Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Minister Shatter and Commissioner Callinan should both resign in disgrace

Options
1…4142444647…91

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    Godge wrote: »
    I will ask you one more time - withdraw and apologise.

    Get over yourself.
    Anytime anyone on this thread suggested Shatter and Callinan apologise to the WB's you had a different opinion on it.


  • Options
    #1293
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,466 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Godge wrote: »
    I will ask you one more time - withdraw and apologise.

    I don't want to get into a side argument with you, I have told you how your post on the issue came across to me.
    Godge wrote: »
    Interesting, if it was ok for the whistleblowers to illegally release information (as suggested by the Data Protection Commissioner) for the good they did, it must then have been ok for the gardai to use illegally obtained information to convict criminals for the good that did. The end justifies the means or does it?

    To me that came across as trying to minimize the extent of the latest revelations. I would be surprised if I was the only person who got that impression. If I was wrong I withdraw the comment - in fact I will go even further and apologize.

    Note that I asked a question in my post, and I am glad that you have answered me by reiterating that it is not OK to record client / solicitor phone conversations.


  • Options
    #1294
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users Posts: 85,508 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Shatter should follow Callinan and resign
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • Options
    #1295
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    fr3d12 wrote: »
    Get over yourself.
    Anytime anyone on this thread suggested Shatter and Callinan apologise to the WB's you had a different opinion on it.

    Yes, because the whistleblowers broke the law. They gave personal information to the TDs which was unnecessary and in some cases inaccurate. There was no need to give the personal information, it was enough to report what had happened without giving names. It seems nobody around here has a clue about data protection issues. Any exemption to the Data Protection Act, including ones in the Garda Act, are governed by the European Directives which means the release of the personal information must be directly necessary for the purpose it is being released. It was not in this case. I can't be bothered digging out all of the Directives but it is not ok to just go around releasing personal information.

    The whistleblowers were right to blow the whistle, wrong to release personal information.


  • Options
    #1296
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    I don't want to get into a side argument with you, I have told you how your post on the issue came across to me.



    To me that came across as trying to minimize the extent of the latest revelations. I would be surprised if I was the only person who got that impression. If I was wrong I withdraw the comment - in fact I will go even further and apologize.

    Note that I asked a question in my post, and I am glad that you have answered me by reiterating that it is not OK to record client / solicitor phone conversations.


    You are shifting the goalposts like a FF Minister in full flow. This is what you said.
    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    Is Godge seriously trying to say that it is OK for certain elements of the Gardai to conduct illegal surveillance of client-legal representative phone conversations (which are meant to be confidential)?

    .


    This is the last line of my post which I wrote well before yours. You had no basis to make that statement. I am going to leave it there.
    Godge wrote: »
    . However, there is no excuse for ever recording a conversation between a solicitor and the accused.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    Godge wrote: »
    Yes, because the whistleblowers broke the law. They gave personal information to the TDs which was unnecessary and in some cases inaccurate. There was no need to give the personal information, it was enough to report what had happened without giving names. It seems nobody around here has a clue about data protection issues. Any exemption to the Data Protection Act, including ones in the Garda Act, are governed by the European Directives which means the release of the personal information must be directly necessary for the purpose it is being released. It was not in this case. I can't be bothered digging out all of the Directives but it is not ok to just go around releasing personal information.

    The whistleblowers were right to blow the whistle, wrong to release personal information.

    What about the young lady who's information was accessed over 80 times on the PULSE system by Gardai?
    What about Shatter smearing Mick Wallace on primetime with highly sensitive information?


  • Options
    #1298
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    Do you have evidence to suggest that the issue of illegal recording was brought to the attention of the Department of Justice prior to last summer? If so, I suggest you bring it forward as many many people would be interested in seeing it.


    https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=55651&B=&PS=2&PP=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders


    It was staring them in the face in 2008.


  • Options
    #1299
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 14,911 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0020/sec0062.html#sec62



    You need to read Section 62 of the Act very carefully. Firstly, section 1 prohibits the release of information that

    "(h) results in the publication of personal information and constitutes an unwarranted and serious infringement of a person’s right to privacy,"

    An exception to this is the following:

    " a member of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas where relevant to the proper discharge of the member’s functions,"


    I have no problem with the whistleblowers releasing information to the Dail member that a judge or a sportsman (without naming them) has had penalty points waived in breach of guidelines. Where I have a problem is with the release of the actual name. The actual name is not relevant to the proper discharge of the member's functions.

    An important distinction and an important bit of how the whistleblowers broke the law. All of those people named can sue the State now, especially if they were mistakenly identified, as we appear to know from one case.

    I don`t know if Specsavers have an answer to it, but your vision cannot distinguish the wood from the tree.
    The whistleblowers were proven right, and in all probability their bravery in coming forward and doing what they did, will save future lives.
    For me, and I suspect a large number of the general public, this fact is of a greater deal of importance than some pie in the sky waffle about data protection.
    So just for a minute could you leave that tree alone and have a think about the woods where we have had these two brave men demonised by Callinan who hadn`t even the decency to apologise, Shatter who only now does it to try and save his own neck, and Kenny who backed them both to the hilt when the dogs in the street knew it was wrong. And lets not forget O Mahoney`s whitewash report. Another attempt at blackening their names, plus the abuse they both suffer from their so called brothers in arms, who, unless they are entirely unfit for purpose in their jobs, knew they were right, yet ostracised them.
    Surely if anyone should be suing this state it`s Wilson and Mc Cabe.


  • Options
    #1300
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0020/sec0062.html#sec62



    You need to read Section 62 of the Act very carefully. Firstly, section 1 prohibits the release of information that

    "(h) results in the publication of personal information and constitutes an unwarranted and serious infringement of a person’s right to privacy,"

    An exception to this is the following:

    " a member of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas where relevant to the proper discharge of the member’s functions,"


    I have no problem with the whistleblowers releasing information to the Dail member that a judge or a sportsman (without naming them) has had penalty points waived in breach of guidelines. Where I have a problem is with the release of the actual name. The actual name is not relevant to the proper discharge of the member's functions.

    An important distinction and an important bit of how the whistleblowers broke the law. All of those people named can sue the State now, especially if they were mistakenly identified, as we appear to know from one case.

    It would be useful to hear an explanation from
    those people who sought to pervert the points system with preferential treatment because of their status, whether that be judge, celebrity, or indeed anyone with the necessary Garda contacts at their disposal.

    The published guidelines for those who believe they have had points applied in error is here:

    http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=35

    Worth a read.
    Spurious excuses are not catered for, in theory.


  • Options
    #1301
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Going Forward wrote: »
    It would be useful to hear an explanation from
    those people who sought to pervert the points system with preferential treatment because of their status, whether that be judge, celebrity, or indeed anyone with the necessary Garda contacts at their disposal.

    The published guidelines for those who believe they have had points applied in error is here:

    http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=35

    Worth a read.
    Spurious excuses are not catered for, in theory.


    That is a list of frequently asked questions.

    That doesn't cover every genuine situation.

    e.g. I was driving to the hospital, my wife was having a baby but I was only slightly over the speed limit (birth cert as proof)

    I could go on but there are no doubt other genuine reasons not covered by the FAQ that will be excused.

    Some of the people who had points waived didn't even know and their names were handed out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,466 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Godge wrote: »
    https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=55651&B=&PS=2&PP=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders


    It was staring them in the face in 2008.

    No where in that tender does it mention recording conversations that should not have been recorded. There was an assumption that the recording was being used to record 999 calls and the likes as would be standard. Recording other calls is a different matter entirely, and that is where the problem lies seemingly.

    We know that the system was originally setup to help record bomb threats and the likes, which is acceptable. However it now seems that all calls were being recorded, including internal ones, and that these were being improperly accessed.


  • Options
    #1303
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Godge wrote: »
    That is a list of frequently asked questions.

    That doesn't cover every genuine situation.

    e.g. I was driving to the hospital, my wife was having a baby but I was only slightly over the speed limit (birth cert as proof)

    I could go on but there are no doubt other genuine reasons not covered by the FAQ that will be excused.

    By your own standards they have still broken the law and should face the consequences, like the whistle blowers?


  • Options
    #1304
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    i think its fairly obvious that Godge was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people, who feel its quite ok for the whistleblowers to access any amount of private data and put it out there, but then blow their tops over phone calls to stations being recorded without their knowledge.


    so Shatter 'apologised', well i suppose that means he is going no-where.
    arrogant doesnt even begin to describe that man.


  • Options
    #1305
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    Godge wrote: »
    Reading that it is clear that McCabe was told to deal with O'Mahony.

    "If you have any further concerns and without prejudice of your rights under the Confidential Reporting Mechanism such matters can be brought to the attention of Assistant Commissioner John O Mahony, Crime and Security, who will fully investigate those matters"

    Maybe I am stupid but that reads to me like a directive to co-operate with O'Mahony's investigation. I don't think McCabe's word stands up on this point

    Are you going to apologise and withdraw that comment (not the "maybe I am stupid" part), and all the other posts where you have been proven to be clearly wrong? Shatter has apologised and withdrawn his statement where he claimed that the whistleblowers didn't cooperate with the investigation, so the above instruction obviously wasn't a directive to cooperate with the investigation.


  • Options
    #1306
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Going Forward wrote: »
    By your own standards they have still broken the law and should face the consequences, like the whistle blowers?

    Good point, but that is an ordinary person in my example, not a Garda charged with upholding the law.


  • Options
    #1307
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    Are you going to apologise and withdraw that comment (not the "maybe I am stupid" part), and all the other posts where you have been proven to be clearly wrong? Shatter has apologised and withdrawn his statement where he claimed that the whistleblowers didn't cooperate with the investigation, so the above instruction obviously wasn't a directive to cooperate with the investigation.

    ah he only apologised to keep his job!
    we all know he didnt mean a bit of it!


  • Options
    #1308
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    bubblypop wrote: »
    i think its fairly obvious that Godge was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people, who feel its quite ok for the whistleblowers to access any amount of private data and put it out there, but then blow their tops over phone calls to stations being recorded without their knowledge.


    so Shatter 'apologised', well i suppose that means he is going no-where.
    arrogant doesnt even begin to describe that man.

    I think there's a big difference between a WB passing on the name of a celebrity or whoever had points illegally cancelled to a TD and the taping of conversations in Garda stations that could have serious consequences for this state.
    Shatter won't go anywhere, that was obvious from the start, only labour could oust him now and they won't for numerous reasons.


  • Options
    #1309
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Godge wrote: »
    Good point, but that is an ordinary person in my example, not a Garda charged with upholding the law.

    Sorry, that doesn't wash.

    The same could be said for the Guards who wiped the points.


  • Options
    #1310
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    bajer101 wrote: »
    Are you going to apologise and withdraw that comment (not the "maybe I am stupid" part), and all the other posts where you have been proven to be clearly wrong? Shatter has apologised and withdrawn his statement where he claimed that the whistleblowers didn't cooperate with the investigation, so the above instruction obviously wasn't a directive to cooperate with the investigation.


    (1) I haven't read Shatter's statement and I will but he probably made it to save his skin
    (2) Maybe I am stupid but it still reads to me at the very least like an invitation to go to O'Mahony, which was ignored.


  • Options
    #1311
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    Godge wrote: »
    (1) I haven't read Shatter's statement and I will but he probably made it to save his skin
    (2) Maybe I am stupid but it still reads to me at the very least like an invitation to go to O'Mahony, which was ignored.

    So now you are saying that Shatter was telling the truth when he made the statement last October and is lying now to save his own skin?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    fr3d12 wrote: »
    So now you are saying that Shatter was telling the truth when he made the statement last October and is lying now to save his own skin?

    i think its fairly obvious that he is only saying what he has to in order to keep his job.
    it was hardly a sincere apology


  • Options
    #1313
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    bubblypop wrote: »
    i think its fairly obvious that he is only saying what he has to in order to keep his job.
    it was hardly a sincere apology

    As a member of AGS are you allowed make those assumptions without proof:D
    I do agree with you though.


  • Options
    #1314
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    Shatter's apology to the Whistleblowers.



  • Options
    #1315
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    LOL!!:D


  • Options
    #1316
    fr3d12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭fr3d12


    bajer101 wrote: »
    Shatter's apology to the Whistleblowers.


    Yup that's it exactly


  • Options
    #1317
    raymon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭raymon


    What I would like to know is did Dermot Ahern sanction the purchasing of the digital recording equipment ??


  • Options
    #1318
    renegademaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    May 2001: Shatter DEMANDS action on recorded phone conversations between solicitors & clients in Donegal Garda station (via www.twitter.com/Effanning )


  • Options
    #1319
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    renegademaster wrote: »
    May 2001: Shatter DEMANDS action on recorded phone conversations between solicitors & clients in Donegal Garda station (via www.twitter.com/Effanning )


    ooh, this is getting better!!


  • Options
    #1320
    renegademaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    bubblypop wrote: »
    ooh, this is getting better!!

    i found it gas how he was so specific during his take the piss speech this mornin regarding the times he recieved his post "informing" him of the garda calls monitoring

    PMSLWROFL!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1321
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Shatter is an outright liar.
    This is what a school-going child just learning their moral code will be told is the minister for justice.
    Good Jaysus........


Advertisement