Liam Lawlor is dead

Sleepy

RainyDay wrote:

Guys - Hope this doesn't come as a surprise to you, but you're just making fools of yourselves now. You sound like the 5-year-old kid who's been caught with the chocolate smears all over his chin but still denies he's the one who ate the cake. It's just a bit pathetic now.

So, questioning what the media tells you is naieve now is it? :rolleyes:

Have a listen to the head of the Indo on the RTE News at One today as he explains how they got the story from a Moscow based journalist (not from the police at all).

So now you accept the word of the Indo? Make up your bloody mind will you!

So here's my suggestion - If you reckon the hooker story is still real, have the courage of your convictions. Pop along to the funeral on Weds or Thurs, and look Liam's daughter in the eye & explain to her why you think the story was real. You'd have no problem in anyone treating your sister or your daughter in that way if the tables were turned - right?

It's people like you that make it necessary to have an anti-flaming policy on boards.ie. Are you deliberately trolling or do you actually believe that's an appropriate way to behave? Stop trying to personalise the debate and please refrain from making comments about my family. Sensationalism is no way to try and make a point.

I'm sure Martin Cahill's family wept at his funeral while the rest of the country were delighted. While comparing him to a violant ganglord is possibly excessive, Lawlor was an unabashed criminal. His passing is not something to be mourned by anyone other than his family.

kstanl

RainyDay wrote:

So you were suckered by a bit of tabloid journalism. It's not that big a deal - we've all fallen for their lines from time to time. Have a listen to the head of the Indo on the RTE News at One today as he explains how they got the story from a Moscow based journalist (not from the police at all).

I didn't hear that particular radio broadcast. The Indo specifically stated that it was Russian police that claimed they suspected the girl was a hooker. Now I generally don't believe everything I read but I don't think that it takes much of a stretch of the imagination to conceive that perhaps a remoreless ex-con might be shagging hookers. Or is it an impossibility because he was highly educated, well spoken and had a nice suit? :rolleyes:

RainyDay wrote:

But your conspiracy theories are ludicrous. Do you really, really think that if she was a hooker, the truth would come out very quickly. Do you not think that there would be one journalist in the SIndo who would manage to leak the truth to another paper? Do you think they conjured up the 32-year-old mother-of-2 interpreter out of this air?

Why is so inconceivable? I'm not saying that it's true - as I said in a previous post, I am willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt unless I see conclusive proof - but why is it so inconceivable? Now who's being naive?

RainyDay wrote:

So it's time now to have the cojones to admit your mistake

The Sunday Independent printed an article that said that Russian authorities suspect that the woman in the car was a prostitute. How, please tell us, does that make it OUR mistake?

RainyDay wrote:

but if you still do believe that he was with a hooker, here's my suggestion - Have the courage of your convictions. Pop along to the funeral on Weds or Thurs, and look Liam's daughter in the eye & explain to her why you think the story was real.

You're just being stupid now. If a paper prints something (true or false) about a convicted criminal and I choose to believe it, then I think I have the right to do so. If it was a notorious low-life drug dealer that the story was written about then nobody would bat an eyelid. Just because this man was one of the rich elite golden boys we're supposed to look upon him as a lovable rougue rather than an evil, unrepentant criminal - which is what he was. And you call me naive.

RainyDay wrote:

You'd have no problem in anyone treating your sister or your daughter in that way if the tables were turned - right?

That's exactly my point! Jesus! Your argument seems to be getting more and more moronic with every sentence.

*ahem* The tables WOULDN'T be turned - I could never be in a comprable position because I'm not a convicted criminal who screwed the whole country.

God, I give up. Some serious morons on this board. :rolleyes:

MrJoeSoap

Sleepy wrote:

So now you accept the word of the Indo? Make up your bloody mind will you!

It seems you are doing the exact same, only in reverse.

mycroft

MrJoeSoap wrote:

It seems you are doing the exact same, only in reverse.

Hang on a sec, the Indo wasnt the only paper making this report, everyone from the Sunday World to the observer carried the story.

Secondly its a fair cop, Lawlor has been caught (according to Henry McDonald) in the observer (a solid and respected journalist) that Lawlor has been galivanting with eastern european prostitutes before. Combined with the statement by Moscow police, it's not as if they were making this story up, they reported what they were told, the guy has a track record of dealings with prostitutes while on foreign trips. Hey it's a fair assumption for a paper to take, he has a history of time with prostitutes on eastern european trips, moscow police release a statement saying they suspect she's a prostitute, it's not dishonest reporting to report this.

