Me neither the things you learn on the PIN
that is neat
This is the appropriate forum for discussions on whether a quasi-public entity’s banking dealings with a private individual are fair game for publication, under the “public interest” banner.
Personally, I don’t think O’Brien should be entitled to injunct the programme, but that’s just me.
RTEs chasing rating : “There would have been no point in RTÉ broadcasting a report which anonymised businessman Mr O’Brien’s affairs relating to Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC)” & “a boring report of the Small Earthquake in Chile: Not many dead” type which essentially sucks the lifeblood out of the story”
If you allow yourself to be a beneficiary of the public purse - as Mr O’Brien was when debts to companies that he was involved in were written off using taxpayers money - then I’m afraid ALL of your affairs must be opened to public scrutiny. Otherwise how are we to tell whether a part of the money received (as debt written off) was paid back to those who made the decision to grant the writeoff. This is not to suggest that this was the case - but it becomes a legitimate speculation if you seek to deny full knowledge of your affairs - a situation that would probably offend Mr OBrien even more. Failure to allow this scrutiny will also make it impossible for any government to grant him, or any of his companies, contracts from the government purse, without raising another wave of public suspicion, reinforced by his reaction in this case.
Maybe Mr O’Brien doesn’t understand this - but I’m sure the courts will make sure that he does as to do so would be to deny public scrutiny of public expenditure and leave the decision open to a constitutional test.
His threat that he (and unnamed others) might move their banking affairs to other jurisdictions is just petty and childish.
I’m opposed to the publication of a private individual’s banking details - and those of a private company too.
I don’t see any of the journo’s reporting about this on twitter (in a very tabloid manner in my opinion) releasing their own personal financial details.
The guy in question seems to be fair game though because he is part of the top 0.1%.
I am not a but surprised though - this type of media & politics seems to be the way things are now done. Ask open ended leading questions of audience and qualify everything with the word “allegedly”.
No, because the deals he’s been involved with both recently and in the past, have often raised peculiar concerns regarding their underlying legitimacy.
Point evidenced: “raised peculiar concerns”
Who’s “concerns”? And how exactly have they been “peculiar” (I assume we’re not discussing tribunals etc - which is a different matter).
By “peculiar” do you mean in the same way that Catherine Murphy finds things “peculiar” - largely because she has no background in what she’s talking about?
I hold no torch for the man in question - I simply cannot stand the crap being thrown around by people (mainly TDs looking for populist votes- Murphy is not the sole practitioner of this) who have no experience in M&A or in corporate restructurings.
This is not about the “public interest”. This is about votes and viewership figures.
O’Brien granted his injunction. In a Kafka-esque twist the judge’s conclusions/reasonings for granting the gag order cannot be mentioned.
How about tribunal findings?
Fire ahead. Drag him through the mud on the tribunals if you want.
But that’s not the point. This is a completely unrelated matter.
Wait a sec, are you disputing the findings of the tribunal?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriarty_T … s_findings
Form begets suspicion…
What? Where have I disputed anything from the tribunals?
I simply stated that this issue was completely unrelated to any/all tribunals. Which it is.
Isn’t there a direct connection here between the person involved and this matter.
i.e. Both Denis O’Brien has been involved in the Moriarty Tribunal and also is involved into this inquiry relating to a certain business relationship with a bank.
Surely past behavior of an individual, where it involved a license being issued by the state, and highly beneficial financial outcomes for many involved, is reason enough to question this individuals dealings with a state bank where there is high financial matters involved.
On that basic point alone, isn’t it fair to raise questions?
when will the story be published overseas?
This country is a f*cking joke.
Agreed. Those communist murdering fuckers seem to be shaking hands with royalty these days.
I’m confused. Who murdered the communists?