Where's the justice?!!

Ms.M

Sinfonia wrote: »

Think what you want, you can't possibly put yourself in the situation and predict your reaction.

I've had worse things happen to me. Nobody's dead / in a coma yet.
Someone might believe they have a right to seriously injure someone for pissing on their shoes, but anyone over twelve would expect serious injury to result from throwing someone down an eight foot drop.

Sinfonia

Kurz wrote: »

A vicious attack on the the man, severly injuring him and nearly killing him doesn't amount to self defence.

Defending yourself from harassment and assault amounts to self-defence.

Kurz wrote:

People get harassed by undesirables on the streets of Dublin every day of the week

Oh right, so we might as well just let them at it. Sure who are they harming?

The King of Moo

Sinfonia wrote: »

I meant that he restrained Kennedy's ability to harass or assault.

Why not try to actually, physically restrain him instead? That's what would occur to most people before the thought of throwing him from a height to incapacitate him.

Sinfonia wrote: »

I don't recall any mention of that in the article either. Source?
Also, we can't definitely say anything! The point is that if Whipple perceived that a man - who had harassed and assaulted him - was a threat to his safety or the safety of others, he is protected by law.

When someone asked Whipple why he threw the man, Whipple responded: “He pissed on my shoes and I’m sick of it.” When someone else asked him what he had done, Whipple shrugged his shoulders.

He said he threw him because he pissed on his shoes. Not because he saw him as a potential threat to himself or others.
Anyone who commits such a violent act in response to having their shoes pissed upon is, in my opinion, a dangerous, scary person.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Again, that was the interpretation of the judge. You don't know how high he thought the drop to be.

The judge didn't get that from nowhere.
I know the area vaguely well and am aware of the drop.
Whipple uses the stop regularly. It's basically impossible that he didn't know how high it was.

Sinfonia

Ms.M wrote: »

I've had worse things happen to me. Nobody's dead / in a coma yet.

My point is that you are not John Whipple.
You cannot comment on what he has ever hoped for, nor what he was thinking in this circumstance.

Ficheall

Ms.M wrote: »

.
You wouldn't push someone over a 2 foot wall in an effort to kill them or do them serious damage. I think you'd be hoping for this outcome if you pushed them into an eight foot drop.

Well, if I felt threatened by someone, I don't think a two foot wall between us would provide much reassurance... an 8 foot wall is another matter.

Kurz

Sinfonia wrote: »

Defending yourself from harassment and assault amounts to self-defence.


Oh right, so we might as well just let them at it. Sure who are they harming?

Yes, defending yourself amounts to self defence. Viciously brutalising someone doesn't. I certainly didn't say "let them at it" or anything to that effect.

ManTheSam

Nobody in this argument was there on the day, yet everyone presumes some sort of profound insight into what occurred. How about you trust the ruling of the judge in cases where you are ignorant of the facts surrounding the incident? One man has been left severely injured and the other will pay a large fine and now has a criminal record. Both will live with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives. Is that not enough of a sentence?

Turpentine

The King of Moo wrote: »

I can't fathom how anyone could excuse that as an appropriate response to having one's shoes pissed upon.

To be fair, if you're going to go around purposely pissing on the shoes of strangers, it's the exact response you should expect sooner or later.

It's just a shame that antisocial behaviour is so tolerated in this country that Kennedy probably didn't think he would recieve any punishment, justified or not.

laoch na mona

nice to see trinity is where the scumbags really are

Sinfonia

The King of Moo wrote: »

Why not try to actually, physically restrain him instead? That's what would occur to most people before the thought of throwing him from a height to incapacitate him.

I don't know why not, maybe because his dick was out and he was pissing. You can ask 'why not' and offer a million alternative methods of recourse, but the fact is that Whipple reacted to threat and violence; it is of absolutely no consequence what (you think) would occur to 'most' people. The point is that he wasn't using careful premeditated judgment, which in this situation is protected by law. It doesn't not make him dangerous, or a bad person.

The King of Moo wrote:

He said he threw him because he pissed on his shoes. Not because he saw him as a potential threat to himself or others.
Anyone who commits such a violent act in response to having their shoes pissed upon is, in my opinion, a dangerous, scary person.

Again, regardless of what he said - and I might add that that was not any kind of formal statement on the matter, "someone" asked him - perhaps he didn't feel in a position to say to this "someone" that he was in a state of fear and anger following the harassment and assault delivered by Kennedy. Perhaps he just gave a curt response, still shaken from the fact that he had just been involved in this set of circumstances.

The King of Moo wrote:

The judge didn't get that from nowhere.
I know the area vaguely well and am aware of the drop.
Whipple uses the stop regularly. It's basically impossible that he didn't know how high it was.

Speculation, speculation, speculation.
You don't know where the judge got anything.
You don't know how regularly Whipple uses the stop, and even if it is regularly, you don't know if he has ever taken any notice of the drop.
It's a long way from impossible.

Ms.M

Someone might believe they have a right to seriously injure someone for pissing on their shoes, but anyone over twelve would expect serious injury to result from throwing someone down an eight foot drop. If your judgement is that he was entitled to, fine, I disagree.

But I can see no sense in the "if you were in his situation" argument. No, I'm not Whipple. If I acted the way he did I'd be the one ending up with head injuries, not the drunk. If little feeble feckers like me can restrain ourselves from getting ourselves killed, I don't see why Whipple wasn't capable of restraining himself from reacting in such a dangerous manner. Of course he knew he could damage the man and that's what he aimed to do.

Dangerous Man

laoch na mona wrote: »

nice to see trinity is where the scumbags really are

I'm a Trinity graduate and I'm not a scumbag. Why you don't you just cop on okay?

little swift

if i was that guys family i would appeal the lenient of the sentance he got, because if he lives in sowrds and uses that bus stop everyday to commute to and from work well he lied when he said he was'nt aware of how deep the drop was. he sees it every day
The truth be knowing he probabily thought of doing it before.

Sinfonia

ManTheSam wrote: »

Nobody in this argument was there on the day, yet everyone presumes some sort of profound insight into what occurred. How about you trust the ruling of the judge in cases where you are ignorant of the facts surrounding the incident? One man has been left severely injured and the other will pay a large fine and now has a criminal record. Both will live with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives. Is that not enough of a sentence?

If you're actually asking, the reason I'm arguing in favour of John Whipple is that I don't believe he should have received any charge whatsoever.
He reacted in self-defence to a man who harassed and assaulted him. If the injuries - which were not inflicted through repeated acts of violence, but one single act - had been less severe, and/or if the drop had been less deep, I don't believe that he would have received any punishment. The problem is that he has been punished for the outcome, even though there was no intent to cause serious harm. As per the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, he should have been completely in the right.

The King of Moo

Sinfonia wrote: »

I don't know why not, maybe because his dick was out and he was pissing. You can ask 'why not' and offer a million alternative methods of recourse, but the fact is that Whipple reacted to threat and violence; it is of absolutely no consequence what (you think) would occur to 'most' people. The point is that he wasn't using careful premeditated judgment, which in this situation is protected by law. It doesn't not make him dangerous, or a bad person.

I believe it does. We can have a fair idea of how most people would react from experience: most people involved in similar situations don't react so violently. So we can safely say that his reaction greatly exceeded that of the average person, and his conviction supports that viewpoint.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Again, regardless of what he said - and I might add that that was not any kind of formal statement on the matter, "someone" asked him - perhaps he didn't feel in a position to say to this "someone" that he was in a state of fear and anger following the harassment and assault delivered by Kennedy. Perhaps he just gave a curt response, still shaken from the fact that he had just been involved in this set of circumstances.

Why didn't he say something later then, when he'd calmed down, if in fact he had feared for his safety?
It would have helped his case and likely made his sentence more lenient.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Speculation, speculation, speculation.
You don't know where the judge got anything.
You don't know how regularly Whipple uses the stop, and even if it is regularly, you don't know if he has ever taken any notice of the drop.
It's a long way from impossible.

I think we can safely assume that this probably wasn't his first time getting the bus home from work.
Even if it was, it's very hard not to notice that drop.
Again, if he hadn't known about it, I'm sure the article would've mentioned it, instead of twice stating that he knew the drop was at least eight feet.

Turpentine

Kurz wrote: »

A vicious attack on the the man, severly injuring him and nearly killing him doesn't amount to self defence. It is disgusting and it's frightening to think that a guy like Whipple gets to walk away without any real consequence. He should be psychologically evaluated with the aim of rehabilitation at least. People get harassed by undesirables on the streets of Dublin every day of the week yet manage to end it without acting like a vicious caged animal. It's frightening to think that this man is still walking around.

Most people don't go around pissing on the shoes of others because:

a) It's terrible form. It's just morally wrong.
b) There's always the chance some nutjob will do you serious damage.

If someone disregards both of those things they pretty much deserve what's coming to them.

Sinfonia

little swift wrote: »

if i was that guys family i would appeal the lenient of the sentance he got, because if he lives in sowrds and uses that bus stop everyday to commute to and from work well he lied when he said he was'nt aware of how deep the drop was. he sees it every day
The truth be knowing he probabily thought of doing it before.

I am now picturing a low wall beside a public transport stop that I frequently use. I can tell you that I have no idea how long the drop is on the other side, because it just so happens that I have never looked.

laoch na mona

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I'm a Trinity graduate and I'm not a scumbag. Why you don't you just cop on okay?

the lecturer in question clearly is a scumbag he tried to kill some one ffs

Sinfonia

The King of Moo wrote: »

I believe it does. We can have a fair idea of how most people would react from experience: most people involved in similar situations don't react so violently. So we can safely say that his reaction greatly exceeded that of the average person, and his conviction supports that viewpoint.

The *possible* reactions of the 'average' person have no bearing.

The King of Moo wrote:

Why didn't he say something later then, when he'd calmed down, if in fact he had feared for his safety?
It would have helped his case and likely made his sentence more lenient.

He pleaded guilty, presumably upon advice of his legal representation. We don't know what his police statement said, and it didn't go to trial.

The King of Moo wrote:

I think we can safely assume that this probably wasn't his first time getting the bus home from work.
Even if it was, it's very hard not to notice that drop.
Again, if he hadn't known about it, I'm sure the article would've mentioned it, instead of twice stating that he knew the drop was at least eight feet.

Assuming this is the same area where the 31 etc. leave from, I've been there several times and never looked or noticed. Your opinion of how obvious it is is pointless. Not everyone moves through the world with your lens.
Also, the article does not state twice that he knew the drop was at least eight feet. Not even once, in fact.
It states - once - the interpretation of the judge.

Turpentine wrote: »

Most people don't go around pissing on the shoes of others because:

a) It's terrible form. It's just morally wrong.
b) There's always the chance some nutjob will do you serious damage.

If someone disregards both of those things they pretty much deserve what's coming to them.

It's also illegal!

Dangerous Man

laoch na mona wrote: »

the lecturer in question clearly is a scumbag he tried to kill some one ffs

Everything you say is wrong. Just all wrong.

laoch na mona

Sinfonia wrote: »

The *possible* reactions of the 'average' person have no bearing.

why not

laoch na mona

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Everything you say is wrong. Just all wrong.

why if i threw you sown a drop that I knew was large enough to do damage I would get done for battery or GBH or something like that

mcmoustache

I feel sorry for Whipple.
He didn't set out that day to injure anyone. He was minding his own business and placed in a frightening situation that he neither chose nor was trained to handle. He reacted angrily to the situation that he neither desired nor instigated, resulting in the instigator getting hurt and now he's the one being punished.

Maybe it's just me, but if you go around harassing strangers, then serious injury should just be considered an occupational hazard.

The King of Moo

Sinfonia wrote: »

The *possible* reactions of the 'average' person have no bearing.


He pleaded guilty, presumably upon advice of his legal representation. We don't know what his police statement said, and it didn't go to trial.



Assuming this is the same area where the 31 etc. leave from, I've been there several times and never looked or noticed. Your opinion of how obvious it is is pointless. Not everyone moves through the world with your lens.


It's also illegal!

You're just being pedantic now. We can't collate the possible reactions of every person to someone pissing on their shoes, but we can safely assume a general range of likely reactions, and it's a fact that throwing someone from such a height is well beyond the pale of normal reactions.

We can't be absolutely certain he didn't know how far down the drop was, but it's a very obvious drop and we have a judge stating in court that he knew it to be at least eight feet so I think it's fairly safe to make the assumption that he knew how far down it went.

It's simply the case that getting so angry that you throw someone from a height you believe to be greater than eight feet because they pissed on your shoes is an excessively violent overreaction, and anyone doing so ought to be convicted, as Whipple was.
I just don't see how anyone can say it was a fair response.
Pissing on someone's shoes is wrong but what Whipple did was far, far worse and not a proportionate response.

You can speculate all you want about how he might have feared for his safety, but we've no reason to believe that. All we know is that he threw a man from fifteen feet because he pissed on his shoes, and most people would not react like that. Again, I can't say that is 100% true because not everyone has been in that exact situation, but many people have been in similar situations and Whipple's response is not the standard one.
He overdid it.

