Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 08:55AM

wexandproud wrote: »

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 ''

So you can't show us then. Very good.

RustyNut · 16-07-2017 08:58AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

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?

What evidence did he refuse to give?

16-07-2017 09:46AM

This is a long piece, but it puts into words perfectly what many of us feel about Paul Murphy and the whole Jobstown incident.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/daniel-mcconnell/murphys-law-one-rule-for-me-one-for-you-454864.html?&session=ca9iMNCtA1Gs7e9f7cB1FT1Ijaffyjzd+7hg2dl+E08=

"DANIEL MCCONNELL: Murphy’s law: One rule for me, one for you
Saturday, July 15, 2017
TD Paul Murphy, having had a fair trial, unfairly sought to ‘convict’ three members of an Garda Síochána in the ‘court of public opinion’, in the Dáil, where the officers concerned had no opportunity to respond, says Daniel McConnell
He got a fair trial from his peers, was acquitted by them, and found not guilty of all charges that he faced.
He was tried over nine weeks and let us remember, too, the tab for his legal defence was picked up by the taxpayer, despite him being paid a salary of €89,965.
But his behaviour in the Dáil on Wednesday at Leaders’ Questions was once again reprehensible and his refusal to accept any responsibility for the vile events on the day of the Jobstown protest show why he is unfit for office.
Despite his victory, during very heated exchanges with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, he saw fit to stray into conspiracy theory land and accuse members of An Garda Síochána of committing perjury.
“The Taoiseach has to decide what all of that means. I know what I think it means. I think it means that numerous gardaí lied under oath. I think that they did so in a coordinated way. That implies an agreement to commit perjury,” he barbed.
Having been warned repeatedly by Ceann Comhairle Seán Ó Fearghaíl that he was out of order by attempting to review the trial, Mr Murphy ignored him and cried foul at this attempted ‘conspiracy’.
“One garda misremembering this under oath would be an unfortunate error. Two gardaí remembering the same words that were not said would be an incredible, almost unbelievable, coincidence, but three gardaí — the Taoiseach should tell me what he thinks that means. Add to that the garda who swore under oath that he had seen me directing protesters where to stand.
“When confronted with video evidence proving that I was not directing anybody and he could not have seen me in any case, he responded, ‘I stand over my statement’.
“Add to that the superintendent who, in his written statement, claimed that as a consequence of what I had said on the megaphone, people became more aggressive and missiles began to be thrown.”
Amid interruptions, he attempted to continue. “The deputies might not agree with the call for a public inquiry. Fianna Fáil, in particular, might be nervous about these points being raised but something very serious happened in court and there is a public interest in a public inquiry. I am asking for a public inquiry if the Ceann Comhairle will let me finish the point,” Mr Murphy continued.
At which point, the Taoiseach took to his feet to respond. It was the sort of response that his supporters flagged during the leadership race, as to what he is capable of.
Speaking without a script, he went for the jugular and landed a heavy blow on the posh populist prince of the poor.
He said: “The deputy had a fair trial. It went on for nine weeks. The deputy’s peers heard both sides of the case, the prosecution, and the defence. They reviewed the evidence and they acquitted him of false imprisonment. You are not a victim here. You are not the victim of any conspiracy.
“You had a fair trial and you were acquitted, but that does not mean that your behaviour was right.
“It may well be the case that the deputy was not engaged in kidnapping, but it was thuggery and your behaviour was wrong,” he said to loud cries of ‘hear, hear’ from the benches behind him.
“The protest was ugly, it was violent, it was nasty. For those of us who have seen some of the coverage of it that was broadcast on television, whether it was the anger, the virulence, the words that were being directed at two women going about their course of work on the day, a water balloon being thrown in somebody’s face, all of those things were behaviour that is unbecoming of a member of this House, unbecoming of somebody who believes in democracy, and unbecoming of somebody who has any respect for other human beings.
“Instead of trying to present himself as the victim and demanding a public inquiry, what the deputy should do now in the House is offer a public apology to Deputy Burton and Ms O’Connell [Ms Burton’s adviser].”
While they were not audible during the noisy exchanges, Mr Varadkar’s comments were instantly denounced by Mr Murphy and his comrades.
According to the official Dáil record, Deputy Ruth Coppinger described Mr Varadkar’s charge of thuggery as “outrageous”.
Deputy Mick Barry added: “It is a disgraceful comment.”
Ms Coppinger is also recorded as saying the word ‘traitor’ while the Taoiseach was attempting to speak.
It was a very important exchange from the Taoiseach’s point of view and it showed a sign as to why he is fit to lead.
For as loud as the cheers were on the backbenches when he described Mr Murphy’s actions as thuggish, they were equally loud through the length and breadth of this country.
In that moment, the Taoiseach spoke as a leader of the majority of the people of Ireland who were appalled at what they saw in Jobstown in late 2014.
This is evidenced by the fact that politicians from all sides of the House, other than the hard left, have commented on how their constituents found the Taoiseach strongly echoed their views on the ugly scenes in South-West Dublin. In his final reply to Mr Murphy, the Taoiseach gave vent to the very legitimate concerns as to why the trial was not successful.
“As the head of Government, I have a legitimate concern about any failed prosecution, whether it is that prosecution or the prosecution of Mr Seán FitzPatrick or others. Enormous cost goes into such prosecutions. Enormous effort goes into such prosecutions, and at the very least, if a prosecution fails in this way, there should be a review or an examination of the facts. That is something that should occur,” he said.
The failure of the two trials mentioned by the Taoiseach are cause for concern and do raise questions for gardaí, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in the FitzPatrick case, it raises major issues for the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.
But Mr Murphy, having had a fair trial, sought to do the most unfair thing by trying to convict three members of An Garda Síochána in the court of public opinion, on the floor of the Dáil, where the officers had no opportunity to respond.
He has been unapologetically defiant in the aftermath of the trial and his spat with the Taoiseach.
At a doorstep later that day on the Summer Economic Statement, Mr Murphy was asked whether he would give an apology to Ms Burton and Ms O’Connell.
“I have nothing to apologise for,” came the response.
He is now set to lodge a formal complaint claiming that Mr Varadkar and ministers Charlie Flanagan and Mary Mitchell O’Connor defamed him during a heated Dáil exchange.
In a letter sent to the Ceann Comhairle, Mr Murphy will claim Mr Varadkar’s accusation that events at the Jobstown protest amounted to “thuggery” broke Oireachtas rules.
Mr Murphy has alleged that the Taoiseach’s description of the demonstration suggests he was involved in ‘anger’, ‘swear words’ and throwing a water balloon.
“These are false allegations, which are defamatory,” he writes.
It would appear Mr Murphy wishes one sets of rules for him and a different set for everyone else.
The Irish people, however, aren’t buying it.
READ MORE Visit the section home page here
© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved"

McMurphy · 16-07-2017 09:46AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

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?

I see you've already been called out on this, but no response?

A bit of enlightenment please.

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 09:56AM

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a long piece, but it puts into words perfectly what many of us feel about Paul Murphy and the whole Jobstown incident.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/daniel-mcconnell/murphys-law-one-rule-for-me-one-for-you-454864.html?&session=ca9iMNCtA1Gs7e9f7cB1FT1Ijaffyjzd+7hg2dl+E08=

"DANIEL MCCONNELL: Murphy’s law: One rule for me, one for you
Saturday, July 15, 2017
TD Paul Murphy, having had a fair trial, unfairly sought to ‘convict’ three members of an Garda Síochána in the ‘court of public opinion’, in the Dáil, where the officers concerned had no opportunity to respond, says Daniel McConnell
He got a fair trial from his peers, was acquitted by them, and found not guilty of all charges that he faced.
He was tried over nine weeks and let us remember, too, the tab for his legal defence was picked up by the taxpayer, despite him being paid a salary of €89,965.
But his behaviour in the Dáil on Wednesday at Leaders’ Questions was once again reprehensible and his refusal to accept any responsibility for the vile events on the day of the Jobstown protest show why he is unfit for office.
Despite his victory, during very heated exchanges with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, he saw fit to stray into conspiracy theory land and accuse members of An Garda Síochána of committing perjury.
“The Taoiseach has to decide what all of that means. I know what I think it means. I think it means that numerous gardaí lied under oath. I think that they did so in a coordinated way. That implies an agreement to commit perjury,” he barbed.
Having been warned repeatedly by Ceann Comhairle Seán Ó Fearghaíl that he was out of order by attempting to review the trial, Mr Murphy ignored him and cried foul at this attempted ‘conspiracy’.
“One garda misremembering this under oath would be an unfortunate error. Two gardaí remembering the same words that were not said would be an incredible, almost unbelievable, coincidence, but three gardaí — the Taoiseach should tell me what he thinks that means. Add to that the garda who swore under oath that he had seen me directing protesters where to stand.
“When confronted with video evidence proving that I was not directing anybody and he could not have seen me in any case, he responded, ‘I stand over my statement’.
“Add to that the superintendent who, in his written statement, claimed that as a consequence of what I had said on the megaphone, people became more aggressive and missiles began to be thrown.”
Amid interruptions, he attempted to continue. “The deputies might not agree with the call for a public inquiry. Fianna Fáil, in particular, might be nervous about these points being raised but something very serious happened in court and there is a public interest in a public inquiry. I am asking for a public inquiry if the Ceann Comhairle will let me finish the point,” Mr Murphy continued.
At which point, the Taoiseach took to his feet to respond. It was the sort of response that his supporters flagged during the leadership race, as to what he is capable of.
Speaking without a script, he went for the jugular and landed a heavy blow on the posh populist prince of the poor.
He said: “The deputy had a fair trial. It went on for nine weeks. The deputy’s peers heard both sides of the case, the prosecution, and the defence. They reviewed the evidence and they acquitted him of false imprisonment. You are not a victim here. You are not the victim of any conspiracy.
“You had a fair trial and you were acquitted, but that does not mean that your behaviour was right.
“It may well be the case that the deputy was not engaged in kidnapping, but it was thuggery and your behaviour was wrong,” he said to loud cries of ‘hear, hear’ from the benches behind him.
“The protest was ugly, it was violent, it was nasty. For those of us who have seen some of the coverage of it that was broadcast on television, whether it was the anger, the virulence, the words that were being directed at two women going about their course of work on the day, a water balloon being thrown in somebody’s face, all of those things were behaviour that is unbecoming of a member of this House, unbecoming of somebody who believes in democracy, and unbecoming of somebody who has any respect for other human beings.
“Instead of trying to present himself as the victim and demanding a public inquiry, what the deputy should do now in the House is offer a public apology to Deputy Burton and Ms O’Connell [Ms Burton’s adviser].”
While they were not audible during the noisy exchanges, Mr Varadkar’s comments were instantly denounced by Mr Murphy and his comrades.
According to the official Dáil record, Deputy Ruth Coppinger described Mr Varadkar’s charge of thuggery as “outrageous”.
Deputy Mick Barry added: “It is a disgraceful comment.”
Ms Coppinger is also recorded as saying the word ‘traitor’ while the Taoiseach was attempting to speak.
It was a very important exchange from the Taoiseach’s point of view and it showed a sign as to why he is fit to lead.
For as loud as the cheers were on the backbenches when he described Mr Murphy’s actions as thuggish, they were equally loud through the length and breadth of this country.
In that moment, the Taoiseach spoke as a leader of the majority of the people of Ireland who were appalled at what they saw in Jobstown in late 2014.
This is evidenced by the fact that politicians from all sides of the House, other than the hard left, have commented on how their constituents found the Taoiseach strongly echoed their views on the ugly scenes in South-West Dublin. In his final reply to Mr Murphy, the Taoiseach gave vent to the very legitimate concerns as to why the trial was not successful.
“As the head of Government, I have a legitimate concern about any failed prosecution, whether it is that prosecution or the prosecution of Mr Seán FitzPatrick or others. Enormous cost goes into such prosecutions. Enormous effort goes into such prosecutions, and at the very least, if a prosecution fails in this way, there should be a review or an examination of the facts. That is something that should occur,” he said.
The failure of the two trials mentioned by the Taoiseach are cause for concern and do raise questions for gardaí, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in the FitzPatrick case, it raises major issues for the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.
But Mr Murphy, having had a fair trial, sought to do the most unfair thing by trying to convict three members of An Garda Síochána in the court of public opinion, on the floor of the Dáil, where the officers had no opportunity to respond.
He has been unapologetically defiant in the aftermath of the trial and his spat with the Taoiseach.
At a doorstep later that day on the Summer Economic Statement, Mr Murphy was asked whether he would give an apology to Ms Burton and Ms O’Connell.
“I have nothing to apologise for,” came the response.
He is now set to lodge a formal complaint claiming that Mr Varadkar and ministers Charlie Flanagan and Mary Mitchell O’Connor defamed him during a heated Dáil exchange.
In a letter sent to the Ceann Comhairle, Mr Murphy will claim Mr Varadkar’s accusation that events at the Jobstown protest amounted to “thuggery” broke Oireachtas rules.
Mr Murphy has alleged that the Taoiseach’s description of the demonstration suggests he was involved in ‘anger’, ‘swear words’ and throwing a water balloon.
“These are false allegations, which are defamatory,” he writes.
It would appear Mr Murphy wishes one sets of rules for him and a different set for everyone else.
The Irish people, however, aren’t buying it.
READ MORE Visit the section home page here
© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved"

Fairly typical of the media reporting of this whole thing from the start.

Murphy knows what he did and said at Jobstown so can say conclusively that the Taoiseach's allegations are 'false'.
Like you and all the rest on here, the onus should be on the Taoiseach to prove what he said with instances of unlawfulness.

Murphy and some of us on here are similarly correct in stating that there might have been organised perjury. Because of the 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies' alluded to by a Judge of the courts of Ireland.
They exist and are real...so far allegations that the Taoiseach made are figments of imagination.

16-07-2017 10:03AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fairly typical of the media reporting of this whole thing from the start.

Murphy knows what he did and said at Jobstown so can say conclusively that the Taoiseach's allegations are 'false'.
Like you and all the rest on here, the onus should be on the Taoiseach to prove what he said with instances of unlawfulness.

Murphy and some of us on here are similarly correct in stating that there might have been organised perjury. Because of the 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies' alluded to by a Judge of the courts of Ireland.
They exist and are real...so far allegations that the Taoiseach made are figments of imagination.

Whatever happened since that incident, it doesn't change the fact that the events that day were the actions of thugs. The kind of low life that I for one, want nothing to do with. We have seen the videos. There is nothing anyone can say to justify those actions. The fact that Murphy and his cohorts saw nothing wrong in their actions speaks volumes.

Now, tis a grand day out, so I'm off out to enjoy it. Laters.

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 10:11AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever happened since that incident, it doesn't change the fact that the events that day were the actions of thugs. The kind of low life that I for one, want nothing to do with. We have seen the videos. There is nothing anyone can say to justify those actions. The fact that Murphy and his cohorts saw nothing wrong in their actions speaks volumes.

Now, tis a grand day out, so I'm off out to enjoy it. Laters.

You keep forgetting to use the 'some', some thugs and some violence.

Some effort to blame everyone. Enjoy the sun.

Hilly Bill · 16-07-2017 11:54AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

You realise what you are saying here?

Yes.

Hilly Bill · 16-07-2017 11:56AM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Mind boggling logic. Scary in fact.

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

That's my point it's a pity the goatstown 1 doesn't think the same.

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 12:02PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Yes.

Can you reveal your sources on this- that the DPP proceeded with a case they knew they could not win?

Do you think the DPP should resign as totally incompetent?

Hilly Bill · 16-07-2017 12:02PM

RustyNut wrote: »

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

No, because they did him a favour but. I think Paul would have preferred to be jailed so that it would. Boost his profile and cause..

Hilly Bill · 16-07-2017 12:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you reveal your sources on this- that the DPP proceeded with a case they knew they could not win?

Do you think the DPP should resign as totally incompetent?

No, they played a blinder. No prosecution would. Have asked. a lot of questions, jailing the goatstown 1 would have led to more protests and. Violence so it's a happy result for all.

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 12:13PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No, they played a blinder. No prosecution would. Have asked. a lot of questions, jailing the goatstown 1 would have led to more protests and. Violence so it's a happy result for all.

What is that about.
Could you write it in plain English?

Hilly Bill · 16-07-2017 12:14PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is that about.
Could you write it in plain English?

Use Google translate.

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 12:17PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Use Google translate.

You have lost it.

You have descended to foaming at the mouth rage about the result of a court case where somebody whose politics you don't like was proven to be not guilty.
So much so, your posts no longer make any sense to anyone but you.

Curly Judge · 16-07-2017 12:17PM

RustyNut wrote: »

What evidence did he refuse to give?

All his evidence. He refused to take the stand.

Hilly Bill · 16-07-2017 12:22PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have lost it.

You have descended to foaming at the mouth rage about the result of a court case where somebody whose politics you don't like was proven to be not guilty.
So much so, your posts no longer make any sense to anyone but you.

Far from foaming. I'm delighted that it was a not guilty verdict as a guilty verdict would have been better for his ego. Since he didn't get a guilty verdict he is trying to get as much milage out of the case as possible before he moves onto the bins.

WinnyThePoo · 16-07-2017 12:23PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have lost it.

You have descended to foaming at the mouth rage about the result of a court case where somebody whose politics you don't like was proven to be not guilty.
So much so, your posts no longer make any sense to anyone but you.

This 'politician you don't' line holds no fruit unfortunately . You do realise what happened that day?.

Hilly Bill · 16-07-2017 12:29PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

This 'politician you don't' line holds no fruit unfortunately . You do realise what happened that day?.

This is the crowd that complains that the guards politice a. Protest when its already a political protest by politicians. Protesting against another politician and they wonder why people don't take them seriously

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 12:47PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Far from foaming. I'm delighted that it was a not guilty verdict as a guilty verdict would have been better for his ego. Since he didn't get a guilty verdict he is trying to get as much milage out of the case as possible before he moves onto the bins.

As I said, you have lost all reason.
The amateur psychologists have not covered themselves in glory on this one.

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 12:49PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

This 'politician you don't' line holds no fruit unfortunately . You do realise what happened that day?.

Fully aware.
There is somebody serving a sentence for what happened that day who gave evidence that he was not that interested in politics and was not a member of a party.

But lets put all the blame on politicians. And then claim it has nothing to do with politicians. :rolleyes:

WinnyThePoo · 16-07-2017 12:50PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

This is the crowd that complains that the guards politice a. Protest when its already a political protest by politicians. Protesting against another politician and they wonder why people don't take them seriously

It's the double think that's most impressive. One rule for Paul. One rule for the rest of us.

WinnyThePoo · 16-07-2017 01:04PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fully aware.
There is somebody serving a sentence for what happened that day who gave evidence that he was not that interested in politics and was not a member of a party.

But lets put all the blame on politicians. And then claim it has nothing to do with politicians. :rolleyes:

Poor guy. Maybe he shouldn't have put himself in that situation. Maybe a bit of responsibility on one's own actions.

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 01:09PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Poor guy. Maybe he shouldn't have put himself in that situation. Maybe a bit of responsibility on one's own actions.

Maybe none of us should go anywhere if there are people out there with their dastardly indiscriminate tarring brushes?

Hilly Bill · 16-07-2017 01:27PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, you have lost all reason.
The amateur psychologists have not covered themselves in glory on this one.

You are struggling now francie

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 01:34PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You are struggling now francie

Reading my mind now?

You missed your vocation. Has Mystic Meg retired? Job opening there Bill.

Hilly Bill · 16-07-2017 01:51PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Reading my mind now?

You missed your vocation. Has Mystic Meg retired? Job opening there Bill.

I used to date her sister. septic peg

wexandproud · 16-07-2017 06:50PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You are struggling now francie

a sure sign he's struggling when he resorts to snide remarks about poster who don't share his views

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 07:11PM

wexandproud wrote: »

a sure sign he's struggling when he resorts to snide remarks about poster who don't share his views

Nothing snide about having a laugh about all the amateur physcology going on. Comedy gold in fact.

Dyr · 16-07-2017 07:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

he saw fit to stray into conspiracy theory

For all the huffing and puffing journos like this rely on when they dont have a leg to stand on, it falls at the first fence any journalist should ask: "is this true?"

It's not a conspiracy theory when its backed up by facts and anyone who followed the trial saw garda after garda giving the same testimony that was directly disproved by the video evidence. That means the gardai either somehow suffered a mass delusion or they conspired to give the same false version of events

If it was not for the advent of mobile video technology those men would have been convicted through false testimony by numerous gardai

That's serious and that needs to be investigated.

Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Comments