Prime Time Heckle - How much do you really know about Declan Ganley?

cookiemonster wrote:

You are a very odd individual.

In the best possible way!!

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Cookiemonster, if you think all this information is so feeble and uninformative, why do you follow it around?

because much of it is false information and is purposefully misinterpreted and presented in such a way as to cast Declan Ganley is ill light.

That is a serious accusation. What is the false information you are referring to?

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Cookiemonster, if you think all this information is so feeble and uninformative, why do you follow it around?

because much of it is false information and is purposefully misinterpreted and presented in such a way as to cast Declan Ganley is ill light.

That is a serious accusation. What is the false information you are referring to?

Not as serious as calling somebody a fascist. I have clarified the false information on this thread.

cactus flower wrote:

I see that there is another outbreak of
personal disparagement and abuse in this thread. Please self mod your
posts, and behave yourselves.

mod cf

Here Here.

Machine Nation rules, and not only that, it HAS rules.

Thanks Cactus

The icing on the cake, Anticoalition, would be if you would self mod your own post above, and only leave in the nice bits

cactus flower wrote:

The icing on the cake, Anticoalition, would be if you would self mod your own post above, and only leave in the nice bits

Sure... jubilation just got the better of me

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Cookiemonster, if you think all this information is so feeble and uninformative, why do you follow it around?

because much of it is false information and is purposefully misinterpreted and presented in such a way as to cast Declan Ganley is ill light.

That is a serious accusation. What is the false information you are referring to?

Not as serious as calling somebody a fascist. I have clarified the false information on this thread.

It is serious to call someone a fascist, or proto-fascist, unless a person is a supporter of the far right. There are some people, sadly, who would take it as a compliment.

I certainly remember that you have said that some things said on the thread are off-topic ( and on some of these I have agreed with you), but I must have missed the parts where you clarified false information.

CF - please ignore the rehashed fascist thing. You've answered it enough times already.

On topic - it seems that one cannot just switch into politics at a later stage of your life without people crawling all over your past. Indeed the potential politician would want to have his plan together form the age of about 20 years old and never engage in anything which might be open to question or misinterpretation in later years.

Ganley is subject to no substantial allegations of wrongdoing as far as I can tell, save perhaps that many people do not accept that he has complied with SIPO and some of the people involved in awarding the emergency communications system in Iraq have accused Rivada of behaving sneakily in inserting a clause allowing Rivada to run a commercial phone system. Ganley has flat denied that.

Apart from allegations of wrongdoing. the Primetime program did seek to focus on inconsistent or potentially inaccurate statements by Declan Ganley. They focused on (i) his co-operation with SIPO,
(ii) his familiarity with the Dead Albanian,
(iii) his business history in Russia,
(iv) his statments to a former diplomat,
(v) his association with the Latvian (?) Government or lack thereof,
(vi) his dealings with the Albanian public,
(vii) his dealings in Central American TV stations.

Ganley has rebuffed this by saying:
a. The reporting was inaccurate, biased and slovenly,
b. Fanatics in brussels are pushing an Agenda against him,
c. His links with the Lativian (?) Government were genuine,
d. He did not know the Dead Albanian,
e. The music was from a horror film,
f. The SIPO letters had not been sent ot him and must have been leaked (only came up with this the next day).

Prime Time did not draw any conclusions but showed us what they had found. It was the music and the tone of voice which told us what they wanted us to think. Whilst the show was biased in tone, there are questions which remain unanswered which allegations of bias do not address.

Personally, I could live with a man with a checkered career in his early days getting a bit of sense when he grew up and focussing on politics. I would hope that he might have more real world experience than the plethora of teachers populating our Dail. If he said, "Look, I was a bit green and didn't realy understand what was going on around me but that was the way things worked while those countries found their feet and private industry had to help" then I would consider it.

What really sets the alarm bells ringing for me though is his current business associates and activities and the huge amount of money which was poured into the anti-Lisbon campaign. I want to know who is spending the greenbacks to influence our political future and exploiting the Irish requirement for a referendum, possibly at the Irish nation's expense and possibly (only possibly becasue the information is not available) for their own commercial interests.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

CF - please ignore the rehashed fascist thing. You've answered it enough times already.

On topic - it seems that one cannot just switch into politics at a later stage of your life without people crawling all over your past. Indeed the potential politician would want to have his plan together form the age of about 20 years old and never engage in anything which might be open to question or misinterpretation in later years.

Ganley is subject to no substantial allegations of wrongdoing as far as I can tell, save perhaps that many people do not accept that he has complied with SIPO and some of the people involved in awarding the emergency communications system in Iraq have accused Rivada of behaving sneakily in inserting a clause allowing Rivada to run a commercial phone system. Ganley has flat denied that.

Apart from allegations of wrongdoing. the Primetime program did seek to focus on inconsistent or potentially inaccurate statements by Declan Ganley. They focused on (i) his co-operation with SIPO,
(ii) his familiarity with the Dead Albanian,
(iii) his business history in Russia,
(iv) his statments to a former diplomat,
(v) his association with the Latvian (?) Government or lack thereof,
(vi) his dealings with the Albanian public,
(vii) his dealings in Central American TV stations.

Ganley has rebuffed this by saying:
a. The reporting was inaccurate, biased and slovenly,
b. Fanatics in brussels are pushing an Agenda against him,
c. His links with the Lativian (?) Government were genuine,
d. He did not know the Dead Albanian,
e. The music was from a horror film,
f. The SIPO letters had not been sent ot him and must have been leaked (only came up with this the next day).

Prime Time did not draw any conclusions but showed us what they had found. It was the music and the tone of voice which told us what they wanted us to think. Whilst the show was biased in tone, there are questions which remain unanswered which allegations of bias do not address.

Personally, I could live with a man with a checkered career in his early days getting a bit of sense when he grew up and focussing on politics. I would hope that he might have more real world experience than the plethora of teachers populating our Dail. If he said, "Look, I was a bit green and didn't realy understand what was going on around me but that was the way things worked while those countries found their feet and private industry had to help" then I would consider it.

What really sets the alarm bells ringing for me though is his current business associates and activities and the huge amount of money which was poured into the anti-Lisbon campaign. I want to know who is spending the greenbacks to influence our political future and exploiting the Irish requirement for a referendum, possibly at the Irish nation's expense and possibly (only possibly becasue the information is not available) for their own commercial interests.

There's a phrase of Bush's that I liked - "when I was young and dumb, I was young and dumb".

I have a serious problem with Ganley's attitude to SIPO:

Quote :

The group spent an estimated €1m on the Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign back in the summer. But the source of the funds for the organisation remains a mystery.

Mr Ganley admits he loaned €200,000 and Libertas communications director John McGurk says a repayment facility is in place for this loan.

But the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) is looking for a copy of this loan agreement as well as further information on the Libertas funding. SIPO has issued a final warning to Libertas, giving it seven days to answer queries on its funding.

The commission may send a report on to the chairman of the Dail citing the failure to comply.

Mr Ganley claims SIPO is now part of a 'Brussels agenda' against his organisation.

"We have engaged with the Standards in Public Office Commission since before the referendum started.

"What is very unfortunate is that some fanatics in Brussels decided that this should be the instrument that they would publicly qualify to bludgeon us.

"I have to view SIPO as an extension of that agenda. They don't want to be, I'm sure they don't want to be an extension of that agenda, but I now have to view them in that way so that involves legal review and everything else and that is what we are going to do," he said.

That's a very serious accusation, levelled at an agency for which I have a good deal of respect. SIPO doesn't achieve complete transparency by any means, but no-one is more aware of that than they are. Where does Ganley get off, threatening them and trying to discredit them? This is the man calling for transparency in Europe?

"Engaging with SIPO" isn't some kind of favour Ganley is very kindly doing them. It is a legal obligation, and applies no matter how high your horse is.

Thank you Zhou. I think that admirably sums up the Prime Time programme, in all its limitations.

I'm aware of your feelings that Irish politics should not be interfered with from the outside. My concerns are more about Ganley's political stance, support for the Iraq war and political allegiances, none of which were covered in any way by the very limited Prime Time programme. I'll take the hint and try not to go off topic, or over old ground.

In point of fact it is my understanding that there was an enquiry into the Iraq business and that Ganley was not found to have carried out anything improper. On the whole nature of military contracting, and with no reference to Ganley, I have posted recently on the Klein thread.

The programme has been discussed in scores of fora, and the wide range of opinions, for and against Ganley and the programme, are similar on all of them, and not fundamentally different to the ones expressed here.

Here is a small selection:

www.munsterfans.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15646&TPN=1
http://bb.ucc.ie/viewtopic.php?f=350&t=16719
www.forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=5126&sid=7a49138bb30f8cf2416c00d691995c47
www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055429187
www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/~peoplesr/forums//showthread.php?p=2358801
www.irish-nationalism.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1048
www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=455838
http://foot.ie/forums/showthread.php?t=107317

People pay their money and they take their choice, and make up their minds about Ganley based in the main on political preferences and instinct.

Edit - I just saw your post Ibis and felt the same way. Bullying Elected T.D.s and public officials is not good, whether it is the New Labour Government in the UK or Libertas here.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Cookiemonster, if you think all this information is so feeble and uninformative, why do you follow it around?

because much of it is false information and is purposefully misinterpreted and presented in such a way as to cast Declan Ganley is ill light.

That is a serious accusation. What is the false information you are referring to?

Not as serious as calling somebody a fascist. I have clarified the false information on this thread.

Are you going to share that clarity with us? So we can clarify and amend or withdraw our questions?

cactus flower wrote:

Edit - I just saw your post Ibis and felt the same way. Bullying Elected T.D.s and public officials is not good, whether it is the New Labour Government in the UK or Libertas here.

When I saw the story breaking that Ganley/Libertas was suing loads of TDs and journalists, I knew it was over from them. The beginning of the end. It is quite obvious that he is not going to sue anyone, and is just playing power and publicity games. If they do sue somebody it only gets worse for them. The bully-boy strategy, alternating with the poor victim story, only works for so long. Sooner or later there has to be some substance, or people tune out and move on.

These are very much "outsider" tactics, of someone trying to break in. The established parties don't need to do this, as they have settled relationships with the press and are well dug in enough to withstand battering in the press without too much complaint. Plus they have learnt that it doesn't pay.

cactus flower wrote:

These are very much "outsider" tactics, of someone trying to break in. The established parties don't need to do this, as they have settled relationships with the press and are well dug in enough to withstand battering in the press without too much complaint. Plus they have learnt that it doesn't pay.

Yes. But the danger here is that they have been able to latch on to the substance of the No vote, and claim it for their own, and will be now milking it for all it's worth, without ever really standing for anything, or saying anything, other than No.

Newstalk 1.30 news, Declan Ganley is supposed to have issued proceedings against RTE re primetime. That is good as it will require a complete disclosure of all his dealings but I presume his intention is to scare the media off until next year. It could take years to come to court.
Disclosure and discovery V. mussel on the press.

That is fascinating. It will be most interesting to see how it plays out if and when it eventually makes it to Court. It is hard to say which parts he will target.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Newstalk 1.30 news, Declan Ganley is supposed to have issued proceedings against RTE re primetime. That is good as it will require a complete disclosure of all his dealings but I presume his intention is to scare the media off until next year. It could take years to come to court.
Disclosure and discovery V. mussel on the press.

Libel laws here put the onus on the defendant to prove their case, not on the complainant to prove it untrue.

ibis wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

"I have to view SIPO as an extension of that agenda. They don't want to be, I'm sure they don't want to be an extension of that agenda, but I now have to view them in that way so that involves legal review and everything else and that is what we are going to do," he said.

That's a very serious accusation, levelled at an agency for which I have a good deal of respect. SIPO doesn't achieve complete transparency by any means, but no-one is more aware of that than they are. Where does Ganley get off, threatening them and trying to discredit them? This is the man calling for transparency in Europe?

"Engaging with SIPO" isn't some kind of favour Ganley is very kindly doing them. It is a legal obligation, and applies no matter how high your horse is.

I'm not sure about Ganley's status before SIPO - it appears to me he may be adhering to the letter if not the spirit of the regulations. But I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable about SIPOs impartiality if a certain TD who has no tax clearance certificate was dealt with in a more timely fashion. His continued presence in Dáil Éireann is an afront to SIPO. Declan Ganley holds no public office and has never stood for election so it is hard for me to see why SIPO appear to be spending more time on his affairs than those of a certain TD.

coc wrote:

ibis wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

"I have to view SIPO as an extension of that agenda. They don't want to be, I'm sure they don't want to be an extension of that agenda, but I now have to view them in that way so that involves legal review and everything else and that is what we are going to do," he said.

That's a very serious accusation, levelled at an agency for which I have a good deal of respect. SIPO doesn't achieve complete transparency by any means, but no-one is more aware of that than they are. Where does Ganley get off, threatening them and trying to discredit them? This is the man calling for transparency in Europe?

"Engaging with SIPO" isn't some kind of favour Ganley is very kindly doing them. It is a legal obligation, and applies no matter how high your horse is.

I'm not sure about Ganley's status before SIPO - it appears to me he may be adhering to the letter if not the spirit of the regulations. But I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable about SIPOs impartiality if a certain TD who has no tax clearance certificate was dealt with in a more timely fashion. His continued presence in Dáil Éireann is an afront to SIPO. Declan Ganley holds no public office and has never stood for election so it is hard for me to see why SIPO appear to be spending more time on his affairs than those of a certain TD.

I'm not aware that SIPO is spending any more time on Ganley than on Bertie - they have written a letter (or haven't, according to Ganley, in which case they are spending even less). The press is paying more attention now to Ganley's SIPO dealings than Bertie's SIPO dealings, but that is completely different.

Substantively, Ganley's dealings with SIPO illustrate a far more glaring hole in the legislation. Bertie cannot continue not to produce a tax cert, but the loan arrangement between Ganley and Libertas has allowed him to fund their campaign for hundreds of thousands of euros of his own money, while remaining both legally compliant and able to claim his campaign was funded by donations. Big difference.

coc wrote:

ibis wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

"I have to view SIPO as an extension of that agenda. They don't want to be, I'm sure they don't want to be an extension of that agenda, but I now have to view them in that way so that involves legal review and everything else and that is what we are going to do," he said.

That's a very serious accusation, levelled at an agency for which I have a good deal of respect. SIPO doesn't achieve complete transparency by any means, but no-one is more aware of that than they are. Where does Ganley get off, threatening them and trying to discredit them? This is the man calling for transparency in Europe?

"Engaging with SIPO" isn't some kind of favour Ganley is very kindly doing them. It is a legal obligation, and applies no matter how high your horse is.

I'm not sure about Ganley's status before SIPO - it appears to me he may be adhering to the letter if not the spirit of the regulations. But I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable about SIPOs impartiality if a certain TD who has no tax clearance certificate was dealt with in a more timely fashion. His continued presence in Dáil Éireann is an afront to SIPO. Declan Ganley holds no public office and has never stood for election so it is hard for me to see why SIPO appear to be spending more time on his affairs than those of a certain TD.

He has been dealt with by SIPO, just not to your liking. You might ask them if they would allow you to rewrite the rules under which they operate.

ibis wrote:

I'm not aware that SIPO is spending any more time on Ganley than on Bertie - they have written a letter (or haven't, according to Ganley, in which case they are spending even less). The press is paying more attention now to Ganley's SIPO dealings than Bertie's SIPO dealings, but that is completely different.

Point taken.

ibis wrote:

Substantively, Ganley's dealings with SIPO illustrate a far more glaring hole in the legislation. Bertie cannot continue not to produce a tax cert, but the loan arrangement between Ganley and Libertas has allowed him to fund their campaign for hundreds of thousands of euros of his own money, while remaining both legally compliant and able to claim his campaign was funded by donations. Big difference.

But is this not, in effect, precisely what he is doing? (Continuing not to produce a TCC while remaining legally compliant)

Á la his mentor,

Quote :

The former taoiseach took grave exception to the emphasis being placed by the tribunal on the matter of the final £110,000. Haughey growled that Coughlan was "laying a lot of stress on honour" but the tribunal barrister hit back. "It was considered a debt of honour and I think that what was expected was that you, as a man of honour, would honour that debt of honour within a reasonable period of time. Bearing in mind the position of honour you held do you have any reason as to why you didn't honour this debt?" asked Coughlan.

"The debt is still there. I haven't dishonoured it.

Bertie is continuing to comply with SIPO regulations in not having a TCC. Admittedly, it is the Revenue and Mahon who appear to be allowing this to pertain, but this looks a lot to me like at least as glaring a hole as the one Ganley may (or may not) be driving a Sherman Tank through.

tonys wrote:

He has been dealt with by SIPO, just not to your liking. You might ask them if they would allow you to rewrite the rules under which they operate.

Indeed. They can make the changes while they're making the ones to allow them to close Ganley's hole. ahem.

COC -

The Bertie stuff is off topic. There is no question of Bertie not having responded to SIPO's correspondence or not having complied with the regulations insofar as possible, i.e. he has fully co-operated with SIPO.

Prime Time suggested that Libertas were not fully co-operating with SIPO. We do not know if they are compliant. Prime Time seemed to suggest, and please correct me if I am wrong, that if Libertas did not fully engage then SIPO would have to inform the Oireachtas that Libertas would be deemed not to have complied with the regulations.

coc wrote:

ibis wrote:

I'm not aware that SIPO is spending any more time on Ganley than on Bertie - they have written a letter (or haven't, according to Ganley, in which case they are spending even less). The press is paying more attention now to Ganley's SIPO dealings than Bertie's SIPO dealings, but that is completely different.

Point taken.

ibis wrote:

Substantively, Ganley's dealings with SIPO illustrate a far more glaring hole in the legislation. Bertie cannot continue not to produce a tax cert, but the loan arrangement between Ganley and Libertas has allowed him to fund their campaign for hundreds of thousands of euros of his own money, while remaining both legally compliant and able to claim his campaign was funded by donations. Big difference.

But is this not, in effect, precisely what he is doing? (Continuing not to produce a TCC while remaining legally compliant)

Á la his mentor,

Quote :

The former taoiseach took grave exception to the emphasis being placed by the tribunal on the matter of the final £110,000. Haughey growled that Coughlan was "laying a lot of stress on honour" but the tribunal barrister hit back. "It was considered a debt of honour and I think that what was expected was that you, as a man of honour, would honour that debt of honour within a reasonable period of time. Bearing in mind the position of honour you held do you have any reason as to why you didn't honour this debt?" asked Coughlan.

"The debt is still there. I haven't dishonoured it.

Bertie is continuing to comply with SIPO regulations in not having a TCC. Admittedly, it is the Revenue and Mahon who appear to be allowing this to pertain, but this looks a lot to me like at least as glaring a hole as the one Ganley may (or may not) be driving a Sherman Tank through.

The laws permit a statement to be made to temporarily take the place of the tax clearance cert, as long as that is accepted by the Revenue. It delays the evil day, but does not prevent it ever coming to pass. In this case, therefore, the SIPO regulations will do their job of preventing TDs from failing to comply with tax laws.

Ganley, on the other hand, stated that he lent Libertas €200,000 before the referendum campaign - something he referred to as the "first loan" he made them. Estimates of their campaign budget vary, but are not under €700,000, which suggests there were further loans. Certainly there is no sign of a fund-raising drive sufficient to raise half a million from the general public. Therefore, in this case, the SIPO regulations will not do their job of preventing money substituting for public support in the public discourse, nor of providing transparency on how public campaigns are funded - to the tune of maybe half a million euro or more. That's a very large failure.

coc wrote:

tonys wrote:

He has been dealt with by SIPO, just not to your liking. You might ask them if they would allow you to rewrite the rules under which they operate.

Indeed. They can make the changes while they're making the ones to allow them to close Ganley's hole. ahem.

Hopefully, although there isn't really a loophole in Bertie's case. It's simply a stay of execution.