There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Warned and threadbanned for a post the Mod cannot produce despite numerous requests to do so.
-
13-11-2021 5:54pm#1
Comments
-
I understand you are all busy, So here is the post where I allegedly claimed that a court had decided Varadkar had received a benefit and was sanctioned for. So please explain to me where I even remotely made a claim that a court had found a benefit had accrued in Varadkar's case.
It was posted at the time that, gain, personal or otherwise, is immaterial and will not have to be proved if this goes to court. It is assumed that some benefit accrued.
Besides, lord knows what the Garda Criminal investigation has uncovered. If the DPP elects to charge there will be enough/strong enough evidence to satisfy the court in the DPP's opinion.
Here is the PM exchange which Beasty wanted posted in it's entirety (as he said on the Feedback thread..a passive aggressive warning if ever there was one)
Passive aggressive because he obviously wants it in it's entirety (I was never going to edit it) and he hopes the fact we traded insults is going to remove the onus for him to produce a post of mine that claimed a court had found Varadkar had received a benefit will be ignored and a CMod will use that to refuse this appeal.
He felt it appropriate to tell me what he thought of me...I responded by telling him my view of him. If he hadn't made a boo boo by sanctioning me the PM exchange would not have happened.
Not expecting much here after Spear's contribution on the other thread in Feedback but let's see how you handle it and produce the mythical post where I claimed a court had found Varadkar had received a benefit.
- Beasty November 10
- You are being warned for the following post:
Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05
- markodalyNov 9, 2021
- https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144016#Comment_118144016
- It is assumed that some benefit accrued.
- By who? You?
- By the court.
- And by me incidentally.
- Even if it was just a return of a favour where benefit accrued.
- That kind of 'benefit' is difficult to prove hence it being assumed.
- View Post
- Please provide evidence of a court conviction and I will lift this. If you cannot you are threadbanned
- FrancieBrady November 10
- Sorry I don't understand what I have to prove here Beasty.
- Beasty November 10
- You have made a claim of a court determining a benefit has accrued
- Please provide evidence of that. In the meantime you are threadbanned
- FrancieBrady November 10
- I was making the point that the court will deem that a benefit has accrued. The burden of proof falls on the accused to prove that benefit/advantage has not been gained.
- See the case here and this passage:
the gift or consideration or advantage shall be deemed to have been given and received corruptly as an inducement to or reward for the person performing or omitting to perform any of the functions aforesaid unless the contrary is proved.”
- Mark in his usual way has turned that in to me stating that a court has found that Varadkar has been deemed to have recieved an adavantage.
- I was speaking generally, NOT about Varadkar, who hasn't stood in a court in relation to this.
- Court of Appeal Rules on Reverse Burden of Proof in Corruption Case (mccannfitzgerald.com)
- Beasty November 10
- You are now threadbanned
- FrancieBrady November 10
- WHat? Beasty come on...this is wrong.
- Beasty November 10
- No - you have been very blatantly attempting to circumvent some very clear mod warnings. That is unacceptable.
- FrancieBrady November 10
- The original point I made.
- #10910
- Skillfully turned into something else by Mark.
- Beasty November 10
- you were trying to circumvent mod instructions on a number of occasions
- you are now suffering the consequences
- FrancieBrady November 10
- I presented you with the original comment and the back up for that, which was posted before on the thread.
- Somebody else turned that into me saying something else.
- You have sided with that interpretation and given me no latitude at all.
- Beasty November 10
- If it was once I might be persuaded otherwise, but you repeatedly tried to inject comments that were clearly aimed at implying guilt in the absence of any conviction
- FrancieBrady November 10
- The Garda Criminal investigation imply's that he may be guilty. I have never said anymore than that.
- You might as well ban all discussion of that investigation.
- You are just turning the thread into echo chambers that only those creating the echo go to anymore...like the SHinner thread.
- Threadban away...I backed up, with the actual pieces of legislation my original post ( deliberately misinterpreted to con you into acting IMO) and that is being ignored by a lazy mod.
- FrancieBrady November 10
- Can you point to the post where I made this claim?
You have made a claim of a court determining a benefit has accrued
- As Varadkar has not been in 'court' I cannot for the life of me see how this is not a mis-interpretation of the conversation. As I said in my defence, Mark definitely pretended (or otherwise) that's what I was saying.
- FrancieBrady November 10
- Any chance you can point to the post where I made this claim please Beasty?
You have made a claim of a court determining a benefit has accrued
- I understand that you may have been mis-directed here by Mark's interpretation of what I said. I did not claim any court had made a determination on what Varadkar did or didn't receive.
- FrancieBrady November 10
- Can I take it you are not going to point to the post where I claimed a court found that Varadkar had received a benefit?
You have made a claim of a court determining a benefit has accrued
- I will state again that I was referring to what would happen if the case got to court...and the linked article which states that the burden of proof is on a defendent to prove that no benefit has been received - i.e. the court will 'assume' a benefit has accrued.
- That is all I was saying in my original post to Mark here:
It was posted at the time that, gain, personal or otherwise, is immaterial and will not have to be proved if this goes to court. It is assumed that some benefit accrued.
Besides, lord knows what the Garda Criminal investigation has uncovered. If the DPP elects to charge there will be enough/strong enough evidence to satisfy the court in the DPP's opinion.
- Beasty November 11
- You were predicting what a court may do. That's not your or my role. Indeed it is potentially prejudicial to any court case.
- And fine I'm a lazy mod, having to interact with the likes of you while spending 3 hours+ most days just acting on reports and related follow ups. That's in addition to my site-wide responsibilities.
- TBH the attitude of the likes of you and the demands you make on my time by your behaviour in CA, I'm at the stage of just giving you even shorter shrift. You are a complete time-waster and there are far more deserving causes on this site that warrant my attention
- FrancieBrady November 11
- Utter rubbish Beasty and you know it.
- Take a read of the Rittenhouse thread and what people are predicting the court should or will do.
- You made a mistake here and you are covering.
- I LINKED TO CASE LAW on the burden of proof. It is therefore a certain fact what the court will consider.
- I was angered by my name being associated with telling a lie in your, on thread moderation. If you are going to demand I appreciate what strain you are under you should at least understand why somebody would be angry about that. We are only human.
- And if you cannot see what Marine and Mark in particular are trying to do on that thread then that is another indictment of you 'respond to reports' method of moderation.
- I will remind you that when you pinged me last, I accepted it and didn't challenge you. I do my best to stay out of trouble in a robust debating environment.
- But anyway, you do what you deem fit.
- Beasty November 11
- Yes we are all human
- And you have proven to be just about the most awkward/demanding poster I have encountered in 12 years on this site
- As I've said, there are far more worthy causes on this site that I can devote my time to
- FrancieBrady November 11
- Beasty, you got this one wrong. When you couldn't point to a post where I said what you claimed I said, you changed what the 'rule' I was breaking. Which, as I said, isnt a rule enforced on the site.
- I was angry about being accused of lying. I didn't.
- There"s nothing I can do about your opinion of me.
- Are you able to admit to being wrong here?
- Beasty November 11
- OK, more time wasted, but here are more quotes from you
- "There is no proof he is innocent and we have his own confession of wrongdoing which makes a criminal inquiry the correct next step"
- Clearly implying criminal wrongdoing, even if not explicitly stating so
- "It is assumed that some benefit accrued."
- That is your personal assumption - but you word it as if it's some accepted fact
- "The buffalo doesnt need to be told the wolf needs to be repelled...if you catch my drift. Nudge nudge wink wink!"
- "Plenty of allegation, get it out there, muddy the water, don't matter if it's true"
- Your statement to try and add emphasis to your personal assumption of guilt
- "Didn't think there was another explanation. Night."
- That's over not much more than a single day and not even the "court" comment. As I posted in the thread you were trying to skirt round very clear mod instructions. You have made your mind up and you have taken every opportunity to force home your personal views of guilt
- Time duly wasted - now no more
- FrancieBrady November 11
- Jesus Beasty, this is appalling.
- Now you are taking things totally out of context to try and cover the fact that you CAN'T find a post making the claim you said I did.
- There are several comments from me here that weren't even about Varadkar and the case. **** hell. You really have lost the run of yourself.
- And now you shut down the conversation.
- Why don't you just leave the job to somebody with a bit more moral fibre.
- **** me, the spinning about you have done to cover your arse here! Laughable.
- Take it handy lad...I think you might need to dial things down a notch or you'll make yourself ill. It's just an internet forum.
- FrancieBrady November 11
- I just went back to check the context of those comments you plucked, this one:
I would say there is nothing organised about it.
When you are inside the circle you know what you gotta do Mark.
The buffalo doesnt need to be told the wolf needs to be repelled...if you catch my drift. Nudge nudge wink wink!
- If you look at the rest of the post it isn't even about Varadkar, it is about the media.
- I know exactly what happened here, you responded to a report from Mark or Marine or somebody else and lazily assumed I had made a claim that Varadkar was guilty of receiving a benefit and now you are trying to justify yourself.
- I know you know it too, but you have the power and a lack of scruples, wield way with the ban hammer, I've met plenty like you in life.
8