Jobstown Defendants Not Guilty - The Role of the Gardai and the Judicial Process

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think a garda or series of garda giving evidence that a judge says doesn't corroborate what actually happened is normal. There is undeniable history here with the integrity of the force.
Leave the emotional stuff out and there is a very disturbing pattern here that as far as I am concerned needs scrutiny.

Again, a specific link to the Judge's comments would be nice.

oscarBravo

Stheno wrote: »

Or keeps them honest?

Maybe, but it seems to me that a trial would be more objectively fair if both sides were kept honest.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Again, a specific link to the Judge's comments would be nice.

I can't post links from this device, but RTE site has direct quotes from the judges jury direction.

johnnyskeleton

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interesting. That kinda stacks the deck against the prosecution, doesn't it?

Not really. Their job is to present all the relevant evidence and that involves disclosing everything they have. If they didn't disclose something exculpatory and the person was convicted it would be a miscarriage of justice.

Stheno

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not really. Their job is to present all the relevant evidence and that involves disclosing everything they have. If they didn't disclose something exculpatory and the person was convicted it would be a miscarriage of justice.

Is that to support "proof beyond a reasonable" doubt?

I know that's an American expression I mean the Irish equivalent

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can't post links from this device, but RTE site has direct quotes from the judges jury direction.

Addressing the jury this morning, Judge Melanie Greally said she did not expect the jury members to be deaf or blind to the political background or the emotion generated by the debate on water charges.

She said they may feel a natural sympathy for the predicament of the accused men, may know them or the prosecution witnesses, and like or dislike them.

They may also be concerned about the consequences of their decision.

However, she said she urged them in their decision making "to be fearless and to put aside your sympathies or strong views on the political climate that led to the protests. You should approach it in an analytical and dispassionate manner."

Judge Greally said the jury must analyse the evidence in relation to each accused on its own merit and seek to identify their individual state of mind and their intent. The view they form against one accused should not influence their view against the others.

None of the accused is charged with violence and none is responsible for the conduct of others acting violently on the day.

However, she said it would be utterly wrong to suggest the violence of others was not a relevant circumstance of the case.

She said as citizens of this republic Ms Burton and Ms O'Connell had a Constitutional right to personal liberty and were entitled to come and go as they pleased.

The six men on trial had a right to protest peacefully and express opposition and anger over water charges. These rights were not competing rights, they co-existed and the law largely succeeded in ensuring this, the judge said.

She said the right to protest, even if exercised peacefully, cannot be at the expense of personal liberty.

She told the jury only peaceful assembly is protected by law. The right to peaceful assembly is not lost by sporadic violence if the individual person remains peaceful in their actions and intentions.

Judge Greally said a critical aspect of the jury's decision was to decide whether or not the protest was peaceful.

If the violence was any more than sporadic, maintained by a small number of people throughout the day it could not have been peaceful, she said.

She said the jury must not confuse anger and hostility with violence, but the accused and their counsel describing the protest as peaceful was not good enough.

"The mere fact of saying something is peaceful does not make it peaceful," she said.

If the jury concludes the protest was peaceful it must assess the reaction of gardaí on the day and answer a number of questions about how it was handled.

If they conclude it was not peaceful at all they must view the garda conduct in that context.

If it was a violent protest then the actions of each of the accused in impeding Ms Burton's exit must be viewed in that light.

"The rights and entitlements of freedom of expression only extend to peaceful protest. If this was not a peaceful protest then many of the criticisms of the gardaí become difficult to sustain," she said, adding: "If you conclude there was a risk to her safety then the actions of others in impeding her departure become impossible to justify."

If it was violent protest that does not determine the guilt or innocence of each of the accused however, the jury must decide the role played by each of them.

They must decide if there had been total restraint of the two women, was the car being obstructed or were the occupants the targets.

The fact that the crowd followed when they were moved from the Avensis and a sit down protest ensued was a factor for the jury to consider, Judge Greally said.

"Did the acts of the accused and others who impeded the vehicle totally restrain them from leaving Jobstown, which was their wish, or was it merely a delay or obstruction? Could they reasonably have escaped, was getting out and walking out of Jobstown an option or was reversing up the road an option?"

The law dictates the means of escape must be without danger to the persons confined, she said.

The judge said if the jury was not satisfied there was total restraint that was the end of the matter.

If they decided there was, they must go on to assess the issue of the intent of each of each of the accused and whether or not it was their intention to keep Ms Burton in Jobstown.

The jury must also consider aspects of the garda evidence where there were misstatements or inconsistencies with what gardaí said in their statements and their evidence.

"Were they calculated to cast aspersions on Paul Murphy? Is this the establishment coming down on Paul Murphy or others for orchestrating a successful campaign against water charges? Do you agree this is what this is all about?"

She said if the jury was inclined to agree with this, that he was being prosecuted not for what he did but for who he is then does that extend to the others on trial. While two of the others were county councillors who would be known locally but were without a national profile, the remaining three were ordinary citizens.

"So how far does that argument actually go?" the judge asked.

The judge said the video footage is a "significant component" but they should not disregard witness testimony.

Some of the garda testimony was "not borne out by the footage and contradicted what was said".

She said that type of discrepancy may affect their view and was a matter for them to assess inaccuracies in witness testimony and its effect on the issues to be decided.

Judge Greally said the trial was not about curtailing the right to protest as it was a valued right that already existed with limits.

The jury's verdict was not about sending out a message, it was about establishing if those limits were exceeded.

It was accepted that protests may be angry and unruly in order to be effective but tolerance ceases at the point the law is violated.

"The law confirms no exemption on any protester to do what is unlawful. Unlawful conduct does not become lawful because it happened at a protest," she said.

Judge Greally said in analysing the evidence the jury must be satisfied about the ingredients of false imprisonment.

She said the restraint must be total and it must be intentional. If they decided the restraint was total the jury must decide if the defendants participated in imposing that restraint and if they did so intentionally.

If they concluded it was not intentional they must acquit. It they conclude it was intentional it was immaterial if it came about in the context of a political protest and they must convict, she said.

At the start of the trial in April all six pleaded not guilty to falsely imprisoning Ms Burton and her adviser, Ms O'Connell in Jobstown in Dublin on 15 November 2014.

The prosecution says Ms Burton and Ms O’Connell were trapped in Garda cars for up to three hours during the protest.

Defence counsel argued that the men had taken part in a peaceful political protest and could not be held responsible for the violence of others that day.

They said their clients had obstructed a vehicle but their actions did not amount to false imprisonment.

They said Ms Burton and Ms O'Connell were placed in the cars on garda advice and remained in the cars on the same advice.

Any threat to their safety was not caused by the six men on trial, they said.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0626/885602-jobstown/

Which part exactly? The bolded part is the closest thing that I can see to what you are saying.

She does not say, as you contend, that the garda evidence doesn't corroborate what actually happened. Nor does she say, as JRG contends, that she told the Jury to disregard the Garda evidence.

She summarised the point made by the defence that it was a political prosecution and asked them to decide if they accept this or not. And if they do accept that it was, what is the consequence of this.

She asked them to consider the video to be significant but not to disregard the oral evidence and that some of the garda testimony was not borne out or was contradicted. She then said it was a matter for the jury to decide whether this was relevant or not.

So basically, the Judge in summarising the case, gave a summary of the case. One side said that the Garda evidence was reliable and the inconsitencies with the video were minor. The other said that the inconsistencies were significant. The Judge expressed no opinion of her own in relation to the inconsistencies, as it was a matter for the Jury.

The Jury then found that there was a reasonable doubt and acquitted.

The Judge makes no findings of fact, so it simply wouldn't be open to her to find that the Garda evidence was lies or to make findings as to what actually happened.

Nor is it open to a Judge to tell a Jury to disregard evidence. She can tell a Jury that they are entitled to disregard evidence if they feel that the contradictions are such that they can't rely on it, and maybe that is what they did in this case. But the Judge didn't tell them to do that.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0626/885602-jobstown/

Which part exactly? The bolded part is the closest thing that I can see to what you are saying.

She does not say, as you contend, that the garda evidence doesn't corroborate what actually happened. Nor does she say, as JRG contends, that she told the Jury to disregard the Garda evidence.

She summarised the point made by the defence that it was a political prosecution and asked them to decide if they accept this or not. And if they do accept that it was, what is the consequence of this.

She asked them to consider the video to be significant but not to disregard the oral evidence and that some of the garda testimony was not borne out or was contradicted. She then said it was a matter for the jury to decide whether this was relevant or not.

So basically, the Judge in summarising the case, gave a summary of the case. One side said that the Garda evidence was reliable and the inconsitencies with the video were minor. The other said that the inconsistencies were significant. The Judge expressed no opinion of her own in relation to the inconsistencies, as it was a matter for the Jury.

The Jury then found that there was a reasonable doubt and acquitted.

The Judge makes no findings of fact, so it simply wouldn't be open to her to find that the Garda evidence was lies or to make findings as to what actually happened.

Nor is it open to a Judge to tell a Jury to disregard evidence. She can tell a Jury that they are entitled to disregard evidence if they feel that the contradictions are such that they can't rely on it, and maybe that is what they did in this case. But the Judge didn't tell them to do that.

She says very clearly that some of the garda testimony was 'not borne out by the footage and was contradictory'

That is enough for an enquiry in my eyes. How does that happen exact!y, is it just an accident or something more sinister. If you are concerned about garda integrity, you have to scrutinise this fully.
There is history and a pattern after all.

johnnyskeleton

Stheno wrote: »

Is that to support "proof beyond a reasonable" doubt?

Not quite. The obligation to disclose comes from the role of the prosecutor to present evidence fairly. If the prosecution were aware of facts that could be exculpatory, it would be a miscarriage of justice. As with many of our rules for criminal trials, it comes from experience of what happens when things go wrong.

I know that's an American expression I mean the Irish equivalent

Actually it's an English or possibly Scottish expression originally, but beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard in all criminal trials in Ireland with the exception of the insanity defence.

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She says very clearly that some of the garda testimony was 'not borne out by the footage and was contradictory'

That is enough for an enquiry in my eyes. How does that happen exact!y, is it just an accident or something more sinister. If you are concerned about garda integrity, you have to scrutinise this fully.
There is history and a pattern after all.

She says that in summarising the case and the arguments made. It was a matter for the Jury to assess this evidence and to assess the credibility of the Gardai. It is also up to them to assess the materiality of any such contradictions. It is not a matter for the Judge to decide facts. If she hadn't mentioned this, the accused would rightfully have complained that their side of the story wasn't accurately summarised by the Judge.

Contradictions in evidence happen in almost every single trial. Sometimes the jury accepts the contradictions as undermining a person's evidence, sometimes they don't. The Jury only assesses it from a beyond reasonable doubt point of view.

If every case where there were some contradictions was sufficient for an inquiry, we would have thousands of inquiries every year because virtually every case involves some contradictions of evidence. Great for lawyers I suppose, but hopelessly impractical.

I'm not saying that everything that every Garda said in this case was accurate - the verdict clearly suggests doubts in relation to the prosecution case - but if you are trying to suggest that there is something sinster that needs to be investigated, you would need something a lot more substantial.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

She says that in summarising the case and the arguments made. It was a matter for the Jury to assess this evidence and to assess the credibility of the Gardai. It is also up to them to assess the materiality of any such contradictions. It is not a matter for the Judge to decide facts. If she hadn't mentioned this, the accused would rightfully have complained that their side of the story wasn't accurately summarised by the Judge.

Contradictions in evidence happen in almost every single trial. Sometimes the jury accepts the contradictions as undermining a person's evidence, sometimes they don't. The Jury only assesses it from a beyond reasonable doubt point of view.

If every case where there were some contradictions was sufficient for an inquiry, we would have thousands of inquiries every year because virtually every case involves some contradictions of evidence. Great for lawyers I suppose, but hopelessly impractical.

I'm not saying that everything that every Garda said in this case was accurate - the verdict clearly suggests doubts in relation to the prosecution case - but if you are trying to suggest that there is something sinster that needs to be investigated, you would need something a lot more substantial.

No I don't need anything more substantial, you don't get to set those parameters.
I and a lot of other people want to know how this case was taken in the first place and why so much garda evidence was similarly dubious. Very simple really.

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

I may be misreading your post, but are you applauding the defence for withholding video evidence from the prosecution, while excoriating the prosecution for withholding video evidence from the defence?

The prosecution have a legal responsibility to provide a book of evidence to the defence - the defence does not have to disclose how it will rebut the state's evidence.

As for johnnyskelton's long drawnout attempt to explain and justify Gardai lying in testimony I will deal with that when I have more time tomorrow.

Bishopsback

Interesting to see the opinion of a top solicitor here on this, pretty much what I would have thought myself, as well as many others.
Tbf it would beg the questioning of a prosecution taking place as it did, it would suggest an agenda of a political nature perhaps?

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/charges-in-jobstown-trial-were-over-the-top-says-solicitor-35885878.html

Coles

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The David Begg thing is a bit of a curve ball. I wasn't in the Court so I cant comment on what the evidence was other than what was reported.

http://www.echo.ie/show/article/joan-burton-s-advisor-tells-court-she-was-petrified-crying-and-very-very-fearful

So that was her evidence. If your point is that she never said she was kicked, then perhaps you are splitting hairs. This is the incident that they are referring to i.e. before they got in the car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzKz69VkYJE

Pretty scary stuff if you ask me. Were they beaten and kicked as they transited through the police cordon, I don't know.

You don't know? What nonsense is that?

You have seen the video evidence from the only time that Karen O'Connell could have been 'badly beaten and kicked'. It is very clear from the footage that nothing of that nature happened.

If it did happen do you think the Gardaí would have intervened? She had half a dozen of them within a few feet of her.

If it happened do you think that it might have been mention in the Garda evidence?

If it did happen do you think it might have been aired in Court? Do you think the hundreds of hours of footage that were available might have shown evidence of it?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

But, even if I am wrong about that, and David Begg misspoke, so what? What difference does it make?

'Misspoke'? David Begg is a close friend of both Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell. He clearly says that this information was supplied directly to him and we know that he chose to publicly make the claim a week after the alleged assault.

How can you suggest that David Begg just 'misspoke' when the article says that a Labour Party spokesperson confirmed it?

Given that the allegation is patently untrue as we have seen in the video evidence then why was there no attempt to correct the record and clarify that nobody was actually 'badly beaten and kicked'? Why was this allegation allowed to stand for two years before it was shown to be false?

I find it very hard to avoid the conclusion that this allegation was part of a campaign to vilify the protesters for political purposes. Should we be surprised by that? Maybe not.

Will the Irish Times now correct the record?

For anyone interested, here is the Irish Times story:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/burton-associate-kicked-and-beaten-in-jobstown-protest-claims-begg-1.2011881

johnnyskeleton

Bishopsback wrote: »

Interesting to see the opinion of a top solicitor here on this, pretty much what I would have thought myself, as well as many others.
Tbf it would beg the questioning of a prosecution taking place as it did, it would suggest an agenda of a political nature perhaps?

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/charges-in-jobstown-trial-were-over-the-top-says-solicitor-35885878.html

He is right that it wouldve made more sense to charge them with a public order offence e.g. s.9 obstruction. But he also acknowledges that the protest as a whole was wrong.

But he doesnt say that there was any political influence in the decision to charge with false imprisonment. His argument is a de minimis argument but the DPP obviously had a different opinion, so the issue was resolved in Court.

If you agree with Frank Buttimer you agree that they got a fair trial and that justice was done in this instance.

johnnyskeleton

Coles wrote: »

You don't know? What nonsense is that?

You have seen the video evidence from the only time that Karen O'Connell could have been 'badly beaten and kicked'. It is very clear from the footage that nothing of that nature happened.

If it did happen do you think the Gardaí would have intervened? She had half a dozen of them within a few feet of her.

If it happened do you think that it might have been mention in the Garda evidence?

If it did happen do you think it might have been aired in Court? Do you think the hundreds of hours of footage that were available might have shown evidence of it?

I dont know because I wasnt there nor was I in court. The video footage shows a group of people swarming in on her and its not clear what happened. She said there was physical contact in open court and that is consistent with the video. The specific defendants were not charged with assault or violent disorder so no, it doesnt follow that the specific allegation of kicking wouldve been said in court.

'Misspoke'? David Begg is a close friend of both Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell. He clearly says that this information was supplied directly to him and we know that he chose to publicly make the claim a week after the alleged assault.

How can you suggest that David Begg just 'misspoke' when the article says that a Labour Party spokesperson confirmed it?

Given that the allegation is patently untrue as we have seen in the video evidence then why was there no attempt to correct the record and clarify that nobody was actually 'badly beaten and kicked'? Why was this allegation allowed to stand for two years before it was shown to be false?

I find it very hard to avoid the conclusion that this allegation was part of a campaign to vilify the protesters for political purposes. Should we be surprised by that? Maybe not.

Will the Irish Times now correct the record?

For anyone interested, here is the Irish Times story:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/burton-associate-kicked-and-beaten-in-jobstown-protest-claims-begg-1.2011881

I was making the point that even if he was incorrect it doesnt prove that there was a conspiracy of the media and "establishment" out to get him. So Im not claiming that he misspoke, just that if he did it doesnt prove what JRG is alleging.

I also dont agree that it was patently untrue based on the video evidence. The video shows a violent protest, the jury's verdict was that the specific accused were not guilty of the specific charges. If you can honestly look at the videos that I linked above and say that they were peaceful, then you have a different view of what peaceful means than I do.

markodaly

Whatever way this verdict would have turned out, the likes of Solidarity would have used it as a political stalking horse. I welcome this, as it will keep a limit on the popularity of this type of extremist politics.

I for example have never been on a protest, as has the vast majority of the Irish population. Paul Murphy and Co. go on one about once a week, it is their way of life. Protest everything in a hope to garner popular support to implement their revolution, and if the revolution never comes, which it wont, well at least they have the spotlight so it can fill their sense of self worth. To me people like this who always have a megaphone don't do it out of a sense of right and trying to change things, you can do much more good in other ways. They do it to fulfil their sense of narcissism and their hero complex.

It is a bit rich to complain about the media and the establishment when there has been a social media campaign urged to undermine the judicial process, one which also extended to tamper with Juries. To me, if you are part of the political system, you are part of the establishment. In my city, Dublin City Council, Solidarity, PBP and the like join with Sinn Fein and others to pass motions like flying the Palestinian flag over City Hall. They are therefore just as much part of the establishment as FF or FG.

If they had been charged with public order offenses they would more than likely have been found guilty but it also an indictment on the Gardai that their old way of doing things and pursuing prosecutions don't hold water anymore (their prosecution rate is actually terrible for some crimes), hence the need to reform. If it had been the MET, as a much more professional policy body they would have slammed dunked this case.

