Shatter insists Wallace has no credibility on penalty points

21-05-2013 5:06pm

mikehammer67 wrote: »

except he didnt have any quashed so whats the connection like?

True. But he does have a problem with Gardai using their discretion and making exceptions.

Cody Pomeray · 21-05-2013 5:11pm

It would be interesting to know what the source of the leak was in relation to Luke Ming Flanagan's penalty points being wiped.

That information was around last December, and was denied at the time, but came back with a bang in March in a more concrete way, such was the source of its strength that Flanagan didn't deny it the second time around.

Whether that leak came from the Department of Justice or the Gardaí, there is clearly someone, or some people, being very liberal with confidential Garda records for political purposes.

Whether those political purposes are to mitigate bad headlines for the Gardaí or for Department of Justice, they are political and deserving of criticism.

M three · 21-05-2013 6:02pm

Godge wrote: »

I think that the public interest of exposing hypocritical TDs should override any data protection issues in this case. Whether or not it does is a matter for the Data Protection Commissioner and the law, if the law supports hiding Wallace's action, then I believe the law should be changed.

In a similar way, if a TD was virulently anti-abortion but had paid for an abortion for his mistress, his hypocrisy is of public interest notwithstanding the even more personal situation there.

So, to answer your question, in my view there is nothing morally wrong with Shatter exposing the hypocrisy of Wallace (not for the first time), it may well be technically wrong in law, but we shall wait and see.

You're banging the same drum as shatter here, that wallace is hypocritical.
But he aint, he said its a bad idea for guards to be secretly getting rid of peoples already awarded penalty points. Which it is.
Wallace didnt get any penalty points.

Re the public interest you so keenly seek, if a minister had a drink problem, especially if involved at some point with health, would you support them being named in public?

Cody Pomeray · 21-05-2013 6:17pm

Wallace has just told the Dáil that he got the information on Wallace from the Garda Commissioner, at the initiative of the Commissioner.

He's now giving the "context" speel so presumably the interesting part of the speech is over.

Sierra Oscar · 21-05-2013 6:21pm

Just watching his statement live - Shatter still doesn't get it. He thinks this is all about Wallace, well it is not. It is about him releasing sensitive and confidential information into the public domain via national television for political purposes.

Cody Pomeray · 21-05-2013 6:25pm

Fianna Fáil again calling for the Minister to resign. They had reined back on that over the weekend.

Now that Shatter has failed to identify what was wrong with a Minister using confidential Garda information for political purposes, there's no alternative but to take the opinion that he doesn't see anything wrong with his actions. So why would he not do it again. It's simple, he should resign or be moved.

Trotter · 21-05-2013 6:26pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Just watching his statement live - Shatter still doesn't get it. He thinks this is all about Wallace, well it is not. It is about him releasing sensitive and confidential information into the public domain via national television for political purposes.

Anyone within the circled wagons seems to be making it about Wallace. It never takes long for a party line to emerge and they have serious talent at sticking to it.

Isnt it amazing though how the ethical standards of office change when someone walks across the floor of the Dáil.. so many examples of it.

copacetic · 21-05-2013 6:30pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Just watching his statement live - Shatter still doesn't get it. He thinks this is all about Wallace, well it is not. It is about him releasing sensitive and confidential information into the public domain via national television for political purposes.

Agreed, they appear to be sticking to the line that it's ok because they say so and they were targetting someone who doesn't deserve better. They don't appear to see any problem with it. That's the kind of brazen attitude that brings down governments and ministers.

The Irish times editorial today said it well...
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/politicising-the-police-1.1400385

The key bit may be the last line, are labour going to eat their principles again and let Fine Gaels dodgy dealings continue?

