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
Minister Shatter and Commissioner Callinan should both resign in disgrace
Options
Comments
-
We have an independent office in the form of GSOC, it doesn't matter how many offices are set up if the culture of AGS or any body for that matter refuse to be policed or held to account by anyone, GSOC is limited by legislation in what it can do so they are somewhat ineffective carrying out the tasks they have been entrusted to do.
The attitude has to change and that change has to come from the top and trickle all the down.
I agree with you, incompetence is not malpractise but the difference between an incompetent barman for example and that of a member of AGS are worlds apart.
We as a people need to know that if we are at some time in our lives the victim of a crime that those tasked with finding the culprits will do so to the best of their ability and if for some reason mistakes are made that there is accountability.
GSOC cannot investigate complaints by members of AGS, I also think at this stage there's probably too much distrust between AGS and GSOC, hence the need for a completely independent body.0 -
The 3rd party in question was the Taoiseach and McCabe was well within his rights as dictated by legislation to pass this info onto him or any other member of the Oireachtas.Which is why the government should set up an independent office in order to investigate these types of allegations.
I do believe that the commissioner had a problem with these members accessing information by the pulse system and passing this onto a 3rd party. Obviously this is something that is taken very seriously as peoples private info should never be given out into the public domain. Its clearly a breach of data protection and maybe even the official secrets act?
An independent office should have the authorisation to view these records also.
Clearly people do not want AGS investigating themselves. An independent office would take away this issue and perhaps go someway to alleviating the publics worry about a corrupt force.
Mr. McCabe has never leaked information nor did he run straight to the papers when the going got tough, he tried without success to go through the proper channels and for his troubles was harrassed and castigated yet this man to this day still goes to work everyday, that is a testament to his strength of character. The man deserves a medal for his courage as does John Wilson.0 -
So therefore, do you not agree that there should be an independent place for him to have gone?
If clearly he tried his best through channels available to him at the time and they didn't work, then surely a completely independent office would've been a better option?
Now is the time to set it up0 -
GSOC cannot investigate complaints by members of AGS, I also think at this stage there's probably too much distrust between AGS and GSOC, hence the need for a completely independent body.
Sorry you're right, I meant the position held formerly by Mr. Connolly, I have forgotten the name of the official title he held.
I think the system in the six counties from what little I know about it works well, it oversees appointments of senior PSNI officers unlike here where they are handpicked by the Minsiter, we also need some sort of middleman for lack of a better word between the MoJ and the Gardai commissioner.0 -
So therefore, do you not agree that there should be an independent place for him to have gone?
If clearly he tried his best through channels available to him at the time and they didn't work, then surely a completely independent office would've been a better option?
Now is the time to set it up
I do agree with you but unless the attitude of top brass and senior ministers change no body independent or otherwise will be effective.
More whistleblowers have come forward but how many have decided to say nothing because of what Wilson and McCabe went through.
The trust between AGS and the citizens of this state is paramount and respect has to be mutual and I believe that if Callinan had the appetite at the beginning to fully and impartially investigate the allegations we wouldn't be where we are now.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have a vote in Alan Shatter's constituency.
Two options:
Enda Kenny demotes him.
The electorate reject him.
Unfortunately, we do not have a culture of people in power resigning. They know the wagons will be circled to defend them.0 -
I have a vote in Alan Shatter's constituency.
Two options:
Enda Kenny demotes him.
The electorate reject him.
Unfortunately, we do not have a culture of people in power resigning. They know the wagons will be circled to defend them.
I had not considered option one, I guess it is a possibility.
We don't have a culture of them being sacked either unfortunately0 -
I do agree with you but unless the attitude of top brass and senior ministers change no body independent or otherwise will be effective.
More whistleblowers have come forward but how many have decided to say nothing because of what Wilson and McCabe went through.
The trust between AGS and the citizens of this state is paramount and respect has to be mutual and I believe that if Callinan had the appetite at the beginning to fully and impartially investigate the allegations we wouldn't be where we are now.
Well I think that's the point of having a truely independent office, it really wouldn't matter what top brass or ministers do if the office was set up properly.0 -
-
The next thing to be decided is how big of a handshake Callinan should get when he resigns (in the public interest). Or a nice job elsewhere, with appropriate salary and trappings
Then a move to the Department for Rural Affairs for Mr Shatter.
Enda knows how to pick them, or rather they know how to pick a weak leader in trouble. They sided with him and now he owes them - Shatter, Reilly and Hogan. If he sacks the 3 of them, without their support, he's gone as well0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not even a member of AGS , but I feel the need to defend AGS against people like Wilson.
McCabe is a different story and time will tell what will happen there.
You either a garda or maybe you have family or a friend in the gardai,because your mud throwing hoping it sticks and as callinan says "frankly i find this disgusting0 -
The next thing to be decided is how big of a handshake Callinan should get when he resigns (in the public interest). Or a nice job elsewhere, with appropriate salary and trappings
Then a move to the Department for Rural Affairs for Mr Shatter.
Enda knows how to pick them, or rather they know how to pick a weak leader in trouble. They sided with him and now he owes them - Shatter, Reilly and Hogan. If he sacks the 3 of them, without their support, he's gone as well
If a person is forced to resign or is sacked because they are corrupt, inept or are endangering the public through corruption or through intentionally abusing their official position, they should not only be stripped of their pension but should go to trial and face prison like every other citizen of the state. Their assets should be seized and punitive damages should be taken. That should apply to politicians, civil servants, medical practitioners, gardai or property developers.0 -
Maurice McCabe has responded and has issued a statement which includes a transcript of the supposed instruction from Callinan telling him to assist with O'Mahoney's investigation. No wonder Shatter has been very quiet.
http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/maurice-mccabe-statement.pdf0 -
Maurice McCabe has responded and has issued a statement which includes a transcript of the supposed instruction from Callinan telling him to assist with O'Mahoney's investigation. No wonder Shatter has been very quiet.
http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/maurice-mccabe-statement.pdf
But Paul Reynolds on RTE says that that was the 'directive'...nothing to see here move along....:)0 -
Letter that Maurice McCabe sent to GSOC about their decision to discontinue their investigation into Mary Lynch's complaint:
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/24/whistling-in-the-wind/0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »But Paul Reynolds on RTE says that that was the 'directive'...nothing to see here move along....:)
Reynolds was hilarious on Morning Ireland today. Kept repeating that Commissioner Callinan "feels" that the wording of his letter to McCabe amounted to a direct order to cooperate with the internal Garda penalty points inquiry. Totally missed the point that if the letter was so ambiguous that its interpretation depends on how you "feel" about it, it's hardly the kind of direct order Shatter and Callinan are claiming it to be.
At times, the conversation between Paul Reynolds and the Morning Ireland presenter was getting so adversarial, you'd have thought Reynolds was there as a Garda spokesperson.0 -
Maurice McCabe has responded and has issued a statement which includes a transcript of the supposed instruction from Callinan telling him to assist with O'Mahoney's investigation. No wonder Shatter has been very quiet.
http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/maurice-mccabe-statement.pdf
Reading that it is clear that McCabe was told to deal with O'Mahony.
"If you have any further concerns and without prejudice of your rights under the Confidential Reporting Mechanism such matters can be brought to the attention of Assistant Commissioner John O Mahony, Crime and Security, who will fully investigate those matters"
Maybe I am stupid but that reads to me like a directive to co-operate with O'Mahony's investigation. I don't think McCabe's word stands up on this point.
I also think the Data Protection issue is very important. If I had penalty points cancelled (and I haven't, they are still on my licence), I would not want my personal information handed to anyone else and that is my legal entitlement.Letter that Maurice McCabe sent to GSOC about their decision to discontinue their investigation into Mary Lynch's complaint:
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/24/whistling-in-the-wind/
Well, that is interesting. One of two things.
(1) McCabe is right in this letter, which means the GSOC commissioners should resign as they are the ones in charge of investigating the gardai and didn't see much wrong here and didn't investigate it properly. A proper investigation should then take place with new Commissioners.
(2) McCabe is wrong in this letter .0 -
The 3rd party in question was the Taoiseach and McCabe was well within his rights as dictated by legislation to pass this info onto him or any other member of the Oireachtas.
No he wasn't, that is ridiculous. McCabe was entitled to report to the Confidential Whistleblower guy that there was a problem with the cancelling of penalty points.
Under the Data Protection Act, he was not entitled to give the names of people whose points had been cancelled unless it was required in an official capacity i.e. he could have given the names and information to O'Mahony during his investigation. He certainly couldn't and shouldn't have given names to opposition deputies. Whether you think that is right or wrong, that is the law.
Mr. McCabe has never leaked information nor did he run straight to the papers when the going got tough, he tried without success to go through the proper channels and for his troubles was harrassed and castigated yet this man to this day still goes to work everyday, that is a testament to his strength of character. The man deserves a medal for his courage as does John Wilson.
He gave information to Martin, Daly and Wallace. That is leaking information against the law. If you think the law is wrong, fair enough, but don't say he didn't leak information.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8082
"If you have any further concerns and without prejudice of your rights under the Confidential Reporting Mechanism such matters can be brought to the attention of Assistant Commissioner John O Mahony, Crime and Security, who will fully investigate those matters"
Which in itself is an absolutely disgraceful request considering that McCabe was being blocked from communicating with the Confidential Recipient - a body setup to facilitate Garda whisteblowers.
Also, the "3rd party" that McCabe was wanting to deal with was Enda Kenny - the leader of our country. Any attempt to block a whisteblower from dealing with the leader of our nation is just not on in my view. It stinks to high heavens of senior management attempting to circle the wagons and start an investigation that they knew would be dead in the water. And that is what happened, the O'Mahoney report has widely been acknowledged as being a whitewash.
Also, don't forget that the law allows serving Gardai to bring matters to the attention of elected representatives. They are the people we elect to represent us afterall.0 -
I also think the Data Protection issue is very important. If I had penalty points cancelled (and I haven't, they are still on my licence), I would not want my personal information handed to anyone else and that is my legal entitlement.
Well yes, it's a balance between privacy and highlighting any wrong doing. Seeing as McCabe seems to have exhausted all avenues available to him, for me the public interest then supercedes privacy concerns.Well, that is interesting. One of two things.
(1) McCabe is right in this letter, which means the GSOC commissioners should resign as they are the ones in charge of investigating the gardai and didn't see much wrong here and didn't investigate it properly. A proper investigation should then take place with new Commissioners.
(2) McCabe is wrong in this letter .
I thought GSOC recommended action against 2 officers, maybe I'm getting that mixed up with the other case. The Garda Commissioner apparently didn't act on GSOC recommendations.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Reading that it is clear that McCabe was told to deal with O'Mahony.
"If you have any further concerns and without prejudice of your rights under the Confidential Reporting Mechanism such matters can be brought to the attention of Assistant Commissioner John O Mahony, Crime and Security, who will fully investigate those matters"
Maybe I am stupid but that reads to me like a directive to co-operate with O'Mahony's investigation. I don't think McCabe's word stands up on this point.
I also think the Data Protection issue is very important. If I had penalty points cancelled (and I haven't, they are still on my licence), I would not want my personal information handed to anyone else and that is my legal entitlement.
You honestly interpret that as a clear invitation to participate in an investigation into the Penalty Points allegations? You're on your own there - well maybe not on your own. Paul Reynolds and Paul Williams would probably try and spin it like that too, but no one else would.0 -
Reading that it is clear that McCabe was told to deal with O'Mahony.
"If you have any further concerns and without prejudice of your rights under the Confidential Reporting Mechanism such matters can be brought to the attention of Assistant Commissioner John O Mahony, Crime and Security, who will fully investigate those matters"
Well, that's precisely the problem. Telling someone they "can" do something is giving them permission or authorising them to do it. It isn't an instruction to do it.Maybe I am stupid but that reads to me like a directive to co-operate with O'Mahony's investigation.
To a lot of other people, not just Sgt McCabe, it doesn't. Even giving Commissioner Callinan the benefit of the doubt, the best that can be said is that if he intended it as an instruction rather than an authorisation, he expressed himself very ambiguously.
It also ignores the obvious question which was raised on Morning Ireland - if McCabe was instructed to cooperate with the internal Garda inquiry, why did nobody from that inquiry contact him to see why he wasn't cooperating? They never contacted him at all.0 -
Sierra Oscar wrote: »Which in itself is an absolutely disgraceful request considering that McCabe was being blocked from communicating with the Confidential Recipient - a body setup to facilitate Garda whisteblowers.
Also, the "3rd party" that McCabe was wanting to deal with was Enda Kenny - the leader of our country. Any attempt to block a whisteblower from dealing with the leader of our nation is just not on in my view. It stinks to high heavens of senior management attempting to circle the wagons and start an investigation that they knew would be dead in the water. And that is what happened, the O'Mahoney report has widely been acknowledged as being a whitewash.
Also, don't forget that the law allows serving Gardai to bring matters to the attention of elected representatives. They are the people we elect to represent us afterall.
I don't think there is any merit in following godge down the route of whether he was directed to co-operate or not with the inquiry, it's a pathetic deflection away from the issue. The assertion is clear, the commissioner has said that he ordered mccabe to bring any evidence he had forward to the investigation. The reasoning is obvious, it removes any blame on the investigation team or ags for not interviewing or involving mccabe by falsely trying to place the responsibility for his involvement in the investigation on mccabe. Forgetting about how pathetic it is to try and remove that responsibility away from the investigation team it is clear from the transcript that there was no such order. So again we are back to why did the investigation team not do their job and why is the commissioner trying to (intentionally or unintentionally) discredit the whistleblower rather than protect him.0 -
Sierra Oscar wrote: »Which in itself is an absolutely disgraceful request considering that McCabe was being blocked from communicating with the Confidential Recipient - a body setup to facilitate Garda whisteblowers.
Also, the "3rd party" that McCabe was wanting to deal with was Enda Kenny - the leader of our country. Any attempt to block a whisteblower from dealing with the leader of our nation is just not on in my view. It stinks to high heavens of senior management attempting to circle the wagons and start an investigation that they knew would be dead in the water. And that is what happened, the O'Mahoney report has widely been acknowledged as being a whitewash.
Read the instruction again.
"If you have any further concerns and without prejudice of your rights under the Confidential Reporting Mechanism such matters can be brought to the attention of Assistant Commissioner John O Mahony, Crime and Security, who will fully investigate those matters"
It explicitly allows him to communicate with the Confidential Recipient, he was not being blocked from going to him.Sierra Oscar wrote: »Also, don't forget that the law allows serving Gardai to bring matters to the attention of elected representatives. They are the people we elect to represent us afterall.
I am not familiar with that section of the law, maybe you could link to it.
However, if it is as you say and serving Gardai can bring matters to the attention of elected representatives, that does not mean that they can leak personal information and names to elected representatives as that is forbidden by the Data Protection Act.Well yes, it's a balance between privacy and highlighting any wrong doing. Seeing as McCabe seems to have exhausted all avenues available to him, for me the public interest then supercedes privacy concerns.
I thought GSOC recommended action against 2 officers, maybe I'm getting that mixed up with the other case. The Garda Commissioner apparently didn't act on GSOC recommendations.
As I say above, the instruction was without prejudice to his right to talk to the Confidential Recipient and it said he was to bring concerns to O'Mahony so at that point he had two options available to him.You honestly interpret that as a clear invitation to participate in an investigation into the Penalty Points allegations? You're on your own there - well maybe not on your own. Paul Reynolds and Paul Williams would probably try and spin it like that too, but no one else would.Well, that's precisely the problem. Telling someone they "can" do something is giving them permission or authorising them to do it. It isn't an instruction to do it.
To a lot of other people, not just Sgt McCabe, it doesn't. Even giving Commissioner Callinan the benefit of the doubt, the best that can be said is that if he intended it as an instruction rather than an authorisation, he expressed himself very ambiguously.
It also ignores the obvious question which was raised on Morning Ireland - if McCabe was instructed to cooperate with the internal Garda inquiry, why did nobody from that inquiry contact him to see why he wasn't cooperating. They never contacted him at all.
Again, read the instruction.
If you have any further concerns and without prejudice of your rights under the Confidential Reporting Mechanism such matters can be brought to the attention of Assistant Commissioner John O Mahony, Crime and Security, who will fully investigate those matters.
Firstly, the instruction was conditional. It allowed McCabe to have or not have any further concerns.
Secondly, it gave McCabe two options. Because he had the option of going to the Confidential Recipient explicity acknowledged in that sentence, he could not be instructed to only go to O'Mahony. Therefore the word "can" had to be used rather than "must" as "must" would have ruled out the confidential recipient route.
As for why O'Mahony never contacted him. Well McCabe was given options i.e. if you have concerns you can bring them to O'Mahony if you don't go to the Confidential Recipient, if you don't have concerns, well that is the end of it. Ironically, if O'Mahony had gone to McCabe, we could have had McCabe complaining today about the pressure put on him by O'Mahony.0 -
If you have any further concerns and without prejudice of your rights under the Confidential Reporting Mechanism such matters can be brought to the attention of Assistant Commissioner John O Mahony, Crime and Security, who will fully investigate those matters.
Firstly, the instruction was conditional. It allowed McCabe to have or not have any further concerns.
Secondly, it gave McCabe two options. Because he had the option of going to the Confidential Recipient explicity acknowledged in that sentence, he could not be instructed to only go to O'Mahony. Therefore the word "can" had to be used rather than "must" as "must" would have ruled out the confidential recipient route.
As for why O'Mahony never contacted him. Well McCabe was given options i.e. if you have concerns you can bring them to O'Mahony if you don't go to the Confidential Recipient, if you don't have concerns, well that is the end of it. Ironically, if O'Mahony had gone to McCabe, we could have had McCabe complaining today about the pressure put on him by O'Mahony.
That is not a clear, unambiguous invitation or directive to participate in an investigation. If it was, you wouldn't have to spin it and journalists and commentators wouldn't be questioning it.0 -
I thought GSOC recommended action against 2 officers, maybe I'm getting that mixed up with the other case. The Garda Commissioner apparently didn't act on GSOC recommendations.
This is another gaping flaw in the GSOC legislation - GSOC's cases are pretty much at the mercy of the Garda Commissioner for disciplinary matters (they can only recommend) and the DPP for major criminal matters (they can only recommend).
Actually I think the whole DPP setup is a bit messed up TBH. Far too much power in the hands of one office. I've actually never understood the logic behind letting the Gardai charge a person with an offense like theft or assault, but handing it over to the DPP in cases of more serious offenses?0 -
That is not a clear, unambiguous invitation or directive to participate in an investigation. If it was, you wouldn't have to spin it and journalists and commentators wouldn't be questioning it.
Can you give me a wording which allowed for
(1) McCabe to decide whether he wanted to take the issue forward or just let it sit
(2) McCabe to decide whether he wanted to go to the Confidential Recipient or O'Mahony
(3) Offered these options to McCabe in a way that people (and internet posters) would not interpret as threatening McCabe that the only option was O'Mahony
When you do, then you can tell me what an instruction really is.0 -
Can you give me a wording which allowed for
(1) McCabe to decide whether he wanted to take the issue forward or just let it sit
(2) McCabe to decide whether he wanted to go to the Confidential Recipient or O'Mahony
(3) Offered these options to McCabe in a way that people (and internet posters) would not interpret as threatening McCabe that the only option was O'Mahony
When you do, then you can tell me what an instruction really is.
What's your spin on why this 'directive' wasn't delivered in writing?0 -
Can you give me a wording which allowed for
(1) McCabe to decide whether he wanted to take the issue forward or just let it sit
(2) McCabe to decide whether he wanted to go to the Confidential Recipient or O'Mahony
(3) Offered these options to McCabe in a way that people (and internet posters) would not interpret as threatening McCabe that the only option was O'Mahony
When you do, then you can tell me what an instruction really is.
The direction was to stop searching pulse and not to let anything get outside the force (no matter what he had uncovered). Nothing more than that. It was basically trying to stifle any suggestions of wrongdoing within the force.
They only released info about the direction in a further attempt to discredit McCabe, what they hadn't counted on was that he was clever and had been recording stuff so he's been able to prove that the direction wasn't what they said it was.
Why didn't they give him a copy of the direction?0 -
Advertisement
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »This is another gaping flaw in the GSOC legislation - GSOC's cases are pretty much at the mercy of the Garda Commissioner for disciplinary matters (they can only recommend) and the DPP for major criminal matters (they can only recommend).
Actually I think the whole DPP setup is a bit messed up TBH. Far too much power in the hands of one office. I've actually never understood the logic behind letting the Gardai charge a person with an offense like theft or assault, but handing it over to the DPP in cases of more serious offenses?
I suppose the difficulty once again is having the judge, jury and executioner being the same person as well as allowing for the accused to mount a reasonable defence.
For example, say that GSOC finds that a particular incident X happened and that Garda A should be disciplined for it. This is as far as they can go.
Say the Garda Commissioner is aware that shortly before incident X, Garda A returned from bereavement leave having lost his wife and was under significant personal pressure. Garda A has always been exemplary and never had a complaint before and has returned to a high level of work since incident X. The Garda Commissioner takes Garda A's personal circumstances into account and decides not to discipline him. This is only possible for the Commissioner to decide as Garda A's personal issues at the time are confidential to his employment.
That is just one example. The danger, of course, is that the Garda Commissioner refuses to discipline on all occasions. The way around this, like the way around most things, is to ensure that there is a good open working relationship between GSOC and the Garda Commissioner, surprisingly, from the transcripts of the Dail Committee, this seems to have been one of the beneficial side-effects of this crisis.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement