Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 12:34AM

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

You a shill? Honest question. You strike me as one. I notice your posts. They're alway very pro state. Very reasoned. A bit too reasoned. I'll probably be banned for asking, but there you go.

Very pro-state ha ha.
You obviously haven't read many of them.
Look up the Property Tax or any of the political debates i took part in.
I like facts not someone suspecting stuff.

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 12:34AM

tayto lover wrote: »

What bugging? I heard the OM say there was NO garda involvement.
Was it not blamed on an internal mole?
Is there actually any facts that are not in dispute?

This whole thing is going around in circles and has be bamboozled.

I'll explain.

The report prepared by a top security firm, which was vouched for by the Garda commissioners, multiple TDs and the GSOC, was quite probably leaked by someone in the GSOC.

That's unrelated to what's in the report.

The report says there was a snooping attempt.

The report says what's in the ST article.

So.

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 12:36AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Is my eyesight failing me or does that headline not say "may have been" authorised?

Yesterday no one was evening saying it may have been.

Now.

We all know that you haven't a clue about what's been happening for the last few days.

So. Go read up on this stuff and get back to us.

Stavros Murphy · 13-02-2014 12:36AM

tayto lover wrote: »

Very pro-state ha ha.
You obviously haven't read many of them.
Look up the Property Tax or any of the political debates i took part in.
I like facts not someone suspecting stuff.

You should be a judge so. You could let everyone off with everything.

dxhound2005 · 13-02-2014 12:40AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I'll explain.

The report prepared by a top security firm, which was vouched for by the Garda commissioners, multiple TDs and the GSOC, was quite probably leaked by someone in the GSOC.

That's unrelated to what's in the report.

The report says there was a snooping attempt.

The report says what's in the ST article.

So.

If you accept that there is a media mole (or more than one) in the GSOC then why does it not make sense for me to think that the mole would like to plant a rumour that there was bugging. Knowing that it is impossible to prove or disprove as has been demonstrated. Takes the spotlight away from the mole.

Only Mooney can tell us the truth but I don't suppose he will.

porsche959 · 13-02-2014 12:40AM

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

You're wasting your time. You'll be directed to the CT forum in a minute, classed as "mad" and brushed aside. Don't rock the boat in Ireland, steady as she goes. On politics.ie they're saying the bugging was authorised and Mooney is playing with "senior hurlers" and needs to watch his back... this is going heavy. Dangerous shower of cnuts. Sh1t hitting the fan big time.

Agreed about your general comments re Ireland, but actually the threads on politics.ie about this scandal have been quite good, mainly because most of the weasel yes-men and women have slunk away to get their latest batch of orders from central office.

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 12:42AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If you accept that there is a media mole (or more than one) in the GSOC then why does it not make sense for me to think that the mole would like to plant a rumour that there was bugging. Knowing that it is impossible to prove or disprove as has been demonstrated. Takes the spotlight away from the mole.

Only Mooney can tell us the truth but I don't suppose he will.

Because the GSOC has confirmed what's in the ST report???

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 12:43AM

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

You should be a judge so. You could let everyone off with everything.

My father always told me that the secret to a happy successful life was to "always give the other fella the benefit of the doubt. It will keep you right".

I will always continue to do that.

A judge needs proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the films/books tell us.

There are plenty of doubts in this case. Its a re-hash by a journalist seeking sensation. Nothing new at all. I have followed the Boylan case closely. I live in Louth and know people involved in the case.

I have not seen any proof of anything yet.

Stavros Murphy · 13-02-2014 12:46AM

tayto lover wrote: »

My father always told me that the secret to a happy successful life was to "always give the other fella the benefit of the doubt. It will keep you right".

I will always continue to do that.

A judge needs proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the films/books tell us.

There are plenty of doubts in this case. Its a re-hash by a journalist seeking sensation. Nothing new at all. I have followed the Boylan case closely. I live in Louth and know people involved in the case.

I have not seen any proof of anything yet.

Really? Me hole. Spoof someone else Tayto. I'm too long in the tooth.

dxhound2005 · 13-02-2014 12:47AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Because the GSOC has confirmed what's in the ST report???

I know the bit where they brought in consultants was in the paper. But the GSOC have clearly said that they could not prove that there was bugging. So there may or may not have been bugging. To me setting up some James Bond type exercise to gather GSOC data is just too far fetched when it seems likely that someone has been passing documents to the press for ages.

But whoever is passing the documents would gain a lot by having the impression given that there was attempted bugging.

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 12:50AM

tayto lover wrote: »

My father always told me that the secret to a happy successful life was to "always give the other fella the benefit of the doubt. It will keep you right".

I will always continue to do that.

A judge needs proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the films/books tell us.

There are plenty of doubts in this case. Its a re-hash by a journalist seeking sensation. Nothing new at all. I have followed the Boylan case closely. I live in Louth and know people involved in the case.

I have not seen any proof of anything yet.

The security firm produced a report.

It scared GSOC enough to stop them using mobile phones and meeting in their own office.

The head of GSOC rejected that one claim in the report was as definitive as the security firm though it was.

That's the situation.

The security firm, who everyone deferred to at the hearing - the Gardai, TDs and the GSOC - that firm definitively said that the GSOC was being spied on. Or at least someone was trying.

The head of GSOC saw a test which everyone agreed created deep fear in GSOC. He said if it had happened twice, this test having the same result, he would have agreed there was snooping.

The security firm - the experts - only needed to see it once to reach that conclusion.

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 12:50AM

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Really? Me hole. Spoof someone else Tayto. I'm too long in the tooth.

So you don't like the fact that i don't buy all a journalist tells me without proof?
You are exactly the type of person that believes all he reads.

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 12:51AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I know the bit where they brought in consultants was in the paper. But the GSOC have clearly said that they could not prove that there was bugging. So there may or may not have been bugging. To me setting up some James Bond type exercise to gather GSOC data is just too far fetched when it seems likely that someone has been passing documents to the press for ages.

But whoever is passing the documents would gain a lot by having the impression given that there was attempted bugging.

No.

One guy in GSOC decided to disagree with one part of the report. Even though he repeatedly said that he wasn't the expert and deferred to the security firm.

The documents said there was bugging. There's no doubt about that.

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 12:52AM

tayto lover wrote: »

So you don't like the fact that i don't buy all a journalist tells me without proof?
You are exactly the type of person that believes all he reads.

After the GSOC verifies what the reporter says, I'll trust him.

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 12:53AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The security firm produced a report.

It scared GSOC enough to stop them using mobile phones and meeting in their own office.

The head of GSOC rejected that one claim in the report was as definitive as the security firm though it was.

That's the situation.

The security firm, who everyone deferred to at the hearing - the Gardai, TDs and the GSOC - that firm definitively said that the GSOC was being spied on. Or at least someone was trying.

The head of GSOC saw a test which everyone agreed created deep fear in GSOC. He said if it had happened twice, this test having the same result, he would have agreed there was snooping.

The security firm - the experts - only needed to see it once to reach that conclusion.

So what does it prove apart from a bugging claim?
Why did the OM say the garda were not involved?
Why did the same OM say that he suspected one of seven staff?
Where is the proven link to the Govt, or garda?

Jaysus lads give us a few facts.

dxhound2005 · 13-02-2014 12:53AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The security firm produced a report.

It scared GSOC enough to stop them using mobile phones and meeting in their own office.

The head of GSOC rejected that one claim in the report was as definitive as the security firm though it was.

That's the situation.

The security firm, who everyone deferred to at the hearing - the Gardai, TDs and the GSOC - that firm definitively said that the GSOC was being spied on. Or at least someone was trying.

The head of GSOC saw a test which everyone agreed created deep fear in GSOC. He said if it had happened twice, this test having the same result, he would have agreed there was snooping.

The security firm - the experts - only needed to see it once to reach that conclusion.

So how did the copy of the consultants report make it's way into Mooney's hands, or at least how could he have had sight of the report? It couldn't have been obtained by a journalist by bugging, could it?

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 12:54AM

tayto lover wrote: »

So what does it prove apart from a bugging claim?
Why did the OM say the garda were not involved?
Why did the same OM say that he suspected one of seven staff?
Where is the proven link to the Govt, or garda?

Jaysus lads give us a few facts.

Jesus are you really not able to follow this???

The reference to the mole was ONLY in relation to the leak of the report.

C'mon.

As far as why the Garda are cleared, the reason was simply they couldn't find "definitive proof" to link them... Not finding proof or evidence isn't evidence of no evidence or proof.

Simple stuff really.

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 12:55AM

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

You wish. Blow smoke up someone elses hole. I'm a hard-headed cnut, I always was. I don't need reassurance from you or anyone else. I'll reach my own conclusions.

Bully for you.
I will wait until after the trial and i hear all the facts before i shoot the accused.

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 12:56AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Jesus are you really not able to follow this???

The reference to the mole was ONLY in relation to the leak of the report.

C'mon.

Maybe you could explain it to me step by step then as i'm so slow.
Use facts though please.

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 12:57AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Jesus are you really not able to follow this???

The reference to the mole was ONLY in relation to the leak of the report.

C'mon.

As far as why the Garda are cleared, the reason was simply they couldn't find "definitive proof" to link them... Not finding proof or evidence isn't evidence of no evidence or proof.

Simple stuff really.

So 24 hours later they are still at the same position?
And there was me thinking there were new facts.

Stavros Murphy · 13-02-2014 12:57AM

tayto lover wrote: »

So what does it prove apart from a bugging claim?
Why did the OM say the garda were not involved?
Why did the same OM say that he suspected one of seven staff?
Where is the proven link to the Govt, or garda?

Jaysus lads give us a few facts.

Why do you care? You'd call night day to argue the side of the state and nothing convinces you to question what is in front of your nose. What's your view? Instead of naysaying, give an opinion. Ye lot are all the same. Rubbishers, regardless of what is put in front of you.

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 01:01AM

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Why do you care? You'd call night day to argue the side of the state and nothing convinces you to question what is in front of your nose. What's your view? Instead of naysaying, give an opinion. Ye lot are all the same. Rubbishers, regardless of what is put in front of you.

I like facts. Simple. Proof.
One time I blamed a neighbour's dog for killing my chickens until I discovered it was a fox.
Good job I didn't shoot the dog.

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 01:02AM

tayto lover wrote: »

So 24 hours later they are still at the same position?
And there was me thinking there were new facts.

No

Not even close.

Today the GSOC confirmed the details of the report.

They didn't agree with it all, but they also said they weren't the experts.

The ONLY reason why we aren't talking about a definitive allegation of snooping (instead of a "close to zero" percent chance of it being anything but) is because ONE person wanted to see two bits of basically 100% truth. He got one.

You can pretend the head of GSOC, who claims he's no expert on security, is right to dismiss the report.

Or not.

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 01:06AM

tayto lover wrote: »

I like facts. Simple. Proof.
One time I blamed a neighbour's dog for killing my chickens until I discovered it was a fox.
Good job I didn't shoot the dog.

If you want to know the truth, pay attention. Almost all of it is in front of you.

GSOC hired a security firm.

That firm reached conclusions.

They scared GSOC immensely.

The firm also said GSOC was being spied on with state level technology.

One guy in GSOC decided that was a bit of a stretch. This guy claims he's no expert in these matters and took the rest of the report at face value.

That's the only difference between what GSOC has said and what's in the ST.

Believe the guy who's not an expert or believe the experts who the guy who's no expert deferred to repeatedly, except about the degree of certainty of one point in the entire report.

tayto lover · 13-02-2014 01:11AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No

Not even close.

Today the GSOC confirmed the details of the report.

They didn't agree with it all, but they also said they weren't the experts.

The ONLY reason why we aren't talking about a definitive allegation of snooping (instead of a "close to zero" percent chance of it being anything but) is because ONE person wanted to see two bits of basically 100% truth. He got one.

You can pretend the head of GSOC, who claims he's no expert on security, is right to dismiss the report.

Or not.

I think i'll wait for the proof.
Now off to bed and hope there's a juicy fact tomorrow.
Nothing new today.

tony007 · 13-02-2014 01:49AM

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/10/black-ops-being-run-off-the-books/

MilanPan!c · 13-02-2014 02:01AM

Well worth listening to the 12 Feb Late Debate:

www.rte.ie/radio1/the-late-debate/

Will put to rest much of the poo-poo-ing of the situation.

strongback · 13-02-2014 02:16AM

I suppose this has turned into a political football. The fallout if it proves to be true well..........

DistanceVector · 13-02-2014 02:26AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Well worth listening to the 12 Feb Late Debate:

www.rte.ie/radio1/the-late-debate/

Will put to rest much of the poo-poo-ing of the situation.

Ive knicked this post from Politics.ie, from poster called lies (how apt)

Sums up the Govt Position:

Great debate.

Really exposed the cognitive dissonance of the FG position:

"There's NO evidence of anything untoward, AND the GSOC should have reported to the MOJ this nothing due to it's extraordinary nature."

Errrrr...

Stavros Murphy · 13-02-2014 08:02AM

tayto lover wrote: »

I like facts. Simple. Proof.
One time I blamed a neighbour's dog for killing my chickens until I discovered it was a fox.
Good job I didn't shoot the dog.

I like facts also. But I love questions. Questions are what keeps any society straight. If no-one questions, then anything goes. I don't know what happened here, or even what is now happening - I'll wait and see same as everyone. I'm stating what I am reading and hearing, with an open mind.

I do have some questions though - mainly, considering our libel laws, and the punitive fines issued by our Courts to those found to have published incorrect information - would Mooneys editor allow him the free rein to just state nonsense? Surely that would be financial suicide? So he must have some factual basis for his utterances?

Why too would a respected UK Security firm say there were issues if there were none? Why would a member of the Government do anything other than fully support their own Ombudsman? Would they even consider undermining the authority of that Ombudsman - an Ombudsman that they empower? If as it appears, they have issues with the Ombudsman, or lack confidence in them, why not simply have the Oversight Committee ask the question? That is why they have an oversight committee in the first place.

Lastly, if there were even a suggestion of inappropriate relationships between members of An Garda, or politicians and criminals - founded or utterly unfounded - should those questions not be asked to the full rigours of the Ombudsman's powers with no interference from anyone tolerated? Why else have an Ombudsman? And if there was even a hint of interference or influence being brought to bear, should the motive, source and tone of those influences not also be queried openly, rigorously and with no favour given? Is that not the basis of a functioning democracy? If it is then found conclusively that there were in fact no relationships, no favours given, then that's a win for the system of Government.

And from reading the thread over in Politics, it appears that the Oversight Committee is asking the hard questions. Which is good. They are in a strong position to get actual definitive answers - answers which will no doubt be both interesting, and which could lead to more questions.

Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

Comments