Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

tayto lover

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Here's something I've noticed, lots of comments about where and when McGuinness wrote his notes.

Nothing from the same posters about almost a dozen missing phones and shredded paperwork.

From my own point of view I am commenting on whats going on today. Mc Guinness is being questioned and his answers are leaving a lot of doubt about his story.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just to offset the inevitable comments that criminal accountability in cases like this would be "unworkable", it would really be extremely simple to implement. If such evidence was collected during an investigation, it should be put on record, both on the physical locker containing that evidence and on the Pulse computer system, that Sgt Hatrickpatrick of the Dun Laoghaire Garda Station is personally responsible for ensuring the integrity and safety of this piece of evidence, and that he is personally responsible for guaranteeing that it be neither lost, destroyed, nor tampered with.

Then, if something does happen to the evidence, Sgt Hatrickpatrick should be charged with either criminal negligence or, if it can be proven, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. And if convicted, he should be immediately relieved of his duties on the grounds of gross misconduct, and subject to a jail sentence.

This is the sort of unforgiving, uncompromising, bludgeoning attitude we need to fixing the Garda accountability problem in this country. If sh!t gets f*cked up on your watch either because you were negligent or complicit, you're getting a criminal record and all the unpleasantness which accompanies that for the average man or woman on the street. No exceptions, bye bye, the end.

Until Ireland starts treating wrongdoing and incompetence in this manner, our culture of "whatever you did, you can get away with it" is literally never going to change.

I am getting fed up of proposals which seek to abolish the innocent until proven guilty premise and impose draconian penalties on people for something which isn't a crime.

I someone steals my phone, I am not criminally negligent. If my phone is upgraded and I wipe and carefully destroy my old phone, I am not criminally negligent. If my phone is lost despite me taking great care of it, I am not criminally negligent.

My god for someone that likes to roar and slander certain political parties you can certainly cut a massive amount of slack when it suits ya.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

From my own point of view I am commenting on whats going on today. Mc Guinness is being questioned and his answers are leaving a lot of doubt about his story.[

Any part in particular?

tayto lover

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Any part in particular?

Did he make notes / not make notes.
Did he tell M.Martin yes / no. He said he didn't but Martin said he did.
Why did he give conflicting stories to the interviewer?
Why were his notes seemingly inserted in a small space in the notebook? This after he said he didn't make any and then long after discovered he had.

It's all in today's RTE.

Now it could be just clever barristers chipping away at his account but if so they're doing a good job. Or it could be that he's not coming across as truthful.

James Brown

tayto lover wrote: »

Did he make notes / not make notes.
Did he tell M.Martin yes / no. He said he didn't but Martin said he did.
Why did he give conflicting stories to the interviewer?
Why were his notes seemingly inserted in a small space in the notebook? This after he said he didn't make any and then long after discovered he had.

It's all in today's RTE.

Now it could be just clever barristers chipping away at his account but if so they're doing a good job. Or it could be that he's not coming across as truthful.

It reads to me like he made a note on the fly and probably didn't want to get involved in the whole national level mess. As to why he is now, is up for debate, but I find him credible. Calinan should sue, or would he rather it all went away?
On innocent until proven guilty, it's not McGuinness on trial, he's giving evidence. We can take or leave it. I would suspect there are probably many in the DoJ and at ministerial level who have information not being brought forward, possibly forgotten, in an email or fax under a couch.

tayto lover

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It reads to me like he made a note on the fly and probably didn't want to get involved in the whole national level mess. As to why he is now, is up for debate, but I find him credible. Calinan should sue, or would he rather it all went away?
On innocent until proven guilty, it's not McGuinness on trial, he's giving evidence. We can take or leave it. I would suspect there are probably many in the DoJ and at ministerial level who have information not being brought forward, possibly forgotten, in an email or fax under a couch.

I doubt we'll ever get the full story out of any of them anyway. They all have skeletons in my view. Too many politicians meddling in everything.

What have Tribunals ever sorted out anyway?

James Brown

tayto lover wrote: »

I doubt we'll ever get the full story out of any of them anyway. They all have skeletons in my view. Too many politicians meddling in everything.

What have Tribunals ever sorted out anyway?

I agree. We need accountability from our employees. There should be clear repercussions. All contracts should have a base salary and the rest contingent on performance as judged by an independent board. Then that's at their discretion without the need for the dog and pony shows at the tax payer expense.

The silence from government is deafening. You would think they've no interest in running the country. 'The toothless tribunal will sort it sure'.

Auguste Comte

tayto lover wrote: »

That's my point always. Political interference.
If Mc Guinness was a FG member do you think he'd be bringing up all this stuff?
Does anyone seriously think this?

Hmmmm


Fine Gael TD John Deasy has identified former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan as the senior garda he alleges warned him of garda whistleblower Maurice McCabe.

Mr Deasy told the Disclosures Tribunal that Mr Callinan told him that Mr McCabe was not to be believed and was not to be trusted on anything.

He said he thought Mr Callinan was trying to influence the penalty points issue.

Mr Deasy said he could not believe the then Garda Commissioner would make such comments about a serving garda, and said they had lost control of their own behaviour by addressing committee members like him

McMurphy

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Hmmmm


Fine Gael TD John Deasy has identified former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan as the senior garda he alleges warned him of garda whistleblower Maurice McCabe.

Mr Deasy told the Disclosures Tribunal that Mr Callinan told him that Mr McCabe was not to be believed and was not to be trusted on anything.

He said he thought Mr Callinan was trying to influence the penalty points issue.

Mr Deasy said he could not believe the then Garda Commissioner would make such comments about a serving garda, and said they had lost control of their own behaviour by addressing committee members like him

Deasy possibly only slating Callinan for political advantage too.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Deasy possibly only slating Callinan for political advantage too.

I think if we are genuine in saying it about McGuinness, Deasy also stands to be accused of the same opportunism.
Again, despite any pondering as to why, why now, it's unlikely two politicians, (from different parties *cough*) would tell lies in open forum. We need more of this.

The sad thing is we may end up with:

Calinan and the Garda are cleared, Varadkar says the tribunal did it's job. We move on. Nothing changes.

Calinan is found wanting. Varadkar is beside himself and terrible upset. We get recommendations. We move on. Nothing changes.

Hitman3000

bubblypop wrote:

Whose???!

It doubt it was the former Commissioner anyway.

Auguste Comte

Would it be an offence if Calinan was found to be attempting to corrupt the PAC enquiry into the penalty points scandal by privately briefing members of the committee against one of the main witnesses?

Phoebas

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Would it be an offence if Calinan was found to be attempting to corrupt the PAC enquiry into the penalty points scandal by privately briefing members of the committee against one of the main witnesses?

Hardly, if the Chairman of the PAC itself kept the briefing private.
Maybe both of them were committing the same offence.

McMurphy

Phoebas wrote: »

Hardly, if the Chairman of the PAC itself kept the briefing private.
Maybe both of them were committing the same offence.

So how does this sit if (just a thought mind) the then, or later commissioners may have been conspiring to perhaps wage a smear campaign against McCabe, emailed a then justice minister, who noted emails suggesting same, and kept schtum about said emails until they were discovered via something like a trawl of their email accounts?

Would that also mean the then justice minister could be perceived as being party to said smear campaign, in such a hypothetical sceanrio?

Phoebas

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So how does this sit if (just a thought mind) the then, or later commissioners may have been conspiring to perhaps wage a smear campaign against McCabe, emailed a then justice minister, who noted emails suggesting same, and kept schtum about said emails until they were discovered via something like a trawl of their email accounts?

Would that also mean the then justice minister could be perceived as being party to said smear campaign, in such a hypothetical sceanrio?

I've learned to avoid hypothetical scenarios, especially those that are subject to an ongoing tribunal.

In the past, we've lost a competent justice minister, who was later vindicated by a tribunal.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It reads to me like he made a note on the fly and probably didn't want to get involved in the whole national level mess. As to why he is now, is up for debate, but I find him credible. Calinan should sue, or would he rather it all went away?
On innocent until proven guilty, it's not McGuinness on trial, he's giving evidence. We can take or leave it. I would suspect there are probably many in the DoJ and at ministerial level who have information not being brought forward, possibly forgotten, in an email or fax under a couch.

It is hard to know where to start with this post.

Firstly, you can't sue in relation to evidence given at a Tribunal.

Secondly, nobody is on trial, so why the particular reference to McGuinness on trial.

Thirdly, there is no innocent until proven guilty in a Tribunal. The judge makes findings based on the balance of probabilities.

I said yesterday I think that I don't envy the judge in having to decide between the evidence of McGuinness and Callinan, neither strike me as being particularly truthful or particularly sincere or nice.

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

I've learned to avoid hypothetical scenarios, especially those that are subject to an ongoing tribunal.

In the past, we've lost a competent justice minister, who was later vindicated by a tribunal.

Wasn't questions regarding her competency the reason for her firing? There's a marked difference between intentional subterfuge and not being very good at your job. She was not cleared on the latter.

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wasn't questions regarding her competency the reason for her firing? There's a marked difference between intentional subterfuge and not being very good at your job. She was not cleared on the latter.

I was thinking of a different Justice minister altogether - but I guess the fact that we've lost multiple Justice ministers before tribunals got to report just underscores the point.

McMurphy

Phoebas wrote: »

I've learned to avoid hypothetical scenarios, especially those that are subject to an ongoing tribunal.

In the past, we've lost a competent justice minister, who was later vindicated by a tribunal.

Competent?

Debatable.

Try couriering him a letter of the utmost National importance.

Nettle Soup

blanch152 wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just to offset the inevitable comments that criminal accountability in cases like this would be "unworkable", it would really be extremely simple to implement. If such evidence was collected during an investigation, it should be put on record, both on the physical locker containing that evidence and on the Pulse computer system, that Sgt Hatrickpatrick of the Dun Laoghaire Garda Station is personally responsible for ensuring the integrity and safety of this piece of evidence, and that he is personally responsible for guaranteeing that it be neither lost, destroyed, nor tampered with.

Then, if something does happen to the evidence, Sgt Hatrickpatrick should be charged with either criminal negligence or, if it can be proven, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. And if convicted, he should be immediately relieved of his duties on the grounds of gross misconduct, and subject to a jail sentence.

This is the sort of unforgiving, uncompromising, bludgeoning attitude we need to fixing the Garda accountability problem in this country. If sh!t gets f*cked up on your watch either because you were negligent or complicit, you're getting a criminal record and all the unpleasantness which accompanies that for the average man or woman on the street. No exceptions, bye bye, the end.

Until Ireland starts treating wrongdoing and incompetence in this manner, our culture of "whatever you did, you can get away with it" is literally never going to change.

I am getting fed up of proposals which seek to abolish the innocent until proven guilty premise and impose draconian penalties on people for something which isn't a crime.

I someone steals my phone, I am not criminally negligent. If my phone is upgraded and I wipe and carefully destroy my old phone, I am not criminally negligent. If my phone is lost despite me taking great care of it, I am not criminally negligent.

They lost 11 phones. Don't be an ostrich.

blanch152

Phoebas wrote: »

I was thinking of a different Justice minister altogether - but I guess the fact that we've lost multiple Justice ministers before tribunals got to report just underscores the point.

Alan Shatter has been vindicated in nearly every court case he has taken since, his resignation was definitely unfair.

To date, there has been nothing to show in the Tribunal that Frances Fitzgerald did anything wrong.

Water John

Simply, be failing to radically reform the AGS, both failed, as MOJ.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Alan Shatter has been vindicated in nearly every court case he has taken since, his resignation was definitely unfair.

To date, there has been nothing to show in the Tribunal that Frances Fitzgerald did anything wrong.

Has Leo Varadkar said anything to vindicate/apologise to Alan Shatter for what happened? I was googling there but can't find anything.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has Leo Varadkar said anything to vindicate/apologise to Alan Shatter for what happened? I was googling there but can't find anything.

Is Leo now to blame for sacking Alan Shatter as well as everything else?

Remember, he resigned rather than being sacked and Enda was Taoiseach.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Is Leo now to blame for sacking Alan Shatter as well as everything else?

Remember, he resigned rather than being sacked and Enda was Taoiseach.

I said nothing relating to that. I asked a simple question.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said nothing relating to that. I asked a simple question.

Actually, it would be incumbent on Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and the likes of Mick Wallace to apologise as they were most cutting about Alan Shatter and have been shown in the courts to be wrong.

Water John

Shatter had a natural ability, to annoy most people, with his arrogance,and so politically he'll never get an apology, from anyone.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Actually, it would be incumbent on Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and the likes of Mick Wallace to apologise as they were most cutting about Alan Shatter and have been shown in the courts to be wrong.

If you don't know the answer to the question just say so.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Actually, it would be incumbent on Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and the likes of Mick Wallace to apologise as they were most cutting about Alan Shatter and have been shown in the courts to be wrong.

Don't forget the Greens.

Green Party leader and MEP candidate for Dublin, Eamon Ryan, said: “I welcome this long overdue announcement. Alan Shatter’s breach of data protection rules had made his position untenable, and the subsequent controversies in the Garda and Department of Justice meant his position was further undermined

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't know the answer to the question just say so.

Why were you asking me a question as if I would have some special knowledge about the answer?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has Leo Varadkar said anything to vindicate/apologise to Alan Shatter for what happened? I was googling there but can't find anything.

I found your question strange as I could not think of any reason why Varadkar might need to apologise to Shatter, which is why I responded the way I did. If you could explain your line of thinking as to why Varadkar would need to do so, maybe someone else could help you.

The fact is that Shatter has been vindicated repeatedly by the courts, and I note you are not disputing that. Who may or may not need to apologise to him is a secondary issue and Varadkar is well down that list.