Jobstown Defendants Not Guilty - The Role of the Gardai and the Judicial Process

johnnyskeleton · 04-07-2017 12:14AM

Mod note:

While discussing the nature of the protest being peaceful or violent is fair game to discuss, please don't accuse specific people of specific offending that they have not been convicted of.

markodaly · 04-07-2017 05:41AM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The graduates didn't want Burton - they went to the head of their course and asked her to withdraw the invitation to Burton - she refused.

As you said yourself any evidence for this?

Also remember Joan Burton was the minister in charge of training so was well within her right to attend and accept an invitation. What Adult education has to do with water charges god only knows but never let an opportunity to protest go astray I suppose.

I am going to skip over the irrelevant claptrap about 'self improvement' - to this -

Well it would not be the first or last time extremists would call self improvement claptrap which ironically proves my point that Solidarity and the like have no interest in the betterment of peoples lives.

The protest wasn't at the 'behest' of anybody - it was a spontaneous protest that emerged as the local community heard about Burton's attendance. And it had and has widespread support within Jobstown.

Spontaneous? I suppose Paul Murphy carries a megaphone around him just in case? Along with banners and signs....

FrancieBrady · 04-07-2017 09:26AM

markodaly wrote: »

As you said yourself any evidence for this?

Also remember Joan Burton was the minister in charge of training so was well within her right to attend and accept an invitation. What Adult education has to do with water charges god only knows but never let an opportunity to protest go astray I suppose.

Well it would not be the first or last time extremists would call self improvement claptrap which ironically proves my point that Solidarity and the like have no interest in the betterment of peoples lives.

Spontaneous? I suppose Paul Murphy carries a megaphone around him just in case? Along with banners and signs....

Again, which is it - did Solidarity wipe these students minds of the education they received or did they disrupt the end of a day they received their awards to get a point across to the Tainiste of the country and leader of the Labour party.

*Can you answer without the emotional sensationalism please? (The poster did NOT call 'self improvement' claptrap) :rolleyes:

Jolly Red Giant · 04-07-2017 11:57AM

markodaly wrote: »

As you said yourself any evidence for this?

The graduates went to the CEO and asked her to withdraw the invitation to Burton and she refused. She told them that if they didn't attend their would be conferred in absentia. The Graduates attended - they didn't clap for Burton, most (if not all) refused to shake her hand and they refused to take photos with her.

And do I have the evidence - yes I do - one of the graduates spoke at a Jobstown protest and outlined why they didn't want Burton there and what they did during the graduation

markodaly wrote: »

Also remember Joan Burton was the minister in charge of training so was well within her right to attend and accept an invitation. What Adult education has to do with water charges god only knows but never let an opportunity to protest go astray I suppose.

The protest was spontaneous - people were ANGRY.

markodaly wrote: »

Well it would not be the first or last time extremists would call self improvement claptrap which ironically proves my point that Solidarity and the like have no interest in the betterment of peoples lives.

If you want to start a thread about your views on 'self improvement' then please do and I will be happy to contribute.

I posted this thread to discuss the role of the gardai in the investigation into the Jobstown protest and the trial of the seven defendants.

markodaly wrote: »

Spontaneous? I suppose Paul Murphy carries a megaphone around him just in case? Along with banners and signs....

Yes he does - as does Ruth Coppinger, Mick Barry and Joe Higgins.

mikep · 04-07-2017 12:19PM

What a sad life they must lead, having a megaphone available at all times in case they come across a situation where their, already high, outrage levels rise sufficiently to begin bellowing to anyone who will listen..

Jolly Red Giant · 04-07-2017 01:59PM

mikep wrote: »

What a sad life they must lead, having a megaphone available at all times in case they come across a situation where their, already high, outrage levels rise sufficiently to begin bellowing to anyone who will listen..

As opposed to a nice glass of brandy in the Galway tent - or at one of Dinny O'Brien's knees up.

mikep · 04-07-2017 02:06PM

It's been a long time since the FF brigade were entertaining at the Galway tent...
As someone who looks for evidence, I expect you can back up the BSD (Big Scary Denis) knees up claims..

ancapailldorcha · 04-07-2017 02:17PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As opposed to a nice glass of brandy in the Galway tent - or at one of Dinny O'Brien's knees up.

mikep wrote: »

It's been a long time since the FF brigade were entertaining at the Galway tent...
As someone who looks for evidence, I expect you can back up the BSD (Big Scary Denis) knees up claims..

