Will Ahern become Taoiseach on June 14th?

JerkyBoy wrote:

It is going to be nearly impossible for Ahern to form the next Government as Taoiseach...especially not with this breaking news:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0528/mahon.html

He can't even satisfy the tribunal with his accounts of payments to him from businessmen...how is he supposed to satisfy potential Government partners, now that McDowell isn't around to pretend these matters don't exist??

OK THEN! PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!

The best price for enda to become Taoiseach is on betfair (22/1)

I will offer you 30/1 (max stake €20)


Can we all cut the crap here?

If you really believe that Enda will be Taoiseach, take me on.

wb wrote:

OK THEN! PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!

The best price for enda to become Taoiseach is on betfair (22/1)

I will offer you 30/1 (max stake €20)


Can we all cut the crap here?

If you really believe that Enda will be Taoiseach, take me on.

What price will you give me on biffo?

Glenbhoy wrote:

What price will you give me on biffo?

Stick a post up on http://www.letsbet.ie/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44

(my username is Hill16) but off the top of me head, I'd say I'd offer around 20/1 for the Big Biffo to be Taoiseach

(Best price available is 16/1 on betfair)

Weathercheck wrote:

Nothings a certainty and money coming for Brian Cowen at 10's

Enda Kenny still has 23's on him which is decent for the position he is in!!

I've just offered 30/1 for kenny and 20/1 for Cowen because my attitude is that there's no point talking crap for the next couple of weeks. If you really believe Enda will be Taoiseach, put your money where your mouth is.. otherwise, stop posting about it!

Tristrame wrote:

It's not flawed unless of course you don't believe in due process and believe instead that your conviction is infallable and lets make no mistake about it you are convicting ahern here with scant access to all of the facts save for deliberately sensationalised newspaper selling leaks.

What due process is it you speak of Tristrame is it the same due process that was afforded to Ray Burke, Ivor Callely or Michael Lowry? You see the problem is these TD's didn't need a Tribunal to finish and make findings to force them to resign, I mean Bertie accepted Ivor Callely's resignation for having a free paint job. Are you suggesting Bertie is entitled to more due process than Ray Burke or Ivor Callely were?

Tristrame wrote:

Without access to whatever due process yet to be heard you are drawing your own conclusions.You are of course entitled to do this.

I am drawing no more conclusions than Bertie did when allegations were made againt Ivor Callely!

Tristrame wrote:

See what I mean,do you have a direct line to the opposing sides pc/data and file boxes then? Or are you just using the selective tit bits you can glean from media leaks and satisfying your already made up mind?

Now let me make this very clear Tristrame my opinion here is not based on any newspaper reports, it is based on the transcript from the tribunal and the press release which Bertie released. These are available to anyone, I have linked to both in previous posts. So please stop trying to imply my posts are as a result of reports I have read elsewhere, I'm not sure what your opinon is of me (although I have a good idea) but I do have the intelligence to read transcripts and statments and form MY OWN opinion, if you are hinting otherwise I would rather you just came out and said it.

Tristrame wrote:

Oh so here I see that you are just just blatantly surmising your opinion based on two different collations of information.
1. Aherns answers to media questions and 2.Selected new questions as reported and yet unanswered in the tribunal.
The problem with that is your surmise is flawed because you are using legitimate answers to one set of questions as an assumption that legitimate answers to new questions in the tribunal don't exist..
The instant difficulty I find with that analysis is that Aherns team will have to put their case.
The nature of the tribunal is such that accusations can be outed sans rebuttal like this almost ad infinitum untill it is time for the other side of the case to be heard.

Basing a kangeroo court style commentary on Aherns activities on that is laughably unfair and prejudiced.
It's prejudiced of course because it treats the questions as rhetorical ,convicts the accused and devoids itself of a need to hear the other side, in that it implies the mind is already made up.

Where is the evidence of a dollar transaction by the way besides a question asked as to whether there was one ? And who introduced this dollar anomoly in the first place? It was a lawyer for the tribunal wasn't it-ergo it's Aherns lawers at the tribunal who have yet to explain this. Why didnt they check rubles and Rand as well as all the other available currencies? Have they any paperwork in relation to a dollar transaction and why are you running with that? Is your analysis so brilliant that its better than a tribunal outcome complete with two sides of a story?

My opinion as I stated above is based on what Senior Council for the Tribunal have stated the Tribunal have uncovered during their investigation and what they say Bertie stated during communication with the tribunal which included written communication and an interview. Mr Ahern my not have publically put his case to the tribunal but he has put his case to the public in the form of his statement and he has also put it privately to the Tribunal in both cases he says he did not deal in Dollars and that the money lodged on the 5th of December was in Pounds and Punts. I'm not sure if you aware of the procedure at the bank in relation to recording foreign exchange but they recorded the amount of Sterling exchanged and they recorded the amount of all other currencies exchanged also, the amount of sterling exchanged on the 5th of December 1994 was equal to £1,921.55 punts hence Bertie could not have exchanged what he said he did on that date, the records however show that the ammount of other currencies exchanged that day equalled £28,969.34 punts this would allow for a transaction of $45,000 and other non-sterling exchanges to a value of £196.44 punts

My analysis is based on the bank records provided to the Tribunal which they have outlined in their opening statement and the reports from the Tribunal of interview's and written communication with Bertie and also his statement.

Tristrame wrote:

It's not coming across that you are making an accusation, you are giving us your conviction that that is the case arising out of your own one sided conclusion of a yet unanswered tribunal allegation.

Well I am looking at all the evidence which I can find and I am forming an opinion as Bertie did with Ivor.

irish1 wrote:

I'm not sure if you aware of the procedure at the bank in relation to recording foreign exchange but they recorded the amount of Sterling exchanged and they recorded the amount of all other currencies exchanged also, the amount of sterling exchanged on the 5th of December 1994 was equal to £1,921.55 punts hence Bertie could not have exchanged what he said he did on that date, the records however show that the ammount of other currencies exchanged that day equalled £28,969.34 punts this would allow for a transaction of $45,000 and other non-sterling exchanges to a value of £196.44 punts

Wasn't this 30,000 sterling supposed to be in both sterling and punt? If so, what's highlighted in bold is incorrect.
The £1921.55 sterling and the rest in punt could give a total of 28772.90 punts.

This would mean that the $45000 would have to have been a pure coincidence! (However believable that may or may not be)



And, for the record, the £30000 sterling could have equated to a figure of 28774.22 punts.

That means Bertie's figures are out by a whopping 1.32 punt.
Make of that as you please.

Read page 29 of the Tribunal's PDF, Bertie told the Tribunal that the lodgement on the 5th of Dec 1994 was that of £30,000 pounds given to Celia Larkin.

He then stated in his statement that it may have been a mixture of Pounds and Punts, so are you trying to tell me that he has gone from £30,000 to approx £2,000 pounds plus Punts even though Wall says he gave £30,000 in Sterling that week to Bertie. The figures don't match up either, whether they are out by £1.32 or £132 they don't match up the figure of $45,000 dollars at the lower rate however matches exactly and bank Records show that £30,000 sterling was not exchanged at the branch on that day. On page 12 its states that Ms Larkin believe the lodgement on the 5th dec 1994 represented an Irish Punt equilivant of a Sterling sum she had been given in cash.

IMO and thats all it is my opinion, Bertie, Wall and Larkin all stated Wall gave Bertie £30,000 sterling in cash on the weekend before the 5th Dec 1994, Ms Larkin believed she lodged a Sterling amount which was worth £28,772.90 in punts, Bertie also told the Tribunal that it was £30,000 sterling that was lodged however after it was pointe out that the rates of exchange on that day didn't equate to £28,772.90 punts but did equate exactly to $45,000 he changed his story and said it may have been a mixture of Pounds and Punts so we are meant to believe that while Bertie got £30,000 pounds in sterling a few days before the lodgement he only lodged sterling worth £1921.55, which for the record would mean he lodged £2003.41, however the bank didn't accept less than £1 and then he also lodged £26,851.35 in Punts. I think the movement in story is making it look worse for Bertie rather than accepting that the only transaction possible on that day that could have resulted in £28,772.90 was someone exchanging $45,000

Irish1, I'm not saying what he did or didn't do, or asking anyone to believe what seems unlikely.

I simply pointed out the facts allow him to have lodged the equivalent to £30000 stg in a punts and stg mixture. You claimed earlier it couldn't.

irish1 wrote:

...the amount of sterling exchanged on the 5th of December 1994 was equal to £1,921.55 punts hence Bertie could not have exchanged what he said he did on that date,

cast_iron wrote:

Irish1, I'm not saying what he did or didn't do, or asking anyone to believe what seems unlikely.

I simply pointed out the facts allow him to have lodged the equivalent to £30000 stg in a punts and stg mixture. You claimed earlier it couldn't.

But the facts don't allow for that, what mixture would equal £28,772.90 Punts with a maximum of Sterling worth £1921.55 punts?

I though it is Illigal to bring in more than £10,000 IEP into the country in cash without declaring it to customs on arrival. So if someone did bring $45,000 into the country wouldnt customs have a record as of who brought it in? Athlough i know customs in Dublin Airport are non existant most of the time. But if this money was delared on arrival there would indeed be a paper trial and we could find out who gave it to Bertie.

Any chance of a reply to post 131 Tristrame? Ahern and Celia both said the money lodged was the result of a large Sterling amount, why would Celia say that if she only lodged a maximum of £2003 sterling?