Well, it's a loophole in my book if the stay becomes indefinite. How long has it been anyway?

Again á la Charlie, it's no use having Bertie hung, drawn and quartered after he has gone to his eternal reward, since that presumably couldn't constitute a good outcome as far as standards in public office are concerned? I mean it's not called the SAPO (Standards After Public Office). Nor is it SBPO (Standards Before Public Office) in Ganley's case.

I don't see the distinction you see between Bertie and Ganley. In both cases it's the fear of millionaire businessmen using their wealth to improperly influence public policy. If either man has done wrong, Ganley's is surely the lesser of the two offences in that he's suspected of having used a pile of his own cash to get his message across to the voters. The stench enveloping Bertie appears far more noxious.

Give SIPO, Revenue and Mahon a few more years mulling things over and Bertie will be pleading memory loss.

coc wrote:

Well, it's a loophole in my book if the stay becomes indefinite. How long has it been anyway?

Sure, if the stay becomes indefinite, then there is a loophole.

coc wrote:

Again á la Charlie, it's no use having Bertie hung, drawn and quartered after he has gone to his eternal reward, since that presumably couldn't constitute a good outcome as far as standards in public office are concerned? I mean it's not called the SAPO (Standards After Public Office). Nor is it SBPO (Standards Before Public Office) in Ganley's case.

I don't see the distinction you see between Bertie and Ganley. In both cases it's the fear of millionaire businessmen using their wealth to improperly influence public policy. If either man has done wrong, Ganley's is surely the lesser of the two offences in that he's suspected of having used a pile of his own cash to get his message across to the voters. The stench enveloping Bertie appears far more noxious.

Give SIPO, Revenue and Mahon a few more years mulling things over and Bertie will be pleading memory loss.

The difference between millionaires giving their cash to politicians for politicians to influence public policy on their behalf, and millionaires using their cash to directly influence public policy on their own behalf seems a little specious to me. Neither is more acceptable than the other, and Ganley hasn't had anything like the hounding Bertie got.

I'll have to agree with you there ibis.

I have to disagree.

If Ganley is a millionaire and decides to use his own money to progress his political cause then that's fine by me. I don't think there is any law against it either.

Vis-a-vis Bertie, that was all played out ad nauseum in many fora and with huge scrutiny. I don't see the analogy at all.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I have to disagree.

If Ganley is a millionaire and decides to use his own money to progress his political cause then that's fine by me. I don't think there is any law against it either.

The ability for one individual to significantly impact public opinion and policy through the use of private money is exactly what the SIPO donation cap is intended to prevent. If it was perfectly acceptable for the rich to buy influence, there would be no cap on donations.

Loaning hundreds of thousands of euro to your campaign vehicle on terms which you control is no different in effect from donating hundreds of thousands of euros. It was done in the UK prior to the last election, and for the same reasons - to get around the donations cap without breaching the letter of the law.

It seems that Newstalk were not correct, He has said his lawyer said the show was actionable but has not put the papers in , another example of legal threat bluster from Ganley.

He really is over using this legal threat lark.

The boy who cried wolf come to mind.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

It seems that Newstalk were not correct, He has said his lawyer said the show was actionable but has not put the papers in , another example of legal threat bluster from Ganley.

He really is over using this legal threat lark.

The boy who cried wolf come to mind.

Hi guys! Interesting day.

The RTE site has expanded the story somewhat from earlier. It now says:


"Anti-Lisbon Treaty campaigner Declan Ganley has said he will sue RTÉ over last Thursday's Prime Time programme about his business activities. In a statement, the Libertas chairman said his legal advice was that the programme was actionable. A file is being prepared for what Mr Ganley said would be a significant and extensive legal action against RTÉ and Prime Time. RTÉ has said it has not had any contact from Mr Ganley or Libertas in relation to the matter and so was unable to comment at this time. The station said Prime Time fully stood over the programme as broadcast.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1204/ganleyd.html


There is always the possibility he will take action against RTE, and have the matter be before the courts, and 'sub judice', and then settle at a much later date, before trial, keeping the subject off the menu until after elections. Ganley said it was 'actionable'. That is a lot different from saying he was definitely defamed. I wonder is there a copy of the statement around?

NB that link also includes a link to Primetime Ganley show so RTE are obviously not worried about Ganley's threat as they are happy to keep the show on their site for viewing

What was actionable about the programme - the tone? the horror music? .. are we allowed to talk about it even

Auditor #9 wrote:

What was actionable about the programme - the tone? the horror music? .. are we allowed to talk about it even

According to the fan club on p.ie it was the 'innuendo'

How can you ask questions without creating innuendo?

I thought it might be the Monster Music

De De De De DEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEuE

Anticoalition wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

What was actionable about the programme - the tone? the horror music? .. are we allowed to talk about it even

According to the fan club on p.ie it was the 'innuendo'

How can you ask questions without creating innuendo?

OK. Assuming the programme set out to paint him in a bad light - could that really be proven ? Or is that even a case at all ?

When Ganley offered to go on the show, would he have known that there would be a backdrop of Jaws theme tunes ?

Innuendo about what ? Murder of the Albanian fella ? As cookiemonster said - they just stopped short of re-showing the body lying on the road again with a big question mark appear.

On the body, I didnt think there was any connection made over the murder.

What did people think about the fact that Ganley denied knowing the man, although Albanians on the ground say he did?

Albanians mistaken, perhaps?

Anticoalition wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

What was actionable about the programme - the tone? the horror music? .. are we allowed to talk about it even

According to the fan club on p.ie it was the 'innuendo'

How can you ask questions without creating innuendo?

Certainly you can't say "there are unanswered questions" without the appearance of innuendo. The question would be, I suppose, whether it was reasonable to ask the questions, or whether the show appeared to give the impression that the questions were answered, but that the answers couldn't be stated.

ibis wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

What was actionable about the programme - the tone? the horror music? .. are we allowed to talk about it even

According to the fan club on p.ie it was the 'innuendo'

How can you ask questions without creating innuendo?

Certainly you can't say "there are unanswered questions" without the appearance of innuendo. The question would be, I suppose, whether it was reasonable to ask the questions, or whether the show appeared to give the impression that the questions were answered, but that the answers couldn't be stated.

Well, I think most people would agree the questions were reasonable, under the circumstances. He was given an opportunity to respond. Most if not all of the responses were contradicted by third parties. That is what created innuendo.

ibis wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

What was actionable about the programme - the tone? the horror music? .. are we allowed to talk about it even

According to the fan club on p.ie it was the 'innuendo'

How can you ask questions without creating innuendo?

Certainly you can't say "there are unanswered questions" without the appearance of innuendo. The question would be, I suppose, whether it was reasonable to ask the questions, or whether the show appeared to give the impression that the questions were answered, but that the answers couldn't be stated.

Well, it depends on context. There are all kinds of reasons why questions may not be answered, plenty of them innocent. Plus, Ganley wasnt under obligation to answer a single one.

I read that Ganley also threatened Christian T. Miller with legal action: it didnt go anywhere.


If RTE asked him questions and put the answers he gave into the programme, why would they have a problem.

Watched the programme. Superficially I would say that I noticed nothing unlawful about the manner in which it was conducted. When you look at a piece of media work the courts will look at the item as a whole so even if something within it seems defamatory on its own it will be taken in the whole context of the work, that is backed up by caselaw. Furthermore, when you allow someone to opportunity to respond, it makes it alot more difficult for them in a defamation action - authority for this is Reynolds v Times Newspapers and Leech v RTE. You can plead a public interest defence, even if you were subsequently proven incorrect, where you don't have all the facts but it is of pressing concern and importantly you sought a response from the subject.

I'd have to know the precise complaints and watch it again to make any informed opinion though. Anyway, I'm not going to say anymore as I don't think it is appropriate for me to talk about anything which could be before the courts.

johnfás wrote:

Watched the programme. Superficially I would say that I noticed nothing unlawful about the manner in which it was conducted. When you look at a piece of media work the courts will look at the item as a whole so even if something within it seems defamatory on its own it will be taken in the whole context of the work, that is backed up by caselaw. Furthermore, when you allow someone to opportunity to respond, it makes it alot more difficult for them in a defamation action - authority for this is Reynolds v Times Newspapers and Leech v RTE. You can plead a public interest defence, even if you were subsequently proven incorrect, where you don't have all the facts but it is of pressing concern and importantly you sought a response from the subject.

I'd have to know the precise complaints and watch it again to make any informed opinion though. Anyway, I'm not going to say anymore as I don't think it is appropriate for me to talk about anything which could be before the courts.

So, the courts will deconstruct the RTE programme then using structuralist analysis ?

They'll surely ask where the music came from. A horror film. What horror film. "The Axe-Murderer from Transylvania". Why that one ?

Gulp.

Auditor #9 wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Watched the programme. Superficially I would say that I noticed nothing unlawful about the manner in which it was conducted. When you look at a piece of media work the courts will look at the item as a whole so even if something within it seems defamatory on its own it will be taken in the whole context of the work, that is backed up by caselaw. Furthermore, when you allow someone to opportunity to respond, it makes it alot more difficult for them in a defamation action - authority for this is Reynolds v Times Newspapers and Leech v RTE. You can plead a public interest defence, even if you were subsequently proven incorrect, where you don't have all the facts but it is of pressing concern and importantly you sought a response from the subject.

I'd have to know the precise complaints and watch it again to make any informed opinion though. Anyway, I'm not going to say anymore as I don't think it is appropriate for me to talk about anything which could be before the courts.

So, the courts will deconstruct the RTE programme then using structuralist analysis ?

They'll surely ask where the music came from. A horror film. What horror film. "The Axe-Murderer from Transylvania". Why that one ?

Gulp.

Guilty of getting me mammy's name wrong?

Of course all of the info was also published on p.ie first Declan Ganley would have to sue his employee David Cochrane editor there first!


Libertas boss threatens to sue employee Shock

That's hilarious. Can I change my name to 'Frightened Employee'?

The site's based in America lads, the site owner can't be sued, but individual posters can, so Mr. Cochrane is safe. It all changed when Mr. Ahern's lawyers went after myself and five other posters last March.

So he thinks anyway. It is a questionable logic. He is domociled here, it is quite possible an action could be grounded against him. Just look at how American publications which are sold in the UK have been sued in the English Courts.

But anyway...

toxic avenger wrote:

The site's based in America lads, the site owner can't be sued, but individual posters can, so Mr. Cochrane is safe. It all changed when Mr. Ahern's lawyers went after myself and five other posters last March.

We looked into all this pretty thoroughly when MN was set up, at the time of the Outage. No one was convinced in the slightest that an Irish based Site owner could evade responsibilities by having the site hosted outside the country.

toxic avenger wrote:

The site's based in America lads, the site owner can't be sued, but individual posters can, so Mr. Cochrane is safe. It all changed when Mr. Ahern's lawyers went after myself and five other posters last March.

I don't buy it either. Besides, they have courts in the US don't they? In fact, I think Rivada have a big spread in Colorado too, if you can believe what you see on Prime Time .