Garda Siochana in Shell to sea sex shocker

Big Mouth · 06-04-2011 03:14PM

Off coulour remarks no doubt and quite vulgar, but really a storm in a tea cup.

The worst types are the WOMEN who scream rape after going off with a famous footballer and not getting a few quid out of it.

How many of those cases have there been and never a man charged as they are bull **** cases, they are far far worse and more serious than a few stupid remarks from some stupid cops

I never seem to hear too much fanfare when these girls make false rape allegations and place doubt on real victims of rape.

_feedback_ · 06-04-2011 03:14PM

Poor Craythur wrote: »

87 pages! :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Only 33 for me :cool:

stee.mc79 · 06-04-2011 03:22PM

Is this not one of our rights: Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. Dose this exclude you if your a Garda?
Is this not the same for everybody regardless of who you are?
They have the right to a private conversation regardless of who's or what's listening. It's the same right people are using now onboards!

mikemac · 06-04-2011 03:25PM

There's no right to free speech on boards.

Privately owned website

LostinKildare · 06-04-2011 03:29PM

prinz wrote: »

It was all-made up, the discussion about due diligence, duty of care, making better preparations etc. All a fiction.

Yeah, I'm struggling to see why you're so impressed with this part of the tape. They are discussing how best to cover their asses in the event a protestor is injured when the gardai remove them using inadequate equipment, in violation of their training. Garda A mentions due diligence and duty of care as minimal standards that the gardai need to be seen to have met so that they won't get into trouble if they don't follow proper procedures, but his attitude to the protestors is "If one of them slips, so f**kin." They hardly cover themselves in glory:

Garda A on phone to a colleague: “I know we don’t want to be arresting them but by the same token, we were left with no option. We have an issue there as well with the lads in the protest removal team there, of actual climbing the tractors. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to get safety ropes and ladders and we’re going to leave them in the van in case we have to go up on the cab of the tractor again. So we’re looking after that now at the moment.”
Garda A: ends call.
Garda B: “You see (muffled) at least you’re a sergeant, like.”
Garda A: “ (unclear) like some of auld timers who were here in the area in the first and second campaign. I’ll tell you one thing, the decisions that were made (muffled) policing at that time.”
Garda B: I’ll still go back to what says there . . . If someone gets hurt we’re going to be on our own in the blocks.”
Garda A: “. . . I don’t think we’re going to be on our own. If we have exercised due diligence and we have used common sense and used whatever was available to us to remove them. At the end of the day, we have a certain duty of care to them. We ask them to get down, if they don’t get down, we tell them we are taking them down forcefully. We take them down forcefully.
“We use whatever means at our disposal, which includes ladders and ropes or whatever to get them down safely. If one of them slips, so f**kin. What can we do?”
Garda B: “Ladders and ropes. All I’m saying is, the point is (Garda B then simulates court exchange)

‘Garda, are you a member of the protest removal team?’
’I am.’
’Have you received training with working at heights?’
’Yes, I have.’
. . .’How did you train to bring someone down?’
’In a harness with ropes.’”
“We didn’t have any of them options today there . . . That’s all I’m saying. And (named garda) is dead right; if we’re in the box:
’Have you received training on how to take a protester down from heights?’
’Yes’.”
“And if we did it with ropes and harnesses . . . then why did you let my client fall? Did you not go get your ropes and harness to take her down. That’s all.”
Garda A: “. . .To get them down safely we’d have to erect a scaffold tower beside them and abseil them down. And and, the, the, taking the common-sense approach, and a common-sense view, it would be impractical to erect a scaffolding tower to get them down off it. And we use whatever safe means at our disposal, as we considered safe (unclear) protest removal team to take them down, ie, ropes and ladders.”
Unidentified garda: “What was the obstruction?”
Garda B: “There was no obstruction . . .”
Garda A: “They were obstructing the road.”
Garda B: “There was no obstruction . . . The tractors (unclear) all other vehicles were able to get past.”
Garda A: “They were obstructing the road. Excuse me. If a car stops there, in the middle of that f***ing road, and it’s stopped there, it’s obstructing the road. It doesn’t have to be blocking it. If it’s parked there it’s obstructing it.”
Unidentified garda: “Well if nothing else they were obstructing the vehicle.”
Garda B: “That’s the only vehicle obstructed.”
Unidentified garda: “. . . free passage.”
Garda A: “The vehicle was obstructing the road. Just because other vehicles could pass didn’t mean the road wasn’t being obstructed.”
Garda A seems to get out of the car . . .
Garda B: “We all said this, it was a safety issue.”
Unidentified Garda: “It was the best option . It was the best option at that time, there’s no doubt about it.”
Garda B: “We all said it because of a safety issue. There was three up, there was a wind blowing. And like did you f***ing feel safe, 100 per cent safe going up there taking down two people.”
Unidentified garda: “No”.
Garda B: “...I don’t know what you thought?”
Unidentified garda : “All I know is that if something happens, who’s going to stand f***ing behind me.”
Garda B: “And do you honestly think that is going to turn around and say “oh look it”. We got trained a certain way.
’Garda did you f***ing, take a protester down the way you were trained’.
’No I didn’t.’
’Well then Guard.’
“And the job will say were you f***ing trained a certain way. The job will f***ing ditch you.”

common sense brigade · 06-04-2011 03:44PM

If you start messing with Freedom of Speech the makings of a dictatorship will begin. weigh it up everybody. what was said was wrong but we cannot mess with peoples right to say what they want. the alternative is North Korea.. Cambodia or the likes.

whoopdedoo · 06-04-2011 03:45PM

what's wrong here is we have "trained" monkeys obeying the orders of "elected" monkeys who are keeping the charade going when everyone knows certain political monkeys got backhanders from big business monkeys!

in my opinion this tape goes some way to show what the garda might consider they could get away with cos they're the law!

I hope they never have to deal with a family member or friend who's been raped!

_feedback_ · 06-04-2011 03:49PM

whoopdedoo wrote: »

in my opinion this tape goes some way to show what the garda might consider they could get away with cos they're the law!

What they could get away with? If they aren't punished here, what will they have gotten away with?

smeedyova · 06-04-2011 04:00PM

elviscostello wrote: »

What they could get away with? If they aren't punished here, what will they have gotten away with?

a) Making racist remarks while on duty (as evidenced when they refer to one of their victims as a "yank"),

b) Planning the rape of a woman in their custody,

c) Marginalising members of the public who they are supposed to protect (as evidenced in saying that one of the victims is from the "crusty camp"),

d) Abusing their power by planning to "get immigration" on the "yank", even though there was no reason to get immigration involved,

e) Bullying of a colleague (as evidenced when one guard insists that they claim that the road was obstructed, even though it clearly wasn't),

f) Perverting the course of justice (see above).

Anything else?

They should be sacked for gross incompetence, if nothing else.

common sense brigade · 06-04-2011 04:01PM

they should apologise and be given a verbal reprimand simple as that. this should never have even become newsworthy its an embarrassment to be listening to this crap. they said something stupid and derogatory, they are big boys should have known better. but they fecked up royally. make them apologise and let this go. the whole of Europe are laughing at us. I had an email from Germany yesterday and people are actually saying we are a country of bafoons and bordering on becoming a dictatorship.Imagine the Germans saying that about us. if these guys get fired over this its as disgrace. PC Ireland gone even crazier than normal. and welcome to a new dawn in Ireland whereby free speech is eroded and replaced by a mania brigade that will imprison people and fire them for being fecking rude! and un PC.

whoopdedoo · 06-04-2011 04:02PM

elviscostello wrote: »

What they could get away with? If they aren't punished here, what will they have gotten away with?

having a real ****ty attitude and I don't think if I was a woman I'd be feeling vey safe with the likes of these 2 b4stards and anyone else like them there for our protection!!

the Garda (according to some) = can do no wrong

lastlaugh · 06-04-2011 04:06PM

smeedyova wrote: »

a) Making racist remarks while on duty (as evidenced when they refer to one of their victims as a "yank"),

b) Planning the rape of a woman in their custody,

c) Marginalising members of the public who they are supposed to protect (as evidenced in saying that one of the victims is from the "crusty camp"),

d) Abusing their power by planning to "get immigration" on the "yank", even though there was no reason to get immigration involved,

e) Bullying of a colleague (as evidenced when one guard insists that they claim that the road was obstructed, even though it clearly wasn't),

f) Perverting the course of justice (see above).

Anything else?

They should be sacked for gross incompetence, if nothing else.

Making racist remarks, planning the rape of a woman in their custody?

You should be banned for gross exaggeration.

I've heard it all now.

almighty1 · 06-04-2011 04:07PM

smeedyova wrote: »

a) Making racist remarks while on duty (as evidenced when they refer to one of their victims as a "yank"),

b) Planning the rape of a woman in their custody,

c) Marginalising members of the public who they are supposed to protect (as evidenced in saying that one of the victims is from the "crusty camp"),

d) Abusing their power by planning to "get immigration" on the "yank", even though there was no reason to get immigration involved,

e) Bullying of a colleague (as evidenced when one guard insists that they claim that the road was obstructed, even though it clearly wasn't),

f) Perverting the course of justice (see above).

Anything else?

They should be sacked for gross incompetence, if nothing else.

Oh my dear God. Somebody needs to come outside their little cocoon and live in the real world. :eek:

_feedback_ · 06-04-2011 04:08PM

smeedyova wrote: »

a) Making racist remarks while on duty (as evidenced when they refer to one of their victims as a "yank"),

b) Planning the rape of a woman in their custody,

c) Marginalising members of the public who they are supposed to protect (as evidenced in saying that one of the victims is from the "crusty camp"),

d) Abusing their power by planning to "get immigration" on the "yank", even though there was no reason to get immigration involved,

e) Bullying of a colleague (as evidenced when one guard insists that they claim that the road was obstructed, even though it clearly wasn't),

f) Perverting the course of justice (see above).

Anything else?

They should be sacked for gross incompetence, if nothing else.

I'm not going to go over all the points again. They have been done to death in the thread, and with no offence intended, most of them are laughable.

I am astounded that at this stage you still insist that they were planning to rape a woman.

WOW.

mrtulachmhor · 06-04-2011 04:12PM

sack them pigs, sack them sack them sack them.

TheZohanS · 06-04-2011 04:14PM

smeedyova wrote: »

a) Making racist remarks while on duty (as evidenced when they refer to one of their victims as a "yank"),

b) Planning the rape of a woman in their custody

Yank is an ethnic slur, I'll give you that one.

But rape???? FFS.

Why don't you go the whole hog and call it a planned gang rape...they were going to gang rape all the wimmens... jesus wept...

DarkJager · 06-04-2011 04:14PM

mrtulachmhor wrote: »

sack them pigs, sack them sack them sack them.

What a constructive post.

almighty1 · 06-04-2011 04:17PM

smeedyova wrote: »

c) Marginalising members of the public who they are supposed to protect (as evidenced in saying that one of the victims is from the "crusty camp"),

I think he was referring to her lady area and referring to it as something like a 2 day old cheddar cheese toastie.

R P McMurphy · 06-04-2011 04:21PM

Approximately 6 million jews were killed by the nazis in WWII

danbohan · 06-04-2011 04:23PM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Approximately 6 million jews were killed by the nazis in WWII

was it dm guards that did it ?

Mental Mickey · 06-04-2011 04:24PM

optogirl wrote: »

Perfect. /Thread

You must be joking!!??

AudreyHepburn · 06-04-2011 04:34PM

smeedyova wrote: »

a) Making racist remarks while on duty (as evidenced when they refer to one of their victims as a "yank"),

b) Planning the rape of a woman in their custody,

c) Marginalising members of the public who they are supposed to protect (as evidenced in saying that one of the victims is from the "crusty camp"),

d) Abusing their power by planning to "get immigration" on the "yank", even though there was no reason to get immigration involved,

e) Bullying of a colleague (as evidenced when one guard insists that they claim that the road was obstructed, even though it clearly wasn't),

f) Perverting the course of justice (see above).

