Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

tonysopprano · 15-06-2021 12:50am

This bill introduces "Thought Crime" and allows them to stop, detain and arrest you, IF THEY THINK THAT A CRIME IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED, whether it is child abduction, trafficking or A TERROIST OFFENCE (no definition), WITHOUT A WARRANT and with NO RECOURSE.

Witcher · 15-06-2021 1:05am

tonysopprano wrote: »

This bill introduces "Thought Crime" and allows them to stop, detain and arrest you, IF THEY THINK THAT A CRIME IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED, whether it is child abduction, trafficking or A TERROIST OFFENCE (no definition), WITHOUT A WARRANT and with NO RECOURSE.

Did you know THE GARDAI ALREADY HAVE THOSE POWERS? Do you think the Gardai have to wait until a crime is committed before they can act? lol

All this Bill does is amalgamate the existing powers of arrest, search and detention and put them in one single piece of legislation instead of spreading them across several acts going back decades.

tonysopprano · 15-06-2021 1:46am

YES. They cannot act until A LAW IS BROKEN.

That is why, when they tell you to move on, they cannot do ANYTHING UNTIL YOU REFUSE, THEN THEY TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.

They have, once again been given the power to MAKE UP THE LAW, as they see fit.

This might be the "Off Topic" chat on a firearms thread, but how many people here have been subjected to the ( I can do what I want, It dosn't matter what the law states, I'm the authority on this not some judge)

And we have been proven to be THE MOST LAW ABIDING plebs in the country, yet we still suffer.

Witcher · 15-06-2021 1:49am

tonysopprano wrote: »

YES. They cannot act until A LAW IS BROKEN.

That is why, when they tell you to move on, they cannot do ANYTHING UNTIL YOU REFUSE, THEN THEY TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.

They have, once again been given the power to MAKE UP THE LAW, as they see fit.

This might be the "Off Topic" chat on a firearms thread, but how many people here have been subjected to the ( I can do what I want, It dosn't matter what the law states, I'm the authority on this not some judge)

And we have been proven to be THE MOST LAW ABIDING plebs in the country, yet we still suffer.

Section 8(2) of the Criminal Law Act, 1976 disagrees with you. This section will be replaced by Head 10 of the new bill.

This new bill grants no new powers in regards to the stopping, questioning and arrest of people. These powers already exist, they're now being consolidated in a single act.

Where a member of the Garda Síochána who with reasonable cause suspects that an offence to which this section applies has been, is being or is about to be committed requires a person to stop a vehicle with a view to ascertaining whether—

(a) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about to commit the offence, or

(b) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,

he may search the vehicle, and if (whether before or after the commencement of the search) he suspects with reasonable cause that any of the facts mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle.

(3) A member of the Garda Síochána may use reasonable force in order to compel a person to comply with a requirement to stop a vehicle, and such force may include the placing of a barrier or other device in the path of vehicles.

(4) Any reference in subsection (1) of this section to an offence includes a reference to attempting or conspiring to commit the offence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/32/enacted/en/print#sec7

tonysopprano · 15-06-2021 2:03am

Witcher wrote: »

Section 8(2) of the Criminal Law Act, 1976 disagrees with you. This section will be replaced by Head 10 of the new bill.

This new bill grants no new powers in regards to the stopping, questioning and arrest of people. These powers already exist, they're now being consolidated in a single act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/32/enacted/en/print#sec7

Except the above RELATES TO PERSONS IN CUSTODY (already arrested) and omits REASONABLE CAUSE AND VEHICLE HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT

Witcher · 15-06-2021 2:06am

tonysopprano wrote: »

Except REASONABLE CAUSE AND VEHICLE HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT

Left out of what?

The new bill?

Here's the text of Head 10 of the new Bill which will replace Section 8 of the Criminal Law Act, 1976;

Where a member of the Garda Síochána who is in—
(a) a public place, or
(b) any other place under a power of entry authorised by law or to which or in which he
or she was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be,
has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under Schedule 2 has been, is being or is
about to be committed, her or she may require a person to stop a vehicle with a view to
ascertaining whether—

(i) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about
to commit the offence, or
(ii) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any
person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,
and the member may search the vehicle, and if whether before or after the commencement of
the search, he or she suspects with reasonable grounds that any of the facts mentioned in
paragraph (i) or (ii) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle.

