Talk:Garda Public Order Unit

Photo

"The protester, seen bleeding here, was later brought to hospital by ambulance." It has been said the protestor's nose is bleeding, but it is not clear in any way from the photo. It looks in the photo like the protestor has a moustache and beard to me. I must say that there isn't clear evidence to support his bleeding and hospitalisation. If there was a higher res image then yes fair enough, from from what we have the claim is unverifiable. Ben W Bell talk 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Looks like he also got a blow to his right eye, but I can't be sure. There's a picture of the same man being carted away by an ambulance crew on the Garda Síochána article.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Img 8636 bloodnosecloseweb.jpg

The protester is bleeding from the nose, after being punched on it. Why is this information so offensive?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you know he was punched? Who was he punched by? Is that why he's bleeding? You can't state facts without backing them up. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

He alleges (I'm being careful here) he was punched by the same sergeant who is holding him. And yes, I suppose that is why he's bleeding from the nose. When protesters are found bleeding around members of the POU, in my experience it's rarely because they're haemophiliac. Could you explain why you felt it necessary to blank the following information:

"A baton-charge had been ordered to enable the government's no-arrest policy concerning Shell to Sea. There had never previously been violence at any Shell to Sea protest."

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that's what he said? Please don't be sarcastic.

The reason I removed the sentence:

"baton-charge had been ordered" - how do you know it was ordered and didn't just occur? Saying "ordered" implies there was a signed order or something.

"to enable the government's no arrest policy" - how do you know that was the reason?

"There had never been..." - this implies an idyllic environment beforehand, but I'd assume there had already been scuffles.

Again, WP:UNDUE etc. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I know because I heard him say it. I don't know why or where you think I'm being sarcastic. Baton-charges aren't spontaneous; a gang of guards don't suddenly pull out batons and march in formation over to the people they intend to beat. There has to be an order, but I don't understand why you think it needs to be written. The reason for the violence employed was referred to explicitly in Superintendent Joseph Gannon's interview with Garda Review; no-one was to get a "route to martyrdom" as had been "given" to the Rossport Five. No-one was going to be allowed to give the government such a headache again. For fifteen months of pickets on Shell sites around Kilcommon (since the Five were jailed), there had never been so much as a scuffle. This is well documented, and I'm afraid your assumptions aren't citable. The violence began in October 2006.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hearing somebody say something is not a source.

You were being sarcastic with "When protesters are found bleeding around members of the POU, in my experience it's rarely because they're haemophiliac."

My basic point is you don't know why the Gards baton charged - maybe they felt in danger, maybe they wanted the protesters to leave, maybe they wanted to hurt the protesters, so you can't state why.

I was mistaken about there being scuffles (I got the timeline screwed up, scuffles were 2007+), but you still can't say "There had never been" as that implies all the violence that has occurred since is solely because of the Gards baton charge.

But anyway, this entire discussion shouldn't be here, there should be no WP:UNDUE weight given to Shell to Sea on this article. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I never asserted that hearing that allegation was a source. I never wrote that Sergeant O punched Mr C on the nose, causing him to bleed profusely. I know exactly why the Guards used their batons, and they weren't in danger; they used their batons to move the protesters off the road. As the No Arrest Policy did not allow them to simply arrest them, they did not have a lot of other options. There was no violence before the baton charge. All violence since has been at the instigation of the Guards. I can say it because it's true, and there is ample video evidence for it, as well as confirmation from NGOs and clergy.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments at Talk:An_Bord_Pleanála, I don't see any point trying to argue with you. The article already makes reference to Mayo/Corrib/Shell to Sea, with a photo, I think that's enough. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments at ABP, what we probably could do with is an article such as Policing of the Corrib gas project.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Content disagreement

[1], please see the link for disupted versions. And talk it out here, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Force V. Violence

LP

(cur) (prev) 16:11, 20 March 2009 Lapsed Pacifist (talk | contribs) (1,483 bytes) (I can be happy with either word; please sort out between you which is less offensive to you) (undo) (cur) (prev) 11:17, 19 March 2009 Falcon9x5 (talk | contribs) (1,486 bytes) (... police use "force", not "violence" (though violence could be used for excessive force

This is a revision history showing you agreeing to either wording. Please stop being deliberately contentious.GainLine ♠ 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

I would be happy with either word, as long as they're used consistently; you're not doing that. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain where you believe there to be inconsistencies.GainLine ♠ 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

I'm happy with either the use of the word force, or violence; what I'm unhappy with is the hypocritical use of one term for one side, and another for the other side. Especially in instances where only one side is using violence. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, if you're happy with the use of the wording then please leave it be. There is no need to change it for the sake of changing it. I've re-read this article several times and there is nothing to suggest that there was violence (or indeed force) from S2S protesters while it still re-reads that the POU has been accused of excessive force. That is not the issue here, this is supposed to be a factual article on the Public Order Unit. The issues you are talking about are out of context in this article.--GainLine ♠ 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

WP:SOAPBOX is the policy you're looking for! =) Thanks! Fin©™ 11:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that violence is not the correct word in this istance. However, I believe it would be if these officers were disciplined for the reason that they had used ' excessive violence'. Despite being police officers, they still have the same right as a citizen to use self defence, and they also have another power which states that they can use the force that is deemed appropriate to secure the arrest of an offender. So yes, I think that violence is not correct. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

After dozens of hospitalisations of activists over the past two years, not one police officer has received so much as a reprimand. There is ample video evidence of the disproportionate police violence, but don't hold your breath for disciplinary action. The protesters also have a right to self-defense; however, if they exercise it, they are risking serious prison time. Most of the violence is/was used in place of the power of arrest, not as an aid to it; Superintendent Joe Gannon admitted this openly in an interview. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm detecting a lack of engagement on your part, GL. It's been over a week since my last comment and you've made no reply. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1. There is nothing in your last statement suggested a need for engagement. I asked for an editors input who specialises in Police articles who agrees that the wording was correct. I see no need for further engagement.

2. There was nothing misleading about my edit summary. Again, please stop making personal attacks.

3. The points you so passionately bring up above have no place in a fact based Encyclopedia. If you wish them to be addressed, here is the place: http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/. You need to be careful, some of the things you write are bordering on libel.GainLine ♠ 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

That user has made no attempt to reply to my reply, and certainly doesn't seem to know much about the Mayo operation. Your edit summary implied I had made no attempt to engage on this talk page; on the contrary, it is you who sees "no need for further engagement." The Ombudsman Commission formally requested to be allowed to conduct a review into how the Shell to Sea protests are policed; two successive Justice Ministers have refused to allow this. There is ample documentary evidence of the police violence; libel doesn't come into it at all. Passion doesn't come into it either; when young men hospitalise women and old men, they should expect their deeds to be highlighted. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with GainLine. I think that the problem we have here may be that Lapsed Pacifist believes that details of 'violence' towards protesters should be highlighted on this page, but the thing is I do not agree that it is for that. Another thing I do not agree on is the wording in the following line:

The POU has been accused of using violently excessive force at Shell to Sea protests in County Mayo, beginning in October 2006.

"Violently excessive force"? I do not think violently is needed here, because surely excessive force says it all, does it not? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Young men openly and apparently legally hospitalising old men and brutalising women is unusual enough in northwest County Mayo to warrant a bit of highlighting, I reckon. If POU activities are not to be described on this page, then where do you suggest? I'm fine with losing the adverb. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. At this point you are moving directly against concensus. There are 3 editors (Myself, Fin9x5 and Police Mad Jack) who do not believe that this article is correct in its current format (Particularly the use of the wording Force V. Violence).

I'm sure you remember that you do have a Conflict of Interest and as you say yourself: "I am sporadically involved with the Shell to Sea campaign in County Mayo, and therefore there is a potential for a conflict of interest to arise when I edit articles related to that subject. Because of this, I must "be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias", as well as "exercise great caution" in my edits. If you feel I am failing to do this, please let me know." I am now asking you are you sure that you are editing with a neutral tone? I believe you are letting your passions get the better of you and there is unintentional bias creeping in here.

What you need to remember is that while the POU may be a notable part of the S2S campaign that the reverse may not be true and this is an article on the POU not Shell to Seas involvement with the POU. I believe the fact they are deployed there should be mentioned in the Policing the corrib gas controversy article. If you wish to conduct a campaign against them, here is NOT the place. Indymedia and other internet forums are for that sort of thing but for your own sake please be careful, until is someone is disciplined these are only allegations.

There is now a RFM open on this topic that you are engaging in. I would ask you to please consider what I have said above and revert your last change yourself. I would like to make clear that I am no apologist for Shell or anyway involved with Shell or the Gardaí nor do I have any involvement with any campaigns or the community in the area. This is only a topic that I have found myself with a growing interest in. I am merely trying to bring balance to the articles involved. I thinks its fair to say that in the past my behavior towards these topics was not as it should have been and this is as good a point as any to apologise for that. As you can see, I am trying to engage with you and work through our differences and see this information presented in a satisfactory form for everyone. GainLine ♠ 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I said I was happy with losing the adverb. I'm not convinced that the POU's operations don't merit a mention in its article. It is still a stub. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is how I believe the article should read, my notes are in italics, There are some other fixes which I am also highlighting: -

The Garda Public Order Unit is the unit within An Garda Síochána that deals with situations where public disorder may be encountered. i.e riots and protests.

This unit is trained to monitor and deal with events that could lead to violence using force (as force is a euphenism for violence I believe it is ample on its own). In 1995 the unit was called upon to deal with rioting supporters during a friendly football match between the Republic of Ireland & England in Lansdowne Road.[1] In February 2006 the Public Order Unit was involved in the 2006 Dublin riots, and were deployed to deal with rioters in Dublin's city centre. Some members of the unit were injured during the riots, which lasted several hours.

The POU has been accused of using violently(delete as agreed) excessive force at Shell to Sea protests in County Mayo, beginning in October 2006. There had never previously been violence at any Shell to Sea protest, and some protesters were hospitalised.

In February 2007, members of the unit were deployed to a halting site belonging to the Traveller community in Cork after uniformed Gardaí were attacked there.

The use of the term "using force and even violence" is perjorative andsuggests that they are in fact rioting themselves. This is a POV term which serves as an intensifier and is lacking neutrality.

Can we have agreement on this bearing in mind that you already agreed at one point that either term would suffice? "cur) (prev) 16:11, 20 March 2009 Lapsed Pacifist (talk | contribs) (1,483 bytes) (I can be happy with either word; please sort out between you which is less offensive to you) (undo) (cur) (prev)"

Remember the POU use force in other situations EG. Soccer hooligans and rioters that it shouldn't be considered in isolation with the S2S protests GainLine ♠ 13:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You write: "...as force is a euphemism for violence I believe it is ample on its own...". So are you suggesting we only describe rioters as people using "force", that we forbid the use of the term "violence" as it may be pejorative? I'm not sure we should encourage the use of euphemisms. I don't understand why a policeman acting violently would seem to be rioting to you (see Riot: "A riot is a form of civil disorder characterized by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence, vandalism or other crime.") The POU are certainly not disorganised. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, thats not strictly correct. What you are doing here is viewing the POUs activitys solely on it encounters with the S2S protest where the protesters weren't using violence IE. sit ins lock-ons etc. What I am trying to say here is that they use force to counteract violence in many other situations Eg. Dublin Riots, Lansdowne Road riots. Please try take a step back and see this topic from the point of view of other situations. As a suggestion here I think we should look at the riot squad article. Here are 2 Phrases which mayeb we could find some common ground on and use to overcome the impassé

"Riot control refers to the measures used by police, military, or other forces to control, disperse, and arrest civilians that are involved in a riot, demonstration, or protest"

"These officers use force and intimidation to subdue rioters"

Thi is now how I'm proposing the article should read to overcome our problems: perhaps with a rewrite to include other notable operations-

The Garda Public Order Unit is the unit within An Garda Síochána that deals with situations where public disorder may be encountered. i.e riots and protests.

This unit is trained to use Riot Control tactics to control, disperse, and arrest civilians that are involved in a riot, demonstration, or protest often using use force and intimidation to subdue.

In 1995 the unit was called upon to deal with rioting supporters during a friendly football match between the Republic of Ireland & England in Lansdowne Road.[1] In February 2006 the Public Order Unit was involved in the 2006 Dublin riots, and were deployed to deal with rioters in Dublin's city centre. Some members of the unit were injured during the riots, which lasted several hours.

The POU has been accused of using excessive force at Shell to Sea protests in County Mayo, beginning in October 2006. There had never previously been violence at any Shell to Sea protest, and some protesters were hospitalised.

I'm going to repeat myself here because I think its important I do not believe that the S2S protesters were acting violently (I've watched the videos on Youtube, however unfortunately they do encounter people who do (Soccer riots, Dublin Riots etc.) the POU is involved in a lot more and I would just ask you to try look at the bigger picture. I'd like your opinion and Police Mad Jacks on this newer version to see if we can implement it. GainLine ♠ 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I could live with this version. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats good news, I'm glad we could work this out. The upside to this is that in its present form it now reads better than it would have with either previous version. I'm going to expand it a little to include some more notable operations and possibly a bit more on equipment and tactics etc if possible. Your input would be welcome. As a side to this I am wondering if you maybe have a photo of the POU in action rather a picture of the aftermath of their actions to use in the article? GainLine ♠ 08:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I should do, I'll have a look. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Halting Site Notable?

Is the bit on the deployment to a halting site notable? They have been deployed at much more notable incidents than this eg, Finglas Patricks Day 2008 and Travellers Riot in Mullingar 2008 are 2 which spring to mind as well as a few football matches that I cant be specific with offhand. GainLine ♠ 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. I've never heard of the incident. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Major Rejig

I've made a good few changes.

New approach on description of activity to overcome the Force V Violence row.

Change titles and inclusion of tactics and equipment.

Linking in with Riot Squad articles & Dublin Riots 2006.

Addition of Photo of Unit in operation (could only find on on commons so its same as the 2006 riots article) moved the pic of the s2s protester into the critics section. I'm hoping LP will be able to come up with a photo of them in operation there.

Added info to n0table operations.

GainLine ♠ 13:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks better now, well done. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)