Graham Dwyer - latest

LMHC

LMHC wrote: »

600k in kerrymount. Hahahah OK I'm out

More nonsense.

https://www.propertypriceregister.ie/Website/npsra/PPR/npsra-ppr.nsf/eStampUNID/UNID-2254CDB128C3AE3B802585A6004770E8?OpenDocument

Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

But the appeal to the European Court of Justice is based on the claim that the Irish law is deficient. No one is claiming that there's an issue with any European law on the matter. Other EU countries don't have this problem.

You sure about that? It’s been reported that the case will be thrown because of precedent in other European countries.

Ireland could have written it's laws on this matter in a way that would have included some more checks and balances that would have made it acceptable.

The fix for this would be amendments to the Irish law to make it more specific, mandate court or independent review of data before it can be accessed and other measures to prevent abuse.

Did the gardai not get the records by a court order then? Also there is a retention issue which means the data can’t be kept now. The Irish times is reporting concern across Europe and that

Last month, the ECJ ruled in two similar cases involving the retention of data by UK, French and Belgian authorities. It stated that legislation requiring the general and indiscriminate retention of data is not compatible with EU law except in very specific circumstances.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/state-set-to-lose-european-court-case-over-graham-dwyer-s-mobile-phone-records-1.4410016

Much like the controversy last year about the naming of child murder victims, this is a crisis created by poor Irish legislation.

Actually that was a crisis caused by a judge. I don’t really think the legislators have had to say “if not dead” in all legislation regarding people before.

ohnonotgmail

fvp4 wrote: »

Actually that was a crisis caused by a judge. I don’t really think the legislators have had to say “if not dead” in all legislation regarding people before.

No, that problem was caused by poor legislation. the judge acted the only way they could given the legislation.

TP_CM

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Ireland could have written it's laws on this matter in a way that would have included some more checks and balances that would have made it acceptable.

The fix for this would be amendments to the Irish law to make it more specific, mandate court or independent review of data before it can be accessed and other measures to prevent abuse.

Much like the controversy last year about the naming of child murder victims, this is a crisis created by poor Irish legislation.

Do you think Irish culture/society has a more conservative stance on privacy? I don't think the Irish people/media would be very happy with authorities gaining access to their personal phone data without all this bureaucracy. I'm ok for an 'open-book' type society where all messages/calls can be monitored for this kind of thing but I know most people don't want to go anywhere near that level, and a lot would rather let Graham Dwyer go free than loosen the privacy laws for authorities.

Hangdogroad

TP_CM wrote: »

Do you think Irish culture/society has a more conservative stance on privacy? I don't think the Irish people/media would be very happy with authorities gaining access to their personal phone data without all this bureaucracy. I'm ok for an 'open-book' type society where all messages/calls can be monitored for this kind of thing but I know most people don't want to go anywhere near that level, and a lot would rather let Graham Dwyer go free than loosen the privacy laws for authorities.

A lot of Irish people would rather see him go free, who exactly, Dwyer and his delusional family?

Hangdogroad

Hangdogroad wrote: »

A lot of Irish people would rather see him go free, who exactly, Dwyer and his delusional family?

I don't think his family would even want him free.

Treppen

He used to post on boards.ie... so he might be reading this now !!

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No, that problem was caused by poor legislation. the judge acted the only way they could given the legislation.

This was years after the legislation was enacted, as far as I know.

Edit: 20 years. It was based on a clause in the children’s act 2001.

ohnonotgmail

fvp4 wrote: »

This was years after the legislation was enacted, as far as I know.

Edit: 20 years. It was based on a clause in the children’s act 2001.

It doesn't matter when it was enacted. the judge ruled according to the legislation as written.

TP_CM

Hangdogroad wrote: »

A lot of Irish people would rather see him go free, who exactly, Dwyer and his delusional family?

They don't want him to go free. But when it comes to loosening the privacy laws which is required to keep him in prison, I know a lot of Irish people would oppose that. So they'll indirectly say that they'd prefer to have him go free. It would go something like:

Law makers: Do you want Dwyer to walk free?
Irish Society: No definitely not
Law makers: Ok then, we need to make some changes to loosen the privacy laws so that authorities can catch people like him.
Irish Society: No no, don't do that. Authoritative figures failed us for 800 years. We don't trust authorities with anything. Stay away from our data.
Law makers: Ok, but then we can't use his phone data in the court of law.. Do you understand?
Irish Society: <Ignores this, looks away>
Dwyer: Hey everyone, nice to be out, did I miss anything?
Irish Society: Complains about it all, giving out about law makers

We're talking about a nation who, not only can't bear the idea of having their curtains open when they're watching tv in the evening, but actually get angry at others who leave their blinds open when they're watching tv.

ohnonotgmail

TP_CM wrote: »

They don't want him to go free. But when it comes to loosening the privacy laws which is required to keep him in prison, I know a lot of Irish people would oppose that. So they'll indirectly say that they'd prefer to have him go free. It would go something like:

Law makers: Do you want Dwyer to walk free?
Irish Society: No definitely not
Law makers: Ok then, we need to make some changes to loosen the privacy laws so that authorities can catch people like him.
Irish Society: No no, don't do that. Authoritative figures failed us for 800 years. We don't trust authorities with anything. Stay away from our data.
Law makers: Ok, but then we can't use his phone data in the court of law.. Do you understand?
Irish Society: <Ignores this, looks away>
Dwyer: Hey everyone, nice to be out, did I miss anything?
Irish Society: Complains about it all, giving out about law makers

We're talking about a nation who, not only can't bear the idea of having their curtains open when they're watching tv in the evening, but actually get angry at others who leave their blinds open when they're watching tv.

alternatively we can decide that going forward we can make changes to our privacy laws that provide for some oversight as to how the data is used but what happened in the past is still good as it met the law in place at the time. Win Win.

suicide_circus

He'll probably have a few women waiting for him if he gets out

JimmyVik

Gatling wrote: »

But would it make it to another trial due to how infamous the case already is ,

He can just plead insanity.
You would have to be insane to do the sh1t he did.

BattleCorp

JimmyVik wrote: »

He can just plead insanity.
You would have to be insane to do the sh1t he did.

Or Evil.

Muahahaha

TP_CM wrote: »

We're talking about a nation who, not only can't bear the idea of having their curtains open when they're watching tv in the evening, but actually get angry at others who leave their blinds open when they're watching tv.

What

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It doesn't matter when it was enacted. the judge ruled according to the legislation as written.

Which means all other judicial interpretations were wrong and legal advice on the bill itself was wrong.

Either way the big brains on the Irish legal system showed their incompetence.

ohnonotgmail

fvp4 wrote: »

Which means all other judicial interpretations were wrong and legal advice on the bill itself was wrong.

Either way the big brains on the Irish legal system showed their incompetence.

The legislation was not written by the irish legal system. It was written by the legislature funnily enough. you clearly have some massive bugbear with the irish legal system that blinded you to where the problem lay in this instance so I will leave it there.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The legislation was not written by the irish legal system. It was written by the legislature funnily enough. you clearly have some massive bugbear with the irish legal system that blinded you to where the problem lay in this instance so I will leave it there.

Good for you to leave it there because I’m continuing.

I don’t have a massive bugbear with the Irish legal system, no more than anybody. General consensus is it’s clearly a clown show.

The minister doesn’t pen the legislation with a blue biro after a night in the tiles, it’s reviewed by legal teams.

And if this judge could find a flaw in it 20 years later what were the rest of the judges doing? Why did they not see it?

ohnonotgmail

fvp4 wrote: »

Good for you to leave it there because I’m continuing.

I don’t have a massive bugbear with the Irish legal system, no more than anybody. General consensus is it’s clearly a clown show.

The minister doesn’t pen the legislation with a blue biro after a night in the tiles, it’s reviewed by legal teams.

And if this judge could find a flaw in it 20 years later what were the rest of the judges doing? Why did they not see it?

ok, one last bite. In what previous cases did this legislation play a part?

TP_CM

Muahahaha wrote: »

What

Ask your colleagues friends what they think about leaving their blinds open, or people who leave their blinds open. It's a big deal for many.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ok, one last bite. In what previous cases did this legislation play a part?

Ah, jaysus. To ignore.

TP_CM

TP_CM wrote: »

Ask your colleagues friends what they think about leaving their blinds open, or people who leave their blinds open. It's a big deal for many.

The former, yes. We are not unusual in that. The latter, not so much.

Pussyhands

Does anyone give a **** about human rights if the right outcome was determined?

It would be a shameful thing if Dwyer got off from murder just because mobile phone data was illegally obtained.

It would be like Josef Fritzl locking his door and if someone broke in thinking there was people held against their will, then it doesn't matter if Fritzl has kids locked up, the person who broke in is at fault.

bfa1509

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

Seems like Ireland’s most sick of sick depraved sadistic citizens ever is getting the EU Courts to make a judgement on the legality of the state gathering and using his mobile phone data to convict him.

I'd put Kieran Creavan ahead of him to be honest.

BattleCorp

Pussyhands wrote: »

Does anyone give a **** about human rights if the right outcome was determined?

It would be a shameful thing if Dwyer got off from murder just because mobile phone data was illegally obtained.

It would be like Josef Fritzl locking his door and if someone broke in thinking there was people held against their will, then it doesn't matter if Fritzl has kids locked up, the person who broke in is at fault.

What you are saying is akin to 'fcuk the law', we don't have to follow it. That's not a road I'd be happy to walk down.

I wouldn't be happy to see Dwyer walk because I think he did it, but the law must be applied fairly, no matter what Dwyer did.

Asdfgh2020

bfa1509 wrote: »

I'd put Kieran Creavan ahead of him to be honest.

I doubt many will agree with you…….

Pussyhands

BattleCorp wrote: »

What you are saying is akin to 'fcuk the law', we don't have to follow it. That's not a road I'd be happy to walk down.

I wouldn't be happy to see Dwyer walk because I think he did it, but the law must be applied fairly, no matter what Dwyer did.

Getting away with murder because of a technicality is wrong. It's been proven he did it.

Himnydownunder

All this shows is that he is a narcissist. He hasn’t a prayer. But he’s so deluded in the head, so full of his own importance, that he sees himself beating the system.

Asdfgh2020

Himnydownunder wrote: »

All this shows is that he is a narcissist. He hasn’t a prayer. But he’s so deluded in the head, so full of his own importance, that he sees himself beating the system.

So if the euro ‘wigs and gowans’ rule in this perverted **** favour what happens next and what is the timeframe to see him released……?

If he is released then would he be so arrogant to think that he could ‘sup’ pints in his local back in cork…etc.?

LuckyLloyd

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

So if the euro ‘wigs and gowans’ rule in this perverted **** favour what happens next and what is the timeframe to see him released……?

If he is released then would he be so arrogant to think that he could ‘sup’ pints in his local back in cork…etc.?

My guess is he is right on this point and his high court victory will be confirmed by the ECJ.

However I also expect the Supreme Court to rule that it doesn’t apply retroactively, thus killing his appeal. I’m sure some will feel that is unfair and many more will think ‘**** him’.