Questions about Gardai and there methods

copperdaz

dothis wrote: »

Well fogive me if I misunderstood. Are you saying that the Council of Europe's report is acurate and that they have not changed it to suit themselves?

it is what it is a report. it not about anyone suitiing themselves. as i already said and ill say it again reports from any body identifies problems recomends change and promots devlopment. its as simple as that.

That's true you didn't say the word conspiricy but, the effect of what you were saying was that there was a conspiricy

no is not and i would say again this is your view not mine.

That wasn't what I was saying. It seems to me that you seem to think that the CPT were fabricating human rights abuses in Ireland because they needed something bad to report or else they wouldn't have a job to do.

never said that please this is getting boring. they have a role to report thats what thy do and thats what they did at the end of the day the report is THEIR findings you as an individual must make you own mind up.

I was mocking you. That's all.


Now if you would be so kind and report some evidence to support your proposition.

I'll repeat the question again because it seems you forgot to answer it. You asked me for evidence to support my assertion that the Irish Police force had major human rights abuse problems I provided you with 4 reports as evidence. You don't seem to trust the report of the CPT. So what kind of evidence would like?

i never said the irish police force had no problems. your reports are just that reports. it was never my position that there is no problems in any organisation. that is why europe ireland and individual organisations state or otherwise issue reports. again their role is to identify problem recomend changes. no organisation will ever reach a level where there is no improvements needed. the same goes for police forces. its a bit rich for people to stand on the sidelines pointing the finger form their high horse and shouting about problems of the past.

dothis

copperdaz wrote: »

i never said the irish police force had no problems. your reports are just that reports. it was never my position that there is no problems in any organisation. that is why europe ireland and individual organisations state or otherwise issue reports. again their role is to identify problem recomend changes. no organisation will ever reach a level where there is no improvements needed. the same goes for police forces. its a bit rich for people to stand on the sidelines pointing the finger form their high horse and shouting about problems of the past.

I'm not sure if you just don't get it or you're some kind of revisionist. Either way your argument is poor and contorted. It frustrating to talk to you and won't engage you any longer.

copperdaz

though you run run out of steam. your last few posts involved you mis stating me on what i was saying to suit your point of view and inventing other statments that did not exist. you were wondering off the subject matter anyway what was the recording of the police in a public place ect.

Gavin "shels"

Didn't want to open up a new thread for this but could someone outline what happens if a Garda refuses to give you their badge number, and their number isn't even on their shoulders?

copperdaz

there is no legal obligation for the police to give you their badge number, you can ask to see their warrent card and read it but not handle it in any way. you must be a reason for you asking for it in other words the police must make a lawfull demand of you . in other words you cant walk up to them on the streets and ask them.
also if your involved in a incident on the street say a public order event the police officer will have little or no time to be talking to you at that time. if you have a problem with anything make a complant to the ombs. board. dont go asking them for numbers when they are dealing with another person.
at the end of the day if your the one arrested you will have their name on your charge sheet or your summons. If not complain.

Johnny Utah

The Guards are only too willing to videotape people at peaceful protests and demonstrations. They also have surveillance cameras in the city centre and in most big towns. However, when the show is on the other foot, it turns out that the Guards don't like to be videoed either. I wonder why?


http://youtube.com/watch?v=LtuhvBpEsIU&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PRa-WDJOY

ryukobain

hi,

rather than start another thread i thought it'd be better to ask my questions in this thread. I just had a bizarre experience where i headed to a local takeaway tonight with a friend and we stopped by two gardaí who asked for our details (names/address/dob/where we were heading), and I was just curious about a few things.

are our details going to be kept on file in whatever form that may take, or will they be discarded when it's clear there's no reason for them to be kept?

also I was just wondering do we actually have to give out details? there was no reason for us to be stopped other than we were the only ones on the street, we can't be suspected of committing any offence, is it within our rights to refuse to answer and continue on with our business?

thanks for your time.

copperdaz

firstly the other foot as you put it is the police force given the power and responsibility to ensure the protection of the state and its people from all forms of criminal enterprise. this responsibility is not given lightly, there are means and a process of complaint open to anyone who feels they have a complaint.

the posting of videos and details of police offiers on a public site does two things. firstly it puts the identity of that person in danger by allowing their face into the public arena.

secondly it may affect your complaint as it may be viewed as interfering in due process, that is it will work to the advantage of that police officer as fair procedures and there may be a risk of a fair trial being distroyed as a result.

it is my view and this kind of publication only gives bad police officers the abbility to get off when they deserve to go to court. its only purpose is to provide some kind of entertainment for the people filming it and designed to be in some way of displaying anti authority feelings.

in regards to the second question the poilce have a number of powers under different acts in which they can demand your name and address. your post indicates that they asked your name and you have done nothing wrong. You should have no fear if they ask your name. in my view police officers may be attending to any one of many diffrent calls .There may be a criminal matching your firends discription and they may wish to exclude you as a result, they only asked you your name as your friends were in the area. it does not inply you have done anything wrong. it your stoped by police this may be a way a starting a conversation with you. remember there are community police officers who want to stop and talk to the public. its not always about criminals and arresting people. Ask yourself have you ever stopped a police officer and had a conversation or passed the time of day. try it you may be suprised to that they will talk to you. the next time they meet you in the street they will be more friendly towards you as they know you. its not all about confrentation. the same goes for people that take it apon themselves to film police officers sitting in cars. all they know is resistance and confrentation. if you have a problem with how you are treated in the street by police officers make a complaint, follow the legal procedure if your right you right if you wrong your wrong.

Johnny Utah

ryukobain wrote: »

hi,

rather than start another thread i thought it'd be better to ask my questions in this thread. I just had a bizarre experience where i headed to a local takeaway tonight with a friend and we stopped by two gardaí who asked for our details (names/address/dob/where we were heading), and I was just curious about a few things.

are our details going to be kept on file in whatever form that may take, or will they be discarded when it's clear there's no reason for them to be kept?

also I was just wondering do we actually have to give out details? there was no reason for us to be stopped other than we were the only ones on the street, we can't be suspected of committing any offence, is it within our rights to refuse to answer and continue on with our business?

thanks for your time.

It depends on whether you were driving or walking....

If you were walking, then a Garda can only demand name and address if you have committed an offence or are reasonably suspected of having committed an offence.

Did they tell you why they were requesting your name and address, and under what legislation they were entitled to ask for that information?

And, I think the dob record is so that the details can be inputted into pulse.

copperdaz wrote: »

firstly the other foot as you put it is the police force given the power and responsibility to ensure the protection of the state and its people from all forms of criminal enterprise. this responsibility is not given lightly, there are means and a process of complaint open to anyone who feels they have a complaint.

the posting of videos and details of police offiers on a public site does two things. firstly it puts the identity of that person in danger by allowing their face into the public arena.

secondly it may affect your complaint as it may be viewed as interfering in due process, that is it will work to the advantage of that police officer as fair procedures and there may be a risk of a fair trial being distroyed as a result.

it is my view and this kind of publication only gives bad police officers the abbility to get off when they deserve to go to court. its only purpose is to provide some kind of entertainment for the people filming it and designed to be in some way of displaying anti authority feelings.

in regards to the second question the poilce have a number of powers under different acts in which they can demand your name and address. your post indicates that they asked your name and you have done nothing wrong. You should have no fear if they ask your name. in my view police officers may be attending to any one of many diffrent calls .There may be a criminal matching your firends discription and they may wish to exclude you as a result, they only asked you your name as your friends were in the area. it does not inply you have done anything wrong. it your stoped by police this may be a way a starting a conversation with you. remember there are community police officers who want to stop and talk to the public. its not always about criminals and arresting people. Ask yourself have you ever stopped a police officer and had a conversation or passed the time of day. try it you may be suprised to that they will talk to you. the next time they meet you in the street they will be more friendly towards you as they know you. its not all about confrentation. the same goes for people that take it apon themselves to film police officers sitting in cars. all they know is resistance and confrentation. if you have a problem with how you are treated in the street by police officers make a complaint, follow the legal procedure if your right you right if you wrong your wrong.

:rolleyes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmhZEwymTjM


The person/group in the first video was being photographed by the police while they were sitting in their unmarked car in the petrol station, a distance away. Did you miss the long lense camera sitting on his lap? Wow, a great use of police time- photographing teenagers exercising their right to a peaceful protest. Yet, when the detective has the camera on him, he doesn't like it one bit. Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

copperdaz

police record the details of names taken they may or may not record these details on the computer. the reason for this is that there is a record of stopping and/or searching persons in the street. it is also used if the person makes a complaint there is a record of the event. its nothing to do with criminal records. in fact it may show that you have been stoped before and were not involved in anything. from my police friends they tell me that this information is held on their computers. if you want you can get any informetion they have by applying to the police. its you information and you entitled to see what they have recorded about you by making an application and paying a fee(dont know how much), but you will get a full record of what is recorded. hope this helps.

as to the video of the police ..

The person/group in the first video was being photographed by the police while they were sitting in their unmarked car in the petrol station, a distance away. Did you miss the long lense camera sitting on his lap? Wow, a great use of police time- photographing teenagers exercising their right to a peaceful protest. Yet, when the detective has the camera on him, he doesn't like it one bit. Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander

ok here we go again if you are protesting in a petrol garage then yes i want police looking at you. yes i want your name taken and yesi want him taking your photo. Splinter republican organisations should be monitored. any group that sees it goals acheved through all methods including violence may well on that day be peaceful but what about tomorrow. you again are on that high horse to use you farmyard animal analogy.
you are not the "watchdog" of the police if you have a problem then complain. the reason you dont in this case is it would not hold up as the police officer did nothing wrong and by the likes of you who think they have the moral authority to carry out such actions. its childish irresponsible and dangerous towards police officers working in counter terror units. you may not be the terrorist they are worrided about but there are those out there who would collect information on police officers and thias effects their abbility to protect the irish state and its people. it also puts them in danger and reduces their ability to protect us. . in short grow up and stop this childish actions.

April Raine

copperdaz wrote: »

you entitled to see what they have recorded about you by making an application and paying a fee(dont know how much), but you will get a full record of what is recorded.

This is available under under Data Protection Act. Fee is discussed at

http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/rights/2d.htm&CatID=17&m=r

Johnny Utah

copperdaz wrote: »

police record the details of names taken they may or may not record these details on the computer. the reason for this is that there is a record of stopping and/or searching persons in the street. it is also used if the person makes a complaint there is a record of the event. its nothing to do with criminal records. in fact it may show that you have been stoped before and were not involved in anything. from my police friends they tell me that this information is held on their computers.


ok here we go again if you are protesting in a petrol garage then yes i want police looking at you. yes i want your name taken and yesi want him taking your photo. Splinter republican organisations should be monitored. any group that sees it goals acheved through all methods including violence may well on that day be peaceful but what about tomorrow. you again are on that high horse to use you farmyard animal analogy.

Ireland's answer to the Ministry of Love, perhaps?

copperdaz wrote: »

you are not the "watchdog" of the police if you have a problem then complain. the reason you dont in this case is it would not hold up as the police officer did nothing wrong and by the likes of you who think they have the moral authority to carry out such actions. its childish irresponsible and dangerous towards police officers working in counter terror units. you may not be the terrorist they are worrided about but there are those out there who would collect information on police officers and thias effects their abbility to protect the irish state and its people. it also puts them in danger and reduces their ability to protect us. . in short grow up and stop this childish actions.

Oh really? :rolleyes:

copperdaz

thought you would have no reply to that. speaks volumes!

and yes really

pirelli

copperdaz wrote: »

police record the details of names taken they may or may not record these details on the computer. the reason for this is that there is a record of stopping and/or searching persons in the street. it is also used if the person makes a complaint there is a record of the event. its nothing to do with criminal records. in fact it may show that you have been stoped before and were not involved in anything. from my police friends they tell me that this information is held on their computers. if you want you can get any informetion they have by applying to the police. its you information and you entitled to see what they have recorded about you by making an application and paying a fee(dont know how much), but you will get a full record of what is recorded. hope this helps.

Fair enough

ok here we go again if you are protesting in a petrol garage then yes i want police looking at you. yes i want your name taken and yesi want him taking your photo. Splinter republican organisations should be monitored. any group that sees it goals acheved through all methods including violence may well on that day be peaceful but what about tomorrow. you again are on that high horse to use you farmyard animal analogy.
you are not the "watchdog" of the police if you have a problem then complain. the reason you dont in this case is it would not hold up as the police officer did nothing wrong and by the likes of you who think they have the moral authority to carry out such actions. its childish irresponsible and dangerous towards police officers working in counter terror units. you may not be the terrorist they are worrided about but there are those out there who would collect information on police officers and thias effects their abbility to protect the irish state and its people. it also puts them in danger and reduces their ability to protect us. . in short grow up and stop this childish actions.

So we should let the state police do as they please copperdaz. They should put their citizens under surveillance if that citizen protests about something worthwhile and non-violent. Sounds like we are getting the bad side of the KGB and most incompetent side of the FBI. Copperdaz it sounds like we have a really bad police force. They should be out there investigating real crimes.

Shell can hire there own private investigators to do their work. If the state and it's police want to be so chidlish and do the work that private investigators could do, and by doing that work create an animosity between it's people and it's police, then that is pathetically childish.

If you want the names of people that feel strongly about something worthwhile and put some of their time into campaigning it, then you go out there and get their names yourself and start your own pro shell campaign.

copperdaz

pirelli wrote: »

Fair enough





So we should let the state police do as they please copperdaz. They should put their citizens under surveillance if that citizen protests about something worthwhile and non-violent. Sounds like we are getting the bad side of the KGB and most incompetent side of the FBI. Copperdaz it sounds like we have a really bad police force. They should be out there investigating real crimes.

Shell can hire there own private investigators to do their work. If the state and it's police want to be so chidlish and do the work that private investigators could do, and by doing that work create an animosity between it's people and it's police, then that is pathetically childish.

If you want the names of people that feel strongly about something worthwhile and put some of their time into campaigning it, then you go out there and get their names yourself and start your own pro shell campaign.

hi well whats a "real crime" and every goverment and police agency does it and if you cant see whay well here why. firstly under EU law ireland has an obligation towards to gatheringing of intelegance and monitoring of "possible" groups that may pose a danger towards the population. the failure to monitor all and an groups can lead to a gap in the states abbility to protect its populaion. the fact is that many of the protest groups involve people who have an issue pose no danger to the population.
the problem is when any group of protesters cross the line and engage in acts that involve violance and putting people in danger.
point of information, on the extreme end of the scale the lack of the intelegence agencies in the US to monitor those that planed 9-11. what if the police there were monitoring them would it have happened? would this monitoring have affected the average joe in the street. the point is the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. there is no such thing as total freedom. the issue is what level are you prepaired to accept. if there is a group that acts in the "best interest" of the goal , would you be willing to accept a loss as a result of the lack of intelegence gathering by state agencies.

at the end of the day there is no criminal offence for peacefull protest. this being the case what problem do you have in allowing the police to know your name. there is no charge for being in a protest group. the problem is when these groups cross the line into criminality and that is when i want our police forces to know whats going on.

sorry but thats the world we live in. criminals and terrorists dont advertise their intentions or tell the police they are going to commit crimes. sometimes the police has to be more then reactionary and prevent future actions that endanger lives, even if the intentions of the group are good.

pirelli

copperdaz wrote: »

hi well whats a "real crime" and every goverment and police agency does it and if you cant see whay well here why. firstly under EU law ireland has an obligation towards to gatheringing of intelegance and monitoring of "possible" groups that may pose a danger towards the population. the failure to monitor all and an groups can lead to a gap in the states abbility to protect its populaion. the fact is that many of the protest groups involve people who have an issue pose no danger to the population.

The EU. The Eu should never be used as an excuse to deprive our citizens of rights that previously we would have enjoyed. The EU is has many directives that are designed to protect private citizens and their opinions and the right to free speech and the right to gather and protest. In fact the Eu would disapprove of the gardai monitoring such citizens.

