Inquiry set up into taping of phone calls from Garda stations

seamus · 27-03-2014 03:28PM

donegal__road wrote: »

this entire phone bugging story serves one purpose, and one purpose only... it takes the Anglo court case out of the spotlight and off the front page of the newspapers.

That may not actually be a bad thing. Those cases will involve some of the most wily legal professionals in the land, who will scour the newspaper coverage for any inkling of something which could cause the case to collapse. The cases would be best served not being reported on at all until they're concluded.

I mentioned a few pages back though that I think the only purpose this story serves is to sell papers. It's not a new "revelation", and in the grand scheme of things it's quite an inconsequential matter. It wasn't important enough to report on when it happened, but it's important now because the newspapers smell Shatter's blood in the water and are dredging up what they can from their filing cabinets to throw at him.
So the editors know that if they can keep up the heat on this story, they can keep using it to sell papers.

The relationship between journalists and the DoJ / Garda upper management is also very frosty. For the longest time, journalists have come under pretty constant pressure and dodgy forms of searches and interviews and arrests, so there's no love lost on either side. I imagine most journalists had a little chuckle to themselves when they heard of Callinan's resignation and would love nothing more than to strike another blow by ousting the MoJ.

donegal__road · 27-03-2014 03:33PM

seamus wrote: »

That may not actually be a bad thing. Those cases will involve some of the most wily legal professionals in the land, who will scour the newspaper coverage for any inkling of something which could cause the case to collapse. The cases would be best served not being reported on at all until they're concluded.

I mentioned a few pages back though that I think the only purpose this story serves is to sell papers. It's not a new "revelation", and in the grand scheme of things it's quite an inconsequential matter. It wasn't important enough to report on when it happened, but it's important now because the newspapers smell Shatter's blood in the water and are dredging up what they can from their filing cabinets to throw at him.
So the editors know that if they can keep up the heat on this story, they can keep using it to sell papers.

The relationship between journalists and the DoJ / Garda upper management is also very frosty. For the longest time, journalists have come under pretty constant pressure and dodgy forms of searches and interviews and arrests, so there's no love lost on either side. I imagine most journalists had a little chuckle to themselves when they heard of Callinan's resignation and would love nothing more than to strike another blow by ousting the MoJ.

could it also be said that one of the reasons we don't see it plastered across the front page of the Indo is because of who owns Independent Media? (and that person's association with said bank)

@dxhound2005....The Anglo case is also in today's Indo, but as a sub heading. Sean Fitz claims that he wasn't really in charge of Anglo when he was chairman... that it was actually Drumm called the shots re the major decisions.

But not one word of this in the politics forums on boards, or on Politics.ie, or in AH for that matter.
All the papers seem to be concerned with are politicians withdrawing remarks, apologies to whistle-blowers, calls for resignation and all other such bolloxology.

It is theatrics, and its all being done to cover over one of the 'so-called' most anticipated court cases this country was to see in a long time.

Santa Cruz · 27-03-2014 03:36PM

seamus wrote: »

That may not actually be a bad thing. Those cases will involve some of the most wily legal professionals in the land, who will scour the newspaper coverage for any inkling of something which could cause the case to collapse. The cases would be best served not being reported on at all until they're concluded.

I mentioned a few pages back though that I think the only purpose this story serves is to sell papers. It's not a new "revelation", and in the grand scheme of things it's quite an inconsequential matter. It wasn't important enough to report on when it happened, but it's important now because the newspapers smell Shatter's blood in the water and are dredging up what they can from their filing cabinets to throw at him.
So the editors know that if they can keep up the heat on this story, they can keep using it to sell papers.

The relationship between journalists and the DoJ / Garda upper management is also very frosty. For the longest time, journalists have come under pretty constant pressure and dodgy forms of searches and interviews and arrests, so there's no love lost on either side. I imagine most journalists had a little chuckle to themselves when they heard of Callinan's resignation and would love nothing more than to strike another blow by ousting the MoJ.

