Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cillian Murphy's looking rough

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    marvin80
    Registered Users Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭marvin80


    "Ruth, of Spring Garden Street, North Strand, Dublin has 158 previous convictions, mostly for shoplifting and public order offences.

    Judge Melanie Greally sentenced Ruth to three years imprisonment, but suspended the final 18 months on condition that she keep the peace and be of good behaviour and follow all direction of the Probation Service for 18 months post release."

    Why are the final 18 months being suspended - with 158 previous convictions it's very doubtful she'll keep the peace - lock her away for the full 3 years - ridiculous stuff


  • Options
    #93
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,508 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Those people don’t know the meaning of the word sorry. They know that it will get them a lower sentence though.
    Shame on a system that cuts sentences for people with such high offending rates. It clearly isn’t working.


  • Options
    #94
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    People need to understand what happens when someone like this get jailed. The Governor of the jail (not the Courts) takes the decision to release them when they feel like it.

    I saw a guy sentenced to 90 days in jail on a Monday (handcuffed and taken off) and much to my surprise the following Monday he was in to see me. He said he spent one night in Cork jail and let out the following morning (this guys had nearly 50 convictions). All petty stuff.

    Apparently that is the norm.

    So in reality she will be stuck in there for a few months and then out the gap when they need to free up some space.


  • Options
    #95
    M5
    Registered Users Posts: 10,161 ✭✭✭✭M5


    I swear your honor, I've learned my lesson. The 159th time is the charm!


  • Options
    #96
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    partyguinness wrote: »
    So in reality she will be stuck in there for a few months and then out the gap when they need to free up some space.
    I imagine that's a particular problem given that we have only two women's prisons in the country. I think there are only about 150 places in total, so you'd wonder about the consistency with which sentences can be completed at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Brendan Delaney
    Site Banned Posts: 51 ✭✭Brendan Delaney


    'People' like her need to be put into work camps.


  • Options
    #98
    seasidedub
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    Always nice to see a photo of one of the recipients of our tax euros.

    Yes - it doesn't say she's a welfare queen, but what are the chances she's not????

    Christ, I haul my bum out of bed at 5.45am every weekday, drive an hour each way and pay nearly half of what I earn for this sh%$e...

    Is there any political party who has the balls to grasp the welfare nettle??


  • Options
    #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    seasidedub wrote: »

    Christ, I haul my bum out of bed at 5.45am every weekday, drive an hour each way and pay nearly half of what I earn for this sh%$e...

    Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation that should put your mind at rest.

    A worker on 50k a year, who works 39 hours every week, will put 15 minutes of their tax contributions towards all jobseekers expenditure.

    That's assuming that nobody on a jobseekers payment has funded their own welfare payments through their taxes (so even 15 minutes is obviously an overstatement).

    A small fraction of that time will go towards long-term layabouts (and they definitely do exist, of course).

    I wonder how many people spend longer than 15 minutes complaining about this problem, in real life or online?


  • Options
    #100
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,299 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Just one small mistake, 158 times.


  • Options
    #101
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭mynamejeff


    Another specimen who should never be allowed to see the light of day ever again in order to protect innocent people from her,

    but if your a judge of a politician you dont care about that sort of thing


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    mynamejeff wrote: »
    Another specimen who should never be allowed to see the light of day ever again in order to protect innocent people from her,

    but if your a judge of a politician you dont care about that sort of thing

    Legal industry couldn’t thrive if they killed their golden goose by locking up their most regular customers. Same as drug dealers, they need the addicts.


  • Options
    #103
    Hal3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Hal3000


    https://www.thejournal.ie/man-sentenced-unprovoked-attack-tourists-dublin-hostel-4626716-May2019/

    Battering tourists is now acceptable especially if you've 26 previous convictions.

    There's nothing wrong with our justice system...


  • Options
    #104
    gmisk
    Registered Users Posts: 31,857 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    https://www.thejournal.ie/man-sentenced-unprovoked-attack-tourists-dublin-hostel-4626716-May2019/

    Battering tourists is now acceptable especially if you've 26 previous convictions.

    There's nothing wrong with our justice system...
    I was looking for the suspended part....and yep there it is...vile.
    Scar two people randomly for life and that's the sentence?!!


  • Options
    #105
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    What is a ‘pro-social’ partner?


  • Options
    #106
    gmisk
    Registered Users Posts: 31,857 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    What is a ‘pro-social’ partner?
    I think its a posh way of saying someone who works to help other people e.g. volunteering


  • Options
    #107
    seasidedub
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation that should put your mind at rest.

    A worker on 50k a year, who works 39 hours every week, will put 15 minutes of their tax contributions towards all jobseekers expenditure.

    That's assuming that nobody on a jobseekers payment has funded their own welfare payments through their taxes (so even 15 minutes is obviously an overstatement).

    A small fraction of that time will go towards long-term layabouts (and they definitely do exist, of course).

