Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

There's a few 'independent' tds who wont be happy with this.

Read the report briefly. It would seem a few resignations maybe required from gsoc.

tayto lover wrote: »

Many of the journalists on t.v. now seem to be pretty annoyed that all their storylines have hit a brick wall. Poor old Mick Clifford very red-faced.

Journalists are some shower of feckers regardless of which side they are on. They would do anything for a story.

I doubt Clifford is red faced, he kept up the whistleblowers story when nobody else seemed bothered.

joe swanson wrote: »

There's a few 'independent' tds who wont be happy with this.

Read the report briefly. It would seem a few resignations maybe required from gsoc.

I wonder what yourman from Bosco will have to say?

whatsthetime wrote: »

Where can I download the report?

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/GSOC-Report-Final-REDACTED.pdf

Is the report a white wash?

whatsthetime wrote: »

Is the report a white wash?

Here is a clue:

GSOC was not given a right of reply to the Government-ordered investigation into allegations of the bugging of its headquarters.

Phoebas wrote: »

Nope. GSOC have already responded to the Cooke report.

Initial reports on rte yesterday said that GSOC were not allowed a right of reply. Either RTE reporting was wrong or Simon O'Brien couldn't care less about the gagging order and he's going to defend his reputation regardless.

He made a good point about the Cooke report and their own investigation though- at the end of the day Cooke hasn't found out any more or less than Verrimus did in connection to the most serious anomaly - the 1am phone call. Verrimus concluded that it was inconclusive but that on the balance of likelihood it was very difficult to explain it off as sheer coincidence, the odds of that phone ringing must have been above a million to one. Cooke still can't explain that phone call at 1am and admits as much yet draws the conclusion that there was no bugging.

Perhaps the judge should become familiar with the concept of Occams Razor

Phoebas wrote: »

There was no gagging order. GSOC made a statement last night and gave a prolonged interview this morning on RTE.


Cooke's report confirms that the ringback was unexplained and that it wasn't the positive result of a test on the line.
The only way of explaining it as evidence of bugging is that the person who was bugging the line actually decided to dial the extension number in response to the test i.e. these 'government level' people that were bugging GSOC decided to carelessly but deliberately do the very thing that would alert Verrimus to their presence.
Occam's razor would have us reject this fantastic explanation in favour of a simple admission that we just don't know what caused the ring back.

I think that's the problem here, what seems explainable remains unexplained by the Cooke report.

AFAIK Verrimus were running a test on the line at 1am. If the phone rang, which it did, then their test indicated that the line was bugged but as has been said before there is never going to be a smoking gun. Verrimus said that the chances of the phone ringing at the EXACT same time that they were conducting their test was extremely remote. If we are to take this one instance alone and apply Occam's razor to it then I find it difficult to conclude that the line wasn't bugged because on the other hand you're replying on either 1) Human error or 2) a extremely remote chance event occurring. Human error can't be ruled out but even the odds of that are pretty long, especially if the operator is vastly experienced in these operation, which I think is a fair assumption given Verrimus' reputation in the UK, What is more likely than not to me is that the test was positive for the most likely of reasons, not the most unlikely ones.

I've been pondering the report more and it is interesting how the judge states that AGS did not carry out any bugging. Which would suggest that he was hold so e element within AGS as a suspect. Now that begs a question, if as Verrimus suggested there was government level technology used in this surveillance operation and if the Gardai and Army are the only actors in this state to hold this very expensive and difficult to purchase equipment then why did the judge not carry out an audit of the sign in and sign out history of this equipment. Who was responsible for it and where was it during September 2013. If the judge is claiming that AGS did not bug GSOC then why has he not investigated the whereabouts of their equipment which would be able to carry out such a task ?

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think that's the problem here, what seems explainable remains unexplained by the Cooke report.

AFAIK Verrimus were running a test on the line at 1am. If the phone rang, which it did, then their test indicated that the line was bugged but as has been said before there is never going to be a smoking gun.

No. The ring back wasn't a test indication that the line was bugged - it was an unexplained anomaly.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Verrimus said that the chances of the phone ringing at the EXACT same time that they were conducting their test was extremely remote. If we are to take this one instance alone and apply Occam's razor to it then I find it difficult to conclude that the line wasn't bugged because on the other hand you're replying on either 1) Human error or 2) a extremely remote chance event occurring. Human error can't be ruled out but even the odds of that are pretty long, especially if the operator is vastly experienced in these operation, which I think is a fair assumption given Verrimus' reputation in the UK, What is more likely than not to me is that the test was positive for the most likely of reasons, not the most unlikely ones.

You completely omit reason 3) - an unexplained anomaly.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Now that begs a question, if as Verrimus suggested there was government level technology used in this surveillance operation and if the Gardai and Army are the only actors in this state to hold this very expensive and difficult to purchase equipment then why did the judge not carry out an audit of the sign in and sign out history of this equipment. Who was responsible for it and where was it during September 2013. If the judge is claiming that AGS did not bug GSOC then why has he not investigated the whereabouts of their equipment which would be able to carry out such a task ?

There was no government level technology - the IMSI catcher was explained as a telco testing their 4g network.

The Cook report is the usual equivocative report one expects from a gov't-appointed retired state employee, stating the obvious: that there is no clear evidence either way as to whether any member of An GS was involved in bugging the GSOC, and definitely NOT clearing the forces name despite the slant put on it by either Alan's or Martin's heirs. As to whether the GSOC should have informed Alan of their investigation, the GSOC was set up (typically) under flawed legislation (it must/need not tell the minister) excellent when one might want to fudge the issue of oversight of An GS and prevent it being controlled by independent oversight instead of de minister. I see both heirs refuse to accept that we see past the B/S now.

aloyisious wrote: »

The Cook report is the usual equivocative report one expects from a gov't-appointed retired state employee, stating the obvious: that there is no clear evidence either way as to whether any member of An GS was involved in bugging the GSOC, and definitely NOT clearing the forces name despite the slant put on it by either Alan's or Martin's heirs. As to whether the GSOC should have informed Alan of their investigation, the GSOC was set up (typically) under flawed legislation (it must/need not tell the minister) [...]

It is clear that they should have told the minister.

Cooke wrote:

Having commenced, conducted and then closed an investigation in the public interest pursuant to section 102(4) of the Act, there was an obligation upon the Commission to furnish information in relation to its results to both the Minister and the Commissioner. This was the mandatory obligation that arises under Section 103(1) (b) of the Act and not the discretion which the Commission has under Section 80(5) of the Act to make a special report to the Minister drawing attention to matters of gravity or exceptional circumstances that have come to its notice. Although the Commission appears to have been conscious of this obligation to report, it was not until after the publication of the Sunday Times article that the non-compliance was remedied on 13th February 2014. On that date a written report was furnished to the Minister. The written report was not given to the Garda Commission but the Chairperson informed this Inquiry that the Garda Commissioner had been given a verbal report to the same effect. The Commission had always proceeded on the basis that the requirements of S. 103(1) could be met either verbally or in writing.

Just as I said from the very outset,there was no bugging of the GSOC offices. Unfortunately,the conspiracy theorists will always think otherwise.

Thank You

aloyisious wrote: »

Is GSOC hogtied by those seemingly opposing sections within the rules
it was given by the Bov't when it was set up?

No. GSOC accepted very early on that they should have informed the minister and apologised for their falling to do so.

Phoebas wrote: »

It is clear that they should have told the minister.

Have you read the act? They have to inform the minister and the commissioner unless they have a public interest reason for not doing so. Given that it was a comment from the commissioner which heightened the bugging suspicions, it's not difficult to see why they didn't feel it would be in the public interest to tell either of them...