The majority of our citizens don't need protecting from these citizens who are voicing their opinion. The odd lorry driver might have had difficulty using on part of a small isolated road, but he never required any protection. If any needs protection it's our citizens that stand up for us and protest.

There are many roads that I cannot access due to construction workers, private construction work, council work, road repairs, accidents, spillages, road closure, farmers,sheep,cattle,parades,festivels and music events . So as you have said: I'm Sorry but that is the world we live in; these people have never threatened anyone.

the problem is when any group of protesters cross the line and engage in acts that involve violance and putting people in danger.
point of information, on the extreme end of the scale the lack of the intelegence agencies in the US to monitor those that planed 9-11. what if the police there were monitoring them would it have happened? would this monitoring have affected the average joe in the street. the point is the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. there is no such thing as total freedom. the issue is what level are you prepaired to accept. if there is a group that acts in the "best interest" of the goal , would you be willing to accept a loss as a result of the lack of intelegence gathering by state agencies.

at the end of the day there is no criminal offence for peacefull protest. this being the case what problem do you have in allowing the police to know your name. there is no charge for being in a protest group. the problem is when these groups cross the line into criminality and that is when i want our police forces to know whats going on.

sorry but thats the world we live in. criminals and terrorists dont advertise their intentions or tell the police they are going to commit crimes. sometimes the police has to be more then reactionary and prevent future actions that endanger lives, even if the intentions of the group are good.

The 911 situation was a farce because despite 4 planes getting hi jacked the authorities failed to take any action. As far as I am aware many people were being monitored by the police.

That was the problem, alot of resources are wasted monitoring innocent citizens who we suspect of being dissidents or potential threats. The police do not have the lawful authority to treat people this way because of an IF.

Lets look at the law on an IF.

IF:

Goggin Carroll & Co Dineen UD 106/85 EAT

The fear of an something inadvertant is not grounds for taking sanctions against someone. This was the findings in a fidelity and loyalty case and perhaps not exactly the same circumstances , but it does highlight the fact Copperdaz that I think your being very unfair to innocent citizens based on an if.


You don't have the right to just monitor citizens because they might inadvertently block traffic or let slip some verbal insult at a shell customer.


People have the right to protest an should not be criminalised or treated as terrorists, as obviously that is what you want.

copperdaz

your right the majority of citizens are no danger and pose no danger. its the one who does and is a danger that the police are tasked to find. if that involves asking people their name or finding out who they are then yes i am willing for the police to do that.

the purpose of the EU Laws are to balance the rights of citizens against the protection of the population against "extreme" elements who engage in actions that are reckless and pose a danger to innocent people. its the balance that needs to be mentained. the issue on this thread and my point is the actions of filming police officers and putting their picture on the web limits the abbilty of the police to protect the population, and for what some cheep laugh at their expence with some self rightus expression and a finger pointing exercise. the protester should have done their protest and finished up when finished. they had no reason to go over to the police sitting in the car and start filming them, and then put this on the web.


i dont get the road thing ?

as i said the right to protest is not a criminal offence. so whats your problem telling the police who you are? what are you scared of?

again i state my position the police are given the job to stop those who pose a danger to me you and everyone else who have no interest in the protest issue. your right to protest is no interest to me if i want to buy petrol in shell who are you to stop me going in. where is my rights there? or are you still the one who knows better then me. protest away just dont get in my way going about my buisness.

Johnny Utah

copperdaz wrote: »

thought you would have no reply to that. speaks volumes!

Obviously not a fan of George Orwell it seems....

copperdaz wrote: »

you are not the "watchdog" of the police if you have a problem then complain. the reason you dont in this case is it would not hold up as the police officer did nothing wrong and by the likes of you who think they have the moral authority to carry out such actions. its childish irresponsible and dangerous towards police officers working in counter terror units. you may not be the terrorist they are worrided about but there are those out there who would collect information on police officers and thias effects their abbility to protect the irish state and its people. it also puts them in danger and reduces their ability to protect us. . in short grow up and stop this childish actions.

copperdaz wrote: »

and yes really

Ok, I'll spell it out for you:

(1) It was a complete waste of police time carrying out surveillance on these people. There cleraly not terrorists or dissident republicans and anyone with half a brain can tell that. However, the decision to carry out this surveillance was probably made by a superior officer, so the blame really lies with whoever made that decision. It's funny how GS are always complaining about being under-resourced, yet they have enough time to carry out pointless surveillance work in a petrol station.

(2) If the Guards did have to carry out surveillance, then it should have been undertaken in a covert manner. Sitting in a petrol station and openly photographing the protestors is asking for trouble, and it was only a matter of time before one of the protestors group spotted the detectives. Pretty incompetent in terms of information gathering. Imagine if this is the type of surveillance carried out on real terrorists. :eek:

(3) The Guard threatened to (illegally) confiscate the protestor's camera.

(4) The Guard refused to show ID or give his name when asked.

