Denis O'Brien gags Waterford Whispers

Jayop

conorh91 wrote: »

Moriarty did not make any finding of criminality against O'Brien, which is the clear implication of the WWN article.

Sure, WWN might claim that it's satire about a parallel universe. This is known to lawyers as false innuendo, which is defamatory.

WWN might claim a defence of qualified privilege as a satirical publication; to do so, they would need to show an absence of malice. I'm not sure they could have done so.

It's probably for the best that they took this down. They're doing themselves a massive favour. Plenty of media figures, such as Martin Turner, manage to use satire in a very clever way without exposing themselves to liability in defamation. I suggest WWN take a leaf out of Martin Turner's sketchpad.


That has near-zero consequence. Just because a person claims a legal threat is private and confidential, doesn't mean their claim carries any weight in legal terms.

Like I said the only thing the article says that wasn't on record already was that he was prosecuted. Everything else is public record. He did bribe three parties, he did gain information that led to him getting the phone license. Unless he's going to sue the Moiriarty Tribunal now too that's already out there.

You clearly know more about the law than I do (which is nada) but this just seems like a mental stretch of any libel law.

michael999999

conorh91 wrote: »

Moriarty did not make any finding of criminality against O'Brien, which is the clear implication of the WWN article.

Sure, WWN might claim that it's satire about a parallel universe. This is known to lawyers as false innuendo, which is defamatory.

WWN might claim a defence of qualified privilege as a satirical publication; to do so, they would need to show an absence of malice. I'm not sure they could have done so.

It's probably for the best that they took this down. They're doing themselves a massive favour. Plenty of media figures, such as Martin Turner, manage to use satire in a very clever way without exposing themselves to liability in defamation. I suggest WWN take a leaf out of Martin Turner's sketchpad.


That has near-zero consequence. Just because a person claims a legal threat is private and confidential, doesn't mean their claim carries any weight in legal terms.

Why doesn't DOB sue Moriarty if he really wants to clear he's name?

Chucken

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I wonder does he have someone employed that trawls the internet 24 hrs a day to see every time his name is mentioned?

I imagine there are people who do that free of charge.

Cienciano

keithclancy wrote: »

Publicity stunt, they went with it by removing the article.

Solicitors letter doesn't mean anything, any normal person would have just thrown it in the bin.


But it's good for hits.

Sure, you wouldn't have done the same. DOB has his own legal team, they could tie you up in court over nothing. Weather what WWN did was legal or not, it would end up costing them time and money. That letter wasn't an idle threat.
Same reason all the news sites and boards.ie shít their pants when they get a letter from his team of solicitors. He has money to burn, he can have people in court over nothing and you will lose in the long term.
Surely you know how the legal system works, it's nothing new and it's not unique to ireland.

Chucken

Cienciano wrote: »

Sure, you wouldn't have done the same. DOB has his own legal team, they could tie you up in court over nothing. Weather what WWN did was legal or not, it would end up costing them time and money. That letter wasn't an idle threat.
Same reason all the news sites and boards.ie shít their pants when they get a letter from his team of solicitors. He has money to burn, he can have people in court over nothing and you will lose in the long term.
Surely you know how the legal system works, it's nothing new and it's not unique to ireland.

When was there pants shitting at Boards.ie?

conorh91

Jayop wrote: »

Like I said the only thing the article says that wasn't on record already was that he was prosecuted. Everything else is public record. He did bribe three parties, he did gain information that led to him getting the phone license. Unless he's going to sue the Moiriarty Tribunal now too that's already out there.

That is not what Moriarty found.

Moriarty found certain inferences about payments to politicians to be "reasonable", which falls far below the criminal standard of proof, 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

The distinction, admittedly, is hazy. But it seems reasonably clear that we may repeat the Tribunal's findings as long as we are guarded about our language... we can say that the Tribunal made adverse findings, or that it lent credence to certain allegations. Implying that O'Brien is guilty of a criminal offence, even through innuendo, is only inviting trouble.

michael999999 wrote: »

Why doesn't DOB sue Moriarty if he really wants to clear he's name?

He did sue the Tribunal, he motioned the High Court, and the Supreme Court on appeal, to restrict the scope of the Tribunal's investigations. This was refused.

Tbh, it's not easy to sue a tribunal because politicians have made them fairly legally watertight institutions. That's not to say they operate fairly. The Mahon tribunal was a complete farce, for example. Kangaroo court.

The whole point of a tribunal is for politicians to overthrow the usual standards of public justice, which is properly the domain of the courts anyway. I'd be very slow to lend respect to the findings of a tribunal, being as they are such political institutions.

Cienciano

Chucken wrote: »

When was there pants shitting at Boards.ie?

I seem to remember there was after Dev had a dodgy chinese and someone was in the only cubicle. Nothing to do with DOB

Chucken

Cienciano wrote: »

I seem to remember there was after Dev had a dodgy chinese and someone was in the only cubicle. Nothing to do with DOB

That must have been the day he moved everything into 1 forum

Seriously though, DeVore started a brilliant thread the last time DOB got angsty.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057437972

MillField

Clown.

Salt001

He's a total gob****e. This story has better legs now than before he set his lawyer on the job

Mardy Bum

conorh91 wrote: »

That is not what Moriarty found.

Moriarty found certain inferences about payments to politicians to be "reasonable", which falls far below the criminal standard of proof, 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

The distinction, admittedly, is hazy. But it seems reasonably clear that we may repeat the Tribunal's findings as long as we are guarded about our language... we can say that the Tribunal made adverse findings, or that it lent credence to certain allegations. Implying that O'Brien is guilty of a criminal offence, even through innuendo, is only inviting trouble.

It is a satirical website. It does not pretend to be true.

Take2Sean

Take2Sean wrote: »

The indo app doesn't seem to have this story up. If they do it's well hidden. IT have it top story....I'm actually deleting the Indo. What a joke

It's impossible to do full justice to the range and complexity of language in trying to describe how breathtakingly and egregiously awful Independent Newspapers is. It is, far and away, the most worthy recipient of a boycotting campaign in Irish society. No question about it.

The corporate culture is, well, words fail me. A complete bilious, low-class, superficial, Brit media-copying tabloid rag with zero connection to public interest investigative journalism or indeed to an Irish culture. It has zero redeeming features - and I've long since stopped saying "Gene Kerrigan" when trying really hard to think of a single redemptive characteristic. It retches the most ineffably horrid and horrendous vacuous, cultureless, depthless trash on a profound scale written by a cabal of barely literate "group think" pseudo-intellectual prostitutes who hire out their formidably tiny brains in the service of the agenda of their media oligarch employer. The fact that the "journalists" and "commentators" in question are usually related to each other brings this tragedy for the free press in Irish society into the farce of Independent Newspapers, the incestuous cult.


This in-bred cult has been so since at least the late 1980s when Independent Newspapers, particularly under Aengus Fanning the Sunday Independent editor, and father of all the people with the Fanning surname in the paper (who married Anne Harris, former wife of columnist Eoghan Harris, father of Constance Harris, who was best friends with John Caden whose daughter married Brendan O'Connor who is friends with Shane Ross whose son-in-law is the business journalist Nick Webb...).

O'Brien's predecessor as oligarch God of the Irish media was a guy named Anthony O'Reilly. He was a megalomaniac one-time billionaire thug who dominated Irish media and politics for 40 years. His visits to Independent Newspapers office have been described as akin to a royal visit such was the sycophancy and even tears at his arrival. O'Reilly's rags demonised everybody who refused to kowtow to his agenda and he used his journalists to advance the commercial interests in all his companies, repeatedly advocating government policy changes, advising readers to sell shares that O'Reilly sought to acquire cheaply (A special hello to one Shane Ross on this) and using his newspapers to put pressure on any sections of society which clashed with Anthony O'Reilly's commercial or political interests. This was all done very blatantly but as O'Reilly owned the media, no journalist in The Irish Times (the sole non O'Reilly paper) would dare risk a future job by criticising Anthony O'Reilly. As Vincent Browne has pointed out, before the 2007 general election the Taoiseach and Tánaiste of the day met with O'Reilly to do a deal with him in exchange for his media's support in the 2007 election. This is the reality of our democracy, being held hostage by the wishes of a media oligarch in cahoots with a pliant political class.

Denis O'Brien is merely stepping right into Anthony O'Reilly's shoes. He has seen the unparalleled power O'Reilly exercised over Irish democracy by controlling that newspaper group. He is no different except that he has not been a tyrant for 40 years surrounded by fawning, obsequious Fanning/Harris/Cruise O'Brien/Dudley Edwards/Ross types who rant the way they are told and target every section of society that gets in the way of their owner's business interests.

