Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should another Garda Commissioner resign?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I have said to you that the man is prone to exaggeration, as concluded by a judge. I don't need any more evidence than that to defend my opinion.
Nice to see you admit that you form your opinions from people in authority without questioning them first. By your own logic you believed the Guildford 4 and Birmingham Six were guilty too, after all a judge said so and in your own words "I dont need any more evidence than that" :rolleyes:Are you now saying that you disagree with the conclusion of the Tribunal and the O'Higgins Report that Maurice McCabe is prone to exaggeration?
https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0509/787248-ohiggins-report-maurice-mccabe/
"It said he was "a dedicated and committed member" of An Garda Síochána, but "prone to exaggeration", and while some of his complaints were upheld, others were proven to be "overstated", "exaggerated", "unfounded” and ultimately "withdrawn"."
Ah I see what you have done there- it is called selective quoting. Here is what OHiggins actually said "McCabe was never less than truthful in his evidence even if prone to exaggeration at times"
So now you find yourself in the awkward position where you have tried to slur the name of McCabe by saying there are serious question marks over his evidence and insinuating that he is not telling the truth. You came to this conclusion because (as you said) your opinion has been formed by Judge OHiggins and you do not need any more evidence than that. But the very same judge in the very same sentence (the part you left out of your selective quote) has said that McCabe "was never less than truthful"
So I ask you again how McCabe how is it you feel Shatter is telling the truth but McCabe is not? This was your insinuation in your earlier post but you still have not backed it up. And now it turns out even Judge OHiggins does not tally with your opinion which is rather ironic seeing as you formed your opinion from what Judge OHiggins said.The figure of 94% is a makey-up figure, not based on any actual finding of a judge.
Yet again you are wrong. OHiggins found that Sgt McCabe’s complaint in all but one of a dozen other instances were justified and upheld.
But the above only refers to the Baileboro allegations. When we add up all of McCabes allegations at the OHiggins commission together the running total is as follows:-
Allegations of malpractice in Baileboro =12
Allegations of malpractice on Pulse = 180
Allegations Vs Callinan & 2 x Assistant Commissioners = 3
Total allegations =195
Total found to be true =191
Total found to be unproven =4
Fact of the matter is blanch152 of the 195 allegations made by McCabe that OHiggins reported on 97.4% were deemed to be true. Yet here we are with you on a public forum calling Maurice McCabe untruthful, despite OHiggins, the judge whose opinions you say are sufficient, stating that McCabe "was never less than truthful"
Are you now going to withdraw your claim that Shatter is the only one telling the truth in his evidence and that insinuated that McCabe is not? Because I have asked you several times now to provide your evidence for this slur on MauriceMcCabes good name up and it is clear that you have not been able to do so. If you cannot then you should do the honourable thing and withdraw that insinuation that McCabe is not being truthful in his evidence.As for Alan Shatter, he keeps winning all the cases he took after losing his job.
Just like Trump Shatter is forever winning bigly. Despite your hero being sacked, humiliated and roundly rejected by his own constituency he is definitely winning bigly here
0 -
Nice to see you admit that you form your opinions from people in authority without questioning them first. By your own logic you believed the Guildford 4 and Birmingham Six were guilty too, after all a judge said so and in your own words "I dont need any more evidence than that" :rolleyes:
Ah I see what you have done there- it is called selective quoting. Here is what OHiggins actually said "McCabe was never less than truthful in his evidence even if prone to exaggeration at times"
So now you find yourself in the awkward position where you have tried to slur the name of McCabe by saying there are serious question marks over his evidence and insinuating that he is not telling the truth. You came to this conclusion because (as you said) your opinion has been formed by Judge OHiggins and you do not need any more evidence than that. But the very same judge in the very same sentence (the part you left out of your selective quote) has said that McCabe "was never less than truthful"
So I ask you again how McCabe how is it you feel Shatter is telling the truth but McCabe is not? This was your insinuation in your earlier post but you still have not backed it up. And now it turns out even Judge OHiggins does not tally with your opinion which is rather ironic seeing as you formed your opinion from what Judge OHiggins said.
Yet again you are wrong. OHiggins found that Sgt McCabe’s complaint in all but one of a dozen other instances were justified and upheld.
But the above only refers to the Baileboro allegations. When we add up all of McCabes allegations at the OHiggins commission together the running total is as follows:-
Allegations of malpractice in Baileboro =12
Allegations of malpractice on Pulse = 180
Allegations Vs Callinan & 2 x Assistant Commissioners = 3
Total allegations =195
Total found to be true =191
Total found to be unproven =4
Fact of the matter is blanch152 of the 195 allegations made by McCabe that OHiggins reported on 97.4% were deemed to be true. Yet here we are with you on a public forum calling Maurice McCabe untruthful, despite OHiggins, the judge whose opinions you say are sufficient, stating that McCabe "was never less than truthful"
Are you now going to withdraw your claim that Shatter is the only one telling the truth in his evidence and that insinuated that McCabe is not? Because I have asked you several times now to provide your evidence for this slur on MauriceMcCabes good name up and it is clear that you have not been able to do so. If you cannot then you should do the honourable thing and withdraw that insinuation that McCabe is not being truthful in his evidence.
Just like Trump Shatter is forever winning bigly. Despite your hero being sacked, humiliated and roundly rejected by his own constituency he is definitely winning bigly here
That poster quoted straight from a news report so if you want to accuse someone of selective quoting then go and accuse RTE. I notice you had no issue also reporting straight from a news report which also selectively quotes from the report. You also have a go at the poster for believing the words of a judge when that is exactly what the O'Higgins report is and what you are relying on to dispute him. Maybe you should impose on yourself the same standards of proof you impose on others before having a go at them.0 -
Nice to see you admit that you form your opinions from people in authority without questioning them first. By your own logic you believed the Guildford 4 and Birmingham Six were guilty too, after all a judge said so and in your own words "I dont need any more evidence than that" :rolleyes:
Ah I see what you have done there- it is called selective quoting. Here is what OHiggins actually said "McCabe was never less than truthful in his evidence even if prone to exaggeration at times"
So now you find yourself in the awkward position where you have tried to slur the name of McCabe by saying there are serious question marks over his evidence and insinuating that he is not telling the truth. You came to this conclusion because (as you said) your opinion has been formed by Judge OHiggins and you do not need any more evidence than that. But the very same judge in the very same sentence (the part you left out of your selective quote) has said that McCabe "was never less than truthful"
So I ask you again how McCabe how is it you feel Shatter is telling the truth but McCabe is not? This was your insinuation in your earlier post but you still have not backed it up. And now it turns out even Judge OHiggins does not tally with your opinion which is rather ironic seeing as you formed your opinion from what Judge OHiggins said.
Yet again you are wrong. OHiggins found that Sgt McCabe’s complaint in all but one of a dozen other instances were justified and upheld.
But the above only refers to the Baileboro allegations. When we add up all of McCabes allegations at the OHiggins commission together the running total is as follows:-
Allegations of malpractice in Baileboro =12
Allegations of malpractice on Pulse = 180
Allegations Vs Callinan & 2 x Assistant Commissioners = 3
Total allegations =195
Total found to be true =191
Total found to be unproven =4
Fact of the matter is blanch152 of the 195 allegations made by McCabe that OHiggins reported on 97.4% were deemed to be true. Yet here we are with you on a public forum calling Maurice McCabe untruthful, despite OHiggins, the judge whose opinions you say are sufficient, stating that McCabe "was never less than truthful"
Are you now going to withdraw your claim that Shatter is the only one telling the truth in his evidence and that insinuated that McCabe is not? Because I have asked you several times now to provide your evidence for this slur on MauriceMcCabes good name up and it is clear that you have not been able to do so. If you cannot then you should do the honourable thing and withdraw that insinuation that McCabe is not being truthful in his evidence.
Just like Trump Shatter is forever winning bigly. Despite your hero being sacked, humiliated and roundly rejected by his own constituency he is definitely winning bigly here
This is what I said:
"Shatter is about the only one who appears to have been telling the truth the whole time. The rest of them, from Callinan to McCabe to Taylor have serious question marks over their evidence."
To challenge the statement, you first need to demonstrate that Shatter isn't telling the truth. And remember I said "appears to have been telling the truth" so I wasn't conclusive on it. We can wait and see.
