Drew Harris armoured jeep flung into the air at Garda HQ

Odyssey 2005

CountingCrows wrote: »

They kept tapes of all phone calls made to stations for years but they can't find HQ footage from last week - lol

They cant even look after their phones !

Odyssey 2005

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its not the movies, petrol tanks dont blow up at the drop of a hat. And besides armoured vehicles used reinforced tanks with bladders to resist fuel vapour ignition from hot projectiles or shrapnel.

Anyway, I have a close relative in the special detective unit and I had heard about this incident last week. There was no malfunction of the barrier, it was an operational and procedural "malfunction".

And even if I didn't know what I know, I agree with the above, they must think the public would swallow a brick to accept that this barrier, new and all as it is, would happen to "malfunction" under the unmarked NI vehicle of all the hundreds of vehicle movements in and out of Garda HQ every day. The absolute spoofers.

I was being facetious about the tank. Another poster here brought that shyte into the frame.
I have in a previous life travelled in and out that gate 100's of times. This was as you say a procedural malfunction not a mechanical one. They fuked up by not passing on the information to the person on the gate,she did her job and they are talking themselves into a deeper hole by the hour.

McMurphy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

How has this thread reached 450 post? Utter nothing of an incident.

Just heard it being discussed on the five pm news too.

Ironically, the more the Garda press office try and spoof it away, the more interest it's garnering.

Larbre34

janfebmar wrote: »

So you think the vehicle was deliberately attacked and damaged, rather than stopped in a professional manner?

Where did u get that from what i said?

Ive heard from the horses mouth that the barrier was activated on purpose by personnel on duty in the gatehouse due to a perceived threat. The barrier did not malfunction. Procedure fell down in several aspects, the ferrying of Harris all the way by NI vehicle and the failure to communicate this with the security unit at Garda HQ. This is what is now being internally investigated by the Assistant Commissioner for Security and Intelligence.

The Garda statement today, claiming a malfunctioning barrier caused the incident is BS, but is the last you will hear about it officially.

Fiery mutant

I thought this Harris guy was supposed to be the man to help improve the Gardai’s image in this country after all the sewage that has seeped out under O Sullivan’s stewardship.

But this latest escapade just confirms that nobody in authority in this country can be trusted to do anything right. They really are a collection of **** ups.

mickdw

The barrier incident was an embarrassing mistake but not a big issue.
If they had said a communication error led to the vehicle being stopped by security barrier, there would have been a few laughs and no more.
If the new commissioner sees fit to cover up such a minor issue, it is clear that nothing has changed and all are as corrupt as ever.

mfceiling

pablo128 wrote: »

It's an armoured Jeep. It will have a toughened skid plate under the engine.

It was driven in at speed.

Bollox. What "speed" do you think it was driven in at? It was following another jeep. Did the 2 of them take a run at the gate and hope for the best? Do you think a northern reg vehicle with the acting commissioner in it would risk speeding through the checkpoint at garda hq? Do you know the force those solid steel barriers come up with?
Between people claiming that he shouldn't be the commissioner (religion/bigotry or take your pick) to the Jeep being "flung" into the air (probably turned over twice in mid air then caught fire) there has been some sh*te posted in this thread.

Atoms for Peace

The whole things a smoke screen to deflect attention from the Gaurds secret flying black Mariah project.

hatrickpatrick

mickdw wrote: »

The barrier incident was an embarrassing mistake but not a big issue.

The incident isn't actually "the barrier incident", though - it's "the armed officers from another jurisdiction being allowed into the country by the Garda Commissioner, illegally" incident. That's what's going to make it controversial, particularly given that Harris's previous, and potentially ongoing, loyalty to UK law enforcement has already generated controversy in some circles.

Drifter50

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The incident isn't actually "the barrier incident", though - it's "the armed officers from another jurisdiction being allowed into the country by the Garda Commissioner, illegally" incident. That's what's going to make it controversial, particularly given that Harris's previous, and potentially ongoing, loyalty to UK law enforcement has already generated controversy in some circles.

Can you only imagine the palaver this would cause if a Garda ARU approached Stormont Castle......

The Nordies would have a field day but when its this way around, its almost as if it is a non event

pablo128

mfceiling wrote: »

Bollox. What "speed" do you think it was driven in at? It was following another jeep. Did the 2 of them take a run at the gate and hope for the best? Do you think a northern reg vehicle with the acting commissioner in it would risk speeding through the checkpoint at garda hq? Do you know the force those solid steel barriers come up with?
Between people claiming that he shouldn't be the commissioner (religion/bigotry or take your pick) to the Jeep being "flung" into the air (probably turned over twice in mid air then caught fire) there has been some sh*te posted in this thread.

How would an armoured Jeep be written off then? You and another poster are essentially saying that if you jack up an armoured Jeep it is only fit for a scrapyard afterwards.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The incident isn't actually "the barrier incident", though - it's "the armed officers from another jurisdiction being allowed into the country by the Garda Commissioner, illegally" incident. That's what's going to make it controversial, particularly given that Harris's previous, and potentially ongoing, loyalty to UK law enforcement has already generated controversy in some circles.

Exactly.
Everything is now trying to cover up the fact that armed officers from another jurisdiction were here, illegally.

mickdw

Id imagine it's within the powers of the commissioner to allow them into the state where he deemed it appropriate.
They did do a pretty good job of keeping this out of the media but it got out in the end.

mickdw

mickdw wrote: »

Id imagine it's within the powers of the commissioner to allow them into the state where he deemed it appropriate.
They did do a pretty good job of keeping this out of the media but it got out in the end.

No there are specific protocols in place for allowing foreign police officers to carry firearms in this country.
The commissioner can't just decide, come on over lads! The minister for justice has responsibility for these situations.

janfebmar

No proof or indication the officers from N. Ireland were armed. Anyone see any arms? No.

If Harris himself was armed and the Garda escort armed that would suffice, I would imagine. The PSNI can pick up their arms again off another PSNI vehicle when they reach the border.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

No proof or indication the officers from N. Ireland were armed. Anyone see any arms? No.

If Harris himself was armed and the Garda escort armed that would suffice, I would imagine. The PSNI can pick up their arms again off another PSNI vehicle when they reach the border.

You are aware the Gardai addressed the issue that they were armed, today?

janfebmar

janfebmar wrote: »

No proof or indication the officers from N. Ireland were armed. Anyone see any arms? No.

If Harris himself was armed and the Garda escort armed that would suffice, I would imagine. The PSNI can pick up their arms again off another PSNI vehicle when they reach the border.

Are you actually serious?
The PSNI are an armed force, they were on armed protection, in their own country. Did they hand over their firearms to some other police men who then we're to meet them again in a few hours to hand them back?
Why would the commissioner be armed?

elperello

From what I have read so far it seems that PSNI armed protection officers were escorting DH and were joined by AGS armed protection officers at or near the border.
-+
Assuming that the role of armed protection officers is to protect the person under their charge it is reasonable to speculate what would occur if some threat was made to DH's life in the course of their journey.

It appears to me that two separate groups of trained officers would do all in their power up to and including opening fire to protect DH and defend themselves.

Thus we could have two groups under different orders from separate jurisdictions with different levels of training and equipment having an armed engagement with terrorists on the streets/roads of the Republic.

In such an engagement it would be operationally best practice that all those trying to protect DH would be under one command and working together towards a single goal.

As far as I can see this does not seem to be the case and I think that puts DH at risk and furthermore presents a threat to those in both protection details and innocent by-standers.

riffmongous

elperello wrote: »

From what I have read so far it seems that PSNI armed protection officers were escorting DH and were joined by AGS armed protection officers at or near the border.
-+
Assuming that the role of armed protection officers is to protect the person under their charge it is reasonable to speculate what would occur if some threat was made to DH's life in the course of their journey.

It appears to me that two separate groups of trained officers would do all in their power up to and including opening fire to protect DH and defend themselves.

Thus we could have two groups under different orders from separate jurisdictions with different levels of training and equipment having an armed engagement with terrorists on the streets/roads of the Republic.

In such an engagement it would be operationally best practice that all those trying to protect DH would be under one command and working together towards a single goal.

