Shatter insists Wallace has no credibility on penalty points

Sully

mikom wrote: »

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

It was hearsay.

Wallace was spoken to by the Gardai - they pulled up beside him and asked him to roll down the window. He had interacted with the Gardai, who discussed the matter with him.

Weevil

RTE To-day:

His memory of the incident was refreshed when a journalist asked him over the weekend if he had been stopped at the Five Lamps last year by gardaí.

That was very helpful of the journalist.

mikom

Sully wrote: »

Wallace was spoken to by the Gardai - they pulled up beside him and asked him to roll down the window. He had interacted with the Gardai, who discussed the matter with him.

So how did the undocumented interaction between a guard in a patrol car and a citizen of this state enter the realms of a minister for justice briefing............ if not through hearsay.
This was then exposed on primetime TV.

Sully

mikom wrote: »

So how did the undocumented interaction between a guard in a patrol car and a citizen of this state enter the realms of a minister for justice briefing............ if not through hearsay.
This was then exposed on primetime TV.

How do you know the Garda didn't say it to Shatter? How do you know if the information is incorrect? Your speculating.

mikom

Sully wrote: »

How do you know the Garda didn't say it to Shatter? How do you know if the information is incorrect? Your speculating.

Are you trying to tell me that a regular garda on the beat is sitting in on briefings with the minister for justice?
Or perhaps you think the Garda commissioner was the one who pulled up next to Wallace and wagged his finger.

Trotter

Sully wrote: »

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

If you think I'll lose sleep by Wallace saying yes he met some gardaí that wagged a finger, I think you're over estimating how much I care about poor oul Mick.

What I hope for is for this crowd to get out of office altogether. Its a bit simplistic to think Im hoping for Mick Wallace to score some victory. I'm hoping for an equitable cabinet, government, Dáil.. but I may as well be hoping pigs fly.

Theres a sense of 'they're out to get us' about that quote above. I think FG in general are making it easy for the likes of me to be disgusted by many individuals and the govt in general based as you said yourself on what was promised and what was ultimately cynically abandoned.

I don't have the time or space to be sitting here hoping about Mr. Shatter or Mr. Wallace. Much as you may feel otherwise.

Floppybits

mikom wrote: »

Are you trying to tell me that a regular garda on the beat is sitting in on briefings with the minister for justice?
Or perhaps you think the Garda commissioner was the one who pulled up next to Wallace and wagged his finger.

Commissioner on Patrol. I am worried now that the garda who pulled up beside me and told me one of my back lights was out will not make a report to the commissioner.

Mr.Micro

Wallace will do anything to be in the lime light, him with the blonde locks and pink tee shirts. He does not have a leg to stand, yet he continues to argue. His hypocrisy is breath taking. Could there ever have been such buffoon of a TD that constantly puts his foot in it? Regardless of how Alan Shatter obtained the information it begs the question of why Wallace would carry on knowing he was at fault and party to the same corrupt practice that he then criticized. Is he completely stupid or just so naive?

Floppybits

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Wallace will do anything to be in the lime light, him with the blonde locks and pink tee shirts. He does not have a leg to stand, yet he continues to argue. His hypocrisy is breath taking. Could there ever have been such buffoon of a TD that constantly puts his foot in it? Regardless of how Alan Shatter obtained the information it begs the question of why Wallace would carry on knowing he was at fault and party to the same corrupt practice that he then criticized. Is he completely stupid or just so naive?

But what happened to Wallace is different to having points taken off your licence because of who you are and who you know? Wallace was spoken to by a guard who didnt even bother to get out of the car never mind writing a ticket or entering into any system, how many times a day does that happen where are guard will give someone a warning and that's it?

What Wallace is complaining about is where you have been issued a ticket for a motoring offence and has been entered into the system but those points are then wiped from the record for no other reason than who you are and who you know. Thats is wrong and should not happen.

All the government parties are trying to do here is muddy the waters to deflect the focus away from this monumental cock up by Shatter.

Both are in the wrong. Pinkie for being a hypocrite and Minister Shatter for bringing it up as he did.

