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
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,517 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8131
Captain Obvious wrote: »
Wasn't Leahy the first officer to have been appointed by the PA?
He wasn't the first to be appointed but he was in the second round of appointments.
Interestingly he heavily criticised the Government and politicians last November at the Public Accounts Committee over the whole Stepaside Garda station fiasco. Basically said that no one in the Gardaí wanted it re-opened and would rather invest the resources in other areas of Dublin that actually need it, including the building of a new station in Cherrywood.
Reopening Stepaside not a priority for head of Dublin policing, PAChears
I suspect he's the type of person who could never have been a Garda Commissioner under the old direct Government appointment system as he tends to speak his mind and doesn't care if he upsets politicians.0 -
Sierra Oscar wrote: »He wasn't the first to be appointed but he was in the second round of appointments.
Interestingly he heavily criticised the Government and politicians last November at the Public Accounts Committee over the whole Stepaside Garda station fiasco. Basically said that no one in the Gardaí wanted it re-opened and would rather invest the resources in other areas of Dublin that actually need it, including the building of a new station in Cherrywood.
Reopening Stepaside not a priority for head of Dublin policing, PAChears
I suspect he's the type of person who could never have been a Garda Commissioner under the old direct Government appointment system as he tends to speak his mind and doesn't care if he upsets politicians.
He's also the one that cancelled overtime for the last month of the year.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »How do you arrive at this conclusion?
Are you forgetting the e-mails that were made public that outlined the legal strategy being discussed between the then commisoner and justice minister?
Both were publicly supporting him at the time.
There is no getting away from that (from either of them) regardless of missing phones,.laptops and paperwork.
Just reading the transcripts, the backpedalling by Taylor etc. None of the stuff being thrown at O'Sullivan appears to be sticking.
At the very least, she is likely to found to be more sinned against than sinning, with the possibility of being fully exonerated still live.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Is that the strategy to discredit McCabe? Isn't discrediting witnesses against you one of the most basic legal strategies??
You're missing the point, firstly Discrediting him on a false allegation - one he has been exonerated on, shouldn't be considered fair game, the fact that it was being deployed by top brass from within AGS is pretty breathtaking.
Secondly, Frances Fitzgerald denied knowing anything about any strategy to discredit McCabe, yet the e-mails proved otherwise.
I don't view the above scenario as a basic legal strategy, "admin errors" and all.0 -
There are some who see targetting the latest Garda Commissioner as a game.
What do we do if the current Tribunal makes no findings against Noirin O'Sullivan, an increasingly possible outcome?
There are some targeting witnesses with even more vigor.
There's a reason Callinan and O'Sullivan are being investigated. We have been shown various issues, deep rooted, within the organisation, thanks in part to McCabe. I can see having doubts about picking another apple from a seemingly rotten barrel.
We should however give the man a chance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Johnny Dogs wrote: »You're missing the point, firstly Discrediting him on a false allegation - one he has been exonerated on, shouldn't be considered fair game, the fact that it was being deployed by top brass from within AGS is pretty breathtaking.
Secondly, Frances Fitzgerald denied knowing anything about any strategy to discredit McCabe, yet the e-mails proved otherwise.
I don't view the above scenario as a basic legal strategy, "admin errors" and all.
Unfortunately, around here, discrediting him on the basis that a Tribunal found that he was "prone to exaggeration" is not allowed either.0 -
Unfortunately, around here, discrediting him on the basis that a Tribunal found that he was "prone to exaggeration" is not allowed either.
Well let us remind everyone reading this thread what exactly the tribunal found.The O'Higgins Report, following a commission of investigation established by the Department of Justice in 2015, affirmed McCabe's claims and found he was never less than truthful in his reporting
I know some on these threads are prone to the odd bit of exaggeration too, but discrediting them with false allegations of being a kiddie fiddler is a step too far, I'm sure you'd agree.0 -
Seth Brundle wrote: »Looks like the Dept of Justice are testing the water for another in-house choice.
Top garda in Dublin tipped to take over as Commissioner
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/top-garda-in-dublin-tipped-to-take-over-as-commissioner-37025721.html
Hopefully he proves me wrong (if he gets it) but currently I think it would be completely the wrong choice!
The cynic in me is thinking that security correspondent Tom Brady wrote that article because he personally wants Pat Leahy to get the Commissioner job. I would doubt any crime & security journalist would want the PSNI guy with the MI6 background to get the Commissioner job for fear that their sources for stories might get cut off.
