Shatter insists Wallace has no credibility on penalty points

mikom

SB2013 wrote: »

I'll try and simplify it so. Why is it ok for a politician to release confidential personal information on a sports or tv personality who has availed of Garda discretion like those that were named in the original scandal but it is not ok to release the same information on a politician as Shatter has just done?

And I ask you....... was Shatter speaking in the Dail using Dail privilege....... or was he speaking on an RTE show when exposing an opposition politician, while using information that it seems dark arts were used to dig up.

SB2013

mikom wrote: »

And I ask you....... was Shatter speaking in the Dail using Dail privilege....... or was he speaking on an RTE show when exposing an opposition politician, while using information that it seems dark arts were used to dig up.

What does it matter if he was speaking under Dáil privilege? That only protects him from defamation proceedings. The fact he is not speaking under Dáil privilege makes his claim more believable as his own money is on the line.

mikom

SB2013 wrote: »

What does it matter if he was speaking under Dáil privilege? That only protects him from defamation proceedings. The fact he is not speaking under Dáil privilege makes his claim more believable as his own money is on the line.

Believable or not is neither here nor there.

I take it you are ok so with the minister for justice releasing confidential justice information on an opposing politician live on our state broadcaster.
Do you believe it's ok as it is only his "own money is on the line", and the office of minister for justice does not come into it.
It'll be interesting to see the depths that shatter dug to to scrape up this revelation, as I'm sure it will be revealed shortly over questiontime.

Up next on FG tv, minister Reilly to reveal the names of the opposition TD's who have had an abortion in the UK.....

SB2013

mikom wrote: »

Believable or not is neither here nor there.

I take it you are ok so with the minister for justice releasing confidential justice information on an opposing politician live on our state broadcaster.
Do you believe it's ok as it is only his "own money is on the line", and the office of minister for justice does not come into it.
It'll be interesting to see the depths that shatter dug to to scrape up this revelation, as I'm sure it will be revealed shortly over questiontime.

Up next on FG tv, minister Reilly to reveal the names of the opposition TD's who have had an abortion in the UK.....

I don't think a politician should have access to peoples personal Garda record. But you are avoiding my question. Why is the original release of thousands of peoples Garda files by Clare Daly and others ok but the release of Mick Wallaces by Shatter is not?

mikom

SB2013 wrote: »

I don't think a politician should have access to peoples personal Garda record. But you are avoiding my question. Why is the original release of thousands of peoples Garda files by Clare Daly and others ok but the release of Mick Wallaces by Shatter is not?

There was no need to release names........... you know that, I know that, but it seems one of the top legal "brains" in the country and the current minister for justice does not know that.
He released confidential justice information on an opposing politician live on our state broadcaster.
He had plenty of time over the past few months to see that releasing names was wrong.
However, he went ahead obtained the info on Wallace and just blurted it out.
This is the man that directs justice in this country.
Unforgivable.

Ash.J.Williams

SB2013 wrote: »

I don't think a politician should have access to peoples personal Garda record. But you are avoiding my question. Why is the original release of thousands of peoples Garda files by Clare Daly and others ok but the release of Mick Wallaces by Shatter is not?

Because there was no Wallace file, he wasn't convicted of anything. He was seen on the phone and was told not to do it again.

copacetic

SB2013 wrote: »

I don't think a politician should have access to peoples personal Garda record. But you are avoiding my question. Why is the original release of thousands of peoples Garda files by Clare Daly and others ok but the release of Mick Wallaces by Shatter is not?

Most people probably think me is worse than another as one appears to have been sourced by the Minister for Justice asking the Guards for it.

The other by an ex Garda providing the information to anyone who wanted it.

However I certainly don't think what Wallace or Daly did was ok, and I haven't seen other people say that either. They are known hypocrites and have little or no standing in my eyes but they dont hold a Ministerial office where they make decisions on how Justice operates in Ireland and never will.

SPDUB

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

He was seen on the phone and was told not to do it again.

Was he ?

From Mick Walllace's response I got the impression he wasn't stopped by the Garda and told not to do it again .

SB2013

mikom wrote: »

There was no need to release names........... you know that, I know that, but it seems one of the top legal "brains" in the country and the current minister for justice does not know that.
He released confidential justice information on an opposing politician live on our state broadcaster.
He had plenty of time over the past few months to see that releasing names was wrong.
However, he went ahead obtained the info on Wallace and just blurted it out.
This is the man that directs justice in this country.
Unforgivable.

But that's just the thing Mikom, a lot of people don't know it. They see Clare Daly & co's act as somehow heroic but the fact is she had access to the confidential information of thousands of motorists and tarred them all with the same brush. The many tickets that were cancelled for legitimate reasons were not filtered out. And it was all for political points scoring. Mings own past is proff of this. How many thousand innocent people had their name dragged through the mud?

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Because there was no Wallace file, he wasn't convicted of anything. He was seen on the phone and was told not to do it again.

None of the people who had tickets cancelled were convicted of anything either. They weren't even prosecuted.

copacetic wrote: »

Most people probably think me is worse than another as one appears to have been sourced by the Minister for Justice asking the Guards for it.

The other by an ex Garda providing the information to anyone who wanted it.

He was a serving member, not an ex Garda.

copacetic wrote: »

However I certainly don't think what Wallace or Daly did was ok, and I haven't seen other people say that either. They are known hypocrites and have little or no standing in my eyes but they dont hold a Ministerial office where they make decisions on how Justice operates in Ireland and never will.

I've seen plenty of people say it.

SPDUB wrote: »

Was he ?

From Mick Walllace's response I got the impression he wasn't stopped by the Garda and told not to do it again .

Then why go to the data protection commissioner if there was no data to protect?

mikom

SB2013 wrote: »

But that's just the thing Mikom, a lot of people don't know it. They see Clare Daly & co's act as somehow heroic but the fact is she had access to the confidential information of thousands of motorists and tarred them all with the same brush. The many tickets that were cancelled for legitimate reasons were not filtered out. And it was all for political points scoring. Mings own past is proff of this. How many thousand innocent people had their name dragged through the mud?

How many were outed on primetime TV by the minister for justice?
We are all citizens of this land.

SB2013

mikom wrote: »

How many were outed on primetime TV by the minister for justice?
We are all citizens of this land.

So we are agreed that both acts were wrong.

Trotter

Sully wrote: »

It was clearly and undeniably so an attempt at showing Wallace was a hypocrite - i.e. this is why they insist its in the public's interest. That's why the Indo made a big deal about Ming and Daily. But it failed and back fired not just because it wasn't the point being made by this group of TDs but also purely because of the way in which the information was handled and released.

A lot of questions to be answered but it looks like there is no easy way out of this mess that makes it all alright for Shatter.

Sorry to disappoint, but the thread title wasn't mine, it was the one used in the article I linked in the OP. Of course its 'FGsh' - its what a FG Minister is saying.

Ah you never disappoint Sully Do you think though that this will snowball? I somehow think that the current crop of ministers would be fairly adept at deflecting and circling wagons. We don't do accountability in Ireland, regardless of the mess thats caused. If we did, the cabinet would look pretty different than it does now. Its that lack of morality, honest, ethics.. whatever we'll call it that frustrates the Joe Soaps like crazy. FG/Lab have consistently acted in a way that has blown the misdemeanours of others into second place, often by their reactions to those same misdemeanours!

You are right that some of the independents could do with being squeaky clean before trying to hose down others, but in this case we have to remember that Wallace has said he knows nothing about being stopped by any guard! Until proven otherwise, that has to be the position we listen to but there is no mechanism for it to be proven otherwise because it's not something thats in the system.

I know a couple of FG members and I actually pity them because although they're hell bent on supporting and sticking with the decisions of their 'superiors', that so often goes against their own wish to actually do some good through politics. Its unfair to put them in that position of constantly having to squirm to defend that which I suspect they disagree with privately.

I just think that Shatter has the means to talk his way out of this with help from the whole team, from other ministers down.

mikom

SB2013 wrote: »

So we are agreed that both acts were wrong.

Justice.
"Do just as I say, not as I do".

For shame.
And we expect the children coming up to be law abiding.

SPDUB

SB2013 wrote: »

Then why go to the data protection commissioner if there was no data to protect?

Well he said this himself

to investigate “any possible breach of the Data Protection legislation, the basis for the Minister’s allegation, the circumstances surrounding the seeking and providing of any personal data to the Minister in preparation for the Prime Time debate”.

Especially "the basis for the Minister's allegation" would seem to indicate he's `disputing the incidence occured

bmaxi

How is Shatter going to substantiate this without revealing his source? He can't just say a Garda told him, he'll be laughed out of school. The fact that no fixed penalty has issued makes it a "he said, she said" situation.

Sierra Oscar

This story seems to be dominating the front pages again tomorrow.

Fred Cohen

SB2013 wrote: »

So we are agreed that both acts were wrong.

Not really, if a member of An Garda Siochána suspects there is corruption in the force, they can bring the information to one of two designated recipients and/or give the information to a member of the Oireachtas, who can then raise this. This is all covered in legalisation and is there to protect us from corruption in the Guards. As a result of this a Superintendent and two Inspector are facing disciplinary action and a fraud file has been sent to the DPP.

What the Minister did when he released in such a grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented manner, confidential Garda intelligence on a citizen (where he got it and from whom we don't know) was to score cheap political points against a TD who needs no help in undermining his own credibility. In doing this he may have committed a data protection breach and an offence under SIPO, we won't know until we find out where he got the info.

alan partridge aha

I'm delighted for that blonde twat Wallace and all the idiots who voted for him.

Sully

Trotter wrote: »

Ah you never disappoint Sully Do you think though that this will snowball? I somehow think that the current crop of ministers would be fairly adept at deflecting and circling wagons. We don't do accountability in Ireland, regardless of the mess thats caused. If we did, the cabinet would look pretty different than it does now. Its that lack of morality, honest, ethics.. whatever we'll call it that frustrates the Joe Soaps like crazy. FG/Lab have consistently acted in a way that has blown the misdemeanours of others into second place, often by their reactions to those same misdemeanours!

You are right that some of the independents could do with being squeaky clean before trying to hose down others, but in this case we have to remember that Wallace has said he knows nothing about being stopped by any guard! Until proven otherwise, that has to be the position we listen to but there is no mechanism for it to be proven otherwise because it's not something thats in the system.

I know a couple of FG members and I actually pity them because although they're hell bent on supporting and sticking with the decisions of their 'superiors', that so often goes against their own wish to actually do some good through politics. Its unfair to put them in that position of constantly having to squirm to defend that which I suspect they disagree with privately.

I just think that Shatter has the means to talk his way out of this with help from the whole team, from other ministers down.

Me personally? I'd prefer a different set of Ministers. A completely different makeup of cabinet. A different approach to austerity and recession. A party that actually stuck by what it said it would do in the pre-election and a promise that I genuinely thought would be brought in. I genuinely hoped the FF era of Politics was over, at least, for this term.

Sadly, it hasn't happened that way. Between Reilly, Hogan & Shatter. I understand why Shatter did what he did. It made sense in theory. But should the Minister for Justice be releasing such details live on TV? That's the part I have serious discomfort with, regardless of his intentions. A ****storm there good at handling, but it just turns people away from politics and damages the credibility of the party.

I didn't agree with these TDs wanting to release all the names, but not much was said about that. It goes to show - depending how 'big' you are, or the topic, the worse it gets for you.

20Cent

Front page of the sun times and indo. Made fontpages today as well. Questions in the Dail tomorrow. Story is getting legs.

listermint

20Cent wrote: »

Front page of the sun times and indo. Made fontpages today as well. Questions in the Dail tomorrow. Story is getting legs.

As it should. But as usual its unlikely anyone will fall on their sword. Doesnt happen in this country. Be completely different if this occurred across the water.

mikehammer67

says he may have been accused of cover-up if he didn't reveal information about wallace

he say he was briefed by the gardai and deputy wallace came up in the briefing

wow like

mikom

mikehammer67 wrote: »

says he may have been accused of cover-up if he didn't reveal information about wallace

he say he was briefed by the gardai and deputy wallace came up in the briefing

wow like

Absolute horseshit.

Sully

Trotter wrote: »

but in this case we have to remember that Wallace has said he knows nothing about being stopped by any guard! Until proven otherwise, that has to be the position we listen to but there is no mechanism for it to be proven otherwise because it's not something thats in the system.

This may not be the news you were hoping for but...

Wallace admits gardaí used discretion when caught on phone while driving

....

Speaking on the Today with Pat Kenny Show on RTÉ this morning, Wallace said at first he “genuinely could not recall the incident and actually thought he [Shatter] made it up”.
However, following some more thought and a prompt from a journalist, Wallace remembered a day last year when he was stopped at traffic lamps at the ‘Five Lamps’ on the North Circular Road in Dublin. The deputy said he was talking on the phone and two gardaí in a patrol car pulled up beside him

...

Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/wallace-shatter-penalty-points-917089-May2013/

I always knew when Wallace didn't outright deny the incident, he was just being careful before deciding what approach to do next. Usually if your accused of something you wont go "Arah, I don't recall..." and you deny or accept.

Anyway, Wallace has admitted to being told by Gardai re: phone. This backs up the point by Shatter and others that it was being used as an example of discretion the Gardai were using while Wallace and others were calling for no discretion.

Where did Shatter get the info? During a briefing by the Gardai, apparently. It makes sense he might be told as an example of discretion being used that applied to those speaking out about such.

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has said he received information about the gardaí using their discretion regarding an incident involving Independent TD Mick Wallace in the course of a briefing from the force.

...

Source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0520/451343-wallace-to-lodge-complaint-over-shatter-remarks/

mikom

Sully wrote: »

Anyway, Wallace has admitted to being told by Gardai re: phone. This backs up the point by Shatter and others that it was being used as an example of discretion the Gardai were using while Wallace and others were calling for no discretion.

Not the same discretion.

Wallace stopped a lights Discretion............ a chat with Guards.

Other Discretion............ the removal of points from a computer and written log.

Wagging a finger versus quashing a sanction from a lesser ranked Garda.
I hope you can see the difference, because if you can't...............

Sully

mikom wrote: »

Not the same discretion.

Wallace stopped a lights Discretion............ a chat with Guards.

Other Discretion............ the removal of points from a computer and written log..

The discretion subject as a whole, not just in relation to penalty points.

mikom

Sully wrote: »

The discretion subject as a whole, not just in relation to penalty points.

What's discretionary rule when there is the possibility that a statement based on hearsay could possibly defame someone live on the state broadcaster?
Do you have less or more discretion on this when you are the minister for justice?

Sully

mikom wrote: »

What's discretionary rule when there is the possibility that a statement based on hearsay could possibly defame someone live on the state broadcaster?
Do you have less or more discretion on this when you are the minister for justice?

I doubt the Minister felt it was 'hearsay' coming from the force and it looks like he was right. At this stage, we don't know where he get it from within the Gardai anyway.

RATM

Love nor Money wrote: »

While perhaps not as systematic, is this carry on not the same in substance as the phone tapping scandal that knocked Haughey? Using the gardai as a source of information to undermine political opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_phone_tapping_scandal_%281983%29

The most disturbing thing about it is that Shatter sees nothing wrong with it. That means he'd do it again.

I was just thinking this morning that if I was a client at his solicitors firm I'd seriously consider jumping ship from him knowing or having access to my confidential affairs.

His arrogance has really caught up with him on this one. He thought he was being Machiavellian and it has backfired spectacularly.

Also the symbolism of the smart suited lawyer in the RTE studio trying to put a boot into a man dressed like the majority of the population do at home every day* was not lost on me either. It was a pure form of the atypical Fine Gael pounding of the ordinary man, with all the characters dressed for the occasion.

*bar pink

mikom

Sully wrote: »

I doubt the Minister felt it was 'hearsay' coming from the force and it looks like he was right. At this stage, we don't know where he get it from within the Gardai anyway.

It was not even recorded.
Wallace wasn't even stopped by the guards.

It was hearsay.