Minister Shatter and Commissioner Callinan should both resign in disgrace

sopretty

constance tench wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/taoiseach-calls-between-inmates-and-solicitors-inadvertently-recorded-626652.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

I think that was going to be an inevitable disclosure.

constance tench

sopretty wrote: »

I think that was going to be an inevitable disclosure.

''The Prison Service informed the Government of the issue today and is now compiling a report for the Minister for Justice.''

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0401/606016-prison-service-recordings/

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/profile-l-brian-purcell-30130433.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/prison-authorities-admit-calls-between-84-prisoners-and-their-lawyers-were-accidentally-taped-30145660.html

Mr.Micro

constance tench wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/taoiseach-calls-between-inmates-and-solicitors-inadvertently-recorded-626652.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Truly shocking for a so called democratic country. Next they will be saying the monitoring system was inadvertently put in as well. Just not acceptable.

sopretty

constance tench wrote: »

''The Prison Service informed the Government of the issue today and is now compiling a report for the Minister for Justice.''

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0401/606016-prison-service-recordings/
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/profile-l-brian-purcell-30130433.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/prison-authorities-admit-calls-between-84-prisoners-and-their-lawyers-were-accidentally-taped-30145660.html

I used to speak to a particular prisoner on the phone and would hear the phone ticking. Often wondered whether the calls were being tapped.

Sierra Oscar

sopretty wrote: »

I used to speak to a particular prisoner on the phone and would hear the phone ticking. Often wondered whether the calls were being tapped.

All prisoner phonecalls are routinely recorded, but when they are speaking to a nominated legal representative then they are meant to be using a secure line that is not recorded.

sopretty

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

All prisoner phonecalls are routinely recorded, but when they are speaking to a nominated legal representative then they are meant to be using a secure line that is not recorded.

This would have been calls to a nominated solicitor (I was the secretary). At one point, I heard the clicking sound on my own mobile for a week or so. Paranoid maybe, but the prisoner, the solicitor and myself, suspected all along that the calls were being recorded.

Rawhead

When you enter prison you are allowed nominate 6 people that are placed on your phonecard. The 1st number is for legal representation and isn't recorded. What happened in this case is that someone placed the solicitors numbers on the system in the wrong order. I believe it happened in one prison, about 80 people where involved and it was human error.
This might not be what people want to hear but I believe it's what happened.

constance tench

Minister for Justice Alan Dukes 6th November 1986...

... Recently, I signed a major contract for a computerised command and control system which will act as an essential backup to the new radio system. It will be installed in the new DMA control room [1633] which is now being fitted out.

The new command and control system will ensure that all incoming calls from the public, particularly 999 calls, get the necessary Garda response with the utmost speed. All messages passing through the system will be recorded so as to be available in case of any follow-up inquiry.

The system will also provide valuable management information to senior Garda officers regarding, for example, the time taken to respond to calls for assistance or the pattern of crimes being experienced in particular areas at particular times so that it will allow for better planning of the use of Garda manpower and other resources.

While on the subject, I want to make one further point about this command and control system. Contrary to what has been suggested by certain media commentators, the new computerised system will not in any way infringe on the civil liberties or the privacy of individuals.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1986110600006?opendocument

sopretty

Rawhead wrote: »

When you enter prison you are allowed nominate 6 people that are placed on your phonecard. The 1st number is for legal representation and isn't recorded. What happened in this case is that someone placed the solicitors numbers on the system in the wrong order. I believe it happened in one prison, about 80 people where involved and it was human error.
This might not be what people want to hear but I believe it's what happened.

Which prison? Or do I need to ask?

Rawhead

sopretty wrote: »

Which prison? Or do I need to ask?

Does it matter?

sopretty

Rawhead wrote: »

Does it matter?

Well yes, it does matter to me.

JRant

Rawhead wrote: »

When you enter prison you are allowed nominate 6 people that are placed on your phonecard. The 1st number is for legal representation and isn't recorded. What happened in this case is that someone placed the solicitors numbers on the system in the wrong order. I believe it happened in one prison, about 80 people where involved and it was human error.
This might not be what people want to hear but I believe it's what happened.

Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law though.

Red Nissan

JRant wrote: »

Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law though.

I don't think that is applicable in this sort of scenario.

One has a system, place solicitor in number one slot and the rest in the remaining slots.

Prisoner puts mum in the first slot, wife in the next slot and baby daughter in the slot after that, then his mate Jimbo and finally his solicitor Mr Getofflightly.

Mum and the number supplied is but on the secure channel or non bugged line. ????? Who's at fault then?

Rawhead

JRant wrote: »

Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law though.

I agree. I think people shouldn't confuse incompetence and bad practise with something sinister though. I believe the GSOC bugging, the whistleblower intimidation and the Bailey case are sinister, I do not however think the phone taping in either AGS or IPS is.
I think the government deciding all of a sudden to launch inquiries into the taping actually proves this, it gives the impression of doing something but in reality all it will discover is bad practise. No one with a proper understanding of the security services is taking much interest in the phone taping (not withstanding some "legal professionals" who probably wouldn't want their true relationships with the criminal fraternity exposed).It was a diversion away from Shatter.
The deep reluctance to launch probes into the GSOC bugging in particular speaks volumes, that is where the smoking gun lies.

JRant

Red Nissan wrote: »

I don't think that is applicable in this sort of scenario.

One has a system, place solicitor in number one slot and the rest in the remaining slots.

Prisoner puts mum in the first slot, wife in the next slot and baby daughter in the slot after that, then his mate Jimbo and finally his solicitor Mr Getofflightly.

Mum and the number supplied is but on the secure channel or non bugged line. ????? Who's at fault then?

So there's no checks made on the assigned numbers??
Sure what's to stop them putting an outside accomplice's number in the No 1 slot then. It's just not credible to suggest the phone numbers are not checked prior to use.

So who's at fault?
The answer is clearly the prison service.

Sand

Rawhead wrote: »

I agree. I think people shouldn't confuse incompetence and bad practise with something sinister though. I believe the GSOC bugging, the whistleblower intimidation and the Bailey case are sinister, I do not however think the phone taping in either AGS or IPS is.
I think the government deciding all of a sudden to launch inquiries into the taping actually proves this, it gives the impression of doing something but in reality all it will discover is bad practise. No one with a proper understanding of the security services is taking much interest in the phone taping (not withstanding some "legal professionals" who probably wouldn't want their true relationships with the criminal fraternity exposed).It was a diversion away from Shatter.
The deep reluctance to launch probes into the GSOC bugging in particular speaks volumes, that is where the smoking gun lies.

I agree with the overall point, but it has to be acknowledged that given the vast scale of the "bad practise" it has gone beyond an accident, one or two bad eggs or an oversight to be corrected by training.

sopretty

Red Nissan wrote: »

I don't think that is applicable in this sort of scenario.

One has a system, place solicitor in number one slot and the rest in the remaining slots.

Prisoner puts mum in the first slot, wife in the next slot and baby daughter in the slot after that, then his mate Jimbo and finally his solicitor Mr Getofflightly.

Mum and the number supplied is but on the secure channel or non bugged line. ????? Who's at fault then?

Nonsense.

Red Nissan

JRant wrote: »

So there's no checks made on the assigned numbers?? Sure what's to stop them putting an outside accomplice's number in the No 1 slot then. .

Exactly, its been found that inmate can seemingly continue to run their business from a phone in the prison. If the numbers are not adequately checked, anything can happen.

And probably has.

JRant

Rawhead wrote: »

I agree. I think people shouldn't confuse incompetence and bad practise with something sinister though. I believe the GSOC bugging, the whistleblower intimidation and the Bailey case are sinister, I do not however think the phone taping in either AGS or IPS is.
I think the government deciding all of a sudden to launch inquiries into the taping actually proves this, it gives the impression of doing something but in reality all it will discover is bad practise. No one with a proper understanding of the security services is taking much interest in the phone taping (not withstanding some "legal professionals" who probably wouldn't want their true relationships with the criminal fraternity exposed).It was a diversion away from Shatter.
The deep reluctance to launch probes into the GSOC bugging in particular speaks volumes, that is where the smoking gun lies.

You may be correct as we don't know enough of the facts yet.

The problem lies in all this happening at the same time. Once is unfortunate, twice is careless but we're up to 3/4 seperate incidents. Now it's either the greatest coincidence in the history of the State or there has been wide spreading bugging in operation by those charged with upholding the constitution.

IMHO this has far greater potential implications than the mess Shatter is in.

fr3d12

Red Nissan wrote: »

I don't think that is applicable in this sort of scenario.

