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

FrancieBrady

Not defending his or Solidarity's politics here but if you are prepared to have spontaneous protests would it not be wise to be prepared?

Maybe he was a scout or is just well organised?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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:

You must have bad reading comprehension because I did not say this. I thoughts this was covered in my previous post.

Again, what does Irish Water have to do with an Adult Education graduation ceremony? Then again, these people have justified law breaking, and protesting the homes of politicians and their kids schools.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not defending his or Solidarity's politics here but if you are prepared to have spontaneous protests would it not be wise to be prepared?

Maybe he was a scout or is just well organised?

Oxymoron surely.

For Reals

markodaly wrote: »

You must have bad reading comprehension because I did not say this. I thoughts this was covered in my previous post.

Again, what does Irish Water have to do with an Adult Education graduation ceremony? Then again, these people have justified law breaking, and protesting the homes of politicians and their kids schools.

What laws did the defendants in this case break or justify breaking?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Oxymoron surely.

No. If you accept than opportunities may arise for spontaneous protests it makes perfect sense.

markodaly

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

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.

Again, evidence for this? As you have not provided me with any.

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

One of the graduates, who happens to be a Sinn Fein councillor. Yeap, you will definitely get the whole unvarnished truth from her alright.

The person in the video is Louise Dunne by the way. No skin in the game at all.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/louise-dunne

The protest was spontaneous - people were ANGRY.

The business of the state must still go on, no matter how ANGRY/angry people are. Anger does not give anyone a right to riot or throw objects at women.

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.

Well I know why you want to steer the topic away from the actual event of the graduation ceremony itself. It is very pertinent to the topic at hand. So, I ask you this. Why do solidarity spend so much energy and time protesting and rilling things up rather then taking positive steps to make improvement in peoples everyday lives?

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

I am not sure if this is serious but I would not put it past them having a megaphone in a backpack just in case. Which shows how useless these politicians and their politics are.

markodaly

For Reals wrote: »

What laws did the defendants in this case break or justify breaking?

Paul Murphy has been on record stating that people have a right to detain someone for a definite period of time.

https://www.facebook.com/SligoSaysNo/videos/650886365028313/

They have also defended the protest as 'peaceful'. Throwing objects at women is not a peaceful action. Therefore the protest was not peaceful.

For Reals

markodaly wrote: »

Paul Murphy has been on record stating that people have a right to detain someone for a definite period of time.

https://www.facebook.com/SligoSaysNo/videos/650886365028313/

They have also defended the protest as 'peaceful'. Throwing objects at women is not a peaceful action. Therefore the protest was not peaceful.

I don't particularly rate Facebook as a source, but I'll take it as said. Inconvenience is part and parcel of protest.
Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? Some people present may have not acted lawfully.

Jolly Red Giant

markodaly wrote: »

Again, evidence for this? As you have not provided me with any.

One of the graduates, who happens to be a Sinn Fein councillor. Yeap, you will definitely get the whole unvarnished truth from her alright.

You asked for proof - I provided proof from one of the graduates on the day - if you can produce evidence that contradicts what Lou Dunne asserted in her comments.

Well I know why you want to steer the topic away from the actual event of the graduation ceremony itself. It is very pertinent to the topic at hand. So, I ask you this. Why do solidarity spend so much energy and time protesting and rilling things up rather then taking positive steps to make improvement in peoples everyday lives

Oh but they have - thanks in a large part to Solidarity people don't have to pay water charges.

But do let's please stop steering away from the topic - namely that the Gardai conducted an investigation into the Jobstown protest that did not, as it should have, a search for evidence that could prove the innocence as well as the guilty of the defendants - and that every single Garda witness (with the exception of one now retired Garda) at the trial gave evidence that was directly contradicted by the 'primary and more reliable' (quoting the judge here) video evidence of events on the day of the protest.

Do you agreed that there are serious questions to be asked about how three Gardai up to the rank of Superintendent could all hear the words 'keep her (Joan Burton) here all night' when video evidence proved Paul Murphy never uttered these words. One might make a mistake, two might suffer from memory loss, but three senior Gardai remembering exactly the same phrase, the same terminology, that was never utter - to the point where the judge to,d the jury to consider whether these three senior Gardai had 'an agenda against Paul Murphy'.

