Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Another Sinn Fein blunder?

1…910121415…19

Comments

  • #332
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,074 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    More deflection, just stick to the simple facts.

    Legally, he wasn't within his rights to park where he parked.

    Unlike McElduff, this is not a resigning matter, however, it does illustrate Sinn Fein's loose approach to legality.

    Luckily he had nothing on his head. :)


  • #333
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    how exactly do you remove a clamp with a pair of bolt cutters without causing damage?

    Quite easily - remove the padlock - offer to replace/pay for its replacement there is no need to damage the clamp itself.

    If someone places something on my vehicle (my private property) I will take whatever action I deem necessary to remove it.

    Let the civil court decide who's action were justified.


  • #334
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Quite easily - remove the padlock - offer to replace/pay for its replacement there is no need to damage the clamp itself.

    If someone places something on my vehicle (my private property) I will take whatever action I deem necessary to remove it.

    Let the civil court decide who's action were justified.

    So you avoid damaging the clamp by damaging either the lock or the chain? SF logic if ever i seen it. "we didn't kneecap him, we shot him in the leg".


  • #335
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    So you avoid damaging the clamp by damaging either the lock or the chain? SF logic if ever i seen it. "we didn't kneecap him, we shot him in the leg".

    It's not a difficult concept to understand tbh - don't damage the clamp - damage the padlock.

    Should you be forced by a court to reimburse the private clampers - it's safe to assume the lock will be cheaper to replace than the actual clamp itself.

    Let me know what part of that is confusing and we'll see if we can walk through it together.


  • #336
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    It's not a difficult concept to understand tbh - don't damage the clamp - damage the padlock.

    Should you be forced by a court to reimburse the private clampers - it's safe to assume the lock will be cheaper to replace than the actual clamp itself.

    Let me know what part of that is confusing and we'll see if we can walk through it together.


    so how is that not criminal damage? are you using a different definition of damage to the rest of us?


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so how is that not criminal damage? are you using a different definition of damage to the rest of us?

    Firstly it's only going to be deemed criminal damage if a court decides so (civil court) and if they do decide so - and you were directed to replace or pay for the padlock or link in a chain, it's going to be cheaper on your pocket than the cost of the clamp.

    Not difficult to understand tbh.


  • #338
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,074 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so how is that not criminal damage? are you using a different definition of damage to the rest of us?

    You accept that you will pay for replacement. That is what it says on the notice. 'If you damage clamp you are liable'
    Fair enough...I have somwhere I need to be.
    Once find penalty and damage is paid- sin é, everyone is happy.


  • #339
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Firstly it's only going to be deemed criminal damage if a court decides so (civil court) and if they do decide so - and you were directed to replace or pay for the padlock or link in a chain, it's going to be cheaper on your pocket than the cost of the clamp.

    Not difficult to understand tbh.

    No, criminal damage is a criminal offence not a civil offence. the clue is in the name. how is that so hard to understand?


  • #340
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You accept that you will pay for replacement. That is what it says on the notice. 'If you damage clamp you are liable'
    Fair enough...I have somwhere I need to be.
    Once find penalty and damage is paid- sin é, everyone is happy.


    Funny how you continue to defend him even after he admits himself that he did wrong.


  • #341
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You accept that you will pay for replacement. That is what it says on the notice. 'If you damage clamp you are liable'
    Fair enough...I have somwhere I need to be.
    Once find penalty and damage is paid- sin everyone is happy.

    A lawyer has stated that Kelly may have been within his rights to remove it, he states that if he could give reasonable explanation as to why he removed the clamp, it could be seen as a reasonable excuse (wonder how important his meetings were?) .

    He said it would have been an interesting case as removal of a clamp hasn't been tested yet.

    Makes you wonder if private clampers never perused anyone to court yet, or if Kelly is the first person in the north to ever forcibly remove one.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,074 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Funny how you continue to defend him even after he admits himself that he did wrong.

    Not interested in defending somebody who I have already called a tight git.
    Just explaining what I and any other person under pressure to be somewhere would do.

    All easily avoided if he had first paid.
    But therego I ...etc efc


  • #343
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Firstly it's only going to be deemed criminal damage if a court decides so (civil court) and if they do decide so - and you were directed to replace or pay for the padlock or link in a chain, it's going to be cheaper on your pocket than the cost of the clamp.

    Not difficult to understand tbh.

    Actually, you've demonstrated that you don't understand it - criminal damage is a matter for the criminal courts. A civil court may decide that unauthorised parking on private property constitutes a trespass - likewise they may go on to decide that the act of clamping, even if a car was parked in an authorised fashion, was an unwarranted trespass to a chattel.

    That wouldn't automatically entitle you do remove the clamp - the proportionality of your actions would be reviewed......if you can demonstrate necessity then the option of recaption becomes a possibility.


  • #344
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    No, criminal damage is a criminal offence not a civil offence. the clue is in the name. how is that so hard to understand?
    Jawgap wrote: »
    Actually, you've demonstrated that you don't understand it - criminal damage is a matter for the criminal courts. A civil court may decide that unauthorised parking on private property constitutes a trespass - likewise they may go on to decide that the act of clamping, even if a car was parked in an authorised fashion, was an unwarranted trespass to a chattel.

    That wouldn't automatically entitle you do remove the clamp - the proportionality of your actions would be reviewed......if you can demonstrate necessity then the option of recaption becomes a possibility.

    In this case - criminal damage may be ruled out if the person who removed the clamp had reasonable excuse for doing so.

    Unfortunately we will never know now, unless a similar case happens.

    See my post above.


  • #345
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    In this case - criminal damage may be ruled out if the person who removed the clamp had reasonable excuse for doing so.

    Unfortunately we will never know now, unless a similar case happens.

    See my post above.

    [sigh] you said
    ....it's only going to be deemed criminal damage if a court decides so (civil court)

    .....a civil court can't make a finding of criminal damage - the clue is in the phrase criminal damage - if it was criminal it would be a matter for the police (on foot of a complaint from the clamp owner) who would, in all probability and despite Geraldo's previous proclivities, give him a caution (assuming he'd be minded to accept one), rather than stick him in front of a magistrate.


  • #346
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    In this case - criminal damage may be ruled out if the person who removed the clamp had reasonable excuse for doing so.

    Unfortunately we will never know now, unless a similar case happens.

    See my post above.


    Indeed it may. but that would be a matter for a criminal court not a civil one.


  • #347
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Firstly it's only going to be deemed criminal damage if a court decides so (civil court) and if they do decide so - and you were directed to replace or pay for the padlock or link in a chain, it's going to be cheaper on your pocket than the cost of the clamp.

    Not difficult to understand tbh.
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You accept that you will pay for replacement. That is what it says on the notice. 'If you damage clamp you are liable'
    Fair enough...I have somwhere I need to be.
    Once find penalty and damage is paid- sin é, everyone is happy.

    What you boys don't seem to understand is that the act of parking where he parked is the problem. It smacks of the Charlie Haughey mentality that politicians are entitled to do what they want.

    Gerry paid up because he was caught, he hasn't said he wouldn't do it again.

    The lack of respect for others, the casual approach to legality and the causing of damage to private property are not unexpected from SF.


  • #348
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,210 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    blanch152 wrote: »
    More deflection, just stick to the simple facts.

    Legally, he wasn't within his rights to park where he parked.

    Unlike McElduff, this is not a resigning matter, however, it does illustrate Sinn Fein's loose approach to legality.

    Were you saying the same about a DUP minister who was driving his motor bike without road tax?

    ******



  • #349
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    citytillidie wrote: »
    Were you saying the same about a DUP minister who was driving his motor bike without road tax?

    Was he f**k :)

    At least Sammy wasn't driving it in the jeyes fluid :eek:


  • #350
    diomed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭diomed


    citytillidie wrote: »
    Were you saying the same about a DUP minister who was driving his motor bike without road tax?
    Everyone drives without road tax.


  • #351
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    citytillidie wrote: »
    Were you saying the same about a DUP minister who was driving his motor bike without road tax?

    Nobody asked me, buy yes, that was wrong.

    As I said in relation to Gerry, not a resigning offence, but it is important from a social contract point of view that politicians respect the law.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,074 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    What you boys don't seem to understand is that the act of parking where he parked is the problem. It smacks of the Charlie Haughey mentality that politicians are entitled to do what they want.

    Gerry paid up because he was caught, he hasn't said he wouldn't do it again.

    The lack of respect for others, the casual approach to legality and the causing of damage to private property are not unexpected from SF.
    Gerry never hid what he did.
    The company had his details.
    He did nothing against them. He abided by the warning. 'If you damage the clamp, you pay for it'.

    Who lost anything here, apart from the ' get SF' cabal?

    Are you saying now that all politicians of other parties obey traffic laws? :)'


  • #353
    Chrongen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    blanch152 wrote: »
    What you boys don't seem to understand is that the act of parking where he parked is the problem. It smacks of the Charlie Haughey mentality that politicians are entitled to do what they want.

    Gerry paid up because he was caught, he hasn't said he wouldn't do it again.

    The lack of respect for others, the casual approach to legality and the causing of damage to private property are not unexpected from SF.

    Really?

    You accuse others of having a "Charlie Haughey" mentality and in the same breath label every member of SF a criminal.


  • #354
    Chrongen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Nobody asked me, buy yes, that was wrong.

    As I said in relation to Gerry, not a resigning offence, but it is important from a social contract point of view that politicians respect the law.


    So would you say that driving without road tax (let's see if we can conflate this into some over-the-top litany of felonies) and thus "stealing from the State and having no regard for others and effectively poking a finger in the eye of honest, hard-wroking taxpayers" is something not "unexpected" of the DUP?


  • #355
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,210 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    diomed wrote: »
    Everyone drives without road tax.

    sorry Vehicle tax,

    But you would think the minister who was responsible for road safety would abide by the laws

    ******



  • #356
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Gerry never hid what he did.
    The company had his details.
    He did nothing against them. He abided by the warning. 'If you damage the clamp, you pay for it'.

    Who lost anything here, apart from the ' get SF' cabal?

    Are you saying now that all politicians of other parties obey traffic laws? :)'


    No need for a cabaal Francie. SF members seem perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot, pun intended.


  • #357
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭mynamejeff


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Gerry never hid what he did.
    The company had his details.
    He did nothing against them. He abided by the warning. 'If you damage the clamp, you pay for it'.

    Who lost anything here, apart from the ' get SF' cabal?

    Are you saying now that all politicians of other parties obey traffic laws? :)'

    :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Ye shinners are some kinda special arent ye ?
    twist and manipulate until you can try and turn a lose into a win

    Reminds me of chemical Ali proclaiming victory as the bombs fall in the background
    Its actually worth it for the hilarity

    thanks :):)


  • #358
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,844 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    mynamejeff wrote: »
    Ye shinners are some kinda special arent ye ?


    I knew ye's were really SF fanboys


  • #359
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Chrongen wrote: »
    So would you say that driving without road tax (let's see if we can conflate this into some over-the-top litany of felonies) and thus "stealing from the State and having no regard for others and effectively poking a finger in the eye of honest, hard-wroking taxpayers" is something not "unexpected" of the DUP?


    So you are now reduced to whataboutery to defend Gerry.

    Every time a reference to DUP misdeeds or the British Army or the unionists or Fine Gael or some other unrelated whataboutery is raised by a defender of the Republic(ans), I say the same thing.

    Start a thread about it, we will all troop in and say it was also wrong, but the difference is, nobody will spend pages and pages and posts after posts defending the indefensible.

    The only party that appears to attract blind adhesion and loyalty to the point of insanity is Sinn Fein. Every single time a thread is put up criticising SF, there are plenty working night and day to defend them to the hilt no matter how wrong they were.


  • #360
    the sheriff is HERE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 238 ✭✭the sheriff is HERE


    This is about gerry, NOT Sinn Fein, gerry paid his dues and has moved on.

    Why wouldn't you have people defending Sinn Fein, the anti Sinn Fein bots come flying out at any opportunity.
    It isn't the 70s, you know.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So you are now reduced to whataboutery to defend Gerry.

    Every time a reference to DUP misdeeds or the British Army or the unionists or Fine Gael or some other unrelated whataboutery is raised by a defender of the Republic(ans), I say the same thing.

    Start a thread about it, we will all troop in and say it was also wrong, but the difference is, nobody will spend pages and pages and posts after posts defending the indefensible.

    The only party that appears to attract blind adhesion and loyalty to the point of insanity is Sinn Fein. Every single time a thread is put up criticising SF, there are plenty working night and day to defend them to the hilt no matter how wrong they were.

    Blanch - of all people to cry foul about whataboutery, you sir have absolutely no reason to do so.

    You even stated you closed your last account because you were called to task on it.

    I have neither the time or inclination (maybe someone else will) but I'm sure there's lots (and lots and lots) of examples on here of you deflecting to Sinn Fein on a myriad of threads (not Sinn Fein related) over various forums. I would go so far as to say you're actually obsessed.

    BRAVO102715-1.jpg


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement