Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

WinnyThePoo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What actions have made him a thug?

His actions.

RustyNut

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

His actions.

Your a bit vague there.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Reading my mind now?

You missed your vocation. Has Mystic Meg retired? Job opening there Bill.

Yo Francie. You emotional here?

Hitman3000

VinLieger wrote:

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

Can you offer any proof to this allegation? Even if true it's not thuggish behaviour it's abhorrent but not thuggish.

VinLieger wrote:

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?

I was sneered for mentioning a different case of public disorder as 'whataboutery ' so I'll pass on your hypothetical example.

WinnyThePoo

RustyNut wrote: »

Your a bit vague there.

Through his word and actions.
If you don't go to the trouble of following politics in Ireland that really is on you.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Yo Francie. You emotional here?

No, it was a calm question directed at people who were engaging in what can best be described as amateur physcology when they positively claimed that Murphy was 'disappointed not to go to jail'. And you got upset because I said it.

I have no interest in Murphy, personally or his politics. So I am not 'emotional' about the man at all.

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

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

You do realise calling someone a thug can be construed as defamation. Emotional no, but certainly a focused dislike for Murphy when he was one of 6 accused.

RustyNut

VinLieger wrote: »

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

VinLieger wrote: »

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

Not really much point asking questions if you can't be arsed reading the answers.

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

His actions.

So you don't know the defination of the word. Clueless, no surprise there.

FrancieBrady

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You do realise calling someone a thug can be construed as defamation. Emotional no, but certainly a focused dislike for Murphy when he was one of 6 accused.

Just go back to the first page of the thread as news broke of the verdict, to see the 'emotional' reactions.

WinnyThePoo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You do realise calling someone a thug can be construed as defamation. Emotional no, but certainly a focused dislike for Murphy when he was one of 6 accused.

Sue me so.
Thug, coward, Liar, hypocrite.
I'm not emotional now?. That's a relief.

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

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

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

His actions.

You're either unwilling, or unable to answer a straightforward question.

My bets it's the latter though.


I don't agree with plenty of our elected TD's politics, but that has never made me feel I can go carte blanche on labelling then with derogatory labels.

You're claiming Murphy has engaged in thuggery, yet won't give any examples of him doing so.

Quite a strange stance to adopt I must say.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just go back to the first page of the thread as news broke of the verdict, to see the 'emotional' reactions.

You making assumptions again Francie?

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Sue me so. Thug, coward, Liar, hypocrite. I'm not emotional now?. That's a relief.

Why would I sue you? Not my character or reputation you are attacking.

WinnyThePoo

Rick Shaw wrote: »

You're either unwilling, or unable to answer a straightforward question.

My bets it's the latter though.


I don't agree with plenty of our elected TD's politics, but that has never made me feel I can go carte blanche on labelling then with derogatory labels.

You're claiming Murphy has engaged in thuggery, yet won't give any examples of him doing so.

Quite a strange stance to adopt I must say.

Paul labeled himself 'I was elected to break the law'....

Thug. Actions and words.

Oh the whole jobstown incident. Did you hear about that. Check the news. Plenty of videos on YouTube.

WinnyThePoo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Why would I sue you? Not my character or reputation you are attacking.

Paul has done enough damage to his character.

Boom_Bap

WinnyThePoo, Hitman3000 & FrancieBrady

Do not post in this thread again. Take your little squabble to PM or something.

mattser

Hoorah for that. Well played.

Captain Obvious

Disappointed, but not surprised, none of the Murphy fans have even responded to my post about what actually happened in court. Rather stick to Murphy's narrative. The problem with trying to make a few mistakes into a major conspiracy is that it destroys credibility for future complaints that are real. And his complaint about defamation has made him look silly and petty. He could have turned this verdict into a big win but he has come out the other side looking like a loser.

Joshua J

That someone can act like a child and get other people banned from a thread is ridiculous. But boards rarely surprises.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Disappointed, but not surprised, none of the Murphy fans have even responded to my post about what actually happened in court. Rather stick to Murphy's narrative. The problem with trying to make a few mistakes into a major conspiracy is that it destroys credibility for future complaints that are real. And his complaint about defamation has made him look silly and petty. He could have turned this verdict into a big win but he has come out the other side looking like a loser.

You're in a Parallel Universe or something?

The only losers in the whole sorry ordeal has been the DPP - because WTF were they thinking going with the complete overkill charge of false imprisonment, which (to quote the judge) fell at the first hurdle.

