Internet Troll gets three years

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any other example in Irish law of someone who got 3 years or more in jail for non contact harassment (e.g. repeated phone calls or letters) ? I think this is the question we have to ask.

I'm not suggesting the sentence is too light, just suggesting that it's not consistent with other equally bad or worse offences.

The question we should be asking is "what is the appropriate sentence for somebody who undertook a sustained campaign of harrassment over multiple years against multiple women". 3 years in prison is not an unreasonable answer to that question.

ohnonotgmail

The funny thing about this thread is that for years we have had threads complaining about sentences being too lenient yet when we finally have a sentence that is appropriate we have posters trying to use those lenient sentences as some sort of precedent.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The question we should be asking is "what is the appropriate sentence for somebody who undertook a sustained campaign of harrassment over multiple years against multiple women". 3 years in prison is not an unreasonable answer to that question.

According to the Irish Times, Doolin called them wannabes, nobodies, bigots, leftists, and pseudo-intellectuals. He said they were narcissistic, self-obsessed attention seekers who lived in a Twitter bubble. He told two of them that they were "as interesting as a bucket of water and as deep as the goldfish in it." He looked up old photos of one of the women on the Internet.

When it comes to online abuse, on a scale of 1 to 10 this kind of stuff rates about a 2.

Sure, he should have knocked it off when requested. But nothing he did was remotely comparable to the threats made by Stephen French (who described in detail the kind of gun he planned to use to kill Lorraine Higgins, and how he planned to murder her), who got a six-month suspended sentence.

Three years in prison is entirely unjustified in this case, and a classic example of Judge Nolan's "Magic 8-Ball" approach to sentencing.

ohnonotgmail

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

According to the Irish Times, Doolin called them wannabes, nobodies, bigots, leftists, and pseudo-intellectuals. He said they were narcissistic, self-obsessed attention seekers who lived in a Twitter bubble. He told two of them that they were "as interesting as a bucket of water and as deep as the goldfish in it." He looked up old photos of one of the women on the Internet.

When it comes to online abuse, on a scale of 1 to 10 this kind of stuff rates about a 2.

Sure, he should have knocked it off when requested. But nothing he did was remotely comparable to the threats made by Stephen French (who described in detail the kind of gun he planned to use to kill Lorraine Higgins, and how he planned to murder her), who got a six-month suspended sentence.

Three years in prison is entirely unjustified in this case, and a classic example of Judge Nolan's "Magic 8-Ball" approach to sentencing.

It is funny how some people are very keen to downplay this type of harassment.

charlietheminxx

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

According to the Irish Times, Doolin called them wannabes, nobodies, bigots, leftists, and pseudo-intellectuals. He said they were narcissistic, self-obsessed attention seekers who lived in a Twitter bubble. He told two of them that they were "as interesting as a bucket of water and as deep as the goldfish in it." He looked up old photos of one of the women on the Internet.

When it comes to online abuse, on a scale of 1 to 10 this kind of stuff rates about a 2.

He told one of the women to break her legs. He told them he was going to show up to events, threatened to go to ones of their homes. He contacted their friends and family.

The downplaying you're doing is pathetic.

nkl12xtw5goz70

charlietheminxx wrote: »

He told one of the women to break her legs.

He told her to "break both legs" when she was going on a TV show. You seem unfamiliar with the expression "break a leg," so it probably bears repeating that it doesn't mean you literally want the person to break her leg.

He told them he was going to show up to events, threatened to go to ones of their homes. He contacted their friends and family.

I know. It was so bad that the judge concluded that he was "probably attempting" to frighten them.

ohnonotgmail

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

He told her to "break both legs" when she was going on a TV show. You seem unfamiliar with the expression "break a leg," so it probably bears repeating that it doesn't mean you literally want the person to break her leg.



I know. It was so bad that the judge concluded that he was "probably attempting" to frighten them.

