Poet, Activist, Parkinson's sufferer and Granny (79) gets jailed for 6 months.

Karl Stein

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

he doesn't even seen it, which is what makes it even sweeter

Hi again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsnbrtd8vE8

Mike747

Carlos Roca wrote: »

You know it doesn't surprise me that you find all this talk of death and destruction funny. Do you and your fellow war of terror supporters get together to laugh at youtube videos of air strikes, IED attacks and sniper kills?

Czarcasm is right, you guys do yourselves no favours coming out with this hysterical stuff. Like that guy who said we're misogynistic because we believe it's right she was sent to prison. It's embarrassing man.

old hippy

Mike747 wrote: »

Carlos Roca wrote: »

You know it doesn't surprise me that you find all this talk of death and destruction funny. Do you and your fellow war of terror supporters get together to laugh at youtube videos of air strikes, IED attacks and sniper kills?

Czarcasm is right, you guys do yourselves no favours coming out with this hysterical stuff. Like that guy who said we're misogynistic because we believe it's right she was sent to prison. It's embarrassing man.

You do yourself no favours by garbling my post. It's embarrassing, mike. I referred to posters who called her a crazy bitch and an old bint as misogynistic.

Mike747

old hippy wrote: »

Mike747 wrote: »

You do yourself no favours by garbling my post. It's embarrassing, mike. I referred to posters who called her a crazy bitch and an old bint as misogynistic.

You accused us of being insecure in our masculinity because we don't agree with actions. By all means defend her, but don't stoop to that level, it makes it impossible to take you seriously.

My name is URL

bumper234 wrote: »

Actually the judge got that evidence from witnesses from here.

www.iaa.ie

Can you back that up with anything of substance?

Presumably if they felt that she endangered lives then they would have run a full investigation into what happened, to determine how it was allowed to happen, and it's not mentioned on their site or in any of their publications.

old hippy

Mike747 wrote: »

old hippy wrote: »

You accused us of being insecure in our masculinity because we don't agree with actions. By all means defend her, but don't stoop to that level, it makes it impossible to take you seriously.

I suggested those using misogynistic language did so out of insecurity.

I can't take people here seriously when they call protesters mad, smelly or crusty or any of the usual epithets.

bumper234

My name is URL wrote: »

Can you back that up with anything of substance?

Presumably if they felt that she endangered lives then they would have run a full investigation into what happened, to determine how it was allowed to happen, and it's not mentioned on their site or in any of their publications.

There was an investigation done internally.

My name is URL

bumper234 wrote: »

There was an investigation done internally.

I'm asking for evidence of that, and for evidence for your prior claim that the IAA argued that she endangered lives.

bumper234

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm asking for evidence of that, and for evidence for your prior claim that the IAA argued that she endangered lives.

My evidence is the fact that i work for the IAA and helped gather the evidence against them, I also know the investigators personally who submitted the report for the prosecution about the dangers of the trespass.

old hippy

bumper234 wrote: »

My evidence is the fact that i work for the IAA and helped gather the evidence against them, I also know the investigators personally who submitted the report for the prosecution about the dangers of the trespass.

Legally, is it wise to be posting on this topic, in that case?

bumper234

old hippy wrote: »

Legally, is it wise to be posting on this topic, in that case?

Why? The case is over and she was found guilty. There is no law against discussing a closed case.

My name is URL

bumper234 wrote: »

My evidence is the fact that i work for the IAA and helped gather the evidence against them, I also know the investigators personally who submitted the report for the prosecution about the dangers of the trespass.

Fair enough, can't argue with that. But why was it an internal investigation and not a public one? I'm guessing the investigation was conducted for the purposes of prosecution. The report probably outlined the possible and hypothetical dangers of what could happen when someone gets onto a runway, but did it actually say that she had directly endangered anyone's life? Did it conclude that peoples lives were immediately put in any danger? If so then I'm guessing the report would be public.

And how many people lost their jobs for allowing failing to stop an almost 80 year old woman from gaining access to an active runway?

Filibuster

Carlos Roca wrote: »

If she's unlucky enough to be struck by the landing gear then she's dead meat I suppose. I doubt a human would cause much damage to landing gear that's designed to be strong enough to absorb tonnes of metal slamming down on a runway at over 100 miles and hour.

C'mon war of terror supporters, drop this 'endangering lives' malarkey - it's sensationalist bull****.

A bird can take out an engine on a passenger jet. We don't need idiots trespassing on runways as planes are at full trust on take off or playing chicken with pilots as they land.

old hippy

bumper234 wrote: »

Why? The case is over and she was found guilty. There is no law against discussing a closed case.

Just making certain. For all our sakes.

bumper234

My name is URL wrote: »

Fair enough, can't argue with that. But why was it an internal investigation and not a public one? I'm guessing the investigation was conducted for the purposes of prosecution. The report probably outlined the possible and hypothetical dangers of what could happen when someone gets onto a runway, but did it actually say that she had directly endangered anyone's life? Did it conclude that peoples lives were immediately put in any danger? If so then I'm guessing the report would be public.