Sinfonia

laoch na mona wrote: »

why not

Because it's a question of legal responsibility, not what The King of Moo estimates the reaction of the 'average' person to be (or what he believes even defines the 'average' person).

laoch na mona wrote: »

why if i threw you sown a drop that I knew was large enough to do damage I would get done for battery or GBH or something like that

Unprovoked and with the knowledge of the depth of the drop? Absolutely.
Neither of those things are true in this case, however.

Read the article and the thread.

Turpentine

Sinfonia wrote: »

The *possible* reactions of the 'average' person have no bearing.


He pleaded guilty, presumably upon advice of his legal representation. We don't know what his police statement said, and it didn't go to trial.



Assuming this is the same area where the 31 etc. leave from, I've been there several times and never looked or noticed. Your opinion of how obvious it is is pointless. Not everyone moves through the world with your lens.


It's also illegal!

I don't think the threat of arrest even enters the equation, sure scobes can run around O'Connell Street beating the heads off each other with hurls for half an hour, on camera, without having to worry about getting arrested. I doubt the Gardai would bother with some lad pissing on another's shoes.

token101

An American overreacting with extreme violence. Hardly unusual! The guy Kennedy is lucky the other scumbag didn't have a gun. Yanks love pulling out a firearm and asserting their rights.

Sinfonia

The King of Moo wrote: »

You're just being pedantic now. We can't collate the possible reactions of every person to someone pissing on their shoes, but we can safely assume a general range of likely reactions, and it's a fact that throwing someone from such a height is well beyond the pale of normal reactions.

We can't be absolutely certain he didn't know how far down the drop was, but it's a very obvious drop and we have a judge stating in court that he knew it to be at least eight feet so I think it's fairly safe to make the assumption that he knew how far down it went.

It's simply the case that getting so angry that you throw someone from a height you believe to be greater than eight feet because they pissed on your shoes is an excessively violent overreaction, and anyone doing so ought to be convicted, as Whipple was.
I just don't see how anyone can say it was a fair response.
Pissing on someone's shoes is wrong but what Whipple did was far, far worse and not a proportionate response.

You can speculate all you want about how he might have feared for his safety, but we've no reason to believe that. All we know is that he threw a man from fifteen feet because he pissed on his shoes, and most people would not react like that. Again, I can't say that is 100% true because not everyone has been in that exact situation, but many people have been in similar situations and Whipple's response is not the standard one.
He overdid it.

Well it's funny how you call me pedantic and then bash me for speculation, but it doesn't matter, I don't need to speculate:
Did you read the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act? John Whipple is perfectly innocent as per the letter of the law. Therefore any sentence given was ill-prescribed.

laoch na mona

Sinfonia wrote: »

Unprovoked and with the knowledge of the depth of the drop? Absolutely.
Neither of those things are true in this case, however.

Read the thread.

if you did you would see that someone posted that the garda report said there was an obvious drop

Sinfonia

laoch na mona wrote: »

if you did you would see that someone posted that the garda report said there was an obvious drop

I did, and I addressed that by pointing out that however obvious the drop may be to the Garda (or anybody else), that is in no way conclusive evidence that it was (or would be or should be) obvious to John Whipple (or anybody else).

Turpentine

The King of Moo wrote: »

You're just being pedantic now. We can't collate the possible reactions of every person to someone pissing on their shoes, but we can safely assume a general range of likely reactions, and it's a fact that throwing someone from such a height is well beyond the pale of normal reactions.

We can't be absolutely certain he didn't know how far down the drop was, but it's a very obvious drop and we have a judge stating in court that he knew it to be at least eight feet so I think it's fairly safe to make the assumption that he knew how far down it went.

I'm glad our judges are psychic now, another useful tool in the battle against crime.

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's simply the case that getting so angry that you throw someone from a height you believe to be greater than eight feet because they pissed on your shoes is an excessively violent overreaction, and anyone doing so ought to be convicted, as Whipple was.
I just don't see how anyone can say it was a fair response.
Pissing on someone's shoes is wrong but what Whipple did was far, far worse and not a proportionate response.

You can speculate all you want about how he might have feared for his safety, but we've no reason to believe that. All we know is that he threw a man from fifteen feet because he pissed on his shoes, and most people would not react like that. Again, I can't say that is 100% true because not everyone has been in that exact situation, but many people have been in similar situations and Whipple's response is not the standard one.
He overdid it.

