Things that make you go What the F**k?

[Snapchap]

Cork Co. Board charging people to attend the hurlers homecoming. That's a new low.

[imtommygunn]

  I suppose it would solve things but what a shower of...

Things have been  solved since the late  90's

   I know that and you know that.

[naka]

Portadown District applying to parade down the Garvaghy Road at the same time Armagh are playing in the AI final...

definitely wtf

[Main Street]

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-who-attacked-tourist-with-a-machete-called-him-a-fking-immigrant-is-jailed-6440780-Jul2024/

Some animals about. Bit of a joke sentence too. Key should be thrown away.

Sentence is an absolute joke, the act it self of course, but you factor in attracting tourists into the country. Disgusting

How the fcuk can there be mitigating circumstances (warranting a sentence reduction) for almost hacking someone to death with a machete because you thought they were an immigrant.

The problem lies with the Orichetas then. The judge was constrained by the range set by the sentencing guidelines. They set the sentence as between 7.5 and 12 years for this type of sentence. There's very good reason for a discount for a plea (which this was). So following the guidance the 8 year sentence was towards the higher if not at the highest end of what parliament says is needed for this type of offending. That it's a joke is down to Parliament not the Judge

Sentenced to 5.5 yrs. Why not the full 8? He has 29 previous convictions and was arrested at the scene with plenty of footage showing he did it so why does he get any discount for pleading to something he clearly did?

There's a number of good reasons for discount for pleas. The key amongst those is the cost saving to the state of having to run expensive trials and having to dot every I and Cros's every T in terms of preparing cases for trial. It also allows court time to deal with more cases.

More significantly though is that guilty pleas spare victims from being retraumitised. That's a major factor in discount for pleas that should always be maintained.

The 5.5 years has a footing in government policy as well. Sentences are not simply punitive, there also has to be an element of deterrence to them but also elements of rehabilitation and reintegration. Parliament has set sentencing law in the south so that parts of sentences can be suspended subject to certain conditions like good behaviour etc. This acts as a carrot for prisoners to try and rehabilitate themselves and helps with good order in prisons. In the north parliament has chosen a different approach with the same underlying principles.

Ah here, stop David. You come out with this every time there is a serious serious offence. This is not your run of the mill, one size fits all case. This animal is GOING TO KILL SOMEONE. If we cannot spend a couple of bucks to make sure he is locked away properly, the system is a complete and utter joke. And I'm willing to bet in this case, as in every other serious crime case, the joke of a sentence is far far far more retraumatizing than anything that could be possibly said in the courtroom.

I'm struggling to see the alternative here. The victim was the victim of a savage attack. Parliament has set a range of sentences for that offence. The Judge heard all the facts and then followed that guidance. He set a sentence length within that guidance (in fact at the higher end of it so he reflected that it was very serious even for that type of offence). He then applied the discount for the plea again as Parliament has advised should be done. He's then determined how that sentence should be split. As per the guidelines.

If he didn't follow the guidelines in any of those respects then inevitably there would have been an almost guaranteed to succeed appeal. Which would have been costly, time consuming and no doubt stressful for the victim.

I'm not for a single second defending the sentence in this case. I'm defending the process that arrived at it. I can see good reason for the process. The fact it results in a reprehensible sentence is due to Parliament who clearly need to change the guidance for this type of offending.

I've never heard the Dáil referred to as the parliament. We don't have a prime minister, we have a Taoiseach in the Dáil. We don't have MPs, we have TDs. Some of our Nordie cousins just don't understand us at all. They´re just totally ignorant of our historic struggle to cast out the British shackle just so (among other things) we can name our legislature the Dáil. Do they not realise the pride we take in being able to call a Dáil, a Dáil.

3 things. 1 I am dyslexic and struggle with the spelling particularly when on a phone that doesn't auto correct words in Irish.

2. I use Parliament as short hand for the combination of legislature and executive. As the legislature sets the statutes and the executive is by and large responsible for guidelines and/or the appointments to the bodies that set the guidelines.

3. Old habits die hard. I tend to use parliament to allow a more stock response and don't tend to alter it when discussing the position in Northern Ireland where of course some of the guidance comes from UK parliament (if for example the offence is contrary to a UK wide statute or order in council) and some comes from Stormont.

No offence was intended but again some of southern cousins don't understand the difficulties we have in the North having to operate under such hybrid systems and want to derive offence where none is intended. 

You don't get irony.
Did you think I was actually serious?
Sometime in the past you were on about southerners not understanding the Nordie experience.
I suppose this is a touché moment

[David McKeown]

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-who-attacked-tourist-with-a-machete-called-him-a-fking-immigrant-is-jailed-6440780-Jul2024/

Some animals about. Bit of a joke sentence too. Key should be thrown away.

