Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

All things Rugby
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 40056
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Duff Paddy »

Uncle Fester wrote:
EverReady wrote:Here lads going on a few trips in the next while Rome, San Sebastian, Porto. I want to bring the missus somewhere else as a thank you for being sound. Any ideas? Any time of year is fine and needs to be be city break as I have a thousand children
Went to Bilbao last September. Twas great.
Know it well - very dull unless you’re with a local. Not a patch on San seb
User avatar
Conspicuous
Posts: 7552
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Conspicuous »

Duff Paddy wrote:Arcachon? Do you want him to die of boredom or something.

Milan is a bit of a dark horse - it can be absolutely savage if you plan it right
Florence is obviously the worlds greatest city
Seville?
Milan is a bit of a strange choice. What’s savage about it ?
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10619
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Leinsterman »

Ze fashion, dahling!!!
Trostan
Posts: 3327
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Down by the Riverside

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Trostan »

EverReady wrote:Here lads going on a few trips in the next while Rome, San Sebastian, Porto. I want to bring the missus somewhere else as a thank you for being sound. Any ideas? Any time of year is fine and needs to be be city break as I have a thousand children
Aqaba. Visit Petra and The Wadi Rum and lie on the beach.

Whoops not a city break, still put it in the bank for later
Nolanator
Posts: 39700
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Nolanator »

Flametop wrote:
Nolanator wrote:
iarmhiman wrote:
nardol wrote:Is there a separate thread for this horrible murder stuff?
No
http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... start=5120

The judiciary thread?
TBF, I’m not sure this case fits that criteria.
Did occur to me.
User avatar
Uncle Fester
Posts: 19965
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Uncle Fester »

Nolanator wrote:
Flametop wrote:
Nolanator wrote:
iarmhiman wrote:
nardol wrote:Is there a separate thread for this horrible murder stuff?
No
http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... start=5120

The judiciary thread?
TBF, I’m not sure this case fits that criteria.
Did occur to me.
http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... it=Kriegel
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 17058
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Gavin Duffy »

Just f*ck off, fester. If people want to discuss the news here they're entitled to.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 40056
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Duff Paddy »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hea ... 31063.html

This ex gratia payment implies wrong doing on the part of the state - the logic being that the women should have been informed of the audit revealed a false negative. This is a deeply flawed message to send out.
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 15846
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

Boy B’s father comes off as :uhoh:, admits his son told him he didn’t respect him and then goes ballistic in court.
User avatar
Uncle Fester
Posts: 19965
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Uncle Fester »

Gavin Duffy wrote:Just f*ck off, fester. If people want to discuss the news here they're entitled to.
Would you have some fücking cop on? There are at least 3 forumers who live in the area.

I and others don't want to read this shit (see paddyor post) so do it on your own thread.
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 20499
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by nardol »

anonymous_joe wrote:
nardol wrote: I did. Last time I checked it was the executive that runs the country and not the judiciary or parliament.

If the executive doesn't want to enforce a judiciary mandated verdict that's their business.

(Theory on) The executive attaches little, some would argue no precedent setting power to their actions. They are subject to frequent changes based on electoral outcome and have discretionary powers that allow the office a hack of a lot more margin of implementation than the judiciary.... at least from what I remember from back in the day.
:uhoh:

Are you serious?
Yes. Happens quite often that you settle a civil case without acknowledging any guilt or liability.

Clear distinction between civil and criminal however even in the sentencing part you have mitigation
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 63371
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Duff Paddy wrote:https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hea ... 31063.html

This ex gratia payment implies wrong doing on the part of the state - the logic being that the women should have been informed of the audit revealed a false negative. This is a deeply flawed message to send out.
I don't think the concept that we inform women of the existence of an audit (and that there will be people privy to the result) is something we should avoid. 20k is steep for a judgement call on that but I think a doctor having info that he's not disclosing to the patient isn't acceptable (whether you need to inform the doctor is a separate point but once you do then I think the patients should have automatically been informed).

In the UK women are given the option to know the result. 50% chose not to.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 40056
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Duff Paddy »

CM11 wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hea ... 31063.html

This ex gratia payment implies wrong doing on the part of the state - the logic being that the women should have been informed of the audit revealed a false negative. This is a deeply flawed message to send out.
I don't think the concept that we inform women of the existence of an audit (and that there will be people privy to the result) is something we should avoid. 20k is steep for a judgement call on that but I think a doctor having info that he's not disclosing to the patient isn't acceptable (whether you need to inform the doctor is a separate point but once you do then I think the patients should have automatically been informed).

In the UK women are given the option to know the result. 50% chose not to.
They shouldn’t disclose because it makes no difference. It’s just a technical window for ambulance chasers to make a claim
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 43510
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by camroc1 »

Duff Paddy wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hea ... 31063.html

This ex gratia payment implies wrong doing on the part of the state - the logic being that the women should have been informed of the audit revealed a false negative. This is a deeply flawed message to send out.
I don't think the concept that we inform women of the existence of an audit (and that there will be people privy to the result) is something we should avoid. 20k is steep for a judgement call on that but I think a doctor having info that he's not disclosing to the patient isn't acceptable (whether you need to inform the doctor is a separate point but once you do then I think the patients should have automatically been informed).

In the UK women are given the option to know the result. 50% chose not to.
They shouldn’t disclose because it makes no difference. It’s just a technical window for ambulance chasers to make a claim
This.

FWIW am in Palma at the moment and it has lots going for it for a we break.
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 15730
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

nardol wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
nardol wrote: I did. Last time I checked it was the executive that runs the country and not the judiciary or parliament.

If the executive doesn't want to enforce a judiciary mandated verdict that's their business.

(Theory on) The executive attaches little, some would argue no precedent setting power to their actions. They are subject to frequent changes based on electoral outcome and have discretionary powers that allow the office a hack of a lot more margin of implementation than the judiciary.... at least from what I remember from back in the day.
:uhoh:

Are you serious?
Yes. Happens quite often that you settle a civil case without acknowledging any guilt or liability.

Clear distinction between civil and criminal however even in the sentencing part you have mitigation
Not the issue.

The issue is that as a minister, he is telling the judiciary that if they overturn the award to a person, the government will still cover the award. That's a clear signal as to what the State wants to happen, and is therefore interfering with the separation of powers.
User avatar
Diego
Posts: 20176
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:14 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Diego »

Floppykid wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:Actually I’d like to see Copenhagen. Been to Oslo pretty cool but crazy expensive.
Copenhagen is the best of the three Scandinavian capitals imo. I've got a bias though.
Moving there next week :smug:
User avatar
paddyor
Posts: 19471
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by paddyor »

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Boy B’s father comes off as :uhoh:, admits his son told him he didn’t respect him and then goes ballistic in court.
Could be a bit more to the excluded psychologist report tbf. Though I think the judge was right, I can see how/why he stood behind his son. Like there could be other children involved.

Can’t even begin to imagine the personal hell of the families involved, victim and guilty, 3 families destroyed.
User avatar
danthefan
Posts: 23602
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by danthefan »

paddyor wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:Boy B’s father comes off as :uhoh:, admits his son told him he didn’t respect him and then goes ballistic in court.
Could be a bit more to the excluded psychologist report tbf. Though I think the judge was right, I can see how/why he stood behind his son. Like there could be other children involved.

Can’t even begin to imagine the personal hell of the families involved, victim and guilty, 3 families destroyed.
It's just absolute nightmare stuff for all 6 parents. Sympathies obviously with the victim's family foremost but the fallout for the families of the boys will be awful.
User avatar
paddyor
Posts: 19471
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by paddyor »

Good article on the evidence from Conor Gallagher covering the evidence, particularly against B, and the events leading up to it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.3929570
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 20499
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by nardol »

anonymous_joe wrote:
nardol wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
nardol wrote: I did. Last time I checked it was the executive that runs the country and not the judiciary or parliament.

If the executive doesn't want to enforce a judiciary mandated verdict that's their business.

(Theory on) The executive attaches little, some would argue no precedent setting power to their actions. They are subject to frequent changes based on electoral outcome and have discretionary powers that allow the office a hack of a lot more margin of implementation than the judiciary.... at least from what I remember from back in the day.
:uhoh:

Are you serious?
Yes. Happens quite often that you settle a civil case without acknowledging any guilt or liability.

Clear distinction between civil and criminal however even in the sentencing part you have mitigation
Not the issue.

The issue is that as a minister, he is telling the judiciary that if they overturn the award to a person, the government will still cover the award. That's a clear signal as to what the State wants to happen, and is therefore interfering with the separation of powers.
And the state appealing the case in the first place is what? A double bluff? They are appealing but they really want to lose the case?

Nonsense.

The state is a party in the case, of course it's going to want a certain outcome. That doesn't automatically result in trias politica being done away with.

It's separation of powers not separation of desired outcome.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 63371
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Duff Paddy wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hea ... 31063.html

This ex gratia payment implies wrong doing on the part of the state - the logic being that the women should have been informed of the audit revealed a false negative. This is a deeply flawed message to send out.
I don't think the concept that we inform women of the existence of an audit (and that there will be people privy to the result) is something we should avoid. 20k is steep for a judgement call on that but I think a doctor having info that he's not disclosing to the patient isn't acceptable (whether you need to inform the doctor is a separate point but once you do then I think the patients should have automatically been informed).

In the UK women are given the option to know the result. 50% chose not to.
They shouldn’t disclose because it makes no difference. It’s just a technical window for ambulance chasers to make a claim
Well then they shouldn't be telling the patient's doctor either. The way they handled it was poor.

As I said, in the UK they give the option, presumably the information cannot be used by ambulance chasers (hence half of the women not wanting to know). We need to put in place similar protection here.
User avatar
Liathroidigloine
Posts: 8478
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Liathroidigloine »

Boy B is a conniving little fucker. Went toe to toe with experienced cops over a long period of time and didn't crack. Lock him up for good. Same goes for A of course.
User avatar
danthefan
Posts: 23602
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by danthefan »

Liathroidigloine wrote:Boy B is a conniving little fucker. Went toe to toe with experienced cops over a long period of time and didn't crack. Lock him up for good. Same goes for A of course.
He provided all the evidence against himself. Might have a screw loose but if he'd just said nothing he'd probably be free.
Nolanator
Posts: 39700
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Nolanator »

danthefan wrote:
Liathroidigloine wrote:Boy B is a conniving little fucker. Went toe to toe with experienced cops over a long period of time and didn't crack. Lock him up for good. Same goes for A of course.
He provided all the evidence against himself. Might have a screw loose but if he'd just said nothing he'd probably be free.
Fair play to the Gards interviewing him for being patient and doing it by the book. Must be so tempting to lose your cool and shout at him to cop on and 'fess up.
User avatar
sewa
Posts: 22107
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by sewa »

paddyor wrote:
EverReady wrote:Here lads going on a few trips in the next while Rome, San Sebastian, Porto. I want to bring the missus somewhere else as a thank you for being sound. Any ideas? Any time of year is fine and needs to be be city break as I have a thousand children
Florence is really nice, you can even squeeze in Pisa if you do 4-5 days. Munich is good too especially for the christmas markets if you want to wait. Have heard good things about Lisbon. Maybe Amsterdam or Prague.
Lisbon for my money, I love the place and their is a huge castle, beaches etc so ideal for the kids. I wouldn't bring kids to Amsterdam again, they didn't enjoy the place at all. Prague also I felt was more for adults
User avatar
Bullettyme
Posts: 14568
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Bullettyme »

Boy A sounds like a real piece of work, similar to that other psycho over in Dun Laoghaire who is considered likely to kill if he gets out. I think Boy B is probably just as cold blooded, just worse at lying.
Nolanator
Posts: 39700
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Nolanator »

Amazingly fast work from everyone involved, considering the severity of the crime. She was murdered on May 14th 2018. Two boys found guilty on June 18th 2019.
User avatar
TheBouncer
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by TheBouncer »

just absolutely distraught for the parents, i don't know how you come back from that
User avatar
DragonKhan
Posts: 4608
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:01 pm

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by DragonKhan »

Boy B could very well have been naive and thought that the other lad was just going to be a dickhead to the girl or thought he was going to do something else. He panic lied possibly, just didn't want to incriminate himself etc. Hard to tell really but he is obviously a little plum but is he a murderer? Hard to say

Boy A though - Jesus Christ, lock him up and throw away the key
User avatar
Liathroidigloine
Posts: 8478
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Liathroidigloine »

DragonKhan wrote:Boy B could very well have been naive and thought that the other lad was just going to be a dickhead to the girl or thought he was going to do something else. He panic lied possibly, just didn't want to incriminate himself etc. Hard to tell really but he is obviously a little plum but is he a murderer? Hard to say

Boy A though - Jesus Christ, lock him up and throw away the key
He knew well, why else did he bring the tape.
User avatar
Flametop
Posts: 19321
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Flametop »

Nolanator wrote:
danthefan wrote:
Liathroidigloine wrote:Boy B is a conniving little fucker. Went toe to toe with experienced cops over a long period of time and didn't crack. Lock him up for good. Same goes for A of course.
He provided all the evidence against himself. Might have a screw loose but if he'd just said nothing he'd probably be free.
Fair play to the Gards interviewing him for being patient and doing it by the book. Must be so tempting to lose your cool and shout at him to cop on and 'fess up.
Boy B obviously didn’t watch the “don’t talk to the Police” video on YouTube.
Thought he was so clever, but either convicted himself by talking or told so many lies that the jury sent down an innocent boy. Either way he wasn’t very clever.
rfurlong

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by rfurlong »

Nolanator wrote:Amazingly fast work from everyone involved, considering the severity of the crime. She was murdered on May 14th 2018. Two boys found guilty on June 18th 2019.
impressive work all round
rfurlong

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by rfurlong »

Liathroidigloine wrote:
DragonKhan wrote:Boy B could very well have been naive and thought that the other lad was just going to be a dickhead to the girl or thought he was going to do something else. He panic lied possibly, just didn't want to incriminate himself etc. Hard to tell really but he is obviously a little plum but is he a murderer? Hard to say

Boy A though - Jesus Christ, lock him up and throw away the key
He knew well, why else did he bring the tape.
don't think he brought the tape? thought he gave it to boy A a month or so earlier?

I hope boy A never gets out ..... but I have a nagging doubt about the case against boy B
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10619
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Leinsterman »

DragonKhan wrote:Boy B could very well have been naive and thought that the other lad was just going to be a dickhead to the girl or thought he was going to do something else. He panic lied possibly, just didn't want to incriminate himself etc. Hard to tell really but he is obviously a little plum but is he a murderer? Hard to say

Boy A though - Jesus Christ, lock him up and throw away the key
You obviously know more than the jury who sat through all the evidence, Matlock.
User avatar
Flametop
Posts: 19321
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Flametop »

rfurlong wrote:
Liathroidigloine wrote:
DragonKhan wrote:Boy B could very well have been naive and thought that the other lad was just going to be a dickhead to the girl or thought he was going to do something else. He panic lied possibly, just didn't want to incriminate himself etc. Hard to tell really but he is obviously a little plum but is he a murderer? Hard to say

Boy A though - Jesus Christ, lock him up and throw away the key
He knew well, why else did he bring the tape.
don't think he brought the tape? thought he gave it to boy A a month or so earlier?

I hope boy A never gets out ..... but I have a nagging doubt about the case against boy B
Are you worried about a possible miscarriage of justice (wrongful conviction of boy B) or that he’s guilty and might get away with it on appeal?
User avatar
Liathroidigloine
Posts: 8478
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Liathroidigloine »

rfurlong wrote:
Liathroidigloine wrote:
DragonKhan wrote:Boy B could very well have been naive and thought that the other lad was just going to be a dickhead to the girl or thought he was going to do something else. He panic lied possibly, just didn't want to incriminate himself etc. Hard to tell really but he is obviously a little plum but is he a murderer? Hard to say

Boy A though - Jesus Christ, lock him up and throw away the key
He knew well, why else did he bring the tape.
don't think he brought the tape? thought he gave it to boy A a month or so earlier?

I hope boy A never gets out ..... but I have a nagging doubt about the case against boy B
I don't. I have a boy around that age and if had to go to a Garda Station he would wet himself let alone sit there and lie his head off. He watched a girl being raped and murdered and then lied about it.
Last edited by Liathroidigloine on Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 40056
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Duff Paddy »

Nail on the head Liathroidi
rfurlong

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by rfurlong »

Flametop wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
Liathroidigloine wrote:
DragonKhan wrote:Boy B could very well have been naive and thought that the other lad was just going to be a dickhead to the girl or thought he was going to do something else. He panic lied possibly, just didn't want to incriminate himself etc. Hard to tell really but he is obviously a little plum but is he a murderer? Hard to say

Boy A though - Jesus Christ, lock him up and throw away the key
He knew well, why else did he bring the tape.
don't think he brought the tape? thought he gave it to boy A a month or so earlier?

I hope boy A never gets out ..... but I have a nagging doubt about the case against boy B
Are you worried about a possible miscarriage of justice (wrongful conviction of boy B) or that he’s guilty and might get away with it on appeal?
the former

think he could be guilty of manslaughter or at a minimum, obstruction of justice ...... just not convinced he deffo knew the other psycho was going to follow through

the psychologist evidence (that he was naive, fearful of boy A and suffering from PTSD) deemed inadmissible by the judge, would have gotten him off IMO

I'd be very worried about him as an individual (for not intervening and/or telling the truth), but not convinced he planned this murder, the way boy A did
rfurlong

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by rfurlong »

Liathroidigloine wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
Liathroidigloine wrote:
DragonKhan wrote:Boy B could very well have been naive and thought that the other lad was just going to be a dickhead to the girl or thought he was going to do something else. He panic lied possibly, just didn't want to incriminate himself etc. Hard to tell really but he is obviously a little plum but is he a murderer? Hard to say

Boy A though - Jesus Christ, lock him up and throw away the key
He knew well, why else did he bring the tape.
don't think he brought the tape? thought he gave it to boy A a month or so earlier?

I hope boy A never gets out ..... but I have a nagging doubt about the case against boy B
I don't. I have a boy around that age and if had to go to a Garda Station he would wet himself let alone sit their and lie his head off. He watched a girl being raped and murdered and then lied about it.
yep, thats why I said I'd be worried about him in the future

btw, it wasn't rape I believe .... it was aggravated sexual assault (equally horrific). Boy B bolted when he saw the act of murder ..... not sure he saw the (prior?) sexual assault?

to be clear, I'm not arguing in his favour ... I just have a suspicion that he has a strong case on appeal
User avatar
sewa
Posts: 22107
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by sewa »

Leinsterman wrote:
DragonKhan wrote:Boy B could very well have been naive and thought that the other lad was just going to be a dickhead to the girl or thought he was going to do something else. He panic lied possibly, just didn't want to incriminate himself etc. Hard to tell really but he is obviously a little plum but is he a murderer? Hard to say

Boy A though - Jesus Christ, lock him up and throw away the key
You obviously know more than the jury who sat through all the evidence, Matlock.
In fairness there are loads of "experts" here who seem to know more than the Jury
Post Reply