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

Queen's Visit Q&A Megamerge

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Contra Proferentem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭Contra Proferentem


    Bambi wrote: »
    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.

    Finally someone to stop the moralising on both sides. That's a very good point though, I believe the AGS Commissoner Garvey was sacked around that time, allegedly due to receiving payments from MI5 according to some historians.

    However I welcome the security arrangements, if the visit must go ahead. The legal issues raised by it are what should be discussed here.


  • Options
    #153
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Actually i didnt realise that I posted this in legal discussion..I thought this thread was in AH.

    Apologies m'luds :o


  • Options
    #154
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    CiaranC wrote: »
    A road traffic act doesnt apply to pedestrians being randomly searched. Come on.

    Where do you get that from ? I have no reason to doubt you, but as there are many pieces of legislation at play, it is up to you to prove that assertion.


  • Options
    #155
    Esel
    Registered Users Posts: 22,065 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Where do you get that from ? I have no reason to doubt you, but as there are many pieces of legislation at play, it is up to you to prove that assertion.
    Are you serious? You want proof that the Road Traffic Acts do not provide for stop and search of pedestrians?

    Not your ornery onager



  • Options
    #156
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Esel wrote: »
    Are you serious? You want proof that the Road Traffic Acts do not provide for stop and search of pedestrians?

    As I have said, I have no reason to doubt him.

    However, legislation often contains elements which would not appear to be appropriate in the light of the title of the legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Het-Field wrote: »
    As I have said, I have no reason to doubt him.

    However, legislation often contains elements which would not appear to be appropriate in the light of the title of the legislation.

    How can you prove what is not there?? :confused:

    Can you prove that the Road Traffic Act DOES give stop and search powers over pedestrians?


  • Options
    #158
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Paulw wrote: »
    How can you prove what is not there?? :confused:

    Can you prove that the Road Traffic Act DOES give stop and search powers over pedestrians?

    Provide me with the acts.

    I know all about the moral argument regarding the inability to prove things in the negative, and how it is incumbent on the person who proffers in the positive to prove their allegations. However, I have better things to be doing than looking through reams of Road Traffic legislation.


  • Options
    #159
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Provide me with the acts.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/index.html

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0012/index.html

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0044/index.html

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0023/index.html

    I look forward to reading your proof.


  • Options
    #160
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Paulw wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/index.html

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0012/index.html

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0044/index.html

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0023/index.html

    I look forward to reading your proof.

    What proof ?

    I have stated that I dont doubt him.

    Thank you for the links.


  • Options
    #161
    source
    Registered Users Posts: 5,270 ✭✭✭source


    CiaranC wrote: »
    A road traffic act doesnt apply to pedestrians being randomly searched. Come on.

    Thats fair enough I presumed, from the earlier conversation we had on checkpoints. That you were talking about RTA checkpoints. My bad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    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.

    This would appear to be correct. There is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation being flung around here.

    For the record anybody can submit to a search if they consent to another person searching them and usually this is what the Gardai will seek especially at an event such as the Queen visiting. They will ask people to open their bags etc on walking up to the barriers. Refusal to allow AGS search in this circumstance is not grounds for them then invoking a statutory power allowing them to search a person.

    They have erected barriers and a Supt has designated an "event" for purposes of POA 1994:

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0021.html#sec21

    S22 gives AGS a power to search people seeking to cross the barrier in certain defined circumstances laid down in subsection (b).

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0022.html#sec22

    So to be clear AGS do not have the power to randomly search people on the street, they do not have the power either to "stop and search" people on the street. They can certainly ask people to submit to a search but in the absence of "reasonable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" that the Public Order Act and other criminal legislation gives AGS to conduct searches they cannot compel people to be searched.


  • Options
    #163
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    However it could be argued that the threshold for "reasonable cause" and/or "reasonable suspicion" are significantly lower during a heightened security period in an area where they have reasonable belief that there may be a security threat.


  • Options
    #164
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭McCrack


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    However it could be argued that the threshold for "reasonable cause" and/or "reasonable suspicion" are significantly lower during a heightened security period in an area where they have reasonable belief that there may be a security threat.

    Yes but a heightened security alert is not enough to give members of the Gardai a free card to search anybody they like in a public place.

    That power has never existed in this jurisdiction post 1922.


  • Options
    #165
    source
    Registered Users Posts: 5,270 ✭✭✭source


    Reasonable belief/suspicion is a subjective term, which allows a member to decide what he believes is suspicious at that particular time given that particular circumstances.

    Take for instance a man reaching inside his jacket, On a regular day that could be construed as a regular act for anyone to do on a daily basis.

    Now, there's a security threat, a dignitary is passing the man, there is intelligence that an attack is going to take place and it is going to take the form of a shooting. It is now reasonable to suspect that person reaching inside his jacket may be going for a gun, and it is now reasonable for the Gardai to take the necessary precautions (search) to verify that.

    A bystander's idea of reasonable suspicion as an observer will be different to the Garda's idea of what can be reasonable suspicion, as you are looking for two different things.


  • Options
    #166
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭McCrack


    foinse wrote: »
    Reasonable belief/suspicion is a subjective term, which allows a member to decide what he believes is suspicious at that particular time given that particular circumstances.

    Take for instance a man reaching inside his jacket, On a regular day that could be construed as a regular act for anyone to do on a daily basis.

    Now, there's a security threat, a dignitary is passing the man, there is intelligence that an attack is going to take place and it is going to take the form of a shooting. It is now reasonable to suspect that person reaching inside his jacket may be going for a gun, and it is now reasonable for the Gardai to take the necessary precautions (search) to verify that.

    A bystander's idea of reasonable suspicion as an observer will be different to the Garda's idea of what can be reasonable suspicion, as you are looking for two different things.

    Agree. My point is that searching is not permitted in the absence of consent/reasonable belief/suspicion.

    As a result random searching is not permitted.


  • Options
    #167
    Sala
    Registered Users Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Sala


    Sorry if this is off topic, but there anywhere I can find a map of which way the Queen will travel tomorrow. I have to go to Kildare, and AA is not too clear about what is happening. I'd prefer to work out in advance the best way to get there


  • Options
    #168
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    As far as i know a Garda can stop and search anyone on the street without a Warrant if he/she believes they are in possession of illegal substances (Drugs Act) or are carrying an offensive weapon (Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act) and Public Order Act.
    I might be wrong though.


  • Options
    #169
    kazzdee
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭kazzdee


    I was in town earlier and I heard that on passing from one section of town to another a lady with a baby in a buggy told me they were searching handbags etc. Considering yesterdays scuffles, I quite understand it.
    I saw three unlikely queen fans perched on the statue mingling in with some porto fans and others who had been fenced in at the bottom of O'Connell st earlier when she was to make her way up to croker... they were also unlikely flower carrying looking types too... but sure enough, one of them had a bunch of flowers. So I saw the guards lift them out of the crowd and search them, and their flowers. Didnt see if they ended up having anything of interest, was an interesting watch though as I was fenced in with everyone else on OConnell st untill she had passed, which was for about half an hour. It passed the time. :)
    I agree that if people want to,people have the right to protest, but make it a dignified one, I mean, they aren't invading us again, its just a visit. :)


  • Options
    #170
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I saw the Queen and President drive by when I was outside Four Courts today.

    Love the 20 brand new BMWs they have escorting them.


  • Options
    #171
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Legal opinions on this?




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Legal opinions on this?




    There is always some gob***** looking for notice with their camera. The young Garda made a mistake obviously as she thought the flag was attached to the pole. Much ado about nothing. You are grasping at straws W.T. are things not going your way with this historic visit ?


  • Options
    #173
    Resend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Resend


    tayto lover wrote: »
    There is always some gob***** looking for notice with their camera. The young Garda made a mistake obviously as she thought the flag was attached to the pole. Much ado about nothing. You are grasping at straws W.T. are things not going your way with this historic visit ?
    +1 stupid whining attention seeker. they cannot even spell warrant lol


  • Options
    #174
    phantom_lord
    Registered Users Posts: 10,894 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    What an insufferable pleb. She shouldn't be brandishing the flag in that manner in the first place.


  • Options
    #175
    darragh666
    Registered Users Posts: 187 ✭✭darragh666


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Legal opinions on this?




    Garda thought the woman was carrying a flag with a stick or pole attached which could used as a weapon in such a tense area.
    Rather than working with someone trying to do their job and discover this error, the camera woman used this opportunity to push some garda bashing agenda.
    She was looking for trouble.


  • Options
    #176
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    tayto lover wrote: »
    There is always some gob***** looking for notice with their camera. The young Garda made a mistake obviously as she thought the flag was attached to the pole. Much ado about nothing. You are grasping at straws W.T. are things not going your way with this historic visit ?
    Not grasping at anything, seen as this is the "Legal discussion" forum and is about the visit I saw the above video and shared it. I gave no opinion on it and was wondering if legally she was correct.


  • Options
    #177
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    darragh666 wrote: »
    Garda thought the woman was carrying a flag with a stick or pole attached which could used as a weapon in such a tense area.
    Rather than working with someone trying to do their job and discover this error, the camera woman used this opportunity to push some garda bashing agenda.
    She was looking for trouble.


    Isn't it great that most of us have the commonsense to see through the antics of these people. They are out for notice and to try to push their agenda down the throats of people. Finding fault with people who are doing their job seems to be the favourite pastime of those who don't and won't work and with many so-called Republicans.


  • Options
    #178
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Out of interest why would they not take the big metal stand the camera was on yet take flagpoles?


  • Options
    #179
    discus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭discus


    phantom_lord wrote: »
    What an insufferable pleb. She shouldn't be brandishing the flag in that manner in the first place.

    I know. And you'd know that Wolfe Tone would be here to get it online straight away :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #180
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Out of interest why would they not take the big metal stand the camera was on yet take flagpoles?

    I didn't see that big metal thing. Why didn't she ask them that or you if you were there ? To me she sounded as if it was all rehearsed as she was too quick appealing to the crowd. She should try harder next time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    discus wrote: »
    I know. And you'd know that Wolfe Tone would be here to get it online straight away :rolleyes:
    Is this the legal discussion forum where one can discuss the legal aspects of things, or is it the politics forum, or better yet the "snide remarks about Wolfe Tone" forum?


Advertisement