Jolly Red Giant

markodaly wrote: »

They have also defended the protest as 'peaceful'. Throwing objects at women is not a peaceful action. Therefore the protest was not peaceful.

The prosecution repeatedly made the same claim and the judge instructed the jury to consider whether the protest was peaceful and the implications that their view whether the protest was peaceful or not would have on the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

The jury did just that and issued a verdict that the defendants were INNOCENT.

Now - there has been a constant stream of smears on social media, various Internet forums, in the media and today in the Dail with Leo Varadkar against the Jobstown defendants. It demonstrates that people who oppose the right to effective protest (a basic democratic right and one that the judge in the Jobstown case stated that the Gardai had a legal responsibility to protect) will praise the legal and judicial process as long as it produces the 'right' result. When a jury finds the people they want convicted INNOCENT then they resort to a smear campaign.

blanch152

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The prosecution repeatedly made the same claim and the judge instructed the jury to consider whether the protest was peaceful and the implications that their view whether the protest was peaceful or not would have on the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

The jury did just that and issued a verdict that the defendants were INNOCENT.

Now - there has been a constant stream of smears on social media, various Internet forums, in the media and today in the Dail with Leo Varadkar against the Jobstown defendants. It demonstrates that people who oppose the right to effective protest (a basic democratic right and one that the judge in the Jobstown case stated that the Gardai had a legal responsibility to protect) will praise the legal and judicial process as long as it produces the 'right' result. When a jury finds the people they want convicted INNOCENT then they resort to a smear campaign.

Rather than ranting, you should maybe look at what he actually said:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-joan-burton-was-terrorised-at-jobstown-protest-35894453.html



""It appears to me that Deputy Murphy and his co-defendants got a fair trial. The jury heard the case. They heard both sides of the case and all the evidence and they decided to acquit.

"But I don’t think that means that the behaviour that we saw in Jobstown was decent or acceptable.

"And I think that the way that Deputy Burton and Karen O’Connell were treated was very wrong. I think they were terrorised. I think you can see the fear in their faces when you look at the coverage," Mr Varadkar added.

In no way is that a smear, it seems like fair comment to me, unless you believe Paul Murphy is some sort of angel or saint.

Jolly Red Giant

blanch152 wrote: »

Rather than ranting, you should maybe look at what he actually said:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-joan-burton-was-terrorised-at-jobstown-protest-35894453.html



""It appears to me that Deputy Murphy and his co-defendants got a fair trial. The jury heard the case. They heard both sides of the case and all the evidence and they decided to acquit.

"But I don’t think that means that the behaviour that we saw in Jobstown was decent or acceptable.

"And I think that the way that Deputy Burton and Karen O’Connell were treated was very wrong. I think they were terrorised. I think you can see the fear in their faces when you look at the coverage," Mr Varadkar added.

In no way is that a smear, it seems like fair comment to me, unless you believe Paul Murphy is some sort of angel or saint.

Varadkar is attempting to claim something that was rejected by the jury during the trial - and attempting to smear the protest by using the word 'terrorised' - he clearly does not know what it is like to be terrorised. On Satuday Varadkar said that even though the defendants were found not guilty 'this doesn't mean their behaviour was acceptable' - yet another smear against seven INNOCENT men.

Furthermore - he used this to avoid the question he was asked about the serious issues raised by the Garda investigation into the Jobstown protest and the testimony of Gardai on the witness stand during the trial. He simply dismissed out of hand the need for a public inquiry - on the same day Maurice McCabe attended an inquiry into a smear campaign against him from within the Gardai, political circles and the media.

markodaly

For Reals wrote: »

I don't particularly rate Facebook as a source, but I'll take it as said. Inconvenience is part and parcel of protest.
Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? Some people present may have not acted lawfully.

It is not a source, it is a video of an interview where Paul Murphy stating himself that he has a right to detain someone for a definite period of time. Historians will classify it as a primary source. Inconvenience is one thing, stopping people going about their lawful business is quite another.

ancapailldorcha

For Reals wrote: »

I don't particularly rate Facebook as a source, but I'll take it as said. Inconvenience is part and parcel of protest.
Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? Some people present may have not acted lawfully.

Suggestions that they broke the law can't be allowed here for legal reasons. Please bear this in mind when posting.

blanch152

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Varadkar is attempting to claim something that was rejected by the jury during the trial - and attempting to smear the protest by using the word 'terrorised' - he clearly does not know what it is like to be terrorised. On Satuday Varadkar said that even though the defendants were found not guilty 'this doesn't mean their behaviour was acceptable' - yet another smear against seven INNOCENT men.

Furthermore - he used this to avoid the question he was asked about the serious issues raised by the Garda investigation into the Jobstown protest and the testimony of Gardai on the witness stand during the trial. He simply dismissed out of hand the need for a public inquiry - on the same day Maurice McCabe attended an inquiry into a smear campaign against him from within the Gardai, political circles and the media.

All Varadkar said was what the protestors did wasn't decent or acceptable. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

At no stage did he accuse them of a crime.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

All Varadkar said was what the protestors did wasn't decent or acceptable. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

At no stage did he accuse them of a crime.

Varadkar is doing something very cheap and politically handy for him (I wouldn't expect anything less of a FG leader these days tbh) he is tarring everybody there that day with the one brush.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

It is not a source, it is a video of an interview where Paul Murphy stating himself that he has a right to detain someone for a definite period of time. Historians will classify it as a primary source. Inconvenience is one thing, stopping people going about their lawful business is quite another.

Blocking a vehicle for a limited period of time has been a tactic that has been deployed in many different protests in the state for some time now.

It seems to me that it is morally objective, dependant on the people doing the blocking.

johnnyskeleton

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Now - there has been a constant stream of smears on social media, various Internet forums, in the media and today in the Dail with Leo Varadkar against the Jobstown defendants.

Which articles in particular are you referring to? Do people not have a right to express their opinions as to what is or is not socially acceptable? Is this a sign of things to come in the socialist paradise where any criticism of the socialists is a smear campaign but when they criticise others, often based on incorrect understanding of the law, that is fair comment?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It demonstrates that people who oppose the right to effective protest (a basic democratic right and one that the judge in the Jobstown case stated that the Gardai had a legal responsibility to protect) will praise the legal and judicial process as long as it produces the 'right' result. When a jury finds the people they want convicted INNOCENT then they resort to a smear campaign.

Who opposes the right to legal protest? And what do you mean by "effective" protest. If people break the law in a protest, then one of three things should happen:
1. They should respect the law and keep within it during the protest;
2. They can campaign to repeal that law or change it so that it doesn't affect the right to protest; or
3. If they believe in their cause so strongly, they should go before a court like Gandhi and state:

Mahatma Gandhi wrote:

I wanted to avoid violence. Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is the last article of my faith. But I had to make my choice. I had either to submit to a system which I considered has done an irreparable harm to my country, or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips. I know that my people have sometimes gone mad. I am deeply sorry for it; and I am, therefore, here to submit not to a light penalty but to the highest penalty. The only course open to you, Mr. Judge, is, as I am just going to say in my statement, either to resign your post or inflict on me the severest penalty.

Those are the options and I haven't seen anyone suggest that legal protesting should be banned, or that we should change the laws, or that taking the Gandhi principled approach is not a worthy and honourable thing to do.

More importantly, however, is that the only people who I've seen criticising the legal system were the #jobstownnotguilty people, and when they didn't get the verdict that they desired i.e. the invidious and oppressive forces of the state cruelly convicting innocent martyers, they continued to criticise it in this ridiculous fashion.

Most people accept the jury's verdict. That doesn't mean that they can't have opinions on issues of public importance such as the right to peaceful protest, the right not to be intimidated, the right to go about your business unmolested etc. And no matter how much you want it to be, the verdict that the specific defendants are not guilty of all wrongdoing does not mean that the protest as a whole was peaceful.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Varadkar is attempting to claim something that was rejected by the jury during the trial - and attempting to smear the protest by using the word 'terrorised' - he clearly does not know what it is like to be terrorised. On Satuday Varadkar said that even though the defendants were found not guilty 'this doesn't mean their behaviour was acceptable' - yet another smear against seven INNOCENT men.

In response to Paul Murphy TD raising an issue in the Dail that there should be a public inquiry into why the prosecution was brought. When you look at it in context, what else was he supposed to say? So it's not a smear campaign, it's an honest answer as to why he doesn't think a public inquiry should be held, much like people on here have been trying to explain to you.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Furthermore - he used this to avoid the question he was asked about the serious issues raised by the Garda investigation into the Jobstown protest and the testimony of Gardai on the witness stand during the trial. He simply dismissed out of hand the need for a public inquiry - on the same day Maurice McCabe attended an inquiry into a smear campaign against him from within the Gardai, political circles and the media.

It's not so serious an issue that it requires a public inquiry. Paul Murphy has a legal redress which is to go to the Garda Ombudsman or take any civil case he feels is necessary. I'm not sure you can say he dismissed it out of hand either. Paul Murphy raised it in the Dail and the Taoiseach refused it in the Dail. I'm not sure what else he could have done.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Blocking a vehicle for a limited period of time has been a tactic that has been deployed in many different protests in the state for some time now.

It seems to me that it is morally objective, dependant on the people doing the blocking.

Yes but it's still illegal:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-loses-challenge-to-conviction-over-israeli-embassy-protest-1.2887865

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Most people accept the jury's verdict.

I'd absolutely dispute this. Most people don't accept the acquittal, you have had people from Varadkar to Olivia O'Leary trying to qualify the verdict, and engaging in fairly transparent tarring of everybody who was on that protest with the one brush.
It's an insidious way to do business tbh.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Most people accept the jury's verdict.

I'd absolutely dispute this. Most people don't accept the acquittal, you have had people from Varadkar to Olivia O'Leary trying to qualify the verdict, and engaging in fairly transparent tarring of everybody who was on that protest with the one brush.
It's an insidious way to do business tbh.

Most people DO accept the verdict. (Does that make us steeple?) That doesn't make what happened ok. It was a despicable action by (to my mind) mindless thugs. Such actions have no place in the society I wish to live in.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Most people DO accept the verdict. (Does that make us steeple?) That doesn't make what happened ok. It was a despicable action by (to my mind) mindless thugs. Such actions have no place in the society I wish to live in.

'Some' thugs took reprehensible action. The rest of those there engaged in the type of protest that has been engaged in by every group in this country at one time or another from student to pensioners and farmers to taxi drivers.
You have to say this/qualify it if you wish to be seen as accepting the verdict. And it is pointedly not what Varadkar did, he didn't make the separation and we know why. He wished to politically capitalise on it.

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd absolutely dispute this. Most people don't accept the acquittal, you have had people from Varadkar to Olivia O'Leary trying to qualify the verdict, and engaging in fairly transparent tarring of everybody who was on that protest with the one brush.
It's an insidious way to do business tbh.

Can you give examples of people not accepting the verdict? Varadkar said, quite clearly in fact, that he did accept it:

Leo Varadkar wrote:

It appears to me that Deputy Murphy and his co-defendants got a fair trial. The jury heard the case. They heard both sides of the case and all the evidence and they decided to acquit.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-joan-burton-was-terrorised-at-jobstown-protest-35894453.html

You seem to be suggesting that he was trying to "qualify" the verdict, based on the next bit:

Leo Varadkar wrote:

But I don’t think that means that the behaviour that we saw in Jobstown was decent or acceptable.
"And I think that the way that Deputy Burton and Karen O’Connell were treated was very wrong. I think they were terrorised. I think you can see the fear in their faces when you look at the coverage," Mr Varadkar added.

However, you are ignoring the context in which his comments were made, which was Paul Murphy TD asking for a public inquiry into it. If Deputy Murphy is inviting commentary on the civil or political aspects of the Jobstown Protest and Trial, then obviously he has to accept that the Taoiseach viewed the whole protest, rather than his involvement or otherwise with it, as being unacceptable. In this regard, I believe he speaks for a majority of the population but, if not, then we will presumably see Solidarity gain a majority in the next election and FG will be turfed out.

