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
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    seamus wrote: »
    "otherwise set aside"

    I think that refers to the 'trust' arrangement.


  • Options
    #33
    Ardent
    Registered Users Posts: 5,280 ✭✭✭Ardent


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Did a minister invest in the private health sector or did a medical doctor invest in the private health sector and later go on to become minister for health?

    +1. Don't know what all the furore is about to be honest. Obviously a slow news week.

    He makes a financial investment over 10 years ago, as a part of a syndicate. Nothing dodgy there. Said syndicate are now instructed to honour an agreement to buy out the others. O'Reilly's own obligation probably only amounts to a couple of hundred thousand, which his boss says he will pay in due course. I guess it depends on when other members of the syndicate can be convinced to pay up as well.

    Nothing to see here folks.


  • Options
    #34
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It has been asked about in the Dail, that Enda saw no problem with it when appointing him is now up for testing.
    It wouldn't be a problem though. How much does James Reilly actually owe of that amount? Isn't the investment via a consortium?


  • Options
    #35
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Ardent wrote: »
    +1. Don't know what all the furore is about to be honest. Obviously a slow news week.

    He makes a financial investment over 10 years ago, as a part of a syndicate. Nothing dodgy there. Said syndicate are now instructed to honour an agreement to buy out the others. O'Reilly's own obligation probably only amounts to a couple of hundred thousand, which his boss says he will pay in due course. I guess it depends on when other members of the syndicate can be convinced to pay up as well.

    Nothing to see here folks.

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


  • Options
    #36
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    JustinDee wrote: »
    It wouldn't be a problem though. How much does James Reilly actually owe of that amount? Isn't the investment via a consortium?

    All that matters is that he stood to benefit from this investment. And being part of a consortium suggests to me that had this worked out that they would have continued to invest in other homes.

    I'm not even sure it is entirely ethical for a practising GP to be involved in investments of this nature.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I'm not even sure it is entirely ethical for a practising GP to be involved in investments of this nature.

    I'd rather a private nursing home with a GP calling the shots than a hotelier / builder / lawyer / politician.


  • Options
    #38
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Gurgle wrote: »
    I'd rather a private nursing home with a GP calling the shots than a hotelier / builder / lawyer / politician.

    hmmm.....kind of a privileged position though. Referrals, endorsements etc.
    Especially if his involvement wasn't immediately apparent.


  • Options
    #39
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I think that refers to the 'trust' arrangement.
    I'd have to disagree, but I think it's something only SIPO could clarify.


  • Options
    #40
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users Posts: 85,038 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    So he breaks his silence at 9.55pm tonight - why so late?
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • Options
    #41
    Park Royal
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Park Royal


    We had a "plumber" Chairman of the North Western Health Board at

    one stage......

    I suspect he was better than the "Farmer" who was elected Chairman...

    Perhaps Reilly is really a man of the people......

    skint like the rest of us........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    So he breaks his silence at 9.55pm tonight - why so late?

    Miss the papers tomorrow? ;)


  • Options
    #43
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    He's overseas. Maybe his flight doesn't get in till this afternoon.


  • Options
    #44
    galway2007
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭galway2007


    Dave! wrote: »
    It's been pointed out in another thread that really, experts in a field become experts by being involved in the field. It's rare that they'd be insulated from involvement in the industry that they've spent their lives studying and practicing, "Break glass if expert is required".

    This same idea is often used to dismiss research or testimony from e.g. researchers who previously had involvement with pharmaceutical companies. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    I think that as long as a potential conflict is declared up-front, the person shouldn't be automatically precluded. Of course, there should also be monitoring to ensure that the person isn't abusing their power to benefit themselves.

    Ultimately I'd rather a Health Minister who has been involved in the medical field for his whole career, rather than another teacher on a career break. Ideally you'd have someone with relevant experience who has no potential conflicts of interest, but I'm not sure Fine Gael have anyone who can match Dr. Reilly in that regard.
    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


  • Options
    #45
    galway2007
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭galway2007


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Problem is that his involvement with the nursing home industry was already known. The 'outraged' out there didn't seem to give a stuff about it then.

    Did we know about it here???
    You can’t have a minister making a personnel profit form an industry that he controls. It is wrong the fact that the more public nursing homes that he closed the more profit the industry that he was investing in was going to make.
    He has to go. Can you imagine the protest that is going to take place when he picks on another public nursing home that he decides to close


  • Options
    #46
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    So he breaks his silence at 9.55pm tonight - why so late?

    Because the Dáil rises at 10PM - meaning that he cannot be questioned on the matter.

    So much for FG's promise to have ministers held more accountable towards Dáil Éireann.


  • Options
    #47
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    All that matters is that he stood to benefit from this investment. And being part of a consortium suggests to me that had this worked out that they would have continued to invest in other homes
    "Standing to benefit" has nothing to do with anything but begrudgery. The debt is the issue here. Not return on any investment.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I'm not even sure it is entirely ethical for a practising GP to be involved in investments of this nature.
    It is fine. It isn't as if he has a monopoly on the ageing population of North Dublin or on their care, even as a minister for health.


  • Options
    #48
    mloc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭mloc


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Did a minister invest in the private health sector or did a medical doctor invest in the private health sector and later go on to become minister for health?

    QFT.

    So he had a private nursing home, and before taking position as Minister asks SIPO for advice on what action he should take regarding this potential conflict of interest. They tell him to give control away to a solicitor, which he does. He tells his solicitor to divest himself of this nursing home at the earliest possible opportunity.

    No problems with that so far.

    Now there is a delay in payment to some other investors. It's not Minister Reilly alone who is delaying the payment; there are five people involved as they must make the payment as a group. In order to make the payment, the nursing home needed to be remortgaged. The bank would not do this until a new lease was signed on it. This lease is now signed, the remortgage can take place and now the payment can be made.

    It's unfortunate that there was a delay in the process of remortgaging and perhaps that may be explained later; I would assume this delay could be attributable to any of the five investors involved, and will be explained this evening.

    It's sad that the legacy of previous governments has made it next to impossible for a politician to have business interests without public prejudices. Decades of Fianna Fail corruption have tarnished all politicians and we automatically assume the worst without having much of the facts available to us.


  • Options
    #49
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    galway2007 wrote: »
    Did we know about it here???
    Yep. It's on the (publically available) register of interests, and has been since he was first elected in 2007.


  • Options
    #50
    rodento
    Registered Users Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    Question is should a current minister be in breach of a high court order:eek:

    Fianna Fail leader Michael Martin said today that Dr Reilly had serious questions to answer as to why he did not honour a High Court order.
    “Last February Judge Kelly made an order giving until the end of April to pay that. It is a serious issue when a government minister would not be in compliance with a High Court order,” he said on RTE Radio 1.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/debt-defaulter-reilly-to-face-dail-in-10pm-showdown-3165842.html


  • Options
    #51
    bijapos
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭bijapos


    It was known beforehand that he had interests in this along with a large medical practise in North County Dublin. What he managed to keep quiet is that as former head of the IMO he lead the bargaining for more money for doctors and consultants and shortly after shouted from the opposition benches complaining at the cost of the Health Service. Another politician who manages to speak out of both sides of his mouth at once.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Hypothethically, if he had been part of a syndicate that owned a piece of land that was in competition with another piece of land for the building of a hospital, (and it was all neatly tucked away in a 'trust' awaiting him to finish his term) would that be a conflict of interest requiring his resignation?
    It’s unethical for ministers to own land now?
    galway2007 wrote: »
    I would rather a health minister who is a picture of health
    Really? Would you refuse treatment from a doctor whom you suspected did not exercise enough?
    JustinDee wrote: »
    "Standing to benefit" has nothing to do with anything but begrudgery. The debt is the issue here.
    This seems to have gotten lost in the furore surrounding a minister for health being involved in the health industry. It is his explanation as to why a court order has gone unheeded that I am interested in.


  • Options
    #53
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Hypothethically, if he had been part of a syndicate that owned a piece of land that was in competition with another piece of land for the building of a hospital, (and it was all neatly tucked away in a 'trust' awaiting him to finish his term) would that be a conflict of interest requiring his resignation?
    I honestly don't see the difference, it's a conflict of interest. Private nursing homes compete with Public ones. It's the 'system' that allows this to happen that is wrong.

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


  • Options
    #54
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It’s unethical for ministers to own land now?

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


  • Options
    #55
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It’s unethical for ministers to own land now?

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

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


  • Options
    #56
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


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

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


  • Options
    #57
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    As is typical when you want to obscure in this country, Reilly has said nothing until he is forced, at a time, deliberately chosen so that nobody in the Dail is allowed to question him, and questions are barred. Contrast that with Wallace seeking to address the house.

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

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


  • Options
    #58
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    As is typical when you want to obscure in this country, Reilly has said nothing until he is forced, at a time, deliberately chosen so that nobody in the Dail is allowed to question him, and questions are barred. Contrast that with Wallace seeking to address the house.

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


  • Options
    #59
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


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

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

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


  • Options
    #60
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Laminations wrote: »
    I'm sure Reilly will be accountable to the house.
    He isn't exactly starting out to be accountable; no questions allowed and 10 minutes before the house rises. Clinging on, and the party attempting to protect him already, his future doesn't sound good.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    unit 1
    Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭unit 1


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


Advertisement