The great Garret Byrne DOJ faux paus

eddieo1

In what can only be described as one of the greatest OWN GOALS of the 21st century it was with some sense of satisfaction that I read the attached.

My own personal opinions aside but what can only be described as spiteful, Mr Byrne reported 2 Gardai Officers for daring to critizise him. Can someone correct me here but are people like Mr Byrne supposed to be able to take criticism. From what I believe the contents of the correspondence are EXPLOSIVE!!!!!!. The Sunday Times article on page 2 was only done after the paper appealed the decision of the DOJ to refuse to hand it over. The DOJ is currently facing according to the article over 200 JR's. I believe its a legitimate question to ask and Im sure the moderators here will realize it but how many of these JR's being taken by shooters are as a direct result of the decisions made by Garret Byrne. It would appear to many that certain individuals in the DOJ are acting with their own agenda in mind.

The original FCP was lead by Byrne like a bull around the ring and despiite many conversations on this board many refused to believe it. Well here is at least some proof that people 2 law abiding cops can face disciplinary action caused by Mr Byrne. Personal opinions aside he should step aside now because I for one dont believe his position on the talks is now tenable.

Sparks

eddieo1 wrote: »

Mr Byrne reported 2 Gardai Officers for daring to critizise him. Can someone correct me here but are people like Mr Byrne supposed to be able to take criticism.

Sure, I can correct you. You're blaming him for being caught in a pissing contest between the Minister and the Commissioner.

how many of these JR's being taken by shooters are as a direct result of the decisions made by Garret Byrne.

None.
Seriously, not one.
The refusals come from the Gardai - the Department doesn't have the authority to tell them what to do (thanks to us - ie. shooters - by the way, through the Dunne case), and there's been a longstanding division between successive Commissioners and Ministers going back many years. On top of that, the Department's civil servants are required to do what the Minister tells them to do; they don't have freedom to act on their own agendas, no matter what you might see on Yes, Minister.

The original FCP was lead by Byrne like a bull around the ring

There's bull in there allright, but I think it's in what you've been told.

Well here is at least some proof that people 2 law abiding cops can face disciplinary action caused by Mr Byrne.

No, here's some proof that two garda officers applied for firearms licences and then criticised the Minister publicly when they were refused, and then a civil servant whose responsibility it is to do what the Minister demands wrote an official memo to the Commissioner (an office that's had a low-level poking match going on with the Minister's office since at least Michael McDowell, something that's not escaped public comment in the press) asking if these lads were making their complaint as Gardai or as members of the public.

In case you need some more context, remember this - we have a word for when the police force in a nation starts shouting at the civilian government. The word is sedition. That's why there are long-standing and heavily enforced rules against members of the Gardai making public statements on political matters - ask anyone over on the Emergency Services forum what'd happen if they stood up on RTE, for example, and said that speed limits were a stupid idea and the Minister was wrong to not get rid of them. Because I'll be the answer would be something along the lines of that garda's feet not touching the ground till his unemployed bottom hit the pavement.

Personal opinions aside he should step aside now because I for one dont believe his position on the talks is now tenable.

First off, your opinion, or mine, are not exactly germane - for a start, there are no "talks". There's us being allowed to talk to the DoJ via the FCP which the DoJ own and run and always have. We have nothing to offer them that they don't already have. So all we've ever been able to do is to try to blunt the worst of what could have hit us. And some of the things that could have hit us have been truly appalling - and don't forget, as we recently learnt, not all of those things were made up by the department or the Minister, several were made up by other target shooters.

Secondly, you need to manage your expectations. The FCP is the best thing we've ever had in the whole political side of the sport; but that doesn't mean it's very much really. It's certainly not a veto over a sitting Minister. There aren't any votes, and no policy decisions are made at the table - it's a Consultation Panel. Certain shouty people have said it should let us demand things from the Minister and not let him "get away" with things; those certain people need their heads examined to see if there's any trace of knowledge of how the real world works in there, and frankly, listening to them is a waste of your time.

Grizzly 45

With this sort of carry on ,you can see why these kind of people in charge in the "permanent govt" are sooo leery of the FOIA act,and fight tooth and nail to reveal their secrets.

There will be more to follow soon no doubt. But trying to get rid of the "permanent Govt" is alot more difficult than politicans.:(

On top of that, the Department's civil servants are required to do what the Minister tells them to do; they don't have freedom to act on their own agendas, no matter what you might see on Yes, Minister.

Would that include asking very personal questions and information about a shooter gleaned off boards.ie?? Including his profession,previous life, political views etc??When he was being interrogated about his application for a firearms dealers application??Why would a minister be intrested in somthing like that if a senior Civ Servant hasnt the authorithy to ask such??

As for sedition [or close to it].Didnt you say once yourself Sparks that the Garda guidelins on the FAO were close to sedition??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Would that include asking very personal questions and information about a shooter gleaned off boards.ie?? Including his profession,previous life, political views etc??When he was being interrogated about his application for a firearms dealers application??Why would a minister be intrested in somthing like that if a senior Civ Servant hasnt the authorithy to ask such??

You'd have to give more information than I think is wise online to answer that better, but from what you've said so far, no, that wouldn't be a Minister's direct demand (I don't think he'd be interested in an individual case except in odd circumstances) but it would be their job under the Act given the nature of the application and the previous stated policy of the Minister to eliminate "recreational" RFDs (ie. the lads who get an RFD licence to save money buying in shotgun shells by the pallet but who've no intention whatsoever of setting up as an RFD).

I'd also point out that the RFDs have individual representation in the FCP and it's to them you should be asking that kind of question as they'd be the ones best place to answer it, and protest it if necessary; but given the massive changes in the RFD licences in the last few years (it's not just our own licences that have gotten harder to get), I don't think they'd think it was terribly unusual.

As for sedition [or close to it].Didnt you say once yourself Sparks that the Garda guidelins on the FAO were close to sedition??

Yes, I did. The commissioner wrote that document, and that's why I thought it was worth commenting on that he was writing advice based on a contested minority opinion in the high court. He not only shouldn't have done so, it was a massive line to cross. What happened to those two gardai above should have happened to the commissioner for that, in my ever-so-humble opinion. Just because he appears to have gotten away with it doesn't mean that it was right or that all gardai should be able to do so.

Mr Mole

Sparks, the primary matter here is that the letters were sent to the Commissioner in November 2008, not as a result of two Gardai being refused licences, but as a result of the Ministers announcements of 19th November same year.

You are displaying quite an innocence in believing that things are done in the manner they are supposed to be done, but it isnt so in the real world. You might like it to be so, and want to believe it to be so, but it isnt so.

As one who wrote to the Minister and others in Nov 2008, the period referred to in the article, both as a serving member of An Garda Siochana and also in my capacity of a private citizen, I am gravely concerned at this media report.

I wonder if a Member of An Garda Siochana had lobbied a Minister or Department regarding proposals to raise fees for further education, introduce water charges, raise motor tax, cut childrens allowance etc, would the Principle Officer of that Department report the member to the Garda Commissioner for interfering with the political process? I vaguely understood that a Democracy permitted consultation with elected persons and their servants. I also recall that I am still awaiting a reply to my letter of Nov 2008.

The Information Commissioners have written to me recently with copy of my letter and for my approval for its release.

If this report is true, then words alone dont describe my feelings on its content.

I truely hope that new Government reforms will eventually take the authority away from mandarins with self serving agendas.

I truely hope that you as a Moderator will permit people to have opinions and commentaries here without constantly correcting them. Already your response has fragmented the comments of the thread starter into issues totally unconnected.

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

Sparks, the primary matter here is that the letters were sent to the Commissioner in November 2008, not as a result of two Gardai being refused licences, but as a result of the Ministers announcements of 19th November same year.

No, the primary matter is whether serving garda officers took part in a political protest as serving garda officers. Frankly, if you are admitting to doing so here, you are saying you did something I can't ever condone. The police and army do not have a right to do that kind of thing, because they have special roles in society. That's the whole point of them and of due process and the whole setup. It's also why we have limits to what we can do expressed in law and abided by by the vast majority of us. It's that whole "moral authority" thing.

Or, to put it another way, why the hell should I ever listen to a Garda or ever obey any law if the Gardai don't have to obey any rules they don't like?

You are displaying quite an innocence in believing that things are done in the manner they are supposed to be done, but it isnt so in the real world.

It's not innocence, it's just the law, and for an ex-Garda to come out with dross like that really does speak volumes to the problems we have in this country.

I wonder if a Member of An Garda Siochana had lobbied a Minister or Department regarding proposals to raise fees for further education, introduce water charges, raise motor tax, cut childrens allowance etc, would the Principle Officer of that Department report the member to the Garda Commissioner for interfering with the political process?

Yes.
You'd find that few Ministers take kindly to the Gardai getting into politics in the same way that few hens take kindly to the fox getting into the henhouse.

I vaguely understood that a Democracy permitted consultation with elected persons and their servants.

Vague would appear to have been the accurate term.

I truely hope that you as a Moderator will permit people to have opinions and commentaries here without constantly correcting them. Already your response has fragmented the comments of the thread starter into issues totally unconnected.

You publicly admit to breaking garda rules, complain that you might get in trouble for breaking those rules as though there wasn't a good reason to having those rules, and then you demand that I not have opinions, but let others express theirs without comment or correction.

Do you not get whiplash from that much irony?

Mr Mole

Sparks, I find your comments ignorant and offensive. Your accusations of my breaking rules is repugnant and I will report your post.

Maybe you can use "put down" on others, but it wont work with me. Your reply will be seen by all for what it is. To use your own word, dross.

Please seek some treatment or councelling for that problem of yours, having to be right and having the last word.

Sparks

You just said yourself that you wrote off to the Ministers as a serving garda officer to protest official policy. The rules say you can't do that; you did that; you just admitted to it in public. I didn't accuse you of a darn thing other than being immune to irony. What the heck else is there to say?

Sparks

I'm closing this temporarily pending review by an Admin.