As far as I can see this does not seem to be the case and I think that puts DH at risk and furthermore presents a threat to those in both protection details and innocent by-standers.

If there is a risk you'd think DH should be taken care of by officers solely from the Gardai, he's their commissioner. It's sort of the reverse situation of why visiting VIPs are allowed to have their own armed protection, DH should be having a Garda detail in the North rather than a PSNI detail in the Republic. Now you could definitely make the argument that the PSNI can take care of it up North, that's fair, but having armed PSNI officers accompanying him here makes no sense

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are aware the Gardai addressed the issue that they were armed, today?

You think that matters to this particular poster?

First demanding to know why the Gardai weren't informed of the commissioners change of plan, despite no one yet knowing why he broke the protocol, and ignoring the fact that the buck stops with him regardless.

Then asking why an unidentified vehichle with northern reg plates attempting to enter Garda headquarters unauthorized wasn't "stopped by waving it down" then in the next breath tell us it was stopped at a checkpoint and the Gard intentionally activated the bollard.

Then whinging about who would pay the cost of the poor PSNI owned vehichle which arguably had no business to be south of the border, never mind within Garda HQ, and suggest we were lucky it didn't burst into flames.

Implying the sentinel Garda ballsed up, and would probably be transferred to a far away town or village.

Ask how anyone has proof that the armed forces protecting Drew Harris were armed.

Full of bollards if you ask me.

janfebmar

It is quite possible they were coming for a meeting, would not be the first such meeting and will not be the last (despite their car being attacked while it was going at a walking pace).

awec

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The incident isn't actually "the barrier incident", though - it's "the armed officers from another jurisdiction being allowed into the country by the Garda Commissioner, illegally" incident. That's what's going to make it controversial, particularly given that Harris's previous, and potentially ongoing, loyalty to UK law enforcement has already generated controversy in some circles.

It's not illegal.

McMurphy

awec wrote: »

It's not illegal.

If is if they were armed and it wasn't pre agreed well in advance, and if it was, then there will be paperwork confirming same.

awec

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

If is if they were armed and it wasn't pre agreed well in advance, and if it was, then there will be paperwork confirming same.

Source?

janfebmar

janfebmar wrote: »

It is quite possible they were coming for a meeting, would not be the first such meeting and will not be the last (despite their car being attacked while it was going at a walking pace).

Were you there with a speed camera?

If they were there for a meeting, as you put it, they wouldn't have the garda commissioner in their vehicle and they wouldn't have been armed.

McMurphy

awec wrote: »

Source?

It's within this very thread.

John O’Brien, retired detective chief supt and former national head of Interpol and Europol,

“The officers concerned have no authority to carry firearms. There are huge issues around how they would respond and what the legality of it would be, if they were under attack. The only reason you have armed personnel protecting an individual is that it is anticipated they may be subject to an egregious attack.”

He makes it very clear.

“If some incident goes down, what are the rules of engagement? The bottom line is that the gardand the Defence Forces are the only service permitted to carry firearms in this jurisdiction,” he said.

And security analysis, Tom Clonan goes further with this.

To counter this, it has been suggested that other foreign security forces – such as the US Secret Service – have been allowed to use firearms in the Republic of Ireland in recent years.

However, such a move would require authorisation from the Minister for Justice, who can give permission to visiting officers to carry weapons on an exceptional basis.

In a statement this morning, Charlie Flanagan offered his support to both police forces while also appearing himself to distance himself from the incident.

The Minister acknowledged the reciprocal arrangements between gardand the PSNI for those travelling between both jurisdictions, saying they are “practical” and “risk-based”.

But he added: “Having said that, I understand that there has been a minor incident involving a car travelling at about walking pace.

“I am advised that the travel and security arrangements on this occasion were in line with standard practice.”

It would certainly appear that if the PSNI officers in the vehicle carrying Harris were carrying weapons, the Minister did not give any authorisation for them to do so.

The Garda press office about reciprocal agreement is spin. yes they are allowed to do so, but with specific prior arrangement and or agreements. Which it doesn't look like Flanagan had given.

