Will Bertie resign over payments???

constitutionus

theres been reports today that bertie recieved massive amounts of funds from a property developer when he was serving with albert reynolds leading to talks that he may now have to appear in pubic at the tribunals. apparently the developer wanted to build a football stadium in neilstown and the deal was behind doors with bertie and albert

berties been on the radio being very outraged and indignatious but funnyly enough what hes actually said is that the facts of the report are true and that he did recieve the money and that his main proplem is the fact that someone leaked the truth! stating it was "scurrilous" "unjust" and "unfair" and demanding to know who did it.

so will we now get a look beyond the teflon coating? or will, as usual, the media in this country doff the cap to ahern and hope it all blows over.

lets remember frank connoly said something similar a good while back (his figuer was 80thousand ) and he got a court case for his troubles, not to mention the character assassination he suffered in the dail earlier this year. could it be he's right? the figure being bandied about is between 50k and100k. very similar to franks assertion so is the "most devious and most cunning of them all" corrupt as the rest of haugheys inner circle. and has he finally been caught out

have fun lads:D

Sleepy

You'll never convince me that Bertie's clean but I'd be surprised if he didn't get away with it. His friends are far too powerful for anything bad to happen to him.

Villain

Well your thread title is a little OTT even if it does have a question mark imo.

From what I know he recieved a couple of grand from a few business men to cover the legal costs of his seperation. Which isn't a big deal if he didn't do anything in return for it.

Around the time this happened (1993) it was the norm for Politicians to receive money, however normally it was for election purposes and not to settle a legal bill for legal seperation.

Macker

irish1 wrote:

Well your thread title is a little OTT even if it does have a question mark imo.

From what I know he recieved a couple of grand from a few business men to cover the legal costs of his seperation. Which isn't a big deal if he didn't do anything in return for it.

Around the time this happened (1993) it was the norm for Politicians to receive money, however normally it was for election purposes and not to settle a legal bill for legal seperation.

Hmmm I wonder did he pay gift taxes ?

Akrasia

why would someone give him thousands of euros if they didn't want something in return?

Macker

Macker wrote:

Hmmm I wonder did he pay gift taxes ?

Did he get over £10,000? Wasn't that pretty much the standard threshold between stranger for years in the late 80s and early 90s?

lostexpectation

how much does a divorce cost?

was it a difficult case?

can a succesful politician not afford his own divorce?

did he have assets but not enough cash to pay fees and cecilia?


he says it was money for his private life, but did he not list these monies at the time as a TD

Macy

Of more concern to me has been his attitude to the questioning, it being none of anyones business what he did personally. Eh, yes it is when you're Minister of Finance recieving payments from business men. A very Haughey/ Lawlor/ Burke/ Flynn style reaction to the questioning I thought.

Lemming

Sleepy wrote:

You'll never convince me that Bertie's clean but I'd be surprised if he didn't get away with it. His friends are far too powerful for anything bad to happen to him.

Tbh, his "friends" will only protect him as long as they thing they have something to gain by keeping favour with him. For the same likely reasons that they allegedly bankrolled his divorce - to curry favour with a well-placed politician that looked to be upwardly mobile. It's become increasingly clear that FF are in for an absolute mauling by their acclaimed pet "tiger" when it turns on them at the next election., so I wouldn't be surprised to see him left hung out to dry.

lostexpectation

who leaked the info from the tribunals, how many gov officials dislike bertie that much?

Macy

lostexpectation wrote:

who leaked the info from the tribunals, how many gov officials dislike bertie that much?

Maybe the same people who leaked the info that discredited other witnesses? Although Bertie very quiet about those leaks that actually benefitted him...

Lemming

Lemming wrote:

It's become increasingly clear that FF are in for an absolute mauling by their acclaimed pet "tiger" when it turns on them at the next election.

Hmmmmm, latest opinion polls show an increase in Government popularity.

If he received money, he should specify how much and from whom - or at least confirm was it a family member, a constituent, a stranger, a developer, some more information then he's already supplying. If he doesn't the speculation will mount. Only when we know more can we judge if it's a serious matter or not. What he's doing at the moment is stupid.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote:

Hmmmmm, latest opinion polls show an increase in Government popularity.

Quelle surprise ... the automated FF script is working as intended .... talk about taking the one part of what I said that really wasn't important and taking it out of context.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Let me make myself realllllllllllllllllly clear, and hopefully automated radidly-pro FF posting scripts wont fire again folks. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience.

Bertie's office is looking increasingly tenuous and there is, and has been, an extrordinarily consistent disatisfaction with the performance of the current government over the last couple of years. So. What can we conclude from this kiddies in light of remarks about Bertie's "friends" shielding him from any harm? That's right .. you guessed it .... he's being viewed as a bit of a hot potato that's nearing it's sell-by date by the brown-envelope people. Which means what? That they're going to prop him up? Or turn their attentions to the next "likely" up and coming politician who isn't beyond reproach? Because we all know that these people are very altruistic and don't crave power at all and give out money hand over fist to anyone who claims to be a politician ...

If he received money, he should specify how much and from whom - or at least confirm was it a family member, a constituent, a stranger, a developer, some more information then he's already supplying. If he doesn't the speculation will mount. Only when we know more can we judge if it's a serious matter or not. What he's doing at the moment is stupid.

What he's doing now isn't stupid. It's obvious. He's been caught iwth his hand in the proverbial jar. And people are dragging up statements to the contrary that HE made years ago about this exact sort of thing. Double-standards and what not. At a political level, this amounts to his being directly associated (as opposed to turning a blind eye and association by implication) with the likes lf lawlor or haughey in being "dirty". That wont amount to much in the short-term other than delight the opposition parties and make for some hysterical verbal exchanges in the Dail, but the voting public are feeling restive these days so in the long term Bertie is now a liability to FF (who are, it would seem, a liability unto themselves these days) ...

Lemming

Lemming wrote:

Quelle surprise ... the automated FF script is working as intended .... talk about taking the one part of what I said that really wasn't important and taking it out of context.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Let me make myself realllllllllllllllllly clear, and hopefully automated radidly-pro FF posting scripts wont fire again folks. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience.

Whoah, now there's an overreaction.

If you want to get all patronising and smart with the whole 'I'm bored but I'll explain it slowly' routine, you can send it to me via private messaging.

constitutionus

you know as a fan of verbiage its fun to see the linguistic hoops aherns jumping through at the moment, he's really taking sophisty to a new level. of course this is when hes says something beyond "im not answering that question", which I'll be honest is the first time i recall him ever saying that. usually ahern has some vocal sidestep up his sleeve which neatly illustrates how much trouble i think hes in. I've never seen him handle an issue so badly.

the whole nonsense about his communion money (unless that too was supplied by a particularly precient developer ) only shows a childishness and the fact he still wont reveal the amount he received with such vigor only leaves people wondering just how much it is? after all the guy was earning 75k a year as a minister. there isn't a bank in the country that wouldn't give him a loan of 10 to 50 thousand if he needed it with that paypacket, so the idea he only got 10 to 15 thousand is ridiculous. berties said the actual figure is a fraction of the one mentioned, but remember boys and girls 9/9ths is a fraction too! and that sort of lateral thinking with the facts is right up berties street

the real question here is do the irish media have the guts to pursue this potentially explosive story? particularly considering the tribunals have issued warnings over covering it. and on that issue why was private evidence allowed to be admited to the tribunal? i thought the idea was to have everything in the open.

nesf

The biggest clash here is over his right to privacy versus his role as a politician. If we expect one politician to reveal all his dealings, should we not carry this on and apply it to all who revealed information to the tribunal?

Since he volunteered the information to the tribunal and it was not acted upon I'd be relatively happy. If this was something that he had not volunteered I'd have a very different opinion (as it was with Haughey essentially).

Akrasia

there's a difference between revealing information, and revealing the truth, even if the information he revealed is true.

Again, why would someone give him a gift of thousands of IR£ if they didn't expect something back in return (and this is the position Bertie himself took in relation to other corrupt politicians in the past)

LostinBlanch

Well his quote about no politician being beholden to others made in 97 is coming back to haunt him.

personally I think he's slipped up, or maybe someone else has, but I'd say the odds of an early election have shortened.

If other people I've talked to are to be believed he's in trouble in his constituency anyway, being told that there's a good chance he may not get elected at the next constituency anyway*. I have heard this from more than one of his constituents - so everyone is expecting to be lovebombed by Bertie over the next couple of months. Time for them to get out the shopping list of things they want to be done!

*This was before the money allegations came up

Akrasia

I would be very very surprised if bertie lost his seat.

I doubt his constituents would swop a taoiseach for a back Bencher. It's a sad fact of electoral politics. Fear of lack of influence is the only reason Martin Cullen hasn't been forcibly retired years ago (and the sooner that ****in muppet is handed his p45 the better for everyone in this country)

(oh, and i am aware that Mary O Rourke lost her seat last time even though she was a minister, so I might be completely wrong on this one)

nesf

Akrasia wrote:

there's a difference between revealing information, and revealing the truth, even if the information he revealed is true.

In that one is verifiable and the other tends to be subjective and ephermal most of the time in politics.

Akrasia wrote:

Again, why would someone give him a gift of thousands of IR£ if they didn't expect something back in return (and this is the position Bertie himself took in relation to other corrupt politicians in the past)

A friend who felt sorry for another friend during his legal seperation and wanted to help him out with the legal costs? I'm not suggesting that this is the case, but it is just one of many viable situations. It's all too easy to polarise this kind of issue along party lines rather than debate it properly (imho).



Essentially this (for me) breaks down into two distinct issues. The first is whether Bertie Ahern fulfilled his "public duty" when he gave information to the tribunal (like Pat Rabbitte etc did). The second is why information that was given confientially to a tribunal was leaked and whether we can treat it as accurate when there are many reasons for many groups to disort the information in one way or another.

As for the first, I think that any politician who gave information to the tribunal fulfilled their duty and should not be required to give this information to the media/public, I would believe that the tribunal would decide whether or not this is necessary.

The second is a much more difficult question. I cannot understand the lack of condemnation of the leaking of confidential testamony. This should not be acceptable in our society imho. We set up tribunals for a reason and all that. Also it would be naive to automatically believe any leak as being more true than what Bertie says. Such a leak could easily have a motive far different to "revealing the truth" and such a motive is the least likely, unfortunately.

Villain

RTE say sources close to Bertie believe that if the truth came out about the payments it would go away very quickly!!!

FFS just make a full statement then and let this story end. I mean if they believe that why all this bother about not telling the public who he received money from and how much.

The question that could arise is did he receive money from friends to pay for his legal bills or did he use his position of Minister to influence business people into giving him money, i.e. would they have given him the money if he wasn't a TD or Minister.

As he said himself in 1997 "Public representatives must not be under a personal financial obligation to anyone"

Villain

Bertie also said :

Financial gifts have to be declared for capital acquisitions tax purposes, if they exceed the threshold. In principle, apart from token presentations in respect of functions performed at home and abroad, neither politicians nor officials should accept personal gifts of value from outside their family. However, as I have said over the past few days, campaign contributions or contributions for political expenses are of course in a different category. Any other situation is open to misinterpretation

Link: http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0472/D.0472.199612030019.html

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote:

(oh, and i am aware that Mary O Rourke lost her seat last time even though she was a minister, so I might be completely wrong on this one)

In fairness to Mammy, she worked very, very hard at alienating a sizeable chunk of the electorate in her constituency. She wasn't known to Mullingar people as the "Minister for Athlone" for nothing.

oscarBravo

Lemming wrote:

Quelle surprise ... the automated FF script is working as intended .... talk about taking the one part of what I said that really wasn't important and taking it out of context.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Let me make myself realllllllllllllllllly clear, and hopefully automated radidly-pro FF posting scripts wont fire again folks. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience.

Lemming, behave. You should know better.

skearon

nesf wrote:

I cannot understand the lack of condemnation of the leaking of confidential testamony. This should not be acceptable in our society imho. We set up tribunals for a reason and all that. Also it would be naive to automatically believe any leak as being more true than what Bertie says. Such a leak could easily have a motive far different to "revealing the truth" and such a motive is the least likely, unfortunately.

I agree totally, someone is trying to make serious mischief, plus I think it is important to remember that the tribunal is NOT investigating the Taoiseach in relation to the information he gave to them that has now been leaked.

lostexpectation

this started out by more then just a leak, the mahon tribunal wanted to details from the family court of details of seperation, financial details I presume not personal ones, and Bertie went to the high court to stop this. So Mahon tribunal are interested in this money as yet unpaid after 10 years. Its not just a media creation.

Darragh29

irish1 wrote:

Well your thread title is a little OTT even if it does have a question mark imo.

From what I know he recieved a couple of grand from a few business men to cover the legal costs of his seperation. Which isn't a big deal if he didn't do anything in return for it.

Around the time this happened (1993) it was the norm for Politicians to receive money, however normally it was for election purposes and not to settle a legal bill for legal seperation.

Yeah, no big deal, sure a couple of grand for the auld seperation will no nobody any harm, will it??? DID HE PAY TAX ON IT??? You try earning 50K without declaring it and paying income tax on it and Revenue will literally RUIN You. You'll be hit for all the original tax amount plus interest and penalities which ALWAYS equals at least the same amount again of what you originally owed so you'll have to pay twice what you should have paid in the first place!

Villain

Darragh29 wrote:

Yeah, no big deal, sure a couple of grand for the auld seperation will no nobody any harm, will it??? DID HE PAY TAX ON IT??? You try earning 50K without declaring it and paying income tax on it and Revenue will literally RUIN You. You'll be hit for all the original tax amount plus interest and penalities which ALWAYS equals at least the same amount again of what you originally owed so you'll have to pay twice what you should have paid in the first place!

The point I was "trying" to make was the op's title was misleading, as I have posted above he should release all the details but we shouldn't all start shouting "CORRUPTION" from teh rooftops before we know the facts.

lostexpectation

love this headline

Irish PM admits being probed in graft case
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=United+Kingdom+%26+Europe&month=September2006&file=World_News200609228258.xml

Zebra3

lostexpectation wrote:

who leaked the info from the tribunals, how many gov officials dislike bertie that much?

Maybe it was McDowell who leaked the info...

Ahern's reaction to all of this is a disgrace.

Great article in today's Indo by Gene Kerrigan about the whole affair.

baztard

Akrasia wrote:

why would someone give him thousands of euros if they didn't want something in return?

I think they were friends. So it was more of a case of helping him through hard times. The whole 'scandal' over this is ridiculus. It happened 13 years ago, long before the politicans had to be careful about who gave them money. This dirty and desperate politics by whoever leaked the story. Watch now as the opposition become 'outraged' by it. A load of sh** if you ask me.