Sentence is an absolute joke, the act it self of course, but you factor in attracting tourists into the country. Disgusting

How the fcuk can there be mitigating circumstances (warranting a sentence reduction) for almost hacking someone to death with a machete because you thought they were an immigrant.

The problem lies with the Orichetas then. The judge was constrained by the range set by the sentencing guidelines. They set the sentence as between 7.5 and 12 years for this type of sentence. There's very good reason for a discount for a plea (which this was). So following the guidance the 8 year sentence was towards the higher if not at the highest end of what parliament says is needed for this type of offending. That it's a joke is down to Parliament not the Judge

Sentenced to 5.5 yrs. Why not the full 8? He has 29 previous convictions and was arrested at the scene with plenty of footage showing he did it so why does he get any discount for pleading to something he clearly did?

There's a number of good reasons for discount for pleas. The key amongst those is the cost saving to the state of having to run expensive trials and having to dot every I and Cros's every T in terms of preparing cases for trial. It also allows court time to deal with more cases.

More significantly though is that guilty pleas spare victims from being retraumitised. That's a major factor in discount for pleas that should always be maintained.

The 5.5 years has a footing in government policy as well. Sentences are not simply punitive, there also has to be an element of deterrence to them but also elements of rehabilitation and reintegration. Parliament has set sentencing law in the south so that parts of sentences can be suspended subject to certain conditions like good behaviour etc. This acts as a carrot for prisoners to try and rehabilitate themselves and helps with good order in prisons. In the north parliament has chosen a different approach with the same underlying principles.

Ah here, stop David. You come out with this every time there is a serious serious offence. This is not your run of the mill, one size fits all case. This animal is GOING TO KILL SOMEONE. If we cannot spend a couple of bucks to make sure he is locked away properly, the system is a complete and utter joke. And I'm willing to bet in this case, as in every other serious crime case, the joke of a sentence is far far far more retraumatizing than anything that could be possibly said in the courtroom.

I'm struggling to see the alternative here. The victim was the victim of a savage attack. Parliament has set a range of sentences for that offence. The Judge heard all the facts and then followed that guidance. He set a sentence length within that guidance (in fact at the higher end of it so he reflected that it was very serious even for that type of offence). He then applied the discount for the plea again as Parliament has advised should be done. He's then determined how that sentence should be split. As per the guidelines.

If he didn't follow the guidelines in any of those respects then inevitably there would have been an almost guaranteed to succeed appeal. Which would have been costly, time consuming and no doubt stressful for the victim.

I'm not for a single second defending the sentence in this case. I'm defending the process that arrived at it. I can see good reason for the process. The fact it results in a reprehensible sentence is due to Parliament who clearly need to change the guidance for this type of offending.

I've never heard the Dáil referred to as the parliament. We don't have a prime minister, we have a Taoiseach in the Dáil. We don't have MPs, we have TDs. Some of our Nordie cousins just don't understand us at all. They´re just totally ignorant of our historic struggle to cast out the British shackle just so (among other things) we can name our legislature the Dáil. Do they not realise the pride we take in being able to call a Dáil, a Dáil.

3 things. 1 I am dyslexic and struggle with the spelling particularly when on a phone that doesn't auto correct words in Irish.

2. I use Parliament as short hand for the combination of legislature and executive. As the legislature sets the statutes and the executive is by and large responsible for guidelines and/or the appointments to the bodies that set the guidelines.

3. Old habits die hard. I tend to use parliament to allow a more stock response and don't tend to alter it when discussing the position in Northern Ireland where of course some of the guidance comes from UK parliament (if for example the offence is contrary to a UK wide statute or order in council) and some comes from Stormont.

No offence was intended but again some of southern cousins don't understand the difficulties we have in the North having to operate under such hybrid systems and want to derive offence where none is intended. 

You don't get irony.
Did you think I was actually serious?
Sometime in the past you were on about southerners not understanding the Nordie experience.
I suppose this is a touché moment

I misunderstood you my bad. Apologies. I was surprised to be honest.

Was I on about that? I genuinely don't remember

[Brendan]

Huw Edwards getting a pay rise 

[Main Street]

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-who-attacked-tourist-with-a-machete-called-him-a-fking-immigrant-is-jailed-6440780-Jul2024/

Some animals about. Bit of a joke sentence too. Key should be thrown away.

Sentence is an absolute joke, the act it self of course, but you factor in attracting tourists into the country. Disgusting

How the fcuk can there be mitigating circumstances (warranting a sentence reduction) for almost hacking someone to death with a machete because you thought they were an immigrant.

The problem lies with the Orichetas then. The judge was constrained by the range set by the sentencing guidelines. They set the sentence as between 7.5 and 12 years for this type of sentence. There's very good reason for a discount for a plea (which this was). So following the guidance the 8 year sentence was towards the higher if not at the highest end of what parliament says is needed for this type of offending. That it's a joke is down to Parliament not the Judge

Sentenced to 5.5 yrs. Why not the full 8? He has 29 previous convictions and was arrested at the scene with plenty of footage showing he did it so why does he get any discount for pleading to something he clearly did?

