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

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?

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.

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)

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 wrote: »

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?

Because that is now a u-turn to your initial stance.

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?

You basically want to stop this tribunal and fix the DOJ first. My stance is why cant we do both? Get the tribunal to do its job, get all the facts out in public and then while using these facts, reform the DOJ along with the Gardai. It seems the most sensible approach.

No one, not even SF or the AAA or the other alphabet fringe parties are calling for the Tribunal to be stopped.

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

Waste of time? Maybe for those who want some medieval type of swift justice, where an accusation of being a heretic or a witch is enough to be burned at the stake. Thankfully we have come further than that.

Personally, I would like the Tribunals to have a little bit more teeth but they serve a good purpose. Maybe we should revisit the rejected 30th Amendment.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The question was: Is the Carleton Tribunal compromised?
I think, like me, you believe it is too, if you think reform and the tribunal can go on hand in hand.
If you cannot be sure it has all the info the SIMPLE fact is it is compromised, no matter how hard or successfully you 'look the other way'

The thing is I do not believe it is compromised, stated as much earlier and neither has any major political party including Sinn Fein called it like that either.

markodaly wrote: »

Do we know if every single piece of evidence is with the tribunal, no. We cannot be 100% sure, just like every other court case in the land.

We cannot be sure that 100% sure that all the relevant evidence is used in every case the court hears, but that does not mean the courts should not exist or cases come before it.

Are you a Utopian? Genuine question.

No, I am not a Utopian.

In this case, WE KNOW that some very relevant information was with held.

I am suggesting simply that the tribunal pause until all relevant dept's and state institutions are trawled for documents relevant to the tribunal.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Genuine question....has its terms etc been expanded to see why it didn't receive the full totality of info that it orginally requested??


And is it left relatively open ended so as to investigate any further matters which should arise from.investigating either the gaurds/DOJ.....

We've had years and years of drip feed of scandal after scandel at this stage....a narrow inquiry is pointless if it deosnt get to bottom of this mess once and for all?

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