That said on the face of it Pat Leahy does come across as a good guy. Another Garda who I would have liked to have seen go for it is Ass.Comm. John ODriscoll. ODriscoll is the man tasked with disrupting the Kinahan cartel and since the Regency shootings he has delivered some superb results and for the first time ever the Kinahans are on the back foot. Without the work of him and his team the gangland murder rate would be at least double what it is. Furthermore he has a rake of cases coming up through the courts and a lot of these violent criminals are soon going to be off the streets. ODriscoll deserves enormous credit for the zeal he has shown to take down the Kinahan cartel. Ironically it was Noirin OSullivan working as a detective in Drimnagh in the 1980s who was given the job of taking down an up and coming drug dealer called Christy Kinahan. That task didnt work out too well for OSullivan as Kinahan built his empire under her watch and now 30 years later he sits comfortably in Dubai running a drug cartel which turns over more than a billion euros a year.Unfortunately, around here, discrediting him on the basis that a Tribunal found that he was "prone to exaggeration" is not allowed either.
Nobody is saying it is not allowed. But if youre going to selectively quote Judge OHiggins and leave out the end of that sentence where he said McCabe was nothing less than truthful then dont act all surprised when other posters call you out on it.
Anyway I note you ignored my question to you so I will ask it again- how are you going to demonstrate your claim that "most of McCabes allegations are unfounded"? Because Judge Higgins said the polar opposite to what you are claiming and his report at the Commission upheld the vast majority of McCabes allegations. Unless you can provide us with factual evidence that "most of McCabes allegations are unfounded" I would suggest that the only person here who is prone to exaggeration is blanch152.0 -
Nobody is saying it is not allowed. But if youre going to selectively quote Judge OHiggins and leave out the end of that sentence where he said McCabe was nothing less than truthful then dont act all surprised when other posters call you out on it.
Anyway I note you ignored my question to you so I will ask it again- how are you going to demonstrate your claim that "most of McCabes allegations are unfounded"? Because Judge Higgins said the polar opposite to what you are claiming and his report at the Commission upheld the vast majority of McCabes allegations. Unless you can provide us with factual evidence that "most of McCabes allegations are unfounded" I would suggest that the only person here who is prone to exaggeration is blanch152.
I have previously shown a mathematical analysis of McCabe's evidence that would show that only 18.8% of his allegations were proven. Whether you call the remaining allegations unfounded or unproven is a matter of semantics. I should probably have used unproven in the single post you are now referring to, as I had used it before.I am going to be pedantic to show up the limitation of your mathematical construct:
Allegations of malpractice in Baileboro =12
Allegations of malpractice on Pulse = 1000
Allegations Vs Callinan & 2 x Assistant Commissioners = 3
Total allegations =1015
Total found to be true =191
Total found to be unproven =824
Accuracy Percentage = 18.81%
At the end of the day, I am not disputing the conclusions of the O'Higgins Commission, but just as that Commission did not believe every word out of McCabe's mouth, neither do I.
Here is what I have consistently said about McCabe. I stand over every word of it.I never said he lied. I said there are serious question marks over his evidence, after all, the Tribunal concluded he was prone to exaggeration, a description that would fit my statement.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.
I have never defended the treatment of McCabe or the other alleged behaviour being currently investigated.0 -
I have previously shown a mathematical analysis of McCabe's evidence that would show that only 18.8% of his allegations were proven. Whether you call the remaining allegations unfounded or unproven is a matter of semantics. I should probably have used unproven in the single post you are now referring to, as I had used it before.Originally Posted by blanch152 View Post
I am going to be pedantic to show up the limitation of your mathematical construct:
Allegations of malpractice in Baileboro =12
Allegations of malpractice on Pulse = 1000
Allegations Vs Callinan & 2 x Assistant Commissioners = 3
Total allegations =1015
Total found to be true =191
Total found to be unproven =824
Accuracy Percentage = 18.81%
How can an allegation be unproven if it was never even tested by the judge in the first place? Of course you know all this but it does not suit your agenda to slur the name and character of Maurice McCabe.
