Harney gets painted

roboshatner

The Pictures are priceless.

Watch the women that did it will get life in prison for doing it.

Watch this space Brian Cowen red paint is next.

roboshatner

Ms Harney said she does not accept paint-throwing as an acceptable form of protest

paint-throwing

Instead of paint balling now we could all go paint throwing.

tbh

southsiderosie wrote: »

But there haven't been many marches and protests, and the ones that they did have were relatively small. Not to mention the fact that they are run by the same people 90% of the time.

they are going to be smaller now, because people won't want to risk being associated with the likes of eirigi.

southsiderosie

tbh wrote: »

they are going to be smaller now, because people won't want to risk being associated with the likes of eirigi.

That's what people say for EVERY protest: "I don't want to be affiliated with SWP/eirigi/socialists".

Newsflash: These kinds of people exist in EVERY country and show up at EVERY protest. 9/11 truthers, CIA conspiracy theorists, radical anarchists, whatever. The difference is, there are enough OTHER people who 1) can be arsed to organize protests, and 2) can be arsed to actually SHOW UP to protests, so that the left-wing crazies are a tiny minority.

tbh

southsiderosie wrote: »

That's what people say for EVERY protest: "I don't want to be affiliated with SWP/eirigi/socialists".

Newsflash: These kinds of people exist in EVERY country and show up at EVERY protest. 9/11 truthers, CIA conspiracy theorists, radical anarchists, whatever. The difference is, there are enough OTHER people who 1) can be arsed to organize protests, and 2) can be arsed to actually SHOW UP to protests, so that the left-wing crazies are a tiny minority.

all very true, but my point still stands. The small amount of people who were willing to protest will be smaller now.

Krusader

In fairnes Mary Harney can't complain neither can most government ministers about a little paint, in some other countries they would've been gunned down by now, such is the hatred and anger people feel towards them

tbh

Crosáidí wrote: »

In fairnes Mary Harney can't complain neither can most government ministers about a little paint, in some other countries they would've been gunned down by now, such is the hatred and anger people feel towards them

interesting argument - it's ok to assault them because we're not killing them.

Krusader

tbh wrote: »

interesting argument - it's ok to assault them because we're not killing them.

Yep, they should count themselves lucky

tbh

Crosáidí wrote: »

Yep, they should count themselves lucky

and thus every view you ever express on this site in the future is placed sharply in context. thanks.

Bottle_of_Smoke

tbh wrote: »

interesting argument - it's ok to assault them because we're not killing them.

Would you not agree ''assault'' is a bit overkill for splashing someone with diluted paint?

I mean it was an immature publicity stunt, but not really worthy of the term assault.

tbh

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Would you not agree ''assault'' is a bit overkill for splashing someone with diluted paint?

I mean it was an immature publicity stunt, but not really worthy of the term assault.

do you know what the definition of assault is?

Bottle_of_Smoke

tbh wrote: »

do you know what the definition of assault is?

Yes, but I also know that when people use the term they generally mean something serious. This wasn't serious. Harney wasn't physically harmed and isn't likely to suffer any long term psychological effects

tbh

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yes, but I also know that when people use the term they generally mean something serious.

I'm not talking about what people mean, I'm talking about the legal definition of assault.

Assault.


2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—


(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or


(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,


without the consent of the other.


(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—


(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and


(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

So with all due respect B_o_S, it appears that you don't know what the definition of assualt is, because if you did, you wouldn't be saying that this assault wasn't an assault. There's no two ways about it, it's assault, black and white, open and shut, whatever you're having yourself.

You can, if you want, argue that it was a mild assault, or it was a deserved assault, but it was assault.

This wasn't serious. Harney wasn't physically harmed and isn't likely to suffer any long term psychological effects

I'm sure the judge will bear that in mind when passing sentence. That's how the legal system works.

Krusader

tbh wrote: »

and thus every view you ever express on this site in the future is placed sharply in context. thanks.

Judgemental much

tbh

Crosáidí wrote: »

Judgemental much

ironic, coming from someone who's made the judgement that harney deserves to be shot.

Krusader

with the rest of them

IvyTheTerrible

Crosáidí wrote: »

with the rest of them

Ah, MASS murder, that's alright then!

Krusader

tbh

Crosáidí wrote: »

with the rest of them

at least you're not sexist or weightist, I'll give you that

Bottle_of_Smoke

tbh wrote: »

I'm not talking about what people mean, I'm talking about the legal definition of assault.

Assault.


2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—


(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or


(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,


without the consent of the other.


(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—


(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and


(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

So with all due respect B_o_S, it appears that you don't know what the definition of assualt is, because if you did, you wouldn't be saying that this assault wasn't an assault. There's no two ways about it, it's assault, black and white, open and shut, whatever you're having yourself.

You can, if you want, argue that it was a mild assault, or it was a deserved assault, but it was assault.


I'm sure the judge will bear that in mind when passing sentence. That's how the legal system works.

Well that's what I meant when I said ''Yes, but....''

I'm not disputing that it tecnically was assault, but I think using the term assault is taking semantics to a sensationalist level.

If I referred to the criminals in work who keep getting away with pen theft, people would think I was being sensationalist(if not insane). Though the pen thieves are technically criminals.

When I hear of assault I think of vulnerable people being attacked and injured. This was a paint spraying in broad daylight when Harney was surrounded by minders and members of the public. I just don't see that as worthy of the term assault in general use.

tbh

I take your point, but pen theft and pouring paint on a stranger are two different things.

Let me put it to you this way. If, in the course of your job, some randomer poured paint all over you, are you telling me you wouldn't be thinking "imagine that was petrol, or more forcefully thrown, or they used a knife".

I can promise you, there'll be a security review because of this, and the nett effect is that Harney, and all government ministers will [use it as an excuse to] be less accessible as a result. And how many hospital beds will be saved as a result of this sacrifice?

not.
one.

Lockstep

http://www.spaceavalanche.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/mary-harney-on-white-500px.jpg?ref=nf

tfrancer

DonJose wrote: »

If it was pepper spray, the fat cunnt would probably eat herself!!!

There are some seriously sick posters on boards.ie.

amacachi

Dudess wrote: »

My understanding though is that the old health board system was even more over-staffed than the HSE? There were 11 health boards - we did not need 11 health boards - so the HSE was a streamlining of this?

That was the idea, but have you noticed how you'll hear "HSE West" for example on the news? The regional Healthboards were just renamed with "HSE" in front of the region and then the over HSE layer was put on top of it. But sure things were going well and we had the money, and of course the unions were worried about the race to the bottom. :pac: People wonder how the cuts to admin staff can be done without affecting care, it's simple, they have no effect as it is.
FFS the local hospital here is down to a daytime A+E, nighttime you're taken to Drogheda and over the winter it's often full, so you're taken to Dublin. Despite the massive fall in services I doubt there's been much more than the temping staff laid off.

Kintarō Hattori

tfrancer wrote: »

There are some seriously sick posters on boards.ie.

I actually thought that was very funny.

tbh

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I actually thought that was very funny.

so did i, in a "thank god I don't live beside that person" kind of way.

AnnyHallsal

I think Harney's right to down play it as much as possible. I was sickened by Cowen's reaction to the hanging of that naked caricature in the National Gallery. These people have the brassiest necks yet come over all faint at mild dissent.

zynaps

southsiderosie wrote: »

Like I said, I thought it was stupid. But I don't think it's assault, and frankly I think much of the hysterical response is because of the perpetrator's political affiliations. Frankly, given what a bollix they have made of things over the last eight years, I think ministers should be afraid to leave the house.

In addition, I have yet to see an anti-government protest where a significant percentage of the polity doesn't "tut-tut".

It seems a bit like people are being divided into two binary camps here: anarchist-wannabes calling for a revolution at every opportunity, and people who roll over and do nothing while the government destroys the country.
Probably most people are far away from both of these extremes and would be willing to join a protest that didn't involve physically attacking someone (however hated that person may be).

Lots of those people (myself included) might agree with the message but not the way it was delivered. By using violence (and yes, throwing paint all over someone is violence, I would not like it done to me any more than I like being slapped in the face) you instantly alienate a large proportion of the people who would have agreed (and perhaps stood) with you otherwise.

southsiderosie

zynaps wrote: »

It seems a bit like people are being divided into two binary camps here: anarchist-wannabes calling for a revolution at every opportunity, and people who roll over and do nothing while the government destroys the country.
Probably most people are far away from both of these extremes and would be willing to join a protest that didn't involve physically attacking someone (however hated that person may be).

Lots of those people (myself included) might agree with the message but not the way it was delivered. By using violence (and yes, throwing paint all over someone is violence, I would not like it done to me any more than I like being slapped in the face) you instantly alienate a large proportion of the people who would have agreed (and perhaps stood) with you otherwise.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the "violence" of this act. Personally I see it more of a "public disorder" offence than assault (which slapping someone in the face would count as).

Other than the pensioners protest and the post-Ryan report march, I have yet to see any kind of protest against the government NOT be dismissed because of who held it or how they voiced their concerns. Nothing that has happened in Ireland over the last two years comes anything close to anarchy, and even in other countries with anarchists, not all of them engage in violent protest (I've seen many peaceful anarchist protests in Spain, for example).

I don't even know why I care; I'm not Irish and I don't even live in Ireland anymore. But I am truly amazed by how the institutions of power - the government and the church - time and time again use and abuse large swathes of the population without any real pushback. But I guess in a democracy people get the government they deserve, and if the public isn't willing to mobilize and voice their discontent, then I guess they are prepared to grin and bear the next round of budget cuts.

prinz

southsiderosie wrote: »

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the "violence" of this act. Personally I see it more of a "public disorder" offence than assault (which slapping someone in the face would count as)..

We don't get to pick and choose how we individually interpret the laws of the land.

Poly

prinz wrote: »

We don't get to pick and choose how we individually interpret the laws of the land.

We'll if your a FF TD you can choose what laws suit you.

AnnyHallsal

southsiderosie wrote: »

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the "violence" of this act. Personally I see it more of a "public disorder" offence than assault (which slapping someone in the face would count as).

Other than the pensioners protest and the post-Ryan report march, I have yet to see any kind of protest against the government NOT be dismissed because of who held it or how they voiced their concerns. Nothing that has happened in Ireland over the last two years comes anything close to anarchy, and even in other countries with anarchists, not all of them engage in violent protest (I've seen many peaceful anarchist protests in Spain, for example).

I don't even know why I care; I'm not Irish and I don't even live in Ireland anymore. But I am truly amazed by how the institutions of power - the government and the church - time and time again use and abuse large swathes of the population without any real pushback. But I guess in a democracy people get the government they deserve, and if the public isn't willing to mobilize and voice their discontent, then I guess they are prepared to grin and bear the next round of budget cuts.

There's a historical lack of accountability in Irish politics. All of those costly tribunals with no real outcomes. The fact that Bertie Ahern deigns to suggest he may run for president defies belief.

Cowen must be one of the most taciturn leaders in the Western world. There is no true communication but a barrage of doublespeak. The only thing I sense from him is contempt that the public dares to look over his shoulder and question his work.

The public doesn't like troublemakers, those who rock the boat. Well, the boat needs to be rocked. We have no end of problems and no solutions.

zynaps

southsiderosie wrote: »

But I guess in a democracy people get the government they deserve, and if the public isn't willing to mobilize and voice their discontent, then I guess they are prepared to grin and bear the next round of budget cuts.

That's the nub of it yes - we have to take responsibility for government we vote in. It's no good waiting 10 years and then throwing paint at the person we elected when it turns out she was not working in our interests.

So I'm with you: if we're not going to vote better and not going to protest (in a non-violent way that doesn't exclude 80% of people) and demand more direct control over government decision making, then we can't reasonably expect a good outcome.

prinz

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

The public doesn't like troublemakers, those who rock the boat. Well, the boat needs to be rocked. We have no end of problems and no solutions.

That's where Ireland falls down, and it's not the fault of the government but of the people. NIMBY-ism, parish pump politics, local interests etc. was all fine when the going was good. Very few where complaining then... and it's still the case. No concept of the national interest whatsoever.

We're also far too quick to blame the obvious people, and ignore where the problems really lie.

i_love_toast

senordingdong wrote: »

True that.

But with march after march and protest after protest, the govt. are clearly un-phased.
The 'civil' approach changed nothing.

oh thats exactly it. the "civil" approach does not work....not in Ireland not anywhere!!! A civil protest gets recognition for one day and is then forgotten. The paint job was stupid but sure didnt it get onto every radio station, news, paper in the country! The problem is these non civil protest acts are ALWAYS performed by sinn fein or die hard republicans who have zero support in this country regardless.

The hypocrisy of the Irish people giving out about the government and their policies non stop for the last 2 years and when someone throws a little bit of paint they get all civil and proper and act like the Irish are too good and civil citizens to protest. They wouldnt degrade themselves. "Look at that eejit" view is what the Irish have. Its this attitude in Ireland that "im not lowering my self to that protest standard" or "i wouldnt be caught dead being seen at a protest" is the reason why nothing will change in Ireland. And its reason why the government knows it bring in any level of tax, cut services etc and the Irish "civil citizens" will just take it and go back to moaning on the internet.

AnnyHallsal

prinz wrote: »

We're also far too quick to blame the obvious people, and ignore where the problems really lie.

Yeah, that's true. There is some scapegoating. When you witness the vitriol heaped upon public sector workers, the unemployed, the Alison O'Riordans - but why aren't we apoplectic at what went on during the boom, what precipitated the unsustainable inflation of costs? Were we all complicit? Did we all benefit? I'm not sure. Some certainly benefited more than others and it's sickening to see how protected those golden-handshakers are no matter how gravely they f*cked up.

I think this protectiveness towards those in authority is an attitude we're reluctant to shake off. Remember the deference for the priest, even the teacher, as recently as twenty years ago?

Part of Cowen and Harney's job is to deal with the disgruntled and disenfranchised. As we all know, they're well paid to do so.

Dudess

While I agree with lots of what you say, Zynaps, not all Irish people are responsible for the FF government being in power because not all Irish people voted them in, but great points from you and tbh - it looked like the thread was heading down the road of "Yay, bitch deserved it!" comments with nothing else to them and made by people who don't seem to know a whole lot about her.
I do hate the "Oh it's lefties, let's bash 'em no matter what cause" bandwagon though, however in this case, something really does not sit well with me personally about this act.

Dudess

i_love_toast wrote: »

oh thats exactly it. the "civil" approach does not work....not in Ireland not anywhere!!! A civil protest gets recognition for one day and is then forgotten. The paint job was stupid but sure didnt it get onto every radio station, news, paper in the country! The problem is these non civil protest acts are ALWAYS performed by sinn fein or die hard republicans who have zero support in this country regardless.

The hypocrisy of the Irish people giving out about the government and their policies non stop for the last 2 years and when someone throws a little bit of paint they get all civil and proper and act like the Irish are too good and civil citizens to protest. They wouldnt degrade themselves. "Look at that eejit" view is what the Irish have. Its this attitude in Ireland that "im not lowering my self to that protest standard" or "i wouldnt be caught dead being seen at a protest" is the reason why nothing will change in Ireland. And its reason why the government knows it bring in any level of tax, cut services etc and the Irish "civil citizens" will just take it and go back to moaning on the internet.

