garda corruption alive and well

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I could get video testimonials from 3 people claiming big foot lives in their basement, would that make it true?

Sure - and so 3 peoples word is worthless. How many people's word would it take to be acceptable? By the way, our legal system (in principal) isn't based on the 'wrong type of witnesses' as many have professed here.

Little CuChulainn

makeorbrake wrote: »

Proof please.

I already outlined it.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Unless part of the exercise was intimidatory.

You couldn't even fit 20 Gardaí in riot gear in a hallway, never mind have them all charge in. Not to mention the fact that movement is severely limited in the gear so trying to search in it would be pointless.

I'm not sure what you think it is that makes Doocey such a special snowflake that there would be a completely unprecedented and unorthodox search by upwards of two dozen Gardaí. Isn't it amazing how nobody else saw this massive operation taking place. I mean, 20 Gardaí in riot gear would need 4 vans. And all the detectives would need at least two cars.

makeorbrake wrote: »

There wouldn't be any need to send a gaggle of gardai down from Harcourt Street either - would there?

That depends on what they are looking for. The special detective unit is based out of there and Doocey, sorry I mean Dooceys computer, was sending threats to judges and politicians. They would be the ones to investigate such things.

Timberrrrrrrr

makeorbrake wrote: »

When something from any of those videos supports the world view of you (or your ilk), then it's quoted. When it doesn't, then it's crazy stuff.

Lol. What's a 'paper of record'?
I guess the video testimony of 3 people means all 3 people are lying? I'm sure they can state that under oath - getting the opportunity to do so is another days work.

I could get video testimonials from 3 people claiming big foot lives in their basement, would that make it true?

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

I wasnt making a point. I asked a question.

No - but you proved mine - see above.

makeorbrake wrote: »

When all else fails, denigrate the poster rather than articulate your point. That said, I can understand how you'd chose to go that way when your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I wasnt making a point. I asked a question.

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

how old are you ?

When all else fails, denigrate the poster rather than articulate your point. That said, I can understand how you'd choose to go that way when your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

makeorbrake wrote: »

When something from any of those videos supports the world view of you (or your ilk), then it's quoted. When it doesn't, then it's crazy stuff.

how old are you ?

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

what the hell are you waffling on about now ?

When something from any of those videos supports the world view of you (or your ilk), then it's quoted. When it doesn't, then it's crazy stuff.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so not from a paper of record then. thought so.

Lol. What's a 'paper of record'?
I guess the video testimony of 3 people means all 3 people are lying? I'm sure they can state that under oath - getting the opportunity to do so is another days work.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And yet when it suits the viewpoint, then it seems its ok to rely on same.

what the hell are you waffling on about now ?

ohnonotgmail

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

which was a quote from comments left on an II video so can be safely ignored as paranoid rubbish

so not from a paper of record then. thought so.

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

which was a quote from comments left on an II video so can be safely ignored as paranoid rubbish

And yet when it suits the viewpoint, then it seems its ok to rely on same.

terryduff12 wrote: »

2nd page of thread post 30

which was a quote from comments left on an II video so can be safely ignored as paranoid rubbish

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As to Mr Doocey, I couldn't tell you as to only source is him and he is clearly lying through his teeth.

Proof please.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Even if it was all a conspiracy, you still wouldn't need any more than that.

Unless part of the exercise was intimidatory. There wouldn't be any need to send a gaggle of gardai down from Harcourt Street either - would there?

Little CuChulainn

terryduff12 wrote: »

TRUE I suppose so how many guards did show up?, 6 showed up to Paul Murphy didn't they

2 cars, four gardaí, 1 sergeant and 1 inspector by most accounts. 2 Gardaí to transport the prisoner in one car and two to give a lift to the inspector and sergeant, who were presumably there due to his position as a member of the Dáil, in the other.

As to Mr Doocey, I couldn't tell you as to only source is him and he is clearly lying through his teeth. Generally though, you'd ideally have six to eight on a house search and I see no reason why he would get any special treatment in that regard. Even if it was all a conspiracy, you still wouldn't need any more than that.

terryduff12

2nd page of thread post 30

ohnonotgmail

terryduff12 wrote: »

TRUE I suppose so how many guards did show up?, 6 showed up to Paul Murphy didn't they

where does the figure of 20 gardai in riot gear come from?

terryduff12

TRUE I suppose so how many guards did show up?, 6 showed up to Paul Murphy didn't they

Little CuChulainn

terryduff12 wrote: »

Maybe if the 20 guards in riot gear spend some time doing police work besides hunting down hardened criminals like joe and Paul Murphy when 6 guards turned up at his door. Is it a conspiracy or being told by clowns who don`t know or for some political reason that is leading to this happing pretty much around the country. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime-is-destroying-the-community-we-feel-so-vulnerable-31422585.html. There lucky to have one Garda in the village as many don't have any.

