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

ballooba

Rock Climber wrote: »

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

Pedantry. Substitute 'discovered' for the word 'found'.

Rock Climber wrote: »

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.

No it's not. Otherwise I would not have quite deliberately used the word "if". I never said he had been shown to be corrupt.
Re-read what I wrote.

Rock Climber 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.

There is a principle in law whereby if funds cannot be proven legitimate then they will be assumed to be otherwise. That's why revenue ask for accounts.

redspider

Rock Climber, if you think Bertie Ahern's 'problems' are just because his finances were 'in a mess' and 'not clear', then maybe you can pass a judgement on this, and whether it is corrupt, morally wrong or other form of description:

It is now accepted in the Mahon Tribunal records as fact that:
- FF collected political donations to be used for political election expenses
- One of Bertie's Drumcondra office 'administrators' gave IEP 30k of those FF funds to Bertie's partner (Celia Larkin - described by Bertie as his life partner) for the purchase of property

Is that not a mis-direction and mis-use of FF funds?
Do you consider that corrupt?
Do you think Mahon will consider that corrupt?
Do you think the majority of Irish people (who are not backing Bertie and FF blindly) would consider that corrupt?
And Bertie claiming that he didnt know anything about it until recently - is he lying about that, do you think he is lying?

And that is but one small aspect of some of this 'financial mess'.

What is also now known, in relation to 'planning', is that on Bertie's last day in Ministerial Office, himself (with the support of Albert Reynolds) signed over on a special tax-exempt status for a shopping centre deveopment in Athlone which was worth millions to the developers, and there was no need to do so. Whether the tribunal can ever find any financial transactions that found their way into a found Bertie Account, who can tell. [mod snip]

[mod snip]

If he is lying, FF should make him resign if they have any backbone or morlas themselves, but its a bit like asking turkey's to vote for Xmas.

Even if he is 'confused' and his financial matters were just a mess as you purport, isnt that reason enough to say that he is not competent enough to be the leader of this country's government?

Have a think ....

Redspider

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

Which equally could be as a result of Bertie not having the time to go thrawl through all that stuff much less remember what he never intended for memory.
Now if you were to ask him about his first kiss..

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.

Plausable of what though? It's not entirely fair to draw conclusions of corruption based on having no evidence of corruption.
Especially when Bertie has made his position on his ability to recollect what he never expected to need recollection perfectly clear.

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)

I've seen language in this thread used , in fairness from which I can dra no other conclusion.

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.

I've no doubt that you would.

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.

Do we know who wrote that into the record or whether it was an underlings mistake or whether Bertie has ever stated that himself or stood over it?
If we don't then ,conclusions drawn like yours are of little value.

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,

I'm sure he does when it's the job he's paid to do.
This is very repetive now but again I'll say the bit you seem to dislike me saying..He was never like any of us under any obligation to keep an orwellian track of decades of his spend in the fear of corruption accusations needing answering.Mind you I'll bet theres plenty of politicians hoping they are not asked the same kind of questions going back a decade and a half.

he also knows the usefulness of not keeping records,

That would be a speculatitive opinion.

and his preference to dealing with cash is another indication that he had something to hide.

Another speculatitive opinion.

Nonsense, are you deliberately misinterpreting what he is saying?
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)

If you were to apply that logic to ministers of finance,then they'd never have a mortgage or a bank account as they are dealing in laws that have a bearing on the banks business.
Oh wait..
How much did Burke contribute out of interest? If it was circa 2000,I'd find it a bit of a stretch to suggest that would be a quid pro quo for giving him a job.
If it is, do you have Berties number (I'll google it anyhow )?

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.

If you want my opinion on that because you are indirectly specefically asking for it,I was never a fan of the "jobs for the boys" element of politics tbh.
I don't deny that it goes on,but it's only more commonplace with FF because they are in power most often.

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 anyone nobody who has any respect for democracy would support such activity.

If you think it's exclusive to FF or Bertie then I think you'd be mistaken.But then I don't agree with it.It's endemic in Irish society though.

Rock Climber

redspider wrote: »

Rock Climber, if you think Bertie Ahern's 'problems' are just because his finances were 'in a mess' and 'not clear', then maybe you can pass a judgement on this, and whether it is corrupt, morally wrong or other form of description:

It is now accepted in the Mahon Tribunal records as fact that:
- FF collected political donations to be used for political election expenses
- One of Bertie's Drumcondra office 'administrators' gave IEP 30k of those FF funds to Bertie's partner (Celia Larkin - described by Bertie as his life partner) for the purchase of property

Is that not a mis-direction and mis-use of FF funds?

That would be a matter for FF to decide.I'm not privy to how they do things tbh.
It's highly irregular at best.

Do you consider that corrupt?

Theres not enough information supplied in your question.

Do you think Mahon will consider that corrupt?

It's not within their remit afaik.

Do you think the majority of Irish people (who are not backing Bertie and FF blindly)

Is that a suggestion that I am? For if it is, I suggest,with respect, that you go back to and redefine the word debate.

Do you think the majority of Irish people (who are not backing Bertie and FF blindly)would consider that corrupt?

From my experience of Irish politics,I'd say it will be the last thing on most of their minds come election time.I'd guess if you load a question in that way,they might.That doesn't mean that it is though of course legally.

And Bertie claiming that he didnt know anything about it until recently - is he lying about that, do you think he is lying?

1. read the first post of this thread and the several moderations of this thread as regards asking me for an opinion like that.2.It's perfectly plausable that he may only have needed a cursary or fleeting knowledge of the workings of that a/c.

What is also now known, in relation to 'planning', is that on Bertie's last day in Ministerial Office, himself (with the support of Albert Reynolds) signed over on a special tax-exempt status for a shopping centre deveopment in Athlone which was worth millions to the developers, and there was no need to do so. Whether the tribunal can ever find any financial transactions that found their way into a found Bertie Account, who can tell. [mod snip]

There was no need for Dick Roche to give the go ahead for the Tara bypass either or for labour to start the trend of so many government advisors.
I guess they both thought it was a progressive decision.
I guess from the mere fact you pose the question to me, that you are of a more conspiratorial view on it.
It is a fact that private development cannot be done without an incentive and thats usually profit..so adding in that they made millions in this case is a tad of a red herring tbh.

[mod snip]

That would be incorrect subject to Berties next appearance at the tribunal in a few days time.

If he is lying, FF should make him resign if they have any backbone or morlas themselves, but its a bit like asking turkey's to vote for Xmas.

It's "if" now? a paragraph ago it "seemed clear" to you.
I'd rather not go there as you know the rules on accusations of lying on this forum.

Even if he is 'confused' and his financial matters were just a mess as you purport, isnt that reason enough to say that he is not competent enough to be the leader of this country's government?

Have a think ....

Redspider

Well it might be if you had a time machine and could un prime minister him from the last 10 years or so because of the information you have to hand about him now.
It might not on the other hand,if you have a fair disposition and await the finalisation of an investigative process and accept a human failing regarding the lack of omnipotence with respect to personal matters that he had never expected to need an orwellian style recording process applied to them.

There I've had a think about it...

Happy now? (notwithstanding the fact that you don't agree obviously)

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

Plausable of what though? It's not entirely fair to draw conclusions of corruption based on having no evidence of corruption.

Its plausible evidence that the money isn't what he says it is, which means it came from somewhere else, which means he's almost certainly hiding something (especially considering he has had so much time to jog his memory.)

Especially when Bertie has made his position on his ability to recollect what he never expected to need recollection perfectly clear.

This isn't just about a lack of recollection, it's also about him making sworn statements of what he said definitely happened, that are contradicted by the financial records. (I never dealt in dollars, those transactions weren't in sterling, the building society doesn't have records that go back that far....)

I've seen language in this thread used , in fairness from which I can dra no other conclusion.

Well thats the way we feel about Aherns evidence. From what we've seen so far, I can draw no other conclusion. Ahern said he had plausible explainations for his finances before the election (I'll tell yiz after the vote, i swear) including a secret formula that would prove beyond all doubt that there was no $45k transaction. Ahern has yet to clear anything up, and the secret formula turned out to be a complete fabrication.

I've no doubt that you would.

I am shocked that you wouldn't.

Do we know who wrote that into the record or whether it was an underlings mistake or whether Bertie has ever stated that himself or stood over it?
If we don't then ,conclusions drawn like yours are of little value.

Its still on his own personal biography on his website. Of course he knows its there, Its his own CV. And in the Brian Dobson Interview he said "I am an Accountant"

I'm sure he does when it's the job he's paid to do.
This is very repetive now but again I'll say the bit you seem to dislike me saying..He was never like any of us under any obligation to keep an orwellian track of decades of his spend in the fear of corruption accusations needing answering.Mind you I'll bet theres plenty of politicians hoping they are not asked the same kind of questions going back a decade and a half.That would be a speculatitive opinion. Another speculatitive opinion.

If he had plausible explainations for the money he would not be in front of the tribunal. There are figures adding up to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Massive amounts even by todays standards. All unexplained and many of which appear to be exchanged from currencies that Ahern flatly denies they come from.

If you were to apply that logic to ministers of finance,then they'd never have a mortgage or a bank account as they are dealing in laws that have a bearing on the banks business.

Oh please. Cronyism has nothing to do with legitimate day to day banking.

Oh wait..
How much did Burke contribute out of interest? If it was circa 2000,I'd find it a bit of a stretch to suggest that would be a quid pro quo for giving him a job.

I'm not going to claim that Ahern hired Burke because he was paid to, (not least because that would violate the rules of this thread). I am merely referring to the Dobson Interview where Ahern himself claimed outright that he hired people (including Burke) to public posts because they were his friends.
There are lots of reasons why he would do so including as a reward for loyalty or an insurance policy for the future (knowing Buke will probably back him up no matter what), and that would be cronyism.

If you want my opinion on that because you are indirectly specefically asking for it,I was never a fan of the "jobs for the boys" element of politics tbh.
I don't deny that it goes on,but it's only more commonplace with FF because they are in power most often.
If you think it's exclusive to FF or Bertie then I think you'd be mistaken.But then I don't agree with it.It's endemic in Irish society though.

I agree that it happens in all levels of Irish politics, but it should not be acceptable.

To be honest, I don't accept that Ahern received a dig out at all, the testimony of his 'friends' is pretty worthless because they're all part of his internal cadre who he has looked after down through the years, and now they're returning the favour. (with the exception of Padraig O Connor who has flatly contradicted Aherns story, IMO, the only reason O Connor was included in the 'dig out' story was because there was a paper trail associated with his cheque.... yet another example of the only documentary evidence contradicting aherns unsupported claims)

According to some reports, none of the 'repayments' Ahern made for the 'loans' plus interest have been cashed. (but i don't know how reliable those reports are)

Rock Climber

ballooba wrote: »

Pedantry. Substitute 'discovered' for the word 'found'.

I was referring to the findings of the tribunal.

No it's not. Otherwise I would not have quite deliberately used the word "if". I never said he had been shown to be corrupt.
Re-read what I wrote.

Thank you for the clarification.

There is a principle in law whereby if funds cannot be proven legitimate then they will be assumed to be otherwise. That's why revenue ask for accounts.

I'm sure there is.I'm also sure that it's the revenues job to determine that and this tribunals job also.
Neither have reported and this tribunal evidence hearing has not finished.

akrasia wrote:

Its plausible evidence that the money isn't what he says it is, which means it came from somewhere else, which means he's almost certainly hiding something (especially considering he has had so much time to jog his memory.)

Not before the finishing of the process it isn't.

This isn't just about a lack of recollection, it's also about him making sworn statements of what he said definitely happened, that are contradicted by the financial records. (I never dealt in dollars, those transactions weren't in sterling, the building society doesn't have records that go back that far....)

That would be a matter for the tribunal to determine tbh and more especially it involves further sessions with Bertie after which such a determination can be made.

Well thats the way we feel about Aherns evidence. From what we've seen so far, I can draw no other conclusion. Ahern said he had plausible explainations for his finances before the election (I'll tell yiz after the vote, i swear) including a secret formula that would prove beyond all doubt that there was no $45k transaction. Ahern has yet to clear anything up, and the secret formula turned out to be a complete fabrication.

Honestly you'd swear I and you don't read this thread at all the way we are going on.You are rehashing what I am giving an ever repetive view on and I am being asked to rehash the same view over and over again ie that I amawaiting evidence of corruption and to date I'm accepting that it is not illegal to be devoid of good personal records if you are of the belief that what you've done is legitimate.I don't(and haven't) deny for one second the gravity of the need for Bertie to adequately position his case to this tribunal.

I am shocked that you wouldn't.

Ah well.I've other things to be concerned with.Our Tax paid lawyers over in the castle I'm sure are doing their best with this and I'm sure they won't be amiss in investigating anyone else should someone care to throw an accusation in.

Oh please. Cronyism has nothing to do with legitimate day to day banking.

Really? I do believe I said I'm of the view it's pervasive in society.I wouldn't rule out banking.

I'm not going to claim that Ahern hired Burke because he was paid to, (not least because that would violate the rules of this thread). I am merely referring to the Dobson Interview where Ahern himself claimed outright that he hired people (including Burke) to public posts because they were his friends.
There are lots of reasons why he would do so including as a reward for loyalty or an insurance policy for the future (knowing Buke will probably back him up no matter what), and that would be cronyism.

It's also a lovely conspiracy theory.

I agree that it happens in all levels of Irish politics, but it should not be acceptable.

To be honest, I don't accept that Ahern received a dig out at all, the testimony of his 'friends' is pretty worthless because they're all part of his internal cadre who he has looked after down through the years, and now they're returning the favour.

There could be that view of course.It doesn't surprise me that you hold it,given our various interactions on this forum.I obviously accept your view but don't have to agree with it subject to tribunal findin s being similar.

(with the exception of Padraig O Connor who has flatly contradicted Aherns story, IMO, the only reason O Connor was included in the 'dig out' story was because there was a paper trail associated with his cheque.... yet another example of the only documentary evidence contradicting aherns unsupported claims)

Or there is the other view proffered earlier in the thread iirc that he merely was caught out and is denying everything judas style to save his own skin.Friendships are often fickle and all that.

ballooba

Rock Climber wrote: »

It's not within their remit afaik.

It doesn't matter. Mahon can say what he likes in his report. He's not restricted by a 'remit'. If he finds out the three secrets of Fatima during the course of his investigation then he can report on that too.

Rock Climber

Lol balooba.

Thats the only response I can give to that.I don't think any of us knows what Mahon might say other than it's likely to be very,very,very considered.I don't see how he can comment adversely on the internal organisation of an FF cumman though if it doesn't lead to the benefit of a particular politician and more especially if it has nothing to do with what the tribunal is investigating.
You could be right though if they turn up evidence that funds going into that BT a/c are unrecorded and builder/developer traced funds used for the benefit of Bertie.

I'll wait and see.

ballooba

Rock Climber wrote: »

Lol balooba.

Thats the only response I can give to that.I don't think any of us knows what Mahon might say other than it's likely to be very,very,very considered.

I'm just saying that there is no such restriction on what he can say in his report. If he wants to report on how they get the figs into the fig rolls then more power to him.

I think it's very relevant for him to report on the internal operaions of the Fianna Fail Cumann and it's finances if he believes that the structures and safeguards in place were inadequate to prevent corruption. Of course I don't know if he will say that, no more than you know that he won't.

Akrasia

ballooba wrote: »

I'm just saying that there is no such restriction on what he can say in his report. If he wants to report on how they get the figs into the fig rolls then more power to him.

I think it's very relevant for him to report on the internal operaions of the Fianna Fail Cumann and it's finances if he believes that the structures and safeguards in place were inadequate to prevent corruption. Of course I don't know if he will say that, no more than you know that he won't.

I think it's more likely that he'll report that the B/T account has nothing to do with FF and ahern was trying to hide under the lesser offence of misappropriation of party funds (for which he knew FF would be unlikely to press him on) rather than be caught with secret undisclosed accounts that would prove that he has deliberately frustrated the tribunal and would see him in contempt and in mountjoy. (but that's just speculation at this point, though it will become much more clear when he appears again... that is if he doesn't waste half the time arguing with the tribunal lawyers about how he's being hounded like he always does)

Jelly 292

Rock Climber IS Bertie.

Or else you learned how to answer questions the same place Bertie did.

I think the truth will out in the end about this whole affair, it cant not at this stage after what we've heard.

If not we have serious issues with our democracy.

Mahon FTW.

gerthewanker

The truth might win out in the end but it wont emerge until Bertie is well gone from the political scene .The same happened with Haughey.He was found out as crooked to the core but still he was allowed to keep all his ill gained wealth.By right his family should not be allowed any of that wealth but this is Ireland isnt it?

roadruner

Innocent or Guilty.
Did we or will we ever have faith in the people we choose to run our country?

oscarBravo

Jelly 292 banned for a week. I don't think I was unclear earlier.

edanto

gerthewanker wrote: »

but it wont emerge until Bertie is well gone from the political scene

Watch carefully over the next month.... the word on the street is that he'll be gone by the end of April. If that happens, Mahon wouldn't have to worry about bringing down a government by drawing the obvious (to me.... sigh @ Rock Climber) conclusions.

No, of course I don't have a link to the story, just a pretty reliable source.

cast_iron

ballooba wrote: »

I'm just saying that there is no such restriction on what he can say in his report. If he wants to report on how they get the figs into the fig rolls then more power to him.

That's a ridiculous point. He's (supposed to be) an unbiased professional. If you consider that acceptable, your own standards need some

I can't see him reporting on what is outside his remit. All that would do take from his own professional credibility.

Liam Byrne

In all fairness, guys (and it's strange for me to say this, because I can normally get at least SOME feeling for where someone is coming from) RockClimber is making damn sure that he doesn't have to answer the questions posed in some of the posts by selectively snipping bits from the ones that he/she wants to argue about and ignoring the others.....and of course, those arguments are combined with the bleating "it's a witch-hunt and I'm not guilty of planning corruption".

Hang on....that tactic sounds familiar.....maybe that means that he *IS* Bertie!!!!

But maybe we should present our points one at a time, single post and poster at a time, because he/she has COMPLETELY ignored my most recent post.

Warning: I'll listen, but if I see the phrase "orwellian" ONCE more I'm gonna FREAK!!!! Like I said, an orwellian book-keeping system might have every €2 and €100, but SURELY even the most legendary memory-lapser of them all - Brian Lenihan - would remember being given a year's salary in one go, even without a lodgement docket or (ahem!) payslip ?

And as for the idiotic attempt at drawing a parallel between the money and Bertie's his first kiss :rolleyes: ....... with all due respect to whoever she was that gave me mine, I'd probably have a damn better chance at remembering her name now (30 years later) if she'd accompanied the kiss with €30,000 !!!!!

By the way, you've gotta love:

RockClimber wrote:

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

It wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a neat sidestep of all of the other 6 comments that RockClimber chose to ignore/not acknowledge.

A Dub in Glasgo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In all fairness, guys (and it's strange for me to say this, because I can normally get at least SOME feeling for where someone is coming from) RockClimber is making damn sure that he doesn't have to answer the questions posed in some of the posts by selectively snipping bits from the ones that he/she wants to argue about and ignoring the others.....and of course, those arguments are combined with the bleating "it's a witch-hunt and I'm not guilty of planning corruption".

and what about other people, it is not fair that Bertie is asked these questions!. Whataboutery at it's finest

cast_iron

Liam Byrne wrote: »

.....and of course, those arguments are combined with the bleating "it's a witch-hunt and I'm not guilty of planning corruption".

Where exactly does he say Bertie is NOT guilty of planning corruption?

Hang on....that tactic sounds familiar.....maybe that means that he *IS* Bertie!!!!

Maybe you suffer from the same lack of reading illness you claim RC has? (Someone was banned a few post up for saying just that.)

but SURELY even the most legendary memory-lapser of them all - Brian Lenihan - would remember being given a year's salary in one go, even without a lodgement docket or (ahem!) payslip ?

You'd have thought that alright. That proves what exactly?

And as for the idiotic attempt at drawing a parallel between the money and Bertie's his first kiss :rolleyes: ....... with all due respect to whoever she was that gave me mine, I'd probably have a damn better chance at remembering her name now (30 years later) if she'd accompanied the kiss with €30,000 !!!!!

As would I. In fairness, those figures were pittance compared to what he was dealing with on a daily basis as MoF. Also, considering he appeared to deal in these large figure sums on a somewhat regular basis, it's not entirely surprising he can't remember one from another.

Edit: As for your 6 points, maybe some of them have some merit. What kind of response do you want?

Liam Byrne

cast_iron wrote:

Maybe you suffer from the same lack of reading illness you claim RC has? (Someone was banned a few post up for saying just that.)

Erm - no. Someone was banned for saying that "he is Bertie"; I said "Hang on, maybe that means he is".....there's a big difference. I didn't even say "maybe he is"......that's 2 steps away from being the same thing, leaving aside the tongue-in-cheek.

cast_iron wrote:

In fairness, those figures were pittance compared to what he was dealing with on a daily basis as MoF

??? And your point is ? The money might have been pittance compared with the amounts of OUR money that he was dealing with on a daily basis, but they were surely pretty darn significant on a personal level.

I was once treasurer for a national event on a budget of £25,000 - that wouldn't stop me from remembering if someone had given ME even £500.

As for the 6 remaining points, I want to know why RockClimber only answered one; he/she has said that I'm "on a witch hunt" or "have my mind made up re the tribunal result without waiting for the judgement"; I've REPEATEDLY said that I haven't, and pointed out that because of some of the issues that have come up the possibility of "planning corruption" is NO LONGER THE ISSUE - but RockClimber has said I lied - "I don't believe you"......I've taken issue with that and want him/her to answer why my 6 points are not perfectly valid and perfectly valid reasons to have serious doubts about Bertie's suitability as a Taoiseach - ON THEIR OWN.

cast_iron

??? And your point is ? The money might have been pittance compared with the amounts of OUR money that he was dealing with on a daily basis, but they were surely pretty darn significant on a personal level.

My point was to be taken in conjunction with the following sentence (wasn't someone accusing others of picking and choosing what to respond to earlier). Again, I was saying that dealing in large amounts of money on a somewhat regular basis doesn't appear to have been such an irregular occurance for Bertie back in the day.

As for the 6 remaining points, I want to know why RockClimber only answered one; he/she has said that I'm "on a witch hunt" or "have my mind made up re the tribunal result without waiting for the judgement"; I've REPEATEDLY said that I haven't, and pointed out that because of some of the issues that have come up the possibility of "planning corruption" is NO LONGER THE ISSUE - but RockClimber has said I lied - "I don't believe you"......

Well, it's fairly simple (and it's a good reason not to continue debating with you (perhaps RC has decided the same), you claimed:

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 ?

You see, that's impossible for you to claim with absolute certainty - unless you are actually the one person posting under multiple aliases - as unlikely a situation as some of the tales we've heard at the Mahon Tribunal!

I've taken issue with that and want him/her to answer why my 6 points are not perfectly valid and perfectly valid reasons to have serious doubts about Bertie's suitability as a Taoiseach - ON THEIR OWN.

I'm not speaking for RC here, but I'm not sure I see the relevance of RC's "doubts". They would be a personal feeling of his, and add little or no merit to the facts of the Mahon Tribunal.

Oh, and you've accused RC of not answering questions, you ignored at two asked you in my last post.

Rock Climber

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In all fairness, guys (and it's strange for me to say this, because I can normally get at least SOME feeling for where someone is coming from) RockClimber is making damn sure that he doesn't have to answer the questions posed in some of the posts by selectively snipping bits from the ones that he/she wants to argue about and ignoring the others.....and of course, those arguments are combined with the bleating "it's a witch-hunt and I'm not guilty of planning corruption".

You seriously crack me up.
This thread is not about me.
Could you quit trying to make it about me.It would be more in your line to actually deal with what I post rather than trying to make the thread about me when other parts of it might be a bit sore on your ears.
As regards your bullet list summary of yes or no,what exactly did you want me to say other than I either agree or disagree with your conclusions.
I'd dealt with so many of them umpteen times in the last couple of pages,I'd have assumed that you'd have read my comments and discerned that information yourself rather than just asking me to repeat it again to you specefically.
And as has been pointed out,you're none too shabby at ignoring things yourself tbh.

Hang on....that tactic sounds familiar.....maybe that means that he *IS* Bertie!!!!

Again this thread is not about me.
I'd advise you to stop showing up the lack of depth in your answers to me as evidenced by deflecting the thread to being about me.
Pages ago I gave a view on that tactic,it's poor debating and is outlawed in the charter for that very good reason

But maybe we should present our points one at a time, single post and poster at a time, because he/she has COMPLETELY ignored my most recent post.

Which one was that? (has a look)..
Oh you mean post number 333?
Ah that must have got lost in the haze of my replies to the other posts.
Pardon me but I am replying in an unpaid capacity here in my own spare time,so If I've offended you in any way by missing your post,I truly apologise.
Now lets see if theres anything I need to say in relation to it and keep you happy of course.
Ah yes.

"Orwellian" ???? Jeez, talk about hyperbole!!!!! 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!!!

It was actually 90's Ireland.

Warning: I'll listen, but if I see the phrase "orwellian" ONCE more I'm gonna FREAK!!!! Like I said, an orwellian book-keeping system might have every €2 and €100, but SURELY even the most legendary memory-lapser of them all - Brian Lenihan - would remember being given a year's salary in one go, even without a lodgement docket or (ahem!) payslip ?

I've to do a lot of repeating I see to those that get mad at my opinion.
I'll try again.I'm starting at the premises of innocent untill proven guilty (alien I know ).
Ergo I have to assume that Ahern was dealing in his own resources at the time genuinely in good faith etc etc and not expecting the tribunal to be much much later expecting an Orwellian account of everything.

And as for the idiotic attempt at drawing a parallel between the money and Bertie's his first kiss :rolleyes: ....... with all due respect to whoever she was that gave me mine, I'd probably have a damn better chance at remembering her name now (30 years later) if she'd accompanied the kiss with €30,000 !!!!!

So you say.No two people are the same.

By the way, you've gotta love:"Rock climber said:That last point is evidence of a mind made up anyway if ever I saw it"

It wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a neat sidestep of all of the other 6 comments that RockClimber chose to ignore/not acknowledge.

In fairness that was in response to the last bit of your post where you said and I quote

liam byrne wrote:

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)

Now what inference was I supposed to draw from that analogy only the one that I did,ie that you were saying just because we don't know about other corrupt politicians,that we can't go after the one that is ie Bertie.
I've news for you.
thats your opinion.
I believe in innocent untill proven guilty and Bertie certainly has not been proven as corrupt which is the implication of the analogy you drew and of course,you're denying it above lol.
It seems that not only are you doing the pot kettle thing as regards accusing people of not reading posts (I admit I didn't see post 330 for the reasons stated and ergo hadn't read it) but you're also it seems not reading your own posts from what I can see,if such a thing is possible.

ballooba

cast_iron wrote: »

That's a ridiculous point. He's (supposed to be) an unbiased professional. If you consider that acceptable, your own standards need some

How is reporting on issues outside his remit showing bias? His judgement comes in the form of a report, not in the form of a verdict, on what was discovered during the course of the investigation. It would be wrong for him to ignore large elements of what was discovered.

cast_iron wrote: »

I can't see him reporting on what is outside his remit. All that would do take from his own professional credibility.

No, it wouldn't.

Seth Brundle

Rock Climber wrote: »

Do we know who wrote that into the record or whether it was an underlings mistake or whether Bertie has ever stated that himself or stood over it?
If we don't then ,conclusions drawn like yours are of little value.

I suspect the man himself disclosed it - its unlikely that both the Dept of the Taoiseach webmaster and the FF webmaster both simultaneously made it up!
http://www.fiannafail.ie/person.phpx?pid=15&bid=15&rel=TD&aid=118

Rock Climber wrote: »

I'm sure there is.I'm also sure that it's the revenues job to determine that and this tribunals job also.
Neither have reported and this tribunal evidence hearing has not finished.

True, but we do know that he is not currently in receipt of a tax clearance cert!

gerthewanker wrote: »

The same happened with Haughey.He was found out as crooked to the core but still he was allowed to keep all his ill gained wealth.By right his family should not be allowed any of that wealth but this is Ireland isnt it?

Haughey - the man who said of Bertie: "He's the most skilful, the most devious, the most cunning of them all."

The Geraldine

But don't we really only have ourselves to lbame as we vote for these clowns.

[mod edit]

Look at Limerick - Willie O'Dire tops the poll and yet after ten years of boom the place is still a hell hole and still people vote for him.

I think there's a large touch of Stockholm's in the Irish mentality - must be left from the Vikings!

I have never voted for FF, PD or SF andn ever will - ever.

As I know what to expect if I do - so how come I can see what they are like and still about 30% of people still can't see the light after so long.

gerthewanker

kbannon wrote: »

I suspect the man himself disclosed it - its unlikely that both the Dept of the Taoiseach webmaster and the FF webmaster both simultaneously made it up!
http://www.fiannafail.ie/person.phpx?pid=15&bid=15&rel=TD&aid=118


True, but we do know that he is not currently in receipt of a tax clearance cert!
Haughey - the man who said of Bertie: "He's the most skilful, the most devious, the most cunning of them all."

Yes he did say that ,your point being?

I think that in itself shows that the corruption in Irish politics does not come from an abundance of cunning political thinkers.I mean, all Fianna Fail TD's are borderline retards

Seth Brundle

gerthewanker wrote: »

Yes he did say that ,your point being?

I think that in itself shows that the corruption in Irish politics does not come from an abundance of cunning political thinkers.I mean, all Fianna Fail TD's are borderline retards

There wasn't really meant to be a point to that comment - more of a footnote. However, if a point was to be derived then I would say that if the likes of Charlie Haughey (who knew Bertie well) thinks he is devious and cunning then I personally would take this into account when listening to Berties 'explanations' for the mysterious money.

DancesWithChimp

Rock Climber wrote: »

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...


...because no corruption or law breaking has been tied to Bertie..not even tax evasion as of this point.

This is not merely about a financial mess.
It's not the case that Bertie was lodging various monies earned within his means and simply can't account for which earned monies went where.
That would be fine by me.
We are talking about the lodement of over 70,000stg, nearly 50,000dollars, and over 100,000punts to his accounts over a 2 year period.

These monies are way beyond his earnings at the time...to describe them merely as messy finances is absurd.
The only way to describe it is that he was BEING FINANCED!
He did not earn all of this money, as he freely admits, he received most of it from 3rd parties.

70,000 in sterling. This is monies received.
45,000 dollars (or 30,000 more sterling as he claims even though evidence shows otherwise). This is monies received.
And anything above his stated income in Punt amounts...this is also monies received, not earned.

He was being financed. This is not a contestable point.
He has failed to explain where this financing came from, and where he has, he has failed to produce any evidence to support his explanations.
Where documentary evidence has been discovered by the Tribunal it has contradicted his explanations.

We are nearly 2 years down the road since Ahern has been asked to account for how he was financed...and he has yet failed to provide any evidence as to the source of these monies.

To brush this all off as merely "messy finances" is naive, and ostrich-like, in the extreme. But I guess you are entitled to your naivety.


As for "no tax evasion has been tied to Ahern at this point"...you need to read the Tribunal transcripts.
Ahern admits that some of the monies recieved by him in 1994 were gifts...i.e. money given to him and used for personal purposes (in this case the purchase of his home).
He has admitted before the Tribunal that these payments were indeed taxable.
And he has admitted before the Tribunal that he did not declare, nor pay tax, on these taxable payments at the time or for the next 12 years.

He was Minister for Finance, responsible for tax law. In that capacity he would have known, that at that time, monies given to him which were used for his own personal gain, we gifts and were taxable. Yet he never declared nor paid tax on them.

This is all on his own admission, under oath, at the Tribunal.
I'm no expert but I would think that not paying tax on massive gifts of thousands of pounds...would be considered tax evasion.
It's tax non-payment...and he more than anyone should have understood and obeyed the tax laws at the time.

I'd be curious to see you defend this non-payment of tax...since Bertie Ahern under oath before the Tribunal has not been able to do so.

Rock Climber

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

This is not merely about a financial mess.
It's not the case that Bertie was lodging various monies earned within his means and simply can't account for which earned monies went where.
That would be fine by me.
We are talking about the lodement of over 70,000stg, nearly 50,000dollars, and over 100,000punts to his accounts over a 2 year period.

These monies are way beyond his earnings at the time...to describe them merely as messy finances is absurd.

This is more jumping to conclusions that I guess you want to jump to ie bias.
The Tribunal is far from over and will deliver a judgement on all of the evidence.

The only way to describe it is that he was BEING FINANCED!

Again thats an unfounded allegation given the tribunal hasn't delivered it's report and Bertie hasn't finished his evidence.

He did not earn all of this money, as he freely admits, he received most of it from 3rd parties.

70,000 in sterling. This is monies received.
45,000 dollars (or 30,000 more sterling as he claims even though evidence shows otherwise). This is monies received.
And anything above his stated income in Punt amounts...this is also monies received, not earned.

He was being financed. This is not a contestable point.
He has failed to explain where this financing came from, and where he has, he has failed to produce any evidence to support his explanations.
Where documentary evidence has been discovered by the Tribunal it has contradicted his explanations.

More conclusions drawn before all evidence is heard.

We are nearly 2 years down the road since Ahern has been asked to account for how he was financed...and he has yet failed to provide any evidence as to the source of these monies.

To brush this all off as merely "messy finances" is naive, and ostrich-like, in the extreme. But I guess you are entitled to your naivety.

Ah thats it continue on with the personal abuse.
Avoid a fair trial at all costs.
Oh and make the thread about me again.

As for "no tax evasion has been tied to Ahern at this point"...you need to read the Tribunal transcripts.
Ahern admits that some of the monies recieved by him in 1994 were gifts...i.e. money given to him and used for personal purposes (in this case the purchase of his home).
He has admitted before the Tribunal that these payments were indeed taxable.
And he has admitted before the Tribunal that he did not declare, nor pay tax, on these taxable payments at the time or for the next 12 years.

Are you privy to Berties dealings with the taxman? You're not so you cannot say what is taxable and what isn't.
You are speculating and worse accusing someone of a crime.
Bad show.

He was Minister for Finance, responsible for tax law. In that capacity he would have known, that at that time, monies given to him which were used for his own personal gain, we gifts and were taxable. Yet he never declared nor paid tax on them.

We don't know what the tribunal might decide to say about it's thrawl through Berties finances.
We don't know what discussions he is having with the revenue.
Ergo you have no standing to say what you are saying.

This is all on his own admission, under oath, at the Tribunal.
I'm no expert but I would think that not paying tax on massive gifts of thousands of pounds...would be considered tax evasion.
It's tax non-payment...and he more than anyone should have understood and obeyed the tax laws at the time.

Again,thats for Revenue to decide,they may have to decide otherwise based on whatever discussions he is having with them.
Likewise the tribunal isn't over by a long shot.
Who know's but his explanations may improve with time.
All the huffing and puffing prior to the finish of the Tribunal cannot deny him the possibility of clearing this up or not and you or I being wrong.

I'd be curious to see you defend this non-payment of tax...since Bertie Ahern under oath before the Tribunal has not been able to do so.

I'd be curious to see you show me where Bertie has revealed the detail of the discussions he is having with Revenue to the Tribunal.
Without that you are just talking out of your hat.

DancesWithChimp

Also note...in the absence of any more lodgements or accounts coming to light...or evidence is found to contradict previous Ahern statements...it seems that once Ahern answers questions as to the newly discovered salary lodgements...I don't think the Tribunal have any more questions for him.

Once the point is reached that Ahern is finished giving his evidence to the Tribunal, then the entirety of Ahern's "defence", on which we are told we should wait for before judging him, will be given.

This being a public Tribunal, we will have the exact same information on which to base our opinions as the Judges will have in making their ruling.

In fact, the majority of elements of Ahern's dodgy finances are now fully dealt with by the Tribunal...e.g. the 50,000 "cash savings", the 30,000 "Wall money", the 45,000 dollars, the "dig-outs" and "loans" etc.

Ahern has already given his defence on these. Unless he changes his stories again we have all the information on these matters that Ahern will be asked to give.

Some people may not be able, or willing, to think for themselves and will wait up to 2 years for the Judges to form opinions for them.

The rest of us free-thinkers are free to form opinions now...while awaiting the opinions of the Judges.