As someone else pointed out, it's the act that people object to, not the sentiment behind it.

There's a FB group on it now, people calling Harney "heartless" etc - they just don't seem to know who the woman is.

prinz

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Yeah, that's true. There is some scapegoating. When you witness the vitriol heaped upon public sector workers, the unemployed, the Alison O'Riordans - but why aren't we apoplectic at what went on during the boom, what precipitated the unsustainable inflation of costs? Were we all complicit? Did we all benefit? I'm not sure. Some certainly benefited more than others and it's sickening to see how protected those golden-handshakers are no matter how gravely they f*cked up..

That's true but the Alison O'Riordans deserve the vitriol they get just as much.

I was thinking more along the lines of the backroom civil servants who are paid, sometimes more than the ministers and the Taoiseach IIRC, who are supposed to know what they are talking about. The politicians are mostly just figure heads. They are not experts and academics who have spent a lifetime studying economics, and health services etc. It's all well and good throwing paint on Mary Harney, but at the end of the day she's largely just the puppet repeating what she has been told to say/do.

Added to that, what they are doing is pretty much exactly what has to be done if we want to avoid a complete economic meltdown.

Kizza

tbh wrote: »

to be honest with you, I think Mary knew that people weren't exactly thrilled with the state of the health service BEFORE the paint was poured on her.
The actions yesterday will have one nett effect, and one nett effect only: it will make government ministers more remote from the public they represent.
Presumably Eirigi felt that was an acceptable price for the rest of us to pay so that they could have their 15 minutes.

As individuals we can do absolutely nothing to reform the state of our own Health service so we must take action and I think thats what the councillor was doing. We have a right to protest, now I as previously said, I would not throw paint over her myself, but I dont see why everyone is up i arms about it. I understand Mary Harney is not a stupid woman and was well aware. But people need to take action in any way they can. Every single media source is speaking of it, and its big news. The Irish are fed up, and more and more people are standing up for what they believe in.

Kizza

tbh wrote: »

I'm not talking about what people mean, I'm talking about the legal definition of assault.

Assault.


2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—


(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or


(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,


without the consent of the other.


(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—


(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and


(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

So with all due respect B_o_S, it appears that you don't know what the definition of assualt is, because if you did, you wouldn't be saying that this assault wasn't an assault. There's no two ways about it, it's assault, black and white, open and shut, whatever you're having yourself.

You can, if you want, argue that it was a mild assault, or it was a deserved assault, but it was assault.



I'm sure the judge will bear that in mind when passing sentence. That's how the legal system works.

Well all I can say is thank god she was not charged as she didnt deserve to be. By definition she is was assaulted BUT WHO lives their lives by definition. By general ideation of assault Mary Harney was not assaulted the word is too strong.

tbh

Kizza wrote: »

Well all I can say is thank god she was not charged as she didnt deserve to be..

charges may well still be brought. Being released without charge doesn't mean that no charges will be pressed.

southsiderosie

prinz wrote: »

We don't get to pick and choose how we individually interpret the laws of the land.

As I noted earlier, the woman who threw a cream pie at Bertie Ahern was not charged with assault; i.e. there is a legal precedent of the laws being interpreted a certain way when it comes to these kinds of things.

i_love_toast wrote: »

oh thats exactly it. the "civil" approach does not work....not in Ireland not anywhere!!! A civil protest gets recognition for one day and is then forgotten. .

Yes and no. A civil protest may be forgotten, but sustained civil protests have brought massive social change (such as in the US) and have brought down governments (like in the Ukraine). But that requires people to take risks, and the Irish public seems pretty risk-averse.

Dudess wrote: »

As someone else pointed out, it's the act that people object to, not the sentiment behind it.

There's a FB group on it now, people calling Harney "heartless" etc - they just don't seem to know who the woman is.

Mary Harney may be a nice person, an intelligent woman, and a hard worker. But her attitude towards the public is a disgrace. The way she handled the Tallaght hospital crisis was absolutely shameful, and she refused to answer questions about it while she was swanning around in New Zealand. Not once have I heard her say "The buck stops with me" or say "I take full responsibility for what happens with the health service". Not once.

southsiderosie

prinz wrote: »

That's true but the Alison O'Riordans deserve the vitriol they get just as much.

I was thinking more along the lines of the backroom civil servants who are paid, sometimes more than the ministers and the Taoiseach IIRC, who are supposed to know what they are talking about. The politicians are mostly just figure heads. They are not experts and academics who have spent a lifetime studying economics, and health services etc. It's all well and good throwing paint on Mary Harney, but at the end of the day she's largely just the puppet repeating what she has been told to say/do.

They may not be experts, but that is in part a function of how they are chosen in the first place. In countries where people are put in charge of agencies because they have experience, not just because they are in government, then this is less of an issue. Regardless of their background, it is THEIR responsibility to learn and know their brief.

prinz wrote: »

Added to that, what they are doing is pretty much exactly what has to be done if we want to avoid a complete economic meltdown.

Um, no. Public sector wages, especially the top administrative positions, still need to come down dramatically. And they should start the cutting process at the top: in the Dail.

Lenihan also needs to stop bull****ting with the budget revenue proposals because his credibility is already shot, and the government's estimates have been in cloud cuckoo land for the last 3 years. But that is a topic for another thread.

Dudess

Fair point Rosie. It's just, the health service here is so, so disgustingly bad, I don't think one person can turn it around. I genuinely don't. Not apologising for her - never, ever, ever did I vote FF/PDs - but I'm of the view the health service is the government's responsibility as a whole, not just Harney's, she's simply a mere figurehead.

MagicSean

Dudess wrote: »

Fair point Rosie. It's just, the health service here is so, so disgustingly bad, I don't think one person can turn it around. I genuinely don't. Not apologising for her - never, ever, ever did I vote FF/PDs - but I'm of the view the health service is the government's responsibility as a whole, not just Harney's, she's simply a mere figurehead.

And she was probably only given the job because noone else would take it.

Morlar

k_mac wrote: »

And she was probably only given the job because noone else would take it.

Sorry to interrupt the 'awww poor mary' discussion here but she has had years and billions to turn it around and she has had it through a period of untold prosperity and throughout this time it got worse. This notion that the irish health service is spookily just 'unfixable by man' is nonsense. It just means a period of turbulence while it is being fixed. And it will take political will, strong & competent leadership who will stand up to jobsworths and unions and fiefdoms within the hse as an organisation. Someone who is more interested in results than the appearance of progress.

steddyeddy

Kizza wrote: »

Well all I can say is thank god she was not charged as she didnt deserve to be. By definition she is was assaulted BUT WHO lives their lives by definition. By general ideation of assault Mary Harney was not assaulted the word is too strong.

exactly if it is technically assault I dont really care, legitimate protests were ignored. poloticians in this country show little or no respect for the people in this country and ignore their legitmate concerns and outrages over the injustice of this society. when all else fails and talking gets the same results ie ignored again and again then yes force is an acceptable solution.

Would the peasents of france have been able to prtest marie attonoinette out of power?

prinz

southsiderosie wrote: »

Um, no. Public sector wages, especially the top administrative positions, still need to come down dramatically. And they should start the cutting process at the top: in the Dail..

I agree completely. That's the point I was making. However as soon as they start talking about cuts half the country will be out moaning. Thread after thread is already on here bitching about the government, and they haven't even gotten through the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what they could possibly still be forced into. No change in government is going to change the drastic action which has to be taken.

Liam Byrne

k_mac wrote: »

And she was probably only given the job because noone else would take it.

So what ? Imagine if no-one would take a position as a RyanAir pilot, but O'Leary still wanted flights to France......

She's being paid. Paid well. She should damn well do her job.