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

Minister Shatter and Commissioner Callinan should both resign in disgrace

1…2122242627…55

Comments

  • #1152
    kerry4sam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,127 ✭✭✭✭kerry4sam


    bubblypop wrote: »
    just because they didnt come out publically and say anything doesnt mean they dont agree with the whistleblowers.

    what you have to remember is GRA and AGSI are all Gardai, they HAVE to wait until they have ALL the evidence is produced before coming out on one side or the other.

    they cant just stand up and back someone who alleges something without the evidence to back it up.
    and by evidence, it means waiting for enquiries/independent reports to come in, so they have all the facts in front of them, then they can come out and say something.

    it would be a LOT worse if representative associations were just picking sides without waiting to see all the evidence.
    im sure after they get to read independent reports they will make a statement.

    and you have no idea what supports they are giving to anyone behind the scenes.

    Well this is utter tripe! Have a look online for reportings of which their are many on the views of the GRA on the Garda Reserves from day#1. NO way in Gods name did they wait for any evidence to prove their views that the Garda Reserves should not be there. No way!

    Have a lickle lookie right here from 2006 for example and those views were materialised in at least two stations that I know of (can speak of personally) ; here and a tweet from 2011 right here.

    From Oct 2nd 2006
    PJ Stone, the General Secretary of the Garda Representative Association (GRA), went over the top in his statement warning that his organisation would continue to oppose the new reserve, whose members would end up being hated and despised.
    taken from the Examiner linkie above.

    Thanks for reading,
    kerry4sam


  • #1153
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Enda Kenny was informed of the recording of all phone calls on Sunday but didn't ring Alan Shatter until yesterday ?? Doesn't make sense !!!!

    The letter from the AGs office to the Dept of Justice was hand delivered and was to be given directly to the Minister - supposedly this didn't happen. If Alan Shatter didn't get the letter until yesterday, what way does this man run his department.

    The right to a fair trial which includes among others pre trial rights, including the right to consel and all the principles that this right infers have been breached by these recordings.
    The rights of employees e.g. civil servant office staff, may also have been breached. Personal phone calls which should never have been recorded let alone held is mind boggling.
    Alan Shatter is a legal expert, whats going on here?


  • #1154
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    bubblypop wrote: »
    just because they didnt come out publically and say anything doesnt mean they dont agree with the whistleblowers.

    what you have to remember is GRA and AGSI are all Gardai, they HAVE to wait until they have ALL the evidence is produced before coming out on one side or the other.

    they cant just stand up and back someone who alleges something without the evidence to back it up.
    and by evidence, it means waiting for enquiries/independent reports to come in, so they have all the facts in front of them, then they can come out and say something.

    it would be a LOT worse if representative associations were just picking sides without waiting to see all the evidence.
    im sure after they get to read independent reports they will make a statement.

    and you have no idea what supports they are giving to anyone behind the scenes.

    The only support from the GRA came from Wilson in his stance with McCabe.
    I believe you when you say the AGSI want senior positions appointed independently of the Govt. but only because it affects the promotion opportunities of it's members.

    The whsitleblowers have been vindicated now so why haven't either come out and said well done lads?


  • #1155
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,213 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    bubblypop wrote: »
    just because they didnt come out publically and say anything doesnt mean they dont agree with the whistleblowers.

    what you have to remember is GRA and AGSI are all Gardai, they HAVE to wait until they have ALL the evidence is produced before coming out on one side or the other.

    they cant just stand up and back someone who alleges something without the evidence to back it up.
    and by evidence, it means waiting for enquiries/independent reports to come in, so they have all the facts in front of them, then they can come out and say something.

    it would be a LOT worse if representative associations were just picking sides without waiting to see all the evidence.
    im sure after they get to read independent reports they will make a statement.

    and you have no idea what supports they are giving to anyone behind the scenes.

    So how would you equate all that with john Redmond of AGSI`s statement on natioal T.V. that Simon O Brien of GSOC should consider his position?