There's a number of good reasons for discount for pleas. The key amongst those is the cost saving to the state of having to run expensive trials and having to dot every I and Cros's every T in terms of preparing cases for trial. It also allows court time to deal with more cases.

More significantly though is that guilty pleas spare victims from being retraumitised. That's a major factor in discount for pleas that should always be maintained.

The 5.5 years has a footing in government policy as well. Sentences are not simply punitive, there also has to be an element of deterrence to them but also elements of rehabilitation and reintegration. Parliament has set sentencing law in the south so that parts of sentences can be suspended subject to certain conditions like good behaviour etc. This acts as a carrot for prisoners to try and rehabilitate themselves and helps with good order in prisons. In the north parliament has chosen a different approach with the same underlying principles.

Ah here, stop David. You come out with this every time there is a serious serious offence. This is not your run of the mill, one size fits all case. This animal is GOING TO KILL SOMEONE. If we cannot spend a couple of bucks to make sure he is locked away properly, the system is a complete and utter joke. And I'm willing to bet in this case, as in every other serious crime case, the joke of a sentence is far far far more retraumatizing than anything that could be possibly said in the courtroom.

I'm struggling to see the alternative here. The victim was the victim of a savage attack. Parliament has set a range of sentences for that offence. The Judge heard all the facts and then followed that guidance. He set a sentence length within that guidance (in fact at the higher end of it so he reflected that it was very serious even for that type of offence). He then applied the discount for the plea again as Parliament has advised should be done. He's then determined how that sentence should be split. As per the guidelines.

If he didn't follow the guidelines in any of those respects then inevitably there would have been an almost guaranteed to succeed appeal. Which would have been costly, time consuming and no doubt stressful for the victim.

I'm not for a single second defending the sentence in this case. I'm defending the process that arrived at it. I can see good reason for the process. The fact it results in a reprehensible sentence is due to Parliament who clearly need to change the guidance for this type of offending.

I've never heard the Dáil referred to as the parliament. We don't have a prime minister, we have a Taoiseach in the Dáil. We don't have MPs, we have TDs. Some of our Nordie cousins just don't understand us at all. They´re just totally ignorant of our historic struggle to cast out the British shackle just so (among other things) we can name our legislature the Dáil. Do they not realise the pride we take in being able to call a Dáil, a Dáil.

3 things. 1 I am dyslexic and struggle with the spelling particularly when on a phone that doesn't auto correct words in Irish.

2. I use Parliament as short hand for the combination of legislature and executive. As the legislature sets the statutes and the executive is by and large responsible for guidelines and/or the appointments to the bodies that set the guidelines.

3. Old habits die hard. I tend to use parliament to allow a more stock response and don't tend to alter it when discussing the position in Northern Ireland where of course some of the guidance comes from UK parliament (if for example the offence is contrary to a UK wide statute or order in council) and some comes from Stormont.

No offence was intended but again some of southern cousins don't understand the difficulties we have in the North having to operate under such hybrid systems and want to derive offence where none is intended. 

You don't get irony.
Did you think I was actually serious?
Sometime in the past you were on about southerners not understanding the Nordie experience.
I suppose this is a touché moment

I misunderstood you my bad. Apologies. I was surprised to be honest.

Was I on about that? I genuinely don't remember

Nothing out of the ordinary, just echoing what many Nordies feel about the low levels of understanding that southern folk had about what their compatriots from across the border had experienced in the quasi-apartheid statelet over the past decades.

[Jell 0 Biafra]

Quasi?

[Wildweasel74]

That maniac stabbing all those children over in England!

[Capt Pat]

Huw Edwards getting a pay rise 

He is in trouble for creating indecent images of children now.

[theskull1]

That maniac stabbing all those children over in England!

https://x.com/Cobratate/status/1818011145548218552?t=UryFBk_9tJh1uxD4GT_VHA&s=19

This woman needs to relax

https://x.com/TheLiberal_ie/status/1818047539398201589?t=jIuQdZAcpFZ3dvowtAlqvw&s=19

[trileacman]

That maniac stabbing all those children over in England!

In a case like this where you're apprehended at the scene is the death penalty not justified?

[David McKeown]

Huw Edwards getting a pay rise 

He is in trouble for creating indecent images of children now.

Not to justify or lessen it in anyway but the offence of creating occurs if you download a picture as you create a copy. It doesn't mean necessarily that he is alleged to be taking the pictures or what one might feel creating something usually involves.

[Saffrongael]

That maniac stabbing all those children over in England!

In a case like this where you're apprehended at the scene is the death penalty not justified?

It will be said to be a "mental health" incident

[imtommygunn]

The story doing the rounds is that he was born in cardiff not that any of that matters but seems to be the first thing that matters to some people.