Minister Shatter and Commissioner Callinan should both resign in disgrace

Godge

My name is URL wrote: »

For someone that's been saying that from the start, you sure are doing your best to resist any criticism of the side you happen to come down on.

So how's about that latest opinion poll?

I haven't come down on any side yet.

I haven't seen any report yet, only newspaper articles, internet conjecture and various leaks.

People should resign if there is proven wrongdoing, still waiting for the smoking gun,

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

People should resign if there is proven wrongdoing, still waiting for the smoking gun,

Shatter publicly disclosed confidential information to discredit a political opponant, he sided with Callinan in blasting the whistleblower, when the GSOC story broke he attacked the victim and was more concerned about their actions than what might have happened to them... How much more wrongdoing do you need before you'll call for him to resign? All that is enough in my mind, no more should be needed to force a minister to step down. People in government should be held to the highest standards, Shatter's behavior simply is not acceptable.

gizmo555

While it's overall supportive of Alan Shatter, Oliver Connolly's statement on the face of it appears to imply that he was sacked by Shatter because he, Connolly, would not commit a criminal offence by breaking his legal duty of confidentiality.

Former garda confidential recipient Oliver Connolly has said that his good name, integrity and privacy have been impugned by the leaking of "an unverified transcript of a confidential conversation" with Garda Sergeant Maurice McCabe.

Mr Connolly, who was the point of contact for garda whistleblowers, was sacked by Minister for Justice Alan Shatter last month after details of the alleged transcript were read into the Dáil record.

He said that his conversation with the serving garda sergeant had been recorded without his consent at an official confidential meeting, which was covered by statute.

Mr Connolly said he refused to answer questions about the transcript last month because what was said during his confidential meeting must remain confidential.

He said he had a duty under garda regulations and the Official Secrets Act not to disclose, acknowledge or otherwise comment about any confidential report or any meeting with a confidential informant . . .

On his sacking by Minister Shatter, he said he should not have been required to validate and he shall not validate, either by way of confirmation or repudiation, the contents of an alleged transcript unlawfully procured.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0304/600061-garda/

tayto lover

So will Maurice McCabe now be in trouble for leaking a confidential discussion and illegally taping this conversation with Connolly?

This thing just keeps on getting more complicated by the day.

Godge

tayto lover wrote: »

So will Maurice McCabe now be in trouble for leaking a confidential discussion and illegally taping this conversation with Connolly?

This thing just keeps on getting more complicated by the day.

Of course not, McCabe is allowed flout the law and disregard it. It is only others that should be held accountable for their actions:rolleyes:.

Seriously, I wouldn't want McCabe to be prosecuted for publicly disclosing confidential information to allow someone to further disclose that information to discredit a political opponent, but there are plenty who would.

As always, those throwing stones should look to their own actions and to those of the ones they support.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Shatter publicly disclosed confidential information to discredit a political opponant,

That is different to McCabe, how?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

he sided with Callinan in blasting the whistleblower,

McCabe didn't co-operate with the inquiry which he knew was happening.

He hides behind the fact that he wasn't instructed, but why didn't he co-operate anyway? That question is unanswered.

Maybe he had good reason, I am not judging him, let us wait and see for the report. If he didn't have good reason not to co-operate, the criticism of McCabe is fair. It may also be fair given the information Shatter had at the time. All will come out.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

when the GSOC story broke he attacked the victim and was more concerned about their actions than what might have happened to them...

The only thing we know for certain from the GSOC story is that there is a leak from within GSOC. Next time, that leak may be about your complaint or someone else's complaint. GSOC needs to sort out its own house and quick. I certainly wouldn't go to it now with any complaint.

As for the rest on GSOC, let us wait and see what the reports bring.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How much more wrongdoing do you need before you'll call for him to resign? All that is enough in my mind, no more should be needed to force a minister to step down. People in government should be held to the highest standards, Shatter's behavior simply is not acceptable.

So far there is nothing but that doesn't mean there won't be.

bajer101

Godge wrote: »

Of course not, McCabe is allowed flout the law and disregard it. It is only others that should be held accountable for their actions:rolleyes:.

What law did McCabe break? It is perfectly legal for a party to a conversation to record that conversation.

Seriously, I wouldn't want McCabe to be prosecuted for publicly disclosing confidential information to allow someone to further disclose that information to discredit a political opponent, but there are plenty who would.

It's good that you would want him prosecuted, because to be prosecuted for something you need to break the law - which he didn't.

McCabe didn't co-operate with the inquiry which he knew was happening.

He hides behind the fact that he wasn't instructed, but why didn't he co-operate anyway? That question is unanswered.

Maybe he had good reason, I am not judging him, let us wait and see for the report. If he didn't have good reason not to co-operate, the criticism of McCabe is fair. It may also be fair given the information Shatter had at the time. All will come out.

He wasn't instructed and nor was he invited or approached until after the investigation was concluded. It is obvious to everyone that his input wasn't sought and it wasn't wanted.

He wasn't instructed and nor was he invited or approached until after the investigation was concluded. It is obvious to everyone that his input wasn't sought and it wasn't wanted. The only thing we know for certain from the GSOC story is that there is a leak from within GSOC. Next time, that leak may be about your complaint or someone else's complaint. GSOC needs to sort out its own house and quick. I certainly wouldn't go to it now with any complaint.

As for the rest on GSOC, let us wait and see what the reports bring.

There is nothing to suggest that the leaker of the Verrimus report would be inclined to leak private information about someone who made a complaint to GSOC. Their motivation was to highlight suspected illegal activity. It is possible, even probable that there are people in GSOC who would leak sensitive information - but the person who leaked the Verrimus report wouldn't be the prime suspect.

gizmo555

tayto lover wrote: »

So will Maurice McCabe now be in trouble for leaking a confidential discussion and illegally taping this conversation with Connolly?

Who says it was illegal? Just because there's a strict duty of confidentiality on Connolly, doesn't mean there is on McCabe.

In fact, the Garda Act 2005 specifically allows individual Gardaí to disclose information to members of the Oireachtas. That's exactly what he did - he gave the conversation transcript to Mick Wallace TD and Micheál Martin TD.

tayto lover

gizmo555 wrote: »

Who says it was illegal? Just because there's a strict duty of confidentiality on Connolly, doesn't mean there is on McCabe.

In fact, the Garda Act 2005 specifically allows individual Gardaí to disclose information to members of the Oireachtas. That's exactly what he did - he gave the conversation transcript to Mick Wallace TD and Micheál Martin TD.

I heard Connolly say on the radio that he was not told by McCabe that their conversation was being taped and that that makes it illegal.

sparkling sea

Why do people keep trying to deflect from the actual issues and excuse the inexcusable.

Garda McCabe took a sworn oath to uphold the law of this land and if he feels strongly the laws have been broken he has a duty to disclose this to the public, especially and particularly if all other avenues have been closed to him because they either don't function or don't exist.

The Commissioner appears has tried to a apply he's own practice, as oppossed to legislation to the running of the Garda force. This is wrong.

Minister Shatter has used Dail privilege to discredit a whistleblower and because of said privilege the Minister cannot be challagened in any really way, this whether he has spoken the truth or not.

The public have rights and these rights should supercede the rights of all other parties, except the injured parties in a case like this one.

sparkling sea

tayto lover wrote: »

I heard Connolly say on the radio that he was not told by McCabe that their conversation was being taped and that that makes it illegal.

And how does this actually impact on the reality of what was said? It won't and can't change the fact that it happened.

tayto lover

sparkling sea wrote: »

And how does this actually impact on the reality of what was said? It won't and can't change the fact that it happened.

I only asked if he could end up being sued by Connolly or be prosecuted for disclosing a private conversation.

gizmo555

tayto lover wrote: »

I heard Connolly say on the radio that he was not told by McCabe that their conversation was being taped and that that makes it illegal.

Fair enough, actually I see his statement this afternoon makes the same assertion.

Strangely, though, while Connolly goes into a lot of specific details on the laws which he says prevent him from commenting one way or another on whether the alleged transcript is accurate, he says nothing at all about why he believes the taping of the conversation was illegal.

IANAL and Connolly is, but you'd have thought he'd mention which law he thinks was broken. I know, for example, the Data Protection Commisioner's guidance on the use of CCTV says that while covert video recording by private companies or individuals is in general illegal, it may be justifiable and lawful in limited circumstances for the prevention or detection of crime.

tayto lover

gizmo555 wrote: »

Fair enough, actually I see his statement this afternoon makes the same assertion.

Strangely, though, while Connolly goes into a lot of specific details on the laws which he says prevent him from commenting one way or another on whether the alleged transcript is accurate, he says nothing at all about why he believes the taping of the conversation was illegal.

IANAL and Connolly is, but you'd have thought he'd mention which law he thinks was broken. I know, for example, the Data Protection Commisioner's guidance on the use of CCTV says that while covert video recording by private companies or individuals is in general illegal, it may be justifiable and lawful in limited circumstances for the prevention or detection of crime.

Indeed but it basically got Connolly sacked.

Godge

sparkling sea wrote: »

Garda McCabe took a sworn oath to uphold the law of this land and if he feels strongly the laws have been broken he has a duty to disclose this to the public, especially and particularly if all other avenues have been closed to him because they either don't function or don't exist.
.

That is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion, an opinion held by quite a number of people actually.

However, until we have the reports, it is not a fact that McCabe explored all other options. It is also not a fact that his allegations are true.

He had opportunities, he could have gone to the inquiry, he did not. Whether that was good or poor judgment is what we need to find out.

Going Forward

Happier times:Minister Shatter's original announcement of Oliver Connolly's appointment as the new confidential recipient:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR11000083

Interesting that the paragraphs below implicitly accept that corruption and malpractice occcurs:

"Any member or civilian employee of An Garda Síochána who wishes to report in confidence about corruption and malpractice can be assured that any such report will be taken seriously and extensive protections will be given to him or her.


It is in everyone’s interests that An Garda Síochána operates to the highest possible standards and that those who are aware of corruption or malpractice within the organisation can report it knowing they will be protected."

I would have thought that the word "alleged" would have been inserted a few times!

Busted Flat.

tayto lover wrote: »

I heard Connolly say on the radio that he was not told by McCabe that their conversation was being taped and that that makes it illegal.

Deep throat, disclosures were illegal, so what, if it was not for courageous people like Sgt. Mc Cabe we would not know what we know today. Connolly should be ashamed of himself for his child like tale he told today.

Going Forward

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Deep throat, disclosures were illegal, so what, if it was not for courageous people like Sgt. Mc Cabe we would not know what we know today. Connolly should be ashamed of himself for his child like tale he told today.

Seems to be one for shooting the messenger, McCabe, same as Shatter did with GSOC bugging.

Slick50

Godge wrote: »

He had opportunities, he could have gone to the inquiry, he did not. Whether that was good or poor judgment is what we need to find out.

While you maintain that you are open minded and impartial, your insistence that the onus was on Mc Cabe to 'cooperate' with the enquiry, belies this.
He was not the one responsible for conducting the enquiry. It was up to the assistant commisioner to ensure he conducted a full and effective enquiry. It was up to him to interview Mc Cabe, and if necessary order him to attend the enquiry. Mc Cabe has also stated he did make calls, with the intention of cooperating with the enquiry, which is when he was informed it was already complete.
How can anyone be expected to have any faith in the veracity of the enquiry, when Mc Cabe wasn't even interviewed. Which undermines the enquiries/investigations into some of the charges, raised by Mc Cabe, conducted earlier?

K-9

Godge wrote: »

Of course not, McCabe is allowed flout the law and disregard it. It is only others that should be held accountable for their actions:rolleyes:.

Seriously, I wouldn't want McCabe to be prosecuted for publicly disclosing confidential information to allow someone to further disclose that information to discredit a political opponent, but there are plenty who would.

As always, those throwing stones should look to their own actions and to those of the ones they support.



That is different to McCabe, how?



McCabe didn't co-operate with the inquiry which he knew was happening.

He hides behind the fact that he wasn't instructed, but why didn't he co-operate anyway? That question is unanswered.

Maybe he had good reason, I am not judging him, let us wait and see for the report. If he didn't have good reason not to co-operate, the criticism of McCabe is fair. It may also be fair given the information Shatter had at the time. All will come out.



The only thing we know for certain from the GSOC story is that there is a leak from within GSOC. Next time, that leak may be about your complaint or someone else's complaint. GSOC needs to sort out its own house and quick. I certainly wouldn't go to it now with any complaint.

As for the rest on GSOC, let us wait and see what the reports bring.



So far there is nothing but that doesn't mean there won't be.

A Guard must be able to whistleblow, it's essential with police forces that have been shown the world over often to practice omerta.

It's essential that brave police officers go to the press if they feel they can't get anywhere with the police authorities or Government bodies.

I can't stress this enough, a Guard going to the Press if he feels all avenues to him within the force and investigative bodies have been exhausted, is essential for democracy, it's simple as that. It is then for the press and inquiries, as set up by Governments to decide on the merits of the case.

I'm extremely uneasy at your reasoning, there are times ordinary, honest, decent, professional members of a police force cannot go to their superiors, investigative bodies or Governmental oversight organisations.

John Stalker investigated Shoot to Kill in N.I., and if it wasn't for extremely brave, professional and beyond the call of duty RUC officers, he'd have got nowhere. RUC officers who not only feared paramilitary attacks, they feared their own colleagues and commanding officers finding out they gave information to Stalker.

They were whistleblowers and 30 years later, nobody remembers them at all, not Republican or Loyalist martyrs, nor RUC/Army casualties.

My name is URL

Going Forward wrote: »

Happier times:Minister Shatter's original announcement of Oliver Connolly's appointment as the new confidential recipient:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR11000083

Interesting that the paragraphs below implicitly accept that corruption and malpractice occcurs:

"Any member or civilian employee of An Garda Síochána who wishes to report in confidence about corruption and malpractice can be assured that any such report will be taken seriously and extensive protections will be given to him or her.


It is in everyone’s interests that An Garda Síochána operates to the highest possible standards and that those who are aware of corruption or malpractice within the organisation can report it knowing they will be protected."

I would have thought that the word "alleged" would have been inserted a few times!

Shatter, imho; is a very intelligent and probably well-meaning individual. He seriously does appear to be more interested in his job than his public image.

This makes it all the more depressing because rather than attempt to salvage a party image, he is doing his best to personally justify poor decisions made either by himself his own appointees. He cannot at this stage accept any liability for the appointments he made, or for any of the changes that were made under his ultimately statist and obsessive role as both minister for justice and defence.

In a proper country, where people took things seriously instead of limply applying political agendas to them, people would see some actual change.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

It's essential that brave police officers go to the press if they feel they can't get anywhere with the police authorities or Government bodies.

I can't stress this enough, a Guard going to the Press if he feels all avenues to him within the force and investigative bodies have been exhausted, is essential for democracy, it's simple as that.

It is also against the law.
Brought in by Michael McDowell when he was Minister for Justice.

fr3d12

Had McCabe not recorded the conversations he would arguably be in a worse position today , the lack of a recording would have allowed Callinan and Shatter to continue to discredit him with their untruths.
He was smart, why wouldn't he be especially as Connolly was personally appointed by the MoJ and had donated to Shatter's campaign and is a keen FG supporter.
Makes sense for him to come out on Shatter's side, it's not like McCabe can offer him lots of lucrative state work.

brooke 2

sparkling sea wrote: »

And how does this actually impact on the reality of what was said? It won't and can't change the fact that it happened.

I suspect that if the conversation were not taped Connolly might have denied the remarks he made about Shatter and could still be in his job.

brooke 2

gizmo555 wrote: »

While it's overall supportive of Alan Shatter, Oliver Connolly's statement on the face of it appears to imply that he was sacked by Shatter because he, Connolly, would not commit a criminal offence by breaking his legal duty of confidentiality.

Former garda confidential recipient Oliver Connolly has said that his good name, integrity and privacy have been impugned by the leaking of "an unverified transcript of a confidential conversation" with Garda Sergeant Maurice McCabe.

Mr Connolly, who was the point of contact for garda whistleblowers, was sacked by Minister for Justice Alan Shatter last month after details of the alleged transcript were read into the Dáil record.

He said that his conversation with the serving garda sergeant had been recorded without his consent at an official confidential meeting, which was covered by statute.

Mr Connolly said he refused to answer questions about the transcript last month because what was said during his confidential meeting must remain confidential.

He said he had a duty under garda regulations and the Official Secrets Act not to disclose, acknowledge or otherwise comment about any confidential report or any meeting with a confidential informant . . .

On his sacking by Minister Shatter, he said he should not have been required to validate and he shall not validate, either by way of confirmation or repudiation, the contents of an alleged transcript unlawfully procured.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0304/600061-garda/

Bet he would have no problem repudiating the remarks re Shatter if there were
no tape of the conversation with McCabe!!

brooke 2

tayto lover wrote: »

Indeed but it basically got Connolly sacked.

Connolly's inability to repudiate the remarks he made about Shatter got him sacked.
If they had not been taped by McCabe, I truly believe he might have denied making
them and might still be in his job.

AlekSmart

fr3d12 wrote: »

Had McCabe not recorded the conversations he would arguably be in a worse position today , the lack of a recording would have allowed Callinan and Shatter to continue to discredit him with their untruths.
He was smart, why wouldn't he be especially as Connolly was personally appointed by the MoJ and had donated to Shatter's campaign and is a keen FG supporter.
Makes sense for him to come out on Shatter's side, it's not like McCabe can offer him lots of lucrative state work.

I can't really say I'm bovvered one way or the other by the highly charged debate about Sgt McCabe's status. (Although....,anything which suddenly involves Micheal Mc Dowell could yet activate my bovver alarm )

Police forces,by their very nature,exist in order to enforce laws and thus compel the remainder of Society to do stuff they otherwise would'nt consider doing....

A Vast range of things from Murder,Rape and Physical Assaults right down to Throwing Litter or "Just nipping in for a newspaper whilst parking on a double yellow"

Therefore,the relationship between the Policeman and the Ordinary Citizen will always be a fraught one,in which a thin line is maintained between our belief (expectation) in the Police being able,or willing to PROTECT our own interests and that Same Police force also being ready to enforce other Laws UPON us.

That's why I see some rather more basic (and as yet unasked) questions as to Sgt McCabe's motivation in establishing and maintaining,what appears to have been a virtually seperate and unsupervised Garda Unit,free to investigate anybody,and anything,that took his fancy on any particular day.

Given that the good Sgt appears to have achieved,in terms of investigation and reportage,a productivity level beyond anything ever witnessed in AGS,I have difficulty understanding what became of his Official (or Day-Job) within the force...what Official work did Sgt McCabe have to de-prioritize in order to progress his Personal Crusade ?

The key to much of the hand-wringing and head-scratching now ongoing is in finding and analysing the Specific Incident/Person/Activity which tripped Sgt McCabes moral Circuit-Breaker.

I suspect the truth will be far more mundane....even human,than many want to consider.....;)

A variation of "Hell hath no fury...." perhaps ?

brooke 2

bubblypop wrote: »

It is also against the law.
Brought in by Michael McDowell when he was Minister for Justice.

Thought to have been a reaction to news, re an attack on his son close to his house, reaching the papers.
McDowell and his wife were very angry at the gardai at the time, iirc.

brooke 2

AlekSmart wrote: »

I can't really say I'm bovvered one way or the other by the highly charged debate about Sgt McCabe's status. (Although....,anything which suddenly involves Micheal Mc Dowell could yet activate my bovver alarm )

Police forces,by their very nature,exist in order to enforce laws and thus compel the remainder of Society to do stuff they otherwise would'nt consider doing....

A Vast range of things from Murder,Rape and Physical Assaults right down to Throwing Litter or "Just nipping in for a newspaper whilst parking on a double yellow"

Therefore,the relationship between the Policeman and the Ordinary Citizen will always be a fraught one,in which a thin line is maintained between our belief (expectation) in the Police being able,or willing to PROTECT our own interests and that Same Police force also being ready to enforce other Laws UPON us.

That's why I see some rather more basic (and as yet unasked) questions as to Sgt McCabe's motivation in establishing and maintaining,what appears to have been a virtually seperate and unsupervised Garda Unit,free to investigate anybody,and anything,that took his fancy on any particular day.

Given that the good Sgt appears to have achieved,in terms of investigation and reportage,a productivity level beyond anything ever witnessed in AGS,I have difficulty understanding what became of his Official (or Day-Job) within the force...what Official work did Sgt McCabe have to de-prioritize in order to progress his Personal Crusade ?

The key to much of the hand-wringing and head-scratching now ongoing is in finding and analysing the Specific Incident/Person/Activity which tripped Sgt McCabes moral Circuit-Breaker.

I suspect the truth will be far more mundane....even human,than many want to consider.....;)

A variation of "Hell hath no fury...." perhaps ?

Well, I guess if you were accused of stealing a computer or had superiors lie about you
in an investigation it would have been your own fault..

Nothing to see here..

hatrickpatrick

Going Forward wrote: »

Seems to be one for shooting the messenger, McCabe, same as Shatter did with GSOC bugging.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure I remember reading that McCabe himself has said he didn't want to see Connolly fired and that he had just been the messenger. Can't seem to find the story now, think it was Irish Examiner a week or two ago?

Muahahaha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Shatter publicly disclosed confidential information to discredit a political opponant, he sided with Callinan in blasting the whistleblower, when the GSOC story broke he attacked the victim and was more concerned about their actions than what might have happened to them... How much more wrongdoing do you need before you'll call for him to resign? All that is enough in my mind, no more should be needed to force a minister to step down. People in government should be held to the highest standards, Shatter's behavior simply is not acceptable.

Yet another reason for Shatter to resign has now come to light in last Sundays Times. It is behind a paywall so I'll summarise here. Back in 2009 a HSE whistleblower got in contact with Shatter while he was on the opposition benches. He wanted to expose a €500,000 fraud in the HSE in relation to the awarding of contracts for service. According to the whistleblower Alan Shatter showed up at his house and tried to convince him that his best course of action was to use his legal firm as representatives and that it would cost him in the order of €15,000-€20,000 in legal fees.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1382225.ece
The Sunday Times asked Shatter about the case via the Dept of Justice. They never received a reply except for a letter from Shatter that if they dug any further he would issue defamation proceedings. Their quote from the letter is

Should a story of the nature as suggested in this email be published by you, proceedings for defamation will be issued without further correspondence

The letter that Shatter wrote to the whistleblower ( and which the Sunday Times have seen ) ends with this paragraph. In light of recent events it is truly astonishing-

From my past experience, issues such as the ones being dealt with by you are often not taken seriously or adequately investigated by the Gardaí until they are brought to public notice either in Dáil Éireann or through the media in a manner in which the anonymity of the source of information is preserved, where such anonymity is important".