Your alleged mathematical analysis is nothing more than deluded mental gymnastics. You are now claiming that "most of McCabes allegations are unfounded" while twisting and spinning the numbers of allegations that were actually tested by Judge Higgins. Which puts you directly at odds with OHiggins himself who said in his report that McCabes allegations were upheld the majority of time. I mean who are we to believe, Judge OHiggins who went and tested the allegations with a fine tooth comb or blanch152 who is attempting to spin the facts to include 824 allegations of Garda malpractice that were never even tested?0 -
Advertisement
-
How can an allegation be unproven if it was never even tested by the judge in the first place? Of course you know all this but it does not suit your agenda to slur the name and character of Maurice McCabe.
Your alleged mathematical analysis is nothing more than deluded mental gymnastics. You are now claiming that "most of McCabes allegations are unfounded" while twisting and spinning the numbers of allegations that were actually tested by Judge Higgins. Which puts you directly at odds with OHiggins himself who said in his report that McCabes allegations were upheld the majority of time. I mean who are we to believe, Judge OHiggins who went and tested the allegations with a fine tooth comb or blanch152 who is attempting to spin the facts to include 824 allegations of Garda malpractice that were never even tested?
As I said in my original post on the subject, my 18.8% has as much validity and is equally as nonsensical as your 94% and 99%. I actually offered an opinion on a more correct assessment, if you check back.0 -
Some RTE folk seem to be backing up Taylor to an extent.RTÉ journalists tell tribunal of alleged derogatory comments by Callinan
Two colleagues of RTÉ broadcaster Philip Boucher-Hayes have said the journalist told them about derogatory comments he alleges were made by the former garda commissioner Martin Callinan in relation to the whistleblower Sgt Maurice McCabe in December 2013.
Niamh O’Connor, then a commissioning editor in RTÉ, gave evidence to the Disclosures Tribunal about the day of the Crimecall television programme on 17 December 2013, which included Mr Callinan as a contributor.
She told the tribunal that she suggested to Mr Boucher-Hayes that he speak to Mr Callinan before the programme to discuss editorial matters that had arisen.
Ms O’Connor said that when she met Mr Boucher-Hayes in early 2014 for the first time after the programme was broadcast, the journalist told her that Martin Callinan had made derogatory remarks about Sgt McCabe to him, including that the sergeant had psychological and psychiatric issues.
...
Tom Donnelly, a former series producer on RTÉ’s Drivetime, told the tribunal that he had had a conversation with Mr Boucher-Hayes about the editorial matters that had arisen on the Crimecall programme in late December 2013.
Mr Donnelly said Mr Boucher-Hayes had told him about the conversation with Martin Callinan, that Mr Callinan had said Sgt McCabe had problems, and that the former garda commissioner had made reference to "the worst kind of things" in relation to the sergeant.
Mr Donnelly also said Mr Boucher-Hayes had said that Martin Callinan had told him that if he needed more information he could talk to a colleague, and had gestured down the corridor to a member of the Garda Press Office.
Mr Donnelly said he understood that this was in reference to Supt David Taylor but he said Mr Boucher-Hayes did not mention the superintendent by name during their conversation.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0621/972147-disclosures-tribunal/
With missing phones, laptops, documents it will come down to peoples word and how many people say similar things. Not good for Callinan.
If the head of an organisation is involved in a smear campaign against one of it's own members, how many others need be implicated or is it even necessary to show there was a campaign?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Some RTE folk seem to be backing up Taylor to an extent.
With missing phones, laptops, documents it will come down to peoples word and how many people say similar things. Not good for Callinan.
If the head of an organisation is involved in a smear campaign against one of it's own members, how many others need be implicated or is it even necessary to show there was a campaign?
Not really backing Taylor is it? It's just confirming that Callinan himself was bad mouthing McCabe. That wasn't really in doubt. He's on video calling him disgusting.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Not really backing Taylor is it? It's just confirming that Callinan himself was bad mouthing McCabe. That wasn't really in doubt. He's on video calling him disgusting.
Pretty sure it is actually, certainly from Callinan himself and (O'Sullivan too).
Callinan denies trying to blacken McCabe's character
It's pretty much the whole reason the tribunal was established. (To establish if a smear campaign was being waged against McCabe from the top down)
Unless of course you think the derogatory comments referred to begin and end with Callinan saying McCabe was disgusting?0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Not really backing Taylor is it? It's just confirming that Callinan himself was bad mouthing McCabe. That wasn't really in doubt. He's on video calling him disgusting.
Never said it did. Picking and defending sides aside, do we need much more to show there was a smear campaign against McCabe or might it get worse for O'Sullivan down the line? As I said and you repeated, not looking good for Callinan and we know different levels within the Garda smeared McCabe. It's been shown IMO.
On the Taylor point, if Callinan was gesturing towards the press office in that regard I'd say it somewhat backs up the idea that the press office may have had a hand in assisting Callinan smear McCabe, that's all I'm saying.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »and we know different levels within the Garda smeared McCabe. It's been shown IMO.
where has this been shown? apart from Callinan apparantly running around spreading gossip about McCabe to everyone he could, I dont remember hearing anything about any Gardai at any other level doing the same?
apart from Taylor, trying to say that he did, but yet no-one really backing him up from what I can see.0 -
where has this been shown? apart from Callinan apparantly running around spreading gossip about McCabe to everyone he could, I dont remember hearing anything about any Gardai at any other level doing the same?
apart from Taylor, trying to say that he did, but yet no-one really backing him up from what I can see.
We have read how (presumably) rank and file members of the force allegedly nailed dead rats to McCabes front door.
No one is claiming the smear campaign originated from within rank and file members of AGS, but I think it would be naive in the extreme, not to assume that they weren't aware of the rumours and innuendo circulating about McCabe, but if only one single rankand file member repeated these rumours, they were partaking in the smear campaign.
That's what a smear campaign is after all. Start a rumour, give it legs, let it go.0 -
where has this been shown? apart from Callinan apparantly running around spreading gossip about McCabe to everyone he could, I dont remember hearing anything about any Gardai at any other level doing the same?
apart from Taylor, trying to say that he did, but yet no-one really backing him up from what I can see.
Really? How many times does this come up? Evidence going missing, false claims of abuse, harassment. These things didn't start and end with Callinan. Gossip? Different people generally don't go on record saying the same thing, if they don't believe it to be true, but just like the three Garda at the Jobstown protest they all might be wrong, but it wouldn't really be likely would it, that different people all swearing to something would turn out to be mistaken?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Evidence going missing, false claims of abuse, harassment. These things didn't start and end with Callinan.
Are you actually suggesting that members of AGS stole evidence, made false claims of abuse or harassed McCabe? Because I don't believe there is any suggestion of this anywhere?
In fact, did McCabe not say that he had got great support from his colleagues?0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »We have read how (presumably) rank and file members of the force allegedly nailed dead rats to McCabes front door..
Where can we read this? And why presumably rank & file members are responsible?0 -
Advertisement
-
Are you actually suggesting that members of AGS stole evidence, made false claims of abuse or harassed McCabe? Because I don't believe there is any suggestion of this anywhere?
In fact, did McCabe not say that he had got great support from his colleagues?
Yes, I believe it has been shown.
Can you save this for future reference?What stands out in the report in relation to McCabe is the treatment that was meted out to him within the force while he was trying to have the issues addressed.
O’Higgins highlights five separate incidences in which there were attempts to blame McCabe for poor policing or worse himself. Four of those relate to cases he had brought to the attention of his superior officers to be addressed.
The fifth, probably the most sinister, involved an attempt to blame him for the disappearance of a computer seized from a priest who was convicted of child sexual abuse.
In each case, O’Higgins deems that McCabe was targeted in the wrong. Where there was a conflict of evidence between McCabe and other garda officers, O’Higgins accepted McCabe’s version of events.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/in-five-cases-ohiggins-deems-mccabe-was-targeted-in-the-wrong-398975.htmlAllegations against Sgt Maurice McCabe were “peddled” to newsrooms, Irish Daily Mirror editor John Kierans told a tribunal on Thursday.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/allegations-against-sgt-maurice-mccabe-12763811
The important thing is the Garda get cleaned up. It will be a better environment for rank and file and give a better accountable service to the state.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »Pretty sure it is actually, certainly from Callinan himself and (O'Sullivan too).
Callinan denies trying to blacken McCabe's character
It's pretty much the whole reason the tribunal was established. (To establish if a smear campaign was being waged against McCabe from the top down)
Unless of course you think the derogatory comments referred to begin and end with Callinan saying McCabe was disgusting?
All that seems to have been proven so far is that Callinan was bad mouthing McCabe to whoever would listen. There's very little evidence of anything else. People keep going on about the phones as if they are the missing piece but if the material on them was so important, not to mention supporting of his claims, I believe an experienced Garda like Taylor would have made his own backups of the data in some fashion.Matt Barrett wrote: »Never said it did.
Is that not what you were saying here?Matt Barrett wrote: »Some RTE folk seem to be backing up Taylor to an extent.Matt Barrett wrote: »Picking and defending sides aside, do we need much more to show there was a smear campaign against McCabe or might it get worse for O'Sullivan down the line? As I said and you repeated, not looking good for Callinan and we know different levels within the Garda smeared McCabe. It's been shown IMO.
The only campaign that seems to have been proven is a personal one by Callinan. So I guess you could consider that a smear campaign. But I think two real questions remain. Did he believe what he was telling people was true? Did he involve any other Gardaí in his campaign?Matt Barrett wrote: »On the Taylor point, if Callinan was gesturing towards the press office in that regard I'd say it somewhat backs up the idea that the press office may have had a hand in assisting Callinan smear McCabe, that's all I'm saying.
If I give someone your number as someone who sells drugs it doesn't make you a drug dealer.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »On the Taylor point, if Callinan was gesturing towards the press office in that regard I'd say it somewhat backs up the idea that the press office may have had a hand in assisting Callinan smear McCabe, that's all I'm saying.
Is that proven?
Or, given the holes in Taylor's evidence, isn't it equally plausible that the smearing originated from the Press Office or was passed on to the Press Office by middle management who didn't like McCabe, and made it from there to Callinan? In which case, Callinan is technically correct that he didn't smear McCabe, rather he repeated things which he believed in good faith, given their source?
In legal terms (and that is what a Tribunal is looking at), where does repeating something you have been told in good faith differ from a smear campaign?
To be clear, before the usual suspects jump on me, I am posing the above as questions rather than answers i.e. I am not pointing the finger at anyone.0 -
blanch152 wrote:Or, given the holes in Taylor's evidence, isn't it equally plausible that the smearing originated from the Press Office or was passed on to the Press Office by middle management who didn't like McCabe, and made it from there to Callinan? In which case, Callinan is technically correct that he didn't smear McCabe, rather he repeated things which he believed in good faith, given their source?
So McGuiness making reference to Callinans claims in the car park about McCabe is fantasy?0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »All that seems to have been proven so far is that Callinan was bad mouthing McCabe to whoever would listen. There's very little evidence of anything else. People keep going on about the phones as if they are the missing piece but if the material on them was so important, not to mention supporting of his claims, I believe an experienced Garda like Taylor would have made his own backups of the data in some fashion.
Is that not what you were saying here?
The only campaign that seems to have been proven is a personal one by Callinan. So I guess you could consider that a smear campaign. But I think two real questions remain. Did he believe what he was telling people was true? Did he involve any other Gardaí in his campaign?
If I give someone your number as someone who sells drugs it doesn't make you a drug dealer.
Nope. I said:Matt Barrett wrote: »Some RTE folk seem to be backing up Taylor to an extent.
You said:Captain Obvious wrote: »Not really backing Taylor is it?
They seemed to, to an extent. It's not categorical, the clues are in 'seemed to' and 'to an extent'.
We've covered this. It does not matter if Callinan believed allegations to be true or not. They were unproven. He engaged in smearing McCabe. The unprofessionalism involved is another issue of concern. Leaks in An Garda aren't anything new but you'd expect a commissioner to be professional.
Do you think Callinan was behind all the issues O'Higgins referred to? Do you think Callinan moved evidence to put McCabe in a bad light?
It would mean you are smearing my name by giving the impression I'm a drug dealer. I'm not sure what line you're following with this.
Again, blind loyalty aside, with all the revelations about Callinan form varying sources, I feel a smear campaign has been shown. It's highly unlikely and frankly not believable, it began and stopped with Callinan. At this point it's a matter of whether O'Sullivan was ignorant or complicit.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Nope. I said:
You said:
They seemed to, to an extent. It's not categorical, the clues are in 'seemed to' and 'to an extent'.
They didn't back him to any extent.Matt Barrett wrote: »We've covered this. It does not matter is Callinan believed allegations to be true or not. They were unproven.
It most certainly does matter. There's a big difference between the two.Matt Barrett wrote: »He engaged in smearing McCabe. The unprofessionalism involved is another issue of concern. Leaks in An Garda aren't anything new but you'd expect a commissioner to be professional.
Do you think Callinan was behind all the issues O'Higgins referred to? Do you think Callinan moved evidence to put McCabe in a bad light?
Can you be more specific?Matt Barrett wrote: »It would mean you are smearing my name by giving the impression I'm a drug dealer. I'm not sure what line you're following with this.
It's not difficult to follow if you read it in context of the quote that preceded it.Matt Barrett wrote: »Again, blind loyalty aside, with all the revelations about Callinan form varying sources, I feel a smear campaign has been shown. It's highly unlikely and frankly not believable, it began and stopped with Callinan. At this point it's a matter of whether O'Sullivan was ignorant or complicit.
Would you go away with your "blind loyalty". It's a pathetic dig that only makes your arguments look weak.0 -
Is that proven?
Or, given the holes in Taylor's evidence, isn't it equally plausible that the smearing originated from the Press Office or was passed on to the Press Office by middle management who didn't like McCabe, and made it from there to Callinan? In which case, Callinan is technically correct that he didn't smear McCabe, rather he repeated things which he believed in good faith, given their source?
In legal terms (and that is what a Tribunal is looking at), where does repeating something you have been told in good faith differ from a smear campaign?
To be clear, before the usual suspects jump on me, I am posing the above as questions rather than answers i.e. I am not pointing the finger at anyone.
I take it you read the testimony? What part of 'I'd say' has you confused? Did you not understand my comments relate to the context of the report I cited?
A smear campaign differs greatly. It's spreading gossip and hear say to smear a person, put them in a bad light. It shows a bias.
I do not believe you do not know the difference. Before anyone jumps on me, I'm posing this as a question; are you purposefully trying to fudge, close down or dismiss the discussion? And if so, to what end?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Nope. I said:
You said:
They seemed to, to an extent. It's not categorical, the clues are in 'seemed to' and 'to an extent'.
We've covered this. It does not matter if Callinan believed allegations to be true or not. They were unproven. He engaged in smearing McCabe. The unprofessionalism involved is another issue of concern. Leaks in An Garda aren't anything new but you'd expect a commissioner to be professional.
Do you think Callinan was behind all the issues O'Higgins referred to? Do you think Callinan moved evidence to put McCabe in a bad light?
It would mean you are smearing my name by giving the impression I'm a drug dealer. I'm not sure what line you're following with this.
Again, blind loyalty aside, with all the revelations about Callinan form varying sources, I feel a smear campaign has been shown. It's highly unlikely and frankly not believable, it began and stopped with Callinan. At this point it's a matter of whether O'Sullivan was ignorant or complicit.
(1) A campaign is organised - there has been little evidence presented so far that there was any organised campaign against McCabe, other than from Taylor, who has changed his story multiple times. There has been evidence (conflicting) that things were said about McCabe, but no evidence that this was organised or pre-meditated.
(2) For a campaign to be a smear campaign, those making the allegations have to know that the allegations they were spreading were definitively untrue. Again, there has been no evidence presented to demonstrate that Callinan or others alleged to have spread rumours about McCabe definitively knew those allegations were untrue.
So while we have evidence that some things were said about McCabe, we are a long way from being able to say with any confidence that there was a smear campaign.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »They didn't back him to any extent.
It most certainly does matter. There's a big difference between the two.
Can you be more specific?
It's not difficult to follow if you read it in context of the quote that preceded it.
Would you go away with your "blind loyalty". It's a pathetic dig that only makes your arguments look weak.
I disagree. It looks to me and them that Callinan was eluding to the press office. That would back Talyor, to an extent.
It doesn't matter. He spread unproven accusations and rumour in an effort to smear McCabe. unbecoming of a human, let alone a supposed law and order professional.
Yes. Do you believe no Garda had any involvement in any smear campaign, it was just Callinan?
It appears to me some folk in a public and professional capacity are bias and actively fighting for one side over another. Not sure how that relates to my 'argument'.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »I take it you read the testimony? What part of 'I'd say' has you confused? Did you not understand my comments relate to the context of the report I cited?
A smear campaign differs greatly. It's spreading gossip and hear say to smear a person, put them in a bad light. It shows a bias.
I do not believe you do not know the difference. Before anyone jumps on me, I'm posing this as a question; are you purposefully trying to fudge, close down or dismiss the discussion? And if so, to what end?
How I am closing down a discussion by suggesting alternative scenarios?
You have been definitively stating there was a smear campaign, when there has been insufficient evidence to prove that so far. That is closing down the discussion, refusing to allow alternate views.
You may well be right, the judge might conclude that way. However, you are premature in stating it so clearly. I am not taking a position one way or the other, I am posing open questions.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement