garda corruption alive and well

mynamejeff wrote: »

It says internship on the email that she shows . did i make that up or did she ?

Yeah...and which is it buddy? You take heed of that email or you don't?....or you do when it suits you...and when it doesn't, it proves nothing.

mynamejeff wrote: »

are you still claiming that becase manning or doocey or who ever says it to a camera that makes it true ?

still waiting for evidence , no sign yet . but then again we both know why that id dont we ?
becase here is none

Yeah, keep peddling the same guff. I've called you on that. Ring her place of work and ask if she's there. See what response you get.

mynamejeff wrote: »

Aaaaa so now tulsa is involved in bringing down this innocent man , this hero of the west this last angry nut case .

Try to keep up. That involves Stephen Manning - as I articulated. Or do I have to spell it out for you....oh yeah, there's that.:rolleyes:
Of course, he's got mental health issues also, right?

mynamejeff wrote: »

yes im going to ring a surgery and ask them about it and of course they will be happy to tell me all about it :pac::pac::pac:
come on now even you must agree thats not going to happen

Um....perhaps it's beyond your level of competence.
Lift phone - dial number - ask to speak to the person concerned. Either they tell you 'she no longer works here', 'I'll get her for you right away', 'she'll be in tomorrow'. But you're right - it's not going to happen - because it puts an end to your myth about 'evidence'.

But of course either everyone is lying or mentally disturbed, right?

mynamejeff wrote:

sure isnt it all part of the same conspiracy or is that a new one ?

Ok, so you don't know?....ergo....you're ill-informed - and on that basis, you slander a man's good name? You're a good citizen alright....:rolleyes:

mynamejeff wrote: »

na pal im not as invested in boards as you seem to be but then again some people dont have much to do do they ?

Reaching new heights in the development of your contribution to the discussion I take it?

mynamejeff wrote: »

would you like me to ring ballina cop shop too or the office of the high court as well ? think i ll just go in the internet and sprout BS instead.

You claim 3 individuals are either crazy or lying. You asked for evidence. Evidence is only a phone call away.

mynamejeff wrote: »

it not me slandering names good or not. ....and the muttering of a nut case and assorted cause monkeys.

Speaks for itself really.

mynamejeff wrote: »

it not me slandering names good or not. although if you have an interest in slandering people , what about the gardai judges solicitors and assorted others that you and your mates are slandering without even an shred of proof

Where is the slander?

mynamejeff wrote: »

seems like Im still making sense...i m convinced enough.

Well that's alright then.
Integrity Ireland encourages openness, transparency and justice in irish Institutions.

People like mynamejeff have an issue with that.

mynamejeff wrote: »

based on what exactly do you make that comment ?

o wait your a little short on proof again . :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Proof? Your posts strewn across this thread stand testiment to the fact that you fly in the face of openness, transparency and justice in irish Institutions.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Eh no. That's a logical jump. Integrity Ireland claims to represent openness, transparency and justice. Jeff doesn't like I.I. or believe in I.I. This does not mean Jeff does not believe in openness, transparency and justice.

Ah, I see. So Integrity Ireland is a conspiracy! The devious blighters. And there was I thinking that they were pushing an agenda of openness, transparency and justice in public institutions.


Well, this is all getting awfully confusing for you two given jeff earlier asked this;

mynamejeff wrote:

sure isnt it all part of the same conspiracy or is that a new one ?

But you two don't believe in conspiracy theories......??.:p

Careful now - or before you know it, someone will come along and infer that one or other of you is mentally unwell...:rolleyes:

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The only mentally unwell folks in this scenario are the people in Integrity Ireland. I have no idea what you are talking about with your conspiracy talk. I never mentioned I.I. being a conspiracy. I think they are all mad.

Sure, they are all mad - said Little CuChulainn weighed down with an agenda to discredit. I wonder why...

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You guys have convinced me to spend more time reading the threads in the conspiracy forum.

Evidently, you seem to believe in conspiracy's now - so I understand the logic of that. What I'm a little bit confused about is whether conspiracies are the preserve of those labelled 'mentally unwell'....? (i'll go back and re-read your contributions - I'm sure I'll figure it out).

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If you want to see true condemnation of I.I. then pop over to the legal discussion Freeman thread.

It's interesting that you mention the legal discussion forum. Would that be the legal discussion forum where it's against the rules to discuss anything (hypothetical or otherwise) that they deem to be 'legal advice' (for the protection of the original poster of course)?

The Freeman thread? tut - tut. Here you go again. Point out to me what aspect of Integrity Ireland - word or deed - points to Freeman ideology? You know well that they are not involved in same - but of course, it's all part of the character assassination, isn't it?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

All sorts of people involved in the law will tell you how mental Doocey and Manning are. If your best defence is to shout "shill" then you have already lost.

Ah - well thanks for making my very point for me. :-D
Would this be the very same legal profession that fails miserably when it comes to everything Integrity Ireland stands for? i.e. "Challenging corruption, cronyism, and criminal cover-ups..
..and encouraging openness, transparency and justice in Irish institutions."
You think that I.I. have not had any issues with members of the legal profession previously (which would go some way to explaining the example of character assassination that you point to)? You think that I.I. upsetting the cosy status quo (by being so audacious as to access the laws as they were intended and insist that everyone play by the rules) that exists is in the interests of many in the the legal profession (which goes further in explaining away the example of character assassination that you point to)? Did I not already point out to you and your buddy 'jeff' that judiciary, courts service, legal profession and gardai - through the course of their work have an ongoing working relationship? So when they slate the good name of Joe Doocey and Stephen Manning, they do so being active participants in the saga globally.

And you use that as an example of an independent viewpoint!....really?

The dogs on the street know it. Hell, even the I.M.F./Troika knew it but I guess your vested interest blinds you. Were they also 'mentally unwell' when they came out with that?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

then you have already lost.

I've lost nothing my Little CuChu - simply because it's a house of cards that you are defending.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Integrity Ireland? lol

Up there with IONA in 'lol' factor

Well thank you Bubbaclaus for that insightful, bountiful addition to the discussion. Strangely, I think I'll take the moral highroad and not comment further on that little gem of ....what shall we call it....a brain fart (but it appears that you've followed through :-( ).


"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well thank you Bubbaclaus for that insightful, bountiful addition to the discussion. Strangely, I think I'll take the moral highroad and not comment further on that little gem of ....what shall we call it....a brain fart (but it appears that you've followed through :-( ).


"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi

Of the irony :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Of the irony :rolleyes:

Why thank you also for your 'contribution' to the discussion. I'll file that away in the 'posts without substance' folder (alongside Bubbaclaus' 'contribution').

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So did Hitler

I don't think the German people (in their defence) had the opportunity to debate all things hitler in a clear and transparent manner.
Their established media might have been a tad prejudicial. Of course, that would never happen today..........(:rolleyes: )


Speaking of debate and substance, I'm still waiting on your first contribution to this discussion that falls into the category of 'a point' and/or 'a point backed by substance.'