Everybody who opposes O'Brien and/or his control of Independent Newspapers has a choice: stop buying his rags. Stop clicking on the "free" rag articles for which he gets advertising revenue on Independent.ie. Put Harris, Fanning, O'Connor and all the rest out to grass with the poor and marginalised they have ganged up on for decades (and bring their Pippa Toodlepips, Alison O'Riordan triple z star celebrities with them).

/end rant.

jcon1913

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's not pretend the hatred for DOB stems from that. It comes from Irish begrudgery mostly. That is just incidental.

There are Plenty of rich Irish people but DOB:
1. Became wealthy from the sale of an asset which was bought with the help of corrupt payments to a govt minister
2. Is a tax exile i.e. Pays no tax whatsoever in Ireland
3. Is a greedy man who has an insatiable appetite for material wealth
4. Agressively "defends" his rights e.g. Takes a case against a committee of the houses of parliment because they refused to reprimand a member for exercising parlimentary privelege i.e. Catherine Murphy pursuing DOB by highlighting what was going on
5. Feels the need to control large sections of the media i.e. Independent News, Newstalk, and other radio stations
6. Has taken dozens of cases against individual journalists to silence them because they had the temerity to question or critsise DOB

Personally I despise the man for the above reasons. I couldnt care less how wealthy he is.

He wont live a second longer than his alotted time on earth. He can only sleep in one house at a time and eat one dinner a day ( oops ), but tries to inflicts misery on anyone who stands up to him.

Oh yeah thats the last reason:

7. Hes a bully

hullaballoo

conorh91 has already weighed in on this so my opinion is probably redundant (plus I know how well-received lawyers views tend to be here :rolleyes:) but it was an astoundingly stupid move by WWN to post that letter on Twitter.

It's a perfect lesson in how to lose a case in ten re-tweets.

ComfortKid

Chucken wrote:

When was there pants ****ting at Boards.ie?

Well the article was posted in the OP and Moderator immediately pulled it down, so they're at least shartin in their pants, even without getting a letter from his legal team.

jungleman

hullaballoo wrote: »

conorh91 has already weighed in on this so my opinion is probably redundant (plus I know how well-received lawyers views tend to be here :rolleyes:) but it was an astoundingly stupid move by WWN to post that letter on Twitter.

It's a perfect lesson in how to lose a case in ten re-tweets.

I know nothing about the law, so bear with my ignorance here. How was it a stupid move? If he goes ahead and sues, them could publishing the letter on twitter go against them in some way?

michael999999

conorh91 wrote: »

That is not what Moriarty found.

Moriarty found certain inferences about payments to politicians to be "reasonable", which falls far below the criminal standard of proof, 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

The distinction, admittedly, is hazy. But it seems reasonably clear that we may repeat the Tribunal D's findings as long as we are guarded about our language... we can say that the Tribunal made adverse findings, or that it lent credence to certain allegations. Implying that O'Brien is guilty of a criminal offence, even through innuendo, is only inviting trouble.

He did sue the Tribunal, he motioned the High Court, and the Supreme Court on appeal, to restrict the scope of the Tribunal's investigations. This was refused.

Tbh, it's not easy to sue a tribunal because politicians have made them fairly legally watertight institutions. That's not to say they operate fairly. The Mahon tribunal was a complete farce, for example. Kangaroo court.

The whole point of a tribunal is for politicians to overthrow the usual standards of public justice, which is properly the domain of the courts anyway. I'd be very slow to lend respect to the findings of a tribunal, being as they are such political institutions.

So the lawyers filling there pockets, was the sum total of the tribunals?

Dr. Mantis Toboggan

They didn't need to post the letter imo, they could have just stated they got it.

Plus, I also think the picture they posted with Denis O'Brien standing like a hunter over his slain prey (Ireland) was a bit lame. They should have just taken the piss out of the little man instead of acting like fcuking martyrs.

hullaballoo

jungleman wrote: »

I know nothing about the law, so bear with my ignorance here. How was it a stupid move? If he goes ahead and sues, them could publishing the letter on twitter go against them in some way?

It's stupid mainly because the actions of a defendant publisher put on notice of an action will be taken into account when the decision as to how many zeros go on the order for damages.

There are many, many other reasons why it is stupid. But that's the main one.

jcon1913

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Because they are not business people. The Irish don't understand business - they think every business person is corrupt. It's a cultural problem in Ireland. Someone doing well for themselves is to be kicked relentlessly by people, who to be perfectly honest, have not and sometimes have no intention of doing anything for themselves. A lot of the grief O'Brien gets is nothing to do with people's opinions of alleged wrongdoing. It has more to do with the Irish begrudgery malfunction that sadly has come back in the recession again when there was hopes it might have been fading.

Im tempted to kick you again but then realised everyone else already has. Shame

Reiver

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's stupid mainly because the actions of a defendant publisher put on notice of an action will be taken into account when the decision as to how many zeros go on the order for damages.

But they mightn't have to pay damages

johnny osbourne

tell him to feck off

Mardy Bum

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's stupid mainly because the actions of a defendant publisher put on notice of an action will be taken into account when the decision as to how many zeros go on the order for damages.

There are many, many other reasons why it is stupid. But that's the main one.

Is it against the law for proclaimed satirical websites to publish satirical articles? Are stand up comedians sued often?

hullaballoo

Reiver wrote: »

But they mightn't have to pay damages

That pre-supposes that they would go to hearing and take a potentially devastating risk. Do you watch Suits? Most cases are settled on the basis of professional consideration of the likely outcome at trial but with no intention of ever getting to that stage.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Is it against the law for proclaimed satirical websites to publish satirical articles? Are stand up comedians sued often?

Satire doesn't enjoy the same level of protection here as it does elsewhere, like the UK and US. There is no specific defence available to satirists simply on the basis that it's satire. You have to try and squeeze satire into an established defence and as conorh91 has already said, malice plays a part in that.

Stand up comedians usually avoid defaming people, so no, they are not sued that often.

Ruu

Rare one of DOB legal eagles.

Skylinehead

Ruu wrote: »

Rare one of DOB legal eagles.

Damn their oily hides!

Chucken

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Mod

I've snipped the article in question for now, will speak to others and will re-add it if there are no issues

Cienciano wrote: »

Sure, you wouldn't have done the same. DOB has his own legal team, they could tie you up in court over nothing. Weather what WWN did was legal or not, it would end up costing them time and money. That letter wasn't an idle threat.
Same reason all the news sites and boards.ie shít their pants when they get a letter from his team of solicitors. He has money to burn, he can have people in court over nothing and you will lose in the long term.
Surely you know how the legal system works, it's nothing new and it's not unique to ireland.

Chucken wrote: »

When was there pants shitting at Boards.ie?

ComfortKid wrote: »

Well the article was posted in the OP and Moderator immediately pulled it down, so they're at least shartin in their pants, even without getting a letter from his legal team.

Mods are volunteers doing the best for the site. Unpaid volunteers. Lets not panic and say that Boards.ie is doing stuff in its pants

I was only wondering was there an instance that I missed where DOBs solicitors contacted Boards.ie.

conorh91

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Satire doesn't enjoy the same level of protection here as it does elsewhere, like the UK and US. There is no specific defence available to satirists simply on the basis that it's satire.

I like WWN and I wouldn't like to see them destroyed by litigation for the sake of being our guinea pig, but it certainly would be interesting to see how far the law is willing to go in defence of satirical publications.

S.18 of the Defamation Act, 'Qualified Privilege', and s.26, 'Fair & reasonable publication' seem to allow very broad discretion. It's a complete stab in the dark though.

Calhoun

Great he is doing stuff like this, the same guy suing the goverment and the same goverment whose leader hasn't the balls to come out publically against him after the crap earlier this year.

Good reminder why FG need to go more than any.

gladrags

jcon1913 wrote: »

There are Plenty of rich Irish people but DOB:
1. Became wealthy from the sale of an asset which was bought with the help of corrupt payments to a govt minister
2. Is a tax exile i.e. Pays no tax whatsoever in Ireland
3. Is a greedy man who has an insatiable appetite for material wealth
4. Agressively "defends" his rights e.g. Takes a case against a committee of the houses of parliment because they refused to reprimand a member for exercising parlimentary privelege i.e. Catherine Murphy pursuing DOB by highlighting what was going on
5. Feels the need to control large sections of the media i.e. Independent News, Newstalk, and other radio stations
6. Has taken dozens of cases against individual journalists to silence them because they had the temerity to question or critsise DOB

Personally I despise the man for the above reasons. I couldnt care less how wealthy he is.

He wont live a second longer than his alotted time on earth. He can only sleep in one house at a time and eat one dinner a day ( oops ), but tries to inflicts misery on anyone who stands up to him.

Oh yeah thats the last reason:

7. Hes a bully

8. And a coward.

Good to see one of the very few media outlets to out O'Brien on Siteserv,still has the courage of its convictions.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/08/06/meanwhile-in-a-parallel-universe-2/

Reiver

Skylinehead wrote: »

Damn their oily hides!

Perhaps they'd care for some coffee. Black, black like their hearts!

brandnewaward

jcon1913 wrote: »

There are Plenty of rich Irish people but DOB:
1. Became wealthy from the sale of an asset which was bought with the help of corrupt payments to a govt minister
2. Is a tax exile i.e. Pays no tax whatsoever in Ireland
3. Is a greedy man who has an insatiable appetite for material wealth
4. Agressively "defends" his rights e.g. Takes a case against a committee of the houses of parliment because they refused to reprimand a member for exercising parlimentary privelege i.e. Catherine Murphy pursuing DOB by highlighting what was going on
5. Feels the need to control large sections of the media i.e. Independent News, Newstalk, and other radio stations
6. Has taken dozens of cases against individual journalists to silence them because they had the temerity to question or critsise DOB

Personally I despise the man for the above reasons. I couldnt care less how wealthy he is.

He wont live a second longer than his alotted time on earth. He can only sleep in one house at a time and eat one dinner a day ( oops ), but tries to inflicts misery on anyone who stands up to him.

Oh yeah thats the last reason:

7. Hes a bully

isnt he part of the bilderberg group too? i remember one of the alex jones films ( i know , i know) where he was camped outside one of the resorts mouthing off with a megaphone at the guys being chauffeured in , and he had a list in his hand and DOB's name was clearly visable at one point

sabat

gladrags wrote: »

8. And a coward.

9. And a fat bastard.

Allyall

Seeing all of his publications support and speak out for Je Suis Charlie so recently, annoys the F*ck out of me.

Anyone know how to update this?
https://userstyles.org/styles/91140/even-herald-ireland-blocker

It blocks the Herald and Independent from Google (news), but recently the stories appear with unclickable headlines.

It would be better if it made them (and all of his media) invisible.

conorh91

sabat wrote: »

9. And a fat bastard.

With that kind of eloquent analysis, there isn't a jury or judge in the land who could dissent.

Why don't we just conduct all litigation through the weighing scales? Lady Justice carries a balance in her hand, after all.

aziz

Is it too early ( or late ) for a Je Suis Waterford Whispers campaign

FalconGirl

For a supposedly shrewd businessman, DOB is pretty idiotic on the PR front.......

The_Valeyard

FalconGirl wrote: »

For a supposedly shrewd businessman, DOB is pretty idiotic on the PR front.......

Yep. He seems determined to step on every mine he can.

conorh91

FalconGirl wrote: »

For a supposedly shrewd businessman, DOB is pretty idiotic on the PR front.......

You're assuming (i) that the counterfactual, an unrestrained media, would be more generous to O'Brien's reputation and, (ii) that O'Brien cares about his reputation in Ireland. I don't discount the possibility that his legal threats are based purely upon retribution on the media, not necessarily intending to affirm his good name.

Irish public opinion of Denis O'Brien is not particularly relevant to his vast wealth.

Chucken

conorh91 wrote: »

With that kind of eloquent analysis, there isn't a jury or judge in the land who could dissent.

Why don't we just conduct all litigation through the weighing scales? Lady Justice carries a balance in her hand, after all.

She'll carry a fair weight when the ordinary people of this country have their say.

Jayop

conorh91 wrote: »

You're assuming (i) that the counterfactual, an unrestrained media, would be more generous to O'Brien's reputation and, (ii) that O'Brien cares about his reputation in Ireland. I don't discount the possibility that his legal threats are based purely upon retribution on the media, not necessarily intending to affirm his good name.

Irish public opinion of Denis O'Brien is not particularly relevant to his vast wealth.

I would imagine it's purely to try to stop any serious investigative journalist from seriously prying into his business.

Samaris

In truth, and as much as I might not wish to say it, I reckon WWN asked for it. O Brian pretty much had to issue a cease and desist on that particular article (and yeah, I read it) as to not do so could imply a certain legitimacy to what they wrote given his libel-happy lawyers. Parallel universe is a rubbish 'defence'; it leveled accusations against him that the Tribunal apparently couldn't pin on him with enough surety to result in criminal charges thus, in legal terms, he's innocent and thus its defamatory (as I understand it). Doesn't matter what the dogs in the street know (or at least are pretty sure of), legally that means sod-all.

Basically, as satire, it was FAR too blunt. And technically, given the wording of the article, WWN accused him outright of things the Tribunal couldnt state with certainty, it was the 'arrest' that was the parallel universe shtick.

Nodin

tomwaterford wrote: »

Because he's rich??

Govt rightly or wrongly don't want to see wealth leave the country?

Maltese resident Mr O'Brien is indeed wealthy.

Nodin

Samaris wrote: »

In truth, and as much as I might not wish to say it, I reckon WWN asked for it. O Brian pretty much had to issue a cease and desist on that particular article (and yeah, I read it) as to not do so could imply a certain legitimacy to what they wrote given his libel-happy lawyers. Parallel universe is a rubbish 'defence'; it leveled accusations against him that the Tribunal apparently couldn't pin on him with enough surety to result in criminal charges thus, in legal terms, he's innocent and thus its defamatory (as I understand it). Doesn't matter what the dogs in the street know (or at least are pretty sure of), legally that means sod-all.

Basically, as satire, it was FAR too blunt. And technically, given the wording of the article, WWN accused him outright of things the Tribunal couldnt state with certainty, it was the 'arrest' that was the parallel universe shtick.

The tribunal couldn't make findings that result in criminal charges. Any subsequent investigation would have to start from scratch, afaik.

Eugene Norman

Samaris wrote: »

In truth, and as much as I might not wish to say it, I reckon WWN asked for it. O Brian pretty much had to issue a cease and desist on that particular article (and yeah, I read it) as to not do so could imply a certain legitimacy to what they wrote given his libel-happy lawyers. Parallel universe is a rubbish 'defence'; it leveled accusations against him that the Tribunal apparently couldn't pin on him with enough surety to result in criminal charges thus, in legal terms, he's innocent and thus its defamatory (as I understand it). Doesn't matter what the dogs in the street know (or at least are pretty sure of), legally that means sod-all.

Basically, as satire, it was FAR too blunt. And technically, given the wording of the article, WWN accused him outright of things the Tribunal couldnt state with certainty, it was the 'arrest' that was the parallel universe shtick.

The tribunal did pin all that stuff on him. It was not a court however and couldn't convict. The decision to prosecute or not was up to the DPP.

The difference with the parallel universe is how pro active the DPP was. That's all. Maybe the laws are also different. I can't see any libel.

Eugene Norman

Nodin wrote: »

The tribunal couldn't make findings that result in criminal charges. Any subsequent investigation would have to start from scratch, afaik.

They'd have a pretty good head start. Hand the tribunal investigations to the gardai. Hand those to the DPP.

The child abuse tribunals resulted in some criminal investigations.

gladrags

conorh91 wrote: »

You're assuming (i) that the counterfactual, an unrestrained media, would be more generous to O'Brien's reputation and, (ii) that O'Brien cares about his reputation in Ireland. I don't discount the possibility that his legal threats are based purely upon retribution on the media, not necessarily intending to affirm his good name.

Irish public opinion of Denis O'Brien is not particularly relevant to his vast wealth.

The Irish printed media,or large proportions of it,are counterfactual,the INM being a prime example.

Because he is wealthy and powerful,within the confines of what power and wealth can bring,does not mean his ego or rationale is any more or less suspect

Howard Hughes comes to mind.

Power does strange things to some people.

hairyslug

Is he not doing himself more harm than good here.
It's not as if this was printed in a major publication, I read it yesterday,didn't think it was one of WW finer pieces and I moved on, didn't retweet, didnt talk about it to anyone. Now it's everywhere,I'm sure a lot of people on boards would not have known about it until this thread appeared. As with a lot of problems that are reported, if you ignore them they will go away, should that not be the plan here, but hey, what do I know if it wasnt for Mr O'Brien, I would have been in the jobs I've been in for the past 15 years

Phoebas

Chucken wrote: »

She'll carry a fair weight when the ordinary people of this country have their say.

She wears a blindfold.

10green bottles

Always good to come upon a story that rides O'BRIEN & that piece of sh1t Lowry into the ground and makes dust out of them.
These are the guys that rid Ireland to death and took the bailiffs in.
Just remember that.
These were the guys that ****ed up any hope we had and these are the people that sent this country spiraling downwards and the sad thing is people here still support these pieces of crud.
People in Mountjoy for not paying a TV licence while this band are still sending out letters to protect themselves!!