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

Shatter insists Wallace has no credibility on penalty points

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    rodento wrote: »
    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.

    I never once said it was.


  • Options
    #123
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    Sully wrote: »

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

    .

    So it was ok for him to release Wallaces private dealings wih Gardai to the media it's the way he did it that was wrong? What exactly would be the correct method to release your private dealings with Gardai to the media?

    Do Gardai now have to be extremely careful about what the tell the Minister for Justice as he sees nothing wrong with passing the information to the media, as long as he feels it will be in his public interest?

    Personally I wouldn't believe a word Shatter says about how he got the information.


  • Options
    #124
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    copacetic wrote: »
    So it was ok for him to release Wallaces private dealings wih Gardai to the media it's the way he did it that was wrong? What exactly would be the correct method to release your private dealings with Gardai to the media?

    Do Gardai now have to be extremely careful about what the tell the Minister for Justice as he sees nothing wrong with passing the information to the media, as long as he feels it will be in his public interest?

    Personally I wouldn't believe a word Shatter says about how he got the information.

    Before I answer that, I assume you also think its a disgrace for the TDs wanting to release the names of people who had private dealings with the Gardai?


  • Options
    #125
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    Sully wrote: »
    Before I answer that, I assume you also think its a disgrace for the TDs wanting to release the names of people who had private dealings with the Gardai?

    Absolutley, see my post earlier in thread.

    They are a disgrace if you will, but id hold the minister for Justice to a much higher standard. Wallace, daly, Ming etc will never be near a government or lawmaking position. Shatter is. He is a disgrace and has likely broken a couple of laws deliberately. He is the minister for justice but appears to think he is above the law.


  • Options
    #126
    rodento
    Registered Users Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    What does that have to do with shatter releasing information he obtained in a garda briefing on National TV


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    sperm_tank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6 ✭sperm_tank


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    How the hell did Shatter come across such information regarding a private citizen?


    the guards made sure he got wind of it

    pink micks cards were marked once he aligned himself with deputy uppity daly visa vie the penalty points scandal

    you don't embarrass AGS and get away with it , anyone with the slightest bit of life experience knows this


  • Options
    #128
    sperm_tank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6 ✭sperm_tank


    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?

    depends if the guards perceive the individual to have slighted them

    eg. clare daly and mick Wallace


  • Options
    #129
    sperm_tank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6 ✭sperm_tank


    copacetic wrote: »
    So it was ok for him to release Wallaces private dealings wih Gardai to the media it's the way he did it that was wrong? What exactly would be the correct method to release your private dealings with Gardai to the media?

    Do Gardai now have to be extremely careful about what the tell the Minister for Justice as he sees nothing wrong with passing the information to the media, as long as he feels it will be in his public interest?

    Personally I wouldn't believe a word Shatter says about how he got the information.


    the guards wanted shatter to relay this story about Wallace to the media , why else do you think they told him ?


  • Options
    #130
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    sperm_tank wrote: »
    l

    you don't embarrass AGS and get away with it , anyone with the slightest bit of life experience knows this

    Quite true I'm sure but not a picture AGS would like to paint of themselves. It sort of blows the perception of policing by consent out the window.


  • Options
    #131
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Just looking at Prime Time.
    It's a pity the Garda didn't give Wallace a bar of soap and a razor.
    Can't stand Shatter though.
    With a bit of luck it will be the end of both of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Wildlife Actor
    Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭Wildlife Actor


    It would be one thing if Wallace was booked and had his points wiped a la Ming. Then it would be a simple invasion of privacy. Bad, yes. But a different type of bad.

    But as it is, the only event was a personal interaction between an individual Garda and Wallace. These types of caution are not on pulse.

    It is therefore no different to police surveillance.

    Even if disclosure was in the public interest (in which case, Minister, release every name) and it's not, disclosure of wiping points, not a caution would have been justified. Apples and oranges, and Shatter knows it well.

    The fact that he sees nothing wrong with it is the problem. The fact that the suggestion of resignation is "a joke" aggravates the problem.


  • Options
    #133
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    copacetic wrote: »
    Absolutley, see my post earlier in thread.

    They are a disgrace if you will, but id hold the minister for Justice to a much higher standard. Wallace, daly, Ming etc will never be near a government or lawmaking position. Shatter is. He is a disgrace and has likely broken a couple of laws deliberately. He is the minister for justice but appears to think he is above the law.

    I was completely against it as I felt that it was sensitive and private information. But they didn't care about that when it hadn't their name on it but as soon as it did, there up in arms. I say they - Wallace & Ming. That's what really irks me about this.

    Shatter shouldn't have released the information. Let someone else do it, but don't drag your own name and department to score political points and fight fire with fire IMO.


  • Options
    #134
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    Sully wrote: »
    Before I answer that, I assume you also think its a disgrace for the TDs wanting to release the names of people who had private dealings with the Gardai?

    There's a marked difference between that situation and this situation.

    One is exposing corrupt Garda practice (revealed by a GS whistleblower), the other is point scoring for political gain.


  • Options
    #135
    mikehammer67
    Closed Accounts Posts: 699 ✭✭✭mikehammer67


    there was nothing in it apparently
    he was spotted on the phone and spoken to


    there's nothing worthy of release


  • Options
    #136
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    There's a marked difference between that situation and this situation.

    One is exposing corrupt Garda practice (revealed by a GS whistleblower), the other is point scoring for political gain.

    The Gardai didn't act corruptly. They had the power to do exactly what they did in the vast majority of cases - it was fully permitted and there was absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.

    The situation is the exact same - releasing the names of private individuals who applied for points to be removed would surely have been a breach of the data protection laws. The information within PULSE isn't for public record. Neither is what happened to Wallace.


  • Options
    #137
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Sully wrote: »
    The Gardai didn't act corruptly. They had the power to do exactly what they did in the vast majority of cases - it was fully permitted and there was absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.

    The situation is the exact same - releasing the names of private individuals who applied for points to be removed would surely have been a breach of the data protection laws. The information within PULSE isn't for public record. Neither is what happened to Wallace.

    Shatter has the Garda Commissioner in his pocket. The dispute with the Garda organisations proved that. They backed each other up.

    The Garda Commissioner should not be a political appointment. That has to stop.


  • Options
    #138
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    Sully wrote: »
    The Gardai didn't act corruptly. They had the power to do exactly what they did in the vast majority of cases - it was fully permitted and there was absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.

    Then why have a number of them been disciplined arising out of the case?
    Sully wrote: »
    The situation is the exact same - releasing the names of private individuals who applied for points to be removed would surely have been a breach of the data protection laws. The information within PULSE isn't for public record. Neither is what happened to Wallace.

    Systemic wiping of points for the great & good is a matter of public interest, Shatter trying to score points in a TV debate is less so.


  • Options
    #139
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    Both Shatter and Wallace should step down imo

    Why, what has Wallace done wrong here exactly?


  • Options
    #140
    Weevil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 358 ✭✭Weevil


    Sully wrote: »
    I was completely against it as I felt that it was sensitive and private information. But they didn't care about that when it hadn't their name on it but as soon as it did, there up in arms. I say they - Wallace & Ming. That's what really irks me about this.

    Shatter shouldn't have released the information. Let someone else do it, but don't drag your own name and department to score political points and fight fire with fire IMO.
    Yes. Use his privileged access to information to smear a political opponent. Just do it properly ( journalists are very useful in this approach).


  • Options
    #141
    Fred Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭Fred Cohen


    Weevil wrote: »
    RTE To-day:


    That was very helpful of the journalist.

    Dear Jebus, this gets worse and worse. Who told the journalist and from what source did they get their info from?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Fred Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭Fred Cohen


    SB2013 wrote: »
    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.

    I'm sorry I think you're missing the point, the people who had their penalty points waived, had admitted their guilt but appealed, in writing, to the local Super as they felt they had mitigating circumstances and nobody suggested they engaged in corrupt practices. As far as I know there was only about a half a dozen names read into the Dail record but I stand to be corrected.


  • Options
    #143
    Fred Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭Fred Cohen


    Sully wrote: »
    The Gardai didn't act corruptly. They had the power to do exactly what they did in the vast majority of cases - it was fully permitted and there was absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.

    The situation is the exact same - releasing the names of private individuals who applied for points to be removed would surely have been a breach of the data protection laws. The information within PULSE isn't for public record. Neither is what happened to Wallace.

    No, the names were released (wrongly IMHO but leagally) in the Dáil as part of an investigation into Garda corruption, Which so far has resulted in three senior Guards facing disipinlary action and a fraud file to the DPP. Not the same thing as using Garda Intelligence for political gain.


  • Options
    #144
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Why, what has Wallace done wrong here exactly?

    When Gardaí spoke to him from their car at traffic lights, Wallace should have pursued them and insisted they apply penalty points to his license.

    That genuinely seems to be what some people are suggesting... bizarre.


  • Options
    #145
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    When Gardaí spoke to him from their car at traffic lights, Wallace should have pursued them and insisted they apply penalty points to his license.

    That genuinely seems to be what some people are suggestion... bizarre.


    No, he shouldn't be speaking out on the issue without disclosing his previous experience.

    Similarly, he was very quiet on his tax situation until it was exposed.

    The man seems to put no value in honesty when it comes to his own dealings with the State.


  • Options
    #146
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Godge wrote: »
    No, he shouldn't be speaking out on the issue without disclosing his previous experience.
    To be very frank, if a Garda spoke to me through his window to get off my phone while driving, I wouldn't remember that off the top of my head a year later.

    I genuinely doubt it even occured to Wallace to raise it, since there wasn't any substantial interaction in the sense that the Gardai didn't pull him over or take his name and registration.

    Either way, it's a pretty minor matter in itself.


  • Options
    #147
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Wallace can speak out about it because in this case he did nothing wrong....I heard two fg politicians yesterday repeat the same terry prone style mantra, and to fair they were wrong. Wallace did not benefit from anything...a wave from a cop has no legal binding.


  • Options
    #148
    Wildlife Actor
    Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭Wildlife Actor


    I can't understand how Wallace's character has anything to do with this.

    Wallace is a tax cheat, a hypocrite and can't even trouble himself to dress properly for the Dail (while having the money to fly off to his relative's vineyard in Tuscany for a sojourn). He has no place in a national parliament, imo.

    But whatever he is, he has the right not to be spied upon by politicians [EDIT or by the state] except under warrant for specified purposes (typically detection and prevention of crime) in a strictly controlled statutory regime. Every upstanding citizen has that right and every scumbag has the right too.

    So if Shatter thinks he can spy on a scumbag to expose the scumbag as a hypocrite, then he thinks he can do it to anyone.

    On that logic, Haughey was perfectly right to spy on Vinnie Brown and Geraldine Kennedy in the early 80s. He just wanted to establish who was leaking information in breach of cabinet confidentiality, a constitutional imperative.

    The question is now as it was then, do the ends justify the means?

    Wallace's hypocrisy is as much to the point as Haughey's leaking ministers were.


  • Options
    #149
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    Did Shatter breach the official secrets act in releasing the information about Wallace and are FG keeping dirty tricks files on other people in public life?


  • Options
    #150
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    spaceHopper wrote: »
    Did Shatter breach the official secrets act in releasing the information about Wallace and are FG keeping dirty tricks files on other people in public life?
    No it is permissible to reveal 'official secrets' when duly authorised to do so by a Minister. In this case, the Minister authorised himself to publicly reveal part of Wallace's Garda record.

    The legal problem with the Minister's actions relates to data protection; official secrets legislation will not apply to this case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    The legal problem with the Minister's actions relates to data protection...
    I'll preface my remarks with the opinion that Shatter was bang out of order to do what he did.

    But: I'm uncertain as to the Data Protection implications here. The scope of the DPA is intentionally limited to electronically-stored data. Billy Hawkes said on the radio yesterday that it didn't matter how the minister came by the information he disclosed; once he revealed information he had been given, that was a breach of the Act.

    Not by my understanding, it isn't, unless every instance of gossip is a breach of the DPA. Repeating information you've been given verbally isn't and can't be a breach of the DPA, except insofar as that information may have been retrieved from a computer system in order to be transferred verbally in the first place, in which case the breach of the DPA happened when Shatter was told, not when he repeated it on air.

    Again, so I'm clear: I'm not saying that there wasn't a breach of data privacy; I'm saying that it hasn't been demonstrated that there definitely was.


Advertisement