Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

L1011 · 29-06-2017 5:09pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is perfectly legitimate to ask the question - was pressure put on the DPP by political elements?

There was vast amount of pressure by political elements from the side you aren't implying. "Drop the charges now!" etc posters paid for by political parties being one.

Things don't suddenly become acceptable because you like them.

FrancieBrady · 29-06-2017 5:13pm

L1011 wrote: »

There was vast amount of pressure by political elements from the side you aren't implying. "Drop the charges now!" etc posters paid for by political parties being one.

Things don't suddenly become acceptable because you like them.

Directly on the DPP? I would be against that from any side tbh.

L1011 · 29-06-2017 5:15pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Directly on the DPP? I would be against that from any side tbh.

There was plenty of material directed solely at the DPP. Political pressure is still political pressure when its from a different politician.

There was also more than enough content posted across the entire internet that, if from the other side and the other result would have lead to calls for a retrial or a Haughey "no fair trial" decision due to jury poisoning.

The other thing that needs to be realised is that there was nothing to gain politically from convicting the 6. No judge would be willing to go over the 6 months required for losing the Dail seat and we have a nice long heritage of TDs in prison; and you'd instantly create 6 martyrs. The protests that'd come after an imprisonment could make some of the previous ones look small.

This wasn't a political prosecution and amazingly despite being told that the jury selection was rigged it clearly wasn't. Fancy that!

A Dub in Glasgo · 29-06-2017 5:17pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Based on the evidence as reported, I would have argued against acquittal. But as I keep saying, my opinion on the verdict is irrelevant to the process.

What bit of the evidence convinces you beyond reasonable doubt that the 6 were quilty of false imprisonment? Is the judge also wrong to highlight the doubts?

FrancieBrady · 29-06-2017 5:18pm

L1011 wrote: »

There was plenty of material directed solely at the DPP. Political pressure is still political pressure when its from a different politician.

There was also more than enough content posted across the entire internet that, if from the other side and the other result would have lead to calls for a retrial or a Haughey "no fair trial" decision due to jury poisoning.

The DPP should not be affected by what goes on on the internet. Really.

L1011 · 29-06-2017 5:20pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DPP should not be affected by what goes on on the internet. Really.

The DPP does not respond to political pressure - that's my point.

The crap directed at the DPP from the # side was a lot more than just online, though.

FrancieBrady · 29-06-2017 5:22pm

L1011 wrote: »

The DPP does not respond to political pressure - that's my point.

How do you know this?

The crap directed at the DPP from the # side was a lot more than just online, though.

What else was directed at the DPP?
Political comment? He/she should be immune from that also, it's in the job description - 'The DPP should be independent'.

L1011 · 29-06-2017 5:32pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you know

You're the one making the accusation, while also hand-waving away the only known political pressure to have occurred. Burden of proof is on you.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What else was directed at the DPP?
Political comment? He/she should be immune from that also, it's in the job description - 'The DPP should be independent'.

Posters. Marches. Elected representatives calling for the independent DPP to drop charges. All textbook political pressure - the only political pressure that is known to have occurred here. And the DPP didn't pay attention to it.

kylith · 29-06-2017 5:35pm

I'm pleased with the result. You can't really hold someone prisoner if they're in a vehicle that can kill you.

Professor Moriarty · 29-06-2017 5:39pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What bit of the evidence convinces you beyond reasonable doubt that the 6 were quilty of false imprisonment? Is the judge also wrong to highlight the doubts?

Lots of it. The fact that an occupant felt terrified, especially. The judge would be far more au fait with the facts than me and made their own decision. I trust their decision and the process.

Zebra3 · 29-06-2017 5:39pm

L1011 wrote: »

There was plenty of material directed solely at the DPP. Political pressure is still political pressure when its from a different politician.

There was also more than enough content posted across the entire internet that, if from the other side and the other result would have lead to calls for a retrial or a Haughey "no fair trial" decision due to jury poisoning.

The other thing that needs to be realised is that there was nothing to gain politically from convicting the 6. No judge would be willing to go over the 6 months required for losing the Dail seat and we have a nice long heritage of TDs in prison; and you'd instantly create 6 martyrs. The protests that'd come after an imprisonment could make some of the previous ones look small.

This wasn't a political prosecution and amazingly despite being told that the jury selection was rigged it clearly wasn't. Fancy that!

Why was there a dawn raid carried out on a TD then?

Were there any dawn raids carried out on right-wing politicans who were up to their necks in corruption?

As we've seen with Clare Daly, AGS have a clear right-wing bias.

How many dawn raids were carried out on the premises of the RC Church to find documents on child rapists and how they were being protected?

Why have AGS not arrested a well-known wealthy businessman for bribing a government minister to win a telecoms contract?

Maybe AGS are too busy stitching up whistle blowers.

lazybones32 · 29-06-2017 5:40pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Sheeple?

Jaysus that's embarrassing.

Should i be embarrassed by that word or something?

railer201 · 29-06-2017 5:41pm

McCrack wrote: »

Defination of false imprisonment:

False imprisonment.

15.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of false imprisonment who intentionally or recklessly—

(a) takes or detains, or

(b) causes to be taken or detained, or

(c) otherwise restricts the personal liberty of,

another without that other's consent

I was of the view the car was surrounded for at least two hours. It was a hostile crowd. The occupants couldn't get out and the car could not move as it was surrounded.

In my eyes that is false imprisonment both in the ordinary meaning and the legal meaning above and for that reason I am disappointment with the jury decision however I do respect it.

If you're talking about imprisonment, would you consider a comparative prison sentence of two hours to be rational then ?

L1011 · 29-06-2017 5:50pm

I'm not sure why you're asking me questions about the actions of AGS when I haven't discussed same, but as some of them are incredibly easy to answer:

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why was there a dawn raid carried out on a TD then?

Because that is when you go to arrest someone with a day job, who hasn't specifically arranged to be arrested - e.g. by turning up at a police station. Time and place you're most likely to find them.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Were there any dawn raids carried out on right-wing politicans who were up to their necks in corruption?

See Liam Lawlor, Ray Burke, Fred Forsey.

If you want to go accuse others of being up to their necks in corruption by all means do, but its your libel lawyers you'd want to talk to first.

Zebra3 wrote: »

How many dawn raids were carried out on the premises of the RC Church to find documents on child rapists and how they were being protected?

Those were provided surprisingly easily in most cases - or known to be destroyed.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why have AGS not arrested a well-known wealthy businessman for bribing a government minister to win a telecoms contract?

Because there is on-going civil litigation that it would immediately prejudice. Realistically there'd be zero chance of a criminal prosecution after doing that.

Rezident · 29-06-2017 5:57pm

still guilty of being complete skangers though - are they proud of what they did to joan and her assistant? knackers.

Captain Obvious · 29-06-2017 6:00pm

Rezident wrote: »

still guilty of being complete skangers though - are they proud of what they did to joan and her assistant? knackers.

Of course they're proud. The far left is as bad as the far right. Two sides of the same ****ty coin.

nc6000 · 29-06-2017 6:02pm

Rezident wrote: »

still guilty of being complete skangers though - are they proud of what they did to joan and her assistant? knackers.

They sure are and I reckon this verdict will only encourage them to act like that again.

I've seen winning syndicates outside the National Lottery offices who didn't look as happy as they did outside the court today.

FrancieBrady · 29-06-2017 6:04pm

L1011 wrote: »

You're the one making the accusation, while also hand-waving away the only known political pressure to have occurred. Burden of proof is on you.

eh, I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I said it was legitimate to have the opinion that there was political pressure here just as it is to say (without any back up) that there wasn't, which is what you just did.

Posters. Marches. Elected representatives calling for the independent DPP to drop charges. All textbook political pressure - the only political pressure that is known to have occurred here. And the DPP didn't pay attention to it.

[\QUOTE]
Which the DPP should be rightly immune from. We dont know if direct political pressure was applied though.

L1011 · 29-06-2017 6:05pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which the DPP should be rightly immune from. We dont know if direct political pressure was applied though.

We know full well it was applied by (Murphy) and on behalf of the defense.

FrancieBrady · 29-06-2017 6:08pm

L1011 wrote: »

We know full well it was applied by (Murphy) and on behalf of the defense.

Murphy is not in a position of power over the DPP. He can therefore be easily ignored.

L1011 · 29-06-2017 6:10pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Murphy is not in a position of power over the DPP. He can therefore be easily ignored.

Neither is anyone else, as its an independent body.

Are you saying that political pressure is acceptable from one side and not another, then?

From the media coverage today (on an outlet very friendly towards them - the Newscorp owned radio stations despite their ownership) it seems even the 6 are directly ire towards the Guards pretty much solely.

Jayop · 29-06-2017 6:11pm

Libadour wrote: »

The worst thing about this for me is that the tactics of the AAA appear to be working. Threatening, abusing and intimidating people you don't agree with all appear to be fair game. I wonder where the line will be drawn?

The best thing about this for me is the tactics of the ruling parties doesn't appear to be working. Threatening with the guards, private security teams, & imprisonment on trumped up charges people you don't agree with is no longer fair game. Hopefully this is where the line will be drawn.

Better?

ooter · 29-06-2017 6:16pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Clear enough that a mob detained an elected representative against her will.

The sinister fringe?
Another elected representative had his time wasted for the last 8 weeks by another mob.

L1011 · 29-06-2017 6:17pm

Libadour wrote: »

The worst thing about this for me is that the tactics of the AAA appear to be working. Threatening, abusing and intimidating people you don't agree with all appear to be fair game. I wonder where the line will be drawn?

Their main tactic was to tie themselves to a single issue that is now resolved - including briefly changing the party name to that one issue. That never works well. Look at UKIPs performance since last year and that's without Brexit even being finalised. 146 councillors to 1; MP gone.

Adrian Kavanagh's most recent constituency level polling analysis has them all losing their seats, along with only RBB keeping his on the other side of the alliance.

https://adriankavanaghelections.org/2017/06/26/fine-gael-experiencing-a-leo-leap-constituency-level-analysis-of-the-ireland-thinksdail-mail-opinion-poll-26-june-2017/#more-12090

Polling is an inexact science, etc, etc.

jimmycrackcorm · 29-06-2017 6:22pm

ooter wrote:

The sinister fringe? Another elected representative had his time wasted for the last 8 weeks by another mob.

You're right. We should only try guilty people in court. Don't want to waste anyone's time who would be found innocent.

I'll suggest Daniel Day-Lewis come out of retirement to play Paul Murphy in the film. Definitely worth watching him say "I'm an innocent man" in a posh south Dublin accent.

FrancieBrady · 29-06-2017 6:32pm

L1011 wrote: »

Neither is anyone else, as its an independent body.

Well, it is obvious you are going for the faux naivety angle here. Everyone with an ounce of knowledge of this and other countries knows how it works. Power has it's privileges.
Personally, I think the separation of powers should be fully respected and upheld. I have said it several times now, and that it doesn't matter who engaged in it, it is wrong. But you keep snidely inferring otherwise and lying about what I said.
I'll leave it there, you clearly are not being rational.

L1011 · 29-06-2017 6:37pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll leave it there, you clearly are not being rational.

Says the person with an opinion they can't provide support for; and who thinks political pressure isn't actually pressure when they agree with it.

If you can provide anything other than some hunch that there was political pressure of the kind you don't agree with, please provide it.

Jayop · 29-06-2017 6:41pm

L1011 wrote: »

Says the person with an opinion they can't provide support for; and who thinks political pressure isn't actually pressure when they agree with it.

If you can provide anything other than some hunch that there was political pressure of the kind you don't agree with, please provide it.

You know you don't need evidence to have an opinion on something, don't you?

ooter · 29-06-2017 6:42pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'll suggest Daniel Day-Lewis come out of retirement to play Paul Murphy in the film. Definitely worth watching him say "I'm an innocent man" in a posh south Dublin accent.

Who would you suggest for the role of Joan?
The govt should find the making of the film, they might make back the money they wasted on this trial.

end of the road · 29-06-2017 6:43pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Please explain how this was an attempt to subvert democracy? At what point was the entire system of democracy under threat?

it was in my view an attempt to jail people for peacefully protesting. put them on trial on baseless charges and hopefully they will be found guilty, hence discrediting the anti-water charges movement. it backfired spectacularly and most of the people are greatful. lots of support for our boy paul murphy and co from what i can see reading online anyway.

Rezident wrote: »

still guilty of being complete skangers though - are they proud of what they did to joan and her assistant? knackers.

incorrect they aren't guilty of anything. the courts haven't found them guilty of anything therefore not guilty.

Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Comments