Clare Daly TD

mynamejeff

Muahahaha wrote: »

If Daly was guilty of drink driving then no way would I back her. She was innocent of the offence yet still had Gardai leak out details of her arrest, there is something very wrong about that, people have a right to their good name, which is a phrase we hear from Shatter pretty often even though it was he who refused to do the breathlyser test in the first place. He can hardly be surprised if people draw inferences by his refusal to do it.

i ll refer you to blackwhites post ,

once again i ll remind you that there was also a doctor involved and possibly a solicitor involved while daly was arrested. not sure if you can see that with your blinkers on there

Valetta

Muahahaha wrote: »

If you look back on history laws generally only get changed when enough people break them. By your logic slavery and apartheid would still be legal

Utter rubbish.

Muahahaha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're seriously comparing airport security laws to slavery? :rolleyes:

Lets say the allegation was that the US was transporting slaves instead of weapons for war, now do you get what I'm getting at? Its really not that difficult, this is a case whereby Daly and Wallace are claiming it was ok to break the airport bylaws because there was a higher need. As a lawyer you should be able to understand that concept. Whether you agree or disagree with it is another thing...

Muahahaha

blackwhite wrote: »

Way to twist what I posted to try and make it seem like something else - it shows exactly how much honesty you put into your arguments on here.

Both Politicians were treated exactly as the law dictates, and exactly the way any other person would be in the same circumstances.

The Constitutional provision that prevents TDs from being arrested on their way to/from the Dail is out-dated and IMO should be repealed, but as long as it exists on the books there's nothing that the gardai can do about it. If a TD makes the claim, then the Garda risks being held in breach of the Constitution if they attempt to detail them (BTW - I don't recall you getting outraged when Ming used the same Constitutional provision to have penalty points wiped - but I guess it's ok when it's a politician that you like :rolleyes:)

Anyway, it's clear from how keen you are to misrepresent people's post that you have no interest in actually having an honest debate - so feel free to rant all you want without having facts or any other inconveniences get in your way

So you disagree with the provision in the Constitution but agree with Shatters use of it?

Muahahaha

mynamejeff wrote: »

i ll refer you to blackwhites post ,

once again i ll remind you that there was also a doctor involved and possibly a solicitor involved while daly was arrested. not sure if you can see that with your blinkers on there

that wasnt the point. Im not disagreeing with Dalys arrest- if the Garda had a suspicion she was drunk then too right she should be tested. But its one thing to be tested and another to have it blared out to the tabloid media. How would you feel if the media reported that you were arrested on drink driving when you were innocent of the offence, would you be fine with that or not? Fine with your employer, family, friends, etc thinking the worst of you when you were innocent? Somehow I doubt it, any sane thinking person would not want their name splashed in newspapers linking them to guilt.

Theres no getting past the fact that both Daly and Wallace have suffered political policing. Noirin O'Sullivan asking Garda candidates for a supers job on their opinion on 'left wing extremists' in Ireland goes further to prove what has been going on here.

Phoebas

Muahahaha wrote: »

So you disagree with the provision in the Constitution but agree with Shatters use of it?

Even laws that we might personally disagree with need to be upheld. Something Clare Daly should take on board.

Phoebas

Muahahaha wrote: »

Noirin O'Sullivan asking Garda candidates for a supers job on their opinion on 'left wing extremists' in Ireland goes further to prove what has been going on here.

Noirin O'Sullivan's choice of an interview question doesn't 'prove' anything.

Muahahaha

Phoebas wrote: »

Noirin O'Sullivan's choice of an interview question doesn't 'prove' anything.

I never heard her asking about right wing extremists. The very fact she thinks our left wing politicians are extremists goes to show how deluded she is. The Garda being interviewed has stated that he felt uncomfortable being asked the question as the Gardai are supposed to be non-politically aligned. The fact she asked about left wing extremists and not about right wing ones would prove that the senior management in the Gardai are politically aligned, sure they're even appointed by politicans

Phoebas

Muahahaha wrote: »

I never heard her asking about right wing extremists. The very fact she thinks our left wing politicians are extremists goes to show how deluded she is. The Garda being interviewed has stated that he felt uncomfortable being asked the question as the Gardai are supposed to be non-politically aligned. The fact she asked about left wing extremists and not about right wing ones would prove that the senior management in the Gardai are politically aligned, sure they're even appointed by politicans

She probably didn't ask much about Mexican Drug cartels or Somali pirates either.

Have you given any thought to the possibility that she asked about the issues current in the Irish policing landscape?

rrpc

Muahahaha wrote: »

I never heard her asking about right wing extremists.

