Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan
The information used in the failed attempt to discredit Sergeant Maurice McCabe came from evidence submitted by two senior officers who had met the whistleblower in Mullingar in 2008.
The officers – an unnamed superintendent and a sergeant from outside the Mullingar area – said McCabe had admitted he ‘bore a grudge’ while making allegations of malpractice against a superior.
This evidence was used to demonstrate Sgt McCabe’s ‘malice’.
It was only when Sgt McCabe produced a tape recording of the conversation that the matter was quietly dropped.
Michael Clifford in today’s Irish Examiner writes:
If the commissioner is to retain credibility as a leader who wants to oversee a force where whistleblowing is welcomed as a positive element of policing, she needs to explain whether she was aware that two of her officers were going to give false evidence against another, McCabe, a man whom the commissioner had publicly lauded.
If she did know that false evidence might be proffered under those circumstances, her position is untenable.
If she didn’t know, there are plenty of questions that require answers. In such a scenario she was misinformed by her officers.
How well did she research the claims being made by the two officers? This, after all, was something that would put her in direct conflict with McCabe whom she had publicly lauded.
Surely she would want to know exactly what she was getting into.
If she didn’t know then, she was inadvertently placed in a position where she was party to an attempt to mislead the inquiry.
Surely she must be hopping mad on a personal basis if that is the case.
On a professional basis what has she done? The Irish Examiner understands that absolutely no action has been taken against the two since this affair emerged last May.
How exactly has the commissioner dealt with a matter that could be a conspiracy to commit a crime within her force in an attempt to discredit a whistleblower?
Garda Commissioner needs to step up or step down (Michael Clifford, Irish Examiner)
And there ya have it, someone is for the chop, or two.
She not lick it off a schtone https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hZn_TdjvF-U
Are ye havin that?
That joker and his side kick there are thick as thieves.. quite disgusting indeed.
This witch-hunt against the Commissioner is grubby and unedifying.
Already the last guy lost his job in less than ideal HR management conditions and I’m surprised he did not sue for constructive dismissal – he had a very strong case.
Organisation change will happen slowly and I’d respectfully suggest to the ludramans who run and comment on this site they weigh in behind Commissioner O’Sullivan to support her attempts at reform.
Like booting out Labour from government, the alternatives could be a lot worse.
Even if she make some mistakes in processing the case and it looks like she did, the fact there’s a debate about the ethics of the gardai at all is a huge positive, proactive step. Previously this stuff was only learned about years later.
What aspect of Clifford’s few paragraphs up there amounts to a witch hunt? In what way are they not valid concerns/questions for a public servant to answer?
‘…the Commissioner is grubby and unedifying ‘
No-one is suggesting the public servant should not answer questions. My issue is with the shrill ‘burn the witch’ tone being used. Like it or not Ms O’Sullivan has a duty to represent all of the gardai and to maintain morale etc. It would be remiss of her to ignore the possibility that Sgt McCabe was acting from malice and not to explore this as a possibility, or even exploit it if it weakened his position. Of concern to me is why Sgt McCabe is apparently illegally tape recording conversations with colleagues unknown to them? He sounds like a bit of a jerk, frankly, and someone I wouldn’t want to work with.
of concern to *me* is that if he hadn’t ‘illegally’ recorded a conversation with colleagues unknown to them, he’d not have been able to deflect the rather malicious allegation of, er, malice.
Exploring the possibility is grand. Alleging it and getting caught on the lie is a bit more serious.
True _) – I agree
If it was a lie as opposed to strong, subjective opinion
He sounds like a bit of a jerk, frankly, and someone I wouldn’t want to work with.
He sounds like exactly the kind of character I’d want to deal with if I were a victim of crime.
I think the people who lied to seek to discredit and ruin his life are the ones I’d avoid.
They didn’t try hard enough to get that troll into rehab.
It’s clear that some of you (and I’m not speaking to your point here specifically Ahjaysiz which though unrelated to the discussion at hand is quite valid) would much prefer that type of discussion and everyone goes ‘tut’ ‘tutt’ and isn’t this a shame and aren’t they a disgrace etc etc. In fact this speaks to a kind of wilful naivete and peasant, proletariat, pre-school mindset. I’m not going to bother engaging with this type of dialogue as frankly it’s beneath my level.
she still has questions to answer snd the alternative could also be a lot better
Obvious shill is obvious.
The Commissioner asked her senior counsel to discredit McCabe. 2 Gardaí lied to the inquiry, both have nt had any action taken against them.
Yes indeed, the Commissioner is grubby and unedifying
can you say for sure they lied? They perhaps provided a very subjective and even biased opinion.
but this is not necessarily a lie. none of us have heard the tapes – have you?
They’re Gards recording the particulars of incidents and reporting them accurately is kind of their bread an butter. Wouldn’t you say? I don’t buy the subjective argument you’re proposing.
Yes agreed Holden in most cases, they can produce a snapshot of events which provide a factual objective summary. This is slightly different. They are giving a subjective opinion on the basis of something which can’t be easily objectively measured, namely the motivation of a person. I’m not saying they were not acting in a scurrilous manner. I’m just saying it may not be a deliberate lie. There is a difference.
They are giving a subjective opinion on the basis of something which can’t be easily objectively measured, namely the motivation of a person.
No sweetie.. they weren’t given their personal synopsis of the meetings.. they weren’t giving their subjective opinions about why they thought McCabe was motivated.
