Should Bertie Ahern Resign over the payments (part two)

skearon

Lennoxschips wrote:

i was referring to the 40,000 IRP which started this whole controversy. he took it as a gift (seeing as he never repaid any installments or interest untill pressurised into doing so last week) and should have declared this to the tax authorities.

The actually amount was £39,000, but apart from that, it is your opinion he took it as a gift, its not fact, he and the various doners have said it was a loan, some have even confirmed he attempted on a number of occasions to repay them.

A loan is not liable for tax, nor is there any period in time defined in law, by which a loan and its interest has to be paid back.

It is clear that no matter what the Taoiseach says, some posters here will automatically disbelieve him, regardless of the facts and what has been, and can be proved.

Surely he, like anyone else, is assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise?

I've split the last post from the old manuscript off to create this shiny new thread in time for the Dáil debate on the payments that starts at 4.15pm

flamingo

regardless of the technicalities of whether or not it was a loan, gift or otherwise, the ethical question cannot be skirted so easily. Bertie himself clearly believed it was wrong for others to accept payment, so howcome the double standard?
shame on the PDs as well for chickening out of taking a stand - so much for being there to police FF.
but the one thing that galls me above all else is the fact that Bertie apparently sees nothing wrong in appointing friends to important lucrative positions purely because they are friends. Unacceptable.

PH01

No he shouldn't.

Lennoxschips

that for me is the biggest problem. surely the people running our ports and our airlines should be people with experience in these fields, and not just friends of bertie's?

Dave!

Bertie's statement is live on RTE 1 (TV) now

pete

DaveMcG wrote:

Bertie's statement is live on RTE 1 (TV) now

so far it looks like just another repeat

Dave!

Speech finished, question time now.

Inda is first!

Dave!

Lots of comparisons with Haughey and co.... "New FF has resurrected old FF"

Agent Smith

wow.... enda can be a beast when hes angry

lostexpectation

interesting quote from berite via Enda where bertie said to dobson that he refused a fundraising function in DUblin cos he himself said even thought they may have been friends it would be political reason not private.

lostexpectation

I don't know why the opposition takes so long on the rhetorical and polemic, about spending about 1 minutes of his five going on about what year they both entered the dail.

greg678

lostexpectation wrote:

I don't know why the opposition takes so long on the rhetorical and polemic, about spending about 1 minutes of his five going on about what year they both entered the dail.

So they can say "Ohh we did not have enough time to ask him questions":rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Dave!

Trevor Sargent suggested resigning as being "the decent thing to do".

Sinn Féin speaking now

Agent Smith

heres the Beast That is Joe Higgins...

ISAW

flamingo wrote:

regardless of the technicalities of whether or not it was a loan, gift or otherwise, the ethical question cannot be skirted so easily. Bertie himself clearly believed it was wrong for others to accept payment, so howcome the double standard?

But that is not what he said he believed. He quoted minister fitzgerald (from Labour in the Rainbow government I think) and others in Seanad and Dail debates who stated that it was alright to take money for personal legal and health expences. Bertie added "family" reasons. He didnt think it was wrong then and he does not see it as wrong now. But he does accept that it looks bad and in hindsight knowing what he does now that nobody should do it so he regrets he did it and he was "in error" in his judgement to accept the money but that he broke no ethics code or any law.

shame on the PDs as well for chickening out of taking a stand - so much for being there to police FF.

What? so they should take time off the opposition? Or they should come out against the other government party? that WOULD be double standards now wouldnt it?

but the one thing that galls me above all else is the fact that Bertie apparently sees nothing wrong in appointing friends to important lucrative positions purely because they are friends. Unacceptable.

As far as I know Labour FG etc. had at least five times the amount of advisors in the Taoiseachs office. Do you really believe these people in the Labour/FG/WP administration were all personal friends of Bertie?

ISAW

lostexpectation wrote:

interesting quote from berite via Enda where bertie said to dobson that he refused a fundraising function in DUblin cos he himself said even thought they may have been friends it would be political reason not private.

Yes because appearing as a minister/Taoiseach was using his office. But he pointed out that he was asked to speak to people he had visited several times from several Irish cultural and personal interests in Manchester not to raise funds. He was also there not on govertnment money and not using governmant facilities and not having any speech written by civil servants. So the situations were different. One is helping someone out of personal problems the other is giving someone representing the state and NOt themselves money for political contributions.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Yes because appearing as a minister/Taoiseach was using his office. .... One is helping someone out of personal problems the other is giving someone representing the state and NOt themselves money for political contributions.

