Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

Captain Obvious

Edward M wrote: »

The system of trying to discredit whistleblowers is the real problem here,

What system are you referring to?

Edward M

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What system are you referring to?

I call it a system, in that I think the higher echelons of any of our state agencies will initially try to discredit any individual who opens up a can of worms involving the competency of the organisation they manage.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/tom-clonan-whistleblowers-3233836-Feb2017/

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Are you saying McCabe is not a credible whistleblower and perhaps his treatment was somehow justifiable?
Perhaps the propensity to try to totally discredit him led to exaggeration sometimes due to the frustration he must have felt.
The system of trying to discredit whistleblowers is the real problem here, the necessity to preserve the sanctity of the almost infallibility of the force has shown the upper management in their true light here IMO, people capable of destroying a man and his family by falsification of character, and some still buy it and try to sell it as somehow justifiable by still trying to infer discredit on the man!
Unbelievable really.

You can say that McCabe is not a credible witness because of his propensity to exaggerate (as factually found by the Tribunal) or that most of his allegations were unfounded, but that does not mean that you believe his treatment was somehow justifiable.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

You can say that McCabe is not a credible witness because of his propensity to exaggerate (as factually found by the Tribunal) or that most of his allegations were unfounded, but that does not mean that you believe his treatment was somehow justifiable.

I feel he is credible, I think the line of action taken against him proves that, but we can argue that all day, it doesn't change the fact that he was treated abhorrently by his upper management.
We are in a new enquiry now and its findings will be interesting to read or hear.
I think recent events and revelations of garda figure fudging have shown that his credibility should not be in doubt really, but rather any findings against him in any way, there has to be doubt as to how the findings against him were reached!

Captain Obvious

Edward M wrote: »

I feel he is credible, I think the line of action taken against him proves that, but we can argue that all day, it doesn't change the fact that he was treated abhorrently by his upper management.
We are in a new enquiry now and its findings will be interesting to read or hear.
I think recent events and revelations of garda figure fudging have shown that his credibility should not be in doubt really, but rather any findings against him in any way, there has to be doubt as to how the findings against him were reached!

Why are you even following the tribunal if you are just going to dismiss anything it finds that you don't like?

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Why are you even following the tribunal if you are just going to dismiss anything it finds that you don't like?

Key parts of evidence has been disposed off, possibly on purpose.

It won't find evidence of some certain aspects that have been possibly intentionally withheld, not because they didn't happen, but because they are unable to prove they did.

Edward M

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Why are you even following the tribunal if you are just going to dismiss anything it finds that you don't like?

I didn't say that at all. I think the fact we are having this enquiry gives rise to doubt about any previous adverse findings against McCabe, given that this one is about a campaign to discredit him!

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

I didn't say that at all. I think the fact we are having this enquiry gives rise to doubt about any previous adverse findings against McCabe, given that this one is about a campaign to discredit him!

That all depends on the findings of the Tribunal.

If, for example it finds that there was an organised campaign directed against McCabe by O'Sullivan and Callinan with the deliberate intent to conceal wrongdoing elsewhere by the Gardai, then you are correct and McCabe's credibility is enhanced.

If it finds otherwise, then there are different conclusions.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

That all depends on the findings of the Tribunal.

If, for example it finds that there was an organised campaign directed against McCabe by O'Sullivan and Callinan with the deliberate intent to conceal wrongdoing elsewhere by the Gardai, then you are correct and McCabe's credibility is enhanced.

If it finds otherwise, then there are different conclusions.

No there isn't. We must not forget, McCabe is a whistle blower. We have unearthed wrong doing within the Garda thanks to him. Not to mention their verbal contracts and dodgy financial records thanks to people looking at the organisation and despite lackluster government oversight. So McCabe has served the state greatly.
Now if the smear campaign, and there certainly was one, (evidence going missing etc. false accusations etc. etc.) was shown to have been organised by Garda top brass, that's got little bearing on the great service McCabe has done for the state.
I would suggest O'Sullivan and Callinan are the ones with their reputations being judged, not McCabe. McCabe has done his duty in becoming a whistle blower, despite the ignoranance and unprofessionalism shown by Callinan.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

You can say that McCabe is not a credible witness because of his propensity to exaggerate (as factually found by the Tribunal) or that most of his allegations were unfounded, but that does not mean that you believe his treatment was somehow justifiable.

Wow you are still banging this drum and trying to slur the name of Maurice McCabe on here. Firstly you were caught out selectively quoting Judge OHiggins by leaving out half of his sentence where he said McCabe was prone to exaggeration but nothing less than truthful. The nothing less than truthful line didnt suit your agenda so you left it out.

Then you were asked six times by me and other posters to provide evidence to your assertion that Shatter was the only one telling the truth and implying that McCabe was not. You couldnt do that either yet you still have not withdrawn that slur you put on his character.

Then you went wriggling trying to manipulate numbers on how good a whistleblower he is, your mental gymnastics to call 182 allegations as one allegation is some of the best Ive ever seen on Boards. It was the stuff of either pure delusion or delibrate ignorance of the facts. And now to top it all off you are trying to insinuate that "most of his allegations were unfounded". And I dont care if you say you preceded it with "you could say..." because that technique of argument is nothing more than shallow innuendo and amounts to what is weasel words.

Unbelievable yet not unexpected from some of the party hacks on here.But sure blanch152 why dont we go through the McCabe allegations that OHiggins upheld? You seem to be disputing this now despite what OHiggins said in his report. Because behind those allegations are stacks of cases of Garda incompetency. Not only is there dozens of drug dealers and users let off scot free there are similar amount of dangerous drivers not prosecuted, some of whom then went on to seriously injure other citizens when they should have been off the road. Then you also have the violent beating of Mary Lynch by Gerry McGrath who boxed her in the face, pulled clumps of her hair clean out of her scalp before unzipping and getting his cock out ready to rape her. This the Gardai called a "minor assault" and McGrath later went on to kidnap a 5 year old child from his bed and then further to murder mother of two Sylvia Roche Kelly.

Or the Kingscourt taxi incident where a serious sexual assault took place in front of a stack of witnesses and the Gardai went out of their way not to prosecute, instead brokering a deal for a bloody dinner voucher from the perpatrator to the victim. Or the Father Michael Molloy incident where the priest was found with kiddie porn on his laptop but McCabes so called Garda colleagues made the laptop disappear and tried to pin it on McCabe himself. Framing McCabe was obviously more important for these Gardai than the prosecution of a paedophile priest. We could go on and on and on about the service that Maurice McCabe has given to this state, a service that has been of huge personal cost to him and his family.

But of course blanch152 in your world Maurice McCabe is someone who is not truthful and "most of his allegations were unfounded". You should try to spin that line to the hundreds of victims of Garda incompetence who McCabe blew the whistle on, Im sure they would find your vacuous arguments and constant attempts to slur his name on here enlightening. In fact you should even send your weasel words and innuendos on McCabes character to the People of the Year awards and see if they would strip McCabe of his award given that you now have evidence that he is not truthful or credible. Sure McCabe conned us all, how could we not have seen this? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

McMurphy

Muahahaha wrote: »

Wow you are still banging this drum and trying to slur the name of Maurice McCabe on here. Firstly you were caught out selectively quoting Judge OHiggins by leaving out half of his sentence where he said McCabe was prone to exaggeration but nothing less than truthful. The nothing less than truthful line didnt suit your agenda so you left it out.

Then you were asked six times by me and other posters to provide evidence to your assertion that Shatter was the only one telling the truth and implying that McCabe was not. You couldnt do that either yet you still have not withdrawn that slur you put on his character.

Then you went wriggling trying to manipulate numbers on how good a whistleblower he is, your mental gymnastics to call 182 allegations as one allegation is some of the best Ive ever seen on Boards. It was the stuff of either pure delusion or delibrate ignorance of the facts. And now to top it all off you are trying to insinuate that "most of his allegations were unfounded". And I dont care if you say you preceded it with "you could say..." because that technique of argument is nothing more than shallow innuendo and amounts to what is weasel words.

Unbelievable yet not unexpected from some of the party hacks on here.But sure blanch152 why dont we go through the McCabe allegations that OHiggins upheld? You seem to be disputing this now despite what OHiggins said in his report. Because behind those allegations are stacks of cases of Garda incompetency. Not only is there dozens of drug dealers and users let off scot free there are similar amount of dangerous drivers not prosecuted, some of whom then went on to seriously injure other citizens when they should have been off the road. Then you also have the violent beating of Mary Lynch by Gerry McGrath who boxed her in the face, pulled clumps of her hair clean out of her scalp before unzipping and getting his cock out ready to rape her. This the Gardai called a "minor assault" and McGrath later went on to kidnap a 5 year old child from his bed and then further to murder mother of two Sylvia Roche Kelly.

Or the Kingscourt taxi incident where a serious sexual assault took place in front of a stack of witnesses and the Gardai went out of their way not to prosecute, instead brokering a deal for a bloody dinner voucher from the perpatrator to the victim. Or the Father Michael Molloy incident where the priest was found with kiddie porn on his laptop but McCabes so called Garda colleagues made the laptop disappear and tried to pin it on McCabe himself. Framing McCabe was obviously more important for these Gardai than the prosecution of a paedophile priest. We could go on and on and on about the service that Maurice McCabe has given to this state, a service that has been of huge personal cost to him and his family.

But of course blanch152 in your world Maurice McCabe is someone who is not truthful and "most of his allegations were unfounded". You should try to spin that line to the hundreds of victims of Garda incompetence who McCabe blew the whistle on, Im sure they would find your vacuous arguments and constant attempts to slur his name on here enlightening. In fact you should even send your weasel words and innuendos on McCabes character to the People of the Year awards and see if they would strip McCabe of his award given that you now have evidence that he is not truthful or credible. Sure McCabe conned us all, how could we not have seen this? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hard to argue with most any of that Muhahaha.

Seems there's a certain cohort intent on discrediting McCabes input, and cherrypicking selective quotes from O'Higgins.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Key parts of evidence has been disposed off, possibly on purpose.

It won't find evidence of some certain aspects that have been possibly intentionally withheld, not because they didn't happen, but because they are unable to prove they did.

That's pretty presumptive. If it can't be proven it obviously happened? That doesn't explain how journalist after journalist is saying Taylors claims are incorrect.

Edward M wrote: »

I didn't say that at all. I think the fact we are having this enquiry gives rise to doubt about any previous adverse findings against McCabe, given that this one is about a campaign to discredit him!

Which adverse findings are you referring to?

givyjoe

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Hard to argue with most any of that Muhahaha.

Seems there's a certain cohort intent on discrediting McCabes input, and cherrypicking selective quotes from O'Higgins.

Bizarre really. Same folks who don't seem to bothered by outrageous corruption in the guards.

emo72

I don't even get the frenzy to discredit McCabe. It's not that I even blame any FG ministers for this. Just think it was unfortunate that it happened on their watch. Could have been FF or labour minister.

Why are they on here vigorously defending them?

Edward M

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's pretty presumptive. If it can't be proven it obviously happened? That doesn't explain how journalist after journalist is saying Taylors claims are incorrect.





Which adverse findings are you referring to?

Read Blanch's posts, exaggeration and unreliability alluded to!
That has been quoted, FTC though as mua correctly pointed our, out of context with the full statement.
It seems a curious throw out by an inquiry don't you think?
Exaggeration but truthful, sort of saying something but still a caveat at the end implying unreliability.

Captain Obvious

Edward M wrote: »

Read Blanch's posts, exaggeration and unreliability alluded to!
That has been quoted, FTC though as mua correctly pointed our, out of context with the full statement.
It seems a curious throw out by an inquiry don't you think?
Exaggeration but truthful, sort of saying something but still a caveat at the end implying unreliability.

Not really. People seem to have a problem separating being truthful with being correct. You can be truthful and still be wrong. The information McCabe gave was correct, some of the conclusions he drew from it may not have been. He can still be considered reliable as a source of information and he can still be considered reliable as a witness giving an account of something that happened.

Edward M

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not really. People seem to have a problem separating being truthful with being correct. You can be truthful and still be wrong. The information McCabe gave was correct, some of the conclusions he drew from it may not have been. He can still be considered reliable as a source of information and he can still be considered reliable as a witness giving an account of something that happened.

OK I agree with that.
Blanch has called him unreliable or not credible obviously not taking the same view as you or I.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not really. People seem to have a problem separating being truthful with being correct. You can be truthful and still be wrong. The information McCabe gave was correct, some of the conclusions he drew from it may not have been. He can still be considered reliable as a source of information and he can still be considered reliable as a witness giving an account of something that happened.

Absolutely correct, though I think that what people had a problem with was blanch saying

A; McCabe was not a credible witness.

And

B; most of his allegations were unfounded.

You can say that McCabe is not a credible witness because of his propensity to exaggerate (as factually found by the Tribunal) or that most of his allegations were unfounded, but that does not mean that you believe his treatment was somehow justifiable.

He seems to be on some sort of solo run in an attempt to discredit McCabe, and I'm not sure of his motive.

James Brown

It's an odd tack some take.
The organisation obviously has some deep rooted problems. We have McCabe calling them out and Callinan referring to the very idea as 'disgusting'. This is not the comment of a competent leader never mind of a state body.
If ever there was a case of 'Don't shoot the messenger'.
At this point we should be cleaning up the Garda and if the DoJ is not fit for purpose, overhaul that and maybe install a competent MoJ who will take responsibility of the DoJ and everything it oversees.

Mikenesson

It's unseemly that none of the journalists heard anything.

Everyone of them closing ranks with Garda management

Captain Obvious

Mikenesson wrote: »

It's unseemly that none of the journalists heard anything.

Everyone of them closing ranks with Garda management

Or it didn't happen.

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Or it didn't happen.

Pretty obvious the journos are closing ranks and hiding behind privledge I would have said. Nor is it that surprising- if they came out and said Taylor was indeed sending them texts about McCabe then their career as a crime and security corresspondent is over- without Garda sources they would have nothing to write about.

Futhermore IMO it is beyond doubt that Callinan was going around calling McCabe a kiddie fiddler. His smear campaign was known around Leinster House so it is pretty remarkable to hear now that journalists who specialise in reporting on crime and the Gardai did not know about it. If they truly didnt know about the smear campaign then they are incompetent journailsts. Paul Williams in particular comes off as a disgrace, it was him leading the charge on behalf of Noirin.

And lets not forget it was Noirin OSullivans husband who made Dave Taylors three mobile phones disappear. These were central to proving Taylors allegation that he sent hundreds of text messages to journailsts. Why would that have happened if there was nothing to hide or cover up? Without those phones you absolutely cannot say there was no smear campaign, all you can say is that OSullivans husband made the most vital piece of evidence in this entire matter vanish off the face of the earth. No smoke without fire as they say.

Nettle Soup

The 12 missing phones is key to all this.

Of 6 phones used by Ms O'Sullivan during the two year period, 1 was recovered and handed in to the tribunal.

2 out of 6 phones used by Mr Callinan were also recovered.

None of the three phones used by Supt Taylor had been recovered.

They had so much time to cover their tracks. It's infuriating.

Mikenesson

Journalists don't reveal sources

It's still unseemly as the journos are then part of the conspiracy and Garda top brass have an unhealthy hold on them.

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

Pretty obvious the journos are closing ranks and hiding behind privledge I would have said. Nor is it that surprising- if they came out and said Taylor was indeed sending them texts about McCabe then their career as a crime and security corresspondent is over- without Garda sources they would have nothing to write about.

Like I said before, these tribunals are useless because many people just don't accept evidence if it doesn't fit their conclusions. Is your claim that every journalist that has given evidence is lying under oath and that Dave Taylor is the only one telling the truth, despite all that has been revelaed about him?

Mikenesson wrote: »

Journalists don't reveal sources

It's still unseemly as the journos are then part of the conspiracy and Garda top brass have an unhealthy hold on them.

Journalists aren't protecting their sources, they are straight up saying something didn't happen. If they were simply protecting their sources they would need only refuse to answer.

Mikenesson

Is there no sanction for refusing to answer a question?

Mikenesson

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Like I said before, these tribunals are useless because many people just don't accept evidence if it doesn't fit their conclusions. Is your claim that every journalist that has given evidence is lying under oath and that Dave Taylor is the only one telling the truth, despite all that has been revelaed about him?






Journalists aren't protecting their sources, they are straight up saying something didn't happen. If they were simply protecting their sources they would need only refuse to answer.

You have extrapolated your argument by paraphrasing what I said

I didn't say they're protecting a source.Theyre protecting their own and the media's interests in the main

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Like I said before, these tribunals are useless because many people just don't accept evidence if it doesn't fit their conclusions. Is your claim that every journalist that has given evidence is lying under oath and that Dave Taylor is the only one telling the truth, despite all that has been revelaed about him?

Nope thats not my claim at all. The evidence here is that three mobile phones went missing. Is your claim that there is nothing to see here?

Journalists aren't protecting their sources, they are straight up saying something didn't happen. If they were simply protecting their sources they would need only refuse to answer.

Not for the first time on this thread that one of your assertations shows me that you have not being following this tribunal but yet are still posting on here taking wild stabs in the dark. I have lost count of the number of journalists who have claimed privilege and refused to answer- not to all the questions asked of them but of all the crucial questions asked of them. Judge Charleton went on a rant on this very matter only last week. He also said that witnesses are not telling him the truth. You need to go back and read the transcripts before taking these wild stabs in the dark because the reality is quite different from what you are claiming.

James Brown

It's a fact that key evidence is missing. Unfortunately this means even if both Callinan and O'Sullivan are exonerated, questions will still hang over the affair. It has been shown to me that Callinan was smearing McCabe, (unless people of different political stripe are lying) whether he believed the story or not. We know he finds whistle blowing 'disgusting'. A remark, enough to have him sacked on it's own IMO.
At this point we are merely finding out how much and how deep the smear campaign was and was O'Sullivan involved or merely allowing it. We must not forget, these people have a duty to the state, specifically in the realm of law and order. It's their duty to act on the side of right in such instances.

Reynolds and Williams showed a bias in their reporting, not to say any other journalists are as damaged.

Captain Obvious

Mikenesson wrote: »

You have extrapolated your argument by paraphrasing what I said

I didn't say they're protecting a source.Theyre protecting their own and the media's interests in the main

By what method are they protecting their interests?

Muahahaha wrote: »

Nope thats not my claim at all. The evidence here is that three mobile phones went missing. Is your claim that there is nothing to see here?

Not at all. There was obviously a lot of dodgy **** going on in the press office.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Not for the first time on this thread that one of your assertations shows me that you have not being following this tribunal but yet are still posting on here taking wild stabs in the dark. I have lost count of the number of journalists who have claimed privilege and refused to answer- not to all the questions asked of them but of all the crucial questions asked of them. Judge Charleton went on a rant on this very matter only last week. He also said that witnesses are not telling him the truth. You need to go back and read the transcripts before taking these wild stabs in the dark because the reality is quite different from what you are claiming.

A number of the journalists have given evidence that Taylors claims are not true. You appear to be saying that evidence is not correct. Or more accurately, you are ignoring the people who give evidence contradicting Taylor and in cases where people remain silent you assume their evidence would have supported him.