Jobstown water protesters to be charged

Graham

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I look forward to the linguistic gymnastics Murphy partakes in to justify what he did

I just hope he brings his megaphone, that should help his case :pac:

conorh91

Valetta wrote: »

But he didn't ask for her release.

He asked "Should we let her out?", directly implying that

That's slightly different alright, I agree with you on the language employed.

However I'm responding to the suggestion that the act of agreeing to taking the megaphone implies an acceptance on the part of Paul Murphy that he "believed he had sufficient authority/sway to ask this question". Which just seems to be pushing it. It seems to be agreed he was complying with a request of a member of AGS.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. Blocked in factories and other forms of protest.

Something that neither of those cases have anything to do with.

Apart from the whole false imprisonment/blocking people aspects.

jimgoose

I agree with the protest, but frightening a woman and effectively confining her to her car, however relatively briefly, is not kosher, not cricket and simply not the done thing a bit, squire. Even if it is Joan "Zombie" Burton. Slaps all round, I should warrant.

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

I agree with the protest, but frightening a woman and effectively confining her to her car, however relatively briefly, is not kosher, not cricket and simply not the done thing a bit, squire. Even if it is Joan "Zombie" Burton. Slaps all round, I should warrant.

it was 2 hours was it not?

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Apart from the whole false imprisonment/blocking people aspects.

Oh dear oh dear.

The fact that some people who happen to be farmers have been charged with false imprisonment in the past, does not in any way, shape or form counter the perfectly valid argument that protests by farming groups have never (to the best of my knowledge) led to criminal charges.

Do you actually not get that?

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

That's slightly different alright, I agree with you on the language employed.

However I'm responding to the suggestion that the act of agreeing to taking the megaphone implies an acceptance on the part of Paul Murphy that he "believed he had sufficient authority/sway to ask this question". Which just seems to be pushing it. It seems to be agreed he was complying with a request of a member of AGS.

Yes, he was - as anyone with a brain can tell. He was attempting to help AGS bring the situation to an end.

I am sure he won't make the same mistake again.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

(to the best of my knowledge)

So you don't know then.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

So you don't know then.

Yes, I am acknowledging that I don't have perfect knowledge. Not a bad policy, try it some time.

If you can point me in the direction of relevant prosecutions I would be genuinely interested.

conorh91

Deleted User wrote: »

protests by farming groups have never (to the best of my knowledge) led to criminal charges.

It isn't the act of protesting that's being pursued by the DPP. It's false imprisonment of a 65-year old woman in her car for two hours.

Water protesters and farmers have protested plenty of times in the past without anyone being prosecuted.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I am acknowledging that I don't have perfect knowledge. Not a bad policy, try it some time.

If you can point me in the direction of relevant prosecutions I would be genuinely interested.

Try Google, I was merely pointing out the similarities in response to your insistance that charges of false imprisonment were not the same as other charges for false imprisonment.

darkpagandeath

jimgoose wrote: »

I agree with the protest, but frightening a woman and effectively confining her to her car, however relatively briefly, is not kosher, not cricket and simply not the done thing a bit, squire. Even if it is Joan "Zombie" Burton. Slaps all round, I should warrant.

Not emotive language at all... Sex has what to do with the position that person holds ?

Paddy Samurai

I have no idea on the politics behind this or who advises the attorney general.Yeah I know hes supposed to be independent. But imo this is a great move to feck up Labour in the next elections.As if they needed any more help on that front.

Ps:I also wonder whos advising Joan.

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Not emotive language at all... Sex has what to do with the position that person holds ?

absolutely nothing. if it was a man in the car the mob would be just as guilty.

darkpagandeath

Meanwhile in France over Taxis

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Meanwhile in France over Taxis

is that some sort of example that the protestors here should be aspiring to?

darkpagandeath

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

I have no idea on the politics behind this or who advises the attorney general.Yeah I know hes supposed to be independent. But imo this is a great move to feck up Labour in the next elections.As if they needed any more help on that front.

Ps:I also wonder whos advising Joan.

I would wager no one, This smacks of the political elite who think they are untouchable. The political system has created this kind of problem. People have no way to get rid of these fools in power till the next election. And politicians here in power don't step down or call elections.

boardsuser1

gandalf wrote: »

Naw the new hashtag is #evidencefromjoan

Touche Gandalf :pac:

darkpagandeath

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is that some sort of example that the protestors here should be aspiring to?

Nope, Pointing out the nonsense about anarchy on the streets here. And the protest we are talking about being very peaceful compared to the EU. Politicians here don't like to see the people they are treading on up close.

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope, Pointing out the nonsense about anarchy on the streets here. And the protest we are talking about being very peaceful compared to the EU. Politicians here don't like to see the people they are treading on up close.

so peaceful compared to anarchy? not really a high bar is it?

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i totally agree. the gardai did handle it badly. they were far too lenient with this mob. they should cleared the mob immediately and arrested them all for breach of the peace if they didnt comply.

to do that would have been to costly and have lead to a bad situation which would have taken longer to resolve. simply not cost or resource effective. the mob were to strong for the resources there, and resources were needed elsewhere so no more could have been dedicated to this. the gardai's tactics worked well and the situation was resolved. the gardai handled it very well

darkpagandeath

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so peaceful compared to anarchy? not really a high bar is it?

Yes a pretty much peaceful protest was called "Anarchy in the Streets"

pconn062

I'm loving Paul Murphy stirring it on Twitter trying to whip his supporters into a frenzy when all, and I mean all, he is concerned about is securing his seat at the next general election and lining his own pockets. Making it sound like he has a lot in common with the other protestors with his private schooling and massive salary.

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes a pretty much peaceful protest was called "Anarchy in the Streets"

but the protest in jobstown was not peaceful. maybe compared to the example you linked to it was peaceful relatively speaking but it was not peaceful by any standard i would like to see our society operate by.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

to do that would have been to costly and have lead to a bad situation which would have taken longer to resolve. simply not cost or resource effective. the mob were to strong for the resources there, and resources were needed elsewhere so no more could have been dedicated to this. the gardai's tactics worked well and the situation was resolved. the gardai handled it very well

that post was very much tongue in cheek. there is nothing the mob like more than for the gardai to lash out and make them martyrs.

seamus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope, Pointing out the nonsense about anarchy on the streets here. And the protest we are talking about being very peaceful compared to the EU. Politicians here don't like to see the people they are treading on up close.

So protestors should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as they're not rioting, looting and overturning cars?

That's really what you're saying here.

NotYourYear20

handlemaster wrote: »

Waiting for the "bankers" comment

So are you an overly sensitive banker?

NotYourYear20

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

whether she was going to the dail or not is irrelevant.

Your post is completely irrelevant, since that post was only elaborating upon a point made by another poster. But I'm guessing you completely missed all of that.

conorhal

Joanie, while you have your hand on that bible in the wittness stand....

'Have you ever taken part in a sit down protest?'

'Oh you have, in your student days, tell me Joanie, what would that 20 something you think of your testimony today, because I'd reckon you'd sicken yourself'...

darkpagandeath

seamus wrote: »

So protestors should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as they're not rioting, looting and overturning cars?

That's really what you're saying here.

Nope, I already said they should be arrested for breaching the peace at the time if that happened. After the fact and adding a load of charges is Political, And smacks of political interference and pressure.