Inda Kenya is now saying that one can not separate public office from private people and that the people in Manchester came to see the Minister of finance and not Bertie Ahern. But I think Bertie may have hit on an answer already when he quoted Eithne? (was it) fitzgerald who accepted in the debate on the "Ethics in Public Office Bill" that personal moneys could be accepted.

Sgt. Sensible

I can't follow what's going on from here. Can someone post up what Higgins says please? He is the opposition. It's a shame he's a Trot.

ISAW

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I can't follow what's going on from here. Can someone post up what Higgins says please? He is the opposition. It's a shame he's a Trot.

I only caught the end of him. He mentioned the culture of Big Business being close to politics by donations and drew the PDs in to that.

But that could just as easily be applied to FG or Labour.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6248&&CatID=60

for the live deabte

If you cant get it I suggest you wait and get the full record.

higgins was excelent as usual in his caustic yet amusing speech.

The biggest revelation today seems to be that the cheque from O'Connor was a bank of Ireland draft and not drawn on an NCB account.

Sgt. Sensible

ISAW wrote:

I only caught the end of him. He mentioned the culture of Big Business being close to politics by donations and drew the PDs in to that.

But that could just as easily be applied to FG or Labour.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6248&&CatID=60

for the live deabte

If you cant get it I suggest you wait and get the full record.

Cheers, got it working.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

higgins was excelent as usual in his caustic yet amusing speech.

The biggest revelation today seems to be that the cheque from O'Connor was a bank of Ireland draft and not drawn on an NCB account.

Your jumping to conclusions there Ahern said that it was a bank draft and that a bank draft does not say what account it is drawn from
Ahern never denied it was NCB money he denied it was an NCB company cheque

ISAW

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Cheers, got it working.

some classic Bertieisms:

"quid per quo" for "quid pro quo"

and "revelent" for "relevant"

But:
did he reveal a "quid" per quo? I would have to say NO.

Sgt. Sensible

Liz O'Donnell's outfit is class.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

Your jumping to conclusions there Ahern said that it was a bank draft and that a bank draft does not say what account it is drawn from
Ahern never denied it was NCB money he denied it was an NCB company cheque

I find it funny that I should be accused of jumping to conclusions...
Can I ask what evidence you have that it is money that came from NCB?

I mean royally throughout this discussion it was supposed to be a company cheque,now we're told as a matter of fact it wasnt.

constitutionus

more holes in it than a cullender, cheques are now drafts? it turns out he didnt speak for 4 hours like he said previously and the "whip around" was actually given to him by one man at the end of the night who's conviently dead and he cant for sure know who the donnors were?(thats two dead guys now ,how the hell many times can this happen to one man, im starting to think FF are topping guys who can finger the taoiseach:) ).

i must admint to being in shock. im no FG supporter but enda kenny was on a stormer here, hammering home quite succiently that you dont stop being minister for finance when it suits you. stating when you get the seal of office thats it. and drawing uncomfortable parallels with ray burke who's statement in the dail was eerily reminiscent of berties today

rabbite gave a decent showing, accounting why the opposition restrained itself till today but sargent and Ocaombhlain (spl?) were remarkably strong. the former actually saying bertie should resign and the latter illustrating FFs disasterous relationship with big business on the country. incidentally the sinn fein leader was the only guy the backbenchers shouted down, why was that? getting too close to the mark lads?

joe higgins picked up on this with a lovely barb at them stating how nice it was that they all recovered from the bout of laryngitis that afflicted them the last week or so but he too was the target of back bench comments one of which, unheard by us but caught by one of joes collegues whom told him to ignore it, stopped him in his tracks. once more he points out what happend to the protesters in mayo (which if you havent heard the gardai, all 170 of them forcibly removed em and hospitalised two of em. thats 300 times the amount needed on basic national coverage. democracy how are ya) and neatly turning macdowels lampost climbing against him in a colourful turn that rings disturbingly true.


the most obvious image of this debate was the taoiseach himself, looking like thunder and keeping head literally down so as to avoid the cameras aimed at him. getting darker and darker as the debate went on till he looked almost Nixon like at one stage

the one and only truly satisfying comment from bertie was a much belated apology to his family and the irish people. such a pity the guy who brought them into this in the first place and only commented on by the taoiseach and his ministers, a fact pointed out by several of the opposition, didnt have the decency to leave them out of it from the start

the taoiseachs answers werent good enough and further convoluted the issue. this is a lame duck taoiseach now and if the opposition can keep up the fire on dislpay when going to the polls, he'll be an ex taoiseach too

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

cheques are now drafts?

A draft is a cheque

it turns out he didnt speak for 4 hours like he said previously and the "whip around" was actually given to him by one man at the end of the night who's conviently dead and he cant for sure know who the donnors were?(thats two dead guys now ,how the hell many times can this happen to one man, im starting to think FF are topping guys who can finger the taoiseach:) ).

Uhm,I dunno natural causes? Did you expect 25 people to be carrying the bag of cash and cheques? It wasnt that heavy.

i must admint to being in shock. im no FG supporter but enda kenny was on a stormer here, hammering home quite succiently that you dont stop being minister for finance when it suits you. stating when you get the seal of office thats it. and drawing uncomfortable parallels with ray burke who's statement in the dail was eerily reminiscent of berties today

Yeah he was quite good.

incidentally the sinn fein leader was the only guy the backbenchers shouted down, why was that? getting too close to the mark lads?

No I'd say it was to do with his own hypocrisy probably.

joe higgins picked up on this with a lovely barb at them stating how nice it was that they all recovered from the bout of laryngitis that afflicted them the last week or so but he too was the target of back bench comments one of which, unheard by us but caught by one of joes collegues whom told him to ignore it, stopped him in his tracks. once more he points out what happend to the protesters in mayo (which if you havent heard the gardai, all 170 of them forcibly removed em and hospitalised two of em. thats 300 times the amount needed on basic national coverage. democracy how are ya) and neatly turning macdowels lampost climbing against him in a colourful turn that rings disturbingly true.

And this has exactly what to do with the Bertie payments?

Heinrich

When Joe Soap takes out a loan he has to sign terms and conditions. They will include the time lapse and interest due etc.

Now Bertie went and did this with AIB and was subsequently "baled out" with a loan to pay the AIB loan. He takes 13 years to pay back this loan and only when the **** hits the fan. He calculates the interest at 5% comp[ound. Is this the going rate?

Then the Manchester bit...

He goes to see Man United and attend dinners, one of which there was a whip around netting 8000 sterling. Was he accompanied by the standard bodyguard accredited to a Minister?

He can't remember the people who were at a dinner atr which he netted 8000 sterling. Poor memory for a state leader.

Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin,

I'm dizzy:mad:

lostexpectation

he said he did the right thing by putting the manchester payments in the public realm, no sorry 13 years too late,


Can he really not name the people in manchester, can nobody name the ones that were definitly there. Does Tom Kitt have better memory? I havn't see very many interviews with the other Dublin payees, only two so far...

gandalf

Well as expected Ahern fluffed his way through that and Herr Flick sat beside him like a paralysed poodle. So much for government Watchdog, now they have transformed into Lapdogs.

For once Kenny actually landed a few decent points and Rabitte as well but what the hell was that muppet from Sinn Fein up to. Maybe they don't want the government to come down before the 24th of November.

LoL at the new avatar Gandalf

As for SF,I think they do want the government to come down immediately because their arch enemy McDowell is Tánaiste.
They dont want an FG led government,they'd regard them I think as the southern unionists.
They want a weaker FF that they can prop up instead of the current government.

Sgt. Sensible

All Bertie needs now is some hack to discover that Slab Murphy was at the Taoiseach's Manchester gigs, as Higgins suggested.

Cronus333

did anyone else notice that McDowell was the only PD who applauded?

Record is available here: http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/230-2178801.smil

(need RealPlayer)

Villain

Appartently Harney was the only one on the government bench that didn't applaud Ahern after his speech!!!!

Dave!

Maybe she was tired?

Sgt. Sensible

Hard to clap with a pie in each hand.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

I find it funny that I should be accused of jumping to conclusions...
Can I ask what evidence you have that it is money that came from NCB?

I mean royally throughout this discussion it was supposed to be a company cheque,now we're told as a matter of fact it wasnt.

Right back at you listen to what Ahern said he never denied it was NCB money he said it was a bank draft not a company cheque. He was suggesting that he did not know it was NCB money rather than denying it was NCB money.

So can I ask what evidence you have that it was not NCB money since NCB nor the Taosieach has denied it was NCB money.

The simple fact is that Ahern ended up with 5000 punts that came from an NCB account whether in draft cash or company cheque is a side issue.


This whole thing has revealed how ineffective the Dail is with its current procedures Rabbite and Kenny were asking numerous questions and getting partial answers to one or two while Sargent O'Caolaoin and Higgins went of on a ramble

Lennoxschips

nobody shouted bertie down yet FF were constantly shouting the other spokespersons down, it was disgraceful

democrates

Berties answers were apalling, Pat Rabbitts face was frowned in confusion, and so was mine. Bertie spoke english, I recognised every word despite mis-pronunciations, but the references to 'others', 'that issue', 'dem', 'those ones' etc, left me wondering what the subject was in many parts of the rambling sentances. Worthy of "Yes Minister", but clarity is not a legal precondition for election.

His 'poor me' appeals had the cringe factor at times of scenes from 'the Office', but despite that veil, his apology was ultimately only for the inconvenience and invasion of privacy it caused for friends and family, and for us great unwashed being bewildered at the revelations. The irony is, it's his unparalelled ability to give nebulous answers that leaves me bewildered. He still maintains that 'putting his hand on that money' (as the opposition artfully painted the image) was ok.

If this is the last we hear of it I'll be surprised, I don't think I'm the only one who smells a rat. The lack of documentary evidence leaves us dependant on testimony from his friends, hardly reliable. Of those, two key witnesses happen to be those who have passed away. His public story changed about who did the Manchester whip-around. We're told his friends gave him a loan while strangers gave a gift, if I had to place a bet I'd take the opposite as the case and that these were lies, told to evade tax. Of course there's no conclusive proof available.

The most astounding claim for me is that he had no personal bank account at the time, and kept his savings and gifts/loans himself. I bet there's another account, one which the tribunal know nothing about, a smoking gun. I could be wrong and this particular FF TD taking money from businessmen in the 1980's was totally clean, but it's too convenient that there's no bank account evidence for his 'savings' &c. I always wondered what CJ was talking about when he said Bertie was the cutest of them all, maybe this is it, maybe it's only part of it.

I have some compassion for his personal circumstances, and can understand a bunch of wealthy buddies helping him out when they discovered he got into debt, a sorry tale for a guy working for his country. I wonder did Bertie feel it was unfair, and that dipping his beak was justified in the greater scheme of things?

We now know there were people at each elbow taking vast amounts left right and centre, so was it ever possible for an honest Bertie & Co. to take that pirate ship from within without playing the game? Maybe there was a mutually assured destruction situation where you wouldn't get anywhere unless the all-powerful had something on you for control purposes. Or maybe signing blank cheques was enough to survive.

On balance this episode has only moved his image a bit further on the scale away from squeaky clean, but still a long way from being an outright crook. What he has put on the plus side of the scales still outweighes that on the minus side. But is that good enough, some could make the scales argument for CJ, Burke or Lowry after all, so really the better question is, is Bertie now below the threshold of probity required for high office?

Assuming no further revelations, I think FF'ers will stick to the 'innocent until proven guilty' refuge, PD'ers will too to an extent, also weighing that they are better in power so steady as she goes, while the opposition will mourne the loss of a head on a plate but get great mileage out of the dark cloud over Bertie and now his supporting front bench. It's the effect on the floating vote I can't get a feel for. Thoughts?

Zenith74

nobody shouted bertie down yet FF were constantly shouting the other spokespersons down, it was disgraceful

That's just what FFers do, I think people have just learned to ignore them now. They do the exact same thing in TV/radio interviews if they don't want to answer a question; just talk/shout over the interviewer or other interviewees. It's probably lesson 1 at FF training camp - How to dodge questions. It seems to be pretty much limited to them though, members of the other parties tend to be more civilised...

BaZmO*

Bertie said that he had always intended to pay back the loans and that the reason for paying the money back (with interest) over the weekend was not becaues he was "found out".

So when exactly was he going to pay the money back?
Was he waiting for interest rates to rise so high that all his buddies would get a good return on the money they lent him?
Was he waiting until he was earning a bit more that his 250K a year?
Doesn't display much prudence on behalf of an ex Finance Minister. Plus the fact that as Finance Minister he kept his money (however he attained it) stashed under his mattress rather than put it in the bank.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

Right back at you listen to what Ahern said he never denied it was NCB money he said it was a bank draft not a company cheque. He was suggesting that he did not know it was NCB money rather than denying it was NCB money.

So can I ask what evidence you have that it was not NCB money since NCB nor the Taosieach has denied it was NCB money.

About the same as I have that it came from Ian Paisley.I dont have sight of where the money originated and neither it seems do you.All I know is that O Connor handed it over.

The simple fact is that Ahern ended up with 5000 punts that came from an NCB account whether in draft cash or company cheque is a side issue.

I asked you how you knew the money to be directly from NCB to be a fact..you seem to be as bad as Bertie at not answering...

We now know that it was never an NCB company cheque as bandied about right left and centre by the most zealous of the get Ahern camp.

I'd agree though that in general terms the more important issue is the money was accepted rather than the exact source of the money.
However facts are important and I wouldnt be in favour of making them up,which it seems the talk of company cheques and the exact source of O'Connors cheque has turned out to be.
Unless of course you are in possession of evidence of the exact source of O'connors cheque and whether that money came from O'Connor or NCB-Are you?
I'm going on what I know to be the facts and anything thats been clarified.

Otherwise one is speculating,and that needs to be pointed out.

Sgt. Sensible

democrates wrote:

I wonder did Bertie feel it was unfair, and that dipping his beak was justified in the greater scheme of things?

His defence amounted to 'sure aren't youse are all at it too?', rather unbecoming I thought.

lostexpectation

http://www.utvlive.com/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=77081&pt=n

I don't think this has been posted here

A Manchester-based businessman who attended the event today said there were no political favours sought for the payment.

Matt Queenan said: "Tim wasn`t a man at all to bribe people and look for favours."

Describing a conversation in the hotel`s toilet with Mr Kilroe, Mr Queenan quoted him as saying: "We have some members of parliament from Ireland over here and one of them seems to be having a rough patch, probably women problems or something, and we`re having a collection."

wow what detail people go into when handing money over to politicians....

shows how free flowing business men and politicians are with their money...

BaZmO*

BaZmO* wrote:

Bertie said that he had always intended to pay back the loans and that the reason for paying the money back (with interest) over the weekend was not becaues he was "found out".

So when exactly was he going to pay the money back?
Was he waiting for interest rates to rise so high that all his buddies would get a good return on the money they lent him?

He also said that he kept trying to give it back and they wouldnt take it...but that they would now due to the mess its causing-that version of events was backed up by chalke.

Plus the fact that as Finance Minister he kept his money (however he attained it) stashed under his mattress rather than put it in the bank.

Well again we don't know that for sure,we dont know where he kept it.He could have been lodging it into another family members account like one of his daughters for instance and is being understandably coy regarding the private nature of that.Neither that or keeping it under the mattress is illegal.
All speculation of course.

lostexpectation

Lennoxschips wrote:

nobody shouted bertie down yet FF were constantly shouting the other spokespersons down, it was disgraceful

no they FF bb's went into overdrive shouting down SF's Co'C but they were exceptionally quiet for higgins who was touching on similar points, but more on topic, they actually wanted to hear what he said for the laugh if nothing else.

BaZmO*

Tristrame wrote:

He also said that he kept trying to give it back and they wouldnt take it...but that they would now due to the mess its causing-that version of events was backed up by chalke.

Chalke also initally said that the money was a gift and not a loan. Anything to help his friends eh?

Tristrame wrote:

Well again we don't know that for sure,we dont know where he kept it.He could have been lodging it into another family members account like one of his daughters for instance and is being understandably coy regarding the private nature of that.Neither that or keeping it under the mattress is illegal.
All speculation of course.

So he's now deciding to that he doesn't want to bring his family into the equation, a bit late for that considering that he was the one that brought them into it in the first place. That is of course if you're suggestion is true, but I doubt it somehow.
Anyway, my point was that it's a bad reflection on a Finance Minister if he doesn't have his accounts in order or doesn't have his own bank account.
Actually, if he didn't have a bank account at the time where did his wages go? He obviously got paid by cheque but did he head into his local bank every Friday and cash the cheque?

The_Minister

I couldn't help but notice the hipocracy of the opposition. Trevor Sergent started out by saying that Bertie's explanation did not convince him - but he was reading from a printed speech, so he had already made up his mind! The opposition didn't refer to the issue at hand and just went on a long, self-interested rant. They kept referring to things of no relevence to the topic.

As for the Fianna Failers shouting down SF, I'd assume it was because he was talking ****e.

A funny side note but my live feed froze during rabbite's speech, and caught the guy behind him sticking out his toungue. He was only wetting his lips but it looked like he was blowing Bertie one:D

democrates

Here's what he said in the Dail today on the no bank account issue (from
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20061003.xml&Node=H9#H9)

The Deputy asked the fair question if I had accounts anywhere else, if I had accounts outside the State or if anyone outside the State opened accounts for me. The answer to that question is “No”. I had no other accounts whatsoever. I operated for a fairly long period without a bank account and did keep that money in my own possession during that period. I had no other accounts.

UBU.