Register to Comment
Page 11 of 831 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111511 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 8310
Like Tree8588Likes
  1. #101
    Disillusioned democrat Disillusioned democrat is online now
    Disillusioned democrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    13,672

    Quote Originally Posted by artfoley56 View Post
    don't count on it.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017...be-government/

    I used to think coveney was a decent sort, not so sure now. Unless he's trying to play leo
    How would gaming Leo make him a decent sort?

    A senior serving politician misled the citizens and the Dail, let a scheming crooked Commissioner off the hook and actively conspired to ruin one of the few "good guys" in the Garda...Coveney not calling it for what it is just demonstrates his real character no matter what the reason.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #102
    talkingshop talkingshop is offline
    talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    23,600

    I'm not sure what the big deal is even if O'Sullivan's lawyers were instructed to attack the credibility/motives of McCabe at the Commission of Inquiry. That's what happens at these Commissions and Tribunals. At the Charlton Tribunal recently various Tusla workers were effectively accused of having deliberately acted to prejudice McCabe (they all refuted it utterly, said they didn't even know him).

    At the Commission of Inquiry referred to, I've no doubt McCabe's Counsel totally attacked the Guards, questioned their honesty, their motives etc. Was Counsel for the Guards not entitled to do similar to McCabe?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #103
    artfoley56 artfoley56 is online now
    artfoley56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    8,420

    Quote Originally Posted by Disillusioned democrat View Post
    How would gaming Leo make him a decent sort?

    A senior serving politician misled the citizens and the Dail, let a scheming crooked Commissioner off the hook and actively conspired to ruin one of the few "good guys" in the Garda...Coveney not calling it for what it is just demonstrates his real character no matter what the reason.
    sorry, poor punctuation on my part. I meant that coveney defending frances is painting leo into a corner to d3efend her too. it didn't mean id revisit my assessment that he is no longer a man of principles.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #104
    Disillusioned democrat Disillusioned democrat is online now
    Disillusioned democrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    13,672

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    I'm not sure what the big deal is even if O'Sullivan's lawyers were instructed to attack the credibility/motives of McCabe at the Commission of Inquiry. That's what happens at these Commissions and Tribunals. At the Charlton Tribunal recently various Tusla workers were effectively accused of having deliberately acted to prejudice McCabe (they all refuted it utterly, said they didn't even know him).

    At the Commission of Inquiry referred to, I've no doubt McCabe's Counsel totally attacked the Guards, questioned their honesty, their motives etc. Was Counsel for the Guards not entitled to do similar to McCabe?
    I think the big deal is that the cops had fabricated all the evidence against him in the first place.

    Where does the state draw the line between protecting itself and its citizens? IMHO this kind of sleaze has no place in the cabinet.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #105
    Emily Davison Emily Davison is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    23,782

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    I'm not sure what the big deal is even if O'Sullivan's lawyers were instructed to attack the credibility/motives of McCabe at the Commission of Inquiry. That's what happens at these Commissions and Tribunals. At the Charlton Tribunal recently various Tusla workers were effectively accused of having deliberately acted to prejudice McCabe (they all refuted it utterly, said they didn't even know him).

    At the Commission of Inquiry referred to, I've no doubt McCabe's Counsel totally attacked the Guards, questioned their honesty, their motives etc. Was Counsel for the Guards not entitled to do similar to McCabe?

    No surprises you'd come out to defend the indefensible. Any comment from you on the two lying Gardai found out because McCabe had taped them?

    And unlike you I would suggest a Commission of Inquiry is to find out the truth, not attack someone, a whistleblower, who you had promised to defend. That is unless you wanted to go after the whistleblower.
    Last edited by Emily Davison; 21st November 2017 at 03:38 PM. Reason: is
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #106
    Levellers Levellers is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,975

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    I'm not sure what the big deal is even if O'Sullivan's lawyers were instructed to attack the credibility/motives of McCabe at the Commission of Inquiry. That's what happens at these Commissions and Tribunals. At the Charlton Tribunal recently various Tusla workers were effectively accused of having deliberately acted to prejudice McCabe (they all refuted it utterly, said they didn't even know him).

    At the Commission of Inquiry referred to, I've no doubt McCabe's Counsel totally attacked the Guards, questioned their honesty, their motives etc. Was Counsel for the Guards not entitled to do similar to McCabe?
    Lets look at the facts. Everything McCabe has said has proved to be true. Most of what the Guards have said has proved to be untrue. That's all you need to know.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #107
    talkingshop talkingshop is offline
    talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    23,600

    Quote Originally Posted by Disillusioned democrat View Post
    I think the big deal is that the cops had fabricated all the evidence against him in the first place.

    Where does the state draw the line between protecting itself and its citizens? IMHO this kind of sleaze has no place in the cabinet.
    The issue here is that a Commission, or the Tribunal, as the case may be, is an independent body set up to get at the truth.

    Witnesses are called, and they are all given legal representation, and Counsel for any witness can, and does, on behalf of his client, robustly cross examine other witnesses, including questioning their credibility and their motives.

    As I said I've no doubt Counsel for McCabe got stuck into Garda witnesses. Why are Counsel for the Guards not entitled to get stuck into McCabe similarly?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #108
    talkingshop talkingshop is offline
    talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    23,600

    Quote Originally Posted by Levellers View Post
    Lets look at the facts. Everything McCabe has said has proved to be true. Most of what the Guards have said has proved to be untrue. That's all you need to know.
    Some of McCabe allegations which were examined at the O'Higgin's Commission were shown to be true, some were untrue and some were exaggerated.

    But that has nothing to do with the point I made actually.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #109
    Disillusioned democrat Disillusioned democrat is online now
    Disillusioned democrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    13,672

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    The issue here is that a Commission, or the Tribunal, as the case made be, is an independent body set up to get at the truth.

    Witnesses are called, and they are all given legal representation, and Counsel for any witness can, and does, on behalf of his client, robustly cross examine other witnesses, including questioning their credibility and their motives.

    As I said I've no doubt Counsel for McCabe got stuck into Garda witnesses. Why are Counsel for the Guards not entitled to get stuck into McCabe similarly?
    So you're not at all squeamish about the fact that our Minister for Justice (at the time) was happy to go along with a member of the Gardai being hounded by what we know now to be false evidence? That she was happy to see a member of the force ruined rather than actually seek you know, justice, truth, etc?

    Even the judge was upset by this.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #110
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    23,082

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    I'm not sure what the big deal is even if O'Sullivan's lawyers were instructed to attack the credibility/motives of McCabe at the Commission of Inquiry. That's what happens at these Commissions and Tribunals. At the Charlton Tribunal recently various Tusla workers were effectively accused of having deliberately acted to prejudice McCabe (they all refuted it utterly, said they didn't even know him).

    At the Commission of Inquiry referred to, I've no doubt McCabe's Counsel totally attacked the Guards, questioned their honesty, their motives etc. Was Counsel for the Guards not entitled to do similar to McCabe?
    So the state can attack its citizens as though it were just another citizen itself?
    You really don't see a problem with that?

    Even if McCabe's allegations against the state had been untrue, the state isn't an equal, entitled to react in the same way. It runs all the institutions necessary to prove its good faith in the first place.

    And since you know McCabe's allegations were pretty much on the ball, you're justifying the state apparatus being used to crush an individual in a way that would be acceptable only in tyrannies like Soviet Russia. Not that it doesn't happen elsewhere, but not many citizens would be stupid enough to defend it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment