The Mahon Tribunal

Liam Byrne

Seanies32 wrote:

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

Or else, in typical Irish political style, they're keeping their mouths shut in case commenting on it rules out negotiations with the said-same tribunal star.....

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

I have made my mind up with the information I have heard and seen Rock Climber, you can say I'm not being fair in your opinion it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Shur if your mind is made up without hearing the the entire proceedings that says it all really for your attitude.
I'll say it again though; not waiting for the entire proceedings to be heard is rather unfair.

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

Yes an admin is entitled to his opinion on that subject.
Why did you pick the admins post by the way rather than one of the others ?
Interestingly things have moved on since then and the press certainly have taken up the mantle of investigation-some rather undemocratically as judge ,jury and executioner mind;Something I'd be entirely opposed to.
I'm all in favour of media investigations but I'd prefer judgements to be carried out in a democratic accountable arena.

TBH I think its says a lot about how the members of this forum don't seem too bothered with the fact that the Taoiseach is before a tribunal and has very serious questions to answer, people weren't bothered in 2004 when I started a thread and not too many more are now,

Because they think it's trivial in the bigger scheme of things probably which is borne out in the fact that under Ahern,FF's vote rose slightly despite practically all the media waving this and that at him.

I mean your post above is more about me and what my opinion is than the actual Tribunal and what information they have provided so far in this module.

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

Well for starters,it's fair enough to point out where a posters stance is, lest there be any doubt.Secondly what do you expect any other poster here to do but discuss what they think of your posted opinion?? Thats all part of discussion. It seems it's not a discussion you're after here at all though but rather a soap boxing of a mind made up as evidenced in the thread you linked to.
Thats fine too of course in it's own right(you are entitled to your dislike of the man) but it's not terribly meritorious discussion wise in my opinion.

I'll make up my mind when the entire module is finished and Judge Mahon has at least given a preliminary judgement.
In the meantime I'll apply copious quantities of salt to the views here of people who rather than wait for the module to finish,keep going on zealously with the aha,he must be guilty etc etc.
Thats something (regretably for some apparently) I'll afford to everyone.

Villain

Rock Climber wrote:

Shur if your mind is made up without hearing the the entire proceedings that says it all really for your attitude.
I'll say it again though; not waiting for the entire proceedings to be heard is rather unfair.

I have made my mind up on the information I have seen I have't made my mind up on anything else, if you read through my posts you will see what I stated i.e. I believe Ahern lied to the public in his statement, my accusation is only that I have actually stated this to tristrame already.

Rock Climber wrote:

Yes an admin is entitled to his opinion on that subject.
Why did you pick the admins post by the way rather than one of the others ?
Interestingly things have moved on since then and the press certainly have taken up the mantle of investigation-some rather undemocratically as judge ,jury and executioner mind;Something I'd be entirely opposed to.
I'm all in favour of media investigations but I'd prefer judgements to be carried out in a democratic accountable arena.

The post I linked to was my reply it just happened to be Dev I was replying to, I'm not sure why you think I should have picked any other post it was the only reply I made which made reference to the thread I had staretd in Politics??

Rock Climber wrote:

Because they think it's trivial in the bigger scheme of things probably which is borne out in the fact that under Ahern,FF's vote rose slightly despite practically all the media waving this and that at him.

The current Taoiseach having very serious questions to answer before a tribunal including explaining the lodgement of money on the 5th of December 1994 is trivial??? Jees we really are a nation who doesn't care about corruption aren't we? I think if the opening statement of the Tribunal had been made before the election the outcome may have been a little different not much though as the nation don't seem to care about possible corruption.

Rock Climber wrote:

Well for starters,it's fair enough to point out where a posters stance is, lest there be any doubt.Secondly what do you expect any other poster here to do but discuss what they think of your posted opinion?? Thats all part of discussion. It seems it's not a discussion you're after here at all though but rather a soap boxing of a mind made up as evidenced in the thread you linked to.
Thats fine too of course in it's own right(you are entitled to your dislike of the man) but it's not terribly meritorious discussion wise in my opinion.

I'll make up my mind when the entire module is finished and Judge Mahon has at least given a preliminary judgement.
In the meantime I'll apply copious quantities of salt to the views here of people who rather than wait for the module to finish,keep going on zealously with the aha,he must be guilty etc etc.
Thats something (regretably for some apparently) I'll afford to everyone.

As I have said my mind has been made up on the information I have seen I believe the Taoiseach lied to the public in his statement before the election I'm not saying where the money came from or whether he did anything in return etc I haven't seen any information to show any of that.

Attack my posts Rock Climber, find any post in this thread and reply to the post I have made in relation to the tribunal by all means lets discuss the topic rather than attack the poster.

JerkyBoy

Two articles in today's Independent illustrate how dodgy Bertie's answers have been so far and how he's in real deep trouble if the dollar theory is proven to be true:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bertiegate-the-bottom-dollar-690415.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bank-holds-the-key-to-45000-question-690409.html

The facts as they currently stand do not appear to be in his favour.
My guess is that rather address these issues again, which he's already changed his story on at least twices so far, Bertie will try to have the tribunal delayed again via challenges, as O'Callahan and Lawlor have successfully done in the past.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

Attack my posts Rock Climber, find any post in this thread and reply to the post I have made in relation to the tribunal by all means lets discuss the topic rather than attack the poster.

Neat attempt at a diversion there,but I'll remind you, it is your posts that I'm replying to.
It is pertinent to comment on what I think of them and I'll repeat,they are expressing yet again a certainty that couldnt possibly be a certainty unless (1) The tribunal has concluded the module and (2) Ahern has answered the tribunals questions unsatisfactorally.
All options for him to do so are far from exhausted.

I think if the opening statement of the Tribunal had been made before the election the outcome may have been a little different not much though as the nation don't seem to care about possible corruption.

It's only possible now? Well at least thats a step in the right direction towards fairness in my opinion.

As I have said my mind has been made up on the information I have seen I believe the Taoiseach lied to the public in his statement before the election I'm not saying where the money came from or whether he did anything in return

Lol,shur I know your mind is made up,its the fact that you've made it up when the tribunal is far from over without hearing any further clarification from ahern or the tribunals judgement that I think is unfair and un balanced.
But then when you start out from a point where you posted all of 3 years ago that you think ahern is an idiot of a man I for one will keep the salt on order for the rest of your opinions in relation to him.

Lennoxschips

The tribunal could take years more. Ahern's account of events doesn't match up with the hard evidence presented at the Mahon tribunal. I think the people of Ireland deserve a swift and accurate explanation from their Taoiseach, and if he can't give one then he should get lost. Leaving it to stew in a excessively drawn out tribunal is exactly what the politicians want. People like Irish1 should be applauded for reading through the tribunal transcripts and trying to form their own opinions from the evidence at hand.

My mother was telling people in 1979 that CJ Haughey was a crook and people laughed at her.

Rock Climber

Lennoxschips wrote:

My mother was telling people in 1979 that CJ Haughey was a crook and people laughed at her.

She wasn't telling the right people then as there were plenty of people who would have agreed with her; probably explaining why haughey never got his over all majority and in fact probably explaining why his party vote fell through that era.

By the way even if I'm the last one standing in this thread of 4 or 5 people with their mind made up,I'll still advocate fairness.
I'll also say that justice isn't served if the implication being pointed out there is Haughey was a crook so ergo Ahern is .
I can almost guarantee you that won't be a line that the tribunal lawyers will be taking.

Lennoxschips

I'm not saying that just because CJ was a crook that his blank cheque signer automatically is, you're putting words into my mouth there.

I'm just saying that Irish1's interest in the day to day goings on at the tribunal, as a concerned citizen, should be encouraged. It's better than sitting back, doing nothing and waiting for the tribunal to finish up, by which time Ahern could be long retired.

Villain

Rock Climber you may get Vinegar to go with that salt

The fact is I have looked at all the information and I made my mind up that Ahern lied to the Public before the election, thats all I'm saying I am not saying he is guilty of any of the corruption alleged by Gilmartin the Tribunal will try and establish that during this module.

Now as I have said find any post of mine here that I have posted about my opinion that Ahern lied before the election and lets discuss that, we don't need the Tribunal to finish to be able to discuss the information they have uncovered so far, remember Bertie has had face to face interviews with the tribunal and he has also released a detailed statement. Now is there anything from that information that you care to discuss or do you just want to keep posting that you think I have made my mind up?

Rock Climber

Lennoxschips wrote:

I'm not saying that just because CJ was a crook that his blank cheque signer automatically is, you're putting words into my mouth there.

You're implying it though.
Theres no other conclusion from your post.

I'm just saying that Irish1's interest in the day to day goings on at the tribunal, as a concerned citizen, should be encouraged. It's better than sitting back, doing nothing and waiting for the tribunal to finish up, by which time Ahern could be long retired.

I for one would never encourage someone to make up their mind untill they have all the information in front of them instead of some of it.
He/she may have read the transcripts of one or two days of the tribunal this week but to draw conclusions without hearing Aherns answers in session is flawed justice.

The fact is I have looked at all the information and I made my mind up that Ahern lied to the Public before the election, thats all I'm saying I am not saying he is guilty of any of the corruption alleged by Gilmartin the Tribunal will try and establish that during this module.

I see so you're content with the tribunal trying to establish one thing but not the other.
There may be perfectly valid answers to what you have already made up your mind on but you're not prepared to wait for that ?
Thats completely unfair and wholey unbalanced.

we don't need the Tribunal to finish to be able to discuss the information they have uncovered so far,

I know... we don't have to wait for the explanations either apparently in this unbalanced and unfair process you are creating.

Now is there anything from that information that you care to discuss or do you just want to keep posting that you think I have made my mind up?

But shur you'll keep repeating yourself ,posting the same jigsaw as if it's completed even though several pieces have yet to be supplied.
A discussion with those that have their mind made up isn't a discussion at all.
It's a rant fest.
When you have something new I can chew on,maybe we can be up to something more fruitfull here?

Villain

Rock Climber I have read and heard Bertie's replies and Celia's and Michael Walls replies you are making out I am forming an opinion of one side of the argument only thats simply wrong, the issue I have been posting about which I have formed an opinion has been explained by Bertie its just his explanation is wrong and couldn't have been possible.

If I am repeating myself its only because you are not reading my posts fully or you aren't understanding what I am saying. Let me say it as clear as I can.

The tribunal have presented facts from bank records, they have also told us of statments Bertie, Celia and Mr Wall have made to the tribunal along with what Bertie has said in face to face meetings, now Bertie also made public a detailed statement before the election in which he dealt with the topic I have been discussing, I am not forming my opinion on one side only the only thing that remains oustanding in relation to this topic is for Bertie to be cross examined by SC for the tribunal and if he changes his story from his statements and interview it will only prove what what I have already said he has lied.

So again is there anything I have posted that you want to discuss?

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

Rock Climber I have read and heard Bertie's replies and Celia's and Michael Walls replies you are making out I am forming an opinion of one side of the argument only thats simply wrong, the issue I have been posting about which I have formed an opinion has been explained by Bertie its just his explanation is wrong and couldn't have been possible.

you are forming that opinion without hearing Aherns right of reply which he has yet to give.
I know you are doing that already as I said,theres no need to repeat it ad nauseum.

If I am repeating myself its only because you are not reading my posts fully or you aren't understanding what I am saying. Let me say it as clear as I can.

But shur I've made myself perfectly clear as to what you are doing.

The tribunal have presented facts from bank records, they have also told us of statments Bertie, Celia and Mr Wall have made to the tribunal along with what Bertie has said in face to face meetings, now Bertie also made public a detailed statement before the election in which he dealt with the topic been discussing, I am not forming my opinion on one side only the only thing that remains oustanding in relation to this topic is for Bertie to be cross examined by SC for the tribunal and if he changes his story from his statements and interview it will only prove what what I have already said he has lied.

It might not,we don't know what he will say.
You apparently do because you're dismissing it before it's been said.Repetition of the same one sided mantra you're giving on an unfinished process isn't going to unconvince me at all of the unfairness of that.

So again is there anything I have posted that you want to discuss?

You've nothing new to say then? Just the adnauseum repetition of the incomplete picture upon which you've made up your mind ?

I'll certainly discuss something new when you have it.
So off with you there into the tardis, race foward to the end of the process,don't pass go ,do not collect 100 euro,pick up a copy of the Irish mail on the way and come back with Judge mahons report.
Oh and don't forget to download Vincent Brownes reconstruction of Aherns evidence to the sittings,we'll need that aswell.

Villain

Ah good old Doctor Who and his time machine, if only we had one when CJ was around telling everyone to tighten up while he was a kept man or when Bertie said he had been "up every tree in Dublin" investigating the rumours about Ray Burke and finding them groundless before appointing his friend Ray Burke as Minister for Foreign affairs. He decribed "the persistent hounding of an honourable man" and well we all know how those stories finished up and all from FF:eek:


Anyway you say:

you are forming that opinion without hearing Aherns right of reply which he has yet to give.
I know you are doing that already as I said,theres no need to repeat it ad nauseum

He has had several rights of reply you are choosing to ignore them which is up to you.

The picture is incomplete because you are either refusing to look at the information that is availble or you have seen it but don't like what it says about Bertie and thus don't want to discuss as you know it shows Bertie has lied. So I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself but its just you seem to keep forgetting all the replies Bertie has made.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

Ah good old Doctor Who and his time machine, if only we had one when CJ was around telling everyone to tighten up while he was a kept man or when Bertie said he had been "up every tree in Dublin" investigating the rumours about Ray Burke and finding them groundless before appointing his friend Ray Burke as Minister for Foreign affairs. He decribed "the persistent hounding of an honourable man" and well we all know how those stories finished up and all from FF:eek:

I see so you too are going on this flawed logic that because Haughey was corupt,Ahern must be also...
I've already said what I thought of that logic..
Not much...

Anyway you say: He has had several rights of reply you are choosing to ignore them which is up to you.

I'm recognising that if he doesn't reply after all rights to reply have been exhausted,then Mahon will not be kind to him and rightly so.
All rights to reply have far from been exhausted of course.

The picture is incomplete because you are either refusing to look at the information that is availble or you have seen it but don't like what it says

Utter crap.
I've made it clear that I cannot form a full opinion untill I'm certain that ahern either won't reply or his replies aren't satifactory and Mahon judges that to be the case.

it shows Bertie has lied. So I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself but its just you seem to keep forgetting all the replies Bertie has made.

So let me get this straight.You seem to be content to conclude and state as fact that Ahern has lied to the tribunal regardless of his yet to be given reply and regardless of the yet to be concluded report from an as of now far from finished tribunal?

Well you are entitled to your opinion but I'm not allowing that to continue untill I'm certain you are not putting boards at jepordy here with such allegations.
I've no problem with you holding that opinion,I'm just in disagreement with formulating an opinion without either a right of reply,a declaration of guilt by the tribunal or hearing all of its discourse on the matter first.

There we have to agree to dis agree.

I'm closing this thread untill I've got instruction from the legal department of boards on this matter.
I'm not satisfied that I can make that decision on my own.
This may or may not result in the thread being reopened.

hullaballoo

Right, for a start, you cannot simply turn around and accuse someone of lying where you have no evidence of it. That's silly, because if anyone ever pulls you up on it, you can't defend your position. (That's just from first principles.)

In terms of the law, you need to be able to prove what your saying is true in order to defend a claim from someone you have accused of things like lying.

In a practical sense, proving that someone was lying when they have already been exonerated by a tribunal is close enough to impossible - unless, of course, you have some sort of inside information to which the rest of the country is not privy.

I don't mind whether the thread is opened again or not - I'd be happier to leave that to the forum mods - however, I would expect that people will take on board what I have said and will avoid getting boards into the type of scenario where there may be something legally questionable afoot.