North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?
US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty
Anti-Empire >>
Indymedia Ireland is a volunteer-run non-commercial open publishing website for local and international news, opinion & analysis, press releases and events. Its main objective is to enable the public to participate in reporting and analysis of the news and other important events and aspects of our daily lives and thereby give a voice to people.
Fraud and mismanagement at University College Cork Thu Aug 28, 2025 18:30 | Calli Morganite
UCC has paid huge sums to a criminal professor
This story is not for republication. I bear responsibility for the things I write. I have read the guidelines and understand that I must not write anything untrue, and I won't.
This is a public interest story about a complete failure of governance and management at UCC.
Deliberate Design Flaw In ChatGPT-5 Sun Aug 17, 2025 08:04 | Mind Agent
Socratic Dialog Between ChatGPT-5 and Mind Agent Reveals Fatal and Deliberate 'Design by Construction' Flaw
This design flaw in ChatGPT-5's default epistemic mode subverts what the much touted ChatGPT-5 can do... so long as the flaw is not tickled, any usage should be fine---The epistemological question is: how would anyone in the public, includes you reading this (since no one is all knowing), in an unfamiliar domain know whether or not the flaw has been tickled when seeking information or understanding of a domain without prior knowledge of that domain???!
This analysis is a pretty unique and significant contribution to the space of empirical evaluation of LLMs that exist in AI public world... at least thus far, as far as I am aware! For what it's worth--as if anyone in the ChatGPT universe cares as they pile up on using the "PhD level scholar in your pocket".
According to GPT-5, and according to my tests, this flaw exists in all LLMs... What is revealing is the deduction GPT-5 made: Why ?design choice? starts looking like ?deliberate flaw?.
People are paying $200 a month to not just ChatGPT, but all major LLMs have similar Pro pricing! I bet they, like the normal user of free ChatGPT, stay in LLM's default mode where the flaw manifests itself. As it did in this evaluation.
AI Reach: Gemini Reasoning Question of God Sat Aug 02, 2025 20:00 | Mind Agent
Evaluating Semantic Reasoning Capability of AI Chatbot on Ontologically Deep Abstract (bias neutral) Thought
I have been evaluating AI Chatbot agents for their epistemic limits over the past two months, and have tested all major AI Agents, ChatGPT, Grok, Claude, Perplexity, and DeepSeek, for their epistemic limits and their negative impact as information gate-keepers.... Today I decided to test for how AI could be the boon for humanity in other positive areas, such as in completely abstract realms, such as metaphysical thought. Meaning, I wanted to test the LLMs for Positives beyond what most researchers benchmark these for, or have expressed in the approx. 2500 Turing tests in Humanity?s Last Exam.. And I chose as my first candidate, Google DeepMind's Gemini as I had not evaluated it before on anything.
Israeli Human Rights Group B'Tselem finally Admits It is Genocide releasing Our Genocide report Fri Aug 01, 2025 23:54 | 1 of indy
We have all known it for over 2 years that it is a genocide in Gaza
Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has finally admitted what everyone else outside Israel has known for two years is that the Israeli state is carrying out a genocide in Gaza
Western governments like the USA are complicit in it as they have been supplying the huge bombs and missiles used by Israel and dropped on innocent civilians in Gaza. One phone call from the USA regime could have ended it at any point. However many other countries are complicity with their tacit approval and neighboring Arab countries have been pretty spinless too in their support
With the release of this report titled: Our Genocide -there is a good chance this will make it okay for more people within Israel itself to speak out and do something about it despite the fact that many there are actually in support of the Gaza
China?s CITY WIDE CASH SEIZURES Begin ? ATMs Frozen, Digital Yuan FORCED Overnight Wed Jul 30, 2025 21:40 | 1 of indy
This story is unverified but it is very instructive of what will happen when cash is removed
THIS STORY IS UNVERIFIED BUT PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO OR READ THE TRANSCRIPT AS IT GIVES AN VERY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT A CASHLESS SOCIETY WILL LOOK LIKE. And it ain't pretty
A single video report has come out of China claiming China's biggest cities are now cashless, not by choice, but by force. The report goes on to claim ATMs have gone dark, vaults are being emptied. And overnight (July 20 into 21), the digital yuan is the only currency allowed.
The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony
Public Inquiry >>
Parse failure for http://humanrights.ie/feed/.
Last Retry Monday September 22, 2025 08:57
national |
politics / elections |
other press
Friday June 15, 2007 23:20
by Casement Fan
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (16 of 16)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16We don't need more Gardaí surveilling and harassing innocent Irish citizens, anyway, we have a sufficient supply of criminals already in the country, we don't need more of them.
Slán anois!
one thing which gets further up my sinuses than meaningless gibberish jargon is wanton acronyms. Once upon a time we exported our scallywags to England and within a short while (geologically speaking) the English had forgotten all their good manners and become proper hooligans. This was long before the hoody became fashionable- in fact this was before the hoody was an un-fashionable accessory to either a snorkel jacket or dufflecoat. Then we got new-Labour and ASB. Oh yeah. but you can't say ASB anyother way than "eh es bee".....oh ok then "ah es bee".
So what do they come up with in snottie greenie land?
ASBATS.
Great. little joke there - see that gurrier who pulled your dufflecoat hood as a kid and went off and spawned a hip hop mass skipping flick knife weilding psychotic dope smoker? Yep you see her? Well we are going to give the gardai the power to break her legs with a bat. Just like we used to do before we gave up the armed struggle.
Do they have any idea of compound noun stacking? What exactly does "Anti-Social Behaviour Action Team" mean? Like you don't have to be bloomsday Joyce or Chomsky to see it means exactly the opposite of what they intend...........or does it? jayzhus - they're clever these Snot Greens in Government. They'll just pretend to be marginalised and run right shod over by FF but behind it all! it's irony!! Yes they'll still get the credit for giving up the armalite and punishment beatings and making the LUAS ozone friendly.
Good luck to the Greens with this fantasy project.
Maybe an overtly obvious police state is what's needed.
I could focus on every point, but I'll limit myself to just one.
"Expand Garda powers to issue "restriction orders"...to restrict named persons from travelling to or from certain areas..."
This would require a complete re-writing of the Constitution. Particularly Artivle 40.4.1: "No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law."
On top of this it would necessitate a major overhaul of the law. For example, the working of the legal concept of false imprisonment.
False imprisonment is not a well understood legal term. It is not used to its full potential by activists currently (I'll go into this a bit shortly). Basically, false imprisonment does not necessitate any physical contact. For example, if I scream at a child who's sitting at a table and not eating their dinner, "if you move from that table before you finish eating your cabbage, I'll smack you:" you have a classic example of false imprisonment.
Another example: A group of protesters making their way into Shannon Warport are stopped at the gates and prevented, verbally, from entering the public place, generally known as the 'Airport,' this too is false imprisonment.
So, like I said, good luck to the Greens in this, it'll be fun to ridicule their comple lack of awareness.
"This would require a complete re-writing of the Constitution. Particularly Artivle 40.4.1: "No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law."
Sean, the phrase "save in accordance with law" is what you seem to have overlooked in your posting.
when the Oireachtas approves a new law, then it is law.
"it'll be fun to ridicule their comple lack of awareness"
the proverb "he who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind!
I think 'by law' that you'll find that personal liberties are not defined by law. Personal liberties are defined by the Constitution (particularly Article 40). Personal liberty is defined by the Constitution and the law exists to protect it. Personal liberties, in order to be removed, would need a referendum.
Remember to keep reciting your proverb.
"I think 'by law' that you'll find that personal liberties are not defined by law."
I think you need to research your claim!
if what you say is true then why have prisons?
I think you need to find a hobby and that you need to start writing in English.
The legal system defines what you cannot do.
The Constitution defines what your liberties are (what you can do)
Are you suggesting that prisons define personal liberties?
"No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty ""save in accordance with law""
My interpretation of that is that you have personal liberties enshrined in the Constitution but only if those liberties are lawful in a given context!
Maybe I am wrong, maybe the liberties in the Constitution are without boundaries,
for example a public house is "public" so therefore being barred from a pub for "example" attacking a member of staff is in your view unconstitutional.
or being barred from an area where your spouse lives because you beat her up and threatened to kill her is in you view unconstitutional!
another free english lesson for sean!
"No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law."
the word "save" when used in this context means
save 2(sv)
prep.
With the exception of; except: "No man enjoys self-reproach save a masochist" Philip Wylie.
conj.
1. Were it not; except: The house would be finished by now, save that we had difficulty contracting a roofer.
2. Unless.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/save
Now you are being insipid.
From reading this article it can be inferred that the Greens wish to give the Gardaí powers to stop certain people from entering public places.
You can define words all you want. However you should also read sentences and compare and contrast the words within; this is how you arrive at the meaning of a sentence - not by defining individual words.
It would also be better that you say what it is that you think and back it up with law or reality rather than assume to put words into my mouth.
Article 40.1: "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law."
Now if you are allowed to wander into some particular public place and I am stopped from wandering into the same place, by 'law,' then my fundamental right to be seen and treated as your equal and my right to have the same freedoms as you, will have been violated. This could and if I were involved, it would, result in a High Court civil suit for my Constitutional rights having been abused.
If you wish to argue against my points, I suggest that you put up your argument itself and substantiate it. Leave your lonely opinions in your head where they belong and find some company for them.
" However you should also read sentences and compare and contrast the words within; this is how you arrive at the meaning of a sentence "
Sean should practice what he preaches, it was he who stated "This would require a complete re-writing of the Constitution."
I am simply pointing out that he is wrong, the Constitution allows for laws to restrict liberty.
By implying I need to "start writing in English" was being patronising.
and he goes on to give an example of exactly what I suggested to him,
"Now if you are allowed to wander into some particular public place and I am stopped from wandering into the same place, by 'law,' then my fundamental right to be seen and treated as your equal and my right to have the same freedoms as you, will have been violated. This could and if I were involved, it would, result in a High Court civil suit for my Constitutional rights having been abused.".
Lets look at how his "High Court civil suit " would fail.
If I wandered into (for example) a public house for a quite pint of Bass, and Sean tried to wander into the same public house but was prevented from entering because he was barred from the premises due to a previous incident, would he say his "fundamental right to be seen and treated as my equal and his right to have the same freedoms as me, will have been violated.".
he would have lost that liberty due to the previous incident, so he wouldnt have grounds for a "High Court civil suit "
so I hope you can now comprehend that in fact the quote Sean used from the Constitution isn't relevant to this argument.
and his concluding by "Leave your lonely opinions in your head where they belong and find some company for them." could be construed as pettiness and an admission of his incorrect assumptions.
First of all I wasn't talking generally, I was being very specific - try to read my first post. I've been talking about a single aspect of this article. You are generalising because you have no argument with what I specifically said. If on the other hand you do have an argument with what I've said and have tried to put it to me, you've failed completely to write it, hence my statement (not implication) regarding your inability to write in English.
I know this might confuse you, but what the fuck, it's not like you're lucid anyway. A public house (pub) is not a public place. It's private property.
Try out your 'argument' with regard to a real public place - like a public park. Or maybe a street. Try looking up the definition of 'public place.'
Besides not getting the simplicity of what is before you, allow me to further illustrate why you are a troll and why you are not adding to this article. Let's go back to the pub where you like to drink. I've been barred due to my previous behaviour. The Gardaí can ensure that I do not re-enter the pub, if the owner or whomsoever wills it. In what way do you imagine that this power that the Gardaí have is either a new power or that it in any way reflects the new power that the Greens wish to gift the Gardaí with?
The laws of trespass are well defined and back up the Constitutional defined right to own property.
As for personal liberties being expanded without bound. This is quite facile. The whole point of defining liberties in the first place is to avoid this. The legal machine exists to punish those who go beyond the legal bounds of personal liberties (in particular when they violate the liberties of others) and to facilitate justice (I'm not suggesting that the legal system facilitates justice - I'm saying that that is the purpose and claim).
maybe Sean should have stayed at school long enough to have gained an education.
First he makes a "statement" regarding my inability to write in English (what language am I writing in?).
now back to his flawed "statement" that " This would require a complete re-writing of the Constitution".
the ability to prevent persons from being in a public place exists so why re-write the Constitution.
all that is being suggested is to confer that power to the Gardai, which might be a good idea, besides tying up court time.
A barring order may, if the court thinks fit, prohibit the respondent from doing one or more of the following, that is to say:
(c) attending at or in the vicinity of, or watching or besetting a place where, the applicant or any dependent person resides
and shall be subject to such exceptions and conditions as the court may specify.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0001/sec...996s3
here is one example of a person being barred from a public place .............
A 20-years-old Cork man who came to Galway to celebrate Hallowe'en with friends and became very abusive to a garda outside a city centre night-club, has been barred from the city for two years following his appearance before Galway District Court this week. http://www.galwayadvertiser.ie/dws/story.tpl?inc=2002/0....html
Again you totally fail to get the point. You are speaking about laws in existence and powers that the Gardaí already have.
Why would the Greens seek to give powers to the Gardaí that they already have?
Or is it that your so-called argument is full of shite?
I think the latter.
This is about preventing a named person from entering a public place and that they need have violated no law or otherwise to merit the unconstitutional ban.
Feel free to keep diverting the topic - you know you are on the ropes. Or just admit that you got it wrong and stop trolling.
Again, I'm speaking about powers the Gardaí do not currently have,whilst you are hell bent on proving and providing examples of powers that they already have. Way to go, way to miss the point. I hope you'll forgive me if I choose to follow my own advice on this topic. If you have some advice on the actual topic being spoken about please feel free to post it. In the mean time please stop pointing out the fucking obvious like it is some grand revelation that only you have seen. Jesus!
As for the language your writing in - that's simple (both figuratively and literally) - you're talking shite.
maybe Sean should take a break from this issue, as he is clearly confused.
he states (as he doesn't do "imply") "Again you totally fail to get the point. You are speaking about laws in existence and powers that the Gardai already have"
I don't know how you reached that conclusion, the Gardai doesn't have that power, the courts do!
"This is about preventing a named person from entering a public place and that they need have violated no law or otherwise to merit the unconstitutional ban"
can you point to where you came up with that claim? you don't honestly believe that the Gardai will issue restriction orders to law-abiding persons, I assume that the restriction orders would be confined to a criteria which must be met. i.e.. violent protesters
"As for the language your writing in - that's simple (both figuratively and literally) - you're talking shite"
writing/talking? English lesson!
bye!!!
The Gardaí can already prevent named persons from entering a public place if there is a court order to back it up.
Therefore this new power that the Greens wish to give the Gardaí must allow them to ban named persons from entering a public place without a court order to back it up.
In other words, the Greens wish to confer on the Gardaí the power to judge folks without recourse to a court. Or they wish to say that the Gardaí have psychic powers and are able to predict where and when crimes will occur and who'll commit them. Take your pick.
That's where I get it from. What new power do you suspect the Greens wish to give to Gardaí?