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

jimboblep

Shakti wrote: »

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

you brought it up i have no way of knowing why but if you have proof of something underhanded im willing to listen

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Indeed, I agree, he was clearly talking about unauthorised persons. Just like he clearly didn't mean that there was no body in the entirity of 'airside', but nobody in the area of the runway where he had been looking; And just like the fire officer was using a coloquialism when he said they were only putting themselves in danger, much like one might say 'they only have themselves to blame', rather than 'they have themselves to blame'.
You can't have it both ways.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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?

If flights are unexpectedly asked to hold and have buckets of fuel, while there certainly be a heightened sense of awareness, there would usually be no issue.
If flights are sent to a hold, with little extra fuel, and especially in a situation of an undetermined delay, then things can become much more stressful, and there is the possibility of diversion and or landing with less than final reserve fuel,or worse. It is another hole in the swiss cheese. Introducing threats into a flight increases the likelyhood of an accident or an incident. An unexpected hold in this situation would be a threat. While you would hope that that threat would be mitigated against, I can guarantee you that if one of those planes had been involved in an incident or accident, the unexpected hold would feature in the report.
That is why what these people did caused an increased risk to safety. You might think that risk is not worth mentioning, but planes have fallen out of the sky when the initial problem is a broken light bulb.

bumper234

Happyman42 wrote: »

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!'

I have watched you consistently dismiss witness statements to the point of inferring that some of them actually perjured themselves under oath just to secure a conviction, as I said I won't feed you anymore information as I refuse to give you ammunition to defame anyone else. All you need to know is that the prosecution used the video that your martyr placed on youtube as evidence against them. They helped to secure their own convictions.

Shakti

jimboblep wrote: »

you brought it up i have no way of knowing why but if you have proof of something underhanded im willing to listen

No nothing like that, seems unfair though no?

bumper234

Shakti wrote: »

No nothing like that, seems unfair though no?

In the same sense that one man got 6 years for stabbing someone to death while another got 6 years for evading the tax on some garlic he imported. Welcome to the Irish justice system :rolleyes:

Happyman42

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]

They entered there as it was the nearest point to the ATC tower and they had the best chance of being seen.
It's interesting that the discrepancy in the timeline and what the ATCO says and what people on here are strenously trying to avoid saying, (that the treeline blocked the view, that ATC had no business looking in that direction, when in fact they did, TWICE} would lead you to the same conclusion if you believe them. 'That they didn't have any concerns for safety'

I'll let you answer the cui bono question first before I comment.answered

I would have the same concerns as the poster who asked the question, that there is a bigger entity and enterprise to be protected by the Irish state.

Ignored? I have been talking about them all afternoon.
only the part that suited you,

I am only interested in some of the testimony...want me to start on Mick Wallace's or Clare Daly's?

neither have i but if you look back their has been posts comparing people on the right to nazis

Yes, I'd imagine the Nazis are very upset.

jimboblep

Shakti wrote: »

No nothing like that, seems unfair though no?

in the spirit of fairness she did choose to go to prison and i will concede she had the guts to follow her conviction(no pun intended)

gctest50

Shakti wrote: »

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

She is in jail because she refused to sign a bond to basically stay away from Shannon

I'm sure no-one wanted her to end up there

Shakti

jimboblep wrote: »

in the spirit of fairness she did choose to go to prison and i will concede she had the guts to follow her conviction(no pun intended)

There is that alright, but I mean she was drawing attention to the mechanisms of war using shannon and she's the one that gets locked up,

bumper234

Shakti wrote: »

There is that alright, but I mean she was drawing attention to the mechanisms of war using shannon and she's the one that gets locked up,

She is the one who broke the law.

ProfessorPlum

Shakti wrote: »

There is that alright, but I mean she was drawing attention to the mechanisms of war using shannon and she's the one that gets locked up,

She wants to be locked up. Don't feel sorry for her.

Shadow Walker

bumper234 wrote: »

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

I understand that the protesters like to exaggerate the importance of the "trial" but in Irish law a "trial" generally requires a jury which would make it a Circuit Court case or higher . The court in question was a local District Court which generally decides on petty crimes and minor offences (as well as civil law) if a case is considered very serious the Judge can and does refuse jurisdiction so the case is forwarded to a higher court.

Far from being compared favourably to the protests of Emily Pankhurst , Rosa Parks , Martin Luther King and Gandhi , Ms D'arcy was an elderly contrary stubborn woman who once again chased notoriety by sneaking onto an airport runway, and was dealt with by a local court that deals with petty crimes. Even then the court tried to let her off with a promise not to do it again. Not exactly earth shattering

And all this talk about "trial record" there is no stenographer in a District Court which means the judge may make a few notes of the case but there is no full written record of every word and phrase in the court case.

jimboblep

Happyman42 wrote: »

[/I]

They entered there as it was the nearest point to the ATC tower and they had the best chance of being seen.
It's interesting that the discrepancy in the timeline and what the ATCO says and what people on here are strenously trying to avoid saying, (that the treeline blocked the view, that ATC had no business looking in that direction, when in fact they did, TWICE} would lead you to the same conclusion if you believe them. 'That they didn't have any concerns for safety'


I would have the same concerns as the poster who asked the question, that there is a bigger entity and enterprise to be protected by the Irish state.


I am only interested in some of the testimony...want me to start on Mick Wallace's or Clare Daly's?




your still following that line ok its very simple if they had concerns for safety they would not have entered thats just common sense
as for a" larger entity" if you have proof put it up otherwise pure speculation
start on clare daly and mick wallace they were not present on the day so add nothing to the debate on endangerment which is why you are still arguing
no one has denied the us military has used shannon
il choose to ignore your final statement

Shakti

bumper234 wrote: »

She is the one who broke the law.

Is it legal for those planes to land there?
we are neutral after all

jimboblep

Shakti wrote: »

There is that alright, but I mean she was drawing attention to the mechanisms of war using shannon and she's the one that gets locked up,

i will state why i have taken issue with this its the endangerment of innocent people which even happyman concedes
their was plenty of ways to draw attention but she chose this at the end of the day its about personal responsibility and a suspended sentence was a fair sentence in my opinion

jimboblep

Shakti wrote: »

Is it legal for those planes to land there?
we are neutral after all

if its not bring a case

bumper234

Shakti wrote: »

Is it legal for those planes to land there?
we are neutral after all

You tell me? What laws are they breaking by landing at Shannon to refuel?

Shakti

jimboblep wrote: »

if its not bring a case

Smarter people than I'll ever be are doing that no doubt, Personally I feel safer having the Margarettas and people's of the unpopular protests being heard than I would were they silent.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Indeed, I agree, he was clearly talking about unauthorised persons.

Phew, thank you

Just like he clearly didn't mean that there was no body in the entirity of 'airside', but nobody in the area of the runway where he had been looking; And just like the fire officer was using a coloquialism when he said they were only putting themselves in danger, much like one might say 'they only have themselves to blame', rather than 'they have themselves to blame'.
You can't have it both ways.

Sorry, must be the late hour but try as I might, I can't make any sense of that.

If flights are sent to a hold, with little extra fuel, and especially in a situation of an undetermined delay, then things can become much more stressful,

But would they be put into an undetermined hold? Do ATC and the pilot not discuss fuel in a situation like this? Seems biizarre that they wouldn't?

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

I have watched you consistently dismiss witness statements to the point of inferring that some of them actually perjured themselves under oath just to secure a conviction, as I said I won't feed you anymore information as I refuse to give you ammunition to defame anyone else. All you need to know is that the prosecution used the video that your martyr placed on youtube as evidence against them. They helped to secure their own convictions.

It mustn't be very strong if you won't post a link.
Which case was it presented at?

Edit: this is ridiculous, forget it. Not very important if it isn't in the public domain.

As least I'm using the actual evidence, not concocting it!

jimboblep

Shakti wrote: »

Smarter people than I'll ever be are doing that no doubt, Personally I feel safer having the Margarettas and people's of the unpopular protests being heard than I would were they silent.

gotta be honest if their was grounds for a case it would of been done by now

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sorry, must be the late hour but try as I might, I can't make any sense of that.

Read it again. It's not that cryptic.

Happyman42 wrote: »

But would they be put into an undetermined hold? Do ATC and the pilot not discuss fuel in a situation like this? Seems biizarre that they wouldn't?

The delay is undetermined if ATC don't know how for long the runway will be unavailable, like in this case. It's not something that can be solved by discussions between the crew and ATC. If they know how long the hold will be, they will say, and that will allow crews to make a measured and informed decision as to their action.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The delay is undetermined if ATC don't know how for long the runway will be unavailable, like in this case. It's not something that can be solved by discussions between the crew and ATC. If they know how long the hold will be, they will say, and that will allow crews to make a measured and informed decision as to their action.

Would a crew not 'make an informed and measured decision' before fuel gets to critical and request a divert?

Shakti

jimboblep wrote: »

gotta be honest if their was grounds for a case it would of been done by now

Gilmore says the official U.S. line on it is that the landing of these planes are down to "administrative error".

Happyman42

Shakti wrote: »

Gilmore says the official U.S. line on it is that the landing of these planes are down to "administrative error".

Was he in the American Embassy concocting some spin to plamas Irish citizens?

Shakti

Happyman42 wrote: »

Was he in the American Embassy concocting some spin to plamas Irish citizens?

I guess like most politicians he is given the line and he delivers it or gets the whip, Gilmore does this without a blink or a twitch.

jimboblep

Shakti wrote: »

Gilmore says the official U.S. line on it is that the landing of these planes are down to "administrative error".

Gilmore says a lot of things i would take them with a pinch of salt
if as you say there are people who feel this strongly about this and i have no reason to doubt you, they surely would of had an expert in constitutional law look at this
and its reasonable to assume if there was grounds for a case they would have brought it by now

Shakti

jimboblep wrote: »

Gilmore says a lot of things i would take them with a pinch of salt
if as you say there are people who feel this strongly about this and i have no reason to doubt you, they surely would of had an expert in constitutional law look at this
and its reasonable to assume if there was grounds for a case they would have brought it by now

Wouldn't it be hard to bring a case against an "administrative error".

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would a crew not 'make an informed and measured decision' before fuel gets to critical and request a divert?

Apparently they must, since planes falling out of the sky is fairly rare. Much nicer to have concrete information to hand in these decisions though.

Anyway, it's a bit off the point. Flight crew and others, through their skills and experience can usually mitigate threats. People who unnecessarily introduce threats increase the danger associated with flights. Our protestors relied on others professionalism to mitigate the threats they caused. That doesn't excuse their actions.

Shadow Walker

Shakti wrote: »

Smarter people than I'll ever be are doing that no doubt, Personally I feel safer having the Margarettas and people's of the unpopular protests being heard than I would were they silent.

I had the misfortune of sitting through Conversations with the state ( at least I think that's what it called) and a more rambling disjointed collection of half truths I have never before heard. There was one clip where Margaretta was walking out of Shannon Garda Station and she was met by an interviewer with a movie camera . It started ok with Margaretta answering soft spoon fed questions by the "interviewer". Unfortunately Margaretta then forgot her script and the interviewer had to feed her the questions and then feed her the answers to try and get her back on track. It was farcical and a true reflection of the whole show. Ms D'arcy then gloated that she would embarrass the state at her court case and even if she was convicted she wouldn't be jailed because of her age. She had two cronies in the audience who again kept feeding her the script. It was so funny.

So yes I have already had the dubious pleasure of having heard Ms D'arcy once and that was once too often.