Denis O'Brien gags Waterford Whispers

K-9

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.

Ah right, focus on one detail and ignore the bigger picture.

Minister for Communications in charge of awarding telecoms licence has all these financial dealings of about a million Euro, and there's nothing to see here really.

And people wonder how Lowry keeps getting reelected.

zagmund

No, no, the real trick would have been to leverage the situation and tell him that you'll sell him your position in the queue and he can buy your pints for (oh, say . . .) €25 a go. He agrees, gives you the money, you shuffle forward order the drinks, he gets his, you get yours and you get profit. The only people who suffer are those find themselves even further behind in the queue and who don't need to be concerning themselves with the money stuff going on at the front. All very capitalist.

Most importantly, was Johnny giving it his all for Leinster that day, or did you spot him talking to any of those French coaches during idle moments. Was this the day the seeds were sown?

z

FixdePitchmark

So with that many transaction and that amount of money.
That much evidence of the actions of Lowry.

It was as clear as day.

Ok, the flowery language from Judge was not helpful.

But so what. You shouldn't be meeting a minister in a pub about a state tendering process.


Maybe we aren't as learned , wise, as legally aware or politically astute.


But Irish people are not ****ing stupid Mr O'Brien. Both should be in jail, still - no doubt.

In fact Waterford Whispers should have held the line - as there was nothing untrue in their joke - most best jokes are too close to the truth.

It is almost a case with O'Brien that - " The lady doth protest too much ".

Also - we want none of your charity. Go away.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/september-sunday-when-big-game-brought-the-main-players-together-26717234.html

Busted Flat.

Cloak it in anyway you like, call it what you like, claim all the people involved were misunderstood, the smell of corruption is overpowering.
If it smells like shít, looks like shít and taste like shít, do you have to go to to an analyst for the plebs to understand.

baaba maal

zagmund wrote: »

No, no, the real trick would have been to leverage the situation and tell him that you'll sell him your position in the queue and he can buy your pints for (oh, say . . .) €25 a go. He agrees, gives you the money, you shuffle forward order the drinks, he gets his, you get yours and you get profit. The only people who suffer are those find themselves even further behind in the queue and who don't need to be concerning themselves with the money stuff going on at the front. All very capitalist.

Most importantly, was Johnny giving it his all for Leinster that day, or did you spot him talking to any of those French coaches during idle moments. Was this the day the seeds were sown?

z

Ha!
Yes, in hindsight there was some sort of Contracts for Difference or IPO I should have angled for!
We trounced Racing 36-11 (just checked the result again)- Johnny scored two tries out of the five so they may have asked him for his mobile number alright!

FixdePitchmark

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Cloak it in anyway you like, call it what you like, claim all the people involved were misunderstood, the smell of corruption is overpowering.
If it smells like shít, looks like shít and taste like shít, do you have to go to to an analyst for the plebs to understand.

Yes the full picture is there - I commend Moriarty -

They left the pub with friends to go to another pub alone to talk about the match (good one Denis) :rolleyes:

It is not just one action,

There are multiple aspects - the money and the actions of the individuals involved.

Again - Jail was only appropriate action.

It is totally shocking that he has had more dealings with the state.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/o-brien-s-record-should-disbar-him-from-having-a-disproportionate-hold-on-media-1.1493100

michael999999

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Yes the full picture is there - I commend Moriarty -

They left the pub with friends to go to another pub alone to talk about the match (good one Denis) :rolleyes:

It is not just one action,

There are multiple aspects - the money and the actions of the individuals involved.

Again - Jail was only appropriate action.

It is totally shocking that he has had more dealings with the state.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/o-brien-s-record-should-disbar-him-from-having-a-disproportionate-hold-on-media-1.1493100

Fine Gael will always look after uncle Denis.

Too many skeletons in the fine gael closet that he could expose.

Has the coward Kenny been seen or heard from lately?

Busted Flat.

michael999999 wrote: »

Fine Gael will always look after uncle Denis.

Too many skeletons in the fine gael closet that he could expose.

Has the coward Kenny been seen or heard from lately?

If your leg was part of the government and smelled so bad it would be called gangreen. Intellegent people listening to their doctors would agree to amputation, What is happening is sure take a hot drink it will be alright. Titanic sort of thing. Lock up the binoclulars in case they get wet.

Nodin

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. ........

Why did you dream it up then?

newport2

I don't get this "right to one's good name" argument that a lot of the cases are based on. Surely you would need a good name in the first place to make that argument? That ship has already sailed for DOB long ago in the eyes of the majority of Irish tax payers.

An extreme example, but what if Larry Murphy started taking cases against anything said about him unrelated to what he was convicted for, based on the argument he had a right to his "good name"? Would that fail in court on the basis he couldn't really argue he had a good name in the first place? Or just more legal sh1te saying you have a right to something you clearly don't have.

conorh91

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

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.

