Beverley Cooper Flynn

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

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.

Neither to be honest.

The reasons I don't trust bertie are well rehearsed and there is no need to go into them again here
they include his links to CJH
the recent tribunal issues
his praise for BCF etc etc


The reasons for not trusting Enda

His willingness to deal with Lowry and BCF when he needed them
The disclosure that his party received no donations above the declaration level last year

And the others are general FG issues not confined to Kennys time in charge but indicative of the nature of FG including the planning co-operation with FF on DCC and the lack of any action by FG head office
And the clearing of the very large FG debt within 18 months of taking office during the 90s

gbh

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, I'm not getting into a game with you about when she lied or not....the libel case was about this one single issue...do you know the details of the libel trial? It is fact not my opinion.

gbh

Voipjunkie wrote:

Neither to be honest.

The reasons I don't trust bertie are well rehearsed and there is no need to go into them again here
they include his links to CJH
the recent tribunal issues
his praise for BCF etc etc


The reasons for not trusting Enda

His willingness to deal with Lowry and BCF when he needed them
The disclosure that his party received no donations above the declaration level last year

And the others are general FG issues not confined to Kennys time in charge but indicative of the nature of FG including the planning co-operation with FF on DCC and the lack of any action by FG head office
And the clearing of the very large FG debt within 18 months of taking office during the 90s

I agree there was dodgy dealings done by all parties. I disagree with a perception among certain sections of society that the "other lot" are as bad or worse than FF or that FF have a moral right to rule this country which they don't. In terms of the scale of corruption, FF are way out in front. The people either choose to be hoodwinked by FF or else are not up enough with FF dealings to know otherwise.

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

I agree there was dodgy dealings done by all parties. I disagree with a perception among certain sections of society that the "other lot" are as bad or worse than FF or that FF have a moral right to rule this country which they don't. In terms of the scale of corruption, FF are way out in front. The people either choose to be hoodwinked by FF or else are not up enough with FF dealings to know otherwise.

If by the other lot you mean FG then in my opinion they would be as bad if they were in the position of power that FF have enjoyed for the last 20 years.

If the other lot includes Labour the Greens the SP, SF and some independents then I do not think that they are or would be as corrupt as FF,FG,PD but I think there would still be some corruption if those parties were in power as long as FF.

Jackie laughlin

Comments on guilt can only be made on evidence. The evidence against FF is far greater than that against FG, taking into account both national and local politics and duration of time in office.

There is nothing to suggest that the other parties are corrupt.

It is wrong, undemocratic, unfair to have parties funded by donation because those with the deepest pockets will have an advantage. Business people will be inclined to fund parties which are pro-business just as socialists will be inclined to fund their parties. (Indeed, I know a refugee from Northern Ireland who contributes small amounts to ALL constitutional parties.) The problem is that the relative size of the contributions tends to undermine democracy.

On an ideological basis the PDs consistently argue against state funding of parties. I utterly oppose them but they are not corrupt.

Zebra3

Voipjunkie wrote:

If by the other lot you mean FG then in my opinion they would be as bad if they were in the position of power that FF have enjoyed for the last 20 years.

If the other lot includes Labour the Greens the SP, SF and some independents then I do not think that they are or would be as corrupt as FF,FG,PD but I think there would still be some corruption if those parties were in power as long as FF.

It's not just about which party has more corruption, it's also about how each party deals with its members that are guilty of wrong-doing.

heyjude

Maybe Lord Acton was right when he said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

FF are the party of power in this country, have been in power for most of the last 20 years and through being by far the biggest party in the Dail could conceivably remain in power for the next ten years. And virtually 30 years uninterrupted power, is probably as close as you can get to absolute power in a multi party democracy.

We got the government we deserve and obviously the consequences too. Its not as if it should be a surprise to anyone, look at their track record.

heyjude

heyjude wrote:

Maybe Lord Acton was right when he said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Also by implication from this, if you have little or no power, then the likelihood of corruption is reduced.

Voipjunkie

Zebra3 wrote:

It's not just about which party has more corruption, it's also about how each party deals with its members that are guilty of wrong-doing.

Absolutely and again just like FF fine gael do not measure up in my opinion to a party you could trust to deal with corruption given its track record

Jonny Arson

Voipjunkie wrote:

If by the other lot you mean FG then in my opinion they would be as bad if they were in the position of power that FF have enjoyed for the last 20 years.

So the tone of your argument throughout the thread has been, FG are corrupt but they errrr...... just haven't done it yet.

Voipjunkie

Jonny Arson wrote:

So the tone of your argument throughout the thread has been, FG are corrupt but they errrr...... just haven't done it yet.

Obviously you have not read the thread the argument is that FG are as corrupt if you take into account the amount of time they have actually been in power

Micheal Lowry during the brief period of Government in the 90s

The FG party on DCC was in cahoots with FF on planning

The FG party miraculously managed to clear the large debt they had during the brief period in power in the 90s

And then offered big business a input into FG policy making in return for donations after it lost office in 1997

Cllr Anne Devitt and the payment of £20,000 for her assistance in the solving of a access road issue

Killarney rezoning involving a FF councillor and the Fine Gael Mayor


Liam T Cosgrave convicted of not disclosing a £2500 donation from one Frank Dunlop


£33,000 from Telenor who made a large amount of money when Esat won the mobile phone license which it tried to hide from the tribunal


That is with them being in government 10% of the time

copacetic

closest story to actual facts that i have seen:

Todays Sindo wrote:

Beverley won't pay €600k in penalties


FLYNN: She will be given two months to pay RTE in full. Photo: Tony Gavin
Tools
Print Email Search
Search
Go Sunday July 01 2007


RONALD QUINLAN


EXCLUSIVE

BEVERLEY Flynn's €1.225m legal costs settlement with RTE will not include any of the interest penalties imposed by the High Court, the Sunday Independent has learned.

In agreeing to settle Ms Flynn's €2.8m debt, the State broadcaster will forego recovering any of the €600,000 in interest racked up on her original €2.2m plus in legal costs.

The Sunday Independent can also reveal that lawyers for RTE have been paid in full up front by the national broadcaster and that RTE will seek to recover up to €1m from its insurers.

This could, in turn, expose the station to a substantial increase in the cost of libel insurance or even leave it in a position where it would be unable to secure such cover.

It has also emerged that Beverley Flynn will be given just two months to pay RTE in full.

The decision to agree a once-off payment from Ms Flynn is believed to have been preferred by RTE bosses as there was a fear that the station could be accused of bias in its reporting of the Mayo TD in the future if she were making staged payments over a protracted period of time.

RTE bosses were also believed to be most reluctant to

ANALYSIS

pursue bankruptcy proceedings against Ms Flynn because, apart from the fact that this would not gain the station any money, they believed they would be accused of overriding the democratic choice of Ms Flynn's constituency.

The Sunday Independent understands that RTE had also calculated Ms Flynn's assets through the office of the Mayo County Sheriff, but found that these amounted to less than €500,000, a figure which was deemed unsatisfactory at the time.

Even if the station had successfully seized goods to that total value, it would have been less than the €600,000 Ms Flynn originally offered to pay RTE.

The massive bill was racked up in 2001 when the Mayo TD brought a failed libel action against RTE over broadcasts alleging she had encouraged customers of the NIB Bank, where she worked as a financial advisor, to evade tax by investing their money offshore.

Ms Flynn's failed High Court bid lasted a record 28 days, and was followed by a similarly unsuccessful Supreme Court appeal.

While Ms Flynn appealed to the High Court Taxing Master in 2005 to have the amount of the legal costs reduced, the €2.2m figure was upheld by the court in a reserved oral ruling. Ms Flynn's debt to RTE continued to rise at a rate of €500 a day as a result of the penal interest rates applied to it by the High Court, bringing her total indebtedness to the €2.8m owed before her negotiated settlement.

While Fine Gael TD Alan Shatter suggested on RTE's Questions and Answers on Monday that the near €3m legal bill appeared to be somewhat excessive, last night informed sources at the station said it could be readily accounted for.

It is understood that the first day of Ms Flynn's 2001 High Court action cost upwards of €200,000, with every one of the 27 following days costing approximately €100,000 each in legal fees.

The agreement of Ms Flynn's settlement of €1.225m with RTE is due to be formalised in the Bankruptcy Court tomorrow morning.

Ahead of this, a spokesman for the State broadcaster said there would be no comment made on the matter.

However, the Sunday Independent understands that once the agreement is entered into, Ms Flynn will have a period of not more than two months in which to settle her debt with the station.

It is also understood that no facility will be given for the Mayo TD to clear her debt in a schedule of staged payments. This means that Ms Flynn must find €1.225m within weeks or face the prospect of fresh bankruptcy proceedings against her in the future.

To pay the €1.225m debt, Ms Flynn said this weekend that she intends to sell a house she owns in Castlebar worth between €350,000 and €400,000.

With a €50,000 mortgage to be paid on the property, Ms Flynn says she will also seek a 20-year bank loan to cover the outstanding €875,000 to €925,500 she will still owe RTE.

While the Independent Deputy says that the repayments on such a loan will cost her in the region of 100 per cent of her salary over that time, it remains to be seen if she will be able to secure the finance in the first place.

With her sole property asset disposed of, and given the precariousness of holding on to a Dail seat, potential lenders could be reluctant to offer Ms Flynn the necessary finance to cover the bill.

While Ms Flynn insists that she will clear the RTE bill "personally out of my own resources", she may well have to ask her multi-millionaire partner, Tony Gaughan, to go guarantor on any loan agreement.

Informed sources at RTE said last night that despite the public outcry over its agreement to settle for less than half of the €2.8m it was due, the broadcaster does not expect to suffer a shortfall in its income for the calendar year 2007. "A contingency budget for legal cases is drawn up each year, and Ms Flynn's case has been factored into this for several years now," one source said.

RTE sources also pointed out that the station has defamation insurance to cover losses of up to €1m, which will go to offset the monies written off in its settlement with Ms Flynn.

"We haven't discussed our defamation insurance publicly for obvious reasons. If people thought we had a certain level of cover, it could see awards against us spiral out of control altogether," one source said.

"RTE would find itself having to pay an increased premium, or being unable to obtain defamation insurance at all if this were to happen," the same source added.

Responding to claims made during the week that RTE had been put under pressure by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to agree a settlement with Ms Flynn, another source rejected the suggestion outright.

The RTE official said: "She had the incentive to settle. RTE always held the view that she would drag this case out as long as she could.

"She did that by going to the Supreme Court, and then by taking the constitutional challenge.

"Had the Taoiseach not made his comments about her being potential junior minister material, there would have been an incentive for her to try to settle for far less.

"In the light of his remarks, she greatly increased her offer almost immediately."

Zebra3

More in today's Indo about how Cooper Flynn is gonna be welcomed back into FF.

Plenty of guff like "FF is her natural home" from people within FF. For once they are spot on. :rolleyes:

gbh

Voipjunkie, I think you should really cut to the chase and tell us out of Enda Kenny and Bertie Ahearn, who do you think is more trustworthy when it comes to rooting out corruption? Enda Kenny had no part to play in any corruption in the 1990's whereas Bertie Ahearn turned a blind eye to two major issues, by signing blank cheques for Charlie and ignoring the warnings about Ray Burke, and I dont think he did these things innocently as you probably will argue. You cannot compare one with the other. Bertie has been in a position of power to root out corruption and chose not to. Enda Kenny has largely not been in that position. So you cant say Enda would be as bad as Bertie. Events have proven over the last decade that Bertie is weak on dealing with corruption, and the last week has underlined that once more. In summary, he has no credibility when it comes to rooting out corruption because in the old FF way he always speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

gbh

Voipjunkie wrote:

Obviously you have not read the thread the argument is that FG are as corrupt if you take into account the amount of time they have actually been in power

Micheal Lowry during the brief period of Government in the 90s

The FG party on DCC was in cahoots with FF on planning

The FG party miraculously managed to clear the large debt they had during the brief period in power in the 90s

And then offered big business a input into FG policy making in return for donations after it lost office in 1997

Cllr Anne Devitt and the payment of £20,000 for her assistance in the solving of a access road issue

Killarney rezoning involving a FF councillor and the Fine Gael Mayor


Liam T Cosgrave convicted of not disclosing a £2500 donation from one Frank Dunlop


£33,000 from Telenor who made a large amount of money when Esat won the mobile phone license which it tried to hide from the tribunal


That is with them being in government 10% of the time

These are isolated incidents as opposed to the institutional corruption within FF in the 1980s and 90s.

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

These are isolated incidents as opposed to the institutional corruption within FF in the 1980s and 90s.

Sorry but that is bull****

If it is FF then its institutional corruption but if it is in FG it is an isolated incident

I pointed out some of the main issues with FG and they are not isolated incidents they are a clear demonstration that FG has members who have a propensity to corruption just as FF has and as in the case of telenor and the clearance of the large debt in the mid 90s and last weeks revelation that FG in common with FF and the PDs had no donations above the declaration level ( this is while Kenny is leader) this is all the way to the top of the party not a few rogue councilors.

In answer to your question it is not just about enda kenny or bertie ahern they are the temporary heads of their respective parties it is about FF as a whole and FG as a whole and I would trust neither more than the other.
(just to add that Kenny was a minister for 2 and half years and it was not a big money or power department so while technically you are correct that Kennys personal record is less smudged than Aherns it is also true that he has had far less opportunity to smudge his record so we will never know what kennys record would look like now if he had actually been in a cabinet for 25 odd years )

Zebra3

Going by Ahern's comments on giving Cooper Flynn a junior ministry, it would seem he is pro-corruption and pro-criminality. Not many objections from the rest of FF in bringing Cooper Flynn "home" either.

gbh

Voipjunkie wrote:

Sorry but that is bull****

If it is FF then its institutional corruption but if it is in FG it is an isolated incident

I pointed out some of the main issues with FG and they are not isolated incidents they are a clear demonstration that FG has members who have a propensity to corruption just as FF has and as in the case of telenor and the clearance of the large debt in the mid 90s and last weeks revelation that FG in common with FF and the PDs had no donations above the declaration level ( this is while Kenny is leader) this is all the way to the top of the party not a few rogue councilors.

In answer to your question it is not just about enda kenny or bertie ahern they are the temporary heads of their respective parties it is about FF as a whole and FG as a whole and I would trust neither more than the other.

I'm sorry but the facts speak for themselves about FF. Haughy the leader was up to his eyes in it, surely you are not going to say John Bruton was as well or Garret Fitzgerald. But I'll concede this, the FF tent at the Galway races shows that FF are still up to their eyes in it and old habits die hard.

I dont argue with you that both parties are as pure as snow. But the scale of FF corruption outweighs FG corruption, and the FF leadership were taking money for their own personal gain which the FG leadership were not. Why I call it institutional is that so many people in FF were directly involved or benefited from it. It was a time when if you were a member of FF you did alright and if you werent well there was the immigrant boat.

Basically the FF/RTE establishment gave us all two fingers with this settlement and said like it or lump it.

gbh

Voipjunkie wrote:

Sorry but that is bull****

If it is FF then its institutional corruption but if it is in FG it is an isolated incident

I pointed out some of the main issues with FG and they are not isolated incidents they are a clear demonstration that FG has members who have a propensity to corruption just as FF has and as in the case of telenor and the clearance of the large debt in the mid 90s and last weeks revelation that FG in common with FF and the PDs had no donations above the declaration level ( this is while Kenny is leader) this is all the way to the top of the party not a few rogue councilors.

In answer to your question it is not just about enda kenny or bertie ahern they are the temporary heads of their respective parties it is about FF as a whole and FG as a whole and I would trust neither more than the other.
(just to add that Kenny was a minister for 2 and half years and it was not a big money or power department so while technically you are correct that Kennys personal record is less smudged than Aherns it is also true that he has had far less opportunity to smudge his record so we will never know what kennys record would look like now if he had actually been in a cabinet for 25 odd years )

Your argument that if FG were in power they would be as corrupt as FF says (a) that you admit FF are corrupt and (b) that FG would definately be as corrupt based on past performance. But isnt it possible that maybe they mightn't be corrupt at all. This tarring of everyone with the same brush really isnt fair on people who havent been in power to prove themselves yet.

Grudaire

She stole money from all of us-
Why do we even discuss it F*** her, get her out, she is a joke.

Who the hell elected her anyway?

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

Your argument that if FG were in power they would be as corrupt as FF says (a) that you admit FF are corrupt and (b) that FG would definately be as corrupt based on past performance. But isnt it possible that maybe they mightn't be corrupt at all. This tarring of everyone with the same brush really isnt fair on people who havent been in power to prove themselves yet.

I have absolutely no problem saying that some in FF are and were corrupt and will be in the future.

No it is not possible that FG will not be corrupt at all there will always be corruption that is unfortunately part of human nature.

It is funny that you complain about tarring everyone with the same brush in regard to FG but have no problem tarring everyone in FF.

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

I'm sorry but the facts speak for themselves about FF. Haughy the leader was up to his eyes in it, surely you are not going to say John Bruton was as well or Garret Fitzgerald. But I'll concede this, the FF tent at the Galway races shows that FF are still up to their eyes in it and old habits die hard.

I dont argue with you that both parties are as pure as snow. But the scale of FF corruption outweighs FG corruption, and the FF leadership were taking money for their own personal gain which the FG leadership were not. Why I call it institutional is that so many people in FF were directly involved or benefited from it. It was a time when if you were a member of FF you did alright and if you werent well there was the immigrant boat.

Basically the FF/RTE establishment gave us all two fingers with this settlement and said like it or lump it.

Of course the scale of FF corruption outweighs FG corruption but those facts can not be taken in isolation from the fact that FF have been in power 90% of the time.

Put it this way if you and I are drivers of an equal standard and we share a car it would not be unusual that the person driving 90% of the time had more accidents than the peron who rarely drove. The accident statistic on its own would not tell us who the safer driver was.

copacetic

cathal goan point of view

Cathal Goan wrote:

There has been much discussion and comment during the past week regarding the settlement reached between RTÉ and Deputy Beverly Flynn. Some people have been angered at the fact that Ms. Flynn has not paid the full amount that was awarded to RTÉ after her failed libel action and appeal to the Supreme Court. Now that the settlement has been before the Bankruptcy Court, I feel it appropriate that I outline clearly for licence fee-payers RTÉ’s position.

Throughout this case my two overriding considerations were firstly; protecting the integrity and independence of RTÉ, its journalism and journalists and secondly ensuring value for money for licence-fee payers. No other considerations, political or otherwise, were part of my decisions at any time.

As in any other society, independent investigative journalism in Ireland plays a critical role in uncovering corruption and injustice in Irish society. RTÉ has invested the time and the necessary resources to allow our journalists do this job. This is fundamental to RTÉ’s remit and ethos and I strongly believe, given RTÉ’s position, offers real value to the licence fee payer and is in the broader public interest.

Part of the process of investigative journalism is standing over and defending, when necessary in court, the stories which our journalists uncover. At all times through this case, the longest libel trial in the history of the state, RTÉ stood squarely behind its journalists Charlie Bird and George Lee. And in doing so RTÉ comprehensively defeated the initial challenges brought against us by National Irish Bank and subsequently the libel case brought by Deputy Flynn in first the High Court and then the Supreme Court.

It is also worth noting that, as a result of the story uncovered by RTÉ, as of the 30th of April 2007, the Revenue has directly retrieved €59 million from NIB customers and indirectly from their subsequent investigation following the RTÉ story, collected €854.2 million from bogus non-resident account holders. Also as a direct consequence of our work, there has been a significant change in the regulatory environment for financial institutions. The Financial Regulator (IFSRA) has been established with a specific consumer protection remit.

RTÉ got this story right, stood by its journalists and has been proven right both in court and by the subsequent report by the High Court Inspectors and by investigations and collections by the Revenue.

This brings me to the issue of the settlement reached between RTÉ and Deputy Flynn. In 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment in the libel case brought by Deputy Flynn against RTÉ, which found the she had facilitated tax evasion while working for National Irish Bank. The result of this was that Deputy Flynn was required to pay the costs of her libel action and the appeal to the Supreme Court. This was adjudged to be approximately €2.3 million in September 2005, with interest accruing ever since.

Ms. Flynn did not pay to RTÉ the money it was owed. Faced with the prospect of never receiving payment, in the last number of weeks RTÉ filed bankruptcy proceedings against the Deputy in an effort to retrieve, as best it could, some compensation for the considerable costs incurred defending our journalism and reputation.

In deciding to accept any proposed settlement of the debt it was owed, RTÉ had to weigh up what was being offered against what in all probability we would receive had Deputy Flynn been declared bankrupt, most likely a relatively small sum of money obtained after many years of endeavour through the process of bankruptcy. Based on the best legal advice available to me and with the possibility of considerable delay had Deputy Flynn pursued her constitutional challenge relating to bankruptcy and public representation it was clear to me that a settlement should be considered. It was in this context that I instructed our legal team to accept the €1.225million, to be paid in full by 17 August, 2007 and with the insistence that there be no confidentiality in relation to the settlement.

Of course I would have preferred for RTÉ to have received full payment, but this is the situation RTÉ found itself in. It is in no different a position than any other person to whom money is owed and it cannot somehow avail of a legal procedure that is not available to any other person. In the end it had become a debt collection issue and I genuinely believe that we got the best deal available in the circumstances.

Different people will have different views on the settlement and that is their right, but I strongly defend my own decisions and credit both Charlie Bird and George Lee for breaking an important story. RTÉ did not bring these events about or set out to bankrupt anyone, but our integrity ultimately depends on our willingness to defend the stories we pursue, even if at times this comes with considerable costs. I sincerely hope that the licence fee payer can understand this.

If there is a political issue from all this it is about libel reform. On the one hand when a person feels their name is damaged they risk potentially catastrophic expense to seek redress. And on the other the publisher is often left with the difficult choice of whether or not to run stories where a mistake could result in huge legal bills. Or as in this case, we can run a story of the highest standard, based on excellent journalism of genuine public interest and value, be challenged, win, and still end up paying a high price.

Zebra3

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/licencedodgers-paying-price-but-not-nopay-bev-995297.html

Licence-dodgers paying price but not no-pay Bev

Sunday July 08 2007

JOHN DRENNAN

BEVERLEY Flynn may have walked away a free woman despite paying less than half of RTE's legal bill - but others have not been so lucky in their dealings with the semi-state broadcasting corporation.

Overr the last five years, citizens who failed to pay their TV licence were less fortunate. In that time, 163 people were sent to prison for failing to have their licence up to date or for non-payment of fines imposed for the crime of not having a TV licence.

It all suggests that anyone planning to withhold their licence fee in protest over the Beverley let-off should reconsider. Bev may not have gone to jail but you probably will.

One law for the rich....

copacetic

Zebra3 wrote:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/licencedodgers-paying-price-but-not-nopay-bev-995297.html



One law for the rich....

hardly, if bev didn't pay her license fee she would get the same treatment. The difference is there is a legal method for collecting the license fee with fixed penalties.

gbh

I wonder what would happen if I paid 45% of my licence fee?

K-9

gbh wrote:

I wonder what would happen if I paid 45% of my licence fee?

Well plead bankruptcy for the €200 (not sure of the exact amount)

Probably the court wouldn't accept the bankruptcy though, probably more to do with a debt of €200 rather than €3/4 million.

irishsurfer

The whole Bev thing stinks, and the tax payer will bail her out