Olympic Council fella Pat Hickey Arrested in Rio

Muff Richardson · 28-08-2016 7:54pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Twitter and Facebook are only verifying the accounts. The Journal is publishing the comments.

So what? Why are the journal liable for what's said by commenters? Where's the law?

anothernight · 28-08-2016 7:55pm

Muff Richardson wrote: »

So what? Why are the journal liable for what's said by commenters? Where's the law?

Isn't it like when you couldn't mention MCD on boards.ie, years ago? Irish websites seem to always be walking on eggshells when it comes to mentioning anyone in a negative light. Very harsh defamation laws.

Muff Richardson · 28-08-2016 7:58pm

anothernight wrote: »

Isn't it like when you couldn't mention MCD on boards.ie, years ago? Irish websites seem to always be walking on eggshells when it comes to mentioning anyone in a negative light. Very harsh defamation laws.

Ok...where's the defamation law on anonymous, mostly troll users commenting on an online news site?

Jimmy Garlic · 28-08-2016 8:00pm

anothernight wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but... what's the point of hiring an Irish lawyer in Ireland when the case is happening in Brazil? What does Hickey's family hope the Irish lawyer will do, when she clearly has no knowledge of Brazilian law at all?

Going by that interview with Marian Finucane, Anne Marie James is only embarrassing herself.

He has questions to answer here too so he is stocking up on professional liars. Usually things like this are brushed under the proverbial carpet, but given the high profile of this case that is an awful lot harder to do.

Do some people wonder why nothing works properly in this country? Do they wonder why countless millions thrown at organisations never translate into good results? There is always some morally bankrupt parasite creaming off the top for their own gain. That's the norm in Ireland.

maudgonner · 28-08-2016 8:01pm

Muff Richardson wrote: »

Ok...where's the defamation law on anonymous, mostly troll users commenting on an online news site?

Here's an article about it.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/Internet-defamation-who-is-legally-responsible-for-online-comments-266171.html

It's a tricky area.

anothernight · 28-08-2016 8:03pm

Muff Richardson wrote: »

Ok...where's the defamation law on anonymous, mostly troll users commenting on an online news site?

Not a clue as I'm not a lawyer but boards.ie is always going on about them being liable, and then you have this:
http://www.defamationireland.com/defamation-cases-in-ireland/

"In the USA defamation law gives Internet providers a defence in respect of material written by their users, as in many EU countries where this is also the case.
(...)
We would hope that Ireland eventually catches up and introduces this more balanced approach, however as it stands you can take a case for defamation against the owner of a website, even it they are not the author of the offensive comments."

anothernight · 28-08-2016 8:28pm

Finucane: “Right. You’re in contact now with the lawyers over there. And I don’t want to name names or anything like that at all but I’s alleged that he was told to put Shane back in his box, the Minister, but that seems an extraordinary attitude, doesn’t it?”

James: “Well I think it was something which came to him by way of an advisory letter which I think, maybe the wording is unfortunate, but in reality, I’m not sure that this is known and I only know this because of having been involved with the family and listening to the lawyers speaking with the Irish lawyers is that it hasn’t been put out that, when somebody’s asked if they’re going to have an internal investigation it’s pretty normal that there is no external person on that, you can have as many external investigations as you like and because there was pressure by Minister Ross to have somebody put on to, initially there was a refusal because that’s the way they do it, because of the seriousness of it I think Mr Hickey asked his next boss in the, I think it was the EOC, and there had been an agreement reached with Mr Ross after several hours of negotiation that they would appoint Ken Spratt, so that hasn’t come out, so it’s all you know smoke and mirrors that he’s been of no assistance and all that, but that’s for another time, that’s for an investigation which, you know he’ll have to come and answer and I don’t know how that can happen if he’s incarcerated in a prison in Rio.”

It seems to me that the smoke and mirrors is actually her rambling. I can't make much sense of that whole paragraph-long sentence tbh.

chillin117 · 28-08-2016 8:41pm

Basically he told Shane Ross to fcuk off, That was BEFORE he was arrested. Now he (and his family) are pleading like a puppy left downstairs on his first night in the kitchen..Alone... Makin it up as he goes along. Maybe ring Putin ?

anothernight · 28-08-2016 8:50pm

Oh, I know what happened. I just don't know what she's trying to say! She first says she's not sure that this is known (the putting him back in his box thing)... and then goes on a major rant about very little. It's really weird. You'd think a lawyer would be better at explaining things clearly than most of us.

ZeroThreat · 28-08-2016 8:52pm

chillin117 wrote: »

Basically he told Shane Ross to fcuk off, That was BEFORE he was arrested. Now he (and his family) are pleading like a puppy left downstairs on his first night in the kitchen..Alone... Makin it up as he goes along. Maybe ring Putin ?

I wonder will the media let it all die down for a while though. All the faux outrage & hubris on their behalf is probably making it worse for Hickey.

Jimmy Garlic · 28-08-2016 8:55pm

ZeroThreat wrote: »

I wonder will the media let it all die down for a while though. All the faux outrage & hubris on their behalf is probably making it worse for Hickey.

But he is a feeble old man in a third world prison, we are supposed to feel sorry for him

Water John · 28-08-2016 8:58pm

M/s James and these PR people don't come cheap, esp putting themselves in the public domain defending you.

ZeroThreat · 28-08-2016 8:58pm

ZeroThreat wrote: »

I wonder will the media let it all die down for a while though. All the faux outrage & hubris on their behalf is probably making it worse for Hickey.

No prizes for guessing what the Castleknock parish special collection was in aid of today...

Water John · 28-08-2016 9:00pm

Zero, you answered my question very quickly.

Fred Swanson · 28-08-2016 9:16pm

This post has been deleted.

ahlookit · 28-08-2016 9:26pm

FAI retweeted pic of Ballymoe pitch opening today. Delaney turned up a day late to dodge the press.

Note the hastily changed date on the plaque

http://twitter.com/Ballymoe__FC/status/769972094641774592

sjb25 · 28-08-2016 9:32pm

Sneaky fecker

brooke 2 · 28-08-2016 9:43pm

anothernight wrote: »

Oh, I know what happened. I just don't know what she's trying to say! She first says she's not sure that this is known (the putting him back in his box thing)... and then goes on a major rant about very little. It's really weird. You'd think a lawyer would be better at explaining things clearly than most of us.

Maybe that is why she has engaged PR guru, Paul Allen, allegedly!

Realt Dearg Sec · 28-08-2016 9:47pm

ahlookit wrote: »

FAI retweeted pic of Ballymoe pitch opening today. Delaney turned up a day late to dodge the press.

Note the hastily changed date on the plaque

http://twitter.com/Ballymoe__FC/status/769972094641774592

Clearly the actions of a man with nothing to hide.

Wildlife Actor · 28-08-2016 9:50pm

In the midst of all the distraction about Hickey's detention, it's surprising that nobody involved in the OCI or with Hickey has come out and said what the contract between the OCI and Pro10 actually says. The following questions are screaming out:

1. Do Pro10 pay the OCI face value for the tickets?
2. Do Pro10 have to take all tickets not distributed by OCI to athletes, family etc.?
3. Do Pro10 take on a "sale or return" basis (or some other basis)?
4. Is there a prohibition on Pro10 selling over face value (excluding small admin charge)?
5. Is there a prohibition on Pro10 repackaging/bundling?
6. Is there a penalty for Pro10 selling over face value or repackaging/bundling (e.g. all improper profits to be remitted to OCI)?
7. If answer to 4 or 5 is "no" is there profit share agreement?
8. Are the sales methods stipulated as a matter of contract?
9. Is there a regime for reporting back on sales?

Whatever about Brazilian anti-touting laws, all of these things are basic basic basic as a matter of governance.

A. If Pro10/THG are not prohibited from selling above face value or bundling, that is improper conduct for a body like the OCI (why? because it allows for its resources to be used in the best interests of third parties rather than the body itself, all the more so if athletes/families are deprived of free or face value tickets).

B. If Pro10/THG are prohibited from selling above face value or bundling but there is no supervision or enforcement of it, that is improper conduct for a body like the OCI (same reason as above).

C. If Hickey or anyone else is getting kickbacks as a result of Pro10 or THG being entitled to make improper profits, that's self-evidently improper conduct.

