Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

wexandproud · 15-07-2017 07:28AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, you somehow managed to infer Murphy disagreed with it. Hilarious.

he did disagree . He was charged brought to court and found not guilty . he was on radio straight away shouting about having no faith in the justice system.
the should have locked up the bo..ocks and his cronies , but having said that , it would have played right into his hands

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 07:33AM

wexandproud wrote: »

he did disagree . He was charged brought to court and found not guilty . he was on radio straight away shouting about having no faith in the justice system.
the should have locked up the bo..ocks and his cronies , but having said that , it would have played right into his hands

Hmmm...I'm sure I saw those that rushed on here to shout 'Shame' (that innocent men didn't go to jail) complain about the scenes of celebration outside the court.

Generally, you have to be 'happy' to celebrate.
But clearly the amateur Freuds of Boards.ie know different. :rolleyes:

wexandproud · 15-07-2017 07:49AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hmmm...I'm sure I saw those that rushed on here to shout 'Shame' (that innocent men didn't go to jail) complain about the scenes of celebration outside the court.

Generally, you have to be 'happy' to celebrate.
But clearly the amateur Freuds of Boards.ie know different. :rolleyes:

he was found not guilty of what he was charged with .
innocent !! i think not
the only ones in the scenes of celebration outside the court were of the usual ''rent a mob '' type

Wheeliebin30 · 15-07-2017 08:02AM

The jobstown 6?
The Birmingham 6?

Don't these idiots realise one was totally stitched up while the other had justice property served.

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 08:02AM

wexandproud wrote: »

he was found not guilty of what he was charged with .
innocent !! i think not
the only ones in the scenes of celebration outside the court were of the usual ''rent a mob '' type

Here we go again, despite the court of the land finding them innocent of the charges the alternate court of wexandproud has found Paul Murphy (whose politics he/she doesn't like) him guilty.

And have a look here, read what the reporter says about and what the picture shows. Does he look like someone who is devastated that he wasn't found guilty?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/dpp-warned-td-about-his-tweets-during-jobstown-trial-1.3138301

wexandproud · 15-07-2017 12:12PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here we go again, despite the court of the land finding them innocent of the charges the alternate court of wexandproud has found Paul Murphy (whose politics he/she doesn't like) him guilty.

And have a look here, read what the reporter says about and what the picture shows. Does he look like someone who is devastated that he wasn't found guilty?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/dpp-warned-td-about-his-tweets-during-jobstown-trial-1.3138301

in your own link it says they were found them ''not guilty'' of what they charged with , that's different than being innocent .
according to the ''court of wexandproud '' as you called me , yes the are guilty of something else threatning behaviour and intimidation at the least, but they weren't charged with that .
as you refer to me as the '' court of wexandproud '' maybe you should refer to yourself as ''court of franciebrady'' as you pass judgement on here regularly yourself

Captain Obvious · 15-07-2017 12:37PM

wexandproud wrote: »

''court of franciebrady'' as you pass judgement on here regularly yourself

I think a court would have to have a bit more knowledge of the law.

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 01:00PM

wexandproud wrote: »

in your own link it says they were found them ''not guilty'' of what they charged with , that's different than being innocent .
according to the ''court of wexandproud '' as you called me , yes the are guilty of something else threatning behaviour and intimidation at the least, but they weren't charged with that .
as you refer to me as the '' court of wexandproud '' maybe you should refer to yourself as ''court of franciebrady'' as you pass judgement on here regularly yourself

Well if they are guilty of 'threatening behaviour' and 'intimidation' that broke the law, you'll be able to present some evidence of the defendants doing that.

WinnyThePoo · 15-07-2017 01:08PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I think a court would have to have a bit more knowledge of the law.

It didn't doesn't matter what the outcome of the case was for Paul. He's the victim here. Paul doesn't live in reality. The reaction of Leo varadkar comments show up his Base for what they are. Double think hypocrites who are all about getting one over the man.

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 01:09PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I think a court would have to have a bit more knowledge of the law.

It isn't hard to see, from even a cursory read of the threads on Jobstown, just who has pronounced judgement and are attempting to close the case.

I want an inquiry, because I don't know if there was perjury or not.

The state was entitled and right to take these men to court if it felt they broke the law. What the state and it's various arms was NOT entitled to do was concoct or lie in an effort to secure a conviction.

Did that happen in this case, you, the various courts of justice patrolling Boards.ie, Leo Varadkar or I have no idea.

What does a democrat do in that instance...no, he doesn't close up shop and hope it will all go away or attempt to sweep it under the carpet.

end of the road · 15-07-2017 01:13PM

wexandproud wrote: »

he did disagree . He was charged brought to court and found not guilty . he was on radio straight away shouting about having no faith in the justice system.
the should have locked up the bo..ocks and his cronies , but having said that , it would have played right into his hands

they should have locked them up dispite not being guilty, because you don't like them?
sorry lad but you lot lost. paul murphy and co were found not guilty because they weren't guilty.

Joshua J · 15-07-2017 01:14PM

I can't believe people still think in right and left not right and wrong. Simpletons.

wexandproud · 15-07-2017 01:38PM

end of the road wrote: »

they should have locked them up dispite not being guilty, because you don't like them?
sorry lad but you lot lost. paul murphy and co were found not guilty because they weren't guilty.

no , i haven't lost the plot they , like i said were found not guilty of what they were charged with and while i don't like it i accept the courts decision . i just feel the wrong charge was made and if a lesser charge was made a conviction might have been gotten.
me likeing him or not is nothing to do with it , i don't know the man so can't say if i like him or not , its his thugish behavior i don't like

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 01:56PM

wexandproud wrote: »

no , i haven't lost the plot they , like i said were found not guilty of what they were charged with and while i don't like it i accept the courts decision . i just feel the wrong charge was made and if a lesser charge was made a conviction might have been gotten.
me likeing him or not is nothing to do with it , i don't know the man so can't say if i like him or not , its his thugish behavior i don't like

What 'thugish' behaviour?
The judge(the real one) was very clear on what constituted normal protest.
Where did any of these men cross this line?
You need to show that or stand accused of wanting summary justice for political reasons.

The same thing the Gardai are accused of funnily enough.

RustyNut · 15-07-2017 02:00PM

wexandproud wrote: »

in your own link it says they were found them ''not guilty'' of what they charged with , that's different than being innocent .

Under Irish law innocence is assumed. Same for you me Paul Murphy and any guard that's suspected of perjury.

Hilly Bill · 15-07-2017 02:04PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well if they are guilty of 'threatening behaviour' and 'intimidation' that broke the law, you'll be able to present some evidence of the defendants doing that.

All the video evidence you need on that one is on you tube..

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 04:12PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

All the video evidence you need on that one is on you tube..

I looked at them, I cannot ID the defendants breaking the law. Protest behaviour alright, but breaking the law...no.

Can any of those that are 'sure'these men are guilty?

Hilly Bill · 15-07-2017 08:51PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I looked at them, I cannot ID the defendants breaking the law. Protest behaviour alright, but breaking the law...no.

Can any of those that are 'sure'these men are guilty?

Breach of the peace is a starting point. Paul Murphy can't see that the DPP did him a favour. They charged them with a ridiculous charge knowingly that they wouldn't get a conviction which is a waste of time and money. If they charged them with breach of the peace, intimidation, obstruction etc then they would have had a conviction and the circus that would have followed. This way, the DPP had to bring a charge, Murphy gets off and everyone should be happy bunnies. All a big waste of time and money but that should be the end of it.

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 09:06PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Breach of the peace is a starting point. Paul Murphy can't see that the DPP did him a favour. They charged them with a ridiculous charge knowingly that they wouldn't get a conviction which is a waste of time and money. If they charged them with breach of the peace, intimidation, obstruction etc then they would have had a conviction and the circus that would have followed. This way, the DPP had to bring a charge, Murphy gets off and everyone should be happy bunnies. All a big waste of time and money but that should be the end of it.

The DPP knew they wouldn't get a conviction? Wow, you have access to the DPP's thinking. I'm humbled.

Zebra3 · 15-07-2017 10:30PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Breach of the peace is a starting point. Paul Murphy can't see that the DPP did him a favour. They charged them with a ridiculous charge knowingly that they wouldn't get a conviction which is a waste of time and money. If they charged them with breach of the peace, intimidation, obstruction etc then they would have had a conviction and the circus that would have followed. This way, the DPP had to bring a charge, Murphy gets off and everyone should be happy bunnies. All a big waste of time and money but that should be the end of it.

It shouldn't be the end of it.

It seems like there is a possibility that certain people perjured themselves in court.

lensman · 15-07-2017 10:54PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Breach of the peace is a starting point. Paul Murphy can't see that the DPP did him a favour. They charged them with a ridiculous charge knowingly that they wouldn't get a conviction which is a waste of time and money. If they charged them with breach of the peace, intimidation, obstruction etc then they would have had a conviction and the circus that would have followed. This way, the DPP had to bring a charge, Murphy gets off and everyone should be happy bunnies. All a big waste of time and money but that should be the end of it.

I heard on RTE news (for what it's worth) that there was time limit restrictions for prosecutions under the lesser charges you mentioned, rather silly to proceed at all really, it would have all blown over in a few days and Joan could have continued opening soup kitchens to show everyone how concerned she was and the labour party would still be in the dumps as tomorrows poll shows. OHH I forgot to mentioned the horror Ms Burton jnr had to endure in court, "sitting next to these people" or to put it more accurately 'sitting next to her mothers constituents' that could have been avoided too.

Hilly Bill · 15-07-2017 11:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DPP knew they wouldn't get a conviction? Wow, you have access to the DPP's thinking. I'm humbled.

It doesn't take much to work it out.

Hilly Bill · 15-07-2017 11:06PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

It shouldn't be the end of it.

It seems like there is a possibility that certain people perjured themselves in court.

It only matters in a guilty verdict. It's not going to make Paul Murphy even more not guilty.

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 11:45PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

It doesn't take much to work it out.

The DPP, according to your info, proceeded with a case they KNEW they would not win?

You realise what you are saying here?

Arcade_Tryer · 16-07-2017 12:31AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

It only matters in a guilty verdict.

Mind boggling logic. Scary in fact.

It's not going to make Paul Murphy even more not guilty.

Who cares abut him? He has been found innocent. Move on.

Rumpy Pumpy · 16-07-2017 12:45AM

Anyone else think there is 'something off' about Paul Murphy?

It's in the eyes. There's no humanity there at all.

wexandproud · 16-07-2017 06:35AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

All the video evidence you need on that one is on you tube..

i couldn't even be bothered replying to that post from francie , you can be well sure he has seen the videos and probably studied them for hours on end but you know yourself ''there is none so blind as them who do not want to see ''

RustyNut · 16-07-2017 07:23AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

They charged them with a ridiculous charge knowingly that they wouldn't get a conviction

So he should bring a civil action against them for malicious prosecution.

Curly Judge · 16-07-2017 08:01AM

If Paul Murphy succeeds in his attempt to have a public inquiry, will he give the evidence he refused to give in the court case?

Bishopsback · 16-07-2017 08:26AM

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Anyone else think there is 'something off' about Paul Murphy?

It's in the eyes. There's no humanity there at all.

I knew it!
https://pawsforamoment.wordpress.com/tag/animal-welfare/

Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Comments