(5) The Guard had a very patronising tone in general, eg. "you go off and protest like a good, little boy".


http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmhZEwymTjM

copperdaz wrote: »

hi well whats a "real crime" and every goverment and police agency does it and if you cant see whay well here why. firstly under EU law ireland has an obligation towards to gatheringing of intelegance and monitoring of "possible" groups that may pose a danger towards the population. the failure to monitor all and an groups can lead to a gap in the states abbility to protect its populaion. the fact is that many of the protest groups involve people who have an issue pose no danger to the population.
the problem is when any group of protesters cross the line and engage in acts that involve violance and putting people in danger.
point of information, on the extreme end of the scale the lack of the intelegence agencies in the US to monitor those that planed 9-11. what if the police there were monitoring them would it have happened? would this monitoring have affected the average joe in the street. the point is the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. there is no such thing as total freedom. the issue is what level are you prepaired to accept. if there is a group that acts in the "best interest" of the goal , would you be willing to accept a loss as a result of the lack of intelegence gathering by state agencies.

Funny you should mention 9/11. The FBI and CIA were in fact monitoring the 9/11 terrorists before they even entered the US to learn how to fly. Subsequently, the owner of a flight school in Florida also tipped off the FBI when one of the pilots (Mohammed Atta I think) arranged flying lessons for taking off and flying, but showed no interest in how to land the planes:eek:.

Mohammed Atta was even tracked around Spain where he attended an Al-Qaeda meeting a couple of months before the 9/11 attacks.
Iirc, the intelligence on these individuals and a likely threat to the US was ultimately not taken seriously at a higher level.

America, land of the (not so) free.:D


In any event, I don't see the connection between a dangerous Al-Qaeda terrorist and a tree hugger outside a petrol station. You're going way off topic.

copperdaz wrote: »

at the end of the day there is no criminal offence for peacefull protest. this being the case what problem do you have in allowing the police to know your name. there is no charge for being in a protest group. the problem is when these groups cross the line into criminality and that is when i want our police forces to know whats going on.

Likewise, what problem does the detective have in providing ID and giving his name?

copperdaz wrote: »

your right the majority of citizens are no danger and pose no danger. its the one who does and is a danger that the police are tasked to find. if that involves asking people their name or finding out who they are then yes i am willing for the police to do that.

the purpose of the EU Laws are to balance the rights of citizens against the protection of the population against "extreme" elements who engage in actions that are reckless and pose a danger to innocent people. its the balance that needs to be mentained. the issue on this thread and my point is the actions of filming police officers and putting their picture on the web limits the abbilty of the police to protect the population, and for what some cheep laugh at their expence with some self rightus expression and a finger pointing exercise. the protester should have done their protest and finished up when finished. they had no reason to go over to the police sitting in the car and start filming them, and then put this on the web.

Well, again, I could use your logic, and say "ah shure, if the police have nothing to hide, then why are they bothered about the camera?

copperdaz wrote: »

as i said the right to protest is not a criminal offence. so whats your problem telling the police who you are? what are you scared of?

:rolleyes: Go back to Russia. The Russian police; firm, firm but fair. :pac:

copperdaz wrote: »

again i state my position the police are given the job to stop those who pose a danger to me you and everyone else who have no interest in the protest issue. your right to protest is no interest to me if i want to buy petrol in shell who are you to stop me going in. where is my rights there? or are you still the one who knows better then me. protest away just dont get in my way going about my buisness.

I don't think that the protestors were stopping anyone from entering or buying petrol. If they were, then I would expect that the Gardai would enforce the law.

copperdaz

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Obviously not a fan of George Orwell it seems....











Ok, I'll spell it out for you:

(1) It was a complete waste of police time carrying out surveillance on these people. There cleraly not terrorists or dissident republicans and anyone with half a brain can tell that. However, the decision to carry out this surveillance was probably made by a superior officer, so the blame really lies with whoever made that decision. It's funny how GS are always complaining about being under-resourced, yet they have enough time to carry out pointless surveillance work in a petrol station.


So you say ....your an expert in police resource allocation now. how do you know they are not involved. you must have a better insight then the police so. its not pointless if there is something to have concern about.

(2) If the Guards did have to carry out surveillance, then it should have been undertaken in a covert manner. Sitting in a petrol station and openly photographing the protestors is asking for trouble, and it was only a matter of time before one of the protestors group spotted the detectives. Pretty incompetent in terms of information gathering. Imagine if this is the type of surveillance carried out on real terrorists. :eek:

why i think that it makes no difference if they are visiable or not. whats a real terrorist, is that one who has ready done the action or about to do an action. at what stage would you like the police to intervene? whats a real terrorist?

(3) The Guard threatened to (illegally) confiscate the protestor's camera.

i think he asked him to put it away first.

(4) The Guard refused to show ID or give his name when asked.

dont blame him the person with the camera walked up to him without interaction from the police. why should he give his name he is only sitting in his car . how do you know what he is at. you also state he was looking at the protesters .HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS THE PROTESTERS?" . The camera guy may have interfered in another operation. there is no evidence that they were there for the protesters against shell. the camera guy presumes he is the object of his attentions. could be a high opinion the camera person has of his self. should have got on with his protest instead of interfering with police operations unless that was the reason for the protest.

(5) The Guard had a very patronising tone in general, eg. "you go off and protest like a good, little boy".

yes i can see why the person with the camera was a plonker.....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmhZEwymTjM












Funny you should mention 9/11. The FBI and CIA were in fact monitoring the 9/11 terrorists before they even entered the US to learn how to fly. Subsequently, the owner of a flight school in Florida also tipped off the FBI when one of the pilots (Mohammed Atta I think) arranged flying lessons for taking off and flying, but showed no interest in how to land the planes:eek:.

Mohammed Atta was even tracked around Spain where he attended an Al-Qaeda meeting a couple of months before the 9/11 attacks.
Iirc, the intelligence on these individuals and a likely threat to the US was ultimately not taken seriously at a higher level.

America, land of the (not so) free.:D


In any event, I don't see the connection between a dangerous Al-Qaeda terrorist and a tree hugger outside a petrol station. You're going way off topic.


the point was police and intelegence agencies even when monitoring person miss the target and fail to prevent terrorists action. my point was the police here were monitoring yet failed. i would rather the police monitored more and failed less. simple as that.
tree huggers as you call them have been responsible for the criminal damage of plains in shannon. in the US and the UK they have targeted premises that have been damaged. pro animal groups have attacked chemical factories. anti abortion groups have even killed doctors who worked in hospitals who provided such services. all these types of groups protest yet at times over step the protest and enter the criminal area. i want our police there when they do.



Likewise, what problem does the detective have in providing ID and giving his name?

information of use to terrorists when yuppy gob****es put their name on the web for all to see. thats why...


















Well, again, I could use your logic, and say "ah shure, if the police have nothing to hide, then why are they bothered about the camera?

read previous comment above







:rolleyes: Go back to Russia. The Russian police; firm, firm but fair. :pac:

not relevent





I don't think that the protestors were stopping anyone from entering or buying petrol. If they were, then I would expect that the Gardai would enforce the law.

how do you know were you there? what law have you in mind. the lack of police action is not an indication of no crime was being committed. again where you one of them you seem to have first hand knowlage. blocking entrance to the garage is the point of the protest, or will you deny that as well.

gman2k

Late into this debate, but I just have to say that I take offence at what 'Copperdaz' is saying re Shell to Sea protesters. I am one of many silent supporters of the campaign, and in no way support hard line republicanism, or any brand of nationalism for that matter.
Stinks of a Sunday Indo smear to call Shell protestors pseudo-terrorists who are a threat to us all.
Thank God for all protestors and activists who campaign for everyones rights, despite the threats and violence from the police. If every activist who was branded a terrorist by the state was beaten down in this way, we would not enjoy the rights and priviliges we have now, think James Larkin, O'Connell, Parnell etc.... Further afield, think Mandela, Gandhi, Malcom X.
Whilst 'CopperDaz' may not want the cameras turned on the coppers, it certainly shows them up in the public eye for what they actually do.
The people who film and post these videos are actually doing the state and public a great service, and of course it is a benifit of our open democratic state that we can do so without the threat of the police... We need more people exposing the heavy handed way that some Guards go about their profession, and drag down the good name of the majority of Guards.
The treatment dished out by the police in Mayo to protesters has opened the eyes of lots of people I know to the way the state interests operate. What has gone on over there (and at other events) is pure and simple assault.

Getting back to whether you have to give your name and address to a Garda....
When I was in College, two of my mates were sitting on a wall beside a carpark whilst a general drunken melee was going on in the carpark. A couple of cops sauntered up to them and started chatting - they asked them their names and addresses, to which the two mates complied with, thinking nothing of it.
A few weeks later, they both got summonses for being drunk and disorderly in a public place. Complete fabrication by the cops, but they were screwed cos the local judge was a student hater, and who was he going to believe?????
But hey, everything worked out ok, cos one of the lads old man was cop in a midland town, and the other blokes best mate's dad was a super in another town....
Summonses mysteriously disappeared!!!
All sounds funny now, but for one of the lads, he was nearly suicidal over the whole thing, cos of the way his folks would react.....
So whilst a garda may have the right to ask for your name and address, have your wits about you.

pirelli

gman2k wrote: »

.

Getting back to whether you have to give your name and address to a Garda....
When I was in College, two of my mates were sitting on a wall beside a carpark whilst a general drunken melee was going on in the carpark. A couple of cops sauntered up to them and started chatting - they asked them their names and addresses, to which the two mates complied with, thinking nothing of it.
A few weeks later, they both got summonses for being drunk and disorderly in a public place. Complete fabrication by the cops, but they were screwed cos the local judge was a student hater, and who was he going to believe?????
But hey, everything worked out ok, cos one of the lads old man was cop in a midland town, and the other blokes best mate's dad was a super in another town....
Summonses mysteriously disappeared!!!
All sounds funny now, but for one of the lads, he was nearly suicidal over the whole thing, cos of the way his folks would react.....
So whilst a garda may have the right to ask for your name and address, have your wits about you.

The local Judge was a student hater. Can you prove that statement, are you so familiar with the court. Possibly there was a rumour about how some students got convicted and therefore the local judge obviously doesn't like students OR the local judge actually drives past the university throwing bits of rubbish at the students and splashes them with puddles of water when it rains, or just maybe he made a public announcement to that effect that he hates students . LOL

As for the arrest
Chances are that they were seen earlier that night being disorderly. The garda checked them out and decided they were also drunk. If there was drunken antics in the carpark, then why wouldn't the gardai just take names in there. Maybe the carpark was private and the wall opened onto a public area and therefore they were the only two being drunk and disorderly in public.


I don't disbelieve your story and the gardai have been caught fabricating drunk and disorderly charges a hell of alot. There was a public case in dublin a while back about two sisters that were assualted by gardai and it was caught on cctv and the gardai tried to falsley convict them to cover their crime. These civil suits are always in the courts. There is also so many times young people get abuse form Gardai and treated quite shoddily, and get arrested for backchat. Now i have no problem beliveing there are judges that don't like backchat. As if it's a crime, which it isn't. You can't win .

albertw

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Answers in bold below.

