Taoiseach refuses to recall the Dail

nice_guy80

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/no-daacuteil-recall-to-discuss-ban-on-speech-333756.html

Demands for an emergency recall of the Dáil as a parliamentary privilege controversy centring on billionaire tycoon Denis O’Brien raged were rejected by Taoiseach Enda Kenny.

**************
So basically we now have a constitutional crisis over the inability of media outlets to report comments made in the Dail under Dail privilege.

The Dail privilege is enshrined in the constitution and is one of the pillars of democracy and free speech.

Is Enda hiding behind the courts again?
Does this show how one person with access to unlimited wealth can afford to shut up the media (and control it)

BoJack Horseman

Politics is about winning

There is no upside for FG to recall the Dáil for 3 hours of soapboxing from opposition TD's.

If I was Kenny, I wouldn't bother, he's in a lose-lose situation.




As an aside, I'm increasingly weary of the concept of parliamentary privilege.

The concept of nonrecourse, public slander stretches 'free speech' as a concept & is very open to abuse.

blinding

nice_guy80 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/no-daacuteil-recall-to-discuss-ban-on-speech-333756.html

Demands for an emergency recall of the Dáil as a parliamentary privilege controversy centring on billionaire tycoon Denis O’Brien raged were rejected by Taoiseach Enda Kenny.

**************
So basically we now have a constitutional crisis over the inability of media outlets to report comments made in the Dail under Dail privilege.

The Dail privilege is enshrined in the constitution and is one of the pillars of democracy and free speech.

Is Enda hiding behind the courts again?
Does this show how one person with access to unlimited wealth can afford to shut up the media (and control it)

Once you have a certain amount of money you can buy our establishment politicians, media and democracy.:mad:

darkpagandeath

How does a Ruling on RTE transfer to Dail privilege ?

Seth Brundle

blinding wrote: »

Once you have a certain amount of money you can buy our establishment politicians, media and democracy.:mad:

Which establishment politicians have been bought?
How was democracy bought?

blinding

kbannon wrote: »

Which establishment politicians have been bought?
How was democracy bought?

Michael Lowry as the front man for FG (so thereforeFG)

Berti Ahern/Haughey and numerous other FF politicians (so thereforeFF)

The Irish political establishment is bought and paid for.:mad:

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

As an aside, I'm increasingly weary of the concept of parliamentary privilege.

The concept of nonrecourse, public slander stretches 'free speech' as a concept & is very open to abuse.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Dail privilege is a corner stone of our democracy. Every TD has parliamentary privilege because Irish citizens voted for them in a democratic election. Every Tom, Dick or Paddy can't just say anything they like about anyone.

TDs having parliamentary privilege ensures matters of public importance can be communicated to the public. Well, that's if the press was allowed to report on what they said.

In my opinion this story has already gone GUBU.

Seth Brundle

blinding wrote: »

Michael Lowry as the front man for FG (so thereforeFG)

Berti Ahern/Haughey and numerous other FF politicians (so thereforeFF)

The Irish political establishment is bought and paid for.:mad:

A few rotten eggs doesn't mean that "the Irish political establishment is bought and paid for".

You haven't said how democracy was bought.

vicwatson

Why the fook are they not working all of next week anyway, prats

myshirt

Fine Gael truly believe they can absolutely do what they want, absolutely anything,.... come election time throw in a few sweetners in the run up, run a great PR campaign, and job done. This one today by Kenny is amongst the biggest f#ck yous to the Irish people. Insane.

Every f#cking response to an issue is not how will we deal with this, it's what is an appropriate PR strategy to kill this off lads?

That's the central focus, and it's wrong.

I worked in the legal profession, and the outright lack of ethics in some corners was unreal. We don't need to highlight that the majority of government legal spend was concentrated on a certain circle of people during FF time, and then swiftly a separate circle come FG time. Meet some of the operators and strategists in these parties guys, try experience how business is really done in this country, I'll tell you, the mafia wouldn't get a look in.

BoJack Horseman

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Dail privilege is a corner stone of our democracy.

I would consider the ability to vote freely as the cornerstone of democracy, but agree to disagree.

Every TD has parliamentary privilege because Irish citizens voted for them in a democratic election.

No, Oireachtas members enjoy privilege because of article 15 of the constitution.

TDs having parliamentary privilege ensures matters of public importance can be communicated to the public.

Nothing is stopping any TD from doing so.
Leafelet drops from TDs declaring their parochial accomplishments are common.
Communication never ceases.

Seth Brundle

myshirt wrote: »

Fine Gael truly believe they can absolutely do what they want, absolutely anything,.... come election time throw in a few sweetners in the run up, run a great PR campaign, and job done. This one today by Kenny is amongst the biggest f#ck yous to the Irish people. Insane.

Every f#cking response to an issue is not how will we deal with this, it's what is an appropriate PR strategy to kill this off lads?

That's the central focus, and it's wrong.

I worked in the legal profession, and the outright lack of ethics in some corners was unreal. We don't need to highlight that the majority of government legal spend was concentrated on a certain circle of people during FF time, and then swiftly a separate circle come FG time. Meet some of the operators and strategists in these parties guys, try experience how business is really done in this country, I'll tell you, the mafia wouldn't get a look in.

So Kenny should resume the Dáil to discuss something that a court is yet to rule on?
What exactly would be achieved by a recall?
Should our politicians meddle in other ongoing legal cases e.g. murder?
Furthermore, are you just wanting politicians to waffle and spew hot air in yet another debate or do you want to see something actually done?
As for FF and SF looking for this, they're just grandstanding.

Whether or not Catherine Murphy is correct is something that does need to be discovered, discussed and acted upon. But let's not have knee jerk reactions just to humour some parties.

myshirt

Kbannon, that's not the central point. It is the sentiment and force with which the two fingers have been given. And have no doubt, the two fingers have been given. I am not convinced at all there is the required level of sincerity from Kenny, it's bull as I see it, and he and his party need to come out of the long grass on this.

I am also privately aware of things, but I appreciate that carries no weight here. Nevertheless, just context if it's of any help. Your points are valid nonetheless. I hear you.

nice_guy80

I cannot even get onto www.oireachtas.ie

Has Denis O'Brien got an injunction against the internet?

BoJack Horseman

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I cannot even get onto www.oireachtas.ie

Has Denis O'Brien got an injunction against the internet?

Oireachtas.ie is working fine guy.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/

Son Of A Vidic

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I couldn't disagree with you more. Dail privilege is a corner stone of our democracy. Every TD has parliamentary privilege because Irish citizens voted for them in a democratic election. Every Tom, Dick or Paddy can't just say anything they like about anyone.

TDs having parliamentary privilege ensures matters of public importance can be communicated to the public. Well, that's if the press was allowed to report on what they said.

Amen and it's just a pity the privilege isn't used more often, to expose more dodgy dealings.

Seth Brundle

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Amen and it's just a pity the privilege isn't used more often, to expose more dodgy dealings.

Dáil privilege has been abused in the past. Exposing dodgy dealings could be nothing more than politicians trying to score brownie points over non-issues that they can't face legal action over.
Where is the claim about a garda murdering someone now?

Seth Brundle

myshirt wrote: »

Kbannon, that's not the central point. It is the sentiment and force with which the two fingers have been given. And have no doubt, the two fingers have been given. I am not convinced at all there is the required level of sincerity from Kenny, it's bull as I see it, and he and his party need to come out of the long grass on this.

So what exactly would you want Enda to do if he recalled the Dáil?
What can he do that would be seen as bring open, fair and transparent to all?
Is it right that negotiated terms of a loan to a private individual (and as I understand it there's no allegation of political impropriety with it) are disclosed to and discussed in public?

myshirt wrote: »

I am also privately aware of things, but I appreciate that carries no weight here.

So why mention it?

WheatenBriar

I'd agree that Kenny not recalling the Dail is because he doesn't want all the soap boxing
However,the issue will be sorted on Tuesday when the injunction is lifted,as how can it not be? It serves no purpose now,it's like the Ryan Giggs case from a few years ago,we all know who has been riding who by now as the injunction by virtue of the Dail's privilege and Catherine's actions has been trumped

The next course of action to my mind is investigating why or if IBRC's directors signed off on loss making interest rates from loan accounts with the ability to repay,when they had a fiduciary duty to protect the states coffers

BoJack Horseman

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

to expose more dodgy dealings.

That's the crux though.... It isn't doing anything of the sort.

Its simply no-recourse slander with no oversight & no negative consequences for the utterer.

If a member of the oireachtas, or anyone for that matter, knows of criminal activity, they should give the information to the police to investigate.

Criminal activity must be persued & prosecuted via courts.

Criminal accusations, with zero proof, zero follow through & zero consequences are a perversion of what parliamentary privilege is supposed to provide.

Geniass

This is pantomime.

The opposition tend to agitate for a recall of the Dail and the government do their part by saying no.

Considering the cluster fcuk the current government inherited, having to contend with the 'appealing to the masses' anti austerity reality deniers I think the government have done a very good job.

And I cannot blame them for throwing out some sweeties coming up to the election. It's de rigueur.

myshirt

kbannon wrote: »

So why mention it?

Context as I said, if you didn't snip sentences from my post. Context, and context only. Different views, different experiences, and different knowledge inform different people's posts and processing of information.

Could I guess that you are a Daily Mail reader?

Seth Brundle

myshirt wrote: »

Context as I said, if you didn't snip sentences from my post. Context, and context only. Different views, different experiences, and different knowledge inform different people's posts and processing of information.

You said...

myshirt wrote: »

I am also privately aware of things, but I appreciate that carries no weight here. Nevertheless, just context if it's of any help. Your points are valid nonetheless. I hear you.

What context? You suggested you were aware of things but wouldn't mention them.
So why bring it up?

myshirt wrote: »

Could I guess that you are a Daily Mail reader?

You could but you would be wrong.

expectationlost

can't see point in recalling dail or seanad

darkpagandeath

expectationlost wrote: »

can't see point in recalling dail or seanad

Maybe to enquire into how an individual with only a court ruling in relation to RTE can Practically silence all media.

expectationlost

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Maybe to enquire into how an individual with only a court ruling in relation to RTE can Practically silence all media.

imho he can't

Seth Brundle

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Maybe to enquire into how an individual with only a court ruling in relation to RTE can Practically silence all media.

DOB got a court injunction which affects all media outlets.
The Irish Times say the following...

Denis O’Brien secured an injunction preventing RTÉ from broadcasting a report on the substance of the subject at the centre of Catherine Murphy’s comments. That order was also directed at any person or media outlet on notice of it, including The Irish Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/denis-o-brien-controversy-has-caused-constitutional-crisis-1.2232282

How would a Dáil recall remove this injunction or are you wanting politicians to discuss our legal system?
I'm not in favour of the injunction but it was done in a legal court using fully legal means with impartiality. Do you want politicians to overrule the courts?

Seth Brundle

Also remember that we are meant to have decided process which like him or not DOB is not getting.
Accusations of preferential treatment have been made which have been refuted by Mike Ansley.
Remember that recently Dáil privilege was used by two TDs who would not repeat the full claims outside the house nor did the claims appear to hold any truth. I don't know whether CMs claims are correct buy surely we shouldn't all be jumping on a finger pointing bandwagon before the appropriate inquiries have been made?

michael999999

kbannon wrote: »

Also remember that we are meant to have decided process which like him or not DOB is not getting.
Accusations of preferential treatment have been made which have been refuted by Mike Ansley.
Remember that recently Dáil privilege was used by two TDs who would not repeat the full claims outside the house nor did the claims appear to hold any truth. I don't know whether CMs claims are correct buy surely we shouldn't all be jumping on a finger pointing bandwagon be for he the appropriate inquiries have been made?

Didn't stop Denis o Brien Independent newspapers publishing the Anglo tapes!

Bloody blue shirt hypocrites!

Move along lads, nothing to see here. Vote fine Gael/Denis o Brien!

Seth Brundle

michael999999 wrote: »

Didn't stop Denis o Brien Independent newspapers publishing the Anglo tapes!

Agreed. I don't believe that releasing them was the best move and cold hAve prejuiced any legal acroon againot those on the tapes. However the Indo did not publish them with legal immunity.

michael999999 wrote: »

Bloody blue shirt hypocrites!

Move along lads, nothing to see here. Vote fine Gael/Denis o Brien!

Just because I have different views from you in terms of legal processes doesn't make me an FG supporter.
Play the ball and not the man is supposed to be the rule!

michael999999

Just because I have different views from you in terms of legal processes doesn't make me an FG supporter.
Play the ball and not the man is supposed to be the rule![/quote]

I was referring to Denis o brien and hes "Independent" as hypocrites!

jimmycrackcorm

michael999999 wrote: »

Didn't stop Denis o Brien Independent newspapers publishing the Anglo tapes!

Bloody blue shirt hypocrites!

Move along lads, nothing to see here. Vote fine Gael/Denis o Brien!

I'm at a loss to understand this linking FG with DOB.

michael999999

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'm at a loss to understand this linking FG with DOB.

If you can't see any links between fine Gael and Dirty Dinny, maybe time to lay off the crack!

blinding

Sure Denis O Brien hasn't told Enda to recall the Dail………………. ! ! !

LuckyLloyd

kbannon wrote: »

Also remember that we are meant to have decided process which like him or not DOB is not getting.
Accusations of preferential treatment have been made which have been refuted by Mike Ansley.
Remember that recently Dáil privilege was used by two TDs who would not repeat the full claims outside the house nor did the claims appear to hold any truth. I don't know whether CMs claims are correct buy surely we shouldn't all be jumping on a finger pointing bandwagon before the appropriate inquiries have been made?

While the previous allegations were not followed up and could be reasonably assessed as devoid of substance, the fact that a court injunction seems to cover exactly what was said by Catherine Murphy in the Dail makes it overwhelmingly likely that what she entered into the public record is factual.

I think we can see why Dennis O'Brien was eager to keep it out of the public domain anyway.

The thing is now that unless his injunction is lifted it is as if it never happened for a huge swathe of the voting electorate who aren't social media savvy. This is clearly an important matter and if the injunction is lifted, the nature of how it was eventually brought into the public domain will make it look even more important. As such, the Government are making a mistake not getting out in front of this imo.

Seth Brundle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

While the previous allegations were not followed up and could be reasonably assessed as devoid of substance, the fact that a court injunction seems to cover exactly what was said by Catherine Murphy in the Dail makes it overwhelmingly likely that what she entered into the public record is factual.

Didn't Murphy just repeat what RTE were going to broadcast which was the basis of the injunction (rather than as your post suggests the other way round)?
We have no evidence yet that it is true.
RTE have been wrong with their big stories in the past.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think we can see why Dennis O'Brien was eager to keep it out of the public domain anyway.

Would you want your private business dealings displayed in public despite all evidence indicating that nothing illegal or improper was done by DOB.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The thing is now that unless his injunction is lifted it is as if it never happened for a huge swathe of the voting electorate who aren't social media savvy. This is clearly an important matter and if the injunction is lifted, the nature of how it was eventually brought into the public domain will make it look even more important. As such, the Government are making a mistake not getting out in front of this imo.

To me it looks more like people want to have knives out for DOB rather than (if it is true) to IBRC who may have been giving low rate loans to certain customers.

And for the record I have no dealings in any way with FG, DOB or IBRC.

LuckyLloyd

Well, if it was untrue I don't think we would have seen DOB going to court over the matter tbh. I think what has probably happened is that the story has been leaked to a favourable TD from those who wanted to run the story in the hope that it will cause the injunction to be lifted on the grounds that it is then in the public domain.

What DOB would like about his "private" affairs are irrelevant when they produce financial consequences for the tax payer imo. I reject the idea that this case would open a door for private banking details for citizens of the state generally. IBRC is / was an exceptional financial institution and its activities are rightly open to public scrutiny and by extension the details of this story are clearly in the public interest.

Roll on next week and - in the event of the injunction being lifted - government supporters should strap themselves in for a somewhat bumpy ride thereafter.

Seth Brundle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well, if it was untrue I don't think we would have seen DOB going to court over the matter tbh. I think what has probably happened is that the story has been leaked to a favourable TD from those who wanted to run the story in the hope that it will cause the injunction to be lifted on the grounds that it is then in the public domain.

I agree but if it were me, I wouldn't want my banking details discussed on national TV and I would seek some kind of protection through the courts.
As this is more of a matter of IBRC giving out favourable loans, surely Catherine Murphy's question could have been worded differently e.g. "can the minister confirm how many people received loans from IBRC over the last 5 years with interest rates lower than 2%?" and "what is the average and the maximum repayment term of these loans?"
But she didn't. She came out with an uncorroborated statement about an individuals banking details knowing full well that DOB couldn't stop her.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What DOB would like about his "private" affairs are irrelevant when they produce financial consequences for the tax payer imo. I reject the idea that this case would open a door for private banking details for citizens of the state generally. IBRC is / was an exceptional financial institution and its activities are rightly open to public scrutiny and by extension the details of this story are clearly in the public interest.

How much is the taxpayer at a loss for?
If DOB received a loan for x at y rate rather than z rate, surely the taxpayer isn't at a loss as there is nothing to show that he would have taken the loan out at all or that couldn't have gotten a similar rate elsewhere else.
By all accounts, many performing customers were given low rates (source)
Anyhow, I don't particularly like DOB but why are people pissed off because he was possibly given a lower rate but not pissed off because others got it. Nor do people seem pissed off because IBRC were possibly giving out low rate loans.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Roll on next week and - in the event of the injunction being lifted - government supporters should strap themselves in for a somewhat bumpy ride thereafter.

So, if the injunction is lifted next week, what was the rush for CM to have her speech in the Dáil?

And in case I'm referred to as a government supporter, I'm not per say. But I don't like the use of Dáil privilege to gain political advantage regardless of the full truth of the story.
Where is Clare Daly's garda murder and cover up story now?
Where is Mary Lou's story about links to Ansbacher? Why did she not repeat the claims outside the Dáil?

johnnyskeleton

michael999999 wrote: »

If you can't see any links between fine Gael and Dirty Dinny, maybe time to lay off the crack!

Mod: Beneath the quality of post required

hatrickpatrick

kbannon wrote: »

Would you want your private business dealings displayed in public despite all evidence indicating that nothing illegal or improper was done by DOB.

No, but then I don't have an adverse tribunal finding against my "good name".

When you do something wrong, you lose certain rights. If I commit assault I'm likely to be fined or do some jail time. If you are known to have engaged in shenanigans with the party which is currently in government, you can expect your private financial arrangements to be less private than they would be for citizens who have not engaged in the aforementioned.

We have a sex offenders' registry to make re-offending less easy, less likely, and to keep society safe. Why shouldn't we do the same with cronyism?

LuckyLloyd

@kbannon: the injunction has a chance of being lifted because the information is now in the public domain, hence the "rush".

Additionally, the information may be "uncorroborated" but very likely true, hence the injunction. Otherwise it would have been a libel case post publishing imo.

Seth Brundle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, but then I don't have an adverse tribunal finding against my "good name".

When you do something wrong, you lose certain rights. If I commit assault I'm likely to be fined or do some jail time. If you are known to have engaged in shenanigans with the party which is currently in government, you can expect your private financial arrangements to be less private than they would be for citizens who have not engaged in the aforementioned.

Surely the courts decide both guilt and an appropriate punishment. Yes DOB should be punished for any corruption (as should anyone else incolved) but I'm presuming that boardsies are not members of the judiciary so therefore all these keyboard warriors coming on here pointing fingers at DOB for availing of something given to both him and others are just whingers.
I even read a post yesterday where someone was putting Larry Goodman on a pedastel. For Christ's sake, are people that hungry for DOBs blood that anyone else no matter how bad is automatically good?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We have a sex offenders' registry to make re-offending less easy, less likely, and to keep society safe. Why shouldn't we do the same with cronyism?

Whilst I don't think I'd equate cronyism with a sexual offence, I think this would be a good register.
I do know that the ODCE recently launched a register of lobbyists so it could operate alongside this.
However, let's not forget that DOB did not do anything in this situation bar draw down a loan at a low interest rate, someting the bank gave to many others. There are a lot of people shouting over nothing. These people don't care about the others that got cheap loans. They don't care about the bank that facilitated the loans. The only concern is that DOB got one.

Seth Brundle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

@kbannon: the injunction has a chance of being lifted because the information is now in the public domain, hence the "rush".

Additionally, the information may be "uncorroborated" but very likely true, hence the injunction. Otherwise it would have been a libel case post publishing imo.

As I understand it, the case this week is to see if reporting on Murphy 's Dáil speech is subject to the injunction or not - not to lift the injunction.

Palmach

kbannon wrote: »

Would you want your private business dealings displayed in public despite all evidence indicating that nothing illegal or improper was done by DOB.
.

First off it is not just any business man dealing with a private bank. It is Dennis O'Brien, a man who was the subject of negative comment from a tribunal of inquiry, and IBRC which was bailed out by the taxpayer. Furthermore officials within the Dept. of Finance had raised serious reservations about the Siteserve deal and the purchase of same by DOB. These are serious issues and it seems many senior people in FG, a party which has received money from DOB, want the whole thing buried. The allegations that Catherine Murphy is doing this as some sort of stunt is a fairly scurrilous and low way to behave.

LostinKildare

kbannon wrote: »

How much is the taxpayer at a loss for?
If DOB received a loan for x at y rate rather than z rate, surely the taxpayer isn't at a loss as there is nothing to show that he would have taken the loan out at all or that couldn't have gotten a similar rate elsewhere else.

What are you talking about? DOB wasn't shopping around for favourable rates for a new loan, toying with which bank to give his business to or whether he'd bother taking out a loan at all. He already owed an existing massive debt to Anglo at the time of the bank's collapse. He was reportedly the 6th largest Anglo debtor at the time of the bank's nationalisation in 2009, owing about 850 million. 850 million then owed to the Irish state (i.e., citizenry).

The allegation is that at the time of DOB's original Anglo loan expiry --- after Anglo had become nationalised IRBC, and was required to recoup as much money as possible for the state --- DOB still owed about 500 million, but rather than demand payment from this billionaire, IRBC by verbal agreement extended the loan at the same Celtic-Tiger-Anglo-ruined-the-nation rate of 1.25%, oh, and pay it back whenever you want, my friend.

Not sure what interest rate we were getting at that time, but presently the state is borrowing money at 5-6%, so if we are still giving it to DOB at 1.25%, that represents an ongoing massive subsidy to DOB. Obviously, this arrangement also made it easier for DOB to buy up Topaz, Siteserv, the Beacon -- after they were cleaned up for him with 300 million at taxpayers' expense, of course.

Furthermore, Murphy says that after IRBC's liquidation in 2013, DOB wrote to the Special Liquidator Kieran Wallace demanding that he be allowed to continue with these terms, at great expense to the Irish citizenry. But Wallace's remit (once again) was to get our money back, within months:

About €15 billion of loans that remain on IBRC’s books have been taken over by the special liquidators, Kieran Wallace and Eamonn Richardson of KPMG, appointed by the Government. They will seek to get full current value for these loans by the middle of this year [2013].
The various loans will be sold separately and if the liquidators cannot achieve the current value, they will transfer to a special purpose vehicle operated by Nama, the state agency set up to deal with the toxic property loans of Ireland’s banks. . . .
Some borrowers might be loath to let their loans fall under the remit of Nama, which has been forensic in its pursuit of debtors for repayment.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/bank-s-biggest-borrowers-face-nama-deadline-1.1250566

Did Kieran Wallace get our money back from DOB like he was supposed to? I hope he mentions that in his investigation of the issues surrounding the sale of Siteserv to DOB.

EDIT: BTW, yes I'd very much like to know whether other Anglo debtors got similarly sweet deals from state-owned IBRC, at the expense of the citizenry. Several owed nearly 1 billion at the time of Anglo's nationalisation.

Bayberry

kbannon wrote: »

Is it right that negotiated terms of a loan to a private individual (and as I understand it there's no allegation of political impropriety with it) are disclosed to and discussed in public?

Was it a loan to a private individual, or a loan to a company? If it was a loan to a private individual, why did the question of any change to the terms of the loan even arise, as there is no argument that he doesn't personally have the resources to meet the original terms. If was a loan to a company, then O'Briens right to privacy is a smoke screen.

hatrickpatrick

kbannon wrote: »

Surely the courts decide both guilt and an appropriate punishment. Yes DOB should be punished for any corruption (as should anyone else incolved) but I'm presuming that boardsies are not members of the judiciary so therefore all these keyboard warriors coming on here pointing fingers at DOB for availing of something given to both him and others are just whingers.

A lot of people believe that our judicial system is broken, and that's not only in relation to white collar crime. The number of scumbags who beat people up, steal from them, even try to murder them in Dublin's gangland and subsequently get suspended non-sentences is a joke. We don't do punishment in Ireland, regardless of who you are, and that's something which is really starting to piss a lot of people off. Impunity is one of the major ingredients of a culture of corruption.

I even read a post yesterday where someone was putting Larry Goodman on a pedastel. For Christ's sake, are people that hungry for DOBs blood that anyone else no matter how bad is automatically good?

That was me, and it was a momentary lapse in judgement for which I apologised and edited my post
I was looking for examples of businessmen who were not universally hated because they weren't corrupt, not sure why Goodman sprung to mind nor why it took me more than 30 seconds to realise my appalling mistake

Whilst I don't think I'd equate cronyism with a sexual offence, I think this would be a good register.

I'd argue that a sexual offence destroys the life of the victim, while a corruption offence has the potential to destroy the lives of millions. Don't really see why we should treat the corrupt as any better than other serious criminals who destroy lives.

I do know that the ODCE recently launched a register of lobbyists so it could operate alongside this.

Fantastic, I would 100% support this.

However, let's not forget that DOB did not do anything in this situation bar draw down a loan at a low interest rate, someting the bank gave to many others. There are a lot of people shouting over nothing. These people don't care about the others that got cheap loans. They don't care about the bank that facilitated the loans. The only concern is that DOB got one.

I think the concern is that a proven villain got one while many ordinary, honest people struggling with mortgage repayments did not.

michael999999

https://m.soundcloud.com/colm-mong-in/thisweek-redacted

test4444

nice_guy80 wrote: »

The Dail privilege is enshrined in the constitution and is one of the pillars of democracy and free speech.

All the talk is about the substance of what was said in the Dail and not the fact that it should not have been said!

Basically a judge has ruled (at least for the moment) that a piece of infomration should not be made public. What right does a TD have to override that decree? If a judge rules that the name of a person conviced of sexual assult be withheld to protect the identity of the person assulted, should a TD have the right to name the convicted sex offendor using Dail privilige?

Just because the information is totally different in the two cases the concept is EXACTLY the same. You can't have one without the other.

LuckyLloyd

test4444 wrote: »

All the talk is about the substance of what was said in the Dail and not the fact that it should not have been said!

Basically a judge has ruled (at least for the moment) that a piece of infomration should not be made public. What right does a TD have to override that decree? If a judge rules that the name of a person conviced of sexual assult be withheld to protect the identity of the person assulted, should a TD have the right to name the convicted sex offendor using Dail privilige?

Just because the information is totally different in the two cases the concept is EXACTLY the same. You can't have one without the other.

The right they have is a constitutional right. That's why voting matters and who we elect is important. I commend TD Murphy for bringing information obviously in the public interest to light.

michael999999

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FlvSi1CsrSWY%3Ffeature%3Doembed&rct=j&q=james%20morrissey%20enda%20kenny&ei=bkNrVeDZL4jdUZrLgugB&usg=AFQjCNFuGtJ9QwTJ_0KtbvGTd-Z6wTobVw&sig2=K5TbH4aIlNRGhO1_uFNXOA

Here's the coward kenny launching Denis o Brien spokesman's book!