Cillian Murphy's looking rough

Sonny noggs

mynamejeff wrote: »

Another specimen who should never be allowed to see the light of day ever again in order to protect innocent people from her,

but if your a judge of a politician you dont care about that sort of thing

Legal industry couldn’t thrive if they killed their golden goose by locking up their most regular customers. Same as drug dealers, they need the addicts.

Hal3000

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-sentenced-unprovoked-attack-tourists-dublin-hostel-4626716-May2019/

Battering tourists is now acceptable especially if you've 26 previous convictions.

There's nothing wrong with our justice system...

gmisk

Hal3000 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-sentenced-unprovoked-attack-tourists-dublin-hostel-4626716-May2019/

Battering tourists is now acceptable especially if you've 26 previous convictions.

There's nothing wrong with our justice system...

I was looking for the suspended part....and yep there it is...vile.
Scar two people randomly for life and that's the sentence?!!

Sonny noggs

What is a ‘pro-social’ partner?

gmisk

Sonny noggs wrote: »

What is a ‘pro-social’ partner?

I think its a posh way of saying someone who works to help other people e.g. volunteering

seasidedub

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation that should put your mind at rest.

A worker on 50k a year, who works 39 hours every week, will put 15 minutes of their tax contributions towards all jobseekers expenditure.

That's assuming that nobody on a jobseekers payment has funded their own welfare payments through their taxes (so even 15 minutes is obviously an overstatement).

A small fraction of that time will go towards long-term layabouts (and they definitely do exist, of course).

I wonder how many people spend longer than 15 minutes complaining about this problem, in real life or online?

15 minutes of my time is 15 minutes too much for the likes of her. I'll gladly pay taxes for health, good infrastructure, European style day care (which I benefited from in Finland and know how great it is to not have to pay 1000e a month to a creche) for carers, the disabled etc etc. But for her and her ilk? A nanosecond is too much.

Apparently no physical scarring for the shop worker, which is some relief at least

dealhunter1985

Can I take legal action against the state for putting my personal safety at risk by leaving these types to walk the streets ? 158 previous of which several were for assault... 18 months and she will be back on the streets back to her routine.

Ush1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation that should put your mind at rest.

A worker on 50k a year, who works 39 hours every week, will put 15 minutes of their tax contributions towards all jobseekers expenditure.

That's assuming that nobody on a jobseekers payment has funded their own welfare payments through their taxes (so even 15 minutes is obviously an overstatement).

A small fraction of that time will go towards long-term layabouts (and they definitely do exist, of course).

I wonder how many people spend longer than 15 minutes complaining about this problem, in real life or online?

What about the cost in terms of Garda time, courts, solicitors, judges, prison, FLA etc...

Fiftyfilthy

There is no place in society for this scum bag to be here

Just scum and I hope she gets a kettle of boiling water and sugar poured over her face

Fiftyfilthy

Fiftyfilthy wrote: »

Just scum and I hope she gets a kettle of boiling water and sugar poured over her face

You on the other hand sound like a very peaceful, balanced chap

Fiftyfilthy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You on the other hand sound like a very peaceful, balanced chap

158 previous convictions and the ugly filthy scum bag **** is still too thick to learn right from wrong

No harm in trying the boiling kettle method on it

Geuze

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation that should put your mind at rest.

A worker on 50k a year, who works 39 hours every week, will put 15 minutes of their tax contributions towards all jobseekers expenditure.

The issue here is that this assumes that long-term welfare dependency by working-age adults is confined only to JSA.

Of the able-bodied adults that I know who choose long-term welfare dependency, half of them are on JSA, but the other half are not.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

The issue here is that this assumes that long-term welfare dependency by working-age adults is confined only to JSA.

Of the able-bodied adults that I know who choose long-term welfare dependency, half of them are on JSA, but the other half are not.

I've deliberately exaggerated the figure (by assuming everyone on jobseekers allowance or jobseekers benefit is a layabout who has not made contributions (which contradicts the meaning of J- Benefit), and it still only comes to a pathetic fifteen minutes, for a service that will always exist for you and your family members should you need it.

Believe me, the numerical liberties are taken in favour of the outrage, and it still only comes to fifteen minutes, making all of those exaggerated assumptions.

I wonder what the figure for genuine layabouts is. A minute? 30 seconds?

Quite a far cry from 50% of your income figure that often gets thrown around, isn't it?

Fiery mutant

You seem perfectly happy giving your valuable time to these lazy slobs so they can sit around doing nothing all day.

But the majority of us are not. And the amount of time is irrelevant, it could be 15 minutes or 15 seconds. Society expects everyone to contribute, those who don’t want to, should not expect the rest of us to foot their bill.

