Should Bertie Ahern Resign over the payments (part two)

LoL at the new avatar Gandalf

As for SF,I think they do want the government to come down immediately because their arch enemy McDowell is Tánaiste.
They dont want an FG led government,they'd regard them I think as the southern unionists.
They want a weaker FF that they can prop up instead of the current government.

Sgt. Sensible

All Bertie needs now is some hack to discover that Slab Murphy was at the Taoiseach's Manchester gigs, as Higgins suggested.

Cronus333

did anyone else notice that McDowell was the only PD who applauded?

Record is available here: http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/230-2178801.smil

(need RealPlayer)

Villain

Appartently Harney was the only one on the government bench that didn't applaud Ahern after his speech!!!!

Dave!

Maybe she was tired?

Sgt. Sensible

Hard to clap with a pie in each hand.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

I find it funny that I should be accused of jumping to conclusions...
Can I ask what evidence you have that it is money that came from NCB?

I mean royally throughout this discussion it was supposed to be a company cheque,now we're told as a matter of fact it wasnt.

Right back at you listen to what Ahern said he never denied it was NCB money he said it was a bank draft not a company cheque. He was suggesting that he did not know it was NCB money rather than denying it was NCB money.

So can I ask what evidence you have that it was not NCB money since NCB nor the Taosieach has denied it was NCB money.

The simple fact is that Ahern ended up with 5000 punts that came from an NCB account whether in draft cash or company cheque is a side issue.


This whole thing has revealed how ineffective the Dail is with its current procedures Rabbite and Kenny were asking numerous questions and getting partial answers to one or two while Sargent O'Caolaoin and Higgins went of on a ramble

Lennoxschips

nobody shouted bertie down yet FF were constantly shouting the other spokespersons down, it was disgraceful

democrates

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?

Zenith74

nobody shouted bertie down yet FF were constantly shouting the other spokespersons down, it was disgraceful

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...

BaZmO*

Bertie said that he had always intended to pay back the loans and that the reason for paying the money back (with interest) over the weekend was not becaues he was "found out".

So when exactly was he going to pay the money back?
Was he waiting for interest rates to rise so high that all his buddies would get a good return on the money they lent him?
Was he waiting until he was earning a bit more that his 250K a year?
Doesn't display much prudence on behalf of an ex Finance Minister. Plus the fact that as Finance Minister he kept his money (however he attained it) stashed under his mattress rather than put it in the bank.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

Right back at you listen to what Ahern said he never denied it was NCB money he said it was a bank draft not a company cheque. He was suggesting that he did not know it was NCB money rather than denying it was NCB money.

So can I ask what evidence you have that it was not NCB money since NCB nor the Taosieach has denied it was NCB money.

About the same as I have that it came from Ian Paisley.I dont have sight of where the money originated and neither it seems do you.All I know is that O Connor handed it over.

The simple fact is that Ahern ended up with 5000 punts that came from an NCB account whether in draft cash or company cheque is a side issue.

I asked you how you knew the money to be directly from NCB to be a fact..you seem to be as bad as Bertie at not answering...

We now know that it was never an NCB company cheque as bandied about right left and centre by the most zealous of the get Ahern camp.

I'd agree though that in general terms the more important issue is the money was accepted rather than the exact source of the money.
However facts are important and I wouldnt be in favour of making them up,which it seems the talk of company cheques and the exact source of O'Connors cheque has turned out to be.
Unless of course you are in possession of evidence of the exact source of O'connors cheque and whether that money came from O'Connor or NCB-Are you?
I'm going on what I know to be the facts and anything thats been clarified.

Otherwise one is speculating,and that needs to be pointed out.

Sgt. Sensible

democrates wrote:

I wonder did Bertie feel it was unfair, and that dipping his beak was justified in the greater scheme of things?

His defence amounted to 'sure aren't youse are all at it too?', rather unbecoming I thought.

lostexpectation

http://www.utvlive.com/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=77081&pt=n

I don't think this has been posted here

A Manchester-based businessman who attended the event today said there were no political favours sought for the payment.

Matt Queenan said: "Tim wasn`t a man at all to bribe people and look for favours."

Describing a conversation in the hotel`s toilet with Mr Kilroe, Mr Queenan quoted him as saying: "We have some members of parliament from Ireland over here and one of them seems to be having a rough patch, probably women problems or something, and we`re having a collection."

wow what detail people go into when handing money over to politicians....

shows how free flowing business men and politicians are with their money...

BaZmO*

BaZmO* wrote:

Bertie said that he had always intended to pay back the loans and that the reason for paying the money back (with interest) over the weekend was not becaues he was "found out".

So when exactly was he going to pay the money back?
Was he waiting for interest rates to rise so high that all his buddies would get a good return on the money they lent him?

He also said that he kept trying to give it back and they wouldnt take it...but that they would now due to the mess its causing-that version of events was backed up by chalke.

Plus the fact that as Finance Minister he kept his money (however he attained it) stashed under his mattress rather than put it in the bank.

Well again we don't know that for sure,we dont know where he kept it.He could have been lodging it into another family members account like one of his daughters for instance and is being understandably coy regarding the private nature of that.Neither that or keeping it under the mattress is illegal.
All speculation of course.

lostexpectation

Lennoxschips wrote:

nobody shouted bertie down yet FF were constantly shouting the other spokespersons down, it was disgraceful

no they FF bb's went into overdrive shouting down SF's Co'C but they were exceptionally quiet for higgins who was touching on similar points, but more on topic, they actually wanted to hear what he said for the laugh if nothing else.

BaZmO*

Tristrame wrote:

He also said that he kept trying to give it back and they wouldnt take it...but that they would now due to the mess its causing-that version of events was backed up by chalke.

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

Tristrame wrote:

Well again we don't know that for sure,we dont know where he kept it.He could have been lodging it into another family members account like one of his daughters for instance and is being understandably coy regarding the private nature of that.Neither that or keeping it under the mattress is illegal.
All speculation of course.

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.
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?

The_Minister

I couldn't help but notice the hipocracy of the opposition. Trevor Sergent started out by saying that Bertie's explanation did not convince him - but he was reading from a printed speech, so he had already made up his mind! The opposition didn't refer to the issue at hand and just went on a long, self-interested rant. They kept referring to things of no relevence to the topic.

As for the Fianna Failers shouting down SF, I'd assume it was because he was talking ****e.

A funny side note but my live feed froze during rabbite's speech, and caught the guy behind him sticking out his toungue. He was only wetting his lips but it looked like he was blowing Bertie one:D

democrates

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)

The Deputy asked the fair question if I had accounts anywhere else, if I had accounts outside the State or if anyone outside the State opened accounts for me. The answer to that question is “No”. I had no other accounts whatsoever. I operated for a fairly long period without a bank account and did keep that money in my own possession during that period. I had no other accounts.

UBU.

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.