Sil Fox cleared (Very clear video evidence of lies of accuser)

Dempo1

silver2020 wrote: »

He does a huge number of corporate gigs and they are far more lucrative than pub gigs.

And if there's even a whiff of controversy the corporates will just move to another person.

Jesus I'm glad I'm not an employee of a company who considers fox entertaining, god, sounds like a very dull affair all together

bossdrum

Dempo1 wrote: »

Jesus I'm glad I'm not an employee of a company who considers fox entertaining, god, sounds like a very dull affair all together

It doesn't really matter if you or I find him entertaining.
He has lost a lot of work and will probably never be hired again.
Despite being found to have done nothing wrong, this accusation will stay with him for the rest of his life and it's a bit of cheap shot for you to give your rating of his talent in a thread on such a serious topic as this.

Dempo1

bossdrum wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if you or I find him entertaining.
He has lost a lot of work and will probably never be hired again.
Despite being found to have done nothing wrong, this accusation will stay with him for the rest of his life and it's a bit of cheap shot for you to give your rating of his talent in a thread on such a serious topic as this.

It is a serious topic but sadly the thread has descended into farcical notions of Garda corruption, absurd assertions about tampered video evidence etc. The facts remain, evidence and or potential prosecution down to DPP to decide upon. Just thought it a stretch by fox to say his career ruined but I accept he's been wronged.

Curse These Metal Hands

Dempo1 wrote: »

It is a serious topic but sadly the thread has descended into farcical notions of Garda corruption, absurd assertions about tampered video evidence etc. The facts remain, evidence and or potential prosecution down to DPP to decide upon. Just thought it a stretch by fox to say his career ruined but I accept he's been wronged.

The tampered video was about a different case.

I fail to see the side splitting humour in an elderly man being upset that his reputation has been damaged due to vindictive lies, strange sense of humour you have.

Really alarming that there are a few posters trying to minimise the seriousness of this. The old "it doesn't happen often" argument is so pathetic.

...Ghost...

Dempo1 wrote: »

Jesus I'm glad I'm not an employee of a company who considers fox entertaining, god, sounds like a very dull affair all together

An old man has his life turned upside down and his career taken away because he was kind enough to pose for a picture. And you think it's appropriate to foist your laughter rating of him into this thread, which is completely irrelevant. Disturbing.

bubblypop wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you had an issue with people being accused of something they didn't do?
Maybe not really.

Once again you prove my point and say something you know to be untrue just to try score a couple of points. Have any of the police or CPS been arrested and charged for tampering with evidence? No! Have any individuals been named in either organisation? No!



There is a big difference between a comment or accusation being made about an organisation and an individual being accused of something, especially when the accusation is something as taboo as a sex crime. Do you disagree with that too?



With regard to the UK case, only the DPP was criticised directly by some members of the public and because of the pressure she was putting on the police and CPS to convict more men, resulting in the types of shambolic cases we are discussing.


I am of the view that the only people who would defend any person or organisation complicit in the destruction of an innocent mans life and livelihood is either a troll, of unsound mind, or has deep biased connections with the organisations involved in part, or in full. Such organisations include, but are not limited to:
Womens aid
Rape crisis networks
the DPP
State prosecutor
The Gardaí.


I have no doubt that there are many, many within all these organisations that are great people who do a great job and serve the public well. Unfortunately there are some who are willfully blind or incompetent and some who are malicious in their roles.

TomTomTim

bossdrum wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if you or I find him entertaining.
He has lost a lot of work and will probably never be hired again.
Despite being found to have done nothing wrong, this accusation will stay with him for the rest of his life and it's a bit of cheap shot for you to give your rating of his talent in a thread on such a serious topic as this.

It's not the same, but the movie The Hunt did a great job of showing the affect of false accusations, and how the accused never truly gets their life back in the way that it once was.

Getoffmytrain

If this was a civil case, which has a lower standard of proof, it wouldn't have made it to Court as the perjurers' solicitor would go off record once discovery showed there was no case to answer, with a stern warning that she would be prosecuted for perjury.



The DPP needs to provide the reasons why such a ridiculous case made it to a Circuit Court hearing. Someone in the DPP's office approved this malicious prosecution and is presumably still in their job, which is the most worrying part for society. Presumably the perjurer is associated with someone in that office or a politician for this to have proceeded.



Mr Fox should contact his local TD and ask that the Minister for Justice is asked about the case via a parliamentary question.

jimwallace197

Getoffmytrain wrote: »

If this was a civil case, which has a lower standard of proof, it wouldn't have made it to Court as the perjurers' solicitor would go off record once discovery showed there was no case to answer, with a stern warning that she would be prosecuted for perjury.



