BattleCorp wrote: » I don't have a transcript of what Paul Murphy said, but if he didn't say something along the lines of "Surround her car, don't let her out", then what can he be in trouble for?
SEPT 23 1989 wrote: » if he goes to jail his seat is gone
paulbok wrote: » She was a TD, stands to reason there was a good chance she would be going to the Dáil.
Corvus Maximus wrote: » And like a lot of our hard working TD's, she probably had an urgent appointment with the Dáil bar.
Jawgap wrote: » Farmer fined €5k for obstructing work of department vetLongford pig farmer on trial for false imprisonment of man
darkpagandeath wrote: » Political policing at it's finest. Whether you agree or disagree at people's ability to protest that's not really the issue here. By any European standard this was an extremely ordered and peaceful protest, Blocking has been used everywhere. I think the problem is People are not used to protests, Protests for legitimate reasons. The political elite consider themselves untouchable and beyond the people they “SERVE”. I would hardly call a person in their car on their smart phone smiling terrified for their lives. The Garda presence was huge, This was a calculated move. At any time the area could have been cleared and the car let on it's way. I was going to link some protests in Europe but why bother, A water balloon and a bit of car shaking is the destruction of Irish society and anarchy on the streets. Ironically if this was Labours protest They would not be using terrified and detained all that emotive language. I do not condone the actions.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » so what do you think the gardai should have done about it? leave them at it? sure its not as bad as what happens in europe so its grand?
Deleted User wrote: » yes well done. Two criminal cases involving farmers, neither anything to do with protests / blocking traffic etc. What exactly do they have to do with this thread?
Specialun wrote: » Farmers have blocked in factories and other protests have blocked in groups and nobody was ever charged.
seamus wrote: » Because baton charging an already tense mob when they have an innocent civilian's vehicle trapped and surrounded is a stupid idea.
gandalf wrote: » If they charge Murphy it would be a very big mistake. It would guarantee him getting re-elected next year. I would love if they charged everyone but him. Leave him without a cross to jump on to
K4t wrote: » Fairly massive assumption to say that baton charging would have been required
darkpagandeath wrote: » I think the Garda should have moved them on if there was any breaches of the peace, And not be pawns in a photo op and political jockeying.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » I believe it was "Should we let her out?"
BattleCorp wrote: » If that's what he said, what in the name of Jaysus evidence have they against him?
seamus wrote: » How do you think the Gardai were going to clear them - "Ah come on now lads, stand up there ouhta the way"? Once they used force, the mob would have all leapt in and the batons would have come out. To think otherwise shows naivety in the extreme about what kind of thugs were "protesting" that day.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » "should we let here out." does that not imply he was part of the mob who were preventing her from leaving?
K4t wrote: » No - it does imply he can use a megaphone though.
K4t wrote: » To think that the whole mob would have attacked the Gardaí shows naivety in the extreme
seamus wrote: » But IMHO that actually makes things worse for him because it implies at the time that he knew she was being trapped (therefore the mob had to be "asked" to move), and that Murphy believed he had sufficient authority/sway to ask this question.
conorh91 wrote: » There's no need to overcomplicate it. It doesn't make it worse. You can shrug and comply with a Garda request without believing it will really help. If PM is to be charged with false imprisonment, I am sure the DPP will have plenty of evidence for that charge. But a video recording of Murphy asking for Burton's release is very unlikely to constitute the causing of a false imprisonment under any literal, or natural and ordinary meaning of that expression.
seamus wrote: » Should we Implies that he is part of the group.let her out. Implies that the group are holding her. Your continual defence of indefensible is ridiculous. Everyone knows exactly what this was and the only people who believe otherwise are delusional Murphy and his delusional supporters.
K4t wrote: » While it may imply those things, it still means nothing. It could just as easily be argued that he is speaking in code or referring to the peaceful protestors only. But there is no need for any argument according to yourself - Indefensible? No need for a trial so as you've spoken. And my name isn't Paul Murphy and I'm not a supporter of his, so I suppose I'm just delusional.
K4t wrote: » To think that the whole mob would have attacked the Gardaí shows naivety in the extreme - you might have had one or two, who could have been swiftly dealt with. Whether under instruction or own inclination, the Gardaí allowed the situation at Jobstown to occur - which is fine I suppose as nobody was hurt. But to come along after the fact and rewrite the story and say someone was falsely imprisoned is delusional in the extreme. The whole mess is only showing the Gardaí to have been wholly incompetent on the day, which I don't think they were, or are.
Graham wrote: » I didn't see anyone suggest there's no need for a trial. I think a trial is a great idea, let a Court decide based on the evidence.
Graham wrote: » Was a response to this: