Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

FrancieBrady · 10-07-2017 09:29AM

seamus wrote: »

First you have to prove there was actually lying before you can look for manipulation.

Anyway, Occam's razor applies.

Chances are the Gardai involved had a chat afterwards over a couple of pints about what had happened and then the information in that chat flowed over and distorted the accounts that they gave in statements and to the court.

It's a well-known problem in police forces across the world and one that's obviously next to impossible to stamp out unless you ban police officers from talking to each other.

Presuming influence from higher-up or even from politicians is making a lot of assumptions.
The Gardai on the ground that day would have enough animosity for those at the event to go ahead and create their own narrative without the need for manipulation or influence from above.

'Chances are' or your incredulity that it could happen is not good enough I'm afraid.
I am not making any assumptions, I have been witness to all that has gone on with the Gardai since Donegal.

I 'assume' that we have proper separation of powers but after this case and all that has gone on with the Gardai that is not by any means a safe assumption.

TheDoc · 10-07-2017 09:42AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You don't have to "look" for discrepancies. They're now in the public domain. Malice or incompetence? I'll let you choose, but either way the implicaton is clear: the Gardai are not to be trusted.

In fairness depending on regions or areas you grew up in, this probably isn't new.

Granted lately there is scandal after scandal, but I know for me growing up, Guardaí were simply not to be trusted. Way too many stories and even some things witnessed first hand, and when complaints are made it's batton down the hatches to defend themselves and distort things.

When I got to my mid 20's I actually got calmer around police and thought it was just a silly teen thing, then saw an incident outside a house I was living in that shot me back straight into the non-trusting category.

And it's a pity, I know some Guards that love their work and do their best as I'm sure there is many, but I'm never as cautious and on point as when a Guard is near, which is mental, considering I've never anything to be worrying about(as in me doing anything wrong) but its like I'm waiting for a hothead to go on one, or to get stitched up somehow.

seamus · 10-07-2017 09:47AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Chances are' or your incredulity that it could happen is not good enough I'm afraid.

Not incredulity. Like I say, just reducing the number of assumptions that have to be made.

I am not making any assumptions, I have been witness to all that has gone on with the Gardai since Donegal.

You're making plenty of assumptions. You're assuming that the Gardai at that protest were approached by someone in Garda HQ to change their statements. You're assuming that someone in Garda HQ had been pressured by Joan Burton (or someone close to her), to apply downward pressure.

In fact, you're assuming that the statements given in court weren't honest accounts. I'm not saying they definitely were, but a provably false statement is not a dishonest one.

You mention Donegal, which is interesting. What went on in Donegal is primarily blamed on an absence of Garda leadership, not corruption of it. That where discipline and upwards reporting was lacking at the local level (i.e. in Donegal), the kind of corruption and cronyism that went on, is rife. The Garda Division in Donegal was allowed to operate in a bubble and all of that crap came out.

Yet in this scenario you're blaming what happened on an excess of direction from Garda HQ. The issues in Donegal tell us that the Jobstown outcome is far more likely to be down to a small group of Gardai colluding internally than a huge group colluding across the organisation.

I would also suggest that if the collusion was as widespread as you'd suggest, they would have been a lot smarter about their statements.

I 'assume' that we have proper separation of powers but after this case and all that has gone on with the Gardai that is not by any means a safe assumption.

Nowhere has proper separation of powers, or ever will.
The question is about at what level it's allowed to apply and what structures are in place to combat it.

Ireland has an iffy past on this stuff, but it and has been getting better for a long time. Politicians colluding to bang up some other politicians is a big deal in any western nation, you'd want the stakes to be very high to do it. The stakes weren't high here. Burton nor anyone else stood to make any big gains through conspiring to land Murphy in jail.

So assuming that there must have been collusion is flawed not least because there's insufficient motive for it.

FrancieBrady · 10-07-2017 10:44AM

seamus wrote: »

Not incredulity. Like I say, just reducing the number of assumptions that have to be made.You're making plenty of assumptions. You're assuming that the Gardai at that protest were approached by someone in Garda HQ to change their statements. You're assuming that someone in Garda HQ had been pressured by Joan Burton (or someone close to her), to apply downward pressure.

In fact, you're assuming that the statements given in court weren't honest accounts. I'm not saying they definitely were, but a provably false statement is not a dishonest one.

You mention Donegal, which is interesting. What went on in Donegal is primarily blamed on an absence of Garda leadership, not corruption of it. That where discipline and upwards reporting was lacking at the local level (i.e. in Donegal), the kind of corruption and cronyism that went on, is rife. The Garda Division in Donegal was allowed to operate in a bubble and all of that crap came out.

Yet in this scenario you're blaming what happened on an excess of direction from Garda HQ. The issues in Donegal tell us that the Jobstown outcome is far more likely to be down to a small group of Gardai colluding internally than a huge group colluding across the organisation.

I would also suggest that if the collusion was as widespread as you'd suggest, they would have been a lot smarter about their statements.
Nowhere has proper separation of powers, or ever will.
The question is about at what level it's allowed to apply and what structures are in place to combat it.

Ireland has an iffy past on this stuff, but it and has been getting better for a long time. Politicians colluding to bang up some other politicians is a big deal in any western nation, you'd want the stakes to be very high to do it. The stakes weren't high here. Burton nor anyone else stood to make any big gains through conspiring to land Murphy in jail.

So assuming that there must have been collusion is flawed not least because there's insufficient motive for it.

I am not assuming anything, this is were your argument is flawed.

There is enough concern about how this went down to have a very close look at what happened. That is NOT to assume anything.

And it doesn't matter if it might have been collusion, incompetence, abscence of leadership or a small number of Gardai operating independently.

The liberty of 6 people was at stake here and we must protect that, regardless of their politics and your opinion of them.
Throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming 'nowhere has proper separation of powers' is so typical of those who would rather turn a blind eye and are therefore guilty of allowing the rot to set in.

WinnyThePoo · 10-07-2017 11:06AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not assuming anything, this is were your argument is flawed.

.

That's not exactly true though. You continually made assumptions about me and continually tried to argue those assumptions.

FrancieBrady · 10-07-2017 11:09AM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

That's not exactly true though. You continually made assumptions about me and continually tried to argue those assumptions.

Any assumptions I made were prefaced with 'based on what you say...'.

You are an anonymous person talking on the internet, what I 'assume' about you is of no importance whatsoever.

mynamejeff · 10-07-2017 11:13AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not assuming anything, this is were your argument is flawed.

There is enough concern about how this went down to have a very close look at what happened. That is NOT to assume anything.

And it doesn't matter if it might have been collusion, incompetence, abscence of leadership or a small number of Gardai operating independently.

The liberty of 6 people was at stake here and we must protect that, regardless of their politics and your opinion of them.
Throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming 'nowhere has proper separation of powers' is so typical of those who would rather turn a blind eye and are therefore guilty of allowing the rot to set in.

there was not enough evidence to convict the "jobstown 6" therefore they got a not guilty
there is no evidence to prove that there was political influence in the trial yet the gardai are guilty according to you ?

again facts are not take it as you like things, its one or the other .
otherwise your just making a fool of yourself and your whole argument .

try a little consistency

WinnyThePoo · 10-07-2017 11:15AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any assumptions I made were prefaced with 'based on what you say...'.

You are an anonymous person talking on the internet, what I 'assume' about you is of no importance whatsoever.

Just pointing out your assumptive arguing style.

FrancieBrady · 10-07-2017 11:18AM

mynamejeff wrote: »

the gardai are guilty according to you ?

Hilarious. It really is.

Where have I said this?

FrancieBrady · 10-07-2017 11:20AM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Just pointing out your assumptive arguing style.

Try pointing out where I have 'assumed' the gardai are guilty of anything. I have clearly said I believe there is a need for a very close look at what went on here.

mynamejeff · 10-07-2017 11:23AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hilarious. It really is.

Where have I said this?

so now the gardai arent guilty of something ?

again francie

consistency please

lack of it hurts your argument

seamus · 10-07-2017 11:25AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is enough concern about how this went down to have a very close look at what happened. That is NOT to assume anything.

That depends on what your "very close look" consists of.

Calling for large independent enquires (as Murphy has done) implies that an internal investigation will be tainted and therefore assumes that there was wide internal collusion.

I don't disagree that someone should interview the Gardai who gave statements and investigate the discrepancies. We already have a body who does that - GSOC.

If GSOC raises flags that indicate outside influence, then you set up a larger enquiry.

And it doesn't matter if it might have been collusion, incompetence, abscence of leadership or a small number of Gardai operating independently.

Actually it matters a lot. In the same way that it matters whether someone stole â‚¬10 or â‚¬10,000, collusion involving high-ranking Gardai and politicians is a far bigger issue than collusion involving an individual team of Gardai.

And a conspiracy involving 50 members co-ordinating over hidden channels is far more worrying than a conspiracy involving 5 members discussed over a few pints.

Of course it needs to be examined and dealt with. But they don't require the same response.

Throwing a massive public inquiry and tens of millions of euros at a relatively small incidence of corruption, is in itself corrupt - it's an abuse of power. If this had been ordinary members of the public on trial and not Paul Murphy, would he be calling for a public inquiry? Would he ****.

There are people up before the courts every day with Gardai stacking their statements against them and with public solicitors taking backhanders to push their clients to plead guilty. Is Murphy taking any interest in them? Of course he isn't.

FrancieBrady · 10-07-2017 11:44AM

seamus wrote: »

That depends on what your "very close look" consists of.

Calling for large independent enquires (as Murphy has done) implies that an internal investigation will be tainted and therefore assumes that there was wide internal collusion.

I don't disagree that someone should interview the Gardai who gave statements and investigate the discrepancies. We already have a body who does that - GSOC.

If GSOC raises flags that indicate outside influence, then you set up a larger enquiry.

I no longer trust the ability of organisations to investigate themselves.

Actually it matters a lot. In the same way that it matters whether someone stole €10 or €10,000, collusion involving high-ranking Gardai and politicians is a far bigger issue than collusion involving an individual team of Gardai.

No it would not matter a damn to somebody locked up on bogus/altered/ fabricated/mis-remembered evidence.

And a conspiracy involving 50 members co-ordinating over hidden channels is far more worrying than a conspiracy involving 5 members discussed over a few pints.

Again, it has the same level of importance to the person banged up.

Of course it needs to be examined and dealt with. But they don't require the same response.

Throwing a massive public inquiry and tens of millions of euros at a relatively small incidence of corruption, is in itself corrupt - it's an abuse of power. If this had been ordinary members of the public on trial and not Paul Murphy, would he be calling for a public inquiry? Would he ****.

There are people up before the courts every day with Gardai stacking their statements against them and with public solicitors taking backhanders to push their clients to plead guilty. Is Murphy taking any interest in them? Of course he isn't.

I am not sure what kind of State you want to live in, but you are clearly aware of corruption and seem satisfied with it. Let's hope you never fall victim to it.

seamus · 10-07-2017 01:00PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I no longer trust the ability of organisations to investigate themselves.

And who investigates the investigators? Public inquiries have repeatedly proven to be little more than talking shops to hand money over to retired judges, auditors, barristers and solicitors.
Any useful investigation has to start from first principles - the people who are charged to do it.

If you assume corruption before you find any corruption, your investigation is already flawed.

No it would not matter a damn to somebody locked up on bogus/altered/ fabricated/mis-remembered evidence.
Again, it has the same level of importance to the person banged up.

Argument from emotion. Irrelevant. The seriousness of a crime is not measured by the victims' perception of it. Otherwise we'd be hanging burglars.

Again, I ask why Murphy never started demanding public inquiries into cases except those relevant to him.
Someone involved in a case trying to dictate the direction of the investigation is corruption.

I am not sure what kind of State you want to live in, but you are clearly aware of corruption and seem satisfied with it. Let's hope you never fall victim to it.

