SOCIAL WARFARE (p26)
Whistle blowing is very much to the fore this week. Yesterday I watched our Garda Commissioner as he victimised and destroyed the reputations of two men who are showing extreme bravery in coming forward to expose alleged wrongdoing in An Garda Siochana. I have shown previously in this blog where then Chief Superintendent Callinan repeatedly denied the existence of data in relation to X's complaint about the predator civil servant Sean Kelly. Martin Callinan did not hesitate to cover up for the dereliction of duty of his subordinates in this matter. When X exposed him and his superiors the retaliation was swift and vengeful. I have nothing but admiration for the two Gardai in the eye of the current debacle but at least they have some sort of protection. X and I had none. Omerta is the default position within An Garda Siochana and those who challenge the wall of silence are first ridiculed, then attacked. Penalty points wiping is a serious matter, it exposes that those 'in favour' can avoid sanction. However, penalty points are the tip of the iceberg. This blog exposes in intricate detail how An Garda Siochana refused and still refuse to investigate an allegation of assault made against a senior civil servant. What starts with penalty points escalates to far more serious issues being 'wiped' for those in favour.
On the 14th of October 2004, Superintendent Chistopher McCarthy called to our home by prior arrangement. Christopher told us that he was there to listen to what we were saying and to carry out an 'independent' investigation. Superintendent McCarthy took the written statements we gave him and we never saw him again.
Fifteen months after four Gardai jackbooted their way through our home we eventually obtained a copy of the warrant used to justify An Garda Siochana's blatant harassment and intimidation. A little of bit of investigation quickly revealed the bogus nature of the warrant. The warrant was not authorised by a Judge, it was authorised by a Peace Commissioner called Carmel Conway. I knew who Carmel was, she owned a business on the main street in Ashbourne. She regularly played golf with her friend Superintendent Pat Lambe. Pat retired in 2004, months after the raid. A warrant cannot be approved without evidence to substantiate it. The so called 'evidence' was described as an 'oath' from Detective William Armstrong, Garda National Drug Unit. Pat Lambe's had previously denied in writing that the raid had anything to do with Ashbourne.
Other information came with the warrant. One document stated 'The following is the only data held on Pulse in relation to the applicant. It is motor vehicles registered in his name'. As I said in a previous blog, I have no criminal record, I was never previously accused of involvement with drugs and have never been since the 'raid'. My only 'crime' was to blow the whistle on a predator civil servant and the Garda cover up of X's complaint against him. I consider myself lucky that no drugs were planted during the raid.
On the 1st of February 2005, X wrote to the Information Commissioner, Emily O'Reilly in relation to her FOI appeal:
Dear Information Commissioner,
I am writing to you about my genuine concerns regarding the way in which my FOI appeal to your office has and is being handled.
On the 16th of May 2001, I appealed to your office a decision by the Department of Social Welfare to refuse in full my access request of January 2001 and subsequent internal review of 14th March 2001.
On the 15th of June 2001, I received a letter from your office stating that the Commissioner would review my request and that the process would probably take longer than three months.
On the 13th of September 2001, on foot of a telephone inquiry I made, I received a letter stating that the process would take at least 12 months.
On the 17th of September 2002, I received a letter and records from your office. I immediately contacted you office and asked why these documents were sent to me as the had nothing to do with my appeal request of 16th May 2001.
On the 20th of September 2002, sixteen months after my appeal request, I received a letter from your office stating that 'confusion had arisen'. My appeal request to your office had not been addressed at all in the sixteen month period. My appeal request of 16th May 2001 was clear and unambiguous and any confusion which arose was not of my my making. I was informed in this letter that 'all outstanding issues relating to your (my) request will be dealt with expeditiously'.
Twenty-eight months have since passed and I am still awaiting a decision. I find it particularly disturbing that the details of this case have been passed between several investigators. There is no continuity of investigation or investigators. In a recent telephone to your office I was informed that a decision might be made by a senior investigator at some time in the future.
A decision by a senior investigator in this case is not acceptable. Considering the 'confusion', unnecessary time delays and lack of continuity in both investigation and investigators, only a decision by you, the Information Commissioner, could possibly be deemed as reliable in this instance.
I believe it appropriate to now deal with this matter 'expeditiously' as was promised twenty-eight months ago.
Two days later the FOI office wrote to X:
I refer in particular to your letter dated 1 February 2005 to the Commissioner which has been noted.
Your application for a review is currently in process and a decision for the Commissioner's signature is in preparation.
For almost four years the Department of SW had stonewalled, obstructed and deliberately 'confused' in regard to X's request for all data pertaining to the Departments 'investigation' into her complaint about Sean Kelly. They had very good reason to do so. The Department was fully aware that documents had been forged and falsified by and with the consent of senior SW management. The criminality of senior SW management was about to be exposed.
Part 27 coming soon.