Bertie Ahern-good taoiseach?

Rebelheart

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No.

He was the epitome of a pass-the-buck politician, appearing to promise everything to everyone, but delivering nothing of substance (I remember FF promising "zero tolerance" - ironically via John O'Donoghue - under his reign).

He also ignored the warnings about the impending implosion.

He also has unexplained finances.

He also was Minister for Finance and signed blank cheques for Haughey.

He also couldn't give a straight answer to anything (and still can't).

He could talk for hours and you still wouldn't have heard much more than clichés or contradicting statements.

He gave jobs to ill-qualified friends (his own admission, stunningly rarely commented on acted upon as the nepotistic corruption that it is).

He did not "lead"; he followed the money and the votes.

So - to reiterate. Absolutely not.

Liam, you don't like Patrick Bartholomew Ahern? Seriously?

Liam Byrne

Rebelheart wrote: »

Liam, you don't like Patrick Bartholomew Ahern? Seriously?

Listing facts shouldn't give much of an indication of whether I do or not.

Having said that, the fact is that because of all the facts, I'd have to say no, I don't.

uklid

Bertie was a brilliant leader in his first term in office. He secured the peace agreement in the north and he introduced economic policies that "kick started" the economic boom.

The problem for Bertie arose when the foolish citizens started to squander their new found wealth on every manner of trash imagenable and drove prices and the cost of living "through the roof".

(We behaved like small children given access to to much sweets)

You cannot directly blame a Government for the actions (for example) of people who borrowed about two hundred thousand euro on the strength of their high wages and bougth apartments in Bulgaria which are now worth less than thirty thousand euro.

Bertie's mistake was made in his second term when he should have bruoght in heavy (and unpopular) taxes that would have stopped or limited our ability to waste money.
The additional tax revinue could have been used to improve our health. service.
Citizens need to be protected from their own follies.
Of course it is easy to be wise after the event.
Wuold Michael Noone have acted differently? I dont think so.

Het-Field

uklid wrote: »

Bertie was a brilliant leader in his first term in office. He secured the peace agreement in the north and he introduced economic policies that "kick started" the economic boom.

The problem for Bertie arose when the foolish citizens started to squander their new found wealth on every manner of trash imagenable and drove prices and the cost of living "through the roof".

(We behaved like small children given access to to much sweets)

You cannot directly blame a Government for the actions (for example) of people who borrowed about two hundred thousand euro on the strength of their high wages and bougth apartments in Bulgaria which are now worth less than thirty thousand euro.

Bertie's mistake was made in his second term when he should have bruoght in heavy (and unpopular) taxes that would have stopped or limited our ability to waste money.
The additional tax revinue could have been used to improve our health. service.
Citizens need to be protected from their own follies.
Of course it is easy to be wise after the event.
Wuold Michael Noone have acted differently? I dont think so.

The phrase "head up one's arse" comes to mind.

You suggest regulation by those who couldnt regulate the hub of our economic structures. You are a gas man.

Rebelheart

trapsagenius wrote: »

Something i've noticed since Bertie Ahern has resigned as Taoiseach is that he is blamed in many quarters for 'wasting' the boom years. So my question here is how many people out there still believe he WAS a good Taoiseach.Personally, i still think he was a good taoiseach.He presided over the biggest economic boom in Irish history and it's only since he left that the Irish economy has gone down the tubes. (I mean,he won 3 elections in a row and was the 2nd longest serving Taoiseach since the foundation of the state so he must have been doing something right).But what does everyone else think-good Taoiseach or not??All comments appreciated.

At the top of my road is a place known to all and sundry as "the Gallow's Hill", so-called because a slew of lads were taken there following the huge battle in Tara in '98 and quickly departed this world as a result. That is too noble a death for Patrick Bartholomew Ahern, who would have knighted himself, Eoghan Harris and Paddy the Plasterer (among others) had he been able to get away with establishing his "honours" system a few years ago.


I much prefer the sentence given by one Francis Pemberton in 1681 to one Oliver Plunkett as a fitting end to Patrick Bartholomew Ahern:

'And therefore you must go from hence to the place from whence you came, that is to Newgate, and from thence you shall be drawn through the city of London to Tyburn; there you shall be hanged by the neck, but cut down before you are dead, your bowels shall be taken out and burnt before your face, your head shall be cut off, and your body be divided into four quarters…'

That man, "Bertie" as he is affectionately known to benighted souls who still don't comprehend the damage he has done to the economic, social and political fabric of our community, has left an unprecedented mess in his wake. Generations of Irish people will be paying for the consequences of his period in office.

Fighting Irish

Het-Field wrote: »

So he didnt sanction 10% increases in public expenditure for each of the past five years ?

So he didnt ignore the slimy banking practices which fly in the face of sensible private business practice ?

So he didnt engage in hubris projects such as the "Bertie Bowl" to endeer himself to the ordinary man ?

So he didnt choose to line the pockets of developers to the detriment of the factors of productivity, and then live off Capital Gains Tax, Stamp Duty, and VAT, to fuel an artificial boom ?

He made me lose my job
He made me buy my house for €500k
He made me buy a second house in Spain
He made me lose my €36K a year job
He made me max out a few CCs

I know he did all the stuff you say but most people blab on about the stuff i say, like it's anyones fault but their own

hallelujajordan

While it isn't inappropriate to measure Bertie's performance as Taoiseach on the current state of the economy as most on here seem to do I think there are other aspects to the role that need to be considered.

I personally believe his historical legacy will be the Good Friday Agreement and the work, effort and commitment he personally put into securing peace in Northern Ireland. Might not have saved any money for Ireland inc. but almost certainly saved lives.

Seth Brundle

I understand what you are saying but he was in charge of the country and allowed the financial regulator to ignore the excessive lending, etc.
He did encourage hugely unsustainable economics

ascanbe

topper75 wrote: »

You write 'boom' like it was a good thing. Economics 101 class for you, frankly.

Agreed. If they actually teach that in Economics 101 class, though, it's a pity that the majority of economists in this country missed that class...

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

While it isn't inappropriate to measure Bertie's performance as Taoiseach on the current state of the economy as most on here seem to do I think there are other aspects to the role that need to be considered.

I personally believe his historical legacy will be the Good Friday Agreement and the work, effort and commitment he personally put into securing peace in Northern Ireland. Might not have saved any money for Ireland inc. but almost certainly saved lives.

No argument there. And to be fair the main reason that people highlight all the other issues is that he ignores them / absolves himself from them.

If he said "I brought peace to Northern Ireland AND I screwed up the economy" then you'd accept both and appreciate his honesty.

But since he (and his supporters) only see his single success, it's only natural for everyone else to say "Oi! Hang on a sec!"

And as I said before, one or two small or middleing cock-up might be inevitable (no-one's perfect) but Ahern with his finances and signing blank cheques and telling the economists who warned him to f-off and his ego projects and benchmarking and appointees and the banking/property crash means there's a hell of a lot more negatives than positives.

ascanbe

By the way, the fact that someone here can posit the theory that a person who led this country to the brink of collapse was, infact, a good taoiseach and that this statement can then spark a genuine debate, is, frankly, worrying.
When are people going to wake up?

Pride Fighter

22 billion deficit last year, 18 billion deficit this year, 54 billion for NAMA, 10-15 billion for bank bailouts and re-capitalisations.

All Bertie Ahern's doing.

Worst Taoiseach in history.

Agent J

Let him run for the Presidency.

So we can all thank him properly

Fighting Irish

kbannon wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but he was in charge of the country and allowed the financial regulator to ignore the excessive lending, etc.
He did encourage hugely unsustainable economics

i encourage women to take their clothes off but it's still up to them :pac:

Seth Brundle

Fighting Irish wrote: »

i encourage women to take their clothes off but it's still up to them :pac:

Thats quite different. I'm certainly not suggesting that its his fault that people took out mortgages, etc. What I was suggesting was that the financial regulator stood by watching everyone taking them out knowing full well that many of the borrowers' incomes were not being properly stress tested. No attempt was made to tighten borrowing rules - in fact the opposite was true given that some banks were offering over 100% mortgages!
Bertie too must have been completely aware of this; I know I was an I'm no economist!

bonzos

He also perfected the art refusing to take any accountabilly for any of his actions and i doing so has thought the rest of his ganster FF followers from local level right up to the top how to handle political corruption....he is a toal disgrace!

Fighting Irish

kbannon wrote: »

Thats quite different. I'm certainly not suggesting that its his fault that people took out mortgages, etc. What I was suggesting was that the financial regulator stood by watching everyone taking them out knowing full well that many of the borrowers' incomes were not being properly stress tested. No attempt was made to tighten borrowing rules - in fact the opposite was true given that some banks were offering over 100% mortgages!
Bertie too must have been completely aware of this; I know I was an I'm no economist!

I agree with what you're saying

S.L.F

Riddle101 wrote: »

There's actually a page on Facebook saying "BRING BACK BERTIE AHERN" which to me is just sad.

To be fair a good few people join those pages just so they can stick the knife in.

jmayo

trapsagenius wrote: »

Something i've noticed since Bertie Ahern has resigned as Taoiseach is that he is blamed in many quarters for 'wasting' the boom years. So my question here is how many people out there still believe he WAS a good Taoiseach.Personally, i still think he was a good taoiseach.He presided over the biggest economic boom in Irish history and it's only since he left that the Irish economy has gone down the tubes. (I mean,he won 3 elections in a row and was the 2nd longest serving Taoiseach since the foundation of the state so he must have been doing something right).But what does everyone else think-good Taoiseach or not??All comments appreciated.

I had my doubts this was a pi** take.
But your later posts shows you might actually believe this sh**e.
Perhaps you have a ff view history where all their glorious leaders led the country to prosperity and happiness :rolleyes: Of course you do cast aspertions about haughey bu then you slip in IFSC and how he saved the country.
hello soldier of dysentery :rolleyes:
Has it ever crossed your little ff mind that maybe the reason for the bust was the boom in the first place ?

Not all booms, as you affectionately label a construction BUBBLE, are good in the long term or even the short term for those happen not to be in the bubble industries.

trapsagenius wrote: »

What does that have to do with him being
Taoiseach?

I think this referred to bertie sleeveen having no tax clearance cert and no bank accounts ?
The above has nothing at all to do with being taoiseach, if you believe in the ff philosophy where you only do wrong if you are caught and the acts can't be dismissed.
You know the attitute where crimes are things carried out by the unconnected and non party faithful.

trapsagenius wrote: »

He lead a government that reduced the amount of money raised in all taxes spent on servicing the national debt from 20% in 1997 to 4.3% in 2007.During the same period average incomes rose by an average of 131%.In 2004 the Irish economy was still growing at 3 times the average eurozone rate.And the initial boom years were from 1997-2000. I don't think too many of you were complaining then.

Oh we have found a few figures on the party website have we :rolleyes:
The initial boom years, as you label them, were built on real jobs in real industries being funded by export earning products.
The foundations for this boom were actaully laid by former taoisaigh and ministers of finance.
Oh and some of them were FG and labour as well as ff.

Maybe some of us were complaining seen as he had created a myriad of quangoes, (jobs for his friends), had done nothign with the health service, had wasted money, had affectively laid the plans for the housing bubble.
Also a biggy was fact he had a former minister for giving away our natural resources and radio licenses, who happened to be a corrupt lying theiving scumbag, supposedly investigated up every tree in North County Dublin, as one of the top three ministers in his cabinet.

But of course you would rather gloss over that :rolleyes:

trapsagenius wrote: »

He won THREE elections in a row.Even if in 1997 people didn't know what to expect, in 2002 and 2007, a majority of voting adults approved of Fianna Fails policies.In fact in 2002 Fianna Fail increased their number of seats by 4.

As other poster pointed out quantity doesn't equate to quality.
Also goes to show how deluded a lot of people were and I would say a lot of it was down to the old adage "I am doin alright jack so screw the rest of ye".
I would guess not many people who had seen the HSE in action up close and personal were big voters for bertie.

But I again the only thing that matters to ff is winnign the election.
Doesn't matter how much it costs or what are the long term affects on the country, right ?

trapsagenius wrote: »

Are you referring to John Bruton, who wasn't even elected?Or Albert reynolds who was in power for 2 and a half years?Or Haughey who was corrupt(although the IFSC was a great initiative)?One more-it couldn't have been Garret Fitzgerald who did his level best to cripple the country with taxes and almost brought the country to its knees before Mcsharry(and Haughey, actually) saved our hides?

Actually haughey eventually did something when the IMF were at the door and he may not have suceeded without the backing of FG under Alan Dukes (Tallaght Strategy), who sacrificed his own career for the country.
BTW that is word a few ffers should learn, sacrifice. :mad:

Actually Garrett Fitzgerald didn't cripple the country, that honour belongs to yet another ffer jack lynch whose 1977 election manifesto helped sink the country.

