Seized Cork anti-war monies goes to UNICEF Ireland

by Precision Man Sun Oct 12, 2003 02:00

Money should never be given to the 'garda benevolent fund', it might be used for very dubious purposes. After all you only have to look at the track record of the gardai....

The Heavy Gang
The affair in Donegal
The Abbeylara affair
"Reclaim the Streets" incidents
Brothel in the Prussia St area (sometime in the late eighties?)

More recent:
Garda with child porn on his computer
The gardai who tried to bring torture weapons through Dublin Airport in September
Where does it all end? I'm sure there is a lot more.

by blowing in the wind Sat Oct 11, 2003 22:54

Deirdre, you are wasting your breath ...

The incoherent ramblings from "i'm here" are merely the latest contribution from the ipsiphi aka. iosaf mcdiarmada ... whom nobody takes too seriously around here anyway ......

He is unlikely to improve in this regard and making helpful suggestions is not going to have any impact.

Probably best just to hit the "ignore" button.

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares Sat Oct 11, 2003 20:24

"I'm here": The only reason your "questions" are "difficult" is because they're incomprehensible. If you expect people on a thread to take you seriously, then you should write in a literate fashion. But your pointless and badly recounted anecdote about the Garda benevolent fund isn't going to convince thinking people of your gravitas as a political commentator.

by i'm here & avi is there who's going to deal with that one? - asking difficult questions to simple answers Sat Oct 11, 2003 16:04

the Garda benevolent fund got £250 (old money not LSD money but oldish before the Euro=€=euros money you like and love) from a woman in County Mayo in 2001. She was ordered to pay it by the courts. The court in Mayo in fact. She hassled a garda, verbally and with comments, you know the biting kind, She told him that he had “little for doing” and then started laughing loudly.

Oh well the garda asked her for her _name_ and _address_ "the details", and she replied [name left out for copyleft manners] and then added (one might presume in a jocular fashion) ":—“But you can call me Toyota”.

Toyota. imagine that.
Garda [name left out for copyleft manners] said both defendants (the woman was in court with her brother) were very intoxicated on the night in question. They had no previous convictions.
The judge left it till June 2002 to see that the woman "Toyota" had paid £250 (old money not LSD money but oldish before the Euro=€=euros money you like and love) to the Garda Benevolent Fund.

And do you know what?
-she had.

but she and her brother did get the probation act which they still carry to this day, so that they might be truly scared of ever pretending to be a girl called toyota to a garda or figure of authority -ever ever never again.

iosaf.

by Deirdre Clancy - pitstop ploughshares Fri Oct 10, 2003 20:38

What these critics of the anti-war movement don't really get is that the only people in the West who ever propped up Saddam's regime were, in fact, the folks you now find in the Bush administration. They *directly* supported this regime in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, by providing chemical weapons to the Iraqi regime and generally pouring money into the cause of keeping Saddam in power. Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand in 1983 and promised to support his interests. Later, when Saddam was no longer co-operating with Western economic and political demands, they (in conjunction with the UN) undermined the ability of ordinary Iraqis to resist this repressive and brutal regime by denying them basic necessities, such as clean water and basic medicines, through the implementation of a brutal sanctions regime that lasted for over a decade (and which almost certainly strenghtened rather than weakened the regime). It was only when Saddam began to do things that didn't suit them, such as nationalise the oil, that the US and Britain began to have a problem with his dictatorship. And then, after exposing already vulnerable people to grinding hardship for over a decade, they invade the country again, with the same types of poisonous weapons they sought to rid their enemy of (only none were found, because the UN weapons inspectors did their jobs sufficiently).

The argument that the anti-war movement provided tacit support to a brutal regime is tired, facile and false. It is generally made by people who have no clue about the history of diplomatic relations between Iraq and the rest of the world. Come back and contribute to a thread when you have done your homework.

Well done to the CAWC for its proactiveness in resisting the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

by Jesus Wept Fri Oct 10, 2003 19:08

What a sense of irony. The money collected by anti-war activists goes to the childrens wing of the organ that was responsible for killing tens of thousands of children in Iraq. How sad.

by Anonymous Fri Oct 10, 2003 18:18

Although the support would be unintentional it could indeed be construed as indirect support.

Though I disagree with your analysis Uncle Sam I do not think your posting should have been removed.

by Uncle $am Fri Oct 10, 2003 18:15

If unlicensed collections had been better prosecuted then the omagh bombers may have found it a little more difficult to prosecute their war. In the US there are numerous incidences of monies finding their way from 'Anti' and charity groups to terorists. It is outrageous that Anti-War were allowed to collect such amounts without greater censure.
Coal and Steel have been replaced by cold hard cash as the sinews of war

by Uncle Sam MD Fri Oct 10, 2003 18:09

It is fair to posit that opposing action aimed at saddams removal may be constued as indirect support. Why is the good Dr afraid of my diagnosis?

by Anonymous Fri Oct 10, 2003 18:05

Basically cause you need a license to collect to money in public - as far as I know.

by Anonymous Fri Oct 10, 2003 17:52

Excellent news indeed. Don't know why DPP think it should have gone to the Gardai benevolent fund instead.

However, there was a posting put up here a while ago criticizing the collection which was subsequently removed. This posting might have been sarcastic etc. but in the interests of free speech, I disagree with its removal.

by simon Fri Oct 10, 2003 17:48

why was the money seized?

by Ali la Pointe Fri Oct 10, 2003 16:16

A small victory, but a victory nonetheless. The DPP are good craic arent't they?