deadwood wrote: » That's fair, but it's not unreasonable to seek some kind of proof, but an internet forum isn't a court so both sides of the debate have to make allowances.
Snakeblood wrote: » Yeah, that's true. I think it's better for both sides to say 'well, according to what you saw, what happened' and then answer the situation than say the situation didn't happen at all. Defusing things rather than escalating them, I suppose.
deadwood wrote: » Exactly. You See? The guard is always right!:D Now, on with the bashing debate!
deadwood wrote: » That's fair, but it's not unreasonable to seek some kind of proof and an internet forum isn't a court so both sides of the debate have to make allowances. You'll provide weight to your own argument by providing proof - your readers can't be expected to fill in the gaps, otherwise innuendo and "I heard from a fella who knows a guy" is the benchmark for reasonable debate. I don't think anyone would disagree with you, but I think the (lets call them) pro-garda posters are saying is that the observer is not aware of the reason for the breaking of red lights/bylaws etc. In my own experience, it happens that you proceed to a call with sirens etc and then get the "stand-down", resulting in glares from other drivers who only see two guards skipping traffic. You shouldn't assume the guys are just doing it for their fill of donuts (chief wiggum has a lot to answer for). Also I wouldn't say that it has not or will not happen. If it does, then they're wrong. If you see it being done, then make a complaint and change things for the better.(and no, this won't result in a target on your back) Each case is different. You expect me to answer for someone elses actions? I didn't see this show, but maybe the driver already had an appointment to have his tyres fixed (he can't breeze into advance tyres in a bus, can he?). Maybe the guard weighed up his options and decided that allowing the bus to continue was safer than having it stopped with passengers on a roadside in a dangerous place? I don't know. Gardai have a power of discretion, which involves common sense. If it's zero tolerance you want, then fine. Just don't complain when you get a fine for doing 101kmh in a 100 zone. This debate needs some common sense on both sides.
tayto lover wrote: » Maybe you could ask the son of the man who works in the Ombudsmans Office if he can find out how many dud or trivial complaints are made each year and how many have been proven. Then you can take a percentage of the "i saw a Garda doing" from this thread as being made up or trivial. Some of them are so actually unbelievable they should be sent to Ripleys Believe It or Not, like the "consultants" one.
Wertz wrote: » My reference to "siege mentality" was towards members of the force both on here and in general in public. The Us and Them thing cuts both ways. Most people support what the gardaí do...although some have a problem with the way they do some things and as usual the few bad apples give you all a bad name when it comes to certain things... As for scumbags that shouldn't be complaining...obviously they're the ones who are going to shout the loudest because it's in their interest to hate the guards, but that doesn't give certain garda carte blanche to treat them any differently than any other member of the public they encounter in their day-to-day dealings, and if scumbags are treated unfairly or more harshly because they're scumbags then they have some right to complain...
Bannasidhe wrote: » deadwood wrote: » That's fair, but it's not unreasonable to seek some kind of proof and an internet forum isn't a court so both sides of the debate have to make allowances. You'll provide weight to your own argument by providing proof - your readers can't be expected to fill in the gaps, otherwise innuendo and "I heard from a fella who knows a guy" is the benchmark for reasonable debate. I don't think anyone would disagree with you, but I think the (lets call them) pro-garda posters are saying is that the observer is not aware of the reason for the breaking of red lights/bylaws etc. In my own experience, it happens that you proceed to a call with sirens etc and then get the "stand-down", resulting in glares from other drivers who only see two guards skipping traffic. You shouldn't assume the guys are just doing it for their fill of donuts (chief wiggum has a lot to answer for). Also I wouldn't say that it has not or will not happen. If it does, then they're wrong. If you see it being done, then make a complaint and change things for the better.(and no, this won't result in a target on your back) Each case is different. You expect me to answer for someone elses actions? I didn't see this show, but maybe the driver already had an appointment to have his tyres fixed (he can't breeze into advance tyres in a bus, can he?). Maybe the guard weighed up his options and decided that allowing the bus to continue was safer than having it stopped with passengers on a roadside in a dangerous place? I don't know. Gardai have a power of discretion, which involves common sense. If it's zero tolerance you want, then fine. Just don't complain when you get a fine for doing 101kmh in a 100 zone. This debate needs some common sense on both sides. Deadwood - I would like to thank you for your considered, articulate and reasoned responses. Sadly, while myself and others who wished to discuss issues around the perceived (and in my own and other poster's cases witnessed) abuses of the Gardaí exemptions to the traffic laws we were repeatedly greeted by insults, dismissed as liars and accused of being motivated only by anti-Gardaí sentiment. Personally, I am very concerned by anti-Gardái sentiment within sections of our society(no - not just 'scumbags') and was positing that when Gardaí are perceived as flouting, ignoring, disrespecting the laws they are sworn to uphold it feeds that negativity. For this I got personal abuse and my integrity questioned. This name calling on the part of those who sought to defend the AGS from 'attack' - when most posers here were questioning the proprietary of members of the force using the exemption for what were seen as 'off duty/personal' errands also feeds the 'Us' vs 'Them' divide which many here believe exists between the AGS and the citizens they protect. The genuine belief in that divide expressed here troubles me.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Why is there no MOD on this forum? I am sick of this poster's repeated personal attacks on my integrity and honesty.
deadwood wrote: » I don't think anyone would disagree with you, but I think the (lets call them) pro-garda posters are saying is that the observer is not aware of the reason for the breaking of red lights/bylaws etc. In my own experience, it happens that you proceed to a call with sirens etc and then get the "stand-down", resulting in glares from other drivers who only see two guards skipping traffic. You shouldn't assume the guys are just doing it for their fill of donuts (chief wiggum has a lot to answer for). Also I wouldn't say that it has not or will not happen. If it does, then they're wrong. If you see it being done, then make a complaint and change things for the better.(and no, this won't result in a target on your back)
hatrickpatrick wrote: » deadwood wrote: » I don't think anyone would disagree with you, but I think the (lets call them) pro-garda posters are saying is that the observer is not aware of the reason for the breaking of red lights/bylaws etc. In my own experience, it happens that you proceed to a call with sirens etc and then get the "stand-down", resulting in glares from other drivers who only see two guards skipping traffic. You shouldn't assume the guys are just doing it for their fill of donuts (chief wiggum has a lot to answer for). Also I wouldn't say that it has not or will not happen. If it does, then they're wrong. If you see it being done, then make a complaint and change things for the better.(and no, this won't result in a target on your back) The point is though people HAVE disagreed with it. People in this thread have implied that it's ok for a Gard to offer to get a friend off a ticket as it's trivial. Does the principle of croneyism and abuse of power not bother people? It's got this country into the ridiculous mess it's in, and while of course a Garda going through a red light to get some coffee isn't going to crash the economy, the point is that, just as "economy begins at home", so does ethical behavior. Once we start giving people free for all exemptions from the law it's an absolutely appalling slippery slope. Just a few weeks ago we had a thread here from a guy who says a Garda car almost crashed into him during a car chase. As I said earlier, the Ombudsman seems to get an absolutely ridiculous number of traffic related complaints. You can't simply dismiss this as petty. No one cares about a random red light or a cup of coffee, it's the principle behind it which we're arguing about here. The principle of those with very great trust and exemptions from the law of the land, abusing that position.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » The point is though people HAVE disagreed with it. People in this thread have implied that it's ok for a Gard to offer to get a friend off a ticket as it's trivial. Does the principle of croneyism and abuse of power not bother people? It's got this country into the ridiculous mess it's in, and while of course a Garda going through a red light to get some coffee isn't going to crash the economy, the point is that, just as "economy begins at home", so does ethical behavior. Once we start giving people free for all exemptions from the law it's an absolutely appalling slippery slope. Just a few weeks ago we had a thread here from a guy who says a Garda car almost crashed into him during a car chase. As I said earlier, the Ombudsman seems to get an absolutely ridiculous number of traffic related complaints. You can't simply dismiss this as petty. No one cares about a random red light or a cup of coffee, it's the principle behind it which we're arguing about here. The principle of those with very great trust and exemptions from the law of the land, abusing that position.
Bosco boy wrote: » It would trouble me too only for I know most people are decent and support AGS. Some posters here expect not to be contradicted or questioned on their posts or claims well I'm sorry I'm entitled to an opinion as well. Just cause we differ and your arguement isn't being accepted in full it seems to trouble you. I'll tell it straight and if that troubles you then tough!
Bannasidhe wrote: » Bosco boy wrote: » It would trouble me too only for I know most people are decent and support AGS. Some posters here expect not to be contradicted or questioned on their posts or claims well I'm sorry I'm entitled to an opinion as well. Just cause we differ and your arguement isn't being accepted in full it seems to trouble you. I'll tell it straight and if that troubles you then tough! I have no problem with my argument not being accepted in full. I do have a problem when the 'counter-argument' consists of nothing but insults and name calling. I am fully aware that Gardaí may be responding to a call which is cancelled. I have no issue with Gardaí drinking coffee in the squad car. I do have an issue when I know Gardaí are not on official duty but still availing of the traffic law exemption. You believe this NEVER happens. I believe it does. We are both entitled to our beliefs. Neither of us is entitled to insult the other. I have not personally insulted anyone on this thread but have been repeatedly called a liar and my integrity questioned. I fully support the AGS and am aware of what a god awful job it can be. The horror of some crime scenes officers have to witness with little or no psychological support offered to deal with the trauma. The heartbreak of having to inform next of kin of a death. The sick in stomach feeling on hearing one has to search for a missing child. The relentless abuse suffered by members of the force on a daily basis when they are just doing their job. The sheer sh*te of being called in to deal with domestic abuse. It takes a special kind of person to be able to get up in the morning ( or evening depending on shift) and face into a day/night of potential horror and abuse. But yes - I will speak out when I see abuses for the very reason that I do support the AGS and do not wish the force to come into disrepute because a very small minority act as if the everyday laws of the land never apply to them.
HarryPotter41 wrote: » If its a busy night how long might the delivery take, I agree with not wasting resources but you also have to look at the Gardai protecting their own asses by not having someone making a complaint because they were left hungry too long. Sadly most Gardai have to operate in a CYA atmosphere, this thread being typical of the kind of thing that goes on with scrutiny from the public, and irrational scrutiny a lot of the time at that.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » The point is though people HAVE disagreed with it. People in this thread have implied that it's ok for a Gard to offer to get a friend off a ticket as it's trivial.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Does the principle of croneyism and abuse of power not bother people? It's got this country into the ridiculous mess it's in, and while of course a Garda going through a red light to get some coffee isn't going to crash the economy, the point is that, just as "economy begins at home", so does ethical behavior. Once we start giving people free for all exemptions from the law it's an absolutely appalling slippery slope. Just a few weeks ago we had a thread here from a guy who says a Garda car almost crashed into him during a car chase. As I said earlier, the Ombudsman seems to get an absolutely ridiculous number of traffic related complaints.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » You can't simply dismiss this as petty. No one cares about a random red light or a cup of coffee, it's the principle behind it which we're arguing about here. The principle of those with very great trust and exemptions from the law of the land, abusing that position.
Seanbeag1 wrote: » Sitting in traffic is just time wasted doing nothing.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I have no penalty points. I have taken (and passed) advanced driving courses in the UK and Australia. I have worked at Templemore as a training consultant. Yes, I believe the emergency services need to be allowed flexibility when responding to calls. However, I object when I see (as I did last week) a guard sitting in her car in traffic (she was in the lane next to me for a good 10 minutes) chatting and then texting on her mobile and then pull someone over 5 minutes later for doing the same thing. The guard was using a mobile phone while driving - this is against the law. She was not responding to a call-out. Indeed, after she issued a penalty notice to the driver she stopped, the same guard had time to pop into Tesco for milk. It smacks of one law for us/another law for them - haven't we had enough of that sh*ite in Ireland?
tayto lover wrote: » Was it only the Garda car that almost crashed into that poster ? I'm sure the car they were chasing was being driven by someone with a poor level of driving, even worse than the Garda and was every bit as likely to hit the poster as the Garda car. If the Garda did not chase the person in this car and he got away with a crime we would surely have people on here complaining about that too. They cannot win !!
Seanbeag1 wrote: » The problem is timing. It's no good waiting a half hour for delivery. A person is entitled to be detained for as little time as necessary. So ideally the food should be waiting when the person gets out of interview so they can eat it and go back in quickly.
Bannasidhe wrote: » The guard was using a mobile phone while driving - this is against the law. She was not responding to a call-out. ?
0O7 wrote: » How do you know this? i suppose now your gonna say you designed tetra or something???
HarryPotter41 wrote: » The food is generally got for a prisoner who is being detained overnight or for a lengthy period of time, they don't tend to opo out for food for someone brought in for a simple questioning. My experience from dealing with Gardai at work is that the people who are left to kick their heels in the cell while they are calming down/sobering up/awaiting court in the morning get fed, not Johnny thats been brought in to be questioned about the assault/theft/burglary last week.
0O7 wrote: » This gets better... So your an advanced driver in multiple countries that states on a Public Forum that you had your house raided on terrorism grounds and now work training the Gardai. And you watch the Gardai "Flying" to meetings with their lights and sirens on (to have lunch with you) You follow the Guards and watch everything they do and then complain about it on the internet. How do you know this? And "Acting in the course or their duty" does not just mean responding to a call... it could be to the station about an incident earlier...etc
blarney_boy wrote: » Ok, to get back on topic, was travelling through Cork last Friday and was stopped at lights at intersection in Ballyvolane, next thing a garda car can flying up from behind, crashing the red light and went up towards Mayfield. This behaviour was suicidal, as the wall on the right of the junction means it's impossible to see if there is any traffic coming onto the junction as you approach and the garda car could very easily have "t-boned" a car travelling through the intersection on a green light. When we finally got the green light and made our way up to Mayfield we say that the garda car was parked next to a VW Polo that had left the road and was wedged in a ditch, the occupant of the car was unhurt and was walking around, however if a motorist had the misfortune to be travelling through the Ballyvolane intersection earlier when the garda car performed their kamikaze dive bomb attack they would have been killed or seriously injured. This is the junction here:http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.914895,-8.448077&spn=0.001142,0.003484&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.914895,-8.448077&panoid=VCaSzUL84OKm49I9HZ3onQ&cbp=13,76.6,,0,-2.15
TylerIE wrote: » And if the motorist had been hurt the Gardai would have been there quickly and able to assist them with their injuries. So many reports of road traffic incidents are, to put it mildly, incomplete or inaccurate, so as they are often the most geographically spread the Gardai have a very important role in being first responders, and being able to alert the other emergency services. Furthermore their early attendance at one road collision can often prevent another from happening as they can do traffic control, and prevent some eejit from driving into the scene. Advanced driving involves scanning and planning, so the passenger in the car was probably scanning the junction in so far as possible, and the Garda driver would have reacted accordingly. As another poster said, its easy to misjudge speed and timing of another vehicle when your stationary.
