An Garda Síochána - COVID19

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'd have to go back and watch it, it's in the video. I thought the Garda said section 4 of the mental health act. Not going to do it right now.

The man was detained under the mental treatment act, nothing to do with the kids.

The Nal

Here is is in the background with his kids behind the shop keeper whos taking a load of abuse. This was a grift, simple. He and the National Party just walked away with 14 grand of other peoples money.

https://twitter.com/IamAngelbrooks/status/1389747187341533184

drunkmonkey

bubblypop wrote: »

The man was detained under the mental treatment act, nothing to do with the kids.

What section, it allowed them to take the kids unless they were taken under a separate act or order.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What section, it allowed them to take the kids unless they were taken under a separate act or order.

That is a separate matter

drunkmonkey

The Nal wrote: »

This was a grift, simple. He and the National Party just walked away with 14 grand of other peoples money.

Rebecca Barrett is organizing this fundraiser, you'd wonder how much of it will Pat see if anything.

Ashbourne hoop

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What section, it allowed them to take the kids unless they were taken under a separate act or order.

Children were removed under section 12 of the Child Care Act, as clearly stated in the video by Gardai. His detention was under the Mental Health Act, completely different.

HeidiHeidi

bluepurple wrote: »

Because it’s easier for them to shove someone onto a psychiatrist than dealing with the situation themselves. You only have to look at what happened in Dundrum back in March to see what’s going on.

This is an example of what drives me absolutely nuts about boards, and the internet/social media in general. As well as the case currently being discussed.


Someone sees a headline (or even half a headline sometimes), jumps to a wildly incorrect conclusion, and just runs with it. 5 posts later, it's become a fact.


Or chooses the bit of the headline (or article, or video) that suits their particular agenda, ignore any other bits that don't, and sets off on a run with it.


Or just goes on a solo run in the absense of any actual knowledge of a topic or incident, making up the bits that they don't know to fill in the gaps.


:mad:

If it's the case of the standoff at the gates of Dundrum a while back, I'm sure the poster I quoted well knows (and if they don't, why are they citing that example?), those Gardai were executing a court order. How exactly were they meant to "deal with the situation themselves"?? (I actually don't want an answer to that)


/rant

bluepurple

bluepurple wrote: »

I have very close friends and family that work in mental health services. It happens every day of the week. Keep deluding yourself though.

What happened in dundrum?
And what are people deluding themselves about?

HeidiHeidi

bubblypop wrote: »

What happened in dundrum?
And what are people deluding themselves about?

Gardai executed a court order.

bluepurple

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Gardai executed a court order.

And assaulted staff while doing so. Leave that part out anyways.

Acosta

The Nal wrote: »

Here is is in the background with his kids behind the shop keeper whos taking a load of abuse. This was a grift, simple. He and the National Party just walked away with 14 grand of other peoples money.

https://twitter.com/IamAngelbrooks/status/1389747187341533184

Christ, that woman is an absolute wretch.

bluepurple

bluepurple wrote: »

And assaulted staff while doing so. Leave that part out anyways.

Ok I looked it up. No footage or anything, were you there?

bluepurple

bluepurple wrote: »

And assaulted staff while doing so. Leave that part out anyways.

Nope. Staff tried to prevent them executing a court order and Gardai used reasonable force.

I don't think you or the facility actually realise how patient those Gardai were. I wouldn't have stood there for 3 hours.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We don't know if the children were at risk nothing to suggest they were, he was proven fit by a doctor while in custody and released if the story is to be believed hence I don't see how the mental health act came into it.

If you are this clueless about the law and how the Gardai operate, stop commenting.

Seriously, instead of making yourself look a fool, read the act and ask for clarification instead of trying to tell the actual experts how it should work. This thread has exposed you badly.

bluepurple

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Nope. Staff tried to prevent them executing a court order and Gardai used reasonable force.

I don't think you or the facility actually realise how patient those Gardai were. I wouldn't have stood there for 3 hours.

And why do you think they refused him? Because they hadn’t enough beds. Do you think that’s a safe situation for them to be in? You haven’t a clue.

HeidiHeidi

bluepurple wrote: »

And why do you think they refused him? Because they hadn’t enough beds. Do you think that’s a safe situation for them to be in? You haven’t a clue.

And the court order? They should have just disregarded that and taken him and put him in a cell in the station? Or taken him home for a cuppa tea? Or brought him to a prison for which they didn't have an order?


Or what do you suggest?

bluepurple

bluepurple wrote: »

And why do you think they refused him? Because they hadn’t enough beds. Do you think that’s a safe situation for them to be in? You haven’t a clue.

I have a better clue then you that a court order trump's all.

Number of beds doesn't supercede the law. That's simple reality.

bluepurple

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I have a better clue then you that a court order trump's all.

Number of beds doesn't supercede the law. That's simple reality.

Thank god you’re not in charge of anything risk assessment related so.

drunkmonkey

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If you are this clueless about the law and how the Gardai operate, stop commenting.

Seriously, instead of making yourself look a fool, read the act and ask for clarification instead of trying to tell the actual experts how it should work. This thread has exposed you badly.

You do know what discovery is i'd assume. I did read the act btw that's why I asked under what section.

If this thread had exposed anything it's your fear to have your own opinion. Your attacking people unfounded across multiple threads maybe take off the work boots for a while and join in the conversation rather being constantly agressve to a lot of posters. How could anyone have an opinion when your constantly on the attack, is it any wonder why your work mates are afriad to speak up.

bluepurple

bluepurple wrote: »

Thank god you’re not in charge of anything risk assessment related so.

What an idiotic comment.

What exactly is it you think the Gardai should have done? I'm the second person to ask you.

bluepurple

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And the court order? They should have just disregarded that and taken him and put him in a cell in the station? Or taken him home for a cuppa tea? Or brought him to a prison for which they didn't have an order?


Or what do you suggest?

He was already in prison like what are you on about.

bluepurple

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What an idiotic comment.

What exactly is it you think the Gardai should have done? I'm the second person to ask you.

I’m not engaging with you you nasty thing

HeidiHeidi

bluepurple wrote: »

He was already in prison like what are you on about.

And having appeared in court, it was deemed prison was unsuitable, and he was remanded to the CMH.


To where he was duly brought and lodged by Gardai, as ordered by the court.


What are you on about?

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You do know what discover is i'd assume. I did read the act btw that's why I asked under what section.

If this thread had exposed anything it's your fear to have your own opinion. Your attacking people unfounded across multiple threads maybe take off the work boots for a while and join in the conversation rather being constantly agressve to a lot of posters. How could anyone have an opinion when your constantly on the attack, is it any wonder why your work mates are afriad to speak up.

More buffoonery.

I engage with sensible debate. You appear to just attack Gardai, get exposed and move on.

Again, this thread has shown you up badly. You were all over ags still are but when exposed try to twist. You weren't seeking clarification of anything and don't pretend you were.

bluepurple

bluepurple wrote: »

I’m not engaging with you you nasty thing

Accuses Gardai of abusing the law and assault. Runs away crying when challenged

drunkmonkey

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

More buffoonery.

I engage with sensible debate. You appear to just attack Gardai, get exposed and move on.

Again, this thread has shown you up badly. You were all over ags still are but when exposed try to twist. You weren't seeking clarification of anything and don't pretend you were.

It's shown you unable to have your own mind and your consistently agressive manner to other posters and not just in this thread isn't doing your employer or work mates any good.
Maybe put on the customer satisfaction hat for a little while.

Tbh going by your join date just before the restrictions and attacks on anyone that tries to discuss them in relation to ags it's clear you have one agenda.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's shown you unable to have your own mind and your consistently agressive manner to other posters and not just in this thread isn't doing your employer or work mates any good.
Maybe put on the customer satisfaction hat for a little while.

Tbh going by your join date just before the restrictions and attacks on anyone that tries to discuss them in relation to ags it's clear you have one agenda.

You see, more paranoid accusations.

I'll leave it there. No need for us to engage anymore I think.

drunkmonkey

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You see, more paranoid accusations.

Can you not make any post without an attack, are you that far gone you feel the need to be constantly agressive.
You couldn't even pin your medals to your chest and share your thoughts who's the paranoid one:rolleyes:

Baggly

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You do know what discovery is i'd assume. I did read the act btw that's why I asked under what section.

If this thread had exposed anything it's your fear to have your own opinion. Your attacking people unfounded across multiple threads maybe take off the work boots for a while and join in the conversation rather being constantly agressve to a lot of posters. How could anyone have an opinion when your constantly on the attack, is it any wonder why your work mates are afriad to speak up.

Mod

Threadbanned.

Baggly

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If you are this clueless about the law and how the Gardai operate, stop commenting.

Seriously, instead of making yourself look a fool, read the act and ask for clarification instead of trying to tell the actual experts how it should work. This thread has exposed you badly.

Mod

Threadbanned