church shields criminals again

questioner

http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/369/itemId/731/Parish-vows-to-protect-litter-lout.aspx

I assumed the church would have moved on from its policy of shielding criminals.

I assumed wrongly.

byhookorbycrook

I don't see how the parish could release this information.

Morf

Lets not stand in the way of this person's need to echo The Nationalist's sensationalism.

Forget any sense of confidentiality, The Nationalist told me it was a bad thing!

Not that i feel happy that the church are using a number for your household to track who is contributing to the parish either.

Joey the lips

Ah ffs this is totally jumping on the band wagon. Next you will want priests to publish extracts of confessions.

imo the church is morally perfect in not revealing the name. Its a cival prosecution and nothing else.

questioner

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

I don't see how the parish could release this information.

why dont you? do you think its a good or bad thing that you feel the church should be able to subvert the law to its own end?

Morf wrote: »

Lets not stand in the way of this person's need to echo The Nationalist's sensationalism.

Forget any sense of confidentiality, The Nationalist told me it was a bad thing!

the sensationalism was entirely my own making actually.

confidentiality how? The church sends out letters which this person saw fit to dispose of in a public place along with god knows what else and you don't think they should be accountable?

And because its published in the nationalist its not worthy of consideration? How egalitarian of you.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Ah ffs this is totally jumping on the band wagon. Next you will want priests to publish extracts of confessions.

imo the church is morally perfect in not revealing the name. Its a cival prosecution and nothing else.

What bandwagon? the lets fine the people who think its okay to fly tip across the countryside bandwagon? yes I guess I am.

Who said anything about confessions? Take your straw man home with you.

if you mean civil, then you're still wrong. Littering is a criminal offense.


the confidentiality notion is a complete red herring, there is no special evidentiary privilege attached to communication outside the confessional(thank God) if there was, the Mc Carthy report would have been a non event. I am open to correction if wrong.

the facts are as follows

1. Individual litters whilst being too stupid to remove material which could lead to identification

2. Individual need not worry as catholic officials once again decide that they are better suited to decide what is a suitable form of punishment(i.e nothing, as per usual) for the alleged offender than the duly appointed authorities.

3.Apologists emerge pooh poohing arguments, errorneously claiming that the law is on their side - and not only that but it is MORAL that the church should protect criminals.

Morf

It's church modus operandi not to disclose this information.

I am literate, therefore i'm capable through reading the nationalist and its sensationalist headlines to conclude that the paper is in fact very poorly written with a very low standard of journalism.

questioner

Morf wrote: »

It's church modus operandi not to disclose this information.

So? Apparently church modus operandi can be quite morally ambiguous and legally suspect at times...

Morf wrote: »

I am literate, therefore i'm capable through reading the nationalist and its sensationalist headlines to conclude that the paper is in fact very poorly written with a very low standard of journalism.

I can see a headline now : "local newspaper has below par standards of journalism SHOCKER :eek:"

Joey the lips

I have to say if there was a daft topic button this would have the post of the day.

questioner

Joey the lips wrote: »

I have to say if there was a daft topic button this would have the post of the day.

Is english your first language? This sentence makes no sense. Or maybe its a clumsy attempt at humour?

Joey the lips

questioner wrote: »

Is english your first language? This sentence makes no sense. Or maybe its a clumsy attempt at humour?

Irish is my first language and stand up is my profession but i suspect you got the message,:D

testicle

questioner wrote: »

why dont you? do you think its a good or bad thing that you feel the church should be able to subvert the law to its own end?

The Data Protection Act 1988 as ammended.

questioner

yeah what about it

testicle

questioner wrote: »

yeah what about it

It's why the church can't release the information. :rolleyes:

questioner

have you read it? try reading legislaton and not just the title of it.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/act/pub/0025/sec0008.html#zza25y1988s8

but maybe llittering isnt actually a problem at all and im just hopping on the bandwagon.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/agri-business/environment-minister-told-of-rural-anger-over-scourge-of-fly-tipping-116732.html

foggy_lad

they have gone from not caring about the children of ireland to not caring about the country as a whole! shame on them protecting these scumbags.

Joey the lips

Yep..... Time to unsubscribe from this thread.... to much fiction not enough fact

testicle

questioner wrote: »

have you read it? try reading legislaton and not just the title of it.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/act/pub/0025/sec0008.html#zza25y1988s8

but maybe llittering isnt actually a problem at all and im just hopping on the bandwagon.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/agri-business/environment-minister-told-of-rural-anger-over-scourge-of-fly-tipping-116732.html

Sure I have. The County Council made the request. As far as I am aware, there are no Army Officers above the rank of Colonel, or Gardai above the rank of Chief Superintendent in the County Council.

:rolleyes:

questioner

That is very disingenous of you mr testicle. When a poster stated that he could not see how the church could release that information you referenced the DPA as a supporting authority, despite the fact that section 8 contains an explicit reference as to how such data could be released.

Additionally, section 8 (b) states;

"required for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating offences, apprehending or prosecuting offenders or assessing or collecting any tax, duty or other moneys owed or payable to the State, a local authority or a health board, in any case in which the application of those restrictions would be likely to prejudice any of the matters aforesaid"

this paragraph makes it cleat that the power of investigation and right of access to data is not solely the domain of AGS, there are many other bodies within the state who may investigate matters peculiar to their own domain - such as tax inspectors/customs agents etc.

Additionally, the county councils environment dept. have accessed records not within there own domain as well ( despite them being neither Gardai or Colonels:rolleyes:) I am aware that the country council are responsilbe for the collection of motor tax and as such would have the ability to access motor registration info however by using your logic then the loacl dept. of the enviroment should not have been able to access it as they are not office holders such as outlined in section 8(1).

http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/369/itemId/194/Blunder-caught-on-CCTV-costs-civic-minded-couple.aspx

for the record, i don't agree with this fine as I dont believe they intended to litter evidenced by the fact that they were at the recycling centre in the first place.

helpful?:)

testicle

questioner wrote: »

this paragraph makes it cleat that the power of investigation and right of access to data is not solely the domain of AGS, there are many other bodies within the state who may investigate matters peculiar to their own domain - such as tax inspectors/customs agents etc.

Yes, anyone can investigate, only a Colonel/Chief Super or above may request information.

:rolleyes:

slimjimmc

testicle wrote: »

Yes, anyone can investigate, only a Colonel/Chief Super or above may request information.

:rolleyes:

Only in matters of State security, not for general offences.
The full section 8 of the Act allows for greater access than one might think:

Disclosure of personal data in certain cases. 8.—Any restrictions in this Act on the disclosure of personal data do not apply if the disclosure is—

( a ) in the opinion of a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent or an officer of the Permanent Defence Force who holds an army rank not below that of colonel and is designated by the Minister for Defence under this paragraph, required for the purpose of safeguarding the security of the State,

( b ) required for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating offences, apprehending or prosecuting offenders or assessing or collecting any tax, duty or other moneys owed or payable to the State, a local authority or a health board, in any case in which the application of those restrictions would be likely to prejudice any of the matters aforesaid,

( c ) required in the interests of protecting the international relations of the State,

( d ) required urgently to prevent injury or other damage to the health of a person or serious loss of or damage to property,

( e ) required by or under any enactment or by a rule of law or order of a court,

( f ) required for the purposes of obtaining legal advice or for the purposes of, or in the course of, legal proceedings in which the person making the disclosure is a party or a witness,

( g ) made to the data subject concerned or to a person acting on his behalf, or

( h ) made at the request or with the consent of the data subject or a person acting on his behalf.