RTS cops in court today -

by Aidan Thu Jan 23, 2003 17:45

By three individuals to the Gardaí Complaints board with the guarentee that they will not be used or viewed by Gardaí pressing charges againist Protestors.

The footage was given only to the Gardaí complaints board.

by Aidan Thu Jan 23, 2003 17:52

The Gardaí will be tried in the circuit court, with if I can remeber correctly (Daithi come back all is forgiven) trial by jury and is considered a more serious offense.

They're having the book thrown at them.

Corcoran and another Gardaí are seeking high court injunctions againist their cases, because "Their cases are unfairly prejudiced againist due to comments made by Gordon Holmes (head of the GCB) at their press conference in november"

by iosaf = o as if Fri Jan 24, 2003 13:01

circuit court is jury assisted.
deals with sentances of one year minimum or more.
allows for appeal.
barrister and solicitor.
typist oh no they´re very expensive there
yes stenographer. great little trade that.
and judger.
complete with wig.
great show.
lots of precendent and oddles of law.
Daithi daithi daithi sure he never goes away.
(just goes quiet)
=
(...he´s thinking)

by Jim 'le fish' Fri Jan 24, 2003 17:54

Did indymedia in general and Aidan in particular not stipulate that the indymedia organisation would not release tapes without the expressed consent of those persons liable for charges. This has not been done and while it may on the surface seem reasonable (Get cop to gaol thinking) it still breaks an agreed trust on the part of indymedia and does considerable damage to their good name.

by Aidan Sat Jan 25, 2003 15:55

To start, Indymedia made no statement re: footage and how it would be used. I did, in a personnal capacity. And I did not say that;

"would not release tapes without the expressed consent of those persons liable for charges. "

why would we state we would not use the footage only under the express permission of everyone charged? What I've done is gathered extensive amounts of footage from that day, and given it free of charge to anyone who is facing charges or wants to take a civil case againist the Gardaí. In order to help with their cases. If only one person objected, the strength of everyones cases would be severly weakened. So it would be an idiotic condition.

What I did state is I refused to co-operate with the pearse street investigation. The manner in which the footage has been released means that it can only help people facing the courts. The Gardaí can't use it as part of their cases.

How does this break "an agreed trust" and who is this agreed trust with?

In a number of instances people who handed over footage to me, refused to co-operate with the Gardaí Complaints Board investigation. In this case I refused to allow the Gardaí complaints board to view this footage, and kept the idenity of these people anonymous.

To summerise what I said is I would use footage to help people facing criminal charges and who wanted to take civil cases. I refused to co-operate with the Pearse St. Investigation, and kept footage in protest of the police's behaviour. I did go and meet the GCB complaints board, and after a number of meetings, footage that I shot was given to them. The Gardaí CANNOT use this footage againist people facing charges.

I've given over a lot of time without compensation to helping people facing charges in the courts, and have helped the investigation leading to several gardaí facing assault charges.

I've not broken "an agreed trust" and did not make the promise you claimed I made. I resent the implication that Indymedia and I have broken a trust, when I think we've done everything possible to ensure some justice comes out of this event.

by Aidan Sat Jan 25, 2003 15:57

Having you around is kinda like having Yoda on speed giggling over your shoulder

by Le Poission Mon Jan 27, 2003 18:54

All the hard work you do and not a dot of praise.

Ahh isn't he selfless givin' to us like that. Helping others, beating back the forces of repression, sure a modern day superhero. Don't be critical the forces of good are always on his side and that's the way it should be. Shouldn't he have his own 'super' name boys and girls, how about 'bigsaveboy'. Yeaahh.

Self Righteous Ponce, who put you on a soapbox? not us by fuck, you put yourself there. You're still my superhero.

by Aidan Mon Jan 27, 2003 22:29

Firstly you accuse me of breaching peoples trust, then it's getting on a soap box and being all high and mighty, after I defend myself. You claimed I said something, which I didn't say, and you give me abuse when I defend myself.

Not going to win with you am I? But I doubt you want to actually want to talk about this. You just want a fight. I'm not going to give it to you. I'm not trying to pontificate and I'm not on a soap box.

You want to rip the piss out of me knock yourself out, I'm trying to help, and if that makes me what you say I am, I don't give a fuck. I'm still doing it.

by Fred Le Fish Wed Jan 29, 2003 17:40

I agree that you are not in a position to be critical of yourself as 'involvment' does not allow this sort of thing. Look at it from my perspective, you (indymedia) set yourself up as a media collective and thereby take a monopoly on all video information pertaining to an event that had nothing to do with the organisation in question. You then pass information on to certain elements of the police force with some sort of back room deal in place. You deal with things that do not concern your position but that of others and impinges on my life with no assent from me. Then you come back to say 'but i've put myself out without compensation to help others' and you get annoyed when someone slags you for your martyr stance, it's pathetic. You choose to help who ever you want and in the process you actively set back others such as myself. That is all. I'm sure you're a lovely fellow with lots of misplaced high ideals but don't apply unwanted high ideals to those that have no interest in them.

by Aidan Wed Jan 29, 2003 18:01

---- I agree that you are not in a position to be critical of yourself as 'involvment' does not allow this sort of thing. Look at it from my perspective, you (indymedia) set yourself up as a media collective and thereby take a monopoly on all video information pertaining to an event that had nothing to do with the organisation in question.

Monopoly? How? We've done is get the footage, in my cases it would have sat on a shelf. If someone wanted to keep it, fine. If someone wanted to give a tape but not want to go to court with it, we respected that. If someone didn't want to let the GCB see the footage we respected that.

If you were injured or arrested the footage was freely available.

----You then pass information on to certain elements of the police force with some sort of back room deal in place.

Excuse me? Back room deal? There was no deal put in place. I got nothing for this. What do you think I got out of this? I did it because I felt it would be the best when to ensure Gardaí would be charged, and it worked. I really resent your snide insinuation of a deal.

----You deal with things that do not concern your position but that of others and impinges on my life with no assent from me.

Okay exactly how does this impinge on your life? I gather you were injured/arrested. Giving the footage to the GCB way hinders or damages your case, and if you think it does explain why.

Unless you weren't there and wanted the footage for yourself, which is a different matter.

Which is it?

------Then you come back to say 'but i've put myself out without compensation to help others' and you get annoyed when someone slags you for your martyr stance, it's pathetic.

No sorry it's not. Whats pathetic is making a false accusation, I defend myself, and then you try and rip the piss out of me.

------You choose to help who ever you want and in the process you actively set back others such as myself. That is all. I'm sure you're a lovely fellow with lots of misplaced high ideals but don't apply unwanted high ideals to those that have no interest in them.

Okay how am I actively setting you back?
I was angered by your claims that we'd breached an agreed trust. I've helped everyone whose asked for help in relation to cases againist the
Gardaí I've not been selective, and it's unfair to accuse me.

So stop arsing about tell me, what your problem really is. It's not a breach of "agreed trust", it's not "my martyr stance" it's now "You set me back".

Well which is it?

by Aidan Wed Jan 29, 2003 18:04

Indymedia had a great deal to do with the organisation in question (RTS)

On the night afterwards RTS asked Indymedia to speak to RTE news on their behalf.

RTS press releases were put on Indymedia only.

RTS legal resources after the event were co-ordinated on Indymedia.

And the story broke on Indymedia.

So please get your facts straight.

by Aidan Sun Feb 02, 2003 18:52

Whats the matter swimming away from some questions?

by Billy le poisson rouge Wed Feb 05, 2003 20:29

Let me start by saying that I believe that in the case of this situation bidymedia, and you as its representative, has grossly overstepped the boundaries that it set for itself.

Bidymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Bidymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.

Now where inside this 'mission statement' does pushing oneself into a criminal proceeding fall? There is no truth to be told that cannot be represented by the victims of the crimes that bidymedia has greater access too. Ohh but you'll say 'we're just redressing the imbalance of power that lies between the cops and the people'. Nobody asked you to seize any power of representation. If I go down I want it to be on my own word not that of some bleeding heart.

I have a fundamental problem with the bidymedia collective in so far as it goes beyond it function and gets high and mighty about being the protector. Fuck off and go protect your ma. Tell your truth happily and remain in your world please do not enter into the legal process in any way. Not on my behalf.

'We were only trying to see justice done' we only gave it to the cops who put other cops away. No risk to yourself its nice of you to do things on there behalf when there is no risk to yourself. It makes me fell ill people who tell their truth, the victims groveling, living off what they have done for others.

It's not a monopoly people just give us stuff and we decide who gets it. I'm afraid whichever way you look at it you have a monopoly in this case you control access to the information and you give it out according to your rules. That is a de facto monopoly give us all access cops, cunts, pricks and then you'll be truly free, fairy.