    I wonder how many people spend longer than 15 minutes complaining about this problem, in real life or online?

    15 minutes of my time is 15 minutes too much for the likes of her. I'll gladly pay taxes for health, good infrastructure, European style day care (which I benefited from in Finland and know how great it is to not have to pay 1000e a month to a creche) for carers, the disabled etc etc. But for her and her ilk? A nanosecond is too much.


  • Options
    #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Apparently no physical scarring for the shop worker, which is some relief at least


  • Options
    #109
    dealhunter1985
    Registered Users Posts: 523 ✭✭✭dealhunter1985


    Can I take legal action against the state for putting my personal safety at risk by leaving these types to walk the streets ? 158 previous of which several were for assault... 18 months and she will be back on the streets back to her routine.


  • Options
    #110
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation that should put your mind at rest.

    A worker on 50k a year, who works 39 hours every week, will put 15 minutes of their tax contributions towards all jobseekers expenditure.

    That's assuming that nobody on a jobseekers payment has funded their own welfare payments through their taxes (so even 15 minutes is obviously an overstatement).

    A small fraction of that time will go towards long-term layabouts (and they definitely do exist, of course).

    I wonder how many people spend longer than 15 minutes complaining about this problem, in real life or online?

    What about the cost in terms of Garda time, courts, solicitors, judges, prison, FLA etc...


  • Options
    #111
    Fiftyfilthy
    Registered Users Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Fiftyfilthy


    There is no place in society for this scum bag to be here

    Just scum and I hope she gets a kettle of boiling water and sugar poured over her face


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fiftyfilthy wrote: »

    Just scum and I hope she gets a kettle of boiling water and sugar poured over her face
    You on the other hand sound like a very peaceful, balanced chap


  • Options
    #113
    Fiftyfilthy
    Registered Users Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Fiftyfilthy


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    You on the other hand sound like a very peaceful, balanced chap

    158 previous convictions and the ugly filthy scum bag **** is still too thick to learn right from wrong

    No harm in trying the boiling kettle method on it


  • Options
    #114
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,092 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation that should put your mind at rest.

    A worker on 50k a year, who works 39 hours every week, will put 15 minutes of their tax contributions towards all jobseekers expenditure.

    The issue here is that this assumes that long-term welfare dependency by working-age adults is confined only to JSA.

    Of the able-bodied adults that I know who choose long-term welfare dependency, half of them are on JSA, but the other half are not.


  • Options
    #115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Geuze wrote: »
    The issue here is that this assumes that long-term welfare dependency by working-age adults is confined only to JSA.

    Of the able-bodied adults that I know who choose long-term welfare dependency, half of them are on JSA, but the other half are not.
    I've deliberately exaggerated the figure (by assuming everyone on jobseekers allowance or jobseekers benefit is a layabout who has not made contributions (which contradicts the meaning of J- Benefit), and it still only comes to a pathetic fifteen minutes, for a service that will always exist for you and your family members should you need it.

    Believe me, the numerical liberties are taken in favour of the outrage, and it still only comes to fifteen minutes, making all of those exaggerated assumptions.

    I wonder what the figure for genuine layabouts is. A minute? 30 seconds?

    Quite a far cry from 50% of your income figure that often gets thrown around, isn't it?


  • Options
    #116
    Fiery mutant
    Registered Users Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Fiery mutant


    You seem perfectly happy giving your valuable time to these lazy slobs so they can sit around doing nothing all day.

    But the majority of us are not. And the amount of time is irrelevant, it could be 15 minutes or 15 seconds. Society expects everyone to contribute, those who don’t want to, should not expect the rest of us to foot their bill.

    We should defend our way of life to an extent that any attempt on it is crushed, so that any adversary will never make such an attempt in the future.



  • Options
    #117
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,809 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Fiery mutant wrote:
    But the majority of us are not. And the amount of time is irrelevant, it could be 15 minutes or 15 seconds. Society expects everyone to contribute, those who don’t want to, should not expect the rest of us to foot their bill.


    What should we do if they can't or won't contribute?


  • Options
    #118
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    seasidedub wrote: »
    Is there any political party who has the balls to grasp the welfare nettle??
    no
    they weep for de most vulnerable in society and dont give two hard boiled shytes for their multiple victims


  • Options
    #119
    Fiery mutant
    Registered Users Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Fiery mutant


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    What should we do if they can't or won't contribute?

    Phased reducing down of any welfare until either they get a job, or the welfare goes to zero.

    We should defend our way of life to an extent that any attempt on it is crushed, so that any adversary will never make such an attempt in the future.



  • Options
    #120
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    What should we do if they can't or won't contribute?

    The Running Man.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Hal3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Hal3000


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    no
    they weep for de most vulnerable in society and dont give two hard boiled shytes for their multiple victims

    Like most posters here too...


Advertisement