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

Sierra Oscar

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.

That's true in fairness. Couldn't have been the current Secretary General as he's not retired, and Brian Purcell was already gone by 2015.

Possibly an Assistant Secretary General / Deputy General Secretary.

It doesn't really change the substantive point of it though - the reporting function in the Act sets out that the relevant official has to inform the line Minister.

It's possible that didn't happen and information was concealed, but the presence of the email shows that the Minister of the day should have been suspicious. A blind eye was clearly turned to all this.

Pretty clear that serious reform is needed in the Department.

markodaly

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.

So, which backs up my point, why are we not demanding that we reform the DOJ instead of talking about what the Minster know or did not know?

If the DOJ have effectively ruined the political career of two experienced politicians the past few years, which Charlie Flanagan looking shaky as well, what does that tell you about that Dept. ?

You can fire minsters all day long but that will change nothing. A tribunal is setup which has the DOJ running scared it seems as they are withholding evidence from it, which I am sure the Tribunal will note. They need to conclude their work and the Dail can then use it as cause to reform and replace the old heads with new blood.

Unless, there is an alternative in the offering?

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

So, which backs up my point, why are we not demanding that we reform the DOJ instead of talking about what the Minster know or did not know?

Because they should and did know.

markodaly wrote: »

If the DOJ have effectively ruined the political career of two experienced politicians the past few years, which Charlie Flanagan looking shaky as well, what does that tell you about that Dept. ?

Theres still a lack of political will to change the culture in the department.

Water John

Well you can from that news, why the Sec Gen indicated he was retiring last Monday, And just happened to mention in passing, this inocous email. FFS we're not stupid.

Did the civil service fail to FULLY inform the Minister?
What I would suspect.
It wasn't politicians that was orchestrating the strategy. Remember the attacks on the character of Claire Daly and Mick Wallace by the Gardai. Read Mich Clifford in Irish Examiner 25/11/17

Nettle Soup

markodaly wrote: »

So, which backs up my point, why are we not demanding that we reform the DOJ instead of talking about what the Minster know or did not know?

If the DOJ have effectively ruined the political career of two experienced politicians the past few years, which Charlie Flanagan looking shaky as well, what does that tell you about that Dept. ?

You can fire minsters all day long but that will change nothing. A tribunal is setup which has the DOJ running scared it seems as they are withholding evidence from it, which I am sure the Tribunal will note. They need to conclude their work and the Dail can then use it as cause to reform and replace the old heads with new blood.

Unless, there is an alternative in the offering?

Completely agree. The tribunal is compromised.

We need a police investigation of what the Gardaí has done to McCabe...oh wait...who can we trust now?

markodaly

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

That's true in fairness. Couldn't have been the current Secretary General as he's not retired, and Brian Purcell was already gone by 2015.

Possibly an Assistant Secretary General / Deputy General Secretary.

It doesn't really change the substantive point of it though - the reporting function in the Act sets out that the relevant official has to inform the line Minister.

It's possible that didn't happen and information was concealed, but the presence of the email shows that the Minister of the day should have been suspicious. A blind eye was clearly turned to all this.

Pretty clear that serious reform is needed in the Department.

100% that reform is needed in this Department. Now what type and how to achieve it is the question. The talk about a Minister knowing about an email or a phone call in the big scheme of things in immaterial at this stage. Its checkers when the DOJ and the Gardai are playing chess.

Water John

Totally agree. It's radical reform, must be the end game. Both of DOJ and Gardai.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

100% that reform is needed in this Department. Now what type and how to achieve it is the question. The talk about a Minister knowing about an email or a phone call in the big scheme of things in immaterial at this stage. Its checkers when the DOJ and the Gardai are playing chess.

This is just a new version of 'look the other way' tbh.

The minister has questions to answer and is failing any reasonable test of confidence.
That is a separate and serious issue and is not diluted by other things that need sorting out.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

Because they should and did know.

Again, its not clear unless you are privy to information that no one else is.

Theres still a lack of political will to change the culture in the department.

