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

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Quote :

The bit I do know is that Ganley convincingly gave evidence at the
Mahon Tribunal to prove that Lawlor stole a letterhead from him to
create a false invoice to cover another crooked payment from Dunlop -
Ganley was clearly unaware of what Lawlor was up to.

Lawlor was dead when Ganley gave evidence. Are you Mahon? How do you assert "Ganley convincingly" anything, the report is not in. He was caught out on several points of fact o n eth show , ie he said one thing and the people who could confirm it contradicted him.

Myles is the lone voice over there at the mo.

I read the evidence, there's absolutely no doubt about the invoice, the VAT number was the same but the serial numbering was utterly different, and it's entirely within Lawlor's m.o. (I'm an expert on it). On the invoice issue (the employing him for 30K and what Lawlor did for it being separate) there is absolutely not a shadow of doubt that Ganley was innocent and unaware of what was going on between Lawlor and Dunlop (who, remember, was paying Lawlor on behalf of either O'Callaghan or one of two or three other developers, not Ganley).

Quote :

Myles is the lone voice over there at the mo.

[and etc, etc, since edited by FA

We won't be having any such thread of the sort, FA. May I remind you that this site is not set up for the purpose of bitching about p.ie. If you have issues about Libertas, feel free to raise them. If you have issues about p.ie, please raise them elsewhere. If you have issues about how Libertas issues are discussed in other media, then try to deal with them in a meaningful way. Your post above and the way it is phrased have little to add to the discussion here other than to provoke for the sake of it and if nothing else it's getting tired and it sidelines the real stuff.

I don't think the site - or at least this mod, can tolerate a continuation of this pettiness that has dogged other threads on this subject. Let this be the end of it and let's get back to dealing with the topic at hand. If people want free and fair debate, then let's have it.

This programme was badly put together but it showed quite clearly many times that Ganley does not tell the truth. I was embarrassed for him when he was confronted with direct evidence for the opposite of what he had just mumbled.

Its funny to see people who voted No trying to stand up for Ganley and saying its an RTE/ government/ Brussels attack. It reminds me of when devote catholics used to defend priests who abused kids, even as more and more evidence appeared they refused to admit they were wrong. Its ok you can change your opinion.

On a slightly different point there was a far superior programme on German TV exposing Ganley a few weeks after the Lisbon Treaty. I don't speak German but a friend told me what was being said. It was very interesting, they even had a clip of Ganley hiding a huge American flag that he has behind his office desk prior to the interview, he didn't realise he was being filmed and rolled it up and threw it under his desk. I thought it was interesting that there was no Irish flag in his office, just this huge American flag. My German friend told me that after this TV programme was broadcast his German friends stopped blaming the Irish for voting no and just thought that the Americans had influenced us through Ganley and co. There was a bit in that programme about the US Neo Con Heritage foundation but RTE didn't mention this at all even though Ganley has given anti-EU lectures there.

I voted No and I don't feel any need to stand up for Ganley, but otherwise I agree very much with your post.

Any chance of finding out who made the German programme?

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

Myles is the lone voice over there at the mo. [and etc, since edited by FA]

We won't be having any such thread of the sort, FA. May I remind you that this site is not set up for the purpose of bitching about p.ie. If you have issues about Libertas, feel free to raise them. If you have issues about p.ie, please raise them elsewhere. If you have issues about how Libertas issues are discussed in other media, then try to deal with them in a meaningful way. Your post above and the way it is phrased have little to add to the discussion here other than to provoke for the sake of it and if nothing else it's getting tired and it sidelines the real stuff.

I don't think the site - or at least this mod, can tolerate a continuation of this pettiness that has dogged other threads on this subject. Let this be the end of it and let's get back to dealing with the topic at hand. If people want free and fair debate, then let's have it.

In fairness Kate P the suggestion was intended as humour, who could be bothered with that lark? It was inspired by the post above it which is a long quote from myle per hour from P.ie posted by cf. My comment was re posters on the same thread there. Removed in any case.

Toxic I know you were a Mahon anorak but I can't agree with you definitive view re Ganley hiring Lawlor, you don't/can't know what was going on between them based on their evidence as there are contradictions. If the Primetime did nothing esle it showed that straight answers are not Declan Ganleys strong point.

Is there something to suggest that Ganley did not know much about Lawlor other than his own evidence. You speak of him in the Lawlor context as if he was a halo wearing alter boy in 1996. The RTE show did show that there was something rather fishy going on in Albania with Ganley's company in the same year he hired Lawlor to work for him in Albania. The year was also 1996. The old man on the show who last everything to Anglo Adriatic obviously was not fresh from an encounter with halo wearers

see it here

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1127/primetime_av.html?2455463,null,230

Quote :

In fairness Kate P the suggestion was intended as humour, who could be bothered with that lark? It was inspired by the post above it which is a long quote from myle per hour from P.ie posted by cf. My comment was re posters on the same thread there. Removed in any case.

Appreciated.

Cactus Flower.

The name of the German TV programme is 'tagesthemen' or Themes of the Day' and it was broadcast on ARD TV on the 15/10/2008. The total file is 42 MB to download but this is the whole programme and the Ganley bit is only one of about 8 items covered. I have downloaded the programme and extracted the bit where ganley hides the US flag under his desk (approx 10 seconds). I can e-mail it to you if you like. I dont want to put it on youtube as strictly speaking you require permission from ARD TV to do that.
I believe European media organisations are far better and more professional then our own. If Ganley was trying his stunts in Germany he would have been exposed a lot sooner and democracy would be better for it.

Art wrote:

Cactus Flower.

The name of the German TV programme is 'tagesthemen' or Themes of the Day' and it was broadcast on ARD TV on the 15/10/2008. The total file is 42 MB to download but this is the whole programme and the Ganley bit is only one of about 8 items covered. I have downloaded the programme and extracted the bit where ganley hides the US flag under his desk (approx 10 seconds). I can e-mail it to you if you like. I dont want to put it on youtube as strictly speaking you require permission from ARD TV to do that.
I believe European media organisations are far better and more professional then our own. If Ganley was trying his stunts in Germany he would have been exposed a lot sooner and democracy would be better for it.

Thanks very much Art - I'll see if I can download. Irish media is a bit scatter-gun but maybe they are better resourced in Germany. There is very little investigative reporting here, and it has declined in the UK and US. Maybe the internet will put the press back on its mettle. It appears from the strange gaps in the RTE programme (No mention of Lawlor?) that they may have been broadcasting under heavy pressure by means of warnings about potential legal action. If people want to be taken in by politicians, they will be, up to a certain point, but it is still good to see some of the straight questions being asked and seeing the difficulty in getting straight answers.

Cactus Flower

The link to the German TV programme is:

http://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/servlet/content/1022704.

or try

http://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/servlet/content/1214?goto=9&moduleId=3914 and click 15/10/2008.

The programme is long and the Ganley bit starts at 17 mins. into the programme, the US flag bit is at 21min 30 seconds.

I think it deserves a separate thread to discuss why Ganley was hiding an American flag before an interview in his office and why he doesn't have an Irish flag. I am not surprised that he doesn't have a EU flag, he says he is pro-European but all his mates are ultra nationalistic anti-EU heads. I'd love to get the views of the Sinn Fein nationalists on this one, especially as all the No campaign has done is throw Ireland back into the UK orbit.

I don't know as much about Ganley as the rest of ye so I thought the programme was pretty good as a hatchet job given that Ganley is meant to be trusted as a politician. It is not the atmosphere for refusing to be transparent in politics and as johnfás says it is unusual for a person to be cagey about revealing details of business success.

A lot of issues came up there - the "advisor" to the Riga government or to the Finance Dept.. ?? The way he defensively addressed Katie Hannon then when she had pressed the dude in the apartment off camers either shows Ganley's distrust of RTE (which may or may not be warranted) but also reveals his willingness to invoke the Law to defend his point. That's not a traditionally Irish way of conducting a political interview and I doubt if we're ready for a new breed just yet.

Many things came up there - I didn't really understand the Albanian bonds fiasco and I had the image of Ganley in that shiny suit wandering around the docks of Riga - his sudden rise from being a "tea-boy" to an aluminium and other commodity dealer was not well-mapped out - since his parents and family look as homely as my own I'd love to know how he successfully bridged the gap there between the tea job and the Venuring in Eastern Europe where he made his fortune ....

I don't hold a candle for Ganley either - whether he is truly guilty of any actual wrong-doing remains to be seen and the most anyone can do is to keep an open mind on that score. That he is evasive about his business activities would put him squarely in the same pen as Bertie Ahern. A tendency to overstate his importance at times would be consistent with many if not all big business personalities. As others have said, Libertas and Ganley were entirely irrelevant to my no vote and like other lefwingers I'm fed up that so much undeserved credit is given to them for the result.

Important questions are surely why him and why now?

There are investigative programmes long outstanding on 100s of similar people in Irish life. Funny, they never get made, though. Tony O' Reilly would be someone truly deserving of the attention. He was allowed to buy a chunk of Irish gas and oil for 11K punts and sold it for 1.4billion without lifting a finger other than to shuffle some bits of paper at people here and there. In Forbes magazine he boasted openly that he was able to do this because of his controlling interest in our newspapers. There's a story that puts Ganley's pipsqeuaking into perspective. Will we see Prime Time doing anything about it? Nah.

This programme was commissioned as part of a political effort to discredit the No campaign, just as Sarah Carey's recent nonsense in the Irish Times was personally commissioned by Geraldine Kennedy to call the motives of The Sunday Times into question. The Independent is at it too: it gave huge prominence the other day to a recanting no voter who claimed he was switching to yes because of having been taken in by Declan Ganley/Libertas. This dishonest media cacophany will continue until the second referendum is over. God help us all.

.

Quote :

This programme was commissioned as part of a political effort to discredit the No campaign, just as Sarah Carey's recent nonsense in the Irish Times was personally commissioned by Geraldine Kennedy to call the motives of The Sunday Times into question. The Independent is at it too: it gave huge prominence the other day to a recanting no voter who claimed he was switching to yes because of having been taken in by Declan Ganley/Libertas. This dishonest media cacophany will continue until the second referendum is over. God help us all.

.

I get a strong feeling that this is probably the case. Having said that, I found that Ganley perpetuated negativity about himself in his general shifty attitude. I didn't like his body language one bit.
When Libertas first launched their Lisbon campaign I was quite impressed by their 'machine'. I even considered helping them out. Luckily i did my homework and confronted them with it. The attitude I met when I did this was one of arrogance and sidestepping. Glad I did that bit of homework!

floatingingalway wrote:

Quote :

This programme was commissioned as part of a political effort to discredit the No campaign, just as Sarah Carey's recent nonsense in the Irish Times was personally commissioned by Geraldine Kennedy to call the motives of The Sunday Times into question. The Independent is at it too: it gave huge prominence the other day to a recanting no voter who claimed he was switching to yes because of having been taken in by Declan Ganley/Libertas. This dishonest media cacophany will continue until the second referendum is over. God help us all.

.

I get a strong feeling that this is probably the case. Having said that, I found that Ganley perpetuated negativity about himself in his general shifty attitude. I didn't like his body language one bit.
When Libertas first launched their Lisbon campaign I was quite impressed by their 'machine'. I even considered helping them out. Luckily i did my homework and confronted them with it. The attitude I met when I did this was one of arrogance and sidestepping. Glad I did that bit of homework!

OK the atmosphere of the document was definitely set up to arouse suspicions - music, imagery and so on. It had flashes of the Bourne Ultimatum in parts. But you very rightly say that Ganley even added to that by his kind of squirming in front of Hannon's questions!

It will be interesting to see what happens with the SIPO steps now being likely to be taken unless Libertas come up with what they are looking for. Could it be all a vast huge conspiracy against Declan and Libertas ?

Is Naoise Nunn still with them ?

Naoise was in the documentary. Didn't like his body language either.
There is a vast something against Libertas but I don't know if it fits into the conspiracy realm - their political opponents are quite open about the fact that they would like to destroy them.

Aragon, there is no dishonest media cacophony on the yes side. Many no voters like Kevin Myers, Bruce Arnold etc write rants against Europe and you don't hear the yes side complaining.

My problem with Ganley is that he seems to be a chancer (mod-cf) ...now Ganley has damaged this Countries interests and future.

Most No voters I know have zero understanding of the treaty and are still talking about losing commissioners/ abortion/ conscription etc (mod cf). They also admit that they voted know to punish the Government. They refuse to admit the implications of their No vote and the fact it probably deepen this recession. Three people I know lost their jobs this week alone. If Ireland was to give the EU the two fingers this is not the time nor the reason, we need its support more than ever now. But then maybe its a fair world if we suffer for our ignorance.

Minuses:

1. They didn't confirm whether Ganley owned (or part owned) any company. They did not confirm whether he is independently wealthy.
2. They didn't verify or dispute Ganley's assertion that the Albanian Government reneged the vouchers. This should have been easy.
3. They interviewed an old pensioner as if he was an expert on the Albanian privatisation scheme.
4. They did not show anyone making a profit or keeping money in Anglo Adriatic.
5. They didn't comment on The Irish Rivada company paying the wages of Libertas employees.

Pluses:

1. They showed that Libertas has stopped responding to SIPO correspondence.
2. They verified that Ganley was involved in the Aluminium trading business in Riga.
3. They verified that Ganley then propitiously got involved with former US Military/Security personnel (who seemed much smoother and smarter than he).
4. They verified that Ganley was involved in Russian Forestry.
5. They verified that Ganley, despite having no third level education, was given a seemingly important role by these people and then seems to have amassed substantial wealth from thereon in.
6. They verified that Ganley is not open as to how much wealth he has or where it came from.
7. They verified that Rivada (of which Ganley is CEO) stands accused of sharp practice by certain employees of the CPA(?) in the USA. They verified that this is hotly contested by Ganley who says it is the other way around, in that he withdrew form the Iraq contract because he was asked to do something illegal. Most importantly, they verified that Ganley would not explain what was the illegality which he says he resisted or why it is inappropriate to talk of it (unless he gave a reason and it was edited out).
8. They didn't talk about the Lisbon Treaty much.

Another minus:

They focused on the deceased Albanian man as if he was important. What is Ganley supposed to have done that was wrong? Is it simply that he has tried to distance himself from this guy or does not remember him. I don't get why so much time was focused on that one guy.

I saw the programme...interesting in places. I don't trust Ganley any further than I could throw him; the programme hasn't changed my mind. At the end, the reporters went through a list of possibilities re funding; neocons, CIA etc, but what I found VERY striking was the fact that British involvement was never metioned. It is the Tory grandees that oppose Lisbon vociferously and openly; the programme stated that he went from waiting tables in London to "advising the Latvian government", as a wealthy businessperson. The UK (especially MI6) would have had huge interests in Eastern Europe at the time. The Tory grandees in the UK (many of whom are tied in with UK intellingence) would have a far higher interest in banjaxing our economy and sinking Lisbon (not necessarily in that order) than the Yanks

Now why aren't RTE looking at that?? UKIP were notorious in the UK for spending more than they were officially allowed in elections.....and who would it really suit if Europe fell apart?? The other possibility is the Russians, who would prefer us disunited and bereft of a common defence policy, while they ratchet up the fuel prices. Think, people!

Another more plausible and less complicated explanation would be that Libertas (think-tanking away) saw an opening to create an EU party that could avail of funding, the old "government cheddar" as my man 50c calls it. They ran an anti Lisbon campaign to get a profile and then got the anti-Brussels paranoiac parties around europe on board. No need to get all CIA on his ass.

I actually started laughing the second time he referred to the Brussels elite (secret spooks) scheming against him. It is clear who his target audience is.

[If it were a CIA plot, and they set up a company in the USA with links to the US military called "Rivada" and a second company in Ireland called "Rivada" to fund Libertas then we could safely say that the CIA is even more incompetent than has been said lately . The Russians will go back to bed and stop worrying about the pretend missile shield if this is the standard they are up against.]

I'd still like to know how Ganley earned his first 100,000 pounds.

Perhaps he borrowed it? It is how most people get their initial investment money...

Expat what are the financial and political interests of Tory grandees? I tend to agree with you that there is possibly a game afoot, but believe the support is from the land of the free. If the Euro is strong, and for that to happen the EU needs stability, who has most to lose?

CF that is a very good question.

Art wrote:

Aragon, there is no dishonest media cacophony on the yes side. Many no voters like Kevin Myers, Bruce Arnold etc write rants against Europe and you don't hear the yes side complaining.

My problem with Ganley is that he seems to be a chancer and has lied to the Irish people to promote his own business interests. The weak Irish media here wasnt able to expose his obvious lies in time and now Ganley has damaged this Countries interests and future.

Most No voters I know have zero understanding of the treay and are still talking about losing commissioners/ abortion/ conscription etc i.e. Ganleys lies. They also admit that they voted know to punish the Government. They refuse to admit the implications of their No vote and the fact it probably deepen this recession. Three people I know lost their jobs this week alone. If Ireland was to give the EU the two fingers this is not the time nor the reason, we need its support more than ever now. But then maybe its a fair world if we suffer for our ignorance.

It's more than a little patronising to say no voters dont uderstand the treaty - we understand it very well - that's why we voted against it. I've been well able to utilise my law degree to interpret it, eg, as have many other lawyers who have come to the same conclusion. But people don't need to have studied law to read it. They do need a heck of a lot of determination, however. It wasn't made easy for us, but again that was done quite deliberately - as many senior EU people made explicit - we've seen all of the quotes, no need to rehearse them here again I hope.

There is a media withch hunt on for Ganley that he does not deserve. Ireland is full of chancers - many of them polluting our political system and plenty of them are plugging for this treaty - it's no coincidence that our national broadcaster should choose this particular chancer to focus on. Ganley is another person with a conviction about the Lisbon treaty - he happens to have some money and has thrown his weight behind opposing it. There's nothing criminal about that. Yes campaigners seem to think that it is an impertinence for anyone to disagree with them - that we have to apologise for it. Stuff that, I'm not apologising to anyone for not being foolish enough to swallow the Lisbon lie. Europhiles often have this quality of cultish myopia about Europe - a sort end-justifying-the means mentality.

Take the notion of the treaty merely being about 'streamlining procedure'. Democracy is all about procedure. It's about who gets to decide what and in what circumstances and by whose authority. It's painstaking but it's worth it. 'Efficiency' is not a substitute - in this context it's just the euphemism that the elite are using to disguise their impatience with time-consuming democratic processes. The problem with the EU is that it is on too big a scale - it was an ambitious project dreamed up by elitist politicians and businessmen with a world view they felt no compuction about imposing on millions. They meant to bestow some favours on us for sure but it was always first and formost about facilitating capitalism. Now, they're tired of having to consult the little folk and would like to go back to talking amongst themselves - as much as possible - and the feintly socialist ethos of early years has been abandoned - as was always the intention of course. If the EU elite don't stop and take account of the fact that what they are doing is massively unpopular, they will undermine their stated rationale for setting up the EU in the first place: to limit aggression and disagreement in the European bloc. Government is destroying its own credibility and authority - a dangerous situation.

Meanwhile RTE, The Irish Times, The Independent, The Irish Examiner are reaching fever point in their attempts to manipulate public opinion.

johnfás wrote:

Perhaps he borrowed it? It is how most people get their initial investment money...

Very true. A 19 year old tea boy walks into his bank in the 1980s and asks for a loan to buy a Russian forest...