The only place you'd see twenty Gardaí in riot gear is at the scene of a riot. Gardaí don't go to arrest or search in riot gear. It's too bulky and awkward. Some armed Gardaí wear tactical gear when making a search. They are called the R.S.U. But they only go in teams of two to four and they only stay as long as it takes to ensure no weapons are there. In extreme situations, or in Dublin, you might get a tactical unit from the E.R.U. but again, you wouldn't ever see more than a few at the one time. So basically, any claim that 20 Gardaí in any kind of tactical or riot gear went to a guys house to do a search is complete bull****.

waulie_palnuts

makeorbrake wrote: »

lol. 'These people who want to take over'? Perhaps they just want the laws to be applied equitably to all? You think that's possible?
In a random sampling of members of any profession, there's going to be some bad apples but that's fine if there's accountability.

What accountability is there for any of the groups that you mentioned? GSOC would be fine if it functioned as its supposed to. As regards II being the only ones to believe that there is an issue here, there are others. Ask Frank McBrearty what he thinks....or is he also deluded?
Ask Ian Bailey.

No, it doesn't - see above.

I would ask Frank McBreaty but if be stitched up. I would ask Ian Bailey but I'd only [redeacted] a [redacted]

terryduff12

Maybe if the 20 guards in riot gear spend some time doing police work besides hunting down hardened criminals like joe and Paul Murphy when 6 guards turned up at his door. Is it a conspiracy or being told by clowns who don`t know or for some political reason that is leading to this happing pretty much around the country. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime-is-destroying-the-community-we-feel-so-vulnerable-31422585.html. There lucky to have one Garda in the village as many don't have any.

KERSPLAT!

MOD

This

mynamejeff wrote: »

"sigh"
ok ok , i suppose was silly to engage with some one like you in the first place ,

you obviously have some serious problems of your own going on here

and this

mynamejeff wrote: »

sorry but this conversation is like talking to a very very very stupid person

Is not OK, poster banned. Back on topic please, cheers.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I see - so it's too much like hard work to tackle the points I've raised so you crawl down to the depths of playing the man (i.e. your ' you obviously have some serious issues of your own' comment) and not the subject for discussion? I guess I can understand that - as what you present with doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

lol. Too much for you that more and more people are being exposed to the truth? Is that why you yourself feel the need to comment on I.I. in multiple forums - like your rantings over on politics.ie for example? You're still welcome to disclose your interest in this topic - as clearly it's not a passing interest.

I guess if you can't deal with the points I've raised, Jeff - so be it. ;-)

only boys(and girls i suppose ) need to play a being a man and i can assure you im neither.

i think if you check your research you ll find hat i ve never mentioned II in any other forum in any other way shape or form.

but why let facts or actual proof cloud the issue again

sorry but this conversation is like talking to a very very very stupid person

mynamejeff wrote: »

"sigh"

ok ok , i suppose was silly to engage with some one like you in the first place ,

you obviously have some serious problems of your own going on here

so for your sake

i genuinely believe everything that mr dooleys version of everything and that he is innocent of everything and always will be
yes there is a huge conspiracy involving all branches of the government and many many other persons who wish to ruin some random hill billy from mayo for no apparent reason

i also trust that what you understand as poof is indeed proof of a legal standard and not just the dregs of internet rantings from a few people with multiple online identities
and further more the only ones who can help him and enforce honesty and democracy one the nation of Ireland is Steven manning and his troop of keyboard hero's

you have yourself a good time now ......

I see - so it's too much like hard work to tackle the points I've raised so you crawl down to the depths of playing the man (i.e. your ' you obviously have some serious issues of your own' comment) and not the subject for discussion? I guess I can understand that - as what you present with doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

mynamejeff wrote:

with multiple online identities

lol. Too much for you that more and more people are being exposed to the truth? Is that why you yourself feel the need to comment on I.I. in multiple forums - like your rantings over on politics.ie for example? You're still welcome to disclose your interest in this topic - as clearly it's not a passing interest.

I guess if you can't deal with the points I've raised, Jeff - so be it. ;-)

"sigh"

ok ok , i suppose was silly to engage with some one like you in the first place ,

you obviously have some serious problems of your own going on here

so for your sake

i genuinely believe everything that mr dooleys version of everything and that he is innocent of everything and always will be
yes there is a huge conspiracy involving all branches of the government and many many other persons who wish to ruin some random hill billy from mayo for no apparent reason

i also trust that what you understand as poof is indeed proof of a legal standard and not just the dregs of internet rantings from a few people with multiple online identities
and further more the only ones who can help him and enforce honesty and democracy one the nation of Ireland is Steven manning and his troop of keyboard hero's

you have yourself a good time now ......

mynamejeff wrote: »

not disrupting courts

Your words. My understanding is that we still have PUBLIC courts. There are legal processes in train following the assaults that took place by members of the Gardai. I don't think anyone in I.I. would agree with your terminology.