And how many people lost their jobs for allowing failing to stop an almost 80 year old woman from gaining access to an active runway?

The report is private and due to security reasons will not be released to the public. Have you ever driven around the outside of an airport? It's quite large and the only way to stop such an incursion would be to post security every 200 feet.

wexie

bumper234 wrote: »

The report is private and due to security reasons will not be released to the public. Have you ever driven around the outside of an airport? It's quite large and the only way to stop such an incursion would be to post security every 200 feet.

or motion sensor triggered machine guns, but apparently that's not okay either

bumper234

wexie wrote: »

or motion sensor triggered machine guns, but apparently that's not okay either

Personally i would just have a 200 meter wide mine field all the way around and when one of these idiots blew themselves up it would be their own fault, Unfortunately that is frowned upon or something.

Karl Stein

Filibuster wrote: »

A bird can take out an engine on a passenger jet. We don't need idiots trespassing on runways as planes are at full trust on take off or playing chicken with pilots as they land.

So what you're saying is that the old witch was flying around on her broomstick and could have been sucked into the engine?

Jaysus..

bodice ripper

bumper234 wrote: »

Personally i would just have a 200 meter wide mine field all the way around and when one of these idiots blew themselves up it would be their own fault, Unfortunately that is frowned upon or something.

sorry, you thinks a minefield around the runway wouldn't endanger passengers, but a 79 year old woman would? madness

bumper234

bodice ripper wrote: »

sorry, you thinks a minefield around the runway wouldn't endanger passengers, but a 79 year old woman would? maddess

Someone's sarcasm meter seems to be on he blink :rolleyes:

My name is URL

bumper234 wrote: »

The report is private and due to security reasons will not be released to the public. Have you ever driven around the outside of an airport? It's quite large and the only way to stop such an incursion would be to post security every 200 feet.

So nobody lost their job then? People keep going on about how she endangered lives. Surely it's a lack of proper security that endangers lives. Seems like gross incompetence to me that an elderly woman could make it as far as a runway without being stopped by security or airport police.

What's to stop a group of radical nutjobs from doing the same, with a real intent to take lives or cause damage? Are the people whose lives were immediately in danger aware of that fact? I'm sure some of them would probably think of taking legal action over that.

weldoninhio

bodice ripper wrote: »

sorry, you thinks a minefield around the runway wouldn't endanger passengers, but a 79 year old woman would? maddess

We got a live one here!!! If brains were explosives, i think this would be a fun snap.

bumper234

My name is URL wrote: »

So nobody lost their job then? People keep going on about how she endangered lives. Surely it's a lack of proper security that endangers lives. Seems like gross incompetence to me that an elderly woman could make it as far as a runway without being stopped by security or airport police.

Nobody lost their job but security has been stepped up.

My name is URL wrote: »

What's to stop a group of radical nutjobs from doing the same, with a real intent to take lives or cause damage? Are the people whose lives were immediately in danger aware of that fact? I'm sure some of them would probably think of taking legal action over that.

Maybe you should start a class action suit on their behalf :rolleyes:

bumper234

weldoninhio wrote: »

We got a live one here!!! If brains were explosives, i think this would be a fun snap.

Another on that misses the sarcasm, I also say i would like to beat the **** out of people who harm children with a baseball bat. Does not mean that i would ACTUALLY do it :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

bumper234 wrote: »

Another on that misses the sarcasm, I also say i would like to beat the **** out of people who harm children with a baseball bat. Does not mean that i would ACTUALLY do it :rolleyes:

So you think he was serious about mines, and you would stand idly by and watch someone harm a child. Sick!!! :eek:

bumper234

weldoninhio wrote: »

So you think he was serious about mines, and you would stand idly by and watch someone harm a child. Sick!!! :eek:

I said i would have the mine field.

Of course i wouldn't stand by while someone harmed a child, I also wouldn't attack that person with a nail studded baseball bat :rolleyes:

bodice ripper

weldoninhio wrote: »

We got a live one here!!! If brains were explosives, i think this would be a fun snap.

Your mother thinks I am fun.

weldoninhio

bodice ripper wrote: »

Your mother thinks I am fun.

I don't have a mother. I've 2 dads. One does like to dress up like a woman though. Latent desires??

kidneyfan

bumper234 wrote: »

The report is private and due to security reasons will not be released to the public. Have you ever driven around the outside of an airport? It's quite large and the only way to stop such an incursion would be to post security every 200 feet.

It wouldn't be that hard to stop a woman who uses a walker.

bodice ripper

bumper234 wrote: »

Someone's sarcasm meter seems to be on he blink :rolleyes:

Could be. More likely I amn't devoting enough time to boards, hovering as I am around work.

bodice ripper

weldoninhio wrote: »

I don't have a mother. I've 2 dads. One does like to dress up like a woman though. Latent desires??

nothing latent. I take all comers.

bumper234

kidneyfan wrote: »

It wouldn't be that hard to stop a woman who uses a walker.

Funny,


No sign of a walker on the day, Maybe she just took it to court for the sympaty level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwGiiu0lWz4

end of the road

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Yes she is.

She trespassed and lay down on the runway of an international airport, a very dangerous stunt. How is lying down on a runway while aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers are taking off and landing going to help her cause in any way?

Stupid, stupid thing to do and that's exactly why it's illegal. She committed a dangerous crime. She is a criminal.

she's a true hero of ireland

end of the road

bumper234 wrote: »

I totally disagree with what this stupid woman did, she put innocent lives at risk and achieved nothing. I have no love for America's foreign policy as can be seen by my posts in this thread,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056860581

Just because someone thinks what she did was stupid does not make them supporters of war but supporters of common sense!



You can keep saying that but she had her trial and was found guilty by the judge, She is not only a criminal but she is a convicted criminal and therefore deserves to go to jail.

not at all, the spaces need to be kept for rapists murderers and paedeophiles

Skylinehead

end of the road wrote: »

she's a true hero of ireland

Explain why please.

wexie

end of the road wrote: »

she's a true hero of ireland

I'm so glad she saved us all from the imperialist swines.

We'll all be able to sleep soundly now that she's repelled the invasion

shruikan2553

old hippy wrote: »

Mike747 wrote: »

I suggested those using misogynistic language did so out of insecurity.

I can't take people here seriously when they call protesters mad, smelly or crusty or any of the usual epithets.

Nobody would be calling her mad if she just protested. Running into a runway isn't exactly the most sane thing to do. Planes are very big and would easily hurt you.

bumper234

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, the spaces need to be kept for rapists murderers and paedeophiles

There should be enough spaces for ALL convicted criminals including Margaretta D'Arcy.

end of the road

bumper234 wrote: »

There should be enough spaces for ALL convicted criminals including Margaretta D'Arcy.

well their isn't so we have to prioritize the most serious of criminals

bumper234

end of the road wrote: »

well their isn't so we have to prioritize the most serious of criminals

Her crime was serious enough to warrant going to jail, you may not think so but then you are not the judge.

wexie

bumper234 wrote: »

Her crime was serious enough to warrant going to jail, you may not think so but then you are not the judge.

Which is good cause I'd say a lot of us would end up in the clink just for daring to disagree with him.

bumper234

wexie wrote: »

Which is good cause I'd say a lot of us would end up in the clink just for daring to disagree with him.

She broke the law, should she be allowed get away with it?

expectationlost

bumper234 wrote: »

Her crime was serious enough to warrant going to jail, you may not think so but then you are not the judge.

Derek Nolan TD doesn't think so https://www.facebook.com/dereknolan.galway/posts/689404444414556?stream_ref=10

I was shocked to hear of the arrest of Margaretta D'Arcy. Given her age and medical condition, compassion should have sought a different outcome.

It is difficult to see what is served by this action and I hope that the Court can find a speedy way to resolve it.

doesn't think someone who trespassed onto a runway and wouldn't promise not to do it again shouldn't be jail, a labour government TD!

Skylinehead

wexie wrote: »

Which is good cause I'd say a lot of us would end up in the clink just for daring to disagree with him.

I can imagine a conversation.

"But judge, the evidence clearly points to her being guilty"


"no it doesn't".

Repeat ad nauseum.

Hilly Bill

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, US military aren't "innocent"

would cost to much, we can't afford it, we have to save the space for actual criminals such as murderers rapists paedophiles and so on. and she isn't a "silly old cow" she is a brave woman standing up for whats right and paying almost the ultimate price, fair play to her, a true hero

True Hero? derranged more like it. And she is one of the So on you mention.

Joshua J

If posters here were genuine in protecting innocent lives from being endangered then they'd be lying on the runway beside her.

Skylinehead

Joshua J wrote: »

If posters here were genuine in protecting innocent lives from being endangered then they'd be lying on the runway beside her.

How does endangering lives protect lives?

bumper234

expectationlost wrote: »

Derek Nolan TD doesn't think so https://www.facebook.com/dereknolan.galway/posts/689404444414556?stream_ref=10



doesn't think someone who trespassed on runway and wouldn't promise not to do it again shouldn't be jail, a labour government TD!

But not a JUDGE!!!:rolleyes:

Hilly Bill

bumper234 wrote: »

Funny,


No sign of a walker on the day, Maybe she just took it to court for the sympaty level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwGiiu0lWz4

Thats about it.

My name is URL

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats about it.

You do realise that Parkinson's is a progressive and degenerative disease and that a lot can change in 15 months?

But sure whatever you want to tell yourself.. she's probably lying about having that disease too :rolleyes: