Tag Archives: INM

From top: Independent News and Media head office, Talbot Street, Dublin; Vanessa Foran

Further to the shenanigans – on multiple fronts – at Independent News and Media…

Vanessa Foran (her off the telly!) writes:

The Company is committed to maintaining the highest standards of corporate governance and the Directors recognise their accountability to the Company’s Shareholders in this regard.

That is the opening line on the Independent News and Media plc’s corporate governance statement.

The current Board of Irish News and Media now consists of nine individuals.

Which breaks down into eight non-executives directors, who would more commonly be known as NEDS (which means they are not employees of the Company) and one executive director.

The latter joined late last year, INM CEO Michael Doorley, and is one of six members who have just joined the Board, with the remaining five commencing in March of this year.

So from a Board composition of nine, these six already form a healthy quorum and yet have all only arrived in the last seven months.

To recognise the real weight of this information, consider this; five directors who form a majority, and this includes the chair who has an additional vote in the event of a tie, were not in situ at the Year End that is about to go before the shareholders for their AGM.

Surely it is fair to say without causing any angst amongst serial litigants and industrial trolls, that there is a majority who do not know, or actually, are not supposed to know of the matters at board that led to the protective disclosure to corporate enforcement.

Therefore, I must ask the question; and I will admit first that I am disappointed no one else has already; why are INM objecting to Inspectors coming into the organisation?

It is my opinion that it is of huge importance that any breeches, matters of concern and weaknesses within the organisation should be identified for this new Board.

Furthermore, and in my opinion and in my experience, this level of investigation will allow those charged with the governance of the organisation not only to address and rectify breaches, but to ensure that such behaviour is not repeated.

Rather than have them inherit risks and doubt, why not get a full root and branch investigation? It is the only way to eliminate the doubt and uncertainty about this Company’s future; and the future is what governance is all about. Ensuring the Company is a solid going concern and all its activities are in the best interests of all the Shareholders, regardless of percentage held.

Which presents another question; why haven’t the Irish Stock Exchange supported the ODCE’s application to appoint inspectors?

Other responsibilities of the board include Risk Management and protecting the assets of the Company. How can they be certain they, as directors, are satisfied they have identified all the risks the Company is exposed to by historical behaviour.

I most definitely would not be comfortable taking any assurance from any internal reporting, or indeed any external reporting from parties engaged by this Company; I want to know for sure all the breeches and risks have been identified, remedied, costed and provided for, and that policies and procedures are in place so that they are avoided in the future.

As former Chair Lesley Buckley stepped down (in March) John Bateson stepped in. The former was the nominee of the largest shareholder in the Company, while the latter is no stranger to a known associate of that Shareholder, and who also happens to be a significant shareholder in the Company….. As Bodger might say,: ‘join the dots‘.

You might also be interested in knowing that another director, Triona Mullane, one of the 2012 inductees, is a founder of a company that received investment from a gentleman that has been referred to as the largest shareholder.

I am not, not for a second, doubting Ms Mullane’s or anyone’s credentials, competence, experience, or ability to perform at board level in a PLC.

However, the most important asset I have as a someone who works in professional practice is my independence which includes the perception of that independence.

As a director you are responsible for the welfare of the company, followed by the shareholders, and you must make decisions in the best interests of the company, at all times, and you must never allow that be questioned or mistrusted.

So I will ask again; Why are INM objecting to the appointment of inspectors?

Vanessa Foran is a principal at Recovery Partners. Follow Vanessa on Twitter: @vef_pip /a>. Vanessa will be on Broadsheet on the Telly tonight at 10pm.

Rollingnews

This morning.

Minister for Communications Denis Naughten speaking to RTE One’s Martina Fitzgerald.

It follows a report in The Irish Times yesterday based on an affidavit sent to the High Court by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, in which it has asked the court to appoint inspectors to examine matters at Independent News and Media (INM).

The report stated, and Minister Naughten confirmed yesterday, that he spoke to Heneghan PR official Eoghan Ó Neachtain, who was representing INM at the time, on either November 10 or 11, 2016, about the proposed takeover of  the Celtic Media Group by INM to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

Minister Naughten has told the Dail that he told Mr Ó Neachtain that he would likely send the matter to the BAI.

