Do you believe in the tooth fairy? - Bertie issues a statement

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Someone posted that the Conservatory cost 6k that leaves 24k, that was a lot of money back then, but if you want to believe that cock and bull by all means you are entitled to do so.

I'll let the media disect the details in the statement.There was a lot more than a conservatory involved.
Seriously if you don't like the man, just say so,I don't mind.

LOL Well I have a deposit on a site at the moment but I don't think I'll be giving the person thats going to rent the house off me 30k to do it up, even if he had a deposit on it it still makes no sense why he gave Bertie 30k to refurbish it 6 months before he bought it. It never seizes to amaze me how gullible people are.

Is the seller of the site staying with you at the moment? has he/she stayed with you often in the house you are currently living in? According to Aherns statement the nature of the Wall+Ahern relationship was like that so a lot of trust is entirely plausable.

He signed blank cheques for the most corrupt politician of the last 40 years while he was Minsiter for Finance

oh so it's just that and not this that has you in a tizzy? uhm ok..thats been in the public domain for several elections now and hasnt been an issue with enough of the electorate to put Ahern out of office.

and as I already said "Ivor Callely had a free paint job and was forced out of his position, Bertie gets enough cash to paint a whole estate and when people find out about it he calls it loans and pays back the money even though he hadn't made a single repayment in nearly 10 years!"

Quirky but not illegal and very much out in the open.

If it smells like corruption and looks like corruption it probably is, so imo he is a crook.

You know you have to show the corruption to state corruption and you haven't done so.All you've done is rehash the same facts about his quirky but not illegal finances from 14 years ago to comfort yourself in your already made up mind.
Thats your perogative of course.

InFront

InFront wrote:

I presume because in that scenario, O'Connor's version is simply a more logical version of events? This whole affair doesn't exist in a vaccuum. People judge both versions on grounds of believability. It's better to side with a solution which makes logical sense, particularly when all you get from Ahern are cloudy, incomplete, convoluted "explanations" like the above. It's very very hard to believe.

Well we know very little about O'Connor compared to Ahern.Why call either of them liars ? unless its subjectivity.
Thats what I mean by saying a lot of the posters here are doing a version of preaching to the converted.They already don't like FF or Ahern so all this is neat.

I mean you are on record here as supporting FG,I could say thats giving me the opinion that it suits you to not treat Aherns explanation with the fair hearing that it deserves.I doubt that you would apply that in life in general going on reading most of your posts so why give me that impression in this case specefically?
Why ignore the possibility that the chain of events Ahern gives are entirely plausable?

Lennoxschips

"Mr Wall was spending his own money on his own house, administered on his behalf by Ms Larkin"

Ah, I see, that money was only resting in Ms. Larkin's account...

Dirk Gently

Tristrame wrote:

Why ignore the possibility that the chain of events Ahern gives are entirely plausable?

I hear what you're saying and I agree with you that there are a lot of party drones seeking to pounce on every thing no matter how small in order to discredit who they see as their opposition, however..........

As a person not aligned with any party and as a person who on this board has questioned and had a go at most of the drones from both government parties and opposition parties I have to say that I don't think these latest attacks on Ahern are out of order. Taking into account his dodgy past, writing blank cheques, his mentor C.J. and a string of "quirky" incidents I think it's time to call a spade a spade and stop trying to tow the absolute proof line.

In my opinion, based on a string of dubious events throughout his time in politics he is as corrupt as they come. It is only my opinion and obviously not provable but I say it as someone who is objective and who has no interest in advancing a party political character assignation campaign.

Does it bother me? To be honest not a whole lot. I never had any illusions about certain politicians being above board. Sleaze is part and parcel of Irish political life and if the opposition wants to be in power they will have to do it through policies, not telling people what the dogs on the street have already known for years. It would be nice if politicians were forced to stand down in this country for wrong doing but this is Ireland and the population don't care if Bertie is well dodgy, they only care about who will take less of their disposable income to pay the bills, stealth taxes ect. Under which government will people have more disposable income and slightly improved if still third world services? That’s the only question people want answered. Honesty, accountability and integrety will always take a back seat to money in the pocket in this country.

InFront

Tristrame wrote:

Why call either of them liars?

Well, someone is lying. I do have a problem believing Ahern's version of events compared to more plausible explanations. There are all of these allegations against him right now, and on the one hand you have the option of believing the straight-forward solution, or you can go down the road of his own convoluted, impractical solutions - in each of the allegations.

Sure, sometimes the truth is complicated. But, the degree of complication in every instance coupled with BA's attitude in responding to questions, and previous silence on the issues, makes me pretty cynical about his version of events. I'm not saying that it's a pronounced fact, it is a firm opinion.

it suits you to not treat Ahern's explanation with the fair hearing that it deserves.

You'd be right to be skeptical, I wouldn't take it personally. I would just suggest that you apply the same skepticism to Bertie Ahern, who so obviously benefits from not telling the truth, if these allegations are accurate.

Valmont

Personally I think there is not enough evidence or facts to condemn the man. Most posters made up their minds long before this interview so any further defense on Bertie's behalf is pointless. Take off the corruption tinted glasses and wonder is this really that big a deal? At this time, most importantly, is Bertie's ability to successfully lead our country and Fianna Fail and if he is up to challenges ahead, that's what needs to be considered, not his bloody home furnishings.

gandalf

The_Minister wrote:

I found that website after using google, I didn't know it existed since then. I just posted it to see what people thought.

You had it in your sig as well :rolleyes:

EDIT: Gandalf there is a big dfference being in the main party and being in the youth wing. Surely as an ex-Labour Youth member you would have seen that.

I joined Labour from College alright but there was no difference back then, why do you guys have different badges or something??

EDIT: My apologies, you are a member of the main party, I misread that. My point stands though. Surely you will have seen how Labour Youth operates in a completely seperate manner to the main party? (Not that I would ever compare the Young Progressive Democrats to Labour Youth.)

Actually if you read what I posted I said I was a member of the Labour party, I left them in 1992 when they joined with FF as a point of principle. Again if you are in the PD's Youth Division then you are a PD in my eyes or is it the case when you graduate from PD school you get to choose another party ?

Back on topic Valmont the problem a lot of us have is Bertie is in the debt of many powerful businessmen, something that is not acceptable as the leader of a country whether or not corruption took place or not. He was and is compromised.

dloob

clown bag wrote:

Under which government will people have more disposable income and slightly improved if still third world services? That’s the only question people want answered. Honesty, accountability and integrety will always take a back seat to money in the pocket in this country.

That's what I've gotten out of this and BertieGate one, the electorate don't care about honesty and integrity just who will throw a bit of money their way. Hopefully they'll get the government they deserve.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

I'll let the media disect the details in the statement.There was a lot more than a conservatory involved.
Seriously if you don't like the man, just say so,I don't mind.

I actually don't personally have any dislike or like for the man, as for what was spent on the house:

Appendix 2
Summary of expenditure during refurbishment

Kinsella Interiors: 29,000.00
All Season’s conservatories: 6,000.00
Weatherglaze: 5,250.00
Brown Thomas: 2,116.20
Miscellaneous household items for which bank records are available: 2,090.84
Total of expenditure for which documentation is available: 44,457.04

In addition several thousand pounds were spent on matters for which invoices are no longer available including:

a) flooring of the attic with chipboard and provision of attic ladder
b) bathroom fittings
c) painting of house
d) brass sockets, switches, and downlighters

Now the house cost Mr Wall £137,400 and 3 years later 44k was needed to be spent on refurbishing it? and the average price of a house in Dublin at the time was £92,342, Kinsella Interiors must have been best money can buy. Interesting there is no invoice for the painting job I wonder was it the same painter Ivor Callely used??;)

Tristrame wrote:

Is the seller of the site staying with you at the moment? has he/she stayed with you often in the house you are currently living in? According to Aherns statement the nature of the Wall+Ahern relationship was like that so a lot of trust is entirely plausable.

Wall only stayed 10 to 20 times in the house according to Ahern, hardly a reason to give someone 30k to refurbish the house as for Trust he must have known who the seller of the house too as he could have decided at any time to pull the plug.

Tristrame wrote:

oh so it's just that and not this that has you in a tizzy? uhm ok..thats been in the public domain for several elections now and hasnt been an issue with enough of the electorate to put Ahern out of office.

Its not any one particular issue that makes me think he is a crook if thats what you are asking.

Tristrame wrote:

Quirky but not illegal and very much out in the open.

And was the paintjob that Ivor got illegal? there is a thing called Standards in Public Office you know.

Tristrame wrote:

You know you have to show the corruption to state corruption and you haven't done so.All you've done is rehash the same facts about his quirky but not illegal finances from 14 years ago to comfort yourself in your already made up mind.
Thats your perogative of course.

Well if we were in this position 15 years ago having the same chat about Charlie Haughey you could have said something simalar and we all know how that played out, time may yet prove to you that Bertie is a crook, I ? well I already know he is. Isn't it funny the way Charlies remark "the most cunning and devious of them all" seems to make sense now.

Oirthir

It all sounds a little familiar...

Bertie Ahern wrote:

Finally let me state unequivocally: I have done nothing wrong and I have wronged no-one

Bill Clinton wrote:

I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I actually don't personally have any dislike or like for the man,

no no you don't...

as for what was spent on the house:

Appendix 2
Summary of expenditure during refurbishment

Kinsella Interiors: 29,000.00
All Season’s conservatories: 6,000.00
Weatherglaze: 5,250.00
Brown Thomas: 2,116.20
Miscellaneous household items for which bank records are available: 2,090.84
Total of expenditure for which documentation is available: 44,457.04

In addition several thousand pounds were spent on matters for which invoices are no longer available including:

a) flooring of the attic with chipboard and provision of attic ladder
b) bathroom fittings
c) painting of house
d) brass sockets, switches, and downlighters

Now the house cost Mr Wall £137,400 and 3 years later 44k was needed to be spent on refurbishing it? and the average price of a house in Dublin at the time was £92,342, Kinsella Interiors must have been best money can buy.

Ha! is that all you can say? come on now-queue up at all the new houses these days with fantastic things done to them...Such jobs were fewer in the 90's but I'm not going to start begrudging people who legally had the wherewithall to spend what they like on the house they want to live in.

Interesting there is no invoice for the painting job I wonder was it the same painter Ivor Callely used??;)

Ha again... etc

Wall only stayed 10 to 20 times in the house according to Ahern, hardly a reason to give someone 30k to refurbish the house as for Trust he must have known who the seller of the house too as he could have decided at any time to pull the plug.

10 or 20 times and they're not close? come on now...

Its not any one particular issue that makes me think he is a crook if thats what you are asking.

In other words your mind was made up over the blank cheques thing in the Haughey era and you've no evidence of criminality whatsoever.Judge jury and convicted.I see.

And was the paintjob that Ivor got illegal? there is a thing called Standards in Public Office you know.

Whats that got to do with Ahern?

Well if we were in this position 15 years ago having the same chat about Charlie Haughey you could have said something simalar and we all know how that played out, time may yet prove to you that Bertie is a crook, I ? well I already know he is. Isn't it funny the way Charlies remark "the most cunning and devious of them all" seems to make sense now.

As someone else said recently regarding this "fuss" over Ahern...No charvais shirts,noCayman accounts and no unexplained millions in property.
Things may make a particular kind of sense to you but then you've made a fine case here all along that your mind has been made up all along albeit on no evidence other than what you want it to be.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

no no you don't...

I actually don't, I do have a personal dislike of Michael Noonan I think he is about the only TD though.

Tristrame wrote:

Ha! is that all you can say? come on now-queue up at all the new houses these days with fantastic things done to them...Such jobs were fewer in the 90's but I'm not going to start begrudging people who legally had the wherewithall to spend what they like on the house they want to live in.

But Wall spent a very large sum of money on a house he was renting out and only stayed in a few times and he provided the money for the work 6 months before he bought the house.

Tristrame wrote:

Ha again... etc

I was actually joking there.

Tristrame wrote:

10 or 20 times and they're not close? come on now...

We were talking about trust and also you ignored the fact that there was another party involved who could have pulled the plug at any time during the 6 months that money was given for the refurbishment and the sale hadn't been done.

Tristrame wrote:

In other words your mind was made up over the blank cheques thing in the Haughey era and you've no evidence of criminality whatsoever.Judge jury and convicted.I see.

Not at all its not any one issue as I have said, its more to do with the fact business men were giving him digouts and were only repaid after the media got wind of the story.

Tristrame wrote:

Whats that got to do with Ahern?

My point is Ivor was a Minister of State in Bertie's government and he had to resign from that position because he got a free paint job whereas Bertie got enough money to paint a whole estate but instead of resigning he called it a loan and payed the money back after the media got the story, double standards anyone?

Tristrame wrote:

As someone else said recently regarding this "fuss" over Ahern...No charvais shirts,noCayman accounts and no unexplained millions in property.
Things may make a particular kind of sense to you but then you've made a fine case here all along that your mind has been made up all along albeit on no evidence other than what you want it to be.

Did people know of all CJ's dealings 15 years ago? Time may yet see Bertie for what he is imo - a crook.

Oh and he said there was no tax issues in the dail last year and guess what, there now appears to have been a tax issue.

Sleepy

AFAIC, if his character is even in question he has no place in public service.

Nevermind the current revelations regarding his personal finances, his admission to signing blank cheques for CJ is enough evidence to believe he is either:

a) corrupt himself and was benefitting financially or otherwise from those actions

b) too stupid to be left in the posession of a bar tab, never mind the country's finances

c) craven to the point he'd allow himself to be bullied into aiding and abetting a criminal

or a mixture of all three (which tbh, is my own view of things).

DeepBlue wrote:

Is anyone really going to vote for a Government for the next five years solely on the basis of this issue?

Well, judging from their posters Fianna Fail expect us to vote for people purely because they're on "Bertie's Team" so it would seem to me that the honesty of the ringleader of that "team" :rolleyes: would be a fairly major election issue.

jmayo

Could any FF/Bertie favouring posters please help me?

I am looking to rent house about 3/4 years old in good area.
I would like option to possibly buy same house in next couple of years or so.
I would also like landlord to provide me with 25% value of house, in cash, to do it up.

Now if any posters know of anyone apart from Bertie that has had similiar financial arrangements could they please let us know?

Irtish1 loved the reference to Martin Cullen :-)

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

no no you don't... Ha! is that all you can say? come on now-queue up at all the new houses these days with fantastic things done to them...Such jobs were fewer in the 90's but I'm not going to start begrudging people who legally had the wherewithall to spend what they like on the house they want to live in. Ha again... etc

And where exactly did he get the wherewithall for this extravagance?
Remember, only a few months earlier, he was so impoverished that he had to accept a large sum of money from his bestest bestest friends (one of whom is now claiming he was never that good a friend and the money was never intended as a personal loan, but as a political donation to the FF party) to help pay for his daughters education and to pay for the costs of his separation. He only had one legitimate source of income, and there is no way in hell he could have saved up 50k over that period of time to spend on luxurious upgrades on a rented home. He couldn't have got a bank loan because he had no bank account (and he has already stated the money was from his own personal savings)

As someone else said recently regarding this "fuss" over Ahern...No charvais shirts,noCayman accounts and no unexplained millions in property.

So it's only corruption if it amounts to millions. Right. And how do we know there were no cayman accounts?
We're being expected to believe that Bertie didn't have any bank accounts at all for a number of years. He kept all his money, tens of thousands of pounds (and 45k in dollars) under his bed, or in a safe in St Lukes that nobody but him knew was there....??

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I actually don't, I do have a personal dislike of Michael Noonan I think he is about the only TD though.

Ok I don't believe you but then we're all entitled to an opinion.

But Wall spent a very large sum of money on a house he was renting out and only stayed in a few times and he provided the money for the work 6 months before he bought the house.

So ? if you read Aherns statement, he wanted the option of buying the house but wasnt certain of doing so.

We were talking about trust and also you ignored the fact that there was another party involved who could have pulled the plug at any time during the 6 months that money was given for the refurbishment and the sale hadn't been done.

We're not party to the thoughts of the original house seller but clearly that wasnt going to be the case.

Not at all its not any one issue as I have said, its more to do with the fact business men were giving him digouts and were only repaid after the media got wind of the story.

Because it was seen as damaging to him.Most of them were his friends as you know.

My point is Ivor was a Minister of State in Bertie's government and he had to resign from that position because he got a free paint job whereas Bertie got enough money to paint a whole estate but instead of resigning he called it a loan and payed the money back after the media got the story, double standards anyone?

He still maintains it was a loan despite ongoing (aparently) discussions with the revenue about this.You only have to declare loans to the revenue if you are a company or self employed afaik.

Did people know of all CJ's dealings 15 years ago? Time may yet see Bertie for what he is imo - a crook.

Ah mind made up.No evidence of crookery just that his finances were a mess (in my opinion).

Oh and he said there was no tax issues in the dail last year and guess what, there now appears to have been a tax issue.

Thats actually incorrect.He maintained there were no tax issues last year based on what he said the Manchester money was-loans.There shouldn't have been if thats what they were.
It would be remiss of the Revenue not to investigate this and isn't it great that they apparently are despite the fact that he is Taoiseach.
We don't know what they are asking him specefically or what Peelo has said to the Revenue.
We don't even know if its about the loans that the Revenue are inquiring.
It would be prudent and any tax advisor will tell you this to lodge money with the revenue in a case where they are investigating.
They'll give it back with interest believe it or not.

Victor Meldrew

jmayo wrote:

Could any FF/Bertie favouring posters please help me?

I am looking to rent house about 3/4 years old in good area.
I would like option to possibly buy same house in next couple of years or so.
I would also like landlord to provide me with 25% value of house, in cash, to do it up.

Well said,

Bertie is proving to be a poor man's Haughey. both are (were) kept men at various stages of their lives, and lived beyond their means whilst lecturing us on fiscal responsibility. neither viewed taxes as "somethiong one should keep on top of" Think of that next time you see your PAYE pay slip and open the door on your (inevitibly) badly built and poorly serviced home (beit rented or owned).

Both are (were) defacto "owned" by builders and vested interests. now, do you want them to run the country?

Remember folks, you get the government you deserve...

It'll only take one short sharp shock across the backbenches of FF to have bertie and his corrupt ilk kicked out. do it !

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

And where exactly did he get the wherewithall for this extravagance?

I went through the maths on that one in another thread...
Put simply he was a minister driven everywhere and living over his constituency office.I'd be surprised if the rest of the cabinet weren't putting away lots of money-though with the crucial difference that they were probably putting it in the bank.

Remember, only a few months earlier,

it's easy to turn 2 years into a few months when you want to fiddle with the maths.His contribution wasnt built up over just a few months...

So it's only corruption if it amounts to millions. Right. And how do we know there were no cayman accounts?

Ah for Gods sake.

(and 45k in dollars)

Absolutely no proof of that whatsoever that I have seen.
But hey carry on.
Like I said earlier-judge jury and executioner...
Just be honest about it and say up front that you don't like FF or Ahern and thats that.
No need for to rehash the already explained and the pretence that it hasn't been.

Heinrich

jmayo wrote:

Could any FF/Bertie favouring posters please help me?

I am looking to rent house about 3/4 years old in good area.
I would like option to possibly buy same house in next couple of years or so.
I would also like landlord to provide me with 25% value of house, in cash, to do it up.

Now if any posters know of anyone apart from Bertie that has had similiar financial arrangements could they please let us know?

Irtish1 loved the reference to Martin Cullen :-)

Do not ask this question of a FF supporter. You will get a different answer on every other day of the week. Try not to TAX your brain too much as the tax will probably be paid back, damn, what am I saying?

Why not call up to the Cat and Cage and receive a dig-out from some mates you don't really know that well? Then you buy your own house.

Voipjunkie

In fairness to Ahern it is a fairly modest house and he does seem to have explained the 30,000 sterling

There are still some questions the money that Ahern claims was the 30,000 sterling that was lodged into Celia Larkins account does not equate to 30,000 converted to punts it does equate exactly to $45,000 which is odd considering that Bertie says he never had any dollars.

There is also the issue of the 50,000 punts that he kept in cash and whether he declared that as an asset in his sworn affidavit for his separation.

There is also the issue that he actually had 92,500 punts cash available to him at the time and could easily have afforded to buy the house with a small mortgage why Mr Wall was involved at all but that does not mean that there was anything corrupt in the way Mr Ahern went about it.Its just odd.


Also the story from October does not tally with what we now know in that Bertie told us he was virtually flat broke and his friend bailed him out with what he considered a "loan" but Bertie was far from broke although it is possible that his friends were unaware of his true worth at the time as perhaps the 50,000 did not appear on the affidavit his solicitor has drawn up as it was his solicitor who organised the whip around.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

it does equate exactly to $45,000 which is odd considering that Bertie says he never had any dollars.

He said it doesn't.

Aherns statement wrote:

In addition two points need to be emphasized. Firstly, at the appropriate AIB rate for dollars on that date, a lodgment of £28,772.90 would equate not to $45,000 but to $44,277.68. Secondly, there are a number of combinations of sterling and Irish pounds that result in the amount which was lodged. The sum of $45,000 was never lodged to any account maintained by Ms. Larkin for the purpose of the house.

People have an awfull habit of posting what they like here.

JerkyBoy

The_Minister wrote:

I am not even a member of the PDs. I am a member of the youth wing. I have never, ever posted party propaganda on this website (unlike some posters here....), nor have I ever been told what to say. You are clearly biased by your hatred of FF, and your support for Fine Gael, yet I do not dismiss your opinion as "oh did Enda tell you that", or "Enda pullin' your strings, eh Gandalf?". I have said it before and I'll say it again - my opinions are my own. I do not represent, nor speak for the Progressive Democrats on these boards.

Riiight.
I think we might be forgetting a little post of yours advertising a dirty politics website of the PDs which ridicules Kenny\Rabbitte by presenting them as Laurel and Hardy, a couple of numbskulls.

But then you realized that the backlash against this propaganda that you were spreading and you edited your post to remove the link, then later changed the post's subject heading.

Sure, you never post any PD propaganda here.
ROTFLMAO

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Just be honest about it and say up front that you don't like FF or Ahern and thats that.
No need for to rehash the already explained and the pretence that it hasn't been.

No I don't like FF or Ahern. But it's not some kind of irrational hatred or it's not because I'm a supporter of Fine Gael or any other party. I dislike them because of the incompetence deception and complete lack of integrity they have demonstrated over the 10 years they were in office.

Why don't you be honest and state your own bias in favour of Bertie and his Party.

Every single comment you have made on this issue (and most other issues relating to FF) has been in support of their policies and in defence of their own public excuses and statements, no matter how ropey they are.

Glenbhoy

Tristrame wrote:

In addition two points need to be emphasized. Firstly, at the appropriate AIB rate for dollars on that date, a lodgment of £28,772.90 would equate not to $45,000 but to $44,277.68. Secondly, there are a number of combinations of sterling and Irish pounds that result in the amount which was lodged. The sum of $45,000 was never lodged to any account maintained by Ms. Larkin for the purpose of the house.
He said it doesn't.

People have an awfull habit of posting what they like here.

Okay, why did he tell the tribunal that the amount was exactly GB£30K? Why did Michael Wall tell the tribunal that the amount was exactly GB£30K? Why did he refer to GB£30K frequently 2 weeks ago, as being the amount given by Wall to rest in Celia's account?
Could it be, that he's now changed his story to there having been some sterling and some irish in the bag of swag from Wall, because that is the only way that forex rates can ensure that the amount he lodged was indeed a combination of sterling and irish pounds, obviously, if he does no longer places an exact figure on the amount in the bag, and if the money in the bag is made up of indeterminate amounts of irish and sterling, then a combination of that will equal the amount lodged of 28772.90. This is not an explanation, it just clouds everything once again.
As for his calculation of dollars at the rates applicable on the day - from the transcript, you can see that the tribunal lawyers are convinced that $45K can be converted to £28772.90, you should remember that different rates may be applied to different amounts, and aib were never great on forex transactions anyway!!

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

No I don't like FF or Ahern. But it's not some kind of irrational hatred or it's not because I'm a supporter of Fine Gael or any other party. I dislike them because of the incompetence deception and complete lack of integrity they have demonstrated over the 10 years they were in office.

Grand which leads me back to what I said about a lot of posters on this thread already...minds made up,a version of the preaching to the converted etc.

Why don't you be honest and state your own bias in favour of Bertie and his Party.

You don't have to support FF you know to see through all the hoo ha about this.

Every single comment you have made on this issue (and most other issues relating to FF) has been in support of their policies and in defence of their own public excuses and statements, no matter how ropey they are.

Wrong.I'm being neutral.If I think somethings illegal I'll say it.If I think people are thinking what it is they want to believe when I dont see any hard evidence for their proposition,I'll say that.
Go do a search for what I think of their mess in the health service and see what I think of them there.
Thats as forthright as I can be about stuff here and I believe its very transparent.
I dont believe in harping on with pre existing grudges unless theres something to harp on about and there isn't.
Small potatoes in other words.

JerkyBoy

What has Bertie actually told us in his statement that we didn't already know.
He just regurgitated everything and said, that's my clarification.

The questions still remain unanswered.
Read the Mahon Tribunal transcript in the Sunday Tribune.
He can't even give the Tribunal proper answers.

Why did Bertie take a loan from his "friends", to pay off the loan he took from the AIB, when he was in surplus of £70,000 at the time and could have paid the loan off himself.
Also why would he spread a single loan with a single interest rate, around among loads of lenders ("friends")? Most people consolodate existing debts....not spread them around and hence make managing repayment\interest more difficult. Of couse, we have to take Bertie's word that the money from his friends was indeed a loan, which is just implausable in the extreme. It just makes no sense...why take a loan to pay a loan, unless you are consolidating. It's basic finance!
And for a Minister of Finance, and alleged accountant, to make this move makes even less logical sense.

Here was a man with a loan taken out of AIB, who has £50,000 to his name, and then takes a further 22,500 off his friends, to pay off the loan, which takes him nearly 2 years before he pays a single penny off it.

He hasn't answered any questions around these glaring oddities.

But Bertie throws out a few reciepts about what was spent on his house and all of a sudden he has answered all the questions.

His statement was, imo, an exercise in obfuscation...just more bullsh!t to get him by until the election.
He knows most people aren't paying attention to the details so if he throws out a few soundbites that's good enough.

But I guess he's right...with a whimp like McDowell lapping at his feet he is answerable to no-one.

The Mahon Tribunal will get him though...I have no doubt.

Glenbhoy

Glenbhoy wrote:

Okay, why did he tell the tribunal that the amount was exactly GB£30K? Why did Michael Wall tell the tribunal that the amount was exactly GB£30K? Why did he refer to GB£30K frequently 2 weeks ago, as being the amount given by Wall to rest in Celia's account?

I dunno because people don't normally go around saying things like I lodged 29,796.23456789 euro today.

Could it be, that he's now changed his story to there having been some sterling and some irish in the bag of swag from Wall, because that is the only way that forex rates can ensure that the amount he lodged was indeed a combination of sterling and irish pounds, obviously, if he does no longer places an exact figure on the amount in the bag, and if the money in the bag is made up of indeterminate amounts of irish and sterling, then a combination of that will equal the amount lodged of 28772.90. This is not an explanation, it's just clouds everything once again.

How?

As for his calculation of dollars at the rates applicable on the day - from the transcript, you can see that the tribunal lawyers are convinced that $45K can be converted to £28772.90, you should remember that different rates may be applied to different amounts, and aib were never great on forex transactions anyway!!

LoL so now we're relying on AIB to hold some water in this ever decreasing can??

JerkyBoy

JerkyBoy wrote:

What has Bertie actually told us in his statement that we didn't already know.
He just regurgitated everything and said, that's my clarification.

The questions still remain unanswered.
Read the Mahon Tribunal transcript in the Sunday Tribune.
He can't even give the Tribunal proper answers.

Why did Bertie take a loan from his "friends", to pay off the loan he took from the AIB, when he was in surplus of £70,000 at the time and could have paid the loan off himself.
Also why would he spread a single loan with a single interest rate, around among loads of lenders ("friends")? Most people consolodate existing debts....not spread them around and hence make managing repayment\interest more difficult. Of couse, we have to take Bertie's word that the money from his friends was indeed a loan, which is just implausable in the extreme. It just makes no sense...why take a loan to pay a loan, unless you are consolidating. It's basic finance!
And for a Minister of Finance, and alleged accountant, to make this move makes even less logical sense.

Here was a man with a loan taken out of AIB, who has £50,000 to his name, and then takes a further 22,500 off his friends, to pay off the loan, which takes him nearly 2 years before he pays a single penny off it.

He hasn't answered any questions around these glaring oddities.

But Bertie throws out a few reciepts about what was spent on his house and all of a sudden he has answered all the questions.

His statement was, imo, an exercise in obfuscation...just more bullsh!t to get him by until the election.
He knows most people aren't paying attention to the details so if he throws out a few soundbites that's good enough.

But I guess he's right...with a whimp like McDowell lapping at his feet he is answerable to no-one.

The Mahon Tribunal will get him though...I have no doubt.

Theres lots of the use of the word why there but no use of the word illegal.

JerkyBoy

1) Whether his dealings are legal or not is not important here. No one is suggesting illegality yet as far as I am aware.
You can act fully within the law and still be completely unethical and untrustworthy.
We know for a fact that the man had up to £150,000 in cash floating around him at various points and he still can't put the pieces together for the tribunal, let alone us. I suspect he's dodgy, and from reading the Tribunal transcript, from their questioning, they do too.

2) We won't know if anything is illegal or not because he hasn't answered the questions relating to the holes in his story yet.

The Mahon Tribunal willl get to the bottom of it all eventually.
If FF get back into power, Bertie will not last long as leader.

My guess is that they are just hoping to keep the real questions from being asked and answered, by obfuscating in public, until after the election.
At which point Bertie will face the music and Cowen will take over.

Villain

Tristrame why do you keep insisting nothing was illegal, I haven't claimed anything was illegal actually I don't think anyone here has, it doesn't have to be illegal to be corruption, I mean was there anything illegal about Ivor's paintjob? Yet Bertie accepted his resignation as Minister for State. How in the name of god can Bertie call the money he got from businessmen Loans after he never repaid a penny until 10 years later it was made public by the media? Surely you accept there at least there is double standards here?