If you're the police, who'll police the police?


irishtimes.com/news/crime-a … -1.3138089


Telling that the only reference to the dodgy Garda testimony in that IT opinion piece is drawing attention to the “libellous” retweet about it.

Stench of conformity and deep conservatism.


On the issue of commentary on social media I think it’s fair to say that the vilification of Paul Murphy during the trial sometimes crossed the line from ‘fair commentary’ to bizarre hate-filled bullshit?

On this point, if you were wrongly detained by a department store security guard while he calls the Gardaí I suspect you’d go straight to your solicitor, wouldn’t you? Does that make you a ‘knacker’?


the much hyped video footage where the Guard/pilot says “the jeep could have reversed - there’s no hassle really” is time stamped at 15.21

The blockade and abuse was much earlier. Plenty of videos of that too - great for those thugs who get off on seeing a couple of women intimidated and referred to cunts.


It’s not a term I’ve ever used and I constantly criticise others on this forum for using it. You on the other hand…

I’ve never trusted people who use sexually violent swear words.


The whole thing was ridiculous from the start. Pathetic attempt by the gardai and DPP in bringing this forward. The costs and gardai hours invested in this is a scandal and stinks. Shame on all involved including the media who are banging on about tweets this morning instead of why this case was ever brought.


They went for the highest charge that could be leveled at them. Win or bust. There were certainly public order offences in there. Then there was their selection of who to charge. In one of the clips I saw a woman can be heard shouting “keep them there until the morning” but no women were charged. Then there was the early morning arrest with no shortage of Gardai on hand, which again was not really necessary.

Lying under oath doesn’t surprise me from either side though. I wouldn’t expect a garda to give a 100% truthful account on anything no more than a lay person.

Paul Murphy comes across as a bit of an insufferable know it all but I like him more than a lot of our elected TDs. I also like the fact that he has ruffled a lot of feathers, even on the Pin :smiley: . Personally I’m not overly sure of his motives but there’s a good Jordan Peterson clip that might not be too wide of the mark.

That may be a little harsh because at least he’s acting with conviction, whether you agree with him or not.


I wonder would Paul Murphy be happy for his wife/mother to be subjected to the same treatment Joan Burton received in Johnstown for three hours.

IMO - Paul Murphy is scum - however the DPP did over reach with the charge.

Had they gone for one of the public order offenses he would have been getting porridge for the last few months.


And yet you defend them :slight_smile:


that’s different.

Shouting a “You c*nt” at a woman and banging on her car roof is OK if you disagree with her polices

Calling out public figures for what they are on an obscure forum is verboten and shows one to be a craven misogynist



Should have been able to get a Je Suis Derek style conviction at least


@Coles Seeing as your’re struggling with basic logic and/or comprehension - let me explain - suing a dept store isn’t what makes these people knackers - it’s the whole knackery violence, vulgar abuse and intimidation which was amply visible in the videos even if the jury felt it didn’t meet the standard for false imprisonment.

Though I guess from now on people suing for false imprisonment will have to show they couldn’t have done a Jason Bourne style escape from said Dept Store


There was no evidence presented to the Court that any of the accused used any of your language, or used any violence and intimidation.

Maybe it’s your ‘logic’ that’s the problem rather than my comprehension?


No evidence was presented to the Court that any of the accused used any such language.


Is that opinion or fact? Where you on the jury or in the gallery everyday?


As I said I haven’t followed the case but Garda Perjury is well documented in many cases so it doesn’t surprise me. Disturbing yes of course it’s disturbing.


I have to say im surprising shocked by the tone and BS in the IT regarding the trial
The editorial is a sad joke.

The indo for all its problems at least highlights the ridiculous waste of money

Jobstown: Six cleared after lengthy trial that cost the taxpayer €2.5m
independent.ie/irish-news/co … 80350.html

That’s just the Trial


And to think a while there back the Gardaí were calling for videoing them to be outlawed.


What was the Garda perjury? Its genuinely hard to get an answer to this.


Why did the judge direct the jury to ignore the testimonies of the Gardaí?

It’s really not that hard to work out the answer.


Did she really say that?

Perhaps it was more like “where there is a conflict between Garda and Video evidence take the video evidence” but hey I have no real skin in the game other than my extreme dislike of Paul Murphy :slight_smile: