Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

Mahatma coat

lets try this again,

Simply claiming that You know its untrue is not going to cut the mustard.

you say its easily Verifiable

if so then actual external sources that we can tread through and see where you came to your conclusions shouldnt bee difficult to provide

phantom_lord

What do you want verified? I mean you don't to take my word for it so:



http://tinyurl.com/2ewfg4n
http://tinyurl.com/27awos3
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nyse

K-9

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, Verify it then.



Look, if you wish to dismiss this out of hand and claim it as debunked then fine, show us why you have formed that opinion with something other than high handed dismissal without any real argument.

Well you said it 'proves it'.

How so? What proof do you have, barring a YouTube video?

Mahatma coat

OK thats a start, but hey thats not verification thats more of the same handwaving of which you accuse the CT community

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK thats a start, but hey thats not verification thats more of the same handwaving of which you accuse the CT community

:rolleyes: maybe i should have made a youtube video

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

That looks like Jordan Maxwell in the First video, What he says is rather interesting and I think most people arguing about the Birth Cert thing are doing it based on at least one of his videos.

who is he btw, and what's his motivation for making up that stuff?

Mahatma coat

Maybe you Should

but and heres a big one, if you are going to make bold claims then have 'something' solid to back them up. if these videos are so easily debunked then it should be easy.


Whats that great Saying

Sh!t or Get off the Pot

:D

phantom_lord

well, you still haven't said what in my post you're dubious about?

rmacm

"All over the world governments are ruled by what is called civil law".

Wasn't the point of some of the threads in here recently that Ireland (among other places) was a common law jurisdiction? That's one place I can point out that the fella in the video is incorrect.

Brehon Law was one of the earliest forms of law in Ireland and there have recently been attempts by the Brehon Law Project (see www.irishlaw.org/siteinfo/brehonlink.shtml) to revive interest in the subject. From the late twelfth century, Ireland was increasingly governed by English common law and by 1800 Ireland was fully integrated into the United Kingdom by the Act of Union passed in that year. A new Constitution in 1922 meant that twenty six counties became the independent ‘Irish Free State.’ Six other counties in Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom, and this has, of course, been the subject of great controversy since then. (See Sarah Carter’s Guide to the UK Legal System for information on Northern Irish law.)

Article 73 of the 1922 Constitution carried all previous UK law forward into Irish law, which explains why some pre-1922 UK statutes are still in force in Ireland. A similar provision is found in Article 50 of the 1937 Constitution.

From here: http://www.ucc.ie/law/irishlaw/guide/index.shtml

Also something that people might find useful: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png

OrangeRed/Brown being common law jurisdictions, light blue are civil law jurisdictions.

The UCC is applicable in the US and even then not fully e.g. in Louisana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code

Many countries have different commercial law yet we all still manage to do business.

Esel

^ Common Law jurisdictions on that map are more red/brown than orange. The 'orange-ish' colour is Shariah law!

rmacm

esel wrote: »

^ Common Law jurisdictions on that map are more red/brown than orange. The 'orange-ish' colour is Shariah law!

I'll blame lack of sleep for that little oversight

Mahatma coat

phantom_lord wrote: »

well, you still haven't said what in my post you're dubious about?

OK, so you just want to dance around in circles, thats fine with me, you can dance on yer own.

But lets make this Real Real Simple

You Said

Phantom Lord wrote:

well, everything he said about law in the beginning of the video is nonsense, and is easily verifiable.

The main bit I want to focus on here is
Easily Verifiable

if it is then you should have no problem providing the evidence required to Verify your position, if you do that the thread dies a death and you can smugly dance about all ya want.


However just making vague references to Google and Youtube without providing anything more than some LMGTFY links aint really up to the level of Evidence you have Demanded from others here.

Torakx

there is a handy button(wrap) i discovered like months after i started using boards that creates a boundary around some text for using it to quote articles and copy pasting.Very handy for highlighting exactly what you need to within a link provided.

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, so you just want to dance around in circles, thats fine with me, you can dance on yer own.

But lets make this Real Real Simple

You Said


The main bit I want to focus on here is
Easily Verifiable

if it is then you should have no problem providing the evidence required to Verify your position, if you do that the thread dies a death and you can smugly dance about all ya want.


However just making vague references to Google and Youtube without providing anything more than some LMGTFY links aint really up to the level of Evidence you have Demanded from others here.

Again, what exactly do you want me to verify for you?

That Ireland is a common law jurisdiction? or that the UCC isn't anything at all like he stated?

Mahatma coat

Well lets start with your first sentence and work from there shall we, Baby steps and all

you said in yer first response

Well, first of all he say's all governments are ruled by civil law;

Yep, thats true, governments rule by Civil Law

that statement doesn't make any sense for a start.

??????? makes sense to me, Do you know what he means by Countries Rule by Civil Law?

But I presume he means to say every country uses civil law.

There ya go making Presumptions

Which is clearly not true.

How So???

Most old British colonies for a start are common law jurisdictions.

Yes but do the Governments Rule by Common Law??????


Maybe you should give this a quick read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

IrelandSpirit

The principle of civil law is to provide all citizens with an accessible and written collection of the laws which apply to them and which judges must follow. It is the most prevalent and oldest surviving legal system in the world. Colonial expansion spread the civil law system and European civil law has been adopted in much of Latin America as well as in parts of Asia and Africa. The primary source of law is the legal code, which is a compendium of statutes, arranged by subject matter in some pre-specified order; a code may also be described as "a systematic collection of interrelated articles written in a terse, staccato style." Law codes are usually created by a legislature's enactment of a new statute that embodies all the old statutes relating to the subject and including changes necessitated by court decisions. In some cases, the change results in a new statutory concept. The two other major legal systems in the world are common law and Islamic law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29

alastair

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well lets start with your first sentence and work from there shall we, Baby steps and all

you said in yer first response


Yep, thats true, governments rule by Civil Law


??????? makes sense to me, Do you know what he means by Countries Rule by Civil Law?

There ya go making Presumptions


How So???
Yes but do the Governments Rule by Common Law??????


Maybe you should give this a quick read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

Let's take this half-arsed bunkum apart in simple terms.

1. Civil law is not the law of the land for all countries. It isn't even the law of the land for the guy's own country.

2. No-one (despite the clearest of claims to the opposite) outside the USA adheres to the UCC.

3. There are other formulations of law that he either ignores or is unaware of (despite 'years' of claimed expertise), and the rather untidy fact that commerical and civil/statutory law are intertwined in most nations isn't touched on.

4. Everything that follows and is based on these incorrect assumptions is built on a foundation of hot air.

And yes - anyone with a modicum of interest can establish these facts in short order.

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well lets start with your first sentence and work from there shall we, Baby steps and all

you said in yer first response


Yep, thats true, governments rule by Civil Law


??????? makes sense to me, Do you know what he means by Countries Rule by Civil Law?

There ya go making Presumptions


How So???
Yes but do the Governments Rule by Common Law??????


Maybe you should give this a quick read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

Sigh. He talks about the Civil Law system that's derived from Roman Law, which is very different to what we use. It's a rigid and codified set of laws, opposed to the common law system we use which relies heavily on case law.

He says that everywhere uses this Civil Law system, that is not true. We don't use it, Britain doesn't use it. Ex British colonies don't use it, and that's before you even get into Islamic Law and all the other different types of systems out there. Maybe you should read your link yourself?

He also says everywhere uses this UCC system, which is also not true.


Now my question is, if this guy has such little understanding of something he's been talking about for years, and is so wrong about something that's so simple, how can he possibly have any credibility when he starts talking about all his crazy conspiracy theories? I presume all he's doing is trying to peddle his books?

drkpower

While I admire your patience in trying to talk sense to people who will never see sense, one little clarification might be in order to help this little debate along.

You are correct that Civil Law is a system which is different to our own system, Common Law. But remember, civil law is also used as a term to refer to non-criminal law. For instance, if I sue you for personal injuries in Ireland, I will be operating within the civil law.

