irish independent article on pistols case

rowa

As the title states , there is an article in todays indo saying the garda ombudsman is investigating irregularities with senior gardai and their handling of the restricted pistols licencing. Read it in the link below. To be honest i thought this had been buried by the ptb.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/watchdog-to-probe-senior-gardai-over-applications-for-firearms-29131817.html

Grizzly 45

A good selection of pro gun comments[and fammilar handles replying too;):cool:] and arguements going on there.
Some Gobdaw calling him/herself "The Gaurds" claiming the NARGC and others got funding from the American NRA...
.Fact according to them because "the media" or the Prime Time hatchet programme on shooting a few years ago said it was true...:rolleyes::rolleyes:.
Wish that it were true.:pac:

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Some Gobdaw calling him/herself "The Gaurds" claiming the NARGC and others got funding from the American NRA...
.Fact according to them because "the media" or the Prime Time hatchet programme on shooting a few years ago said it was true...:rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Yes that primetime rubbish has cast a long shadow over shooting in ireland. Sadly it seems if something appears in the tv/radio or print media than its cast iron in its reliability and truth :rolleyes:.
One informed commentator also said that part of the ombudsmans investigation would look into that ahern may have told senior gardai not to relicence centrefire pistols.

Grizzly 45

There would be enough circumstantial evidence there to suggest a possibility of that.However as there is an upcoming Ombudsman investigation on this,we'll say no more lest it prejudice it somhow.

Personally I feel those Supers have nothing to worry about,The GO isnt actually In my opinion very hot on dealing with firearms matters.

Thats from personal experiance of three personal cases I was involved in.
Even when written evidence was produced for them that there was an answerable case.:mad:

Rosahane

I see that all the comments have disappeared from the Indo article, what's more they have also gone from Discus which is a first!

Hmmm...

Sparks

That seems to be par for the course with the Indo rosahane, it's been happening on every story we've been commenting on of late.

Rosahane

Sparks wrote: »

That seems to be par for the course with the Indo rosahane, it's been happening on every story we've been commenting on of late.

They take them down OK Sparks, but the comments remain on one's dashboard on Discus. This time my comment has disappeared off Discus, it was there yesterday!
Never seen this happen before. I wonder if it's just me or have all comments been "disappeared"
My comment wasn't even about the article but a response to an NRA funding comment.

Grizzly 45

Either two things.
The Indo is trying to shut us up .[And failing miserably:p]

Or they are realising now that they are biting off more than they can chew by having these articles up as they will be opposed by pro gunners:)
Was one comment on a gang shooting in Chicago last week were a baby got killed,one pro gun comment,article gone.

Gene Kerrigan wrote one article on Sandy Hook,Sunday Indo immediately following the incident,full of cliches,bad facts and research, one comment refuting it. Article gone...:rolleyes:

Either way its good to see,as it means somehow somewhere we are doing something right to either pee off someone,or put the frightners up them.

rowa

You could be right grizz, as the vast majority of the commentators (apart from one , a claimed gun owner called "the guards") were supportive of gun ownership and the fact this investigation was underway. The sindo doesn't strike me as being a paper that would be supportive of gun ownership in ireland, not that i'd be too worried by that fact as i wouldn't buy it in a month of sundays.

Sparks

I can't read "the frighteners" without a bit of a giggle to be honest, we're a long long long LONG ways from that kind of sway.

However, it is good to see more and more engagement through means like this by shooters because unless we do that kind of thing, unless we're more vocal? Well, people listen to whatever they hear and if all they hear are incredibly tiny but vocal minorities like ICABS and their ilk, well, there's a reason that we see advertising being pulled from Limerick Racecourse, the Gathering removing fieldsports from their material, singers being forced into denouncing hunting because they had a drink in the wrong place, and so on.

Grizzly 45

there's a reason that we see advertising being pulled from Limerick Racecourse,

Am amazed no one has really picked up on that doctored pic yet!!
Compare both of those pics Jan 2012[top] and 2013[bottom],on the ICABS website.

Anyone notice that the back round scenery[what little there is of it] is completely different??For a pic like that to be factual evidence in a court or otherwise you must have a permanent or semi permanent landmark reference point in both pics...Where is it in these pics??

For all we know ICABS could have photographed those pics 180 degrees from where the 2012 pics were taken.:p

Also another reason they can be claimed as dubious evidence.
Nowadays on stills or video,there is no reason not to include a TIME DAY/DATE STAMP!!! Every security surveillance camera has this and needs it to be accepted as evidence.Dont tell me ICABS cant operate or cant afford this feature ..Even my cheap 50 quid cell phone has this nowadays.:p

Not to mind that with the amount of water in the 2013 pic,how could you run a coursing event there at the same part of the course??
Methinks another case of "the dying hare." pics:p:p:p

As for that claim by the person calling themselves "the Gaurds".The Primetime episode is available on youtube,or was until recently so it should be easy to watch and find any references to the "NRA".
maybe they got it mixed up with our own NRA.We have two,the National Roads Authorithy,or the Irish National Rifle Assoc.

bazza888

they also removed the article about the school in the uk getting threats from animal terrorists for rearing pigs

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Am amazed no one has really picked up on that doctored pic yet!

It does look really dodgy, but we've seen several other people say that the advertising was actually pulled; do we know if it was or not?

I'd far rather find out by asking someone who was there than debate whether or not ICABS doctored a photo, it seems like far less of a waste of time!

As for that claim by the person calling themselves "the Gaurds".The Primetime episode is available on youtube,or was until recently so it should be easy to watch and find any references to the "NRA".

I don't recall any references to the NRA like that, and as to the claim that there were ten bodies looking after shooting in Ireland... er, that number's just a wee bit low

Sparks

bazza888 wrote: »

they also removed the article about the school in the uk getting threats from animal terrorists for rearing pigs

The article or the comments?

bravestar

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Every security surveillance camera has this and needs it to be accepted as evidence.

Sorry Grizz, but that is not true.

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Gene Kerrigan wrote one article on Sandy Hook,Sunday Indo immediately following the incident,full of cliches,bad facts and research, one comment refuting it. Article gone...:rolleyes:

yup

Grizzly 45

bravestar wrote: »

Sorry Grizz, but that is not true.

Sorry Bravestar, I have to disagree.
As I have presented enough evidence in court cases as no doubt you have,and I have seen evidence chucked by courts here because it was not time and date stamped..Now ,maybe you have a weighter clout in court as a member of the force,but as "mere civillians" I and the rest of us in a private capacity dont.
I can only go from experiance and what the legal profession going from judges downwards have dealt with it despite witnesses to the filming being present and willing to testify.Maybe it was thrown or was inadmissable for other reasons that were never made clear to me ,but I have to work on the ASSumption that it is partially the reason.
But if you can enlighten me as to what exactly is minimum requirements for video or photographic evidence in an Irish court,I'd be happy to learn from your knowledge.

bravestar

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sorry Bravestar, I have to disagree.
As I have presented enough evidence in court cases as no doubt you have,and I have seen evidence chucked by courts here because it was not time and date stamped..Now ,maybe you have a weighter clout in court as a member of the force,but as "mere civillians" I and the rest of us in a private capacity dont.
I can only go from experiance and what the legal profession going from judges downwards have dealt with it despite witnesses to the filming being present and willing to testify.Maybe it was thrown or was inadmissable for other reasons that were never made clear to me ,but I have to work on the ASSumption that it is partially the reason.
But if you can enlighten me as to what exactly is minimum requirements for video or photographic evidence in an Irish court,I'd be happy to learn from your knowledge.

Grizz I have no idea what you were presenting video/photo evidence for so if you want to pm me and shoot the sh*t then by all means do. But as long as there is a clear chain of custody, and the photo/video is of a good enough quality then a time/date stamp doesn't matter.

Now that is not to say a defence brief wont try exploit a lack of time/date stamp but any legal eagal worth their salt will be able to counter that. For what it's worth, most CCTV's time/date is off because of daylight saving time/lazyness. As long as that discrepancy is accounted for in the statement of the person in charge of/ who downloaded the CCTV footage, there is no problem.

bazza888

the whole article dissapeared,i know they take them down every now and then for new stuff to go up,but usually if you search you can read the article this time the whole thing was gone,this is the link to the story
http://www.independent.ie/feedsin/patemp/village-school-targeted-over-pigs-29119700.html