Gemma O'Doherty - Part 2 - Read OP for mod warning (06/01)

wiggle16

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Did all the village idiots get released at the same time over the weekend, Twitter full of videos of them acting the boll1x in various locations.

Anyway, this one gets his ar5e handed to him by a very patient and professional Garda.

I have to say, that was incredibly satisfying

Annasopra

Birneybau wrote: »

That Alan Sweeney is the eejit that attempted to walk from Galway to Dublin, twice, for the 'homeless'. Total dope.

Theres also footage of him beating up counter protestors

hynesie08

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Theres also footage of him beating up counter protestors

Is that the lad who slapped a rear naked choke on some poor sod down the country?

NovemberWren

fantaiscool wrote: »

Haha that back down was embarrassing.

nah. not embarrassing. he just seems a soul that is kind.
And the lovely Garda! even tempered, but very well trained.

The man should have said "I am on a lawful journey". Some persons say to say that, and that the Gardai cannot then stop you?

ohnonotgmail

NovemberWren wrote: »

nah. not embarrassing. he just seems a soul that is kind.
And the lovely Garda! even tempered, but very well trained.

Kind? did you listen to him roar at the guard? sounds lovely alright.

NovemberWren wrote: »

The man should have said "I am on a lawful journey". Some persons say to say that, and that the Gardai cannot then stop you?

and what do you say when the guard asks for the detail of that journey?

wiggle16

NovemberWren wrote: »

The man should have said "I am on a lawful journey". Some persons say to say that, and that the Gardai cannot then stop you?

This is some "Freeman on the Land" shíte. Say that to a guard and they'd rightly laugh at you.

For Forks Sake

NovemberWren wrote: »

The man should have said "I am on a lawful journey". Some persons say to say that, and that the Gardai cannot then stop you?

Ah here. that sort of b0lloxoligy was the inspiration for the Freeman on the Land megathread, it was bullsh1t then, and it's bullsh1t now.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/judge-challenged-to-produce-oath-by-man-disputing-summons-1.594474

Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons
Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 01:00
COLETTE BROWNE



A JUDGE was challenged by a defendant yesterday to produce his oath of office before proceeding with a case being heard at Wexford District Court.

Declaring that he was before the court “under duress”, Bobby Oliver Sludds (29), Ballagh Cove, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, said Judge David Anderson had no jurisdiction to deal with the case unless he first produced his oath.

“Where did you read that?” asked the judge.

“The Constitution. It says that a judge must offer up his oath when requested and I am asking you, do you have your oath?” said Mr Sludds, before picking up a copy of the Constitution and quoting from it at length.

“This is not a quiz, I ask the questions. I made my oath in front of the Chief Justice and I have no idea if he kept a record or not,” the judge replied.

“Do you speak English or legalese?” replied Mr Sludds, before putting down the Constitution and picking up a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary.

Quoting the precise definition of “summons”, Mr Sludds proceeded to dispute the validity of the summons issued by the court, in which he was charged with a number of motoring offences in Enniscorthy in April 2010.

“These offences are fraudulent and I’m not this Bobby Oliver Sludds you speak of,” he said. “That’s not me and this fictitious claim is a fraud on this court. This is not my name. I’ve been taken here against my will.”

Asked to clarify the matter, prosecuting garda Michael O’Grady said that when he had stopped the defendant and asked him his name, he had replied: “Bobby of the family Sludds”.

Mr Sludds then handed up a copy of his birth certificate to the court and repeated that he was not the man named in the summons.

Having heard repeated denials that he was the man named, the judge said he had no choice but to remand Mr Sludds in custody because there was some confusion about his true identity.

“I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified,” he said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.

“You can’t do this. This isn’t over. You can expect a bill,” Mr Sludds shouted as he was led away.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/enniscorthyguardian/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-27250040.html

September 13 2011 02:04 PM

BOBBY SLUDDS, Bobby Oliver Sludds or Bobby of the family Sludds - call him what you like, a blizzard of legal paperwork could not stave off two motor insurance convictions and a series of fines imposed on the man from 11 Ballagh Cove in The Ballagh last week.

And Sludds faces a decision on one final piece of legal paperwork as he was given seven days to sign bonds binding himself to the peace, or else face seven months in jail.

The prosecution was brought by Garda Michael O'Grady against the colourful and articulate defendant for offences committed in The Ballagh during April and May of last year. However, before the Garda could give his evidence, the accused handed in a letter and stated that he was not Mr. Sludds. He also queried the use of the word 'person' in the charge, to no avail.

He said he was not Bobby Oliver Sludds - whom he described as 'a fictional entity' - and preferred to be known as Bobby of the family Sludds. Judge William Early accepted this and marked the charges 'also known as Bobby of the family Sludds' before using this form of address throughout the rest of the proceedings.

The case continued, with the judge taking time to read a number of documents handed up to him by the accused. He also heard Bobby of the family Sludds, who came to court with at least eight supporters, quote passages from 'Black's Legal Dictionary'.

Garda O'Grady told how he first came across a blue Honda Civic bearing the registration BS PFN in Ballinamona on April 28 last year. The driver pointed a camera at him, when he approached. Insurance, motor tax and NCT summonses followed against Sludds who told the officer at the time he was a 'free man travelling, not driving'.

Michael O'Grady reported that that BS PFN appeared to stand for 'Bobby Sludds, Private Free Man'. A more conventional registration plate, 91 WX 3554, was in the back of the Honda.

Further summonses were issued after vehicle BS PFN was seen on the road once more a few weeks later on May 19 at Castle Ellis. The Garda turned on his blue flashing lights and followed the defendant to Ballagh Cove.

The accused refused to supply name or address and again said that he was ' travelling'. However, he did admit that there was an engine in the vehicle and a steering wheel in his hand. No evidence of insurance cover or driving licence was ever produced.

A various stages during the hearing, the accused described the prosecution case as negligent and the Garda testimony as falsified. He said he felt that the force was conspiring against him. He applied for an adjournment to allow him produce video evidence. When this application was unsuccessful, he called for trial by judge and jury.

Judge Early explained that he was not entitled to any such trial before finding the case against Bobby of the family Sludds proven. The court learned that the defendant had 24 previous convictions for motoring offences, including two for driving without insurance.

Sludds said he was not working. He dismissed the State as a fictional entity. He asked: 'Have I offended anyone here?', prompting a chorus of 'No' from his supporters.

' The people have spoken,' he concluded.

The judge concluded otherwise, imposing €670 in fines for the lack of driving licence, motor tax and NCT. He recorded a three month jail sentence on the first insurance charge, suspended on Bobby of the family Sludds entering a bond to be of good behaviour for two years. On the second insurance charge, the sentence was four months, suspended on similar conditions.

The accused indicated that he intended to consider whether to sign. The judge offered him free legal aid but Bobby of the family Sludds said this was not necessary.

Eric Cartman

wiggle16 wrote: »

This is some "Freeman on the Land" shíte. Say that to a guard and they'd rightly laugh at you.

that stuff is the true marker of an insane individual, one of the most annoying conspiracy theories that judges thankfully impose harsher sentences for daring to waste courts time with.

NovemberWren

tdf7187 wrote: »

To obsessives like Eric Cartman, of course, that in itself will somehow be twisted as proof that SF are behind the Yellow Vests and anti-lockdown protests, secretly orchestrating them, like the way Mary Lou McDonald ordered the Birmingham bombings when she was barely in primary school.

But we're dealing with someone who thinks that displaying an Irish flag and Irish language material at a protest (however misguided that protest might be) in actual Ireland is a terrible thing.

dunno what that flag 'photo was about (but at the centre that man in red coat and 1920 yellow-vest, is he a councillor?).
Anyhow, simple is that the Sinn Fein head office in Parnell Square probably do also sell irish flags; but the joyous acquaintance with probably MI5 or MI6 does seem to add peculiar hutzspah to Sinn Fein persons.
An added peculiar majestic imperiousness over the people down here.

TaurenDruid

tdf7187 wrote: »

To obsessives like Eric Cartman, of course, that in itself will somehow be twisted as proof that SF are behind the Yellow Vests and anti-lockdown protests, secretly orchestrating them, like the way Mary Lou McDonald ordered the Birmingham bombings when she was barely in primary school.

But we're dealing with someone who thinks that displaying an Irish flag and Irish language material at a protest (however misguided that protest might be) in actual Ireland is a terrible thing.

Cartman is seeing things that aren't there. There isn't any Irish language material visible at that protest - and y'know, what with it being Ireland, I wouldn't see a problem with it if there was. Irish speakers are entitled to be right-wing populists too - whether or not they've anything to do with SF is an entirely different matter!

Dank Janniels

A pharmaceutical scientist with no fixed abode, in a pandemic where all scientists are flat out testing and researching science and medical stuff ? Emm ok!

Dank Janniels

Dank Janniels wrote: »

A pharmaceutical scientist with no fixed abode, in a pandemic where all scientists are flat out testing and researching science and medical stuff ? Emm ok!

