Jobstown water protesters to be charged

NorthStars

NorthStars wrote: »

Name, address (with the new eircode joke numbers attached I would presume), PPS number and bank details.
What do you think?

They'll cross reference with their own database and root out those claiming to be living alone, when they're not?

darkpagandeath

Deleted User wrote: »

They'll cross reference with their own database and root out those claiming to be living alone, when they're not?

Would the revenue not have most of this already ?

NorthStars

Deleted User wrote: »

They'll cross reference with their own database and root out those claiming to be living alone, when they're not?

Or they'll pass on the details of anyone who attempts to claim the bribe to IW and then IW can claim more fools registered with them.

From my perspective they can stuff the bribe where the sun doesn't shine.
Pocket money.:)

michael999999

NorthStars wrote: »

Roll up, roll up folks.......as of tomorrow the application forms for your water bribe are being sent out.
All they require is your name, address, PPS number and bank details.
What could possibly go wrong?????

You gotta laugh though, they must think paddy really is as thick as two short planks, and maybe in some cases.....he is.

Denis domicile Brien,
Moriarty road,
Costa daTax haven,
Malta.

Contact IBRC re my bank details!

conorh91

UrbanFox wrote: »

I assume that nobody is yet charged as I write this. Once people are charged the sub judice rule will operate and public commentary will be very constrained.

Actually, that's one of the major, ignored issues around this topic.

How did the news get out? I am no Paul Murphy supporter, but it's just not acceptable for news of charges to reach the media in this way. Firstly, because of the various rights of the accused. Second, because the media commentary seems to be beyond the reach of the courts in exercising jurisdiction for contempt (sub judice).

That basically gives the media (and us, the commentating public) a free run at Paul Murphy where he seems to have very dubious recourse in defamation to vindicate his name, nor can he rely on the law on contempt to ensure a fair trial.

I think that there has to be a very serious doubt as to whether or not a jury can be empanelled that will be capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict either way.

In terms of the media coverage heretofore, that seems very unlikely. So long as our politicians keep their mouths shut, a trial should be entirely possible.

Unfortunately, Paul Murphy is also a politician, with access to Dail privilege. We're in uncharted territory in this regard, which is why he may not yet be charged.

If he is charged, it gets complicated.

These cases might fall within the scope of justification for a trial before a three judge court in the non-jury Special Criminal Court. I wouldn't be worried if that happened.

I really doubt that. It would require (i) an extraordinary departure from procedures by the DPP OR (ii) direct intervention by the AG which would seriously undermine the impartiality of her Office, and her position as an *independent* law officer of the State.

I think that there has to be a very serious doubt as to whether or not a jury can be empanelled that will be capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict either way.

this much I agree with.

Especially when you consider that, in a joint trial, a team of four accused persons will have the option of dismissing 28 jurors without cause, whilst the DPP can just stand back and dismiss a fraction of them. It makes something of a farce of any such panel.

Hoodies at the ready!

gladrags

conorh91 wrote: »

Actually, that's one of the major, ignored issues around this topic.

How did the news get out? I am no Paul Murphy supporter, but it's just not acceptable for news of charges to reach the media in this way. Firstly, because of the various rights of the accused. Second, because the media commentary seems to be beyond the reach of the courts in exercising jurisdiction for contempt (sub judice).

That basically gives the media (and us, the commentating public) a free run at Paul Murphy where he seems to have very dubious recourse in defamation to vindicate his name, nor can he rely on the law on contempt to ensure a fair trial.

In terms of the media coverage heretofore, that seems very unlikely. So long as our politicians keep their mouths shut, a trial should be entirely possible.

Unfortunately, Paul Murphy is also a politician, with access to Dail privilege. We're in uncharted territory in this regard, which is why he may not yet be charged.

If he is charged, it gets complicated.

I really doubt that. It would require (i) an extraordinary departure from procedures by the DPP OR (ii) direct intervention by the AG which would seriously undermine the impartiality of her Office, and her position as an *independent* law officer of the State.


this much I agree with.

