Barry Cowen sacked

Muahahaha

bubblypop wrote: »

How would they cover their tracks?
Clare Dalys arrest wasn't leaked from a pulse incident.

No one knows where Dalys arrest was leaked from. GSOC did an investigation and didnt find anyone guilty. They did find that a substantial number of Gardai accessed her Pulse record from various stations around the country, lots of them went snooping on her.

re pulse, look back up the thread at my post about a Garda doing a background check on a new boyfriend. The system isnt infallible and its possible for checks to be done without it being logged to the person doing it. It shouldnt go on but it does, thats why Im saying if a Garda leaked Cowens pulse file so long as they're smart proving it is them is going to be very difficult

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

So you want political candidates to be able to hide their criminal past?

If the Gardai have a record of someone's "criminal past" wouldn't that mean that it's safe to assume they've been convicted, and most likely punished already for whatever crime they were found guilty of?

As FF/G representatives have said repeatedly about Cowen, he committed an offence, was punished accordingly, and should be allowed to move on.

What now?

KaneToad

Muahahaha wrote: »

Plus the absolute brazen neck of him with that statement he came out with last Sunday. According to Barry-
"I did not evade the Gardai"
"The Garda record is incorrect and I want it corrected"

So he told two completely brazen lies last Sunday in an effort to save his neck. He knew well that he went into a cul de sac yet he was accusing the Gardai of making a false record of it. That could have put their careers on the line but Barry didnt care less about bring heat onto the Gardai, his priority was lying his ass off with weasel words to try to wriggle out of the entire mess, a mess that was completely of his own making.

He doesnt take responsibility for his actions and instead tells lies that put suspicion on the Gardai. Its the absolute lowest of the low from Cowen and once again we are seeing that Fianna Fail havent changed one single bit.

I hope he doesn't have any family members in the guards. It would make for very awkward family occasions...

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If we want that, we have to ask it of every candidate.

The business interests are already covered by the Register of Interests.

Indeed.

Apart for the ones they sometimes forget.
It's good to know who might have a vested interest in housing or health policy.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

If the Gardai have a record of someone's "criminal past" wouldn't that mean that it's safe to assume they've been convicted, and most likely punished already for whatever crime they were found guilty of?

As FF/G representatives have said repeatedly about Cowen, he committed an offence, was punished accordingly, and should be allowed to move on.

What now?

So you agree with FF/G representatives?

I certainly don’t. I want the full Garda record on every political candidate released so that the public know what they are voting for.

KiKi III

We Garda vet anyone who comes in contact with children, why not the politicians whose choices dictate their futures?

ronivek

blanch152 wrote: »

I certainly don’t. I want the full Garda record on every political candidate released so that the public know what they are voting for.

I suppose one issue is to what extent should civil servants and politicians be entitled to privacy. For example should they be required to publish all of their tax returns and income sources? Required to publish their Leaving Certificate and/or University results? Required to disclose any and all health issues? Should they have to disclose all arrests and/or proceedings and/or investigations which involved them as juveniles?

KiKi III wrote: »

We Garda vet anyone who comes in contact with children, why not the politicians whose choices dictate their futures?

Well the vetting there is about the safety of children or vulnerable persons who will be directly caring for an individual; and in general may be left alone with that individual.

The government and legislative processes already have checks and balances in place such that no individual would have the power to enact changes which might be detrimental to children without significant oversight and publicity.

I don't really see that they're equivalent from that point of view.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

That would have been my initial thoughts, however, given there is selective leaking - and Cowen and Daly both appear to be victims of this - wouldn’t it be better to publicise the Garda record of every candidate?

I mean, what if there is another Minister with a criminal record? Why should he get off free while Cowen is sacked?

But, we know Barry Cowan wasn't sacked as a minister because of a road traffic offence. Most posters here seen to believe that he was sacked because he wouldn't answer questions about other circumstances.
AGS cannot just publish all information they may have on their system, it is not evidence, you know this!

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

The system isnt infallible and its possible for checks to be done without it being logged to the person doing it. It shouldnt go on but it does.

How would this be possible?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

So you agree with FF/G representatives?.

Yeah I do actually, I don't form contrary opinions on what certain politicians say just because of who they are or what politcal party they come from, i was saying Cowen should have kept his job for the initial offence at the very start when the news broke.

.

McMurphy wrote: »

Don't agree with him losing his position, he was obviously on the lower end of the scale hence why he only got banned for 3 months, plus four years ago, so what?

Barry got the sack for leaving Michaeál in an impossible position.

I certainly don’t. I want the full Garda record on every political candidate released so that the public know what they are voting for.

Sounds like you want to live in a police state, and it's not certainly not something I'd be advocating for, the guards record's aren't flawless, and aren't the same thing as evidence of wrongdoing.

