Des Cahill at centre of RTÉ's €11m PRSI court case
RTÉ sports presenter Des Cahill is at the centre of a landmark High Court case that could have an €11m cost to the national broadcaster. Cahill is one of two high earners at the broadcaster whose cases have led the Department of Social Protection to determine RTÉ was obliged to make extra PRSI payments on their salary. The former Sunday Game host's case has been examined as part of a department review into whether presenters' employment at RTÉ was more akin to that of employees than independent contractors. Cahill, who has non-staff contractor position at RTÉ despite working there for over 40 years, is the subject of one of two cases RTÉ has appealed to the High Court arising from the department's inquiry into alleged bogus-self employment at the station. The two High Court cases have been brought by RTÉ against the Social Protection Minister and an appeals officer in the social welfare appeals office. Both are listed for mention in the Master's Court on July 8.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
13 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘It's a matter of time before her husband is worn down by her': How the gossip website Tattle Life nearly broke me
Last week in Northern Ireland's High Court, Mr Justice Colton unmasked the owner of Tattle Life, a website which has become synonymous with online hatred, harassment and doxxing, as Sebastian Bond, also known as Bastian Durward. Bond, a vegan cooking influencer and author of the book Nest and Glow, had been taken to court by Neil and Donna Sands, a Northern Irish couple who were subject to defamation and harassment on the site. It awarded them £300,000 (€351,000) in libel damages, believed to be the largest defamation payout of its kind in Northern Ireland. Founded in 2018, Tattle Life describes itself as a 'commentary website on public business social media accounts'. For all intents and purposes, it's a gossip forum in the vein of Reddit, with threads on a variety of topics and individuals, which are posted and commented on by its users. But it's a lucrative one: it was making about £320,000 per year through online advertising. The official line of the website is that it serves to 'allow commentary and critiques of people that choose to monetise their personal life as a business and release it into the public domain', a version of 'if you're going to put yourself out there, you deserve whatever you get'. The fact that the website's founder put such a veil of secrecy around his own identity feels both ironic and exactly what you'd expect. Posters share to the site anonymously – much like Bond himself, who used the pseudonym Helen McDougal to post on the site – expressing grievances they maintain they can't otherwise. READ MORE But the reality of it is darker. As someone who's been the subject of several threads on Tattle – some positive, in the 'rave about' section, but more negative – I've seen first hand the relentless hatred the site facilitates, which is aimed, by and large, at female influencers. Given that women outnumber men in the influencer marketing industry, this is perhaps unsurprising, but even the more prolific male influencers don't inspire the same feverish vitriol as their female counterparts. [ Rosemary Mac Cabe: My 'menmoir' was a necessary exorcism of the ghosts in my head Opens in new window ] Though I was, for a time, a journalist, TV and radio personality and social influencer, since 2020 or thereabouts, I've written a reader-supported newsletter on Substack, co-presented a podcast with my sister, and posted inconsistently on Instagram, sharing my life in Indiana, where I moved to in March 2020. I've had an online presence for almost half of my life, and I've been the subject of criticism on the internet for just as long – but it was never quite as nasty as it has been since the dawn of Tattle. Though a disclaimer on the home page states it has 'a zero-tolerance policy to any content that is abusive, hateful or harmful', Tattle has been the site of some of the most personal attacks I've seen. I've seen comments about me such as: 'She's next level pathetic, adds no value to society, yet her entitlement knows no bounds'; 'it's only a matter of time before her husband is worn down by her relentless negativity. She really doesn't contribute anything of note to the family unit'; and 'She has to be the laziest person alive'. And this is tame by comparison to what I've seen on others' threads. There is no common link between posts. These people are not dedicated, for example, to exposing influencers who don't declare their sponsored content; or to catching out Instagram stars who are lying about what shampoo they use, or which mattress they sleep on. This is not about keeping the internet honest, although that is the lie a lot of them will tell, when pressed. Instead, the link is one of a kind of insidious, creeping misogyny; never are the users of Tattle Life more incensed than when a woman they follow seems to 'fail', somehow, in her role as a woman. They deride women for hiring cleaners. They are aghast at women whose husbands cook dinner ('what does she even do all day?!'). They are at their most vitriolic when they perceive a woman to be criticising her children or, worse, admonishing them in a tone any more severe than a Mary Poppins sing-song. Threats of calling child protective services are not uncommon. There's something bizarre about all of it; by and large, the most common influencer genres are fashion, beauty, wellness and fitness. The achievement of traditional femininity, both aesthetically and in lifestyle terms (marriage, children and the keeping of a tidy home), is never more rewarded than on Instagram and TikTok. But step one perfectly pedicured foot out of place and there is a legion of critics ready to tear you apart. It's easy to see what these people get out of it – Tattle provides a place to vent their frustration and irritation with, and even hatred of, influencers who, in their minds, don't deserve their success or good fortune. But figuring out what they want, beyond finding a sense of camaraderie with other disgruntled social media users, is more complex, and perhaps more importantly, futile. This week's news has been remarkably clarifying: here is yet another man profiting from a culture that pits woman against woman Neil and Donna Sands found legal recourse for their defamation at the hands of Tattle's users – and in the arduous and costly process brought to light the man behind the site who has profited from the thinly veiled misogyny directed at women with a public platform. Their victory has given hope to the many influencers who would like to see Tattle's anonymous users unveiled in the same way. But you'd have to wonder: to what end? Do we really need to know the names of these posters in order to know what kind of people they are? For me, this week's news has been remarkably clarifying: here is yet another man profiting from a culture that pits woman against woman, encouraging them to belittle and criticise one another. Instead of seeking to unmask these anonymous posters, perhaps it's time we directed our focus elsewhere. Tattle Life nearly broke me. I've tried to examine why, exactly, I've given anonymous strangers such power – the power to upset me, sure, but also, at times, the power to censor me, to humiliate me, to cause me to second-guess my every online move. In part, I think it's because a lot of their criticisms – about my work ethic or my body or my relationship – are things I've felt about myself, one time or another. But another aspect of it is that I just want everyone to like me. Discovering the identities of these people won't change that.
Extra.ie
13 hours ago
- Extra.ie
Dublin Airport hits out at council's enforcement notice
Dublin Airport's operator has been hit with a planning enforcement notice for breaching the highly contested passenger cap, describing it as 'a sorry indictment of the mess that is the Irish planning system'. Describing the airport as the most vital piece of transport infrastructure in Ireland, a DAA spokesman said: 'The system is quite simply broken and needs to be overhauled.' The airport is limited to handling a maximum of 32 million passengers a year under a condition of the planning permission granted in 2007 for Terminal 2. Dublin Airport. Pic: Getty Images However, the DAA and many airlines have challenged that limit, saying it is limiting the country's economic growth and could result in higher fares for passengers. Earlier this month, Dublin Airport said it was expecting more than ten million passengers to pass through during the peak months. A High Court-imposed pause on the cap, won by the airlines, means more than 36 million people could use the airport this year. Last year, the airport handled 33.3million passengers. Dublin Airport. Pic: Getty Images Fingal County Council confirmed yesterday it had issued a planning enforcement notice to DAA for breaching the cap. The council is reported to have received complaints from 60 individuals about the alleged planning breach. In a statement, the council said its enforcement notice included a two-year period to comply with planning conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála over passenger capacity at Dublin Airport. Pic: Mark Gusev/Shutterstock A council spokesman said: 'The two-year period provides an opportunity for DAA to progress their planning applications to increase passenger capacity at Dublin Airport or take such other steps as they consider appropriate to achieve compliance.' Mayor of Fingal Tom O'Leary, a Fine Gael councillor, said the county council had to follow the legal process. He continued: 'This makes it even more urgent for the Government to assist in any way that they can to try and sort out the capacity issue at Dublin Airport. They need to do whatever they can to ensure that the airport can grow in an orderly manner and that the residents around it are looked after.' However, the DAA said that until changes were made to the cap, Ireland's national airport was 'hamstrung' and could not get on with its mandate to grow Ireland's connectivity. 'The airport needs to be reclassified as national strategic infrastructure, with decisions made by a national planning body and not a local authority,' a spokesman said The High Court pause on the cap is likely to continue for a year while certain matters related to aircraft take-off and landing slot allocations are examined by the European Court of Justice. The Government plans to remove the cap through legislation, starting in autumn. Ryanair has called for urgent action from the Government, stating that local authorities should not oversee national transport infrastructure. A Department of Transport spokesman said it was aware of the enforcement notice. They continued: 'The minister has recently reiterated the importance of DAA continuing to engage proactively with the planning authority and the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority to facilitate progress on the two planning applications DAA has lodged.'
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
High Court hears from John Magnier's 'right hand man' in multi million Barne Estate row
A senior advisor described as a "right-hand man" to bloodstock billionaire John Magnier, who is involved in a legal battle over the purported multi-million sale of a Tipperary estate that fell through, has told the High Court he was not secretly "kept in the loop" of the tax affairs of the vendors. Financial advisor at world-famous Coolmore Stud, Eddie Irwin also rejected a description of him by counsel for Barne Estate as Mr Magnier's "fixer"and "right hand man". Mr Irwin said Coolmore did not use "catchphrases or fancy titles" but agreed with counsel that he would be called to work on projects if things went "wrong". Mr Irwin, who has 40 years' experience working with Mr Magnier, was called in to aid in securing the Barne Estate deal which the Magniers believed they had shook hands on in August 2023 for €15m. However, the Magnier side were ultimately gazumped in being the preferred buyer by Irish-born, US-based construction magnate Maurice Regan, who offered €22.25m. The case centres on Mr Magnier's claim that Mr Regan engaged in a "full-frontal assault" on Mr Magnier's claimed deal to buy the 751-acre tract and that Barne estate reneged on the deal. Barne Estate has been held for the benefit of Richard Thomson-Moore and others by a Jersey trust. At the High Court on Friday, Mr Irwin said he met with Mr Thomson-Moore in early September 2023 and they contacted tax experts KPMG after the Thomson-Moore family requested tax liability advice. A KPMG tax expert met with the Thomson-Moores later in the month as a "favour" to Coolmore, who were large clients of KPMG. Mr Irwin did not attend that meeting but allegedly sent a WhatsApp message to Mr Magnier telling him "off the record" that the tax expert, who was named in court, allegedly told him that the Thomson-Moores were considering whether to retain KPMG and that the expert had informed the Thomson-Moores of what approach he recommended. Mr Irwin answering Martin Hayden, counsel for Barne Estate, denied he had an "off-the-record" report from the expert that, counsel alleged, would keep him "in the loop" in return for introducing the Thomson-Moores to KPMG. Mr Irwin said the wording of the WhatsApp message was an "aberration" and "unfortunate" and that he meant for Mr Magnier not to share information already known from previous meetings as it was a "private" and not for dissemination. Mr Irwin told Mr Hayden that the named expert was an "innocent, decent, and honourable" man, who was being "defamed" in the court as someone who would keep him "in the loop" on private tax matters. However, Mr Irwin said he did have "grave" concerns at the time that the tax issue raised by the Thomson-Moores was put forward just before the September 29, 2023, end of an exclusivity agreement and may not have been a genuine one. Mr Irwin told Mr Hayden that he was told by Mr Magnier that a week after the alleged handshake deal that his son-in-law, David Wachman, received a call from Mr Regan, who was "angry and abusive" about the purported sale. Mr Regan told Mr Wachman that he would outbid the Magnier side by €5m to prevent the deal going through, claimed Mr Irwin. After the expiration of the exclusivity agreement on September 29, 2023, Mr Irwin contacted Eugene McCague, a former partner at legal heavyweights Arthur Cox, who represent Coolmore in these proceedings, and sought legal advice should the matter be litigated. In early October 2023, with the exclusivity agreement now expired, the local estate agent involved in the sale, John Stokes, told the Magniers that the Barne Estate had been subject to a €20m bid. The Magnier side then upped their bid to €16m with a separate, additional offering of €500,000 to establish a trust for a member of the Thomson-Moore family. Mr Irwin said he was told by the auctioneer that the Thomson-Moore's were happy to accept the Magnier offer but the Barne Estate solicitors never sent the contracts and the deal was never done. The Magnier side has sued the Barne Estate, Mr Thomson-Moore, and three companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd group, seeking to enforce the purported deal, which they say had been "unequivocally" agreed. The Barne defendants say there was never any such agreement, as they needed the consent of trustees to finalise any agreement and subsequently they preferred to sell the estate to Mr Regan. Mr Regan is not a party to the case. The case continues before Mr Justice Max Barrett next month.
