Denis O'Brien gags Waterford Whispers

NorthStars

Muahahaha wrote: »

Put simply by threatening to sue everyone you seek to silence everyone. That's what O'Brien has been up to by threatening 70 journalists, TDs, the Dail and now the 10 members of a Dail Committee.

The thing is though, the dope doesn't seem to realise that the more people he sends his poisonous letters to, the more people talk about him.......
His 'good name' is muck in most places, even amongst his 'elite' circle of friends, I'd reckon.

gladrags

conorh91 wrote: »

According to CAB, the Revenue, and in the eyes of the courts, No.

Do you have a link to the findings of the CAB or Revenue investigation into the payments of O'Brien to Lowry.?

Were it says No.?

Nodin

Muahahaha wrote: »

There sure are. Denis O'Brien has threatened to sue 70 journalists and media organisations since 1998. Thats according to the NUJ who keep score on legal actions against their members

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/11/04/a-boy-named-sue/

That's from 1998 to 2011. I'd imagine hes been far more busy since.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

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

She has to have regard to the constitutional rights of the individuals to their good name, and their right to fair procedures (i.e. not singling them out among all the individuals on whom her office receives information every year).

The question of balancing these constitutional rights has been a major debate in Irish criminal law for the past maybe, 6, maybe 7 years. Go look at the DPP's website or ask someone who works in the area. This is not the first time it's arisen.

How can I? When asked to commit to a position they'll start to hum and then disappear into a fifth, limbo-like dimension from which no determining data can be extracted. Because.

conorh91

gladrags wrote: »

Do you have a link to the findings of the CAB or Revenue investigation into the payments of O'Brien to Lowry.?

Were it says No.?

Eh, the way it works is that if Revenue and CAB review your compliance, and if they do not pursue you, you're presumed in the clear, unless any further evidence should come to light. The presumption is one of innocence, not guilt.

The Moriarty findings were forwarded to Revenue and CAB and the DPP, none of whom seem to have been able to put Moriarty's findings to any use. Revenue confirmed specifically to Michael Lowry that he had no new tax liability on foot of the Moriarty Tribunal's report.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/03/29/00019.asp

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

How can I? When asked to commit to a position they'll start to hum and then disappear into a fifth, limbo-like dimension from which no determining data can be extracted.

Or you could actually use google.

https://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/FINAL%20REPORT%20201008.pdf

There is a huge amount of information and debate on these topics. The constitutional concerns and resource problems with giving reasons, specifically broadcasting reasons, is very real. This debate didn't start today or yesterday, and it will be going on long after AH has deserted Denis O'Brien for whatever mob outrage is next on the horizon.

Capt'n Midnight

Muahahaha wrote: »

There sure are. Denis O'Brien has threatened to sue 70 journalists and media organisations since 1998. Thats according to the NUJ who keep score on legal actions against their members

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/11/04/a-boy-named-sue/

That was back in 2011, the number of named individuals and organisations is almost certainly into treble digits by now

NorthStars

conorh91 wrote: »

Eh, the way it works is that if Revenue and CAB review your complacence and no not pursue you, you're in the clear, unless any further evidence should come to light. The presumption is one of innocence, not guilt.

Maybe O'Brien pulled another stunt like taking the kitchen units out..........that fooled them!

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Or you could actually use google.

https://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/FINAL%20REPORT%20201008.pdf

There is a huge amount of information and debate on these topics. The constitutional concerns and resource problems with giving reasons, specifically broadcasting reasons, is very real. This debate didn't start today or yesterday, and it will be going on long after AH has deserted Denis O'Brien for whatever mob outrage is next on the horizon.

Giving reasons for prosecuting/not prosecuting =/= not giving the Gardaí an instruction to investigate or not investigate. That's what I'm calling the first law of Quantum Law.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

Giving reasons for prosecuting/not prosecuting =/= not giving the Gardaí an instruction to investigate or not investigate.

You're willfully ignoring facts now. You already know that expert investigators spent over a decade examining the award of the mobile phone license in painstaking detail.

Arresting a man for a couple of days, to be questioned by a couple of guards, when a decade's worth of expertly-collated sworn evidence is already at your fingertips, would seem to be nothing more than a flagrant exercise in crowd-pleasing.

You are determined never to understand, determined to retreat to the same answered points again and again.

xhoundx

The law is an ass.

Ain't it great tho that we have legal eagles posting in depth and at great frequency on a nonsense forum like AH.

Imagine tribunals actually had teeth and consequences for those in question, instead of just being a charade designed to enrich the legal profession and appease the masses while allowing the guilty away scot free.

K-9

Muahahaha wrote: »

If Denis O'Brien threatened to sue you personally for defamation are you telling me you wouldn't fold? Remembering that defamation cases can easily run up a million euro, would you really put your life, family and home on the line to take on a serial litigant who also happens to be a billionaire? No, I didn't think so.

And thats the very idea. You scare people with legal letters and they'll think twice about writing about you or investigating your affairs in the public interest. This tactic which O'Brien in using against the Irish media is known in legal parlance as the doctrine of chilling effect, defined thus



Put simply by threatening to sue everyone you seek to silence everyone. That's what O'Brien has been up to by threatening 70 journalists, TDs, the Dail and now the 10 members of a Dail Committee.

That's the problem, this isn't an ordinary Joe Soap taking these actions, it is as close as Ireland has to a Murdoch type mogul.

Newspapers and media is getting more and more concentrated and globalised, the UK and US other huge examples of 80 or 90% of media ownership by a select few huge conglomerates.

So with O'Brien owning such a huge chunk of Irish media he's hardly an ordinary Joe Soap, as the law treats him. We've always had newspaper tycoons but the way the industry has gone over the last 20 or 30 years has changed the whole dynamic and structure of the industry.

I just don't like the way this has gone over the last year, and that's what the opposition are hinting at when they say how quiet Kenny and FG have been on the issue. FF in 07 and the inquiries in the UK show how influential newspapers still are when it comes to elections.

I suppose my point is, we should have a public enquiry into Siteserve, because there's a huge public interest there. Mr. O'Brien may see himself as an ordinary person legally, but obviously he isn't.

It isn't as if Independent Newspapers are hugely profitable any more, from a business point of view it's hardly a thriving industry any more and there's huge debt issues there.

K-9

conorh91 wrote: »

Eh, the way it works is that if Revenue and CAB review your compliance, and if they do not pursue you, you're presumed in the clear, unless any further evidence should come to light. The presumption is one of innocence, not guilt.

The Moriarty findings were forwarded to Revenue and CAB and the DPP, none of whom seem to have been able to put Moriarty's findings to any use. Revenue confirmed specifically to Michael Lowry that he had no new tax liability on foot of the Moriarty Tribunal's report.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/03/29/00019.asp

Is that not a bit cart before the horse?

IIRC he did settle before the Tribunal finished up, which given the time frame of the Tribunal means feck all!

conorh91

K-9 wrote: »

Is that not a bit cart before the horse?

IIRC he did settle before the Tribunal finished up, which given the time frame of the Tribunal means feck all!

Lowry had a very public revenue liability alright, he was a known tax cheat. That is a matter of public record

But that related to a different set of circumstances, it did not relate to the any alleged payment of IR£900,000.

So it isn't just the DPP who can't seem to find any liability in respect of fraud involving Denis O'Brien, but also Revenue and the CAB.

If you exclude the undesirable names and personalities from this, you have to accept that from a neutral perspective, the evidence just doesn't add up.

Mountainsandh

conorh91 wrote: »

whatever mob outrage is next on the horizon.

I hate this belittling of public reaction/opinion.
People get angry when they are made aware of something that maybe heretofore was not public, or when an incident happens that triggers a reaction.

People have lives to go back to, too, and so if the issue is legal, or something that is out of Joe Soap's reach, well then, they go back to their lives.

That's not to say that the outrage is gone, and that it wasn't genuine.

Aidric wrote: »

IMO Waterford Whispers are a bunch of blowhards. I can honestly say that I've never laughed hard at any of their efforts.

If their output was translated to an RTE sketch it would be laughed out of the room.

I don't think everything that is written should be suitable for filming/live performance.

K-9

http://m.independent.ie/business/michael-lowrys-firm-in-11m-tax-settlement-26417152.html

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/td-availed-of-1993-last-chance-tax-amnesty-29450040.html

I don't know, we seem to be getting into legalese and political spin territory, oh my!

gladrags

conorh91 wrote: »

Eh, the way it works is that if Revenue and CAB review your complacence and no not pursue you, you're in the clear, unless any further evidence should come to light. The presumption is one of innocence, not guilt.

The Moriarty findings were forwarded to Revenue and CAB and the DPP, none of whom seem to have been able to put Moriarty's findings to any use. Revenue confirmed specifically to Michael Lowry that he had no new tax liability on foot of the Moriarty Tribunal's report.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/03/29/00019.asp

As far as I am aware neither CAB or the Revenue,specifically investigated the payments outlined in Moriarty.

If the DPP or the Gardai,or CAB or the Revenue could state categorically that there is no evidence against DOB or ML,then would you not think by now,that they would state this.?

And clear up the issue for once and for all.

For all the cock ups of the MT,it still makes substantial claims,that are unrefuted by alternative state bodies.

The DPP,the Gardai and successive governments have merely passed the buck to one another.

Kenny promised that the MT would not "Gather Dust", back in 2012.

And there has not been a peep from the DPP or Gardai,in terms of criminal accountability.

This confirmation by Lowry ( Dail Privilege?),does in no way signify that O'Leary did not accept bribes from O'Brien.

I personally have little trust in tribunals,
but given the 14 years of evidence,I believe that in fact Moriarty only tipped the surface of the bribery.

Of course payments were made.

K-9

He had to settle with Revenue over the McCracken inquiry findings, gets bloody confusing.

conorh91

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I hate this belittling of public reaction/opinion.

I apologize. I am in a minority with this opinion, but it is not an opinion I have just dreamt up to be antagonistic. How many people on this thread do you think have made an honest stab at reading the Moriarty Tribunal's findings? How many people do you think have honestly critiqued the standard of proof employed by Moriarty?

Fair play to them you know, they probably have better things to do with their lives than waste their time in this way. But I genuinely think there is a broad unawareness of the weakness of the evidence against O'Brien.

Moriarty's findings have not been corroborated by a single witness. Every civil servant and licensing expert sided with the awarding of the licence to O'Brien. Moriarty literally invented conversations in pubs between Lowry and O'Brien that nobody had seen, nobody had overheard. Invented.

I find it hard to feel sorry for a billionaire, really, but this is a mob hunt.

K-9

I suppose, as you mentioned a few times previously, its the lower standard of proof.

Invented seems a bit OTT, reasonable inferences probably.

gladrags

conorh91 wrote: »

I apologize. I am in a minority with this opinion, but it is not an opinion I have just dreamt up to be antagonistic. How many people on this thread do you think have made an honest stab at reading the Moriarty Tribunal's findings? How many people do you think have honestly critiqued the standard of proof employed by Moriarty?

Fair play to them you know, they probably have better things to do with their lives than waste their time in this way. But I genuinely think there is a broad unawareness of the weakness of the evidence against O'Brien.

Moriarty's findings have not been corroborated by a single witness. Every civil servant and licensing expert sided with the awarding of the licence to O'Brien. Moriarty literally invented conversations in pubs between Lowry and O'Brien that nobody had seen, nobody had overheard. Invented.

I find it hard to feel sorry for a billionaire, really, but this is a mob hunt.

Its your opinion,and overall you make a fair and balanced arguement.

My name is URL

gladrags wrote: »

Its your opinion,and overall you make a fair and balanced arguement.

Woah.. that kind of talk isn't usual for AH

Someone better throw a pie real soon!

conorh91

K-9 wrote: »

I suppose, as you mentioned a few times previously, its the lower standard of proof.

Invented seems a bit OTT, reasonable inferences probably.

The tribunal issued two main types of findings: reasonable inferences, and reasonably informed opinions.

At least a "reasonable inference" carries a mantle of objective fact, albeit to a very low standard of proof.

A "reasonably informed opinion", on the other hand, is something which had never before been known to Irish law, and I hope, never will be again.

It was the latter which allowed Moriarty to create a conversation in a pub for which there was no corroboration.

If the Tribunal were to rely on facts, as per the original aim, the Tribunal could never have inferred that conversation. There were no witnesses. It was pure opinion. A creation of the Tribunal's mind that did not originate from an objective source. That is a vitally important distinction.

FixdePitchmark

conorh91 wrote: »

The tribunal issued two main types of findings: reasonable inferences, and reasonably informed opinions.

At least a "reasonable inference" carries a mantle of objective fact, albeit to a very low standard of proof.

A "reasonably informed opinion", on the other hand, is something which had never before been known to Irish law, and I hope, never will be again.

It was the latter which allowed Moriarty to create a conversation in a pub for which there was no corroboration.

If the Tribunal were to rely on facts, as per the original aim, the Tribunal could never have inferred that conversation. There were no witnesses. It was pure opinion. A creation of the Tribunal's mind that did not originate from an objective source. That is a vitally important distinction.

Yes - but no reasonable person could look at below and not come to a conclusion - that there was far too much going on between the two parties. I accept that there was No Proof - but these are far too fishy for a minister to be invovled in.

Does below look like the dealings of a serious CEO - not to mention a CEO getting state contracts ?

December 1995: $50,000 (€50,787) intended for Fine Gael is sent to the Jersey bank account of the late David Austin, for onward transmission to Fine Gael. The money came from Norwegian company Telenor, a major shareholder in Esat Digifone. The latter subsequently reimbursed Telenor.
July/October 1996: £150,000 (€190,000) is sent from a Denis O'Brien account in the Isle of Man (opened in the name of his accountant Mr Aidan Phelan) to Mr Austin's account in Jersey. Mr O'Brien has told the tribunal this June 1996 transfer was a payment for a house in Spain.
Unfortunately for Mr O'Brien, no legal documentation registering the transfer of the house was created at the time. No solicitors were involved in the sale.
Most of the money - £147,000 - was forwarded to an Isle of Man account belonging to Mr Lowry in October. Mr Lowry has said the money was to be used by him in relation to a new house he'd bought on Carysfort Ave, Blackrock, Co Dublin.
After he resigned from government in late 1996, he decided to sell the house.
On February 7th, 1997, the date the McCracken (Dunnes Payments) tribunal was established, he returned the money to Mr Austin.
Mr Lowry told the tribunal the payment from Mr Austin, who was a friend of his, was a loan.
He has rejected suggestions that a handwritten note dated October 1995, signed by Mr Lowry and Mr Austin and outlining the conditions for the loan, might have been drafted after Mr Lowry had resigned from government and decided to give the money back to Mr Austin.
"You are attempting to weave a web of intrigue that simply does not exist," he said.
September 1988: Denis O'Brien sent $295,250 to New York stockbroking firm Credit Suisse DLJ, where it was used to buy Esat Telecom shares for Mr Austin. Mr Austin was a close friend of Mr O'Brien and Mr O'Brien's family. The shares were moved from the account soon after Mr Austin's death in November 1998.
The shares were moved to the account of Mr Noel Walshe, Mr O'Brien's father-in-law. The allocation to Mr Austin's account was a mistake, Mr O'Brien has said.
Mr Peter Muldowney, the stockbroker who handled the matter, would not attend the tribunal when asked last year.
December 1998/March 1999: Mr Lowry pays a deposit of £25,000 sterling (€39,695) on a site in Mansfield, England. The balance to close the deal - £230,000 sterling - comes from £300,000 sterling transferred to the client account of English solicitor Mr Christopher Vaughan. The money originated in a London account belonging to Mr O'Brien.
Mr O'Brien's accountant, Mr Aidan Phelan, has told the tribunal the money was owed to him by Mr O'Brien. Mr O'Brien has agreed with this.
Mr Phelan was buying the property in partnership with Mr Lowry, both men have said. Mr O'Brien has said he knew nothing of the matter at the time.
The property is still owned, 90/10, by Mr Phelan and Mr Lowry. The property has been listed in Mr Lowry's name up to recently. It is now listed in Mr Phelan's name.
September/December 1999: In September 1999, Mr Lowry used the remainder of the money sitting in Mr Vaughan's client account to put a £44,500 sterling deposit on a property in Cheadle that he wanted to buy.
Mr Phelan subsequently helped Mr Lowry get a £420,000 sterling loan from GE Capital Woodchester to complete the deal. Some members of the bank thought Mr O'Brien was backing this loan. Mr O'Brien has said he knew nothing of the matter. The loan and the property have now been taken over by Mr Phelan.
Earlier this year, while researching these matters, The Irish Times was given copies of two letters concerning this deal. The letters, written by Mr Vaughan, were different to copies of the letters that had earlier been given to the tribunal by Mr Vaughan. Mr Vaughan had said the copies he supplied were from his files. The differences between the two sets of letters had the effect of obscuring Mr Lowry's involvement in the deal.
Mr Lowry has said he knows nothing of the matter and that he never instructed Mr Vaughan to write differing versions of the letters.Mr Vaughan has refused to attend to give evidence but has told Mr Lowry's Dublin solicitors that he sometimes became confused when writing letters about the deal and presumes that one version is a correction of another. However, in one case at least it seems the correct version is the one discovered by The Irish Times and not the one Mr Vaughan had on his files.
The evidence heard to date in relation to these transactions "will clearly now have to be reviewed and some of it revisited" because of the letters discovered by The Irish Times and the reaction of Mr Vaughan, the tribunal said this week.
The tribunal will also have to decide whether any person other than Mr Vaughan, who is "connected with the documents or the transactions to which they refer, ought to be identified with the actions of Mr Christopher Vaughan".
While there is a lot that is odd about the "money trail" evidence that has been heard to date, no proof of any payment from Mr O'Brien to Mr Lowry has been found. Furthermore, if in time the tribunal decides a payment was made, that in itself proves nothing in relation to the licence award process that Mr Lowry oversaw in 1995/96.
No evidence or allegation has been presented in the tribunal's public sessions or in the media, to suggest the competition for the licence was compromised.
Mr O'Brien has called for the public inquiry into the matter to proceed as soon as possible, so the innuendo, which he says now exists, can be put to rest.



In fact I'm shocked looking at that - that there were not very long prison sentences. That is Ireland and the way it worked.

K-9

What he said!

conorh91

Lets just take a look at the $50,000 donation

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

December 1995: $50,000 (€50,787) intended for Fine Gael is sent to the Jersey bank account of the late David Austin, for onward transmission to Fine Gael. The money came from Norwegian company Telenor, a major shareholder in Esat Digifone.

How exactly was this intended to benefit Lowry? Guess what, Denis O'Brien was a well known supporter of FG. Nobody has ever been able to explain how on earth the above transaction, which is at the core of the whole sorry mess, could have ended up in the hands of Lowry?

The only way that could have happened, would be if Taoiseach Bruton and FG HQ were also involved in fraud, and nobody has ever seriously suggested that.

It is quite correct that there is a web of financial transactions with Denis O'Brien on one end, and Michael Lowry, tortuously, somewhere on the other. You certainly can connect those dots.

But consider this. Denis O'Brien was already a rich businessman with known links to Fine Gael. Lowry was a rich businessman and FG TD. Of course you can connect dots in a small country like Ireland. You could probably have connected dots to any FG TD with business interests.

Ireland is a small country, Fine Gael is a small party, and both Lowry and O'Brien were already wealthy businessmen.

It is not suprising that they had common friends and common business partners.

We cannot rule out wrongdoing, obviously, but surely we can see this is a very very feeble attempt at proof.

FixdePitchmark

You don't have to be a judge to read above and see - it was total and utter bull****.

They were caught - end of.

FixdePitchmark

conorh91 wrote: »

Lets just take a look at the $50,000 donation
How exactly was this intended to benefit Lowry? Guess what, Denis O'Brien was a well known supporter of FG. Nobody has ever been able to explain how on earth the above transaction, which is at the core of the whole sorry mess, could have ended up in the hands of Lowry?

The only way that could have happened, would be if Taoiseach Bruton and FG HQ were also involved in fraud, and nobody has ever seriously suggested that.

It is quite correct that there is a web of financial transactions with Denis O'Brien on one end, and Michael Lowry, tortuously, somewhere on the other. You certainly can connect those dots.

But consider this. Denis O'Brien was already a rich businessman with known links to Fine Gael. Lowry was a rich businessman and FG TD. Of course you can connect dots in a small country like Ireland. You could probably have connected dots to any FG TD with business interests.

Ireland is a small country, Fine Gael is a small party, and both Lowry and O'Brien were already wealthy businessmen.

It is not suprising that they had common friends and common business partners.

We cannot rule out wrongdoing, obviously, but surely we can see this is a very very feeble attempt at proof.

Ok - Imagine if that was true

We will move onto the 147,000 pound - amazing amount of money at that time ?

Eugene Norman

conorh91 wrote: »

Lets just take a look at the $50,000 donation
How exactly was this intended to benefit Lowry? Guess what, Denis O'Brien was a well known supporter of FG. Nobody has ever been able to explain how on earth the above transaction, which is at the core of the whole sorry mess, could have ended up in the hands of Lowry?

The only way that could have happened, would be if Taoiseach Bruton and FG HQ were also involved in fraud, and nobody has ever seriously suggested that.

It is quite correct that there is a web of financial transactions with Denis O'Brien on one end, and Michael Lowry, tortuously, somewhere on the other. You certainly can connect those dots.

But consider this. Denis O'Brien was already a rich businessman with known links to Fine Gael. Lowry was a rich businessman and FG TD. Of course you can connect dots in a small country like Ireland. You could probably have connected dots to any FG TD with business interests.

Ireland is a small country, Fine Gael is a small party, and both Lowry and O'Brien were already wealthy businessmen.

It is not suprising that they had common friends and common business partners.

We cannot rule out wrongdoing, obviously, but surely we can see this is a very very feeble attempt at proof.

I thought that with so many excellent minds would have come up with better proof.

Basically you seem to be saying the tribunal was worthless and that's why the DPP isn't prosecuting. Then let her say that.

20Cent

conorh91 wrote: »

Lets just take a look at the $50,000 donation
How exactly was this intended to benefit Lowry? Guess what, Denis O'Brien was a well known supporter of FG. Nobody has ever been able to explain how on earth the above transaction, which is at the core of the whole sorry mess, could have ended up in the hands of Lowry?

Its explained in the tribunal report.
A diagram of the transactions here: http://img.rasset.ie/00046050-440.jpg

mbur

conorh91 wrote: »

But consider this. Denis O'Brien was already a rich businessman with known links to Fine Gael. Lowry was a rich businessman and FG TD. Of course you can connect dots in a small country like Ireland. You could probably have connected dots to any FG TD with business interests.

Ireland is a small country, Fine Gael is a small party, and both Lowry and O'Brien were already wealthy businessmen.

It is not suprising that they had common friends and common business partners.

We cannot rule out wrongdoing, ....

You pretty much nailed the root of the problem there. The party political system is a rigged game. If you design a system to **** bricks then ****ty bricks is what you will get.

gladrags

conorh91 wrote: »

Lets just take a look at the $50,000 donation
How exactly was this intended to benefit Lowry? Guess what, Denis O'Brien was a well known supporter of FG. Nobody has ever been able to explain how on earth the above transaction, which is at the core of the whole sorry mess, could have ended up in the hands of Lowry?

The only way that could have happened, would be if Taoiseach Bruton and FG HQ were also involved in fraud, and nobody has ever seriously suggested that.

It is quite correct that there is a web of financial transactions with Denis O'Brien on one end, and Michael Lowry, tortuously, somewhere on the other. You certainly can connect those dots.

But consider this. Denis O'Brien was already a rich businessman with known links to Fine Gael. Lowry was a rich businessman and FG TD. Of course you can connect dots in a small country like Ireland. You could probably have connected dots to any FG TD with business interests.

Ireland is a small country, Fine Gael is a small party, and both Lowry and O'Brien were already wealthy businessmen.

It is not suprising that they had common friends and common business partners.

We cannot rule out wrongdoing, obviously, but surely we can see this is a very very feeble attempt at proof.

The 50k is a fact,that was later confirmed by FG.

They claimed they wanted to return it to Telenor.

Unless I am mistaken,that payment was made to FG during the licence grant deliberation.

I can think of fairly obvious sweet reasons,why that donation was made.

A reasonable question here might be,how
many other payments were made,that we do not know about.

You could easily form the impression,that they are trying to keep the lid on this.

Cienciano

After following this thread I decided to read up a bit on Michael Lowery. I knew he was bad, but christ, never expected him to be that bad! Unbelievable that people actually vote for him

FixdePitchmark

Again -

Does any of this sound right - for a CEO and Minster , involved in a tendering process.

I'll answer this one - totally and utterly inappropriate. (at best).
Judge didn't make up this meeting.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/o-brien-tells-of-meeting-desmond-and-lowry-after-all-ireland-final-1.394937

conorh91

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

We will move onto the 147,000 pound - amazing amount of money at that time ?

It is accepted by everyone that Austin, was a good friend of Lowry and of O'Brien. They were all businessmen, they were all close in a small pond, it is no wonder that they shared investments.

It's not unusual that when a businessman makes money from one enterprise, that he'll reinvest it, ideally with a friend whom he can trust. How many millionaires who were prominent Fine Gaelers were living in South Dublin at that time? Is it really so surprising they all knew one another, and saw opportunities to reinvest in one another's ventures?

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Basically you seem to be saying the tribunal was worthless and that's why the DPP isn't prosecuting.

The DPP isn't prosecuting, I suspect, because the evidence is so alarmingly weak. You've already made up your mind on the basis of weak evidence, or non-evidence, that Denis O'Brien is guilty of an untold number of criminal offences. I don't share your opinion.

20Cent wrote: »

Its explained in the tribunal report.
A diagram of the transactions here: http://img.rasset.ie/00046050-440.jpg

I don't think that relates to the the same cheque. The $50,000 cheque I referred to, which was intended for FG, was issued in Dec 1995.

FixdePitchmark

Worth watching this clip from news.

There is no doubt.

Not just the money - but the way the award was made and his influence in "delivering"

People shouldn't try rewrite history, No Doubt , watch this,

They finsihed 3rd in tendering.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0322/298935-moriarty_background/

the groutch

How long til Denis tries to sue himself?

conorh91

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Judge didn't make up this meeting.

That wasn't the first time Lowry and O'Brien met. Moriarty didn't invent the meeting, they had met plenty of times. But read the Moriarty report. Moriarty goes into a level of detail that is bordering on creative writing, inventing a conversation, even speculating how long he thinks it would take O'Brien to get the drinks in.

There's a career in the corridors of Fair City for him if he wants it, I'd say. This stuff doesn't belong in a legal process.

zagmund

conorh91 wrote: »

It is accepted by everyone that Austin, was a good friend of Lowry and of O'Brien. They were all businessmen, they were all close in a small pond, it is no wonder that they shared investments.

It's not unusual that when a businessman makes money from one enterprise, that he'll reinvest it, ideally with a friend whom he can trust. How many millionaires who were prominent Fine Gaelers were living in South Dublin at that time? Is it really so surprising they all knew one another, and saw opportunities to reinvest in one another's ventures?

The DPP isn't prosecuting, I suspect, because the evidence is so alarmingly weak. You've already made up your mind on the basis of weak evidence, or non-evidence, that Denis O'Brien is guilty of an untold number of criminal offences. I don't share your opinion.

I don't think that relates to the the same cheque. The $50,000 cheque I referred to, which was intended for FG, was issued in Dec 1995.

Alarmingly weak alright. I almost dropped my monocle I was that alarmed at the weakness of the evidence.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the peasants seem to be alarmed at the most trivial of things like lack of political and judicial accountability. Let them try running two houses on an income like our and see how they get on.

But seriously - "You've already made up your mind on the basis of weak evidence, or non-evidence, that Denis O'Brien is guilty of an untold number of criminal offences". This is what bugs the **** out of non-legal people . . . being told in so many words that they just don't understand the issues and so shouldn't be holding views above or beyond their station. I'm not a weather man, but I know when I see a storm coming. I'm not a mechanic, but I know when I see smoke coming out of the exhaust that there's a problem with the car. I'm not a solicitor, barrister or judge, but I know when there's enough information in the public domain to form a reasonable opinion of my own.

What is it that makes you so very adept at determining what is "weak evidence, or non-evidence" while the rest of the peasants are so crap (in your view) at it?

z

FixdePitchmark

conorh91 wrote: »

That wasn't the first time Lowry and O'Brien met. Moriarty didn't invent the meeting, they had met plenty of times. But read the Moriarty report. Moriarty goes into a level of detail that is bordering on creative writing, inventing a conversation, even speculating how long he thinks it would take O'Brien to get the drinks in.

There's a career in the corridors of Fair City for him if he wants it, I'd say. This stuff doesn't belong in a legal process.

But it doesn't change the key findings.

It is as clear as day.

It is my opinion both should be in prison.

900,000 Sterling. Hard to explain all that away.

baaba maal

I was at a rugby match a few years ago (Leinster v Racing Metro, January 2011 to be precise). At half time I queued, like many others for a pint. The queue was five deep all the way across. Who did I notice literally barging his way through the queue at my right but DOB (he is quite tall as well as being "big-boned"), until he arrived at my shoulder. I'm not particularly big (or aggressive) but I felt compelled to give him a sharp elbow in the rib area in order to secure my place at the head of the queue. I got my two pints of frozen piss (Heineken) and I believe he ordered six or eight pints for the group of people he was with (cardboard pint holders were available).

I don't mean this as a vindication of my subtle yet deadly martial arts ability, but as my only personal interaction of DOB it made an impression on me. Literally everybody else in the queue was patiently standing/shuffling their way to the counter and DOB was the only one who wasn't going to wait like the rest of the plebs.

Is this mindset the difference between being a prole and being a billionaire? I don't know.

But it wasn't an appealing image of a person who (like Fine Gael in my opinion) knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Eugene Norman

conorh91 wrote: »

It is accepted by everyone that Austin, was a good friend of Lowry and of O'Brien. They were all businessmen, they were all close in a small pond, it is no wonder that they shared investments.

It's not unusual that when a businessman makes money from one enterprise, that he'll reinvest it, ideally with a friend whom he can trust. How many millionaires who were prominent Fine Gaelers were living in South Dublin at that time? Is it really so surprising they all knew one another, and saw opportunities to reinvest in one another's ventures?

The DPP isn't prosecuting, I suspect, because the evidence is so alarmingly weak. You've already made up your mind on the basis of weak evidence, or non-evidence, that Denis O'Brien is guilty of an untold number of criminal offences. I don't share your opinion.

You love your strawman arguments. In my discussion with you I have merely wondered why exactly the DPP wouldn't prosecute. You've confirmed my opinion that the legal classes in the country are as corrupt and incompetent as I expected. If the tribunal had nothing to show after 14 years it should have shown nothing or disbanded after 1 or 2. Or preferably not been ever constituted in the first place, the gardai are paid much less to investigate. If I recall, that was a Supreme Court decision. If the DPP -- another incompetent office holder -- thinks the evidence is too weak, make a statement to that effect and stop hiding behind the skirts of the justice minister. She's obviously protecting the blushes of her esteemed colleagues, the "great minds" you so lovingly describe.

I don't think that relates to the the same cheque. The $50,000 cheque I referred to, which was intended for FG, was issued in Dec 1995.

Ok then let's move on from that cheque. There are others.

FixdePitchmark

baaba maal wrote: »

I was at a rugby match a few years ago (Leinster v Racing Metro, January 2011 to be precise). At half time I queued, like many others for a pint. The queue was five deep all the way across. Who did I notice literally barging his way through the queue at my right but DOB (he is quite tall as well as being "big-boned"), until he arrived at my shoulder. I'm not particularly big (or aggressive) but I felt compelled to give him a sharp elbow in the rib area in order to secure my place at the head of the queue. I got my two pints of frozen piss (Heineken) and I believe he ordered six or eight pints for the group of people he was with (cardboard pint holders were available).

I don't mean this as a vindication of my subtle yet deadly martial arts ability, but as my only personal interaction of DOB it made an impression on me. Literally everybody else in the queue was patiently standing/shuffling their way to the counter and DOB was the only one who wasn't going to wait like the rest of the plebs.

Is this mindset the difference between being a prole and being a billionaire? I don't know.

But it wasn't an appealing image of a person who (like Fine Gael in my opinion) knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Why didn't you ask him for a few quid for your spot.

He is prone to that.

JustTheOne

baaba maal wrote: »

I was at a rugby match a few years ago (Leinster v Racing Metro, January 2011 to be precise). At half time I queued, like many others for a pint. The queue was five deep all the way across. Who did I notice literally barging his way through the queue at my right but DOB (he is quite tall as well as being "big-boned"), until he arrived at my shoulder. I'm not particularly big (or aggressive) but I felt compelled to give him a sharp elbow in the rib area in order to secure my place at the head of the queue. I got my two pints of frozen piss (Heineken) and I believe he ordered six or eight pints for the group of people he was with (cardboard pint holders were available).

I don't mean this as a vindication of my subtle yet deadly martial arts ability, but as my only personal interaction of DOB it made an impression on me. Literally everybody else in the queue was patiently standing/shuffling their way to the counter and DOB was the only one who wasn't going to wait like the rest of the plebs.

Is this mindset the difference between being a prole and being a billionaire? I don't know.

But it wasn't an appealing image of a person who (like Fine Gael in my opinion) knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

seriously?

FixdePitchmark

baaba maal

JustTheOne wrote: »

seriously?

Seriously did it happen or seriously that I posted it?:)

NorthStars

baaba maal wrote: »

I was at a rugby match a few years ago (Leinster v Racing Metro, January 2011 to be precise). At half time I queued, like many others for a pint. The queue was five deep all the way across. Who did I notice literally barging his way through the queue at my right but DOB (he is quite tall as well as being "big-boned"), until he arrived at my shoulder. I'm not particularly big (or aggressive) but I felt compelled to give him a sharp elbow in the rib area in order to secure my place at the head of the queue. I got my two pints of frozen piss (Heineken) and I believe he ordered six or eight pints for the group of people he was with (cardboard pint holders were available).

I don't mean this as a vindication of my subtle yet deadly martial arts ability, but as my only personal interaction of DOB it made an impression on me. Literally everybody else in the queue was patiently standing/shuffling their way to the counter and DOB was the only one who wasn't going to wait like the rest of the plebs.

Is this mindset the difference between being a prole and being a billionaire? I don't know.

But it wasn't an appealing image of a person who (like Fine Gael in my opinion) knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

If you'd purchased your couple of pints already, you could have sold them to him......at a hugely discounted rate of course.
You, as a taxpayer, would have taken the hit then just as you're doing now.

FixdePitchmark

conorh91 wrote: »

That wasn't the first time Lowry and O'Brien met. Moriarty didn't invent the meeting, they had met plenty of times. But read the Moriarty report. Moriarty goes into a level of detail that is bordering on creative writing, inventing a conversation, even speculating how long he thinks it would take O'Brien to get the drinks in.

There's a career in the corridors of Fair City for him if he wants it, I'd say. This stuff doesn't belong in a legal process.

So how do you explain - all the other money - 900,000 is a bit much even for Fair City - in fairness , I think O’Brien could write good fiction with his account of the coincidences.

baaba maal

NorthStars wrote: »

If you'd purchased your couple of pints already, you could have sold them to him......at a hugely discounted rate of course.
You, as a taxpayer, would have taken the hit then just as you're doing now.

For my leaving cert, in 5th year I did economics. I switched to geography in 6th year!:rolleyes:

Mountainsandh

You're lucky he didn't sue for personal injury.