33 thoughts on “[Redacted] Wins Again

    1. ahjayzis

      I’m sure the judge acted in good faith, but it’s important to see the reasons. if this is some loophole or an area of law where the legitimate public interest is underemphasised, that’s something we need to know.

      Also, what’s stopping Catherine Murphy etc. from basically reading RTE’s copy into the Dail record?

      1. Jonotti

        Publishing his reasons would obviously breech the injunction. There’s no conspiracy at play bit don’t let that stop you all.

        1. ahjayzis

          Yes sir. *goes about business*

          Hey wait, I didn’t say there was a conspiracy?

          You can’t tell me there’s no way of releasing the crux of the decision without actually thrashing out the banking arrangements at question in the first place. You’ll forgive me if I hesitate to immediately assume any interaction between this state and DOB is entirely above board

          1. Jonotti

            The justice system is independent of the government which is what you mean by The State.

          2. Bonkers

            If thats the case why are most of the judges members of FG/FF/Lab? What party is Judge Binchey a member of and which political party appointed him? I know his father was the solicitor used by Clonmel Council for over 30 years so we already know his family are politically connected….

          3. ahjayzis

            Absolutely. but it operates off law from the legislature. If there is a chink in the weight given to ‘the public interest’ versus private banking interest, it’d be good to know about it so something could be done, non?

        1. fluffybiscuits

          There is no real benefit to this. Just like the enquiry into Siteserv why is there not more transparency? A court injunction applies in Ireland but not in the UK. Send it to the Guardian or do a wikileaks on it,,,

          1. rotide

            This is the only logical comment on the thread. Noone seems to understand what an injuction against a broadcaster implies.

  1. edalicious

    So no one is allowed to say anything about him and if they try to the will get brought to court for reasons we’re not allowed to hear and then we’re not allowed to hear why the judged ruled the way he did? You have got to be fupping kidding me.

    1. rotide

      You can say legally sound things against him all you want.

      He just has a pretty massive and expensive team of lawyers pushing the boundries of legally sound.

      1. yrtnuocecnareviled

        I believe it was Richard Branson who said; “Rich or poor, anyone can have justice as long as they have a good barrister”.

  2. Tá Frilly Keane

    Whats stopping them from circulating a transcript
    Or even pumping it up onto the YouTube

  3. rotide

    Jesus, what is the big deal about this.

    If RTE wanted to broadcast a story about me being a satanic goat worshiper and i took them to court to stop them doing so, it would be bloody pointless if all over the newspapers were headlines saying


  4. MMN

    You know back when this was blogorrah you used to be able to post pictures too. Thems was the days. If I could I would post a picture of Lord Voldemot, ‘he who must not be named’.

  5. Dubloony

    So a state paid judge made a decision but no-one can talk about it until paid lawyers agree on what part of that judgement should be published?

    I thought a basic tenet of the courts was that it be conducted in public?

  6. Mr. T.

    Jonotti must be one of these minor corporate types. Fancies himself as part of the set. But isn’t anywhere near it.

  7. nellyb

    He’ll keep pushing the boundaries through grey to black (which seems easy enough with our judiciary), get too relaxed and become a juicy target for his own “associates”. Or taken down by a hungry ‘youf’ with serious global connections and no appreciation for his Irish status quo. They”ll wait and go ‘Gaddafi’ on his business, ’cause that’s what they do. (I don’t advocate these type of methods on a physical level, it’s heinous).
    I wonder how well equipped our judiciary is for the modern times. I’d say our laws still think it’s 1910 or something.

  8. Antoin

    Well, RTE were in a very weak position. They didn’t have any actual story that would merit publishing. On the one hand RTE claimed it was a vital public watchdog. On the other hand they said they weren’t making any allegation that Denis O’Brien had done anything wrong. This watchdog was not only scrutinising its subject, which he apparently didn’t object to, but was going to bark, even though it hadn’t seen anything to bark at. Next, RTE receded to the rather weak argument that the story would be ‘boring, dry and sterile’ if it didn’t mention Denis O’Brien. Is making business stories exciting a good enough reason to disclose confidential information? I don’t really see it. Had DOB lost, he could have appealed to the ECHR and I think he would have had a very good chance of winning in view of RTE’s shambolic pleadings and in the context of the Princess Caroline ruling (http://www.out-law.com/page-4663).

    1. Anne

      I wonder if I was on acid, would that might make some sort of sense..

      But in terms of RTE having something to ‘bark’ about.. Dennis O’Brien certainly seems to be acting like there’s something to be barking at.

      The big bully. And he threatening to take him money elsewhere.. such is the loyalty of him.

      Almost 1 billion in personal and corporate loans, he had at one point with dodgy bank Anglo… and we’re not allowed to take a closer look at that? Some country.

Comments are closed.