Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

We have already heard this line . Ignorance isn't an excuse .

So you can't describe what behaviour was thuggish either. Maybe you should Google what it means and then see if it legally could be used to describe the actions of Murphy. Thanks in advance.
Btw who's 'We' do you not just speak for yourself?

WinnyThePoo

[QUOTE=Hitman3000;104110026]So you can't describe what behaviour was thuggish either. Maybe you should Google what it means and then see if it legally could be used to describe the actions of Murphy. Thanks in advance.
Btw who's 'We' do you not just speak for yourself?[/QUOTE]


eh ..I wasn't asked ?

We as in Public.

Paul is still a thug and coward. He's just too damn transparent.

Hitman3000

VinLieger wrote:

Never accused you of anything but you're very defensive regardless.......

Not defensive at all , just suggested you can either accept my answer to a question you asked or not. No need to feel you have to try and psychoanalise the response.

RustyNut

VinLieger wrote: »

What attitude to the result? Everyone has agreed with the verdict, I don't think one person has disputed it? Your simply unable to distinguish murphy's behaviour on the day from the verdict... hes been found not guilty fair enough but his behaviour was still thuggish and his behaviour since the trial has been that of a spoiled child whose not getting the attention he's used to

I also find it funny your trying to separate yourself from the prejorative of being a "keyboard warrior"

What do you think about the actions of the other parties involved in the trial? Ie DPP, Gardai.

Hitman3000

VinLieger wrote:

Never accused you of anything but you're very defensive regardless.......

Hitman3000 wrote:

What behaviour was thuggish, certain elements keep making this claim but as of yet have not described what this behaviour is that fits the defination of 'thuggish' maybe you'll give it a go.

I answered a question you asked of me, any chance you'd answer mine?

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You havent answered the question.

Should we let her go?

What question?

You're letting your apparent hatred of someone, who's political leanings you presumably disagree with fill you with so much venom that you're coming across as being incoherent now.

WinnyThePoo

Rick Shaw wrote: »

What question?

You're letting your apparent hatred of someone, who's political leanings you presumably disagree with fill you with so much venom that you're coming across as being incoherent now.

Are you talking about Paul here?

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You argue your assumptions. You keep doing it. I keep calling it out.

I am assuming nothing, your issue is with Murphy.

Yea I know. All Hail Paul.

The actual issue is 'the separation of powers' in this state.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am assuming nothing, your issue is with Murphy.




The actual issue is 'the separation of powers' in this state.

That's all you do. You assume. You argue your assumption.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

That's all you do. You assume. You argue your assumption.

So you are just going to cling to repeating a meaningless phrase. Very good.

You are constantly displaying a dislike of Paul Murphy. You already said you don't know him, so it cannot be personal dislike, so it has to be political dislike.

That is irrelevant in this debate as I don't like Murphy's politics either, nor care to debate about them.

The issue is about something bigger than one politician.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you are just going to cling to repeating a meaningless phrase. Very good.

You are constantly displaying a dislike of Paul Murphy. You already said you don't know him, so it cannot be personal dislike, so it has to be political dislike.

That is irrelevant in this debate as I don't like Murphy's politics either, nor care to debate about them.

The issue is about something bigger than one politician.

You keep doing it.Your hilarious.

Also Murphy irrelevant to this? hahgahahahahahahahaqhgaqhahiahahj

Keep making me laugh

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You keep doing it.Your hilarious.

Also Murphy irrelevant to this? hahgahahahahahahahaqhgaqhahiahahj

Keep making me laugh

I didn't say Murphy was irrelevant. I said he wasn't the issue.

Try reading posts, not just making them mean what you want them to mean.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say Murphy was irrelevant. I said he wasn't the issue.

Try reading posts, not just making them mean what you want them to mean.

He's not the issue? hahahbahahahahahahahahaha

What are you doing?

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

He's not the issue? hahahbahahahahahahahahaha

So you have absolutely no concerns about how the entire issue has been dealt with? The dawn raids, over the top charges, unreliable evidence form AGS. Nothing, all proper and above board is that what you believe? Or have I picked you up wrong?

WinnyThePoo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you have absolutely no concerns about how the entire issue has been dealt with? The dawn raids, over the top charges, unreliable evidence form AGS. Nothing, all proper and above board is that what you believe? Or have I picked you up wrong?

Assume away if you want.

Certainly should have been charged with public disorder offences. Would have been quicker.

Anyway the guards need reform, there is no doubt . If you think a public enquiry into this incident will help with reform . I think you will quite disappointed.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Anyway the guards need reform, there is no doubt . If you think a public enquiry into this incident will help with reform . I think you will quite disappointed.

I for one am not suggesting it will achieve reform of the Gardai. But if this was what is alleged - organised perjury - then it will hasten reform.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I for one am not suggesting it will achieve reform of the Gardai. But if this was what is alleged - organised perjury - then it will hasten reform.

Sadly I don't see any of our services getting reform anytime soon from HSE to Gardai. Of course I hope the opposite. We don't have the politicians/leaders with the ability to make Ireland better, if that makes sense.

Paul should get on to the radio over the perjury. I want to him stand on his own two feet.

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Assume away if you want.

No assumptions, i asked you a couple of questions . I understand if you're not able to answer.

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Anyway the guards need reform, there is no doubt . If you think a public enquiry into this incident will help with reform . I think you will quite disappointed.

Actually a public enquiry is not about reform. It's about finding out and dealing with issues this trial has raised.
Dealing in Whataboutery is an annoyance but I have yet to see some of the tillage farmers who staged a protest recently being charged with a public order offence or any for that matter. I guess it depends who's doing the protesting.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Sadly I don't see any of our services getting reform anytime soon from HSE to Gardai. Of course I hope the opposite. We don't have the politicians/leaders with the ability to make Ireland better, if that makes sense.

Paul should get on to the radio over the perjury. I want to him stand on his own two feet.

In fairness, there will never be reform if there are people who get sidetracked by personalities and political bias.

Why would anyone be bothered.

mattser

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Thuggery, violent behaviour especially of the criminal.
Murphy didn't engage in this behaviour despite posters continually trying to imply he did. It was a spontaneous protest no organisers so again Murphy and Co are only responsible for their own behaviour no one else's.
'If one didn't agree with it, why did they remain at the scene' the straw clutching is beyond hilarious at this stage.
On a side note I trust all those who agree with water charges will be refusing to accept a refund.

Whether they choose to accept or refuse a refund, is entirely their business. They wont be bawling with megaphones over it, I'm pretty sure.

WinnyThePoo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Actually a public enquiry is not about reform. It's about finding out and dealing with issues this trial has raised.
Dealing in Whataboutery is an annoyance but I have yet to see some of the tillage farmers who staged a protest recently being charged with a public order offence or any for that matter. I guess it depends who's doing the protesting.

Yes whataboutery. The old nugget.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness, there will never be reform if there are people who get sidetracked by personalities and political bias.

Why would anyone be bothered.

Exactly. I really wish guys like Paul murphy could give to society in a positive manner. Sadly his ideologue trumps mere plebs like you and me. He is always right and never wrong.

FrancieBrady

mattser wrote: »

Whether they choose to accept or refuse a refund, is entirely their business. They wont be bawling with megaphones over it, I'm pretty sure.

Just on a point of interest:

Given that protest works (look at pensioners, water charges etc) at what point would you be motivated protest on the street?

Hitman3000

mattser wrote:

Whether they choose to accept or refuse a refund, is entirely their business. They wont be bawling with megaphones over it, I'm pretty sure.

They now have that choice courtsey of Murphy and the 100's of thousands who refused to engage.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Exactly. I really wish guys like Paul murphy could give to society in a positive manner. Sadly his ideologue trumps mere plebs like you and me. He is always right and never wrong.

Murphy gets re-elected. Just because he doesn't deliver for you doesn't mean diddly, really.
You are really wasting your time and energy getting upset about that.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Murphy gets re-elected. Just because he doesn't deliver for you doesn't mean diddly, really.
You are really wasting your time and energy getting upset about that.

Are you assuming I'm upset in some way,?

mattser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just on a point of interest:

Given that protest works (look at pensioners, water charges etc) at what point would you be motivated protest on the street?

The means of protest of the pensioners and (some) of the water charge people, were worlds apart.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Are you assuming I'm upset in some way,?

Clearly you are.
There were 6 people on trial here and your venomous 'thug and coward' commentary has been about only one of them. A bit irrational if I may say so.

FrancieBrady

mattser wrote: »

The means of protest of the pensioners and (some) of the water charge people, were worlds apart.

