denis o brien takes out yet another high court action, this time against RTE/Pravda

54and56

My name is URL wrote: »

I've broken rules in the knowledge that getting caught would get me in trouble.

But you didn't get caught and you therefore didn't get in trouble. If you apply your logic to DOB we all pretty much accept he bribed Lowry but in the eyes of the criminal law he didn't get caught so he has no criminal conviction and just like you he's going to get away with it. That pi$$es a lot of people off but given the alternative is convicting people of crimes without sufficient evidence I think letting DOB off the hook is the lessor of two evils.

My name is URL wrote: »

You seem to be of the opinion that just because person A breaks a rule/law, that person B should be exempt from criticism or comeuppance as a result.

Not the soundest of logic really.

You're either being selective or deliberately misleading. DOB hasn't been charged with breaking any rule/law. We all feel he did but there has never ben enough evidence produced to charge him. Criticise away but he'll only get any form of comeuppance if he can be criminally charged.

My name is URL wrote: »

Sure why bother having standards in business and political spheres at all, why bother investigating crimes or corruption.

We totally should have high standards. We should have strong anti graft legislation and we should have strong penalties for anyone in breach of those laws. That's where we need to start.

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not going to turn a blind eye when someone tries to steal from me directly, and I won't when it's done indirectly either by someone like O'Brien who benefits from taxpayers money by using his pals in government to do special deals for him.

And what special deals are you talking about?

foxtrot101

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

You're either being selective or deliberately misleading. DOB hasn't been charged with breaking any rule/law. We all feel he did but there has never ben enough evidence produced to charge him.

That hasn't been decided yet. The Criminal Assets Bureau investigated the tribunal findings. They presented a report outlining the suspected or potential criminality they had identified to the DPP in 2011. The DPP is still deliberating, apparently.

54and56

foxtrot101 wrote: »

That hasn't been decided yet. The Criminal Assets Bureau investigated the tribunal findings. They presented a report outlining the suspected or potential criminality they had identified to the DPP in 2011. The DPP is still deliberating, apparently.

If they have enough to make it stick they should bring charges, what can they be waiting for?

hatrickpatrick

This argument has become quite frightening, frankly. What you're basically saying is that we should not differentiate between major and minor crimes, that we should not differentiate between crimes which have far reaching consequences for others and crimes which have few, and that because corruption is part of human nature we should just tolerate it.

I suppose by this logic, we shouldn't differentiate between running a red light and murder-rape, nor should we seek to punish the perpetrators of either because both are part of human nature.

:eek:

54and56

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This argument has become quite frightening, frankly. What you're basically saying is that we should not differentiate between major and minor crimes, that we should not differentiate between crimes which have far reaching consequences for others and crimes which have few, and that because corruption is part of human nature we should just tolerate it.

I suppose by this logic, we shouldn't differentiate between running a red light and murder-rape, nor should we seek to punish the perpetrators of either because both are part of human nature.

:eek:

No, what I'm saying is that fraud is wrong and we should have statutes and punishments to act as deterrents but I'm also saying that fraud is fraud whether it's thousands of people scamming hundreds of Euro in social welfare claims or being paid for hours not actually worked or whether it's one guy buying his way to success in a tender. Both rip people/taxpayers off and both should be punished.

I'm also not equating fraud with murder/rape and don't know anyone who would

hatrickpatrick

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

No, what I'm saying is that fraud is wrong and we should have statutes and punishments to act as deterrents but I'm also saying that fraud is fraud whether it's thousands of people scamming hundreds of Euro in social welfare claims or being paid for hours not actually worked or whether it's one guy buying his way to success in a tender. Both rip people/taxpayers off and both should be punished.

I agree. That is not remotely what you have been claiming. You have been claiming that because some extremely low level interpersonal "crimes" go unpunished, so should large scale fraud which affects all of society.

I'm also not equating fraud with murder/rape and don't know anyone who would

It's called an analogy. You're arguing that because tiny wrongs with no victims go unpunished, so should major ones. Why should your logic only be applied to fraud?

You come across as trying to justify letting powerful people off the hook for major crimes, on the basis that extremely minor non-crimes are sometimes not punished. You are also arguing that because committing crimes may be human nature, they should not be punished either.

If this is not what you are trying to argue, please clarify.

stan larsen

tayto lover wrote: »

We are supposed to receive the highest standards from our politicians.

We receive the standards we demand from our politicians. And while someone like Michael Lowry continues to be elected to the Dáil, it's hard to argue that our demands are particularly high.

michael999999

^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/02/11/so-why-did-that-money-end-up-in-your-wifes-account-mr-martin/

fxotoole

Streetwalker wrote: »

This man has far too much power in this nation. He can get 12 members of the police force to guard a water meter and stop the national broadcaster from talking about him.

There's so many thing wrong with this statement, that I don't know where to begin.

blinding

Seriously ! What does he want us NOT to know ? ? ?

54and56

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree. That is not remotely what you have been claiming. You have been claiming that because some extremely low level interpersonal "crimes" go unpunished, so should large scale fraud which affects all of society.

It's called an analogy. You're arguing that because tiny wrongs with no victims go unpunished, so should major ones. Why should your logic only be applied to fraud?

You come across as trying to justify letting powerful people off the hook for major crimes, on the basis that extremely minor non-crimes are sometimes not punished. You are also arguing that because committing crimes may be human nature, they should not be punished either.

If this is not what you are trying to argue, please clarify.

Ok, here's the clarification.

I am NOT claiming that because some extremely low level interpersonal "crimes" go unpunished, so should large scale fraud which affects all of society.

Clear?

54and56

blinding wrote: »

Seriously ! What does he want us NOT to know ? ? ?

His personal private and confidential banking details. The same as all of us. Just because "we" own AIB and IBRC didn't mean the personal financial details of customers of those institutions should be made public knowledge does it?

Also, why should one private citizens information be made public? We can't simply discriminate against someone because they are rich. People either have a right to pretext the privacy of their personal banking arrangements or not. Cherry picking who has and who hasn't the right is a slippery slope.

blinding

So long as he is not trying to hide anything dodgy. He has a bit of a dodgy record and some dodgy bedfellows.

When you have been a bit dodgy with dodgy connections and have benefitted from this dodginess then people may be concerned that you are continuing in your dodginess.

_Kaiser_

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

His personal private and confidential banking details. The same as all of us. Just because "we" own AIB and IBRC didn't mean the personal financial details of customers of those institutions should be made public knowledge does it?

Also, why should one private citizens information be made public? We can't simply discriminate against someone because they are rich. People either have a right to pretext the privacy of their personal banking arrangements or not. Cherry picking who has and who hasn't the right is a slippery slope.

The problem with your comparison to "average Joe" is that the individual in question has a tribunal judgement against him that says he bribed a TD to win a mobile phone license - which he then built his fortune on, another tribunal in the making around the Siteserv deal/Anglo loans write-off, has well-established links to the FG party to the point where he's referred to as "Uncle Denis" by them, and he uses his dominance in the media to silence the press reports about him and his businesses.
I'm also not convinced that his purchase of the Beacon hospital in Dublin last year around the same time as his FG friends were bleating on about mandatory health insurance was entirely coincidental either... were it not for the IW disaster I'm sure we'll all be shelling out for that now too.

And despite your claims, I'm sure if it was say me personally (random average Joe) who got a write-off of 100 million at your/the taxpayer's expense while you struggle to pay your own bills and keep a roof over your head you'd want to know why!

gordongekko

blinding wrote: »

Seriously ! What does he want us NOT to know ? ? ?

His private banking details

_Kaiser_

gordongekko wrote: »

His private banking details

But it's not actually his current account we're interested in, it's the accounts of a company which received a substantial taxpayer funded write off - and the details of that agreement, and which went on to win a lucrative taxpayer funded contact as a result, despite its Sierra subsidiary not actually existing when the contract was awarded.

