Sunday Times journalist becomes state apologist

by Sean Mon Jun 20, 2005 16:50

I am disgusted at the personal rantings from this so called journalist Sue Denham and wonder that if this is the caliber of people employed at The Sunday Times then that paper is in trouble
She seemingly varnishes over the facts and introduces what can only be described as a personal attack on people who's only crime is to politically dissagree with her political views.
Disgusting and shame on her, shame on the The Sunday Times for allowing such personal drivil to be printed.

by Joe Mon Jun 20, 2005 17:00

Ah yes the infamous 'Sue Denham' strikes again

Now say her name our loud as is its all one word

geddit!

by Chekov Mon Jun 20, 2005 17:11

is not a real journalist (it is a 'pseudonym' - geddit). It is used by staff journalists when they are writing stuff that is so nasty that they are too cowardly to put their name to it. Considering the stuff that they'll happily sign off on, that is saying a lot. Another gutter pseudonym that is used by the Irish papers is 'Marie Nolan' (Ireland on Sunday) and there are others.

Considering the pedigree of the Sunday Times and the history of the use of the Sue Denham name, it is likely that the security forces are often the real sources of these pieces. The last time the name came to my attention was after Mayday last year when 'sue' ran a story attacking indymedia for publishing the picture of an alleged garda agent provocateur on the Farmleigh protests. Sue's 'reliable sources' informed her that the person in question was in fact a well known SF activist from Malahide and she mocked indymedia for their lack of credibility in publishing the story (it was hidden after a few days due to lack of corroboration). Only thing is that nobody in SF knew the guy, they do not even have a branch in the Malahide area, so the reliable sources were presumably the secret police - that's credibility for ya.

by Louise C. - Individual Mon Jun 20, 2005 20:57 lc at gmail dot com

I had heard about the incident in Tallaght (re Na Fianna Eireann) and considered it to be heavy-handed by the Gardai . The article on that incident in The Sunday Times was a disgraceful piece of writing , as the people in that house had in no way provoked that response from the Gardai . I would consider myself an Irish nationalist and , as such , would not normally support a republican grouping such as Na Fianna . But I will now re-consider my position in relation , at least , to them .

LC.

by Fiona Mon Jun 20, 2005 22:18

I was shocked to hear about the heavy handed approach taken by the Garda in dealing with youths, along with 'Sue Denham's' easy dismissal of this.

Young people are not punching bags, nor could one reasonably expect them to lie still and take a beating.

To assault a handicapped lad is beyond belief.

If this were parents behaving like this, the parents would be charged, by the Garda, with abuse. Where is the public outcry?

The door was glass, therefore, the Garda could see that the youths were in the process of opening the door. Damage to the door amounts to vandalism.

I would expect the administration to ensure that an internal investigation was conducted and those guilty charged appropriately. The lads also deserve, at very least, an apology for the abuse they took. Regardless of their politics, they were not causing a problem and they have a right to be hosted in a friend's home.

'Sue Denham' should have her articles edited more carefully. A reputable newspaper would have verified the facts before applauding the abuse of young people.

by Al Mon Jun 20, 2005 23:09

After reading this I felt the need to go back to the original post on the subject (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70224&search_text=na%20fianna) and I cannot find one verified fact in it.

This piece is written by a journalist and printed in a paper. The other is written, on a website, by someone calling himself or herself 'Irish Republican".

In the other post 'Watcher' states "A caller who identified himself as a member of the Special Branch rang the landlord of the rented accomadation and informed him that the tenants partner was a member of the I.R.A".

Barry states "All they were after was the money raised at a social function."


Now my questions are, where is the proof that the other thread is true? Where is the proof that the phonecall was made? or better yet, that it really was a Garda that made the call? If Barry is correct then why is this not mentioned by the people there?

Why is it that when a story is printed that suits people, no facts or backup are required. When statements are made with absolutely no evidence to support them they are agreed with but when the thread doesnt suit its condemned on those very reasons?

Kettle, pot, black................

by Sean Mon Jun 20, 2005 23:45

You say that the original story was unverified. lets take your point are you saying this attack on that house didn't happen that the door and the house were not damaged and that young people in this house were not physically manhandled by state thugs.

You say that the journalists view must be right because she writes for a paper.

Whilst the people in the house who contacted every paper possible to give their side and make themselves available for interview and were rejected because of state control on the mainstream media put their version of events on to a website to draw attention to this vicious attack.

If the media contacted these young people in the house or the landlord of the tenent to verify the follow up threat by someone claimimg to be a special branch officer. then that would constitute verification that might satisfy those who doubt this attack took place.

This story was printed because it was the truth and the avenue that these young people had to take to draw attention to over use of force by uniformed thugs says more for against State controlled media and the avenues open to the truth and for this those attacked are condemned as liars.

The fault of this disgusting story in the Sunday Times is that that so called journalist Sue Denham proves she / he could not be assed to verify any of his / her facts before launching into a political attack on these youths because they disagree with her/ him
So please do not fault people for attacking mistruths that sprout from the mouth of the media.

by P.R.O. Na Fianna Éireann - Na Fianna Éireann Tue Jun 21, 2005 00:17 pro at fiannaeireann dot com NFÉ 10149,Marino,Dublin 3

Na Fianna have sent a letter to The Sunday Times regarding 'Sue Denhams' comments.It is disheartening to think of all the gullible people who will believe the spiteful bile which was published in that paper last weekend,but we take heart in the knowledge that intelligent people like yourselves can see through the black propaganda.
We also appreciate that people whos' political views differ from ours can leave all bias behind and protest at this grotesque piece of writing.As I have said elsewhere on Indymedia,Na Fianna are not looking for sympathy or new members.We are seeking to publicise the corruption and the brutality which seem to be the corner stone of An Garda Síochaina.
First we have the wrongful imprisonment of Frank White in Donegal,then the outcome of the Morris Tribunal which included reports of framing innocents,threatening the lives of innocents,using people of below average intelligence as pretend informers,planting weapons and explosives.Then we have the reports coming from Clonmel on the death of 14 year old Brian Rossiter and the possibility that the bleeding inside his skull was caused by the smack from a Garda torch.We have also seen the death of an old age pensioner who was knocked down by a speeding patrol car while waiting for her bus,she died in hospital on the same day as a 74 year old was knocked down and his two dogs killed by another patrol car.
Then, just when we thought the Gardaí could'nt possibly do themselves any more damage in the public eye two of their detectives were suspended from duty after pulling guns on each other outside the U.S.A.s' embassy in Ballsbridge.One of the GardaI involved was then arrested leaving the scene on suspicion of drunk driving.
Minister for injustice Michael McDowell has a CV that would have guaranteed him a job with General Franco had he been around at that time,as it is he could probably apply successfully to Lukashenkos government in Belarus for work.His unabashed abuse of the common citizen is a crime and at the very least he should be made accountable for what he has done and what he has turned a blind eye to.
No matter what you feel strongly about,.wether it be the rights of immigrants in Ireland,the illegal occupation of the six counties or simply basic human rights in this country,you must be deafened by the alarm bells which are ringing.This is fast becoming a police state,a police state which is unanswerable and unaccountable for its actions,a police state where you are guilty not only until proven innocent,but until the GardaI can no longer hide the fact.
Whatever you do please make your voice heard,if we dont protest now when these awful truths are in the public domain then we can resign ourselves to another dark age of state repression and public apathy.

by micheailin o'cinnsealach Tue Jun 21, 2005 01:49 saoirse32 at fastmail dot fm

If anyone wants to know the truth of what happened, all they have to do is talk to the people involved and look at the photographs of the injuries and damages. If faceless hack writers don't bother to do so or are afraid to do so, it is because that would contradict the blatant lies and innuendo they wish to ram down the throats of gullible readers and because they have their own political agenda which takes precedence over their being a human being. To call this hack a journalist is to do disservice to the profession-- and the Sunday Times would be more aptly termed the mouth end of the assholes.

by Al Tue Jun 21, 2005 01:51

but the fact remains that you have 2 stories that are completely unverified.
There is no proof to what the original post claims. there is no proof to what Watcher or Barry stated. Is there? Can anyone provide it?

As for the raid on the house, how do you know it didnt happen for perfectly legal reasons and the Gardai were met with force? Maybe that would explain why armed Gardai were there.

If the journalist must provide proof then so must the person that wrote the original thread. Its a simple fact. BTW, May I ask how her version differs from the original thread? The difference is she doesnt believe the story coming from Na Fianna but they both state that a raid took place, that there was violence. Whereas Na Fianna would have us believe it was just a savage attack the journalist merely points out that this is a standard defence claim.

I find it truly strange that the paper is biased but the thread written by Na Fianna about Na Fianna is not. Honestly, can no one see the double standards in this?

As for the Gardai being corrupt, corrupt and corrupt. Lets get one thing straight. the Garda in the embassy turned up for work drunk, a colleague confronted him about it and there was an arguement. At no point did they point guns at eachother. After that the drunk drove away and was arrested for drink driving. Now, honestly answer me a question, who arrested him? Other Gardai, but how? we always protect corrupt Gardai dont we? No, we dont. That very story proves that honest Gardai will not stand by and allow the actions of corrupt Gardai and neither will we allow colleagues to break the law.

BTW, how do you know al these stories about the Gardai? How do you know about the drunk? The papers, thats how, the same papers that supposedly will not go against Gardai. Oh and I suppose Primetime wont speak against Gardai either?

So, at the end of it all your comment that " This story was printed because it was the truth" Has absolutely no basis in fact, you have no proof whatsover of this.

What you mean to say is you choose to believe the story. I on the other hand, do not. I choose to believe that Na Fianna are IRA sympathisers at a minumum but judging by their own website probable so much more. Surely people on 'active duty' should be watched by the police?
And why would they admit to anything on a website?

by Sean Tue Jun 21, 2005 04:17

Seems you are missing the point and taking two lines out of that article to imply its all a lie typical state reaction try to cover the crime by attacking not those whom the attack was perpetrated against but try to muddy the water enough to confuse people and concentrate on areas other than were the gardai justified in attacking the house and it occupants.

You says she (This so called journalist) dosn't believe the Fianna version she is entitled to that belief but one would imagine to come to that conclusion she has spoke to people on both sides of this raid and then came to that conclusion to do other wise showed her unprofessionalism and disdain for the truth.

FACT she did not contact anyone in the house or the Landlord for any comment thus it is fair to say she came to her own conclusion and very shoddily wrote a story she had not fully investigated and mostly based on her own opinion. Not very good journalistic work.

I leave it to ordiary people to come to their own conclusions re what happened and wheither they believe An Garda Síochaina.
are acting like thugs with their bully tactics .

by R. Isible Tue Jun 21, 2005 20:13

Well, Al, there have been plenty of lies written by journalists and printed in a paper. Personally I'm waiting for the anarchists to unleash the gas in Dublin that they didn't use during Mayday in Dublin. I'm also waiting to see the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (heavily researched and verified story published by the Newspaper of Record in the USA).

At this stage of the game only the most naive person would every believe anything at face value. The difference is that with Indymedia.ie it all comes out in the wash and the editors and journalists don't have a monopoly on what gets published.

That's why indymedia.ie was set up: so that everyone could tell their own side of the story. It's up to you the reader to be skeptical and provide information that informs other people as to why you are skeptical or not.

Believing that because something is "published in a newspaper" (actual printed stuff you can hold in your hands!!! wow!!!) by a "journalist" means that it is more credible is naive and discredited by the examples above.

Indymedia.ie has been especially good at supplanting traditional media in its coverage of alternative political movements and viewpoints and allowing their participants to tell their own stories in an unmediated fashion.

Given the hostility which Sue Denham shows Na Fianna hEireann it's reasonable to assume that if the story were deniable in any way that would have been done.

by Louise C. Tue Jun 21, 2005 21:50

Al ,

I used to be like you (and possibly still am , regretfully - but not as much so , now !) regarding the Gardai - I had great faith in them . I always believed I could rely on them .
But not anymore .

They , themselves , have shaken my confidence in them , by their own mis-deeds . I no longer trust them as fully as I used to , no longer accept their 'word' on an incident (unless I was present myself to witness it) and would be extremely reluctant to even consider passing on any information I had relating to a crime .
And I don't like being like this . But I also do not like being treated like a fool by those I thought would protect me . I can see now that they really only protect each other .

LC.

by Al Tue Jun 21, 2005 23:39

Sean/R,
I have not stated that it is true because its printed in a paper. My comments are merely pointing out that one is as reliable as the other. the fact is people are claiming that her story about the incident is complete crap but my question is this; Why is her story crap and the other 100% true?
Neither story is a proven fact. they are opinions but I wonder why you are so certain she spoke to no-one involved. Has anyone on this site that has spent the last few days attacking the Gardai and stating 'facts' spoken with or proven any of these facts? The answer is no. Its that simple.

In regards to my own opinions, I have stated why I dont believe the NF version. I stand by my comments fully. Now, please, can you , hand on heart, state that you see no reason for NF to provide a biased version of events? Again I ask, would a person involved in a criminal activity or in an unpopular activity admit to it? Of course they wouldnt, they arent stupid. Now Im not stating that this is the case but its a possibility.

Now can Barry or Watcher please provide any proof of their comments? If I was to make comments of such a nature I would be attacked by dozens of users but they have been allowed carry on.

And finally, her story is based on the original NF version, she is merely stating her opinions, they are opinions I agree with but can anyone here prove NF version is correct and her comments are incorrect?

FACT: something which is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists.

We cannot use that term for the NF version of events, we simple cannot.

Louise,
I find your comments niave and typical of the present climate. Now in order to attempt to put your opinions in context let me explain a few things:
A, I am a Garda.
B, I have seen and read comments on the news, papers and here which I know to be false and completely biased.
C, If even 1000 Gardai are corrupt that still leaves more than 90% which are honest and trying their best for you, as a citizen.
D, No Garda will defend or agree with the actions of a corrupt few in Donegal. Do you think we want to work with these people?
E, their transfers are temporary until there has been a case against them and a verdict. I repeat, they will be investigated on a criminal platform.
F, The fact that you, like many others, will now not report crime means that criminals that have hurt you or another person walk away. Is this an acceptable situation to you? In fact, please explain why you wouldnt report a crime, I see no reason for such a statement.
G, I will repeat this because apparantly people arent listending, I DO NOT trust journalists or the pieces they write. I have seen enough lies about the Gardai that I know are false to simple believe what I read. But I find it incredible that people accuse the papers of always siding with the Gardai but then use reports to attack Gardai, folks it cant be both. Either journalists can be trusted to report the truth or they cannot. Which is it?

Now, you can dodge the questions I ask and rant but try to remember that I have the common decency to answer questions put to me and give explanations.

by Fiona Wed Jun 22, 2005 01:00

Would you concede that an investigation by the administration should take place?

By determining what the facts are then the credibility of the Garda would be restored or appropriate discipline can be meted out.

by Chekov Wed Jun 22, 2005 01:20

Al says "the fact is people are claiming that her story about the incident is complete crap but my question is this; Why is her story crap and the other 100% true?"

The point is, Al, that there aren't two stories here. The Sunday Times article does not substantially differ over the 'facts' with the Na Fianna version. 'Sue', rather, seems to accept the facts but thinks that this is a fine way for the gardai to treat the victims.

Now that's not proof that the facts are accurate ('sue' could well have cut and pasted her version from indymedia), but nobody has yet disputed any of the facts. If you, or anybody else, wish to question any of the facts, you are free to do so, but until then we only really have one version of events and no particular reason to doubt it.

by mr. pedantic Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:29

Well Al if the story is a complete concoction by some subversive republican elements or if it is true and the Gardai had a valid reason for their actions why don't the boys in blue issue a statement clarifying the matter and putting the record straight ? After all if they were really acting in the public interest what have they got to hide from the public at large (those whom they are supposed to be serving and protecting) ? We're in the twenty first century so the Gardai will have to learn to move with the times. Maybe ye should hire some PR consultants and spin doctors to brush up the ould image and restore a bit of public credibility after the Donegal debacle.

Roll on the day that the Free State moves into the modern world and has - like any progressive civilised society - an independent Ombudsman with powers to investigate alleged police excesses ..... the principle being that those who administer the law should not be allowed to feel themselves above it and beyond all accountability to those whom they SERVE .....

(Watch out ! Mind your head. Here comes a flying pig ....)

by Betty Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:40

Want to use Indymedia and say what happened that night of the 'alleged' assault in Store Street that's on the ol' radio this morning.
Or any comments on how a 14 year old could die in custody in Clonmel? Any thoughts on why the Gardai would say he was on a four day drink-drug binge to the state pathologist and yet the toxicology reports show otherwise?

by P.R.O. Na Fianna Éireann - Na Fianna Éireann Wed Jun 22, 2005 14:27 P.R.O. at fiannaeireann dot com P.O. Box 10149,Marino,Dublin 3.

Na Fianna are willing to meet anyone wishing to verify the fact that the attack in Tallaght took place.I can be contacted by e-mail or by post and will reply to all correspondence.
Na Fianna are a legal organisation,why would the Gardaí have their weapons drawn entering the house and point them at unarmed civilians?Do the Gardaí think that Na Fianna visit each others houses carrying Kalashnikovs?Do they think that an 18 year old Cerebral Palsy sufferer,3 young women and two twenty three year old men celebrating after a fundraiser constitute a deadly threat?
The other men were asleep upstairs.The three upstairs included the man in his forties who couldnt even comply with the Gardaís orders of 'Down on the fucking ground' because of a slipped disc,the second was a 19 year old who was taken to Tallaght barracks in his boxer shorts after being refused the dignity of even putting on trousers and the third man (22) who was dragged from his bed was literally pushed down the stairs.
We in Na Fianna are now accustomed to Garda harassment but this attack has gone too far.We are no longer willing to take the abuse and stay silent.Every incident of harrassment will now be put on file and sent to the Garda Complaints Commission and Amnesty International simultaneously.
I repeat my call for anyone who doubts the facts of the attack in Tallaght to contact me at p.r.o.@fiannaeireann.com or send me a private message on the www.irbb.rr.nu forum.

by Al Wed Jun 22, 2005 15:14

Fiona,
I have no problem with independant investigations but remember something. In order to investigate a situation you have to have knowledge or experience of what it is your investigating and above all be non-biased.

Betty,
Do you ever enter a thread and talk about the actual thread or are you on this site purely to follow me? Asbos, Donegal and now this. BTW, I believe a statement was issued this morning about Store Street, Im not stupid enought to talk about it or give information away for anyone to read but I can say the statement is correct and he was not abused. As for Clonmel, would you care to comment why the state pathologist statedfor a fact, I repeated stated for a fact, that he died as a result of an injury he received 2 days before and his own family admit he was in a fight 2 or 3 days before being arrested. Any thoughts? Any at all? Or will you A, ignore my comment or B, exit this thread and wait for another day to try your feeble ambush attempts.

Mr,
We are not a political party, we dont use spin. As for issuing statements, why? Theres an investigation, the search (Authorised by a judge) was carried out as part of that. Do you think we could operate if we warned our targets in advance? As for the independent, please answer my above questions about who arrested the drunk Garda, who was that? Then please look at stats for the Garda complaints board against the PSNI ombudsman, which was taken more action? I have nothing to fear from an ombudsman I dont abuse prisoners or use more force than I have to, Im not corrupt but I am entitled to the same privacy as you are so I disagree with an ombudsman searching my locker without a warrant. And finally, Im not your slave, I dont serve you. I inforce the law regardless of who you are.

PRO,
Where are the barracks in Tallaght? Im not aware of a military presence. Who are you at war with? Why do you have a military uniform and engage in military excercises? The UDA was legal for many years as well so thats hardly a valid point. Why wont you debate on this site in public?I wont be contacting you by any private method. Im a Garda for gods sake, try to gain an insider from somewhere else, I have no time for terrorists or their supporters. Also, please define 'active service' what does that mean within your organisation? You are the Hitler youth of modern day Ireland, no more, no less.
Now, how about admitting that the 'military brilliance' of NF wet themselves when faced with the Gardai and are now trying to portray themselves as poor little good boys.

by Betty Wed Jun 22, 2005 16:05

"Do you ever enter a thread and talk about the actual thread or are you on this site purely to follow me?"
Yeah, purely to follow you.

"Asbos, Donegal and now this. BTW, I believe a statement was issued this morning about Store Street, Im not stupid enought to talk about it or give information away for anyone to read but I can say the statement is correct and he was not abused."

Yeah, that clinchs it for me.

"As for Clonmel, would you care to comment why the state pathologist statedfor a fact, I repeated stated for a fact, that he died as a result of an injury he received 2 days before and his own family admit he was in a fight 2 or 3 days before being arrested."

Yeah, she also said "that his drink and drugs intoxication could have masked the extent of the damage done to him on the Sunday evening". Odd that when it didn't show up in any toxicology report. Wonder why the Gardai felt the need to make that up when the ambulance crew arrived. There is of course that fresher mark/bruise.

"Any thoughts? Any at all? Or will you A, ignore my comment or B, exit this thread and wait for another day to try your feeble ambush attempts."

Plenty of thoughts Al, plenty. Give my best to Victory and Judge. Still fighting the fight?

by Al Wed Jun 22, 2005 17:13

Betty,
Are you under the ilusion that the state pathologist is a Garda? "She stated that the amount of acohol" and "why would the Gardai make that up" She is the state pathologist, whatever she said has nothing to do with what theGardai said, which is it? BTW, her verdict was death caused by wounds recieved 2 DAYS before he was taken into custody, no amount of moaning or snide remarks by you will change that. Does it pain you to be wrong? does it pain you that the Gardai didnt do anything wrong?


Dont know Victory, Judge was fine last time I saw him. Innocent until proven guilty or in their case proven innocent. 12 people that werent Gardai found them innocent in a criminal court. Independent enough for you?

Now, any other cases that resulted in innocent verdicts that you would like to speak about? Or is that all you have? Good comments BTW, proved me wrong no end and so relevant to the thread as well. Well done Betty.

by Betty Wed Jun 22, 2005 17:43

Fact - 14 year old boy dies in Garda custody.
Fact - Boy's friend claims Garda used brutal force.
Fact - A man was charged with manslaughter but the charge was dropped.
Fact - Refusal to release autopsy report and other relevant medical files.
Fact - Gardai inform ambulance crew that 14 year old boy had been on a drink and drugs binge for four to five days and this was recored in the notes of the doctor that saw him after entry.
Fact - State Pathologist makes assumptions based on erroneous report.
Fact - Toxicology tests show no detectable traces of alcohol or drugs.

"does it pain you that the Gardai didnt do anything wrong?"

No pain, not proved.

by Noel Wed Jun 22, 2005 17:54

Betty,

you are a ranting raving lunatic, all of your socalled "facts" have been disproven by Al

Face up to it, you cant or wont stay on the relevant thread, rant on about the good gardai and then wont admit when you are wrong.

You are whats wrong with society no Al and his colleagues

by Al Wed Jun 22, 2005 18:00

Fact: the friend wasnt in the cell.
How does the friend know? Where was he/she during all this?

Fact: State pathologist does not assume based on what the Gardai state.
Your knowledge of the medical profession is non-existent.

Fact: he was drinking,
dont know about the drugs.

Fact: medical reports nothing to do with Gardai.
They are medical reports Betty, medical. Can you not tell the difference between Gardai and doctors anymore?

We request them just like anybody else. Have you requested your own doctors notes lately? Its harder than you imagine.

Seems to me Betty your paranoid, seeing Gardai wherever you look, the state pathologist, doctors, nurses, maybe even in our schools.
get help Betty, go see a doctor. they are in white usually, not blue.

by Betty Wed Jun 22, 2005 18:00

To be slagged of by you is indeed an honour. Care to show me step by step how Al disproved those facts.

by Betty Wed Jun 22, 2005 18:12

"Fact: the friend wasnt in the cell.
How does the friend know? Where was he/she during all this?"

He was assaulted as well. Its in his statement with his solicitor.

"Fact: State pathologist does not assume based on what the Gardai state.
Your knowledge of the medical profession is non-existent."

Her autopsy report was influenced by information she had received. She trusted your lot.

"Fact: he was drinking,
dont know about the drugs."

Fact because you say so? Divine Al, divine. What about the toxicology report

"Fact: medical reports nothing to do with Gardai.
They are medical reports Betty, medical. Can you not tell the difference between Gardai and doctors anymore?"

Reports not released because the material relates to a criminal case against a third party. Who would deal with that Al? Doctors?

No comment on the ambulance driver being told a pack of lies?

What's this thread about again? State apologists. You seem to be very much on message.

by Al Wed Jun 22, 2005 18:20

OK Betty, step by step, here we go.

Fact 1: Someone dies in custody, this proves what Betty? people die in hospitals and prisons as well, they also die at home. Doesnt mean anything.

Fact 2: a boy claims, and? Whats your point? he was arrested as well, hardly a Garda lover is he? Whats his proof? How does he know? Why didnt they beat him as well? For your information Betty, cells are individual, 1 cell = 1 person. No windows between each cell. What facts are these claims based on? If I state that your a one eyed green troll does that make it true?


Fact 3: couple of hundred people charged with manslaughter every year. This is relevant because.....?

Fact 4: Release of reports nothing to do with Gardai. They are MEDICAL reports. They come from doctors.

Fact 5: ANd? the Gardai said he had drugs and drink, the doctor took note of this. So? Are you suggesting that the doctor didnt examine and treat the boy based on their medical knowledge and experience? Again, if I say your a one eyed green troll will that mean people will treat you as one?

Fact 6: My god Betty, what report? What was wrong with the report? Same as fact 5 Betty.

Fact 7: Fine, it makes absolutely no difference in the world.

My dear Betty, the state pathologist, after examining the body, reached a verdict (On her own and based on her knowledge and experience) That the boy died from wounds recieved 2 days before being in custody. That I think pretty much proves my point.

I call my first witness, the person that examined the body. A doctor with years of experience and training. That witness states it wasnt the Gardai.

I call my second witness. the Boys parents. They state that the boy was in a fight 2 or 3 days before being in custody.

1 + 1 = 2. the defence rests its case.

Now, I believe the subject is journalists and newspaper reports..........

by Betty Wed Jun 22, 2005 18:38

"Fact 1: Someone dies in custody, this proves what Betty? people die in hospitals and prisons as well, they also die at home. Doesnt mean anything."

We'll see!

"Fact 2: a boy claims, and? Whats your point? he was arrested as well, hardly a Garda lover is he? Whats his proof? How does he know? Why didnt they beat him as well? For your information Betty, cells are individual, 1 cell = 1 person. No windows between each cell. What facts are these claims based on? If I state that your a one eyed green troll does that make it true?"

According to him they did beat him and the dead 14 year old. If you state that I am one eyed green troll, you might be right or at least have part of it right.


"Fact 3: couple of hundred people charged with manslaughter every year. This is relevant because.....?"

In light of McBrearty I would say interesting.

"Fact 4: Release of reports nothing to do with Gardai. They are MEDICAL reports. They come from doctors."

In actual fact just to prove that you are not the know all (or al) that you think you are - it is the DPP who is refusing to release the autopsy report. The Minister in Jan 2004 requested that the Garda authorities prepare a report on the mattter. And in August 2004 wrote regretting the delay and pointed out that the investigation of a criminal complaint is an operational matter for An Garda Siochana and as such the Minister had no role. The Garda authorities said that it would not be possible to grant posssession of the files that the family were requesting.

"Fact 5: ANd? the Gardai said he had drugs and drink, the doctor took note of this. So? Are you suggesting that the doctor didnt examine and treat the boy based on their medical knowledge and experience? Again, if I say your a one eyed green troll will that mean people will treat you as one?"

A toxicology report showed that the Guards had lied. Fact.

To all the rest, we'll see I'm sure when the third anniversary comes around in September there won't be any reason not to release the autopsy report.

by Betty Wed Jun 22, 2005 18:41

I say to Noel

Cheers Noel
by Betty Wednesday, Jun 22 2005, 5:00pm

To be slagged of by you is indeed an honour. Care to show me step by step how Al disproved those facts.

to which Al replies

Its easy
by Al Wednesday, Jun 22 2005, 5:20pm

OK Betty, step by step, here we go.

Al and Noel like peas in a pod.

by Betty Wed Jun 22, 2005 18:42

The apostrophes was the clincher.

by Al Wed Jun 22, 2005 21:03

I didnt see your comments before replying so thanks for that.

As for Shrek,
Considering your weak responses and blatant denial of the facts I presume you concede the point and admit your wrong? The best you have is "The gardai lied", but thats not what I stated, I spoke about the doctors and how they reached their conclusions but all you have is the typical huffy response. If the Gardai are corrupt and have things to hide then the doctors must be on it as well. Is the whole world out to get you Betty?

As for the medical reports, dear me Betty, are you so blind? You can request a medical report but why oh why would you request it from the Gardai and why, oh why would they give you the copy they have? It makes no sense, why not go to the person that issues the report?

BTW, no mention of medical reports in their request according to you and I quote "The Garda authorities said that it would not be possible to grant posssession of the files that the family were requesting." Big difference between asking a DOCTOR for a medical report and asking the Gardai for their criminal investigation file.

Let me explain why we do not release information that we have gathered, we are impartial. To give information out which people intend to use in a civil claim would not be ethical as it would be showing favourtism. In addition, the information was collected using Garda powers to investigate a criminal matter, therefore it would be abuse of those powers to hand the information over to people with no power to obtain the information and with no criminal law authority. Should we give out criminal investigation files for car accidents as well?

As for the minister, make up your mind and stick to an opinion, the fact that the minister was not able to obtain our file is because he has no authority to view or take posession of Garda files. This very point was discussed in the Dail today as this is one of the powers he wants under the Garda bill.

Come on Betty, cant you be big enough to admit your wrong? Or at the very least, go away quietly and lick your wounds, you have lost this battle. Next time dont make statements you cant back up and dont get down, Im sure the name 'shrek' is used in an loving way.

by mr. pedantic Wed Jun 22, 2005 21:54

Al, you proudly proclaim that you are not my slave, you merely "inforce" the law.
(I think that you mean "enforce" but let's leave the spelling out of it this time ... don't want to annoy you more than necessary ...)

Ahem ... whatever happened to noble concepts like serving the community etc ....
Have you chappies been reduced to mere robotic automatons, soul-less "enforcers" ?

Did you ever pause to think about what "law" is or why you "enforce" it (apart from the obvious riposte that "it's my job !"). I mean did you ever reflect on a meaningful human level beyond the "jobs-worth" dimension.

I think if you did that you might find that there is - or at least used to be - an element of "public service" associated with the concept of a police force in a democratic society ..... but I forgot, with the ideological hegemony of neo-liberalism aren't we all economic automations nowadays governed by blind market forces and evidently policed by soul-less "enforcers" just doing their job ....

Oh and by the way I never meant to suggest that I considered you my slave. If a policeman is doing a useful job and serving the public interest by his actions then I'm quite happy to acknowledge his efforts and assist him if appropriate. But if some thick ignorant f**ker thinks that because he's put on a uniform in the morning (or evening) that he is above the law and do as he likes, then I start thinking that there should be a mechanism for holding him accountable for his actions ... and in the public interest and for the sake of credibility I would put it to you that those who are authorised to review his actions should have some significant measure of independence.

And while we're at it, a parting shot: what law exactly were the cops involved in the RSF raid enforcing ? Could you please clarify that for me. Were they really enforcing the law or acting like skangers in uniform (to paraphrase the comments of one contributer) ? Don't hide behind glib subterfuges like "they had a warrant". The boys that raided the (alleged !) pedophile judge's house had a warrant too (albeit later found to have expired) but they didn't bate the shite out of the honorable wiggie did they ?

by mr. pedantic Wed Jun 22, 2005 22:04

Al I hate to break it to you but it's on the Garda web site:
An Garda Síochána - Ireland's National Police Service

Got that ?
An Garda Síochána - Ireland's National Police SERVICE

Not "Ireland's bleedin' Rambo ENFORCERS whose job it is to kick your f**kin' head in if you get in our way" ..... no - plain and simple:
Ireland's National Police SERVICE

So the concept of a police SERVICE is still officially recognised, (or at least has official lip service paid to it) despite the attitude of some of its rank and file members ......

by mr. pedantic Wed Jun 22, 2005 22:33

Al you know what a pedantic twat I am.
I just found an error on the Irish page.
A fragment of English language text is embedded out of place in the middle of the version "as Gaeilge" in the last section on the page entitled "Réigiún Chathair Átha Cliath".

"The Dublin Metropolitan Region is made up primarily of the City and Tá Réigiún Chathair Átha Cliath déanta as Cathair agus Contae Átha Cliath, ainneoin go bhfolaíonn sé pócaí beaga comhairseanachta Chontae Chill Dara san an iarthair agus Contae Chill Mhantáin sa deisceart."

Maybe you could pass the word on and get it corrected. Now that "an Ghaeilge" is an official EU language ye'll be having O Cuiv after ye to clean up the act.

by Al Wed Jun 22, 2005 23:16

Post 1: We 'serve' the public by enforcing the law. Laws designed to protect the interests of the population. We serve the population, not individuals, that is my point. An Garda Siochana does not "Serve and protect" (Thats American) ours is "To protect life and property". Yes we provide a service but its an overall service, its not meant to be taken that we actually serve any one individual directly. But regardless, thats a minor issue and not really worthy of our time. s for your parting shot, I will answer your question in the relevant link but I have already done so, so please read it first and then ask a question. A quick answer would be or should be obvious, they were raiding a house because they believed there was people or objects in that house that were or are illegal. personally I dont know because I was not involved. But please remember, its only 1 side you are going on.

Post 2: Pretty much the same as post 1 I think. But I want to add that Gardai are granted certain permissions to be oustide the law IE we are allowed to use force, we are allowed to detain people against their will. Obviously their are laws allowing this but there are laws that also forbid this, if you know what i mean. What Im trying to say is when I arrest a person and take them to the station I am not kidnapping them. Also, the word Service could just as easily be force. Its just the word thats used. If you want to use our name then our job is to guard the peace.

Post 3: No, I wont be passing that on, I dont even know who looks after the website. Im not fluent in Irish, what is DMR in Irish?

A little bit of info, the warrant that was expired was what is called 'case-law' or 'law-stated' which means it had never been looked at before and the high court had to make a decision. what happened was the warrant was issued late on say, Monday and the general rule before then had been 7 days after issue however it was decided that day 1 is actually the date its issued. That changed day 7 into day 8 and hey presto, warrant had expired. Its annoying as it doesnt change the facts of the case but the case was lost on a technicality. But doesnt that show that the Gardai will go after poeple regardless of position?

by mr. pedantic Wed Jun 22, 2005 23:39

Ah yer some dude altogether Al.

Even a dopey like me was able to track down the webmaster's e-mail addy:
rfgpro@iol.ie

I'll be sending him a wee note to get his act together.

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/email.html

by Al Thu Jun 23, 2005 01:09

And I care about this because?

by Betty Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:52

I have no idea what the shrek reference is that you are on about. I think you are beginning to see things that are not there, not odd for the profession you claim to represent.

As to the medical report that the famiy are looking for that would be the autopsy report that is being withheld by your lot. Now I wonder why?

As to your thanks for Noel, isn't it a bit odd that Noel praises you for refuting my facts, six minutes before you actually posted them. Amazing feat really.

by Al Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:17

You are a one eyed green troll, therefore I now call you Shrek.

He was responding to the fact that I have been kicking your ass since you entered this thread. This is proven by the fact that you keep ignoring the facts and repeating the same tired old comments that I have already proven are crap.

by Betty Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:37

Kicking my ass in your own head Al. (Unfortunate choice of words all the same.)
Maybe Childline should be rang about that kid you are neglecting either that or you do your trolling on taxpayers time and money.

by Al Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:41

I can only laugh at how low and desperate you have fallen, to now be resorting to questioning my parental skills.

Betty, look at your watch, its 11.41, ever hear of something called school?

Now, have you anything, anything at all to say about the actual subject?

by Betty Thu Jun 23, 2005 13:36

Where you out of school the same day as Al when Teach was giving the lesson on apostrophes?

by Al Thu Jun 23, 2005 13:40

Anything Betty? Anything at all about the subject?

by Michael McDowell Thu Jun 23, 2005 16:03

If all you Guards on this page don't get back to work you are all fired. You are not paid to sit about bitching with students and pinkoes. You are paid to sit about in day-glo vans staring out the window and drinking tea. Now hop to it!

by mcd's sec Thu Jun 23, 2005 16:23

What are guards paid for? Let's not forget preserving the class system through violence!

qui custodiet custodies?

(my latin is a little shit, but you get the point)

by Commissioner Conroy Thu Jun 23, 2005 16:40

We are legally obligied to ignore political interference in operational matters.

All you guards are on operations presently so ignore this order from the "minister", he wont be around much longer anyhow

by Al Thu Jun 23, 2005 17:38

Aye aye Commish. Im off for some coffee, I dont drink tea.

by Shrek Sun Jun 26, 2005 22:54

Hey Al get back on the beat double quick.
Vincent Browne is on to you guys:
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=VINCENT%20BROWNE-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=5912-qqqx=1.asp

Also Conroy's position is starting to look pretty untenable. Wonder if MickeyD will give him the chop ?
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=EDITORIAL-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=5937-qqqx=1.asp