Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

pilly

I'd say she has only the best of legal advice on this and knows what she's doing.

Mr.Micro

pilly wrote: »

I'd say she has only the best of legal advice on this and knows what she's doing.

Yes indeed, the best money can buy. She is not that clever. It's important that she keeps in position to protect the rotten force and have a heads up what is going on. Such a lucrative business needs to be protected.

Seth Brundle

pilly wrote: »

I'd say she has only the best of legal advice on this and knows what she's doing.

I'd hazard a guess that she also has dirt on many senior politicians (given Callinan had minor dirt on Wallace) and this is used to help steer politicians towards making correct decisions regarding her force.

Captain Obvious

kbannon wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that she also has dirt on many senior politicians (given Callinan had minor dirt on Wallace) and this is used to help steer politicians towards making correct decisions regarding her force.

She's there to take as much dirt as possible to leave it cleaner for the next guy.

Are Am Eye

These people can move onto lucrative jobs when they retire anyway.
Derek byrne for example, who was a high ranked officer who has since retired, is now chief of police in the Camen Islands.

Muahahaha

pilly wrote: »

I'd say she has only the best of legal advice on this and knows what she's doing.

500,000 of taxpayers money has been spent so far by Noirin on her legal team for the Chaleston Tribunal

jonsnow

Boggy Turf wrote: »

Mick Clifford is a brilliant jouranlist. We need more like him.

The amazing thing about Mick Clifford is that he wasnt a crime journlist at all. He just got involved in the McCabe story and he was the only one properly covering it as the crime hacks are so tied up with their garda pals.

Boggy Turf

Laois_Man wrote: »

Leo Varadkar said in today's leaders questions that both he and the Government had confidence in the Commissioner and the problems faced by the force predated her tenure as Garda Commissioner.

Nothing ever changes!

Wow. Disappointed that Leo would say that. I thought he was more honest.

Mr.Micro

Boggy Turf wrote: »

Wow. Disappointed that Leo would say that. I thought he was more honest.

Nothing to do with honesty, it's weakness or Noirin knows stuff that might make people be hesitant to act. She acts like a person with power and self assurance. The State created An Garda, but An Garda now acts like its independent of the State, a law onto itself?

Water John

We all know the owner who expresses total loyalty to the team manager. The same guy who finds himself out on his ear 2 weeks later.
The problem is Leo has only 2 choices, confidence or any other word, that really means no confidence.

That could change quite soon. One more slip.

Muahahaha

Water John wrote: »

We all know the owner who expresses total loyalty to the team manager. The same guy who finds himself out on his ear 2 weeks later.
The problem is Leo has only 2 choices, confidence or any other word, that really means no confidence.

That could change quite soon. One more slip.

Yesterday the CSO suspended issuing any more crime statistics until they can actually have trust in the data the Gardai are supplying them with. It is looking now like AGS have been fiddling the homicide rates. I would expect more to come too- I have always been astounded by their claimed figures for solving burglaries and have suspected for a long time that the amount they are solving is nowhere near the truth.

In the next few weeks we could have more revelations that show widespread fiddling of crime stats. Given that the Charleston tribunal wont issue a final report for another 14 months or so I would think that the next AGS scandal that comes along will be an opportune moment for Leo to sack her.

Personally I think he should have fired her on day one of being Taoiseach, it would have shown a bit of leadership and sent a clear message to the public that things are going to be different with him in charge, instead it is looking like more of the same, at least thus far.

jimmycrackcorm

Muahahaha wrote:

Personally I think he should have fired her on day one of being Taoiseach, it would have shown a bit of leadership and sent a clear message to the public that things are going to be different with him in charge, instead it is looking like more of the same, at least thus far.

If that was the case then we'd be firing every new commissioner every few months.

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

Personally I think he should have fired her on day one of being Taoiseach, it would have shown a bit of leadership and sent a clear message to the public that things are going to be different with him in charge, instead it is looking like more of the same, at least thus far.

That sounds like a very political reason for firing her. It's the political aspect of that job that is the big problem.

For Reals

Great to see the Jobstown protesters vindicated. Shameful behavior from the Garda and a politician formally of note.
I hope there's a look into the false statements made by the senior Garda involved.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

Great to see the Jobstown protesters vindicated. Shameful behavior from the Garda and a politician formally of note.
I hope there's a look into the false statements made by the senior Garda involved.

Can you elaborate on the false statements part?

Boggy Turf

For Reals wrote: »

Great to see the Jobstown protesters vindicated. Shameful behavior from the Garda and a politician formally of note.
I hope there's a look into the false statements made by the senior Garda involved.

Yes 6 Gardai did a dawn raid when they could just as easily have tapped him on the shoulder in the Dáil (where he works).

Another own goal by the corrupt Gardaí.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the false statements part?

It was put to the jury that members gave false statements of evidence.
It's been well covered for months.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/garda-accused-of-giving-false-evidence-at-jobstown-trial-1.3085458

Also the Judge seemed to think so.

IMO, there certainly seemed to be a bias against a fair hearing from day one.

In her ruling in the absence of the jury that ultimately led to the charges against him being dropped, Judge Melanie Greally said that the extension of Mr Purcell's garda detention in February 2015 was unlawful.

"Putting it mildly, the first three hours of his detention were not put to good use," the judge said.

She noted the superintendent who made the decision to extend his detention was given a "misleading" impression as to how the investigation was progressing that day.

"The casual and languid approach of the interviews is inexplicable on the face of an arrest that was pre-planned and carried out at 7.30am with great precision," she said...

..Paul Murphy said what happened in court was "disgusting".

He said three gardaí had claimed they heard him asking the crowd in Jobstown if they should keep Ms Burton there for the night, when he had never said that.

He asked if they had not had video evidence, where would the defendants be today?
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0629/886505-jobstown/

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

It was put to the jury that members gave false statements of evidence.

That's not what it says at all.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's not what it says at all.

Can you elaborate on that?

A garda has been accused of lying “in a dishonest and disreputable fashion” about Solidarity TD Paul Murphy’s actions on the day of the water protest.
Seán Guerin SC, defending Mr Murphy, suggested to Garda Gavin Cooke that he had deliberately toned down his “false” evidence in a “cowardly” way, Dublin Circuit Criminal Court heard on Tuesday.

Members gave very colorful testimony that wasn't believed by the court. Where's the confusion?

Luckily the video evidence showed the truth. It's a bigger issue than the individuals involved.

It was only right it was raised today in the Dail.

Ms Fitzgerald said she would not comment on the trial given there is a possibility that the court's decision could be appealed.

Mr Barry suggested that An Garda Síochána engaged "in orchestrated conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

He said evidence given by three members of the Garda claimed they heard Deputy Paul Murphy say: "Will we let her go, or will we keep her for the night?"

Mr Barry said this claim was contradicted completely during the trial and questioned whether it was possible that the three gardaí misheard.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0629/886525-jobstown-reaction/

Of course the 'nothing to see here' attitude from the minister for Justice fits right snug with O'Sullivan.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

Can you elaborate on that?



Members gave very colorful testimony that wasn't believed by the court. Where's the confusion?

Luckily the video evidence showed the truth. It's a bigger issue than the individuals involved.

It was only right it was raised today in the Dail.

You've alleged perjury. It's a very serious offence. And your support for this is a cross examination by a defense barrister and inconsistencies in some of what they said. Witnesses get things wrong, it doesn't mean they made false statements.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You've alleged perjury. It's a very serious offence. And your support for this is a cross examination by a defense barrister and inconsistencies in some of what they said. Witnesses get things wrong, it doesn't mean they made false statements.

Three Garda gave the same statement shown to be false and inaccurate. Three of them saw and heard the same thing that never happened. It warrants investigating IMO.

The right to protest is a key facet of democracy and should be diligently defended.

Floppybits

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You've alleged perjury. It's a very serious offence. And your support for this is a cross examination by a defense barrister and inconsistencies in some of what they said. Witnesses get things wrong, it doesn't mean they made false statements.

Actually if you commit perjury in this state you have no committed a crime. If you are found to be lying the judge can dismiss you and evidence you gave but there is other action that can be taken against you.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-haphazard-state-of-perjury-law-1.357008

blanch152

Floppybits wrote: »

Actually if you commit perjury in this state you have no committed a crime. If you are found to be lying the judge can dismiss you and evidence you gave but there is other action that can be taken against you.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-haphazard-state-of-perjury-law-1.357008

That doesn't say it is not a crime, neither does it say it is not serious, all it says is that the existing law on perjury makes it difficult to secure a conviction.

Floppybits

blanch152 wrote: »

That doesn't say it is not a crime, neither does it say it is not serious, all it says is that the existing law on perjury makes it difficult to secure a conviction.

So you can go into court and lie to your hearts content and all that will happen is that you will be dismissed by the judge? Right or wrong? You wont be charged with anything and will suffer no consequences?

Water John

Very strongly of the belief that the Gardai needs to be whooly reformed a la PSNI. But I can't stand Paul Murphy et al. Gobdaw loud mouths, going nowhere.

BTW, I have a lot of time for Claire Daly and Mick Wallace and others in the DAIL of similar views. Genuine people.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

Three Garda gave the same statement shown to be false and inaccurate. Three of them saw and heard the same thing that never happened. It warrants investigating IMO.

Again, can you please link to what you are talking about.

For Reals wrote: »

The right to protest is a key facet of democracy and should be diligently defended.

So is the right to go about your day without fear of bodily harm.

LuckyLloyd

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Again, can you please link to what you are talking about.

He's linked above what he's talking about - but constantly asking for links seems to be the preferred defense for you in this case generally:

Zebra3 wrote: »

The judge pretty much told the jury to ignore all the statements from members of AGS, and instead to focus on video evidence.

The judge basically calling them liars.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Less embarrassing than a judge directing a jury to ignore Garda statements contravened by Garda footage imo.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Never saw that in the reports. Have you any link to where it was reported?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/jobstown-trial-jury-resume-deliberations-after-being-recharged-35874561.html

Judge Greally went on to direct the jurors on the video footage the jury had seen and reminded them that the oral testimony was of lesser importance.

The video was “the best and most reliable account” of the events, she said. She pointed to the defence assertion that Scott Masterson’s actions on the video and that he “invites the gardai to get Joan Burton out of the car” was inconsistent with guilt.

Addressing the jury on policing, she said they should consider the absence of garda statements raised questions about the fairness of the investigation and whether there was any policing “agenda,” in particular in relation to Paul Murphy.

This is just another episode that calls into question the integrity of the force. If you take a step back and look at the broader level, it's becoming increasingly commonplace for Garda practice, procedures or assertions to be misaligned with the truth or with what is fair. No single Garda Commissioner shoulders the blame for that, the entire culture of the force is rotten.

Captain Obvious

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He's linked above what he's talking about - but constantly asking for links seems to be the preferred defense for you in this case generally:

If posters are alleging specific things happened I don't see how it's a bad thing to look for a link to the report they are drawing from so that I can respond to it properly, especially as it is clear from the last few pages that some posters have no issue embellishing the truth.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Again, can you please link to what you are talking about.

Paul Murphy said what happened in court was "disgusting".

He said three gardaí had claimed they heard him asking the crowd in Jobstown if they should keep Ms Burton there for the night, when he had never said that.

He asked if they had not had video evidence, where would the defendants be today?

He said there was clearly a conspiracy to try to criminalise the anti-water charges movement and Jobstown.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0629/886505-jobstown/

I linked this yesterday and you responded, so I assume read it. If you're working towards a point, please do.

Three Garda gave false statements regarding Murphy saying 'Should we keep her all night'. It's in the papers. I cannot possibly be any clearer. As to whether it was intentional or not would be a matter for the courts. I suppose they may have been suffering from a mass delusion also known as mass hysteria.

In sociology and psychology, mass hysteria (also known as collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior) is a phenomenon that transmits collective illusions of threats, whether real or imaginary, through a population in society as a result of rumors and fear (memory acknowledgment).[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So is the right to go about your day without fear of bodily harm.

Quite right.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

I linked this yesterday and you responded, so I assume read it. If you're working towards a point, please do.

Three Garda gave false statements regarding Murphy saying 'Should we keep her all night'. It's in the papers. I cannot possibly be any clearer. As to whether it was intentional or not would be a matter for the courts. I suppose they may have been suffering from a mass delusion also known as mass hysteria.

Quite right.

I was assuming you had an actual report or something on it.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I was assuming you had an actual report or something on it.

Paul Murphy said what happened in court was "disgusting".

He said three gardaí had claimed they heard him asking the crowd in Jobstown if they should keep Ms Burton there for the night, when he had never said that.

He asked if they had not had video evidence, where would the defendants be today?

He said there was clearly a conspiracy to try to criminalise the anti-water charges movement and Jobstown.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0629/886505-jobstown/

Please see above, (3rd time posting). Three Garda gave the same false statement as borne out by video evidence.
I thought you might have been building to a point.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

Please see above, (3rd time posting). Three Garda gave the same false statement as borne out by video evidence.
I thought you might have been building to a point.

That's just a claim from Murphy though. I'm asking for something to support it.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's just a claim from Murphy though. I'm asking for something to support it.

The three Garda made the claim in court. The video which disproved their statements was shown in court.
As regards, Murphy, the facts would support his 'claim'.
Are you seriously looking for an admission from the Garda?
It's another black eye for the Garda. I'm sure O'Sullivan will be all over...passing the buck.

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's just a claim from Murphy though. I'm asking for something to support it.

The judge directed the jury to concentrate on the video evidence and to ignore the garda evidence.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

The three Garda made the claim in court. The video which disproved their statements was shown in court.
As regards, Murphy, the facts would support his 'claim'.
Are you seriously looking for an admission from the Garda?
It's another black eye for the Garda. I'm sure O'Sullivan will be all over...passing the buck.

I'm asking for some reference to the actual statements in the reports. The trial was reported every day.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The judge directed the jury to concentrate on the video evidence and to ignore the garda evidence.

The judge said if their was a discrepency then go with the video evidence. Pretty standard.

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The judge said if their was a discrepency then go with the video evidence. Pretty standard.

Some of the garda testimony was "not borne out by the footage and contradicted what was said".

Are you saying the judge was not throwing out the garda evidence where it related to the videos? What was she doing then making the statement?

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm asking for some reference to the actual statements in the reports. The trial was reported every day.

A video was played to the jury showing Paul Murphy addressing the crowd through a loudhailer and saying that there were two options, either to “let them go in half an hour (…) or we just keep her here”.
A woman is then seen taking the megaphone, introducing herself as a resident of Killinarden, and saying, to loud cheers from the crowd: “I vote that we keep Joan here all night. She’s on our turf now and she’s staying.”
South Dublin County Councillor Michael Murphy is then seen taking the megaphone and telling the crowd, “I don’t think staying here is an option.”
Cllr Murphy also told the crowd, “We’ve done what we came to do,” and proposed allowing the 4x4 passage to the Tallaght bypass.
Let her go
Supt Flavin insisted that he had heard Paul Murphy say in one of his addresses to the crowd, “Will we let her go, or will we keep her here all night?”
However, he accepted that there was “a lot more said” in the video footage of the incident.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/garda-denies-conspiracy-to-pervert-course-of-jobstown-trial-1.3089658

In one of the other links I gave earlier the defense accused Garda of lying. They denied it. I didn't see any reports where the Judge signed an affidavit claiming the Garda were lying, to be fair.
We only know they made statements which were shown to be false. That's as close to empirical evidence as we're going to get. If it's not good enough for you, fair enough. Alas, we've reached the end.
However, if you can show Murphy did in fact say what they claim he did, I'm all ears.

To get back to my point;

For Reals wrote: »

Great to see the Jobstown protesters vindicated. Shameful behavior from the Garda and a politician formally of note.
I hope there's a look into the false statements made by the senior Garda involved.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

In one of the other links I gave earlier the defense accused Garda of lying. They denied it. I didn't see any reports where the Judge signed an affidavit claiming the Garda were lying, to be fair.
We only know they made statements which were shown to be false. That's as close to empirical evidence as we're going to get. If it's not good enough for you, fair enough. Alas, we've reached the end.
However, if you can show Murphy did in fact say what they claim he did, I'm all ears.

To get back to my point;

You are claiming people lied based on a claim from a defendant and his lawyer. I don't find it very compelling, certainly not enough to state it as fact as you have. You also keep mentioning senior officers lying but I don;t think you've elaborated on that either.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You are claiming people lied based on a claim from a defendant and his lawyer. I don't find it very compelling, certainly not enough to state it as fact as you have. You also keep mentioning senior officers lying but I don;t think you've elaborated on that either.

I am claiming the Garda gave false statements as borne out by the video evidence. They say Murphy said one thing, the evidence showed they were wrong and another had said it. The worrying thing is three Garda made the same error by giving the same false statement.

A video was played to the jury showing Paul Murphy addressing the crowd through a loudhailer and saying that there were two options, either to “let them go in half an hour (…) or we just keep her here”.
A woman is then seen taking the megaphone, introducing herself as a resident of Killinarden, and saying, to loud cheers from the crowd: “I vote that we keep Joan here all night. She’s on our turf now and she’s staying.”
South Dublin County Councillor Michael Murphy is then seen taking the megaphone and telling the crowd, “I don’t think staying here is an option.”
Cllr Murphy also told the crowd, “We’ve done what we came to do,” and proposed allowing the 4x4 passage to the Tallaght bypass.
Let her go
Supt Flavin insisted that he had heard Paul Murphy say in one of his addresses to the crowd, “Will we let her go, or will we keep her here all night?”
However, he accepted that there was “a lot more said” in the video footage of the incident.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/garda-denies-conspiracy-to-pervert-course-of-jobstown-trial-1.3089658

Ultimately regardless of whether you support the right to protest, think they should have gone down, think they shouldn't have; the Garda involved err'd in the process followed and many statements given. This needs to be addressed. It should be looked into.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

I am claiming the Garda gave false statements as borne out by the video evidence. They say Murphy said one thing, the evidence showed they were wrong and another had said it. The worrying thing is three Garda made the same error by giving the same false statement.

Your argument appears to based on the assumption that Paul Murphy only addressed the crowd one time. I take it you have dismissed the possibility that the Gardaí were referring to a time other than the specific one on camera.

For Reals wrote: »

Ultimately regardless of whether you support the right to protest, think they should have gone down, think they shouldn't have; the Garda involved err'd in the process followed and many statements given. This needs to be addressed. It should be looked into.

It just seems odd to me that you believe three Gardaí would deliberately lie about something that would be easily disproven by video footage they, and the public, had access to. Perhaps when a source other than Paul Murphy arises as to the full testimony given it will be clearer.

I doubt you will find any argument that there were not mistakes made. Adopting a softly softly approach to a crowd like that should never have been done. Neither should a prosecution for false imprisonment instead of simply going with public order charges.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Your argument appears to based on the assumption that Paul Murphy only addressed the crowd one time. I take it you have dismissed the possibility that the Gardaí were referring to a time other than the specific one on camera.

You keep changing your view of my argument, (based on the defense, based on one incidence), which I only keep expanding on because you won't take my argument for what it plainly is.
Three Garda said they heard Murphy say something he never said. That's the bones of it. The burden of proof is there's. They failed.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It just seems odd to me that you believe three Gardaí would deliberately lie about something that would be easily disproven by video footage they, and the public, had access to. Perhaps when a source other than Paul Murphy arises as to the full testimony given it will be clearer.

I doubt you will find any argument that there were not mistakes made. Adopting a softly softly approach to a crowd like that should never have been done. Neither should a prosecution for false imprisonment instead of simply going with public order charges.

I agree that public nuisance or something along those lines might have had a better chance of sticking. Who thought false imprisonment was the way to go? Why the dawn raids? How did three Garda give false statements? You could see one mishearing possibly. Should Garda be comparing notes as it seems they did? Why arrest these particular people, to make a political point or poor process by the officers involved?

It doesn't make sense to go the 'nothing to see here' route, if you care about the institutions of the state.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

You keep changing your view of my argument, (based on the defense, based on one incidence), which I only keep expanding on because you won't take my argument for what it plainly is.
Three Garda said they heard Murphy say something he never said. That's the bones of it. The burden of proof is there's. They failed.

Unfortunately, as your claim is based solely on a claim made by a defendant, I can only argue it based on assumptions.

For Reals wrote: »

I agree that public nuisance or something along those lines might have had a better chance of sticking.

Public nuisance? Is that even in the statute books? The public order act is full of offences that could have been prosecuted from disorderly conduct to riot.

For Reals wrote: »

Who thought false imprisonment was the way to go? Why the dawn raids? How did three Garda give false statements? You could see one mishearing possibly. Should Garda be comparing notes as it seems they did? Why arrest these particular people, to make a political point or poor process by the officers involved?

There wasn't much unusual about the investigation. You investigate based on the most serious crime. False imprisonment was the most serious. "Dawn raids" are pretty normal for the investigation of serious offences as they have the highest likelihood of the person being home, they ensure the highest probability of getting a solicitor to the station as it is office hours and they allow for anyone charged to be brought before an evening court if the interviews are completed quickly enough. And no, Gardaí shouldn't be comparing notes but defence can get copies of Garda notebooks so if this was the case I'm sure the similarities would have been highlighted.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Unfortunately, as your claim is based solely on a claim made by a defendant, I can only argue it based on assumptions.

No. I've laid out they said one thing that was shown to be false. The burden of proof is there's. They failed. You clearly have no intention of accepting the documented proceedings. I'll leave you there on that.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Public nuisance? Is that even in the statute books? The public order act is full of offences that could have been prosecuted from disorderly conduct to riot.

A public nuisance or some public disorder issue was the only realistic chance they had for a conviction against the protesters they actually charged.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There wasn't much unusual about the investigation. You investigate based on the most serious crime. False imprisonment was the most serious. "Dawn raids" are pretty normal for the investigation of serious offences as they have the highest likelihood of the person being home, they ensure the highest probability of getting a solicitor to the station as it is office hours and they allow for anyone charged to be brought before an evening court if the interviews are completed quickly enough. And no, Gardaí shouldn't be comparing notes but defence can get copies of Garda notebooks so if this was the case I'm sure the similarities would have been highlighted.

And they wouldn't have turned up had they called them on the phone? Nonsense.The Dawn raids were overkill and an embarrassment for the Garda, not to mention a waste of tax payer resources.
That and three Garda making the same 'err', warrants investigating IMO.

In the Marx Brothers film Duck Soup, Groucho Marx plays the president of the mythical land of Freedonia. One day while in his office, he hears a noisy peanut vendor (Chico Marx) out in the street. "Do you want to be a public nuisance?" Groucho asks. "Sure," Chico replies, "how much does the job pay?"

Boggy Turf

Another report highlights her incompetence and yet she remains...why?!?

McMurphy

Boggy Turf wrote: »

Another report highlights her incompetence and yet she remains...why?!?

My guess would be, she, like her predecessor knows too much dirt on prev govts, hence why FF aren't going in for the kill on this one

It speaks volumes about the law and order party if they are not seen to do something now.

Water John

Yes she should go but the AGS needs wholesale reform. Another sacking isn't going to achieve that. In fact it possibly will postpone it.

In fairness I think all political party leaders want it reformed. Don't see the point of political scoring at this point. It's FGs fault, it's FFs fault.

For Reals

Should be beyond politics, but sadly it's not. FF/FG seem intent on ignoring incompetence/possible corruption.
She's off on her five weeks holliers. Doubt she's worried.
'Like that when she got here', 'was aware but took her time letting it be known', 'didn't know' etc. In the least, pretty terrible at her job.
The whole organisation seems rotten. They need a complete clear out.

Ipse dixit

For Reals wrote: »

Should be beyond politics, but sadly it's not. FF/FG seem intent on ignoring incompetence/possible corruption.
She's off on her five weeks holliers. Doubt she's worried.
'Like that when she got here', 'was aware but took her time letting it be known', 'didn't know' etc. In the least, pretty terrible at her job.
The whole organisation seems rotten. They need a complete clear out.

Thats the problem. The whole organisation is dysfunctional. O'Sullivan should have been removed from her role months ago and replaced with a complete outsider. It's clear that the head of An Garda Siochana cannot come from within as they will defend their own to the hilt.

In fairness to O'Sullivan she shouldn't be stopped from going on holiday because of the systematic flip flopping going on in Dáil Éireann over this issue. She should have been sacked long ago.

The criminal and civil justice system and An Garda Siochana are in dire need of major reform. Good luck thinking Paddy the politician is going to solve that problem.

gizmo555

Is this how the government will deal with the O'Sullivan controversy - bump her upstairs to Europol?

Garda Commissioner Noirin O Sullivan has been linked to a senior position in Europol.

The EUs law enforcement agency is recruiting in the area of senior operations with the post becoming available in November.

The Sunday Business Post reports that a garda spokesperson would not comment on speculation around the possible job offer for the Commissioner.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/noirin-o-sullivan-linked-to-senior-position-in-europol-800049.html

Water John

Hubby can go with her.