Not sure, maybe, maybe not. Its kinda like being minster of health, you try and survive it and then move on as its too big for any one politician to take on. So now we have a cross party strategy on health so that all parties are now responsible. Other parties get to be part of the solution but they are also responsible for the outcomes. In other words they are not on the ditch anymore, they are playing the match and will be equally responsible if they lose the match. New politics, right?

We need to take the same approach here. It is too big for any one politician to reform alone or even one party. It needs the entire Dail, from FG, FF, Sinn Fien, Labour, Greens, Solidarity, etc to buy into a cross party committee to reform it perhaps with outside help, like interpol, the MET, FBI, etc. However, that will require all parties to be responsible and share in its costs instead of political cheap shots, things I don't see all parties doing, especially the fringe party who just want to give out about everything.

Everyone knows there needs to be reform but no one is spelling out how they will actually do it and execute it successfully.

Sierra Oscar

markodaly wrote: »

100% that reform is needed in this Department. Now what type and how to achieve it is the question. The talk about a Minister knowing about an email or a phone call in the big scheme of things in immaterial at this stage. Its checkers when the DOJ and the Gardai are playing chess.

Yeah that's true.

Fianna Fáil will probably push for some sort of major overhaul of the Department. They know it's needed as they've had plenty of Minister's in there and know the mentality behind how it operates. They also know that they will ultimately have to operate in there again and don't want to be caught out by the dysfunction of the whole place like the current Government has been.

They'll likely get something akin the Commission of the Future of Policing in Ireland, albeit specifically for the Department.

Also now that we know that the source of all this information being provided comes from the security services, I think it's possible to conclude what is at play here.

Garda HQ know that the Commission of the Future of Policing in Ireland is about to overhaul the entire force in the years ahead. They are worried that the playing field will be tilted in favour of the Department unless similar reforms are undertaken there. Hence the damaging revelations aimed at highlighting the dysfunction in the Department.

Someone is working hard for a Commission of the Future Functioning of the Department of Justice.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is just a new version of 'look the other way' tbh.

The minister has questions to answer and is failing any reasonable test of confidence.
That is a separate and serious issue and is not diluted by other things that need sorting out.

No its not, its taking away the noise of what is going on and looking at it from afar. If the minster walks, does that actually change anything? Simple yes or no.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Again, its not clear unless you are privy to information that no one else is..

Fitzgerald knew. She claims she was legally prohibited from interfering, but that doesn't explain why she didn't raise the matter after the tribunal.

markodaly wrote: »

Not sure, maybe, maybe not. Its kinda like being minster of health, you try and survive it and then move on as its too big for any one politician to take on.

...if they keep losing ministers, presumably the penny will drop.

jimmycrackcorm

charlie14 wrote:

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.

Based on the email, it's clear that officials in the DOJ have been telling her not to get involved and doing so would either be illegal or possibly open up the state to court action for interference.

Water John

Reform of the DOJ and Gardai go hand in hand. Nothing less should be accepted.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

No its not, its taking away the noise of what is going on and looking at it from afar. If the minster walks, does that actually change anything? Simple yes or no.

Yes it does.

It is making somebody accountable. Now you can show that any reform you instigate is going to be serious.

Odhinn

....even more explicit than a discussion regarding the e-mail, it seems

A trawl by the Department of Justice has revealed that the then Garda Commissioner Noirín O'Sullivan personally told a senior official at the Department of Justice about the legal dispute which arose at the O'Higgins Commission, in which her legal team challenged the motivation of garda whistleblower Sgt Maurice McCabe, RTE's This Week programme has learned.

It is the first time that any indication has emerged that the Garda Commissioner personally contacted the Department to discuss aspects of the controversial strategy to challenge Mr McCabe's motives at the Tribunal in May 2015.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1126/922937-garda-tribunal/

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

Fitzgerald knew.

How?

if they keep losing ministers, presumably the penny will drop.

Perhaps, so all the talk about reform is just empty politiking from the Shinners.

Remember, it was Fitzgerald who setup the Commission on the future of Policing.
http://www.policereform.ie/

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it does.

It is making somebody accountable. Now you can show that any reform you instigate is going to be serious.

So, that is no then, it changes nothing. Good to know we are on the same page.

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

So, which backs up my point, why are we not demanding that we reform the DOJ instead of talking about what the Minster know or did not know?

If the DOJ have effectively ruined the political career of two experienced politicians the past few years, which Charlie Flanagan looking shaky as well, what does that tell you about that Dept. ?

You can fire minsters all day long but that will change nothing. A tribunal is setup which has the DOJ running scared it seems as they are withholding evidence from it, which I am sure the Tribunal will note. They need to conclude their work and the Dail can then use it as cause to reform and replace the old heads with new blood.

Unless, there is an alternative in the offering?

Is it all that difficult for you to see that the structure of government is virtually identical in structure to any business with a CEO and department heads.

In business what do you imagine would be the result of a department head being shown, at best as in this cause with Fitzgerald, incompetence.
That the head of that department would be left in place or moved to head up another department while the business faffed around with an inquiry ?

This Charleton Disclosures Tribunal has already show how ineffective it is by not having the vaguest clue this email even existed, and is now, imo at least, attempting to curry political favour in it`s headlong rush to look into this email attempting to save Fitzgerald and possibly a few others in government who may or may not have been in the know.

Again when it comes to tribunals and their findings being acted upon and not left to gather dust, how is that working out with the findings of the Moriarty Tribunal ?

This present tribunal idea being touted by FG is nothing other than another kick the can down the road exercise in an attempt to save Fitzgerald when she should have been sacked, for at this point, multiple reasons.

FG are fooling nobody but themselves if they cannot see what this latest tribunal excuse is.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

So, that is no then, it changes nothing. Good to know we are on the same page.

It changes the priorities for any incoming minister. Your job, and any subsequent one you get, is on the line if you don't do it properly.

Water John

The DOJ and Minister knowing are two diff things. Don't confuse the issue by presuming one told the other. That does a disservice to getting the true facts.

Fully, who told what to whom and when. All before the Tribunal in Jan.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It changes the priorities for any incoming minister. Your job, and any subsequent one you get, is on the line if you don't do it properly.

So still a no, again it changes nothing.

markodaly

When does the Tribunal finish its report does anyone know? Is it Jan 2018?

charlie14

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Based on the email, it's clear that officials in the DOJ have been telling her not to get involved and doing so would either be illegal or possibly open up the state to court action for interference.

While at the same time a senior DOJ official was discussing the Garda Commissioners strategy on the phone with the Garda Commissioner pretty much kills your point on that I`m afraid

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

So still a no, again it changes nothing.

It changes the Taniste, who is at best incompetent.

How many changes have I outlined now? But you seem to be intent on keeping your fingers in your ears. So I will leave you at it.

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

When does the Tribunal finish its report does anyone know? Is it Jan 2018?

Considering we now know information has deliberately been withheld from the Tribunal any findings it makes is questionable.

charlie14

Water John wrote: »

The DOJ and Minister knowing are two diff things. Don't confuse the issue by presuming one told the other. That does a disservice to getting the true facts.

Fully, who told what to whom and when. All before the Tribunal in Jan.

Fitzgerald, her two advisors, her private secretary and the head and deputy head of her department all received the email.
A senior official in her own department discussed O`Sullivan`s proposed strategy by phone with O`Sullivan

If Fitzgerald didn`t know it was because she did not want to know.

We do not really need to wait for a tribunal delaying scam to know that.

markodaly

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Considering we now know information has deliberately been withheld from the Tribunal any findings it makes is questionable.

So, what do you propose?

Nettle Soup

charlie14 wrote: »

Fitzgerald, her two advisors, her private secretary and the head and deputy head of her department all received the email.
A senior official in her own department discussed O`Sullivan`s proposed strategy by phone with O`Sullivan

If Fitzgerald didn`t know it was because she did not want to know.

We do not really need to wait for a tribunal delaying scam to know that.

Who leaked the phone call info and when?

Nettle Soup

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Who leaked the phone call info and when?

It's ok, I found the story.

Ah look, Fitzgerald is gone. It's beyond a farce at this stage. She knew and sat on her hands. Cowardly really.

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.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1126/922937-garda-tribunal/

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive....

markodaly

Nettle Soup wrote: »

It's ok, I found the story.

