How bad are the Gardai and what do we do about it?

Little CuChulainn · 13-06-2014 11:01AM

You asked me to quote the sections where it showed him as a bed sergeant and I did that. You have decided to quote me parts where it says he's good. I don't dispute those. But you are ignoring the parts I quoted completely such as 7.15 where Guerin comments on McCabes lack of understanding of a charge he recommended. If you're happy to look at it with rose tinted glasses then go ahead. The only reason you are doing it is because it suits you too. I doubt in the case of any other Garda you would balance the good with the bad. I think you would judge them solely on the bad.

13-06-2014 11:17AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You asked me to quote the sections where it showed him as a bed sergeant and I did that. You have decided to quote me parts where it says he's good. I don't dispute those. But you are ignoring the parts I quoted completely such as 7.15 where Guerin comments on McCabes lack of understanding of a charge he recommended. If you're happy to look at it with rose tinted glasses then go ahead. The only reason you are doing it is because it suits you too. I doubt in the case of any other Garda you would balance the good with the bad. I think you would judge them solely on the bad.

This is 7.15, why don't you read it paying special attention to the words "possible" and "direction was then sought"

"The report noted that possible offences to be charged were assault causing harm, endangerment, criminal damage, theft, and possibly an offence contrary to Section 6(3)(b) of the non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (The latter offence relates to spraying or pouring bodily fluids onto a person during the course of a syringe attack. Although it is a rare statutory reference to the use of bodily fluids to commit crime it was never a likely charge in the absence of a syringe.)

Direction was then sought as to an appropriate offence with an indication that upon receipt of direction a full investigation file would be forwarded to the DPP"

Guerin's comment is an aside, and it is clear that McCabe is outlining some possible offences that may be relevant and seeking direction rather than insisting that certain of these offences have taken place and must be prosecuted.

Yet again you have either failed to read the report properly or have deliberately attempted to mislead people on this thread by presenting a conclusion that the text does not warrant.

Spoofer

Little CuChulainn · 13-06-2014 11:21AM

Deleted User wrote: »

This is 7.15, why don't you read it paying special attention to the words "possible" and "direction was then sought"

"The report noted that possible offences to be charged were assault causing harm, endangerment, criminal damage, theft, and possibly an offence contrary to Section 6(3)(b) of the non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (The latter offence relates to spraying or pouring bodily fluids onto a person during the course of a syringe attack. Although it is a rare statutory reference to the use of bodily fluids to commit crime it was never a likely charge in the absence of a syringe.)

Direction was then sought as to an appropriate offence with an indication that upon receipt of direction a full investigation file would be forwarded to the DPP"

Guerin's comment is an aside, and it is clear that McCabe is outlining some possible offences that may be relevant and seeking direction rather than insisting that certain of these offences have taken place and must be prosecuted.

Yet again you have either failed to read the report properly or have deliberately attempted to mislead people on this thread by presenting a conclusion that the text does not warrant.

Spoofer

Did you even read it? It relates to a syringe attack. He specifically stated it. You quoted it. There was no syringe. It was not a possible charge. The direction is sought after the arrest and detention so if McCabes advice had been followed and he had been detained in relation to that offence when there was clearly no syringe involved then it would have been a false arrest. What about that are you not understanding?

13-06-2014 11:31AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Did you even read it? It relates to a syringe attack. He specifically stated it. You quoted it. There was no syringe. It was not a possible charge. The direction is sought after the arrest and detention so if McCabes advice had been followed and he had been detained in relation to that offence when there was clearly no syringe involved then it would have been a false arrest. What about that are you not understanding?

Guerin feels it "was never a likely charge", and this is reflected in the language describing the report as suggesting it as a 'possible' charge. He makes no criticism of McCabe, he is simply clarifying that he doesn't think this charge was likely.

At this point I suppose my question to you is - is this all you have? Are your attacks on McCabe now reduced to whether a particular charge he suggested might be applicable was either totally impossible or unlikely?

You started out with these bold statements, anyone who reads the report can immediately see they fall somewhere between outright lies and gross simplifications.

You are embarrassing yourself on here - maybe you should go out and catch some criminals?

RustyNut · 13-06-2014 01:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Guerin feels it "was never a likely charge", and this is reflected in the language describing the report as suggesting it as a 'possible' charge. He makes no criticism of McCabe, he is simply clarifying that he doesn't think this charge was likely.

At this point I suppose my question to you is - is this all you have? Are your attacks on McCabe now reduced to whether a particular charge he suggested might be applicable was either totally impossible or unlikely?