Probably advised to put that instead of homeopath, given they are targeting a type of audience who have a habit of attacking pediatricians because they are as thick as pigsh1t.

PhoneMain

NovemberWren wrote: »

dunno what that flag 'photo was about (but at the centre that man in red coat and 1920 yellow-vest, is he a councillor?).
Anyhow, simple is that the Sinn Fein head office in Parnell Square probably do also sell irish flags; but the joyous acquaintance with probably MI5 or MI6 does seem to add peculiar hutzspah to Sinn Fein persons.
An added peculiar majestic imperiousness over the people down here.

Do you read over the sh1te you post before you press submit reply? Or do you just type and hope some of the words stick?

Annasopra

PhoneMain wrote: »

Do you read over the sh1te you post before you press submit reply? Or do you just type and hope some of the words stick?

Ah sure dont forget that poster praises Dee Wall a lot

Annasopra

NovemberWren wrote: »

nah. not embarrassing. he just seems a soul that is kind.
And the lovely Garda! even tempered, but very well trained.

The man should have said "I am on a lawful journey". Some persons say to say that, and that the Gardai cannot then stop you?

Kind? Nah.


https://twitter.com/AedDubh/status/1292555179523551236?s=19

https://twitter.com/gemmentedod1/status/1292947424911204361?s=19

Eric Cartman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Kind? Nah.


https://twitter.com/AedDubh/status/1292555179523551236?s=19

https://twitter.com/gemmentedod1/status/1292947424911204361?s=19

I agree the guys a scumbag for this but that same twitter poster has in a post previous to this horrible incident , tried to get that man fired for posts about direct provision and has been doxxing the lad for a while.

This alan guy is crealy absolute scum but so is the man trying to ‘expose’ this

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I agree the guys a scumbag for this but that same twitter poster has in a post previous to this horrible incident , tried to get that man fired for posts about direct provision and has been doxxing the lad for a while.

This alan guy is crealy absolute scum but so is the man trying to ‘expose’ this

Why would you have an issue with other people being exposed for attacking a woman?

I wouldn't have to much of an issue with him being shown attacking a woman.
I've.heard of and talked to hackers who have done worse to people than that including costing them their job/customers and providing their identity and financial details to fraudsters for doing the same or excusing it.

The Nal

DubInMeath wrote: »

I've.heard of and talked to hackers who have done worse to people than that including costing them their job/customers and providing their identity and financial details to fraudsters for doing the same or excusing it.

Happening to Parler users as we speak.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I agree the guys a scumbag for this but that same twitter poster has in a post previous to this horrible incident , tried to get that man fired for posts about direct provision and has been doxxing the lad for a while.

This alan guy is crealy absolute scum but so is the man trying to ‘expose’ this

The both sides and whataboutery nonsense. Again.

Donald Trump

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The both sides and whataboutery nonsense. Again.

I think there is a point to it.


Does the man who did the online "doxxing" of the scumbag in the videos/photos above have the right to be judge, jury and executioner?



I don't know. It's a difficult one. On one hand I think he likely deserves it. On the other hand you are setting a dangerous precedent. Online harassment is online harassment.

I'm not going so far to call the doxxer "scum" - not at all - but he might want to think about possible consequences stemming from his action. Maybe he doesn't care or maybe he just never thought of it

Zookey123

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think there is a point to it.


Does the man who did the online "doxxing" of the scumbag in the videos/photos above have the right to be judge, jury and executioner?



I don't know. It's a difficult one. On one hand I think he likely deserves it. On the other hand you are setting a dangerous precedent. Online harassment is online harassment.

I'm not going so far to call the doxxer "scum" - not at all - but he might want to think about possible consequences stemming from his action. Maybe he doesn't care or maybe he just never thought of it

Online harassment? This guy spat on a defenceless woman on the ground but god forbid anyone call him out on it. The guy deserves what he gets. Don't want to look like a fool to the rest of the world? Then maybe act like a reasonable adult?

Donald Trump

Zookey123 wrote: »

Online harassment? This guy spat on a defenceless woman on the ground but god forbid anyone call him out on it. The guy deserves what he gets. Don't want to look like a fool to the rest of the world? Then maybe act like a reasonable adult?

Would you say any potential consequence for him as a result of online harassment is deserved?



There are no controls to unleashing a mob. If he is tried and convicted in a court then his family will be shamed etc. But they won't also be targeted to the same extent that they might be via an online mob.


You want to establish the precedent and principle that it is ok to do this as long as you think that it is justified? The consequence of this is that if it is ok for you to draw that line where you want then it is ok for others to also draw that line where they want.

ancapailldorcha

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think there is a point to it.


Does the man who did the online "doxxing" of the scumbag in the videos/photos above have the right to be judge, jury and executioner?



I don't know. It's a difficult one. On one hand I think he likely deserves it. On the other hand you are setting a dangerous precedent. Online harassment is online harassment.

I'm not going so far to call the doxxer "scum" - not at all - but he might want to think about possible consequences stemming from his action. Maybe he doesn't care or maybe he just never thought of it

I get what you're saying but the standard response to any sort of right wing acts of violence these days is to play the whataboutery and both sides cards.

What you're doing here is drawing attention to nuance. Doxxing is a vile thing to do to someone and it really should be discouraged in favour or contacting the Gardai. I don't approve of doxxing at all and would prefer police forces to be more active and to be given more powers in tracking down online abusers and harassers.

Penfailed

Excuse my ignorance...but what is doxxing? While I'm here, what is grifting?

The Nal

The Nal wrote: »

Happening to Parler users as we speak.

Yep and lots of pearl clutching about it from some.

ancapailldorcha

Penfailed wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance...but what is doxxing? While I'm here, what is grifting?

It's when you find out and expose someone's identity online. It's not a nice thing to experience.

Gifting is basically scamming people over time.

Zookey123

Donald Trump wrote: »

Would you say any potential consequence for him as a result of online harassment is deserved?

What consequences? no ones inciting violence his actions are being shown to the world perhaps take responsibility for them?

Donald Trump wrote: »

There are no controls to unleashing a mob. If he is tried and convicted in a court then his family will be shamed etc. But they won't also be targeted to the same extent that they might be via an online mob.

What are you even talking about? Where in the tweet did anyone target his family or incite any sort or violence? He was called out for own actions. I also highly doubt a scrote like him even cares if there is an online mob taking the micky out him, and even if he does tough don't go attacking people on the street.

Donald Trump wrote: »

You want to establish the precedent and principle that it is ok to do this as long as you think that it is justified? The consequence of this is that if it is ok for you to draw that line where you want then it is ok for others to also draw that line where they want.

Are you trying to censor twitter? Are you going to decide what tweets are allowed and what isn't? How will you justify banning tweets? Don't want to get your feeling hurt online? Don't act the muppet.

Donald Trump

Zookey123 wrote: »

What consequences? no ones inciting violence his actions are being shown to the world perhaps take responsibility for them?



What are you even talking about? Where in the tweet did anyone target his family or incite any sort or violence? He was called out for own actions. I also highly doubt a scrote like him even cares if there is an online mob taking the micky out him, and even if he does tough don't go attacking people on the street.

Are you trying to censor twitter? Are you going to decide what tweets are allowed and what isn't? How will you justify banning tweets? Don't want to get your feeling hurt online? Don't act the muppet.

Others will understand my previous post. I came to this thread for a different reason when I saw a story in the news. I didn't know about this fella spitting on the woman.

Donald Trump

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I get what you're saying but the standard response to any sort of right wing acts of violence these days is to play the whataboutery and both sides cards.

What you're doing here is drawing attention to nuance. Doxxing is a vile thing to do to someone and it really should be discouraged in favour or contacting the Gardai. I don't approve of doxxing at all and would prefer police forces to be more active and to be given more powers in tracking down online abusers and harassers.

I didn't read Eric Cartman's post as being anything about whataboutery, although I did not read over previous pages to follow the flow of the thread. I took it merely as a point in relation to identifying people online to the mob.


The person who identified him should have sent that info to the Guards and let them deal with it. Not put it on twitter. Posting the footage of the incident is not the same as posting his name and location.


Note to anyone outraged, I am not defending the fella who spit. Not at all. I hope he gets done for it and is treated severely though the legal system. I am talking about the principle and setting precedents.

ancapailldorcha

Donald Trump wrote: »

I didn't read Eric Cartman's post as being anything about whataboutery, although I did not read over previous pages to follow the flow of the thread. I took it merely as a point in relation to identifying people online to the mob.


The person who identified him should have sent that info to the Guards and let them deal with it. Not put it on twitter. Posting the footage of the incident is not the same as posting his name and location.


Note to anyone outraged, I am not defending the fella who spit. Not at all. I hope he gets done for it and is treated severely though the legal system. I am talking about the principle and setting precedents.

It's less clear cut in this instance but as I said, the standard response to this sort of thing is to either imply that all sides are equally bad, deflect or both.