    Seems when it comes to protecting themselves from any, even percieved criticism, there`s no problem with making judgements without any facts


  • #1156
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    . You know that handcuffing a suspect for this charge is not normal protocol.

    Handcuffing prisoners IS proper protocol. No prisoner, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, should be in a patrol car uncuffed.
    Its a matter of safety.

    Do you think Clare Daly should've been treated differently because she is a member of the oireachtas?


  • #1157
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    bubblypop wrote: »
    no, im not saying i support them.
    im not saying that at all, i dont know ALL the details.

    i dont know that they did everything they could before they went to TDs, or if they just couldnt be bothered waiting for the Garda authorities to do something.
    i am not aware whether they actually did things right or not.

    all im saying is that the GRA and AGSI could not come out and support people without having all the full facts themselves.
    and like i said, you have no idea what the GRA and AGSI were doing behind the scenes.

    im not rowing back, not at all. but if they are shown to have fully followed proceedures and had no other option then to go to TDs then ill have no problem saying they were right.
    and ill say fair play to them for doing what they did.
    but ill wait for all the evidence thanks.

    Lest you forget, here's the thread you started in AH:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89123798&postcount=1
    garda whistleblowers. heros or just disgruntled employees??
    lets face it, they seem a bit mad, no?????

    i wasnt allowed out of station because i had a beard, that isnt allowed, so i thought id get my own back on the local chief superintendent.
    i got in trouble in dublin because i shot a gun, from inside a car, straight across the drivers face through a window!!

    the other one, i tape record everyone i speak to!!!!
    paranoid much??????

    and, if im not mistaken, both these guys have accessed peoples private information on the pulse system. against Data Protection no?

    from interviews i've heard, they're a right pair of weirdos!!

    why would the country believe they are great fellows??

    I would say that you are rowing back since that post. It has been shown that they did follow procedures, despite being hampered at every step of the process. While it is somewhat understandable that they didn't receive support from their fellow employees, they should have received support from their representative organisations. "Unions" should defend their members even when they are in the wrong. I think that AGSI and GRA also have cases to answer in all of this.


  • #1158
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,213 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Handcuffing prisoners IS proper protocol. No prisoner, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, should be in a patrol car uncuffed.
    Its a matter of safety.

    Do you think Clare Daly should've been treated differently because she is a member of the oireachtas?

    Would you have a problem with with NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE having their identity leaked to the media especially when no crime was committed?????


  • #1159
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Handcuffing prisoners IS proper protocol. No prisoner, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, should be in a patrol car uncuffed.
    Its a matter of safety.

    Do you think Clare Daly should've been treated differently because she is a member of the oireachtas?

    You are being extremely disingenuous here. A suspect for a minor offence, especially one who is obviously not a threat, is absolutely not handcuffed - and you know it. I am sure that you have had suspects in the back of your car and have not handcuffed them, and I am sure that they were more of a risk than a female TD who had a glass of whiskey. Handcuffing Daly and leaking the info of the arrest was sending a message and it stinks. As an ordinary member of AGS you should not be trying to defend it.


  • #1160
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Handcuffing prisoners IS proper protocol. No prisoner, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, should be in a patrol car uncuffed.
    Its a matter of safety.

    Do you think Clare Daly should've been treated differently because she is a member of the oireachtas?

    Nobody is ever handcuffed if taken in over a drink driving offence, only if they are aggressive. Maybe the two heros involved should be brought to book.


  • #1161
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    Nobody is ever handcuffed if taken in over a drink driving offence, only if they are aggressive. Maybe the two heros involved should be brought to book.

    You are wrong.

    No one knows how people will react, they may be quiet to start with and then turn violent.

    Its a question of safety. If you're driving a patrol car, you are responsible, if an uncuffed prisoner kicks off in the back and interferes in your driving, what happens?
    What if the prisoner makes a run for it, opens the door whilst you are driving and falls out on the road?
    Who do you think they will sue over their injuries??
    The tax payer will pay that compensation.

    The best practise is not to discriminate, all prisoners should be cuffed, for safety of everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    You are being extremely disingenuous here. A suspect for a minor offence, especially one who is obviously not a threat, is absolutely not handcuffed - and you know it. I am sure that you have had suspects in the back of your car and have not handcuffed them, and I am sure that they were more of a risk than a female TD who had a glass of whiskey. Handcuffing Daly and leaking the info of the arrest was sending a message and it stinks. As an ordinary member of AGS you should not be trying to defend it.

    As I said, any prisoner in the back of a car I am driving, will have handcuffs on them, for everyones safety.

    When it comes to leaking information, absolutely not, no ones private into should be leaked. No matter who they are.


  • #1163
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    bubblypop wrote: »
    You are wrong.

    No one knows how people will react, they may be quiet to start with and then turn violent.

    Its a question of safety. If you're driving a patrol car, you are responsible, if an uncuffed prisoner kicks off in the back and interferes in your driving, what happens?
    What if the prisoner makes a run for it, opens the door whilst you are driving and falls out on the road?
    Who do you think they will sue over their injuries??
    The tax payer will pay that compensation.

    The best practise is not to discriminate, all prisoners should be cuffed, for safety of everyone.

    I heard a retired guy on SOR this morning, and listening to the bull$hite he was talking I can understand where you are coming from, the questions he was asked he didn't answer, but instead went off a rant.


  • #1164
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    bubblypop, a bit of advice for you (that M. Callinan should have followed)

    'When you are in a hole...stop digging'.

    If you see A. Shatter, pass it on to him too, he needs it.


  • #1165
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,213 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    bubblypop wrote: »
    You are wrong.

    No one knows how people will react, they may be quiet to start with and then turn violent.

    Its a question of safety. If you're driving a patrol car, you are responsible, if an uncuffed prisoner kicks off in the back and interferes in your driving, what happens?
    What if the prisoner makes a run for it, opens the door whilst you are driving and falls out on the road?
    Who do you think they will sue over their injuries??
    The tax payer will pay that compensation.

    The best practise is not to discriminate, all prisoners should be cuffed, for safety of everyone.

    For extra safety maybe leg irons would be an idea. Lol.


  • #1166
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    bubblypop wrote: »
    no, im not saying i support them.
    im not saying that at all, i dont know ALL the details.

    i dont know that they did everything they could before they went to TDs, or if they just couldnt be bothered waiting for the Garda authorities to do something.
    i am not aware whether they actually did things right or not.

    all im saying is that the GRA and AGSI could not come out and support people without having all the full facts themselves.
    and like i said, you have no idea what the GRA and AGSI were doing behind the scenes.

    im not rowing back, not at all. but if they are shown to have fully followed proceedures and had no other option then to go to TDs then ill have no problem saying they were right.
    and ill say fair play to them for doing what they did.
    but ill wait for all the evidence thanks.

    It has been obvious all along to us mere mortals that nothing was going to be done to adequately investigate the WB's claims, Callinan from day one tried to downplay the whole thing while simultaneously vilifying both men.
    O'Mahoney had no interest in interviewing them and his investigation findings were an extremely diluted version of the truth and you still haven't enough evidence.
    You seem so determined to defend the perpetrators of corruption, abuses of power and malpractise using the "they didn't follow procedeure" arguement.They have been vindicated by the inspectorate report does that mean nothing to you?
    The findings of the Morris tribunal were not accepted by Callinan so facts to AGS only seem to be important when it's to do with other people and not themselves.


  • #1167
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    bubblypop wrote: »
    You are wrong.

    No one knows how people will react, they may be quiet to start with and then turn violent.

    Its a question of safety. If you're driving a patrol car, you are responsible, if an uncuffed prisoner kicks off in the back and interferes in your driving, what happens?
    What if the prisoner makes a run for it, opens the door whilst you are driving and falls out on the road?
    Who do you think they will sue over their injuries??
    The tax payer will pay that compensation.