Less nonsense please.

blanch152 · 04-07-2017 03:51PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Yes he does - as does Ruth Coppinger, Mick Barry and Joe Higgins.

Are you serious? Do they really have megaphones and banners and flags in the boot or on the back seat of the car or perhaps in the back of the white van?

04-07-2017 07:05PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you serious? Do they really have megaphones and banners and flags in the boot or on the back seat of the car or perhaps in the back of the white van?

Yes they do. Along with their propaganda newspapers.

FrancieBrady · 04-07-2017 07:18PM

Not defending his or Solidarity's politics here but if you are prepared to have spontaneous protests would it not be wise to be prepared?

Maybe he was a scout or is just well organised?

markodaly · 04-07-2017 08:17PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, which is it - did Solidarity wipe these students minds of the education they received or did they disrupt the end of a day they received their awards to get a point across to the Tainiste of the country and leader of the Labour party.

*Can you answer without the emotional sensationalism please? (The poster did NOT call 'self improvement' claptrap) :rolleyes:

You must have bad reading comprehension because I did not say this. I thoughts this was covered in my previous post.

Again, what does Irish Water have to do with an Adult Education graduation ceremony? Then again, these people have justified law breaking, and protesting the homes of politicians and their kids schools.

markodaly · 04-07-2017 08:18PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not defending his or Solidarity's politics here but if you are prepared to have spontaneous protests would it not be wise to be prepared?

Maybe he was a scout or is just well organised?

Oxymoron surely.

For Reals · 04-07-2017 08:20PM

markodaly wrote: »

You must have bad reading comprehension because I did not say this. I thoughts this was covered in my previous post.

Again, what does Irish Water have to do with an Adult Education graduation ceremony? Then again, these people have justified law breaking, and protesting the homes of politicians and their kids schools.

What laws did the defendants in this case break or justify breaking?

FrancieBrady · 04-07-2017 08:22PM

markodaly wrote: »

Oxymoron surely.

No. If you accept than opportunities may arise for spontaneous protests it makes perfect sense.

markodaly · 04-07-2017 08:31PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The graduates went to the CEO and asked her to withdraw the invitation to Burton and she refused. She told them that if they didn't attend their would be conferred in absentia. The Graduates attended - they didn't clap for Burton, most (if not all) refused to shake her hand and they refused to take photos with her.

Again, evidence for this? As you have not provided me with any.

And do I have the evidence - yes I do - one of the graduates spoke at a Jobstown protest and outlined why they didn't want Burton there and what they did during the graduation

One of the graduates, who happens to be a Sinn Fein councillor. Yeap, you will definitely get the whole unvarnished truth from her alright.

The person in the video is Louise Dunne by the way. No skin in the game at all.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/louise-dunne

The protest was spontaneous - people were ANGRY.

The business of the state must still go on, no matter how ANGRY/angry people are. Anger does not give anyone a right to riot or throw objects at women.

If you want to start a thread about your views on 'self improvement' then please do and I will be happy to contribute.

I posted this thread to discuss the role of the gardai in the investigation into the Jobstown protest and the trial of the seven defendants.

Well I know why you want to steer the topic away from the actual event of the graduation ceremony itself. It is very pertinent to the topic at hand. So, I ask you this. Why do solidarity spend so much energy and time protesting and rilling things up rather then taking positive steps to make improvement in peoples everyday lives?

Yes he does - as does Ruth Coppinger, Mick Barry and Joe Higgins.

I am not sure if this is serious but I would not put it past them having a megaphone in a backpack just in case. Which shows how useless these politicians and their politics are.

markodaly · 04-07-2017 08:51PM

For Reals wrote: »

What laws did the defendants in this case break or justify breaking?

Paul Murphy has been on record stating that people have a right to detain someone for a definite period of time.

https://www.facebook.com/SligoSaysNo/videos/650886365028313/

They have also defended the protest as 'peaceful'. Throwing objects at women is not a peaceful action. Therefore the protest was not peaceful.

For Reals · 04-07-2017 08:55PM

markodaly wrote: »

Paul Murphy has been on record stating that people have a right to detain someone for a definite period of time.

https://www.facebook.com/SligoSaysNo/videos/650886365028313/

They have also defended the protest as 'peaceful'. Throwing objects at women is not a peaceful action. Therefore the protest was not peaceful.

I don't particularly rate Facebook as a source, but I'll take it as said. Inconvenience is part and parcel of protest.
Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? Some people present may have not acted lawfully.

Jolly Red Giant · 04-07-2017 10:02PM

markodaly wrote: »

Again, evidence for this? As you have not provided me with any.

One of the graduates, who happens to be a Sinn Fein councillor. Yeap, you will definitely get the whole unvarnished truth from her alright.

You asked for proof - I provided proof from one of the graduates on the day - if you can produce evidence that contradicts what Lou Dunne asserted in her comments.

Well I know why you want to steer the topic away from the actual event of the graduation ceremony itself. It is very pertinent to the topic at hand. So, I ask you this. Why do solidarity spend so much energy and time protesting and rilling things up rather then taking positive steps to make improvement in peoples everyday lives

Oh but they have - thanks in a large part to Solidarity people don't have to pay water charges.

But do let's please stop steering away from the topic - namely that the Gardai conducted an investigation into the Jobstown protest that did not, as it should have, a search for evidence that could prove the innocence as well as the guilty of the defendants - and that every single Garda witness (with the exception of one now retired Garda) at the trial gave evidence that was directly contradicted by the 'primary and more reliable' (quoting the judge here) video evidence of events on the day of the protest.

Do you agreed that there are serious questions to be asked about how three Gardai up to the rank of Superintendent could all hear the words 'keep her (Joan Burton) here all night' when video evidence proved Paul Murphy never uttered these words. One might make a mistake, two might suffer from memory loss, but three senior Gardai remembering exactly the same phrase, the same terminology, that was never utter - to the point where the judge to,d the jury to consider whether these three senior Gardai had 'an agenda against Paul Murphy'.

Jolly Red Giant · 04-07-2017 10:08PM

markodaly wrote: »

They have also defended the protest as 'peaceful'. Throwing objects at women is not a peaceful action. Therefore the protest was not peaceful.

The prosecution repeatedly made the same claim and the judge instructed the jury to consider whether the protest was peaceful and the implications that their view whether the protest was peaceful or not would have on the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

The jury did just that and issued a verdict that the defendants were INNOCENT.

Now - there has been a constant stream of smears on social media, various Internet forums, in the media and today in the Dail with Leo Varadkar against the Jobstown defendants. It demonstrates that people who oppose the right to effective protest (a basic democratic right and one that the judge in the Jobstown case stated that the Gardai had a legal responsibility to protect) will praise the legal and judicial process as long as it produces the 'right' result. When a jury finds the people they want convicted INNOCENT then they resort to a smear campaign.

blanch152 · 04-07-2017 10:53PM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The prosecution repeatedly made the same claim and the judge instructed the jury to consider whether the protest was peaceful and the implications that their view whether the protest was peaceful or not would have on the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

The jury did just that and issued a verdict that the defendants were INNOCENT.

Now - there has been a constant stream of smears on social media, various Internet forums, in the media and today in the Dail with Leo Varadkar against the Jobstown defendants. It demonstrates that people who oppose the right to effective protest (a basic democratic right and one that the judge in the Jobstown case stated that the Gardai had a legal responsibility to protect) will praise the legal and judicial process as long as it produces the 'right' result. When a jury finds the people they want convicted INNOCENT then they resort to a smear campaign.

Rather than ranting, you should maybe look at what he actually said:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-joan-burton-was-terrorised-at-jobstown-protest-35894453.html

""It appears to me that Deputy Murphy and his co-defendants got a fair trial. The jury heard the case. They heard both sides of the case and all the evidence and they decided to acquit.

"But I don’t think that means that the behaviour that we saw in Jobstown was decent or acceptable.

"And I think that the way that Deputy Burton and Karen O’Connell were treated was very wrong. I think they were terrorised. I think you can see the fear in their faces when you look at the coverage," Mr Varadkar added.

In no way is that a smear, it seems like fair comment to me, unless you believe Paul Murphy is some sort of angel or saint.

Jolly Red Giant · 04-07-2017 11:30PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Rather than ranting, you should maybe look at what he actually said:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-joan-burton-was-terrorised-at-jobstown-protest-35894453.html

""It appears to me that Deputy Murphy and his co-defendants got a fair trial. The jury heard the case. They heard both sides of the case and all the evidence and they decided to acquit.

"But I don’t think that means that the behaviour that we saw in Jobstown was decent or acceptable.

"And I think that the way that Deputy Burton and Karen O’Connell were treated was very wrong. I think they were terrorised. I think you can see the fear in their faces when you look at the coverage," Mr Varadkar added.

In no way is that a smear, it seems like fair comment to me, unless you believe Paul Murphy is some sort of angel or saint.

Varadkar is attempting to claim something that was rejected by the jury during the trial - and attempting to smear the protest by using the word 'terrorised' - he clearly does not know what it is like to be terrorised. On Satuday Varadkar said that even though the defendants were found not guilty 'this doesn't mean their behaviour was acceptable' - yet another smear against seven INNOCENT men.

Furthermore - he used this to avoid the question he was asked about the serious issues raised by the Garda investigation into the Jobstown protest and the testimony of Gardai on the witness stand during the trial. He simply dismissed out of hand the need for a public inquiry - on the same day Maurice McCabe attended an inquiry into a smear campaign against him from within the Gardai, political circles and the media.

markodaly · 05-07-2017 02:05AM

For Reals wrote: »

I don't particularly rate Facebook as a source, but I'll take it as said. Inconvenience is part and parcel of protest.
Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? Some people present may have not acted lawfully.

It is not a source, it is a video of an interview where Paul Murphy stating himself that he has a right to detain someone for a definite period of time. Historians will classify it as a primary source. Inconvenience is one thing, stopping people going about their lawful business is quite another.

ancapailldorcha · 05-07-2017 07:48AM

For Reals wrote: »

I don't particularly rate Facebook as a source, but I'll take it as said. Inconvenience is part and parcel of protest.
Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? Some people present may have not acted lawfully.

Suggestions that they broke the law can't be allowed here for legal reasons. Please bear this in mind when posting.

blanch152 · 05-07-2017 09:35AM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Varadkar is attempting to claim something that was rejected by the jury during the trial - and attempting to smear the protest by using the word 'terrorised' - he clearly does not know what it is like to be terrorised. On Satuday Varadkar said that even though the defendants were found not guilty 'this doesn't mean their behaviour was acceptable' - yet another smear against seven INNOCENT men.

Furthermore - he used this to avoid the question he was asked about the serious issues raised by the Garda investigation into the Jobstown protest and the testimony of Gardai on the witness stand during the trial. He simply dismissed out of hand the need for a public inquiry - on the same day Maurice McCabe attended an inquiry into a smear campaign against him from within the Gardai, political circles and the media.

All Varadkar said was what the protestors did wasn't decent or acceptable. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

At no stage did he accuse them of a crime.

FrancieBrady · 05-07-2017 09:38AM

blanch152 wrote: »

All Varadkar said was what the protestors did wasn't decent or acceptable. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

At no stage did he accuse them of a crime.

Varadkar is doing something very cheap and politically handy for him (I wouldn't expect anything less of a FG leader these days tbh) he is tarring everybody there that day with the one brush.

McMurphy · 05-07-2017 10:00AM

markodaly wrote: »

It is not a source, it is a video of an interview where Paul Murphy stating himself that he has a right to detain someone for a definite period of time. Historians will classify it as a primary source. Inconvenience is one thing, stopping people going about their lawful business is quite another.

Blocking a vehicle for a limited period of time has been a tactic that has been deployed in many different protests in the state for some time now.

It seems to me that it is morally objective, dependant on the people doing the blocking.

johnnyskeleton · 05-07-2017 10:55AM

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Now - there has been a constant stream of smears on social media, various Internet forums, in the media and today in the Dail with Leo Varadkar against the Jobstown defendants.

Which articles in particular are you referring to? Do people not have a right to express their opinions as to what is or is not socially acceptable? Is this a sign of things to come in the socialist paradise where any criticism of the socialists is a smear campaign but when they criticise others, often based on incorrect understanding of the law, that is fair comment?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It demonstrates that people who oppose the right to effective protest (a basic democratic right and one that the judge in the Jobstown case stated that the Gardai had a legal responsibility to protect) will praise the legal and judicial process as long as it produces the 'right' result. When a jury finds the people they want convicted INNOCENT then they resort to a smear campaign.

Who opposes the right to legal protest? And what do you mean by "effective" protest. If people break the law in a protest, then one of three things should happen:
1. They should respect the law and keep within it during the protest;
2. They can campaign to repeal that law or change it so that it doesn't affect the right to protest; or
3. If they believe in their cause so strongly, they should go before a court like Gandhi and state:

Mahatma Gandhi wrote:

I wanted to avoid violence. Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is the last article of my faith. But I had to make my choice. I had either to submit to a system which I considered has done an irreparable harm to my country, or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips. I know that my people have sometimes gone mad. I am deeply sorry for it; and I am, therefore, here to submit not to a light penalty but to the highest penalty. The only course open to you, Mr. Judge, is, as I am just going to say in my statement, either to resign your post or inflict on me the severest penalty.

Those are the options and I haven't seen anyone suggest that legal protesting should be banned, or that we should change the laws, or that taking the Gandhi principled approach is not a worthy and honourable thing to do.

More importantly, however, is that the only people who I've seen criticising the legal system were the #jobstownnotguilty people, and when they didn't get the verdict that they desired i.e. the invidious and oppressive forces of the state cruelly convicting innocent martyers, they continued to criticise it in this ridiculous fashion.

Most people accept the jury's verdict. That doesn't mean that they can't have opinions on issues of public importance such as the right to peaceful protest, the right not to be intimidated, the right to go about your business unmolested etc. And no matter how much you want it to be, the verdict that the specific defendants are not guilty of all wrongdoing does not mean that the protest as a whole was peaceful.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Varadkar is attempting to claim something that was rejected by the jury during the trial - and attempting to smear the protest by using the word 'terrorised' - he clearly does not know what it is like to be terrorised. On Satuday Varadkar said that even though the defendants were found not guilty 'this doesn't mean their behaviour was acceptable' - yet another smear against seven INNOCENT men.

In response to Paul Murphy TD raising an issue in the Dail that there should be a public inquiry into why the prosecution was brought. When you look at it in context, what else was he supposed to say? So it's not a smear campaign, it's an honest answer as to why he doesn't think a public inquiry should be held, much like people on here have been trying to explain to you.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Furthermore - he used this to avoid the question he was asked about the serious issues raised by the Garda investigation into the Jobstown protest and the testimony of Gardai on the witness stand during the trial. He simply dismissed out of hand the need for a public inquiry - on the same day Maurice McCabe attended an inquiry into a smear campaign against him from within the Gardai, political circles and the media.

It's not so serious an issue that it requires a public inquiry. Paul Murphy has a legal redress which is to go to the Garda Ombudsman or take any civil case he feels is necessary. I'm not sure you can say he dismissed it out of hand either. Paul Murphy raised it in the Dail and the Taoiseach refused it in the Dail. I'm not sure what else he could have done.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Blocking a vehicle for a limited period of time has been a tactic that has been deployed in many different protests in the state for some time now.

It seems to me that it is morally objective, dependant on the people doing the blocking.

Yes but it's still illegal:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-loses-challenge-to-conviction-over-israeli-embassy-protest-1.2887865

FrancieBrady · 05-07-2017 11:08AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Most people accept the jury's verdict.

I'd absolutely dispute this. Most people don't accept the acquittal, you have had people from Varadkar to Olivia O'Leary trying to qualify the verdict, and engaging in fairly transparent tarring of everybody who was on that protest with the one brush.
It's an insidious way to do business tbh.

05-07-2017 11:31AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Most people accept the jury's verdict.

I'd absolutely dispute this. Most people don't accept the acquittal, you have had people from Varadkar to Olivia O'Leary trying to qualify the verdict, and engaging in fairly transparent tarring of everybody who was on that protest with the one brush.
It's an insidious way to do business tbh.

Most people DO accept the verdict. (Does that make us steeple?) That doesn't make what happened ok. It was a despicable action by (to my mind) mindless thugs. Such actions have no place in the society I wish to live in.

Jobstown Defendants Not Guilty - The Role of the Gardai and the Judicial Process

Comments