Garda confidence survey, believable ?

Zulu

Originally posted by oscarBravo
There are three sides to every story.

Emmm, ok, What are they then? Right, Wrong, and???

Originally posted by oscarBravo

- do you really think it would be all that hard to provoke a guard into attacking you without committing a provable offence?

Actually, I don't think it would be hard at all, and that was the whole point of the discussion.
I try to have as little to do with the Gaurds as possiable because I personally I've only ever found them to be useless, plus, I am afraid of them. That's a very bad sign. I'm law abiding. I'm a citizen. They are supposed to be there to protect me. What does that say about the Guards?

Ajnag

Originally posted by chill
I would suggest that that is the proof of how successful and brilliantly the Garda carried out their duty that day. Their job is to protect society against these kinds of anarchists and it seems to me and many other Irish people that they did their job well that day. It's no coincidence that the only major riot for years happened when these thugs made their appearance.

Then this.

Originally posted by chill

I happen to believe in the justice system. You may be happy to assume guilt on people based on an accusation - I am not. The report doesn't accuse the gardai, and they were found guilty of nothing.

It is interesting that you are happy to condemn and smear the gardai based on the word of a few poeple yet you are not willing to accept the word of a Garda on the guilt of others.

I call shenanigens, how can you not assume guilt on one hand and then assume guilt on the other hand? Bull****! youve been called.

bonkey

Originally posted by bdiddy
One explaination would be that maybe they didnt have enough evidence to convict these protesters and weren't corrupt enough to follow a few other forces leads and convict them anyway to clear thier own names.

That would then tend to fly in the face of the allegations that there is video footage which clearly shows rioters attacking the gardai without provocation, then, wouldn't it.

If there was such unequivocal evidence, then there would be no problem with obtaining a conviction, so one must presume that there is no such unequivocal evidence.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Zulu
Emmm, ok, What are they then? Right, Wrong, and???

There are three sides to every story : Yours, mine and the truth.

jc

p.s. would you believe I learned that from an album title from Extreme (of More than Words fame). The shame.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Zulu
Actually, I don't think it would be hard at all, and that was the whole point of the discussion.

Why would anyone even try? What is there to possibly be gained by verbally abusing a police officer? Besides, they put up with constant abuse on a daily basis without turning into baton-wielding, number-removing thugs. Is it a coincidence the same type of protests seem to have that affect on police forces all over the world?

I try to have as little to do with the Gaurds as possiable because I personally I've only ever found them to be useless, plus, I am afraid of them. That's a very bad sign. I'm law abiding. I'm a citizen. They are supposed to be there to protect me. What does that say about the Guards?

I'm a law-abiding citizen too. I'm not afraid of them, despite having had both good and bad experiences with individual guards. I find I don't have to "try" to have as little to do with them as possible; my life tends not to bring me into contact with them very often (except for those I know socially).

They're doing an utterly thankless job in an environment that makes it increasingly difficult for them to do anything at all. I'm losing count of the number of guards I know of who bailed at the first opportunity for early retirement, or are planning to do so.

Originally posted by bonkey
There are three sides to every story : Yours, mine and the truth.

Correctamundo.

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
That would then tend to fly in the face of the allegations that there is video footage which clearly shows rioters attacking the gardai without provocation, then, wouldn't it.

If there was such unequivocal evidence, then there would be no problem with obtaining a conviction, so one must presume that there is no such unequivocal evidence.

jc

...or that the guards are unwilling to prosecute their own.

mycroft

My distinct impression is that there were professionals of another kind there that day. There are levels of provocation between calling names (which guards put up with to a ridiculous extent on a daily basis) and throwing kicks and punches.

Okay again for the hard of thinking. No one is facing assault charges aside from Gardaí.

I like the implied suggestion that there were "professional" protestors there. What on earth is that? Like it's a career on the CAO form. Oscar bravo I hate to break it to you but there isn't an elite core of ninja anarchists with jet packs waiting to stir up trouble around the globe.

Is it a coincidence the same type of protests seem to have that affect on police forces all over the world?

Okay for starts I don't believe this was some insidious premediated attack on protestors. Frankly protestors would love to believe that. That the "man" feels so threatened and intimidated that he must plan an attack on them, would give them a lovely feeling of self importance.

What I think happened is literally the Gardaí lost the head and plot. While there are plenty of peaceful protests in Ireland most consist of walking slowly up and back down O'Connell street, while the Socialist workers party flogs papers at you, this wasn't that, and the police had no clue how to handle the situation.

Chill,

Y'know what. I'm not responding to you anymore.

You keep demanding evidence and when evidence, serious evidence ranging from Morris tribunal, ICCL, EU, Gardaí complaints board, and independent investigations from journalists, is presented, you dismiss it as biased hearsay.

Plenty of hard evidence has been laid infront of you, and you've turned a blind eye to awkward and damning testimony that there is something rotten in the state of denmark. You refuse to see, dismiss any allegations, and ignore any information which disagrees with your worldview

No one who has raised issues on this thread which you vehmently disagree with, claims that the entire Irish force role model is Harvey Keital in "Bad Lieutenant", we understand that there are good cops and on the whole that means the entire force. What we are saying is that we are concerned that the safeguards to ensure that corrupt police can be dealt with are non existant, which has allowed Gardaí who break the law to run uncheck, and makes it difficult, for us to have any confidence in the police.

I'll leave you with one final fact about that mayday business.

Of the 150 officers who policed the event. 125 refused to co-operate with the "special" Gardai Complaints Boards investigation. The GCBinvestigation, set up to find the root of the matter, had no powers to force the officers to testify. In a recent criminal investigation in Limerick, the judge was able to throw witnesses who refused to co-operate and testify in prison.

of the 25 who did co-operate all of them failed to indentify a single fellow officers from very clear images.

This is incredibly disturbing. Not only were police unwilling to co-operate with the body set up to investigate them, that same body was unable to force them to co-operate.

The police are there to investigate, enforce the law and protect the publice. In this instance their concerns were to protect the small number of officers who broke the law. If that isn't evidence of systematic corruption I don't know what is.

bonkey

Originally posted by Zulu
...or that the guards are unwilling to prosecute their own.

I was referring to the lack of convictions of protestors that bdiddy was trying to explain away, combined with Chill's insistence that the protestors are clearly guilty....not the lack of convictions of gardai.

jc

Zulu

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Why would anyone even try? What is there to possibly be gained by verbally abusing a police officer?

Knackers are knackers; kids are kids, some people just hate the guards so much they will shout abuse at them, it's not nice, it's not even right, but why do they hate them? ...and is that an excuse for the gaurds to open a can-o'-whoop-ass on a crowd?

Originally posted by oscarBravo

I find I don't have to "try" to have as little to do with them as possible; my life tends not to bring me into contact with them very often (except for those I know socially).

I live in Dublin. I will come into the presence of a guard at least every second day.
I thank the bus driver when I get off the bus. I will avoid the guard like the plague.
...a quick example of why I feel like this:
I'm walking from St.Stephens green to the Odean. Crossing a little lane-way (the entrance to the Royal College of Surgons Carpark). There is a Guard in the lane directing traffic down the lane. I'm walking very quickly (I walk very fast), I approach the lane, check for traffic and cross. I'm 3/4 across the lane (one more step max to the other side) when he grabs the neck of my jacket (hard) and swings me around him back to the other side. (granted I was wearing headphones so he may have said somthing) Naturally I was shocked. I looked for traffic - there was none. ...maybe a motorbike was about to knock me down, but there was NO TRAFFIC. ...I wasn't j-walking (there is no lights). He kept me there for about 30seconds and then waved me across. I left feeling mortified/embarrased - he treated like a peice of crap.
Thats how the Glorious gaurds treat the common public.
Now argue "it's just one guard" but they seriously need to address the way they deal with the public. They are hanging themselves. Now I wouldn't complain about that - because, at the end of the day - why bother, it's fairly minor, but it adds up.

Originally posted by oscarBravo

They're doing an utterly thankless job in an environment that makes it increasingly difficult for them to do anything at all. I'm losing count of the number of guards I know of who bailed at the first opportunity for early retirement, or are planning to do so.Correctamundo.

If you went into a resturant and the waiter provided a crappy service. Would you thank him? If you complained to the manager and he ignored you, would you thank him?
When they provide an acceptable level of service I'll thank them.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by mycroft
Okay again for the hard of thinking. No one is facing assault charges aside from Gardaí.

It's blatantly obvious from even a cursory reading of my post that I'm aware of that.

I like the implied suggestion that there were "professional" protestors there. What on earth is that? Like it's a career on the CAO form.

Alright, let's go with "gifted amateurs" so.

Oscar bravo I hate to break it to you but there isn't an elite core of ninja anarchists with jet packs waiting to stir up trouble around the globe.

Hey, good idea: blow it out of all proportion so that it looks like I'm the one with the fanciful ideas. It's also a neat way to yet again duck the issue that the same people keep getting attacked by police forces that don't routinely attack crowds.

What I think happened is literally the Gardaí lost the head and plot. While there are plenty of peaceful protests in Ireland most consist of walking slowly up and back down O'Connell street, while the Socialist workers party flogs papers at you, this wasn't that, and the police had no clue how to handle the situation.

So, what were they doing to cause the police to lose the plot? What do they always do to cause police to lose the plot?

The police are there to investigate, enforce the law and protect the publice. In this instance their concerns were to protect the small number of officers who broke the law. If that isn't evidence of systematic corruption I don't know what is.

Let's imagine - purely hypothetically, you understand - that your elite jetpacking ninjas did exist, and that they managed to creatively provoke an attack from an irate police officer, while carefully avoiding any overt action that could result in a prosecution. Let's also imagine, for the sake of argument, that all the guards present were aware of the tactics involved. Is it really all that surprising that they mightn't co-operate with the prosecution of the individuals involved?

Not that I'd suggest for a moment that that could ever actually happen. I mean, the thought of anarchists conspiring to disrupt and discredit the forces of law and order? Why on earth would they ever want to do such a thing?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Zulu
Knackers are knackers; kids are kids, some people just hate the guards so much they will shout abuse at them, it's not nice, it's not even right, but why do they hate them? ...and is that an excuse for the gaurds to open a can-o'-whoop-ass on a crowd?

Of course not - and I don't believe for one second that the guards that attacked people on the day in question did so in response to verbal abuse.

I live in Dublin. I will come into the presence of a guard at least every second day.
I thank the bus driver when I get off the bus. I will avoid the guard like the plague.
...a quick example of why I feel like this:
I'm walking from St.Stephens green to the Odean. Crossing a little lane-way (the entrance to the Royal College of Surgons Carpark). There is a Guard in the lane directing traffic down the lane. I'm walking very quickly (I walk very fast), I approach the lane, check for traffic and cross. I'm 3/4 across the lane (one more step max to the other side) when he grabs the neck of my jacket (hard) and swings me around him back to the other side. (granted I was wearing headphones so he may have said somthing) Naturally I was shocked. I looked for traffic - there was none. ...maybe a motorbike was about to knock me down, but there was NO TRAFFIC. ...I wasn't j-walking (there is no lights). He kept me there for about 30seconds and then waved me across. I left feeling mortified/embarrased - he treated like a peice of crap.
Thats how the Glorious gaurds treat the common public.
Now argue "it's just one guard" but they seriously need to address the way they deal with the public. They are hanging themselves. Now I wouldn't complain about that - because, at the end of the day - why bother, it's fairly minor, but it adds up.

Caveat: I'm taking a risk responding to an anecdotal incident like this, especially when I wasn't there to see the incident. However, questions are asked (almost rhetorically) in the vein of "why would he do such a thing?" There are two possible answers: either he's an ignorant prick who gets a kick out of manhandling random strangers, or he saw the situation from a completely different perspective from yours.

Even if the former were true, it's just plain silly to extrapolate that to all other members of the same profession. But let's get hypothetical again and imagine it from the other side:

You're a guard in Dublin (enough to put a damper on your day for starters). While you're directing traffic at Stephen's Green (another barrel of laughs) someone walks briskly across the road, avoiding eye contact. You signal him to stop, but he's not looking at you. You call out to him, but he doesn't hear you. Thoroughly pissed off, you get his attention in a physical manner.

I'm not saying it's polite or appropriate, but as I've said earlier there are three sides to every story. My guess is the truth is somewhere between your version and my contrived scenario.

You say "Thats how the Glorious gaurds treat the common public" - extrapolating your experiences into a broad generalisation. Fact is, most members of the public have no such encounters to report.

If you went into a resturant and the waiter provided a crappy service. Would you thank him? If you complained to the manager and he ignored you, would you thank him?

What would you do - conclude that all waiters are ignorant pricks and refuse to have anything to do with them in the future? If you did, can you see how that attitude might influence the way you're treated by other waiters in the future? It quickly develops into a vicious circle of righteous indignation.

When they provide an acceptable level of service I'll thank them.

How will you measure that - does it have to be based on a personal interaction with you? There's more to policing than trying not to offend individual members of the public, especially those who are over-quick to take offence.

bonkey

Originally posted by oscarBravo
It's also a neat way to yet again duck the issue that the same people keep getting attacked by police forces that don't routinely attack crowds.

Don't you mean the same type of people?

You know, if they all had the same skin-colour, and it wasn't white, the reason might be attributed to racism, or at least that would be considered.

If they were all of an identifiable religion, the reason might be attributed to religious intolerance, or - again - that would at least be considered.

But because its only a common ideology they share, it has to be them who's to blame, right?

So, what were they doing to cause the police to lose the plot? What do they always do to cause police to lose the plot?

They happened to share the same ideology as a minority of anarchastic troublemakers. Its called "guilt by association".

I'm sure tehre's a huge number of Muslims around the world today who can identify with the exact same problem. There are people of anything vaguely approaching middle-eastern appearance who are racially profiled and targetted for extra attention because of acceptance of "potential guilt by association". Hell, some of them have been locked up in Gitmo.

Look at the number of horror stories about blacks being persecuted in the US by police who decide that there's something fishy about a black guy driving a flash car. Hell, they even made jokes about it in MIB2.

The world is rife with situations where people have been treated as guilty by association. I find it staggering that you appear to have ruled out even the possibility of this being another example, and instead insist that they all must be guilty somehow.

What I find even more amazing is that you don't apply the same standards to the police forces. There's no end of evidence of corrupt polivce forces around the world....so why aren't they all guilty by association like the protestors are as well.

jc

Its funny how the Gardai are always being slated for keeping the peace. This march to reclaim the streets that you're all talking about. As far as i'm aware they blocked the traffic for a period of time, and a car was burnt with a crowd cheering around it. That determines it as a disturbance, and should be broken up. In regards to the claims of Gardai brutality, i wasn't there so i'm not going to make a comment abt it (All the media i have seen can be taken either way)

As for personal Gardai Confidence, well its damn high. For multiple reasons.

I'm from Athlone originally. There are some bad apples but for the most part the Gardai are very professional there. They keep the scum and knackers in line, and let civilised people live their lives without fear. I remember almost 7 years ago, Athlone was a nightmare to walk around at night for fear of being mugged or beaten for no reason. The Gardai sorted that out quite quickly. From my stance, i applaud the Gardai that will kick the **** out of these scum.

I lived in Dublin, for 1.3 years, and i never had a problem with the Gardai. I had problems with groups of Dubliners late at night, but thats a different story. The Gardai were mostly polite, and kept out of my way unless something was seriously wrong. I never saw them doing anything suspect, while i was there.

I lived in Co. Tipeprary for over a year, and my confidence in teh Gardai dropped a bit, due to the perception that they were pretty much Farmers in uniform. Crap Gardai, but not that corrupt.

I moved to Cork, and within three weeks got beaten up by 7 scum outside the GPO. The Gardai responded very quickly, once informed, and caught the ****s within 15 minutes. I was quite damaged by these scum, with alot of blood flowing. The Gardai acted very well, and helped in bringing me to hospital. Sound people, and I have enormous respect for the Cork Gardai for this, and some other incidents i have seen since.

Overall, my stance is if you cause trouble, the Gardai will make trouble for you. Too many people think that freedom gives you the right to do what you want. It doesn't. My respect goes out to the Gardai.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by bonkey
Don't you mean the same type of people?

No, I don't - at least not in the way you mean it. I mean that the "reclaim the streets" (from whom? for whom?) protests seem highly organised. They may not be the same people at each protest, but they certainly seem to communicate organisational ideas among themselves.

But because its only a common ideology they share, it has to be them who's to blame, right?

That's pretty much exactly not why I think they may be to blame. Why would police attack anarchists just because they're anarchists? Are there really that many policemen who react viscerally to a "street party" in the same way that racists react to people of the "wrong" colour? It's precisely because I can't see any obvious reason why "peaceful" anarchists keep getting attacked by police that I'm speculating that they may be deliberately setting out to be attacked, in order to discredit "the man."

It's not all that hard not to be attacked by the police while protesting - ask the SWP, they do it all the time.

They happened to share the same ideology as a minority of anarchastic troublemakers. Its called "guilt by association".

Not in my estimation.

The world is rife with situations where people have been treated as guilty by association. I find it staggering that you appear to have ruled out even the possibility of this being another example, and instead insist that they all must be guilty somehow.

I haven't ruled it out, I'm countering the assumption that the protestors must have been entirely peaceful and therefore the cops must be fascist pigs to a man with a possibility that there's more to the story than meets the eye.

What I find even more amazing is that you don't apply the same standards to the police forces. There's no end of evidence of corrupt polivce forces around the world....so why aren't they all guilty by association like the protestors are as well.

I don't apply that standard to anyone.

Zulu

Originally posted by oscarBravo

...it's just plain silly to extrapolate that to all other members of the same profession.

Unfortunatly thats want happens in any other profession. If a priest abuses his position, people stop going to church - can you expect them to react differently with the gaurds???

Originally posted by oscarBravo

You're a guard in Dublin (enough to put a damper on your day for starters). While you're directing traffic at Stephen's Green (another barrel of laughs) someone walks briskly across the road, avoiding eye contact. You signal him to stop, but he's not looking at you. You call out to him, but he doesn't hear you. Thoroughly pissed off, you get his attention in a physical manner.

Ok, besides the fact that I came from behind him (he didn't see me until I was half way across the road), and if he shouted first I would have heard him, and been across the lane. The point is, tuff crap if he's pissed off - he's supposed to be a professional, that is no excuse - I couldn't care less if his dog got run over and his wife left him! I work in a service industry, and I have to respect and be polite to the public - he's no different (except that he's a guard!)

Originally posted by oscarBravo

You say "Thats how the Glorious gaurds treat the common public" - extrapolating your experiences into a broad generalisation. Fact is, most members of the public have no such encounters to report. What would you do - conclude that all waiters are ignorant pricks and refuse to have anything to do with them in the future? If you did, can you see how that attitude might influence the way you're treated by other waiters in the future? It quickly develops into a vicious circle of righteous indignation. How will you measure that - does it have to be based on a personal interaction with you? There's more to policing than trying not to offend individual members of the public, especially those who are over-quick to take offence.

Ok, I would go back to the resturant again - that was my point. ...and as for the vicious circle - it's the professional that is supposed to prevent that. They are supposed to calm the situation down. They are supposed to "put up and shut up".

It becoming clear that my experience has been shared by others. It is no one guard. It is not 2 guards... ...the public are losing patience. They need to sort it out.

bonkey

Originally posted by oscarBravo
No, I don't - at least not in the way you mean it. I mean that the "reclaim the streets" (from whom? for whom?) protests seem highly organised. They may not be the same people at each protest, but they certainly seem to communicate organisational ideas among themselves.

Right. So you don't mean the same people. You mean that the organisers of the event appear to have communication with each other.

The people attending these events far outweight the organisers. There is no evidence that those attacked were connected to the organisers (see previous posts from someone about some journalists being also attacked) at all, let along that they had contact with teh organisers of the other events around the world.

That's pretty much exactly not why I think they may be to blame.

But you've just lumped every single protestor and person attacked into the "must be guilty" because they happened to go to an event where the organisers have an unknown and unknowable level of communication with the organisers (not participants) of other events.

So if you're not lumping everyone who was attacked into the "international co-conspirators" group, then what exactly are you doing?

Why would police attack anarchists just because they're anarchists?

Police are attacking protestors because they happen to be in the same event, previous incarnations of which have had trouble caused by a minority of anarchists.

Now, if thats not guilt by association, coupled with (potentially) pre-emptive use of force, I'd like to know what it is.

Or maybe you could explain why the police haven't brought charges against any of these people for whatever it was that they did which incited the violence in the first place? Could it possibly because tehre was no incitement????

It's precisely because I can't see any obvious reason why "peaceful" anarchists keep getting attacked by police that I'm speculating that they may be deliberately setting out to be attacked, in order to discredit "the man."

Guilt by association. How many times do I have to say it? Just because you say you don't accept it doesn't prevent it from being a valid possibility. Now, if you were to offer a reason why you don't accept it, I might stop repeating myself, but in the meantime.....

If you organise an event and 10 out of 1000 people turn up and smash windows, burn cars, etc. What do you think will happen? Will the media report that 990 people protested peacefully while 10 caused mayhem? Or will they just say that a protest turned violent? From experience, I would tend to say the latter, particularly when its any form of anti-establishment protest.

Do this often enough and you end up with comments like yours above, where you put the word peaceful in quotes, because you clearly assume that the protestors were not peaceful, they just claim to have been. They couldn't have been, right, because thats the only reason the gardai would have been violent.

Your defense of the gardai is circular. It argues their innocence by presupposing the guilt of the other party.

It's not all that hard not to be attacked by the police while protesting

Ergo, because they were attacked, they must be guilty! Right? Its that circular logic again.

So why there are no charges brought against these apaprently guilty people, and yet charges were brought against the "just doing their job" police who somehow all conveniently forgot to put their ID numbers on their uniforms that day, and many of whom can't remember anyone who was there with them.

jc

mycroft

Hey, good idea: blow it out of all proportion so that it looks like I'm the one with the fanciful ideas. It's also a neat way to yet again duck the issue that the same people keep getting attacked by police forces that don't routinely attack crowds.

and

Let's imagine - purely hypothetically, you understand - that your elite jetpacking ninjas did exist, and that they managed to creatively provoke an attack from an irate police officer, while carefully avoiding any overt action that could result in a prosecution. Let's also imagine, for the sake of argument, that all the guards present were aware of the tactics involved. Is it really all that surprising that they mightn't co-operate with the prosecution of the individuals involved?

You really couldn't make it up.....

So what you're saying is, the evil bad men, provoked the police, in manner we haven't heard about, and was missed by both the Gardaí complaints board investigate and the Gardáí's own investigation. But yet someone they evaded arrest.

How? No go on tell me, cause I want to hear this.

So, what were they doing to cause the police to lose the plot? What do they always do to cause police to lose the plot?

The police on two seperate occasions tried to barrel police cars through the crowd, and the crowd had one of it, metaphorical and acutally sticking two fingers to the Gardaí by sitting on the street, not used to this, and not getting there way, they produced the batons. I suspect it was just one or two officers at first, but then others arriving on scene saw their fellow officers with batons drawn, misread the situation and went in swinging

Comparing this to Goethburg, or Genoa, or Prague is a misnomer, in those instances protestors actually declared they would attempt to stop the summits. Lets reiterate no violence, no property damage on may.

As far as i'm aware they blocked the traffic for a period of time, and a car was burnt with a crowd cheering around it.

Car was not burnt a banger which had been purchased by protestors, had a smoke bomb chucked in it. The proestors idiotically never told the Gardai that they owned it, thus adding to the tension.

I mean that the "reclaim the streets" (from whom? for whom?) protests seem highly organised.

Oh thats so not the case *LOL*

monument

Originally posted by klaz
Its funny how the Gardai are always being slated for keeping the peace. This march to reclaim the streets that you're all talking about. As far as i'm aware they blocked the traffic for a period of time, and a car was burnt with a crowd cheering around it. That determines it as a disturbance, and should be broken up. In regards to the claims of Gardai brutality, i wasn't there so i'm not going to make a comment abt it (All the media i have seen can be taken either way)

You did make a comment on it!

All the media you have seen can be taken either way??? Were you watching Fox News?

"and a car was burnt with a crowd cheering"

Even if the Garda found the few people who done this - which they didn't - it does not give them the right to beat any one up. Anyway of what I’ve heard the burnt out car was away from the main protest.

O and I don’t remember the farmers or any other group getting attacked when they blocked the traffic.

Redleslie

Originally posted by oscarBravo
It's precisely because I can't see any obvious reason why "peaceful" anarchists keep getting attacked by police that I'm speculating that they may be deliberately setting out to be attacked, in order to discredit "the man."

You've got it the wrong way round. It's the protesters that always get discredited when they get attacked by the police. Stupid smelly hippies blah blah blah. Most of the media attention goes on the violence rather than on the reason for the protest. Non-violent civil disobedience has always presented the police with a problem, since a large number of reasonably disciplined people (a lot of whom anticipate being attacked and so equip themsleves with gas masks, helmets and the like) can succeed in achieving a fair amount without throwing a single brick. The police's solution tends to be to go on the offensive and crack a lot of heads.


Anyone know if you're required by law to give your name and address to a garda if they ask for it? Had a spot of bother last night. :mad:

Sparks

Originally posted by Redleslie
Anyone know if you're required by law to give your name and address to a garda if they ask for it? Had a spot of bother last night. :mad:

Yes, it's a legal requirement.

From the Irish Council for Civil Liberties : Know Your Rights, a document covering what you must provide and what you cannot be asked for and so on.

oscarBravo

I'm bowing out. I got further into this than I intended to, because I found it offensive that one specific incident was held up as if it was a typical illustration of a day in the life of an average guard.

chill

Originally posted by mycroft
What I think happened is literally the Gardaí lost the head and plot. While there are plenty of peaceful protests in Ireland most consist of walking slowly up and back down O'Connell street, while the Socialist workers party flogs papers at you, this wasn't that, and the police had no clue how to handle the situation.

I believe what hapened is that the hard core of the 'protestors' were in fact professional anarchists who's agenda that day was to provoke the police into a reaction by doing whatever it took. The succeeded and got their just deserts.

Chill,

Y'know what. I'm not responding to you anymore.

Eh. Ok.

You keep demanding evidence and when evidence, serious evidence ranging from Morris tribunal, ICCL, EU, Gardaí complaints board, and independent investigations from journalists, is presented, you dismiss it as biased hearsay.

Gee I only asked for evidence a few time. And when I asked for evidence I was doing so in the obvious contect of evidence of the alleged widespread police criminality and abuse that is the subject of most fo this thread.

You posted a couple of references. One was to a newspaper opinion - clearly evidence of nothing more than his opinion. You also posted a reference to the Morris report, which I accepted.
I even accepted that the cases included in the 'opinion' were probably true.

However that clearly does not add up to the widespread criminal and abusive behaviour that is being claimed against the police. It only adds up to a few regrettably nasty cases of bad behaviour by people that shoudl never be in the gardai. If you insist that those two linsk add up to more than that - please explain.

Plenty of hard evidence has been laid infront of you, and you've turned a blind eye to awkward and damning testimony that there is something rotten in the state of denmark. You refuse to see, dismiss any allegations, and ignore any information which disagrees with your worldview

Your 'evidence' is nothing but a few isolated cases that I fully accepted.

No one who has raised issues on this thread which you vehmently disagree with, claims that the entire Irish force role model is Harvey Keital in "Bad Lieutenant", we understand that there are good cops and on the whole that means the entire force. What we are saying is that we are concerned that the safeguards to ensure that corrupt police can be dealt with are non existant, which has allowed Gardaí who break the law to run uncheck, and makes it difficult, for us to have any confidence in the police.

Wel that is simly not true. The claims made throughout this thread are of widespread systematic abuse and criminality - and it is those that I am responding to:

"The irish police force is shockingly corrupt to it's core. The large body of officers may not be involved in it, but they're turning a blind eye to it, and are - in their own terminology for prosecution - accomplissant to the incidents."

"The gardai have long "been known" to be as corrupt as hell from a long way before the may-day "riots" bdiddy unfortunately"

"The cops here are savages for the most part"

"We don't have a trustworthy police force."

As I have said many times I do accept that there have and always will be bad apples and bad incidents where gardai abuse their power. However I don't believe these are common or widespread. There is no evidence of that. The Gardai do a shockingly thankless job with too few powers and poor pay. They deal with street scum every day do so with absolutely remarkable restraint. People who attract their attention deserve to do so on the whole and I have no sympathy for them.

I do however completely and absolutely support an independent police ombudsman and enquiry system. These bad apples need to be culled, as soon as possible. But the constant unsubstantiated drum beat of police corruption and criminality is inevitably going to produce a police reaction where they protect themselves. I don't blame them one bit.

I'll leave you with one final fact about that mayday business.

Of the 150 officers who policed the event. 125 refused to co-operate with the "special" Gardai Complaints Boards investigation. The GCBinvestigation, set up to find the root of the matter, had no powers to force the officers to testify. In a recent criminal investigation in Limerick, the judge was able to throw witnesses who refused to co-operate and testify in prison.
of the 25 who did co-operate all of them failed to indentify a single fellow officers from very clear images.

I don't find this disturbing at all. A witch hunt baying for blood that ignbores the criminal actions by a mob in inevitably going to cause them to close ranks. If there were actual evidence of police criminality they would have been charged.

This is incredibly disturbing. Not only were police unwilling to co-operate with the body set up to investigate them, that same body was unable to force them to co-operate.

That's the responsibility of the voters and the politicians.

The police are there to investigate, enforce the law and protect the publice. In this instance their concerns were to protect the small number of officers who broke the law. If that isn't evidence of systematic corruption I don't know what is.

That's evidnce of loyalty against witch hunts in my view. There is no evidence of such ccriminality or corruption and this kind of smearing attack on the Gardai will only produce more closing of ranks than before. What we need is a propoer inquiry system and some rational non hysterical assesment of the gardai.

I believe they are overwhelmingly excellent and have full confidence in them.

monument

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm bowing out. I got further into this than I intended to, because I found it offensive that one specific incident was held up as if it was a typical illustration of a day in the life of an average guard.

According to the recent Prime Time program on RTE it’s not just the reclaim the streets – on the program there was accounts of Garda in Dublin first beating people up, then arresting them for attacking the Garda – the accounts were from a wide section of society.

‘See no evil, hear no evil’ or simply ‘it’s not affecting me’ would apply to a few posters here.

monument

Originally posted by chill
I believe what hapened is that the hard core of the 'protestors' were in fact professional anarchists who's agenda that day was to provoke the police into a reaction by doing whatever it took. The succeeded and got their just deserts.

"got their just deserts"

Are you saying that the police attacked the anarchists? - what evidence do you have that the people they attacked were anarchists?

"However that clearly does not add up to the widespread criminal and abusive behaviour that is being claimed against the police"

Dublin, Donegal, Castlebar, Limerick… I’m I the only one seeing a pattern here?

It has to be said again – ‘See no evil, hear no evil’

Kappar

That's evidnce of loyalty against witch hunts in my view. There is no evidence of such ccriminality or corruption and this kind of smearing attack on the Gardai will only produce more closing of ranks than before.

As far as I am a concerned the GSCB (Complaints Board) does not engage in "witch hints" and in my eyes failing to comply with a statuary body allows us to draw implications just as if we were to excirise our right to silence the Garda and Courts/Jusy are allowed to draw implications from this silence. And for me the overwellming preponderance of the evidence lets me believe that their is something deplorably untoward within the ranks.


Eveidence of widespread curruption has been provided to you many time in this thread and you refuse to accept based on nothing or cast it of as "isolated cases" the amount of "isolated cases" imho amount to widespread coruption. As far as I am concerned you are not acting logically.

chill

Originally posted by monument

Dublin, Donegal, Castlebar, Limerick… I’m I the only one seeing a pattern here?

It has to be said again – ‘See no evil, hear no evil’ [/B]

There are 11,747 gardai in Ireland spread around 703 Garda Stations throughout the country.

Your 'pattern' is fictional in my opinion and as far as seeing and hearing I suggest that what you are practicing is "making up some evil".

chill

Originally posted by Kappar
Eveidence of widespread curruption has been provided to you many time in this thread and you refuse to accept based on nothing or cast it of as "isolated cases" the amount of "isolated cases" imho amount to widespread coruption. As far as I am concerned you are not acting logically. [/B]

You keep talking about 'evidence' yet provide none. Where is the evidence ? You call newspaper columns evidence ?

Where is this evidence you speak of ? No one has come up with any so far.

Kappar

Originally posted by chill
You keep talking about 'evidence' yet provide none. Where is the evidence ? You call newspaper columns evidence ?

I provided you with independent EU reports namley the CPT reports. This is absolutely sufficient evedience to support widespread abuse. But then others provided you with links to all sorts of evidence. You dissmissed it all without bases you are dodging facts and I am afraid unconvincingly. You're in a hole and are clutching at straws and to coin a phrase "dig up".

Sparks

Originally posted by chill
Where is this evidence you speak of ? No one has come up with any so far.

No inquiry = no evidence presented.
Ergo, you are arguing that "See no evil, Hear no evil" makes logical sense.

As I said to you before chill,

Very well, my point is that your views are so unsupported by documented fact, and so blatently and obviously incorrect, that no reasonable person who was in any way reasonably informed about the world they live in could maintain them. And since even a cursory search for information (and if you can come here, you can go to www.google.ie ) would provide sufficent evidence that what we're telling you is simple fact, I conclude that you cannot seriously hold those views and must in fact be proposing them for your own amusement.

Zulu

I have to agree with others here.
While I enjoy a good debate - I can't continue to converse with Chill.
Sorry Chill, but you refuse to accept simple facts. I've debated competitively at all levels (it’s a hobby), and I've adjudicated. I know I hold a different view point - but if I was adjudicating here, I'm afraid to say you haven't convinced me at all, you just appear to be reiterating the same thing.

No offence - and thanks for your input though - really no hard feelings, but we're going nowhere.

Sorry