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

Dolores O'Riordan Air Rage Incident

Welsh Megaman

There was No Need To Argue with the airline staff.

:cool:

http://m.rte.ie/ten/news/2016/0224/770389-dolores-oriordan/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Hitchens

the District Court in Ireland is just joke justice anyway

Chancer3001

Should have given the money to the assaulted people.

AvyStreet

We've all had one of those days.

The trick is to not drink or get on a plane.

murpho999

Hitchens wrote: »

the District Court in Ireland is just joke justice anyway

Seriously what do people want?

Lock her up or put her in stocks and throw tomatoes at her.

She has no criminal record, is bi-polar. She didn't kill some one or seriously injure anyone.
She's apologised, learnt her lesson, been publically humiliated and paying a fine. It's enough for a minor incident.

haveringchick

I have inside info on this. Poor girl is having a terrible time. Her kids won't see her. They'll see her mam but not her. Basically her husband had to throw her out her behaviour at home was so terrible they couldn't put up with it anymore.
Her mothers finding her very stressful as well. It's very sad.

diomed

If she was not responsible for her actions she should escape conviction.
It seems she had medical evidence to say she was not responsible.
Where does the poor box fit into things?

haveringchick

diomed wrote: »

If she was not responsible for her actions she should escape conviction.
It seems she had medical evidence to say she was not responsible.
Where does the poor box fit into things?

She pled guilty.
A small fine commensurate with the accused means is the order of the day in District Court down the country
The poor box is a "catchall" expression for local charities

gormdubhgorm

I am not a fan of ufc cage fighting. But I would like to see Delores O'Riordan v Sinead O'Connor!

[Deleted User]

murpho999 wrote: »

Seriously what do people want?

Lock her up or put her in stocks and throw tomatoes at her.

She has no criminal record, is bi-polar. She didn't kill some one or seriously injure anyone.
She's apologised, learnt her lesson, been publically humiliated and paying a fine. It's enough for a minor incident.

Yes, but she's not eviscerated and nothing less will do.

Hitchens

Candie wrote: »

Yes, but she's not eviscerated and nothing less will do.

ah you're being a bit harsh on her there

Water John

gorm, that's a clown comment. A bit of respect for people with mental health issues.
Has society become so unkind. How we treat vulnerable people, irrespective of their wealth is the measure of our humanity.

deaddonkey15

Was she institutionalized after this incident? If she's not responsible for her actions that led to 3 people being assaulted and one accused of sexual assault then she should be under some sort of supervision.

Water John

Donkey, I believe the answer is, yes.

gormdubhgorm

Water John wrote: »

gorm, that's a clown comment. A bit of respect for people with mental health issues.
Has society become so unkind. How we treat vulnerable people, irrespective of their wealth is the measure of our humanity.

Ah now John even you left Sinead. Can you not have a bit of criac with it? Do mental health people have no sense of humour?

hinault

murpho999 wrote: »

Seriously what do people want?

Lock her up or put her in stocks and throw tomatoes at her.

She has no criminal record, is bi-polar. She didn't kill some one or seriously injure anyone.
She's apologised, learnt her lesson, been publically humiliated and paying a fine. It's enough for a minor incident.

She falsely claimed to have been sexually assaulted.

Bi-polar or not, that false accusation is inexcusable.

murpho999

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Was she institutionalized after this incident? If she's not responsible for her actions that led to 3 people being assaulted and one accused of sexual assault then she should be under some sort of supervision.

No she was not 'institutionalized' but she did receive treatment in a hospital for her mental illness.

Your terminology displays your ignorance of mental health.

She pleaded guilty, evidence was shown medical professionals that she was not well at the time and the judge ruled it would be unfair to criminalise her.

So a compromise has been reached.

Also, she withdrew the sexual assault charge and apologised to the victims.

I think that's enough.

murpho999

hinault wrote: »

She falsely claimed to have been sexually assaulted.

Bi-polar or not, that false accusation is inexcusable.

She withdrew it as she was not of sound mind at the time.

Do people not realise that mental illness diminishes sufferers their normal mental capacity and rationality?

Arbiter of Good Taste

murpho999 wrote: »

Seriously what do people want?

Lock her up or put her in stocks and throw tomatoes at her.

She has no criminal record, is bi-polar. She didn't kill some one or seriously injure anyone.
She's apologised, learnt her lesson, been publically humiliated and paying a fine. It's enough for a minor incident.

It depends. Had she already been diagnosed? Was she prescribed medication? If so, and she failed or refused to take it, then surely that is a wilful disregard for her own safety and the safety of the general public, and then yes, she should be punished.

deaddonkey15

murpho999 wrote: »

No she was not 'institutionalized' but she did receive treatment in a hospital for her mental illness.

Your terminology displays your ignorance of mental health.

She pleaded guilty, evidence was shown medical professionals that she was not well at the time and the judge ruled it would be unfair to criminalise her.

So a compromise has been reached.

Also, she withdrew the sexual assault charge and apologised to the victims.

I think that's enough.

Is that right? And that remark displays absolutely no ignorance on your part no? You know everything about me and the people in my life?

Get off your high horse.

Arbiter of Good Taste

murpho999 wrote: »

She withdrew it as she was not of sound mind at the time.

Do people not realise that mental illness diminishes sufferers their normal mental capacity and rationality?

So the victim of the accusation should just take it on the chin?

Water John

gorm, I consider your posts, the equivalent of racial abuse.
I will not entertain your remarks, you further. Pathetic, jokes at the expense of people with mental health issues. Get a life.

hinault

murpho999 wrote: »

She withdrew it as she was not of sound mind at the time.

I don't buy that.

murpho999

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

It depends. Had she already been diagnosed? Was she prescribed medication? If so, and she failed or refused to take it, then surely that is a wilful disregard for her own safety and the safety of the general public, and then yes, she should be punished.

You're just making a lot of assumptions there.

So you just assume she's not well and if she has medicine then everything is fine and she would be normal?
Therefore if she wasn't normal she must have refused to take her medicine and should be punished?

Your post really is quite arrogant and displays a huge amount of misunderstanding of mental health.

Hitchens

is there a paper trail of all this 'court poorbox' money?

murpho999

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Is that right? And that remark displays absolutely no ignorance on your part no? You know everything about me and the people in my life?

Get off your high horse.

No high horse. Just reacting to what you wrote not to you personnally, so relax.

It's simple a person with a physical ailment would simply go to hospital for treatment and it's no different to patients with mental health.

They are not 'institutionalised' which is a terminology that totally stigmatises them as some sort of prisoner.

murpho999

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

So the victim of the accusation should just take it on the chin?

Or just accept her apology?

murpho999

hinault wrote: »

I don't buy that.

Well just as well you're not a judge.

That's how it was reported from the court on RTE news.

Arbiter of Good Taste

murpho999 wrote: »

You're just making a lot of assumptions there.

So you just assume she's not well and if she has medicine then everything is fine and she would be normal?
Therefore if she wasn't normal she must have refused to take her medicine and should be punished?

Your post really is quite arrogant and displays a huge amount of misunderstanding of mental health.

Wow, your arrogance is astounding. Do you understand irony? Because I'm the second person you've accused of making broad assumptions when that appears to be the only thing you are capable of.

Firstly I did not make any assumptions. I asked a reasonable question. Was she already diagnosed and was she supposed to be taking medicine? Because if she was, well then she was partially responsible for her behaviour if her medication would have prevented or mitigated her erratic behaviour. If not, well then it is arguable that she could not be held responsible.

Secondly, you are the one who is arrogant. I've actually lived with someone who is bi polar, so I know exactly how scary and destructive it can be if not treated properly.

Arbiter of Good Taste

murpho999 wrote: »

Or just accept her apology?

Sure, it's that easy

hinault

murpho999 wrote: »

Well just as well you're not a judge.

That's how it was reported from the court on RTE news.

RTE can report whatever they wish.

A false allegation of sexual assault was made.

If you think being bi-polar mitigates that falsity of those allegations, that's your look out.

It's my look out that I don't buy her excuse.