Drew Harris went on a solo run is how it appears. The spoofing and spinning of what happened and why is only adding to the mystique.

JohnnyFlash

It’s over, John. The enormous scandal you had developed in your head didn’t come to pass. You’ll just have to live with that underlying resentment of Drew Harris, and all he represents for you.

janfebmar

DubInMeath wrote: »

Were you there with a speed camera?

No but I believe the Garda statement that it was moving at walking pace. Police vehicles are normally driven with care and attention through checkpoints.

McMurphy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It’s over, John. The enormous scandal you had developed in your head didn’t come to pass. You’ll just have to live with that underlying resentment of Drew Harris, and all he represents for you.

On Sunday afternoon you were implying it never happened to begin with, and contrary to me "resenting" Harris, I had high hopes for him, but alas we seem to have been shouldered with more of the same.

Thsnks for your concern all the same chump.

EmmetSpiceland

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

On Sunday afternoon you were implying it never happened to begin with, and contrary to me "resenting" Harris, I had high hopes for him, but alas we seem to have been shouldered with more of the same.

Thsnks for your concern all the same chump.

You’ve been like a dog with a bone for days now, Johnny. Trying to find any angle on this that suits your agenda.

Time to let it go, boy.

janfebmar

DubInMeath wrote: »

If they were there for a meeting, as you put it, they wouldn't have the garda commissioner in their vehicle and they wouldn't have been armed.

I said "It is quite possible they (PSNI) were coming for a meeting, would not be the first such meeting and will not be the last". The Garda Commissioner could have been catching a lift with them on his return from other business in N.I. (be it personal, social or police business, I could not care less). Having a chat with them could shorten the journey for both parties. They are human too. And as regards if they were armed or not, I could not care less, they could have left their weapons in N.I. in another PSNI vehicle near the border and relied on Garda protection while in this state, I do not know.

What clearly should not have happened is the bollard incident damaging the vehicle seriously.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I said "It is quite possible they (PSNI) were coming for a meeting, would not be the first such meeting and will not be the last". The Garda Commissioner could have been catching a lift with them on his return from other business in N.I. (be it personal, social or police business, I could not care less). Having a chat with them could shorten the journey for both parties. They are human too. And as regards if they were armed or not, I could not care less, they could have left their weapons in N.I. in another PSNI vehicle near the border and relied on Garda protection while in this state, I do not know.

What clearly should not have happened is the bollard incident damaging the vehicle seriously.

In all your imagining, you cannot imagine a situation we?re somebody was unprofessional and didn't inform the security team, resulting in the quite imaginable situation were a sentinel had seconds to decide if an approaching vehicle was friend or hostile and opted to follow protocol?

Very simple sequence of events following the first mistake after all.


*They were armed. The Gardai said as much today.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In all your imagining, you cannot imagine a situation we?re somebody was unprofessional and didn't inform the security team,

I did say the Garda car accompanying the PSNI vehicle should have indicated to HQ they were bring in the Garda Commissioner - so that the guard on duty could smarten up if nothing else. (The boss is coming!).

FrancieBrady wrote: »

resulting in the quite imaginable situation were a sentinel had seconds to decide if an approaching vehicle was friend or hostile and opted to follow protocol?

Protocol should not be to write off friendly law abiding vehicles and leave them perched on top of bollards.. If the PSNI damaged cars like that they were unsure of you would be the first to complain.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I did say the Garda car accompanying the PSNI vehicle should have indicated to HQ they were bring in the Garda Commissioner - so that the guard on duty could smarten up if nothing else. (The boss is coming!).


Protocol should not be to write off friendly law abiding vehicles and leave them perched on top of bollards.. If the PSNI damaged cars like that they were unsure of you would be the first to complain.

What?

The police force before the PSNI shot the occupants of cars (usually bored children) if the mood took them.

If you think a vehicle is hostile, you take action and ask questions later.

The responsibility for the vehicle's safety is with the occupants who should have ensured the plans they changed were transmitted to the relevant people.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you think a vehicle is hostile, you take action and ask questions later.

The PSNI vehicle was not hostile. It was containing the Garda Commissioner, no less, how could it be hostile? The Gardai said it was just going at walking pace. To stop such a vehicle for further investigation / questioning should not require extensive damage to the vehicle. Was the unmarked Garda car stopped to see if all was well, the occupants were genuine and the purpose of its journey?

JohnnyFlash

And now over to Francis for the weather.

GMSA

That'll buff right out.

Atlantic Dawn

This could be all cleared up by releasing the CCTV.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The PSNI vehicle was not hostile. It was containing the Garda Commissioner, no less, how could it be hostile? The Gardai said it was just going at walking pace. To stop such a vehicle for further investigation / questioning should not require extensive damage to the vehicle. Was the unmarked Garda car stopped to see if all was well, the occupants were genuine and the purpose of its journey?

How did the sentinel know it wasn't? Have you access to the communication logs?

She was expecting the Garda car with the Commissioner inside. The Commissioner changed that plan.

:rolleyes:

Irishguy44

An official complaint has been made to GSOC on Monday afternoon and the Garda Commissioner was aware of the complaint. The complaint asks Gsoc to investigate 2 things as a matter of public interest

1) investigate what happened at the Garda hq gate, was button pressed? Was it just malfunction.

2) why were psni officers and a psni Jeep used and were they armed, was protocols followed? Why did the commissioner want or have to stay in the Jeep at border.

On Tuesday the gardai announced it was a malfunction bollard after they realized GSOC were involved.

Nobody knows what happened because whatever happened was kept private by the gardai, this is why people believe something sinister happened as they didn’t announce it when it happened.

As a result of the gardai not releasing the details a whole array of theories have evolved, we have theories that the gardai in general were annoyed that drew used the psni so it was a deliberate act to send a message to drew at how happy the gardai are with their new commissioner. We have a theory that he is a British spy. We have a theory the car was speeding up, flipped and overturned, we have theories that drew doesn’t get along with the force and avoids using his armed guard whenever he can. We have theories they were armed psni officers and unarmed.

If Gsoc are independent they will get to the bottom of it but probably won’t be allowed investigate or won’t get cooperation.

If procedures were not followed and drew should not have been in that Jeep with psni officers then the insurance company won’t pay out either.

The Northern Ireland police ombudsman has also been asked to investigate and Karen Bradley the NI secretary has been asked to explain why a psni Jeep carrying the Irish Garda Commissioner was in Dublin and possibly written off.

I’m sure there are more theories out there but the reason everyone thinks something more to this then there might be is because the gardai and justice minister haven’t been forthcoming so it’s their own fault.

Gsoc if they investigate will get access to cctv footage

Amazing how not one pic of the Jeep has emerged tho....

My own theory, a very unprofessional decision made by drew to use psni vehicle, he realized this only after the incident and a cover up began hoping it wouldn’t emerge in the media and now it’s viral

I’d say Leo is delighted and Simon Harris cause nobody talking about Kylie letters or children’s hospitals

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How did the sentinel know it wasn't?

It is her job to establish the identity and purpose of each vehicle that visits. She badly damaged the vehicle her own boss was in. Big mistake.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

It is her job to establish the identity and purpose of each vehicle that visits. She badly damaged the vehicle her own boss was in. Big mistake.

:D:D:D :rolleyes:

Irishguy44

janfebmar wrote: »

It is her job to establish the identity and purpose of each vehicle that visits. She badly damaged the vehicle her own boss was in. Big mistake.

According to the gardai the bollard malfunctioned it wasn’t pressed therefore she didn’t do any damage the new bollard did. The big mistake was the gardai describing the event initially as the button was pressed and on Tuesday after the gardai learned Gsoc were involved they announced it was a malfunction.

janfebmar

Irishguy44 wrote: »

According to the gardai the bollard malfunctioned it wasn’t pressed therefore she didn’t do any damage the new bollard did. The big mistake was the gardai describing the event initially as the button was pressed and on Tuesday after the gardai learned Gsoc were involved they announced it was a malfunction.

It could have been a malfunction but then you get posters like this:

Larbre34 wrote: »

Anyway, I have a close relative in the special detective unit and I had heard about this incident last week. There was no malfunction of the barrier, it was an operational and procedural "malfunction".

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

I have in a previous life travelled in and out that gate 100's of times. This was as you say a procedural malfunction not a mechanical one. They fuked up by not passing on the information to the person on the gate

Out of hundreds of vehicles, the one time it malfunctions was when a PSNI vehicle was passing over it? Perhaps.

mfceiling wrote: »

Bollox. What "speed" do you think it was driven in at? It was following another jeep. Did the 2 of them take a run at the gate and hope for the best? Do you think a northern reg vehicle with the acting commissioner in it would risk speeding through the checkpoint at garda hq? Do you know the force those solid steel barriers come up with?
Between people claiming that he shouldn't be the commissioner (religion/bigotry or take your pick) to the Jeep being "flung" into the air....

No surprise certain people do not like co-operation between the PSNI and Gardai, and who do not like the current commissioner ( religion/bigotry or take your pick, as you say).

Hotblack Desiato

Irishguy44 wrote: »

An official complaint has been made to GSOC on Monday afternoon and the Garda Commissioner was aware of the complaint.

Source...?

If Gsoc are independent they will get to the bottom of it but probably won’t be allowed investigate or won’t get cooperation.

Same old same old, so.

If procedures were not followed and drew should not have been in that Jeep with psni officers then the insurance company won’t pay out either.

Aww, you were doing so well! State owned vehicles aren't insured. The "insurer" is the state itself.

The Northern Ireland police ombudsman has also been asked to investigate and Karen Bradley the NI secretary has been asked to explain

Source? There's far too much idle speculation on this thread already.

foxy farmer

Street view shows lifting barriers at the gate as well.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

No surprise certain people do not like co-operation between the PSNI and Gardai, and who do not like the current commissioner ( religion/bigotry or take your pick, as you say).

:D Says the person who has blamed everybody but the Commander that changed the plan and normal protocol, who also happens to be ex RUC/PSNI, whom said poster has been defending for years.

I make no secret of the fact this was an unwise appointment, given that we have outstanding cases that we require information on from his secretive former employers.

Irishguy44

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Source...?



Same old same old, so.



Aww, you were doing so well! State owned vehicles aren't insured. The "insurer" is the state itself.



Source? There's far too much idle speculation on this thread already.

I don’t know why you think I am speculating about Gsoc , you can contact them yourself the reference number is : GSOC REF: 000086-04-19

The same complaint sent to them about it was also sent to Charlie Flanagan, Karen Bradley, NI ombudsman so that’s how I know. The email asked Gsoc and Ni ombudsman to investigate together and asks Karen Bradley : Can Karen Bradley confirm to the House of Commons why a Jeep owned by the PSNI was involved in an accident carrying the Irish Police Chief? and why?

why are her police in our country?

With regards your insurance question I think you will find the psni vehicle is not a state owned vehicle, uk police forces all use their own insurance companies, London uses Lloyd’s and if the psni shouldn’t have been there no payout British taxpayer covers it.

joeguevara

There are a number of questions that need to be answered here. Since the rise of dissident activity in recent months (car bomb in Derry and letter bombs sent from Dublin to UK) driving a police commissioner in psni vans around the south and possible transfer into Garda vans makes him a sitting duck. Reports state he should be transported by helicopter from North to South.

Secondly who gave permission for armed spin officers to enter the republic. Although it has been legally allowed since 2013 there is a procedure that has to be followed with paperwork to back it up. It would be a conflict for Drew Harris to grant permission if he was in the van. If permission had been granted then the person who gave it should just admit it. Then no issue. The fact that no one has makes it an issue. A freedom of information request would probably fail as it is an issue of national security.

It is a kick in the face for Irish officers if drew harris doesn't have faith in them for his protection and prefers a foreign police. Couple this with foreign security being brought in for evictions makes it even more sinister. The gardai are here to protect citizens and are essentially answerable to the public. The lack of transparency makes people lose faith. Someone needs to either outline exactly what procedure was followed or there should be a full investigation. But sweeping it under the carpet with a simple 'nothing to see here' statement is making fools out of the public.

Sac O Spuds

The whole fiasco needs more explanation.