Agree totally, Shatter is destroying Ireland.

He’s also in favour of destroying Gaza. The man’s not to be trusted.

Get back under your rocks. Stupidity is alive and well in Oireland.

Rob
Be careful.your comments about the defendants mind could be grounds for an appeal. Bet you wouldn’t want that?

In fairness it’s not just Shatter the whole judicial system has been in need of a revamp for decades

Shatter were not disturbed by the details of the case were disturbed by another bullshit judgement handed down by a corrupt judiciary.

Thats a good point Mickey. In so many of these cases the mothers did know. Unfortunatly Ireland in the 70′s (and before) was a dark place. Many a wife stayed quiet about things they knew their husbands were up to, and many a marriage was kept together due to the “you made your bed, so lie in it” thoery that was so commonplace. And fear may have kept may quiet as well.

It would possibly have brought too much shame on the family to say anything so, better to keep quiet. I am only hypothesising but I think we all know that this was the mindset at the time.

From personal experince, my father was a serious alcoholic and my mother had an awful time with him. Nothing physical, but it was like living with Jeckyl & Hyde. He is long dead now, but there is no way she should have put up with what she had to, and a wife or partner would probably not put up with it if it was happening now.

Also, children were to be seen and not heard and if any child back then were to say anything about the likes of this going on they would have been the one to get into trouble, not the real offender. You would like to think that if this were to happen in this day and age, the child would have more of a voice, and a partner would not stand idly by.

DPP are likely to appeal & look for longer sentence

Bail in general cannot be denied unless he is a flight risk or is highly likely to reoffend whilst on bail or is extremely violent and the Gardai recommend he is denied bail. I’m sure that was the rationale for releasing him pending an appeal. It was a judicial own goal really as having been convicted- the learned Judge need not have worried to much about the repercussions compared to if there had not been a conviction yet! I guess the Judge didn’t count on such public reaction …

Maybe so.. if that is the case then he would appear to be out of touch and should perhaps be encouraged to step down. I know Justice Carney had to preside over some of the most harrowing cases of the last 20-odd years, but this must be a signal to give it a rest..

Sid
Do you want the mother charged before being investigated or afterwards and while you’re at it could you tell us as to whether she should be found guilty or innocent?
Just look at yourself …..would you!

If the daughter has made no charges to anyone else… Then no one else should be charged.

It’s up to her and possible other victims to come forward, not the public, to accuse other family members, neighbours, etc. of being involved. Cant sanction an investigation of these people on a member of the publics hunch.

If Carney had thought straight from the begining ….none of this would have happened!…

How many more cases has carney been wrong on though. He admitted it in this case because it was so high profile. It makes you wonder how many more times he got the sentencing wrong or too lenient.

Carney has a history of being lenient with sex offenders.He should be investigated to see if he’s still fit to be a judge.

He didn’t admit he was wrong he just towed the line after the public outrage he’s caused.
If he had decency he step down as he clearly see’s nothing wrong with the habitual rape of children

William
He’s a lawyer and thats the way he speaks. Is he allowed to do that?

Mark, you seem to be wading through these comment with a degree of arrogance best kept for the open road. With Shatters chosen words he immediately suggested that should a man be raped or abused for years than they might not be entitled to justice. And no, lawyers or solicitors don’t necessarily speak like this. You response to my comment was idiotic, as we’re most of your comments above. You don’t have a point of view but damn that anybody else should have.

@William your right to point out the quirks of human language and social equality in that statement. It’s just unlikely for an adult male to end up in that situation and it has deeper impact talking about protecting women and children.

I guess he choose impact over being fair. Saying “no one” is in my view, much better, but it’s not deplorable to say women and children instead.

Guys, judging by Mark’s comments on this subject, I would hazard a guess that he is somehow associated with ‘the law’, directly, or indirectly, I may of course be wrong.

Then Shatter should have said what he actually meant, god knows it’s not rocket science, he has paid advisers to prepare his words for him. He’s paid handsomely himself, from society’s point of view these statements are important.

Sorry Eileen but lots of people, including me, WERE “deeply disturbed” by the detail of this case! What normal person would’nt be disturbed by the details.

My Point is: were you not MORE ANGRY that Fiona Doyle did not get Justice ?
Of course the details of the case were disturbing and we do not need them spelt out to us .
We are not stupid or insensitive ,but what really made me mad is the fact that the judge was so insensitive to the victim. We have had years and years of deeply disturbing details relayed to us almost daily from the courts and yes I do find them more than upsetting but the lack of justice shown to Fiona is shocking. We vcan not help what has happened to Fiona in the past BUT we can sure as hell make sure that she gets justice in the present.That is my point . Support her NOW when she did not get the support she needed as a kid. Fiona ,RESPECT !

Tks for clarifying that Eileen. Its just that wasnt how your opening sentence read but now clear.

Aioife
Does your request include comments about politicians such as the Minister for Justice. It seems to me that such commentaries are way beyond that which would be acceptable in most normal societies.

Guys I heard the commotion and got here as quick as I could.

Will I tell a joke?
Dr. Flynn

Still, 3 years for making someones life hell for 10 years is pathetic. I think it’s time to give the public a say in sentencing and to remove suspensions of sentences.

Yes three years is too lenient for the crime. My comment refers to the fact that he is now behind bars.

Far from it.

Will it be enough to convince others to come forward and be as brave as Fiona Doyle? I hope so but I feel that 3 years may not be a strong enough incentive for many.

Justice done due to what exactly though? it’s good that Carney reversed his decision to grant bail, but that would not have happened if the media and public reaction was not so vocal. Carney has exposed grave inefficiencies in the judicial system, and raised serious questions about the role judges play in it.

It’s absurd that a senior High Court judge would proclaim that they did not want to take responsibility for sentencing in such a case, after the guy himself pleaded guilty. If senior judges are averse to taking responsibility for jailing such heinous criminals then something major is wrong with the system.

If the victim in this case had chosen to retain their anonymity, there would never have been enough pressure on the judge to reverse his decision.

This kind of comment is typical for legal people in Ireland.
We don’t need comments like this.
Positive action and a change in our banana republic is called for.

Eileen
You are constantly making inappropriate comments and attacking people unfairly. Need I remind you of the loose comments made in the Dail some years ago by Mary Harney when she was a Minister. As a result of her utterings the DPP was unable to bring charges against Charles Haughey.
Now the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice have gone as far as they can in this situation without contaminating the case which nobody wants. Please get off your high horse because your on back to front!

Why can the leader of he country not express his views? They seem to be able to do pretty anything in Dáil Éireann with impunity.

He should not express his views on a case still before the courts because of the constitutional separation of the legislature and judiciary.
The government is not supposed to tell the courts what to do and judges are not to tell the government how to legislate.
The idea is to create independence to prevent corruption, tyranny etc.

It’s often one of the first pillars to fall in a country moving away from democracy.

Miss Terry
…..and you think we live in a democracy ??? Lol Good luck with that one .

By the way I do not think any one wanted the politicians to tell the judges what to do . Just that people are outraged at the leniency of the sentence .
And those ”loose comments” were indeed accidental !
Mark, andrew, dillon, vincent , mick, joe . GFY. Trolboy.

Hi Eileen,

I was just responding to Eamonn’s question as to why the Taoiseach couldn’t/shouldn’t/didn’t give his opinion.
It was a point of information and right or wrong, that’s the logic behind it. :)

What at the second time of asking?

Excellent point Les. You should always admit a mistake before you make it.

Ye’d wonder if Fiona hadn’t waived her right to anonymity would the case have got the publics attention and would her father have walked away scot free?