Internet Troll gets three years

nkl12xtw5goz70

Faugheen wrote: »

He made their lives hell for SIX years

When did these journalists decide that their lives were being made "hell" by a troll calling them pseudo-intellectual wanabees?

When did they report this "torture"?

Why did nothing happen for six years?

Faugheen

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

When did these journalists decide that their lives were being made "hell" by a troll calling them pseudo-intellectual wanabees?

When did they report this "torture"?

Why did nothing happen for six years?

This has been done to death.

Sad bastards, the lot of you defending this prick.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

This has been done to death.

Sad bastards, the lot of you defending this prick.

its always interesting to see such a lack of self awareness in action imo

the spite and bile you are happy to fling around because you are "right" is noteworthy.

heres a tip: everyone thinks they are "right"

Ironicname

Faugheen wrote:

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.

Faugheen wrote:

Sad bastards, the lot of you defending this prick.

Your lack of self awareness is astounding.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Faugheen wrote: »

This has been done to death.

Sad bastards, the lot of you defending this prick.

So you can't answer the question, then. You try instead to deflect with personal abuse.

nkl12xtw5goz70

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the spite and bile you are happy to fling around because you are "right" is noteworthy.

It's deliciously ironic that those who are defending a three-year custodial sentence for abusing people online are themselves quite happy to abuse people online.

Overheal

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

When did these journalists decide that their lives were being made "hell" by a troll calling them pseudo-intellectual wanabees?

When did they report this "torture"?

Why did nothing happen for six years?

The window for you to apply as his attorney has expired. The court has heard all the facts and the verdict has already been rendered.

Ironicname

Overheal wrote:

The window for you to apply as his attorney has expired. The court has heard all the facts and the verdict has already been rendered.

So? Are questions not allowed?

Overheal

Ironicname wrote: »

So? Are questions not allowed?

Fire away lad but they’re utterly rhetorical, and I imagine the vast majority of such questions pelted here will have been roundly addressed in the court proceedings.

Faugheen

I seem to have touched a nerve with a few.

Faugheen

Sham 42 wrote: »

You're just a hypocrite.

The man who was crying about me name-calling resorts to name-calling.

Arghus

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.

True colours starting to show here.

It's not hard reading between the lines why there's such a clamour to defend this guy.

Faugheen

Sham 42 wrote: »

It's not name calling when it's the truth.

You’re just short of saying ‘I know you are but what am I?’

Out of your league, son

Ironicname

Faugheen wrote:

You’re just short of saying ‘I know you are but what am I?’

It's absolutely not name calling when pointing out your hypocrisy.

"Out of your league son"???

Again, your lack of self awareness is astonishing

Faugheen

Ironicname wrote: »

It's absolutely not name calling when pointing out your hypocrisy.

"Out of your league son"???

Again, your lack of self awareness is astonishing

I’m very self-aware. You lot are getting your jocks/knickers/whatever you wear in a twist of my calling you sad bastards when you think this fellas behaviour is grand and harmless.

Ironicname

Faugheen wrote:

I’m very self-aware. You lot are getting your jocks/knickers/whatever you wear in a twist of my calling you sad bastards when you think this fellas behaviour is grand and harmless.

I've done and said no such thing.

Your opinion of other posters is none of my concern. I find it amusing and a little sad that you can't see that on this thread (and others) you denigrate and insult people who don't share your opinion on a variety of subjects, and then have the tenacity to claim to be appalled by online abuse.

My underwear remains untwisted and I haven't defended the man's behaviour.

Melanchthon

Thing is people keep hand waving away other examples of crimes that cause severe actual physical harm to people with the response

"just because other sentences are lax doesn't mean this sentence is wrong"

The Irish prison system is at capacity, jailing someone for this amount of time means a violent offender will probably serve less time or get early release.
A mental health intervention and barring him from the internet as well as holding him to other conditions seems like a much more sensible use of resources.

Sham 42 wrote: »

Amazing how normally 'liberal' posters suddenly support excessively harsh prison sentences.

Agreed same posters in full support of the length of this sentence are the same ones that will espouse the Norway model despite the fact in a system like that 3 years for offence with no physical violence involved is completely counter to that model

nkl12xtw5goz70

Faugheen wrote: »

I’m very self-aware. You lot are getting your jocks/knickers/whatever you wear in a twist of my calling you sad bastards when you think this fellas behaviour is grand and harmless.

If you were so self-aware, you might appreciate that "this fellas [sic] behaviour" (abusing people online for their views) is exactly what you yourself are also doing.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Sham 42 wrote: »

Thought you liberals want to rehabilitate criminals, not punish them?

I don't think anyone who advocates sending a nonviolent, mentally ill recluse to prison for three years can legitimately describe him- or herself as a liberal.

SaintLeibowitz

Absolutely grim thread.

paleoperson

Faugheen wrote: »

I seem to have touched a nerve with a few.

Well there you go, that's what the troll does. He/she comes into a thread hurling abuse at people and takes glee in see all the heated replies.

Any self-respecting individual would be annoyed by what you've said about them. Happy with what you've caused then? Feel good about the attention? Oh look at all those replies, all replying to you. It's like a small child's mentality that they can't distinguish good attention from bad attention and like it either way. You're a sad case yourself.

How you're allowed to say this stuff is beyond me and you are what makes boards.ie a bad website and why I don't come to these boards too often.

Overheal

paleoperson wrote: »

How you're allowed to say this stuff is beyond me and you are what makes boards.ie a bad website and why I don't come to these boards too often.

Gross!

Raconteuse

wiggle16 wrote: »

Alarm bells about what exactly? Sorry, did you miss the part where this harassment went on for six years?

From the article you linked:

Christine Bohan, who got more than 450 messages from Doolin, also received a 10-year-old political leaflet from him which carried a photograph of her on it. She was also sent an image of her from a dinner at her old college.

Both of these images caused concern to Ms Bohan as she was not named in either and it worried her that the person had “scoured the internet looking for her image

Crikey, to be honest I agree three years in prison seems excessive, but people are downplaying the above?!

Overheal

Raconteuse wrote: »

Crikey, to be honest I agree three years in prison seems excessive, but people are downplaying the above?!

This. Questionable sentences like for Eddie Halvey don’t make this lads actions forgivable. Folks should be happy there isn’t apparently a similar court precedent that stalkers need to be treated with “boys will be boys”

Omackeral

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Delighted for the sad bastard. Hopefully other cowardly, woman-hating, sad bastards will feel a little less safe in their self-imposed isolation.

He's afraid to go into general popular in jail. Has himself segregated. Coward is about the right term,

EmmetSpiceland

Omackeral wrote: »

He's afraid to go into general popular in jail. Has himself segregated. Coward is about the right term,

Can you do that? Just request not to be in with the others?

paleoperson

Raconteuse wrote: »

Crikey, to be honest I agree three years in prison seems excessive, but people are downplaying the above?!

Nobody "downplayed" anything.

A few of us here said that we believe this sentence was excessive just like yourself, and a gang of trolls started hurling abuse like saying we were scum, "sad cases" and so on.

You would be considered to be "defending him" by the fact of how you think it's excessive. Even after I explained my position that it's just the extent of the punishment, the next post I was supposedly "defending him". It's crazy.

Ironicname

paleoperson wrote:

You would be considered to be "defending him" by the fact of how you think it's excessive. Even after I explained my position that it's just the extent of the punishment I was "defending him". It's crazy.

It's par for the course these days. Don't agree with me 100%, then you are part of the problem or some kind of 'phobe.

Omackeral

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Can you do that? Just request not to be in with the others?

You've two basic options. General population or protection.

General population is self explanatory. Protection is if you feel under threat from specific persons or just overall. Protection prisoners mix in very small groups with each other on separate landings. Some elect not to even mix within thier own group and "do it behind the door".

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

It took me about 14 seconds on Google to locate an image of Ms. Bohan at her debs, which I assume was more than 10 years ago. Old images of her are not hard to find, and it's not a criminal offense to look for them.

Imagine telling on yourself like this.