Now you see you're making stuff up. I never once suggested I was satisfied with it nor that we should ignore it.

We have to recognise some fundamental truths;

1. Police officers are people
2. All people are corruptible
3. People generally just want to do the right thing

So, we would expect police forces to have some level of corruption. Which means that we need to use appropriate resources and approaches to combat corruption, which match both the scale and incidence of it.

So if you get hot and bothered about the small stuff, throwing huge amounts of resources at it when you find it, then you're going to be really ineffective at dealing with it. Not only will you be burning money, but you'll allow it to thrive because you don't have the resources to deal with every occurrence of it at once.

But you can drag in point # 3 above to tackle the small stuff - show people the right way to do things, guide them away from the small incidences of corruption with both carrots and sticks - and it's cheaper and more effective.

Speeding and drink-driving are two good examples here. Up to a certain point these were resource-intensive to prosecute. You had to stop them, record it down, drag people into court, potentially take the stand. Nightmare. It was an endemic problem in Irish driving.

Then penalty points and FPN's come in. Simple and easy - issue and forget. And what happens? Road behaviour improved practically overnight. Road deaths plummeted. And not only that, attitudes changed. We didn't suddenly replace our drivers with better drivers - we still have the same drivers on the road, but better guided about what the "right thing" was, we now have better drivers on the road than we did 15 years ago.

So too is this the approach that needs to be taken to these low-level issues in the force. How many other cases that took place during the Jobstown trial, involved the same kind of "Gardai getting their story straight" shenanigans? I'm willing to bet hundreds. And for all the resources people want to throw at the Jobstown trial, nothing will ever be done about them, or any other cases that will take place between now and the end of a public enquiry in 2029 after 3 dead judges, 5 Taoisigh and €500m in public money.

Keep the big money and the big response for the big events - an attempted smearing of a whistleblower, bugging the GSOC offices.
Small and endemic issues like this one and falsified breath test numbers, require a more subtle, behaviour-focussed and widespread response.

I would note that progress is always going to be slow, and it's undeniable that significant progress is being made in sorting out the force. There's a long way to go though, and losing your sh1t over small issues is counter-productive.
From the point of view of the Garda on the street they're basically being told that no matter how much effort they put into improving what they're doing, and trying to be honest, someone is always going to explode over the smallest of things.

So why bother your hole trying to be a decent person if you're still gonna get sh1t about it?

FrancieBrady · 10-07-2017 01:11PM

seamus wrote: »

And who investigates the investigators? Public inquiries have repeatedly proven to be little more than talking shops to hand money over to retired judges, auditors, barristers and solicitors.
Any useful investigation has to start from first principles - the people who are charged to do it.

If you assume corruption before you find any corruption, your investigation is already flawed.
Argument from emotion. Irrelevant. The seriousness of a crime is not measured by the victims' perception of it. Otherwise we'd be hanging burglars.

Again, I ask why Murphy never started demanding public inquiries into cases except those relevant to him.
Someone involved in a case trying to dictate the direction of the investigation is corruption.
Now you see you're making stuff up. I never once suggested I was satisfied with it nor that we should ignore it.

We have to recognise some fundamental truths;

1. Police officers are people
2. All people are corruptible
3. People generally just want to do the right thing

So, we would expect police forces to have some level of corruption. Which means that we need to use appropriate resources and approaches to combat corruption, which match both the scale and incidence of it.

So if you get hot and bothered about the small stuff, throwing huge amounts of resources at it when you find it, then you're going to be really ineffective at dealing with it. Not only will you be burning money, but you'll allow it to thrive because you don't have the resources to deal with every occurrence of it at once.

But you can drag in point # 3 above to tackle the small stuff - show people the right way to do things, guide them away from the small incidences of corruption with both carrots and sticks - and it's cheaper and more effective.

Speeding and drink-driving are two good examples here. Up to a certain point these were resource-intensive to prosecute. You had to stop them, record it down, drag people into court, potentially take the stand. Nightmare. It was an endemic problem in Irish driving.

