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.
A COUNTER-SURVEILLANCE COMPANY which carried out a security sweep of the Garda Ombudsman headquarters has dismissed a report by journalist Paul Williams into the source of the anomalies found in the building.
Verrimus, a technical surveillance and privacy company based in the UK said the story about possible reasons for the security breaches was “wholly inaccurate”.
The report by Paul Williams in the Irish Independent today said that a wi-fi network in a nearby coffee shop had been the source of an external wi-fi network identified as an anomaly in the security sweep.
The report also suggested that the detection of a UK phone network during the sweep was caused by one of the phones used by an employee of the company.
In a statement, Verrimus said it cannot comment specifically on the task for GSOC or its findings, but said it will “correct technical inaccuracies in reporting”.
The company said it was not possible for a mobile phone of one of its employees to have been the source of the detected readings.
“A mobile phone cannot create a 3G base station, so it is impossible that Verrimus operator’s phones were the source of the fake Mobile Country Code (MCC) and fake Mobile Network Code (MNC) that was detected,” the company said in a statement.
It also dismissed the suggestion that the coffee shop had been responsible for the external wi-fi network.
Calls have been growing for an independent inquiry into the covert surveillance of the office of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission since it was revealed more than one week ago.
Sinn Féin is to hold a debate in the Dáil this evening pushing for an investigation into who was behind the bugging.
If you wish to vote yes vote yes, if you wish to vote no vote no, if you wish to stay at home stay at home. But please people don’t shove it down other peoples throats.
‘Vee haff vays of making you not vote’
Billy you were telling people last week on this to vote no. Hypocrite much?
I may have said stay at home but that’s not the same thing
Billy have you witnessed people having voting cards and pencils shoved down their throats already, or is this just a pre-emptive warning?
If you wish to vote yes, vote yes. If you wish to vote no, stay at home and rethink your choice.
Just look at the odds in the bookies
They have it a cert the referendum will be passed
What if it’s raining on Friday…do I still have to vote? I don’t have an umbrella
@ Beano hailo are given free taxi to and from the polling station. Save you having to get a lend of of umbrella.
Philip, the bookies have it around 80% that it will pass and 20% it wont, they also have it that Yes vote will only be around 59% so this is no “cert”
Paddy power is rarely wrong!!
Gay people shove it down each others throats!
“Shy” No voters. I think that means people who are afraid to say what they believe for fear of being beaten with the largest politically correct stick we have ever seen.
A Mayo tyrant with a big shillelagh.
So much persecution complex going on here! I’d swear Rupert Murdoch bought the journal!
Well if being called a homophobe and being compared to a racist is a persecution complex well then I guess I have a complex
Aw poor you. A couple of weeks od discomfort because you don’t believe others should have the same rights as you. LGBT people have to put up with the likes of you all their lives.
I wouldn’t call you a homophobe. Just ignorant and backward.
Jeez Liam.
That has to be the worst selfie ever.
Well for some that the only problem this issue creates in their lives is that it clogs up their Facebook feed or they see too many articles on the journal. Put yourself in the shoes of gay people who have been under the microscope for weeks in the run up to this, being compared to child abusers and told they’ll want to marry a horse next and all the other rubbish being thrown about.
Vote yes on Friday, you’ll wake up on Saturday with it all over, you’re lives won’t have changed a bit, but it will be absolutely huge for gay people.
“Nothing unusual about that Robert, all the lesbians I know are just men trapped in an ugly fat womans body.” this is what gerry o donnell posted in the article about the new mural and tony kilduff has actually said he thinks homosexuals are pedophiles, I don’t think people should be calling anyone names but in the grand scheme of things which do you think is more damaging, most particularly to teenage lgbt people who see that?
Well said sir.
Here Here, it won’t make a difference to anyone’s lives but those it directly effects.
We have moved on from a religious controlled society. And after it all came out in the wash they have no rights to any opinions on this matter. They should have all been burned at the stake for their mass collusion in how they treated the poor women & children of Ireland, America, Austria, South America. Short memories breeds bullsh&t
I don’t agree we have moved on from a religious controlled society. The RCC controls 95% of our schools.
The Yes vote is crumbling quicker than a Fred Dibnah chimney stack.
We’ve seen it many times before.
Loaded polls engineered to sway public opinion then the opposite happens.
The establishment are going to have egg on their faces after this one.
Hope they go into Anaphylactic shock and implode.
Agree . It is going to be defeated by 60 / 40 and Paddy Power has cut the odds dramactically over the last couple of days
Lindbarr’s put on another sock!
Just did a screenshot of Tommy’s comment for Saturday,thanks Tommy! Xxx
Cool Dick.
Little projects like that will help keep you off the streets. Please God.
dramatically? its gone from 1/10 to 1/5 still money on, while no side is 3/1. I take it you don’t bet much but if it was a horse race or a football match it would be a grand national winner vs a donkey or Barcelona vs. Cabinteely. Bookies are seldom wrong.
Paddy power is still saying it’s likely to be a yes
And here is the funny thing, if you asked people if they are ok with SSM a few years down the line after it is passed, you will find that a massive majority will support it.
Why? Because it will have zero negative impact on their lives.
Right now, I think, many will be voting no because they are allergic to change.
As we know, this referendum is being fought on the issue of potential access to surrogacy. Leo said on Claire Byrne last night that the government will ban commercialised surrogacy. If this is true, why didn’t they come out and say it earlier, thus clarifying the issue at the beginning; and why was surrogacy mysteriously removed from the family act at the last minute?
If this referendum is lost, it will be lost on government incompetence. They have allowed the surrogacy issue to boil over when, according to Leo, they could have explained how commercial surrogacy would be banned at the outset, thus assuaging many people’s concerns.
I agree, they fecked up but at least people know now that it is not a reason to worry.
Think that’s unfair Anne Marie.
Leo is advocating a Yes vote. It sends a much more powerful message when someone who is neutral confirms that surrogacy is nothing to do with the referendum (i.e. as the Chair of the Referendum Commission has done) than if Leo says we’ll pay commercial surrogacy.
I don’t at all believe that this referendum will be lost because of Government incompetence because ALL parties are in favour of it, not just the Government ones.
An think it is naive to say this rests on “commercial” surrogacy – it may be being used as a convenient excuse by some but commercial surrogacy has exited and been taken advantage of many couples for years without any public outcry at all.
When can we get an edit button?
“ban commercial surrogacy” not “pay”
@Anne Marie Devlin: I put it to you that a Yes vote demonstrates approval of LGBT Surrogacy while a No vote is vote against Surrogacy for LGBT. Here’s my reasoning: Justice Cross was on RTE Radio 1 this am. He was clear on two points -but they are contradictory: 1) He said this Ref. is not about Surrogacy 2) He said Surrogacy is currently unregulated here but when the Gov. moves to tackle it, unless it’s banned outright, then, with a Yes Vote, LGBT will be as entitled to it as Hetero by reason of Equality (unless LGBT are deemed bad Parents, but we all know that won’t fly). So, a Yes vote can therefore be interpreted as tacit approval of Surrogacy for LGBT. There can be no doubt about it.
Grey mcgarry. Are you going to try to ban all couples, hetrosexual or homosexual from marrying given that both sets of marriages could lead to surrogacy? No, you wouldn’t darelationship attempt to trample on hetrosexuals right to marriage on the grounds that said marriage may lead to surrogacy. What if the hetrosexual people getting married already know they can not produce children without the use of surrogacy, will you be banning them from marriage as well on the off chance they might try to use it? commercial surrogacy will not be legalised in this country As stated by Leo vradker lastnight. Stop trying to scaremonger, please.
Dell
Oh did Leo say that? Then it must be true. On that basis I will take anything a politician says as truth. pfft
@Dell: Ok, based upon my earlier comment, we all agree that this Referendum has a clear link to paving the way to Surrogacy for LGBT let me clearly state this: I think it is wrong for LGBT to access gestational Surrogacy as it means a biological parent is removed from the life of that child before even he/she is born. Such an issue does not arise for traditional Surrogacy for hetero couples who have fertility issues. That said, Surrogacy is not without its challenges.
Let us have our own Voting system here.
YES Vote GREEN
NO Vote RED
Sorry Diarmuid, have to give this one a miss.
I’m busy doing a poll on the Catholic Herald.
I’ll log back in later to check the outcome.
(can’t wait for the informative result)
Vote no on Friday. This is about children.
Do the decent thing, protect them.
Red Herring.
Tony, totally agree, we need to protect the kids. 13 charities including barnardos and ispcc are urging a yes vote. A no vote sends out a green light to marginalise and bully lgbt kids further, 29,000 called childline last year with sexuality issues. vote yes to protect kids so that they can live in a fairer society.
Don’t you mean protect certain children tony? What about the children who already have same sex parents? Do they not deserve the same rights and protection you’re referring to?
Brian.
They are thinking about not alienating the fundraising. What are the ispcc saying about the huge surge in surrogacy amongst same sex couples in countries where marriage is legalised? How about babies handed over at birth.
Protect them from what?
You have no facts or statistics to back that Tom so why do you keep saying it?
Protect them from dem quares, John Everyman. Ye can’t be letting quares have kids and showing them how to do the bumsex the way TomJoe_Kilduff”s mammy and daddy showed him how to do the missionary fully clothed and with no sinful pleasure involved.
Back it up or shut up about it Tom. It is largely used by heterosexual couples not lgbt couples.
That’s one hell of an accusation Tom have you evidence to support it? You think all children’s welfare organisations are placing funding above the welfare of children in their stance on ssm? You really believe that? And you think the government would cut their funding if they were advocating a no vote?
Ha!
“The Dáil sits for just one day this week as all parties concentrate on the final hours of campaigning.”
They should be running the country and leaving the voters to decide. I hope they don’t get paid this week.
The second referendum has hit a major pothole ..
The Government allocated unfair resources to each topic …. They did not put in a Director of elections for the second referendum – an uninformed public is an illegal voting public …
Too stupid to dot the is and cross the ts legally when it comes to run referenda – I think this is grounds for a general election under Article 6 …
Deliberately underinforming the citizens !
And the Attorney General removes the light-blocking blindfold and realises that the sound she heard was the hull scraping of an iceberg.
A Big one !
Asher Bakery and Daintree
2 examples that will negatively affect the Yes vote.
Both clear examples of how not to run a business, don’t alienate your customers and they won’t take their business elsewhere? It’s hardly rocket science.
And you forgot about the Labour party
But they’re not taking their business elsewhere, they’re insisting on a particular one, why?
Rebecca,
You think you can tell people how they should run their businesses?
Ashers are thriving while I don’t think the same can be said for Daintree.
I’m pleased Daintree is under new management. It wasn’t because of courts but consumers voting with their wallet
Regarding the “smear” campaign and Hanafin, It`s the truth, She did!
A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a political tactic that is an unfair or untrue political attack, Clearly in this case it is the truth, I for one will gladly travel all over the borough putting these posters up, and would have absolutely no problem with it.
Ballybeg says NO.
I say YES!!
Finest example in the country of a 13th century Dove cot is in Ballybeg….
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8557/8747561566_5ea2856a4c_b.jpg
If you’re driving by Ballybeg Abbey, drop in for a look.
If you’re driving in my Ballybeg (Waterford) don’t even look out the window.
I say hello hello hello hello hello
Judging by
Media and celebrity bias , those undecided or impressionable will vote yes.
Albeit I am voting yes I still feel the no side didn’t get a fair share of air time.
What’s “fair” about looking to deny and deprive people of rights?
The surrogacy issue is surely the biggest red herring ever introduced into any public debate. Now that is has been clearly demonstrated that it is NOT affected by whichever result comes out of the referendum every far minded person who has a vote should vote YES. ( average number of surrogacy cases per annum is ELEVEN most of them involving heterosexual couples).
Lie lie lie
Back up this outrageous lie.
Heterosexuals rarely use surrogacy because they have IVF.
Same sex couples have little other option.
Tell me how Leo will stop surrogacy by making it illegal? The same way they stopped people getting abortions by making it illegal?
Tom, IVF does NOT work for 33% of people accessing it. It is not the end of the road or indeed the only option for having a family. Heterosexual couples absolutely use surrogacy. All in all total numbers from this island will be low anyway. Now, to state again, this referendum is about who should be allowed marry, nothing more, nothing less.
@John Campbell: “Every far minded person” should vote Yes? An insulting and delusionary comment. Every No voter has had to wade through an ocean of Propaganda, Unanimous Government support, €25 Million worth of Yes advertising by Atlantic Philanthropies, let alone vilification & Hatred to arrive at and maintain their position. To suggest it is short-sighted to Vote No is nonsense and precisely the opposite. No voters are ignoring the fact that it is popular now to say Yes in favour of the LONG TERM consequences.
Maybe so Greg, but nobody prevented the YES campaigners from doing their work of convincing people. LGBT people in our society have had years and years of being forced to hide their sexuality and been unable to openly display their natural love. Is it any wonder then that they are shouting from the rooftops that they deserve EQUALITY!
Please look at the countries that currently have marriage equality and tell me what are the negative long term consequences.
If the surrogacy situation had been dealt with it would be a landslide yes. Nobody wants a situation where gay or straight couples can order babies on demand. Trying to succinctly state that on a poster without looking homophobic is impossible.& looking ahead (which yes side are refusing to do) anyone giving a child for adoption should be able to choose a straight over gay couple without being accused of being a homophobe & taken to court.
All of that has been dealt with and voting yes or no will not affect any of it .
Married couples do not have a right to surrogacy. The courts have found against attempts to argue otherwise
@Dell: That comment, ‘…voting Yes or No will have no effect…’ is wholly inaccurate. The Constitution’s intent is interpreted by the Courts. Therefore, people are entitled to seek approval for given actions under the relevant Articles of the Constitution. If the Referendum is carried, LGBT shall be entitled to seek access to Surrogacy, by reason of equity, unless Surrogacy is banned for everyone. Therefore, the way one votes in this referendum is directly linked to the availability of Surrogacy for LGBT.
Vote NO and protect marriage as the world understands it for over 2000 years.
Do not be frightened by the yes people who call any person who advocates NO as homophobic!
We live in a democracy not a Dictatorship!,
Vote NO and protect the true definition of Marriage!
We don’t even have the marruage format of 2000 years ago. As recently as the 19th century a wife was legally her husband’s possession. Marital rape was legal until 1990. Wives had to resign from the civil service because of church teaching until 1979 which was enforced in law. And of course the big redefinition was divorce in 1995. The no sides arguments are rehashed from the divorce campaign. Even some of the antis are the same eg William binchy.
“Shy no voters” what a load of crap
I would say there will be a lot of no voters in rural areas. No campaigning , or any yes posters whatsoever, the yes side have completing ignored these areas. Where I live absolutely not one yes poster. The 2 towns close to me all have no posters. Think its a mistake on the yes side. As a lot of people who don’t use social media will not have all the information and for this reason will vote no. Almost like concentrate on cities and forget the rest . that could be a major mistake.
In my mother’s village there are only no posters. Shameful laziness by the parties
Banning surrogacy in this country is irrelevant. Like abortion (which is illegal here), if you want it you go abroad.
Surrogacy will thrive after this vote is carried and there is nothing Leo and his cronies can do about it.
They govern this country and no other country. You want surrogacy, go abroad, which is what most people will want to do anyway to avail of privacy.
Can even have a nice holiday to boot.
Tom, you have been asked time and time again to prove your claim that demand for surrogacy will increase should ask be passed. you continue to pedal your untruths but cannot back them up. A handful of Irish people go abroad for surrogacies, ninety five percent of these cases are heterosexuals. You are scaremongering tom. Provide facts and figures to back up your statement!
Eh by your “logic” Tom, there should be people heading abroad in droves already for surrogacy considering there’s no law against it. No reason why a yes vote should increase the numbers…
Do we need to spell this out for you again Tom?? Maybe if we use crayons it might sink in better.
So how will Leo stop surrogacy? Will we have military police at the airport stopping people going abroad to avail of surrogacy services?
Just like we stop people going abroad to have abortions or going to Amsterdam to smoke weed.
Great idea Leo. That’ll stop surrogacy alright.
If people know that there will be legal or even criminal repercussions Tom that will be a deterrent. How is your campaign to ban all marriages coming along, given that all marriage could lead to surrogacy, not just the marriages of one section of one minority group?
Tom, you are saying that Leo cannot stop surrogacy but yet voting no to ssm. (Which has nothing to do with ssm will)?
John Lyons there..better known as “lyons low” in his constituency as he hasn’t been seen in the parish since he was elected.
Hopefully not, it’d be hilarious
The fact is they didn’t think it out and some gays want a no vote because they say that it will harm gay marriage in the long term but my view is that it will harm the family and children under our constitution by removing the family from it rather than adding a clause to it, which they should have done instead.
Sure they now have ‘the icing on the cake’. Who would take the cake from them?
There is no cake. The cake is a lie.
Have any of the pollsters asked the Nigerian community here, or those who have secured citizenship, how they may vote on this issue?
My own questioning of people from this, and other African countries, is they are wholly opposed to gay’s, let alone permitting persons of the same gender to marry.
If Friday’s vote is tight between citizens who are indigenous, it may be just this section of our electorate which could, although I don’t believe it’s that close, make it NO, rather than YES!
This is of course, based on the particular fundamental religious bias of this section of our community, evangelical Christian and Muslim, if this is so, where do we go from here?
If gay marriage fails this time, then they can hold another referendum on it as it is not the end of the world but if they pass it then it will be the end of the world for family protection under our constitution, do people not see this. It was another rush job by this government where adding to article 41 would have been better than changing it?
have your say