Press freedom and INM

I think people are jumping the gun here but I'm open to correction.

The minister inforned an INM representive that he would refer the decision to the BAI. That in itself is not in breach of stock market rules. I'm guessing it's the norm in such scenarios but im no expert.

INM's decision to the share this information with 1 shareholder and not others is what constitutes a breach of stock trading rules. The chairman has a duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders. That is what is at issue here.

Again, I'm open to correction.

Fascinating case all the same.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I think people are jumping the gun here but I'm open to correction.

The minister inforned an INM representive that he would refer the decision to the BAI. That in itself is not in breach of stock market rules. I'm guessing it's the norm in such scenarios but im no expert.

INM's decision to the share this information with 1 shareholder and not others is what constitutes a breach of stock trading rules. The chairman has a duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders. That is what is at issue here.

Again, I'm open to correction.

Fascinating case all the same.

D.N to make a statement to the Dail in the next few mins.

Howlin made this observation .

Labour leader Brendan Howlin said it was an extraordinary revelation that the Minister provided key information to an INM lobbyist, considering he refused to engage with the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) on that same issue

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I think people are jumping the gun here but I'm open to correction.

The minister inforned an INM representive that he would refer the decision to the BAI. That in itself is not in breach of stock market rules. I'm guessing it's the norm in such scenarios but im no expert.

INM's decision to the share this information with 1 shareholder and not others is what constitutes a breach of stock trading rules. The chairman has a duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders. That is what is at issue here.

Again, I'm open to correction.

Fascinating case all the same.

well not quite. He told INM that he would refer the decision to the BAI. he subsequently told the Dail that no such decision had been made.

Storm in a teacup it seems.

Meanwhile the O'Brien saga continues.

golfball37

It’s a resignation matter in any proper democracy

D.N telling the Dail that he passed on the information in a personal capacity.

The opposition rightly asking if you take a call as the minister, how do you answer it as a private citizen?

Deise Vu

What is truly scary is that politicians feel the need to kowtow to certain individuals. Politicians have the power to bring in regulations about media ownership in the public interest, they have the power to relax our infamously generous libel laws, they could introduce laws that make it necessary to prove financial loss in libel cases. They can make whatever statement they like protected in the Dail. But they choose not too.

It’s almost like they are beholden in some way to certain individuals. Is it the fear of negative publicity (God forbid that anyone would interfere with editorial integrity, that would never happen would it?) or is it something else? Whatever it is, our politicians failure to deal with certain individuals in an appropriate manner brings politics into disrepute. And the clowns will wonder why they are despised by the electorate.

golfball37 wrote: »

It’s a resignation matter in any proper democracy

No it’s not.

First Leo boasts about interfering with a planning application for a billionaire, then we have Naughten passing on insider information to a billionaire.

They're laughing at the great unwashed.

Money truly can buy anything you want.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

First Leo boasts about interfering with a planning application for a billionaire, then we have Naughten passing on insider information to a billionaire.

They're laughing at the great unwashed.

Money truly can buy anything you want.

Fairly serious allegation there with your last sentence.

Anything to back it up?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

First Leo boasts about interfering with a planning application for a billionaire, then we have Naughten passing on insider information to a billionaire.

They're laughing at the great unwashed.

Money truly can buy anything you want.

There's a thin line between an allegation and a slur.

Tread carefully.

I assume your evidence is forthcoming in your next post?

Allinall wrote: »

Fairly serious allegation there with your last sentence.

Anything to back it up?

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

There's a thin line between an allegation and a slur.

Tread carefully.

I assume your evidence is forthcoming in your next post?

Perhaps I should have placed the word 'possibly' in my last post, but meh.

I'm surprised if neither of you seen the news today, and the ministers excuses.

As he faced accusations of possibly breaching his duty as a minister, Mr Naughten said it had been his "personal" opinion that he gave to the PR executive in a mobile phone call discussion.

He told the PR official and former government press secretary Eoghan O'Neachtain that he was “likely”to refer the media deal to a phase II assessment, which would be under the BAI.

The phone conversation took place, he said, either on November 10 or 11 2016, some months before it emerged the following January that the sales process would go to the BAI.

The minister insisted in the D this afternoon that he had not divulged “insider information” to Mr O'Neachtain. It has been reported that this detail was passed to Heneghan PR before going from then INM chairman Leslie Buckley and then onto businessman Denis O'Brien.

As I said earlier, when does the minister stop being the minister?

You would have to wonder if the information he passed on, was divulged to him as his role as minister, or in a personal capacity?

I will be extremeh surpised if Catherine Murphy isn letting this one go.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I will be extremeh surpised if Catherine Murphy isn letting this one go.

I will be extremely surprised if there's not an election around the corner.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Perhaps I should have placed the word 'possibly' in my last post, but meh.

I'm surprised if neither of you seen the news today, and the ministers excuses.

As I said earlier, when does the minister stop being the minister?

You would have to wonder if the information he passed on, was divulged to him as his role as minister, or in a personal capacity?

I will be extremeh surpised if Catherine Murphy isn letting this one go.

Where exactly would you place the “possibly” in your post?

And why have you not edited it?

Your implication was very clear , and your last post is just a deflection.

Do you think the minister took money for information?

A yes or no or “I don’t know” will be enough.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

D.N telling the Dail that he passed on the in a personal capacity.

The opposition rightly asking if you take a call as the minister, how do you answer it as a private citizen?

maybe he changes hats?

Allinall wrote: »

Where exactly would you place the “possibly” in your post?

And why have you not edited it?

Your implication was very clear , and your last post is just a deflection.

Do you think the minister took money for ?

A yes or no or “I don’t know” will be enough.

actual cash? probably not. influence and/or other favours down the road, possibly.

Allinall wrote: »

Where exactly would you place the “possibly” in your post?

Right before "passing"

And why have you not edited it?

Because this story is still evolving, and I'm still unsure as to what information a government ministers supposed to be giving a lobbyist in a 'personal capacity.

Your implication was very clear , and your last post is just a deflection.

Do you think the minister took money for information?

A yes or no or “I don’t know” will be enough.

Where did I even remotely suggest such a thing, you're trying to put words into my post that I didn't say.

My post wasn't that cryptic either, basically - Like Leo boasting about Trump, Naughten being overly personal and loose with information he obtained through his ministerial role, big business (men) always seem to come out on top of late.

touts

golfball37 wrote: »

It’s a resignation matter in any proper democracy

Not in this country. DN is now the front runner for either the government's presidential nominee or to be our next EU Commissioner. Something to put him out of the way while not punishing him and therefore deterring future ministers from doing favours for redacted.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Right before "passing"

Because this story is still evolving, and I'm still unsure as to what information a government ministers supposed to be giving a lobbyist in a 'personal capacity.

Where did I even remotely suggest such a thing, you're trying to put words into my post that I didn't say.

My post wasn't that cryptic either, basically - Like Leo boasting about Trump, Naughten being overly personal and loose with information he obtained through his ministerial role, big business (men) always seem to come out on top of late.

You said

“Money truly can buy you anything you want”

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe he changes hats?

Well this is it.

What next, Paschal giving budget decisions to lobbyists weeks in advance of the budget, so long as the info is given in a personal capacity?

Allinall wrote: »

You said

“Money truly can buy you anything you want”

Johnny was wearing his 'being facetious' hat. So it doesn't count. Possibly.

Allinall wrote: »

You said

“Money truly can buy you anything you want”

Not going down your rabbit hole, I clarified my position thankyou very much.

Ulysses Gaze

<Redacted> still can't accept that he was found out at the Tribunal and that his ill gotten gains were exposed as just that.

He should just move on at this stage.

He is just making himself look like an even bigger clown.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Johnny was wearing his 'being facetious' hat. So it doesn't count. Possibly.

I was wearing my personal hat.

Some clarity today.

The minister did not pass on information that was not already in the public domain.

The minister's decision was not made at the time he spoke to O'Neachtain.

He also told O'Neachtain that when the time came to make the decision, it would be made solely on the advice of his officials and that he would be acting on their recomendation.

So it seems the lobbyist took it on himself to report to his employer the blatantly obvious. But dress it up as 'having the ear of the minister', despite receiving no such wink or nod.

Let's remind ourselves why this is in the news today.

1. Leslie Buckley received this information from a lobbyist who was employed by INM.

2. Leslie Buckley in his role as chairman of INM has a duty of care to act in the best interests of all INM shareholders.

3. Leslie Buckley informed only 1 shareholder of this information, which was already in the public domain.

4. Leslie Buckley possibly failed in his duty to inform the other shareholders which constitutes a breach of insider trading rules.

5. Hence the ODCE investigation.

Also, it seems if a minister farts in the same room as Denis O'Brien it deserves a headline. Particularly during a slow news week following the high court's decision to delay a case.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Some clarity today.

The minister did not pass on information that was not already in the public domain.

The minister's decision was not made at the time he spoke to O'Neachtain.

He also told O'Neachtain that when the time came to make the decision, it would be made solely on the advice of his officials and that he would be acting on their recomendation.

So it seems the lobbyist took it on himself to report to his employer the blatantly obvious. But dress it up as 'having the ear of the minister', despite receiving no such wink or nod.

Let's remind ourselves why this is in the news today.

1. Leslie Buckley received this information from a lobbyist who was employed by INM.

2. Leslie Buckley in his role as chairman of INM has a duty of care to act in the best interests of all INM shareholders.

3. Leslie Buckley informed only 1 shareholder of this information, which was already in the public domain.

4. Leslie Buckley possibly failed in his duty to inform the other shareholders which constitutes a breach of insider trading rules.

5. Hence the ODCE investigation.

Also, it seems if a minister farts in the same room as Denis O'Brien it deserves a headline. Particularly during a slow news week following the high court's decision to delay a case.

but what he told buckley just coincidentally happened to be what he actually did.

Gravelly

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Also, it seems if a minister farts in the same room as Denis O'Brien it deserves a headline.

Can you think of a reason that might be the case? Perhaps something in the track record of <redacted> in relation to ministers making decisions that are inexplicably favorable to him?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but what he told buckley just coincidentally happened to be what he actually did.

The dogs in the street knew it would get referred to the BAI.

There was already heightened interest in O'Brien's role in Irish media. Everyone knew this acquisition was going to be picked apart and scrutinised. There would have been hell if it went ahead without BAI having a say. And rightly so.