It never ceases to amaze me to see the clamour of an individual or group of individuals,ignore and walk over the rights of others,without realising that they are actually destroying the possibilty of those they hate,or want to see punished,meeting their kind of premeditated justice.

Although one does have to ask,who leaked this information to RTE in the first instance,and why.

They clearly knew what they were doing.

And now that the dust has settled,the inevitable questions are being asked,in relation to the consequences of them now being charged.

Another circus looms in the saga of Irish water.

conorh91

gladrags wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me to see the clamour of an individual or group of individuals,ignore and walk over the rights of others,without realising that they are actually destroying the possibilty of those they hate,or want to see punished,meeting their kind of premeditated justice.

Although one does have to ask,who leaked this information to RTE in the first instance,and why.

They clearly knew what they were doing.

And now that the dust has settled,the inevitable questions are being asked,in relation to the consequences of them now being charged.

Another circus looms in the saga of Irish water.

Is there any end to your victimhood?

Certainly, the question regarding the release of the information over the supposedly-imminent charges against the Jobstown gang is a serious issue.

I am hardly likely to be classified as a Murphy supporter, but I agree it is a serious and worrying infringement of Murphy's rights. Is it actually posible to have an adult conversartion about that, without withdrawing to "dust settling" on some conspiracy theory?

I would love to see the offenders brought to justice, because someone is doing an unholy amount of leaking from AGS/ the DPP in recent months, and it is not acceptable.

But please, less of the indignant victimhood, especially when you are so quick to trample over the rights of other individuals in the public sphere....

gladrags

conorh91 wrote: »

Is there any end to your victimhood?

Certainly, the question regarding the release of the information over the supposedly-imminent charges against the Jobstown gang is a serious issue.

I am hardly likely to be classified as a Murphy supporter, but I agree it is a serious and worrying infringement of Murphy's rights. Is it actually posible to have an adult conversartion about that, without withdrawing to "dust settling" on some conspiracy theory?

I would love to see the offenders brought to justice, because someone is doing an unholy amount of leaking from AGS/ the DPP in recent months, and it is not acceptable.

But please, less of the indignant victimhood, especially when you are so quick to trample over the rights of other individuals in the public sphere....

If you are referring to Murphy or the others "charged", in relation to your claims of victimhood,I beg to differ.

I never mentioned the innocence or guilt of the whole scenario,or the rights and wrongs of the arrests.

I am reffering to the mechanisms that brought us to this point,in simple terms ,someone has made a major gaff.

This now puts the whole issue of charges and a fair trial into serious legal doubt.

I just cannot see how charges can now be brought,and if they are,it simply means that there can be no fair trial.

And this fiasco has nothing to do with Murphy,he has had no hand or part in what could well be a criminal offence.

There is even another possibility that whover leaked ths information,did so in the knowledge that the charges would be scrapped or delayed,until after the election,at least.

conorh91

^
To summarise...

Q: Is there any end to your victimhood?
A: No

Cue exaggeration on every point that has just been stated...

Brendan Bendar

gladrags wrote: »

If you are referring to Murphy or the others "charged", in relation to your claims of victimhood,I beg to differ.

I never mentioned the innocence or guilt of the whole scenario,or the rights and wrongs of the arrests.

I am reffering to the mechanisms that brought us to this point,in simple terms ,someone has made a major gaff.

This now puts the whole issue of charges and a fair trial into serious legal doubt.

I just cannot see how charges can now be brought,and if they are,it simply means that there can be no fair trial.

And this fiasco has nothing to do with Murphy,he has had no hand or part in what could well be a criminal offence.

There is even another possibility that whover leaked ths information,did so in the knowledge that the charges would be scrapped or delayed,until after the election,at least.

Let the law take its course.
Lot of waffle and bluster on this issue, let's wait and let's the Courts decide.

