Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

1…910121415…35

Comments

  • #332
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jayop wrote: »
    Had they been charged for actual crimes they committed they probably would have been convicted, but they could be no more convicted of this than Burton's driver could have been convicted of speeding that afternoon.

    That's what is so galling about this whole fiasco. They should never have been charged with false inprisonment. PM had to be pulled up over tweeting live from the courtroom. This group of thugs have no respect for the Law. Peaceful protest my a@€e. Mindless thuggery more like.


  • #333
    Donal55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Donal55


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    That's what is so galling about this whole fiasco. They should never have been charged with false inprisonment. PM had to be pulled up over tweeting live from the courtroom. This group of thugs have no respect for the Law. Peaceful protest my a@€e. Mindless thuggery more like.

    A bit harsh Mary, they are innocent, or do you not agree with the court's findings?


  • #334
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Donal55 wrote: »
    A bit harsh Mary, they are innocent, or do you not agree with the court's findings?

    I do agree with the courts findings. That doesn't mean that no laws were broken that day. Having watched videos of the baying feral mob, I was saddened by what some people find acceptable in Ireland today.


  • #335
    robbiezero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,901 ✭✭✭robbiezero


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Seriously??

    I don't believe there was any direct political involvement in this trial, but come on.

    Having a political rival convicted of a criminal charge *obviously* undermines their cause, and doing so by a jury of their peers, in a court of law, does so in a way that is beyond defence. It would be deeply harmful to a political protest to have it so discredited in a court of law.

    I say again, I don't believe there was direct political involvement in this prosecution, but it is utterly naive to deny the potential harm that a criminal conviction would have provoked.

    It would clearly have had a chilling effect on opposition protesters. Surely you can see that?

    That lot aren't serious political rivals to anyone. They only get a handful of percent of the vote and it would suit the political establishment to keep them out of sight and out of mind.
    Jailing them might have resulted in actually increasing their support and maybe even garnering sympathy for them from people that don't even like them.
    I do think the guards probably saw a chance to send a serious message to potential future protesters and seized it.


  • #336
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,332 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Donal55 wrote: »
    A bit harsh Mary, they are innocent, or do you not agree with the court's findings?

    They were found innocent of false imprisonment but nothing about that protest was peaceful


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Seriously??

    I don't believe there was any direct political involvement in this trial, but come on.

    Having a political rival convicted of a criminal charge *obviously* undermines their cause, and doing so by a jury of their peers, in a court of law, does so in a way that is beyond defence. It would be deeply harmful to a political protest to have it so discredited in a court of law.

    I say again, I don't believe there was direct political involvement in this prosecution, but it is utterly naive to deny the potential harm that a criminal conviction would have provoked.

    It would clearly have had a chilling effect on opposition protesters. Surely you can see that?

    There are a few issues with that though.

    Paul Murphy really wasn't a "rival" or a serious threat to the Government.

    Too many people would have to be involved in any cover up. And people can be fickle. I doubt anyone would risk their careers and reputations to help any politician take on...again...Paul Murphy.

    And far from harming a career or a protest, convictions and imprisonment makes martyrs of those involved. What does anyone remember from the Shell to Sea Protest? The Rossport Five. They became a symbol of that entire issue.

    I think the whole issue smacks of bad behaviour by the protestors, but falling short of the charge laid against them, bad behaviour by the Gardaí and DPP in overreacting to the matter and going for the jugular, and something that a line should be drawn under now, except maybe hard questions asked about the DPP and whether they did any cost benefit analysis.


  • #338
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The salient fact of this shambles of a trial remains the fact that the judge directed the jury to ignore the 'sworn' garda evidence and to concentrate on the video evidence.

    That in and off itself should be the shocking headline here.


  • #339
    RollieFingers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,645 ✭✭✭RollieFingers


    It is hilarious seeing the reaction from the majority on here to 6 people being found not guilty. Poor oul Joan was so frightened in the car, directing her assistant to post on social media etc., gosh must have been such an ordeal :D

    Fantastic to see justice being served


  • #340
    knipex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭knipex


    Can anyone here actually stand up and say what happened in Jobstown on that day was right ? That it was completely acceptable behavior ?


  • #341
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    knipex wrote: »
    Can anyone here actually stand up adn say what happened in Jobstown on that day right ? That it was completely acceptable behavior ?

    The right to protest must remain untarnished by bad/criminal behaviour of a few.
    Of course there were aspects of what happened that day that were not right just as there were things undertaken to quell water protests that were not right.
    It was never a black and white case.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There are a few issues with that though.

    Paul Murphy really wasn't a "rival" or a serious threat to the Government.
    Nor did my point assume that he was. I have repeatedly said there was no direct political involvement in this trial.

    I am merely stating the point that a successful prosecution tends to be a neat way of discrediting a person and their political agenda; if you try to defend that person, you are quickly seen as someone who has no respect for the separation of powers, and the rule of law.

    The awkward situation in which many people now find themselves, is that they cannot fairly criticise this verdict without themselves being on the wrong side of the rule of law.


  • #343
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,941 ✭✭✭20Cent


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The salient fact of this shambles of a trial remains the fact that the judge directed the jury to ignore the 'sworn' garda evidence and to concentrate on the video evidence.

    That in and off itself should be the shocking headline here.

    Exactly right.
    Far more serious than anything else from this trial but the Irish Times is moaning about the "tone" of social media comments.


  • #344
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,332 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    20Cent wrote: »
    Exactly right.
    Far more serious than anything else from this trial but the Irish Times is moaning about the "tone" of social media comments.

