Minister Shatter and Commissioner Callinan should both resign in disgrace

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Agreed regarding business vs personal calls, however many people now use one smartphone for everything. Should GSOC go through every call and redact personal ones while leaving business ones in? And how exactly is one to differentiate between the two?

Perhaps this is a sound argument against BYOD more so than anything - people shouldn't be allowed to use their personal mobile number for business related calls and vice versa, to make investigations and publications like this less messy in future?

When I had a mobile for work in the public service, I had to account for every personal call, standard operating practice there. Granted it was a few years ago, but I doubt things have changed, unless GSOC operate to lower standards.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

When I had a mobile for work in the public service, I had to account for every personal call, standard operating practice there. Granted it was a few years ago, but I doubt things have changed, unless GSOC operate to lower standards.

So you weren't allowed to use your own personal phone for work stuff? They gave you / you had to get a separate phone, separate number etc?

gizmo555

Godge wrote: »

Data protection laws don't apply to business calls - it only applies to personal data.

Where did you get that idea?

Godge

gizmo555 wrote: »

Where did you get that idea?

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/EN_ACT_1988_0025.PDF


From the Act.


Data controllers may process personal data

"the processing is necessary—
(i) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party,"

A contract includes an employment contract. Thus any personal data held by your employer can be used for the performance of your employment contract, thus any business phone calls can be used (unless it is sensitive personal data which has more stringent rules).

Personal phone calls cannot.

gizmo555

Godge wrote: »

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/EN_ACT_1988_0025.PDF


From the Act.


Data controllers may process personal data

"the processing is necessary—
(i) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party,"

A contract includes an employment contract. Thus any personal data held by your employer can be used for the performance of your employment contract, thus any business phone calls can be used (unless it is sensitive personal data which has more stringent rules).

Personal phone calls cannot.

Interesting take on that provision of the Act. How would publication of the details of calls made by GSOC staff members by GSOC be "necessary" for the performance of their employment contracts? How do you even know what's in the employment contracts of GSOC staff which would create such a necessity?

Godge

gizmo555 wrote: »

Interesting take on that provision of the Act. How would publication of the details of calls made by GSOC staff members by GSOC be "necessary" for the performance of their employment contracts? How do you even know what's in the employment contracts of GSOC staff which would create such a necessity?

It is necessary to ensure public confidence in GSOC, if publishing a report with details of the phone calls helps, then it is necessary.

What you do in your professional capacity in your job is not personal information.

gizmo555

Godge wrote: »

It is necessary to ensure public confidence in GSOC, if publishing a report with details of the phone calls helps, then it is necessary.

Possibly, if that's covered in GSOC employment contracts. How do you know it is?

Godge wrote: »

What you do in your professional capacity in your job is not personal information.

Why don't you go back to the Act and look at the definition of personal data?

Godge

gizmo555 wrote: »

Possibly, if that's covered in GSOC employment contracts. How do you know it is?

I don't know exactly what is in their contracts, but I have a good idea as I have seen many public sector contracts.

They perform public functions, those functions are subject to public scrutiny. Anyway, the full details of each call don't have to be published, but the conclusions of the investigators can be published.

adrag

Godge wrote: »

I don't know exactly what is in their contracts, but I have a good idea as I have seen many public sector contracts.

They perform public functions, those functions are subject to public scrutiny. Anyway, the full details of each call don't have to be published, but the conclusions of the investigators can be published.

Public scrutiny in the public service lol.you're fcuking gas godger

adrag

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its worth pointing out here that when GSOC was first established Michael McDowell insisted that no current or former Gardai were to be recruited into their ranks. It was a decision he took against the backdrop of the Donegal Gardai scandals where the Gardai were planting weapons and bombs and then finding them again so they could get promotions. I remember then sometime around 2008 Phoenix magazine had a very detailed report on how that policy of not recruiting Gardai into GSOCs ranks was overturned, by then Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, iirc. Phoenix outlined in great detail how this move was the end of GSOC as an independent organistion and they predicted that their investigations would be stifled at every turn now that serving members of the Gardai were conducting the investigations. They were right in that regard as there was plenty of complaints along those lines from members of the public. So I think it is important to realise that when we talk of GSOC we're not just talking about a bunch of public servants, we're talking former Gardai too. I think its fair to say that from around 2008 onwards GSOC found itself compromised so when we say the leaks 'came from GSOC' that may indeed have some truth but its not to deny that the leaker could well have been a member/former member of the Gardai who had ulterior motives.

Just off topic a bit, maybe someone here might know the answer to this. The whole Donegal thing also involved the death of a cattle dealer called Richie Barron who was walking on a road and knocked over by a driver who left him for dead. The Gardai tried to pin the murder on Frank McBrearty who they were intimidating for years at that stage. Court case revelaed that McBrearty had nothing to do with a hit and run and that corrupt Gardai were trying to set him up. What I've always wondered though is whatever happened to the Richie Barron hit and run investigation ? I heard nothing of it when it was revealed that McBrearty was being set up but on the other hand I know from a few friends up there that the word on the street is a serving Garda drunk out of his brains killed him and they covered it up. I've no ideas if there is any truth in that as its anecdotal and totally unverified. Anyone have any ideas ? Its almost like the investigation just vanished, I haven't heard anything about it in at least 5 years, his family must be sickened by the whole thing.

How dare you even suggest that members of ags would do such a thing.

adrag

Godge wrote: »

A more relevant point is that nobody can trust GSOC. They have acknowledged that they have someone leaking from the inside but also acknowledged that they can do nothing about it.

Ags are the biggest leakers in the country. Det.Sgt Paul Williams based at the indo is one, allegedly lol

Godge

adrag wrote: »

Public scrutiny in the public service lol.you're fcuking gas godger

adrag wrote: »

Ags are the biggest leakers in the country. Det.Sgt Paul Williams based at the indo is one, allegedly lol

not really sure what point you are trying to make.

We are now fairly certain that there are leaks from within GSOC and that the report into it is being covered up.

Esel

adrag wrote: »

Ags are the biggest leakers in the country.

You need a better source. IW are by far the biggest leakers. Check your taps.

BaronVon

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its worth pointing out here that when GSOC was first established Michael McDowell insisted that no current or former Gardai were to be recruited into their ranks. It was a decision he took against the backdrop of the Donegal Gardai scandals where the Gardai were planting weapons and bombs and then finding them again so they could get promotions. I remember then sometime around 2008 Phoenix magazine had a very detailed report on how that policy of not recruiting Gardai into GSOCs ranks was overturned, by then Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, iirc. Phoenix outlined in great detail how this move was the end of GSOC as an independent organistion and they predicted that their investigations would be stifled at every turn now that serving members of the Gardai were conducting the investigations. They were right in that regard as there was plenty of complaints along those lines from members of the public. So I think it is important to realise that when we talk of GSOC we're not just talking about a bunch of public servants, we're talking former Gardai too. I think its fair to say that from around 2008 onwards GSOC found itself compromised so when we say the leaks 'came from GSOC' that may indeed have some truth but its not to deny that the leaker could well have been a member/former member of the Gardai who had ulterior motives.

There was nothing sinister about this though. The problem GSOC had was that the most qualified investigators in the country are Gardaí/retired Gardaí. While they recruited some international retired police, they came from different legal frameworks etc. GSOC was quite ineffectual in its early days, failing to complete some basic investigations competently.

Therefore, the powers that be had to recruit retired Gardaí as they were the most qualified people for the job. In fairness to the Govt, they tried it at the start without retired Gardaí but it didn't work.

Muahahaha

infacteh wrote: »

There was nothing sinister about this though. The problem GSOC had was that the most qualified investigators in the country are Gardaí/retired Gardaí. While they recruited some international retired police, they came from different legal frameworks etc. GSOC was quite ineffectual in its early days, failing to complete some basic investigations competently.

Therefore, the powers that be had to recruit retired Gardaí as they were the most qualified people for the job. In fairness to the Govt, they tried it at the start without retired Gardaí but it didn't work.

What you've just said was the exact line that was pedelled by the government at the time, 'we have to have Gardai investigating Gardai because Gardai are the only people who know how to investigate things to do with Gardai'.

It was pure Fianna Fail waffle, as if Gardai are a specific breed of man and are the only people in the country who have the ability to conduct investigations. Granted a knowledge of how Gardai work is required but thats a regulators job, the banking regulator has to have huge knowledge of how banking works, but he doesn't have to be a banker, or from that background and the current head of the Central Bank is an economist, not a banker. I don't buy this jazz that only Gardai can investigate Gardai, there are any number of professions in Ireland who conduct research and investigations as part of their work, solicitors, barristers, accountants would all have many of the skills necessary to carry out the work required of GSOC. All you're doing is checking avenues and creating a paper trail, this isn't rocket science we're talking about here and other countries seem to manage it ok.

If the government/DoJ/senior management of AGS were serious about GSOC remaining indpendent then why did they not continue to recruit from outside the Gardai? Are we seriously to believe that a team of 20 barristers or 20 forensic accountants couldn't have been recruited to GSOC and done a good job? The political will wasn't there to allow GSOC remain indpendent, Michael McDowell had brought in the legislation to ensure the Donegal scandals couldn't happen again but as soon as McDowell was out of office Dermot Ahern then went about the policy change. Any man on the street could have told you that allowing Gardai to investigate Gardai was a bad idea and that's exactly what seems to have happened here. It has already been reported that Callinan knewthe contents of a GSOC report before it was published. How could he have know it ? Pretty obvious he had a mole on the inside of GSOC, and someone quite senior to have access to that kind of info. I'm not saying the mole is defintely a former Garda working for them but if I was a betting man....

conorh91

infacteh wrote: »

There was nothing sinister about this though. The problem GSOC had was that the most qualified investigators in the country are Gardaí/retired Gardaí. While they recruited some international retired police, they came from different legal frameworks etc. GSOC was quite ineffectual in its early days, failing to complete some basic investigations competently.

Former Gardai were recruited from the outset.

I see no reason to say that GSOC has become more efficacious in its investigations. There are more inadmissible complaints than there were at the beginning, and there is an increased volume of complaints generally. I'm not sure that is proof of anything at all, let alone former-Garda involvement.

Muahahaha wrote: »

McDowell had brought in the legislation to ensure the Donegal scandals couldn't happen again but as soon as McDowell was out of office Dermot Ahern then went about the policy change.

with all due respect, you seem to be basing this on your recollection of an old 'Village' article. 'Village' is a weak journalistic source at the best of times.

Former Gardai were there from the beginning.

hatrickpatrick

To be fair, I'd say the increase in inadmissible complaints is the result of three factors, namely (a) an increase in the overall volume of complaints, (b) increased publicity for GSOC over the last year, and (c) a lot of fairly tumultuous political incidents around protests etc, where one would presume many involved would be proactive about submitting complaints to GSOC, some of which would turn out to be valid and some of which would not.

The fact that GSOC has to fight tooth and nail in order to complete its more high level enquiries seems to be lost in transmission however. Don't forget that the context of the bugging fears was a general bitterness between GSOC and the Gardai over a high level investigation and, as has been published previously by GSOC, a ridiculous amount of obstruction and nuisance making by the Gardai with regard to that investigation.

The bottom line would appear to be that certain elements, some at the higher end of the chain within AGS, do not want to be answerable to any other body.

Muahahaha

conorh91 wrote: »

with all due respect, you seem to be basing this on your recollection of an old 'Village' article. 'Village' is a weak journalistic source at the best of times.

Former Gardai were there from the beginning.

Im open to correction on weather or not Gardai were recruited into GSOC from day one. I defintely remember reading a Phoenix article on a policy change sometime around 2008 and it was they who were saying that it was a change in direction as there was a delibrate policy laid down of not hiring former Gardai into GSOC, presumably this policy was laid down by McDowell circa 2005/6.

What source did you read that the opposite of the above is true?

flutered

Muahahaha wrote: »

Im open to correction on weather or not Gardai were recruited into GSOC from day one. I defintely remember reading a Phoenix article on a policy change sometime around 2008 and it was they who were saying that it was a change in direction as there was a delibrate policy laid down of not hiring former Gardai into GSOC, presumably this policy was laid down by McDowell circa 2005/6.
d sWhat source did you read that the opposite of the above is true?

i have read somewhere during the week that mcdowell changed it so he ags could transfer to gsoc, could be wrong.

conorh91

Muahahaha wrote: »

What source did you read that the opposite of the above is true?

Section 6.3 of the GSOC Annual Report, 2006; its very first Annual Report.

http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/docs/publications/GSOC-Annual-Report-English.pdf

adrag

From what I can see the top levels of ags just dont want anyone questioning anything they do, and how dare anyone even trying to do so seems to be the attitude they have, very similar approach that gangsters have.and sure if there's no wrongdoing why have this attitude. HHHMmmmm I often wonder what they have to hide

adrag

conorh91 wrote: »

Former Gardai were recruited from the outset.

I see no reason to say that GSOC has become more efficacious in its investigations. There are more inadmissible complaints than there were at the beginning, and there is an increased volume of complaints generally. I'm not sure that is proof of anything at all, let alone former-Garda involvement.


with all due respect, you seem to be basing this on your recollection of an old 'Village' article. 'Village' is a weak journalistic source at the best of times.

Former Gardai were there from the beginning.

And that's the problem , garda investigating their own sort

conorh91

adrag wrote: »

And that's the problem , garda investigating their own sort

Some issues.

Firstly, former police officers from foreign jurisdictions who are recruited to GSOC's Investigation Unit may not be sufficiently familiar with AGS practice and procedures to investigate allegations made against Gardaí. Basically, they don't know the 'tricks of the trade', and a naughty Garda wouldn't necessarily find it difficult to out-manoeuvre foreign investigators.

Of course, GSOC does recruit non-Irish retired officers, but having the retired Irish officers (or officers on secondment) at GSOC is an important safety-check.

Secondly, the fact that prosecutions are directed against Gardaí on foot of GSOC investigations (6 in number last year) suggests that concerns about former-Garda bias may be overstated.

Of course, even when GSOC investigates and the DPP decides to bring a prosecution, the uphill battle has not yet commenced. Juries are famously reluctant to convict Gardaí. Perhaps the biggest bias in favour of Gardaí relates to the esteem in which the public hold them.

BaronVon

conorh91 wrote: »

Of course, even when GSOC investigates and the DPP decides to bring a prosecution, the uphill battle has not yet commenced. Juries are famously reluctant to convict Gardaí. Perhaps the biggest bias in favour of Gardaí relates to the esteem in which the public hold them.

An important issue on this is that the DPP will run with a charge against a Garda with less evidence than they normally would with an ordinary member of the public, as it's in the public interest to be seen to have Gardaí accountable to the law.

While I agree that juries certainly seem to hold Gardaí in high regard, and are reluctant to convict a Guard, I do feel a lot of trials go ahead in the public interest, as opposed to proceeding on the likelihood of a conviction.

adrag

conorh91 wrote: »

Some issues.

Firstly, former police officers from foreign jurisdictions who are recruited to GSOC's Investigation Unit may not be sufficiently familiar with AGS practice and procedures to investigate allegations made against Gardaí. Basically, they don't know the 'tricks of the trade', and a naughty Garda wouldn't necessarily find it difficult to out-manoeuvre foreign investigators.

Of course, GSOC does recruit non-Irish retired officers, but having the retired Irish officers (or officers on secondment) at GSOC is an important safety-check.

Secondly, the fact that prosecutions are directed against Gardaí on foot of GSOC investigations (6 in number last year) suggests that concerns about former-Garda bias may be overstated.

Of course, even when GSOC investigates and the DPP decides to bring a prosecution, the uphill battle has not yet commenced. Juries are famously reluctant to convict Gardaí. Perhaps the biggest bias in favour of Gardaí relates to the esteem in which the public hold them.

Perhaps its fear instead of esteem,

conorh91

adrag wrote: »

Perhaps its fear instead of esteem,

Ah yes. That would be the well-known phenomenon of Gardai intimidating jurors.

What?

kerry4sam

When will Ireland be getting a New Garda Commissioner suitable for the job? I don't know Acting Commissioner O Sullivan, but cannot forget the smirk by her in the PAC meeting as her boss (at the time) referred to Whistleblowers ae disgusting.
Since then, she has been saying what people want to hear, similar to the pandering to the masses approach by the GRA; headliners and sound-bites. Now, she does fill the gender quota, but is that sufficient? Does An Garda Síochána or indeed does Ireland need an actual Garda Commissioner not made from the same cloth and will just carry on with same practices & procedures that has them in the position where they now are

Just pondering & curious,
kerry4sam

curioser

And now they can't get anybody willing to take Brian Purcell's job. Sounds like the right woman didn't apply.
Seriously tho, maybe there was a "consensus" among qualified candidates (certainly in the civil service) that it was not worthwhile to go for the job.

Sierra Oscar

kerry4sam wrote: »

When will Ireland be getting a New Garda Commissioner suitable for the job?

I would think that there will be someone in place for the new year. Id say Noreen O'Sullivan will be happy to return to the position of Deputy Commissioner for now. The next Commissioner will be inheriting a poisoned chalice.

curioser

curioser wrote: »

Can see Paddy Power suspending betting on the next Garda Commissioner, interviews to be conducted by Frances Fitzgerald, "And your name is?" "NOIRIN O'Sullivan, Minister" "Ah, a woman, the job is yours."

From 8th May - quelle surprise!