Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dr James Reilly and his unpaid debts

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭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'. :D

    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.


  • Options
    #63
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #64
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #65
    leeroybrown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,563 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #66
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #68
    leeroybrown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,563 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #69
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #70
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #71
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #73
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #74
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #75
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #76
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #77
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #78
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭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?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #79
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #80
    mloc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭mloc


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


  • Options
    #81
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #83
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #84
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #85
    Cardinal Richelieu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭Cardinal Richelieu


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


  • Options
    #86
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #87
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #88
    leeroybrown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,563 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #89
    Cardinal Richelieu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #90
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement