Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you read the transcripts and what the judge had to say about what the evidence said these men were involved in?
If the law states that the organiser of an event is responsible for criminality at that event, please show us that law.

You may have found them morally guilty but that is not the same thing and just a point of view/opinion.

Did i say they were criminally responsible? Im saying they are socially and morally responsible for the actions of their followers when they are attending an event organised by them.

Saying we had this many people attend and how great is that but then also saying all the bad eggs who they count in their attendance figures don't represent them is just childish double think.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is like trying to claim that because a FG member glasses someone in a pub that FG and it's leader are morally responsible for that individuals action.

Yes, you are right, it would be bull**** to claim that.

If a FG member did it at an event organised by the leader and the leader was present and failed to control the situation then yes i would say they were responsible for failing to control the actions of their members and letting the situation escalate to that level.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry I stopped reading after realising that you think 'individuals' in Jobstown have responsibility for what happened in this country. That they should have just taken the austerity and said nothing, even when it looked like the austerity was not going to stop.

Granted by what you have taken from my post it's obvious your not reading properly, or are just a case in point, of the point I'm making. Refusal to accept, entertain or even listen to an undercurrent of the entire affair in terms of the context, and the responsibilities of people for their choices and actions.

Nowhere in my post did I reference the specific people in that incident, and I've mentioned numerous times I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, bar the base human tendency, or Irish tendency (because I don't know) about how we find it easier to blame others then look at our own failings or mistakes.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No he wouldn't.
He would be responsible if he told him to do it..full stop.

The ONLY person to be sentenced for an offence at this protest gave testimony that he was not interested in politics or a member of any group.

What is your obsession with criminal responsibility? I have not mentioned it once.

The leader would be considered responsible for their members actions in so far as disciplining and apologising for their behaviour.

Something murphy and et al never do

VinLieger wrote: »

If a FG member did it at an event organised by the leader and the leader was present and failed to control the situation then yes i would say they were responsible for failing to control the actions of their members and letting the situation escalate to that level.

In fairness I have to disagree also. It's improbable and unrealistic to expect organisers to be command and direct the crowd of which they are spearheading. There are going to be people using that protest as an opportunity to cause trouble, and unfortunate existence of our society that happens frequently.

However there is no real excuse and I don't like the excuse of those who organise distancing themselves entirely from the trouble or incident that is caused. They are the catalyst for the incidents, they are well wise to know what can and likely will happen at a demonstration like this.

I think it's a reflection on them as politicians, leader of people, that they can't control the situations they are head off, showing there really isn't that much respect coming from the crowd to them, and just how easily led these crowds can be.

But if like in the example outlined a member of FG glassed someone at an organised FG event with the party leads present, it would be an utter embarrassment, a tarnish on the party and it's reputation and would be an insult to the host. As with any event or gathering organised where those in attendance, claiming to be part of the cause/movement/group behave in an inexplicable way.

However in cases like this, with Murphy or anyone else really who spearhead these rallies or protests that get out of hand, they typically just distance themselves, never taking any ownership of the situation or how they were the conduit for unrest and there is never really anything attached or tainted to the movement or group involved. Which does then raise questions of what standing or respect they have from the crowd or group in the first place.

Sometimes it appears they are valued for the simple fact they can organise numbers and rallies or whatever. That they can just get the ball rolling, and when people arrive they've very little interest in actually listening to them or hearing them, definitly not following their direction.

TheDoc wrote: »

Granted by what you have taken from my post it's obvious your not reading properly, or are just a case in point, of the point I'm making. Refusal to accept, entertain or even listen to an undercurrent of the entire affair in terms of the context, and the responsibilities of people for their choices and actions.

Nowhere in my post did I reference the specific people in that incident, and I've mentioned numerous times I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, bar the base human tendency, or Irish tendency (because I don't know) about how we find it easier to blame others then look at our own failings or mistakes.

It may have escaped your attention but the reason a huge community of Irish people are on the streets is because they have been made to accept the fact that they are to blame for what happened and that it is they who will be affected most by the repaying of the debt caused by the mismanagement of the country.
What they are looking for is an acceptance that they are not the primary source for the solution to our debt and that others are not paying anything like as much as they are.
It came down to food on the table and a roof over their heads for these people.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Indeed FG and Labour tried that tack during the last couple of years of their term before getting rejected by the electorate.

The 'early risers'?

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

There is 800,000 people who pay no income tax on their earnings.

It's the squeezed middle who feel it most.

So the water charge protests were just people who pay no income tax?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Throwing out the trial does not mean they weren't guilty. It simply means there wasn't enough concrete evidence for a safe conviction.

The dogs on the street know they were guilty.

No smoke without fire, round up the usual suspects, shoot first ask questions later.
Well done you!

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Because the USC was brought in at a time when most people realised and accepted that some pain had to be taken to get the country back on its feet - and there has since been plenty of commentary about the end of this "temporary" tax

Water charges however, and the farce that surrounds it regarding meters (suitability and the awarding of contracts), the mess around PPS requirements and actual rates, and the questionable appointments to the management structure, basically exposed it for what it was/is... another quango designed to enrich the friends of FG.

Nothing to do with who pays USC vs who would have been paying the Water Tax? Okay sure......

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, it just made Varadkar look as derogatory as Joan Burton.

I found it very derogatory because I work shifts. It'd be very rare I'd see an early morning and he has the cheek to discount my efforts despite the amount of tax I pay

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Plenty of "squeezed middle" people protested against Water Charges as introduced by the last government. I mean tens of thousands of people marched through Dublin, and the delinquency rates in terms of payment were so high that they way outstripped the percentage of the population on the dole or occupying low income positions of employment.

Attempting to posit the water charge protests as solely about social welfare recipients who don't want to pay for anything is ridiculous. Indeed FG and Labour tried that tack during the last couple of years of their term before getting rejected by the electorate.

I'm not attempting to paint it as the sole issue, just think its a part of the issue somewhat ignored in the general narrative/context.

I'm fully aware that people from all backgrounds and walks were present and attended various rallies and protests and I'm not painting the entire thing as some scroungers day out (like I stated likely that my point will be misconstrued) but when discussing that topic, and discussing the wider context of the movements and shapes around people like Paul Murphy it's a topic that need to be addressed/included, as uncomfortable or selective as that might appear to people.

VinLieger wrote: »

Why were there no mass protests over the USC?

It was understood that an increase in tax take was required at the time. The USC was a straight tax, transparent and simple. The Irish Water implementation came bundled with a huge amount of dysfunction, bureaucratic bloat and a lack of certainty over a key issue of privatisation. That's why the campaign became such a big church supported by a cross section of Irish society. Some people were protesting because it was a last straw from a financial perspective; some people, like me, protested because of the overarching political failings around its implementation.

But to suggest, as FG attempted to do unsuccessfully, that the protests were just about scroungers unwilling to pay their way is incorrect. Continuing to reiterate it achieves nothing either - those who wish to see a successful implementation of an Irish Water Utility, need to stop putting their fingers in their ears about the many valid criticisms.