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

The Mahon Tribunal

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,852 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    Voipjunkie wrote:
    The house while an odd arrangement is a side issue
    Yes and no, i think what the tribunal are getting at re the house is: who exactly was the beneficial owner of the house?


  • Options
    #33
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,852 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    Tristrame wrote:
    The greens are better off outside if they dont want to be decimated as are labour.
    Why would they be decimated? You're surely not inferring that perhaps a ff led govt. may not be in the best interests of the country?
    Tristrame wrote:
    You see here you go again expecting me to have a crystal ball and see what Ahern will say to the tribunal when he will have to reply to these new questions first posed in the tribunal this week.
    What do you mean by new questions? Which questions are new? Bert has been dealing with the tribunal since last April according to the transcript, they have been investigating 5 lodgements, yet, now, over 12 months later, he has still not given the tribunal a satisfactory explanation as to where any of these lodgements came from (and that includes the ridiculous 'loan/gift' story/manchester gift money, which the tribunal state was equal to £25K STG, who knows maybe the story was concocted to fit the facts).
    I can understand party loyalty and so on (well, actually, I can't), but come on, as a rational human being you must see that Bertie has lied to you and me, to McDowell, to the dail and to the tribunal. Personally, I don't like people making a fool of me - do you?


  • Options
    #34
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Tristrame I seriously think you need to read the Trinual's record in the PDF link I supplied, Bertie has spoken to the Tribunal in person and through written exchanges several times over the past year or so, its not as if Bertie hasn't said anything to the Tribunal yet, in fact all that remains is for him to be cross examined in public and tbh I would be very surprised if he says anything different when he does as that would make things look worse than they already do. When you say
    His replies to date have been to media questions which despite what they might think are not the legal mechanism for dealing with the newer queries.
    you are ignoring the replies he has given to the Tribunal along with the written statement he realeased through FF. I really think you should read the transcripts.


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Glenbhoy wrote:
    What do you mean by new questions?
    The public session is new.
    We were never supposed to be in posession of anything else prior to the public session.Afaik the new "discrepencies" were put out there by the public session.They certainly weren't in the public domain to my knowledge at the time of Aherns statement (on the FF site) and werent required to be answered by the media at that time.I would guess now that it would not be proper whilst the tribunal is in session and examining these things for Ahern to answer them in any other forum.
    irish1 wrote:
    Tristrame I seriously think you need to read the Trinual's record in the PDF link I supplied, Bertie has spoken to the Tribunal in person and through written exchanges several times over the past year or so, its not as if Bertie hasn't said anything to the Tribunal yet, in fact all that remains is for him to be cross examined in public and tbh I would be very surprised if he says anything different when he does as that would make things look worse than they already do.
    Gosh how many more times do you have to expose your position as being one of a mind made up prior to Aherns answers inside the tribunal in it's public session.He has to be cross examined yet by the tribunal as has the tribunals lawyers effectively in a proper rebuttal or clarification of their questions.
    Your assumption that there is no answer and that we here on the outside know it all speaks volumes for the back the front way you are looking at the justice of this.
    When you say"His replies to date have been to media questions which despite what they might think are not the legal mechanism for dealing with the newer queries.",you are ignoring the replies he has given to the Tribunal along with the written statement he realeased through FF. I really think you should read the transcripts.
    No I am distinguishing between the seperate queries the media had from their selective leaks plus the answers Ahern gave to those, AND the entirely new and legitimate path of inquiry this week in the public discourse of the tribunal.
    You linked to this weeks transcripts and to this weeks public discourse by the tribunal.
    The new "discrepencies" arise out of that and not what Ahern had to answer prior to the public sitting of the tribunal.
    Honestly this is a kindergarden distinguishment,you should get with the programme :)


  • Options
    #36
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,236 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Tristrame wrote:
    The public session is new.
    We were never supposed to be in posession of anything else prior to the public session.
    So what? The information is out there, Bertie gave his explanations, and they have been proven to be false.
    Afaik the new "discrepencies" were put out there by the public session.They certainly weren't in the public domain to my knowledge at the time of Aherns statement
    The only thing new in the public statement, was the fact that the Bank did not take in anywhere near the 30k sterling Ahern claimed was exchanged on that day. The only thing new was concrete proof that Bertie's story is a lie. (Well that's not strictly true, the statement also reveals bank records that cast a huge cloud over many of the other convoluted explanations Ahern has given for different transactions around the same period.)
    and werent required to be answered by the media at that time. I would guess now that it would not be proper whilst the tribunal is in session and examining these things for Ahern to answer them in any other forum.
    So in other words, If Bertie had known that the bank records would have screwed up his sterling story, he would have been able to make up a more suitable excuse instead?

