Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Like I said, the mere fact he was a Garda is enough for some people to disregard his testimony.

Who said that?

McMurphy

Does anyone here truly believe that there's not a grapevine within the general rank and file members of AGS?

As I said earlier, there were posters, self admitted members of the force posting in various threads that had been posting various things about McCabe when the story first made it into the public domain, about how the public weren't privy to all the facts about McCabe, and how he wasn't the angel he was assumed to be.

Then we have TDs telling their story's, about how rumours surrounding McCabe were rife within Leinster house, in other words - a grapevine.

In my own professional industry, a grapevine exists, rumours about people in our industry are rife (both good and bad) about certain folk within it.

It would be naive, or wilful ignorance to think one didn't exist within AGS (considering things posted online regarding the McCabe case) from its members.

As for the driver, he's ex Garda, so one would assume he still has contract with other Garda, both current and ex serving members, not difficult to imagine where the rumours he heard about McCabe (assuming he said what he said to Rabbite) originated from.

All the signs are blindingly obvious as to what was going on.

Members of the Force are doing it a disservice by purposely turning a blind eye to what's obvious to everyone else.

emo72

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Well here we have an instance where an ex Garda was quoted by Pat Rabitte as having heard something on a grapevine whereas the man himself denies having said it yet there appears to be absolutely no question in many posters minds that Pat Rabbitte's account is accurate. That seems a pretty clear bias.

its one mans word against another. im not picking sides. there is no benefit to rabitte saying this and getting involved. however, i can see how the retired garda driver would be mortified by this coming into the public arena. he may have had to walk by mccabe at the tribunal and look him in the face. not a nice position to be in.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But if you believe it came through the grapevine then does that not negate the responsibility of Callinan?
....

Callinan is alleged to have smeared McCabe. How much or big a part he played in smearing McCabe is yet to be measured. This does not mean there is or isn't a Garda rumor mill/grapevine. It seems Callinan may have spread rumours, but again, it's improbable that he acted alone.
It's not believable that no rank and file Garda played any part in spreading rumours about McCabe.

tayto lover

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Callinan is alleged to have smeared McCabe. How much or big a part he played in smearing McCabe is yet to be measured. This does not mean there is or isn't a Garda rumor mill/grapevine. It seems Callinan may have spread rumours, but again, it's improbable that he acted alone.
It's not believable that no rank and file Garda played any part in spreading rumours about McCabe.

I can see why Callinan would want to smear McCabe's name i.e. the penalty points allegations.
I can't see why a ordinary garda on the ground would want to do so. There is nothing to be gained for him/her as only the Superintendants and higher plus their political friends benefitted.
Mc Cabe already said that he got great support from the garda members in Cavan and Monaghan over the allegations that were made against him.
With regard to grapevines, they exist in every walk of life and within every organisation, but I don't see how ant low rank garda would benefit from spreading rumors as i think they would have more to lose than gain.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Does anyone here truly believe that there's not a grapevine within the general rank and file members of AGS?

As I said earlier, there were posters, self admitted members of the force posting in various threads that had been posting various things about McCabe when the story first made it into the public domain, about how the public weren't privy to all the facts about McCabe, and how he wasn't the angel he was assumed to be.

Then we have TDs telling there story about how rumours about McCabe were rife within Leinster house, in other words - a grapevine.

In my own professional industry, a grapevine exists, rumours about people in our industry are rife (both good and bad) about certain folk within it.

It would be naive, or wilful ignorance to think one didn't exist within AGS (considering things posted online regarding the McCabe case) from its members.

As for the driver, he's ex Garda, so one would assume he still has contract with other Garda, both current and ex serving members, not difficult to imagine where the rumours he heard about McCabe (assuming he said what he said to Rabbite) originated from.

All the signs are blindingly obvious as to what was going on.

Members of the Force are doing it a disservice by purposely turning a blind eye to what's obvious to everyone else.

So assuming there is a grapevine and the ex Garda heard about the allegations against McCabe through it, how is it an organised smear campaign?

emo72 wrote: »

its one mans word against another. im not picking sides. there is no benefit to rabitte saying this and getting involved. however, i can see how the retired garda driver would be mortified by this coming into the public arena. he may have had to walk by mccabe at the tribunal and look him in the face. not a nice position to be in.

You say you're not picking sides yet you then state why it is likely Rabitte told the truth and the ex Garda lied to save face.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Callinan is alleged to have smeared McCabe. How much or big a part he played in smearing McCabe is yet to be measured. This does not mean there is or isn't a Garda rumor mill/grapevine. It seems Callinan may have spread rumours, but again, it's improbable that he acted alone.
It's not believable that no rank and file Garda played any part in spreading rumours about McCabe.

OK, but does that make them part of a smear campaign? When you consider all the hands that the referral from TUSLA would have been passed through, is it not more likely the majority of talk about McCabe was simply standard rumour mill stuff? Proving there were rumours spreading about McCabe is far from proving there was a malicious and organised campaign against him.

Water John

McCabe seems to have been woefully unlucky, at all the mishaps that undermined his good name.

emo72

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You say you're not picking sides yet you then state why it is likely Rabitte told the truth and the ex Garda lied to save face.

how would you describe it?

emo72

granted i dont think there was an organised smear campaign at the lower levels, i'd describe it as the grapevine.

James Brown

tayto lover wrote: »

I can see why Callinan would want to smear McCabe's name i.e. the penalty points allegations.
I can't see why a ordinary garda on the ground would want to do so. There is nothing to be gained for him/her as only the Superintendants and higher plus their political friends benefitted.
Mc Cabe already said that he got great support from the garda members in Cavan and Monaghan over the allegations that were made against him.
With regard to grapevines, they exist in every walk of life and within every organisation, but I don't see how ant low rank garda would benefit from spreading rumors as i think they would have more to lose than gain.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

...


OK, but does that make them part of a smear campaign? When you consider all the hands that the referral from TUSLA would have been passed through, is it not more likely the majority of talk about McCabe was simply standard rumour mill stuff? Proving there were rumours spreading about McCabe is far from proving there was a malicious and organised campaign against him.

I would suggest spreading false accusations and negative rumours is smearing someones name, even if you believe them to be true.
We know Garda he knows/knew personally were involved in a smear campaign, (missing evidence/abuse allegations) not to mention the social media, (we've covered these examples). It's not believable that no rank and file were involved. Are we saying it's likely those working with abuse cases spread the word, because Garda certainly 100% didn't? Might it not be both? Personally I don't buy the TULSA error, myself, but that's another issue.

My take on it is; it's not unimaginable that when word got out, through the Garda grapevine, one of their own was telling tales, the knives came out and then at a higher level to save face rather than do the job given to them, high ranking Garda would rather smear one of their own than be seen to be fallible. With the dodgy financials, unwritten word of mouth contracts, breath tests and god knows what else may come up, the option of us or MacCabe was an easy one, IMO, as yet of course, unproven.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So assuming there is a grapevine and the ex Garda heard about the allegations against McCabe through it, how is it an organised smear campaign?

The organised campaign to smear his name only needs to have the one origin/source, tell the right people, and (considering the how repulsive and seriousness of the allegations) the campaign grows it's own pair of legs.

We have been hearing that Callinan made these allegations about McCabe directly to various TDs from different partys,, solicitors, we even heard of the "copy and paste error" were from all the random lines of text in the world, it just happened to be a piece of text that related to the most heinous crime a man could be accused of, were 'accidentally copied' and of all the people in the world, it just happened to be Sgt Maurice McCabes file that they were "accidentally pasted into".

Lastly, we have the aforementioned email exchange between the minister of justice and commisoner which basically confirmed a strategy about McCabes motives.

I'm sorry, but all the signs are pointing in one direction only on this one.

Captain Obvious

emo72 wrote: »

how would you describe it?

Two conflicting accounts with no evidence to say who was right and who was wrong.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would suggest spreading false accusations and negative rumours is smearing someones name, even if you believe them to be true.
We know Garda he knows/knew personally were involved in a smear campaign, (missing evidence/abuse allegations) not to mention the social media, (we've covered these examples). It's not believable that no rank and file were involved. Are we saying it's likely those working with abuse cases spread the word, because Garda certainly 100% didn't? Might it not be both? Personally I don't buy the TULSA error, myself, but that's another issue.

My take on it is; it's not unimaginable that when word got out, through the Garda grapevine, one of their own was telling tales, the knives came out and then at a higher level to save face rather than do the job given to them, high ranking Garda would rather smear one of their own than be seen to be fallible. With the dodgy financials, unwritten word of mouth contracts, breath tests and god knows what else may come up, the option of us or MacCabe was an easy one, IMO, as yet of course, unproven.

I think you overestimate how much rank and file Gardaí cared about McCabe telling tales. Members close to him were likely annoyed that he was telling tales on them specifically but in the grand scheme of things rank and file weren't really affected and have no love for the broken system they work in or the people who run it.

On the other hand, a child molesting Garda would be despised so that kind of rumour would have spread like wildfire and no organised campaign would have been needed. There would have been a lot of sources for this rumour too. Not only the original investigation conducted by Gardaí but also the follow up by TUSLA.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The organised campaign to smear his name only needs to have the one origin/source, tell the right people, and (considering the how repulsive and seriousness of the allegations) the campaign grows it's own pair of legs.

We have been hearing that Callinan made these allegations about McCabe directly to various TDs from different partys,, solicitors, we even heard of the "copy and paste error" were from all the random lines of text in the world, it just happened to be a piece of text that related to the most heinous crime a man could be accused of, were 'accidentally copied' and of all the people in the world, it just happened to be Sgt Maurice McCabes file that they were "accidentally pasted into".

Lastly, we have the aforementioned email exchange between the minister of justice and commisoner which basically confirmed a strategy about McCabes motives.

I'm sorry, but all the signs are pointing in one direction only on this one.

I thought it was pretty accepted that the TUSLA referral was a mistake. But that wasn't t he only source for those allegations. The original investigation was likely well known.

tayto lover

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would suggest spreading false accusations and negative rumours is smearing someones name, even if you believe them to be true.
We know Garda he knows/knew personally were involved in a smear campaign, (missing evidence/abuse allegations) not to mention the social media, (we've covered these examples). It's not believable that no rank and file were involved. Are we saying it's likely those working with abuse cases spread the word, because Garda certainly 100% didn't? Might it not be both? Personally I don't buy the TULSA error, myself, but that's another issue.

My take on it is; it's not unimaginable that when word got out, through the Garda grapevine, one of their own was telling tales, the knives came out and then at a higher level to save face rather than do the job given to them, high ranking Garda would rather smear one of their own than be seen to be fallible. With the dodgy financials, unwritten word of mouth contracts, breath tests and god knows what else may come up, the option of us or MacCabe was an easy one, IMO, as yet of course, unproven.

That is a possible explaination but I still can't see too many lower rank garda buying into that.
Anywhere i worked when something untasteful happened the general response was to keep your mouth closed and stay out of it.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

That is a possible explaination but I still can't see too many lower rank garda buying into that.
Anywhere i worked when something untasteful happened the general response was to keep your mouth closed and stay out of it.

Wasn't that the initial reaction of McGuinness and Deasy too?

tayto lover

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Wasn't that the initial reaction of McGuinness and Deasy too?

But they are not garda. They are TD's looking to be re-elected the next time they run.

Water John

I think that would be the reaction of most of us at being told an unpleasant rumour. You fell almost tainted and dirty having heard it.
I think public reps are getting a broad negative brush stroke from some here. I would say all of them, would rather be 100 miles away from the Tribunal.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

But they are not garda. They are TD's looking to be re-elected the next time they run.

You are saying this like the commisoner has no professional connection to either McGuinness, who was a member of the party in govt who appointed the commisoner, and chair of the PAC - and the other who was/is a TD in a party who were in govt.

Either way, they all had to work alongside each other.

How was it McGuinness put it?

What do you do after a meeting with one of the most powerful individuals in the State, which culminated in a warning that you’re making a “grave” mistake?

Answer.

“When you’re asked to meet the commissioner, and it turns out you have that meeting in the front seat in a carpark and you’re told the things I was told, your first instinct is to get the hell out of there,” Mr McGuinness told the Disclosures Tribunal.

tayto lover

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You are saying this like the commisoner has no professional connection to either McGuinness, who was a member of the party in govt who appointed the commisoner, and chair of the PAC - and the other who was/is a TD in a party who were in govt.

Either way, they all had to work alongside each other.

How was it McGuinness put it?



Answer.

I wasn't talking about Callinan. I was talking about the lower ranks of the garda.
I can't see what they have to gain by smearing anyone.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

I wasn't talking about Callinan. I was talking about the lower ranks of the garda.
I can't see what they have to gain by smearing anyone.

It has already been stated on this thread numerous times that it would be naive to assume Garda in rank and file positions didn't

A: hear the malicious allegations that numerous witnesses told the tribunal they had heard directly from Callinan about McCabe.

And B: repeating them.

In the case where Rabbite claims he was told by the Garda driver about McCabe, Rabbite was very specific about the drivers motives.

Mr Rabbitte elaborated that the driver said he was not in the business of spreading the rumour, but he was alerting him that he should be careful about testifying to his character, given what was being said in the Garda network. Mr Rabbitte said ultimately he thought the rumours were “foul gossip” and “didn’t give it legs”.

Like I said, the smearing happened at the top. The repeating of the initial smear in the grapevine, be it by idle gossip or marking someone's card, the rumour is out there, the damage is done.

emo72

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Like I said, the smearing happened at the top. The repeating of the initial smear in the grapevine, be it by idle gossip or marking someone's card, the rumour is out there, the damage is done.

thats it. simple as that.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Like I said, the smearing happened at the top. The repeating of the initial smear in the grapevine, be it by idle gossip or marking someone's card, the rumour is out there, the damage is done.

The smearing undoubtedly started somewhere.

However, people at the top of organisations don't have their finger on the pulse of everything that is happening within an organisation and rely on things that they are told by others. Quite often these issues are spread upwards by middle management, with a view to getting them out there across an organisation.

Callinan certainly looks to have spread the allegations, but I wonder if they originated with him. Unfortunately for him, by denying he said anything, he is not able to testify that he heard something from Superintendent X or Y.

Water John

Yes, the original source, or more likely sources, would be interesting.
What we do know is Callinan, the CEO, told a whole bunch of people. That counts as a smear campaign.

Seth Brundle

blanch152 wrote: »

The smearing undoubtedly started somewhere.

However, people at the top of organisations don't have their finger on the pulse of everything that is happening within an organisation and rely on things that they are told by others. Quite often these issues are spread upwards by middle management, with a view to getting them out there across an organisation.

I frequently have heard off duty gardai chatting about people at GAA matches and other places. It would be as easy for a rumour to spread (innocently or otherwise) as it would anywhere else in society.

blanch152 wrote: »

Callinan certainly looks to have spread the allegations, but I wonder if they originated with him. Unfortunately for him, by denying he said anything, he is not able to testify that he heard something from Superintendent X or Y.

Well the timing certainly doesn't help him - the garda commissioner helping spread a rumour about a member after that member discloses massive issues within the force.
Is there any evidence that Callinan discussed similar rumours to TDs, etc. in car parks about any other momber of the force?

blanch152

Water John wrote: »

Yes, the original source, or more likely sources, would be interesting.
What we do know is Callinan, the CEO, told a whole bunch of people. That counts as a smear campaign.

This is where the incorrect Tusla report is of interest.

If Callinan was told about the incorrect Tusla report, he may well ave had a genuine belief about McCabe based on reasonable evidence. Callinan didn't dream up an allegation about McCabe, somebody must have told him, and who they are and their motives are of interest.

blanch152

kbannon wrote: »

I frequently have heard off duty gardai chatting about people at GAA matches and other places. It would be as easy for a rumour to spread (innocently or otherwise) as it would anywhere else in society.


Well the timing certainly doesn't help him - the garda commissioner helping spread a rumour about a member after that member discloses massive issues within the force.
Is there any evidence that Callinan discussed similar rumours to TDs, etc. in car parks about any other momber of the force?

There are a number of possibilities. Callinan could have asked one or more of the following questions, ranging from innocent to malicious:

What is this McCabe fellow like, it he genuine?

Do we have anything on this McCabe fellow?

Anyway we can use to get at McCabe?

If the answer to any of those is the incorrrect Tusla report, that is how the rumour started. Who gave Callinan the information, why they gave it, and which question above they were responding to, tells a lot.

Water John

It looks like, any tittle tattle, got to Callinan's desk quickly. Also remember, the key resource and occupation of AGS is information/intelligence. That is their, stock in trade.

McMurphy

On the TUSLA scandal, I'm going straight out there and staying that I personally do not believe the line given that it was a "copying and pasting error".

The odds on that particular piece of text, being accidentally pasted into, of all people, a Garda whistleblowers file, must be astronomical.

Literally unbelievable odds.

Water John

'Of all the bars, of all the gin joints...etc'

Edward M

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

On the TUSLA scandal, I'm going straight out there and staying that I personally do not believe the line given that it was a "copying and pasting error".

The odds on that particular piece of text, being accidentally pasted into, of all people, a Garda whistleblowers file, must be astronomical.

Literally unbelievable odds.

How could it happen to anyone let alone McCabe?
Its interesting given all the garda falsifications that here again, TUSLA irresponsibly posted a false report on anyone given the nature of the type of complaints they deal with.
This is gross negligence by any standard, the fact that it was against McCabe makes it stand out as what it was IMO too.