Should Bertie Ahern Resign over the payments (part two)

lostexpectation

democrates wrote:

Here's what he said in the Dail today on the no bank account issue (from
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20061003.xml&Node=H9#H9)
UBU.

thats confusing because he did have atleast one joint bank account, which means in anyone else language he had a bank account ,he chose not to use he says but he did have one.

gandalf

Did anyone hear Ahern on Newstalk this morning. Fudged his way through the whole interview, shame they didn't have McDowell on afterwards. Must have been off lease.

BaZmO*

lostexpectation wrote:

thats confusing because he did have atleast one joint bank account, which means in anyone else language he had a bank account ,he chose not to use he says but he did have one.

It's not really. He already said that he had a joint bank account with his wife but he had stopped using it since the separation. The confusing part is why would he not open up another account in his name.

BaZmO*

BaZmO* wrote:

Chalke also initally said that the money was a gift and not a loan. Anything to help his friends eh?

It's obvious that the "12" had the "loan" down as a gift.What matters is what Ahern had it down as.You dont attempt to pay back a gift unless its a loan.It's the taking of it in the first place that I have the issue with and its the only fact that I am certain of.

So he's now deciding to that he doesn't want to bring his family into the equation, a bit late for that considering that he was the one that brought them into it in the first place. That is of course if you're suggestion is true, but I doubt it somehow.

Hmmm why do you doubt my suggestion any more than anyone elses or your own? Is it because you are in the camp of...oh I dont trust or like this man so I'll think the worst anyway regardless of the facts? You're entitled to take that position but I'd suggest that its not a fair way to approach anything.

Anyway, my point was that it's a bad reflection on a Finance Minister if he doesn't have his accounts in order or doesn't have his own bank account.
Actually, if he didn't have a bank account at the time where did his wages go? He obviously got paid by cheque but did he head into his local bank every Friday and cash the cheque?

Thats a fairer assessment in my opinion.However,I'd have to say again that there are plenty of decent and honest people around who dont use or never will use a bank account-So I wouldnt be harping on at that.

BaZmO*

Tristrame wrote:

It's obvious that the "12" had the "loan" down as a gift.What matters is what Ahern had it down as.You dont attempt to pay back a gift unless its a loan.It's the taking of it in the first place that I have the issue with and its the only fact that I am certain of.

Obvious you say? I'm suprised at you saying that. Aren't you the one that always goes on about only stating facts?
Ok, so in that case it's "obvious" that Bertie took the money as a gift and the only reason that he gave it back is because he he got found out.

But I do agree with you that the main crux of th issue os the fact that he took the money in the first place.

Tristrame wrote:

Hmmm why do you doubt my suggestion any more than anyone elses or your own? Is it because you are in the camp of...oh I dont trust or like this man so I'll think the worst anyway regardless of the facts? You're entitled to take that position but I'd suggest that its not a fair way to approach anything.

In fairness he's not exactly helping his case for people trusting him.

Tristrame wrote:

However,I'd have to say again that there are plenty of decent and honest people around who dont use or never will use a bank account-So I wouldnt be harping on at that.

I totally agree, but a Minister for Finance holding wads of cash at home?

EIN

democrates wrote:

Berties answers were apalling, Pat Rabbitts face was frowned in confusion, and so was mine. Bertie spoke english, I recognised every word despite mis-pronunciations, but the references to 'others', 'that issue', 'dem', 'those ones' etc, left me wondering what the subject was in many parts of the rambling sentances. Worthy of "Yes Minister", but clarity is not a legal precondition for election.

His 'poor me' appeals had the cringe factor at times of scenes from 'the Office', but despite that veil, his apology was ultimately only for the inconvenience and invasion of privacy it caused for friends and family, and for us great unwashed being bewildered at the revelations. The irony is, it's his unparalelled ability to give nebulous answers that leaves me bewildered. He still maintains that 'putting his hand on that money' (as the opposition artfully painted the image) was ok.

If this is the last we hear of it I'll be surprised, I don't think I'm the only one who smells a rat. The lack of documentary evidence leaves us dependant on testimony from his friends, hardly reliable. Of those, two key witnesses happen to be those who have passed away. His public story changed about who did the Manchester whip-around. We're told his friends gave him a loan while strangers gave a gift, if I had to place a bet I'd take the opposite as the case and that these were lies, told to evade tax. Of course there's no conclusive proof available.

The most astounding claim for me is that he had no personal bank account at the time, and kept his savings and gifts/loans himself. I bet there's another account, one which the tribunal know nothing about, a smoking gun. I could be wrong and this particular FF TD taking money from businessmen in the 1980's was totally clean, but it's too convenient that there's no bank account evidence for his 'savings' &c. I always wondered what CJ was talking about when he said Bertie was the cutest of them all, maybe this is it, maybe it's only part of it.

I have some compassion for his personal circumstances, and can understand a bunch of wealthy buddies helping him out when they discovered he got into debt, a sorry tale for a guy working for his country. I wonder did Bertie feel it was unfair, and that dipping his beak was justified in the greater scheme of things?

We now know there were people at each elbow taking vast amounts left right and centre, so was it ever possible for an honest Bertie & Co. to take that pirate ship from within without playing the game? Maybe there was a mutually assured destruction situation where you wouldn't get anywhere unless the all-powerful had something on you for control purposes. Or maybe signing blank cheques was enough to survive.

On balance this episode has only moved his image a bit further on the scale away from squeaky clean, but still a long way from being an outright crook. What he has put on the plus side of the scales still outweighes that on the minus side. But is that good enough, some could make the scales argument for CJ, Burke or Lowry after all, so really the better question is, is Bertie now below the threshold of probity required for high office?

Assuming no further revelations, I think FF'ers will stick to the 'innocent until proven guilty' refuge, PD'ers will too to an extent, also weighing that they are better in power so steady as she goes, while the opposition will mourne the loss of a head on a plate but get great mileage out of the dark cloud over Bertie and now his supporting front bench. It's the effect on the floating vote I can't get a feel for. Thoughts?

yes he should resign he should be gone by now!!

Dave!

gandalf wrote:

Did anyone hear Ahern on Newstalk this morning. Fudged his way through the whole interview, shame they didn't have McDowell on afterwards. Must have been off lease.

Missed that, who was interviewing him? Ger Gilroy?

BaZmO*

BaZmO* wrote:

Obvious you say? I'm suprised at you saying that. Aren't you the one that always goes on about only stating facts?

Well it is a fact that they didnt want to have it paid back...That is a fact.
So I've stated what they regarded it as-a gift-thats a fact.

Ok, so in that case it's "obvious" that Bertie took the money as a gift and the only reason that he gave it back is because he he got found out.

No I didnt say that,I said it was obvious that they meant it as a gift but it is factually clear that Ahern regarded it as a loan.

In fairness he's not exactly helping his case for people trusting him.

From what I can see, most of the people that dont trust him are people that dont trust him anyway or who have an ulterior motive to keep harping on at the non facts.

I totally agree, but a Minister for Finance holding wads of cash at home?

Well we dont know if thats what he did even though that in itself is not illegal.He can do what he likes with his own money,just like you or I.One of his daughters could have been holding it for him for instance.

The problem I have with this line of questioning is that it is completely irrelevant.It's pathetic actually and it's the fault of the opposition for perpetuating it.It's called barrell scraping and done in an effort to show something else fishy about Ahern...Except what he does with his own money is not and never was the issue here.
Any person getting a family member to hold money or any person putting money under the bed is not dishonest for doing that.They are exercising their normal democratic right.
That whole line of questioning is a complete misnomer,without facts to say the money is dodgy.

The only questions here/Wrong doing here is the taking of money either in the form of a loan/payment/gift and trying to pretend that you got it as a private citizen when in fact you were a minister for finance and speaking to a group of businessmen about the Economy.The taking of money from the "12" is similarally wrong.

That last point is the only point amongst all the other irrelevant Guff in my opinion thats valid here.The rest is just see through opposition mauling and I'd suggest that they are being irresponsible by carrying it on as a normal fair person will see through it.
I'd suggest that they have seen through it, in that despite all the guff 65% of them in last w/ends opinion polls didnt think he should resign.They thought he was a hypocrite alright and rightly so.Thats the most damaging part.

Snark

Regarding the 50k saved between 1987-93, has anyone done the math?

ie. TD/Minister salary in these periods, taxation,rent, living, maintenance,etc.

