Will Bertie resign over payments???

NewDubliner

While I think it's right that Bertie should account for his actions in Manchester, has anyone paused for thought that what is happening is that public attention has been diverted from the billions deliberately wasted by his government (in the direction of cronies) to a matter of a few thousand quid slipped into his back pocket?

Victor

Ooops he did it again http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/8996098?view=Eircomnet

gandalf

Well thats the most minor of the lot. Interesting that the former head of Aer Arann was behind the Manchester "meeting". Didn't they get loads of Government dosh in the form of subvention funds. Interesting......

The Muppet

Victor wrote:

Ooops he did it again http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/8996098?view=Eircomnet

Did what again exactly? If anything the story indicates that he is not corrupt, if he were it is likely that we would now have said casino in the pheonix park.

axelfoley

The Muppet wrote:

Did what again exactly? If anything the story indicates that he is not corrupt, if he were it is likely that we would now have said casino in the pheonix park.

Bertie is not currupt. I must admit that it is a pity on these boards card carrying members or the core vote members of partys are not identified. What we have gotten with regards to this is pantomine.

Pios Enda, Po Faced Pat & Em battled Bertie.

Bertie broke zero rules - ethics or tax.

All the huffing and puffing won't disguise trhat.

Victor

axelfoley wrote:

Bertie is not currupt. I must admit that it is a pity on these boards card carrying members or the core vote members of partys are not identified. What we have gotten with regards to this is pantomine.

Pios Enda, Po Faced Pat & Em battled Bertie.

Bertie broke zero rules - ethics or tax.

All the huffing and puffing won't disguise trhat.

Is that you Cork?

billy the squid

If bertie were to step down, would that make McDowell Taoseach? he being the Tainiste and all?

Dave!

Yes

Damn, that could mean trouble, lol

Akrasia

billy the squid wrote:

If bertie were to step down, would that make McDowell Taoseach? he being the Tainiste and all?

no, it would mean a vote for the new taoiseach and it would be between senior figures in the FF party.

Akrasia

axelfoley wrote:

Bertie is not currupt. I must admit that it is a pity on these boards card carrying members or the core vote members of partys are not identified. What we have gotten with regards to this is pantomine.

Pios Enda, Po Faced Pat & Em battled Bertie.

Bertie broke zero rules - ethics or tax.

All the huffing and puffing won't disguise trhat.

Do you not think it's unethical to Lie to the irish people?

One of the payments from his 12 'close personal friends' has been tracked back to a company check from NCB stockbrokers.
How can one be a close friend of a company? He also said he didn't take any money off 'Big Business'. Well, NCB stockbrokers are pretty big business in my book.

Also, the main fellah behind the '"Manchester payment" was the head of Aer Aran", a company which has recieved a fair whack of government funding over the last decade.

cast_iron

Akrasia wrote:

is his job to govern the country or to get himself re-elected?

Both, he is both leader of the country and of Fianna Fail.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Is there any possibility that the businessmen didn't want to accept the money back from Bertie, so as to keep a hold over him?

If the money had been paid back, this would have been a minor story.

skearon

Akrasia wrote:

One of the payments from his 12 'close personal friends' has been tracked back to a company check from NCB stockbrokers.
How can one be a close friend of a company? He also said he didn't take any money off 'Big Business'. Well, NCB stockbrokers are pretty big business in my book.

The problem is actually with the doner and not the Taoiseach, as he personally gave the Taoiseach a loan, he should not have used a company chequebook, perhaps he didn't have his personal chequebook with him at the time and then repaid the company, or the company owed him money, or he used it as a sub on his salary? There are so many possible options so it is now up to the doner to explain why he used a company chequebook.

Capt'n Midnight

skearon wrote:

he should not have used a company chequebook, perhaps he didn't have his personal chequebook with him at the time and then repaid the company, or the company owed him money, or he used it as a sub on his salary? There are so many possible options so it is now up to the doner to explain why he used a company chequebook.

So you are saying that it was OK for a minister for finance to take a stockbrokers company cheque. Even if the donation was legit, Bertie did not declare it as part of his income, and as the top person resposible for taxation in the state you'd think he should set a good example, by not engaging in TAX EVASION.

Speaking of the price of houses, when people who can't afford one are in dispute with a landlord over rent, where the landlord refuses to accept it, one piece of advice I've seen is to setup a new bank account called "rent" and put the money in it. But I guess this sort of thing doesn't apply to the high and mighty.

skearon wrote:

In 1994, a gift by people who where no domiciled in the state was not subject to any tax.

Please explain the company cheque then . . .

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

So you are saying that it was OK for a minister for finance to take a stockbrokers company cheque. Even if the donation was legit, Bertie did not declare it as part of his income, and as the top person resposible for taxation in the state you'd think he should set a good example, by not engaging in TAX EVASION.

Thats tax avoidance that he was involved in,which is legal.Tax evasion isnt.

Please explain the company cheque then . . .

It's a bit of a misnomer to ask a poster here that.The poster here couldnt possibly have that information-other than speculation as to innocent or not so innocent explanations.

Capt'n Midnight

Roundtower2 wrote:

Is there any possibility that the businessmen didn't want to accept the money back from Bertie, so as to keep a hold over him?

If the money had been paid back, this would have been a minor story.

or if he had setup an account to hold the paid back money, or had a solicitors letter or other datable proof of an attempt to pay the money back.

LOL there is already mention of a person involved who is now dead.

Ruu_Old

Sorry if this was posted already, RTE.ie news reports that he paid back the loan.

The Taoiseach has moved to repay the money which he says was loaned to him by a group of friends in the early 90s.

It is believed Mr Ahern has written cheques for more than €90,000, with interest taken into account.

Dublin publican Charlie Chawke confirmed that the money had been repaid.
He said he had passed on some €60,000 to CARI, a charity that raises money for victims of child abuse that is linked to the Taoiseach's wife, Miriam.

The move comes as contacts continue between the Taoiseach's office and the PDs ahead of Tuesday's Dáil statements.
Last Thursday, Tánaiste Michael McDowell said it had been a mistake for the Taoiseach to accept the money and that it should be repaid.

The Labour TD, Eamon Gilmore, has said if a general election is not called now, Mr Ahern would effectively become a lame duck Taoiseach, leading a clapped out government for the next nine months.

Speaking on RTÉ's This Week, Mr Gilmore said the Dáil should be dissolved and the people allowed to decide the future leadership of the country in light of the payments controversy

is_that_so

gandalf wrote:

Well thats the most minor of the lot. Interesting that the former head of Aer Arann was behind the Manchester "meeting". Didn't they get loads of Government dosh in the form of subvention funds. Interesting......

They still do. How else could they fly out of some of those airports?

constitutionus

RUU i think that should be 6000 that charlie chawke got cause he only "loaned" him 2500, 3% on that for 13yrs still wouldnt be 60,000.

id be interested to know what happend to the cash for the guy who's died. family estate i suppose?

very interesting part is that the "totally off the wall" figure of 50 to 100k has been proven to be right so berties at least guilty of deliberatly misleading or outright lying to the irish people on national news. otherwise he wouldnt be forking over 90k now. and the NCB cheque? personal loans from people is vaguely acceptable but a personal loan on a company cheque? im pretty sure that illegal with out consent from the board or shareholders. and definetly shouldve shown up on the company accounts. someone could be in big trouble here!

its the manchester thing thats his biggest concern now though. the poll today in the papers , which still shows most people dont think he should resign , does say that the vast majority dont believe the cash handed over was a loan and do believe he went to the uk in his capacity as minister for finance to that engagement and got paid for it.thats big trouble for bertie.

mcdanish

"I might have appointed somebody, but I appointed them because they were friends, not because of anything they had given me"
Bertie Ahern in the Dail last week

To me this is the worst part of it all because Bertie Ahern cant even articulate to the Irish people a proper explanation to convince us of his credibility without putting his foot in it.
His Dail performance was a shame,I hate to say it but our counterparts in Britain could teach a few of our politicians how to speak and conduct themselves properly.
He received this money from some people who had been appointed to State boards.Fine we cant be sure he did anything in return for this money but the code of ethics are there to prevent that type of corruption.
I am very dissullisioned with the Irish political system.I think they deliver very little, are very unprofessional and are only good for photo ops.

Villain

Just to be clear he didn't say that in the Dail he said it during his RTE interview, but I said at the time I didn't know which reason was worse.

Bertie has had a long time to get ready for Tuesday so I'd be very surprised if he didn't give a good speech in the Dail.

BaZmO*

skearon wrote:

The problem is actually with the doner and not the Taoiseach, as he personally gave the Taoiseach a loan, he should not have used a company chequebook, perhaps he didn't have his personal chequebook with him at the time and then repaid the company, or the company owed him money, or he used it as a sub on his salary? There are so many possible options so it is now up to the doner to explain why he used a company chequebook.

Do you not think there was a slight conflict of interests with the then minister for finance recieiving a cheque from a stockbrokers regardless of whether or not the person donating the money was doing so legitamitely?

BaZmO*

BaZmO* wrote:

Do you not think there was a slight conflict of interests with the then minister for finance recieiving a cheque from a stockbrokers regardless of whether or not the person donating the money was doing so legitamitely?

I think to be definitive on that,you'd have to be certain that he asked for the cheques from NCB or that he was aware at the time that he was given the bundle of cash and cheques,that it included one drawn on NCB.He mightnt have paid much attention to the where or how given that each donation in Manchester averaged £300.
I doubt a £300 donation would be enough to sway a decision on which stock broking firm to use-Can anyone tell me if NCB got the lions share of the stockbroking work from FF? In which case it was great value for money...
We'll know on Tuesday though as he is bound to be asked and I doubt he'll be stupid enough after all of this not to have some reasonable explanation for that.

Whether you I or the general public believe his explanation is another matter,It will have to be very plausable.

cast_iron

BaZmO* wrote:

Do you not think there was a slight conflict of interests with the then minister for finance recieiving a cheque from a stockbrokers regardless of whether or not the person donating the money was doing so legitamitely?

It's politics for crying out loud.
Just like every job, there is a degree of "dishonesty" if you like, and i wouldn't consider this to big an issue.
Business is business. It's how the real world works.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

I think to be definitive on that,you'd have to be certain that he asked for the cheques from NCB or that he was aware at the time that he was given the bundle of cash and cheques,that it included one drawn on NCB.He mightnt have paid much attention to the where or how given that each donation in Manchester averaged £300.
I doubt a £300 donation would be enough to sway a decision on which stock broking firm to use-Can anyone tell me if NCB got the lions share of the stockbroking work from FF? In which case it was great value for money...
We'll know on Tuesday though as he is bound to be asked and I doubt he'll be stupid enough after all of this not to have some reasonable explanation for that.

Whether you I or the general public believe his explanation is another matter,It will have to be very plausable.

the cheque from NCB was for 5 grand, not £300. This means that when the passed the hat around, some people gave loose change, and others gave big fat cheques. The biggest fattest cheque of them all just happened to be drawn from the account of Ireland's biggest stockbroking firm. and was an amount equal to the nearly entire yearly wage of some full time irish workers in that year

BaZmO*

Tristrame wrote:

He mightnt have paid much attention to the where or how given that each donation in Manchester averaged £300.

Doesn't say much for a Finance Minister if he can't look after his own accounts.

cast_iron wrote:

It's politics for crying out loud.
Just like every job, there is a degree of "dishonesty" if you like, and i wouldn't consider this to big an issue.
Business is business. It's how the real world works.

Thanks for the life lesson there. :rolleyes:

The difference with normal business and politics is that in politics you're supposed to walk if you've been caught being dishonest. Doesn't always work that way though.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

the cheque from NCB was for 5 grand, not £300. This means that when the passed the hat around, some people gave loose change, and others gave big fat cheques. The biggest fattest cheque of them all just happened to be drawn from the account of Ireland's biggest stockbroking firm. and was an amount equal to the nearly entire yearly wage of some full time irish workers in that year

Oh my bad,I was refering to the average of the manchester payments being £300,the ncb/O'Connor cheque being part of the 12.It will be interesting to see how thats explained.However,I wouldnt be surprised though if NCB lacked a clear policy on the vehicle of donation they used ie directly to a TD or to a party hq.There wouldnt be a problem on their end per say if the cheque is accounted for as a political donation.But of course that wouldnt be good for Ahern given that he wants to maintain that it was a loan.


Yes-lets see what explanation there is for that.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Oh my bad,I was refering to the average of the manchester payments being £300,the ncb/O'Connor cheque being part of the 12.It will be interesting to see how thats explained.However,I wouldnt be surprised though if NCB lacked a clear policy on the vehicle of donation they used ie directly to a TD or to a party hq.There wouldnt be a problem on their end per say if the cheque is accounted for as a political donation.But of course that wouldnt be good for Ahern given that he wants to maintain that it was a loan.


Yes-lets see what explanation there is for that.

i'll have to call you up again. It's a pretty confusing affair, but the manchester payment wasn't described as a loan by the taoiseach. he referred to it as a 'contribution'. It was a non repayable personal payment. That is why there is a bigger controversy over this £8000 sum compared with the £40000 he was allegedly 'loaned' by his 'close personal friends'

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

i'll have to call you up again. It's a pretty confusing affair, but the manchester payment wasn't described as a loan by the taoiseach. he referred to it as a 'contribution'. It was a non repayable personal payment. That is why there is a bigger controversy over this £8000 sum compared with the £40000 he was allegedly 'loaned' by his 'close personal friends'

Actually then that part(how NCB may have dealt with it) is straight foward from NCB's and Aherns p.o.v,NCB gave a contribution,I'd imagine they will say it was political like so many at that time,it just wasnt made clear what the definition of a political donation was ie whether it should be paid directly to a candidate or a party.

Where its not straight foward (yet) is whether the contribution was a gift and what Ahern was on about when he mentioned capital gains tax in his interview with Dobson (though conceivably,he could have been making the point that he always paid his correct taxes at any time and not just this time, including CGT)

Incidently I dont agree with the term alledged loan(as regards the 12) as strictly speaking,it would have to be a loan (regardless of ones moral stand point on it) or we will be seeing Aherns name in the next list of tax defaulters for non payment of gift tax.
The Revenue could estimate what the true market interest rate should have been or rather the CB rate subtracting the interest Ahern paid back on Friday and call the balance a gift.

I'm not sure of the technicalities of it but as each contribution to the original £40 k was an individual one, then arguably,he got 12 separate gifts from 12 separate individuals.
I dont know if your annual gift allowance is an entire amount or if you can get a gift tax free up to X amount from any number of people.
It is feasable to argue that the interest foregone on an annual basis on each loan minus the back dated payment is a gift,the Revenue could take action if they see an irregularity.

Those are questions for an accountant.But you might pass them onto your local FG or Labour TD so they might be put to Ahern in the Dáil

lostexpectation

he's been deliberty double-talking with this , he said he didn't have a back a/c he must have had a joint one still, still in his name but used soley by marie, but where did his pay checks come to him as , checks that he cashed and then put under the bed?