Internet Troll gets three years

nkl12xtw5goz70

mariaalice wrote: »

By social media, he told one of the women he knew where she lived, yes you could argue that is different than actually knowing where she lived. Again how is the woman to know if he actually knows where she lives or he is just saying he dose.

You said above: "He found out where one of them lived."

Now you're saying he was only pretending to know where she lived.

Which is it?

paleoperson

mariaalice wrote: »

By social media, he told one of the women he knew where she lived, yes you could argue that is different than actually knowing where she lived. Again how is the woman to know if he actually knows where she lives or he is just saying he dose.

Are you going by this?:

Kate McEvoy was informed that the sender of the emails was in the area where she lived and once when she tweeted that her housemate had gone out for the evening, he messaged “good, I’ll be over soon”.

That was an extremely bad and criminal joke. However he clearly didn't show up. Even if he did show up, she could always not open the door.

Did she call the gardai saying she was afraid someone dangerous would show up?

When you said "he found out where she lived"... that's malicious fabrication by you.

mariaalice wrote: »

How would the Garda know he only dose this for fun?

They could go to his house for informal questioning. They could also tell the person in question they have problems with him messaging other women in a similar manner.

Faugheen

Why are people making excuses for this prick?

Jesus Christ, he sent them abusive messages for 6 years. They all asked him to stop, he didn’t. They all blocked him, he circumvented that with multiple email addresses. He was arrested and bailed, and then proceeded to message them again!!

These women did nothing wrong yet some posters are hell bent on blaming them for not doing more to stop him. F*ck off, the whole lot of you sad bastards.

wiggle16

paleoperson wrote: »

The gardai could have explained to her the situation. This man lives with his mother and is a very strange man who does this this for fun. But give him a stern warning.

Also there's such a thing as a restraining order, why tf wasn't a restraining order placed on him? Then he would go straight to jail to be processed if he broke it. Surely that would be the normal chain of events.

He was given bail on the condition that he not contact them. Instead of abiding by that rule, he started sending messages again. So no, that wouldn't have worked.

A restraining order?

Sorry, did you not just say he wasn't stalking them?

mariaalice

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

You said above: "He found out where one of them lived."

Now you're saying he was only pretending to know where she lived.

Which is it?

I am only going by the reports of the case, how would the woman know if he actuley knew where she lived as opposed to pretending to know where she lived?

Why is there so much emphasis on how the women should have responded to this loon?

mariaalice

Faugheen wrote: »

Why are people making excuses for this prick?

Jesus Christ, he sent them abusive messages for 6 years. They all asked him to stop, he didn’t. They all blocked him, he circumvented that with multiple email addresses. He was arrested and bailed, and then proceeded to message them again!!

These women did nothing wrong yet some posters are hell bent on blaming them for not doing more to stop him. F*ck off, the whole lot of you sad bastards.

I do not agree with calling individuals sad bastards, but other than that totally agree with you.

nkl12xtw5goz70

mariaalice wrote: »

I am only going by the reports of the case

You claimed he found out where one of the women lived, when the reports of the case don't substantiate that he knew any of their addresses. You made that up to make him seem more of a threat than he really was.

paleoperson

wiggle16 wrote: »

He was given bail on the condition that he not contact them. Instead of abiding by that rule, he started sending messages again. So no, that wouldn't have worked.

The word "bail" isn't in the article. A lengthy newspaper article in the supposedly quality press is supposed to bring all important matters up, especially for a story that we have never heard about before. I have no idea why they didn't think it was worth mentioning. It even says: "Dt Gda Gallagher agreed with Keith Spencer BL, defending, that his client was someone with no criminal history or previous convictions."

RTE news has:

The court heard how Doolin had initially been remanded on bail ahead of his sentence hearing but was taken into custody after making contact with people connected to the victims. He had spent the last three months in custody.

He therefore only sent them to "people connected with the victims", and there is nothing about these ones being offensive. He sent them after having spent three months in custody. He could well have been asking them if they could pass a request on to drop the restraining orders or drop the charges. Again not the brightest move but that's not what we can expect here.

wiggle16 wrote: »

A restraining order?

