Farmer Nally

ClubMan said:
Obviously the trial judge in his wisdom, experience and knowledge of precedent thought differently than you.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right ClubMan, mine is a purely emotional response based on a huge amount of empathy with a frightened elderly man who feels safer in prison than in his own home.

It is also based on the fact that my elderly parents, who lived in a rural area, were similarly invaded by two travellers - a male and female. The female kept my mother in the kitchen while the male ransacked the house. My father was outside in the garage at the time. When they finally left, my mother called to my father to tell him what had happened and this 73 year old man gave chase with a hammer. What he would have done to them if he had caught them, I do not know.

My parents weren't physically harmed, but the trauma caused by the violation of their 'safe haven' stayed very much with them.
 
Can you explain if/how this comment relates to the Nally conviction please?
Click to expand...

I was replying to a comment about the scales of justice made by another poster. I explained it in the post where I made it (that you quoted from). I don't see much point in jumping back from where the thread is now to some minor comment made back then but if you want to discuss it further I will.

Where otherwise decent people feel that the legal system is not capable of protecting them or their property, and not capable of punishing criminals even when they are caught, then they are more likely to take the law into their own hands. They are more likely to turn to groups like SF and vigilante's to deal with problems. In Rural areas they are more likely to use a shot gun or a hurley, or a hammer.

Doing so isn't legal and leads to them falling foul of the legal system that they feel let them down in the first place.

Many people have been asking for some time now whether the Scales of Justive have tipped too far in favour of the criminal and whether it might be time to consider alternative legal systems like for instance the French system.

It's a minor point, I'm not sure it deserves revisiting.

-Rd
 
I only revisited it because I hadn't seen it earlier and only saw it on reviewing the thread. Fair enough if you think that some of your own points are not worth discussing.
 
Clubman, instead of picking out bits of a thread that suit your ultra conservative view why not read the rant as it stands and make a general comment on the feeling in the post. I also think that if you looked at the people posting on this thread the majority of us are in empathy with the farmer and could not give a fig for the dead man. Its not nice but that is how it is. So nit pick away about how wonderful the constitution is, how great the law and its enforcers are, how great our politicians are but those of us with exposure to reality who go through life as non intentional criminals and law abiding citizens who read about how criminals get off on technicalities, how pensioners get robbed etc. etc. allow us to feel that justice has been served to BOTH parties. Look into the papers today - Drug war deaths - again who really cares how many of these guys are pushing up daisies by the end of the week. I know where I would rather see them - in jail - long term. But, say for example, if the bloke down the road did what the law did not, I'd be fighting to get to the front of the queue to buy the man a drink. COS THERE WOULD BE A QUEUE. And you can sit in the corner of the virtual pub on your own and drink the inadequate systems health.
 
quarterfloun said:
Clubman, instead of picking out bits of a thread that suit your ultra conservative view
Click to expand...
Two points (a) I am not picking out bits of the thread to support my views and (b) I don't think that I have untra conservative views on this or most other matters.

why not read the rant as it stands and make a general comment on the feeling in the post.
Click to expand...
Sorry - haven't a clue what you mean here.

I also think that if you looked at the people posting on this thread the majority of us are in empathy with the farmer and could not give a fig for the dead man. Its not nice but that is how it is.
Click to expand...
So what? I never said that I had no empathy with the farmer or that I had any feelings for the dead man.

Where did I "nit pick away about how wonderful" any of these were (whatever that means)?

Again I'm not sure what the purpose of this rant is but feel free to explain if you want and can.
 
Clubman, you are intelligent enough to understand my point about the feel of a post compared to picking it apart line by line.

We are too soft on these HABITUAL criminals. You do not take a slash hook to Guards - did his parents teach him that? I would have thought not so I must assume that he was a man responsible for his own actions. Well he may not have thought himself accountable in this life but St. Peter will be going though his misdemeanors before opening the big pearly ones.

And if you want to censure this comment " Live by the sword - die by the sword" so be it, but you cannot censure the word of the Lord - "Then said This post will be deleted if not edited immediately unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52)"
 

That IS news to me, I hadn't been aware of it! Never heard of such a situation before and would be interested in the legal reasoning behind it.

Roy
 
Bit ironic that you were the one accusing me of being ultra conservative in the light of that quotation!? When it comes to fundamental rights and jurisprudence in Ireland the Constitution and our laws thankfully take precedence over the sacred books of all religions and barring the (I believe) anachronistic preamble to the Constitution we live in a largely secular and pluralistic society.
 
You introduced the constitution to this thread not me. As for rights - where were Lallys being respected? What about all the people that get mugged, raped, robbed, have their car radios nicked, their houses burgled etc. What about the law abiding citizens having their rights respected for a change instead of pandering to the criminals? Serial criminals (say 10 crimes and over) should be denied free access to a solicitor. Why should the taxpayer keep lawyers in work defending serial offenders when the money would be better spent on more police stopping them offending in the first place?
 
quarterfloun said:
You introduced the constitution to this thread not me.
Click to expand...
Er, I know - but you are quoting the Bible which has no legal standing in Ireland last time I checked. What relevance has the Bible in these matters on a statutory, whatever about a personal, level? Not everbody believes in or lives by that particular book. Who's pandering to criminals? I never said people who break the law should not face the repercussions that arise. But equally I don't believe that people can take the law into their own hands and kill them. I'm sure that your Bible also has something to say about the sanctity of human life if that's your touchstone in this context. Not all accused individuals qualify for legal aid. If you think that there should be changes to the way in which this system operates then maybe you should start a campaign to have [broken link removed] changed?
 
Normally I dont agree withe the way the yanks do it, but they where up to no good, the son on prime time said they where not there to steal yet car was revving mad waiting to get away, simple u live by the sword you know the rest, he should of pleading he was insane at the time spend some time with people who care, if eg 5% of us rob houses / beat people up in settled community I would in my opinion say for travellers it would be about 80% plus
 
oulu said:
simple u live by the sword you know the rest
Click to expand...
Yes - you (Mr. Nally in this case) do the time for the crime.
he should of pleading he was insane at the time spend some time with people who care
Click to expand...
Who?
if eg 5% of us rob houses / beat people up in settled community I would in my opinion say for travellers it would be about 80% plus
Click to expand...
Care to back those wildly speculative generalisations up with some facts?
 
Why not go further than funding the police, which still ignores the real root cause. Why not fund the education & equality that just might help to ensure that everyone is an equal stakeholder in society?
 
100% with you on that Rainy. We should do exactly that but unfortunately too many people who already have a foot on the ladder of "society" are unwilling to help or even recognise the fact that there are too many out there less fortunate (in terms of ability, access to information, understanding of the information etc.) never mind materialistic wealth.
 
What rate of tax would each of you be prepared to pay to fund greater expenditure on security and social services just out of curiosity?
 
if the judge directed the jury like that, what's the point of having a jury?
 
I always wondered about that myself. According to : I'm not sure what the circumstances must be for the judge to direct the judy's verdict in the case and, in such a situation, if they can ignore the direction (although I would assume that this would simply leave strong grounds for appeal by the defence or prosecution)?
 
Why not fund the education & equality that just might help to ensure that everyone is an equal stakeholder in society?
Click to expand...

What rate of tax would each of you be prepared to pay to fund greater expenditure on security and social services just out of curiosity?
Click to expand...

Travellers in general have a notoriously poor record of participation in the State education systems. It is difficult to see how spending more tax resources on education will change this.

Also, given the well-known reluctance or inability of many travelling salespeople to provide vat invoices or documentation of sales to customers, there is strong reason to believe that many within this sub-group do not participate fully in the tax system that finances our education systems.
 
Two comments:

1. I didn't follow the case closely, and I don't do criminal work, so I am not speaking as an expert. However, if Mr. Nally admitted the facts, and if those admitted facts were only consistent with a verdict of murder or manslaughter, then it would appear appropriate for the judge to so direct the jury.

2. I am astonished at the "stormfront" website. I suppose it shows up my small town parochialism a wee bit, but it is difficult for me to accept the American argument that people should be free to spout this sort of stuff. It is at least as objectionable as pornography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register