By most people’s standards the use of a mobile phone while driving, although deplorable, does not rank high on the Richter scale of criminality. Which makes it all the more extraordinary that a report of a verbal admonition to TD Mick Wallace should find its way to Minister for Justice Alan Shatter’s attention. And then be used by the Minister in a political attempt to discredit the TD.
Yesterday he produced an explanation of sorts. Mr Wallace’s name came up in a briefing by gardaí on the penalty points saga. Mr Shatter claimed to journalists there was “no question” of using private information. “This wasn’t private information,” he said. Mr Wallace was a public figure. “I was required to get a full briefing from the gardaí on everything to do with the fixed charge issue and to my surprise, this came up. It’s no more complex than that.”
Data protection obligations, notwithstanding. And privacy? And the notional ministerial remove from day-to-day operations is now definitely notional. And, what of that bête noir, the politicisation of the police, over which Fine Gael volubly condemned Sean Doherty and Michael McDowell for using gardaí respectively to bug and to smear journalists?
The Minister used the information on Prime Time , he claimed, because Mr Wallace had said no discretion should allowed over those who had been levied penalty points. Not that it’s relevant, but in fact Mr Wallace had opposed discretion only in the quashing of fines/points, a far cry from the roadside discretion from which he benefited and which is a necessary and appropriate feature of routine policing.
Mr Shatter was inappropriately briefed by gardaí and then inappropriately used what was, yes, private information. It’s no more complex than that. And there are still other questions to answer: by what procedure did a trivial incident in a garda notebook make its way to Garda HQ and then on to the Minister? Was a call put out suggesting reports on such compromising situations were of particular interest? Or would gardaí with political nous simply know what was expected of them?
The willingness of Taoiseach Enda Kenny to spring uncritically, “100 per cent” to Mr Shatter’s defence is deeply disappointing. This was not a minor spat on TV, but profoundly important questions being raised about the political abuse of the Garda with their connivance. Not a matter to be brushed aside. Mr Kenny insisted that the Minister was not “collecting files on any individual or any member of the House or anybody else”. And just as well. But no one claimed Mr Shatter was creating files.
And what of Labour’s muted response? The conscience of the Coalition? Both Mr Shatter’s actions and his dismissive response to criticism will certainly alarm the party’s cowed backbenchers. Time to call a halt to an arrogant Minister’s contempt for democratic norms.

Cody Pomeray · 21-05-2013 6:33pm

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn presenting a mutual back scratching image of the Minister and the Garda Commissioner now. Interesting take on it. I can imagine the focus shifting to the Commissioner - on what grounds did he raise the Wallace incident with the Minister?

Sierra Oscar · 21-05-2013 6:37pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn presenting a mutual back scratching image of the Minister and the Garda Commissioner now. Interesting take on it. I can imagine the focus shifting to the Commissioner - on what grounds did he raise the Wallace incident with the Minister?

The relationship between the Minister and the Commissioner has been questioned by many silently now for some time, especially after Shatter introduced groundbreaking legislation which extended the Commissioners term by two years despite the Commissioner having reached retirement age - which is strictly enforced within the force.

Many people believe it was extended as the Commissioner is a close ally of the Minister, and Shatter would find it difficult to replace him with someone who would happily pursue his agenda. His inclusion into this saga deepens suspicions even further.

Wildlife Actor · 21-05-2013 7:00pm

By saying that he doesn't know how the commissioner got the information - quite apart from ignoring the fact that he could and should have asked - he may well be hanging his mate out to dry. The commissioner now needs to answer questions.

Sierra Oscar · 21-05-2013 7:04pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

By saying that he doesn't know how the commissioner got the information - quite apart from ignoring the fact that he could and should have asked - he may well be hanging his mate out to dry. The commissioner now needs to answer questions.

Indeed. How did this information get from the Garda on patrol all the way up to the Garda Commissioner, especially considering the fact that there is no official record of this matter? Also Shatter claimed that this information was passed along to him as the public confidence in the Gardai was diminished as a result of the penalty points investigation, and accordingly the Commisoner was obliged to forward the information as it was seen to be relevant to the penalty points discretion investigation. However, the Wallace incident occurred before the emergence of the penalty points revelations. So why did the information get all the way to the Commissioner at that stage?

Hootanany · 21-05-2013 7:17pm

^^^^ The plot thickens.

Wildlife Actor · 21-05-2013 7:33pm

What was that Act they were referring to? We'll have to have a look at that. Shatter seemed to say that the Commissioner was to report to him on matters of public importance, as in "it's a matter of public importance to shut down dissent by digging up and dishing out the dirt on whistleblowers." Yeah, that's was undoubtedly the intention of the Oireachtas on that one.

FF poor, SF only a little better. Shatter was well able for them, playing with a crap set of cards. Pity Humphries wasn't in opposition. He was more incisive than either of them.

Sierra Oscar · 21-05-2013 7:43pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

What was that Act they were referring to? We'll have to have a look at that. Shatter seemed to say that the Commissioner was to report to him on matters of public importance, as in "it's a matter of public importance to shut down dissent by digging up and dishing out the dirt on whistleblowers." Yeah, that's was undoubtedly the intention of the Oireachtas on that one.

He was referring to the Garda Síochána Act, 2005. Specifically he referred to this:

41
.
—
(1) The Garda Commissioner shall keep the Minister and
the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and
Law Reform fully informed of the following:
(
a
) matters relating to significant developments concerning
—
(i) the preservation of peace and public order in the
State,
(ii) the protection of life and property in the State, and
(iii) the protection of the security of the State;
(b) significant developments that might reasonably be
expected to affect adversely public confidence in the
Garda Síochána;
(c) matters relevant to the accountability of the Government
to the Houses of the Oireachtas;
(d) any other matters that, in the Commissioner’s opinion,
should be brought to the Minister’s attention.

His defence as to why he had the information centers around the text in bold. However the Wallace incident occurred before the emergence of the penalty points discretion investigation, so the question remains as to why the information made its way to the Commissioner - let alone the Minister - when there was no official recording of the incident. How was the incident recalled, in detail, during a briefing a mere few days ago when the incident itself occurred well over a year ago and there is apparently no record of the event? The explanation which was provided doesn't make much sense to me.

tayto lover · 21-05-2013 8:35pm

Lets be honest and fair on this issue.

Shatter is not fit for office.
He is using the Garda Commissioner as his own personal lapdog.

Two very important offices being run by people with no moral fiber.

As for Wallace ....... the least said the better.

Wildlife Actor · 21-05-2013 8:41pm

Yes, the incident itself has in fact no effect whatever on either "public confidence in the Garda Síochána" or "the accountability of the Government to the Houses of the Oireachtas" (Shatter mentioned that too).

The only inference one can draw from the giving of the information was that it was given for the purpose of stifling debate on a matter of public importance (under wither of those headings). As such, Shatter's interpretation is in fact a parody of the section's intent.

Of course one can't conclude that that was the purpose of the disclosure without investigating the meeting. For example, was there a written "section 41 report"? Was the incident mentioned in it? If not (as one can assume), why is it justified under section 41?

All questions for the Commissioner...

hatrickpatrick · 21-05-2013 8:56pm

Shatter is an absolute joke.
Funny thing is he's dug the grave of his own reputation here. I didn't think much of this saga until Shatter started insisting that what he did was acceptable. Had he apologized to Wallace and admitted that it was out of order and just let the whole thing drop, everyone would be telling Wallace to let it go.

Instead, he persisted in defending his misstep (as politicians almost always do) and ended up revealing what is potentially a far bigger scandal than the incident would originally have been, namely the idea that the minister for justice is abusing his power in law enforcement for political reasons.

Bravo, Shatter, bravo. Feckin' eejit.

Eunan Plumb · 21-05-2013 9:23pm

True...The Shatts might have gone "over the wall on this one".

Would be a travesty if this excellent and hard working Minister was hounded out of office.

Had the balls to call out the cosseted porkies in the Judiciary who have had their snouts in the trough for far too long...and bring up the old canard of "Judicial independance" whenever their cosy lifestyles are threatned.

Took on the well fed pookas in the GRA as well and did the right thing in closing down Garda Stations which have little relevance in the present day.

Needs to take on the significant rump of hole scratchers and pencil lickers which fester in all parts of the public service but are particularly prevelant in An garda Siochana.

Root these guys oy ...get on to the streets as they are paid to do.

He may have his faults but when you hear the pigs squealing you know he is doing something right !

efc67 · 21-05-2013 9:44pm

Remember Shatter and the Willie O'Dea affair

But Fine Gael said Mr O’Dea was unfit for public office and accused him of using confidential garda information for private gain.

Alan Shatter said: “What Minister O’Dea admitted yesterday is that he willingly and publicly discussed, for his own electoral gain, confidential information furnished to him by a member of An Garda Siochana.

“Such conduct is entirely unacceptable by any minister in any Government.”

Mr Shatter said members of the gardaí or Defence Forces could not now be assured information provided by them to the Minister would remain confidential.

For Paws · 21-05-2013 10:47pm

Are we, the public, better off knowing that Wallace is a hypocrite ?

Had Shatter have kept the information to himself because he thought he could not disclose it, would we be better off ?

Clearly it was in the public interest that a TD who was engaged in an attack on the Gardai's use of discretion should be exposed as a hypocrite (and a hypocrite with a terrible memory at that).

Because Shatter came out & said it in public he is being pilloried (by the same people who criticize him & other Govt ministers for whatever they do, day in & day out).

I'd be much more concerned if it came to light that Shatter had tipped off a friendly journalist with the information.

The Garda Commissioner has now said that he expected that Wallace and his group would continue their criticism of the people he commands and informed his Minister of the incident involving Wallace.

It was not exactly a 'state secret' .

Wallace is a tax fraud (that means he stole from us, the public).
Did any of the people now calling for Shatter's resignation call for Wallaces' then ?

dlouth15 · 21-05-2013 11:13pm

For Paws wrote: »

Wallace is a tax fraud (that means he stole from us, the public).
Did any of the people now calling for Shatter's resignation call for Wallaces' then ?

The old expression "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here.

Cody Pomeray · 22-05-2013 2:57am

For Paws wrote: »

Are we, the public, better off knowing that Wallace is a hypocrite ?

Would I be 'better off' after stealing your money after you skipped my place in a bank queue?

Certainly.

But just as I would be guilty of an outrageous act of vigilantism, the Minister for Justice, in enriching us with a piece of confidential information, is guilty of ethical vigilantism, and maybe even the criminal variety too. This is an offence that seriously outweighs any dubious benefit of knowing about Mick Wallace's mobile phone habits.

If the public do not suffer the Minister to understand his wrongdoing, our silence would amount to an exraordinary political concession to the Government, whereby the use of private, confidential data by the data keepers would become a de facto legitimate political weapon.

I genuinely can't decide whether it is stuborn-ness or myopia that is causing some people to adhere to the hypocrisy delusion.

For Paws wrote: »

It was not exactly a 'state secret' .

Actually, it was a State Secret.

See a previous post in this thread. Confidential information of this nature is subject to The Official Secrets Act, 1963, which is signed by employees who take up employment in the civil service. It just so happens that the Minister is not bound from releasing official secrets. If the Commissioner, or a Garda had revealed this information to the press, and if he were identified, it would be a firing offence, and a criminal offence punishable by a fine, a prison sentance, or both.

bmaxi · 22-05-2013 10:22am

It looks like Shatter has shafted the Commissioner alright, not that the Commissioner will worry, another untouchable, unreproachable political lackey.
Though no fan of Wallace, I hope he continues with his complaint to the DPC and that the DPC has the balls to publish a true report into the matter. I'm sick to death of these arrogant pricks who think they can ride roughshod over everything and everyone.

Going Forward · 22-05-2013 11:10am

The problem for Shatter is that Wallace has not had any points wiped.

If Wallace had had points wiped, I doubt ant data investigation would have saved his credibility and Shatter's divulging the information could almost be justified.

Shatter and co are desperately trying to convince anyone who will listen that Wallace was the recipient of the same discretion that he (Wallace) was complaining of when others received it.

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/63133/1/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

Wallace was treated with discretion "at the scene".

For anyone to claim that this traditional face to face use of "discretion" is identical to what has been occurring in the wiping of points from the system is confusing.

Secondly, why would such a minor matter have been recorded, recalled and passed from Gardai on the beat to the Minister for Justice for use at his convenience?

Would it not have been quite difficult to come across this non-event in the system?

It didnt just pop out by accident in any statistical check did it?

For Paws · 22-05-2013 11:17am

dlouth15 wrote: »

The old expression "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here.

Correct.

Maybe add in Wallace having to be forced by the Courts to pay the PRSI he had collected from his own employees.

In using the phrase 'two wrongs ....' are you equating Shatter being indiscreet with knowledge that he was give with Wallace deliberately breaking the law & cheating his employees ?.

Wallace did not offer to resign his Dail seat, so why should Shatter act any differently. He has already apologised to Wallace for any offence he may have caused him. Did Wallace apologise for tax evasion ?

For Paws · 22-05-2013 11:23am

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Would I be 'better off' after stealing your money after you skipped my place in a bank queue?

Certainly.

But just as I would be guilty of an outrageous act of vigilantism, the Minister for Justice, in enriching us with a piece of confidential information, is guilty of ethical vigilantism, and maybe even the criminal variety too. This is an offence that seriously outweighs any dubious benefit of knowing about Mick Wallace's mobile phone habits.

If the public do not suffer the Minister to understand his wrongdoing, our silence would amount to an exraordinary political concession to the Government, whereby the use of private, confidential data by the data keepers would become a de facto legitimate political weapon.

I genuinely can't decide whether it is stuborn-ness or myopia that is causing some people to adhere to the hypocrisy delusion.

Actually, it was a State Secret.

See a previous post in this thread. Confidential information of this nature is subject to The Official Secrets Act, 1963, which is signed by employees who take up employment in the civil service. It just so happens that the Minister is not bound from releasing official secrets. If the Commissioner, or a Garda had revealed this information to the press, and if he were identified, it would be a firing offence, and a criminal offence punishable by a
fine, a prison sentance, or both.

The Commissioner has identified himself as the person who informed the Minister, as per The Garda Siochana Act - 41.1(b)

For Paws · 22-05-2013 11:28am

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Would I be 'better off' after stealing your money after you skipped my place in a bank queue?

Certainly.

What does this mean ?

For Paws · 22-05-2013 11:31am

bmaxi wrote: »

It looks like Shatter has shafted the Commissioner alright, not that the Commissioner will worry, another untouchable, unreproachable political lackey.
Though no fan of Wallace, I hope he continues with his complaint to the DPC and that the DPC has the balls to publish a true report into the matter. I'm sick to death of these arrogant pricks who think they can ride roughshod over everything and everyone.

Whereas you would never ride roughshod over those whom you consider to be political lackeys and arrogant pricks :rolleyes:

For Paws · 22-05-2013 11:37am

Going Forward wrote: »

The problem for Shatter is that Wallace has not had any points wiped.

If Wallace had had points wiped, I doubt ant data investigation would have saved his credibility and Shatter's divulging the information could almost be justified.

Shatter and co are desperately trying to convince anyone who will listen that Wallace was the recipient of the same discretion that he (Wallace) was complaining of when others received it.

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/63133/1/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

Wallace was treated with discretion "at the scene".

For anyone to claim that this traditional face to face use of "discretion" is identical to what has been occurring in the wiping of points from the system is confusing.

Secondly, why would such a minor matter have been recorded, recalled and passed from Gardai on the beat to the Minister for Justice for use at his convenience?

Would it not have been quite difficult to come across this non-event in the system?

It didnt just pop out by accident in any statistical check did it?

Say you are stopped for an offence under the Road Traffic Act and the Garda concerned decides to use his discretion by warning you and not initiating a prosecution.
Say one month passes and a different Garda stops you for the same offence, and unaware of the previous incident because it was not recorded, decides to use his discretion.
Say another month passes and yet another Garda etc etc etc

That is why the use of discretion is recorded.

Shatter insists Wallace has no credibility on penalty points

Comments