Minister Shatter and Commissioner Callinan should both resign in disgrace

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

What's your spin on why this 'directive' wasn't delivered in writing?

I don't have "spin" on anything.

If you know anything about public service disciplinary action, you will know that a verbal warning carries a lower level of punishment than a written warning (same in most employments with a written disciplinary procedure). The same applies to a verbal instruction rather than a written instruction. If you have to resort to a written instruction to someone to do a certain task where a verbal instruction would be normal, you are implying that they won't obey a verbal instruction.

john.han wrote: »

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?

This is McCabe's version of what he was told.

"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"

That is as clear as it needs to be.

As for the releasing of information, that was breaking the law, the Data Protection Act. Are you saying that if the Garda Commissioner discovers that a Garda is breaking the law, he should just say fine, keep going?

Godge wrote: »

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.

Again, can someone give a different wording that covers all of the circumstances listed above and that they would be happy that the Garda Commissioner had used?

itzme

Godge wrote: »

I don't have "spin" on anything.

Again, can someone give a different wording that covers all of the circumstances listed above and that they would be happy that the Garda Commissioner had used?

Yes it is quite easy

"Assistant Commissioner O'Mahony, will you ensure that you interview all necessary parties in particular those who have made the original allegations and review their evidence before concluding this investigation."

The issue you are focusing on is the release of information by McCabe that allegedly was illegal. That was not the focus of the commissioners comments, nor was it the focus of McCabes statement. Please address that rather than trying to divert away.

john.han

If Callinan wanted McCabe to be interviewed for O' Mahony's investigation then the directive simply had to say "it is required of you to co-operate fully with the investigation as led by..."

And then it should have been up to the investigation team to get in touch with him to get his side of the whole thing but they didn't even bother to do that.

But that's not what the direction was about, it was stop searching Pulse and stop trying to find wrongdoing within the force. In other words give up.
If the directive was so clear why didn't they publish it when they announced McCabe had been issued with a directive to comply? They didn't publish it because it doesn't say what they claimed it did.

Godge

itzme wrote: »

Yes it is quite easy

"Assistant Commissioner O'Mahony, will you ensure that you interview all necessary parties in particular those who have made the original allegations and review their evidence before concluding this investigation."

The issue you are focusing on is the release of information by McCabe that allegedly was illegal. That was not the focus of the commissioners comments, nor was it the focus of McCabes statement. Please address that rather than trying to divert away.

No, you are missing the point I was making. This is not about O'Mahony's remit.

McCabe appears to be saying that the following didn't amount to an 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"

I am asking the following question to find out what exactly the Commissioner should have said to McCabe.

Godge wrote: »

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.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I don't have "spin" on anything.

If you know anything about public service disciplinary action, you will know that a verbal warning carries a lower level of punishment than a written warning (same in most employments with a written disciplinary procedure). The same applies to a verbal instruction rather than a written instruction. If you have to resort to a written instruction to someone to do a certain task where a verbal instruction would be normal, you are implying that they won't obey a verbal instruction.

It seems

That directive was circulated by senior officers in each division to all members of the force serving there and was read out by officers to each of the whistleblowers.

The directive WAS issued in writing to be delivered verbally to all serving officers.
So all Callinan has to do is produce it today.
I await with baited breath.

Godge

john.han wrote: »

If Callinan wanted McCabe to be interviewed for O' Mahony's investigation then the directive simply had to say "it is required of you to co-operate fully with the investigation as led by..."

And then it should have been up to the investigation team to get in touch with him to get his side of the whole thing but they didn't even bother to do that.

But that's not what the direction was about, it was stop searching Pulse and stop trying to find wrongdoing within the force. In other words give up.
If the directive was so clear why didn't they publish it when they announced McCabe had been issued with a directive to comply? They didn't publish it because it doesn't say what they claimed it did.

Nope, failed the test.

McCabe would have claimed that by requiring him to co-operate fully with the investigation, it removed from him, the freedom to go to the Confidential Recipient.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

It seems


The directive WAS issued in writing to be delivered verbally to all serving officers.
So all Callinan has to do is produce it today.
I await with baited breath.

But McCabe has published the directive and it is clear as day to me that if he had any remaining concerns and didn't want to go to the Confidential Recipient that he should bring those concerns to O'Mahony.

Again, what do you expect the instruction to say. To me, it seems that either McCabe was being obstructive or stubborn or was looking for an excuse not to co-operate with O'Mahony.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

But McCabe has published the directive and it is clear as day to me that if he had any remaining concerns and didn't want to go to the Confidential Recipient that he should bring those concerns to O'Mahony.

Again, what do you expect the instruction to say. To me, it seems that either McCabe was being obstructive or stubborn or was looking for an excuse not to co-operate with O'Mahony.

McCabe has published what he recalls from the discussion, attempted to get it in writing and was refused.
The 'directive' was (it is claimed by Callinan etc ) issued in writing and would have no 'confusing' references to Pulse or disclosure of information, so it is now up to Callinan to produce the 'general directive' instructing members to 'co-operate' fully with the inquiry.

Do you think that will happen?

First Up

Happyman42 wrote: »

McCabe has published what he recalls from the discussion, attempted to get it in writing and was refused.
The 'directive' was (it is claimed by Callinan etc ) issued in writing and would have no 'confusing' references to Pulse or disclosure of information, so it is now up to Callinan to produce the 'general directive' instructing members to 'co-operate' fully with the inquiry.

Do you think that will happen?

I though McCabe had a recording of the conversation?

john.han

Godge wrote: »

Nope, failed the test.

McCabe would have claimed that by requiring him to co-operate fully with the investigation, it removed from him, the freedom to go to the Confidential Recipient.

Okay then include a line about without prejudice to his rights to go to the Confidential recipient. But none of this is relevant, they said he was directed to co-operate, but the directive doesn't say that in any way shape or form, and then he wasn't contacted by the investigation team. You're just trying to manipulate ambiguous wording to cloud the issues.

Again, if the directive was a clear instruction to co-operate with the investigation then why not just publish it?

Happyman42

First Up wrote: »

I though McCabe had a recording of the conversation?

It is believed to be from a recording but nobody seems to have confirmed it, that I can see.
It doesn't change the main point I am making though.

itzme

Godge wrote: »

No, you are missing the point I was making. This is not about O'Mahony's remit.

McCabe appears to be saying that the following didn't amount to an 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"

I am asking the following question to find out what exactly the Commissioner should have said to McCabe.

I disagree completely, this is a concerted attempt to deflect attention away from O'Mahony's failure.
McCabe is not saying there was no instruction at all, please re-read his statement. He has said that the press release earlier had a number of inaccuracies some of which were serious. The most serious of which is the following

It claims that the Commissioner “issued a direction” to me “to cooperate with the investigation being carried out by the Assistant Commissioner” and “directing” me to bring any information or concerns I had “to the inquiry team”.

So again, he has not claimed there was no instruction, he states that yesterdays announcement

grossly misrepresent the terms of the Commissioner’s direction

He accepts there was direction, he has brought forward the exact wording of the instruction. I cannot understand how you can claim he is saying that the quote you issued did not amount to an instruction. He even provided a transcript detailing the conversation he had after receiving the instruction where he tried to clarify the terms of the instruction.

bajer101

Godge wrote: »

But McCabe has published the directive and it is clear as day to me that if he had any remaining concerns and didn't want to go to the Confidential Recipient that he should bring those concerns to O'Mahony.

Again, what do you expect the instruction to say. To me, it seems that either McCabe was being obstructive or stubborn or was looking for an excuse not to co-operate with O'Mahony.

It is not clear as day to anyone else. This is how it appears to me:

Mark Curran was instructed by Commissioner Callinan to read out a directive to McCabe. This directive instructed McCabe to desist from accessing PULSE and to desist from communicating information to any third parties. The directive then went on to say that if McCabe had a problem with this, he could take it up with O'Mahoney, who would look into it.

How you can try and spin that as an invitation or instruction to participate in the investigation that was being carried out into the Penalty Points allegations, is beyond me.

O'Mahoney interviewed three Gardai from the same station as McCabe, but not McCabe. He did not even try to contact McCabe.

Also, McCabe was perfectly entitled to give the information to the Taoiseach. Section 62 of the Garda Siochana Act 2005 states:

62.—(1) A person who is or was a member of the Garda Síochána or of its civilian staff or who is or was engaged under contract or other arrangement to work with or for the Garda Síochána shall not disclose, in or outside the State, any information obtained in the course of carrying out duties of that person’s office, employment, contract or other arrangement if the person knows the disclosure of that information is likely to have a harmful effect.

(2) For the purpose of this section, the disclosure of information referred to in subsection (1) does not have a harmful effect unless it—
(a) facilitates the commission of an offence,
(b) prejudices the safekeeping of a person in legal custody,
(c) impedes the prevention, detection or investigation of an offence,
(d) impedes the apprehension or prosecution of a suspected offender,
(e) prejudices the security of any system of communication of the Garda Sı ´ocha ´na,
(f) results in the identification of a person—
(i) who is a witness in a criminal proceeding or who has given information in confidence to a member of the Garda Síochána, and
(ii) whose identity is not at the time of the disclosure a matter of public knowledge,
(g) results in the publication of information that—
(i) relates to a person who is a witness to or a victim of an offence, and
(ii) is of such a nature that its publication would be likely to discourage the person to whom the information relates or any other person from giving evidence or reporting an offence,
(h) results in the publication of personal information and constitutes an unwarranted and serious infringement of a person’s right to privacy,
(i) reveals information provided in confidence by another state, an international organisation, another police service or an intelligence service, or
(j) affects adversely the international relations or interests abroad of the State, including those with Northern Ireland.

(3) For the purpose of this section, a person is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to know that disclosure of information referred to in subsection (1) is likely to have a harmful effect if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances, be aware that its disclosure could have that effect.

(4) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a person from disclosing information referred to in that subsection if the disclosure—
(a) is made to—
(i) the Minister,
(ii) the Attorney General,
(iii) the Director of Public Prosecutions,
(iv) the Chief State Solicitor,
(v) the Criminal Assets Bureau,
(vi) the Comptroller and Auditor General,
(vii) the Ombudsman Commission or an officer of the Commission,
(viii) the Garda Síochána Inspectorate or an officer of the Inspectorate,
(ix) the Revenue Commissioners, or
(x) a member of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas where relevant to the proper discharge of the member’s functions,
(b) is made to a court,
(c) is made to a tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002,
(d) is made in the course of, and in accordance with, the duties of that person’s office or employment or his or her duties under a contract or other arrangement to work with or for the Garda Síochána,
(e) is authorised by the Garda Commissioner, or
(f) is otherwise authorised by law.

(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exeeding 12 months or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.
(6) A person who contravenes subsection (1) and who receives any gift, consideration or advantage as an inducement to disclose the information to which the contravention relates or as a reward for, or otherwise on account of, the disclosure of that information is guilty of an offence and is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exeeding 12 months or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €75,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both.

(7) The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in substitution for, the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1963.

(8) In this section “personal information” has the meaning given to it by section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and includes personal information relating to a deceased individual."

First Up

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is believed to be from a recording but nobody seems to have confirmed it, that I can see.
It doesn't change the main point I am making though.

From what I heard on radio this morning, the directive was read out formally to McCabe four times - and quoted three more times in the conversation that followed. That sounds as if it was read out verbatim, so there must be a text.

bajer101

First Up wrote: »

I though McCabe had a recording of the conversation?

He does have a recording. It would appear that he recorded every conversation he had with anyone about this - and who can blame him.

itzme

First Up wrote: »

From what I heard on radio this morning, the directive was read out formally to McCabe four times - and quoted three more times in the conversation that followed. That sounds as if it was read out verbatim, so there must be a text.

According to McCabe there is a document, which was read out and never given in any form to him.

When he arrived he read me out a document. I have, fortunately, a full record of what transpired and it is attached to this statement. As appears from the record, the Chief Superintendent refused my request to furnish me a copy of that document. I presume that this was in accordance with his superiors’ instructions.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

But McCabe has published the directive and it is clear as day to me that if he had any remaining concerns and didn't want to go to the Confidential Recipient that he should bring those concerns to O'Mahony.

Again, what do you expect the instruction to say. To me, it seems that either McCabe was being obstructive or stubborn or was looking for an excuse not to co-operate with O'Mahony.

If you read the whole transcript and take it in the context of the conversation, and not focus on one ending sentence, it is clear McCabe feels he has nowhere else to go. He asks about the whistleblower act and he is told that he cannot avail of it, he even asks if he can give information to the Data Protection Commission, a role you clearly see as important.

It is also clear the top brass including O'Mahony know who McCabe is. It seems bizarre that he didn't interview McCabe. You not find that a bit odd?

I really think in an effort to try and back up Callinan you are focusing on one sentence in a letter, and dismissing everything else in that transcript, plus everything else leading up to it.

K-9

First Up wrote: »

From what I heard on radio this morning, the directive was read out formally to McCabe four times - and quoted three more times in the conversation that followed. That sounds as if it was read out verbatim, so there must be a text.

IIRC McCabe asks for a copy and is told no.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

and not focus on one ending sentence,

A 'sentence' that is clearly referencing accessing Pulse and releasing info, nothing to do with an inquiry.

Sierra Oscar

The government have announced another "review", no inquiry. They are hoping the story will just disappear. :rolleyes:

RTÉ News - Barrister to examine whistleblower claims

The Government is to appoint a barrister to examine the claims made by garda whistleblower Sergeant Maurice McCabe to determine whether a full inquiry is warranted.

adrag

gizmo555 wrote: »

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.

Reyonlds and paul williams are both mouthpieces for the ags

brooke 2

bajer101 wrote: »

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/

That is GUBU stuff!!

From this you can see how essential it is that the GSOC should not have any gardai working for them, as is the present
situation. Nuala O'Loan has said this is wholly unacceptable.

michael999999

adrag wrote: »

Reyonlds and paul williams are both mouthpieces for the ags

Sure they wouldn't have a story otherwise!

Devilman40k

Godge wrote: »

As for the releasing of information, that was breaking the law, the Data Protection Act. Are you saying that if the Garda Commissioner discovers that a Garda is breaking the law, he should just say fine, keep going?

And what of the Commissioner giving out details of other TD's transgressions to the Minister in private (who in turn used them in public) , is that not breaking the law also?

If, in the public interest, Sgt McCabe gave them to the Taoiseach then he broke no law..in fact he is supported by the Garda Siochana Act (as has been pointed out). Also I think the fact that he is being advised by Michael McDowell suggests he has done nothing wrong

adrag

Godge wrote: »

But McCabe has published the directive and it is clear as day to me that if he had any remaining concerns and didn't want to go to the Confidential Recipient that he should bring those concerns to O'Mahony.

Again, what do you expect the instruction to say. To me, it seems that either McCabe was being obstructive or stubborn or was looking for an excuse not to co-operate with O'Mahony.

I wouldnt blame the man for not cooperating IF this was the case,but its looking like he wasnt even asked and now the don/commisioner is trying again to blame this man DISGUSTING REALLY
And godge you said in an earlier that you may be stupid,im inclined to agree with ye,me auld flower

brooke 2

john.han wrote: »

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?

Even though he asked for one and was refused.

BaronVon

brooke 2 wrote: »

That is GUBU stuff!!

From this you can see how essential it is that the GSOC should not have any gardai working for them, as is the present
situation. Nuala O'Loan has said this is wholly unacceptable.

GSOC started out with no Gardaí, and they had fierce problems putting cases together, because the most experienced investigators are Gardaí. They hired ex police from other jurisdictions, but these seemed to have trouble adjusting to a different legal system here.

Hence they eventually had to start recruiting ex gardaí

My name is URL

Good piece by Fintan O'Toole -

Healthy democracies assume that the power of the State will inevitably be abused and conclude that openness, vigilance and accountability are needed to check those abuses. Autocracies, on the other hand, always insist that everything the State is doing is good and that only the malign or deluded could possibly think otherwise.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/shatter-s-personal-integrity-makes-the-reality-of-this-crisis-far-worse-1.1703112

Phoebas

K-9 wrote: »

IIRC McCabe asks for a copy and is told no.

Lucky he had a secret tape recording.

bobcoffee

SF post, don't know if it was already linked.
going to stay impartial on it.


My office is dealing with more claims of garda malpractice — Gerry Adams