Sorry, did you not just say he wasn't stalking them?

How dumb are you? Restraining orders can be granted for all kinds of reasons, not just stalking.

Tony EH

Faugheen wrote: »

Why are people making excuses for this prick?

Because they probably condone his actions.

Faugheen wrote: »

Jesus Christ, he sent them abusive messages for 6 years. They all asked him to stop, he didn’t. They all blocked him, he circumvented that with multiple email addresses. He was arrested and bailed, and then proceeded to message them again!!

Exactly. This creep had his chances given to him to cease what he was doing. He chose not to comply with that and is now going to jail.

Faugheen wrote: »

These women did nothing wrong yet some posters are hell bent on blaming them for not doing more to stop him. F*ck off, the whole lot of you sad bastards.

Look at the posters rushing to defend this creep. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by their content on this thread.

mariaalice

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

You claimed he found out where one of the women lived, when the reports of the case don't substantiate that he knew any of their addresses. You made that up to make him seem more of a threat than he really was.

I miss read the newspaper report, do really believe the woman was supposed to know he was making it up that he knew where she lived, how can people be so dense.

sameoldname

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

I couldn't agree more with this. He evidently got under their skin with his pointed criticisms of their being talentless wannabes living in a Twitter thought bubble, and so they sought vengeance by representing themselves as victims of harassment.

You still haven't posted your phone number I notice.

wiggle16

The Gardaí took him into custody when he contacted those people. It is reasonable to surmise that the contact was more than just "please drop the charges".

I still cannot believe you are defending this behaviour.

paleoperson wrote: »

How dumb are you? Restraining orders can be granted for all kinds of reasons, not just stalking.

How dumb am I? :pac:

You're the one who thinks that a person has to leave their house to stalk someone. You do realise "stalker" does not just mean a creep hiding in a bush, don't you? These women had unwanted contact from someone who was eager to give them the impression that he was performing surveillance on them, for six years, despite having been asked to stop. He created multiple accounts to do so. They were being stalked and harassed. Will that do, or would you like me to spell it out in ten foot high Braille for you?

I'm out. Unbelievable misogyny.

dbas

I think this lad was in the year above me in Synge Street school. Harmless looking lad who played football. Mental to think what becomes of people as life goes on (I'm only basing this on surname and appearance as its almost 20 year ago now)
Truly odd on many many levels. Glad he got locked up.

paleoperson

wiggle16 wrote: »

The Gardaook him into custody when he contacted those people. It is reasonable to surmise that the contact was more than just "please drop the charges".

It's not reasonable to conclude that at all. What else would he be contacting them for? It it was wanton harassment he could just contact his original victims again. Any contact with anyone belonging to the person will violate a restraining order and send the perpetrator to the slammer.

wiggle16 wrote: »

I still cannot believe you are defending this behaviour.

I'm not defending it at all. I said it was criminal and deserved to be penalized and stamped out.

wiggle16 wrote: »

You're the one who thinks that a person has to leave their house to stalk someone. You do realise "stalker" does not just mean a creep hiding in a bush, don't you? These women had unwanted contact from someone who was eager to give them the impression that he was performing surveillance on them, for six years, despite having been asked to stop. He created multiple accounts to do so. They were being stalked and harassed. Will that do, or would you like me to spell it out in ten foot high Braille for you?

I don't think that sending internet messages matches the definition or spirit of the really grave word of "stalking" as I understand it - and I doubt it would in almost any legal system. Stalking as a criminal offence.

This is obviously different from the light-hearted way "stalking" is used online, people talking about how they were stalking people's facebooks and so on. To actually stalk someone is a very serious thing and while it's just semantics I don't think it should be in the same category. Especially when you say "he stalked them for six years".

languagenerd

The people passing this off as merely "disagreeing with journos on Twitter" either haven't read beyond a headline or are deliberately downplaying what he did for some reason. Are they recognising some of their own behaviour and unwilling to confront that? Or do they truly not understand that his actions were designed to carry over into the women's personal offline lives?

This wasn't just disagreeing or criticizing or debating with a journalist over their latest article. He sent them hundreds of emails despite multiple requests to stop, contacted them before or after many public appearances they made, gave one of them details about where she lived and implied he was there/on his way, contacted their husbands/families/workplaces (including while on bail), sent one of them photos of herself that weren't easily available online, etc.

Most of them have said they feared for their safety - they didn't know if he was going to turn up at the public events he'd email about, he knew where they worked, he knew (or implied he knew) where one lived, he found ways to contact some of their families. This IS stalking, even if he never took it offline. Imagine the worry you'd feel every time you submitted a piece of work or accepted a public event, knowing he might email or turn up. Imagine looking over your shoulder for up to 6 years wondering if he was going to appear at your workplace or your home. Imagine your phone beeping nine times a day with emails from him, or finding out he'd started contacting your family or colleagues about you... In each case, he caused, or could have caused a real psychological trauma here, far beyond merely "disagreeing with them on Twitter".

RabbleRouser2k

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah but in actual reality a 50 quid smart phone circumvents all that.

Besides he was given far stricter and more specific orders in relation to his bail.

He couldn't abide by them so his bail was revoked and he was jailed.

I imagine it was one of the main reasons he got 3 years.

The maximum sentence is 7 AFAIK so he didn't do too bad.

Even then, he'd have to either enter into a contract, give payment details, and other credentials.
IF you give a false name, you still have to give credit card details.

He'd be caught, relatively quickly too.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Six women fearing for their lives after years of relentless harassment. That's what people supporting this sentence would have us believe.

Another way of looking at this is that many of Doolin's criticisms were on point. Many so-called journalists in Ireland are indeed part of a self-absorbed left-liberal thought bubble -- they regurgitate all the "correct" opinions and wait for the likes and retweets to roll in on social media.

The judge stated of Doolin that "when he perceived weaknesses he attacked that weakness." And yes, he hit them where it hurt, reminding them that despite all their validation-seeking behavior on social media, they were wanabees, nobodies, and couldn't think for themselves.

It's now possible that he will serve three years in prison, despite being a nonviolent, mentally ill recluse, not because he committed a heinous crime but because he made these women feel bad about themselves. Ironically he probably would have got a shorter sentence had he gone after them physically with a baseball bat rather than attacking their fragile egos on Twitter.

This ridiculous sentence is far longer than those routinely received by rapists, child pornographers, and violent criminals. He should definitely appeal.

pjohnson

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Six women fearing for their lives after years of relentless harassment. That's what people supporting this sentence would have us believe.

Another way of looking at this is that many of Doolin's criticisms were on point. Many so-called journalists in Ireland are indeed part of a self-absorbed left-liberal thought bubble -- they regurgitate all the "correct" opinions and wait for the likes and retweets to roll in on social media.

The judge stated of Doolin that "when he perceived weaknesses he attacked that weakness." And yes, he hit them where it hurt, reminding them that despite all their validation-seeking behavior on social media, they were wanabees, nobodies, and couldn't think for themselves.

It's now possible that he will serve three years in prison, despite being a nonviolent, mentally ill recluse, not because he committed a heinous crime but because he made these women feel bad about themselves. Ironically he probably would have got a shorter sentence had he gone after them physically with a baseball bat rather than attacking their fragile egos on Twitter.

This ridiculous sentence is far longer than those routinely received by rapists, child pornographers, and violent criminals. He should definitely appeal.

Wouldya not try a counter claim on his behalf for your ilk. Get 6 of ye banded together and try to get women jailed?

