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

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

Options
1…4344464849

Comments

  • Options
    #1352
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    So, his words not to be taken literally? Is that what you're saying? A 'turn of phrase' perhaps?

    eh, the case was about a charge of trepass, so I think it is safe to assume they where talking about 'unauthorised' people.




    You referred to both protestors as having cross examined witnesses in court. Sounds like they were mounting a defence. Strange that they didn't see the need to press home the tireless ends they went to ensure safety while recklessly trespassing on the runway
    No, they didn't mount anything other than a rudimentary defence and called witness's to testify about the validityof the protest instead.



    I still haven't seen the evidence to back this claim up. In my experience ATCs do a fine job in this regard and I have nothing to be concerned about as an anything.
    I can't do links here, the link to the Shannonwatch site has been posted a few times.



    So you are inferring that he is telling lies? To what end? Weather anyone had or had not seen them at whatever point would make no difference to the case in point and their successful conviction for trespass. Why would he risk a prison sentence himself by lying?

    If he put flights into a hold from the moment they entered airside then it couldn't be claimed that any passenger was in any more danger than they would be in ordinary flight.
    Somebody has their sworns details wrong. (APS or ATC) is my point.

    If there was a 15 minute delay from reporting of unauthorised people on the runway to suspension of flights, would that concern you as a pilot?.


  • Options
    #1353
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    True, but then the video wasn't presented as evidence in court. Make of it what you wish.

    Surely that video if authentic would have been used by any defence. Surely it speaks to the protestors intentions. That it wasn't used makes me think that it may not be what it is supposed to be.


  • Options
    #1354
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Surely that video if authentic would have been used by any defence. Surely it speaks to the protestors intentions. That it wasn't used makes me think that it may not be what it is supposed to be.

    They didn't mount a defence as they wanted to be convicted, that was the point of the protest.
    What makes you think it isn't genuine other than the phone call, is that not Shannon Runway?


  • Options
    #1355
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    They didn't mount a defence as they wanted to be convicted, that was the point of the protest.
    What makes you think it isn't genuine other than the phone call, is that not Shannon Runway?

    Again you try to take facts and spin them. Where did I call in the authenticity of the video? I merely implied that the phone call could have been to anyone anywhere. The person on the other end never identifies themselves or even mentions what organisation they work for. For all we know it could be Pat down in the local pub.


  • Options
    #1356
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    They didn't mount a defence as they wanted to be convicted, that was the point of the protest.
    What makes you think it isn't genuine other than the phone call, is that not Shannon Runway?

    On it's Shannon runway alright, that's why the video that they posted on youtube was used as evidence against them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1357
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    yeah shame on you trying to prove stuff with facts hrmphff


  • Options
    #1358
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Shakti wrote: »
    yeah shame on you trying to prove stuff with facts hrmphff

    your right people on the left dont seem to like facts that dont suit their agenda


  • Options
    #1359
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    it's not about left or right it's about what's in front of your face


  • Options
    #1360
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Again you try to take facts and spin them. Where did I call in the authenticity of the video? I merely implied that the phone call could have been to anyone anywhere. The person on the other end never identifies themselves or even mentions what organisation they work for. For all we know it could be Pat down in the local pub.


    Originally Posted by Deleted Userviewpost.gif


    Surely that video if authentic

    Apologies, but you did say the above. I get you now.

    No idea who they rang.
    Seems genuine to me though and the transcript has testimony of a call coming in.


  • Options
    #1361
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Shakti wrote: »
    it's not about left or right it's about what's in front of your face

    You mean like someone trespassing on an active runway and endangering lives? Like dismissing the expert witnesses that stated lives were endangered because you know, she is a pacifist she would never INTENTIONALLY endanger innocent lives :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1362
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    bumper234 wrote: »
    On it's Shannon runway alright, that's why the video that they posted on youtube was used as evidence against them.

    In court? That's news to me, have you a source?


  • Options
    #1363
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    In court? That's news to me, have you a source?

    Seek and ye shall find, not feeding you anymore. You dismiss witness testimony and refuse to listen to reason, you twist things to suit yourself so I am not helping you anymore. The video that your idiotic heroine and her ilk posted on youtube was used as evidence against them, that's all I will say on that matter.


  • Options
    #1364
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Shakti wrote: »
    it's not about left or right it's about what's in front of your face

    like the people on this thread who claimed she was not a criminal
    despite this not even being her first time in prison
    to the poster who tried to argue that she was imprisoned for not signing the bond
    to others who claim she didnt endanger passengers
    all facts that were avoided despite them being in front of theyre face


  • Options
    #1365
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    jimboblep wrote: »
    like the people on this thread who claimed she was not a criminal
    despite this not even being her first time in prison
    to the poster who tried to argue that she was imprisoned for not signing the bond
    to others who claim she didnt endanger passengers
    all facts that were avoided despite them being in front of theyre face

    qui bono


  • Options
    #1366
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Seek and ye shall find, not feeding you anymore. You dismiss witness testimony and refuse to listen to reason, you twist things to suit yourself so I am not helping you anymore. The video that your idiotic heroine and her ilk posted on youtube was used as evidence against them, that's all I will say on that matter.

    We all understand what your real concerns are on this thread. Work away bumper234 you are fun at this stage.


  • Options
    #1367
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Shakti wrote: »
    qui bono

    are you asking what advantage i had to gain
    or what advantage the posters had to gain
    also hate to be pedantic its cui-bono


  • Options
    #1368
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,803 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    eh, the case was about a charge of trepass, so I think it is safe to assume they where talking about 'unauthorised' people.

    So it's perfectly ok for you to assume the obvious, but the rest of us when we do the same are just wrong. That figures.



    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No, they didn't mount anything other than a rudimentary defence and called witness's to testify about the validityof the protest instead.

    So they did mount a defense. And they seemed to want to show how they had taken precautions (although 2 aircraft having to hold at shannon could hardly be described as a quite period), so why would they not have teased that out further, if in fact there was anything to tease out.


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    If he put flights into a hold from the moment they entered airside then it couldn't be claimed that any passenger was in any more danger than they would be in ordinary flight.
    Somebody has their sworns details wrong. (APS or ATC) is my point.



    Now, I've made this clear to you before. A flight having to hold at Shannon for 17 minutes, or 12, or infact 5, could certainly not be described as ordinary.



    Happyman42 wrote: »
    If there was a 15 minute delay from reporting of unauthorised people on the runway to suspension of flights, would that concern you as a pilot?.

    I'm not entirely clear how you have concocted this piece of information, but if there were no flights as your crowd keep claiming, why would flights need to be suspended?


  • Options
    #1369
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    jimboblep wrote: »
    like the people on this thread who claimed she was not a criminal
    despite this not even being her first time in prison
    to the poster who tried to argue that she was imprisoned for not signing the bond
    to others who claim she didnt endanger passengers
    all facts that were avoided despite them being in front of theyre face

    What about the stuff being avoided and said by the side you are on?

    Failure to say who is responsible or jointly responsible for overseeing the runway?
    A number of discrepanccies in the testimony of witnesses, explained away as 'turns of phrase' or 'of no significance'
    Describing being 'in a hold' as being in danger.
    Now, quoting stuff and not backing it up with sources.
    Emotive twaddle about 'heavily laden jets trying to land'
    Sexist and disgusting remarks to denegrate.
    etc etc.


  • Options
    #1370
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    We all understand what your real concerns are on this thread. Work away bumper234 you are fun at this stage.

    I have no concerns whatsoever, my concerns ended the moment the common criminal.was sentenced, her getting herself locked away for 3 months was an added bonus.


  • Options
    #1371
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    jimboblep wrote: »
    are you asking what advantage i had to gain
    or what advantage the posters had to gain
    also hate to be pedantic its cui-bono

    no not you personally,
    who benefits from using shannon as a military airport and silencing any dissent?,
    pedant accepted and noted,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1372
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    What about the stuff being avoided and said by the side you are on?

    Failure to say who is responsible or jointly responsible for overseeing the runway?
    A number of discrepanccies in the testimony of witnesses, explained away as 'turns of phrase' or 'of no significance'
    Describing being 'in a hold' as being in danger.
    Now, quoting stuff and not backing it up with sources.
    Emotive twaddle about 'heavily laden jets trying to land'
    Sexist and disgusting remarks to denegrate.
    etc etc.

    its not relevant whose responsible for overseeing the runway their ability or lack thereof is not a licence for the protesters to commit crime
    you know about personal responsibility
    as for witness testimony we have the judge comment on endangerment and expert witness whose sworn statements you simply ignored
    I did not ignore what you see as a discrepancy i addressed it as best i could
    and as for emotive language read back through this thread and see who uses emotive language the most
    and there has been plenty of insulting comments on both sides


  • Options
    #1373
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    So it's perfectly ok for you to assume the obvious, but the rest of us when we do the same are just wrong. That figures.

    Why in a case about trespass would he be talking about authorised personnel?





    So they did mount a defense. And they seemed to want to show how they had taken precautions (although 2 aircraft having to hold at shannon could hardly be described as a quite period), so why would they not have teased that out further, if in fact there was anything to tease out.
    That is as much as they tried to do. I agree, not very successfully, they had no defence and represented themselves.






    Now, I've made this clear to you before. A flight having to hold at Shannon for 17 minutes, or 12, or infact 5, could certainly not be described as ordinary.

    Forget about the protest for a minute.
    If flights where put in a hold for some other reason at Shannon, would the passengers be in more 'danger' than they would be in ordinary flight?

