Ganley and the mad mullahs

In 2000 Ganley Int applied to be struck off (30 Oct) application by Ganley and Gary Hunter. Its a saga it needs to go to print before it all gets posted here

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Cookie you can ask Declan for the accounts

But I am asking you.

Quote :

Sure but to claim 150 mil turnover in a year where company loses cash followed by more of the same except the losses go up ? .

Can you provide the figures from the accounts you have there, please?

Quote :

Bearing mind that he promotes the view that he made 150 mil in 1997 and in 1995 he claimed to be paying himself 1.5 mil well I don't see this all adding up Cookie

Again, can you provide the relevant accounts there?

Frightened Albanian wrote:

In 2000 Ganley Int applied to be struck off (30 Oct) application by Ganley and Gary Hunter. Its a saga it needs to go to print before it all gets posted here

The Irish Times Building ,
PO BOX 74,
24-28 Tara Street,
Dublin 2
Ireland

General Enquiries (Mon-Fri 9am-6pm Irish time)
+353 1 675 8000

Customer Contact

• The Irish Times Switch
  +353 1 675 8000
  

Editorial

• The Irish Times Editorial
  +353 1 675 8000, newsdesk@irish-times.ie
  

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

In 2000 Ganley Int applied to be struck off (30 Oct) application by Ganley and Gary Hunter. Its a saga it needs to go to print before it all gets posted here

The Irish Times Building ,
PO BOX 74,
24-28 Tara Street,
Dublin 2
Ireland

General Enquiries (Mon-Fri 9am-6pm Irish time)
+353 1 675 8000

Customer Contact

• The Irish Times Switch
  +353 1 675 8000
  

Editorial

• The Irish Times Editorial
  +353 1 675 8000, newsdesk@irish-times.ie
  

That's really sweet of you, Cookiemonster

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

In 2000 Ganley Int applied to be struck off (30 Oct) application by Ganley and Gary Hunter. Its a saga it needs to go to print before it all gets posted here

The Irish Times Building ,
PO BOX 74,
24-28 Tara Street,
Dublin 2
Ireland

General Enquiries (Mon-Fri 9am-6pm Irish time)
+353 1 675 8000

Customer Contact

• The Irish Times Switch
  +353 1 675 8000
  

Editorial

• The Irish Times Editorial
  +353 1 675 8000, newsdesk@irish-times.ie
  

That's really sweet of you, Cookiemonster

What can I say, I'm a nice guy.

cookiemonster wrote:

studiorat wrote:

I see your point,
According to Sam Smith the other day,
J.K. Galbraith pointed to three traits of any financial community
that he believed put it at risk of fraud. One of which, was the tendency, said he,
to confuse good tailoring with integrity and intelligence.

Ganley knows this, we have all seen at this stage the little misleading spoofs
to adjust facts to put Libertas in a favorable light.

I believe what you are seeing is quite the opposite. Infact "little misleading spoofs" is a very accurate description on what Frightened Albanian uses to put Libertas in a ill light.
to adjust facts to put Libertas in a favorable light.

I'm sorry to tell you you are wrong.
I've read quite a few of the original articles mentioned here.
Since Libertas' policy is still "on the drawing board" so to speak, one can only examine Ganleys past and his partners to get some kind of idea of his politics. I've read the omissions in the Libertas literature compared to the actual literature during the referendum and witnessed their cynical campaign. I keep returning to the opinion that Ganley is nothing more than a chancer with a neck like a jockeys bollocks. Apart from surrounding himself with other dubious chancers in in the shape of Libertas Ireland IMO.

studiorat wrote:

I'm sorry to tell you you are wrong.

I'm not you know.

Quote :

I've read quite a few of the original articles mentioned here.
Since Libertas' policy is still "on the drawing board" so to speak, one can only examine Ganleys past and his partners to get some kind of idea of his politics.

So we're back to "guilty by association" again, which I am afraid just doesn't cut it. There has never been any charge or prosecution made against Declan Ganley at all. And with due respect I will assume they you've only focused on the questionable articles written about Ganley which rarely manage to mention anything prostive about him, including his various charitable acts in the past.

Quote :

I've read the omissions in the Libertas literature compared to the actual literature during the referendum and witnessed their cynical campaign. I keep returning to the opinion that Ganley is nothing more than a chancer with a neck like a jockeys bollocks.

He's a risk taker, to be sure. You'll not find a businessman who is adverse to taking calculated risks.

Quote :

Apart from surrounding himself with other dubious chancers in in the shape of Libertas Ireland IMO.

Apart from what? What is dubious about the people involved in Libertas? That's a pretty pathetic little slur there and it is, true to style, totally without any basis in fact.

You are wrong cookie.

One only has to take a look at the how quickly Ganley was on the Phone looking for an angle when War Broke out in Iraq to see what a ruthless chancer he really is. A matter of weeks in fact...

Now I've already made up my mind about this and the only thing that will happen in a discussion with you on this matter will be the usual decent into abuse from your behalf. So I'll bid you good bye.

studiorat wrote:

One only has to take a look at the how quickly Ganley was on the Phone looking for an angle when War Broke out in Iraq to see what a ruthless chancer he really is. A matter of weeks in fact...

You know, he didn't start the war in Iraq. Given that he operates a telecommunications business and Iraq was one of the remaining countries in the world which didn't have one (owing to Sadam's fear that it could diminish his power) it stands to reason that people in the business would be looking to establish in the country and any company would wish to do it quickly, that's how business works.

Quote :

Now I've already made up my mind about this and the only thing that will happen in a discussion with you on this matter will be the usual decent into abuse from your behalf. So I'll bid you good bye.

I know you've already made up your mind, but you've done it on very shaky foundations. I have no wish for your to change your stubborn and skewed view of Declan Ganley, what I do wish is that nobody sees fit to follow you down a dark and factless path and come share your conclusions. I also take exception to your assertion of abuse of my part.

"dark and factless path" ? It seems to me that studiorat's views were reasonably formed on the available evidence.

cactus flower wrote:

"dark and factless path" ? It seems to me that studiorat's views were reasonably formed on the available evidence.

Formed on the presented evidence, cactus flower. And we have seen on a number of occasions from "responsible" journalists and political figures that what the present in relation to Declan Ganley is anything but factual.

Should this thread now be entitled Ganley and the mad posters???
It's really simple folks. Ganley is a businessman and, as such, should not necessarily be criticised for taking opportunities that arise. A good telecoms set up could be considered to be of use to the average iraqi anyway. No problems there

Where I think the rational person has a problem (speaking for myself anyway), is that Ganley has made a lot of money (apparently) and has not been hugely open about how this was done. As an ordinary businessman, he is entitled to his privacy. BUT, if he wishes to enter public life, he NEEDS to accept that people need to know about his past before putting their trust in him as a public leader. He has had huge influence recently on the path this country has taken. We, the Irish people (or, more accurately, the Irish media) have, within the last year, forced someone who used to be a popular leader to stand down from office, for reasons of ostensible lack of financial clarity relating to his past.
On Politics Dot IE and here, people have rightly castigated the murkiness in our Bert's 1990's accounting; the resignation was, in my view, appropriate. However, many of these posters are the same people who are screaming that Ganley is to be left alone

This is hypocrisy, ALL politicians should IDEALLY have the impeccable virtue ascribed to Caesar's wife (haha, Messalina, anyone), and I for one am not going to be voting Libertas (or even no to Lisbon) until the questions posed by the Prime Time programme and others are answered

Standards should be adhered to by all polital parties and movements and not just Fianna Fail!!!

expat girl wrote:

Should this thread now be entitled Ganley and the mad posters???
It's really simple folks. Ganley is a businessman and, as such, should not necessarily be criticised for taking opportunities that arise. A good telecoms set up could be considered to be of use to the average iraqi anyway. No problems there

Where I think the rational person has a problem (speaking for myself anyway), is that Ganley has made a lot of money (apparently) and has not been hugely open about how this was done. As an ordinary businessman, he is entitled to his privacy. BUT, if he wishes to enter public life, he NEEDS to accept that people need to know about his past before putting their trust in him as a public leader. He has had huge influence recently on the path this country has taken. We, the Irish people (or, more accurately, the Irish media) have, within the last year, forced someone who used to be a popular leader to stand down from office, for reasons of ostensible lack of financial clarity relating to his past.
On Politics Dot IE and here, people have rightly castigated the murkiness in our Bert's 1990's accounting; the resignation was, in my view, appropriate. However, many of these posters are the same people who are screaming that Ganley is to be left alone

I'm not screaming that he be left alone, nor an I screaming that there should be no enquiry into the funding of his political endeavours. What I would like is for that enquiry to be relevant and somewhat based in fact. The fantasy approach taken by politicans (both nationally and in the EU) along with the politically motivation of some elements of the national press and online the often political (and more often irrational) lines of enquiry which we have seen thus far are anything but relevant or factual. It's nothing above the "have you stopped beating your wife" line and rife with loaded questions, falacy and whatnot. It's not an enquiry designed to obtain any sort of fact, it's designed to smear. I would't approve of it being done to anybody including people I have no great respect for, never mind allowing it to happen to Declan Ganley.

Quote :

This is hypocrisy, ALL politicians should IDEALLY have the impeccable virtue ascribed to Caesar's wife (haha, Messalina, anyone)

I agree.

Quote :

and I for one am not going to be voting Libertas (or even no to Lisbon) until the questions posed by the Prime Time programme and others are answered

If your opinions of Declan Ganley are in any way based in the Prime Time program, as I suspect they are, I would respectuflly suggest that you look for a more objective source of information on the man and his life. It was the most blatant hatchet job I've seen in years and was obvious to most who saw it.

Quote :

Standards should be adhered to by all polital parties and movements and not just Fianna Fail!!!

Ineed they should.

I would like to see a point by point refutation of prime time's issues, publication of Libertas' funding sources etc. I'm not holding my breath

I'm sure many would consider me to be a nut job conspiracy theorist, but I don't trust some of our political next door neighbours on the island next door; the failure of Lisbon is something over which the Tories and UKIP (to name but two) would be likely celebrate. The Americans and Russians would also be unlikely to be weeping buckets if it failed (divide and conquer)

In order to completely refute any undoubtedly fallacious accusations of possible foreign interference in OUR sovereign affairs, it would be in the interests of Declan Ganley, Libertas, the No campaign, etc to publish the sources of funding, to even a higher standard than is legally required. We the Irish people, and the EU, need to know convincingly from whence Libertas obtained every last cent of its campaign funds. There are many of us who will vote yes currently because of doubts over the integrity of the NO campaign.

This may be very unfair on the NO campaigners, but the fact is, for all politicians and parties, we live in a -trial by meedja- society, where there is no smoke without fire and one is guilty until proven innocent. Best to fight this with complete transparency. There is no other way

expat girl wrote:

I would like to see a point by point refutation of prime time's issues, publication of Libertas' funding sources etc. I'm not holding my breath

I suspect you will be granted your wish soon enough.

Quote :

I'm sure many would consider me to be a nut job conspiracy theorist, but I don't trust some of our political next door neighbours on the island next door; the failure of Lisbon is something over which the Tories and UKIP (to name but two) would be likely celebrate. The Americans and Russians would also be unlikely to be weeping buckets if it failed (divide and conquer)

The Tories are divided on the Lisbon Treaty and on Europe in general. UKIP are a whole other kettle of fish, both when it comes to the Tories and Libertas, Nigel Farage has said so himself.

As for the Americans, firstly I doubt many of them, citizens, congressmen, senators, democrats, republicans for Neocons have every hear of, discussed of know anything about the Lisbon Treaty. Lucinda Creighton has been baning on this "America wants Europe to fail" for some time now. She stated that the US was opposed to the expansion of NATO to inlcude new European Union member in the East, which is total claptrap, Bush was very enthuastic about Georgia and the Ukraine joining NATO. Also, ask any eurosceptic Birtish Conservative of UKIP member, they're generally pretty unimpressed that the US doesn't share their euroscepticism. The idea of the US wanting a weak Europe just doesn't stack up. Given the the US's general standing as a super power is waning and Europe is now, and has for a long time been, their only true ally.

Also, the suggestion the the US has any connection to the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland though Declan Ganley has been totally rubbished at this stage.

Quote :

In order to completely refute any undoubtedly fallacious accusations of possible foreign interference in OUR sovereign affairs, it would be in the interests of Declan Ganley, Libertas, the No campaign, etc to publish the sources of funding, to even a higher standard than is legally required.

That's not going to happen. They will comply with the electoral acts as they stand but to publish details beyond that would be totally unfair to those who have donated on the understanding that their names would not be made public.

Quote :

The Irish people, and the EU, need to know convincingly from whence Libertas obtained every last cent of its campaign funds. There are many of us who will vote yes currently because of doubts over the integrity of the NO campaign.

Firstly, see my above point about the US funding lies. And my second point about disclosure of donations. If somebody wishes to publically state that they donated X amount to Libertas they are free to do so. But given the treatment of Declan Ganley by the Irish Government, Media and by an assorted group within the European Union it can hardly come as a surprise that such a reveal is unlikely to happen. But do bear in mind that their is, or course, a SIPO investigation into the funding behind Libertas and the results will be made available to the public (and so much about Libertas is).

Quote :

This may be very unfair on the NO campaigners, but the fact is, for all politicians and parties, we live in a -trial by meedja- society, where there is no smoke without fire and one is guilty until proven innocent. Best to fight this with complete transparency. There is no other way

It's best to know who and what you are dealing with first. Trial by media is one thing, outright blatant character assassination and smear is another.

expat girl wrote:

A good telecoms set up could be considered to be of use to the average iraqi anyway. No problems there

Quick point it wasn't a public telecoms system.

cookiemonster wrote:

I also take exception to your assertion of abuse of my part.

There's plenty of examples already...

The US has already taken steps to join with the EU.

Bush could be the next president and he would sort ye out

studiorat wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I also take exception to your assertion of abuse of my part.

There's plenty of examples already...

Against you? Unprovoked? Pointing out that somebodt is posting nonsense is not abuse.

youngdan wrote:

The US has already taken steps to join with the EU.

Bush could be the next president and he would sort ye out

Jesus Christ, youngdan, do you not think we have enough problems as it is?

Well, I suppose we did send Blair to the Middle East and they already had enough problems, so we could take Bush off your hands seeing as you have Obama to deal with now!

studiorat wrote:

expat girl wrote:

A good telecoms set up could be considered to be of use to the average iraqi anyway. No problems there

Quick point it wasn't a public telecoms system.

He was firstly involved with a tender for a public mobile license and later tendered for the first responder netowork licence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6607757.stm

The sooner ye are taking orders from Texas the better

cookiemonster wrote:

studiorat wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I also take exception to your assertion of abuse of my part.

There's plenty of examples already...

Against you? Unprovoked? Pointing out that somebodt is posting nonsense is not abuse.

Nothing nonsense about the fact that Ganley wants to invade Iran, or the fact that Ganley International is not what Ganley likes people to think.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

studiorat wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I also take exception to your assertion of abuse of my part.

There's plenty of examples already...

Against you? Unprovoked? Pointing out that somebodt is posting nonsense is not abuse.

Nothing nonsense about the fact that Ganley wants to invade Iran, or the fact that Ganley International is not what Ganley likes people to think.

Ganley wants to invade Iran? MY country ..

Auditor #9 wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

studiorat wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I also take exception to your assertion of abuse of my part.

There's plenty of examples already...

Against you? Unprovoked? Pointing out that somebodt is posting nonsense is not abuse.

Nothing nonsense about the fact that Ganley wants to invade Iran, or the fact that Ganley International is not what Ganley likes people to think.

Ganley wants to invade Iran? MY country ..

I say we invade Watford, teach him a lesson...