    No the irish times is talking about people admitting to breaking the law

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/the-jobstown-trial-and-the-social-media-justice-warriors-1.3138089?mode=amp
    ‘It’s against the law, but we felt there is a political nature to this trial so we’d do it anyway’

    So its grand to break the law if you don't agree with it


  • #345
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    20Cent wrote: »
    Exactly right.
    Far more serious than anything else from this trial but the Irish Times is moaning about the "tone" of social media comments.

    For decades the establishment(basically the FF FG power-sharing axis) had access to the media to propagate their agendas (no conspiracy theory, just the fact that they had easier access) and the media played along with this, with a few exceptions.
    Of course the media hates social media because it gives access to every voice. The UK is similarly wrestling with this as well in the wake of the recent elections and how the media as a whole was used.


  • #346
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,941 ✭✭✭20Cent


    VinLieger wrote: »
    No the irish times is talking about people admitting to breaking the law

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/the-jobstown-trial-and-the-social-media-justice-warriors-1.3138089?mode=amp



    So its grand to break the law if you don't agree with it

    Judge advises jury to disregard garda testimony.
    facebook and twitter posts.

    which is the main issue.
    id say the former.


  • #347
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    godtabh wrote: »
    Good God we'll have to suffer more through Murphy

    It would have been worse if they were convicted.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #348
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Nor did my point assume that he was. I have repeatedly said there was no direct political involvement in this trial.

    I am merely stating the point that a successful prosecution tends to be a neat way of discrediting a person and their political agenda; if you try to defend that person, you are quickly seen as someone who has no respect for the separation of powers, and the rule of law.

    The awkward situation in which many people now find themselves, is that they cannot fairly criticise this verdict without themselves being on the wrong side of the rule of law.

    Murphy is a self-promoting tool who got away with it. But I agree that he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law. You can disagree with the verdict but accept the decision.


  • #349
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,332 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    20Cent wrote: »
    Judge advises jury to disregard garda testimony.
    facebook and twitter posts.

    which is the main issue.
    id say the former.

    Id say both are equally important in their own light and neither cancels each other out


  • #350
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Id say both are equally important in their own light and neither cancels each other out

    Social media comment by ordinary people is as important as the integrity of the Garda force???? Really?


  • #351
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,008 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    red ears wrote: »
    I must admit i haven't followed this but was it not the case that they blocked someone in their car for a couple of hours. How is that legal?

    It's not legal, nor is it false imprisonment.

    This could easily have been dealt with on the day by the Garda instructing the crowd to disperse and arresting those that didn't under breach of the peace laws followed up with a court appearance.

    I'd question why did the Gardai present not take that line of action? That's what the did at numerous other water charge protests so why not this time?

    My guess is that someone saw a opportunity to discredit the protest politically and went for it .

    DPP has serious questions to answer too , the charges were blatantly wrong from the outset.

    The way the Garda have handled the whole issue has seriously damaged their credibility with a large section of the irish population.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Id say both are equally important in their own light and neither cancels each other out

    Jesus lol. Institutional corruption is equal to some pleb on Twitter or Facebook spouting.


  • #353
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,891 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    I find it hilarious Paul Murphy actually paid his water charges from his 1 million expenses from having a seat in Europe where he has done nothing to stand up against the big evil corporation:)

    He also caved in and paid his property tax.

    His desire to climb the property ladder clearly trumping his principles and what he was advising anyone who was daft enough to listen.


  • #354
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,332 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Social media comment by ordinary people is as important as the integrity of the Garda force???? Really?

    Intentionally breaking the law with an intent to interfere in the judicial process?

    That's not a serious issue to you? Or is it that you agree with them so don't care?

    I agree the what the gardai got up to is serious and should be investigated but claiming to be fighting for judicial integrity while at the same time ignoring others attempts at subverting it because you agree with their political beliefs is incredibly hypocritical.


  • #355
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    He also caved in and paid his property tax.

    His desire to climb the property ladder clearly trumping his principles and what he was advising anyone who was daft enough to listen.

    The 'agenda' is still intact I see.
    'Get Paul Murphy' (I personally do not like his politics btw) despite the fact that there were 5 other people on trial here and 16? more to come and one sentenced.


  • #356
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Intentionally breaking the law with an intent to interfere in the judicial process?

    That's not a serious issue to you? Or is it that you agree with them so don't care?

    I agree the what the gardai got up to is serious and should be investigated but claiming to be fighting for judicial integrity while at the same time ignoring others attempts at subverting it because you agree with their political beliefs is incredibly hypocritical.

    People commenting on social media are breaking/attempting to subvert the law?


  • #357
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Intentionally breaking the law with an intent to interfere in the judicial process?
    Amazing how Judge Greally didn't find any of the defendants to be in contempt of court, but many of our armchair judiciary in this thread have no hesitation in arriving at this conclusion.

    It's one thing to say (quite fairly) that Murphy shouldn't have tweeted from the trial in real-time.

    It's quite another to say that he intended to interfere with a jury. Any juror who was reading his tweets would themselves potentially be held in contempt of court.


  • #358
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,332 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    People commenting on social media are breaking/attempting to subvert the law?

    Yes as its illegal to comment on jury trials while they are in progress.

    A quote from AAA/Solidarity's press officer
    "Obviously, it’s against the law, but we felt there is a political nature to this trial so that we’d do it anyway."


  • #359
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 92,394 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Christy Moore or Damo Dempsey will surely get a song out of this


  • #360
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,332 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    Christy Moore or Damo Dempsey will surely get a song out of this

    Pity they burned their bridges with Hansard over christmas


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Yes as its illegal to comment on jury trials while they are in progress.

    A quote from AAA/Solidarity's press officer

    But comment in the media is ok? There was plenty of that too, right across the spectrum.


Advertisement