It is funny how you suddenly find Judge Martin Nolan credible. Like i said the amount of downplaying going on is quite telling.

paleoperson

Wavy wrote: »

One of the 2 times this man had left the house in 17 years was to get the social welfare id card, presumably it was jobseekers allowence he was getting as he had no medical diagnosis ? Why hadn't he been obliged to attend his social welfare office regularly to show proof of looking for work or enrolled with Jobpath or put on a ce scheme ?

He was probably on disability. But really - left the house twice in 17 years? He didn't ever feel the need to pop out for a bit of fresh air or a bottle of milk the whole time? I don't believe it. Did it not strike Judge Nolan to comment on this?

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Nolan is coming under increased and repeated public scrutiny for his sentencing including at least two online petitions and a lot of sustained tweeting/posting about him and his leniency towards sexual and domestic abusers. This includes people posting pictures of him online too. Stock pictures sure but pictures nonetheless

There has even been an article in the Journal highlighting his sentencing and public "outrage" about it in the last 12 months.

There is no doubt that Doolin was guilty of what he did but sending him to prison for 3 years is ridiculous. 6 months maybe and treatment in a mental health facility would be more fitting. Particularly given that sexual abusers are getting those type of sentences, and lighter ones, by Nolan for sustained and continuous physical and sexual abuse against children/people.

The cynic in me thinks Nolan is setting down a marker and making an example of Doolin as a warning to those that continually criticise him and other judges online.

This is a really good post. The judge is clearly not fit.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The question we should be asking is "what is the appropriate sentence for somebody who undertook a sustained campaign of harrassment over multiple years against multiple women". 3 years in prison is not an unreasonable answer to that question.

It doesn't matter how many years it was over, what matters is what he said. There is no reason why someone can't go ahead and call a reporter a narcissist online every day, it's an allowed insult. The only reason people wouldn't do it is because they would get tired of it and have better things to do - he didn't get tired of it or have better things to do. The only case you have is to gather together the criminal things he said and we have seen the worst of them. They couldn't even fill one article without 90% of the article resorting to preaching by the judge and victim impact statements. They were nothing like threats to kill someone.

Sometimes I feel like victim impact statements could be done away with altogether as the focus should be on what acts the person actually did. People react in different ways to things, and sometimes totally irrationally. While they might serve a useful function in some situations if they can be shown as evidence for a crime, not here imo.

Tony EH

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The funny thing about this thread is that for years we have had threads complaining about sentences being too lenient yet when we finally have a sentence that is appropriate we have posters trying to use those lenient sentences as some sort of precedent.

Perhaps it's their "type" of crime? :pac:

It's baffling why anyone would want to rush in to white knight this creep.

ohnonotgmail

paleoperson wrote: »

He was probably on disability. But really - left the house twice in 17 years? He didn't ever feel the need to pop out for a bit of fresh air or a bottle of milk the whole time? I don't believe it. Did it not strike Judge Nolan to comment on this?



This is a really good post. The judge is clearly not fit.



It doesn't matter how many years it was over, what matters is what he said. There is no reason why someone can't go ahead and call a reporter a narcissist online every day, it's an allowed insult. The only case you have is to gather together the criminal things he said and we have seen the worst of them. They couldn't even fill one article without 90% of the article resorting to preaching by the judge and victim impact statements. They were nothing like threats to kill someone.

Harassing somebody is criminal. the things said do not have to be criminal in themselves.

paleoperson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Harassing somebody is criminal. the things said do not have to be criminal in themselves.

I find that to be a real mockery of the very real problem of harassment of people and you should be ashamed of yourself.

ohnonotgmail

paleoperson wrote: »

I find that to be a real mockery of the very real problem of harassment of people and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Well apologies if you are talking about something without bothering to find out what the words used actually mean. Informed discussion is not for everybody i suppose.

charlietheminxx

paleoperson wrote: »

I find that to be a real mockery of the very real problem of harassment of people and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Have you ever experienced harassment? Do you have any idea of the effect it has on your life over an extended period of time?

paleoperson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well apologies if you are talking about something without bothering to find out what the words used actually mean. Informed discussion is not for everybody i suppose.

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Have you ever experienced harassment? Do you have any idea of the effect it has on your life over an extended period of time?

Harassment by definition means to stop someone from going about their activities normally. You don't have to open emails. The only way you could harass someone by sending emails is if they are really vulgar, not just criticising them. Saying you thought their article was ****ty is not harassment even if you do it every time they write one.

By minimizing this idea of harassment saying that someone saying their opinion about you online is harassment is a very serious thing.

ohnonotgmail

paleoperson wrote: »

Harassment by definition means to stop someone from going about their activities normally. You don't have to open emails. The only way you could harass someone by sending emails is if they are really vulgar, not just criticising them. Saying you thought their article was ****ty is not harassment even if you do it every time they write one.

It doesn't. Like i said, informed discussion is not for everybody.

Overheal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The funny thing about this thread is that for years we have had threads complaining about sentences being too lenient yet when we finally have a sentence that is appropriate we have posters trying to use those lenient sentences as some sort of precedent.

Bingo

Overheal

paleoperson wrote: »

I find that to be a real mockery of the very real problem of harassment of people and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Obviously you’ve never experienced a bloody Robocall in your life!

joseywhales

So noone can put forward an argument for why 3 years is an appropriate sentence, though the argument is made that a 3 year sentence for non-violent harrassment breaks precedent and is deemed too harsh.

Fine, I will continue to believe the sentence was harsh, thanks for the informative argument that never happened.

SusieBlue

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

According to the Irish Times, Doolin called them wannabes, nobodies, bigots, leftists, and pseudo-intellectuals. He said they were narcissistic, self-obsessed attention seekers who lived in a Twitter bubble. He told two of them that they were "as interesting as a bucket of water and as deep as the goldfish in it." He looked up old photos of one of the women on the Internet.

When it comes to online abuse, on a scale of 1 to 10 this kind of stuff rates about a 2.

Sure, he should have knocked it off when requested. But nothing he did was remotely comparable to the threats made by Stephen French (who described in detail the kind of gun he planned to use to kill Lorraine Higgins, and how he planned to murder her), who got a six-month suspended sentence.

Three years in prison is entirely unjustified in this case, and a classic example of Judge Nolan's "Magic 8-Ball" approach to sentencing.

How many times did those women ask him to stop?
How many times did the women block him, only for him to create another account to continue harassing them?
How many times the Gardaí warn him to leave them alone?

How far should he have been allowed go before he "earned" the 3 year sentence he got? Showing up at their homes/places of work? Continued unwanted contact to their friends and family? Should he have had to physically hurt them for his sentence to be warranted?
Bearing in mind that pleas from the women, threats from the Gardaí and the potential to get into legal trouble had proven to be no deterrant whatsoever to the man. They were terrified and had reasonable cause to be fearful of this man.
No one should have to live like that.

Also very easy for you to downplay it to a 2/10 when you weren't the one being harrassed. I'm sure you'd feel quite differently about it if you were in their shoes.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is funny how you suddenly find Judge Martin Nolan credible. Like i said the amount of downplaying going on is quite telling.

The best Nolan himself could come up with is that he "probably attempted to frighten" his targets. Not that he terrified them out of their minds for years, as some on this thread would have it.

In light of the relatively mild offense of "probably attempting to frighten" some journalists, the three-year custodial sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

Tony EH

paleoperson wrote: »

Harassment by definition means to stop someone from going about their activities normally. You don't have to open emails. The only way you could harass someone by sending emails is if they are really vulgar, not just criticising them. Saying you thought their article was ****ty is not harassment even if you do it every time they write one.

By minimizing this idea of harassment saying that someone saying things about you online is harassment is a very serious thing.

This is so simplistic and fucking stupid it beggars belief. It's difficult to believe that someone could be so thick.

Have you really no idea, at all, how insidious harassment can be. All it can take is a pointed sentence, or a disturbing remark for someone to be mentally tormented.

A single letter with a few of the right sentences has the ability to cause some serious mental anguish.

The people involved here have been subject to YEARS of targeted harassment by this fucker. That kind of thing can have an immense affect on a persons mind and their ability to function normally.

Your position, as well as the other white knights on here, is just moronic. The only question is whether that's by design or just out of simple stupidity.

For harassment people should read the first post of this thread. Those teenagers should get life if this guy gets 3 years.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058031313

joseywhales

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The funny thing about this thread is that for years we have had threads complaining about sentences being too lenient yet when we finally have a sentence that is appropriate we have posters trying to use those lenient sentences as some sort of precedent.

Right but you assume that the very same people(or perhaps the majority?) who complain that sentences are too lenient are arguing that this sentence is too harsh.

Though there is no evidence of that, perhaps many people believe that the other sentences are fair and that this sentence is harsh.

The number of threads created does not correspond to the popular and certainly not the moral choice.

charlietheminxx

paleoperson wrote: »

Harassment by definition means to stop someone from going about their activities normally. You don't have to open emails. The only way you could harass someone by sending emails is if they are really vulgar, not just criticising them. Saying you thought their article was ****ty is not harassment even if you do it every time they write one.

By minimizing this idea of harassment saying that someone saying their opinion about you online is harassment is a very serious thing.

I posted my own experience of harassment earlier in the thread. The prolonged ongoing unwanted contact is horrible and inescapable, I find it really condescending that you're trying to explain it to someone who has been through it.


Also I don't know what you do for a living, but if I don't open my emails or answer my phone, I don't get paid.

ohnonotgmail

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

The best Nolan himself could come up with is that he "probably attempted to frighten" his targets. Not that he terrified them out of their minds for years, as some on this thread would have it.

In light of the relatively mild offense of "probably attempting to frighten" some journalists, the three-year custodial sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

Nolan is a ****ing idiot not fit to be a judge. Yet somehow you place great stock in his words. I fear I am repeating myself unnecessarily but you continuing to downplay what happened to these women is very telling.

ohnonotgmail

joseywhales wrote: »

So noone can put forward an argument for why 3 years is an appropriate sentence, though the argument is made that a 3 year sentence for non-violent harrassment breaks precedent and is deemed too harsh.

Fine, I will continue to believe the sentence was harsh, thanks for the informative argument that never happened.

He harassed multiple women over multiple years. is that not enough for you?

paleoperson

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I posted my own experience of harassment earlier in the thread. The prolonged ongoing unwanted contact is horrible and inescapable, I find it really condescending that you're trying to explain it to someone who has been through it.

Also I don't know what you do for a living, but if I don't open my emails or answer my phone, I don't get paid.

Sorry to hear about your experiences but that sounds like a very different scenario where he had your mobile number and so on. He was also your ex. There was no texting or phoning in this case, it was all email as far as I know. He kept it to email and twitter.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He harassed multiple women over multiple years. is that not enough for you?

Considering your idea of harassment is calling someone a narcissist hell no.

charlietheminxx

paleoperson wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your experiences but that sounds like a very different scenario where he had your mobile number and so on. He was also your ex. There was no texting or phoning in this case, it was all email as far as I know. He kept it to email and twitter.

But things are more digital now. The messages I received weren't exactly threatening, but they were endless, came at all times of the day and night, and it was awful. You don't seem to have any empathy for these women.

Do you honestly think he should have been free to continue this behaviour into the future? A caution and being released on bail didn't stop him. What do you think should have happened here?

riclad

I think the sentence is harsh considering this person was a recluse,
he rarely left his house.
no one was in any physical danger from him.
he sent email,s and tweets to female journalists .
he was not a stalker , he never followed anyone .
Judges are supposed to take into account the circumstances of each case,
he was never going to show up at someones home or a place of work.

ohnonotgmail

paleoperson wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your experiences but that sounds like a very different scenario where he had your mobile number and so on. He was also your ex. There was no texting or phoning in this case, it was all email as far as I know. He kept it to email and twitter.



Considering your idea of harassment is calling someone a narcissist hell no.

again, you really need to look up what harassment is legally. All you are doing is confirming your ignorance of the discussion.