Dr James Reilly and his unpaid debts

galway2007

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s unethical for ministers to own land now?
Really? Would you refuse treatment from a doctor whom you suspected did not exercise enough?.

Who is the public face of our Health system?
Reilly is and he looks like he could turns his toes up at anytime
We keep hearing about obesity in Ireland and the health effects and yet look at him

Happyman42

galway2007 wrote: »

s
Kenny get you act together and run the country and stop doing the Presidents job

Ain't that the truth!

I think it's time to see Reilly as a property developer invested in Private Heath Care first and then as a GP.

JustinDee

galway2007 wrote: »

Who is the public face of our Health system?
Reilly is and he looks like he could turns his toes up at anytime
We keep hearing about obesity in Ireland and the health effects and yet look at him

Oh dear. Really grasping at straws with this.
He's a qualified practising doctor and is obviously well versed in what the health sector entails.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh dear. Really grasping at straws with this.
He's a qualified practising doctor and is obviously well versed in what the health sector entails.

Do you believe him when he says 'I am passionate about putting the patient first'? Are private nursing homes putting the optimum way of putting the patient first?

mloc

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you believe him when he says 'I am passionate about putting the patient first'? Are private nursing homes putting the optimum way of putting the patient first?

Aside from the fact he's been trying to rid himself of it for years, and has disclosed openly since the beginning all his involvement with it...


What's wrong with the concept of a private nursing home?

sarumite

galway2007 wrote: »

Who is the public face of our Health system?
Reilly is and he looks like he could turns his toes up at anytime
We keep hearing about obesity in Ireland and the health effects and yet look at him

I have been working very hard lately myself. Putting in excess of 70 hour weeks. As a result I don't have time to go to the gym and have put on weight. When I was unemployed I used to go 4 times a week and was really fit. I am actually more qualified now to do my job (though slightly overweight) than I was a few years back when I was much fitter.

flatbackfour

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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.

Only in Ireland could a health minister be up to his neck in private nursing home scheme, be responsible for the direction of health policy and you and others fail to see the blindingly obvious conflict of interest.

Its part of what I call the "jackie Healy Rae, michael lowery cutehoorism syndrome" which is endemic in this banana republic of ours.

Keep supporting your man folks.

Happyman42

mloc wrote: »

What's wrong with the concept of a private nursing home?

Absolutely nothing if it is regulated and run properly. However I have an issue with the Minister for Health being involved in any way in profitting from one. I actually have an issue with a GP being involved in an investment like this, in his own catchment area, but that's another topic. Add to that, the new (to me) info that he was also involved in investing in a Private Health Care facility in Nevinstown and you have somebody who has an ongoing interest in profitting from the sector. Poacher turned gamekeeper?
This has only become contentious because a deal went pearshaped. As far as I can find out, had he successfully salvaged this deal he could have continued to profit from it while satisfying regulations by having it in a 'trust', which is fundamentally wrong imo.The system needs changing if we want vested interests kept away from the honey pot that being a TD seems to be.

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you believe him when he says 'I am passionate about putting the patient first'?

Its just rhetoric. I'd prefer to judge someone by their actions. He inherited a fairly messy health service when taking office and in a time when cuts are unavoidably necessary. The Minister for Health job is akin to a British Minister being given Northern Ireland office during the 80s.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are private nursing homes putting the optimum way of putting the patient first?

You seem to be alluding to people in nursing homes being patients. Is James Reilly referring to nursing home residents when apparently saying this? Nursing home that my grandmother lives in is actually brilliant. She has definitely been "put first".

LostinKildare

leeroybrown wrote: »

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?

Why would that be ridiculous?

The five partners are jointly and severally responsible for the debt. By court order, Reilly was legally individually responsible for payment of that debt by 30th April -- even if he had to pay the whole amount himself. What is ridiculous about that? He entered into that contract freely.

Why didn't he -- or why doesn't he now -- pay it? The full amount, if necessary? He probably has the means. When talking about ordinary citizens swamped by mortgage debt, we distinguish the "can't pays" from the evil "won't pays." Reilly looks like a "won't pay."

A few days ago Mr Shatter told us that it's reasonable to force a penniless small-time debtor to hock her engagement ring to avail of debt relief.

Why is unreasonable to expect a very wealthy debtor to liquidate some of his many valuable assets to comply with a court order?

(Of course, if the sale of his many, many properties still wouldn't raise 1.9 million, then Reilly is not a "won't pay," but a "can't pay," -- a bankrupt who must leave the Dail.)

mloc

LostinKildare wrote: »

Why would that be ridiculous?

The five partners are jointly and severally responsible for the debt. By court order, Reilly was legally individually responsible for payment of that debt by 30th April -- even if he had to pay the whole amount himself. What is ridiculous about that? He entered into that contract freely.

Why didn't he -- or why doesn't he now -- pay it? The full amount, if necessary? He probably has the means. When talking about ordinary citizens swamped by mortgage debt, we distinguish the "can't pays" from the evil "won't pays." Reilly looks like a "won't pay."

A few days ago Mr Shatter told us that it's reasonable to force a penniless small-time debtor to hock her engagement ring to avail of debt relief.

Why is unreasonable to expect a very wealthy debtor to liquidate some of his many valuable assets to comply with a court order?

(Of course, if the sale of his many, many properties still wouldn't raise 1.9 million, then Reilly is not a "won't pay," but a "can't pay," -- a bankrupt who must leave the Dail.)

I gather from this post your understanding of commercial litigation is limited?

The court order is against a group of five individuals. Reilly cannot compel others to pay, or compel them to complete the leasing process. The delay is due to ongoing litigation which has itself delayed a re-mortgaging. Until the litigation issue is cleared, there can be no re-mortgaging, and thus the payment cannot be made. It's quite simply not possible for Reilly to unilaterally act on behalf of four others in a litigation context, doubly so due to his appointment of an attorney.

mloc

flatbackfour wrote: »

Only in Ireland could a health minister be up to his neck in private nursing home scheme, be responsible for the direction of health policy and you and others fail to see the blindingly obvious conflict of interest.

Its part of what I call the "jackie Healy Rae, michael lowery cutehoorism syndrome" which is endemic in this banana republic of ours.

Keep supporting your man folks.

He has been trying to get rid of the thing for years, and never had any part in the running of the business; he simply has a 9% share in the building. I'd hardly call that up to my neck in a private nursing home scheme.

K-9

He expects to be able to complete the agreement shortly so I don't know where this "wont pay" stuff is coming from.

flatbackfour

mloc wrote: »

flatbackfour wrote: »

Only in Ireland could a health minister be up to his neck in private nursing home scheme, be responsible for the direction of health policy and you and others fail to see the blindingly obvious conflict of interest.

Its part of what I call the "jackie Healy Rae, michael lowery cutehoorism syndrome" which is endemic in this banana republic of ours.

Keep supporting your man folks.

He has been trying to get rid of the thing for years, and never had any part in the running of the business; he simply has a 9% share in the building. I'd hardly call that up to my neck in a private nursing home scheme.

Nice piece of spin. 9% share in the building. That's all.

Never had any part in running the business. Who are you kidding? There is more than one way to skin a cat. And certainly more than one way to keep your hands clean from business interests but still benefit from them.

djpbarry

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Nope. Not in the slightest.

Happyman42 wrote: »

As Vincent Browne says, 'What more do we need to know'.

Oh, I don’t know – the facts, maybe?

galway2007 wrote: »

Reilly is and he looks like he could turns his toes up at anytime

I really don’t care.

flatbackfour wrote: »

Nice piece of spin. 9% share in the building. That's all.

Never had any part in running the business. Who are you kidding? There is more than one way to skin a cat.

In other words, you’ve made your mind up that he’s a crook and no argument to the contrary is going to convince you otherwise.

I note that nobody considers it to be a “conflict of interest” that Dr Reilly is a former employee of the department he is now running? Apparently, a “conflict of interest” only arises through involvement in the dirty private sector.

Tora Bora

We need Mary Harney back. It's as simple as that.:cool:

sarumite

flatbackfour wrote: »

Never had any part in running the business. Who are you kidding? There is more than one way to skin a cat. And certainly more than one way to keep your hands clean from business interests but still benefit from them.

Since becoming a minister, it would appear the answer is no, he never had any part in running the business. Most pension pots keep their 'hands clean from business interests but still benefit from them'. That is the nature of many investments. Private individuals investing in profit making companies is, on the whole, a good thing for an economy.

mloc

flatbackfour wrote: »

Nice piece of spin. 9% share in the building. That's all.

Never had any part in running the business. Who are you kidding? There is more than one way to skin a cat. And certainly more than one way to keep your hands clean from business interests but still benefit from them.

Apart from insinuation and cheap cliché, do you have a point? Are you implying that there is some sort of conspiracy at play here, that he is secretly running the whole thing on the sly?

Mr.Micro

Its looks like that is that then? Dr. O'Reilly only has to make sure the debt is settled shortly. With regard to a conflict of interest I do not agree. His business is a private matter so long as it does not impinge on his Ministerial role or vice versa. Private nursing homes were very popular with the last lot and will continue to grow as the public health system declines.

flatbackfour

djpbarry wrote: »

In other words, you’ve made your mind up that he’s a crook and no argument to the contrary is going to convince you otherwise.

It looks to me that the those who are making up their mind without looking at the argument are those that wont/cant/don't want to see the blindingly obvious.

I note that nobody considers it to be a “conflict of interest” that Dr Reilly is a former employee of the department he is now running? Apparently, a “conflict of interest” only arises through involvement in the dirty private sector.

Try making this an ideological public v private issue. its nothing of the sort. Another attempt at crude spin.

A conflict of interest happens because he is the minister for health and had interests in private nursing homes at the same time he is minister for health. That is a conflict of interest. Pure and simple.

Keep spinning.

flatbackfour

mloc wrote: »

Apart from insinuation and cheap cliché, do you have a point? Are you implying that there is some sort of conspiracy at play here, that he is secretly running the whole thing on the sly?

He is the minister for health. That puts him in a very strong position regarding health policy issues (obviously). At least tacitly this position might lead others to act favorably towards health investments or the outcome of issues involving these investments.

Have we really learned nothing about how business had been really done in this country over the last 20 years to understand that the difference between the way things are done and the way things are done.

Oh the sweet innocence of it.

So much innocence.

LostinKildare

mloc wrote: »

I gather from this post your understanding of commercial litigation is limited?

The court order is against a group of five individuals.

Yes, five individuals jointly and severally responsible for the debt.

mloc wrote: »

Reilly cannot compel others to pay, or compel them to complete the leasing process.

I didn't suggest that he could.

mloc wrote: »

The delay is due to ongoing litigation which has itself delayed a re-mortgaging. Until the litigation issue is cleared, there can be no re-mortgaging, and thus the payment cannot be made.

You mean, the payment cannot be made from money raised from the property itself. Of course, the payment could be made from other funds -- Reilly et al just don't feel like flogging some of their other assets in order to pay the debt, even when instructed by a judge to pay it by an appointed date.

mloc wrote: »

It's quite simply not possible for Reilly to unilaterally act on behalf of four others in a litigation context, doubly so due to his appointment of an attorney.

I didn't suggest he could act on behalf of the others in the litigation; I pointed out that he must, if necessary, pay the full amount of the debt (and then, presumably, pursue the other partners for their shares of the debt). That's the deal he made.

K-9 wrote: »

He expects to be able to complete the agreement shortly so I don't know where this "wont pay" stuff is coming from.

"Shortly" -- snort. That's the new "turning the corner." According to Reilly's statement this has been in litigation for a year now, and they haven't even agreed a methodology by which the debtors will pay. I would have thought that avoiding default and being listed in Stubbs would have motivated them to get this sorted -- if that doesn't, what will?

My "won't pay" tag applies from 30th April. Reilly was legally obliged to pay a debt by that date, he had the means to pay it (I assume), but he didn't want to pony up for the other partners (and pursue them for their shares through the courts).

I assume that he will, at some point, pay his part of the debt. But until then, he's refusing to pay a debt for which he is legally responsible.

flatbackfour

sarumite wrote: »

Private individuals investing in profit making companies is, on the whole, a good thing for an economy.

Private individuals who become health minister and have invested in private nursing homes at the same time reducing the number of beds in public nursing homes.

Are you for real?

Your not per chance a card carrying member of the Fine Gael party are you??

galway2007

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh dear. Really grasping at straws with this.
He's a qualified practising doctor and is obviously well versed in what the health sector entails.

What does a Gp know about the health service?
They meet patients, treat them or refer them on
Now if Reilly was a consultant or even a front line employee of the health sector he might know something about the reality of what need to be done
]He has changed nothing and he is just as bad as Harney so god help any sick person out there

galway2007

sarumite wrote: »

I have been working very hard lately myself. Putting in excess of 70 hour weeks. As a result I don't have time to go to the gym and have put on weight. When I was unemployed I used to go 4 times a week and was really fit. I am actually more qualified now to do my job (though slightly overweight) than I was a few years back when I was much fitter.

Health is your wealth

whippet

I think this story is getting more hysterical by the minute.

I am not a fan of either FG or Reilly but the outcry from some members of society that one of our senior politicians happened to be a business man in a previous life before becoming a public representative is mental. Do we want all our politician to be cut from the same cloth as the like of Enda Kenny who never actually held a real job or without experience of anything outside of the bubble of leinster house.

I also don't subscribe to the other notion that as Reilly was a doctor he is automatically the best person for the job of minister for finance, what would a doctor know about being one of the biggest employers and service providers in the country. I work in an IT Company and while we have superb engineers I doubt a single one of them would be capable of running the whole operation.

As for the money owed, I do feel that on entering Leinster house our elected representatives should have all financial matters which may provide any sort of conflict of interest resolved. What I mean by conflict of interest can be taken as anything that may affect the persons ability to perform the duties of a TD without distraction. The fact that Reilly has a High Court judgment against him falls in to this category and he should have address the debt prior to taking office or as soon as the order was made.

However, as we know in the not so distant past that senior politicians used to clear their debts before entering Leinster house and some like CJH just got a mate to write a cheque or ask the bank to forget about that account !!

mloc

galway2007 wrote: »

What does a Gp know about the health service?
They meet patients, treat them or refer them on
Now if Reilly was a consultant or even a front line employee of the health sector he might know something about the reality of what need to be done
]He has changed nothing and he is just as bad as Harney so god help any sick person out there

So 25 years operating several GP practices along with active involvement at the forefront of the IMO doesn't count?

So much ignorance of how the health service, litigation and dare I say it business works.

sarumite

galway2007 wrote: »

Health is your wealth

And wealth is health. The bank won't accept the above kind of 'wealth' as payment unfortunately.

creedp

djpbarry wrote: »

Nope. Not in the slightest.
Oh, I don’t know – the facts, maybe?
I really don’t care.
In other words, you’ve made your mind up that he’s a crook and no argument to the contrary is going to convince you otherwise.

I note that nobody considers it to be a “conflict of interest” that Dr Reilly is a former employee of the department he is now running? Apparently, a “conflict of interest” only arises through involvement in the dirty private sector.

Not that it is relevant to the discussion but O'Reilly was never an employee of the Department. He is a private GP who previous to his Ministerial appointment had contracted to provide GP services on behalf of the HSE. Whilst in that capacity he negotiated with the Dept/HSE improved agreements on behalf of his private GP comrades.

sarumite

flatbackfour wrote: »

Private individuals who become health minister and have invested in private nursing homes at the same time reducing the number of beds in public nursing homes.

Are you for real?

Considering the over runs in the health budget, I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the decision was made out of self interest (or unilaterally for that matter)

Your not per chance a card carrying member of the Fine Gael party are you??

No, but asking if I am does seem to be the ad-hominem of choice at the moment.

djpbarry

flatbackfour wrote: »

A conflict of interest happens because he is the minister for health and had interests in private nursing homes at the same time he is minister for health.

An interest which was declared and from which he has attempted to remove himself. Damning Reilly because this process has been protracted, through no fault of his it would seem, strikes me as little more than rabble rousing.

The idea that a Minister/TD cannot have any private sector interests is absolutely ludicrous. If everything is out in the open and above board, I fail to see the problem.

LostinKildare wrote: »

My "won't pay" tag applies from 30th April. Reilly was legally obliged to pay a debt by that date, he had the means to pay it (I assume)...

That’s a pretty ridiculous assumption.

galway2007 wrote: »

What does a Gp know about the health service?

Is that a serious question? If the health service has a “front line”, surely it is manned by GP’s?

creedp wrote: »

Not that it is relevant to the discussion but O'Reilly was never an employee of the Department. He is a private GP...

Ok, but he was still working under the auspices of the department.

LostinKildare

djpbarry wrote: »

LostinKildare wrote: »

My "won't pay" tag applies from 30th April. Reilly was legally obliged to pay a debt by that date, he had the means to pay it (I assume).. .

That’s a pretty ridiculous assumption.

Is it? From the Register of Interests, via the Irish Examiner (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/extensive-list-of-property-interests-200364.html):

Dr Reilly is also the landlord of the town centre [Lusk Town Centre], which comprises the clinic [Fingal Clinic], offices, a pharmacy, supermarket, bookmaker, barber, an unoccupied restaurant, one apartment, a vacant floor and three sites for town houses.

In addition, he listed the following on his 2011 declaration for the register:

* The family home in Rush, Co Dublin;

* A second family residence in Loughton, Moneygall, Co Offaly. This is a period manor set on 150 acres, 100 of which are let for grazing;

* A half-acre site at Cock Hill, Stamullen, Co Meath;

* A derelict ruin on quarter of an acre at Balrothery, Co Dublin;

* The former family farm at Baldrummond, Lusk, comprising 86 acres and let for tillage;

* A holiday home in Doonbeg, listed as an investment;

* Quarter of a share in Green Hills Nursing Home, Carrick on Suir, Co Tipperary. The register states that this stake has been "transferred to (a) blind trust" as per the advice of the Standards in Public Office Commission. It is this stake to which the judgement relates;

* One-third share of an undeveloped commercial site on 1.3 acres at Nevinstown, Swords, Co Dublin

You don't think he could raise 1.9 million to comply with a court order?

djpbarry

LostinKildare wrote: »

You don't think he could raise 1.9 million to comply with a court order?

Ignoring once more that this is a payment that must be made by a consortium, not by Reilly himself, I think it is completely unreasonable to expect someone to come up with almost €2 million at short notice just because they have an investment portfolio (especially when some of those investments are almost worthless in the current climate).

mloc

creedp wrote: »

Not that it is relevant to the discussion but O'Reilly was never an employee of the Department.

This is factually incorrect. He was an employee of the Department, like most GPs, during his intern and SHO years, at the very least. It is also likely that he was an employee of the department during his time in the GP training scheme.

flatbackfour

djpbarry wrote: »

An interest which was declared and from which he has attempted to remove himself.

By giving power of attorney to his solicitor. "look after that for me there will you. I want nothing to do with it now I am minister for health. I need to get on with making policy decisions regarding nursing home regulation/privatization etc."

There is a wink cute hoor since the foundation of this beautiful state. This is just part of it.

The idea that a Minister/TD cannot have any private sector interests is absolutely ludicrous. If everything is out in the open and above board, I fail to see the problem.

No one is saying he cant have business interests. However he has interest in a private nursing home and he is the minister for health with responsibility for policy regarding the regulation of nursing homes and policy regarding the privatization of nursing homes. Even within the process of divesting his interest in said nursing home he could if he so wished, skew policy decisions to suit his own interest, or has happened before "independent regulation" could just happen to be favorable for him. I am not saying he has or would do so but he opens himself up for such thinking.

mloc

flatbackfour wrote: »

By giving power of attorney to his solicitor. "look after that for me there will you. I want nothing to do with it now I am minister for health. I need to get on with making policy decisions regarding nursing home regulation/privatization etc."

There is a now wink cute hoor since the foundation of this beautiful state. This is just part of it.

You are aware that he requested the solicitor divest himself of the share as soon as possible?

LostinKildare

djpbarry wrote: »

Ignoring once more that this is a payment that must be made by a consortium, not by Reilly himself, . . .

Joint and several liability.

djpbarry wrote: »

I think it is completely unreasonable to expect someone to come up with almost €2 million at short notice just because they have an investment portfolio (especially when some of those investments are almost worthless in the current climate).

He isn't expected to pay the debt just because he has an investment portfolio! He is expected to pay the debt because he entered into a legal agreement that made him jointly liable for the entire amount of the debt, and because a judge ordered that it be paid.

(And re short notice: "the Non-Recourse Co-Owners instituted proceedings against the Recourse Co-Owners in the Commercial Court in July 2011" -- James Reilly. Has he been trying to raise the money for a year, or has he been trying to wriggle off the hook?)

Do you also find it completely unreasonable that when a husband or wife loses his/her job and cannot pay his/her share of a joint mortgage, the other spouse must cover it? How about if one of the spouses is sitting on significant assets -- is it unreasonable that he/she should be required to employ those assets to meet the debt?

sarumite

LostinKildare wrote: »

Do you also find it completely unreasonable that when a husband or wife loses his/her job and cannot pay his/her share of a joint mortgage, the other spouse must cover it? How about if one of the spouses is sitting on significant assets -- is it unreasonable that he/she should be required to employ those assets to meet the debt?

I think it is more akin to an unmarried couple as marriage is a legal contract. However, I digress. If the scenario was to happen and the couple were to separate and one side was unable/unwilling to pay for half of the mortgage, I would certainly feel some sympathy towards the partner that was able or willing to pay and I could understand if they made every effort to avoid having to cover someone else debt. I certainly wouldn't judge the content of their character negatively if they were making efforts to avoid paying the debt of another person.

one foot in the grave

James Reilly is a Minister in a government. Since when is it acceptable in any government for a Minister to fail to comply with a High Court order?

What did he believe would happen when he failed to comply? The story wouldn't be covered?

sarumite

one foot in the grave wrote: »

James Reilly is a Minister in a government. Since when is it acceptable in any government for a Minister to fail to comply with a High Court order?

What did he believe would happen when he failed to comply? The story wouldn't be covered?

He is also a person being asked to liquidate his assets to cover someone elses debt (assuming his version of the story is correct). I know I would make every effort whatsoever to avoid having to cover someone else debt.

bonzos

People need to realise that is is how many people operate in this country.....they simply dont pay their debts,they get work done on their home knowing full well that the tradesman will never be paid. This the same just on a larger scale. Same story with builder TD Mick paid himself a few hundred k euro while his sub contractors did not get paid for their work. Business irish style!

rodento

Question is how long should he be allowed to remain on the defaulters list and in breach of a high court order?????

one foot in the grave

sarumite wrote: »

He is also a person being asked to liquidate his assets to cover someone elses debt (assuming his version of the story is correct). I know I would make every effort whatsoever to avoid having to cover someone else debt.

You are not a Minister in government who has failed to comply with a High Court order in order to protect your interests.

With a ministerial appointment comes many perks and privileges. There also comes great responsibility and a high standard to be upheld in this office.

What did Minister Reilly believe would happen when he failed to comply with the High Court order?

LostinKildare

sarumite wrote: »

I would certainly feel some sympathy towards the partner that was able or willing to pay and I could understand if they made every effort to avoid having to cover someone else debt. I certainly wouldn't judge the content of their character negatively if they were making efforts to avoid paying the debt of another person.

sarumite wrote: »

He is also a person being asked to liquidate his assets to cover someone elses debt (assuming his version of the story is correct). I know I would make every effort whatsoever to avoid having to cover someone else debt.

Joint and several liability. It is not someone else's debt -- it is his own debt which he owes jointly with several other people.

My point with the couple-with-a-mortgage analogy was to demonstrate that every day, the peons of Ireland have to shell out more than they expected to cover their joint-liability debts (mortgages) because their partners cannot contribute as before. Sometimes they have to seriously lower their standards of living and/or sell assets to service the debt. That is widely seen as reasonable -- they freely entered into that debt payment arrangement, they must service it however they can, we are told.

It's nice that you feel sorry for someone who has to pick up the slack when his partners can't(/won't) chip in their share. How about the people who Reilly's stiffed while he tries to wriggle out of his legal responsibility to cover the debt? By the contract, they should have been paid more than a year ago, but instead they were forced to bring a High Court action, which they won, and yet, Reilly et al still haven't paid up. They are owed money -- indeed, perhaps one or more of them needs that money to meet their own obligations. Why should their financial situations continue to deteriorate because Mr. Reilly doesn't wish to do what is necessary to fulfill his legal obligations?

He failed to comply with a court order, but that seems to be no biggie for law-and-order FG (I'd like to hear Shatter on this). Surely that means every citizen can ignore High Court orders now, right? They're no longer binding! Pay by April 30th?-- haha, yeah right!!

FG will do a world of damage if they continue to support Reilly. At the least, he should step aside until the debt is settled.

jimmycrackcorm

galway2007 wrote: »

I would rather a health minister who is a picture of health
Look at the state of him, he look worse than harney
Why can’t we have a minister who look after his/her health and is a fit example to our young people?
Even Enda is a good example on his bike, but look at what we got

That's like saying all male gynaecologists should get vagina transplants so that they can do their job properly.

sarumite

LostinKildare wrote: »

Joint and several liability. It is not someone else's debt -- it is his own debt which he owes jointly with several other people.

I guess I am coming from a position that Reilly finds himself in now. A few years ago I was renting a flat with another guy who decided to quit his job and as a result he didn't have the money to pay his half of the rent. I still believe it was his half of the rent. I don't care whether you would consider it my obligation to pay his half....it was his debt. To this day I still consider it his debt.

How about the people who Reilly's stiffed while he tries to wriggle out of his legal responsibility to cover the debt?

From my perspective he is as much a 'victim' as they are. Both he and the others are getting stiffed.

creedp

mloc wrote: »

This is factually incorrect. He was an employee of the Department, like most GPs, during his intern and SHO years, at the very least. It is also likely that he was an employee of the department during his time in the GP training scheme.

That's news to me .. I was never aware that the civil service employed some trainee GPs or trained some GP's. You learn something new everyday

Sierra Oscar

creedp wrote: »

That's news to me .. I was never aware that the civil service employed some trainee GPs or trained some GP's. You learn something new everyday

Yeah they are required to intern within a hospital environment for quite some time, they usually end up as the on-call doctor or the like. Most GP's start out in a hospital environment.

Wider Road

Damien English FG TD was on the Vincent Browne show a couple of nights ago. One point that was raised by Vincent was the "blind trust". Vincent said it was impossible to apply in this instance and Damien said that he "didn't know the answer". Next morning we hear all the govt TD's & Ministers telling us that they are satisfied with Dr Reilly's explaination in the Dail!
Does anyone know the answer?

djpbarry

LostinKildare wrote: »

Why should their financial situations continue to deteriorate because Mr. Reilly doesn't wish to do what is necessary to fulfill his legal obligations?

How many times does it need to be pointed out that Dr Reilly is not solely responsible for paying this debt?