Will Ahern become Taoiseach on June 14th?

LostinBlanch

gandalf wrote:

Well it raises the question who gave him the $45,000. Why would this Wall character who lives in the UK give Bertie dollars? It would appear the cash came from someone else other than Mr. Wall.

If thats the case then its not for house refurbishments as originally claimed, whats it for then? What was expected in return?

Cheers Gandalf. I'd been wondering about the $45,000 for a while now. It makes sense now. I suspect that this is only the tip of the iceberg though.

On an unrelated matter didn't FF push through a special tax exemption that benefitted one particular very rich person and no one else? The talk was that it was on Berties orders. I can't remember the exact details but I think it happened about 4 or 5 years ago.

I remember thinking it was very strange at the time and wondering exactly why this would have been pushed through. Now if I was the suspicious type. . . . . .

lostinblanch

lostinblanch wrote:

Now if I was the suspicious type. . . . . .

Don't worry,you wont have to do much convincing on that score.

That said theres a lot of hearsay and imagination being used in these conclusions but shur what else is new.

JerkyBoy

As far as I recall there was something to do with a tax designation at one stage...pushed through by Bertie just before the end of a Dail season once.
Not 100% on this though...will have to see if I can look it up.

Anyone remember the exact year\details of this?

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

I could be tried for murder in the morning and untill my side was heard in the case I'd be a murderer but carry on...

Your logic here is very very flawed, firstly we are NOT dealing with a court of law here we are dealing with a tribunal very very different, anyone familiar with the workings of the tribunal and that of a murder trial would easily know that.

Secondly I have not accused nor has the tribunal accused Bertie Ahern of any illegal activity thus far, they have simply pointed out facts which have been obtained from AIB and statments given by Bertie.

Now my accusation is pretty simple and easy to follow...

Bertie Ahern was asked by Michael McDowell to clarify issues relating to a sum of money Lodged by Celia Larkin on the 5th of December 1994, Bertie stated it was Sterling with perhaps some punts but he stated quite clearly it was not dollars actually here is a quote

The lodgment on 5th December 1994 was not a dollar lodgment

There has been some speculation about this sum. The lodgment of about £28,700 on 5th December 1994 was a cash lodgment which is not exactly £30,000 sterling but rather is a lesser sum and may have been a mixture of sterling and Irish pounds. Hence it is in an irregular amount. It is not a dollar sum. I never had $45,000 either then, before then or since. There are no dollar transactions in my accounts. I do not deal nor have I ever dealt in dollars

(For Refernce that was taken from http://www.fiannafail.ie/article.phpx?topic=151&id=7541&nav=News%20Item )

So Bertie says no Dollars no way, however as I have pointed out already the Tribunal states that the bank records show only £1,900 approx in Sterling was exchanged in the bank on that date there was however a very large sum of Dollars exchanged that day.

So my accusation which imo is very well founded is Bertie Ahern lied to the Public before the election when he made that statement, thats all I'm accusing him of here, nothing more nothing less, if one wanted to they could possibly start asking where the dollars came from...

mike65

Tristrame wrote:

Secondly I just heard Tony Gregory on the last word diss all this continued anti bertie speculation about the anti bertie bits in the tribunal.

So far only one side.

Gregory at least is being fair in that he wants to wait to hear a judgement based on everything and not just on one spin of events.I think thats the right way to conduct society.

He just wants another fabulous deal for his back-yard!

Mike.

dh2007

jjbrien wrote:

he might be going back there soon if things keep up. I think the Mahon tribunal sshould have the power to remove any TD or senator from office if thier figures dont add up or they lie to the people or take bribes.

Y'know, that probably means that there is someone working in that job who's only receiving temporary contracts every year and probably hasn't been made permanent because of him???

chump

There's nothing funny or amusing about any of this, but I just can't help myself from laughing when I read any of Tristrame's posts.

Tristrame wrote:

I could be tried for murder in the morning and untill my side was heard in the case I'd be a murderer but carry on...Firstly,the tribunal doesn't (so far anyway) have a record of confirming another (for example) un supported allegation from someone who is saying that Owen O' Callaghan paid Bertie even though O' Callaghan denies this.

Secondly I just heard Tony Gregory on the last word diss all this continued anti bertie speculation about the anti bertie bits in the tribunal.
So far only one side.
Gregory at least is being fair in that he wants to wait to hear a judgement based on everything and not just on one spin of events.I think thats the right way to conduct society.

looloo27

i just dont understand why he doesnt just quit. how can he be bothered to face this constant struggle with the press. Mc Dowell quit at the first sign of defeat. Bertie knew that this stuff was gonna get dragged up he should just stand down and admit defeat. Other leaders have resigned over much less than this.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Your logic here is very very flawed, firstly we are NOT dealing with a court of law here we are dealing with a tribunal very very different, anyone familiar with the workings of the tribunal and that of a murder trial would easily know that.

It's not flawed unless of course you don't believe in due process and believe instead that your conviction is infallable and lets make no mistake about it you are convicting ahern here with scant access to all of the facts save for deliberately sensationalised newspaper selling leaks.

Secondly I have not accused nor has the tribunal accused Bertie Ahern of any illegal activity thus far, they have simply pointed out facts which have been obtained from AIB and statments given by Bertie.

Without access to whatever due process yet to be heard you are drawing your own conclusions.You are of course entitled to do this.

Now my accusation is pretty simple and easy to follow...

See what I mean,do you have a direct line to the opposing sides pc/data and file boxes then? Or are you just using the selective tit bits you can glean from media leaks and satisfying your already made up mind?

Bertie Ahern was asked by Michael McDowell to clarify issues relating to a sum of money Lodged by Celia Larkin on the 5th of December 1994, Bertie stated it was Sterling with perhaps some punts but he stated quite clearly it was not dollars actually here is a quote (For Refernce that was taken from http://www.fiannafail.ie/article.phpx?topic=151&id=7541&nav=News%20Item )

So Bertie says no Dollars no way, however as I have pointed out already the Tribunal states that the bank records show only £1,900 approx in Sterling was exchanged in the bank on that date there was however a very large sum of Dollars exchanged that day.

Oh so here I see that you are just just blatantly surmising your opinion based on two different collations of information.
1. Aherns answers to media questions and 2.Selected new questions as reported and yet unanswered in the tribunal.
The problem with that is your surmise is flawed because you are using legitimate answers to one set of questions as an assumption that legitimate answers to new questions in the tribunal don't exist..
The instant difficulty I find with that analysis is that Aherns team will have to put their case.
The nature of the tribunal is such that accusations can be outed sans rebuttal like this almost ad infinitum untill it is time for the other side of the case to be heard.

Basing a kangeroo court style commentary on Aherns activities on that is laughably unfair and prejudiced.
It's prejudiced of course because it treats the questions as rhetorical ,convicts the accused and devoids itself of a need to hear the other side, in that it implies the mind is already made up.

Where is the evidence of a dollar transaction by the way besides a question asked as to whether there was one ? And who introduced this dollar anomoly in the first place? It was a lawyer for the tribunal wasn't it-ergo it's Aherns lawers at the tribunal who have yet to explain this. Why didnt they check rubles and Rand as well as all the other available currencies? Have they any paperwork in relation to a dollar transaction and why are you running with that? Is your analysis so brilliant that its better than a tribunal outcome complete with two sides of a story?

So my accusation which imo is very well founded is Bertie Ahern lied to the Public before the election when he made that statement, thats all I'm accusing him of here, nothing more nothing less, if one wanted to they could possibly start asking where the dollars came from...

It's not coming across that you are making an accusation, you are giving us your conviction that that is the case arising out of your own one sided conclusion of a yet unanswered tribunal allegation.

chump

chump wrote:

There's nothing funny or amusing about any of this, but I just can't help myself from laughing when I read any of Tristrame's posts.

Well I'm glad I'm supplying a little humour even though my motivation here is fairness and equality.
A justice based on a society of equals if you like...
I'm just exposing the whole "mind made up-lets hear no more" foundation to a lot of the posts here.

Judt

I think, Tristrame, that your argument is fair about making final judgment, but you can make judgment on the facts - if you couldn't then lawyers making a prosecution wouldn't be able to develop their arguments as new evidence comes to light.

What do you honestly think, knowing what you know now but with it not being a final judgment on which to make any calls for resignations or so forth? If you can't commit to telling us what you think then it would be my opinion, and just my opinion flawed or otherwise, that you aren't looking for any result yourself other than "he's innocent of any wrongdoing."

As for my opinion of it... All this smoke, coming from a building sat close to a bunch of others in FF that burned down so spectacularly... Well, either Bertie Ahern is the unluckiest person in the world to get into such circumstances, or we would appear to have a game on.

I also can't help but laugh at his lawyers attacking the people putting this information forth. We've seen similar tactics before, and it usually ends with Shakespeare being invoked.

JerkyBoy

LostinBlanch wrote:

didn't FF push through a special tax exemption that benefitted one particular very rich person and no one else? The talk was that it was on Berties orders. I can't remember the exact details but I think it happened about 4 or 5 years ago.

I remember thinking it was very strange at the time and wondering exactly why this would have been pushed through. Now if I was the suspicious type. . . . . .

I think you may be wondering about the Golden Island controversy where Bertie gave tax designations for a site that Owen O'Callaghan wanted to develop?

On Dec 14th 1994 Bertie Ahern, in his last act as finance minister, on the eve of the Rainbow Coalition entering Government, signed a statutory instrument giving tax designation status to the Golden Island site in Athlone, which Owen O'Callaghan benefitted from, saving him millions.

More details:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/flood-investigates-ahern-tax-decision-512471.html

http://www.swp.ie/socialistworker/2000/sw119/socialistworker-119.htm

Interesting that this tax designation signing took place right around the time that tens of thousands of unnaccounted for punts and sterling were going in and out of Ahern's safe and bank accounts, according to the Tribunal.

There's certainly a lot of smoke surrounding all of this stuff...I'm sure the Tribunal will figure it out in time...but it doesn't look good from here.

Judt

Judt wrote:

I think, Tristrame, that your argument is fair about making final judgment, but you can make judgment on the facts - if you couldn't then lawyers making a prosecution wouldn't be able to develop their arguments as new evidence comes to light.

Thank you.This tribunal commentary is not fair comment it's mind made up comment in my view.

What do you honestly think, knowing what you know now but with it not being a final judgment on which to make any calls for resignations or so forth? If you can't commit to telling us what you think then it would be my opinion, and just my opinion flawed or otherwise, that you aren't looking for any result yourself other than "he's innocent of any wrongdoing."

It's my opinion (of course) that Ahern has questions to answer.
But I want that done in due process and not in the kangeroo fashion of working from reverse ie guilty untill proven innocent.
I'm only convinced so far of the need to answer the questions because I believe in probriety when it comes to elected officials.

Lennoxschips

Thing is, Ahern answered these questions in the Dail in 2006 and in a statement a couple of weeks ago, and according to the Tribunal, his explanations don't stack up.

Will he have new answers this time round? We shall see.

keynesian

Speeking of Murder, Weren't the first members of the dail murders?

Personal I don't think politition get paid enough & no job secuity.

Let's wait and see what the tribunals say when it's finished. I was going to say and let the tribunal deal with it but they can't do anything.

The last thing this country needs is unstable government or the cost of move election.

The real question is will someone in the Mahon Tribunal be prosicuted or there teenage draught??

JerkyBoy

didn't FF push through a special tax exemption that benefitted one particular very rich person and no one else? The talk was that it was on Berties orders.

Or maybe it was the tax legislation introduced by Bertie Ahern when he was Finance Minister in 1994.
A property developer named Ken Rohan lobbied for, and benetted from, this legislation which prevented the Revenue Commissioners from pursuing him through the courts for £1.5 million benefit-in-kind tax on his use of company money to buy works of art for his Wicklow mansion.

Rohan was giving 1000s of pounds in payments at the time to Des Richardson, the man who organised the "loans" from "friends" for Bertie in 93/94.

More details see:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/murder-on-the-ff-party--dancefloor-504098.html

That's at least two cases involving Bertie Ahern as Finance Minister in the early 90's where he took specific actions, which benefitted very few individuals, who just happened to be property developers, which saved them millions of pounds.
I'm not saying these actions are corrupt...but I do think they stink to high heavens!

Voipjunkie

Glenbhoy wrote:

If he's got large unexplained lodgements in his bank accounts, it's not the tribunal (who are largely impotent) who he has to worry about, there's this other crowd, they're called the revenue and they might be very interested in these lodgements. Why was Ray Burke jailed does anyone remember??

That would be the same revenue that came after Micheal Lowry and CJH. Burke lied on a tax amnesty not just evaded tax for just evasion you get to pay up with penalties big deal.

keynesian

keynesian wrote:

Speeking of Murder, Weren't the first members of the dail murders?

Personal I don't think politition get paid enough & no job secuity.

Let's wait and see what the tribunals say when it's finished. I was going to say and let the tribunal deal with it but they can't do anything.

The last thing this country needs is unstable government or the cost of move election.

The real question is will someone in the Mahon Tribunal be prosicuted or there teenage draught??

I would prefer by a country mile a clean government. Corrupt governments are inherently unstable.
Being in power for 23 of the last 25 years can let ministers believe they can get away with anything.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Thank you.This tribunal commentary is not fair comment it's mind made up comment in my view.
It's my opinion (of course) that Ahern has questions to answer.
But I want that done in due process and not in the kangeroo fashion of working from reverse ie guilty untill proven innocent.
I'm only convinced so far of the need to answer the questions because I believe in probriety when it comes to elected officials.

What due process their is no garda investigation there is not court case outstanding.
This tribunal has discovered various things in Berties finances which they have asked him to explain and he has failed to do so.
He told them a cock and bull story and they have shown it to be a cock and bull story if there is a reasonable explanation for these things why has bertie not provided the explanation he has ahd plenty of time.
Berties complaint is that these things are in the public domain but there is nothing that the tribunal can do to prevent it they have lost a case at the supreme court were they previously tried to stop tribunal investigations being printed.

How many times do you think Bertie can be given the benefit of the doubt or allowed to change his story.
As I have said before the tribunal is not investigating where Bertie got his money just whether it came from O'Callaghan if the tribunal decide it did not come from O'Callaghan then they will stop looking as that is all they are allowed to investigate.

Now on the issue of due process what due process did Ray Burke get information of dodgy dealings came out and he had to go we did not have to stand back and what for him to be convicted before he had to leave.
And that is the same for virtually any resignation you can think of here or abroad when Ivor the engine went we did not have to wait till it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he did not pay the painter it was claimed and Ivor could not offer a reasonable explanation.
When Haughey Blaney and Boland were sacked by Jack Lynch he did not wait for due process evidence was presented and they were out of office.
Now it should be the same here these allegations are in the public domain Bertie should provide a clear and honest explanation and if he cannot then he should go we can not wait.

Liam Byrne

Personal I don't think politition get paid enough & no job secuity.

This came up in conversation over the weekend.......if I was hired somewhere and then couldn't do my job, I'd easily be fired with 5 years, and I would have no cushy minister's pension. If I'd left a job in order to take up that position, it'd be my own tough. The same should go for politicians; if they're good, they'll be kept on by the public.

As Lennoxchips said, Bertie HAD an opportunity to answer things fully last year, and didn't take it. He got ANOTHER opportunity to answer in the run-up to the election, and apparently STILL hasn't answered properly or completely truthfully. Even Tristrame admits that Ahern still has questions to answer.

A cynic would guess that Bertie held on long enough to get FF back into power and only after the Dail is decided will he answer fully.....but why not answer fully last November if he had nothing to hide ?

Of course, given the way that tribunals go, Bertie could end up like Haughey and keep stringing them along until he's dead, after which he'll escape punishment and maybe even have the public pay for his State Funeral and get Brian Cowen to wax lyrical about how great he was with absolutely no references to how he pulled strokes along the way*.

Disclaimer: This is one possible outcome; he may be 100% innocent, but of course anyone 100% innocent explains things in full at the first opportunity - i.e. last November.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

What due process their is no garda investigation there is not court case outstanding.

The judgement on aherns affairs is legally soley to be decided upon by the tribunal once it has heard all interpretations of the information before it and information that may yet to be put before it.
You know well what I'm talking about

He told them a cock and bull story and they have shown it to be a cock and bull story if there is a reasonable explanation for these things why has bertie not provided the explanation he has ahd plenty of time.

And he still has plenty of time as he has to appear before the tribunal.
This need for instant gratification as regards outcomes is unobtainable I'm afraid.You'll have to wait like the rest of us.

How many times do you think Bertie can be given the benefit of the doubt or allowed to change his story.

He hasnt given any interpretation to the tribunal as yet other than supply them with information via it's initial interview process.
He's not to my knowledge obliged to give a full account ie answer questions arising out of the information presented, other than to the actual session of the tribunal presided over by the Judge.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like from the various media spins on the inconclusive process so far.It's fine to do that for yourself like.
Ahern may of course decide to fudge when he finally appears at the tribunal but if he does so he only has himself to blame for what happens after.I'd reckon that will be an unlikely transpiration.

When Haughey Blaney and Boland were sacked by Jack Lynch he did not wait for due process evidence was presented and they were out of office.

Such speed was more to do with Lynchs strategic use of the situation to strangle a rival than any imperative for probriety from my reading of that era and all the haughey v Lynch real politik to be honest.

wb

JerkyBoy wrote:

It is going to be nearly impossible for Ahern to form the next Government as Taoiseach...especially not with this breaking news:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0528/mahon.html

He can't even satisfy the tribunal with his accounts of payments to him from businessmen...how is he supposed to satisfy potential Government partners, now that McDowell isn't around to pretend these matters don't exist??

OK THEN! PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!

The best price for enda to become Taoiseach is on betfair (22/1)

I will offer you 30/1 (max stake €20)


Can we all cut the crap here?

If you really believe that Enda will be Taoiseach, take me on.

Time Magazine

wb wrote:

I will offer you 30/1

I'll put a fiver on that. Or if you go to a Beers, a drink. But if Inda gets elected, you're buying me thirty pints.

Glenbhoy

wb wrote:

OK THEN! PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!

The best price for enda to become Taoiseach is on betfair (22/1)

I will offer you 30/1 (max stake €20)


Can we all cut the crap here?

If you really believe that Enda will be Taoiseach, take me on.

What price will you give me on biffo?

wb

Ibid wrote:

I'll put a fiver on that. Or if you go to a Beers, a drink. But if Inda gets elected, you're buying me thirty pints.

Sure thing Ibid, and fair play for putting your money where your mouth is.

I'll stand by my word, and I can assure you that I will pay up should Enda win. I run a site where bets are often struck, so you can see my track record on the exchange section if you want (username Hill16)

http://www.letsbet.ie/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44

Should I win, will I pm you my bank details/address?


There is €15 left if any other blueshirts want to take me on!

wb

Glenbhoy wrote:

What price will you give me on biffo?

Stick a post up on http://www.letsbet.ie/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44

(my username is Hill16) but off the top of me head, I'd say I'd offer around 20/1 for the Big Biffo to be Taoiseach

(Best price available is 16/1 on betfair)

ninebeanrows

Bertie drifted to 1.1 there for a short time.

Nothings a certainty and money coming for Brian Cowen at 10's

Enda Kenny still has 23's on him which is decent for the position he is in!!

wb

Weathercheck wrote:

Nothings a certainty and money coming for Brian Cowen at 10's

Enda Kenny still has 23's on him which is decent for the position he is in!!

I've just offered 30/1 for kenny and 20/1 for Cowen because my attitude is that there's no point talking crap for the next couple of weeks. If you really believe Enda will be Taoiseach, put your money where your mouth is.. otherwise, stop posting about it!

UU

Well people who voted for FF get what they deserve but those who didn't vote them in have to suffer for another five years because of this. So next time, I hear someone complain about the health care system, education, whatever, I'll kindly ask them who they voted for. If they are brave enough to say FF then I'll tell them that they are just as much responsible for whatever because they voted that pack of crooks back in!

It seems there are a lot of conservative idiots in this country! I voted for change but it looks as though we'll have a lovely government of FF/PDs/Indos in for another five years with Mary Harney in charge of health again! Oh goody!!! More people lying on hospital trollies and waiting 7 hours to be seen, more road deaths, treatment of gay people like second-class citizens because we aren't worthy of marriage, the Catholic Church's stronghold on schools where non-Catholics are denied their right to education, corporate dotations, more juicy tribunals, the rich get richer, the poor are supported and the middle class are stuck in the middle trying to survive, "free" education, crappy transport systems, private hospitals on public land...... the list goes on....

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

It's not flawed unless of course you don't believe in due process and believe instead that your conviction is infallable and lets make no mistake about it you are convicting ahern here with scant access to all of the facts save for deliberately sensationalised newspaper selling leaks.

What due process is it you speak of Tristrame is it the same due process that was afforded to Ray Burke, Ivor Callely or Michael Lowry? You see the problem is these TD's didn't need a Tribunal to finish and make findings to force them to resign, I mean Bertie accepted Ivor Callely's resignation for having a free paint job. Are you suggesting Bertie is entitled to more due process than Ray Burke or Ivor Callely were?

Tristrame wrote:

Without access to whatever due process yet to be heard you are drawing your own conclusions.You are of course entitled to do this.

I am drawing no more conclusions than Bertie did when allegations were made againt Ivor Callely!

Tristrame wrote:

See what I mean,do you have a direct line to the opposing sides pc/data and file boxes then? Or are you just using the selective tit bits you can glean from media leaks and satisfying your already made up mind?

Now let me make this very clear Tristrame my opinion here is not based on any newspaper reports, it is based on the transcript from the tribunal and the press release which Bertie released. These are available to anyone, I have linked to both in previous posts. So please stop trying to imply my posts are as a result of reports I have read elsewhere, I'm not sure what your opinon is of me (although I have a good idea) but I do have the intelligence to read transcripts and statments and form MY OWN opinion, if you are hinting otherwise I would rather you just came out and said it.

Tristrame wrote:

Oh so here I see that you are just just blatantly surmising your opinion based on two different collations of information.
1. Aherns answers to media questions and 2.Selected new questions as reported and yet unanswered in the tribunal.
The problem with that is your surmise is flawed because you are using legitimate answers to one set of questions as an assumption that legitimate answers to new questions in the tribunal don't exist..
The instant difficulty I find with that analysis is that Aherns team will have to put their case.
The nature of the tribunal is such that accusations can be outed sans rebuttal like this almost ad infinitum untill it is time for the other side of the case to be heard.

Basing a kangeroo court style commentary on Aherns activities on that is laughably unfair and prejudiced.
It's prejudiced of course because it treats the questions as rhetorical ,convicts the accused and devoids itself of a need to hear the other side, in that it implies the mind is already made up.

Where is the evidence of a dollar transaction by the way besides a question asked as to whether there was one ? And who introduced this dollar anomoly in the first place? It was a lawyer for the tribunal wasn't it-ergo it's Aherns lawers at the tribunal who have yet to explain this. Why didnt they check rubles and Rand as well as all the other available currencies? Have they any paperwork in relation to a dollar transaction and why are you running with that? Is your analysis so brilliant that its better than a tribunal outcome complete with two sides of a story?

My opinion as I stated above is based on what Senior Council for the Tribunal have stated the Tribunal have uncovered during their investigation and what they say Bertie stated during communication with the tribunal which included written communication and an interview. Mr Ahern my not have publically put his case to the tribunal but he has put his case to the public in the form of his statement and he has also put it privately to the Tribunal in both cases he says he did not deal in Dollars and that the money lodged on the 5th of December was in Pounds and Punts. I'm not sure if you aware of the procedure at the bank in relation to recording foreign exchange but they recorded the amount of Sterling exchanged and they recorded the amount of all other currencies exchanged also, the amount of sterling exchanged on the 5th of December 1994 was equal to £1,921.55 punts hence Bertie could not have exchanged what he said he did on that date, the records however show that the ammount of other currencies exchanged that day equalled £28,969.34 punts this would allow for a transaction of $45,000 and other non-sterling exchanges to a value of £196.44 punts

My analysis is based on the bank records provided to the Tribunal which they have outlined in their opening statement and the reports from the Tribunal of interview's and written communication with Bertie and also his statement.

Tristrame wrote:

It's not coming across that you are making an accusation, you are giving us your conviction that that is the case arising out of your own one sided conclusion of a yet unanswered tribunal allegation.

Well I am looking at all the evidence which I can find and I am forming an opinion as Bertie did with Ivor.

JerkyBoy

wb wrote:

If you really believe Enda will be Taoiseach, put your money where your mouth is.. otherwise, stop posting about it!

So people shouldn't be allowed to discuss, or opine on, these important matters of public concern unless we are also prepared to gamble on them???

Get the f**k out of here with that bullsh*t!

And for the record I never said Enda would become Taoiseach...so calm down!

I just said that Bertie now couldn't be Taoiseach, based on the new revelations exposing his dishonesty towards the both the Tribunal and the Irish public.
This will likely mean that Cowan will be our next Taoiseach.

Relax the cax, will ya!?

cast_iron

irish1 wrote:

I'm not sure if you aware of the procedure at the bank in relation to recording foreign exchange but they recorded the amount of Sterling exchanged and they recorded the amount of all other currencies exchanged also, the amount of sterling exchanged on the 5th of December 1994 was equal to £1,921.55 punts hence Bertie could not have exchanged what he said he did on that date, the records however show that the ammount of other currencies exchanged that day equalled £28,969.34 punts this would allow for a transaction of $45,000 and other non-sterling exchanges to a value of £196.44 punts

Wasn't this 30,000 sterling supposed to be in both sterling and punt? If so, what's highlighted in bold is incorrect.
The £1921.55 sterling and the rest in punt could give a total of 28772.90 punts.

This would mean that the $45000 would have to have been a pure coincidence! (However believable that may or may not be)



And, for the record, the £30000 sterling could have equated to a figure of 28774.22 punts.

That means Bertie's figures are out by a whopping 1.32 punt.
Make of that as you please.

Lennoxschips

Wasn't this 30,000 sterling supposed to be in both sterling and punt? If so, what's highlighted in bold is incorrect.
The £1921.55 sterling and the rest in punt could give a total of 28772.90 punts.

Indeed it could.

And, for the record, the £30000 sterling could have equated to a figure of 28774.22 punts.

Irrelevant, seeing as the bank didn't deal in that much sterling that day.

I'm no statistician, but the chances of a lodgment working out, by coincidence, at exactly 28,772.90 (exactly what you'd get for lodging 45,000.00 dollars) must be extremely remote.



Then of course, there is the equally damning matter of another batch of deposited money, which equates to exactly 25 grand sterling (a second extremely remote coincidence?), in direct conflict with Ahern's account.

Villain

Read page 29 of the Tribunal's PDF, Bertie told the Tribunal that the lodgement on the 5th of Dec 1994 was that of £30,000 pounds given to Celia Larkin.

He then stated in his statement that it may have been a mixture of Pounds and Punts, so are you trying to tell me that he has gone from £30,000 to approx £2,000 pounds plus Punts even though Wall says he gave £30,000 in Sterling that week to Bertie. The figures don't match up either, whether they are out by £1.32 or £132 they don't match up the figure of $45,000 dollars at the lower rate however matches exactly and bank Records show that £30,000 sterling was not exchanged at the branch on that day. On page 12 its states that Ms Larkin believe the lodgement on the 5th dec 1994 represented an Irish Punt equilivant of a Sterling sum she had been given in cash.

IMO and thats all it is my opinion, Bertie, Wall and Larkin all stated Wall gave Bertie £30,000 sterling in cash on the weekend before the 5th Dec 1994, Ms Larkin believed she lodged a Sterling amount which was worth £28,772.90 in punts, Bertie also told the Tribunal that it was £30,000 sterling that was lodged however after it was pointe out that the rates of exchange on that day didn't equate to £28,772.90 punts but did equate exactly to $45,000 he changed his story and said it may have been a mixture of Pounds and Punts so we are meant to believe that while Bertie got £30,000 pounds in sterling a few days before the lodgement he only lodged sterling worth £1921.55, which for the record would mean he lodged £2003.41, however the bank didn't accept less than £1 and then he also lodged £26,851.35 in Punts. I think the movement in story is making it look worse for Bertie rather than accepting that the only transaction possible on that day that could have resulted in £28,772.90 was someone exchanging $45,000

Lennoxschips

so we are meant to believe that while Bertie got £30,000 pounds in sterling a few days before the lodgement he only lodged sterling worth £1921.55

McDowell believed it, so why shouldn't we...

cast_iron

Irish1, I'm not saying what he did or didn't do, or asking anyone to believe what seems unlikely.

I simply pointed out the facts allow him to have lodged the equivalent to £30000 stg in a punts and stg mixture. You claimed earlier it couldn't.

irish1 wrote:

...the amount of sterling exchanged on the 5th of December 1994 was equal to £1,921.55 punts hence Bertie could not have exchanged what he said he did on that date,

scojones

wb wrote:

Sure thing Ibid, and fair play for putting your money where your mouth is.

I'll stand by my word, and I can assure you that I will pay up should Enda win. I run a site where bets are often struck, so you can see my track record on the exchange section if you want (username Hill16)

http://www.letsbet.ie/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44

Should I win, will I pm you my bank details/address?


There is €15 left if any other blueshirts want to take me on!

Without trying to pull this thread off topic, I'll take that €15 that's left wb, gladly.

Villain

cast_iron wrote:

Irish1, I'm not saying what he did or didn't do, or asking anyone to believe what seems unlikely.

I simply pointed out the facts allow him to have lodged the equivalent to £30000 stg in a punts and stg mixture. You claimed earlier it couldn't.

But the facts don't allow for that, what mixture would equal £28,772.90 Punts with a maximum of Sterling worth £1921.55 punts?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

But the facts don't allow for that, what mixture would equal £28,772.90 Punts with a maximum of Sterling worth £1921.55 punts?

Some of his own money? The money converted on the tuesday instead of the wenesday?
Buying the paper?
Celia dropping by land of leather and picking up a sofa that she forgot about ?
The wrong account being looked at.Lets hear the discourse at the tribunal first shall we?I know as little as you but I won't be drawing the same inferences as you.My mind is far from made up on this matter unlike yours.

I am drawing no more conclusions than Bertie did when allegations were made againt Ivor Callely!

But they are according to Bertie two different things.
Callelly accepted a write off of work done on his own house by strangers whereas Aherns GF administered monies on a house that was to be made available for Ahern to rent by a close friend and possibly own when it suited him to buy it,if it suited him.

jjbrien

I though it is Illigal to bring in more than £10,000 IEP into the country in cash without declaring it to customs on arrival. So if someone did bring $45,000 into the country wouldnt customs have a record as of who brought it in? Athlough i know customs in Dublin Airport are non existant most of the time. But if this money was delared on arrival there would indeed be a paper trial and we could find out who gave it to Bertie.

100gSoma

Lads and Lassies.

The B*llsh*t in here is piling up so fast you need wings to stay on top of it. Did he do it? If you really think he is an honest politician filled with integrity, good luck to you sir. You'll need it. Thats just a personal opinion, not a legal statement of intent or some sh!t, and no I won't be gambling to back it up. LOL...

Villain

Any chance of a reply to post 131 Tristrame? Ahern and Celia both said the money lodged was the result of a large Sterling amount, why would Celia say that if she only lodged a maximum of £2003 sterling?

jjbrien

irish1 wrote:

Any chance of a reply to post 131 Tristrame? Ahern and Celia both said the money lodged was the result of a large Sterling amount, why would Celia say that if she only lodged a maximum of £2003 sterling?

I think he knows that he cant do a new argument. You would swear that Tristrame is a personal friend of Berties or maybe a party member?

Rock Climber

jjbrien wrote:

I think he knows that he cant do a new argument. You would swear that Tristrame is a personal friend of Berties or maybe a party member?

Enough of that.Thats the weakest form of response and we have a rule for it here called attack the post and not the poster.
Take a week off.

irish1 wrote:

Any chance of a reply to post 131 Tristrame? Ahern and Celia both said the money lodged was the result of a large Sterling amount, why would Celia say that if she only lodged a maximum of £2003 sterling?

I see you ignored his answer or combination of several possible answers.

Reviewing this thread ,the place for this tribunal ring around is over in politics in the existing thread there.

Thread locked.