Garda investigated after CCTV showing arrest of naked, distressed woman goes viral.

biscuithead

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Here we go again...

Well?

People are saying he should be prosecuted and people are saying what he did WAS illegal. What do you think?

J Mysterio

I looked at her Facebook too. It was very disturbing. Tragic case.

This case also further erodes public confidence in the Guards which is currently at the lowest ebb I have hitherto witnessed.
Noirin O'Sullivan needs to be fired now and a massive restructuring put in place, to include consideration of what ethics and standards a Guard needs to live up to serve in the force. It's one scandal after another at the moment and O'Sullivan is really hanging on for dear life. It's scandalous. Interesting situation in the context of the Comey firing in the U.S (though maybe there are few parallels).

Northerngal

biscuithead wrote: »

Well?

People are saying he should be prosecuted and people are saying what he did WAS illegal. What do you think?

Can the Gardaí take a picture or video of me?
There is nothing to stop Gardaí taking photographs or video footage in public or in a Garda station. However, they must not harass you, follow you about in public or interfere with your private or business life unless they have a very good reason. If they do take pictures or video footage, they must obey data protection law.
Gardaí may use the photographs or video as evidence against you. However, they can only use these images as evidence if they had permission from a judge or senior Garda to take the photographs or video images.

So yes it was a data protection breach and illegal.

pilly

God, I'm just really letting this sink in and as someone who has suffered mental health difficulties if I thought for one minute that a horrible moment in my life was out there on the internet for all to see and would always be there I think I'd take the same course of action.

What must she have gone through to think how many thousand of people were viewing that?

I sincerely hope that this so called Garda never sleeps soundly again.

IsaacWunder

IsaacWunder wrote: »

It was the police themselves who brought in the social workers. If the Gardaí pushed for this I think the funding could be provided.

No one including Gardai can get social workers outside of normal Monday to Friday working hours & it's been like that for years. If they can't be got for their own jobs, then they won't be got for accompanying Gardai to calls!

goose2005

sugarman wrote: »

We have such a poor attitude towards mental health, as well a suicide. Theres something wrong when we have one of the highest rates of suicide and nobody is doing a thing about it. We cant continue to ignore these issues, theyre not just going to go away.

The WHO places Ireland 75th of 183 countries by suicide rate

infogiver

RustyNut wrote: »

Mary Lou brought the subject up in the Dail today.

She would though. Mary Lou spares no one in her political point scoring.

infogiver

pilly wrote: »

God, I'm just really letting this sink in and as someone who has suffered mental health difficulties if I thought for one minute that a horrible moment in my life was out there on the internet for all to see and would always be there I think I'd take the same course of action.

What must she have gone through to think how many thousand of people were viewing that?

I sincerely hope that this so called Garda never sleeps soundly again.

It might leave you feeling that your not safe anywhere.

Are Am Eye

biscuithead wrote: »

Well?

People are saying he should be prosecuted and people are saying what he did WAS illegal. What do you think?

Abuse of her privacy is a civil wrong.
Data protection offences on the other hand are criminal.

The moment his private phone came into the equation the situation left lawful evidence gathering and he exceeded his entitlement to have the footage. When he passed it on to others he compounded that

please helpThank YOU

bubblypop wrote: »

No one including Gardai can get social workers outside of normal Monday to Friday working hours & it's been like that for years. If they can't be got for their own jobs, then they won't be got for accompanying Gardai to calls!

A lot of Social Workers are caught up in Family Law Courts prepare section 20 reports for the Family Law Courts. This can take months to do and a lot of time to prepare . So sum people might get the upper hand in Family Law Courts and Child Custody Dispute . that might explain why you can not get to see a social worker in my Opinion and Experience .

dadad231

Awful stuff, what the hell was the gardai thinking filming it and uploading it ?
Hope he has to answer for what he did.

oneilla

Vigil for Dara tomorrow evening

Annasopra

biscuithead wrote: »

Back up an minute there. The guard who recorded the incident and posted it to the WhatsApp group was not to know at the time any of the circumstances. For all he knew he could have been witnessing a girl who was off her head coming from a sex party or such. He might have thought "this is a party girl who is wasted. She'll get brought in, sobered up. She'll be mortified and someone will come to collect her."

If you saw a woman riding naked on horseback through the town you would most likely take out your phone and take a pic or a recording and send it to friends. You might think "Wow, Lady Godiva".

A month later the same woman might commit suicide and it might be revealed that she suffered from depression and substance abuse.

It would be very easy to castigate you for taking a pic but really had you done anything evil and malicious at the time?

Fundamentally what the Guard did was completely morally wrong. No amount of whataboutery changes that

Little CuChulainn

pilly wrote: »

God, I'm just really letting this sink in and as someone who has suffered mental health difficulties if I thought for one minute that a horrible moment in my life was out there on the internet for all to see and would always be there I think I'd take the same course of action.

Just to be clear here. Are you saying she killed herself because of the video and you would do the same in her place?

biscuithead

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Abuse of her privacy is a civil wrong.
Data protection offences on the other hand are criminal.

The moment his private phone came into the equation the situation left lawful evidence gathering and he exceeded his entitlement to have the footage. When he passed it on to others he compounded that

Thank you. And again i'm not trying to excuse the fact that this guard recorded cctv footage and shared it with friends but to follow on from what you wrote, i.e. that abuse of her privacy is a civil wrong, does that mean that anyone recorded and the footage shared is a civil wrong? For example if i just take out my camera, film some random people and then upload it or share the footage with friends, have i engage in civil wrongdoing?

Assetbacked

The focus on the Garda recording cctv footage of a naked woman walking in the streets is important because it is an abuse of his position as a Garda whereby he has access to such CCTV. However the person(s) who sent on the video is/are equally culpable, if not worse.

Notwithstanding this, can there be more of a focus on the fact this woman was suffering from a mental illness and was likely not being provided with the help she needed by her family, supposed friends etc to end up committing suicide? Yet again, the most important aspect of this whole saga is being given less attention and those focusing more on the Garda's actions are key perpetrators in mental illness not being given the time it deserves in public discourse. And I aim this at the self-righteous, sickeningly smug posters on the first couple pages replying to that lengthy post.

biscuithead

infogiver wrote: »

It might leave you feeling that your not safe anywhere.

That's hardly a helpful comment.

biscuithead

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Fundamentally what the Guard did was completely morally wrong. No amount of whataboutery changes that

"Whataboutery"?

Is that the buzzword now that serves to dismiss such things as examples, analogies, similarities, etc? if the aforementioned actually open alternative possibilities or leave reason for latitude? If a precedent was tabled during a court case would you dismiss it as "whataboutery"?

infogiver

biscuithead wrote: »

Thank you. And again i'm not trying to excuse the fact that this guard recorded cctv footage and shared it with friends but to follow on from what you wrote, i.e. that abuse of her privacy is a civil wrong, does that mean that anyone recorded and the footage shared is a civil wrong? For example if i just take out my camera, film some random people and then upload it or share the footage with friends, have i engage in civil wrongdoing?

You are completely ignoring the fact that, even leaving out the cruelty and heartlessness involved, it was totally unprofessional and a breach his duty of care to a citizen, as a member of AGS, to use CCTV footage of that distressed citizen, collated in the course of his professional duty, to titilate and entertain his pals.
Now yes or no, do you agree with that?
Your trying to compare his behaviour with you, as a lay person, recording some situation you came upon in the course of a night out.
Do you understand the concept of unacceptable professional behaviour at all?
I work in a public service office and would be suspended pending an investigation if I were even OVERHEARD DISCUSSING A CUSTOMER WITH MY COLLEAGUE!!

infogiver

biscuithead wrote: »

That's hardly a helpful comment.

What about it do you find unhelpful?

VonLuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite a f**king lot tbh. A lot of them seem (from top to bottom) unaware that the era of the Garda Complaints Board where guards investigated guards ended quite a while ago.

But having a body cam would have no effect on what happened in this case!

biscuithead

infogiver wrote: »

What about it do you find unhelpful?

Considering the poster, pilly, has struggled with mental fragility, it's a little clumsy for you to suggest that one might not be safe anywhere.

Are Am Eye

biscuithead wrote: »

Thank you. And again i'm not trying to excuse the fact that this guard recorded cctv footage and shared it with friends but to follow on from what you wrote, i.e. that abuse of her privacy is a civil wrong, does that mean that anyone recorded and the footage shared is a civil wrong? For example if i just take out my camera, film some random people and then upload it or share the footage with friends, have i engage in civil wrongdoing?

Let's say a private business has a cctv system. The recorded video on this is 'personal data' and is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
In the alleged scenario here the viewing of the incident was kosher up to a point. For the purposes of investigating a criminal offence e.g public order offence. At a particular point here the access to the data is no longer authorised under the act. In other words this guy wasn't entitled to record the incident to his own personal phone. Or to view it himself for entertainment. Or to share it with arbitrary individuals for their entertainment.

infogiver

biscuithead wrote: »

Considering the poster, pilly, has struggled with mental fragility, it's a little clumsy for you to suggest that one might not be safe anywhere.

I said it would make me feel that I wasn't safe anywhere.
It's a bit rich of you to accuse me of being clumsy with people's mental health when you've spent hours defending the abominably cruel behaviour of someone who is paid from the public purse to protect citizens from cruel behaviour.

biscuithead

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Let's say a private business has a cctv system. The recorded video on this is 'personal data' and is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
In the alleged scenario here the viewing of the incident was kosher up to a point. For the purposes of investigating a criminal offence e.g public order offence. At a particular point here the access to the data is no longer authorised under the act. In other words this guy wasn't entitled to record the incident to his own personal phone. Or to view it himself for entertainment. Or to share it with arbitrary individuals for their entertainment.

Ok, again thank you. But it seems very grey to me. I'm sorry if i come across cold, sterile and methodical. I just want to know all the minutiae of this unfortunate episode.

goose2005

It also makes you wonder how often he had done this before, how many other juicy bits of evidence/footage he had shared with the lads down the pub

paleoperson

What you do in public is usually fair for recording. However a lot of the time release forms are required, especially if the person was manipulated or can otherwise claim their behaviour was taken out of context. That's why Borat got sued for millions by random people who were shown in the movie. Obviously this is one of those situations. So even an ordinary person couldn't do this, nevermind a guard who is on duty and intentionally following this person (which would be illegal without being on duty).

IsaacWunder

biscuithead wrote: »

Ok, again thank you. But it seems very grey to me. I'm sorry if i come across cold, sterile and methodical. I just want to know all the minutiae of this unfortunate episode.

The key concept is who is the data controller.

When the Garda have a cctv system then they are the data controller. Personal data, in the context of cctv, is where the individual on that footage is identifiable, as opposed to being a face in the crowd. This woman was identifiable on the cctv footage: They were using the cameras to follow her.

Now that personal data may be held by the data controller on the basis it is relevant, and necessary, and it should be deleted when it is no longer required. The Garda Siochana also have a number of other exemptions under the law, which I won't get into, but essentially they should erase the footage after a set period of time if it has no evidentiary value/is no longer needed.

When the individual guard used his phone to film the cctv he then separately became a data controller. However, unlike the Garda force he had no reason to hold it, had no right to use it, and certainly did not have a right to distribute it.

koumi

IsaacWunder wrote: »

When the individual guard used his phone to film the cctv he then separately became a data controller. However, unlike the Garda force he had no reason to hold it, had no right to use it, and certainly did not have a right to distribute it.

I worked in the hse for a little bit and a data protection issue arose, which I highlighted (to my own detriment). I had previously covered the issue of data legislation on a crappy FAS course, so I had an understanding however small it was, that what had occurred was illegal.
Despite my best effort to make my superiors aware of this issue, they didn't appear to have any, any understanding or concept of the legal ramifications of what they had done, let alone any concern for the potential damage or liability toward the injured party. I felt like I was in that movie one flew over the cuckoos nest. I sincerely cannot stress enough how uneducated the public sector is particularly with regard to this issue.

steddyeddy

I take it people defending the guard would be happy with doctors and other public servants filming us at our weakest moments.

There's no part of me that can rationalise that man's actions. His actions are that of a low life with no morals.

Annasopra

biscuithead wrote: »

But the Garda wasn't at the scene. He recorded the footage from a CCTV feed at a remote location. He could have been on the other side of the country for all we know.

So bloody what?

gctest50

One of them slammed her into the distal edge of the rear door of the garda car, there is no space for her to get into the car, he is standing right inside the door :


The pathetic excuse of a garda is then too weak to get/hold her arm behind her back







split second later, she drops :

paleoperson

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So bloody what?

ikr, how on earth he thought that was some kind of argument in his defence is beyond me.

oneilla

Yeah she was treated appallingly by the arresting Guard. Slammed up against the car, arm twisted, handcuffed.

Samsgirl

I don't see how anyone can defend what the Garda did. It was wrong. So wrong.
I, like so many have had jobs with access to huge amounts of personal information and not for a second would I share that with anyone.
I think he / she should lose their job.
Not sure about name and shame but they should not be trusted with such information ever again.

biscuithead

infogiver wrote: »

I said it would make me feel that I wasn't safe anywhere.
It's a bit rich of you to accuse me of being clumsy with people's mental health when you've spent hours defending the abominably cruel behaviour of someone who is paid from the public purse to protect citizens from cruel behaviour.

You didn't.

You wrote: "It might make you think that your [sic] not safe anywhere."

biscuithead

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So bloody what?

So bloody what?

Because people are maintaining that the police officer was filming rather than helping her. He wasn't there.

Conor Bourke

biscuithead wrote: »

So bloody what?

Because people are maintaining that the police officer was filming rather than helping her. He wasn't there.

That's NOT why people are up in arms, don't post such disingenuous rubbish.

IsaacWunder

koumi wrote: »

I worked in the hse for a little bit and a data protection issue arose, which I highlighted (to my own detriment). I had previously covered the issue of data legislation on a crappy FAS course, so I had an understanding however small it was, that what had occurred was illegal.
Despite my best effort to make my superiors aware of this issue, they didn't appear to have any, any understanding or concept of the legal ramifications of what they had done, let alone any concern for the potential damage or liability toward the injured party. I felt like I was in that movie one flew over the cuckoos nest. I sincerely cannot stress enough how uneducated the public sector is particularly with regard to this issue.

Yeah, that would not surprise me. Very much head in the sand approach. The government sees it all as something of a nuisance, and largely pretends data protection laws don't exist.

biscuithead

Cornelius Crow wrote: »

That's NOT why people are up in arms, don't post such disingenuous rubbish.

It IS NOT disingenuous. People are stating that the police officer, rather than helping the woman, stood at the scene and filmed her in her naked state. That DID NOT HAPPEN. HE WAS NOT THERE.

That is an important piece of information.

Conor Bourke

biscuithead wrote: »

It IS NOT disingenuous. People are stating that the police officer, rather than helping the woman, stood at the scene and filmed her in her naked state. That DID NOT HAPPEN. HE WAS NOT THERE.

That is an important piece of information.

There might have been a misunderstanding early in the thread but it has been clarified numerous times since. I am not going to comb the thread for examples but the main theme of people's upset as I see it is that the guard circulated the video.

Why are you so intent on detracting from the issue at hand?

tomwaterford

biscuithead wrote: »

It IS NOT disingenuous. People are stating that the police officer, rather than helping the woman, stood at the scene and filmed her in her naked state. That DID NOT HAPPEN. HE WAS NOT THERE.

That is an important piece of information.

Who said this??

For all we know he couldve been there and recorded it when he got back to the station?


Either way,amazing this has to be spelled out....in no circumstamces was what happened here ok

biscuithead

Cornelius Crow wrote: »

There might have been a misunderstanding early in the thread but it has been clarified numerous times since. I am not going to comb the thread for examples but the main theme of people's upset as I see it is that the guard circulated the video.

Why are you so intent on detracting from the issue at hand?

Because it is important. If you don't want to take the time to "trawl" through a thread then don't complain when you are mistaken or have taken the wrong end of the stick.

Nobody has condoned, glorified, encouraged or otherwise supported what this guard and his coterie have done, despite the allusions of many on here.

We have people demanding that the guard be sued or jailed and when some, myself included, say " hold on" we .... or at least i am/are accused of thinking it's just fine to film and distribute footage of someone prone.

paleoperson

biscuithead wrote: »

Because it is important. If you don't want to take the time to "trawl" through a thread then don't complain when you are mistaken or have taken the wrong end of the stick.

Nobody has condoned, glorified, encouraged or otherwise supported what this guard and his coterie have done, despite the allusions of many on here.

We have people demanding that the guard be sued or jailed and when some, myself included, say " hold on" we .... or at least i am/are accused of thinking it's just fine to film and distribute footage of someone prone.

But as has been asked before... so bloody what? What difference does it make? That's what you were asked. Why is it important?

Saying it's important because other people didn't know it isn't an answer. Why does it make a difference? I'm assuming you're claiming it helps his defence in some way, but how?

Outlaw Pete

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

How would I see this Mary Lou Video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiLTBrihSKo

koumi

M Lou McDonald wrote:

a deplorable culture of humiliation and disregard for human beings

I could think of a few more words. RIP Dara

infogiver

biscuithead wrote: »

You didn't.

You wrote: "It might make you think that your [sic] not safe anywhere."

The YOU is in regard to myself.
You've been here for hours defending and excusing a public servant who is paid from the public purse to protect members of the public and who recorded footage of a naked mentally ill woman with the express intention of titillating and entertaining his pals.
I take it you don't mind if similar happened to your mother or sister if they were in an accident or victims of a crime?

pilly

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Just to be clear here. Are you saying she killed herself because of the video and you would do the same in her place?

Just to be clear here, are you trying to make some point off the back of me exposing a weakness?

If you are, pretty patethic.

biscuithead

Cornelius Crow wrote: »

There might have been a misunderstanding early in the thread but it has been clarified numerous times since. I am not going to comb the thread for examples but the main theme of people's upset as I see it is that the guard circulated the video.

Why are you so intent on detracting from the issue at hand?

I am not intent on detracting from the issue at hand nor am I being disingenuous. These are YOUR words and YOUR accusations.

biscuithead

infogiver wrote: »

The YOU is in regard to myself.
You've been here for hours defending and excusing a public servant who is paid from the public purse to protect members of the public and who recorded footage of a naked mentally ill woman with the express intention of titillating and entertaining his pals.
I take it you don't mind if similar happened to your mother or sister if they were in an accident or victims of a crime?

I have never once defended or excused anything and I would recommend that you get your facts straight. I would also strongly recommend that you leave my family out of this. You can "take it" however you see fit. But If you think that I wouldn't mind if any harm befell my mother or sister .... if that's how you "take it", then it's quite apparent with whom I am engaging.