Rape tape crusty apologises and abandons her flimsy principles

MagicSean

smeedyova wrote: »

A lot of the language being used here to described the lady in question is reprehensible, at best.

Where is the moderator?

Maybe he was arrested after being falsely accused of rape. Ot maybe he just made a bad joke and lost his job. Or maybe the language used is justified in consideration of her reprehensible tactics both in relation to the video and the court case.

mikemac1

ihateusernames wrote: »

So if some lad gets in scrap in Supermacs after a few too many pints will a judge dismiss his charges on the basis he might want to visit New York in a few years?
Doubt it

I was in court for a TV licence, maybe two hundred of us there
In and out, from the time your name is called to the judge finishes is less then two minutes. Assembly line, super efficent
Got a fine and I have to live with the shame

But yes, some well dressed young people brought Daddy or brought a solicitor and gave big long tales of woe and terrified of getting a record and plans to go to the USA

And it fecking worked, I said nothing and got a fine, others got something called the probation act.

I don't know what the probation act is but I know they didn't have to pay a fine.

Total overkill, TV licence is no big deal, it's hardly assualt

tl:dr; when you go to court tell a sob story, judges love a tale

irishgeo

mikemac1 wrote: »

I was in court for a TV licence, maybe two hundred of us there
In and out, from the time your name is called to the judge finishes is less then two minutes. Assembly line, super efficent
Got a fine and I have to live with the shame

But yes, some well dressed young people brought Daddy or brought a solicitor and gave big long tales of woe and terrified of getting a record and plans to go to the USA

And it fecking worked, I said nothing and got a fine, others got something called the probation act.

I don't know what the probation act is but I know they didn't have to pay a fine.

Total overkill, TV licence is no big deal, it's hardly assualt

tl:dr; when you go to court tell a sob story, judges love a tale

was just looking up the probation act and jesus its over a 100 years old and predates the formation of the state. Its basically a UK drawn up bill and the first few lines mention the work King and only one section releates to its application in ireland.

Probation of Offenders Act, 1907

http://www.probation.ie/pws/websitepublishing.nsf/attachmentsbytitle/Probation+of+Offenders+Act+1907/$file/Probation+of+Offenders+Act+1907.pdf

9. In the application of this Act to Ireland “Lord Application to
Lieutenant” shall be substituted for “Secretary Ireland
of State,” and each division of the police district
of Dublin metropolis shall be deemed to a petty
sessional division.

tayto lover

Duggy747 wrote: »

So, she only apologised after the judge mentioned that she would get 2 convictions if she didn't?

Sort of like in the Irish aurals when the examiner helps you with the answers :pac:

If I apologise can I get rid of my 2 penalty points and get my 80e back ?

lividduck

prinz wrote: »

So that's a no, you have no clue. Thought as much.



The Garda College is a third level education institution. At the very least a garda passing out has a B.A.

Actually think they revieve a Diploma not a B.A.they do get a B.A.

sheesh

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Why don't you tell me (and the rest of us)?:rolleyes:

For example, what percentage of Gardai have a university degree?:rolleyes:

How many of the higher ranks (from Inspector up) have law degrees? When I worked with the Finnish police, virtually all officers from the rank of inspector up had at least an LL.B. degree.;)

I have to say that I fairly squirmed with embarrassment at a funeral in Stradbally some time back (well, in the hotel afterwards). One of the women in my extended family is married to a Garda in Co. Mayo. He was one of the thickest, rudest, opinionated eejits I have ever come across, a blustering bully that I would hate to be alone in a cell with. A really nasty prick, and I doubt that he even has the Leaving Cert. It would have been quite pointless to even try and discuss fundamental and human rights (the field in which I was then working) with him, as I doubt that he would have been able to read even the Daily Wail without moving his lips. Only one example, of course, and the standard is, as I have already mentioned, improving. :pac::pac::pac:

I'd bet there are equally as ignorant individuals in the finnish police forces you get that type everywhere most of the guards I know seem to be ok. one is very guardish though but not in the ignorant way you described.

Paddy De Plasterer

She was probably on free legal aid. The evidence was that if she slipped she would have been choked to death. These little south Dublin crusty quickly abandoned her principles when she discovered she might not get into the States. She gave an undertaking not to go near Shell again.

deadwood

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

She gave an undertaking not to go near Shell again.

I hope the plane to the u.s. is powered by unicorn farts and good will.

Jimmyhologram

I do not support the Corrib protest cause. At all. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that I really despair at this movement.

But, I think people are being a bit too vitriolic here.

First off, it's no wonder people are afraid to protest in this country if it comes with the risk of being labelled a crusty, hippy or hypocrite.

Secondly, the hypocrisy charge. Most of us have principles of some sort. As someone else pointed out above, very, very few of us are willing to carry those principles to their logical conclusion, if pushed into a situation where our future prospects are threatened. The people who are willing to take such a hit are the exception, not the norm. Most of us will compromise, eventually. The vast majority of us are hypocrites in this sense.

Does that mean that we should never speak out or protest? Of course not. We can still work around our own weakness and hypocrisy to get good stuff done. If we didn't, the world would be even worse than it already is.

You are judging this individual by too high a standard, and I wonder how many of the commenters here would survive scrutiny of their own ethical stands, if held to the same standards.

MagicSean

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

I do not support the Corrib protest cause. At all. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that I really despair at this movement.

But, I think people are being a bit too vitriolic here.

First off, it's no wonder people are afraid to protest in this country if it comes with the risk of being labelled a crusty, hippy or hypocrite.

Secondly, the hypocrisy charge. Most of us have principles of some sort. As someone else pointed out above, very, very few of us are willing to carry those principles to their logical conclusion, if pushed into a situation where our future prospects are threatened. The people who are willing to take such a hit are the exception, not the norm. Most of us will compromise, eventually. The vast majority of us are hypocrites in this sense.

Does that mean that we should never speak out or protest? Of course not. We can still work around our own weakness and hypocrisy to get good stuff done. If we didn't, the world would be even worse than it already is.

You are judging this individual by too high a standard, and I wonder how many of the commenters here would survive scrutiny of their own ethical stands, if held to the same standards.

This woman wasn't engaged in protesting. She was engaged in illegal activity.

Jimmyhologram

MagicSean wrote: »

This woman wasn't engaged in protesting. She was engaged in illegal activity.

No, she was engaged in protesting and illegal activity.

I have no problem with the fact that she was arrested for breaking the law.

My issue here is with the general attitude on this thread, which, in my view:

1) Implicitly, and derogatorily, links the fact of protesting with being a crusty or hippy.

2) Implicitly sets a higher ethical standard for people who protest than for the rest of the population.

MagicSean

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

No, she was engaged in protesting and illegal activity.

I have no problem with the fact that she was arrested for breaking the law.

My issue here is with the general attitude on this thread, which, in my view:

1) Implicitly, and derogatorily, links the fact of protesting with being a crusty or hippy.

2) Implicitly sets a higher ethical standard for people who protest than for the rest of the population.

1) Only the long term scroungers, particularly those in shell to sea are considered crusties.

2) She put herself in the limelight with the release of the video with cries of rape threats and intimidation for people standing up for what they believe. And now we're expected to believe she was willing to risk being raped for her beliefs but not willing to miss spring break.

The Waltzing Consumer

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

First off, it's no wonder people are afraid to protest in this country if it comes with the risk of being labelled a crusty, hippy or hypocrite.

I don't think that is true. Take the Priory Hall residents as an example. I think the vast majority of the population, if not all, support their cause and support their protest.

The difference being, they don't get associated with the "protest anything" brigade, they are not hypocrites and they behave in a way that would relate to the population.

It may have been a different story if the Occupy guys had turned up moaning about the EU, UFOs and fluoride in the water. Likewise, SF probably kept their distance because of the links they have with the developer of Priory Hall.

The main reason for the support is because it is the people effected, it is not a bunch of bused-in protesters that have tainted so many other, one time legitimate, protests.

Jimmyhologram

MagicSean wrote: »

1) Only the long term scroungers, particularly those in shell to sea are considered crusties.

2) She put herself in the limelight with the release of the video with cries of rape threats and intimidation for people standing up for what they believe. And now we're expected to believe she was willing to risk being raped for her beliefs but not willing to miss spring break.

On the first point, I'm not sure where you're getting your definition of who is and is not considered for membership. From my own experience, the label is bandied about a lot more than you seem to suggest, and is particularly used as a cheap way to discredit people with left-wing views who stick their head above the parapet.

On the second point, fair enough, she did invite the scrutiny with her behaviour on that count. Probably feeling fairly foolish now. But, come on, that whole "spring break" thing is a complete straw man. People are naturally worried about their careers and jobs, and people at university now have few prospects of getting work here in the coming years. Look, I'm not saying that it was noble to give in. But it wasn't reprehensible either.

Jimmyhologram

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I don't think that is true. Take the Priory Hall residents as an example. I think the vast majority of the population, if not all, support their cause and support their protest.

The difference being, they don't get associated with the "protest anything" brigade, they are not hypocrites and they behave in a way that would relate to the population.

It may have been a different story if the Occupy guys had turned up moaning about the EU, UFOs and fluoride in the water. Likewise, SF probably kept their distance because of the links they have with the developer of Priory Hall.

The main reason for the support is because it is the people effected, it is not a bunch of bused-in protesters that have tainted so many other, one time legitimate, protests.

Sure, there is a "protest anything" brigade out there, no doubt. They probably do more harm than good. But not being from the area directly affected by something shouldn't necessarily disqualify someone from being a legitimate protester. I would agree with you, though, that legitimate protests get tainted.

deadwood

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

You are judging this individual by too high a standard, and I wonder how many of the commenters here would survive scrutiny of their own ethical stands, if held to the same standards.

The same standards those guards were judged by by making a joke from comments she made?