    The Tribunal opening statements would have been public record before the election if the tribunal hadn't been delayed by legal actions by 'Bertie's team' that were specifically designed to delay proceeedings until after the election.
    Gosh how many more times do you have to expose your position as being one of a mind made up prior to Aherns answers inside the tribunal in it's public session.
    How many people have you banned for 'playing the man not the ball' and here you are accusing the poster of being biased and seeking to hang bertie before the evidence is in.
    There is more than enough information out there to conclude that Bertie's explanations do not make any sense. (and there has been for a very long time now)
    He has to be cross examined yet by the tribunal as has the tribunals lawyers effectively in a proper rebuttal or clarification of their questions.
    Your assumption that there is no answer and that we here on the outside know it all speaks volumes for the back the front way you are looking at the justice of this
    Every single media leak from the tribunals has been proven correct. Everytime Ahern responds to those leaks, his answers have been either lies, bluster or have raised even further questions about his own finances. If Ahern had a reasonable explanation that would make all of this go away, one must assume, that he would have given it by now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Akrasia wrote:
    So what? The information is out there, Bertie gave his explanations, and they have been proven to be false.
    your assumption having not heard Aherns contribution to the public tribunal.The tribunal has asked questions , it's not given a declaration yet because it cant without hearing back from Ahern and certainly not untill it's full business in this session is concluded.
    The only thing new in the public statement, was the fact that the Bank did not take in anywhere near the 30k sterling Ahern claimed was exchanged on that day. The only thing new was concrete proof that Bertie's story is a lie. (Well that's not strictly true, the statement also reveals bank records that cast a huge cloud over many of the other convoluted explanations Ahern has given for different transactions around the same period.)
    Which is it a huge cloud or a lie? Or an incomplete assessment.
    You don't know so stop posting opinion as fact please.
    So in other words, If Bertie had known that the bank records would have screwed up his sterling story, he would have been able to make up a more suitable excuse instead?
    your opinion,stop posing it as fact.
    The Tribunal opening statements would have been public record before the election if the tribunal hadn't been delayed by legal actions by 'Bertie's team' that were specifically designed to delay proceeedings until after the election.
    Really? I thought it was Mrs Lawlor that was holding them up.Today it's actually Gilmartin.
    Oh wait maybe Gilmartin has arranged this delay so more trouble won't come out prior to june 14th? Now that would be some conspiracy theory...
    How many people have you banned for 'playing the man not the ball' and here you are accusing the poster of being biased and seeking to hang bertie before the evidence is in.
    Theres a difference between indicating a mind made up in a post and specefically attacking a poster.
    But let me say if there is thin ice anywhere politics charter wise, you've chosen it there with that part of your post.Quit that and deal with my posts (if you can)
    There is more than enough information out there to conclude that Bertie's explanations do not make any sense. (and there has been for a very long time now)
    I see so when you can't deal with my alternative way of looking at it ,you resort to either attacking me or just plainly saying you are right and nah nah na nah na to anything else.
    Great debating that I don't think.
    I mean nowhere have I declared that your position could not actually be right.I'm questioning the veracity of it when it's working on limited information.Thats the way things are done fairly.
    Every single media leak from the tribunals has been proven correct.
    No you cant be that definitive.Every single leak (that I've seen) has been factually correct but selectively spun.The proper spin on it will be when the other side is put fully to the tribunal and Judge mahon deliberates on it.
    But hey why wait for that when you have your mind made up already shur thats a great way to go about justice.
    Everytime Ahern responds to those leaks, his answers have been either lies,
    opinion not fact unless of course your brand of tarot card reading is 100%?
    bluster or have raised even further questions about his own finances.
    Of course further questions are to be expected, thats the nature of the adversarial approach the tribunal is structured to take.The whole idea is to get to the bottom of the issues. Extra questions don't automatically assume guilt (unless of course you have your mind made up) especially given that the tribunal is awaiting the answers which will have to be given and judged upon.
    If Ahern had a reasonable explanation that would make all of this go away, one must assume, that he would have given it by now.
    Not necessarally.He gave answers to the media because they backed him into a corner at a vulnerable time for him ie in the middle of the election.
    I'm pretty sure of 2 things (1) that he would have left any answers in their entirety to the tribunal if the media didnt make a fuss of the leaks during the election and (2)He feels it proper that the place to deal with the rest of the questions now is actually in the tribunal and not in the media.


