Hi all I would like to share RTEs responds to my complain regarding Prime Time program on The 24Th October. I hope you can share if you got any more replies for your complaints ? Also Claire AND Ben would LIKE TO have a few words for this reply. Doogan, Maria 17:43 (22 minutes ago) to Good Evening, Thank you for your email concerning our ‘Prime Time’ item broadcast on October 24th on organisations operating in Ireland which are associated with what might be termed the ‘Freeman’ philosophy. My apologies for the delay in my reply, but we did receive a substantial number of complaints in relation to this programme, and we have tried to answer each of the main points raised. ‘Prime Time’ had been aware of the phenomenon of individuals appearing in the courts and espousing a belief system broadly associated with the ‘Freeman’ philosophy for some time. This seemed to take various forms, claims that the law did not apply to them, a demand for a quasi- ancient form of address, claims that the individual was “sovereign” and therefore above the law etc. We noted that none of claims seemed to achieve any form of success in the courts. At the time of the Meath East by-election, ‘Prime Time’ became aware that one candidate, Mr. Ben Gilroy, seemed to be espousing a Freeman-type philosophy in various clips posted on the internet, and questioned him in relation to it, live in studio. Subsequently, ‘Prime Time’ became aware of two organisations which seemed to have connections to this Freeman-type philosophy and which were purporting to assist distressed debtors. Both of these organisations suggested that if a distressed debtor placed his or her asset in a trust, that that asset would somehow be placed beyond the reach of his/her creditor. Few, if any, reputable legal professionals seemed to believe that this strategy had any chance of success in the courts. Furthermore, there was concern that vulnerable debtors making such claims might be held in contempt of court, or have costs awarded against them, thereby considerably worsening their positions. Perhaps most importantly of all, there was a concern that the strategy of these organisations flew in the face of the basic advice of the professionals in this area, which is, almost universally: ‘engage with your creditor’ either personally, or using the systems established by the State to help you do so. In the research phase of our programme, ‘Prime Time’ attended a meeting of Debt Options, without filming any part of the meeting. Our experience at that meeting indicated that our concerns were well-founded, and led us to decide that Debt Options should form a significant part of our programme. Debt Options repeatedly told us that it intended to pursue its action “legally, lawfully, and respectfully”. However this does not mean that its strategy has any greater chance of success, or that vulnerable borrowers are not continuing to build up further debts, rather than engaging with their lenders in an attempt to reach a final resolution of their situation. ‘Prime Time’ has repeatedly focussed on the actions of the banks in relation to debtors, and questioned the banks, their representative organisation, and the Government, as to how distressed borrowers are treated. We have gone to great lengths to tell the stories of distressed borrowers, and will continue to do so. However this does not mean that when we come across an organisation that may be leading people in a vulnerable position down a questionable path, that we are not also obliged to investigate it. In relation to the deeply-disturbing question of whether or not distressed borrowers have taken their own lives as a direct consequence of their financial situations, ‘Prime Time’ considers this a matter of grave concern, but always adheres to its guidelines in relation to the broadcast treatment of suicide, and is extremely cautious about attributing these tragic events to a single cause or set of causes. No person associated with the Government had any influence whatsoever over the making of this programme. Throughout the programme-making process, the editing of material was carried out scrupulously fairly, and every significant criticism of the trust strategy, Mr. Gilroy, or Ms. Cullinane, was put to them, to allow them a full right of reply. Since this was the case, ‘Prime Time’ would reject the suggestion that the programme engaged in unwarrantedly selective or unfair editing, that it was biased or unfair, or in any way breached the Broadcasting Act 2009. On the question of the Freeman philosophy, ‘Prime Time’ established, using publicly-available material, that Mr. Gilroy has repeatedly espoused what might reasonably be termed a Freeman-type philosophy. ‘Prime Time’ put the issue of his apparent Freeman philosophy to Mr. Gilroy, and while he minimised its influence on his thinking he did not did not fully reject it. ‘Prime Time’ pointed out the clear links between Mr. Gilroy and Ms. Cullinane, and also questioned Ms. Cullinane in relation to the Freeman philosophy. In her response, she too indicated a certain tolerance, if not admiration, of the broad Freeman philosophy. Bearing this in mind, it was important for ‘Prime Time’ to question the extent to which Debt Options was influenced by this philosophy. In the meeting of October 2nd which ‘Prime Time’ secretly-filmed - having established that it was necessary to do so, and gone through our detailed procedures to get permission to do so - Ms. Cullinane repeatedly told those attending that a company had already been formed and that everyone signing up to the trust would become a shareholder in it. On October 14th, Ms. Cullinane made similar comments to the media on the steps of the Four Courts. In her interview with ‘Prime Time’ Ms. Cullinane responded to our questions by again saying that the company had been formed, and that its name was the People of Eire. The day after our programme was broadcast Ms. Cullinane posted online a photo of a receipt, dated October 22nd, relating to a submission for an application to register a company called POE LIMITED. The name was not the People of Eire, as had been stated on camera. The Companies Registration Office has confirmed that no such company, POE LIMITED, is registered or pending. The CRO confirms that a submission to register such a company was received on October 22nd, but was rejected for various reasons, including that the proposed company name was not “sufficiently distinctive”. The subsequent posting by Ms. Cullinane of an email from an internet company selling Irish company registrations does not confirm that any company was formed, much less give it a name. As to whether or not Debt Options was a free service, it was publicly advertised as such on its website. ‘Prime Time’ saw no evidence that the payment required was in any way voluntary, quite the contrary. Having carefully examined all aspects of the complaints in relation to this programme, ‘Prime Time’ is satisfied that it was a fair and balanced investigation into a matter of very considerable public interest, and did not in any way breach the Broadcasting Act 2009. However I would like to thank you for your email, and stress that if you are dissatisfied with my reply, you are, of course, entitled to complain to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland at bai.ie/?page_id=115 Yours sincerely, Donogh Diamond, Editor, ‘Prime Time’ Disclaimer: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please note that emails to, from and within RTÉ may be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and may be liable to disclosure. Tá an t-eolas sa ríomhphost seo faoi rún agus dfhéadfadh sé a bheith faoi phribhléid dhlíthiúil. Is ar an seolaí amháin atá sé dírithe. Níl cead ag aon duine eile rochtain a fháil ar an ríomhphost seo. Mura tú an faighteoir beartaithe, tá cosc ar aon nochtadh, cóipéail, dáileadh, nó aon ghníomh a dhéanamh nó a fhágáil ar lár i dtaca leis an ríomhphost agus dfhéadfadh sin a bheith mídhleathach. Tabhair ar aird le do thoil, dfhéadfadh ríomhphost chuig, ó agus laistigh de RTÉ a bheith faoi réir an Achta um Shaoráil Faisnéise 1997, agus dfhéadfadh go ndéanfaí é a nochtadh
Posted on: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:19:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015