The Frances Fitzgerald controversy. Are we heading for an election?

listermint

Be a good one for FG to go around the doors painting the virtue of the minimum alcohol pricing something that they thought they would get free reign on for their vintner buddy's without having to ask the populace.

See how that flies on the door steps.

Edward M

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I don't try and convince anyone of my political outlook, I stand on my own two feet with no political allegiance to any party.

However.

2 x justice ministers have brought shame and disgrace to the DOJ, (3 if you include Flannagan allowing Leo to mislead the dail)x Garda commissioners have been sacrificed, 1 x Taoiseach has also had to blow town due to his hallucinogenic episodes surrounding the same controversy.

I'm pointing out that in this context - the law and order party is a tag that will most probably forever more be laughed and mocked at.

If the reports that Frances met with O'Sullivan the day after this now infamous (if innocuous ) email was sent, and she also forgot that, and still she's backed to the hilt by a Taoiseach (who was allowed to mislead the dail on it) who is burying his head in the sand, imo they'll lose further respect.

Its all gone very very very Pete Tong for Leo. If Frances stays or goes, FG in govt are finished regardless. (Imo)

You'd have to wonder how things would might have looked had Leo adopted the 'I take no shyt - new politics' attitude he portrayed he would, when assuming office, and Frances was now gone.

Believe me. I'm trying to convince no-one.

You said you wouldn't have believed it of FG until now, was that true, would you never have posted on anything alike about them before?
I agree with most of your sentiment about them.
I'd have a problem though in who I might think would be any better ethically or morally to replace them also.
If we were to elect a govt here which would be whiter than white or never have been involved in political coverups and scandals then we would need to clear the decks.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fully aware of that. The public didn't buy it from the get go.

My personal opinion is the electorate know rightly what went down here. FG have made a right mess of this whole thing.

Yet a poll in Sindo says otherwise. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/revealed-independentie-readers-take-to-the-polls-and-heres-who-theyd-vote-for-in-a-snap-election-36353134.html
Fact is we all know that a man was wronged. There is a commission of inquiry into it. So, a woman doesn’t immediately recall an email years ago. Is that a sacking offense? Is it reason for a General Election? Have we lost the run of ourselves completely ? Build a bridge and get over it. The country is in a much better place than 10 years ago, thanks to the efforts of FG. If MM and FF thought they were in the right, they’d simply pull the plug.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet a poll in Sindo says otherwise. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/revealed-independentie-readers-take-to-the-polls-and-heres-who-theyd-vote-for-in-a-snap-election-36353134.html
Fact is we all know that a man was wronged. There is a commission of inquiry into it. So, a woman doesn’t immediately recall an email years ago. Is that a sacking offense? Is it reason for a General Election? Have we lost the run of ourselves completely ? Build a bridge and get over it. The country is in a much better place than 10 years ago, thanks to the efforts of FG. If MM and FF thought they were in the right, they’d simply pull the plug.

I for one am definitely going to take a poll conducted by the Denis O'Brien, Paul Williams linked Sunday independent- over a red C poll any day of the week.

What was the sindos predictions for the last election does anyone recall?

mattser

Edward M wrote: »

Lol, don't try to convince me that you thought of FG in any other light than you now do, or at least that you weren't posting the total opposite of it.

+1

Edward M

An interesting take on polls lately here,
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1125/922848-poll-of-polls-nov/

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet a poll in Sindo says otherwise. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/revealed-independentie-readers-take-to-the-polls-and-heres-who-theyd-vote-for-in-a-snap-election-36353134.html
Fact is we all know that a man was wronged. There is a commission of inquiry into it. So, a woman doesn’t immediately recall an email years ago. Is that a sacking offense? Is it reason for a General Election? Have we lost the run of ourselves completely ? Build a bridge and get over it. The country is in a much better place than 10 years ago, thanks to the efforts of FG. If MM and FF thought they were in the right, they’d simply pull the plug.

I think the chorus of 'look the other way please for the good of the country' is a tad too late and pointless tbh.

McMurphy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Apparently the Tiste met with the then Garda Commissioner the day after she received the email. She did not disclose this. Also talk about having received a phonecall the day she received the email.

https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/934547108241334272

Email sent 15th of May 2015.

Garda memorial service held on Saturday 16th of May.

The Annual Garda Memorial Day for members of An Garda Siochana killed in the line of duty took place at the Dubhlinn Gardens, Dublin Castle at 12 noon today Saturday the 16th May.

Frances and Noirin pictured together on Saturday the 16th.



Not plausible that she didn't discuss the email, unbelievable that she forgot to mention the meeting the next day.

Cooked goose comes to mind.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet a poll in Sindo says otherwise. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/revealed-independentie-readers-take-to-the-polls-and-heres-who-theyd-vote-for-in-a-snap-election-36353134.html
Fact is we all know that a man was wronged. There is a commission of inquiry into it. So, a woman doesn’t immediately recall an email years ago. Is that a sacking offense? Is it reason for a General Election? Have we lost the run of ourselves completely ? Build a bridge and get over it. The country is in a much better place than 10 years ago, thanks to the efforts of FG. If MM and FF thought they were in the right, they’d simply pull the plug.

Two thoughts on that post Mary.

First off you appear not to have heard just how many people were involved in the sending and reading of that email and "forgot" to mention it to Fitzgerald, and then all of them "forgot" to send it to the Charleton Disclosures Tribunal, (emphases there on Disclosures Mary), the very same tribunal we are now it appears expected to put our faith in as the mother of all solutions.

My second thought on reading that poll reminded me of the late Con Houlihan.
When the Evening Press newspaper folded Con went to write for the Sunday World.
When asked one day by someone what he was doing nowadays, his reply was. "I`m writing for a comic"

markodaly

Fitzgerald was legally obliged to stay out of the inquiry, as to interfere with the investigation would be unlawful, so its more likely a case of dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Fitzgerald was legally obliged to stay out of the inquiry, as to interfere with the investigation would be unlawful, so its more likely a case of dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

Was she legally obliged to state that she had full confidence (on multiple occasions) in a Garda commissioner, whom she knew had engaged in a smear campaign against a whistleblower, baring in mind the two of them publicly praised said whistleblower and pledged to support him?

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

Fitzgerald was legally obliged to stay out of the inquiry, as to interfere with the investigation would be unlawful, so its more likely a case of dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

Fitzgerald was legally obliged to stay out of the inquiry!

Did she not have a legal team at the inquiry representing her department

nuac

charlie14 wrote: »

They Red C poll was carried out to include Thursday of this week.
The only revelations since have been that not only did Fitzgerald receive the email, at the same time her two special advisors , her private secretary and the two senior civil servants in her Department also received it.

Not much solace in that for FG in attempting to defend Fitzgerald or in the public opinion based on that poll.

Which at this stage really begs the question as to why Varadkar is standing so four square behind her when his own party TD`s a few days ago couldn`t find enough space in Dail Eireann to avoid her.

Or to put it simply in the words of old AK47, where has Flanagan the present Minister for Justice and Equality disappeared too.

How could one forget an email which had been copied to so many senior people.?

The text was verbose CYA stuff, but the message was clear. Minister should have acted to protect the whistleblower.

Sierra Oscar

markodaly wrote: »

Fitzgerald was legally obliged to stay out of the inquiry, as to interfere with the investigation would be unlawful, so its more likely a case of dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

That did not preclude her from making her support for McCabe known, or at least alerting the Department of Taoiseach to what was unfolding.

Fitzgerald could also have instructed her own legal team to defend the credibility and integrity of McCabe and contest the Garda legal assertions, especially in light of the findings contained in the Guerin Report.

She did none of this and was happy to turn a blind eye to what was unfolding. It's nothing short of a disgrace.

markodaly

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Was she legally obliged to state that she had full confidence (on multiple occasions) in a Garda commissioner, whom she knew had engaged in a smear campaign against a whistleblower, baring in mind the two of them publicly praised said whistleblower and pledged to support him?

Lets keep the scope of the argument to the email. The email itself was clearly a FYI and stated that that the Minister need take no action on it, as per legal advice.

If she picked up the phone and rang Noreen O'Sullivan to tell her cop on, it would have been an illegal act. Do you agree with this legal argument or not?

listermint

markodaly wrote: »

Lets keep the scope of the argument to the email. The email itself was clearly a FYI and stated that that the Minister need take no action on it, as per legal advice.

If she picked up the phone and rang Noreen O'Sullivan to tell her cop on, it would have been an illegal act. Do you agree with this legal argument or not?

Did you read the thread title.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Lets keep the scope of the argument to the email. The email itself was clearly a FYI and stated that that the Minister need take no action on it, as per legal advice.

If she picked up the phone and rang Noreen O'Sullivan to tell her cop on, it would have been an illegal act. Do you agree with this legal argument or not?

I disagree with any notion that she couldn't have told Noirin O'Sullivan to desist immediately from smearing a Garda Sergeant in an effort to discredit him.

It was discussed in detail on radio 1 there, and that she didnt do just that, was the general consensus on where Frances' let her role as a minister for justice really slide.

Private telephone calls are not yet illegal in this country so far as I am aware.

markodaly

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

That did not preclude her from making her support for McCabe known

I think she did that by setting up the Inquiry, no?

By the way, I agree with the general sense that she should walk, but not in the hamfisted way that SF or FF have gone about it.

nuac

Water John wrote: »

That had all the reading of an eulogy, by Leo. Frances knows what's required.

Bit like a vote of confidence in a soccer manager?.

Water John

It's a civil servant said the in the email that she did not need to act. That is a recommendation, nothing more. At a political and Ministerial level, she has to use her own judgement, which was to do nothing and clearly wrong.
she should have instructed her legal team at the Tribunal to disassociate her from the strategy.
The legal advice was got recently and is being applied retrospectively, TMK.

Shaw, she couldn't tell NOR to stop the strategy. That would be worse and interference.

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

Lets keep the scope of the argument to the email. The email itself was clearly a FYI and stated that that the Minister need take no action on it, as per legal advice.

If she picked up the phone and rang Noreen O'Sullivan to tell her cop on, it would have been an illegal act. Do you agree with this legal argument or not?

Was there anything preventing her to instruct her own legal team to clearly disassociate from the Garda smear attempt or to prevent her taking the head off the Garda Commissioner after it failed ?

She simply sat on her hands and subsequently backed O`Sullivan to the hilt at every turn.

Disgraceful.

markodaly

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I disagree with any notion that she couldn't have told Noirin O'Sullivan to desist immediately from smearing a Garda Sergeant in an effort to discredit him.

It was discussed in detail on radio 1 there, and that she didn't do just that, was the general consensus on where Frances' let her role as a minister for justice really slide.

Private telephone calls are not yet illegal in this country so far as I am aware.

So you are saying that the Justice Minster should have carried out an illegal act and directed the Commissioner on how to carry out its defence of allegations?

Right so.

Private phone calls are not illegal, but private phone calls where a minister interjects herself into an on going enquiry is 100% illegal.

charlie14

Water John wrote: »

It's a civil servant said the in the email that she did not need to act. That is a recommendation, nothing more. At a political and Ministerial level, she has to use her own judgement, which was to do nothing and clearly wrong.
she should have instructed her legal team at the Tribunal to disassociate her from the strategy.
The legal advice was got recently and is being applied retrospectively, TMK.

Is it not a bit strange this retrospective Attorney General legal advice, when the original tip off as to what O`Sullivan`s proposed strategy was that resulted in the email, was from the Attorney General`s deputy director ?

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

So you are saying that the Justice Minster should have carried out an illegal act and directed the Commissioner on how to carry out its defence of allegations?