K-9 wrote: »

Ah right, focus on one detail and ignore the bigger picture.

Minister for Communications in charge of awarding telecoms licence has all these financial dealings of about a million Euro, and there's nothing to see here really.

I'm going to answer these points together since they're essentially identical.

I am sure we can all agree that Dublin is a small place, FG a small party, and that acquaintances will naturally be attracted to doing business with one another. So it's no surprise when you can connect financial dots between business people in a small town. That much is uncontroversial.

An additional point, which has so far been ignored, is the danger of seeing round sums of money as being the same piles of cash.

The Moriarty Tribunal appears to have retro-fitted a narrative into the fact that three wealthy men, who happened to know one another, processed three transactions of about IR150,000.

The fact that a few millionaires had large bulks of money sloshing around their accounts, and that sometimes transaction amounts were the same, does not prove a direct link between them.

150,000 punts seems like a lot of money if you earn my salary. . But lets imagine three friends: Tommy, Paddy and Jimmy, all involved in the plumbing trade.

Tommy buys a set of tools from Paddy for 300 EUR. Paddy then lends a similar amount, 200 EUR, to their mutual friend Jimmy. Paddy probably could have loaned this anyway, even if he had never sold some tools to Tommy.

I have focused on the 150,000 transaction because it's the most nominally suspect one, and did require an explanation. The others, such as the Doncaster rovers debacle and the FG donation (which could never have benefitted Lowry) are so blatantly spurious they don't require the same explanation.

This next point is important too.

If it were the case that any of the civil servants, or external licencing experts, or other office-holders had testified against Lowry, then you are absolutely correct, these transactions might have taken on a different colouring. But that didn't happen. Everyone inside and outside the Department said Lowry was not involved, and that Esat deserved the contract on an objective test. The outside expert said that Esat simply deserved it on merit.

Those witness testimonies leads to a dead-end, and we have to see the Tribunal's "web of intrigue" in that context.

The Tribunal was wrong many times. It had to correct itself, and go back to the drawing board many times. I honestly believe the Tribunal felt it had no choice but to 'bring home the goods' after wasting €50 million of taxpayers' money, and feeding off itself for 14 years. It could hardly have said "sorry lads, nothing to see here after all, thanks for all those years of fees".

conorh91

newport2 wrote: »

I don't get this "right to one's good name" argument that a lot of the cases are based on. Surely you would need a good name in the first place to make that argument? That ship has already sailed for DOB long ago in the eyes of the majority of Irish tax payers.

It might be your opinion that somebody has irretrievably lost their good reputation, but that's not a position the courts have ever taken, even with convicted terrorists and child sex abusers. Everyone is presumed to have a good reputation or, in the case of convicted people, some residual reputation capable of salvaging.

newport2

conorh91 wrote: »

It might be your opinion that somebody has lost their reputation, but that's not a position the courts have ever taken, even with terrorists and child sex abusers.

So if a journalist says in an article that Larry Murphy mightn't be trustworthy enough to do business with, Murphy can sue on the basis of the right to his good name? And the court will take the position that Larry Murphy has a good name, despite having convicted him for a violent rape a couple of years earlier?

conorh91

newport2 wrote: »

So if a journalist says in an article that Larry Murphy mightn't be trustworthy enough to do business with, Murphy can sue on the basis of the right to his good name?

Lets use a more clear-cut example.

If a journalist publishes a statement that Larry Murphy is a known thief, that statement will be defamatory in the absence of a legitimate defence.

There are seven principal defences in defamation (truth, honest opinion, privilege, etc), but the fact that a person has been convicted of sexual offences does not mean you can accuse them of theft, or vice versa. It will be defamatory to whatever residual reputation they still enjoy.

newport2

conorh91 wrote: »

Lets use a more clear-cut example.

No, don't sidestep the question, use the example I gave. A lot of DOB's cases are not clear cut either, more what the person being sued implied, which is open to opinion. The WWN didn't publish any clear cut statement, they wrote satire about a parallel universe leaving people to draw their own conclusions from that.

If a journalist says in an article that Larry Murphy mightn't be trustworthy enough to do business with, Murphy can sue on the basis of the right to his good name. Will the court will take the position that Larry Murphy has a good name?

conorh91

newport2 wrote: »

No, don't sidestep the question, use the example I gave.

Oh FFS don't be so sassy I am trying to be helpful, your example is too muddy because it might contain a defence, i.e. honest opinion. That's why I used a clearer example.

It's not even 9am yet, it's a bit early to be making demands.

newport2

conorh91 wrote: »

Oh FFS don't be so sassy I am trying to be helpful, your example is too muddy because it might contain a defence, i.e. honest opinion. That's why I used a clearer example.

It's not even 9am yet, it's a bit early to be making demands.

I'm not looking for help Conor, this is a discussion forum. Nor was I demanding anything or meaning to be sassy. So I'm sorry you took it up that way. I gave you an example with a question, you came back and answered something else based on a different example. If you only want to discuss it on your own terms in clear cut, black and white scenarios, fine. I already know the answer to those questions. I'll step out here.

K-9

It does seem poor Mr. Lowry is a tad unfortunate that his financial dealings seemed to be closely linked to Ben Dunne and Denis O'Brien.

nxbyveromdwjpg

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why? The solicitors are the ones making money from all these frivolous threats, why not hit them in the pocket, by promoting a boycott of them among business and their identifiable clients, if they're going to engage in threats that cause a chilling effect and damage free speech?

You want to boycott a business for making money? For following their clients instruction, looking after the clients interests, etc.

That's just ridiculous.

20Cent

Yusuf Savory Guitar wrote: »

You want to boycott a business for making money? For following their clients instruction, looking after the clients interests, etc.

That's just ridiculous.

Why? If a company in behaving unethically that's an option.

conorh91

K-9 wrote: »

It does seem poor Mr. Lowry is a tad unfortunate that his financial dealings seemed to be closely linked to Ben Dunne and Denis O'Brien.

Lowry is known to have been a tax cheat, he has admitted that. His ill-repute is entirely of his own making. His ongoing presence in Irish politics is an embarrassment. His dealings with Ben Dunne were wholly unethical, and they were properly examined in another Tribunal that applied a higher standard of proof.

I don't feel sorry for Lowry. But he's hardly the Anti Midas, making guilty anybody who comes within two degrees of separation of him.

tipptom

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm going to answer these points together since they're essentially identical.

I am sure we can all agree that Dublin is a small place, FG a small party, and that acquaintances will naturally be attracted to doing business with one another. So it's no surprise when you can connect financial dots between business people in a small town. That much is uncontroversial.

An additional point, which has so far been ignored, is the danger of seeing round sums of money as being the same piles of cash.

The Moriarty Tribunal appears to have retro-fitted a narrative into the fact that three wealthy men, who happened to know one another, processed three transactions of about IR150,000.

The fact that a few millionaires had large bulks of money sloshing around their accounts, and that sometimes transaction amounts were the same, does not prove a direct link between them.

150,000 punts seems like a lot of money if you earn my salary. . But lets imagine three friends: Tommy, Paddy and Jimmy, all involved in the plumbing trade.

Tommy buys a set of tools from Paddy for 300 EUR. Paddy then lends a similar amount, 200 EUR, to their mutual friend Jimmy. Paddy probably could have loaned this anyway, even if he had never sold some tools to Tommy.

I have focused on the 150,000 transaction because it's the most nominally suspect one, and did require an explanation. The others, such as the Doncaster rovers debacle and the FG donation (which could never have benefitted Lowry) are so blatantly spurious they don't require the same explanation.

This next point is important too.

If it were the case that any of the civil servants, or external licencing experts, or other office-holders had testified against Lowry, then you are absolutely correct, these transactions might have taken on a different colouring. But that didn't happen. Everyone inside and outside the Department said Lowry was not involved, and that Esat deserved the contract on an objective test. The outside expert said that Esat simply deserved it on merit.

Those witness testimonies leads to a dead-end, and we have to see the Tribunal's "web of intrigue" in that context.

The Tribunal was wrong many times. It had to correct itself, and go back to the drawing board many times. I honestly believe the Tribunal felt it had no choice but to 'bring home the goods' after wasting €50 million of taxpayers' money, and feeding off itself for 14 years. It could hardly have said "sorry lads, nothing to see here after all, thanks for all those years of fees".

Well their so called wealth was patently untrue.
DOB was flat broke at this time and said he was flat broke, desperate and ruined if he didn't win this licence.
You have evidence to suggest Michael Lowry was wealthy at this time?

KomradeBishop

Yusuf Savory Guitar wrote: »

You want to boycott a business for making money? For following their clients instruction, looking after the clients interests, etc.

That's just ridiculous.

I stated clearly in my post, that they should be boycotted for supporting O'Brien's frivolous threats, and causing a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press in the process - they are obviously motivated in part by money in order to do this, so their pocket should be hit, by boycotting them and encouraging businesses who are clients with them, to stop doing business with them.

These lawyers, play a notable part in damaging the country themselves, in this instance.

newport2

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I stated clearly in my post, that they should be boycotted for supporting O'Brien's frivolous threats, and causing a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press in the process - they are obviously motivated in part by money in order to do this, so their pocket should be hit, by boycotting them and encouraging businesses who are clients with them, to stop doing business with them.

These lawyers, play a notable part in damaging the country themselves, in this instance.

Agreed. Unfortunately we'll need a lot of people to boycott before it becomes worth their while to drop a client like DOB.

hatrickpatrick

Yusuf Savory Guitar wrote: »

You want to boycott a business for making money? For following their clients instruction, looking after the clients interests, etc.

That's just ridiculous.

20Cent wrote: »

Why? If a company in behaving unethically that's an option.

Ah 20Cent, you must have missed the discussion on Politics Cafe a few days ago in which several prominent establishment apologists finally came out and said that in their view, ethics were irrelevant. :rolleyes:

@Jessup, it's clear from public opinion that the majority of Irish people who have anything to say about this issue do not believe that censorship and gagging of the media is ethically ok. In that context, boycotting DOB and his businesses, as well as those who are facilitating the aforementioned censorship, is one way for the people to try and force their own agenda to the top of the table.

Of course, in a democracy the people shouldn't have to force their agenda to the top of the table - it should be there by default. But we all know that it doesn't work like that - thanks, primarily, to the insidious view among those in power and those who defend them, that ethics don't matter.

conorh91

tipptom wrote: »

DOB was flat broke at this time

How did he buy a holiday house in Spain for IR£150,000 so? Aren't you one of the people who believe he bribed Lowry? How do you believe he pulled that off, then?

Denis O'Brien was chairman of a growing company that was worth IR£250 million. I haven't actually seen his internet banking transactions, but considering the vastness of his business empire, maybe it's my turn to make a "reasonable inference". He might have stood to lose a lot of money if he had not been awarded the GSM licence, but he was not poor. He was clearly not "flat broke".

nxbyveromdwjpg

20Cent wrote: »

Why? If a company in behaving unethically that's an option.

The solicitors office hasn't behaved unethically.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

@Jessup, it's clear from public opinion that the majority of Irish people who have anything to say about this issue do not believe that censorship and gagging of the media is ethically ok. In that context, boycotting DOB and his businesses, as well as those who are facilitating the aforementioned censorship, is one way for the people to try and force their own agenda to the top of the table.

I'm not talking about DOB, what I said was that it was OTT to suggest a boycott of his solicitors office and to start boycotting the solicitors other clients or whatever the suggestion was.

Do we want to deny DOB the right to legal counsel now?
Or deny the right of the legal counsel to take business?

Solicitors take clients they don't agree with all the time (in fact probably most of the time in criminal cases). Not saying this is the case here but that's the way it is.

The suggestion I replied to was OTT. Hysteria.

hatrickpatrick

Yusuf Savory Guitar wrote: »

The solicitors office hasn't behaved unethically.

They have attempted to gag the Irish media and the Irish parliament. I guess we have different standards of ethics?

I'm not talking about DOB, what I said was that it was OTT to suggest a boycott of his solicitors office and to start boycotting the solicitors other clients or whatever the suggestion was.

Do we want to deny DOB the right to legal counsel now?
Or deny the right of the legal counsel to take business?

How about denying them the right to do things which the people regard as unethical, such as censoring the media and the parliament?

Solicitors take clients they don't agree with all the time (in fact probably most of the time in criminal cases). Not saying this is the case here but that's the way it is.

So because "that's the way it is", it's ethically ok then. Gotcha.

The suggestion I replied to was OTT. Hysteria.

In your opinion.

nxbyveromdwjpg

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They have attempted to gag the Irish media and the Irish parliament. I guess we have different standards of ethics?

No they haven't. DOB has. Why can't you grasp this?

What paper was that letter printed on? We should BOYCOTT that paper company.

What courier delivered the letters, was it DHL? Let's BOYCOTT DHL.

Did the courier use petrol? Let's BOYCOTT petrol.

These have all facilitated the aforementioned censorship by providing their business services in the process of sending legal letters.

At what point would you say it's hysteria and over the top?

conorh91

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They have attempted to gag the Irish media and the Irish parliament. I guess we have different standards of ethics?

And revealing someone's private bank account details in public, and using your job to publicly accuse them of serious wrongdoing, is ethical? Even without due process?

I thought you were a democrat, doggedly vigilant about the risk of domination of private citizens by self-serving politicians? No?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I stated clearly in my post, that they should be boycotted for supporting O'Brien's frivolous threats...

A frivolous case is one for which no reasonable argument exists. You might argue that the law is at fault here, and I might even agree with you, but the WWN threat is not frivolous, in the sense that it does appear to have a legal basis.

Perhaps instead of making populist accusations from the floor of the Oireachtas, seeking airtime like some talent show contestant, members of the Oireachtas should focus on law reform. A solicitor is expected to work to vindicate the rights of his client, not to control public policy.

KomradeBishop

Yusuf Savory Guitar wrote: »

The solicitors office hasn't behaved unethically.



I'm not talking about DOB, what I said was that it was OTT to suggest a boycott of his solicitors office and to start boycotting the solicitors other clients or whatever the suggestion was.

Do we want to deny DOB the right to legal counsel now?
Or deny the right of the legal counsel to take business?

Solicitors take clients they don't agree with all the time (in fact probably most of the time in criminal cases). Not saying this is the case here but that's the way it is.

The suggestion I replied to was OTT. Hysteria.

He's not 'merely' taking legal counsel - he and his solicitors are abusing the costs of legal threats in the judicial system, to silence people - and are doing this in full knowledge that there is no legal basis for the threats they are making.

That is straight-out unethical - regardless of how you choose to see it - and it's a threat to free speech and freedom of the press.

KomradeBishop

Yusuf Savory Guitar wrote: »

No they haven't. DOB has. Why can't you grasp this?

What paper was that letter printed on? We should BOYCOTT that paper company.

What courier delivered the letters, was it DHL? Let's BOYCOTT DHL.

Did the courier use petrol? Let's BOYCOTT petrol.

These have all facilitated the aforementioned censorship by providing their business services in the process of sending legal letters.

At what point would you say it's hysteria and over the top?

Uh, in what world are lawyers 'just the messenger'? They enact the legal threats - which is why they are the ones sending out the letters.

Really stupid analogy.

tipptom

conorh91 wrote: »

How did he buy a holiday house in Spain for IR£150,000 so? Aren't you one of the people who believe he bribed Lowry? How do you believe he pulled that off, then?

Denis O'Brien was chairman of a growing company that was worth IR£250 million. I haven't actually seen his internet banking transactions, but considering the vastness of his business empire, maybe it's my turn to make a "reasonable inference". He might have stood to lose a lot of money if he had not been awarded the GSM licence, but he was not poor. He was clearly not "flat broke".

Well,i am using his words in an interview after he won and before these story's broke that he could not pay for his offices at the time and this was before he had his vast empire.(expect some excuses again about how we don't know of how businesses work)


Hence his conversation with his best friend at the time that Barry recounted of them out jogging in the Wicklow mountains and DOB complaining that he would have to find another 100k to give to Michael Lowry that Lowry was looking for.


He had a lot of rich business partners that he had to pull in at great expense with the assurances of a good thing to keep the bid going and "cover expenses".


I do know a bit about Michael Lowrys business at the time and it does not in any shape or form point to him being wealthy at the time but if you can point out to me that he was,fair enough.


By the way I do think he bribed Micheal Lowry and I don't think any reasonable person could think otherwise.


I thought you were doing ok about your defence legally of DOB up to the point of talking about "mob rule" and going above and beyond to rubbish all the money that found its way circuitously and coincidentally to Michael Lowry,your impartiality seems to have slipped slightly.

KomradeBishop

conorh91 wrote: »

And revealing someone's private bank account details in public, and using your job to publicly accuse them of serious wrongdoing, is ethical? Even without due process?

I thought you were a democrat, doggedly vigilant about the risk of domination of private citizens by self-serving politicians? No?


A frivolous case is one for which no reasonable argument exists. You might argue that the law is at fault here, and I might even agree with you, but the WWN threat is not frivolous, in the sense that it does appear to have a legal basis.

Perhaps instead of making populist accusations from the floor of the Oireachtas, seeking airtime like some talent show contestant, members of the Oireachtas should focus on law reform. A solicitor is expected to work to vindicate the rights of his client, not to control public policy.

Bollocks. You're not going to convince anyone here, that O'Briens lawyer is merely trying to 'vindicate the rights of his client' - it barely takes any effort to put two-and-two together here, and see that frivolous lawsuits, that are highly unlikely to lead to successful prosecution (yet are certainly likely to result in a chilling effect), are aimed at censorship.

At this stage, it's simply beyond credibility to pretend that this is not precisely what such legal threats are about.

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

He's not 'merely' taking legal counsel - he and his solicitors are abusing the costs of legal threats in the judicial system, to silence people - and are doing this in full knowledge that there is no legal basis for the threats they are making.

That is straight-out unethical - regardless of how you choose to see it - and it's a threat to free speech and freedom of the press.

Ah now, wait a second here.

We all agree our laws are out dated and need reforming exactly because they are too strict, that's the whole problem here.

In case people missed it WW took down the article.

It follows some solicitor firms will practice law so will defend
clients using the law!

Tbh I think we're verging on a witch hunt because well, who really like lawyers!

conorh91

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Bollocks. You're not going to convince anyone here, that O'Briens lawyer is merely trying to 'vindicate the rights of his client'

Admittedly that sounds rather grand: I don't mean from an altruistic viewpoint, simply that it's his job to help vindicate the rights of his Client. That what he's paid for. He isn't paid to overthrow our democracy or install O'Brien as The Great Leader (although that would involve an enviable professional fee)

Irish law does not protect satirical publication, in that the law is blind to the intention of the publisher. If our politicians want to make themselves useful, perhaps they should focus their efforts on that, instead of abusing their position to attack private citizens, despite not having any broken any of their laws.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

Ah now, wait a second here.

We all agree our laws are out dated and need reforming exactly because they are too strict, that's the whole problem here.

In case people missed it WW took down the article.

