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

Garda investigated after CCTV showing arrest of naked, distressed woman goes viral.

1…5681011

Comments

  • #212
    dadad231
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭dadad231


    Awful stuff, what the hell was the gardai thinking filming it and uploading it ?
    Hope he has to answer for what he did.


  • #213
    oneilla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭oneilla


    Vigil for Dara tomorrow evening

    C_j6Q_kXsAIkFw3.jpg


  • #214
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    biscuithead wrote: »
    Back up an minute there. The guard who recorded the incident and posted it to the WhatsApp group was not to know at the time any of the circumstances. For all he knew he could have been witnessing a girl who was off her head coming from a sex party or such. He might have thought "this is a party girl who is wasted. She'll get brought in, sobered up. She'll be mortified and someone will come to collect her."

    If you saw a woman riding naked on horseback through the town you would most likely take out your phone and take a pic or a recording and send it to friends. You might think "Wow, Lady Godiva".

    A month later the same woman might commit suicide and it might be revealed that she suffered from depression and substance abuse.

    It would be very easy to castigate you for taking a pic but really had you done anything evil and malicious at the time?


    Fundamentally what the Guard did was completely morally wrong. No amount of whataboutery changes that

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #215
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    pilly wrote: »
    God, I'm just really letting this sink in and as someone who has suffered mental health difficulties if I thought for one minute that a horrible moment in my life was out there on the internet for all to see and would always be there I think I'd take the same course of action.

    Just to be clear here. Are you saying she killed herself because of the video and you would do the same in her place?


  • #216
    biscuithead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 157 ✭✭biscuithead


    Are Am Eye wrote: »
    Abuse of her privacy is a civil wrong.
    Data protection offences on the other hand are criminal.

    The moment his private phone came into the equation the situation left lawful evidence gathering and he exceeded his entitlement to have the footage. When he passed it on to others he compounded that

    Thank you. And again i'm not trying to excuse the fact that this guard recorded cctv footage and shared it with friends but to follow on from what you wrote, i.e. that abuse of her privacy is a civil wrong, does that mean that anyone recorded and the footage shared is a civil wrong? For example if i just take out my camera, film some random people and then upload it or share the footage with friends, have i engage in civil wrongdoing?


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Assetbacked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    The focus on the Garda recording cctv footage of a naked woman walking in the streets is important because it is an abuse of his position as a Garda whereby he has access to such CCTV. However the person(s) who sent on the video is/are equally culpable, if not worse.

    Notwithstanding this, can there be more of a focus on the fact this woman was suffering from a mental illness and was likely not being provided with the help she needed by her family, supposed friends etc to end up committing suicide? Yet again, the most important aspect of this whole saga is being given less attention and those focusing more on the Garda's actions are key perpetrators in mental illness not being given the time it deserves in public discourse. And I aim this at the self-righteous, sickeningly smug posters on the first couple pages replying to that lengthy post.


  • #218
    biscuithead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 157 ✭✭biscuithead


    infogiver wrote: »
    It might leave you feeling that your not safe anywhere.

    That's hardly a helpful comment.


  • #219
    biscuithead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 157 ✭✭biscuithead


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Fundamentally what the Guard did was completely morally wrong. No amount of whataboutery changes that

    "Whataboutery"?

    Is that the buzzword now that serves to dismiss such things as examples, analogies, similarities, etc? if the aforementioned actually open alternative possibilities or leave reason for latitude? If a precedent was tabled during a court case would you dismiss it as "whataboutery"?


  • #220
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    biscuithead wrote: »
    Thank you. And again i'm not trying to excuse the fact that this guard recorded cctv footage and shared it with friends but to follow on from what you wrote, i.e. that abuse of her privacy is a civil wrong, does that mean that anyone recorded and the footage shared is a civil wrong? For example if i just take out my camera, film some random people and then upload it or share the footage with friends, have i engage in civil wrongdoing?

    You are completely ignoring the fact that, even leaving out the cruelty and heartlessness involved, it was totally unprofessional and a breach his duty of care to a citizen, as a member of AGS, to use CCTV footage of that distressed citizen, collated in the course of his professional duty, to titilate and entertain his pals.
    Now yes or no, do you agree with that?
    Your trying to compare his behaviour with you, as a lay person, recording some situation you came upon in the course of a night out.
    Do you understand the concept of unacceptable professional behaviour at all?
    I work in a public service office and would be suspended pending an investigation if I were even OVERHEARD DISCUSSING A CUSTOMER WITH MY COLLEAGUE!!


  • #221
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    biscuithead wrote: »
    That's hardly a helpful comment.

    What about it do you find unhelpful?


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    VonLuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,451 ✭✭✭VonLuck


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Quite a f**king lot tbh. A lot of them seem (from top to bottom) unaware that the era of the Garda Complaints Board where guards investigated guards ended quite a while ago.

    But having a body cam would have no effect on what happened in this case!


  • #223
    biscuithead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 157 ✭✭biscuithead


    infogiver wrote: »
    What about it do you find unhelpful?

    Considering the poster, pilly, has struggled with mental fragility, it's a little clumsy for you to suggest that one might not be safe anywhere.


  • #224
    Are Am Eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,166 ✭✭✭Are Am Eye


    biscuithead wrote: »
    Thank you. And again i'm not trying to excuse the fact that this guard recorded cctv footage and shared it with friends but to follow on from what you wrote, i.e. that abuse of her privacy is a civil wrong, does that mean that anyone recorded and the footage shared is a civil wrong? For example if i just take out my camera, film some random people and then upload it or share the footage with friends, have i engage in civil wrongdoing?

    Let's say a private business has a cctv system. The recorded video on this is 'personal data' and is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
    In the alleged scenario here the viewing of the incident was kosher up to a point. For the purposes of investigating a criminal offence e.g public order offence. At a particular point here the access to the data is no longer authorised under the act. In other words this guy wasn't entitled to record the incident to his own personal phone. Or to view it himself for entertainment. Or to share it with arbitrary individuals for their entertainment.


  • #225
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    biscuithead wrote: »
    Considering the poster, pilly, has struggled with mental fragility, it's a little clumsy for you to suggest that one might not be safe anywhere.

    I said it would make me feel that I wasn't safe anywhere.
    It's a bit rich of you to accuse me of being clumsy with people's mental health when you've spent hours defending the abominably cruel behaviour of someone who is paid from the public purse to protect citizens from cruel behaviour.


  • #226
    biscuithead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 157 ✭✭biscuithead


    Are Am Eye wrote: »
    Let's say a private business has a cctv system. The recorded video on this is 'personal data' and is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
    In the alleged scenario here the viewing of the incident was kosher up to a point. For the purposes of investigating a criminal offence e.g public order offence. At a particular point here the access to the data is no longer authorised under the act. In other words this guy wasn't entitled to record the incident to his own personal phone. Or to view it himself for entertainment. Or to share it with arbitrary individuals for their entertainment.

    Ok, again thank you. But it seems very grey to me. I'm sorry if i come across cold, sterile and methodical. I just want to know all the minutiae of this unfortunate episode.


  • #227
    goose2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    It also makes you wonder how often he had done this before, how many other juicy bits of evidence/footage he had shared with the lads down the pub


  • #228
    paleoperson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    What you do in public is usually fair for recording. However a lot of the time release forms are required, especially if the person was manipulated or can otherwise claim their behaviour was taken out of context. That's why Borat got sued for millions by random people who were shown in the movie. Obviously this is one of those situations. So even an ordinary person couldn't do this, nevermind a guard who is on duty and intentionally following this person (which would be illegal without being on duty).


  • #229
    IsaacWunder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    biscuithead wrote: »
    Ok, again thank you. But it seems very grey to me. I'm sorry if i come across cold, sterile and methodical. I just want to know all the minutiae of this unfortunate episode.

    The key concept is who is the data controller.

    When the Garda have a cctv system then they are the data controller. Personal data, in the context of cctv, is where the individual on that footage is identifiable, as opposed to being a face in the crowd. This woman was identifiable on the cctv footage: They were using the cameras to follow her.

    Now that personal data may be held by the data controller on the basis it is relevant, and necessary, and it should be deleted when it is no longer required. The Garda Siochana also have a number of other exemptions under the law, which I won't get into, but essentially they should erase the footage after a set period of time if it has no evidentiary value/is no longer needed.

    When the individual guard used his phone to film the cctv he then separately became a data controller. However, unlike the Garda force he had no reason to hold it, had no right to use it, and certainly did not have a right to distribute it.


  • #230
    koumi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭koumi


    IsaacWunder wrote: »
    When the individual guard used his phone to film the cctv he then separately became a data controller. However, unlike the Garda force he had no reason to hold it, had no right to use it, and certainly did not have a right to distribute it.
    I worked in the hse for a little bit and a data protection issue arose, which I highlighted (to my own detriment). I had previously covered the issue of data legislation on a crappy FAS course, so I had an understanding however small it was, that what had occurred was illegal.
    Despite my best effort to make my superiors aware of this issue, they didn't appear to have any, any understanding or concept of the legal ramifications of what they had done, let alone any concern for the potential damage or liability toward the injured party. I felt like I was in that movie one flew over the cuckoos nest. I sincerely cannot stress enough how uneducated the public sector is particularly with regard to this issue.


  • #231
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I take it people defending the guard would be happy with doctors and other public servants filming us at our weakest moments.

    There's no part of me that can rationalise that man's actions. His actions are that of a low life with no morals.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    biscuithead wrote: »
    But the Garda wasn't at the scene. He recorded the footage from a CCTV feed at a remote location. He could have been on the other side of the country for all we know.

    So bloody what?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #233
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    One of them slammed her into the distal edge of the rear door of the garda car, there is no space for her to get into the car, he is standing right inside the door :


    The pathetic excuse of a garda is then too weak to get/hold her arm behind her back



    vyPw5zU.jpg



    split second later, she drops :



    sPeR75A.png


  • #234
    paleoperson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    So bloody what?

    ikr, how on earth he thought that was some kind of argument in his defence is beyond me.


  • #235
    oneilla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭oneilla


    Yeah she was treated appallingly by the arresting Guard. Slammed up against the car, arm twisted, handcuffed.


  • #236
    Samsgirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Samsgirl


    I don't see how anyone can defend what the Garda did. It was wrong. So wrong.
    I, like so many have had jobs with access to huge amounts of personal information and not for a second would I share that with anyone.
    I think he / she should lose their job.
    Not sure about name and shame but they should not be trusted with such information ever again.


  • #237
    biscuithead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 157 ✭✭biscuithead


    infogiver wrote: »
    I said it would make me feel that I wasn't safe anywhere.
    It's a bit rich of you to accuse me of being clumsy with people's mental health when you've spent hours defending the abominably cruel behaviour of someone who is paid from the public purse to protect citizens from cruel behaviour.

    You didn't.

    You wrote: "It might make you think that your [sic] not safe anywhere."


  • #238
    biscuithead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 157 ✭✭biscuithead


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    So bloody what?

    So bloody what?

    Because people are maintaining that the police officer was filming rather than helping her. He wasn't there.


  • #239
    Conor Bourke
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 17,426 ✭✭✭✭Conor Bourke


    biscuithead wrote: »
    So bloody what?

    Because people are maintaining that the police officer was filming rather than helping her. He wasn't there.

    That's NOT why people are up in arms, don't post such disingenuous rubbish.


  • #240
    IsaacWunder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    koumi wrote: »
    I worked in the hse for a little bit and a data protection issue arose, which I highlighted (to my own detriment). I had previously covered the issue of data legislation on a crappy FAS course, so I had an understanding however small it was, that what had occurred was illegal.
    Despite my best effort to make my superiors aware of this issue, they didn't appear to have any, any understanding or concept of the legal ramifications of what they had done, let alone any concern for the potential damage or liability toward the injured party. I felt like I was in that movie one flew over the cuckoos nest. I sincerely cannot stress enough how uneducated the public sector is particularly with regard to this issue.

    Yeah, that would not surprise me. Very much head in the sand approach. The government sees it all as something of a nuisance, and largely pretends data protection laws don't exist.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    biscuithead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 157 ✭✭biscuithead


    Cornelius Crow wrote: »
    That's NOT why people are up in arms, don't post such disingenuous rubbish.

    It IS NOT disingenuous. People are stating that the police officer, rather than helping the woman, stood at the scene and filmed her in her naked state. That DID NOT HAPPEN. HE WAS NOT THERE.

    That is an important piece of information.


Advertisement