Got one of them anyway

topper75

LB6 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/

5th item down

That seems to be

Robert Shortt, Washington Correspondent, reports that the leaders of the 20 largest economies hope to find a solution to the world's economic woes

Can you specify what you meant please?

Mr E

John Mc and Raiser.... keep it civil, guys....

cooperguy

Raiser wrote: »

You haven't a notion son..... :rolleyes:

FF were making their election promises based on 3% growth, since we're in a recession that isnt exactly happening. FG were doing EXACTLY the same thing.

The anti-FF brigade need a dose of reality, im not a massive FF supporter but people who have lost touch with reality annoy me.

Anyway back on topic. He did not hand himself in for the good of his own health. It was the protection of a jailcell he was looking for. I do have to agree with a previous poster in saying 10 months for 34 offences really is too little. But one thing I cant get my head around is that there was absolutly nothing added to the sentence for him going on the run. The 10 months were what he was given originally. Surely his sentence should be added to for that!

old boy

but them guys have more rights than you and i, joe citizen to appear before tom o donnell with that list of offences would get a min. of 5 years.

LB6

sorry - that particular item has gone off the page topper

Liam Byrne

It's not feckin' rocket-science and I don't know why the Government can't get their head around it:

PERSON A and PERSON B have equal rights, as is right and correct
PERSON A commits a crime against PERSON B, thereby infringing their rights

AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR OWN CHOICE, the State infringes on PERSON A's rights.

Fair and just.

The do-gooders and "people should have equal rights" whingers forget one thing: the rights of law-abiding people NOT to have crimes committed against them.

By all means (as is correct) offer full rights until someone is judged and convicted, but if they're guilty - and DEFINITELY if they go out and commit crimes after release - often while on BAIL - then throw the book at them and lock them up with ZERO rights....

cooperguy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's not feckin' rocket-science and I don't know why the Government can't get their head around it:

PERSON A and PERSON B have equal rights, as is right and correct
PERSON A commits a crime against PERSON B, thereby infringing their rights

AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR OWN CHOICE, the State infringes on PERSON A's rights.

Fair and just.

The do-gooders and "people should have equal rights" whingers forget one thing: the rights of law-abiding people NOT to have crimes committed against them.

By all means (as is correct) offer full rights until someone is judged and convicted, but if they're guilty - and DEFINITELY if they go out and commit crimes after release - often while on BAIL - then throw the book at them and lock them up with ZERO rights....

The problem is proving it though, the Gardai are just as frustrated as Joe Public. Until they prove it they cant lock anybody up. Its all well and good to say everybody knows who did it but nothing can happen without the proof.

grenache

Constitutional democracy's biggest weakness is shown up in how it deals with crime and those who committ them. It proportionally favours the criminal and offers little support to the victim. I'm one of Mussolini's biggest critics, but he certainly knew how to deal with scumbags.
From Wikipedia....
Fascism declared war on the Mafia and organised crime, to defeat it the fascists did so on the terms which the Mafia itself had used for so long – violence and honour

Insect Overlord

grenache wrote: »

Constitutional democracy's biggest weakness is shown up in how it deals with crime and those who committ them. It proportionally favours the criminal and offers little support to the victim. I'm one of Mussolini's biggest critics, but he certainly knew how to deal with scumbags.
From Wikipedia....
Fascism declared war on the Mafia and organised crime, to defeat it the fascists did so on the terms which the Mafia itself had used for so long – violence and honour

I'll organise a march on Rome Limerick this minute! :pac:

Seriously though, I hope this is just the first step in a proper campaign against criminals in Limerick. Locking them up for minor offences in the short term will do little to fix the big problems, unless the State follows it up with more serious convictions.

dh0661

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's not feckin' rocket-science and I don't know why the Government can't get their head around it:

I'm on your side, and think that there should be someway of legislating for guilty until proven innocent in many parts of the country, and marshal law will not be tolerated in this country.

I am expecting a lot of opposition to this, but is there an alternative ?

TripleAce

grenache wrote: »

Constitutional democracy's biggest weakness is shown up in how it deals with crime and those who committ them. It proportionally favours the criminal and offers little support to the victim. I'm one of Mussolini's biggest critics, but he certainly knew how to deal with scumbags.
From Wikipedia....
Fascism declared war on the Mafia and organised crime, to defeat it the fascists did so on the terms which the Mafia itself had used for so long – violence and honour

+1

Y2J_MUFC

Raiser wrote: »

You haven't a notion son..... :rolleyes:

Leave it out, would ya?

He's not the one who doesn't have a notion.. FG made just as fanciful promises as FF, neither of them predicted the recession.

More relevant: If you want to believe that if FG were in power everything would be rosey in the garden and there would be no crime in Limerick and FF are the source of all evil, then go ahead and do so. Meanwhile, back in the real world...