Beverley Cooper Flynn

cast_iron

gbh wrote:

You have to be joking right? Have you seen the house she and her partner live in? It's worth at least 2 million euro. He has built half of Castlebar as well. And If she had to take out a loan to make up the rest then it wouldn't knock anything out of her. The Flynns are loaded tbh.

Obviously you have no idea how these matters actually work. Just because a person's partner has money doesn't mean they have. If your girlfriend owed alot of money, would you like it if the courts could take yours also??

Heinrich

cast_iron wrote:

Obviously you have no idea how these matters actually work. Just because a person's partner has money doesn't mean they have. If your girlfriend owed alot of money, would you like it if the courts could take yours also??

So yopu are saying that she is not a property owner? Can you qualify that for us?

Jackie laughlin

Voip,
I'm not missing your point. You are supporting a standard FF cynical "argument": "We're no more corrupt than anyone else. Therefore, why vote for anyone else? Ah sure, the divil you know is better than the divil you don't know!"

If RTE had refused a 45% settlement, pushed for bankruptcy, and then got little or nothing, I would have been furious with them. They have defended a State resource and their freedom of speech which Bev tried to limit through her court actions.

gbh

cast_iron wrote:

Obviously you have no idea how these matters actually work. Just because a person's partner has money doesn't mean they have. If your girlfriend owed alot of money, would you like it if the courts could take yours also??

I'm saying she owns a house near Castlebar or else is a partner in that house.

But the house was built by her partner and is easily worth in the region of 1-2million. Now why cant she take a mortgage out on that?

And that is not the point here. The point is either she can pay the costs or not. If not, then she should be declared bankrupt and kicked out of the Dail causing a by-election in Mayo which FG with 54% share in the GE would easily win.

But of course the end result as usual with these things is a FF member does wrong and the tax payer foots the bill. This is what FF does in power.

cast_iron

gbh wrote:

I'm saying she owns a house near Castlebar or else is a partner in that house.

But the house was built by her partner and is easily worth in the region of 1-2million. Now why cant she take a mortgage out on that?

I couldn't say for sure. Can you?
If I was going out with someone, I don't think I'd shove my girlfriend's name on the deeds of our my house - maybe you would.
I do not know how much HER OWN house is worth, but in fairness, I'm sure those negotiating the deal did.

gbh wrote:

And that is not the point here. The point is either she can pay the costs or not. If not, then she should be declared bankrupt and then leave the Dail causing a by-election in Mayo which FG with 54% share in the GE would easily win.

But of course the end result as usual with these things is a FF member does wrong and the tax payer foots the bill.

Now you've just argued your own point void!
You say if she cannot foot the entire bill, she should be declared bankrupt - ie. RTE get very little.
On the other hand, you complain about the taxpayers footing the bill!

gbh

cast_iron wrote:

I couldn't say for sure. Can you?
If I was going out with someone, I don't think I'd shove my girlfriend's name on the deeds of our my house - maybe you would.
I do not know how much HER OWN house is worth, but in fairness, I'm sure those negotiating the deal did.


Now you've just argued your own point void!
You say if she cannot foot the entire bill, she should be declared bankrupt - ie. RTE get very little.
On the other hand, you complain about the taxpayers footing the bill!

Well I am sure there is a way of finding out whose name is on the deeds. Isnt there a registry of home ownership somewhere?

Again the point I am making is clear but you arent following. It was within her power to come up with 2.8 million. She could have sold that house with her partners permission and raised a significant sum. How do you think she came up with the money already agreed? answer me that. was it her own or other peoples money. I would definately say a remortgage of some property was involved, would you not agree?

If she couldnt come up with the full amount she should have been bankrupted. But 45% was getting off light imo.

gbh

cast_iron wrote:

I couldn't say for sure. Can you?
If I was going out with someone, I don't think I'd shove my girlfriend's name on the deeds of our my house - maybe you would.
I do not know how much HER OWN house is worth, but in fairness, I'm sure those negotiating the deal did.


