Do you believe in the tooth fairy? - Bertie issues a statement

Heinrich

At last "the full explanation" so that OK. That fairy tale tokk a long time to put together. Was his daughter involved in writing it?

Let's get on to the issues now like the

failed Healthcare System,
failed Public Transport system,
Education etc.

JODY CORCORAN

THE Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern last night broke his silence on the Bertiegate cloud hanging over the General Election by exclusively revealing to the Sunday Independent comprehensive details of his house purchase in 1997.

In an impassioned and, at times, bitter account of the controversial events, Mr Ahern laid bare his personal feelings, saying: "Since some of these matters are now in the public domain, I feel that, to defend my name and to protect my family from further intrusion, I must deal with them."

In a personally-drafted preamble and in reply to a series of wide-ranging questions submitted by the Sunday Independent, Mr Ahern told how, at the time under investigation by the tribunal, he was primarily influenced by uncertainty over his political future after his marital separation.

"I was not sure how things would work out for me." he said. "This was a period of great uncertainty for me and involved great personal turmoil.

"As you are aware, my judicial separation proceedings concluded around November/December 1993. The issues which I have been explaining to the tribunal - such as why I was rentinga house, why my friendsgave me money and why I did not operate a bank account for a period of years - are all related to my judicial separation."

The Taoiseach also clears up a question, raised last week, about lodgements corresponding to dollar exchange rates.

"No dollar sum was lodged to the account in question on December 5, 1994 or on any other date," he said.

He addressed the controversy surrounding his receipt of money from Padraic O'Connor of NCB Stockbrokers, stating: "The fact that it was a bank draft rather than an NCB cheque supports my belief that the money came from Padraig O'Connor as an individual." Mr Ahern denied that there was anything "unusual" about his cash dealings with the Manchester businessman, Michael Wall, and stated "Nobody - outside the media - wants to hear about myfinances."

And he angrily rounded on those who were using the workings of the Mahon tribunal for political ends, specifically, he said, to damage him and the Fianna Fail party.

He was particularly scathing of Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Mail on Sunday and the Irish Daily Mail, for making public details of his marital separation.

In his statement to the Sunday Independent he reveals documentation which accounts for almost £45,000 that both he and Mr Wall spent renovating and refurbishing the house at Beresford, Drumcondra.

He denied that he had got a 'sweetheart deal' when he purchased the house from Mr Wall for £180,000 in 1997.

He said: "In 1994 I agreed to rent a house from Mr Michael Wall which he was intending to buy for occasional use on his visits to Dublin, in light of the fact that he was considering setting up a business in Ireland. We agreed that he would use it as a place to stay on his visits to Dublin.

"Mr Wall paid the deposit on a house in Beresford Avenue from his own bank account. He took out a mortgage when he bought the house and paid that mortgage back in the normal way.

"The stamp duty on the house was paid for out of Mr Wall's own funds. These funds had, for convenience, been given to Ms Celia Larkin at the same time as Mr Wall gave her other funds for refurbishment of the house, as I explainbelow.

"Mr Wall and I agreed that I would have an option to purchase the house. I intended to exercise this option when my political future was clear and secure. This occurred later, when I was elected Taoiseach.

"It was decided to carry out refurbishment and other work and it was agreed that each of us would contribute to the cost of this work. My former partner Ms Larkin agreed to administer this work, asI was very busy and Mr Wall lived in England. About £50,000 was spent on this work.

"Mr Wall provided about £28,700 for structural work and to cover the stamp duty on his purchase. This is an approximate figure, as Mr Wall provided the money in sterling (possibly with some Irish pounds included). This was at a time when sterling was worth slightly less than the Irish pound, so £28,700 amounted to around £30,000 sterling. No dollar sum was lodged to the account in question on December 5, 1994 or on any other date.

"Mr Wall was spending his own money on his own house, administered on his behalf by Ms Larkin. I provided about £30,000 towards the work on the house. I will provide, with my detailed statement, various invoices, receipts and bank documents explaining how this money was spent.

"I rented the house for two years, from 1995 to 1997, over which period I paid market rent on the house. My tenancy was properly registered with the local authority within weeks of the coming into effect of the Housing (Regulation of Rented Houses) Regulations 1996, which occurred in May 1996. Mr Wall paid tax to the revenue authorities in the UK on the rent he received from me.

"In 1997 I bought the house at a price based on a market valuation. I paid £180,000 for the house. I paid the deposit of £30,000 on the house out of my building society savings and took out a mortgage for the remainder of the price, by way of a loan of £150,000 from the Irish Permanent Building Society. I paid stamp duty out of my current account.

"Mr Wall stayed in the house 10 to 20 times during the period while I was renting it from him and after I bought it from him."

JerkyBoy

The "explanation" explains nothing.

Bertie again brings his family into the picture looking for the sympathy vote.

Why doesn't he explain why he took a "loan" from multiple individuals to pay off a loan he took from a bank. Most people consolidate their debt. Here Bertie is spreading his debt among his friends (who he never actually paid back until found out).
With more lenders to pay back he just made his debt, and subsequent interest incurred, more difficult to manage, by moving it from a single source (bank) to his friends (up to 30 of them).
For someone who was Finance Minister, and allegedly an accountant, this action makes no sense.
And given that he never paid back a single penny of this "debt" until he was caught out last year, it's clear that Bertie benefited hugely from this enrichment and had no qualms about doing so.
It just stinks.

Also why doesn't he explain how he had to take a loan (from his friends) to pay off his separation fees, and daughter's education funds, but he has £50,000 in cash floating around to do up a house with his new girlfriend, the woman with whom he was cheating on his family.
What kind of man is this? Get's his big business friends to cover his financial responsibilities to his family while he's off living it up with the mistress.
Again, it just stinks.

How this man can still bring himself to grovel for sympathy is really sickening to me!

Jonny Arson

JODY CORCORAN

THE Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern last night broke his silence on the Bertiegate cloud hanging over the General Election by exclusively revealing to the Sunday Independent comprehensive details of his house purchase in 1997.

In an impassioned and, at times, bitter account of the controversial events, Mr Ahern laid bare his personal feelings, saying: "Since some of these matters are now in the public domain, I feel that, to defend my name and to protect my family from further intrusion, I must deal with them."

In a personally-drafted preamble and in reply to a series of wide-ranging questions submitted by the Sunday Independent, Mr Ahern told how, at the time under investigation by the tribunal, he was primarily influenced by uncertainty over his political future after his marital separation.

"I was not sure how things would work out for me." he said. "This was a period of great uncertainty for me and involved great personal turmoil.

"As you are aware, my judicial separation proceedings concluded around November/December 1993. The issues which I have been explaining to the tribunal - such as why I was rentinga house, why my friendsgave me money and why I did not operate a bank account for a period of years - are all related to my judicial separation."

The Taoiseach also clears up a question, raised last week, about lodgements corresponding to dollar exchange rates.

"No dollar sum was lodged to the account in question on December 5, 1994 or on any other date," he said.

He addressed the controversy surrounding his receipt of money from Padraic O'Connor of NCB Stockbrokers, stating: "The fact that it was a bank draft rather than an NCB cheque supports my belief that the money came from Padraig O'Connor as an individual." Mr Ahern denied that there was anything "unusual" about his cash dealings with the Manchester businessman, Michael Wall, and stated "Nobody - outside the media - wants to hear about myfinances."

And he angrily rounded on those who were using the workings of the Mahon tribunal for political ends, specifically, he said, to damage him and the Fianna Fail party.

He was particularly scathing of Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Mail on Sunday and the Irish Daily Mail, for making public details of his marital separation.

In his statement to the Sunday Independent he reveals documentation which accounts for almost £45,000 that both he and Mr Wall spent renovating and refurbishing the house at Beresford, Drumcondra.

He denied that he had got a 'sweetheart deal' when he purchased the house from Mr Wall for £180,000 in 1997.

He said: "In 1994 I agreed to rent a house from Mr Michael Wall which he was intending to buy for occasional use on his visits to Dublin, in light of the fact that he was considering setting up a business in Ireland. We agreed that he would use it as a place to stay on his visits to Dublin.

"Mr Wall paid the deposit on a house in Beresford Avenue from his own bank account. He took out a mortgage when he bought the house and paid that mortgage back in the normal way.

"The stamp duty on the house was paid for out of Mr Wall's own funds. These funds had, for convenience, been given to Ms Celia Larkin at the same time as Mr Wall gave her other funds for refurbishment of the house, as I explainbelow.

"Mr Wall and I agreed that I would have an option to purchase the house. I intended to exercise this option when my political future was clear and secure. This occurred later, when I was elected Taoiseach.

"It was decided to carry out refurbishment and other work and it was agreed that each of us would contribute to the cost of this work. My former partner Ms Larkin agreed to administer this work, asI was very busy and Mr Wall lived in England. About £50,000 was spent on this work.

"Mr Wall provided about £28,700 for structural work and to cover the stamp duty on his purchase. This is an approximate figure, as Mr Wall provided the money in sterling (possibly with some Irish pounds included). This was at a time when sterling was worth slightly less than the Irish pound, so £28,700 amounted to around £30,000 sterling. No dollar sum was lodged to the account in question on December 5, 1994 or on any other date.

"Mr Wall was spending his own money on his own house, administered on his behalf by Ms Larkin. I provided about £30,000 towards the work on the house. I will provide, with my detailed statement, various invoices, receipts and bank documents explaining how this money was spent.

"I rented the house for two years, from 1995 to 1997, over which period I paid market rent on the house. My tenancy was properly registered with the local authority within weeks of the coming into effect of the Housing (Regulation of Rented Houses) Regulations 1996, which occurred in May 1996. Mr Wall paid tax to the revenue authorities in the UK on the rent he received from me.

"In 1997 I bought the house at a price based on a market valuation. I paid £180,000 for the house. I paid the deposit of £30,000 on the house out of my building society savings and took out a mortgage for the remainder of the price, by way of a loan of £150,000 from the Irish Permanent Building Society. I paid stamp duty out of my current account.

"Mr Wall stayed in the house 10 to 20 times during the period while I was renting it from him and after I bought it from him."

*Vomits*

How did you provide £30,000 to the work of the house in December 1994 when: 1) 12 months earlier you were supposedly broke from your marriage breakup 2) supposedly earning around £37,000 per annum as Minister for Finance?????????????????????????????

Are you trying to say that £28,700 rounding out exactly at $45,000 was a complete and utter coincidence????????????????


The man stinks of horsesh!t as far as I'm concerned. This answers pretty much nothing.

How did it take a week for him to give this re-hashed statement?

Why is Taoiseach of our country going directly to a newspaper to give his ''exclusive'' statement instead of giving a statement directly to the people?
This FF/SINDO propaganda machine is an absolute disgrace.

If McDowell and the PDs have any standards they will walk away now.

LostinBlanch

Jonny Arson wrote:

If McDowell and the PDs have any standards they will walk away now.

They don't. They won't.

ateam

Bertie gives public statement on his finances after his interview with the Sunday Independent http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0513/ahernb.html

It seems that the high court separation case with his wife bankrupted him. This should put a line under the issue.

Roanmore

The Sunday Independent is a disgrace today. How can they call themselves independent. Half the paper is titled Bertie:The Fightback. Then they have Willie O'Dea and his piece (surprise surprise another hatchet job) without any right of reply by any of the other parties.
I don't think the Irish Press in it's prime could match the SI for Fianna Fail propaganda. John Drennan and Gene Kerrigan must be really embarassed by some of the rubbish in that paper today.

And how can Bertie Ahern get another soft interview to explain his finances. I hope the Irish Public are not gullible to swallow it again.

The_Minister

It answers quite a few questions, in fairness. Most of them actually.

stepbar

ateam wrote:

Bertie gives public statement on his finances after his interview with the Sunday Independent http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0513/ahernb.html

It seems that the high court separation case with his wife bankrupted him. This should put a line under the issue.

As much as FF'ers might want "Bertiegate" to disappear, its not going anywhere. Apart from the issues regarding his house, for Bertie to say that Mr O'Conner gave him a personal donation is a lie. Mr O'Conner has said as much. And to say that because the cheque was a draft instead of an NCB cheque is a total cop out. Mr O'Conner in his personal capacity was well entitled to donate money to the FF party. Mind you Charlie said the same on many occasions over the years.

is_that_so

Roanmore wrote:

And how can Bertie Ahern get another soft interview to explain his finances.

It was probably the best way to put it to bed , however unpalatable it may be. Very smart move politically. He's answered the questions, so the election issues can now come to the fore. All the parties are keen for this Bertie thing to go away for now.

gandalf

Is that the instructions from Party Headquarters talking there Minister

Nothing new there, pulling out the family again for sympathy. Still major questions over the £30K Sterling or £30K Irish or $45K.

Also according to todays Sunday Tribune none of the staff in Berties ministerial office or St. Lukes ever saw large sums of monies being stored there, so are these more porkies?

stepbar

The_Minister wrote:

It answers quite a few questions, in fairness. Most of them actually.

Clearly is doesn't. We wouldn't be debating it if it did, would we?

damien

Receipts and all that: http://www.fiannafail.ie/article.phpx?topic=151&id=7541&nav=News%20Item

He mentions the convervatory a lot, yet it was 6k of the 30k spent.

brianthebard

The_Minister wrote:

It answers quite a few questions, in fairness. Most of them actually.

Lolz you've got your fingers in your ears again haven't you?

stepbar

God I am lol'ing.
Why?

Because most of the people I hear complaining here and elsewhere already aren't voting for Ahern or his party.
I get the impression that no amount of explaining is enough for a cohort of the population like that.

What we are see'ing then is a version of a preaching to the converted.

Personally I find it bizarre that a Government minister would have his affairs as messy as this at a particular time.
I'd imagine that his judicial separation talks must have been very acrimonious and now the whole mess is being used by his opposers to haunt him.

stepbar wrote:

for Bertie to say that Mr O'Conner gave him a personal donation is a lie. Mr O'Conner has said as much. And to say that because the cheque was a draft instead of an NCB cheque is a total cop out. Mr O'Conner in his personal capacity was well entitled to donate money to the FF party. Mind you Charlie said the same on many occasions over the years.

Is a lie?
Could you for clarity post an actual foundation for that accusation? Or otherwise clarify it as your opinion only.

cast_iron

Tristrame wrote:

Because most of the people I hear complaining here and elsewhere already aren't voting for Ahern or his party.
I get the impression that no amount of explaining is enough for a cohort of the population like that.

What we are see'ing then is a version of a preaching to the converted.

I agree.
Seems like no matter what he came out with, some people were going to suit it to their own thinking.

While it seems to have been a bit muddled and messy, I don't see any hard physical evidence to show he has done something wrong.

Is it a crime to have complicated financial affairs? Not everyone gets their wage into their bank account every week full stop. Most people here probably do, and hence probably don't quite follow how complicated various accounts and the like actually work out. After all, we all try to pay as little tax as possible, within the law. All sorts of dealings go on besides when one has various business interests.

stepbar

Tristrame wrote:

God I am lol'ing.
Why?

Because most of the people I hear complaining here and elsewhere already aren't voting for Ahern or his party.
I get the impression that no amount of explaining is enough for a cohort of the population like that.

What we are see'ing then is a version of a preaching to the converted.

Personally I find it bizarre that a Government minister would have his affairs as messy as this at a particular time.
I'd imagine that his judicial separation talks must have been very acrimonious and now the whole mess is being used by his opposers to haunt him.Is a lie?
Could you for clarity post an actual foundation for that accusation? Or otherwise clarify it as your opinion only.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0505/1178204444252.html

thebman

The only thing I'll Bertie credit for is the balls it takes to put out a clearly BS statement like that.

stepbar

stepbar wrote:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0505/1178204444252.html

Thank you and I was hoping you'd post that.
Now tell me why do you choose to say one is lying over the other prior to some kind of determination on this?
It is your opinion only and not a fact,just as it would be only an opinion if a staunch FF'er came on here and said O'Connor was lying.

stepbar

Well considering our own Taoiseach has a problem with telling the truth, IMO O'Connor has the more credible story. After all, with all those broken promises and Bertiegate etc its hard to believe anything that comes out of Bertie's mouth.

Just an opinion, feel free to disregard it.

Villain

TBH I'm sick of the whole thing, Bertie imo is a two faced crook, Ivor Callely had a free paint job and was forced out of his position, Bertie gets enough cash to paint a whole estate and when people find out about it he calls it loans and pays back the money even though he hadn't made a single repayment in nearly 10 years!

He gets 30k from Wall to refurbish a house that was 3 years old and Wall gave him the 30k 6 months before he bought the house, seriously does Bertie think we have the same level of intelligence as Martin Cullen or something?