NorthStars

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Let the law take its course.
Lot of waffle and bluster on this issue, let's wait and let's the Courts decide.

Ha!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Middle Ireland have had their say.....haven't they???


Lad,buddy, old chap etc etc etc......

Brendan Bendar

NorthStars wrote: »

Ha!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Middle Ireland have had their say.....haven't they???


Lad,buddy, old chap etc etc etc......

Sorry, can't decipher that one.

Apologies.

michael999999

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Sorry, can't decipher that one.

Apologies.

Middle Ireland will be along any minute to help you decipher that mate!

Middle Ireland have that well sussed, you can be sure mate!

Roar!

Billy86

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Sorry, can't decipher that one.

Apologies.

(psst... they're trying to tell you they have nothing else of worth to add)

NorthStars

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Sorry, can't decipher that one.

Apologies.

Ok, so you claim to be in favour of allowing the law to take it's course, yet you spend your time on this site attacking protesters and people who won't pay a water bill by calling them all sorts and claiming they're lawbreakers at every given opportunity....Lad.

NorthStars

Billy86 wrote: »

(psst... they're trying to tell you they have nothing else of worth to add)

A very worthwhile post I'm sure you'll agree. :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

NorthStars wrote: »

Ok, so you claim no to be in favour of allowing the law to take it's course, yet you spend your time on this site attacking protesters and people who won't pay a water bill by calling them all sorts and claiming they're lawbreakers at every given opportunity....Lad.

Can people not express opinions? that is all people have done. Opinions based on video evidence publicly available. Why do you have such a problem with free speech?

Brendan Bendar

NorthStars wrote: »

Ok, so you claim no to be in favour of allowing the law to take it's course, yet you spend your time on this site attacking protesters and people who won't pay a water bill by calling them all sorts and claiming they're lawbreakers at every given opportunity....Lad.

NorthStars

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

'Middle Ireland' isn't able to understand a sentence that contained a small typo.
'Middle Ireland' isn't all it makes itself out to be...Lad.

NorthStars

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can people not express opinions? that is all people have done. Opinions based on video evidence publicly available. Why do you have such a problem with free speech?

Free speech and protest?
Why have you guys such a problem with these things?
'False imprisonment'??? HTFU!

ohnonotgmail

NorthStars wrote: »

Free speech and protest?
Why have you guys such a problem with these things?
'False imprisonment'??? HTFU!

nobody here has expressed a problem with free speech. It is the pro-protest side that seems to have a problem with people expressing a contrary opinion.

NorthStars

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody here has expressed a problem with free speech. It is the pro-protest side that seems to have a problem with people expressing a contrary opinion.

The only protest I'm involved with is the mass boycott of the IW scam.
You don't like that, but that's tough.

conorh91

NorthStars wrote: »

The only protest I'm involved with is the mass boycott of the IW scam.
You don't like that, but that's tough.

This thread is about the Jobstown protest and the groups involved.

Nobody cares whether you pay your bills nor not. It's not "tough", it's irrelevant.

NorthStars

conorh91 wrote: »

This thread is about the Jobstown protest and the groups involved.

Nobody cares whether you pay your bills nor not. It's not "tough", it's irrelevant.

There's a word for that type of post.
Backseat something or other......

NorthStars

Anyway, any sign of all these court cases yet?
10 days now since the leak.......
Maybe someone from Labour had a word?
Maybe Joan doesn't want to press charges anymore what with an election on the way!

ohnonotgmail

NorthStars wrote: »

The only protest I'm involved with is the mass boycott of the IW scam.
You don't like that, but that's tough.

which is totally irrelevant to pretty much anything.

NorthStars

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

which is totally irrelevant to pretty much anything.

Yea, so he said.....

ohnonotgmail

NorthStars wrote: »

There's a word for that type of post.
Backseat something or other......

oh the irony

NorthStars

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

oh the irony

What about it?

ohnonotgmail

NorthStars wrote: »

What about it?

You can figure that out for yourself i'm sure.