Judge gives politician easy sentence

Plumbthedepths

I find it hilarious when someone starts a thread to foster outrage and it completely backfires on them.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

Sorry, I have already pointed out the differences between the two cases.

The DPP brought the lesser one (Connolly) to the District Court and the more serious one (the councillor) to the Circuit Court. Pre-meditation, lack of remorse and lying to the court were also factors in the councillor case.

Ok seeing as you avoided the question as to whether or not you called for Diarmuid Connolly to be imprisoned and dropped from the Dublin GAA team I will presume I am right- you didnt call for this at all because you knew well it would have a profound effect on Dublins chances at winning the All Ireland. Thats fine, its all I needed to know so you're free to continue on with the faux outrage on the Shinner guy while not applying the same standards to Connolly. They're both scumbags its just one of them is your scumbag.

One eyed Jack

blanch152 wrote: »

This is unbelievable. Just because someone is a councillor, they shouldn't be treated leniently by the courts. A fine of €7,500 for knocking someone's teeth out is a complete disgrace. A complete thug who gets away without a jail sentence.

...

Will Mary-Lou do the decent thing and expel this thug from her party and ask him to stand down? I have little hope that she will.

I don’t think he was treated leniently at all, he was still fined €7,500 and a suspended sentence after pleading guilty. If he had plead not guilty then by all means he should have the book thrown at him.

Will Mary-Lou do the decent thing? Mary-Lou has never done the decent thing in her life, so I don’t expect these circumstances to be any different. He was elected by the way in a democratic election, so it was ordinary people who voted for him, and not like he received any special treatment because he was a councillor, or even a Sinn Fein councillor at that. His politics have nothing to do with the story.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And here we have the real reason for the thread. Didn't see any Green Party folk on the list, suprised you're not siding with the tax payer. At what level is tax payer money important? How many times should one politician be caught on the make before they deserve criticism?

It was no glassing in the face but yeah, nobody should vote for these people. Some wanted that FG lad sent down, some kept side tracking and dismissing the victims claims. Not so here......

You even got Mick Wallace in, Paul Murphy for the triple?

So you think a politician claiming a few euro in extra expenses is more worthy of opprobrium than a politician in a pre-meditated assault that results in his victim requiring dentures?

If them's your standards, them's your standards.

blanch152

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I find it hilarious when someone starts a thread to foster outrage and it completely backfires on them.

You are assuming I expected outrage at the councillor.

The fact that it inspired the opposite is not surprising but saddening. All too predictable.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

So you think a politician claiming a few euro in extra expenses is more worthy of opprobrium than a politician in a pre-meditated assault that results in his victim requiring dentures?

If them's your standards, them's your standards.

So its ok to stroke "a few euro". Under a grand? Two grand?

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

You are assuming I expected outrage at the councillor.

The fact that it inspired the opposite is not surprising but saddening. All too predictable.

Others have dealt with your bias, no need for me to add to their comments.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

So you think a politician claiming a few euro in extra expenses is more worthy of opprobrium than a politician in a pre-meditated assault that results in his victim requiring dentures?

If them's your standards, them's your standards.

It'll be cents the next time you mention it

I think both require our attention.
Can you only be outraged at one thing at a time? Oh, wait we don't know your stance on Bailey's shenanigans outside of them, (yes plural now) not warranting attention.

And there you go. Classic Blanch. Ask me a loaded question and criticise me on an answer you gave to your own question. Brilliant

blanch152

Odhinn wrote: »

So its ok to stroke "a few euro". Under a grand? Two grand?

Where did I say it was ok to stroke a few euro? This thread is contrasting the outrage over a politician wrongly claiming a few euro as opposed to the outrage over a politician going round to someone's house and knocking their teeth out.

It is clear to any normal person which is the more serious offence, but boards is different. As I said already, saddened but not surprised.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Others have dealt with your bias, no need for me to add to their comments.

Can you not bring yourself to call for the councillor's resignation? Surely knocking the teeth out of your ex-partner's new partner is reason enough to resign?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It'll be cents the next time you mention it

I think both require our attention.
Can you only be outraged at one thing at a time? Oh, wait we don't know your stance on Bailey's shenanigans outside of them, (yes plural now) not warranting attention.

And there you go. Classic Blanch. Ask me a loaded question and criticise me on an answer you gave to your own question. Brilliant

Both require our attention, but one is a serious criminal offence and the other is not.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Where did I say it was ok to stroke a few euro? This thread is contrasting the outrage over a politician wrongly claiming a few euro as opposed to the outrage over a politician going round to someone's house and knocking their teeth out.

It's now a thread about how you think abusing tax payers funding is no big deal. How much do they have to stroke before you think it becomes a problem?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Both require our attention, but one is a serious criminal offence and the other is not.

Why use one to dismiss the other? It's very odd. They are completely unrelated.
You are literally trying to play down one by comparing it to the other.
Why are you not only too disinterested in the latest shenanigans of Bailey and co. to post in any of the threads with an opinion, but bothered enough to try dismiss it with completely unrelated whataboutery in a thread you clearly set up for the task? Not very Green at all Blanch. More of a bluey hue off of it.

now how did i know matt would be taking a contrary line on this, hmmm

Guy:Incognito

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Believe it or not this is a normal sentence for someone with a clean record.

It shouldnt be though.

If you are the first person someone attacks they dont get punished anywhere near as much as for the next person. Youre not really getting justice.

Deliberately choosing to attack someone should result in at least a few weeks in jail imo.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why use one to dismiss the other? It's very odd. They are completely unrelated.
You are literally trying to play down one by comparing it to the other.
Why are you not only too disinterested in the latest shenanigans of Bailey and co. to post in any of the threads with an opinion, but bothered enough to try dismiss it with completely unrelated whataboutery in a thread you clearly set up for the task? Not very Green at all Blanch. More of a bluey hue off of it.

This thread is about the pre-meditated assault by a councillor of his ex-partner's new partner, leaving the man with no front teeth.

Yet, you only deem it worthy of attention. Are you refusing to engage in the politics of condemnation, by any chance?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This thread is about the pre-meditated assault by a councillor of his ex-partner's new partner, leaving the man with no front teeth.

Yet, you only deem it worthy of attention. Are you refusing to engage in the politics of condemnation, by any chance?

I agreed with your comments. Nobody should vote for these people.
I've no issue with you being outraged, it's terrible behaviour.

My sticking points was your awkward 'nothing to see here' Government propaganda rant that followed.
You won't post an opinion on Bailey but will criticise others who do. That thread closed, she pops up again, so rather than either defend her or condemn her, you set up this thread, with a genuine premise, but use it to cover for Bailey, is all.

You’re right, blanch. Judges do give politicians an easier ride.

A former Fine Gael TD escaped a custodial sentence but was fined €750 at a special sitting of the District Court in Monaghan today after he was convicted for a pub assault at his family-owned premises in Co Monaghan last year.

Sean Conlan, a 42-year-old solicitor of Main Street, Ballybay, was convicted of unlawfully assaulting and causing harm to Enda Duffy of Annahia, Ballybay, at the premises in Ballybay.

He was also found guilty of using a broken pint glass during the incident.

I suppose how easy a ride depends on which party you are affiliated with.

padd b1975

blanch152 wrote: »

This thread is about the pre-meditated assault by a councillor of his ex-partner's new partner, leaving the man with no front teeth.

Sloppy seconds do come with a certain amount of risk.

Anyway, looking on the bright side, he's now got his Christmas party piece sorted.

"All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth! my two front teeth!"

Sleeper12

Guy:Incognito wrote:

It shouldnt be though.

I totally agree with you. My only point is that this SF councilor didn't get special treatment. I am not a SF voter. Thread title should be changed to how everyone gets such a low sentence

blanch152

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

You’re right, blanch. Judges do give politicians an easier ride.



I suppose how easy a ride depends on which party you are affiliated with.

Again, like the Diarmuid Connolly misdirection thrown into this thread earlier on, the Sean Conlan incident was dealt with in the District Court, whereas more serious cases - such as the one subject of this thread - are dealt with in the Circuit Court.

By definition, the offence in this case has been deemed more serious. It is not difficulty to understand why. It was pre-meditated, it involved a form of domestic violence, and it resulted in serious permanent injury.

I am entitled to take a view that cases of assault dealt with in the District Court are less serious than those in the Circuit Court. However, it also should be remembered that in the case of Conlan, he was gone from Fine Gael before his case went to court and was subsequently rejected by the electorate as an independent candidate which is a pretty good outcome in my opinion. It remains to be seen whether we will see Mr. Richardson suffer the same fate.