Bin them

[RoyalGreenJacket]

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.

[spider]

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

[danno]

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.

[FoxtrotRK]

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"?

[hedgehog]

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.

[Goldie fish]

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/judge-gives-two-soldiers-chance-to-save-army-careers-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.

[midnight oil]

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

[DeV]

They got neither a suspended sentence or a fine so according to the initial article, they won't be discharged.

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?

[Flamingo]

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.

[midnight oil]

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

[RoyalGreenJacket]

Would you be as dismissive of what happened & as quick to forgive if it had been your wife or daughter who'd been assaulted?

nope - because then it would be personal and my sentiments and actions would be exaggerated and distorted by emotion.

i don't condone these soldier's actions, but we should not write them off either.

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.

soldiers by nature of the job constantly run a fine line trying to balance aggression, restraint and action with discipline.

sometimes they cross the line on each and it is not as clear cut as right or wrong.

the fact that these two soldiers are capable of such 'violent disorder' but have only committed it once and seem to otherwise be of 'good behaviour' means they 99.9% of the time exercise good discipline both on and off duty.

some of the best soldiers i know who have been officially recognised and rewarded for their actions on operations are those who have previously been involved in incidents like the above, and are no stranger to violence.

warfare often requires men who push the envelope of, and go beyond what is considered acceptable; and from experience - soldiers like these are often exactly the type of soldier I want to serve with.

[hptmurphy]

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.

We are not at war, and we are supposedly a civilized society and misuse of alcohol is a not an excuse for thuggish behaviour. They willfully assaulted another person without cause.

They hold the privelege of serving their country. If they cannot treat its citizens with respect they do not deserve that privelege.

Bin Them!

[FMolloy]

Hedgie, they were also charged with Assault Causing Harm; which means they at least drew blood in the incident. These charges weren't pursued, which I would put down to their early pleas to the Violent Disorder charges, but the fact that they got them means either someone in the DPP or an Inspector felt there was enough evidence there for them to answer for it in the first place.

[hedgehog]

Hedgie, they were also charged with Assault Causing Harm; which means they at least drew blood in the incident. These charges weren't pursued, which I would put down to their early pleas to the Violent Disorder charges, but the fact that they got them means either someone in the DPP or an Inspector felt there was enough evidence there for them to answer for it in the first place.

You couldn't be more wrong if your name was Tom Wrong of 21 Wrong Avenue, Wrongtown,, County Wrongford.

[BANDIT]

[
some of the best soldiers i know who have been officially recognised and rewarded for their actions on operations are those who have previously been involved in incidents like the above, and are no stranger to violence.
warfare often requires men who push the envelope of, and go beyond what is considered acceptable; and from experience - soldiers like these are often exactly the type of soldier I want to serve with.[/QUOTE]
I tend to agree with our resident BA recruiting sergeant on this one. Unfortuntely because the DF have not been involved in combat there is a culture of a peace time army so guys may be valued for their qualities other than agression etc , So it coud be looking smart, not rocking the boat with ossifers, even ass kissing ossifers, being good at admin, general being more steady .Now the BA are off travelling around the world as units and they tend to hAve a different approach to leeting off steam,, However I would say that their discipline is tighter, heavier fines , more punishments at sub unit level etc and more use of the glasshouse.How is a guy going AWOL IN THE DF treated in comparasion with the BA?
So keep the guys on but give them a severe slapping and fiines,
I have come to the opinion that a stretch in a glasshouse for a not too serious offence should almost be a requisite for line NCOs ,,
I also think the UN peace keeping mission reinforces the non agressive culture which in the long run is counter to waht u are attempting to train soldiers to do/be