Moriarty

Did anybody catch Ben Dunne on Joe Duffy when the Moriarty report came out. Apparently the mental problems, mixed with drugs and other stuff meant that he wasn't fully liable for his deeds, though he challenged Moriarty to send the file to the DPP. The whole show revolved revolved around those calling in to say how he was a disgrace, and others who knew him personally saying he's pretty much a hero. And then listening to Morning Ireland and the goms in Tipp threatening reporters for blackening a good mans name at a joyous homecoming for the local oligarch, I began to wonder if NATO and the UN shouldn't be passing resolutions and bombing the hell out of civilian areas of Ireland. In fact I think it would be more dangerous for "peace keeping" figher jets flying in to bomb towns when gurriers started shining those little red laser beams at them.

I spent a day yesterday looking through as much of the Moriarty findings as I could, I'm still wondering if anyone will be hammered for their transgressions.

It will be interesting to see how the costs are awarded. Certainly Lowry and O'Brien are entitled to legal support when the State decides to come down like a ton of bricks with a legal team forensically scrutinising the evidence of their business and political affairs. But should the State be liable for the unlimited costs for those 2, with all their "obfuscation, delaying tactics, leaks etc"?
I think the job of the judge here is to decide what proportion of the legal fees are their entitlement and what part are their own responsibility due their own actions.

I have read and heard a few commentators/journalists who have taken a stance that the tribunal has not proved anything and that Moriarity has succumbed to enacting a story with an over dependance on gossip.
I can only conclude that those critics have not read, absorbed or appreciated the basic details of each evidence trail leading to the Judges' conclusions on each aspect of the report.

I’m not sure that the tribunal have to give O’Brien and Lowry any costs. Tribunals reward co-operation when deciding on costs: if witnesses co-operate, they have a reasonable expectation that their costs will be met by the state, since their costs are incurred while acting in the public interest. When witnesses fail to co-operate, tribunals may decide to withhold costs. And when witnesses frustrate the workings of the tribunal, increasing its costs, the tribunal can penalise them by making them pay for their costs, and the tribunal’s costs in dealing with the frustrating action. Clearly, O’Brien and Lowry were uncooperative from the outset, and sought to frustrate the tribunal, so there’s a strong argument for giving them, as D’OB himself might say “not a red penny.”

Meantime, what about the idea that O’Brien could be charged with contempt of court for his statements about Moriarty himself since the report came out?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...293137880.html
JUDICIARY REMARKS: BUSINESSMAN DENIS O’Brien could be prosecuted for contempt of court over remarks he made about the judiciary on Tuesday, according to legal experts.
Mr O’Brien said he may have lost his legal challenges to the Moriarty tribunal because the judiciary put a “ring of steel” around Mr Justice Moriarty to protect him as they knew he was not “up to the job”....

Interesting to listen to John Waters on Newstalk, he says in effect that we cannot infer what what was discussed in a private discussion between Lowry and O'Brien at a Dublin pub one Sunday. What Waters has failed to do is read the report. The Judge does not infer what was discussed. The matter for discussion was inadvertently revealed by another witness, one from the O'Brien camp, who said that O'Brien revealed (on the day after) that he met with the minister and the bid had to beefed up a bit. Moriarity used witness evidence (O'Brien's own witness) to prove that the seal had been broken and that meeting in the pub was the circumstantial opportunity for that seal to be broken.
The Judge did not, as Water's claims, make up stuff.

Just caught a bit on RTE news.. something about Moriarty's phone being maybe interfered with. Sounds like there's a lot more to come on that story but details still seem very vague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Interesting to listen to John Waters on Newstalk, he says in effect that we cannot infer what what was discussed in a private discussion between Lowry and O'Brien at a Dublin pub one Sunday. What Waters has failed to do is read the report.

---

Sorry, I lost interest at "John Waters"...

I now know that JW is well capable of spoofing.
He was invited to talk on a main Sunday politics chat show and wasn't taken to task by the others on the show, in fact he appeared to be taken seriously as if his opinion had some merit, therefore I thought it was worthy of rebuke.

Just out of interest, what radio station was it on?

Newstalk I thought, you can catch the podcast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

Newstalk I thought, you can catch the podcast.

---

On a communicorp radio station, a position such as described above wasn't questioned - I'm shocked...

No, you're just cynical :D

The catch phrase oft used when looking at media treatment is 'did they pull their punches?' I can't say in this instance, it was Dunphy's show on Sunday.

They could just shift the slant to what Dahamsta sort of alluded to earlier, that O'Brien did what he had to do, in order to do business, should he face charges then so be it, but the real corruption is the Lowry disease. Personally I have a deep opposition to this type of privatisation but that's besides the point. What eats the heart and soul of any process are the multitude of political gombeens who are elected to uphold the constitution but see the opportunity for self gain and line their pockets.
I don't know O'Brien at all. I take it that he's a smart enough, intelligent businessman. If I were O'Brien, I would possibly just focus on a low profile defense and try to subtly shift everything over to Lowry, i.e. the business reality was that you had no choice but to deal with characters like Lowry who sold their favour for a price.
Same as the developers who bribed politicians, it is the politician who is perceived as the despicable rogue.

I suspect Lowry must have something on O'Brien in order for O'Brien to be so vociferous in defending the indefensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

No, you're just cynical :D

The catch phrase oft used when looking at media treatment is 'did they pull their punches?' I can't say in this instance, it was Dunphy's show on Sunday.

---

I could be being over cynical if it was Dunphy presenting, it could be just that he's mates with Waters.

I can't tell if the punches were pulled on purpose or out of ignorance, but when the presenter does not ensure a proper panel to take on the controversial issue then you'd be inclined to assume at least a mixture of both.

Good news is that the CAB hounds are on Lowry's murky trail.

Watching VB there. Lowry's speech was vomit inducing!