Denis O'Brien gags Waterford Whispers

Nodin

VinLieger wrote: »

They arent in the slightest doing that.

The only people that turned it into an accusation from the funny satire it was are the lawyers who made the huge mistake in acknowledging it. This is the streisand effect in full force. It was a funny piece that would have been forgotten in a few days but now thanks to the lawyers intervening its gonna run and run and run.

But probably not in the Indo.

horgan_p

There must be days when Matt Cooper is practically eating his own face from biting his tongue so much.

suicide_circus

horgan_p wrote: »

There must be days when Matt Cooper is practically eating his own face from biting his tongue so much.

Load of yokes?

wendell borton

The article has disappeared from the google cache, anyone got another link.

Birneybau

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.

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?

Looking for examples of begrudgery?

Birneybau

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Won't quote it all but the whole thing was superb.

seamus

VinLieger wrote: »

The only people that turned it into an accusation from the funny satire it was are the lawyers who made the huge mistake in acknowledging it. This is the streisand effect in full force. It was a funny piece that would have been forgotten in a few days but now thanks to the lawyers intervening its gonna run and run and run.

It's an attempt to save his brand.
The shady circumstances of the awarding of the Esat Digifone licence and DOB's involvement with the known corrupt politician Michael Lowry meant that his name was becoming poisonous in Irish politics. Politicians were wary about getting involved with DOB lest they get accused of shady dealings.

So DOB has spent the last 15 years attempting to carefully cultivate a Branson-esque persona. He owns every single independent national radio station in the country, and staff have been fired for talking about things like the Moriarty Tribunal. He offered to help the FAI pay wages for a better manager in an apparent attempt to appear all nice and altruistic. His humanitarian *cough* businesses in Haiti.
And so on, has been doing things like this to portray his character as a cuddly job generator who does his best to be a good person.

That image has threatened to be derailed in recent times, so he's panicking. He doesn't have to actually be found guilty of anything. The merest whiff of dodgy dealings and his political allies will abandon him again, and he loses his ability to influence national policy.

Nodin

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.

My hatred of Denis O'Brien stems from his unbridled arrogance, his abuse of his wealth to silence critics and his seeming immunity from the consequences of wrongdoing, all combined. I can't begrudge him something I don't want, nor would I act like him to get it.

20Cent

Heard on newstalk that the guy who writes the Ross O'carroll Kelly stories got a cease and desist letter for a joke that a character had DOB hairstyle.

Birneybau

20Cent wrote: »

Heard on newstalk that the guy who writes the Ross O'carroll Kelly stories got a cease and desist letter for a joke that a character had DOB hairstyle.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/aug/03/denis-obrien-irish-media-tycoon-who-is-rarely-out-of-the-headlines

My name is URL

The cease and desist letter itself looks like something WWN would come up with

The references to a 'parallel universe' are a sham.

lol... No ****, Sherlock

lemd

The defence calls its first witnesses

nelly17

My name is URL wrote: »

The cease and desist letter itself looks like something WWN would come up with



lol... No ****, Sherlock

When I read it first I had to do a double take because I thought the letter itself was satire

newport2

Nodin wrote: »

My hatred of Denis O'Brien stems from his unbridled arrogance, his abuse of his wealth to silence critics and his seeming immunity from the consequences of wrongdoing, all combined. I can't begrudge him something I don't want, nor would I act like him to get it.

Hold on....

You're saying that if you disapprove of something a wealthy person has done, you're not 100% a complete and utter begrudger by default? In Ireland?

Ah here.

Anyone who doesn't willingly lick the heels of those better off financially is a pure begrudger, plain and simple. We all know that. It's the only possible explanation for it.

suicide_circus

I would invite Mr O'Brien's legal team to issue a similar letter to the administrators of www.moriarty-tribunal.ie on the basis that its contents could damage his good name.

Galway K9

wendell borton wrote: »

The article has disappeared from the google cache, anyone got another link.

Original:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s516/sh/06df09db-ca76-4c2c-ab97-5dd93363562f/e018dbb649650637

Legal threat from DOB to WWN:
https://twitter.com/ColmWhispers/status/629345366585016321

WWN removes the Original and publishes an apolopy:
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/08/07/wwns-apology-to-john-gilligan/

and gives a two fingers to DOB along with it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLv7JM9WEAIh1h9.jpg:large

DOB is getting exposed more and more with each action.

newport2

Galway K9 wrote: »

WWN removes the Original and publishes an apolopy:
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/08/07/wwns-apology-to-john-gilligan/

and gives a two fingers to DOB along with it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLv7JM9WEAIh1h9.jpg:large

DOB is getting exposed more and more with each action.

This is class in their apology:

"Deeming it in the public interest to learn of Dublin’s crime epidemic, Guerin was left with little choice but to directly confront notorious gangland figures for comments relating to allegations against them.
Had she not done so her stories could be prevented from making it to print as criminals could make use of libel laws to suppress the freedom of the press.
WWN is thankful that some 19 years later such tasking, restrictive and wile measures are not taken by individuals to suppress free speech in Ireland."

Satriale

Galway K9 wrote: »

WWN is still going
this is brilliant

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/08/07/wwns-apology-to-john-gilligan/

Ding Ding, we have a winner!

Jayop

Best. Reply. Ever.

tipptom

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's where my disdain for the man lies. He's made his profit from bribery and some people hold him up as a business man. That's not business, that's being a conman.

Have to respectfully disagree with you on that.
He did not con the minister to ensure he had an unfair advantage in getting the license.
The minister was all over that moola that is publicly known about like a rash.

suicide_circus

tipptom wrote: »

Have to respectfully disagree with you on that.
He did not con the minister to ensure he had an unfair advantage in getting the license.
The minister was all over that moola that is publicly known about like a rash.

True. A con and a corrupt bribe are two very different things.

newport2

tipptom wrote: »

Have to respectfully disagree with you on that.
He did not con the minister to ensure he had an unfair advantage in getting the license.
The minister was all over that moola that is publicly known about like a rash.

Denis O'Bribe indeed did not con the minister, both himself and Lowry were well aware of what was going on. It was the rest of us that were conned.

Reiver

Who'd win in a scrap? DOB or Trump?

suicide_circus

Reiver wrote: »

Who'd win in a scrap? DOB or Trump?

The two of them in speedos going at it in a paddling pool filled with beluga caviar

newport2

suicide_circus wrote: »

The two of them in speedos going at it in a paddling pool filled with beluga caviar

Hello again lunch..

Reiver

suicide_circus wrote: »

The two of them in speedos going at it in a paddling pool filled with beluga caviar

Money fight!

http://webmbassy.com/04868

I don't care. I'd pay to watch it.

wnolan1992

suicide_circus wrote: »

The two of them in speedos going at it in a paddling pool filled with beluga caviar

If Trump wins, he becomes President of the US. If O'Brien wins, everyone in Ireland must drop the corruption allegations and hail him as our Dear Leader for eternity.

The loser is roasted on a spit for our amusement.

lbj666

Reiver wrote: »

Who'd win in a scrap? DOB or Trump?

Well one wants to run a country and is sensitive about his hair but is candid about it. The other practically does run a country and will threaten to sue someone who mocks his hair.

conorh91

wnolan1992 wrote: »

bluewolf wrote: »

What if they republished it about a fictional character called Dennis O'Briain

As long as they use the small penis rule in the republished article they should be well protected from this egomaniac.

The so-called "small penis rule" is basically unknown to law, and seems to be some kind of legal urban myth.

If a defamatory statement could be reasonably understood as referring to a person, that person has a cause of action.

So for example, references to "Dennis O'Brian" who has a small penis do not carry any mantle of legal protection at all.

If an article cannot be reasonably understood as referring to a person, then the journalist will have failed a very basic task. In reality, it is difficult to imagine a situation where there could arise a serious dispute as to the identity of the subject of an article.

It would take a remarkably bad journalist to create those conditions.

Jayop

wnolan1992 wrote: »

If Trump wins, he becomes President of the US. If O'Brien wins, everyone in Ireland must drop the corruption allegations and hail him as our Dear Leader for eternity.

The loser is roasted on a spit for our amusement.

If those are the choices I'd be shouting for O'Brien. As repulsive as I find him if trump does somehow manage to get into the Whitehouse we're all in trouble.

Jayop

conorh91 wrote: »

The so-called "small penis rule" is basically unknown to law, and seems to be some kind of legal urban myth.

If a defamatory statement could be reasonably understood as referring to a person, that person has a cause of action.

So for example, references to "Dennis O'Brian" who has a small penis do not carry any mantle of legal protection at all.

If an article cannot be reasonable understood as referring to a person, then the journalist will have failed a very basic task. In reality, it is difficult to imagine a situation where there could a serious dispute about the identity of the subject of an article. It would take a remarkably bad journalist to create those conditions.

I'm assuming you're in the profession Conor?

kupus

.

A_Sober_Paddy

wendell borton wrote: »

The article has disappeared from the google cache, anyone got another link.

Here
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s516/sh/06df09db-ca76-4c2c-ab97-5dd93363562f/e018dbb649650637

wnolan1992

conorh91 wrote: »

The so-called "small penis rule" is basically unknown to law, and seems to be some kind of legal urban myth.

If a defamatory statement could be reasonably understood as referring to a person, that person has a cause of action.

So for example, references to "Dennis O'Brian" who has a small penis do not carry any mantle of legal protection at all.

If an article cannot be reasonably understood as referring to a person, then the journalist will have failed a very basic task. In reality, it is difficult to imagine a situation where there could arise a serious dispute as to the identity of the subject of an article.

It would take a remarkably bad journalist to create those conditions.

Sorry but...

conorh91

Jayop wrote: »

I'm assuming you're in the profession Conor?

How dare you accuse me of being a journalist. Retract, you slanderer.

Jayop

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tee-big.jpg

kupus

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.

Since he owns everything in Ireland, he can easily sway public opinion with his media empire,
But how he came about to have a media empire would be very interesting reading
This is what concerns gobsh1te known as dob.
Jayop covered this down below....

Jayop wrote: »

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

Jayop

Very interesting in Broadsheet. A conversation with a solicitor who previously worked as a media lawyer at RTÉ for six years.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/08/07/no-one-is-beyond-satire/


She says WWN has nothing to worry about.

tipptom

newport2 wrote: »

Denis O'Bribe indeed did not con the minister, both himself and Lowry were well aware of what was going on. It was the rest of us that were conned.

Indeed and the rest of us could be paying for said con for years to come if the other bidders get their day in court.


Meanwhile in much more positive news Mr Lowry TD has fetched a fantastic 500k for a yearling out of an impeccably bred mare by a Coolmore stallion.

suicide_circus

conorh91 wrote: »

The so-called "small penis rule" is basically unknown to law, and seems to be some kind of legal urban myth.

If a defamatory statement could be reasonably understood as referring to a person, that person has a cause of action.

So for example, references to "Dennis O'Brian" who has a small penis do not carry any mantle of legal protection at all.

If an article cannot be reasonably understood as referring to a person, then the journalist will have failed a very basic task. In reality, it is difficult to imagine a situation where there could arise a serious dispute as to the identity of the subject of an article.

It would take a remarkably bad journalist to create those conditions.

On the contrary, I heard Denis O'Brien is a massive penis

nelly17

Jayop wrote: »

I'm assuming you're in the profession Conor?

Nah hes a plumber

steddyeddy

tipptom wrote: »

Have to respectfully disagree with you on that.
He did not con the minister to ensure he had an unfair advantage in getting the license.
The minister was all over that moola that is publicly known about like a rash.

I consider the taxpayer the conned party. Massive government contract given to him by a dodgy TD, we the taxpayer paid for it and Lowry was the one who received payment. This guy think he can bully the Irish people.

conorh91

Jayop wrote: »

Very interesting in Broadsheet. A conversation with a solicitor who previously worked as a media lawyer at RTÉ for six years.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/08/07/no-one-is-beyond-satire/


She says WWN has nothing to worry about.

We should be careful about using English and Irish law as interchangeable in this case, because defamatory statements are defined differently in the two jurisdictions.

England has a higher threshold of seriousness than we have in Ireland. Whilst their Defamation Act requires that a statement "caused or is likely to cause serious harm", our Defamation Act merely requires that a statement " tends to injure a person's reputation".

We therefore have a lower threshold for injury. We don't need to show actual injury. Any ridicule which *might* cause a person to be shunned can be sufficient.

The Broadsheet is correct in saying that statements have to be read in their proper context. Although one has to bear in mind that WWN is a satirical website, can it really be the case that a satirical website, once established, can have a carte blanche? Can it make spurious allegations of paedophilia, for example? Presumably not.

I think that in order to arrive at the opinion that a satirical statement carries no defamatory meaning, a jury would have to form the view that the statement is so preposterous that it would be unreasonable to believe it. In this case, the statements made were a series of credible assaults on a person's reputation, with only the thinnest cloak of satire.

Satriale

suicide_circus wrote: »

On the contrary, I heard Denis O'Brien is a massive penis

:eek:

The J Stands for Jay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Any limited company can do that. A company is a legal person whose officers are 'channeling' it, so to speak.

They're not a limited company.

Eugene Norman

conorh91 wrote: »

We should be careful about using English and Irish law as interchangeable in this case, because defamatory statements are defined differently in the two jurisdictions.

England has a higher threshold of seriousness than we have in Ireland. Whilst their Defamation Act requires that a statement "caused or is likely to cause serious harm", our Defamation Act merely requires that a statement " tends to injure a person's reputation".

We therefore have a lower threshold for injury. We don't need to show actual injury. Any ridicule which *might* cause a person to be shunned can be sufficient.

The Broadsheet is correct in saying that statements have to be read in their proper context. Although one has to bear in mind that WWN is a satirical website, can it really be the case that a satirical website, once established, can have a carte blanche? Can it make spurious allegations of paedophilia, for example? Presumably not.

I think that in order to arrive at the opinion that a satirical statement carries no defamatory meaning, a jury would have to form the view that the statement is so preposterous that it would be unreasonable to believe it. In this case, the statements made were a series of credible assaults on a person's reputation, with only the thinnest cloak of satire.

That's absurd. The article was satirising the inaction of the DPP on the findings of the moriarty report. The report itself is public knowledge.

Besides that the case in England was thrown out because of the context. The seriousness or not of the issue was not the question but where in the paper it was placed. It wasn't the news section do the judge ruled it was ok even though the guardian is not normally a satirical paper.

Nodin

Jayop wrote: »

Very interesting in Broadsheet. A conversation with a solicitor who previously worked as a media lawyer at RTÉ for six years.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/08/07/no-one-is-beyond-satire/


She says WWN has nothing to worry about.

Unfortunately until a court pronounces on it, he would have to worry. In her legal opinion it is, but would he risk whatever cash he has on her? This is the thing - its not an even playing field here. Dinny can afford to lose, and he can afford a dragged out, protracted row without a worry. And he can do it again and again and again.

beauf

Love the WWN. It sails close to wind sometimes.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

the dark phantom

I wonder what WWN favourites Larry Murphy and IS Islamic Seagulls make of this ?