here with preconceived notions and refuse to look at anything else.

you know nothing about me and yes I'm not your bitch if that's what you mean

Shakti

Shakti wrote: »

you know nothing about me and yes I'm not your bitch if that's what you mean

I know that you came on here with an agenda and will try to force it on the users here. I don't want you to be my bitch, I just want people who blindly defend this woman to at the very least look at the facts.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

How could he miss somebody who was there 14 minutes later? Really? That's your question?

Grasping at straws. Yet again.

The police where already on their way to the scene at 4pm.(which suggests they got an intial call 5 minutes at least before, (because the first caller said he has recieved a call then rang APS. 3 phonecalls/radio transmissions) The ATC testified there was no-one there at 4.01.

If you can't see the discrepency there then I worry for you.

jimboblep

Happy your hinting around something there thats getting close to libelous if you dont have proof id back off with even suggesting perjury
Not threatening and i hope you take this advice in the spirit its intended

Shakti

Deleted User wrote: »

I know that you came on here with an agenda and will try to force it on the users here. I don't want you to be my bitch, I just want people who blindly defend this woman to at the very least look at the facts.

Again you know nothing about me I'd appreciate you stop insinuating that you do.

gctest50

Happyman42 wrote: »

And as I said earlier they may have been monitoring ATC Live ..........

ATC Live ?

5) You will not use the LiveATC.net web site for any aviation, commercial, operational, law enforcement, or judicial activity that relies on the availability, validity, or accuracy of LiveATC.net data. While it contains authentic ATC broadcasts, it is for training and entertainment purposes only.


http://www.liveatc.net/legal/

Happyman42

jimboblep wrote: »

Happy your hinting around something there thats getting close to libelous if you dont have proof id back off with even suggesting perjury
Not threatening and i hope you take this advice in the spirit its intended

Warning taken on board in the spirit it is intended,

I am not accusing anybody of perjury or lying.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

The tower can clearly see the gate and the runway, watch the film posted earlier. Try and spot a 'heavily laden jet trying to land' as well.

How can you tell that tower can see the gate? Unless you've actually been in the tower how can you say that.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So that is two 'turns of phrase' now in a court case. Somebody explained away another piece of testimony using the same reasoning.
At least we have established that he was definately looking at the area.

Language is full of colloquialisms. Go hang out at the courts for the day - not unusual to hear people using normal language.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you have a link to the duties of ATC in Ireland?

Why would I be bothered with that. Find it yourself.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The police where already on their way to the scene at 4pm.(which suggests they got an intial call 5 minutes at least before, (because the first caller said he has recieved a call then rang APS. 3 phonecalls/radio transmissions) The ATC testified there was no-one there at 4.01.

If you can't see the discrepency there then I worry for you.

I'd be worried if it took the APS 5 minutes to respond, so 'at least 5mins' is your own made up bollixology. What is exactly is your point there anyway? That ATC was negligent in their scanning of the entire airfield (which you seem to think is their duty). The timeline you are relying on is a bit all over the place. Perhaps you could post it in its entirety to make your point a bit clearer.