2) Are you allowed photograph / video a garda walking , making an arrest or involved in something (questioning, breaking up a fight, etc ) Yes, as long as you're not obstructing them or you've been issued with an instruction eg to leave the area under the Public Order Act

While its not illegal, my understanding was that a Garda could simply tell you to stop filming under section 8 of the Public Order Act? In one of the videos posted earlier a garda told a cameraman at a shell station to turn off the camera - could the garda have just arrested him under Section 8 for no doing so?

4) Are you allowed to record a conversation you have with a Garda say if you were pulled over by the traffic corps or if they are questioning you. Yes - and you don't have to inform the Garda

Out of interest where is that stated? And can they make you stop recording?

Thanks

Johnny Utah

copperdaz wrote: »

how do you know were you there? what law have you in mind. the lack of police action is not an indication of no crime was being committed. again where you one of them you seem to have first hand knowlage. blocking entrance to the garage is the point of the protest, or will you deny that as well.

No I wasn't there- I'm not a terrorist!

gman2k wrote: »

Late into this debate, but I just have to say that I take offence at what 'Copperdaz' is saying re Shell to Sea protesters. I am one of many silent supporters of the campaign, and in no way support hard line republicanism, or any brand of nationalism for that matter.
Stinks of a Sunday Indo smear to call Shell protestors pseudo-terrorists who are a threat to us all.
Thank God for all protestors and activists who campaign for everyones rights, despite the threats and violence from the police. If every activist who was branded a terrorist by the state was beaten down in this way, we would not enjoy the rights and priviliges we have now, think James Larkin, O'Connell, Parnell etc.... Further afield, think Mandela, Gandhi, Malcom X.
Whilst 'CopperDaz' may not want the cameras turned on the coppers, it certainly shows them up in the public eye for what they actually do.
The people who film and post these videos are actually doing the state and public a great service, and of course it is a benifit of our open democratic state that we can do so without the threat of the police... We need more people exposing the heavy handed way that some Guards go about their profession, and drag down the good name of the majority of Guards.
The treatment dished out by the police in Mayo to protesters has opened the eyes of lots of people I know to the way the state interests operate. What has gone on over there (and at other events) is pure and simple assault.

+1, well said. An Garda Siochana have a long, dark history, and these recent videos highlight the unprofessionalism still rampant in the force.


Don't worry about copperdaz, he's just a Garda apologist and he's trying his best to wind everyone else up. Ignore him.

copperdaz

Johnny Utah wrote: »

No I wasn't there- I'm not a terrorist!


never said you were a terrorist. sorry you feel that way. you seem to know alot about what happened off camera so whats your source.








+1, well said. An Garda Siochana have a long, dark history, and these recent videos highlight the unprofessionalism still rampant in the force.

wow now thats a big statment a long dark history. really? if thats true then i think your alone in that . the majority of the irish people have stated that they have and are doing a good job . i think the most recent questionare has satisfaction over 80% with the service provided.

Have you ran out of arguments is that the best you have lOL.
it seems that only people who are disatisified are those who are arrested and taken to court and you cant blaim them for that. you must have had experence of that.


Don't worry about copperdaz, he's just a Garda apologist and he's trying his best to wind everyone else up. Ignore him.

looks like its working on you. your one of those people who will never support any kind of police force. the fact is that there will always be crime and criminals the law may change but the criminal in society dont and i think that instead of putting videos on the web YOU should support them. you could always join the Garda Reserve and change it from within. but i guess your not that sort of person who would want to work in the community or the police and thats ok too. some people like to be against everything and for nothing.

Johnny Utah

albertw wrote: »

While its not illegal, my understanding was that a Garda could simply tell you to stop filming under section 8 of the Public Order Act? In one of the videos posted earlier a garda told a cameraman at a shell station to turn off the camera - could the garda have just arrested him under Section 8 for no doing so?

No, a Garda could not tell you to stop recording under section 8.



Section 8 of the Public Order Act 1994 makes it an offence for failure to comply with a direction given by a Guard. However, sec 8 is not as wide as it first appears. The offence under section 8 is not failure to comply with any direction of a Garda- (the Guard could tell you to hop on one leg and jump in a fire but you obviously wouldn't do it.:D)

Section 8 will only be effective where a person is acting contrary to section 4, 5, 6, 7 or 9 of the Public Order Act.

* Section 4: Intoxication in public place. Obviously, if a person isn't intoxicated then no offence is committed under sec 4.

* Section 5: Disorderly conduct in a public place. This provision relates to offensive conduct in public.

* Section 6: Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place. Self-explanatory.

*Section 7: Distribution or display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene. Again, self-explanatory.

* Section 9: Wilful obstruction. Cannot wilfully prevent or interrupt the free passage of another person or vehicle.






Therefore, provided the person with the camera
(i) is not intoxicated,
(ii) is acting in a peaceful manner,
(iii) is not using threatening/abusive/insulting behaviour,
(iv) is not distributing/displaying any threatening/abusive/insulting/obscene material,
(v) and he is not wilfully obstructing the free passage of anyone else,
then section 8 of the Public Order Act will not come into play.


There is a provision under sub-section 8(b)- loitering in a public place where there is a reasonable apprehension for the safety of others or the safety of property. Again, if the protest is being conducted in a peacful manner as described above, I think that this would nullify any such apprehension.



