Man gets 10 months for threatening to send personal pics

Calahonda52

The new advert all over social media should highlight this sentence.

The perps need to consider the impact this sort of sh$t can have on their targets, as noted above, victims of this sort of sh$t have committed suicide.

2smiggy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139417#Comment_122139417

this could come under the new hate speech law, that they haven't told what defines hate speech yet, but they will know it when they see it ….

lertsnim

The same judge that hands out suspended sentences to people in possession of child porn. He really must have had a dislike for this guy.

gmisk

No issue with the sentence, horrible thing to do to someone.

But Judge Nolans sentencing is all over the shop.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139399#Comment_122139399

And I think any of those people should also be prosecuted. Threatening to leak a person's private sensitive photos is psychological abuse. You can try to downplay but it's not acceptable.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139345#Comment_122139345

And I think most people here agree that Nolan often gets it very wrong but in this case, it was the correct result. Doesn't mean we approve of his other sentences.

2smiggy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139850#Comment_122139850

it said he had drink/drug issues, and homeless for periods. No doubt if he had been from a 'better home' there would have been a different sentence (or more than likely a donation to the poor box and no more)

JayRoc

Blackmail, extortion, slander, libel..

There have always been legal and civil penalties for saying, writing, or threatening certain things.

I believe in freedom of speech actually, but that is not the same thing as freedom to slander, freedom to threaten, freedom to extort, freedom to blackmail...

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139844#Comment_122139844

It doesn't have anything to do with hate speech and there is already legislation in place for this type of behaviour - the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act, 2020.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139441#Comment_122139441

Nobody has defended a scumbag. As far as I can see, everyone has thoroughly condemned his actions.

If the sentence were 10-years, would you still say that we're "defending a scumbag"?

No, of course not.

It's about assessing the nuance of what is a proportionate sentence for the crime committed.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139887#Comment_122139887

In fairness, the OP appears to believe it shouldn't even be a crime…

2smiggy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139886#Comment_122139886

not this case. Last year they announced they were bringing in a new hate crime bill, but when questioned they would not define what a 'hate crime' is. I find that very concerning. Hence I said they will tell you a hate crime when they see it.

Ezeoul

For anyone who missed the campaign that was splashed all over the TV:

https://youtu.be/qcXjnxSGenc?si=5Lwr-8mNgniFGFwU

What this man did is already a crime.

Ezeoul

Stop deflecting. This case has nothing to do with any proposed hate speech legislation.

Unless you think this guy was charged, convicted and sentenced on legislation that isn't in place yet. 🙄

knucklehead6

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139897#Comment_122139897

Not standing up for Markus (who is well capable of standing up for himself) but i don't think he suggested that it shouldn't be a crime.

i think he is suggesting that the chap who has state sponsored bed and board wasn't being serious when he had an attack of the drunken stupids.

I only hope that if Markus was a victim of a lad who decided to punch him to the ground, or drove his car into him after a case of the drunken stupids would be quote as forgiving…. Just to be consistent like…

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139320#Comment_122139320

@knucklehead6 based on this post, I don't think he thinks it should be a crime at all..

Ficheall

"Remorse" as in the drunken message was later followed with "Sorry, I was incredibly drunk and emotional the other evening when I left that message - obviously I would never do something as horrible as that. I've deleted all of the content you sent me."? Or did he just leave your w'an to fret over his threat for months?

2smiggy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139931#Comment_122139931

deflecting ? you are showing an ad from a campaign that came out after what he did.

knucklehead6

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139945#Comment_122139945

Maybe i'm the eternal optimist, looking for the good in people. I genuinely think the OP's issue is with the fact that the criminal was drunk and so (in The OP's mind) the words shouldn't matter cos the chap was drunk.

I do NOT agree with him, far too many cowards hide behind the "Ah sure 'twas just the drink talking" etc, and i hate that sh!te.

Shoog

It was just as probable that in his drunken state he actually shared those images. Been drunk is never a defense in law and actually makes you far more likely to commit a crime. Apologies after the fact are useless.

This man with those photos was a ticking time bomb and without intervention those photos would eventually be published.

Punish him and send a clear message to young and old lads that you are next if you do the same.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139438#Comment_122139438

Show those conspiracy threads markus.

Also show the slippery slope from blackmail to freedom of speech being threatened and attempt to defend blackmail.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139954#Comment_122139954

Yes, deflecting.

He was charged on existing legislation, which is the point you seem to be missing.

Again, nothing to do with proposed legislation that doesn't exist yet.

There are threads here on that already if you want to talk about it, instead of derailing this one.

cgcsb

Delighted with this sentence but puzzled by it also. The same judge has given less punishment to violent rapists and child molesters.

magicbastarder

re the sentence being handed down even though it was 'just' a threat - this is nothing new, assault does not require actual physical harm, a threat of physical harm constitutes assault.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

		(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or
		(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,
		without the consent of the other.

Boggles

He had a number of unrelated previous convictions from the District Court, the court heard

Obviously factored into the sentencing.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-41388106.html

Previous precedent. Longer sentence.

Hilarious people are trying to make this a freedom of sreech case.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122140047#Comment_122140047

I don't think it's hilarious. It's just the level of misogyny I expect here.

lmk123

He deserves it 100%. It’s a sick thing to threaten somebody with. It’s great to see a proper sentence for once. I think there should be minimum sentences for domestic abuse, rape, coercive control, child abuse etc. Don’t give the judges a choice but to hand the scumbags lengthy sentences. An example would be Paul Moody, he should have got life in jail for what he did, all the evidence in the world and he gets 3 years. About time these sick c***s see that they can’t get away with it using their “hard upbringing, addiction etc.” bull***t excuses.

Ashbourne hoop

The soft sentences for other crimes and in particular sentences handed out by Nolan previously, don't take away from the fact that this was the correct sentence. It sends a message out that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable and has real life consequences. I've no sympathy to be honest.

Quantum Erasure

It's fairly harsh imo, I wonder will he appeal it? If he got 6 months with three suspended I think that would still be 'sending a message'

JayRoc

To be fair, there is unquestionably an issue with the consistency of sentencing in general and with that judge in particular

DialecticAspirations

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122139887#Comment_122139887

Sorry sir, but the dialectic and critical thinking room is down the hall, first on the left.

This is the emotion and virtue signalling room.