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

Nettle Soup · 28-11-2017 2:17pm #1

The opening statement the Charleton Tribunal made made it quite clear when evidence needed to be supplied.

http://disclosuretribunal.ie/en/DIS/Pages/Opening_Statement

Are you a witness to this matter? Then, the tribunal needs your help and needs it urgently. Many have already indicated publicly and in various circumstances that they have some knowledge. Now the opportunity has arrived to cooperate in this inquiry. The tribunal wants to know the detail of that; who did what, who said what, when, in what terms, who communicated with whom, by whatever means, and in what terms. What evidence have you of this beyond what you are saying? The details are central. The tribunal needs the detail. Today, the tribunal is calling for all those people with knowledge of the matters in the terms of reference (a) to (o) inclusive to provide a written statement and to forward this to Elizabeth Mullan, solicitor to the tribunal at Dublin Castle, Dublin D02 Y337. That statement should be detailed and should be received by close of business on this day fortnight, the 13th of March 2017. In that statement, every person should indicate whether they wish to assert any form of ostensible legal professional privilege against disclosure of evidence or documents or any form of ostensible journalistic privilege. If there is any such assertion against giving a complete account of events, then that’s not ruled out, but at least we know what needs to be further explored.

While the tribunal has already made a range of orders preserving or requiring the handing over of documents, if any person has a phone, computer, electronic records or paper records, relevant to the terms of reference, then these should be brought to the tribunal within the same timeframe.

The Department of Justice did not supply vital emails until they were forced to do so. <snip>

Is the Charleton Tribunal compromised? Can the DoJ and Gardai be trusted? Will McCabe ever get justice?

******

Mod note:

There is nothing to support any suggestion that the Tanaiste deliberately lied about the emails. As matters stand, the position is that she did not inform the Dail or the Taoiseach of same. If that changes and someone has a reliable source to support such a view that is fine, but for the moment, please stick to the information that is in the public domain and don't speculate. As per the charter:

Allegations of lying are taken very seriously. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable without proof, the onus is on you to provide the proof that they are deliberately and intentionally trying to deceive.

James Brown · 28-11-2017 3:08pm

It's possible that despite the cries from Fine Gael, having these revelations come out before it's complete, might help.

Odhinn · 28-11-2017 5:15pm

Nettle Soup wrote: »

The opening statement the Charleton Tribunal made made it quite clear when evidence needed to be supplied.

http://disclosuretribunal.ie/en/DIS/Pages/Opening_Statement

The Department of Justice did not supply vital emails until they were forced to do so. The Tanaiste even lied about the same emails in the Dail.

Is the Charleton Tribunal compromised? Can the DoJ and Gardai be trusted? Will McCabe ever get justice?

Yes, no, and maybe.

There doesn't seem to be a penalty to not handing over documents there.

hatrickpatrick · 28-11-2017 5:44pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's possible that despite the cries from Fine Gael, having these revelations come out before it's complete, might help.

It seems plausible to me that this is exactly why there were cries about it.

Does anybody still believe at this stage that those in power actually want the truth to come out? It's becoming plainly obvious that they just want this story to go away without having to actually change their ways or force others to change theirs.

blanch152 · 28-11-2017 5:47pm

Nettle Soup wrote: »

The opening statement the Charleton Tribunal made made it quite clear when evidence needed to be supplied.

http://disclosuretribunal.ie/en/DIS/Pages/Opening_Statement

The Department of Justice did not supply vital emails until they were forced to do so. The Tanaiste even lied about the same emails in the Dail.

Is the Charleton Tribunal compromised? Can the DoJ and Gardai be trusted? Will McCabe ever get justice?

How is it compromised?

It may have been delayed in its work and it may have to revisit some issues, but how is it compromised?

Nettle Soup · 28-11-2017 5:54pm

Odhinn wrote: »

Yes, no, and maybe.

There doesn't seem to be a penalty to not handing over documents there.

I thought there was a penalty...a quick google.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1979/act/3/enacted/en/print.html

(d) by act or omission, obstructs or hinders the tribunal in the performance of its functions, or

A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

I might be wrong on above...

jimmycrackcorm · 28-11-2017 6:10pm

blanch152 wrote:

It may have been delayed in its work and it may have to revisit some issues, but how is it compromised?

It isn't compromised in its own right but it demonstrates a weakness with tribunals that don't have the necessary powers to investigate like other bodies.

It's relying on voluntary disclosures of evidence rather than being able to go in and physically acquire evidence.

Odhinn · 28-11-2017 6:15pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It isn't compromised in its own right but it demonstrates a weakness with tribunals that don't have the necessary powers to investigate like other bodies.

It's relying on voluntary disclosures of evidence rather than being able to go in and physically acquire evidence.

...if that;s the case it was never intended to find the full truth, lets face it.

flutered · 28-11-2017 6:20pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's possible that despite the cries from Fine Gael, having these revelations come out before it's complete, might help.

when ms fitz is on the stand awaiting mcdowells questions, i recon she will have a rather squeaky bum

FrancieBrady · 28-11-2017 6:23pm

If we are taking the DoJ's word that they have indeed done a full trawl then I suspect it is compromised.

The DoJ does not have the full confidence of the government at the moment. How can the tribunal continue under those circumstances?

James Brown · 28-11-2017 6:36pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If we are taking the DoJ's word that they have indeed done a full trawl then I suspect it is compromised.

The DoJ does not have the full confidence of the government at the moment. How can the tribunal continue under those circumstances?

It really speaks to Fine Gael to show no confidence in a department they've presided over under two governments, to cover for a <snip>minister. I'm sure any genuine hard workers in the Dept. of Justice really appreciate that. 'We look after our own' indeed.

Nettle Soup · 28-11-2017 7:17pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It really speaks to Fine Gael to show no confidence in a department they've presided over under two governments, to cover for a lying minister. I'm sure any genuine hard workers in the Dept. of Justice really appreciate that. 'We look after our own' indeed.

Something tells me the civil servants in DoJ won't give a toss. They have seen ministers come and go and seem to have no respect or fear of them. Our permanent government seems to be broken as well as the FFG one.

Odhinn · 28-11-2017 8:33pm

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Something tells me the civil servants in DoJ won't give a toss. They have seen ministers come and go and seem to have no respect or fear of them. Our permanent government seems to be broken as well as the FFG one.

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.

markodaly · 28-11-2017 10:50pm

No it not compromised, the only people peddling this line as some online. It should do its job and go from there.

Esel · 28-11-2017 11:12pm

markodaly wrote: »

No it not compromised, the only people peddling this line as some online. It should do its job and go from there.

It has been compromised, in the sense that it has been impaired.

FrancieBrady · 28-11-2017 11:20pm

markodaly wrote: »

No it not compromised, the only people peddling this line as some online. It should do its job and go from there.

The government doesn't have confidence in one of its major participants and list a Tanists because it withheld information.
A tribunal is thoroughly compromised until that is sorted out.

Odhinn · 29-11-2017 12:38am

markodaly wrote: »

No it not compromised, the only people peddling this line as some online. It should do its job and go from there.

You might explain this in light of the clear lack of co-operation that was highlighted in the DOJ.

Odhinn · 29-11-2017 12:52am

One of the better analyses of the mentality, involved from Fintan O'Toole
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-did-the-department-of-justice-engage-in-a-deliberate-act-of-subversion-1.3308241?mode=amp#.Wh1daAASlY0.twitter

Tony EH · 29-11-2017 2:06am

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It isn't compromised in its own right but it demonstrates a weakness with tribunals that don't have the necessary powers to investigate like other bodies.

It's relying on voluntary disclosures of evidence rather than being able to go in and physically acquire evidence.

That's like asking a whale where all the plankton went and expecting him to fess up.

Tell me how · 29-11-2017 2:32am

flutered wrote:

when ms fitz is on the stand awaiting mcdowells questions, i recon she will have a rather squeaky bum

Is she under any compulsion to give evidence?

I suspect she'll try not to now that she's gone from government.

Stheno · 29-11-2017 2:34am

Tell me how wrote: »

Is she under any compulsion to give evidence?

I suspect she'll try not to now that she's gone from government.

Tribunals here need to be able to compel evidence

Seth Brundle · 29-11-2017 8:52am

Stheno wrote: »

Tribunals here need to be able to compel evidence

...and it's that need is the reason why it's not mandatory!
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas

Nettle Soup · 29-11-2017 11:09pm

Odhinn wrote: »

One of the better analyses of the mentality, involved from Fintan O'Toole
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-did-the-department-of-justice-engage-in-a-deliberate-act-of-subversion-1.3308241?mode=amp#.Wh1daAASlY0.twitter

Thanks Odhinn, great article.

blanch152 · 30-11-2017 6:20pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Is she under any compulsion to give evidence?

I suspect she'll try not to now that she's gone from government.

Some of the slurs on Fitzgerald's character are unbelievable, this being one.

She has been quite clear that she will clear her name at the Tribunal.

Odhinn · 30-11-2017 6:30pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Some of the slurs on Fitzgerald's character are unbelievable, this being one.

She has been quite clear that she will clear her name at the Tribunal.

She might show that it was the civil service to blame for not forwarding e-mails etc, but at the end of the day it's a matter of record she claimed complete ignorance of garda strategy to the dail, despite having received briefings on both that strategy and how to respond to questions on it.

Seth Brundle · 30-11-2017 7:41pm

Odhinn wrote: »

She might show that it was the civil service to blame for not forwarding e-mails etc,

...so she had no control or authority over her department.
No matter what way one looks at it, she proved herself unfit for office!

Odhinn · 30-11-2017 10:09pm

This is from March of this year, but is still relevant -

"

Mr Justice Charleton will establish whether there was a smear campaign within An Garda Síochána against whistleblower and Garda sergeant Maurice McCabe.

But this newspaper can reveal that several senior members of the force have contacted Garda Headquarters in recent days to request instructions and guidance because they either want to submit evidence, or fear they will be called as witnesses.
A number of senior officers voiced concern that this instruction was not forthcoming.

The issue has caused consternation in Garda Headquarters.
And in further revelations, Ms O'Sullivan - who is at the centre of the Charleton Inquiry - has appointed some of her closest associates to the liaison team with the judge involved.

These are understood to include retired assistant commissioner Mick O'Sullivan and former chief superintendent Brendan Mangan.
It can also be revealed that Detective Superintendent Tony Howard has been made go-between for the force and Judge Charleton.

This is despite the fact that the officer is a close associate of both Commissioner and her husband Detective Chief Supt Jim McGowan.

It can also be revealed that Detective Superintendent Tony Howard has been made go-between for the force and Judge Charleton.

This is despite the fact that the officer is a close associate of both Commissioner and her husband Detective Chief Supt Jim McGowan."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/associates-will-form-ring-of-steel-around-garda-chief-in-inquiry-35517875.html

"worrying" hardly covers it.

Stheno · 30-11-2017 10:15pm

All of the allegations by Keith Harris and his partner have been thrown out by the Tribunal

markodaly · 30-11-2017 10:28pm

Looks like the Tribunal is doing its job in the matter of Garda Harrisson, who looked like he was jumping on a bandwagon. It looks like the Judge here is no fool and will not tolerate them either.

Nettle Soup · 30-11-2017 10:45pm

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1130/924069-concerns-raised-over-tribunal-unit-within-the-gardai/

The Acting Garda Commissioner Dónall Ó Cualáin has written to the Minister for Justice passing on the concerns of a senior official about the operation of the Disclosures Tribunal unit within the gardaí.
The unit is responsible for co-ordinating documentation for the inquiry.

The issues were raised by the head of Garda Human Resources John Barrett, who is concerned that the unit is not representing all gardaí at the tribunal.
He has said that the unit should have been outsourced so that coordination with the tribunal is handled externally.
A garda spokesman has confirmed that the Acting Garda Commissioner wrote to the Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan under Section 41 to bring to his attention an internal concern raised with the Acting Commissioner, relating to the Garda Disclosures Tribunal Coordination Office.
In a statement, the Department of Justice confirmed it had received a Section 41 letter this week in relation to the Disclosures Tribunal.

Labour TD Alan Kelly has said he has deep concerns about the unit and it must be shut down.
He said he has been raising this with the minister in a series of 25 parliamentary questions since May and he called on the minister to deal with it immediately.

The Gardaí are spooked.

Chairman Peter Charleton requested that gardaí submit an affidavit on the methodology of their searches for the tribunal.

FrancieBrady · 30-11-2017 11:14pm

markodaly wrote: »

Looks like the Tribunal is doing its job in the matter of Garda Harrisson, who looked like he was jumping on a bandwagon. It looks like the Judge here is no fool and will not tolerate them either.

Is it safe though.
There seems to be more emerging every day about the quality of the info it is getting if it gets it at all.

markodaly · 30-11-2017 11:27pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it safe though.
There seems to be more emerging every day about the quality of the info it is getting if it gets it at all.

What would you put in its place?

FrancieBrady · 30-11-2017 11:33pm

markodaly wrote: »

What would you put in its place?

Something that is more equipped to get at the whole truth.
At the moment I don't have confidence it can.

hatrickpatrick · 30-11-2017 11:35pm

We really need to adopt the US model of statements to the Oireachtas and to any tribunal of investigation being made under oath, with severe criminal penalties for perjury, whether intentional or otherwise. If you don't know the answer to a question, go and research it before you attempt to answer it. She had weeks since this issue first reared its head to get her story straight, and that in my view at least implies intent, if not actually proving it. Everyone involved, at the very least, had hoped that this story would just go away and they could avoid further public humiliation over the colossal incompetences and malpractices which have been exposed.

markodaly · 01-12-2017 12:18am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Something that is more equipped to get at the whole truth.
At the moment I don't have confidence it can.

Like what? All we hear is generic banal statements on what things should be like.

markodaly · 01-12-2017 12:23am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We really need to adopt the US model of statements to the Oireachtas and to any tribunal of investigation being made under oath, with severe criminal penalties for perjury, whether intentional or otherwise. If you don't know the answer to a question, go and research it before you attempt to answer it. She had weeks since this issue first reared its head to get her story straight, and that in my view at least implies intent, if not actually proving it. Everyone involved, at the very least, had hoped that this story would just go away and they could avoid further public humiliation over the colossal incompetences and malpractices which have been exposed.

Been tried but our hands are tied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtieth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2011_(Ireland)

FrancieBrady · 01-12-2017 12:25am

markodaly wrote: »

Like what? All we hear is generic banal statements on what things should be like.

Something that Dept's of government respect and comply with maybe? Where it doesn't take a country going to the door of an election because the actual power is being wielded by civil servants, entirely unafraid of consequence for their shenanigans. And the ministers of those Dept's who seem helpless and completely redundant.

If you cannot see a fundamental flaw in how not only the tribunal but the country is run, then I really can't help you.

mynamejeff · 01-12-2017 12:44am

markodaly wrote: »

Looks like the Tribunal is doing its job in the matter of Garda Harrisson, who looked like he was jumping on a bandwagon. It looks like the Judge here is no fool and will not tolerate them either.

he certinally came across very immature and bitter in his evidence.
the findings and statements by Charleton suggest a person who was unsuitable for the position he held and unrealistic in his expectations of the behavior of others towards him.

interested to see the outcome of the next modules

markodaly · 01-12-2017 1:02am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Something that Dept's of government respect and comply with maybe? Where it doesn't take a country going to the door of an election because the actual power is being wielded by civil servants, entirely unafraid of consequence for their shenanigans. And the ministers of those Dept's who seem helpless and completely redundant.

If you cannot see a fundamental flaw in how not only the tribunal but the country is run, then I really can't help you.

I am with you on the whole DOJ being dysfunctional point, but that is somewhat irrelevant to the objective of this tribunal.

Just because the DOJ are dysfunctional, does not mean the Charlteton Tribunal should not do its best and go ahead with its fact finding mission, don't you think?

The very fact that people seem to take the view that because the Tribunal didn't get a number of documents from the DOJ, means that the whole thing is useless and a waste of time and then when pressed offers no real alternatives shows us that people take a dim witted approach to how the state actually works in terms in trying to find out truth and weed out wrong doing.

So again, if not this Tribunal then what, exactly and what powers should it have as per our Constitution which limits these investigations.

FrancieBrady · 01-12-2017 1:12am

markodaly wrote: »

I am with you on the whole DOJ being dysfunctional point, but that is somewhat irrelevant to the objective of this tribunal.

Just because the DOJ are dysfunctional, does not mean the Charlteton Tribunal should not do its best and go ahead with its fact finding mission, don't you think?

The very fact that people seem to take the view that because the Tribunal didn't get a number of documents from the DOJ, means that the whole thing is useless and a waste of time and then when pressed offers no real alternatives shows us that people take a dim witted approach to how the state actually works in terms in trying to find out truth and weed out wrong doing.

So again, if not this Tribunal then what, exactly and what powers should it have as per our Constitution which limits these investigations.

If the Dept's problems were fixed would there be a need for tribunal after inquiry after tribunal?
No there wouldn't.
So fix the Dept's first. Make them function and make ministers with responsibility function.

hatrickpatrick · 01-12-2017 4:02am

markodaly wrote: »

Been tried but our hands are tied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtieth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2011_(Ireland)

I'm not talking about allowing the Oireachtas to hold enquiries, I am very specifically talking about having ministers under oath literally any time they speak in either house, with severe criminal penalties if it turns out that they have lied, whether intentionally or through carelessness or incompetence. It would achieve two aims at the same time, firstly it would deter outright bullsh!tting by ministers, and secondly it would deter ministers from making any statements without first checking their facts.

FrancieBrady · 01-12-2017 9:04am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not talking about allowing the Oireachtas to hold enquiries, I am very specifically talking about having ministers under oath literally any time they speak in either house, with severe criminal penalties if it turns out that they have lied, whether intentionally or through carelessness or incompetence. It would achieve two aims at the same time, firstly it would deter outright bullsh!tting by ministers, and secondly it would deter ministers from making any statements without first checking their facts.

That simple clause in their contracts would have completely avoided taking the country to the brink of an election.
You can be damn sure a minister would not be coming into the house to play party politics if there were significant penalties for it. The country before party everytime. That after all is the job.
Severe penalties to any departmental official who misleads or under informs a minister too. Country before the job.
Simple and cost free change.

Good loser · 02-12-2017 1:45am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That simple clause in their contracts would have completely avoided taking the country to the brink of an election.
You can be damn sure a minister would not be coming into the house to play party politics if there were significant penalties for it. The country before party everytime. That after all is the job.
Severe penalties to any departmental official who misleads or under informs a minister too. Country before the job.
Simple and cost free change.

Impossible under 'separation of powers'.

The courts will not interfere in the doings of parliament.

blanch152 · 02-12-2017 2:22am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We really need to adopt the US model of statements to the Oireachtas and to any tribunal of investigation being made under oath, with severe criminal penalties for perjury, whether intentional or otherwise. If you don't know the answer to a question, go and research it before you attempt to answer it. She had weeks since this issue first reared its head to get her story straight, and that in my view at least implies intent, if not actually proving it. Everyone involved, at the very least, had hoped that this story would just go away and they could avoid further public humiliation over the colossal incompetences and malpractices which have been exposed.

This is quite possibly the stupidest idea I have seen on boards.

Imagine the scene in Dail Eireann.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Minister, can you tell me who are the Republicans that the Gardai have under surveillance?

Minister: I cannot tell you that

Gerry Adams: Ah Minister, you must answer every question under oath and you must tell us everything because there are severe penalties for this.

Minister: Oh, ok, you made me do it. We are keeping Martin Ferris, Slab Murphy and Joe Bloggs under surveillance.

Gerry Adams: Thank you Minister.

FrancieBrady · 02-12-2017 10:59am

Good loser wrote: »

Impossible under 'separation of powers'.

The courts will not interfere in the doings of parliament.

Why would you need a 'court'. If the tribunal finds.

markodaly · 02-12-2017 11:19am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not talking about allowing the Oireachtas to hold enquiries, I am very specifically talking about having ministers under oath literally any time they speak in either house, with severe criminal penalties if it turns out that they have lied, whether intentionally or through carelessness or incompetence. It would achieve two aims at the same time, firstly it would deter outright bullsh!tting by ministers, and secondly it would deter ministers from making any statements without first checking their facts.

On paper it might sound good, but in reality putting someone behind bars if they genuinely forgot a detail about an email or anything else, creates more problems then it solves. Is there any parliament in the world that has these laws in place, I don't think so.

FrancieBrady · 02-12-2017 11:20am

blanch152 wrote: »

This is quite possibly the stupidest idea I have seen on boards.

Imagine the scene in Dail Eireann.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Minister, can you tell me who are the Republicans that the Gardai have under surveillance?

Minister: I cannot tell you that

Gerry Adams: Ah Minister, you must answer every question under oath and you must tell us everything because there are severe penalties for this.

Minister: Oh, ok, you made me do it. We are keeping Martin Ferris, Slab Murphy and Joe Bloggs under surveillance.

Gerry Adams: Thank you Minister.

I think you know that would never happen due to them being 'operational matters'.

FrancieBrady · 02-12-2017 11:24am

markodaly wrote: »

On paper it might sound good, but in reality putting someone behind bars if they genuinely forgot a detail about an email or anything else, creates more problems then it solves. Is there any parliament in the world that has these laws in place, I don't think so.

She had days to review the files. As many a commentator has said, it is as simple as entering the name McCabe in a search.

Her colleague was the current minister, there was no problem finding out.

Unless they wanted to mislead that she had 'forgotten'. Which is what the Dail and everyone else (I think even the most diehard FGer does as well) now believes and is the reason she is out of a job.

markodaly · 02-12-2017 11:28am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the Dept's problems were fixed would there be a need for tribunal after inquiry after tribunal?
No there wouldn't.
So fix the Dept's first. Make them function and make ministers with responsibility function.

So your answer to 'what an ideal tribunal look like' is not a tribunal at all but wishing away the problems in the DOJ, like a snap of the fingers.

That is like saying that we don't need Gardai if people stopped committing crimes.

Of course reality has an unfortunate habit of shattering these naive preconceived notions of any thought exercise.
We need a tribunal to carry out a fact finding mission to find out what exactly happened within the Gardai and the DOJ

Just like we need Gardai to keep a lid on crime.

The fact that you cant answer with any reasonable cause this simple question yourself I suspect is that you don't have any superior alternative readily available.

markodaly · 02-12-2017 11:29am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She had days to review the files. As many a commentator has said, it is as simple as entering the name McCabe in a search.

Her colleague was the current minister, there was no problem finding out.

Unless they wanted to mislead that she had 'forgotten'. Which is what the Dail and everyone else (I think even the most diehard FGer does as well) now believes and is the reason she is out of a job.

I do not want to discuss the whole Frances Fitzgerald issue again in this thread, there is another thread about that. Lets keep this one to the goings on of the Tribunal please.

FrancieBrady · 02-12-2017 11:31am

markodaly wrote: »

So your answer to 'what an ideal tribunal look like' is not a tribunal at all but wishing away the problems in the DOJ, like a snap of the fingers.

That is like saying that we don't need Gardai if people stopped committing crimes.

Of course reality has an unfortunate habit of shattering these naive preconceived notions of any thought exercise.
We need a tribunal to carry out a fact finding mission to find out what exactly happened within the Gardai and the DOJ

Just like we need Gardai to keep a lid on crime.

The fact that you cant answer with any reasonable cause this simple question yourself I suspect is that you don't have any superior alternative readily available.

Which bit of 'the Tribunals we have are fine, but they need the relevant Depts fixed first so that the information comes out of them' are you having difficulty with?

Tribunals also need to be able to penalise otherwise they are essentially a waste of time.

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

Comments

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