Of course, it should also be pointed out that if the Guard got his hands on the protestor's camera and decided to delete the film, then he may be liable for the destruction of data under the Criminal Damage Act 1991.








Good question btw.












The above post is not legal advice, and accordingly should not be relied on as such. The above post is my own interpretation of the matters discussed in this particular thread.

copperdaz

posting the identy of police officers may be an offence under section 8 offences against the state 1990 as am. information of us to a terrorest organisation. you just cant post anything you want on the net and stand back and think you have no consequences. you may be liable if you post this kind of information online.

under section 6 pulic order the person with the video engaged first. the police man asked him to put it away. he said he didnt want him the video him he makes (the protester) statments accusing the officer of a number of action. the police officer DOES NOT WANT TO TALK TO THIS PERSON. his action in my opinion is to intemidate the officer.

Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place, yes it was so yes he is covered to ask him to move on and failure to do so in an offence and he could be arrested. his action were unwanted and if i was approched by a person with a camera i would feel threatened. be very carefull interpertation by the courts on this section is very wide and your "legal advice" is technically correct as to the wording of the Acts but its the interpertation taken by the Courts of the wording that matters not yours.

if your giving legal advise , if you hold your self out as a legal expert and another person acts based on this advice you could be liable for another person acting on the advice. basic legal princible. so be very carefull.

pirelli

copperdaz wrote: »

posting the identy of police officers may be an offence under section 8 offences against the state 1990 as am. information of us to a terrorest organisation. you just cant post anything you want on the net and stand back and think you have no consequences. you may be liable if you post this kind of information online.

under section 6 pulic order the person with the video engaged first. the police man asked him to put it away. he said he didnt want him the video him he makes (the protester) statments accusing the officer of a number of action. the police officer DOES NOT WANT TO TALK TO THIS PERSON. his action in my opinion is to intemidate the officer.

Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place, yes it was so yes he is covered to ask him to move on and failure to do so in an offence and he could be arrested. his action were unwanted and if i was approched by a person with a camera i would feel threatened. be very carefull interpertation by the courts on this section is very wide and your "legal advice" is technically correct as to the wording of the Acts but its the interpertation taken by the Courts of the wording that matters not yours.

if your giving legal advise , if you hold your self out as a legal expert and another person acts based on this advice you could be liable for another person acting on the advice. basic legal princible. so be very carefull.

Another problem, is that the gardai can't tell what focus is being used on the camera. Should a person not approach the garda conducting his investigation, than it should not be interpretated as threatening behaviour. There should be common sense from people using camera's not to zoom into a garda's face and treat them as a spectacle. :rolleyes:

I know that sounds very pedantic and perhaps is irelevant, but it should be an expected courtesy. People that do that are making camera users irresponsible. It would be natural for the camera person to film the complete picture, and by just filming an entire scene should not be threatening.

Camera people should maybe show Gardai the film they recorded is not a zoomed in portrait of just their face and is a more natural picture of the event. Nearly all camera have playback with an lcd for viewing. It might be less threatening if a Garda could view the footage.

The Garda has nor reason to touch the camera, coz they will try delete it, so just playback it back.




The reason for this is that under the data protection act cctv can only be held for 28 days if it is not for personal affairs, family etc... I assume that the cameraman is a data controller under the data protection act and should not keep the footage for more than 28 days. If this is not the case there is no reason to show gardai the footage or to delete it.

TBH I have never understood why they introduced this legislation as it does not help police detection as all cctv will be wiped. Ii would be farcical to think they introduced that law just to prevent people recording other people with their camera's only to have gardai being recorded everywhere and splashed up on u tube, while crimes get deleted from cctv all across the country.

What is the issue with the data protetion act.


One extract found..
**********************************
Domestic use of CCTV systems.
The processing of personal data kept by an individual and concerned solely with the management of his/her personal, family or household affairs or kept by an individual for recreational purposes is exempt from the provisions of the Acts. This exemption would generally apply to the use of CCTVs in a domestic environment. However, the exemption may not apply if the occupant works from home.
**********************************************

I think the garda might have a right to ensure that a person using a camera is adhering to this exemption and unless people stop recording zoomed in portraits and posting them on u tube with impersonal labels of just a investigating garda's face than they will create this right and lose this priviledge.

Presently that is not the case.

6.2 What if I am asked by a law enforcement authority for access to the recordings?

If a law enforcement authority, such as An Garda Síochána, is seeking a recording for a specific investigation, it is up to the data controller to satisfy itself that there is a genuine investigation underway. For practical purposes, in cases of urgency a phone call to the requesting Garda's station may be sufficient, provided that you speak to a member in the District Office, the station sergeant or a higher ranking officer, as all may be assumed to be acting with the authority of a District/Divisional officer in confirming that an investigation is authorised. In all situations, it is advised that the disclosure of such recordings is best handled in response to a formal written communication from the Gardaí indicating that the material is sought for the prevention, investigation or detection of a crime.



http://www.dataprotection.ie/documents/guidance/CCTV.doc



We don't have an authority to film a Garda conducting an investigation, but i suppose you can, although it has to be done fairly and as part of your personal affairs etc...

copperdaz

well said i argee with your post. responsibility lies with the person with the camera to act in a way that is fair and balanced.

copperdaz

o dear looks like your video was pulled from youtube, guess it was illegal after all.....