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

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Seriously, it doesn't really matter what you and I think about water charges. It is about what they thought of them, and they protested them.
I believe they had every right to protest.

For Reals

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.

Sorry, you are off point. It was put that;

markodaly wrote: »

..these people have justified law breaking, and protesting the homes of politicians and their kids schools.

I asked what laws did the defendants in this case break or justify breaking?
You won't answer and I'm hit with the reverse? It's a derailment, but non-the-less:

Freedom of assembly
You have a right to assemble or meet peacefully and without weapons. This right is limited by legislation to protect public order and morality. The law prevents or controls meetings that are calculated or designed to cause a riot or breach of the peace.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/irish_constitution_1/constitution_fundamental_rights.html

Now a lot of this kind of thing goes back to the discretion of the Garda involved to decide what's protest and what isn't. I've no intention of going down this particular rabbit hole. Suffice it to say, it seems the only ones deemed worthy of charging were innocent of all charges.
However, this brings us nicely to:

The right to fair procedures
The courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect you, must treat you fairly. There are two essential rules of fair procedure.

•The person making the decision that affects you should not be biased or appear to be biased.

I would suggest, IMO, the Garda indeed appeared to be bias against the defendants, as borne out by the false/incorrect statements as shown by video evidence. It is important that we investigate to clear up any such notions.
Also, as previously pointed out and as the Judge herself put it;

"The casual and languid approach of the interviews is inexplicable on the face of an arrest that was pre-planned and carried out at 7.30am with great precision," she said."
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0629/886505-jobstown/

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seriously, it doesn't really matter what you and I think about water charges. It is about what they thought of them, and they protested them.
I believe they had every right to protest.

Do you believe that anyone has every right to protest anything at all, as long as it's a sincerely-held belief?

Would it be OK for pro-life activists to hold a semi-violent demonstration that trapped a TD in a car?

Would it be OK for people outraged at the idea of an Irish language act to hold a semi-violent demonstration that trapped an MLA in a car?

I have no problem with the right to protest, but if you can't see the difference between "down with this sort of thing" and throwing water balloons at people...

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you believe that anyone has every right to protest anything at all, as long as it's a sincerely-held belief?

Would it be OK for pro-life activists to hold a semi-violent demonstration that trapped a TD in a car?

Would it be OK for people outraged at the idea of an Irish language act to hold a semi-violent demonstration that trapped an MLA in a car?

I have no problem with the right to protest, but if you can't see the difference between "down with this sort of thing" and throwing water balloons at people...

I do believe in the right to protest and I believe that it is legitimate to use blockade to make your point too although not strictly legal. As many, many groups from students to pensioners (roundly applauded by society btw) to farmer to taxi drivers have done. Blockaded traffic.
Nobody was 'trapped' here. One of the witnessed even said in testimony that Burton and her assistant could at any time have left the car (and did several times).
The prosecution didn't challenge him on that.

I don't believe in violence at protests, either by protesters or over zealous gardai and security people. (all of which has happened)

McMurphy

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.

I recall Labour being vehemently against the concept a few years previous.

(I think that's why they chose to picket Joan)




More recently?

For Reals

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you believe that anyone has every right to protest anything at all, as long as it's a sincerely-held belief?

Would it be OK for pro-life activists to hold a semi-violent demonstration that trapped a TD in a car?

Would it be OK for people outraged at the idea of an Irish language act to hold a semi-violent demonstration that trapped an MLA in a car?

I have no problem with the right to protest, but if you can't see the difference between "down with this sort of thing" and throwing water balloons at people...

The only people deemed charge worthy were judged innocent of all charges.
Which brings us back to the role of the Garda. Would a better public service not have been for them to arrest anyone else, anyone, some here seem to be alleging to have been "semi-violent", rather than going for the mystery box prize of people of a higher profile sitting behind a car?

oscarBravo

For Reals wrote: »

Would a better public service not have been for them to arrest anyone else, anyone, some here seem to be alleging to have been "semi-violent", rather than going for the mystery box prize of people of a higher profile sitting behind a car?

Probably. I haven't commented on the court case, but I take exception to the idea that it was a peaceful protest, and I really take exception to the idea, albeit expressed second-hand, that paying for services doesn't happen in a civilised country.

If throwing things at government ministers is the hallmark of a civilised country, but paying for services is not, it's getting hard to have an intelligent conversation.

For Reals

oscarBravo wrote: »

Probably. I haven't commented on the court case, but I take exception to the idea that it was a peaceful protest, and I really take exception to the idea, albeit expressed second-hand, that paying for services doesn't happen in a civilised country.

If throwing things at government ministers is the hallmark of a civilised country, but paying for services is not, it's getting hard to have an intelligent conversation.

I think we're all agreed the issue wasn't paying or not paying, (as we already payed and still do), it was the manner and issue of a charge people disagreed on.

I'm against any violence, even lower scale, such as water balloons, if not carried out by consenting children playing in the Sun.
If we're not talking about this case, is it protests in general? Like the one were members of the Garda allegedly took off their badges and beat students till bloody on Dame Street?

oscarBravo

For Reals wrote: »

I think we're all agreed the issue wasn't paying or not paying, (as we already payed and still do), it was the manner and issue of a charge people disagreed on.

No, we're not agreed on that. I understand that "can't pay, won't pay" was somehow spun into "the issue wasn't paying or not paying", but it was transparently about not wanting to be charged for a service.

If we're not talking about this case, is it protests in general?

I'm not sure where you're trying to drag me in this conversation, but I'm not really interested in playing along. I said I wasn't commenting on the court case; not that I wasn't commenting on the protest that led to it.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Probably. I haven't commented on the court case, but I take exception to the idea that it was a peaceful protest, and I really take exception to the idea, albeit expressed second-hand, that paying for services doesn't happen in a civilised country.

If throwing things at government ministers is the hallmark of a civilised country, but paying for services is not, it's getting hard to have an intelligent conversation.

It was a number of objects (3 was it?) that were thrown...therefore not 'everyone' was throwing stuff.
I really think people need to calm down here at look at the issues mentioned in the thread title.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was a number of objects (3 was it?) that were thrown...therefore not 'everyone' was throwing stuff.

That would be an utterly fascinating rebuttal, if only anyone had claimed that 'everyone' (complete with quotes) was throwing stuff.

I really think people need to calm down here at look at the issues mentioned in the thread title.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise it was an echo chamber you wanted. Carry on.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

That would be an utterly fascinating rebuttal, if only anyone had claimed that 'everyone' (complete with quotes) was throwing stuff.

Well, are you trying to make everyone to blame for the fact the protest wasn't peaceful? If trouble breaks out at a football match, are all the people there responsible? We all know it there was trouble.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise it was an echo chamber you wanted. Carry on.

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

If that is about the rights and wrongs of Water Charges then fire away.

For Reals

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, we're not agreed on that. I understand that "can't pay, won't pay" was somehow spun into "the issue wasn't paying or not paying", but it was transparently about not wanting to be charged for a service.

We disagree there. The numerous people I know who protested did so regarding being already hard squeezed by a government creating a gimmick to bleed the collective stone a little more.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're trying to drag me in this conversation, but I'm not really interested in playing along. I said I wasn't commenting on the court case; not that I wasn't commenting on the protest that led to it.

I requested clarification. I misunderstood, fair enough so.
The Garda didn't play a blinder by anyone's politics, and there certainly was politics involved.

WinnyThePoo

oscarBravo wrote: »

That would be an utterly fascinating rebuttal, if only anyone had claimed that 'everyone' (complete with quotes) was throwing stuff. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise it was an echo chamber you wanted. Carry on.

It's about diminishing what happened and allowing the protestors to take no responsibility for their actions.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It's about diminishing what happened and allowing the protestors to take no responsibility for their actions.

I think spending two years taking 6 men to court on charges that were dubious from the get go would have to be construed as sensationalising what happened. Especially when it was patently obvious to anyone from video and voice recordings that there was no 'false imprisonment'.

You may want a society where we just proceed directly to jail and throw away the key but the rest of us want a society were there is a clear and transparent separation of powers.

For Reals

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It's about diminishing what happened and allowing the protestors to take no responsibility for their actions.

There was no responsibility to take, as per the Judge. You could always mount a protest.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think spending two years taking 6 men to court on charges that were dubious from the get go would have to be construed as sensationalising what happened. Especially when it was patently obvious to anyone from video and voice recordings that there was no 'false imprisonment'.

You may want a society where we just proceed directly to jail and throw away the key but the rest of us want a society were there is a clear and transparent separation of powers.

I agree the guards should have brought public disorder charges against and the whole thing would have been dealt with a hell of alot quicker.

As for you second paragraph. Stop making assumptions about me. You've done it before.

WinnyThePoo

For Reals wrote: »

There was no responsibility to take, as per the Judge. You could always mount a protest.

That's fine if you want to believe that. Doesn't match the reality.

FrancieBrady

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I agree the guards should have brought public disorder charges against and the whole thing would have been dealt with a hell of alot quicker.

As for you second paragraph. Stop making assumptions about me. You've done it before.

They should have taken charges against those responsible for public order offences, but they didn't and some of us want to know why that was and why 6 men found themselves in front of a highly publicised trial that was used as a political stick.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, are you trying to make everyone to blame for the fact the protest wasn't peaceful?

No, I'm not trying to do that. Why are you trying to impute motives to my posts?

For Reals wrote: »

We disagree there. The numerous people I know who protested did so regarding being already hard squeezed by a government creating a gimmick to bleed the collective stone a little more.

Yeah, that's more of the "paying twice" bolloxology. I've yet to have anyone explain to me exactly how they figure that they'd be paying for water through their taxes as well as through their bills.

Francie's right, though: this thread isn't about the rights and wrongs of people upset about the idea of paying for services.

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I agree the guards should have brought public disorder charges against and the whole thing would have been dealt with a hell of alot quicker.

Yes the gaurds absolutely should have, but they didn't.

Hence this thread.

They viewed Murphy as a bigger fish to fry, unfortunately for them. Murphy didn't do anything illegal, and, as with every single other thing the state did that even slightly touched water charges, and the subsequent protests, they got it wrong.

Epically wrong.

johnnyskeleton

For Reals wrote: »

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).

Yeah, she did things like keep social welfare levels from being cut, increased minimum wage and advocated, insofar as is possible as the minority centre left party in a centre right government and prevented any futher cuts to unionised workers.

I can see why she is public enemy no. 1 in socialists eyes.

johnnyskeleton

For Reals wrote: »

I think we're all agreed the issue wasn't paying or not paying, (as we already payed and still do), it was the manner and issue of a charge people disagreed on

As in people who have lived their whole lives without being asked to pay for anything and are net recipients of money from the state are upset at the manner in which hard working middle class professionals were no longer going to pay for their water through "general taxation" (read - income tax).

Or the manner in which those odious hard working farmers in rural Leitrim who have to pay for their own water supply and build their own septic tanks were unwilling to pay for the massive amount of water wasted by people who live in the cities?

Or the manner in which the EU requires us to have water charges?

Or the manner in which water conservation is a worthy aspiration?

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As in people who have lived their whole lives without being asked to pay for anything other than food and drink out of their social welfare are upset at the manner in which hard working middle class professionals were no longer going to pay for their water throu

All the people of Jobstown don't work or pay their taxes?
Or are you claiming that only lifelong welfare recipients were on the protest?

Not sure what you are saying here.

Bishopsback

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All the people of Jobstown don't work or pay their taxes?
Or are you claiming that only lifelong welfare recipients were on the protest?

Not sure what you are saying here.

He didn't mention jobstown in particular.
Its a common theme across the state.
Its a common theme even among taxpayers, somewhere ingrained in people they think that if a bill doesent come through the door they don't have to pay, its being drip fed to them by people who are profiting on the ignorance of the illusion that's created in the belief that the state are magically funding it!

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All the people of Jobstown don't work or pay their taxes?
Or are you claiming that only lifelong welfare recipients were on the protest?

Not sure what you are saying here.

All the people of Jobstown werent there. Most of them have jobs during the day. The nature of the protests is a demand that someone else should pay for their water service. Usually people who believe "someone else should pay" do so because theyve lived their entire lives in that system.

This was in direct response to another poster claiming that this wasnt about having to pay for water, it was the manner of the payment. Which I think is window dressing to be honest.

I notice you didnt grapple with the morality of why a person in a rural area with no public water mains should have to pay through general taxation for someone elses water!

Indeed, I think you know full well the point Im trying to make. The protest was no more than one group of people saying they want everyone else to pay for their services.

McMurphy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All the people of Jobstown werent there. Most of them have jobs during the day. The nature of the protests is a demand that someone else should pay for their water service. Usually people who believe "someone else should pay" do so because theyve lived their entire lives in that system.

This was in direct response to another poster claiming that this wasnt about having to pay for water, it was the manner of the payment. Which I think is window dressing to be honest.

I notice you didnt grapple with the morality of why a person in a rural area with no public water mains should have to pay through general taxation for someone elses water!

Indeed, I think you know full well the point Im trying to make. The protest was no more than one group of people saying they want everyone else to pay for their services.

That's a bit of a red herring tbh.

Those people are entitled to grants / annual subsidies from the state, funded via tax payers cash (the greater urban LPT v rural LPT) being an excellent example here.

Rural Water Programme

Under the department's Rural Water Programme, the Exchequer funds improvements to group water scheme and group sewerage scheme infrastructure so schemes can provide a water supply that meets water quality requirements. Some of the day-to-day costs of group water schemes are also subsidised. Administered by local authorities, the programme also helps to provide new group sewerage schemes and improve private individual water supplies where no alternative supply is available.

An annual subsidy per house is available to group schemes for the operational cost of providing domestic water:

• up to 70 euro for each house supplied from a public (Irish Water) source

• up to 140 euro for each house supplied from a private source (well, lake, borehole etc.)

• up to 220 euro for each house where water disinfection and/or treatment is provided under a Design Build Operate (DBO) contract

To improve the quality of drinking water in group water schemes and to support longer term planning, the department introduced a new, multi-annual capital funding framework in January 2016. The new structures will provide greater funding certainty for priority investment needs, which will support proper planning and sustainable development in rural areas. It will also help Ireland meet its Water Framework Directive commitments.

source

We might as well be whinging about healthy people's taxes paying for sick people's health treatments or a childless peoples taxes going towards education and child payments.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All the people of Jobstown werent there. Most of them have jobs during the day. The nature of the protests is a demand that someone else should pay for their water service. Usually people who believe "someone else should pay" do so because theyve lived their entire lives in that system.

This was in direct response to another poster claiming that this wasnt about having to pay for water, it was the manner of the payment. Which I think is window dressing to be honest.

I notice you didnt grapple with the morality of why a person in a rural area with no public water mains should have to pay through general taxation for someone elses water!

Indeed, I think you know full well the point Im trying to make. The protest was no more than one group of people saying they want everyone else to pay for their services.

I think you are just taking part in the general assassination of those who thought the charges were worth protesting tbh.
Protesting austerity is not unique to the unemployed and certainly wasn't here.
It was very clear that people had had enough at the end of a long period of pay cuts and extra taxing.
You have to take that climate into account.

I didn't grapple with the 'morality' because a mod would very quickly tell me that it was completely off topic. I don't have a problem paying for water personally but the point of the thread isn't about that.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

If throwing things at government ministers is the hallmark of a civilised country, but paying for services is not, it's getting hard to have an intelligent conversation.

Let's not pretend that these protests were simply about "paying for a service".

Protesting the monster that was Irish Water had little to do with simply "paying for a service".

There were three or four years of Irish Water threads on Boards.ie detailing why people were against this massive farce.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

If throwing things at government ministers is the hallmark of a civilised country, but paying for services is not, it's getting hard to have an intelligent conversation.

Let's not pretend that these protests were simply about "paying for a service".

Protesting the monster that was Irish Water had little to do with simply "paying for a service".

There were three or four years of Irish Water threads on Boards.ie detailing why people were against this massive farce.

Yet, Irish Water and charges are still here.

The viscous, feral behaviour of the majority of that mob is inexcusable.
Justice was done. A trial of their peers found them Not Guilty of the charges. Yet, they're still not satisfied. Their thuggish behaviour cost the State multi millions, both in policing costs and the cost of the Case itself. Time for them to start doing something constructive rather than making lots of noise.