And the Guards. It surely must be unprecedented that a judge has instructed a jury to take video evidence, as the primary evidence over the guards testimony, as their accounts weren't borne out by what was captured by video. It must also be unprecedented for the Taoiseach of the country to question their accounts too.

The Gardai and the DPP have credibility shot to pieces, and indeed the case looks to have been somewhat politically motivated from the dawn raids to the serious charges that never had a chance in hell of sticking.

Murphy and his party have something like 3% of Dail seats, and quite a similar percentage points in opinion polls, so (in my book anyway) he's irrelevant.

But you try and claim the moral high ground, and try to imply Murphy emerged from the limelight and publicity this gave him as the loser, even though he has been exonerated, and acquitted.

Never was a more apt time for this picture.

McMurphy

I see the DPP has decided that the remaining protesters that were due to stand trial for "falsely imprisoning" Joan Burton and her aide will have the charges against them dropped, and so will now not stand trial.

Some eggs on faces now, but at least common sense has prevailed.

My thoughts on the matter is that wherever costs have now been saved with the pantomime of a trial, and all the legal professionals fees should now be diverted towards an independent enquiry to establish if the states police service conspired to knowingly give completely false accounts by way of evidence, that potentially could have resulted in aom2 of defendants losing their liberty.

Captain Obvious

The whole case is a poor reflection on the DPP. False imprisonment charges were a complete stretch when you had simple public order offences that would probably have been easy convictions. It's like going for the winning 3 pointer instead of the slam dunk to level the game. I know the defendants are celebrating but it's a loss for them too. They've shown that they have no issue with politicians trying to pressure and influence active investigations and I reckon that will come back to bite them in the future.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The whole case is a poor reflection on the DPP. False imprisonment charges were a complete stretch when you had simple public order offences that would probably have been easy convictions. It's like going for the winning 3 pointer instead of the slam dunk to level the game. I know the defendants are celebrating but it's a loss for them too. They've shown that they have no issue with politicians trying to pressure and influence active investigations and I reckon that will come back to bite them in the future.

It was a poor reflection on our trusted Gardai also.

Don't forget, it was the Guards (not the DPP) who carried out the dawn raids and arrests on some of the defendants in these cases. Bit OTT for simple public order offences, (imo).

They were shown to be more than being a little careless with the truth, with the unprecedented step of a judge having to instruct the the jury to disregard some of their evidence, as video footage contradicted what not just one, but what a few of them said in court.

One wonders if the charges against them were a result on questionable evidence and testimonies given by the Garda to begin with influencing the DPP.

Hence the need for an independent and public enquiry here.

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

It was a poor reflection on our trusted Gardai also.

Don't forget, it was the Guards (not the DPP) who carried out the dawn raids and arrests on some of the defendants in these cases. Bit OTT for simple public order offences, (imo).

They were shown to be more than being a little careless with the truth, with the unprecedented step of a judge having to instruct the the jury to disregard some of their evidence, as video footage contradicted what not just one, but what a few of them said in court.

One wonders if the charges against them were a result on questionable evidence and testimonies given by the Garda to begin with influencing the DPP.

Hence the need for an independent and public enquiry here.

There's zero need for a public enquiry. The only reason people want it is to keep their own politicians relevant in some way.

tayto lover

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There's zero need for a public enquiry. The only reason people want it is to keep their own politicians relevant in some way.

It seems to be mainly SF supporters who want it for some reason.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

It seems to be mainly SF supporters who want it for some reason.

There's always the Sinn Fein insinuation from a certain cohort of boards posters when their beloved Gardai are shown to be corrupt, lying or incompetent.

It would be akin to the rest of us insinuating that they're possibly past or present members of the force, and/or govt shills with an axe to grind.

When in doubt, point at Sinn Fein though (regardless of what circumstances). That's pretty shameless Tayto

tayto lover

Rick Shaw wrote: »

There's always the Sinn Fein insinuation from a certain cohort of boards posters when their beloved Gardai are shown to be corrupt, incompetent liars.

Speculation on my part, but im guessing they're possibly past or present members of the force, and/or govt shills with an axe to grind.

When in doubt, punt at Sinn Fein though. That's pretty shameless Tayto

It's pretty accurate from the posts on here though.
Much more accurate than your own assumption in fairness.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

It's pretty accurate from the posts on here though.
Much more accurate than your own assumption in fairness.