The trouble is that, while allowing such obvious profiteering on an OCI resource leads one logically to the conclusion that kickbacks (i.e. C above) are likely to be happening, it will be impossible to trace the kickbacks unless Hickey/Pro10/THG are incredibly stupid (or perhaps if CAB get involved).

But (to eventually get to the point of this post) proof of kickbacks is most likely irrelevant to the Brazilian law (which is about the profiteering (Pro10/THG/Mallon) and facilitation of same (OCI/Hickey)). Equally, proof of kickbacks is irrelevant to the corporate governance issues at A. and B, which are (or should be) central to the Irish investigation.

So, when (as I believe is likely) it proves impossible to trace any kickbacks to Hickey, nobody should consider Hickey as exonerated from either the (apparent) Brazilian crime or the (apparent) improper misappropriation of an OCI resource (why "apparent"? because as I said at the start of this post, nobody in OCI has explained what is in the Pro10 contract).

28-08-2016 10:10pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Clearly the actions of a man with nothing to hide who is untouchable

Fixed your post

ZeroThreat · 28-08-2016 10:13pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fixed your post

'Untouchable' may have more than one meaning now in his case.

CMOTDibbler · 28-08-2016 10:14pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

In the midst of all the distraction about Hickey's detention, it's surprising that nobody involved in the OCI or with Hickey has come out and said what the contract between the OCI and Pro10 actually says. The following questions are screaming out:

1. Do Pro10 pay the OCI face value for the tickets?
2. Do Pro10 have to take all tickets not distributed by OCI to athletes, family etc.?
3. Do Pro10 take on a "sale or return" basis (or some other basis)?
4. Is there a prohibition on Pro10 selling over face value (excluding small admin charge)?
5. Is there a prohibition on Pro10 repackaging/bundling?
6. Is there a penalty for Pro10 selling over face value or repackaging/bundling (e.g. all improper profits to be remitted to OCI)?
7. If answer to 4 or 5 is "no" is there profit share agreement?
8. Are the sales methods stipulated as a matter of contract?
9. Is there a regime for reporting back on sales?

Whatever about Brazilian anti-touting laws, all of these things are basic basic basic as a matter of governance.

A. If Pro10/THG are not prohibited from selling above face value or bundling, that is improper conduct for a body like the OCI (why? because it allows for its resources to be used in the best interests of third parties rather than the body itself, all the more so if athletes/families are deprived of free or face value tickets).

B. If Pro10/THG are prohibited from selling above face value or bundling but there is no supervision or enforcement of it, that is improper conduct for a body like the OCI (same reason as above).

C. If Hickey or anyone else is getting kickbacks as a result of Pro10 or THG being entitled to make improper profits, that's self-evidently improper conduct.

The trouble is that, while allowing such obvious profiteering on an OCI resource leads one logically to the conclusion that kickbacks (i.e. C above) are likely to be happening, it will be impossible to trace the kickbacks unless Hickey/Pro10/THG are incredibly stupid (or perhaps if CAB get involved).

But (to eventually get to the point of this post) proof of kickbacks is most likely irrelevant to the Brazilian law (which is about the profiteering (Pro10/THG/Mallon) and facilitation of same (OCI/Hickey)). Equally, proof of kickbacks is irrelevant to the corporate governance issues at A. and B, which are (or should be) central to the Irish investigation.

So, when (as I believe is likely) it proves impossible to trace any kickbacks to Hickey, nobody should consider Hickey as exonerated from either the (apparent) Brazilian crime or the (apparent) improper misappropriation of an OCI resource (why "apparent"? because as I said at the start of this post, nobody in OCI has explained what is in the Pro10 contract).

If you do a bit of assiduous Googling, you'll find the rules for Olympic ATRs on the net. I saw them a couple of days ago, and as far as I remember they answer most of your questions.

Wildlife Actor · 28-08-2016 10:18pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If you do a bit of assiduous Googling, you'll find the rules for Olympic ATRs on the net. I saw them a couple of days ago, and as far as I remember they answer most of your questions.

How do you know that the signed OCI/Pro10 contract (assuming there is one) replicates these provisions?

And could you link the IOC terms?

CMOTDibbler · 28-08-2016 10:36pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

How do you know that the signed OCI/Pro10 contract (assuming there is one) replicates these provisions?

And could you link the IOC terms?

Because the contract isn't with the OCI. The OCI only recommend them as the local ATR, ROCOG approve them and license them.

I don't have time now to go looking, but it's out there along with the requirements to apply to be an ATR.

Wildlife Actor · 28-08-2016 10:48pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Because the contract isn't with the OCI. The OCI only recommend them as the local ATR, ROCOG approve them and license them.

I don't have time now to go looking, but it's out there along with the requirements to apply to be an ATR.

Maybe you could link it tomorrow?

At any rate there must be a contractual framework between each NOC and its nominated ATR to govern their interactions. After all, if the OCI went and gave their "excess" tickets to Cosport or some other reseller, Pro10 would have to have some means of comeback against them. It may be that each agrees to be bound by the IOC rules or a standard contract produced by ROCOG, but there has to be a governing document.

CMOTDibbler · 28-08-2016 10:55pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

Maybe you could link it tomorrow?

At any rate there must be a contractual framework between each NOC and its nominated ATR to govern their interactions. After all, if the OCI went and gave their "excess" tickets to Cosport or some other reseller, Pro10 would have to have some means of comeback against them. It may be that each agrees to be bound by the IOC rules or a standard contract produced by ROCOG, but there has to be a governing document.

It doesn't work like that. ROCOG deal directly with the ATRs and that's who they get their tickets from. I think they may go through the continental office first, but I'm not sure about that. There are NOC tickets that go directly to each NOC to give to sponsors (or sell; I'm not sure about that bit, and it was while looking for that info, I came across the conditions doc). If you go back on this thread, you should find a link to it.

It's the general rules for ticket sales, but includes ATR rules as well.

Wildlife Actor · 28-08-2016 11:04pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It doesn't work like that. ROCOG deal directly with the ATRs and that's who they get their tickets from. I think they may go through the continental office first, but I'm not sure about that. There are NOC tickets that go directly to each NOC to give to sponsors (or sell; I'm not sure about that bit, and it was while looking for that info, I came across the conditions doc). If you go back on this thread, you should find a link to it.

It's the general rules for ticket sales, but includes ATR rules as well.

I got this ,but that's the contract that Joe Punter enters into when buying a ticket so it can't be the right rules.

Similarly, general sales of tickets ROCOG - ATR - punter is not what this is about at all and is therefore a bit of a red herring.

This is about the NOC (OCI here) allocation and the process for passing tickets to the ATR (Pro10 here). That's what brought Hickey into it at all.

I suppose it's also about the nomination process but that will be its own kettle of fish.

daisybelle2008 · 28-08-2016 11:04pm

anothernight wrote: »

Oh, I know what happened. I just don't know what she's trying to say! She first says she's not sure that this is known (the putting him back in his box thing)... and then goes on a major rant about very little. It's really weird. You'd think a lawyer would be better at explaining things clearly than most of us.

I didn't hear it but written down it is really inarticulate. Even the 'Miracle baby' stuff is confusing. 'With great effort they are hoping there will be another baby....that's just a background to the stress they're under at the moment' ....is she linking PH's situation to the baby survival or conception or what? The 'heart condition' sounds sketchy as hell.
And 'trawled naked'? We saw sweet FA....not that you'd want to mind, just his head and neck.

God she got it easy from Marian.

foggy_lad · 28-08-2016 11:16pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Only a couple of sentences in, came to the bit about the "miracle baby" and already my gob is well and truly smacked!!

ah the poor family have enough on their plates with making more babies. Just a pile of PR bullcarp

anothernight wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but... what's the point of hiring an Irish lawyer in Ireland when the case is happening in Brazil? What does Hickey's family hope the Irish lawyer will do, when she clearly has no knowledge of Brazilian law at all?

Going by that interview with Marian Finucane, Anne Marie James is only embarrassing herself.

She is a PR person before a solicitor!

Does anyone remember the name of the company who were to collect all the computers and laptops phones etc involved in this scam and destroy keep them safe for the many upcoming inquiries?

I forsee enquiry A telling us that they can not continue untill Enquiries B and C and D have completed and all the other enquirues telling us the same! they will all be chasing their own tails while the taxpayer pays their PR and solicitors and people like the communications clinic.

That Ms James solicitor sounds like she was trained by the Halawa sisters!

Olympic Council fella Pat Hickey Arrested in Rio

Comments