Maybe all the cops gave you was a warm feeling like you'd done the right thing but it's still a deal as you handed over information which you personally had said you would not. I know you did as I heard you. So back room deal seems just as you clearly made a deal which was not passed on for consent to others involved (lawyers for instance). It seems all the more back roomish when you look at the fact that you had categorically stated that this would not happen.

------Then you come back to say 'but I’ve put myself out without compensation to help others' and you get annoyed when someone slags you for your martyr stance, it's pathetic.

No sorry it's not. What’s pathetic is making a false accusation, I defend myself, and then you try and rip the piss out of me.

This one is particularly amusing so I had to quote. Let me tell you sonny what's pathetic you swanking around like a martyr. Doing the right thing for those that don't care who want to make their own decisions not have the good thing pushed. Let me tell you they would stab you in the eye and piss on your corpse if it helped them in any way.

By the by what is the story with this bullshit in the first place who cares about the future and how they will look upon us. We'll be dead and it won't matter and people will look at you and say he was a good man he helped others. Help yourself, who cares about future generations they aren't alive. Fuck them lets blow up the sun.

bidymedia had a great deal to do with the organisation in question (RTS)

On the night afterwards RTS asked bidymedia to speak to RTE news on their behalf.

RTS press releases were put on bidymedia only.

RTS legal resources after the event were co-coordinated on bidymedia.

And the story broke on bidymedia.

So please get your facts straight.

Another quote sorry
The story broke on the back of my head, and its truly pathetic to take on board the vices of mainstream media in calling stories when you claim to be grassroots. And none of these factors make any difference to my point, what I am saying is that I represent me not you and that will always be so. I don't care how involved you are, well done have a badge, you are not involved with me. And that my friend is the bottom line.

by Aidan Thu Feb 06, 2003 18:39

>Now where inside this 'mission statement' does >pushing oneself into a criminal proceeding fall? >There is no truth to be told that cannot be >represented by the victims of the crimes that >bidymedia has greater access too. Ohh but you'll >say 'we're just redressing the imbalance of >power that lies between the cops and the >people'. Nobody asked you to seize any power of >representation. If I go down I want it to be on >my own word not that of some bleeding heart.

Bidymedia. Very witty.

For starts I've noticed you've yet to explain how exactly what I'm doing impinges on your life. Please go on explain.

You're right. I've wandered into a situation that Indymedia didn't forsee for itself when we started. I'm acting in the manner that I think is best. It's all I can do.

>I have a fundamental problem with the bidymedia >collective in so far as it goes beyond it >function and gets high and mighty about being ?>the protector. Fuck off and go protect your ma. >Tell your truth happily and remain in your world >please do not enter into the legal process in >any way. Not on my behalf.

Indymedia isn't I am. Try and seperate those two facts please. And I'm not doing things on "your" behalf. Kinda arrogant aren't you?

>'We were only trying to see justice done' we >only gave it to the cops who put other cops >away. No risk to yourself its nice of you to do >things on there behalf when there is no risk to >yourself. It makes me fell ill people who tell >their truth, the victims groveling, living off >what they have done for others.

Okay you wander off incoherantly here. No risk to myself? Well I've learn that if I try to defend my actions to you, I get called a maytr so I'll skip past that. But what the fuck does the last sentence mean. Go on make sense i dare you.

>It's not a monopoly people just give us stuff >and we decide who gets it. I'm afraid whichever >way you look at it you have a monopoly in this >case you control access to the information and >you give it out according to your rules. That is >a de facto monopoly give us all access cops, >cunts, pricks and then you'll be truly free, >fairy.

Yeah cause I just live to make recording of the footage over and over again for the laugh and hand them out on street corners. Yeah so I made rules. The information was handing out according to some very fair and open rules, and chunks of it were freely available on Indymedia, sorry thats not good enough for you. I'll somehow try to live with myself.

>Maybe all the cops gave you was a warm feeling >like you'd done the right thing but it's still a >deal as you handed over information which you >personally had said you would not. I know you >did as I heard you. So back room deal seems just >as you clearly made a deal which was not passed >on for consent to others involved (lawyers for >instance). It seems all the more back roomish >when you look at the fact that you had >categorically stated that this would not happen.

Okay firstly. When and where? I don't remember saying that but feel free to tell me what I said and did. And no I did speak to soliciters representing 12+ pleople facing charges or who had made a complaint, before I did anything.

You like making assumptions don't you. For starts no deal was made. A deal implies I got something in exchange, which I didn't. Secondly your obession with cops. Okay I'll go over this again. Gardaí cannot use the footage to help with prosecutions. Can't at all. It's impossible. Clear?

>No sorry it's not. What’s pathetic is making a >false accusation, I defend myself, and then you >try and rip the piss out of me.

>This one is particularly amusing so I had to >quote. Let me tell you sonny what's pathetic you >swanking around like a martyr. Doing the right >thing for those that don't care who want to make >their own decisions not have the good thing >pushed. Let me tell you they would stab you in >the eye and piss on your corpse if it helped >them in any way.

Charming. I love the "sonny" bit. See I can't get my head around your problem with this. Nothing that I'm doing is fucking with you and this imaginary crowd you have roaring you on in your head cheering you on.

>By the by what is the story with this bullshit >in the first place who cares about the future >and how they will look upon us. We'll be dead >and it won't matter and people will look at you >and say he was a good man he helped others. Help >yourself, who cares about future generations >they aren't alive. Fuck them lets blow up the
>sun.

Ra! Eloquently put. See this is about a difference of opinion, you don't see to give a fuck, I do.

>nother quote sorry
>he story broke on the back of my head, and its >ruly pathetic to take on board the vices of >ainstream media in calling stories when you >laim to be grassroots. And none of these factors >ake any difference to my point, what I am saying >is that I represent me not you and that will >always be so. I don't care how involved you are, >?well done have a badge, you are not involved >with me. And that my friend is the bottom line.

So you got beaten up. Okay.

But you're running away with this. You're taking one point of mine and applying it to something else. You said that Indymedia had nothing to do with what happened, I pointed out that we did, and you attacked me for answering your argument. Like I said earlier you really want a fight, don't you? We are a grassroots organisation, and I'm helping out in the best way I can.

Look I'm getting tired scrolling back to this if you want to continue
[email protected]

by Le 'jimmy' fish - Your Ma Mon Feb 10, 2003 16:21

Tired of scrolling ehh, sounds like the defeatist drums are banging. I do want a fight, I really do. However I also think that I have an overpoweringly convincing point and here it is once again; indymedia and you in particular as its rts representative went beyond what could be reasonably considered the call of duty and thereby destroyed the credibility of the organisation.

Let me explain indymedia took information and held it back not very free. Indymedia discussed terms with elements of the police force not very impartial. If I was a cop and I found you I’d say 'for shame, for shame' you intervened to put men in jail by using something other than reporting on events. That isn’t right your journalists not justice bringers or so I believed.

This last message was a particularly poor one I would have to say. It's nice how you start by attempting to distance yourself from the organisation "I'm acting in a manner", "indymedia isn't I am", "separate the two". In this case I’m afraid you represented the entire organisation and stepped over the mark and brought them all with you as you were clearly and actively making decisions based around some sort of professional capacity not a personal decision. When you stood and spoke in the teachers club you spoke on behalf of indymedia. There is not get out clause. Maybe you acted irrationally and just threw yourself into the fray with only thoughts of victims in your head, like the good martyr.

You are acting on my behalf as I was involved on the day and face charges and I never asked you to represent my claim to justice. You're right I don't give a fuck and for that reason I don't expect those around me to give a fuck for my decisions and vice versa. SO the end game is that you make solicitations on my behalf to the police, which may very well damage a case that I plan to bring as it may have resulted in the shut down of evidence from sections of the police. Whatever the consequences it should never have been done.

Your attempts to be snide also fall flat on there face. If you really believed that indymdia was a viable enterprise then you should stick to the rules and hand out all the information on the street corner I’m sorry but that's what it means to be open and free. You should try to live with yourself as you have broken the golden rule, but if you need a shoulder to cry on I’m always here.

As I said in the last message maybe all you got from the cops was a felling of warmth from doing the right thing (maybe a feeling of warmth from something else) but that is enough. You also got guarantees that the information would be used in the right way.

As you say indymeia was involved in the rts event but what does being involved mean for indymedia does it mean actively taking part in the case against individuals with a clear and precise agenda and prejudice as it has done against the cops or does it mean reporting in a open and true manner. Sir I would have to say the latter.

I may open this discussion to the general public just to se the level of opinion out there. Thank you