Will Bertie resign over payments???

redspider

One thing which I dont think Bertie can get away with is this:

The money he was given, he said was a loan. He gave the information into the tribunal. But do Revenue or does anyone believe that a non-interest-bearing 'loan' is really a loan? There are no documents associated with it, no interest rates set, can it really be classified as a loan?

Also, whilst it is true that a person can have friends give them a loan, should it not have been the case that Bertie should have paid it back at the earliest opportunity and when he could afford to? Now, I know that his argument is that they wouldnt take it back, but surely as a Minister and as a Taosach, he could have explained to them, as friends, that it was imperative for them to accept the repayment of the loan (with or without interest, and as no interest was specified it would be perfectly acceptable to me if it was paid back without).

But the crux of the matter for me about all of this is that NOW, only now has Bertie been forced to repay the loan. Whilst it is not known if the Taoseach was beholden to the loan providers, surely he has broken his own legislation enacted in 1997 by remaining to have a loan outstanding to these people. By paying the loan, he is breaking the legislation.

Thats where I think he has a major problem. Its not that he had money problems and had a loan and owed whatever the amount was. It was the fact that he didnt repay it before the 1997 act.

He has effed up. If the loan donors would have come out and documented that the loans had been written off as bad pre 1997 and were no longer o/s, then I dont think Bertie would have a legal problem and would have side-stepped the issue, legally, if not morally.

I think he has dug himself into a hole. The PD and FF tactic will be to let this die down, hold elections as late as possible and to try and bring in some discredit to other FG/Lab people before the election is held.

If Bertie had a backbone, he would resign, and arrange for their to be an election. But neither him nor McDowell want this now.

Also, what did he do with the loan? Did he buy a property with it? It seems the most likely scnario whilst his wife kept the family home.

Redspider

thebman

I think it should be mentioned that the publican charlie Chalk or something like that (I'm crap with names) said when talking to RTE that he gave him the money in cash!

Who gives a loan in cash and with no documentation to say that it was a loan? Oral contracts aren't worth the paper there printed on and all that.

transylman

redspider wrote:

One thing which I dont think Bertie can get away with is this:

The money he was given, he said was a loan. He gave the information into the tribunal. But do Revenue or does anyone believe that a non-interest-bearing 'loan' is really a loan? There are no documents associated with it, no interest rates set, can it really be classified as a loan?

Also, whilst it is true that a person can have friends give them a loan, should it not have been the case that Bertie should have paid it back at the earliest opportunity and when he could afford to? Now, I know that his argument is that they wouldnt take it back, but surely as a Minister and as a Taosach, he could have explained to them, as friends, that it was imperative for them to accept the repayment of the loan (with or without interest, and as no interest was specified it would be perfectly acceptable to me if it was paid back without).

Redspider

It raises some interesting questions about what exactly constitutes a loan. He was given this money by a bunch of his friends, he didn't pay a penny on it for over ten years, and he says that when he did try and pay it back the people who gave him the "loan" refused to accept any money from him. It would seem that the only party that interpreted this payment as a loan was Bertie. I'd hate to think that Irish tax law is so lax that he can be allowed to get away with an arguement this pathetic.

BaZmO*

The fact of the matter is it wasn't a loan. The only reason that he's saying it was a loan is so that he covers himself legally.

Now I know a lot of people will say, "How can you say that, you don't know that for a fact". But let's face it, it's glaringly obvious that's he's just trying to cover hi áss.

gandalf

Also bear in mind that the opposition do not really want an election now, they are not prepared and with a lame duck Taoiseach at the head of a government held together by threads they will have ample opportunity to heap further pressure and score political points before the next election.

Remember before Aherns financial misdeeds became public knowledge it was obvious that the majority of the public would prefer a change, this will just cement that attitude.

The next party polls to appear will be very interesting, if FF slip any more then we could see a revival of the backbencher revolt that was threatened earlier this year. If the PD's slip then who knows what McDowell will do.

oscarBravo

BaZmO* wrote:

The fact of the matter is it wasn't a loan ... let's face it, it's glaringly obvious that's he's just trying to cover hi áss.

Being "glaringly obvious" doesn't, anymore than repeating it loudly and often, make something a fact.

skearon

BaZmO* wrote:

The fact of the matter is it wasn't a loan.

The FACT? Were you there at the time, if not you are expressing an opinion and not a FACT.

The Taoiseach says it was a loan, the doners say it was a loan, QED it was a loan.

BaZmO*

oscarBravo wrote:

Being "glaringly obvious" doesn't, anymore than repeating it loudly and often, make something a fact.

Ok, ok. I know in the politics forum you have to back up statements of "Fact" with evidence so I take that back.

However, 13 year loan that's paid back within a couple of days of it becoming made public? To me that speaks volumes. IMO there is absolutely no way that was a loan.

Heinrich

The Taoiseach and the donors may be telling porkies. Will we get to see some documented proof?

It is so easy to deny when you ass is at stake!

Show me an honest politician and I will show you a liar

skearon

gandalf wrote:

it was obvious that the majority of the public would prefer a change, this will just cement that attitude.

It was obvious that FG, Labour, Greens and who ever else they could cobble up in an coalition are desparate for power, and keep on banging away with the same line that 'a change is needed it'.

I certainly don't agree that a majority of people do want a change, and I certainly dont want to throw away all the economic and social progress the current Govt has achieved to date.

Heinrich

skearon wrote:

I certainly don't agree that a majority of people do want a change, and I certainly dont want to throw away all the economic and social progress the current Govt has achieved to date.

Progress:

1. Hospital A&E trolley debacle
2. The Port Tunnel
3. School problems in County Meath
4. Law and Order (Moyross, Coolock etc.shootings Drug addicts on the boardwalk...

Let's not forget that the progress is built up on past governments. Bertie and his cronies are reaping what was sown before they came on the scene!

Villain

skearon wrote:

The Taoiseach says it was a loan, the doners say it was a loan, QED it was a loan.

Isn't it a bit funny that the Donor's said they didn't want back? Emm I thought a loan was something that was meant to be repaid? Charlie Chalk certainly made it sound like he didn't want it back. Des Richardson told Matt Cooper that he didn't want Bertie to pay it back but that the media were making him.

So its a Loan now because Bertie is Forcing the 12 apostles to take the money back or else he will be a liar as well as a hypocrite!

Also doesn't the law of this state only allow 7 years for people to contest a Loan?

So what was the £8,000 he received in Manchester? A loan, a gift, a bribe or just a "Dig Out to a Minister of the day"?

gandalf

skearon wrote:

and I certainly dont want to throw away all the economic and social progress the current Govt has achieved to date.

List them !!!!

BaZmO*

Heinrich wrote:

Progress:

1. Hospital A&E trolley debacle
2. The Port Tunnel
3. School problems in County Meath
4. Law and Order (Moyross, Coolock etc.shootings Drug addicts on the boardwalk...

Let's not forget that the progress is built up on past governments. Bertie and his cronies are reaping what was sown before they came on the scene!

Lets's not forgot the millions wasted for the Electronic voting and computerised payroll system for the health service!!

Heinrich

BaZmO* wrote:

Lets's not forgot the millions wasted for the Electronic voting and computerised payroll system for the health service!!

That was just a short list. The real one could go on forever.

What pill concocted by Bertie and the Builders/Publicans of Ireland will the faithful swallow tomorrow?

constitutionus

skearon wrote:

The FACT? Were you there at the time, if not you are expressing an opinion and not a FACT.

The Taoiseach says it was a loan, the doners say it was a loan, QED it was a loan.

well lets look at that logically. bertie gets a "loan", bertie pays no installments, no interest , has no repayment plan and only coughs up the gosh when hes caught by the goolies in public. some of the people are dead so he cant repay them and the rest say on multiple occasions they dont want the money back. that then made the "loan" a gift, the taoiseach didnt pay tax on that so QED the taoiseachs a tax evader.

now lets look at manchester, berties got paid 8k sterling for a four hour talk. he said he got paid for it, not a gift, paid yet now people there are saying its a gift. given freely by 27 of his friends, friends incidently bertie cant name and who say he didnt open his mouth once during the whole night.

8k stg in payements is taxable and bertie didnt pay that either or declare it as income . so he's a multiple tax evader.

theres enough evidence here alone for CAB to get involved so where are they?

on the other hand the entire basis of your argument is predicated on taking the word of the taoiseach. a man who said the figures quoted "were off the wall" but coughed up 90k over the weekend ,almost exactly the amount suggested so he's decived the irish public on national news. this is a man whos word is questionable at the very least on this issue leaving the only rational choice to weigh the balance of probabilities. and they say its a gift

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

well lets look at that logically. bertie gets a "loan", bertie pays no installments, no interest , has no repayment plan and only coughs up the gosh when hes caught by the goolies in public. some of the people are dead so he cant repay them and the rest say on multiple occasions they dont want the money back. that then made the "loan" a gift, the taoiseach didnt pay tax on that so QED the taoiseachs a tax evader.

Not definitively if they also say that he made efforts to pay it back.You cant be "in fact" a tax evader if you have a loan that you try to pay back and find that difficult to do.
You cannot as a matter of fact call Charlie Chalke or Ahern a liar on that without evidence.

now lets look at manchester, berties got paid 8k sterling for a four hour talk. he said he got paid for it, not a gift, paid yet now people there are saying its a gift. given freely by 27 of his friends, friends incidently bertie cant name and who say he didnt open his mouth once during the whole night.

8k stg in payements is taxable and bertie didnt pay that either or declare it as income . so he's a multiple tax evader.

He might name them tomorrow,I think he'll have to go some way on that.If they are saying thats a gift,then it is.Again you and I can offer an opinion otherwise,but thats all it is.

theres enough evidence here alone for CAB to get involved so where are they?

There isnt you know.

on the other hand the entire basis of your argument is predicated on taking the word of the taoiseach. a man who said the figures quoted "were off the wall" but coughed up 90k over the weekend ,almost exactly the amount suggested so he's decived the irish public on national news. this is a man whos word is questionable at the very least on this issue leaving the only rational choice to weigh the balance of probabilities. and they say its a gift

I thought it was a figure of €200,000 that was mentioned.Theres a big difference between that and €90,000 and ergo the off the wall comment.

For heavens sake,Some of the rants,I'm reading here are kindergarden stuff in terms of the way ye are putting it together,cofuddling facts with hear-say and making determinations worthy of a Gypsy with a crystal ball.

I mean you dont have to convince me or most people that Ahern has made an arsé of himself here but like lets stick to the facts and purely the facts and hang on those and not confuse opinions with facts.

Akrasia

brim4brim wrote:

I think it should be mentioned that the publican charlie Chalk or something like that (I'm crap with names) said when talking to RTE that he gave him the money in cash!

Who gives a loan in cash and with no documentation to say that it was a loan? Oral contracts aren't worth the paper there printed on and all that.

Charlie Chawke has come out repeatedly and said that he never considered the payment to be a loan and never wanted to be paid back, but that bertie told him that he did consider it to be a loan and had a 'debt of honour'

Now we're into typical political merry go round semantics of whether or not a payment can be a loan if one side considers it to be repayable and the other side refuses to accept any payment.

The fact that the money was never paid back (until now, 13 years later) means that this was not a loan, even if bertie had intended it to be at the time.

Akrasia

by the way, as an aside, it's very funny to watch the rising stars of the fianna fail parliamentary party strut their stuff in the FF packed audience of tonight's Questions and Answers.

The country is safe in the hands of these contemptable yes men (and women) dutifully towing the party line and trying to pretend that it's the Irish Times fault and claiming that 'it's a disgrace that we're all snooping into the taoiseach's personal life' when the only people who have ever brought up Bertie's divorce have been Bertie himself and other Fianna Fail people trying to deflect the debate away from the real issues.

Sgt. Sensible

I think it's quite touching that even in this day and age of uber-thatcheresque grab all you can me me me ism, we have a number of businessmen (12 like our lord's apostles) who will freely donate wads of cash to help out a friend (the socialist Ahern) in need, with no expectation of any returned favours. Peter 'mutual aid' Kropotkin would have been chuffed to bits he would.

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

Not definitively if they also say that he made efforts to pay it back.You cant be "in fact" a tax evader if you have a loan that you try to pay back and find that difficult to do.
.

actually you can, the "loan" was a verbal agreement so when the creditor decides to call quits on the "loan" it becomes a gift, weather the other party agrees can only be acertained by their continuing repayment of the "loan, which didnt happen. therfore by default bertie let it become a gift too.

tristrame wrote:

There isnt you know.

actually there is, all CAB need is the suspicion yove benefited from criminality and we havent seen a tax clearance cert for these monies

tristrame wrote:

I thought it was a figure of €200,000 that was mentioned.Theres a big difference between that and €90,000 and ergo the off the wall comment.

where the hell did you hear that?! its been well known for over a week the figure was 50kto 100k and its practically spot on. the only one who mentioned figures bigger than that was bertie himself when trying to dismiss the issue. you really need to check your facts.

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

actually you can, the "loan" was a verbal agreement so when the creditor decides to call quits on the "loan" it becomes a gift, weather the other party agrees can only be acertained by their continuing repayment of the "loan, which didnt happen. therfore by default bertie let it become a gift too.

That speculative analysis assumes that the "loaners" would want Ahern to become a tax evader which is highly unlikely.

actually there is, all CAB need is the suspicion yove benefited from criminality and we havent seen a tax clearance cert for these monies

I havent seen most peoples tax clearance certs either have you?

where the hell did you hear that?! its been well known for over a week the figure was 50kto 100k and its practically spot on. the only one who mentioned figures bigger than that was bertie himself when trying to dismiss the issue. you really need to check your facts.

I see so,you are telling me to check facts whilst you willy nilly post opinions as facts...
Lets not go there thank you.
It will only end up with me pointing you to the bit in the charter disallowing posting opinions as facts in discussions here.
I've said many many times on this thread already,that all I'm interested in here is see-ing facts used to make cases and not wild speculation dressed up as fact when its not.
Loads of figures were speculated in the media,I was referring to estimates of the amount including compounded interest that could potentially be oweing were market rates to be applied instead of the 5% that has been applied.

Voipjunkie

Bertie should resign he has attempted to twist the story into one about his personal life. What he used the money for is irrelevant.

He has also twisted one payment into a loan because conveniently it has no tax implications but another similar payment is a gift because conveniently being outside the state has no tax implications.

If the first set of money was a debt of honour because he felt it would not be right to accept it as a gift why did he not feel the same way about the second set of monies.
The obvious truth is that bertie treated them both the same way as payments which he deposited in his own personal account and never declared until the tribunals forced his hand at which stage a cock and bull story was contrived to cover the fact that he had a back account with large cash deposits going in.

Another obvious question is why a man who claims to have saved 50,000 pounds during the first six years of his separation when he was presumably providing for his wife and children was suddenly destitute on 80,000 pounds a year with a gauranteed ministerial pension even if he lost his job.

If the PDs believe in anything they preach they will walk tomorrow but I don't expect them to .

John_C

Voipjunkie wrote:

Another obvious question is why a man who claims to have saved 50,000 pounds during the first six years of his separation when he was presumably providing for his wife and children was suddenly destitute on 80,000 pounds a year with a gauranteed ministerial pension even if he lost his job.

This one's easy, he's a man and was in front of the family law courts.

Akrasia

Voipjunkie wrote:

Bertie should resign he has attempted to twist the story into one about his personal life. What he used the money for is irrelevant.

He has also twisted one payment into a loan because conveniently it has no tax implications but another similar payment is a gift because conveniently being outside the state has no tax implications.

If the first set of money was a debt of honour because he felt it would not be right to accept it as a gift why did he not feel the same way about the second set of monies.
The obvious truth is that bertie treated them both the same way as payments which he deposited in his own personal account and never declared until the tribunals forced his hand at which stage a cock and bull story was contrived to cover the fact that he had a back account with large cash deposits going in.

Another obvious question is why a man who claims to have saved 50,000 pounds during the first six years of his separation when he was presumably providing for his wife and children was suddenly destitute on 80,000 pounds a year with a gauranteed ministerial pension even if he lost his job.

If the PDs believe in anything they preach they will walk tomorrow but I don't expect them to .

all of that is true and very well said.

I don't think the opposition will ask the right questions this afternoon, I also don't believe that the taoiseach would actually answer any of them properly if he was asked, and the media won't follow through on this tomorrow in the appropriate way. RTE have already clearly indicated that they're going to take Bertie's side and let the whole affair die down as if any of the issues had been fully resolved, and unfortunately, a large proportion of the disinterested classes will believe that Bertie had been exhonorated or worse, that he had been a victim of a witch hunt.

What this country really needs is a decent investigative journalist and a decent newspaper willing to support him or her. The Centre for Public enquiry would have been pretty useful right now if McDowell hadn't crushed it earlier this year.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

If the first set of money was a debt of honour because he felt it would not be right to accept it as a gift why did he not feel the same way about the second set of monies.

There would be some merit in that if it could be shown that Ahern made a habit of this.
Despite the might of all our newspaper hacks,nothing more has been shown over the 13 years since that payment.

The obvious truth is that bertie treated them both the same way as payments which he deposited in his own personal account and never declared until the tribunals forced his hand at which stage a cock and bull story was contrived to cover the fact that he had a bank account with large cash deposits going in.

That would be your opinion of course and not a fact.
You are basically saying he is lying without any evidence other than your opinion which is fine but remember its not a fact.
The only fact that I can be certain of ,is that he is a hypocrite which is nothing new in politics.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

The Centre for Public enquiry would have been pretty useful right now if McDowell hadn't crushed it earlier this year.

With respect,thats rubbish,if the CPI couldnt get a source of funding because its chief didnt answer questions that could easily have been answered(instead of going to ground) then the fault lies with Mr Connolly.As I said to you before,go start another thread on the CPI if you want to,its not the subject of this thread.

If theres evidence of corruption,our newspapers are relatively unhindered and unafraid to expose it.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

There would be some merit in that if it could be shown that Ahern made a habit of this.
Despite the might of all our newspaper hacks,nothing more has been shown over the 13 years since that payment.

Look a thief is a thief once he has stolen once a murderer is a murderer once he has murdered once there is no need to show that Ahern did this on a regular basis he did it at the very least twice end of story. And none of this would ever have come out despite the fact that it had happened if it was not for the gilmartin allegations.
I honestly tought that Ahern was an honest guy that if he had been up to no good that we would have heard about it but the truth is that if the tribunal had not enquired no journalist would ever had found out about this.
Ahern had to produce a bank account for the tribunal maybe this is the best of them who knows what else is out there I have no trust in the guy at all anymore

Tristrame wrote:

That would be your opinion of course and not a fact.
You are basically saying he is lying without any evidence other than your opinion which is fine but remember its not a fact.
The only fact that I can be certain of ,is that he is a hypocrite which is nothing new in politics.

It is an opinion based on the facts as we know them the Dublin money and the Manchester money were both deposited into his personal bank account and until this became public no real attempt was made to repay this so called loan.
The other apparent whip around money was treated as a gift why was this not treated as a loan.

There is no consistency in Aherns story he says he at first refused the Dublin money and then only accepted it as a loan. Why because presumably he knew that it would be wrong in his position to accept money from Business men as a gift. Yet he had qualms in accepting the Manchester money as a gift.
The obvious question is why did he have qualms about the Dublin money but none over the Manchester money the only conclusion I can draw is that he had no qualms about either sets of money and the Loan story was invented later to cover the tax implications.( obviously that is my opinion based on the facts as we know them)

Voipjunkie

John_C wrote:

This one's easy, he's a man and was in front of the family law courts.

No that does not explain it he was a man in a very well paid job with a very large gauranteed pension if he should lose that job.
He had already been separated for 6 or 7 years during which time we presume he was supporting his wife and family but had managed to save 50,000 pounds during that period. HE had secured a loan from a bank who obviously felt he would have no difficulty paying it back.
The man was not in dire straits no matter what he would have us believe and the separation is a smoke screen to stop any real questioning of his motives

Lennoxschips

it doesn't matter what bertie or the lenders, or what the PDs say, or for that matter what the electorate think, under irish tax law the money he received and never paid back in 13 years would be considered a gift, and as such, should be declared in tax returns. it wasn't, and as such bertie should be brought to court like anybody else would be in this situation. he won't be however, because the nation is corrupt.