Mattie Mcgrath accuses Shatter of being stopped by Gardai

mikehammer67

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if it's an unspoken rule in the Gardai that where they show discretion towards a politician or other public figure, they let their sergeant know, who in turn relays it up the line.
The aim being to cover their own arses.

Whether this information should be recorded is one thing, but it's certainly not something which should be relayed to anyone outside the force.

like a justice minister?......................................

everdead.ie

How is Shatter supposed to provide details on something if it didn't happen in 2011?

Sure the one he referenced in 2006/7 could but McGrath appears to be incorrect on his dates taking gossip as gospel and saying as much in the Dail.

If all our TD's did that we would be in Anarchy.

Also the Dail Privilege should under no circumstances be scrapped I can't see it happening with our current government but if TD's could be prevented from attending the Dail to vote on important matters and helps prevent the likes of another Hitler grabbing control without the need for voting at which point he can start banning other parties postpone elections etc.

Sierra Oscar

I suspect that the Minister could face a motion of no confidence next week. The Sunday papers will be telling as to whether this story has more to give yet.

EDIT: Fianna Fáil have tabled a motion of no confidence in the Minister for next week.

Sully

The funny thing about all this was an article in today's Indo where Mattie said it was a member of the public who came to him.

...
“Members of the public come to me with huge issues of concern and I check out the facts as best I can.”

Speaking on RTE’s Morning Ireland, Mr McGrath said a garda report on the incident is in existence and he called on Mr Shatter to make it available.

...

Source: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mattie-mcgrath-onlooker-leaked-shatter-breathalyser-details-29293284.html

Firstly, he clearly didn't do a good job of checking seeing as the event occurred a number of years prior to the date Mattie said.

Secondly, how did a member of the public get to pick up so much information on who the drive was, how he spoke, what he did or didn't do, what the Guard said and so on from a distance? It appears the source got the dates wrong, so how are we to believe the rest of the story?

Finally, how in the name of the lord above does a member of the public know a record is on file about the incident? Or if the member of public didn't know, how does Mattie know if the Guards didn't say anything?

As regards to the petty motion of no confidence was the subject of much humming and hawing by Fianna Fail who couldn't make up their minds on if they should jump on the political bandwagon and try score some political points (knowing he will win the vote). If this is a matter of such importance and seriousness to Fianna Fail, which is a bit rich, than we should be booting out the likes of Wallace and Ming.

JustinDee

Sully wrote: »

Mattie Mcgrath has just, in the Dail during leaders questions, accused Shatter of being stopped by Gardai before the election (late Feb / March 2011) in the period after the election and before he was appointed minister. Asked was the Tanaiste or Taoiseach aware that Minister Shatter was stopped at a Garda Checkpoint. He asked was he cautioned by a Garda, did they use their discretion, was he asked to provide a specimen of breath, and whether his behaviour and reaction to this event was appropriate and cordial, and whether he attempted to to use privilege of travelling to and from the Dail to avoid being breathalysed. He is asking for the Garda report to be given in relation to this incident in the public interest.

The question was posed to Rabbitte who is doing Leaders Questions today, and Rabbite denied any knowledge but outlined two such incidents where he personally was stopped (and passed the breath test). He said he had no knowledge, asked how would he and that he wouldn't know about any other TD. There was laughter in the chamber during the response.

Looks like its going to be tit-for-tat in the Dail. Dirty politics being played by everyone, including Shatter. It further proves that if you take a moral high ground on an issue in politics, the media or the opposition will dig and dig until they can trip you up. It happened with Ming, Wallace, and now Shatter. It will be very interesting to see how the Minister responds, and if he didn't provide a specimen of breath under the Dail privilege, his carrier is surely over.

Smoke and mirrors. Department's relationship with the police force v Mick Wallace's debt deceit, tax evasion and pension fund theft. All others involving themselves (ie. the opposition) are just attempting to capitalise on the shambles for their own gain.
Not one utterance on the matter has had the country or the electorate in mind. It is all about self-serving interests and personal/party gain.
Shatter should be taken to account for blurting the obvious (that a Minister has privileged access to data) and Wallace should be in a court attempting to explain why he lied to the banks, revenue commissioners and pilfered employee pension money.

Sierra Oscar

Sully wrote: »

If this is a matter of such importance and seriousness to Fianna Fail, which is a bit rich, than we should be booting out the likes of Wallace and Ming.

I don't understand your logic. Wallace and Ming are not in cabinet, how do you propose someone put down a motion of no confidence in them?

Cody Pomeray

Sully wrote: »

As regards to the petty motion of no confidence

Ah here I presume this is more political shilling.

Do you people actually think anyone in FG cares what you say on the internet?

I don't believe any rational adult would describe the putting down of a motion of no confidence in a Minister who has clearly abused his position as "petty".

Sully

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Ah here I presume this is more political shilling.

Do you people actually think anyone in FG cares what you say on the internet?

Political shilling my arse. These motions are nothing more than point scoring.

(I await my cheque from FG - working overtime so should get a bonus! :pac:)

I don't believe any rational adult would describe the putting down of a motion of no confidence in a Minister who has clearly abused his position as "petty".

He hardly abused his position. He shouldn't have done what he did but its hardly the worst compared to other TDs.

Kristopherus

everdead.ie wrote: »

How is Shatter supposed to provide details on something if it didn't happen in 2011?

Sure the one he referenced in 2006/7 could but McGrath appears to be incorrect on his dates taking gossip as gospel and saying as much in the Dail.

If all our TD's did that we would be in Anarchy.

Also the Dail Privilege should under no circumstances be scrapped I can't see it happening with our current government but if TD's could be prevented from attending the Dail to vote on important matters and helps prevent the likes of another Hitler grabbing control without the need for voting at which point he can start banning other parties postpone elections etc.

Mattie made an idiotic statement in referring to a matter "under th Road Traffic Act 2010". Will be interesting to see how he explains how a 2010 Act can legislate for an issue from previous years.:rolleyes: Clown:(

michael999999

Motion of confidence from Micheal martin, the man that supported bertie ahern all the way to the end!

**** OFF!

Cody Pomeray

Sully wrote: »

He hardly abused his position. He shouldn't have done what he did but its hardly the worst compared to other TDs.

What have other TDs misbehaviours got to do with mitigating Shatter's wrongdoing? His misbehaviour stands on its own merits.

Of course he abused his position. He used confidential information, legitimately derived through the Gardaí, in a completely illegitimate fashion, i.e. to undermine an opposition politician during a political debate.

You don't think he abused his position? Keep shilling, see where it gets you.

oscarBravo

mikehammer67 wrote: »

no it's opinion

i'm trying to fill in the gaps in the story left by mr shatters account

That's not opinion, it's making stuff up. Filling the gaps in the story with invented details is less than helpful.

Sully

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I don't understand your logic. Wallace and Ming are not in cabinet, how do you propose someone put down a motion of no confidence in them?

I'm not fully up to speed with Dail powers but I could have sworn there was an approach that could be used on TDs as a way of at least recongising their 'misbehavior'.

Fianna Fail don't expect Shatter to go, its point scoring.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What have other TDs misbehaviours got to do with mitigating Shatter's wrongdoing? His misbehaviour stands on its own merits.

Of course he abused his position. He used confidential information, legitimately derived through the Gardaí, in a completely illegitimate fashion, i.e. to undermine an opposition politician during a political debate.

You don't think he abused his position? Keep shilling, see where it gets you.

I'm fully aware of his misgivings and how they stand on his own. My point is that if we are going to start insist on higher standards among our politicians than we should ensure that we apply them to every other TD in the house and not just government ministers as a way of point scoring.

Going Forward

Stepping back for a moment, would it be safe to make the following assumption:

When any TD tells a Guard at a checkpoint that they are "on the way to/from the Dail" they are pulling a fast one and abusing their powers, unless their personal safety or security is at risk.

They have a get out of jail card for all occasions, hardly in the spirit of what it was originally drafted for.

Yes, no?

Cody Pomeray

Sully wrote: »

if we are going to start insist on higher standards among our politicians than we should ensure that we apply them to every other TD in the house

Of course. That's not debatable. I've no problem criticizing any TDs who resort to unacceptable behaviour like inappropriately naming private individuals and using their data politically.

But your argument reads like an hysterical parent during an under 12's GAA skirmish ... "if the other boys are all breaking the rules, why can't my Johnny break them?".

It has been a fairly consistent feature of human civilization that the appropriate response to civil rot is to withstand it, not to join in. That's one of the things supposed to set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, and under 12's footballers.

Or maybe, like parental love, brand loyalty to one's political darlings is a force incorruptible to logic.

Floppybits

Sully wrote: »

I'm not fully up to speed with Dail powers but I could have sworn there was an approach that could be used on TDs as a way of at least recongising their 'misbehavior'.

Fianna Fail don't expect Shatter to go, its point scoring.

I'm fully aware of his misgivings and how they stand on his own. My point is that if we are going to start insist on higher standards among our politicians than we should ensure that we apply them to every other TD in the house and not just government ministers as a way of point scoring.

FF have known about this when they were in Government and never used it against him, I wonder if they are going to try claim the moral high ground here. Saying we knew about it but we respected the confidelity of the minsters of justice office that we never released it.

Shatter has brought all this on himself with what he did in that TV debate. If he had not have done that this would never have happened. No sympathy for him.

seamus

Going Forward wrote: »

Stepping back for a moment, would it be safe to make the following assumption:

When any TD tells a Guard at a checkpoint that they are "on the way to/from the Dail" they are pulling a fast one and abusing their powers, unless their personal safety or security is at risk.

They have a get out of jail card for all occasions, hardly in the spirit of what it was originally drafted for.

Yes, no?

Well, no. I see what you're trying to say, but usually the first questions the Gardai will ask at a stop are "Where are you coming from" and "where are you going to".

So you can't really assume that in every case that a TD says they're coming from the Dail that they're trying to tell the Garda to back off.

I'm sure though that between both Gardai and TDs, "I'm going to the Dail" is code speak for "even if you were thinking of arresting me for something, you can't, so you're wasting your time even talking to me".

Going Forward

seamus wrote: »

Well, no. I see what you're trying to say, but usually the first questions the Gardai will ask at a stop are "Where are you coming from" and "where are you going to".

So you can't really assume that in every case that a TD says they're coming from the Dail that they're trying to tell the Garda to back off.

I'm sure though that between both Gardai and TDs, "I'm going to the Dail" is code speak for "even if you were thinking of arresting me for something, you can't, so you're wasting your time even talking to me".

You are correct, and my point was very clumsy!
The clause is wide open to abuse and should be either withdrawn or tightly specified.

mikehammer67

do we know yet what year this incident occurred?

it seems odd he can't recall or be helped to recall

Sierra Oscar

What is interesting to note is that Mattie McGrath, according to his comments just now on Newstalk, is pretty certain that his date was closer to the correct time of the event than the date Shatter gave in his statement. Wouldn't surprise me if McGrath knows much more than he is letting on, so the Sunday papers could be very interesting.

take everything

Re. the driving from the Dail excuse.
Didn't Shatter dismiss this when Ming used it in his explanation.

rodento

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

So the Sunday papers could be very interesting.

The Sunday papers have been referred to so often I'm beginning to wonder if you've already read/penned an article

mikehammer67

these 'back to the wall' stories are never as simple as they first seem

there's more to it.................

Busted Flat.

rodento wrote: »

The Sunday papers have been referred to so often I'm beginning to wonder if you've already read/penned an article

Have patience the Sundays always have a bit more, people think Mattie is a thick and a fool. You would be foolish to think that, he threw in a few bits, to get the ball rolling, watch where it stops.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

What is interesting to note is that Mattie McGrath, according to his comments just now on Newstalk, is pretty certain that his date was closer to the correct time of the event than the date Shatter gave in his statement. Wouldn't surprise me if McGrath knows much more than he is letting on, so the Sunday papers could be very interesting.

You mean your weekly Fianna Fail newsletter ( Sunday Independent) FF hacks have some more anti govt headlines and some pro Fianna Fail rubbish.

Yawn .........

Busted Flat.

raymon wrote: »

You mean your weekly Fianna Fail newsletter ( Sunday Independent) FF hacks have some more anti govt headlines and some pro Fianna Fail rubbish.

Yawn .........

Are all de papers controlled by FF.

michael999999

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Are all de papers controlled by FF.

No.

An Phoblacht!

raymon

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Are all de papers controlled by FF.

Only one FF rag , thankfully.

Mr.Micro

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Are all de papers controlled by FF.

Who reads the sunday papers anymore? All the news is online anyway and up to date.

ebbsy

Either way Shatter has made Wallace look good, and has had his legs taken from under him by McGrath.

He is damaged goods now, and anyway if you can't give a sample you shouldn't really be driving a car should you ?