Garda ''pubic attitude survey''

coolemon · 15-07-2014 07:52PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This is your description of the resources at last Saturdays protest

And this is your description of the resources at last years demonstration

That sounds like a massive reduction between the first and second one.

About last Saturdays you first say

but then you say

Eh, the second one, as in, the second example cited. I cited two examples - a recent demonstration (1), and a demonstration last year (2).

I thought that would have been obvious.

Little CuChulainn · 15-07-2014 08:04PM

coolemon wrote: »

Eh, the second one, as in, the second example cited. I cited two examples - a recent demonstration (1), and a demonstration last year (2).

I thought that would have been obvious.

It was obvious you were citing two examples. And your examples completely contradict what you said as I have just shown you.

coolemon · 15-07-2014 08:14PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It was obvious you were citing two examples. And your examples completely contradict what you said as I have just shown you.

Not really. You are trying infer that the second cited example had an influence on the reduced police presence at the first cited example.

When you have little to nothing to base that inference on only the two examples cited. Dozens of demonstrations had taken place before and after both of the cited demonstrations, for which, I assume, you have little knowledge.

What can be inferred from my example is the complete mismanagement of resources in the second cited example. Not the contradictions you are tryng to create.

UCDVet · 15-07-2014 08:15PM

I've only had two very minor interactions with Garda, but both times they were friendly, professional and helpful.

My experiences with police were a lot worse outside of Ireland, but again, haven't really had much experience.

Maphisto · 15-07-2014 08:18PM

in_ur_Is icy delight wrote: »

what do you call a bangarda who shaves 'down there'?

House of Blaze wrote: »

Go on then! :rolleyes:

While others are taking this seriously. There's a minority waiting for the answer :rolleyes:

Little CuChulainn · 15-07-2014 08:18PM

coolemon wrote: »

Not really. You are trying infer that the second cited example had an influence on the reduced police presence at the first cited example.

When you have little to nothing to base that inference on only the two examples cited. Dozens of demonstrations had taken place before and after both of the cited demonstrations, for which, I assume, you have little knowledge.

What can be inferred from my example is the complete mismanagement of resources in the second cited example. Not the contradictions you are tryng to create.

Chronologically, according to you, the first protest had loads of Gardaí and the second have fewer. This shows they either reduced their numbers because they could not staff it or because they better predicted the manpower needed.

As far as i can see you have either mixed up your examples or you have no clue what you are saying.

coolemon · 15-07-2014 08:31PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Chronologically, according to you, the first protest had loads of Gardaí and the second have fewer. This shows they either reduced their numbers because they could not staff it or because they better predicted the manpower needed.

As far as i can see you have either mixed up your examples or you have no clue what you are saying.

Ok, you are getting mildly irritating now.

You said

"From the example you quoted it appears they prepared for anything in the first one."

It was the second example cited that one that one could infer that they "prepared for anything" - not the first - given the greater resources deployed. So it sounds it is you are the one getting confused.

"Chronologically, according to you, the first protest had loads of Gardaí and the second have fewer. This shows they either reduced their numbers because they could not staff it or because they better predicted the manpower needed."

As I have already stated, it is not possible to infer that they reduced their numbers for the first one based on the second one. You do not have sufficient information to infer such a thing, apart from mere chronology of the examples. Examples chosen by me because 1) the second example was a particularly stark and relatively isolate waste of resource and 2) the first example was a very recent, topical and fresh event around the same issue.

I could have chosen a dozen demonstrations chronologically prior to the second example if I wanted to. Chronology having little to **** all to do with anything.

in_ur_Is icy delight · 15-07-2014 08:31PM

Maphisto wrote: »

While others are taking this seriously. There's a minority waiting for the answer :rolleyes:

c*nt-stubble

Little CuChulainn · 15-07-2014 08:39PM

coolemon wrote: »

Ok, you are getting mildly irritating now.

You said

"From the example you quoted it appears they prepared for anything in the first one."

It was the second example cited that one that one could infer that they "prepared for anything" - not the first - given the greater resources deployed. So it sounds it is you are the one getting confused.

"Chronologically, according to you, the first protest had loads of Gardaí and the second have fewer. This shows they either reduced their numbers because they could not staff it or because they better predicted the manpower needed."

As I have already stated, it is not possible to infer that they reduced their numbers for the first one based on the second one. You do not have sufficient information to infer such a thing, apart from mere chronology of the examples. Examples chosen by me because 1) the second example was a particularly stark and relatively isolate waste of resource and 2) the first example was a very recent, topical and fresh event around the same issue.

I could have chosen a dozen demonstrations chronologically prior to the second example if I wanted to. Chronology having little to **** all to do with anything.

There are really only two reasons that the Garda numbers reduced between last years and this years protest. Either they did not have the manpower to devote to it, in which case my claim they are under resourced is correct or they deliberately reduced their numbers, in which case your claim that it was poor manpower management is incorrect.

You have made a claim about constant mismanagement and backed it up with examples that show the opposite. For some reason you decided to reverse the chronology of the examples you gave. I presume it was to make your point seem valid. You also threw in Shatter's Jewish background for good measure. To me that cheapened your argument even further.

Rothmans · 15-07-2014 08:45PM

coolemon wrote: »

Ok, you are getting mildly irritating now.

You said

"From the example you quoted it appears they prepared for anything in the first one."

It was the second example cited that one that one could infer that they "prepared for anything" - not the first - given the greater resources deployed. So it sounds it is you are the one getting confused.

"Chronologically, according to you, the first protest had loads of Gardaí and the second have fewer. This shows they either reduced their numbers because they could not staff it or because they better predicted the manpower needed."

If anyone is getting confused its because you're getting mixed up yourself, and back-tracking on what you originally said.

As I have already stated, it is not possible to infer that they reduced their numbers for the first one based on the second one. You do not have sufficient information to infer such a thing, apart from mere chronology of the examples. Examples chosen by me because 1) the second example was a particularly stark and relatively isolate waste of resource and 2) the first example was a very recent, topical and fresh event around the same issue.

I could have chosen a dozen demonstrations chronologically prior to the second example if I wanted to. Chronology having little to **** all to do with anything.

Then why did you bring up this piece of anecdotal evidence if it is useless in relation to the point you're trying to make?

coolemon · 15-07-2014 08:53PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

(1) Either they did not have the manpower to devote to it, in which case my claim they are under resourced is correct

(2) or they deliberately reduced their numbers, in which case your claim that it was poor manpower management is incorrect.

Not at all.

(1) There was no reason to deploy that much manpower in the second example - whether they had it or not. Nor was there any reason to deploy as much manpower at the first as they did the second - which they did not.

(2)They did not reduce their numbers in the first example. That would be to infer decisions made in the first example were due and related to those of the second example.

Again, you have no information to make such an inference bar the chronology of the examples.

(1)You have made a claim about constant mismanagement and backed it up with examples that show the opposite.

(2)For some reason you decided to reverse the chronology of the examples you gave. I presume it was to make your point seem valid.

(3)You also threw in Shatter's Jewish background for good measure. To me that cheapened your argument even further.

(1) No they do not. They show the waste of resources of the second cited example last year. And I used the first example to show successful crowd management using far less resources despite a far larger demonstration and crowd.

(2) Nah, just that the chronology is irrelevant to the sequencing of my examples.

(3) No I did not throw in or even mention Shatters Jewish background. Thats just you making stupid and incorrect inferences again.

coolemon · 15-07-2014 08:56PM

Rothmans wrote: »

If anyone is getting confused its because you're getting mixed up yourself, and back-tracking on what you originally said.

Then why did you bring up this piece of anecdotal evidence if it is useless in relation to the point you're trying to make?

Could you elaborate further as I don't see the point you are making.

I never emphasised chronology apart from mentioning it for descriptive purposes - ie. "recent demonstration" ,or "last years demonstration".

Calibos · 15-07-2014 08:59PM

I don't think people take into account the amount of **** they have to deal with every single day of their working lives. The whingers rant about being manhandled when they stood up for their citizens rights maaaann. Maybe the guard an hour previously had to deal with a scumbag or addict spitting in their face and threatening to follow them home from work and burn their family and house down. Maybe as a result they haven't the patience reserves to deal with your antagonistic behaviour etc.

I liken it to the one and only time I was ejected from a club donkeys years ago. Foam party with a rope and tarp around the dancefloor area to keep the suds on the dancefloor. I was backed against the rope and my friends thought it would be a laugh to push the rope into the back of my legs and upend me flipping me head over heals onto my face onto the carpets at the edge of the dance floor. Next thing I know I've been grabbed and am being dragged through the crowds by bouncers. As I worked in the bar trade at the time, I knew the sh1t these lads have to deal with on a nightly basis. I knew the worst thing I could do is struggle and scream abuse or try and argue my case at that moment. I let my body go limp, let them pull me through the crowds till we got outside. I didn't go off on one or get in their face or complain. I calmly told the lads that I totally understood why they had to grab me and bring me outside not knowing whether I was off my head with drink or whatever. I assured them I wasn't drunk, explained what had actually happened, that if they didn't want to let me back in I would understand. About 10 minutes later after observing me calmly waiting I was allowed back in to enjoy the rest of the night. Had I got in their faces, shouting abuse for their 'mistake', demanding to be allowed back in 'because I have rights as a paying customer!! Blah blah. Well antagonising them like that would have meant never getting back and possibly even been barred.

Theres a time and a place to stand up for your rights if they've been infringed and its at the front desk of the garda station later with badge numbers, not on the spot with an over worked guard who likely got spat at by a junkie an hour before.

catallus · 15-07-2014 09:03PM

I'd like to take just a moment to say that the poster "in_ur_Is icy delight" 's joke is probably deserving of post of the day, if not the year.

He came soaring into our lives liked a winged messenger of the gods with a fantastic joke and then closed his account.

Well done, sir, wherever you are.

whirlpool · 15-07-2014 09:10PM

Oh my god. Edit the thread title, for jaysus sake!

Maphisto · 15-07-2014 09:15PM

whirlpool wrote: »

Oh my god. Edit the thread title, for jaysus sake!

46 posts to spot it duh:eek:

Maphisto · 15-07-2014 09:23PM

catallus wrote: »

I'd like to take just a moment to say that the poster "in_ur_Is icy delight" 's joke is probably deserving of post of the day, if not the year.

He came soaring into our lives liked a winged messenger of the gods with a fantastic joke and then closed his account.

Well done, sir, wherever you are.

Four posts and he's gawn!

Little CuChulainn · 15-07-2014 09:27PM

I have no idea why you keep stick to the logical idea that "first" should refer to oldest chronologically.

coolemon wrote: »

Not at all.

(1) There was no reason to deploy that much manpower in the second example - whether they had it or not. Nor was there any reason to deploy as much manpower at the first as they did the second - which they did not.

Can you stick to using last years and this years instead of first and second because your comments are just to hard to understand otherwise because i have no idea what you are referring to when you say the second one.

coolemon wrote: »

(2)They did not reduce their numbers in the first example. That would be to infer decisions made in the first example were due and related to those of the second example.

By your own claims there were less Gardaí in this years than in last years. You think this is down to mismanagement in resources but that does not make any sense. From the sounds of it, this years one was properly managed in terms of manpower.

coolemon wrote: »

Again, you have no information to make such an inference bar the chronology of the examples.

I have the information you provided.

coolemon wrote: »

(1) No they do not. They show the waste of resources of the second cited example last year. And I used the first example to show successful crowd management using far less resources despite a far larger demonstration and crowd.

Right, so you have shown that in one year the management of resources has improved dramatically, which totally negates the point you made that the force is poorly managed.

coolemon wrote: »

(2) Nah, just that the chronology is irrelevant to the sequencing of my examples.

It's relevant to making sense of your posts.

coolemon wrote: »

(3) No I did not throw in or even mention Shatters Jewish background. Thats just you making stupid and incorrect inferences again.

coolemon wrote: »

Some have speculated that this was on Alan Shatters orders, given his ministerial office and views on the issue.

catallus · 15-07-2014 09:28PM

Maphisto wrote: »

Four posts and he's gawn!

His flame burned too brightly for this world, like a shooting star he illuminated the firmament of our dull globe and then was seen no more.

But, for that fleeting moment, he gave us a glimpse of the shining possibilities and the glories of the smutty joke.

We don't know how lucky we were to have witnessed it!

Pumpkinseeds · 15-07-2014 09:38PM

It makes sense for them to find out what the public thinks of them so that they can identify what the public isn't happy with and work towards improvement. It's the kind of job where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, not the kind of thankless soul destroying job I'd want to do.

catallus · 15-07-2014 09:43PM

All this PR stuff is a bunch of horse**** anyway.

Nobody (quite rightly) wants to know about or think about the police until something bad happens to them and then they want a well resourced and professional approach. It isn't rocket science.

PR is all very well when you're selling advertising, but all of this crap about "involving the public" is just that, crap thought up by management consultants.

coolemon · 15-07-2014 09:46PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

By your own claims there were less Gardaí in this years than in last years. You think this is down to mismanagement in resources but that does not make any sense. From the sounds of it, this years one was properly managed in terms of manpower.

Correct. This years demonstration had sufficient resources. Resources were not wasted.

However, that is not the point.

The point was that last years demonstration illustrated massive waste and mismanagement.

I have the information you provided.

Yes, and you cannot make such inferences from it.

Right, so you have shown that in one year the management of resources has improved dramatically, which totally negates the point you made that the force is poorly managed.

To suggest that it was an improvement would be to infer a causation that last years demonstration influenced and shaped this years demonstration. You do not have sufficient information to make that inference.

Even if your inference were correct it would not take away from the waste and mismanagement of resources at last years demonstration; - the entire point of my examples.

Little CuChulainn · 15-07-2014 09:48PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It makes sense for them to find out what the public thinks of them so that they can identify what the public isn't happy with and work towards improvement. It's the kind of job where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, not the kind of thankless soul destroying job I'd want to do.

It really shouldn't matter what the public think. The force should be effective and professional. That's all that matters.

Little CuChulainn · 15-07-2014 09:51PM

coolemon wrote: »

To suggest that it was an improvement would be to infer a causation that last years demonstration influenced and shaped this years demonstration. You do not have sufficient information to make that inference.

It doesn't infer causation at all. That is merely a likely relationship. It might easily just be improved management systems.

coolemon wrote: »

Even if your inference were correct it would not take away from the waste and mismanagement of resources at last years demonstration; - the entire point of my examples.

The point you made is that the force is mismanaged and that is the reason for ineffectivenes. Now you say that it was mismanaged but it isn't now, which totally negates your point.

coolemon · 15-07-2014 10:01PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It doesn't infer causation at all. That is merely a likely relationship. It might easily just be improved management systems.

It is not a likely relationship at all.

On what basis do you say it is a likely relationship apart from the fact that one was this year and the other was last year? (a very obvious and informationally sparse observation.)

The point you made is that the force is mismanaged and that is the reason for ineffectivenes. Now you say that it was mismanaged but it isn't now, which totally negates your point.

It does not negate my point. You are trying to place these two examples on a timeline and attempting to infer "improvements" and "disimprovements" in garda resource management.

One cannot rationally make such inferences with such sparse information and with such few examples.

Little CuChulainn · 15-07-2014 10:07PM

coolemon wrote: »

It does not negate my point. You are trying to place these two examples on a timeline and attempting to infer "improvements" and "disimprovements" in garda resource management.

Now you are just contradicting yourself. You said last years was poorly managed and this years was

This years demonstration had sufficient resources. Resources were not wasted.

This is an improvement by anyones understanding of the term.

Rubberchikken · 15-07-2014 10:09PM

Until there is transparancy in the picking of high ranking gardai, until the organisation that polices the gardai is absolutely guaranteed to be independent and until they can guarantee that the office of the minister for justice isnt working quietly and covertly with the gardai for their own purposes, my opinion of the garda force will remain at an all-time low.

Shakespeare's Sister · 15-07-2014 10:10PM

Valetta wrote: »

I think you'll find the results are not at all reflective of the biased, rabble rousing whingers here on boards.

Their posts are Shakespearean prose compared to the comments on TheJournal.ie though.

It would annoy me to read them but I can only imagine how bad they are in this instance.

coolemon · 15-07-2014 10:14PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You said last years was poorly managed and this years was

Correct. And I did so without inferring a particular chronological relationship in the decision making process or of improvement or disimprovement over time.

It is you that is trying to make such inferences.

This is an improvement by anyones understanding of the term.

Not really. Such an inference would require more information than two examples.

Maphisto · 15-07-2014 10:17PM

catallus wrote: »

All this PR stuff is a bunch of horse**** anyway.

Nobody (quite rightly) wants to know about or think about the police until something bad happens to them and then they want a well resourced and professional approach. It isn't rocket science.

PR is all very well when you're selling advertising, but all of this crap about "involving the public" is just that, crap thought up by management consultants.

Except AGS is largely unarmed. I think they all have pepper spray and batons but other than that they police by consent.

So if the majority of people don't trust police, or don't agree with its methods and objectives they have a problem with the consent model. So someone has to come up with something else, either winning that consent back or .....

Garda ''pubic attitude survey''

Comments