Phil Flynn Charged with Gun Possession

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

rsynnott

ziggy67 wrote:

Yes, but he is innocent until proven guilty. You stated "he is a criminal" when he hasn't even been on trial.

Well, unless it was placed there by an unusually large magpie...

A Dub in Glasgo

rsynnott wrote:

Well, unless it was placed there by an unusually large magpie...

Ah yes, let us proclaim that everybody who the state decides to charge with a crime is guilty of said crime. Nice one :rolleyes:

Sand

Ah yes, let us proclaim that everybody who the state decides to charge with a crime is guilty of said crime. Nice one

Phil Flynn afaik accepts that this pen gun was in his possession last i heard. His own comment was that he couldnt believe he was getting charged over it, that he thought it was a joke, that he had this pen gun for years. The only doubt in the case is if the pen gun is covered as an illegal firearm. Seems the powers that be (Gardai and the DPP) are confident it is, otherwise it wouldnt be going to trial.

So, assuming the Gardai and the DPP know an illegal firearm when they see one - and they should have plenty of practise given all the arms dumps Phils old mates have left all over our country - its open and shut mlud. A formality.

And anyway, the guys provo mates are hardly character references when it comes to crinimal and subversive activity.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Phil Flynn afaik accepts that this pen gun was in his possession last i heard.

He has pleaded guilty then?

His own comment was that he couldnt believe he was getting charged over it, that he thought it was a joke, that he had this pen gun for years.

Seems to be a joke alright or is this a political charge?

The only doubt in the case is if the pen gun is covered as an illegal firearm. Seems the powers that be (Gardai and the DPP) are confident it is, otherwise it wouldnt be going to trial.

That is one way of looking at it but considering hundreds of thousands of people each year are not charged with offences that are illegal, it seems that this is merely a political charge

So, assuming the Gardai and the DPP know an illegal firearm when they see one - and they should have plenty of practise given all the arms dumps Phils old mates have left all over our country -

So, you actually know that the Gardai involved were practicing their firearm skills by investigating IRA arms dumps years ago? How did you come by this information? When was the last IRA arms dump found?

its open and shut mlud. A formality.

Ahh... another one :rolleyes:

And anyway, the guys provo mates are hardly character references when it comes to crinimal and subversive activity.

Which means what exactly?

oscarBravo

What's a political charge?

hawkmoon269

A Dub in Glasgow, why bother even debating with people who have already decided that he is guilty?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

What's a political charge?

It is when somebody is charged with an offence when the the decision to charge is politically motiviated. It is akin to 2 people being caught commiting an offence (speeding for example), one gets off with a warning and the other gets charged with the speeding offence. If the 2nd person was charged because it was politically expedient to charge the person, the whole thing becomes politically motivated.

Of course, you knew all this

rsynnott

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That is one way of looking at it but considering hundreds of thousands of people each year are not charged with offences that are illegal, it seems that this is merely a political charge

You're talking like posessing an illegal weapon designed to be concealed is a minor offence, like speeding.

A Dub in Glasgo

rsynnott wrote:

You're talking like posessing an illegal weapon designed to be concealed is a minor offence, like speeding.

I am talking about illegal activity, you are talking about grading it

rsynnott

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I am talking about illegal activity, you are talking about grading it

The fact is that many thousands of people get away with minor offences like speeding, jaywalking, copyright theft, and so on every year. There's only one form of pen-gun, it seems, which it is even legal to possess in this country with a license. If it's not that one, he's guilty of possesion of an illegal weapon. It is not at all the same sort of thing as speeding.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is when somebody is charged with an offence when the the decision to charge is politically motiviated. It is akin to 2 people being caught commiting an offence (speeding for example), one gets off with a warning and the other gets charged with the speeding offence. If the 2nd person was charged because it was politically expedient to charge the person, the whole thing becomes politically motivated.

Given that the decision to press charges is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, can I take it that you're directly accusing the DPP of political motivation?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Of course, you knew all this

Hey, I could have jumped to a conclusion based on an uninformed assumption as to what I thought you might have meant. I chose to ask for clarification instead. Apologies for any offence caused.

hawkmoon269

oscarBravo wrote:

Given that the decision to press charges is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, can I take it that you're directly accusing the DPP of political motivation? .

Interesting to note the misrepresentation and, frankly, online bullying tactics directed at anyone who challenges the State...

On a similar note, earlier in the thread 3 people mispresented what I was saying.

I politely recommend that you read the TWO highly critical reports issued in relation to the Donegal Gardai, I also politely recommend that you consider incidents in the very recent past when the DPP has withdrawn its evidence/case without explanation.

hawkmoon269

I would also like to point out that I am not a SF supporter.

Actually I was suspended from this forum for a week a while back for saying something nasty about Gerry Adams.

rsynnott

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Interesting to note the misrepresentation and, frankly, online bullying tactics directed at anyone who challenges the State...

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I would also like to point out that I am not a SF supporter.

Just as well, really; it would be ironic if an SF-y person was more worried about the oppressive state they want NI to join than the oppressive state they want it to leave

So why are you so worried about this? The man has apparently admitted to possessing the thing; he will presumably be prosecuted as such. That is as it should be. It is entirely normal to prosecute people who admit to this sort of crime.

oscarBravo

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Interesting to note the misrepresentation and, frankly, online bullying tactics directed at anyone who challenges the State...

Whom did I misrepresent, and how? I just asked a question. And - seriously - bullying??

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I politely recommend that you read the TWO highly critical reports issued in relation to the Donegal Gardai, I also politely recommend that you consider incidents in the very recent past when the DPP has withdrawn its evidence/case without explanation.

I'm confused. Are you insinuating that the DPP is politically motivated? Apologies if the question is hurtful or offensive in any way.

hawkmoon269

[QUOTE=oscarBravo Are you insinuating that the DPP is politically motivated? Apologies if the question is hurtful or offensive in any way.[/QUOTE]

Earlier in the thread, three people misrepresented what I was saying, tried to put me in a corner, possibly to suit their anti-SF agenda, I don't know.

I am a right wing libertarian, incidentally, and I despise the socialist economics of the likes of SF. But that's not even the point, I shouldn't even have to say that to be honest. As a libertarian I tend to be suspicous of government.

Ergo, I do not align myself with those who would seemingly pre-judge every issue in terms of 'the State is always right, cos, hey, the DPP couldn't possibly be imperfect, could they'?

rsynnott

Ah, the offending item doesn't seem to be an illegal weapon as such; simply a weapon for which licences aren't customarily issued. He's being charged with possesion without licesce.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

a right wing libertarian,

*hisses*

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Ergo, I do not align myself with those who would seemingly pre-judge every issue in terms of 'the State is always right, cos, hey, the DPP couldn't possibly be imperfect, could they'?

The DPP is behaving correctly. It is charging a someone who broke the law with a crime. That's what it's FOR. What would you prefer it do?

hawkmoon269

oscarBravo wrote:

Are you insinuating that the DPP is politically motivated?

Are you insinuating that such an opinion would be, (oh, horror of horrors!), anti-establishment, and therefore, unacceptable?

hawkmoon269

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, the offending item doesn't seem to be an illegal weapon as such; simply a weapon for which licences aren't customarily issued. He's being charged with possesion without licesce.

In that case I hope his wicked soul rots in hell! The death penalty is clearly insufficient for such an horrendous crime against humanity!

rsynnott

hawkmoon269 wrote:

In that case I hope his wicked soul rots in hell! The death penalty is clearly insufficient for such an horrendous crime against humanity!

He broke the law. The law is there for good reasons. We can't have people wandering round with concealed weapons all the time. Honestly, would you prefer them to say "oh, excuse me, Mr. Flynn. We didn't realise it was you! Would you like us to source you a bazooka?"

hawkmoon269

rsynnott wrote:

The DPP is behaving correctly. It is charging a someone who broke the law with a crime. That's what it's FOR. What would you prefer it do?

The DPP is a servant of the PEOPLE, as with all organs of State. Accordingly your statement that 'the DPP is behaving correctly' is simply an opinion, no more than that. If I, or Dub in Glasgow, or anyone else, expresses a contrary opinion, is that acceptable to you?

But given that you hissed at my 'coming out' as a right wing libertarian, you may find such a point of view heretical.

hawkmoon269

rsynnott wrote:

He broke the law.

Oh I see. The case has already been decided. I must have missed that. Perhaps I fell asleep for a few months. What sentence did he receive for this horrendous 'crime', as a matter of interest?

rsynnott

hawkmoon269 wrote:

The DPP is a servant of the PEOPLE, as with all organs of State. Accordingly your statement that 'the DPP is behaving correctly' is simply an opinion, no more than that.

Its function is to prosecute those who have broken the law. This man has apparently admitted to breaking the law. Thus, its correct action is to prosecute. Again, I must ask, what would you prefer it do? Why does this man deserve a special exemption?

oscarBravo

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Are you insinuating that such an opinion would be, (oh, horror of horrors!), anti-establishment, and therefore, unacceptable?

I'm not insinuating anything; I'm asking a question.

That said, an accusation of political bias against a public servant whose remit includes political independence is a serious one, for which I'd expect to see some specific evidence. I'm challenging those who are prepared to insinuate that such bias exists to come out and say so, and to offer evidence for it.

Sparks

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

He has pleaded guilty then?

Admitting to possession of an unlicensed firearm is admitting to a criminal act and therefore is a de facto guilty plea. So yes.

Wheely

Hawkmoon,
after reading this thread it seems that you are the one with an extreme non-negotiable view rather than anyone else. Your sarcastic tone when referring to this "crime of the century" is uncalled for. Nobody called it a crime against humanity and nobody ever said that it was unfathomable that the DPP could be politically motivated or that the State might not always act in its citizens best interests. You seem to be looking for an enemy whree there is none. Im not SF'er by any manner of means but im hard-pusehed to decide which i dislike more,ff or sf so |Im not a hige State supporter either. Im wary of the gardai, the justice dept and the DPP, look at that kid in Clonmel, for instance. But Im also a firm believer in the law, and its importance, sorry, its neccesity, in society. The man admitted to possessing the said item without the legally required licensce and will probably be prosecuted for such. This is the way such things should be dealt with and in this case I see no reason for suspicion. If it was there, I like to think that I would be one of those to highlight it. Basically, i think u should calm down, just a little bit, and pick the battles that you can, and should win. No disrespect intednded btw.

hawkmoon269

Wheely wrote:

Hawkmoon,
after reading this thread it seems that you are the one with an extreme non-negotiable view rather than anyone else. Your sarcastic tone when referring to this "crime of the century" is uncalled for. Nobody called it a crime against humanity and nobody ever said that it was unfathomable that the DPP could be politically motivated or that the State might not always act in its citizens best interests.............Basically, i think u should calm down, just a little bit, and pick the battles that you can, and should win. No disrespect intednded btw.

Well if being sceptical of government means I have an extreme non-negotiable view, so be it. I emphasize my scepticism of government stems from a libertarian outlook, rather than an SF style socialist one. Us right wing libertarians are an awkward bunch.

'No disrespect intended' - none taken.

hawkmoon269

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm not insinuating anything; I'm asking a question.

That said, an accusation of political bias against a public servant whose remit includes political independence is a serious one, for which I'd expect to see some specific evidence. I'm challenging those who are prepared to insinuate that such bias exists to come out and say so, and to offer evidence for it.

You're 'not insinuating anything' - hmmmm and then you go on to talk about an 'accusation of political bias against a public servant'. I am not sure if that was directed at me or A Dub in Glasgow, but I never made such an accusation. And re-reading A Dub in Glasgow's posts, he didn't directly do so either, he just posed the question. It seems to me that what you're trying to do is back us into a corner.

On the broader issue it might be interesting to have a discussion on whether or not it is wise or proportionate to criminalise 'weapons' such as the one this man is alleged to have been in possession of. It strikes me as using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

Incidentally have you read the reports on Donegal Garda corruption like I suggested previously?

rsynnott

hawkmoon269 wrote:

On the broader issue it might be interesting to have a discussion on whether or not it is wise or proportionate to criminalise 'weapons' such as the one this man is alleged to have been in possession of. It strikes me as using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
?

Alleged? He's admitted it. And certainly possession of dangerous weapons should be criminalised.