Queen's Visit Q&A Megamerge

Wolfe Tone

Ok so in order to search you they need a good reason, but they well know most people will just comply without even asking why because they are afraid of the uniform.

Now, lets say they stop myself. They request to search me, I refuse. What happens then?

They would probably be suspicious then seen as I refused point blank so what sort of reason would give them justification, and what will happen when I refuse to be searched for simply walking around my capital city?

MagicSean

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Ok so in order to search you they need a good reason, but they well know most people will just comply without even asking why because they are afraid of the uniform.

Now, lets say they stop myself. They request to search me, I refuse. What happens then?

They would probably be suspicious then seen as I refused point blank so what sort of reason would give them justification, and what will happen when I refuse to be searched for simply walking around my capital city?

You will most likely be arrested and searched at the station, maybe also charged with obstruction. You will get your chance to argue in court but don't expect a legal debate on the side of the road.

Brother Psychosis

i live near Collins Barracks and had two lads from Bridewell down over three weeks ago reguesting voluntary info to run security checks. apparently, they're doing them on all residents in the vicinity. in addition, there have been at least two Gardai in the between wolfe tone quay and smithfield every day for two weeks.

i've heard that there are three hotels down by the ifsc that are totally booked out for country Gardai that are getting bussed in specially

florance

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

You will most likely be arrested and searched at the station, maybe also charged with obstruction. You will get your chance to argue in court but don't expect a legal debate on the side of the road.

People v Shaw [1982] I.R at p.30

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41471638/People-v-Shaw-1982-IR-1

Even the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 (which has no relevance whatever to the present case) does not purport to give any such power. Section 30 of that Act, which permits the arrest and detention of suspected persons, only permits a person to be arrested where a member of the Garda SÃochána suspects that that person has
committed or is about to commit, or is or has been concerned in the commission of, an offence under any section or sub-section of that Act or an offence which, for the time being, is a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of the Act, or whom he suspects of carrying a document in relation to the commission or the intended commission of
any such offence, or whom he suspects of being in possession of information in relation to the commission or intended commission of any such offence as aforesaid. Any arrest under that section which is not based upon such a suspicion is illegal and contrary to the Constitution. While it is true that a person may be interrogated after he has
been arrested (or even without being arrested at all), what is quite clear is that the desire to interrogate him cannot be put forward as the justification for his arrest. Section 52 of the Act of 1939 permits a person who has been lawfully arrested under s. 30 to be questioned in respect of the matters specified in that section and makes it an offence to refuse to give the information sought, or to give information which is false or misleading. No such obligation is placed upon any person who has not been lawfully arrested. It is further to be noted that s. 30 of the
Act of 1939 expressly provides that a suspected person who has been arrested in accordance with the provisions of that section must either be released or charged before the District Court or the Special Criminal Court before the expiration of the period specified in the section, thus emphasising that even under that Act the purpose of arresting
people is for the purpose of charging them before a court

Our man in Havana

So, I didn't like the look of him is not a valid reason for an arrest under section 30.

MagicSean

florance wrote: »

People v Shaw [1982] I.R at p.30

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41471638/People-v-Shaw-1982-IR-1

Is there a point to this? It's customary to accompany a quote with some kind of commentary. I cant understand why you are all stuck on the OASA. There are loads of powers of search available to the Gardaí.

MagicSean

Our man in Havana wrote: »

So, I didn't like the look of him is not a valid reason for an arrest under section 30.

Of course not. I dont think anyone has suggested it would be.

rab!dmonkey

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Is there a point to this? It's customary to accompany a quote with some kind of commentary. I cant understand why you are all stuck on the OASA. There are loads of powers of search available to the Gardaí.

Could you please direct us to the legislation which provides for those powers? I'm sincerely interested; I'd like to know when I can refuse a search and when to do so would be causing an obstruction. I've looked at the legislation which has been referred to on this thread and citizensinformation.ie and as far as I can tell, none of it provides for random searches.

Paulw

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

Could you please direct us to the legislation which provides for those powers? I'm sincerely interested; I'd like to know when I can refuse a search and when to do so would be causing an obstruction. I've looked at the legislation which has been referred to on this thread and citizensinformation.ie and as far as I can tell, none of it provides for random searches.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0021.html (as has been posted in the thread a number of times).

MagicSean

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

Could you please direct us to the legislation which provides for those powers? I'm sincerely interested; I'd like to know when I can refuse a search and when to do so would be causing an obstruction. I've looked at the legislation which has been referred to on this thread and citizensinformation.ie and as far as I can tell, none of it provides for random searches.

The misuse of drugs act and the firearms and offensive weapons act are two other powers of search that can be used. In addition, there is an offence of obstructing a peace officer under the public order act. There is no power for purely random searches. If you are searched there will be a reason. You are entitled to know under what power you are being searched but not the reason.

chopser

Paulw wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0021.html (as has been posted in the thread a number of times).

That statute does not confer powers on the Gardai allowing for searching people.

MagicSean

chopser wrote: »

That statute does not confer powers on the Gardai allowing for searching people.

Section 22 does.

source

chopser wrote: »

That statute does not confer powers on the Gardai allowing for searching people.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0022.html

Section 21 allows for the setting up of the cordon, 22 provides powers of search and refusal of entry into the cordoned area. Chopser read the whole thread, this has been hashed out already on this thread a few pages back.

WilcoOut

read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

now you will understand why security in dublin city will be so tight

this is what people the gardai are protecting you against can do

Wolfe Tone

WilcoOut wrote: »

read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

now you will understand why security in dublin city will be so tight

this is what people the gardai are protecting you against can do

lol, our president has invited loyalist paramilitaries and the British to a ceremony, they are who did that.

source

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

lol, our president has invited loyalist paramilitaries and the British to a ceremony, they are who did that.

You're right that was a loyalist attack, however I believe WilcoOut was merely trying to highlight the extent of what they can do in the capital if they wanted to, here for your pedantic self is I found on the Internet with a few mins googling, that shows what the different branches of the ira are capable of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London#Irish_republican_attacks_during_.22the_Troubles.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London#Real_IRA_attacks_after_the_Belfast_Agreement

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ronan-kerr-murder-bang-came-out-of-nowhere-499710.html

Wolfe Tone

foinse wrote: »

You're right that was a loyalist attack, however I believe WilcoOut was merely trying to highlight the extent of what they can do in the capital if they wanted to, here for your pedantic self is I found on the Internet with a few mins googling, that shows what the different branches of the ira are capable of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London#Irish_republican_attacks_during_.22the_Troubles.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London#Real_IRA_attacks_after_the_Belfast_Agreement

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ronan-kerr-murder-bang-came-out-of-nowhere-499710.html

This isnt really the forum for this debate tbh...

source

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

This isnt really the forum for this debate tbh...

What debate? I'm not trying to debate anything, WilcoOut posted a link to a horrible tragedy which highlighted the kind of devestation that could be caused if an attack went in against the queen, a link which you rubbished as it was the fault of loyalists.

I merely posted links relevant to the organisations that have made threats against the queen on her first official state visit to this country. Which reinforces the point made by WilcoOut. If I was making a political point in relation to the links i posted then i would agree with you that this post would be better suited to politics forum. However I was just helping another poster to make a very relevant point in this thread.

Wolfe Tone

foinse wrote: »

What debate? I'm not trying to debate anything, WilcoOut posted a link to a horrible tragedy which highlighted the kind of devestation that could be caused if an attack went in against the queen, a link which you rubbished as it was the fault of loyalists.

I merely posted links relevant to the organisations that have made threats against the queen on her first official state visit to this country. Which reinforces the point made by WilcoOut. If I was making a political point in relation to the links i posted then i would agree with you that this post would be better suited to politics forum. However I was just helping another poster to make a very relevant point in this thread.

Delusional to think that "I cant believe its not the IRA" would do anything remotely comparable to the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. Il leave it at that as this is the legal forum, not politics.

WilcoOut

foinse wrote: »

WilcoOut posted a link to a horrible tragedy which highlighted the kind of devestation that could be caused if an attack went in against the queen, .

it doesnt matter WHO did it,

all we need to be concerned about is that it HAPPENED

the current security arrangments are in place to prevent it HAPPENING again

weather it be IRA, INLA, UVF, Al Qaeda, Ku Klux Klan, Hezbollah, Muslim BrotherHood or any other of the various other terrorist groups operating in the world

source

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Delusional to think that "I cant believe its not the IRA" would do anything remotely comparable to the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. Il leave it at that as this is the legal forum, not politics.

What we're discussing here is the security measures in place for the queens visit, including what powers the Gardai have to search, and why the Gardai are searching is a very relevant point in that discussion.

I'll put it in a way that is very on topic, Gardai have been deployed in large numbers in Dublin, acting under numerous acts including the public order act, the offences against the state act and a number of other acts in order to ensure the security of a visiting head of state and the people of Dublin from a very real terrorist threat which has been made againt the head of state.

The reason the Gardai are searching people under the relevant legislation is to keep people safe against the type of people who are capable of THIS.

Also it is delusional to think that an organisation who claim that they want the UK out of Ireland would not go to any lengths possible to decapitate the state that they believe is occupying the country. Also the organisations making the threats are not overly enamoured with the Republic of Ireland either.

SnowManPower

Am I the only one that finds the coverage of visitng Queen Lizzie bizarre in its limited scope. I don't count myself among those who say keep this old sage pensioner out of Ireland. But I do object to the significance that has been pinned to this visit. That said, the visit will give the West Brits camp hiding in the shadows of this Republic moments of bliss as they crawl out from under their Union Jacks to do some orgasmic flag waving.

But what of the truth that's missing from this visit. We are told that we are about to have a visit from the Queen of England, which is true, but let's be honest here, Lizzie is not an English queen, and the country and subjects she rules over are a mixed and divisive lot. The Scots want to hold a referendum on independence, and whose to say the Welsh won't follow. One is lucky to spend a whole weekend in London these days and meet an actual "white Englander". Persons in this category are more and more heading from the last remaining "white" populated vales of Blighty, or more distant to France, Spain or Italy. United Kingdom? What an irony there is in that name.

Anyhow, to my main point. Why have Irish media outlets failed to tell us about Lizzie's real ancestry. Once upon a time . . . the House of Windsor was a fantasy. The figment of a courtier's imagination. The dynasty was created in 1917 to conceal the German roots of the King and Queen, and the deception enabled the monarchy to be perceived as British. Until 1940, many English kings never spoke English. They spoke only German, because for almost two hundred years, from 1714 until this century, a long line of Germans ruled the British empire. By 1915 England finally had a king, George V, who could speak English without a German accent. Although he was a German from the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line that had ruled England for eighty years.

Naturally, the British media rarely mention this fact either. They are fine with labelling themselves Anglo (Angles) Saxon (Saxons), after two Germanic tribes that conquered England before England was conquered by the Vikings, and before England was conquered by the French Normans. But Englanders (from Angleland) have this mental block when it comes to conceding their German/French identity, even thougb the pale faces among them go through life with combinations of Germanic, French and Scandinavian names.

There is much talk about the value-added nature of the visit, and what it will mean for tourism and trade. Sure, residents and subjects of Blighty with Irish connections will come here, probably no more than they do at present, but for the most part Englanders prefer to visit warmer climes where the beer and wine is cheaper. My view, for what it's worth, is that too much is being made of this visit. For sure, welcome Lizzy, fly the Union Jack, the German flag, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family flags, and all the flags for the day.

But beware of buying into the false promise that huge waves of new investment and tourism will flow. It won't. In a Fortune 1000 survey of UK companies conducted in 2010, 80% of the top 500 companiies in the UK were found to be foreign-owned. The power of capital investment decisions lies outside the UK in Tokyo, Paris, New York, Frankfurt and Stockholm.

And then there is the absurd cost of security for this visit. the Germanic Windsors won't pay for it, but we will, or perhaps we can factor it in to an enlrged Euro bail-out loan. Welcome Lizzie yes, but the woman, her fuedal title and medieval office certainly does not deserve or justify the amount of money being spent by a bankrupt nation when so many families and individuals are suffering financially in this economically ailing country.

But who am I to talk when greater minds like Kevin Myers must be in a total dizzy over Lizzy and her impending visit. Wait for the Anglophile camp, Myers and Co, to re-visit joining the Commonwealth, post visit. Good on you Kev, we can always count on you of the Germanic surname to support fellow Germanics. Good save Elton John, the real Queen of olde Engerland.

WilcoOut

HERE WE GO!

Dissident republicans have issued a ‘non-specific’ bomb threat for central London, Scotland Yard confirmed today, a day before Queen Elizabeth makes a historic visit to Ireland.
Security was heightened today after the threat was issued to authorities last night.

Amid increased police activity across London, areas around the Mall, the central avenue leading to Buckingham Palace, were cordoned off for several hours today.

"A bomb threat warning has been received relating to central London today. The threat is not specific in relation to location or time," London police said in a statement. "The threat level from Irish-related terrorism has not increased and remains at substantial."
In a separate incident, police carried out a controlled explosion to destroy a suspicious bag in a central London street, although it turned out to be harmless, a police spokesman said.
The Queen will arrive in Dublin tomorrow for the first visit by a British monarch since King George V in 1911. The largest security operation in the history of the Republic of Ireland is in place amid fears dissidents will try to disrupt the trip.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0516/breaking40.html

Dyr

WilcoOut wrote: »

read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

now you will understand why security in dublin city will be so tight

this is what people the gardai are protecting you against can do

Hold on, the garda (who dropped the dublin/monaghan bombings investigation like a hot snot) are protecting us against the british spooks who were responsible for it, by inviting them over to patrol out streets along with their monarch? That makes sense.

take a read of this:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-visits/maternity-hospital-forced-to-cancel-500-checkups-for-mumstobe-2647961.html

Is the cost of having hospitals standing idle factored into the bill I wonder?

this visit has become a national nonsense, El presidente was on RTE apparently cooing about how brilliant it all is. I wonder if the state broadcaster had the nerve to ask her the tough questions about the cost and the adverse affect that her wee ego trip is having on the people who are footing the bill.

rab!dmonkey

foinse wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0022.html

Section 21 allows for the setting up of the cordon, 22 provides powers of search and refusal of entry into the cordoned area. Chopser read the whole thread, this has been hashed out already on this thread a few pages back.

Thank you for that. I saw section 21 posted a few times, must've missed 22 whenever it was posted.

I note that reasonable suspicion is still required for a search and that it only provides additional powers with respect to searching for 'intoxicating liquor', 'disposable containers' and other items which may be used to cause injury. As an alternative to a search, a Garda may refuse entry until such items are surrendered. Still nothing with respect to random, all encompassing searches.

source

Bomb scare on a bus in Maynooth tonight. No links as yet, but it's all over twitter with pics of Army and Gardai at scene.

http://twitpic.com/4yn4z6

http://yfrog.com/hsiwnknj

EDIT: http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=58933&locID=1.2&pagename=news

CiaranC

foinse wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0022.html

Section 21 allows for the setting up of the cordon, 22 provides powers of search and refusal of entry into the cordoned area. Chopser read the whole thread, this has been hashed out already on this thread a few pages back.

Section 21 only allows setting up a cordon a mile from where an event is and where a large crowd is expected to gather, it doesnt tee up section 22 for random searches all over the city. Section 22 is clearly not for random search, rather for the specific occasion where a Garda has cause to suspect that you have beer or some kind of container (!?) on you.

Can anyone provide the legislation under which the Gardai can set up random checkpoints to carry out random searches where a suspicion of wrongdoing is not required, over a mile from where an event is happening or is about to happen, and where a large crowd is not expected?

source

CiaranC wrote: »

Section 21 only allows setting up a cordon a mile from where an event is and where a large crowd is expected to gather, it doesnt tee up section 22 for random searches all over the city. Section 22 is clearly not for random search, rather for the specific occasion where a Garda has cause to suspect that you have beer or some kind of container (!?) on you.

Can anyone provide the legislation under which the Gardai can set up random checkpoints to carry out random searches where a suspicion of wrongdoing is not required, over a mile from where an event is happening or is about to happen, and where a large crowd is not expected?

I already told you about checkpoints under the Road Traffic Acts. There is no single piece of legislation in play here. We've been through this number of times.

CiaranC

foinse wrote: »

I already told you about checkpoints under the Road Traffic Acts. There is no single piece of legislation in play here. We've been through this number of times.

A road traffic act doesnt apply to pedestrians being randomly searched. Come on.

MagicSean

CiaranC wrote: »

Section 21 only allows setting up a cordon a mile from where an event is and where a large crowd is expected to gather, it doesnt tee up section 22 for random searches all over the city. Section 22 is clearly not for random search, rather for the specific occasion where a Garda has cause to suspect that you have beer or some kind of container (!?) on you.

Can anyone provide the legislation under which the Gardai can set up random checkpoints to carry out random searches where a suspicion of wrongdoing is not required, over a mile from where an event is happening or is about to happen, and where a large crowd is not expected?

There is no power to carry out random searches where a suspicion of wrongdoing is not required. I very much doubt anyone will be searched randomly at all. But I would be very sure that "reasonable cause to suspect" would be interpreted widely. So a person within a high security cordon with no valid reason would be searched. A person with a rucksack in a high security area will be searched. You can refuse if you want but the Garda does not have to reason with you on the roadside. He will tell you what power he is searching you under and if you refuse you will most likely be arrested.