Messages

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/helen-mcentee-confirms-fewer-100-32663680.amp


So would calling for the deportation of 7200 people "whose asylum applications have been refused" be a far right
Position?

All I say is there was a famous case last year where an asylum seeker in Belfast had his claim for asylum refused at first instance.  The reason for his refusal was he had claimed he would be persecuted in his home country because he was involved in guerrilla warfare.  The Home Office rejected that this would entitle him to asylum because 'gorillas are an endangered species' and fighting them shouldn't allow him to claim asylum.

So id at least like appeals to be dealt with first

Only thing for sure is that there are no winners, but hopefully justice is service.

As I said before, it is hard to see how you can prove something 20 years ago beyond reasonable doubt, I doubt there were witnesses other than his wife.

Hearing other cases the PPS didn't prosecute due unlikelihood of conviction even when there is evidence, they must feel there's a high chance of conviction based on what ever evidence they have. No?

I've no idea myself - I'm doing a lot of reading between the lines and may well be getting it wrong.

Today was the 1st appearance. I'd be shocked if the PPS even have the full file yet let alone have made a decision. It would be unusual for them to have the full file yet particularly if the allegations only surfaced in March.

So does that mean the PPS could still decide not prosecute?
I've no idea how these things work, I'd made the assumption it only gets this far if the PPS are already in a position to prosecute.
Interesting.

Police once they arrest someone can question them for a total period of initially 24 hours before they must release them without charge or charge them.  That time can be extended firstly by senior by police officers and then by courts.  Until that time is used up police can release upon pre charge bail in order to gather further evidence but conditions are largely unenforceable (not going into the details of that here not really relevant).   Once police believe they have sufficient evidence to establish a prime facie case they can charge.  Alternatively they can release for report.  Neither way suggests the evidence is any stronger or weaker than the other it more comes down to the perceived necessity by police for bail conditions and/or a remand.  The reason some are charged is essentially that police believe there a likelihood of reoffending if not charged, is there a likelihood of interference with witnesses or is there a likelihood of absconding.  Rarely there may be other reasons for charging such as to uphold public confidence but these are rare.

If an individual is charged they can be kept to the next remand court (the next day or two if its over a holiday or weekend) if PSNI feel that remand is necessary to meet the above.   Or they can be released on post charge bail by the custody sergeant who will set a date within 28 days for a defendant to appear at court and will set bail conditions.  That is what happened in this case.

After charge PSNI will continue to gather evidence and collate the already gathered evidence in order to submit a file to the PPS.  Once a file is received it will be allocated to a suitably qualified prosecutor who will review the file and if necessary request the police to gather further evidence.  Once the PPS have a full file they will decide whether to prosecute and what charges are to be prosecuted and where they are to be prosecuted.

Asking how long that process will last is like asking how long is a piece of string.  I recently had a fast tracked one that took 14 months but I've had ones take anything from 4 months to 3 years.  It depends on the amount of evidence, the quality, the likelihood of getting more, how busy the directing officer is, how busy the investigating officer is etc etc.

With a charge sheet case the court will keep under review how long things are taking.  Had the case been taken for report then its simply a case of when PPS can get round to it, but defendants aren't on bail in report cases. 

Statistically report cases have a higher conviction rate but a lower decision to prosecute rate but there's very little difference.

Ultimately all cases investigated by police are sent to PPS for decision.  A lot never see the light of day, some get dropped after being charged and others get prosecuted the whole way to trial.  At this moment nothing has happened that I am aware of that could lead to any proper conclusions on the strength of the evidence and we would simply be speculating.

Only thing for sure is that there are no winners, but hopefully justice is service.

As I said before, it is hard to see how you can prove something 20 years ago beyond reasonable doubt, I doubt there were witnesses other than his wife.

Hearing other cases the PPS didn't prosecute due unlikelihood of conviction even when there is evidence, they must feel there's a high chance of conviction based on what ever evidence they have. No?

I've no idea myself - I'm doing a lot of reading between the lines and may well be getting it wrong.

Today was the 1st appearance. I'd be shocked if the PPS even have the full file yet let alone have made a decision. It would be unusual for them to have the full file yet particularly if the allegations only surfaced in March.

You're missing the bit 'after they have played the ball away'

And the last bit.

Or intentionally taking him out of the movement of play.

I see the Sunday Game hinted at being told by an official that Hampsey had made an abusive gesture after the shot had been missed. That's also a black card offence.

So I think we probably have no clue what the cards were for in order to know if they were correct or not.

So no one knows the rules around adding time?

I genuinely have no idea. If you extra time is 10 minutes a half does that mean that when 2 mins extra time is played 7 would have been played had it been a 35 minute half?

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

My point on the shit referee is that when you start limiting the reasons to have a referee because of said reasons, you'll end up with a small pool to pick from.

You can, if you want and search it, a reason for not having a particular ref for any game!

Ireland is very small, there'd be some link or two

I accept that it wont always be possible or fair to a referee and If its not possible its not possible I just dont know why its not a consideration when it can be.  Its an active consideration in soccer.  Mike Dean (the senior referee in English football) only refereed Liverpool 13 times and Everton 11 in his entire career (with 8 of those games being between the 2) apparently because of his known fandom of Tranmere Rovers.  He refereed Man Utd 84 times, Arsenal 80, Man City 82, Chelsea 78 etc

Yeah he's a mad tramere fan, but still ref'd them, albeit far less.

