Bertie Ahern - Bookies Nightmare

mike65

Ah we'll miss him when he's gone that for sure.

Ahern was at the Tribunal again today and had the public gallery in gales of laughter at times as he sought to explain the vast amoungs of Sterling that he kept taking charge of in the early 90s. Today (without being specificly asked) he volunteered info regarding 8 grand in bookies swag having had some success with the nags, somehow he had forgot to mention this up to now, so the fact he suddenly put this in the public domain can only mean he thought there were questions coming about same.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0604/mahon.html

Mike.

Akrasia

But Bertie Ahern was an "anti gambling campaigner". How could anyone who opposed gambling make bets large enough to net him 8 grand sterling more than a decade ago (when it half the price of a house)

Well I think I was always opposed to gambling. That was always my position......But I was totally opposed to the gambling end of it. All through my political career I had been opposing what I call the one-arm bandit. I led that campaign in Dublin back in the mid-80s

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-oppose-gambling-and-was-against-casino-says-ahern-1236261.html

Are we allowed to use the L word yet?

murphaph

more outrageous tripe from ahern. Quite how anyone can defend him at this stage is beyond me but some persist....the L word indeed! :mad:

sink

As the Gardai would say 'suspicious'.

kenco

Didnt Redmond use that excuse before? Something along the lines that no money was handed over but that he was called by the 'donator' from the course and told that the horse was fancied and would he like it if several grand was put on for him. Each time the horse won and the 'donator' just handed over the winnings from the bet he had placed for Redmond. They were all winners, imagine that!!!

Sad and pathetic stuff from Bertie.

Hotblack Desiato

sink wrote: »

As the Gardai would say 'suspicious'.

'I won it in the bookies' is a line often trotted out by:

- drug dealers
- welfare cheats
- tax cheats
- career criminals
- other assorted scumbags

to explain piles of dodgy cash.
Surprised that Bertie is grasping at this rather grimy straw. Even if he proves this is 100% true and above board, it still reflects badly upon him.

Are gambling winnings subject to income tax?

sink

ninja900 wrote: »

Are gambling winnings subject to income tax?

Well the lotto is not but I don't know about betting. I would think it would only apply over a certain amount.

mike65

Lotto is tax free.

Mike.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote: »

Are we allowed to use the L word yet?

Nope.

AARRRGH

He's a disgrace.

Victor

ninja900 wrote: »

Are gambling winnings subject to income tax?

No, unless its your primary source of income, in which case its is treated as a trade. the like of book makers and possibly some high rollers would come under this category.

Mr.Micro

The man has such a bad memory that he is unemployable. He was Taoiseach for 10 years with such a bad memory. I wonder if he has sought medical help for this condition. Anybody seen Walter Mitty?

scargill

poor old bookies got cleaned out by John Gilligan too.

lostexpectation

tribunal chairman requests public gallery to stop laughing at his evidence

Liam Byrne

Akrasia wrote: »

But Bertie Ahern was an "anti gambling campaigner". How could anyone who opposed gambling make bets large enough to net him 8 grand sterling more than a decade ago (when it half the price of a house)

Are you surprised ? It's the same guy who as Minister for Finance let fly at people who avoided/evaded tax with undeclared income and strange bank accounts (there's a video on YouTube somewhere).

Akrasia wrote: »

Are we allowed to use the L word yet?

We'll think of something along the lines of SWTCACSTDMTFACR...doesn't roll off the tongue that well, but hey, it's an acryonym about as convoluted as his finances, so it's appropriate

( in case anyone's wondering, that's "Someone Who Tells Confusing And Conflicting Stories That Don't Match The Facts And Change Regularly" )

But the only "L" word that's allowed is sanctioned by those who "Love" Bertie and believe everything he says, even if/when he changes it in the next interview.

Hang on.....I've just found an appropriate acronym :

"Believe Everyt'ing, Rite - Tribunal Is Exaggerating"

Any other suggestions ?

Hobart

Liam Byrne wrote: »

{snip}
Hang on.....I've just found an appropriate acronym :

"Believe Everyt'ing, Rite - Tribunal Is Exaggerating"

Any other suggestions ?

Ban Every Retard Talking Inane Excrement.

gandalf

Ah there's nothing like some comedy to cheer someone up from coming back from holliers

This is a complete and utter joke, if he doesn't do time for perjury at this stage there is no justice. As already stated above the class of people that normally use a pathetic excuse like this are the dregs of society.

I wonder will we see the great and good in FF start to put some distance between themselves and the non-teflon one now

DubArk

And he, I believe has ambitions of becoming our President in 2011, can you imagine the Walter Mitty of Irish politics representing us after that waffle he came out with yesterday!

To disgrace us once, but to be allowed to do it again is nothing short of a national tragedy. Bernie what are the odds of that? Huh?

nhughes100

No way Bertie will go for President of Ireland anyway, He'll be shifted off to Europe or more likely the UN where he can add to his substantial state pension.

mike65

The only good news is that such is the crippling embarrassment that must be being felt by Bertie boy and those close to him, it must be sending shivers through the FF rank and file (and beyond). Your lifes finances exposed for all to see. Not pretty but if it acts as a warning then its worth it.

As El Presidente or Europe I think thats a no-no

Mike.

sink

Berite is definitely a skilled negotiator and would have been well suited to the roll of President of the European Council. Unfortunately he has done himself and his country a disservice by being a slimy mofo. He has no chance of becoming President now, he'll be lucky if he stays out of prison.

guinnessdrinker

gandalf wrote: »

This is a complete and utter joke, if he doesn't do time for perjury at this stage there is no justice.

But has he actually committed purjury?

kowloon

sink wrote: »

Berite is definitely a skilled negotiator and would have been well suited to the roll of President of the European Council. Unfortunately he has done himself and his country a disservice by being a slimy mofo. He has no chance of becoming President now, he'll be lucky if he stays out of prison.

He will never see a day.

gandalf

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

But has he actually committed purjury?

Didn't he say there were never Sterling transactions?

kenco

AFAIK he cant be done for perjury as the tribunal is not a criminal court.

He might however be in trouble if the tax man (who still has not given him a tax clearance cert) starts investigating the new found funds and possible new accounts

Does anyone remember Bert making a very cryptic statement at the start of this whole mess that he denied the suggestion that he had a bank account in Mauritiaus. I remember thinking at the time that this was a very strange statement to make a possibly a 'smoke and daggers' move but not any more

guinnessdrinker

gandalf wrote: »

Didn't he say there were never Sterling transactions?

Yes, I think he did say that but he just forgot about it, that's why we had explainations about the sterling yesterday.

gandalf

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Yes, I think he did say that but he just forgot about it, that's why we had explainations about the sterling yesterday.

Well if he didn't spread falsehoods then it must be assumed that he must be deficient of mind that he cannot recall such large amounts of money moving through his accounts. One could question what kind of political party allows someone with such limited abilities of recall to run it?

murphaph

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Yes, I think he did say that but he just forgot about it, that's why we had explainations about the sterling yesterday.

...the 'explanations' which can't be verified because the man who supposedly converted the money is now dead. How convenient.

Ahern is a disgrace but more importantly....Cowen knew, they all knew, just like Ahern knew about Haughey. FF are so unbelievably arrogant that the believe they have the right to do these things.

Compare to the conservative MEP who resigned today for a small mistake in his expenses!

Akrasia

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

But has he actually committed purjury?

well, a few months ago he was adamant that he never exchanged sterling in small amounts, he preferred to get it all done in big 30k sized bundles, and now he's claiming that he was exchanging a few grand worth at a time in the back of a car...

Oh wait, his explanation..."it was different sterling"

And that's just one example.

SEPT 23 1989

does anyone have the exact text he used to describe walking around manchester with wads of notes and his comment about man city supporters

x in the city

Bertie is a disgrace ffs.

he should be jailed in all seriousness. swindling our tax money for donkey years.

lying about non existing degrees...

phfft.

shambolic person.

. and that grin he uses 99% of the time.

what does he find so amusing i wonder...

murphaph

x in the city wrote: »

what does he find so amusing i wonder...

...that the mugs we are have swallowed it all for so long? He's not a good statesman, has a poor memory, can barely pronounce words properly yet he was a "great taoiseach" according to many. The joke is on us.

SEPT 23 1989

juuge

Ordinary people can tell lies - but bertie gives inaccurate statements.
'little willie' O'Dea and 'little dick' roche must feel like proper plonkers !

LostinBlanch

kenco wrote: »

AFAIK he cant be done for perjury as the tribunal is not a criminal court.

Well then why did O'Neill tell Berties Secretary that she was under oath and then outlined the penalties for perjury?

AFAIK if someone was to lie under oath it would lay them open to charges of perjury, no matter if it was in court, in front of a tribunal or other legal body that conducts enquiries.

Mr.Micro

Who writes Bertie's material? A great stand up routine, all he needs is a straight guy to bounce the gags off. What a comedian. Is his legal team actually advising him ? What will we hear next that he found the money in the street ?

dresden8

Three pages of anti-Bertie-ism and still no supporters in yet telling us not to judge Berte and to let the tribunal do it's business and issue it's findings.

A week really is a long time in politics.

Bye Bye Bertie.

mike65

True enough. The meeeeja has been free of senior figures telling us the Tribunal is the problem, not Bertie - he's been cut loose. Yesterdays man.

Mike.

LostinBlanch

Well wasn't Dermot Ahern giving out about the tribunal today?

Old habits die hard.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Three pages of anti-Bertie-ism and still no supporters in yet telling us not to judge Berte and to let the tribunal do it's business and issue it's findings.

A week really is a long time in politics.

Bye Bye Bertie.

I would've been one of those people giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not a Bertie support per se, I didn't vote FF last electection due to their deplorable managment skill in public services. The 'I won it on a horse' comment has removed any of my doubts now.

Latchy

Puts all the honest irish politicians in the shade dont it ?

was listening on rte radio today about what he said in court and was quite funny .

Liam Byrne

dresden8 wrote: »

Three pages of anti-Bertie-ism and still no supporters in yet telling us not to judge Berte and to let the tribunal do it's business and issue it's findings.

A week really is a long time in politics.

Bye Bye Bertie.

Anti-Berti-ism or reality check (or should that be "cheque" ?)

Colonel Sanders

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Anti-Berti-ism or reality check (or should that be "cheque" ?)

agreed, when he was taoiseach i heard a number of people saying the media were being very hard on Bertie, I thought they weren't being hard enough to be honest.

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

Three pages of anti-Bertie-ism and still no supporters in yet telling us not to judge Berte and to let the tribunal do it's business and issue it's findings.

A week really is a long time in politics.

Bye Bye Bertie.

You see the difficulty for the tribunal is,they have to prove that Mr Ahern deliberately lied.
We don't and we certainly can't accuse him of it in this forum.
we can opinionate 'till the cows come home on the matter mindfull of that fact.

sink wrote:

The 'I won it on a horse' comment has removed any of my doubts now.

£8k of it apparently not all of it..
We're entitled not to believe that but it could be true.How do we know it isn't?

Our only basis for coming to the conclusion that it might not be true is that it was brought in at the last minute and the several clarifications that Mr Ahern made.

That wouldn't be suffecient for a court of law to convict him on that issue given that he has the right [regardless of whether anyone believes him or not] to be claiming he's been a busy man and it's only now he has the time since his resignation to properly devote time to looking into matters he'd have thought way back when were never needing recording.


I know the above isn't going to be of any comfort to the vast majority of regular Ahern criticisers here but let me give you another view.
I actually think and have thought all through this that Ahern's finances wouldn't pass the "fit for office test" when gone through in the fine detail that they have been.
I don't know the reason why his finances have been structured in the way that they have been.

However I can guess that something fishy might have been going on in terms of his marriage break up and obligation to his ex wife and family and hence all the cash dealings and shyness at going near banks.

That would explain the handiness also of accepting the "dig outs" as each time he'd go to a bank for a loan,he'd be declaring means to his ex wife.
Far better in his mindset to accept a handier source of cash and worry about the consequences if any later.
At the time of course he could never have foreseen what was to happen 14 years later.

"if" thats the case it's not a very nice persona to have come out when the light has shone through.
However we must remember that the issue being investigated is corruption.
So I think if we are to apply disdain for his finances,we should apply it appropriately.

dresden8

Deleted User wrote: »

You see the difficulty for the tribunal is,they have to prove that Mr Ahern deliberately lied.
We don't and we certainly can't accuse him of it in this forum.


However I can guess that something fishy might have been going on in terms of his marriage break up and obligation to his ex wife and family and hence all the cash dealings and shyness at going near banks.

That would explain the handiness also of accepting the "dig outs" as each time he'd go to a bank for a loan,he'd be declaring means to his ex wife.
Far better in his mindset to accept a handier source of cash and worry about the consequences if any later.
.

If I'm reading you right you're saying he was hiding money from his wife. Which in itself is bad enough.

But if this separation went through the courts, it means he was hiding money from the court. Which is an altogether more serious matter as far as I am aware.

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

But if this separation went through the courts, it means he was hiding money from the court. Which is an altogether more serious matter as far as I am aware.

Yeah you are reading me correctly.
Be aware that is is an opinion I have ,it's not fact and it's not an area that the tribunal has either the remit or the competence to judge.
Therefore it's correct to say that it would be of it's own a serious legal misdemeanour,we have no proof of it and there is none to warrant the courts coming back to Ahern on it.So I can't accuse him of it.I can just say it's my belief that it may be a more plausible explanation than planning corruption or the more than normal abuse of public office.

I wouldn't be at all surprised though if it was what is behind all of this.

mike65

Ahern "corrected" himself yesterday about the 8000 on the horses, he said it was in fact two winning bets - one of 3k and one of 2.5k. So he can't remember first placing bets, then how much or how many times! Jasus.

Mike.

I wouldn't either Mike if it was 14 years ago.
It's possible you know that he makes several and so many of them that one or two are insignificant to him.

Also to be correct about it,It's not strictly that he is saying that he can't remember placing bets or the amounts exactly.
He is saying he has been too busy to realise that they could have explained some of his lodgements.

Are you Mike then 100% convinced that he has been involved in corruption? If so where is your proof?

dresden8

He was broke and there's 8 grand in winnings or so and a lot more money floating around elsewhere? I'm not broke but if I won eight grand you can bet your arse I'd remember it in years to come.

FFS!

mike65

Quite so.

Also Bertie was much against the proliferation of gaming halls that spead about Dublin centre in the 80s. So one would imagine he would not gamble if he so dissaproved. Unless the sport of kings was fine for him but slots too corrupting for the likes of "us".

Mike.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't either Mike if it was 14 years ago.
It's possible you know that he makes several and so many of them that one or two are insignificant to him.

Also to be correct about it,It's not strictly that he is saying that he can't remember placing bets or the amounts exactly.
He is saying he has been too busy to realise that they could have explained some of his lodgements.

Are you Mike then 100% convinced that he has been involved in corruption? If so where is your proof?

It's not plausible that Ahern didn't remember winning so much money on horses, especially back when he claims he was in serious financial difficulties. My girlfriend's father is a regular gambler and he still talks about the one or two big wins he has had down through the years (and the few that got away)

He can remember the names of the horses, the odds he got, the race meeting he won them at from well over a decade ago.

But then, nothing about Aherns story is plausible. The claim that he desperately needed 2 'digout' 'loans' (that he only paid back when the tribunal found about them) while he was 'saving' money for an investment property near a football stadium is ridiculous. Why would anyone consider buying an apartment for rent while they didn't even have a home to live in themselves.

It makes absolutely no sense in any context and there is only one conclusion any reasonable person can come to.