We all can have conspiracy theories. Many people have had the property tax deducted from the bank account this month and you would imagine there would be an uproar. You would be naieve of course to believe that the Government and other agencies don't attempt to manage the news.
That's why we should have an inquisitive media. But what were our media doing when the GSOC reported on taping of calls in Waterford? We have a few good journalists and the rest just follow the pack

hatrickpatrick · 27-03-2014 05:27PM

Sorry to draw us off the main agenda here but did anyone see John Mooney on Vincent Browne last night? He made a very big deal of the Taoiseach's remark about the Attorney General not wanting to discuss this matter on the phone, and made a thinly veiled suggestion that he'd have a revelation along those lines in Sunday's paper.
Bit of hyperbole to sell papers or the beginning of yet another scandal?

donegal__road · 27-03-2014 06:34PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry to draw us off the main agenda here but did anyone see John Mooney on Vincent Browne last night? He made a very big deal of the Taoiseach's remark about the Attorney General not wanting to discuss this matter on the phone, and made a thinly veiled suggestion that he'd have a revelation along those lines in Sunday's paper.
Bit of hyperbole to sell papers or the beginning of yet another scandal?

It would be interesting to know if any members of government own shares in Independent Media.

donegal__road · 27-03-2014 06:35PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

That would seem to me like a lot of trouble to go to. And the case still made the Court page of the Indo as recently as two days ago. I wouldn't want the papers to make front page stories every day for weeks on end of mundane evidence in the case.

Considering that the ramifications of Anglo will affect every man woman and child in this country for the next 20 years, I wouldn't exactly call evidence given at the Anglo case mundane.

I think that the timing of this garda bugging malarkey is remarkable considering S. Fitz was giving evidence at the Anglo hearing today.

You would be forgiven for thinking that someone was anticipating that he would let several cats out of the bag... (which he didn't in the end), and there was a contingency plan by way of garda-whistle-blower-bugging-shocker in place to distract the public.

It is a manufactured story. That Garda commissioner looks like he was close to retirement anyway, no doubt he will be well looked after etc.

sopretty · 27-03-2014 06:55PM

donegal__road wrote: »

Considering that the ramifications of Anglo will affect every man woman and child in this country for the next 20 years, I wouldn't exactly call evidence given at the Anglo case mundane.

I think that the timing of this garda bugging malarkey is remarkable considering S. Fitz was giving evidence at the Anglo hearing today.

You would be forgiven for thinking that someone was anticipating that he would let several cats out of the bag... (which he didn't in the end), and there was a contingency plan by way of garda-whistle-blower-bugging-shocker in place to distract the public.

It is a manufactured story. That Garda commissioner looks like he was close to retirement anyway, no doubt he will be well looked after etc.

I thinkz you might be seeing thingz what might not be there....

Walt Jabsco · 27-03-2014 06:55PM

donegal__road wrote: »

That Garda commissioner looks like he was close to retirement anyway, no doubt he will be well looked after etc.

He was actually past his retirement, they broke their own rules and retained him on a new contract for over a year, until he (ahem) retired.

hatrickpatrick · 27-03-2014 07:02PM

My name is URL wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda%C3%AD-sought-advice-on-disposing-recordings-four-days-before-taoiseach-was-told-of-tapes-1.1739548

That's a blatant lie. Hawkes was on Today FM a few days ago and said that he had advised Gardai to 'delete the information'.

http://player.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/12995/0/billy_hawkes_gardai_unaware_of_recordings

^^ 2 minutes in. He said it.. numerous times!

Utterly useless regulatory body.

So in other words, they tried to destroy potential evidence which could now become extremely relevant to someone's defense? Am I being too cynical or does that sound highly dodgy?

Potential-Monke · 27-03-2014 07:03PM

big_spoon wrote: »

the guards reaction to a phone call - complaint depends on two things

1 . who is doing the complaining

2. who is being complained about

their are people who have had their houses burgled yet the garda response has been anything but prompt

I was once arrested for buying a can of coke , the catch is their was a guy in the same store who accused me of making a violent gesture towards him , he has friends high up in the force so the local badges were " in like Flynn " to investigate this urgent matter :rolleyes:

You're wrong on your perceived reaction to a phone call. There are a lot more than 2 things (in city stations at least).

1: The nature of the call - From trivial to serious
2: The details of the call - People confuse robbery with burglary and theft
3: The urgency of the call - Obviously, the more urgent the quicker a response is needed
4: The available resources - Can't send someone if there is no one to send
5: Other outstanding calls - Different calls take priority
6: Expected upcoming issues - Matches, parades, protests, etc
7: The time the call was received - Severity depending, you're going to be waiting a while for a response at certain times (ie: nightclub closing times)

The operators in the Regional/Divisional communications rooms are trained to get as much detail as possible while also as quickly as possible, the determine the urgency or priority of the call, and then to decide which resources are to be sent to where. If someone rings in a burglary, and the criminal is not still in the house, then that will be put behind a fight in progress, a domestic in progress, a robbery, intruders on, etc. We have limited resources, and before someone harps on about the traffic corp giving out tickets instead of "investigating real crime", there is a need for the traffic corp. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be one. Maybe if everyone stopped breaking traffic laws, we could re-integrate them into the regular/specialised units. Regardless of who decides where speeds checks, or tax/ins/nct checkpoints are, the Garda in the car is following orders and directions from superiors. They're doing the job they're paid to do, and often do help out with urgent incidents.

As for your own incident, and someone elses mentioned a couple of pages back, once a complaint is received we are obliged to investigate. If someone makes an allegation against you, we have to approach you. If you did it and admit it (severity depending), a voluntary caution statement can be taken and there would be no arrest, except for maybe purposes of charge. If someone is pleading innocent, even if they are innocent, we are obliged to arrest and interview in order to get it on tape/DVD, a file is completed by the member, and someone well above my pay grade makes the decision to prosecute or not. Yes, sometimes we know we are investigating nothing, but once the complaint is made we have to investigate it, or face disciplinary action ourselves. On the flip side, career criminals always plead innocence, so just because someone says they're innocent, doesn't mean that they are.

I'm not saying i don't believe you (ye), i'm saying it's one side of the story and i can't make a call on it without all the facts from both sides.

My name is URL · 27-03-2014 07:09PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So in other words, they tried to destroy potential evidence which could now become extremely relevant to someone's defense? Am I being too cynical or does that sound highly dodgy?

To be fair, I don't think that's what it suggests, but it does suggest that they contacted the DPC to seek advice (4 days before the Taoiseach 'found out'), and his advice was to delete the information. This directly contradicts what he (Hawkes) said today in the Irish Times and RTE lunchtime news... ie: that he gave no such advice.

He has caught himself out big-time on this. He says multiple times in the Today FM interview that he gave the 'standard' advice when Gardai contacted him, and that advice was for them to delete the information.

I hope a bit of noise is made about the discrepancies in what he is claiming happened.

big_spoon · 27-03-2014 08:00PM

Potential-Monke wrote: »

You're wrong on your perceived reaction to a phone call. There are a lot more than 2 things (in city stations at least).

1: The nature of the call - From trivial to serious
2: The details of the call - People confuse robbery with burglary and theft
3: The urgency of the call - Obviously, the more urgent the quicker a response is needed
4: The available resources - Can't send someone if there is no one to send
5: Other outstanding calls - Different calls take priority
6: Expected upcoming issues - Matches, parades, protests, etc
7: The time the call was received - Severity depending, you're going to be waiting a while for a response at certain times (ie: nightclub closing times)

The operators in the Regional/Divisional communications rooms are trained to get as much detail as possible while also as quickly as possible, the determine the urgency or priority of the call, and then to decide which resources are to be sent to where. If someone rings in a burglary, and the criminal is not still in the house, then that will be put behind a fight in progress, a domestic in progress, a robbery, intruders on, etc. We have limited resources, and before someone harps on about the traffic corp giving out tickets instead of "investigating real crime", there is a need for the traffic corp. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be one. Maybe if everyone stopped breaking traffic laws, we could re-integrate them into the regular/specialised units. Regardless of who decides where speeds checks, or tax/ins/nct checkpoints are, the Garda in the car is following orders and directions from superiors. They're doing the job they're paid to do, and often do help out with urgent incidents.

As for your own incident, and someone elses mentioned a couple of pages back, once a complaint is received we are obliged to investigate. If someone makes an allegation against you, we have to approach you. If you did it and admit it (severity depending), a voluntary caution statement can be taken and there would be no arrest, except for maybe purposes of charge. If someone is pleading innocent, even if they are innocent, we are obliged to arrest and interview in order to get it on tape/DVD, a file is completed by the member, and someone well above my pay grade makes the decision to prosecute or not. Yes, sometimes we know we are investigating nothing, but once the complaint is made we have to investigate it, or face disciplinary action ourselves. On the flip side, career criminals always plead innocence, so just because someone says they're innocent, doesn't mean that they are.

I'm not saying i don't believe you (ye), i'm saying it's one side of the story and i can't make a call on it without all the facts from both sides.

rubbish !

a guard may use his or her disgression when it comes to choosing whether to arrest someone , were it the norm as you describe , every crank complaint would result in various people being hauled in for the most trivial and bogus of accussations

I was arrested on suspicion of harassment , one of the top criminal lawyers in the country told me it didn't qualify as harassment as harassment involves a series of acts , he described the whole thing as a farce and a joke

I was arrested for making a threatening gesture towards someone ( I didn't make a gesture btw )

Shady Tady · 27-03-2014 08:12PM

big_spoon wrote: »

rubbish !

a guard may use his or her disgression when it comes to choosing whether to arrest someone , were it the norm as you describe , every crank complaint would result in various people being hauled in for the most trivial and bogus of accussations

I was arrested on suspicion of harassment , one of the top criminal lawyers in the country told me it didn't qualify as harassment as harassment involves a series of acts , he described the whole thing as a farce and a joke

I was arrested for making a threatening gesture towards someone ( I didn't make a gesture btw )

I've no doubt you'll go straight to heaven!

Santa Cruz · 27-03-2014 08:16PM

big_spoon wrote: »

rubbish !

a guard may use his or her disgression when it comes to choosing whether to arrest someone , were it the norm as you describe , every crank complaint would result in various people being hauled in for the most trivial and bogus of accussations

I was arrested on suspicion of harassment , one of the top criminal lawyers in the country told me it didn't qualify as harassment as harassment involves a series of acts , he described the whole thing as a farce and a joke

I was arrested for making a threatening gesture towards someone ( I didn't make a gesture btw )

My heart bleeds for you. Keep it for someone who gives a ****e

big_spoon · 27-03-2014 08:31PM

Santa Cruz wrote: »

My heart bleeds for you. Keep it for someone who gives a ****e

ah , you don't love me

a guard doesn't love me

Stavros Murphy · 27-03-2014 08:34PM

big_spoon wrote: »

ah , you don't love me

a guard doesn't love me

I'm not mad about you either.

Just saying like.

big_spoon · 27-03-2014 09:45PM

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

I'm not mad about you either.

Just saying like.

most people don't like me

im used to it

donegal__road · 27-03-2014 09:53PM

and what do you know, the Anglo inquiry story that was on the main page of the Independent online earlier, has mysteriously vanished... but Callinan, Kenny, withdrawal-of-disgusting-remark malarkey is still the leading story.

renegademaster · 27-03-2014 10:24PM

donegal__road wrote: »

and what do you know, the Anglo inquiry story that was on the main page of the Independent online earlier, has mysteriously vanished... but Callinan, Kenny, withdrawal-of-disgusting-remark malarkey is still the leading story.

what was in the story about anglo?

Shady Tady · 27-03-2014 10:28PM

big_spoon wrote: »

most people don't like me

im used to it

I think I could have got to like you but now your gone!

Fred Swanson · 27-03-2014 10:32PM

This post has been deleted.

Potential-Monke · 27-03-2014 11:15PM

big_spoon wrote: »

rubbish !

a guard may use his or her disgression when it comes to choosing whether to arrest someone , were it the norm as you describe , every crank complaint would result in various people being hauled in for the most trivial and bogus of accussations

I was arrested on suspicion of harassment , one of the top criminal lawyers in the country told me it didn't qualify as harassment as harassment involves a series of acts , he described the whole thing as a farce and a joke

I was arrested for making a threatening gesture towards someone ( I didn't make a gesture btw )

We have discretion, yes, but there are certain parts we cannot use that discretion on. Discretion allows us to make a judgement on something we have witnessed, like erratic driving, or drunken behaviour. But when we didn't witness it we have to complete the file and let it be decided by someone who's paid more than us, be it an Inspector or higher, or the DPP. We gather the evidence, we don't make the decision. One persons word against anothers is not our call to make.

If you were arrested for harassment, the custody record would show that. If it wasn't harassment, and a "top criminal lawyer" told you didn't qualify as it, he would have been all over it like a bad rash. There is a paper trail, and that is evidence. I'm having trouble believing you, but again i'm withholding judgement as i don't have all the (impartial) facts.

donegal__road · 27-03-2014 11:55PM

renegademaster wrote: »

what was in the story about anglo?

The Examiner has a condensed version of the story... here is a screen capture in case it too would vanish. In a nutshell he is blaming Drumm for everything.

Hitchens · 28-03-2014 10:08PM

on the rte news just now, a garda rep making out that the gardai are the real victims in this

29-03-2014 03:41AM

Hitchens wrote: »

on the rte news just now, a garda rep making out that the gardai are the real victims in this

Yea, so what's your problem?
Do you think its terrible that citizens of this country were unlawfully recorded without their knowledge, but it doesn't matter that members of the gardai were recorded without their knowledge?

Another person who doesn't think gardai deserve the same rights as other citizens?

MilanPan!c · 29-03-2014 04:27AM

bubblypop wrote: »

Yea, so what's your problem?
Do you think its terrible that citizens of this country were unlawfully recorded without their knowledge, but it doesn't matter that members of the gardai were recorded without their knowledge?

Another person who doesn't think gardai deserve the same rights as other citizens?

Employees being mistreated by their boss is less of an issue than "customer" being mistreated. An employee can always quit, but I don't have an alternative as a citizen.

29-03-2014 10:50AM

So your answer to anyone who feels they are not being treated correctly by their employer is just leave their job?

Im glad Jim Larken didn't agree with you!

Seriously though, you see that's the attitude that goes someway to explaining why some individual gardai get defensive.
People really do treat them as if they are less important then everyone else.

renegademaster · 29-03-2014 11:53AM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Employees being mistreated by their boss is less of an issue than "customer" being mistreated. An employee can always quit, but I don't have an alternative as a citizen.

i'd either become a whistleblower or just quit and get a different job myself.

RollieFingers · 29-03-2014 12:01PM

Hitchens wrote: »

on the rte news just now, a garda rep making out that the gardai are the real victims in this

They're a joke

Red Pepper · 29-03-2014 12:13PM

The 1st step to change/reform is acceptance.

The sooner the Gardaí admit that their force is dysfunctional, the sooner they become the neutral force that fought to get respect and acceptance in the 1920s and 1930s.

Inquiry set up into taping of phone calls from Garda stations

Comments