I know you're not questioning someone's integrity and feel some by location or work or whatever may have that bitta doubt before blowing the whistle or not blowing it.

At intercounty level they are (believe it or not lol) scrutinised from an application of rules all the way down to how their umpires look!

Would be disastrous for a ref to ruin his/hers name by being bias

Ref's at either football or hurling at intercounty level come championship are picked early doors for Sam/Liam all games are ref'd from that selection. I'm sure all considerations are taken but I'd not be privy to how that's done in fairness

No I don't feel that way at all.  I am obviously not articulating myself well enough here.  What I am saying is that the association isn't helping in terms of creating a culture of respect towards ref by some of the awkward spots they put referees in.  I don't think I have ever seen a referee certainly not at IC level make a decision that I felt was because they had a connection to the team involved or because it would benefit their own county.  I have however heard plenty of fans make such connections and it therefore introduces some unnecessary doubt into what is already a difficult job.  I think the GAA should be removing all unnecessary doubt and pressure from referees where possible to make their job easier.

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

My point on the shit referee is that when you start limiting the reasons to have a referee because of said reasons, you'll end up with a small pool to pick from.

You can, if you want and search it, a reason for not having a particular ref for any game!

Ireland is very small, there'd be some link or two

I accept that it wont always be possible or fair to a referee and If its not possible its not possible I just dont know why its not a consideration when it can be.  Its an active consideration in soccer.  Mike Dean (the senior referee in English football) only refereed Liverpool 13 times and Everton 11 in his entire career (with 8 of those games being between the 2) apparently because of his known fandom of Tranmere Rovers.  He refereed Man Utd 84 times, Arsenal 80, Man City 82, Chelsea 78 etc

I see almost ironically that Forrest have lodged a complaint today that the VAR official for todays game was a Luton fan and didn't give them three penalties as a result

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

On another matter, there seems to be, a few new posters on here past few weeks. On the messages, I get the impression they been on here before or jumping between a few names.

On the matter at hand watching the goals again, first was terrible, second Lynch actually scored it, it was going wide, forth lying in a heap in midfield embarrassing stuff.

I think this is the lesson for all teams with the  'fly keeper' nowadays.

I think Dublin were doing this to Derry in the NFL Final but didn't attack with much agression.

Donegal took it to a new level.  Derry press high with Lynch covering space way out the pitch and Patton kicks over the top.  It's 50/50 but if it breaks Donegal's way, they attack with serious pace and power from all angles and score the goals.

It got that bad that the last goal, the keeper actually kicked it deliberately (in my opinon) on top on Lynch, it broke and Donegal were in again for a really handy goal.

For me, when the press is on the kick-out, the only option is to go long. That's where the space is and Mc Guinness nd his management recognised this. The space is in the other half.

Patton is great at the long kicks butthe key is the strong pacey runners driving forward in support.

Now I'm sure Donegal's plan was to get a goal and a few points from this, thinking obviously, that Derry would recalibrate and stop this but for it to hppen time after time, Isure Mc Guinness couldn't believe it.

Now the thing is, the high press and keeper has been found out, will other teams be as brave to do it.

Mc Guinness and his management worked it well. Will it work again for them? 

I don't think McGuinness is getting enough credit for not only exploiting the space on the long kick outs but also in creating it.  Id need to see the goals again but from memory on 3 of them he made sure that there were no Donegal forwards near the goals so that there would be no covering defenders who could drop back and cover for Lynch.  That was unusual tactically and worked a treat at creating the goals.

All that said, Donegal were gifted 4 goals and only won the game by 6 points (although there is no doubt they deserved to win), that will have to be of concern.

I don't feel Lynch being out where he was was the sole reason for his concession of the goals. On 3 of the 4 Donegal had done a great job of creating empty space in front of the Derry goals meaning there was no defender who could easily drop and force Donegal in to taking points. Had there been it would have made it a much closer game.

I think that should be a bigger worry for Derry than simply Lynch'S performance.

We need to see more of this. Indeed it needs the full backing of VFI and another supplier ready to step in.

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/dublin-pub-takes-stand-against-29004882

(Why do so many "news" websites have to destroy the user experience with an advert every scroll? Yes I clicked on that article because it interested me. No, I refuse to stay on that site and see if there's anything else interesting to read)

I thought you couldn't penalise customers for paying by card now? the article doesn't clearly explain their "cash discount scheme"
The Chinese we go to used to charge 50p to pay by card, now since that rule came in they only accept cash

Rules could be different in the South? Either way easy way round it would be to say you are rewarding people for using cash rather than penalising them for card. E.g. advertise something for £5.50 but give a  50p discount for cash etc.

It's an EU directive under PSD2.

I'm not sure that easy way round it would pass much muster. No pun intended. It would at the very least need to be a % discount rather than a fixed fee per transaction one

Recently sat on a jury in Queens. I don't think I'd want to run the risk of sitting on this particular one however.

Nearest I ever got was when I lived in Manhattan, I got called in to the initial meeting where the lawyer for each side got to speak to us briefly, sent off for lunch and by the time we got back it was settled, apparently settling right at the final moment is not unusual.

Pretty common over here anywhere

Recently sat on a jury in Queens. I don't think I'd want to run the risk of sitting on this particular one however.

I am very glad I'm not allowed to sit on juries at all but I agree this one would be horrendous