Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Gardai want ban on people photographing and recording them on duty

12467

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭please helpThank YOU


    What other Countries in the world have this Law?. its illegal crime you can not photography and record/ Voice/Picture Police/Garda?.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    skywalker wrote: »
    How would police in other countries deal with such a scenario?

    I read an article this morning that NYPD are proposing body cameras for all of their officers. While our police force want to bring in a law which does the exact opposite. It doesnt add up.

    American officers will be wearing body cams. Its not the same situation where by the public here will not be allowed to record a police officer. Id say irish guards wearing body cams would be beneficial to guards and the public.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    In the age of the Internet, An Garda want to roll back time and stop people taking photos of them. So allow them to carry on as usual with no accountability, it's not as if they can be trusted, lol. Is this Ireland or a former Soviet bloc country. No real democratic country would allow such a law.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭please helpThank YOU


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    In the age of the Internet, An Garda want to roll back time and stop people taking photos of them. So allow them to carry on as usual with no accountability, it's not as if they can be trusted, lol. Is this Ireland or a former Soviet bloc country. No real democratic country would allow such a law.
    100 per cent agree with your post if this is past into law in Ireland 2017 then I will be writing a register letter to Minister Frances Fitzgerald calling the Police/Garda/Government a Dictatorship.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    I was prepared to believe I was seriously misled about this but have you seen the transcript? If that's what you call a private joke they are entitled to make, I don't know what to say to you.

    ''THE TRANSCRIPT:
    Sgt. A “Who is them two lassies – do you know the two of them?â€
    Garda B “I don’t know the second one, the first one is (refers to Ms. A) with blonde hairâ€.
    Garda C “She was up on the tractor earlier onâ€.
    Sgt. A “It’d do no harm to get the second one’s name againâ€.
    Garda B “She’s some Yank. I don’t know who the **** she isâ€.
    Garda C “Is she a Yank?â€
    Garda B “It sounds like it, it sounds like it, the accent anywayâ€.
    Garda D “Sounds like a Yank or Canadianâ€.
    Garda B “Well whoever, we’ll get Immigration ****ing on herâ€.
    Sgt. A “She refused to give her name and address and told she would be arrestedâ€.
    Garda B “And deportedâ€.
    Sgt. A “And rapedâ€.
    Garda B “I wouldn’t go that far yet, she was living down at that crusty camp, ****’s sake, you never know what you might getâ€.
    Laughter
    Sgt. A “Give me your name and address or I’ll rape youâ€.
    Garda C “Hold it there, give me your name and address, there, I’ll Facebook youâ€.
    Laughter
    Sgt. A “Or I’ll definitely rape youâ€.
    Garda C “Will you be me friend on Facebook?â€

    http://www.thejournal.ie/transcript-of-the-corrib-rape-tape-427655-Apr2012/

    Yes I do, it's was a private joke among st colleagues stemming from silly comments made by the woman in question.

    Just reading the transcripts isn't enough....you need to view the footage which incidentally has since been shown to have been tampered with.

    Again this is a prime example of why this motion really needs to be carried.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    0ph0rce0 wrote: »
    No it shouldn't be passed because they will abuse it.

    Such an ignorant statement.

    You don't know that they will do any such thing. In fact I'd wager the vast majority of them won't.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    I can understand why the Garda want to do this:

    Three Garda throwing a woman into a Ballard is just a part of the job after all!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Such an ignorant statement.

    You don't know that they will do any such thing. In fact I'd wager the vast majority of them won't.

    I would argue an even more ignorant statement!

    I've heard it said:

    Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

    Let me ask, you honestly think they are trying to pass this law to protect themselves from criminals?

    They are doing this to stop harassment from people who see them in their abuse of power!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,387 ✭✭✭D0NNELLY


    seamus wrote: »
    Like that pipeline gowl who claimed the Gardai joked about raping her. Look at the storm she caused with her deceit.

    Last i heard, was the recording in the car, what came after?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    I would argue an even more ignorant statement!

    I've heard it said:

    Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

    Let me ask, you honestly think they are trying to pass this law to protect themselves from criminals?

    They are doing this to stop harassment from people who see them in their abuse of power!

    Yes I honestly do. The Gardai are not the incompetent violent thugs you seem determined to make them out to be.

    Sure there are a few bad eggs but that's the same in any profession.

    It sounds to me like you've ended up on the wrong side of them at some stage (warranted or not I couldn't say) but you can't tar them all with one brush based on your own experience.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    IIRC there was a complaint had come in that Gardai had threatened to rape her and she had the recording on tape.

    Then she released the tape and the hysteria merchants lost the run of themselves. It became clear that in fact the protestor wasn't even there when the recording took place (she had left her device recording), and the "threat" was merely the Gardai taking the piss out of her craziness - she had said something like, "Please don't rape me" when being arrested. Just two Gardai having a private chat in the car about the job, having a laugh at the madness they've encountered.
    Of course the hysteria merchants were too far invested at that stage and doubled down, claiming all sorts of nonsense about it being a solid threat, or an expression of desire.
    The media lost interest though when it was only the crazies trying to run with it.

    The Gardai in relation were put on desk duty for a few weeks and some superintendent made a box-ticking apology that rape is no laughing matter or somesuch. Then the members involved went back to their usual duties.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    I can understand why the Garda want to do this:

    Three Garda throwing a woman into a Ballard is just a part of the job after all!


    Sigh....this video again.

    This woman jumped on to the hood of the Taoiseach's car, who knows what she might have been intending to do. The Gardai here were well within their rights to pull her off - EK is the leader of the country, he's entitled to be protected.

    And if you actually looked at the video properly you would see that it is in fact a Garda that hit the bollard, not the women.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Let me ask, you honestly think they are trying to pass this law to protect themselves from criminals?

    They are doing this to stop harassment from people who see them in their abuse of power!
    The Gardai don't pass laws.

    A motion at an AGSI conference is not something that gets put before the Dail as a bill.

    The odds of this proposal becoming a law, word-for-word, are precisely nil.


    The good thing about threads like this is that it's very easy to spot the people who have a chip on their shoulder about the Gardai and who are completely clueless about how things actually work when it comes to making, passing, implementing and enforcing laws.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    Such an ignorant statement.

    You don't know that they will do any such thing. In fact I'd wager the vast majority of them won't.

    Vast majority of them abused the breath test application . Not localised, not confined to districts, nationwide & systemic according to asst chief in charge of Traffic Corp.

    They cannot be trusted to govern themselves.


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Donal55 wrote: »
    Vast majority of them abused the breath test application . Not localised, not confined to districts, nationwide & systemic according to asst chief in charge of Traffic Corp.

    They cannot be trusted to govern themselves.

    Er, the vast majority of gardai don't carry out breath tests!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Er, the vast majority of gardai don't carry out breath tests!


    Specifically mentioned Traffic Corp. Do catch up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Yes I honestly do. The Gardai are not the incompetent violent thugs you seem determined to make them out to be.

    Sure there are a few bad eggs but that's the same in any profession.

    It sounds to me like you've ended up on the wrong side of them at some stage (warranted or not I couldn't say) but you can't tar them all with one brush based on your own experience.

    Few bad eggs in any profession??? Have you lost your mind!!
    Most professions do not have the power to detain you, most professions do not have the power to apprehend you by force if needs be!
    Incarcerate and hold you if they deem it worthy. And in most professions you assault someone you are probably going to end up in court without any real prejudice or bias... Good luck trying to prove a Garda assaulted you if there is no video evidence!

    The Garda should be held to a higher standard by virtue of their status within society and the power they hold!

    As for your statement above and assumptions, I do not think the Garda for the most part are "incompetent violent thugs". But I do think there is a lot of corruption up and down in this country and within An Garda Siochana.
    I do not think this law protects anyone, including the Garda.

    As for myself, seeing you are now on a roll... Never had a run in with a Garda, I know most of them by name in my local town, one actually called to the house for tea after a car accident just to see how I was doing a number of years ago, so a nice guy could not say a bad word about him.

    the "good eggs" would not need to worry about someone recording them!


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    First reaction to this is "ehh that doesn't sound great lads."

    Then I think of my own experiences and observations of cops.

    Then I think of my own experiences and observations with the people the cops have to deal with in their work.

    And I think "on second thoughts go on ahead lads. and are ye sure ye wouldn't like cattle prods or tanks or anything while yere asking?"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Sigh....this video again.

    This woman jumped on to the hood of the Taoiseach's car, who knows what she might have been intending to do. The Gardai here were well within their rights to pull her off - EK is the leader of the country, he's entitled to be protected.

    And if you actually looked at the video properly you would see that it is in fact a Garda that hit the bollard, not the women.

    "Who knows what she might have been intending to do"

    Ridiculous statements to try and justify heavy handed garda...
    Maybe she was a terrorist? Maybe she was a trained assassin? While we are making stuff up... Maybe she was ill, maybe she was pregnant maybe she was a lot of things.

    Taoiseach's was in a car I think most sensible people would argue she was of no real threat to anyone!

    Woman was protesting got a little overzealous and was bungled to the ground by three men.

    You honestly think the Garda handled this situation well?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    seamus wrote: »
    The Gardai don't pass laws.

    A motion at an AGSI conference is not something that gets put before the Dail as a bill.

    The odds of this proposal becoming a law, word-for-word, are precisely nil.


    The good thing about threads like this is that it's very easy to spot the people who have a chip on their shoulder about the Gardai and who are completely clueless about how things actually work when it comes to making, passing, implementing and enforcing laws.

    Bit like someone who is trying to score points due to semantics but really adds nothing to the debate.

    "AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to photograph or video a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent..."

    Is that better? You happy now?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    ShowMeTheCash I think we're going to have to agree to disagree....you clearly have a chip on your shoulder and I say again that I can only assume you or some-one close to you ended up on the wrong side of the law some point.

    If you took off your blinkers and looked fairly and logically at the motion being put forward you would see that there is nothing more to it than a desire by Gardai not feel threatened and to not have their privacy and that of their families invaded whilst doing their job.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,926 ✭✭✭Reati


    If you took off your blinkers and looked fairly and logically at the motion being put forward you would see that there is nothing more to it than a desire by Gardai not feel threatened and to not have their privacy and that of their families invaded whilst doing their job.

    Yes, but they are going about it the wrong way and as I posted yesterday they came out since and said they have laws to deal with this already. While they seem to be getting a lot of love for their ill-thought motion here, the feedback on most other sites is fairly strong against the broad nature of what they are suggesting.

    And to be clear, I'd oppose this no matter who put it forward, Guards, Teachers, Private sector workers. Couldn't care who. Care about the suggestion of banning such a freedom.

    The big problem I have with the Guards though on this is they keep changing the story as to why they want this and the latest weakens the case even further to have such a ban.

    AGSI president Antoinette Cunningham said:
    The issue we have is with the member’s family or pictures of their children, their home or home address being printed or published on social media.

    This has nothing to do with taking a picture or filming a Garda. This is harassment and laws exist (as admitted by the guards) to deal with it. This of course is deplorable and should be deal with in the highest levels of punishment but it still has nothing to do with taking a photo/filming a guard while on duty.

    She also said:
    It has been a serious concern for some members of AGSI to find pictures of their family home, their children and partners referred to by name on social media.

    Again, deplorable, but has little to do with the motion they are seeking to pass and in fact the motion has no language to deal with that. They need to rethink and reword the motion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Bit like someone who is trying to score points due to semantics but really adds nothing to the debate.

    "AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to photograph or video a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent..."

    Is that better? You happy now?
    No, because that's not the truth.

    That's what members of the media falsely reported.

    "AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to publish any photograph or video of a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent"

    That's the correct thing to say. And it may even be a little broader than the AGSI are talking about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    ShowMeTheCash I think we're going to have to agree to disagree....you clearly have a chip on your shoulder and I say again that I can only assume you or some-one close to you ended up on the wrong side of the law some point.

    If you took off your blinkers and looked fairly and logically at the motion being put forward you would see that there is nothing more to it than a desire by Gardai not feel threatened and to not have their privacy and that of their families invaded whilst doing their job.

    And perhaps if you took off your rose tinted glasses you might actually see the ramifications of this proposal.
    The Garda are not above the law, as long as they like anyone else act within the law then why would they or their families feel threatened?
    This is directly in response to a conflict with water charge protesters and Garda, the only reason I see this being an issue is if the Garda are acting badly.

    Also can I suggest you stop trying to make assumptions to my own experiences it just makes your argument sounds silly!
    I have never been on the wrong side of the Garda, none of my family have ever been wronged.
    I just need to look at the state of the country, our politicians, corruption within An Gardi and being from Donegal it has been shocking...

    As much as I understand there are good Garda and bad ones out there I do not trust the Garda to act with integrity always... Policing will always have corruption and in most "free" countries they have tried to combat this by putting camera's on police officers not banning the recording of them.

    People need to be able to protect themselves if they feel threatened an attempt to make it illegal to record an officer is madness!
    Protect the establishment at the cost of the public is how I would see this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    Very simple set up specialized units to target drug dealers and other high end criminals like in the US where they wear full tactical gear including face mask/ cover.

    Cool you funding that with increased tax ?

    Seriously, they have barely enough funding as is and got heavily reduced during the recession yet expected to keep levels and stats on par.

    Or how about, grown adults get a ****ing grip, and stop filming Guardai on duty trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by provoking Guardaí on duty or posting out of context video.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    I can understand why the Garda want to do this:

    Three Garda throwing a woman into a Ballard is just a part of the job after all!


    As discussed at the time, was that not a Ministerial vehicle leaving?

    Looks heavy handed, but that is what happens when you try jump the hood of a states representatives vehicle. Sorry but if you think you have a "right" to jump on an elected member of states vehicle, and being treated softly, you need to wake up.

    And if that happened to be someone cracked in the head with an explosive vest? That is the sort of world we live in, and that is the training that is received and provided in security details and VIP scenarios.

    I think it's laughable and sad that any grown adult would actually take any issues with the Guardaí in that scenario. Very unfortunate a bollard was there that probably wrecked that woman, but a) Appreciate the Guards don't have time in their reaction to lay out a matress or look for a soft spot to fling the nutter and b)The individual should appreciate if they weren't prosecuted


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    seamus wrote: »
    No, because that's not the truth.

    That's what members of the media falsely reported.

    "AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to publish any photograph or video of a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent"

    That's the correct thing to say. And it may even be a little broader than the AGSI are talking about.

    Tell you what open a thread on how the media falsely tell the New's my quote came from the independent.

    But again not we are getting off topic, this is to do with water protesters and confrontation with the Garda trying to obfuscate does not change we all know what this is in relation too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,926 ✭✭✭Reati


    The Garda are not above the law, as long as they like anyone else act within the law then why would they or their families feel threatened?
    This is directly in response to a conflict with water charge protesters and Garda, the only reason I see this being an issue is if the Garda are acting badly.

    Yeah... so no. You should go lie down now.

    There is no reasons, even they who act outside of the law,that they or they families get threatened.

    WTF is it with this country and water charges getting everyone worked up into a state. Of all of the f*ck ups, this really isn't the one to be getting excited about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    skywalker wrote: »
    How would police in other countries deal with such a scenario?

    I read an article this morning that NYPD are proposing body cameras for all of their officers. While our police force want to bring in a law which does the exact opposite. It doesnt add up.

    Body cameras will show the entire incident not just the police brutality bit that the 'outraged citizen' wants you to see.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    Body cameras will show the entire incident not just the police brutality bit that the 'outraged citizen' wants you to see.

    And isn't that the way it should be?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,926 ✭✭✭Reati


    Donal55 wrote: »
    And isn't that the way it should be?

    Yes, they should be brought in but not sure why people keep referencing them though. Has little to do with the purposed motion and the ever changing reasons the Gaurds say they want it.

    Body cameras or not, there should be no reason we can't film them in public.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,748 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Few bad eggs in any profession??? Have you lost your mind!!
    Most professions do not have the power to detain you, most professions do not have the power to apprehend you by force if needs be!
    Incarcerate and hold you if they deem it worthy. And in most professions you assault someone you are probably going to end up in court without any real prejudice or bias... Good luck trying to prove a Garda assaulted you if there is no video evidence!

    The Garda should be held to a higher standard by virtue of their status within society and the power they hold!

    As for your statement above and assumptions, I do not think the Garda for the most part are "incompetent violent thugs". But I do think there is a lot of corruption up and down in this country and within An Garda Siochana.
    I do not think this law protects anyone, including the Garda.

    As for myself, seeing you are now on a roll... Never had a run in with a Garda, I know most of them by name in my local town, one actually called to the house for tea after a car accident just to see how I was doing a number of years ago, so a nice guy could not say a bad word about him.

    the "good eggs" would not need to worry about someone recording them![/QUOTE]

    They would if their picture appeared on Social media with their names and addresses because they were filmed arresting a well known criminal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,926 ✭✭✭Reati


    They would if their picture appeared on Social media with their names and addresses because they were filmed arresting a well known criminal.

    This is strawman argument. A drug dealer will know or will find out who the arresting gardai is filmed or not filmed if they want too. It's naive to think otherwise.

    The motion needs to be worded correctly to deal with that, not to ban filming outright.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Bit like someone who is trying to score points due to semantics but really adds nothing to the debate.

    "AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to photograph or video a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent..."

    Is that better? You happy now?

    Did you know it's illegal in this country to drive? It's in the law, I just left out the part about having alcohol in your system. Did you know it's illegal for a man to have sex with a woman? It's in the law, I just left out the bit about consent. That's how most people, including journalists, have chosen to interpret the motion from AGSI.

    Most people are also ignoring the fact that the same organisation called for body cams to be provided to Gardaí last year.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,748 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Reati wrote: »
    This is strawman argument. A drug dealer will know or will find out who the arresting gardai is filmed or not filmed if they want too. It's naive to think otherwise.

    The motion needs to be worded correctly to deal with that, not to ban filming outright.

    So someone making it easy for him and identifying where the garda lives and who the members of his family are is ok with you?
    I certainly see something wrong with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Tell you what open a thread on how the media falsely tell the New's my quote came from the independent.
    So instead of actually verifying what a journalist has said is correct, you're going to discuss something that doesn't exist and has never been proposed?

    That's a good use of your time.
    But again not we are getting off topic, this is to do with water protesters and confrontation with the Garda trying to obfuscate does not change we all know what this is in relation too.
    That's on-topic? Never mind the media, do you even hear yourself properly?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    TheDoc wrote: »
    As discussed at the time, was that not a Ministerial vehicle leaving?

    Looks heavy handed, but that is what happens when you try jump the hood of a states representatives vehicle. Sorry but if you think you have a "right" to jump on an elected member of states vehicle, and being treated softly, you need to wake up.

    And if that happened to be someone cracked in the head with an explosive vest? That is the sort of world we live in, and that is the training that is received and provided in security details and VIP scenarios.

    I think it's laughable and sad that any grown adult would actually take any issues with the Guardaí in that scenario. Very unfortunate a bollard was there that probably wrecked that woman, but a) Appreciate the Guards don't have time in their reaction to lay out a matress or look for a soft spot to fling the nutter and b)The individual should appreciate if they weren't prosecuted

    Here we go again, explosive vest? It is laughable that a grown adult needs to try and jump to such extremes to justify the actions of the Garda??

    If you watch the video, the middle Garda looked to have this under control, if it was not for the officer in the yellow jacked who impedes the vehicle by running in front of it but then to launch the woman into the pavement in such a manner he ends up on the pavement himself....
    Yeah his training looked to be top notch, but you are also side stepping the idea that the public are not allowed to show their discontent, maybe we should ban protesting while we are at it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    seamus wrote: »
    So instead of actually verifying what a journalist has said is correct, you're going to discuss something that doesn't exist and has never been proposed?

    That's a good use of your time.

    That's on-topic? Never mind the media, do you even hear yourself properly?


    So let me get this straight you are arguing over:

    AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to publish any photograph or video of a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent

    opposed to

    AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to photograph or video a garda member in the course of their duty without that member's consent..

    How exactly do you think this would or could be enforced?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Did you know it's illegal in this country to drive? It's in the law, I just left out the part about having alcohol in your system. Did you know it's illegal for a man to have sex with a woman? It's in the law, I just left out the bit about consent. That's how most people, including journalists, have chosen to interpret the motion from AGSI.

    Most people are also ignoring the fact that the same organisation called for body cams to be provided to Gardaí last year.

    What is your interpretation?


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Here we go again, explosive vest? It is laughable that a grown adult needs to try and jump to such extremes to justify the actions of the Garda??

    If you watch the video, the middle Garda looked to have this under control, if it was not for the officer in the yellow jacked who impedes the vehicle by running in front of it but then to launch the woman into the pavement in such a manner he ends up on the pavement himself....
    Yeah his training looked to be top notch, but you are also side stepping the idea that the public are not allowed to show their discontent, maybe we should ban protesting while we are at it?

    Ok, so let's change the scenario, just a little bit.
    This happened in London, on the prime ministers car, or the USA on the president's car. What do you think would happen?
    Everyone wants a professional police force, but when gardai act appropriately, then perhaps people want a softly softly holdy hands policeman.

    Trial by social media is not acceptable, in any circumstances. If there are videos or photos of criminal actions, then they should be used accordingly, and legally. That goes for everyone in society, including gardai.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,707 ✭✭✭skywalker


    Body cameras will show the entire incident not just the police brutality bit that the 'outraged citizen' wants you to see.

    Awesome. Im all for it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    What is your interpretation?

    It's in the wording.

    "photographing or otherwise capturing an image, moving or otherwise, of a member of An Garda Síochána in the exercise of their duty without the member’s consent and to publish or otherwise post this image on any media with intent to identify this member."

    The proposal as per that wording is that you would have to do all of the following

    • Take a photo without consent
    • Publish the photo
    • Intend to identify the member
    Most people are just taking the first or second one in isolation. Most, if not all, of the examples given here wouldn't be caught at all by the law because they are missing the third ingredient.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Yes I do, it's was a private joke among st colleagues stemming from silly comments made by the woman in question.

    Just reading the transcripts isn't enough....you need to view the footage which incidentally has since been shown to have been tampered with.

    Again this is a prime example of why this motion really needs to be carried.

    The tampering isn't incidental, it's important, but I haven't been able to find out who did it and what may have been removed or added or changed about the recording. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that they did not say what they said, and one of them, afaik, apologised for it.
    No matter what the protestors said to cause them to make those jokes, gardai shouldn't be saying those things. At least not on duty and in uniform. In their own homes or between friends, given the context, I would understand them joking about it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    Here we go again, explosive vest? It is laughable that a grown adult needs to try and jump to such extremes to justify the actions of the Garda??

    If you watch the video, the middle Garda looked to have this under control, if it was not for the officer in the yellow jacked who impedes the vehicle by running in front of it but then to launch the woman into the pavement in such a manner he ends up on the pavement himself....
    Yeah his training looked to be top notch, but you are also side stepping the idea that the public are not allowed to show their discontent, maybe we should ban protesting while we are at it?

    Look it's roundabout conversations with people who have never done, experienced or any clue about the training involved there.

    There is simply no time in scenarios like that, to factor every part of the equation. There are key points,priorities and objectives for a number of scenarios. While in a passive state there is hopefully skillsets for monitoring and threat identification etc., but these people are human, when **** hits the fan, training and instincts (the training is to make these decisions and actions instinctive) kick in.

    It's not jumping to extremes. The training, the briefing that morning, the entire process, doesn't differentiate between a protester looking to be championed at the local water protest meetup or a threat packing explosives. They are identified as threats, simply put. There are of course scenarios and caveats, a child passes in front of the vehicle collecting a ball they dropped. But an adult female jumping the hood of the car, is being classified as a threat, and being dealt with as such.

    This topic was covered exhaustively and many publications and radio stations an TV stations looked to numerous security experts and consultants who all unanimously agreed it was an appropriate course of action. So to be honest whether joe soap thought it heavy handed or not, it was the correct course of action resulting in no incident other then the assailant ending up n their arse.

    Protesting and the likes is all fine. But lets not pretend there is just two extremes of the spectrum. There is the murky middle ground. Was present at many protests that occured in my vacinity (coming home from work through them or trying to get my parking spot) and there was clear instances of peaceful protest, but clear instances of provocation happening from either those assosiated in the protest, or just knackers from the area looking to kick up a fuss.

    So protests are all fine and dandy, but there should be the realisation that when the police force are clearly overwhelmed numerically, that if things start to go sideways, they have an entitlement in their judgement calls to get involved, heavy handed or not. There is the general public safety to be considered along with the instructure of the city or area. Every shagging protest that goes on in town grinds the city to a halt


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Ok, so let's change the scenario, just a little bit.
    This happened in London, on the prime ministers car, or the USA on the president's car. What do you think would happen?
    Everyone wants a professional police force, but when gardai act appropriately, then perhaps people want a softly softly holdy hands policeman.

    Trial by social media is not acceptable, in any circumstances. If there are videos or photos of criminal actions, then they should be used accordingly, and legally. That goes for everyone in society, including gardai.

    And who decides what is criminal?

    I do agree there is an element of trail by social media but this is the same for anyone why should the garda be exempted from this?

    You want to justify the actions of the Garda by making up a scenario as if this was London or the USA and using words like "softly softly holdy hands policeman", But here is a scenario which is not made up and it happened in London, guy from Brazil decided to take the tube.... Ends up getting shot in the head by the MET..... An overreaction can be spectacularly worse than an under reaction!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    An overreaction can be spectacularly worse than an under reaction!

    Says the man who is completely misrepresenting the position of AGSI for maximum outrage.


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And who decides what is criminal?

    I do agree there is an element of trail by social media but this is the same for anyone why should the garda be exempted from this?

    You want to justify the actions of the Garda by making up a scenario as if this was London or the USA and using words like "softly softly holdy hands policeman", But here is a scenario which is not made up and it happened in London, guy from Brazil decided to take the tube.... Ends up getting shot in the head by the MET..... An overreaction can be spectacularly worse than an under reaction!

    The DPP decides if something is a criminal offence, the courts then deal with it.
    On social media, i clearly stated that trial by social media is NOT acceptable, for anyone.
    As about the 3rd point, I'm not sure what point you are making?

    Edit, oh right, you are saying it was an overreaction in London. It was actually mistaken identity. Not that killing an innocent person is justified, but that's what happened, not just over reaction


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    TheDoc wrote: »
    Look it's roundabout conversations with people who have never done, experienced or any clue about the training involved there.

    There is simply no time in scenarios like that, to factor every part of the equation. There are key points,priorities and objectives for a number of scenarios. While in a passive state there is hopefully skillsets for monitoring and threat identification etc., but these people are human, when **** hits the fan, training and instincts (the training is to make these decisions and actions instinctive) kick in.

    It's not jumping to extremes. The training, the briefing that morning, the entire process, doesn't differentiate between a protester looking to be championed at the local water protest meetup or a threat packing explosives. They are identified as threats, simply put. There are of course scenarios and caveats, a child passes in front of the vehicle collecting a ball they dropped. But an adult female jumping the hood of the car, is being classified as a threat, and being dealt with as such.

    This topic was covered exhaustively and many publications and radio stations an TV stations looked to numerous security experts and consultants who all unanimously agreed it was an appropriate course of action. So to be honest whether joe soap thought it heavy handed or not, it was the correct course of action resulting in no incident other then the assailant ending up n their arse.

    Protesting and the likes is all fine. But lets not pretend there is just two extremes of the spectrum. There is the murky middle ground. Was present at many protests that occured in my vacinity (coming home from work through them or trying to get my parking spot) and there was clear instances of peaceful protest, but clear instances of provocation happening from either those assosiated in the protest, or just knackers from the area looking to kick up a fuss.

    So protests are all fine and dandy, but there should be the realisation that when the police force are clearly overwhelmed numerically, that if things start to go sideways, they have an entitlement in their judgement calls to get involved, heavy handed or not. There is the general public safety to be considered along with the instructure of the city or area. Every shagging protest that goes on in town grinds the city to a halt

    And I can agree with most of what you said here but I am not the one using extreme "explosive vest" scenarios to justify the video, yes there is a gray but the Garda also have a duty of care which I feel lacking in the video.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    bubblypop wrote: »
    The DPP decides if something is a criminal offence, the courts then deal with it.
    On social media, i clearly stated that trial by social media is NOT acceptable, for anyone.
    As about the 3rd point, I'm not sure what point you are making?

    Edit, oh right, you are saying it was an overreaction in London. It was actually mistaken identity. Not that killing an innocent person is justified, but that's what happened, not just over reaction

    Ah so the DPP should decide..... So what about the news if there is a riot on the street filmed by dozens involving the Garda, this footage should not make the news?
    It should be given to the DPP and they will deal with it?

    I honestly do not think you have thought this through very well!

    Oh so mistaken identity.... So executing a guilty suspect is perfectly fine! Gotcha!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Says the man who is completely misrepresenting the position of AGSI for maximum outrage.

    I did? Show me where I completely misrepresent the position of the AGSI?
    I quote the independent which is not a complete misrepresentation, the area you refer to is the is the section "with intent to identify this member" it could be argued that posting a video or photograph in itself is showing intent to identify the member.

    You are trying to obfuscate...


  • Advertisement
Advertisement