Formal complaint lodged against An Taoiseach with SIPO

edanto

Pretty standard response when an 'insult' falls flat. Ah sure I was only kidding!

Absolute baloney. There is absolutely no evidence of this at all. But maybe you know better Eh?

You want to call bullshit on my claim that the Tribunals have taken in more than they've cost?

Well, how about YOU do some research! Why don't you try and find out how much the tribunals have cost, how much they've taken in and then I'll tell you exactly how I learnt what I said.

You strike me as someone that's quicker to type than research, and considering I spend a bit of time looking into claims that I'm considering making I might just ask you to go off and look at some original documentation instead of just dismissing stuff out of hand 'cos it shames a man that you like.

Tommy T

edanto wrote: »

Pretty standard response when an 'insult' falls flat. Ah sure I was only kidding!



You want to call bullshit on my claim that the Tribunals have taken in more than they've cost?

Well, how about YOU do some research! Why don't you try and find out how much the tribunals have cost, how much they've taken in and then I'll tell you exactly how I learnt what I said.

You strike me as someone that's quicker to type than research, and considering I spend a bit of time looking into claims that I'm considering making I might just ask you to go off and look at some original documentation instead of just dismissing stuff out of hand 'cos it shames a man that you like.

You made the claim that the tribunals have rtaken in more than they've cost hence me asking you for verification of this is only natural I'd have thought.

If you make a claim then surely you should be able to back it up...

But if you cannot provide a single shred of proof then you'll understand if i take it with a shovel of salt...;)

Zulu

I don't know about Intel, but the Nordic companies definatly do. The 20% is what keeps them sweet, of course, but how long will that last? Are we to have that forever?

You see this is part of the problem. "Sure it's working, so it's good enough" - no strive to better the nation. "Yarra they are getting the job done, who cares if they take the old back hander - sure it greases the wheels."
It's incredibly unprofessional and horrendously dishonest. would you like to live in an African country? Why are we any better?

Tommy T

Zulu wrote: »

I don't know about Intel, but the Nordic companies definatly do. The 20% is what keeps them sweet, of course, but how long will that last? Are we to have that forever?

You see this is part of the problem. "Sure it's working, so it's good enough" - no strive to better the nation. "Yarra they are getting the job done, who cares if they take the old back hander - sure it greases the wheels."
It's incredibly unprofessional and horrendously dishonest. would you like to live in an African country? Why are we any better?

So which nordis companies do you see pulling out due to the Barrister moneypit in the Castle? Answer is none. We live in a free market economy where bottom line economics takes precendence over everything else.

Show me a man who tells you theres a country where there's zero corruption and i'll show you a liar as human nature being what it is it will always be there in some shape or form. To suggest you only get iti n Africa is bordeline racist.

However it must be cited that the Castle moneydrain has not shown any corrupt act by Bertie so far...Just clarifying..;)

juuge

Tommy T wrote: »

Given the sinful waste of taxpayers money chasing shadows and Gilmartin's fairytales I'd close the moneypit in the morning.
..

What about the sinful waste of taxpayers money that goes to paying berties remuneration package that's presently higher than that of the president of the USA?
The guy has been 'found out' and he has to go...now!

Tommy T

juuge wrote: »

What about the sinful waste of taxpayers money that goes to paying berties remuneration package that's presently higher than that of the president of the USA?

Anyone voteed into the position of Taoiseach is entitled to the same package. Take it up with the Benchmarking body...

gandalf

Stekelly wrote: »

I would. We are spending countless millions to find out if he pocketed a few hundred grand. I know which figure I'd rather was still floating around in the economy

And if it turns out that favours were curried from receipt of these funds then both figures will pale against the revenues gained by the developers involved.

I know I would prefer the whole thing to be cleaned in public and those that are found wanting with their personal taxes dealt with either financially or legally. They of course should be removed from their Dail positions as well.

All we hear from the FF cheerleader brigade is the waste of money to the economy etc etc. If those witnesses who in the majority are either FF or FF supporters who actually gave their evidence in a timely fashion, without deceitfulness or stalling tactics then the costs would have been far lower. At the end of this tribunial judgement should have been made on these people and the extra costs they caused be taken from their own personal wealth.

Zulu

Tommy T wrote: »

So which nordis companies do you see pulling out due to the Barrister moneypit in the Castle? Answer is none. We live in a free market economy where bottom line economics takes precendence over everything else.

I never said anything about companies pulling out, yet. However the opinion does impact the setting up of other companies, and the running of projects here. It also has an indirect impact on business. Of course you can choose to ignore this, I don't mind.

Show me a man who tells you theres a country where there's zero corruption and i'll show you a liar as human nature being what it is it will always be there in some shape or form.

So that makes it ok to be flagrantly corrupt? Or that means we should accept corruption in our leaders??
I'm sorry, but I've better standards than that.

To suggest you only get iti n Africa is bordeline racist.

:rolleyes: Firstly I never said you "only" get corruption in Africa. Secondly - bravo for pulling the "racist" card, your argument has now lost all credit in my eyes.

Zulu

gandalf wrote: »

If those witnesses who in the majority are either FF or FF supporters who actually gave their evidence in a timely fashion, without deceitfulness or stalling tactics then the costs would have been far lower. At the end of this tribunial judgement should have been made on these people and the extra costs they caused be taken from their own personal wealth.

Bravo! Great point.

Tommy T

Zulu wrote: »

I never said anything about companies pulling out, yet. However the opinion does impact the setting up of other companies, and the running of projects here. It also has an indirect impact on business. Of course you can choose to ignore this, I don't mind.

So that makes it ok to be flagrantly corrupt? Or that means we should accept corruption in our leaders??
I'm sorry, but I've better standards than that.

:rolleyes: Firstly I never said you "only" get corruption in Africa. Secondly - bravo for pulling the "racist" card, your argument has now lost all credit in my eyes.

I'll lose little sleep knowing how little regard you have for my arguements..:D

Corruption should of course be dealt with by the authorities wherever its uncovered. However the lark in the Castle has unearthed percious little of it recently...

Just how many Nordic companies have set up shop here I wonder. They're more than welcome. However I think it will be our higher standards of living rather than the exhorbantly expensive diatribe in the Castle that will be more off putting for potential future investment...

mike65

Tommy T as you are a Bertie Boy I'm not expecting a fair assessment of anything I might say but regarding costs of Tribunals the estimated costs acording to Mahon will be 300 million, over the last decade or so the revenue has gathered in about 500 million from scores of chancers like the Bailey Brothers who coughed up 25 million and many more with payments from a few hundred thousand to several millions.

While we can all tear our hair out about the length and costs (regardless of tax return)
they need to play out and just maybe the corrupt classes that have ruled this state for about 4 decades will have thier cough softened and an era of clean and accountable politics can begin*

Mike.

*wakes up

Tommy T

The Baily's settlement was way back in 2003 if I'm not mistaken. There's no pending information about anyone from the Dramatis Personae of the tribunal over the last few years even coming close to making a similar arrangement with Revenue.

So to suggest that, as a direct result of this Planning Tribunal, takings will match let alone exceed the €300 Million(forcasted by the tribunal, a figure that is hotly contested by certain quarters) is at best mistaken...

Thats not me being biased, just realistic...

mike65

So if there is no money coming in stop the tribunals?

Mike.

Tommy T

mike65 wrote: »

So if there is no money coming in stop the tribunals?

Mike.

I never said that. I'm merely disagreeing with posts from some individuals that the tribunals are in some way paying their way through settlements to Revenue by those involved in giving evidence.

But I would close it tomorrow as its coming up waffle that if theres any substance to can be dealt with arms of the State already functioning...

oscarBravo

mike65, don't get personal.

I do find it instructive that FF supporters in particular have suddenly become concerned about the cost and scope of the tribunal since Bertie became the focus of attention.

gandalf

Again Tommy you are missing the point totally, your objective point of view hindered by the green and orange tinted glasses you are wearing. If as a result of this and other tribunals we clean up politics in this country then it will be money well spent. If the politicians realise that they are employed by the people of the country and not a select few developers or monied people then something good will come of it. Unfortunately as long as people like you defend these politicians the good of this will be diminished, allowing politicians think they can go on National television and get out of doing the decent thing by spinning a yarn and crying a few crocodile tears.

guinnessdrinker

oscarBravo wrote: »

I do find it instructive that FF supporters in particular have suddenly become concerned about the cost and scope of the tribunal since Bertie became the focus of attention.

Yes, I don't remember many FF supporters being overly concerned about the cost of the tribunal either until it was Bertie's turn to appear. Neither do I recall such concern being raised from Gov. ministers. Coincidence?

edanto

Well Tommy - let me try and keep up with you.

Wind your neck back in dude. My comment was tongue in cheek hence the smilie at the end of the sentence.

Hence, using your amazing smiley logic - the following comment is also tongue in cheek.

Tommy T wrote: »

But if you cannot provide a single shred of proof then you'll understand if i take it with a shovel of salt...;)

So, you're not going to look into the costs of the tribunal then. OK. You don't have to believe me - but I choose to believe mike65 since I trust him. I've read his posts on boards for a long time and I know that he researches. Whereas you, well, I don't give you any credibility yet.

I'll thank you to keep further discussion of the costs of the Mahon to the thread which is called "The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)".

This thread is about information in the public domain (following Oscar Bravos advice) - relative to payments between politicians and donors. Originally the thread was just about Ahern, but then I found the corruption law that Ahern's government brought in - and now I would like to widen the scope of the thread to include a discussion around what constitutes a corrupt act.

The law says that it is corrupt to receive a payment and not to disclose it, if "the donor had an interest in the person doing any act or making any omission in relation to his or her office or position or his or her principal's affairs or business"

Have any cases like this come before the courts? I'm asking specifically about the corruption law and not the Ethics in Public Office legislation.

Tommy T

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Yes, I don't remember many FF supporters being overly concerned about the cost of the tribunal either until it was Bertie's turn to appear. Neither do I recall such concern being raised from Gov. ministers. Coincidence?

Give me a chance will you? I'm only here a short while. I've been complaining about the process in the Castle for a couple of years now...

Tommy T

edanto wrote: »

Well Tommy - let me try and keep up with you.



Hence, using your amazing smiley logic - the following comment is also tongue in cheek.



So, you're not going to look into the costs of the tribunal then. OK. You don't have to believe me - but I choose to believe mike65 since I trust him. I've read his posts on boards for a long time and I know that he researches. Whereas you, well, I don't give you any credibility yet.

I'll thank you to keep further discussion of the costs of the Mahon to the thread which is called "The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)".

This thread is about information in the public domain (following Oscar Bravos advice) - relative to payments between politicians and donors. Originally the thread was just about Ahern, but then I found the corruption law that Ahern's government brought in - and now I would like to widen the scope of the thread to include a discussion around what constitutes a corrupt act.

The law says that it is corrupt to receive a payment and not to disclose it, if "the donor had an interest in the person doing any act or making any omission in relation to his or her office or position or his or her principal's affairs or business"

Have any cases like this come before the courts? I'm asking specifically about the corruption law and not the Ethics in Public Office legislation.

So in summary you have not a cintilla of evidence to back up your claim that the Tribunal is self funding thanks to settlements with Revenue arising from its investigations. Now thats cleared I'm happy to move on.

I know of no public figure prosecuted under the legistlation you've mentioned but I am open to correction...

The_Minister

oscarBravo wrote: »

I do find it instructive that FF supporters in particular have suddenly become concerned about the cost and scope of the tribunal since Bertie became the focus of attention.

As opposed to the opposition, who wanted to scrap it until it began to focus on their political rival?

edanto

This thread is not about the Mahon tribunal.

Tommy T

edanto wrote: »

This thread is not about the Mahon tribunal.

I know of no public figure prosecuted under the legistlation you've mentioned but I am open to correction...

Rock Climber

edanto wrote: »

This thread is not about the Mahon tribunal.

Indeed it isn't, but the tax queries arise out of the mahon tribunal so it is pertinent.
Ignoring mahon when it suits you in this thread is simply obfuscation especially given that you are putting foward the view that Ahern will end up paying tax due to the loans being found by the tribunal not to be loans.

The determination of that is definitely a matter for firstly the Mahon tribunal and secondly the Revenue commisioners;the latter awaiting the formers investigation report.
If the tribunal find it difficult to come to a solid adverse conclusion regarding the loans being gifts and lets face it, thats as likely as it's unlikely...then the Revenue are going to have an impossible task of declaring Ahern to have a tax liability short of upturning our constitution and his rights therein.
I don't see how the SIPO could come to any damaging conclusions against Ahern in the interim either given that they are legally obliged to accept an application for a tax clearance cert and are well aware that the final outcome of any investigation could be that the Revenue would give Aherns tax affairs a clean bill of health.

Kenny and FG know this and it seems clear as the light of day that their tactics here are a throw back to the old realm of civil war politics.
It's a risky strategy given the publics tiredness of all this.
I found it hilarious in fact when I started to hear the "this is distracting the running of government" line being spouted out because if I was Enda Kennys constituent I'd be concerned that this is getting a tad obsessional and risks distracting him and his party from constituency matters never mind actual proper opposition to various pieces of legislation ie what oppositions are supposed to be doing.

edanto

Whereas a proper opposition should be challenging legislation and proposing amendments to make the legislation as good as possible?

If you'd like some funny reading, have a look at the final debate in the Oireachtas before the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2001 was passed to the Seanad.

After only thirteen minutes of debate:

Mr. Shatter: On a point of order, on behalf of Fine Gael I wish to protest at what is a corruption of the parliamentary system by the manner in which this Bill is being dealt with.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Briscoe): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Shatter: This is outrageous. So this is the Government which will tackle the democratic deficit.

Acting Chairman: As it is now 12 noon, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: “That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.”


It's also relevant to the point you made about the difficulty any Judge might have "to come to a solid adverse conclusion regarding the loans being gifts" One of the things that the opposition was trying to amend in the bill was a clearer set of definitions than is in the current version of the bill.

The opposition wanted to have:

‘advantage' includes—
a)a right, privilege, office or dignity and any forbearance to demand money or money's worth or a valuable thing,
b)any aid, vote, consent or influence or pretended aid, vote, consent or influence,
c)any promise or procurement of or agreement or endeavour to procure, or the holding out of any expectation of, any gift, loan, fee, reward or other thing aforesaid, or other advantage and the avoidance of a loss, liability, penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other disadvantage;

Replacing some of the waffle that we will now find at: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0027/sec0002.html

You see, Bertie's government voted in a version of the bill that has some 'wiggle room'. Very cunning and devious, wouldn't you say!

Tommy T

edanto wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0027/sec0002.html

The Democratic process was seen to be done during the passing of this Act I think you'll find...

edanto

Yes, clear signs of obfuscation despite the protests of the opposition:
(27/06/01 - 481)
Mr Howlin: We now have legislation dating from 1889, 1906, 1916 and 1995, and a cross-referencing of these Acts. On Second Stage we discovered that there is some confusion as to how to read interpretations as we were amending amendments to previous legislation. It would not have been difficult for the Minister to introduce a comprehensive Bill. I would like to argue this case longer but I am conscious of time. (he knew that the gavel would come down at 12 noon)

The principle of having a consolidation Bill is important if we are serious about dealing with corruption. There should be no ambiguity, but there should be clarity. In response to a parliamentary question yesterday, the Taoiseach outlined to me that the use of plain language in law – a principle enunciated by the Law Reform Commission – is to be accepted by Government. Part of plain language in law is simplicity of reading enactments. Parliamentarians find it difficult to read legislation when they are cross-referencing legislation which goes back more than a century. It should be possible to introduce a consolidating measure.

Democracy in action, Fianna Fail style. Oh and by the way I don't hate any individual Fianna Failer - just the culture of rotten politics that they represent. They give people that are interested in politics a bad name by not throwing out their bad apples.

Tommy T

The paranoia that surrounds non-FFers is really something to behold. I suppose its one of the prices of being the most succesful political party in the history of the State...

edanto

mmmmmk

gandalf

Tommy T wrote: »

The paranoia that surrounds non-FFers is really something to behold. I suppose its one of the prices of being the most succesful political party in the history of the State...

Oh I am sure we could replace successful with another word. It begins with C and ends in T.