Now, I spend as little time as possible watching videos of crazy people talking crazy, so I dont know the context in which the crazyman in the video said '"All over the world governments are ruled by what is called civil law", but perhaps the above ight be of some assistance.

humanji

drkpower wrote: »

While I admire your patience in trying to talk sense to people who will never see sense, one little clarification might be in order to help this little debate along.

There's no need to be rude.

phantom_lord

I think it's more a form of madness than patience at this stage.

Yeah I understand what you're talking about, he's not too clear but I think it's reasonable to presume he's talking about the Civil Law system. Either way none of what he says makes sense.

Hootanany

Its making sense to me

Torakx

I can totally understand people looking alot more into this stuff after having bad experiences.
I met up with family recently from the south and my brother in law was telling me how work was going.
He told me he was in a van with other lads he was workign with and there was a garda checkpoint.
They took a right turn before it and there was 2 gardai waiting on that road to prevent them from going on their way.
They were pulled out of the van dragged towards the back of it and because my brother in law has a northy accent he was harrassed... as gaelige!
Right in his face.
Also they rooted through the van looking through all there stuff.
Now im sure(ok maybe not anymore) alot of gardai are fine,but do people here honestly think these gardai are going to be punished for harrassing Irish citizens and or visitors etc?
I can imagine trying to report their badge umber to the local station and the guy at the counter just wanting more and more info about you and less worried about doing anything about the offending garda instead.
Seriously we dont have terrorists here! Especially not so much in the south.
Even at worst case scenario the tax was out or somebody might not have insurance or nct is that enough to pull a person over and search their belongings?
Surely they would just take the car and treat the person with respect.
The fact they let them go after with no charges tells me it was harrassment and not doing their duty to the state or people of Ireland.
Maybe its an isolated case but ive recounted another story in Dublin where a friend got beaten on the ground with a torch.
There is probably some superior feeling aming them or soemthign going on to have cases like this and an attitude like this that makes the more neanderthal of the bunch express this overall feeling by forcing their will on innocent bystanders.
So imo the gardai are creatign a serious need for this information and from what i see this info can really help in times like this.
Maybe some here are the type who have never had a garda incounter that was hostile.
I havent myself.
But i tell you there is a chance someday you may and if that day comes you would be glad to have some of this info because in the worse case you will knock them back a bit with suprise and cause them to proceed a bit more cautiously as appose to treating you like a lower being/child and pushing you around.
Like in the video of the irish guy and the speeding ticket the gardai alot of the time will make false threats they cant back up unless you allow them to.Or break the law just to inforce their will.
If im going to be forcibly held on the street in the future for whatever reason i will be making sure its done by the book they follow at least and for a very good reason.
Just thought it was another interesting story and i keep hearing about them or seeing them around doing this stuff or making silly threats.
Why not take from this thread what is useful and ignore what is not agreeable with you.
The world isnt black and white like the newspapers/books we read.

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

I can totally understand people looking alot more into this stuff after having bad experiences.
I met up with family recently from the south and my brother in law was telling me how work was going.
He told me he was in a van with other lads he was workign with and there was a garda checkpoint.
They took a right turn before it and there was 2 gardai waiting on that road to prevent them from going on their way.

Cant comment on that particular case. But the reason they were on side road was to catch people trying to avoid.

Girlfriends old apartment was just off the N3, usually they had a checkpoint set up a few hundred metres after the turnoff for her apartments. Always a guard waiting around to corner to catch people who thought they could slip away from checkpoint. Can't see what your issue is with that. As for searching their van, theres nothing illegal about them doing that.

IrelandSpirit

Torakx wrote: »

Why not take from this thread what is useful and ignore what is not agreeable with you.
The world isnt black and white like the newspapers/books we read.

Spot on Torakx!

Torakx

There is nothing illegal if thwey have cause to do so and were permitted to enter the vehicle.Thats not my point anyway.Its the attitude and treatment of innocent people before proven guilty.And why search a van when you have no reason to do so?Is that in the manual too i wonder.
Rule number 4753: At any time try your best to search the victims vehicle for a reason for you to be in it in the first place.

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

There is nothing illegal if thwey have cause to do so and were permitted to enter the vehicle.Thats not my point anyway.Its the attitude and treatment of innocent people before proven guilty.And why search a van when you have no reason to do so?Is that in the manual too i wonder.
Rule number 4753: At any time try your best to search the victims vehicle for a reason for you to be in it in the first place.

They avoided a visible checkpoint, do you not see what that can look like?

IrelandSpirit

thecommander wrote: »

They avoided a visible checkpoint, do you not see what that can look like?

Emmm, like around a million other drivers who do so too? :rolleyes:

Di0genes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Emmm, like around a million other drivers who do so too? :rolleyes:

Thats nice and all but looking like you're actively avoiding a checkpoint can make you look suspicious. If your vehicle is taxed, insured, you hold a valid licence, the vehicle is road worthy, and you're not under the influence of drugs or alcohol you shouldn't have a thing to worry about at the checkpoint.

Why would you avoid a checkpoint?

thecommander

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Emmm, like around a million other drivers who do so too?

No they don't. If you're seen avoiding one they'll always come after you, or if theres a turnoff right before it they'll usually have a bike or another car on that road too.

They got searched because they acted suspiciously by turning off. Now, they may not have been purposely avoiding them, but to a guard that how it looks.


Anyway, it doesn't really matter, because they're TRAVELING, not driving so the law doesn't apply to them. And their name is in CAPITALS on their license, so its not really them.

Esel

Di0genes wrote: »

Why would you avoid a checkpoint?

Do not wish to contract....

Torakx

thecommander wrote: »

No they don't. If you're seen avoiding one they'll always come after you, or if theres a turnoff right before it they'll usually have a bike or another car on that road too.

They got searched because they acted suspiciously by turning off. Now, they may not have been purposely avoiding them, but to a guard that how it looks.


Anyway, it doesn't really matter, because they're TRAVELING, not driving so the law doesn't apply to them. And their name is in CAPITALS on their license, so its not really them.

Sounds like your saying turning right is a suspicious behaviour.
And pulling people out of a van and searching it is warranted when a turn is before a checkpoint.
In that case gardai can setup a checkpoint after any right turn and anyone happening to need to go down that road will fair game for a search and abuse because they "avoided" a checkpoint.
Next they will be terrorizing people turning left lol

Di0genes

Torakx wrote: »

Sounds like your saying turning right is a suspicious behaviour.
And pulling people out of a van and searching it is warranted when a turn is before a checkpoint.

Yes because people making a turn before a checkpoint is a little weird. I remember getting pulled over to a rave pre 1998, and frankly we were so obviously on our way to the party it was obviously going to be stopped and searched.

In that case gardai can setup a checkpoint after any right turn and anyone happening to need to go down that road will fair game for a search and abuse because they "avoided" a checkpoint.
Next they will be terrorizing people turning left lol

I'm afraid the point has whistled over your head. People in a Q before a check point who try and avoid the checkpoint are perhaps the exact kind of people the checkpoint are supposed to catch out.

Essentially you're expecting our police force to be reactionary idiots who passively ignore suspicious behaviour.

robtri

esel wrote: »

Do not wish to contract....

Well if this stuff was legitimate and true, what reason would they actually have, driving up to a checkpoint is not a contract is it?????

only reason is that the person has something to hide.....

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

Sounds like your saying turning right is a suspicious behaviour.
And pulling people out of a van and searching it is warranted when a turn is before a checkpoint.
In that case gardai can setup a checkpoint after any right turn and anyone happening to need to go down that road will fair game for a search and abuse because they "avoided" a checkpoint.
Next they will be terrorizing people turning left lol

Where did I say that? I said it can be construed as suspicious behaviour.

In your instance, what is to say they wouldn't have been pulled out of the van and searched if they had continued towards it. You have no idea what the checkpoint was for and who/what they were looking for. I've been pulled over at a checkpoint because I was driving a car similar to one that was involved in incident. A quick chat and look and I was on my merry way. I can't see where the problem lies in the police policing.

For a man that goes on that he's open to learning about the way things work, you go about it in a very strange way.

