Willie O'Dea accused by Sunday Tribune

IrishTonyO

The tape of the interview with Willie O'Dea is going to be played on Lunchtime on Newstalk with Eamon Keane.

P. Breathnach

fuelinjection wrote: »

I am not surprised at this at all, Willie O'Dea is just an example of this.
With anti-social behaviour on the rise in Limerick he is probably worried about his own seat at the next election. "All politics is local" is overused but true.

Not too long ago this type of "nod-a-and-wink the Gardai told me" quote was used by journalists to make allegations and there was no punishment for it. Good to see Willie face some public humiliation for what he did.

Electoral politics is a dirty business, and politicians of all parties (not all of them, but significant numbers) make false allegations against their opponents, and typically use innuendo so as to make it more difficult to nail down their message. That's what Willie O'Dea was doing: normal dirty politicking.

To an extent, politicians live in a parallel world with different realities from those that the rest of us share. Willie certainly has a worldview different from mine.

Where things went wrong for him was that he brought his politician's values into the legal system, a place where they don't apply. Given that he himself is a lawyer, it was particularly ill-judged by him.

And he has been found out.

I suspect that there are many in the Dáil who should be saying "There, but for the grace of God, go I". In their hearts, they do not see Willie's behaviour as particularly egregious. Because he was found out, we get a set-piece exercise in the Dáil, and much outrage, some of it sham.

baalthor

91011 wrote: »

Surely there are many instances of people lying under oath, lying in affadavits, falsifying evidence and there has been no punishment.

............

I'm no expert myself, but a family member is a senior counsel and there are so many "untruths" in affadavits day in and day out, if everyone who told a fib went to jail the jail population would be doubled.

You and Willie do have a point.

People in court change their evidence all the time when new information is "brought to their attention"

For example, there was a case a few years ago where a man was accused of beating the sh*t out of another man outside a pub late at night.

The case went to court but as there were no witnesses it was the victim's word against the accused who was denying any involvement.

Just as the case started, CCTV evidence was discovered clearly showing the accused beating the sh*t out of the victim.
Once this new information was brought to the defendant's attention, he experienced a moment of mature recollection as it were, and immediately changed his plea to guilty.


What could have happened here?

Maybe the accused had an extremely busy life and between work and family activities it just slipped his mind that he had beaten a man to pulp one night?

Or maybe the accused beat people up on a regular basis and couldn't remember who he might have battered on a particular night?


Well, the trial judge took the view that the defendant deliberately lied about his involvement and only plead guilty because the discovery of the CCTV evidence mean that he now had no other choice.
During sentencing, the judge was particularly angry with the now convicted scumbag because without the CCTV he would probably have walked free from court, and he did his best to minimise the mitigating effect of the guilty plea when sentencing the defendant.

So you are correct, people (mostly criminals) lie in court all the time and usually only change their evidence or pleas when caught out by new evidence.

This is why lying in court is considered a crime and is usually punished when detected.
Like many other crimes it often goes undetected or unpunished but this is no reason to consider it a matter of little importance.

jmayo

Dáil suspended because Opposition (Kenny Hayes, Ó Caoláin) kept asking for o'dea to correct his claim yesterday that Gardaá had provided him with confidential information when they claim they haven't.

Kenny asked if the Tanaiste thought that her colleagues actions were unethical, Yes or NO ?
She waffled and refused to answer.

Mort ironic thing of the day was Ceann Chomhairle complaining to Kenny his actions were lowering the standards of the house. :rolleyes:

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin rasied another interesting point about o'dea tellking canvassers in Limerick to spread the defamatory remarks about Quinlivan.

Pbreathnach,
this was not just normal dirty politicing as you call it.
It was a very serious allegation of serious criminality and it was a particulr type of sordid criminality to darg the opponents name through the gutter.
He accused the SF candidate of basically running a brothel.

The legally qualified minister then went on oath in a sworn affidavit to the high court no less and denied ever making the remarks.

How many times has this occurred to make it so called normal dirty politics ?
Please tell us ?
You seem to be alluding that they all do or would do it given the chance.
That mindset might apply to certain parties but not all parties.

fuelinjection

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suspect that there are many in the Dáil who should be saying "There, but for the grace of God, go I". In their hearts, they do not see Willie's behaviour as particularly egregious. Because he was found out, we get a set-piece exercise in the Dáil, and much outrage, some of it sham.

Yeah true, but more so as he is the Minister for Defence, he has to be above this kind of behaviour so that we voters respect the seat, if not the person.

The Minister for Justice has the same responsibility, as he can bring shame to the highest seats of law and order in our Country.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

Pbreathnach,
this was not just normal dirty politicing as you call it.
It was a very serious allegation of serious criminality and it was a particulr type of sordid criminality to darg the opponents name through the gutter.
He accused the SF candidate of basically running a brothel.

That's the nature of normal dirty politicking: find anything that might be interpreted to the discredit of an opponent, and exploit it.

I am not condoning what Willie O'Dea did; I am simply trying to explain it.

The legally qualified minister then went on oath in a sworn affidavit to the high court no less and denied ever making the remarks.

That, in terms of electoral politics, was his mistake.

How many times has this occurred to make it so called normal dirty politics ?
Please tell us ?

I don't keep a scorecard. I am quite used to the phenomenon of politicians trying to discredit their opponents, and not being very concerned about being fair in their way of doing it.

You seem to be alluding that they all do or would do it given the chance.
That mindset might apply to certain parties but not all parties.

I was careful not to suggest that they are all at it. In fact, I think you are more unfair in suggesting that some parties do it, but not others. Some politicians do it; others don't.

drBill

Mr_A wrote: »

Had to laugh at the idea that a politician, attacking a rival in the middle of an election campaign and subsequently lying to the court about it, was 'acting in a personal capacity'. That was personal Willie, not politician Willie.

Best line since the 'mental reservation' trick used by clergy as revealed by the Murphy report.

Reminds me of a phrase coined by our former glorious leader during the planning tribunal in 2008: "a political donation for my personal use".

Actually what he says is pretty much irrelevant. O'Dea could equally well have stood up there and recited Humpty Dumpty. His colleagues and leader would still stand by him. Protecting FF is the number one priority. Things like the good of the country, fairness, honesty, decency, etc are well down the list. As long as you know where the skeletons are buried or can bring in the votes, you are safe.

Raiser

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That, in terms of electoral politics, was his mistake.

Should it not be condemned on multiple other fronts also?

raindog.promo

jmayo wrote: »

This is bigger than any particular party.
It is an issue where a sitting TD, nay minister, can defame an election opponent (who in this case happened to be SF member) and then later swear in a high court affidavit that he never made the allegations.

It is about ethics in public office, the rule of law and no citizen of the state, no matter who they are or what position they hold being above the rule of law.

+1

Trotter

Am I right that our minister for justice starting screaming across the house about party loyalty?

Does this on its own, given the circumstances, prove that our Government is an utter disgrace?

John_Mc

How are you listening to it?

91011

I now read up a bit on this and still don't see the issue the way FG seem to be calling it.

In March 2008 O'Dea had a conversation with a journalist at the launch of the local election campaign and slandered a SF councillor by saying he was connected with a brothel that had been raided.

This was published by the Limerick chronicle

The SF councillor denied that he was connected with a brothel and sought an injunction. O'Dea denied he had said it and the injunction was denied. The comments did not affect the SF councillors election campaign.

About 24th July, the journalist met O'Dea and gave him a transcript of the tape which had the exact wording as spoken by O'Dea.

O'Dea was very surprised that the comment was said (journalist's words) & the following day O'Dea met his solicitor and within a few days the SF councillor's counsel was informed, affadavits were changed and negotiations on a settlement were commenced.

In December details of the settlement were presented to court including the fact that the affadavit was changed and the court accepted the settlement.


In nutshell, he climed he did not say something, he then found out he had said it, the NEXT DAY he took action to correct his error. The error was acceoted by both the person he libelled, thier counsel and a high court judge. The case was settled and put to bed. O'Dea even wrote about the case and the error in the Sunday Independent himself. Then 2 months later it suddenly becomes news?

So where's the issue?

I think Angry Enda has made yet another cock up.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That, in terms of electoral politics, was his mistake.

BS. His explanation of events, just like Berties in the tribunal, is very hard to believe because he contradicts himself.

Firstly, he says 'why would I knowingly perjure myself when I knew there was a tape of the interview?'

Then he says it was a genuine mistake in the affidavit as the interview was late at night and he couldn't honestly remember saying those things

So he gave sworn testimony to a court on something he wasn't sure of while he knew a recording was available with which he could have checked his facts? Un-f***ing-likely

And now he's going on the radio playing the victim?? sound familiar?

He like Bertie, is full of crap.

John_Mc

91011 wrote: »

I now read up a bit on this and still don't see the issue the way FG seem to be calling it.

In March 2008 O'Dea had a conversation with a journalist at the launch of the local election campaign and slandered a SF councillor by saying he was connected with a brothel that had been raided.

This was published by the Limerick chronicle

The SF councillor denied that he was connected with a brothel and sought an injunction. O'Dea denied he had said it and the injunction was denied. The comments did not affect the SF councillors election campaign.

About 24th July, the journalist met O'Dea and gave him a transcript of the tape which had the exact wording as spoken by O'Dea.

O'Dea was very surprised that the comment was said (journalist's words) & the following day O'Dea met his solicitor and within a few days the SF councillor's counsel was informed, affadavits were changed and negotiations on a settlement were commenced.

In December details of the settlement were presented to court including the fact that the affadavit was changed and the court accepted the settlement.


In nutshell, he climed he did not say something, he then found out he had said it, the NEXT DAY he took action to correct his error. The error was acceoted by both the person he libelled, thier counsel and a high court judge. The case was settled and put to bed. O'Dea even wrote about the case and the error in the Sunday Independent himself. Then 2 months later it suddenly becomes news?

So where's the issue?

I think Angry Enda has made yet another cock up.

Oh yes, how convenient. He forgot that he had said such things, much like Bertie so :rolleyes:

I would pay no attention to the journalist saying WOD was surprised - politicians are good actors.

Tommy Bateman

This is just divide and conquer tactics by them blueshirts and foreign parties, you leave Willie alone. Like Lenny he has a job to do, and by god will he do a good job. Keep Willie in defence, sure them greens would probably give our country to the communists or Iranians, so who are they to judge?

Liam Byrne

Laminations wrote: »

Firstly, he says 'why would I knowingly perjure myself when I knew there was a tape of the interview?'

Echoes of Bertie's comment that "if he'd known he'd be asked about it a tribunal, then he wouldn't have taken the money".

Translated : "if I'd known I'd get caught...."

No concept of : "I know that I and no-one else should do stuff like that". :mad:

Laminations

91011 wrote: »

In nutshell, he claimed he did not say something,

He did more than claim - he swore to a court. And if he knew a tape of the interview existed which he is claiming now, he should have checked his facts.

91011 wrote: »

he then found out he had said it, the NEXT DAY he took action to correct his error.

He didn't 'find out' anything, he was told with evidence. If he was going to go and 'find out' what he had said he should have done that before swearing the contrary to a court. There is also still some confusion over the timings of events. This I couldn't care less about. He perjured himself. 'My mistake' is not a good enough defense

tbh

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

This is just divide and conquer tactics by them blueshirts and foreign parties, you leave Willie alone. Like Lenny he has a job to do, and by god will he do a good job.

when? For the love of god, when????!

Laminations

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

This is just divide and conquer tactics by them blueshirts and foreign parties, you leave Willie alone. Like Lenny he has a job to do, and by god will he do a good job. Keep Willie in defence, sure them greens would probably give our country to the communists or Iranians, so who are they to judge?

Tommy Bateman, political satirist extraordinaire or deluded brush?

Like someone mentioned, you are falling foul of Poe's Law

Tommy Bateman

tbh wrote: »

when? For the love of god, when????!

All the time, hes always taken a tough line. Sure them soft pussy cats in the foreign parties have nothing on rotweiller Willie

tbh

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

All the time, hes always taken a tough line. Sure them soft pussy cats in the foreign parties have nothing on rotweiller Willie

you're either taking the piss out of the state, or you actually believe that. Former is funny, latter not so much.

Scofflaw

tbh wrote: »

All the time, hes always taken a tough line. Sure them soft pussy cats in the foreign parties have nothing on rotweiller Willie

you're either taking the piss out of the state, or you actually believe that. Former is funny, latter not so much.

Also, former is AH, latter is Politics.

moderately,
Scofflaw

thebaldsoprano

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

All the time, hes always taken a tough line. Sure them soft pussy cats in the foreign parties have nothing on rotweiller Willie

Lying like a schoolboy who hasn't done his homework is hardly taking a tough line. Jeez, and I wouldn't go tainting a nice breed of dog like rottweilers by comparing that creep with them.

walshb

I think O'Dea will be gone, this is getting worse for him by the day. Now he is implicating the ****ing Gardai and claiming that he received info from them in relation to his scurrilous claims on Maurice. Now, I am no law expert, but surely if this claim is true, the Gardai need to establish who in their ranks was involved. I really cannot see how O'Dea can remain. I know we have pretty much no standards, but this low?

cavedave

Lets say you believe every word Willie O'Dea says. Then knowing he had said something on tape he made a statement to a court without asking to rehear the tape.

If you made a decision on your job when incontrovertible evidence was easily available and did not look at that evidence you would probably be fired. This man as minister of defense has to make decisions about the security of the nation. If he did not look at available evidence for these decisions it could have massive consequences.

Given everything Willie O'Dea says he is unwilling to look at evidence before making decisions and so is not competent enough to be a minister.

walshb

cavedave wrote: »

Lets say you believe every word Willie O'Dea says. Then knowing he had said something on tape he made a statement to a court without asking to rehear the tape.

If you made a decision on your job when incontrovertible evidence was easily available and did not look at that evidence you would probably be fired. This man as minister of defense has to make decisions about the security of the nation. If he did not look at available evidence for these decisions it could have massive consequences.

Given everything Willie O'Dea says he is unwilling to look at evidence before making decisions and so is not competent enough to be a minister.

Dave, another great way to look at this. I guess Willie truly is snookered.
But, he like the others are competent when it comes to sticking togethre and defending each other no mater how corrupt they are

91011

walshb wrote: »

I think O'Dea will be gone, this is getting worse for him by the day. Now he is implicating the ****ing Gardai and claiming that he received info from them in relation to his scurrilous claims on Maurice. Now, I am no law expert, but surely if this claim is true, the Gardai need to establish who in their ranks was involved. I really cannot see how O'Dea can remain. I know we have pretty much no standards, but this low?

This happened in his local area. You can be sure that a local garda was chatting to him and mentioned incorrectly that quinlivan's brother owned the house that a brothel had been found operating.

O'Dea was then chatting to various people on the night of the local election launch, and happened to make a comment about this to a reporter. - I'd say he probably gave a doxen interviews that evening, so I can understand how he cannot remember every word he said - I can't remember what I said last week let alone last month.

As for making a sworn statement - there are hundreds if not thousands of affadavits which have been changed after new information has come to light. - I even changed one myself last May due to mis-interpretion of a comment made and made the change in a second replying affadavit.

The libelled person ACCEPTED it was a genuine error. his counsel accepted it was a genuine error, a high court judge accepted it was genuine error. There is no way he should be sacked or resign as otherwise we'll go down the raod of british tabloid politics and then we might as well give up altogether.

2 dail days wasted on such trivial trash - is this what FG want to bring to government?

IrishTonyO

91011 wrote: »

O'Dea was then chatting to various people on the night of the local election launch, and happened to make a comment about this to a reporter. - I'd say he probably gave a doxen interviews that evening, so I can understand how he cannot remember every word he said - I can't remember what I said last week let alone last month.

It was not on the night of the local elections, it was weeks before.

Arnold Layne

tbh wrote: »

you're either taking the piss out of the state, or you actually believe that. Former is funny, latter not so much.

I'm wondering whether Tommy Bateman is a relation to the P.ie troll (now banned) Patrick Bateman and tompatrick.

Liam Byrne

IrishTonyO wrote: »

It was not on the night of the local elections, it was weeks before.

To be fair, 91011 said "local election launch"

But the fact is that it wasn't "chatting to various people on the night of the local election launch, and happened to make a comment about this to a reporter", because no reporter that you're "chatting to" would be recording the conversation.