Will Bertie resign over payments???

John_C

If we call for Bertie to resign over giving his mates state jobs, we'll have to call for Enda K and Pat to resign too and probably every politician who has served in government.

I don't like the practice but it's a seperate question from Bertie's getting money.

marcsignal

caught by the goolies, he should go, enough said....

gandalf

Nicked this link from Politics.ie

http://www.irishelection.com/09/judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged/

Bet he wishes he kept his big mouth shut now

constitutionus

John_C wrote:

If we call for Bertie to resign over giving his mates state jobs, we'll have to call for Enda K and Pat to resign too and probably every politician who has served in government.

I don't like the practice but it's a seperate question from Bertie's getting money.

but did any of the guys they appointed give them cash and then ASK for a place. joe burke did to bertie. and thats a concrete link that looks like a quid pro quo payment for a position to me

edit. by the way just heard on RTE NEWS radio,the manchester money was 8k sterling meaning he got in excess of 10k euro. bringing the total money to 60k+ in euros, a long way from the "small" amount of 22 k bertie was going on about. this one boys and girls is the big one cause if he took that as a serving minister its in direct violation of the act in the dail which prohibits ministers getting payments for talks. this is what could make bertie walk

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

but did any of the guys they appointed give them cash and then ASK for a place. joe burke did to bertie. and thats a concrete link that looks like a quid pro quo payment for a position to me

I'm sure he has plenty of other friends he appointed too,that didnt give him any money.

edit. by the way just heard on RTE NEWS radio,the manchester money was 8k sterling meaning he got in excess of 10k euro. bringing the total money to 60k+ in euros, a long way from the "small" amount of 22 k bertie was going on about. this one boys and girls is the big one cause if he took that as a serving minister its in direct violation of the act in the dail which prohibits ministers getting payments for talks. this is what could make bertie walk

I have 2 questions here,who gave him this money? And what has he done for it other than give a speech?
I mean lets flesh things out a bit.
It would be corrupt if he did something via his political office for it-have we any evidence yet for this? It would be wrong if he didnt declare it to the revenue.He would have been under no obligation to make the income public if it was earned prior to any ethics legislation was it?

Theres a lot of information needed here before declaring that Ahern has been outright corrupt rather than just idiotic in relation to this.
I've been having a look at the actual register of TD's interests (its on the Dáil website) and there appears to be a lot of TD's far wealthier than Ahern,yet Ahern has been in ministerial office for donkeys years now and Taoiseach for what 10 years ?

Incidently reading the register of interests,this is all Mary Harney includes "7.Travel Facilities Aer Lingus upgrade on flight to New York & Chicago (return): aer lingus."

[Evil Grin] she probably wouldnt fit into an economy seat these days [/Evil Grin]

LostinBlanch

Constitutionus,

Bertie won't walk. He has absolutely no intention of doing the honorable thing. Actually he has no concept of honour when it applies to himself cf "debt of honour".

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

I'm sure he has plenty of other friends he appointed too,that didnt give him any money.

but one of them gave him money and then asked for the job. thats corruption mat and thats beyond the pale. he should resign over this alone, let alone the manchester money

tristrame wrote:

I have 2 questions here,who gave him this money? And what has he done for it other than give a speech?
I mean lets flesh things out a bit.
It would be corrupt if he did something via his political office for it-have we any evidence yet for this? It would be wrong if he didnt declare it to the revenue.He would have been under no obligation to make the income public if it was earned prior to any ethics legislation was it?

irrelevant, he took payment to attend a talk. thats a big long standing no no in the cabinet. the reason they guys are paid so much is to prevent them compromising their office for cash

tristrame wrote:

Theres a lot of information needed here before declaring that Ahern has been outright corrupt rather than just idiotic in relation to this.
I've been having a look at the actual register of TD's interests (its on the Dáil website) and there appears to be a lot of TD's far wealthier than Ahern,yet Ahern has been in ministerial office for donkeys years now and Taoiseach for what 10 years ?

oh for gods sake dont give me the "ah ah howya head" image of bertie the man can put half his wages away a year for two years and buy a house outright! no mortgage required. this guy aint broke.

wealth has noting to do with this, corruption and cronyism is. answer this
question . do you think its appropriate people you get money from later on deamand a place on one of the most important boards in the country? what would you call this?

theres a big difference between you nominating someone and them demanding the job

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

wealth has noting to do with this, corruption and cronyism is.

I thought the whole thing about corruption was that it would make the politician wealthy?It seems to me that the only thing that has made Ahern Wealthy (minus 60K) are the people that voted for him and his party.

answer this
question . do you think its appropriate people you get money from later on deamand a place on one of the most important boards in the country? what would you call this?

Could you give me a little more detail on this? because I've not been able to find any article on one of the 12 demanding a place on a board.
It would be better if you would link to the likes of that information.
the short answer to your question though is No.A donater should not be looking for something in return for a donation or a loan.

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

I thought the whole thing about corruption was that it would make the politician wealthy?It seems to me that the only thing that has made Ahern Wealthy (minus 60K) are the people that voted for him and his party.Could you give me a little more detail on this? because I've not been able to find any article on one of the 12 demanding a place on a board.
It would be better if you would link to the likes of that information.
the short answer to your question though is No.A donater should not be looking for something in return for a donation or a loan.

joe burke demanded a place on the dublin port authority, im pretty sure if you check out the RTE website you'll find the info your looking for. bertie was quizzed on why he nominated the guy by the opposition at the time cause he's no qualifications for it. berties responce was pretty much, hes from the area and his wife worked there

oh and corruption? its not about wealth, its about power. and guess whos taoiseach

I've checked out the RTE website and others and have found nothing about him demanding a place on a board other than you.
Please post a link because,otherwise you are posting opinion as fact which is not allowed here.

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

I've checked out the RTE website and others and have found nothing about him demanding a place on a board other than you.
Please post a link because,otherwise you are posting opinion as fact which is not allowed here.

im no good at links, but this was all over the radio and news in the last couple of days. try the video on the day the story broke cause when the named the guys backing bertie they gave their bios. also the indo has a comprehensive article on it

Villain

Well they didn't consult the PD's at the time:

http://wwa.rte.ie/news/2002/0513/pds.html

It was reported that Joe Burke was involved in the Sheedy affair and he also was reported to have been involved in the Tom Gilmartin affair.

TBH I don't think the money Joe Burke gave teh Taoiseach had anything to do with his appointment, it was more to do with Joe being a good friend I'd say I don't know which is a worse reason to appoint him.

Well I'm not doubting your bona fidé's on that but untill I see something in print, or something in fact, that Burke "demanded" a place on a board It's speculation,its opinion but its definitely not fact.

What I'm getting at here, is the whole,oh he's this , he's that and he's the other and we'll gather the evidence later but we'll say all this first mentality.

Darragh29

Tristrame wrote:

Well I'm not doubting your bona fidé's on that but untill I see something in print, or something in fact, that Burke "demanded" a place on a board It's speculation,its opinion but its definitely not fact.

What I'm getting at here, is the whole,oh he's this , he's that and he's the other and we'll gather the evidence later but we'll say all this first mentality.

Well all the evidence I needed came from the mans mouth when he was doing his interview...

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

Well I'm not doubting your bona fidé's on that but untill I see something in print, or something in fact, that Burke "demanded" a place on a board It's speculation,its opinion but its definitely not fact.

What I'm getting at here, is the whole,oh he's this , he's that and he's the other and we'll gather the evidence later but we'll say all this first mentality.

I'm trying to track down the evidence but its a bloody pain cause 90% of the stuff you get on burke is on the sheedy affair which has nothing to do with this. but i definitely saw a reporter on the telly saying he asked for the position, which has been repeated on the radio too. i cant see people doing that without being damned sure there not going to be sued . the facts are probably in the indo site but i'm not registered there and cant get access

John_C

constitutionus wrote:

I'm trying to track down the evidence but its a bloody pain cause 90% of the stuff you get on burke is on the sheedy affair which has nothing to do with this. but i definitely saw a reporter on the telly saying he asked for the position, which has been repeated on the radio too. i cant see people doing that without being damned sure there not going to be sued . the facts are probably in the indo site but i'm not registered there and cant get access

You've downgraded your accusation significantly here. There's a big difference between asking for something and demanding it. Demanding something contains an implicit threat, anyone is entitled to ask for something.

Darragh29

Darragh29 wrote:

Well all the evidence I needed came from the mans mouth when he was doing his interview...

what that he gave positions to friends? Yeah theres evidence of that too from the mouths of politicians from practically every other party.

By the way if 4 or 5 thousand Euro is the price of one of these positions (assuming all the 12 gave the same amount) then I'm sending the cheque off,the minute my ssIa comes in...

In other words,I'm not too convinced by what I'm reading here so far as regards corruption.
I'd be relatively convinced on the idiocy front though...

Darragh29

Tristrame wrote:

what that he gave positions to friends? Yeah theres evidence of that too from the mouths of politicians from practically every other party.

By the way if 4 or 5 thousand Euro is the price of one of these positions (assuming all the 12 gave the same amount) then I'm sending the cheque off,the minute my ssIa comes in...

In other words,I'm not too convinced by what I'm reading here so far as regards corruption.
I'd be relatively convinced on the idiocy front though...

My issue with him is fact that took money off businessmen for personal use/gain and didn't pay tax on it. Appointment to state boards is not a huge thing for me, its mainly for egotistical needs that people want to be appointed to these boards anyway as far as I know. The only reason he will probably stay in office (sadly I will have to admit defeat on this one), I imagine is because of the deadline for the north, 24th November and all that. He is crucial to that, not that it will be successful but if he wasn't there I think the unionists would have a field day...

Darragh29

Darragh29 wrote:

My issue with him is fact that took money off businessmen for personal use/gain and didn't pay tax on it.

I'd have an issue there too, but so far it would be with his stupidity.I mean he has the highest office in the land for the last 10 years and prior to that he was minister for finance and he allows himself to run up an interest bill of tens of thousands of Euro because the donors wouldnt take the money back.
joe Higgins was right,the proper thing to do in that case was to agree to give it to charity,interest and all years ago when he first was in the position to pay it back.I'm not sure I'd want someone capable of type of bad planning in the highest office in the land.Of course one could say it was an over sight because well he can afford the loss of the money now but hey its still down right stupid.

Darragh29

Tristrame wrote:

I'd have an issue there too, but so far it would be with his stupidity.I mean he has the highest office in the land for the last 10 years and prior to that he was minister for finance and he allows himself to run up an interest bill of tens of thousands of Euro because the donors wouldnt take the money back.
joe Higgins was right,the proper thing to do in that case was to agree to give it to charity,interest and all years ago when he first was in the position to pay it back.I'm not sure I'd want someone capable of type of bad planning in the highest office in the land.Of course one could say it was an over sight because well he can afford the loss of the money now but hey its still down right stupid.

I can't agree that it was stupid, if I accepted that, I'd have to accept that it was genuinely a loan he received and I think that is nonsense. I've never in my life heard of someone who got a loan and 13 years later is still beholding to the person/people who gave the loan. I could understand it if it was a person of limited means, but when its the holder of the highest office in the country!?!?!?! If it wasn't a loan it must be something else and I think it was a hand out/donation/gift. I don't think it was a bribe. I'd have more respect for the man if he just told us the truth and said he was seriously stuck and his mates organised a collection for him and then GAVE him the money and that he should have declared it to Revenue as income, but didn't and now has to face up to tax responsibilities. Of course if he had to say this, he would be out of office, so he stays in office by lying about a loan that never was a loan, which is the part I've the biggest problem with.

constitutionus

John_C wrote:

You've downgraded your accusation significantly here. There's a big difference between asking for something and demanding it. Demanding something contains an implicit threat, anyone is entitled to ask for something.

so when you "order" a meal what do you intend to do to the waiter if he doesnt get it? stop playing semantics, the guy came looking for the job and he knew bertie owed him.

interesting stuff i did find though, go to RTE site and watch primetime circa 6.40 in to see what a uk tax person thinks of berties loan.

and on another issue macdowel justs been on a newstalk newsflash saying he's not happy with the manchester payments. stating the taoiseachs position is questionable, "significant serious matters that the taoiseach needs to address" is micks exact quote according to george hook . snap election anyone?

Darragh29

Darragh29 wrote:

Of course if he had to say this, he would be out of office, so he stays in office by lying about a loan that never was a loan, which is the part I've the biggest problem with.

Thats an opinion,I might even share it, but its not a fact.

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

Thats an opinion,I might even share it, but its not a fact.

not according to that uk tax official i was on about which begs the question why cant we get anyone from the revenue to state what the situation is with this "loan" ? they dont have to delve into the taoiseachs situation, just tell us what the situation is legally on the issue if anyone else tries it. for instance what if my boss decides not to pay me anymore and just give me loans on a weekly basis?

skearon

Tristrame wrote:

By the way if 4 or 5 thousand Euro is the price of one of these positions (assuming all the 12 gave the same amount) then I'm sending the cheque off,the minute my ssIa comes in...

That might not be value for money, some of the state boards only pay €1,250 per annum, so assuming you are already working and have used up your tax allowances, you'll pay 42% PAYE and PRSI, so you will only have approx half the €1,250 left :-)

constitutionus

skearon wrote:

That might not be value for money, some of the state boards only pay €1,250 per annum, so assuming you are already working and have used up your tax allowances, you'll pay 42% PAYE and PRSI, so you will only have approx half the €1,250 left :-)

the one i was looking for on joe burke pays 15k if your a chairman and 10k if board member.

Darragh29

Tristrame wrote:

Thats an opinion,I might even share it, but its not a fact.

Well as the "loan" was never documented and declared, we only have Bertie's word that it was a "loan" and it should be apparent that Bertie has a huge vested interest in pushing this particular version of events upon us. It's Bertie who cannot prove as a fact that this was a loan, something that would be very easy to do, if the will was there to do it in the first place! I never said that what I posted was fact, we don't have much fact to go on here, we only have Bertie's opinion, the opinion of someone who has huge vested interests in us believing what he is saying to us. I'm just expressing the view that this is a logical conclusion of my own based on what I've been told by Bertie on Six One the other night. I'm not getting hung up on "facts". It's the court of public opinion he has put himself before, not a court of law. Even if this was a court of law, the jury would be asked to decide what is fact and what is fact. The "facts" rarely stand by themeselves...

skearon

constitutionus wrote:

not according to that uk tax official i was on about

a UK tax official may not be familiar with Irish tax laws, specifically the 1997 Taxes Consolidation Act and subsequent amendment acts.

constitutionus wrote:

why cant we get anyone from the revenue to state what the situation is with this "loan" ?

Why don't you call up your local tax office yourself and ask them? Who is this "we" ?

Darragh29 posted a detailed reply earlier regarding the 1997 Act, basically there is no requirement to inform Revenue about a loan, nor is there a required time scale for paying back a loan, therefore the Taoiseach has not broken any Irish law in relation to his unsolicited loan.

skearon

constitutionus wrote:

and on another issue macdowel justs been on a newstalk newsflash saying he's not happy with the manchester payments. stating the taoiseachs position is questionable, "significant serious matters that the taoiseach needs to address" is micks exact quote according to george hook . snap election anyone?

In 1994 a gift from a person who was not domiciled in the state at the time was not subject to tax (it is now)

In 1994 a payment for a service would have been subject to tax at his marginal rate (48%)

It all depends if the £8,000 was a gift, payment, loan, party donation, personal donation etc ...

aidan_walsh

It all depends if the £8,000 was a gift, payment, loan, party donation, personal donation etc ...

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but watching the Six One news just there Berties explaination of the Manchester €8k was that "his recollection was that friends were at that function" and they must have put the money together. How many generous, money giving friends can this man have?

skearon

aidan_walsh wrote:

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but watching the Six One news just there Berties explaination of the Manchester £8k was that "his recollection was that friends were at that function" and they must have put the money together. How many generous, money giving friends can this man have?

Interesting, if none of them were domiciled in Ireland and it was a gift, then no tax law was broken