It's not accurate, it's a bullshıt assumption and a shameless attempt at deflection. I'm unaware of any supporters/non supporters of SF, or of any SF TD calling for a Public inquiry into the jobstown case, for by that, if their are any, far from less could I care.

What I do care about however, is what appears to be members of the states police force conspiring to give fabricated and false eviidence against members of the public, the charges of which could potentially have denied them of their liberty.

If we as a society accept a corrupt and lying police force as the norm, then we should be prepared for the possibility that the next potential victims of a miscarriage of justice could be anyone of ourselves. (Ask Maurice McCabe if you doubt me)

I'm not prepared to accept that. I think we deserve better.

Hence the need for the inquiry to get to the bottom of it.

But anyway. Sinn Fein over there>>>>>>

Carry on.

tayto lover

Rick Shaw wrote: »

It's not accurate, it's a bullshıt assumption and a shameless attempt at deflection. I'm unaware of any supporters/non supporters of SF, or of any SF TD calling for a Public inquiry into the jobstown case, for by that, if their are any, far from less could I care.

What I do care about however, is what appears to be members of the states police force conspiring to give fabricated and false eviidence against members of the public, the charges of which could potentially have denied them of their liberty.

If we as a society accept a corrupt and lying police force as the norm, then we should be prepared for the possibility that the next potential victims of a miscarriage of justice could be anyone of ourselves. (Ask Maurice McCabe if you doubt me)

I'm not prepared to accept that. I think we deserve better.

Hence the need for the inquiry to get to the bottom of it.

But anyway. Sinn Fein over there>>>>>>

Carry on.

If you examine the posts you will see that it's quite accurate. The posters histories prove it. Now you might not like to hear it but it is accurate. It is mainly SF people calling for enquiries all over the place. Maybe it's part of some great plan however but maybe that's just me thinking too much
Then examine my own posts and you will see that they go back far and that I was on water protests long before Jobstown. It's the thuggery that turned many off. I would always support the police before i'd support thugs in fairness. It's probably the way I was raised.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

If you examine the posts you will see that it's quite accurate. The posters histories prove it. Now you might not like to hear it but it is accurate. It is mainly SF people calling for enquiries all over the place. Maybe it's part of some great plan however but maybe that's just me thinking too much
Then examine my own posts and you will see that they go back far and that I was on water protests long before Jobstown. It's the thuggery that turned many off. I would always support the police before i'd support thugs in fairness. It's probably the way I was raised.

I am not going down the deflectionary route of which boards posters are or are not Sinn Fein voters/posters , this is a shameless attempt at derailing the thread on another tangent. It's completely irrelevant to the thread and the court case, sorry about that.

Your last few posts haven't touched on the pprevious case, and the defendants acquittals, the charges against others being dropped, and the dodgy and at times untruthful(and possibly collaborated) evidence of the Guards.

Instead they're Sinn Fein related , and I'm stumped as to why that might be.

tayto lover

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I am down the deflectionary route of which boards are or are not Sinn Fein voters/posters x this is a shameless attempt at derailing the thread on another tangent. It's completely irrelevant to the thread and the court case, sorry about that.

Your last few posts haven't touched on the pprevious case, and the defendants acquittals, the charges against others being dropped, and the dodgy and at times untruthful(and possibly collaborated) evidence of the Guards.

Instead they're Sinn Fein related , and I'm stumped as to why that might be.[/QUOTE]

It was simply an observation.
Sometimes I like to look behind the threads to see the make up of the posters supporting or against something to try and understand where they're coming from or if they have an agenda. On a lot of threads relating to work for instance you have a Public versus Private Sector involvement or a Union workplace versus an non-Union workplace. In this case there seems to be an inordinate amount of SF people (known from previous threads) knocking the Garda and playing down the thuggish element. As i said it's just an observation.
My previous posting history would inform you that I have no trust in political parties or politicians of any kind. I simply don't trust any of them as i feel they're only there to self-serve. So i had no love for Joan Burton but i did feel that her treatment that day was way over the top and very frightening and i would have fully backed a more robust way of dealing with them from the Garda.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

It was simply an observation.
Sometimes I like to look behind the threads to see the make up of the posters supporting or against something to try and understand where they're coming from or if they have an agenda. On a lot of threads relating to work for instance you have a Public versus Private Sector involvement or a Union workplace versus an non-Union workplace. In this case there seems to be an inordinate amount of SF people (known from previous threads) knocking the Garda and playing down the thuggish element. As i said it's just an observation.
My previous posting history would inform you that I have no trust in political parties or politicians of any kind. I simply don't trust any of them as i feel they're only there to self-serve. So i had no love for Joan Burton but i did feel that her treatment that day was way over the top and very frightening and i would have fully backed a more robust way of dealing with them from the Garda.

