# Martin Callinan resigns



## cremeegg (25 Mar 2014)

Finally he did something right.

He hadn't the competence to deal with the penalty points issue when it first arose.

He hadn't the manners to speak politely about the whistleblowers before the PAC.

He hadn't the courage either to defend his position or to admit he was wrong and apologise.


----------



## The_Banker (25 Mar 2014)

And about time...
Lets hope Shatter goes with him...

Shatter will certainly be damaged by the fact that he backed him to the hilt... And to a lesser extent Enda..

Simon and Leo come out of this smelling of roses...


----------



## Liamos (25 Mar 2014)

Shatter next , I hope.


----------



## werner (25 Mar 2014)

Liamos said:


> Shatter next , I hope.


 
 If the government lived up to its pre-election pledges of openness and transparancy Callinan would have been sacked along with Shatter.

Shatter at the very least should now resign as the longer he hangs on the credibility of the government will sink further into the mire.

It was highly revealing that it took a Minister for Transport to step out of line with the government PR spin and speak the truth


----------



## Latrade (25 Mar 2014)

The_Banker said:


> And about time...
> Lets hope Shatter goes with him...
> 
> Shatter will certainly be damaged by the fact that he backed him to the hilt... And to a lesser extent Enda..
> ...


 
Hmmm, well I wouldn't want to be defending Shatter too much, but the Minister can largely only go on what he is told by Senior Officials, at least on record. He's been careful enough that he's caveated most of his statements by clearly saying it is based on what Callinan has told him.

That's not a defence of Shatter, there are areas he failed in with regards to ministerial powers available to him, but he followed the protocol of Gardai investigating their own and the conclusions of Callinan. Once it became clear there was an issue with Callinan, he's gone. 

It's CYA politics, but Callinan failed and has (though on his own, probably generous terms) been held accountable.


----------



## DB74 (25 Mar 2014)

An interesting aside to the issue, which states:

"Today's resignation of Ireland's police chief, Martin Callinan, is a vindication of the reporting of Gemma O'Doherty, a journalist fired by the Irish Independent for her pursuit of the story that has led to his departure.As I reported in September last year, O'Doherty was made compulsorily redundant by the paper after door-stepping Callinan, the Garda commissioner.

...

But Stephen Rae, editor-in-chief of the Dublin-based Independent titles (and a former editor of the Garda Review magazine), was furious with O'Doherty. He called her a "rogue reporter" for approaching Callinan without permission

...

In September last year, the London-based Irish Post revealed that a car registered to Rae had had penalty points wiped in 2009."


http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/mar/25/irish-independent-ireland


----------



## Sunny (25 Mar 2014)

He had to go but it's a shame to see a 40 year career end like this. He could have walked last year but stayed on when asked. Bet he regrets that! Spotlight will be shining brightly on Shatter now. Even though I think there is more pressure on Labour now to prove they aren't just FG's patsies and demand Shatter withdraws his comments. The way they rowed in with criticism once Leo had stuck his neck out was funny.


----------



## cork (25 Mar 2014)

Shatter needs to go.

Not alone that but it reflects so badly on Kenny and the Labour party.

Leo V at least has some moral courage.


----------



## Sunny (25 Mar 2014)

cork said:


> Shatter needs to go.
> 
> Not alone that but it reflects so badly on Kenny and the Labour party.
> 
> Leo V at least has some moral courage.


 
I am surprised that you think Shatter should resign.


----------



## Purple (25 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> I am surprised that you think Shatter should resign.



I'm surprised that he said something nice about a FG minister!


----------



## cremeegg (25 Mar 2014)

DB74 said:


> An interesting aside to the issue, which states:
> 
> "Today's resignation of Ireland's police chief, Martin Callinan, is a vindication of the reporting of Gemma O'Doherty, a journalist fired by the Irish Independent for her pursuit of the story that has led to his departure.As I reported in September last year, O'Doherty was made compulsorily redundant by the paper after door-stepping Callinan, the Garda commissioner.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that link. We really are only aware of a tiny part of what goes on in the world.


----------



## demoivre (25 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> He had to go but it's a shame to see a 40 year career end like this.



 Some people still wont hear a bad word said about Haughey, and down here in the south east some think Bishop Comiskey was a great fellow. Only in Ireland ! Callinan and Shatter should have gone last year after it emerged that Shatter used confidential information supplied by Callinan, a clear abuse of their positions imo, about a political opponent,


----------



## Sunny (25 Mar 2014)

demoivre said:


> Some people still wont hear a bad word said about Haughey, and down here in the south east some think Bishop Comiskey was a great fellow. Only in Ireland ! Callinan and Shatter should have gone last year after it emerged that Shatter used confidential information supplied by Callinan, a clear abuse of their positions imo, about a political opponent,


 
 

There is no conflict between saying someone should resign and yet feeling sympathy that a long career had to end in this way. Especially when it didn't have to end like this. And especially when he could have retired last year but stayed on when asked by the Minister (who is still in his job). I am sure that during his 40 years as a Guard he did some good and his offence now, while a resigning offence doesn't mean that we should write off his entire contribution. 

His position became untenable because of the way he reacted to this whole saga. He was so blinded to the Gardai that he couldn't see their shortcomings. Hardly a hanging offence especially when it wasn't up to him to legislate for police supervision.


----------



## DB74 (25 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> There is no conflict between saying someone should resign and yet feeling sympathy that a long career had to end in this way. Especially when it didn't have to end like this. And especially when he could have retired last year but stayed on when asked by the Minister (who is still in his job). I am sure that during his 40 years as a Guard he did some good and his offence now, while a resigning offence doesn't mean that we should write off his entire contribution.



It also makes you wonder what other shenanigans he got up to over the last 40 years and ensures that he won't finish with a squeaky-clean record, as he shouldn't.


----------



## cork (25 Mar 2014)

I think that this government will stand by Shatter - as they stand behind Hogan & Reilly.

I feel that Labour pressed the self destruct button over the primary health care clinics.

About time we have proper scrutiny into the Gardai and other organs of state.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Mar 2014)

I'm obviously very naïve.  I am getting very used to institutions telling me they are recording my phone call for "training" purposes.  I would fully expect that if I phoned the Gardai, especially, my phone call would be recorded.


----------



## Sunny (25 Mar 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm obviously very naïve.  I am getting very used to institutions telling me they are recording my phone call for "training" purposes.  I would fully expect that if I phoned the Gardai, especially, my phone call would be recorded.



My thoughts exactly!! Unless they were taping suspects calls?? I think the Government are looking at deflecting attention. When they say it has been happening for years, they mean it is FF's fault.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> My thoughts exactly!! Unless they were taping suspects calls?? I think the Government are looking at deflecting attention. When they say it has been happening for years, they mean it is FF's fault.


I simply don't get it. If I phone the Gardaí I would expect that s/he would at least jot down a note of what I had to say, i.e. s/he would "record" it. The fact that this recording is done by technology is surely a good thing. Now bugging my house, I can see that there is something not quite right about that.

And another thing. Maybe it's because in the country that I was brought up in "shoot to kill", aiding and abetting sectarian murder gangs and perverting the course of justice were the general order of the misdemeanours of the guardians of the law, but I just can't get excited by the laxity in our penalty points system.

Note how the shinners are right back in their comfort zone, bashing the police.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Mar 2014)

Mick Wallace on RTE has just explained it.  Apparently, and this rings true, clever and unscrupulous lawyers will be able to get criminals off on a technical breach - you have to give consent to a recording. The law's an ass


----------



## blueband (25 Mar 2014)

of course you have to give your consent to a recording...why would it be any other way!?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Mar 2014)

blueband said:


> of course you have to give your consent to a recording...why would it be any other way!?


A typical protect the criminal law.  So criminal phones up and says "I dunnit".  Garda jots it down. Before His Lordship Garda relays his notes, criminal says "he's a liar".  Garda produces recording.  What's wrong with that.  

You seem to be making a big distinction between electronic recording and jotting down on paper.  Why the distinction?


----------



## STEINER (25 Mar 2014)

Martin Callinan has not taken any responsibility for anything today.  He has decided to *retire* rather than resign, or he wants to call it retire anyway.  I found it amusing listening to Enda Kenny in the Dail today mention that Callinan had retired, when it is of course anything but retirement.  At least Patrick Nulty resigned and apologised over his issues.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=12906


----------



## cremeegg (25 Mar 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A typical protect the criminal law.  So criminal phones up and says "I dunnit".  Garda jots it down. Before His Lordship Garda relays his notes, criminal says "he's a liar".  Garda produces recording.  What's wrong with that.
> 
> You seem to be making a big distinction between electronic recording and jotting down on paper.  Why the distinction?



The distinction is that it is specifically illegal to record a telephone conversation without the other persons knowledge.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Mar 2014)

Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983

Prohibition on interception of telecommunications messages.

98.—(1) A person who—

(a) intercepts or attempts to intercept, or

(b) authorises, suffers or permits another person to intercept, or

(c) does anything that will enable him or another person to intercept,

telecommunications messages being transmitted by the company or who discloses the existence, substance or purport of any such message which has been intercepted or uses for any purpose any information obtained from any such message shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any person who is acting—

(a) (i) for the purpose of an investigation by a member of the Garda Síochána of a suspected offence under section 13 of the Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1951 (which refers to telecommunications messages of an obscene, menacing or similar character) on the complaint of a person claiming to have received such a message, or

(ii) in pursuance of a direction issued by the Minister under section 110 , or

(iii) under other lawful authority, or

(b) in the course of and to the extent required by his operating duties or duties for or in connection with the installation or maintenance of a line, apparatus or equipment for the transmission of telecommunications messages by the company.

(3) (a) The company may, with the consent of the Minister, make regulations to carry out the intentions of this section in so far as concerns members of its staff.

(b) The Minister, after consultation with the company, may direct the company to make regulations under paragraph (a) or to amend or revoke regulations made under that paragraph and the company shall comply with that direction.

(c) A person who contravenes any regulation under this subsection shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) (a) The Minister may make regulations prohibiting the provision or operation of overhearing facilities in relation to any apparatus (including private branch telephone exchanges) connected to the network of the company otherwise than in accordance with such conditions as he considers to be reasonable and prescribes in the regulations.

(b) A person who contravenes any regulation under this subsection shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) In this section, “interception” means listening to, or recording by any means, or acquiring the substance or purport of, any telecommunications message without the agreement of the person on whose behalf that message is transmitted by the company and of the person intended by him to receive that message.


----------



## amtc (25 Mar 2014)

now superseded by postal act 2011


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Mar 2014)

cremeegg said:


> The distinction is that it is specifically illegal to record a telephone conversation without the other persons knowledge.


I know it's illegal, that's the ass.  Record the conversation on paper, no problem.  Record it on electronic media, that's illegal.  Why?  The criminal can deny the written record.  Difficult for her to deny the electronic recorded message.  The bottom line is that innocent folk don't give a damn about their conversations being recorded.  For some totally bizarre reason we seem to want the criminal the "he's a liar" defence.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Mar 2014)

Have I not seen big ads around the country for the Garda Confidential Line? 

What is the difference between that and ringing a Garda station? 

I don't have any problems with my calls to Irishtown Garda Station being recorded, but they are usually to report suspicious activity. 

On the news they said that it was introduced in the 1980's to record emergency calls and bomb threats. That seems fair enough to me. The systems have been updated since on a few occasions, so they were hardly hiding it.  If they had introduced it surreptitiously in the Garda station where one of the whistleblowers worked, it might be of some significance. 

By the way, what happens when you diall 999?  Do they spend 5 minutes telling you that your call will be recorded and may be used for training purposes? Do they say it again in the official language?  I think I only called 999 once, and I don't remember them telling me this. 

The law should be changed to allow recording of phone conversations. And my time should not be wasted by telling me that the call is being recorded. 

Brendan


----------



## DB74 (26 Mar 2014)

IMO evidence obtained illegally should still be allowed in a criminal case. To reflect the fact that it was obtained illegally, the sentence could be reduced or similar but it should NEVER be allowed to stop a guilty person from being convicted of a crime.


----------



## michaelm (26 Mar 2014)

cremeegg said:


> The distinction is that it is specifically illegal to record a telephone conversation without the other persons knowledge.


This is incorrect.   It is entirely legal to record a conversation that one is part of, even unbeknown to others.  That is a side issue anyway.  

The question is whether it is credible that a Minister that never misses a trick only found out yesterday about the practice of recordings despite such information being the subject of a letter sent by the Garda Commissioner to the Minister's office two weeks ago and despite such information be contained in a GSOC report to the Minister last summer.


----------



## Sunny (26 Mar 2014)

I particulary like the bit where Shatter asks the Opposition not to indulge in Political point scoring and yet he himself engages in exactly that. It is a shame that such a capable Minister comes across so arrogantly and so dismissive of people.  

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/full-statement-by-minister-alan-shatter-1.1738775


----------



## The_Banker (26 Mar 2014)

I cant believe he hasnt resigned this morning....


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Mar 2014)

michaelm said:


> The question is whether it is credible that a Minister that never misses a trick only found out yesterday about the practice of recordings despite such information being the subject of a letter sent by the Garda Commissioner to the Minister's office two weeks ago and despite such information be contained in a GSOC report to the Minister last summer.



I think that is a misunderstanding of what is being claimed here. The Minister clearly knew about the recordings last year. What is being claimed here (as far as I understand it) is that he only found out on Monday about the fact that one of the recordings puts the legality of a case in jeopardy. His office was made aware of this 2 weeks ago but as the Minister was abroad until Monday he was not made aware of this in detail until then. At least that is my understanding of it based on the explanation given by the wily old fox that is Michael Noonan last night!
I'm no fan of Shatter and completely agree with Sunny but I do think there is a lot of misrepresentation of the facts here and to hear the likes of Mick Wallace bang on about what is and is not legal on RTE News just grates ever so slightly.


----------



## michaelm (26 Mar 2014)

Ceist Beag said:


> I think that is a misunderstanding of what is being claimed here. The Minister clearly knew about the recordings last year. What is being claimed here (as far as I understand it) is that he only found out on Monday about the fact that one of the recordings puts the legality of a case in jeopardy.


Perhaps so.  And if so, methinks that such is a wafer-thin defence.


----------



## Liamos (26 Mar 2014)

Ceist Beag said:


> I think that is a misunderstanding of what is being claimed here. The Minister clearly knew about the recordings last year. What is being claimed here (as far as I understand it) is that he only found out on Monday about the fact that one of the recordings puts the legality of a case in jeopardy. His office was made aware of this 2 weeks ago but as the Minister was abroad until Monday he was not made aware of this in detail until then. At least that is my understanding of it based on the explanation given by the wily old fox that is Michael Noonan last night!
> I'm no fan of Shatter and completely agree with Sunny but I do think there is a lot of misrepresentation of the facts here and to hear the likes of Mick Wallace bang on about what is and is not legal on RTE News just grates ever so slightly.



Actually the letter was sent to Shatter five days BEFORE he left the country. If anyone is misrepresenting facts, its Michael Noonan!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Mar 2014)

Watched the whole show, it was quite entertaining.

As a blood sport I think Shatter and even more so Kenny lost out badly.  Even the shinner spokesperson on justice did well although he really should have avoided blaming it all on a British plot.

But taking a helicopter view and hearing all those folk from Martin to Wallace to Ross to Boyd Carpenter talk as if the most wicked perfidy since Stalin had been enacted it all seemed such a storm in a teacup.  The test for me is Labour - they are relatively unscathed and if the level of wickedness was even half of that portrayed they would surely have to resign.


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Mar 2014)

Liamos said:


> Actually the letter was sent to Shatter five days BEFORE he left the country. If anyone is misrepresenting facts, its Michael Noonan!



With Noonan that is very possible - I did say the wily old fox!  
I see Shatter is also now claiming he knew nothing of the recordings at all last year (direct quote from him is “I know that there are reports that I knew of the system of recording in Garda stations last year, but this is not the case.”) - so as you said michaelm, that is simply not credible! 
The more these politicians try to explain themselves the more confused you are left - and the more cynical you become of the whole thing!


----------



## Sunny (26 Mar 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But taking a helicopter view and hearing all those folk from Martin to Wallace to Ross to Boyd Carpenter talk as if the most wicked perfidy since Stalin had been enacted it all seemed such a storm in a teacup. The test for me is Labour - they are relatively unscathed and if the level of wickedness was even half of that portrayed they would surely have to resign.


 
Labour have been very silent. I think they might be hedging their bets. If Shatter doesn't apologise to the whistleblowers or at least withdraw his remarks about not co-operating then Labour have a decison to make. Can't see it coming to that though. How the Government have allowed  this to beome such a political hot potatoe is beyond me. How much do their advisors get paid again?


----------



## Leo (26 Mar 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I simply don't get it. If I phone the Gardaí I would expect that s/he would at least jot down a note of what I had to say, i.e. s/he would "record" it. The fact that this recording is done by technology is surely a good thing.



The fact that the recording is done by technology, without the explicit consent of either party is what makes it illegal.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Mar 2014)

Leo said:


> The fact that the recording is done by technology, without the explicit consent of either party is what makes it illegal.


I appreciate that, though _michaelm_ seems to have a different take.  I am not querying the legal position, I am asking what is the difference in substance?  And the answer is obvious.  I can deny the contents of a written record where I can't deny the contents of a digital record.  Now just who is the right of deniability protecting?


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Mar 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I appreciate that, though _michaelm_ seems to have a different take.  I am not querying the legal position, I am asking what is the difference in substance?  And the answer is obvious.  I can deny the contents of a written record where I can't deny the contents of a digital record.  Now just who is the right of deniability protecting?



You've got the wrong end of the stick Duke. The legal position is that it is illegal to record without the explicit consent of _either _party, i.e. one party can be recorded without giving consent, as in your example of the Garda taking notes of a conversation. In this case the issue is that the Garda was also unaware that the conversation was being recorded - thus making the recording illegal.


----------



## michaelm (26 Mar 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I appreciate that, though _michaelm_ seems to have a different take.


This quote from _the_ GSOC report clarifies the legal position concisely . .

"The  court  held  that  the  practice engaged in by the gardaí at Waterford Garda Station of recording all incoming and outgoing calls on a particular phone line was in breach of the relevant statute on the recording  of  telephone  communications,  which  requires  that  at  least  one  of  the parties  to  a  phone  call  has  consented  to  its  being  recorded".


----------



## Sunny (26 Mar 2014)

Now why didn't Shatter just issue that apology weeks ago. Nothing has changed apart from greater political pressure so I wouldn't blame the whistleblowers telling him what he can do with his apology. We need to move on from this and at this stage the only that is possible is if Shatter resigns and goes back to writing erotic novels.


----------



## cork (26 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> We need to move on from this and at this stage the only that is possible is if Shatter resigns and goes back to writing erotic novels.



What disappoints me is that Labour and FG still have confidence in him.

Shatter should resign asap.

Leo V seems to be the only one in FG  with courage.

Enda Kenny has also dropped in my estimation.


----------



## Sunny (26 Mar 2014)

cork said:


> Enda Kenny has also dropped in my estimation.


 
When was he ever up in your estimation?


----------



## cork (26 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> When was he ever up in your estimation?



point taken. (never his no.1 fan)

The 2 whistleblowers deserve support.

Time they got some form of recognition.

2 people of courage.


----------



## Purple (26 Mar 2014)

Shatter is, in many ways, an excellent minister. He has taken on his own former profession and is an excellent legislator. If there was a suitable replacement I'd be all for him resigning but the prospect of another former school teacher or publican taking over his portfolio is depressing. From the very little I see of him he seems to be opinionated and arrogant but he's also very intelligent and very capable. In many ways I'd hate to see him go. 
I wonder what John O'Donohoe would have done if he was minister? 
I also find it a bit rich to hear FF, the people who epitomise the nod and wink culture that has bedevilled this country for generations, and the Shinners, who are happy to support those that murdered members of the Gardai, elbowing each other out of the way to take the high moral ground on this issue.
I don't like Alan Shatter but maybe that's a good thing; he's there to legislate, not be liked.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Mar 2014)

Ceist Beag said:


> You've got the wrong end of the stick Duke. The legal position is that it is illegal to record without the explicit consent of _either _party, i.e. one party can be recorded without giving consent, as in your example of the Garda taking notes of a conversation. In this case the issue is that the Garda was also unaware that the conversation was being recorded - thus making the recording illegal.


Thanks for that.  That makes the "scandal" oh so more trivial.  So it is ok for a Garda to tape a conversation unbeknownst to the other side as long as she, the Garda, approves.  But if this process is automated so that the Garda doesn't have to waste time filling out the forms then we have a technical breach.  I think someone in the technical group called this stazi behaviour.  Let's get real here.


----------



## Sunny (26 Mar 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Thanks for that.  That makes the "scandal" oh so more trivial.  So it is ok for a Garda to tape a conversation unbeknownst to the other side as long as she, the Garda, approves.  But if this process is automated so that the Garda doesn't have to waste time filling out the forms then we have a technical breach.  I think someone in the technical group called this stazi behaviour.  Let's get real here.



That's not the concern. The main concern is that privileged phone calls between suspects and their legal representatives were recorded which could have a huge impact on convictions or future cases even if the recordings weren't used. Guess we will see what comes out with the Ian Bailey case.


----------



## cork (27 Mar 2014)

Odd how nieher FG, Labour or Shatter explained why the letter from Callinan took so long to reach Shatter


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Mar 2014)

Slightly off topic but a Q&A about phone recordings is in today's IT. It reiterates the points made in this thread but something bothers me.

It's those statements by companies that they are recording "for training purposes". The Q&A states that if the punter doesn't hang up that amounts to tacit consent. But here's what bothers me; consent is only needed from one party to the conversation, why is the consent of the punter needed?

And I think I got the answer later on in the Q&A. Under Data Protection law you can only record a conversation for specific purposes and can only retain that recording for as long as those specific purposes still hold.

So there you have it "for training purposes" is a specific purpose and since the company will always have a need for training then the recording can be held indefinitely. Come to think of it, how exactly are recorded messages used for "training purposes".

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with these conversations being recorded but the "for training purposes" looks to me like a ruse to get round silly laws. It's rather like those TV telephone raffles where they need a quiz questions designed to get round the gambling laws like "is the capital of Ireland, A. Dublin, B. Moscow or C. Beijing, phone calls will cost €1 a minute".


----------



## Ceist Beag (27 Mar 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> how exactly are recorded messages used for "training purposes".



Easy - they can be used to show how to handle/not to handle customer complaints, e.g. "this is an example of how not to deal with an angry customer, listen to how John gets involved and responds to an abusive comment from the customer with an abusive reply of his own".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Mar 2014)

Ceist Beag said:


> Easy - they can be used to show how to handle/not to handle customer complaints, e.g. "this is an example of how not to deal with an angry customer, listen to how John gets involved and responds to an abusive comment from the customer with an abusive reply of his own".


I'm sure a bit of that goes on to justify the charade. Seems a fairly elaborate system to put in place merely for the purposes of training. 

Please don't tell me that if a punter complains to the bank manager that "she told me I would get 10% interest" that they don't have a sneaky listen to the recorded conversation and don't tell me that this is not the main purpose for keeping these recordings, a practice which I fully sympathise with.

The practice of telephone recordings in financial services is now _de rigueur_ - did you listen to the Anglo Tapes? - and the reason is obvious and it's not for training purposes.


----------



## Ceist Beag (27 Mar 2014)

Absolutely Duke, am with you on that alright. Don't companies like Eircom use recorded conversations as contractual agreement when someone agrees over the phone to a 12 month contract, so certainly the benefits to a company of recording phone conversations is much more than 'training' as you say. But as you also say, this is probably too far off topic to continue discussing!


----------



## RainyDay (31 Mar 2014)

cork said:


> What disappoints me is that Labour and FG still have confidence in him.
> 
> Shatter should resign asap.
> 
> ...



Leo V has also confirmed confidence in Shatter, so don't feel you have to say nice things about anyone in FG or Labour.


----------



## cremeegg (1 Apr 2014)

The thing that scocks me most about all this matter of Callinan's sacking, resignation, retirement, take your pick.

It seems that a senior civil servant went to his house at night and told him that if he didn't resign he would be fired. What kind of behaviour is this for a civil servant. They are paid to work for the state, not to be messenger boys for the after hours, grubby dealings of politicians. 

If that civil servant had any self respect or respect for his office as a servant of the STATE he would have told Enda or Shatter that if they wanted to communicate with the commissioner through the normal channels.

And if Martin Callinan had any self respect, he would have told that civil servant, unless it was an urgent matter of Police business he would be available in his office in the morning. What craven attitude to your superiors allows a man to accept the end of his career to be announced to him by an intermediary at night!! The whole thing smacks of something they were all too ashamed to let bee seen by the light of day.

If Martin Callinan had any competence to go with the self respect he doesn't have. He would have told the Sec Gen to go away and stop bothering him. If the minister wanted him gone he would oblige the minister to go to the trouble of publicly sacking him.

Then Martin Callinan could have gone to the press and said, something like, "As a police man of 40 years standing anything which damages the reputation of the Gardai upsets me greatly. It seemed to me that the actions of the whistleblowers did undermine the reputation of the gardai. However I have now come to realise that the good name of the Gardai is in the long run enhanced by exposing matters like this so that they can be rectified. And I would like to thank the whistleblowers for bringing these matters to public attention and to apologise for my previous remarks. Be assured of my determination to learn from this experience and to seek the assistance of the whistle blowers in addressing the issues raised, to further improve the Gardai"

Callinan would have been a hero to the Gardai, and in light of his well regarded handling of the taping situation, he would then have been unsackable.

Ultimately Callinan went because of his own lack of self respect, and inability to face down political bullying. No Loss


----------



## cork (1 Apr 2014)

cremeegg said:


> It seems that a senior civil servant went to his house at night and told him that if he didn't resign he would be fired. What kind of behaviour is this for a civil servant. They are paid to work for the state, not to be messenger boys for the after hours, grubby dealings of politicians.



Awful stuff.

Shatter will easily win the vote of confidence.

Does not exactly restore faith in the the political system.


----------



## Delboy (1 Apr 2014)

cremeegg said:


> ...Callinan would have been a hero to the Gardai...



I don't think he would have been, to be honest. An awful lot of Gardai are very happy with the current situation and don't want any change or greater accountability.


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2014)

Every journalist in the country is aware that Brian Purcell, the secretary general of the Department of Justice, had a death in his family the week that the letter was not given to Alan Shatter. Has anyone asked if he was distracted by the death of his mother and simply forgot to pass the letter on to the minister? Has anyone asked if he actually opened it?

Shatter is many things but a fool is not one of them. He wouldn’t strike me as politically inept either. Maybe I’ve been watching House of Cards too much but this whole episode stinks of a set-up.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Apr 2014)

cork said:


> Shatter will easily win the vote of confidence.


Of course he will.  Two days of Dail time are to be devoted to this charade.  I sometimes think the TV cameras should be banned.  The two days will be spent by prima donnas trying to put in a TV-genic performance.


----------



## cork (1 Apr 2014)

Purple said:


> Every journalist in the country is aware that Brian Purcell, the secretary general of the Department of Justice, had a death in his family the week that the letter was not given to Alan Shatter.



But many people work in that Dept.

The AG also knew.

Many questions need answering.

I don't think they will given our current Minister.


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2014)

cork said:


> But many people work in that Dept.


Yes, but the letter was sent to him. Did he even read it that week?
It's perfectly understandable if he didn't.


----------



## cork (2 Apr 2014)

Purple said:


> Yes, but the letter was sent to him. Did he even read it that week?
> It's perfectly understandable if he didn't.



I think the time-line supports that he had it for a number of days before taking leave.


----------



## Sunny (2 Apr 2014)

Anyone now want to bet that this will be spun as an anti Semitic story because of some insane lunatic who should be jailed. Shatter will now become the victim. I have seen politicians been spat at and their family abused and it didn't make the front pages.


----------



## Delboy (2 Apr 2014)

It's all about the minorities...they get the column inches


----------

