The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)

mike65

Noel Ahern was the hardest working man in Irish show business over the weekend.

Mike.

guinnessdrinker

juuge wrote: »

Why RTE chose to quote Bertie's brother is amazing. What else would a guy say about his own brother?

This was ridiculous, surely RTE could have found someone else over the weekend.

El Stuntman

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

This was ridiculous, surely RTE could have found someone else over the weekend.

you're missing the point

no senior FF figure is willing to stand up and defend Bertie any more

it's like the last days of Stalin now - they know The Leader is dying but no-one has the guts to tell the doctors to declare him dead

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

Oh come off it. Ahern claimed he was destitute, living in a bedsit over his office until his 'best friends' (some of whom claim they were never friends) came and rescued him with a little dig out that he considered a 'debt of honour'

Lol at more hyperbole.I've noticed this in the "get Bertie" camp.I doubt he ever claimed to be "destitute" as you put it.I'll wager he gave off the impression that he needed to look after his daughters as well as pay off his wife.
It's interesting that all the donors were middle aged men who would be sympatetic to that scenario.

All the while, he had 'savings' floating around the place of several times the average industrial wage,

Well you have your view on that,it's not criminal to have savings and it's certainly not criminal to want to give them to your daughters.

he had access to FF funds that were enough to buy a house for his girlfriend.

Irrelevant,though highly titilating I'm sure.

if your friends offer you a rescue loan that you don't need, you don't accept it. it's as simple as that. If you're offered a loan that you do need, then you repay it as soon as you get back on your feet. Ahern never needed a loan, and when given the 'digout, never paid back a single cent until more than a decade later despite him being amongst the best paid heads of state in Europe for the last 10 years.

Who says he didn't need it? Or where he had in mind for the allocation of his funds?

Nothing that he has said is credible, and every time he opens his mouth he just drifts farther and farther away from the threshold of believability.

Believability about what though?
No matter how much you want to ride this bandwagon of fingerpointing at the chaos of his recollections regarding hithertoo unrequired accountability of what he maintains (and is otherwise unproven) are his own legitimately held /dispersed resources...No matter how much you want to,you still have nothing other than a display of chaotic record keeping..all of which Ahern could have safely assumed were his own business and not for public display.

The facts are established. Ahern was dealing in large sums of cash, much of it in foreign currencies, at the same time as he was alleged to have received corrupt payments

The more prurient fact is that the tribunal has far from finished it's investigations,Ahern has far from pieced together his finances and there is no evidence as yet of anything criminal..

however as I said earlier,you amongst others like this anti bertie bandwagon,it appears to give you something to steam off about.
Thats nice.I like that.

The patronising 'Lols' from you rock climber as you laugh at your perceived gaps in other people's arguments while you're defending ahern using the WMD defence* are very galling.
(*you can't prove absolutely that Saddam didn't have WMD, therefore you're an idiot to make that claim and the war was justified)

Whats truly Galling is all this finger pointing using the nitty gritty of a complicated jigsaw and coming up with conclusions to suit a predisposed bias.
I like that too.It shows an active imagination.

You mightn't think a case is proven, but to any right thinking person, the evidence is overwhelming that Ahern has been doing things he should not have been doing.

I agree,he shouldn't have been making such a mess of his own finances.
But I suspect that untill I see some sort of fairness in your assessment and an ability to recognise that what you see might not be what is what you want to see..then I suspect it's all we'll agree on.

murphaph

Rock Climber, are you by any chance related to Mr. Ahern? You seem to be the only one defending him and his actions, both in the past and in the tribunal.

You keep saying "it's not illegal to do x, y and z" but do you not see that people expect more than just staying on the right side of the law. They expect honour and common decency from their elected leaders.

I personally hope FF keep on supporting Ahern until it's too late and it costs them the next election. I know I voted 1, 2 FF at the second last election and I voted ABFF 1,,2, 3, 4,... at the last one. If FF stand by Ahern to the bitter end then more people will do likewise at the next election.

Liam Byrne

I'm STUNNED at Rock Climber's stance on this!

Firstly, maybe there was nothing related to the tribunal's enquiry in this - that is accepted, and even though FF and Bertie apologists seem to fixate on it, IT IS NO LONGER THE ISSUE.

Regardless of HOW you keep records, there are three relatively simple facts:

1) If someone gives you a "loan" of €30,000 - THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU'D FORGET IT
2) If you don't pay back the "loan", then it's income, and a Minister for Finance should know that
3) If you lie to the people (as in tell them 3 different stories about the cash, meaning that, even assuming one is true, the other two are lies) then you have to accept the consequences

Whether or not it's planning-related is irrelevant.

it's not criminal to have savings and it's certainly not criminal to want to give them to your daughters.

Interesting Bertie-speak here.....no, it's not criminal to have savings, but where did they come from ?

The Criminal Assets Bureau wouldn't allow someone they're investigating to say "it's not criminal to have savings", now would they ? The Revenue wouldn't say it either, as long as you'd declared where you got it from and paid the required tax on it.

And if there's no tax-dodging, planning issues or other brown-envelopes involved, why didn't Bertie tell the truth from day one ?

And DON'T tell me that he "didn't know".......what he received was worth more than an average salary.....like I said, even if there were no records of the transaction no-one forgets that amount of cash......

mike65

You to beat me to it, I was wondering if RC was playing honest copper or if he had an agenda.

Mike.

dresden8

Plus of course he is taking credit for the "Celtic Tiger" and steering the country to it's greatest ever boom.

Odd then that he can't run his own finances. No records of large sums of cash lodgements.

I got €10,000 from the SSIA. Rest assured the people on this board will remember that level of money in 20 years time.

If you were in need of the money, you'd remember it. If Bertie can't remember this cash, is it because it was lost in even larger amounts sloshing around?

This does not make sense.

Rock Climber

murphaph wrote: »

Rock Climber, are you by any chance related to Mr. Ahern?

Thats right up there with the "do you work for x or Y company" response in a debate when you don't like to hear what I'm posing to ye.It's the last gasp of a debate when you have to question the posters credentials when faced with no answer to the questions/observations I'm posing for you.
I guess thats why it's disallowed by the charter of this very forum because it's not debate it's personal abuse.

You keep saying "it's not illegal to do x, y and z" but do you not see that people expect more than just staying on the right side of the law. They expect honour and common decency from their elected leaders.

I've already told you what I see.
Lets repeat it again as it seems the hate Bertie because it's popular in the meeja camp can't grasp it.
I see a thrawling through personal finances in full public view.There are 166 t.d's in the Dáil and I'd imagine you might come across similar perceived messes if you went back far enough into their distant finances and expect a line by line accounting for them.

mike65 wrote:

You to beat me to it, I was wondering if RC was playing honest copper or if he had an agenda.

How does that and other one line posts by your goodself contribute to a discussion?
This is a discussion forum.As I said to the previous poster,personal abuse like that just shows up the poverty in debating skills.

murphaph

Rock Climber wrote: »

Thats right up there with the "do you work for x or Y company" response in a debate when you don't like to hear what I'm posing to ye.It's the last gasp of a debate when you have to question the posters credentials when faced with no answer to the questions/observations I'm posing for you.
I guess thats why it's disallowed by the charter of this very forum because it's not debate it's personal abuse.

Oh come off it. it's not personal abuse. I am genuinely astounded that you can so readily accept such poor financial records from a then MINISTER OF FINANCE!

Rock Climber wrote: »

I've already told you what I see.
Lets repeat it again as it seems the hate Bertie because it's popular in the meeja camp can't grasp it.
I see a thrawling through personal finances in full public view.There are 166 t.d's in the Dáil and I'd imagine you might come across similar perceived messes if you went back far enough into their distant finances and expect a line by line accounting for them.

Ok. Get this: I do not hate Bertie. I want him to resign because I think he has dragged the office he occupies down into the mud. It is not popular in the media-the media give scant coverage to the premier of this country having to squirm under cross examination about his (woeful) recollection of rather large sums of money in a tribunal investigating planning irregularities which have led to commuter misery for tens of thousands of people daily.

As said previously (though you chose not to tackle it); if you were lent a sum of money much greater than the average wage, you'd remember it. Ahern either has a very poor memory or was swimming in similar 'loans' which were not paid back for years, despite Ahern earning the second highest salary of a premier in the EU just after Angela Merkel....leader of the world's most productive economy, European paymaster and G8 nation!

Mr.Micro

Am I correct in assuming Bertie was an accountant by trade? Anyway, he appears to make an awful mess of simple sums and he also appears to make everything so complicated. Why was a whip round necessary in Manchester if the FF funds were available to use, as Ms Larkin was allowed 30k, surely Bertie could have had a loan as well? Also if Mr.Ahern was so short why was he wasting money paying the bank conversion and transaction fees changing punts to Stg and back again?

Rock Climber

murphaph wrote: »

I am genuinely astounded that you can so readily accept such poor financial records from a then MINISTER OF FINANCE!

Woe be tide that you might see that I'm looking at the situation practically.
What went on in his finances were not for public view.
He wasn't employed by the state to keep account of where he put his own resources.Like everyone else that was expected to be private.

If he was incompetent in his job,then you'd have a point.The fact that his messy internal finances are exposed for all the world to see now in this investigation is to him and to us a titilation.
We can remain unimpressed of course or lose the run of ourselves in making it out to be more than what it may be.
We shall see whats what at some later stage.

Ok. Get this: I do not hate Bertie. I want him to resign because I think he has dragged the office he occupies down into the mud.

What mud? Are we back to the exposure of what he thought was not supposed to be for public consumption again?

It is not popular in the media-the media give scant coverage to the premier of this country having to squirm under cross examination about his (woeful) recollection of rather large sums of money in a tribunal investigating planning irregularities which have led to commuter misery for tens of thousands of people daily.

Hang on , what are you saying there? This seems to be more conviction of the unconvicted and an announcement of Aherns corruption.
What evidence has been shown so far of Berties involvement in planning corruption?
None.

As said previously (though you chose not to tackle it); if you were lent a sum of money much greater than the average wage, you'd remember it.

What are you talking about? The dig outs? He hasn't said he doesn't remember them specefically.
Secondly,I did tackle it,you just keep on ignoring what I've said because it's painfully inconvenient.I'm proferring that one can do what one likes with ones own resources within the law without the expectation that one needs to account for it if one believes that it's all legitimately obtained.Clearly Ahern believes this.
I'm certainly not joining the Bertiehate chorus by coming to all sorts of conclusions prior to the end of this process.

Ahern either has a very poor memory or was swimming in similar 'loans' which were not paid back for years, despite Ahern earning the second highest salary of a premier in the EU just after Angela Merkel....leader of the world's most productive economy, European paymaster and G8 nation!

Or something else.
Lets just see,rather than conspirisise all over the shop with nothing to back it up other than a sea of exaggeration and hyperbole.

mike65

Am I correct in assuming Bertie was an accountant by trade?

Bertie Ahern has no accountancy qualifications, he did the books for the Mater Hospital - a clerk if you will. Someone cheekily suggested Ahern was exploiting the currency crisis of winter/spring 1993 with his transactions.

Mike.

Seth Brundle

juuge wrote: »

Why RTE chose to quote Bertie's brother is amazing. What else would a guy say about his own brother?

Maybe Maurice wasn't available for comment unlike recently (...)

Rock Climber wrote: »

It's interesting that all the donors were middle aged men who would be sympatetic to that scenario.

These men are alleged donors. As I have already said, there is no evidence that they donated

Rock Climber wrote: »

Well you have your view on that,it's not criminal to have savings and it's certainly not criminal to want to give them to your daughters.Irrelevant,though highly titilating I'm sure.

He did comment at one stage whilst crying on TV about how he had no money, bank a/cs etc.
What was that all for then?

Rock Climber wrote: »

No matter how much you want to,you still have nothing other than a display of chaotic record keeping..all of which Ahern could have safely assumed were his own business and not for public display.

I have every email sent to me since 1994 (apart from spam, etc!). I have all bank statements for a similar period. I have bills, etc. also. I am not an accountant but I know what to keep!
His record keeping wasn't chaotic. Chaotic would be poor record keeping but still keeping receipts.
His record keeping (IMO) was shrewd and planned!

Rock Climber wrote: »

The more prurient fact is that the tribunal has far from finished it's investigations,Ahern has far from pieced together his finances and there is no evidence as yet of anything criminal..

Bertie has obstructed the tribunal as much as possible. The tribunal could have concluded his involevent had he cooperated with it.

Rock Climber wrote: »

I see a thrawling through personal finances in full public view.

His salary (before it was converted into sterling and then back into punts) was public knowledge and the tribunal has no interest in it.
All verifiable sources of income would not have been made public.
The tribunal is only checking the unverifiable sources of income available to Bertie. However, because he was not open about it all from day one and also because of his truly unbelievable excuses (which many of his FF colleagues don't believe), the disclosures and excuses are becoming more and more public.
If Bertie were to have approached the tribunal and said, here is all that I had and here is how I got it, the tribunal could easily have corroborated his disclosures. Berties lack of honesty about his finances and his deliberate obstruction from information becoming available to the tribunal regarding these finances is making them newsworthy.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Am I correct in assuming Bertie was an accountant by trade?

Gasp, shock, horror - it appears to be all untrue!
Still, he is happy to declare UCD on the Dept. of the Taoiseach website, despite UCD stating that he is not on any of their records!

Rock Climber - are you a member of FF?

murphaph

Rock Climber: Your entire post consists of "let's see what happens". In that case, why bother responding to this thread if not to speculate and debate on what Ahern is up to? If all you can say is "let's see what happens" then that sort of puts an end to your reason to add to this thread until the tribunal presents its findings.

Most of us are stating outright we don't believe Ahern. You are stating that you don't know if he's dodgy and will wait for the outcome of the tribunal before judging him. That's your right, but why bother repeating the essence of that over and over. Why not just wait till they find before replying? Or are you just playing devil's advocate rather than giving your own opinions on Ahern and the tribunal?

Do you believe Ahern is fit for office and that nothing will come out about him to the contrary, or do you not?

Boggle

RockClimber wrote:

It's interesting that all the donors were middle aged men who would be sympatetic to that scenario.

What would be of more interest, if anyone had the information readily at hand, would be what did these folk (or alternatively companies in which these folk were involved) gained either before of after this event.

If someone can show any of them received any government posts or contracts for no good reason (including the "they were my friends" reason) then Bertie is absolutly guilty. "IF" you can show that none of these people received any form of preferremtial treatment either before or after this period then you have an honest man...

Unfortunately, FF in general appear to be playing the goldfish game around this - whereby all they have to do is keep talking long enough and everyone forgets what they were asking...

Rock Climber

kbannon wrote: »

I have every email sent to me since 1994 (apart from spam, etc!). I have all bank statements for a similar period. I have bills, etc. also. I am not an accountant but I know what to keep!
His record keeping wasn't chaotic. Chaotic would be poor record keeping but still keeping receipts.

In all fairness,I shred mine and recycle after 5 years.Thats a tad obsessive in my opinion and unusual. 14 years :eek:

His record keeping (IMO) was shrewd and planned!

Thats both judgemental and unproven.

Bertie has obstructed the tribunal as much as possible. The tribunal could have concluded his involevent had he cooperated with it.

Also judgemental and unproven.If the Tribunal were convinced they could suceed with a prosecution for non co operation ie if they could prove anything other than a man trying to cope with chotic finances,then they would.
Maybe they will but untill such time,this is more hyperbole for effect ie nonsense.

His salary (before it was converted into sterling and then back into punts) was public knowledge and the tribunal has no interest in it.
All verifiable sources of income would not have been made public.
The tribunal is only checking the unverifiable sources of income available to Bertie. However, because he was not open about it all from day one and also because of his truly unbelievable excuses (which many of his FF colleagues don't believe), the disclosures and excuses are becoming more and more public.

I'm sure they all find it all embarrassing,I'm sure some of them find a lot of it unbelieveable.Most of them are reserving judgement I see.

If Bertie were to have approached the tribunal and said, here is all that I had and here is how I got it, the tribunal could easily have corroborated his disclosures. Berties lack of honesty about his finances and his deliberate obstruction from information becoming available to the tribunal regarding these finances is making them newsworthy.

There ya go again,dancing to the meeja bandwagon and jumping to the same conclusions.
As my Grandfather once said..When two people agree on everything,theres only one thinker..Think about that

Rock Climber - are you a member of FF?

As I said earlier,that type of line is a last ditch attack the poster and not the post defence usually by people faced with some valid points they don't like hearing.
As I said before it's unworthy of debate tbh.

murphaph wrote:

Do you believe Ahern is fit for office and that nothing will come out about him to the contrary, or do you not?

With respect thats a rubbish question in the light of the points I've been making and is proof positive that you are choosing to ignore them rather than debate them.
I've already given a view on what I think is going on here and untill this is declared otherwise or something conclusive other than messy finances comes to light,I'm reserving that kind of judgement to an over all job review of the actual job that Bertie is employed to do.

If you want a judgement on that I'll give it but in another thread if you start one as it's OT in here.

oscarBravo

Rock Climber wrote: »

Clearly Ahern believes this.

On a point of pedantry, this has no more been proven than have the allegations you're taking issue with. Notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, Ahern's intentions will (I presume, and inter alia) be the subject of a Tribunal finding.

On a point of moderation: the next person to ask Rock Climber or anyone else about their political affiliations or family connections will be banned for a week. Discuss the topic on its merits or otherwise; a poster's motives for what they post are off-topic for this thread.

Rock Climber

oscarBravo wrote: »

On a point of pedantry, this has no more been proven than have the allegations you're taking issue with. Notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, Ahern's intentions will (I presume, and inter alia) be the subject of a Tribunal finding.

I take your point.However Berties beliefs as regards the veracity of what he says about his finances ie that they are legitimate have been stated by him many many times..ad nauseum in fact.
I'd have thought that the tribunal should it find not in his favour couldn't disprove a belief but rather only show up the belief as being unfounded or founded.
Ergo I'd have to stand by my use of his oft stated beliefs.He has never stated publically that he disbelieves himself

deliberate levity there lol

ballooba

Rock Climber wrote: »

Thats right up there with the "do you work for x or Y company" response in a debate when you don't like to hear what I'm posing to ye.It's the last gasp of a debate when you have to question the posters credentials when faced with no answer to the questions/observations I'm posing for you.
I guess thats why it's disallowed by the charter of this very forum because it's not debate it's personal abuse.

...

Rock Climber wrote: »

Lets repeat it again as it seems the hate Bertie because it's popular in the meeja camp can't grasp it.

That's more than a little bit Alanis Morissette.

ballooba

Rock Climber wrote: »

What went on in his finances were not for public view.
He wasn't employed by the state to keep account of where he put his own resources.Like everyone else that was expected to be private.

Until that individual is being investigated under suspicion of criminality. His accounts have been found to be less than abve board. He shouldn't be treated differently than anyone else in the same situation.

Rock Climber wrote: »

What evidence has been shown so far of Berties involvement in planning corruption?
None.

If it can be shown that he received corrupt payments then it doesn't really matter what form that corruption took. For the pruposes of the tribunal they are obliged to find out where the money came from (or at least try). They are trying to find out if the money is connected to planning corruption. It's not there fault if they find payments connected to other forms of corruption. Finally, it's up to Bertie to provide a credible explanation for all payments if he wants to save the tribunal the trouble of investigating and hypothesising.

Rock Climber wrote: »

I'm proferring that one can do what one likes with ones own resources within the law without the expectation that one needs to account for it if one believes that it's all legitimately obtained.Clearly Ahern believes this.

You cannot be serious. Of course every single ctizen is obliged to account for their income and affairs. Where on earth did you get any idea to the contrary?

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote: »

On a point of pedantry, this has no more been proven than have the allegations you're taking issue with. Notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, Ahern's intentions will (I presume, and inter alia) be the subject of a Tribunal finding.

On a point of moderation: the next person to ask Rock Climber or anyone else about their political affiliations or family connections will be banned for a week. Discuss the topic on its merits or otherwise; a poster's motives for what they post are off-topic for this thread.

I don't think so. A person's motives for what they say are highly relevant when judging the merit of their arguments.

For example, When Mahon reports, his words will be given huge weight because of his role as the tribunal judge. If Enda Kenny came out and said he changed his mind, Ahern is completely innocent of all allegations, that would be a much more important statement than if some FF minister or backbencher came out in defence of Ahern, and similarly, any FF party loyals who start to publicly dismiss Aherns account will be a more telling statement than if a member of the opposition were to say the exact same things.

This is an issue where individual roles and party loyalties are intrinsic to the debate and an honest discussion should include a disclosure of conflicts of interest from all participants.

Rock Climber has made numerous 'personal attacks' already in this thread, claiming that everyone who doesn't believe ahern is doing so out of a pre-existing hatred of Ahern or because we're being brainwashed by the media. He is accusing us of bias and refusing to state his own allegiances.

Rock Climber said
I've noticed this in the "get Bertie" camp......
however as I said earlier,you amongst others like this anti bertie bandwagon,.....
But I suspect that untill I see some sort of fairness in your assessment and an ability to recognise that what you see might not be what is what you want to see.......
Lets repeat it again as it seems the hate Bertie because it's popular in the meeja camp can't grasp it.........
etc etc etc

Rock Climber

ballooba wrote: »

Until that individual is being investigated under suspicion of criminality. His accounts have been found to be less than abve board. He shouldn't be treated differently than anyone else in the same situation.

His accounts haven't been found to be anything actually.

If it can be shown that he received corrupt payments then it doesn't really matter what form that corruption took. For the pruposes of the tribunal they are obliged to find out where the money came from (or at least try). They are trying to find out if the money is connected to planning corruption. It's not there fault if they find payments connected to other forms of corruption. Finally, it's up to Bertie to provide a credible explanation for all payments if he wants to save the tribunal the trouble of investigating and hypothesising.

I put an empasis on the "if" in your post because it's another example of rushing to conclusions long before a process has ended and with no proof of corruption either might I add for the umpteenth time.

You cannot be serious. Of course every single ctizen is obliged to account for their income and affairs. Where on earth did you get any idea to the contrary?

Re-read what I wrote.
I'm proferring that Ahern like I am entitled to believe that resources I have the use of aren't criminal and ergo I don't have to go all orwellian in my paperwork on them.
Theres no law stating that everybody should automatically assume that their transactions might be investigated and ergo we should be orwellian with them is there?
If there is show me it please.

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

Rock Climber has made numerous 'personal attacks' already in this thread, claiming that everyone who doesn't believe ahern is doing so out of a pre-existing hatred of Ahern or because we're being brainwashed by the media. He is accusing us of bias and refusing to state his own allegiances.

For the record I don't have any allegiances.
I'd usually regard minds made up (as many here are prior) to the conclusion of an investigation process as a fair indication of bias.
As for hatrid,I don't believe I have singled anyone out,but there are posts here that can be construed as little else.

Liam Byrne

Rock Climber wrote: »

I'd usually regard minds made up (as many here are prior) to the conclusion of an investigation process as a fair indication of bias.

How many times does it have to be said that NO-ONE has their "minds made up" as to whether Bertie is guilty of "corruption" in the area the tribunal is investigating ?

What we are stunned at is how someone got €30,000; how they "didn't remember it"; how they didn't pay tax on it because it was a "loan" (although most loans need to be remembered and repaid); and how they told at least 3 different stories about how they got it.

Those, on their own, are enough to raise serious questions about a "Minister for Finance".

So, to put Rock Climber's mind at rest in relation to any perceived "meeja" brainwash and preconceived bias, here are the following key points, all in one post.

1. Is Bertie guilty of planning corruption ? WE DON'T KNOW
2. Are there dodgy transactions that the tribunal reckons deserve scrutiny and investigation ? YES
3. Has Bertie explained those transactions adequately, consistently and openly ? NO
4. Might those transactions be found to have nothing to do with the tribunal's area of investigation ? YES
5. Even if they have nothing to do with it, are there sufficient questions that merit a separate, non-planning/non-tribunal investigation ? IT SEEMS SO
6. Is Bertie coming across as honest, consistent, trustworthy and competent ? NO
7. Are their other politicians who might suffer the same fate if investigated ? PROBABLY (but just because you aren't going after every drug dealer equally doesn't stop you from going after one)

Oh, there is one quote that does imply that Bertie is guilty of corruption:

'I didn't give jobs to people because they gave me money; I gave them jobs because they were my friends'.

Suitable Descriptions: Illegal, immoral, nepotism, to the detriment of the country.

But that's not bias, and it's also not completely relevant to the thread (although it did come, verbatim, from an interview in which Bertie was trying to regain support because of the tribunal and the payments).

Rock Climber

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How many times does it have to be said that NO-ONE has their "minds made up" as to whether Bertie is guilty of "corruption" in the area the tribunal is investigating ?

Really? I don't believe you.

What we are stunned at is how someone got €30,000; how they "didn't remember it"; how they didn't pay tax on it because it was a "loan" (although most loans need to be remembered and repaid); and how they told at least 3 different stories about how they got it.

I've never discounted his messy personal finances so pointing that out to me is irrelevant.

Those, on their own, are enough to raise serious questions about a "Minister for Finance".

Why? Have you looked at the finances of all previous ministers to determine if they have been keeping this orwellian a forethought record that seems to be the demand here?

So, to put Rock Climber's mind at rest in relation to any perceived "meeja" brainwash and preconceived bias, here are the following key points, all in one post.

1. Is Bertie guilty of planning corruption ? WE DON'T KNOW
2. Are there dodgy transactions that the tribunal reckons deserve scrutiny and investigation ? YES
3. Has Bertie explained those transactions adequately, consistently and openly ? NO
4. Might those transactions be found to have nothing to do with the tribunal's area of investigation ? YES
5. Even if they have nothing to do with it, are there sufficient questions that merit a separate, non-planning/non-tribunal investigation ? IT SEEMS SO
6. Is Bertie coming across as honest, consistent, trustworthy and competent ? NO
7. Are their other politicians who might suffer the same fate if investigated ? PROBABLY (but just because you aren't going after every drug dealer equally doesn't stop you from going after one)

That last point is evidence of a mind made up anyway if ever I saw it

Oh, there is one quote that does imply that Bertie is guilty of corruption:

'I didn't give jobs to people because they gave me money; I gave them jobs because they were my friends'.

I see so it's illegal now to give jobs to your friends even if you are a politician? Better lock them all up so just in case.

Suitable Descriptions: Illegal, immoral, nepotism, to the detriment of the country.

Applicable to most if not all politicians tbh(except the illegal bit) and probably to everyone that ever lived.

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

For the record I don't have any allegiances.
I'd usually regard minds made up (as many here are prior) to the conclusion of an investigation process as a fair indication of bias.
As for hatrid,I don't believe I have singled anyone out,but there are posts here that can be construed as little else.

I don't have any allegiances either, doesn't stop me making up my own mind based on the evidence before me.

Liam Lawlor was never convicted of any corruption, do you reserve judgement on his political career? Is it an indication of bias to state that Lawlor was a corrupt politician?

(Ahern threw him out of the party before the tribunal concluded he was guilty. Why didn't he use the same standards for lawlor as he expects for himself?)

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't have any allegiances either, doesn't stop me making up my own mind based on the evidence before me.

Thank you for that.For all our disagreements,you have been most reasonable.

Liam Lawlor was never convicted of any corruption, do you reserve judgement on his political career? Is it an indication of bias to state that Lawlor was a corrupt politician?

You could mention the monk aswell,as he was never convicted of bank robbing.However I'd far from put the Monk and Bertie in the same category.
Neither would I put Lawlor in the same category as Bertie for the simple reason that Bertie did have "the dirt" on Lawlor given that he carried out an internal investigation afaik.
We have no "dirt" on Bertie other than what I suppose you and I have gone over and over again and again ie a financial mess in my opinion or something more sinister in your view.
I say potato and you say po - tah- tow if you understand me.

As for needing to apply the same standards to himself as to Lawlor,that doesnt stand in my opinion obviously(and at the risk of further repetition) because no corruption or law breaking has been tied to Bertie..not even tax evasion as of this point.

Liam Byrne

Rock Climber wrote: »

Really? I don't believe you.

By your own arguments, you're not allowed to "not believe me" because the tribunal hasn't come to its conclusion about my statements yet. You don't believe me; we don't believe Bertie. You're convincing us that we should believe Bertie; would you not afford me the same courtesy, especially as all I have done is my utmost to make the distinctions between what you THINK we're saying and what we're actually saying.

I've never discounted his messy personal finances so pointing that out to me is irrelevant.

To you, apparently so, but the rest of us are not discounting it. All I was pointing out to you is that THAT IS what we are sceptical of, and THAT IS the issue for us, not whether the tribunal will or won't find him guilty. It's irrelevant TO YOU, but not TO US. And that's not "mind made up on the tribunal", that's a judgement based on how he's acted. Just because YOU view it as irrelevant doesn't mean we have to, and it doesn't mean that you can say "but the issue is the tribunal's findings, which aren't concluded yet". The issue to US is that Bertie has lied and done some pretty odd things. Period.

Why? Have you looked at the finances of all previous ministers to determine if they have been keeping this orwellian a forethought record that seems to be the demand here?

"Orwellian" ???? Jeez, talk about hyperbole!!!!! :rolleyes: We're not talking major book-keeping (or even ANY book-keeping) required to remember that someone gave you an entire year's wages in one go and didn't ask for it to be repaid!!! A tenner or even €100 here and there, fair enough, but we're talking a fortune in 80s Ireland terms!!!

That last point is evidence of a mind made up anyway if ever I saw it

Amazing! You decide that a statement I made about how life and circumstance precludes us from investigating everyone at the same time means that I've made up my mind about Bertie. If others start lying about their finances or have inconsistent stories, let's investigate them too - I've no problem with that, but it doesn't stop us querying Bertie's finances NOW.

P.S. Ironically, you're giving out about me and others and suggesting that we have our mind made up and are making Bertie's statements fit what we've already decided, and then you go and do the same thing on my statement; lucky for Bertie that you're NOT a tribunal judge, you'd have him locked up months ago!!!

I see so it's illegal now to give jobs to your friends even if you are a politician?

It is, actually. All positions must be advertised. Give jobs to people who are capable of doing them and who provide value for money, not because they're your mates!!!

Better lock them all up so just in case.

Now THAT'S the type of comment that someone with a prejudice WOULD make, and it didn't come from me. No other politician came right out and said that they gave jobs to their friends, so I've no reason to lock the others up; maybe a few of them did it too, but until there's proof or reasonable doubt, I don't lock people up.

Applicable to most if not all politicians tbh(except the illegal bit) and probably to everyone that ever lived.

So your argument - again - is that we shouldn't go after one because it applies to them all ???

And the irony's back......we have PROOF that Bertie did it (he told us) so there's no argument there; but you're saying that it's "applicable to most if not all politicians" ???? Do you have proof of this ? Or should you wait until THOSE potential tribunals are established and release THEIR findings, the way you're saying we should do with Bertie ? Why are you singling out Bertie for special treatment as "innocent until proven guilty" (even though like I said, that's no longer the issue) and then claiming most/all the others are guilty of something without any proof ???

But on the plus side I take it that you're admitting that it's wrong, so at least we have some tiny progress on the reality front from you.....at last! Phew!

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

Really? I don't believe you.
I've never discounted his messy personal finances so pointing that out to me is irrelevant.

That's missing the point he was making (deliberately?)
It is not Credible that Ahern would have such 'messy finances'. You're taking the fact that he keeps changing his story as evidence that he was disorganised, most other people take it as evidence that he's covering something up. You're taking his complete lack of any supporting documentation as a confirmation that his finances were messy, that might be a valid conclusion if it wasn't for the fact that of all the available documentation from other sources (bank records, exchange rates etc) seems to contradict ahern's unsupported claims.

There are coincidences, and there are coincidences. For almost every 're-lodgement' and 'digout' that ahern claims (with no evidence) there is a more plausible FX transaction that matches exactly the figures available to the tribunal.

You can not in fairness accuse someone of latent hatred or bias just because they refuse to accept such monumental coincidences and take a 'cunning and devious' politician at his word (especially when has so much to lose if the allegations against him are true)

Why? Have you looked at the finances of all previous ministers to determine if they have been keeping this orwellian a forethought record that seems to be the demand here?

If there are other ministers of finance with such 'messy finances' then I would be just as suspicious of them as I am of Ahern.
Ahern claims to be an accountant and includes UCD in his CV (even though UCD deny ever having him on their records) http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=189&docID=-1
Accountants know how to keep records.
We're not talking about Dylan Moran's character from Black Books here, He was an accountancy clerk for the Mater Hospital. He knows the importance of keeping records, he also knows the usefulness of not keeping records, and his preference to dealing with cash is another indication that he had something to hide.

That last point is evidence of a mind made up anyway if ever I saw it

Nonsense, are you deliberately misinterpreting what he is saying?

I see so it's illegal now to give jobs to your friends even if you are a politician? Better lock them all up so just in case.

There is a big difference between giving someone a job who happens to be your friend, and giving someone a job because he is your friend (and especially if you owe that person thousands of pounds)

Joe Burke was the director of a construction company that went into liquidation only a few months before his appointment. It is very hard to imagine that there weren't better qualified people out there to run the biggest port in the state.

These are prestigious and highly paid public jobs, and it is cronyism to give these appointments to your friends and people close and loyal to you, it is a form of corruption and nobody who has any respect for democracy should support such activity.