I don't know what Olivia O'Leary said about it. I googled it but couldn't find anything.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Can you give examples of people not accepting the verdict? Varadkar said, quite clearly in fact, that he did accept it:



http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-joan-burton-was-terrorised-at-jobstown-protest-35894453.html

You seem to be suggesting that he was trying to "qualify" the verdict, based on the next bit:



However, you are ignoring the context in which his comments were made, which was Paul Murphy TD asking for a public inquiry into it. If Deputy Murphy is inviting commentary on the civil or political aspects of the Jobstown Protest and Trial, then obviously he has to accept that the Taoiseach viewed the whole protest, rather than his involvement or otherwise with it, as being unacceptable. In this regard, I believe he speaks for a majority of the population but, if not, then we will presumably see Solidarity gain a majority in the next election and FG will be turfed out.

I don't know what Olivia O'Leary said about it. I googled it but couldn't find anything.

If Varadkar truly accepted the verdict he would not have said what he said without qualifying it with the words 'what some people did to Joan Burton ...etc etc'

He basically insinuated that everybody there that day was involved in 'terrorising'

And we know from the court case and the verdict that not everybody was involved in that.
Varadkar knew very well what he was doing.

As for Olivia, she delivered one of podcasts on RTE and basically did the same thing.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Most people DO accept the verdict. (Does that make us steeple?) That doesn't make what happened ok. It was a despicable action by (to my mind) mindless thugs. Such actions have no place in the society I wish to live in.

I'd agree with you to a certain extent, however it would appear in this instance that the gardai went after the big names/prize trophies, rather than identifying, and arresting the people who were actually engaging in "thuggish behaviour".

As I understand it, deputy Murphys (and his Co defendant) dawn arrest came many months after the Jobstown incident.

It would appear that (despite the hours of video footage available) during these months, the gards decided to concentrate rounding up the big players, rather than the actual people engaged in the "thuggery".

The DPP also decided to go into overkill, by charing the defendants with quite a serious offence - false imprisonment.

Further to that, the gards appeared to have given contradictory statements, to what the evidence was by way of video.

Hoardes of people had deputy Murphy basically convicted from news of his arrest.

I guess his exoneration will stick in the craw of some, but we can at least be thankful that justice has been seen to be served.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Some' thugs took reprehensible action. The rest of those there engaged in the type of protest that has been engaged in by every group in this country at one time or another from student to pensioners and farmers to taxi drivers.
You have to say this/qualify it if you wish to be seen as accepting the verdict. And it is pointedly not what Varadkar did, he didn't make the separation and we know why. He wished to politically capitalise on it.

I haven't seen anyone who took part in the protest repeat your statement that some thugs took reprehensible action. In fact, the general tenor of the remarks from Murphy et al. (together with his supporters on here) has been to the extent that there is nothing to see here.

Quite clearly, for the majority of the people in the country, that simply isn't true.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone who took part in the protest repeat your statement that some thugs took reprehensible action. In fact, the general tenor of the remarks from Murphy et al. (together with his supporters on here) has been to the extent that there is nothing to see here.

Quite clearly, for the majority of the people in the country, that simply isn't true.

Speaking for the 'majority of the people' doesn't add to your point unless you can back that up. :rolleyes:

I didn't say anyone said that the actions of thugs that day was reprehensible. I said it.

Many of those on the protest have said they were peaceful and that others were peaceful. And the video evidence and court testimony about the actions of the accused, from Garda, backs that up. As does the words of the judge.
Yet the Taoiseach of the country doesn't qualify his statements while he was quite happy to talk about 'fringe elements' and 'some' while a minister.

Very clear that he is adopting Enda's snide remarks policy when needing to gain a political advantage.

For Reals

markodaly wrote: »

It is not a source, it is a video of an interview where Paul Murphy stating himself that he has a right to detain someone for a definite period of time. Historians will classify it as a primary source. Inconvenience is one thing, stopping people going about their lawful business is quite another.

Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? If protests weren't inconvenient they'd have less impact. Hence picket lines, blocking roads etc. etc.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Which articles in particular are you referring to? Do people not have a right to express their opinions as to what is or is not socially acceptable? Is this a sign of things to come in the socialist paradise where any criticism of the socialists is a smear campaign but when they criticise others, often based on incorrect understanding of the law, that is fair comment?

Personally the whole affair stinks of an attempted politically motivated stitch up. IMO, badly orchestrated. So I'd like to see an investigation to find out if it is so.