They produced notes of meeting with McCabe, which detailed things he purportedly said, that he hadn’t said at all. Fabrications.. false evidence.. they were attempting to commit a crime. It has nout to do with opinions.
It’s one thing to say, I believe he’s acting out of malice.. and he said himself he’s acting out of malice, here I have these notes that I took to prove it.
Big difference. Got it now?
Can you show me copies of those notes Anne dear?
As the counsel said, when asked if he sought to impugn McCabes character: “Right through” (impugn basically means “to skewer” as analogy to discredit).
The statement of the two Gardaí at that time was thought to be categorical and would not have been pursued as such were it not thought to be.
“This witch-hunt against the Commissioner is grubby and unedifying.”
It is highly edifying of a behind-the-scenes picture of a grubby though otherwise respectable organisation. The term witch is highly misogynistic and inappropriate to use for the most senior gard in the country, even if she is supplicant to a (allegedly) ill institution.
…oh, what a tangled web…Mick Clifford has her
Clifford’s earning his wage this weather. Really valuable reporting.
Clifford’s one of the few decent journalists we have left, in fairness.
Which probably means someone will ‘find’ something on him thanks to army or garda intelligence fitting him up.
wasn’t he the one who published the puff piece on Frank Mullen? he didn’t seem to cover himself in glory there.
You’re too obvious.
So, the commissioner was aware at the time that they two officers had fabricated evidence. Her position is untenable.
She learned after McCabe produced evidence, ( his recording of the meeting) that these claims by the two officers were fabricated.. that the two had in fact conspired to commit a crime and did nothing. Her position is equally untenable in my opinion.
These officers are entrusted to uphold the law.. they are entrusted with authority. A judge would have to believe them.. they attempted to destroy a man’s bona fides by fabricated evidence and nothing was done about this? It just shows the systemic corruption and malpractice that’s at the heart of the organisation.
is there any evidence the commissioner instructed officers to fabricate reports? can we see it?
well see, as Anne says, it’s an either/or thing, and whether she did or she didn’t instruct officers to fabricate reports, there’s *still* a problem – just a different kind, depending….
if she DID instruct them to lie, then I don’t think I need to spell out the problem
If she didn’t instruct them to lie, and it’s now apparent that they were willing to lie, until caught out, and they’ve not been disciplined because it was hoped that this would never get out, then there are, right now, two senior gardai who are willing to lie under oath, still serving, and that’s a significant problem as well, and one that the Commissioner would have done well to deal with.
Ivan: Neither of these claimed facts
a) she told them to lie
b) they lied
have been substantiated. Unless evidence of some kind is produced these are Anne’s opinions. Why would I take you seriously when you’re reporting on what some third hand internet troll is saying?
I remember this bum from The Journal – same old crap.
These are not my opinions at all sweet cheeks.. do some reading or watch the news.
Let’s spell it out as simply as possible for you :
Two officers were willing to swear before a judge, that Maurice McCabe told them he ‘bore a grudge’ while making allegations of malpractice against a superior.
See how that bit – ‘bore a grudge’ is quoted. That is the exact words they used in the injury and they were willing to produce fabricated notes from the meeting with McCabe to validate these lies to ruin the man’s reputation.
There was no mistake here. Their counsel, also acting for the Commissioner, went back to double check and he advised he was acting under instruction.
These two officer’s word would have to be taken seriously and the report from the judge would be very damning for McCabe, but for the fact that he could refute the lies.
This seems to be an orchestrated effort at the highest levels of the guards to have the report include fabricated lies about the man.
It’s just not fupping acceptable.
You wouldn’t see it in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or some despot ruled backwater.
If you’re going to talk about witch hunts, you’d clearly see if you had half a brain who the witch hunt was against.
Noirin O’Sullian either knew at the time about this attempt to impugn on McCabe’s character so as to have O’Higgin’s report reflect on McCable, or she found out afterwards and did nothing in relation to this criminality.. It’s one or the other. She can’t come out now and simple say I never thought he was acting out of malice.
Sorry I don’t have as much time to read the news as you. I’m a bit confused on a few things.
Above Ivan says the two guards were willing to lie under oath. Which criminal offence specifically is committed if you are thinking about behaving in a criminal fashion?
Are there copies of these fabricated notes I can see or be privy to?
Are you the same person as ‘They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab ‘ ?
That was a very long answer.
Still just opinion though. Sorry
Still no verifiable facts or evidence.
You don’t have any do you?
Shake your booty elsewhere.
Perhaps the Journal is your level after all.
Contact the Examiner or Prime Time or the Irish Times, if you think they made the whole thing up..
‘The Key of G’ – And if you’re not the other fella, why are you replying to a comment that was addressed to him.
I’m not interested in interacting with multiple personality weirdos Sybil, thanks.
No evidence of any criminality then Anne.
Distinction is the lifeblood of the law.
As I said I’m pretty new here. I didn’t know there was a rule as to what threads I comment on. Thanks for explaining this. Who or what is Sybil?
I wouldn’t be charging them myself knuckle head.
Ask the Times, the examiner etc..
Sybil is the name of a movie based on a true story of a woman with multiple personalities Sybil.
I’m really confused now. I was just asking you a simple question and you’re going on about movies and newspapers. Are you ok?
Send in the clowns, ohh, too late they are already here.
Round and round the mulberry bush and round and round.
Anne, he should go to rehab asap.!