is there much to run in this lads?
one storm takes over from the other and focus shifts
CRC, Irish Water consultancy, CRC again, then GSOC bugging
[quote=âkerry1891, post: 902241, member: 1379â]is there much to run in this lads?
one storm takes over from the other and focus shifts
CRC, Irish Water consultancy, CRC again, then GSOC bugging[/quote]
Story will die unless Sunday Times has more information on Sunday
All I imagine they have is that somebody knew more than they should about a GSOC investigation and that is why they carried out the surveillance investigation but that is likely to be short on specifics as it will be hard to point to a specific fact that only GSOC could have known
Surely the Tee-Shock misleading the nation is cause for at least a retraction from him?
[quote=âTheUlteriorMotive, post: 902247, member: 2272â]Story will die unless Sunday Times has more information on Sunday
All I imagine they have is that somebody knew more than they should about a GSOC investigation and that is why they carried out the surveillance investigation but that is likely to be short on specifics as it will be hard to point to a specific fact that only GSOC could have known[/quote]
I tend to agree that it is running out of steam unless summit emerges at the weekend
It should be but for most of the public it is semantics - shall/may - I think it is important but I suspect media will lose interest
Bit of trouble for Shatter this afternoon.
He was on Prime Time last night where Claire Byrne did well in getting him all arrogant and condescending suggesting the members of GSOC were confused when appearing before the Oireachtas Committee. That was good interviewing - she built him up a little and the pompous fucker was all too glad to sneer at the poor GSOC lads out of their depth. He was vehement in his defence of his DĂĄil statement representing the truth as he knew it at the time.
Now the Irish Times have seen the briefing note that GSOC provided to Shatter. So he did completely understate the facts as he knew them in his DĂĄil statement and he wasnât truthful last night in saying that GSOC didnât explain everything to him at their meeting and may just have been a bit confused at the Oireachtas Committee.
As an aside, while Claire Byrneâs interview was excellent, the news headline on RTĂ this morning was that Callinan was to issue a statement today confirming there was no Garda involvement in any bugging of GSOC. Eh thatâs not a confirmation, thatâs just him panicking.
Hereâs the IT article:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gsoc-briefing-paper-contains-more-than-shatter-dĂĄil-statement-1.1691878
[article]
The briefing note supplied by the Garda SĂochĂĄna Ombudsman Commission to the Minister for Justice Alan Shatter seems to contradict his comments last night that he set out to the DĂĄil the information furnished to him.
The three-page briefing note, which has been seen by The Irish Times, includes a number of specific details which were not referenced by Mr Shatter in his statement in the DĂĄil on Tuesday. The note also seems to reflect, in summary form, the account given by GSOC chairman Simon OâBrien to the Oireachtas Committee on Oversight and Petitions during four hours of hearings.
Mr Shatter last night said that the three-person GSOC commission had given different answers to particular issues. âSome of what was said during the course of that was to be a little confused or contradictoryâ, Mr Shatter said during an interview on RTĂâs Prime Time last night.
However, an examination of the briefing note by The Irish Times indicates that the evidence given by Mr OâBrien and the other commissioners to the committee is largely consistent with the information contained in the briefing note it submitted to Mr Shatter before he made his DĂĄil statement. It includes information that was divulged to the committee but was not disclosed by the Minister when speaking in the DĂĄil on Tuesday evening.
However, the briefing note does not contain any reference to a context or âtriggerâ for the initial security sweep â Mr OâBrien revealed on Wednesday there were specific concerns and reasons that prompted the sweep.
While Mr Shatter quoted from the briefing notes in the DĂĄil on Tuesday, he did not include some of the details in relation to two of the three specific potential security threats that were identified that would tend to increase the gravity of the threat posed to the security of the GSOCâs offices.
One of the potential threats concerned a telephone in Mr OâBrienâs office. The test involved sending an audio signal down the line to see if somebody was listening in. The note, and Mr Shatterâs DĂĄil statement, both stated that immediately after the transmission of the audio signal, the conference phone rang.
However, the briefing note â and subsequent comment by Mr OâBrien and fellow commissioner Kieran Fitzgerald â went on to say that the operator from the UK security company Verrimus âjudged that the likelihood of a âwrong numberâ being called at that time (1am), to that exact unknown number, at the time of an alerting text, was so small as to be at virtually zeroâ.
There is no reference to this sentence in Mr Shatterâs DĂĄil statement which rather emphasises another point in the briefing that no further anomalies were discovered.
On the third threat there is another omission from Mr Shatterâs DĂĄil statement. That related to an âunexpected 3G networkâ detected in the vicinity of the GSOC offices. Mr Shatter did not disclose to the DĂĄil any further details of this network other than it suggested that UK phones registered to that network making calls would be vulnerable to interception. The DĂĄil statement did not specify that it was not a network that might be operated by a mobile telephone company rather a specific operation established â according to the security company Verrimus â for clandestine purposes.
The briefing stated: â[VERRIMUS] advised that such a network can only be simulated through a device called an ISMI catcher. An ISMI catcher, in simulating a UK mobile phone network, will pick up UK phones register to that network.
âOnce a phone has been connected to that ISMI catcher, it can be forced to disable call encryption making the call data vulnerable to interception and recording. The specialist firm indicated that this level of technology is only available to Government agencies.â
Mr Shatter made no reference to that detail, particularly to the sophisticated nature of the simulated network and its Government-level status in the course of his DĂĄil statement.
In addition the briefing from GSOC to the Minister also stated that on the foot of the first two threats identified, the GSOCâs acting director of investigations was of the opinion that if any of the threats could be proven, the surveillance may have originated from An Garda SĂochĂĄna and, if so, a member of An Garda SĂochĂĄna may have committed an offence.
Mr Shatter made no reference to An Garda SĂochĂĄna being included within the circle of possible suspects in his statement.
He said in the DĂĄil: âI understand that no connection between any member of An Garda SĂochĂĄna with any of these matters arose. This is not my conclusion, it is that of the GSOC.â
While the briefing did conclude that no definitive evidence of an authorised or electronic technical surveillance was found, as Mr Shatter noted, it did find that there were anomalies that âcould not â and still cannot â be explained.â The briefing note, however, did also accept that reasonable and innocent explanations for any or all of the issues could be found, including the ISMI watcher (the UK network) being used for a legitimate operation on another target in Capel Street or the phone call that was received at 1am being an âinnocent callâ.
Speaking on RTĂâs Prime Time last night, Mr Shatter said he âwent into the DĂĄil and set out the information furnished to me. That is the position and remains the position.â
Both chairman of the oversight committee, PĂĄdraig Mac Lochlainn and Fianna Failâs justice spokesman Niall Collins have challenged that version, saying that there was much additional information contained in the briefing that Mr Shatter did not divulge in the DĂĄil. Mr Collins said today that Mr Shatter should clarify in the DĂĄil what was said to him by GSOC.
Sinn FĂŠin and Fianna FĂĄil have contended that, by omission, he downplayed the nature of the anomalies and potential threat when addressing the DĂĄil on Tuesday.
Yesterday, both parties also questioned the assertion made by Mr Shatter on RTĂ last night that at no stage during his oral briefing or his written brief did [MR OâBRIEN]state that he or GSOC believed they were under surveillance.
âWhat was stated was that in the context of a security sweep that was taken, vulnerabilities or potential threats or abnormalities had been identified. I acted on foot of that,â Mr Shatter told RTĂ.
Asked on Prime Time had Mr OâBrien and GSOC not told him the full story, Mr Shatter said: âI was told the story that I told the DĂĄil. I do think there is confusion from the four hours of hearings that took place the following day before the Oversight committee].â
In one respect, Mr Shatterâs criticism is borne out. He said last night that Mr OâBrien had told him that GSOC had commissioned the security sweep on a routine basis. âNo threat was ever identified as stimulating the need for such a sweep,â he told Prime Time.
The written briefing makes no reference to a specific âtriggerâ for such a sweep, although Mr OâBrien told the Oireachtas Committee that there was indeed a context that prompted the Commission to decide to conduct a sweep.
[/article]
Good article. In a predictably ridiculous sop the Indo went with a fluffy opinion piece by Callinan on Templemore.
@Rocko The opening paragraph from tomorrowâs Times article, looks like this isnât over by a long shot:
[SIZE=4]The Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) organised a counter-surveillance sweep of its headquarters after a senior garda inadvertently revealed he was in possession of information about a secret report it was working on last summer.
The level of detail known to the officer caused disquiet in GSOC, and this was one reason it hired Verrimus, a British firm, to advise on internal security.
During the meeting with GSOC, a garda appeared to have specific information about a section of text that had previously been discussed at a meeting in the commissionâs Abbey Street offices, but which did not appear in the final report. [/SIZE]
[quote=âBandage, post: 903917, member: 9â]Thanks @artfoley.
Anyone got a Times account to copy and paste the full article?[/quote]
no i dont
[quote=âBandage, post: 903917, member: 9â]Thanks @artfoley.
Anyone got a Times account to copy and paste the full article?[/quote]
no from me too
Reading it here now. Its incredible and leaves close to zero doubt that the offices were bugged and that not only were the garda responsible but that senior Gardai were aware of it and using the information gathered.
A senior garda had previously told the ombudsman he would use analysts to find out where leaks coming from.
[quote=âTreatyStones, post: 903978, member: 1786â]Reading it here now. Its incredible and leaves close to zero doubt that the offices were bugged and that not only were the garda responsible but that senior Gardai were aware of it and using the information gathered.
A senior garda had previously told the ombudsman he would use analysts to find out where leaks coming from.[/quote]
Looks like shatter and callinan are toast now after last weeks distortions but would be amazed if they dont take a whole load with them. should be fun to see the govt cheerleading rats in the media try and change tack now
+1
the sooner lucinda sets up her party the better for all of us
ha ha - not a chance they will resign. There is no smoking gun so they just wonât go. Does article mention information GardaĂ had access to - if they had something specific then that might be something but OâBrien pre-emptively spiked this story by saying it wasnât true
a lot depends on Labour but I suspect they will keep it in reserve as there is not enough to go for a head but they can certainly behind the scenes say they helped FG and FG owe them now
[quote=âTheUlteriorMotive, post: 904019, member: 2272â]ha ha - not a chance they will resign. There is no smoking gun so they just wonât go. Does article mention information GardaĂ had access to - if they had something specific then that might be something but OâBrien pre-emptively spiked this story by saying it wasnât true
a lot depends on Labour but I suspect they will keep it in reserve as there is not enough to go for a head but they can certainly behind the scenes say they helped FG and FG owe them now[/quote]
But it looks like shatter mislead the house last week. The committee hearimg during the week should be good crack. Dont forget that shatter still has to answer if gsoc is or was under legal surveillance and if any media or reporters are. The gardai cant find the killer of sophie du plantier or the missing women but callinan can categorically say there was no gardai bugging. Maybe a reporter could ask him about what investigation he undertook. The 2 boys are holed beneath the waterline and in a functioning democracy they would be gone by now. So much for bendas ânew politicsâ
Sunday worst have made a complaint to GSOC after the gardai tried to get phone records of one of their reporters.
Not a hope, disgraceful as their carry-on has been. Youâd need to be caught raping someone on camera to be forced to resign feom office here.