maccored wrote: » err - "terrorism, organized crime, blood diplomacy, armalite and ballot box tactics" ... yes, you avery much living in the past. the first two they arent even guilty of and the third's debatable. "armalite and ballot box" is an 80s quote The Columbia three was 2001. You are a relic you are so far in the past.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » "The Columbia three was 2001. You are a relic you are so far in the past." Nearly 40 years later Martin Ferris is still in the party. Who's a relic of the past??
maccored wrote: » try google? Ive no idea. Ive also no idea what point your badly trying to make. EDIT I googled it - Dessie Ellis' wiki says 1983. Ferris' says 1984 I still dont know what point you were trying to make - besides proving mine that is
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » What year was Martin ferris found guilty of his crimes? Or Dessie Ellis?
RandomName2 wrote: » So are you saying they have changed their stance on this? I would actively welcome it. I think it is reasonable to have qualms about a political party, with paramilitary connections (even if they are on permanent ceasefire), who feels that terrorism is sometimes justifiable, and should not be penalized. Or are you saying that this isn't living in the past, that this is indeed their current stance, and that they applaud organizations like FARC and ETA, and still hanker after the abolition of the SCC in order to protect republican terrorists.
maccored wrote: » mainly a problem if you live in the past - thats what you're saying?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, back to the foundation of the state, when there were plenty around that might have interfered in jury trials. Far as I remember Jack Lynch opposed it's introduction in 1972 on the grounds it was unconstitutional. Those would be my grounds for being opposed to it as well.
Skylinehead wrote: » No idea. It may simply have been "big organisation has big reach, so we need to protect a jury somehow". Similar to organised crime. The provision for the SCC has been around a lot longer than that though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What was the incidence of jury tampering/intimidation back in 1972? If there was a requirement then there must have been some.
maccored wrote: » Thats my point Everyday crime doesnt require the SCC. Plus once again you are very misinformed if you think SF or the provos had anything to do with drugs. You cant rely on a pool of addicts for volunteers.
maccored wrote: » I was just answering your post. You seem to be saying theres crime so we need the SCC.
Bishop of hope wrote: » They don't all end up in it either.
Skylinehead wrote: » You're talking about silly sentences and petty criminals racking up 10s or 100s of convictions, all needs to be addressed, but has exactly nothing to do with the SCC. Damo from Ballyer robbing someone yet again isn't exactly going to be in the SCC.
maccored wrote: » Thats my point Everyday crime doesnt require the SSC
Bishop of hope wrote: » If the crime doesent happen, no need for the court.
Bishop of hope wrote: » But all crime can't be prevented so it will go on. We live in a desperate country at the minute and getting worse it seems. Perhaps if Sinn Fein called in a few of their former associates and asked them to quit messing with the drugs and organised crime it could help?
maccored wrote: » nowadays it is. It wasnt always. probably be better to do something about organised crime itself in the first place - thats where the focus should be on, that way the crime mightnt happen. even mafia trials had jury courts.
Skylinehead wrote: » Yeah that's stupid. I do understand that the SCC tends to require some evidence beyond that to convict someone though, even if legally it may not be necessary (morally, it certainly is). You're talking about silly sentences and petty criminals racking up 10s or 100s of convictions, all needs to be addressed, but has exactly nothing to do with the SCC. Damo from Ballyer robbing someone yet again isn't exactly going to be in the SCC.
Odhinn wrote: » An insistence on evidence, the recognition that the word of a senior garda can't be taken as some holy writ, unquestionable and beyond reproach. Think of this way - there was a time when the word of a priest was unquestionable, and thankfully that is resigned to history. The same process should apply to the gardai - none of this kowtowing to a uniform.
efanton wrote: » Why dont we try something novel. How about changing the laws that appear to be insufficient, ensuring our Gardai have the resources to build a proper case, and actually reform our judicial system where judges appear to be living in a totally different reality. There are endless cases going before the courts where the DPP have totally mismanaged a case, the gardai have been unable to build a sufficient strong case, and the judge slapping a repetitive criminal on the wrist, giving him an extremley lenient sentence, or suggesting a poor box contribution is enough. Why should one crime have a special court when we know the problem is not the crime but the total failure of our criminal system to work effectively. The ball lies strictly in the government lap. Its their cut backs and laziness to do any thing about it that make the SCC an easy solution. The SC is a totally bad idea, no matter what crime is being heard.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Easy to say that of course. Harder to prove.
Skylinehead wrote: » All fair, but that still leaves the problem of how to replace the SCC. It's difficult on such a small island.
is_that_so wrote: » SF view on it is duplicitous and is really based around cases with a paramilitary stance. I couldn't see them rushing to close a SCC that focused on organised crime.
is_that_so wrote: » SCC is also used for organised crime here.
maccored wrote: » its the UK's version of the SCC - which dont forget - was introduced here because of paramilitary actions. they dont happen any more.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, I am certainly right that there are more than SF concerned about the SCC.
is_that_so wrote: » Diplock courts had only one judge I believe and the concept of juryless courts still exists in the UK for complex cases.
maccored wrote: » im saying they are the equivalent of the diplock courts. The Diplock Courts in the north were heavily critised . Go do your own research please and stop asking me to educate you.
Odhinn wrote: » The state gave elements within the Gardai carte blanche with how they dealt with suspects, victims and so on throughout the 1970's and 1980's. As a victim of that abuse, the notion that the state should be given free reign is deeply disturbing to me, as it should be to all citizens.