Then penalty points and FPN's come in. Simple and easy - issue and forget. And what happens? Road behaviour improved practically overnight. Road deaths plummeted. And not only that, attitudes changed. We didn't suddenly replace our drivers with better drivers - we still have the same drivers on the road, but better guided about what the "right thing" was, we now have better drivers on the road than we did 15 years ago.

So too is this the approach that needs to be taken to these low-level issues in the force. How many other cases that took place during the Jobstown trial, involved the same kind of "Gardai getting their story straight" shenanigans? I'm willing to bet hundreds. And for all the resources people want to throw at the Jobstown trial, nothing will ever be done about them, or any other cases that will take place between now and the end of a public enquiry in 2029 after 3 dead judges, 5 Taoisigh and €500m in public money.

Keep the big money and the big response for the big events - an attempted smearing of a whistleblower, bugging the GSOC offices.
Small and endemic issues like this one and falsified breath test numbers, require a more subtle, behaviour-focussed and widespread response.

I would note that progress is always going to be slow, and it's undeniable that significant progress is being made in sorting out the force. There's a long way to go though, and losing your sh1t over small issues is counter-productive.
From the point of view of the Garda on the street they're basically being told that no matter how much effort they put into improving what they're doing, and trying to be honest, someone is always going to explode over the smallest of things.

So why bother your hole trying to be a decent person if you're still gonna get sh1t about it?

You seem to have a major issue with the fact that Paul Murphy is at the centre of this and are having an emotional reaction to this.

I say it doesn't matter who is at the centre of it, it warrants further investigation because they were political leaders.
It doesn't matter what their politics is.

And you don't get to decide on the 'scale' of the possible transgression here.

seamus · 10-07-2017 01:15PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You seem to have a major issue with the fact that Paul Murphy is at the centre of this and are having an emotional reaction to this.

No, not at all. Murphy is just the posterboy here and an easy target because he's a complete hypocrite in everything he does. The first to complain about wasting public money, and then he comes out demanding a full public inquiry into his own personal court case. He's as corrupt as anyone he accuses of it.

I say it doesn't matter who is at the centre of it, it warrants further investigation because they were political leaders.
It doesn't matter what their politics is.

Yeah, we're not disagreeing on that.

And you don't get to decide on the 'scale' of the possible transgression here.

Indeed. Neither do you. Nor does Paul Murphy.

Demanding a full public inquiry is way jumping the gun. Follow the process. An internal investigation has started. Until that concludes, everyone should STFU.

FrancieBrady · 10-07-2017 01:23PM

seamus wrote: »

No, not at all. Murphy is just the posterboy here and an easy target because he's a complete hypocrite in everything he does. The first to complain about wasting public money, and then he comes out demanding a full public inquiry into his own personal court case. He's as corrupt as anyone he accuses of it.
Yeah, we're not disagreeing on that.
Indeed. Neither do you. Nor does Paul Murphy.

Demanding a full public inquiry is way jumping the gun. Follow the process. An internal investigation has started. Until that concludes, everyone should STFU.

Where would we be in this country if 'everyone' had 'STFU' and said nothing?

The day of sweeping it under the carpet should be long gone in this country, long long gone.

As I said, I don't trust organisations to investigate or regulate themselves, They, in the main, from Church to Banks to the Gardai have caused this crisis in confidence, nobody else.

seamus · 10-07-2017 01:38PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where would we be in this country if 'everyone' had 'STFU' and said nothing?

The day of sweeping it under the carpet should be long gone in this country, long long gone.

Who said anything about sweeping it under the carpet?

All this braying from the sidelines instead of letting investigations take their course is exactly why so much money gets wasted on toothless and pointless public enquiries.

The anti-everything cohort are using this as a parapet to sound off. They demand justice but only on their terms. If they believed in justice, they would let things take their course.

When things have stopped progressing, THEN you can start making noise.

As I said, I don't trust organisations to investigate or regulate themselves, They, in the main, from Church to Banks to the Gardai have caused this crisis in confidence, nobody else.

Again. Who investigates the investigators? If you're coming from that position, then I fear that you can't be satisfied with any investigation unless you do it yourself. Self-regulation is an problem only without independent oversight.

FrancieBrady · 10-07-2017 01:46PM

seamus wrote: »

Who said anything about sweeping it under the carpet?

All this braying from the sidelines instead of letting investigations take their course is exactly why so much money gets wasted on toothless and pointless public enquiries.

The anti-everything cohort are using this as a parapet to sound off. They demand justice but only on their terms. If they believed in justice, they would let things take their course.

When things have stopped progressing, THEN you can start making noise.

There was no mention of internal inquiries until Varadkar spoke last Thursday.
And we know nothing of the detail on it and what it's terms of reference are.

Again you relate this to your own politics, i.e. 'the anti-everything crowd'.
How tired is that phrase.

Again. Who investigates the investigators? If you're coming from that position, then I fear that you can't be satisfied with any investigation unless you do it yourself. Self-regulation is an problem only without independent oversight.

Nonsense again.
Organisations have proven here that they cannot yet be trusted to investigate themselves.
There is no confidence there. Not from me anyhow. So, through no fault of mine, the expensive route may be the only way.

kravmaga · 10-07-2017 01:49PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

you really think that footage that was posted on the facebook pages purporting to be from the garda chopper was genuine ?

fyi the garda chopper is operated by air corp personnel

With a Garda observer on board also I would have thought for CCTV operation and radio comms with ground units and Harcourt Square command and control

Joshua J · 10-07-2017 02:14PM

So the lads didn't intentionally give false testimony at a trial which could have seen innocent people go to jail they just got their stories mixed up after a few scoops down the local.

I've heard it all now.

McMurphy · 10-07-2017 02:49PM

Joshua J wrote: »

So the lads didn't intentionally give false testimony at a trial which could have seen innocent people go to jail they just got their stories mixed up after a few scoops down the local.

I've heard it all now.

And the garda chopper footage, and it's audio is fake.

I assume Jeff is speaking on behalf of the Garda because they haven't claimed it was falsified.

seamus · 10-07-2017 02:52PM

Joshua J wrote: »

So the lads didn't intentionally give false testimony at a trial which could have seen innocent people go to jail they just got their stories mixed up after a few scoops down the local.

I've heard it all now.

You might want to get your hearing checked then, it seems like you're hearing things that were never said.

RustyNut · 10-07-2017 02:53PM

seamus wrote: »

You might want to get your hearing checked then, it seems like you're hearing things that were never said.

Should send him off to join the guards so, wha......

Joshua J · 10-07-2017 02:55PM

seamus wrote: »

You might want to get your hearing checked then, it seems like you're hearing things that were never said.

Hearing words written on a site?. Have a lie down mate you're all over the shop. Few too many scoops perhaps?.

13-07-2017 03:45PM

Poor Paul Murphy had his knuckles well and truly rapped by Leo. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/youre-no-victim-varadkar-rails-against-murphy-35925664.html Don't think Paul appreciated being told the true feelings of the people as voiced by Leo the Brave.

seachto7 · 13-07-2017 04:12PM

HOw much is Paul on a year? Did he pay all his own court fees?

13-07-2017 04:20PM

seachto7 wrote: »

HOw much is Paul on a year? Did he pay all his own court fees?

He was granted Free Legal Aid. I would imagine that seeing as they've been found not guilty that their expenses will be covered by the State.

FrancieBrady · 13-07-2017 04:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Poor Paul Murphy had his knuckles well and truly rapped by Leo. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/youre-no-victim-varadkar-rails-against-murphy-35925664.html Don't think Paul appreciated being told the true feelings of the people as voiced by Leo the Brave.

Leo The Brave deflected (ala Enda before him) to the high moral ground when faced with something he had no answer to.

seamus · 13-07-2017 04:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo The Brave deflected (ala Enda before him) to the high moral ground when faced with something he had no answer to.

What did he have no answer to?

Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Comments