Fair play Tayto, I think you might just have squeezed in another post that has zero to do with the topic at hand.

Let's try again.

I would fully agree with your sentiments of those protesters that where in attendance at the Jobstown protest who indulged in thuggish behaviour being dealt with in a more robust manner.

However, of the six already acquitted, none of which were accused of any such behaviour, and where in actual fact charged with the very serious offence of falsely imprisoning the then Tainaste of the country.

Now as most of us are aware, being convicted of that very serious offence could carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, so certainly no joking matter.

Now in light of the fact that the Guards had been contradicted in court by video evidence completely being at odds with the testimonies some of them had given (many of which had given), and in light of the dawn raids and arrests, one has to wonder if possibly collaborated and fabricated statements and testimonies, (not to mention the aforementioned dawn raids) may have influenced the DPPs decision to level the charges against the defendants?

You keep harping on about the thuggish behaviour that day, and not to what appears to be a blatant stitch up by the supposedly impartial members of the Guards.

All most of us can now do is wonder what resulted in the decision by the DPP to drop the charges against the other defendants.

My own educated guess would be that their was yet more economical with the truth testimonies that were about to be torn to shreds by a team of defence lawyers , and hot on the heels of NOS departure from the force in a shroud of further damaging dodgy practises, someone decided that their was enough damage done to their reputation already, and that the digital age has perhaps finally caught up them.

So I will repeat my opinion that an independent and public inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of (as repeated by Leo) the problems that we have in court when video footage contradicted what (more than a handful) members of the Guards say happened while under oath.


Perhaps we could discuss that, rather than talking about public and private sectors, and insinuations of where a posters political allegiance might lie.

Bishopsback

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Fair play Tayto, I think you might just have squeezed in another post that has zero to do with the topic at hand.

Let's try again.

I would fully agree with your sentiments of those protesters that where in attendance at the Jobstown protest who indulged in thuggish behaviour being dealt with in a more robust manner.

However, of the six already acquitted, none of which were accused of any such behaviour, and where in actual fact charged with the very serious offence of falsely imprisoning the then Tainaste of the country.

Now as most of us are aware, being convicted of that very serious offence could carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, so certainly no joking matter.

Now in light of the fact that the Guards had been contradicted in court by video evidence completely being at odds with the testimonies some of them had given (many of which had given), and in light of the dawn raids and arrests, one has to wonder if possibly collaborated and fabricated statements and testimonies, (not to mention the aforementioned dawn raids) may have influenced the DPPs decision to level the charges against the defendants?

You keep harping on about the thuggish behaviour that day, and not to what appears to be a blatant stitch up by the supposedly impartial members of the Guards.

All most of us can now do is wonder what resulted in the decision by the DPP to drop the charges against the other defendants.

My own educated guess would be that their was yet more economical with the truth testimonies that were about to be torn to shreds by a team of defence lawyers , and hot on the heels of NOS departure from the force in a shroud of further damaging dodgy practises, someone decided that their was enough damage done to their reputation already, and that the digital age has perhaps finally caught up them.

So I will repeat my opinion that an independent and public inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of (as repeated by Leo) the problems that we have in court when video footage contradicted what (more than a handful) members of the Guards say happened while under oath.


Perhaps we could discuss that, rather than talking about public and private sectors, and insinuations of where a posters political allegiance might lie.

That'd be fair enough to talk about surely.
The judiciary and the gardai haven't covered themselves in glory lately, the political apathy to deal with it in an open manner is also a bit iffy.
Now I'd agree with Tayto to an extent but the charges brought against the six and that were pending were a bit ridiculous, the fact that gardai gave evidence so easily contradicted was also worrying, a lot of gardai stuff lately beyond what should be expected.
They seem to be nearly akin to SF in the way they run themselves.

Good interview today on Sean O'Rourkes radio show with Joan Burton. Some good points made. e.g. The poster campaign aimed at her, the social media campaign and how the defendants screamed about the jury selection and how quickly they got over it once the not guilty verdict was given. She also made a very good point about the people of Jobstown not needing the stigma of this case defining them.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

She also made a very good point about the people of Jobstown not needing the stigma of this case defining them.

Especially considering the most vocal people involved were not even from jobstown