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

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote:

There is simply no way you can know why the jury found them not guilty. Why do you keep stating things you cannot possibly back up?

One could take an educated guess, going by the judges instructions.

Judge Greally wrote:

"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.

I guess the guards own video sealed the deal.

https://twitter.com/Earl1995Lfc/status/859868564148367365?s=09

Tony EH

feargale wrote: »

And if the gardai's conduct was untoward, does that make everything that happened right?

It's not whether it makes anything "right" or not.

However, what it is, is a MUCH more important issue than a few people getting rowdy at a protest and should be of major concern to everybody. If law enforcement representatives think it's somehow ok to spoof when they're in court to achieve a conviction, it's a serious indication that there's something very wrong going on.

Captain Obvious

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The video was produced by the defence in court - either the gardai didn't know about the video (and that the defence had one) or they knew about the video and didn't expect the defence to find it.

either way three senior garda at the protest gave testimony - using exactly the same phrase - that was proven false by video evidence - and as a result the judge instructed the jury to consider if these gardai had 'an agenda against Paul Murphy'.

First of all, it doesn't appear to be three senior Gardaí. It's one, a Superintendent. Then there is a Sergeant and an Inspector.

Second, it was the prosecution who produced the video as part of their evidence. And the sergeant in question was the one in charge of collecting and reviewing cctv.

Third, I've read the Sergeants testimony. He stated that Paul Murphy used words to the effect of "Shall we keep her here all night". This is the extract of him being questioned by Murphy's barrister.

Q.And you may not be aware of this but the ladies and gentlemen of the jury have seen footage where both Paul Murphy and the male in the black beret, who is Michael Murphy, address the crowd on the loudhailer at around the same time; are you aware of that?
A. I'm not, no.
Q. All right. And that, in that, Paul Murphy addresses the crowd and says that the options - there were two options, the options were to slow march the jeep to the bypass, arriving in about half an hour, or the other one was to keep her there; are you aware of that?

So Murphy's own barrister stated that the video evidence showed him asking the crowd if they should keep her there. So the only contentious issue is the "all night" part which was uttered by someone after Murphy. That's what you call lying?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The crime of 'false imprisonment' requires the 'total restraint' of a person. At no stage during the protest were Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell 'totally restrained' and the video evidence proves it

That's has nothing to do with the question I asked you.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

On the contrary - we know the instructions that judge gave to the jury and the basis on which the judge told then to arrive at their findings.

But you do not know for what reason the jury found them not guilty. The judge gave them multiple reasons why they might return a not guilty verdict and you are acting as if you know which one they agreed with.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And all of this is now online for everyone to read - just click on the link I posted above.

I have been reading it and will continue to. It doesn't appear you have.

feargale

Tony EH wrote: »

If law enforcement representatives think it's somehow ok to spoof when they're in court to achieve a conviction, it's a serious indication that there's something very wrong going on.

We are talking about two separate issues. I am concerned about both. You are conveniently concerned about only one,

Jolly Red Giant

feargale wrote: »

The bullsh*tters are the hob lawyers like yourself who pontificate on the law when it suits them while their knowledge of it does not extend to knowing or understanding the difference between guilty in law and guilty in fact.
I am not saying that the defendants were guilty, even if the gardai did f**k it up. I am simply agreeing with Olivia O'Leary that some people were guilty of bullying, and I would add that it was egregious bullying of a fascist kind that might even make a fascist such as Sean Russell blush.

What the hell is your fixation with Sean Russell?

As for Olivia O'Leary - she has been ranting about water charges and particularly the anti-water charges movement for years - her latest tome is just more of the same.

Tony EH

feargale wrote: »

We are talking about two separate issues. I am concerned about both. You are conveniently concerned about only one,

One clearly outweighs the other.

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I have been reading it and will continue to. It doesn't appear you have.

You may be reading - but you still don't know what you are talking about

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Third, I've read the Sergeants testimony. He stated that Paul Murphy used words to the effect of "Shall we keep her here all night". This is the extract of him being questioned by Murphy's barrister.

So Murphy's own barrister stated that the video evidence showed him asking the crowd if they should keep her there. So the only contentious issue is the "all night" part which was uttered by someone after Murphy. That's what you call lying?

You posted an extract that you assumed was about the video evidence relating to the 'will we keep her here all night' comment - it isn't

This extract you quoted is from a discussion around an earlier vote where there was a debate around ending the protest - which Paul Murphy and Mick Murphy supported - but which the crowd voted against ending.

This was also related to testimony by gardai who claimed that Mick Murphy had been inciting violence with a megaphone - and this video was part of the video evidence produced that proved the garda testimony to be false - and that the only time Mick Murphy during the entire protest was this incident where he argued in favour of ending the protest.

So - to clarify - I am not 'lying' - because you do not know what you are talking about - you are using the wrong section of the transcript.

Captain Obvious

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You may be reading - but you still don't know what you are talking about

You posted an extract that you assumed was about the video evidence relating to the 'will we keep her here all night' comment - it isn't

This extract you quoted is from a discussion around an earlier vote where there was a debate around ending the protest - which Paul Murphy and Mick Murphy supported - but which the crowd voted against ending.

This was also related to testimony by gardai who claimed that Mick Murphy had been inciting violence with a megaphone - and this video was part of the
video evidence produced that proved the garda testimony to be false - and that the only time Mick Murphy during the entire protest was this incident where he argued in favour of ending the protest.

So - to clarify - I am not 'lying' - because you do not know what you are talking about - you are using the wrong section of the transcript.

Maybe you could try actually being a bit specific or referencing things to back up your claims.

feargale

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

What the hell is your fixation with Sean Russell?

Why the hell does mention of Sean Russell upset you? He was cut from the same cloth as the friends of the Jobstown bullies, wasn't he? He was an IRA leader who espoused fascist tactics, who was palsy walsy with the Nazis, and why not? They didn't like the rule of law either. Is there some hob law akin to Godwin's that says we can't mention IRA gauleiter Russell?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As for Olivia O'Leary - she has been ranting about water charges and particularly the anti-water charges movement for years - her latest tome is just more of the same.

You are selective in your dislike of Olivia. One thing she does not do is rant. Never mind your water charges. There are plenty of other threads for that, and how we shouldn't pay for water or anything else, but should toast the protesters with the frog's p*ss that comes out of our taps. Tell us what she said about the Paisleyite biddies who wanted to throw her off the bridge in Derry and how she compared them to the thugs of Tallaght.

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Maybe you could try actually being a bit specific or referencing things to back up your claims.

I have been very specific - it is clear that you are only interested in reading stuff that you think will undermine the claims by supporters of the Jobstown defendants.

Captain Obvious

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I have been very specific - it is clear that you are only interested in reading stuff that you think will undermine the claims by supporters of the Jobstown defendants.

You've made some specific claims alright but you haven't backed them up. And when you are challenged on a claim you wither deflect or ignore. You have the transcripts now so when you make a claim you should easily be able to prove it.

TheDoc

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The six remaining defendants in the Jobstown trial have been found Not Guilty by unanimous verdict in the Central Criminal Court on charges of falsely imprisoning Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell during the Jobstown protest in November 2014.

From day one there was an orchestrated political campaign against Paul Murphy, Solidarity, other left activists and a community protest designed to clamp down on effective protests against the neo-liberal establishment and their pro-rich austerity policies..

Oh dear. Probably don't need to go through the rest of your posts to safely assume your drumming this up as a conspiracy theory or political witch hunt.

There is enough unedited footage available showing that the demonstration clearly got out of hand and had aggressive undertones as the scenario unfolded.

That the accused were acquitted is fine, it's need to be beyond reasonable doubt. But there there has been enough videos shared and accounts from people there that it clearly got out of hand, and Murphy was in his element.

Clamp down protests by the rich. If I came across a mob surrounded my partner in her car like that throwing eggs, abuse and spitting I'd be cracking heads with anything I could find.

That you, or people like you, think it's acceptable to behave like that towards other people, just because they are in state office, or a politician you don't like, is a sad reflection on your etiquette and beliefs, and why large portions of the electorate cannot take the left seriously, or those that are principled in those beliefs, struggle to be associated with the like.

I don't know how video evidence works, I don't pretend to know how trials work, but you can have handy searches on youtube, or go back through the hundreds of water protesting facebook pages that got setup around that time, to witness plenty of video footage of Murphy and plenty others, acting in a way that most of us would look at as embarrassing and somewhat shameful.

"against the neo-liberal establishment and their pro-rich austerity policies"

Do you's even hear yourself speak sometimes like haha. Mad

Jolly Red Giant

TheDoc wrote: »

Oh dear. Probably don't need to go through the rest of your posts to safely assume your drumming this up as a conspiracy theory or political witch hunt.

You should try reading it - you might learn something - for example, about how the democratic rights of citizens to a fair trial is being undermined.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

First of all, it doesn't appear to be three senior Gardaí. It's one, a Superintendent. Then there is a Sergeant and an Inspector.

Second, it was the prosecution who produced the video as part of their evidence. And the sergeant in question was the one in charge of collecting and reviewing cctv.

Third, I've read the Sergeants testimony. He stated that Paul Murphy used words to the effect of "Shall we keep her here all night". This is the extract of him being questioned by Murphy's barrister.




So Murphy's own barrister stated that the video evidence showed him asking the crowd if they should keep her there. So the only contentious issue is the "all night" part which was uttered by someone after Murphy. That's what you call lying?

Not really, no.

Supt Flavin said he recognised Deputy Paul Murphy on the loudhailer addressing the crowd and heard him saying, "Will we let her go, or will we keep her here all night?"
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2017/0518/876289-jobstown/

A very clear statement.

The video showed a woman, who introduced herself as Killinarden resident, saying, to loud cheers from the crowd: “I vote that we keep Joan here all night. She’s on our turf now and she’s staying.”
South Dublin county councillor Michael Murphy is then seen taking the megaphone and telling the crowd, “I don’t think staying here is an option.” He proposed allowing the 4x4 to get to the Tallaght bypass. It was estimated “slow-marching” the vehicle to the nearby Tallaght bypass would take half an hour...

...Michael Murphy’s counsel, Raymond Comyn SC, told the trial there was “something rotten at the core of this investigation” because evidence given by gardaí was proved “demonstrably wrong” in court by video footage.
He was critical of the gardaí for not finding “crucial” YouTube footage which showed his client speaking through a loudhailer and proposing to move the protest on, warning against “argy bargy”, and saying: “This isn’t what we came here for.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/jobstown-videos-central-to-defence-criticism-of-garda-evidence-1.3139487

Here's one you've seen before;

A video was played to the jury showing Paul Murphy addressing the crowd through a loudhailer and saying that there were two options, either to “let them go in half an hour (…) or we just keep her here”.
A woman is then seen taking the megaphone, introducing herself as a resident of Killinarden, and saying, to loud cheers from the crowd: “I vote that we keep Joan here all night. She’s on our turf now and she’s staying.”
South Dublin County Councillor Michael Murphy is then seen taking the megaphone and telling the crowd, “I don’t think staying here is an option.”
Cllr Murphy also told the crowd, “We’ve done what we came to do,” and proposed allowing the 4x4 passage to the Tallaght bypass.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/garda-denies-conspiracy-to-pervert-course-of-jobstown-trial-1.3089658

Was the woman arrested in a dawn raid? Seems not deemed important.
Here's another one;

"I heard a man say, 'Let's just petrol bomb them all out of here,'" Gda Power told Sean Gillane SC, prosecuting.

No arrest on this one. The alleged perpetrator must still be at large, right? Good job they concentrated on the lads sitting down. Maybe Kenny's 'man with two pints' has a tip?

The bigger publicity political prize to send a message to anyone thinking of protesting, or completely missing the mark and incompetently going after the wrong people? That's what needs investigating.

TheDoc

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You should try reading it - you might learn something - for example, about how the democratic rights of citizens to a fair trial is being undermined.

No thanks, tone from your opening post makes it out like you are just going to preach everyone about some conspiracy and how the establishment have their boot on the throat of the left. Nothing to do with their just continuous shambolic behaviour and inability to form any mature or coherent policy or even argument.

I think you'll find those involved got a very fair trial, considering they were acquitted, contrary to evidence freely available online. So as per the letter of the law they were acquitted.

And Murphy got himself his state provided solicitor right? Remember he was after that?

All in all think this was pretty fair, in terms of the eyes of the court and the law. That it has given carte blanche to this type of aggressive protest and targetting of state figures or TD's "you dont like" well socially they probably got away with one there.

As I said in another post, wonder if Murphy would be all happy out if a rake of Labour TD's and supporters just stood on the path outside his house where he couldn't leave, but sure it's all grand if its a "peaceful protest"

WinnyThePoo

TheDoc wrote: »

As I said in another post, wonder if Murphy would be all happy out if a rake of Labour TD's and supporters just stood on the path outside his house where he couldn't leave, but sure it's all grand if its a "peaceful protest"

He'd play the victim alright as he usually does. Paul doesn't do responsibility. It's his ideology or the highway.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I have been very specific - it is clear that you are only interested in reading stuff that you think will undermine the claims by supporters of the Jobstown defendants.

Same could be said of the Yobstown supporters. Only seeing, uttering and hearing what they want to and to Hell with the truth.

For Reals

Deleted User wrote: »

Same could be said of the Yobstown supporters. Only seeing, uttering and hearing what they want to and to Hell with the truth.

That's why we need those Garda investigated.

RustyNut

Deleted User wrote: »

Same could be said of the Yobstown supporters. Only seeing, uttering and hearing what they want to and to Hell with the truth.

Yobstown. As opposed to snobstown I suppose.

Mr.Micro

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

He'd play the victim alright as he usually does. Paul doesn't do responsibility. It's his ideology or the highway.

The guy is so annoying.

McMurphy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The guy is so annoying.

I'd be pretty annoyed too if the states DPP and police force conspired to stitch me up on a very serious charge, potentially depriving me of my liberty.

feargale

feargale wrote: »

Why the hell does mention of Sean Russell upset you? He was cut from the same cloth as the friends of the Jobstown bullies, wasn't he? He was an IRA leader who espoused fascist tactics, who was palsy walsy with the Nazis, and why not? They didn't like the rule of law either. Is there some hob law akin to Godwin's that says we can't mention IRA gauleiter Russell?

Heres what British Intelligence said about Russell in 1946:

The UK Public Records Office has released files which show that, after intensive post-war interrogation of German intelligence agents at the highest level, British intelligence itself concluded in 1946 that "Russell throughout his stay in Germany had shown considerable reticence towards the Germans and plainly did not regard himself as a German agent".

Far from 'gauleiter' material it would seem to me. Also Erwin Lahousen (one of the witnesses for the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials in 1946) gave similar observations about him during the time he had contacts with Russell in Germany.

For Reals

Sitting behind a car. The lesser known of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis :rolleyes:

The possibility of an investigation into possible political collusion and bias by state representatives in a legal proceeding is dismissed in favour of scaremongering. Historically, that's how these things get started by the way.

WinnyThePoo

For Reals wrote: »

Sitting behind a car. The lesser known of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis :rolleyes:

What has this country come to when people accept thuggery because they don't like the an elected politician .

Jolly Red Giant

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What has this country come to when people accept thuggery because they don't like the an elected politician .

What has the country come to when a community is smeared and demonised for staging a legitimate protest.

WinnyThePoo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

What has the country come to when a community is smeared and demonised for staging a legitimate protest.

The community wasn't smeared or demonised.

Victim hood is fascinating to watch.

RustyNut

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

The community wasn't smeared or demonised.

Victim hood is fascinating to watch.

Some posters on this thread are trying their best to smear the community.

Yobstown

WinnyThePoo

RustyNut wrote: »

Some posters on this thread are trying their best to smear the community.

That's one person with a stupid inane comment.

Mr.Micro

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What has this country come to when people accept thuggery because they don't like the an elected politician .

Add to that, a peaceful protest is fine but to get personal with people is not on.

Jolly Red Giant

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

That's one person with a stupid inane comment.

You really shouldn't talk about yourself like that - your comments are just as valuable as everyone elses.

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What has this country come to when people accept thuggery because they don't like the an elected politician .

I think you need your moral outrage detector re-calibrated.

Give me a country where a few folk get out of hand at a protest over a country, where the state and it's police force conspire in an attempt to silent dissent, and potentially imprison innocent people any long day of the week sunshine.

The gards have been caught trying to stitch innocent people up by way of false testimonies and statements, and some want to overlook that in favour of a few rowdy people at a protest march?

Have you any thoughts on why the guards seemingly turned a blind eye to those that were actually involved in the thuggery, and who went and arrested high profile names instead?

No one here is trying to normslise what thuggery did go on. We've all been asking why the guards focused their attention on people who were innocent of any wrong doing, and trying to secure convictions based on deceit and lies.

Are you happy with the guards lying in court?

WinnyThePoo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Add to that, a peaceful protest is fine but to get personal with people is not on.

You'll be glad to hear solidarity will be having more 'improtu' protests soon according to themselves.

WinnyThePoo

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You'll be glad to hear solidarity will be having more 'improtu' protests soon according to themselves.

Shur, don't you know that the Revolution has started.

Captain Obvious

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You'll be glad to hear solidarity will be having more 'improtu' protests soon according to themselves.

Yes, they're upset people might have to pay for their own rubbish. I look forward to the establishment of Irish Rubbish to take control of the national bin network.

For Reals

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What has this country come to when people accept thuggery because they don't like the an elected politician .

What thuggery? Sitting behind a car or telling people to be peaceful? Those who were charged where found innocent.
Maybe you need look to the Garda if you're dissatisfied.
The protesters were likened to Nazis. It would be remiss of me not to point out such nonsense.

It's not within the power of the arrested protesters to do a dawn raid on someones house and possibly send them to prison. That's the real comparison here.

It's pretty sad when people play whatabout with justice. When representatives of the state are seen to be bias and give false statements in court, that's when society falls apart not from a protest putting your nose out of joint because your team may happen to be in government.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

What thuggery? Sitting behind a car or telling people to be peaceful? Those who were charged where found innocent.
Maybe you need look to the Garda if you're dissatisfied.
The protesters were likened to Nazis. It would be remiss of me not to point out such nonsense.

It's not within the power of the arrested protesters to do a dawn raid on someones house and possibly send them to prison. That's the real comparison here.

It's pretty sad when people play whatabout with justice. When representatives of the state are seen to be bias and give false statements in court, that's when society falls apart not from a protest putting your nose out of joint because your team may happen to be in government.

Plenty of testimony given about Gardaí being assaulted and having their equipment stolen. All part of the peaceful protest right?

WinnyThePoo

For Reals wrote: »

What thuggery? Sitting behind a car or telling people to be peaceful? Those who were charged where found innocent.
Maybe you need look to the Garda if you're dissatisfied.
The protesters were likened to Nazis. It would be remiss of me not to point out such nonsense.

It's not within the power of the arrested protesters to do a dawn raid on someones house and possibly send them to prison. That's the real comparison here.

It's pretty sad when people play whatabout with justice. When representatives of the state are seen to be bias and give false statements in court, that's when society falls apart not from a protest putting your nose out of joint because your team may happen to be in government.

There are plenty of videos on youtube showing the protest, quite a different picture to the one your painting.

The guards should have tried them individually with public disorder charges. It would have saved a lot of time and a lot of money. Would have been better for everybody really. Nothing wrong with morning raids, it's a complete non issue.

I believe the statement about guards lying as come from Paul Murphy himself?. I'm not sure I trust his judgement. Considering his past history.

I don't have a team. Not really sure what your getting at with that.

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Plenty of testimony given about Gardaeing assaulted and having their equipment stolen. All part of the peaceful protest right?

How many people were arrested and charged for "Gardaeing assaulted and having their equipment stolen"

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Plenty of testimony given about Gardaí being assaulted and having their equipment stolen. All part of the peaceful protest right?

Not at all. Maybe they should have arrested them?

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

There are plenty of videos on youtube showing the protest, quite a different picture to the one your painting.

The guards should have tried them individually with public disorder charges. It would have saved a lot of time and a lot of money. Would have been better for everybody really. Nothing wrong with morning raids, it's a complete non issue.

I believe the statement about guards lying as come from Paul Murphy himself?. I'm not sure I trust his judgement. Considering his past history.

I don't have a team. Not really sure what your getting at with that.

What picture am I painting? The only people arrested were found to be innocent.
Take it up with the Guards if you feel they were negligent in their duties.
The video evidence showed the Guards gave false statement. I don't believe either Murphy has been quoted heavily outside of what transpired in court.

Again, are you too miffed at the outcome to have any concern about how the representatives of law represented themselves? They either A) did a poor job by neglecting to nab the more rowdy element, the one saying they'll keep Joan, the one threatening petrol bombs, instead going for those sitting.
or They tried to colour and disrupt the course of justice and visibly failed?
It's one or the other, neither a banner day for the Garda.
How ever you view the behaviour of some in the crowd, using it as an excuse to deflect or dismiss from this issue isn't working.

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Plenty of testimony given about Gardaeing assaulted and having their equipment stolen. All part of the peaceful protest right?

Was this testimony given by the same Guards who were able to remember things that never actually happened?

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Plenty of testimony given about Gardaeing assaulted and having their equipment stolen. All part of the peaceful protest right?

And the guards should have spent the subsequent months identifying, arresting, and charging those responsible.

Instead we got high profile scapegoats completely innocent of any wrong doing.

Political stitch ups of opposition politicians is something I expect to read about in countries such as Uganda or Cambodia.

But sure no matter, you lads keep ignoring that the supposedly apolitical police force of this country tried to potentially jail six innocent people.

What abouting at irrelevant tiny party's and irrelevant TD's is obviously more important.

Tony EH

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What has this country come to when people accept thuggery because they don't like the an elected politician .

Oh please.

Can we stop with this kind of overwrought nonsense.

Some people on here are trying desperately to make out a few people losing the run of themselves at a protest to be worst event in the history of the state.

Get a grip on yourselves FFS.

WinnyThePoo

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh please.

Can we stop with this kind of overwrought nonsense.

Some people on here are trying desperately to make out a few people losing the run of themselves at a protest to be worst event in the history of the state.

Get a grip on yourselves FFS.

I haven't. Just don't think its acceptable behaviour.

WinnyThePoo

For Reals wrote: »

Not at all. Maybe they should have arrested them?



What picture am I painting? The only people arrested were found to be innocent.
Take it up with the Guards if you feel they were negligent in their duties.
The video evidence showed the Guards gave false statement. I don't believe either Murphy has been quoted heavily outside of what transpired in court.

Again, are you too miffed at the outcome to have any concern about how the representatives of law represented themselves? They either A) did a poor job by neglecting to nab the more rowdy element, the one saying they'll keep Joan, the one threatening petrol bombs, instead going for those sitting.
or They tried to colour and disrupt the course of justice and visibly failed?
It's one or the other, neither a banner day for the Garda.
How ever you view the behaviour of some in the crowd, using it as an excuse to deflect or dismiss from this issue isn't working.

You do realise someone can have a problem with the guards and the protesters at the same time?.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

Not at all. Maybe they should have arrested them?

Weren't they busy protecting two women from a mob?

feargale

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Heres what British Intelligence said about Russell in 1946:

Far from 'gauleiter' material it would seem to me. Also Erwin Lahousen (one of the witnesses for the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials in 1946) gave similar observations about him during the time he had contacts with Russell in Germany.

The following statement emanated from unsavoury people. But never mind the singer. Read the song and see how much of it you can demolish:

"Six million Jews, thousands of political dissidents, homosexuals, Roma people, Soviet prisoners of war and the disabled were put to death by the fascist hate machine that overran and terrified Europe from 1939 to 45. Sean Russell was one of many nationalist fanatics who looked to Hitler for political and military support in the IRA's quest to reunify Ireland at the point of the bayonets of the Gestapo. At the Wannsee conference, the infamous Nazi gathering that planned the "Final Solution", the Jewish community in Ireland was marked down for annihilation. Having freed Ireland from British rule, the Nazis expected their collaborators to help them round up Dublin's Jews and ship them off to Auschwitz. That was the price Sean Russell was prepared to pay to end partition."

No charges pressed: "sure that was a grand peaceful protest"
Charges pressed and conviction secured: "sure the entire apparatus of the state was misused against us and our grand peaceful protest"
Charges pressed and no conviction: "sure there's a huge conspiracy against our grand peaceful protest otherwise how could the charges not have been proven."


A quick answer for everything our lads. You do find people that have never actually held (nor want) any responsibility are like that in my experience.

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Plenty of testimony given about Gardaí being assaulted and having their equipment stolen. All part of the peaceful protest right?

Here is your problem - Gardai claimed they were assaulted - but guess what - video evidence proved it didn't happen.

The Gardai were tossing out all kinds of things in the witness box as the defence counsel picked apart their sworn witness statements and the Gardai were tripping themselves up trying to remember what they wrote down.

As judge Judy says - you don't need a good memory when you tell the truth.

feargale

feargale wrote: »

The following statement emanated from unsavoury people. But never mind the singer. Read the song and see how much of it you can demolish:

"Six million Jews, thousands of political dissidents, homosexuals, Roma people, Soviet prisoners of war and the disabled were put to death by the fascist hate machine that overran and terrified Europe from 1939 to 45. Sean Russell was one of many nationalist fanatics who looked to Hitler for political and military support in the IRA's quest to reunify Ireland at the point of the bayonets of the Gestapo. At the Wannsee conference, the infamous Nazi gathering that planned the "Final Solution", the Jewish community in Ireland was marked down for annihilation. Having freed Ireland from British rule, the Nazis expected their collaborators to help them round up Dublin's Jews and ship them off to Auschwitz. That was the price Sean Russell was prepared to pay to end partition."

A good demonstration of hindsight bias there. Russell died in August 1940. Wannsee was held in January 1942. You are engaging in pure and utter speculation trying to link Russell to the holocaust.

Jolly Red Giant

feargale - if you want to have a discussion about Sean Russell please start a new thread - it has diddly squat to do with the subject of this thread.