  • Options
    #38
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,852 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    Tristrame,
    the transcript makes clear that:
    1. There has been voluminous written correspondence between Ahern and the tribunal, including a report on Ahern's finances 12 months ago (compiled by Des Peelo - have we heard that name before?), this was submitted to the tribunal, however in the tribunal's opinion that report has been found wanting, that can be concluded by the fact that these lodgements are still being investigated
    2. There has been a private interview between Ahern and the tribunal, in that interview, when asked about the dollar lodgement, Ahern's response was "I've never dealt in dollars", indeed, convincing. He had previously told the tribunal that the lodgement was STG30K, this was amended for general release to being STG circa 30K and IR£ Plug figure to make the IR£28772.90 which was lodged.
    Now, as someone else said the only new information appears to be AIB's information that 2000 odd sterling was dealt with that day in the branch, seriously, if I were FF I'd start disowning him asap - he's damaged and no matter what he'll be gone by christmas imo.


  • Options
    #39
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Tristrame wrote:
    Gosh how many more times do you have to expose your position as being one of a mind made up prior to Aherns answers inside the tribunal in it's public session.He has to be cross examined yet by the tribunal as has the tribunals lawyers effectively in a proper rebuttal or clarification of their questions.
    Your assumption that there is no answer and that we here on the outside know it all speaks volumes for the back the front way you are looking at the justice of this.

    My opinion or mind as you put it is formed based on the what SC for the Tribunal has stated, that includes what he has stated Ahern has said in a face to face interview with the Tribunal and what his accountants have provided in writtern replies on behalf of their client, it is alos based on what the SC has stated Celia Larkin an Michael Wall told the tribunal. It is also based on the statement Bertie Ahern issued through FF.
    Tristrame wrote:
    No I am distinguishing between the seperate queries the media had from their selective leaks plus the answers Ahern gave to those, AND the entirely new and legitimate path of inquiry this week in the public discourse of the tribunal.
    You linked to this weeks transcripts and to this weeks public discourse by the tribunal.
    The new "discrepencies" arise out of that and not what Ahern had to answer prior to the public sitting of the tribunal.
    Honestly this is a kindergarden distinguishment,you should get with the programme :)
    The new inquiry as you put it is only new to us the Tribunal have been investigating this for some time as is evident from the amount of information they have presented and the charge of $45,000 was put to Mr Ahern before the election and he replied to that charge in his written statment however the facts don't support his statement.

    I am not acting as judge or jury I am presenting my opinion based on the facts known to me not media reports, I am simply using my intelligence and common sense to form my opinion and I honestly believe anyone who has read the facts would be of the opinion that his version of events don't match up. If one wanted to speculate on the unknowns they could start thinking about where the cash came from if it didn't come from Wall......


  • Options
    #40
    JerkyBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭JerkyBoy


    The interesting thing is that if the money Larkin lodged was indeed $45,000 and not £30,000 sterling, then what did Ahern do with the 30k sterling he recieved from Michael Wall?

    This could possibly be answered by two of the foriegn exchange transactions that Ahern made in sterling.
    The first was a lodgement of precicely 10,000 sterling lodged to Larkin's 2nd account, the one for fitting out the house.
    The second is a lodgement of 20,000 sterling lodged to Ahern's own account, which he claims was money unspent from the 50,000 paid to Larkin's 1st account and then subsequently withdrawn in cash back to Ahern.

    Ahern admits that he made both of these sterling lodgements, amouting to a total of 30,000 sterling, to the tribunal and they are supported by the AIB dockets.

    Now, the tricky part for Ahern is that he claims that he bought this 30,000 in sterling from AIB, and paid for it from the 50,000 that I just mentioned above.

    However, AIB has NO record of Ahern making a foreign exchange transaction purchasing this 30,000 sterling. And Ahern also has no documentary evidence to support the assertion that he ever bought the 30,000 sterling from AIB.

    So, it's entirely possible that if Larkin actually did lodge $45,000 in dollars as is being put forth by the Tribunal, then the 30,000 that Ahern had lodged to his and Larkin's accounts, 20,000 and 10,000 respectively...could actually have been the 30,000 sterling that Michael Wall gave to him in a briefcase.

    From reading the Mahon transcripts...this is what it looks like to me.

    If true, it means that Ahern used 10 grand of the Wall money to put into an account for expenses relating to the house...and then he pocketed the remaining 20 grand for himself.


  • Options
    #41
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    JerkyBoy wrote:
    The interesting thing is that if the money Larkin lodged was indeed $45,000 and not £30,000 sterling, then what did Ahern do with the 30k sterling he recieved from Michael Wall?

    This could possibly be answered by two of the foriegn exchange transactions that Ahern made in sterling.
    The first was a lodgement of precicely 10,000 sterling lodged to Larkin's 2nd account, the one for fitting out the house.
    The second is a lodgement of 20,000 sterling lodged to Ahern's own account, which he claims was money unspent from the 50,000 paid to Larkin's 1st account and then subsequently withdrawn in cash back to Ahern.

    Ahern admits that he made both of these sterling lodgements, amouting to a total of 30,000 sterling, to the tribunal and they are supported by the AIB dockets.

    Now, the tricky part for Ahern is that he claims that he bought this 30,000 in sterling from AIB, and paid for it from the 50,000 that I just mentioned above.

    However, AIB has NO record of Ahern making a foreign exchange transaction purchasing this 30,000 sterling. And Ahern also has no documentary evidence to support the assertion that he ever bought the 30,000 sterling from AIB.

    So, it's entirely possible that if Larkin actually did lodge $45,000 in dollars as is being put forth by the Tribunal, then the 30,000 that Ahern had lodged to his and Larkin's accounts, 20,000 and 10,000 respectively...could actually have been the 30,000 sterling that Michael Wall gave to him in a briefcase.

    From reading the Mahon transcripts...this is what it looks like to me.

    If true, it means that Ahern used 10 grand of the Wall money to put into an account for expenses relating to the house...and then he pocketed the remaining 20 grand for himself.


    That is exactly what it looks like

    The IR£28772.90 is nothing to do with Micheal Wall or at least not to do with the £30,000 sterling Wall gave him.
    That is what I meant by the House being a side issue the real and substantive issue is the IR£28772.90 on the face of it it appears highly likely that this was $45,000 which poses a major problem for Ahern as he has said he had no $ transactions.
    That is what the tribunal seem to be saying this is not the Wall money so where did this come from. They aso appear to be dubious about the exactly IR£50,000 that appears with no explanation other than savings.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    cast_iron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Glenbhoy wrote:
    2. There has been a private interview between Ahern and the tribunal, in that interview, when asked about the dollar lodgement, Ahern's response was "I've never dealt in dollars", indeed, convincing. He had previously told the tribunal that the lodgement was STG30K, this was amended for general release to being STG circa 30K and IR£ Plug figure to make the IR£28772.90 which was lodged.
    Like I said previously, it's entirely possible for the £30,000 stg to be made up of some of the £1921 stg odd and the rest in IR punts - even if Bertie did first say it was £30,000 at first. I was never involved in his affairs, so I can't say where all the punts would have came from. It doesn't mean he lied, but he may well have been mistaken.

    Is it entirely fair that Mr Ahern was asked to say which lodgements were which almost 15 years, when he didn't really have a paper trail.
    I know if you asked me about a FX transaction I did 15 odd years ago, I might have a bit of trouble remembering.

    And I repeat, this whole £30,000 stg issue is out by just £1.32!
    irish1 wrote:
    My opinion or mind as you put it is formed based on the what SC for the Tribunal has stated, that includes what he has stated Ahern has said in a face to face interview with the Tribunal and what his accountants have provided in writtern replies on behalf of their client, it is alos based on what the SC has stated Celia Larkin an Michael Wall told the tribunal. It is also based on the statement Bertie Ahern issued through FF.
    For a start, Larkin and Wall's recollection were just that, recollections of what happened almost 15 years ago - not plain facts, which people here use to their advantage when they can, and then say its okay to draw conclusions without fact when it suits their position. Though in fairness, when they all agreed it was £30,000 stg originally, it does make one wonder (not convict though).
    irish1 wrote:
    The new inquiry as you put it is only new to us the Tribunal have been investigating this for some time as is evident from the amount of information they have presented and the charge of $45,000 was put to Mr Ahern before the election and he replied to that charge in his written statment however the facts don't support his statement.
    Fine, lets wait and see if he lied, or was mistaken as to why the transaction was out by £1.32 of £28772.90


  • Options
    #43
    Lennoxschips
    Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Lennoxschips


    And I repeat, this whole £30,000 stg issue is out by just £1.32!

    No, only 2,000 odd in sterling was exchanged that day at the AIB branch, so it's more like he's out by 28,000.

    He says he got 30k sterling in cash from Mr. Wall. If he could have only lodged a maximum of 2,000 of it according to AIB, what happened to the rest of the Wall sterling? And where did the rest of the money come from to make up the 28,772.90 punts deposit?

    This is when two points become interesting...
    Somebody who deposited $45,000 that day would have ended up with exactly 28,772.90 in their account. And:
    The AIB branch did almost 29,000 punts worth of non-sterling exchanges that day.


  • Options
    #44
    cast_iron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Lennoxschips wrote:
    No, only 2,000 odd in sterling was exchanged that day at the AIB branch, so it's more like he's out by 28,000.

    He says he got 30k sterling in cash from Mr. Wall.
    No, he now claims it was both sterling and punts to the order of aprox £30,000. He doesn't give a breakdown of how much of each, so the math allows it.
    Lennoxschips wrote:
    If he could have only lodged a maximum of 2,000 of it according to AIB, what happened to the rest of the Wall sterling? And where did the rest of the money come from to make up the 28,772.90 punts deposit?
    If you are asking me, I already answered that.
    Lennoxschips wrote:
    This is when two points become interesting...
    Somebody who deposited $45,000 that day would have ended up with exactly 28,772.90 in their account. And:
    The AIB branch did almost 29,000 punts worth of non-sterling exchanges that day.
    Indeed.


  • Options
    #45
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    cast_iron wrote:
    No, he now claims it was both sterling and punts to the order of aprox £30,000. He doesn't give a breakdown of how much of each, so the math allows it.
    Except in order for that to be the case then most of the money would have been in punts over 26,000 punts yet Mr Wall says the money came from cash that his Business in Manchester accumulated and hence he can not show any paper transaction of him withdrawing the money from a bank account.
    Does it not seem odd that a coach hire business in manchester would have 26,000 punts in cash. That is completely ignoring the fact that Ahern and Wall said it was cash sterling.

    Also is it not a Bizarre coincidence that the exact amount of money deposited on behalf of Ahern on 4 ocassions equate exactly to amounts of punts you would get get in round foreign exchange transactions and that the bank in question on those days did have foreign exchange transactions that would allow for that but on the day that Ahern claims £30,000 sterling was deposited it could not have happened.


    Lastly Gilmartin made an allegation that O'Callaghan told him he had paid Ahern £80,000 made up of a £50,000 and a £30,000 and that it transpires that Ahern has £50,000 that is undocumented that he claims to have saved. and then this lodgement which is not possible that it is £30,000 sterling that is very close to 30,000 which if it is not the wall money it is again undocumented and that these add up to very nearly £80,000 and they are in 2 separate amounts just as Gilmartin claimed but he would have had no Knowledge of Mr Aherns accounts when he made this claim but on investigation into Aherns accounts there appears at this stage to be nearly £80,000 that Ahern can provide not documentary prove of where it came from..


  • Options
    #46
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,852 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    Okay, leaving aside the substantive issue here, what do you all make of the PD's assertion, that this is not enough to stop them forming a government with FF and in particular not enough to stop them voting for Ahern as taoiseach?
    Is this a tactical decision on their part? In other words they realise that their time a 'moral watchdog' is at an end and the only chance the party has, is by aligning themselves with Bert, in the forlorn hope he can ride this one out.
    On a side issue, where has Bert been all week?


  • Options
    #47
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Well I think the PD's know their bargaining power is greatly reduced with only having two votes available to them so I think they may do or say whatever is needed to stay in Government.

    I would be much more interested to see what the Greens take on this is, I mean they have being saying one of their main policies is to clean up politics even if Biffo says FF don't need anyone to clean them up I think they might be a little worried by the tribunal and what a vote for Bertie as Taosieach would look like.


  • Options
    #48
    Lennoxschips
    Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Lennoxschips


    On a side issue, where has Bert been all week?

    I'd say that despite the united front being presented in public, a lot of **** is hitting the fan over at Fianna Fail at the moment. They're probably behind closed doors at each other's necks over this.


  • Options
    #49
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    I believe the Taoiseach is in Berlin today for talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.


  • Options
    #50
    cast_iron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    irish1 wrote:
    Well I think the PD's know their bargaining power is greatly reduced with only having two votes available to them so I think they may do or say whatever is needed to stay in Government.
    I think the PDs may well accept Bertie for now, and be willing to let him have his say (later) before kicking up a fuss. They have to, as if they don't get into Govt now, they may well be dissolved as a party.
    That would only leave the Independents as potential stumbling blocks for a FF lead Govt.


  • Options
    #51
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    so this tom gilmartin fella, what his motivation it so long ago I forgotten if I ever read how the tribunal started, now its been delayed and he's 71.. you see him smiling and walking out of the court did he really mean to start sometihng that would take up 10 years of his life?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    Glenbhoy wrote:
    Okay, leaving aside the substantive issue here, what do you all make of the PD's assertion, that this is not enough to stop them forming a government with FF and in particular not enough to stop them voting for Ahern as taoiseach?
    Is this a tactical decision on their part? In other words they realise that their time a 'moral watchdog' is at an end and the only chance the party has, is by aligning themselves with Bert, in the forlorn hope he can ride this one out.
    On a side issue, where has Bert been all week?


    The PD moral watchdog is and always was a crock of ****

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/probe-ordered-into-dumped-funds-list-459460.html


    http://dev.rte.ie/news/2002/0410/molloy1.html


  • Options
    #53
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,852 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    lostexpectation wrote:
    so this tom gilmartin fella, what his motivation it so long ago I forgotten if I ever read how the tribunal started, now its been delayed and he's 71.. you see him smiling and walking out of the court did he really mean to start sometihng that would take up 10 years of his life?
    Padraig Flynn goaded him into on The late late show.


  • Options
    #54
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    Glenbhoy wrote:
    Padraig Flynn goaded him into on The late late show.


    oh ok ta, searches padraig flynn tom gilmartin...


  • Options
    #55
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Its a bit more complicated, Eoin O'Callaghan is accused by Gilmartin of bribing officials to ensure Gilmartin couldn't develop a site he wanted to put a shopping center on, as I say its pretty complicated but google O'Callaghan and Gilmartin and tribunal and I'm sure you will find information.


  • Options
    #56
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,852 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    irish1 wrote:
    Its a bit more complicated, Eoin O'Callaghan is accused by Gilmartin of bribing officials to ensure Gilmartin couldn't develop a site he wanted to put a shopping center on, as I say its pretty complicated but google O'Callaghan and Gilmartin and tribunal and I'm sure you will find information.
    Indeed it is, but the long and the short of it was, Gilmartin had left Ireland and said he'd never be back until Pee started shooting his mouth off, in what was one of the most illjudged outbursts in irish history - i'd say the bert definitely thinks it was anyway;)


  • Options
    #57
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    I found a link to this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=145302&page=3 in a feedback thread that Ecksor had linked to it may be of interest to people who weren't on boards back in 2004.


  • Options
    #58
    Rock Climber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Rock Climber


    Interesting thread that alright irish1

    It reminds me of one thing, that in most of your anti Bertie posts you are partial to having your mind made up (before the conclusion of anything)...something which is at issue in part of this thread...whats this you said about Ahern 3 years ago??
    irish1 wrote:
    Oh how i wish Cork was here to try and defend this idiot of a man we have to call Taoiseach.
    link

    Now I see why you are taking a side in this,its out of dislike (theres nothing wrong with that though,but it's good to have it clarified at some point in the discussion):

    Anti Ahern agenda 1
    Fairness 0

    At least your posts in relation to Ahern are consistent I suppose...
    I'd imagine most of the posters here have their mind made up too but it gets boring when theres only 2 or 3 posters going on and on about it.
    I suppose I mirror most of the population in that I give it all a big *yawn*

    Personally I don't ever want to be a politician because if they are going to thrawl through 14 years of my bank accounts when someone accuses me of corruption,theres probably a lot I'd get confused about(who gave me what for my communion for a start :D)

    Regarding the issue of the all over the place depositions in mahon,I'm looking foward to seeing the conclusion as I've no doubt Judge Mahon will be fair in his report when he's heard Bertie on the stand and the evidence(good or bad) we wont have seen yet has concluded.


  • Options
    #59
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    One of the tribuals lawyers (I belive) is promising much excitment and resignations from the current module when it gets going again. While the AIB are being requested to disclose more about transaction records.

    Mike.


  • Options
    #60
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Rock Climber wrote:
    Interesting thread that alright irish1

    It reminds me of one thing, that in most of your anti Bertie posts you are partial to having your mind made up (before the conclusion of anything)...something which is at issue in part of this thread...whats this you said about Ahern 3 years ago?? link

    Now I see why you are taking a side in this,its out of dislike (theres nothing wrong with that though,but it's good to have it clarified at some point in the discussion):

    Anti Ahern agenda 1
    Fairness 0

    At least your posts in relation to Ahern are consistent I suppose...
    I'd imagine most of the posters here have their mind made up too but it gets boring when theres only 2 or 3 posters going on and on about it.
    I suppose I mirror most of the population in that I give it all a big *yawn*

    Personally I don't ever want to be a politician because if they are going to thrawl through 14 years of my bank accounts when someone accuses me of corruption,theres probably a lot I'd get confused about(who gave me what for my communion for a start :D)

    Regarding the issue of the all over the place depositions in mahon,I'm looking foward to seeing the conclusion as I've no doubt Judge Mahon will be fair in his report when he's heard Bertie on the stand and the evidence(good or bad) we wont have seen yet has concluded.
    I have made my mind up with the information I have heard and seen Rock Climber, you can say I'm not being fair in your opinion it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

    The thread in feedback back in 2004 where I found that link had this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1545189&postcount=179

    TBH I think its says a lot about how the members of this forum don't seem too bothered with the fact that the Taoiseach is before a tribunal and has very serious questions to answer, people weren't bothered in 2004 when I started a thread and not too many more are now, I mean your post above is more about me and what my opinion is than the actual Tribunal and what information they have provided so far in this module.

    I'm only too happy to discuss the tribunal but I'm interested in some sort of personal slagging match.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    irish1 wrote:
    TBH I think its says a lot about how the members of this forum don't seem too bothered with the fact that the Taoiseach is before a tribunal and has very serious questions to answer, people weren't bothered in 2004 when I started a thread and not too many more are now, I mean your post above is more about me and what my opinion is than the actual Tribunal and what information they have provided so far in this module.

    The silence of all the political parties on Questions & Answers on Monday night after the opening statements would suggest that they aren't that bothered either.

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



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement