Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

Yes, he refused to name the Garda he was accusing of colluding with the IRA. His evidence at the Smithwick Tribunal was described as "nonsense on stilts". Because of him refusing to name the suspect all Gardai in Dundalk came under suspicion of collusion with the IRA. Senior Gardai in the Crime & Security branch in the Park were less than impressed with Harris over his Tribunal evidence and now he has to work over many of the same people.

Also Drew Harris has been picking a fight for years with an organisation called Relatives for Justice who campaign for justice for both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. Under his watch he refused to release historical RUC files at dozens of coroners inquests. Harris was in charge of the PSNI Historical Enquiries Team which was set up on London orders to investigate collusion between the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries including the Glenanne Gang, UVF and UDA.The Historical Enquiries Team led by Harris was set up in 2005. By 2010 they still had not produced any kind of report. In 2010 the Belfast High Court ruled that the PSNI frustration of justice for the relatives was "an abuse of power" and that "the unfairness here is extreme". Relatives for Justice have not had any joy in seeing RUC files that relate to their case and the matter has now been referred to the European Court of Human Rights. This is despite the fact at the launch of the PSNI Historical Enquiries Team under Harris that they "pledged to carry out its investigations in a way that commanded the confidence of the whole community". Well that clearly turned out to be complete spin.

Then to make matters worse Harris addressed the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association, basically the old RUC boys club. So on one hand his PSNI Historical Team is supposed to be investigating crimes by the RUC and on the other he is addressing a group of ex-RUC reassuring them that they wont be facing any investigations. This information is only known because a Coroners Court judge ordered that the minutes of the meeting between Harris and his deputy and the ex-RUC men be released into the public domain. As part of the minutes Harris deputy got up on stage and said "the PSNI is determined to play our part in the defence of the RUC". Then Harris got up on stage and said "We dont disassociate ourselves with what happened in the past. I have great pride in my RUC service".

So basically in public Harris was supposed to be leading the PSNI Historical Enquiries Team into RUC crimes and then in private he was reassuring ex-RUC officers that the investigation would go no-where. Which is basically what happened as Relatives for Justice have been frustrated by Harris at every step of the way.

This is how the Smithwick Tribunal described his evidence:

"In this respect, I have been immensely impressed by his evidence, not only in terms of his professional expertise and experience, but also by his explanation of the constraints under which he is operating, his concern for the protection of life and the of preservation of peace, and his genuine desire to assist the Tribunal in so far as he can"

It seems to me that in the case of this particular Tribunal you prefer to accept the evidence of the Garda Commissioner that Harris' evidence was "nonsense on stilts" and dismiss the conclusions of the Judge in the Tribunal. Interesting, and not a little hypocritical.

As I said earlier in this thread, the various strands of outrage at Harris' appointment are amusing.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest, there are no degrees here. Best practice and good governance says you should avoid them at all costs but the Policing Authority and their appointment of Harris has done the exact opposite. They cant not have known this when discussing his appointment.

There is an awful lot of barstool pontification about conflicts of interest both in the media and across the internet as well as on discussion boards such as this.

Conflicts of Interest are unavoidable, as people have lives, relations, interests, hobbies, history etc. outside of their current job. The key is in having processes to manage conflicts of interest. Unless someone can demonstrate that the mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in the Gardai are flawed, this is just another red herring put up by those who have been discomfited by the appointment.

FrancieBrady

How many top UK policemen and women would be sworn to the Official Secrets Act of another country I wonder?
How tenable would it be for one of them to stay silent during a live inquiry because of it?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many top UK policemen and women would be sworn to the Official Secrets Act of another country I wonder?
How tenable would it be for one of them to stay silent during a live inquiry because of it?

You are absolutely free to take the viewpoint that no outsider can be appointed to the Gardai because they are "sworn to the Official Secrets Act of another country". Which of the internal Garda candidates do you think should have got the job then?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You are absolutely free to take the viewpoint that no outsider can be appointed to the Gardai because they are "sworn to the Official Secrets Act of another country". Which of the internal Garda candidates do you think should have got the job then?

When your argument is extremely bad it might be best to say nothing.

Being sworn to the OSA of another country with skin in the game still in this jurisdiction should have precluded him from the beginning.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When your argument is extremely bad it might be best to say nothing.

Being sworn to the OSA of another country with skin in the game still in this jurisdiction should have precluded him from the beginning.

That excludes all external candidates.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That excludes all external candidates.

Can you back this up?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you back this up?

How could I? I would have to know every secret every possible candidate knows from their past under their Official Secrets Act.

Given that every external candidate is subject to the Official Secrets Act of their past job, we have no way of being able to say that there is no conflict of interest. They can't answer the question as that would be a breach of their country's Official Secrets Act.

Therefore, we have to rule them all out. If we rule one out - Drew Harris - because we suspect a conflict of interest, then we have to rule them all out for the same presumption.

What has happened here is that some people jumped up and down for an external candidate and didn't like the answer. Very amusing.

For my part, having read what the judge said about him, he seems like an honourable and decent man.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

How could I? I would have to know every secret every possible candidate knows from their past under their Official Secrets Act.

Given that every external candidate is subject to the Official Secrets Act of their past job, we have no way of being able to say that there is no conflict of interest. They can't answer the question as that would be a breach of their country's Official Secrets Act.

Therefore, we have to rule them all out. If we rule one out - Drew Harris - because we suspect a conflict of interest, then we have to rule them all out for the same presumption.

What has happened here is that some people jumped up and down for an external candidate and didn't like the answer. Very amusing.

For my part, having read what the judge said about him, he seems like an honourable and decent man.

How many candidates were sworn to the OSA of another country?

Captain Obvious

blanch152 wrote: »

How could I? I would have to know every secret every possible candidate knows from their past under their Official Secrets Act.

Given that every external candidate is subject to the Official Secrets Act of their past job, we have no way of being able to say that there is no conflict of interest. They can't answer the question as that would be a breach of their country's Official Secrets Act.

Therefore, we have to rule them all out. If we rule one out - Drew Harris - because we suspect a conflict of interest, then we have to rule them all out for the same presumption.

What has happened here is that some people jumped up and down for an external candidate and didn't like the answer. Very amusing.

For my part, having read what the judge said about him, he seems like an honourable and decent man.

Why are you assuming every candidate would be sworn to an OSA?

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

Conflicts of Interest are unavoidable, as people have lives, relations, interests, hobbies, history etc. outside of their current job. The key is in having processes to manage conflicts of interest. .

Conflicts of interest are not unavoidable. In this case they had another 15 candidates to chose from and that is how you avoid it, not by walking straight into one as the government now have.

As I said Drew Harris has knowledge in his head about the Dublin Monaghan bombings which is a live Garda investigation. And now he is head of the Gardai, if you cannot see how that is a major problem then its because you dont want to see it as it doesnt suit your argument that Harris is the best person for the job. There were 33 Irish citizens murdered that day and the familes have never come anywhere near justice. Now we have Drew Harris in the pay of the State and his defacto position is that he will not do anything that could give the victims families the justice they deserve.

Thats not to even speak about what happened at the Tribunal. At the end of the day two of his own police officers were ambushed and murdered. Harris says he has direct knowledge of who was involved and of the Garda-IRA collusion but he refuses to release that knowledge. It puts him in an extraordinary position of covering up for murder of two of his own officers, I wonder how their families feel about it ?

Nor is it to speak of his clear obstruction of other families wanting justice for crimes committed by the RUC. In public he said he would do everything to bring this about whereas in private he is telling ex-RUC men that he will not. This all sounds very familiar, Noirin OSullivan was up to the exact same tricks with McCabe, using weasel words to say one thing in public and then doing the exact opposite in private. As I said before blanch152 you have very low standards of what is to be expected of a public servant. You are quite happy to settle for mediocrity in our public service, you constantly defend it on here.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many candidates were sworn to the OSA of another country?

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Why are you assuming every candidate would be sworn to an OSA?

Well, you could have someone who was a fireman in another country or a truck-driver, I suppose.

I know that sounds flippant, but any candidate who was senior enough in policing in another country, would be carrying baggage with secrets they cannot reveal.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

Conflicts of interest are not unavoidable. In this case they had another 15 candidates to chose from and that is how you avoid it, not by walking straight into one as the government now have.

As I said Drew Harris has knowledge in his head about the Dublin Monaghan bombings which is a live Garda investigation. And now he is head of the Gardai, if you cannot see how that is a major problem then its because you dont want to see it as it doesnt suit your argument that Harris is the best person for the job. There were 33 Irish citizens murdered that day and the familes have never come anywhere near justice. Now we have Drew Harris in the pay of the State and his defacto position is that he will not do anything that could give the victims families the justice they deserve.

Thats not to even speak about what happened at the Tribunal. At the end of the day two of his own police officers were ambushed and murdered. Harris says he has direct knowledge of who was involved and of the Garda-IRA collusion but he refuses to release that knowledge. It puts him in an extraordinary position of covering up for murder of two of his own officers, I wonder how their families feel about it ?

Nor is it to speak of his clear obstruction of other families wanting justice for crimes committed by the RUC. In public he said he would do everything to bring this about whereas in private he is telling ex-RUC men that he will not. This all sounds very familiar, Noirin OSullivan was up to the exact same tricks with McCabe, using weasel words to say one thing in public and then doing the exact opposite in private. As I said before blanch152 you have very low standards of what is to be expected of a public servant. You are quite happy to settle for mediocrity in our public service, you constantly defend it on here.

If it is in private, then how do you know about it?

Just another scurrilous allegation, put about without any evidence.

As for standards, I read what the Smithwick Tribunal said about him, and quoted it above, if anything it painted him in a far higher light than anyone else.

Look, let's call a spade a spade. This man's anti-IRA credentials are causing a problem for some people in politics. Nothing to do with his ability or his performance. From what I have read about him, this fear is mistaken. He appears to be a man who will do a job to the best of his ability. If those interviewing him believe that he can cross the Border and give his loyalty to this State, then I am prepared to accept that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This man's anti-IRA credentials are causing a problem for some people in politics..

What have the victims of the Dublin Monaghan bombings got to do with the IRA among other who were affected by British collusion that is still a live issue here.

The 'state' interviewing him have called for 'full disclosure' of information pertaining to the crime above but yet employ somebody to investigate that crime who has information himself???

The world doesn't revolve around your bogeymen. There are vital issues here before the need to mention his dislike of the IRA.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

If it is in private, then how do you know about it?

Just another scurrilous allegation, put about without any evidence.

We know what he and his deputy said from the minutes of the NIRPOA. And we know that he has frustrated Relatives for Justice from actually getting justice by refusing to release their files, a matter than is now before the European Court of Human Rights. This is a discussion forum and we are allowed to judge him on his actions. But you always just fall back on your default position "nothing to see here" :rolleyes:

Look, let's call a spade a spade. This man's anti-IRA credentials are causing a problem for some people in politics. Nothing to do with his ability or his performance. From what I have read about him, this fear is mistaken. He appears to be a man who will do a job to the best of his ability. If those interviewing him believe that he can cross the Border and give his loyalty to this State, then I am prepared to accept that.

Problem is he cannot give his 100% loyalty to the State because he has knowledge of the Dublin Monaghan bombings. Knowledge that will not be shared with the State which means the victims families will not get justice despite the fact he is in the pay of the State. You just refuse to see the conflict of interest as it doesnt suit your uncritical backing for Harris. The rest of us here can see a clear conflict of interest, its as obvious as day.

There were 15 other candidates in this process. It would be hard to believe any of them carrying the same baggage with them as Harris. As I said the government have set us on a course for Garda Commissioner scandal #3. Time will tell who leaks what against him but the possibility is definitely there in the foreground.

davycc

Interesting development from the drew Harris mega thread on after hours.
Hopefully the high court case succeeds especially for the cross community victims family's sake

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/high-court-challenge-launched-over-choice-of-new-garda-commissioner-862868.html

Muahahaha

From the Examiner article

He said: “I have instructed my lawyers to bring a case to the High Court in order to challenge the appointment of the PSNI Deputy Chief Constable Drew Harris as the new Garda Commissioner.
“I consider it to be wildly inappropriate that the most senior British securocrat of the last 20 years should be even considered for this position, let alone hold the office.

“He and other senior officers in the PSNI have denied my family, and hundreds of others, access to truth, justice and accountability.

“Furthermore, it is an astonishing breach of Irish national security to install Britain’s most senior counter-insurgency practitioner as head of An Garda Siochana.

“He is simply not of the type or calibre of person to hold such an office.”

Fifteen people were killed when a UVF bomb exploded in the north Belfast bar in December 4, 1971.

The bombing was carried out by loyalists but at the time security forces blamed the IRA, prompting speculation the dead might have included IRA members who were carrying the device.

Relatives and campaigners discovered a large amount of new evidence not heard at the original inquest held the year after the bombing.

Solicitor Niall O’Murchu said: “It will be argued in that not only is the appointment a breach of Irish national security, but also it is a threat to human rights.

“As officer in control of the PSNI’s discredited HET (Historical Enquiries Team), this person oversaw the large-scale blocking of access to truth and justice and information, something for which he and his organisation have been heavily criticised for by the courts in Belfast.

“We will be seeking a ruling that this appointment is unlawful.”

Drew Harris blocked relatives of victims from ever getting justice. If that isnt a big red flag then I dont know what is.

blanch152

davycc wrote: »

Interesting development from free Harris mega thread on after hours.
Hopefully the high court case succeeds especially for the cross community victims family's sake

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/high-court-challenge-launched-over-choice-of-new-garda-commissioner-862868.html

One big ball of smoke that will go nowhere.

Judiciary will be reluctant to interfere in appointment process.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

One big ball of smoke that will go nowhere.

Judiciary will be reluctant to interfere in appointment process.

And Harris is completely undermined before he even sits in his office. And rightly so.

Well done FG and partners in government yet again. :rolleyes:

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

One big ball of smoke that will go nowhere.

Judiciary will be reluctant to interfere in appointment process.

I think we all know it wont go anywhere but why dont you deal with the substantive points. Youre the one singing Drew Harris praises so what do you have to say about him obstructing justice for the families of victims of the troubles? Nothing to see here as well?

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think we all know it wont go anywhere but why dont you deal with the substantive points. Youre the one singing Drew Harris praises so what do you have to say about him obstructing justice for the families of victims of the troubles? Nothing to see here as well?

I am only quoting a judge:

"In this respect, I have been immensely impressed by his evidence, not only in terms of his professional expertise and experience, but also by his explanation of the constraints under which he is operating, his concern for the protection of life and the of preservation of peace, and his genuine desire to assist the Tribunal in so far as he can"

Do you disagree with this judge?

blanch152 wrote: »

This is how the Smithwick Tribunal described his evidence:

"In this respect, I have been immensely impressed by his evidence, not only in terms of his professional expertise and experience, but also by his explanation of the constraints under which he is operating, his concern for the protection of life and the of preservation of peace, and his genuine desire to assist the Tribunal in so far as he can"

It seems to me that in the case of this particular Tribunal you prefer to accept the evidence of the Garda Commissioner that Harris' evidence was "nonsense on stilts" and dismiss the conclusions of the Judge in the Tribunal. Interesting, and not a little hypocritical.

As I said earlier in this thread, the various strands of outrage at Harris' appointment are amusing.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am only quoting a judge:

"In this respect, I have been immensely impressed by his evidence, not only in terms of his professional expertise and experience, but also by his explanation of the constraints under which he is operating, his concern for the protection of life and the of preservation of peace, and his genuine desire to assist the Tribunal in so far as he can"

Do you disagree with this judge?

You are 'quoting a judge' in defence of this appointment.

Why wouldn't he give 'impressive evidence' in an inquiry into the killings of one of his own?

The point here is that he has been heavily criticised by courts and victims for withholding and blocking inquiries into the deaths on the other side of the conflict/war.

Taytoland

“Furthermore, it is an astonishing breach of Irish national security to install Britain’s most senior counter-insurgency practitioner as head of An Garda Siochana.
“He is simply not of the type or calibre of person to hold such an office.”

The irony in this quote. The guy was appointed fairly because he is great at his job and will make a difference. I have no doubt on that whatsoever.

blanch152

Taytoland wrote: »

The irony in this quote. The guy was appointed fairly because he is great at his job and will make a difference. I have no doubt on that whatsoever.

And that is the problem that some seem to have.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are 'quoting a judge' in defence of this appointment.

Why wouldn't he give 'impressive evidence' in an inquiry into the killings of one of his own?

The point here is that he has been heavily criticised by courts and victims for withholding and blocking inquiries into the deaths on the other side of the conflict/war.

That doesn't answer the question as to whether you accept what the judge said about his professional expertise and experience and his concern for the protection of life and the preservation of peace.

Taytoland

blanch152 wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

The irony in this quote. The guy was appointed fairly because he is great at his job and will make a difference. I have no doubt on that whatsoever.

And that is the problem that some seem to have.

That is the crunch of it. He's not "one of them" and that's it. He's just another "Brit" and must be resisted.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question as to whether you accept what the judge said about his professional expertise and experience and his concern for the protection of life and the preservation of peace.

I don't know if the judge was right or not. Many judges have been wrong.

Drew Harris received very strong criticism of his evidence to the tribunal (and funnily enough it had to do with collusion and with withholding evidence) from those cross examining him.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know if the judge was right or not. Many judges have been wrong.

Drew Harris received very strong criticism of his evidence to the tribunal (and funnily enough it had to do with collusion and with withholding evidence) from those cross examining him.

But not from the judge, who ultimately had to decide. It seems that it is ok for the evidence of one Garda Commissioner at one Tribunal - Smithwick - to be taken as gospel, but for any other Garda Commissioner at any other Tribunal appears to be a disgrace.

I just tend to read the judge's conclusions, after all, they are the ones tasked with making the call.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

But not from the judge, who ultimately had to decide. It seems that it is ok for the evidence of one Garda Commissioner at one Tribunal - Smithwick - to be taken as gospel, but for any other Garda Commissioner at any other Tribunal appears to be a disgrace.

I just tend to read the judge's conclusions, after all, they are the ones tasked with making the call.

And judges and Commissioners can be wrong.
I am not aware of them being bestowed with infallibility on taking office, in any case.
All I said was that he was heavily criticised.

That is two jurisdictions in which this has happened.
If he was applying for an ordinary job would that be ignored? I don't think it would. So either the government can repudiate the criticisms/allegations and stand over the reasons why or they have once again made a shambles of this appointment.

James Brown

Taytoland wrote: »

That is the crunch of it. He's not "one of them" and that's it. He's just another "Brit" and must be resisted.

Seriously? What nonsense is that, 'one of them?'