Do we need the special criminal court?

[One]

Why not answer his question instead of firing off the usual irrelevant insults which only serve to deflect?

Such petulance is unbecoming tbh.

Would you listen to yer wanno

 

[sloblock]

It is.

No it is not. It is denying people the right to a jury trial, and that is a reversal of hundreds of years of civil rights. Unless you think Murphy and the gangs in Limerick are among the greatest threats to society in our history, then eliminating civil rights as a means of combating them is a backward step.

Well rattled with the name calling you coward btw.

I am more than happy to call one such as yourself by the names that seem appropriate - and when I say "one such as yourself" I mean wannabe bullies who like nothing better than dishing out nastiness. It seems you can't take it as well though.

 

[sloblock]

Why not answer his question instead of firing off the usual irrelevant insults which only serve to deflect?

Such petulance is unbecoming tbh.

Ah roxY, jumping in as befits a paid-up member of the support group

I will not play along with people like stackY's attempts to twist the discussion. Sorry if that upsets you - maybe ye should put it on the agenda of your next FG branch meeting.

 

[Stacky]

Slobb_y wants someone else to put their neck on the block to be a jury member or witness against some P.I.R.A criminal or drugs gang member but would he stand up in public himself ?

No.


Start a protest march to the High Court / Government there and tell us how you get on

 

[Red Baron]

Why not answer his question instead of firing off the usual irrelevant insults which only serve to deflect?

Such petulance is unbecoming tbh.

It is what he falls back on when bested on here.

 

[jams]

The SCC wouldn't have helped Eamonn Collins or any other witnesses.

But if you can't get a jury to serve because of fear, then how can you get a fair trial by jury?

 

[Kimeartimmyboy]

Surely the state should hold itself to different standards than those applied by crime syndicates? Should the state operate a shoot-to-kill policy until criminal gangs promise not to?

The state does hold itself to different standards. Everyday life being an example. We live, we respect the laws, when we break them we have to deal with those tasked with upholding the law. We accept the system for what it is, warts and all. Theory and practice more or less working in sync.

Then there is those who do not. Living their lives outside the law but happy to use it when it suits them. And when it doesn't suit them, they resort to intimidation and terror. Which, in anybodies book, is not playing by the rules. That is when the state has to, for the better of our society, put away the rule book for a moment and dispense justice.

Whether this is via a jury less courtroom or the barrel of a gun, I personally could not give a single fuck.

 

[Duffs]

None of this is an argument in favour of denying somebody the right to trial by jury.

Who chose the Jury that found the Disappeared guilty?

 

[mawhosmeda]

Who chose the Jury that found the Disappeared guilty?

Only Muintir could answer that. " I am holding the peace baby you ca'nt hit me)

 

[doppellanger]

No it is not. It is denying people the right to a jury trial, and that is a reversal of hundreds of years of civil rights. Unless you think Murphy and the gangs in Limerick are among the greatest threats to society in our history, then eliminating civil rights as a means of combating them is a backward step.



I am more than happy to call one such as yourself by the names that seem appropriate - and when I say "one such as yourself" I mean wannabe bullies who like nothing better than dishing out nastiness. It seems you can't take it as well though.

Yes, Murphy and his likes are a grave threat to our society. Think of the last two gardai who were shot dead - both by scumbags from that borderland criminal milieu.