A smear campaign within the media is always legal, otherwise it ends pretty abruptly.
There's a very serious issue when the power of the media is seen to be bias. If you look at the Independent after the 2016 election for instance, 'We voted for chaos' was the headline. A little over the top IMO.
Papers have the power to sway public opinion, we all know. Anonymous individuals online are one thing, elected Fine Gael officials likening protesters to ISIS is another.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? If protests weren't inconvenient they'd have less impact. Hence picket lines, blocking roads etc. etc.



Personally the whole affair stinks of an attempted politically motivated stitch up. IMO, badly orchestrated. So I'd like to see an investigation to find out if it is so.

A smear campaign within the media is always legal, otherwise it ends pretty abruptly.
There's a very serious issue when the power of the media is seen to be bias. If you look at the Independent after the 2016 election for instance, 'We voted for chaos' was the headline. A little over the top IMO.
Papers have the power to sway public opinion, we all know. Anonymous individuals online are one thing, elected Fine Gael officials likening protesters to ISIS is another.

Strictly speaking there is no law allowing pickets or protesting. The picket placed on the graduation was illegal under industrial relations law as it didn't relate to a work dispute. Can you point me to the relevant law that defines a protest such as the one in Jobstown lawful?

tayto lover

For Reals wrote: »

Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? If protests weren't inconvenient they'd have less impact. Hence picket lines, blocking roads etc. etc.



Personally the whole affair stinks of an attempted politically motivated stitch up. IMO, badly orchestrated. So I'd like to see an investigation to find out if it is so.

A smear campaign within the media is always legal, otherwise it ends pretty abruptly.
There's a very serious issue when the power of the media is seen to be bias. If you look at the Independent after the 2016 election for instance, 'We voted for chaos' was the headline. A little over the top IMO.
Papers have the power to sway public opinion, we all know. Anonymous individuals online are one thing, elected Fine Gael officials likening protesters to ISIS is another.

I always found lies and exaggerations have the very same effect.
Now if only papers would point out the lies and exaggerations and put them to the people then we could all examine, debate and make up our own minds on all kinds of issues.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Strictly speaking there is no law allowing pickets or protesting. The picket placed on the graduation was illegal under industrial relations law as it didn't relate to a work dispute. Can you point me to the relevant law that defines a protest such as the one in Jobstown lawful?

You have the right to peaceful assembly under the constitution.

It had nothing to do with industrial relations.

Guy:Incognito

I see no onetouched the question ask about whether Paul Murphy would consider the whole thing peaceful and acceptable if it were aimed at him and led by someone like Joan Burton. To pre met the usual get out of "I'm not Paul Murphy, how would I lnow" ,then what if you and your wife/husband came out of the shopping centre and 50 or 60 people surrounded your car and refused to move for 2 hours. All the while chanting and calling the pair of you cnuts banging on the car , hitting one of you with water balloons and maybe a couple of eggs. All fair game yes?

FrancieBrady

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I see no onetouched the question ask about whether Paul Murphy would consider the whole thing peaceful and acceptable if it were aimed at him and led by someone like Joan Burton. To pre met the usual get out of "I'm not Paul Murphy, how would I lnow" ,then what if you and your wife/husband came out of the shopping centre and 50 or 60 people surrounded your car and refused to move for 2 hours. All the while chanting and calling the pair of you cnuts banging on the car , hitting one of you with water balloons and maybe a couple of eggs. All fair game yes?

I'd want the violent people charged. But I could not stomach innocent people being penalised.

For Reals

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I see no onetouched the question ask about whether Paul Murphy would consider the whole thing peaceful and acceptable if it were aimed at him and led by someone like Joan Burton. To pre met the usual get out of "I'm not Paul Murphy, how would I lnow" ,then what if you and your wife/husband came out of the shopping centre and 50 or 60 people surrounded your car and refused to move for 2 hours. All the while chanting and calling the pair of you cnuts banging on the car , hitting one of you with water balloons and maybe a couple of eggs. All fair game yes?

I see you bypassed the fact that the defendants, including Murphy, sat behind a car.
If my wife acted like Joan Burton and her government, I'd accept it as par for the course, (also I'd leave her and probably join the protest).

Guy:Incognito

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd want the violent people charged. But I could not stomach innocent people being penalised.

