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
1234689

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    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.

    You must meet Gardai like that all the time. I remember the full details of each of the three times I have been stopped by Gardai in twenty years.

    Maybe it happens Mick Wallace all the time too.

    I agree that it probably didn't occur to Wallace to raise it, he appears to be ignorant of his hypocrisy on such matters. The same happened in relation to his tax issues where he "forgot" about it.


  • Options
    #153
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But: I'm uncertain as to the Data Protection implications here. The scope of the DPA is intentionally limited to electronically-stored data.
    Where are you getting that from? It can be manual as well, as part of a written document.
    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.
    I think this one should be left to the Data protection commissioner - there are too many unknowns - was there a dossier drawn up for briefing the Minister? did it contain, inter alia, information relating to the the commission or alleged commission of any offence by Mick Wallace? If the answer to those questions is yes, then it appears there may be a case to answer.


  • Options
    #154
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    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.

    Data Protection is also subject to a public interest test.

    You would want to be very careful in arguing that the privacy of Mick Wallace over-rides the public interest of a T.D.'s hypocrisy.

    By that logic, Michael Lowry and the Phelan guy were also harmed by a breach of the Data Protection Act when details of a phone conversation were revealed. similarly, Bertie wouldn't have been exposed. Be careful what you wish for.


  • Options
    #155
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Godge wrote: »
    You must meet Gardai like that all the time. I remember the full details of each of the three times I have been stopped by Gardai in twenty years.

    Maybe it happens Mick Wallace all the time too.

    I agree that it probably didn't occur to Wallace to raise it, he appears to be ignorant of his hypocrisy on such matters. The same happened in relation to his tax issues where he "forgot" about it.
    jeeaysus.....many of us get stopped a little more than that...in fact i was stopped just the other day and had the head eaten off me for speeding, but no fine, conviction or points, does that mean I still have some sort of record that can be used against me on tv?


  • Options
    #156
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    meanwhile the country slips further down the tubes............


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    Godge wrote: »
    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.

    Just to repeat what has already been said numerous times in this thread, this is not comparing apples with apples.
    Let's establish this once and for all.
    If Wallace had his mobile phone in his hand and I challenge anyone to deny they've picked up their phone at some stage while sitting at a red light. Anyway if he did , he was guilty of an offence and the Gardai challenged him on it but decided not to pursue the matter, that's fair enough.
    What's not fair enough is, first of all that Gardai passed this on to Shatter, I can only assume this was with malicious intent which doesn't sit well with the image of AGS and secondly that Shatter saw fit to air it in a public forum for the purpose of political points scoring.


  • Options
    #158
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Where are you getting that from? It can be manual as well, as part of a written document.
    From the Act:
    ‘data’ means automated data and manual data;
    ...
    ‘automated data’ means information that—
    (a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose, or
    (b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment;
    ...
    ‘manual data’ means information that is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system;
    I'll grant you that the "manual data" definition could conceivably include a typewritten form in a filing cabinet, but to apply Billy Hawkes' assertion at face value means that if I scribble down the name of a person with whom I'm having a phone call, I need to register as a data controller.
    I think this one should be left to the Data protection commissioner - there are too many unknowns - was there a dossier drawn up for briefing the Minister? did it contain, inter alia, information relating to the the commission or alleged commission of any offence by Mick Wallace? If the answer to those questions is yes, then it appears there may be a case to answer.
    I have no problem with it being left to the DPC, as long as the DPC confines himself to a reasonable interpretation of the law.


  • Options
    #159
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Godge wrote: »
    Data Protection is also subject to a public interest test.

    You would want to be very careful in arguing that the privacy of Mick Wallace over-rides the public interest of a T.D.'s hypocrisy.

    By that logic, Michael Lowry and the Phelan guy were also harmed by a breach of the Data Protection Act when details of a phone conversation were revealed. similarly, Bertie wouldn't have been exposed. Be careful what you wish for.
    Actually, the public interest notwithstanding, data protection could well make the Lowry tape inadmissible in a court. There's no doubt that in the case of Lowry being sent forward to trial, there would be (convincing) legal arguments to that effect.

    As for Bertie Ahern, the usual restrictions on the use of personal data do not apply to courts and tribunals.

    As for Mick Wallace, others have just said it - it is completely inappropriate for any person to reveal another's personal data for combatting mere hypocrisy.

    What would you say if boards.ie started revealing details about you every time you said something that appeared hypocritical? It just isn't acceptable behaviour for any person in control of personal data, fullstop.


  • Options
    #160
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Actually, the public interest notwithstanding, data protection could well make the Lowry tape inadmissible in a court. There's no doubt that in the case of Lowry being sent forward to trial, there would be (convincing) legal arguments to that effect.

    As for Bertie Ahern, the usual restrictions on the use of personal data do not apply to courts and tribunals.
    I may be misunderstanding you, but these two paragraphs appear to be mutually contradictory.


  • Options
    #161
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    yes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    M three
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭M three


    Godge wrote: »
    You must meet Gardai like that all the time. I remember the full details of each of the three times I have been stopped by Gardai in twenty years.

    Maybe it happens Mick Wallace all the time too.

    I agree that it probably didn't occur to Wallace to raise it, he appears to be ignorant of his hypocrisy on such matters. The same happened in relation to his tax issues where he "forgot" about it.

    Do you accept that shatter has done wrong here or not?

    You can keep going on about wallace's past in an attempt to muddy the waters but bear in mind two wrongs dont make a right.

    Now we know that shatter got a briefing from the gardai on wallace, he says it was them showing him an example of garda discretion but thats pure bullsh*t and lies from shatter.
    Shatter obviously requested info on wallace, that he could use to discredit him. Wouldnt be surprised if he's getting briefings on all opposition td's.

    He should be given the boot. No question about it.


  • Options
    #163
    jonsnow
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭jonsnow


    SB2013 wrote: »
    . 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.


    What kind of access should the Minister of Justice have to Garda intelligence?


  • Options
    #164
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    jonsnow wrote: »
    What kind of access should the Minister of Justice have to Garda intelligence?


    In my opinion

    None, he may request but should never be authorised without consent or independent panel.

    Imagine if SF got in the next time round and someone like Dessie Ellis (was made MoJ) a former terrorist had access to Garda Intelligence, jasus


  • Options
    #165
    John_C
    Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    Does anybody else find it fishy that, out of the few hundred thousand people who got a warning in the last year, the Gardaí happened to pick Wallace as their example?


  • Options
    #166
    mikehammer67
    Closed Accounts Posts: 699 ✭✭✭mikehammer67


    jonsnow wrote: »
    What kind of access should the Minister of Justice have to Garda intelligence?

    garda intelligence lol

    it's tittle tattle


  • Options
    #167
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    The Taoiseach seemed to offer quite a weak defence of Shatter in the Dáil just now, should be interesting to see how Shatter gets on this evening during his statement.


  • Options
    #168
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    John_C wrote: »
    Does anybody else find it fishy that, out of the few hundred thousand people who got a warning in the last year, the Gardaí happened to pick Wallace as their example?
    not at all..of the few hundred thousand people i would say the lefties in the dail are first in line


  • Options
    #169
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,819 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    The Taoiseach seemed to offer quite a weak defence of Shatter in the Dáil just now, should be interesting to see how Shatter gets on this evening during his statement.

    Its shocking how Kenny doesn't fathom how serious a situation this is to public perception.


    The man is obviously incredibly stupid or just brazen.


  • Options
    #170
    Floppybits
    Registered Users Posts: 7,583 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    listermint wrote: »
    Its shocking how Kenny doesn't fathom how serious a situation this is to public perception.


    The man is obviously incredibly stupid or just brazen.

    He is both. :mad:


  • Options
    #171
    efc67
    Registered Users Posts: 268 ✭✭efc67


    John_C wrote: »
    Does anybody else find it fishy that, out of the few hundred thousand people who got a warning in the last year, the Gardaí happened to pick Wallace as their example?

    Also was Wallace even pulled over, the impression i got was he was at traffic lights and the Garda wound their window down and warned him about using his phone.....I may be wrong like


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    John_C wrote: »
    Does anybody else find it fishy that, out of the few hundred thousand people who got a warning in the last year, the Gardaí happened to pick Wallace as their example?

    No. Mick Wallace was one of the few that raised Penalty points being quashed in the Dail, so he's fair game.


  • Options
    #173
    mikehammer67
    Closed Accounts Posts: 699 ✭✭✭mikehammer67


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No. Mick Wallace was one of the few that raised Penalty points being quashed in the Dail, so he's fair game.

    except he didnt have any quashed so whats the connection like?


  • Options
    #174
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    M three wrote: »
    Do you accept that shatter has done wrong here or not?

    You can keep going on about wallace's past in an attempt to muddy the waters but bear in mind two wrongs dont make a right.

    Now we know that shatter got a briefing from the gardai on wallace, he says it was them showing him an example of garda discretion but thats pure bullsh*t and lies from shatter.
    Shatter obviously requested info on wallace, that he could use to discredit him. Wouldnt be surprised if he's getting briefings on all opposition td's.

    He should be given the boot. No question about it.

    I think that the public interest of exposing hypocritical TDs should override any data protection issues in this case. Whether or not it does is a matter for the Data Protection Commissioner and the law, if the law supports hiding Wallace's action, then I believe the law should be changed.

    In a similar way, if a TD was virulently anti-abortion but had paid for an abortion for his mistress, his hypocrisy is of public interest notwithstanding the even more personal situation there.

    So, to answer your question, in my view there is nothing morally wrong with Shatter exposing the hypocrisy of Wallace (not for the first time), it may well be technically wrong in law, but we shall wait and see.


  • Options
    #175
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,819 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    mikehammer67 wrote: »
    except he didnt have any quashed so whats the connection like?

    The connection is posters who havent got a clue what the difference is between purposefully looking to get out of penalty points and being warned off getting them.

    Ive been warned before with a stern look. It happens.


    Shatter should resign, this has nothing to do with wallace (not that i have any affinity with that man) and if Enda is prepared to back him up then he should resign to. Bring the whole lot down and that snake O Reilly too.


    If this was the UK the police would have long been involved in the dealings of various ministers in this government.


  • Options
    #176
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,819 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Godge wrote: »
    I think that the public interest of exposing hypocritical TDs should override any data protection issues in this case. Whether or not it does is a matter for the Data Protection Commissioner and the law, if the law supports hiding Wallace's action, then I believe the law should be changed.

    In a similar way, if a TD was virulently anti-abortion but had paid for an abortion for his mistress, his hypocrisy is of public interest notwithstanding the even more personal situation there.

    So, to answer your question, in my view there is nothing morally wrong with Shatter exposing the hypocrisy of Wallace (not for the first time), it may well be technically wrong in law, but we shall wait and see.

    How can you make these claims. Wallace got no points. Wheres the hypocracy ? Im not defending the man. But where in the hell did shatter chase this information down. These knocks on windows and stern looks happen hundreds of times a day. "I havent got time to deal with this now but be warned to stay off your phone"


    Where did shatter source this information from ?


  • Options
    #177
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    listermint wrote: »
    How can you make these claims. Wallace got no points. Wheres the hypocracy ? Im not defending the man. But where in the hell did shatter chase this information down. These knocks on windows and stern looks happen hundreds of times a day. "I havent got time to deal with this now but be warned to stay off your phone"


    Where did shatter source this information from ?


    They only happen to people who break the law and use their phone while driving, has never happened to me. That is the point.


  • Options
    #178
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Godge wrote: »
    I think that the public interest of exposing hypocritical TDs should override any data protection issues in this case.
    What?

    So are you suggesting that if private records happen to arrive on the Minister for Justice's desk courtesy of the Gardaí, the Minister for Justice of the day has the right to use that information in a political debate where he perceives hypocrisy to be occurring?

    I presume you would extend that incredible political luxury to Ministers on a cross party basis would you yeah?


  • Options
    #179
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,819 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Its pretty frightening when posters in the politics forum cant understand ethics.

    Making shatter out to be some sort of beacon of hope white knight commisioner gordan type is laughable.

    He has alot to answer for with this, and just because he is pally with Kenny due to previous leadership backing shows you the type of pat on the back that posters here can and do expect from their public representatives.


  • Options
    #180
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,819 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Godge wrote: »
    They only happen to people who break the law and use their phone while driving, has never happened to me. That is the point.

    ROFL.. Im actually not going to respond to you anymore because its angering that you can defend whats happened here. Completely perplexing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    "Stick your head above the wall and you are fair game" is the mantra I am getting from a lot of posters here.
    Just remember you won't think yourself fair game when you or your family have to pop their head up and face underhanded tricks , mudslinging, exposure of private issues etc.

    The mind boggles at the thought of people being ok with this.
    Then we have Enda Kenny backing it "100%".
    Police state here we come.


Advertisement