One has a system, place solicitor in number one slot and the rest in the remaining slots.

Prisoner puts mum in the first slot, wife in the next slot and baby daughter in the slot after that, then his mate Jimbo and finally his solicitor Mr Getofflightly.

Mum and the number supplied is but on the secure channel or non bugged line. ????? Who's at fault then?

Unless there was a warning on the card stating that slot one was strictly for a solicitor and the rest for family/friends then it is the fault of the prison service.
I find it hard to believe that with the potentially serious implications of eavesdropping intentional or otherwise the prison service would not have a system in place to ensure that solicitor and client privacy is not compromised.
I don't doubt that is probably just an oversight or whatever but the inmates cannot be blamed for errors made by the very well paid administrators.

Rawhead

JRant wrote: »

So there's no checks made on the assigned numbers??
Sure what's to stop them putting an outside accomplice's number in the No 1 slot then. It's just not credible to suggest the phone numbers are not checked prior to use.

So who's at fault?
The answer is clearly the prison service.

The numbers were checked, they were placed in the wrong order or in some cases if the prisoner had more than 1 legal representative they were placed in slot 2 or 3 thus they got recorded.
It does not excuse what happened, it just explains what happened. I mentioned it before, sometimes human error and incompetence can be confused with something sinister. The clearest indication of this is the way Kenny and Co are dealing with it, making announcements in the Dail and demanding reports etc. Contrast this with the way they reacted to the GSOC, penalty points, Bailey, Boylan cases.

sopretty

fr3d12 wrote: »

Unless there was a warning on the card stating that slot one was strictly for a solicitor and the rest for family/friends then it is the fault of the prison service.
I find it hard to believe that with the potentially serious implications of eavesdropping intentional or otherwise the prison service would not have a system in place to ensure that solicitor and client privacy is not compromised.
I don't doubt that is probably just an oversight or whatever but the inmates cannot be blamed for errors made by the very well paid administrators.

I think you'd be very naive to believe this was just another oversight.

JRant

Red Nissan wrote: »

Exactly, its been found that inmate can seemingly continue to run their business from a phone in the prison. If the numbers are not adequately checked, anything can happen.

And probably has.

Using mobiles to do it though. A number of high profile inmates have been caught with them.

Rawhead

fr3d12 wrote: »

Unless there was a warning on the card stating that slot one was strictly for a solicitor and the rest for family/friends then it is the fault of the prison service.
I find it hard to believe that with the potentially serious implications of eavesdropping intentional or otherwise the prison service would not have a system in place to ensure that solicitor and client privacy is not compromised.
I don't doubt that is probably just an oversight or whatever but the inmates cannot be blamed for errors made by the very well paid administrators.

The system is only as good as the person inputting the details. It happened in 1 institution and given the numbers involved could easily have happened in a few days. It didn't happen across the whole system, it didn't go on for months/years so it points to a person making a mistake more than a orchestrated operation.
When politicians start acting statesman like and showing a commitment to getting to the bottom of things, they usually know what they will find before they start looking.
I don't think anyone is blaming the prisoners for this by the way.

JRant

Rawhead wrote: »

The numbers were checked, they were placed in the wrong order or in some cases if the prisoner had more than 1 legal representative they were placed in slot 2 or 3 thus they got recorded.
It does not excuse what happened, it just explains what happened. I mentioned it before, sometimes human error and incompetence can be confused with something sinister. The clearest indication of this is the way Kenny and Co are dealing with it, making announcements in the Dail and demanding reports etc. Contrast this with the way they reacted to the GSOC, penalty points, Bailey, Boylan cases.

Absolutely but when this 'error and incompetence' is happening at such an alarming rate across multiple agencies then the more serious wuestions must absolutely be asked.

I'm not suggesting that there are any sinister motivations behind this as we just don't know enough yet. What I can say is that these incidents, when taken as a whole, are very worrying and serious questions need to be answered.

Sand

Rawhead wrote: »

I mentioned it before, sometimes human error and incompetence can be confused with something sinister. The clearest indication of this is the way Kenny and Co are dealing with it, making announcements in the Dail and demanding reports etc. Contrast this with the way they reacted to the GSOC, penalty points, Bailey, Boylan cases.

Don't you consider that the political winds have shifted since then with Kenny and Co adjusting their sails to match? You're assuming some fecking eejit whose been a professional TD all his life is somehow more clued up and canny than the Gardai who were carrying out the bugging themselves.

Rawhead

sopretty wrote: »

I think you'd be very naive to believe this was just another oversight.

I actually typed a long reply to your post but I think I'm wasting my time, with all that is going on most people are convinced that sinister forces are behind everything that happens these days and I can't blame them.
In this case however I actually have a very good idea what happened and its not what most people think. I suppose it's sad reflection of the trust people have in the state when old fashioned stupidity gets confused with dark deeds.

sopretty

Rawhead wrote: »

I actually typed a long reply to your post but I think I'm wasting my time, with all that is going on most people are convinced that sinister forces are behind everything that happens these days and I can't blame them.
In this case however I actually have a very good idea what happened and its not what most people think. I suppose it's sad reflection of the trust people have in the state when old fashioned stupidity gets confused with dark deeds.

Put it this way. I never heard the clicking on any phonecalls to any other prisoner. I'm telling you, this sh*t be happenin!!!!

My name is URL

Some crap coming up on Prime Time about how thousands of people were incorrectly issued with speeding fines. I say crap because it's obviously going to draw attention away from other more important issues.. and people have always known that a margin of error exists =/

I'm an awfully cynical cnut.. and RTE just appear to be doing a damn fine job at raising new concerns over the last few weeks, while at the same time downplaying the stuff that has led to it all.

Rawhead

My name is URL wrote: »

Some crap coming up on Prime Time about how thousands of people were incorrectly issued with speeding fines. I say crap because it's obviously going to draw attention away from other more important issues.. and people have always known that a margin of error exists =/

I'm an awfully cynical cnut.. and RTE just appear to be doing a damn fine job at raising new concerns over the last few weeks, while at the same time downplaying the stuff that has led to it all.

That's my point. While this is case is unacceptable, it's a case of someone in an office who put numbers on a system in the wrong order, I also don't think the Garda phone tapping is sinister. The government know this and are making a big deal out of it because they can appear to be tackling issues.
Meanwhile the fact that GSOCs offices were likely bugged, that judges and politicians attempted to silence whistleblowers and the minister for justice lied in the Dail gets forgotten.
Compare the robust action they appear to be taking here as opposed to the cases mentioned above.

constance tench

Sand wrote: »

Don't you consider that the political winds have shifted since then with Kenny and Co adjusting their sails to match? You're assuming some fecking eejit whose been a professional TD all his life is somehow more clued up and canny than the Gardai who were carrying out the bugging themselves.

Government had wanted to replace the Previous practice of going through a Telecom Éireann exchange operator...

Alan Dukes, then Minister for Justice, signed off on a system for 43 Garda stations [Dublin metropolitan area] in 1986, being fully aware ''The new command and control system will ensure that all incoming calls from the public, particularly 999 calls, get the necessary Garda response with the utmost speed.All messages passing through the system will be recorded so as to be available in case of any follow-up inquiry'' as stated in the Dail record...

Two months later Michael Noonan,responding to a question from Michael Woods...

''Are the calls logged automatically when they are received by the Garda?''

Noonan states... ''There is no automatic system for recording the call.The Garda note 999 calls but so far as I understand there is not a machine that takes note of those calls automatically.The feasibility of providing the Garda with a special exclusive emergency number which would go directly to the Garda in the DMA without the necessity of Telecom Éireann exchange operator interruption is also being considered. That might meet the situation.''

Is it credible that Noonan, Kenny et al were not aware this system was already in place?

JRant

constance tench wrote: »

Government had wanted to replace the Previous practice of going through a Telecom Éireann exchange operator...

Alan Dukes, then Minister for Justice, signed off on a system for 43 Garda stations [Dublin metropolitan area] in 1986, being fully aware ''The new command and control system will ensure that all incoming calls from the public, particularly 999 calls, get the necessary Garda response with the utmost speed.All messages passing through the system will be recorded so as to be available in case of any follow-up inquiry'' as stated in the Dail record...

Two months later Michael Noonan,responding to a question from Michael Woods...

''Are the calls logged automatically when they are received by the Garda?''

Noonan states... ''There is no automatic system for recording the call.The Garda note 999 calls but so far as I understand there is not a machine that takes note of those calls automatically.The feasibility of providing the Garda with a special exclusive emergency number which would go directly to the Garda in the DMA without the necessity of Telecom Éireann exchange operator interruption is also being considered. That might meet the situation.''

Is it credible that Noonan, Kenny et al were not aware this system was already in place?

The probabilty of this happening without the upper echelons being in full knowledge of the facts is beyond minuscule.

This is not a case of a few Garda acting without their superiors knowledge but a widespread systematic logging of calls that may have been unconstitutional.

Busted Flat.

JRant wrote: »

The probabilty of this happening without the upper echelons being in full knowledge of the facts is beyond minuscule.

This is not a case of a few Garda acting without their superiors knowledge but a widespread systematic logging of calls that may have been unconstitutional.

What a disclosure. Did you tell this to Pravda sorry RTE news, I do not think they are aware of this information, Jaysus does ****ter know this.

Shady Tady

The more I hear of this bugging I wonder would it be cheaper to microchip us all at birth

hatrickpatrick

What the actual f*ck.
Did Shatter really just tell the opposition that they were focusing entirely on process and not substance in relation to his officials not giving him the letter?
Shocking isn't it, when a politician in office concentrates entirely on people not being informed than on the issue at hand. I'm just glad he didn't react that way when the GSOC bugging story was publi- oh wait, hang on a second :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

sopretty

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What the actual f*ck.
Did Shatter really just tell the opposition that they were focusing entirely on process and not substance in relation to his officials not giving him the letter?
Shocking isn't it, when a politician in office concentrates entirely on people not being informed than on the issue at hand. I'm just glad he didn't react that way when the GSOC bugging story was publi- oh wait, hang on a second :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Get him out to hell.

Manach

Shady Tady wrote: »

The more I hear of this bugging I wonder would it be cheaper to microchip us all at birth

Given the amount of contextual metadata alone that your average mobile phone collects about you, that would be a redundant step.

Busted Flat.

Manach wrote: »

Given the amount of contextual metadata alone that your average mobile phone collects about you, that would be a redundant step.

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

stripeycoaster

constance tench wrote: »

Government had wanted to replace the Previous practice of going through a Telecom Éireann exchange operator...

Alan Dukes, then Minister for Justice, signed off on a system for 43 Garda stations [Dublin metropolitan area] in 1986, being fully aware ''The new command and control system will ensure that all incoming calls from the public, particularly 999 calls, get the necessary Garda response with the utmost speed.All messages passing through the system will be recorded so as to be available in case of any follow-up inquiry'' as stated in the Dail record...

Two months later Michael Noonan,responding to a question from Michael Woods...

''Are the calls logged automatically when they are received by the Garda?''

Noonan states... ''There is no automatic system for recording the call.The Garda note 999 calls but so far as I understand there is not a machine that takes note of those calls automatically.The feasibility of providing the Garda with a special exclusive emergency number which would go directly to the Garda in the DMA without the necessity of Telecom Éireann exchange operator interruption is also being considered. That might meet the situation.''

Is it credible that Noonan, Kenny et al were not aware this system was already in place?

You have mixed up your chronology a little.

Michael Noonan's speech was in January 1986.

Alan Dukes spoke in November 1986.

See the link posted below for those particular speech extracts:

http://www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/223761-latest-garda-controversy-recording-conversations-garda-stations-76.html#post7877412

JRant

Busted Flat. wrote: »

What a disclosure. Did you tell this to Pravda sorry RTE news, I do not think they are aware of this information, Jaysus does ****ter know this.

I sent Shatter a message outlining all of this. I opted for morse code to relay the message as they don't seem to be able to communicate using 21st century techniques.

constance tench

Manach wrote: »

Given the amount of contextual metadata alone that your average mobile phone collects about you, that would be a redundant step.

We could see an end to that soon...

The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice today gave an important opinion in our favour in a case brought by Digital Rights Ireland to challenge European mass surveillance law.

The challenge – which we started in 2006 – is to the Data Retention Directive. This is a law which requires ISPs and telecoms companies to record details of all your internet and telephone use – logging details of who you ring or text, where you travel and who you email – and to record that information for up to two years. We argue that this constitutes an unjustified invasion of the right to privacy and in an interim ruling the Advocate General has agreed, holding that the law is a “particularly serious” interference with individual privacy ...

The Advocate General accepted our argument that storing this information on all citizens created an “increased risk” that it could be used for unlawful, fraudulent and malicious purposes against them – something we have already seen in Ireland where a Garda sergeant has abused the system to spy on a former lover and where it has been used to spy on journalists.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/european-court-ruling-condemns-mass-surveillance/

JRant

I think this article sums up the current situation Shatter finds himself in.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/it-looks-like-nobody-ever-tells-shatter-anything-1.1746422

A lot of what he has come out with is just not believable Nor credible IMO.

raymon

Did anyone see the no-confidence debate so far ?

Surely they could send someone else in to debate this rather than Barry (My brother gave away our soverignty) Cowen and Willie ( come here 'till I tell you a lie under oath ) O Dea.

What a shower of lightweights.

I would still like to hear from Dermot Ahern on whether he sponsored and approved of the new digital bugging system that was installed in 2008.

Also - we havent heard from Senator Diarmuid Wilson (FF seanad spokesperson on justice) on whether he was at the meeting where the Judge ("Judge X")alledgedly tried to get the whistleblower John Wilson to retract his claims against a "good fianna failer" senior garda. Did Senator Wilson also believe that Clare Daly is a "bitch" and that the whistleblower should retract his claim against the "good fianna failer"? What was his role at this meeting ?

What a gombeen nation we live in !

raymon

Sorry - forgot the link to the "alledged " meeting

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/judge-in-whistleblower-inquiry-accused-of-calling-daly-a-bitch-30140473.html

raymon

Mick Wallace reported on his twitter machine that only 8 Fianna Fail TDs showed up for the no confidence debate .

Is this true - lazy layabouts tabling a motion and then heading off home ???

sparkling sea

raymon wrote: »

Mick Wallace reported on his twitter machine that only 8 Fianna Fail TDs showed up for the no confidence debate .

Is this true - lazy layabouts tabling a motion and then heading off home ???

Very few of our politicans want change, they personally benefit too much from the status quo, thats why they took on the job in the first place.

Senior civil servants run the Republic, just like unelected managers, planners, etc run cities and counties; we choose to live in a very very limited democracy and this won't change without people power and political will - there is plenty of grumbling but little or no action, thats the reality of Irish life, Irish ways and Irish laws

Shady Tady

raymon wrote: »

Did anyone see the no-confidence debate so far ?

Surely they could send someone else in to debate this rather than Barry (My brother gave away our soverignty) Cowen and Willie ( come here 'till I tell you a lie under oath ) O Dea.

What a shower of lightweights.

I would still like to hear from Dermot Ahern on whether he sponsored and approved of the new digital bugging system that was installed in 2008.

Also - we havent heard from Senator Diarmuid Wilson (FF seanad spokesperson on justice) on whether he was at the meeting where the Judge ("Judge X")alledgedly tried to get the whistleblower John Wilson to retract his claims against a "good fianna failer" senior garda. Did Senator Wilson also believe that Clare Daly is a "bitch" and that the whistleblower should retract his claim against the "good fianna failer"? What was his role at this meeting ?

What a gombeen nation we live in !

You sound like a good fine gaeler yourself!

Banjo String

Independent reporting that Shatter has received envelopes with white powder and swastikas etc sent to his home address.


Think what you like about the man and his actions and policies but Crap like that is disgusting, and quite frankly disgraceful.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/white-powder-in-envelope-and-a-swastika-sent-to-alan-shatters-house-30148828.html

tomdempsey200

Banjo String wrote: »

Independent reporting that Shatter has received envelopes with white powder and swastikas etc sent to his home address.


Think what you like about the man and his actions and policies but Crap like that is disgusting, and quite frankly disgraceful.

bomb squad were at his house
a hoax package outside

Sierra Oscar

raymon wrote: »

Mick Wallace reported on his twitter machine that only 8 Fianna Fail TDs showed up for the no confidence debate .

Is this true - lazy layabouts tabling a motion and then heading off home ???

Every Fianna Fáil TD will have spoke on the no motion confidence by the time it concludes, same probably goes for Sinn Féin.

Keep on going with the false outrage though, great entertainment.

Banjo String wrote: »

Independent reporting that Shatter has received envelopes with white powder and swastikas etc sent to his home address.


Think what you like about the man and his actions and policies but Crap like that is disgusting, and quite frankly disgraceful.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/white-powder-in-envelope-and-a-swastika-sent-to-alan-shatters-house-30148828.html

Awful stuff, should be condemned by all quarters. I wonder if Minister Shatter will re-examine the decision he made in 2011 to remove security from Ministers?