    The best practise is not to discriminate, all prisoners should be cuffed, for safety of everyone.
    bubblypop wrote: »
    As I said, any prisoner in the back of a car I am driving, will have handcuffs on them, for everyones safety.

    When it comes to leaking information, absolutely not, no ones private into should be leaked. No matter who they are.

    No, you are wrong. All suspects absolutely do not get cuffed - and you know it. Discretion of the member comes into play here, and if ever there was a case where a suspect should not be cuffed, it was Daly. A female TD who had consumed a very small amount of alcohol. In fact, most people who are picked up for non-violent crimes are not cuffed. The AGS member uses his expert judgement and will know that the suspect poses no threat. They know that cuffing a suspect when it is unnecessary will only serve to exacerbate the situation and make the suspect less likely to co-operate.

    I think I know what is going on here. You are trying to make out that cuffing a suspect is at the discretion of the arresting officer and therefore there was no malpractice involved. I call bullsh1t and suspect your motives. If you were an ordinary member of AGS you wouldn't defend this. You seem to be a bit too politically astute to be a rank and filer.


  • #1168
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    bubblypop wrote: »
    As I said, any prisoner in the back of a car I am driving, will have handcuffs on them, for everyones safety.

    Then, according a recent Supreme Court decision, your arrests are unlawful - you must individually assess each situation and you cannot have a policy of cuffing everyone:

    The Supreme Court has ruled in a majority decision that a man’s arrest for drink driving was unlawful because he was unjustifiably handcuffed after arrest on foot of a Garda sergeant’s own routine policy of handcuffing drink-driving suspects.

    The decision means a certificate showing the man had failed breath tests cannot be used as evidence and he must be acquitted.

    A District Court judge had asked the Supreme Court to rule if he was entitled to find the man’s handcuffing following arrest was unjustified where the arresting garda did not believe the man was likely to resist arrest but was rather implementing his standard personal policy of handcuffing all drink-driving suspects.


  • #1169
    Slick50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    bubblypop wrote: »
    What if the prisoner makes a run for it, opens the door whilst you are driving and falls out on the road?

    The best practise is not to discriminate, all prisoners should be cuffed, for safety of everyone.
    Handcuffs will not stop someone from opening a car door. Do you shackle them to a fixed point in the car? Aren't there 'child locks' on garda cars?


  • #1170
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Who do you think they will sue over their injuries??
    The tax payer will pay that compensation.


    It's a good job we don't have to pay for all these retired judges being given new roles as a result of garda misconduct!


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    No, you are wrong. All suspects absolutely do not get cuffed - and you know it. Discretion of the member comes into play here, and if ever there was a case where a suspect should not be cuffed, it was Daly. A female TD who had consumed a very small amount of alcohol. In fact, most people who are picked up for non-violent crimes are not cuffed. The AGS member uses his expert judgement and will know that the suspect poses no threat. They know that cuffing a suspect when it is unnecessary will only serve to exacerbate the situation and make the suspect less likely to co-operate.

    I think I know what is going on here. You are trying to make out that cuffing a suspect is at the discretion of the arresting officer and therefore there was no malpractice involved. I call bullsh1t and suspect your motives. If you were an ordinary member of AGS you wouldn't defend this. You seem to be a bit too politically astute to be a rank and filer.

    If you were a driver of patrol cars you would be aware of that fact that you ARE NOT INSURED and if an accident occurred because you were driving with a prisoner not correctly restrained, if there was an accident, you can personally be sued.

    Apart from the fact that I wouldn't want to be responsible for causing injury to any other person or myself, I would not want to be sued and lose my house/ money I have, .
    Its all about safety and as far as I'm concerned if a prisoner is in my car then they will be correctly restrained.
    NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE.

    your post at the beginning says people are cuffed at the discretion of the guard, then you try to imply at the end if your post that its a bad thing for the guard to use discretion. Make up your mind!
    I'm far from political!


  • #1172
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Handcuffs will not stop someone from opening a car door. Do you shackle them to a fixed point in the car? Aren't there 'child locks' on garda cars?

    Handcuffed correctly, hands behind their backs.


  • #1173
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    bubblypop wrote: »
    If you were a driver of patrol cars you would be aware of that fact that you ARE NOT INSURED and if an accident occurred because you were driving with a prisoner not correctly restrained, if there was an accident, you can personally be sued.

    Apart from the fact that I wouldn't want to be responsible for causing injury to any other person or myself, I would not want to be sued and lose my house/ money I have, .
    Its all about safety and as far as I'm concerned if a prisoner is in my car then they will be correctly restrained.
    NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE.

    your post at the beginning says people are cuffed at the discretion of the guard, then you try to imply at the end if your post that its a bad thing for the guard to use discretion. Make up your mind!
    I'm far from political!

    Guards should always have the ability to use their discretion - that is a very good thing, and something that should never change. I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was making the point that in the Daly case, the discretion argument was being used to validate the decision to cuff her. Different officers use different criteria upon which to make the decision to cuff a suspect. You seem to be making the argument that it was valid to cuff Daly on the basis that you cuff everyone - therefore, her cuffing was legit. But I really call bullsh1t on this. Because I am sure that you have had suspects in the back of the car who you did not cuff.

    Can you honestly state that there have been times when you have had a suspect in the back of the car who you have not cuffed? Answer this please. And can you state that they were less risk of a risk than a female TD who had drank a unit of whiskey? If you arrested Claire Daly tonight on suspicion of drink driving, would you cuff her?


  • #1174
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Its all about safety and as far as I'm concerned if a prisoner is in my car then they will be correctly restrained.
    NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE.

    Can you address the point that the Supreme Court has found that you are acting unlawfully in doing this (and potentially giving the suspects you've arrested a literal "get out of jail free card")?


  • #1175
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    Guards should always have the ability to use their discretion - that is a very good thing, and something that should never change. I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was making the point that in the Daly case, the discretion argument was being used to validate the decision to cuff her. Different officers use different criteria upon which to make the decision to cuff a suspect. You seem to be making the argument that it was valid to cuff Daly on the basis that you cuff everyone - therefore, her cuffing was legit. But I really call bullsh1t on this. Because I am sure that you have had suspects in the back of the car who you did not cuff.

    Can you honestly state that there have been times when you have had a suspect in the back of the car who you have not cuffed? Answer this please. And can you state that they were less risk of a risk than a female TD who had drank a unit of whiskey? If you arrested Claire Daly tonight on suspicion of drink driving, would you cuff her?

    Yes I would, absolutely. I do not discriminate.


  • #1176
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Yes I would, absolutely. I do not discriminate.

    So everyone you have arrested, you have cuffed?


  • Advertisement
  • #1177
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Can you address the point that the Supreme Court has found that you are acting unlawfully in doing this (and potentially giving the suspects you've arrested a literal "get out of jail free card")?

    I'm aware of the supreme courts judgement in that case. I stand by what I have said. I have no problem being before any court in the land and stating that I will not allow any prisoner in a car that I am driving unrestrained.

    The court can say what they like about it but I can justify my actions.

    If they find it unlawful, then the garda authorities can change their code and can insure me as a driver to carry those prisoners. Then grand, I will change and allow anyone in my car unrestrained.


  • #1178
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    So everyone you have arrested, you have cuffed?

    If I was the driver of the car and a prisoner was being put into the back of my car, then yes, absolutely.
    I'm not going to risk everyone else's security.

    Just because someone is handcuffed, doesn't mean its rough and tumble. You can handcuff people, treat them well, explain what's happening and be courteous and respectful. Handcuffs do not automatically mean trouble/hassle/harm.


  • #1179
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Is anyone else genuinely beginning to think that there isn't enough teflon in Ireland to save Shatter at this stage? I honestly don't see how he can continue to defend or justify his own ineptitude.. and the longer FG try to do so; the harder they'll be hit as a whole. They're no fools... a string has got to snap soon to take pressure off the rest.

    What odds would you get on him being gone by Monday?


  • #1180
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Is anyone else genuinely beginning to think that there isn't enough teflon in Ireland to save Shatter at this stage? I honestly don't see how he can continue to defend or justify his own ineptitude.. and the longer FG try to do so; the harder they'll be hit as a whole. They're no fools... a string has got to snap soon to take pressure off the rest.

    What odds would you get on him being gone by Monday?

    Thursday is my bet.


  • #1181
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I reckon enda will hold out as long as he can and eventually just do a cabinet reshuffle, probably saying it was always planned.

    Dunno where shatter will go though, will he give him some quiet back seat for a while?


  • Advertisement
  • #1182
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    bubblypop wrote: »
    The court can say what they like about it but I can justify my actions.

    So you can be unlawful and justify your actions for the public good yet you castigate the whistleblowers for not following procedeure in the interest of the public good.
    You know full well that Clare Daly was only cuffed to humiliate and intimidate her and the subsequent leak was to discredit her.
    That's in stark contrast to the treatment of Shatter when he was stopped.


  • #1183
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Yes I would, absolutely. I do not discriminate.
    bubblypop wrote: »
    I'm aware of the supreme courts judgement in that case. I stand by what I have said. I have no problem being before any court in the land and stating that I will not allow any prisoner in a car that I am driving unrestrained.

    The court can say what they like about it but I can justify my actions.

    If they find it unlawful, then the garda authorities can change their code and can insure me as a driver to carry those prisoners. Then grand, I will change and allow anyone in my car unrestrained.

    I'm actually having a bit of a problem with how you enforce our laws on my behalf. Your constant use of the word "prisoner" when discussing suspects is disturbing. The fact that you say you would cuff people regardless of circumstances is very disturbing. Are you sure you are in the right job? Are you telling me that if you called to my home and needed to bring me down to the station for questioning that you would automatically cuff me? If so, I predict many lawsuits in your future.


  • #1184
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    bubblypop wrote: »
    If I was the driver of the car and a prisoner was being put into the back of my car, then yes, absolutely.
    I'm not going to risk everyone else's security.


    Prisoner?
    Do you have a giant inflatable ball on the coast?


  • #1185
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    I'm actually having a bit of a problem with how you enforce our laws on my behalf. Your constant use of the word "prisoner" when discussing suspects is disturbing. The fact that you say you would cuff people regardless of circumstances is very disturbing. Are you sure you are in the right job? Are you telling me that if you called to my home and needed to bring me down to the station for questioning that you would automatically cuff me? If so, I predict many lawsuits in your future.

    No, prisoners are people who are under arrest. If you are not arrested, then you're not a prisoner.
    I think you will find I am quite within my rights to make sure a prisoner in my car is handcuffed.
    As I stated already, I will not put myself, my passengers ( including prisoners) and other road users at risk.
    There is nothing wrong with handcuffs, and they can be placed on a compliant prisoner with no trouble, explained why, and everyone treated with respect.


  • #1186
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    fr3d12 wrote: »
    So you can be unlawful and justify your actions for the public good yet you castigate the whistleblowers for not following procedeure in the interest of the public good.
    You know full well that Clare Daly was only cuffed to humiliate and intimidate her and the subsequent leak was to discredit her.
    That's in stark contrast to the treatment of Shatter when he was stopped.

    Ah here! I have no idea of her arrest, but I'm sure they were only following procedure.
    When shatter was stopped he was clearly his arrogant obnoxious self, and to be fair, this was clearly another leak to the media,
    Shouldn't have happened either.


  • #1187
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mikom wrote: »
    Prisoner?
    Do you have a giant inflatable ball on the coast?

    What????
    When someone is arrested then they are a PRISONER!

    They can be released, charged, whatever.
    But when they have been arrested and they are in custody, then they are known as prisoners!


  • #1188
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    bubblypop wrote: »
    What????
    When someone is arrested then they are a PRISONER!

    They can be released, charged, whatever.
    But when they have been arrested and they are in custody, then they are known as prisoners!

    Always thought they were called suspects.... :)


  • #1189
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Ah here! I have no idea of her arrest, but I'm sure they were only following procedure.
    When shatter was stopped he was clearly his arrogant obnoxious self, and to be fair, this was clearly another leak to the media,
    Shouldn't have happened either.

    Well either you have no idea or you are sure which is it?

    Again it was Gardai who leaked the news about Shatter and what has him being arrogant or obnoxious got to do with it, are you suggesting he got preferential treatment because of his demeanour?
    Did the fact that he instilled fear into the Gardai who stopped him put pressure on them to treat him differently?


  • #1190
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    sopretty wrote: »
    Always thought they were called suspects.... :)

    Well you are wrong.
    They are prisoners once arrested.
    That's it.

    They can be released, charged, whatever but so long as they are in garda custody they are prisoners.


  • #1191
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    bubblypop wrote: »
    No, prisoners are people who are under arrest.
    I think you will find I am quite within my rights to make sure a prisoner in my car is handcuffed.
    As I stated already, I will not put myself, my passengers ( including prisoners) and other road users at risk.
    There is nothing wrong with handcuffs, and they can be placed on a compliant prisoner with no trouble, explained why, and everyone treated with respect.

    Well, if there are members of AGS roaming the streets with your attitude, we can probably expect to hear about another review into AGS - because frankly, that is shocking. What you are basically saying is that anyone who is even vaguely suspected of committing a criminal act should be handcuffed and put in the back of a squad car! You do realise that the actions that you defending are what you would only witness in a police state?

    BTW - I wouldn't advise you to try that sh1t on me or anyone who can afford a solicitor. No wonder you don't like the whistleblowers or GSOC. I suspect that GSOC will play a large part in your futrure.


  • Advertisement
  • #1192
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Well you are wrong.
    They are prisoners once arrested.
    That's it.

    They can be released, charged, whatever but so long as they are in garda custody they are prisoners.

    They're just under arrest.


  • #1193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    fr3d12 wrote: »
    Well either you have no idea or you are sure which is it?

    Again it was Gardai who leaked the news about Shatter and what has him being arrogant or obnoxious got to do with it, are you suggesting he got preferential treatment because of his demeanour?
    Did the fact that he instilled fear into the Gardai who stopped him put pressure on them to treat him differently?

    I'm not aware of the details of her arrest but I'm sure they followed procedure when placing a prisoner in handcuffs.
    Do you need further clarification?

    In the same vein, I do not know the details of shatters stop by gardai, but I can bet that there's a LOT of guards that would like to have stopped him!!

    No one, guard or otherwise, has the right to leak personal information about anyone, no matter who they are.


  • #1194
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    mikom wrote: »
    Prisoner?
    Do you have a giant inflatable ball on the coast?
    bubblypop wrote: »
    What????
    When someone is arrested then they are a PRISONER!

    Not one for 60's TV shows I see.


  • #1195
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    Well, if there are members of AGS roaming the streets with your attitude, we can probably expect to hear about another review into AGS - because frankly, that is shocking. What you are basically saying is that anyone who is even vaguely suspected of committing a criminal act should be handcuffed and put in the back of a squad car! You do realise that the actions that you defending are what you would only witness in a police state?

    BTW - I wouldn't advise you to try that sh1t on me or anyone who can afford a solicitor. No wonder you don't like the whistleblowers or GSOC. I suspect that GSOC will play a large part in your futrure.

    No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
    On saying that someone WHO IS ARRESTED, should be handcuffed before being placed in a patrol car.
    That is purely for everyones safety.


  • #1196
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I'm not aware of the details of her arrest but I'm sure they followed procedure when placing a prisoner in handcuffs.
    Do you need further clarification?

    In the same vein, I do not know the details of shatters stop by gardai, but I can bet that there's a LOT of guards that would like to have stopped him!!

    No one, guard or otherwise, has the right to leak personal information about anyone, no matter who they are.

    I am clear, are you?
    I'm not to argue with you about this but if you're not aware of details you cannot be sure, you do after all like to see proof before forming an opinion, yes?


  • #1197
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    BTW - I wouldn't advise you to try that sh1t on me or anyone who can afford a solicitor. No wonder you don't like the whistleblowers or GSOC. I suspect that GSOC will play a large part in your futrure.

    I never said I didn't like whistleblowers or GSOC, I have no problem with anyone investigating any complaint against me.
    ( of which there is none, by the way)

    All I am saying is that if someone is arrested and is being placed in my patrol car, then they will be properly restrained.
    I'm interested in everyone's safety and nothing else.


  • #1198
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    fr3d12 wrote: »
    I am clear, are you?
    I'm not to argue with you about this but if you're not aware of details you cannot be sure, you do after all like to see proof before forming an opinion, yes?

    She was arrested, therefore was a prisoner, so yes placing handcuffs on an arrested person is perfectly OK


  • #1199
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I never said I didn't like whistleblowers or GSOC, I have no problem with anyone investigating any complaint against me.
    ( of which there is none, by the way)

    All I am saying is that if someone is arrested and is being placed in my patrol car, then they will be properly restrained.
    I'm interested in everyone's safety and nothing else.

    You did say they were paranoid weirdo's though.


  • #1200
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    fr3d12 wrote: »
    You did say they were paranoid weirdo's though.

    Well, to be fair, I'm not saying their reasons were completely altruistic, but i don't think the public cares about why they did what they did, just that it was done.
    So it really doesn't matter about my own personal views of those men.

    That highlighted an issue, that I'm surprised was an issue.

    I honestly think that there is issues in AGS that are a lot bigger!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #1201
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Sand wrote: »
    I'm fairly sure most Guards have never been in the job, where they can be attacked and spat at on a quiet day, for the money. There is in fact a long waiting list for the windows when Garda recruitment opens. I think whilst no-one would reject more money for the same job, poor morale is a reflection of poor leadership - down to quite frankly appalling equipment and shortages of it, plus the corrosive effect of tolerated incompetence.

    And while there was always good Gardai (I think especially of unarmed Gardai who went up against armed terrorist gangs throughout the 1980s - some paying with the lives) I wouldn't believe for a second that the calibre of officer was on average higher in the past. Quite the opposite.

    Callinan for example joined in the 1970s and was very successful climbing to the top, and his description of whistleblowers as "disgusting" is wholly unsurprising to me. He is a product of his time in the Guards. Even "good" guards of that era fell in line when ordered. Cancelling penalty points? Similar activity where family and friends ask a Guard to "have a word" regarding a fine or ticket has been happening for decades - an open secret in Irish society and tolerated. And I'm personally aware of one case 20 years ago where Gardai conspired (there is no other word for it) to help one of their own escape from the consequences of writing off a car in a crash whilst drunk (I'm not going to provide further details so you can accept or disregard that - I'm aware its anecdotal). The calibre of Guards wasn't indisputably higher in the past.

    As I said, I don't think Guards are in it for the money. They do a job far harder than what the majority of the people do day to day. I would still instinctively trust and respect the average Guard. The vast majority of them want to do a good job - the real issue is poor leadership setting a poor example, and abusing members sense of loyalty to each other to cover up for ineffective, incompetent and corrupt Guards. A stronger GSOC, and a better form of leadership not so resistant to criticism would lead to a far higher standard than was present in the past.

    Any Guard that carries out his/her duties to the letter of the law is seen as "a bit of a baxtard", whereas one who'll do you a favour is seen as sound.

    How we don't expect that attitude to get to the top of level of Guards, politicians etc. when it is pervasive in everyday society, well, it's something I don't think I've ever got a good answer too!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



Advertisement