Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

I am only quoting a judge:

"In this respect, I have been immensely impressed by his evidence, not only in terms of his professional expertise and experience, but also by his explanation of the constraints under which he is operating, his concern for the protection of life and the of preservation of peace, and his genuine desire to assist the Tribunal in so far as he can"

Do you disagree with this judge?

But that is not the question I asked you at all. So I will ask it again-

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think we all know it wont go anywhere but why dont you deal with the substantive points. Youre the one singing Drew Harris praises so what do you have to say about him obstructing justice for the families of victims of the troubles? Nothing to see here as well?

blanch152 wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question as to whether you accept what the judge said about his professional expertise and experience and his concern for the protection of life and the preservation of peace.

So what about the Belfast High Court judge who said that the actions of the HET led by Harris was "an abuse of power"? Do you believe this judge as automatically as you believe all judges?

And are you okay with Drew Harris obstructing justice in Northern Ireland? If he does the same in the Republic is that okay too? And what of his conflict of interest in the live investigation in to the Dublin Monaghan bombings? Are you ok with the Garda Commissioner being conflicted in an investigation into the murder of 33 Irish citizens? It certainly sounds like it from here but sure enlighten us.

givyjoe

Taytoland wrote: »

That is the crunch of it. He's not "one of them" and that's it. He's just another "Brit" and must be resisted.

Aren't you a Brit? Wouldn't you be expected to say just that.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question as to whether you accept what the judge said about his professional expertise and experience and his concern for the protection of life and the preservation of peace.

The judge was giving his opinion of Harris evidence in that particular tribunal. Which was investigating the collusion of gardai into the deaths of RUC officers.
I don't see how this opinion has any bearing on anything other than his evidence in this case?

McMurphy

Taytoland wrote: »

That is the crunch of it. He's not "one of them" and that's it. He's just another "Brit" and must be resisted.

Could you please expand on what you mean by "one of them" ?

Is this an attempt at trying to turn the thread into a side picking competition? If your against Harris's appointment you are a lilly wearing chucky?

There are serving members of AGS who (not so far as I can tell otherwise) seem to be pretty much apolitical - certainly wouldn't have classed any of them as folk who would have any thing against "Brits" being appointed to the role of the commissioner of AGS.

The conflict of interest seems to be the thing that's sticking in the craw of some, and I'm sure most people couldn't care less for his nationality or political leanings.

Chips Lovell

The High Court has just rejected the application.

blanch152

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The High Court has just rejected the application.

Of course it has, I predicted that outcome when it was first put forward.

Let's face it, it was a renegade Shinner, trying to prevent the inevitable.

The problem still remains that he is not one of them.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course it has, I predicted that outcome when it was first put forward.

Let's face it, it was a renegade Shinner, trying to prevent the inevitable.

The problem still remains that he is not one of them.

Damaged goods now, and tasked with overseeing a force where a large swathe of the members within it won't respect him.

How long will he last before someone somehere leaks something about him?


A commisoner where a large swathe of the members of the force neither trust nor respect the commissioner is a recipe for disaster.

FG have had some rotten luck commisoniers under their tenure.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Damaged goods now, and tasked with overseeing a force where a large swathe of the members within it won't respect him.

How long will he last before someone somehere leaks something about him?


A commisoner where a large swathe of the members of the force neither trust nor respect the commissioner is a recipe for disaster.

FG have had some rotten luck commisoniers under their tenure.

I don't think most members will care about this issue if the man sorts out the issues they want sorted.

Auguste Comte

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't think most members will care about this issue if the man sorts out the issues they want sorted.

Might be better if he was to sort out what's wrong with the guards rather than what the members want sorted.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, you could have someone who was a fireman in another country or a truck-driver, I suppose.

I know that sounds flippant, but any candidate who was senior enough in policing in another country, would be carrying baggage with secrets they cannot reveal.

But how many of those other countries' state and policing establishments would have had a direct hand in atrocities committed in this one?

It's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that the obvious conflict of interest of appointing someone sworn to the British state are the same as those of someone sworn to the French, Italian, American etc. The British state until very recently in the historical timeline was the enemy of the Irish state. That makes a difference, and it's bizarre for anyone to deny that.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How long will he last before someone somehere leaks something about him?

Or more to the point - how long until somebody threatens to leak something in order to control him or what he does.


No doubt about it, the man is compromised (or just as damaging, perceived to be compromised) before even taking the job.

Brilliant from FG and the coalition ...again.

Captain Obvious

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Might be better if he was to sort out what's wrong with the guards rather than what the members want sorted.

Same thing for the most part.

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Same thing for the most part.

It isn't really as those in the top tier have resisted change and reform.

Captain Obvious

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It isn't really as those in the top tier have resisted change and reform.

Top tier as in management? I wasn't talking about them. They make up a very small proportion of the members.

tayto lover

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Top tier as in management? I wasn't talking about them. They make up a very small proportion of the members.

But their influence is immense. They control the force and make policies. A Garda who does not carry our their bidding is open to discipline, is he not, even if their bidding does not entirely comply with the law of the land?

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Top tier as in management? I wasn't talking about them. They make up a very small proportion of the members.

That is the 'proportion' that requires most reform. That is also the 'proportion' that would want to compromise him the most.

Captain Obvious

tayto lover wrote: »

But their influence is immense. They control the force and make policies. A Garda who does not carry our their bidding is open to discipline, is he not, even if their bidding does not entirely comply with the law of the land?

What do you mean by law of the land? A Garda cannot be forced to do something illegal.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the 'proportion' that requires most reform. That is also the 'proportion' that would want to compromise him the most.

The poster I responded to said a large swathe of the force wouldn't respect him. I took that to mean he meant the larger portion of Gardaí and not simply upper management.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What do you mean by law of the land? A Garda cannot be forced to do something illegal.

Well if perverting the course of justice is illegal, and a Garda's prior official secrets act commitments require him or her to pervert the course of justice by withholding information or obstructing investigations, then it could be argued that they are indeed being "forced" to do something illegal.

I'm not one of the people entirely opposed to Harris' appointment, I want to see how this all plays out first, but I do find it absurd that some people are trying to pretend that there isn't a problem or even a potential problem here. The issue is that, while putting this in such blunt terms might be unpalatable for some, The United Kingdom as a state was our de facto 'enemy' during the period in which these atrocities took place. Ergo, anyone who is required - or even merely chooses, for whatever reason - to obstruct, or even just not assist when possible, an investigation into atrocities committed by, at that time, an enemy nation state, does have some genuine questions to answer about whether they are suitable to lead a country's law enforcement or security services.

Here's an analogy for you: I worked as a bodyguard to Gerry The Monk Hutch around the time of the Regency attack. It is widely suggested - not proven, but suggested - that he was responsible for that attack. Now, today, I have some kind of NDA preventing me from disclosing to anyone, any facts I might know about his activities during that time period.

Daniel Kinahan is looking for a bodybuard now, today.

Does he hire me for the job? Is it unfair to suggest that I have a conflict of interest in that my NDA would prevent me from telling him who ordered his attempted murder, who was involved, etc? Is that unreasonable, or hyperbole, or conspiracy theorist or whatever?

I suspect some people will find this analogy easier to get their heads around because we accept that Kinahan and Hutch are very clearly defined enemies to one another - while some people are in denial about the simple fact that, however good our relationship may now be (and I have nothing against the contemporary British state whatsoever), at that time, they were our military enemies, no less so than at one time Britain and France were military enemies, or at one time the United States and Britain were military enemies.

The issue is messy and not at all straightforward like some are trying to suggest. The guy may have loyalties, either merely personal and psychological or legally binding, to a state which during the relevant time period was a straight-up military enemy of this state. That is a valid reason to oppose or at least question his suitability for a law enforcement appointment here.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well if perverting the course of justice is illegal, and a Garda's prior official secrets act commitments require him or her to pervert the course of justice by withholding information or obstructing investigations, then it could be argued that they are indeed being "forced" to do something illegal.

I'm not one of the people entirely opposed to Harris' appointment, I want to see how this all plays out first, but I do find it absurd that some people are trying to pretend that there isn't a problem or even a potential problem here. The issue is that, while putting this in such blunt terms might be unpalatable for some, The United Kingdom as a state was our de facto 'enemy' during the period in which these atrocities took place. Ergo, anyone who is required - or even merely chooses, for whatever reason - to obstruct, or even just not assist when possible, an investigation into atrocities committed by, at that time, an enemy nation state, does have some genuine questions to answer about whether they are suitable to lead a country's law enforcement or security services.

Here's an analogy for you: I worked as a bodyguard to Gerry The Monk Hutch around the time of the Regency attack. It is widely suggested - not proven, but suggested - that he was responsible for that attack. Now, today, I have some kind of NDA preventing me from disclosing to anyone, any facts I might know about his activities during that time period.

Daniel Kinahan is looking for a bodybuard now, today.

Does he hire me for the job? Is it unfair to suggest that I have a conflict of interest in that my NDA would prevent me from telling him who ordered his attempted murder, who was involved, etc? Is that unreasonable, or hyperbole, or conspiracy theorist or whatever?

I suspect some people will find this analogy easier to get their heads around because we accept that Kinahan and Hutch are very clearly defined enemies to one another - while some people are in denial about the simple fact that, however good our relationship may now be (and I have nothing against the contemporary British state whatsoever), at that time, they were our military enemies, no less so than at one time Britain and France were military enemies, or at one time the United States and Britain were military enemies.

The issue is messy and not at all straightforward like some are trying to suggest. The guy may have loyalties, either merely personal and psychological or legally binding, to a state which during the relevant time period was a straight-up military enemy of this state. That is a valid reason to oppose or at least question his suitability for a law enforcement appointment here.

Not really sure what that has to do with the conversation my post was a part of.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not really sure what that has to do with the conversation my post was a part of.

You said "A Garda cannot be forced to do something illegal". I'm arguing that if, as some are suggesting, we should simply accept and respect the fact that Harris could be bound to follow some kind of NDA or official secrets act declaration regarding his previous job, then that would, in fact, force him to do something illegal.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You said "A Garda cannot be forced to do something illegal". I'm arguing that if, as some are suggesting, we should simply accept and respect the fact that Harris could be bound to follow some kind of NDA or official secrets act declaration regarding his previous job, then that would, in fact, force him to do something illegal.

I was talking in the context of a superior ordering a subordinate to do something that breaks Irish law. You are talking about a superior being required to follow Irish law at the expense of the law of another country.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I was talking in the context of a superior ordering a subordinate to do something that breaks Irish law. You are talking about a superior being required to follow Irish law at the expense of the law of another country.

I'm talking about a superior being required to break Irish law because of prior commitments to the law of another country, and pointing out that such a person is most certainly unsuitable for a top job in our Gardai.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You said "A Garda cannot be forced to do something illegal". I'm arguing that if, as some are suggesting, we should simply accept and respect the fact that Harris could be bound to follow some kind of NDA or official secrets act declaration regarding his previous job, then that would, in fact, force him to do something illegal.

How would it force him to do something illegal?

Garda investigations must be conducted within the law. Now, that law is broad, but they cannot conduct illegal searches, they cannot detain people for longer than certain periods etc. So, if the law - the Official Secrets Act - prevents Harris from co-operating, there is nothing illegal.

Does the English Official Secrets Act have force in Ireland? We have all been operating on the assumption that while Harris can bring his knowledge of IRA acts with him (which I suspect is the reason many don't like his appointment) but not that of what happened in Dublin and Monaghan. Perhaps he will be able to assist that investigation, after all, it was the lad who launched the nutty and instantly dismissed court case that made the allegation that Harris is bound by the Official Secrets Act.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

How would it force him to do something illegal?

Garda investigations must be conducted within the law. Now, that law is broad, but they cannot conduct illegal searches, they cannot detain people for longer than certain periods etc. So, if the law - the Official Secrets Act - prevents Harris from co-operating, there is nothing illegal.

Does the English Official Secrets Act have force in Ireland? We have all been operating on the assumption that while Harris can bring his knowledge of IRA acts with him (which I suspect is the reason many don't like his appointment) but not that of what happened in Dublin and Monaghan. Perhaps he will be able to assist that investigation, after all, it was the lad who launched the nutty and instantly dismissed court case that made the allegation that Harris is bound by the Official Secrets Act.

Do we have a right to know whether he is or isn't bound by the Official Secret Act of another country?
Or will it come out when things go pear shaped yet again with yet another commissioner?

Given that the information he had on the IRA was valueless(if it was, why wasn't it acted upon?) in northern Ireland why would it have any value here?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do we have a right to know whether he is or isn't bound by the Official Secret Act of another country?
Or will it come out when things go pear shaped yet again with yet another commissioner?

Given that the information he had on the IRA was valueless(if it was, why wasn't it acted upon?) in northern Ireland why would it have any value here?

He may have information on IRA activities down here, which he was unable to act upon before now, because he didn't have jurisdiction.

His knowledge of activities in the South probably isn't limited to just the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Hope to see plenty of breakthroughs in unsolved crimes if he is allowed use information.

Anyway, I think people on here are vastly overstating the involvement of the Commissioner in day-to-day inquiries, particularly those of a historical nature.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Anyway, I think people on here are vastly overstating the involvement of the Commissioner in day-to-day inquiries, particularly those of a historical nature.

Haven't we had enough trouble with the 'it'll be fine' approach to this job?

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

How would it force him to do something illegal?

Garda investigations must be conducted within the law. Now, that law is broad, but they cannot conduct illegal searches, they cannot detain people for longer than certain periods etc. So, if the law - the Official Secrets Act - prevents Harris from co-operating, there is nothing illegal.

Does the English Official Secrets Act have force in Ireland? We have all been operating on the assumption that while Harris can bring his knowledge of IRA acts with him (which I suspect is the reason many don't like his appointment) but not that of what happened in Dublin and Monaghan. Perhaps he will be able to assist that investigation, after all, it was the lad who launched the nutty and instantly dismissed court case that made the allegation that Harris is bound by the Official Secrets Act.

Surely being party to an offence and concealing one's evidence of that is itself a crime in the obstruction of justice or conspiracy area? If I witness a murder and I either refuse to testify about it in court when called as a witness, or actively lie about it, is that not obstruction of justice - if it's subsequently proven that I had the information and chose to either withhold it or misconstrue it?

I'm aware that we have the right to remain silent with it comes to police questioning, but if there's a court case or tribunal about it I always thought there were consequences for withholding relevant information. So if we ever get as far as holding a court case or tribunal into the activities of the Glenanne Gang, and he does indeed have information about it which is restricted by oaths or agreements he made with the British state in his previous job, that would amount to those oaths (not to reveal information) obliging him to commit a crime (failing to disclose such information at trial) in Ireland. No?

Legal issues aside, IMO the only way he can be a legitimate Garda Commissioner is if he purges any and all obligations to the British state somehow, and works only and entirely with the interests of the Irish state in mind - including ratting on any of his former colleagues if he does happen to know something about their involvement in terrorism.

Again, just to make it clear that I'm not partisan or selective in this, I regard anyone who was in McCabes's district and chose not to expose some of the criminal behaviour he exposed, and/or lied about it or stayed quiet when questioned, as equally scummy. Being party to wrongdoing and choosing not to blow the whistle on it is every bit as bad as being the one who pulls the trigger.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely being party to an offence and concealing one's evidence of that is itself a crime in the obstruction of justice or conspiracy area? If I witness a murder and I either refuse to testify about it in court when called as a witness, or actively lie about it, is that not obstruction of justice - if it's subsequently proven that I had the information and chose to either withhold it or misconstrue it?

I'm aware that we have the right to remain silent with it comes to police questioning, but if there's a court case or tribunal about it I always thought there were consequences for withholding relevant information. So if we ever get as far as holding a court case or tribunal into the activities of the Glenanne Gang, and he does indeed have information about it which is restricted by oaths or agreements he made with the British state in his previous job, that would amount to those oaths (not to reveal information) obliging him to commit a crime (failing to disclose such information at trial) in Ireland. No?

Legal issues aside, IMO the only way he can be a legitimate Garda Commissioner is if he purges any and all obligations to the British state somehow, and works only and entirely with the interests of the Irish state in mind - including ratting on any of his former colleagues if he does happen to know something about their involvement in terrorism.

Again, just to make it clear that I'm not partisan or selective in this, I regard anyone who was in McCabes's district and chose not to expose some of the criminal behaviour he exposed, and/or lied about it or stayed quiet when questioned, as equally scummy. Being party to wrongdoing and choosing not to blow the whistle on it is every bit as bad as being the one who pulls the trigger.

What offence would he be party to?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What offence would he be party to?

Is willfully concealing evidence of an investigation a crime? I'm not sure. Does it depend on if you are involved or does it carry if you have information could assist but do not bring it forward? Also, if you are the head of the organisation running an investigation and you are impeding it by not giving full disclosure, is that a thing? He could always pull a Francis and say he kinda knew but didn't really or a Charlie with the knew but didn't think it was important. He'll be grand.

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Does it depend on if you are involved or does it carry if you have information could assist but do not bring it forward?

I think that was recently found to be unconstitutional