Thanks Thanks:  11
Likes Likes:  70
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Bin them

  1. #1
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,714
    Post Thanks / Like

    Bin them

    Bin them


    off load them , don't need this type in the DF.
    Time for another break I think......

  2. Likes thedollar liked this post
  3. #2
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Dundalk
    Posts
    289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thugs!
    Cry "havoc!", and let slip the dogs of war!

  4. #3
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    they are guilty of 'violent disorder'.

    boys will be boys.

    give them a severe reprimand and let them soldier on i say.
    Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 29th November 2013 at 09:09.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  5. Likes B Inman, sofa, Tango_Charlie, antares liked this post
    Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  6. #4
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Valley of the Shadow of Death
    Posts
    3,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    So we train men to operate at the extremes of human ferocity, but then get upset when that "controlled aggression" spills over in a nightclub after a few drinks? This is an isolated incident and not representative of the Defence Forces proper after all.

    By all means punish them internally, apply corrective action, but binning them is just counter-productive.
    Last edited by SwiftandSure; 29th November 2013 at 09:11.

  7. Likes RoyalGreenJacket, sofa, antares liked this post
  8. #5
    Viking HavocIRL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,880
    Post Thanks / Like
    He kicked a lad when he was on the deck. Lowest of the low.

    Ignore the fact he's a soldier, he should be locked up for that alone
    To close with and kill the enemy in all weather conditions, night and day and over any terrain

  9. #6
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Valley of the Shadow of Death
    Posts
    3,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by HavocIRL View Post
    He kicked a lad when he was on the deck. Lowest of the low.

    Ignore the fact he's a soldier, he should be locked up for that alone
    I'm not saying they're not pricks for doing it. They are. But when you consider their profession trains them to bayonet wounded people on the deck who may still be considered a threat, the occasional unsavoury act like this will happen.

    If it were up to me, I'd beast these guys for the next 2 months solid. Rock around the clock. Painting Rocks. Marching in quick time everywhere. PT twice daily. Death by press ups. Inspection, inspection, inspection. The works.

    If "the army is their life" as they stated in court, then they'll take it on the chin, will never do it again, and the end product will be a better soldier.

    If they think it's unfair treatment, then bin them.

  10. Dislikes FMolloy disliked this post
  11. #7
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,106
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sending them to prison would achieve nothing, but would cost the taxpayer thousands, while sacking them would mean increased spending on welfare.


    Its important to note that its not alleged that they started it, the other two and the woman seem equally culapable. As for kicking somebody on the ground, my experience of fighting has always been jailhouse rules, not marquess of Queensbury.

  12. #8
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    524
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftandSure View Post
    I'm not saying they're not pricks for doing it. They are. But when you consider their profession trains them to bayonet wounded people on the deck who may still be considered a threat, the occasional unsavoury act like this will happen.

    If it were up to me, I'd beast these guys for the next 2 months solid. Rock around the clock. Painting Rocks. Marching in quick time everywhere. PT twice daily. Death by press ups. Inspection, inspection, inspection. The works.

    If "the army is their life" as they stated in court, then they'll take it on the chin, will never do it again, and the end product will be a better soldier.

    If they think it's unfair treatment, then bin them.
    Soldiers are also supposed to be disciplined. Behaving like this does not display any sense of discipline.

    To try and justify it as they are trained soldiers is only looking at one side of the coin. If a soldier is not disciplined enough to not go getting into fights then they are not the type of soldier I want to serve with.

  13. Likes FMolloy, The real Jack, hptmurphy liked this post
  14. #9
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah I'm with the beasting and RTU option.

    Nothing to suggest that they started the fight and kicking someone when they're down is a. Context dependent and b. Easy to do with a rush of sh*t to the head.

    They don't appear to have stamped anyone into a pulp drive-style.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  15. #10
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
    they are guilty of 'violent disorder'.

    boys will be boys.

    give them a severe reprimand and let them soldier on i say.
    Attacking people without reason, hitting women & continuing to assault someone when they've gone to the ground is far removed from 'boyish' antics; it's downright thuggery. Would you be as dismissive of what happened & as quick to forgive if it had been your wife or daughter who'd been assaulted?
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  16. Likes danno, hptmurphy liked this post
  17. #11
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    It's important to note that its not alleged that they started it, the other two and the woman seem equally culapable. As for kicking somebody on the ground, my experience of fighting has always been jailhouse rules, not marquess of Queensbury.
    If the other parties had been equally culpable then they would also have been charged; the fact that they weren't means no one has any business casting dispersions on them. There was no evidence given as to who started it, but the fact that they pled guilty to a lesser charge while the more serious ones were not pursued is very telling.

    No one should get a free pass from proper punishment on the basis of what they do for a living.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  18. Likes danno, hptmurphy liked this post
  19. #12
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,268
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are a number of factors which may or should be considerd in sentancing.
    1. The extent of injuries of the vicims (bruised skin and ego or broken bones)
    2. The genuine remorse and likelihood of re-offending.
    3. The compensation paid by the defendents (i.e. did they pick up the hospital bills, contribute to loss of earnings if the victims had to take time off work).
    4. Whether or not they initiated the fight (who threw the first punch, not who mouthed off first).

    Most people if they got into a fight in the street and it was sufficiently not serious enough to warrant a suspended sentance or fine then you probably will not loose your job (note probably). That all being said just because the judge gives them a light sentance does not mean that the military won't take a dimmer view of this incident.

  20. Likes Goldie fish liked this post
  21. #13
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,090
    Post Thanks / Like
    The DF teaches discipline and controlled aggression.

    The parties in each case don't show either.

    I assume either way it would reflect on they annual report - their chances of promotion, overseas and extending contracts.

  22. #14
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Puts the prickly affair into context.

  23. #15
    C/S ArdMhacha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Newry
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know one of the lads involved really well. He is actually a family man who takes the job more seriously than most. While what he did was horrible its also really out of character for him. To bin them would make an already bad situation even worse

  24. Likes RoyalGreenJacket, hedgehog liked this post
  25. #16
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by HavocIRL View Post
    He kicked a lad when he was on the deck. Lowest of the low.

    Ignore the fact he's a soldier, he should be locked up for that alone
    Exactly - severe reprimand including 28 days in jail and soldier on.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  26. #17
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,743
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ever heard the expression 'Wee big man from Strabane'...

    Or...'You can take the man out of Strabane...but you'll never take Strabane out of the man'...

    Seems appropriate in this case
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  27. Likes northie, Buck liked this post
  28. #18
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ArdMhacha View Post
    I know one of the lads involved really well. He is actually a family man who takes the job more seriously than most. While what he did was horrible its also really out of character for him. To bin them would make an already bad situation even worse
    The lads are part of a organisation that exists to defend from attack the citizenry of the state ;not to gratuitously inflict beatings on citizens,thats what scummy thugs do.Were these off duty Gardai their resignations would be expected and a prison term a likely outcome.

  29. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
    boys will be boys.
    Gilmore also assaulted the man's friends, Thomas Roantree and the woman.
    He assaults a woman, and your response is "boys will be boys"?

  30. #20
    Serf hedgehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    14,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Whoa lads- lets not jump to conclusions and hang draw and quarter our own comrades just to be seen as living up to an idealised Enid Blyton stylisied version of what a Soldier is:

    (1)- None of us were in Court- None of us were in the Garda interview rooms- none of us were at the scene of the crime- so therefore NONE of us can say what actually happened.

    (2)- the two (clowns ) pleaded guilty at the earliest oppurtunity and saved the State a fortune and the victims the scars of rehashing the incident.

    (3) One of them handed himself in to the Gardai taking responsibility for his actions.- Both have supportive families and family responsibilities.

    (4) Both of them have clean records and have never come to the attention of the Gardai before.

    (5)- The above is what is taken into account in mitigation- in that the Judge will have a tariff in mind and then deduct so much per point of mitigation

    (6) however, anyone who has been in a Court will know that in most cases both Counsel can wax elequently about flawed but improving character, service to his community, family values etc etc- but in most cases the Judge will take notice of what is said and not said by the most sober, most responsbile and respectable, most experienced and most likely the person who was there when it occured and that is the Garda-in this situation the Garda said - it was binge drinking that went wrong. The Garda to his credit didnt say this was the most heinous crime ever witnessed, he didnt say this was something that would give him nightmares, he didnt say that in all his time walking the beat he never saw a violent disorder so cruel and vicous- no he said this was a night of binge drinking that went wrong.

    Lads here will tell you that most gardai do their job in a fair manner but its how you treat the Garda decides how fair he is going to be- for example if you fight the arresting Garda and break his nose or spit on him or threaten him etc etc he is going to bring everything to Court (and rightly so)- in this instance the Garda was fair and in his opinion it was simply a night of binge drinking that went wrong.

    (7)- They were charged with violent disorder:
    That is the TWO of them were charged with violent disorder-
    Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994


    Violent disorder.


    15.—(1) Where—


    (a) three or more persons who are present together at any place (whether that place is a public place or a private place or both) use or threaten to use unlawful violence, and


    (b) the conduct of those persons, taken together, is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at that place to fear for his or another person's safety,


    then, each of the persons using or threatening to use unlawful violence shall be guilty of the offence of violent disorder.


    (2) For the purposes of this section—


    (a) it shall be immaterial whether or not the three or more persons use or threaten to use unlawful violence simultaneously;


    (b) no person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at that place.


    (3) A person shall not be convicted of the offence of violent disorder unless the person intends to use or threaten to use violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence.
    Now have a look at 15 (1) (a) where it says "3 or more"

    In the news report it said a third person ran away- its not clear whether that third person was with the two clowns or with the two blokes and the bird- As I said we simply dont know as its unclear from all the available reports.

    If the other parties had been equally culpable then they would also have been charged; the fact that they weren't means no one has any business casting dispersions on them. There was no evidence given as to who started it
    Not if the other party ran away and still hasnt been found- but as I said we dont know so therefore we shouldnt speculate either way but what we should do and what the Court did was give the benefit of the doubt to the two lads- unless and until you can prove to the contrary.

    (8)- Where it may seem the fight was savage- in that a lad got a kick on the ground- in fact thats not savage, remember there were two fighting 3 or possibly 4- and I am an equality head here because women can fight just as dirty if not dirtier than blokes - "bitches be crazy" (Dr Sheldon Cooper)-

    (9)- This was heard on indictment in the Central Criminal Court- the max penalty available is 10 years bitnig the pillow- yet

    but the fact that they pled guilty to a lesser charge while the more serious ones were not pursued is very telling.
    Your missing the word allowed- No one just pleads guilty to a lesser offence- if that was the case murderers would take a plea of shop lifting or rapists would cop a plea of no tv licence- to plea to a lesser charge the DPP has to allow it- therefore your quote should be :

    but the fact that they ALLOWED PLEAD guilty to a lesser charge while the more serious ones were not pursued is very telling.
    And you are 100% right it is very telling- If the DPP and or its Counsel thought in any circumstances they could push through a full assault charge then they would have gone for it- but Consel at that level and the DPP are realist and they know they would have been just wasteing money and Court time- therefore they accepted (probably suggested) the lesser charge.

    (10)- This was a simple case of violent disorder- its nasty, its not nice, they are two clowns -but sadly it happens- you can bet your bollox that in any Court in the land they deal with this type of shite week in week out- We are making it out to be more than it is. Its just a few clowns with drinks on them who acted the sac. The papers only reported it because the Judge made a ruling that would save the two clowns jobs- If 3 lads from McDonalds did the same the Judge wouldnt have to do the ruling as they wouldnt lose their jobs.

    Let me stress this point- the press reported the fact the Judge made a special (out of the ordianry) ruling to stop the DF hammering the two clowns- thats all it was. We as Judge Jury and never did anything wrong people are making it out to tbe the crime of the century. Fair play to the press in that they didnt make it out ot be more than it was.

    Its not the crime of the century- it was two clowns couldnt handle their gargle - got heavy - issued digs - got arrested- held their hands up and admitted it- paid their fine. The victims had no long lasting injuries- there was no malicious intent and no aggravated or depraved acts.

    They did a crime- they held their hands up- they paid the fine. But that wont be the end of it because they will be forever associated with this one stupid night. even after they pay the fine etc they will suffer- their careers are put back years, do gooders will have it in for them and they will never be allowed in America etc.

    I cant stand in Judgement on these two comrades as I too got drunk and I was (was is stretching it) stupid and I did act the sac. It would be nice to say I never did anything stupid as a young lad- but that would be a big dirty fib.

    We shoud let it rest and put down the burning pitchforks - there is enough civies and do gooders out there to cruicify these two comrades without the rest of us joining in.

  31. Thanks kermit, Duffman, B Inman, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes Bravo20, Flamingo, Buck liked this post
  32. #21
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland...rs-251205.html

    Judge Martin Nolan imposed a two-and-a-half-year “deferred sentence” on Andrew Gilmore, aged 25, who was judged to have played the more serious role in the attack.

    A deferred sentence is a rarely used provision which means that technically Gilmore will not have received a custodial or suspended term. This is conditional on him paying over €3,000 to the two victims within six months. If he complies with this, the sentence will not be imposed.

    His co-accused, Michael Kearney, aged 30, was fined €500 after the judge noted he had a less violent role in the offence.

    Judge Nolan said he was imposing the sentences with the objective of giving the men a chance to save their careers. He said the matter is now up to the army.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  33. Thanks hedgehog, Battletour thanked for this post
    Likes Buck liked this post
  34. #22
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    524
    Post Thanks / Like
    He said the matter is now up to the army.
    But it isn't. They have been tried and received their punishments. They DF cannot retry them. Their punishments do not warrant further action by th DF unless they receive additional ones subsequently

  35. #23
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,090
    Post Thanks / Like
    They got neither a suspended sentence or a fine so according to the initial article, they won't be discharged.

    Quote Originally Posted by midnight oil View Post
    But it isn't. They have been tried and received their punishments. They DF cannot retry them. Their punishments do not warrant further action by th DF unless they receive additional ones subsequently
    I assume it will effect their discipline rating on their 667s?

  36. #24
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    3,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    For what it's worth, I'd go with Hedgie on this.

    I wouldn't be too hung up on the "hitting defenceless women" bit either - I've seen too many scary pissed-up women at work, (and been assaulted by a few of them) to be under any illusions about the weaker sex that has to be protected.
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  37. Likes Buck, GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  38. #25
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    524
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    They got neither a suspended sentence or a fine so according to the initial article, they won't be discharged.



    I assume it will effect their discipline rating on their 667s?
    By discipline record do you mean conduct rating? If so your conduct rating is not assessed on you AF667 merely recorded. There are specific times when your conduct is assessed

    You would have to check if the one man that was fined more than the thresholds allowed in A8. I would be surprised if the fine was big enough. The deferred sentence is one I have not seen before so would need a legal interpretation on it but again it doesnt seem to be anything

  39. Thanks DeV thanked for this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •