Messages

My point stands:

1. Israel tries to equate any criticism of them as support of Hamas.
2. Kneecap shouting 'Up Hamas' gives Israel an open goal.

It's simple and irrefutable.

Mo Chara left himself open to this by what he shouted and will be used to build the case that he supports a proscribed organisation but make no bones about this the spotlight was shone on them after the Coachella thing in the US.

It looks like the defence are questioning whether the court have jurisdiction on this matter, anyone shed any light on that for us less well informed in the legal gymnastics at play? 

Yes although I think the reporting must be wrong. Either that or I can't read a calendar. The reporting suggesting the issue is one of the case being what's called statute barred.

This offence is what's known as a summary offence meaning it can only be heard in the Magistrates Court. It can not be heard in the Crown Court. Most summary offences (including this one) must be commenced within 6 months. Proceedings are commenced when a complaint is made to a lay magistrate not when a summons is issued. The complained of offence occurred in November. The proceedings don't seem to have been commenced until May. I can't remember the specific dates of either of those but a google suggests the CPS laid the complaint in time (just).

Is the English 6 months thing similar to this bit in Irish law that relates to time between offence and summons?
'Generally speaking, a summons must issue within 6 months of the offence if it is to be dealt with by summary disposal'
https://www.michaelstaines.ie/what-to-do-when-you-receive-a-summons

Yes it steams from pre partition. Been a bit of a divergence over the last century but not much.

I understand that the dates may have been reported incorrectly in the press and the charges are likely statute barred

A great contrast in styles. I said in the pre championship predictions that whoever knocked Armagh out would win Sam so I'll stick with that. Two very good teams though and should be an intriguing battle.

The doom and gloom lads beginning to crawl back out!!

Just so I'm clear good games earlier in the year were a result of the new rules?

Poor games in the semi finals nothing to do with the new rules?

That's obviously tongue in cheek and not aimed specifically at anyone but it is the way I've seen some people get on.

Overall I've warmed a lot on the rules. I particularly like the solo and go as it's now been refereed and played. That said I still think there's a lot of problems with them. The introduction of the two pointer has devalued a goal and even a one pointer. The fact that two pointers can be scored from accidental fouls or 3v3 breaches etc devalues them further.

I think the rules also work better for the sport as a tv sport rather than an in person sport were decisions can be baffling and seem very unfair at times.

All that said I think the majority are here to stay and I'm not going to be tearing up my season ticket or anything over that. I just still remain of the view that the changes made went too far to correct supposed failings that weren't really there.

I don't think the quality of football has improved this year to the extent the rules had envisioned.

I was talking about the incident right at the end where there was an advantage awarded out the field and play continued Tyrone had a goal scoring chance but it was deflected up over the bar.  My understanding was that scoring the point ends the advantage and the point stood.  There was a similar incident in a Cork hurling match last year.

If the point doesn't end the advantage who determines which outcome is chosen?  Is it the referee, are the fouled team given a choice?

McQuillan was wrong on this.  The point was the advantage, it shouldn't have been brought back for the 2 pointed free attempt.  I guess the game scoreline is what influenced his decision.

That's what I thought but I've lost all track of the rules at this stage.

I was talking about the incident right at the end where there was an advantage awarded out the field and play continued Tyrone had a goal scoring chance but it was deflected up over the bar.  My understanding was that scoring the point ends the advantage and the point stood.  There was a similar incident in a Cork hurling match last year.

If the point doesn't end the advantage who determines which outcome is chosen?  Is it the referee, are the fouled team given a choice?

I asked it on the All Ireland thread yesterday but I'll ask again here as it's a more appropriate place.

Tyrone had an advantage late on yesterday. They scored a point when on the advantage due to a great block. They were then allowed to go back out for the free instead of taking the point. Is that allowed?

I thought the advantage was over if you scored. Are teams to be given a choice?

What happened at the end. Was there an advantage that Tyrone scored from but that they went back for the free kick for anyway?

They scored a point but wanted the free as it was outside the arc. All a bit daft given they were down by six but at least they showed some effort.

I thought the advantage ended if you scored?  What if you are three points down and point instead of goaling late on.

What happened at the end. Was there an advantage that Tyrone scored from but that they went back for the free kick for anyway?

Impressive again from Kerry but I thought Tyrone were very poor and will be disappointed

Been using blink about 6 months and have very few complaints. Occasionally a camera will take a while to access but I suspect that's more to do with my internet connection.

Amazon doing a big sale today and tomorrow on their cameras. 55% off some of the Blink stuff

I see Liz Kimmins has indicated that there will be an appeal.  Always possible that McAlinden J got the law wrong but given the content of the Judgement I am surprised by this course of action.  Particularly as they have started to return the land and remove all the equipment/

Could an appeal delay the return of land etc?
As someone has pointed out above, that process is going to cost a fortune ... a process that is then going to be reversed again in the future (hopefully) when DfI get their application sorted?

I'm not sure why the return of lands happened that wasn't the focus or an outcome of the original decision (unless I missed it)

The original decision struck out the vesting orders, therefore DFI, in the eyes of the law, are trespassing on land they don't own.

I misunderstood the position on vesting. The vesting was contingent on the decision to proceed with the road being lawful so whilst the vesting themselves weren't unlawful per se, the quashing of the original decision has in effect voided them ab initio. Hence why the land is being returned. Had missed that bit which in my defence was early on in the Judgement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwnxdx723o

This relatively new hospital to be used as nothing more than a health centre now. Some waste of money.

Yeah but if suitably qualified staff don't want to live and work in the area what's the alternative?

I don't think this would change the legal position. I think the correct legal position is basically just ignored as is and no one usually wants to enforce their rights. I'd imagine RG is being told he kind of has to in order to make the defamation element of his claim a runner

I see Liz Kimmins has indicated that there will be an appeal.  Always possible that McAlinden J got the law wrong but given the content of the Judgement I am surprised by this course of action.  Particularly as they have started to return the land and remove all the equipment/

Could an appeal delay the return of land etc?
As someone has pointed out above, that process is going to cost a fortune ... a process that is then going to be reversed again in the future (hopefully) when DfI get their application sorted?

I'm not sure why the return of lands happened that wasn't the focus or an outcome of the original decision (unless I missed it)