Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

€14.56m Spent so far (Not including basic wages) on policing 'Shell to Sea'

1235»

Comments

  • #202
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    The rights of the private citizen have concomitant duties. One of those duties is to cooperate peacefully with the police.

    The attitude of "I refuse to respect the police, but I DEMAND that they respect me" is symptomatic of a much more serious slide in society, in my view.


  • #203
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    MadsL wrote: »
    What do you find objectionable about filming police whilst they perform their duties?

    There have been several cases in the UK of people having camera confiscated over taking pictures of police on duty and/or their patrol cars over the past few years. Apparently the cases have been innocent, but the police apparently have a policy of not allowing photography of on duty police (can't remember why).


  • #204
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    antoobrien wrote: »
    There have been several cases in the UK of people having camera confiscated over taking pictures of police on duty and/or their patrol cars over the past few years. Apparently the cases have been innocent, but the police apparently have a policy of not allowing photography of on duty police (can't remember why).

    So terrorist organisations don't build up intelligence on police activity.

    If Tadhg doing that filming had been a man with a Northern accent filming in Castleblaney during the 1980s he would have been due for release a couple of years ago under the Good Friday agreement.


  • #205
    micosoft
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,367 ✭✭✭micosoft


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The rights of the private citizen have concomitant duties. One of those duties is to cooperate peacefully with the police.

    The attitude of "I refuse to respect the police, but I DEMAND that they respect me" is symptomatic of a much more serious slide in society, in my view.

    +1

    People who interpret the law in such a way that would make it impossible to maintain a civic society. Can you imagine if Criminals had the right to photograph and track Gardai? The Gardai are not constitutional lawyers and for the most part want an easy life for themselves and fellow citizens, not stuck out in a bog in Mayo dealing with local Nimbys being deliberately wound up. That some of these people think they are Braveheart fighting the yoke of a totalitarian state shows their limited world knowledge.

    There is a group of people in society who have a grossly inflated sense of their rights and importance and who hold everyone but particularly state employees to an extraordinarily high standard of absolute perfection then they apply to themselves. They are happy to use Gas to heat their homes, Fuel for their Car, Mobile Phone, Electricity and all the other conveniences of modern society but never think where it comes from. Somebody has to live beside the dump, power-station, pylon, phone transmitter etc just not me!
    Whats really ironic is that included in this bunch of rabble are those that support the right not to have septic tanks inspected and the right to cut turf. Utter hypocrites.


  • #206
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    Which question was 'smartass' in your view? I can hear several 'smartass' comment from the Guard (oh, wait...was he a Guard?)

    On his Oath perhaps?

    16-(1) " I hereby solemnly and sincerely declare before God that _ I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Siochana with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartially, upholding the Constitution and the Laws and according equal respect to all people, {2005.} {No.20} Garda Siochana Act 2005. While I continue to be a member, I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all my duties according to Law, and I do not belong to, and will not remain a member form, belong to or subscribe to, any Political party or secret society whatsoever.

    “The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen”. Constitution of Ireland - Bunreacht na h-Eireann, Article 40.3.1.

    Do you see that anonymously threatening a citizen with forfeiture as being consistent with 'defending and vindicating the rights of the citizen'?
    Prick or not...

    ... in so far as is practicable. Furthermore, Shell (which I presume is a registered company in Ireland) and the other citizens who are being disrupted by this protest and the actions of S2S group(s) have an equal right to protection of their personal stated and unenumerated rights as citizens.

    On the guy in the car getting a window smashed, well he is John Monaghan, one of the local protesters. So he may have reason to be fearful. He may also have read the Road Traffic Act which apparently (unless someone corrects me) holds NO provision for a Guard to force you exit the vehicle until they first tell you why you should exit (drunk driving perhaps) or on suspicion of a crime. So it appears he was well within his rights to sit tight until he is informed of why he is being detained.
    What utter nonsense. Firstly, did he read the Road Traffic ACTS? Road Traffic Act 1961, Road Traffic Act 1968, Road Traffic Act 1994, Road Traffic Act 1995, Road Traffic Act 2002, Road Traffic Act 2003, Road Traffic Act 2004, Road Traffic Act 2006, Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006, Roads Acts 1920 and 1993.

    Secondly, once stopped, failure to comply with directions of a member of AGS is an arrestable offence under the Public Order Act 1994. Refusing to exit a vehicle is an offence and if you continue to do so then you are considered to be resisting arrest (even if you later prove that you shouldn't have been arrested).
    What concerns me, is that many here seem to be arguing for the rights of AGS over the rights of the private citizen. That strikes me as a very dangerous slope indeed.
    What are "rights of AGS"? What are "rights of the private citizen"? What's the difference between a "private citizen" and a citizen?


  • #207
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    What utter nonsense. Firstly, did he read the Road Traffic ACTS? Road Traffic Act 1961, Road Traffic Act 1968, Road Traffic Act 1994, Road Traffic Act 1995, Road Traffic Act 2002, Road Traffic Act 2003, Road Traffic Act 2004, Road Traffic Act 2006, Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006, Roads Acts 1920 and 1993.

    Secondly, once stopped, failure to comply with directions of a member of AGS is an arrestable offence under the Public Order Act 1994. Refusing to exit a vehicle is an offence and if you continue to do so then you are considered to be resisting arrest (even if you later prove that you shouldn't have been arrested).


    I said I was open to correction, but a couple of questions?

    Which section of the Road Act requires you to exit the vehicle?

    Which section of the Public Order Act means that you have to comply with any instruction of a member of AGS?

    My reading of Section 8 is that...
    8.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána finds a person in a public place and suspects, with reasonable cause, that such person—

    (a) is or has been acting in a manner contrary to the provisions of section 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 or 9 , or

    (b) without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, is acting in a manner which consists of loitering in a public place in circumstances, which may include the company of other persons, that give rise to a reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons or the safety of property or for the maintenance of the public peace,

    the member may direct the person so suspected to do either or both of the following, that is to say:

    (i) desist from acting in such a manner, and

    (ii) leave immediately the vicinity of the place concerned in a peaceable or orderly manner.

    it only applies in the case of

    4. Intoxication in public place..
    5. Disorderly conduct in public place..
    6. Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in public place..
    7. Distribution or display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene..
    9. Wilful obstruction..

    Not, as you seem to be implying whatever a Guard tells you to do something. Now I will concede that a case could be made for Section 9 - however this guy would have gone on his way had he been allowed. Smashing the window seems absurd to enforce section 9 of the Public Order Act.

    Waving at someone is not a formal 'direction' as far as I can see under the law.

    For example, I once had a row with a Guard who told me to reverse on an active motorway; it was obviously illegal and dangerous and I refused. Should I have been arrested?


  • #208
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    micosoft wrote: »
    +1

    People who interpret the law in such a way that would make it impossible to maintain a civic society. Can you imagine if Criminals had the right to photograph and track Gardai? The Gardai are not constitutional lawyers and for the most part want an easy life for themselves and fellow citizens, not stuck out in a bog in Mayo dealing with local Nimbys being deliberately wound up. That some of these people think they are Braveheart fighting the yoke of a totalitarian state shows their limited world knowledge.

    Unfortunately 'Criminals' don't wear badges. Which leaves the rest of us to decide how much infringement of our freedom we will tolerate in order to catch 'Criminals'.

    If you believe that it should be illegal to film the police, perhaps you might ask Rodney King if he subscribes to that viewpoint.

    Filming the police in my view serves a civic purpose, and ensures that police worldwide are aware that their actions may be caught on camera and they may be brought to justice just as those involved in the Rodney King case were prosecuted.

    Incidentally, 'criminals' do have the right to photograph police. As do 'citizens'.

    As for Guards not being lawyers, that does not excuse ignorance of the law on their part, anymore than ignorance of the law is a defence on your part.


  • #209
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MadsL wrote: »
    For example, I once had a row with a Guard who told me to reverse on an active motorway; it was obviously illegal and dangerous and I refused. Should I have been arrested?
    Leaving aside the fact that, if you were having a conversation with a Guard on an active motorway, normal traffic conditions obviously didn't prevail at the time: I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by coming up with hypothetical situations that are not akin to what happened on the video in question.

    Are you going to claim that there was any ambiguity about the direction to pull over that was given twice during that video? Because that's a level of self-deception I'd take for granted from some other posters on this thread, but not from you.


  • #210
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Leaving aside the fact that, if you were having a conversation with a Guard on an active motorway, normal traffic conditions obviously didn't prevail at the time: I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by coming up with hypothetical situations that are not akin to what happened on the video in question.

    Are you going to claim that there was any ambiguity about the direction to pull over that was given twice during that video? Because that's a level of self-deception I'd take for granted from some other posters on this thread, but not from you.

    How can something that happened to me be hypothetical? :confused: The motorway was active in Lanes 3 with a long line on the Hard shoulder and Lane 1, a guard standing behind a parked traffic car in Lane 2 instructed me to reverse back along Lane 2 to join the line in lane 1. No traffic car behind me, and no warnings behind me - an insane direction. Fortunately a gap opened and I was let into the hard shoulder.

    Regarding the video - and my last comment on it - If you watch it again, he started pulling over just before the Garda without hi-vis marched over in front of his car.

    I'm not claiming ambiguity in the indication to pull in, but it would seem that carries a question about if that is a 'direction' under the meaning of Section 8 of the Public Order Act and therefore an arrestable offence. I accept I may be mistaken - but that is where I'm ascribing the ambiguity.

    I also note that Guards have an odd policy of standing in front of vehicles, behaviour I have never seen in other jurisdictions.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MadsL wrote: »
    How can something that happened to me be hypothetical? :confused:
    Forgive my sloppy use of language. My point is that the situations are not analogous. If I had been in the situation in the video, I would have pulled over. If you had been in the situation in the video, I'm pretty sure you would have pulled over. Most rational human beings would have pulled over. In fact, most rational human beings - even in Mayo - don't get into these situations at Garda checkpoints.

    Shell to Sea protesters, on the other hand, seem to be positively accomplished at getting into confrontational situations with Gardaí.

    If you genuinely, hand on heart, would have behaved in the pig-ignorant fashion demonstrated by that driver (and felt that that was the most appropriate behaviour under the circumstances) - fair enough. I sincerely hope you don't get shot by an Albuquerque police officer.


  • #212
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    You keep editing your posts while I'm replying to them.
    MadsL wrote: »
    The motorway was active in Lanes 3 with a long line on the Hard shoulder and Lane 1, a guard standing behind a parked traffic car in Lane 2 instructed me to reverse back along Lane 2 to join the line in lane 1. No traffic car behind me, and no warnings behind me - an insane direction. Fortunately a gap opened and I was let into the hard shoulder.
    So you have two possible courses of action. You can leave your window up and your door locked, yell "what's the story here?" and "I'm going about my business" through the closed window and generally be as ignorant as possible about the situation; or you can calmly explain to the Garda (through an open window) that you're not comfortable following his directions and why.

    One of those behaviours is more likely to get your window broken and you arrested; one of them less so. Being someone without a vested interest in causing a fuss and being arrested, I know which one I'd choose.


  • #213
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Oddly enough it was the second course of action that got me yelled at by that particular Guard. As far as the video is concerned you seem to to think that by me censuring the action of the Gardai, I'm supporting the actions of the driver. I'm sure you can see the fallacy.

    Through this debate I'm reminded of the Jefferson quote ""When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." more commonly "a People should not be afraid of their Government, rather a Government should fear their people".
    I sincerely hope you don't get shot by an Albuquerque police officer.
    I suspect their behaviour is more professional than demonstrated by the Guard without hi-vis on. I'm generally very polite to cops, however I don't believe rudeness merits violent arrest. Do you?

    But let's get back to the topic, in posting the video with the Guard who refuses to identify himself, I have shown an example of a peaceful protest where Garda resources are use by choice of the Gardai, nothing happening other than a peaceful protest, yet undercover Gardai show up at the scene, refuse to acknowledge who they are and then leave. Wonder how much that cost? So, resources used through choice of the State.

    Over to you...


Advertisement