Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
GARDAÍ AT WATERFORD station are the latest to get body-worn cameras.
It’s the third location to trial the new technology after it was rolled out in Dublin and Limerick over the summer.
The small lightweight cameras will be visibly worn by gardaí from stations participating in the pilot phase.
Each location has bodycams manufactured by a different company, to trial different models.
The success of the pilot will inform how bodycams are introduced nationwide.
Justice Minister Helen McEntee welcomed the development, claiming they’ve already made an impact.
“Gardaí equipped with the cameras have been able to capture footage of searches of dwellings which uncovered drugs and assist in the de-escalation of tensions during protests and incidents of disruption,” she said.
The cameras are also aimed at making the job of gardaí safer.
“I have been vocal in my commitment to providing An Garda Síochána with the support needed to ensure gardaí are safe as they go about their daily work,” said McEntee.
Each bodycam can record footage to its own internal encrypted storage, which will be uploaded when the garda docks the camera in a garda station. The footage is uploaded at the end of a shift so it can be used as evidence at court or is deleted after an agreed time if it is not required as evidence.
The cameras themselves will not have facial recognition software but it can be applied later through a specific computer program.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) was “strongly opposed” to the technology being used by law enforcement, and said that An Garda Síochána has a “poor record on data protection”.
The ICCL previously called for a ban on the police use of facial-recognition technology, arguing that it poses an “extreme risk to rights.”
There was opposition from some academics who believe it is open to abuse by police.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Interest rates have reached a level that makes borrowing to grow employment giving investment impossible.
@thomas molloy: Interest rates have been much higher in the past. At one point in the 90s, rates were in the mid-teens.
The low interest rates we have experienced over the past decade or so are an anomaly, in historical terms.
They will claim that they have achieved their objective in that inflation has reduced. They cannot see that their hiking of rates contributed to the inflation rate rise.
@Pato: ehhhhhhhh no.
@Pato: Explain.because everyone else will disagree with you.
@Pato: Please do explain
@Donal McCarthy: I think Pato is largely correct.
Inflation can be caused by two things:
1) A shortage of some goods, or service
2) A surfeit of money in an economy
As I understand it, the inflation we experienced – and are still experiencing – was due to (a contrived) shortage. A shortage in energy, driving up fuel and electricity prices, which then fed into everything else. This was preceded by another shortage caused by the Corona virus pandemic shutting down lots of manufacturing, particularly in China – the so-called supply chain shortages.
The way to address inflation caused by too much money in the economy is to remove some of that money. Increasing interest rates is one way to do that.
However, increasing interest rates will not bring down the cost of electricity.
Or petrol.
When the (major) cause of our inflation is the profiteering of energy companies, increasing interest rates just puts more cost onto all of us, including businesses. Which can only recoup those additional costs by increasing their prices.
Which adds to inflation.
The best way to address such profiteering by the oil (and gas, and associated energy) companies would have been a windfall tax.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: pato stated that the interest rate rises caused the inflation which was incorrect. yes energy prices and supply chain issues were minor contributory factors, but the primary factor was 10 years of free money, which was then acclerated into turbo over drive during covid when physical money supply in the US and EU increased by near 50%. There were 50% more dollars/euros in peoples back accounts after covid then before covid. I do not believe we will see near zero interest rates for some time. I believe it will remain between 2-3% for the very reason that this new money had to be extracted out of the economy and it needs to stay there otherwise it will result in another cycle of inflation.
@Niall English: No, Pato did not say that.
Pato said that raising interest rates “contributed to the inflation rate rise.”
Which is correct, in my view.
Bitcoin fixes Central Bank Ponzi Schemes
@Snacktoshi Nachomoto: how?
@Snacktoshi Nachomoto: anyone who buys crypto currency is a fool and typically didn’t study business subjects in school. The government and central banks decide what Currency we use whether that may involve digital euro. Profiting from digital euro is foolish.
@Snacktoshi Nachomoto: I’m afraid you are not as well informed as you may think. Bitcoin is the real ponzi scheme.
@Snacktoshi Nachomoto: bitcoin is the currency of crooks
@Liam Clifden: but maybe the worst performing in 2022, so what’s your point??
@Liam Clifden: Actually that’s a lie, xrp has preformed better than bitcoin and that’s with a court case hanging over it head, xrp is up over 50 percent from its bottom this year, bitcoin isn’t up over 50 percent from its bottom this year,
@Liam Clifden: bitcoin has zero intrinsic value. people like yourself are pursuant to the greater f00l theory. in order to profit, you need to find a bigger f00l to buy it at a higher price.
Control the money control the people
Great news. And well done central bankers. A solid victory over the ever populist economists.
@Itwaslikethatwhenigothere:
I don’t think you’re correct in relation to a windfall tax. Windfall taxes do nothing to protect against profiteering, they simply allow the state to increase their tax take.
Consider this. Company A usually makes profits of €100m and pays 12.5% tax on this. So they net 87.5m
Now they increase their prices and their income doubles to €200m – the government introduce a windfall tax of 20% on profits in excess of 100m so they now net 87.5m on the first 100m and 80m on the second 100m – net profits have increased to 167.5m – why would that entice them to reduce prices?
Even if the windfall tax was 50% – there is still no incentive to reduce as 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. The only winner here is the exchequer.
If you want to limit profiteering then a price cap is the only way it could work. Windfall taxes are ineffectual.
@Liam Clifden: Bernie Madoffs Ponzi scheme was running for 17 years…
Happy Christmas from the European Central Bank
have your say