LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRTÉ News: Ahern publishes gang crime legislation
Surely the Green party cannot support such an illiberal bill. Or is evidence a quaint requirement ?
RTÉ News: Ahern publishes gang crime legislation
Surely the Green party cannot support such an illiberal bill. Or is evidence a quaint requirement ?
Would you rather criminal gangs running rampant?
unbelievable.
more wide ranging laws that can be used for any purpose.
do we really want to give the gardaí more powers to abuse?
Last edited by blanket; 30th June 2009 at 05:19 PM. Reason: schpelling.
The annoying aspect of this Bill is, with regard to the use of the Offences Against the State Act and the Special Criminal Court, FG suggested this at least 2 years ago!
I can vividly remember Brian Hayes suggesting this on an edition of Q&A in the wake of some attrocity in Limerick. At that time, this proposal was derided by FF....including Dermot Ahern and Willie O'Dea!
Now, Dermot is rehasing this old proposal after presiding over organised crime running rampant and insisting the "new" legislation is groundbreaking!!
Or course RTE are failing to mention that this proposal didn't originate with FF. But, the opposition, FG in particular, should be screaming, we told you so!!
C
I'm trying to make a serious point here. Please.Originally Posted by White Horse
I believe this act will bring in a low quality of justice. All people have the right to a fair trial. This law will diminish that right. It's democracy-lite. Evidence, juries as well as right to be presumed innocent are at the heart of democratic justice; I see this bill as watering down those principles.
I am more concerned with the exercise of justice rather than whether it is high quality or low quality.
Sometimes you have to choose between your "principals" and protecting the innocent public from crime.
Would we be happy to adopt this type of legislation to cover all crime committed by all citizens? Because this is where this Act could lead - unlikely I admit, but do we want to take this risk?
The definition of a gang in this legislation basically means that the act could in theory be used for all crime. Paul Reynolds was wetting himself describing it:
- doesn't matter if formal gang or not
- doesn't matter if there is any leader
- doesn't matter if any rules
- doesn't matter if you have left the gang
- only 3 people needed to be a gang
- doesn't matter if gang has committed any crime
as Sean O'Rourke asked - " So if the guards say it's a gang, it's a gang ? ". I can see this being used in the cases where 'The guards know who did it, they just can't get the evidence".
But perhaps 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'.
If you have alternatives lets see them detailed.The definition of a gang in this legislation basically means that the act could in theory be used for all crime. Paul Reynolds was wetting himself describing it:
- doesn't matter if formal gang or not
- doesn't matter if there is any leader
- doesn't matter if any rules
- doesn't matter if you have left the gang
- only 3 people needed to be a gang
- doesn't matter if gang has committed any crime
as Sean O'Rourke asked - " So if the guards say it's a gang, it's a gang ? ". I can see this being used in the cases where 'The guards know who did it, they just can't get the evidence".
But perhaps 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'.
Jury members are being intimidated.
Eye withness'es retract evidence due to intimidation.
A technicality on admissable evidence gets a case thrown out.
DVD's of interrogations are used as evidence that a gurrier didn't rat his mates.
Pervasive surveillance is futile and intimidating the masses to no effect except alienating us all.
But a selective approach to identified criminals has to come in.
This breed of criminal pisses on the procedures that were used in times past.
Its only a chat, we ain't the world council.
In 2000 the Women's Institute in Britain gave Tony Blair the slow hand clap to demonstrate their contempt.
[COLOR="Red"]It was dignified, restrained and effective.[/COLOR]Doesn't Bertie deserve the same scorn. No shouting, no abuse, no agression just a relentless slow clap whenever he speaks in public would be enough to end that man's presidential fantasy.
-3.75,-3.23
I suppose the Labour Party, and in particular Jan O'Sullivan and Joe Costello, will be opposing it tooth and nail?
A demagogue is someone who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.
Reply With Quote