Which ones are you considering violent? Would you have been happy to see everyone that falls to your definition of violent at the jobstown protest charged and support the trial?
And you'd be fine being kept there for a couple of hours at the whim of a crowd? Do you think you'd be scared or worried it was going to escalate?

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

I always found lies and exaggerations have the very same effect.
Now if only papers would point out the lies and exaggerations and put them to the people then we could all examine, debate and make up our own minds on all kinds of issues.

There's been multiple articles since, and during the trial that have covered the contradictory statements the gards provided in court, to the video evidence seen in court, in fact, the judge was left with little option but to instruct the jury to basically disregard the gardai evidence, and concentrate on the video evidence only.

I'm unsure as I haven't been aware of a similar scenario where upon a judge asks a jury to ignore over 180 members of our police forces statements, but I guess that's unprecedented?

Anyway, here's a fresh enough article that claims the gardai lied, and possibly committed perjury (not my words) from one of the defendants.

Make up your own mind.
Solidarity TD Paul Murphy has claimed some gardaommitted perjury in the Jobstown trial after their evidence was contradicted by video footage of the protest at the site.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have the right to peaceful assembly under the constitution.

It had nothing to do with industrial relations.

If the poster was talking about peaceful assembly, that might be relevant....

For Reals wrote: »

Did any of the defendants break the law? Did they throw anything? If protests weren't inconvenient they'd have less impact. Hence picket lines, blocking roads etc. etc.



.

.....but they were talking about protests, picket lines, blocking roads etc. Again, please show me where those actions are legal.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

There's been multiple articles since, and during the trial that have covered the contradictory statements the gards provided in court, to the video evidence seen in court, in fact, the judge was left with little option but to instruct the jury to basically disregard the gardai evidence, and concentrate on the video evidence only.

I'm unsure as I haven't been aware of a similar scenario where upon a judge asks a jury to ignore over 180 members of our police forces statements, but I guess that's unprecedented?

Anyway, here's a fresh enough article that claims the gardai lied, and possibly committed perjury (not my words) from one of the defendants.

Make up your own mind.
Solidarity TD Paul Murphy has claimed some gardaommitted perjury in the Jobstown trial after their evidence was contradicted by video footage of the protest at the site.

I wouldn't call that a fresh enough article, it is just a report of remarks Paul Murphy made in the Dail under privilege, for which he can't be sued.

FrancieBrady

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Which ones are you considering violent? Would you have been happy to see everyone that falls to your definition of violent at the jobstown protest charged and support the trial?
And you'd be fine being kept there for a couple of hours at the whim of a crowd? Do you think you'd be scared or worried it was going to escalate?

Yes, if anyone used violence then they have broken the law.

I have been inconvenienced by protests and strikes many times. Never bothered me because I believe in people's right to protest.

I'll say it again, I have very little time for Paul Murphy's or solidarity's politics or policies but I will defend his and their right to protest. And call again for a complete and transparent separation of powers in this country.

Guy:Incognito

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, if anyone used violence then they have broken the law.

I have been inconvenienced by protests and strikes many times. Never bothered me because I believe in people's right to protest.

I'll say it again, I have very little time for Paul Murphy's or solidarity's politics or policies but I will defend his and their right to protest. And call again for a complete and transparent separation of powers in this country.

You didn't answer which parts you considered violent and you dodged a fair bit. You're ok with a crowd of 50 or 60 people surrounding your car and refusing to move for 2 hours while abusing you and your have no fear or issues?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

If the poster was talking about peaceful assembly, that might be relevant....



.....but they were talking about protests, picket lines, blocking roads etc. Again, please show me where those actions are legal.

A protest can be a 'peaceful assembly' as a picket line can be. If you break the law while peacefully assembling to do this then you should be charged with whatever crime you have committed.
These men where charged with unlawful imprisonment and were totally vindicated.

FrancieBrady

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You didn't answer which parts you considered violent and you dodged a fair bit. You're ok with a crowd of 50 or 60 people surrounding your car and refusing to move for 2 hours while abusing you and your have no fear or issues?

What?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

If the poster was talking about peaceful assembly, that might be relevant....



.....but they were talking about protests, picket lines, blocking roads etc. Again, please show me where those actions are legal.

A protest can be a 'peaceful assembly' as a picket line can be. If you break the law while peacefully assembling to do this then you should be charged with whatever crime you have committed.
These men where charged with unlawful imprisonment and were totally vindicated.

Yes, the defendants were found Not Guilty. However, that protest was far from being a peaceful assembly. The behaviour of the so called peaceful protesters was vile, intimidating and has no place in a civilised society.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I wouldn't call that a fresh enough article, it is just a report of remarks Paul Murphy made in the Dail under privilege, for which he can't be sued.

The article was published 18hrs ago, less than 24hrs old is fresh in my eyes, and I know it's Murphy utterances in the Dail, but I focused on the fact the gards (all 180+ of them) appear to have given dodgy accounts of what they thought happened that day.

If it wasn't for the contradictory video evidence, those same innocent men may have been on the wrong end of up to, and including custodial sentences.

Can you recall any Irish court cases where in a judge instructed the jury to ignore the States police forces sworn evidence?

Maybe I'm not old enough, but I am not aware of any.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the defendants were found Not Guilty. However, that protest was far from being a peaceful assembly. The behaviour of the so called peaceful protesters was vile, intimidating and has no place in a civilised society.

As I stated earlier, the Gards should have concentrated on arresting and charging those that were indulging in such behaviour.

As far as I've been reading, the defendants in the case that this thread is the subject of weren't accused or charged of such behaviour or actions.

I can only assume the gards spent the subsequent months after the protest was ended getting their scripts in order, rather than identifying the culprits you speak of.

I'm guessing arresting "Joe Bloggs, painter and decorator" for a public order offence (that Joe could be plainly identified in a video, committing such offence) wouldn't have been as big a prize as getting a TD, in a dawn raid on a trumped up charge.

I at least have some faith restored in our justice system.

Every cloud I suppose.

Guy:Incognito

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Other than an extra r making one you into your I'm not seeing your issue understanding the post.

I described the situation asking if it was ok. You said you'd want to see the violent parts punished but didn't specify which parts you considered violent. And you were vague on the rest,. Take it from the orignal question with a proper answer if you want.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the defendants were found Not Guilty. However, that protest was far from being a peaceful assembly. The behaviour of the so called peaceful protesters was vile, intimidating and has no place in a civilised society.

Nobody could call all of it peaceful, but there were peaceful people there. And you need to make that distinction.


And there are some who would say (most of those on the protest actually) that the policy they were objecting to had no place in a civilised society and that they were being treated like dirt.

FrancieBrady

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Other than an extra r making one you into your I'm not seeing your issue understanding the post.

I described the situation asking if it was ok. You said you'd want to see the violent parts punished but didn't specify which parts you considered violent. And you were vague on the rest,. Take it from the orignal question with a proper answer if you want.

No it wouldn't be ok for 50 or 60 people to do that to private citizens.
But let's live in the real world here, every politician accepts that there will be protests at public appearances. Most have no problem with that, some will insist that the protestors are removed etc.
If you wish to pretend we live in a different world to were this type of protest is more or less routine then I have nothing to offer you.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And there are some who would say (most of those on the protest actually) that the policy they were objecting to had no place in a civilised society...

Hang on a second.

Weren't they protesting against the idea of paying for water?

You're going to claim with a straight face that the idea of paying for water has no place in a civilised society?!

We are well and truly through the looking glass here.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hang on a second.

Weren't they protesting against the idea of paying for water?

You're going to claim with a straight face that the idea of paying for water has no place in a civilised society?!

We are well and truly through the looking glass here.

No, I have already said that I personally have no issue with paying for water.

But if you listen to these people you will hear them saying that it was the final straw, a tax/charge at the wrong time and that they literally couldn't absorb any more of the debt repayment.
And you also had those who think water should be free.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the defendants were found Not Guilty. However, that protest was far from being a peaceful assembly. The behaviour of the so called peaceful protesters was vile, intimidating and has no place in a civilised society.

Nobody could call all of it peaceful, but there were peaceful people there. And you need to make that distinction.


And there are some who would say (most of those on the protest actually) that the policy they were objecting to had no place in a civilised society and that they were being treated like dirt.

Expecting people to pay for services they use isn't treating them like dirt. Some of us already pay eg upkeep of septic tanks and group water schemes.