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…6791112…49

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    You keep coming out with this, but the judge disagreed with you and I'd be very surprised if he was being emotive. Plus he had far more evidence to suggest that than you do.

    The fact remains that aircraft are routinely redirected. She didn't spray the runway with cluster bombs ffs.

    Also, the judge heard she endangered lives from, I'm guessing, the prosecution.


  • Options
    #243
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    The fact remains that aircraft are routinely redirected. She didn't spray the runway with cluster bombs ffs.

    Also, the judge heard she endangered lives from, I'm guessing, from the prosecution.
    Probably. Does that make it any less true? And regardless of whether planes are redirected or not, what happens if she goes onto the runway just as a plane is landing? There's no redirecting that, she was a danger.


  • Options
    #244
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    Probably. Does that make it any less true? And regardless of whether planes are redirected or not, what happens if she goes onto the runway just as a plane is landing? There's no redirecting that, she was a danger.

    Guys, seeing as none of us are commercial pilots (presumably), I've taken the liberty to ask over here to see how they feel about whether or not this was a dangerous thing to do and whether or not it 'endangered lives'.


  • Options
    #245
    fishy fishy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭fishy fishy


    jimboblep wrote: »
    How so i asked if rosa parks endangered a life directly and just so we understand each other i applaud her bravery, my issue in this particular case is this woman endangered lives by walking onto an active runway
    Their is a legitimate reason why runways are restricted she broke the law
    So i ask again is it ok to break the law and endanger other people to safisfy our principles

    was the runway active??


  • Options
    #246
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    what happens if she goes onto the runway just as a plane is landing

    If she's unlucky enough to be struck by the landing gear then she's dead meat I suppose. I doubt a human would cause much damage to landing gear that's designed to be strong enough to absorb tonnes of metal slamming down on a runway at over 100 miles and hour.

    C'mon war of terror supporters, drop this 'endangering lives' malarkey - it's sensationalist bull****.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    The fact remains that aircraft are routinely redirected. She didn't spray the runway with cluster bombs ffs.

    Also, the judge heard she endangered lives from, I'm guessing, the prosecution.

    Actually the judge got that evidence from witnesses from here.

    www.iaa.ie


  • Options
    #248
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Actually the judge got that evidence from witnesses from here.

    www.iaa.ie

    Ah but shure, what would they know? They're the ones allowing the use of Shannon for the slaughter of millions of women and babies, we're just going to discount their opinion cause we don't like it much and it doesn't agree with our views.


  • Options
    #249
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    If she's unlucky enough to be struck by the landing gear then she's dead meat I suppose. I doubt a human would cause much damage to landing gear that's designed to be strong enough to absorb tonnes of metal slamming down on a runway.
    I was thinking of her appearing just before it lands, who knows how a pilot is going to react to that?
    C'mon war of terror supporters, drop this 'endangering lives' malarkey - it's sensationalist bull****.
    This crap doesn't help your argument, I already said I supported her cause. Just not her actions.


  • Options
    #250
    Rabelais
    Site Banned Posts: 263 ✭✭Rabelais


    Carlos Roca wrote: »

    C'mon war of terror supporters, drop this 'endangering lives' malarkey - it's sensationalist bull****.

    The level of irony is almost overwhelming.


  • Options
    #251
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    Rabelais wrote: »
    The level of irony is almost overwhelming.

    he doesn't even seen it, which is what makes it even sweeter


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    he doesn't even seen it, which is what makes it even sweeter

    Hi again!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsnbrtd8vE8


  • Options
    #253
    Mike747
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 383 ✭✭Mike747


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    You know it doesn't surprise me that you find all this talk of death and destruction funny. Do you and your fellow war of terror supporters get together to laugh at youtube videos of air strikes, IED attacks and sniper kills?

    Czarcasm is right, you guys do yourselves no favours coming out with this hysterical stuff. Like that guy who said we're misogynistic because we believe it's right she was sent to prison. It's embarrassing man.


  • Options
    #254
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Mike747 wrote: »
    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    You know it doesn't surprise me that you find all this talk of death and destruction funny. Do you and your fellow war of terror supporters get together to laugh at youtube videos of air strikes, IED attacks and sniper kills?

    Czarcasm is right, you guys do yourselves no favours coming out with this hysterical stuff. Like that guy who said we're misogynistic because we believe it's right she was sent to prison. It's embarrassing man.

    You do yourself no favours by garbling my post. It's embarrassing, mike. I referred to posters who called her a crazy bitch and an old bint as misogynistic.


  • Options
    #255
    Mike747
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 383 ✭✭Mike747


    old hippy wrote: »
    Mike747 wrote: »

    You do yourself no favours by garbling my post. It's embarrassing, mike. I referred to posters who called her a crazy bitch and an old bint as misogynistic.

    You accused us of being insecure in our masculinity because we don't agree with actions. By all means defend her, but don't stoop to that level, it makes it impossible to take you seriously.


  • Options
    #256
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Actually the judge got that evidence from witnesses from here.

    www.iaa.ie

    Can you back that up with anything of substance?

    Presumably if they felt that she endangered lives then they would have run a full investigation into what happened, to determine how it was allowed to happen, and it's not mentioned on their site or in any of their publications.


  • Options
    #257
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Mike747 wrote: »
    old hippy wrote: »

    You accused us of being insecure in our masculinity because we don't agree with actions. By all means defend her, but don't stoop to that level, it makes it impossible to take you seriously.

    I suggested those using misogynistic language did so out of insecurity.

    I can't take people here seriously when they call protesters mad, smelly or crusty or any of the usual epithets.


  • Options
    #258
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Can you back that up with anything of substance?

    Presumably if they felt that she endangered lives then they would have run a full investigation into what happened, to determine how it was allowed to happen, and it's not mentioned on their site or in any of their publications.

    There was an investigation done internally.


  • Options
    #259
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    bumper234 wrote: »
    There was an investigation done internally.

    I'm asking for evidence of that, and for evidence for your prior claim that the IAA argued that she endangered lives.


  • Options
    #260
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    My name is URL wrote: »
    I'm asking for evidence of that, and for evidence for your prior claim that the IAA argued that she endangered lives.

    My evidence is the fact that i work for the IAA and helped gather the evidence against them, I also know the investigators personally who submitted the report for the prosecution about the dangers of the trespass.


  • Options
    #261
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    bumper234 wrote: »
    My evidence is the fact that i work for the IAA and helped gather the evidence against them, I also know the investigators personally who submitted the report for the prosecution about the dangers of the trespass.

    Legally, is it wise to be posting on this topic, in that case?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    old hippy wrote: »
    Legally, is it wise to be posting on this topic, in that case?

    Why? The case is over and she was found guilty. There is no law against discussing a closed case.


  • Options
    #263
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    bumper234 wrote: »
    My evidence is the fact that i work for the IAA and helped gather the evidence against them, I also know the investigators personally who submitted the report for the prosecution about the dangers of the trespass.

    Fair enough, can't argue with that. But why was it an internal investigation and not a public one? I'm guessing the investigation was conducted for the purposes of prosecution. The report probably outlined the possible and hypothetical dangers of what could happen when someone gets onto a runway, but did it actually say that she had directly endangered anyone's life? Did it conclude that peoples lives were immediately put in any danger? If so then I'm guessing the report would be public.

    And how many people lost their jobs for allowing failing to stop an almost 80 year old woman from gaining access to an active runway?


  • Options
    #264
    Filibuster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 361 ✭✭Filibuster


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    If she's unlucky enough to be struck by the landing gear then she's dead meat I suppose. I doubt a human would cause much damage to landing gear that's designed to be strong enough to absorb tonnes of metal slamming down on a runway at over 100 miles and hour.

    C'mon war of terror supporters, drop this 'endangering lives' malarkey - it's sensationalist bull****.

    A bird can take out an engine on a passenger jet. We don't need idiots trespassing on runways as planes are at full trust on take off or playing chicken with pilots as they land.


  • Options
    #265
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Why? The case is over and she was found guilty. There is no law against discussing a closed case.

    Just making certain. For all our sakes.


  • Options
    #266
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Fair enough, can't argue with that. But why was it an internal investigation and not a public one? I'm guessing the investigation was conducted for the purposes of prosecution. The report probably outlined the possible and hypothetical dangers of what could happen when someone gets onto a runway, but did it actually say that she had directly endangered anyone's life? Did it conclude that peoples lives were immediately put in any danger? If so then I'm guessing the report would be public.

    And how many people lost their jobs for allowing failing to stop an almost 80 year old woman from gaining access to an active runway?

    The report is private and due to security reasons will not be released to the public. Have you ever driven around the outside of an airport? It's quite large and the only way to stop such an incursion would be to post security every 200 feet.


  • Options
    #267
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    bumper234 wrote: »
    The report is private and due to security reasons will not be released to the public. Have you ever driven around the outside of an airport? It's quite large and the only way to stop such an incursion would be to post security every 200 feet.

    or motion sensor triggered machine guns, but apparently that's not okay either

    :confused:


  • Options
    #268
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    wexie wrote: »
    or motion sensor triggered machine guns, but apparently that's not okay either

    :confused:

    Personally i would just have a 200 meter wide mine field all the way around and when one of these idiots blew themselves up it would be their own fault, Unfortunately that is frowned upon or something.


  • Options
    #269
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Filibuster wrote: »
    A bird can take out an engine on a passenger jet. We don't need idiots trespassing on runways as planes are at full trust on take off or playing chicken with pilots as they land.

    So what you're saying is that the old witch was flying around on her broomstick and could have been sucked into the engine?

    Jaysus..


  • Options
    #270
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Personally i would just have a 200 meter wide mine field all the way around and when one of these idiots blew themselves up it would be their own fault, Unfortunately that is frowned upon or something.



    sorry, you thinks a minefield around the runway wouldn't endanger passengers, but a 79 year old woman would? madness


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    sorry, you thinks a minefield around the runway wouldn't endanger passengers, but a 79 year old woman would? maddess

    Someone's sarcasm meter seems to be on he blink :rolleyes:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement