Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

145791064

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 61,660 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


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

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭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.
    :confused::confused::confused: 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 61,660 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady




    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.

    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.
    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?"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 427 ✭✭Boggy Turf


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Hubby can go with her.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,125 ✭✭✭mattser


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    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

    Fair play to her if she gets it. Anything would be better than a grilling from so called experts on policing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭seanin4711


    thats the only way she could still be in that job.
    I find it extremely hard to believe that when the job went for interview worldwide.
    she gets the job because she was

    1.second in command
    2.a female.

    closed circle continues
    circling the wagons comes to mind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Is this how the government will deal with the O'Sullivan controversy - bump her upstairs to Europol?

    The Irish Times reports today that she didn't get the Europol job "due to her lack of experience at a senior management level." Enough said ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    We failed to export another problem. It's our usual solution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,361 ✭✭✭Dinarius


    Water John wrote: »
    We failed to export another problem. It's our usual solution.

    You're right.

    I can think of a few who got plum EU jobs to get them out of the way.

    D.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    Some might be more a case of putting the mechanism of the EU above the people you represent to the detriment of your country and the EU paying you off?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,600 ✭✭✭kevthegaff


    She's here to stay


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    I know it's a bit rude to ask, but what age is she?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,406 ✭✭✭Korat


    I'm not familiar with the Garda problem but if you keep sacking the chief aren't you just cutting the head of the weed?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,075 ✭✭✭emo72


    Sorry lads, what's the story here? Is she scrambling around looking for another job so she doesn't have to give evidence at the tribunal? I've seen her mentioned with Jobs in Canada and interpol. Is it that simple?


Advertisement