Now this girl, the only witness to a car crash with two fatalitlies has apparently disappeared. I dont think the full story has been told. Do you? Too many people have been leaping to the defence and for the jugluar.

Lawlor was scum of the highest order, whom he was with when he died, doens't change how he lived, and people asking us to be two faced about his life now he's dead are being dishonest.

Oh and Mr Nice Guy, you recently got banned from this forum for posting a beastality video, and you're lecturing others about "class" and acceptable behaviour?

MrJoeSoap

mycroft wrote:

Hang on a sec, the Indo wasnt the only paper making this report, everyone from the Sunday World to the observer carried the story.

I have no problems with the rest of your post but the point I was making was that Sleepy is criticising someone for not believing the Sunday Independent and now believing mondays Independent, despite the fact that he believed Sundays Independent and not Mondays!

I never said which side I believe, because, to be quite honest, I just don't know any more!

Also, I missed out on all the Sunday papers bar the Indo. Can anyone tell me if the Moscow police are quoted at all? Or did the rest of the papers merely follow the Indo's lead?

mycroft

MrJoeSoap wrote:

I have no problems with the rest of your post but the point I was making was that Sleepy is criticising someone for not believing the Sunday Independent and now believing mondays Independent, despite the fact that he believed Sundays Independent and not Mondays!

I think he's pointing out the base irony of people deriding the Sindo as a source of news on Sunday, yet holding it up as reporting cannon fact on Monday. If its journalism was in question on Sunday, why are the people who were jeering it's reporting on Sunday, taking it's reporting on Monday as gospel truth.

I never said which side I believe, because, to be quite honest, I just don't know any more!

Did I say you did?

Also, I missed out on all the Sunday papers bar the Indo. Can anyone tell me if the Moscow police are quoted at all? Or did the rest of the papers merely follow the Indo's lead?

Theres a tread in politics which has the observer article linked, it quiet clearly states that the moscow police suspect the girl is a prostitute. It's clear that indo went for the jugular, and the opponents of the indo are going for the jugular and making the indo out to be the only paper who made these claimsm which were unfounded. Thats not true. Well the claims might me, but the indo is not the only one who reported them.

MrJoeSoap

mycroft wrote:

Did I say you did?

No, that was a seperate statement I was making. Sorry about any confusion.

mycroft wrote:

Theres a tread in politics which has the observer article linked, it quiet clearly states that the moscow police suspect the girl is a prostitute. It's clear that indo went for the jugular, and the opponents of the indo are going for the jugular and making the indo out to be the only paper who made these claimsm which were unfounded. Thats not true. Well the claims might me, but the indo is not the only one who reported them.

I actually posted that link to the Observer article (forgot about it, it was late on Saturday iirc). There is a quote saying the girl appears to be Ukrainian but no quotes mentioning anything about prostitution.

Also the highly contentious line: "I can only assume they met in the street".

Now this interests me. If the girl wasn't seriously injured and was working as an interpreter, why couldn't she give the exact details to the police as to her occupation and/or relationship with Lawlor?



"So confused, when you're lost in the groove"

mycroft

MrJoeSoap wrote:

No, that was a seperate statement I was making. Sorry about any confusion.



I actually posted that link to the Observer article (forgot about it, it was late on Saturday iirc). There is a quote saying the girl appears to be Ukrainian but no quotes mentioning anything about prostitution.

Also the highly contentious line: "I can only assume they met in the street".

Now this interests me. If the girl wasn't seriously injured and was working as an interpreter, why couldn't she give the exact details to the police as to her occupation and/or relationship with Lawlor?



"So confused, when you're lost in the groove"

You've not been reading the same article

Posted
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1598794,00.html

Disgraced politician Liam Lawlor, who died in a car crash in Russia yesterday morning, may have been travelling with a young prostitute it emerged last night.

It is known that, while on regular trips to Prague, Lawlor, the first Irish politician to be jailed for corruption, visited brothels and sex clubs in the Czech capital.

Moscow police said that they suspected that a young woman in the hired Mercedes with Lawlor was a teenage callgirl from Ukraine. The former Fianna Fail TD died instantly, along with his driver, who lost control and smashed into a concrete post on the Leningradski Highway north of Moscow around 1am yesterday.

The article was in the Sunday's Observer. It confirms lawlors habits, and Moscow's police statement. Sindo's article may have been overboard without merit. And those people suggesting that it was a stain on this man's good character obviously don't know much about his activities, and his prefered relaxation method while holidaying in eastern europe wasn't catherdal spotting.

nesf

kstanl wrote:

That's exactly my point! Jesus! Your argument seems to be getting more and more moronic with every sentence.

*ahem* The tables WOULDN'T be turned - I could never be in a comprable position because I'm not a convicted criminal who screwed the whole country.

God, I give up. Some serious morons on this board. :rolleyes:

Cop yourself on and be civil. One more post like this and you'll get a nice long ban. Understand?

mycroft wrote:

Oh and Mr Nice Guy, you recently got banned from this forum for posting a beastality video, and you're lecturing others about "class" and acceptable behaviour?

Mycroft don't flame others. There is absolutely no need to get personal here.



I appreciate that this is a topic that people are getting emotional over. I would however appreciate it if people could keep their tempers and tounges in check. Getting personal is never excusable.

quank

I know this may sound a bit ridiculous, but could someone tell me all of Mr. Lawlor's convictions and crimes, please? I vaguely know what he's done, but I don't know the specifics. People say that he's stolen every taxpayer's money; how much?

RainyDay

What a pity that Kstanl & Sleepy haven't shown the cojones to admit their errors & withdraw their previous comments - Just let me clarify a couple of points;

- It's not such a big deal that you believed the original story. I partially believed it myself (though the fact that the girl was in the back seat seemed strange to me). The big deal is that you refuse to see the light now at this stage. Your irrational clinging-on to what was obviously a rogue journo putting 2+2 together to get 19 is just silly.

- Mycroft - the fact that the Sunday Wuddled, the Sunday Turbine & the Sunday Star all carried the same story does nothing to enhance the credibility of the story. All these rags are part of Tony O'Reilly's Independent Newspapers group, so they were all just backing each other up.

- The 'conspiracy theory' that the story was reversed after pressure from Govt is just plain ludicrous. In fact, it ranks right up there with 'the girl was a hooker' in terms of building a web of pure fiction out of a small issue. Just think of the number of people that would need to be part of the conspiracy to make this happen? Don't you think that just one of those people would leak the truth out somewhere else in the meeja?

- Interesting to see that Sleepy is quite happy to spout this bull on a message board but not quite so brave when it comes to looking a relative in the eye and telling the story then. And we're not allowed to refer to Sleepy's family - but Lawlor's greiving family are expected to sit back and read this kind of vicious rumour-mongering? Show some good old-fashioned decent manners, will ya?

I presume all you guys have absolutely unblemished records - right? You've never screwed around with the wrong person, or taken a leak up a laneway when you've had a few too many, or pulled a sickie from work? You've never done anything that you wouldn't like to see emblazoned across the the front page of one of the red-tops for all your friends & family to see - right? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I'm no defender of Lawlor, but the behaviour of the Indo group of newspapers on this issue is absolutely disgraceful. To have printed this tissue of lies while the man's body isn't yet cold is pretty scummy. To cling on to this tissue of lies in some misguided effort to save face is just pathetic.

For the record, here's the Indo's apology;

Apology for the distress caused

INDEPENDENT Newspapers (Ireland) last night issued the following apology to the family of the late Liam Lawlor:

"Independent Newspapers (Ireland) wishes to apologise to the family of the late Liam Lawlor for the manner of its coverage of the circumstances surrounding Mr Lawlor's death.

"The company also wishes to apologise for coverage relating to the female passenger who was travelling in the car with Mr Lawlor when the accident happened. The company fully accepts that coverage in group titles, including the Sunday Independent and the Sunday World, caused unnecessary upset and distress to the Lawlor family.

"Similar to other media organisations, the Sunday Independent's morning coverage relied on a source of some standing in Moscow.

"We now accept that the information received was not correct and we apologise for the distress caused."

Michael Denieffe, managing editor of Independent Newspapers (Ireland), said: "I wish to convey my heartfelt apology to the Lawlor family for the distress caused by these articles and to extend my sympathies on the tragic death of Mr Lawlor.

"I have commenced an immediate investigation to establish how these articles came to be written and published. This investigation will also look at ways of ensuring such misleading coverage cannot occur again."

RESPONSIBILITY

The editor of the Sunday Independent, Aengus Fanning, said he took full responsibility for the story published in this week's edition surrounding the tragic death of Mr Lawlor.

Mr Fanning said he wished to apologise unreservedly for the pain and distress this coverage had caused to the Lawlor family.

"The Sunday Independent and I as editor, enjoy full editorial control, as do all newspapers and editors within Independent News & Media Group. The story as published was primarily based on information provided by a highly regarded source in Moscow who works with both the Guardian and Observer newspapers, and statements made by the Moscow City Police Information department.

"Hindsight has shown this information to be incorrect and I take full responsibility for proceeding with the story in the manner in which it was published."

BuffyBot

Just think of the number of people that would need to be part of the conspiracy to make this happen? Don't you think that just one of those people would leak the truth out somewhere else in the meeja?

Well, no. Over there, it doesn't take much for to get anything done. A nice merry bundle of cash (not that much here, but a veritable fortune over there) from the right people would ensure she takes an extended vacation and stays out of the limelight.

RainyDay

BuffyBot wrote:

Well, no. Over there, it doesn't take much for to get anything done. A nice merry bundle of cash (not that much here, but a veritable fortune over there) from the right people would ensure she takes an extended vacation and stays out of the limelight.

You're missing the point - To make this conspiracy happen, it would require co-operation from Moscow police, Irish embassy staff, foreign journalists and a whole pile of people in Independent newspapers. Even (and it's very unlikely) if you managed to pay off all of these people, how do you ensure that the story (and the pay-off) doesn't come out next week? It's just not practical.

kstanl

nesf wrote:

Cop yourself on and be civil. One more post like this and you'll get a nice long ban. Understand?

Eh? Real professional moderating there. First of all I didn't attack anyone diretly with that comment. Secondly, if I said something that breaches the TOS of the boards, then either remove it and warn me or remove it and ban me altogether. Leaving the post there and making threats shows that you're probably just not in agreement with my opinions - and not capable of the job of moderator.

I suspect I'll get banned for this - which also reinforces my above point. The fact is that I really couldn't care less. :rolleyes:

RainyDay wrote:

What a pity that Kstanl & Sleepy haven't shown the cojones to admit their errors & withdraw their previous comments - Just let me clarify a couple of points;

Really?

RainyDay wrote:

It's not such a big deal that you believed the original story. I partially believed it myself

Interesting.

RainyDay wrote:

(though the fact that the girl was in the back seat seemed strange to me).

Yeah, me too.

RainyDay wrote:

The big deal is that you refuse to see the light now at this stage. Your irrational clinging-on to what was obviously a rogue journo putting 2+2 together to get 19 is just silly.

Hold on a second. If the woman was an interpreter, the papers would have found out IMMEDIATELY. She was relatively uninjured and would be able to explain her position there and then - leaving the police with no doubt about her identity. And now she seems to have gone missing :eek:

RainyDay wrote:

The 'conspiracy theory' that the story was reversed after pressure from Govt is just plain ludicrous.

Now who's being naive?

RainyDay wrote:

In fact, it ranks right up there with 'the girl was a hooker' in terms of building a web of pure fiction out of a small issue.

Oh right. You mean that it's completely unconceivable that a man who was known to visit sex clubs and brothels in Eastern Europe might possibly be with a hooker in Russia? Seriously dude. Your argument is going nowhere.

RainyDay wrote:

Just think of the number of people that would need to be part of the conspiracy to make this happen? Don't you think that just one of those people would leak the truth out somewhere else in the meeja?

RainyDay wrote:

I presume all you guys have absolutely unblemished records - right? You've never screwed around with the wrong person, or taken a leak up a laneway when you've had a few too many, or pulled a sickie from work? You've never done anything that you wouldn't like to see emblazoned across the the front page of one of the red-tops for all your friends & family to see - right? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Haha. Such spurious reasoning. The bottom line is this - I don't have a criminal record. Mr Lawlor not only has a criminal record but he also got away scot free after stealing from this country and was completely unrepentant. I'll be as judgemental about this nasty man as I like, thank you very much.

RainyDay wrote:

I'm no defender of Lawlor, but the behaviour of the Indo group of newspapers on this issue is absolutely disgraceful.

Did the Russian police say, or did they not say, that this woman was most likely a prostitute? It's an issue that everyone keeps dancing around. If the Indo reported this and it misquoted the Russian police, then they should be sued. If not, then I'd like to get to the bottom of it and why the Russian police couldn't ascertain the identity of the uninjured woman right after the crash - and why she is now mysteriously missing.

RainyDay wrote:

To have printed this tissue of lies while the man's body isn't yet cold is pretty scummy. To cling on to this tissue of lies in some misguided effort to save face is just pathetic.

What are you talking about? Lawlor visited sex clubs and brothels regularly while on trips abroad. Your complete denial as to the kind of person Lawlor was is what's pathetic.

As I said, I'm perfectly happy to give Lawlor the benefit of the doubt in this matter. What I'm not happy to accept is that this man somehow deserves any kind of respect in his death considering what he did in life.

AARRRGH

BuffyBot wrote:

Well, no. Over there, it doesn't take much for to get anything done. A nice merry bundle of cash (not that much here, but a veritable fortune over there) from the right people would ensure she takes an extended vacation and stays out of the limelight.

Moscow is actually a very expensive city. You are either poor or extremely rich. To pay her off to disappear/shut up/whatever would cost a lot more than you think!

Also, I know a lot of Russians. It is not abnormal for a "normal" Russian girl to also be a prostitute. It is seen differently over there. It is just about survival. She is helping the man and the man is helping her. It is not uncommon.

Whereas it is very possible she and Lawlor were shagging, she clearly worked for him in a non-sexual capacity.

...

To the people who keep saying Lawlor was famous for visiting sex clubs and brothels...where are you getting this information from?

Sleepy

mycroft wrote:

I think he's pointing out the base irony of people deriding the Sindo as a source of news on Sunday, yet holding it up as reporting cannon fact on Monday. If its journalism was in question on Sunday, why are the people who were jeering it's reporting on Sunday, taking it's reporting on Monday as gospel truth.

My point exactly. I never said that the Indo was a useless source of news, just one that you should with a pinch of salt (like any modern media source).

RainyDay

Hi KStanl - You seem to have missed out on a couple of important facts.

1) The dead can't sue for libel. You can be damn sure that the lawyers in Independent House made a cold-hearted decision on Saturday afternoon, knowing well that the story was dodgy and knowing well that Lawlor couldn't sue. If he hadn't been killed, there is no way this story would have been run. This was purely commercial decision designed to increase sales at the expense of a grieving family.

2) The point about Lawlor visiting sex clubs & brothels appeared in an Observer article. Let's for a moment not question this statement and say we believe it - so what? He's a private citizen, he's not a TD and he's not lecturing us about family values. If it's OK to broadcast his sexual habits, then it's OK to broadcast the names/pictures of every Irish bloke who hit a brothel or lap-dancing club while on a stag party in Prague or Amsterdam. Is that the kind of press you want to have in Ireland?

3) Who says the woman is now 'missing'? Monday's Indo continued to spin the story as follows;

She then checked into the luxurious Five Star Moscow Marriott Grand Hotel but later disappeared without trace.

A spokesperson for the hotel confirmed to the Irish Independent that Ms Kushnir had checked out without leaving a forwarding address. Her whereabouts were still unknown last night.

Forwarding address?? When was the last time you gave a 'forwarding address' when checking out of a hotel. Staff in a 5-star hotel aren't going to reveal client addresses to a journo over the phone. And what is meant by 'dissappeared without trace'? She just checked out, is she supposed to account for her movements to the editor of the Indo or something?

She's gone home to her family, as anyone would in such circumstances. From today's Examiner;

The sole survivor of the car accident in which Mr Lawlor died, 32-year-old trilingual translator and legal secretary Julia Kushnir, returned to her home in Prague yesterday where she was said to be traumatised by the tragedy and the false allegations that she was a prostitute.

Incidentally, the same article quotes the Irish Embassy in Moscow as "no journalist or newspaper had sought help from the department in verifying the remarks of a Moscow police officer that Mr Lawlor was travelling with a prostitute" which shows just how hard the Indo worked to verify their story on Saturday.

To continue to deny reality in the face of such overwhelming evidence is quite pathetic.

nesf

kstanl wrote:

Eh? Real professional moderating there. First of all I didn't attack anyone diretly with that comment. Secondly, if I said something that breaches the TOS of the boards, then either remove it and warn me or remove it and ban me altogether. Leaving the post there and making threats shows that you're probably just not in agreement with my opinions - and not capable of the job of moderator.

I suspect I'll get banned for this - which also reinforces my above point. The fact is that I really couldn't care less. :rolleyes:

1) There is no TOS. We have charters and expect a certain level of civility from our users. Calling other people morons for not agreeing with you is not acceptable.

2) If you do have an issue with anything I say or do on here as a mod, pm me, don't clutter up the thread with it.

3) Warnings that repeats of certain kinds of behaviour will earn a ban are not threats. If I skipped on niceties, fair enough. But I don't see any threats in what I said.

4) Your opinions did not matter. I really don't care what you think about this issue. Anyone who posted what you did would have gotten the same warning.

5) Just because you don't direct an attack on an individual does not mean it's ok.

If you want to discuss it further then PM me. Otherwise just accept it and get over it.

Sleepy

RainyDay wrote:

What a pity that Kstanl & Sleepy haven't shown the cojones to admit their errors & withdraw their previous comments - Just let me clarify a couple of points;

You are a troll, aren't you? If you can't debate something in a civil, objective fashion, you denigrate both yourself and your argument.

- It's not such a big deal that you believed the original story. I partially believed it myself (though the fact that the girl was in the back seat seemed strange to me). The big deal is that you refuse to see the light now at this stage. Your irrational clinging-on to what was obviously a rogue journo putting 2+2 together to get 19 is just silly.

In your opinion. In mine, it's silly to believe the retraction given the type of man we're talking about, the fact that he was known for visiting hookers, the fact that he had powerful friends and the fact that this is the type of thing press secretaries are paid to cover up.

- Mycroft - the fact that the Sunday Wuddled, the Sunday Turbine & the Sunday Star all carried the same story does nothing to enhance the credibility of the story. All these rags are part of Tony O'Reilly's Independent Newspapers group, so they were all just backing each other up.

True, but afaik, he doesn't own the Observer and they have refused to print a retraction.)

- The 'conspiracy theory' that the story was reversed after pressure from Govt is just plain ludicrous. In fact, it ranks right up there with 'the girl was a hooker' in terms of building a web of pure fiction out of a small issue. Just think of the number of people that would need to be part of the conspiracy to make this happen? Don't you think that just one of those people would leak the truth out somewhere else in the meeja?

I'm sure it will leak out in time. The fact (and it's one of the few concrete facts we seem to have on this issue) that the Observer are refusing to print a retraction speaks loudly in favour of holding the Indo's retraction in a sceptical light.

- Interesting to see that Sleepy is quite happy to spout this bull on a message board but not quite so brave when it comes to looking a relative in the eye and telling the story then. And we're not allowed to refer to Sleepy's family - but Lawlor's greiving family are expected to sit back and read this kind of vicious rumour-mongering? Show some good old-fashioned decent manners, will ya?

I'm not in public office, nor have I ever been. If Lawlor's family are reading this, I apologise for any hurt I've caused them but facts are facts, the man was a whoring criminal.

Can I ask you are you as ignorant, condescending and abusive in real life as you are on here? I'm presuming you're not because I imagine you'd be posting from a hospital ward if you were. Don't throw stones about people being able to say things online they might not necessarily say in public when you're firmly in that glasshouse yourself. It's called hypocrisy, something else your beloved Liam Lawlor was quite good at by the way.

I presume all you guys have absolutely unblemished records - right? You've never screwed around with the wrong person, or taken a leak up a laneway when you've had a few too many, or pulled a sickie from work? You've never done anything that you wouldn't like to see emblazoned across the the front page of one of the red-tops for all your friends & family to see - right? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Like I already stated, I'm not, nor have I ever been in public office so the press have no right to plaster my disdoings over their front page. When you stand for election you are accepting that you will have to live to a higher moral standard than the average person. You are putting yourself forward as one of the best and brightest in the country so you'd better behave like it or any free press will tear you down sooner or later.

I'm no defender of Lawlor, but the behaviour of the Indo group of newspapers on this issue is absolutely disgraceful. To have printed this tissue of lies while the man's body isn't yet cold is pretty scummy.

If the Indo's initial story was a complete fabrication, it would be a poor show on their part. However, given the facts that Lawlor was a public figure, that he was known for dealing with prostitutes and that reports were coming out of Moscow (whether from journalists or the police force) that there was a prostitute in the car with him the worst you can really accuse them of is poor fact-checking. Not nearly as scummy a misdeed as theft if you ask me.

To cling on to this tissue of lies in some misguided effort to save face is just pathetic.

That thinly veiled insult is the only pathetic thing I see here.

AARRRGH

Sleepy wrote:

You are a troll, aren't you? If you can't debate something in a civil, objective fashion, you denigrate both yourself and your argument.

I actually think RainyDay is being very reasonable. If anything, you are being unreasonable, failing to accept that a newspaper made a mistake and instead desperately trying to believe a conspiracy theory!

Also, I'm pretty sure Liam Lawlor was never convicted of any crime (perjury or whatever doesn't really count.) Yes, he was obviously a very shady character, but he was no rapist/murderer/thug.

kstanl

nesf wrote:

5) Just because you don't direct an attack on an individual does not mean it's ok.

Just because I don't directly attack an individual doesn't mean it's okay for me to directly attack an individual? What ARE you talking about?

Seriously, just ban me you self-righteous tosser. These boards are a f**king joke. :rolleyes:

RainyDay

Hi Sleepy - The Observer story is quite interesting. However, you are reading far too much significance into their refusal to withdraw. You need to keep in context the fact that they know damn well that Lawlor can't sue them, and also that they are in the UK, and well away from the centre of the storm.

But as I said, even if he did enjoy the fleshpots of Eastern Europe, so what? He's no longer a TD. He's entitled to do whatever the hell he likes within the boundaries of the law.

You are also putting too much emphasis on Lawlor's importance to the Irish Govt. These guys were hanging him out to dry. No-one in Govt today is going to risk their reputation to protect Lawlor's family from this embarrassment.

So let me ask you a very specific question - are you telling me that the report in today's Examiner which I quoted is all part of the meeja/Govt conspiracy;

The sole survivor of the car accident in which Mr Lawlor died, 32-year-old trilingual translator and legal secretary Julia Kushnir, returned to her home in Prague yesterday where she was said to be traumatised by the tragedy and the false allegations that she was a prostitute.

You don't believe that the other party in the car was Ms Kushnir, the 32-year old translator/secretary - right?

Sleepy

RainyDay wrote:

1) The dead can't sue for libel. You can be damn sure that the lawyers in Independent House made a cold-hearted decision on Saturday afternoon, knowing well that the story was dodgy and knowing well that Lawlor couldn't sue. If he hadn't been killed, there is no way this story would have been run. This was purely commercial decision designed to increase sales at the expense of a grieving family.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure his family could.

2) The point about Lawlor visiting sex clubs & brothels appeared in an Observer article. Let's for a moment not question this statement and say we believe it - so what? He's a private citizen, he's not a TD and he's not lecturing us about family values. If it's OK to broadcast his sexual habits, then it's OK to broadcast the names/pictures of every Irish bloke who hit a brothel or lap-dancing club while on a stag party in Prague or Amsterdam. Is that the kind of press you want to have in Ireland?

He's a former TD and to expect to be granted his privacy after robbing every citizen of this country is insanely arrogant.

I want a press that hound criminals and keep a close eye on our elected representatives. It's always been one of the main arguments for a free press: they help keep governments honest (and Liam Lawlor is the perfect example of why we need them to do that).

3) Who says the woman is now 'missing'? Monday's Indo continued to spin the story as follows;

Forwarding address?? When was the last time you gave a 'forwarding address' when checking out of a hotel. Staff in a 5-star hotel aren't going to reveal client addresses to a journo over the phone. And what is meant by 'dissappeared without trace'? She just checked out, is she supposed to account for her movements to the editor of the Indo or something?

She's gone home to her family, as anyone would in such circumstances. From today's Examiner;

Actually, I agree with you on most of this point. How much use a "tri-lingual" translator who can't apparently speak enough Russian to disuade police officers from the idea that she was a prostitute would be on a trip to Moscow is pretty questionable though. One might even think it wasn't her translation skills she was hired for... :eek:

Incidentally, the same article quotes the Irish Embassy in Moscow as "no journalist or newspaper had sought help from the department in verifying the remarks of a Moscow police officer that Mr Lawlor was travelling with a prostitute" which shows just how hard the Indo worked to verify their story on Saturday.

Why would anyone expect the Irish Embassy to know the details of the case any better than the Moscow police force?

To continue to deny reality in the face of such overwhelming evidence is quite pathetic.

You can't prove that your take on events is reality any more than I can prove that mine is. We're both processing the same information and extrapolating different pictures from it. To ascertain that your view is anything more than your view is nothing more than naieveté at best and arrogance at worst.

nesf

kstanl wrote:

Seriously, just ban me you self-righteous tosser. These boards are a f**king joke. :rolleyes:

*shrugs*

Banned.

AARRRGH

This debate is just getting silly now...

Sleepy

dublindude wrote:

I actually think RainyDay is being very reasonable.

Well, we'll agree to disagree then.

If anything, you are being unreasonable, failing to accept that a newspaper made a mistake and instead desperately trying to believe a conspiracy theory!

I'm not desperately trying to believe anything. I just find the retraction to be very suspect.

Also, I'm pretty sure Liam Lawlor was never convicted of any crime (perjury or whatever doesn't really count.) Yes, he was obviously a very shady character, but he was no rapist/murderer/thug.

White collar crime is no less a crime than any other kind. Would you afford a junkie who held you up on the street with a syringe the same kind of vindication? Personally, I'd see more mitigating circumstances for the junkie tbh.

ferdi

does anyone actually know why he was in russia? not that it matters/

BigEejit

He should have been in jail.
Lets not forget that a lot of the money he got was in brown paper envelopes ... the money that he got through dodgy dealings that we know about may be the very tip of the iceberg here.
He made massive amounts of money illegally and served a couple of months (not sure how much, two short sentences wasnt it?). If I was caught reaching over a counter in a bar and pocketing the days takings I'd get a longer sentence than that.
He got away _almost_ scot free from lining his pockets at this country's expense, he deserves no sympathy.


The whole prostitute/interpeter debate is something we may never find out. The man is dead and wont be taking any more brown paper envelopes, thats all I care about ...
But I fear for every Liam Lawlor we hear about there are 10 that we dont ...

RainyDay

Sleepy wrote:

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure his family could.

Our Justice Minister & former Attorney General seems to agree with me that they can't sue - from Irish Times

Mr McDowell acknowledged that there could still be some challenges in getting his legislation passed, but he said it was the only way of providing protection to families of deceased people, who cannot sue for libel.

Sleepy wrote:

He's a former TD and to expect to be granted his privacy after robbing every citizen of this country is insanely arrogant.

Yet again, I'm not suggesting you grant anything to Lawlor. I'm suggesting you grant his wife & children some privacy & protection from spurious, unfounded allegations until they can at least bury the man.

Sleepy wrote:

I want a press that hound criminals and keep a close eye on our elected representatives. It's always been one of the main arguments for a free press: they help keep governments honest (and Liam Lawlor is the perfect example of why we need them to do that).

Eh, he's not an elected representative. He got out of that game some time ago. And he wasn't convicted of anything - his time in jail related to contempt of court.

I agree on the benefit of a free press. But claims of brothel visit & sex clubs just aren't relevant. And as for spurious claims about teenage prostitutes ......

Sleepy wrote:

Actually, I agree with you on most of this point. How much use a "tri-lingual" translator who can't apparently speak enough Russian to disuade police officers from the idea that she was a prostitute would be on a trip to Moscow is pretty questionable though. One might even think it wasn't her translation skills she was hired for... :eek:

Why are you assuming that she didn't explain her situation to the police? Why are you allocating blame to her? Have you considered that the shock of being in an accident where 2 people were killed just might have affected her ability to communicate?

You should consider getting a job at the Indo. Your ability to cast slurs on people with no supporting evidence will be valued greatly there. Your 'One might think' comment is quite outragous, and I'd suggest that you reflect on this. Could you look the translator's 6 year old daughter in the eye & explain why you felt it necessary to imply that her mother sleeps around?

So just to be clear, you do now accept that the person in the car wasn't a teenager - right?

mycroft

RainyDay wrote:

- Mycroft - the fact that the Sunday Wuddled, the Sunday Turbine & the Sunday Star all carried the same story does nothing to enhance the credibility of the story. All these rags are part of Tony O'Reilly's Independent Newspapers group, so they were all just backing each other up.

Thats nice and say it with me my quote came from the Observer. Not a member of the O'Reilly group.

- The 'conspiracy theory' that the story was reversed after pressure from Govt is just plain ludicrous. In fact, it ranks right up there with 'the girl was a hooker' in terms of building a web of pure fiction out of a small issue. Just think of the number of people that would need to be part of the conspiracy to make this happen? Don't you think that just one of those people would leak the truth out somewhere else in the meeja?

Alternatively, the far more plausible story is the girl was a hooker, and this conspiracy theory is by his family. I'm not saying she was but your conspiracy theory is more farcial. That the moment these papers heard there was an unnamed girl in the car, they decided she was a hooker?

- Interesting to see that Sleepy is quite happy to spout this bull on a message board but not quite so brave when it comes to looking a relative in the eye and telling the story then. And we're not allowed to refer to Sleepy's family - but Lawlor's greiving family are expected to sit back and read this kind of vicious rumour-mongering? Show some good old-fashioned decent manners, will ya?

I presume all you guys have absolutely unblemished records - right? You've never screwed around with the wrong person, or taken a leak up a laneway when you've had a few too many, or pulled a sickie from work? You've never done anything that you wouldn't like to see emblazoned across the the front page of one of the red-tops for all your friends & family to see - right? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Oh pluzzee spare us the self righteous posturing, has sleepy ever abused public office, used public finances for personal gain, taken massive bribes? No, suggesting whatever minor infration sleepy has had and suggesting he is therefore forbidden from criticising Lawlor.

I'm no defender of Lawlor, but the behaviour of the Indo group of newspapers on this issue is absolutely disgraceful. To have printed this tissue of lies while the man's body isn't yet cold is pretty scummy. To cling on to this tissue of lies in some misguided effort to save face is just pathetic.

For the record, here's the Indo's apology;

Thats nice still doesn't escape the fact you were wrong the indo wasn't the only paper, and not just in the O'Reilly group that reported the story.