Anything else?

They should be sacked for gross incompetence, if nothing else.

Sigh....ome-one else who either didn't watch the video or is refusing to acknowledge what really happened.

None of the above ever took place.

prinz · 06-04-2011 04:34PM

smeedyova wrote: »

a) Making racist remarks while on duty (as evidenced when they refer to one of their victims as a "yank"),.

Racist? Eh no.

smeedyova wrote: »

b) Planning the rape of a woman in their custody,....

Not even remotely.

smeedyova wrote: »

c) Marginalising members of the public who they are supposed to protect (as evidenced in saying that one of the victims is from the "crusty camp"),,....

Accurate enough description tbh. Would you prefer tree-huggers?

smeedyova wrote: »

d) Abusing their power by planning to "get immigration" on the "yank", even though there was no reason to get immigration involved...

If they suspected she was foreign (and esp. Canadian or American), which it seems she wouldn't confirm or deny, they had every reason to get immigration involved.

smeedyova wrote: »

e) Bullying of a colleague (as evidenced when one guard insists that they claim that the road was obstructed, even though it clearly wasn't),...

It clearly wasn't? How so? Were you there? When you have a vehicle maybe half on the road half off, is it obstructed? Do you know what a difference of opinion is?

smeedyova wrote: »

f) Perverting the course of justice (see above)

Which part exactly?

smeedyova wrote: »

Anything else?

Yeah, any chance of adding anything constructive? You have just been repeating the same nonsense over and over and over, that they were actually planning a rape.

smeedyova · 06-04-2011 04:48PM

prinz wrote: »

You have just been repeating the same nonsense over and over and over, that they were actually planning a rape.

Guards allegedly speaking about the woman in their custody:

Sergeant: “Give me your name and address or I’ll rape you.”

Unidentified Garda: “Hold it there, give me your name and address there, I’ll rape you.”

Sergeant: “Or I’ll definitely rape you.”

Oh right, so they were actually planning to treat her with dignity and respect while processing her case with objectivity?

AudreyHepburn · 06-04-2011 04:51PM

smeedyova wrote: »

Guards allegedly speaking about the woman in their custody:

Sergeant: “Give me your name and address or I’ll rape you.”

Unidentified Garda: “Hold it there, give me your name and address there, I’ll rape you.”

Sergeant: “Or I’ll definitely rape you.”

Oh right, so they were actually planning to treat her with dignity and respect while processing her case with objectivity?

You did hear them laughing as they said those things didn't you? Or have you only read the transcripts?

They were joking around, nothing more. Tasteless stupid jokes I admit.

KERSPLAT! · 06-04-2011 04:51PM

This was a decent thread with valid points from both sides.... I think it has run its course, people just talking crap now

/leaves thread

smeedyova · 06-04-2011 04:53PM

I have read the transcripts in full and I have seen the video in full.

lastlaugh · 06-04-2011 04:55PM

smeedyova wrote: »

I have read the transcripts in full and I have seen the video in full.

Good for you.

/leaves thread

KERSPLAT! · 06-04-2011 04:57PM

smeedyova wrote: »

I have read the transcripts in full and I have seen the video in full.

Do you believe the Guards in question were going to rape the women? Or actually planned to? Simple questions

prinz · 06-04-2011 04:57PM

smeedyova wrote: »

Oh right, so they were actually planning to treat her with dignity and respect while processing her case with objectivity?

Again, nothing there suggests they are actually planning a rape. If I say I'd murder a kebab, does that mean I am actually planning a murder? If I tell a mate to 'hand me over that pint or I'll box the head off ya!' while laughing, does that mean I am planning on assault and battery? You can't be that daft.

Garda Siochana in Shell to sea sex shocker

Comments