As I said above, it's another tribunal in the making.

stan larsen

gordongekko wrote: »

His private banking details

That’s just the thing.

If it is just his own private business then we have no need to know. There certainly is a lot that Denis does that is very much in the public interest and we do have a right to know.

How do we know which is the case here? Well a high court judge ruled that it was the former. So what’s the problem?

blinding

gordongekko wrote: »

His private banking details

Could we just get One Honest Joe/Josephine (if we can find one) to have a look and tell us if he is a crook or not coz like….. you know a lot of people think he is a crook with crooked politicians on his payroll.

_Kaiser_

blinding wrote: »

Could we just get One Honest Joe/Josephine (if we can find one) to have a look and tell us if he is a crook or not coz like….. you know a lot of people think he is a crook with crooked politicians on his payroll.

Don't need "average Joe/Josephine" - just ask Judge Moriarty and his team

Conclusions
Lowry "secured the winning" of the 1995 mobile licence for O'Brien.
O'Brien made two payments to Lowry in 1996 and 1999 totalling IR£500,000 (GB£147,000 and GB£300,000) and supported a loan of GB£420,000 given to Lowry in 1999, a benefit equivalent to a payment.
Lowry imparted substantive information to O'Brien which was "of significant value and assistance to him in securing the licence".
Lowry bypassed consideration by his Cabinet colleagues and thereby not only influenced, but delivered the result for Esat Digifone.
A US$50,000 donation to Fine Gael was made through Telenor on behalf of Esat Digifone.
Lowry sought to influence a hike in the lease for Marlborough House (Telecom Eireann headquarters) following a request from Mr Dunne. These rent increases would have improperly enriched Dunne, and were deemed to be "profoundly corrupt".
Lowry was criticised for his "cynical and venal abuse of office" and his brazen refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of his financial arrangements with O'Brien and Dunne.

blinding

^^^^^^^^………..

So he is a crook with the right connections……….. therefore carry-on crooking ….he will be looked after.

Nice connections if you can buy them ! ! !

54and56

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

But it's not actually his current account we're interested in, it's the accounts of a company which received a substantial taxpayer funded write off - and the details of that agreement, and which went on to win a lucrative taxpayer funded contact as a result, despite its Sierra subsidiary not actually existing when the contract was awarded.

Do you just randomly make stuff up and repeat it enough times until people think it's true?

Sierra has existed for over 30 years!! Check their homepage or CRO.

Taken from their homepage - "With over thirty years’ experience in delivering high quality integrated solutions to blue chip clients like ESB, Sky, UPC, Electric Ireland, Digicel, Scottish Power, Irish Water and a multitude of public sector bodies, we have become the nation’s leading support services provider."

54and56

blinding wrote: »

Could we just get One Honest Joe/Josephine (if we can find one) to have a look and tell us if he is a crook or not coz like….. you know a lot of people think he is a crook with crooked politicians on his payroll.

The honest Joe you are looking for already exists, it is called the Gardai, the DPP and the Courts. They have all the power required to investigate and prosecute. Unfortunately they can only investigate and prosecute based on our existing anti graft/fraud/bribery laws and IMHO those laws are antiquated and need to be strengthened. DOB can't be retrospectively charged for breaking laws which didn't exist when he bribed Lowry. IT's a shame but that's life. We should focus our energy on drafting new tighter laws rather than bolting the door when the DOB horse has gone.

Chips Lovell

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

But it's not actually his current account we're interested in, it's the accounts of a company which received a substantial taxpayer funded write off - and the details of that agreement....

The case didn't relate to Siteserv accounts. It was O'Brien's personal accounts.

Rubberchikken

it doesn't state that 'sierra' have been in business 30 years. the 'with over thirty years..' spiel can be related to any part of this. to un ravel the companies involved to where it is todayy would be like unravelling string after the cat played with it. check it out a bit better and you'll see.

i'd never be too quick off the mark to defend the politicians and certain business men that run this country.

54and56

blinding wrote: »

^^^^^^^^………..

So he is a crook with the right connections……….. therefore carry-on crooking ….he will be looked after.

Nice connections if you can buy them ! ! !

IMHO the real crook in that episode was Lowry. He was elected by the people to represent and protect the interests of the people and he took an oath of office committing to same. DOB had no agenda other than commercial gain. In any competition people will always look for a way of securing an advantage over their rivals. It's human nature. I'm not condoning it (and I advocate stronger anti graft laws to deter it) but it is to be expected which is why the process needs to be robust (awarding of the licence shouldn't have effectively been in the gift of a single person) and the person leading the process i.e. Lowry in this case needs to have checks and balances which throw up red flags if anything improper is happening.

54and56

Rubberchikken wrote: »

it doesn't state that 'sierra' have been in business 30 years. the 'with over thirty years..' spiel can be related to any part of this. to un ravel the companies involved to where it is todayy would be like unravelling string after the cat played with it. check it out a bit better and you'll see.

i'd never be too quick off the mark to defend the politicians and certain business men that run this country.

Man you need to take off the tin foil hat. I just checked CRO and SIERRA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Company # 105844 was incorporated on 19/02/1985 (over 30 years ago)

Consider the string unravelled -

Playboy

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

IMHO the real crook in that episode was Lowry. He was elected by the people to represent and protect the interests of the people and he took an oath of office committing to same. DOB had no agenda other than commercial gain. In any competition people will always look for a way of securing an advantage over their rivals. It's human nature. I'm not condoning it (and I advocate stronger anti graft laws to deter it) but it is to be expected which is why the process needs to be robust (awarding of the licence shouldn't have effectively been in the gift of a single person) and the person leading the process i.e. Lowry in this case needs to have checks and balances which throw up red flags if anything improper is happening.

Are you smoking crack? In what world is bribing a public official to win a contract equate to not being a crook. It is the definition of a crook and its the type of behavior we associate with countries we look down our nose at. Lowry wasn't a crook, he was worse than that, he betrayed the people who elected him for his own personal gain... a number of words come to mind and all of them a lot stronger than crook.

darkpagandeath

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Man you need to take off the tin foil hat. I just checked CRO and SIERRA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Company # 105844 was incorporated on 19/02/1985 (over 30 years ago)

Consider the string unravelled -

And was insolvant. At the time.

_Kaiser_

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Man you need to take off the tin foil hat. I just checked CRO and SIERRA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Company # 105844 was incorporated on 19/02/1985 (over 30 years ago)

Consider the string unravelled -

*sigh*

In July 2013, GMC Sierra won a State contract to install water meters in Dublin city, the Midlands, Wicklow, Kildare, Offaly, Laois, Mayo, Roscommon, Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim.

GMC Sierra is comprised of GMC Utilities Group and Sierra Support Services Group. Sierra is a subsidiary of Siteserv.

Last December, Independent TD for Kildare North, Catherine Murphy raised her concerns about GMC Sierra’s water meter contract, in the Dáil, asking how could GMC Sierra be awarded a contract [by former Environment Minister Phil Hogan] for water meters even though it didn’t legally come into existence until July 15, 2013, 15 days after the closing date for bids.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/03/05/denis-obrien-fine-gael-and-the-water-meter-deal/


To be fair to you, I'm sure you're well aware of this of course.. you're just trying to spin and be pedantic to deflect from the point which is of course standard tactics in these cases.

On your point about Lowry... no argument there - but it's equally clear from the findings that O'Brien used (and funded) this guy and the information he provided to obtain a license under very questionable circumstances to put it mildly.

I genuinely am baffled though as to why you don't think that this whole Siteserv/Anglo mess and O'Brien's involvement should be questioned, especially as you say on one hand that you don't condone such things either - but then again try to deflect it as "human nature" or blaming "the system" on the other.

falan

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

The honest Joe you are looking for already exists, it is called the Gardai, the DPP and the Courts. .

Do yourself a favour and type 'garda corruption' into Google and see what comes up...

Do it for the craic ;-)