Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The end of southern partitionism?

2»

Comments

  • #52
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Godge wrote: »
    In this case the judge (Committee member McKay) coached a witness on how to implicate a defendant. If you think that is ok, you are living in a different country to me.

    Are you suggesting that the gardai routinely coach witnesses in criminal cases? That is not my experience as a witness.

    Any chance that perhaps you might actually answer Brian?`s post ?


  • #53
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Any chance that perhaps you might actually answer Brian?`s post ?

    Brian? said "there is nothing wrong with coaching witnesses" which was a stunning statement. I answered that point.


  • #54
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I was doing a bit of reading on this. Did he not just (as far as anyone knows) just coach him on how to circumvent a committee, which Bryson thought would stop him or stymie him in naming who exactly he was accusing?
    There is no evidence to suggest that it was anything other than that was there?

    So you are with the group who think it is ok to coach witnesses how to circumvent a committee, just like it is ok to coach witnesses how to circumvent defence counsel's questioning in order to secure a doubtful prosecution? Or where does it end?


  • #55
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Godge wrote: »
    Brian? said "there is nothing wrong with coaching witnesses" which was a stunning statement. I answered that point.

    Brian? also asked if you believe SF will ask every witness to lie, to just say it nice and clear.

    Did I miss the answer to that ?


  • #56
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Brian? also asked if you believe SF will ask every witness to lie, to just say it nice and clear.

    Did I miss the answer to that ?

    Mod note:

    If a poster doesnt want to answer a particular question, please dont repeately demand an answer to same.

    From my reading of it Godge is saying its not acceptable to coach a witness. Brian? Is saying that coaching a witness is fine so long as it is not teaching them to lie. Two clear opinions, whether valid or otherwise.

    Insising that Godge answer a question about whether he thinks someone was told to lie, when he only made the point that they were coached, is deflection i.e. trolling.


  • #57
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,244 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Godge wrote: »
    So you are with the group who think it is ok to coach witnesses how to circumvent a committee, just like it is ok to coach witnesses how to circumvent defence counsel's questioning in order to secure a doubtful prosecution? Or where does it end?

    All the evidence I can see suggests it ended with Robinson being named and a committee which (which has some relevant and close connections to Robinson)was probably intent on stopping him being named was outflanked.

    Politically that might be upsetting, but I am not sure it is a big deal in the greater scheme of things. It would be if evidence was fabricated to convict somebody.
    Bryson at one stage thanks McKay for his efforts to ensure 'transparency'. Bryson (not the SF lads) seems to think what he has was capable of 'finishing the DUP' after all.

    Do you think the terms of reference and actions of the DUP were to ensure the DUP were protected?


  • #58
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,626 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Mod note:

    If a poster doesnt want to answer a particular question, please dont repeately demand an answer to same.

    From my reading of it Godge is saying its not acceptable to coach a witness. Brian? Is saying that coaching a witness is fine so long as it is not teaching them to lie. Two clear opinions, whether valid or otherwise.

    Insising that Godge answer a question about whether he thinks someone was told to lie, when he only made the point that they were coached, is deflection i.e. trolling.

    That's pretty much it.

    Coaching a witness is absolutely fine on my opinion. A court room can be an intimidating place. Barristers do their best to destabilise witnesses for the opposition. There is a massive difference between coaching a witness to cope with the pressure, which is fine, and teaching a witness to lie, which is not fine.

    If Godge believes people are being taught to lie, he/she so say so for the sake of clarity.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #59
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    All the evidence I can see suggests it ended with Robinson being named and a committee which (which has some relevant and close connections to Robinson)was probably intent on stopping him being named was outflanked.

    Politically that might be upsetting, but I am not sure it is a big deal in the greater scheme of things. It would be if evidence was fabricated to convict somebody.
    Bryson at one stage thanks McKay for his efforts to ensure 'transparency'. Bryson (not the SF lads) seems to think what he has was capable of 'finishing the DUP' after all.

    Do you think the terms of reference and actions of the DUP were to ensure the DUP were protected?


    Just like Gerry Adams defence counsel could be outflanked by witnesses coached by the prosecution and the judge to sidestep relevant questions, it is the same principle, so long as all of you are fine with that being done by UK prosecuters and PSNI policemen...............

    It is never acceptable for those involved in judging or prosecuting something to coach witnesses. McKay was on the committee in a combined prosecution and judge role.


  • #60
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,244 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Godge wrote: »
    Just like Gerry Adams defence counsel could be outflanked by witnesses coached by the prosecution and the judge to sidestep relevant questions, it is the same principle, so long as all of you are fine with that being done by UK prosecuters and PSNI policemen...............

    It is never acceptable for those involved in judging or prosecuting something to coach witnesses. McKay was on the committee in a combined prosecution and judge role.

    The PSNI never had any problems getting Gerry's name out there whenever they wanted wanted to make allegations. This is a case where that is all that seems to have been done-coach the witness on how to get the name of the alleged into the public domain.
    Adams never had to resign though presumably because there was no truth to the allegations


  • Advertisement
Advertisement