I reckon Eddie Hobbs should be looking over his shoulder when Bertie retires - Eddie could not match this saving pedigree...

BaZmO*

Tristrame wrote:

From what I can see, most of the people that dont trust him are people that dont trust him anyway or who have an ulterior motive to keep harping on at the non facts.

Despite what I've written in this thread I don't have a particular dislike or mistrust (well up until now anyway) for Bertie and I certainly don't have any agenda. In fact, I would consider myself quite apathetic when it comes to politics. I just found a particular interest in this issue for some reason. And I agree that alot of the points have gone way off the issue at hand, but that happens when someone keeps fluffing and dodging the questions. But yeah, I can see where it just lokks like nitpicking.

The way I see it, he done wrong in accepting the cash but he's not going to admit that, to do so would be political suicide. However, legally he hasn't done any wrong so therefore he won't go because there's no real prosecution against him.

ken90

Cuid a feckin hundred not part two.

I'm sick and tired about hearing about the money, can people move on?

There are 57,000 people and businesses, most of whom have been disconnected at a moments notice. Jobs will be lost and the "Celtic Tiger" is looking like a Tinpot Republic abroad for allowing this to happen.

I'm scared out of my tree in case I end up in a hospital that looks like a warzone.

Can the opposition stop knocking everything for a minute and remember the massive good that Alan Dukes did for the Country with the "Tallaght Strategy".

Akrasia

ken90 wrote:

Cuid a feckin hundred not part two.

I'm sick and tired about hearing about the money, can people move on?

There are 57,000 people and businesses, most of whom have been disconnected at a moments notice. Jobs will be lost and the "Celtic Tiger" is looking like a Tinpot Republic abroad for allowing this to happen.

You're worried about Ireland's reputation because a bunch of people had their phones disconnected, but you think the fact that our Prime Minister, a then minister for finance, accepted the equivilant of more than €100,000 into his back pocket is a pointless issue we should just 'get over'?

Akrasia

Zenith74 wrote:

That's just what FFers do, I think people have just learned to ignore them now. They do the exact same thing in TV/radio interviews if they don't want to answer a question; just talk/shout over the interviewer or other interviewees. It's probably lesson 1 at FF training camp - How to dodge questions. It seems to be pretty much limited to them though, members of the other parties tend to be more civilised...

I'm not sure if they actually teach it, But imagine for a moment being at a FF internal parliamentary meeting?.......... sorry about that..

Sgt. Sensible

BaZmO* wrote:

.

The way I see it, he done wrong in accepting the cash but he's not going to admit that, to do so would be political suicide. However, legally he hasn't done any wrong so therefore he won't go because there's no real prosecution against him.

He should go because he's damaging what's left of his party's reputation. That's reason enough. Although one can never underestimate the Irish electorate's tolerance of this kind of nonsense.

Sgt. Sensible

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

He should go because he's damaging what's left of his party's reputation. That's reason enough. Although one can never underestimate the Irish electorate's tolerance of this kind of nonsense.

Thats right,didn't Michael Lowry top the poll in his constituency at the last election?

Sgt. Sensible

Tristrame wrote:

Thats right,didn't Michael Lowry top the poll in his constituency at the last election?

Yep, he was only bout 1000 1st pref votes down on the 1997 result.

democrates

Absenting further revelations he's home free and there will be no early change of Taoiseach let alone government. From an electoral strategy perspective, I think it has caused slight damage for him and the coalition partners which will still be with them for the election. Even if that only means a few votes, that can tip the balance in contentious constituencies, and since I intend to vote for an FG/Labour coalition at the next election this is is fine by me.

constitutionus

democrates wrote:

Absenting further revelations he's home free and there will be no early change of Taoiseach let alone government. From an electoral strategy perspective, I think it has caused slight damage for him and the coalition partners which will still be with them for the election. Even if that only means a few votes, that can tip the balance in contentious constituencies, and since I intend to vote for an FG/Labour coalition at the next election this is is fine by me.

cant help thinking thats what he opposition wanted all along. lets be honest if biffo or co are caught up to no good (and hes in the tribunals trying to explain how he helped a haughy get planning permission for a road to a place that didnt have planning permission ) then bertie has no moral authority to say anything now. hes seriously compromised himself on matters of ethics and principle

by the way the reason i think he had the 50k under the bed? if it was in the bank at the time mirriam wouldve been entitled to half of it. standard family law. untill the divorce is final you can be gouged for everything ,even stuff youve got after youve initially split during the procedings. hell even then theres still come back. we dont have open ended divorce, be warned guys

though i do love the fact he says he didnt have an account. someone asked how he got paid, maybe he got charlie chawke to cash his dail cheques in the goat

Heinrich

constitutionus wrote:

though i do love the fact he says he didnt have an account. someone asked how he got paid, maybe he got charlie chawke to cash his dail cheques in the goat

Good points, pity that Enda, Pat and Co. did not think of that!

Maybe he cashed the cheques in The Goose or Fagan's.

Jaysus, if he ever leaves the Griffith Avenue area I will buy the house and a jemmy to lift the floorboards.:cool:

NewDubliner

democrates wrote:

Absenting further revelations he's home free and there will be no early change of Taoiseach let alone government. From an electoral strategy perspective, I think it has caused slight damage for him

I think ot was a brilliant tactic. He's confessed to a small error and everyone's forgotten about the big stuff.

ronbyrne2005

This country drives me mad, crooked politicians get reelected etc. the sooner we as a nation adopt the necessity of highest standards of ethics and performance in public life the better. We wonder how governement does such a bad job at managing projects etc and we elect people who are crooked /dodgy . What annoys me even more is those that vote for a party because their parents did , most people i meet vote the way their fathers did and don't investigate the policies of other parties that may be more suitbale to their viewpoints on life/society.

Villain

News reports tonight are mentioning the fact Bertie bought his house from one of the men that was at the Manchester meeting!

Akrasia

irish1 wrote:

News reports tonight are mentioning the fact Bertie bought his house from one of the men that was at the Manchester meeting!

where did you see that?

Villain

RTE News at 9.

NewDubliner

Akrasia wrote:

where did you see that?

It was on tonight's 9pm RTE TV news.

Akrasia

thanks.
Here's a link http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1004/ahernb.html

I would be very interested to learn how much he paid for that house, whether or not it was in line with the market value of houses in that area at that time.

gandalf

Whoops if thats true then there is more life in this monkey still. I would hope the revenue are going through all his dealings with a fine tooth comb just like we would expect if we had only a fraction of these incidents happen to us.

Did he get the house at below the market rate for example, if he did will he be taxed on the difference?

constitutionus

gandalf wrote:

Whoops

Did he get the house at below the market rate for example, if he did will he be taxed on the difference?

maybe he's renting and just hasnt coughed up the reddies yet

gandalf

constitutionus wrote:

maybe he's renting and just hasnt coughed up the reddies yet

At this rate one has to wonder if he even paid a deposit !!!

The_Minister

ken90 wrote:

I'm scared out of my tree in case I end up in a hospital that looks like a warzone.

I've said this before on boards, and I'll say it again: I work in a hospital part-time. Hygiene is good (and greatly improved), food is good, staff are generally friendly, and while A&E is crowded, its not the shambles that selected Prime Time clips show it to be, and generally, there isn't anyone on trolleys. (there are some sometimes though). Its never nice to go into hospital, but its not as bad as people make out.

ronbyrne2005

The_Minister wrote:

I've said this before on boards, and I'll say it again: I work in a hospital part-time. Hygiene is good (and greatly improved), food is good, staff are generally friendly, and while A&E is crowded, its not the shambles that selected Prime Time clips show it to be, and generally, there isn't anyone on trolleys. (there are some sometimes though). Its never nice to go into hospital, but its not as bad as people make out.

It would want to be, for the amount of money that is being spent on it, a figure close to 13billion I beleive which is the same amount as the government gets from income tax, just think about that, we spend all the income tax we collect in the country on our health system. It should be world class as we spend much more per capita than france canada and uk which have vastly better systems by all accounts.

democrates

The_Minister wrote:

I've said this before on boards, and I'll say it again: I work in a hospital part-time. Hygiene is good (and greatly improved), food is good, staff are generally friendly, and while A&E is crowded, its not the shambles that selected Prime Time clips show it to be, and generally, there isn't anyone on trolleys. (there are some sometimes though). Its never nice to go into hospital, but its not as bad as people make out.

The waiting list for the first consultant my mother was sent to (a wrong choice due to mis-diagnosis) was 4 months. She was dead 4 months later, but not before the requisite trolley bingo multiple times at 2 seperate A&E's.

Then there were big queues from early morning to see a consultant who would breeze in around 11, presumably after looking after private patients first. Terminally ill people sitting in cheap plastic chairs for hours, fu*king scandalous, it's wrong, wrong wrong. There's no way the shower who presided over that situation developing are getting my vote.

Villain

The_Minister wrote:

I've said this before on boards, and I'll say it again: I work in a hospital part-time. Hygiene is good (and greatly improved), food is good, staff are generally friendly, and while A&E is crowded, its not the shambles that selected Prime Time clips show it to be, and generally, there isn't anyone on trolleys. (there are some sometimes though). Its never nice to go into hospital, but its not as bad as people make out.

Wanna bet on that??

I was in A&E twice this week, once for a minor enough case, a mate had a suspected broken toe and needed an x-ray we arrived in A&E in Kilkenny at half 7pm and left at 1am at no time did anyone tell us what the delay was, there was only 5 other patients in A&E at the time and no-one was seen for about 2 hours, not a move and no communication from staff!.

My other visit to A&E was for a more serious case, which I don't want to go into in detail but it all goes back to a relation contracting MRSA in a leading Dublin Hospital.

Our Health system is a mess, in fact you'd call it a joke if it wasn't so serious, the mate of mine that was in A&E with his damaged toe, lived in Scotland for a few years and he said there was no comparison with the care he received in A&E in Kilkenny and the care he received in Scotland oh and he didn't have to pay for it in Scotland either!. Why can't our health system match that across the water???

Back on topic, Bertie did state in the past he paid 200,000 for his home which he believed was market value at the time, I think the issue here is he couldn't remember the names of the people who attended the meeting in Manchester except for two names, one whom is deceased, yet the person he bought his house from was present at the meeting, how come he couldn't remember him?

In fairness,its not like that all the time.
I was in loughlinstown A&e a few weeks ago on a saturday and it was quiet and there was no one on trollies and my mum was seen immediately.

This is off topic.
Please stay on topic.OFF topic posts may be moved or deleted.

Dave!

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1699825&issue_id=14723

Taoiseach called on to explain why he didn't name businessman

TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern was under intense new pressure last night for failing to reveal that the businessman he bought his house from was at the controversial Manchester meeting.

The Opposition said the new development was 'bizarre' and 'amazing' and demanded answers from the Fianna Fail leader.

It comes as the Irish Independent can reveal that lawyers for Mr Ahern will try to prevent the Mahon Tribunal from obtaining sensitive details of his marital separation in the High Court on Tuesday.

And it was learned the Government has drawn up new laws which would allow it to shut down the tribunals into political corruption. The timing of the move, during the Taoiseach's worst time in politics, will provoke political uproar.

Last night a Government spokeswoman said there would be no further comment on the Taoiseach's personal finances beyond what he had outlined in the Dail. Last night, it emerged that Micheal Wall, a retired coach and bus hire operator, sold Mr Ahern a house at 44 Beresford Avenue, off Griffith Avenue, Dublin 9, in 1997.

The names of both men appear on an ownership transfer document in the Registry of Deeds.

Three years earlier, Micheal Wall had attended the gifting ceremony in Manchester at which Mr Ahern received stg£8,000. But the Taoiseach in his speech to the Dail this week failed to mention the attendance of Mr Wall.

Mr Ahern named only John Kennedy and Tim Kilroe as attending the dinner in the Four Seasons Hotel.

He did not specify Mr Wall, despite his close financial relationship with him a few years later.

The Progressive Democrats said last night they were "considering this information".

Its leader Michael McDowell last week sought the identities of those who attended the Manchester event - only for Mr Ahern to tell the Dail that he could not reconstitute those present.

But both Fine Gael and Labour called for further clarification by the Taoiseach.

Fine Gael's Environment spokesman Fergus O'Dowd said the Taoiseach had two opportunities on separate days to name the people at that meeting, and had not done so. "It now transpires that Micheal Wall sold the house that the Taoiseach now lives in. This new development is truly bizarre."

He said it streched credulity even further that the Taoiseach did not know that this man was at the dinner in Manchester.

Labour's environment spokesman Eamon Gilmore also asked why the Taoiseach had not placed the information before the Dail when he was questioned on all aspects of this affair.

Micheal Wall, who sold the Taoiseach his Dublin home, lives in Manchester and has retired from business. Originally from Cong, Co Mayo, he is aged in his late sixties.

He went on the Pat Kenny radio show on Tuesday morning to say that he was present at the Manchester gathering. He met the late Aer Arann boss, Tim Kilroe, in the hotel toilets and was told a whip-round was being organised for an Irish politician with "woman problems".

Mr Wall claimed he had no interest in politics and had never voted in Britain or Ireland. For this reason, he said, he did not join the contributors in offering money.

However Mr Wall - who operated a coach hire business in Manchester and personally drove some Irish politicians around the city over the years - had an address in Dublin up to at least 1996 when he disposed of his Beresford home to Mr Ahern. The Taoiseach has not commented on the purchase price, except to say that it was "nearer £200,000" (€253,000) than a price of £67,000 suggested in one newspaper. Mr Ahern told the Dail on Tuesday night that he purchased the home with the assistance of a mortgage loan from the Irish Permanent Building Society. He did not specify the extent of the loan, but said he had been paying it "in recent years".

Senan Molony, Brian Dowling and Dearbhail McDonald

ISAW

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

It would want to be, for the amount of money that is being spent on it, a figure close to 13billion I beleive which is the same amount as the government gets from income tax, just think about that, we spend all the income tax we collect in the country on our health system. It should be world class as we spend much more per capita than france canada and uk which have vastly better systems by all accounts.

[rant mode]
But the money isnt spent on doctors and nurses. there are about 60,000 (from memory ) extra workers in the system since 1999. Hold on I ll look it up.
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/empandunempilo.htm
124 - 188 thousand between 1998 and 2005. Now I do not think nursing homes had a huge increase of staff over that period nor did cleaners. I would think about 6,000 extra nurses (philipino and the like - excellent quality staff wouldnt complain about them.) maybe 500 (and I am really pushing this since it is probably closer to 100) doctors. Lets throw in cleaners and nursing homes to make it up to 10,000 (which is probably a vast overestimation).

One still has 55,000 people to account for. Most of these are administrators! Are they efficient? why does one have to join a queque when entering a hospital only to join another one later and another after that? They are probably delighted the computer system to work out salaries did not woirk. When Charlie Mc Creevy was minister of finance he asked the health service to tell him how many workers they had. When they came back with a number he told them the Revenue Commissioners had supplied a figure of 8,000 higher working in the system paying tax! They cant even count how many work there!
Where has 13 BILLION gone? Well a lot has gone to the extra 60,000 mostly admin staff since 1999.
[/rant]

ISAW

irish1 wrote:

Wanna bet on that??

I was in A&E twice this week,

He just told you A&E is the mess not the rest of the hospital.

Our Health system is a mess,

Yes to much admin and not enought primary care and medical workers.

...the mate of mine that was in A&E with his damaged toe, lived in Scotland for a few years and he said there was no comparison with the care he received in A&E in Kilkenny

Again he just told you. A&E is not the whole hospital!

Back on topic, Bertie did state in the past he paid 200,000 for his home which he believed was market value at the time, I think the issue here is he couldn't remember the names of the people who attended the meeting in Manchester except for two names, one whom is deceased, yet the person he bought his house from was present at the meeting, how come he couldn't remember him?

He bought the house (whether he did so in person I dont know) THREE YEARS LATER I think. He couldnt remember something which was not going to happen for three years. Maybe three years later he might remember but would you? (autumn 1997 - he is on the radio now making a stastement)

Dave!

He says that Michael Wall "didn't eat dinner" at the function, but was there in a working capacity because he drove his van or somethin.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

He bought the house (whether he did so in person I dont know) THREE YEARS LATER I think. He couldnt remember something which was not going to happen for three years. Maybe three years later he might remember but would you? (autumn 1997 - he is on the radio now making a stastement)

THe guy who sold the house is Michael Wall.
Michael Wall was not at the dinner in Manchester. He didnt contribute any money at that meeting. He WAS at the venue. He supplied a mini bus and was outside and did speak to people in the bar after the dinner. Bertie didnt mention Walls name because Wall said he didnt donate any money and because Bertie didnt tell the PDs about buying a house from Michael Wall buty he DID tell tyhe tribunal.

I thought Bertie might have been paranoid but does it not now look like someone in the tribunal is leaking information to the press??

No more discussion on A and E in this thread please or I will delete the posts.
If anyone wants to talk about that as a separate issue,then open a new thread.

Back on Topic.

Now could someone explain to me what the new problem is ? Is it that Ahern bought a house at the market price from a friend who happened to occasionally attend some of the dinners in Manchester ?

Pass me the barrell scraper please,it needs servicing,its been very busy lately,it would seem.

Villain

The issue would appear to be the fact he didn't disclose the information in the Dail Tuesday, the Tanaiste asked for Full Accountability and people believe he should have stated that Mr Wall was in the hotel in Manchester (even if he didn't have dinner or donate) and he later bought a House from him.

Bertie stated he had rented the house from Mr Wall for two years prior to buying it and payed market rent values. He also stated that he believed a newspaper is in pocession of ALL the information he gave to the Tribunal.

One more new headline and I reckon McDowell will walk.

ISaw I will be only too happy to discuss Health issues and others but in a relevant thread.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

One more new headline and I reckon McDowell will walk.

I doubt it.Heres the probable chat between the two yesterday after the latest bits of the barrell were scraped...
McDowell to Ahern: Eh whats this then?
Ahern to McDowell: FFS Mick "[valid explanation]"
McDowell to Ahern: Ah its a bit like the NCB company cheque then...tell you what,I'll have a lie in tomorrow and you can take my place in the Dáil and explain it to them,shouldnt take more than a few seconds.

In other words theres nothing to run in this at all.

Villain

I don't know Tristrame, if the reports I have been hearing over the last day or so about unrest in PD's is true I don't think they will stand by Bertie if anything else comes out. Haven't said that I'd be very surprised if anything else does come out, I think the conversation would have went like:

McDowell:"Hey cutie whats this about your house?"
Bertie:" Ah nothing Mick just the fella I bought off was in Manchester but I have squared my story with his so we'r grand"
McDowell: "Well cutie if anything else comes out Parlona and Liz will have be the short and curly's!"
Bertie:"Enough said Mick"

redspider

At the moment, Bertie has done enough dissuading and fobbing off to scrape by and not feel like resigning. It would take a lot more financial back-handers to be uncovered before he would think of doing so, and of course would only do so if he was pushed, and that from mainly within his own party.

The opposition only have so much time to repetitively ask questions before it sounds like a stuck record and they are at that stage now. Unless more dodgy payments are revealed, it looks as if Bertie will weather this storm.

Interesting to see McDowell's absence. His lack of careful comment will put him in hot water again, no doubt about that, and Bertie volunteered to take questions today. The fact that he answers them in his way is another story.

I still think he is guilty as charged, ie: he got money from friends, it was not a loan, etc, and he only paid it back because it was revealed. However, hjis own party dont think it is a sacking offence nor do the PD's so there is nothing that anybody can do about it. Public outrage will wane, and only stood at 60% anyway. All the public can do is remember the incident when voting next time.

In terms of Mary Harney's recent resignation, does anyone think this falls in too neatly? ie: did she get word of it, maybe from Bertie, and decided that now was a good time to go to avoid any quarelling. Her ethos based on the Des O'Malley era and anti-Hughey is anti-backhander so out of her principles alone she would have been torn, even though the amounts were small. Perhaps she resigned 'early' to avoid this stressful situation. hmmmmm

Anyway, this situation is drawing to a close unless something new pops up and is of a larger amount. What most 'dogs on the street' know is that Bertie is not a lavish spender. However, who's to say that he doesnt have something held for his benefit elsewhere, off-shore, etc for a nice easy retirement made on the back of favours, nods, winks, etc. It doesnt look like it though .....

If he had principles, he would have resigned, but he is a politician, a beast which holds on to power no matter what, and that is what he, FF and the PD's are doing.

Redspider

Oh I suspect strongly that Mary Harney didnt want to be at the helm when this story was going to break.
She may not have had specefic facts but she probably knew something was coming,I'd say.

Time Magazine

Ring a-ring a-Bertie,
A pocket full of poundies,
A whoopsie, a hiccup,
We all fall down.

redspider

redspider wrote:

In terms of Mary Harney's recent resignation, does anyone think this falls in too neatly? ie: did she get word of it, maybe from Bertie, and decided that now was a good time to go to avoid any quarelling. Her ethos based on the Des O'Malley era and anti-Hughey is anti-backhander so out of her principles alone she would have been torn, even though the amounts were small. Perhaps she resigned 'early' to avoid this stressful situation. hmmmmm

Anyway, this situation is drawing to a close unless ....

Looks like I spoke too soon. Bertie opened his big mouth again this afternoon in the Dail it seems stating that Mary knew. Why he said this is anyone's guess. A mistake perhaps. Does anyone have the transcript?

And I haven't been the only person speculating that Harney's sudden resignation may have been hurried along due to this impending furore. Dragging down the PD's like this could lead to an FF/PD split. There is only so much flak the PD's can take due to their association with FF and messing with Mary may be the straw. Bertie is still digging a hole and this issue hasnt died yet. He would have been better not being in the Dail today.

Another query I have. Who leaked the stuff to the press and why oh why did bertie put the info into the tribunal domain in the first place? Did he do so to relieve himself of being burdened by it, and if so was it the Developers that had this small piece of leverage on Bertie? Its all very strange.

My stance is as before, that he should go, but its unlikely. It will remain to be seen just which independents will come into a Government if asked if the PD's were to quit. Maybe an election in November would suit the PD's just as much as any other time rather than seeing as the 'lapdog' that supports the failing Government to the bitter end of the term. Bertie is now sounding a bit like Tony Blair. Its not a case of will he, more like a case of when will he.

Redspider

lostexpectation

I can't believe that they allowed politicians not to keep records, even in 1991...

1991, ffs come on not good enough...

why didn't bertie tell us something we all knew
listen to tuesady mornings pat kenny show http://www.rte.ie/rams/radio/latest/Tue/rte-todaywithpatkenny-tpk.smil

why did not have bank account was he having an arguement with his wife about money?

was he trying to keep the money out of the knowledge of the family courts, he probably did want to provide for his childrens college and thats why he puts such an emphasis on the 20,000 trust but probably was still having arguements with his wife about money...

LostinBlanch

irish1 wrote:

Back on topic, Bertie did state in the past he paid 200,000 for his home which he believed was market value at the time, I think the issue here is he couldn't remember the names of the people who attended the meeting in Manchester except for two names, one whom is deceased, yet the person he bought his house from was present at the meeting, how come he couldn't remember him?

Irish times says that he paid £139,000 with a mortgage of £100,00

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/1005/1158591393779.html

"The documents in the Registry of Deeds in Dublin show Mr Ahern took out a mortgage on the Drumcondra property in November 1997 from Irish Permanent. There is no indication the mortgage has been cleared.

Documents show that Mr Wall took out a mortgage with the ICS Building Society in March 1995, and cleared it in November 1997. In a book about Mr Ahern by journalists Eugene Masterson and Ken Whelan, it was stated that Mr Ahern had moved into his home two years before the book was published.

It said he had bought the house for £139,000, using a mortgage of £100,000. Mr Ahern co-operated with the book's authors and has never denied this."

Akrasia

LostinBlanch wrote:

Irish times says that he paid £139,000 with a mortgage of £100,00

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/1005/1158591393779.html

"The documents in the Registry of Deeds in Dublin show Mr Ahern took out a mortgage on the Drumcondra property in November 1997 from Irish Permanent. There is no indication the mortgage has been cleared.

Documents show that Mr Wall took out a mortgage with the ICS Building Society in March 1995, and cleared it in November 1997. In a book about Mr Ahern by journalists Eugene Masterson and Ken Whelan, it was stated that Mr Ahern had moved into his home two years before the book was published.

It said he had bought the house for £139,000, using a mortgage of £100,000. Mr Ahern co-operated with the book's authors and has never denied this."

So, where did he get the £39,000 down payment? Especially considering he was so hard up for cash that his 'friends' had to pass the hat and 'lend' him about £39,000 (strange co-incidence that)