Suspended sentence for man involved in 'Love Ulster' riots

Bottle_of_Smoke

A Ballybrack man receieved a three-year suspended sentence at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court for his role in the 'Love Ulster' riots in the city centre two years ago.

John King, (aged 32) of Ceder Court, pleaded guilty to violent disorder on February 25, 2006 on O'Connell Street.

Detective Garda Damien Maher told Judge Tony Hunt that he saw King throw a large brick directly at members of an garda siochana that were standing about 10 feet away from him.

King was arrested and later gave a false name and address to Gda Maher in the station.

Judge Hunt suspended the three year jail term on condition that King keep the peace and be of good behaviour for five years.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhidkfojsnkf/

Thought this was completely out of order. Is it normal to brick a police officer from 10 feet and get a suspended sentence? I think three years serving would have been too harsh but to get nothing seems nuts and sends jsut the message the anti-irish loyalists want to hear.

Just for record I think Willie Fraser is nothing but a troublemaker who probably saw the riot coming. Doesn't justify this though

drunkmonkey

did he connect with the brick?

Skippy65

The organisers of the parade both north and south are to blame for allowing such a stupid idea to go ahead. However throwing bricks at gardai should be more heavily punished no matter what the circumstance. Is it any wonder that assaults etc. are becoming more common when the offenders are being so lightly punished.

nesf

I think the sentence is ok if the guy has no previous convictions. If he's a serial troublemaker he'll end up back in front of a judge within five years and (presumably) get the three years plus whatever new time he's earned. The first response shouldn't be to automatically not suspend sentences, we've enough problems with overcrowding in our prisons as is. The guy should be given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to show it was a once off where their record up to that point is clean.

Bottle_of_Smoke

nesf wrote: »

I think the sentence is ok if the guy has no previous convictions. If he's a serial troublemaker he'll end up back in front of a judge within five years and (presumably) get the three years plus whatever new time he's earned. The first response shouldn't be to automatically not suspend sentences, we've enough problems with overcrowding in our prisons as is. The guy should be given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to show it was a once off where their record up to that point is clean.

Do you not think give him 3 years with 2 suspended would be a much more appropriate sentence?

gandalf

If he attempted to attack the agents of law and order within the state he should be serving at least 3 years imho.

Bottle_of_Smoke

drunkmonkey wrote: »

did he connect with the brick?

I don't know. However, it's not disputed he deliberately aimed it at one particular cop. It must have been at least close to come to court, so I don't think it matters all that much in relation to the sentencing

stovelid

nesf wrote: »

I think the sentence is ok if the guy has no previous convictions. If he's a serial troublemaker he'll end up back in front of a judge within five years and (presumably) get the three years plus whatever new time he's earned. The first response shouldn't be to automatically not suspend sentences, we've enough problems with overcrowding in our prisons as is. The guy should be given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to show it was a once off where their record up to that point is clean.

This would be my thinking too.

2-D Man

gandalf wrote: »

If he attempted to attack the agents of law and order within the state he should be serving at least 3 years imho.

Unfortunately these agents were attempting to force a march down a street were it wasn't wanted.

One of the banners at the march had the name of Robert Nairac, a notorious SAS murderer on it, the other had the name of a UVF man suspected of having taken part in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings which killed 33 innocent people. It was an insult to have Orange bands (a sectarian and sexist organisation) march past the Garden of Remembrance and the GPO

I don't agree with the violence which took place that day, especially with people who clearly have no political views and were only there to start trouble, but I certainly think the government has a lot to answer for, for letting such a bunch of bigots march through our streets.

I do not agree with this mans actions however I don't think he should be imprisoned for them. The people who approved the march should be the ones up in court.

muincav

2-D Man wrote: »

Unfortunately these agents were attempting to force a march down a street were it wasn't wanted.

One of the banners at the march had the name of Robert Nairac, a notorious SAS murderer on it, the other had the name of a UVF man suspected of having taken part in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings which killed 33 innocent people. It was an insult to have Orange bands (a sectarian and sexist organisation) march past the Garden of Remembrance and the GPO

I don't agree with the violence which took place that day, especially with people who clearly have no political views and were only there to start trouble, but I certainly think the government has a lot to answer for, for letting such a bunch of bigots march through our streets.

I do not agree with this mans actions however I don't think he should be imprisoned for them. The people who approved the march should be the ones up in court.

I for one totally agree and think you should be applauded....well said!

djpbarry

2-D Man wrote: »

...I certainly think the government has a lot to answer for, for letting such a bunch of bigots march through our streets.

It's called freedom of speech; people should be allowed to march for whatever the hell reason they want.

Hotblack Desiato

Violent crime should never receive a suspended sentence.

nesf

djpbarry wrote: »

It's called freedom of speech; people should be allowed to march for whatever the hell reason they want.

They should only be allowed march where the march won't cause a disturbance of the peace. You have to balance freedom of speech with other rights.

Acacia

nesf wrote: »

They should only be allowed march where the march won't cause a disturbance of the peace. You have to balance freedom of speech with other rights.

Exactly. It was ridiculous to think they could do it without violence occurring. I'm not condoning the violence, but it was inevitable. What possible outcome were they expecting? I do agree that people are entitled to freedom of expression, but it simply wasn't good common sense for the march to be held in Dublin.

Hotblack Desiato

nesf wrote: »

They should only be allowed march where the march won't cause a disturbance of the peace.

Wasn't that the excuse used rather a lot up north 40 years ago?
It gives anyone willing to threaten to disturb the peace the ability to silence you.

You have to balance freedom of speech with other rights.

True, but it's stretching things a little imho to effectively hold you responsible for the violent reaction of others to your non-violent speech, and gag you as a result.

amacachi

2-D Man wrote:

I do not agree with this mans actions however I don't think he should be imprisoned for them. The people who approved the march should be the ones up in court.

If I kill someone don't blame me, blame my mother for not taking me out with a clothes hanger when she had a chance.

I don't personally think the parade should've been approved, but that in no way gives an excuse for the disgusting behaviour that day. Let alone throwing a brick at a Garda.

nesf

ninja900 wrote: »

Wasn't that the excuse used rather a lot up north 40 years ago?
It gives anyone willing to threaten to disturb the peace the ability to silence you.

I'm not saying that it isn't open to abuse, it's easy to use it as an excuse to unjustly silence groups. If properly used it's a good rule of thumb.

ninja900 wrote: »

True, but it's stretching things a little imho to effectively hold you responsible for the violent reaction of others to your non-violent speech, and gag you as a result.

Not responsible but one should be mindful of the results of any public announcements and the consequences of it. Someone who incites a riot with a speech where it could be reasonably deemed that that speech was likely to have that result should be held accountable for it to some extent.

Time Magazine

nesf wrote: »

I think the sentence is ok if the guy has no previous convictions.

No feckin' way. He wasn't in town that day to admire the drums of our Loyalist friends and became upset. He went in there with the intention of causing havoc, and did something that could have killed a member of the police.

If people think they can do that and get away with suspended sentences, I wouldn't want to be around Lansdowne Road next time there's a football match.

nesf

The Economist wrote: »

No feckin' way. He wasn't in town that day to admire the drums of our Loyalist friends and became upset. He went in there with the intention of causing havoc, and did something that could have killed a member of the police.

If people think they can do that and get away with suspended sentences, I wouldn't want to be around Lansdowne Road next time there's a football match.

You make it sound like a suspended sentence is no punishment at all. The function of our political system is not merely to extract retribution from people etc.

gandalf

2-D Man wrote: »

I do not agree with this mans actions however I don't think he should be imprisoned for them. The people who approved the march should be the ones up in court.

So basically you're saying its ok to break the law and attempt to injure the police. I could post what I think of you and your contribution but I would get banned.

Lets just say this country can do without that type of apologist attitude towards criminals.

phoebeclark

Have heard this vaguely from way back. Don't really understand how they cannot protest peacefully.

djpbarry

nesf wrote: »

They should only be allowed march where the march won't cause a disturbance of the peace.

So they shouldn't have been allowed to march (in Ireland)?

nesf wrote: »

You have to balance freedom of speech with other rights.

Agreed, but whose rights were being infringed upon by staging this march?

I don't agree with the motive behind the march, but that doesn't mean I don't think the march should not go ahead. There's been many a protest outside the GPO that I have totally disagreed with, but I whole-heartedly support the staging of those protests. It's quite possible that the whole point of the this particular march was to rile people and I think it would have demonstrated our maturity as a nation (in a "God Save the Queen" at Croke Park sort of way) had the whole thing passed off peacefully. But a few hundred idiots saw to it that this would not be the case and that's what pisses me off more than any march/protest ever could.

Acacia wrote: »

It was ridiculous to think they could do it without violence occurring. I'm not condoning the violence, but it was inevitable. What possible outcome were they expecting?

You see there's the problem; why should it be expected (or accepted) that violence would occur at something like this?

Bottle_of_Smoke

I agree they shouldn't have marched but I wouldn't stopped them from doing it.

I'll always see Fraser as scum for this and so will plenty others, though I'm not goign to compromise on free speech for it.

Still though, Brick thrown at cop. Should be serving time.

nesf

djpbarry wrote: »

You see there's the problem; why should it be expected (or accepted) that violence would occur at something like this?

Because we know that there's a few hundred idiots out there who'll happily kick up some violence about it? Some topics are better kept to the editorial pages than organised marches.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

It's called freedom of speech; people should be allowed to march for whatever the hell reason they want.

Indeed .... whatever happened to with 'rights' comes 'responsibilities'.

I think that little 'right' cost Dublin 12m.

dlofnep

The guys who tore up Dublin need to grow up and show that they are better than that. Willie Frazier is a complete umpty, and knew it was coming - but they all just fell into his trap.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Indeed .... whatever happened to with 'rights' comes 'responsibilities'.

I think that little 'right' cost Dublin 12m.

No, a few hundred scumbags cost Dublin €x million; the march just gave them an excuse.

dlofnep wrote: »

The guys who tore up Dublin need to grow up and show that they are better than that. Willie Frazier is a complete umpty, and knew it was coming - but they all just fell into his trap.

Exactly.

Acacia

[quote=djpbarry;57582286
You see there's the problem; why should it be expected (or accepted) that violence would occur at something like this?[/quote]

It shouldn't be accepted. I never said that. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will incite violence for violence's sake and they used this march as an excuse to cause trouble.The only person who should take responsibility for lobbing a brick at a garda is the person who did it, at the end of the day.

There may also have been people who had genuine political reasons for rioting. It's not an ideal world, and some wounds are going to take while to heal. I would have liked for people to show a bit of cop-on about the whole thing, like you said, people should be able to have marches if they want to.

It's more the logistics of the thing that was the problem, not that violence was the right solution.

djpbarry

Acacia wrote: »

There may also have been people who had genuine political reasons for rioting.

I doubt most of those involved could even spell 'politics'.

Acacia

djpbarry wrote: »

I doubt most of those involved could even spell 'politics'.

Maybe, I don't know who actually had a political reason for rioting and who didn't. Like I said before,most of it was violence for violence's sake. I'd say there were a lot of people who felt it shouldn't have taken place, but didn't resort to violence, though.

TOMASJ

If this Love Ulster march had been an all inclusive affair

(eg) Only people killed by the Republicans in the troubles in the North were welcome to attend

if your relative was killed by the British Army or Loyalists you were not welcome

I honestly think there would have been no trouble,

Willie Frazier being what he is only took it there to create bother for the Garda and cause as much destruction (while washing his hands of all responsibility) as possible.

The idiots that rioted took the bait.