Kind of sounds like you want to live in one of these tinpot dictatorship socialist utopias you so often berate others for to be completely honest.

KiKi III wrote: »

We Garda vet anyone who comes in contact with children, why not the politicians whose choices dictate their futures?

Are their any children employed in the heads of departments that they will come in direct contact with and be left with unsupervised?

elperello

There is nothing to stop a Taoiseach doing due diligence privately on prospective appointees to high office.

All they have to do is get them to fill out a questionnaire regarding criminal record, financial record (ie. bankruptcy) and any other relevant parameters.

If they fail to declare privately to him and are subsequently found out then they are gone.

Terminator.

elperello wrote: »

There is nothing to stop a Taoiseach doing due diligence privately on prospective appointees to high office.

All they have to do is get them to fill out a questionnaire regarding criminal record, financial record (ie. bankruptcy) and any other relevant parameters.

If they fail to declare privately to him and are subsequently found out then they are gone.

Minefield that

Doubt any taoiseach would want to be sitting on a timebomb

elperello

Terminator. wrote: »

Minefield that

Doubt any taoiseach would want to be sitting on a timebomb

Better to be sitting on one you know about than one you don't know about.

Better again to avoid it altogether.

Bannasidhe

ronivek wrote: »

Well the vetting there is about the safety of children or vulnerable persons who will be directly caring for an individual; and in general may be left alone with that individual.

Not quite.

I get garda vetted every year (by 2 different agencies one of whom is Bernardo's) because I might come into contact with children or vulnerable people as part of my job - there is no way in hell I would be directly caring or left alone as we are never alone with a member of the public.
Never less than 2 members of staff present at all times.

Pedro K

ronivek wrote: »

Well the vetting there is about the safety of children or vulnerable persons who will be directly caring for an individual; and in general may be left alone with that individual.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not quite.

I get garda vetted every year (by 2 different agencies one of whom is Bernardo's) because I might come into contact with children or vulnerable people as part of my job - there is no way in hell I would be directly caring or left alone as we are never alone with a member of the public.
Never less than 2 members of staff present at all times.

To add to this, I am also vetted regularly by two separate bodies. I do come into direct contact with minors in both roles. One in a sports coaching setting, and the other in a maths tutoring session kind of setting. However I'm never alone with any of them.

Terminator.

The vetting only checks for criminal convictions AFAIK

Doesn't mean a whole pile

expectationlost

Fianna Fail Party Pledge
Wed, Feb 9, 2000, 00:00
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/fianna-fail-party-pledge-1.242978

Each candidate who contests a general, European or local election on behalf of Fianna Fail will be required to sign a Fianna Fail Party pledge before contesting the selection convention or otherwise being selected.

While this pledge will of necessity vary for each election it will incorporate the following terms:

"Realising the honour conferred on me if selected as a candidate for Fianna Fail, I undertake to conduct the election campaign in accordance with the instructions of the national and constituency directors of elections.

"If selected, I will enter into and abide by a `campaign undertaking' with the party. I also declare that I have complied or am in the process of complying with all my tax obligations.

"I undertake to refrain from doing anything inimical to the prestige of the Fianna Fail organisation.

"If elected, I pledge myself to work to the best of my ability for the aims and objectives of Fianna Fail, as set out in the party Coru, and at all times to abide by majority decisions of the party or resign my seat as teachta Dala.

"I pledge to abide by the highest standards of ethical behaviour as a candidate and, if successful, as a public representative. In particular I pledge to have regard to and abide by the party's guidelines on standards in public life for office-holders and candidates.

"I promise that if called upon by the national executive by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, to resign my seat or withdraw my candidacy, I will do so.

"I pledge that should my endeavour to be selected as a Fianna Fail candidate for this election be unsuccessful I will not stand as an independent candidate or as a candidate for any other political party or grouping.

did Barry sign this in 2011?

ronivek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not quite.

I get garda vetted every year (by 2 different agencies one of whom is Bernardo's) because I might come into contact with children or vulnerable people as part of my job - there is no way in hell I would be directly caring or left alone as we are never alone with a member of the public.
Never less than 2 members of staff present at all times.

It will differ based on your role and organisation for sure. Also I believe in many cases policy would be for two members of staff to be present at all times; however that isn’t always practical and again will vary.

Vetting isn’t (and shouldn’t be) the only method to ensure the safety of children or vulnerable persons; it’s just one way to minimise risk.

I’m still not really convinced politicians and TDs would ever be in a position where such vetting would be necessary though. Not that I would be opposed to vetting in general; although I suspect I would be opposed to making the results of such vetting public.

Bannasidhe

ronivek wrote: »

It will differ based on your role and organisation for sure. Also I believe in many cases policy would be for two members of staff to be present at all times; however that isn’t always practical and again will vary.

Vetting isn’t (and shouldn’t be) the only method to ensure the safety of children or vulnerable persons; it’s just one way to minimise risk.

I’m still not really convinced politicians and TDs would ever be in a position where such vetting would be necessary though. Not that I would be opposed to vetting in general; although I suspect I would be opposed to making the results of such vetting public.

Tbh many times vetting just seems to me to be another layer of paperwork.

However, I do think prospective employees should be obliged to disclose any convictions, even for relatively minor offences, and it is then up to the employer to decide if they wish to hire that persons.*

E.G A factory might have no issue with employing someone with multiple driving convictions but a courier company would (probably) say no thanks.
A shop might not want to hire a convicted shoplifter - a landscaping company might.


We employ TDs as our representatives and should know that information before we cast our votes for candidates.

I think we need to start viewing TDs as people we employ to do a well paid job on our behalf.


*Disclosure - I was convicted of speeding by Judge Mary Martin in 1998 and fined an eyewatering amount for the time. Due to a mix up with the fine (I paid it on time but there was a paperwork snarfoo) I briefly had my licence suspended. It was reinstated within 3 weeks on appeal. That's my one and only conviction.

ronivek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

However, I do think prospective employees should be obliged to disclose any convictions, even for relatively minor offences, and it is then up to the employer to decide if they wish to hire that persons.*

E.G A factory might have no issue with employing someone with multiple driving convictions but a courier company would (probably) say no thanks.
A shop might not want to hire a convicted shoplifter - a landscaping company might.

I believe many employers do require such disclosures; although they don't all require formal Garda vetting. I know personally speaking I have signed a number of documents over the years confirming I had no criminal convictions and was not aware of any formal investigations involving myself etc.

I will admit I'm still not convinced employers have some sort of right to that information though. Particularly if we're viewing our justice and prison systems as primarily being about reforming people and combating recidivism as opposed to just purely punishment: it seems to me that going down the US road of making convictions freely and publicly available to anyone with a computer isn't the way to go.

I do see where you're coming from though; and it does make sense. Certainly in some cases (childcare) and for certain types of offence (violent offences) I would feel much less comfortable with people being able to hide such information.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We employ TDs as our representatives and should know that information before we cast our votes for candidates.

I think we need to start viewing TDs as people we employ to do a well paid job on our behalf.

Again I see where you're coming from and it makes sense. I just feel like anyone who wishes to become a politician is going to have a serious disadvantage should they have any kind of conviction; irrespective of the merits of the individual case or seriousness.

I suppose my fundamental outlook would be that people shouldn't be considered beyond redemption purely because they have been convicted of something; and that the more difficult we make it for such people to succeed in life the more likely it is that such people will be stuck with that label forevermore.

It wasnt me123

I do think our TDS or prospective TDs should be vetted to be of good character and NO convictions, either civil or criminal or tribunals. Ie. Lowry gone, O’Dea gone, Wallace (though I thought he was a good opposition TD) gone, Cowen gone, Bailey (I falsified an Affidavit) gone, Farrell (FG TD who a Judge said wasn’t hurt re Personal Injury claim) gone - that is way too many TDs who are dodgy - feck them all out - no one who is dodgy should be allowed to be on the ballot at all - we need to hold all our personal representatives to a higher standard.

Bannasidhe

ronivek wrote: »

I believe many employers do require such disclosures; although they don't all require formal Garda vetting. I know personally speaking I have signed a number of documents over the years confirming I had no criminal convictions and was not aware of any formal investigations involving myself etc.

I will admit I'm still not convinced employers have some sort of right to that information though. Particularly if we're viewing our justice and prison systems as primarily being about reforming people and combating recidivism as opposed to just purely punishment: it seems to me that going down the US road of making convictions freely and publicly available to anyone with a computer isn't the way to go.

I do see where you're coming from though; and it does make sense. Certainly in some cases (childcare) and for certain types of offence (violent offences) I would feel much less comfortable with people being able to hide such information.




Again I see where you're coming from and it makes sense. I just feel like anyone who wishes to become a politician is going to have a serious disadvantage should they have any kind of conviction; irrespective of the merits of the individual case or seriousness.

I suppose my fundamental outlook would be that people shouldn't be considered beyond redemption purely because they have been convicted of something; and that the more difficult we make it for such people to succeed in life the more likely it is that such people will be stuck with that label forevermore.

I absolutely understand your concerns and to a great extent would share them.

On politicians it seems to me not being a member of a 'political' dynasty is a major stumbling block. Which, as a committed anti-Monarchist, irks me.
We have far too many 'family' seats. Just because a person's parent (usually the father - has there been any mothers? I honestly don't know...) was a TD doesn't mean they are a suitable candidate yet quite often get elected on the 'name' factor.

As for dodgy past - Lowry

NovemberWren

Bowie wrote: »

Indeed.

Apart for the ones they sometimes forget.
It's good to know who might have a vested interest in housing or health policy.

bribery may not just be with money in envelopes. the politicians who increase the numbers of consultants, doctors, clerk staff, etc., is that some kind of security/job bribery?

heard recently that consultants and doctors are buying up houses about and around the new childrens' hospital.

these medical staff then need to keep the salary security and so, are the easier to manipulate? i.e. 'everyone must wear face covering' - probably not a proper medical diagnosis? more it may be them being manipulated by the politicians?

Shefwedfan

NovemberWren wrote: »

bribery may not just be with money in envelopes. the politicians who increase the numbers of consultants, doctors, clerk staff, etc., is that some kind of security/job bribery?

heard recently that consultants and doctors are buying up houses about and around the new childrens' hospital.

these medical staff then need to keep the salary security and so, are the easier to manipulate? i.e. 'everyone must wear face covering' - probably not a proper medical diagnosis? more it may be them being manipulated by the politicians?

Are you serious?

That’s terrible

Shefwedfan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I absolutely understand your concerns and to a great extent would share them.

On politicians it seems to me not being a member of a 'political' dynasty is a major stumbling block. Which, as a committed anti-Monarchist, irks me.
We have far too many 'family' seats. Just because a person's parent (usually the father - has there been any mothers? I honestly don't know...) was a TD doesn't mean they are a suitable candidate yet quite often get elected on the 'name' factor.

As for dodgy past - Lowry

That’s the voters issue and not the politicians....

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

However, I do think prospective employees should be obliged to disclose any convictions, even for relatively minor offences, and it is then up to the employer to decide if they wish to hire that persons....


...We employ TDs as our representatives and should know that information before we cast our votes for candidates.

I think we need to start viewing TDs as people we employ to do a well paid job on our behalf.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

That’s the voters issue and not the politicians....

Where did I say otherwise?

James Brown

NovemberWren wrote: »

bribery may not just be with money in envelopes. the politicians who increase the numbers of consultants, doctors, clerk staff, etc., is that some kind of security/job bribery?

heard recently that consultants and doctors are buying up houses about and around the new childrens' hospital.

these medical staff then need to keep the salary security and so, are the easier to manipulate? i.e. 'everyone must wear face covering' - probably not a proper medical diagnosis? more it may be them being manipulated by the politicians?

Well literally when some forget to list all of their interests.
I was thinking more crony, not necessarily illegal. Unethical. Or 'inappropriate behaviour' like Noonan.
Landlord TDs and the wife of Goldman Sachs top man in Ireland at the time advising FG on housing policy. Reilly's clinic allocation etc.
The old classic rezoning and so on.

Muahahaha

bubblypop wrote: »

How would this be possible?

Im not sure what you're asking me here bubbly. If you are seriously actually asking me for information on how a member with access to Pulse can leak information and cover their tracks then I wont be revealing that on a public forum. It is a criminal act and I prefer to keep my nose clean. Aside from that illegality is against the Boards charter so Im not going to post something that would see me banned, despite your interest

What Im saying to you is that it goes on because the Pulse system is not infallible and it is possible to get information off it without being tracked. As it is on any IT data system, lets be real here. Pulse was a fcuk up from its inception and in many ways it still is today.

You posted that a Garda will lose their job over this leak. I cant see that happening whatsoever and especially not on account of who the journalist is. His sources are not coming from Gardai who were working a checkpoint for traffic coming from an All Ireland final and through Kildare on their way back west. Nor are they coming from a rumour whispered around the pubs in Clara later that evening. Given that this is John Mooney that is reporting then my bet is that the source of the leak is highly likely to have come from Garda HQ in the Park.This is what Mooney specialises in for almost 10 years now and he is dam good at it.


Plus lets not forget that Cowen attempted to blacken the name of the Gardai here in an effort to wriggle out of this mess of his own making. He accused them of not entering a correct record on Pulse, which is essentially an accusation of either incompetence, dishonesty. or outright political assassination. That put a target on Cowens back which is why the ST brazenly gave us the final installment of the story about his attempted Great Escape from the Cul de Sac.

BonnieSituation

I wonder if that was the cherry on the cake for Mooney at the weekend?

I'm sure FF's discipline will return now.

I see Shef is sweetness and light toward MM for his performance in the negotiations with Brussels. So that's obviously the new direction HQ are pushing their drones and surrogates.

James Brown

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I wonder if that was the cherry on the cake for Mooney at the weekend?

I'm sure FF's discipline will return now.

I see Shef is sweetness and light toward MM for his performance in the negotiations with Brussels. So that's obviously the new direction HQ are pushing their drones and surrogates.

The story over on RTE sounds like MM went over to seal a deal on helping those worst hit by covid and it was achieved. No mention of Ireland specifically.