Like I said earlier, if you go around pissing on the shoes of strangers in an aggressive manner you should expect something like this to happen at some stage. That Kennedy more than likely didn't expect reprisal or punishment of any kind is more damning of how anti-social behaviour is tolerated.

"Sure we need to understand them Joe, maybe his poor bladder control stems from childhood trauma. Besides, how was he to know he was pissing on a ruffian?!"

ManTheSam

Sinfonia wrote: »

If you're actually asking, the reason I'm arguing in favour of John Whipple is that I don't believe he should have received any charge whatsoever.

I wasn't asking for anyone's stance on the issue. I was merely pointing out that most people in this discussion are founding their arguments on speculation. Let me show you what I mean:

Sinfonia wrote: »

He reacted in self-defence to a man who harassed and assaulted him.

How do we know if Mr Kennedy harassed or assaulted Mr Whipple? The article only states that Mr Kennedy urinated on Mr Whipple's shoes. Is that constituted as harassment or assault in Irish law? Does it follow that Mr Whipple's response is considered self-defence?

Sinfonia wrote: »

If the injuries - which were not inflicted through repeated acts of violence, but one single act - had been less severe, and/or if the drop had been less deep, I don't believe that he would have received any punishment.

I don't doubt this to be the truth. Punishment often befits the crime.

Sinfonia wrote: »

The problem is that he has been punished for the outcome, even though there was no intent to cause serious harm.

How do we know what Mr Whipple's intent was? The article says: "He claimed he didn’t want to hurt the man and didn’t realise how far the drop was on the other side of the railing". He didn't know how far the drop was. For all we know he could have presumed at the time it was two feet or a hundred feet.

Sinfonia wrote: »

As per the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, he should have been completely in the right.

I'm sure the judge was aware of this.

Turpentine

ManTheSam wrote: »

How do we know if Mr Kennedy harassed or assaulted Mr Whipple? The article only states that Mr Kennedy urinated on Mr Whipple's shoes. Is that constituted as harassment or assault in Irish law? Does it follow that Mr Whipple's response is considered self-defence?

Go piss on your nearest Garda's shoes and tell him it's not harassment or assault.

Sinfonia

ManTheSam wrote: »

I was merely pointing out that most people in this discussion are founding their arguments on speculation.

I agree!

ManTheSam wrote:

How do we know if Mr Kennedy harassed or assaulted Mr Whipple? The article only states that Mr Kennedy urinated on Mr Whipple's shoes. Is that constituted as harassment or assault in Irish law? Does it follow that Mr Whipple's response is considered self-defence?

Yes, that constitutes assault under Irish law.

ManTheSam wrote:

How do we know what Mr Whipple's intent was? The article says: "He claimed he didn’t want to hurt the man and didn’t realise how far the drop was on the other side of the railing". He didn't know how far the drop was. For all we know he could have presumed at the time it was two feet or a hundred feet.

Exactly my point.

ManTheSam wrote:

I'm sure the judge was aware of this.

And yet his actions are obviously contrary to it.

endacl

Domo230 wrote: »

Scumbag pissed on someone's shoes and got what he deserved.

What he said.

suicide_circus

Shryke wrote: »

Some ugly class bias in here. A guards statement said that it was clear that their was a dangerous drop. It was something that a person would have known was there.
It's disgusting that anyone would try to defend such a casually barbaric and traumatic thing for the victim.
This guy did not use reasonable force to defend himself. He went out of his way to mess a man up for life, for peeing on his shoes. That's ****ing psychotic.

Class bias? Do you know the two men involved?
Or are you assuming that because Kennedy was drunk in public and harassed and urinated on the guys shoes that he is of working/unworking class origins?
Similarly, are you assuming that Whipple is of middle/elite class origins because he works in TCD?
Maybe Kennedy was a privately educated D4 type on a bender after winning some rugby cup?
Maybe Whipple was a self made man who had dragged himself up from poverty to make a life for himself?
In any case, it's not a 'class' thing. It's more of a 'the right to stand up to scumbags thing'.

laoch na mona

Domo230 wrote: »

Scumbag pissed on someone's shoes and got what he deserved.

a beating of another scumbag
i suppose its fitting

ManTheSam

Sinfonia wrote: »

Yes, that constitutes assault under Irish law.

Can you back that statement up?

Sinfonia wrote: »

Exactly my point.

So you agree that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Mr Whipple's intent was? But you said yourself:

Sinfonia wrote: »

there was no intent to cause serious harm.

Sinfonia wrote: »

And yet his actions are obviously contrary to it.

I don't know more about the issue than the judge, so I won't presume. I'm sure the judge in question had more information than the contents of a newspaper article.

I'm just nitpicking at your argument because nobody in this thread is making valid claims at all.

Turpentine

ManTheSam wrote: »

Can you back that statement up?



So you agree that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Mr Whipple's intent was? But you said yourself:




I don't know more about the issue than the judge, so I won't presume. I'm sure the judge in question had more information than the contents of a newspaper article.

Indeed, the judge was privy to the contents of Whipple's brain, knowing exactly what he knew at the moment in question. It's like Minority Report.

alphabeat

Well done Mr Whipple , I raise my glass to you


and shake my wang at you , from a distance

oppenheimer1

For a bit of context , here is what I assume to be the wall in question
http://goo.gl/maps/ptEZ

I get the bus there regularly enough and I didn't know there was a 15ft drop there. I imagine it would be easy to bundle someone over the railing if they were standing next to it as it looks quite low.

Alessandra

I do understand that Mr. Whipple would have reacted angrily to the actions of the victim. The victim must have been a complete neanderthal.
I could understand a moment of rage, a kick, a punch, a common assault etc. However, he actively grabbed the man and threw him over a rail. He might not have known the drop was there etc, I just dont think he is completely
innocent in the situation... He is supposedly well educated and should act as such. The force used was disproportionate to the threat. He could buy new shoes, the victim has a life long impairment.

southcentralts

Sorry but who is the scumbag here, which sounds more like scumbag behavior:
pissing on someones shoes or
throwing someone over some railings.
???

Battered Mars Bar

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0608/keith-mills-paul-rice.html

So this guy, Paul Rice gets 5 yrs for kicking his friend to death...22 previous convictions. There's something unbalanced with these sentences. Trinity guy gets 6 years suspended sentence for defending himself to some extent and some scobe gets 5yrs for an unprovoked murder.

endacl

Alessandra wrote: »

the victim has a life long impairment.

Indeed. One that existed before the incident. He was a shoepisser. The mindset that leads to shoepissing could indeed be seen as an impairment. One that probably wouldn't ever go away. His new impairment will hopefully prevent him acting on his old impairment in the future.

One less shoepisser roaming abbey street can't be a bad thing now, can it?

Sinfonia

ManTheSam wrote: »

Can you back that statement up?

I have already linked to the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act and made reference to it several times.

ManTheSam wrote:

So you agree that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Mr Whipple's intent was? But you said yourself:

Go ahead and prove that there was intent to cause serious harm.

ManTheSam wrote:

I don't know more about the issue than the judge, so I won't presume. I'm sure the judge in question had more information than the contents of a newspaper article.

That is presuming.

ManTheSam wrote:

I'm just nitpicking at your argument because nobody in this thread is making valid claims at all.

Least of all you.

yore

yore wrote: »

As posted above, he's not on their system as staff.
[Mod] SNIP There's no need for singling the guy out on here.[/Mod]

Re The snip.....Fair enough......but are you going to "snip" the thread seeing as how it is devoted to the same fella.....the entire thread is "singling him out" if you ask me!

I only posted that link as it seemed kinda relevant to the fact that a load of eejits were jumping onto the "he only got off because he was a Trinners lecturer" bandwagon when he doesn't seem to be one! He's not listed on their staff directory and his personal website had no mention of the courses he was lecturing, but did mention that he was studied drama or philosophy or something similar and was teaching English to people from around the world.

The article also stated he was voted student of the year.....Is there such an award? Really? Trinity college student of the year award? That people vote for?

Questioning the veracity of an article apparently equates to singling out the fella, but calling him a scumbag or to be jailed/deported etc. is fine?

tony-od

Just curious can Kennedy sue Whipple for damages as well now?

Wompa1

The injustice here is that a guy who was harassed and wasn't left alone takes action and gets 6 years for it. Granted I know it's suspended but f**k that student. How would anybody react to somebody pissing on them?

JoeGil

The country has a justice system which is the mechanism for people to take action if they feel aggrieved - the lecturer could have called the guards.

The justice system is there to ensure fairess, a civilised society and ensure that half the country isn't sitting in a wheelchair because somebody else didn't like something they did or said.

The justice system evolved over centuries - it would be a pity to lose it. Mr Whipple should do time for his actions.