Press freedom and INM

Colonel Claptrap

I'm struggling to understand the Declan Ganley link.

Ganley was critical of O'Brien's fraudulent winning of the mobile phone licence.

O'Brien accusses Ganley as being the secret client of the firm which compiled a dossier on O'Brien. He forced a court to make Ganley a co-defendent in a civil trial to discover the origin of the dossier. Ganley claims to know nothing about this.

Ganley has links to the O'Reilley family who previously controlled INM.

O'Moore (the original investigator appointed by INM board, later replaced by O'Brien) is retained by Ganley in on going litigation related to the mobile phone licence case.

Is this whole thing a revenge plot between the 2 men? Are they in competition with each directly?

Can anyone clarify any of this?

Also, is Robert Pitt a concerned bystander in all this or does he have links to Ganley/O'reilley family?

emo72

Is it illegal to have a dossier on an individual? Say perhaps Ganley doesn't like o Brien, and wants to beat him at business. Why would anyone consider that illegal?

Ray Bloody Purchase

emo72 wrote: »

Is it illegal to have a dossier on an individual? Say perhaps Ganley doesn't like o Brien, and wants to beat him at business. Why would anyone consider that illegal?

It's probably more about how you get the information which you put in your little file.

Deise Vu

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

It's probably more about how you get the information which you put in your little file.

Sometimes though a USB key can magically land on your desk with all sorts of records from another company. It must be something to do with clean living and a clear conscience that good things keep happening to some people.

Gravelly

emo72 wrote: »

Is it illegal to have a dossier on an individual? Say perhaps Ganley doesn't like o Brien, and wants to beat him at business. Why would anyone consider that illegal?

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

It's probably more about how you get the information which you put in your little file.

I'm a bit puzzled by this also - apparently the stuff on the infamous usb key was all in the public domain - it consisted of excerpts from newspaper articles, and a speech made in the Dáil Éireann if I remember correctly - I'm at a loss to understand how this could be litigious, no matter who gathered it together - is it only litigious if one has stupendous sums of money to make it so?

Deise Vu

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm a bit puzzled by this also - apparently the stuff on the infamous usb key was all in the public domain - it consisted of excerpts from newspaper articles, and a speech made in the Dáil Éireann if I remember correctly - I'm at a loss to understand how this could be litigious, no matter who gathered it together - is it only litigious if one has stupendous sums of money to make it so?

As far as I can recall the High Court agrees with you. The Judge also said none of the material had even been published and, if it had been published and was proven to be defamatory, then the plaintiff would have remedies under the libel laws.

I thought costs had even been awarded but I must have been mistaken because the case is still ongoing, and has now taken further twists with Declan Ganley added and with Colm Keaveney's contribution. Utterly bizarre stuff. It's like as if <redacted> just wants to tie up people he sees as opponents in endless legal wrangles that are as pointless as they are expensive to deter any negative mentions of him anywhere. But that would be too ridiculous for words wouldn't it?

Ray Bloody Purchase

Deise Vu wrote: »

As far as I can recall the High Court agrees with you. The Judge also said none of the material had even been published and, if it had been published and was proven to be defamatory, then the plaintiff would have remedies under the libel laws.

I thought costs had even been awarded but I must have been mistaken because the case is still ongoing, and has now taken further twists with Declan Ganley added and with Colm Keaveney's contribution. Utterly bizarre stuff. It's like as if <redacted> just wants to tie up people he sees as opponents in endless legal wrangles that are as pointless as they are expensive to deter any negative mentions of him anywhere. But that would be too ridiculous for words wouldn't it?

What was Keaveneys contribution?

Gravelly

Deise Vu wrote: »

As far as I can recall the High Court agrees with you. The Judge also said none of the material had even been published and, if it had been published and was proven to be defamatory, then the plaintiff would have remedies under the libel laws.

I thought costs had even been awarded but I must have been mistaken because the case is still ongoing, and has now taken further twists with Declan Ganley added and with Colm Keaveney's contribution. Utterly bizarre stuff. It's like as if <redacted> just wants to tie up people he sees as opponents in endless legal wrangles that are as pointless as they are expensive to deter any negative mentions of him anywhere. But that would be too ridiculous for words wouldn't it?

Indeed, I doubt <redacted> would dream of using his enormous wealth, wealth which he gained in a completely legal and honest way, to silence any of his critics, I mean, to do that he would have to be a corrupt, egotistical, fascist, wànker, and we all know he most certainly isn't any of those things.

Ray Bloody Purchase

After analysis of the information i have stockpiled on this thread, i deduce an element of sarcasm in certain posts.

Deise Vu

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

What was Keaveneys contribution?

Rather long but fascinating stuff:

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/colm-keaveney-the-politician-who-switched-sides-1.3369988

www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/colm-keaveney-says-o-brien-speech-was-his-alone-1.2396775

As others have said. None of this will ever fully make sense until it can be discussed without fear of litigation. I am sure people have seen these articles in isolation and wondered what the hell is all this about.

Colonel Claptrap

I'm getting 404 error on those articles.

Are they dead links or is <redacted> onto us?

Colonel Claptrap

I predict some of the details landing on a TD's desk.

A TD can speak under Dail privilege after all.

Odhinn

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand the Declan Ganley link.

Ganley was critical of O'Brien's fraudulent winning of the mobile phone licence.

O'Brien accusses Ganley as being the secret client of the firm which compiled a dossier on O'Brien. He forced a court to make Ganley a co-defendent in a civil trial to discover the origin of the dossier. Ganley claims to know nothing about this.

Ganley has links to the O'Reilley family who previously controlled INM.

O'Moore (the original investigator appointed by INM board, later replaced by O'Brien) is retained by Ganley in on going litigation related to the mobile phone licence case.

Is this whole thing a revenge plot between the 2 men? Are they in competition with each directly?

Can anyone clarify any of this?

Also, is Robert Pitt a concerned bystander in all this or does he have links to Ganley/O'reilley family?

If you mean O'|Reilly and <Redacted>, then yes and yes.

O'Reilly's message was as revealing as O'Brien's reply: "Strictly Private and Confidential, 3rd July 2003. Dear Gavin, Thank you for your letter dated 23 June. Forgive me, but my first reaction was to throw it in the bin. As far as I'm concerned, Independent News and Media have spent the last seven years trying to destroy my reputation. Some of the coverage of my affairs, both business and personal, in the Sunday Tribune, Sunday Independent, Irish Independent and Evening Herald have caused hurt and enormous damage to my reputation, not to mention the emotional distress suffered by my wife, Catherine, and my family. I very much doubt whether you or any member of your family could have survived a similar onslaught. Control of the media brings privileges and responsibilities.

"While I am waiting for the appropriate time to rectify the damage, I note and appreciate your gesture and in a spirit of goodwill I am willing to meet you to see whether we share any common ground. Yours sincerely, Denis O'Brien."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/i-m-with-the-old-style-mogul-1.912576

Deise Vu

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I'm getting 404 error on those articles.

Are they dead links or is <redacted> onto us?

Jesus that is spooky. I read those articles earlier on my PC but I’m getting 404 now on my phone. Could it just be a phone issue? I would like to summarise the articles but they are painstakingly detailed. I would imagine to prevent any challenges from trigger happy individuals.

Colonel Claptrap

Deise Vu wrote: »

Jesus that is spooky. I read those articles earlier on my PC but I’m getting 404 now on my phone. Could it just be a phone issue? I would like to summarise the articles but they are painstakingly detailed. I would imagine to prevent any challenges from trigger happy individuals.

It's a phone issue. Fine on PC.

Jesus, those articles are crazy.
Sounds like Keaveney is being leaned on to get to Ganley and O'Reilly.

One bit that seemed odd was that Keveney's defamation case against INM remains before the courts. If he had cut some sort of deal with O'Brien, you would think INM would settle the case. However, in the same paragraph the article mentions Keaveney's bankruptcy will run its course in 2 years. What is the author trying to say there?

20Cent

Primetime did a short bit on it. Took the angle of does your employer have the right to view your emails. The coldest of takes on the issue. A decade of emails of journalists and everyone they were in contact with breached. No mention of <redacted> at all.

Colonel Claptrap

One of the more interesting aspects of this -which the Irish Times highlighted - is that the independent newspaper has reported on developments extensively throughout the week. There has been no cover up.

I suspect there is a lot of anger within the ranks of journaliats at the newspaper. Editorial integrity appears to be in tact.

I look forward to this weekend's Sunday independent.

For Forks Sake

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I look forward to this weekend's Sunday independent.

...said no-one, ever...

touts

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

One of the more interesting aspects of this -which the Irish Times highlighted - is that the independent newspaper has reported on developments extensively throughout the week. There has been no cover up.

I suspect there is a lot of anger within the ranks of journaliats at the newspaper. Editorial integrity appears to be in tact.

I look forward to this weekend's Sunday independent.

Coverup has started. http://www.newstalk.com/Former-INM-chief-appalled-at-widespread-publication-of-allegations-against-him-


Now Leslie Buckley is being protrayed as the real victim in all this. Nasty mean media publishing stories about him.

I'd say editorial instruction has come down from redacted o'redacted to attack attack attack.

Deise Vu

touts wrote: »

Coverup has started. http://www.newstalk.com/Former-INM-chief-appalled-at-widespread-publication-of-allegations-against-him-


Now Leslie Buckley is being protrayed as the real victim in all this. Nasty mean media publishing stories about him.

I'd say editorial instruction has come down from redacted o'redacted to attack attack attack.

Yeah, although constrained by the legal process, Les felt compelled to come out and tell us how appalled he was that Journalists seem to have access to the ODCE affidavits. These are legal documents which presumably will be in the public domain anyway. That's just as bad as giving every item of email in an organisation going back 20 years to six external parties isn't it?

I think the message is, we might look like we have overstepped the mark and are in hot water, but me and <redacted> still have limitless funds and Senior Counsel on speed dial. The weekends papers were definitely feeling a lot more confident about explaining the detail and importance of what went on rather than sticking with bare facts.

McMurphy

Deise Vu wrote: »

Yeah, although constrained by the legal process, Les felt compelled to come out and tell us how appalled he was that Journalists seem to have access to the ODCE affidavits. These are legal documents which presumably will be in the public domain anyway. That's just as bad as giving every item of email in an organisation going back 20 years to six external parties isn't it?

I think the message is, we might look like we have overstepped the mark and are in hot water, but me and <redacted> still have limitless funds and Senior Counsel on speed dial. The weekends papers were definitely feeling a lot more confident about explaining the detail and importance of what went on rather than sticking with bare facts.

Interesting article about obrien in yesterday's uk times.

Our star-struck state is facilitating O’Brien

Just a snippet.

The Maltese tax-resident was a guest of the nation for its official celebration of the Easter Rising, commemorating patriots who died for the ideal of a republic that would guarantee equal rights and equal opportunities for all its citizens. He was also a guest at Dublin Castle for the state banquet when Queen Elizabeth II became the first British monarch to visit the Republic of Ireland.

He bought the loans of Siteserv, at a €119m write down, and the Topaz filling stations, at a writedown of about €150m, out of state ownership. He appointed Brian Cowen, the taoiseach who had led Ireland into the EU/IMF bailout, to the boards of Topaz and Dublin’s Beacon Hospital.

O’Brien was one of 17 prominent individuals who produced a document entitled Blueprint for Ireland’s Recovery after the financial collapse and were among the first into Government Buildings to lobby the new government in 2011.

Eamon Gilmore, as the tanaiste and leader of the Labour Party in 2013, participated in a photocall with O’Brien at a human rights conference backed by the billionaire at Dublin Castle, the jewel in the state’s property portfolio. Gilmore’s party colleague and communications minister Pat Rabbitte hosted a black-tie dinner at the same venue the next year for O’Brien and his fellow dignitaries on the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development. Kenny, still taoiseach, popped into the Shelbourne Hotel to schmooze the international advocacy group, which O’Brien headed at the time.

Kenny again rubbed shoulders with O’Brien at the World Economic Forum of global power-wielders and the 1% wealth club; a precedent honoured by Leo Varadkar when he made his first trip to Davos as taoiseach this year where he informally met O’Brien.

This starry-eyed dalliance with Ireland’s richest native-born citizen has gone on, not just against the backdrop of Moriarty, but while the businessman pursued legal proceedings against various arms of the state, including Revenue, RTE and the Oireachtas. It has continued while he wrote privately to individual politicians such as Renua Ireland founder Lucinda Creighton, after she urged that action be taken on Moriarty’s findings, and to former Labour leader Joan Burton, accusing her of “vindictiveness” when she expressed “unease” about O’Brien popping up at public events in the wake of Moriarty.

It persisted as O’Brien accused Moriarty of setting out to produce “pre-determined” conclusions and of creating “a work of fiction”. He accused the judiciary of bias, saying the reason he lost court challenges against the tribunal was because the judiciary put “a ring of steel” around their judicial colleague, knowing he was not “up to the job”. Not one judge publicly responded to the slur.

expectationlost

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

One of the more interesting aspects of this -which the Irish Times highlighted - is that the independent newspaper has reported on developments extensively throughout the week. There has been no cover up.

I suspect there is a lot of anger within the ranks of journaliats at the newspaper. Editorial integrity appears to be in tact.

I look forward to this weekend's Sunday independent.

their coverage of this over the last few months and years has been to say the least very dry, the Indo have a 'home advantage' as they are the only ones with the full affidavit

expectationlost

touts wrote: »

Coverup has started. http://www.newstalk.com/Former-INM-chief-appalled-at-widespread-publication-of-allegations-against-him-


Now Leslie Buckley is being protrayed as the real victim in all this. Nasty mean media publishing stories about him.

Buckley seems to be the fall guy

McMurphy

Broadsheet had an article on #redacted# today written by the Social Democrats political director - Anne Marie McNally, the article basically goes into detail on how ###redacted### can be a right cnut who you would not want to get on the wrong side of.

I am getting the feeling that something rather explosive is about to be revealed about ###redacted###.

McNallys article can be read here

Assetbacked

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Broadsheet had an article on #redacted# today written by the Social Democrats political director - Anne Marie McNally, the article basically goes into detail on how ###redacted### can be a right cnut who you would not want to get on the wrong side of.

I am getting the feeling that something rather explosive is about to be revealed about ###redacted###.

McNallys article can be read [url=]http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/04/09/i-have-nothing-worth-suing-for-so-here-goes-nothing/]here[/url]

Brilliant! Finally it has been published somewhere that the data breach was the result of Red Acted seeking dirt on those he perceives to have crossed him.

If you take only one thing away from the convoluted mess that is the INM story as it unravels over the coming weeks, keep an eye to the breadcrumbs that will be laid between the majority shareholder, Mr Buckley and the names that emerge from the INM19 and the undoubtedly more to come.

Look closely at whether those names are of people who have been perceived to have somehow crossed O’Brien.

Those connections will undoubtedly be there but the ‘chilling effect’ will most likely mean that journalists will be forced to try paint you a picture wherein you’ll have to try and join the dots yourself or they’ll risk facing a day in court with Ireland’s largest media mogul.

expectationlost

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Broadsheet had an article on #redacted# today written by the Social Democrats political director - Anne Marie McNally, the article basically goes into detail on how ###redacted### can be a right cnut who you would not want to get on the wrong side of.

I am getting the feeling that something rather explosive is about to be revealed about ###redacted###.

there was over a week ago, which was more explosive details of the data taken reported before xmas

McMurphy

Jesus, I'm surprised this thread stayed so quiet.

Accusations are being made (only accusations mind) that the communications minister, Denis Naughten might have been passing love notes to Dinnys right hand man, Lesley Buckley.

The fan could be about to hit the siht.

Catherine Murphy explains.

Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy has said she is dismayed at reports in today’s Irish Times that on the afternoon of the 11th of November 2016 Communications Minister Denis Naughten informed a PR Executive, working on behalf of Lesley Buckley and INM, that the proposed acquisition of Celtic Media would be referred to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland based on advice from his officials. Ms Murphy said she was dismayed because in a D debate with her a month later on December 6th, Minister Naughten told the Dail that his officials hadn’t yet made a decision and that he was yet to decide if he would refer the matter to the BAI.

Deputy Murphy said:

“In December 2016 I had both a written PQ reply from Minister Naughten and indeed participated in a D debate with the Minister wherein which he confirmed that he had only commenced his Phase 1 assessment of the proposed merger on 24thNovember which provided him with 30 days to make a decision. Yet today’s media revelations from the ODCE’s affidavit suggest that the Minister and his officials had in fact made a decision to refer the matter to the BAI and communicated that decision to a PR firm acting on behalf of INM on the 11th of November. During Leaders Questions in the D today, the Taoiseach relayed information from Minister Naughten that his decision was not made until January 2017. The anomalies in those timelines certainly seem to indicate that the D was misled.”

“The fact that Mister Lesley Buckley was able to tell Denis O’Brien that the proposed merger would be referred to the BAI whilst at the same time, and up to a month or more later, the Minister was telling TDs on the floor of the D that no decision in this regard had been made, is extremely concerning. In addition, I have checked the lobbying register and there appears to be no record of the contacts between Heneghan PR and the Ministers’ Department despite such important matters being discussed. The entire matter really opens up questions, yet again, regarding the axis between powerful individuals and political decisions.

link here https://socialdemocrats.ie/2018/04/18/minister-naughten-timelines-re-inm-not-tally-statements-dail/

Irish Times article here. https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/o-brien-told-of-minister-s-plan-to-refer-inm-s-celtic-media-takeover-1.3465034%3fmode=amp

If this is true, serious questions need to be asked about what O'Briens relationship with FG led govts exactly is.

Digicell.
Siteserv
This.

JohnnyFlash

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Jesus, I'm surprised this thread stayed so quiet.

Accusations are being made (only accusations mind) that the communications minister, Denis Naughten might have been passing love notes to Dinnys right hand man, Lesley Buckley.

If this is true, serious questions need to be asked about what O'Briens relationship with FG exactly is.

What have FG got to do with it? Denis Naughten is an independent TD.

McMurphy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

What have FG got to do with it? Denis Naughten is an independent TD.

Sorry JF, you're obviously correct

And I have amended my post accordingly.

touts

Jesus wept. After esat and siteserv you'd think any minister looking to do a favour for redacted would need their head examined. Maybe Naughton has his eye on a plum "banishment" in Europe.