Minister Shatter and Commissioner Callinan should both resign in disgrace

Slick50

Slick50 wrote: »

Handcuffs will not stop someone from opening a car door. Do you shackle them to a fixed point in the car? Aren't there 'child locks' on garda cars?

Handcuffed correctly, hands behind their backs.

bajer101

bubblypop wrote: »

If you were a driver of patrol cars you would be aware of that fact that you ARE NOT INSURED and if an accident occurred because you were driving with a prisoner not correctly restrained, if there was an accident, you can personally be sued.

Apart from the fact that I wouldn't want to be responsible for causing injury to any other person or myself, I would not want to be sued and lose my house/ money I have, .
Its all about safety and as far as I'm concerned if a prisoner is in my car then they will be correctly restrained.
NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE.

your post at the beginning says people are cuffed at the discretion of the guard, then you try to imply at the end if your post that its a bad thing for the guard to use discretion. Make up your mind!
I'm far from political!

Guards should always have the ability to use their discretion - that is a very good thing, and something that should never change. I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was making the point that in the Daly case, the discretion argument was being used to validate the decision to cuff her. Different officers use different criteria upon which to make the decision to cuff a suspect. You seem to be making the argument that it was valid to cuff Daly on the basis that you cuff everyone - therefore, her cuffing was legit. But I really call bullsh1t on this. Because I am sure that you have had suspects in the back of the car who you did not cuff.

Can you honestly state that there have been times when you have had a suspect in the back of the car who you have not cuffed? Answer this please. And can you state that they were less risk of a risk than a female TD who had drank a unit of whiskey? If you arrested Claire Daly tonight on suspicion of drink driving, would you cuff her?

gizmo555

bubblypop wrote: »

Its all about safety and as far as I'm concerned if a prisoner is in my car then they will be correctly restrained.
NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE.

Can you address the point that the Supreme Court has found that you are acting unlawfully in doing this (and potentially giving the suspects you've arrested a literal "get out of jail free card")?

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

Guards should always have the ability to use their discretion - that is a very good thing, and something that should never change. I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was making the point that in the Daly case, the discretion argument was being used to validate the decision to cuff her. Different officers use different criteria upon which to make the decision to cuff a suspect. You seem to be making the argument that it was valid to cuff Daly on the basis that you cuff everyone - therefore, her cuffing was legit. But I really call bullsh1t on this. Because I am sure that you have had suspects in the back of the car who you did not cuff.

Can you honestly state that there have been times when you have had a suspect in the back of the car who you have not cuffed? Answer this please. And can you state that they were less risk of a risk than a female TD who had drank a unit of whiskey? If you arrested Claire Daly tonight on suspicion of drink driving, would you cuff her?

Yes I would, absolutely. I do not discriminate.

bajer101

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes I would, absolutely. I do not discriminate.

So everyone you have arrested, you have cuffed?

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

Can you address the point that the Supreme Court has found that you are acting unlawfully in doing this (and potentially giving the suspects you've arrested a literal "get out of jail free card")?

I'm aware of the supreme courts judgement in that case. I stand by what I have said. I have no problem being before any court in the land and stating that I will not allow any prisoner in a car that I am driving unrestrained.

The court can say what they like about it but I can justify my actions.

If they find it unlawful, then the garda authorities can change their code and can insure me as a driver to carry those prisoners. Then grand, I will change and allow anyone in my car unrestrained.

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

So everyone you have arrested, you have cuffed?

If I was the driver of the car and a prisoner was being put into the back of my car, then yes, absolutely.
I'm not going to risk everyone else's security.

Just because someone is handcuffed, doesn't mean its rough and tumble. You can handcuff people, treat them well, explain what's happening and be courteous and respectful. Handcuffs do not automatically mean trouble/hassle/harm.

My name is URL

Is anyone else genuinely beginning to think that there isn't enough teflon in Ireland to save Shatter at this stage? I honestly don't see how he can continue to defend or justify his own ineptitude.. and the longer FG try to do so; the harder they'll be hit as a whole. They're no fools... a string has got to snap soon to take pressure off the rest.

What odds would you get on him being gone by Monday?

Happyman42

My name is URL wrote: »

Is anyone else genuinely beginning to think that there isn't enough teflon in Ireland to save Shatter at this stage? I honestly don't see how he can continue to defend or justify his own ineptitude.. and the longer FG try to do so; the harder they'll be hit as a whole. They're no fools... a string has got to snap soon to take pressure off the rest.

What odds would you get on him being gone by Monday?

Thursday is my bet.

I reckon enda will hold out as long as he can and eventually just do a cabinet reshuffle, probably saying it was always planned.

Dunno where shatter will go though, will he give him some quiet back seat for a while?

fr3d12

bubblypop wrote: »

The court can say what they like about it but I can justify my actions.

So you can be unlawful and justify your actions for the public good yet you castigate the whistleblowers for not following procedeure in the interest of the public good.
You know full well that Clare Daly was only cuffed to humiliate and intimidate her and the subsequent leak was to discredit her.
That's in stark contrast to the treatment of Shatter when he was stopped.

bajer101

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes I would, absolutely. I do not discriminate.

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm aware of the supreme courts judgement in that case. I stand by what I have said. I have no problem being before any court in the land and stating that I will not allow any prisoner in a car that I am driving unrestrained.

The court can say what they like about it but I can justify my actions.

If they find it unlawful, then the garda authorities can change their code and can insure me as a driver to carry those prisoners. Then grand, I will change and allow anyone in my car unrestrained.

I'm actually having a bit of a problem with how you enforce our laws on my behalf. Your constant use of the word "prisoner" when discussing suspects is disturbing. The fact that you say you would cuff people regardless of circumstances is very disturbing. Are you sure you are in the right job? Are you telling me that if you called to my home and needed to bring me down to the station for questioning that you would automatically cuff me? If so, I predict many lawsuits in your future.

mikom

bubblypop wrote: »

If I was the driver of the car and a prisoner was being put into the back of my car, then yes, absolutely.
I'm not going to risk everyone else's security.

Prisoner?
Do you have a giant inflatable ball on the coast?

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

I'm actually having a bit of a problem with how you enforce our laws on my behalf. Your constant use of the word "prisoner" when discussing suspects is disturbing. The fact that you say you would cuff people regardless of circumstances is very disturbing. Are you sure you are in the right job? Are you telling me that if you called to my home and needed to bring me down to the station for questioning that you would automatically cuff me? If so, I predict many lawsuits in your future.

No, prisoners are people who are under arrest. If you are not arrested, then you're not a prisoner.
I think you will find I am quite within my rights to make sure a prisoner in my car is handcuffed.
As I stated already, I will not put myself, my passengers ( including prisoners) and other road users at risk.
There is nothing wrong with handcuffs, and they can be placed on a compliant prisoner with no trouble, explained why, and everyone treated with respect.

fr3d12

fr3d12 wrote: »

So you can be unlawful and justify your actions for the public good yet you castigate the whistleblowers for not following procedeure in the interest of the public good.
You know full well that Clare Daly was only cuffed to humiliate and intimidate her and the subsequent leak was to discredit her.
That's in stark contrast to the treatment of Shatter when he was stopped.

Ah here! I have no idea of her arrest, but I'm sure they were only following procedure.
When shatter was stopped he was clearly his arrogant obnoxious self, and to be fair, this was clearly another leak to the media,
Shouldn't have happened either.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

Prisoner?
Do you have a giant inflatable ball on the coast?

What????
When someone is arrested then they are a PRISONER!

They can be released, charged, whatever.
But when they have been arrested and they are in custody, then they are known as prisoners!

sopretty

bubblypop wrote: »

What????
When someone is arrested then they are a PRISONER!

They can be released, charged, whatever.
But when they have been arrested and they are in custody, then they are known as prisoners!

Always thought they were called suspects....

fr3d12

bubblypop wrote: »

Ah here! I have no idea of her arrest, but I'm sure they were only following procedure.
When shatter was stopped he was clearly his arrogant obnoxious self, and to be fair, this was clearly another leak to the media,
Shouldn't have happened either.

Well either you have no idea or you are sure which is it?

Again it was Gardai who leaked the news about Shatter and what has him being arrogant or obnoxious got to do with it, are you suggesting he got preferential treatment because of his demeanour?
Did the fact that he instilled fear into the Gardai who stopped him put pressure on them to treat him differently?

sopretty

sopretty wrote: »

Always thought they were called suspects....

Well you are wrong.
They are prisoners once arrested.
That's it.

They can be released, charged, whatever but so long as they are in garda custody they are prisoners.

bajer101

bubblypop wrote: »

No, prisoners are people who are under arrest.
I think you will find I am quite within my rights to make sure a prisoner in my car is handcuffed.
As I stated already, I will not put myself, my passengers ( including prisoners) and other road users at risk.
There is nothing wrong with handcuffs, and they can be placed on a compliant prisoner with no trouble, explained why, and everyone treated with respect.

Well, if there are members of AGS roaming the streets with your attitude, we can probably expect to hear about another review into AGS - because frankly, that is shocking. What you are basically saying is that anyone who is even vaguely suspected of committing a criminal act should be handcuffed and put in the back of a squad car! You do realise that the actions that you defending are what you would only witness in a police state?

BTW - I wouldn't advise you to try that sh1t on me or anyone who can afford a solicitor. No wonder you don't like the whistleblowers or GSOC. I suspect that GSOC will play a large part in your futrure.

sopretty

bubblypop wrote: »

Well you are wrong.
They are prisoners once arrested.
That's it.

They can be released, charged, whatever but so long as they are in garda custody they are prisoners.

They're just under arrest.

fr3d12

fr3d12 wrote: »

Well either you have no idea or you are sure which is it?

Again it was Gardai who leaked the news about Shatter and what has him being arrogant or obnoxious got to do with it, are you suggesting he got preferential treatment because of his demeanour?
Did the fact that he instilled fear into the Gardai who stopped him put pressure on them to treat him differently?

I'm not aware of the details of her arrest but I'm sure they followed procedure when placing a prisoner in handcuffs.
Do you need further clarification?

In the same vein, I do not know the details of shatters stop by gardai, but I can bet that there's a LOT of guards that would like to have stopped him!!

No one, guard or otherwise, has the right to leak personal information about anyone, no matter who they are.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

Prisoner?
Do you have a giant inflatable ball on the coast?

bubblypop wrote: »

What????
When someone is arrested then they are a PRISONER!

Not one for 60's TV shows I see.

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

Well, if there are members of AGS roaming the streets with your attitude, we can probably expect to hear about another review into AGS - because frankly, that is shocking. What you are basically saying is that anyone who is even vaguely suspected of committing a criminal act should be handcuffed and put in the back of a squad car! You do realise that the actions that you defending are what you would only witness in a police state?

BTW - I wouldn't advise you to try that sh1t on me or anyone who can afford a solicitor. No wonder you don't like the whistleblowers or GSOC. I suspect that GSOC will play a large part in your futrure.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
On saying that someone WHO IS ARRESTED, should be handcuffed before being placed in a patrol car.
That is purely for everyones safety.

fr3d12

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not aware of the details of her arrest but I'm sure they followed procedure when placing a prisoner in handcuffs.
Do you need further clarification?

In the same vein, I do not know the details of shatters stop by gardai, but I can bet that there's a LOT of guards that would like to have stopped him!!

No one, guard or otherwise, has the right to leak personal information about anyone, no matter who they are.

I am clear, are you?
I'm not to argue with you about this but if you're not aware of details you cannot be sure, you do after all like to see proof before forming an opinion, yes?

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

BTW - I wouldn't advise you to try that sh1t on me or anyone who can afford a solicitor. No wonder you don't like the whistleblowers or GSOC. I suspect that GSOC will play a large part in your futrure.

I never said I didn't like whistleblowers or GSOC, I have no problem with anyone investigating any complaint against me.
( of which there is none, by the way)

All I am saying is that if someone is arrested and is being placed in my patrol car, then they will be properly restrained.
I'm interested in everyone's safety and nothing else.

fr3d12

fr3d12 wrote: »

I am clear, are you?
I'm not to argue with you about this but if you're not aware of details you cannot be sure, you do after all like to see proof before forming an opinion, yes?

She was arrested, therefore was a prisoner, so yes placing handcuffs on an arrested person is perfectly OK

fr3d12

bubblypop wrote: »

I never said I didn't like whistleblowers or GSOC, I have no problem with anyone investigating any complaint against me.
( of which there is none, by the way)

All I am saying is that if someone is arrested and is being placed in my patrol car, then they will be properly restrained.
I'm interested in everyone's safety and nothing else.

You did say they were paranoid weirdo's though.

fr3d12

fr3d12 wrote: »

You did say they were paranoid weirdo's though.

Well, to be fair, I'm not saying their reasons were completely altruistic, but i don't think the public cares about why they did what they did, just that it was done.
So it really doesn't matter about my own personal views of those men.

That highlighted an issue, that I'm surprised was an issue.

I honestly think that there is issues in AGS that are a lot bigger!!!

K-9

Sand wrote: »

I'm fairly sure most Guards have never been in the job, where they can be attacked and spat at on a quiet day, for the money. There is in fact a long waiting list for the windows when Garda recruitment opens. I think whilst no-one would reject more money for the same job, poor morale is a reflection of poor leadership - down to quite frankly appalling equipment and shortages of it, plus the corrosive effect of tolerated incompetence.

And while there was always good Gardai (I think especially of unarmed Gardai who went up against armed terrorist gangs throughout the 1980s - some paying with the lives) I wouldn't believe for a second that the calibre of officer was on average higher in the past. Quite the opposite.

Callinan for example joined in the 1970s and was very successful climbing to the top, and his description of whistleblowers as "disgusting" is wholly unsurprising to me. He is a product of his time in the Guards. Even "good" guards of that era fell in line when ordered. Cancelling penalty points? Similar activity where family and friends ask a Guard to "have a word" regarding a fine or ticket has been happening for decades - an open secret in Irish society and tolerated. And I'm personally aware of one case 20 years ago where Gardai conspired (there is no other word for it) to help one of their own escape from the consequences of writing off a car in a crash whilst drunk (I'm not going to provide further details so you can accept or disregard that - I'm aware its anecdotal). The calibre of Guards wasn't indisputably higher in the past.

As I said, I don't think Guards are in it for the money. They do a job far harder than what the majority of the people do day to day. I would still instinctively trust and respect the average Guard. The vast majority of them want to do a good job - the real issue is poor leadership setting a poor example, and abusing members sense of loyalty to each other to cover up for ineffective, incompetent and corrupt Guards. A stronger GSOC, and a better form of leadership not so resistant to criticism would lead to a far higher standard than was present in the past.

Any Guard that carries out his/her duties to the letter of the law is seen as "a bit of a baxtard", whereas one who'll do you a favour is seen as sound.

How we don't expect that attitude to get to the top of level of Guards, politicians etc. when it is pervasive in everyday society, well, it's something I don't think I've ever got a good answer too!