Kill the Bill campaign launched

by wwwwwwwww Wed Dec 08, 2004 15:11

They obviously want us to think they care a lot. But what did they say?

by Sarah Wed Dec 08, 2004 15:30

This is what Joe Costello said at the press conference:

The Criminal Justice Bill 2000 was published June July 2004 to "extend the powers of the Garda Siochana in relation to the investigation of offences".

But do the Gardai need more powers to investigate crime? If so are these the best powers to give them? Can we be satisfied that they will use the new powers responsibly and effectively. Is it right to allow the Gardai to grant themselves search warrants as the new Bill specifies in Section 5?

Is it right to double the period of detention for interrogation from 12 to 24 hours?
Is it right that mouth swab and saliva samples and plucking of hair should be re-designated as non intimate and non-intrusive of personal privacy?
Is it right that the statement of a witness who refuses to give evidence or denies making a statement should be admissible in court?
Is it right that a member of the Gardai should impose a fine on a member of the public for a perceived breach of a public order offence without recourse to the courts for due process?

It appears to me that these extensive new powers will embroil the Gardai in more controversy and will do little to strengthen the Gardai's efforts to reduce crime.
So far the panoply of resources that have been granted to the Gardai by successive Ministers for Justice have failed miserably to counter the rising ride of crime. Indeed by pretending to achieve what they could not achieve they have produced a response to crime that has been one-dimensional.

The causes of crime are to be found largely in the poverty of life and opportunity endemic in swathes of urban wasteland. This is not the area of responsibility of the Gardai. This is the responsibility of a Government which has consistently squandered the prosperity of recent years on those who didn't need it and starved others who were already deprived of desperately needed resources and facilities.

The increasing drug problem, public order offences, personal assault and anti-social behaviour in our housing estates and on our streets are not the stuff of Starsky and Hutch. They do not require that the Gardai issue search warrants to the Gardai or that the length of detention for an investigation is doubled.

But they do require a Garda Siochana which is in contact and in tune with the people who are being subjected to local criminality which breaches their personal safety and their homes. The sense of security engendered by the presence of a Garda uniform and the sense of confidence engendered by an early Garda response to a call for help constitute excellent policing in the minds of the people.
The Gardai have more powers on the statute books than they can ever hope to use in a lifetime. The real need is for committed service by the Gardai through active participation on the ground, in the community and with the people.

by Bill Wed Dec 08, 2004 15:51

Saw the headline and thought it was about the bin tax bills. But was disappointed! :)

by Margaret Wed Dec 08, 2004 16:25

Press Release from Justice Department (July 2004)
http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ62QFCP-en

The Criminal Justice Bill 2004
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2004/3404/b3404d.pdf

The changes to the bill are given in the Explanatory Memorandum which is contained in the above document from p38 on.

by a guy called satan Wed Dec 08, 2004 16:40

"The sense of security engendered by the presence of a garda uniform " . One man's meat is another's poison Sara , not everyone likes them as much as you and Joe Higgins seem to.
I find their presence intimidating personally and would like to see far less of them on the streets. The ones I find the most menacing are the ones on horseback. I heard a joke in London once which , though slightly crude ,succintly illustrates the attitude of decent working class communities to these mounted thugs. It sounds best said in a cockney accent:
Question :What animal has a cunt half way up its back?
Answer: A policehorse .
Is there anything more sickening by the way than watching a bunch of sycophants cooing and ooing around a police horse on Grafton Street ?
Sorry for going on about this so much - I'm actually quite fond of horses .

by righteous pragmatist Wed Dec 08, 2004 17:29

What's the problem with forcing suspects to give a DNA sample? How different is it from taking somebodies fingerprints?

by Noddy Holder - Xmas Compilaton album committee Wed Dec 08, 2004 17:47

I agree with satan. And has anyone considered doing a health survey of the Special Harrasment Intimidatory Taskforce (S.H.I.T.) lately. we hear a lot about obesity in children but the amount of lardos i see in the filth is shocking. the horse cops replaced the beat cops in some cases and they seem to have more cars to piss about in. is it a coincidence that cops always respond quicker to fights in chip shops? I wonder if they would be as fast to show up at a fight in 'Soy to the World' or 'The Wholemeal flapjack palace'.

by Ray Wed Dec 08, 2004 17:48

Why don't you go down to the local police station and offer them your fingerprints and a DNA sample now?

by Michael Wed Dec 08, 2004 18:28

Whatever happens with this bill, I think the ICCL and others campaigning for civil liberties in Ireland should organise a few regular teach-ins about our rights. What happens if you refuse to pay the fine? What happens if you refuse to cooperate? What rights do you have that you should know about?

by jeff Wed Dec 08, 2004 22:09

...to Kilimanjaro!

I mean, if righteuos pragmatist can have such a resolutly echoing sounding name, I want one too.


KILIMANJAROOOOOOO!!!

Anyway, Rrrrriiighteous One, I deftly challange you on your courageous point about on the spot DNA Samples. Lets pretend I am a bent copper. Unlike the tooth fairy, these guys actually exist.

Now, I straight away get your DNA sample. I don't like you. What might I do with your sample? Use you Rrrighteous Imagination!

And on the spot fines? What if I don't like you, eh? What ever happened to due process? Are you really that dim, being so Rrrrighteous and all, or are you simply playing Devils Advocate at this point.

Common sense might suggest the latter, but it would appear, following the not guilty verdict in relation to Robocop, and a fairly mute public, despite Primetime's "biased" expose at the start of this year, that be the former.

People are becoming less and less awake, so to speak, these days. Take for example Plasma screen tvs. Ordinary telly may have slightly bent screens, but they have a life time guaranntee. Plasma screens cost about ten, twenty times the price, yet absolutly everyone like totally wants one. Despite all our education, and apparant evolution in living, we need to buy these things so that when they run finally kaput we can either incinerate it or dump it to China. In the meantime, we can get the latest Michael Moore dvd in surround sound and give out about America.

Are we not, like , so righteous?

Killiimanjaro has spoken.

KILLIMANJAROOOO!!!

by toneore Thu Dec 09, 2004 05:33 toneore at eircom dot net

Here we have a classic piece of post-cold war posturing by the usual suspects. Their M.O. is to portray the government as scaring people, while lecturing us that "race" is the what we should be concerned about. If they can link the two , then all the better.

Who is Ivana Bacik representing - Trinity College Dublin? Why does she use her title like that? I think we should ask the college....

Anyway, keep it up indymedia - you're the best ally that McD has got!

Envious Losers.

by Spiff Thu Dec 09, 2004 09:47

Actually a loser could be better defined as 'one who continuously hangs around a webstie dedicated to beliefs he disagrees with specifically to make nonsensical ad hominem arguments'.

Given the number of incidences of serious police corruption in recent times, it would be reasonable to say that any increase in their powers should be proceeded by a massive cleanup.
I'm sure, like Righteous Pragmatist, Toneore will be heading straight to his local police station to give fingerprint and DNA samples. You know, just so you can be eliminated from future enquiries. No?

by righteous pragmatist Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:43

If the police had my DNA and fingerprints on record what difference would that make?
I'm law abiding and don't intend to commit any crimes any time soon.
Surely having a databse of finger prints and DNA of criminals will make law enforcement and crime detection much easier and will make society safer?
Makes perfect sense to me.

by Ray Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:55

While you're at it, you could arrange to send them an itinerary of your movements every day. If they knew where you were at all times, they could remove you from many inquiries, and they could call you in if there's a chance you might have witnessed something important.
Or - for your own convenience, you understand - get a tracker chip installed, and wear a wire and mini-camera at all times. Then you wouldn't have the hassle of sending in your itineraries, and they wouldn't have to call you in when you might have seen something useful.

by Spiff Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:31

If the police had your DNA and fingerprints? So we can take it from that phrasing that they don't. So Righteous Pragmatist, why have you not given them this valuable information which would make it easier for them to do their jobs and pose no risk to you? You could be automatically eliminated from any investigation where there was fingerprint or DNA evidence.
I'm also law abiding and not intending to commit any crimes but I have strong objections to the police knowing more about me than they need to, so I'm afraid your implication that only criminals or criminals to be would object is nonsensical.

by Michael Thu Dec 09, 2004 13:25

There's absolutely no need whatsoever for cops to issue on the spot fines, and especially not for possible "public order offences". Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and while the police may have an interest in preserving public order, they can't be expected to judge on the spot whether someone's crossed the line for sure. It's different for driving offences, and I can accept if people just want to pay 20 EUR and move on. But nobody should *ever* give a cop a penny for a so-called public order offence!

by Billy Thu Dec 09, 2004 14:38

Consider this: A woman living alone called the gardai because the youths who use the abandoned house next door as a drinking den were terrorising her. She wanted the house boarded up; the gardai said they couldn’t do anything “because it’s private property”. That’s a true story. Let’s give them appropriate powers, ie the power to prioritise protection of people above protection of property. (Apologies for the alliteration). This proposed bill doesn’t do that, and I think I’ve seen something like it before, in another country under a different name. No hang on it was exactly the same name.
This bill won’t do anything to help those most in need of the Garda Siochana’s services. All it might do in this case is make it easier to trace the individuals who eventually took matters into their own hands and boarded up the house.
I usually post under my real name but I bet this discourse is monitored and I don’t want the old bill round right now. Call that paranoia or call it discretion, as you see fit.

by Margaret Thu Dec 09, 2004 16:43

Consider this: If a Garda decides someone is committing a public order offence he could serve them with a notice to say as much. Instead of actually defending themselves in court the person would have 28 days to pay a fine, which doubles if paid in the following 28 days. The option to pay a fine would cease after those 56 days. If the person pays the fine they won’t be prosecuted.

It seems very disturbing to me that if you can afford it you won’t be prosecuted for an alleged offence. Doesn’t this create a two-tier system in which less well-off people will have to go the prosecution route? If you really are guilty of committing serious Public Order Offences you can get away with it, once you have the money. The idea of paying the Gardai to forget all about it seems ridiculous.

On the other side of the coin you could easily end up being fined or prosecuted for nothing. These days, Gardai seem to frequently use the Public Order Act for reasons other than it was intended. It’s become a much-bandied about tool invoked in all sorts of non-criminal situations. (That’s not to say that it doesn’t have some relevance or have some uses.)

by kilimanjaro Thu Dec 09, 2004 19:55

the birmingham six were also law abiding citizens. You are so clever( fanfare of trumpets)