Ivor C, Gilmore's wife and double stabndards

ISAW

Do people find it odd that when IC wind a legal case people are appalled and link Ivor to a corrupt party and a corrupt element in society. They mention the houses and businesses Ivor 's wife has and so on.

Yet consider Eamon Gilmore's wife. The same sort of people say it has nothing to do with Gilmore if his wife legally makes over a half million on artificially inflated property'

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68800849&postcount=7

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69013466&postcount=119

A string of vitriolic attacks are made against Ivor mentioning his properties wife etc. but Gilmore whom his detractors do not attack in such a vitriolic manner, is presented by his supporters as having nothing to do with the wife or property.

How can one have one standard for the Labour leader and another for a person who was ejected from FF?

HivemindXX

ISAW wrote: »

How can one have one standard for the Labour leader and another for a person who was ejected from FF?

It's not a double standard at all.

Gilmores wife did nothing wrong. Gilmore did nothing wrong. You are choosing to hold them to some insane standard of your own devising whereby they shouldn't profit from house price increases.

Callely claimed expenses (and lots of them) for travel that he almost certainly didn't make. He used a loophole to profit himself. Most people think that expense claims should exist to cover actual expenditure, not as a nice little bonus income. Due to the gentlemans club rules in the Senate he is apparently allowed to claim that his primary residence is anywhere he likes and where he actually lives and spends his day to day existence doesn't matter. He can then, apparently, claim expenses for the supposed travel to and from this supposed residence. This may not be illegal but for the vast majority of the people in the country this is WRONG.

This is leaving aside the allegation that he claimed expenses using forged receipts which is simple fraud and illegal.

ISAW

HivemindXX wrote: »

It's not a double standard at all.

Gilmores wife did nothing wrong. Gilmore did nothing wrong. You are choosing to hold them to some insane standard of your own devising whereby they shouldn't profit from house price increases.

No! By land price increases. Not my standard. It is a standard of Marxist theory and it is a standard opposed by Joan Burton at a Labour conference where she specifically targeted land being sold by at inflated prices to schools. It is in the thread I referenced.

Callely claimed expenses (and lots of them) for travel that he almost certainly didn't make.

Who is using some insane standard of your own devising now?
The courts did not find IC to be claiming expenses for travel he didn't make did it?

He used a loophole to profit himself.

And Gilmore's wife ignored Marxist theory and Laboutr policy against profiting on inflated land. It was not illegal. Is it acceptable for Labour party people to make money on inflated land prices which they accuse the government of artifically inflating and consider it despicable to be selling inflated property to schools?

Most people think that expense claims should exist to cover actual expenditure, not as a nice little bonus income.

Most marxists think that making over a million in the last five years ( as Gilmore and his wife did ) and making over a half million on inflated property and inflation caused they claim by bad government policy ( which she also did) should not be a nice little bonus income.


No you are proposing a "moral law" of "wrong" based on your definition of wrong over the law of the land. Of course should the church or anyone else say they did something because they thought it themoral thing to do at the time you will no doubt insist that the law of the land should be changed and people who claim moral authority made subject to that law.

Ivor has not been found guilty of breaking any law.
when you start to appeal to higher natural law of Ivor being "wrong" then you have to consider the ideological principles of Gilmore too and the Marxist antio land background of boith Gilmore and his wife from Official Sinn féin days.

the Same Marxist principles i have never heard Gilmore deny and that he ascribes among the bearded classes of SIPTU etc.

Callely claimed expenses (and lots of them) for travel that he almost certainly didn't make.

Which expenses? and if he did how come the law hasn't acted on it?

He used a loophole to profit himself.

Let me get this straight. Callelly moves house and claimes (totally legally ) travel expenses to the new house miles away down the country and that is morally wrong because it is against the principle of the State supporting "each according to their needs"
BUT
Gilmore's wife makes over a half million ( totally legally) from inflated property prices by selling land to a school miles away down the country and that is morally acceptable even though it is against the Marxist principles which Gilmore espouses and against Labour Party principles espoused by Joan Burton of making profit by selling inflated land to schools.

Most people think that expense claims should exist to cover actual expenditure, not as a nice little bonus income.

Most marxist people think school land should be given away to a school and not sold to them for over a half million as a nice little bonus income.

Due to the gentlemans club rules in the Senate he is apparently allowed to claim that his primary residence is anywhere he likes and where he actually lives and spends his day to day existence doesn't matter.

I don't know about that . I assume he is primarily meant to actually reside there. The word "primary residence" might give you a clue to that.

He can then, apparently, claim expenses for the supposed travel to and from this supposed residence. This may not be illegal but for the vast majority of the people in the country this is WRONG.

Nor is it illegal to make a half million on land but the vast majority of true marxists would consider it wrong.

This is leaving aside the allegation that he claimed expenses using forged receipts which is simple fraud and illegal.

Great! If he is tried and convicted on that we can leave it aside and deal with the issue of not having double standards with respect to moral principles in this case then I assume?

28064212

ISAW wrote: »

No! By land price increases. Not my standard. It is a standard of Marxist theory and it is a standard opposed by Joan Burton at a Labour conference where she specifically targeted land being sold by at inflated prices to schools. It is in the thread I referenced.

Source? Source that says Gilmore and/or his wife support this "Marxist theory"? Source that it's part of Labour policy? Labour haven't been hard leftists for a long time

ISAW wrote: »

Who is using some insane standard of your own devising now?
The courts did not find IC to be claiming expenses for travel he didn't make did it?

He was found not to have misrepresented his place of residence. He still hasn't had to face charges on the myriad of other allegations against him

ISAW wrote: »

Nor is it illegal to make a half million on land but the vast majority of true marxists would consider it wrong.

And? Again, have Gilmore, his wife, or the Labour party called themselves "true marxists"? And vague communist rhetoric from 20 years ago doesn't count

ISAW

28064212 wrote: »

Source? Source that says Gilmore and/or his wife support this "Marxist theory"? Source that it's part of Labour policy? Labour haven't been hard leftists for a long time

Fair enough - you claim Labour are not a left wing party at all
You had better tell Gilmore that.
Left wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics
In modern political rhetoric, those on the Left typically emphasize their support for working people and accuse the Right of supporting the interests of the upper class, whereas those on the Right usually emphasize their support for individualism and accuse the Left of supporting collectivism

Ok I stand corrected.

Labour are a right wing party: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ireland

They are not socialist and don't espouse collecticism cooperatives rather then corporates or credit unions rather than banks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_%28Marxism%29

Socialism is a mode of production where economic activity is based on directly maximizing use-value through conscious economic planning, where monetary relations in the form of exchange-value and wage labor cease to exist out. Socialism is characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership (with the state being re-organized under socialism) and self management.

so Labour are more for cuts and not for pandering to the social partners and not for more taxes? Could have fooled me! Isn't that what FG claim to be?

He was found not to have misrepresented his place of residence. He still hasn't had to face charges on the myriad of other allegations against him

Exactly! Has yet to face! on other issues. But you are prepared to pre judge them and you are not prepared to deal with the actual issue at hand. Legally made money and double standards when it comes to Gilmore's wife and her totally legally made money.

And? Again, have Gilmore, his wife, or the Labour party called themselves "true marxists"? And vague communist rhetoric from 20 years ago doesn't count

As I stated he espoused collective and social partners of unions and the like and I have not heard him ever say "I do not believe in Marxism"
when he says that I will accept him at his word.

Lockstep

ISAW wrote: »

the Same Marxist principles i have never heard Gilmore deny and that he ascribes among the bearded classes of SIPTU etc.

I've never heard him claim that the Earth is round. Until he denies this we must assume that he is a Flat-Earther.

If you're going to claim that Gilmore is a Marxist, the onus is on you to prove this is the case. Referencing Wikipedia isn't sufficient. A cursory read of Marx's work (I suggest the COmmunist Manifesto) would show you that a core belief of Marxism is the role of class struggle and revolutionary socialism. How does this apply to Gilmore?

Otherwise;

"All sites purchased by the OPW on behalf of the Department of Education are subject to a valuation being carried out," the OPW spokeswoman said. "The commissioners' valuer inspected the site and advised that the agreed price was reasonable."

Source
The wife of the leader of a social democratic party sells land she inherited from her mother for an amount independently valuated. Shock. Horror.
Unless Gilmore/his wife claim that absolutely everyone who sold land during the boom years is to blame then I fail to see what the issue is.

Sponge Bob

Gilmores wife and Ivor Callelly are wet chalk and plutonium, no comparison between them at all. Anybody trying to manufacture an analogy comes across as a desperate Fianna Fáiler clutching at straws.

youcrazyjesus!

I'm no Labour voter but what are you saying is immoral or hypocritical about the legitimate sale of a piece of property at market rates following the death of a loved one? She had land. Somebody sought it. She sold it. Iirc she actually agreed to sell it it a lower rate previously but the offer wasn't taken up.

It's a total non story and it was a disgraceful attempt by right wing media to smear a left wing politician at a time when Labour were riding high in the polls. Smear tactics worthy of Italy not Ireland. It has absolutely nothing to do with Ivor Callely.

Shame on anyone bringing it up.

Lockstep

ISAW wrote: »

Fair enough - you claim Labour are not a left wing party at all

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or whether you just didn't read the post.

Source? Source that says Gilmore and/or his wife support this "Marxist theory"? Source that it's part of Labour policy? Labour haven't been hard leftists for a long time

Nowhere did 28064212 claim that Labour aren't a left wing party at all. You completely made this up.
What 28064212 *did* say was that Labour are no longer a hard left party. How you misconstrued this as a claim that Labour aren't a left wing party at all is beyond me.

Attributing false claims to other posters isn't on. Don't do this again.

28064212

ISAW wrote: »

Fair enough - you claim Labour are not a left wing party at all

Do you even read my post? Or did you just grab a couple of words from it and throw them together in your head? Where did I claim Labour are not left wing?

ISAW wrote: »

so Labour are more for cuts and not for pandering to the social partners and not for more taxes? Could have fooled me! Isn't that what FG claim to be?

So the only two possibilities are either complete Marxism or you're right-wing? There's no such thing as a centre-left party?

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly! Has yet to face! on other issues. But you are prepared to pre judge them and you are not prepared to deal with the actual issue at hand. Legally made money and double standards when it comes to Gilmore's wife and her totally legally made money.

What issue at hand? IC has serious allegations to face. Nothing he's done since has assuaged those concerns

ISAW wrote: »

As I stated he espoused collective and social partners of unions and the like and I have not heard him ever say "I do not believe in Marxism"
when he says that I will accept him at his word.

....
....
That's not how an argument works. Lockstep has already addressed it adequately

gizmo555

28064212 wrote: »

have Gilmore, his wife, or the Labour party called themselves "true marxists"?

He may not be a Marxist, but he is leader of the Labour Party.

These comments from an earlier leader of the Labour Party are instructive:

The bearing of the capitalist system upon the problem of educating the young is shown in this statement of the Belfast Inspector [of schools]:-

"The cost of sites is a difficulty to be reckoned with in Belfast. I was informed that a rood of inferior building ground cost the promoters of a school about £500."

Five hundred pounds to be paid before Belfast can secure a rood of "inferior building ground", upon which to erect a school to educate its children; and the landowners, who exact this tax upon enlightenment, are the political leaders of the people whose children's education they obstruct.

James Connolly, "The Re-Conquest of Ireland". (emphasis mine.)

Connolly must be turning in his grave . . .

ISAW

Lockstep wrote: »

I've never heard him claim that the Earth is round. Until he denies this we must assume that he is a Flat-Earther.

If in 1990 he was a flat earther and he didnt deny it since I would assumemn it.
You are aware Gilmore was in Occicial sinn Fein ; Sinn Fein the workers Party; the Workers Party; and Democratic left - all "flat Earthers"!

If you're going to claim that Gilmore is a Marxist, the onus is on you to prove this is the case. Referencing Wikipedia isn't sufficient.

He has a marxist background
He panders to the marxist and working class vote and never says he is against marxism
The Provisional/Republican Sinn Fein split was one between nationalism (who wanted Irish workers to be independnet in Ireland) and marxist socialism ( who believed the workers of the world should unite i.e. British and Irish workers are no different.
the collectivist bargening /social partnertship of SIPTU ( who finance the Labourt Party) and anti bank and opposition to capitalism e.g. anti big business and anti corporate elements of Marxism are present in Labour.

I never stated he is a Marxist
I stated he has a marxist background and his wife has.
Obviously since they are millionaires and make money on property deals they are not marxist - but I wish he should be more vocal on this and his Party (who have actually grown in the middle classes in dublin as moved away from the left as they have in the UK)
would not pander to it if they dont really believe in it.

A cursory read of Marx's work (I suggest the COmmunist Manifesto) would show you that a core belief of Marxism is the role of class struggle and revolutionary socialism. How does this apply to Gilmore?

So he leads the Labour Party but the actual name of the party and its connection to trade unions and the pictures of Janes connoly and Larkin and mention of them in Labour Party speeches have nothing to do with the working class?

The wife of the leader of a social democratic party sells land she inherited from her mother for an amount independently valuated. Shock. Horror.

At a price over a half million when she was offered say 100k about three years before but due to delays and due to the policy of the government which her husband's party strongly criticised, she ended up getting mroe than a half million.

a comment on the page you offer as source using todays prices:

its hard for Gilmore to be pointing the finger at others in the property speculation business when his close family have done very well out of the boom thank you - how much is that 2.5 acres worth today.......2.5 acres of the best agricultural land in County Meath would cost 50K......is there gold in the fields of Galway......

Unless Gilmore/his wife claim that absolutely everyone who sold land during the boom years is to blame then I fail to see what the issue is.

the issue is double standards . People like Ivor and property speculators are all blamed but not absolutely everyone since the people decrying greed are exempted from applying the same standards to themselves. Which is ironic considering the Marxist background and the appeal to working class people to vote for them.

No smoke without salmon.

Jaysoose

ISAW wrote: »

Let me get this straight. Callelly moves house and claimes (totally legally ) travel expenses to the new house miles away down the country and that is morally wrong because it is against the principle of the State supporting "each according to their needs"

This is the whole crux of the matter the courts found in his favour in regards to the fact that he didnt get fair process as the senate has no power to enforce a suspension, the same senate did however determine that one of their own senators was claiming expenses when they shouldnt have. Just because the senate dont know basic employment rights doesnt change the fact that there is still a huge question mark over the legality of the expenses claimed.

You cant say that he claimed these totally legally with any credibility or argument to back the statement up. He has been found to be treated unfairly by his peers in this matter that is all. The fact that he is being given back his lost revenue means very little and does not clear him of anything or put the matter to bed and still leaves the matter of the misclaimed expenses and the mobile phone expenses that cant be explained.

The land deal conducted by eamon gilmores wife is completely transparent and above board.

Two very different things that cant be compared by any sane person without an agenda.

Zynks

Every night before I go to bed I pray that we have elections where all the talk is about who has the best vision/policy/strategy for this country rather than trying to find ways to put down each other with speculative digs.... but my prayers are not working :(

I am already sick of cheap punches and intend to do my bit to raise the bar, even if just a little bit. As a matter of fact, candidates that focus their campaign on negativity and unfounded speculation about other candidates not only will loose my vote, but will have me campaigning against them.

This country is going nowhere fast if that is how we intend to do politics.

gizmo555

Jaysoose wrote: »

You cant say that he claimed these totally legally with any credibility or argument to back the statement up.

Unless and until he is convicted of an offence, not only can we say this, on the basis of the presumption of innocence, we must. Whether he was morally entitled to make the claims concerned, is of course an entirely different matter.

Jaysoose wrote: »

The land deal conducted by eamon gilmores wife is completely transparent and above board.

Doesn't make it morally right. Saying that the land was "independently valued" doesn't mean it was right to take the money. She could, like for example, the O'Connor's in Dingle (who gifted the site of the new hospital), have just given the land to the community, or sold it as its agricultural value.

Jaysoose wrote: »

Two very different things that cant be compared by any sane person without an agenda.

Well, I'm sane and my agenda is drawing attention to the hypocrisy of Gilmore in this matter.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I'd be inclined to agree with you other than it was Gilmore's wife and not Gilmore who did it.

It is just as morally wrong as what Callely did to be fair, but at the end of the day Gilmore couldn't force his wife not to sell the land.

Now if evidence came to light that Gilmore had done something shady to get her that deal then he's actually worse than Callely.

gandalf

I wasn't aware that Callalys wife faked the invoices? Oh wait she didn't so again this is nothing more than grasping at straws. Then again I suppose it just an academic arguement again eh

Again how can you condemn someone for the legal sale of property carried out by THEIR WIFE! This has been discussed to death already.

Jaysoose

gizmo555 wrote: »

Unless and until he is convicted of an offence, not only can we say this, on the basis of the presumption of innocence, we must. Whether he was morally entitled to make the claims concerned, is of course an entirely different matter.



Doesn't make it morally right. Saying that the land was "independently valued" doesn't mean it was right to take the money. She could, like for example, the O'Connor's in Dingle (who gifted the site of the new hospital), have just given the land to the community, or sold it as its agricultural value.

Again nothing was done to conceal this land deal as opposed to ivor expenses. Does it make it wrong to sell something at market value? Why should she donate the land that she owns your struggling with this.



Well, I'm sane and my agenda is drawing attention to the hypocrisy of Gilmore in this matter.

How is it hypocrisy to sell land while condemning somebody for abusing the generous expenses system at their disposal?

Liam Byrne

ISAW wrote: »

Who is using some insane standard of your own devising now?
The courts did not find IC to be claiming expenses for travel he didn't make did it?

The courts didn't even check that out, because of the phrasing of the "expenses" rules.

ISAW wrote: »

Ivor has not been found guilty of breaking any law.
when you start to appeal to higher natural law of Ivor being "wrong" then you have to consider the ideological principles of Gilmore too and the Marxist antio land background of boith Gilmore and his wife from Official Sinn féin days.

Let me get this straight. Callelly moves house and claimes (totally legally ) travel expenses to the new house miles away down the country and that is morally wrong because it is against the principle of the State supporting "each according to their needs"

The legal issue is different from the moral issue, because of the vague definition of "primary place of residence".

Callely was seen most mornings in Dublin and even stated elsewhere that he "lived" in Dublin.

So Callely stated conflicting things in order to get money that he wasn't entitled to except in the self-interested world of certain politicians.

I didn't see Gilmore's wife doing anything other than selling land; did she get extra for it by falsely stating that she lived there and travelled there daily ? If she did, you'd have a correlation.

As it stands, this is just mud-slinging.

It might have been preferable if the Gilmores offered the land at a discount because of their principles, but there's a massive difference between that and jogging Dublin beaches every morning while claiming expenses for driving from Cork while telling your constituents that you live in Dublin.

HivemindXX

I suspect that if Gilmores wife has sold the land at half the price we'd see the same posters here asking how we could consider voting for someone with a such a proven track record of financial incompetence.

gizmo555

gandalf wrote: »

Again how can you condemn someone for the legal sale of property carried out by THEIR WIFE! This has been discussed to death already.

Because

(a) I simply don't believe that she executed a €525k property transaction without discussing it at all with her husband or in any way asking his opinion

and

(b) after the event, he defends her windfall gain.

These two are, after all, very well paid public servants with the expectation of extremely good pensions when they retire. It couldn't even be argued that she needed this money, for example, to make provision for her retirement.

gizmo555

Jaysoose wrote: »

How is it hypocrisy to sell land while condemning somebody for abusing the generous expenses system at their disposal?

It's hypocrisy to claim to be a socialist and at the same time make this kind of windfall gain at the public expense.

Zynks

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's hypocrisy to claim to be a socialist and at the same time make this kind of windfall gain at the public expense.

You may be confusing socialism with foolishness.

gandalf

gizmo555 wrote: »

Because

(a) I simply don't believe that she executed a €525k property transaction without discussing it at all with her husband or in any way asking his opinion

and

(b) after the event, he defends her windfall gain.

These two are, after all, very well paid public servants with the expectation of extremely good pensions when they retire. It couldn't even be argued that she needed this money, for example, to make provision for her retirement.

If they influenced the purchase of the property via their respective positions then yes you have a point. So far no evidence of this has been presented. What happens inside their marriage is their own business whether they discussed this or not.

She inherited the property so it was hers to do with as she saw fit even shock horror sell it at the market rate as determined by the Office of Public Works.

As already stated if they had sold it at less than the market rate at the time then people would be throwing it into our faces at how Labour are incompetent when it came to matters of a financial nature.

Lockstep

gizmo555 wrote: »

Doesn't make it morally right. Saying that the land was "independently valued" doesn't mean it was right to take the money. She could, like for example, the O'Connor's in Dingle (who gifted the site of the new hospital), have just given the land to the community, or sold it as its agricultural value.

