Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

tomwaterford · 21-02-2014 09:43PM

charlie14 wrote: »

So, tomwaterford, is your theory that GSOC were bugging the Insomnia cafe and forgot to tell Verrimus ?

no my theory is someone was bugging the GSOC offices with some serious electronic technology
phone, Wi-Fi and setting up fake 3G network
and attempts to play this down/sweep under the carpet are a pure disgrace!!!

all that remains to be seen is :
1 who has most to gain from bugging GSOC??(most likely culprit IMO ive heard nothing to change my view on this...every attempt to make this disappear has been messy...they will have to be an enquiry...to blame cost,and all the billions have been thrown at banks:eek:)

and 2 how much of a mess the government can make of its handling of this

to suggest GSOC were bugging Insomnia-well I've heard it all now!!!:pac::pac::pac:

Dyr · 21-02-2014 09:51PM

Caledonia wrote: »

The thing is Verrimus were told that the office had been bugged before they did their sweep.
Harrickpatrick you are one person, what kind of ability did GSOCs IT guy have? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if GSOC seniors had brought that laptop into Insomnia themselves and connected to bitbuzz. They said they had been using Capel St coffee houses to avoid being tapped..

And so I have to ask again horse:

what laptop?

charlie14 · 21-02-2014 09:58PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

no my theory is someone was bugging the GSOC offices with some serious electronic technology
phone, Wi-Fi and setting up fake 3G network
and attempts to play this down/sweep under the carpet are a pure disgrace!!!

all that remains to be seen is :
1 who has most to gain from bugging GSOC??(most likely culprit IMO ive heard nothing to change my view on this...every attempt to make this disappear has been messy...they will have to be an enquiry...to blame cost,and all the billions have been thrown at banks:eek:)

and 2 how much of a mess the government can make of its handling of this

to suggest GSOC were bugging Insomnia-well I've heard it all now!!!:pac::pac::pac:

:) Sorry, took you up wrong, and agree unreservedly with everything you`ve said here.

WilyCoyote · 21-02-2014 10:34PM

charlie14, before you were charlie14, do you remember who you were?

Banjo String · 21-02-2014 10:40PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What appeared either side of that quote is also interesting. If somewhat longwinded.

Yep, I agree.

It does list Verrimus' previous clients and various projects.

However, Verrimus is a credible counter-surveillance operator, and was sub-contracted to work for the British government in the security operation prior to the London Olympics

It has done work for the British government and law enforcement agencies, but contrary to some reports, it is not made up of former MI5, MI6 or security service personnel.

Rather it draws on military expertise, including former members of the UK special forces.

Some statements from the Irish establishment have clearly questioned, if not tried to discredit, the findings of the company.

.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Such technical companies survive or founder by reputation; they do not advertise their services in mail-shots. It would be curious for an established specialist company based outside Ireland to go out on a limb and claim that a surveillance operation existed, where in fact it did not.

It would have been clear to Verrimus that any discovery of spying would cause a political furore, and that its credibility would be challenged. To get it wrong would be commercially crippling.

Furthermore, it does not appear that Verrimus has made any suggestion with regard to who might have been behind such surveillance, or indeed whether GSOC was the actual target.

The media has, understandably, assumed that most people will think that some element within the Irish police force is the obvious candidate. The Gardai is, after all, the organisation the ombudsman exists to scrutinise.

So the BBC is saying that Verrimus do not know who carried out the surveillance or who was the target. The target may have been something other than GSOC. Is that fair to say from what I have bolded?

Why do we have to have such convoluted language in the media? That sentence should read "Verrimus do not know who carried out the surveillance or who the target was"

The next paragraph should read. "Most people think the surveillance was carried out by the Gardai", not that Media has understanably assumed nonsense.

I don't know if you're trolling or just choosing to go down with the ship.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Verrimus do not know who carried out the surveillance or who the target was

It is widely accepted (even within Govt circles) that GSOC was the intended target. The sweep discovered 3 anomalies that couldn't be explained. The phone line (yeah, the one in GSOC) Rang back when the electronic signal was sent down the line.

As stated in the report, one of these anomalies would be odd, but three together leaves a surveillance operation as an almost certainty.

I do not know who placed the bugs on the ombudsman either, but my haunch would be on the organisation they were investigating. (AGS)

Sadly, due to technological advances, the equipment and method used in this operation means it left little evidence, and it would be nigh on impossible to prove anything (bar someone blows a whistle), but if Irish politics have taught us anything, the truth will come out eventually. It always does.

Either way, I have my doubt this Govt will still be intact come summertime.

Oh and btw.

Here's the letter to Maurice McCabe.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/21/the-letter-to-maurice-mccabe/

K-9 · 21-02-2014 11:04PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What appeared either side of that quote is also interesting. If somewhat longwinded.

Such technical companies survive or founder by reputation; they do not advertise their services in mail-shots. It would be curious for an established specialist company based outside Ireland to go out on a limb and claim that a surveillance operation existed, where in fact it did not.

It would have been clear to Verrimus that any discovery of spying would cause a political furore, and that its credibility would be challenged. To get it wrong would be commercially crippling.

Furthermore, it does not appear that Verrimus has made any suggestion with regard to who might have been behind such surveillance, or indeed whether GSOC was the actual target.

The media has, understandably, assumed that most people will think that some element within the Irish police force is the obvious candidate. The Gardai is, after all, the organisation the ombudsman exists to scrutinise.

So the BBC is saying that Verrimus do not know who carried out the surveillance or who was the target. The target may have been something other than GSOC. Is that fair to say from what I have bolded?

Why do we have to have such convoluted language in the media? That sentence should read "Verrimus do not know who carried out the surveillance or who the target was"

The next paragraph should read. "Most people think the surveillance was carried out by the Gardai", not that Media has understanably assumed nonsense.

I woluld have thought the part you bolded was pretty obvious at this stage. AFAIK Verimus were charged with doing the security sweep and nothing else. Unless something came up specifically identifying somebody spying, a rather unlikely event, all they are charged with is finding out if somebody is actually spying on them.

Maybe it wasn't GSOC and the target was the coffee shop, all they can do is carry out the work for GSOC, maybe the call to GSOC at 1.00 AM was somebody ordering coffee and dialed a wrong number that just happened to be GSOC offices!

dxhound2005 · 21-02-2014 11:13PM

Banjo String wrote: »

Yep, I agree.

It does list Verrimus' previous clients and various projects.

I don't know if you're trolling or just choosing to go down with the ship.

It is widely accepted (even within Govt circles) that GSOC was the intended target. The sweep discovered 3 anomalies that couldn't be explained. The phone line (yeah, the one in GSOC) Rang back when the electronic signal was sent down the line.

As stated in the report, one of these anomalies would be odd, but three together leaves a surveillance operation as an almost certainty.

I do not know who placed the bugs on the ombudsman either, but my haunch would be on the organisation they were investigating. (AGS)

Sadly, due to technological advances, the equipment and method used in this operation means it left little evidence, and it would be nigh on impossible to prove anything (bar someone blows a whistle), but if Irish politics have taught us anything, the truth will come out eventually. It always does.

Either way, I have my doubt this Govt will still be intact come summertime.

Oh and btw.

Here's the letter to Maurice McCabe.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/21/the-letter-to-maurice-mccabe/

How do you know what was in the report? It was produced by a UK company for O'Brien in GSOC. O'Brien did not tell the Gardai or the Government that he had had an investigation done. He did not tell them either of the existence of the report.

So how do you know what was in the report. Because someone without authorisation from O'Brien gave it or sold it to a journalist. And you and all the other self appointed experts here are able to say what happened. I haven't a clue what happened or if anything happened. Even if I chose to believe anything in the papers a lot of it is about things the journalists don't understand any more than I do.

So if you think the truth always comes out, who do you think will be identified as the party or parties who gave or sold the report to the press?

I don't care if the government falls. But other people on AH who said it would be gone by last April, then July, then September have been proved wrong.

Banjo String · 21-02-2014 11:23PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How do you know what was in the report? It was produced by a UK company for O'Brien in GSOC. O'Brien did not tell the Gardai or the Government that he had had an investigation done. He did not tell them either of the existence of the report.

So how do you know what was in the report. Because someone without authorisation from O'Brien gave it or sold it to a journalist. And you and all the other self appointed experts here are able to say what happened. I haven't a clue what happened or if anything happened. Even if I chose to believe anything in the papers a lot of it is about things the journalists don't understand any more than I do.

So if you think the truth always comes out, who do you think will be identified as the party or parties who gave or sold the report to the press?

I don't care if the government falls. But other people on AH who said it would be gone by last April, then July, then September have been proved wrong.

1, I never said I seen the report. I'm confused as how you arrived at this conclusion.
2, who leaked/sold the report is not the issue here, the issue is what was contained within those leaks.
3, I myself have speculated that this Govt would fall, numerous times at various dates. I may have been premature.
It looks like it won't go full term though.

K-9 · 21-02-2014 11:26PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

So how do you know what was in the report. Because someone without authorisation from O'Brien gave it or sold it to a journalist.

It's called whistle blowing, you know, the whole thing that this is all about!

charlie14 · 21-02-2014 11:28PM

WilyCoyote wrote: »

charlie14, before you were charlie14, do you remember who you were?

???????????????

dxhound2005 · 21-02-2014 11:35PM

K-9 wrote: »

It's called whistle blowing, you know, the whole thing that this is all about!

I would prefer to let a court decide what it is. Newspapers are not above the law.

charlie14 · 21-02-2014 11:38PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How do you know what was in the report? It was produced by a UK company for O'Brien in GSOC. O'Brien did not tell the Gardai or the Government that he had had an investigation done. He did not tell them either of the existence of the report.

So how do you know what was in the report. Because someone without authorisation from O'Brien gave it or sold it to a journalist. And you and all the other self appointed experts here are able to say what happened. I haven't a clue what happened or if anything happened. Even if I chose to believe anything in the papers a lot of it is about things the journalists don't understand any more than I do.

So if you think the truth always comes out, who do you think will be identified as the party or parties who gave or sold the report to the press?

I don't care if the government falls. But other people on AH who said it would be gone by last April, then July, then September have been proved wrong.

Sure won`t Shatters "review" give us all the answers, so no need for us to worry about any of that.
Or am i confusing that with the "peer" report by Rits that he told us already that shows there was nothing going on ?.
As for this government not falling. Simple enough.
A bunch of rats without any shame that will stick together through whatever happens.

K-9 · 21-02-2014 11:44PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I would prefer to let a court decide what it is. Newspapers are not above the law.

Ah right, hope you never watch All the Presidents Men. You'd be casting pointless aspersions at Deep Throat and wishing Woodward and Bernstein just pass everything to the courts. Tough guy to please you are.

charlie14 · 21-02-2014 11:49PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I would prefer to let a court decide what it is. Newspapers are not above the law.

So do you think Shatter will go after Paul Williams?. Looks as if he had a lot of info from the Rits "peer" review.

dxhound2005 · 21-02-2014 11:50PM

K-9 wrote: »

Ah right, hope you never watch All the Presidents Men. You'd be casting pointless aspersions at Deep Throat and wishing Woodward and Bernstein just pass everything to the courts. Tough guy to please you are.

And you trust Rupert Murdoch's organisation for the truth in the news.

Busted Flat. · 21-02-2014 11:54PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And you trust Rupert Murdoch's organisation for the truth in the news.

Rupert's outfit might have started it, but the **** hit the fan with the result. The can has been opened and all the school teachers will not be able to get the lid back on.

charlie14 · 21-02-2014 11:58PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And you trust Rupert Murdoch's organisation for the truth in the news.

IMO, if anybody is using newspapers to spin their story it`s AGS and the government. Paul William`s Rits "peer" report a case in point.

K-9 · 22-02-2014 12:01AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And you trust Rupert Murdoch's organisation for the truth in the news.

Wouldn't trust the Mail much either.

I don't think the Times was implicated much in the Levinson inquiry. Do you have anything to back up what seems to be an effort to class the Sunday Times as a disreputable publication? I can think of the Hitler diaries but not much else!

My suspicion is, that if this happened under FF's watch, we'd be getting a very different slant on your posts!

strongback · 22-02-2014 12:08AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And you trust Rupert Murdoch's organisation for the truth in the news.

I get all me news from The Argos hey. I read it wearing me slip on shoes with no socks and favourite blue shirt.

What do ya think of that Avic?

mikom · 22-02-2014 12:30AM

I see the BBC are reporting big time on the story now.......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26279237

WilyCoyote · 22-02-2014 02:36AM

IRISH EXAMINER
Friday, February 21, 2014

If the Government, Justice Minister Alan Shatter, Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan had responded to the story about GSOC bugging, then the ripple effect spreading right across our justice and policing systems, and our Government, might have been avoided.

In many ways, it is as well that the hornets’ nest has been kicked over and that the scene is set for a cathartic review of how our police force interacts with their political masters, and — most importantly — how the political culture that still thinks accountability is a fuzzy irrelevance only to be discussed at election time.

Despite all of the high dudgeon, sometimes contemptuous dismissals from Government figures this story will run and run — probably up to the next election. What an achievement it would be to make politicians already discredited seem a viable option, yet that now looks a very real prospect.

Banjo String · 22-02-2014 08:57AM

This will bring more unwanted attention to the Govt.

The husband of murdered mum-of-two Sylvia Roche Kelly is suing the Garda Commissioner, the Minister for Justice and the State for at least €4m.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/husband-of-murdered-woman-sues-garda-and-minister-for-4m-30032018.html

Hootanany · 22-02-2014 10:41AM

I hope he wins.

Santa Cruz · 22-02-2014 11:14AM

Hootanany wrote: »

I hope he wins.

If the State is at fault yes. If not No. Lets hear the case before jumping to conclusions or is that too complicated for you

Banjo String · 22-02-2014 11:21AM

Santa Cruz wrote: »

If the State is at fault yes. If not No. Lets hear the case before jumping to conclusions or is that too complicated for you

What conclusions are you hoping for?

Its kind of hard to justify why this man wasn't in jail or in custody following the attempted abduction of the 5 year old.

In saying that, I think the judge who granted bail should also be held accountable.

steddyeddy · 22-02-2014 11:28AM

Here's what I hope happens. I want those lying scumbags who dealt with this case out now. The same happened with victims of abuse in this country and I personal know some are taking similar cases against the gaurds. Callihan needs to be grabbed by the scruff and pulled out too. He has no respect for democracy or the people of this country.

Hootanany · 22-02-2014 12:13PM

Santa Cruz wrote: »

If the State is at fault yes. If not No. Lets hear the case before jumping to conclusions or is that too complicated for you

Rolls eyes

aloyisious · 22-02-2014 03:10PM

It seem's part of the file handed to Enda and Alan refer's to a failure to properly investigate a crime, along with a deliberate act by a Garda to pervert the course of justice. If credibility is all that this is about, then Alan Shatter has failed the test. IMO, his response to criminal acts being reported to him is a complete failure to uphold the office of Minister of Justice. He has allowed things slide from his grasp and allowed usurpation of the office by his underling.

hatrickpatrick · 22-02-2014 03:46PM

Is there any particular reason that John Mooney is able to be more open on Vincent Browne than he is in the Sunday Times? In the Sunday Times, he said they couldn't name the person who allegedly had info on GSOC that prompted the surveillance fears, for legal reasons, while on Vinne B he very bluntly implicated Callinan when asked who it was.

Different standards for print and TV, or is it that while the newspaper redacted it to protect themselves from liability, Mooney doesn't care if he personally gets sued?

Banjo String · 22-02-2014 03:52PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is there any particular reason that John Mooney is able to be more open on Vincent Browne than he is in the Sunday Times? In the Sunday Times, he said they couldn't name the person who allegedly had info on GSOC that prompted the surveillance fears, for legal reasons, while on Vinne B he very bluntly implicated Callinan when asked who it was.

Different standards for print and TV, or is it that while the newspaper redacted it to protect themselves from liability, Mooney doesn't care if he personally gets sued?

At a guess, the editor would presumably have to ok what gets printed in the paper, so technically they could be held liable. (and sued)

Where as tv3 cannot control what comes out of an individual's mouth, and therefore the person on the shows views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the stations.

(purely a guess)

Rumours that a new whistleblower is coming forward next week.

No let up for the Govt. They're on shaky ground I tells ya.

Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

Comments