Secondly, there are clear holes in the evidence given by Taylor and Callinan to the Charleton Tribunal. If I am wrong and they have both been fully truthful and the judge believes them, I will apologise. Thirdly, O'Higgins found that McCabe was prone to exaggeration.
Now if you want to canonise Maurice McCabe, off you go. Like most, he had done some good and some bad, mostly good in his case, but he was not vindicated on all counts, that is a fact and a reality.
If you want to construct elaborate mathematical constructs of 94% truth or 97% truth, remember that is an unweighted calculation. I don't know how you did it, but imagine if a whistleblower next week said that 194 penalty points were wiped and the last three Garda Commissioners got away with six murders between them, would it be enough to say they were 97% correct if they were right about the penalty points and wrong about the murders? It is a silly worthless mathematical exercise at best to calculate your 94%.
As for Shatter winning bigly, I felt the man was hard done by at the time. To date there has been very little evidence that he did anything wrong. Taking his eye off the Gardai and trusting both Garda management and his own Justice staff seem to have been his biggest problem.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »That poster quoted straight from a news report so if you want to accuse someone of selective quoting then go and accuse RTE. I notice you had no issue also reporting straight from a news report which also selectively quotes from the report. You also have a go at the poster for believing the words of a judge when that is exactly what the O'Higgins report is and what you are relying on to dispute him. Maybe you should impose on yourself the same standards of proof you impose on others before having a go at them.
Oh look, here comes the cavalry
The same poster who I had to hold the hand of last week over the the Dave Taylor affair, sheesh.
Here is what blanch152 posted about McCabe
And here is what Judge OHiggins saidI have said to you that the man is prone to exaggeration, as concluded by a judge. I don't need any more evidence than that to defend my opinion.McCabe was never less than truthful in his evidence even if prone to exaggeration at times
Now blanch152 is on record here that he accepts the judges opinion. So does that mean he accepts McCabe is being truthful? Clearly this is not the case because he has insinuated that McCabe is not truthful. I mean he cant have it both ways and split a sentence of OHiggins in two and then just chose the words "prone to exaggeration" because it suits his agenda and actually leave out the main jist of the judges sentence which clearly stated that McCabe was never less than truthful. I mean which is it, does he accept the judges opinion or does he not? Only he can answer that question but so far is doing everything to dodge it
But never less than truthful. Again please stop trying to spin OHiggins judgement to suit your agenda against McCabe. I have already called you out on this so please do not continue attempting to deceive people on here by only posting half the sentence. It is disingenuous in the extreme and below the level of debate expected here. At a minimum you should be holding your hands up and admitting you got that quote by OHiggins wrong because it mislead people.This is what I said:"Shatter is about the only one who appears to have been telling the truth the whole time. The rest of them, from Callinan to McCabe to Taylor have serious question marks over their evidence."
To challenge the statement, you first need to demonstrate that Shatter isn't telling the truth. And remember I said "appears to have been telling the truth" so I wasn't conclusive on it. We can wait and see.
Secondly, there are clear holes in the evidence given by Taylor and Callinan to the Charleton Tribunal. If I am wrong and they have both been fully truthful and the judge believes them, I will apologise. Thirdly, O'Higgins found that McCabe was prone to exaggeration
.Now if you want to canonise Maurice McCabe, off you go. Like most, he had done some good and some bad, mostly good in his case, but he was not vindicated on all counts, that is a fact and a reality.
It is kind of funny but Shatter also used that exact point at the Tribunal last Thursday. He kept on banging the drum that some allegations did not stack up. Given Maurices 97.4% accuracy record it was nothing more than weasel words, a fact that even Callinan concended at the Tribunal the following day.If you want to construct elaborate mathematical constructs of 94% truth or 97% truth, remember that is an unweighted calculation. I don't know how you did it, but imagine if a whistleblower next week said that 194 penalty points were wiped and the last three Garda Commissioners got away with six murders between them, would it be enough to say they were 97% correct if they were right about the penalty points and wrong about the murders? It is a silly worthless mathematical exercise at best to calculate your 94%.
Astonishing that I am now being accused of constructing elaborate mathematical equations when I am absolutely useless at maths :pac: There is nothing elaborate about the fact that McCabe made 195 allegations and 191 of them were found by OHiggins to be correct. Now I know that completely blows your insinuation that McCabes evidence was not truthful out of the water but I am dealing in facts here. And just as an aside (and you wont like this either) McCabe actually made over 1,000 allegations in total, Noirin even gave him an office in the Park to compile his dossier. However OHiggins did not have the time to examine all of them so 180 were selected as a sample. If the entire amount were examined we would no doubt be looking at an accuracy level of over 99%. Which would now suggest that you are calling McCabe untruthful because he got less than 1% of allegations wrong.As for Shatter winning bigly, I felt the man was hard done by at the time. To date there has been very little evidence that he did anything wrong. Taking his eye off the Gardoai and trusting both Garda management and his own Justice staff seem to have been his biggest problem.
Hard done by? Done nothing wrong? His own incompetence resulted in everything that happened to him. Poor Alan has no-one but to blame but himself. Look at the timelines- Daly and Wallace were screaming at him for over a year about the mess in AGS but he simply would not listen. Had he of listened then maybe he would have done the right thing and fired Callinan and installed a reforming Commissioner. But he chose not to do that, instead your hero decided to slur Wallaces name in public with the idle gossip provided to him by Callinan. I mean there can be no doubt here that Daly and Wallace got it spot on and your hero Shatter didnt and subsequently paid for it by being sacked, first by Enda Kenny and then by his own electorate in south Dublin. The people spoke and they rejected Shatter as a TD, perhaps that is not to your taste but thats democracy.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Again, if a man is prone to exaggeration, there must be questions about his evidence when he gives it. That does not mean he is untruthful. You don't need to twist my words which were carefully posted.
Your lengthy defences of McCabe cannot take away from that conclusion.
Oh but blanch152 I am not twisting your words. Again let me remind you of what you saidShatter is about the only one who appears to have been telling the truth the whole time. The rest of them, from Callinan to McCabe to Taylor have serious question marks over their evidence.
I mean you dont need me or anyone else to even twist what you yourself claimed. It is clear as day from the above that you believe Shatter is the only one telling the truth and that McCabe, Callinan and Taylor are not. These are your words and now you are attempting to wriggle out of them instead of providing us with your claimed evidence that McCabe is untruthful.
So you have now been asked three times to list the "serious questions" that you said McCabe has to answer and yet you still cannot list these serious questions. Which means you have failed to back up your insinuation that McCabe is not telling the truth. This shows me and other posters that you are only here to slur the name of McCabe - because if you dont have anything to back up your allegations (and it is clear as day now that you do not) then your allegation that he is not telling the truth is nothing more than a slur and a defamation on a man who has been proven to be of honest and trustworthy character, something which countless people who have engaged with him have said.
Your blackening of McCabes name on here, in a public forum without a scintilla of evidence to back it up, is frankly disgusting. McCabe is a man who has been proven to be correct in 97.4% of the allegations he has made yet here you are calling into question his honesty. For shame, even your hero Alan Shatter has not stooped this low.
Not only that but you have tried to spin and twist OHiggins words. You said earlier today that you accept his opinion (that McCabe was prone to exaggeration) so is it the case that you do not accept that the other half of the sentence that you selectively quoted, i.e. OHiggins stating that McCabe has been nothing short of truthful. If not then what mental gymnastics do you propose to shore up this most bizarre of positions, being that you agree with one half of OHiggins sentence but not the other
0 -
Oh but blanch152 I am not twisting your words. Again let me remind you of what you said
I mean you dont need me or anyone else to even twist what you yourself claimed. It is clear as day from the above that you believe Shatter is the only one telling the truth and that McCabe, Callinan and Taylor are not. These are your words and now you are attempting to wriggle out of them instead of providing us with your claimed evidence that McCabe is untruthful.
So you have now been asked three times to list the "serious questions" that you said McCabe has to answer and yet you still cannot list these serious questions. Which means you have failed to back up your insinuation that McCabe is not telling the truth. This shows me and other posters that you are only here to slur the name of McCabe - because if you dont have anything to back up your allegations (and it is clear as day now that you do not) then your allegation that he is not telling the truth is nothing more than a slur and a defamation on a man who has been proven to be of honest and trustworthy character, something which countless people who have engaged with him have said.
Your blackening of McCabes name on here, in a public forum without a scintilla of evidence to back it up, is frankly disgusting. McCabe is a man who has been proven to be correct in 97.4% of the allegations he has made yet here you are calling into question his honesty. For shame, even your hero Alan Shatter has not stooped this low.
Not only that but you have tried to spin and twist OHiggins words. You said earlier today that you accept his opinion (that McCabe was prone to exaggeration) so is it the case that you do not accept that the other half of the sentence that you selectively quoted, i.e. OHiggins stating that McCabe has been nothing short of truthful. If not then what mental gymnastics do you propose to shore up this most bizarre of positions, being that you agree with one half of OHiggins sentence but not the other
97.4%, is as I have pointed out already a very bizarre and spurious mathematical calculation. However, you have only proved my point. If McCabe, as you suggest (not me), has not been telling the truth 2.6% of the time, then by definition, he is not fully truthful. You are saying he tells less than the full truth, I only say there must be serious questions about his evidence. My conclusion at least allows that he may be 100% truthful, yours doesn't.
It is actually quite strange that you accuse me of attacking McCabe, when you only have him only as 97.4% truthful.0 -
-
97.4%, is as I have pointed out already a very bizarre and spurious mathematical calculation. However, you have only proved my point. If McCabe, as you suggest (not me), has not been telling the truth 2.6% of the time, then by definition, he is not fully truthful. You are saying he tells less than the full truth, I only say there must be serious questions about his evidence. My conclusion at least allows that he may be 100% truthful, yours doesn't.
It is actually quite strange that you accuse me of attacking McCabe, when you only have him only as 97.4% truthful.
haha jaysis man do you ever stop digging that large hole you are in ? There you go again in another vain attempt to twist things- I said that of all the allegations McCabe has made 97.4% have been deemed to be correct. They were judged to be correct by Judge OHiggins, you know that same judge you said of earlier that you accept his rulings. Funny enough it seems now you do not, it is quite the 180 degree turn you are trying to perform here. It is really just more obfuscation from you, your hero Shatter would send you a nice little pat on the head :pac:
What I said was that McCabes allegations were correct 97.4% of the time, the remaining were unproven. Unproven does not mean he is telling lies, it means there was insufficient evidence for the claims. Both OHiggins and Charleton have complained extensively that they are not getting co-operation from the Gardai so is it any wonder some allegations have found to be unproven when the Gardai are disappearing every relevant mobile phone into the bin and while they have the shredder running on overtime ?
In any case one of McCabes unproven claims was that Callinan was corrupt but Francis Fitzgerald would not allow the allegations of Callinans involvement in the Kieran Boylan heroin trafficking affair to be included in the terms of reference. This was because she knew well that if that can of worms was opened then the whole government would collapse. So while McCabe claimed Callinan was corrupt the Commission wasnt even allowed to examine his role in the Kieran Boylan affair, the one issue that would allowed a true judgement on whether or not he was corrupt. But of course a convicted heroin trafficker had to be protected at all costs, from "a very high level" according to the DPP barrister- sure we couldnt have the Gardai shown up as dealing in the heroin trade now could we?
Finally earlier you have called my rather simple maths "elaborate" and now you are calling them "bizarre and spurious". Can you please point out how these simple maths which show Maurice McCabe to be correct in 97.4% of his allegations are elaborate, bizarre and spurious. I mean they are as simple as it gets for a mathematical simpleton like me
McCabes allegations at the OHiggins commission:-
Allegations of malpractice in Baileboro =12
Allegations of malpractice on Pulse = 180
Allegations Vs Callinan & 2 x Assistant Commissioners = 3
Total allegations =195
Total found to be true =191
Total found to be unproven =4
I mean given the above simple facts how on gods earth are you still even trying to argue that Maurice McCabe is anything but bang on the money when it comes to his whistleblowing? I think even if he hit the 100% mark you would still be on here posting trying to blacken and slur his name and all because he ran rings around your hero Shatter and his buddy Oliver Connolly. I know you are still hurting over that affair but there is no need to let it cloud your judgement and lead you into delusion. McCabe is a superb whistleblower, can you not even admit what is clearly staring you in the face Or is your loyalty to Shatter preventing you from seeing the wood for the trees 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement