nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

garda corruption alive and well

wildlifeboy

I feel sorry for this poor guy joe Doocey - Corrupt Gardaí Destroyed My Life: http://youtu.be/5GJdxegjtM8

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

makeorbrake

Mightydrumming wrote: »

I'm guessing Doocey's belongings that were seized in the house raid were still not given back either along with I.I's files?

So I believe.

Seo.OBriain

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Feel free to link any judgement which vindicates Manning. Although I'll point out it's Doocey that is making the claims. They guy with convictions for stalking a woman and who is currently wanted for trying to run over a Garda who stopped his car. That same guy who believes the entire state is out to get him because he dated a Gardas ex girlfriend. That's pretty mental by most peoples standards. And you are right, this thread is in AH. After Conspiracy Theories, this is the place they'd most likely get support. The thread on Legal Discussion is much less kind to I.I. and Manning et al.

You can quote what you want from OBriain. He has consistently avoided the one problem with all the claims. Other than the videos making the claims, there is absolutely zero proof to support anything Doocey has said. And that is why people are so easily dismissing it.

"You can quote what you want from OBriain."

- Clearly, this statement(in the most poetic and beautifully ironic way) both highlights your own attitude and at the same time undermines your subsequent explanation of why you believe people share your belief in this thread.

Again, more and more flawed statements all the way back to the flimsy burden of proof argument and topped off with slanderous remarks about my character and the false allegation that I am known to or the suggestion that I have a history of repeatedly evading issues relating to proof.

You seem to be repeatedly avoiding facts, reason and logic. Together with your apparent problems of reading, understanding and articulating coherent responses or arguments It's no surprise that you are so easily dismissive.

So, you believe you are right and that the majority most likely believes it too, therefore you must be right and nothing else will change your thinking or your opinion unless you have conclusive proof from me.

I think that's my best understanding of your point of view but why and how that came about I have absolutely no idea. I could be completely wrong but one thing I do know for sure is, you are very fixated and obsessed about getting some proof about something.

You're a very strange fish, I addressed everything I had wanted to say about this already and my main point was about the very question of "proof". I'll translate the subtle point I thought I had made earlier in summary just for you.....

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON ALL OF US. YOU, ME & EVERYONE ELSE.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you on anything in this thread because honestly, I've read your repeated nonsense, I just can't take you seriously and it's now gone beyond any of the fun, stupidity and hilariousness of your earlier comments.

I wish you well though, nothing personal and no hard feelings.

Free-ish speech, et. al.

makeorbrake wrote: »

People? You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who have managed to make a coherent point here on the topic. Of anyone who is not personally vested (ala connections in any way with gardai, members of the legal profession, the judiciary, etc) in this item (or items), who has spent more than a cursory glance at examining the facts, I think you'll find that you don't necessarily have the numbers.

I would replace the words "the numbers." with "anything worth adding to this thread".

Thanks for the info update.. and fair play for your's and any other rational people's efforts in defending reason, dissecting the trolling and stupidity but let's face it, all in all you're just wasting your time on this thread if you take them seriously...

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

: D

makeorbrake

Seo.OBriain wrote: »

... but let's face it, all in all you're just wasting your time on this thread if you take them seriously...

Understood....and I was hesitant in getting involved in this 'discussion' on that basis initially for that very reason. Notwithstanding that, I just wanted to balance things up in the event that any neutral taking an interest gets both viewpoints.

makeorbrake

Update on the Joe Doocey Saga.
From 2:30 to 4:30

Seo.OBriain

makeorbrake wrote: »

Update on the Joe Doocey Saga.
From 2:30 to 4:30

Hi, tried the link but came up with an error.
I don't use facederp, is it anywhere else like YT?

Thanks.

makeorbrake

Seo.OBriain wrote: »

Hi, tried the link but came up with an error.
I don't use facederp, is it anywhere else like YT?

Thanks.

I guess the link must have been updated. Try this => LINK.

From 2:30 to 4:30

mynamejeff

makeorbrake wrote: »

I guess the link must have been updated. Try this => LINK.

From 2:30 to 4:30

still not working

must be the minnions of the state manipulating the interweb again

makeorbrake

mynamejeff wrote: »

still not working

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.

mynamejeff wrote:

must be the minnions of the state manipulating the interweb again

Warrants no comment :-)

mynamejeff

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 ?

SpaceSasqwatch

mynamejeff wrote: »

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

Pretty much

makeorbrake

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

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

makeorbrake

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.

mynamejeff

"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 ......

makeorbrake

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. ;-)

mynamejeff

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

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.

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.

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]

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****.

terryduff12

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

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

2nd page of thread post 30

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.

makeorbrake

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?

SpaceSasqwatch

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

makeorbrake

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.

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

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 ?

makeorbrake

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.