Dr James Reilly and his unpaid debts

djpbarry

Happyman42 wrote: »

Hypothethically, if he had been part of a syndicate that owned a piece of land that was in competition with another piece of land for the building of a hospital, (and it was all neatly tucked away in a 'trust' awaiting him to finish his term) would that be a conflict of interest requiring his resignation?

It’s unethical for ministers to own land now?

galway2007 wrote: »

I would rather a health minister who is a picture of health

Really? Would you refuse treatment from a doctor whom you suspected did not exercise enough?

JustinDee wrote: »

"Standing to benefit" has nothing to do with anything but begrudgery. The debt is the issue here.

This seems to have gotten lost in the furore surrounding a minister for health being involved in the health industry. It is his explanation as to why a court order has gone unheeded that I am interested in.

sarumite

Happyman42 wrote: »

Hypothethically, if he had been part of a syndicate that owned a piece of land that was in competition with another piece of land for the building of a hospital, (and it was all neatly tucked away in a 'trust' awaiting him to finish his term) would that be a conflict of interest requiring his resignation?
I honestly don't see the difference, it's a conflict of interest. Private nursing homes compete with Public ones. It's the 'system' that allows this to happen that is wrong.

If that hypothetical situation did arise, it is also very possible that Reilly could declare his conflict of interest, remove himself from the decision making process and thus problem resolved. A 'conflict interest' is only a resigning matter if you don't bring up said conflict during a decision making process.

Happyman42

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s unethical for ministers to own land now?

Answer the question, without posing another unrelated one, would you be queasy about the scenario outlined or not?

Sierra Oscar

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s unethical for ministers to own land now?

Who is claiming it is unethical for a minister to own land?

On a related matter however, do you believe it is ethical for a minister to be in breach of a high court order?

Happyman42

sarumite wrote: »

If that hypothetical situation did arise, it is also very possible that Reilly could declare his conflict of interest, remove himself from the decision making process and thus problem resolved. A 'conflict interest' is only a resigning matter if you don't bring up said conflict during a decision making process.

As is typical when you want to obscure in this country, Reilly has said nothing until he is forced, at a time, deliberately chosen so that nobody in the Dail is allowed to question him, and questions are barred. Contrast that with Wallace seeking to address the house.

sarumite

Happyman42 wrote: »

As is typical when you want to obscure in this country, Reilly has said nothing until he is forced, at a time, deliberately chosen so that nobody in the Dail is allowed to question him, and questions are barred. Contrast that with Wallace seeking to address the house.

Reilly hasn't actually been forced to declare a conflict of interest. The questions are relating to debt.

Of course the contrast to Wallace is that he knowingly and willfully chose to evade tax whereas as of yet we do not know what Reilly's involvement was. He had handed over power to a third party, unlike Wallace who was actively involved. I am happy to wait to hear what Reilly has to say before sending out the hounds.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

As is typical when you want to obscure in this country, Reilly has said nothing until he is forced, at a time, deliberately chosen so that nobody in the Dail is allowed to question him, and questions are barred. Contrast that with Wallace seeking to address the house.

I'm sure Reilly will be accountable to the house. And I'd be careful in holding up Wallace as an example. He was apparently wholly uncooperative with the Oireactas committee today, answering just 2 of the 7 questions put to him.

Happyman42

sarumite wrote: »

Reilly hasn't actually been forced to declare a conflict of interest. The questions are relating to debt.

Of course the contrast to Wallace is that he knowingly and willfully chose to evade tax whereas as of yet we do not know what Reilly's involvement was. He had handed over power to a third party, unlike Wallace who was actively involved. I am happy to wait to hear what Reilly has to say before sending out the hounds.

As Vincent Browne says, 'What more do we need to know'.
It'll be funny if he makes the same pathetic defence Wallace made, 'It was my company, wot done it'.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

I'm sure Reilly will be accountable to the house.

He isn't exactly starting out to be accountable; no questions allowed and 10 minutes before the house rises. Clinging on, and the party attempting to protect him already, his future doesn't sound good.

unit 1

This thread really makes me laugh, So Reilly should go because he has a declared share in a nursing home, at arms length btw, while he is minister of health.
I seem to remember seeing a photo last year, I think, of Simon Coveney cutting corn with his combined harvester. Maybe being a farmer and minister for agriculture he should go too. Alan Shatter as well and on and on the bs goes.:rolleyes:
Simply put Enda Kenny will tell James to make a full and frank statement and that should and will be the end of the matter, its a storm in a flowerpot.:D

sarumite

Happyman42 wrote: »

As Vincent Browne says, 'What more do we need to know'.
It'll be funny if he makes the same pathetic defence Wallace made, 'It was my company, wot done it'.

I think VB is right. We need to know more before any persecution can begin. Demanding he resigns without even knowing what happens is a pure knee jerk reaction.

Wallace's defence was pathetic because we knew that he was personally responsible and was willfully and wholly involved.

Mr.Micro

Laminations wrote: »

I'm sure Reilly will be accountable to the house. And I'd be careful in holding up Wallace as an example. He was apparently wholly uncooperative with the Oireactas committee today, answering just 2 of the 7 questions put to him.

and those were whats your name and what day is it?:D

Happyman42

sarumite wrote: »

Wallace's defence was pathetic because we knew that he was personally responsible and was willfully and wholly involved.

I'd like to meet the man/woman who isn't 'willfully and wholly involved' in an investment of that size. A bit of a stretch to imagine that he wasn't aware of what was happening to it.

leeroybrown

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'd like to meet the man/woman who isn't 'willfully and wholly involved' in an investment of that size. A bit of a stretch to imagine that he wasn't aware of what was happening to it.

I'm sure he was aware there were difficulties but what can he actually do in a situation where he appears to have been left in breach of a High Court order by other parties. Short of stumping up all the money himself which would be ridiculous how can he extract himself from the problem until his business partners sort out their affairs?

To be honest anyone calling for his resignation based on this little information is shooting in the dark based on their own prejudices.

sarumite

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'd like to meet the man/woman who isn't 'willfully and wholly involved' in an investment of that size. A bit of a stretch to imagine that he wasn't aware of what was happening to it.

Well, he handed over power of attorney to his lawyer, who passed it onto anther lawyer. Not sure you could say he was still wholly involved.

murphaph

sarumite wrote: »

Well, he handed over power of attorney to his lawyer, who passed it onto anther lawyer. Not sure you could say he was still wholly involved.

To be honest I'd be deeply worried that a minister charged with running the worst department in the country couldn't even keep a close eye on his own affairs, especially when so much money is involved.

Whatever the details, I'm sick of there always being "some question mark" over our politicians. They always seem to have something going on the side.

leeroybrown

murphaph wrote: »

To be honest I'd be deeply worried that a minister charged with running the worst department in the country couldn't even keep a close eye on his own affairs, especially when so much money is involved.

Again, once the problem arouse what else could he do other than hand it over to his solicitor to deal with. If his business partners are refusing to clear up the problem he has no power to compel them. He's hardly going to take a costly high court action against them given that they're already content to be in breach of an existing one.

Sierra Oscar

sarumite wrote: »

Well, he handed over power of attorney to his lawyer, who passed it onto anther lawyer. Not sure you could say he was still wholly involved.

The judgement was made against Dr Reilly - not his solicitor.

To be truthful, it is absolutely ridiculous for Reilly to suggest that he was not aware of a judgement being made against him.

sarumite

murphaph wrote: »

To be honest I'd be deeply worried that a minister charged with running the worst department in the country couldn't even keep a close eye on his own affairs, especially when so much money is involved.

Whatever the details, I'm sick of there always being "some question mark" over our politicians. They always seem to have something going on the side.

To be honest Murphaph, thats not my issue here. We don't know what happened yet some people are ready to set the hounds loose, facts be damned. If it turns out that Reilly was incompetent with how dealt with his affairs, then I will agree with you. At the moment there are more questions than answers. I do think that the details actually matter when it comes to judging a person.

sarumite

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The judgement was made against Dr Reilly - not his solicitor.

To be truthful, it is absolutely ridiculous for Reilly to suggest that he was not aware of a judgement being made against him.

None of which is relevant to the point I was making.

Jimoslimos

Dave! wrote: »

True, but wouldn't any other Minister for Health be closing down nursing homes also? He may hypothetically (see next paragraph) benefit from closing a specific nursing home or several (I'm not sure it can be said that he benefits financially from closing "nursing homes" in general; nobody is going to put someone in a private nursing home in Dublin because a public one was closed in Donegal), but if he gives sound reasoning for the closure and savings figures from the Dept, and if he's acting on recommendations, then isn't it fair enough?

Actually the entire decision making process has been compromised.

Closing a nursing home in Donegal instead of one in Dublin (which may have been the better choice) to avoid an accusation of conflict of interest.

or

Benefiting financially from closing the one in Dublin.

Take your choice, either way he is responsible for his actions, whether taken today or an ill-advised investment 10 years ago. He should never have been appointed to the position of Minister of Health.

Laminations

murphaph wrote: »

To be honest I'd be deeply worried that a minister charged with running the worst department in the country couldn't even keep a close eye on his own affairs, especially when so much money is involved.

Whatever the details, I'm sick of there always being "some question mark" over our politicians. They always seem to have something going on the side.

Keeping a close eye on it would've left him open to criticism of conflict of interject. He was advised by PAC or SIPO to distance himself from the investment. Now one can question him over getting himself in this position, but the investment was made a decade ago. He got himself stuck befween a rock and a hard place, but really nothing like the scandal I first thought it was and the one some people are still making it out to be.

Still expecr a thorough clarification in his statement tonight

Sierra Oscar

sarumite wrote: »

None of which is relevant to the point I was making.

Well someone reading your post may interpret it as to be hinting that he may not have been aware of the extent of the financial difficulties. I am merely making the point that such an assertion would be weak, considering the fact that the high court judgement was made against him.

The "I didn't know" argument won't get James out of this one, and I would say he knows this himself and his statement tonight will reflect that. One tends to know if they have been the subject of a high court order.

Laminations

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The judgement was made against Dr Reilly - not his solicitor.

To be truthful, it is absolutely ridiculous for Reilly to suggest that he was not aware of a judgement being made against him.

Is he saying he wasn't aware? That is a bit unbelievable. It's more likely he was aware but helpless to change it, especially if other members of the consortium weren't paying up. He should use Dail privilege to name them and finger the ones who caused the consortium to breach the high court order - if that's what happened

sarumite

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Well someone reading your post may interpret it as to be hinting that he may not have been aware of the extent of the financial difficulties. I am merely making the point that such an assertion would be weak, considering the fact that the high court judgement was made against him.

The "I didn't know" argument won't get James out of this one, and I would say he knows this himself and his statement tonight will reflect that. One tends to know if they have been the subject of a high court order.

Someone reading my post should really also read the post I was responding to in order to gain context.

Sierra Oscar

Laminations wrote: »

Is he saying he wasn't aware?

Spokespeople had stated that he was not aware of his impending listing in the Stubbs Gazette.

sarumite wrote: »

Someone reading my post should really also read the post I was responding to in order to gain context.

Calm down, I was not personally attacking you - I was merely making a point of my own.

K-9

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The judgement was made against Dr Reilly - not his solicitor.

Err, the solicitor doesn't own it, just controls it, why would the judgment be against the solicitor?

Sierra Oscar

K-9 wrote: »

Err, the solicitor doesn't own it, just controls it, why would the judgment be against the solicitor?

There is a narrative trying to be formed at the moment whereby people are claiming that Reilly has little to answer for here because he had passed control of the situation to a solicitor who in turn turned to a third party. As you rightfully highlight such a narrative is silly as the high court judgement was made against Reilly and not the third party.

mloc

It is quite possible that one of the other investors acted unilaterally in delaying the payment of the debt.

Sierra Oscar

mloc wrote: »

It is quite possible that one of the other investors acted unilaterally in delaying the payment of the debt.

Probably, an investor could be trying to worm their way out of their fair share of the burden and in the process lump it on the other investors. Perhaps someone miscalculated that Reilly could perhaps have paid up in full to prevent an embarrassing story from emerging? Idle speculation I know, but who knows! So long as Reilly sorts this out then there shouldn't be an issue - but he may not be able to afford let this drag on much longer. Unfortunately disputes like this have a tendency to drag on.

sarumite

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Spokespeople had stated that he was not aware of his impending listing in the Stubbs Gazette.



Calm down, I was not personally attacking you - I was merely making a point of my own.

I never thought you were attacking me, however I do think you have tried to paint narrative around my words that doesn't exist.

Sierra Oscar

sarumite wrote: »

I never thought you were attacking me, however I do think you have tried to paint narrative around my words that doesn't exist.

Apologies if that is how you interpreted it, it was not my intention to do so.

Happyman42

Don't let the issue of whether he knew or didn't know or if somebody welched, confuse you. Should he have been made Minister for Health with this hanging over him, and what would have happened had he sorted this and become a shareholder in a successful Private Nursing Home. Would the 'arms lenght' or 'trust' scenario have been enough to remove the conflict?
We have enough details and info to make that decision. And mine is, that the system has been found wanting, again.

Cardinal Richelieu

So what did he tell the Dail? Changing his solicitor?

Laminations

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

So what did he tell the Dail?

http://www.thejournal.ie/video-health-minister-james-reillys-statement-to-the-dail-517594-Jul2012/

Video there

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't let the issue of whether he knew or didn't know or if somebody welched, confuse you. Should he have been made Minister for Health with this hanging over him, and what would have happened had he sorted this and become a shareholder in a successful Private Nursing Home. Would the 'arms lenght' or 'trust' scenario have been enough to remove the conflict?
We have enough details and info to make that decision. And mine is, that the system has been found wanting, again.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and let us hear his explanation, let us not accuse him of anything yet. Let's extend the same standard you apply for SF or ULA reps to Reilly.

leeroybrown

Well I'm satisfied that he's stuck in an unfortunate situation he can't extract himself from given the legal situation involved. None the less I expect the rabble to attack him relentlessly for it.

Cardinal Richelieu

Laminations wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/video-health-minister-james-reillys-statement-to-the-dail-517594-Jul2012/

Video there

wow, did the entire FG parliamentary party turn up for that statement? Never seen the government benches so crowded for a good while. The FG Chief Whip must have really cracked the whip tonight.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and let us hear his explanation, let us not accuse him of anything yet. Let's extend the same standard you apply for SF or ULA reps to Reilly.

Once again, the issue isn't the individual, but the system that allowed this to happen. Consistent with what I said about the others.

Sierra Oscar

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

wow, did the entire FG parliamentary party turn up for that statement? Never seen the government benches so crowded for a good while. The FG Chief Whip must have really cracked the whip tonight.

It seems the Labour whip was not as successful with rounding up his crowd - the lack of Labour Ministers on the front-bench is quite noticeable.

leeroybrown

Happyman42 wrote: »

Once again, the issue isn't the individual, but the system that allowed this to happen. Consistent with what I said about the others.

The only question this case raises about the "system" is whether he should have been allowed to become Minister for Health. My own personal view is that he's made sufficient effort to declare his interest and divest himself of it that it's not a problem. If this legal situation didn't exist one of his previous efforts to sell his share would likely have succeeded and removed the conflict. I would speculate that he might not even be able to divest himself of it at a total loss given the legal situation involved and the potential liabilities attached to his share.

Laminations

After watching his statement I think he's cleared it up. More unfortunate than silly to be getting himself in this situation. For people who think he hasn't cleared it up, like SF and there statement on VB, can you tell what is the conflict of interest? And how could he have avoided being named in Stubbs Gazette?

Happyman42

leeroybrown wrote: »

The only question this case raises about the "system" is whether he should have been allowed to become Minister for Health. My own personal view is that he's made sufficient effort to declare his interest and divest himself of it that it's not a problem. If this legal situation didn't exist one of his previous efforts to sell his share would likely have succeeded and removed the conflict. I would speculate that he might not even be able to divest himself of it at a total loss given the legal situation involved and the potential liabilities attached to his share.

By his own admission he was involved in a number of investments in private health care, that alone should have excluded him from the Health brief imo. At the very least he should not have been appointed until he divested himself of them completely. My suspicion is that this only presented itself as a 'problem' because the deal went south.
Noticeable abscence of Labour TDS for the speech, is he a lame duck I wonder?

ArmaniJeanss

Happyman42 wrote: »

By his own admission he was involved in a number of investments in private health care, that alone should have excluded him from the Health brief imo. At the very least he should not have been appointed until he divested himself of them completely.

Interesting that posters (not necessarily you) and the public in general often complain about the amount of teachers and 2-bit solicitors in the Dail, and suggest we'd be better off with experienced businessmen in the key positions.

And wondering why instead of some party hack being rewarded with a cabinet portfolio he has little or no expertise in, why can't outsiders with a track record in a relevant industry be encouraged to run for election (or even be given cabinet roles unelected like in other countries).

With suggestions ranging from Michael O'Leary for Finance or Transport, and various entrepeneurs who've been involved in broadband or mobile phone technology being suggested for the Communications portfolio.

But now it appears that this isn't actually what the people want after all, because todays buzzwords are 'conflict of interest'.

Fascinating country really.

Jolly Red Giant

Now let’s be clear about a couple of things –

Why did Reilly invest in the company that constructed the Greenhills Nursing Home in Carrick-on-Suir ?

He did so in order to avail of significant tax breaks that were available. Reilly along with 4 others set up a company to build the nursing home and lease it to one of the initial 5 involved, Dr Dilip Jondhale, to operate the nursing home. Another of the 5 people in this group is Anne Devitt, former FG now Ind Cllr and constituency colleague of Reilly and an individual named for accepting money in the Moriarty tribunal.

Reilly’s group then went on to seek further investors – the group of 8 – to raise sufficient cash to get a bankloan. The original group of 5 were recourse investor meaning they could individually or collectively be held liable for the bank loans taken out. Each of the 13 individuals invested approximately €60,000 and this money was used as collateral to get a loan from the Bank of Ireland to construct a €2.5million nursing home. The company then leased the nursing home with the rent being used to repay the bank loan.

The 13 individuals involved were then able to avail of the up to €2.5million in tax breaks from the nursing home where they could write off tax de on other rental income. Reilly rents out property in Lusk, rents out his 86 acres of prime farmland in Lusk, plus he rents out 100 acres of his estate at Moneygall where his mansion is. Reilly also has a holiday home in Doonbeg that possibly also has tax breaks available. So Reilly could claim back significant amounts in tax breaks, possibly up to €200K due to his investing €60K in the nursing home project.

Now this is where it gets interesting – the group of 8 agreed a put/call option deal with the group of 5 for the nursing home. This meant that after 10 years (when the tax breaks ran out) the group of 8 could ‘put’ or compel the group of 5 to purchase the nursing home for €1.9million plus vat. Alternatively the group of 5 could ‘call’ or compel the group of 8 to sell the nursing home for €1.9million plus vat. In either case the group of 5 would also take over the financial liabilities with the Bank of Ireland based on the terms of the loan agreement.

So what happened – it appears that in 2010 the group of 8 decided to exercise their ‘put’ option and compel the group of 5 to purchase the nursing home for €1.9million plus vat. However, given the collapse in property prices the group of 5 baulked at the idea of paying €1.9million plus vat for the property and attempted to either get out of the contract or negotiate the price downward. The group of 8 were having none of it and went to court to enforce the contract.

According to the Register of Members Interests, Reilly claims one quarter ownership share in the nursing home. The operators claim that the nursing home is operating profitably, however there have been disputes between the operator and the owners over the cost of rent and the failure by the owners to carry out repairs ended up in court. As a result of this the operator refused to sign a new lease agreement and as a result the group of 5, including Reilly could not get bank loans to cover the cost of the €1.9million plus vat purchase price. The bank would not lend the money unless the nursing home had a guaranteed income stream from a signed lease agreement. The new lease agreement has recently been signed. However, it now appears that the bank are reconsidering lending the group of 5 the required money despite the fact that Jondhale is paying a six-figure sum annually in rent. Clearly Jondhale has a conflict here in that he is the operator of the nursing home and is one of the group of 5. If the bank decide not to provide the group of 5 with the money then the non-recourse group of 8 could take legal action against the group of 5 individually. Given that Reilly and Jondhale are by far the richest of the group of 5 then they are likely to be hit hardest financially.

Now – what are the issues for Reilly –

Well – firstly he has (legally) screwed the taxpayer for possibly up to €200K over a ten year period and he has done this as a result of an investment of just €60K (approx) of his own money and a generous bank manager.

Secondly – it appears that he (and the others in the group of 5) attempted to get out of a legally binding contract or at least negotiate down the price. Nothing wrong or illegal in that either – but one must ask what would Reilly’s attitude be if the property bubble hadn’t collapsed and the group of 8 wanted to renegotiate his ‘call’ option.

Thirdly – it also appears that Reilly has alienated all his close friends who were involved in this scheme, not just in the group of 8, but the likes of Jondhale and Devitt as well. Nothing wrong with that either – but it does show how people with money don’t like parting with it.

Next point – is there a conflict of interest with his political position? Absolutely – the nonsense of a blind solicitor acting in his interest does not take away from the fact that he has a beneficial financial interest in the nursing home to the amount of one quarter ownership. Is he consciously engaging in cutting public sector nursing home beds in order to gain financially from it? Who knows? Reilly himself claims that because he is not the operator he has no financial benefit from the operation of the nursing home – but he certainly has a financial interest in the operator being able to pay his six-figure rent each year. But the reality is as follows, whether he likes it or not, Reilly is implementing policies that will result in a financial benefit (or at least greater financial security) for his investment in the nursing home. Reilly claims he is trying to sell his interest in the nursing home – but he hasn’t and it could be argued that his policies could benefit him financially in securing a higher price for his ownership share if he does manage to sell.

There are some other issues involved in this.

What are the VAT implications for Reilly and how much has his failure to abide by the legal ruling to complete the purchase of nursing home cost the state (if anything)?

What responsibility does Reilly take for the actions of HIQA in shutting down another private nursing home in Carrick-on-Suir that led local FG councillors demanding answers from Reilly on HIQA’s role? This is an important question as a HIQA report indicated that necessary repairs and alterations to the Greenhills Nursing Home were not carried out in a timely fashion (leading ultimately to a court case between Jondhale and the group of 5) yet HIQA, unlike in the other case in Carrick, did not revoke the nursing home’s licence.

Finally there is a question mark over the fact that Reilly (and the others) have failed to comply with a high court order. Is it appropriate for a government minister to fail to comply with a high court order relating to his personal financial arrangements? Now some might raise the fact that I am a member of the Socialist Party and the Socialist Party advocates breaking the law in the household charge boycott – fair point – but Reilly is a member of a government who are attacking left-wing representatives for advocating breaking the law when in his private life and for his own personal financial gain, Reilly has not complied with a high court order.

Last point – Reilly’s statement was waffle and doesn’t answer any of the relevant points. He did not disclose any information that was not already in the public arena and his statement was a waste of time. His suggestion that he is operating in ‘the best interests of older persons and patients under our health services’ is utter bullsh*t given that he is engaged in the biggest ever hatchet job on an already dilapidated health service, one he plans on privatising for the benefit of his buddies in the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

Happyman42

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Interesting that posters (not necessarily you) and the public in general often complain about the amount of teachers and 2-bit solicitors in the Dail, and suggest we'd be better off with experienced businessmen in the key positions.

And wondering why instead of some party hack being rewarded with a cabinet portfolio he has little or no expertise in, why can't outsiders with a track record in a relevant industry be encouraged to run for election (or even be given cabinet roles unelected like in other countries).

With suggestions ranging from Michael O'Leary for Finance or Transport, and various entrepeneurs who've been involved in broadband or mobile phone technology being suggested for the Communications portfolio.

But now it appears that this isn't actually what the people want after all, because todays buzzwords are 'conflict of interest'.

Fascinating country really.

Have never been an advocate of the above, but this is somebody who is more than a GP, he is somebody with an interest in investing in Private Health Care. I would have the same issue with Michael O'Leary as Minister for Transport. We have a members interest register for a reason. I don't think the safeguards where implemented in Reilly's case at all. I can't see this being the end of it, as his statement was fudged and I suspect Labour see an opportunity here.

bijapos

Excellent post Jolly Red Giant. This needs proper investigation especially the running of his nursing home and the shutting of the other local one in Carrick.

Means Of Escape

Let's bow our heads and pray for Gods blessing.

creedp

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Well – firstly he has (legally) screwed the taxpayer for possibly up to €200K over a ten year period and he has done this as a result of an investment of just €60K (approx) of his own money and a generous bank manager.

I find this to be particularly difficult to swallow given where we are in this country. On the one hand nieve home owners are being berated for buying property in the boom time and saddling themselves with debt and expecting the taxpayer to bail them out. On the other hand we have seasoned entrepreneurs taking advantage of McCreevey styled tax breaks for the wealthy to not only make a 'killing' on investing in property/business but also screwing the taxpayer for €100's thousand in lost tax revenue. What's the difference. In each case the taxpayer is bailing out these guys. What's worse even though the taxpayer has already bailed out this guy he won't make good on his contractual debt even though he has more than enough wealth to do so. These seasoned investors took a gamble, thetaxpayer massively subsidised this investment and then then when the investment goes south they all run for cover. Its bloody sick but of course its OK as the system is set up to gild the gilded.

galway2007

What is clear to me is that a lot of FG Td's in this government are up to their ass deep in property investments
Then we have to listen to them going on about the last government and developers when they were fuelling the bubble
Give them 10 year is power and they well make FF look like angles
Kenny get you act together and run the country and stop doing the Presidents job