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]

Is the Charleton Tribunal compromised? *** Mod Note Post #1 ***

13»

Comments

  • #62
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 12,295 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    In other words Mark - 'we know there is a problem, but please look the other way, it is too hard to fix'

    I'll leave it at that.

    Not what I said at all, please don't misquote me or wrongly paraphrase me, just because you lost an argument.

    For the record, I have numerous times said that the DOJ needs to be reformed, that is not looking the other way, no matter how you slice it up. However, we can have both, a push to reform the DOJ and this tribunal.


  • #63
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 61,557 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    Not what I said at all, .

    It is actually.

    Allow the Tribunal to continue when you KNOW the Minister of Justice and his DOJ has not been complying with it, either by 'forgetfulness' or more sinister reasons.

    That is 'look the other way' all day long IMO.

    Good luck with your winnings! :)


  • #64
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    markodaly wrote: »
    Leo has ordered an external review into the non handing over of documents. I think FF were insisting that the terms of reference was going to be expanded to include these points. Not sure what became of it.

    I'm hoping they do....tbh it's getting to a stage where a wholesale inquiry into whatever may arise should be held

    If it takes 5 or 6 years let them at it....it's embarrassing for all concerned to be having to hold lots of small enquiries....1 big tribunal and be done with it


  • #65
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 12,295 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It is actually.

    Allow the Tribunal to continue when you KNOW the Minister of Justice and his DOJ has not been complying with it, either by 'forgetfulness' or more sinister reasons.

    That is 'look the other way' all day long IMO.

    Good luck with your winnings! :)

    Sorry but again, stop misquoting me, as I said none of those things. The fact that you have to make stuff up about another poster shows up the lack of a counter argument in my opinion.


  • #66
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 12,295 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    I'm hoping they do....tbh it's getting to a stage where a wholesale inquiry into whatever may arise should be held

    If it takes 5 or 6 years let them at it....it's embarrassing for all concerned to be having to hold lots of small enquiries....1 big tribunal and be done with it


    As per the Examiner.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/review-of-justice-department-must-be-thought-out-816553.html
    The “external” review has, it appears, until Christmas to report, which is a short time frame.

    However, it’s not dissimilar to the five-week turnaround for the Toland Review in 2014, though the latter comprised six members. There has been speculation that a current or retired secretary general would conduct the review, though how that would be considered “external” is not clear.

    Also, what will happen on the back of the review is also not clear, not least given the low-key response to the Toland Report.

    Splitting or restructuring sounds good, but the devil is in the detail, given the multiple overlaps in some areas, particularly involving the Gardaí and garda oversight. That is not to say it should not be done, but let us make sure it is thought out properly.

    Ideally, the review should feed into, not preempt, the work of the Policing Commission, which is also looking at the relationship between the Department/Government/oversight agencies and the Gardaí, but which is not due to report until next September.

    Also, as with the Gardaí, it’s not just about the structures, it’s also about the culture, with the Department traditionally disliking, or certainly unused to, transparency, outside interference or oversight.


    Toland report is here.
    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Independent%20Review%20Accessible.pdf/Files/Independent%20Review%20Accessible.pdf

    Change to both the Gardai and the DOJ is long over due and it is something that all parties will have to engage in.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 61,557 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    Sorry but again, stop misquoting me, as I said none of those things. The fact that you have to make stuff up about another poster shows up the lack of a counter argument in my opinion.

    Point of Order Chairperson: I am parsing what you are saying. If I was quoting you I would be using quote tags.


  • #68
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod note:

    Play the ball not the man please!


  • #69
    nuac
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    Odhinn wrote: »
    It's a "cultural" issue in the DOJ, as they say. There is a mentality that goes along the lines of 'The security of the state is tantamount and nothing can be allowed undermine the state. The Gardai are a pillar of the state, therefore nothing can be allowed undermine the Gardai'. Having heard more or less those words from from a former commissioners mouth, nothing suprises me, although I can't lay claim to know how prevalent it is. Current events are frightening when viewed with that in mind however.


    Agree. The spirit of Peter Berry lives on


Advertisement