Gardai want ban on people photographing and recording them on duty

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?.

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.

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.

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.

AudreyHepburn

Widdershins wrote: »

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.

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.

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!

ShowMeTheCash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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!

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?

AudreyHepburn

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

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.

AudreyHepburn

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

seamus

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

Donal55

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

Donal55

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!

Donal55

bubblypop wrote: »

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

Specifically mentioned Traffic Corp. Do catch up.

ShowMeTheCash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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!

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?"

ShowMeTheCash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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?

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?

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.

Reati

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

seamus

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

ShowMeTheCash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

TheDoc

punisher5112 wrote: »

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.

TheDoc

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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

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.

Reati

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

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.

Donal55

twowheelsonly wrote: »

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?