Maura Harrington Arrives At Mountjoy

Yes, Hermes, I've looked back at your post and I can see that I misinterpreted it.

Thanks.

cactus flower wrote:

Yes, Hermes, I've looked back at your post and I can see that I misinterpreted it.

Thanks.

A very honest mistake and an understandable one Cactus. Afterall, I've been very descriptive in describing garda assaults elsewhere in the thread. If I'd been a witness to what happened to Niall, my descriptions would have mirrored my opinions and the chances are that what I'd have written would have been different, assuming of course that I wouldn't have been hospitalised myself.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

cf- You would not be pleased I think if the Shell to Sea campaigners were to apply the same degree of physicality as the Gardai.


t - What makes you think or I should say assume, that they don't and worse.


cf - Or you think, or I should say assume, that they do ?
From what I have read, a slap on the face from a small schoolteacher constitutes an assault worth jailing. If any Gardai had been seriously injured, I think we would have heard about it.

Why don't you just answer the question.
tonys

I already have if you look at the thread. I've watched the news RTE not Indymedia and have seen what is evidently a passive resistance campaign met with firm, sometimes rough, policing. It is not Orgreave, or Tianeman Square, but it is evident that a number of protestors have been hospitalised. On the other side I'm sure there has been shoving, and at least one Garda face slapped. RTE is not anti-Gardai, and if there had been proportionate pushing and shoving and Gardai injuries we would have heard about it.

Hermes is saying there was violence by Gardai in front of a judge. That is by far the most serious allegation I have heard. Where you there Hermes or someone from the local press who can substantiate that?

Shell to Sea is not the heaviest example of policing I can think of: by and large the Gardai are not anything like the Met and the modern riot police you see across the globe. At the end of the day police are there to protect private property ownership, and that is what they are doing.

Now, tonys, do you want to explain what you mean by hypocrisy?

I mean claims & complaints of unlawful or undemocratic or abusive behaviour on the part of first the Government of the day followed by in turn the local council, shell, the police and now a Judge, from people who happily & routinely break the law by blocking roads, trespass, damage to private property, at the very least, verbal abuse of Shell & security staff and the police and now a conviction for physical abuse of a garda.

I mean the hypocrisy of a group who run to the courts every chance they get to allege unlawful behaviour by others but who themselves have no respect for the law or democracy as practiced and accepted by the vast majority here, but who feel that they, a tiny minority, have the right to decide what developments the Irish people, through their elected representatives, can or cannot allow to go ahead.

I mean the hypocrisy of some people who claim & live off payments provided by a society but who spend their time wasting the resources of that society by trying to subvert the democratic & lawful actions of that same society.

I can't dispute what you say, but neither can I agree with it as you haven't provided any evidence that its the case.

People, whether you like their views or not, have the right to peaceful protest and to seek the protection of the law. That goes even for people who claim the law is biased. The law is the law and is meant to be applied equally. If it is not applied equally, then that would be hypocrisy, would it not?

Personally, I think people who think the law is inherently unequal and biased in favour of the propertied classes, should spell it out and should not act surprised when the law behaves in accordance with their analysis.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

cf- You would not be pleased I think if the Shell to Sea campaigners were to apply the same degree of physicality as the Gardai.


t - What makes you think or I should say assume, that they don't and worse.


cf - Or you think, or I should say assume, that they do ?
From what I have read, a slap on the face from a small schoolteacher constitutes an assault worth jailing. If any Gardai had been seriously injured, I think we would have heard about it.

Why don't you just answer the question.
tonys

I already have if you look at the thread. I've watched the news RTE not Indymedia and have seen what is evidently a passive resistance campaign met with firm, sometimes rough, policing. It is not Orgreave, or Tianeman Square, but it is evident that a number of protestors have been hospitalised. On the other side I'm sure there has been shoving, and at least one Garda face slapped. RTE is not anti-Gardai, and if there had been proportionate pushing and shoving and Gardai injuries we would have heard about it.

Hermes is saying there was violence by Gardai in front of a judge. That is by far the most serious allegation I have heard. Where you there Hermes or someone from the local press who can substantiate that?

Shell to Sea is not the heaviest example of policing I can think of: by and large the Gardai are not anything like the Met and the modern riot police you see across the globe. At the end of the day police are there to protect private property ownership, and that is what they are doing.

Now, tonys, do you want to explain what you mean by hypocrisy?

I mean claims & complaints of unlawful or undemocratic or abusive behaviour on the part of first the Government of the day followed by in turn the local council, shell, the police and now a Judge, from people who happily & routinely break the law by blocking roads, trespass, damage to private property, at the very least, verbal abuse of Shell & security staff and the police and now a conviction for physical abuse of a garda.

I mean the hypocrisy of a group who run to the courts every chance they get to allege unlawful behaviour by others but who themselves have no respect for the law or democracy as practiced and accepted by the vast majority here, but who feel that they, a tiny minority, have the right to decide what developments the Irish people, through their elected representatives, can or cannot allow to go ahead.

I mean the hypocrisy of some people who claim & live off payments provided by a society but who spend their time wasting the resources of that society by trying to subvert the democratic & lawful actions of that same society.

Disagreement and personality conflict aside, there are many aspects of this comment factually incorrect. And there is even more very misleading.

Short of Niall's attempt to prosecute Gardaí yesterday, that was tossed because he was in hospital, there has only been one other effort to prosecute a Garda for actions taken in Mayo, in relation to the Corrib dispute. This particular case too was taken by Niall and fell foul of a technicality before it got as far as a hearing. Therefore there have been zero criminal actions taken against Gardaí.

With regard to civil actions. There is one. One. This has been launched by a gentleman who was thrown down a ditch by gardaí and left there for hours awaiting an ambulance. Nobody was allowed to approach him whilst they were waiting for the ambulance. He was left on his own and in agony and suffered severe injuries that have resulted in him requiring the use of a walking stick for the rest of his life. When the gardaí found out there was a civil case coming, they immediately initiated a prosecution against this man for assault. This prosecution failed.

That said, you can bet your last penny (and don't forget to leave a shilling aside for my good self) that there will be a plethora of civil actions launched. Possibly hundreds. But they are not in the offing yet. And even if they were, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that they have no right to do so, or that such actions lack moral fortitude.

You suggest that people are routinely breaking the law. There have certainly been a handfull of convictions, no doubt about that. But if one were to compare the millions spent on importing hundreds of gardaí into the area to what is spent on policing a similar sized area, one would see that there would statistically be little or no difference in the conviction rates between the two. If what I'm saying were false, you or someone else would be quoting data, verified data, that would show me to be a liar.

As for having respect for the law. Despite the fact that there have been hundreds of injuries sustained by these people, and a handfull of injuries sustained by the Gardaí (not a statistical abnormality either), only one of them in any way serious - a broken thumb (and the prosecution of the persons alleged to have caused it failed to achieve a conviction for assault), it is commonly held that the protesters are violent and have no respect for the law. There is no proof of this groundless slur. Indeed if it were the case that the protesters were violent and had no respect for the law, we'd have seen hundreds of hospitalisations of Gardaí, as despite the large numbers of gardaí, it is very seldom that they outnumber the protesters.

As for routinely blocking roads, trespassing, criminal damage - how many convictions?

And so what if some (note well the use of the word 'some') are claiming social welfare? Are you suggesting that this should deprive them of having democratic, constitutional and natural rights? Or is it a baseless slur that has nothing whatsoever to do with what's going on. People on the dole are not scum and have every right to voice an opinion and act on same. And thoughts to the contrary are a large part of the reason as to why there is conflict and protest in this country. As I've said earlier Tonys, I respect your opinion but I'm saying to you, with respect, that you're either being totally disingenuous here or that you're creating a strawman. And I say that either is well beneath you.

Prosecutions are routinely adjourned becasue Gardai are not available. They are also routinely dismissed because of repeated delays by Gardai not turning up.

Has it been adjourned before or something? That could explain it if it had previously been made peremptory against the prosecutor.

Did Niall send a representative to court with a medical cert? If not then of course it was going to be thrown out.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Prosecutions are routinely adjourned becasue Gardai are not available. They are also routinely dismissed because of repeated delays by Gardai not turning up.

Has it been adjourned before or something? That could explain it if it had previously been made peremptory against the prosecutor.

Did Niall send a representative to court with a medical cert? If not then of course it was going to be thrown out.

You're quite correct Zhou. And I'd not even attempt to dispute it. Indeed, if a garda failed to show in a prosecution I was involved in, the first thought that'd enter my head would be to look to dismiss.

Yes indeed. Niall did send a representative. And a medical cert was faxed to the court, or for the court's benefit (I'm not fully sure as to which). The judge rejected the cert as it was not addressed to the court's service, but to 'whom(e) it may concern.' And because it didn't print confidentail medical records relating to Niall. She then engaged in questioning the person who Niall had asked to appear at the court. She questioned him on Niall's motives for the prosecution and allowed the representation for the defendants to question him too.

Even if it were possible to proceed with the prosecution with the person who initiated the prosecution absent. This would have been totally impossible in this case. As the prosecution's one and only witness was Niall. And as you know, you cannot compel a defendant to take the stand. I cannot go into detail as to the nature of this case in a public forum. But I can say this. The Gardaí used force against Niall, that cannot be disputed. We have evidence to prove that they did not follow lawful procedure to facilitate the use of force and that this was pointed out to them before they acted. They understood this but acted anyway. A very strong case. More to the point, nothing I've just said even borders on slander. It's all provable. Indeed there is video evidence of it and the Gardaí recorded it.

Edit: sorry, I forgot to add. This was the first date on which this matter was set down to be heard.

Hermes wrote:

....
Yes indeed. Niall did send a representative. And a medical cert was faxed to the court, or for the court's benefit (I'm not fully sure as to which). The judge rejected the cert as it was not addressed to the court's service, but to 'whom(e) it may concern.' And because it didn't print confidentail medical records relating to Niall. She then engaged in questioning the person who Niall had asked to appear at the court. She questioned him on Niall's motives for the prosecution and allowed the representation for the defendants to question him too.
....
Edit: sorry, I forgot to add. This was the first date on which this matter was set down to be heard.

Incredible if true! I note you weren't there, hence "if".

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Hermes wrote:

....
Yes indeed. Niall did send a representative. And a medical cert was faxed to the court, or for the court's benefit (I'm not fully sure as to which). The judge rejected the cert as it was not addressed to the court's service, but to 'whom(e) it may concern.' And because it didn't print confidentail medical records relating to Niall. She then engaged in questioning the person who Niall had asked to appear at the court. She questioned him on Niall's motives for the prosecution and allowed the representation for the defendants to question him too.
....
Edit: sorry, I forgot to add. This was the first date on which this matter was set down to be heard.

Incredible if true! I note you weren't there, hence "if".

Yup, I'm afraid you're correct to say 'if.' I wasn't there. But I'd trust my life in the hands of my source who was there. Plus it's all in print over on Indy at the link I gave, including a photocopy of the cert.

Sometimes it's hard to phrase everything correctly. There's just so much I feel that needs to be said. Sometimes I forget to add the needed disclaimers, my apologies for that.

Hermes wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

cf- You would not be pleased I think if the Shell to Sea campaigners were to apply the same degree of physicality as the Gardai.


t - What makes you think or I should say assume, that they don't and worse.


cf - Or you think, or I should say assume, that they do ?
From what I have read, a slap on the face from a small schoolteacher constitutes an assault worth jailing. If any Gardai had been seriously injured, I think we would have heard about it.

Why don't you just answer the question.
tonys

I already have if you look at the thread. I've watched the news RTE not Indymedia and have seen what is evidently a passive resistance campaign met with firm, sometimes rough, policing. It is not Orgreave, or Tianeman Square, but it is evident that a number of protestors have been hospitalised. On the other side I'm sure there has been shoving, and at least one Garda face slapped. RTE is not anti-Gardai, and if there had been proportionate pushing and shoving and Gardai injuries we would have heard about it.

Hermes is saying there was violence by Gardai in front of a judge. That is by far the most serious allegation I have heard. Where you there Hermes or someone from the local press who can substantiate that?

Shell to Sea is not the heaviest example of policing I can think of: by and large the Gardai are not anything like the Met and the modern riot police you see across the globe. At the end of the day police are there to protect private property ownership, and that is what they are doing.

Now, tonys, do you want to explain what you mean by hypocrisy?

I mean claims & complaints of unlawful or undemocratic or abusive behaviour on the part of first the Government of the day followed by in turn the local council, shell, the police and now a Judge, from people who happily & routinely break the law by blocking roads, trespass, damage to private property, at the very least, verbal abuse of Shell & security staff and the police and now a conviction for physical abuse of a garda.

I mean the hypocrisy of a group who run to the courts every chance they get to allege unlawful behaviour by others but who themselves have no respect for the law or democracy as practiced and accepted by the vast majority here, but who feel that they, a tiny minority, have the right to decide what developments the Irish people, through their elected representatives, can or cannot allow to go ahead.

I mean the hypocrisy of some people who claim & live off payments provided by a society but who spend their time wasting the resources of that society by trying to subvert the democratic & lawful actions of that same society.

Disagreement and personality conflict aside, there are many aspects of this comment factually incorrect. And there is even more very misleading.

Short of Niall's attempt to prosecute Gardaí yesterday, that was tossed because he was in hospital, there has only been one other effort to prosecute a Garda for actions taken in Mayo, in relation to the Corrib dispute. This particular case too was taken by Niall and fell foul of a technicality before it got as far as a hearing. Therefore there have been zero criminal actions taken against Gardaí.

With regard to civil actions. There is one. One. This has been launched by a gentleman who was thrown down a ditch by gardaí and left there for hours awaiting an ambulance. Nobody was allowed to approach him whilst they were waiting for the ambulance. He was left on his own and in agony and suffered severe injuries that have resulted in him requiring the use of a walking stick for the rest of his life. When the gardaí found out there was a civil case coming, they immediately initiated a prosecution against this man for assault. This prosecution failed.

That said, you can bet your last penny (and don't forget to leave a shilling aside for my good self) that there will be a plethora of civil actions launched. Possibly hundreds. But they are not in the offing yet. And even if they were, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that they have no right to do so, or that such actions lack moral fortitude.

You suggest that people are routinely breaking the law. There have certainly been a handfull of convictions, no doubt about that. But if one were to compare the millions spent on importing hundreds of gardaí into the area to what is spent on policing a similar sized area, one would see that there would statistically be little or no difference in the conviction rates between the two. If what I'm saying were false, you or someone else would be quoting data, verified data, that would show me to be a liar.

As for having respect for the law. Despite the fact that there have been hundreds of injuries sustained by these people, and a handfull of injuries sustained by the Gardaí (not a statistical abnormality either), only one of them in any way serious - a broken thumb (and the prosecution of the persons alleged to have caused it failed to achieve a conviction for assault), it is commonly held that the protesters are violent and have no respect for the law. There is no proof of this groundless slur. Indeed if it were the case that the protesters were violent and had no respect for the law, we'd have seen hundreds of hospitalisations of Gardaí, as despite the large numbers of gardaí, it is very seldom that they outnumber the protesters.

As for routinely blocking roads, trespassing, criminal damage - how many convictions?

And so what if some (note well the use of the word 'some') are claiming social welfare? Are you suggesting that this should deprive them of having democratic, constitutional and natural rights? Or is it a baseless slur that has nothing whatsoever to do with what's going on. People on the dole are not scum and have every right to voice an opinion and act on same. And thoughts to the contrary are a large part of the reason as to why there is conflict and protest in this country. As I've said earlier Tonys, I respect your opinion but I'm saying to you, with respect, that you're either being totally disingenuous here or that you're creating a strawman. And I say that either is well beneath you.

You can slip slide around them till doomsday Hermes, my points stand.

Hermes wrote:

Niall Harnett's case dismissed in his absence. Link.

Well done Devins.

I checked this earlier.

It was dismissed because there was no prosecution. A solicitor may have been in a position to act as agent on his behalf. Did Niall look into that?

Anyway. Apart from that.

What did you expect her to do in the absence of the prosecution? What else could she do? Judges are sticky enough about granting adjournments in criminal cases when there is no defendant - even when there is a solicitor on his behalf.

Tell me what the other legal options were, Hermes - not the other options you would have liked.