Dolores O'Riordan Air Rage Incident

Welsh Megaman

There was No Need To Argue with the airline staff.

:cool:

http://m.rte.ie/ten/news/2016/0224/770389-dolores-oriordan/

JackieBauer

She's very talented. I hope she can sort herself out

whiskeyman

The tabloids wished it was due to booze...


'Cranberry sauced in air rage!'

BattleCorp

She got off very lightly. She didn't even get a criminal conviction for three assaults and obstructing a member of An Garda Siochana.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

She got off very lightly. She didn't even get a criminal conviction for three assaults and obstructing a member of An Garda Siochana.

To be fair, several doctors stated she was suffering from severe mental illness at the time.

It's not like she just decided to go ballistic for the craic.

Boom_Bap

another zombie thread

Ruu

Boom_Bap wrote: »

another zombie thread

oh oh oh oh oh oh ah ah ah ah ah ah, you didn't!

RobertKK

Hope she is getting the treatment needed for her mental health problems.

I think the judge did the right thing not to criminalise her given she has been diagnosed with a mental health problem.

Turtyturd

Boom_Bap wrote: »

another zombie thread

Just let it Linger a bit longer.

Edit: Also going to admit I went back to check the op before I got that.

BattleCorp

Candie wrote: »

To be fair, several doctors stated she was suffering from severe mental illness at the time.

It's not like she just decided to go ballistic for the craic.

If she was mentally ill, why did she get a fine then?

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

If she was mentally ill, why did she get a fine then?

She was fined but not given a criminal conviction. Ask the judge why he fined her. He said he didn't criminalise her because it wouldn't be just.

Read the linked article, it lays it out.

JackieBauer

Let's kick people while they are down... ****ing hell

First offence, pleaded guilty, psychiatric issues, marriage break up..l.think the Judge got it right.

The headline is perhaps wrong, it should specify Court Poor Box contribution and not a fine.

Teyla Emmagan

Seems fair enough given the circumstances. You wonder though if she knew she was sick and only got treatment after this? Bit hard on the garda to get headbutted first before she goes 'actually I need to sort this'.

Teyla Emmagan

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Seems fair enough given the circumstances. You wonder though if she knew she was sick and only got treatment after this? Bit hard on the garda to get headbutted first before she goes 'actually I need to sort this'.

Maybe it's a case of people sometimes being too sick to realise they actually are sick sometimes.

Not fun for the Garda all the same though.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Not good enough at all. This donation to the poor box codology is a cop out. Guilty or not guilty? If guilty then a conviction and a fine.

I abhor how people in this country can buy their way out of a conviction.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Candie wrote: »

She was fined but not given a criminal conviction. Ask the judge why he fined her. He said he didn't criminalise her because it wouldn't be just.

Read the linked article, it lays it out.

Sorry but she was not fined. A fine is paid to the court not the poor box. The terminology used in the article is incorrect.

Rayden Breezy Jeans

Rayden Breezy Jeans wrote: »

Not good enough at all. This donation to the poor box codology is a cop out. Guilty or not guilty? If guilty then a conviction and a fine.

I abhor how people in this country can buy their way out of a conviction.

She's very sick Rayden Breezy Jeans.

ThisRegard

BattleCorp wrote: »

She got off very lightly. She didn't even get a criminal conviction for three assaults and obstructing a member of An Garda Siochana.

FFS, having to undergo physiatric help is hardly getting off lightly.

Water John

Yes, it's right to be sympathetic in the circumstances. Most posters here feel that way too. Not so those commentators on thejournal.ie.

ThisRegard

Rayden Breezy Jeans wrote: »

Not good enough at all. This donation to the poor box codology is a cop out. Guilty or not guilty? If guilty then a conviction and a fine.

I abhor how people in this country can buy their way out of a conviction.

She didn't buy her way out of a conviction, she escaped conviction in part due to her being mentally ill at the time, and she's probably still undergoing treatment.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Candie wrote: »

She's very sick Srameen.

So? There are many many Bi-polar people. I know 2. They don't assault people. A non-custodial sentence won't change her state of health.

I feel she got this result because of who she is more so than anything else.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

ThisRegard wrote: »

FFS, having to undergo physiatric help is hardly getting off lightly.

ThisRegard wrote: »

She didn't buy her way out of a conviction, she escaped conviction in part due to her being mentally ill at the time, and she's probably still undergoing treatment.

She would have to undergo treatment irrespective of the verdict.

ThisRegard

Rayden Breezy Jeans wrote: »

So? There are many many Bi-polar people. I know 2. They don't assault people. A non-custodial sentence won't change her state of health.

I feel she got this result because of who she is more so than anything else.

So the two bipolar people you know are representative of all mentally ill people?

As a coincidence, I too know 2 people who are bipolar and they behave very differently to each other.

Rayden Breezy Jeans

Rayden Breezy Jeans wrote: »

So? There are many many Bi-polar people. I know 2. They don't assault people. A non-custodial sentence won't change her state of health.

I feel she got this result because of who she is more so than anything else.

But I'm sure your friends are being helped/treated, she was in the very early acute stage and probably didn't know how ill she was. Doctors testified that she was severely mentally ill.

If someone has a broken leg you cann't expect them to run as normal, if someone is acutely mentally ill, you can't expect them to behave as normal.

That's not a slur on bi-polar people, everyone is different and I'm glad she's getting help now, it must be awful to live with. A non-custodial sentence might not change her health, but a custodial sentence while desperately ill certainly would imo.

ThisRegard

Rayden Breezy Jeans wrote: »

She would have to undergo treatment irrespective of the verdict.

That's irrelevant to her not being convicted. You're just being unduly harsh because of who she is I feel.

tomwaterford

Rayden Breezy Jeans wrote: »

So? There are many many Bi-polar people. I know 2. They don't assault people. A non-custodial sentence won't change her state of health.

I feel she got this result because of who she is more so than anything else.

A conviction may cause issues for her if she is living in America with visas???




I know of more than one lad who got let off for various offences with poor box donations to aid getting visas for travelling and WHVs etc

Junkyard Tom

Fair play to the aeroplane-driver for being able to land the plane after she let all the snakes out of her handbag.

tomwaterford

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Fair play to the aeroplane-driver for being able to land the plane after she let all the snakes out of her handbag.

Pilot???

Junkyard Tom

tomwaterford wrote: »

Pilot???

Me? Sure I wouldn't know anything about driving a ship.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Me? Sure I wouldn't know anything about driving a ship.

The guys who guide big ships out of port in small tugs are called pilots.

So there.

Hitchens

the District Court in Ireland is just joke justice anyway

Chancer3001

Should have given the money to the assaulted people.

AvyStreet

We've all had one of those days.

The trick is to not drink or get on a plane.

murpho999

Hitchens wrote: »

the District Court in Ireland is just joke justice anyway

Seriously what do people want?

Lock her up or put her in stocks and throw tomatoes at her.

She has no criminal record, is bi-polar. She didn't kill some one or seriously injure anyone.
She's apologised, learnt her lesson, been publically humiliated and paying a fine. It's enough for a minor incident.

haveringchick

I have inside info on this. Poor girl is having a terrible time. Her kids won't see her. They'll see her mam but not her. Basically her husband had to throw her out her behaviour at home was so terrible they couldn't put up with it anymore.
Her mothers finding her very stressful as well. It's very sad.

diomed

If she was not responsible for her actions she should escape conviction.
It seems she had medical evidence to say she was not responsible.
Where does the poor box fit into things?

haveringchick

diomed wrote: »

If she was not responsible for her actions she should escape conviction.
It seems she had medical evidence to say she was not responsible.
Where does the poor box fit into things?

She pled guilty.
A small fine commensurate with the accused means is the order of the day in District Court down the country
The poor box is a "catchall" expression for local charities

gormdubhgorm

I am not a fan of ufc cage fighting. But I would like to see Delores O'Riordan v Sinead O'Connor!

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Seriously what do people want?

Lock her up or put her in stocks and throw tomatoes at her.

She has no criminal record, is bi-polar. She didn't kill some one or seriously injure anyone.
She's apologised, learnt her lesson, been publically humiliated and paying a fine. It's enough for a minor incident.

Yes, but she's not eviscerated and nothing less will do.

Hitchens

Candie wrote: »

Yes, but she's not eviscerated and nothing less will do.

ah you're being a bit harsh on her there

Water John

gorm, that's a clown comment. A bit of respect for people with mental health issues.
Has society become so unkind. How we treat vulnerable people, irrespective of their wealth is the measure of our humanity.

deaddonkey15

Was she institutionalized after this incident? If she's not responsible for her actions that led to 3 people being assaulted and one accused of sexual assault then she should be under some sort of supervision.

Water John

Donkey, I believe the answer is, yes.

gormdubhgorm

Water John wrote: »

gorm, that's a clown comment. A bit of respect for people with mental health issues.
Has society become so unkind. How we treat vulnerable people, irrespective of their wealth is the measure of our humanity.

Ah now John even you left Sinead. Can you not have a bit of criac with it? Do mental health people have no sense of humour?

hinault

murpho999 wrote: »

Seriously what do people want?

Lock her up or put her in stocks and throw tomatoes at her.

She has no criminal record, is bi-polar. She didn't kill some one or seriously injure anyone.
She's apologised, learnt her lesson, been publically humiliated and paying a fine. It's enough for a minor incident.

She falsely claimed to have been sexually assaulted.

Bi-polar or not, that false accusation is inexcusable.

murpho999

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Was she institutionalized after this incident? If she's not responsible for her actions that led to 3 people being assaulted and one accused of sexual assault then she should be under some sort of supervision.

No she was not 'institutionalized' but she did receive treatment in a hospital for her mental illness.

Your terminology displays your ignorance of mental health.

She pleaded guilty, evidence was shown medical professionals that she was not well at the time and the judge ruled it would be unfair to criminalise her.

So a compromise has been reached.

Also, she withdrew the sexual assault charge and apologised to the victims.

I think that's enough.

murpho999

hinault wrote: »

She falsely claimed to have been sexually assaulted.

Bi-polar or not, that false accusation is inexcusable.

She withdrew it as she was not of sound mind at the time.

Do people not realise that mental illness diminishes sufferers their normal mental capacity and rationality?

Arbiter of Good Taste

murpho999 wrote: »

Seriously what do people want?

Lock her up or put her in stocks and throw tomatoes at her.

She has no criminal record, is bi-polar. She didn't kill some one or seriously injure anyone.
She's apologised, learnt her lesson, been publically humiliated and paying a fine. It's enough for a minor incident.

It depends. Had she already been diagnosed? Was she prescribed medication? If so, and she failed or refused to take it, then surely that is a wilful disregard for her own safety and the safety of the general public, and then yes, she should be punished.

deaddonkey15

murpho999 wrote: »

No she was not 'institutionalized' but she did receive treatment in a hospital for her mental illness.

Your terminology displays your ignorance of mental health.

She pleaded guilty, evidence was shown medical professionals that she was not well at the time and the judge ruled it would be unfair to criminalise her.

So a compromise has been reached.

Also, she withdrew the sexual assault charge and apologised to the victims.

I think that's enough.

Is that right? And that remark displays absolutely no ignorance on your part no? You know everything about me and the people in my life?

Get off your high horse.

Arbiter of Good Taste

murpho999 wrote: »

She withdrew it as she was not of sound mind at the time.

Do people not realise that mental illness diminishes sufferers their normal mental capacity and rationality?

So the victim of the accusation should just take it on the chin?