Liveline Thread 27/03/14 to date

constitutionus · 27-03-2014 3:05pm

who the fup is lord farquar here ?

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:06pm

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Why is anyone surprised or feathers being ruffled over garda station calls being recorded? It seems an eminently sensible thing to do and I'm only amazed it wasn't happening before. Outgoing calls - perhaps not, but incoming calls should be.

I think it's being implied by the government and media, that they were not recorded for innocent reasons.

In terms of catching gardaí feeding journalists info, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

In terms of recording 112 calls, that happens in every country.

But Kenny talking to the opposition about revelations would imply there's something bigger behind it.

Blackmail maybe? We'll find out sooner or later.

Mike Guide 69 · 27-03-2014 3:06pm

Even Joe is tuning out now.zzzzzzz!!!!

JM Skipton · 27-03-2014 3:06pm

This is my selfie listening to liveline now

Roger_007 · 27-03-2014 3:07pm

constitutionus wrote: »

who the fup is lord farquar here ?

Some solicitor type.............who came from the lower classes.......NOT.

Harry Angstrom · 27-03-2014 3:09pm

Joe is fed up. He's frantically trying to get a Magdalene Laundry worker on Line 2.

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:09pm

I admire Shatter for lowering salaries of judiciary, but I don't think he went anywhere near far enough.

There are some I understand who like him for preparing the groundwork for gay marriage, but that was going to be brought in by whomever was the justice minister.

baldbear · 27-03-2014 3:09pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

I think it's being implied by the government and media, that they were not recorded for innocent reasons.

In terms of catching gardaí feeding journalists info, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

In terms of recording 112 calls, that happens in every country.

But Kenny talking to the opposition about revelations would imply there's something bigger behind it.

Blackmail maybe? We'll find out sooner or later.

The Ian Bailey case maybe. Were gaurds recorded trying to set him up?

Dan Jaman · 27-03-2014 3:09pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

I think it's being implied by the government and media, that they were not recorded for innocent reasons.

In terms of catching gardaí feeding journalists info, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

In terms of recording 112 calls, that happens in every country.

But Kenny talking to the opposition about revelations would imply there's something bigger behind it.

Blackmail maybe? We'll find out sooner or later.

Yes, and for anyone in a sensitive position or have dodgy/sensitive information, to have entrusted that to a State-controlled telephone line that's connected to a police station, is naive in the extreme. The assumption should have been that calls would have been recorded and act accordingly.

goose2005 · 27-03-2014 3:13pm

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Yes, and for anyone in a sensitive position or have dodgy/sensitive information, to have entrusted that to a State-controlled telephone line that's connected to a police station, is naive in the extreme. The assumption should have been that calls would have been recorded and act accordingly.

I think a lawyer talking to a client should at least be able to expect that the cops aren't spying on them

CarrickMcJoe · 27-03-2014 3:14pm

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Joe is fed up. He's frantically trying to get a Magdalene Laundry worker on Line 2.

Hope it's Funny Friday tomorrow

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:15pm

Ironically, it's actually the judges who stop people getting penalty points!

Varadkar should out them about this.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/law-banning-use-of-poor-box-in-traffic-cases-widely-ignored-1.1737756

But as usual, the media are deferential to judges, who are in fact are law onto themselves and corrupt to the bone.

vicwatson · 27-03-2014 3:15pm

Regina O'Doherty was WRONG, it was given to him 12.40 PM on Tuesday, this caller is WRONG, though he spouts out of him like he knows it all

Dan Jaman · 27-03-2014 3:15pm

goose2005 wrote: »

I think a lawyer talking to a client should at least be able to expect that the cops aren't spying on them

But the client is innocent.

pc7 · 27-03-2014 3:17pm

I got bored and a bit lost, is this guy trying to compare the garda commission to BOD?

syklops · 27-03-2014 3:18pm

Right what are we whinging about today?

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:18pm

baldbear wrote: »

The Ian Bailey case maybe. Were gaurds recorded trying to set him up?

I reckon they were convinced of his guilt. And were overzealous in charging him. Not necessarily framing or setting him up.

A number of years ago, a woman admitted that she claimed that she saw Bailey near the victim's house, was made up.

She claimed she was pressurised. I reckon she should have been done for perjury myself.

constitutionus · 27-03-2014 3:19pm

para military police force.

jaysus joe will have to tackle that one.

ThisRegard · 27-03-2014 3:20pm

Christ, going back to the days of the RIC and the 70s.

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:21pm

Martin Callinan expendable?

What about Garda Adrian Donohue?

They used him as an excuse to try and get a pay increase!

syklops · 27-03-2014 3:21pm

These guards today Joe, with the clothes and the hair. Not like in my day, when all guards were 6 foot 7, and could cuff 5 gurriers with one hand.

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:23pm

The Royal Irish Constabulary who ignored democracy, and used guns on its proponents?

It was a great police force because they opened people's mail, informers and shot their "people".

Is that what the ex-garda wants? Probably.

constitutionus · 27-03-2014 3:23pm

and todays phrase is

"one stop shop"

sudzs · 27-03-2014 3:23pm

Jaysus, he's struggling to say one stop shop. I hate to hear him trying to tackle CCTV!!

my friend · 27-03-2014 3:24pm

hopefully the bar stool bore won't use the 'third gunman on the grassy knoll' phrase again..

snubbleste · 27-03-2014 3:24pm

sudzs wrote: »

Jaysus, he's struggling to say one stop shop. I hate to hear him trying to tackle CCTV!!