Section 8, Criminal Law Act, 1976 for comparison;

Where a member of the Garda Síochána who with reasonable cause suspects that an offence to which this section applies has been, is being or is about to be committed requires a person to stop a vehicle with a view to ascertaining whether—

(a) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about to commit the offence, or

(b) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,

he may search the vehicle, and if (whether before or after the commencement of the search) he suspects with reasonable cause that any of the facts mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle.

(3) A member of the Garda Síochána may use reasonable force in order to compel a person to comply with a requirement to stop a vehicle, and such force may include the placing of a barrier or other device in the path of vehicles.

(4) Any reference in subsection (1) of this section to an offence includes a reference to attempting or conspiring to commit the offence.

Tell me again which part was left out.....

tonysopprano wrote: »

Except the above RELATES TO PERSONS IN CUSTODY (already arrested)

No it doesn't.

tonysopprano · 15-06-2021 2:17am

"Where a member of the Garda Síochána who is in—
(a) a public place, or
or to which or in which he
or she was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be,
has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under Schedule 2 has been, is being or is
about to be committed, her or she may require a person to stop a vehicle with a view to
ascertaining whether—

(i) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about
to commit the offence, or
(ii) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any
person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,
and the member may search the vehicle, and if whether before or after the commencement of
the search, he or she suspects with reasonable grounds that any of the facts mentioned in
paragraph (i) or (ii) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle."

A vehicle is not a public place
A vehicle is not any other place except by "(b) any other place under a power of entry authorised by law" IE a warrant
Schedule 2 LIMITS THEIR

Witcher · 15-06-2021 2:19am

Grand, there's no talking to you so.

I've explained it to you several times and you can't seem to grasp it. Every power of arrest, search and detention in the new Bill is a direct replacement for an already existing power.

Keep digging your hole there.

tonysopprano · 15-06-2021 2:21am

(a) an offence under the Act of 1939 or an offence that is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of that Act;

(b) an offence under section 2 or 3 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 ;

(c) murder, manslaughter or an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861;

(d) an offence under section 23 , 23A or 23B of the Larceny Act, 1916 ;

(e) an offence of malicious damage to property involving the use of fire or of any explosive substance (within the meaning of section 7 (1) (e) of this Act);

(f) an offence under the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971;

(g) escape from lawful custody;

(h) an offence under section 11 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1973 , or under section 10 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 ;

(i) an offence under this Act.

tonysopprano · 15-06-2021 2:22am

(2) Where a member of the Garda Síochána who with reasonable cause suspects that an offence to which this section applies has been, is being or is about to be committed requires a person to stop a vehicle with a view to ascertaining whether—

(a) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about to commit the offence, or

(b) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,

he may search the vehicle, and if (whether before or after the commencement of the search) he suspects with reasonable cause that any of the facts mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle.

tonysopprano · 15-06-2021 2:24am

(4) Any reference in subsection (1) of this section to an offence includes a reference to attempting or conspiring to commit the offence.

AND ONLY TO THE OFFENCES MENTIONED IN SUBSECTION 1

tonysopprano · 15-06-2021 2:41am

But of course that's why they snuck it in, under the SCAMDEMIC legislation, without any debate or or having to go through oireachtas and seanad, JUST BECAUSE IT WAS NOTHING THAT WASN'T THERE ALREADY. What bubble did you arrive in?

tonysopprano · 15-06-2021 2:43am

"I've explained it to you several times and you can't seem to grasp it. Every power of arrest, search and detention in the new Bill is a direct replacement for an already existing power."

If nothing new, why waste time on it?

Mellor · 15-06-2021 11:41am

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Suspect in a crime therefore suspected of committing an offence, thus what I said was accurate with the information to hand.
Therefore not misinformation - false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive
Since it was not false or inaccurate given the information I had to hand.

But it was false, the “information to hand” doesn’t make it true.
Now, it wasn’t your fault, the article wasn’t crystal clear. But nonetheless what was posted was incorrect. Which makes it misinformation.
The majority of misinformation that’s spread is done so unintentional, that’s why it’s so rampant in the modern era where reads source material.

Mellor · 15-06-2021 11:57am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.
Or let me put it another way if you believe this...You would have no problem then if AGS,the Revenue ,Tusla,and any other welfare or law enforcement organisation ,dropped in tomorrow at 3AM with no warrant,no excuse,or other plausible reason to search your house,your private papers,and your bottom sock drawer.Question you,your family and underage children without any legal counsel,you present on any topic they fancy ,and for as long they want?Take any documents,papers ,or anything they want as "evidence of a crime"not spe ified
Then leave with no explanation or reason?
You would object?But if you have done nothing wrong,what have you got to hide?

That would be illegal for them to do that without a warrant. I don’t see how’s that the relevant? The above applies to searches under a warrant.

For example, say a paedophile this subject to a search warrant, the above makes it possible to extend that to his pin/password. Are you actually arguing that a suspect paedophile has a right of privacy to his personal device. I doubt it.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But why would they need, a warrant?

Because it’s a fundamental tenet of the law. That’s kinda basic stuff.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

We've already seen where some guy in the UK, while having beliefs and views on Nazism has been jailed because he had "nazi memobrillia" and some "banned books"[freely available on Amazon.co.uk and in your local bookshop]

You think he was a poor victim of the law? :pac: :pac:

BattleCorp · 15-06-2021 12:00pm

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

So lads this is it , encryption on devices no longer protects you if you don't hand your password over to a warrantless search you'll be thrown in jail for 5 years and fined 30,000
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobile-phones-1.4592434
Sad day for privacy
Absolutely an abuse of powers will arise form this
Doesn't matter if you're innocent ,you're assumed guilty with no right to privacy

https://assets.gov.ie/137505/620ea206-de91-4bb3-97b1-0e0209b3ecf8.pdf

Section 16 leads me to believe that they need a warrant to force you to provide your passwords etc.

Grizzly 45 · 15-06-2021 9:37pm

tudderone wrote: »

I have an uncle who decided to head to the pub one night for a jar, while there the pub was unusually quiet and he got chatting with a lad at the bar about racing and football and all that rubbish. Two mornings later at about 6 am his front door was taken off the hinges and a couple of car loads of branch men piled in, he was nicked in handcuffs etc and taken off to the station while the house was ransacked.

Turns out the guy, who he didn't know, was involved with a republican group, the chatting and passing the time of day was enough to get someone a warrant and his privacy invaded and him arrested.

This "It'll never happen to me" line is in the famous last words top ten.

Yup!! Happened to a mate of mine too down in Ennis about 10 years ago. Seen talking to the wrong person who was a friend of his then GF's brother who was involved in something illegal.Gott an oh dark hundred wake up call courtesy of AGS SB too.

Grizzly 45 · 15-06-2021 9:49pm

Mellor wrote: »

That would be illegal for them to do that without a warrant. I don’t see how’s that the relevant? The above applies to searches under a warrant.

Do the words "HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE" mean anything to you?

Snippage of irrelevant verbiage

You think he was a poor victim of the law? :pac: :pa

What is he exactly GUILTY of under UK law may I ask???

Apart from being a moron, it seems to be believing still in an ideology that is more or less in histories dustbin.

Owning 3 books that are commonly available ? They are not illegal to own, well maybe now in the UK.It might be nice if the UK govt published a banned list then to prevent such incidents occurring in the future:roll eyes:

Being sentenced by a judge with a bias against "right wing extremists"but is very tolerant of Islamist and Leftist extremism in similar cases.

So yeah,your " poor victim of the law" quip is extremely fitting.:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Grizzly 45 · 15-06-2021 9:55pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

https://assets.gov.ie/137505/620ea206-de91-4bb3-97b1-0e0209b3ecf8.pdf

Section 16 leads me to believe that they need a warrant to force you to provide your passwords etc.

Wonder how long will it be before some bright spark develops a total bleach of your phone,if you input a code once or twice? I can see that one being a top seller with criminals or anyone else not wanting a snooper on your phone.

TBH you must be a pretty dumb criminal to have a phone or computer chock full of info on you or at home. Anyone smart will be using multiple burner phones or computer and account for one-off communications.

Mellor · 16-06-2021 3:35am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Do the words "HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE" mean anything to you?

An example is usually supposed to be relevant or have a point. :rolleyes:
An illegal, unwarranted searches has no bearing on the topic. Not sure what point you thought you were making. Good to know you're support paedo-privacy though.

What is he exactly GUILTY of under UK law may I ask???

I'd have to read the case notes or judgement to answer that.
Should be spelled out in black and white what the conviction was in the summary.

Apart from being a moron, it seems to be believing still in an ideology that is more or less in histories dustbin.

You think Fascism doesn't exist in 21st century?

Obvious no intelligent reasonable people subscribe to it. Could say the exact same about communism.
Idiots. But idiots that exist.

Owning 3 books that are commonly available ? They are not illegal to own, well maybe now in the UK.It might be nice if the UK govt published a banned list then to prevent such incidents occurring in the future:roll eyes:

But I'd be pretty confident that he wasn't jailing simply for owning Mein Kampf or similar. As pointed out here, it's on sale in Easons and I'd guess in UK book shops too. Probably thousands sold every year.

Being sentenced by a judge with a bias against "right wing extremists"but is very tolerant of Islamist and Leftist extremism in similar cases.

Funny you mention that.
I sure you'd be equally a sympathetic to some Islamist right to preach jihad or buy bomb making books. Or that they shouldn't be subjected to search warrants. :pac::pac::pac:

Your post history betrays you there.

otmmyboy2 · 16-06-2021 11:10am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Wonder how long will it be before some bright spark develops a total bleach of your phone,if you input a code once or twice?

Already exists.
If you are employed in a lot of companies which deal in sensitive information and want to access your work emails/internal wiki/memos/info etc on your personal phone you must install an application that can wipe your phone remotely, or on input of a code or sequence of physical buttons(if applicable).

Outlook on mobile also offers a similar feature.

There are obviously more intrusive ones which would clean your phone so that even a digital forensics expert would have a slim chance of recovering anything, but the 2 methods I mentioned above are already commonplace in certain industries.

otmmyboy2 · 16-06-2021 11:30am

Mellor wrote: »

An example is usually supposed to be relevant or have a point. :rolleyes:
An illegal, unwarranted searches has no bearing on the topic. Not sure what point you thought you were making. Good to know you're support paedo-privacy though.

Privacy is just that, privacy. Same as firearms. Similarly they can be used for good or bad, but the things themselves are not inherently either.

Nice use of strawman arguments though. :P

Also talking about illegal vs legal warranted searches rather ignores the potential for legal, but immoral, laws being passed which would unfairly penalize a segment of the population.

Everything that happened in the holocaust and the holodomor was legal by the laws at the time, but that does not make it right.
Huh, on a side note Google flags holodomor as a misspelling(missing from their dictionary) despite it being correct, and having killed ~4 million.
Bias possibly? :P

I know many here would disagree on the nature of right vs wrong in laws regarding covid, unprecedented as they were here in peacetime, and even by comparison to the "Emergency" year's measures.

Legal != moral, particularly with the current trend of legislating morality in western countries.

I'd have to read the case notes or judgement to answer that.
Should be spelled out in black and white what the conviction was in the summary.

"guilty of possessing materials likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"
According to here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-56499185

Sadly that "crime" is sufficiently encompassing everything that someone could use to commit a terrorist act.
IE, pretty much everything.
Perhaps when they do finally outlaw everything but double barrel shotguns over there that will be the argument they use.
Firearms could definitely fall under "materials likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism", as could kitchen knives, several common household cleaning agents, etc.

Your post history betrays you there.

Looking back on anyone's post history in OT and you don't need a doctorate in political philosophy, or psychology, to figure out the gist of the poster's political leanings.

Personally I like that there is such a lively debate among the differing axes on the political spectrum.
I'd actually be very curious to see the results of some other member's political compass tests.

Here's my most recent one, the idea being you do it periodically and see where or how your views change over time:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=4.5&soc=-4.72

Grizzly 45 · 16-06-2021 12:56pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Ev
I do think that AGS can make up the law in some cases.

Just got to look at the many cases of them abusing their powers under COVID regulations to see that in action.:mad:

otmmyboy2 · 16-06-2021 1:00pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just got to look at the many cases of them abusing their powers under COVID regulations to see that in action.:mad:

Indeed, people getting ticketed for not going to their nearest shop, as opposed to the one 10 minutes further away. :mad:

Grizzly 45 · 16-06-2021 1:53pm

Mellor wrote: »

An example is usually supposed to be relevant or have a point. :rolleyes:

It does...But if you can't see it that's your problem.... try using a thing called your imagination..It's where hypothetical situations are discussed.And where some who think they are and always will be guiltless seem to live too.

An illegal, unwarranted searches has no bearing on the topic. Not sure what point you thought you were making. Good to know you support paedo-privacy though.

Irrevelant and a poor attempt at an insult and argument.Whataboutery of the padeo boogeyman...

I'd have to read the case notes or judgement to answer that.
Should be spelled out in black and white what the conviction was in the summary.

But I'd be pretty confident that he wasn't jailing simply for owning Mein Kampf or similar. As pointed out here, it's on sale in Easons and I'd guess in UK book shops too. Probably thousands sold every year.

Might be a good idea to go read it then and then comment?
Be the second time you have fallen into the same trap in the last month by being thoroughly uninformed and commenting:D
But herses a starter for you to research on,or not maybe?

https://centipedenation.com/second-column/england-man-jailed-5-years-for-having-3-lawful-books-and-for-being-right-wing/
Or just go back a weeks worth of posts to find the discussion here.

You think Fascism doesn't exist in 21st century?

You do realise Fascism and Nazism are two completely different ideals. So please define which one you think is a problem and don't be lazy by throwing the two of them together?And the way you can be called a "fascist" these days on Social media or wherever for having a different viewpoint, makes the term as non-insulting and irrelevant.

Obvious no intelligent reasonable people subscribe to it. Could say the exact same about communism.
Idiots. But idiots that exist.

ASFIK there is no law on being an idiot in the World? Or an idiot who espouses a dead and debunkedpolitical ideal,who reads outdated technical manuals on hand to hand fighting and a manual full of dangerously inaccurate chemical formulas on making explosives and narcotics?But obviously not idiotic enough to try them out and reduce the global population of idiots by one.

Funny you mention that.
I sure you'd be equally a sympathetic to some Islamist right to preach jihad or buy bomb making books. Or that they shouldn't be subjected to search warrants. :pac::pac::pac:

They can do and read and preach whatever they want,so long as they don't put their warped beliefs which are just as totalitarian as Communism or Nazism into practise and start bombing, shooting to knifing in the name of their imaginary sky pal ,Allah.
Same as some Swastika wearing dope can go yell about Hitler being his god,or some moron wearing a red star beret can waffle on about how great Che was. Called freedom of Speech.

But what we do not do is arrest and imprison them because they "might" commit a crime or do something with their knowledge to harm others.
It's supposition of a crime and more than the rest a sure sign of a totalitarian society. Yes,you can yell fire in a crowded cinema,but you then must accept the total personal consequences for your action.

Go preach jihad in your mosque,but don't be surprised if you are doing a long stretch inside,or some other nutter arrives and uses your followers as target practice.

Go and believe that you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide,and that its "good law" that "only targets "padeos, criminals,and subversives and the"alt right wing" [whatever that is]..

Until someday something you do or post or possess is considered "a criminal act or material to assist in a crime, or contraband" And then tell some kangaroo court you aren't a criminal.:rolleyes:
What is legal today might be illegal tomorrow and as such a good citizen who has done nothing ,blah,blah,blah.Why do you have it in your possession then?

Your post history betrays you there.

Whatever that obtuse statement is supposed to mean.

Grizzly 45 · 16-06-2021 2:09pm

intresting take on this discussion

https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2021/06/16/the-new-garda-powers-bill-a-cause-for-concern

BattleCorp · 16-06-2021 2:12pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Wonder how long will it be before some bright spark develops a total bleach of your phone,if you input a code once or twice? I can see that one being a top seller with criminals or anyone else not wanting a snooper on your phone.

TBH you must be a pretty dumb criminal to have a phone or computer chock full of info on you or at home. Anyone smart will be using multiple burner phones or computer and account for one-off communications.

Yep, that's what I do. :pac::pac::pac:

Grizzly 45 · 16-06-2021 2:14pm

More seriously, demanding medical certs off people who are not wearing masks and demanding it be provided to them in person at their local AGS station within 24 hours or face arrest.
2 cases of it down here in Limerick I've heard of.:mad:

Witcher · 16-06-2021 3:21pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

intresting take on this discussion

https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2021/06/16/the-new-garda-powers-bill-a-cause-for-concern

Good to have more poorly researched takes on the new Bill.

As the same legislation intends to give Gardaí the power to forcefully take a finger-print

'How dare the Gardai get this power that they already have'

Feisar · 16-06-2021 5:18pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

More seriously, demanding medical certs off people who are not wearing masks and demanding it be provided to them in person at their local AGS station within 24 hours or face arrest.
2 cases of it down here in Limerick I've heard of.:mad:

Hardly a problem, just wear a mask or carry yer cert.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Comments