Strangely, considering the resurgence of right wing extremism around Europe we don't appear to have too many of those. Unless you count Renua

blackwhite

Muahahaha wrote: »

So you disagree with the provision in the Constitution but agree with Shatters use of it?

Where did I say I agree with Shatter using it? More of the same disingenuous nonsense. Have you any interest in honesty at all, or do you just want to make up stuff so you can work yourself into a little tiz?



As for Shatter, whilst the provision remains in the Constitution then he, and any other TD is perfectly entitled to make use of the provision.
I don't like the provision being there, and I'd prefer if all TD's made a point of principle not to utilise it. But, I still recognise that they have the right to invoke it whenever they want.

blackwhite

Muahahaha wrote: »

that wasnt the point. Im not disagreeing with Dalys arrest- if the Garda had a suspicion she was drunk then too right she should be tested. But its one thing to be tested and another to have it blared out to the tabloid media. How would you feel if the media reported that you were arrested on drink driving when you were innocent of the offence, would you be fine with that or not? Fine with your employer, family, friends, etc thinking the worst of you when you were innocent? Somehow I doubt it, any sane thinking person would not want their name splashed in newspapers linking them to guilt.

Theres no getting past the fact that both Daly and Wallace have suffered political policing. Noirin O'Sullivan asking Garda candidates for a supers job on their opinion on 'left wing extremists' in Ireland goes further to prove what has been going on here.

Political policing implies that she was arrested because of her politics - that's simply not true. She was arrested because she failed to provide an adequate breath specimen, having drawn the attention of the Gardai when she performed an illegal right-hand turn.

Nobody has condoned the leaking of her arrest to the media, but nobody (unless the inquiry comes back with a finding) has any evidence that it was members of the Gardai who leaked it.
Of course, those with an agenda to peddle will try to pretend otherwise, but most on here are able to see through the lies pretty quickly.

Little CuChulainn

Muahahaha wrote: »

I never heard her asking about right wing extremists. The very fact she thinks our left wing politicians are extremists goes to show how deluded she is.

Exactly how many interviews have you read the transcript of? Or are you assuming that the same questions were asked in each? Like it or not, one of the major issues Garda Superintendents will have to deal with over the next year or so is the thug tactics of groups like DublinSaysNo, tactics that include identifying personal information of Gardaí and posting it on their pages. If dealing with this makes a potential Super uncomfortable then his own political views are likely the reason and he has no business being in charge of a district.

Muahahaha

blackwhite wrote: »

Where did I say I agree with Shatter using it? More of the same disingenuous nonsense. Have you any interest in honesty at all, or do you just want to make up stuff so you can work yourself into a little tiz?

haha I think you need to re-read the post- I asked you a question, I never said you agreed with Shatter using it, I asked if you did, hence the use of a question mark.

As for Shatter, whilst the provision remains in the Constitution then he, and any other TD is perfectly entitled to make use of the provision.
I don't like the provision being there, and I'd prefer if all TD's made a point of principle not to utilise it. But, I still recognise that they have the right to invoke it whenever they want.

I largely agree with this but it still stands that why did he use it at a drink drive checkpoint. What had he to hide? Maybe he had nothing to hide and maybe he just did it to try to show off his power, he did say to the Garda 'do you know who I am' as was reported by eye witnesses. Which must have made the Garda feel two inches small, why even do that to a public servant?

blackwhite wrote: »

Political policing implies that she was arrested because of her politics - that's simply not true. She was arrested because she failed to provide an adequate breath specimen, having drawn the attention of the Gardai when she performed an illegal right-hand turn.

Nobody has condoned the leaking of her arrest to the media, but nobody (unless the inquiry comes back with a finding) has any evidence that it was members of the Gardai who leaked it.
Of course, those with an agenda to peddle will try to pretend otherwise, but most on here are able to see through the lies pretty quickly.

I dont think its an agenda whatsoever. Its based on history and fact- the Gardai are literally the most leaky public body there is in Ireland, and by a huge factor. In fact I cant think of one other single public body that leaks as much private information into the public domain as the Gardai do. You only have to open the pages of the Sunday World and Sindo every week, entire forests are cut down to make enough paper to print leaks from the Gardai and several crime journalists in Ireland literally make a living off it. In fact the Gardai are so leaky that during the recent Graham Dwyer murder trial a detective from Blackrock told the judge how he was furious about the amount of leaks made to the media. Luckily what was leaked by the Gardai didnt mean a mistrial was called but nonetheless it seems some members of the Gardai were more interested in making a quick few quid from a journo than they were in seeing a violent murderer locked up. Thats how bad Garda leaking is in this country.

So when the public see that Clare Daly was arrested and the information leaked to the media it comes as no surprise than an already cynical public think that the Gardai were responsible for it. Its not like they havent got form in this regard.

Muahahaha

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Exactly how many interviews have you read the transcript of? Or are you assuming that the same questions were asked in each? Like it or not, one of the major issues Garda Superintendents will have to deal with over the next year or so is the thug tactics of groups like DublinSaysNo, tactics that include identifying personal information of Gardaí and posting it on their pages. If dealing with this makes a potential Super uncomfortable then his own political views are likely the reason and he has no business being in charge of a district.

Like I said if Commissioner O'Sullivan thinks Paul Murphy et al are "extremists" then she really is deluded. I'd call ISIS and beheading hundreds of people extremist but it seems Commissioner O'Sullivan thinks that sitting in front of a car protesting peacefully is extremism. Its lucky she didnt join the army and go to war :rolleyes:

Little CuChulainn

Muahahaha wrote: »

Like I said if Commissioner O'Sullivan thinks Paul Murphy et al are "extremists" then she really is deluded. I'd call ISIS and beheading hundreds of people extremist but it seems Commissioner O'Sullivan thinks that sitting in front of a car protesting peacefully is extremism. Its lucky she didnt join the army and go to war :rolleyes:

Sitting in front of a car protesting peacefully is one way of downplaying an incident that involved false imprisonment, assault, criminal damage, robbery, riot and a ton of the more minor public order crimes.

Muahahaha

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Sitting in front of a car protesting peacefully is one way of downplaying an incident that involved false imprisonment, assault, criminal damage, robbery, riot and a ton of the more minor public order crimes.

O'Sullivan referred to left wing extremist politicians, not to anything else. Unless you're suggesting that Paul Murphy directed a crowd to assault, cause criminal damage and riot? As for false imprisonment, she seemed able to walk out of her car at all times (and she did in the end) so I'm not sure how she was imprisoned. Prevented leaving the place in her car for sure, but no-one stopped her leaving on foot.

In any case I hope Commissioner O'Sullivan has a few Gardai watching Paul Murphy in case he is planning any kidnappings, bombings or beheadings like his extremist comrades in ISIS :rolleyes:

Little CuChulainn

Muahahaha wrote: »

O'Sullivan referred to left wing extremist politicians, not to anything else. Unless you're suggesting that Paul Murphy directed a crowd to assault, cause criminal damage and riot? As for false imprisonment, she seemed able to walk out of her car at all times (and she did in the end) so I'm not sure how she was imprisoned. Prevented leaving the place in her car for sure, but no-one stopped her leaving on foot.

He asked the crowd when should they let her go. Not only did this identify him as a participant, it made it clear that she was not actually free to go.

Muahahaha

Did Paul Murphy stop her from walking from the car? Did he lock her into it? As he did neither I fail to see how he imprisoned her. Him talking to the crowd doesnt make it so, in fact at that point his question to the crowd was as a direct result of negotiotians with the Gardai who were asking him to guide the crowd to end the protest and move on. The same Gardai who then arrested him for imprisoning her had previously been negotioting with him to end the protest. So if the Gardai thought that she was imprisoned why didnt they send the riot squad in to release the so called prisoner. If she was, in their view, imprisoned then why did they not do something more concrete about it than asking Murphy to end a protest. Sure imprisonment is a serious offence, if this was imprisonment why didnt the Gardai take it seriously? The court case will reveal all but its pretty obvious even at this stage that the Gardai saw it as a sit down protest and nothing else. It was only after the event that politicians got involved that it suddenly became imprisonment, which suits some peoples agendas but most sane people can see she was free to walk where ever and when ever she wanted, there was over 100 Gardai present and indeed she did end up walking in the end. So the problem was solved until the political policing kicked in a few days later.

Phoebas

[...]negotiotians with the Gardaí[...]

Doesn't that say it all!

Little CuChulainn

Muahahaha wrote: »

Did Paul Murphy stop her from walking from the car? Did he lock her into it? As he did neither I fail to see how he imprisoned her. Him talking to the crowd doesnt make it so, in fact at that point his question to the crowd was as a direct result of negotiotians with the Gardai who were asking him to guide the crowd to end the protest and move on. The same Gardai who then arrested him for imprisoning her had previously been negotioting with him to end the protest. So if the Gardai thought that she was imprisoned why didnt they send the riot squad in to release the so called prisoner. If she was, in their view, imprisoned then why did they not do something more concrete about it than asking Murphy to end a protest. Sure imprisonment is a serious offence, if this was imprisonment why didnt the Gardai take it seriously? The court case will reveal all but its pretty obvious even at this stage that the Gardai saw it as a sit down protest and nothing else. It was only after the event that politicians got involved that it suddenly became imprisonment, which suits some peoples agendas but most sane people can see she was free to walk where ever and when ever she wanted, there was over 100 Gardai present and indeed she did end up walking in the end. So the problem was solved until the political policing kicked in a few days later.

Politicians didn't need to push Gardaí. Quite a number of them had been assaulted and they had their property taken. You ask why the riot squad wasn't deployed. There are a number of reasons why a riot squad would not be deployed when a mob has surrounded a smaller group. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. You are still ignoring Murphys own words. His words confirmed that she was not free to go and that he was a part of it. Do you think negotiating is a get out of jail free card. Go rob a bank and take hostages. See if you get off the charges by negotiating with the cops. Such a ridiculous argument. I'd also suggest you take some time to familiarise yourself with legislation and police procedure in Ireland because it would solve a lot of your confusion.

nice_guy80

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Politicians didn't need to push Gardaí. Quite a number of them had been assaulted and they had their property taken. You ask why the riot squad wasn't deployed. There are a number of reasons why a riot squad would not be deployed when a mob has surrounded a smaller group. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. You are still ignoring Murphys own words. His words confirmed that she was not free to go and that he was a part of it. Do you think negotiating is a get out of jail free card. Go rob a bank and take hostages. See if you get off the charges by negotiating with the cops. Such a ridiculous argument. I'd also suggest you take some time to familiarise yourself with legislation and police procedure in Ireland because it would solve a lot of your confusion.

Its very easy for a Garda to get a reason to arrest someone in a confrontation.

Wanderer2010

I do like Clare Daly she speaks a lot of sense on the important issues of the day like water charges, banking inquiries, abortion etc however she leaves herself down by hanging around with and going on protests with Mick Wallace a self confessed tax dodger. If any other TD admitted to not paying tax because they didn't agree with it she would be screaming from the rafters and yet she clearly has no problem with Wallace doing it. A bit of a hypocrite..

Little CuChulainn

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Its very easy for a Garda to get a reason to arrest someone in a confrontation.

It is, but it is not always the best approach.

Muahahaha

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Politicians didn't need to push Gardaí. Quite a number of them had been assaulted and they had their property taken. You ask why the riot squad wasn't deployed. There are a number of reasons why a riot squad would not be deployed when a mob has surrounded a smaller group. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. You are still ignoring Murphys own words. His words confirmed that she was not free to go and that he was a part of it. Do you think negotiating is a get out of jail free card. Go rob a bank and take hostages. See if you get off the charges by negotiating with the cops. Such a ridiculous argument. I'd also suggest you take some time to familiarise yourself with legislation and police procedure in Ireland because it would solve a lot of your confusion.

Well if Gardai were assaulted then they should have arrested those who assaulted them or stole their hats or whatever it was that went missing. But thats beside the point- Paul Murphy never assaulted anyone or stole anything or directed a riot. Anyway at this stage is the Gardai are going to have to prove to the letter of the law and beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually imprisoned her and she didnt have the ability to leave. She left on foot so she clearly did have the ability to leave which would kind of throw a lot of doubt on the claim that she was imprisoned, somehow I'm doubting her ability to leave will mean that she was 'imprisoned' in the legal sense of the word. My guess at this stage is that the protesters have a lot more video footage of the incident than the Gardai do so when it comes to the court case there may well be a few surprises. The key question IMO is whether senior Gardai at the scene were negotiating 1) the end of a protest or 2) the end of an imprisonment. All the evidence online suggests Gardai saw it as a protest that they wanted over. They engaged with Murphy who was then engaging the crowd to try to make that happen, as the videos will show. Time will tell in any case.

mynamejeff

Muahahaha wrote: »

that wasnt the point. Im not disagreeing with Dalys arrest- if the Garda had a suspicion she was drunk then too right she should be tested. But its one thing to be tested and another to have it blared out to the tabloid media. How would you feel if the media reported that you were arrested on drink driving when you were innocent of the offence, would you be fine with that or not? Fine with your employer, family, friends, etc thinking the worst of you when you were innocent? Somehow I doubt it, any sane thinking person would not want their name splashed in newspapers linking them to guilt.

Theres no getting past the fact that both Daly and Wallace have suffered political policing. Noirin O'Sullivan asking Garda candidates for a supers job on their opinion on 'left wing extremists' in Ireland goes further to prove what has been going on here.

for the third time (without you responding ) ill point out that there was a doctor and possibly a solicitor present and well as possibly other persons who weren't gardai in the station who could have "leeked "

I think its fairly clear your paranoia with regard to political policing . In no way have wallace , daly or paul murphy been subject to political policing . They have all been arrested for committing offences that would have resulted in the arrest of any one else . in fact wallace has used political influence to get out of a public order arrest in 2002 when he was still a non tax paying developer.

as for noirin who as interviewing a assistant commisioner for a job as a deputy commissioner not anything to do with super as you said. well they are both political appointments her FG and the AC FF so you can see where there might be some needle.

If you are going to ignore the facts and contuine on with your ill informed bashing of anyone but you fav criminals indymedia is thata way

---

>

Little CuChulainn

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well if Gardai were assaulted then they should have arrested those who assaulted them or stole their hats or whatever it was that went missing. But thats beside the point- Paul Murphy never assaulted anyone or stole anything or directed a riot. Anyway at this stage is the Gardai are going to have to prove to the letter of the law and beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually imprisoned her and she didnt have the ability to leave. She left on foot so she clearly did have the ability to leave which would kind of throw a lot of doubt on the claim that she was imprisoned, somehow I'm doubting her ability to leave will mean that she was 'imprisoned' in the legal sense of the word. My guess at this stage is that the protesters have a lot more video footage of the incident than the Gardai do so when it comes to the court case there may well be a few surprises. The key question IMO is whether senior Gardai at the scene were negotiating 1) the end of a protest or 2) the end of an imprisonment. All the evidence online suggests Gardai saw it as a protest that they wanted over. They engaged with Murphy who was then engaging the crowd to try to make that happen, as the videos will show. Time will tell in any case.

Again, I suggest you read up on the legislation involved and the concept of participation in a crime in this jurisdiction. The Gardaí negotiating will not be a get out of jail free card. Neither will the eventual release of the imprisoned people. You cannot negate a crime by stopping it. If I rob you and then give your stuff back I have still robbed you.

rrpc

always_tired wrote: »

i was once caught doing 120 km in a 50 km zone ( albeit the 50 km in on the airport road out of galway and was for a long time the most farcically low limit in the country ) by guards at a check point , i was overtaking a convoy of horse boxes , coming from the galway races

i wasnt breathalized and i wasnt arrested yet being twice above the limit is surely more serious than accidently turning down the wrong street in dublin while indicating incorrectly ?

anyone who doesnt believe that eppisode with daly being arrested ( in the manner she was and the subsequent leaking to the media ) was anything other than an attempted stitch up , must be incapable of believing that guards are capable of skullduggery

Lots of people are caught speeding in speed checkpoints and they are not breathalysed either. There's a similar setup near Dublin Airport where the first 'motorway' section leading to the M1/M50 is 60kph and I got caught there doing 120 as well. I got pulled over and was not breathalysed (although I did express my befuddlement with the speed limit).

Mobile patrols who see you do something erratic/stupid/dangerous will pull you over and give you the full works though.

That doesn't mean it might not have been a stitch up, just that I've never been breathalysed at a speed trap.

blackwhite

rrpc wrote: »

Lots of people are caught speeding in speed checkpoints and they are not breathalysed either. There's a similar setup near Dublin Airport where the first 'motorway' section leading to the M1/M50 is 60kph and I got caught there doing 120 as well. I got pulled over and was not breathalysed (although I did express my befuddlement with the speed limit).

Mobile patrols who see you do something erratic/stupid/dangerous will pull you over and give you the full works though.

That doesn't mean it might not have been a stitch up, just that I've never been breathalysed at a speed trap.

I'd imagine you didn't smell of whiskey either.

FreudianSlippers

Muahahaha wrote: »

Lets say the allegation was that the US was transporting slaves instead of weapons for war, now do you get what I'm getting at? Its really not that difficult, this is a case whereby Daly and Wallace are claiming it was ok to break the airport bylaws because there was a higher need. As a lawyer you should be able to understand that concept. Whether you agree or disagree with it is another thing...

There is a huge difference between facts and conspiracy theories. There is no excuse for breaking the law; if these elected representatives have an issue with the use of this facility as a stopping point for US aircraft (for which they have zero proof of any wrongdoing) then they should make use of the appropriate channels.