She sea tea veh

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:24pm

sudzs wrote: »

Jaysus, he's struggling to say one stop shop. I hate to hear him trying to tackle CCTV!!

She sells sea-shells.

snubbleste · 27-03-2014 3:24pm

Templemore dis, templemore dat

Roger_007 · 27-03-2014 3:26pm

I feel like I've wandered in to a half-day seminar for retired policemen.........!

syklops · 27-03-2014 3:26pm

sudzs wrote: »

Jaysus, he's struggling to say one stop shop. I hate to hear him trying to tackle CCTV!!

Imagine him trying to give a synapse, synops, overview of a case!

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:26pm

This thread won't last a month at this rate.

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:26pm

snubbleste wrote: »

Templemore dis, templemore dat

'Templemore Thursday'.

Dan Jaman · 27-03-2014 3:27pm

syklops wrote: »

Imagine him trying to give a synapse, synops, overview of a case!

Mmm... fried synopsis... off to the canteen, lads.

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:27pm

Stones In His Pockets is a very good play by the way.

Dan Jaman · 27-03-2014 3:28pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Stones In His Pockets is a very good play by the way.

The way it's getting plugged, I'd be really pessed off it wasn't, having paid to see it.

my friend · 27-03-2014 3:28pm

I wonder why the lad that was shot didn't call Joe instead of going to the Garda station, I know going directly to the hospital is a crazy concept.

snubbleste · 27-03-2014 3:29pm

"A barristah"

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:30pm

Dan Jaman wrote: »

The way it's getting plugged, I'd be really pessed off it wasn't, having paid to see it.

Well I saw it years ago, so it would've been different actors. But it was brilliant.

It's around ten plus years old.

my friend · 27-03-2014 3:30pm

The fact the Joe grants smart arse idiots like this guy airtime, validates my call for this waste of space show to be scrapped.

JM Skipton · 27-03-2014 3:31pm

He would have paid the barrister way more than €200

DuckHook · 27-03-2014 3:31pm

At least he had good coffee what with getting his barista to go to court with him.

mix_up · 27-03-2014 3:31pm

this guy is talking crap , the person who is the registered owner of the car is the one who receives a speeding ticket etc , if the owner was not driving , i.e if their wife etc is behind the wheel , the onus is on the registered owner of the vechile to fill in a designated section of the motoring offenses form and declare that they were not behind the wheel

the result is the person who was driving the vechile will be sent a replacement fine and will accordingly receive penalty points

Mike Guide 69 · 27-03-2014 3:31pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Well I saw it years ago, so it would've been different actors. But it was brilliant.

It's around ten plus years old.

Yeah i saw it when Simon Delaney was in it, good play, great the way 2 actors can actually portray a vast array of characters in one show, very funny (thats my plug, pay me Joe, pay me!!!! )

JM Skipton · 27-03-2014 3:33pm

mix_up wrote: »

this guy is talking crap , the person who is the registered owner of the car is the one who receives a speeding ticket etc , if the owner was not driving , i.e if their wife etc is behind the wheel , the onus is on the registered owner of the vechile to fill in a designated section of the motoring offenses form and declare that they were not behind the wheel

the result is the person who was driving the vechile will be sent a replacement fine and will accordingly receive penalty points

He strikes me as the type of bloke who would say "eh me dog was driving the car ur honour"

Dan Jaman · 27-03-2014 3:33pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Well I saw it years ago, so it would've been different actors. But it was brilliant.

It's around ten plus years old.

Got me interested in it, now. I'll have a look, ta.

An Claidheamh · 27-03-2014 3:34pm

mix_up wrote: »

this guy is talking crap , the person who is the registered owner of the car is the one who receives a speeding ticket etc , if the owner was not driving , i.e if their wife etc is behind the wheel , the onus is on the registered owner of the vechile to fill in a designated section of the motoring offenses form and declare that they were not behind the wheel

the result is the person who was driving the vechile will be sent a replacement fine and will accordingly receive penalty points

That's what I thought.

In fact it happens in Judge Judy all the time, that the owner is responsible.

But, he is entitled to bring his wife to the small claims court.

Otherwise, it's his problem. This is a non-story.

my friend · 27-03-2014 3:35pm

mix_up wrote: »

this guy is talking crap , the person who is the registered owner of the car is the one who receives a speeding ticket etc , if the owner was not driving , i.e if their wife etc is behind the wheel , the onus is on the registered owner of the vechile to fill in a designated section of the motoring offenses form and declare that they were not behind the wheel

the result is the person who was driving the vechile will be sent a replacement fine and will accordingly receive penalty points

Ah but he's a salt o de eart dub with a perceived sense of injustice

sudzs · 27-03-2014 3:35pm

"Big boners week!"

:eek:

snubbleste · 27-03-2014 3:36pm

sudzs wrote: »

"Big boners week!" :eek:

Yes it is.

sudzs · 27-03-2014 3:36pm

snubbleste wrote: »

Yes it is.

Liveline Thread 27/03/14 to date

Comments