You started out with these bold statements, anyone who reads the report can immediately see they fall somewhere between outright lies and gross simplifications.

You are embarrassing yourself on here - maybe you should go out and catch some criminals?

From Here.

What is Workplace Bullying?

The purpose of bullying is to hide inadequacy. It has nothing to do with managing: Management is managing; bullying is not managing. Anyone who chooses to bully implicitly admits their inadequacy.

Some people project their inadequacy onto others:

to avoid facing up to and doing something about it;
to avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour and the effect it has; and
to dilute their fear of being seen as weak, inadequate and possibly incompetent; and
to divert attention away from the same: In badly run workplaces, bullying is the way that inadequate, incompetent and aggressive employees keep their jobs and obtain promotion.
Bullying destroys teams, causing disenchantment, demoralisation, demotivation, disaffection, and alienation. Bullies run dysfunctional and inefficient organisations; staff turnover and sickness absence are high whilst morale, productivity and profitability are low. Any perceived efficiency gains from bullying are a short term illusion: Long term prospects are always at serious risk.

Bullying behaviours are behind all forms of harassment, discrimination, prejudice, abuse, persecution, terrorism, conflict and violence. Understanding bullying gives a person the opportunity to understand that which underpins almost all forms of reprehensible behavior. Because of that, bullying remains the single most important social issue of today.

Workplace Bullying tends to happen in phases that can be called (1) Isolation, (2) Control and Subjugation and (3) Elimination. The terminology in the examples applies to workplaces but has parallels in other situations. Examples are loosely categorised under the "Phase" headings but in reality any of the example behaviours can occur in any phase.

Isolation

constant nit-picking, fault-finding and criticism of a trivial nature - the triviality, regularity and frequency betray bullying; often there is a grain of truth (but only a grain) in the criticism to fool the people (including the target) into believing the criticism has validity, which it does not; often, the criticism is based on distortion, misrepresentation or fabrication.
simultaneous with the criticism, a persistent refusal to acknowledge the target and his or her contributions and achievements or to recognise their existence and value;
constant attempts to undermine the target and his or her position, status, worth, value and potential where the target is in a group (eg at work),
being isolated and separated from colleagues, excluded from what's going on, marginalized, overruled, ignored, sidelined, frozen out, "sent to Coventry"
The above can be done with or without the cover of a formal disciplinary or capability procedure.

Control and Subjugation

being singled out and treated differently; for instance, everyone else can get away with murder but the moment the target puts a foot wrong - however trivial - action is taken against them;
being belittled, demeaned and patronised, especially in front of others;
being humiliated, shouted at and threatened, often in front of others being overloaded with work, or having all their work taken away and replaced with either menial tasks (filing, photocopying, minute taking) or with no work at all finding that their work, and the credit for it, is stolen and plagiarised;
having responsibility increased but authority removed;
having annual leave, sickness leave, and (especially) compassionate leave refused
being denied training necessary to fulfill duties
having unrealistic goals set, which change as they approach, also deadlines change at short notice, or no notice, and the target only finds out when its too late to do anything about it.
being the subject of gossip which has the effect of damaging one's reputation.
Elimination

the target finds that everything they say and do is twisted, distorted and misrepresented;
is subjected to disciplinary procedures with verbal or written warnings imposed for trivial or fabricated reasons and without proper investigation, or with a sham investigation;
is coerced into leaving through no fault of their own, constructive dismissal, early or ill-health retirement, etc
is dismissed following specious allegations of misconduct or incapability which have just a grain of truth, to give superficial legitimacy to the dismissal.
One way to conceal bullying is to have regular or even continuous "reorganisations", where:-

targets can be "organized out" - this applies to anyone whose face doesn't fit, i.e. anyone who has identified, complained about or challenged problems with the status quo;
they can have their roles "regraded" or "redefined", if not being organised out.
The bully's allies and political pawns can be promoted to positions of influence.
Where a re-organisation seems pointless or counter-productive, or if it involves a disproportionate amount of disruption in relation to the perceived benefit of the change, it could be a smokescreen to conceal (and be a vehicle of) bullying. People are so busy coping with the chaos that bullying goes unnoticed. At the same time, the person responsible can claim to be reorganising in the name of efficiency, thus earning him or her the respect of superiors.

Business stakeholders should note that bullying, and these forms of concealment, may be distracting attention from financial fraud, corruption, misappropriation of funds and so on.

How bad are the Gardai and what do we do about it?

Comments