That is not what I asked you.

VinLieger

Hitman3000 wrote: »

They now have that choice courtsey of Murphy and the 100's of thousands who refused to engage.

Do you know for certain there is a choice to refuse the refund? Ive read nothing about that being possible

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Clearly you are.
There were 6 people on trial here and your venomous 'thug and coward' commentary has been about only one of them. A bit irrational if I may say so.

Assumptions Francie. Assumptions.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Assumptions Francie. Assumptions.

Yes, it is an assumption. Which I am entitled to make even though you wrongly think I am disbarred from doing it. The evidence is all there.

Hitman3000

VinLieger wrote:

Do you know for certain there is a choice to refuse the refund? Ive read nothing about that being possible

I asked you a question earlier, the same question twice in fact. Curious to what makes you presume that you can continue to ask me questions and receive an answer yet feel you should not return the courtesy?

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, it is an assumption. Which I am entitled to make even though you wrongly think I am disbarred from doing it. The evidence is all there.

Hahaha. Great stuff altogether.

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Assumptions Francie. Assumptions.

I would, considering you vitriol towards Murphy agree with him.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Hahaha. Great stuff altogether.

It's ok to be upset Winny. Let it out and let it go and concentrate on the real issue?

WinnyThePoo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I would, considering you vitriol towards Murphy agree with him.

Haha. Paul is a coward and a thug. It doesn't mean I'm emotional. You silly Billy.

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Haha. Paul is a coward and a thug. It doesn't mean I'm emotional. You silly Billy.

Just as a matter of interest, what did (or has) Murphy done to make him a coward or a thug?

WinnyThePoo

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, what did (or has) Murphy done to make him a coward or a thug?

His words and actions.

VinLieger

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I asked you a question earlier, the same question twice in fact. Curious to what makes you presume that you can continue to ask me questions and receive an answer yet feel you should not return the courtesy?

Forgive me if im not reading every single post in the thread i dont spend my whole day refreshing it :rolleyes:

Paul Murphy is a thug through his actions of encouraging others to verbally and physically harass 2 innocent women.

In fact verbal harassment projected at both of them on the day of the protest and since then on social media was pretty damn disgusting. Do you disagree? Would you be happy having your Mother, sister or Daughter to go through what they have had to while simply doing their jobs regardless of how people feel about their performance?

mattser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is not what I asked you.

If I was at a stage where I cared enough about a wrong that needed righting, I would have no problem taking to the street in a peaceful manner.

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

His words and actions.

Could you be a little bit more specific? What exactly did he say or do that give him "thug status" in the eyes of WTP?

A thug is a pretty derogatory label to pin on someone, so if you could do me a favour and list some specific cases where Murphy indulged in a bit of the old thuggery, I'd be much obliged.

FrancieBrady

mattser wrote: »

If I was at a stage where I cared enough about a wrong that needed righting, I would have no problem taking to the street in a peaceful manner.

Would you stop traffic and inconvenience drivers?

Like the Pensioners, Taxi Drivers, Farmers, Students, Civil servants etc etc etc have all done before the Water protesters who wound up in court did?

McMurphy

Paul Murphy is a thug through his actions of encouraging others to verbally and physically harass 2 innocent women.

Did Murphy actually do that?

Source?

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Haha. Paul is a coward and a thug. It doesn't mean I'm emotional. You silly Billy.

Engaging in defamation, tut tut. As for this 'You silly Billy' what does name calling add to the thread?

WinnyThePoo

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Could you be a little bit more specific? What exactly did he say or do that give him "thug status" in the eyes of WTP?

A thug is a pretty derogatory label to pin on someone, so if you could do me a favour and list some specific cases where Murphy indulged in a bit of the old thuggery, I'd be much obliged.

Your right it is a derogatory term. If that cap fits though.

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

His words and actions.

What actions have made him a thug?

WinnyThePoo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Engaging in defamation, tut tut. As for this 'You silly Billy' what does name calling add to the thread?

Name calling Haha. You've latched on to some bizarre idea that I'm emotional. So yes it's silly.

FrancieBrady

Hitman3000 wrote: »

As for this 'You silly Billy' what does name calling add to the thread?

You'd have to 'assume' that somebody was 'upset' when they start calling, not only people they don't know but other posters names, eh?