Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Declan Ganley - Prime Time special

13»

Comments

  • #102
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    mumhaabu wrote: »
    he was reading the Financial Times at 15 while others his age would be out drinking buckie and having no ambition. He's a self made guy and Politicians fear this. Like him or Loathe him you have to admire the guy, I certainly do and I hope he cleans out RTÉ for a few mill and then donates some of it to Charity. That'll teach them lefty idiots behind RTÉ.

    The cult of celebrity reaches to business men now I see.

    Actually now that I look at the story again, he only took advice from his solicitors. He hasn't actually taken a case against RTE. It's an old trick, send out a press release that you are seeking advice from your legal team about suing and the news usually picks it up as an actual legal case.

    Louis Walsh eat your heart out!
    RTÉ has said it has not had any contact from Mr Ganley or Libertas in relation to the matter and so was unable to comment at this time.

    he's a bleedin' chancer.


  • #103
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've asked before on this thread: what was said on that show that was factually untrue?
    Absolutely nothing.


  • #104
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Actually to one more thing.

    "The tort of defamation protects those whose reputations have been unlawfully injured. It affords little or no protection to those who have, or deserve to have, no reputation deserving of legal protection." - The Hon. Chief Justice, Mr. Ronan Keane
    ireland.com - The Irish Times – IRELAND

    Sorry for the Cut and Paste but I'm quoting cause it's a good point...

    Rte are so worried about Ganleys threats that in the news item announcing his threat they have provided a link for web user to view the Primetime special again!!! This is not usual when threats of legal action are made. Therefore they are laughing at the false threats

    Declan Ganley plans to sue RTÉ

    "they are making an institutional comment on Declan Ganley"

    "Who do you think you are kidding?"

    On another front there were several who whined about the issues raised over the last month eg Russia , Kipelovo Forestry, National Timber, Cyprus, Albania , Kosta T, etc; Anglo Abanian Investment Fund, Declan Ganley's past , Iraq, jack Shaw , Don Di Marino I note that Primetime touched on all those matters so who was off topic??

    Nb "A daily rain falls on Tirana" by John Sweeney The Observer London (UK): Mar 16, 1997. p. C4


    Declan Ganley's first mention in the Observer newspaper in 1997.

    "Over by the bar chatting to some Albanian chancers is pink-fleshed
    gimlet-eyed Declan Ganley, financier from the City of London. Ganley believes in the strength of the Albanian economy. He has to his company Anglo Adriatic does something with funds. I first met him ten days ago
    at Rome airport when he was returning from New York to Tirana. He told
    me all this mess is just your type hyping it up, Berisha is not in
    trouble. All this country need is a couple of good PR men"
    Two months later he told the Guardian that his Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund would have £220,000,000 within one week."

    Underside
    Dan Atkinson
    The Guardian (1959-2003); Mar 21, 1997)
    pg. 24"



    Rte also failed to go into Ganley's other think tank
    http://www.forumonpublicsafety.com
    __________________
    sometimes you can just smell it

    0001dc7710dr.jpg

    http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/37941-prime-time-special-declan-ganley-107.html#post1309759

    http://www.forumonpublicsafety.com/images/forumimag.jpg

    http://www.forumonpublicsafety.com


  • #105
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've asked before on this thread: what was said on that show that was factually untrue?
    Actually, you can still be guilty of defamation under Irish law, even if nothing you've said is technically not a provable fact - it is what is implied or inferred that matters.
    studiorat wrote: »
    he's a bleedin' chancer.
    Which oddly enough was what was implied by the Prime Time programme.


  • #106
    SalthillGuy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 329 ✭✭SalthillGuy


    I imagine a guy like this would not take on RTE unless he had a good angle.
    There is took much to loose.
    It is not like free publicity.
    I hope he wins, as I thought the reporting was biased and influenced by someone.?????


  • #107
    Highsider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Highsider


    SalthillGuy wrote: »
    I imagine a guy like this would not take on RTE unless he had a good angle.
    There is took much to loose.
    It is not like free publicity.
    I hope he wins, as I thought the reporting was biased and influenced by someone.?????
    Of course it was biased...it's RTE


  • #108
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    SalthillGuy wrote: »
    I imagine a guy like this would not take on RTE unless he had a good angle.
    There is took much to loose.
    It is not like free publicity.
    It is free publicity though. Doing nothing sends the message that he accepts RTE's accusations, challenging those accusations puts doubt into people's minds about them. People take out defamation cases for many reasons. Winning isn't always one of them.
    I hope he wins, as I thought the reporting was biased and influenced by someone.?????
    Is this the Brussels conspiracy theory, perchance?


  • #109
    SalthillGuy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 329 ✭✭SalthillGuy


    RTE have a duty to the public for balanced reporting (even accurate). When it is as obvious as RTE made it that night, they do not do themselves any favours and consequently to whole programme lacks credibility.


  • #110
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    SalthillGuy wrote: »
    RTE have a duty to the public for balanced reporting (even accurate).
    Pretty much all reporting has a slant or story. You do research, you develop your story, then you dig further so that you can support this story. If you don't believe me, please feel free to point out any report from any media outlet that does not have a slant.

    As for accuracy, unless you want to suggest that they either misrepresented or even lied as to the facts, it was accurate. Certainly it did not paint a complimentary picture of Ganley's character, but if true, it would be difficult to present them otherwise.
    When it is as obvious as RTE made it that night, they do not do themselves any favours and consequently to whole programme lacks credibility.
    That's not obvious, that's an opinion. Try not to get confused between the two.


  • #111
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Actually, you can still be guilty of defamation under Irish law, even if nothing you've said is technically not a provable fact - it is what is implied or inferred that matters.
    Well, was anything implied or inferred by that program that wasn't true?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Well, was anything implied or inferred by that program that wasn't true?
    It could be argued that there was an implication that his involvement in the Albanian venture was fraudulent. I can't say if there was a clear implication of this, but if I was a libel lawyer, this would likely be the main area I would leverage.

    Additionally, it could be taken that he was portrayed as pathologically untruthful and untrustworthy - a bit of a cowboy. Certainly there is plenty of evidence that he's a bit of a wide-boy, but that's not the same as being fraudulent (for which there is no evidence).

    All of the above are speculative and I moot them purely for the purposes of abstract discussion - Without Prejudice.

    Either way, his announcement I believe that he is seeking legal advice is a PR exercise (seeking legal advice is not, but announcing it is). Whether this translate into legal action, let alone successful legal action, is another matter.


  • #113
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Another thing is that I am assuming that RTE did their homework correctly and that the facts presented are verifiable. If not, these would also be actionable. Remember, in defamation, the onus is on the defendant to prove or show evidence as to their facts. If they cannot to the satisfaction of the court, they will lose the case even if those facts are actually true.


  • #114
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've asked before on this thread: what was said on that show that was factually untrue?

    What on that show was proven?

    What on that show was not mere speculation?


  • #115
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    What on that show was proven?

    What on that show was not mere speculation?
    There were quite a few things that were 'proven'; that Ganley ran certain ventures, had associations with certain individuals and did certain things. It is in presenting these things that certain additional conclusions, relating to his motivations and character, were reached that could be argued as being speculative.


  • #116
    Eurosceptic2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 81 ✭✭Eurosceptic2008


    Why were the supposed wife and the supposed former minister not willing to go on camera? We didn't even hear the woman's voice. This is suspicious, and reminds me of McCarthyism and the intolerance of dissent being directed at the no voters and campaigners.


  • #117
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »
    Why were the supposed wife and the supposed former minister not willing to go on camera? We didn't even hear the woman's voice. This is suspicious, and reminds me of McCarthyism and the intolerance of dissent being directed at the no voters and campaigners.
    Are you accusing RTE of lying about what they said? And what, exactly, is a "supposed wife"?


  • #118
    Eurosceptic2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 81 ✭✭Eurosceptic2008


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Are you accusing RTE of lying about what they said? And what, exactly, is a "supposed wife"?

    I'm not accusing but I am inquiring. We have no proof that the widow (the wife I'm talking about) of the murdered Albanian said he had met Ganley. And we didn't see that former Latvian minister on camera. Why was that?


  • #119
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »
    I'm not accusing but I am inquiring.
    Unless it was a rhetorical question, it's directed to the wrong audience: why would anyone here know the answers?
    We have no proof that the widow (the wife I'm talking about) of the murdered Albanian said he had met Ganley.
    I'm still not clear why she's a "supposed" wife. And no, we have no proof. But if the RTE reporter says she said it, then either she said it or RTE are lying about her saying it.
    And we didn't see that former Latvian minister on camera. Why was that?
    Presumably because he didn't want to be on camera. Again, the reporter quoted him - do you think she was lying?


  • #120
    Eurosceptic2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 81 ✭✭Eurosceptic2008


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Unless it was a rhetorical question, it's directed to the wrong audience: why would anyone here know the answers? I'm still not clear why she's a "supposed" wife. And no, we have no proof. But if the RTE reporter says she said it, then either she said it or RTE are lying about her saying it. Presumably because he didn't want to be on camera. Again, the reporter quoted him - do you think she was lying?

    No but I am curious about those issues I asked about. If Ganley is going to sue, he must have basis for doing so.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    So ask RTE.

    I'm curious whether Ganley actually will sue. I'll be mildly surprised if he does. From experience, RTE tend to be cautious about getting their facts straight. I don't believe for a moment that they straight-out fabricated witness statements.


  • #122
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »
    If Ganley is going to sue, he must have basis for doing so.
    If he is going to sue - so far we have a threat of legal action, which is little more than PR that can then be used by his supporters to speculate that "he must have basis for doing so". Just as you are now doing, BTW.

    Even if he does sue, this does not mean that he has a strong case, or a particularly good basis for legal action. Sometimes it is enough to be seen to be suing, especially if the result of any such case does not come out until after a strategic milestone (such as the European elections).

    Given this he may have a good basis for suing, and may win, too - but we don't even have enough information to speculate on this at present, let alone form opinions. All I can say, is that regardless of the strengths his potential case, threatening to sue is a good PR move, as might the PR benefits be of even an unsuccessful case if timed right. This is independent of whether RTE can be sued successfully or not.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    From experience, RTE tend to be cautious about getting their facts straight. I don't believe for a moment that they straight-out fabricated witness statements.
    I think it highly unlikely that they would have fabricated witness statements. Of course, whether they can subsequently prove they said this, or that they are not simply repeating libellous claims (which are libellous in itself) are another thing.


  • #123
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    mumhaabu wrote: »
    RTÉ set out deliberately to tar the guy as some sort of corrupt criminal and did a real hatchet job on him.

    What I find so funny about this statement is that Declan Ganley did the very same thing to the Lisbon Treaty as RTE are being accused of doing to him...


  • #124
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    molloyjh wrote: »
    What I find so funny about this statement is that Declan Ganley did the very same thing to the Lisbon Treaty as RTE are being accused of doing to him...
    Source of money and goal are different.


  • #125
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm curious whether Ganley actually will sue. I'll be mildly surprised if he does. From experience, RTE tend to be cautious about getting their facts straight. I don't believe for a moment that they straight-out fabricated witness statements.
    And mildly surprised you are!

    Ganley to sue Rté for defamation over this programme broadcast November 2008
    The legal action relates to a Prime Time programme, which aired in November 2008, during the Lisbon Treaty Referendum.
    Mr. Ganley believes that the programme contained "extremely serious, defamatory allegations" against him.
    He also accuses the Prime Time team of attempting to discredit him both personally and professionally and undermine his opposition to the Lisbon Treaty. http://www.galwaynews.ie/23301-declan-ganley-sue-rte-defamation


  • #126
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm curious whether Ganley actually will sue. I'll be mildly surprised if he does. From experience, RTE tend to be cautious about getting their facts straight. I don't believe for a moment that they straight-out fabricated witness statements.
    I might have agreed with you three years ago when you posted this, but following Philip Boucher-Hayes's screw up over the Pamela Izevbekhai case, I'd have considerably less faith in their competence. I'm surprised he kept his job after that, TBH.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    bbbbb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 733 ✭✭✭bbbbb


    in today's indo
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ganley-takes-legal-action-over-rtes-prime-time-report-2967017.html
    The plenary summons, which was served last Friday evening, comes three years after the programme -- which Mr Ganley believes contained "extremely serious, defamatory allegations" against him -- was aired.


  • #128
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    He took him three years to figure out he was slandered? Very oppurtuntist timing by Mr. Ganley.


  • #129
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    It's not really. Ganley stated publicly a week after the broadcast that he planned to sue rté, see post #97.
    It was updated in May 2009 to:
    A file is being prepared for what Mr Ganley said would be a significant and extensive legal action against RTÉ and Prime Time.


  • #130
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'm sure it's pure coincidence that this case is suddenly ready to go to court within weeks of the "Mission to Prey" fallout.


  • #131
    Dob74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Dob74


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm sure it's pure coincidence that this case is suddenly ready to go to court within weeks of the "Mission to Prey" fallout.


    And the up coming Treaty vote. Ganley hasnt much pull over the media like the gov or large political parties.
    So i am sure rte wont be as tough on him as they have in the past. Or a least that what he is thinking.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    snubbleste wrote: »
    It's not really. Ganley stated publicly a week after the broadcast that he planned to sue rté, see post #97.
    It was updated in May 2009 to:
    Legally irrelevant. Indeed, delaying prosecuting a case of libel can actually work against you - a court will ask why you didn't sue at the start when it first happened, and Ganley would have to have a good reason for this.

    It's possible that he has attained evidence only recently that would help him win a case, although I don't know how this would help him as the onus of evidence is on the defence and not prosecution in a libel case (maybe evidence supporting claims has instead been 'neutralized'). Perhaps he just wants the publicity for an ulterior motive. Perhaps he didn't have the money to pursue such a case three years ago.

    Whatever the reason(s) for his delay they are occult to us; more-so than any other personality in Irish politics Ganley seems to have a scheme within a plan hidden behind a stated intention. Or not.

    It's why I find him the most entertaining personality in Irish politics.


  • #133
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    In a statement, the Libertas chairman said his legal advice was that the programme was actionable.

    A file is being prepared for what Mr Ganley said would be a significant and extensive legal action against RTÉ and Prime Time.

    RTÉ has said it has not had any contact from Mr Ganley or Libertas in relation to the matter and so was unable to comment at this time.

    The station said Prime Time fully stood over the programme as broadcast.

    Guess the date...

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • #134
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    Monica Leech bought a defamation case against a newspaper group in 2009 for articles printed about her in 2004. It was found she was defamed. Go figure the 4+ year timeframe.


  • #135
    chunkylover4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 243 ✭✭chunkylover4


    The statute of limitations is two years if you can prove that a special reason exists as to why it should be extended from one year.
    However if the material is still available then publication is ongoing so possibly the material is available online?
    38.— (1) Section 11 of the Act of 1957 is amended—
    (a) in subsection (2), by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (c):
    “(c) A defamation action within the meaning of the Defamation Act 2009 shall not be brought after the expiration of—
    (i) one year, or
    (ii) such longer period as the court may direct not exceeding 2 years,
    from the date on which the cause of action accrued


  • #136
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    snubbleste wrote: »
    Monica Leech bought a defamation case against a newspaper group in 2009 for articles printed about her in 2004. It was found she was defamed. Go figure the 4+ year timeframe.
    Winning a defamation case is one thing, level of damages is another.


  • #137
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    chunkylover4 wrote: »
    The statute of limitations is two years if you can prove that a special reason exists as to why it should be extended from one year.
    However if the material is still available then publication is ongoing so possibly the material is available online?
    38.— (1) Section 11 of the Act of 1957 is amended—
    (a) in subsection (2), by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (c):
    “(c) A defamation action within the meaning of the Defamation Act 2009 shall not be brought after the expiration of—
    (i) one year, or
    (ii) such longer period as the court may direct not exceeding 2 years,
    from the date on which the cause of action accrued

    The 2009 Defamation Act is not retroactive.


  • #138
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    mountainyman wrote: »
    The 2009 Defamation Act is not retroactive.

    BY which I think you mean it does not apply to a defamation case based on a libel before 2009, but I don't think you're right - the law should apply to any case taken after the law is passed:
    The law of defamation in Ireland is governed by the Constitution, common law and the Defamation Act 2009. That Act repeals the Defamation Act 1961, which was in force until the first day of 2010. The Defamation Act 2009 now governs all claims of defamation arising since the commencement of the new legislation

    On the other hand, the article I cited earlier is from 2008, so it's possible Ganley can point to his intention to sue at that point as bypassing the limitations period.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #139
    censuspro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So ask RTE.

    I'm curious whether Ganley actually will sue. I'll be mildly surprised if he does. From experience, RTE tend to be cautious about getting their facts straight. I don't believe for a moment that they straight-out fabricated witness statements.

    Fr Kevin Reynolds, RTE defamation case doesn't come to mind?


  • #140
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    censuspro wrote: »
    Fr Kevin Reynolds, RTE defamation case doesn't come to mind?
    It certainly didn't come to mind in 2008 when I made the post you quoted.


  • #141
    censuspro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It certainly didn't come to mind in 2008 when I made the post you quoted.

    Well it comes to mind now, and surely part of the reason why Ganley has decided to act now. Either way, I take you won't be changing your position?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    censuspro wrote: »
    Well it comes to mind now, and surely part of the reason why Ganley has decided to act now.
    If you're suggesting that this is opportunistic of Ganley, I won't disagree.
    Either way, I take you won't be changing your position?
    I've revised my view of RTE's commitment to accuracy, in light of the case you mentioned and others over the past three years. You could have asked, instead of assuming.


Advertisement