Wanderer78

Fiery mutant wrote:

But the majority of us are not. And the amount of time is irrelevant, it could be 15 minutes or 15 seconds. Society expects everyone to contribute, those who don’t want to, should not expect the rest of us to foot their bill.

What should we do if they can't or won't contribute?

suicide_circus

seasidedub wrote: »

Is there any political party who has the balls to grasp the welfare nettle??

no
they weep for de most vulnerable in society and dont give two hard boiled shytes for their multiple victims

Fiery mutant

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What should we do if they can't or won't contribute?

Phased reducing down of any welfare until either they get a job, or the welfare goes to zero.

Sonny noggs

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What should we do if they can't or won't contribute?

The Running Man.

Hal3000

suicide_circus wrote: »

no
they weep for de most vulnerable in society and dont give two hard boiled shytes for their multiple victims

Like most posters here too...

Wanderer78

Fiery mutant wrote: »

Phased reducing down of any welfare until either they get a job, or the welfare goes to zero.

really!:rolleyes:

Sonny noggs wrote: »

The Running Man.

only if arnies in it

Fiery mutant

Fiery mutant wrote: »

But the majority of us are not. And the amount of time is irrelevant, it could be 15 minutes or 15 seconds. Society expects everyone to contribute, those who don’t want to, should not expect the rest of us to foot their bill.

Just be practical, that isn't going to happen. There isn't a country in the world where everyone contributes, that's human nature. There's no need to get upset about this unless it's out of all proportion to what one might expect, or is causing a significant burden on the individual taxpayer.

Some people will always cheat on their taxes, and there will always be some people who cheat the conditions on welfare provision. If anything, it is tax avoidance which is a far bigger problem, but again, inevitable.

By all means, let's have policies to counteract these problems.

But are they going to be 100% effective each time, will we ever have a society where nobody cheats? Of course not.

Fiery mutant

Yr probably right in that we won't ever have everyone working. But attitudes have to change, we can't just keep handing stuff out to those who don't want to work. There has to come a time where we say enough is enough, we're not paying you to live like this. It may take time, but time is one thing there is plenty of.

Odyssey 2005

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Sounds like the sort of lady you'd invite round to the bridge club.

Ans fúćķ her off it. Although then you'd be prosecuted for polluting the river.

Mrsmum

I think that lady is a lost cause. It's really not her we should be concerned about but those coming up behind her who will end up the very same. Taking her as an example we, as a society, actually did her no favour by not being way firmer on what is acceptable from her earlier on. She suffers for it as I would say her life is the pits. Of more relevance to the general population is the fact that we also suffer for it paying endless money to support her and her crimes on ourselves and our property and of course that poor girl she attacked suffered directly and in a most horrible way. For their own sakes and ours there must be a better way to stop this cycle years earlier. You get one chance but after that, forced residential therapy or something. It'd be way cheaper and more productive in the long run.

imme

and he looked so smokin in Peaky Blinders

suicide_circus

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think that lady is a lost cause. It's really not her we should be concerned about but those coming up behind her who will end up the very same. Taking her as an example we, as a society, actually did her no favour by not being way firmer on what is acceptable from her earlier on. She suffers for it as I would say her life is the pits. Of more relevance to the general population is the fact that we also suffer for it paying endless money to support her and her crimes on ourselves and our property and of course that poor girl she attacked suffered directly and in a most horrible way. For their own sakes and ours there must be a better way to stop this cycle years earlier. You get one chance but after that, forced residential therapy or something. It'd be way cheaper and more productive in the long run.

but then the legal profession wont get all the repeat business

Always Tired

This suspended sentence BS needs to be audited and overhauled.

Neighbour of mine assaulted 3 people in 1 day, 2 were elderly and one a bus driver. Got ten months for the first one, 5 months each for the other 2 with one suspended and the other to run currently. So 3 for 1 deal. But at the time he already had 6 (!) suspended sentences from previous charges. Judge said it was up to some other bloke to decide to apply them or not.

Then he stabbed someone. Got 4 years. Last 18 months suspended. He's back here now and already harassing people on the street. He's got at least 3 years of suspended sentences that should have been applied as he reoffended after getting them, but naw, just leave him to repeat the behaviour and hurt more people.

Mrsmum

I honestly think the day will come when someone will take a case against a judge or the state because someone belonging to them was hurt or murdered by a person who was let off previously time and time again. Often a doctor who has no intention to hurt is sued over decisions they made under enormous pressure. Why do judges not have to answer at all for their decisions.There is all sorts of gun laws etc for the safety of the general public but a person like that woman and her fellow-kind who are so clearly out of control and who ignores all rules of society is just as dangerous as any gun. Leaving her out free to carry on is, imo, the same as leaving a loaded gun lying around which is totally irresponsible.