Right so.

Private phone calls are not illegal, but private phone calls where a minister interjects herself into an on going enquiry is 100% illegal.

As others have said, instructing her legal team to disassociate themselves from the strategy would have been a much better approach, but as I said - the general consensus on the radio (I don't recall the names of the pundits) that it was unbelievable that Frances didn't voice her concern to O'Sullivan in a private - behind the scenes conversation.

As for legal/illegal consequences of doing so, I believe more sinister things than that go on in the background of Leinster House.

I'm convinced of it.

JohnBoy26

markodaly wrote: »

I think she did that by setting up the Inquiry, no?

By the way, I agree with the general sense that she should walk, but not in the hamfisted way that SF or FF have gone about it.

You agree she should walk but not by a vote of no confidence? What other way is there? Considering she has no intention of going anywhere even as things stand.

Sierra Oscar

charlie14 wrote: »

Is it not a bit strange this retrospective Attorney General legal advice, when the original tip off as to what O`Sullivan`s proposed strategy was that resulted in the email, was from the Attorney General`s deputy director ?

Yes, that is a key piece of the puzzle that isn't getting much attention (at the moment).

The Attorney General's Office essentially acts as a bridge between Government Department's when discussing legal issues.

There is suspicion that the Department of An Taoiseach was aware of the situation after having been informed by the Attorney General's Office.

That would be an explosive revelation.

Edward M

markodaly wrote: »

So you are saying that the Justice Minster should have carried out an illegal act and directed the Commissioner on how to carry out its defence of allegations?

Right so.

Private phone calls are not illegal, but private phone calls where a minister interjects herself into an on going enquiry is 100% illegal.

There has to be a legal way for a minister to intercede here someway.
Else what the hell are we doing with a minister.
A good man was being smeared in the worst possible way, in attempt by our law upholders to discredit him, that a minister was willing to sit and see how that unfolded and accept the consequences of that smear campaign is damning on her, how could she forget that she was informed of such, if she did forget, that's damning in itself.

markodaly

Rick Shaw wrote: »

As others have said, instructing her legal team to disassociate themselves from the strategy would have been a much better approach, but as I said - the general consensus on the radio (I don't recall the names of the pundits) that it was unbelievable that Frances didn't voice her concern to O'Sullivan in a private - behind the scenes conversation.

As for legal/illegal consequences of doing so, I believe more sinister things than that go on in the background of Leinster House.

I'm convinced of it.

Well you are thus open to any hair brained idea so, that will be bandied about.

The thing is as I mentioned in another thread that the issue is really not the ex Minster of Justice, it is the inner workings of the DOJ and Senior Gardai, both of which need a massive clear out. The top guys in there will be around this year and the next and the year after that, it does not really matter to them who the minister for justice is, as they are the people who run the state.

This is what we should be talking about, not about an email and who said what in some thought experiments.

So, we waste all this time talking about M.Fitzgerald when in fact we should be up in arms about the DOJ and senior Gardai. We should head hunt senior people from the MET to take over key leadership positions and fire half the management class of the DOJ and get the feds in the take over that lot. But FF and SF just want their pound of flesh, as if it changes anything.

markodaly

Edward M wrote: »

There has to be a legal way for a minister to intercede here someway.
Else what the hell are we doing with a minister.
A good man was being smeared in the worst possible way, in attempt by our law upholders to discredit him, that a minister was willing to sit and see how that unfolded and accept the consequences of that smear campaign is damning on her, how could she forget that she was informed of such, if she did forget, that's damning in itself.

It was an independent investigation, in which she set up. You cant have the executive branch of government open up an independent investigation chaired by a judge who belongs to the judicial branch of government and then interfere with the process thus prejudicing the outcome, that would lead to all kinds of constitutional questions and crisis.

This is boring and not sexy as getting a Minsters head but hey it sells papers.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Well you are thus open to any hair brained idea so, that will be bandied about.

The thing is as I mentioned in another thread that the issue is really not the ex Minster of Justice, it is the inner workings of the DOJ and Senior Gardai, both of which need a massive clear out. The top guys in there will be around this year and the next and the year after that, it does not really matter to them who the minister for justice is, as they are the people who run the state.

This is what we should be talking about, not about an email and who said what in some thought experiments.

So, we waste all this time talking about M.Fitzgerald when in fact we should be up in arms about the DOJ and senior Gardai. We should head hunt senior people from the MET to take over key leadership positions and fire half the management class of the DOJ and get the feds in the take over that lot. But FF and SF just want their pound of flesh, as if it changes anything.

With respect, and maybe I'm not putting it across correctly myself.

What I'm saying, and what was being discussed on the radio was that it was unbelievable, (literally) that after that email had circulated through so many people in the DOJ, considering its nature, that Frances didn't voice her concern to O'Sullivan in some way shape or form (by private conversation or otherwise), and that if she didn't, that suggested she didn't guage the importance/significance of the mail which rendered her incompetent.

Alternatively, if she did discuss it in some shape or form, that made her account of receiving the mail a false account, which could potentially open a different can of worms.

You agree yourself that she should walk. So I'm going to assume you ascribe to the incompetence theory at least.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

It was an independent investigation, in which she set up. You cant have the executive branch of government open up an independent investigation chaired by a judge who belongs to the judicial branch of government and then interfere with the process thus prejudicing the outcome, that would lead to all kinds of constitutional questions and crisis.

This is boring and not sexy as getting a Minsters head but hey it sells papers.

There was nothing stopping her raising the commissioners approach after the inquiry, however. Nor have we an explanation as to why the e-mail wasn't forwarded to the current inquiry until it was raised in the dail.

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

Well you are thus open to any hair brained idea so, that will be bandied about.

The thing is as I mentioned in another thread that the issue is really not the ex Minster of Justice, it is the inner workings of the DOJ and Senior Gardai, both of which need a massive clear out. The top guys in there will be around this year and the next and the year after that, it does not really matter to them who the minister for justice is, as they are the people who run the state.

This is what we should be talking about, not about an email and who said what in some thought experiments.

So, we waste all this time talking about M.Fitzgerald when in fact we should be up in arms about the DOJ and senior Gardai. We should head hunt senior people from the MET to take over key leadership positions and fire half the management class of the DOJ and get the feds in the take over that lot. But FF and SF just want their pound of flesh, as if it changes anything.

All very recommendable, and much I would agree with there. Especially the restructuring of An Garda Siochana.
But to make a start, similar to any other problem regarding collusion, I have found it is best to start from the top.
Sack Fitzgerald, start quickly working your way down the line from there and you would find attitudes changing very rapidly imo.

kevthegaff

Floppybits wrote: »

Its about time this whole mess with justice from the DOJ to the Gardai be put to bed. FG's handling of this from the when the issue was first raised in the Dail by Murphy, Daly and Wallace till what has come out over the last few days has been a complete and utter incompetent diaster. 2 commissioners, head of the DOJ and a minister have all been lost because of this and yet still we are not seeing an iota of change in how the goverment handles these things or any change in the behaviour of the gardai from the top down.

All FG had to do was tackle this head on but no they had to try bury it even if it meant destroying and good man and his family. McCabe and his family are the only victims in this sorry mess and it sickened me to hear the Taoiseach go on tv and paint fitzgerald as soon sort of victim after what that man has been through. Fitzgerald should have gone a long time ago, she has been out of her depth since she was appointed justice minister. Whats happening now is as a result of her poor performance as a minister and FG's unwillingness to recognise their own incompetence at handling this whole saga. You can bet your house that if roles were reversed and FG in oppsition they would be doing the exact same as FF and SF are doing now.

Its time for this country to get politicians who are not afraid to be tough and honest and meet situations and issues head on instead of this sleazy, slimey, cowardly way of doing things at the moment.

+1

Sierra Oscar

Breaking news on RTE Radio 1 Now.

The Garda Commissioner personally rang the Department of Justice to discuss the legal strategy. Journalist tipped off to ask a specific question from a security source.

Fitzgerald is finished. There's more to come. She should resign now. Leo might want an election to preempt further damaging revelations.

https://twitter.com/JohnBurkeRTE/status/934770729903673344

markodaly

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

You agree she should walk but not by a vote of no confidence? What other way is there? Considering she has no intention of going anywhere even as things stand.

FF were bounced into this by SF and rowdy drunk FF'ers in the Dail bar.

MM and Leo had a private meeting last week, not sure what was discussed but it was clear that MM told Leo that the ministers position was untellable. Something that I would actually agree on myself. What should have happened was the Leo would give her up, at a time of their choosing perhaps in a few days/weeks and every one could enjoy their Christmas in peace.

Jim O'Callaghan however then went on TV that night and basically told the nation that FF wanted her bloody head on a plate, where by it was met with cheers and howls of applause by 10 FF TD's in the Dail bar.

This did not go down well with FG at all at all. It was a clear sign of intent and war, but it backfired, as before whereby no FG TD was publicly supporting Fitzgerald, the next day they were all in her corner. Every single one! It was needless escalation of the issue from FF where by MM was not able to calm down his troops, as if this issue was a football match between Kerry and Dublin.

SF tabled their no confidence motion, and with the blood running high and not wanted to be outdone by SF, FF tabled theirs, something that is a breach of the confidence and supply agreement. FF just tore it up right there and then.

So, we are now in a stalemate, where there is a Gun to Leo's head put there by MM, but MM does not know how to take it away while saving face with FF.

Leo knows that Fitzgerald is done and dusted politically but is not going to let FF bully him into a position, as he knows then every other FG TD will wonder, will they be next if he caves. Loyalty is a very good political commodity.

MM knows that he has to get something out of this to save face with his back benchers, as he could be out as leader come the new year as there is a lot of inner FF stuff going on, which is why we are where we are.

Right now as we speak, there is lots of back channeling going on behind the scenes, looking for an out, where by both sides will be able to save face without going to an election, as that is Leo's trump card, ultimately.

Again, its all nonsense really as it will not change anything.

If things were not escalated to such an extent by SF and especially FF then Fitzgerald would in my mind be already gone. It could have been handled much better by Leo, MM et all but if you throw hand grenades then no one knows who is going to get hit.

McMurphy

Check out @JohnBurkeRTE’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/JohnBurkeRTE/status/934770729903673344?s=09

McMurphy

Water John wrote: »

Shaw, she couldn't tell NOR to stop the strategy. That would be worse and interference.

markodaly wrote: »

So you are saying that the Justice Minster should have carried out an illegal act and directed the Commissioner on how to carry out its defence of allegations?

Right so.

Private phone calls are not illegal, but private phone calls where a minister interjects herself into an on going enquiry is 100% illegal.

Apparently Frances did just that and legal strategy was discussed.

What now so?

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

There was nothing stopping her raising the commissioners approach after the inquiry, however. Nor have we an explanation as to why the e-mail wasn't forwarded to the current inquiry until it was raised in the dail.

Perhaps, as she is going to appear herself before a tribunal we will hear her version of events as to why she acted this way.

markodaly

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Apparently Frances did just that and legal strategy was discussed.

What now so?

Eh, no its unclear that she did.

Direct contact between the commissioner and the DOJ does not mean the Minster knew about it. This is the DOJ we are talking about here, the real crooks in all this, along with senior Gardai.

charlie14

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Check out @JohnBurkeRTE’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/JohnBurkeRTE/status/934770729903673344?s=09

So now we know that a senior official in the DOJ discussed with O`Sullivan her strategy at the O`Higgin`s inquiry, (and obviously a high ranking official I believe it is safe to assume), that would have been well aware of what we are now being told as legally verboten, yet we are being told that Fitzgerald legally ( and retrospectively at that) could not so the same.!

Bulls**t.

Sierra Oscar

markodaly wrote: »

Direct contact between the commissioner and the DOJ does not mean the Minster knew about it. This is the DOJ we are talking about here, the real crooks in all this, along with senior Gardai.

Of course it does. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 specifically sets out the reporting function of the Garda Commissioner. The Garda Commissioner only reports to the Secretary General of the Department, who in turn is obliged by law to inform the Minister of the situation.

It's set out in the Act. If that didn't occur then the law was broken. We all know how good the Senior Officials are at covering their own backsides - hence the relevance of the email in the first place. You can be sure the Tánaiste knew about the phonecall.

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

Eh, no its unclear that she did.

Direct contact between the commissioner and the DOJ does not mean the Minster knew about it. This is the DOJ we are talking about here, the real crooks in all this, along with senior Gardai.

Do you actually realise that if your synopsis is anywhere near correct that you are highlighting just how incompetent as a Minister Fitzgerald was in the Department of Justice and Equality ?

McMurphy

charlie14 wrote: »

So now we know that a senior official in the DOJ discussed with O`Sullivan her strategy at the O`Higgin`s inquiry, (and obviously a high ranking official I believe it is safe to assume), that would have been well aware of what we are now being told as legally verboten, yet we are being told that Fitzgerald legally ( and retrospectively at that) could not so the same.!

Bulls**t.

I bet Noel Waters is glad he retired when he did.

Odhinn

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I bet Noel Waters is glad he retired when he did.

it was a "former official" I think they said. No idea who it could be at all, at all.

flaneur

What I don't want to see happen is a general election and an assumption that this is all resolved as a result but, in reality there's nothing done.

There's clearly a huge problem to be resolved here. Sweeping it back under the carpet isn't good enough.

markodaly

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Of course it does. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 specifically sets out the reporting function of the Garda Commissioner. The Garda Commissioner only reports to the Secretary General of the Department, who in turn is obliged by law to inform the Minister of the situation.

It's set out in the Act. If that didn't occur then the law was broken. We all know how good the Senior Officials are at covering their own backsides - hence the relevance of the email in the first place. You can be sure the Tánaiste knew about the phonecall.

No we are not sure. From the RTE report.

Among the questions the Department declined to answer was whether the former senior official or anyone else briefed the Minister on the content of the call from the Commissioner, and if not, why not?

However, they declined to answer a series of related questions, such as whether the Minister was briefed on the call from the Commissioner; was the Disclosures Tribunal told about this contact, and when exactly it occurred.

"The question of contact with the Garda Commissioner on this issue is encompassed by the terms of reference of the Disclosures Tribunal and accordingly the Department is not in a position to comment further in that regard," the Department of Justice spokesman said.

So again, clear as mud and as I repeat the DOJ are the biggest crooks in all this. Let the Disclosures Tribunal do its job and find out.

Odhinn

flaneur wrote: »

What I don't want to see happen is a general election and an assumption that this is all resolved as a result but, in reality there's nothing done.

The DOJ and Gardai are such a state that it is like a recurring cyst - it will pop up again and again. Nobody has tackled issues there from the heavy gang era to the dubious rise of martin callinan. They may switch the title of "angola" from health to justice.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

So again, clear as mud and as I repeat the DOJ are the biggest crooks in all this. Let the Disclosures Tribunal do its job and find out.

Given the disclosures tribunal didn't have the e-mail in question until this current controversy, its rather hard to have any faith in it, tbh.

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

No we are not sure. From the RTE report.





So again, clear as mud and as I repeat the DOJ are the biggest crooks in all this. Let the Disclosures Tribunal do its job and find out.

A Disclosures Tribunal that up until this was exposed had not a clue that this email existed!!! LOL.

FrancieBrady

Odhinn wrote: »

Given the disclosures tribunal didn't have the e-mail in question until this current controversy, its rather hard to have any faith in it, tbh.

It's completely undermined by this.
It should be wound up.