Now you've just argued your own point void!
You say if she cannot foot the entire bill, she should be declared bankrupt - ie. RTE get very little.
On the other hand, you complain about the taxpayers footing the bill!

Come on a minute...did you follow the details of that case? Can you tell me why she is in the situation she is now? Why should we the taxpayer pay for her mistakes? That is the point I am making. Why should every Friend of FF do what they like and then get the taxpayer to pay the legal costs for their mistakes? Its about teaching people a lesson. I hope Beverly has learned hers though. But im not going to kick her while she is in the situation she is now so im going to leave it at that.

copacetic

gbh wrote:

You have to be joking right? Have you seen the house she and her partner live in? It's worth at least 2 million euro. He has built half of Castlebar as well. And If she had to take out a loan to make up the rest then it wouldn't knock anything out of her. The Flynns are loaded tbh.

you seem to be getting what you think she can afford and what her actual assets are mixed up. i.e what is in her name and can be recovered through the courts if she is made bankrupt.

cast_iron

gbh wrote:

Well I am sure there is a way of finding out whose name is on the deeds. Isnt there a registry of home ownership somewhere?

Again the point I am making is clear but you arent following. It was within her power to come up with 2.8 million. She could have sold that house with her partners permission and raised a significant sum. [/quote]
That's just a load of nonsense that no one in their right mind would do.

gbh wrote:

How do you think she came up with the money already agreed? answer me that. was it her own or other peoples money. I would definately say a remortgage of some property was involved, would you not agree?

From "her own personal resources" (according to herself). She wasn't going around looking for freebies or digouts or anything like that off anyone.
You are probably the same type of person that criticises Berties for digouts, and also criticises Beverly for not taking them!

gbh wrote:

If she couldnt come up with the full amount she should have been bankrupted. But 45% was getting off light imo.

To the best of my knowledge, declaring her bankrupt would mean she pays a much lesser sum than the quoted settlement, and she kind of gets to wipe the slate clean from then on. Good deal for the taxpayer (as you put it)?? I don't think so.

gbh wrote:

Why should we the taxpayer pay for her mistakes?

Because that's the way our laws are setup. Beverly haasn't broken any laws that I've seen.

copacetic

gbh wrote:

Why should we the taxpayer pay for her mistakes? That is the point I am making. Why should every Friend of FF do what they like and then get the taxpayer to pay the legal costs for their mistakes?

again you are trying to have it both ways. We certainly shouldn't pay for her mistakes, but the deal with RTÉ means we at least get half our money back. Making her bankrupt would have meant we get feck all back. From the RTÉ point of view they got some of the money back, getting anywhere near as much back via the courts was very unlikely. Now if you were in charge I am sure you would have found a way to make her pay it all but you certainly haven't told us how as yet except that she could afford it if she wanted to. Which I agree with by the way. Assume she didn't want to though and that very few assets are in her name, then what do you do?

gbh

cast_iron wrote:

Because that's the way our laws are setup. Beverly haasn't broken any laws that I've seen.

Well did she not lie under oath?

gbh

The point of my argument is this...she is not fit to be a TD. She has brought disrepute on the office of TD. That is the essence of my argument. Whether she can pay or not or afford to pay is beside the point imo. But she is not the only one who isnt fit to be a TD.

copacetic

gbh wrote:

The point of my argument is this...she is not fit to be a TD. She has brought disrepute on the office of TD. That is the essence of my argument. Whether she can pay or not or afford to pay is beside the point imo. But she is not the only one who isnt fit to be a TD.

well i'd agree with that, but dragging FF and RTÉ into a conspiracy theory is a bit out there in my opinion.

cast_iron

gbh wrote:

Well did she not lie under oath?

I'm not sure. When?

gbh wrote:

The point of my argument is this...she is not fit to be a TD. She has brought disrepute on the office of TD. That is the essence of my argument. Whether she can pay or not or afford to pay is beside the point imo. But she is not the only one who isnt fit to be a TD.

Maybe that was your point, but I never countered that.
I did argue against your apparent lack of understanding of the realities of the situation though.

gbh

The thread is titled Beverly Cooper Flynn and I am giving my opinion on that subject. I think the whole thing is a disgrace but there ya go. I cant do anything about it so like you I will have to accept it. But the facts in the case speak for themselves...if you remember the details of that case you might agree and the passage of time doesnt charge a thing. To be a prodical son or daughter doesnt make you a better person than someone who has always lived honestly.

cast_iron

gbh wrote:

But the facts in the case speak for themselves...if you remember the details of that case you might agree and the passage of time doesnt charge a thing.

I've asked you to point out where she lied (and you haven't); maybe you could also point out these "disgracful" facts also.

Mick86

gbh wrote:

You have to be joking right? Have you seen the house she and her partner live in? It's worth at least 2 million euro. He has built half of Castlebar as well. And If she had to take out a loan to make up the rest then it wouldn't knock anything out of her. The Flynns are loaded tbh.

Neither her partner nor her father are liable for her debts.

gbh wrote:

..But hey if the people are willing to be fooled, cajoled and mislead by FF, then so be it. Sometimes I think criticising FF is counter productive cause it gives them the oxygen of publicity and it seems with them there is no such thing as bad publicity. But some day maybe people will see sense.

Not while 41.6% has the money to buy a politician or had fathers who voted for De Valera.

Mick86

cast_iron wrote:

...If your girlfriend owed alot of money, would you like it if the courts could take yours also??

I once owed the taxman £200 in income tax. By chance the taxman owed my wife the same amount so they took my wife's money to settle my debt. When she rang to complain she was informed it was all quite legal and above board.

But then we aren't Flynns, members of Fianna Fáil or rich.

Only the little people are subject to the law.

cast_iron

Mick86 wrote:

I once owed the taxman £200 in income tax. By chance the taxman owed my wife the same amount so they took my wife's money to settle my debt. When she rang to complain she was informed it was all quite legal and above board.

But then we aren't Flynns, members of Fianna Fáil or rich.

Only the little people are subject to the law.

It wouldn't matter if ye were Flynns, little or large people.
I said girlfriend (ie.partner), not wife. Entirely different in the eyes of the law.

Mick86

cast_iron wrote:

I've asked you to point out where she lied (and you haven't); maybe you could also point out these "disgracful" facts also.

cast_iron wrote:

Because that's the way our laws are setup. Beverly haasn't broken any laws that I've seen.

She is alleged to have provided people with the means to avoid paying tax on their income. She denied this. The jury in her libel case believed those of her former customers who were called as witnesses. In other words the jury believed she lied. Were she not a TD (or a Flynn or an FF gene pooler) she would be subject to a criminal investigation.

cast_iron wrote:

It wouldn't matter if ye were Flynns, little or large people.
I said girlfriend (ie.partner), not wife. Entirely different in the eyes of the law.

Ah that's alright then.

Is that a Fianna Fáil law or one that applies to everbody else? For instance is Mr Cooper liable for her debts?

cast_iron

Mick86 wrote:

The jury in her libel case believed those of her former customers who were called as witnesses. In other words the jury believed she lied. Were she not a TD (or a Flynn or an FF gene pooler) she would be subject to a criminal investigation.

This was a libel case, not a criminal one. Perhaps she wasn't prosecuted criminally because in all likelihood it would fail as there is a criminal offence involved. I don't actually know why.

Mick86 wrote:

Is that a Fianna Fáil law or one that applies to everbody else? For instance is Mr Cooper liable for her debts?

I'm not sure if she is legally divorced or separated. If so, then there well be provisions to protect a person's former spouse from his/her actions.

You are mixing up your arguments. Do you not accept there is a difference between spouses and partners. It's very evident in the tax laws...

Mick86

cast_iron wrote:

This was a libel case, not a criminal one. Perhaps she wasn't prosecuted criminally because in all likelihood it would fail as there is a criminal offence involved. I don't actually know why.

She sued RTE for libel because it claimed she assisted clients of National Irish Bank to evade tax. Tax evasion is a crime. She lost her case so the jury was satisfied that she committed that crime. Logically therefore the Gardai should now start an investigation into that alleged crime with a view to a criminal prosecution. I'm sure you do know why this will never happen.

cast_iron wrote:

I'm not sure if she is legally divorced or separated. If so, then there well be provisions to protect a person's former spouse from his/her actions.

She divorced her husband in 2003 but lost the original libel case in 2001.

cast_iron wrote:

You are mixing up your arguments. Do you not accept there is a difference between spouses and partners.

Other than the presence or absence of a piece of paper, No.

cast_iron wrote:

It's very evident in the tax laws...

Maybe you should look up the bits on Tax Evasion.

cast_iron

Mick86 wrote:

She sued RTE for libel because it claimed she assisted clients of National Irish Bank to evade tax. Tax evasion is a crime. She lost her case so the jury was satisfied that she committed that crime. Logically therefore the Gardai should now start an investigation into that alleged crime with a view to a criminal prosecution. I'm sure you do know why this will never happen.

This is fruitless!
She was never convicted of a tax related crime.

Mick86 wrote:

She divorced her husband in 2003 but lost the original libel case in 2001.

And?? the final issue of costs was after 2003.

Mick86 wrote:

Other than the presence or absence of a piece of paper, No.

By that logic, the law is no more than a piece of paper either.

Mick86 wrote:

Maybe you should look up the bits on Tax Evasion.

Why? No one in this case was ever convicted of it.

I'm not wasting my time arguing this anymore.

Mick86

cast_iron wrote:

She was never convicted of a tax related crime.

That's why I specified "alleged". She cannot be convicted without a trial, there will be no trial without an investigation and there will be no investigation because the Gardai haven't the bottle to act against a TD.

cast_iron wrote:

By that logic, the law is no more than a piece of paper either.

As far as FF is concerned anyway.

cast_iron wrote:

Why? No one in this case was ever convicted of it.

I'm not wasting my time arguing this anymore.

Good idea, the facts are undeniable.

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

Voipjunkie, no-one disagress with you. But FG corruption hardly compares to the scale of FF corruption. Charlie Haughy for one was thought to have earned something like 45 million in todays money from his corrupt activities. And FG tackled corrupt activities right away. FF usually promote someone they know to be corrrupt until eventually the outcry grows so loud the have no choice but to get rid of them. My argument is FF are perceived by many as being an honest party overall and the others as looking to get into power for the sake of being corrupt or serving themselves. This is the legacy of FF and Haughy corruption. But im going to leave it at that. this thread is about Bev afterall.

FG time in office does not compare either

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Voip,
I'm not missing your point. You are supporting a standard FF cynical "argument": "We're no more corrupt than anyone else. Therefore, why vote for anyone else? Ah sure, the divil you know is better than the divil you don't know!"

.

No I am not buying into the whole its just FF nonsense as if getting rid of FF is a solution to corruption it is not.
Changing the law to deal better with those guilty of corruption is how we should proceed and personally I do not trust FG to deal with corruption any better than FF does and that is based on their record and current behaviour as demonstrated yesterday in the disclosure that FG along with FF and the PDs had no donations above the disclosure level this is the cute hoor politics that is prevalent in FF as well as FG.

My point is not that people should just vote for FF because they are all the same it is that they should not trust FG to be any different because the party has not shown itself to be any different in reality. And FG people coming on here mouthing off about FF being corrupt should explain why FG had no donations above the declaration level or how FG cleared its debt last time they were in Government.

Voipjunkie

Mick86 wrote:

They are representative of 29% of those eligible to vote anyway.



41.6% of the people didn't invest in FF. There was a 70% turn out in the election. 41% of 70% is 29%. So in reality 29% of the electorate voted FF. Irish people under voting age are not included. Neither are the 30% who didn't vote. FF is the party of Big business, the professional classes and so on. People who can afford private health care and who do not use public transport. 19 FF TDs in Dublin represents less than 1/4 of the FF total or roughly 7%. This 7% probably does park on the M50 regularly.

It's easy when you think about it.:D

Do you really believe this nonsense


Here is another way to look at it more than 30% of the population were so unaffected by the traffic or problems with the health service and did not care about corruption that they made no effort to change the current Government which means along with the 29% who voted for FF the vast majority of people in the country do not care about corruption or traffic or health care.

See you can twist and turn things anyway you want it does not change reality though.

K-9

Mick86 wrote:

Not while 41.6% has the money to buy a politician or had fathers who voted for De Valera.

I take it you have facts to back this up:D

Seriously the mejia! often say FF core vote is mid 30's, so where did the other 6/8% come from?

Mick86 wrote:

I once owed the taxman £200 in income tax. By chance the taxman owed my wife the same amount so they took my wife's money to settle my debt. When she rang to complain she was informed it was all quite legal and above board.

Because you are usually jointly assessed with your wife. Same as Cooper Flynn or do you have information otherwise?

Mick86 wrote:

She sued RTE for libel because it claimed she assisted clients of National Irish Bank to evade tax. Tax evasion is a crime. She lost her case so the jury was satisfied that she committed that crime. Logically therefore the Gardai should now start an investigation into that alleged crime with a view to a criminal prosecution. I'm sure you do know why this will never happen.

As cast_iron pointed out that was a civil not a criminal case. If it was a criminal I would say the fact that she was employed by a bank where this was a widespread occurence and by the looks of things enncouraged, well...

I was under orders.....

Heard it before, but seriously it was an active policy, allegedly, within the bank.

Mike86 wrote:

Other than the presence or absence of a piece of paper, No.

I know a nurse who asked me for my companies VAT No. so she could use it in Northern Ireland to buy products without VAT, should I report her, and take a case against her? She knew what she was doing was wrong? And she is a union member and rep!
Should the same rules apply?


So in the above scenario, her partner is liable as well? and I'm all for same rights for cohabitating couples as married they should also get the same responsibilities.So if a large financial figure was involved the 2 partners should be jointly liable? In all fairness, I take it you agree?

Mick86 wrote:

That's why I specified "alleged". She cannot be convicted without a trial, there will be no trial without an investigation and there will be no investigation because the Gardai haven't the bottle to act against a TD.

Or maybe because it wouldn't win, because its a criminal case as pointed out above.

gbh

Voipjunkie wrote:

No I am not buying into the whole its just FF nonsense as if getting rid of FF is a solution to corruption it is not.
Changing the law to deal better with those guilty of corruption is how we should proceed and personally I do not trust FG to deal with corruption any better than FF does and that is based on their record and current behaviour as demonstrated yesterday in the disclosure that FG along with FF and the PDs had no donations above the disclosure level this is the cute hoor politics that is prevalent in FF as well as FG.

My point is not that people should just vote for FF because they are all the same it is that they should not trust FG to be any different because the party has not shown itself to be any different in reality. And FG people coming on here mouthing off about FF being corrupt should explain why FG had no donations above the declaration level or how FG cleared its debt last time they were in Government.

Who would you trust more to deal with corruption? Enda Kenny or Bertie Ahearn? I don't like reducing it to such a simple equation but that is what FF always reduce elections to for the benefit of their voters.

thebman

Well we all know corruption is inevitable in politics no matter which party is in power.

Anyone that wishes to allow a corrupt politican off the hook, isn't fit for office either IMO. It says a lot about someone when they stick up for a crook.