However, according to an email sent from Nigel Heneghan, founder of Heneghan PR, to Leslie Buckley, former chairman of INM, on November 12, 2016, Mr Heneghan wrote:

“The information, following Eoghan’s call with the minister which happened yesterday afternoon, is based on advice from his officials, he will pass it to the Broadcasting Commision [sic] of Ireland for review, because of the overall ownership of print and broadcast titled by DOB [Denis O’Brien].”

The decision to send the matter to the BAI wasn’t publicly known until January 2017.

In addition, he told Social Democrat TD Catherine Murphy in the Dáil, on December 6, 2016, that he hadn’t made a decision yet.

INM and the minister: who said what to whom and when? (The Irish Times)

RTE News/Martina Fitzgerald 

 

Minister for Communications Denis Naughten

This afternoon.

Minister for Communications Denis Naughten gave a statement to the Dáil following a report in The Irish Times this morning.

The report was based an affidavit to the High Court by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) – in which the ODCE has requested that two inspectors investigate certain matters an Independent News and Media.

It stated that, on November 11, 2016, Mr Naughten informed Eoghan Ó Neachtáin, of Heneghan PR which represented INM, that he planned to refer INM’s proposed takeover of Celtic Media Group to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI).

[Mr Ó Neachtáin was previously the press secretary to three Governments and three Taoisigh.]

This decision wasn’t made public until January 2017.

On December 6, 2017, Mr Naughten was asked questions about the proposed merger by both Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy and Sinn Féin’s Brian Stanley.

In response to Mr Stanley asking him about the proposed takeover and raising concerns about media plurality, Mr Naughten said:

I have not made my views known and I am not going to. I have a decision to make and I will make it in line with the legislation.”

To Ms Murphy, Mr Naughten told her he had not yet decided if he was going to refer the proposed takeover to the BAI.

Further to this…

Mr Naughten has confirmed a phone call did take place between him and Mr Ó Neachtáin on either November 10 or 11, 2016.

He said it was a mobile phone call and he took no note of it.

In addition, he didn’t tell his officials.

The Dáil has already heard that Mr Ó Neachtáin didn’t register the approach with the Lobbying Register.

But Mr Naughten has insisted he did not impart any new information to Mr Ó Neachtáin and that he told him he would be following the advice of his officials which he hadn’t received yet.

The minister also said that, during this call, Mr Ó Neachtáin informed the minister that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission was after approving the proposed takeover by INM.

This decision by the CCPC was reported on November 11, 2016.

Mr Naughten has also told the Dáil he met former INM chairman Leslie Buckley at a DataSec summit in Dublin’s RDS organised by INMat which Mr Naughten spoke – on May 3, 2017, where they shared “small talk”.

He said he can’t recall fully but he doesn’t believe Mr Buckley raised the matter of the proposed takeover.

It emerged in June 2017 that the acquisition would not be taking place.

Mr Naughten has also told the Dáil: “I didn’t wilfully, or any other way, mislead the Dáil.”

Mr Naughten said:

“I wish to confirm that I received a phonecall from Eoghan Ó Neachtáin, former press secretary to a number of governments, on either the 10th or the 11th of November, 2016, informing me that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission was after approving the Independent News and Media acquisition of the Celtic News and Media Group.

This was in advance of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission communicating the decision to me.

“It was common knowledge that this was a very significant acquisition with a significant geographical impact. I expressed a purely personal view that the likely course of action would be a referral to a phase two assessment in accordance with the guidelines in light of the diversity and media plurality assessments required and in light of the scale of the proposed acquisition, its geographical concentration and the extent of the ownership of regional media by Independent News and Media at that point.

“According to the advice from the Office of the Attorney General, in the context of there being a decision by the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the legislation about such referrals to the BAI is clear, that referral is an option to me as minister when there is a planned media merger.

” If so, there is nothing wrong or inappropriate with me, as minister, saying to anyone, to the public, anyone or to the public if the plan for a media merger continues, I would take advice on sending it to the BAI.

“This is not inside information, but simply a reflection of the legislation itself.

“I had no inside information to give.

“It may have been preferable if the conversation had not taken place but it was by no means expressing a definitive view nor could I do so at that time.

“Nor did I state that the view expressed was a confidential one as the article (in The Irish Times) seems to assert. In fact, I clearly stated that I had made all pervious decisions, solely based on the advice provided to me by my officials and I reiterated that I would adhere to that approach in this case as well.

“There seems to be a misunderstanding about the nature of the media merger process. This is not a secret process.”

Earlier:  ‘I Take Exception, Yet Again, To Being Misled In This Dáil’

UPDATE:

From top: Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy and People Before Profit TD Bríd Smyth in the Dáil this afternoon

This afternoon.

And further to reports that, in November 2016, the Minister for Communications Denis Naughten informed Eoghan Ó Neachtáin, of Heneghan PR which represented Independent News and Media, that he planned to refer INM’s proposed takeover of Celtic Media Group to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland…

Two months before it was publicly announced…

During Topical Issues – taken by the Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan and ahead of Minister Naughten’s statement to the Dáil in relation to the matter which is now thought to take place around 4.30pm – Ms Murphy said the following:

“Minister, when I submitted the topical, I referred to the implications of recent and escalating developments regarding INM based on the ODCE investigation into the company.

“At the time, of course, I was referring to significant concerns regarding what can only be considered as a hacking of emails which potentially compromised huge numbers of journalists and their sources and the major implications for damage, such inaction poses the independence of media and the protection of journalism.

“But as of today, I cannot ignore the most obvious escalating development which is the involvement of the Minister for Communications Denis Naughten.

On the 6th of December 2016, he stood in this chamber and told me in response to a priority question, he had only commenced the phase one assessment on the 24th of November 2016, his officials had not yet made any decision and that he had 30 days to make a decision on three options  -one of which was  a potential referral to the BAI [Broadcasting Authority of Ireland].

He said, and I’m quoting, that he ‘hadn’t received a report from his officials yet’.

The director of corporate enforcement’s affidavit states that a month earlier on the afternoon of the 11th of November, he personally told representative from Heneghan PR that he would be referring the proposal, proposed merger, to the BAI, based on the advice of his officials.

“I note that Heneghan PR, headed by Nigel Heneghan, advisory to Leslie Buckley and spokesman for INM and also member of the compliance committee of the BAI.

So here was a PR firm employed by INM and with close ties to all the close protagonists in INM making a direct contact with a minister and being made privy to a decision which I, as a parliamentarian, weeks later, was told the decision had not been made yet.

“The repercussions for this, I believe, are stunning – not least in relation to the implications it has for the potential market manipulation and inside dealing but also for the questions it raises in regards to corporate governance and INM and the axis of power between major shareholders of INM and his department.”

Ms Murphy went on to say that Minister Naughten should recuse himself for any role in media regulation.

She added:

“I also take exception, yet again, to being misled in this Dáil when I ask a parliamentary question and I believe I was mislead in respect of those replies on the 6th of December.”

Later

Ms Smyth said:

“If the media was free, why does Ireland have a higher concentration of media ownership than most other countries with one key individual whose name can never be mentioned whether in a committee or in this chamber, owns Sunday Independent, Sunday World, Evening Herald, has a stake in the Daily Star, The Kerryman, the Drogheda Independent, the Wicklow People, the Exford People, the Waterford People, and many radio stations such as Newstalk, Today FM.

“That is power, that is control, and that is a very, very wealthy individual whose name cannot be mentioned in these chambers, who has strong links with the Irish state, so much so that every time a very important function happening like Davos, or the New York Stock Exchange, he appears with key members of this government.

“And that friendly relationship has helped him to secure influence and has continued to help it exist. That is what needs to be challenged.”

Follow the Dáil proceedings live here

Earlier: Denis Denis

During Leaders’ Questions in the Dail this morning

This morning.

More details from the affidavit which the Director of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan has given to the High Court – in a bid to have inspectors investigate Independent News and Media (INM) – emerged.

Simon Carswell and Mark Paul, in The Irish Times, reported that on November 12, 2016, former INM chairman Leslie Buckley forwarded an email to INM’s largest shareholder Denis O’Brien which Mr Buckley had received from PR executive Nigel Heneghan.

The email from Mr Heneghan detailed a conversation the Minister for Communications Denis Naughten had with Eoghan O’Neachtain, director of public affairs at Nigel Heneghan’s PR firm the day before, November 11, 2016.

[Mr O’Neachtain took up the role at Heneghan PR in 2015 – after he served as Press Secretary to three Governments and Taoisigh]

The Irish Times has reported that Mr O’Neachtain’s conversation with Minister Naughten was about INM’s proposed takeover of the regional newspaper group, called Celtic Media Group and, in this conversation, the minister told Mr O’Neachtain that he planned to refer the proposed takeover to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

This discussion was then relayed to Denis O’Brien in the aforementioned email of November 12, 2016.

This was reportedly two months before the minister’s plans were made public.

Further to this…

This morning.

During Leaders’ Questions…

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was questioned about the matter.

Sinn Fein TD Mary Lou McDonald pointed out that the email sent to Mr O’Brien “stressed that the information contained within it should be treated with the strictest of confidence”.

Ms McDonald also said that the PR company didn’t log the engagement with the minister with the Lobbying Register.

As he responded, Mr Varadkar outlined the timeline of events, as he saw them – after he told the Dail that he is satisfied that Minister Naughten didn’t disclose any information which was confidential.

Mr Varadkar also said there appeared to be a misunderstanding about the process and that “it’s not a secret process“.

From his responses:

The minister informs me that it was the 4th of January 2017, and not November 2016. The information, as I said earlier, was not confidential. It is not unusual for PR companies and PR agents to use information that is not confidential or publicaly available and make out that somehow that it is confidential information.

“…I think deputy, almost anyone in Ireland can have access to a minister, it’s not that difficult to access politicians or ministers in Ireland, whether it’s through a constituency clinic or whether it’s simply by requesting a meeting or a phone call.”

“…In terms of timeline, I’m advised that the merge’s process went through the full rigour required of the Act and the guidelines after it was received by Minister Naughton on the 21st November, 2016.

The recommendation was made by officials on the 4th January 2017 – that the acquisition be referred to a phase two examination and that was approved by Minister Naughten on the 10th of January.”

Further to this…

A few weeks after this reported phonecall between Mr O’Neachtain and Minister Naughten on November 11, 2016, Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy was told by Minister Naughten that he had not yet decided if he was going to refer the proposed takeover to the BAI (see above).

So.

It appears Minister Naughten told an INM representative but didn’t tell the Dail.

Deputy Murphy has said in a statement:

The entire matter really opens up questions, yet again, regarding the axis between powerful individuals and political decisions.“

Denis Naughten will give a statement to the Dail and take questions on foot of it at 3pm.

Meanwhile…

Readers may wish to recall that Nigel Heneghan was appointed to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland in February 2015.

The position was not advertised.

At the time, the then Minister for Communications Alex White told The Sunday Times he wasn’t required to advertise the position as the compliance committee didn’t come under new rules for appointments to State boards.

In November 2016 – the same month that the alleged exchanges took place between INM representatives and the Minister for Communications Denis Naughten – Mark Tighe, in The Sunday Times, was reporting that Mr Heneghan had to excuse himself from discussions about several complaints it had dealt with because he was acting for two companies connected with Denis O’Brien.

Mr Tighe reported:

“Nigel Heneghan is a spokesman for Actavo, an O’Brien-owned construction services company formerly called Siteserv, and for Independent News & Media (INM), the newspaper publishing company in which O’Brien is the largest shareholder.

He declared conflicts of interests in relation to five cases before the BAI compliance committee, according to its 2015 annual report.”

“…Heneghan absented himself from cases involving complaints that dealt with water charges or Irish Water. Actavo was one of three firms contracted by Irish Water to install meters. It became a focus of protests after some people were temporarily jailed for physically stopping Actavo staff working on installations.

“Two of the cases in which Heneghan declared conflicts involved Newstalk, a national radio station owned by O’Brien’s Communicorp. The other three instances involved RTE Radio shows. Heneghan did not declare conflicts in relation to other Newstalk cases that did not involve water charges.”

O’Brien told of Minister’s plan to refer INM’s Celtic Media takeover (Simon Carswell, Mark Paul, The Irish Times)

BAI member in conflict due to O’Brien link (Mark Tighe, The Sunday Times, November 20, 2016)

Transcript: Kildare Street

Video: Mick Caul

This afternoon.

In the Dáil.

During Leaders’ Questions…

Fianna Fáil’s leader Michael Martin raised the alleged data breach at Independent News and Media and matters of editorial independence and independence of journalists.

He said the recent events were a “wake-up call” for the Oireachtas to “deal with these issues”.

Mr Martin mentioned a report published last year by Mr Justice John Murray about the protection of journalistic sources, called ‘Review of the law on the retention of an access to communications data’.

Mr Martin said this report hasn’t been acted upon since it was published in April 2017 and called for a national law to be established for source protection.

Mr Martin added:

“Will you reaffirm to the house because I think something happened yesterday, whereby an actor of the State – the Director of the Office Corporate Enforcement was essentially, received correspondence that in line of his duty, he may be peronsally held liable in respect of certain things.

“I think it’s very important that the messages goes out from the Oireachtas and form Government that any actor of the State is indemnified and will not lose out personally in any way for conducting his duty on behalf of the taxpayer and on behalf of the State.

“I think it’s very important that that affirmation should be given in respect of the ODCE director today.”

Mr Varadkar said:

“Thanks very much, deputy, for raising this important question and to answer yours, I think given recent revelations, yes we are going to have to give consideration to legislation in this area to protect sources.

“I’m not aware of any legislation being drafted currently by Government and I haven’t seen any legislation drafted by Opposition, in the form of private members’ bills in the past two years but perhaps, perhaps time has certainly come for Government to dust down those reports and give consideration to legislation in this area.

I think having an Independent News and Media is a cornerstone to our democracy, it is after all the fourth estate.

“I believe journalists must be free to pursue stories that they want to pursue. Their sources should be protected, free from any unjust interference, external or internal.

“We need to the plurality of voices in the media. We need to ensure that these voices are not drowned our or silenced and we also need diversity and ownership. So I commend journalists who work to report on this story, including journalists at Independent News and Media who haven’t allowed their independence to be compromised.

A report of the data breach represent a significant a very significant threat to the freedom of our press, however I think that the way that the media has responded to this threat to date should reassure us that our press will not be silenced.

“Obviously, any alleged breach of personal data is a matter of concern, heather it relates to journalists or public citizens and it’s important to say that although this is now a matter before the courts, we need to respect that and bear in mind that in terms of our contributions and I know the deputy has.

“The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the ODCE, which is a Government office at the Department of Business has now made an application to the high court under Section 748 of the Companiess Act 2014 to appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of INM.

“This is now an enforcement matter for the ODCE. Section 949, subsection 3 of the Companies Act, provides that the Director of Corporate Enforcement shall be independent in the performance of its statutory functions.

“That case commenced as of yesterday.

In terms of indemnity, it is absolutely the case that any public servant that acts properly, and acts in accordance with their mandate, and doesn’t breach any law or ethical principles is of course indemnified by the State.”

Meanwhile…

After Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald also asked questions in light of the alleged data breach at INM, Tipperary’s Independent TD Michael Lowry asked his question of the Taoiseach…

He started:

“Sorry to trouble you with more mundane and practical matters but some of you city representatives and urban centres wouldn’t recognise or realise the huge problem, the massive problem we have in relation to rural and county roads…”

Watch live here

From top: Former Sunday Independent journalist Sam Smyth (right), one of those mentioned as having his data breached while working for the INM Group; Head of News INM, Jane Last outside the High Court this afternoon

This afternoon.

The High Court.

Further to an adjournment, the copurt will hear INM’s challenge to the decision of the ODCE to apply to have inspectors appointed to the company on May 9.

The court heard Mr O’Brien has written to the Director of Corporate Enforcement, Ian Drennan, telling him he intended to hold him “fully and personally responsible” for what he alleged were “breaches of duty”.

In the letter sent on 6 April, Mr O’Brien said he had been subjected to extraordinary and intensifying media coverage suggesting he had been involved in wrongdoing.

He suggested that the Director had facilitated media access to the extensive document prepared by the ODCE in support of its application or had failed to take steps to restrict access to it.

Mr O’Brien said this was causing damage to him and to his reputation.

 

O’Brien accuses ODCE of leaking details of INM application (RTÉ)

Rollignnews

 

Reception at Independent News and Media

This afternoon.

Further to an RTE report this lunchtime about how it appears an alleged data breach at Independent News and Media may have included emails sent from an ‘external person’ to one of the so-called INM 19…..

Journalist and activist Eamonn Crudden writes:

Dear INM,

I have supplied, as an activist and journalist, over many years a variety of data to Independent News and Media. That obviously involved my consenting to INM using it in a variety of ways appropriate to a news organisation.

I have a firmly held belief – as a result of considering the totality of the information now in the public domain in the UK and Irish mainstream press around the story of the “#INM19” that this data – and my identity as the source of the data – has been conveyed to a 3rd party without my knowledge or consent and without any other lawful basis for this conveyance.

I also have a sincerely held belief that data concerning me in the form of email exchanges between Independent Newspaper Group staff – and potentially between such staff and other parties concerning me – which may be damaging to my good name – may have been conveyed in the same manner.

I believe that the processing (including storage) of that type of data by a 3rd party clearly constitutes an ongoing data breach.

I believe sincerely that the original data controller (at the time of any given example of my conveyance of data to INM) as well as INM more generally – is now answerable for this ongoing breach.

The e-mail addresses I have used as a journalist and citizen are ecrudden@hotmail.com and ecrudden@gmail.com. Only the second of the two is presently in use by me.

I have a sincerely held belief my right to privacy – as both 1) a citizen and 2) a journalist/activist – has been traduced.

Can you assist me in sourcing, identifying and reviewing any and all such data immediately so that I may be in a position to assess any potential personal consequences and consequences for those I worked with in the contexts of journalism and activism in the past?

I would also be interested to hear how INM might propose 1) to remedy the damage that has almost certainly been inflicted on my right to privacy (considering recent news reports as described above) and 2) to halt what I believe to be the ongoing nature of such a breach.

Yours,

Eamonn Crudden

So it begins.

Earlier: ‘Emails To And From INM And Also Digital Files’

Pic: Independent House

INM logo; Denis O’Brien (right) and former INM chairman Leslie Buckley

This afternoon.

Further to an alleged data breach at Independent News and Media.

It’s being reported that INM has written to individuals who may have had their data searched.

David Murphy, of RTE, has seen one of these letters.

He told Claire Byrne on RTE’s News At One earlier:

Claire Byrne: “What does it [the letter] say?”

David Murphy: “Basically Clare, what it is is INM setting out the timeline of events, what it knew, what it didn’t know and it has also outlined the new information it got from the Office of Director of Corporate Enforcement which is hoping to appoint inspectors to investigate business affairs at Independent.

“So, in a nutshell, really what it says is that the letter says to people that their data may have been searched.

Initially the company was informed that this search was looking for a long-term service contract but now it’s been informed by the Director of Corporate Enforcement that the search may have been more extensive and for a different purpose.

“And it says that there was a list of names and or people of interest and that the individuals who’ve received the letter were on that list.”

Byrne: “This is the 19 people that we’ve heard of.”

Murphy: “This is the 19, exactly.”

The company says it doesn’t know if any searches were undertaken or for what purpose but it says, based on the limited information currently available to INM, it seems possible that there were searches done.

The company said it didn’t know to whom any of the searches, search results, would have been provided.

“It says, in the letter, that information related to you may have been put at risk of an unauthorised disclosure which would have consisted of emails to and from INM and also digital files held on its servers where any reference to a named individual, as of October 2014.

Byrne:So if you’re one of the 19, if your name popped up anywhere on their system, regardless, outside of your email exchanges, they’re saying, that’s included as well.”

Murphy:That’s included. So it’s not just emails sent by an individual in INM, it’s also emails they would have received or emails sent by an external person who’s on the list going into INM, so you can see it’s actually quite broad in terms of the way the search could have been conducted.”

Byrne: “OK, and the email [letter] aswell firmly points the finger at who they believe was responsible here?

Murphy: “That’s right so what it says here is very clearly that the information was provided to a third party service provider under the instruction of the then chairman of INM. Now Leslie Buckley, last Friday, who was the chairman at the time, issued a statement because a lot of this material has arisen from an affidavit which is being lodged in the High Court by the head of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan.

“And Mr Buckley has said that he is going to defend robustly each and every allegation and he also was very disappointed by the way in which this information had come into the public domain as opposed to being raised in court where it could be perhaps challenged by someone’s legal representative.

“But today he’s saying he’s not commenting on the letter.”

Byrne: “Ok, but we will hear more about this in five days time, if not before, but in five days time, we have that court hearing.”

Murphy: “So, in five days time, the Director of Corporate Enforcement is due to go into court and outline his reasons why he thinks inspectors should be appointed into INM. With any court case, you never really know, sometimes, they’re adjourned, but that’s the date that’s in the legal diary.”

Byrne: “OK, David Murphy, thank you very much for that.”

Listen back in full here

INM confirms Buckley role in alleged data breach (RTE)

This morning.

RDS, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.

Good times.

Data commissioner still intends to speak at INM security conference (Irish Times)

Dublin Data SEC 2018

(Thanks John Roberts)

Update:

Hmm.