Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

Captain Obvious

Odhinn wrote: »

What is the full truth?

There are very specific instances where Gardaí of a specific rank can give evidence in support of something. These cases are specifically laid out in legislation.

Odhinn wrote: »

A "file" is garda parlance for a particular kind of record kept on a person deemed a threat to national security, afaik. You might enlighten me as to what you say the situation there is?

In "Garda parlance" a file is an investigation prepared for directions by the DPP. It can be for anything from a traffic accident to a murder. "A file has been sent to the DPP" is a pretty common thing you will hear in court and the news.

Muahahaha

kbannon wrote: »

The amount payable by each individual taxpayer would not be 61m/5m because most citizens aren't taxpayers.

Unless you know how to avoid VAT then all citizens are taxpayers. Not all are net contributors but everyone pays VAT. Even someone on the dole who spends all of their income is contributing about 40 euro a week to the Exchequer and an even greater amount than that if they drink or smoke or drive.

So yeah a one off payment of 12 euro per citizen is a small price to pay for a proper functioning Gardai.

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

So yeah a one off payment of 12 euro per citizen is a small price to pay for a proper functioning Gardai.

It's not. But it wouldbe better invested in what's there than trying to rebuild from scratch.

Odhinn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There are very specific instances where Gardaí of a specific rank can give evidence in support of something. These cases are specifically laid out in legislation..

...however you're talking about court cases, I'm talking about internal garda procedure.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

In "Garda parlance" a file is an investigation prepared for directions by the DPP. It can be for anything from a traffic accident to a murder. "A file has been sent to the DPP" is a pretty common thing you will hear in court and the news.

No, there is a specific type of internal file kept on persons deemed a threat to the state.

Odhinn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's not. But it wouldbe better invested in what's there than trying to rebuild from scratch.

Throw money after old rope? It's fairly evident a genuine root and branch change is needed.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

Unless you know how to avoid VAT then all citizens are taxpayers. Not all are net contributors but everyone pays VAT. Even someone on the dole who spends all of their income is contributing about 40 euro a week to the Exchequer and an even greater amount than that if they drink or smoke or drive.

So yeah a one off payment of 12 euro per citizen is a small price to pay for a proper functioning Gardai.

Who said that the result of paying €61m would be a proper functioning Gardai? I certainly didn't. My post only set out the cost of paying off the rest of their career for top management.

That was only the first cost. It didn't include the cost of their pensions. It didn't include the cost of replacement. It didn't include the cost to the organisation of the loss of organisational memory. It didn't include the cost to the morale of the gardai. It didn't include the cost of compensation in any cases taken by the completely innocent among the 169 fired, the defamation cases etc. Another few hundred million probably, money that could be spent on the homeless instead of on a vindictive purge.

Why would anyone prioritise a pointlessly vindictive revengeful purge of the gardai over expenditure on worthy causes such as the homeless? I would be interested in the rationale of those proposing it.

Captain Obvious

Odhinn wrote: »

...however you're talking about court cases, I'm talking about internal garda procedure.

Such as?

Odhinn wrote: »

No, there is a specific type of internal file kept on persons deemed a threat to the state.

Have you a source for that?

Odhinn wrote: »

Throw money after old rope? It's fairly evident a genuine root and branch change is needed.

No it isn't. The organisation works fine in the grand scheme of things. Criminals get caught and prosecuted. Crimes get prevented. The changes needed can be achieved by new training and policy change. Simply remove anyone who doesn't play ball. Properly resource is with equipment, manpower and technology.

Odhinn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Such as?

The procedure whereby gardai term somebody a threat to the state. The source would be gardai.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No it isn't. The organisation works fine in the grand scheme of things. Criminals get caught and prosecuted. Crimes get prevented. The changes needed can be achieved by new training and policy change. Simply remove anyone who doesn't play ball. Properly resource is with equipment, manpower and technology.

No it doesn't, ffs. Millions of dodgy breath tests, checkpoints that never happened, strange and unexplained "investigations", those run to the curb by callinan and others over the last few decades....

Captain Obvious

Odhinn wrote: »

The procedure whereby gardai term somebody a threat to the state. The source would be gardai.

That's a bit circular.

Odhinn wrote: »

No it doesn't, ffs. Millions of dodgy breath tests, checkpoints that never happened, strange and unexplained "investigations", those run to the curb by callinan and others over the last few decades....

Checkpoints that never happened? I didn't hear about that one. Or dodgy breath tests. Are you sure you aren't making one issue into two? It was exaggerated breath test numbers that was the issue. What strange and unexplained investigations?

Seth Brundle

Muahahaha wrote: »

Unless you know how to avoid VAT then all citizens are taxpayers. Not all are net contributors but everyone pays VAT. Even someone on the dole who spends all of their income is contributing about 40 euro a week to the Exchequer and an even greater amount than that if they drink or smoke or drive.

So yeah a one off payment of 12 euro per citizen is a small price to pay for a proper functioning Gardai.

You presumably my knew I meant direct taxpayers rather than those who only pay indirect taxes.
So how does every citizen pay an extra €12 through VAT? Or will some inadvertently pay more as usual?

blanch152

kbannon wrote: »

You presumably my knew I meant direct taxpayers rather than those who only pay indirect taxes.
So how does every citizen pay an extra €12 through VAT? Or will some inadvertently pay more as usual?

The existence of VAT has been used many times on this forum to claim everyone pays for water, everyone pays for social welfare, everyone pays for medical cards and now it is also going to pay for reform of the Gardai.

Have they increased the VAT rates to pay for all of these things?

At the same time, we have also heard that the reduction in the VAT rate for tourist-related activities is only benefitting price-gougers in the hotel industry. And I thought everyone paid VAT? Your head would spin trying to follow all of the various arguments put forward.

Odhinn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's a bit circular.

That was and has been exactly my point.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Checkpoints that never happened? I didn't hear about that one. Or dodgy breath tests. Are you sure you aren't making one issue into two? It was exaggerated breath test numbers that was the issue. What strange and unexplained investigations?

They were blowing into kits in the station.

Checkpoints that never happened
http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-false-checkpoints-3674786-Nov2017/

'strange investigations'
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/04/an-overlooked-suspect/

as well as the Father Niall Molloy case.

blanch152

Odhinn wrote: »

That was and has been exactly my point.



They were blowing into kits in the station.

Checkpoints that never happened
http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-false-checkpoints-3674786-Nov2017/

'strange investigations'
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/04/an-overlooked-suspect/

as well as the Father Niall Molloy case.

By the standards of police organisations all over the world, that is a very very low sample, and if that is all you have, the gardai are actually among the very best.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

By the standards of police organisations all over the world, that is a very very low sample, and if that is all you have, the gardai are actually among the very best.

Considering that policing in this country has, for the vast majority of its history, been done with zero transparency and very little oversight, I can safely say that's only the beginning.

blanch152

Odhinn wrote: »

Considering that policing in this country has, for the vast majority of its history, been done with zero transparency and very little oversight, I can safely say that's only the beginning.

No you can't safely say that. You can imagine that, propose that or suggest that, but you can't safely say that, because you have zero evidence that it is the case.

Every police force in the world makes mistakes in investigations. Only in Ireland do people end up calling for the firing of the top three levels of senior management as a result.

Water John

'Mistakes in investigations'. You'll have to do better than that if you want to minimise what's gone on for the last 20 years, starting in Donegal.

Love the misuse of language to reflect your case.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

...........
Every police force in the world makes mistakes in investigations. Only in Ireland do people end up calling for the firing of the top three levels of senior management as a result.

It's being called for as a result of a lot more than that.

Captain Obvious

Odhinn wrote: »

That was and has been exactly my point.

But it's your circular argument.

Odhinn wrote: »

They were blowing into kits in the station.

Checkpoints that never happened
http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-false-checkpoints-3674786-Nov2017/

Point taken. Seems to be just anecdotal evidence though.

Odhinn wrote: »

'strange investigations'
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/04/an-overlooked-suspect/

as well as the Father Niall Molloy case.

Why do you think the misconduct of a Garda in a 17 year old case is relevant?

Odhinn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But it's your circular argument.

No, thats the way its done internally within the Gardai.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Point taken. Seems to be just anecdotal evidence though.

So you're saying the inquiry report is wrong?

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Why do you think the misconduct of a Garda in a 17 year old case is relevant?

I wasn't aware that Garda malpractice was under a time scale in this discussion.

Water John

It's the long history, 20 years, of various malpractises, that is the over whelming proof of the need for a major overhaul.

Captain Obvious

Odhinn wrote: »

No, thats the way its done internally within the Gardai.

Can you elaborate on this?

Odhinn wrote: »

So you're saying the inquiry report is wrong?

No, I'm saying it's the same issue as the breath tests.

Odhinn wrote: »

I wasn't aware that Garda malpractice was under a time scale in this discussion.

Well we are talking about wether the force needs to be disbanded now so it's current state would indeed be all that's really relevant.

James Brown

Here we go again:

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan has signalled the establishment of an inquiry into allegations of Garda collusion in the heroin trade.
In correspondence seen by the Irish Independent, Mr Flanagan confirmed he has sought a report from Acting Garda Commissioner Dónall Ó Cualáin into serious claims made by Garda whistleblower Nick Keogh.
Mr Keogh says his life has been destroyed since presenting allegations of criminal wrongdoing in the Midlands, where he was deployed.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/flanagan-may-open-inquiry-into-garda-drug-collusion-allegations-36416258.html

We are seeing a pattern where a Garda speaks up or gives concern and he's penalised by his superiors. That alone is good reason to overhaul the whole Garda establishment and if Varadkar is to be believed, the Dept. of Justice too.

Maybe the Garda aren't capable or the right people for the job. Maybe we need impartial administrators? Leave the law enforcement to the Garda, the oversight, filing and recordings to vetted civilians?

Saying it's too difficult and leaving it fester, (might have worked with the health service but...) has us with the crises we have. It's a long long time over due that state representatives did some honest accountable work. We need politicians that like to get up early of a morning not face saving spin merchants.

Odhinn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this?

I already have. Please be more specific.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, I'm saying it's the same issue as the breath tests.

It's more serious again.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Well we are talking about wether the force needs to be disbanded now so it's current state would indeed be all that's really relevant.

I haven't suggested disbanding the force.

Past wrongdoing needs to be addressed.

Odhinn

It would appear that Ms O'Sullivans re-hiring of gardai she was previously associated with for the liason unit raised concerns with the Garda head of human resources, writing five times about it

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Screen-Shot-2018-01-04-at-23.02.49.png

blanch152

Odhinn wrote: »

It would appear that Ms O'Sullivans re-hiring of gardai she was previously associated with for the liason unit raised concerns with the Garda head of human resources, writing five times about it

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Screen-Shot-2018-01-04-at-23.02.49.png

Very interesting indeed.

There are a number of interpretations of this.

The doubters will have it that she wanted to conceal everything.

The realists will consider that she wanted to ensure that the liaison unit fully co-operated so she only put in people she trusted.

Let us see what the Tribunal has to say.

tayto lover

What does the "liaison unit" do.? Is it the Press Office?

Water John

No, not dealing with the public. Just deciding what would or would not be sent to the Tribunal. What does it have to get and what can we keep out of its reach.
Good reason to want, your friends, on it.

Sierra Oscar

Water John wrote: »

No, not dealing with the public. Just deciding what would or would not be sent to the Tribunal. What does it have to get and what can we keep out of its reach.
Good reason to want, your friends, on it.

In practice it may also have an impact on how individual Gardaí bring forward information that they have on the McCabe scandal.

A directive was issued to every Garda in the country to bring forward any information that they have in relation to the scandal to Garda HQ so that it can be forwarded on to the tribunal for consideration.

It's been suggested in the media that due to the staffing arrangements of the liaison unit, where such information would be forwarded to, some individual Gardaí with pertinent information critical of management may not come forward with the information as they feel there could be repercussions for their careers. Basically it's felt that if the unit was impartial, then such Gardaí would be more inclined to bring the information forward.

This could have repercussions for Charlie Flanagan down the line. This is the first we have heard that another Government Department raised concerns about the arrangements. Now admittedly the concerns were first raised two months before Frances Fitzgerald resigned, but Flanagan might have some explaining to do as it seems the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform continued to express their concerns following Fitzgerald's resignation.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Very interesting indeed.

There are a number of interpretations of this.

The doubters will have it that she wanted to conceal everything.

The realists will consider that she wanted to ensure that the liaison unit fully co-operated so she only put in people she trusted.

Let us see what the Tribunal has to say.

You've a very biased take on who are the 'realists' and who are the 'doubters' in this story. You do attempt to even it out at the end for cover with 'let us see what the Tribunal has to say' but the damage is done.

She's under investigation for good reason, that being a concerted institutional smear campaign against whistle blowers.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Very interesting indeed.

There are a number of interpretations of this.

The doubters will have it that she wanted to conceal everything.

The realists will consider that she wanted to ensure that the liaison unit fully co-operated so she only put in people she trusted.

Let us see what the Tribunal has to say.

...the tribunal whose liason unit is in question.