garda whistleblowers. heros or just disgruntled employees??

So in your mind, the end justifies the means?

If you were stopped for speeding, and the 2nd guard at the checkpoint decided to look up your personal info & see if you paid a ticket, you think that's ok?

What if you wrote a letter to the superintendent b
stating that you had a serious medical condition & you were speeding to get home in relation to that? Or your father was beating your mother & you were rushing home to deal with it? Or your granny had just been brought into hospital & was about to die?
Do you think its ok for some random individual to bring your case up to a third party?
Perhaps give your story to a TD?

All I'm saying is, people shouldn't be so quick to say just 2 people are right & and the other 12 thousand are wrong without knowing all the background.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

This has been a Party Political Broadcast by Alan Shatter TD the minister for Garda incompetence cover ups.

I doubt you will find too many gardai ready to stand behind the minister for justice

J K

bajer101 wrote: »

But there is a much greater chance that he would have been remanded in custody, if the Judge had been aware that he was already out on bail.

Every criminal that is brought into every garda station through every hour of each day has typically dozens of cases pending. At any given time they are rotating through different stages in the life cycle of many cases anywhere from five to fifty. That's the life of a career criminal - you're picking up charges as you go along. Occupational hazard. The fact that you are currently on bail for multiple other charges does not have a bearing on whether you get bail. In this country it is extremely difficult and unusual to get an accused remanded in custody. Only in the strongest circumstances will a district court deny someone bail. And even then they will usually get it from the High Court a couple of days later.

Pay a trip to a court room sometime if doubt this.

Also if you're criticising how a garda presented a case in court bear in mind they have no legal training. The state could and should send a barristor or solicitor to represent the state/prosecution. The accused will have the best legal representation your money can buy.

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

A superintendent in a normal police service would tell you to get lost at that point. That's the problem with AGS.

Well maybe AGS should operate a zero tolerance policy then in future.
Do you think that's what the country needs?
Police that couldn't give a crap about your personal circumstance & screw you at every opportunity?

J K

bajer101 wrote: »

"Circle Jerk"! Are you aware of the irony? I am in now way trying to censor balanced debate and I don't understand how you can make that statement.

I addressed the content of your post. You responded with a snide remark addressing what you assume is my occupation. It was the third post in the thread where desenting opinion was addressed with 'Oh Garda' response.

So if you don't want dissenting oppinion and just want a rant then carry on.

bajer101

bubblypop wrote: »

So in your mind, the end justifies the means?

If you were stopped for speeding, and the 2nd guard at the checkpoint decided to look up your personal info & see if you paid a ticket, you think that's ok?

What if you wrote a letter to the superintendent b
stating that you had a serious medical condition & you were speeding to get home in relation to that? Or your father was beating your mother & you were rushing home to deal with it? Or your granny had just been brought into hospital & was about to die?
Do you think its ok for some random individual to bring your case up to a third party?
Perhaps give your story to a TD?

All I'm saying is, people shouldn't be so quick to say just 2 people are right & and the other 12 thousand are wrong without knowing all the background.

The problem with your argument is that no one is disagreeing that AGS should not have discretion. The Irish public actually really like that AGS use discretion in a lot of cases. We've all been stopped, got the verbal warning and have then been given the nod and told not to let it happen again. The Irish public love that about our police force. When we see some TV shows of police in other countries who are like feckin robots - we smile to ourselves and are glad that our police are not like that.

But that is not the problem here! Apparently, since the penalty points scandal has come to the fore, the health of the nations kids and grandmothers has drastically improved. Because those excuses are a lot less prevalent on pulse when points are wiped. The conclusion being, that those excuses were used when they weren't actually true at all!

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

The problem with your argument is that no one is disagreeing that AGS should not have discretion. The Irish public actually really like that AGS use discretion in a lot of cases. We've all been stopped, got the verbal warning and have then been given the nod and told not to let it happen again. The Irish public love that about our police force. When we see some TV shows of police in other countries who are like feckin robots - we smile to ourselves and are glad that our police are not like that.

But that is not the problem here! Apparently, since the penalty points scandal has come to the fore, the health of the nations kids and grandmothers has drastically improved. Because those excuses are a lot less prevalent on pulse when points are wiped. The conclusion being, that those excuses were used when they weren't actually true at all!

Well in fairness, guards are told plenty of fibs at the side of the road, have done it myself, & they let u away with a little lecture & a 'don't do it again'
So basically, do you think its ok for a guard to believe people but a superintendent is not to believe anyone that writes a letter to him?

Hardly corruption, superintendent s were guards once as well!

bajer101

J K wrote: »

I addressed the content of your post. You responded with a snide remark addressing what you assume is my occupation. It was the third post in the thread where desenting opinion was addressed with 'Oh Garda' response.

So if you don't want dissenting oppinion and just want a rant then carry on.

I didn't make a snide remark - I made the observation that you were obviously a member of AGS. I checked your previous posts, saw where and what you posted and then made that comment. I would counter that it was you who made the snide remark, by ignoring all other aspects of the discussion, and just throwing in a one-liner to focus on my inferior knowledge of bail laws.

I don't know what you are talking about when you say "third post in the thread". That wasn't me, and was nothing to do with me. But I don't know how you can argue against that poster's comment as he was obviously correct in his conclusion that the starter of the thread was a member of AGS!

I am perfectly willing to listen to dissenting opinion and am quite prepared to have a reasoned argument with you, or anyone else. I don't know where you got the impression that I didn't. I am only too willing to discuss any points you wish you make or discuss. I am also perfectly willing to change my mind and admit when I am wrong. As I would have if I was wrong about the Smithwick reference!

K-9

I really think there is something in the Irish Psyche that hates touting, comes up often on threads in AH. When taken to an extreme you get a thread like this.

J K

bajer101 wrote: »

I made the observation that you were obviously a member of AGS.

Meaning I can't have an opinion?
Or meaning my opinion is automatically of less value than yours?
Or something else?

As I would have if I was wrong about the Smithwick reference!

You're wrong on two counts.
Smithwick wasn't the Judge.
Secondly Morris's comments on AGS in general are invalid as he had heard no evidence in his tribunal to form them. He had evidence of the wrong doing of a group of individuals. The rest is speculation on his part. I think GSOC would back that up as well. I think the public have been given a misguided view of GSOCs view of AGS in general and also of the relationship between GSOC and AGS in general.

bajer101

J K wrote: »

Every criminal that is brought into every garda station through every hour of each day has typically dozens of cases pending. At any given time they are rotating through different stages in the life cycle of many cases anywhere from five to fifty. That's the life of a career criminal - you're picking up charges as you go along. Occupational hazard. The fact that you are currently on bail for multiple other charges does not have a bearing on whether you get bail. In this country it is extremely difficult and unusual to get an accused remanded in custody. Only in the strongest circumstances will a district court deny someone bail. And even then they will usually get it from the High Court a couple of days later.

Pay a trip to a court room sometime if doubt this.

Also if you're criticising how a garda presented a case in court bear in mind they have no legal training. The state could and should send a barristor or solicitor to represent the state/prosecution. The accused will have the best legal representation your money can buy.

Here's the thing. I absolutely hear what you are saying and know where you are coming from. 99% of the population do too and have huge sympathy for the sh1te that you have to put up with. But you know that this case was a clusterfúck. The original assault on Mary Lynch was dealt with incorrectly and we all know now that it could have ended up as a murder. The subsequent attempted abduction of a child was also huge. I think we know how that would have ended up. If all the facts had have been available to the Judge, it is very likely that McGrath wouldn't have got bail.

The public is on the side of AGS in nearly all cases, and AGS enjoy huge public support. But when there are issues that have to be confronted and addressed, members have to stand up and address them, because they will lose the public's support. Your duty is to the public - not to incompetent or corrupt fellow members.

bajer101

bubblypop wrote: »

Well in fairness, guards are told plenty of fibs at the side of the road, have done it myself, & they let u away with a little lecture & a 'don't do it again'
So basically, do you think its ok for a guard to believe people but a superintendent is not to believe anyone that writes a letter to him?

Hardly corruption, superintendent s were guards once as well!

That's not what the Penalty points scandal is about. No one wants that level of discretion to stop. We love that about our police force. The issue is that penalty points were wiped because of contacts. Journos and other people with AGS contacts got their points wiped with no valid excuse.

Sid Fletcher

K-9 wrote: »

I really think there is something in the Irish Psyche that hates touting, comes up often on threads in AH. When taken to an extreme you get a thread like this.

It is almost Sicilian in its nature.

bajer101

K-9 wrote: »

I really think there is something in the Irish Psyche that hates touting, comes up often on threads in AH. When taken to an extreme you get a thread like this.

Definitely. The proverbial 800 years will do that to the psyche. I'm sure that it is the bane of AGS and ironically we see it manifested again here.

downonthefarm

Nobody like a squealer

Sid Fletcher

downonthefarm wrote: »

Nobody like a squealer

Childlike mentality.

downonthefarm

Its true,doesn't matter what you're doing squealing is frowned upon

K-9

bajer101 wrote: »

Definitely. The proverbial 800 years will do that to the psyche. I'm sure that it is the bane of AGS and ironically we see it manifested again here.

Exactly, the 800 years thing, add a natural tendency of police forces to practice omerta, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, and well, we see what can happen.

We've seen it within the Church and another good example was Dr. Patrick Neary and Drogheda, that could have been stopped in its tracks years earlier if whistle blowing wasn't condemned and feared so much.

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

That's not what the Penalty points scandal is about. No one wants that level of discretion to stop. We love that about our police force. The issue is that penalty points were wiped because of contacts. Journos and other people with AGS contacts got their points wiped with no valid excuse.

You don't know that, you believe that happened because a 'whistleblower' said so, neither of whom are privy to private correspondence sent to superintendents. So basically they looked up people on an internal system, saw they didn't have points & decided themselves that they shouldn't have had points quashed.

Who are they to know the reasons why? Without any correspondence from the people that cancelled the tickets they are just assuming that it was done corruptly.
They have not seen any reason that any person gave to cancel these tickets.

Why do you believe these two men who clearly have their own agenda here?

And I am not in any way just backing up the gardai here, all injustice should be dealt with. I just think joe public had jumped on a very bad bandwagon here.

downonthefarm

downonthefarm wrote: »

Its true,doesn't matter what you're doing squealing is frowned upon

Please.

Times are very different now to even 10 years ago.

Give it another couple of years, guards will be afraid to come out of the station

K-9

bubblypop wrote: »

Please.

Times are very different now to even 10 years ago.

Give it another couple of years, guards will be afraid to come out of the station

Them damn regulatory bodies, as Clarkson would say, "health and safety gone mad".

As Gardai and law and order types are so oft to say when the latest new power is granted to the Guards, "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". If you do your job properly and above board, you've nothing to fear from GSOC.

downonthefarm

Well hope the new batch they are taking on have a bit more about them than the current lot

bajer101

J K wrote: »

Meaning I can't have an opinion?
Or meaning my opinion is automatically of less value than yours?
Or something else?

I never said you couldn't an opinion. But you just jumped into the thread with a one liner, offering nothing to the discussion, but an attack on me. It just seemed that you were providing backup to your colleague. I don't know why you believe I think your opinion is of less value than mine. I believe your opinion is hugely important in this debate, and probably more important than mine. It is your reputation that is being called into question in this affair, and it is your voice and the voice of your colleagues that the public will listen to - not mine.

You're wrong on two counts.
Smithwick wasn't the Judge.

Yeah, he was.
"The tribunal took its name from the leading judge on the panel, Judge Peter Smithwick."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithwick_Tribunal

I think you are confusing it with the Morris Tribunal. The Smithwick tribunal that I mentioned is the one that investigated the alleged collusion between members of AGS and the IRA into the murder of two RUC officers.

Secondly Morris's comments on AGS in general are invalid as he had heard no evidence in his tribunal to form them. He had evidence of the wrong doing of a group of individuals. The rest is speculation on his part. I think GSOC would back that up as well. I think the public have been given a misguided view of GSOCs view of AGS in general and also of the relationship between GSOC and AGS in general.

I am sure that you are right about the Morris tribunal. There were dodgy Guards, and they were called to account. That's really all the public want. As I have already mentioned, it wasn't Morris who made the comments about loyalty vs truth, it was Smithwick.

The last point you make is extremely valid and I think you are spot on. The public now have an opinion that the rank and file members of AGS have a big problem with GSOC and I don't think this is true. I don't believe that most members of AGS have a problem with GSOC. I reckon that the ordinary member of AGS would rather have oversight by GSOC than by Comissioner Callinan. I think this perception needs to be addressed and that is why I think ordinary members of AGS should come out in support of AGS and support AGS.

K-9

A Guard who doesn't know the Smithwick inquiry wasn't named after the judge who presided over it! Hmmmmm.

downonthefarm

downonthefarm wrote: »

Well hope the new batch they are taking on have a bit more about them than the current lot

yea, lets hope that the new 300 guards know more than the 13,000 that are currently there:rolleyes:

J K

K-9 wrote: »

A Guard who doesn't know the Smithwick inquiry wasn't named after the judge who presided over it! Hmmmmm.

To be honest the only smithwicks im interested in comes in a pint glass.

bajer101

bubblypop wrote: »

You don't know that, you believe that happened because a 'whistleblower' said so, neither of whom are privy to private correspondence sent to superintendents. So basically they looked up people on an internal system, saw they didn't have points & decided themselves that they shouldn't have had points quashed.

Who are they to know the reasons why? Without any correspondence from the people that cancelled the tickets they are just assuming that it was done corruptly.
They have not seen any reason that any person gave to cancel these tickets.

I don't just believe it because a whistleblower said so. But the whistleblower's allegation is the necessary first step in all this. After the allegation comes evidence, sometimes in a flood - as in the Snowden case, sometimes in dribs and drabs, as in this case. The evidence that has has dripped through to the public in this has shown that certain people did have their points wiped incorrectly. Despite the attempts to brush it all under the carpet, the evidence has been strong enough for the issue to persist. The Dail Committe on oversight questioned those involved and decided that it needed to be fully investigated. If no ones points were quashed illegally, then there's no problem. the full investigation will reveal that. But we all know that is not the case.

Why do you believe these two men who clearly have their own agenda here?

And I am not in any way just backing up the gardai here, all injustice should be dealt with. I just think joe public had jumped on a very bad bandwagon here.

I already explained earlier in the thread why I believe them. Why don't you? Why would you take Callinan's side instead of theirs?

I think you are misinterpreting Joe Public's reaction here and the reasons behind it. I think that you are mistaking this as an attack on your ability to have a bit of discretion when you are doing your job. But it's not about that at all. As I said before, the Irish public love that about AGS and in no way want to see that done away with. But what Joe Public doesn't like is that the editor of the Irish Independent may have had points wiped for no valid reason, and could then be compromised in his paper's reporting.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/oct/03/irish-independent-ireland

We also don't like that Callinan may have had points wiped, and when a journalist tried to question him about it, she was sacked:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/sep/17/irish-independent-ireland

Joe Public hates this sh1t.

downonthefarm

bubblypop wrote: »

yea, lets hope that the new 300 guards know more than the 13,000 that are currently there:rolleyes:

I meant they have more integrity than the current crowd.
Don't suppose they teach them that in templemore

bajer101

@Bubblypop. If we get back to the questions in your original post, I think you will find that most people do support the two whistle blowers. You might have conversations over coffee with your colleagues that disagree with this assessment, and you might instinctively not like what they have done. But I think you will just have to accept that the public support them and you and your colleagues should act accordingly. You could probably start by inviting Maurice out to the bowling this weekend.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/01/30/garda-whistle-blower-not-invited-out-with-the-lads-from-work-this-weekend/

K-9

J K wrote: »

To be honest the only smithwicks im interested in comes in a pint glass.

Indeed, my pint of choice, good ould culchie I am.

Funnily enough I met the man about 20 years ago, wouldn't have known who he was to this day, only the restaurant owner whom I worked for pointed him out. Seems to be a highly regarded and respected man.