It follows some solicitor firms will practice law so will defend
clients using the law!

Tbh I think we're verging on a witch hunt because well, who really like lawyers!

Do you see anything being done to reform this? If these people are happy to abuse the legal system like this, then damn right they deserve a boycott. Precious little else is being done about this issue.

This isn't like some lawyers in the ACLU in the US, providing pro-bono legal services to a brutal convict who is undoubtedly guilty, yet still deserves a solid legal defence - which is a solid principle - these are lawyers happy to engage in creating a chilling effect on free speech in this country, just to suit their client.

Why should that firm be free from moral judgement and a boycott? Saying "they're just doing their jobs" doesn't absolve them of any moral responsibility here.

jungleman

conorh91 wrote: »

Admittedly that sounds rather grand: I don't mean from an altruistic viewpoint, simply that it's his job to help vindicate the rights of his Client. That what he's paid for. He isn't paid to overthrow our democracy or install O'Brien as The Great Leader (although that would involve an enviable professional fee)

Irish law does not protect satirical publication, in that the law is blind to the intention of the publisher. If our politicians want to make themselves useful, perhaps they should focus their efforts on that, instead of abusing their position to attack private citizens, despite not having any broken any of their laws.

I don't think they were abusing their positions to be honest. That information was judged to be in the public interest, and I'm glad they did speak about him and his affairs.

If anything, it's cast a greater light onto O' Brien. At least the general public are asking questions about him again. It was in the public interest to know if he was getting special treatment with IBRC. The taxpayer has a right to know these things.

O' Brien might not have been convicted of breaking any laws, but that doesn't mean he's not open to scrutiny, especially when he bribed and greased his way to being a billionaire.

KomradeBishop

conorh91 wrote: »

Admittedly that sounds rather grand: I don't mean from an altruistic viewpoint, simply that it's his job to help vindicate the rights of his Client. That what he's paid for. He isn't paid to overthrow our democracy or install O'Brien as The Great Leader (although that would involve an enviable professional fee)

Irish law does not protect satirical publication, in that the law is blind to the intention of the publisher. If our politicians want to make themselves useful, perhaps they should focus their efforts on that, instead of abusing their position to attack private citizens, despite not having any broken any of their laws.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it more true: The entire problem people have here, is that these lawyers are not 'merely' trying to 'vindicate the rights' of their client; what they are doing is so far disconnected from the rights of their client, both morally/ethically and insofar as what is legally achievable (the threats they are making are not legally possible to enforce - the deterrent is the idea of court costs, not of being in breach of any law) that this has nothing to do with the rights of their client.

Nobody has the right to use their wealth, to abuse the legal system, in a manner intended to silence people when they have not done anything to break the law - that shows that our legal system is a two-tier one, where the wealthy have greater de-faco legal 'rights' and advantages, over everyone else.


Variations of the argument "it's just their job" is never an excuse for accepting morals wrongs, and "it's just their job" is never a valid statement for claiming that something is morally right or acceptable either.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

conorh91

KomradeBishop wrote: »

the threats they are making are not legally possible to enforce - the deterrent is the idea of court costs, not of being in breach of any law

That's just wrong. Since satirical intention is irrelevant to the question of whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning, there is a clear, stateable case that WWN imputed criminal behaviour to Denis O'Brien.

On what basis do you claim that no cause of action exists?

Nobody has the right to use their wealth, to abuse the legal system

In the first stage of the application, the Defendant can ask the Court to strike out a frivolous application; there will be no worry about costs going against them… unless of course, the case has merit.

WWN did the right thing, because O'Brien's claim appears on its face to have merit.

"it's just their job" is never a valid statement for claiming that something is morally right or acceptable either.

And who gets to decide morality? You? The person shouting accusations on an online forum? An attention-seeking TD in Dáil Éireann?

Why don't we forget about moral judgments, and reform our laws so that circumstances like this are less likely to arise? I think everybody would be much better-off if TDs got on with their work, and let the courts get on with theirs.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Lowry is currently under indictment for tax offences.

But those charges have nothing to do with Denis O'Brien. They're a different issue, post-dating the GSM licence by 7-8 years.

FixdePitchmark

conorh91 wrote: »

Lowry is known to have been a tax cheat, he has admitted that. His ill-repute is entirely of his own making. His ongoing presence in Irish politics is an embarrassment. His dealings with Ben Dunne were wholly unethical, and they were properly examined in another Tribunal that applied a higher standard of proof.

I don't feel sorry for Lowry. But he's hardly the Anti Midas, making guilty anybody who comes within two degrees of separation of him.

But - a persons track record is entirely relevant.

As you keep saying, it was a small community - meeting at the same events , that everyone is everyone was at.

Yet, we are to believe that all the financial transaction were of remarkable coincidence - there was multiple -I'm sure examined by forensic accountants.

You want us to ignore the track record , the numerous links , the actions of Lowry.

And believe as DOB would like us to believe - it was a stitch up by the entire judiciary.

I accept - looking back in time , can be harsh - as that is the way Ireland was run. It was the culture - but this was a big one.

conor - I think you are being the Denis advocate - but it is just not credible with the details outlined and proven links.

conorh91

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Yet, we are to believe that all the financial transaction were of remarkable coincidence

There's nothing remarkable about them. A few of them aren't even coincidences, and one of them requires us to believe that a group of friends should never engage in legitimate business with one another.

As I said, a couple of the transactions might take on a different tone if there were some expert or civil servant or officeholder who had claimed there was any wrongdoing, but that didn't happen.

The Tribunal didn;t even set out to investigate this. It noticed a donation from an O'Brien company to FG (which could never have benefitted Lowry) and started its web of intrigue from there.

The Tribunal carried on for 14 years and couldn't find anyone to say a wrong word about the GSM licence, so it just changed the standard of proof down to "reasonably informed expression of opinion" so as not to make a show of unnecessarily wasting taxpayers' money for over a decade.

No Tribunal in the history of the State has been so wasteful of resources, none has come in for so much legal criticism, and none has diluted the rules of evidence to such an absurd extent as Moriarty.

Don't just take my word for it: the Revenue, CAB and the DPP find it equally useless.

FixdePitchmark

conorh91 wrote: »

There's nothing remarkable about them. A few of them aren't even coincidences, and one of them requires us to believe that a group of friends should never engage in legitimate business with one another.

As I said, a couple of the transactions might take on a different tone if there were some expert or civil servant or officeholder who had claimed there was any wrongdoing, but that didn't happen.

The Tribunal didn;t even set out to investigate this. It noticed a donation from an O'Brien company to FG (which could never have benefitted Lowry) and started its web of intrigue from there.

The Tribunal carried on for 14 years and couldn't find anyone to say a wrong word about the GSM licence, so it just changed the standard of proof down to "reasonably informed expression of opinion" so as not to make a show of unnecessarily wasting taxpayers' money for over a decade.

No Tribunal in the history of the State has been so wasteful of resources, none has come in for so much legal criticism, and none has diluted the rules of evidence to such an absurd extent as Moriarty.

Don't just take my word for it: the Revenue, CAB and the DPP find it equally useless.

But the civil servants didn't award the licence - Lowry did.

The civil servants delivered a 3rd place for ESAT and Lowry was leaking to O'Brien. So the 3rd was a reshaped 3rd.

This civil servant angle is bull**** by Lowry and O'Brien - at the end of the day , the minster has every report under the sun on his desk - but he makes the call, him alone. He even avoided any cabinet involvement.
That is why he is minister. To make the call - boy did he make the call for his boy.

Yet we are to believe that a minister with a track record of total and utter corruption - had an ethical awaking during the biggest deal of his life. Yet had shown he was "meeting" DOB in the lead up to his biggest call, to talk about a match.

Come on Conor - it is what it is.

conorh91

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But the civil servants didn't award the licence - Lowry did.

Lowry followed the decision of the Project Team. He followed the advice of a major international expert who decided that Esat was the "clear winner". If Lowry had counselled against that decision (and by the way, it was a Cabinet decision), you'd all be up in arms, saying that the views of the independent experts should be respected.

Link to the opinion of the independent expert
http://www.moriartytribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Original-Statement-of-Professor-Michael-Andersen.pdf

Yet we are to believe that a minister with a track record of total and utter corruption - had an ethical awaking during the biggest deal of his life.

No, I am blue in the face from criticizing Lowry. I don't care SFA about Michael Lowry and his shenanigans.

But it does not follow that everybody who came within an ass's roar of Michael Lowry themselves were corrupt. As much as it may anger you, there is no evidence that Michael Lowry benefited from the GSM licence, even if that's only because Denis O'Brien didn't have any interest in bribing him.

In any case, two of the losers in the GSM licence application are bringing a series of actions before the courts at the moment, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Maybe Moriarty will finally be put in its place by an actual court of law.

hatrickpatrick

Yusuf Savory Guitar wrote: »

No they haven't. DOB has. Why can't you grasp this?

What paper was that letter printed on? We should BOYCOTT that paper company.

What courier delivered the letters, was it DHL? Let's BOYCOTT DHL.

Did the courier use petrol? Let's BOYCOTT petrol.

These have all facilitated the aforementioned censorship by providing their business services in the process of sending legal letters.

At what point would you say it's hysteria and over the top?

This is ridiculous

Ok, let me put this a different way. Is "I was just following orders" a justification or not? Because even if DOB requested a parliament gag, somebody at his legal firm still said "sure, I'll do that. I don't see an ethical problem with it".

The paper, courier, petrol station etc are irrelevant in this because they weren't willingly and knowingly facillitating censorship. Come on, that one is obvious - there's a difference between the secretary who willingly writes down a letter seeking to blackmail somebody, and the shop which sold him the paper, having absolutely no idea what that paper was intended to be used for.

It may surprise you to learn that I actually know some people involved in that legal team, and they have my greatest sympathies. But we, the Irish people, have to have some mechanism to force our will on a government which does not see it as their duty to implement. Mass boycotting is one such mechanism, and it has proven successful time and again.

If every legal firm which agrees to undertake an unethical request, such as gagging the media, was then boycotted, no legal firm would be willing to undertake such requests in the future. So if you can't force DOB to behave ethically by boycotting him, you can ensure that nobody directly facillitates his unethical behaviour by making the consequences of doing so too impractical to contemplate.

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

And revealing someone's private bank account details in public, and using your job to publicly accuse them of serious wrongdoing, is ethical? Even without due process?

We're going to go around in circles here, I can see that.
It's my opinion that if you have an adverse finding against you by a tribunal, court, judicial enquiry or commission of investigation, all of your dealings with the state's money become a matter of public interest. If the Moriarty tribunal had never existed, or had found that absolutely nothing untoward took place, my views on this matter would be entirely different to what they are.

I thought you were a democrat, doggedly vigilant about the risk of domination of private citizens by self-serving politicians? No?

Absolutely.

Again, the issue here is that you have made up your mind that Moriarty's findings are irrelevant, I have made up my mind that they are not. If we agreed on that, we might actually agree on a whole lot more. My entire basis for believing that DOB should come in for extra scrutiny, should not be allowed any involvement with state money, and should have all of his dealings with state institutions where a lot of public money is at stake openly transparent for the Oireachtas and the public, is the fact that Moriarty found him to have made donations to FG at the same time as Lowry went above and beyond the normal order of business to furnish him with advantageous information he shouldn't have been furnished with.

I am not, in fact, the only person to take the harsh stance that an adverse finding of this nature should result in restrictions on how one can behave. Have a read of this suggestion by Vinnie B in relation to media ownership:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/o-brien-s-record-should-disbar-him-from-having-a-disproportionate-hold-on-media-1.1493100

tipptom

conorh91 wrote: »

Lowry followed the decision of the Project Team. He followed the advice of a major international expert who decided that Esat was the "clear winner". If Lowry had counselled against that decision (and by the way, it was a Cabinet decision), you'd all be up in arms, saying that the views of the independent experts should be respected.

Link to the opinion of the independent expert
http://www.moriartytribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Original-Statement-of-Professor-Michael-Andersen.pdf

No, I am blue in the face from criticizing Lowry. I don't care SFA about Michael Lowry and his shenanigans.

But it does not follow that everybody who came within an ass's roar of Michael Lowry was themselves corrupt. As much as it may anger you, there is no evidence that Michael Lowry benefited from the GSM licence, even if that's only because Denis O'Brien didn't have any interest in bribing him.

In any case, two of the losers in the GSM licence application are bringing a series of actions before the courts at the moment, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Maybe Moriarty will finally be put in its place by an actual court of law.

No one is saying any civil servant done anything wrong.
How were they to know that DOB had inside information that he used to change and to fine tune his bid to his advantage.


I see now that you are calling in to question Catherine Murphys allegation in the dail as attention seeking.

FixdePitchmark

Conor - do you work, have you worked or do you have any vested interest in this ?

conorh91

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If every legal firm which agrees to undertake an unethical request, such as gagging the media, was then boycotted, no legal firm would be willing to undertake such requests in the future.

What about lawyers who defend individuals accused of sexual offences, terrorism, and serious drugs offences? Why defend paedophiles and not entrepreneurs?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's my opinion that if you have an adverse finding against you by a tribunal, court, judicial enquiry or commission of investigation, all of your dealings with the state's money become a matter of public interest.

So if the Government were to establish a kangaroo court with a very low standard of proof, you don't see a problem with the Government's kangaroo court depriving citizens of their constitutional rights, e.g. the constitutional right to privacy?

Do fair procedures and the rule of law mean nothing? Can we just set up any old show trial and deprive people of their rights?

Again, the issue here is that you have made up your mind that Moriarty's findings are irrelevant

I am voicing a legal reality that they are legally sterile, they have no effect. They are certainly relevant to those people whom the Tribunal personally attacked, most of whom were ordinary civil servants as opposed to wealthy businessmen.

tipptom wrote: »

No one is saying any civil servant done anything wrong.

You haven't read the Tribunal report then? Even a bit of it? Civil servants came in for serious criticism.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Conor - do you work, have you worked or do you have any vested interest in this ?

Are you a Shinner?
What did you have for breakfast?
What's in your bank account?
use the toilet recently?

As if I'm working for Denis O'Brien just because I take an interest in fair procedures in the justice system. As if I'd even tell you if I were.

Denis, if you're reading this, PM me. Baby needs a new pair of shoes.