New Garda powers to allow access to mobile phones, changes to ‘stop and search’

Whats a no knock warrant?

How can Gardai amend a warrant?

Since when do search warrants have peoples names on them?

What endemic corruption? 15k staff and sweet FA charges brought against people.

What corruption was alledged by the Barr commission?

Did you perchance see these comments in the MOrris report?

"The Tribunal compliments many individual gardaí " and "here is a small but disproportionately influential core of mischief-making members who will not obey orders, who will not follow procedures, who will not tell the truth and who have no respect for their officers."

FYI he was refering to 4 Gardai. 4 out of 15 THOUSAND.

Yes, corruption exists but to suggest that the organisation as a whole is filled with corrupt officers is quite frankly, insulting.

Should we adapt the same view of the legal profession and Judges themselved based on the misdeeds of some? NO, we should not because ironically, thats profiling and tarring with the same brush. Something the police are consistantly told not to do

pioneerpro

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Whats a no knock warrant?

Reference to a legal instrument in the States that the Gardai who have obviously been watching too much television think they've an entitlement too. They are supposed to announce their presence. They did not. And yes, I'll believe the victim in this case before you ask

Irish Examiner article wrote:

Asked did he hear officers shout "gardai" before coming in, Mr Donald said he did not and if they did he would have heard them in what was just a two-bed apartment.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Since when do search warrants have peoples names on them?

Since when do search warrants have no address on them?

Irish Examiner article wrote:

When Mr Donald looked at the search warrant, it said "apartment at the back of building", did not have names on it or the number.

And for your final 'question' (I'm well aware these aren't questions, or that you're acting in good faith here).

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

How can Gardai amend a warrant?

An acknowledgement that the warrant was faulty or otherwise not fit for purpose for a start, with its removal from 'live' status for ongoing operations.

Irish Examiner article wrote:

At a later meeting in Store Street Garda Station, there was no apology and a refusal to provide a copy of the search warrant, the court heard. They were told it was "a live warrant" which worried them it could happen again. They had to threaten legal action to get a copy of the warrant.

pioneerpro

pioneerpro wrote: »

Reference to a legal instrument in the States that the Gardai who have obviously been watching too much television think they've an entitlement too. They are supposed to announce their presence. They did not.

What legislation covers this?

pioneerpro

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Should we adapt the same view of the legal profession and Judges themselved based on the misdeeds of some? NO, we should not because ironically, thats profiling and tarring with the same brush. Something the police are consistantly told not to do

Ahhhhh... the quick-edit reveals the truth. You're looking well there garda

If we had to get a new Minister for Justice in from the UK you might have a point. We didn't though. We had to get Drew Harris. And for good reason.

Two years later it has necessitated the release of this report:

https://www.gsinsp.ie/publication-of-garda-inspectorate-report-countering-the-threat-of-internal-corruption/

and the establishment of a literal anti-corruption unit

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0325/1206069-an-garda-siochana/

pioneerpro

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I’m well aware of Professor Conway’s commentary, I’ve had the pleasure of discussing criminal justice matters with her on many an occasion.

It still doesn’t change the fact that you are outright wrong in saying there isn’t reciprocity of oversight given the parallel oversight provisions contained in the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill - which I suspect you didn’t know even existed given your inability to acknowledge said proposed oversight changes.

And here's TJ McIntyre today. I suppose you're godfather to his children?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/new-garda-powers-bill-must-go-back-to-the-drawing-board-1.4595274

Historically, search warrants were relatively limited documents which permitted the search of a particular place for a physical thing. The current proposal would greatly widen the search warrant to permit the search of a person’s entire digital life, but without introducing any corresponding protections, and without any evidence that this huge extension of powers is necessary. It must go back to the drawing board.

Professor Conway, TJ McIntyre, and Michael McDowell vs Sierra Oscar.

What burden of proof do you actually require before you'll admit you're talking out of your hoop? I'd imagine none would be sufficient. Thankfully I can let the experts do the talking for me, unlike you who seems to think you can let the experts do the talking to you

Search warrants have always allowed gardai to seize and examine any phones, laptops, computers etc. ok

Yurt2

Liam Herrick from ICCL and Regina Doherty was on Matt Cooper's Virgin show last night discussing this.

Herrick quite measured saying it's not too late to double back and get what's wrong about this proposed legislation right, tighten up oversight, and ensure it's used proportionately.

Regina predictably thinks everything is tickety-boo and this is the most wonderful legislative development since Magna Carta.

pioneerpro

pioneerpro wrote: »

Ahhhhh... the quick-edit reveals the truth. You're looking well there garda

That comment speaks more about you than I. My occupation has never been a secret in this forum. Your agenda is also as clear. Even more so considering how you address other users who engage in good faith with personal knowledge and experience.

I note that you didnt actually address any of my questions. Instead you just asked other questions to deflect from your incorrect statements and assumptions. I can ask them again if you care to engage truthfully?

Yurt2

bubblypop wrote: »

Search warrants have always allowed gardai to seize and examine any phones, laptops, computers etc. ok

This is correct; however never has there been a dispensation where an individual has to under penalty of of imprisonment been compelled to compromise and be complicit in his/her own privacy undermined.

The right to privacy (though not absolute) is well established and heavily guarded under Irish constitutional case law.

The European Convention of Human Rights Art. 8 states that: "Everyone has the right to respect for his of her private and family life, home and correspondence."

A smartphone, tablet or laptop will contain far more information than is required to establish an evidential basis for a prosecution than let's say for the possession of weed.

It will likely contain intimate conversations with spouses, family, colleagues and perhaps even legally privileged correspondence with legal counsel. One can discern with great accuracy a person's sexuality, their psychological makeup, confidential medical information and various aspects of their private internal lives that even the nosiest and irresponsible of Gardai would keep close to themselves.

Narrow example but not a completely mad scenario: It's not beyond an aggressive prosecutor or Garda to fit-up an individual on the basis of search terms for instance. "Googling Pablo Escobar and found in possession of weed? Well what do we have here Sonny Jim? Texting the local dealer in code as well I see." - You see how this works. Again, it's not beyond AGS or indeed a tweaking prosecutor wanting to make a name for themselves to start drawing inferences and pushing the envelope with people's private correspondence even with a minor drug possession.

It just so happens I have n0tHing to hIDe. Do I want an aggressive Garda with a chip on their shoulder like Niner sifting through my Google search terms and holiday photos (and possibly sexually intimate ones with a partner) if I was implicated in something and to be compelled under penalty of imprisonment to facilitate it? You bet my ass I don't and I'd wager most citizens are the same.

This law is a fundamental shift in the balance of privacy in the state, and not a good shift I'd argue. It's not proportionate in any sense.

pioneerpro

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

That comment speaks more about you than I. My occupation has never been a secret in this forum. Your agenda is also as clear. Even more so considering how you address other users who engage in good faith with personal knowledge and experience.

This abject sense of entitlement and inability to recognise or acknowledge decades of systemic corruption and constitutional rights abuses by the Gardai is exactly the reason this thread, and public dissenters such as an ex-Minister for Justice, exist.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I note that you didnt actually address any of my questions. Instead you just asked other questions to deflect from your incorrect statements and assumptions. I can ask them again if you care to engage truthfully?

Lmfao. I've literally provided citations, and even highlighted formatting, for every single point brought up.

Simply put you can't or won't acknowledge or address any of the points made by either the ex-Minister for Justice (who was forced to bring in the first legislation in 2005 when corrupt Gardai systemically leaked information to the press), by Drew Harris, or by the Paddy Moriarty Chair of Government and International Studies.

Why would I waste anymore time with someone entrenched in a mentality incompatible with both our constitution and the ECHR? And a barracks-room lawyer at that

You're part of the problem, and it's being addressed at a macro-level whether you agree with it or not. The days of both the inherently corrupt and criminal members of the force, and their cheerleaders and apologists, are quickly coming to an end.

pioneerpro

Yurt! wrote: »

Liam Herrick from ICCL and Regina Doherty was on Matt Cooper's Virgin show last night discussing this.

Herrick quite measured saying it's not too late to double back and get what's wrong about this proposed legislation right, tighten up oversight, and ensure it's used proportionately.

