Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Didn't the victim give a statement?

And when the complaint was examined it was decided that no offence occurred. Under what circumstances could this be used as the basis for an allegation of kiddy fiddling against McCabe?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What's your take on the whole affair? Do you think things coming out and being addressed will fare better for rank and file members having to work in that environment or should the Garda close ranks and hope it blows over?

I think for rank and file members it will be a disciplinary affair and for management it will be a learning experience. Same as it always is. There'll be some extra rules and procedures introduced for show but no real change to anything else.

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Alleged victim?

Sure

RustyNut wrote: »

And when the complaint was examined it was decided that no offence occurred. Under what circumstances could this be used as the basis for an allegation of kiddy fiddling against McCabe?

It was an allegation of inappropriate contact and he described it as kiddy fiddling. I don't think that's enough to assume he was being deliberately dishonest.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It was an allegation of inappropriate contact and he described it as kiddy fiddling. I don't think that's enough to assume he was being deliberately dishonest.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one. He didn't describe the allegation as "kiddy fiddling" he described McCabe as a "kiddy fiddler" there is quite a difference.

Does Garda management regularly brand members as criminals based on spurious allegations that, when investigated it's found that no offence occurred or was McCabe singled out for special treatment?

RustyNut wrote: »

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one. He didn't describe the allegation as "kiddy fiddling" he described McCabe as a "kiddy fiddler" there is quite a difference.

What?

RustyNut wrote: »

Does Garda management regularly brand members as criminals based on spurious allegations that, when investigated it's found that no offence occurred or was McCabe singled out for special treatment?

Why are you asking me?

RustyNut wrote: »

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one. He didn't describe the allegation as "kiddy fiddling" he described McCabe as a "kiddy fiddler" there is quite a difference.

Does Garda management regularly brand members as criminals based on spurious allegations that, when investigated it's found that no offence occurred or was McCabe singled out for special treatment?

Spot on RN.

This is what I've been pointing out from yesterday.

It would have been one thing If Callinan had of said something along the lines of "your man McCabe had been investigated for child abuse, but it was dismissed" etc.

But what he is alleged to have did was directly brand someone a kiddy fiddler.

I'm not sure if any of the rest of us posting in this thread would be comfortable being branded in such a manner by the commisoner of AGS, too a TD (several allegedly)

Anyone convicted of such a heinous crime would have no such concerns or reason to complain

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Spot on RN.

This is what I've been pointing out from yesterday, and it seems some have been trying to put a stop to it.

It would have been one thing If Callinan had of said something along the lines of "your man McCabe had been investigated for child abuse, but it was dismissed" etc.

But what he is alleged to have did was directly brand someone a kiddy fiddler.

I'm not sure if any of the rest of us posting in this thread would be comfortable being branded in such a manner but the commisoner of AGS.

Anyone convicted of such a heinous crime would have no such concerns or reason to complain

Yet there is still no evidence he was doing so knowing it was false.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yet there is still no evidence he was doing so knowing it was false.

Stop with this nonsense, unless McCabe or anyone else was a convicted paedophile, the commisoner of AGS had absolutely no business to brand them as one to TDs, or anyone else for that matter.

If you cannot see how this is/was wrong on so many levels then I honestly think you're doing so deliberately.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Stop with this nonsense, unless McCabe or anyone else was a convicted paedophile, the commisoner of AGS had absolutely no business to brand them as one to TDs, or anyone else for that matter.

If you cannot see how this is/was wrong on so many levels then I honestly think you're doing so deliberately.

No, that's not how it works. I never said he was not wrong. But being wrong does not mean being a liar. Was he wrong to call McCabe a kiddy fiddler? Absolutely. No question. Was he saying it knowing it was false. There is no evidence to suggest so.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, that's not how it works. I never said he was not wrong. But being wrong does not mean being a liar. Was he wrong to call McCabe a kiddy fiddler? Absolutely. No question. Was he saying it knowing it was false. There is no evidence to suggest so.

Are you saying that there's a possibility Callinan didn't know that a serving member of AGS was not a convicted 'kiddy fiddler'

Auguste Comte

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, that's not how it works. I never said he was not wrong. But being wrong does not mean being a liar. Was he wrong to call McCabe a kiddy fiddler? Absolutely. No question. Was he saying it knowing it was false. There is no evidence to suggest so.

If and it's a huge if imho he did genuinely believe what he was saying, what do you think that belief was based on?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Are you saying that there's a possibility Callinan didn't know that a serving member of AGS was not a convicted 'kiddy fiddler'

No. Did he mention a conviction?

Auguste Comte wrote: »

If and it's a huge if imho he did genuinely believe what he was saying, what do you think that belief was based on?

The complaint made against McCabe.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, that's not how it works. I never said he was not wrong. But being wrong does not mean being a liar. Was he wrong to call McCabe a kiddy fiddler? Absolutely. No question. Was he saying it knowing it was false. There is no evidence to suggest so.

I get what you're saying Captain BUT in fairness he didn't hold back or mention the word "alleged" and after his PAC comments about McCabe it is hard to blame people for suspecting that he was actually gunning for him.

The one thing in the whole issue that has me puzzled is the Bailieboro story. All the incidents of poor investigations by junior garda members and the lack of supervision of them. Yet McCabe kept a list of all the things that were done wrong and as the sergeant in charge I have questions about why he didn't call them all in at the time and sort the matters out as soon as he discovered them.Was that not his job?

tayto lover wrote: »

I get what you're saying Captain BUT in fairness he didn't hold back or mention the word "alleged" and after his PAC comments about McCabe it is hard to blame people for suspecting that he was actually gunning for him.

Do you ever use the word alleged when gossiping about people? The question isn't really about whether he was gunning for him. it's whether he lied or just used what was available.

tayto lover wrote: »

The one thing in the whole issue that has me puzzled is the Bailieboro story. All the incidents of poor investigations by junior members and the lack of supervision of them. Yet McCabe kept a list of all the things that were done wrong and as the sergeant in charge I have questions about why he didn't call them all in at the time and sort the matters out as soon as he discovered them.Was that not his job?

It was.

Auguste Comte

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No. Did he mention a conviction?

The complaint made against McCabe.

But the complaint was investigated and dismissed.

Auguste Comte wrote: »

But the complaint was investigated and dismissed.

It was. But people's opinions don't always match up with criminal law outcomes. I think OJ killed his wife. He was not convicted of such. Am I lying if I say he killed his wife?

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Do you ever use the word alleged when gossiping about people? The question isn't really about whether he was gunning for him. it's whether he lied or just used what was available.

But for someone in his office it was a grave mistake unless it was a deliberate mistake.It would be hard to expect people to believe it was the former in fairness.

It was.

Why was he never questioned on this by journalists or the solicitors for the garda authorities?

tayto lover wrote: »

But for someone in his office it was a grave mistake unless it was a deliberate mistake.It would be hard to expect people to believe it was the former in fairness.

Nobody is arguing he was competent.

tayto lover wrote: »

Why was he never questioned on this by journalists or the solicitors for the garda authorities?

It's not really relevant to the issue before the tribunal.

Auguste Comte

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It was. But people's opinions don't always match up with criminal law outcomes. I think OJ killed his wife. He was not convicted of such. Am I lying if I say he killed his wife?

But the investigation found that "kiddy fiddling" never occurred. A genuine belief is not impossible but in my opinion its a lot less likely than a disproven accusation being used in order to malign McCabe with the purpose of protecting the organisation. Maybe more will come out to clarify his position.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yet there is still no evidence he was doing so knowing it was false.

There's evidence he knew it wasn't proven. Strange behavior to be spreading an unproven allegation as fact when you know it's not proven. Also where was the professionalism? A top Garda labeling someone who had yet to see any court appearance on the matter.
Callinan spread a malicious rumour. Why? Maybe it's just a character trait and he does that about fellow Garda he doesn't know?
Those within the Garda who heard the gossip must have been aghast, having never heard any gossip or chat before, there never having been any grapevine previously or since...

tayto lover wrote: »

The one thing in the whole issue that has me puzzled is the Bailieboro story. All the incidents of poor investigations by junior garda members and the lack of supervision of them. Yet McCabe kept a list of all the things that were done wrong and as the sergeant in charge I have questions about why he didn't call them all in at the time and sort the matters out as soon as he discovered them.Was that not his job?

Have a read Of Mick Cliffords book A Force for Justice: The Maurice McCabe Story . It answers this question and a lot more.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No. Did he mention a conviction?

McGuinness alleged he referred to him as a kiddy fiddler, this brings us back to square one.

Is it ok to brand just anyone as such, or just colleagues within AGS?

If Callinan wanted to spread malicious gossip or hearsay, without any come back, he could have told McGuinness Callinan was investigated, but the dpp dismissed the claims about child abuse.

Auguste Comte wrote: »

But the investigation found that "kiddy fiddling" never occurred. A genuine belief is not impossible but in my opinion its a lot less likely than a disproven accusation being used in order to malign McCabe with the purpose of protecting the organisation. Maybe more will come out to clarify his position.

The investigation found that the allegation made did not amount to a breach of the law.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's evidence he knew it wasn't proven.

Which is not the same as knowing it was false.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

McGuinness alleged he referred to him as a kiddy fiddler, this brings us back to square one.

Is it ok to brand just anyone as such, or just colleagues within AGS?

If Callinan wanted to spread malicious gossip or hearsay, without any come back, he could have told McGuinness Callinan was investigated, but the dpp dismissed the claims about child abuse.

Nobody has suggested he was not wrong in what he did. The claim was he deliberately lied about McCabe. Being wrong about something does not equal being a liar.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The investigation found that the allegation made did not amount to a breach of the law.

Which is not the same as knowing it was false.

Nobody has suggested he was not wrong in what he did. The claim was he deliberately lied about McCabe. Being wrong about something does not equal being a liar.

It's mere semantics. You are correct. But he knew it might not be true too, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Scurrilous behaviour either way. Passing off as fact, something, at best, he didn't know was true or false.

RustyNut wrote: »

Have a read Of Mick Cliffords book A Force for Justice: The Maurice McCabe Story . It answers this question and a lot more.

I intend to get the book, it's on my list, but in the meantime could you explain the answer in short please?

blanch152

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, that's not how it works. I never said he was not wrong. But being wrong does not mean being a liar. Was he wrong to call McCabe a kiddy fiddler? Absolutely. No question. Was he saying it knowing it was false. There is no evidence to suggest so.

I agree with this, and I think this is one of the key questions before the Tribunal. There is a huge difference between Callinan making a statement based on him knowing McCabe was being investigated and making a statement based on him knowing that McCabe had been the subject of a false report from Tusla.

If the Tribunal proves the latter, Callinan's behaviour was appalling, but to date there has been no evidence that he knew the allegation was definitively false.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Stop with this nonsense, unless McCabe or anyone else was a convicted paedophile, the commisoner of AGS had absolutely no business to brand them as one to TDs, or anyone else for that matter.

If you cannot see how this is/was wrong on so many levels then I honestly think you're doing so deliberately.

There is legislation in relation to this. The garda vetting legislation has specific provisions in relation to "soft information".

https://vetting.garda.ie/VettingProcedure/SpecifiedInformation

So the Gardai essentially have the powers to state that someone "may harm any child or vulnerable person", even where there has not been a conviction. This has been put in by the Oireachtas with a view to protecting children and it is a dangerous piece of legislation in respect of one's right to a good name but the Oireachtas obviously put the protection of children at a higher priority. The type of information recorded incorrectly by Tusla in respect of McCabe could be the type of specified information mentioned in the Act.

tayto lover wrote: »

I intend to get the book, it's on my list, but in the meantime could you explain the answer in short please?

He done his best but was frustrated by his seniors. In relation to the claims made by some on here that he was a bad sargent or a bad supervisor see my post below.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The investigation found that the allegation made did not amount to a breach of the law.

Which is not the same as knowing it was false.

Nobody has suggested he was not wrong in what he did. The claim was he deliberately lied about McCabe. Being wrong about something does not equal being a liar.

What you are saying might possibly be true but I think any objective view would indicate that this was a classic case of character assassination

Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that destroys the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, organization, social group, or nation.[1] Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumours, and manipulating information.

Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.

For living individuals targeted by character assassination attempts, this may result in being rejected by their community, family, or members of their living or work environment. Such acts are often difficult to reverse or rectify, and the process is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can last a lifetime or, for historical figures, for many centuries after their death.

The phrase "character assassination" became popular from around 1930.[2] One of the first mentions of the phrasing in literature is dated 1950 in the collection of essays by Jerome Davis.

In practice, character assassination may involve doublespeak, spreading of rumours, innuendo or deliberate misinformation on topics relating to the subject's morals, integrity, and reputation. It may involve spinning information that is technically true, but that is presented in a misleading manner or is presented without the necessary context. For example, it might be said that a person refused to pay any income tax during a specific year, without saying that no tax was actually owed due to the person having no income that year, or that a person was sacked from a firm, even though he may have been made redundant through no fault of his own, rather than being terminated for cause.

Others define character assassination as the deliberate destruction of an individual's reputation, which does not include social groups or institutions. It is important to distinguish between character attacks and character assassination. Character attacks are assaults aimed at a particular individual—as opposed to attacks aimed at certain groups, movements, or nationalities, such as happen in the construction of enemy images.[4] If they succeed in destroying their victim's reputation, we speak of successful attacks and character assassination. However, attacks can also fail.

Three features of character attacks are important to understand.[4] First, their intention: character attacks are by definition deliberate. Second, the public nature of the attacks: private insults do not lead to reputation damage. And third, the importance of the public perception of the attacks, which means that the truth of allegations is irrelevant.

RustyNut wrote: »

What you are saying might possibly be true but I think any objective view would indicate that this was a classic case of character assassination

That's not being disputed.