Sully

Trotter wrote: »

If you think I'll lose sleep by Wallace saying yes he met some gardaí that wagged a finger, I think you're over estimating how much I care about poor oul Mick.

What I hope for is for this crowd to get out of office altogether. Its a bit simplistic to think Im hoping for Mick Wallace to score some victory. I'm hoping for an equitable cabinet, government, Dáil.. but I may as well be hoping pigs fly.

Theres a sense of 'they're out to get us' about that quote above. I think FG in general are making it easy for the likes of me to be disgusted by many individuals and the govt in general based as you said yourself on what was promised and what was ultimately cynically abandoned.

I don't have the time or space to be sitting here hoping about Mr. Shatter or Mr. Wallace. Much as you may feel otherwise.

Ah, just that you do have a tendency to 'have a go' at the government parties, plus myself for supporting them from time to time, and seemed to be sticking up for Wallace a bit here. I got the impression you may have thought he was accused of something he didn't do and so thought I would point out the news that his brief amnesia on the matter has all but gone!

Its not just these TDs that may be tripped up from time to time. Just like it did to Enda re: Property Tax. People remember things and if you talk out of two sides of your mouth on an issue, expect to be tripped up along the way.

Floppybits

Deleted User wrote: »

Both are in the wrong. Pinkie for being a hypocrite and Minister Shatter for bringing it up as he did.

What is pinkie (as you call Wallace) in the wrong for on this? Was he given any penalty points that he then had written off similar to Ming?

I am no fan of Wallace, and I believe he should not be in the Dail but unfortunately that is the system that we have in this country.

In this case I see nothing that Wallace has done wrong. How many people can hold there hands up on here and say they have never been spoken to by a guard about some sort of traffic violation and that is all that was done? How many times a day would the guards do this?

Cody Pomeray

Deleted User wrote: »

Both are in the wrong. Pinkie for being a hypocrite and Minister Shatter for bringing it up as he did.

If so, the two mistakes are of a different order of magnitude.

Grumbling about penalty points being waived when you ought have been given penalty points may be hypocrtitical. Fine.

But for the Minister for Justice to introduce private Garda records to undermine an opposition politician is on a completely different scale altogether.

The two do not balance out.

Are we to take it that it is fair game for a Minister to uncover his or her opponent's state records every time they are guilty of some hypocrisy?

If an opposition politician criticizes welfare spending, are Government acting appropriately in broadcasting his personal social welfare history?

Is it appropriate to go so far as to bug telephones and intercept private correspondence - after all, that would probably uncover opposition hypocrisy too.

Explaining away such inappropriate behaviour as the Minister publicising an individual's Garda record boggles the mind. I really worry about the mindset of a Minister - and a Taoiseach, no less - who suggest this is appropriate behaviour in civilised society.

A Primal Nut

I don't think what Wallace did is a big deal. It wasn't like he was summoned and and they let him off because of who he is. The situation definitely seemed like discretion. What is Wallace supposed to do? Chase after the Gaurds and make sure they give him the summons? Yeah, like anyone here would do that!

What the campaign is about is the police using their judgement to summons someone on a traffic offence, and them somebody higher up deciding not to pursue the case. Completely different situation.

As for the Minister Of Justice accessing Garda records or something similar...mind boggling.

Floppybits

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Explaining away such inappropriate behaviour as the Minister publicising an individual's Garda record boggles the mind. I really worry about the mindset of a Government feel that to be appropriate behaviour in civilised society.

What I am worried about now, is are the Gardai recording every speaking to they give to peopel while on duty into the system without the person knowing about it?

mikehammer67

Floppybits wrote: »

What I am worried about now, is are the Gardai recording every speaking to they give to peopel while on duty into the system without the person knowing about it?

yep

Weevil

Weevil wrote: »

That was very helpful of the journalist.

Probably the same journalist that told Minister Shatter?

Floppybits

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably the same journalist that told Minister Shatter?

Are journalists now involved in breifing Ministers?

Trotter

Sully wrote: »

Ah, just that you do have a tendency to 'have a go' at the government parties, plus myself for supporting them from time to time, and seemed to be sticking up for Wallace a bit here. I got the impression you may have thought he was accused of something he didn't do and so thought I would point out the news that his brief amnesia on the matter has all but gone!

Its not just these TDs that may be tripped up from time to time. Just like it did to Enda re: Property Tax. People remember things and if you talk out of two sides of your mouth on an issue, expect to be tripped up along the way.

Ah Sully.. Theres more than me that has a go at government parties. I detest them all equally! Some people reading your consistent supportive posts of FG are suffering here in real life. Although, as Ive said before and will re-iterate.. you're entitled to your views, to support who you like, and to do it to the best of your ability. People read it though. People are hurt by those you support.. and not hurt in the 'oh my feelings' kind of way. Hurt in the 3am wondering how to get the numbers to add up kind of way. Thats not your fault but its frustrating to see someone push the cause of those that are doing it.

Back on topic, I never stuck up for Wallace. I criticised the minister. His apparent actions are separate from who he was trying to get at. I wouldnt vote for or support Wallace in a fit. But if Shatter and Wallace were the 2 names on the ballot, I'd stay at home. Wallace being tripped up is irrelevant. Its how he was tripped, by who and the office held by that person that matters.

mikehammer67

maybe he's inadvertently done the state some service
if hypocrisy is less acceptable in politics ,going forward

Cody Pomeray

mikehammer67 wrote: »

maybe he's inadvertently done the state some service
if hypocrisy is less acceptable in politics ,going forward

The Mick Wallace side of the story is a complete red herring and I really don't think the question of hypocrisy should be given much weight.

But since you raised the matter - what was the hypocrisy? It is perfectly legitimate to avail of certain provisions whilst being of the opinion that they are extended unfairly.

That's not necessarily hypocrisy.

For example, there are people on the marginal rate of income tax who believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes on income. They don't have to be outside of the system to oppose aspects of the system. T

Same with lots of situations, including the Mick Wallace case, many would say.

That's a fairly basic point.

JP Liz V1

Both Shatter and Wallace should step down imo

Sully

Trotter wrote: »

Ah Sully.. Theres more than me that has a go at government parties. I detest them all equally! Some people reading your consistent supportive posts of FG are suffering here in real life. Although, as Ive said before and will re-iterate.. you're entitled to your views, to support who you like, and to do it to the best of your ability. People read it though. People are hurt by those you support.. and not hurt in the 'oh my feelings' kind of way. Hurt in the 3am wondering how to get the numbers to add up kind of way. Thats not your fault but its frustrating to see someone push the cause of those that are doing it.

That gives people no right to complain about anything and everything they do, even if it has no direct impact on them at all. It was Fianna Fail that caused this and Fine Gael may not be doing a perfect job, but there isn't a million miles between what could be done and what is being done.

Back on topic, I never stuck up for Wallace. I criticised the minister. His apparent actions are separate from who he was trying to get at. I wouldnt vote for or support Wallace in a fit. But if Shatter and Wallace were the 2 names on the ballot, I'd stay at home. Wallace being tripped up is irrelevant. Its how he was tripped, by who and the office held by that person that matters.

I don't agree with how the Minister went about this. The actions are idiotic as far as I am concerned.

rodento

How could this conversation just come up in a briefing

Explaining how he came by the information on the Independent TD, Mr Shatter said he was generally briefed by gardai aboaut how they use discretion on awarding fixed-charge notices and said the example of Mr Wallace was included in the briefing.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shatter-i-didnt-use-garda-information-to-spy-on-political-opponents-29280633.html

How does he expect us to beleive it just came up

SB2013

Fred Cohen wrote: »

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.

But he didn't release only the inofrmation of the corrupt incidents, he released EVERYONES information. He didn't make any attemot to find out which cases were genuine and which were not. And why was there a need to name particular people in the Dáil? How were these people chosen? Were they chosen because their ticket cancellations looked dodgy? Doesn't seem like it. Seems like they were chosen because they were the biggest names.

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.

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

Same discretion. the discretion is a discretion as to wether to prosecute. A fixed charge penalty is not a prosecution. If the fixed charge penalty is paid then penalty points are applied to the licence. If it isn't paid then the Garda initiates a prosecution. That is why penalty points and speeding fines aren't included in a persons previous convictions if they pay the fine.

mikom wrote: »

So how did the undocumented interaction between a guard in a patrol car and a citizen of this state enter the realms of a minister for justice briefing............ if not through hearsay.
This was then exposed on primetime TV.

I found this an interesting question when it came to Clare Dalys arrest too. People seem to exclude the fact that these things happen in the middle of the street and bystanders are incredibly nosey. It's a fairly simple explanation. But I believe in this case Shatter has said he got it from a briefing. It's definitely something that should be looked into. Politicians should not have that kind of access.

Floppybits wrote: »

What I am worried about now, is are the Gardai recording every speaking to they give to peopel while on duty into the system without the person knowing about it?

A caution isn't much good if no other Garda knows about it.

Godge

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The Mick Wallace side of the story is a complete red herring and I really don't think the question of hypocrisy should be given much weight.

But since you raised the matter - what was the hypocrisy? It is perfectly legitimate to avail of certain provisions whilst being of the opinion that they are extended unfairly.

That's not necessarily hypocrisy.

For example, there are people on the marginal rate of income tax who believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes on income. They don't have to be outside of the system to oppose aspects of the system. T

Same with lots of situations, including the Mick Wallace case, many would say.

That's a fairly basic point.

Bad example.

A better example would be someone who who believes that income tax should be increased for the wealthy but who is evading tax themselves.

Edit: Or better still, someone who says the Revenue should be better at catching and punishing tax dodgers but who dodges taxes themselves, who was that T.D. from Wexford who didn't pay his taxes, ironic?

tayto lover

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.

Would the minister for Justice not have easy access to the Garda Pulse computer?
I suspect it would be easy enough for him to access.
If so, and this is only supposition, would it not be reasonable to believe that he or his aides have dug up the dirt on many politicians for future use?
Keeping one step ahead of the opposition by any means would make political sense in my opinion.
I'm sure there are many sons/daughters of Fine Gael members in the Garda too willing to help out with information of this kind.

Cody Pomeray

Godge wrote: »

Bad example.

A better example would be someone who who believes that income tax should be increased for the wealthy but who is evading tax themselves.

Absolutely not.

That example would only apply if there was wrongdoing in the case of Wallace's warning.

The Minister is not saying that the Garda acted improperly in warning Wallace. He is therefore purporting that Mick Wallace availed of a legitimate Garda practice.

So comparisons to improper behaviour are misplaced here.

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable (and not hypocritical) of a TD to say "I avail of X legitimate service, but I believe it to be deeply flawed system".

Sully

rodento wrote: »

How could this conversation just come up in a briefing

Explaining how he came by the information on the Independent TD, Mr Shatter said he was generally briefed by gardai aboaut how they use discretion on awarding fixed-charge notices and said the example of Mr Wallace was included in the briefing.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shatter-i-didnt-use-garda-information-to-spy-on-political-opponents-29280633.html

How does he expect us to beleive it just came up

Easily. The subject appeared to be about the whole penalty points fiasco. Gardai explain cases where discretion is used to clarify the matter and rubbish the misinformation reported by the TDs. On the subject of those TDs, the briefing would then point out how Wallace was also given discretion - the Guard decided not to proceed with the issuing of points and a fine. A prime example supplied to the Minister and on topic.

It makes perfect sense he would be told. What probably wasn't appropriate was the way in which he came out with the information.

tayto lover wrote: »

Would the minister for Justice not have easy access to the Garda Pulse computer?
I suspect it would be easy enough for him to access.
If so, and this is only supposition, would it not be reasonable to believe that he or his aides have dug up the dirt on many politicians for future use?
Keeping one step ahead of the opposition by any means would make political sense in my opinion.
I'm sure there are many sons/daughters of Fine Gael members in the Garda too willing to help out with information of this kind.

PULSE is in Garda stations only afaik. The Minister of Justice wouldn't have access to this. Besides, it apparently wasn't recorded on anything.

rodento

Sorry Sully

How is it appropriate for something that came up in a briefing with the guards, about the privite life of an opposition TD, suitible for release on prime time TV.