Regina predictably thinks everything is tickety-boo and this is the most wonderful legislative development since Magna Carta.

Lmfao, of course Regina Doherty would say that. She has literally used the Gardai as her own personal civil-rights quelling service in the past with pesky journalists.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/news-opinion/pat-flanagan-gardai-acting-like-10754157

Pat Flanagan: Gardai acting like a private police force for Regina Doherty wrote:

It began with the detention of Tyrone-born academic Catherine Kelly who claimed she was recently approached by gardai when she arrived at Dublin Airport.

After her identity was confirmed she was cautioned over posts on social media and online articles about Social Protection Minister Regina Doherty.

Apparently the issue related to her commenting on Minister Doherty’s alleged former business dealings involving a company which folded with debts of €280,000.

Deputy Coppinger said the officers confirmed a complaint had been made and she was cautioned not to tweet about Minister Doherty.

She added: “She was told to sign a statement. Her name was obviously given to the gardai by the airline.

She was told to sign a statement or she wouldn’t be allowed to proceed to the gate.”

...

Can you imagine the cops in any other country, outside of Turkey and Russia, getting the passenger lists from the airline to intercept a blogger for commenting on a minister?

Yurt2

pioneerpro wrote: »

Lmfao, of course Regina Doherty would say that. She has literally used the Gardai as her own personal civil-rights quelling service in the past with pesky journalists.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/news-opinion/pat-flanagan-gardai-acting-like-10754157

That incident was extremely sinister, and they weren't even normal beat cops - appeared to be plain clothes branch detectives. Can you imagine the sh*storm if you know which party was sending plain clothes police to the airport to intimidate private citizens? She got off lightly that incident died down in the press.

(Another aspect of that farrago was how exactly did the plains clothes know which flight the private citizen was on? As far as I know, passenger information on manifests aren't shared with police unless there is an alert on the individual for serious / security reasons?)

Doherty is the absolute pits. The kind of person you see screaming at service sector staff demanding to see the manager, except frighteningly, she had a seat at the cabinet.

Niner leprauchan

So, I guess I shall ask again:

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Whats a no knock warrant?

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

How can Gardai amend a warrant?

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Since when do search warrants have peoples names on them?

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What corruption was alledged by the Barr commission?

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Did you perchance see these comments in the MOrris report?

"The Tribunal compliments many individual gardaí " and "here is a small but disproportionately influential core of mischief-making members who will not obey orders, who will not follow procedures, who will not tell the truth and who have no respect for their officers."

FYI he was refering to 4 Gardai. 4 out of 15 THOUSAND.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Should we adapt the same view of the legal profession and Judges themselved based on the misdeeds of some? NO, we should not because ironically, thats profiling and tarring with the same brush. Something the police are consistantly told not to do

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

That incident was extremely sinister, and they weren't even normal beat cops - appeared to be plain clothes branch detectives. Can you imagine the sh*storm if you know which party was sending plain clothes police to the airport to intimidate private citizens? She got off lightly that incident died down in the press.

(Another aspect of that farrago was how exactly did the plains clothes know which flight the private citizen was on? As far as I know, passenger information on manifests aren't shared with police unless there is an alert on the individual for serious / security reasons?)

Doherty is the absolute pits. The kind of person you see screaming at service sector staff demanding to see the manager, except frighteningly, she had a seat at the cabinet.

Yeah, imagine a detective talking to the person that a complaint has been made against. Imagine being cautioned before they noted your comments. Absolute skullduggery. Of course we only ever heard one side of this event that resulted in zero prosecutions or arrests.

And a PRIVATE citizen of all people. Everyone knows that the Gardai can only talke to PUBLIC citizens

Yurt2

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yeah, imagine a detective talking to the person that a complaint has been made against. Imagine being cautioned before they noted your comments. Absolute skullduggery. Of course we only ever heard one side of this event that resulted in zero prosecutions or arrests.

And a PRIVATE citizen of all people. Everyone knows that the Gardai can only talke to PUBLIC citizens

It's absolutely terrifying that you're an attested Guard, both in your display of ignorance and attitude.

The academic in question was tweeting public interest material about an elected representative. If Doherty felt she was defamed it's a civil and absolutely not a criminal matter.

If you think that's a matter for the special branch in Dublin Airport boarding area you belong in the Shah of Iran's secret police not AGS.

You're a walking, talking, posting poster child for why these powers need to be revised before they go through Leinster House.

Stephen Gawking

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yeah, imagine a detective talking to the person that a complaint has been made against. Imagine being cautioned before they noted your comments. Absolute skullduggery. Of course we only ever heard one side of this event that resulted in zero prosecutions or arrests.

And a PRIVATE citizen of all people. Everyone knows that the Gardai can only talke to PUBLIC citizens

Stopped in an airport? Seem reasonable to you? And because she (allegedly) said something about someone in power that they didn't like? Get a grip man, thats beyond sinister. In your professional opinion what would have happened had she informed the gardai to perhaps engage with her solicitor? Arrest?

Padre_Pio

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yeah, imagine a detective talking to the person that a complaint has been made against. Imagine being cautioned before they noted your comments. Absolute skullduggery. Of course we only ever heard one side of this event that resulted in zero prosecutions or arrests.

And a PRIVATE citizen of all people. Everyone knows that the Gardai can only talke to PUBLIC citizens

A complaint based on what? Social media posts that point out Regina Doherty's past?

Do the Gardai enforce every complaint with the same rigour? Not a chance.

pioneerpro

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yeah, imagine a detective talking to the person that a complaint has been made against. Imagine being cautioned before they noted your comments. Absolute skullduggery. Of course we only ever heard one side of this event that resulted in zero prosecutions or arrests.

And a PRIVATE citizen of all people. Everyone knows that the Gardai can only talke to PUBLIC citizens

Much obliged Niner Leprechaun. You've demonstrated perfectly exactly why we need root and branch reform. You are exactly the target - just enough knowledge of the law to be pedantic and dangerous, combined with indemnification from prosecution in a wide-range of scenarios, and a healthy disregard for civil liberties.

It's not that you won't admit what's wrong, its that you can't even understand it. I wouldn't trust you with a wheelbarrow, least of all mine or anyone else's civil liberties. Thankfully they've brought in a new Commissioner who is going to ensure we no longer have to.

To the rest of the thread: remember folks - these are the public proclamations of the sort of member that believes not only themselves to be beyond reproach, but their entire organisation as well. The really dangerous ones don't post in public forums, they persecute in private areas.

pioneerpro

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What corruption was alledged by the Barr commission?

For anyone left with any remote sense that this user has any grounds left to stand on, I cite Vincent Browne's exceptional summary in Magill.

https://magill.ie/archive/corruption-heart-garda

Corruption at heart of the Garda wrote:

The Abbeylara report by Robert Barr is superb. Repetitious in part, curiously avoiding any overall assessment of the complicity of the media (as we see it) in the tragic outcome, surprisingly supportive of the decision to involve the Garda Emergency Response Unit (ERU) in an incident concerning a mentally-ill man in a painful ordeal. But the report is rigorous in its assessment of Garda incompetence and negligence. Forthright in its findings that Garda witnesses would not be believed and that in a central issue there may have been a cover up.

...

If we needed reminding that there is corruption, incompetence and negligence at the heart of An Garda Síochána, outside the Donegal area, this is it. The same lax standards, the same sheer ineptitude, the same carelessness, the same propensity to lie and cover up is here again in stark illustration.

Had even elementary measures been taken to discover what it was that agitated John Carthy, it would have been perceived that he hated the gardaí and with good reason because they abused him some time previously and they engaged in a subterfuge to take away his gun. The Garda authorities (if there is such an entity) might have appreciated the presence of gardaí surrounding his house was more likely to make matters much worse.

Robert Barr suspects there was a deliberate avoidance of John Carthy's previous dealings with An Garda Síochána because any focus on that would disturb a cover up!

...

It isn't individual gardaí alone, however, who stand indicted by this report – it is An Garda Síochána. There is a major problem with the force – its competence, its standards, its truthfulness and its culture – that Michael McDowell has failed to address in spite of the screaming evidence of all this, first from the Morris tribunal reports now from the Barr tribunal report.

Which, of course, thereafter led to gross legislative changes.

The real meat and bones, however, is the absolutely incredible repeated civil violations that the Garda perpetrated in the years leading up to this absolute tragedy.

https://magill.ie/archive/john-carthy-death-tale-blunder-negligence-and-cover

John Carthy death A tale of blunder, negligence and cover-up wrote:

The other incident arose when the Abbeylara GAA club reached the county football final and a local publican, William Crawford, spent £2000 on erecting a large wooden effigy of a goat which was placed on the village green. On the night of 22/23 September the goat mascot was burned.

The following day Garda David Martin from Smear Garda station was told by William Crawford that Carthy had burned the mascot and that there were two witnesses to this (in fact there were no "witnesses"). He passed this information to Garda Turlough Bruen at Granard who immediately decided to arrest and interrogate Carthy, without first establishing if there was substance to the allegation.
John Carthy was not home when Bruen called and the garda asked John Carthy's mother to get her son to call into the station later that day. At 7.30pm John Carthy went to the station thinking the garda wanted to talk to him about the gun which, by then, had not been returned to him.

Instead, he was arrested and held for several hours during which time, he claimed afterwards, he was physically and verbally abused. John Carthy was interviewed twice but, contrary to Garda procedures, no notes were taken by Bruen or his colleague, Detective Garda Frank McHugh.

Bruen claimed he could not take notes as Carthy was talking too quickly and he did not want to interrupt him. The tribunal rejected this explanation. McHugh said he did not remember that he had a duty to take notes. The tribunal rejected this claim also. Both gardaí denied that there was any assault on John Carthy. However, on the basis of evidence from from Dr Patrick Cullen that Carthy presented with tenderness on his neck the following day, which he (Carthy) said was due to ill treatment in Garda custody, the tribunal found: "It is highly probable that, having recruited McHugh to add further pressure in interrogation, Bruen set about attempting to extort a confession from the detainee... the interrogation would have been robust... and that when it failed to achieve its purpose it spilled over into some physical abuse of the accused."

Stephen Gawking

Stephen Gawking wrote: »

Stopped in an airport? Seem reasonable to you? And because she (allegedly) said something about someone in power that they didn't like? Get a grip man, thats beyond sinister. In your professional opinion what would have happened had she informed the gardai to perhaps engage with her solicitor? Arrest?

Is it your professional opinion that Gardai should pick and choose what complaints to investigate? That they should disregard a matter without looking into it first?

A complaint of a criminal nature was made. NORMAL detectives that actually work in Dublin airport, it has its very own station, approached her and after speaking with her, decided that there was no criminal issue at play. therefore no further action

Yes, I absolutely do think that Gardai should look into complaints made by the public

pioneerpro

pioneerpro wrote: »

For anyone left with any remote sense that this user has any grounds left to stand on, I cite Vincent Browne's exceptional summary in Magill.

https://magill.ie/archive/corruption-heart-garda



Which, of course, thereafter led to gross legislative changes.

The real meat and bones, however, is the absolutely incredible repeated civil violations that the Garda perpetrated in the years leading up to this absolute tragedy.

https://magill.ie/archive/john-carthy-death-tale-blunder-negligence-and-cover

again, what did the BARR report state? You have read it I assume? Not just relied on a third rate journalist with a long standing bias?

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

A complaint based on what? Social media posts that point out Regina Doherty's past?

Do the Gardai enforce every complaint with the same rigour? Not a chance.

Gardai dont ENFORCE any complaints. Thats the courts. I assume you know that?

I also assume you know, from professional experience sitting in on interviews and in court, that Gardai have a duty to investigate.

Robbo

Moderation: Any more personal insults or generalised allegations and I'll be handing out cards.

Yurt2

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

A complaint of a criminal nature was made.

I actually spat out my Tanora reading that. There was no criminal matter. Perhaps a civil one, if we're to be extremely generous to Doherty. And still not a matter for detectives.

Did they not give you classes on this in Templemore?

Either way, plain clothes detectives should be doing matter of greater importance than intimidating people on behalf of a thin-skinned minister at the boarding gate of a transatlantic flight.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

NORMAL detectives that actually work in Dublin airport, it has its very own station, approached her and after speaking with her, decided that there was no criminal issue at play. therefore no further action.

She was made sign an undertaking not to tweet about Doherty under threat of not being allowed on her flight.

Niner, if you are indeed a guard, people reading your offerings are probably shaking their head in disbelief.

Edit: and btw, the detectives identified themselves as being from Pearse Street station, not stationed at the airport.

pioneerpro

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

again, what did the BARR report state? You have read it I assume? Not just relied on a third rate journalist with a long standing bias?

It's highlighted in red for ease of reference. Oh, and that's two articles by two separate journalists. There's a dozen others, but I figured Magill would be the most reputable citation.

In any case, you've been answered comprehensively. Not going to get baited into a Pyrrhic Victory here by earning a ban - the mod is absolutely right in so far as this discourse isn't facilitating any productive dialogue or progressing understanding at this point.

Believe what you want to believe, welcome and necessary change is incoming either way. I hope both you and the Gardai overall embrace it in the positive spirit it is intended.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

I actually spat out my Tanora reading that. There was no criminal matter. Perhaps a civil one, if we're to be extremely generous to Doherty. And still not a matter for detectives.

Did they not give you classes on this in Templemore?

Either way, plain clothes detectives should be doing matter of greater importance than intimidating people on behalf of a thin-skinned minister at the boarding gate of a transatlantic flight.



She was made sign an undertaking not to tweet about Doherty under threat of not being allowed on her flight.

Niner, if you are indeed a guard, people reading your offerings are probably shaking their head in disbelief.

Edit: and btw, the detectives identified themselves as being from Pearse Street station, not stationed at the airport.

Im not going to bother trying to explain how it works anymore. Im sure a regular user here that has an actual understanding of the legal system will get to it eventually.

Heres a hint: Gardai dont decide these things. Theres an important person that has many solicitors working for him / her (depending) that make such decisions.

I also wont bother explaining why the courts would spit out their Tanora at your supposed evidence

pioneerpro

pioneerpro wrote: »

It's highlighted in red for ease of reference. Oh, and that's two articles by two separate journalists. There's a dozen others, but I figured Magill would be the most reputable citation.

In any case, you've been answered comprehensively. Not going to get baited into a Pyrrhic Victory here by earning a ban - the mod is absolutely right in so far as this discourse isn't facilitating any productive dialogue or progressing understanding at this point.

Believe what you want to believe, welcome and necessary change is incoming either way. I hope both you and the Gardai overall embrace it in the positive spirit it is intended.

I can ask again, whats did YOU read about corruption on the report?

I can only ask again that you address my questions. You wont though as that would be admitting that you were wrong

Yurt2

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Im not going to bother trying to explain how it works anymore. Im sure a regular user here that has an actual understanding of the legal system will get to it eventually.

Heres a hint: Gardai dont decide these things. Theres an important person that has many solicitors working for him / her (depending) that make such decisions.

I also wont bother explaining why the courts would spit out their Tanora at your supposed evidence

Niner. You're talking rope. Detectives have no business policing tweets be they about Doherty or the man in the corner shop. It's a civil matter.

And they certainly have no business threatening to pull people off flights if they don't sign undertakings about entirely civil matter Twitter material.

Your mystery 'important person' with an army of solicitors enjoys no such privileges or powers under normal functioning of the law.

Once again, rope.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Niner. You're talking rope. Detectives have no business policing tweets be they about Doherty or the man in the corner shop. It's a civil matter.

And they certainly have no business threatening to pull people off flights if they don't sign undertakings about entirely civil matter Twitter material.

Your mystery 'important person' with an army of solicitors enjoys no such privileges or powers under normal functioning of the law.

Once again, rope.

Brilliant. I love it . You don't even know how the system functions or it's parts.

You don't understand the law. Not one bit. You are absolutely clueless about it.

Don't worry. Someone that does will explain who the dpp is and the role they play in deciding if something is a criminal offence or not.

Won't be I though.

Robbo

Thread closed. There's maybe something to be salvaged here but y'all can't behave yourself.