As someone stated earlier it is beyond comprehension how some people can still peddle utter sh**e that bertie built this magnificent economy that disappeared overnight once he left power. :rolleyes:

Ah but shure it was all the fault of those peasky Americans and their subprime thingy magigs :rolleyes:

I used to campaign for national broadband but now I seriously think it is wasted on some

trapsagenius

Het-Field wrote: »

That quote suggests you know little or nothing about politics. Bertie's departure did coincide with the collapse, but the collapse was in place, and all that was need was the catyalist i.e. the banking collapse.

-Bertie artificially increased wages through the social partnership sham
-Bertie refused to take on the Unions
-Bertie's premiership was predicated on the property boom once he moved Harney, McCreevy and Brennan from the economic and infrastructural portfolios.
-Bertie allowed this boom to be primed by ignoring sham banking practices, and light touch regulation. It wasnt in his interest to do otherwise


Bertie crippled a fine export driven, productive economy in the name of short term populism. He equally had the gall to tell us that the "boom would get boomier".

A shambles of a leader, who masked this by crippling the country financially.

What imeant was i'd have more confidence in Bertie being able to drag us out of this mess than Cowen.

jmayo wrote: »

I had my doubts this was a pi** take.
But your later posts shows you might actually believe this sh**e.
Perhaps you have a ff view history where all their glorious leaders led the country to prosperity and happiness :rolleyes: Of course you do cast aspertions about haughey bu then you slip in IFSC and how he saved the country.
hello soldier of dysentery :rolleyes:
Has it ever crossed your little ff mind that maybe the reason for the bust was the boom in the first place ?

Not all booms, as you affectionately label a construction BUBBLE, are good in the long term or even the short term for those happen not to be in the bubble industries.



I think this referred to bertie sleeveen having no tax clearance cert and no bank accounts ?
The above has nothing at all to do with being taoiseach, if you believe in the ff philosophy where you only do wrong if you are caught and the acts can't be dismissed.
You know the attitute where crimes are things carried out by the unconnected and non party faithful.



Oh we have found a few figures on the party website have we :rolleyes:
The initial boom years, as you label them, were built on real jobs in real industries being funded by export earning products.
The foundations for this boom were actaully laid by former taoisaigh and ministers of finance.
Oh and some of them were FG and labour as well as ff.

Maybe some of us were complaining seen as he had created a myriad of quangoes, (jobs for his friends), had done nothign with the health service, had wasted money, had affectively laid the plans for the housing bubble.
Also a biggy was fact he had a former minister for giving away our natural resources and radio licenses, who happened to be a corrupt lying theiving scumbag, supposedly investigated up every tree in North County Dublin, as one of the top three ministers in his cabinet.

But of course you would rather gloss over that :rolleyes:



As other poster pointed out quantity doesn't equate to quality.
Also goes to show how deluded a lot of people were and I would say a lot of it was down to the old adage "I am doin alright jack so screw the rest of ye".
I would guess not many people who had seen the HSE in action up close and personal were big voters for bertie.

But I again the only thing that matters to ff is winnign the election.
Doesn't matter how much it costs or what are the long term affects on the country, right ?



Actually haughey eventually did something when the IMF were at the door and he may not have suceeded without the backing of FG under Alan Dukes (Tallaght Strategy), who sacrificed his own career for the country.
BTW that is word a few ffers should learn, sacrifice. :mad:

Actually Garrett Fitzgerald didn't cripple the country, that honour belongs to yet another ffer jack lynch whose 1977 election manifesto helped sink the country.

As someone stated earlier it is beyond comprehension how some people can still peddle utter sh**e that bertie built this magnificent economy that disappeared overnight once he left power. :rolleyes:

Ah but shure it was all the fault of those peasky Americans and their subprime thingy magigs :rolleyes:

I used to campaign for national broadband but now I seriously think it is wasted on some

Had a nice little rant have we?.I was listening until you said that Garret Fitzgerald didn't cripple the country.After that i lost interest.In future, to calm down, take a deep breath and count to 10.There's a good lad.I put part of that quote in bold to point that it's a bit ironic that JMAYO doesn't want national broadband.

prettyboy81

Yes - Bertie was the Celtic Tiger & a good leader of our country!

Liam Byrne

trapsagenius wrote: »

What imeant was i'd have more confidence in Bertie being able to drag us out of this mess than Cowen.

On what basis ?

Considering he ignored the warnings that "this mess" was on the way, and still blames it on the "global downturn", rather than his cock-ups and appointees, I'd have ZERO confidence that he could do ANYTHING about it.

Fr0g

trapsagenius wrote: »

God i have to laugh, you've convinced me now.Meet me in Dublin tomorrow and we can march down to Leinster House and do away with this democracy rubbish!:rolleyes:

We have a President who wasn't elected in last presidential election because someone decided we weren't going to have one

We have a Taoiseach who wasn't elected leader of his party.

We have a government elected under a different taoiseach, who in turn should not have been allowed to take office without a Tax Clearance Cert. And subsequently resigned in disgrace.

This same government is propped up up by a party whose leader during the run up to the last election proclaimed that he would resign rather than go in to government with FF. He then resigned after the election in order to let his party do so.

What is this Democracy that you speak of?

trapsagenius

Liam Byrne wrote: »

On what basis ?

Considering he ignored the warnings that "this mess" was on the way, and still blames it on the "global downturn", rather than his cock-ups and appointees, I'd have ZERO confidence that he could do ANYTHING about it.

On the basis that in the years he was in power we acheived substantial economic growth and he showed himself relatively able to manage the economy.

Liam Byrne

trapsagenius wrote: »

On the basis that in the years he was in power we acheived substantial economic growth and he showed himself relatively able to manage the economy.

PMSL....."managing" doesn't involve creaming it when things are good and legging it as soon as things get bad.....

I'd hate to see your definition of "managing your money" if you won the Lotto.......spend and waste all round you, and then when the money was gone, claim that you'd "managed" it...... :rolleyes:

trapsagenius

Fr0g wrote: »

We have a President who wasn't elected in last presidential election because someone decided we weren't going to have one

We have a Taoiseach who wasn't elected leader of his party.

We have a government elected under a different taoiseach, who in turn should not have been allowed to take office without a Tax Clearance Cert. And subsequently resigned in disgrace.

This same government is propped up up by a party whose leader during the run up to the last election proclaimed that he would resign rather than go in to government with FF. He then resigned after the election in order to let his party do so.

What is this Democracy that you speak of?

Sorry, if it's conspiracy theories you're looking for you'll have to go to a different thread.I thought Cowen and Mcaleese were elected unopposed?There's a big difference between that and not being elected.I do agree that Cowen has no mandate for government however.

Biggins

Fr0g wrote: »

We have a President who wasn't elected in last presidential election because someone decided we weren't going to have one

We have a Taoiseach who wasn't elected leader of his party.

We have a government elected under a different taoiseach, who in turn should not have been allowed to take office without a Tax Clearance Cert. And subsequently resigned in disgrace.

This same government is propped up up by a party whose leader during the run up to the last election proclaimed that he would resign rather than go in to government with FF. He then resigned after the election in order to let his party do so.

What is this Democracy that you speak of?

trapsagenius wrote: »

Sorry, if it's conspiracy theories you're looking for you'll have to go to a different thread.I thought Cowen and Mcaleese were elected unopposed? There's a big difference between that and not being elected.I do agree that Cowen has no mandate for government however.

Everything he stated is accurate. Historic record.
Where are these "conspiracy theories" your on about?
I suggest that one better go and study up on this subject more (instead of just grabbing FF PR and spun figures off a website).

trapsagenius

Biggins wrote: »

Everything he stated is accurate. Historic record.
Where are these "conspiracy theories" your on about?
I suggest that one better go and study up on this subject more (instead of just grabbing FF PR and spun figures off a website).

Well to say Cowen wasn't elected leader of FF is nonsense-he was elected unopposed.Same story with the president-she was elected unopposed.So everything he says is not accurate.Come back when you have your facts straight.

Biggins

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well to say Cowen wasn't elected leader of FF is nonsense-he was elected unopposed.Same story with the president-she was elected unopposed.So everything he says is not accurate.Come back when you have your facts straight.

Check again, they were nominated unopposed (by their OWN party faithful as with FF).
Not elected.
Check the details, the fine details...

To quote you:

Come back when you have your facts straight.

doc_17

I think history will be very unkind to Ahern.

trapsagenius

Biggins wrote: »

Check again, they were nominated unopposed (by their OWN party faithful as with FF).
Not elected.
Check the details, the fine details...

To quote you:

Have a look at this link.http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0409/fiannafail.html
I especially like the 6th line where it says he was "elected unopposed".

Liam Byrne

trapsagenius wrote: »

Have a look at this link.http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0409/fiannafail.html
I especially like the 6th line where it says he was "elected unopposed".

I would think that the key point is that an election requires a vote.

If someone is "nominated unopposed", then there is no need for a vote, because even a single vote would be a "majority".

Therefore, no election.

Biggins

trapsagenius wrote: »

Have a look at this link.http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0409/fiannafail.html
I especially like the 6th line where it says he was "elected unopposed".

Yea, the technical phrasing and accuracy of reporters is legendary.
They should have stated he was nominated to the position unopposed - but hey, yet again another website that dumbs down info for the masses (whom they think, we can't handle such more accurate detail) and loses its actual accuracy - then sadly others pick it up as supposed 100% true fact...

I wish folk would look at the fine details and not just post the quick fire generalisations - which surprise - turn out to be wrong in a lot of cases.

trapsagenius

Biggins wrote: »

Yea, the technical phrasing and accuracy of reporters is legendary.
They should have stated the was nominated to the position unopposed - but hey, yet again another website that dumbs down info for the masses 9whom they think, we can't handle such more accurate detail) and loses its actual accuracy - then sadly others pick it up as supposed 100% true fact...

Just admit you were wrong and stop embarassing yourself.

Seth Brundle

trapsagenius wrote: »

On the basis that in the years he was in power we acheived substantial economic growth and he showed himself relatively able to manage the economy.

He didn't though. He created the illusion that he was in control but in fact he was steering the ship straight for the rocks. He, however, was pushed overboard just as things were getting bad.
The economy was allowed to overheat with wages rocketing, property prices reaching stupidity levels, no care or control over investment in public services, spending whilst concurrently reducing taxation, insufficient "rainy day" investment, etc.

trapsagenius wrote: »

Same story with the president-she was elected unopposed.So everything he says is not accurate.

I don't recall being able to vote for the President under the current term.

doc_17 wrote: »

I think history will be very unkind to Ahern.

I wish the present was much more unkind to him though!

Mr.Micro

doc_17 wrote: »

I think history will be very unkind to Ahern.

No it will be unkind to us all if he is mentioned, the jumped up little anorak. Now registered as an artist. Should have been con-artist.:D

sceptre

Folks, kindly stop wasting time by splitting hairs in a silly manner on the elected/unelected mumbo jumbo.

An unopposed candidate doesn't have to go through the final stage of the election process but the effect is the same whether they do or not: they are confirmed elected/confirmed the victor, whatever. If they go through the process as pre-decided and no-one can come up with enough support to deign themselves worthy to oppose them then there's no difference in practice. Or effect. Which is obviously what is actually pertinent.

If there's any implication that there was "funny business" in the election of either Cowen or McAleese then that's just idiotic. If there was no "funny business" then it's pointless bringing it up except as a weakness in the alternative candidates. Which in turn has no relevance to the thread.

The point about Ahern's tax situation is reasonably made and far more relevant to the thread than the (under the rules) reasonably short-circuited confirmations of Cowen and McAleese in their various roles.

the tl;dr version is: moderator requests small number of posters to stop their unproductive hair-splitting silliness.

This thread is unlikely to last an awful lot longer - it's not as though there's a significant percentage of discourse with a point on it beyond a series of rants. If that percentage increases then it's likely to last longer.

trapsagenius

Ok i think all relevant posts rating to this thread have been made.We're starting to repeat ourselves so i'm going to ask the mods to close this thread down.Thanks to everyone who posted-while i might not have agreed with everything you said it certainly was a good debate!:)

Biggins

Long story short, history is already his judge and he has already been found wanting...
...for actual details - which he can't remember! :rolleyes:
...for accurate records
...for unaccounted for horse racing slips
...for not paying his dues like the rest of us still are weekly (he still stalling after 4 years!)
the list goes on and on...

The only thing he should run for now is head of a mafia gang - o' wait - hang on...
Maybe he sorta done that already!

Scofflaw

trapsagenius wrote: »

Ok i think all relevant posts rating to this thread have been made.We're starting to repeat ourselves so i'm going to ask the mods to close this thread down.Thanks to everyone who posted-while i might not have agreed with everything you said it certainly was a good debate!:)

Closed at OP request.

moderately,
Scofflaw