mynamejeff wrote: »

harassing ex girlfriends

An issue which Mr. Doocey disputes. It would be prudent to point out that this State has convicted the wrong individual on numerous occasions...or do you dispute that?

mynamejeff wrote: »

paying tax

Details? In any event, a civil matter, is it not? I don't think anyone in I.I. believes that people shouldn't pay tax.

mynamejeff wrote: »

hit and run

It's not a simple case of hit and run, is it? What operation was ongoing at that particular time, Jeff? Why was he stopped? Why are we still awaiting an answer to that question?

mynamejeff wrote: »

assault

You mean like the assaults that took place in Castlebar Courthouse - that I.I. are seeking to prosecute?

mynamejeff wrote: »

seems like II are the ones who don't like the laws being applied to themselves

See above - no it doesn't.

mynamejeff wrote: »

Frank Mcbrearty wasnt fond of obeying laws himself with regard to licencing laws and allowing drugs to be sold in his premises among other things.

Ah, sure that's alright then. It's fine that the Irish State stitch him up and frame him for murder.

mynamejeff wrote: »

As for Ian bailey i seem to remember he lost his case after his star witnesses were exposed as untruthful and delusional in the extreme.

Witnesses - plural? You're referring to the Gardai's key witness!...(originally).
The witness in question goes from a totally credible witness when presented by the Gardai to a "untruthful and delusional" witness when presented by Ian Bailey. Sounds like an extremely poignant and familiar assumption based on all that's been discussed here.
From the I.T.;

"The State also successfully applied on day 60 of the 64-day trial to have much of Bailey’s case, including his claims for wrongful arrest, struck out as they had happened before the six-year period from when Bailey lodged his claim in 2007. Mr Justice Hedigan ruled that all that could go before the jury was a question of conspiracy."

They could have brought that motion on Day 1 of the case. What was their motivation in bringing it right at the end? You think it was a healthy motivation - because I doubt anyone with a grain of intelligence could hold that viewpoint.

That's why Bailey lost - no other reason. They got out from under it on statute of limitations grounds.

mynamejeff wrote:

In all likleyhood he did commit murder

Really? For someone that goes on and on about proof, that's some statement!

mynamejeff wrote:

but gardai lacked the evidence to satisfy the legal burden of proof for a criminal trial

...so they just made stuff up (as proven in phone calls recorded).

mynamejeff wrote:

those are some really weak examples mate

No Jeff - they are very strong examples.

makeorbrake wrote: »

lol. 'These people who want to take over'? Perhaps they just want the laws to be applied equitably to all? You think that's possible?
In a random sampling of members of any profession, there's going to be some bad apples but that's fine if there's accountability.

What accountability is there for any of the groups that you mentioned? GSOC would be fine if it functioned as its supposed to. As regards II being the only ones to believe that there is an issue here, there are others. Ask Frank McBrearty what he thinks....or is he also deluded?
Ask Ian Bailey.

No, it doesn't - see above.

laws like

not disrupting courts
harassing ex girlfriends
paying tax
hit and run
assault
....................

seems like II are the ones who don't like the laws being applied to themselves

Frank Mcbrearty wasnt fond of obeying laws himself with regard to licencing laws and allowing drugs to be sold in his premises among other things.

As for Ian bailey i seem to remember he lost his case after his star witnesses were exposed as untruthful and delusional in the extreme.
In all likleyhood he did commit murder but gardai lacked the evidence to satisfy the legal burden of proof for a criminal trial

those are some really weak examples mate

mynamejeff wrote: »

just watched your vid there and it seems that the gardai are bad the solicitors are bad the judges are bad gsoc is bad the government is bad and the only one who can fix it all is these II people who want to be allowed to take over ?

lol. 'These people who want to take over'? Perhaps they just want the laws to be applied equitably to all? You think that's possible?
In a random sampling of members of any profession, there's going to be some bad apples but that's fine if there's accountability.

What accountability is there for any of the groups that you mentioned? GSOC would be fine if it functioned as its supposed to. As regards II being the only ones to believe that there is an issue here, there are others. Ask Frank McBrearty what he thinks....or is he also deluded?
Ask Ian Bailey.

mynamejeff wrote: »

every one who isnt II is corrupt and bad ? that about cover it mate ?

No, it doesn't - see above.

mynamejeff wrote: »

every one who isnt II is corrupt and bad ? that about cover it mate ?

Pretty much

makeorbrake wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/IntegrityIRL

Scroll down to entry dated 18/07. For someone who abhors facebook and YT video's, strange that you should take an interest.

what in the name of denis o brien are you talking about ? think might be your confused again

Warrants no comment :-)

what in the name of denis o brien are you talking about ? think might be your confused again

just trying to be helpful

just watched your vid there and it seems that the gardai are bad the solicitors are bad the judges are bad gsoc is bad the government is bad and the only one who can fix it all is these II people who want to be allowed to take over ?

every one who isnt II is corrupt and bad ? that about cover it mate ?