Programme for Govt. More cops with more powers.

by Seán Ryan Sun Jun 17, 2007 23:02

The Gardaí can already prevent named persons from entering a public place if there is a court order to back it up.

Therefore this new power that the Greens wish to give the Gardaí must allow them to ban named persons from entering a public place without a court order to back it up.

In other words, the Greens wish to confer on the Gardaí the power to judge folks without recourse to a court. Or they wish to say that the Gardaí have psychic powers and are able to predict where and when crimes will occur and who'll commit them. Take your pick.

That's where I get it from. What new power do you suspect the Greens wish to give to Gardaí?

by law Sun Jun 17, 2007 22:36

maybe Sean should take a break from this issue, as he is clearly confused.
he states (as he doesn't do "imply") "Again you totally fail to get the point. You are speaking about laws in existence and powers that the Gardai already have"
I don't know how you reached that conclusion, the Gardai doesn't have that power, the courts do!

"This is about preventing a named person from entering a public place and that they need have violated no law or otherwise to merit the unconstitutional ban"
can you point to where you came up with that claim? you don't honestly believe that the Gardai will issue restriction orders to law-abiding persons, I assume that the restriction orders would be confined to a criteria which must be met. i.e.. violent protesters

"As for the language your writing in - that's simple (both figuratively and literally) - you're talking shite"

writing/talking? English lesson!

bye!!!

by Seán Ryan Sun Jun 17, 2007 22:08

Again you totally fail to get the point. You are speaking about laws in existence and powers that the Gardaí already have.

Why would the Greens seek to give powers to the Gardaí that they already have?

Or is it that your so-called argument is full of shite?

I think the latter.

This is about preventing a named person from entering a public place and that they need have violated no law or otherwise to merit the unconstitutional ban.

Feel free to keep diverting the topic - you know you are on the ropes. Or just admit that you got it wrong and stop trolling.

Again, I'm speaking about powers the Gardaí do not currently have,whilst you are hell bent on proving and providing examples of powers that they already have. Way to go, way to miss the point. I hope you'll forgive me if I choose to follow my own advice on this topic. If you have some advice on the actual topic being spoken about please feel free to post it. In the mean time please stop pointing out the fucking obvious like it is some grand revelation that only you have seen. Jesus!

As for the language your writing in - that's simple (both figuratively and literally) - you're talking shite.

by law Sun Jun 17, 2007 21:33

maybe Sean should have stayed at school long enough to have gained an education.
First he makes a "statement" regarding my inability to write in English (what language am I writing in?).

now back to his flawed "statement" that " This would require a complete re-writing of the Constitution".
the ability to prevent persons from being in a public place exists so why re-write the Constitution.
all that is being suggested is to confer that power to the Gardai, which might be a good idea, besides tying up court time.

A barring order may, if the court thinks fit, prohibit the respondent from doing one or more of the following, that is to say:

(c) attending at or in the vicinity of, or watching or besetting a place where, the applicant or any dependent person resides

and shall be subject to such exceptions and conditions as the court may specify.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0001/sec...996s3

here is one example of a person being barred from a public place .............

A 20-years-old Cork man who came to Galway to celebrate Hallowe'en with friends and became very abusive to a garda outside a city centre night-club, has been barred from the city for two years following his appearance before Galway District Court this week. http://www.galwayadvertiser.ie/dws/story.tpl?inc=2002/0....html

by Seán Ryan Sun Jun 17, 2007 18:01

First of all I wasn't talking generally, I was being very specific - try to read my first post. I've been talking about a single aspect of this article. You are generalising because you have no argument with what I specifically said. If on the other hand you do have an argument with what I've said and have tried to put it to me, you've failed completely to write it, hence my statement (not implication) regarding your inability to write in English.

I know this might confuse you, but what the fuck, it's not like you're lucid anyway. A public house (pub) is not a public place. It's private property.

Try out your 'argument' with regard to a real public place - like a public park. Or maybe a street. Try looking up the definition of 'public place.'

Besides not getting the simplicity of what is before you, allow me to further illustrate why you are a troll and why you are not adding to this article. Let's go back to the pub where you like to drink. I've been barred due to my previous behaviour. The Gardaí can ensure that I do not re-enter the pub, if the owner or whomsoever wills it. In what way do you imagine that this power that the Gardaí have is either a new power or that it in any way reflects the new power that the Greens wish to gift the Gardaí with?

The laws of trespass are well defined and back up the Constitutional defined right to own property.

As for personal liberties being expanded without bound. This is quite facile. The whole point of defining liberties in the first place is to avoid this. The legal machine exists to punish those who go beyond the legal bounds of personal liberties (in particular when they violate the liberties of others) and to facilitate justice (I'm not suggesting that the legal system facilitates justice - I'm saying that that is the purpose and claim).

by law Sun Jun 17, 2007 17:22

" However you should also read sentences and compare and contrast the words within; this is how you arrive at the meaning of a sentence "

Sean should practice what he preaches, it was he who stated "This would require a complete re-writing of the Constitution."
I am simply pointing out that he is wrong, the Constitution allows for laws to restrict liberty.
By implying I need to "start writing in English" was being patronising.
and he goes on to give an example of exactly what I suggested to him,

"Now if you are allowed to wander into some particular public place and I am stopped from wandering into the same place, by 'law,' then my fundamental right to be seen and treated as your equal and my right to have the same freedoms as you, will have been violated. This could and if I were involved, it would, result in a High Court civil suit for my Constitutional rights having been abused.".

Lets look at how his "High Court civil suit " would fail.
If I wandered into (for example) a public house for a quite pint of Bass, and Sean tried to wander into the same public house but was prevented from entering because he was barred from the premises due to a previous incident, would he say his "fundamental right to be seen and treated as my equal and his right to have the same freedoms as me, will have been violated.".

he would have lost that liberty due to the previous incident, so he wouldnt have grounds for a "High Court civil suit "

so I hope you can now comprehend that in fact the quote Sean used from the Constitution isn't relevant to this argument.

and his concluding by "Leave your lonely opinions in your head where they belong and find some company for them." could be construed as pettiness and an admission of his incorrect assumptions.

by Seán Ryan Sun Jun 17, 2007 16:10

Now you are being insipid.

From reading this article it can be inferred that the Greens wish to give the Gardaí powers to stop certain people from entering public places.

You can define words all you want. However you should also read sentences and compare and contrast the words within; this is how you arrive at the meaning of a sentence - not by defining individual words.

It would also be better that you say what it is that you think and back it up with law or reality rather than assume to put words into my mouth.

Article 40.1: "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law."

Now if you are allowed to wander into some particular public place and I am stopped from wandering into the same place, by 'law,' then my fundamental right to be seen and treated as your equal and my right to have the same freedoms as you, will have been violated. This could and if I were involved, it would, result in a High Court civil suit for my Constitutional rights having been abused.

If you wish to argue against my points, I suggest that you put up your argument itself and substantiate it. Leave your lonely opinions in your head where they belong and find some company for them.

by law Sun Jun 17, 2007 15:36

another free english lesson for sean!

"No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law."

the word "save" when used in this context means

save 2(sv)
prep.
With the exception of; except: "No man enjoys self-reproach save a masochist" Philip Wylie.
conj.
1. Were it not; except: The house would be finished by now, save that we had difficulty contracting a roofer.
2. Unless.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/save

by law Sun Jun 17, 2007 15:27

"No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty ""save in accordance with law""
My interpretation of that is that you have personal liberties enshrined in the Constitution but only if those liberties are lawful in a given context!

Maybe I am wrong, maybe the liberties in the Constitution are without boundaries,
for example a public house is "public" so therefore being barred from a pub for "example" attacking a member of staff is in your view unconstitutional.
or being barred from an area where your spouse lives because you beat her up and threatened to kill her is in you view unconstitutional!

by Seán Ryan Sun Jun 17, 2007 14:47

I think you need to find a hobby and that you need to start writing in English.

The legal system defines what you cannot do.

The Constitution defines what your liberties are (what you can do)

Are you suggesting that prisons define personal liberties?

by law Sun Jun 17, 2007 09:07

"I think 'by law' that you'll find that personal liberties are not defined by law."
I think you need to research your claim!
if what you say is true then why have prisons?

by Seán Ryan Sun Jun 17, 2007 02:10

I think 'by law' that you'll find that personal liberties are not defined by law. Personal liberties are defined by the Constitution (particularly Article 40). Personal liberty is defined by the Constitution and the law exists to protect it. Personal liberties, in order to be removed, would need a referendum.

Remember to keep reciting your proverb.

by law Sat Jun 16, 2007 18:56

"This would require a complete re-writing of the Constitution. Particularly Artivle 40.4.1: "No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law."
Sean, the phrase "save in accordance with law" is what you seem to have overlooked in your posting.
when the Oireachtas approves a new law, then it is law.

"it'll be fun to ridicule their comple lack of awareness"
the proverb "he who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind!

by Seán Ryan Sat Jun 16, 2007 16:04

Good luck to the Greens with this fantasy project.

Maybe an overtly obvious police state is what's needed.

I could focus on every point, but I'll limit myself to just one.

"Expand Garda powers to issue "restriction orders"...to restrict named persons from travelling to or from certain areas..."

This would require a complete re-writing of the Constitution. Particularly Artivle 40.4.1: "No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law."

On top of this it would necessitate a major overhaul of the law. For example, the working of the legal concept of false imprisonment.

False imprisonment is not a well understood legal term. It is not used to its full potential by activists currently (I'll go into this a bit shortly). Basically, false imprisonment does not necessitate any physical contact. For example, if I scream at a child who's sitting at a table and not eating their dinner, "if you move from that table before you finish eating your cabbage, I'll smack you:" you have a classic example of false imprisonment.

Another example: A group of protesters making their way into Shannon Warport are stopped at the gates and prevented, verbally, from entering the public place, generally known as the 'Airport,' this too is false imprisonment.

So, like I said, good luck to the Greens in this, it'll be fun to ridicule their comple lack of awareness.

by groan Sat Jun 16, 2007 14:04

one thing which gets further up my sinuses than meaningless gibberish jargon is wanton acronyms. Once upon a time we exported our scallywags to England and within a short while (geologically speaking) the English had forgotten all their good manners and become proper hooligans. This was long before the hoody became fashionable- in fact this was before the hoody was an un-fashionable accessory to either a snorkel jacket or dufflecoat. Then we got new-Labour and ASB. Oh yeah. but you can't say ASB anyother way than "eh es bee".....oh ok then "ah es bee".
So what do they come up with in snottie greenie land?
ASBATS.
Great. little joke there - see that gurrier who pulled your dufflecoat hood as a kid and went off and spawned a hip hop mass skipping flick knife weilding psychotic dope smoker? Yep you see her? Well we are going to give the gardai the power to break her legs with a bat. Just like we used to do before we gave up the armed struggle.

Do they have any idea of compound noun stacking? What exactly does "Anti-Social Behaviour Action Team" mean? Like you don't have to be bloomsday Joyce or Chomsky to see it means exactly the opposite of what they intend...........or does it? jayzhus - they're clever these Snot Greens in Government. They'll just pretend to be marginalised and run right shod over by FF but behind it all! it's irony!! Yes they'll still get the credit for giving up the armalite and punishment beatings and making the LUAS ozone friendly.

by Jacqueline Fallon Fri Jun 15, 2007 23:36

We don't need more Gardaí surveilling and harassing innocent Irish citizens, anyway, we have a sufficient supply of criminals already in the country, we don't need more of them.

Slán anois!