Talk:Morris Tribunal

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Public Inquiry#List of selected Irish public inquiries|Other public inquiries]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

The Morris tribunal takes place against probably the most overarching reform of An Garda Síochana in its history, the Garda Síochána Act 2005, which established the Garda Ombudsman Commission. So far, it has resulted in the resignations of several senior officers in the force, including one Chief Superintendent and three Superintendents, after they were criticised for negligence, as well as the firing of another Superintendent found to be corrupt. Several other present and former officers of various ranks have been criticised for negligence, found to have lied, or been found to have acted corruptly.

Copyedit urgently required!

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The Tribunal has been staggered by the amount of indiscipline and insubordination it has found in the Garda force. There is a small but disproportionately influential core of mischief-making members who will not obey orders, who will not follow procedures, who will not tell the truth and who have no respect for their officers. Garda Martin Leonard is cited in this regard - applying to arrest a colleague in an investigation in which he was not involved, not wearing his uniform, lying at will and continually testing the waters as to the vulnerability of his colleagues[9]. The behaviour of three garda witnesses, Sgt Conaty, Garda Mulligan and Garda Martin Leonard in all of this beggars belief; and yet it happened in the course of a Tribunal hearing that was much extended by their dissimulation, the Tribunal was used a sounding board for deceit in the hope that it too could be inveigled into believing lies. White stated in a media interviews that the Tribunal findings against him, were based on "hearsay, innuendo and rumour", - rather than the thousands of documents admitted as evidence and hundreds of days at hearing[10]."

This is presented as if it's part of the article, but I seem to recognise it as being an extract or extracts from one of the Tribunal reports (some of which I have read). It is a breach of WP guidelines to print stuff like this without putting it in quotes, because it violates WP:NPOV on so many levels I can't begin to count them. If whoever posted this stuff would care to place it in its proper context, would he/she do so? Otherwise I will either have to trawl through the reports myself and do the edit, which I'd rather not do, or else I will have to cut it, which would be a shame as in the context of being remarks by Justice Morris it's good stuff. However, placing this stuff on Wikipedia and not making it clear that it is a quote is amateur hour. If my memory is wrong and this is in fact someone's paraphrase of Morris which is being offered up as an encyclopedia article, that's rank amateur hour. Lexo (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Morris Tribunal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic