153 thoughts on “Bank Holiday Monday’s Papers

  1. f_lawless

    ben here’s a repost adding your ‘dot’ suggestion
    This blog post is a worthwhile read

    “How the MEAN psychologists got us to comply with coronavirus restrictions”

    It’s written in relation to Britain but the same thing is going on here.( eg -RTE news’daily case & death counts with no context given, the weird Claire Byrne Live episodes, the same set of medical experts given so much air time to deliver doomsday messages to the public based on faulty modeling, plastic covers prohibiting ‘non-essential’ goods, etc etc – all of it)

    Since the UK government formally instituted their own ‘Nudge Unit’ a few years back under Cameron’s administration, policy-making based on ‘Behavioural Insights’and ‘Nudge Theory’ has become ubiquitous around the world. But it’s been taken to such extremes this year, that the inherent anti-democratic nature of it is becoming increasingly apparent.

    The public are now being treated not unlike lab specimens being micro-managed in a mass social-engineering experiment through the use of covert psychological strategies while democratic process, political accountability and transparency are being bypassed. We’re being ‘acted upon’ for what the government has predetermined is in our ‘best interests’. But who nudges the nudgers?


    “A major contributor to the mass obedience of the British people is likely to have been the activities of government-employed psychologists working as part of the ‘Behavioural Insights Team’..After outlining the structure and stated remit of the BIT, I will describe the strategies deployed by this group of psychological specialists to shape our behaviours in line with the Government’s public health approach to coronavirus. In particular, I will highlight the four main tactics used in their COVID-19 communication campaigns to ‘nudge’ us towards compliance: a focus on the MESSENGER, EGO, AFFECT and NORMS (or ‘MEAN’ as an acronym)..

    ..Concluding comments

    The covert strategies proposed by BIT specialists, and incorporated into the Government’s coronavirus information campaign, have achieved their aim of getting the large majority of the population to obey the draconian public health restrictions. The nature of the tactics deployed – with their subconscious modes of action and the emotional discomfort generated – do, however, raise some pressing concerns about the legitimacy of using psychological techniques for this purpose. An open, public-wide debate about the ethical integrity of these approaches, and the extensive collateral damage associated with them, is now urgently required”

    https://www.coronababble dot com/post/how-the-mean-psychologists-induced-us-to-comply-with-coronavirus-restrictions

    1. benblack

      Thanks f_lawless.

      Glad this user’s experience(UX) has transferred to a new thread.

      So we’re *really* all being trolled!

      Who’d have thunk it!

        1. Janet, dreams of warm feet

          or this ( I know it’s in French but it’s very coherent if you have basic school french even )
          some very disturbing and interesting stats about mental health deteriorating ( France is much more open and less stigma around discussing mental health with care readily available )
          I’m up to three suicides in the last two months in my wider circle, two days ago a friend’s son, it’s going to explode over Christmas, keep an eye on each other, particularly young men, living back at home , lost their jobs etc.
          The effects of isolation and loss of purpose or sense of future or peer contact are very real.

    2. Formerly known as @ireland.com

      Congratulations to Melbourne and Victoria – ZERO new cases, ZERO deaths. Lockdown worked, masks worked. We had 700 new cases a day in August. The 14 day average is 3.6 new cases per day. The big difference between Ireland and Australia is that Oz is controlling its borders. Every new arrival spends 14 days in quarantine. That may be difficult for Ireland but that is proven to work.


        1. Formerly known as @ireland.com

          No, a lot opens up on Tuesday night – retail, hairdressers, bars + restaurants (with limited capacity), gyms. Groups of 10 out doors, etc. A lot more will open up on November 8th. It is a big success, against the virus and the forces of evil – Murdoch’s ratbags. Murdoch controls 70% of Australia’s print media and their Fox News equivalent, Sky News. Murdoch actively campaigned against our state premier. His rags printed lies and publicised (advertised) anti-lockdown protests.

        1. Formerly known as @ireland.com

          @GiggidyGoo – Hopefully, no. The borders will remain closed. All international arrivals will do 14 days quarantine – proper quarantine under supervision, not just being asked to. People are bussed off the plane into hotels supervised by Police. The rest of Australia is pretty much virus-free. Once we get there, the internal borders will open. There is a travel bubble with NZ, with plans to open others to other virus-free countries.

          @Janet – Good question. It is definitely challenging. This is our second lockdown. The suicide statistics for the first one were similar to other years. Mental health medical appointments are up 31% during this lockdown.


          “In Victoria, between September and October, the number of Medicare-funded mental health items has increased by 31% compared to the same period last year. In addition, the use of Beyond Blue’s Support line was 77% higher in Victoria than in the rest of the country, while Victorian use of Lifeline was 16% higher and Kids Helpline 24% higher than the rest of the country. Victorian state data also shows a 33% increase in child and youth contacts in community mental health services for eating disorders.”

          I think that the positive vibes from re-opening and hopefully living virus-free, will help most people recover. It is coming into Summer, so that should help. The mental health of people has not been helped by politicking by the federal government (think Tories) and the Murdoch media (think The Sun on steroids and Fox News). They have magnified the negative, rather than working to beat the enemy, the virus.

  2. Charger Salmons

    And congratulations to the lads of the SBS on their training operation in the English Channel when they took just 7 minutes to regain control of the tanker.
    That probably included time for them to make a brew before getting back to HQ for the second half of the Arsenal game.
    Top lads.

        1. Charger Salmons

          You’re welcome Kate.
          I always think it’s better not to take oneself too seriously.
          It’s amazing how many thin-skinned people there are on here who do.

  3. Charger Salmons

    I feel even more sorry for Mrs Schumacher.
    She must be climbing the walls after all those years without a starting position on the grid, so to speak.

      1. Charger Salmons

        Surely you must have a modicum of sympathy in your heart for an attractive woman in the prime of her life tragically denied congress with her husband ?
        Even if he is German.

    1. Joe F

      You haven’t said much lately about your good pal Bozo old boy. Why the silence on the Marcus Rashford story? Cue more silence. Marvellous.

    1. Charlie

      Sad to hear about Frank Bough. Utterly excellent presenter who was eventually swept under the carpet for doing an odd line of coke and enjoying the company of an occasional hooker. Traits that would normally elevate the reputation of a rock star. It’s a cruel world. RIP Frank.

      1. Brother Barnabas

        absolutely – such nonsense and hypocrisy. theres not a fellow on BS today who hasn’t done the same. and the worst of his tormentors was Angus Deayton… pilloried for the same thing not long after.

          1. Joe F

            You’re very quiet old boy about your good pal Bozo. What about your thoughts on Bozo’s handling of the Marcus Rashford story? Oh yeah I forgot, you only write positive things about Bozo and ignore when anything negative happens. Marvellous.

          1. MME

            Come off it Master GiggidyGoo. Are you of all “men” really in a position to be throwing out this sort of insult?! From anyone else!

            The stench of hypocrisy.

            Get ta fluic.


          1. Rob_G

            Bisted, for someone who is far from stupid, you certainly do sometimes write some daft things; the fact that you may not like a piece of legislation does not make is unconstitutional.

          2. bisted

            …Bog_R…so nice to see you…I thought when Cian was here you were having the day off…anyway, just because something is constitutional does not make it good…blasphemy was enshrined in the constitution…it was written by as many canon lawyers as constitional lawyers…at the end of the day the people decide…we are dismantling your constitution bit by hateful bit…

          1. GiggidyGoo

            Ah – Mid Term is upon us and the learners are out to try hone their debating skills. Not very good. Try again.

          2. Cian

            When did he get them to sign?

            It’s not like he sits on then for weeks waiting for a bank holiday weekend.

          3. GiggidyGoo

            Well, you tell me Cian. How long do you think a fellow with no legal qualifications, Higgins, should have to dig deep into the legalities of this in order to make a qualified decision?

          4. Cian

            Higgins has been involved in the legislature for 50- odd years. So he’s not exactly a lay person.

            Tell me this. Why do you only think one of these four bills should go to the SC?

            What is special about this one?

          5. bisted

            …what does it matter…Higgins shed whatever credibility he had during the water debacle…the most devisive piece of legislation ever and he signed it through with undue haste and without acknowledging the division it had caused…a mere acknowledgement is all he had to do…everyone knows the ceremonial nature of his position and his inability to change outcomes…it was the power of the people who changed the outcome on the water bill…

          6. Cian

            What did you want? Some crocodile tears before he signed it? To sit on it for a few weeks? Would that have made the slightest difference?

            The President is supposed to by apolitical.

          7. bisted

            …I suppose I did expect him to be apolitical…I suppose I did expect him to acknowledge how deeply unpopular this piece of legislation was and the deep division it had caused…I had forgotten that he was merely a labour factotem…

          8. bisted

            …indeed, the matter was dealt with in a very political sense…at least…the perversion of politics demonstrated by the labour trough snorkelers at that time…

          9. GiggidyGoo

            Being involved with legislature = what? He is not qualified legally.
            Harris and Martin and Donnelly have been involved in health. Im sure you’d let them do a heart transplant on you…not.

            Like to be reminded once again what we are discussing? Distract/Divert isn’t working.

          10. Cian


            Being involved with legislature = what? He is not qualified legally.
            um, politicians spend their lives dealing with legislation – it is literally their job to write the laws. And while writing the laws they need to ensure they are Constitutional. So he would have a better understanding that the average person (and definitely a better understanding than you… although that wouldn’t be difficult.

            Harris and Martin and Donnelly have been involved in health. Im sure you’d let them do a heart transplant on you…not. Non sequitur. They were minister for health not doctors or surgeons. Do you know the difference between a minister and a doctor?

            Like to be reminded once again what we are discussing? Distract/Divert isn’t working.
            Mostly that you don’t understand the Constitutional role of the President and the total lack of power he wields.

          11. Pat Mustard

            “politicians spend their lives dealing with legislation – it is literally their job to write the laws. And while writing the laws they need to ensure they are Constitutional. So he would have a better understanding that the average person (and definitely a better understanding than you… although that wouldn’t be difficult. ”

            In otherwards he’s not qualified.

            Like pulling teeth.

          12. GiggidyGoo

            Cian. Do you know the difference between a minister and a….Judge? Solicitor? Having ‘an understanding’ is a far far cry from knowing.

            And are you saying that Higgins would be so well read in law that he can decide what’s constitutional or not….without a law degree.

            “….politicians spend their lives dealing with legislation – it is literally their job to write the laws.”

            Would you ever get off the stage? Ministers don’t write laws. Even someone of your limited knowledge should know that.

            How is it that you have to be coached daily? You’re now grasping at straws.

            You FGers are a despicable lot, rushing through this knowing that in 30 years time that anyone that was caught up in it will be dead. Despicable.

          13. Cian

            Higgins has been President for 9 years now and has signed thousands of bills into law… and suddenly today you’re worried that he doesn’t have the skills to do so? why now? Is there a possibility that it is because you don’t like the bill?

            The bill has been published for a while now. Lots and lots and lots of qualified people have seen it and none of them (that I’m aware of) have mentioned that it might be unconstitutional. If nobody else thinks it might be unconstitutional why would it be sent to the SC?

            You’re deluded.

            And it is disgusting to libel the President in such a way.

          14. GiggidyGoo

            Piddle poor yet again. If you need it to be hammered home time and time again, so be it.
            Higgins hasn’t a qualification in law. He is therefore incapable of deciding whether this bill is constitutional or not. He, and the Green lackey have been advised that part of this as illegal, by a person with legal qualifications. Alarm bells should be ringing. They’re ringing for 140,000+ people who signed the petition.

            But, as said earlier, FFGr want to seal this for 30 years, enough time for the people involved to die.

            You’re a despicable lot.

          15. Cian

            I understand.
            You don’t like this bill.
            I don’t like this bill.
            The person Michael D Higgins may not like this bill.
            140,000 other people don’t like the bill.
            The bill may contravene EU laws.

            But all of that is irrelevant. It was passed by the Dáil and the President is obliged to sign it into law. The only reason he wouldn’t is if it may be unconstitutional. And nobody (qualified or other) had made even a hint of a suggestion of which part of the constitution it might break. Ergo, it’s not unconstitutional.

            I’m sorry, but “I don’t like this law” isn’t sufficient grounds to send a bill the the SC. And it certainly doesn’t make the President “bought”.

      1. Rosette of Sirius

        Lordy. He can’t outright refuse to sign a bill. He can refer it, but if he does it cannot be challenged in the future. So he actually did the right thing here. Now, any citizen that fancies a year in court can fill their boots.

        1. GiggidyGoo

          Are you saying then that a decision, if it was made now by the Supreme Court, would be different to a decision made in the future by the Supreme Court?
          That’s not saying much about the highest court in the land.
          Obviously has ‘done his job’ in FFGr terms – What Cian’s cheerleading for.

          1. Cian

            Yes. A decision made by the supreme court now could be different to a future decision.

            A decision now is theoretical- a “what if” general scenario. However a future appeal would be based on reality, an individual would be stating why the law is unconstitutional in their specific case.

          2. GiggidyGoo

            What you’re implying is that the Supreme Court judges are incapable of dissecting the information and forming an opinion. “Judges incapable of judging” CLUTCHES PEARLS !

          3. Daisy Chainsaw

            He did. If he referred the bill to the SC it would have been found to be fine under the constitution and untouchable as a result. Signing it into law allows it to be challenged.

          4. GiggidyGoo

            Well, Rosette, I won’t answer from a moral point of view as I haven’t posted anything about that, but from a legal perspective he is not qualified. He’s been made aware that part of it at least is illegal in the eyes of the DPC. He has shirked his responsibility
            ( That could be looked upon in relation to the moral aspect, could it not? )

          5. Cian

            He’s been made aware that part of it at least is illegal in the eyes of the DPC.
            That is irrelevant.

            Once more for the slow learners (that’s you GiggidyGoo):

            The President can only send a bill to the SC if it may be unconstitutional.

          6. GiggidyGoo

            Just for you (Cian). You mention ‘if it may be unconstitutional’

            Tell me how you figure that Higgins decided this was constitutional. Now, bear in mind that he has no legal qualifications in order to make that type of (very important) decision, no legal experience in courts, not a judge, not a solicitor – he’s a poet and somehow he’s President.

            So, how did he come to the conclusion? You haven’t addressed that for the slow learners – the ones who know his qualifications (or no qualifications as in this case). A bit slow yourself I think.

          7. Nigel

            And in thirty years time someone will ring anonymously to give directions to where the archive was buried in the bog but when they dig there’ll be nothing there.

        1. Cian

          What do you mean bought?

          He is paid to do a job. The job involves signing off on legislation passed by the Dáil. The job has very little leeway. He can sign it, or send it to the SC if it may be unconstitutional . If the SC says it isn’t unconstitutional then he is obliged to sign it. He has no other choice.

          In what way do you think this bill is unconstitutional?

          1. GiggidyGoo

            Cian – I’m not qualified to say whether something is constitutional or not. Neither are you. Neither is Michael D.
            The subject of the thread is Higgin’s failure to refer it to the Supreme Court. Stop trying to divert, distract

          2. Cian

            If you don’t understand how legislation is passed into law you should either keep quite or ask questions. We’d be happy to explain it to you.

            Although saying that, it’s been explained multiple times and you are doggedly ignoring it.

          3. GiggidyGoo

            Another diversion eh? Because i’m not qualified legally is a lot different than understanding the process. And I posted about a particular part of the process. Now, Cian, it seems you’re the one that can’t even understand the written word. Maybe you should keep quiet then if you’re unable to respond to the subject matter and not some other matter you’d like to introduce. Would you like me to explain, again, to you the subject matter of the thread….hint – it’s not what you would like it to be?
            Your attempts at distraction and diversion ain’t working.

          4. Cian

            as *your* link says:

            A spokesperson said that while President Higgins had noted the concerns raised over the bill, the bill itself did not directly raise a constitutional issue suitable for an Art 26.1.1 referral.

            Higgins “failed to refer it to the Supreme Court” because it is not referable.

          5. GiggidyGoo

            Again, in case you missed it, Higgins isn’t a qualified legal person. Therefore, and in light of the DPC’s opinion of it being illegal, a legal decision (Supreme Court) would be needed.
            And again, neither you, I nor Higgins are qualified to make a decision that only the Supreme Court can.

            How does Higgins come to the conclusion at to whether it is constitutional or not?. He has no legal qualifications to decide or to come to that conclusion. Constitutionality it is for the Supreme Court to decide, and not Higgins.

            You’re obviously OK with quickly signing off on a piece of legislation that has been flagged as illegal by another arm of the State. Constitutional or unconstitutional, it makes no difference to FFGr, as long as it’s constitutionality can be long-fingered to outlive the survivors.

            You’re quite a shameful lot alright.

          6. Cian

            Let me rephrase:

            In what way do you think this bill is unconstitutional?

            *you* are suggesting this bill should go to the SC. Why?

            *you* aren’t suggesting that the other three bills he signed this weekend go to the SC. Why not?

        2. GiggidyGoo

          “Signing off”? Therein lies the reality. He has it in his remit not to sign off. How does he decide if it may be unconstitutional or not? Advice from the – Government-appointed AG? ( we haven’t had much luck with those in recent times).
          The SC hasn’t been involved yet, so don’t bother trying to thrown in a distraction such as “If the SC says it isn’t unconstitutional then he is obliged to sign it. He has no other choice.” as if that’s what’s actually happened here.
          The DPC has already said too that the Government is breaking the law. Higgins has no legal qualifications, yet his statement states “President Michael D. Higgins, having given careful consideration to all constitutional and other aspects of the ‘Commission of Investigation (Mother and Baby Homes and certain related Matters) Records, and another Matter, Bill 2020’, and having considered all the options available to him, today signed the Bill, one of four Bills submitted to the President late last week.”

          1. GiggidyGoo

            That’s a matter for the Supreme Court. Why are you trying to divert and distract from Higgins not referring it?

          2. Cian

            In what way might this bill be unconstitutional?

            Just because you don’t like a bill doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional.

          3. GiggidyGoo

            I’d prefer to rely on a Supreme Court to decide what might, or might not be unconstitutional. That’s not the subject of the thread. You brought the ‘unconstitutional’ aspect into it. If you want to swim around in that pool, go right ahead.
            The subject of the thread is?

          4. Cian

            The only reason that the President would send a bill to the SC is if he thinks it might be unconstitutional.
            So, again, in what way might this bill be unconstitutuonal?

            *You* want it referred to the SC. Now explain *why*.

          5. GiggidyGoo

            Still having a problem understanding the subject of the thread then Cian?
            The President has no legal qualifications. (If you can take that in then, you’ll understand)
            There have been suggestions that this is illegal. The DPC has actually said it’s illegal in the Data Protection aspect. I suspect that the DPC has legal qualifications that neither you, I nor Higgins has.

          6. Cian

            The DPC didn’t say it was unconstitutional.

            How hard is it for you to understand that the only reason open to the President is if it might be unconstitutuonal.

            If it is not unconstitutional Higgins must sign it.

          7. GiggidyGoo

            The DPC did however say that part of it was illegal . Can something illegal knowingly be passed into law and called constitutional at the same time?

          8. Cian

            The DPC did however say that part of it was illegal . Can something illegal knowingly be passed into law and called constitutional at the same time?


          9. GiggidyGoo

            ‘Yes’? Of course it can when you’ve FFGr involved.
            You asked:
            “In what way do you think this bill is unconstitutional?” Have I said it’s unconstitutional?

            “*you* are suggesting this bill should go to the SC. Why?” To test it’s constitutionality

            *you* aren’t suggesting that the other three bills he signed this weekend go to the SC. Why not?. Not part of this discussion.

            Piddle poor posting Cian.

      1. GiggidyGoo

        Yes, there’s a 5:40 AM. You seem to comment every timeI make an early morning comment. You seem to have a problem with it? Maybe enlighten us the .

          1. Janet, dreams of warm feet

            some people are up early for work, have insomnia, kids night feeds, stop assuming nasty crap maybe

          2. Charlie

            Indeed. All the time? And some can’t sleep for 5 minutes because they eat, sleep and dream of posting on Broadsheet. They’re totally destroyed by the infatuation for fear of discovering they just might be wrong and will fight tooth and nail to defend their agenda. It’s a sickness. Just sayin.

          3. GiggidyGoo

            You still haven’t said what your problem is with 5:40 AM. You probably weren’t aware that it existed up to now I suppose.
            Don’t be B9 now. A psychologist will be able to explain your reaction to learning new facts.

          4. Charlie

            Go outside dude. Get some fresh air. Discover the real world. Get some exercise. You can thank me later.

          5. GiggidyGoo

            @B9. The need to check posting times tells it’s own story. You still haven’t said what your problem with it 5:40. If you do bother to enlighten us, i’m sure it will be eye-opening and ultra-interesting.

          6. Charlie

            Dude. Are you that dumb? Today was 5:40am. You post at every hour of the day. Middle of the day, middle of the night. Just choose any time. When the world is attempting to sleep and recharge their bodies & brains, you’re awake on Broadsheet. You’re at it 24 hrs of the day. Funny thing is your behaviour actually renders your agenda even less credible. Seriously dude, give it a break. You’ll be healthier, less angry and not make a fool of yourself every day. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off for a healthy walk and some real world time.

          7. Charlie

            He makes the same point, every day and at every hour, morning, noon or middle of night. He’s a broken record. He deserves no debate, he deserves friendly advice.

          8. Pat Mustard

            Charlie /george /BS/Liam/Darren…

            Get a life indeed, the neck of you lecturing anyone on mental health..

          9. GiggidyGoo

            The Charger lad lost for words eh? Surely your years of experience on websites such as People’s Republic Of Cork would lead to something more profound?

            And then B9 trying to hone his debating skills for his transition to LC year. ROFL! Whatever will he do now that he has been educated in the matter of there being a 5:40 in the morning?

        1. GiggidyGoo

          Im sure they do. I wouldn’t know.

          Forced overtime though causes reactions in the fraperoom. Saturday wasn’t a great day, having been told “you’re on” for the bank holiday, was it?

          1. MME

            Come off it Master GiggidyGoo. You’re never off. Like never. Always on. Wired. Lost. Angry.

            The stench of hypocrisy. #2

            Get ta fluic. #2

            Guffaw. #2

            Incel #1000000

          2. Charger Salmons

            My good chum Brother Barnabas tells me the poster in question is a lay-dee.
            I know, shocked me too.
            I mean, eek !

          3. GiggidyGoo

            MME Wong B9. You’ve some problems there alright. Haven’t the courage of your convictions obviously. Cowards will be (uneducated) cowards.

          4. GiggidyGoo

            Odd that you don’t post your anti gay agenda stuff here Charger, complete with explicit detail. Cowards will be (Walter Mitty) cowards. Banned from peoplesrepublicofcork website. ROFL. A badge of honour no doubt.
            Sure Have Inferiority Troubles alright. Glad to know i’m living in your and B9’s (no matter what name he chooses) brains.

        2. MME


          Yes, because you’re “educated” Giggidygoo.

          I mean look at the cascade of evidence on here you supply…


          Get ta fluic #3


          1. GiggidyGoo

            Lay off the soup. You’re too young. Go get an education. See if you can achieve something. Or go back to sleepies. Nightly night. There there. Day day.

          2. MME

            Dear oh dear Giggidygoo PhD.

            You’re angry. I get it. (inserts painting nails emoji). You got to learn to take it if you can dish it out. But you’re upset. I do appreciate that.

            Maybe one day, you’ll realise that nobody cares about your “opinion”.

            In the meantime, stay the fluic away from me weirdo.

          3. GiggidyGoo

            Nobody cares….
            ROFL. B9, the two Wong’s, Charlie and MME.

            I can take anything that you write. It’s not intelligent. It is Childish. No thinking behind it. Stuff of 1st years. But it does give me a laugh. Hard to figure out how you’re let loose in public though.

  4. Johnny

    …oul Les,got jack here too.

    “Denis O’Brien, said: “As a founding director of the Group, Leslie has been one of the driving forces behind our success, since we launched Digicel in 2001. His enormous breadth of expertise, laser focused attention to detail and deep understanding of the very diverse dynamics across the range of our markets proved invaluable and was pivotal as we expanded our operations across 31 countries in the Caribbean, Central America and the Pacific. On a personal level, I am so very grateful to Leslie for his huge contribution and I know I speak for the Board and the executive when I express my sincere gratitude to him for 19 incredible years of service.”


    While old Les is objecting,blocking and delaying various enquirers and court cases in Ireland,for amongst other things possibly insider trading,Rivada has been planning a invasion of the Caribbean:)

    “The Jamaican Government is now studying a proposal from its American counterpart for a Fifth-Generation (5G) mobile technology service being rolled out here that would spare the island any costs associated with the investment.

    US Ambassador to Jamaica Donald Tapia, in an exclusive interview with the Jamaica Observer last Friday morning, said the Andrew Holness Administration has had the proposal for some time now as it was first presented during the Government’s first term.

    Ambassador Tapia stated that the American company, Rivada Networks, a telecommunications company with a 5G business model, had expressed a desire to come to Jamaica to build out a 5G system at zero cost to the Jamaican Government.“


    1. Johnny

      Success is really the best revenge,it can only benefit customers who are getting ripped off with rubbish service,high rates.

      Businessman Declan Ganley, a member of the losing Cellstar consortium in the 1996 bid for the mobile phone licence…

      -The tribunal concluded that Lowry passed to O’Brien substantial information that benefited his bid and that he had an “insidious and pervasive” influence on what was designed to be an independent selection process.
      -The tribunal followed a money trail to reach its conclusion that O’Brien gave cash to Lowry on three occasions, using intermediaries and off-shore accounts, within months of the mobile phone license being awarded in May 1996.
      -O’Brien transferred 150,000 British pounds ($244,000) from an account in the Isle of Man to an account in Jersey that was opened to receive the money by Fine Gael fundraiser David Austin (who has since died), who then forwarded 147,000 pounds to an account opened by Lowry in the Isle of Man.
      -This 147,000 pounds was “hastily repaid out of fear of possible disclosure” when an inquiry was announced into payments to some politicians, the tribunal found.
      -The same year Lowry put down a 25,000 pound deposit on a property in England and O’Brien forwarded 300,000 pounds from another account in London to close the deal. Of the 300,000 pounds, 44,500 pounds was subsequently used by Lowry to place a deposit on another property in England and the 420,000 pounds needed to close this deal was provided through a loan sourced from a British savings and loan company by O’Brien’s accountant.”


      1. Johnny

        I had a few follows on twitter by the whole red hat / dossier / digicel crowd.
        It’s always been suspected / rumors that Ganley funded the dossier which killed O’Brien’s / Digicel exit via the failed ipo killing digicel.
        At time some assumed I was getting paid to be a di*k to O’Brien.
        Clearly after a few posts people realized I was a lunatic or some lone wolf,well I had NWL.
        But as stated then I’m no time for Ganley or oreilly or his family.
        Enjoy the bank holiday-will lash few things up on Ganley / Rivada as it evolves but great news for the poorest people on the planet can’t be any worse that digi.

      2. Charger Salmons

        I love reading these Digicell stories.
        Instant flashback to all those Caribbean trips – rum, Bajan fishcakes, Grenada the spice island, big fat doobies on Dickenson Beach in Antigua, promenading down the malacon in Havana, Glitter Bay on the West Coast of Barbados, liming in Negril.
        And the phone reception is always pretty good too.
        Denis O’Brien is a great Irish success story.From assistant bank manager to Ireland’s richest man.
        What a story.

        1. Johnny

          Actually he’s english ;)
          The income inequality destroyed the Caribbean for me,driving past shanty towns to a luxe resort,just not for me.
          No great surf breaks,some excellent wind surfing,but I do,go normally St Barts,which I admit I enjoy.

          Shorter- Ganley – Dennis’s nemeses is with omg full us Govt support going to provide 5G in Caribbean killing digi,the mere threat this will be enough-it’s a counter measure fully backed and funded by cia us govt to Chinese influence.
          explains the jv with us military in states – funds this.

          1. Charger Salmons

            Johnny – you’re talking gobbledegook.
            Not least your assertion that O’Brien is English.
            Lay off the ‘ shrooms old sport.

          2. Johnny

            His “man” in states is a low end inn keeper,tethering on edge bankruptcy.
            He’s no pull with Biden and trumps crew hate him,over Clinton’s.

            …. rest in peace Harry,you and me both,never thought I’d see the yanks stepping on the brits like this.

            “We never, ever expected to be in this position. We never thought the lady who is responsible for taking our son’s life would have been able to fly home to the US and evade as best she could the UK justice system.”


            Special relationship – yeah we special in state’s….laws don’t apply..

          3. Charger Salmons

            So we’re agreed he’s not English.The rest is just your usual mumbo-jumbo.
            More baccy less green bro.
            It’s frying your brains.

          4. johnny

            a good friend used start his evenings out very elegantly with bitters/lemons and rituals but no matter how it started,it always ended the same,him on the floor guzzling cheap vodka from the bottle:)

            so make yourself and herself a large one-settle in for the young conservatives.

            -…. the Centre for Medicinal Cannabis sponsored and hosted a panel discussion at the Conservative Home Online Fringe conference, entitled Medical Cannabis and the UK: Becoming a Global Leader (featuring Charlotte Caldwell).

            This event, the first of its kind, brought together prominent leaders in the medical cannabis landscape with a panel consisting of:

            Former minister and director of the Conservative Drug Reform Group Rob Wilson Executive chair at Columbia Care Michael Abbott

            Clinical academic at Imperial College London Dr Mikael Sodergren

            Mother to Billy Caldwell and widely acclaimed patient advocate Charlotte Caldwell

            Leading journalist for the Daily Telegraph Tony Diver

            This panel, chaired by Henry Hill, delivered an informative and critical debate surrounding the state of medical cannabis in the UK.


          5. Lilly

            Why on God’s earth would the CIA choose to back Declan Ganley? Sure, he’s married to a Yank but pfft…

          6. johnny

            yeah must be the weed!

            ….according to a number of senior administration officials, the White House is urging the Pentagon to fast track “what would essentially be a no-bid contract to lease the Department of Defense’s mid-band spectrum—premium real estate for the booming and lucrative 5G market—to Rivada Networks, a company in which prominent Republicans and supporters of President Donald Trump have investments.”


  5. Lilly

    Good piece by John McManus in today’s Irish Times. Ireland, the best little country for lockdowns.


    ‘The simple fact is that if you put 40 health professionals in a room and ask them how to minimise the number of people that will die in a pandemic they are not going to come up with a modern-day equivalent of TK Whitaker’s First Programme for Economic Expansion.’

  6. millie

    Oh I am so glad I stayed away from here today.

    Just about to sit down by the fire with a big bowl of stew, with some crusty bread and a glass of red wine after a long walk with the kids this afternoon. A much better use of the bank holiday than some here, I daresay.

    Either way, hope you all had a good one.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link