Head over to our T
GRA spokesman says members could be corruptible if their pay was reduced
Read more about: Comment, Corruption, Crime, Feature Gallery, Ireland, News 
A spokesman for the Garda Representative Association speaking 0n Newstalk’s Lunchtime with Eamon Keane today said young gardai would be more susceptible to bribery if they were paid less. Newstalk don’t podcast their shows so I can’t quote the GRA man directly, his basic argument was “cutting the pay of young guards would make bribes from criminals more tempting.”
The comments were followed up on Newstalk’s drive time show The Right Hook where crime writer Michael Sheridan spoke. Sheridan rightly pointed out that the GRA spokesman’s claim was an insult to young guards. The show’s presenter, George Hook, read various quotes from guards who were pissed off at being accused that their pay was linked to their integrity. Both guests agreed the statement was an attempt to sensationalise the issue of reducing garda pay. It was also said that gardai involved in the Morris Tribunal were of not of low rank. - Gerard Cunningham who covered the Morris tribunal in much depth for various media outlets points out in the comments that gardai found to be corrupt at Morris in fact spanned the ranks…
Nobody pointed out that the opinion of these young guards, who their own official representative has basically said are on the brink of corruptibility, is now accepted as evidence in some areas under the new Criminal Justice Act.
Recommended Reading:
Though they had concerns, the GRA supported the general outline of the aforementioned legislation, though they would have preferred if their members were asked to prepare files detailing their opinion than speak in court.
In 2003 the GRA called claims by Michael McDowell that some gardai were being bribed by journalists “scurrilous”.
I don’t regard the GRA statement as wrong or insulting. The argument is not that any particular individual or group is going to take a bribe. It is simply that the more financial pressure that is put on *any* large group, the more likely it is that some individuals will yield to temptation. This assertion is quite consistent with believing that very few individuals will be involved.
It is not specific to police. It has long been used to justify higher salaries for bank staff, and indeed staff in all industries who handle cash.
Your stance has merits, I can see where you are coming from. However, Gardai are not bank staff or, for that matter, staff in any other industry, they are protectors of the public. They are in a different position because it is accepted and believed, rightly, in my opinion, that Gardai didn’t enter the job for the same reasons bank staff entered their sector.
Yes, some gardai would have entered the force because it can be a cushy number with nice benefits. However, many entered it because they wanted to *cringe* serve and protect. It sounds cheesy, but I know a lot of gardai who would have entered the force if pay had been tied to inflation and/or cost-of-living who would be offended by the GRA comments.
The suggestion is not to cut pay below subsistence levels, it’s to reduce it in line with the rest of the public sector. If I remember correctly, the GRA is claiming their members shouldn’t be subject to the pension levy – this is off the wall.
Reducing Garda pay to subsistence levels would of course make guards more likely to succumb to temptation, but knocking a few quid off young guards pay – who are already paid more than many of their peers – will not undermine their integrity. It’s sensationalist of the GRA to suggest it would…
“It was also noted that gardai involved in the Morris Tribunal were not of low rank.”
Gardai involved in the Morris tribunal and found guilty of corruption spanned the ranks from rank-and-file GRA members to Superintendent.
Aye, an “all” would have be suitable in there Gerard, fair point. Duly edited.
You’re the expert on this type of thing, what’s your take on it?
I’m not sure that the word of low ranking Garda “is now accepted as evidence in some areas under the new Criminal Justice Act.” anymore than it was heretofore. Don’t have time to check (King Puck is calling) but the new legislation was, I thought, similar to the existing provisions for membership of proscribed organisation and that requires Superintendents doesn’t it?
Admittedly I didn’t go and read the legislation before posting but I’m fairly confident that the act allows former and serving gardai of all ranks to give evidence. As I pointed out, the GRA had reservations about that, but I can’t remember them being addressed in the days before the President gave the Bill the okay.
I’m aware Fine Gael proposed an amendment to allow only the evidence of a chief-superintendent but I believe it was defeated. Maybe you’re thinking that amendent passed?
Maybe I’m wrong…
This reminds me of an old joke/quote, sometimes attributed to GB Shaw, sometimes Groucho Mark:
George Bernard Shaw once found himself at a dinner party, seated beside an attractive woman. “Madam,” he asked, “would you go to bed with me for a thousand pounds?” The woman blushed and rather indignantly shook her head.
“For ten thousand pounds?” he asked. “No. I would not.” “Then how about fifty thousand pounds?” he contined.
The colossal sum gave the woman pause, and after further reflection, she coyly replied: “Perhaps.” “And if I were to offer you five pounds?” Shaw asked.
“Mr. Shaw!” the woman exclaimed. “What do you take me for!” “We have already established what you are,” Shaw calmly replied. “Now we are merely haggling over the price.”
The GRA spokesperson is basically saying that young Gardaí have their price. The question is, what price? How much money will make our young Gardai incorruptable?
Do they really believe that? I doubt it and when the argument was used for increasing County Councillors and TD’s pay it didn’t stop a few of them lining their pockets.
While not all Gardaí are perfect (a few of them far from) the force generally attracts a better type of person than politics (thank goodness!) The GRA should have more important things to worry about, like getting better stab vests, equipment, training and cars for it’s young members.
@Daniel The new CJA allows any member to give evidence that the accused is a member of a criminal gang.
@Mark This is a trade union rep trying to put the heebiejeebies up the minister as the cabinet considers the Bord Snip proposals. It’s PR puff, and quite insulting to his members. Though that doesn’t mean the minister won’t cave.
This is a PR spin move that has gone wrong. Any calls for him to resign? Doubt it.
Gerard, Mark, I bow my head in shame. I had thought the new CJA mirrored the previous terrorism provisions but with the added wrinkle of former officers being able to give evidence.
As far as I know former officers have always been able to hive evidence, I’ve seen it happen, tho notin membership trials. Between arrest/charge and trial, people retire, so the provision is there. The new kink is allowing any rank to give opinion (ie hearsay) evidence.
My general impression of the financial scandals of the past 10 years is that the worst offenders were very highly paid people viz–FAS execs, senior highly paid elected representatives with outrageous expenses and dig outs, senior council claiming €6.00 fot 2 chocolates, chief execs in banking anxious for their bonus–I would think the lower paid are more likely to be clean–they haven’t developed the “I’m entitled mentality”.