Sweeping new powers for Gardai (and no opposition)

AndrewJRenko

Eire392 wrote: »

You do realise this is already something that can happen. I have never, ever heard of a solicitor being removed from interview in any station in the country.

So what's the point in including it in the new legislation?

ineedeuro wrote: »

Yes I am sure they are after my netflix account the bastids
Time to roll out the old 3310. Won't get much off that baby

Unless you are a criminal why would you have to worry? do people honestly believe the Gardai will be going around taking everyone phones and reading them?

Sure then - post the username and password of your email account here when you get a chance please. You're not a criminal, so you've nothing to hide, right? No confidential medical data - no sensitive family documents - no private, intimate photos or letters - no whistleblowing activity - no political activity.

All absolutely legal activities there, of course.

ineedeuro wrote: »

A lot of if's and but's.
Cypto is traceable the same as banking. What if I give them my phone with my mobile banking and it is empty when I get it back? well I ring the bank and they contact their fraud department to work out who/where/when the transactions happened to empty my account.

Haaahaahaa - the bank will tell you the transactions were done using your password, so it's you're problem not theirs.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

That didn't happen.

Didn't it?

Edz87

Edz87 wrote: »

Didn't it?

No.it didnt.

hatrickpatrick

bubblypop wrote: »

No.it didnt.

Right. So the daughter of someone McCabe initiated disciplinary proceedings against just *happened* to make a complaint about him, regarding an alleged incident almost a decade previous, which was determined to be entirely without merit (and indeed, even if the allegation had been true, not a crime at all).

Subsequently, Tusla just *happened* to "accidentally* upgrade the allegation to a crime of the most serious, evil nature, through a "copy and pasting error", and record that on McCabe's file.

Oh, and Gardaí up to the highest level including then Commissioner Martin Callinan and his press secretary Dave Taylor just *happened* to be told about this allegation in detail, from a supposedly confidential Tusla file, so as they could smear it around among very well respected and well known journalists such as Mick Clifford, who testified that they had been told of this allegation by senior Gardaí.

https://www.thejournal.ie/disclosures-tribunal-reynolds-4052548-Jun2018/

I ask again: Can you imagine the untold additional damage they might have been able to do to this man if they'd been able to access his mobile phone or laptop? Almost everyone has something legal but very taboo in their life, and they use their personal devices to access information about it with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If it was a requirement for a judge to specifically order a defendant to open a specific app to show specific information to investigating officers about a specific case, this would make a lot of sense. A blanket, indiscriminate rule giving access to every single piece of digital information about a person, on foot of a search warrant which can be signed not by a judge but by a senior Garda, about any alleged crime? No specificity, no meaningful oversight, etc?

No thanks.

Garda malpractice in living memory has shown time and time again why they should not be endowed with powers such as this. Frankly, the fact that a superintended can sign any kind of search warrant without judicial oversight is an abomination, justifications be damned.

Witcher

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Right. So the daughter of someone McCabe initiated disciplinary proceedings against just *happened* to make a complaint about him, regarding an alleged incident almost a decade previous, which was determined to be entirely without merit (and indeed, even if the allegation had been true, not a crime at all).

Subsequently, Tusla just *happened* to "accidentally* upgrade the allegation to a crime of the most serious, evil nature, through a "copy and pasting error", and record that on McCabe's file.

Oh, and Gardaí up to the highest level including then Commissioner Martin Callinan and his press secretary Dave Taylor just *happened* to be told about this allegation in detail, from a supposedly confidential Tusla file, so as they could smear it around among very well respected and well known journalists such as Mick Clifford, who testified that they had been told of this allegation by senior Gardaí.

https://www.thejournal.ie/disclosures-tribunal-reynolds-4052548-Jun2018/

I ask again: Can you imagine the untold additional damage they might have been able to do to this man if they'd been able to access his mobile phone or laptop? Almost everyone has something legal but very taboo in their life, and they use their personal devices to access information about it with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If it was a requirement for a judge to specifically order a defendant to open a specific app to show specific information to investigating officers about a specific case, this would make a lot of sense. A blanket, indiscriminate rule giving access to every single piece of digital information about a person, on foot of a search warrant which can be signed not by a judge but by a senior Garda, about any alleged crime? No specificity, no meaningful oversight, etc?

No thanks.

Garda malpractice in living memory has shown time and time again why they should not be endowed with powers such as this. Frankly, the fact that a superintended can sign any kind of search warrant without judicial oversight is an abomination, justifications be damned.

It has already been explained that this is not possible.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Right. So the daughter of someone McCabe initiated disciplinary proceedings against just *happened* to make a complaint about him, regarding an alleged incident almost a decade previous, which was determined to be entirely without merit (and indeed, even if the allegation had been true, not a crime at all). .

I think you need to get your facts straight.
A child made some allegations, those allegations were investigated and the DPP directed that no charges be brought.
That happens, a lot.
There was never ever any allegation that the child had fabricated any allegations. I think it's disgraceful that the whole country turned against a child. A child who had something happen to her that she felt bad about. That's not saying anything about anyone else.

What happened years later with the tusla file, I do not know, but as far as I am aware, the tribunal found that there was no deliberate attempt to discredit Maurice McCabe, by tusla.

That child who is now an adult, has to live with the whole country making assumptions about her, that's not right. People need to leave her alone.

hatrickpatrick

bubblypop wrote: »

I think you need to get your facts straight.
A child made some allegations, those allegations were investigated and the DPP directed that no charges be brought.
That happens, a lot.
There was never ever any allegation that the child had fabricated any allegations. I think it's disgraceful that the whole country turned against a child. A child who had something happen to her that she felt bad about. That's not saying anything about anyone else.

What happened years later with the tusla file, I do not know, but as far as I am aware, the tribunal found that there was no deliberate attempt to discredit Maurice McCabe, by tusla.

That child who is now an adult, has to live with the whole country making assumptions about her, that's not right. People need to leave her alone.

Leave her out of it then. Everything that happened after the allegation was made is still a national disgrace and an example of a concerted, top-down effort to make a whistleblower shut up and go away. And all I'm saying is that if they had been able to sign a warrant from within and gain access to everything he had ever googled, texted, or written himself a note about, they could have found untold private details of his life and further leaked these to the media in the same way in which they leaked the untrue allegation made "in error" by a Tusla staffer.

Even if the allegation was edited in a genuine error, Dave Taylor and Martin Callinan colluding to spread it around Ireland's journalistic community was most certainly not.

That's what I'm saying. This is a dangerous power to give the Gardaí because the Gardaí as an organisation have form for smear campaigns. That's specifically what I'm saying.

If it was the case that independent judicial oversight was required in every case, that the access to information had to be specifically and directly relevant to the crime being investigated, and that only specific, serious types of crime were included, I would be 100% on board with this.

The problem with the law isn't that access to private information is being proposed. The problem is that this access (a) can be granted from within the force, (b) applies to all kinds of crimes from petty to serious, and (c) is not tailored in each case to the specific crime being investigated.

If these three issues were addressed, I and I'm sure many others would immediately stop objecting.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Leave her out of it then. Everything that happened after the allegation was made is still a national disgrace and an example of a concerted, top-down effort to make a whistleblower shut up and go away. And all I'm saying is that if they had been able to sign a warrant from within and gain access to everything he had ever googled, texted, or written himself a note about, they could have found untold private details of his life and further leaked these to the media in the same way in which they leaked the untrue allegation made "in error" by a Tusla staffer.

Even if the allegation was edited in a genuine error, Dave Taylor and Martin Callinan colluding to spread it around Ireland's journalistic community was most certainly not.

That's what I'm saying. This is a dangerous power to give the Gardaí because the Gardaí as an organisation have form for smear campaigns. That's specifically what I'm saying.

If it was the case that independent judicial oversight was required in every case, that the access to information had to be specifically and directly relevant to the crime being investigated, and that only specific, serious types of crime were included, I would be 100% on board with this.

The problem with the law isn't that access to private information is being proposed. The problem is that this access (a) can be granted from within the force, (b) applies to all kinds of crimes from petty to serious, and (c) is not tailored in each case to the specific crime being investigated.

If these three issues were addressed, I and I'm sure many others would immediately stop objecting.

Yes, let's leave the child out of it, thank you.
I think you will find that Maurice McCabe stated he had nothing but help from his coworkers, that is in the reports.

When it comes to search warrants, there are certain warrants that need to be issued by a judge, some others that have always been allowed to be issued by high ranking gardai or peace commissioners. As by law.
Any warrants issued by supers or PCs have always been evidence admissible in court, therefore open to question in court. The superintendent or peace commissioner is open to questioning by defence and prosecution.

Witcher

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Leave her out of it then. Everything that happened after the allegation was made is still a national disgrace and an example of a concerted, top-down effort to make a whistleblower shut up and go away. And all I'm saying is that if they had been able to sign a warrant from within and gain access to everything he had ever googled, texted, or written himself a note about, they could have found untold private details of his life and further leaked these to the media in the same way in which they leaked the untrue allegation made "in error" by a Tusla staffer.

Even if the allegation was edited in a genuine error, Dave Taylor and Martin Callinan colluding to spread it around Ireland's journalistic community was most certainly not.

That's what I'm saying. This is a dangerous power to give the Gardaí because the Gardaí as an organisation have form for smear campaigns. That's specifically what I'm saying.

If it was the case that independent judicial oversight was required in every case, that the access to information had to be specifically and directly relevant to the crime being investigated, and that only specific, serious types of crime were included, I would be 100% on board with this.

The problem with the law isn't that access to private information is being proposed. The problem is that this access (a) can be granted from within the force, (b) applies to all kinds of crimes from petty to serious, and (c) is not tailored in each case to the specific crime being investigated.

If these three issues were addressed, I and I'm sure many others would immediately stop objecting.

Once again, no it cannot.

Under no circumstances should questioning be conducted after the removal of the person's chosen solicitor.

Prove your case another way.

Can someone point out the part of the bill that relates to this?

Peregrinus

whatnow! wrote: »

Under no circumstances should questioning be conducted after the removal of the person's chosen solicitor.

Prove your case another way.

Can someone point out the part of the bill that relates to this?

It’s in head 42.

Subs (1) - person in custody has a right to consult a legal representative (in private) and, if asked, the custody officer must notify a legal rep ASAP.

Subs (2) - No questioning or taking of statements until person in custody has had opportunity to consult legal rep. (But note that this is subject to exceptions in head 43, outlined below.)

Subs (3) - If person in custody asks for a legal rep, no further questioning and no taking of statements until they have had an opportunity to consult.

Subs (5) - If person is detained in a Garda custody facility, legal rep may accompany them at any interview conducted.

(So if the guards interview you at home, they have to give you an opportunity to consult your legal rep but, when you’ve done that, they can go ahead without the legal rep being present for the interview. Of course, you can decline to be interviewed, which is probably what your legal rep will have advised you to do when you consulted him.)

Subs (6) - Inspector or higher can require a legal rep to absent himself from interview at station if he reasonably believes (a) legal rep’s presence would prejudice investigation/proceedings, or (b) owing to legal rep’s behaviour, his presence would be unduly disruptive.

[Situation (a) would be rare but might arise if, e.g., your chosen legal rep is himself a witness, suspect or person of interest, and it would be problematic if he knew what questions were being put to you and/or what answers you were giving. Honestly not sure what situation (b) is intended to cover. Legal rep is drunk? Legal rep is belligerent?]

Subs (7) - If legal rep is excluded, person in custody must be told that he still has a right to be accompanied by a legal rep, and guards must make necessary arrangements for another legal rep.

Head 43 creates various exceptions to the rule which forbids questioning/statements before person in custody has had opportunity to consult legal rep. These cover:

- Person in custody, having been informed of right to consult, waives that right.

- Person in custody refuses to consult legal rep who makes himself available.

- Inspector or higher reasonably believes that delaying questioning would involve risk of interference with or injury to other persons, serious loss/damage to property, destruction of evidence, accomplices being alerted, etc.

[In the latter case, the inspector has to give you a written notice that he has authorised questioning in advance of consultation opportunity. But he doesn’t have to tell you the grounds on which he has done so.]

RulesOfNature

I feel bad for anyone still staying in this sh*thole. You are all honestly so f*cked. Im gone in a week.

Get out while you can.

RulesOfNature

RulesOfNature wrote: »

I feel bad for anyone still staying in this sh*thole. You are all honestly so f*cked. Im gone in a week.

Get out while you can.

In Spain you can be held in custody without charge for upto 2 years.

Many us states have the death penalty

Many Arabic countries have flogging and the death penalty

Many Asian countries will lock you up in horrible conditions for life unless you bribe them.

South American countries have such huge corruption problems that they can't sack all the corrupt cops

As for Africa......

Yeah, Ireland is the pits.

Wanderer78

RulesOfNature wrote:

I feel bad for anyone still staying in this sh*thole. You are all honestly so f*cked. Im gone in a week.

Best of luck, Ireland isn't too bad at all

ineedeuro

RulesOfNature wrote: »

I feel bad for anyone still staying in this sh*thole. You are all honestly so f*cked. Im gone in a week.

Get out while you can.

Close the door on the way out please

RulesOfNature

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

In Spain you can be held in custody without charge for upto 2 years.

Many us states have the death penalty

Many Arabic countries have flogging and the death penalty

Many Asian countries will lock you up in horrible conditions for life unless you bribe them.

South American countries have such huge corruption problems that they can't sack all the corrupt cops

As for Africa......

Yeah, Ireland is the pits.

Congratulations, you now realize other people have it worse.

Now compare Ireland to places that have it better.

You think because North Korea exists its okay for Ireland to get worse? You people are so fvcked in ways you wont even believe. In ways you dont want to believe.

Look around you.

Fandymo

ineedeuro wrote: »

The only reason the Gardai need these additional powers is because the public are no help to them
So the only people to blame is the public. They hinder the Gardai at every turn, then turn around and complain about crime rates.

Was it the public who made €9k disappear from Balbriggan Garda stations evidence room? Was it the public who made €25k disappear from Malahide Garda stations evidence room? Is it members of the public whinging and crying that Gardai should not be subject to random drugs tests? (If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to worry about) Was it members of the public who recorded and released Dara Quigleys video?

AGS needs proper reform. The criminals in uniform need proper punishment.

Maybe then, the public will have faith in them and will trust them enough to help them.

Kermit.de.frog

I, for one, welcome these new powers for Gardai.

If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about. If, however, you've done morally dubious things like watch copious amounts of porn on your mobile device you'll get over the embarrassment...eventually. :pac:

corner of hells

Fandymo wrote: »

Was it the public who made €9k disappear from Balbriggan Garda stations evidence room? Was it the public who made €25k disappear from Malahide Garda stations evidence room? Is it members of the public whinging and crying that Gardai should not be subject to random drugs tests? (If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to worry about) Was it members of the public who recorded and released Dara Quigleys video?

AGS needs proper reform. The criminals in uniform need proper punishment.

Maybe then, the public will have faith in them and will trust them enough to help them.

As of last month , over 70 Gardai are currently suspended and in the last three years 17 have been dismissed. So it does suggest there is some form of accountability and disciplinary procedures being in use.

BluePlanet

corner of hells wrote: »

As of last month , over 70 Gardai are currently suspended and in the last three years 17 have been dismissed. So it does suggest there is some form of accountability and disciplinary procedures being in use.

Tip of the iceberg i'd say

corner of hells

BluePlanet wrote: »

Tip of the iceberg i'd say

Or it might suggest the vast majority of Gardai go about their business to the best of their ability.

ineedeuro

corner of hells wrote: »

As of last month , over 70 Gardai are currently suspended and in the last three years 17 have been dismissed. So it does suggest there is some form of accountability and disciplinary procedures being in use.

14,708 members and 2944 reserves. So 70 is 0.39% of staff.

corner of hells

ineedeuro wrote: »

14,708 members and 2944 reserves. So 70 is 0.39% of staff.

So what would like to do ? Randomly suspend Gardai that have done nothing.

Jeremy Sproket

ineedeuro

corner of hells wrote: »

So what would like to do ? Randomly suspend Gardai that have done nothing.

I have no idea what you mean?

corner of hells

ineedeuro wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean?

Maybe im reading your post incorrectly, it looked to me that you were suggesting to little Gardai have been suspended or discharged .Apologies if im wrong.

corner of hells

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

That quote is generally not accepted as one of Hitler's and nor is it in Mein Kampf.

Fandymo

corner of hells wrote: »

Maybe im reading your post incorrectly, it looked to me that you were suggesting to little Gardai have been suspended or discharged .Apologies if im wrong.

We’ll see how many are suspended when random drug tests are rolled out and how long it lasts. There are loads of them on the bag at weekends and who smoke weed daily. I’m guessing once they see the numbers it’ll be quietly dropped.

ineedeuro

corner of hells wrote: »

Maybe im reading your post incorrectly, it looked to me that you were suggesting to little Gardai have been suspended or discharged .Apologies if im wrong.

No I am saying that out of the total Gardai staff only 0.39% are suspended. You will always have some bad eggs in a large organisation. If nobody was suspended I would be more concerned

corner of hells

Fandymo wrote: »

We’ll see how many are suspended when random drug tests are rolled out and how long it lasts. There are loads of them on the bag at weekends and who smoke weed daily. I’m guessing once they see the numbers it’ll be quietly dropped.

I wonder would GSOC be interested if you contacted them.

o1s1n

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

ineedeuro

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Hitler steamrolled everyone and everything out of his way

Nothing and eroding or tiny with that boyo!!!

Necro

Fandymo wrote: »

We’ll see how many are suspended when random drug tests are rolled out and how long it lasts. There are loads of them on the bag at weekends and who smoke weed daily. I’m guessing once they see the numbers it’ll be quietly dropped.

Have you any evidence of this claim? If not don't bring it up again

Shebean

Onion Bahji wrote: »

Shhhure if you’ve done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear

Unless you are a Garda whistleblower, a politician the government don't like, (Clare Daly/Paul Murphy) someone the local Garda Sergent doesn't like, someone investigating no paper trail Garda contracts with contractors, breath test inconsistencies, or your local Garda works for drug dealers or your ex is a disgruntled Garda, or your information is passed on or sold without your knowledge.

Peregrinus

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

The best way to oppose an idea without having to be arsed to construct a reasoned argument against it is to make up a quote apparently supportive of the idea, and attribute it to Hitler.

RulesOfNature

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

Yeah because the "war on drugs" is going to be won by going through text messages from a guy with a 25 bag :rolleyes:

You should be very very careful about what rights you flippantly want to have removed because once one goes, more will follow.

People just refuse to learn from history. Complete and utter delusion: thinking the Gardai have your absolute best interest in mind.

They exist to bolster the stranglehold FF/FG has in the country. They are there for evictions, worker strikes and the property rights of the ruling class. They are not there protect you in any way.

They WILL abuse these new rights. And it will be too late.

ineedeuro

RulesOfNature wrote: »

People just refuse to learn from history. Complete and utter delusion: thinking the Gardai have your absolute best interest in mind.

They exist to bolster the stranglehold FF/FG has in the country. They are there for evictions, worker strikes and the property rights of the ruling class. They are not there protect you in any way.

They WILL abuse these new rights. And it will be too late.

Do people really believe this rubbish? Why would the Gardai be working to keep FF and FG in power after they have underfunded them for the last 30 years? If not more

Widdensushi

ineedeuro wrote: »

Do people really believe this rubbish? Why would the Gardai be working to keep FF and FG in power after they have underfunded them for the last 30 years? If not more

I don't think that is the case but the obvious answer is that if ff/fg aren't in power, then sf will be.