Ah look, Fitzgerald is gone. It's beyond a farce at this stage. She knew and sat on her hands. Cowardly really.


https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1126/922937-garda-tribunal/

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive....

Did you even read the website? It does not confirm this.

Fann Linn

Will be interesting to see if Kelly has any further little nuggets to drop out in relation to Fitzgerald/McCabe.

For Varadkar's sake he will want to make sure that Fitzgerald has completely divulged everything if this fiasco causes an election.

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

So, what do you propose?

An investigation carried out be an agency from outside the State.

markodaly

Hitman3000 wrote: »

An investigation carried out be an agency from outside the State.

Under what powers and what would it achieve right now?

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

Under what powers and what would it achieve right now?

This is a pointless question.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

How?

She read the documentation.....

markodaly wrote: »

Remember, it was Fitzgerald who setup the Commission on the future of Policing.
http://www.policereform.ie/

So what? Where's the reform? Where is there even evidence of a willingness to do so, in either the DOJ or the Gardai?

markodaly

Hitman3000 wrote: »

This is a pointless question.

Why, it shows that there are no simple answers. Precisely my point, you want a tribunal to cease midway and outsiders come in and do the exact same thing and encounter the exact same set of problems.

Maybe you didn't think this through.

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

Why, it shows that there are no simple answers. Precisely my point, you want a tribunal to cease midway and outsiders come in and do the exact same thing and encounter the exact same set of problems.

I suggested an agency from outside the state, your response 'what would it achieve Right Now'. Silly question tbh.

gizmo555

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Ah look, Fitzgerald is gone. It's beyond a farce at this stage. She knew and sat on her hands. Cowardly really.

This ^^^^^ plus 1,000!

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

How?

She read the documentation.....

What documentation, exactly?

So what? Where's the reform? Where is there even evidence of a willingness to do so, in either the DOJ or the Gardai?

Erm, the setting up of the Commission into the future of Policing. Multiple pieces of legalisation which she passed in relation to policing. What exactly did you want her to do, again specifically?

I see you totally ignored my previous post about reform of the Gardai and the DOJ must be a cross party initiate but I see you just want to bang the drum.

markodaly

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I suggested an agency from outside the state, your response 'what would it achieve Right Now'. Silly question tbh.

That is the pertinent question though. What would your idea achieve right now?
Nothing.

Case closed.

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

Case closed.

Nothing to see, move along.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

What documentation, exactly?

The e-mail. She knew they were questioning mc cabes integrity. She never queried that as far as is known.

markodaly wrote: »

Erm, the setting up of the Commission into the future of Policing. Multiple pieces of legalisation which she passed in relation to policing. What exactly did you want her to do, again specifically?

Window dressing with little sincerity by the look of it.

Mad stuff, like actually ensuring the tribunal gets the documentation its legally entitled to. Explaining why she continued to back the commmissioner.

Investigate the tenure of o'sullivan and callinan, particularily the latter and his relationship with the DOJ.

markodaly wrote: »

I see you totally ignored my previous post about reform of the Gardai and the DOJ must be a cross party initiate but I see you just want to bang the drum.

It should be, but theres little evidence of genuine reform of any sort at this stage.

markodaly

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Nothing to see, move along.

Apart from the Tribunal that is investigating this very issue of course.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Apart from the Tribunal that is investigating this very issue of course.

|The one that seemingly gets what documents somebody in the DOJ gives to them, as oppossed to all the relevant documents. Its not very reassuring.

Nettle Soup

On TV3 just now, a reporter from the Irish Times just said Fitzgerald met the commissioner 1 day after the email was sent.

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

Apart from the Tribunal that is investigating this very issue of course.

A tribunal we have learnt that has been denied information. Doesn't inspire confidence in any outcome tbh.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

The e-mail. She knew they were questioning mc cabes integrity. She never queried that as far as is known.

But its not known, hence my question.

Window dressing with little sincerity by the look of it.

Really? Look at the people who are conducting it.

Kathleen O’Toole (chairperson): Ms O’Toole is the current Chief of the Seattle Police Department. She held the position of Chief Inspector of the Garda Inspectorate between 2006 and 2012. Prior to that, she was the Commissioner of the Boston Police.

Noeleen Blackwell: Ms Blackwell is a human rights lawyer and the chief executive of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. She was previously the director general of the Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC).

Conor Brady: Mr Brady is a former editor of The Irish Times and The Sunday Tribune. He was a Gsoc commissioner from 2005 to 2011. He has written extensively on the history of An Garda Síochána and has served as a visiting professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Dr Johnny Connolly: Dr Connolly is Irish Research Council enterprise scholar at the Centre for Crime, Justice and Victim Studies at the School of Law in the University of Limerick. He has previously worked and researched in the areas of social work and social policy, alcohol and drugs. He is a board member of the Irish Penal Reform Trust.

Dr Vicky Conway: Dr Conway is a law lecturer in the School of Law and Governance in DCU where she teaches criminal law and criminology. She is a leading researcher on policing in Ireland. Dr Conway has previously been a board member of the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland.

Tim Dalton: Mr Dalton is a retired secretary general of the Department of Justice. He was also previously a member of a working group aimed at reviewing the direct provision system for asylum seekers in 2014.

Sir Peter Fahy: Mr Fahy has served in five police forces in the UK, spending five years as chief constable of Cheshire and eight years in the same role with Greater Manchester Police. When he left policing in November 2015 he became chief executive of the street children’s charity Retrak. He is an honorary professor at the University of Manchester.

Dr Eddie Molloy: Mr Molloy is an independent management consultant. He specialises in strategy, large-scale organisation change and innovation. He has worked in a range of sectors ranging from high-tech multinational companies to civil service departments and religious orders. He is director of advanced organisation and honorary consul for Barbados in Ireland.

Tonita Murray: Ms Murray is an international police development consultant who previously worked in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). She has specialised in police reform, policy development, training, leadership and management.

Dr Antonio Oftelie: Dr Oftelie conducts research, teaches and advises on law, policy and technology at Harvard University. He also advises senior government and business executives on organisational transformation.

Prof Donncha O’Connell: Prof O’Connell is a professor of law at the School of Law, NUI Galway. He is also a commissioner of the Law Reform Commission and was for four years a board member of the Legal Aid Board. From 1999 until 2002, Prof O’Connelll was the first full-time Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL).

Helen Ryan: Ms Ryan is a former chief executive of Creganna-Tactx Medical, a global supplier to the medical device industry. She is a fellow of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland and a member of the boards of Enterprise Ireland and of the Galway University Foundation.

Some very qualified people there, including 2 Americans, a Canadian and a Brit, who are all experts in their field. The commission, if you bothered to look, will finish their work in September next year and will include a report, which will..

..address in its report(s) the implementation of its recommendations and the mechanisms required to oversee implementation.

This is quite frankly the biggest look into the Irish police since the foundation of the state, with an issuance of a guide in how to execute its recommendations in order to achieve the goals of a better overall Gardai.

Once the report is done there will be huge public pressure to carry out the recommendations. This will require cross party support.

The terms of reference look very similar to that of the Patton report. Did you also say that it was just window dressing? They took almost two years to do their job. You can't just build a new police force overnight. Its not Sim City.

Investigate the tenure of o'sullivan and callinan, particularily the latter and his relationship with the DOJ.

That may well come in due course, the outcome of the disclosures tribunal may well lead that way.

It should be, but theres little evidence of genuine reform of any sort at this stage.

Well at least you all but admit that FF and Sinn Fein and others have zero interest in actual reform, just want to play politics. Ironically it is FG who hold the moral high ground here.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

|The one that seemingly gets what documents somebody in the DOJ gives to them, as oppossed to all the relevant documents. Its not very reassuring.

I know I am repeating myself but what is your alternative plan? Stop the Tribunal mid stream and..... what?

charlie14

Nettle Soup wrote: »

It's ok, I found the story.

Ah look, Fitzgerald is gone. It's beyond a farce at this stage. She knew and sat on her hands. Cowardly really.


https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1126/922937-garda-tribunal/

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive....

Interesting to see from that link the ducking and diving, rather than answering question by using the excuse of a disclosure tribunal that this email wasn`t even disclosed too in the first place has started already.

You couldn`t make it up