Shell's Gardaí caught on video talking about Rape and Deportation of Protestors

[C. Flower]

The gardaí claim that there were calls of rape as they dealt with female protesters. The protesters claim the files deleted files deleted from the camcorder didn't have relevant recordings.

There's no corroborating evidence to support either of those claims - both rest entirely on the word of those involved. So why should we believe one but not the other?

You cite misconduct by police elsewhere to support your case. That's guilt by association. You wouldn't accept that the fact that some women make false rape allegations means that all women do so so why make a similar generalisation in the case of gardaí?

I don't see that a blanket generalisation has been made about the police.

Would you like to link or quote it ?

[Baron von Biffo]

I don't see that a blanket generalisation has been made about the police.

Would you like to link or quote it ?

http://www.politicalworld.org/showpo...&postcount=164

[C. Flower]

http://www.politicalworld.org/showpo...&postcount=164

It deals with specific cases. It is not a generalisation.

[Dr. FIVE]

The UK examples are to highlight the ease at which police forces have & can out carry PR, the two Irish cases listed after involved similar briefings copied verbatim in the press without question.
You have me dragged of point here, simple;

Garda, rape, banter
sexual, violence, silence

[Baron von Biffo]

It deals with specific cases. It is not a generalisation.

It cites four specific cases as support for a claim of wrongdoing in an entirely unrelated matter. The meaning is clear.

[fluffybiscuits]

The gardaí claim that there were calls of rape as they dealt with female protesters. The protesters claim the files deleted files deleted from the camcorder didn't have relevant recordings.

There's no corroborating evidence to support either of those claims - both rest entirely on the word of those involved. So why should we believe one but not the other?

You cite misconduct by police elsewhere to support your case. That's guilt by association. You wouldn't accept that the fact that some women make false rape allegations means that all women do so so why make a similar generalisation in the case of gardaí?

There is the difference though in the two. The coppers are a particular organisation with a specific culture and ethos to it, women are a whole gender that make up 50% of the planet. Generalisations and points on the gardai are more than likely to be a little bit more believable than generalisations about the female world. The cop shop here is not in good standing when it comes to their history from their incompetence to their turning a blind eye to the situation in industrial schools all the way up to modern day when they battered the protestors on Grafton St a few years back. The pigs are representative of a force to protect and serve which they have failed to do, woman kind has not been tasked with any such responsibility. You will have to excuse any ambivilence I feel towards the police, they are not the type of person in my good books from experience.

[Seán Ryan]

The deleted files most certainly didn't have relevant data. The camera was recording before any arrest and it continued to record until the gardaí took their kidnap victims to the station.

The ombudsman was only investigating the garda comments about rape. The ombudsman certainly did not investigate as to whether the arrests were lawful or not (they were not) and the ombudsman certainly didn't investigate that a senior garda was telling lower ranking officers how to frustrate the court and how to avoid one's duty.

Unless this camera is capable of recording two videos at the very same time, nothing deleted was relevant to the ombudsman's truncated investigation into the severely narrowed parameters of garda rape ethic. They avoided, totally, investigating the criminal aspects of the day's garda criminal activity.

[Baron von Biffo]

There is the difference though in the two. The coppers are a particular organisation with a specific culture and ethos to it, women are a whole gender that make up 50% of the planet. Generalisations and points on the gardai are more than likely to be a little bit more believable than generalisations about the female world. The cop shop here is not in good standing when it comes to their history from their incompetence to their turning a blind eye to the situation in industrial schools all the way up to modern day when they battered the protestors on Grafton St a few years back. The pigs are representative of a force to protect and serve which they have failed to do, woman kind has not been tasked with any such responsibility. You will have to excuse any ambivilence I feel towards the police, they are not the type of person in my good books from experience.

When you call guards 'pigs' you're treating 10,000 people as sub-human. You're saying that they're animals because of the job they do.

That's not a good place to start talking about human rights.

[fluffybiscuits]

When you call guards 'pigs' you're treating 10,000 people as sub-human. You're saying that they're animals because of the job they do.

That's not a good place to start talking about human rights.

They earned that nickname for the sheer arrogance of the force and the idiocy they have shown. There are a lot of guards out there who do good work but since Shell to Sea, the Donegal case and the cases of people dying in garda custody plus to mention from experience two differnet people who went into guards you would excuse me if I am no great fan of them. A force that dehumanises people deserves the reputation of being animals. They do a tough job but their responsibility is for law and order...

[Seán Ryan]

Not to mention the baron's own overt hypocrisy in this. He has no problem of conscience whatsoever in referring to the people who oppose Shell in very derogatory terms. He tends to play whatever card he thinks will push his agenda. To look for consistency in his many voiced opinions is an act of delusion if one keeps the practice up.

[fluffybiscuits]

Not to mention the baron's own overt hypocrisy in this. He has no problem of conscience whatsoever in referring to the people who oppose Shell in very derogatory terms. He tends to play whatever card he thinks will push his agenda. To look for consistency in his many voiced opinions is an act of delusion if one keeps the practice up.

In his defence I dont think the Baron does have an agenda or ever did I can see the point of what he is saying. Sometimes Im a little reactionary in what I write...