    Frequent flyers will be interested in your answer as a pilot, I am sure.






    I'm not entirely clear how you have concocted this piece of information, but if there were no flights as your crowd keep claiming, why would flights need to be suspended?

    Who is claiming there where no flights?

    You are racking up the unanswered questions too. I'll try again, never mind the protest for a moment, I just want to know a pilot's view on this.
    Would 15 mins to raise the alarm with ATC be a cause of concern?

    p.s. bumper claims to have a link to a version of the trial that he is childishly keeping to himself, maybe he will PM it to you or somebody will link to the shannonwatch report.


  • Options
    #1374
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Shakti wrote: »
    no not you personally,
    who benefits from using shannon as a military airport and silencing any dissent?,
    pedant accepted and noted,

    now i may have picked you up wrong but are you saying america had some direct influence on this case


  • Options
    #1375
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    jimboblep wrote: »
    now i may have picked you up wrong but are you saying america had some direct influence on this case

    I was asking you,


  • Options
    #1376
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Why in a case about trespass would he be talking about authorised personnel?







    That is as much as they tried to do. I agree, not very successfully, they had no defence and represented themselves.









    Forget about the protest for a minute.
    If flights where put in a hold for some other reason at Shannon, would the passengers be in more 'danger' than they would be in ordinary flight?

    Frequent flyers will be interested in your answer as a pilot, I am sure.









    Who is claiming there where no flights?

    You are racking up the unanswered questions too. I'll try again, never mind the protest for a moment, I just want to know a pilot's view on this.
    Would 15 mins to raise the alarm with ATC be a cause of concern?

    p.s. bumper claims to have a link to a version of the trial that he is childishly keeping to himself, maybe he will PM it to you or somebody will link to the shannonwatch report.

    Where do I claim this? Are you saying there is more than one "version" of the trial? :confused:


  • Options
    #1377
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    jimboblep wrote: »
    its not relevant whose responsible for overseeing the runway their ability or lack thereof is not a licence for the protesters to commit crime
    Who said it was, they broke the law and knew exactly what they where doing and the consequences in court.
    It is relevant when trying to prove why the protesters entered where they did?
    as for witness testimony we have the judge comment on endangerment
    I'll let you answer the cui bono question first before I comment.
    and expert witness whose sworn statements you simply ignored
    Ignored? I have been talking about them all afternoon.
    I did not ignore what you see as a discrepancy i addressed it as best i could
    Yes you did, I wasn't neccesarily referring to just you, but the 'side' you are on.
    and as for emotive language read back through this thread and see who uses emotive language the most
    You didn't hear me using sexist and disparaging remarks. I have to be able to look older people and women like my mother and grandmother in the eye. I really do wonder how some people on here manage that, must be very duplicitious people, thinking one disgusting thing and saying another.


  • Options
    #1378
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Shakti wrote: »
    I was asking you,

    no i dont believe for a second it did for two reasons
    1if they could directly influence this case i don't believe ms D'arcy would have got the option to sign the bond it would of been straight to jail as you would probably agree America is not famed for mercy
    2 If they had that level of influence the woman who attacked the plane in 2005 (I believe it was) would definitely have served time,as they would want to send a message that any attacks on US equipment would be punished


  • Options
    #1379
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Where do I claim this? Are you saying there is more than one "version" of the trial? :confused:

    What are you saying then.
    I have seen some childish huffs on boards, this is a new one.

    'I've got something and you're not seeing it!'


  • Options
    #1380
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Who said it was, they broke the law and knew exactly what they where doing and the consequences in court.
    It is relevant when trying to prove why the protesters entered where they did?
    they entered there to gain access to the runway very simple
    I'll let you answer the cui bono question first before I comment.answered
    Ignored? I have been talking about them all afternoon.
    only the part that suited you
    Yes you did, I wasn't neccesarily referring to just you, but the 'side' you are on.

    You didn't hear me using sexist and disparaging remarks. I have to be able to look older people and women like my mother and grandmother in the eye. I really do wonder how some people on here manage that, must be very duplicitious people, thinking one disgusting thing and saying another.
    neither have i but if you look back their has been posts comparing people on the right to nazis

    sorry about the mixed in answers but working off a phone that doesnt like me


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1381
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    jimboblep wrote: »
    no i dont believe for a second it did for two reasons
    1if they could directly influence this case i don't believe ms D'arcy would have got the option to sign the bond it would of been straight to jail as you would probably agree America is not famed for mercy
    2 If they had that level of influence the woman who attacked the plane in 2005 (I believe it was) would definitely have served time,as they would want to send a message that any attacks on US equipment would be punished

    Why then did the 2005 case get acquitted while miss D'Arcy languishes if anything (2) is a lot more serious,


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement