Just Because He's Paranoiac ...

Despite the fact that we agreed on how to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, there are not many things that I find attractive in Declan Ganley.

The feature that I probably find least attractive is his political amateurism and his unsophisticated tendency, very reminiscent of the British euro-sceptics, to see the "evil hand of Brussels" behind every question that he finds uncomfortable.

Some of his other unattractive debating faults can be seen at work here.

However, it is quite clear that "they" are indeed out to get him. Having, as they see it, single-handedly sabotaged "the project" by his intervention in the Lisbon referendum, and having managed, as they see it, to get the EU's most euro-philic electorate (see statistics quoted here) to deliver a perverse decision, the forces ranged on the other side of that argument are naturally keen to weaken Ganley before the re-run of the referendum which they plan to have next year.

On last Thursday night,"Prime Time",Ireland's leading television current affairs programme, broadcast what struck me as more or less a 40 minute hatchet-job.

It was not completely unfair to Ganley. It did

• demonstrate that, despite his English accent, he is as Irish as anyone else born and bred here
• allow him to answer many of the negative points made against him
• give him scope to make points of his own to some extent

However, the programme's most interesting sections concerned Mr Ganley's activities in Latvia,Russia, Bulgaria, Albania, and the U.S..

Latvia

The chief focus of this was what seems to have been an exaggeration by Ganley of his influence as a very young man on a junior minister in the first post-soviet government. It was careful,though, to allow an "expert" to explain to us that the area of Riga in which Ganley worked was largely controlled by gangsters and illicit traders.

What was the point of this ?

Russia

The only point of this section seems to have been to note that Ganley held his Russian forestry venture through a Cypriot company and to give time for another "expert" to dilate on the lack of transparency associated with use of Cyprus-registered companies and how the Russian gangster class were very fond of using Cyprus.

So, if you use a Cypriot company, you are ipso facto a gangster, right ? I don't think so, but I would be surprised if most viewers did not take that impression.

Bulgaria

For some reason, all we heard about this was that Ganley made a lot of money from the sale of his cable-television investment in Bulgaria. No detail whatsoever was given.

Albania

This was the most sensationalistic section of the programme.

We were shown the body of a man lying on a deserted roadway. The body is of someone who worked for Ganley's company at one time many years ago. We are told that shortly before being murdered just recently, this man had started to reveal secrets of criminal activity.

Ganley denies ever knowing him, but eventually concedes that he may have been connected. So what ? We are not told.

What we are told is that Ganley was involved in Albania's "privatisation voucher" scheme, and we hear a very old man tell us at some length, through an interpreter, how he lost all his life's savings through the collapse of the scheme. How Ganley was alleged to be culpable is not explained. One of Ganley's American associates says that the Albanian government aborted the scheme, which cannot be blamed on Ganley, but I suspect that the significance of this will have escaped the television audience, for the most part. Was this accidental ?

United States

We get a fairly detailed account of an alleged attempt by Ganley to acquire by stealth a mobile-phone operator's licence in Iraq. The response of Ganley and his associates suggests that this was a very murky episode one way or another. Which way is impossible to judge. Why the full story could not be summarised for us in comprehensible way may be a story in itself, but the way it is presented is not to Ganley's advantage.

SIPO

SIPO is the Irish government body which regulates the spending of money for political purposes.

It was suggested on the programme that Ganley had failed to "engage" with SIPO, which he denied, and quotation was made from a leaked letter, allegedly on its way to Ganley from SIPO, which gave him an ultimatum. We were not shown the letter; it does not appear that Ganley was, either. (And I gather from a not-particularly-reliable source that it has been reported that he still has not received it).

Summary

This was a shoddy piece of biassed reporting. I would like to think that we won't get any more of this, but I suspect that I will be disappointed.

However, I am not so certain that the cumulative effect of this kind of story will be as intended.

Comments

[Damian Hockney]

But of course whatever side of the argument you are on, you need to understand that the only way way the Yes side can win is by smears of the No side. They cannot win by engaging with the argument and have no intention whatsoever of doing so in the re-run. They cannot, because detailed claims by the Yes side always turn out to be highly challengeable and would lead to a bigger defeat (as they would have done at the first Lisbon referendum). So the way to do this is by claiming it is English plot, a plan by George Bush, and failing this, then using tame journalists to string together stuff about dodgy dealings (smear campaign stuff - it's very simple really). I hope the Irish people are able to see behind this clear plan, which is the only one left to the political class. Those same tame journalists are the ones who are briefing all and sundry that it is "unfair" to give the No side fair coverage in the re-run. That proportionality should be based upon the views of the old political class, and that because a high percentage of those elected are in parties which support the Yes campaign, then that should dictate coverage. No doubt this piece on Prime Time counts as fair coverage of the No campaign and part of their time allocation! (opening the way proportionally to several hour long features on the glories of the Yes side and Soviet style coverage on every aspect of programming all telling of the glories of Lisbon)...

[Brendan]

I got back to Ireland after the Lisbon vote. I do not know how I would have voted. I looked at it. My only real source of information was the internet. I would consider myself to be of at least average intelligence and well educated even by Irish standards. I do not understand the Lisbon treaty. I do not believe most of the popuation do. I did try to gain an understanding of it. My ignorance of Lisbon is not 100%. I have acquired some deciperable information.

All this aside, if the content of the Primetime program was produced in America (where I lived for some years) it would be seen by the Irish in America as the lowest form of commie hunting styled television in years. It is just deplorable that our national station is engaged in this.

Any BBC viewer who happened to watch the RTE program would find the comparison between the BBC accurate and insightful reporting style compared with the key stone cops failed character assination attempt on Ganley by RTE as more than an indication that Irish national TV is not allowed to be independent.

Is this going to go unchecked? Who can we complain to? I don't care much for Ganley (I do however believe he was very much wronged) but I do care about the people being unduly, unfairly and intentionally influenced by political zealots who can hide behind civil servants as that to a degree is what the used RTE staff are.

[Fergus O'Rourke]

I am not sure that the BBC is that much better. Nor do I think that lack of independence is the issue, as I rather doubt that there needed to be much pressure on RTE to do this programme in this way.

As to what can be done, Ganley can, possibly, sue for defamation. I will let him consult his own lawyers on the prospects for that. The rest of us can complain to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission - details later.

[TA]

John Sweeney of The Observer reporting on the revolution there came across Mr Ganley in 1997 with hat he described as described as "Albanian chancers".(The
Observer (1791- 2003). London (UK): Mar 16, 1997). An interesting term of phrase in light of what his supporters call a witch-hunt.
""Over by the bar chatting to some Albanian chancers is pink-fleshed
gimlet-eyed Declan Ganley, financier from the City of London. Ganley believes in the strength of the Albanian economy. He has to his company Anglo Adriatic does something with funds. I first met him ten days ago
at Rome airport when he was returning from New York to Tirana. He told
me all this mess is just your type hyping it up, Berisha is not in
trouble. All this country need is a couple of good PR men"

Two months later The Guardian noted that he said his Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund. would with within a week have £220,000,000, had 40,000 non Albanian investors and 60,000 Albanian investors. According to Mr. Ganley all this value is in "privatisation voucher" and the Albanian government blocked their reinvestment. Why not merely return the vouchers and let the individual investors take the matter up with the government?
Precis: The Guardian in 1997 states that Declan Ganley 28 year old Galway man , former building site worker may be taking Lord Rothschild's dictum to heart "When there is blood on the streets invest". States that Ganley's Anglo Adriatic has 60, 000 Albanian and 40,000 foreign investors and the fund will be worth £220 million by the end of the month (May 1997) Undeterred by the crisis he says that the collapse of the pyramid schemes will help not hinder his fund as his is the only viable alternative.

Colourful characters attract colourful press.
However RTE failed to note the below Liam Lawlor connection
perhaps as they spelled Liam incorrectly in the piece below
"ALBANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER RECEIVES GANLEY AND LAWLOR
TIRANA, SEP 11 (ATA) - Albanian deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tritan Shehu received Tuesday the representative of the Anglo-Adriatic Investment Fund, Declan Ganley and the Irish parliamentarian Lyam Lawlor regarding the establishment of Economic Joint Council between Ireland and Albania, reported the Ministry's press and information office.

Lawlor said that the Irish government is interested in deepening the economic cooperation with Albania. Albanian and Irish Foreign Ministers will sign in November the Economic Cooperation Agreement between two countries.

"A lot of big Irish companies are interested to invest in various fields in Albania," said the representative of the Anglo-Adriatic Investment Fund. The Irish side showed its readiness to help Albania in the legislation field, in relation to the social policy.

Albanian minister Shehu talked about Albania's goal in signing the association Agreement with European Union and stressed that the Irish specialists assistance, regarding respective modalities on the agreement, whose negotiations will start soon, would be very welcomed."
http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/ata/1996/96-09-11.ata.html

All very interesting but leaving us none the wiser.

[Fergus O'Rourke]

You have another 24 days to complain about the programme to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The website is at www.bcc.ie