Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A worrying development.

2»

Comments

  • #52
    rightwingdub
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    No threat to society? They are funding murderers. Sounds like a threat to me. Murders are a fact of life. Rape is a fact of life. Should we "get used" to that as well? People like you make me sick.

    Obviously I don't condone murder and rape and any sane person shouldn't condone such despicable crimes, would you care to explain to me why it is so immoral to smoke a joint and snort cocaine?:D

    Would you say the same about American people in the 1920's who committed the evil crime of having an alcoholic drink?:rolleyes:


  • #53
    dan_d
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭dan_d


    Actually I think the point Mussolini is trying to make is this..
    " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men sit back and do nothing "
    While it may not be evil per se, "smoking a joint and snorting cocaine" is just the end product of an industry filled with murder and violence.
    That's why we need to do something. It may seem innocuous now, just a bit of fun, who's it harming.....but we all know enough about the drugs industry to know it is run on violence. And it wouldn't take much for that to spread.


  • #54
    Peanut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    dan_d wrote: »
    That's why we need to do something. It may seem innocuous now, just a bit of fun, who's it harming.....but we all know enough about the drugs industry to know it is run on violence. And it wouldn't take much for that to spread.

    Which is why it should be brought back under Government regulation instead of left to deteriorate into the Wild West.


  • #55
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    Poccington wrote: »
    There's no such policy as "shoot to slightly hurt but don't kill".

    If you're aiming at someone, you're aiming for centre mass. It's the largest part of the body, you're most likely going to put your threat down and it's the easiest part of the body to hit.

    All this stuff of shooting people in the arm, leg etc. is all well and good in theory. However, in reality if you're in a crowded area or dealing with an armed threat, you're not going to take the chance to try put a round in someone's leg. You're going to aim centre mass, it's easier to hit and you know your target won't be getting back up.

    If the threat dies, so be it. Anyone that tries to aim for a leg or whatever, is an idiot.
    Given that so many of these guys are wearing body armour then there is a good chance they will get back up. Following on from the shoot to kill policy, someone would have some explaining to do if they shoot centre mass then execute while he is immobilised.
    But you would have my support ;-)

    I think there needs to be some reform of the legal system, and CAB has already been mentioned but I DON'T agree they do a good job.
    These criminals lose interest when there is not enough profit to warrant the risk.


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dan_d wrote: »
    Actually I think the point Mussolini is trying to make is this..
    " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men sit back and do nothing "
    While it may not be evil per se, "smoking a joint and snorting cocaine" is just the end product of an industry filled with murder and violence.
    That's why we need to do something. It may seem innocuous now, just a bit of fun, who's it harming.....but we all know enough about the drugs industry to know it is run on violence. And it wouldn't take much for that to spread.

    yes, we need to end prohibition and take the income source off the thugs..


  • #57
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Deleted User wrote: »
    yes, we need to end prohibition and take the income source off the thugs..
    No, we need to get the drugs off of our streets. Internment for the gang leaders (the Guards know who they are) Harsh punishments even for possession (significant jail time+no social welfare). Alcohol damages peoples lives enough. Drugs are MUCH MUCH worse. Things as damaging as drugs should not be freely available to people. People are too idiotic to steer clear of them by themselves. Hence the need for government intervention. The government should take an extremely hard line and treat all illegal drugs equally.


  • #58
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    No, we need to get the drugs off of our streets. Internment for the gang leaders (the Guards know who they are) Harsh punishments even for possession (significant jail time+no social welfare). Alcohol damages peoples lives enough. Drugs are MUCH MUCH worse. Things as damaging as drugs should not be freely available to people. People are too idiotic to steer clear of them by themselves. Hence the need for government intervention. The government should take an extremely hard line and treat all illegal drugs equally.
    Main man is in Spain. This is real godfather stuff. The main man was going to lure them to a house to offer up a false truce and then hit the house with the rocket launcher.


  • #59
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Main man is in Spain. This is real godfather stuff. The main man was going to lure them to a house to offer up a false truce and then hit the house with the rocket launcher.


    I was speaking in more general terms here. You always hear "known to be involved in drugs trade/heavily involved with gangs etc" If they are known to be they should be locked up.


  • #60
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I was speaking in more general terms here. You always hear "known to be involved in drugs trade/heavily involved with gangs etc" If they are known to be they should be locked up.
    My suspicion is Gardai operate on the "better the devil you know" basis. Someone younger and more vicious will replace whoever they intern.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »
    My suspicion is Gardai operate on the "better the devil you know" basis. Someone younger and more vicious will replace whoever they intern.
    Which is why you also heavily punish drug USERS as well. If no one bought the damn things we wouldn't have this. Internment would act as a major deterrent. It would disrupt these highly organised gangs. There is no one solution to this problem. A selection of measures are required. The Guards would have these gangs locked up if they could simply get witnesses/evidence. They cant, hence the need for internment.


  • #62
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Which is why you also heavily punish drug USERS as well. If no one bought the damn things we wouldn't have this. Internment would act as a major deterrent. It would disrupt these highly organised gangs. There is no one solution to this problem. A selection of measures are required. The Guards would have these gangs locked up if they could simply get witnesses/evidence. They cant, hence the need for internment.
    The problem if you introduce internment, it will popularize the gangs and the criminal bosses.
    Ther is only one way around this and that is to tighten the bail laws and that way internment isn't needed.


  • #63
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »
    The problem if you introduce internment, it will popularize the gangs and the criminal bosses.
    Ther is only one way around this and that is to tighten the bail laws and that way internment isn't needed.
    Popularize? I don't see how that will happen. These scum will be revealed to be what they are.
    These people are not like Bobby Sands. They are not fighting for a noble ideal. They are not fighting for freedom. They are no ones heroes.


  • #64
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Popularize? I don't see how that will happen. These scum will be revealed to be what they are.
    These people are not like Bobby Sands. They are not fighting for a noble ideal. They are not fighting for freedom. They are no ones heroes.
    Again. Why not just not let them out on bail. Its that simple. Internment would back fire I think.


  • #65
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »
    Again. Why not just not let them out on bail. Its that simple. Internment would back fire I think.
    Oh sorry missed that bit first time!
    Well they will eventually have to appear in court right? Then they will get off scot free due to lack of evidence and witnesses etc....


  • #66
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Oh sorry missed that bit first time!
    Well they will eventually have to appear in court right? Then they will get off scot free due to lack of evidence and witnesses etc....
    Witnesses. There is a way around that. Video evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »
    Witnesses. There is a way around that. Video evidence.
    Video evidence? I know a person who has multiple cameras around his house installed due to vandalism. Despite having them on film they have escaped prosecution. Besides Im pretty sure these guys are clever enough to cover their faces. That would also require lmuch more cctv etc....


  • #68
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Video evidence? I know a person who has multiple cameras around his house installed due to vandalism. Despite having them on film they have escaped prosecution. Besides Im pretty sure these guys are clever enough to cover their faces. That would also require lmuch more cctv etc....
    Talking about the witnesses giving video evidences. If actors have to be used for voices, and faces darkened. so be it. All that is needed is an independent witness to verify the wtnesses identity.


  • #69
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »
    Talking about the witnesses giving video evidences. If actors have to be used for voices, and faces darkened. so be it. All that is needed is an independent witness to verify the wtnesses identity.

    I think the jury would have to see the witness too though.


  • #70
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    k_mac wrote: »
    I think the jury would have to see the witness too though.
    Which they can behind closed doors.


  • #71
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    And how do you get these witnesses? They would be afraid of retaliation. Yeah you can use actors etc but they would be able to figure out who it was. Also there is Jury intimidation etc.... Internment is a much simpler, quicker method.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    And how do you get these witnesses? They would be afraid of retaliation. Yeah you can use actors etc but they would be able to figure out who it was. Also there is Jury intimidation etc.... Internment is a much simpler, quicker method.
    Wasnt there some leglislation due to be brought in that a criminal could be put behind bars on the say so of a garda And a few people kicked up a fuss about that. So you can imagine where the debate on internment is going to go.


  • #73
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »
    Wasnt there some leglislation due to be brought in that a criminal could be put behind bars on the say so of a garda And a few people kicked up a fuss about that. So you can imagine where the debate on internment is going to go.
    Yeah this country has a bad history with internment. The govt can do it though. And they should.

    Just call it by a different name and throw a few committees together. Personally, and Im sure I'm not the only one, I would accept internment as a tool to combat drugs and the associated violence. The media is baying week in and week out for a tougher stance against these gangs. If they tart out small and imprison the really big guns, they may even win the media over. After all there is no such thing as public opinion, only published opinion.


  • #74
    Peanut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    No, we need to get the drugs off of our streets.
    The CAB showed that the best way to do this is hit criminals where it hurts most - in their pocket. Trying to round up gang leaders is like playing whack-a-mole, another one just comes to take the place of the previous.

    As long as their is financial incentive, these people will take that risk and no amount of penalties will change that.
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Which is why you also heavily punish drug USERS as well. If no one bought the damn things we wouldn't have this.
    And if no-one bought alcohol, some people wouldn't be alcoholics?
    Good luck with that...

    It is no big surprise that the countries with the harshest anti-drugs laws are also some of the worst abusers of human rights. It's part of a general tendency of state abuse, half-heartedly masquerading as "what's good for society".


  • #75
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »
    Wasnt there some leglislation due to be brought in that a criminal could be put behind bars on the say so of a garda And a few people kicked up a fuss about that. So you can imagine where the debate on internment is going to go.

    The law was passed to a certain extent. A high ranking garda can give evidence that a person is a member of a criminal gang or terrorist organisation but it needs to be cooberated by something else.


  • #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Video evidence? I know a person who has multiple cameras around his house installed due to vandalism. Despite having them on film they have escaped prosecution.

    Sure he's not a drug dealer?..


  • #77
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Exactly. ANYONE who buys any kind of illegal drugs has blood on their hands. I would like to see much harsher punishment for drug possession.

    LOL ROFL LMFAO etc you clearly have no idea how many prisons you would have to build for that kind of policy to stop drugs.

    Simple fact is big drug dealers know how to exploit democracy and the human longing to alter their state of consciousness.

    There's about 3 main options bearing the above facts in mind.

    1. Go down the middle east route and have extremely severe punishments for posession or dealing.

    2. Legalise and Regulate.

    3. Continue with the status quo of making me sick seeing those criminal scumbags live a life of luxury while I can't even get a f*cking minimum wage job.

    No amount of legislation or internment will solve the drugs problems. The guys at the top pulling the strings don't get their hands dirty and every time you throw their mules in internment camps there'l be someone to replace them.


  • #78
    rightwingdub
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    Drugs should be legalised lock, stock and barrel and mussolini you are a fool calling for drug users to be jailed like they really pose such a huge threat to society. Right, I'm off to have a nice spliff:rolleyes: and tomorrow night a line of cocaine;)

    Okay I'm joking about taking drugs:D


  • #79
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Its a simple FACT that drug users are the root of the problem. There is a culture today that drug use is a victumless crime: it isnt. Drugs tear families and people apart. The money people pay to their dealers filters back up to the ringleaders. Things like alcohol do this already, is it a good idea to add to that list? To make drug use more socially acceptable the it is? To open it up an expose drugs to more people? I think not.


  • #80
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Its a simple FACT that drug users are the root of the problem. There is a culture today that drug use is a victumless crime: it isnt. Drugs tear families and people apart. The money people pay to their dealers filters back up to the ringleaders. Things like alcohol do this already, is it a good idea to add to that list? To make drug use more socially acceptable the it is? To open it up an expose drugs to more people? I think not.

    Does the sheer amount of drug users not imply to you they're not going to stop?

    Drugs have been used by humans since the dawn of humans and likely even before that when you consider many animals go out of their way to get high.

    You're dealing in ideology which simply isn't practical when it comes to drug consumption


  • #81
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,893 ✭✭✭SeanW


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    The money people pay to their dealers filters back up to the ringleaders.
    Circular logic - drugs are bad because they're illegal > drugs are illegal because they're bad.
    Things like alcohol do this already
    And it was worse, not better, during the era of Prohibition.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement