# The Moriarty Bombshell-what will happen next?



## horusd (23 Mar 2011)

Listening to all the heavy flak flying around yesterday and today it's hard to decide what to believe about all this. If the Dail decides that Moriarty is right and Lowry did something wrong, can they impeach him or give him the boot?


----------



## Mpsox (23 Mar 2011)

They can pass a motion of censure on him, as was done to Liam Lawlor, but I don't believe they can impeach him. 

FF are calling for the report to be sent to the DPP, but it's debatable if there is enough proof for a criminal conviction. Certainly, if the Tribunal took 14 years, I dread to think how long court cases would take.


There was a vox pop done in Thurles on the radio yesterday, one local person said, "he promised people stuff, he got them stuff", I guess all politics really is local.


----------



## Sunny (23 Mar 2011)

Doubt it. I have to say that for 14 years and apparently €150 million, one has to ask what was the bloody point? Only in this Country could we have a tribunal on this subject go on this long and make lawyers rich. What did we learn that we didn't already know. We already knew Lowry was corrupt.


----------



## Yorrick (23 Mar 2011)

The most important thing is to lay as much blame on Lowry and pals as possible and to make as wide a gap between him and his former Government colleagues who now are coincidentally back in power.


----------



## RonanC (23 Mar 2011)

Hopefully the Gardai will commence an investigation into this. Allegations are now out in the public domain of corruption and the Tribunal has shown them where to find the evidence. 

What really gets me is why the people of Tipp north vote again and again for Lowry.


----------



## Sunny (23 Mar 2011)

Yeah I love the way the rest of the FG/Labour cabinet of the time are rushing to distant themselves. FG come out of this badly as well. Even though, listening to FF lecture on ethical behaviour is funny!


----------



## horusd (23 Mar 2011)

Micheal on the high moral ground is hilarous, particularly given FF bought Lowry's support in the last gov't. And Tipp north doubled his1st preference vote in the last election. Well he delivers I suppose. Interesting point from Elaine Byrne  from TCD on the Late Debate last night. She totted up the cost of the Tribunals and the income generated from them. She found they cost a whopping 500 million, but actually raised a billion. The reputational damage for Ireland from this report is huge tho. Particularly if nothing happens as a result.


----------



## csirl (23 Mar 2011)

Will 02 be stripped of its license? I know that it is no longer owned by the consortium who were granted the license, but when the current owners purchased the former Esat company, legally speaking they also purchased any liabilities that it had - they would have done due diligence at the time of purchase and so would have been aware that there was a chance that something would come out in the Tribunal. The State should take it back and either give it to the genuine winner of the competition or auction it off again (we could do with the funds).


----------



## Shawady (23 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> Yeah I love the way the rest of the FG/Labour cabinet of the time are rushing to distant themselves. FG come out of this badly as well. Even though, listening to FF lecture on ethical behaviour is funny!


 
Don't forget the last government were very happy to rely on Lowry's vote to keep them in power. Didn't he get some deal on his super casino before the last budget?
Double standards all round.


----------



## liaconn (23 Mar 2011)

I have to say, the only vaguely amusing thing about this was listening to FF's outrage. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

The people of Thurles should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Niall M (23 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> Micheal on the high moral ground is hilarous, particularly given FF bought Lowry's support in the last gov't. And Tipp north doubled his1st preference vote in the last election. Well he delivers I suppose. Interesting point from Elaine Byrne from TCD on the Late Debate last night. She totted up the cost of the Tribunals and the income generated from them. She found they cost a whopping 500 million, but actually raised a billion. The reputational damage for Ireland from this report is huge tho. Particularly if nothing happens as a result.


 
how was the billion raised?


----------



## horusd (23 Mar 2011)

Good question Niall, I wondered that too. she didn't explain that part.


----------



## csirl (23 Mar 2011)

Niall M said:


> how was the billion raised?


 
Tax and penalties.


----------



## horusd (23 Mar 2011)

Ok csirl thanks.  Anyone know where the text of the tribunal report can be found?


----------



## Mucker Man (23 Mar 2011)

Personally I believe it proves politics in Ireland stinks to high heavens, it doesn't matter who is in power. 
We make people like Robert Mugabe look good.


----------



## RonanC (23 Mar 2011)

Niall M said:


> how was the billion raised?


 
Ansbacher, backpayments of tax and penalties imposed, investigations into tax evasion, Bailey Bro's settlement with Revenue.... it all adds up.


----------



## RonanC (23 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> Ok csirl thanks. Anyone know where the text of the tribunal report can be found?


 
http://www.moriarty-tribunal.ie


----------



## liaconn (23 Mar 2011)

I wonder will the Irish Times get rid of Sarah Carey after this.


----------



## Sunny (23 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> I wonder will the Irish Times get rid of Sarah Carey after this.


 
Interesting one. Have time for Sarah Carey but caught her on Prime Time last night and I have to say I was very disappointed with her attitude.


----------



## Niall M (23 Mar 2011)

Good we raised the money so out of it. at least it made us some money.


----------



## liaconn (23 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> Interesting one. Have time for Sarah Carey but caught her on Prime Time last night and I have to say I was very disappointed with her attitude.


 
She admitted lying to the Tribunal and also cast doubts over Moriarty's report. Nice!


----------



## RonanC (23 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> She admitted lying to the Tribunal and also cast doubts over Moriarty's report. Nice!


 
Liaconn, not only did she admit to lying on national television, but she smiled and i heard a small laugh at the same time. Unreal !!


----------



## RonanC (23 Mar 2011)

RonanC said:


> Hopefully the Gardai will commence an investigation into this. Allegations are now out in the public domain of corruption and the Tribunal has shown them where to find the evidence.


 
The Minister for Communications (Pat Rabbitte) is to hand over the report to the Gardai and the DPP. We havnt heard the last of this yet.


----------



## Sunny (23 Mar 2011)

It was her 'everyone was leaking' line and the little laugh that really annoyed me. Next time she climbs up on her high horse in the Irish Times, I hope someone pulls her up on it.


----------



## Sunny (23 Mar 2011)

RonanC said:


> The Minister for Communications (Pat Rabbitte) is to hand over the report to the Gardai and the DPP. We havnt heard the last of this yet.


 
Oh I think we have! The DPP is a black hole for investigations like this. Too complicated and to be fair, the evidence is pretty weak for a Court of Law from what I read.


----------



## Shawady (23 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> Interesting one. Have time for Sarah Carey but caught her on Prime Time last night and I have to say I was very disappointed with her attitude.


 
+1
I thought journalists were supposed to be unbiased, but she certainly didn't come accross as that last night.


----------



## liaconn (23 Mar 2011)

RonanC said:


> Liaconn, not only did she admit to lying on national television, but she smiled and i heard a small laugh at the same time. Unreal !!


 
You're right. Sam Smyth was looking at her as if he was wondering what planet she came from.


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2011)

Isn’t it the case the evidence gathered by a Tribunal cannot be used in a criminal proceeding?

As for raising €1 billion and costing €500 million, that tells us that if the office of the Revenue Commissioner, the Office of corporate enforcement and the police were able to do their job we’d be up by a few hundred million more. What a bunch of incompetents we have at every level running this country. The politicians can’t do their job, the police can’ do their job and the statutory regulators can’t do their job.

I don’t like Denis O’Brien but I have no respect at all for the eminent Justice who was the ring-master of the half billion dog and pony show. I get a strong impression that he got very personally involved, i.e. emotional and angry, and also that he’s very defensive about the overall cost. If his report stated that nothing much happened he’d be slammed.


----------



## RonanC (23 Mar 2011)

Purple said:


> Isn’t it the case the evidence gathered by a Tribunal cannot be used in a criminal proceeding?
> 
> As for raising €1 billion and costing €500 million, that tells us that if the office of the Revenue Commissioner, the Office of corporate enforcement and the police were able to do their job we’d be up by a few hundred million more. What a bunch of incompetents we have at every level running this country. The politicians can’t do their job, the police can’ do their job and the statutory regulators can’t do their job.
> 
> I don’t like Denis O’Brien but I have no respect at all for the eminent Justice who was the ring-master of the half billion dog and pony show. I get a strong impression that he got very personally involved, i.e. emotional and angry, and also that he’s very defensive about the overall cost. If his report stated that nothing much happened he’d be slammed.


 
* Moriarty Tribunal cost €150m. 

* Office of Director of Corporate Enforcement was only established in 2001. 

Also, remember who has been at the centre of all these tribunals... Big Business and a select few dodgy politicans. You cannot say that those at every level running the country are 'incompetents' when it is Big Business who are trying to avoid paying tax, hiding money in off shore accounts, trying to swing decisions in their favour and profit being their number one goal, so what about legislation or compliance with regulations and the law.


----------



## Latrade (23 Mar 2011)

RonanC said:


> Also, remember who has been at the centre of all these tribunals... Big Business and a select few dodgy politicans. You cannot say that those at every level running the country are 'incompetents' when it is Big Business who are trying to avoid paying tax, hiding money in off shore accounts, trying to swing decisions in their favour and profit being their number one goal, so what about legislation or compliance with regulations and the law.



True, but what we can see is just how far the corruption and want to be close to power spread. Now we know the high horse media was involved too. For example did anyone catch the Indo's indepth analysis yesterday as the report broke? Me neither, because they just had a couple of paragraphs from the AP. Wonder why they never thought it newsworthy.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Mar 2011)

RonanC said:


> * Moriarty Tribunal cost €150m.
> 
> * Office of Director of Corporate Enforcement was only established in 2001.
> 
> Also, remember who has been at the centre of all these tribunals... Big Business and a select few dodgy politicans. You cannot say that those at every level running the country are 'incompetents' when it is Big Business who are trying to avoid paying tax, hiding money in off shore accounts, trying to swing decisions in their favour and profit being their number one goal, so what about legislation or compliance with regulations and the law.



An excellent post.

A huge + 1


----------



## Yorrick (23 Mar 2011)

When it comes to Tribunals The Irish Times is a law on to itself. It has destroyed documents wanted by the Tribunals and now Carey admits lying.
And they got rid of Kevin Myers for what!!!!


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2011)

RonanC said:


> * Moriarty Tribunal cost €150m.
> 
> * Office of Director of Corporate Enforcement was only established in 2001.
> 
> Also, remember who has been at the centre of all these tribunals... Big Business and a select few dodgy politicans. You cannot say that those at every level running the country are 'incompetents' when it is Big Business who are trying to avoid paying tax, hiding money in off shore accounts, trying to swing decisions in their favour and profit being their number one goal, so what about legislation or compliance with regulations and the law.



what about legislation or compliance with regulations and the law?

Over the last 15 years we’ve  seen repeated cases of political corruption, a banking sector which was in cahoots with the property developers who, by any reasonable standard, were trading recklessly. 
It seems that our politicians can’t govern or legislate, our Civil Service is incapable of framing legislation even if asked, our police can’t investigate white collar crime (hence the formation of the office of corporate enforcement), our last financial regulator can’t read a balance sheet (he saw that Anglo was massively over exposed to a small group of people in one sector and was massively over leveraged but gave them the thumbs-up year after year) and DPP can’t build a case. 
If that doesn’t show systemic incompetence then I don’t know what would.


----------



## csirl (23 Mar 2011)

The solution is to allow Common Law criminal proceedings. If the jury believes that what the person did was a crime, then it is.


----------



## Sunny (23 Mar 2011)

Just listened to Lowry on last word. Unreal!


----------



## horusd (23 Mar 2011)

What's really disturbing in all of this, is the attack on the Judge himself. This is not to say that he couldn't be wrong, getting personal or whatever.  But the level of invective directed towards him  makes me wonder.


----------



## Frank (23 Mar 2011)

You have to wonder at the people that will vote these thieves in time after time.

Sure didn't he get us a new village with the free extension.

The Irish people have a lot to answer for here.


----------



## Complainer (23 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> I wonder will the Irish Times get rid of Sarah Carey after this.



Always a nice job for her at the Indo after her loyal performance



Sunny said:


> Doubt it. I have to say that for 14 years and apparently €150 million, one has to ask what was the bloody point? Only in this Country could we have a tribunal on this subject go on this long and make lawyers rich. What did we learn that we didn't already know. We already knew Lowry was corrupt.



Let's not forget that a large part of the cost was down to the repeated, evasive actions taken by Lowry, O'Brien and their raft of associates. How many court actions did O'Brien take in recent years to try to block the tribunal?

Just wait till the Judge gets to decide on costs.


----------



## Leper (24 Mar 2011)

Just to get back to the reality of what will happen next - nothing, the whole episode will just fizzle out and nobody will be held accountable.  

Yer Man will still head poles in Tipp North and Bed Dunne will extend his celebrity status.  Mr Moriarty will be ridiculed in satire - "Are you there Moriar-i-tee" song comes to mind. Denis will probably be secunded to the Dáil to try and get Ireland Ltd back on track.

The poor will remain poor, the underpriviliged will remain underprivileged etc


----------



## Sunny (24 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> Let's not forget that a large part of the cost was down to the repeated, evasive actions taken by Lowry, O'Brien and their raft of associates. How many court actions did O'Brien take in recent years to try to block the tribunal?
> 
> Just wait till the Judge gets to decide on costs.


 
Very little of the cost has to do with court challenges as the Tribunal won most of the main ones and got costs awarded. The tribunal costs are the tribunal costs. They can't be awarded against anyone. As a matter of fact, many people are entitled to claim costs for dealing with the Tribunal.


----------



## Shawady (24 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> She admitted lying to the Tribunal and also cast doubts over Moriarty's report. Nice!


 
All explained here by Sarah

[broken link removed]


----------



## NOAH (24 Mar 2011)

sarah who??  boring dimwit.

What I cant fathom if they are all so innocent and pure why did they put so many obstacles in the way!!

Am I right in assuming if the report was published quickly all the other bidders could sue??

So a big favour was done to all by the delay.

I would say its over now and of course we now know why we have a harp as an irish emblem.

noah


----------



## Complainer (24 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> Very little of the cost has to do with court challenges as the Tribunal won most of the main ones and got costs awarded. The tribunal costs are the tribunal costs. They can't be awarded against anyone. As a matter of fact, many people are entitled to claim costs for dealing with the Tribunal.



I was referring to the fact that those who obstructed the Tribunal won't be granted their own costs, and could even be held liable for some of the Tribunal's costs, so they will end up with huge legal bills.



NOAH said:


> Am I right in assuming if the report was published quickly all the other bidders could sue??
> 
> So a big favour was done to all by the delay.


They can still sue. Persona (one of the other consortia) is in the Supreme Court at the moment.


----------



## dereko1969 (24 Mar 2011)

Shawady said:


> All explained here by Sarah
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
yes a nice little piece of self justification - pity she hadn't written that before smirking her way through the prime time interview where she seemed anything but contrite. she should be fired.


----------



## Westie123 (24 Mar 2011)

She has admitted lying to a tribunal. As far as I know that is called perjury. Why has she not been arrested and charged with a crime?


----------



## Shawady (24 Mar 2011)

dereko1969 said:


> yes a nice little piece of self justification - pity she hadn't written that before smirking her way through the prime time interview where she seemed anything but contrite. she should be fired.


 
Sounds like a climbdown to keep her job alright.


----------



## liaconn (24 Mar 2011)

Definitely sounds a bit chastened, although still quite defensive - 'well everyone was doing it' ' it's not fair, they were getting away with it and we were getting told off'.


(Can't believe she's only 39 )


----------



## Mpsox (24 Mar 2011)

There's one thing I don't understand in all of this. Why won't FG call for Lowry to resign?. To his credit, Eamonn Gilmore came out yesterday and said he should, but both James O'Reilly today and some other minister (whose name escapes me) who was on the radio last night said they couldn't do that, since the report had been sent to the DPP and there was "legal considerations".

If FG are correct, then Gilmore has jeapordised a potential trial and therefore they should be either calling on him to resign or Enda should be telling him to consider his position. But if Labour are correct, then why won't FG come out and agree with them? Does Lowry have some hold over FG, or am I missing something entirely?


----------



## Sunny (24 Mar 2011)

Mpsox said:


> There's one thing I don't understand in all of this. Why won't FG call for Lowry to resign?. To his credit, Eamonn Gilmore came out yesterday and said he should, but both James O'Reilly today and some other minister (whose name escapes me) who was on the radio last night said they couldn't do that, since the report had been sent to the DPP and there was "legal considerations".
> 
> If FG are correct, then Gilmore has jeapordised a potential trial and therefore they should be either calling on him to resign or Enda should be telling him to consider his position. But if Labour are correct, then why won't FG come out and agree with them? Does Lowry have some hold over FG, or am I missing something entirely?


 
Maybe Lowry knows where the bodies are buried when it comes to FG...


----------



## Staples (24 Mar 2011)

On last night's Vincent Browne show, it was speculated that it might be for reasons related to his fundraising on behalf on the party.  

In his time as fundraiser, he oversaw the elimination of FG's €3m debt in quite a short period.  If any of these efforts were in any way dubious, you can understand why FG, as beneficiary, might be reluctant to start a war of words.


----------



## Sunny (24 Mar 2011)

Staples said:


> On last night's Vincent Browne show, it was speculated that it might be for reasons related to his fundraising on behalf on the party.
> 
> In his time as fundraiser, he oversaw the elimination of FG's €3m debt in quite a short period. If any of these efforts were in any way dubious, you can understand why FG, as beneficiary, might be reluctant to start a war of words.


 
Almost makes you pine for the good old days of FF!


----------



## Latrade (24 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> Almost makes you pine for the good old days of FF!


 
Yeah, at least FF only got their money through having good days at the races rather than anything dodgy.


----------



## horusd (25 Mar 2011)

Latrade said:


> Yeah, _*at least FF only got their money through having good days at the races rather than anything dodgy*_.


 
Er, if we had the money for a few more tribunal's this mightn't stand up.  I heard Lowry's injured innocence and fulminating rightousness (as well as a few choice expletives from his supporters) in Galway. He plays the victim well. Does the lady (sic) protest too much? Kinda reminds me of that Conservative politican who took on the Guardian (?) Newspaper in the UK saying he was taking up the sword of rightousness and the shield of truth. They didn't do him much good as he went on to spend time in the clanger. But then, that was the UK.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

I see 150 people turned up to support Lowry last night. There will always be people who will dig their heels in and insist that man can do no wrong.


----------



## gianni (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> I see 150 people turned up to support Lowry last night. There will always be people who will dig their heels in and insist that man can do no wrong.


 
Particularly the charming supporter who told the RTE morning reporter he'd "f**k him up against the wall" when asked about his opinion on the Moriarty report.


----------



## Sunny (25 Mar 2011)

To be fair, its the same everywhere. Beverly Flynn, Bertie Ahearn, Ray Burke, Charles Haughey all had large local support. I don't understand it but then I have never had any sort of interaction with a local TD. I managed to get my passport all by myself.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

I agree Sunny. I can just never understand this blind devotion to a politician even when all the facts point to them being corrupt. I remember my friend's father, a very intelligent and highly moral man, wouldn't hear a word against Charlie Haughey for years and years. It made no sense to me. Likewise my father has a cousin in Tipperary who would lie down on the ground and die for Lowry. Crazy!


----------



## horusd (25 Mar 2011)

Lowry and O'Brien have been peppering the airwaves with denials etc. Can the Judge respond to any of this?


----------



## Cantona7 (25 Mar 2011)

Mpsox said:


> There's one thing I don't understand in all of this. Why won't FG call for Lowry to resign?. To his credit, Eamonn Gilmore came out yesterday and said he should, but both James O'Reilly today and some other minister (whose name escapes me) who was on the radio last night said they couldn't do that, since the report had been sent to the DPP and there was "legal considerations".
> 
> If FG are correct, then Gilmore has jeapordised a potential trial and therefore they should be either calling on him to resign or Enda should be telling him to consider his position. But if Labour are correct, then why won't FG come out and agree with them? Does Lowry have some hold over FG, or am I missing something entirely?


 
E Kenny last night said that in an "ideal world" Mr Lowry should resign but "we dont live in an ideal world".


----------



## Cantona7 (25 Mar 2011)

Westie123 said:


> She has admitted lying to a tribunal. As far as I know that is called perjury. Why has she not been arrested and charged with a crime?


 
I wonder did S Carey have her legal costs paid by the taxpayers, shame she didnt claify this in her article.It would be comical if the taxpayer had to foot the bill given that she admitted lying to the tribunal..


----------



## Mpsox (25 Mar 2011)

Cantona7 said:


> E Kenny last night said that in an "ideal world" Mr Lowry should resign but "we dont live in an ideal world".


 
Isn't Enda trying to build an ideal world??


----------



## Cantona7 (25 Mar 2011)

Mpsox said:


> Isn't Enda trying to build an ideal world??


 
Armed with their "FG 5 point plan"..anythings possible!!


----------



## Purple (25 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> They can still sue. Persona (one of the other consortia) is in the Supreme Court at the moment.



Yes, they will sue the state so the net result will be a €150'000'000 bill for the tribunal plus whatever setlement these "persona" manage to get.


What a result!


----------



## Complainer (25 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> Lowry and O'Brien have been peppering the airwaves with denials etc. Can the Judge respond to any of this?


I don't think it would make sense at all for the judge to be playing the media game. He's written his report, and let him live or die based on what's in the report.


Cantona7 said:


> I wonder did S Carey have her legal costs paid by the taxpayers, shame she didnt claify this in her article.It would be comical if the taxpayer had to foot the bill given that she admitted lying to the tribunal..


I don't think anyone has got their costs yet, afaik.


----------



## RonanC (25 Mar 2011)

Well Sarah Carey has just 'resigned' from the Irish Times. Lets see how long can Lowry hold onto his position now.


Statement


----------



## NOAH (25 Mar 2011)

She has gone!!  a small bit of justice.

noah


----------



## Purple (25 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> I don't think it would make sense at all for the judge to be playing the media game. He's written his report, and let him live or die based on what's in the report.


I think the accusation is that he felt out the bits that ddin't agree with his views and that seems to have some basis.


----------



## horusd (27 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> I don't think it would make sense at all for the judge to be playing the media game. He's written his report, and let him live or die based on what's in the report.


 

I see your point Complainer. I suppose what bugs me about this whole thing is the level of personal invective directed towards him. He has a reputation for fairness and it seems this is being challenged and rubbished. Having thought about it a bit, I asked myself the question who would I believe in this instance?  The precise and detailed words of a High Court Judge or a disgraced politician and a wealthy businessman who benefitted to the tune of millions from this transaction? Well the answer is obvious. I see a report in the Sindo that says the vast majority od people beleive the Judge. What now bugs me is that probably nothing will happen as a result of the report.


----------



## Purple (27 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> I see your point Complainer. I suppose what bugs me about this whole thing is the level of personal invective directed towards him. He has a reputation for fairness and it seems this is being challenged and rubbished. Having thought about it a bit, I asked myself the question who would I believe in this instance?  The precise and detailed words of a High Court Judge or a disgraced politician and a wealthy businessman who benefitted to the tune of millions from this transaction? Well the answer is obvious. I see a report in the Sindo that says the vast majority od people beleive the Judge. What now bugs me is that probably nothing will happen as a result of the report.



On balance I believe the judge as well, mainly because while I now have little respect for him I never had any for Lowry or O'Brien.
The level of personal invective within the report, the dismissal of vast tracts of evidence by people who didn't agree with his findings, (and the implied reputational damage to the people who gave that evidence), is disturbing. 

All that can be said is that 14 years and €150 million of tax payers’ money later the only winners are the judges mates from the law library who helped kept the show on the road for so long.

Remember that the delay in getting evidence from the Danish telecoms consultant Michael Andersen added almost a year to the Tribunal, along with the associated costs. The fact that his story tallied with the 17 civil servants who gave evidence, i.e. nothing improper happened, meant that Moriarty ignored it. 

Just because people don’t like the two main players here does mean that the gaping holes in the report should be brushed over.


----------



## horusd (27 Mar 2011)

I haven't read the full report Purple, but I heard Moore McDowell (yesterday on Newstalk) make the point about the Judge's invective too. So fair enough. I assume the Judge had a reason to discount some of the evidence, I just don't know why, and I wonder if anyone apart from a few will bother to find out. As a by the by, Moore mentioned that he felt the whole tendering process was destined to result in all of this mess because of how it was set up.


----------



## Purple (27 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> As a by the by, Moore mentioned that he felt the whole tendering process was destined to result in all of this mess because of how it was set up.



 Yes, the previous government set it up as a bidding competition with minimum requirements, i.e. as long as they can deliver XY & Z then it's down to who offers the most money. 
When FG/Labour got in they changed it to the so-called beauty contest.


----------



## gianni (27 Mar 2011)

Purple said:


> Yes, the previous government set it up as a bidding competition with minimum requirements, i.e. as long as they can deliver XY & Z then it's down to who offers the most money.
> When FG/Labour got in they changed it to the so-called beauty contest.



Colm McCarthy is speaking on this very point on Marian Finucane at the minute. Very interesting.


----------



## Complainer (27 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> So fair enough. I assume the Judge had a reason to discount some of the evidence,



It is his job to discount some of the evidence. He has heard conflicting, contradictory evidence every day of his working life. It is his job to decide who is telling the truth.


----------



## horusd (27 Mar 2011)

Ok I'm going to try and read the executive summary at least. I want to know what the judge actually said, so I understand it a bit more. Up to now it's ll been based on media reports. Pity in a way the judge cannot be quesitoned on his findings in public, we would certainly understand his thinking on it better. I don't think he should be immune from a robust critique, but there are probably good defences to some of the attacks on him.


----------



## Purple (27 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> It is his job to discount some of the evidence. He has heard conflicting, contradictory evidence every day of his working life. It is his job to decide who is telling the truth.



No, every other day of his working life that's the jury's job. His job is to ensure the law is followed.
When he instructs a jury to disregard evidence he has to give a reason that's based in law. In this case he hasn't done that.


----------



## horusd (30 Mar 2011)

Wasn't Moriarty Sherlock Holmes' nemesis or was it the other way round? Can you see Lowry in a deerstalker and a pipe trying to ferret out the error of Moriarty's ways? A 63 minute spitting viper speech to the Dail hardly counts as elementary my dear boy. And by the way, who is Watson? Enda? If the Dail en masse, vote censure against Lowry, can he survive?


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> Wasn't Moriarty Sherlock Holmes' nemesis or was it the other way round? Can you see Lowry in a deerstalker and a pipe trying to ferret out the error of Moriarty's ways? A 63 minute spitting viper speech to the Dail hardly counts as elementary my dear boy. And by the way, who is Watson? Enda? If the Dail en masse, vote censure against Lowry, can he survive?



He was a professor, not a judge


----------

