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…1011131516…35

Comments

  • #362
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


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

    Was there?

    Once people think it's OK to comment on an ongoing trial on twitter or whatever Facebook page then it's the start of trials collapsing left right and centre.

    It's very dangerous.


  • #363
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,332 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


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

    No theres was reporting of the facts of the case day to day, once the trial started there was no commenting or opinion pieces in the media.

    You can try argue this all you want but they themselves admitted they broke the law


  • #364
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    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.

    The Irish media gives everyone a soft time. Everyone. Across the political spectrum.


  • #365
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


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

    Where? Other than reporting the facts of the trial obviously.


  • #366
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    VinLieger wrote: »
    No theres was reporting of the facts of the case day to day, once the trial started there was no commenting or opinion pieces in the media.

    You can try argue this all you want but they themselves admitted they broke the law

    If they broke the law they should be prosecuted, simple as.

    And I certainly heard comment on the progress of the trial all over the media. Marion Finucane, Vincent Browne etc. With comment on Burton's evidence, Murphy's, and The Gardai. etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If they broke the law they should be prosecuted, simple as.

    And I certainly heard comment on the progress of the trial all over the media. Marion Finucane, Vincent Browne etc. With comment on Burton's evidence, Murphy's, and The Gardai. etc.

    There's a difference between reporting the facts of a trial and proclaiming them guilty/not guilty in opinion pieces. That's why boards stopped discussion while the trial was going on.


  • #368
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    There's a difference between reporting the facts of a trial and proclaiming them guilty/not guilty in opinion pieces. That's why boards stopped discussion while the trial was going on.

    The DPP warned Murphy, if he continued to break the law then the onus was on the DPP to bring a charge. As yet, the DPP hasn't.


  • #369
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    It's very dangerous.
    Would you go on outta that.

    Courts have always taken the view that jurors are intelligent people, and are well capable of disregarding commentary they come across in broadcast media, online, or elsewhere in the court of public opinion.

    I think it's pretty patronising to jurors to assume that they are lacking in an ability to set-aside such commentary, especially when it comes from parties themselves.


  • #370
    diomed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭diomed


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Would you go on outta that.

    Courts have always taken the view that jurors are intelligent people, and are well capable of disregarding commentary they come across in broadcast media, online, or elsewhere in the court of public opinion.

    I think it's pretty patronising to jurors to assume that they are lacking in an ability to set-aside such commentary, especially when it comes from parties themselves.
    The judge told us not to watch the news, read newspapers, or discuss the trial with anybody when I was on a jury.


  • #371
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    diomed wrote: »
    I was told not to watch the news, read newspapers, or discuss the trial it with anybody when I was on a jury.
    Of course. And that's part of the reason why the hysteria about Paul Murphy's tweeting is so odd.

    I'm referring to the courts' views of commentary prior to a trial commencing, such as that of CJ Haughey (which, as far as I recall, was delayed for reasons of ill health). The courts have almost always found that jurors are well-capable of disregarding what they read in the media, or hear in the street.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Would you go on outta that.

    Courts have always taken the view that jurors are intelligent people, and are well capable of disregarding commentary they come across in broadcast media, online, or elsewhere in the court of public opinion.

    I think it's pretty patronising to jurors to assume that they are lacking in an ability to set-aside such commentary, especially when it comes from parties themselves.

    Are you really suggesting it's OK for anyone to discuss evidence and a trial online before a person is even found guilty or not guilty?

    Jesus wept.


  • #373
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    Are you really suggesting it's OK for anyone to discuss evidence and a trial online before a person is even found guilty or not guilty?

    Jesus wept.
    Why is Jesus always weeping when people don't know how better to end a post on boards.ie?

    No, I am not suggesting it's OK to discuss a trial online, but doing so cannot seriously, or generally, be described as "dangerous". That's a little hysterical.


  • #374
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    I had to laugh. I remember the front page of all the right wing media the day of the incident. The acquittal made page 4 of the indo today.


  • #375
    BillyBobBS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭BillyBobBS


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    I seen missiles been hurled at Joan and the gards in the youtube videos.

    Is this the protest you speak of and want protected?

    Water balloon at Burton and a few scumbags threw rocks at Gardai that had nothing to do with the official protest. But you already know this ;)


  • #376
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Why is Jesus always weeping when people don't know how better to end a post on boards.ie?

    No, I am not suggesting it's OK to discuss a trial online, but doing so cannot seriously, or generally, be described as "dangerous". That's a little hysterical.

    So trials collapsing because of this isn't dangerous?

    People getting off on serious crimes isn't dangerous?

    Jesus wept.


  • #377
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    So trials collapsing because of this isn't dangerous?

    People getting off on serious crimes isn't dangerous?

    Jesus wept.
    How many trials are you aware of having collapsed because of publicity, say in the past 5 years, during which time there has been an enormous increase in social media usage?

    *passes Jesus a kleenex*


  • #378
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    So trials collapsing because of this isn't dangerous?

    People getting off on serious crimes isn't dangerous?

    Jesus wept.

    Well, is the DPP not at fault for making a complete hames of this trial - first to last?
    The DPP was aware that tweets were being made.


  • #379
    diomed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭diomed


    A non-jury trial resulted in "case dismissed" because of Facebook comments.
    http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2012/03/witness-comments-on-facebook-cause.html

    The link questions why a non-jury case was dismissed.
    Posting on social media during a jury trial is unwise.
    Trials cost a pile of money.


  • #380
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The DPP warned Murphy, if he continued to break the law then the onus was on the DPP to bring a charge. As yet, the DPP hasn't.
    Oh I don't think anything like this is going to result in charges. I'm just pointing out the difference between media reports and social media comments.


  • #381
    strawberryb0y
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 192 ✭✭strawberryb0y


    Anyone watching RTE news report on the event since it happened would have had an unfair view of the events on the day tbf.

    They parroted Burton's claims about being blocked in by protesters from the very beginning.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    BillyBobBS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭BillyBobBS


    strawberryb0y wrote: »
    Anyone watching RTE news report on the event since it happened would have had an unfair view of the events on the day tbf.

    They parroted Burton's claims about being blocked in by protesters from the very beginning.

    RTE, about as fair and balanced as a drunk man on a bicycle.


  • #383
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    Oh I don't think anything like this is going to result in charges. I'm just pointing out the difference between media reports and social media comments.

    Cases have been dismissed and trials have collapsed because jurors read newspaper articles too, jurors have fallen asleep, and because jurors have looked for information elsewhere.
    If Murphy's tweets were potentially affecting the deliberations of the jury, shouldn't the DPP have done something?


  • #384
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Cases have been dismissed and trials have collapsed because jurors read newspaper articles too, jurors have fallen asleep, and because jurors have looked for information elsewhere.
    If Murphy's tweets were potentially affecting the deliberations of the jury, shouldn't the DPP have done something?

    Are you denying the difference?

    By the letter of the law, yeah the DPP could do something, but I don't think that would be very smart given the situation.


  • #385
    Boggy Turf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 427 ✭✭Boggy Turf


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Why is Jesus always weeping when people don't know how better to end a post on.

    :-) Classic!


  • #386
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    Are you denying the difference?

    By the letter of the law, yeah the DPP could do something, but I don't think that would be very smart given the situation.

    I am not denying anything. Murphy tweeted from the trial and nothing was done bar a warning.

    Why would it not be very smart?


  • #387
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I am not denying anything. Murphy tweeted from the trial and nothing was done bar a warning.

    Why would it not be very smart?

    I don't think another charge after the original court case would go down very well, that's all.

    And it seems that the DPP did do something - Murphy was warned, he deleted the tweets, all good.


  • #388
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    I don't think another charge after the original court case would go down very well, that's all.

    Ah right, the DPP is ok to make a politically efficient decision and ignore the law for the 'greater good'.
    But the DPP was doing an independent job in bringing this to trial in the first place as some have claimed?


  • #389
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,332 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    But the DPP was doing an independent job in bringing this to trial in the first place as some have claimed?

    Ironically your now calling for the DPP to be presumed guilty until proven innocent which is exactly what everyone was complaining was happening to murphy and co.

    The presumption is always the DPP is acting independently until it can be proven otherwise.


  • #390
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,692 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Ironically your now calling for the DPP to be presumed guilty until proven innocent which is exactly what everyone was complaining was happening to murphy and co.

    The presumption is always the DPP is acting independently until it can be proven otherwise.

    Once again, it was somebody else who claimed the DPP made a politically expedient decision or that they should do.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Ironically your now calling for the DPP to be presumed guilty until proven innocent which is exactly what everyone was complaining was happening to murphy and co.

    The presumption is always the DPP is acting independently until it can be proven otherwise.

    Being suspicious of something and calling for an investigation isn't presuming guilt. The facts that we do know look suspicious. The guards giving what appears to be false statements that they collided on. The media alerted before the arrests. The trumped up charges.

    There's enough smoke to be suspicious of something untoward having happened and I'd like to know what. Unfortunately we live in a country even if someone is found guilty of wrong doing, if they have enough powerful friends they'll face no long term issues.


Advertisement