Denis O'Brien gags Waterford Whispers

tipptom

conorh91 wrote: »

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

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?

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.



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

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.

I was saying that in relation to you asking why did no civil servant or project managers dispute DOBs bid.

Muahahaha

conorh91 wrote: »

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.

Perhaps not financially directly but Michael Lowry is well known in Fine Gael as the man who fundraised so hard that he saved the party from financial collapse. The guy is still a hero to FG insiders and he is a member of that party in all but name, still wielding influence with Enda and other party apparatchiks. So I don't think it is correct to say that Lowry securing a large donation from DOB didn't benefit him an any way at all- such is the nature of back scratching that the favours often fall from other quarters.

NorthStars

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you a Shinner?

The mask always slips in the end.

conorh91

tipptom wrote: »

conorh91 wrote: »

tipptom wrote: »

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.

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

I was saying that in relation to you asking why did no civil servant or project managers dispute DOBs bid.

Disoute his bid? Who said anything about disputing his bid? Civil servants were not employed to dispute O'Brien's bid.

I said that, to a man, every State witness and the (Dutch) Independent Expert agreed with Lowry and O'Brien, and disputed the Tribunal's opinion.

The Chairman dismissed every single one of those witnesses.

I doubt anything like it has happened in Irish legal history. The Chairman, after he had dismissed all of those witnesses, made up his own version of events based on his "reasonably informed opinion" instead of state and independent witness testimony.

The only conclusion one can draw is that the chairman felt he could not turn around to the Irish people after a decade of expensive legal fees and say, "This was all above board".

Muahahaha wrote: »

The guy is still a hero to FG insiders

Yeah? How do you work that one out?

such is the nature of back scratching that the favours often fall from other quarters.

So you finally have a motive for this $50k, but still no body, and no forensics.

It's easy to understand why O'Brien supported FG.

Denis O'Brien was strongly pro-liberalisation and enterprise, and saw Fine Gael as being a more liberal force in Irish politics, after having fought for a telecoms liberalization and a VAS licence from Fianna Fáil for years*

(*Interestingly, it is amusing to consider accusations of corruption against Denis O'Brien, when you consider how Haughey and Fianna Fáil spent years rejecting him. If it were simply a matter of bribing officials, why wait until FF left office?)

Nodin

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

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

Bit harsh.

WUM = not a legal term.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

WUM = not a legal term.

Actually Nodin many people here with whom I disagree are debating like adults, and I'm trying to do the same.

If I were to resort to your inevitable ad hominems, I'd probably ask where your moral concerns were in terms of Northern Ireland and republicanism. "Disappeared"?

NorthStars

conorh91 wrote: »

Actually Nodin many people here with whom I disagree are debating like adults, and I'm trying to do the same.

If I were to resort to your inevitable ad hominems, I'd probably ask where your moral concerns were in terms of Northern Ireland and republicanism. "Disappeared"?

Yup!:rolleyes:

tipptom

conorh91 wrote: »

Disoute his bid? Who said anything about disputing his bid? Civil servants were not employed to dispute O'Brien's bid.

I said that, to a man, every State witness and the (Dutch) Independent Expert agreed with Lowry and O'Brien, and disputed the Tribunal's opinion.

The Chairman dismissed every single one of those witnesses.

I doubt anything like it has happened in Irish legal history. The Chairman, after he had dismissed all of those witnesses, made up his own version of events based on his "reasonably informed opinion" instead of state and independent witness testimony.

The only conclusion one can draw is that the chairman felt he could not turn around to the Irish people after a decade of expensive legal fees and say, "This was all above board".

Yeah? How do you work that one out?


So you finally have a motive for this $50k, but still no body, and no forensics.

It's easy to understand why O'Brien supported FG.

Denis O'Brien was strongly pro-liberalisation and enterprise, and saw Fine Gael as being a more liberal force in Irish politics, after having fought for a telecoms liberalization and a VAS licence from Fianna Fáil for years*

(*Interestingly, it is amusing to consider accusations of corruption against Denis O'Brien, when you consider how Haughey and Fianna Fáil spent years rejecting him. If it were simply a matter of bribing officials, why wait until FF left office?)

No,they said his was the best bid,they were not party to DOB being fed information on where his bid was not standing up by a FG government minister.

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

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

Key word here is "accused". Once again, are disagreement is over Moriarty.

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?

Of course I do. In your view, do the tribunals we've had belong in that category?
Would you say the same about the Mahon or Beef tribunals, for instance? Or was Moriarty different in some substantial way which makes its findings less sound than those of the other tribunals there have been?

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?

Of course not.

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.

That's a point. I am arguing that it shouldn't be the case. If the tribunals were intended to make findings which would then be consigned to the history books, and nobody involved would face any consequences whatsoever, then they should never have been set up in the first place.

Will allow those the rest of your points are addressed to, to respond to them directly.

Tony EH

NorthStars wrote: »

The mask always slips in the end.

This particular mask was hanging off from the beginning.

xhoundx

Tony EH wrote: »

This particular mask was hanging off from the beginning.

Posting 24/7 the giveaway?

K-9

Well we can add Denis to those other terrible miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham six or Guildford four.

conorh91

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Key word here is "accused". Once again, are disagreement is over Moriarty.

There is no disagreement. The courts have called Tribunals like this "legally sterile". The Moriarty Tribunal has no effect in Irish law: if it had, it would never have gotten away with stooping to such a low standard of proof. The Constitution would have intervened.

As such, Denis O'Brien does not stand accused of anything. He is presumed to have led a blameless life.

Would you say the same about the Mahon or Beef tribunals, for instance? Or was Moriarty different in some substantial way which makes its findings less sound than those of the other tribunals there have been?

History has proven what a farce Mahon has been, but yes the Moriarty Tribunal is less reliable than all of those in fact. Here is why.

Most of the tribunals have demanded facts to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", i.e. the criminal standard of proof. This applied, inter alia, in the Kerry Babies case; Abbeylara (Inquiry); the Lindsay Tribunal (Blood products); the Beef Tribunal and so on.

A smaller number of tribunals of inquiry have operated the lesser, civil standard (on the balance of probabilities): the Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse; the Smithwick Tribunal; the Morris Tribunal.

No Tribunal has ever gone below that level until Moriarty. Moriarty, as I mentioned earlier, operated a "flexible" standard below the civil standard of proof, as low as the Chairman's "reasonably informed opinion".

That is not a level at which it is safe to start stripping a person of their basic constitutional rights.

Do you not agree?

gladrags

K-9 wrote: »

Well we can add Denis to those other terrible miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham six or Guildford four.

Annie Maguire.

A decent and compassionate woman.

And her family,destroyed.

No one blinked an eye in Dublin,Belfast or London.

conorh91

tipptom wrote: »

No,they said his was the best bid,they were not party to DOB being fed information on where his bid was not standing up by a FG government minister.

Tom, how much of the tribunal's report and provisional reporting have you read, really?

A few years ago, Moriarty issued a preliminary ruling, making all sorts of wild accusations about Lowry barging in and influencing the project Group and the civil servants in the Department of Finance and the Department of Communications.

Based on nothing of course. The witnesses denied it.

Then the Depts get wind of it, and threaten to judicially review Moriarty in the High Court. Then of course the AG gets involved and starts sending legal letters to Moriarty.

Does Moriarty stand his ground? Not a bit of it! Completely changes his story, and invents "a reasonably informed" new opinion that Michael Lowry wasn't in fact influencing the Project Group, because ACTUALLY he was spying on them (without their knowledge?) on behalf of Denis O'Brien.

He can proceed with this story because although the Department still reject it, they no longer have standing for judicial review.

I'm not trying to be critical of you in particular tom, most people here haven't read any of the Tribunal's reports and they have no interest in doing so.

And that's why these back-of-the-envelope assertions have managed to survive and thrive.

That's why all of Moriarty's blunders never get reported anymore. They were great to sell papers a few years ago but sure that's forgotten about now, now we all suddenly trust Moriarty...

zagmund

Careful now conorh91, you're getting close to depriving poor oul Moriarty of his good name. Mind you, if you were saying this as satire, this might be acceptable to the general public. Because, you know, we all know satire when we see it. Except for redacted people.

You seem pretty close to besmirching that good name in fact. Be-smirch-ing, I say. Has this Moriarty been found guilty of anything particular in one of these courts of law that you seem so fond of?

What the dickens are you talking about when you say "The Constitution would have intervened" . . . you know this constitution person, do you?

z

conorh91 wrote: »

Tom, how much of the tribunal's report and provisional reporting have you read, really?

A few years ago, Moriarty issued a preliminary ruling, making all sorts of wild accusations about Lowry barging in and influencing the project Group and the civil servants in the Department of Finance and the Department of Communications.

Based on nothing of course. The witnesses denied it.

Then the Depts get wind of it, and threaten to judicially review Moriarty in the High Court. Then of course the AG gets involved and starts sending legal letters to Moriarty.

Does Moriarty stand his ground? Not a bit of it! Completely changes his story, and invents "a reasonably informed" new opinion that Michael Lowry wasn't in fact influencing the Project Group, because ACTUALLY he was spying on them (without their knowledge?) on behalf of Denis O'Brien.

He can proceed with this story because although the Department still reject it, they no longer have standing for judicial review.

I'm not trying to be critical of you in particular tom, most people here haven't read any of the Tribunal's reports and they have no interest in doing so.

And that's why these back-of-the-envelope assertions have managed to survive and thrive.

That's why all of Moriarty's blunders never get reported anymore. They were great to sell papers a few years ago but sure that's forgotten about now, now we all suddenly trust Moriarty...

tipptom

conorh91 wrote: »

Tom, how much of the tribunal's report and provisional reporting have you read, really?

A few years ago, Moriarty issued a preliminary ruling, making all sorts of wild accusations about Lowry barging in and influencing the project Group and the civil servants in the Department of Finance and the Department of Communications.

Based on nothing of course. The witnesses denied it.

Then the Depts get wind of it, and threaten to judicially review Moriarty in the High Court. Then of course the AG gets involved and starts sending legal letters to Moriarty.

Does Moriarty stand his ground? Not a bit of it! Completely changes his story, and invents "a reasonably informed" new opinion that Michael Lowry wasn't in fact influencing the Project Group, because ACTUALLY he was spying on them (without their knowledge?) on behalf of Denis O'Brien.

He can proceed with this story because although the Department still reject it, they no longer have standing for judicial review.

I'm not trying to be critical of you in particular tom, most people here haven't read any of the Tribunal's reports and they have no interest in doing so.

And that's why these back-of-the-envelope assertions have managed to survive and thrive.

That's why all of Moriarty's blunders never get reported anymore. They were great to sell papers a few years ago but sure that's forgotten about now, now we all suddenly trust Moriarty...

Of course the dept are going to reject it,they are going to be the ones who will be In the firing line when these underbidders head to court on this.


The dept needs to protect itself and well it should because I think they awarded the license to the best bid.


It still stands that Moriarity has said that Micheal Lowry was passing on imformation on the bidding process to DOB.


Do you think that with nearly 1m sloshing around and making its way through FG political grandees to finally dock with Michael Lowry,all the money that was donated to FG before the bid and after the bid was successful,the taped phonecalls between Micheal Lowry and another party,Doncaster Rovers,Phil Hogan,Jim Mitchell,testimony from DOBs best friend that he had to give more money to ML,DOB not suing Elaine Byrne about her article on him paying over nearly 1m euro to Micheal Lowry,!!!


Do you personally think this bid was unfairly won through Michael Lowry giving vital information to DOB?

The Corinthian

When I read this thread's title a horrible image flashed before my eyes. Clearly I'm surfing too much porn.

zagmund

The Corinthian wrote: »

When I read this thread's title a horrible image flashed before my eyes. Clearly I'm surfing too much porn.

I think it's safe to say that you are.

z

conorh91

tipptom wrote: »

It still stands that Moriarity has said that Micheal Lowry was passing on imformation on the bidding process to DOB.

Stands on what? Reasonably informed opinion? Certainly not on facts.

Doesn't matter what facts I give you about Moriarty admitting the Tribunal's mistakes, after threats from the Attorney General, about completely changing his decision at the final moment, about perceptions of bias within the Tribunal, none of this.

Because you will do exactly what the Tribunal was set up to do:

Replace all standards of proof and normal rules of evidence with, "But Moriarty! He said so. We like him, Moriarty. He said things we like to hear".

Fair enough, this is politics, not justice. Lets see how Persona fare before the courts.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Actually Nodin many people here with whom I disagree are debating like adults, and I'm trying to do the same.

Odd, mostly what I see is obfuscation and diversion meself, particularily in regards to the DPP.

tipptom

conorh91 wrote: »

Stands on what? Reasonably informed opinion? Certainly not on facts.

Doesn't matter what facts I give you about Moriarty admitting the Tribunal's mistakes, after threats from the Attorney General, about completely changing his decision at the final moment, about perceptions of bias within the Tribunal, none of this.

Because you will do exactly what the Tribunal was set up to do:

Replace all standards of proof and normal rules of evidence with, "But Moriarty! He said so. We like him, Moriarty. He said things we like to hear".

Fair enough, this is politics, not justice. Lets see how Persona fare before the courts.

I know that the tribunal made mistakes in law and he curbed his finding back on those threats but he still surmises that Michel Lowry gave DOB vital information to win the bid for this licence.
You seem to want to tarnish all the extraordinary amount of evidence about these two characters in the tribunal because Moriarity had to pull back on some of his findings.


It will be interesting to see how Persona get on and what other evidence they come up with because they are on record as to have being complaining about corruption in this process even while the tender was in progress.


There was no facts to Graham Dwyer or Joe o Reilly committing murder either but they were convicted.

Nodin

tipptom wrote: »

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


There was no facts to Graham Dwyer or Joe o Reilly committing murder either but they were convicted.

'Should we investigate this O'Dwyer fellah'?
'We have to wait for the DPP to approve'
'But sure they can't answer yes or no....'

NorthStars

Anyway folks, while we 'debate' the findings of the Moriarty tribunal, where it was established that the boy named Sue made payments to politicians, has anyone else been threatened with court action?
Is the guy instructing his solicitors as we speak to attempt to gag more people?
Did anyone attempt to explain satire to the moron?

I see Siteserv has been wound up this week...mad isn't it?

steddyeddy

conorh91 wrote: »

There is no disagreement. The courts have called Tribunals like this "legally sterile". The Moriarty Tribunal has no effect in Irish law: if it had, it would never have gotten away with stooping to such a low standard of proof. The Constitution would have intervened.

As such, Denis O'Brien does not stand accused of anything. He is presumed to have led a blameless life.


History has proven what a farce Mahon has been, but yes the Moriarty Tribunal is less reliable than all of those in fact. Here is why.

Most of the tribunals have demanded facts to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", i.e. the criminal standard of proof. This applied, inter alia, in the Kerry Babies case; Abbeylara (Inquiry); the Lindsay Tribunal (Blood products); the Beef Tribunal and so on.

A smaller number of tribunals of inquiry have operated the lesser, civil standard (on the balance of probabilities): the Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse; the Smithwick Tribunal; the Morris Tribunal.

No Tribunal has ever gone below that level until Moriarty. Moriarty, as I mentioned earlier, operated a "flexible" standard below the civil standard of proof, as low as the Chairman's "reasonably informed opinion".

That is not a level at which it is safe to start stripping a person of their basic constitutional rights.

Do you not agree?

So DOB is a bit like Gerry Adams in that they both have escaped conviction and therefore led blameless lives?

NorthStars

steddyeddy wrote: »

So DOB is a bit like Gerry Adams in that they both have escaped conviction and therefore led blameless lives?

The exact opposite actually.
Adams was interned by the brits for alleged crimes.
All we see here are a few apologists for Sue's dodgy dealings.
Nice way to divert the thread though.....Them lousy 'shinners', eh?:rolleyes:

steddyeddy

NorthStars wrote: »

The exact opposite actually.
Adams was interned by the brits for alleged crimes.
All we see here are a few apologists for Sue's dodgy dealings.
Nice way to divert the thread though.....Them lousy 'shinners', eh?:rolleyes:

Oh I'm not anti Sinn feinn. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who constantly berate Gerry Adams for alleged crimes but point out that DOB has led a blameless life because nothing was proven.

michael999999

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh I'm not anti Sinn feinn. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who constantly berate Gerry Adams for alleged crimes but point out that DOB has led a blameless life because nothing was proven.

But Sue saved fine gael with he's financial backing. He couldn't possibly have done anything wrong!

NorthStars

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh I'm not anti Sinn feinn. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who constantly berate Gerry Adams for alleged crimes but point out that DOB has led a blameless life because nothing was proven.

My apologies so......:)

conorh91

steddyeddy wrote: »

So DOB is a bit like Gerry Adams in that they both have escaped conviction and therefore led blameless lives?

I have no problem casting aside my personal views on Gerry Adams, the idiotic life he has led, the terrorism he defended, the human misery his views inflicted, and, and accept that we must presume that he is innocent of accusations of criminal activity.

Even if he does not try to himself defend his name before the courts, we just have to leave it there.

It would be interesting to know whether the provos agree. Now that they recognise the Irish courts, I'm sure they wouldn't like to see Gerry deprived of his constitutional rights by an extrajudicial process.

But why let hypocrisy stop them now? They've been at this for years, running roughshod over the rights of anyone who doesn't want to share their miserable existence.

Eugene Norman

conorh91 wrote: »

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.

You are the only person in Ireland who has argued that the findings are useless. If that is the case I think we should be informed by someone who isn't a loan pseudonymous poster on the Internet. The DPP, whose position on this you refuse to really debate, should dismiss the report and people should be advised not to "defame" poor old DOB by reporting it or linking it to criminality (even though the finding of facts would be criminal if true) . Most people would assume a judge led process, running over more than a decade with hundreds of witnesses, would have higher standards of proof than you are now claiming it had -- and would understandably be inclined to the kind of satire that WW engaged in. Is it fear of public opinion thats stoping this becoming general knowledge?

And do any other lawyers on here agree with Conor?

conorh91

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You are the only person in Ireland who has argued that the findings are useless.

In Ireland?

I know plenty of well-informed people who not only share my opinions, they persuaded me in the first place. But that aside, the Supreme Court has been witheringly critical of the standards employed by these Tribunals. There is probably no national institution in this land more skeptical of tribunal than the Supreme Court.

In any case, this so-called argument of yours is not relevant. I am articulating facts about the conduct of the Tribunal, its lax rules of evidence, and its series of blunders. These are not in dispute, certainly not disputed by anyone in this thread.

Usually, arguments tend to operate by a reasoned dispute of facts and their interpretation. In this thread, facts go out the window. You only want to hear what pleases you.

FixdePitchmark

conorh91 wrote: »

In Ireland?

I know plenty of well-informed people who not only share my opinions, they persuaded me in the first place. But that aside, the Supreme Court has been witheringly critical of the standards employed by these Tribunals. There is probably no national institution in this land more skeptical of tribunal than the Supreme Court.

In any case, this so-called argument of yours is not relevant. I am articulating facts about the conduct of the Tribunal, its lax rules of evidence, and its series of blunders. These are not in dispute, certainly not disputed by anyone in this thread.

Usually, arguments tend to operate by a reasoned dispute of facts and their interpretation. In this thread, facts go out the window. You only want to hear what pleases you.

And conor - how do you explain the 900,000 linked ?

Back to your earlier point - yes anyone who was making inappropriate contact with this guy on a big deal - is poisoned. And, most reasonable sensible people don't need any proof - but common sense.

900,000 - is statistically impossible to be a coincidence.

This is the man it is linked to - yet his dealings in this deal were 100 % as per you. And only you.

Again - both should still be in Jail.

conorh91

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

And conor - how do you explain the 900,000 linked ?

Do you realize I've answered that twice, and this is your third time asking.

You didn't even bother dispute the previous answers.

This is an exercise in postcount +1 for you, so goodnight now. I'll leave you to it.

Let me know if you ever bother to read the Tribunal reports.

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh I'm not anti Sinn feinn. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who constantly berate Gerry Adams for alleged crimes but point out that DOB has led a blameless life because nothing was proven.

Its politics, people who are invested or biased in a view usually don't see the hypocrisy, it's half the fun of it.

kupus

K-9 wrote: »

Its politics, people who are invested or biased in a view usually don't see the hypocrisy, it's half the fun of it.

I think that's too easy of a get out clause.
Those that have vested interests in their agendas are very aware, they know exactly which side of their bread is buttered and as for the rest well they can drink the soup.

steddyeddy

K-9 wrote: »

Its politics, people who are invested or biased in a view usually don't see the hypocrisy, it's half the fun of it.

The most fun is pointing it out!

FixdePitchmark

conorh91 wrote: »

Do you realize I've answered that twice, and this is your third time asking.

You didn't even bother dispute the previous answers.

This is an exercise in postcount +1 for you, so goodnight now. I'll leave you to it.

Let me know if you ever bother to read the Tribunal reports.

Well you have just sort of said - they were all friends doing business with each other. You have also , ridiculously said, some of the transactions could be numerical coincidences. You may be a legal eagle - I think you could work a little on statistics.

We are also to believe this house deal - was a real house deal - when it is as clear as day, it was a load of bull and a cover up.

I actually accept one of your main assertions - they were friends doing a deal with each other.
Both sides delivered on the deal. We all know in Ireland , except you and Denis , well no, just you. What that deal was.

Why on earth do I need to read a 14 year long Tribunal ? 1000s of pages long.

The summary (as most ministers just normally read) was categorical . Vincent O'Brien - Sam Smyth - every other decent journalist in the country have explained what went on.


You want us to believe an alternative impractical impossibility.
We are using the conclusions of the tribunal and common bloody sense.


You have asked me to - so I pulled up the 1000s of page report.

How on earth - Fine Gael got into bed with this guy again on Irish Water - is way beyond my little mind. Maybe you can explain that ?
It looks like Fine Gael - are as twisted and as corrupt as Fine Fail.

michael999999

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well you have just sort of said - they were all friends doing business with each other. You have also , ridiculously said, some of the transactions could be numerical coincidences. You may be a legal eagle - I think you could work a little on statistics.

We are also to believe this house deal - was a real house deal - when it is as clear as day, it was a load of bull and a cover up.

I actually accept one of your main assertions - they were friends doing a deal with each other.
Both sides delivered on the deal. We all know in Ireland , except you and Denis , well no, just you. What that deal was.

Why on earth do I need to read a 14 year long Tribunal ? 1000s of pages long.

The summary (as most ministers just normally read) was categorical . Vincent O'Brien - Sam Smyth - every other decent journalist in the country have explained what went on.


You want us to believe an alternative impractical impossibility.
We are using the conclusions of the tribunal and common bloody sense.


You have asked me to - so I pulled up the 1000s of page report.

How on earth - Fine Gael got into bed with this guy again on Irish Water - is way beyond my little mind. Maybe you can explain that ?
It looks like Fine Gael - are as twisted and as corrupt as Fine Fail.

At least fianna fail tried to hide there corruption. Fine gael don't show any shame, and are quite up front about it!

conorh91

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Why on earth do I need to read a 14 year long Tribunal ? 1000s of pages long.

So not only do you keep repeating the same question without reading the answers, you don't actually know what I'm referring to because you see no need to read the reports?

Since Denis O'Brien is presumed innocent, the burden of showing wrongdoing falls on others to discharge.

Discussing the errors and the legal criticism of the Tribunal is one thing, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something that is already presumed in law, for someone who cannot be bothered reading the freely available documentation.

Yes, the reports are long, but they're no longer than a Dostoevsky novel, although the report's plot is sometimes more far-fetched.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

I have no problem casting aside my personal views on Gerry Adams, the idiotic life he has led, the terrorism he defended, the human misery his views inflicted, and, and accept that we must presume that he is innocent of accusations of criminal activity.

Even if he does not try to himself defend his name before the courts, we just have to leave it there.

It would be interesting to know whether the provos agree. Now that they recognise the Irish courts, I'm sure they wouldn't like to see Gerry deprived of his constitutional rights by an extrajudicial process.

But why let hypocrisy stop them now? They've been at this for years, running roughshod over the rights of anyone who doesn't want to share their miserable existence.

tl;dr? A helpful summary follows

DIVERSION - LOOK OVER HERE -

TallGlass

DOB strikes again. This time Red Flag media in the firing line !

He's some man for one man. Glad to say I have spend a cent in his garages over the last half a year.

guylikeme

TallGlass wrote: »

DOB strikes again. This time Red Flag media in the firing line !

He's some man for one man. Glad to say I have spend a cent in his garages over the last half a year.

What did you buy?

TallGlass

guylikeme wrote: »

What did you buy?

Ment to say spent. Stupid spell check. But sure, 1c coffee !

I like the fact he himself wanted to basically raid there offices. Some neck the fella. He must be Ireland richest and most paranoid man.

Muahahaha

Anyone know who Red Flag are? And is the Gavin O'Reilly mentioned in the High Court action the same Gavin O'Reilly as the son of Tony and the former MD of INM?

I wonder has this 'dossier' on DOB anything to do with his failed IPO last week?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

TallGlass

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The dossier seems to be all public domain stuff.

It was stated in the breaking news artical, that some information was to be used under Dail Priveledge. I wonder what info that was?

My question is, who is/are his sources?

Berkieahern

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anyone know who Red Flag are? And is the Gavin O'Reilly mentioned in the High Court action the same Gavin O'Reilly as the son of Tony and the former MD of INM?

I wonder has this 'dossier' on DOB anything to do with his failed IPO last week?

Karl Brophy and Gavin o reilly!

Nodin

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anyone know who Red Flag are? And is the Gavin O'Reilly mentioned in the High Court action the same Gavin O'Reilly as the son of Tony and the former MD of INM? ?

Yep.

Muahahaha wrote: »

I wonder has this 'dossier' on DOB anything to do with his failed IPO last week?

No idea.

Banjo String

Poor auld uncle Dinny


It's been a bad bad week for Lucky Dennis. Probably the baddest damn week in Dennis's lucky world since he had that old codger Mickey Lowry set him up for life with the mobile phone contract. 

First of all Lucky Dennis had to sell off his far eastern pride and joy in Myanmar. You see,Dennis was building lots and lots of mobile masts in anticipation of repeating his successes with Digicel in Haiti, Jamaica and Honduras but something appeared to go wrong and he had to sell the whole shebang off more than likely at a firesale price of $60 million. 

Then of course, we had the biggest event and the one that was going to be the real making of Lucky Dennis. You see Dennis was going to float Digicel on the New York Stock Exchange so that he could capitalise the company and expand beyond his wildest dreams. However it appears that Dennis got a bit uppity as the deal would have allowed him to retain voting rights over 94 per cent of the share capital while selling off a small number of shares to investors.

Wiley Wall Street investors were going to be left swinging with no control having flooded the company with hard cash and Wall Street was having none of it. Dennis, it appears badly misjudged the Wolves of Wall Street. While Dennis wasn't going to make any money out of the deal at this point, he was going to gain credibility with future investors and that alone was a driver for him. What will the Wolves of Wall Street think of Dennis now?

It also appears that Digicel is now sitting on the edge of a very precarious financial cliff. According to its own IPO offering, it stated that while its borrowings were greater than its income, Digicel could pay back their borrowings when they fell due and while that may be true it was also stated that Digicel could possibly become a going concern. Is Dennis's world domination dream beginning to unravel in front of his eyes? 

If anybody should see that old codger Mickey Lowry or in fact anyone of any importance in Fine Gael, upon their travels, would you ask them to re-donate the donations that Lucky Dennis gave them in the first place! He needs to pay Charlie Haughey's old gunslinger, PJ Mara who now works for him!