Moriarty Tribunal Report "Highly Critical" of CJ

stakey

perhaps a post humous execution is called for? then finally this country can put this thief out of it's conscience...

oscarBravo

Threads merged.

Marksie

I think that in any other instance if someone was found to be taking funds from a charity then it would be castigation of the highest order.

There is no way that FF who were serving at the time did not either know, condone or take part in the corruption.

The FF supporters are as culpable by default for actively supporting the government.... aiding and abetting if you like.

But will it affect FF. No, they know how to play the people and look after their own.

Lets face it, and to keep it festive,

If FF and those who support them scented a profit,
they would steal the candy from baby jesus, sell him into slavery and rezone the crib.
The PD's would then deport mary and joseph for being illegal immigrants

marksuttonie

marksuttonie wrote:

The FF supporters are as culpable by default for actively supporting the government.... aiding and abetting if you like.

You mean the FF voters of today are culpable for the sins of Charles Haughey?

Why stop there? Presumably those who vote FG are ready to take up arms and go off to war to advance the cause of fascism while those who vote Labour have the blood of IRA victims on their hands...

Marksie

Deleted User wrote:

You mean the FF voters of today are culpable for the sins of Charles Haughey?

Charely Haughey did not exist in the dim and distant past. His party is still there as are ministers from his government. So yes absolutely the supporters are as culpable.

marksuttonie

marksuttonie wrote:

Charely Haughey did not exist in the dim and distant past.

And if the 1980s were not that distant, neither were the 1970s and the association of Workers Party members (now in Labour) with Sinn Fein. I agree that the whole FG/fascist thing is going back a bit far alright, but guess we should be disgusted at both FF and Labour supporters under your criteria...

Marksie

Deleted User wrote:

And if the 1980s were not that distant, neither were the 1970s and the association of Workers Party members (now in Labour) with Sinn Fein. I agree that the whole FG/fascist thing is going back a bit far alright, but guess we should be disgusted at both FF and Labour supporters under your criteria...

My political activism starts in the 1980s. It is typical FF deflection tactics to move from what is happening now to the past.
You will never get a FF supporter to admit to anything unless it was to their own benefit.. there is no straight truth or straight talking in them. Just the self, the party and the state

marksuttonie

marksuttonie wrote:

My political activism starts in the 1980s.

Well obviously the blame game should only start then so. Could you be more specific as to the date, so the rest of us know from when party political culpability starts?

Noone that I know in FF defends Haughey. But saying we are all culpable is simply hysteria.

Fratton Fred

DadaKopf wrote:

Hmmmm, intruiging. Anyway, this thread isn't about Haughey, and we don't want Boards slapped with a libel suit.

Maybe not about Bertie, but I think the reports shows Bertie, with regars to writing blank cheques, to be at best negligent, at worst imcompetant.

The Irish government is an embarrassment to Ireland.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote:

Maybe not about Bertie, but I think the reports shows Bertie, with regars to writing blank cheques, to be at best negligent, at worst imcompetant.

I would go a step further and say 'at best negligent, at worst fully aware of what was happening'.

mike65

Should FF sue the Hockey estate? After all he squireled away many thousands from the party election fund.

Mike.

mike65

mike65 wrote:

Should FF sue the Hockey estate? After all he squireled away many thousands from the party election fund.

Interesting point. But believe the Statute of Limitations would bar such a move anyway.

joolsveer

Deleted User wrote:

I would go a step further and say 'at best negligent, at worst fully aware of what was happening'.

People are very critical of An Taoiseach. It is not fair. Maybe if he was an accountant or had been treasurer of the party at the time you could get mud to stick to the Teflon.

Glenbhoy

Deleted User wrote:

Interesting point. But believe the Statute of Limitations would bar such a move anyway.

Do you think there's any possibility of the family making a donation back to the party of the stolen amounts? Would this maybe be the honourable thing to do, you know like Bert repaying the 'loans' to his mates!!
Did anyone else hear rumours that perhaps CJH did not actually pay his revenue settlement bill, and that with his passing, and in the absence of a judgement against him prior to death, they'll never get the money??

Marksie

Deleted User wrote:

Well obviously the blame game should only start then so. Could you be more specific as to the date, so the rest of us know from when party political culpability starts?

Noone that I know in FF defends Haughey. But saying we are all culpable is simply hysteria.

The blame game? Looking at all the incompetent decisions and sly double dealings then the blame game starts now.

I will point out that i moved here from abroad 10 years ago... and from that perspective was totally astounded at the incompetence and corruption displayed. So any "family" alliances i may have to one particular party are non-existent.

I wont take truck from the "you don't know the history then so"... corruption is corruption and no one does it better than FF

I am not usually given to fits of hysteria (sort of expected that type of reply..thanks for not disappointing me), but in dealing with FF and their supporters it is always best to check your wallet and fillings afterwards.

As i stated and have seen nothing to alter my opinion, all FF would not know the truth but resort to pointing fingers, accusations of hysteria and anything that would avoid them actually answering something. If someone condoned a thief dipping fingers into the till, they would be culpable. It is therefore the same with FF supporters, they are condoning corruption, if not actively part of it.

Sleepy

Deleted User wrote:

Noone that I know in FF defends Haughey. But saying we are all culpable is simply hysteria.

Whether through stupidity or immorality, your party's leader aided and abbetted Haughey's crimes. He's also been exposed for having inappropriately accepted monies himself.

While Ahern remains leader of the Fianna Fail Party, it is clear that the majority of the party are in favour of this corruption or so power mad that they condone it in order to hold government.

Neither are admirable, nor even acceptable, in my mind.

marksuttonie

marksuttonie wrote:

I am not usually given to fits of hysteria (sort of expected that type of reply..thanks for not disappointing me), but in dealing with FF and their supporters it is always best to check your wallet and fillings afterwards.

So you 'check your wallet' after dealings with 35-40% of the country? You actually think that percentage of this country are involved in or responsible for corruption?

I'll think I'll stick with the 'hysteria' line, thanks. As for your shot about 'family alliances', I look at the economy and the North and its a no-brainer; I don't vote FG like most of my family. I accept they may have less to hang their heads about, but unlike you I was here during the 80s and frankly ethics wasn't all that much in the news when we were the sick man of Europe and had slightly more pressing concerns...

constitutionus

correct me if im wrong but isnt bertie guilty of fraud? i mean the whole point of co signitures is to ensure propriety. there maybe no proof he recieved monies, but theres no proof to the contrary either and both signatures were needed.

ah well, maybe someday the law will actually apply to everyone in this country

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

correct me if im wrong but isnt bertie guilty of fraud?

While I believe he has serious questions to answer, fraud is a very serious accusation and from what I know almost never successfully prosecuted here. Suspect that unlike other areas of law, you cannot reklessly or negligently commit fraud, and proof of intention would be required.

jawlie

Perhaps the most wonderful thing our tea-shop has achieved is to manage to save the nice round sum of £50 000 at a time when he had, according to himself, no bank account. He gives no explanation as to why he closed his previous bank accounts, or why he didn't have a bank account, or where his salary cheque was cashed or paid into...

The response by Fianna Fail to the corruption of Haughey's premiership is a scandal, and the greater scandal is thay the irish people will not boot them out of office. To say there is no real opposition is not an answer and democracy is almost daily being eroded here.

strassenwolf

Unshelved wrote:

:mad: How utterly gutless was Conor Lenihan on Primetime last night? Obviously told by the Taoiseach to go in there and fight the Fianna Fail corner because Bertie knows full well that any criticism would be tempered by the fact that it was Lenihan's father's own medical fund that Haughey plundered.

My low opinion of this lightweight would have soared if he had come out and said that yes, my father was shafted by Haughey, and yes, he stole cash intended for my ill father. Instead he defended him - defended the man who did that.

He must be an ambitious man, to stand up for a crook like Haughey instead of reminding the public how his dad was stabbed in the back by him. I don't know how his words didn't choke him.

They must have stuck in his craw, all the things he had to say on that programme.

But at least there is a positive side to his invertebrate performance. And I'm glad that he went on it.

Unison.ie website wrote:

Tale of a tumour, a surgeon and a very grateful minister

Minister Conor Lenihan on RTE’s Prime Time programme last month when a surgeon spotted the swelling on his cheek

THE surgeon was at home watching a debate about the Moriarty Tribunal on RTE's 'Prime Time' when his eyes drifted to a big lump on Minister Conor Lenihan's cheek.

Turning to his GP wife, the consultant at University Hospital Galway asked whether she noticed anything unusual. "He looks like a chipmunk," she said.

She was not joking. "If you watch very carefully," said the surgeon, "his face moves when he talks, but the lump doesn't."

Mr Lenihan was on TV discussing the health of his late father, Brian Lenihan, whose medical fund for a liver transplant had been plundered by former Taoiseach Charles Haughey.

It was a week before Christmas, but the surgeon knew he had to act quickly. Next day he phoned the private office of Mr Lenihan and left a message asking the minister to call him about "a personal matter".

Calling

Mr Lenihan had no idea who was calling or why, but his conversation with the consultant was a harbinger of a very unsettled Christmas break.

The surgeon calmly spelled out his fears, warning Mr Lenihan to urgently contact a specialist head and neck surgeon at the Mater hospital in Dublin.

There was a real danger that the tumour - for that was what the lump proved to be - was malignant. Even if it proved to be benign, Mr Lenihan was potentially facing severe and permanent facial disfigurement.

What he thought was a simple cyst, which he had ignored, was diagnosed as a potentially lethal Parotid tumour, and a biopsy was sent off to be tested on the Friday before Christmas.

The 43-year-old immediately ceased his smoking habit and endured what would be the longest fortnight in his life.

All through Christmas he played the doting dad with his three children, two boys and a baby girl, all under seven, while he and his wife Denise awaited the results.

On Friday, January 5, the Lenihans were told that the tumour was not malignant, although it was so close to the facial nerve that there was a serious risk of him suffering Bell's Palsy when it was removed.

The Lenihans were warned that if the tumour were to get larger, there was a serious risk of him being disfigured when the growth pressed on the facial nerve.

With the prospect of an election just four months away, Mr Lenihan sought an early appointment with the head and neck surgeon.

On Friday, January 12, the surgical procedure was successfully carried out at the Mater Hospital. Last Monday, Conor Lenihan returned to office.

There is still some swelling on his cheek, and every few days the tiny wound beside his ear has to be drained, but the operation was an unqualified success.

"I'm a very lucky man," Mr Lenihan said last night. "Christmas wasn't great. I did a lot of looking back at a lot of things I have done and asked myself, 'What's it all about?' The consultant in Galway wouldn't have seen the lump on the left side of my face but for the fact that I was sitting at the left of the group in the television studio.

"The very last thing I wanted was an operation in the run-up to a general election, but I will always be grateful to that consultant surgeon who took the trouble to call after he saw me on television.

"Although the Government may have some issues with consultants, I have to testify that we have some very, very good ones committed to helping people and public health, and not driven by self-aggrandisement."

The prompt-acting surgeon from Galway was intent on avoiding the spotlight yesterday. He told the Irish Independent: "I saw the lump on the side of his face when he was in profile on television and noticed that when his face moved, the lump on his face didn't.

"If the Parotid tumour had got bigger, it would have become difficult to operate on, and there could be consequences. There's a nerve associated with facial palsy and in his profession, it doesn't help to be facially disfigured."

Sam Smyth

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1765690&issue_id=15184