'Nationalists' in Wicklow Court escape jail time

by An Irish Jew Sun May 25, 2008 04:35

Bashful-
A little different circumstance, but I suppose you could. I think its called indecency or something.

No Clever Name-(sorta a clever name in itself though)
a) Just because it isn't in the centre of Dublin, doesn't mean its not in a public place. Wasn't so private that someone did notice them and called the gardai.
b) I'm sure most people wouldn't get the 777 and white power symbols, but the swastika? In any case, is it inoffensive if only the jury doesn't know what they mean? If you fill a jury with hindus is a neo-nazi holding up a swastika suddenly inoffensive?

"how is this not the equivalent of being prosecuted for a private Thoughtcrime?"
Oooh, too much 1984 for you.

Seems to me that you are a little over-sympathetic to their cause.

If I was taking a stroll through the woods and came across a bunch of guys in military dress with swastika banners, I would shit a brick. I would never go walking in those woods again. I would certainly find it threatening, insulting and abusive.

by bashful Sun May 25, 2008 02:52

If I stumbled unexpectedly across a group of teenagers skinnydipping in the evening at a beach, could I report them for breach of the peace?

by Hiker - None Sun May 25, 2008 01:29

I "deliberately" go a mile off the main road regularly and would be horrified to discover this kind of a display where I hike, typically in areas like this. It is a public place in every sense of the word and these thugs deserved what they got. From my understanding one of them has reoffended recently in the Arklow area

by Mike Novack Mon Apr 21, 2008 22:19

"hardly private if outdoors"

That's not a question with a CLEAR anwser and legally depends upon the rules for the jurisdiction.

For example, here in the States the rule followed by most states is:

a) POTENTIAL public doesn't count. You can't be charged with doing something "in public" unless there is at least one member of the public who could object (need not necessarily be the person objecting). It's not "in public" unless there actually is some "public" presence.

b) The police themselves do not count as "members of the public" for the purposes of this except possibly if their appearance on the scene was incidental (say an off duty police person going for a hike in the woods stumbles across ......).

c) For the purposes of "being visible" optical aids do not count. Can't say "person exposing themselves in public because visible with a good enough telescope."

But I haven't the foggiest what might be the rules in Ireland. Our rules here are based upon the concept EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Yours might be based upon something else entirely.

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Mon Apr 21, 2008 17:13

It hardly fits the definition of between consenting adults in private if its outdoors FFS

by No clever name - None Mon Apr 21, 2008 16:01

Why exactly were they charged with disturbing the peace or displaying abusive symbols if:
a) someone would have had to deliberately travel a mile off the main road just to see them - presuming they could find them, and actually knew they were there, since they didn't advertise and literally went out of their way to not be in public;
b) the court seemed unsure what all the symbols actually meant;
(And this would be the point where someone says "No fascists for platforms" or whatever, but seriously: how is this not the equivalent of being prosecuted for a private Thoughtcrime?)