The DPP needs to provide the reasons why such a ridiculous case made it to a Circuit Court hearing. Someone in the DPP's office approved this malicious prosecution and is presumably still in their job, which is the most worrying part for society. Presumably the perjurer is associated with someone in that office or a politician for this to have proceeded.



Mr Fox should contact his local TD and ask that the Minister for Justice is asked about the case via a parliamentary question.

The justice minister who's Varadkars lapdog, corrupt herself, appoints supreme court judges on her own, got her big break off her Daddy's back & completely out of her depth. I wouldn't waste my time.

She is more interested in going after people posting naughty photos on the internet

cokeiscrap

Fake Scores wrote: »

Heroin?

Dope!

martingriff

jimwallace197 wrote: »

The justice minister who's Varadkars lapdog, corrupt herself, appoints supreme court judges on her own, got her big break off her Daddy's back & completely out of her depth. I wouldn't waste my time.

She is more interested in going after people posting naughty photos on the internet

So doing that is alright then

jimwallace197

martingriff wrote: »

So doing that is alright then

Didnt say that but its an easy target and there are a lot more pressing issues which she isnt too keen on addressing.

Its low hanging fruit

martingriff

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Didnt say that but its an easy target and there are a lot more pressing issues which she isnt too keen on addressing.

Its low hanging fruit

I agree there should be other issues also addressed but how is someones private pictures been uploaded for all to see without there knowledge not a serious issue that should also be tackled. Would you like it if it happened to someone you knew and nothing could be done as oh we decided to tackle other issues first. Ever hear of multitasking. Anonymity should be for all until a case is done

jimwallace197

martingriff wrote: »

I agree there should be other issues also addressed but how is someones private pictures been uploaded for all to see without there knowledge not a serious issue that should also be tackled. Would you like it if it happened to someone you knew and nothing could be done as oh we decided to tackle other issues first. Ever hear of multitasking. Anonymity should be for all until a case is done

Its a serious issue that the social media companies need to address and be forced to address if necessary.

Criminalizing this behavior is all well and good but its not going to result in prison sentences except in exceptional circumstances.

Many many other things she could be addressing instead of the easy populace stuff.

Lack of a garda presence in high crime areas, revolving door of our justice system, the highest legal costs in europe, people falsely accusing other people of serious crimes who get away scot free, peoples (mainly men) reputations being utterly destroyed by these false accusations, systemic garda corrupution, little to no accountability within AGS, an out of her depth DPP amongst many many other things.

But I guess that's not popular or easy now is it?

martingriff

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Its a serious issue that the social media companies need to address and be forced to address if necessary.

Criminalizing this behavior is all well and good but its not going to result in prison sentences except in exceptional circumstances.

Many many other things she could be addressing instead of the easy populace stuff.

Lack of a garda presence in high crime areas, revolving door of our justice system, the highest legal costs in europe, people falsely accusing other people of serious crimes who get away scot free, peoples (mainly men) reputations being utterly destroyed by these false accusations, systemic garda corrupution, little to no accountability within AGS, an out of her depth DPP amongst many many other things.

But I guess that's not popular or easy now is it?

Did I say that. I would say they are all popular. Is it easy well I am not a legal person so can not answer that.

kravmaga

jimwallace197 wrote: »

And we have another one like her here right now, Claire Loftus, masters in public sector management and a diploma in European law. Way out of her depth and promoting a pro feminist agenda.

Agreed, 2 useless qualifications, not worth the paper they are written on,

jimwallace197

https://www.independent.ie/news/garda-questioned-after-woman-alleges-she-was-sexually-assaulted-in-garda-station-40124703.html

Great bunch of lads they are altogether. What next?

Will be interesting to see if our so called DPP goes ahead with this prosecution in the way she has gone ahead with previous incidents of this nature with contradicting evidence.

AndrewJRenko

Getoffmytrain wrote: »

Someone in the DPP's office approved this malicious prosecution and is presumably still in their job, which is the most worrying part for society. Presumably the perjurer is associated with someone in that office or a politician for this to have proceeded.

That's a very strange and very specific allegation to make. Presumably you have something to base it on, other than wild speculation?

Getoffmytrain wrote: »

Mr Fox should contact his local TD and ask that the Minister for Justice is asked about the case via a parliamentary question.

The DPP is independent of the Minister, and rightly so. You really don't want any politician to be directing prosecutions. The DPP will not be answering a PQ.

jimwallace197 wrote: »

an out of her depth DPP amongst many many other things.

Again, it would be helpful if you could be more specific in your allegations against the DPP - how did you conclude that she is out of her depth? Presumably you haven't based that decision solely on this one particular case?

kravmaga wrote: »

Agreed, 2 useless qualifications, not worth the paper they are written on,

Useless qualifications? Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a fairly good idea to me that the person responsible for 200 staff and a budget of €40 million has some qualification in management.

jimwallace197

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a very strange and very specific allegation to make. Presumably you have something to base it on, other than wild speculation?


The DPP is independent of the Minister, and rightly so. You really don't want any politician to be directing prosecutions. The DPP will not be answering a PQ.



Again, it would be helpful if you could be more specific in your allegations against the DPP - how did you conclude that she is out of her depth? Presumably you haven't based that decision solely on this one particular case?


Useless qualifications? Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a fairly good idea to me that the person responsible for 200 staff and a budget of €40 million has some qualification in management.

Yet, I dont see you complaining that the Justice minister appointed an underqualified Seamus Woulfe (big Fine Gael supporter though) to the supreme court over other actual judges. I dont see you complaining about the separation of powers here?

...Ghost...

martingriff wrote: »

Anonymity should be for all until a case is done

Absolutely....100%. But I would go further and say that a not guilty verdict in any case should allow the accused to remain anonymous if he/she chooses. And in the event of false allegations, the people responsible should be held to account, tried and given an appropriate punishment based on the damage caused and police time wasted. None of this suspended sentence sh1te for accusing someone of rape. Although to even see the authorities charge these women would be something. Most of the time, it's swept under the rug.

...Ghost...

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Yet, I dont see you complaining that the Justice minister appointed an underqualified Seamus Woulfe (big Fine Gael supporter though) to the supreme court over other actual judges. I dont see you complaining about the separation of powers here?

I was thinking the very same. Separated on paper only. In reality, favours are owed and expected...warning...wild speculation. Wolfe has a neck harder than the brass of any in Fine Gael.

AndrewJRenko

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Yet, I dont see you complaining that the Justice minister appointed an underqualified Seamus Woulfe (big Fine Gael supporter though) to the supreme court over other actual judges. I dont see you complaining about the separation of powers here?

Are you trying to drag the thread off-topic to avoid giving details of your specific complaints about the DPP?

Where is the evidence of this feminist agenda you claimed?

jimwallace197

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you trying to drag the thread off-topic to avoid giving details of your specific complaints about the DPP?

Where is the evidence of this feminist agenda you claimed?

Sorry but werent you the one who started talking about separation of powers and how the DPP should be independent of any political questioning or interference? Then i called out your bull**** and now you accuse me of dragging the the thread off-topic.

UcdLaw22

jimwallace197 wrote: »

And we have another one like her here right now, Claire Loftus, masters in public sector management and a diploma in European law. Way out of her depth and promoting a pro feminist agenda.

This is Claire Loftus' career before becoming DPP:
Qualified as a solicitor in 1992
Began her career a prosecutor in 1993
Served in the District Court section for seven years
She was the solicitor to Tribunal of Inquiry into the Blood Transfusion Service Board and was involved in the prosecution of Charles Haughey in 1998 related to obstruction of the McCracken Tribunal
Between 2001 and 2009, she was the Chief Prosecution Solicitor at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and she was later in charge of the Directing Division at the DPP from 2009
She served on the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society of Ireland from 2002 until being appointed DPP, including a term as the chair

This is the career of the preceeding DPP James Hamilton before his appointment:

Called to the Bar of Ireland and practised on the Northern and Dublin Circuits from 1973 to 1981
He was the prosecuting counsel for County Donegal from 1977 until 1981 when he was appointed as a full-time legal adviser to the Attorney General of Ireland
In 1995 he was appointed the permanent head of the Office of the Attorney General and senior legal adviser to the Attorney General
He was a member of the Constitution Review Group which published a comprehensive review of the Constitution of Ireland in 1996

Hamilton has B.A.(Mod.) in History and Political Science from Trinity. Loftus has a B.A in History and Politics from UCD, along with, as you mentioned, her masters and diploma.

Notwithstanding your dislike of her, their career and education seem pretty similar. Was Hamilton also underqualified in your view?

I think you will find that, to a certain few posters on here, all that matters is she is female.
Which is bad, obviously.

jimwallace197

UcdLaw22 wrote: »

This is Claire Loftus' career before becoming DPP:
Qualified as a solicitor in 1992
Began her career a prosecutor in 1993
Served in the District Court section for seven years
She was the solicitor to Tribunal of Inquiry into the Blood Transfusion Service Board and was involved in the prosecution of Charles Haughey in 1998 related to obstruction of the McCracken Tribunal
Between 2001 and 2009, she was the Chief Prosecution Solicitor at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and she was later in charge of the Directing Division at the DPP from 2009
She served on the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society of Ireland from 2002 until being appointed DPP, including a term as the chair

This is the career of the preceeding DPP James Hamilton before his appointment:

Called to the Bar of Ireland and practised on the Northern and Dublin Circuits from 1973 to 1981
He was the prosecuting counsel for County Donegal from 1977 until 1981 when he was appointed as a full-time legal adviser to the Attorney General of Ireland
In 1995 he was appointed the permanent head of the Office of the Attorney General and senior legal adviser to the Attorney General
He was a member of the Constitution Review Group which published a comprehensive review of the Constitution of Ireland in 1996

Hamilton has B.A.(Mod.) in History and Political Science from Trinity. Loftus has a B.A in History and Politics from UCD, along with, as you mentioned, her masters and diploma.

Notwithstanding your dislike of her, their career and education seem pretty similar. Was Hamilton also underqualified in your view?

Big big difference between a solicitor and a Barrister. She is the first DPP who wasnt a Barrister actually which may explain alot. Accumulating qualifications predominantly in History and the likes of Public Sector management (which is a ridiculous qualification btw) looks nice on paper but doesn't stack up on in real life. She was a solicitor, plenty of them around nowadays, doesn't make you fit to lead the office of the DPP. On top of this, its been much easier to obtain qualifications in recent times then it was in the 60's, 70's and 80's when the cost was much higher & access to education more limited.

As well as this, we didn't see the DPP proceeding with these type of ridiculous cases back when Hamilton was in charge, did we now?

And it has nothing to do with her gender, if it was a male, it would be just as bad.

Curse These Metal Hands

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you trying to drag the thread off-topic to avoid giving details of your specific complaints about the DPP?

Where is the evidence of this feminist agenda you claimed?

Why can't you just admit what happened was wrong? You thanked a post earlier making fun of Sil Fox's devastation over this.

It's OK to acknowledge that this shouldn't have happened, it won't damage feminism or set women back by 50 years. Show some objectivity, it will make what you say appear more credible.

AndrewJRenko

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Why can't you just admit what happened was wrong? You thanked a post earlier making fun of Sil Fox's devastation over this.

It's OK to acknowledge that this shouldn't have happened, it won't damage feminism or set women back by 50 years. Show some objectivity, it will make what you say appear more credible.

I didn't say anything about whether this particular case was right or wrong. I didn't follow it closely enough to come to an opinion, so I've kept my mouth shut on that.

But even it is was wrong, that's a long way off 'a pro feminist agenda', so I've asked those who have made such claims for some evidence or examples. I've not seen any such evidence here.

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Sorry but werent you the one who started talking about separation of powers and how the DPP should be independent of any political questioning or interference? Then i called out your bull**** and now you accuse me of dragging the the thread off-topic.

I didn't say the the DPP 'should be 'independent, I said they ARE independent. That's not an opinion, that's a fact in law, so I've no idea what 'bull' you called out.

I'm not going to get into a debate about Woulfe here. I've just asked that post some examples or evidence of the 'pro feminist agenda' that you mentioned.

...Ghost...

jimwallace197 wrote: »

And it has nothing to do with her gender, if it was a male, it would be just as bad.

Here, here! I couldn't agree more. A certain few posters on here want it to be about women. Truth is, it's about lies, corruption, negligence, incompetence and malice from certain organisations.

Curse These Metal Hands

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't say anything about whether this particular case was right or wrong. I didn't follow it closely enough to come to an opinion, so I've kept my mouth shut on that..

You're posting in a thread about a topic , where indisputable video evidence has cleared a man of a wrongful accusation, and you have no opinion?

It is factually and indisputably a false allegation. Do you have an opinion on whether water is wet or not?

jimwallace197

...Ghost... wrote: »

Here, here! I couldn't agree more. A certain few posters on here want it to be about women. Truth is, it's about lies, corruption, negligence, incompetence and malice from certain organisations.

Playing the sexist card gives them a way out and funnily enough, the one who is bringing up gender is in fact the most biased here when it comes to this topic and simply looks to avoid any of your questions.

Its funny how hypocritical they are but on the other hand, scary that they are involved in these type of cases no doubt.