Always Tired

Mrsmum wrote: »

I honestly think the day will come when someone will take a case against a judge or the state because someone belonging to them was hurt or murdered by a person who was let off previously time and time again. Often a doctor who has no intention to hurt is sued over decisions they made under enormous pressure. Why do judges not have to answer at all for their decisions.There is all sorts of gun laws etc for the safety of the general public but a person like that woman and her fellow-kind who are so clearly out of control and who ignores all rules of society is just as dangerous as any gun. Leaving her out free to carry on is, imo, the same as leaving a loaded gun lying around which is totally irresponsible.

Wish it would happen but I'm pretty sure you can't sue a judge. Even if technically you could, the court system is so corrupt you would never win going against one of their own. Look at the gardai. Caught out time and time again for all kinds of thuggery and nothing happens.

And of course a big reason they let these people off easy is because they tend to victimize people in their own neighborhood and similar social class. They're not going to be causing trouble in a judges neighborhood when they get let off or let out. To a judge a girl in a shop is the same as a junkie. They could care less what happens to either of them, or any person who is poorer than they are. If the girl attacked was the daughter of a politician or solicitor the woman would be in jail for longer I guarantee that.

Checkmate19

Prisons are full simple that's why the sentence's are so lenient. 158 offences etc. The sentences in this country are a joke but it is what it is. Unless we build more prison's it will continue. Alot of thefts don't even go to court as shops could not be arsed going to court as they will just get no sentence. Irish justice doesn't exist due to lack of reality to put people in prison and most people not caring about the lenght of sentence.

caff

I think the problem is they view the social contract as already broken. I know for me if I acted out of order and got arrested it would be a big deal, I have a lot to lose job social standing friends and family. It'd hurt a lot. But for others it wouldn't the fear the loss isn't there.
The social contract is pre broken they have little to lose. Not sure how to fix that really.

Always Tired

Always Tired wrote: »

Wish it would happen but I'm pretty sure you can't sue a judge. Even if technically you could, the court system is so corrupt you would never win going against one of their own.

Actions against judges happen every day of the week. They're called appeals, and judicial reviews. They are often successful.

There is a good argument for actions in professional negligence against judges, though. This is technically possible, but doesn't happen. Does anyone really believe that so many doctors and other professions can be negligent, but almost zero judges and barristers? Nope.

Checkmate19

Judges hand down sentences that are par for the course. There is no room in prisons. Thats why they cant put people in them. Junkies with 50 plus convictions dont care as they know another theft will see another let off etc. Its a bollix system. Unless we build more prisons and give proper sentences it will continue.

Checkmate19

Shops mostly won't even bother taking things to court as they know it'll get suspended. Fukking joke of a legal system. There is no deterent.

overkill602

Law abiding tax payers struggle to do the normal things she has got everything free and then some more the pain and suffering she has dished out time after time her freedom in sociability must be challenged I am in favour of laws to allow the state be sued where repeat and bailed multiple offenders offend.
A separate SW inc disability invalid pension as many are on now for people who break the law with financial sanctions imposed especially when they go inside not sure if this is the case.
Victims need more from society
https://extra.ie/2018/12/01/news/irish-news/prisoners-claiming-social-welfare-pensions

B.A._Baracus

It's a joke isn't it?
Like how could any judge keep a straight face while saying as long as you keep the peace with a record as long as hers.

The solicitor is another prick. "My client is disgusted by her behaviour and asks one day for forgiveness". Well mate no scumbag junkie is gonna phrase things like that. So that's pulled out of your ass.

Tea drinker

Deleted User wrote: »

just the 158 previous convictions then

fr mcverry not available for comment no

Always the same, state releases these mentally ill people, yet seem to get away scot free from willfully neglecting their role in keeping citizens safe.
This shopkeeper needs to sue the state.

Tea drinker

seasidedub wrote: »

Always nice to see a photo of one of the recipients of our tax euros.

Yes - it doesn't say she's a welfare queen, but what are the chances she's not????

Christ, I haul my bum out of bed at 5.45am every weekday, drive an hour each way and pay nearly half of what I earn for this sh%$e...

Is there any political party who has the balls to grasp the welfare nettle??

And keep in mind 159 convictions, with court time, jail time, garda time, solicitor time, drug rehab time, Tusla time etc etc.
Any change out of 30,000 per conviction?
Comes out at 4.8 Million ish

Galwayguy35

The fella she was shagging must be as rough as herself.