Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Hilly Bill · 02-07-2017 12:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There was another lad who pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty in a juvenile court and got a suspended sentence. He's appealing.

He wasn't sentenced. It was a conditional discharge based on him not reoffending for the next 9 months or so. He was left without a conviction. It was basically a slap on the wrist for acting the maggot and told not to do it again. If I read correctly, it wasn't his first offence so he got off lightly with the judge using the conditional discharge as a deterrent for him not to reoffend. If he had no priors then I'd say the case would have been thrown out.

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 12:01PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes you are just interested in jailing those you don't like.

Elderly people are your crusade. Stop being so emot mean.

Anything on Paul and his cohorts?

02-07-2017 12:24PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

He wasn't sentenced. It was a conditional discharge based on him not reoffending for the next 9 months or so. He was left without a conviction. It was basically a slap on the wrist for acting the maggot and told not to do it again. If I read correctly, it wasn't his first offence so he got off lightly with the judge using the conditional discharge as a deterrent for him not to reoffend. If he had no priors then I'd say the case would have been thrown out.

Thanks, Hilly. I stand corrected.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 12:29PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Elderly people are your crusade. Stop being so emot mean.

Anything on Paul and his cohorts?

No they are not my crusade, but I think somebody who will only say they want certain people jailed (YOU have named two groups) and not others for the same offence is on a 'crusade'.
A very sinister crusade too.

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 01:07PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No they are not my crusade, but I think somebody who will only say they want certain people jailed (YOU have named two groups) and not others for the same offence is on a 'crusade'.
A very sinister crusade too.

A very sinister crusade? . Lolz

If all you do is want to talk about the elderly. That's an issue for you.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 01:11PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

A very sinister crusade? . Lolz

If all you do is want to talk about the elderly. That's an issue for you.

Still avoiding. You brought another specific group into the discussion and proclaimed what you wanted done with them. It is reasonable to ask if you are consistent on crime and punishment or if it is reserved for only some.

Waiting.

meeeeh · 02-07-2017 01:41PM

This should never go to trial, it just won Murphy another mandate or two in Dail. The irony is he will never go into government because that would expose his politics. He will get a nice cushy pension and people who voted for him will continue to live in squalor because there will be no one fighting for them at government level. Socialism really does benefit only those preaching it.

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 02:00PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still avoiding. You brought another specific group into the discussion and proclaimed what you wanted done with them. It is reasonable to ask if you are consistent on crime and punishment or if it is reserved for only some.

Waiting.

I'm not interested in your whataboutery. I didn't bring up eirigi and that was already explained to you.

If you'd like to discuss paul and his cohorts go ahead.

Galwayguy35 · 02-07-2017 02:07PM

Was gas to see the little garden gnome coming out of the court with his fist in the air, you'd swear he thought he was Mussolini.

corkdave · 02-07-2017 02:09PM

For me, the fallout from this case is bad news for vulnerable groups.
1. The parties of the left do not hold back their disdain for each other, investing a lot of their energy in competing for the faithful minority vote available to them, rather than cooperating by focusing their attention on the potential support within the comfortable classes who include a majority (in my opinion) who would support a range of socially good measures if approached the right way.
2. The rhetoric of lefty scumbags -v- ruling classes is an unwelcome distraction from the real issues behind the Jobstown incident, which was driven by a group of people with real and justifiable anger, in my opinion.
3. I do not like protest and disruption as a method of seeking action for any cause, mainly because it can be hijacked and derailed by people whose agenda may differ with your own. Since the verdict, it seems that attacks are coming from across the political spectrum and also, not even with subtlety, from the print and broadcast media. It seems the only place where there is actual analysis and comment is on social media.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 02:11PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I'm not interested in your whataboutery. I didn't bring up eirigi and that was already explained to you.

If you'd like to discuss paul and his cohorts go ahead.

Delightfully revealing evasion again. You said very clearly what you thought should happen to another set of protesters but refuse to say what should happen to pensioners who used the exact same method of protest.

It speaks for itself what agenda you have and it isn't an interest in justice.

I have posted at length about the 6 so stop trying to deflect to what you imagine is safety.

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 02:16PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Delightfully revealing evasion again. You said very clearly what you thought should happen to another set of protesters but refuse to say what should happen to pensioners who used the exact same method of protest.

It speaks for itself what agenda you have and it isn't an interest in justice.

I have posted at length about the 6 so stop trying to deflect to what you imagine is safety.

As Ive already stated. I'm not interested in your what aboutery. You want to shoehorn some other protest, they aren't relatable. Get over it.

end of the road · 02-07-2017 02:41PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Nope. I'm not normalising what murphy and mates did.

no you want the law enforced on them for doing nothing while other protests are fine.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 02:57PM

end of the road wrote: »

no you want the law enforced on them for doing nothing while other protests are fine.

So delightfully transparent isn't it.
One of those who thinks it's a shame that these men were not locked up wrongfully.
Selective justice.

Ursus Horribilis · 02-07-2017 03:14PM

So Francie, do you think it's OK to trap two women in a car? And if they had tried to get out of the car, that they'd not have been beaten to a pulp?

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 03:22PM

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

So Francie, do you think it's OK to trap two women in a car? And if they had tried to get out of the car, that they'd not have been beaten to a pulp?

They weren't trapped, (see video evidence and the fact that Burton refused to allow the car to reverse, (see testimony)) They were 'blocked' from proceeding in the manner that many many people have been blocked as protestors (from many many sections of society) make a point.

I think had they been beaten to a pulp that criminal proceedings should rightfully have taken place. All this made clear earlier.

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 03:35PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So delightfully transparent isn't it.
One of those who thinks it's a shame that these men were not locked up wrongfully.
Selective justice.

Your imagination is running wild brother.

You have continually told me what apparently I am. Your arguing with your assumptions of me.

It speaks for itself what agenda you have and it isn't an interest in justice.

You brought another specific group into the discussion and proclaimed what you wanted done with them

No they are not my crusade, but I think somebody who will only say they want certain people jailed (YOU have named two groups) and not others for the same offence is on a 'crusade'.
A very sinister crusade too.

Yes you are just interested in jailing those you don't like.

It's clear you only wish that the power of the law be excercised on people of your choice.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 03:40PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your imagination is running wild brother.

You have continually told me what apparently I am. Your arguing with your assumptions of me.

Not imagination but rational analysis of somebody who calls for certain people to prosecuted for things many others have done and haven't been prosecuted for.

You can clear this up quite easily.

Ursus Horribilis · 02-07-2017 03:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They weren't trapped, (see video evidence and the fact that Burton refused to allow the car to reverse, (see testimony)) They were 'blocked' from proceeding in the manner that many many people have been blocked as protestors (from many many sections of society) make a point.

I think had they been beaten to a pulp that criminal proceedings should rightfully have taken place. All this made clear earlier.

Can you say hand on heart that if Joan Burton had opened the door of that Avensis and got out of the car, she'd have been untouched? No spitting, no physical assault?

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 03:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not imagination but rational analysis of somebody who calls for certain people to prosecuted for things many others have done and haven't been prosecuted for.

You can clear this up quite easily.

Clear what up?.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 03:49PM

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Can you say hand on heart that if Joan Burton had opened the door of that Avensis and got out of the car, she'd have been untouched? No spitting, no physical assault?

I don't know. You cannot sanction on the basis of what might have happened. I have seen many politicians in similar situations when protesters are present. It isn't a nice situation to wish anyone into but then neither is forcing people to protest either. Jobstown and places like it bore the brunt of the cuts, or the cuts had the deepest affect there. There was a lot of anger.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 03:50PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Clear what up?.

Should the pensioners have been prosecuted for blocking cars on College Green?

Professor Moriarty · 02-07-2017 03:54PM

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Can you say hand on heart that if Joan Burton had opened the door of that Avensis and got out of the car, she'd have been untouched? No spitting, no physical assault?

She had already been assaulted. She was hit twice on the back of her head one of which was a water balloon. There were thugs screaming "c*nt" and "bitch" while banging and shaking the car. Some internet warriors would have shrugged it off and stepped into the baying mob. Lesser mortals would have stayed in the car.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 03:56PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She had already been assaulted. She was hit twice on the back of her head one of which was a water balloon. There were thugs screaming "c*nt" and "bitch" while banging and shaking the car. Some internet warriors would have shrugged it off and stepped into the baying mob. Lesser mortals would have stayed in the car.

And we know from the 16 year old who was charged that there were people there who had no connection or interest in politics.
Why can you not separate what actually happened? Do you not want to, is that it?

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 03:56PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Should the pensioners have been prosecuted for blocking cars on College Green?

It is not relatable to murphy and his cohorts.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 03:59PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It is not relatable to murphy and his cohorts.

Neither is the Eirigi protest but you have pronounced sentence on them.

Professor Moriarty · 02-07-2017 04:00PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And we know from the 16 year old who was charged that there were people there who had no connection or interest in politics.
Why can you not separate what actually happened? Do you not want to, is that it?

And the mandatory personal comment. Very predictable.

Anyhoo, this is what happened to Burton:

She had already been assaulted. She was hit twice on the back of her head one of which was a water balloon. There were thugs screaming "c*nt" and "bitch" while banging and shaking the car.

She was correct to fear for her safety and to stay in the car.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2017 04:04PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And the mandatory personal comment. Very predictable.

Anyhoo, this is what happened to Burton:

She had already been assaulted. She was hit twice on the back of her head one of which was a water balloon. There were thugs screaming "c*nt" and "bitch" while banging and shaking the car.

She was correct to fear for her safety and to stay in the car.

I am conversing with you...of course it's a personal comment. :rolleyes:

Nobody is denying there were some thugs there. That isn't the issue.

WinnyThePoo · 02-07-2017 04:05PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Neither is the Eirigi protest but you have pronounced sentence on them.

I never said the Eirigi protest was Relatable. You really have to cut down on the assumptions

Professor Moriarty · 02-07-2017 04:07PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am conversing with you...of course it's a personal comment. :rolleyes:

Nobody is denying there were some thugs there. That isn't the issue.

Indeed. But it's important that the victim's experience is forefront of any discussion of the thugs' actions.

Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Comments