Minister Shatter and Commissioner Callinan should both resign in disgrace

Call me Al

golfball37 wrote: »

Certainly in light of his comments the time the bugging scandal came to light.

He was outraged that he wasn't notified straight away as we all remember. Presuming that this scandal is even bigger than that why is he not now even more outraged with a/Attorney Gen or b/ His own department

The word he used is "unfortunate"... Considering the drama that we are all seeing unfold today, and the sudden sense if urgency that is being pushed through the media I would think outraged or disturbing would be more appropriate.
I think he's gone by the end of today tbh.

K-9

golfball37 wrote: »

Certainly in light of his comments the time the bugging scandal came to light.

He was outraged that he wasn't notified straight away as we all remember. Presuming that this scandal is even bigger than that why is he not now even more outraged with a/Attorney Gen or b/ His own department

The bugging scandal I could see, it was a confidential report with security risks, and GSOC decided not to go further with it.

This was a pretty high profile court case and GSOC investigation. I know we should never underestimate incompetence but this is stretching it for me.

curioser

aloyisious wrote: »

Does this health warning apply to Merrion Square and Kildare St?

Probably safe enough around there. Sounds like they have decided to knife one or more officials in Justice - a clerk typist can usually be found to scapegoat and is eminently expendable.

norrie rugger

OK so FF were totally corrupt and incompetent
FG are incompetent and allow corruption
Labour are a central populist party and completely ineffective under Gilmore.

SF have a terrorist background that they are (slowly, under Mary-Lou and others) leaving behind (FF and FG also had their birth in blood shed, so it can be left behind). I am beginning to think that they will be a major player, come next GE (or the one after)

joe316

Interesting link just dug up by the Greens (who?)

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=55651&B=&PS=2&PP=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders

Call me Al

joe316 wrote: »

Interesting link just dug up by the Greens (who?)

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=55651&B=&PS=2&PP=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders

Apparently the system was upgraded in 2008. Shatter didnt go into details re what areas, so it could be fairly something innocuous like the 999 phone lines.

Mr.Micro

K-9 wrote: »

It seems bizarre that Shatter wasn't aware of the taped phone calls until this week. The GSOC investigation was reported on at the time, and we're supposed to buy that nobody in the DoJ thought to inform the Minister.

Yes it does seem bizarre. It does not look good for him if that was true. He comes across then, as out of the loop. He does not appear to know much, but quite prepared to brush things under the carpet, when they arise. Shatter appears to be all image but with little substance.

Sierra Oscar

Backbenchers in FG & Labour are starting to concede in private that Shatter must resign.

take everything

norrie rugger wrote: »

OK so FF were totally corrupt and incompetent
FG are incompetent and allow corruption
Labour are a central populist party and completely ineffective under Gilmore.

SF have a terrorist background that they are (slowly, under Mary-Lou and others) leaving behind (FF and FG also had their birth in blood shed, so it can be left behind). I am beginning to think that they will be a major player, come next GE (or the one after)

Eamon Ryan might be Taoiseach yet.

/shudder

mikom

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Backbenchers in FG & Labour are starting to concede in private that Shatter must resign.

Where do you hear this kind of thing?

norrie rugger

take everything wrote: »

Eamon Ryan might be Taoiseach yet.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here;)

keno-daytrader

take everything wrote: »

Eamon Ryan might be Taoiseach yet.

/shudder

Mr fking waffle himself?

Sierra Oscar

mikom wrote: »

Where do you hear this kind of thing?

Doing the rounds from fairly trustworthy sources on twitter.

Although Enda is not a complete idiot, and he has a lot of people advising him. I suspect it could be the case that they need Shatter to hold on until they can properly consult with him to find out what he knows about the crisis, because it seems the rest of the cabinet are completely in the dark.

Woodville56

On Planet Shatter - Emperor Alan lives in his ivory tower, aloof and oblivious to the maelstrom surrounding him. Who'se goin to tell him that the Emperor don't have any clothes any more ? Kenny, Gilmore ??

Garrigai

Surely this mess is pushing Enda closer to the European job

Muahahaha

Enda has been chasing geese since this story began. He is always two or three days behind what is actually going on and he seems to think that his authority as Taoiseach gives him the power to tell everyone all issues have been resolved and that there is nothing to see here.

If Enda doesn't stop chasing geese and get up to speed with the changing dynamic of this scandal he might end up being chased himself. The backbenchers overwhelmingly agree with the position taken up by Varadkar and none of them like the way Shatter looks down his nose at them. If there was a leadership contest right now Leo would be in prime position. Kenny needs to lance the boil because he is looking weaker and weaker by the day

buyersguide044

Seamus Mallon spoke in mullingar on 23rd march 2014 and he had this to say about shatter , just click on the link
http://www.mullingarshowcase.com/#!Historic-Talk-By-Former-Deputy-First-Minister-In-Mullingar/c1000/13A62DB2-D2B3-4678-B128-783FD23E952D

Godge

fr3d12 wrote: »

They still didn't support the whistleblowers though, even if they disagreed with some of the WB's methods, surely they would have recognised the good they did.

Interesting, if it was ok for the whistleblowers to illegally release information (as suggested by the Data Protection Commissioner) for the good they did, it must then have been ok for the gardai to use illegally obtained information to convict criminals for the good that did. The end justifies the means or does it?

Those who supported the whistleblowers should be supporting the illegal taping of phone calls.

All along I have said that there was no reason for Callinan to resign, mainly because I was not clear as to what he had done wrong. I agreed with his criticism of the whistleblower's methods. I was also not convinced that the penalty points issue was a serious issue, while many people were outraged, their sense of outrage related as often to the fact that they didn't get penalty points cancelled either. In addition, there will always be a method for cancelling points, as the report itself said, even if it is only for case of mistaken identity or for genuine cases. However, at all times I reserved the right to change my mind.

Having heard the latest on the telephone tapping, I am glad that he has resigned. Telephone tapping has a long history in Ireland - ask Vincent Browne. Ask Ray MacSharry as well.

I find it incredible that successive governments let this go. The law was made clear in the 1993 Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0010/

This was in response to the bugging controversies that happened around that time. Surely, Maire Geoghegan Quinn, as FF Minister for Justice ensured that this was implemented by the Gardai. If not, did Nora Owen, as her successor in late 1994 not think to check. Later Ministers can be excused as the issue was not fresh in peoples' minds and you would assume that the law had been implemented. Later Garda management cannot be excused as they should have known as they were operating the system of recording calls.

The other thing about this issue is that it is not about penalty points affecting driving licences, it is much more serious than that. It potentially affects criminal convictions already obtained and others in the pipeline.

I know gardai may argue that the 1993 law is unduly restrictive in what it allows and they may well be right in this technological age. However, there is no excuse for ever recording a conversation between a solicitor and the accused.

My name is URL

Godge wrote: »

Those who supported the whistleblowers should be supporting the illegal taping of phone calls.

And the gold medal for mental gymnastics goes to...

mikom

Godge wrote: »

Those who supported the whistleblowers should be supporting the illegal taping of phone calls.

righttttt......

sparkling sea

Godge wrote: »

Interesting, if it was ok for the whistleblowers to illegally release information (as suggested by the Data Protection Commissioner) for the good they did, it must then have been ok for the gardai to use illegally obtained information to convict criminals for the good that did. The end justifies the means or does it?

Those who supported the whistleblowers should be supporting the illegal taping of phone calls.

All along I have said that there was no reason for Callinan to resign, mainly because I was not clear as to what he had done wrong. I agreed with his criticism of the whistleblower's methods. I was also not convinced that the penalty points issue was a serious issue, while many people were outraged, their sense of outrage related as often to the fact that they didn't get penalty points cancelled either. In addition, there will always be a method for cancelling points, as the report itself said, even if it is only for case of mistaken identity or for genuine cases. However, at all times I reserved the right to change my mind.

Having heard the latest on the telephone tapping, I am glad that he has resigned. Telephone tapping has a long history in Ireland - ask Vincent Browne. Ask Ray MacSharry as well.

I find it incredible that successive governments let this go. The law was made clear in the 1993 Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0010/

This was in response to the bugging controversies that happened around that time. Surely, Maire Geoghegan Quinn, as FF Minister for Justice ensured that this was implemented by the Gardai. If not, did Nora Owen, as her successor in late 1994 not think to check. Later Ministers can be excused as the issue was not fresh in peoples' minds and you would assume that the law had been implemented. Later Garda management cannot be excused as they should have known as they were operating the system of recording calls.

The other thing about this issue is that it is not about penalty points affecting driving licences, it is much more serious than that. It potentially affects criminal convictions already obtained and others in the pipeline.

I know gardai may argue that the 1993 law is unduly restrictive in what it allows and they may well be right in this technological age. However, there is no excuse for ever recording a conversation between a solicitor and the accused.

So doing something lawful is the same as doing something unlawful ?

Being a whistle blower is not unlawful, breaching client attorney privilge is by taping calls is!

Not everyone who is accussed of a crime is guilty, anyone who is accussed of a crime is entitled to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, our justice system is based on these rights.

Whistle blowing is drawing attention to unlawful acts

Taping phone calls which directly impact on client and solicitor private privelge is an unlawful act.

What has me abit perplexed is that the phone systems where changed in gardai stations not so long ago, so why did the taping practice continue?

Godge

My name is URL wrote: »

And the gold medal for mental gymnastics goes to...

mikom wrote: »

righttttt......

I repeat my question. Does the end justify the means......or not?

Having it both ways makes you hypocritical.

Godge wrote: »

Interesting, if it was ok for the whistleblowers to illegally release information (as suggested by the Data Protection Commissioner) for the good they did, it must then have been ok for the gardai to use illegally obtained information to convict criminals for the good that did. The end justifies the means or does it?

.

Godge

sparkling sea wrote: »

So doing something lawful is the same as doing something unlawful ?

No, wrong, there was something unlawful both times.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Being a whistle blower is not unlawful, breaching client attorney privilge is by taping calls is!

Correct to the first one, except if it unnecessarily releases personal information. The whistleblowers could have gone to the TDs and said that we are aware of the practice of letting certain people off penalty points including celebrities but we won't give names except to an inquiry because anything else would breach Data Protection Law. But they didn't, they gave the names, in breach of the rights to privacy of those who had their penalty points removed. As they would not have been aware of the reasons for the removal in all of the cases, the names would have included some with a genuine innocent reason for the removal and some not. That means innocent names were blackened.

Correct to the second.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Not everyone who is accussed of a crime is guilty, anyone who is accussed of a crime is entitled to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, our justice system is based on these rights.

Agreed, and that includes anyone who had penalty points removed and who was hung out to dry by whistleblowers and TDs.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Whistle blowing is drawing attention to unlawful acts

Agreed, subject to what I said above, whistleblowing is only lawful so long as it respects the Data Protection Acts. Very easily done, you don't mention names. If the Data Protection Act needs to be changed, change it, but in the meantime, don't break the law.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Taping phone calls which directly impact on client and solicitor private privelge is an unlawful act.

Agreed, but I said that in my post.

sparkling sea wrote: »

What has me abit perplexed is that the phone systems where changed in gardai stations not so long ago, so why did the taping practice continue?

Yes, when they switched from manual to digital, that happened. 2008, was it Brian Lenihan or Dermot Ahern who was Minister?

Floppybits

Godge wrote: »

No, wrong, there was something unlawful both times.



Correct to the first one, except if it unnecessarily releases personal information. The whistleblowers could have gone to the TDs and said that we are aware of the practice of letting certain people off penalty points including celebrities but we won't give names except to an inquiry because anything else would breach Data Protection Law. But they didn't, they gave the names, in breach of the rights to privacy of those who had their penalty points removed. As they would not have been aware of the reasons for the removal in all of the cases, the names would have included some with a genuine innocent reason for the removal and some not. That means innocent names were blackened.

Correct to the second.



Agreed, and that includes anyone who had penalty points removed and who was hung out to dry by whistleblowers and TDs.



Agreed, subject to what I said above, whistleblowing is only lawful so long as it respects the Data Protection Acts. Very easily done, you don't mention names. If the Data Protection Act needs to be changed, change it, but in the meantime, don't break the law.



Agreed, but I said that in my post.



Yes, when they switched from manual to digital, that happened. 2008, was it Brian Lenihan or Dermot Ahern who was Minister?

So when did the Whistle blowers release personal information about those that got off penalty points to the Public?

fr3d12

So now Shatter has apologised and withdrawn his comments from the Dail record it is likely he is safe now.

take everything

Finally a self-serving apology.
Disgusting excuse for a man.

Godge

Floppybits wrote: »

So when did the Whistle blowers release personal information about those that got off penalty points to the Public?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/td-names-judge-as-a-penalty-points-vip-in-controversy-28943707.html

They gave the information to Clare Daly.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0122/499491-penalty-point-allegations/

At least one innocent victim.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/td-to-name-penalty-point-waive-beneficiaries-215769.html

And Mick Wallace got the names from them as well.


It was unnecessary to give the names to the TDs, all that was necessary was to report what happened without names, consequently there was a breach of the Data Protection Act.

Sierra Oscar

Is Godge seriously trying to say that it is OK for certain elements of the Gardai to conduct illegal surveillance of client-legal representative phone conversations (which are meant to be confidential)?

Give it up. You are defending the indefensible, and everyone knows it was wrong. The fallout has already begun in the courts and this could collapse serious investigations.

Irsih Independent - Request for garda phone tapes adjourns IRA trial

LAWYERS for two men charged with IRA membership have sought confirmation as to whether telephone calls made by their clients from garda stations were recorded, in what is understood to be the first court case affected by the garda phone taping revelations.

BBC News: IRA trial adjourned over secret Irish police recordings

Revelations about police phone tapping in the Republic of Ireland have led to the first adjournment of a trial before the criminal courts.

Two men accused of IRA membership have had their trial adjourned "in light of recent events", according to Irish state broadcaster RTÉ.

The Minister cannot be blamed for the conducting of such a surveillance system as we now know it has been going on for years. However there are plenty of question marks surrounding as to why action was not taken immediately when this came to light last year as a result of a court case shedding light on the existence of the recording network. Serious questions remain as to why the Department of Justice did not take action last summer when they were first informed of the potential fallout from all of this, and why the Attorney General did not take action last November.

This situation will likely DAMAGE court prosecutions because the practice was ILLEGAL. It will not progress court cases as you suggest.

Godge

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Is Godge seriously trying to say that it is OK for certain elements of the Gardai to conduct illegal surveillance of client-legal representative phone conversations (which are meant to be confidential)?

.

Absolutely not, I did not say that.

Read my post and withdraw that comment.

What I said was that those revelations made me glad Callinan has resigned.

Floppybits

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/td-names-judge-as-a-penalty-points-vip-in-controversy-28943707.html

They gave the information to Clare Daly.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0122/499491-penalty-point-allegations/

At least one innocent victim.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/td-to-name-penalty-point-waive-beneficiaries-215769.html

And Mick Wallace got the names from them as well.


It was unnecessary to give the names to the TDs, all that was necessary was to report what happened without names, consequently there was a breach of the Data Protection Act.

So the whistle blowers did not release the names to the public, the independant TD's did under Dail Privilege?

Also correct me if I am wrong but whistle blowers are allowed to provide information to member of the dail under the Whistle blower act? Correct or incorrect?

Godge

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Serious questions remain as to why the Department of Justice did not take action last summer when they were first informed of the potential fallout from all of this, and why the Attorney General did not take action last November.

Serious questions remain as to how the government and minister of the day (Maire Geoghegan-Quinn) did not ensure that the 1993 Act was implemented.

Serious questions remain as to how the government and minister of the day (Brian Lenihan/Dermot Ahern) did nothing when the phone system was upgraded and the tender went out in 2008.

Sierra Oscar

Godge wrote: »

Serious questions remain as to how the government and minister of the day (Maire Geoghegan-Quinn) did not ensure that the 1993 Act was implemented.

Serious questions remain as to how the government and minister of the day (Brian Lenihan/Dermot Ahern) did nothing when the phone system was upgraded and the tender went out in 2008.

Do you have evidence to suggest that the issue of illegal recording was brought to the attention of the Department of Justice prior to last summer? If so, I suggest you bring it forward as many many people would be interested in seeing it.

Godge

Floppybits wrote: »

So the whistle blowers did not release the names to the public, the independant TD's did under Dail Privilege?

Also correct me if I am wrong but whistle blowers are allowed to provide information to member of the dail under the Whistle blower act? Correct or incorrect?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0020/sec0062.html#sec62



You need to read Section 62 of the Act very carefully. Firstly, section 1 prohibits the release of information that

"(h) results in the publication of personal information and constitutes an unwarranted and serious infringement of a person’s right to privacy,"

An exception to this is the following:

" a member of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas where relevant to the proper discharge of the member’s functions,"


I have no problem with the whistleblowers releasing information to the Dail member that a judge or a sportsman (without naming them) has had penalty points waived in breach of guidelines. Where I have a problem is with the release of the actual name. The actual name is not relevant to the proper discharge of the member's functions.

An important distinction and an important bit of how the whistleblowers broke the law. All of those people named can sue the State now, especially if they were mistakenly identified, as we appear to know from one case.

Godge

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Do you have evidence to suggest that the issue of illegal recording was brought to the attention of the Department of Justice prior to last summer? If so, I suggest you bring it forward as many many people would be interested in seeing it.

It was the reason for the 1993 Act, the bugging of journalists under successive government by the gardai including Vincent Browne and others. Do you know any history on this issue?

Are you going to withdraw your unfounded comment?

Sierra Oscar

Godge wrote: »

It was the reason for the 1993 Act, the bugging of journalists under successive government by the gardai including Vincent Browne and others. Do you know any history on this issue?

Are you going to withdraw your unfounded comment?

Again, do you have evidence to suggest that the Department of Justice was aware of these recordings and the potential knock on effect that it could have on court cases before the GSOC report last summer?

And no I will not. I asked a question, thankfully you now seem to realize that it is totally unacceptable to tape private phone conversations where not even one party has given consent for the recording to take place as is the requirement in law. I am glad you clarified that, because it seemed you were OK with it before I made my post.

flutered

to me here is the most important facts, i am open to correction.

the garda commisioner sent a letter by curiour to the dept of justice, this arrived at its destination five days before the minister left for mexico
the minister arrived home on a friday
he has said the he did not see it until monday lunchtime,
he has said that he did not have time to read it until monday afternoon
there are a few querys which i cannot ever seen answered
first how come the minister did not recieve a letter sent by curiour within the five day timeframe
second who had the letter
third who decided that the letter did not need the ministers attention
fourth why did not the minister recieve the letter over the weekend after he came back
lastly how come the minister did not look at a curioured letter which lay waiting for a long time from an associate after recieving it
another thought why did the ag refuse to speak on the fone to the leader of my country, her boss, if anyone here got a call from their boss and refused to speak with them on the fone they would be ex employees.

constance tench

Maire Farrell: Why I lied about Ian Baily [Transcript]

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/03/07/marie-farrell-why-i-lied-about-ian-bailey-transcript/

holyhead

Apparently Shatter has apologized for the hurt his remarks "may have caused". Kindly try again Alan and this time it should read "I caused".

Sierra Oscar

constance tench wrote: »

Maire Farrell: Why I lied about Ian Baily [Transcript]

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/03/07/marie-farrell-why-i-lied-about-ian-bailey-transcript/

Indeed, and keep in mind the Ian Bailey case has been linked to the GSOC bugging allegations in some quarters. You can be sure that we will hear much more about that case in the coming days.

The below article is from last November (when the Garda Commissioner wrote to the Attorney General specifically to raise this issue) and relates to the Bailey case.

RTÉ News - New material in Ian Bailey High Court case

The High Court has been told new material has come to light in proceedings taken by Ian Bailey against the Garda Commissioner for wrongful arrest and personal injuries.

...

He is seeking documents from the State to support his case against the gardaí.

The High Court made orders earlier this year directing the State to hand over certain documents.

The court was told today that there has been a delay in handing over some documents.

Senior Counsel Paul O'Higgins said that the State was now in a position to allow around 16,000 documents to be inspected by lawyers for Mr Bailey.

However, he said there was a difficulty with some data which was in electronic form.

He said certain fresh and unexpected material had come up in relation to matters such as phone traffic.

However, he said this material was in an old, obsolete and fragile electronic format and was proving difficult to "unscramble".

He said gardaí had called in technical experts from within the force and from abroad to allow the material to be produced to Mr Bailey's side.

He said he had been told this would take three to four months.

Lawyers for Mr Bailey said they were concerned that they would be told in three or four months that there would be a further delay in producing the material.

One wonders if the new evidence was ever going to be handed over if the Taoiseach had not blown the lid on the whole scandal yesterday, and one has to wonder if this prompted the Garda Commissioner to resign considering he likely knew the fallout that would follow. We now know that the Taoiseach sent an official to the Commissioner on Monday night to inform him the action that the government was about to take.

In some ways I feel sorry for Shatter and the government. I think it is clear that profound efforts have been made over the years to stop this coming to light. However he should really have taken action last summer after the GSOC report considering the huge repercussions this could all have.

Godge

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

And no I will not. I asked a question, thankfully you now seem to realize that it is totally unacceptable to tape private phone conversations where not even one party has given consent for the recording to take place as is the requirement in law. I am glad you clarified that, because it seemed you were OK with it before I made my post.

I will ask you one more time - withdraw and apologise.

Godge wrote: »

Having heard the latest on the telephone tapping, I am glad that he has resigned. Telephone tapping has a long history in Ireland - ask Vincent Browne. Ask Ray MacSharry as well.

I find it incredible that successive governments let this go. The law was made clear in the 1993 Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0010/

This was in response to the bugging controversies that happened around that time. Surely, Maire Geoghegan Quinn, as FF Minister for Justice ensured that this was implemented by the Gardai. If not, did Nora Owen, as her successor in late 1994 not think to check. Later Ministers can be excused as the issue was not fresh in peoples' minds and you would assume that the law had been implemented. Later Garda management cannot be excused as they should have known as they were operating the system of recording calls.

The other thing about this issue is that it is not about penalty points affecting driving licences, it is much more serious than that. It potentially affects criminal convictions already obtained and others in the pipeline.

I know gardai may argue that the 1993 law is unduly restrictive in what it allows and they may well be right in this technological age. However, there is no excuse for ever recording a conversation between a solicitor and the accused.

fr3d12

Godge wrote: »

I will ask you one more time - withdraw and apologise.

Get over yourself.
Anytime anyone on this thread suggested Shatter and Callinan apologise to the WB's you had a different opinion on it.

Sierra Oscar

Godge wrote: »

I will ask you one more time - withdraw and apologise.

I don't want to get into a side argument with you, I have told you how your post on the issue came across to me.

Godge wrote: »

Interesting, if it was ok for the whistleblowers to illegally release information (as suggested by the Data Protection Commissioner) for the good they did, it must then have been ok for the gardai to use illegally obtained information to convict criminals for the good that did. The end justifies the means or does it?

To me that came across as trying to minimize the extent of the latest revelations. I would be surprised if I was the only person who got that impression. If I was wrong I withdraw the comment - in fact I will go even further and apologize.

Note that I asked a question in my post, and I am glad that you have answered me by reiterating that it is not OK to record client / solicitor phone conversations.

JP Liz V1

Shatter should follow Callinan and resign

Godge

fr3d12 wrote: »

Get over yourself.
Anytime anyone on this thread suggested Shatter and Callinan apologise to the WB's you had a different opinion on it.

Yes, because the whistleblowers broke the law. They gave personal information to the TDs which was unnecessary and in some cases inaccurate. There was no need to give the personal information, it was enough to report what had happened without giving names. It seems nobody around here has a clue about data protection issues. Any exemption to the Data Protection Act, including ones in the Garda Act, are governed by the European Directives which means the release of the personal information must be directly necessary for the purpose it is being released. It was not in this case. I can't be bothered digging out all of the Directives but it is not ok to just go around releasing personal information.

The whistleblowers were right to blow the whistle, wrong to release personal information.

Godge

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I don't want to get into a side argument with you, I have told you how your post on the issue came across to me.



To me that came across as trying to minimize the extent of the latest revelations. I would be surprised if I was the only person who got that impression. If I was wrong I withdraw the comment - in fact I will go even further and apologize.

Note that I asked a question in my post, and I am glad that you have answered me by reiterating that it is not OK to record client / solicitor phone conversations.

You are shifting the goalposts like a FF Minister in full flow. This is what you said.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Is Godge seriously trying to say that it is OK for certain elements of the Gardai to conduct illegal surveillance of client-legal representative phone conversations (which are meant to be confidential)?

.

This is the last line of my post which I wrote well before yours. You had no basis to make that statement. I am going to leave it there.

Godge wrote: »

. However, there is no excuse for ever recording a conversation between a solicitor and the accused.

fr3d12

Godge wrote: »

Yes, because the whistleblowers broke the law. They gave personal information to the TDs which was unnecessary and in some cases inaccurate. There was no need to give the personal information, it was enough to report what had happened without giving names. It seems nobody around here has a clue about data protection issues. Any exemption to the Data Protection Act, including ones in the Garda Act, are governed by the European Directives which means the release of the personal information must be directly necessary for the purpose it is being released. It was not in this case. I can't be bothered digging out all of the Directives but it is not ok to just go around releasing personal information.

The whistleblowers were right to blow the whistle, wrong to release personal information.

What about the young lady who's information was accessed over 80 times on the PULSE system by Gardai?
What about Shatter smearing Mick Wallace on primetime with highly sensitive information?

Godge

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Do you have evidence to suggest that the issue of illegal recording was brought to the attention of the Department of Justice prior to last summer? If so, I suggest you bring it forward as many many people would be interested in seeing it.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=55651&B=&PS=2&PP=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders


It was staring them in the face in 2008.

charlie14

Godge wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0020/sec0062.html#sec62



You need to read Section 62 of the Act very carefully. Firstly, section 1 prohibits the release of information that

"(h) results in the publication of personal information and constitutes an unwarranted and serious infringement of a person’s right to privacy,"

An exception to this is the following:

" a member of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas where relevant to the proper discharge of the member’s functions,"


I have no problem with the whistleblowers releasing information to the Dail member that a judge or a sportsman (without naming them) has had penalty points waived in breach of guidelines. Where I have a problem is with the release of the actual name. The actual name is not relevant to the proper discharge of the member's functions.

An important distinction and an important bit of how the whistleblowers broke the law. All of those people named can sue the State now, especially if they were mistakenly identified, as we appear to know from one case.

I don`t know if Specsavers have an answer to it, but your vision cannot distinguish the wood from the tree.
The whistleblowers were proven right, and in all probability their bravery in coming forward and doing what they did, will save future lives.
For me, and I suspect a large number of the general public, this fact is of a greater deal of importance than some pie in the sky waffle about data protection.
So just for a minute could you leave that tree alone and have a think about the woods where we have had these two brave men demonised by Callinan who hadn`t even the decency to apologise, Shatter who only now does it to try and save his own neck, and Kenny who backed them both to the hilt when the dogs in the street knew it was wrong. And lets not forget O Mahoney`s whitewash report. Another attempt at blackening their names, plus the abuse they both suffer from their so called brothers in arms, who, unless they are entirely unfit for purpose in their jobs, knew they were right, yet ostracised them.
Surely if anyone should be suing this state it`s Wilson and Mc Cabe.

Going Forward

Godge wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0020/sec0062.html#sec62



You need to read Section 62 of the Act very carefully. Firstly, section 1 prohibits the release of information that

"(h) results in the publication of personal information and constitutes an unwarranted and serious infringement of a person’s right to privacy,"

An exception to this is the following:

" a member of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas where relevant to the proper discharge of the member’s functions,"


I have no problem with the whistleblowers releasing information to the Dail member that a judge or a sportsman (without naming them) has had penalty points waived in breach of guidelines. Where I have a problem is with the release of the actual name. The actual name is not relevant to the proper discharge of the member's functions.

An important distinction and an important bit of how the whistleblowers broke the law. All of those people named can sue the State now, especially if they were mistakenly identified, as we appear to know from one case.

It would be useful to hear an explanation from
those people who sought to pervert the points system with preferential treatment because of their status, whether that be judge, celebrity, or indeed anyone with the necessary Garda contacts at their disposal.

The published guidelines for those who believe they have had points applied in error is here:

http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=35

Worth a read.
Spurious excuses are not catered for, in theory.

Godge

Going Forward wrote: »

It would be useful to hear an explanation from
those people who sought to pervert the points system with preferential treatment because of their status, whether that be judge, celebrity, or indeed anyone with the necessary Garda contacts at their disposal.

The published guidelines for those who believe they have had points applied in error is here:

http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=35

Worth a read.
Spurious excuses are not catered for, in theory.

That is a list of frequently asked questions.

That doesn't cover every genuine situation.

e.g. I was driving to the hospital, my wife was having a baby but I was only slightly over the speed limit (birth cert as proof)

I could go on but there are no doubt other genuine reasons not covered by the FAQ that will be excused.

Some of the people who had points waived didn't even know and their names were handed out.