Salary Negotiator

A few lads on here must be worried about their own past behaviour.

alastair

Legal Definition of stalking
: the act or crime of willfully and repeatedly following or harassing another person in circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to fear injury or death especially because of express or implied threats
broadly : a crime of engaging in a course of conduct directed at a person that serves no legitimate purpose and seriously alarms, annoys, or intimidates that person
NOTE: Stalking is often considered to be aggravated when the conduct involved also violates a restraining order protecting the victim.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/stalking

US2

Not defending the weirdo at all but 3 years for putting fear in people, he'd have got less if he physically assaulted them.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Given the timing of events, it would seem that either these women didn't bother reporting for years that they were terrified for their safety or the Gardai didn't perceive any credible threat. Doolin began contacting the journalists in 2011 and was only approached by Gardai in 2018. If his messages were so abusive and threatening, why was he allowed to carry on for so long?

The timing suggests that the #metoo movement may have played a role here. And Nolan being under public scrutiny for his overly lenient treatment of sex offenders also clearly contributed to the ridiculous three-year custodial sentence.

retro:electro

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

A few lads on here must be worried about their own past behaviour.

Probably. But when 99% of their online content is pure fantasy and fiction I don’t think they have anything to worry about

joseywhales

I am still perplexed by 3 years for a non violent crime, why are we using state resources to incarcerate a person who poses no viable threat to society?

I could commit fraud, affecting the financial lives of millions and not get three years in prison for example.

It's seems like the sentence is PR motivated. Instead of six high profile journalists, if it had been 6 elderly pensioner farmers in rural Ireland being shaken down with a actual threat of violence, the perps would not get three years. It just doesn't seem equitable to me.

Whether the guy is a 'cretin' a 'specimen' 'scum' , whatever name, is irrelevant, the sentence should be based on his threat level to people and secondly whether he is likely to be rehabilitated by the sentence. Not based on how much we dislike him or the fame of his victims.

The 'sisters' of the LFC thread in football forum might be anxious reading that

Faugheen

joseywhales wrote: »

I am still perplexed by 3 years for a non violent crime, why are we using state resources to incarcerate a person who poses no viable threat to society?

I could commit fraud, affecting the financial lives of millions and not get three years in prison for example.

It's seems like the sentence is PR motivated. Instead of six high profile journalists, if it had been 6 elderly pensioner farmers in rural Ireland being shaken down with a actual threat of violence, the perps would not get three years. It just doesn't seem equitable to me.

Whether the guy is a 'cretin' a 'specimen' 'scum' , whatever name, is irrelevant, the sentence should be based on his threat level to people and secondly whether he is likely to be rehabilitated by the sentence. Not based on how much we dislike him or the fame of his victims.

More excuses and more downplaying of what he actually did.

He made their lives hell for SIX years because they are journalists he doesn’t agree with.

Tony EH

joseywhales wrote: »

I am still perplexed by 3 years for a non violent crime,

I imagine that is cumulative and pertinent to the length of his torment, coupled with the number of people he targeted. Add to that the fact that he was given warnings to stop, which he chose to ignore.

There's nothing "perplexing" going on here at all really.

joseywhales

Faugheen wrote: »

More excuses and more downplaying of what he actually did.

He made their lives hell for SIX years because they are journalists he doesn’t agree with.

In reference to the crime itself, I believe I only stated that the crime was non-violent and that the victims were 6 journalists who had some fame, was it a violent crime or were the victim not journalists of some fame?

Faugheen

joseywhales wrote: »

In reference to the crime itself, I believe I only stated that the crime was non-violent and that the victims were 6 journalists who had some fame, was it a violent crime or were the victim not journalists of some fame?

I believe I stated you are downplaying what he did because it was ‘non-violent’ as you put it.

Just because other sentences you seem to be lenient doesn’t mean this one is. Let it be a message to some of the trolls here.

joseywhales

Faugheen wrote: »

I believe I stated you are downplaying what he did because it was ‘non-violent’ as you put it.

Just because other sentences you seem to be lenient doesn’t mean this one is. Let it be a message to some of the trolls here.

1.) As I put it? Was there violence involved, yes or no?

2.) So the length of a custodial sentence should not be based primarily on whether a crime is violent?

3.) Sentences are lenient, should all sentences be increased relative to this sentence for non violent harassment?