Good loser

markodaly wrote: »

Whatever way this verdict would have turned out, the likes of Solidarity would have used it as a political stalking horse. I welcome this, as it will keep a limit on the popularity of this type of extremist politics.

I for example have never been on a protest, as has the vast majority of the Irish population. Paul Murphy and Co. go on one about once a week, it is their way of life. Protest everything in a hope to garner popular support to implement their revolution, and if the revolution never comes, which it wont, well at least they have the spotlight so it can fill their sense of self worth. To me people like this who always have a megaphone don't do it out of a sense of right and trying to change things, you can do much more good in other ways. They do it to fulfil their sense of narcissism and their hero complex.

It is a bit rich to complain about the media and the establishment when there has been a social media campaign urged to undermine the judicial process, one which also extended to tamper with Juries. To me, if you are part of the political system, you are part of the establishment. In my city, Dublin City Council, Solidarity, PBP and the like join with Sinn Fein and others to pass motions like flying the Palestinian flag over City Hall. They are therefore just as much part of the establishment as FF or FG.

If they had been charged with public order offenses they would more than likely have been found guilty but it also an indictment on the Gardai that their old way of doing things and pursuing prosecutions don't hold water anymore (their prosecution rate is actually terrible for some crimes), hence the need to reform. If it had been the MET, as a much more professional policy body they would have slammed dunked this case.

It appears the lesser offences had to be brought to District Court within 6 months of the events.

The Guards hadn't completed their 'inquiries' within those 6 months - so had to bring the more serious charges. If they were to be charged atall.

hatrickpatrick

Personally I tend to err on the side of bringing a case to trial and letting a jury decide on it - I've always thought that the office of the DPP has too much power, and quite often takes too cautious a stance in prosecuting cases and therefore lets potentially serious criminals off the hook from time to time. There was an allegation made, there was evidence to back it up, therefore it went to trial and a randomly selected group of Irish citizens decided that the allegation was without merit. That's how it should be. To not prosecute a case like this after a credible allegation has been made does a disservice to the concept of due process - regardless of whether the involved parties are household name politicians or feuding neighbours from the back arse of nowhere.

At the same time, I'd argue for all serious criminal allegations that the name of the accused and the accuser should be withheld from the public and the media unless a conviction results from a court case. In other words, if one is not found guilty, in my view the general public should never know that any allegation was made against that individual to begin with - because we all know that regardless of the verdict, a person's reputation will be affected by an allegation one way or another, which is not right in my view. This is very often cited with regard to sexual allegations, but in my view it extends to pretty much any allegation of serious criminality - guilty verdict or not, the accused's reputation will take a hit regardless. That isn't, to my mind, a well functioning system of justice.

Bishopsback

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I tend to err on the side of bringing a case to trial and letting a jury decide on it - I've always thought that the office of the DPP has too much power, and quite often takes too cautious a stance in prosecuting cases and therefore lets potentially serious criminals off the hook from time to time. There was an allegation made, there was evidence to back it up, therefore it went to trial and a randomly selected group of Irish citizens decided that the allegation was without merit. That's how it should be. To not prosecute a case like this after a credible allegation has been made does a disservice to the concept of due process - regardless of whether the involved parties are household name politicians or feuding neighbours from the back arse of nowhere.

At the same time, I'd argue for all serious criminal allegations that the name of the accused and the accuser should be withheld from the public and the media unless a conviction results from a court case. In other words, if one is not found guilty, in my view the general public should never know that any allegation was made against that individual to begin with - because we all know that regardless of the verdict, a person's reputation will be affected by an allegation one way or another, which is not right in my view. This is very often cited with regard to sexual allegations, but in my view it extends to pretty much any allegation of serious criminality - guilty verdict or not, the accused's reputation will take a hit regardless. That isn't, to my mind, a well functioning system of justice.

I might be wrong here, but I thought the right to report on sexual allegations was to protect the victims identity, not the accused.
I can imagine the hullabaloo if the right to report on all criminal,or any charge unless the charge was proven were brought in.

Jolly Red Giant

There has been the mantra of the entire establishment, political, legal and the media, since the NOT GUILTY verdict - they should have been charged with public order offences because 'they were guilty' of something - yes they were they were guilty of standing up for the rights of the community of Jobstown.

However, at no stage, not once, did any of these politicians, or any of the barristers hauled out over the past few days, or any of the contemptible 'journalists', from the time the charges were lodged against the defendants until the NOT GUILTY verdict was confirmed, not once did they claim that the defendants should never have been charged with 'false imprisonment' - why was there no hue and cry from the establishment when a boy, who was 15 at the time of the protest, was found guilty of false imprisonment by a judge in the children's court - they were baying for blood and are still trying to smear 7 innocent men.

Furthermore - if the charges of 'false imprisonment' were over the top, why are none of these same politicians, barristers, journalists not making the same claims about the charges of 'false imprisnment' that are still scheduled to be heard against many of the remaining 11 Jobstown defendants. Where is the hue and cry and humbug about these charges - why does the spectre of life imprisonment still hang over these defendants and will continue to do so for another year.

It is utterly insidious - and demonstrates that the establishment only believe in the democratic process and in the right to justice when it goes their way.

Jolly Red Giant

I said that I would come back to this

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As regards the media, generally speaking the Irish media are quite respectful of upcoming trials for fear that they might prejudice it. I wasn't aware of any clear campaign to tarnish the protesters. I'm sure some people wrote opinion pieces about Irish water and violent protests and used this as a reference point, but that is not the same as what you are describing. In a free press, people are entitled to express their views, subject to the sub judice rule. The protesters and their supporters also had a campaign, but they were actively breaching the sub judice rule.

That is a very serious accusation - one which you have zero evidence for. The defendants and those posting from the trial posted factual reports - like on all social media, people from both sides then commented. Journalists also posted on social media throughout the trial. A member of Solidarity actually asked the judge for the wifi password in the CCJ so that updates could be posted on social media - so the judge clearly had no problem with the reporting of the court proceedings on social media. Indeed the is a legal right to post factual reports from the court - which is what happened.

Yet you continue to claim that the media are 'quite respectful of upcoming trials' - however, the judge acknowledged during the trial, after the issue was raised by defence counsel, that the mainstream media had reported the trial in a biased fashion against the defendants.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What leaking of information to the media by the gardai are you referring to?

there were leaks to the media about the arrests of the defendants and leaks to the media about the charges to be levied against the defendants before they were informed.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

RE: Enda and Leo's comments - they are perfectly entitled to form a view and state it in the Dail. In their view, one of their dail colleagues was subjected to a traumatic ordeal at the hands of another dail colleagues. If they said nothing it would be worse.

To start with they didn't make these statements in the Dail - they made them at the time of the protest - the Taoiseach and two senior government ministers making unfounded claims of 'kidnapping', 'false imprisonment' and that an elected member of the Dail was 'orchestrating and organising... thuggery'.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Alex White calling for charges of false imprisonment. Well I suppose he can say what he wants but there's nothing to suggest he had any influence over the DPP. But they were charged with false imprisonment so what exactly was wrong with him saying that?

There was an immediate and concerted campaign by senior members of the government to demonise the protest and to set the headline about what happened - namely that Joan Burton was kidnapped.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The David Begg thing is a bit of a curve ball. I wasn't in the Court so I cant comment on what the evidence was other than what was reported.

http://www.echo.ie/show/article/joan-burton-s-advisor-tells-court-she-was-petrified-crying-and-very-very-fearful

So that was her evidence. If your point is that she never said she was kicked, then perhaps you are splitting hairs. This is the incident that they are referring to i.e. before they got in the car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzKz69VkYJE

Pretty scary stuff if you ask me. Were they beaten and kicked as they transited through the police cordon, I don't know.

But, even if I am wrong about that, and David Begg misspoke, so what? What difference does it make?

So again, set out your stall re: big conspiracy against them. In reality, they got a fair trial and if anyone defamed them in the media, they can bring a civil action against the paper in question and clean up!

There were claims outside court by the likes of David Begg that O'Connell was 'kicked and beaten' in an attempt to demonise the protest and present the protest as a riot. The entire protest was recorded on multiple CCTV cameras (in particular a high powered CCTV camera on the Fortunestown Rd Roundabout which was capable of being zoomed in to show the protest in great detail). Video evidence produced in court showed clearly that nobody laid a finger on Karen O'Connell except getting hit by a flying egg very early in the protest that could have hit anyone.

The political establishment are absolutely apoplectic that the defendants were found not guilty - they are now claiming that the wrong charges were brought and that if public order charges were brought they would have been found guilty - yet they never claimed this before the verdict - they wanted blood with innocent men tossed into prison, to send a message that you cannot protest against the policies of this neo-liberal government.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How is it blatantly biased? When searching for the stuff you refer to above, I found a lot of coverage of the cross examination of the witnesses i.e. the parts that are in favour of the accused:

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2017/0505/872819-jobstown-court/
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2017/0516/875688-jobstown/
http://www.thejournal.ie/jobstown-trial-7-3397383-May2017/

etc

The reporting of the trial was blatantly biased against the defendants - even on the few occasions that they reported the cross-examination of witnesses it was in an extremely selective and biased manner. Video evidence contradicted the testimony of every single prosecution witness - except one - Inspector Kelly, head of the POU on the day of the protest, and now retired. All of Kelly's testimony was confirmed by video evidence and all of it confirmed what the defence were claiming about the protest - in fact he acted more like a witness for the defence than the prosecution.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The only reference I can see to the Judge talking about media is this one:

http://www.thejournal.ie/smartphones-jobstown-2887675-Jul2016/

So where are you getting it that the Judge acknowledged that the media were biased?

From the trial transcript - do your seriously think that the mainstream media are going to report that they judge acknowledged that their reporting of the case was biased against the defendants.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The specific lies that are referred to are:
1. One garda omitted to say that stones were thrown in her statement but did say so in the witness box;

And the video evidence proved that no stones were thrown during the protest.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

2. There was a difference of opinion as to what was actually said by Paul Murphy when he was using the megaphone to ask whether they agree to let her go.

No - three senior gardai all claimed exactly the same thing - that Paul Murphy said to the crowd 'will we keep her here all night' - this was used by the prosecution to claim that Paul Murphy was orchestrating 'false imprisonment' - Video evidence proved that Paul Murphy never uttered those words. In the judge's redirection on Wednesday she told the jury that the video evidence conflicted with this testimony, that the video evidence was the primary and most reliable evidence, that the jury should note that all three gardai used exactly the same phrase and terminology and they should consider if the gardai had an agenda against Paul Murphy.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

3. Garda Cooke gave a narrative as to what happened and it was suggested that this was toned down when he saw the videotape. The Garda denied that he lied.

The garda gave one line of testimony in the trial of the teenager convicted in the judge only childrens court. In the CCJ he changed his testimony. Under cross-examination he was questioned about how and why he changed his testimony and he actually acknowledged that it was because Paul Murphy had a defence counsel in the CCJ that would cross-examine him. The testimony given in the childrens court and even the 'toned down' testimony given in the CCJ (which was toned down from his sworn written statement) were all proven to be contradicted by video evidence. The barrister actually accused this witness of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Am I missing something? None of these seem to be definitive evidence of perjury, but if they are then the protesters are free to go to the GSOC and make a complaint there. GSOC will investigate it further.

GEOC is a toothless tiger - cops investigating cops.

Every single prosecution witness - with the exception of the retire Garda - gave testimony that was directly contradicted by video evidence - furthermore, garda witnesses gave sworn written statements that were written while viewing video that was being gather for the trial, making claims about matters that they could not have actually seen because they were located in a position where they could not have witnessed the events.

Every single garda witness claimed that there had been no meeting before the protest to discuss the policing of the protest - except one garda witness let it slip that a garda conference had taken place the day before to discuss how they would police the protest.

Crucially, every single garda witness claimed that no agreement had been reached between the gardai and the protesters to end the protest after negotiations between Paul Murphy and the senior Gardai on the scene on the day - every garda witness except the head of the POU (retired Garda Kelly) and then under robust cross-examination by defence counsel the commander on the ground during the protest admitted that he had, in fact, made an agreement with Paul Murphy that he would withdraw the POU if the protesters agreed to slow march the garda jeep to the bypass and to do it within 30 minutes.

Three senior gardai claimed that Paul Murphy made exactly the same comment that formed the backbone of the prosecution's case - yet video evidence proved that he never uttered those words.

Finally - it should be noted that the three elected Solidarity representatives at the protest, Paul Murphy TD, Cllr Mick Murphy and Cllr Kieran Mahon (the first three indicted defendants - and the prosecution claimed it was not a political trial) repeatedly during the protest worked to calm tensions, asked people not to use bad language and insults and attempted at all times to try and maintain the protest in a non-confrontational manner. Near the end of the protest when a debate was taking place about what to do - Mick Murphy spoke in favour of ending the protest and when a vote was taken all three elected Solidarity representatives voted in favour of ending the protest. Another protester, a woman, spoke against ending the protest and keeping up the blockade of Burton's car - guess who the DPP chose to charge with the crime of 'false imprisonment'?

A public inquiry is crucial - the scale of the attempt by the gardai through the investigation and through the testimony produced during the trial to stitch-up these 7 innocent men should give every single citizen of this state serious cause for concern. It could happen to anyone.

Gazzmonkey

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When a judge directs the jury to ignore the sworn testimony of gardai (186, (I think) statements) then there should be an automatic enquiry.

Yep.. the Judge saw right through all the BS

Now that the dust has settled its time to go after the Gardaí for perverting the course of justice / giving false information / plain & obvious corruption/ the list is endless really !!!

Cant wait to see the heads roll

Jolly Red Giant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Here's a video of six minutes of the protest. They were in the car for over 2 hours:

No they weren't - Burton and O'Connell actually spent time in three separate cars, initially and unmarked garda Avensis - then a garda jeep - and later during the slow march they were moved to another unmarked Avensis.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j16jbukyUOk

You can clearly see gardai being pushed and hit, and objects flying across above the car in the video. You can hear the loud banging on the car. It seems clear from the Judge's charge that there is no evidence that the seven accused in this trial were involved in violence. However, this incident as a whole was far from a peaceful protest and the Jury had no role in deciding whether the whole protest was peaceful or not.

Were object thrown - yes - two water balloons and a few eggs.

Was there pushing and shoving - yes - so what - it was a protest where the cops were confronting the protesters.

Did people hurl insults and use bad language towards Burton - yes they did - and the three elected Solidarity representatives charged with false imprisonment all attempted to discourage such behaviour and calm tensions and anger. Mick Murphy repeatedly told people to stop shouting insults, he even told the protester with the megaphone to stop chanting 'you can stick your water meters up your a*se'. Kieran Mahon pulled several people away from the frontline of the protest when tensions were rising after the gardai attempted to drag protesters off the road.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As an aside, you can hear the protesters chanting "From the River to the Sea, Irish Water will be Free", which is a paraphrasing of Hamas' slogan calling for the destruction of the Israeli State.

In all honesty - you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this nonsense - and I think it portrays more where you are coming from than anything else.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

While the seven men in this trial are not guilty of any wrongdoing, the protest as a whole was a horrible incident.

Just to repeat - these 7 men are NOT GUILTY of anything - and they have a jury verdict to prove it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wonder though, since Paul Murphy has described the protest as peaceful and legitimate, how would he feel if this was done to him? Let's say middle class workers decided that they had enough of the "tax the middle class don't pay anything ourselves" form of socialism that he advocates and decided to trap him in his car banging on it repeadly, throwing stuff at him, shouting slogans that are deliberately taken from racist propaganda. How would he feel then? Has he ever answered that?

I think these comments from you again display a prejudice that you have towards Paul Murphy and the left - most blatantly suggesting that the slogans are 'deliberately taken from racist propaganda' - you are actually contemptible making such an allegation - and if I had seen that comment before I started typing this post my comments would not have been so measured.

You can spew this type of bile all you want - but the reality is that it completely undermines you argument and shows that you have noting but contempt for elected public representatives exercising their democratic right to protest.

Jolly Red Giant

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

At the same time, I'd argue for all serious criminal allegations that the name of the accused and the accuser should be withheld from the public and the media unless a conviction results from a court case. In other words, if one is not found guilty, in my view the general public should never know that any allegation was made against that individual to begin with - because we all know that regardless of the verdict, a person's reputation will be affected by an allegation one way or another, which is not right in my view.

That would be fine if the Taoiseach of the day didn't claim that someone had been kidnapped, senior ministers didn't come out making all kinds of unfounded allegations (including from the current Taoiseach) and the media didn't spend weeks smearing the protesters and demonising the protest.

Jolly Red Giant

Bishopsback wrote: »

A violent protest or a peaceful protest wasn't what the jury was asked to consider.

Actually it was - the judge's initial directions stated that if the jury found that the protest was violent then the defendants couldn't claim a right to protest and if it was peaceful then the motives of the gardai were to be questioned. In the redirection on Wednesday after legal argument with defence counsel she changed it to say that if the protest was violent it didn't mean that the defendants were responsible for violence but they should consider if the actions of the defendants contributed to the violence.

The jury found them NOT GUILTY.

Bishopsback wrote: »

False imprisonment is a serious offence.

The day of the protest leading members of the government were claiming that Burton was kidnapped and calling for false imprisonment charges. Alex White is a barrister - he knew exactly what he was saying.

hatrickpatrick

Bishopsback wrote: »

I might be wrong here, but I thought the right to report on sexual allegations was to protect the victims identity, not the accused.
I can imagine the hullabaloo if the right to report on all criminal,or any charge unless the charge was proven were brought in.

I'm suggesting that because a defendent's reputation is routinely destroyed by the media regardless of whether the accused is actually found guilty, that the identity of the accused not be made public unless that person is ultimately found guilty.

I am aware of the hullabaloo it would cause but i still say it's the right thing to do - in practise, "innocent until proven guilty" just mean "no criminal punishment until proven guilty". It doesn't stop peoples' reputations being destroyed, jobs being lost, people becoming pariah's in their communities etc because their name was dragged through the mud in the newspapers - even if they are subsequently found to not have committed any crimes at all. I don't think that's right, personally.

Coles

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont know because I wasnt there nor was I in court. The video footage shows a group of people swarming in on her and its not clear what happened. She said there was physical contact in open court and that is consistent with the video. The specific defendants were not charged with assault or violent disorder so no, it doesnt follow that the specific allegation of kicking wouldve been said in court.

The specific allegation by the Labour Party (through David Begg) was that she was 'badly beaten and kicked'. The amount of 'physical contact' that is evident in the video is similar to boarding a Dublin bus. If there is any evidence to suggest she was 'badly beaten and kicked' then post it up.

None so blind as those that refuse to see.
:rolleyes:

I was making the point that even if he was incorrect it doesnt prove that there was a conspiracy of the media and "establishment" out to get him. So Im not claiming that he misspoke, just that if he did it doesnt prove what JRG is alleging.

What? Clearly it does go towards suggesting that there was a conspiracy when the Labour Party confirmed the allegation. Who made it up, and why?

I also dont agree that it was patently untrue based on the video evidence. The video shows a violent protest, the jury's verdict was that the specific accused were not guilty of the specific charges. If you can honestly look at the videos that I linked above and say that they were peaceful, then you have a different view of what peaceful means than I do.

The video shows women walking along a pavement and shouting at Joan Burton. It shows a water balloon hitting Joan Burton on the back of the head. A water balloon and some bad language don't make a violent protest. Petrol bombs and bricks, CS gas and batons make a violent protest.

Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell were surrounded by Gardaí and 'minders' at all times. If they were being 'badly beaten and kicked' then why didn't the Gardaí intervene? Why was no report of the incident made? Why does the video evidence show that none of this actually happened?

You want unnamed people to prove they didn't do something that didn't happen! Can you see how ridiculous that is?
:rolleyes:

Watch the video for yourself and make up your own mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j16jbukyUOk

blanch152

Coles wrote: »

The video shows women walking along a pavement and shouting at Joan Burton. It shows a water balloon hitting Joan Burton on the back of the head. A water balloon and some bad language don't make a violent protest.

It doesn't meet the definition of a peaceful protest. Intimidation, abusive language, throwing items at politicians etc. don't form part of any peaceful protest. It is similar to the type of hooliganism typical of English soccer fans of the 1970s.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't meet the definition of a peaceful protest. Intimidation, abusive language, throwing items at politicians etc. don't form part of any peaceful protest. It is similar to the type of hooliganism typical of English soccer fans of the 1970s.

Yes, and like English soccer games of the 70's the vast majority there were peaceful and football wasn't abolished or banned.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, and like English soccer games of the 70's the vast majority there were peaceful and football wasn't abolished or banned.

Vast majority weren't abusive at soccer games in the 1970s? You obviously weren't there.

There have been a huge amount of changes to football to make it safer, from stadium design, supporter segregation and banning standing terraces, in response to how peaceful the 1970s were.

In my opinion, the Jobstown protestors reflected all that was worst about the 1970s soccer hooligan without the redeeming feature of some decent football.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Vast majority weren't abusive at soccer games in the 1970s? You obviously weren't there.

There have been a huge amount of changes to football to make it safer, from stadium design, supporter segregation and banning standing terraces, in response to how peaceful the 1970s were.

In my opinion, the Jobstown protestors reflected all that was worst about the 1970s soccer hooligan without the redeeming feature of some decent football.

I was there. You are saying that right across the leagues that the vast majority of games were not peaceful???

Regardless of your silly analogy, you cannot and never were rightfully able to tar or imprison anybody without proof that they committed a crime. We know this site has a long history of people who support that kind of thing though.

Do you have proof in this instance that the 6 men were involved in anything criminal?

markodaly

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There has been the mantra of the entire establishment, political, legal and the media, since the NOT GUILTY verdict - they should have been charged with public order offences because 'they were guilty' of something - yes they were they were guilty of standing up for the rights of the community of Jobstown.

Were they really? This 'spontaneous' protest hijacked a graduation ceremony of people living in Jobstown. This protest essentially ruined one of their more important day of their lives, something they strived for, for years, an actually positive change that should help these people break the poverty cycle, leading to better paying jobs, better quality of life and better outcomes for all their aforementioned families. Did solidarity or Paul Murphy ever apologise to these people?

The Graduates of the day are the people who actually lost out on this day.

Now, I know the likes of Solidarity hate this type of this. Self improvement and improving oneself is not in the vocabulary of these left wing extremists as they see the world through the lens of either class (capitalists vs workers) or victimhood (oppressors versus the oppressed). They see the system as needing to be broken down and a new better world take its place. Ladybird stuff of course as 97% of people in the last GE rejected this nonsense as we have countless examples of failed utopian revolutions to back up this statement.

Helping people in the like of "An Cosán" is not fancy. It will not make the headlines in the Irish Times, you will not get a megaphone or be invited on the national media to have your say, it will be a hard slog, it will not pay well but it does bit by bit and slowly improve the lives of people who actually want to better themselves. The saying, "Teach a man to fish" springs to mind. Paul Murphy and co. wouldn't know this if it hit them in the face.

So, yes in essence I reject your false statement that this protest was at the behest of the people of Jobstown. It was anything but but then again people like this always claim to have the moral majority.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Were they really? This 'spontaneous' protest hijacked a graduation ceremony of people living in Jobstown. This protest essentially ruined one of their more important day of their lives, something they strived for, for years, an actually positive change that should help these people break the poverty cycle, leading to better paying jobs, better quality of life and better outcomes for all their aforementioned families. Did solidarity or Paul Murphy ever apologise to these people?

The Graduates of the day are the people who actually lost out on this day.

Now, I know the likes of Solidarity hate this type of this. Self improvement and improving oneself is not in the vocabulary of these left wing extremists as they see the world through the lens of either class (capitalists vs workers) or victimhood (oppressors versus the oppressed). They see the system as needing to be broken down and a new better world take its place. Ladybird stuff of course as 97% of people in the last GE rejected this nonsense as we have countless examples of failed utopian revolutions to back up this statement.

Helping people in the like of "An Cosán" is not fancy. It will not make the headlines in the Irish Times, you will not get a megaphone or be invited on the national media to have your say, it will be a hard slog, it will not pay well but it does bit by bit and slowly improve the lives of people who actually want to better themselves. The saying, "Teach a man to fish" springs to mind. Paul Murphy and co. wouldn't know this if it hit them in the face.

So, yes in essence I reject your false statement that this protest was at the behest of the people of Jobstown. It was anything but but then again people like this always claim to have the moral majority.

The graduates lost all their education and ability to improve their lives that day?? Wow.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The graduates lost all their education and ability to improve their lives that day?? Wow.

Did I say this? No I did not.

What I did say that the day was ruined by this 'protest'.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Did I say this? No I did not.

What I did say that the day was ruined by this 'protest'.

Ah right. They were disrupted by a protest, something almost every protest sets out to do, from students to pensioners to farmers to taxi drivers.

Are you an official spokesperson for them or just guessing that they would have been annoyed or upset? Is there even half a chance that they might understand the anger that was abundant in the country at that time?

Jolly Red Giant

markodaly wrote: »

Were they really? This 'spontaneous' protest hijacked a graduation ceremony of people living in Jobstown. This protest essentially ruined one of their more important day of their lives, something they strived for, for years, an actually positive change that should help these people break the poverty cycle, leading to better paying jobs, better quality of life and better outcomes for all their aforementioned families. Did solidarity or Paul Murphy ever apologise to these people?

The Graduates of the day are the people who actually lost out on this day.

The graduates didn't want Burton - they went to the head of their course and asked her to withdraw the invitation to Burton - she refused.

After the graduation ceremony many of the graduates joined the protest.

I am going to skip over the irrelevant claptrap about 'self improvement' - to this -

So, yes in essence I reject your false statement that this protest was at the behest of the people of Jobstown. It was anything but but then again people like this always claim to have the moral majority.

The protest wasn't at the 'behest' of anybody - it was a spontaneous protest that emerged as the local community heard about Burton's attendance. And it had and has widespread support within Jobstown.

Last Friday the Irish Times sent a journalist out to Jobstown and couldn't find a single person who didn't support the protest and those found NOT GUILTY. For ' 'balance' they ended up interviewing an unnamed local councillor.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

After the graduation ceremony many ONE of the graduates joined the protest.

ONE Graduate, a SF Councillor joined the protest. But, why let facts interrupt your ramblings.

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

ONE Graduate, a SF Councillor joined the protest. But, why let facts interrupt your ramblings.

Really - evidence

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was there. You are saying that right across the leagues that the vast majority of games were not peaceful???

Regardless of your silly analogy, you cannot and never were rightfully able to tar or imprison anybody without proof that they committed a crime. We know this site has a long history of people who support that kind of thing though.

Do you have proof in this instance that the 6 men were involved in anything criminal?

Stop making up things I didn't say.

I said the protests weren't peaceful in the same way that soccer hooligans weren't peaceful. Yes, sometimes the hooligan element was criminal but a lot of the time it wasn't. Similarly, just because a protest isn't peaceful doesn't mean the protest was criminal.

<snip>

FrancieBrady

<snip>A proper police force with integrity and policing all the community equally is what I would like to see.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

While discussing the nature of the protest being peaceful or violent is fair game to discuss, please don't accuse specific people of specific offending that they have not been convicted of.

markodaly

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The graduates didn't want Burton - they went to the head of their course and asked her to withdraw the invitation to Burton - she refused.

As you said yourself any evidence for this?

Also remember Joan Burton was the minister in charge of training so was well within her right to attend and accept an invitation. What Adult education has to do with water charges god only knows but never let an opportunity to protest go astray I suppose.

I am going to skip over the irrelevant claptrap about 'self improvement' - to this -

Well it would not be the first or last time extremists would call self improvement claptrap which ironically proves my point that Solidarity and the like have no interest in the betterment of peoples lives.

The protest wasn't at the 'behest' of anybody - it was a spontaneous protest that emerged as the local community heard about Burton's attendance. And it had and has widespread support within Jobstown.

Spontaneous? I suppose Paul Murphy carries a megaphone around him just in case? Along with banners and signs....

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

As you said yourself any evidence for this?

Also remember Joan Burton was the minister in charge of training so was well within her right to attend and accept an invitation. What Adult education has to do with water charges god only knows but never let an opportunity to protest go astray I suppose.



Well it would not be the first or last time extremists would call self improvement claptrap which ironically proves my point that Solidarity and the like have no interest in the betterment of peoples lives.



Spontaneous? I suppose Paul Murphy carries a megaphone around him just in case? Along with banners and signs....

Again, which is it - did Solidarity wipe these students minds of the education they received or did they disrupt the end of a day they received their awards to get a point across to the Tainiste of the country and leader of the Labour party.

*Can you answer without the emotional sensationalism please? (The poster did NOT call 'self improvement' claptrap) :rolleyes:

Jolly Red Giant

markodaly wrote: »

As you said yourself any evidence for this?

The graduates went to the CEO and asked her to withdraw the invitation to Burton and she refused. She told them that if they didn't attend their would be conferred in absentia. The Graduates attended - they didn't clap for Burton, most (if not all) refused to shake her hand and they refused to take photos with her.

And do I have the evidence - yes I do - one of the graduates spoke at a Jobstown protest and outlined why they didn't want Burton there and what they did during the graduation

markodaly wrote: »

Also remember Joan Burton was the minister in charge of training so was well within her right to attend and accept an invitation. What Adult education has to do with water charges god only knows but never let an opportunity to protest go astray I suppose.

The protest was spontaneous - people were ANGRY.

markodaly wrote: »

Well it would not be the first or last time extremists would call self improvement claptrap which ironically proves my point that Solidarity and the like have no interest in the betterment of peoples lives.

If you want to start a thread about your views on 'self improvement' then please do and I will be happy to contribute.

I posted this thread to discuss the role of the gardai in the investigation into the Jobstown protest and the trial of the seven defendants.

markodaly wrote: »

Spontaneous? I suppose Paul Murphy carries a megaphone around him just in case? Along with banners and signs....

Yes he does - as does Ruth Coppinger, Mick Barry and Joe Higgins.

mikep

What a sad life they must lead, having a megaphone available at all times in case they come across a situation where their, already high, outrage levels rise sufficiently to begin bellowing to anyone who will listen..

Jolly Red Giant

mikep wrote: »

What a sad life they must lead, having a megaphone available at all times in case they come across a situation where their, already high, outrage levels rise sufficiently to begin bellowing to anyone who will listen..

As opposed to a nice glass of brandy in the Galway tent - or at one of Dinny O'Brien's knees up.

mikep

It's been a long time since the FF brigade were entertaining at the Galway tent...
As someone who looks for evidence, I expect you can back up the BSD (Big Scary Denis) knees up claims..

ancapailldorcha

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As opposed to a nice glass of brandy in the Galway tent - or at one of Dinny O'Brien's knees up.

mikep wrote: »

It's been a long time since the FF brigade were entertaining at the Galway tent...
As someone who looks for evidence, I expect you can back up the BSD (Big Scary Denis) knees up claims..

Less nonsense please.

blanch152

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Yes he does - as does Ruth Coppinger, Mick Barry and Joe Higgins.

Are you serious? Do they really have megaphones and banners and flags in the boot or on the back seat of the car or perhaps in the back of the white van?

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you serious? Do they really have megaphones and banners and flags in the boot or on the back seat of the car or perhaps in the back of the white van?

Yes they do. Along with their propaganda newspapers.