Formal complaint lodged against An Taoiseach with SIPO

edanto

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0119/breaking17.htm

Well, about time I say. The guy has no credibility in my eyes, appears to have deceived in many ways and frankly, I find it embarassing to have him as our leader.

But, what will happen with the complaint?

Committee sanctions are mild, involving salary witholding. But SIPO can make a case to the DPP, if any criminal activities are suspected.

Given the other thread about Bertie's suitability for high office in the light of the facts that are NOT under dispute, could this thread be more about the half-truths, rumours and possible stories that could come out?

Tommy T

If Judge Mahon, his two hangers on and the huge legal team all bankrolled by you and I haven't found anything illegal in Bertie's actions the Sipo are hardly going to...

oscarBravo

edanto wrote: »

Given the other thread about Bertie's suitability for high office in the light of the facts that are NOT under dispute, could this thread be more about the half-truths, rumours and possible stories that could come out?

I don't recommend it.

Tommy T wrote:

If Judge Mahon, his two hangers on and the huge legal team all bankrolled by you and I haven't found anything illegal in Bertie's actions the Sipo are hardly going to...

I'm not certain that's the remit of the SIPO.

Tommy T

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not certain that's the remit of the SIPO.

No. You're right...

murphaph

Tommy T wrote: »

If Judge Mahon, his two hangers on and the huge legal team all bankrolled by you and I haven't found anything illegal in Bertie's actions the Sipo are hardly going to...

Would you prefer if we didn't investigate payments to politicians at all?

Tommy T

murphaph wrote: »

Would you prefer if we didn't investigate payments to politicians at all?

Given the sinful waste of taxpayers money chasing shadows and Gilmartin's fairytales I'd close the moneypit in the morning.

If someone has issues they feel should be raised about illegal or corrupt payments to any public figures let them by all means go to the Gardai with them and allow due process take its course...

The_Minister

IIRC, all members of the Dail have until 9 months after the election to present their tax clearence certificate, or a letter explaining why it has been delayed, under the SIPO rules.
FG voted in favour of this, but are now asking for an enquiry before the deadline, which seems a bit odd.

Crash

its related to the 2002 election as opposed to this one, no? that would be my understanding of it.

Seth Brundle

Didn't someone else lodge a complaint about Bertie with SIPO in the last few weeks?
FGs complaint is in regard to the 2002 election - http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/33241/pkey/653/

mike65

About a third of TDs have not submitted tax complience certs apparently.

Mike.

murphaph

mike65 wrote: »

About a third of TDs have not submitted tax complience certs apparently.

Mike.

Well if all this episode does is make these individuals think on about their conduct it'll be a result.

The_Minister

mike65 wrote: »

About a third of TDs have not submitted tax complience certs apparently.

Mike.

As I said, they still habve 9 months

is_that_so

The_Minister wrote: »

As I said, they still have 9 months

They may do but I have no doubt there is far better PR to be gained from saying "look at me, I'm tax compliant". Given the enormous expenses that some claim they should unquestionably be in a position to become tax-compliant sooner. Seeing as we would not take on a trades person who is not tax compliant, and the fact that many such businesses highlight their tax compliance, the slow rush to address tax compliance by TDs merely adds to our cynicism about politics and politicians.

mike65

If a TD does'nt make the deadline, it would be nice to suspend his/her income until sorted.

Mike.

edanto

Tommy T wrote: »

If Judge Mahon, his two hangers on and the huge legal team all bankrolled by you and I haven't found anything illegal in Bertie's actions the Sipo are hardly going to...

mmmmk.

Where is the line between illegal and legal?

Specifically in the legislation or case law with respect to politicians accepting money.

edanto

Actually, fuck it.

3.—(1) Where in any proceedings against a person to whom this section applies for an offence under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, as amended, or the Act of 1906, as
amended, it is proved that—

(a) the person received a donation exceeding in value the relevant amount specified in the Electoral Act, 1997 , or the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act, 1999 , as appropriate,

(b) the person failed to disclose the donation in accordance with that Act to the Public Offices Commission or the local authority concerned as appropriate, and

(c) the donor had an interest in the person doing any act or making any omission in relation to his or her office or position or his or her principal's affairs or business,

the donation shall be deemed to have been given and received corruptly as an inducement to or reward for the person doing any act or making any omission in relation to his or her office or position or his or her principal's affairs or business unless the contrary is proved.

Reference: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0027/sec0003.html#sec3

Guy:Incognito

murphaph wrote: »

Would you prefer if we didn't investigate payments to politicians at all?

I would. We are spending countless millions to find out if he pocketed a few hundred grand. I know which figure I'd rather was still floating around in the economy

edanto

Floating around in the economy....

That makes me consider the metrics that we use to measure our wealth here. We use things like GDP etc - and I am grateful to successive governments that those figures have improved so dramatically!

Having said that - the post in another thread by murphaph saying that in 1978 people with CF could walk into a reserved area in St Vincents hospital immediately, whereas now they sometimes have to wait a week in A&E for a bed (picking up all manner of infections, and lest I get distracted on a tangent - it angers me that bad prioritisation of health spending means that a cf patient in Northern Ireland will live about 40% longer than their peer here) - so yes the wait for a bed is one example, but there are others, the West Link toll bridge deal that still shafts us, every day.

I see those things as symptoms that some government deals were corrupt and that activity should be shamed out of our culture. I understand that some tax laws were to attract investment, but we can't ignore the false inflation of our figures that brings - and the result that we may be better off on paper (GDP), and the realisation that some politicians shafted us with shady deals while being crafty with what they said in public.

Maybe we could use measures like 'the ratio of my average salary to the total amount I will have to pay the bank bank over the next 35 year' to guage if a government is doing well. Then we will know if the wealth that increased access to education has brought Ireland in the past 40 years is being democratically distributed amongst us or if indeed it is being creamed off by fat cats in suits.

Seth Brundle

Stekelly wrote: »

I would. We are spending countless millions to find out if he pocketed a few hundred grand. I know which figure I'd rather was still floating around in the economy

And how much of that was taken up with time wasting, etc. by several witnesses?
Had the witnesses been forthcoming with information then we would be much further on by now.

Moriarty

Stekelly wrote: »

I would. We are spending countless millions to find out if he pocketed a few hundred grand. I know which figure I'd rather was still floating around in the economy

It doesn't concern you what the alleged money was paid for either, no? That's the reason payments to politicians are so serious.

LostinBlanch

Ah here Moriarty, you can't be saying them kind of things. People would get the wrong idea.

He appointed certain people to certain boards because they were his mates, not because they gave him money. Capiche?

All right here, nothing more to see folks move on now. :cool:

Tommy T

murphaph wrote: »

Well if all this episode does is make these individuals think on about their conduct it'll be a result.

Potentially €1 Billion in costs to get TD's sort out a few of their own personal Tax issues.. Money well spent indeed

Let me guess, you're a Leftie..;)

Tommy T

Moriarty wrote: »

It doesn't concern you what the alleged money was paid for either, no? That's the reason payments to politicians are so serious.

If you or nayone else has evidence of any illegality surrounding any payments to any public figure please bring it to the Gardai instead of making me pay even more to the legal gravytrain in the Castle...

Zulu

Tommy T wrote: »

Potentially €1 Billion in costs to get TD's sort out a few of their own personal Tax issues.. Money well spent indeed

If it means worming out the crooks; getting honest leaders; improving our international reputation; creating a honest tomorrow - then yes it is worth it on my eyes.

But I can understand how some people would prefer to live in a corrupt society where bribery is rife, and the old nod-nod back handers are par for the course, coupled with the standard tax evasion from the major earners*. :rolleyes:

*although your precious tax euros won't go half as far - I'm sure you won't mind.

Tommy T

Zulu wrote: »

If it means worming out the crooks; getting honest leaders; improving our international reputation; creating a honest tomorrow - then yes it is worth it on my eyes.

But I can understand how some people would prefer to live in a corrupt society where bribery is rife, and the old nod-nod back handers are par for the course, coupled with the standard tax evasion from the major earners*. :rolleyes:

*although your precious tax euros won't go half as far - I'm sure you won't mind.

International reputation? Now thats made me laugh on this bleak monday morning

Just how many averge Joes in the rest of the world are even aware of, nevermind following, the vast goings on in the Castle?

Yet again we see the same old diatribe about bribery, dishonesty etc... If there's any evidence of such wrong doing then take it to the already existing authorities instead of funding the Barristers lavish lifestlyes while they come up with nada...

edanto

Surprisingly TommyT, the burden of proof is on the politician and donor to prove that the payment is not corrupt.

"the donation shall be deemed to have been given and received corruptly as an inducement to or reward for the person doing any act or making any omission in relation to his or her office or position or his or her principal's affairs or business unless the contrary is proved"
EDIT - Bertie's government wrote that law, so you'd think they would be familiar with it - unless - shock horror- they might be trying to misdirect us!!

As for the costs of the Tribunal - mike65 said in another thread that the tribunals overall have pulled in more than they have cost. The costs are a red herring.

Quick, look further down the list of standard FF replies and use another one!

Ah, but seriously - do you really think that the tribunals have come up with nada? Have you been on the internet/bought a newspaper lately? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055218614

Tommy T

edanto wrote: »

As for the costs of the Tribunal - mike65 said in another thread that the tribunals overall have pulled in more than they have cost. The costs are a red herring.

Absolute baloney. There is absolutely no evidence of this at all. But maybe you know better Eh?

Care to tell us whose coughed up so far..?

Zulu

Tommy T wrote: »

International reputation? Now thats made me laugh on this bleak monday morning

Laugh it up.... and don't worry that our peers view us as a cowboy country. Especially don't consider how this may impact foreign investment at a time of economic uncertainty. Don't worry though, it won't impact you at all.

is_that_so

Tommy T wrote: »

Let me guess, you're a Leftie..;)

Is this like being a liberal in the States? If you support your party , do so, but leave out the juvenile comments. It ill beholds you as they say and undermines your "credibility" as a defender of one Bartholomew Ahern.

Tommy T

is_that_so wrote: »

Is this like being a liberal in the States? If you support your party , do so, but leave out the juvenile comments. It ill beholds you as they say and undermines your "credibility" as a defender of one Bartholomew Ahern.

Wind your neck back in dude. My comment was tongue in cheek hence the smilie at the end of the sentence.

Welcome to Irish politics where being an FF supporter puts you in league with the Devil... But we have a thick old skin...;)

Tommy T

Zulu wrote: »

Laugh it up.... and don't worry that our peers view us as a cowboy country. Especially don't consider how this may impact foreign investment at a time of economic uncertainty. Don't worry though, it won't impact you at all.

Do you really think Intel give a damn about the circus in the Castle. they're far more interested in the 20% Corporation tax that Charlie Mc introduced...

edanto

Pretty standard response when an 'insult' falls flat. Ah sure I was only kidding!

Absolute baloney. There is absolutely no evidence of this at all. But maybe you know better Eh?

You want to call bullshit on my claim that the Tribunals have taken in more than they've cost?

Well, how about YOU do some research! Why don't you try and find out how much the tribunals have cost, how much they've taken in and then I'll tell you exactly how I learnt what I said.

You strike me as someone that's quicker to type than research, and considering I spend a bit of time looking into claims that I'm considering making I might just ask you to go off and look at some original documentation instead of just dismissing stuff out of hand 'cos it shames a man that you like.

Tommy T

edanto wrote: »

Pretty standard response when an 'insult' falls flat. Ah sure I was only kidding!



You want to call bullshit on my claim that the Tribunals have taken in more than they've cost?

Well, how about YOU do some research! Why don't you try and find out how much the tribunals have cost, how much they've taken in and then I'll tell you exactly how I learnt what I said.

You strike me as someone that's quicker to type than research, and considering I spend a bit of time looking into claims that I'm considering making I might just ask you to go off and look at some original documentation instead of just dismissing stuff out of hand 'cos it shames a man that you like.

You made the claim that the tribunals have rtaken in more than they've cost hence me asking you for verification of this is only natural I'd have thought.

If you make a claim then surely you should be able to back it up...

But if you cannot provide a single shred of proof then you'll understand if i take it with a shovel of salt...;)

Zulu

I don't know about Intel, but the Nordic companies definatly do. The 20% is what keeps them sweet, of course, but how long will that last? Are we to have that forever?

You see this is part of the problem. "Sure it's working, so it's good enough" - no strive to better the nation. "Yarra they are getting the job done, who cares if they take the old back hander - sure it greases the wheels."
It's incredibly unprofessional and horrendously dishonest. would you like to live in an African country? Why are we any better?

Tommy T

Zulu wrote: »

I don't know about Intel, but the Nordic companies definatly do. The 20% is what keeps them sweet, of course, but how long will that last? Are we to have that forever?

You see this is part of the problem. "Sure it's working, so it's good enough" - no strive to better the nation. "Yarra they are getting the job done, who cares if they take the old back hander - sure it greases the wheels."
It's incredibly unprofessional and horrendously dishonest. would you like to live in an African country? Why are we any better?

So which nordis companies do you see pulling out due to the Barrister moneypit in the Castle? Answer is none. We live in a free market economy where bottom line economics takes precendence over everything else.

Show me a man who tells you theres a country where there's zero corruption and i'll show you a liar as human nature being what it is it will always be there in some shape or form. To suggest you only get iti n Africa is bordeline racist.

However it must be cited that the Castle moneydrain has not shown any corrupt act by Bertie so far...Just clarifying..;)

juuge

Tommy T wrote: »

Given the sinful waste of taxpayers money chasing shadows and Gilmartin's fairytales I'd close the moneypit in the morning.
..

What about the sinful waste of taxpayers money that goes to paying berties remuneration package that's presently higher than that of the president of the USA?
The guy has been 'found out' and he has to go...now!

Tommy T

juuge wrote: »

What about the sinful waste of taxpayers money that goes to paying berties remuneration package that's presently higher than that of the president of the USA?

Anyone voteed into the position of Taoiseach is entitled to the same package. Take it up with the Benchmarking body...

gandalf

Stekelly wrote: »

I would. We are spending countless millions to find out if he pocketed a few hundred grand. I know which figure I'd rather was still floating around in the economy

And if it turns out that favours were curried from receipt of these funds then both figures will pale against the revenues gained by the developers involved.

I know I would prefer the whole thing to be cleaned in public and those that are found wanting with their personal taxes dealt with either financially or legally. They of course should be removed from their Dail positions as well.

All we hear from the FF cheerleader brigade is the waste of money to the economy etc etc. If those witnesses who in the majority are either FF or FF supporters who actually gave their evidence in a timely fashion, without deceitfulness or stalling tactics then the costs would have been far lower. At the end of this tribunial judgement should have been made on these people and the extra costs they caused be taken from their own personal wealth.

Zulu

Tommy T wrote: »

So which nordis companies do you see pulling out due to the Barrister moneypit in the Castle? Answer is none. We live in a free market economy where bottom line economics takes precendence over everything else.

I never said anything about companies pulling out, yet. However the opinion does impact the setting up of other companies, and the running of projects here. It also has an indirect impact on business. Of course you can choose to ignore this, I don't mind.

Show me a man who tells you theres a country where there's zero corruption and i'll show you a liar as human nature being what it is it will always be there in some shape or form.

So that makes it ok to be flagrantly corrupt? Or that means we should accept corruption in our leaders??
I'm sorry, but I've better standards than that.

To suggest you only get iti n Africa is bordeline racist.

:rolleyes: Firstly I never said you "only" get corruption in Africa. Secondly - bravo for pulling the "racist" card, your argument has now lost all credit in my eyes.

Zulu

gandalf wrote: »

If those witnesses who in the majority are either FF or FF supporters who actually gave their evidence in a timely fashion, without deceitfulness or stalling tactics then the costs would have been far lower. At the end of this tribunial judgement should have been made on these people and the extra costs they caused be taken from their own personal wealth.

Bravo! Great point.

Tommy T

Zulu wrote: »

I never said anything about companies pulling out, yet. However the opinion does impact the setting up of other companies, and the running of projects here. It also has an indirect impact on business. Of course you can choose to ignore this, I don't mind.

So that makes it ok to be flagrantly corrupt? Or that means we should accept corruption in our leaders??
I'm sorry, but I've better standards than that.

:rolleyes: Firstly I never said you "only" get corruption in Africa. Secondly - bravo for pulling the "racist" card, your argument has now lost all credit in my eyes.

I'll lose little sleep knowing how little regard you have for my arguements..:D

Corruption should of course be dealt with by the authorities wherever its uncovered. However the lark in the Castle has unearthed percious little of it recently...

Just how many Nordic companies have set up shop here I wonder. They're more than welcome. However I think it will be our higher standards of living rather than the exhorbantly expensive diatribe in the Castle that will be more off putting for potential future investment...

mike65

Tommy T as you are a Bertie Boy I'm not expecting a fair assessment of anything I might say but regarding costs of Tribunals the estimated costs acording to Mahon will be 300 million, over the last decade or so the revenue has gathered in about 500 million from scores of chancers like the Bailey Brothers who coughed up 25 million and many more with payments from a few hundred thousand to several millions.

While we can all tear our hair out about the length and costs (regardless of tax return)
they need to play out and just maybe the corrupt classes that have ruled this state for about 4 decades will have thier cough softened and an era of clean and accountable politics can begin*

Mike.

*wakes up

Tommy T

The Baily's settlement was way back in 2003 if I'm not mistaken. There's no pending information about anyone from the Dramatis Personae of the tribunal over the last few years even coming close to making a similar arrangement with Revenue.

So to suggest that, as a direct result of this Planning Tribunal, takings will match let alone exceed the €300 Million(forcasted by the tribunal, a figure that is hotly contested by certain quarters) is at best mistaken...

Thats not me being biased, just realistic...

mike65

So if there is no money coming in stop the tribunals?

Mike.

Tommy T

mike65 wrote: »

So if there is no money coming in stop the tribunals?

Mike.

I never said that. I'm merely disagreeing with posts from some individuals that the tribunals are in some way paying their way through settlements to Revenue by those involved in giving evidence.

But I would close it tomorrow as its coming up waffle that if theres any substance to can be dealt with arms of the State already functioning...

oscarBravo

mike65, don't get personal.

I do find it instructive that FF supporters in particular have suddenly become concerned about the cost and scope of the tribunal since Bertie became the focus of attention.

gandalf

Again Tommy you are missing the point totally, your objective point of view hindered by the green and orange tinted glasses you are wearing. If as a result of this and other tribunals we clean up politics in this country then it will be money well spent. If the politicians realise that they are employed by the people of the country and not a select few developers or monied people then something good will come of it. Unfortunately as long as people like you defend these politicians the good of this will be diminished, allowing politicians think they can go on National television and get out of doing the decent thing by spinning a yarn and crying a few crocodile tears.

guinnessdrinker

oscarBravo wrote: »

I do find it instructive that FF supporters in particular have suddenly become concerned about the cost and scope of the tribunal since Bertie became the focus of attention.

Yes, I don't remember many FF supporters being overly concerned about the cost of the tribunal either until it was Bertie's turn to appear. Neither do I recall such concern being raised from Gov. ministers. Coincidence?

edanto

Well Tommy - let me try and keep up with you.

Wind your neck back in dude. My comment was tongue in cheek hence the smilie at the end of the sentence.

Hence, using your amazing smiley logic - the following comment is also tongue in cheek.

Tommy T wrote: »

But if you cannot provide a single shred of proof then you'll understand if i take it with a shovel of salt...;)

So, you're not going to look into the costs of the tribunal then. OK. You don't have to believe me - but I choose to believe mike65 since I trust him. I've read his posts on boards for a long time and I know that he researches. Whereas you, well, I don't give you any credibility yet.

I'll thank you to keep further discussion of the costs of the Mahon to the thread which is called "The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)".

This thread is about information in the public domain (following Oscar Bravos advice) - relative to payments between politicians and donors. Originally the thread was just about Ahern, but then I found the corruption law that Ahern's government brought in - and now I would like to widen the scope of the thread to include a discussion around what constitutes a corrupt act.

The law says that it is corrupt to receive a payment and not to disclose it, if "the donor had an interest in the person doing any act or making any omission in relation to his or her office or position or his or her principal's affairs or business"

Have any cases like this come before the courts? I'm asking specifically about the corruption law and not the Ethics in Public Office legislation.

Tommy T

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Yes, I don't remember many FF supporters being overly concerned about the cost of the tribunal either until it was Bertie's turn to appear. Neither do I recall such concern being raised from Gov. ministers. Coincidence?

Give me a chance will you? I'm only here a short while. I've been complaining about the process in the Castle for a couple of years now...

Tommy T

edanto wrote: »

Well Tommy - let me try and keep up with you.



Hence, using your amazing smiley logic - the following comment is also tongue in cheek.



So, you're not going to look into the costs of the tribunal then. OK. You don't have to believe me - but I choose to believe mike65 since I trust him. I've read his posts on boards for a long time and I know that he researches. Whereas you, well, I don't give you any credibility yet.

I'll thank you to keep further discussion of the costs of the Mahon to the thread which is called "The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)".

This thread is about information in the public domain (following Oscar Bravos advice) - relative to payments between politicians and donors. Originally the thread was just about Ahern, but then I found the corruption law that Ahern's government brought in - and now I would like to widen the scope of the thread to include a discussion around what constitutes a corrupt act.

The law says that it is corrupt to receive a payment and not to disclose it, if "the donor had an interest in the person doing any act or making any omission in relation to his or her office or position or his or her principal's affairs or business"

Have any cases like this come before the courts? I'm asking specifically about the corruption law and not the Ethics in Public Office legislation.

So in summary you have not a cintilla of evidence to back up your claim that the Tribunal is self funding thanks to settlements with Revenue arising from its investigations. Now thats cleared I'm happy to move on.

I know of no public figure prosecuted under the legistlation you've mentioned but I am open to correction...