complaint to the garda ombudsman what happens next?

solpadol

hi i've just mad a complaint to the garda ombudsman today and due to the lack of info from the garda sargent im still wondering what happens next. how long will it take for the ombudsman to get in contact wth me? does he/she call out to my home or do i go to there head office? can the guards involved harass us in any way?

pirelli

Usually what happens is a undercover unit puts you under surveillance. In a few weeks a white van will screech to a halt in front of you and some burly men in blue shirts will have a tete a tete with you.I am just joking.
They usually give you a form that explains the procedures to you etc.If you didn get one then Usually in the first week you will receive a reply. This followed in the 5th of 6th week by another. It nearly always says that your complaint was vexatious. Although do not feel insulted by this as it is the actual word they use in the Garda Complaints act. So unless they take action which they very rarely do then that is the letter all complainants get.

johnnyskeleton

http://www....plaints.htm

AckwelFoley

what happens next?


LOL.. nothing.

The ombudsman is as helpful as tits on a bull..

Jo King

The Ombudsman will write back to you after a few weeks to tell you whether the complaint is acceptable to them for processing. After that you will be contacted during the investigation phase.

Victor

solpadol wrote: »

hi i've just mad a complaint to the garda ombudsman today and due to the lack of info from the garda sargent im still wondering what happens next. how long will it take for the ombudsman to get in contact wth me? does he/she call out to my home or do i go to there head office? can the guards involved harass us in any way?

You shut up and don't talk about it on the internet.

I understand they have a bit of a backlog.

AckwelFoley

Victor wrote: »

You shut up and don't talk about it on the internet.

I understand they have a bit of a backlog.

A little harsh?

No specfics were mentioned.

pirelli

Victor wrote: »

You shut up and don't talk about it on the internet.

I understand they have a bit of a backlog.

snyper wrote: »

A little harsh?

No specfics were mentioned.

I agree with you Snyper. Obviously Victor is correct and it is confidential although I think you have been suitably vague and ambiguous and it is a body corporate so hardly a criminal offence or a gravely harmful statement is applicable. So no worries there. It could be construed as a class of persons though and the rank of the member could be considered a class of person's.This could leave you open to a case of defamation but you havent actually defamed anybody or anything.Uneccessarily harsh but nonetheless good advice in some respects.

AckwelFoley

I was particularly referring to the "shut up" comment..

howeveer subsequently i noticed victor is a moderator with 10's of thousands of posts so his e-penis is particularly larger than mine

...so i will move on away from this subject

Victor

Sorry for being harsh.

pirelli wrote: »

I agree with you Snyper. Obviously Victor is correct and it is confidential although I think you have been suitably vague and ambiguous and it is a body corporate so hardly a criminal offence or a gravely harmful statement is applicable. So no worries there. It could be construed as a class of persons though and the rank of the member could be considered a class of person's.This could leave you open to a case of defamation but you havent actually defamed anybody or anything.Uneccessarily harsh but nonetheless good advice in some respects.

You can't defame a class of person. "All builders are gurriers" doesn't identify anyone and is not the source of an action.

"Cops are crooked" is also quite vague - there more thean 10,000 of them.

pirelli

Victor wrote: »

Sorry for being harsh.

You can't defame a class of person. "All builders are gurriers" doesn't identify anyone and is not the source of an action.

"Cops are crooked" is also quite vague - there more than 10,000 of them.

I dont disagree.I am familiar with the interpretation of the law as you have explained it.However you might note that rank could be considered a class of persons and there are far fewer of those.

I like the scene Snyper portrayed in his last post. If you saw the David Brent over christmas i liken it to that, where he was an actor in a tequila sunrise shirt making life hell for any extra that approached him. He was as the pun goes the big fish and they were the very very small fish. Great comedy.
I dont condone any personal attack or personal references however subtle but I always appreciate humour.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:ilQ2HweeGh4J:www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4306/b4306s.pdf+defamation+ACT+2006+ireland+body+corporate+good+faith&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk#10


Defamation of class of persons
Section 9 which seeks to clarify the existing law, provides that a member of a class of persons shall have a cause of action if by reason of the number of persons who are members of that class or by virtue of the circumstances in which the statement is published the statement could reasonably be understood to refer to the member concerned.

Victor

When someone said that a member of cabinet claimed to have used cocaine, that is a tiny class of people, but not enough to identify anyone.

Victor

Apologies, I missed this.

solpadol wrote: »

can the guards involved harass us in any way?

It was not unknown for people under the old procedure to be harrassed. However, if you are, explain this to the ombudsman.

They are not allowed harass anyone. Any contact they have with a complainee must be genuine.

pirelli

Victor wrote: »

When someone said that a member of cabinet claimed to have used cocaine, that is a tiny class of people, but not enough to identify anyone.

There is a huge search party comprising the entire media who were desperately looking and searching for this someone and for the tapes and transcripts.The last outcry was that they were going to bring criminal charges and then The authour made a good case where she has support from the company that copied the transcripts from the tapes.The reason for all the controversy was that if...(i do not suggest she did) she had lied it might be bad faith which defeats public interest. It transpires she has a strong alibi and records of the work done by an impartial company, so they gave up on it. A class of persons short of mathematical certainity could be a rank of men in a district.

johnnyskeleton

snyper wrote: »

howeveer subsequently i noticed victor is a moderator with 10's of thousands of posts so his e-penis is particularly larger than mine

...so i will move on away from this subject

He can waves his e-penis around accomodation and property all he wants, but in legal discussion he's fair game.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He can waves his e-penis around accomodation and property all he wants, but in legal discussion he's fair game.

Waves?

What has this to do with the making of a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman.!

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

Waves?

What has this to do with the making of a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman.!

It was said in response to snyper's comment earlier in the thread. It wasn't, for example, a random explaination of a case that has no bearing on the thread just because I made a clerical error earlier.

hullaballoo

Careful now.

The last thing we want to do is have this forum gain a reputation for hand-bagging.

IncredibleHulk

solpadol wrote: »

hi i've just mad a complaint to the garda ombudsman today and due to the lack of info from the garda sargent im still wondering what happens next. how long will it take for the ombudsman to get in contact wth me? does he/she call out to my home or do i go to there head office? can the guards involved harass us in any way?

http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/