The Denis O`Brien controversy

realitykeeper

There has been a lot of rancor around Denis O`Brien recently, in particular regarding a special low rate of interest he is required to pay (allegedly). If Mr O`Brien did get a special deal, fair play to him. Let`s not be so jealous.

It is true a lot of people are being charged a lot on variable rate mortgages but then those people signed the dotted line and agreed to pay the variable rate and not the tracker rate or a fixed rate. The banks are not obliged to ape ECB rates for variable rate mortgages, that is why they are called variable rate mortgages - they vary from the ECB rate.

Its a bit like the parable of the workers in the vineyard. When you agree to something then you should not complain afterwards just because someone else gets a better deal. That is what you call jealousy and it is not a pleasant trait. Rather than complain, the variable rate mortgage holders should look on the bright side, they are now wiser than they were before.

Having said all that, I disagree with the ECB policy of keeping interest rates so low and also their policy of QE. The recession must be allowed to happen and in the long run, these monitory manipulations will only postpone the inevitable. Indeed, they will make the inevitable pain far worse when it comes.

The (alleged) low interest loan issued by the IBRC is a concern to a lot of people because the IBRC is owned by the state. However, the true controversy is the fact that banks such as Anglo Irish were nationalized in the first place. As long as one holds the view that the banks should never have been nationalized, then anything the IBRC does or does not do is of no relevance to the real issue i.e. the socialization of private debt.

Seth Brundle

My take on it is that many people have a variety of reasons for being angry/annoyed/etc. over the low rate loan. My feel is that some of it is to do with the claim that he made corrupt payments to Lowry.
However, I think many feel this way because a company he is involved with has contracts to install water meters. If he wasn't involved with the IW rollout, I doubt that many would care too much about Siteserv, KPMG and so on.

I do think the bigger issue which is being glossed over is the release of a customers details from IBRC. No other customers have had their details leaked in this way. Who leaked them, why and what is being done about it?

gaius c

realitykeeper wrote: »

There has been a lot of rancor around Denis O`Brien recently, in particular regarding a special low rate of interest he is required to pay (allegedly). If Mr O`Brien did get a special deal, fair play to him. Let`s not be so jealous.

It is true a lot of people are being charged a lot on variable rate mortgages but then those people signed the dotted line and agreed to pay the variable rate and not the tracker rate or a fixed rate. The banks are not obliged to ape ECB rates for variable rate mortgages, that is why they are called variable rate mortgages - they vary from the ECB rate.

Its a bit like the parable of the workers in the vineyard. When you agree to something then you should not complain afterwards just because someone else gets a better deal. That is what you call jealousy and it is not a pleasant trait. Rather than complain, the variable rate mortgage holders should look on the bright side, they are now wiser than they were before.

Having said all that, I disagree with the ECB policy of keeping interest rates so low and also their policy of QE. The recession must be allowed to happen and in the long run, these monitory manipulations will only postpone the inevitable. Indeed, they will make the inevitable pain far worse when it comes.

The (alleged) low interest loan issued by the IBRC is a concern to a lot of people because the IBRC is owned by the state. However, the true controversy is the fact that banks such as Anglo Irish were nationalized in the first place. As long as one holds the view that the banks should never have been nationalized, then anything the IBRC does or does not do is of no relevance to the real issue i.e. the socialization of private debt.

Fair play to you, Willie.

andrew

I think the main issue is that he tried to use his control over the media to supress the story, rather than going through the normal legal channels which exist for when someone publishes something which you think they shouldn't have.

bpmurray

If the story is true, then the IBRC gave a *VERY* favourable interest rate to O'Brien, to the extent that this amounted to the IBRC handing him a load of taxpayers' money. And then he went to enormous lengths to suppress the story, unsurprisingly.

If it is all true, whoever granted him that rate should be pursued for fraud and/or criminal negligence. And the sale should be reversed, with O'Brien paying the market rate.

andrew

bpmurray wrote: »

If the story is true, then the IBRC gave a *VERY* favourable interest rate to O'Brien, to the extent that this amounted to the IBRC handing him a load of taxpayers' money. And then he went to enormous lengths to suppress the story, unsurprisingly.

If it is all true, whoever granted him that rate should be pursued for fraud and/or criminal negligence. And the sale should be reversed, with O'Brien paying the market rate.

IBRC didn't give him the rate, Anglo did. It remained unchanged, presumably because the rate was locked in at the time the loan was taken out. I doubt IBRC have the power to completely change the terms of every loan which they own.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

If Mr O`Brien did get a special deal, fair play to him. Let`s not be so jealous.

One of the allegations relates to bad corporate governance at the bank, and whether or not O'Brien was given preferential treatment at a time when there was a major public stake in the bank.

Most people, with the exception of a handful of people on internet forums, seem to believe that's an allegation that should be investigated, and can presumably be disproven fairly quickly.

The (alleged) low interest loan issued by the IBRC is a concern to a lot of people because the IBRC is owned by the state. However, the true controversy is the fact that banks such as Anglo Irish were nationalized in the first place.

"Ehhh judge, you're quite right that I shouldn't have been drink driving at the time I ran-over Mr Murphy, but the real crime is that he was on his way to meet his mistress"

Pure nonsense like.

Icepick

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

"Ehhh judge, you're quite right that I shouldn't have been drink driving at the time I ran-over Mr Murphy, but the real crime is that he was on his way to meet his mistress"

terrible analogy

As pointed out by OP. "the true controversy is the fact that banks such as Anglo Irish were nationalized in the first place."

Chloris

There are already two threads about this, did the OP really feel another one was necessary just so he could say his piece?

Icepick

Icepick wrote: »

terrible analogy

As pointed out by OP. "the true controversy is the fact that banks such as Anglo Irish were nationalized in the first place."

Which, although morally dubious (like cheating on your wife), is not the subject of an investigation or allegations of impropriety.

On the other hand, there have been serious allegations made about O'Brien and Anglo-IBRC, some of which are the subject of an investigation and a Commission of Inquiry.

So to claim that O'Brien's business dealings should give way to "the big controversy" of nationalisation is indeed a foolish exercise in distraction, for which my analogy is pretty appropriate.

Gloomtastic!

kbannon wrote: »

Who leaked them, why and what is being done about it?

Why? Because there was something untoward, that someone with knowledge of these things, thought would be worth leaking. Otherwise why bother?

realitykeeper

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

On the other hand, there have been serious allegations made about O'Brien and Anglo-IBRC, some of which are the subject of an investigation and a Commission of Inquiry.

The Gardai and Judiciary should refuse to have anything to do with the allegations because that would lend tacit approval to the rogue bailout of Anglo. As for the allegation that O`Brien bribed Lowry, I am not convinced. In fact, there has been so much noise about that allegation that I suspect bribery may have actually been prevented by the award of the mobile phone licence to O`Brien. Had the licence been awarded to one of the other contenders, who is to say a number of politicians would not have been given a pay off by some anonymous source. Indeed, that could well be the reason so many of them foam at the mouth when they speak of Mr Lowry.

Mr O`Brien is a businessman. In some quarters of this bolshie republic, that alone is enough to convict him of anything. Or, to quote Gene Hackman in the movie Unforgiving: "Innocent! Innocent of what?"

Sand

andrew wrote: »

IBRC didn't give him the rate, Anglo did. It remained unchanged, presumably because the rate was locked in at the time the loan was taken out. I doubt IBRC have the power to completely change the terms of every loan which they own.

If the rate was locked in and was not under review, then why did DOB feel the need request that the rate on his loans be maintained?

andrew

Sand wrote: »

If the rate was locked in and was not under review, then why did DOB feel the need request that the rate on his loans be maintained?

The articles I've read haven't mentioned that?

realitykeeper

I am not sure if the IBRC is involved exclusively with legacy debts or if it actively lends money i.e. issues new loans to developers and the like. If they do issue new loans, should that be allowed? The IBRC is owned by the state, so wouldn`t issuing new loans be gambling with the taxpayers money. Perhaps Enda and his cronies would like to go on a junket to Las Vegas as they are at it. It is arrogant to assume any gamble will pay off, especially when that gamble is made with other people`s money and without the owners consent.

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am not sure if the IBRC is involved exclusively with legacy debts or if it actively lends money i.e. issues new loans to developers and the like. If they do issue new loans, should that be allowed? The IBRC is owned by the state, so wouldn`t issuing new loans be gambling with the taxpayers money. Perhaps Enda and his cronies would like to go on a junket to Las Vegas as they are at it. It is arrogant to assume any gamble will pay off, especially when that gamble is made with other people`s money and without the owners consent.

You went from asking if the bank lends to accusing EK and his cronies for being arrogant because they gamble with other people's money.
:rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster

kbannon wrote: »

Who leaked them

doesn't particularly matter but either a concerned whistleblower or someone who knew and got shafted by either Anglo, DOB etc along the way out for some revenge

, why

because it's in the public interest to expose such obvious corruption and dodgy dealings. There is no way that such a transaction was conducted at arms length in a transparent manner to benefit either Anglos shareholders or the taxpayer. KPMG should have raised this as a serious flag during their audit, it should have been picked up as part of the handover of Anglo and any subsequent audit should also have raised it as seriously out of the ordinary.

and what is being done about it?

I've no doubt the gov are falling over themselves to try and hush it up and create a new distraction to stop further dealings between them and DOB from appearing. Point me toward CT if you like but this whole thing stinks of serious corruption and abuse of power at every level.

jmayo

kbannon wrote: »

...
I do think the bigger issue which is being glossed over is the release of a customers details from IBRC. No other customers have had their details leaked in this way. Who leaked them, why and what is being done about it?

Isn't it marvellous after the fact hot many lament how there were no whistleblowers to spill the beans, yet then when someone does spill the beans they want a witchhunt. :rolleyes:

Ehh mr o'brien is not just any old customer and IBRC is not just any old bank.
It is the bank that helped sink this country and mr o'brien is the guy who miraculously won the mobile phone license (i.e. his licenses to print money) from his buddy politican who somehow had a habit of getting cash into his accounts and not paying his taxes.

It reminds me a bit of Qatar winning the world cup.
It just came out of left field and left more than a few wondering.

Of course some around here will try and peddle any old shyte to dress that up as just good business and entreprenurship.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The Gardai and Judiciary should refuse to have anything to do with the allegations because that would lend tacit approval to the rogue bailout of Anglo. As for the allegation that O`Brien bribed Lowry, I am not convinced. In fact, there has been so much noise about that allegation that I suspect bribery may have actually been prevented by the award of the mobile phone licence to O`Brien. Had the licence been awarded to one of the other contenders, who is to say a number of politicians would not have been given a pay off by some anonymous source. Indeed, that could well be the reason so many of them foam at the mouth when they speak of Mr Lowry.

Yeah persish the thought some anonymous source might give bribes. :rolleyes:

Ever heard the old saying ....
"if it walks like a duck and squacks like a duck it is a bloody duck " ?

realitykeeper wrote: »

Mr O`Brien is a businessman. In some quarters of this bolshie republic, that alone is enough to convict him of anything. Or, to quote Gene Hackman in the movie Unforgiving: "Innocent! Innocent of what?"

What is the definition of sycophant again ?

Sean Quinn, Larry Goodman are/were businessmen too.
So was Patrick Gallagher, Joe Moore.
We have a long history of "businessmen".

Bradlin

Variable rate mortgages doesn't mean they vary FROM the ECB rate - it means they vary WITH the ECB rate.

People who took a variable rate mortgage were within their rights to expect that this would happen. If not, why don't the banks just charge 50% on these mortgages?

andrew

Bradlin wrote: »

Variable rate mortgages doesn't mean they vary FROM the ECB rate - it means they vary WITH the ECB rate.

No, trackers vary with the ECB rate. Variable rates vary from the ECB rate.

People who took a variable rate mortgage were within their rights to expect that this would happen. If not, why don't the banks just charge 50% on these mortgages?

For the same reason that shop-keepers don't charge €50 for a carton of milk.

creedp

andrew wrote: »

No, trackers vary with the ECB rate. Variable rates vary from the ECB rate.



For the same reason that shop-keepers don't charge €50 for a carton of milk.

Ah yea .. the good old market and competition will sort it out .. just wait and see

andrew

creedp wrote: »

Ah yea .. the good old market and competition will sort it out .. just wait and see

Have you ever seen a €50 carton of milk?

And less facitiously - if the government started legislating for interest rates, do you think this would lead to more or less competition? (the answer is less).

creedp

andrew wrote: »

Have you ever seen a €50 carton of milk?

And less facitiously - if the government started legislating for interest rates, do you think this would lead to more or less competition? (the answer is less).

Thanks for answering your own question .. I would have struggled. As for the E50 carton of milk comparison I'm struggling to identify the relevance when discussing a mortgage ..can I simply toss it over the bank counter any buy it in the next door convenience store? Must read my economics for dummies book again one of these days

andrew

creedp wrote: »

Thanks for answering your own question .. I would have struggled. As for the E50 carton of milk comparison I'm struggling to identify the relevance when discussing a mortgage ..can I simply toss it over the bank counter any buy it in the next door convenience store? Must read my economics for dummies book again one of these days

Banks don't charge whatever they want for mortgages for the same reason that shops don't charge whatever they want for milk. If they charged absurdly high interest rates ("whatever they liked"), or there was a threat they'd do so, nobody would use that bank to get a mortgage ever.

Banks are also limited in terms of the rate they charge current mortgage holders by the fact that charging too high an interest rate would cause borrowers to default, which the bank don't want. So to suggest as you did that there are no constraints on the variable rate which a bank could charge is wrong.

creedp

andrew wrote: »

Banks don't charge whatever they want for mortgages for the same reason that shops don't charge whatever they want for milk. If they charged absurdly high interest rates ("whatever they liked"), or there was a threat they'd do so, nobody would use that bank to get a mortgage ever.

Banks are also limited in terms of the rate they charge current mortgage holders by the fact that charging too high an interest rate would cause borrowers to default, which the bank don't want. So to suggest as you did that there are no constraints on the variable rate which a bank could charge is wrong.

I didn't suggest there was no constraints on what variable interest rate a bank can charge. I was responding to the point that less competition/more regulation will automatically result in higher rates.

The current spread on interests coupled with the strong resistance to reducing interest rates in line with ECB rate reductions especially for existing customers who are very much a captive audience given the difficulty associated with switching mortgage providers is reasonable evidence in support of this view.

To be honest reference to competition and soft regulation for banks leaves a pretty sour taste in the mouth given the monumental mess the banks made of the sector when they were given too free a reign.

nice_guy80

I see Denis is back in the high court again, taking on the Dail

the law firm representing him must love him.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Moved from Irish Economy.

creedp

creedp wrote: »

Must read my economics for dummies book again one of these days

You leave Moore McDowell out of this!

Mr.Micro

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I see Denis is back in the high court again, taking on the Dail

the law firm representing him must love him.

Our very own wannabe dictator. One would think any good advisor would have a word in his ear, to let it go and don't.

Nodin

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Our very own wannabe dictator. One would think any good advisor would have a word in his ear, to let it go and don't.

He's by all accounts remarkably prickly about his "reputation", so I doubt it's a matter he'd take any advice on. Of course whether this is because its resentment in being one of the few caught amongst the many that sinned or something else is unlikely to come out in his lifetime - unless the money runs out.

LuckyLloyd

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I see Denis is back in the high court again, taking on the Dail

the law firm representing him must love him.

What's the story on this? What is he looking to achieve in the High Court this time?

Nodin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What's the story on this? What is he looking to achieve in the High Court this time?

Bullying, essentially.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/minister-defends-tds-subjected-to-denis-obriens-legal-action-689511.html

K-9

Wish there was something about wasting court time with this stuff.

Skylinehead

Article 15 of the Constitution:

All official reports and publications of the Oireachtas or of either House thereof and utterances made in either House wherever published shall be privileged.

Does he actually think he'll win this?

Nodin

Skylinehead wrote: »

Article 15 of the Constitution:



Does he actually think he'll win this?

He may be presuming that the fear of being dragged into a court action - preferably protracted - will put off people getting involved in the future. He can afford it, and the large majority of his targets can't. Thus even if he loses, he wins.

I do not understand the point of what he's doing. Not at all.
What does he hope to achieve?

The bastion of clarity that is www.broadsheet.ie are carrying the Irish Times editorial from today.

Can't see anything I disagree with tbh

“Is the CPP amenable to judicial review without fatally undermining the constitutional independence of the Dáil? From a political perspective, the crucial principle of the separation of powers between legislators and the judiciary means that the committee should be answerable only to the Houses. The answer must be an emphatic No.”

“That is also the clear purpose of the writers of the Constitution. Any other interpretation, however tempting to judges instinctively distrustful of the imperfection of political decision-making, will set the judiciary on a course of confrontation with parliament that it will rue, irrespective of the merits of Mr O’Brien’s cause. His case is ill-judged and dangerous, a regrettable move by a wealthy serial litigator. He should withdraw it.”

Seth Brundle

Here's wee Willies take on it...

O'Brien has every right to challenge Dáil ruling, says O'Dea

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't see anything I disagree with tbh

I don't agree that his case is dangerous, there is no possibility of a court ruling against the Dáil and the Constitution.

It's just barratry.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

This is not the cafe and the charter clearly states that posting a link without analysis is a breach of the charter.

EDIT: To clarify, even serious news articles should be accompanied by some analysis.

johnnyskeleton

Mod reminder:

Matters before the court are sub judice. You are entitled to comment on them but not to the extent of attempting to affect the outcome. I appreciate that it may be unlikely that High Court Judges read this forum, nevermind be swayed by it, but nevertheless please have respect for the judicial function.

Likewise, this forum is for fact based discussion not speculation, and please dont make comments that could potentially be defamatory.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Why two posters thought I was kidding when I made my moderator comments above I'll never know. There will be bans and a locked thread if people persist in breaching the rules.

As regards allegations, please stick to the triubals findings rather than speculating on them.

conorh91

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't agree that his case is dangerous, there is no possibility of a court ruling against the Dáil and the Constitution.

Not 'no possibility, but 'very narrow possibility'.

The Supreme Court almost shut the door on the question of the absoluteness of asbolute immunity in the case of AG v Hamilton (no. 2), but having all been experienced counsel in previous lives, they knew when to stop talking.

They didn't endorse the High Court's view that there was no clash of constitutional rights; they kept a steely silence on that. They said nothing.

It is arguable that O'Brien's fundamental rights under Article 40 are in conflict with the absolute privilege from judicial accountability currently argued to be enjoyed by TDs and senators in the Oireachtas.

It isn't probable, but there's a stateable case there alright.

Mr.Micro

conorh91 wrote: »

Not 'no possibility, but 'very narrow possibility'.

The Supreme Court almost shut the door on the question of the absoluteness of asbolute immunity in the case of AG v Hamilton (no. 2), but having all been experienced counsel in previous lives, they knew when to stop talking.

They didn't endorse the High Court's view that there was no clash of constitutional rights; they kept a steely silence on that. They said nothing.

It is arguable that O'Brien's fundamental rights under Article 40 are in conflict with the absolute privilege from judicial accountability currently argued to be enjoyed by TDs and senators in the Oireachtas.

It isn't probable, but there's a stateable case there alright.

It's a none thing IMO, and its aim is vexatious. Almost a case of the "Irishness" of you are not telling me what to do, do you know who I am, lol. It's aim is is to curb the power of the Oireachtas, or at the very least make it stay clear of the very prickly O'Brien in the future.

conorh91

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It's a none thing IMO, and its aim is vexatious.

No it isn't. O'Brien's claim cannot be considered bound to fail because of the decision in AG v Hamilton (no. 2), 22 years ago.

The Supreme Court knew what it was doing when it omitted to affirm the High Court's view that Oireachtas privilege can never be in conflict with other constitutional rights.

Denis O'Brien's senior counsel in this case is one of the most eminent practitioners in Ireland. Lawyers of that calibre don't loiter around courtrooms and cloakrooms, soliciting vexatious claims from anyone with a grievance.

Their side will presumably argue that O'Brien's right to his good name under Article 40 is in conflict with Oireachtas privilege. Whilst it may be unlikely that this argument will prevail, I would not be at all surprised if the courts conceded that Oireachtas privilege may in theory have to give way to Article 40.3.2 in particularly egregious cases.

Mr.Micro

conorh91 wrote: »

No it isn't. O'Brien's claim cannot be considered bound to fail because of the decision in AG v Hamilton (no. 2), 22 years ago.

The Supreme Court knew what it was doing when it omitted to affirm the High Court's view that Oireachtas privilege can never be in conflict with other constitutional rights.

Denis O'Brien's senior counsel in this case is one of the most eminent practitioners in Ireland. Lawyers of that calibre don't loiter around courtrooms and cloakrooms, soliciting vexatious claims from anyone with a grievance.

Their side will presumably argue that O'Brien's right to his good name under Article 40 is in conflict with Oireachtas privilege. Whilst it may be unlikely that this argument will prevail, I would not be at all surprised if the courts conceded that Oireachtas privilege may in theory have to give way to Article 40.3.2 in particularly egregious cases.

The goal is still the same, that is to attempt to suppress the Oireachtas and its dealings with him, now and whatever else crops up. For a businessman he appears awfully sensitive, which I do not believe for a minute. As for the SC, as in a big fee, the particular client, is probably the motivation.

conorh91

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The goal is still the same, that is to attempt to suppress the Oireachtas and its dealings with him

Sometimes the Oireachtas needs to be censored. The Constitution envisages this, and the courts and the Oireachtas both acknowledge this. Why else would the CPP have been given its powers?

Two basic questions fall to be decided:
(i) whether the courts have jurisdiction to review the decision of the CPP
(i) if so, whether the CPP operated within its constitutional obligations and the relevant standing orders.

For a businessman he appears awfully sensitive, which I do not believe for a minute.

What does this even mean?

The difficulty here is I'm trying to use my head to make a point, and you're replying by opening your heart and showing me your feelings. We're speaking in different languages.

Disliking Denis O'Brien, or hating what he stands for, is irrelevant to any chance he has of his litigation prevailing. It isn't a popularity contest.

Mr.Micro

conorh91 wrote: »

Sometimes the Oireachtas needs to be censored. The Constitution envisages this, and the courts and the Oireachtas both acknowledge this. Why else would the CPP have been given its powers?

Two basic questions fall to be decided:
(i) whether the courts have jurisdiction to review the decision of the CPP
(i) if so, whether the CPP operated within its constitutional obligations and the relevant standing orders.

What does this even mean?

The difficulty here is I'm trying to use my head to make a point, and you're replying by opening your heart and showing me your feelings. We're speaking in different languages.

Disliking Denis O'Brien, or hating what he stands for, is irrelevant to any chance he has of his litigation prevailing. It isn't a popularity contest.

You appear to have trouble understanding a simple statement. Do not try to get personal. I don't have a heart or feelings, bar some irritation at your attempt of being patronising and condescending.

O'Brien is a business man who appears to have developed a particularly thin skin as in, "over sensitive" in recent years. He appears to be taking issue with particular individuals on the Oireachtas committee, that dare question him. His case IMO, is more about censure of the committee and particular individuals than actually any hurt to him. He may see himself more superior than the lowly TD s dutifully doing their duty for the State.

conorh91

This isn't a soap opera, I don't see the point in ascribing villain-like motives. We have in our courts a forum for resolving disputes between citizens and the state, and O'Brien is simply availing of that forum, entirely appropriately.

If serious allegations were made against any person, in any civilised country, on the floor of their House of Representatives, they would seek to clear their name.

It is imperative in a free society that the rights of Parliament and of individuals should be balanced, and that nobody should stand to lose their good reputation because of a personal vendetta of a powerful politician.

scrummonkey

While i would support Mr. O'Briens right to litigate , though very misguided imo, this situation merely reinforces the inequality of access to the justice system here. Ones constitutional rights, though not always absolute, are indeed safeguarded by the courts but the problem has always been that such rights can be dependent on your financial status. This, I believe is the real story here. Mr.O'Brien has the resources to be a serial litigator if he so wishes, he is merely playing the legal system as it is. What's far more important is the fact that Mr. Joe Soap, in the same situation, would ,I believe, find it far less tempting to play the same game , as the risks of costs are simply unaffordable. . But, constitutional rights are supposedly held equally by all citizens, its just that being wealthy allows for greater opportunities to defend them. Until our justice system is genuinely non discriminatory , some peoples rights seem to be more deserving of protections.

CptMackey

conorh91 wrote: »

This isn't a soap opera, I don't see the point in ascribing villain-like motives. We have in our courts a forum for resolving disputes between citizens and the state, and O'Brien is simply availing of that forum, entirely appropriately.

If serious allegations were made against any person, in any civilised country, on the floor of their House of Representatives, they would seek to clear their name.

It is imperative in a free society that the rights of Parliament and of individuals should be balanced, and that nobody should stand to lose their good reputation because of a personal vendetta of a powerful politician.

If serious allegations were made about me in the Dail I wouldn't be able to do what he is doing. He is throwing his weight around because he has the cash to do it.

He is a serial litigator who uses his money to silence any and all critic of him or his dealings be they corrupt or otherwise. This poses a threat imo to our democracy. He sees himself above the state. For that reason alone it would be beneficial that he loose .

It was said on newstalks Sunday show that the law is available to everybody all this case shows that it is not. It is the preserve of the wealthy the ordinary man need not apply.

nice_guy80

I'd love to be in the Dail, just to hurl dirt at people.
Who can otherwise buy silence, via the courts.

Ah, diplomatic immunity... Almost