Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Which is not the same thing as lying.

A statement contradicting video evidence is not proof that the statement is a lie.

That's the only fact, however much the brigade on Twitter want people to believe that the judge called the Gardai liars.

She didn't.

Oh that's true. I didn't suggest they had lied, merely noted that was the inference raised by Paul Murphy. He had said it more directly in his statement after the acquittal, though a more general "the Gardai lied" rather than identifying any individuals.

FrancieBrady

186 (may be slightly out) Garda statements couldn't convince a jury. Something wrong there.

Ulysses Gaze

FrancieBrady wrote: »

186 (may be slightly out) Garda statements couldn't convince a jury. Something wrong there.

Yes. No-one trusts a thing the Irish Police Farce say anymore.

20Cent

lucky there was the helicopter footage or six innocent peoplw would be behind bars now.

Ulysses Gaze

20Cent wrote: »

lucky there was the helicopter footage or six innocent peoplw would be behind bars now.

This was blatant attempt by the state and their hired goons in AGS.
to stitch up those who were involved in a political protest.

Thankfully, there was helicopter footage available.

A Dub in Glasgo

Expect helicopters to be banned the next time a political protest happens (as well as members of the public using their cameras as video recorders)

nice_guy80

FrancieBrady wrote: »

186 (may be slightly out) Garda statements couldn't convince a jury. Something wrong there.

Remember all the statements from the South Yorkshire Police after Hillsborough

why were they found to be lies

red ears

Murphy will be insufferable now

SEPT 23 1989

I am far from left wing but this is a good day

Most people saw this for what it was

Fcuk official Ireland

ooter

In Paul Murphy's statement today on the steps of the court he said "Gardai up to the rank of superintendent falsified statements, they gave fabricated evidence and statements."

mahoney_j

Disgraceful decision ,I've seen the videos and clips from that event and everyone of that mob should be ashamed of there actions .and of been found guilty heard Murphys interview on news talk earlier ,what a smug person he is ,no respect for guards or laws of this land .

Allinall

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because naming them would have left him open to being sued. And probably the station broadcasting it. Try and live in the real world here.

So he was making claims he couldn't stand over?

He should have no problem with being sued if he was confident of his claims.

He's a sniveling weasel throwing out accusations that he can't back up.

jimmycrackcorm

Subcomandante Marcos wrote:

According to the helicopter footage her driver could have just reversed away from the crowd.

Reverse where though? It might have created some space between the guards in front and the protests, but she wasn't going to get away..

Jayop

mahoney_j wrote: »

Disgraceful decision ,I've seen the videos and clips from that event and everyone of that mob should be ashamed of there actions .and of been found guilty heard Murphys interview on news talk earlier ,what a smug person he is ,no respect for guards or laws of this land .

Had they been charged for actual crimes they committed they probably would have been convicted, but they could be no more convicted of this than Burton's driver could have been convicted of speeding that afternoon.

Jayop

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Reverse where though? It might have created some space between the guards in front and the protests, but she wasn't going to get away..

The guard in the helicopter literally said they could have "got away ages ago" bit didn't seem to want to do that.

So yeah, they could have got away easily in the words of a garda at the time.

freshpopcorn

mahoney_j wrote: »

Disgraceful decision ,I've seen the videos and clips from that event and everyone of that mob should be ashamed of there actions d .

I could never imagine treating people they way Joan was treated that day.

Jayop

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I could never imagine treating people they way Joan was treated that day.

And I could never imagine treating people the way she did when she was in government.

BillyBobBS

Just shows how deep the problems are within the police force of this state. Lies, lies and more lies for the sake of the establishment.

FrancieBrady

Allinall wrote: »

So he was making claims he couldn't stand over?

He should have no problem with being sued if he was confident of his claims.

He's a sniveling weasel throwing out accusations that he can't back up.

He wasn't asked to back them up because it would be wrong to do that. Telly/radio/here is not a trial.
Not a very difficult concept to grasp if you are a reasonable rational person.

SEPT 23 1989

Jayop wrote: »

And I could never imagine treating people the way she did when she was in government.

Well said

YFlyer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Expect helicopters to be banned the next time a political protest happens (as well as members of the public using their cameras as video recorders)

Happens in Spain with cameras.

BillyBobBS

ooter wrote: »

In Paul Murphy's statement today on the steps of the court he said "Gardai up to the rank of superintendent falsified statements, they gave fabricated evidence and statements."

We live in a banana republic. We must be able to trust the police force of the state and know they are impartial. At this present time they are a complete shambles.

Jayop

YFlyer wrote: »

Happens in Spain with cameras.

Didn't they already try to pass legislation here banning people filming the Guards?

Maybe I imagined that.

ooter

The labour party and JB should be ashamed of their actions and broken promises, but isn't that what they tend to do?
https://youtu.be/yAS0c5AkiNg

FrancieBrady

Jayop wrote: »

And I could never imagine treating people the way she did when she was in government.

Wasn't she recorded plotting how to use what was happening to her in a political way, in the back of the car too?
Nice to see our TD's not wasting their down time I supplied.

SEPT 23 1989

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Just shows how deep the problems are within the police force of this state. Lies, lies and more lies for the state of the establishment.

They are not there to protect you they are there to protect those inside the tent from you

freshpopcorn

Jayop wrote: »

And I could never imagine treating people the way she did when she was in government.

Still doesn't excuse what he did. You'd swear Joan was Ian Huntley.

YFlyer

Jayop wrote: »

Didn't they already try to pass legislation here banning people filming the Guards?

Maybe I imagined that.

yeah one of my friends from The Basque Country said the same. Don't know if it is law or not.

Allinall

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He wasn't asked to back them up because it would be wrong to do that. Telly/radio/here is not a trial.
Not a very difficult concept to grasp if you are a reasonable rational person.

Why exactly would it be wrong?

I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask an elected politician making serious accusations aganst state employees to back up his claims?

Jayop

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Still doesn't excuse what he did. You'd swear Joan was Ian Huntley.

I didn't excuse it. For me they went too far, I have no problem saying that. It was outside the boundaries of common decency. Just because they treat you like dirt, doesn't mean you should lower yourself to their level.

I'd also concede there were laws broken that day. Public order offenses, criminal damage, writing false statements, etc.

Jayop

YFlyer wrote: »

yeah one of my friends from The Basque Country said the same. Don't know if it is law or not.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-want-ban-on-people-photographing-and-recording-them-on-duty-35609002.html

Looks like it was the AGSI who wanted filming to be banned actually.

YFlyer

Jayop wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-want-ban-on-people-photographing-and-recording-them-on-duty-35609002.html

Looks like it was the AGSI who wanted filming to be banned actually.

Also the Spanish Police. Friend argued about this for a few days.

FrancieBrady

Allinall wrote: »

Why exactly would it be wrong?

I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask an elected politician making serious accusations aganst state employees to back up his claims?

If you name somebody for committing a crime and you are wrong, both you and the broadcaster can be sued. Rightfully.

Maybe in your world it is correct, but we all live in the real world where you are entitled to your good name until proven otherwise in a court.

mahoney_j

mahoney_j wrote: »

Disgraceful decision ,I've seen the videos and clips from that event and everyone of that mob should be ashamed of there actions .and of been found guilty heard Murphys interview on news talk earlier ,what a smug person he is ,no respect for guards or laws of this land .

I thought he was pretty good, and I have no time for him.

He conceded that there were acts by protestors that were unacceptable. As some poster said earlier, if they had been brought up on a range of bog standard public order offences before the District Court, abusive behaviour type stuff, there would have been convictions and it would have been far cheaper.

It seems that the Prosecution called it wrong when going for a big offence.

Allinall

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you name somebody for committing a crime and you are wrong, both you and the broadcaster can be sued. Rightfully.

Maybe in your world it is correct, but we all live in the real world where you are entitled to your good name until proven otherwise in a court.

So basically his claim that the guards lied is baseless.

Why did he say it at all?

I'm standing over my view that he's a sniveling weasel and have no fear of him suing me.

I suppose he doesn't have a good name in the first place.

FrancieBrady

Allinall wrote: »

So basically his claim that the guards lied is baseless.

Why did he say it at all?

I'm standing over my view that he's a sniveling weasel and have no fear of him suing me.

I suppose he doesn't have a good name in the first place.

Being a 'sniveling weasel' isn't a crime. Perjuring yourself in court is. Simple stuff really.

Jayop

lol

Dyr

Allinall wrote: »

So basically his claim that the guards lied is baseless.

Why did he say it at all?

I'm standing over my view that he's a sniveling weasel and have no fear of him suing me.

I suppose he doesn't have a good name in the first place.

You can infer from the gardai statements that were all utterly contradicted by the video evidence that they either managed to suffer a collective breakdown in cognitive abilities that borders on mass delusion or they were not being honest

Given the previous form of that organization we can all fairly clearly see what happened in that trial was a damning indictment of our police force.

riffmongous

Jayop wrote: »

lol

Where did the post go? I wanted to see who the real snivelling weasel is

ooter

Hello Paul, goodbye Paul.

Jayop

riffmongous wrote: »

Where did the post go? I wanted to see who the real snivelling weasel is

I'm deeply disappointed that that wasn't allowed to play out. :pac:

Boggy Turf

I heard Primetime were as biased as usual with Murphy.
I remember when that tool Tubridy tried to discredit Murphy with the worst ever interview on the Late Late.

Jayop

Boggy Turf wrote: »

I heard Primetime were as biased as usual with Murphy.
I remember when that tool Tubridy tried to discredit Murphy with the worst ever interview on the Late Late.

I think you'll find the worst ever attempt to discredit someone was when Adams was first on with uncle Gaybo who wouldn't even sit alongside him. Such a stitch up attempt that hilariously backfired.

riffmongous

Jayop wrote: »

I think you'll find the worst ever attempt to discredit someone was when Adams was first on with uncle Gaybo who wouldn't even sit alongside him. Such a stitch up attempt that hilariously backfired.

Always worth a rewatch

mada999

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

When it happens again, the guards should just send in the public order unit.

If she didnt try and make a political stunt out of it thats exactly what would have happened.

She was the second most senior politician in the country at that moment....i find it difficult to believe she couldnt leave that area...just my opinion of course

end of the road

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Just shows how deep the problems are within the police force of this state. Lies, lies and more lies for the sake of the establishment.

the same establishment who couldn't give a fcuk about them either. who cut their pay and resources to beyond the bone.

Shemale

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Joan Burton/Labour didn't take the case, it was taken by the state, she was merely a witness.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

You mean the state where being Tanaiste gives you a little bit of power and influence?

Shemale

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would certainly hope so. We'll have to see what happens when the IFA surrounds a minister's car and intimidates the occupants for two hours.

Why does it have to be a Minister and not people who can't go where they want/ need to cause of people protesting?

lazybones32

mahoney_j wrote: »

Disgraceful decision ,I've seen the videos and clips from that event and everyone of that mob should be ashamed of there actions .and of been found guilty heard Murphys interview on news talk earlier ,what a smug person he is ,no respect for guards or laws of this land .

I have no great love for the man or his methods but the actions of the gardai are not deserving of respect. When the courts are used as a device to punish those who've pissed off public representatives, we have a greater problem than an 'unruly mob'.

Floppybits

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Being a 'sniveling weasel' isn't a crime. Perjuring yourself in court is. Simple stuff really.

Perjury is not a crime in this State. If you are lieing a judge can just dismiss you but you wont be charged.