Anyway lets park his corruption until after the election and challenge him on the issues his ten years in government have left us with.

DeepBlue

This issue has already received far too much coverage.
Is anyone really going to vote for a Government for the next five years solely on the basis of this issue?

Even if one accepts that there is something fishy about the whole thing it's a minor consideration, at best, for people making up their minds on how to vote.

Loyal FF'ers could be presented with video footage of Bertie gunning down the entire student population of Virgina Tech and they would still say that it's a private matter relating to his marriage breakdown while castigating the media for not investigating who leaked the video footage.

Anti FF'ers assume that there is some groundswell of moral outrage to be tapped from the issue and that the populace will rise as one in revulsion that Bertie might have gotten a few grand that he shouldn't have received.
The reality is that most are too absorbed with their own real issues to be bothered with it and many, maybe the majority, would think that they'd do the same themselves if they had the chance.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Thank you and I was hoping you'd post that.
Now tell me why do you choose to say one is lying over the other prior to some kind of determination on this?
It is your opinion only and not a fact,just as it would be only an opinion if a staunch FF'er came on here and said O'Connor was lying.

Why would Bertie's 'close personal friend' lie to the media and put him in a very difficult position if he did indeed give him a 'personal loan' and not a donation to the FF party?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

He gets 30k from Wall to refurbish a house that was 3 years old

LoL Will there be protests outside the thousands of spanking new houses in the country now that their owners have added expensive conservatories to or timber floors ? I seriously find this funny but to each their own opinion I suppose.

and Wall gave him the 30k 6 months before he bought the house, seriously does Bertie think we have the same level of intelligence as Martin Cullen or something?

Oh? are you sure he hadnt a deposit on the house during that time?(really sure?) have you any idea how long it takes in some cases to actually close on a purchase-ownership comes when the deal is closed.

Anyway lets park his corruption until after the election and challenge him on the issues his ten years in government have left us with.

Other than your own rather opinionated statement which isnt fact, what corruption are you talking about ?

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

LoL Will there be protests outside the thousands of spanking new houses in the country now that their owners have added expensive conservatories to or timber floors ? I seriously find this funny but to each their own opinion I suppose

Someone posted that the Conservatory cost 6k that leaves 24k, that was a lot of money back then, but if you want to believe that cock and bull by all means you are entitled to do so.

Tristrame wrote:

Oh? are you sure he hadnt a deposit on the house during that time?(really sure?) have you any idea how long it takes in some cases to actually close on a purchase-ownership comes when the deal is closed.

LOL Well I have a deposit on a site at the moment but I don't think I'll be giving the person thats going to rent the house off me 30k to do it up, even if he had a deposit on it it still makes no sense why he gave Bertie 30k to refurbish it 6 months before he bought it. It never seizes to amaze me how gullible people are.

Tristrame wrote:

Other than your own rather opinionated statement which isnt fact, what corruption are you talking about ?

He signed blank cheques for the most corrupt politician of the last 40 years while he was Minsiter for Finance and as I already said "Ivor Callely had a free paint job and was forced out of his position, Bertie gets enough cash to paint a whole estate and when people find out about it he calls it loans and pays back the money even though he hadn't made a single repayment in nearly 10 years!"

If it smells like corruption and looks like corruption it probably is, so imo he is a crook.

InFront

Tristrame wrote:

God I am lol'ing.Why?
Because most of the people I hear complaining here and elsewhere already aren't voting for Ahern or his party....
What we are see'ing then is a version of a preaching to the converted.

Who's preaching? Although there may be some innocent rivalry here in general, it's not "preaching" to discuss or observe doubts about the state of such dubious financial transactions and "personal loans" that have been given huge amounts of airtime and political attention (by both blocs, but in fact mainly the FFPD one).

why do you choose to say one is lying over the other

I presume because in that scenario, O'Connor's version is simply a more logical version of events? This whole affair doesn't exist in a vaccuum. People judge both versions on grounds of believability. It's better to side with a solution which makes logical sense, particularly when all you get from Ahern are cloudy, incomplete, convoluted "explanations" like the above. It's very very hard to believe.

InFront

DeepBlue wrote:

This issue has already received far too much coverage.
Is anyone really going to vote for a Government for the next five years solely on the basis of this issue?
Even if one accepts that there is something fishy about the whole thing it's a minor consideration, at best, for people making up their minds on how to vote.

Of course, but I really get annoyed when people suggest we shouldn't bother discussing it. Sure, lets debate the election issues - every party is doing that anyway, every day of the week.

But surely our intelligence isn't so feeble that we can't juggle the main general election issues with a concern over accusations about a politician's financial misdemeanours.
I mean this thread is hardly going to dilute the quality of political debate on the island. Everybody can chew gum and walk at the same time, how is this any different?

The_Minister

gandalf wrote:

Is that the instructions from Party Headquarters talking there Minister

I am not even a member of the PDs. I am a member of the youth wing. I have never, ever posted party propaganda on this website (unlike some posters here....), nor have I ever been told what to say. You are clearly biased by your hatred of FF, and your support for Fine Gael, yet I do not dismiss your opinion as "oh did Enda tell you that", or "Enda pullin' your strings, eh Gandalf?". I have said it before and I'll say it again - my opinions are my own. I do not represent, nor speak for the Progressive Democrats on these boards.

gandalf

You did post a link to that infamous website now The Minister and had it in your signature so I think you are telling porkies with that "not posting propaganda" line. If you a member of the youth wing then imho and most people here you are a PD, sounds like you are starting to talk like a FF'er.

And to clear things up I am far from a FG supporter, I wish they and FF would get on with joining up as both are Centre Right parties.

For transparency I am a former member of the Labour party and my allegiances are in that direction and I am biased against any party that had 10 years to do a job with extensive resources and failed dismally and wasted billions of euros.

stepbar

Akrasia wrote:

Why would Bertie's 'close personal friend' lie to the media and put him in a very difficult position if he did indeed give him a 'personal loan' and not a donation to the FF party?

I'm wondering myself. Just seen an archive piece on TV3 from May 2nd. Bertie was asked a question (re the O'Connor Payment) and he didnt answer. Now, if he had nothing to hide why didnt he address it there and then?

burnedfaceman

is it a crime to have complicated financial affairs? Not everyone gets their wage into their bank account every week full stop. Most people here probably do, and hence probably don't quite follow how complicated various accounts and the like actually work out. After all, we all try to pay as little tax as possible, within the law. All sorts of dealings go on besides when one has various business interests.

this sort of situation is not what I expect of a public representative, let alone a Government minister

The_Minister

gandalf wrote:

You did post a link to that infamous website now The Minister and had it in your signature so I think you are telling porkies with that "not posting propaganda" line.

I found that website after using google, I didn't know it existed since then. I just posted it to see what people thought.

EDIT: Gandalf there is a big dfference being in the main party and being in the youth wing. Surely as an ex-Labour Youth member you would have seen that.
EDIT: My apologies, you are a member of the main party, I misread that. My point stands though. Surely you will have seen how Labour Youth operates in a completely seperate manner to the main party? (Not that I would ever compare the Young Progressive Democrats to Labour Youth.)

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Someone posted that the Conservatory cost 6k that leaves 24k, that was a lot of money back then, but if you want to believe that cock and bull by all means you are entitled to do so.

I'll let the media disect the details in the statement.There was a lot more than a conservatory involved.
Seriously if you don't like the man, just say so,I don't mind.

LOL Well I have a deposit on a site at the moment but I don't think I'll be giving the person thats going to rent the house off me 30k to do it up, even if he had a deposit on it it still makes no sense why he gave Bertie 30k to refurbish it 6 months before he bought it. It never seizes to amaze me how gullible people are.

Is the seller of the site staying with you at the moment? has he/she stayed with you often in the house you are currently living in? According to Aherns statement the nature of the Wall+Ahern relationship was like that so a lot of trust is entirely plausable.

He signed blank cheques for the most corrupt politician of the last 40 years while he was Minsiter for Finance

oh so it's just that and not this that has you in a tizzy? uhm ok..thats been in the public domain for several elections now and hasnt been an issue with enough of the electorate to put Ahern out of office.

and as I already said "Ivor Callely had a free paint job and was forced out of his position, Bertie gets enough cash to paint a whole estate and when people find out about it he calls it loans and pays back the money even though he hadn't made a single repayment in nearly 10 years!"

Quirky but not illegal and very much out in the open.

If it smells like corruption and looks like corruption it probably is, so imo he is a crook.

You know you have to show the corruption to state corruption and you haven't done so.All you've done is rehash the same facts about his quirky but not illegal finances from 14 years ago to comfort yourself in your already made up mind.
Thats your perogative of course.

InFront

InFront wrote:

I presume because in that scenario, O'Connor's version is simply a more logical version of events? This whole affair doesn't exist in a vaccuum. People judge both versions on grounds of believability. It's better to side with a solution which makes logical sense, particularly when all you get from Ahern are cloudy, incomplete, convoluted "explanations" like the above. It's very very hard to believe.

Well we know very little about O'Connor compared to Ahern.Why call either of them liars ? unless its subjectivity.
Thats what I mean by saying a lot of the posters here are doing a version of preaching to the converted.They already don't like FF or Ahern so all this is neat.

I mean you are on record here as supporting FG,I could say thats giving me the opinion that it suits you to not treat Aherns explanation with the fair hearing that it deserves.I doubt that you would apply that in life in general going on reading most of your posts so why give me that impression in this case specefically?
Why ignore the possibility that the chain of events Ahern gives are entirely plausable?

Lennoxschips

"Mr Wall was spending his own money on his own house, administered on his behalf by Ms Larkin"

Ah, I see, that money was only resting in Ms. Larkin's account...

Dirk Gently

Tristrame wrote:

Why ignore the possibility that the chain of events Ahern gives are entirely plausable?

I hear what you're saying and I agree with you that there are a lot of party drones seeking to pounce on every thing no matter how small in order to discredit who they see as their opposition, however..........

As a person not aligned with any party and as a person who on this board has questioned and had a go at most of the drones from both government parties and opposition parties I have to say that I don't think these latest attacks on Ahern are out of order. Taking into account his dodgy past, writing blank cheques, his mentor C.J. and a string of "quirky" incidents I think it's time to call a spade a spade and stop trying to tow the absolute proof line.

In my opinion, based on a string of dubious events throughout his time in politics he is as corrupt as they come. It is only my opinion and obviously not provable but I say it as someone who is objective and who has no interest in advancing a party political character assignation campaign.

Does it bother me? To be honest not a whole lot. I never had any illusions about certain politicians being above board. Sleaze is part and parcel of Irish political life and if the opposition wants to be in power they will have to do it through policies, not telling people what the dogs on the street have already known for years. It would be nice if politicians were forced to stand down in this country for wrong doing but this is Ireland and the population don't care if Bertie is well dodgy, they only care about who will take less of their disposable income to pay the bills, stealth taxes ect. Under which government will people have more disposable income and slightly improved if still third world services? That’s the only question people want answered. Honesty, accountability and integrety will always take a back seat to money in the pocket in this country.

InFront

Tristrame wrote:

Why call either of them liars?

Well, someone is lying. I do have a problem believing Ahern's version of events compared to more plausible explanations. There are all of these allegations against him right now, and on the one hand you have the option of believing the straight-forward solution, or you can go down the road of his own convoluted, impractical solutions - in each of the allegations.

Sure, sometimes the truth is complicated. But, the degree of complication in every instance coupled with BA's attitude in responding to questions, and previous silence on the issues, makes me pretty cynical about his version of events. I'm not saying that it's a pronounced fact, it is a firm opinion.

it suits you to not treat Ahern's explanation with the fair hearing that it deserves.

You'd be right to be skeptical, I wouldn't take it personally. I would just suggest that you apply the same skepticism to Bertie Ahern, who so obviously benefits from not telling the truth, if these allegations are accurate.

Valmont

Personally I think there is not enough evidence or facts to condemn the man. Most posters made up their minds long before this interview so any further defense on Bertie's behalf is pointless. Take off the corruption tinted glasses and wonder is this really that big a deal? At this time, most importantly, is Bertie's ability to successfully lead our country and Fianna Fail and if he is up to challenges ahead, that's what needs to be considered, not his bloody home furnishings.

gandalf

The_Minister wrote:

I found that website after using google, I didn't know it existed since then. I just posted it to see what people thought.

You had it in your sig as well :rolleyes:

EDIT: Gandalf there is a big dfference being in the main party and being in the youth wing. Surely as an ex-Labour Youth member you would have seen that.

I joined Labour from College alright but there was no difference back then, why do you guys have different badges or something??

EDIT: My apologies, you are a member of the main party, I misread that. My point stands though. Surely you will have seen how Labour Youth operates in a completely seperate manner to the main party? (Not that I would ever compare the Young Progressive Democrats to Labour Youth.)

Actually if you read what I posted I said I was a member of the Labour party, I left them in 1992 when they joined with FF as a point of principle. Again if you are in the PD's Youth Division then you are a PD in my eyes or is it the case when you graduate from PD school you get to choose another party ?

Back on topic Valmont the problem a lot of us have is Bertie is in the debt of many powerful businessmen, something that is not acceptable as the leader of a country whether or not corruption took place or not. He was and is compromised.

dloob

clown bag wrote:

Under which government will people have more disposable income and slightly improved if still third world services? That’s the only question people want answered. Honesty, accountability and integrety will always take a back seat to money in the pocket in this country.

That's what I've gotten out of this and BertieGate one, the electorate don't care about honesty and integrity just who will throw a bit of money their way. Hopefully they'll get the government they deserve.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

I'll let the media disect the details in the statement.There was a lot more than a conservatory involved.
Seriously if you don't like the man, just say so,I don't mind.

I actually don't personally have any dislike or like for the man, as for what was spent on the house:

Appendix 2
Summary of expenditure during refurbishment

Kinsella Interiors: 29,000.00
All Season’s conservatories: 6,000.00
Weatherglaze: 5,250.00
Brown Thomas: 2,116.20
Miscellaneous household items for which bank records are available: 2,090.84
Total of expenditure for which documentation is available: 44,457.04

In addition several thousand pounds were spent on matters for which invoices are no longer available including:

a) flooring of the attic with chipboard and provision of attic ladder
b) bathroom fittings
c) painting of house
d) brass sockets, switches, and downlighters

Now the house cost Mr Wall £137,400 and 3 years later 44k was needed to be spent on refurbishing it? and the average price of a house in Dublin at the time was £92,342, Kinsella Interiors must have been best money can buy. Interesting there is no invoice for the painting job I wonder was it the same painter Ivor Callely used??;)

Tristrame wrote:

Is the seller of the site staying with you at the moment? has he/she stayed with you often in the house you are currently living in? According to Aherns statement the nature of the Wall+Ahern relationship was like that so a lot of trust is entirely plausable.

Wall only stayed 10 to 20 times in the house according to Ahern, hardly a reason to give someone 30k to refurbish the house as for Trust he must have known who the seller of the house too as he could have decided at any time to pull the plug.

Tristrame wrote:

oh so it's just that and not this that has you in a tizzy? uhm ok..thats been in the public domain for several elections now and hasnt been an issue with enough of the electorate to put Ahern out of office.

Its not any one particular issue that makes me think he is a crook if thats what you are asking.

Tristrame wrote:

Quirky but not illegal and very much out in the open.

And was the paintjob that Ivor got illegal? there is a thing called Standards in Public Office you know.

Tristrame wrote:

You know you have to show the corruption to state corruption and you haven't done so.All you've done is rehash the same facts about his quirky but not illegal finances from 14 years ago to comfort yourself in your already made up mind.
Thats your perogative of course.

Well if we were in this position 15 years ago having the same chat about Charlie Haughey you could have said something simalar and we all know how that played out, time may yet prove to you that Bertie is a crook, I ? well I already know he is. Isn't it funny the way Charlies remark "the most cunning and devious of them all" seems to make sense now.

Oirthir

It all sounds a little familiar...

Bertie Ahern wrote:

Finally let me state unequivocally: I have done nothing wrong and I have wronged no-one

Bill Clinton wrote:

I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I actually don't personally have any dislike or like for the man,

no no you don't...

as for what was spent on the house:

Appendix 2
Summary of expenditure during refurbishment

Kinsella Interiors: 29,000.00
All Season’s conservatories: 6,000.00
Weatherglaze: 5,250.00
Brown Thomas: 2,116.20
Miscellaneous household items for which bank records are available: 2,090.84
Total of expenditure for which documentation is available: 44,457.04

In addition several thousand pounds were spent on matters for which invoices are no longer available including:

a) flooring of the attic with chipboard and provision of attic ladder
b) bathroom fittings
c) painting of house
d) brass sockets, switches, and downlighters

Now the house cost Mr Wall £137,400 and 3 years later 44k was needed to be spent on refurbishing it? and the average price of a house in Dublin at the time was £92,342, Kinsella Interiors must have been best money can buy.

Ha! is that all you can say? come on now-queue up at all the new houses these days with fantastic things done to them...Such jobs were fewer in the 90's but I'm not going to start begrudging people who legally had the wherewithall to spend what they like on the house they want to live in.

Interesting there is no invoice for the painting job I wonder was it the same painter Ivor Callely used??;)

Ha again... etc

Wall only stayed 10 to 20 times in the house according to Ahern, hardly a reason to give someone 30k to refurbish the house as for Trust he must have known who the seller of the house too as he could have decided at any time to pull the plug.

10 or 20 times and they're not close? come on now...

Its not any one particular issue that makes me think he is a crook if thats what you are asking.

In other words your mind was made up over the blank cheques thing in the Haughey era and you've no evidence of criminality whatsoever.Judge jury and convicted.I see.

And was the paintjob that Ivor got illegal? there is a thing called Standards in Public Office you know.

Whats that got to do with Ahern?

Well if we were in this position 15 years ago having the same chat about Charlie Haughey you could have said something simalar and we all know how that played out, time may yet prove to you that Bertie is a crook, I ? well I already know he is. Isn't it funny the way Charlies remark "the most cunning and devious of them all" seems to make sense now.

As someone else said recently regarding this "fuss" over Ahern...No charvais shirts,noCayman accounts and no unexplained millions in property.
Things may make a particular kind of sense to you but then you've made a fine case here all along that your mind has been made up all along albeit on no evidence other than what you want it to be.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

no no you don't...

I actually don't, I do have a personal dislike of Michael Noonan I think he is about the only TD though.

Tristrame wrote:

Ha! is that all you can say? come on now-queue up at all the new houses these days with fantastic things done to them...Such jobs were fewer in the 90's but I'm not going to start begrudging people who legally had the wherewithall to spend what they like on the house they want to live in.

But Wall spent a very large sum of money on a house he was renting out and only stayed in a few times and he provided the money for the work 6 months before he bought the house.

Tristrame wrote:

Ha again... etc

I was actually joking there.

Tristrame wrote:

10 or 20 times and they're not close? come on now...

We were talking about trust and also you ignored the fact that there was another party involved who could have pulled the plug at any time during the 6 months that money was given for the refurbishment and the sale hadn't been done.

Tristrame wrote:

In other words your mind was made up over the blank cheques thing in the Haughey era and you've no evidence of criminality whatsoever.Judge jury and convicted.I see.

Not at all its not any one issue as I have said, its more to do with the fact business men were giving him digouts and were only repaid after the media got wind of the story.

Tristrame wrote:

Whats that got to do with Ahern?

My point is Ivor was a Minister of State in Bertie's government and he had to resign from that position because he got a free paint job whereas Bertie got enough money to paint a whole estate but instead of resigning he called it a loan and payed the money back after the media got the story, double standards anyone?

Tristrame wrote:

As someone else said recently regarding this "fuss" over Ahern...No charvais shirts,noCayman accounts and no unexplained millions in property.
Things may make a particular kind of sense to you but then you've made a fine case here all along that your mind has been made up all along albeit on no evidence other than what you want it to be.

Did people know of all CJ's dealings 15 years ago? Time may yet see Bertie for what he is imo - a crook.

Oh and he said there was no tax issues in the dail last year and guess what, there now appears to have been a tax issue.

Sleepy

AFAIC, if his character is even in question he has no place in public service.

Nevermind the current revelations regarding his personal finances, his admission to signing blank cheques for CJ is enough evidence to believe he is either:

a) corrupt himself and was benefitting financially or otherwise from those actions

b) too stupid to be left in the posession of a bar tab, never mind the country's finances

c) craven to the point he'd allow himself to be bullied into aiding and abetting a criminal

or a mixture of all three (which tbh, is my own view of things).

DeepBlue wrote:

Is anyone really going to vote for a Government for the next five years solely on the basis of this issue?

Well, judging from their posters Fianna Fail expect us to vote for people purely because they're on "Bertie's Team" so it would seem to me that the honesty of the ringleader of that "team" :rolleyes: would be a fairly major election issue.

jmayo

Could any FF/Bertie favouring posters please help me?

I am looking to rent house about 3/4 years old in good area.
I would like option to possibly buy same house in next couple of years or so.
I would also like landlord to provide me with 25% value of house, in cash, to do it up.

Now if any posters know of anyone apart from Bertie that has had similiar financial arrangements could they please let us know?

Irtish1 loved the reference to Martin Cullen :-)

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

no no you don't... Ha! is that all you can say? come on now-queue up at all the new houses these days with fantastic things done to them...Such jobs were fewer in the 90's but I'm not going to start begrudging people who legally had the wherewithall to spend what they like on the house they want to live in. Ha again... etc

And where exactly did he get the wherewithall for this extravagance?
Remember, only a few months earlier, he was so impoverished that he had to accept a large sum of money from his bestest bestest friends (one of whom is now claiming he was never that good a friend and the money was never intended as a personal loan, but as a political donation to the FF party) to help pay for his daughters education and to pay for the costs of his separation. He only had one legitimate source of income, and there is no way in hell he could have saved up 50k over that period of time to spend on luxurious upgrades on a rented home. He couldn't have got a bank loan because he had no bank account (and he has already stated the money was from his own personal savings)

As someone else said recently regarding this "fuss" over Ahern...No charvais shirts,noCayman accounts and no unexplained millions in property.

So it's only corruption if it amounts to millions. Right. And how do we know there were no cayman accounts?
We're being expected to believe that Bertie didn't have any bank accounts at all for a number of years. He kept all his money, tens of thousands of pounds (and 45k in dollars) under his bed, or in a safe in St Lukes that nobody but him knew was there....??

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I actually don't, I do have a personal dislike of Michael Noonan I think he is about the only TD though.

Ok I don't believe you but then we're all entitled to an opinion.

But Wall spent a very large sum of money on a house he was renting out and only stayed in a few times and he provided the money for the work 6 months before he bought the house.

So ? if you read Aherns statement, he wanted the option of buying the house but wasnt certain of doing so.

We were talking about trust and also you ignored the fact that there was another party involved who could have pulled the plug at any time during the 6 months that money was given for the refurbishment and the sale hadn't been done.

We're not party to the thoughts of the original house seller but clearly that wasnt going to be the case.

Not at all its not any one issue as I have said, its more to do with the fact business men were giving him digouts and were only repaid after the media got wind of the story.

Because it was seen as damaging to him.Most of them were his friends as you know.

My point is Ivor was a Minister of State in Bertie's government and he had to resign from that position because he got a free paint job whereas Bertie got enough money to paint a whole estate but instead of resigning he called it a loan and payed the money back after the media got the story, double standards anyone?

He still maintains it was a loan despite ongoing (aparently) discussions with the revenue about this.You only have to declare loans to the revenue if you are a company or self employed afaik.

Did people know of all CJ's dealings 15 years ago? Time may yet see Bertie for what he is imo - a crook.

Ah mind made up.No evidence of crookery just that his finances were a mess (in my opinion).

Oh and he said there was no tax issues in the dail last year and guess what, there now appears to have been a tax issue.

Thats actually incorrect.He maintained there were no tax issues last year based on what he said the Manchester money was-loans.There shouldn't have been if thats what they were.
It would be remiss of the Revenue not to investigate this and isn't it great that they apparently are despite the fact that he is Taoiseach.
We don't know what they are asking him specefically or what Peelo has said to the Revenue.
We don't even know if its about the loans that the Revenue are inquiring.
It would be prudent and any tax advisor will tell you this to lodge money with the revenue in a case where they are investigating.
They'll give it back with interest believe it or not.

Victor Meldrew

jmayo wrote:

Could any FF/Bertie favouring posters please help me?

I am looking to rent house about 3/4 years old in good area.
I would like option to possibly buy same house in next couple of years or so.
I would also like landlord to provide me with 25% value of house, in cash, to do it up.

Well said,

Bertie is proving to be a poor man's Haughey. both are (were) kept men at various stages of their lives, and lived beyond their means whilst lecturing us on fiscal responsibility. neither viewed taxes as "somethiong one should keep on top of" Think of that next time you see your PAYE pay slip and open the door on your (inevitibly) badly built and poorly serviced home (beit rented or owned).

Both are (were) defacto "owned" by builders and vested interests. now, do you want them to run the country?

Remember folks, you get the government you deserve...

It'll only take one short sharp shock across the backbenches of FF to have bertie and his corrupt ilk kicked out. do it !

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

And where exactly did he get the wherewithall for this extravagance?

I went through the maths on that one in another thread...
Put simply he was a minister driven everywhere and living over his constituency office.I'd be surprised if the rest of the cabinet weren't putting away lots of money-though with the crucial difference that they were probably putting it in the bank.

Remember, only a few months earlier,

it's easy to turn 2 years into a few months when you want to fiddle with the maths.His contribution wasnt built up over just a few months...

So it's only corruption if it amounts to millions. Right. And how do we know there were no cayman accounts?

Ah for Gods sake.

(and 45k in dollars)

Absolutely no proof of that whatsoever that I have seen.
But hey carry on.
Like I said earlier-judge jury and executioner...
Just be honest about it and say up front that you don't like FF or Ahern and thats that.
No need for to rehash the already explained and the pretence that it hasn't been.

Heinrich

jmayo wrote:

Could any FF/Bertie favouring posters please help me?

I am looking to rent house about 3/4 years old in good area.
I would like option to possibly buy same house in next couple of years or so.
I would also like landlord to provide me with 25% value of house, in cash, to do it up.

Now if any posters know of anyone apart from Bertie that has had similiar financial arrangements could they please let us know?

Irtish1 loved the reference to Martin Cullen :-)

Do not ask this question of a FF supporter. You will get a different answer on every other day of the week. Try not to TAX your brain too much as the tax will probably be paid back, damn, what am I saying?

Why not call up to the Cat and Cage and receive a dig-out from some mates you don't really know that well? Then you buy your own house.

Voipjunkie

In fairness to Ahern it is a fairly modest house and he does seem to have explained the 30,000 sterling

There are still some questions the money that Ahern claims was the 30,000 sterling that was lodged into Celia Larkins account does not equate to 30,000 converted to punts it does equate exactly to $45,000 which is odd considering that Bertie says he never had any dollars.

There is also the issue of the 50,000 punts that he kept in cash and whether he declared that as an asset in his sworn affidavit for his separation.

There is also the issue that he actually had 92,500 punts cash available to him at the time and could easily have afforded to buy the house with a small mortgage why Mr Wall was involved at all but that does not mean that there was anything corrupt in the way Mr Ahern went about it.Its just odd.


Also the story from October does not tally with what we now know in that Bertie told us he was virtually flat broke and his friend bailed him out with what he considered a "loan" but Bertie was far from broke although it is possible that his friends were unaware of his true worth at the time as perhaps the 50,000 did not appear on the affidavit his solicitor has drawn up as it was his solicitor who organised the whip around.