# Declan Ganley on Prime Time ...



## room305 (27 Nov 2008)

Did anyone see this? What the hell was that about? 

Entrepreneur has a number of failed businesses, businesses launched during the collapse of communism are not fully transparent and the real shocker, the tendering of contracts for business in Iraq prove not to be entirely fair and open. Oh dear.

Not that Miriam O'Callaghan or RTE's political paymasters would have any kind of agenda here, what with Lisbon Part Deux impending and all.

Seriously, even if there was an agenda behind this, surely they could do better than having that slimy butterball Dick Roche on gabbing about Ganley's lack of transparency and murky financial dealings?


----------



## Dave Vanian (27 Nov 2008)

Just watched it.  Couldn't make up my mind on which of the following applies: - 

(1) Ganley has stuff to hide from his past or 

(2) the programme was an attempt to discredit him by political forces who want to push through Lisbon 2. 

He seemed very keen to play down his link to the director of the Anglo Adriatic Fund who was murdered.


----------



## Guest116 (27 Nov 2008)

It raises an awful lot of questions and its very damaging to Ganley.

There seems to be a lot of denying by Ganley on who he knew or didnt know and yet those people went on record to say they did know Ganley. All very shady.

It was a very one sided programme however.

Seems to be a big drive to push the Yes campaign now with reports in the media today on Irelands damaged position in Europe as a result of the No result and now this programme on Ganley. Who is behind it all?


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2008)

If Mary Harney's hair do is worth front page coverage (with more inside) then what's this worth?


----------



## ontour (27 Nov 2008)

He is a man who wants to write himself in to history.  The programme did not really tell us anything new.  We still know very little about him and Libertas, primarily regarding financing.

With his apparent ability to rewrite history, maybe Ganley could convince us all that we voted Yes to Lisbon and save us the cost of voting again.


----------



## room305 (27 Nov 2008)

Dave Vanian said:


> He seemed very keen to play down his link to the director of the Anglo Adriatic Fund who was murdered.



Would you blame him?


----------



## diarmuidc (28 Nov 2008)

room305 said:


> Would you blame him?


True. I'd be even more worried if he *didn't* try to play it down


----------



## Ceist Beag (28 Nov 2008)

Dave Vanian said:


> He seemed very keen to play down his link to the director of the Anglo Adriatic Fund who was murdered.



That was such a crock of ****. So some guy who used to be a director of a Fund he was involved with was murdered and they're trying to somehow link the two things, or at least muddy the waters a bit? I thought the show was crap, no substance, just throwing mud to try and slander the guy ... not that I'm trying to defend him, personally I'm no fan, but I just found the whole thing a bit bizzare. First they seemed to be making him out to be a lot more than he really is, and then they're trying to discredit him for not being quite what they tried to make out he was!! Maybe RTE know more than we do about the fella but personally I couldn't believe a full show was dedicated to him!


----------



## Dave Vanian (28 Nov 2008)

Yes but he went about it badly.  There's a difference between saying that you weren't bosom buddies with someone and attempting to claim that you didn't even know him or remember him, when the reality seems to have been somewhere in between.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Nov 2008)

Dave Vanian said:


> There's a difference between saying that you weren't bosom buddies with someone and attempting to claim that you didn't even know him or remember him, when the reality seems to have been somewhere in between.



Sounds familiar


----------



## ninsaga (28 Nov 2008)

Yes it was bizzare.... I still don't know what to make of it....... I think the show reached it's objective in that it raised questions regarding Ganley on why he proclaimed to be a government advisor & yet the government official didn't want to go into it.... how he stated he had 6 TV networks & never did, how his reason for not getting the US government contract differs from the US government official in Washington. It 'appears' there is more to it......

Will it damage his credibility to some degree in the next round of Lisbon? - quite possibly...... everybody wants to ensure that any arguments from the anti-Lisbon front come from credible sources. People at this stage know that the government is not credible as we are sick of the government spin doctoring bad situations as it is.

If Ganley's credibility/motives are thrown into question also then people will go with the government.


----------



## boris (28 Nov 2008)

I would think that one of the most damaging factors would be the non filing of the required (statutory) information with SIPO. He stated (to my memory) that they were out to get him because of "Brussels fanatics".

Did a bit of looking into this. SIPO was set up and is governed by two Acts in 1995 and 2001. Also it was stated by a member of Libertas they were established in 2006. So Mr. Ganley's argument falls there. It is national legislation and not one of EU origin.

There was nothing new in the program last night that has not already been printed by Phoenix magazine over the last while. Still a well put together programme.


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Nov 2008)

I've seen the point made elsewhere that 160 TDs called for a yes in Lisbon and this chancer called for a no.  Who did we trust?


----------



## Betsy Og (28 Nov 2008)

A couple of points:

Not great journalistically I thought. Nothing much to say bar unconfirmed rumours, questions left for us to ponder......
The usual heavy handed music (though not quite as slapstick as the time of the "future shock" property programme) and ominous slience at the end- have we become so thick that the national broadcaster feels the need to lay it on with a trowel? Or maybe it's supposed to compensate for the lack of punches landed.
Isnt it all a bit of a diversion from the real issue? - which, IMHO is - is this particular treaty good for Ireland (and, secondly Europe) or not? I'm sick to the teeth of irrelevancies (both sides) about us being out of step with Europe, being bullied and guilt tripped by people who cant explain whats in the thing (read it might be a start lads...) but are darn sure we must vote yes or teh country will be a wasteland and we'll all have to return to the fields to tram hay.

As regards Ganley - programme would have damaged him a bit, he definitely has questions to answer. I think its safe to say he's a bit of a spoofer. But even if I I knew for a fact that he is the devil incarnate backed by the axis of evil, perhaps he's right on this particular treaty???

I would definitely fault Libertas for scaremongering irrelevancies such as conscription, abortion etc, but I dont think they had exclusive rights to those tactics.

My bottom line on EU: dont want a federal Europe, we're too small and if it suits the rest of Europe we'll wither on the vine (see the interest rate situation as the first example - do they give a hang whether Ireland needs a higher or lower ECB rate?? - unless we're in sync with France and Germany we're screwed). Do we want the tax system or anything else important to go the same way? I think the common currency is about as far as we can go, any futher and we're running risks for no return. I also think there's merit in the view that Europe's political elite have lost the run of themselves and the wishes of the constituents are a hassle they feel they could and should do without as they proceed with their merry project.

phew - rant over


----------



## dereko1969 (28 Nov 2008)

This was an awful awful programme. 

First off I voted Yes to Lisbon and would do again, don't like Libertas' arguments and their fellow travellers who campaigned against Lisbon. However, this programme just repeated queries that have been about for a long time and provided no answers, just portentous music and a few free long-haul flights for the presenter (and what was the point in Miriam O'Callaghan in her LBD introducing it?) Promised answers gave none.

The 'journalist' couldn't even put together a proper question - i liked it when Ganley called her up on this - stating something as fact without a question at the end. They even tried to make out his marriage was somehow dodgy! Why didn't they ask the brother who was allegedly on holiday with the murdered man about that trip? It's easy to make something seem sinister when people won't go on camera so we get shots of the journalist walking in and out of houses and then repeating what was said (or secretly recording it - is that ethical?) An awful lot of dodgy dealings have gone on in the contracting in Iraq and his company were found not to have committed any crime in relation to their contract negotiations.

There were shots of Vaclav Klaus and another european politician whose name I didn't catch implying they are total loons without any detail at all. This should not have been shown without some tighter editing and until RTE had actual answers to their questions (some of which are legitimate) rather than just muddying the waters.


----------



## Coolaboy (28 Nov 2008)

You could tell he was lying through his teeth.


----------



## Sherman (28 Nov 2008)

Oh, the hilarity of a Fianna Fail government attacking a politician for dodgy associations and untraced sources of funding.


----------



## michaelm (28 Nov 2008)

This represents a continuation and ramping up of efforts by Europhile media and politicians to play the man and not the ball; RTE, The Irish Times, Roche et al have form in this regard.  Ganley certainly had an impact on Lisbon 1 but to credit/blame him for the No is simplistic and inaccurate and in some cases disingenuous.  862,000+ people took the trouble to go and vote against the treaty so it will require a conserted and coordinated effort by the establishment to coerce the public and achieve their goal.


----------



## ontour (28 Nov 2008)

michaelm said:


> ..............Ganley certainly had an impact on Lisbon 1 but to credit/blame him for the No is simplistic and inaccurate and in some cases disingenuous................


 
Do you think that we would have voted No to Lisbon if Libertas/ Ganley had not been involved?


----------



## Markjbloggs (28 Nov 2008)

Sherman said:


> Oh, the hilarity of a Fianna Fail government attacking a politician for dodgy associations and untraced sources of funding.



Even more ironic was Dick Roche trying to discredit Ganley by referring to the dubious nature of his acqauntances...

Kettle, pot, black.


----------



## starlite68 (28 Nov 2008)

DerKaiser said:


> I've seen the point made elsewhere that 160 TDs called for a yes in Lisbon and this chancer called for a no. Who did we trust?


i thinlk thats why the NO side won.....One chancer called for a no..160 chancers called for a YES


----------



## michaelm (28 Nov 2008)

ontour said:


> Do you think that we would have voted No to Lisbon if Libertas/ Ganley had not been involved?


I would have.  Nice 1 was defeated sans Ganley.  Many people voted No to Lisbon despite, rather than because of, various elements within the No camp.


----------



## Ruam (28 Nov 2008)

michaelm said:


> I would have.  Nice 1 was defeated sans Ganley.  Many people voted No to Lisbon despite, rather than because of, various elements within the No camp.



I second that.  Ganley would almost make me vote yes, almost!

Ruam


----------



## z105 (28 Nov 2008)

> Did anyone see this? What the hell was that about?
> 
> Entrepreneur has a number of failed businesses, businesses launched during the collapse of communism are not fully transparent and the real shocker, the tendering of contracts for business in Iraq prove not to be entirely fair and open. Oh dear.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more, what in the heck was the point of it, if it was to discredit him it certainly didn't try hard enough and why anyway? Waste of taxpayers' money

A friend of mine in Wexford told me the local Borough Council had a civic reception for Dick Roche a couple of years ago - because he was BORN in Wexford, love to know the cost of it and why oh why ? Though he says all you have to do is pass your leaving and you get a civic reception by them. What a joke.


----------



## ontour (28 Nov 2008)

michaelm said:


> I would have. Nice 1 was defeated sans Ganley. Many people voted No to Lisbon despite, rather than because of, various elements within the No camp.


 
So, to make sure I understand your answer, you think that the country would have rejected Lisbon if Ganley had never got involved?

There will always be two sides to every debate but I strongly believe that Lisbon would have been carried if not for Ganley/ Libertas.


----------



## michaelm (28 Nov 2008)

ontour said:


> So, to make sure I understand your answer, you think that the country would have rejected Lisbon if Ganley had never got involved?


For clarity; I think it would have been very very close but may have just been rejected.  Remember circa 530,000 people voted against both Nice 1 & Nice 2.  Many people feel that the 'pooling' of soveignty has gone far enough.





ontour said:


> There will always be two sides to every debate but I strongly believe that Lisbon would have been carried if not for Ganley/ Libertas.


Who can say.  But that's the game plan.  A bit of revisionism, convine people that No = Ganley, Ganley = Evil, Lisbon 2 = Yes or No to EU.  Overturning the Lisbon result will be bad for Ireland and bad for the EU.  They want a federal state, they should be honest and ask the people of each country to decide if they want to be part of a federal state.


----------



## quarterfloun (1 Dec 2008)

Ganley is a breath of different air in Irish politics. I'm not sure whether the air is clean or not but until proven otherwise I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. None of the existing parties offer solid direction or actually clean up public service properly. God knows we need a Maggie Thatcher here to sort out the public service unions, levels of waste and forge on. I'm not advocating all her policies but she made some positive contributions too. I'm hoping Libertas become a real alternative - I'd even bother to put myself on the electoral roll just to vote for CHANGE.


----------



## Mumha (2 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> For clarity; I think it would have been very very close but may have just been rejected. Remember circa 530,000 people voted against both Nice 1 & Nice 2. *Many people feel that the 'pooling' of soveignty has gone far enough.*Who can say. But that's the game plan. A bit of revisionism, convine people that No = Ganley, Ganley = Evil, Lisbon 2 = Yes or No to EU. Overturning the Lisbon result will be bad for Ireland and bad for the EU. They want a federal state, they should be honest and ask the people of each country to decide if they want to be part of a federal state.


 
That is the very reason why I voted against Lisbon, not because of Ganley though if anything, that sham Primetime has copperfastened my views on the undemocratic Lisbon Treaty.


----------



## diarmuidc (2 Dec 2008)

Ruam said:


> I second that.  Ganley would almost make me vote yes, almost!


but in the end the Sinners swung it for you?


----------



## csirl (2 Dec 2008)

Sherman said:


> Oh, the hilarity of a Fianna Fail government attacking a politician for dodgy associations and untraced sources of funding.


 
The media and a lot of Government politicians seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on his sources of funding. Why should Libertas receive more scrutiny than any other political party? As we've seen from the Tribunals, there have been a lot of substantial donations made to parties and individuals running for office which have not been scutinised and certainly were never declared to the public in the manner in which they want Libertas funding declared. 

There appears to be a pan-media campaign against Libertas for some reason and the strength, consistency and proportionality of it suggests that the media have some hidden agenda and are not interested in fair coverage. It certainly smacks of media manipulation of public opinion.

On the Lisbon Treaty, the vast majority of people who voted No did not do so due to Libertas, Sinn Fein or any of the cranks. In many cases, they did so in spite of these people. The Government seem to be taking a view that the No vote was due to these people - hence the trotting out of them at the post referendum post mortum. I feel that there is a deliberate effort being made by them to associate No voters with crank groups and shame these No voters into switching sides.


----------



## extopia (2 Dec 2008)

Coolaboy said:


> You could tell he was lying through his teeth.



Who - Ganley or the producers of the programme?

It was a lazy piece of journalism. The crew flew to places like Latvia, Albania, Washington DC, etc. Nothing new was discovered. A clumsy attempt was made to link Ganley with the Albanian pyramid selling scheme, shadowy murders, dodgy contracts.

Pure mudslinging. Waste of license fee money.


----------



## Lollix (2 Dec 2008)

Like many other pople, I feel that I have to state from the outset that I am not a supporter of Declan Ganley's politics (in so far as I can discern what those politics are). However I could only look in wonder at RTE in full flight on a hatchet job on the man.
The most interesting thing, for me, was the way that RTE tried to paint Ganley as a sinister individual; the programme was one of the most one-sided pieces thay have done, ever, and there was no attempt at even-handedness. The premise of the programme was that they had made their minds up to rubbish the guy, and then they put little pieces together to support their view. No attempt at balance whatsoever.
What nobody seems to have queried though is why they did it. To me, it seems as though the government asked them to bury the man, and they tried, albeit in a very hamfisted manner. Why did they disagree with almost everything Ganley said and not take Dick Roche up on his own comments? After all, anyone in Dick Roche's party, particularly in his era, has been associated with some very unsavoury characters indeed. That was a question begging to be asked, but nobody asked it.


----------



## room305 (3 Dec 2008)

Lollix said:


> Like many other pople, I feel that I have to state from the outset that I am not a supporter of Declan Ganley's politics (in so far as I can discern what those politics are). However I could only look in wonder at RTE in full flight on a hatchet job on the man.
> The most interesting thing, for me, was the way that RTE tried to paint Ganley as a sinister individual; the programme was one of the most one-sided pieces thay have done, ever, and there was no attempt at even-handedness. The premise of the programme was that they had made their minds up to rubbish the guy, and then they put little pieces together to support their view. No attempt at balance whatsoever.
> What nobody seems to have queried though is why they did it. To me, it seems as though the government asked them to bury the man, and they tried, albeit in a very hamfisted manner. Why did they disagree with almost everything Ganley said and not take Dick Roche up on his own comments? After all, anyone in Dick Roche's party, particularly in his era, has been associated with some very unsavoury characters indeed. That was a question begging to be asked, but nobody asked it.



Good post. I felt the same watching it, full of vague insinuations and lacking in any facts. How they spoke of his link to the "neo-cons" was telling - I am aware links to the US republican party might be a crime in Montrose but it's hardly the stuff of major scandal.

The comments surrounding the bid for the Irish mobile phone license were crazy. Some Irish Times head stating they couldn't get full disclosure of all Ganley's financial dealings at the time. Meanwhile on-screen we see a smiling Denis O'Brien - did the same Irish Times journalist try asking O'Brien for a full and frank disclosure of all his financial wheeling and dealing?

I dislike Declan Ganley and argued strongly that we should vote for the Lisbon Treaty but I've half a mind to submit a complaint to the broadcasting standards authority about this obvious hatchet job.


----------



## Mumha (3 Dec 2008)

room305 said:


> Good post. I felt the same watching it, full of vague insinuations and lacking in any facts. How they spoke of his link to the "neo-cons" was telling - I am aware links to the US republican party might be a crime in Montrose but it's hardly the stuff of major scandal.
> 
> The comments surrounding the bid for the Irish mobile phone license were crazy. Some Irish Times head stating they couldn't get full disclosure of all Ganley's financial dealings at the time. Meanwhile on-screen we see a smiling Denis O'Brien - did the same Irish Times journalist try asking O'Brien for a full and frank disclosure of all his financial wheeling and dealing?
> 
> I dislike Declan Ganley and argued strongly that we should vote for the Lisbon Treaty but *I've half a mind to submit a complaint to the broadcasting standards authority about this obvious hatchet job*.


 
Someone should. If Primetime spent as much time "investigating" why the government aren't searching the Extraordinary Rendition flights through Shannon, the world would be a better place. Maybe they too have been got to by the....the...the..Neo-cons !


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2008)

room305 said:


> Good post. I felt the same watching it, full of vague insinuations and lacking in any facts. How they spoke of his link to the "neo-cons" was telling - I am aware links to the US republican party might be a crime in Montrose but it's hardly the stuff of major scandal.
> 
> The comments surrounding the bid for the Irish mobile phone license were crazy. Some Irish Times head stating they couldn't get full disclosure of all Ganley's financial dealings at the time. Meanwhile on-screen we see a smiling Denis O'Brien - did the same Irish Times journalist try asking O'Brien for a full and frank disclosure of all his financial wheeling and dealing?
> 
> I dislike Declan Ganley and argued strongly that we should vote for the Lisbon Treaty but I've half a mind to submit a complaint to the broadcasting standards authority about this obvious hatchet job.



What he said.


----------



## Megan (4 Dec 2008)

extopia said:


> Who - Ganley or the producers of the programme?
> 
> It was a lazy piece of journalism. The crew flew to places like Latvia, Albania, Washington DC, etc. Nothing new was discovered. A clumsy attempt was made to link Ganley with the Albanian pyramid selling scheme, shadowy murders, dodgy contracts.
> 
> Pure mudslinging. Waste of license fee money.



More license money is going to be lost now as Declan Ganley is now going to sue RTE as a result of the Prime Time Programme.


----------



## cork (4 Dec 2008)

Megan said:


> More license money is going to be lost now as Declan Ganley is now going to sue RTE as a result of the Prime Time Programme.


 
Prime Time was disappointing as it did not illuminate anything new about the guy.


----------



## Ancutza (4 Dec 2008)

Just watched the show in full and I have to say that I felt a deep misgiving as to the innuendo aired.  It was a pure example of hatchet journalism and one would have to ask just who was behind such a one-sided attack on Ganley.

I didn't vote on Lisbon as I was abroad at the time of the referendum but I'd probably have voted 'No'.  

The content of the programme unnerves me greatly since it would appear to be an attempt by some parties to discredit Ganley in the run-up to a forced second vote.  RTE should be utterly ashamed of itself in allowing it's network to be so blatantly prostituted by government-aligned interests.  But I guess that to expect it to do otherwise would be like asking the dog to bite the hand that feeds it.


----------



## S.L.F (4 Dec 2008)

Megan said:


> More license money is going to be lost now as Declan Ganley is now going to sue RTE as a result of the Prime Time Programme.



That would be a good thing because the money would be used for the NO campaign and it would be RTE paying for it


----------



## Mumha (11 Dec 2008)

I hope they keep Dick Roche heavily to the front of the Yes Campaign. If ever there was an oily individual designed to put people off, he is himself.


----------

