denis o brien takes out yet another high court action, this time against RTE/Pravda

54and56

stan larsen wrote: »

A more mundane explanation is I think that we require a high standard of proof before we find an individual guilty.

Isn't the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt"?

If you feel that is too high a burden what would you replace it with?

Perhaps something like "if enough tin foil hat wearing internet forum warriors bang the drum loud enough for long enough" you shall be deemed guilty? That would do away with the inconvenience of having to gather and present evidence and giving the accused the opportunity to present a defence all together and we'd all live happily in a police state.

Fast forward 10 years the underground forum www.secretboards.ie would be full of people complaining that the elite are now in control of the police and although the old system wasn't perfect it was way better than what we ended up with.

Careful what you wish for!!

stan larsen

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Isn't the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt"?
If you feel that is too high a burden what would you replace it with?

There is a bit of problem alright that goes beyond corruption in business and politics which is that the law is not effective in addressing some law-breaking because "beyond reasonable doubt" is a very high bar to clear.

Another domain where this problem is very evident is in the world of organised crime.

It’s very tempting to lower the bar but that brings the risk of miscarriages of justice. Do nothing and more wrong-doers will evade justice.

54and56

stan larsen wrote: »

There is a bit of problem alright that goes beyond corruption in business and politics which is that the law is not effective in addressing some law-breaking because "beyond reasonable doubt" is a very high bar to clear.

Another domain where this problem is very evident is in the world of organised crime.

It’s very tempting to lower the bar but that brings the risk of miscarriages of justice. Do nothing and more wrong-doers will evade justice.

We need something like the The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in the US which would give the Gardai and DPP the leverage they need to investigate and successfully prosecute corruption/graft/racketeering/fraud/bribery etc

Unfortunately we as a nation love the cute hoor and have no appetite for nailing this type of behaviour as evidenced by Lowry continually getting re-elected.

hatrickpatrick

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Such an easy argument to debunk - oh where to start.

You do know that repeating a falsehood many many times doesn't make it true right?

There is plenty of evidence which points towards a privileged political elite in Ireland. Personally I believe it is now up to the doubters to disprove that evidence which has been repeatedly presented.

hatrickpatrick

stan larsen wrote: »

A more mundane explanation is I think that we require a high standard of proof before we find an individual guilty.

An unfortunate consequence of this is that you have to be a little bit dumb (successful business / political folk usually are not) or a but unlucky to get caught.

Well, what evidence was admitted at the Moriarty tribunal which wouldn't have stood up in a court of law?

54and56

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well, what evidence was admitted at the Moriarty tribunal which wouldn't have stood up in a court of law?

By virtue of the fact that no charges were brought forward against DOB the conclusion has to be that none of the evidence presented in the Moriarty tribunal would have stood up in court.

stan larsen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well, what evidence was admitted at the Moriarty tribunal which wouldn't have stood up in a court of law?

Tribunals, as I understand them, have the threshold at the balance of probability, which is much lower than "beyond reasonable doubt"

Much the same as the difference between criminal and civil trials. Which explains why (in the US) the likes of OJ Simpson and Robert Blake were acquitted of their wives murder in criminal court but were held responsible in a civil court.

I.e. The probably did it. But the system is not certain enough of this to deny them their freedom.

hatrickpatrick

stan larsen wrote: »

Tribunals, as I understand them, have the threshold at the balance of probability, which is much lower than "beyond reasonable doubt"

Much the same as the difference between criminal and civil trials. Which explains why (in the US) the likes of OJ Simpson and Robert Blake were acquitted of their wives murder in criminal court but were held responsible in a civil court.

I.e. The probably did it. But the system is not certain enough of this to deny them their freedom.

I'd like to see more detail on which specific evidence was able to secure a Moriarty finding but wouldn't have been enough to ensure a conviction. I also find it a little problematic that we allow that decision to rest entirely with the DPP and not with the Gardai or anyone else, so that an overly cautious or dishonest DPP can essentially pervert the course of justice by not allowing something to even go to trial.

Bit like the prosecution of police brutality in the US - the allegation has so far not been that the courts are corrupt, the issue is that prosecutions rarely reach a jury in the first place.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

By virtue of the fact that no charges were brought forward against DOB the conclusion has to be that none of the evidence presented in the Moriarty tribunal would have stood up in court.

This is assuming that those responsible are (a) competent, (b) not overly cautious and (c) honest and impartial. All three are assumptions which in Ireland it has proven time and again to be rather foolish to make, when it comes to the running of the state.

jobeenfitz

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

By virtue of the fact that no charges were brought forward against DOB the conclusion has to be that none of the evidence presented in the Moriarty tribunal would have stood up in court.

That would be one conclusion. It could be a right or a wrong conclusion.

stan larsen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd like to see more detail on which specific evidence was able to secure a Moriarty finding but wouldn't have been enough to ensure a conviction.

I don’t think we yet know that there isn’t enough evidence for a court case. Is the DPP not still looking at the case?

tayto lover

stan larsen wrote: »

I don’t think we yet know that there isn’t enough evidence for a court case. Is the DPP not still looking at the case?

Who appoints the DPP?

stan larsen

tayto lover wrote: »

Who appoints the DPP?

The government does, as far as I know. Why?

tayto lover

stan larsen wrote: »

The government does, as far as I know. Why?

Would explain why people close to them get things easy and nothing dodgy ever gets prosecuted.

renegademaster

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Oooh more tin foil hattery :eek:

Ara would ya go and pull the other one!!

gordongekko

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

But it's not actually his current account we're interested in, it's the accounts of a company which received a substantial taxpayer funded write off - and the details of that agreement, and which went on to win a lucrative taxpayer funded contact as a result, despite its Sierra subsidiary not actually existing when the contract was awarded.

As I said above, it's another tribunal in the making.

Available from cro once filed.

renegademaster

gordongekko wrote: »

Available from cro once filed.

Goody

darkpagandeath

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0528/704498-dail-leaders/

So Hang on RTE cannot Report on a TD Reporting something to the dail ? I though it was only that RTE cannot Report it directly its self ?

michael999999

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cT3KLVWc5tk

Take a look at this.

****ing fine Gael cowards, there as bad as Fianna fail.

Looking after sugar daddy Denis at all costs!

michael999999

@caulmick The retracted report in The journal on CathMurphyTD contribution to #dail on #siteserv #obrienvrte #vinb #sixone http://t.co/9UYyNlCCJc

Link to Tweet: https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/603966434553757696

Satriale

Good woman, Catherine.

suicide_circus

Lex Luther up to his old tricks

My name is URL

O'Briens lawyers are out in force having reports about what Ms Murphy said in Dail today removed.

Solicitors acting for Denis O’Brien have asked us to remove this post asserting that it is a breach of a High Court Order [O’Brien Vs RTÉ]. They gave a 7pm deadline or they would begin injunction proceedings. We have replied that article 15.12 of the constitution allows all Dáil statements “wherever published” to be privileged and we currently await their response.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/05/28/redacteds-1-25-interest-rate/

I'd love to hear any of his defenders here try to explain this away.

darkpagandeath

My name is URL wrote: »

O'Briens lawyers are out in force having reports about what Ms Murphy said in Dail today removed.



http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/05/28/redacteds-1-25-interest-rate/

How can they Remove information that's publicly available ? They going to remove it from the Dail transcripts as well ?

My name is URL

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How can they Remove information that's publicly available ? They going to remove it from the Dail transcripts as well ?

Well they've tried to do that in the past. They wrote to Sean Barrett asking to have stuff stricken from the record

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/companies/siteserv-murphy-complaint-likely-to-go-to-d%C3%A1il-committee-1.2222822

What a bunch of filthy corrupted cnuts. Bad enough that they can silence the media, but trying to undermine the function of the Dail is something else.

Banjo String

Catherine Murphy Will top the poll's in north Kildare.

Outstanding work from her, she's clearly not been bought by Judas gold.

darkpagandeath

My name is URL wrote: »

Well they've tried to do that in the past. They wrote to Sean Barrett asking to have stuff stricken from the record

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/companies/siteserv-murphy-complaint-likely-to-go-to-d%C3%A1il-committee-1.2222822

What a bunch of filthy corrupted cnuts. Bad enough that they can silence the media, but trying to undermine the function of the Dail is something else.

Yeah but asking and being able to remove it legal are two very different things. That's what I mean if it's publicly available how can they legally ask news outlets to remove reports. Reports reporting on publicly available information. I can't see any legal means to that.

michael999999

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah but asking and being able to remove it legal are two very different things. That's what I mean if it's publicly available how can they legally ask news outlets to remove reports. Reports reporting on publicly available information. I can't see any legal means to that.

The journal.ie pulled a story about denis o brien/fine gael earlier. All credibility lost after that I'm afraid!

expectationlost

Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Bill 2015: First Stage

Deputy Catherine Murphy
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015052800027?opendocument#Z00100

and Dail video https://oireachtas.heanet.ie/wmv/hourly/Dail/Dail_20150528133002_001.wmv

Banjo String

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT3KLVWc5tk

darkpagandeath

I will be interested to see if they will try to get Dail footage removed from YT. And will they go after the Dail TV chaps for recording and broadcasting the information ?