Comments on: A Spin Cycle Goes into Overdrive – Summary of O’Brien Interviews http://www.irishelection.com/2009/07/a-spin-cycle-goes-in-overdrive-summary-of-obrien-interviews/ Coverage of Irish Politics, News and Current Affairs Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:51:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Fran http://www.irishelection.com/2009/07/a-spin-cycle-goes-in-overdrive-summary-of-obrien-interviews/comment-page-1/#comment-121266 Fran Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:17:15 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/?p=9334#comment-121266 Something stinks. If Denis O'Brien had nothing to hide, why all the doctored letters to and from solicitors? Why withhold correspondence from the Tribunal until a disgruntled third party forced his hand? This round of interviews he did yesterday is a last act of desperation. The chickens are coming home to roost and Denis is determined to roast 'em before they squawk. Something stinks. If Denis O’Brien had nothing to hide, why all the doctored letters to and from solicitors? Why withhold correspondence from the Tribunal until a disgruntled third party forced his hand? This round of interviews he did yesterday is a last act of desperation. The chickens are coming home to roost and Denis is determined to roast ‘em before they squawk.

]]> By: Daniel Sullivan http://www.irishelection.com/2009/07/a-spin-cycle-goes-in-overdrive-summary-of-obrien-interviews/comment-page-1/#comment-121265 Daniel Sullivan Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:15:46 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/?p=9334#comment-121265 The problem is that if the tribunal has made a finding and that finding is the basis of probabilities that aren't that readily discernible from the evidence then it would be the judges acting on the basis of knowledge or impressions outside of the tribunal itself. I wonder will the same folks who objected to the recent gangland crime bill with the argument that we shouldn't convict people on the basis of the say so of a Garda superintendent who knows what he knows be raising concerns we shouldn't have tribunal findings not on the basis of anything concrete but on inferences made by the judges that they know what they know. The linkage with corruption appears to be that civil servants gave the license to O'Brien because they were in thrall to Michael Lowry, which seems very odd to say the least. Irish political history is full stories of the civil service stalling, blocking and negating the work of ministers. That civil servants would do something like this because they thought Michael Lowry was the messiah is beyond belief. This goes to the heart of the tribunal process as distinct from a trial in a court, in a court it has to be beyond reasonable doubt, in the tribunal setting it was more lax. The idea being that the balance of probabilities might suffice for a finding. Yet surely something like civil servants being enamoured with a minister and doing what they thought might please him is more improbable rather than probable? Is it possible? I would say barely so, but probably? Surely not. Yet if we are to accept the idea that civil servants do what they think the minister would find pleasing where does that leave the Monica Leech contracts investigation. The notion there is that since nothing concrete was found demonstrating overt interference by the minister it must have been all above board. And here in the case of Lowry if there is nothing concrete we should make inferences that it wasn't above board. In effect we will have multiple different standards operating on the same set of circumstances which is precisely what all the ethics legislation since the 90s was supposed to eliminate. The problem is that if the tribunal has made a finding and that finding is the basis of probabilities that aren’t that readily discernible from the evidence then it would be the judges acting on the basis of knowledge or impressions outside of the tribunal itself. I wonder will the same folks who objected to the recent gangland crime bill with the argument that we shouldn’t convict people on the basis of the say so of a Garda superintendent who knows what he knows be raising concerns we shouldn’t have tribunal findings not on the basis of anything concrete but on inferences made by the judges that they know what they know.

The linkage with corruption appears to be that civil servants gave the license to O’Brien because they were in thrall to Michael Lowry, which seems very odd to say the least. Irish political history is full stories of the civil service stalling, blocking and negating the work of ministers. That civil servants would do something like this because they thought Michael Lowry was the messiah is beyond belief.

This goes to the heart of the tribunal process as distinct from a trial in a court, in a court it has to be beyond reasonable doubt, in the tribunal setting it was more lax. The idea being that the balance of probabilities might suffice for a finding. Yet surely something like civil servants being enamoured with a minister and doing what they thought might please him is more improbable rather than probable? Is it possible? I would say barely so, but probably? Surely not.

Yet if we are to accept the idea that civil servants do what they think the minister would find pleasing where does that leave the Monica Leech contracts investigation. The notion there is that since nothing concrete was found demonstrating overt interference by the minister it must have been all above board. And here in the case of Lowry if there is nothing concrete we should make inferences that it wasn’t above board. In effect we will have multiple different standards operating on the same set of circumstances which is precisely what all the ethics legislation since the 90s was supposed to eliminate.

]]> By: Tipster http://www.irishelection.com/2009/07/a-spin-cycle-goes-in-overdrive-summary-of-obrien-interviews/comment-page-1/#comment-121263 Tipster Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:39:41 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/?p=9334#comment-121263 Nah. In ten years time a journalist will be the only person to have been jailed for their role -- and that will have been for breaching legal privelege or confidentiality, or for refusing to reveal the identity of a source for a story they wrote. Nah. In ten years time a journalist will be the only person to have been jailed for their role — and that will have been for breaching legal privelege or confidentiality, or for refusing to reveal the identity of a source for a story they wrote.

]]>