Bertie Ahern - Bookies Nightmare

murphaph

x in the city wrote: »

what does he find so amusing i wonder...

...that the mugs we are have swallowed it all for so long? He's not a good statesman, has a poor memory, can barely pronounce words properly yet he was a "great taoiseach" according to many. The joke is on us.

SEPT 23 1989

juuge

Ordinary people can tell lies - but bertie gives inaccurate statements.
'little willie' O'Dea and 'little dick' roche must feel like proper plonkers !

LostinBlanch

kenco wrote: »

AFAIK he cant be done for perjury as the tribunal is not a criminal court.

Well then why did O'Neill tell Berties Secretary that she was under oath and then outlined the penalties for perjury?

AFAIK if someone was to lie under oath it would lay them open to charges of perjury, no matter if it was in court, in front of a tribunal or other legal body that conducts enquiries.

Mr.Micro

Who writes Bertie's material? A great stand up routine, all he needs is a straight guy to bounce the gags off. What a comedian. Is his legal team actually advising him ? What will we hear next that he found the money in the street ?

dresden8

Three pages of anti-Bertie-ism and still no supporters in yet telling us not to judge Berte and to let the tribunal do it's business and issue it's findings.

A week really is a long time in politics.

Bye Bye Bertie.

mike65

True enough. The meeeeja has been free of senior figures telling us the Tribunal is the problem, not Bertie - he's been cut loose. Yesterdays man.

Mike.

LostinBlanch

Well wasn't Dermot Ahern giving out about the tribunal today?

Old habits die hard.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Three pages of anti-Bertie-ism and still no supporters in yet telling us not to judge Berte and to let the tribunal do it's business and issue it's findings.

A week really is a long time in politics.

Bye Bye Bertie.

I would've been one of those people giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not a Bertie support per se, I didn't vote FF last electection due to their deplorable managment skill in public services. The 'I won it on a horse' comment has removed any of my doubts now.

Latchy

Puts all the honest irish politicians in the shade dont it ?

was listening on rte radio today about what he said in court and was quite funny .

Liam Byrne

dresden8 wrote: »

Three pages of anti-Bertie-ism and still no supporters in yet telling us not to judge Berte and to let the tribunal do it's business and issue it's findings.

A week really is a long time in politics.

Bye Bye Bertie.

Anti-Berti-ism or reality check (or should that be "cheque" ?)

Colonel Sanders

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Anti-Berti-ism or reality check (or should that be "cheque" ?)

agreed, when he was taoiseach i heard a number of people saying the media were being very hard on Bertie, I thought they weren't being hard enough to be honest.

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

Three pages of anti-Bertie-ism and still no supporters in yet telling us not to judge Berte and to let the tribunal do it's business and issue it's findings.

A week really is a long time in politics.

Bye Bye Bertie.

You see the difficulty for the tribunal is,they have to prove that Mr Ahern deliberately lied.
We don't and we certainly can't accuse him of it in this forum.
we can opinionate 'till the cows come home on the matter mindfull of that fact.

sink wrote:

The 'I won it on a horse' comment has removed any of my doubts now.

£8k of it apparently not all of it..
We're entitled not to believe that but it could be true.How do we know it isn't?

Our only basis for coming to the conclusion that it might not be true is that it was brought in at the last minute and the several clarifications that Mr Ahern made.

That wouldn't be suffecient for a court of law to convict him on that issue given that he has the right [regardless of whether anyone believes him or not] to be claiming he's been a busy man and it's only now he has the time since his resignation to properly devote time to looking into matters he'd have thought way back when were never needing recording.


I know the above isn't going to be of any comfort to the vast majority of regular Ahern criticisers here but let me give you another view.
I actually think and have thought all through this that Ahern's finances wouldn't pass the "fit for office test" when gone through in the fine detail that they have been.
I don't know the reason why his finances have been structured in the way that they have been.

However I can guess that something fishy might have been going on in terms of his marriage break up and obligation to his ex wife and family and hence all the cash dealings and shyness at going near banks.

That would explain the handiness also of accepting the "dig outs" as each time he'd go to a bank for a loan,he'd be declaring means to his ex wife.
Far better in his mindset to accept a handier source of cash and worry about the consequences if any later.
At the time of course he could never have foreseen what was to happen 14 years later.

"if" thats the case it's not a very nice persona to have come out when the light has shone through.
However we must remember that the issue being investigated is corruption.
So I think if we are to apply disdain for his finances,we should apply it appropriately.

dresden8

Deleted User wrote: »

You see the difficulty for the tribunal is,they have to prove that Mr Ahern deliberately lied.
We don't and we certainly can't accuse him of it in this forum.


However I can guess that something fishy might have been going on in terms of his marriage break up and obligation to his ex wife and family and hence all the cash dealings and shyness at going near banks.

That would explain the handiness also of accepting the "dig outs" as each time he'd go to a bank for a loan,he'd be declaring means to his ex wife.
Far better in his mindset to accept a handier source of cash and worry about the consequences if any later.
.

If I'm reading you right you're saying he was hiding money from his wife. Which in itself is bad enough.

But if this separation went through the courts, it means he was hiding money from the court. Which is an altogether more serious matter as far as I am aware.

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

But if this separation went through the courts, it means he was hiding money from the court. Which is an altogether more serious matter as far as I am aware.

Yeah you are reading me correctly.
Be aware that is is an opinion I have ,it's not fact and it's not an area that the tribunal has either the remit or the competence to judge.
Therefore it's correct to say that it would be of it's own a serious legal misdemeanour,we have no proof of it and there is none to warrant the courts coming back to Ahern on it.So I can't accuse him of it.I can just say it's my belief that it may be a more plausible explanation than planning corruption or the more than normal abuse of public office.

I wouldn't be at all surprised though if it was what is behind all of this.

mike65

Ahern "corrected" himself yesterday about the 8000 on the horses, he said it was in fact two winning bets - one of 3k and one of 2.5k. So he can't remember first placing bets, then how much or how many times! Jasus.

Mike.

I wouldn't either Mike if it was 14 years ago.
It's possible you know that he makes several and so many of them that one or two are insignificant to him.

Also to be correct about it,It's not strictly that he is saying that he can't remember placing bets or the amounts exactly.
He is saying he has been too busy to realise that they could have explained some of his lodgements.

Are you Mike then 100% convinced that he has been involved in corruption? If so where is your proof?

dresden8

He was broke and there's 8 grand in winnings or so and a lot more money floating around elsewhere? I'm not broke but if I won eight grand you can bet your arse I'd remember it in years to come.

FFS!

mike65

Quite so.

Also Bertie was much against the proliferation of gaming halls that spead about Dublin centre in the 80s. So one would imagine he would not gamble if he so dissaproved. Unless the sport of kings was fine for him but slots too corrupting for the likes of "us".

Mike.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't either Mike if it was 14 years ago.
It's possible you know that he makes several and so many of them that one or two are insignificant to him.

Also to be correct about it,It's not strictly that he is saying that he can't remember placing bets or the amounts exactly.
He is saying he has been too busy to realise that they could have explained some of his lodgements.

Are you Mike then 100% convinced that he has been involved in corruption? If so where is your proof?

It's not plausible that Ahern didn't remember winning so much money on horses, especially back when he claims he was in serious financial difficulties. My girlfriend's father is a regular gambler and he still talks about the one or two big wins he has had down through the years (and the few that got away)

He can remember the names of the horses, the odds he got, the race meeting he won them at from well over a decade ago.

But then, nothing about Aherns story is plausible. The claim that he desperately needed 2 'digout' 'loans' (that he only paid back when the tribunal found about them) while he was 'saving' money for an investment property near a football stadium is ridiculous. Why would anyone consider buying an apartment for rent while they didn't even have a home to live in themselves.

It makes absolutely no sense in any context and there is only one conclusion any reasonable person can come to.

scargill

mike65 wrote: »

Ahern "corrected" himself yesterday about the 8000 on the horses, he said it was in fact two winning bets - one of 3k and one of 2.5k. So he can't remember first placing bets, then how much or how many times!

I cannot for one second believe he won it on a horse or horses he is just trying to break it down a bit to confuse things as he usually does. I back horses so I know a thing or two about this! (and I hope the tribunal ask the appropriate questions).

If we are to believe Bertie then one of these is true:

1. Bertie can't remember the names of the horse(s) because he backed horses all the time. If a guy is a regular gambler on the horses then he is going to have lots of money floating around in his accounts. If Bertie had said this from the outset then it might have been credible and explained a lot of the cash he had. Take the 3k win. If he is a regular gambler then this could be the proceeds of £1,000 on a 3/1 shot (I'm not sure if his "winnings" included his stake bak so it could've been on a 2/1 shot).
It could also be something like £200 e/w on a 12/1 shot (would return around
£3,000). If he is betting in those kind of amounts he is a regular gambler.
If this is true then he would've mentioned the gambling habit long ago - and saved himself all this hassle.

2. Bertie is a small time gambler - likes to have a few fun bets when he goes racing. tenner here/twenty there/the occassional fifty for a big bet.
Lets say he went mad and £100 on a 30/1 shot. That would account for an occassional gambler winning that kind of money. But you could guarantee you would definitely remember the name of the horse if you got that lucky!!
Feck it, my wife bets occassionally and she can still remember having a fiver on April Allegro when it won at 33/1 five years ago (she liked the name!!)
If this is true then he should definitely remember something about the horse (name, odds, race track, jockey)

Lets hope the tribunal lawyers ask these questions !!

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

It's not plausible that Ahern didn't remember winning so much money on horses, especially back when he claims he was in serious financial difficulties. My girlfriend's father is a regular gambler and he still talks about the one or two big wins he has had down through the years (and the few that got away)

He can remember the names of the horses, the odds he got, the race meeting he won them at from well over a decade ago.

But then, nothing about Aherns story is plausible. The claim that he desperately needed 2 'digout' 'loans' (that he only paid back when the tribunal found about them) while he was 'saving' money for an investment property near a football stadium is ridiculous. Why would anyone consider buying an apartment for rent while they didn't even have a home to live in themselves.

It makes absolutely no sense in any context and there is only one conclusion any reasonable person can come to.

You make a fair point on the ridiculousness but is it illegal? That is the problem that the Tribunal have.
As for your GF's Fathers Betting,maybe thoses wins of his were significant amounts to him.
Clearly the amounts Mr Ahern mentions as wins were insignificant in terms of the overall flow of his finances.
Two different fishes if you get me.
They have ruffled a mattress and and found an infestation of fleas.
Thats not pleasant but something illegal or linked to corruption they have yet to uncover.

Rock Climber

mike65 wrote: »

Quite so.

Also Bertie was much against the proliferation of gaming halls that spead about Dublin centre in the 80s. So one would imagine he would not gamble if he so dissaproved. Unless the sport of kings was fine for him but slots too corrupting for the likes of "us".

Mike.

Correct me if I am wrong but was he not originally in favour of that but then went against it because of constituents concerns?

That would say nothing of his personal freedom to gamble when he wanted to.

Liam Byrne

mike65 wrote: »

Ahern "corrected" himself yesterday about the 8000 on the horses, he said it was in fact two winning bets - one of 3k and one of 2.5k. So he can't remember first placing bets, then how much or how many times! Jasus.

Mike.

:eek: And this guy was Minister for Finance ?????

For anyone doing the Leaving Cert Maths this week, remember that - according to Bertie, 3K + 2.5K = 8K

Jaysus is right!!!! :rolleyes:

kenco

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well then why did O'Neill tell Berties Secretary that she was under oath and then outlined the penalties for perjury?

AFAIK if someone was to lie under oath it would lay them open to charges of perjury, no matter if it was in court, in front of a tribunal or other legal body that conducts enquiries.

Thanks I think you are right here and I am wrong. That said you would imagine he should have been well warned at this stage about the several contradictions between his statements at the tribunal and the written evidence he has provided

gandalf

Hmmm today he says he paid rent on his offices and he told the revenue in earlier submissions that he didn't pay rent at all. (source RTE 6 News)

murphaph

Rock Climber wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but was he not originally in favour of that but then went against it because of constituents concerns?

That would say nothing of his personal freedom to gamble when he wanted to.

What about the rest of his (cock and bull) story? He didn't win any money on the horses. It's a <word that sounds like pie>! I HATE the way he waffles on and on. This waffling is a deliberate tactic of his to bore his questioner into submission and it usually worked in that talking shop Dail Eireann but thankfully the SCs in the Mahon Tribunal are less easily distracted and are like dogs with a bone....a rare example where I believe these overpaid barristers are actually worth it! The tribunals are the best money we've EVER spent in this country-it is very costly but vital to establish true democracy here that we persevere. Politicians should fear the public gaze so much that they keep their affairs above board-no more or less than the vast majority of the rest of us do day in day out!

LostinBlanch

kenco wrote: »

That said you would imagine he should have been well warned at this stage about the several contradictions between his statements at the tribunal and the written evidence he has provided

I have no doubt that he is entirely aware of the contradictions, but I think he has left himself no option but to continue with his many different stories trying to get to the tribunal to believe he is telling the truth, however unlikely that may seem at the moment. Or he could just come clean, assuming he isn't telling the truth that is. :rolleyes:

dresden8

For all those expecting the tribunal to find "proof of corruption" there won't be any. I'm sure Bertie didn't hand out receipts marked " 8k received for corrupt services"

All the tribunal will be able to say is that Bertie received **** loads of money, which he lied about. That'll be good enough for me.

If it's not good enough for you, I have a bridge I want to sell that you may be interested in.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

What about the rest of his (cock and bull) story? He didn't win any money on the horses. It's a <word that sounds like pie>! I HATE the way he waffles on and on. This waffling is a deliberate tactic of his to bore his questioner into submission and it usually worked in that talking shop Dail Eireann but thankfully the SCs in the Mahon Tribunal are less easily distracted and are like dogs with a bone....a rare example where I believe these overpaid barristers are actually worth it! The tribunals are the best money we've EVER spent in this country-it is very costly but vital to establish true democracy here that we persevere. Politicians should fear the public gaze so much that they keep their affairs above board-no more or less than the vast majority of the rest of us do day in day out!

Couple of comments on this post.
1.I agree with the last bit of it.
2.The middle bit I'm not so convinced on but it's better than having the whole thing investigated by the police as that would be behind closed doors.

3. You have accused Ahern of lying here when that is expressly forbidden.I've reported the post.