Will Bertie resign over payments???

Sgt. Sensible

Lennoxschips wrote:

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.

How about another zillion euro tribunal?

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

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

That sir, is an opinion, not a fact :P

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

well the irish times is facing a massive fine and the editor is facing jail time, i would consider that a hindrance.

Akrasia

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

How about another zillion euro tribunal?

the whole tribunal system is a complete disgrace. Their whole purpose seems to be to protect politicians from any criminal prosecution.
Once any evidence has been publicly released by a tribunal, it becomes practically inadmissable in a criminal court.

Hw many corrupt politicians have ever served any time in jail?
Only Liam Lawlor, and that was for contempt of court, and not because of his corruption.

We have criminal laws, we should use the courts to prosecute corrupt developers and politicians.

The_Minister

Akrasia wrote:

well the irish times is facing a massive fine and the editor is facing jail time, i would consider that a hindrance.

She burned documents that the tribunal asked for! Of course she should be in trouble.



I think the thing about the Manchester payment has been overblown. He had fallen on hard times, and had lectured there many times over the years, so a number of pople got together, collected 8k, and gave it to him. The average contribution was about £200. Would you really sell you're integrity, or feel obliged to someone, over £200? I someone tried to hold that amount over me, I'd tell them to hump off. He was foolish to take it, but not corrupt.

Lennoxschips

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

How about another zillion euro tribunal?

nah, just the tax inspector taking a citizen to court, like anybody else

edit: if you're looking for a tribunal, then people being appointed to the boards of state bodies "because they are my friends" and also just happened to give/loan money is one reason

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

That sir, is an opinion, not a fact :P

I beg to differ,I stated a fact-Connolly evaded questions about his whereabouts that if answered(and they should have been easily showing up McDowell in the process and making the CPI's US benefactor do a uturn) would have left the cPI in place.
Now please lets not discuss that here but rather in another thread if you want to.

well the irish times is facing a massive fine and the editor is facing jail time, i would consider that a hindrance.

They broke the law.

BaZmO*

Akrasia wrote:

Hw many corrupt politicians have ever served any time in jail?
Only Liam Lawlor, and that was for contempt of court, and not because of his corruption.

Ray Burke?

Jabber2

Watching Questions no Answers last night and the The week in Politics the night before it always amazes me how every politician/journalist/panelist on these shows goes out of his way to state how they think Bertie is whiter than white.
Here is a my who for his own political gain set idly by while Champagne Charlie lived the life, do these politicians expect me as a member of Joe Public
to believe that Bertie knew nothing was going on, how if Bertie couldn't afford his own gaff and needed a "Dig out from his friends" did he think CC was paying for his island/mansion/deer/shirts etc.etc..
If Bertie was willingly to stay quiet then he was also willing to accept part of the apple pie, the man is corrupt and most of all a coward like all before him.
What makes him think its not ok to admit taking a loan from but friends but still give these friends plumb jobs.
Is there any politician from that era who we can honestly take as clean, every member of the Haughey front/back bench who stayed quiet during this period had to be paid off in some way
Opinions????

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

They broke the law.

no they didnt, on the basis of the tribunals own terms berties documents dont fall under planning corruption so the irish times was well able to publish them, the guy who gave the leak is the one who broke the law. and more and more that leak looks like a FF one, seeing as the opposition didnt do it and the tribuanls didnt do it it only leaves the government as the source.

also she destroyed the files before the tribunals asked for em on legal advise

constitutionus

BaZmO* wrote:

Ray Burke?

yup, one guy. over a decade of tribunals and we get one guaranteed conviction and he gets six months. great value for money eh? funny how its the same guy thats left us with the corrib gas affair as well, practically handing shell our resouces and exempting them from proper planning processes. in fairness though we wouldve made some money out of the royalties but another FF minsiter handed them away too, now who was that? why bertie! the same guy who climbed every tree and lampost in the country and couldnt find a single thing on the guy

funny how these things work;)

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

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.

With which he bought a house didnt he? Even with the high tax rates of the late 80's and early 90's,paying alimony and living expenses whilsts living over his constituency office,I'd imagine saving £10K a year for 5 years would still be possible.

HE had secured a loan from a bank who obviously felt he would have no difficulty paying it back.

Well banks continued to advance funds to Haughey despite him being in awfull arrears? Why? and why to Ahern? Well if you are minister for Finance,I'd imagine a Bank would jump through hoops to create conditions to loan money,they'd be scared not to or rather they'd be thinking it was a good idea.
Without being ofay with his loan agreement,this is of course more speculation on my part.

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

Again this is more opinion and your entitled to it,and I might even agree with some of it.
I'll offer more speculation though seeing as its rife in this thread,but I'll tag it as speculation.
It would appear to me, that Ahern's earnings catapulted from the mid ninties onwards after which he was increasingly able to be in a position to pay back the "loans".As time went on his commitments to the education and upkeep of his wife and two daughters would have become less and less a percentage of his net income and eventually a tiny fraction (assuming that he is now only supporting his ex wife).

I think it was downright stupid of him not to have paid them back or given the money to charity and not to have realised that would have been prudent (even as late as when the first truibunal started).
But then you reap what you sow.The level of laxadaisical incompetence in relation to the handling of that and the hypocrisy of taking the Manchester payment (regardless of the triviality of the individual contributions) is what has him in the dock.

That all said,I'd imagine if the general public thought he was dishonest on account of this instead of just being a naive hypocrite,65% of them wouldnt have been replying to polls at the weekend saying he should stay on.

Lennoxschips

not paying tax on financial gifts is against the law too, yet bertie is not being pursued in this matter

one set of laws for the government, and another for the irish times

this whole affais says more about the sad state of affairs in ireland than it does about bertie

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

no they didnt,

I'd have to disagree with you,if you think that disobeying the instructions of a Tribunal chairperson is lawfull.

Lennoxschips

Lennoxschips wrote:

not paying tax on financial gifts is against the law too, yet bertie is not being pursued in this matter

Well you would have to prove that in a court of law and I'd suggest that would be difficult.If a court of law cannot prove something then it isnt unlawfull or rather one hasnt broken a law.
The manchester payments were unethical for sure in my opinion,but they werent subject to tax if they were declared as a gift.
Oh and yes a gift can be in the form of a payment before we get into the semantics of this,I've given lots of vouchers for 21st birthdays and the like.

one set of laws for the government, and another for the irish times

Again here we are with the opinion as fact.I mean,its perfectly alright to think that, but it isnt a fact unless it is proven.If ahern can show a trail of evidence showing that he has attempted to repay the 12's "loans" then he is as entitled to the benefit of the same due process that anyone else gets when audited.
You and I and loads of other people are profering opinions right left and centre on this without sight of the facts ( eg his Tax file ) to prove them.
In that light they are but opinions.

Interesting few hours ahead from 4.15 none the less.

skearon

Lennoxschips wrote:

not paying tax on financial gifts is against the law too, yet bertie is not being pursued in this matter

Of course he isn't as he has done nothing wrong, in 1994 a gift from people who were not domiciled in the State was NOT subject to tax.

lostexpectation

what time does this start?

Bunnyhopper

4.15pm, I think. And I believe there's coverage on RTE One TV and Radio One, (and I think possibly on NewsTalk as well). And oireachtas.ie should have it, but they'll probably be swamped.

pete

skearon wrote:

Of course he isn't as he has done nothing wrong, in 1994 a gift from people who were not domiciled in the State was NOT subject to tax.

How many of the Manchester attendees / contributors have been identified? I note the chap named on rte.ie today has been living in the UK for 47 years - what about the rest of them?

ateam

Bunnyhopper wrote:

4.15pm, I think. And I believe there's coverage on RTE One TV and Radio One, (and I think possibly on NewsTalk as well). And oireachtas.ie should have it, but they'll probably be swamped.

The Right Hook is beginning at 4 to include the Dail speeches.

Lennoxschips

skearon wrote:

Of course he isn't as he has done nothing wrong, in 1994 a gift from people who were not domiciled in the State was NOT subject to tax.

i was referring to the 40,000 IRP which started this whole controversy. he took it as a gift (seeing as he never repaid any installments or interest untill pressurised into doing so last week) and should have declared this to the tax authorities

tristrame wrote:

The manchester payments were unethical for sure in my opinion,but they werent subject to tax if they were declared as a gift.
Oh and yes a gift can be in the form of a payment before we get into the semantics of this,I've given lots of vouchers for 21st birthdays and the like.

i'm talking about the 40,000 IRP, which was taken as a gift. i don't think it matters if bertie "tried" to pay it back, the fact is he didn't, not untill last week because he had to. such amounts given as gifts (i doubt you've given 40,000 IRP for a 21st birthday, if you have tell the lucky receiver to declare it to the taxman), if not given between family members, are subject to taxation.

Lennox,I'll not answer that as I'll be rehashing what I said several times,a few different ways on various pages in this thread already.

Anyway,I'm closing this now as its gone very long and unwieldy.

I'm opening a shiny new thread here