Esel

robtri wrote: »

Well if this stuff was legitimate and true, what reason would they actually have, driving up to a checkpoint is not a contract is it?????

only reason is that the person has something to hide.....

I forgot to add the :rolleyes:.

robtri

esel wrote: »

I forgot to add the :rolleyes:.

lol, that changes it totally

Torakx

When has that excuse been valid for pulling innocent people over?
What about the people who avoid them when they have nothing to hide?
Its very naive or wishfull to think people are criminals because they do not like checkpoints.More wishfull in the gardai's case im sure.
Im not saying all gardai harrass people,some of them actually do mind their own bussiness but really its part of their job or so theyve been thaught, to do what they do.Its unfortunate some do it to an extent that is bordering on criminal.
I would like to see a police force for Ireland.That way everyday people can distinguish between those who would seek to be there for them and those who seek to procure money from them.At the moment that line is very blurred and that imo needs to be cleared up.
There shouldnt be a police force focused on making revenue at all,how stupid is our government to allow this to happen.

robtri

Torakx wrote: »

When has that excuse been valid for pulling innocent people over?
What about the people who avoid them when they have nothing to hide?
Its very naive or wishfull to think people are criminals because they do not like checkpoints.More wishfull in the gardai's case im sure.
Im not saying all gardai harrass people,some of them actually do mind their own bussiness but really its part of their job or so theyve been thaught, to do what they do.Its unfortunate some do it to an extent that is bordering on criminal.
I would like to see a police force for Ireland.That way everyday people can distinguish between those who would seek to be there for them and those who seek to procure money from them.At the moment that line is very blurred and that imo needs to be cleared up.
There shouldnt be a police force focused on making revenue at all,how stupid is our government to allow this to happen.

and its even more naive to think that people who advoid check points have nothing to hide.

Torakx

thecommander wrote: »

Where did I say that? I said it can be construed as suspicious behaviour.

In your instance, what is to say they wouldn't have been pulled out of the van and searched if they had continued towards it. You have no idea what the checkpoint was for and who/what they were looking for. I've been pulled over at a checkpoint because I was driving a car similar to one that was involved in incident. A quick chat and look and I was on my merry way. I can't see where the problem lies in the police policing.

For a man that goes on that he's open to learning about the way things work, you go about it in a very strange way.

I recounted an incident i had heard about just the other day.
I really doubt my brother in law was lying about what happened.
He was harrassed because of his accent in a threatening manor.
The van was searched head to toe and they were forcibly dragged and pushed to the back of the van where my bbrother in law was spoken too vehemently in Irish.
Now even IF the nct/tax/insurance was out that was totally uncalled for.
Even IF they were looking for a terrorist/criminal) who happened to look like my brother in law (is this really what you think likely?) the way they were treated was totally unnecessary imo.
And again my point is that this treatment is causing more and more people to search for ways to defend themselves.The "freeman" movement is one that caters for these people and from what i have seen it is very helpful information albeit not fully proven to me in all areas.
Thats all im saying.
You can defend the gardai who harrassed them but really they had done nothing against the law and caused no harm to anyone else.
I must add my brother in law wasnt even driving...

robtri

Torakx wrote: »

I recounted an incident i had heard about just the other day.
I really doubt my brother in law was lying about what happened.
He was harrassed because of his accent in a threatening manor.
The van was searched head to toe and they were forcibly dragged and pushed to the back of the van where my bbrother in law was spoken too vehemently in Irish.
Now even IF the nct/tax/insurance was out that was totally uncalled for.
Even IF they were looking for a terrorist/criminal) who happened to look like my brother in law (is this really what you think likely?) the way they were treated was totally unnecessary imo.
And again my point is that this treatment is causing more and more people to search for ways to defend themselves.The "freeman" movement is one that caters for these people and from what i have seen it is very helpful information albeit not fully proven to me in all areas.
Thats all im saying.
You can defend the gardai who harrassed them but really they had done nothing against the law and caused no harm to anyone else.
I must add my brother in law wasnt even driving...

I am sure that quite possible...

But one or two pieces of crap bad gardai are not representitive of the whole force

Torakx

robtri wrote: »

and its even more naive to think that people who advoid check points have nothing to hide.

I used to avoid check points all the time!
So you think i am possibly one of the only ones in the country who avoids a checkpoint but isnt a criminal?
BUT..is a criminal once i avoid one?
Does anything at all sound wrong about that system of justice to you?
Silly question i guess, i already know your answer will be a retort to show that the justice system is perfectly fine and we live in a totally free country where all our rights are adhered to.
I suppose in the gardai's view, the guy getting beaten with a torch must of been breaking the law because in the books a garda is always protecting the civil liberties so his actions MUST have been justified blablabla
The guy with a northern accent was a criminal because he had a northern accent and he was a passenger in a van that took a turn before a checkpoint.
There needs to be a damn good reason for a garda to pull anyone out of a car.Just because you suspect someone of something doesnt mean you can act on it without any evidence at all.
I never asked if they apologised afterwards for the disturbance they caused when they found nothin in the van and no reason to harrass them any further.
I think most reading this thread could guess.

Torakx

robtri wrote: »

I am sure that quite possible...

But one or two pieces of crap bad gardai are not representitive of the whole force

I totally agree and ive stated this before. that changes nothign if you read back over the last few posts.

K-9

Torakx wrote: »

When has that excuse been valid for pulling innocent people over?
What about the people who avoid them when they have nothing to hide?
Its very naive or wishfull to think people are criminals because they do not like checkpoints.More wishfull in the gardai's case im sure.
Im not saying all gardai harrass people,some of them actually do mind their own bussiness but really its part of their job or so theyve been thaught, to do what they do.Its unfortunate some do it to an extent that is bordering on criminal.
I would like to see a police force for Ireland.That way everyday people can distinguish between those who would seek to be there for them and those who seek to procure money from them.At the moment that line is very blurred and that imo needs to be cleared up.
There shouldnt be a police force focused on making revenue at all,how stupid is our government to allow this to happen.

Seriously, think through what you are saying.

Police forces rely on investigating suspicious behaviour. My Dad was an ex Guard, did border duty manys a time. If they were carrying out a checkpoint and somebody reversed and avoided it, of course they'd be suspicious.

Now take your thinking to a motor tax checkpoint. They can't read your mind, they don't know why you have reversed suddenly and turned around. Of course they are going to go after you, they'd be negligent and careless if they didn't.

Torakx

K-9 wrote: »

Seriously, think through what you are saying.

Police forces rely on investigating suspicious behaviour. My Dad was an ex Guard, did border duty manys a time. If they were carrying out a checkpoint and somebody reversed and avoided it, of course they'd be suspicious.

Now take your thinking to a motor tax checkpoint. They can't read your mind, they don't know why you have reversed suddenly and turned around. Of course they are going to go after you, they'd be negligent and careless if they didn't.

Why was there a border checkpoint? It was mostly the army at those checkpoints i used to go through them alot myself.
I was even present when a van was being searched at such a checkpoint and it was all fairly standard no hassle.they asked us to stop checked what we had in the back and we carried on.At no time was i asked to leave the van or even state my name.And that was when they were looking for bombs and terrorists.
Now down in the south of Ireland i hardly think they were looking for terrorists.
Even if they avoided a checkpoint and the gardai were in their right to stop them and ask why.Was it necessary to harrass and search the whole van?
The army didnt do it why do the gardai need to?
All i am pointing out is that there appears to be a serious issue with the attitude and perception of the organisation and it is causing more people around the country to seek out this information.
This shouldnt be happening at all.People should feel safe when they see a garda on the road or walking the street.
Maybe some do but certainly not most i think.

For what its worth i would feel much safer having a guy in camo and a big gun asking me nicely where i was going than a possible pumped up bigot talking to me in Irish with unfirendly intent in his eyes as his mates rummaged through my belongings.(would make a good ct lol.Gov make Gardai unbearableso public agree to usher in army control of the roads or something )
Its the attitude for a start that needs to be looked into.Something is causing this and i would guess its all the revenue they are creating that the people in general are unhappy about.Creating a gap between garda and citizen,apparently in the gardai's mind the gap is horizontal and the citizen is beneath.
But i dont not understand that on many levels

Esel

It is not credible that a garda would start a conversation in Irish with a member of the public. Maybe your b-i-l insisted on speaking Irish, and just happened to meet a garda who was perfectly fluent in the first language? What exactly did the garda say?

If your b-i-l or any of the other passengers in the van feel they were abused or harshly treated, they should maker a formal complaint with the Garda Ombudsman.

You seem quite prepared to accept this one-sided story as validation of your cynical view of the GS.

IrelandSpirit

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats nice and all but looking like you're actively avoiding a checkpoint can make you look suspicious. If your vehicle is taxed, insured, you hold a valid licence, the vehicle is road worthy, and you're not under the influence of drugs or alcohol you shouldn't have a thing to worry about at the checkpoint.

Why would you avoid a checkpoint?

People avoid checkpoints because they simply want to go on their way!

Look, I've been at checkpoints and mostly been waved through without a bother. And I've been at checkpoints, have complied to all the above regulations and yet been detained on my journey, and more than once in a similar manner Torakx describes. The only 'reason' being (after having all documents inspected, re-inspected radioed back to HQ, questioned over where I came from, where I was going, if i worked where I worked, having them inspect the vehicle both inside and out, etc, etc) that I was driving a truck converted into a camper. That's it. The cops involved were faced with what they believed was 'an alternative lifestyle', something they weren't comfortable with, and decided to go to town.

Meantime Bin Laden himself could have turned up and they would've waved him through (and probably did! lol)

There was no reason, in other words, I am not a criminal. I don't have anything to hide, same as yer man there Torakx describes with a northern accent. So he's from up north so fecking what? No reason in the legal or lawful or any other sense and yet it's a familiar story for countless people too and in varying degrees of what amounts to harassment.

So yeah, when I see a checkpoint these days I turn left or fecking right before I get there - as is my right to do so anyway - because seems to me all these checkpoints are for is to get fixed penalty fines and some cops all they're after is to piss you off and pin something on you, anything, even if you're 100% legal they seem to get a kick of power out of it, very least, or perhaps just hope you'll get so pissed off you'll take a swing at them or something - which considering we pay their fecking wages to do the job they're NOT doing - doesn't seem unreasonable sometimes. Glorified fukking nazi-drone traffic wardens :mad:

(Reiterate, not all cops are glorified nazi-drone traffic wardens, I'm sure the majority signed up to be doing the real job we pay them for and be out catching real criminals, and not be forced into behaving like ones themselves).

K-9

Torakx wrote: »

Why was there a border checkpoint? It was mostly the army at those checkpoints i used to go through them alot myself.
I was even present when a van was being searched at such a checkpoint and it was all fairly standard no hassle.they asked us to stop checked what we had in the back and we carried on.At no time was i asked to leave the van or even state my name.And that was when they were looking for bombs and terrorists.

This would have been back in the Border Fox days, late 70's/early 80's where a good few Guards were murdered.

You didn't address the point I made at all. If you had reversed before you were checked, would it have been reasonable for them to see that as suspicious.

Forget about yourself for a sec and put yourself in their shoes!

Torakx

They turned off the road....I didnt say reveresed suspiciously or even reversed.
He told me they took a turn off the road and they got pulled out of the van.
Also somebody asked did he start it by trying to speak Irish?
No because he hasnt a clue how to speak Irish and i think thats what the garda was relying on a "prod" instead of a catholic would be exactly what he would be loking for it appears.Not that he is prodestant but when a garda hears a northy accent and suddenly reverts into Irish when speaking to just that man i must presume he isnt trying to communicate but something else.
Im not blowing anything out of proportion,it happened im sure as i was told and while it was'nt "omg terrible" i think its another good example of why this lawfull rebbelion stuff is popular now.
People can be like springs.when you push em enough they bounce back in some form.Kids do it all the time and its happening on another level with civil rights imo.

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

i think its another good example of why this lawfull rebbelion stuff is popular now..

No its not. A few keyboard warriors doesn't make a popular rebelion.