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

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

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.

Neutral? Like when you accept the testimony of one side of the debate 100% and reject everything that contradicts it as 'hearsay' and rumour.

jerkyboy

How do we know what the tribunal makes of his data,it doent sit for 2 weeks.
Any poster here can opinionate on it.

As for obfuscation-you're kidding me right?
Since when would the media not pounce if there was something to pounce on ?

jerkyboy wrote:

I suspect he's dodgy, and from reading the Tribunal transcript, from their questioning, they do too.

Have you had access to all the tribunals pre public questioning of all witnesses to come to the conclusion that they are treating Ahern differently?

JerkyBoy

I mean read this:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0505/1178204444252.html

Even aspects of the money given in the dig-outs don't make sense.

NCB give a cheque to a company for work that wasn't even done, then money from that company (Richardson) goes straight into Ahern's pocket.
NCB never thought the money was going to Ahern, and certainly wouldn't see themselves as a lending institution who would give him money to pay off his debts while he would be obliged to pay them back.
It's insane!

If these questions were surrounding anyone but Ahern, he'd be out on his ear by now.

General Election politics is the only thing keeping Ahern safe...for now.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

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?

If they were loans,they were loans,thats for the revenue to be satisfied with.
I know you aren't.

Akrasia wrote:

Neutral? Like when you accept the testimony of one side of the debate 100% and reject everything that contradicts it as 'hearsay' and rumour.

But mostof the posts here are contributing nothing other than their take on what they want to believe.
I'm looking for evidence of corruption and if I see it I'll take a different view.
I hear the word being bandied about,see no evidence and then look at who is bandy ing it and draw my own conclusions.
In addition to that and as I've already stated I'm quite open on my reasoning here.

Heinrich

JerkyBoy wrote:

I mean read this:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0505/1178204444252.html

Even aspects of the money given in the dig-outs don't make sense.

NCB give a cheque to a company for work that wasn't even done, then money from that company (Richardson) goes straight into Ahern's pocket.
NCB never thought the money was going to Ahern, and certainly wouldn't see themselves as a lending institution who would give him money to pay off his debts while he would be obliged to pay them back.
It's insane!

If these questions were surrounding anyone but Ahern, he'd be out on his ear by now.
General Election politics is the only thing keeping Ahern safe...for now.

Ye read that in the Times. Don't believe all you read in that paper. That goes for the Indo, Examiner, RTE etc. Just take on board the non-biased bias.

The above is irony but what is being discussed is the shady dealings and yes, we are not judging anyone for crimes.

I wonder why these monies did not transit through a bank.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

If they were loans,they were loans,thats for the revenue to be satisfied with.
I know you aren't.

But can you see what I'm saying nothing illegal was proven against Ivor and he ahd to resign, is it not double standards?

JerkyBoy

JerkyBoy wrote:

NCB give a cheque to a company for work that wasn't even done, then money from that company (Richardson) goes straight into Ahern's pocket.
NCB never thought the money was going to Ahern, and certainly wouldn't see themselves as a lending institution who would give him money to pay off his debts while he would be obliged to pay them back.
It's insane!

Are you suggesting that Ahern was aware of the ins and outs of the funds that were passed to him by O'Connor prior to him getting them ?

If these questions were surrounding anyone but Ahern, he'd be out on his ear by now.

That might and should happen if it could be proven that Ahern was privy to whatever machinations O'Connor used to hand money over to Ahern.I'd imagine O'Connor got a bit of a roasting over that set up alright which it could be argued equally is behind his change of mind on the status of his friendship with Ahern...
But hey thats only a theory guys.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

But can you see what I'm saying nothing illegal was proven against Ivor and he ahd to resign, is it not double standards?

What, did Ivor claim at any point that he got a loan of the paint?

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

What, did Ivor claim at any point that he got a loan of the paint?

Ah for gods sake Tristrame are you serious?

Have a read of http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1207/callelyi.html its the very same as Ahern but in a much smaller scale, i.e. the sum £1,500.

If that isn't double standards I honestly don't know what is.

That was definitely never a loan and never was it claimed to be.
It's not actually like with like you are comparing.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

He said it doesn't.

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

Not what I like the tribunal lawyer is the one who said it equated exactly to $45,000 the full interview between Ahern and the tribunal lawyer was printed in yesterdays Sunday Tribune.
And converting that amount back to dollars will always give a different sum than converting dollars to punts I presume you are aware of that banks have a buy rate and sell rate and commissions.

Secondly there is no combination of 30,000 sterling with anything that would have given the £28,772.90 punts that Celia Larkin deposited either all of it was not deposited or the £28,772.90 does not relate to that money from Mr Wall.


The tribunal asked these questions of Ahern and he had no explanation for them and his statement yesterday still does not explain it
The tribunal said that the 30,000 sterling would have been over 44,000 punts not £28,772.90 so their is a big discrepancy between the two.

Mr Aherns receipts for the work done add upto over 44,000 so where did the nearly 16,000 come from he did not put it in the bank or the bank accounts that he has disclosed so where did he put it and why could he not tell the tribunal where he put it or where Celia Larkin put it.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

That was definitely never a loan and never was it claimed to be.
It's not actually like with like you are comparing.

I'm sorry but you obviously aren't grasping the issues here at all, I'm not going to bother going and over it again because I'm sure most people here and elsewhere know that the two episodes show nothing but double standards, Bertie calls them loans after 10 years of not paying back a cent, some loan that is wonder where I can get one of them?

Then his better half is given 30k sterling, oh no wait it was a mixture of punts now but it wasn't dollars he got from businessmen in the states, to refurbish a house he might buy and which Wall didn't even owe at the time and Callely never got a bill for a paint job but paid every bill he got, Bertie can't show a bill for the painting I wonder did he pay for the paint.

It has double standards written all over it and if you want to be blinded by Bertie's crocodile tears that your choice. I have enough common sense to see this for what it is.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I'm sorry but you obviously aren't grasping the issues here at all, I'm not going to bother going and over it again because I'm sure most people here and elsewhere know that the two episodes show nothing but double standards, Bertie calls them loans after 10 years of not paying back a cent, some loan that is wonder where I can get one of them?

Some people mix in those kind of circles some don't fact.

Then his better half is given 30k sterling, oh no wait it was a mixture of punts now but it wasn't dollars he got from businessmen in the states, to refurbish a house he might buy and which Wall didn't even owe at the time and Callely never got a bill for a paint job but paid every bill he got, Bertie can't show a bill for the painting I wonder did he pay for the paint.

Well the money disappearing from the a/c would surely be shown so I guess it's your opinion versus his on that one.

It has double standards written all over it and if you want to be blinded by Bertie's crocodile tears that your choice. I have enough common sense to see this for what it is.

I asked you if Ivor got a loan of the paint ? Did he?
The two scenarios are completely different explanation wise.
And FYI I'm not being blinded by anything here,I'm just pointing out all along right through this that I am replying to people with their mind made up regardlesss of any explanation given.
That in itself is not a paragon of fairness,it's a predisposition to a wanted outcome minus of course evidence of corruption.

Villain

Ivor gets a refurbishment on his house that he owns and pays the builder for every bill he was given, the painter that was meant to do the job doesn't turn up so the buidler gets one and pays for the painting hence Ivor never gets a bill.

Now compare that to all of Bertie's dealings result?

Ivor has to resign as Minister for State and Bertie stays as Taoiseach, imo anyone (including Martin cullen even) could see that is double standards.

is_that_so

There are a number of individuals within the media who have gone after Bertie and to an extent this will not let this story die. Personally I reckon it should be returned to Mahon where it belongs. After all we are spending large amounts of money on it.

He provided answers, maybe not the right answers. For some people the only answer is Bertie heading into the sunset. I am puzzled, that there is still a debate about the minutiae of Bertie's paint a few weeks before the election. What does this achieve, save give people the chance to be right about Bertie swindling the country out of some paint and wallpaper?

Now I can see the foolishness of spending what he did on what he did. I can also see his detailed account.
I certainly wouldn't do it. If this were not Bertie, it would just be "that loon down the road who spent 50K on a house worth 130K".

As for the family side of it , well separation is a big deal to some people and I personally know of a good number whose lives were in "a serious mess" in the aftermath of a separation and people are not always themselves. I have no doubt there are many others who can attest to this as well. He may have exploited that difficult time in his explanation but just because he is a known public figure doesn't mean it couldn't have happened to him.

So on with the election and let Mahon take care of this.

Rock Climber

Agreed-This is a lot of wagon circling.

There is however a half hour interview with Bertie on the last word on Today FM today so I've opened a new thread for that.

This thread is closed