Gifting land is commendable, demanding extra cash above it's market value is reprehensible. Selling it for the market value is neutral.

Let's say I have a guitar worth €500 which my friend really wants. Knowing how much he wants it, I could demand €800. I could give it to him for free which would be extremely noble and commendable. Or, I could check out how much it's worth and sell it for that amount.
She's a private citizen so I fail to see how this makes Gilmore a hypocrit, unless he should have forced his wife to act a certain way (with her mother's land)

ISAW wrote: »

If in 1990 he was a flat earther and he didnt deny it since I would assumemn it.
You are aware Gilmore was in Occicial sinn Fein ; Sinn Fein the workers Party; the Workers Party; and Democratic left - all "flat Earthers"!

Yes, and now he's the leader of a party that is decisively centre-left after leaving the Worker’s Party with others who wanted a mixed economy.
Actions speak louder than words.
http://www.labour.ie/policy
What are the Marxist policies here?

ISAW wrote: »

He has a marxist background
He panders to the marxist and working class vote and never says he is against marxism
The Provisional/Republican Sinn Fein split was one between nationalism (who wanted Irish workers to be independnet in Ireland) and marxist socialism ( who believed the workers of the world should unite i.e. British and Irish workers are no different.
the collectivist bargening /social partnertship of SIPTU ( who finance the Labourt Party) and anti bank and opposition to capitalism e.g. anti big business and anti corporate elements of Marxism are present in Labour.

Right, he was once a member of a Marxist organisation so he must *always* remain so? Regardless of how moderate and centrist his party's policies are today? Keep in mind her was a member of Democratic LEft, who split off from the Stickies as they favoured a more social democratic model.
How exactly does he pander to the Marxist vote? Marxists already have the Socialist Party, the SWP and the Worker’s Party. Any evidence that he panders to Marxist voters beyond what he says to society as a whole?
Or, any evidence that anti-capitalist groups are present in Labour (keep in mind you’ll need to show genuine anti-capitalism, not just criticisms of the unrestrained free market)

ISAW wrote: »

I never stated he is a Marxist
I stated he has a marxist background and his wife has.
Obviously since they are millionaires and make money on property deals they are not marxist - but I wish he should be more vocal on this and his Party (who have actually grown in the middle classes in dublin as moved away from the left as they have in the UK)
would not pander to it if they dont really believe in it.

So why then, do you keep referencing that Gilmore's actions go against Marxist theory? Unless you're a Marxist yourself and are incensed by his actions.
Again, evidence that he panders to the Marxist vote please.

ISAW wrote: »

So he leads the Labour Party but the actual name of the party and its connection to trade unions and the pictures of Janes connoly and Larkin and mention of them in Labour Party speeches have nothing to do with the working class?

1) Yes, it's called the Labour Party. Not the Marxist Anti-Capitalist Headbanger Party.
2) Labour has connection with *some* unions. It isn't the political wing of the ICTU
3) Connolly and Larkin are important figures within the Labour Party but neither do they rigidly try and apply their views to the 21 century (unlike Marxists)
4) Have you any proof that has Gilmore saying that the working class can't profit at all from the sale of land? Fair bit of difference if someone is selling off some land in their possession, as compared to someone hoovering up property to sell it on at inflated prices.

ISAW wrote: »

At a price over a half million when she was offered say 100k about three years before but due to delays and due to the policy of the government which her husband's party strongly criticised, she ended up getting mroe than a half million.

a comment on the page you offer as source using todays prices:

I fail to see the problem here. She was approached over land which was evaluated and then it became worth more for reasons outside of her control. She sold it. What is the issue here? Unless you can show Labour oppose the selling of land, then your argument is invalid. Her husband’s party criticised government policies and rampant property speculation. Not the one off sales of individual land. My uncle sold land (part of his farm) during the boom years as did many others. Do you honestly think Labour’s gripe is with absolutely everyone who ever sold land during the Celtic Tiger?

ISAW wrote: »

the issue is double standards . People like Ivor and property speculators are all blamed but not absolutely everyone since the people decrying greed are exempted from applying the same standards to themselves. Which is ironic considering the Marxist background and the appeal to working class people to vote for them.

No smoke without salmon.

Right, so once a MArxist, always a Marxist?
Michael D was in Fianna Fáil when he was in college whereas Joe Higgins was once a seminarian. They can never, ever move away from these?

Decrying those who engaged in rampant property speculation is one thing. But Gilmore hasn't accused the sale of land as being inherently wrong. His wife sold one piece of land she inherited from her mother. Unless Labour has policies banning the sale of all land, then what is your problem here?

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's hypocrisy to claim to be a socialist and at the same time make this kind of windfall gain at the public expense.

Does Gilmore still claim to be a socialist? Or does his wife?

ISAW

gandalf wrote: »

I wasn't aware that Callalys wife faked the invoices?

I refer to the prior thread which the mods locked due to the abuse thrown.
In that thread the property owned by IC was pointed out and the fact that his wife had several businesses before IC was elected to the Dail and after he lost his seat.

Again how can you condemn someone for the legal sale of property carried out by THEIR WIFE! This has been discussed to death already.

I don't! I just point out that if you say "how can you condemn someone for the legal sale of property carried out by THEIR WIFE" how can you also ask about properties owned by IC if they are properties in which his wife operates a business and in which she operated the business before he was elected to the Dail?

People seem happy to discuss IC and his wife to death but to dismiss the half million in property made by the wife of comrade Gilmore. I'm only asking if this indicates double standards?

gizmo555

Zynks wrote: »

You may be confusing socialism with foolishness.

Eamon Gilmore, 11 Sep 2009

To remove some of the cyclical element in the construction sector, we need far greater control of the price of building land. Again, Labour has proposed legislation to give effect to the proposals of the Kenny report, to limit speculation in building land.

I know it seems a remote prospect now, but we have to learn the lessons of what has gone on before. At the height of the boom the cost of the site, represented an unreal and unsustainable proportion of the price of a house.


Doesn't get more hypocritical than that - we'll limit windfall gains on development land as the Kenny report recommended, but only after I get my snout out of the trough . . . .

Liam Byrne

ISAW wrote: »

People seem happy to discuss IC and his wife to death but to dismiss the half million in property made by the wife of comrade Gilmore. I'm only asking if this indicates double standards?

And it's been answered. No.

Discussing IC is on the basis that he lived in Dublin and claimed expenses from West Cork.

It should be illegal, but it's not.

No-one's suggesting that selling land at market value should be illegal.

Liam Byrne

gizmo555 wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore, 11 Sep 2009

To remove some of the cyclical element in the construction sector, we need far greater control of the price of building land. Again, Labour has proposed legislation to give effect to the proposals of the Kenny report, to limit speculation in building land.

I know it seems a remote prospect now, but we have to learn the lessons of what has gone on before. At the height of the boom the cost of the site, represented an unreal and unsustainable proportion of the price of a house.


Doesn't get more hypocritical than that - we'll limit windfall gains on development land as the Kenny report recommended, but only after I get my snout out of the trough . . . .

The key word being "speculation". Buying it for €X with the sole intention of hoarding it, adding no value, and selling it on for a higher price, thereby preventing the eventual buyer from buying it for the €X price.

There was no speculation on the part of the Gilmores.

Claiming hypocrisy based on that quote from Gilmore ? It doesn't get any more ridiculous and wide of the mark than that.

edanto

ISAW, I'm disappointed that you've sunk to this level. Please acknowledge that this was a mud-slinging exercise against Labour, as is clear to all readers.

It's ridiculous to suggest that double standards are being used in the two cases you mention. You seem to be saying that if it's OK for Gilmore's wife to sell land at a profit, then it's OK for Callelly to claim for whatever he thinks he's entitled to when it comes to expenses.

I completely disagree. Mrs Gimore sold some land, it was completely legal and not in any way morally questionable. Your spurious attempts to link her with marxism are laughable.

On the other hand, Callely was faced with allegations of inappropriate expense claims. He asked for it to be referred to the Seanad committee instead of to the Gardai, since they would know the rules better. They deliberated and found that he was in the wrong. Since then, a judge has found that they did not give him a fair hearing and reversed their finding. You can be sure that that part of the story is not over. Everyone agrees that his behavior is morally questionable.

Indeed, the Fianna Fail committee investigating the first allegations found that his "conduct unbecoming a member of Fianna Fáil." and accepted his resignation from the party.

Not long before that, a further claim had come to light - forged invoices. Callely submitted invoices in 2007 for expenses in 02,03,05 & 06, evidenced by invoices. The only problem was that the company issuing the invoices had been liquidated in 1994.

Anyone interested in looking at these invoices can see scans of the originals at
http://thestory.ie/2010/08/02/callely-phone-claims-original-documents/

Callely then handed that money back to the Seanad, which to my mind equates to admitting the fraud.

What I don't understand is why it is not a crime to defraud the Seanad of money like that?

Now, if you would like to debate that point, I'll join you. If you want to continue to try and make ridiculous connections like your first post, then I'll just warn you that you will probably do more damage to Fianna Fail (since people seem to think that you are a FF supporter) than anyone else.

lmtduffy

gizmo555 wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore, 11 Sep 2009

To remove some of the cyclical element in the construction sector, we need far greater control of the price of building land. Again, Labour has proposed legislation to give effect to the proposals of the Kenny report, to limit speculation in building land.

I know it seems a remote prospect now, but we have to learn the lessons of what has gone on before. At the height of the boom the cost of the site, represented an unreal and unsustainable proportion of the price of a house.


Doesn't get more hypocritical than that - we'll limit windfall gains on development land as the Kenny report recommended, but only after I get my snout out of the trough . . . .

How does an opposition party get legislation passed?
How does an opposition party leader arrange for his mother in law to die, his wife to be offered money for the land she inherited and then have legislation passed?

A saying from Alan Partridge comes to mind- "you're a mentalist!"

gandalf

Now I remember why I have the OP on ignore

Zynks

gizmo555 wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore, 11 Sep 2009

To remove some of the cyclical element in the construction sector, we need far greater control of the price of building land. Again, Labour has proposed legislation to give effect to the proposals of the Kenny report, to limit speculation in building land.

I know it seems a remote prospect now, but we have to learn the lessons of what has gone on before. At the height of the boom the cost of the site, represented an unreal and unsustainable proportion of the price of a house.


Doesn't get more hypocritical than that - we'll limit windfall gains on development land as the Kenny report recommended, but only after I get my snout out of the trough . . . .

His point was right about overpriced land. Obviously if something was done about it his wife would have got less for the land.
The land was inherited and she had no use for it. What do you propose they do that would make you happy? Sell it at a discount? Leave it sitting there unused until prices drop? Donate it to the state?

As I said, a socialist does not necessarily make a fool.

ISAW

Lockstep wrote: »

Gifting land is commendable, demanding extra cash above it's market value is reprehensible. Selling it for the market value is neutral.

so no commendation for Gilmores wife. the original market value was less 100 k probably 50k. due to government policy which Gilmore's Party opposed it went to over 500k. It is BS to say "well that is the market price" when the basic policy of Labour was that these market prices were artificial and wrong and that people making profit from selling land like this to schools were bad people!

Not even selling it but owning it is opposed to Marxist thinking!

Let's say I have a guitar worth €500 which my friend really wants. Knowing how much he wants it, I could demand €800. I could give it to him for free which would be extremely noble and commendable. Or, I could check out how much it's worth and sell it for that amount.

Mopre like yu have a concert piano collectors less than €100k you find ther is a music school that wants such a piano. you dont play the piano yourself so it is a good think to give it to them. You tell then you will sell it. And your love of music opposes my buying up of all pianos of this type. You oppose me doing that because normal people cant get hold of such pianos because the price is way too high! But because I bought up all the others the market price is now over half a million. so you sell it for over 500k - market price.

She's a private citizen so I fail to see how this makes Gilmore a hypocrit, unless he should have forced his wife to act a certain way (with her mother's land)

Labour policy is hypocritical. And Gilmore and his wife have deserted the anti market anti capitalism position they once espoused. But they wont say so!

Yes, and now he's the leader of a party that is decisively centre-left

What do you mean by "left" ? You mean based on marxist theory? Or do you mean republican armed revolutionaries in the classic left meaning?

after leaving the Worker’s Party with others who wanted a mixed economy.
Actions speak louder than words.

What do yo mean by "mixed"? Mixed with Statist marxist ideology?

http://www.labour.ie/policy
What are the Marxist policies here?

http://www.labour.ie/party/history/
emphasis added by me

Similar political movements [international socialist marxist ones] were being forged throughout the world at this time, and the internationalism and progressive politics of this era has profoundly shaped Labour's philosophy since.

Right, he was once a member of a Marxist organisation so he must *always* remain so?

No. He can say "I reject Marxism" . where has he ever said that?

Regardless of how moderate and centrist his party's policies are today? Keep in mind her was a member of Democratic LEft, who split off from the Stickies as they favoured a more social democratic model.

For many years the party used the "Starry Plough" as its primary symbol. This remains an important symbol for the party and is still used for ceremonial occasions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starry_Plough_%28flag%29

The Starry Plough banner was originally used by the Irish Citizen Army, a socialist, Republican movement.
...
t is also claimed by Irish republicans and has been carried alongside the Irish tricolour and Irish provincial flags and the sunburst flag, as well as the Red flag at Provisional IRA, Continuity IRA, Official IRA and Irish National Liberation Army rallies.

The flag, and alternative versions of it, are also used by the Connolly Youth Movement, Labour Youth, Ógra Shinn Féin the Republican Socialist Youth Movement, and socialist Celtic FC supporters. The older banner featuring the plough is still occasionally used today by the Irish Republican Socialist Party, Sinn Féin and the Workers' Party of Ireland, formerly Official Sinn Féin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources

Its roots are clearly indicative of Marxist influence. "controling the means of production"
public ownership etc.

How exactly does he pander to the Marxist vote? Marxists already have the Socialist Party, the SWP and the Worker’s Party. Any evidence that he panders to Marxist voters beyond what he says to society as a whole?

See above - starry plough, collectivism, nationalisation etc. And claiming to represent the non smoked salmon working class people of Dun Laoghaire. I doubt Boyd Barrett made two million over the period of the last government and if he did he probably would give it to the party like a real socialist.

Or, any evidence that anti-capitalist groups are present in Labour (keep in mind you’ll need to show genuine anti-capitalism, not just criticisms of the unrestrained free market)

so they are not left wing then? I mean are they or aren't they? We just don't know!

So why then, do you keep referencing that Gilmore's actions go against Marxist theory? Unless you're a Marxist yourself and are incensed by his actions.
Again, evidence that he panders to the Marxist vote please.

i never claimed to be a Merxist. I just don't know what Labour will cut and what they will tax more in government? One minute they are for the worker comrades the next they are for land deals and capital gains. I also cant understand how Ivor and Cowan are criticised for making legal money and speaking style and Gilmore e's wife and Joan Burton aren't.

2) Labour has connection with *some* unions. It isn't the political wing of the ICTU

does it get funded by them? Or Siptu? do unions have representation on Labour national executive?

3) Connolly and Larkin are important figures within the Labour Party but neither do they rigidly try and apply their views to the 21 century (unlike Marxists)

I didn't claim all Marxists were prescriptive and fundamentalists.

4) Have you any proof that has Gilmore saying that the working class can't profit at all from the sale of land? Fair bit of difference if someone is selling off some land in their possession, as compared to someone hoovering up property to sell it on at inflated prices.

Yes indeed there is. As is there a difference between Ivor's wife running a beauty salon or hairdressers and someone just buying up office space to sell on at a profit. Mind you all business is about buying up something and selling it at an inflated price. If there was not profit the business would not work!

I fail to see the problem here. She was approached over land which was evaluated and then it became worth more for reasons outside of her control.

Reasons which the party her husband leads opposed.

She sold it. What is the issue here? Unless you can show Labour oppose the selling of land, then your argument is invalid.

the selling of artificially inflated land at a profit! But it isn't invalid based on this "unless you can show" because on the one hand Gilmore's wife is not wrong for something which is not illegal whereas on the other hand Ivor's wife wrong because she is legally involved in a "business empire"!

Her husband’s party criticised government policies and rampant property speculation. Not the one off sales of individual land.

Yes they did! Joan Burton complained the sale of land to a school because of the inflated property price.

My uncle sold land (part of his farm) during the boom years as did many others. Do you honestly think Labour’s gripe is with absolutely everyone who ever sold land during the Celtic Tiger?

Apparntly if the person is associated with the Greens the PD's or FF or FG maybe they are opposed to every oine of them. But if they are linked to Labour then they don't oppose everyone.

Right, so once a MArxist, always a Marxist?
Michael D was in Fianna Fáil when he was in college whereas Joe Higgins was once a seminarian. They can never, ever move away from these?

Michael D was in FF for about as long as the Pope was in the Hitler Youth.
Joe Higgins isn't opposed to the Catholic Church which shares much of his social teaching and it can be suggested had influence on Marx.

Decrying those who engaged in rampant property speculation is one thing. But Gilmore hasn't accused the sale of land as being inherently wrong. His wife sold one piece of land she inherited from her mother. Unless Labour has policies banning the sale of all land, then what is your problem here?

that saying "what Gilmores wife does is her own business" which is all well and good . Until you say "Ivor's wife in involved in a business property empire"

Does Gilmore still claim to be a socialist? Or does his wife?

I think so. I believe so. It is written on Labours web site. They are members of the international socialist movement and sit with socialists in the EU parliament.

ISAW

gandalf wrote: »

Now I remember why I have the OP on ignore

When you can't deal with the issues do you always resort to attack the poster making them?

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The courts didn't even check that out, because of the phrasing of the "expenses" rules.

So now he is guilty of something he was not charged with and the courts didn't look into?

So Callely stated conflicting things in order to get money that he wasn't entitled to except in the self-interested world of certain politicians.

If he was not entitled to it why did a court award him damages?

I didn't see Gilmore's wife doing anything other than selling land; did she get extra for it by falsely stating that she lived there and travelled there daily ? If she did, you'd have a correlation.

the point isnt about Callelly. It is about the non political business in which he and his wife he is involved
! Why are people going on about his "property empire" or "business empire" if they have nothing to do with his political job? htye say that Gilmore's wife is not related to gilmore in her own private non socialist non marxist business dealings but why then is callellsys wife or his non dail business?

As it stands, this is just mud-slinging.

It is asking why are double standards applied!

It might have been preferable if the Gilmores offered the land at a discount because of their principles,

Had they given the land for free to the school I would say they have socialist credentials.
They didnt

but there's a massive difference between that and jogging Dublin beaches every morning while claiming expenses for driving from Cork while telling your constituents that you live in Dublin.

But Im not talking about that. Im talking about Callellys other property elsewhere and his wife's businesses. why make an issue of it if like Gilmores wife it has no bearing on his Dail business. I onluy posted tyhe other thread because other things outside of his Dail/Senate business was brought into the debate.

WHY? Why one rule for him and another for Gilmore?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70386405&postcount=20

Interesting to read in the Indo of Ivor's property empire, looks like he puts his wages to good use

followed by

Another Fianna Fail politician bleeding the state and keeps asking for more. Did anyone expect anything else from a Fianna Fail politician?

28064212

Who exactly posted these attacks on Ivor Callely's wife and defended Gilmore's wife? Your complaint seems to centre around hypocrisy, so who is simultaneously holding these hypocritical positions? Has Gilmore attacked Callely's wife? Have the posters here? Who has?

HivemindXX

ISAW wrote: »

WHY? Why one rule for him and another for Gilmore?

They are being treated differently because they are different. It's been explained why people think so many, many times.

This thread is going around and around with you spinning increasingly fast in an effort to muddy the water. I don't believe you are interesting in an honest discussion at all.

Lockstep

ISAW my friend, I see little point in continuing this argument. Your increasingly hysterical and unsourced claims make me see no point in debating with you.

I've asked you numerous times to source your arguments. You have yet to do so on any issue asked (instead, only citing irrelevent Wikipedia entries on the likes of the Starry Plough and ignoring all other sources of proof)
You also seem utterly unable to distinguish between the hard left and centre-left which is a key point when dealing with social-democratic parties.

You've already accused other posters of being 'unable to deal with the issues' rather than responding to you. Believe this if it makes you feel better. More likely, they see no point in arguing with someone who refuses to engage with issues and dogmatically ignores any calls for citations or proof.

Have a good one.

sparkling sea

ISAW wrote: »

The courts did not find IC to be claiming expenses for travel he didn't make did it?

"Ivor has not been found guilty of breaking any law.

Ivor Callely was not found guilty of breaking the law and in my opinion himself and his Seanad buddies in all parties, have made sure he will probably never be tried for allegedly breaking the law.
Callely won damages from the court and the committee earned extra money for investigating Callely - win/win foth the Seanad members.

You are completely misrepresenting the facts of the Callely case - why?

The courts did not look at whether Ivor Callely fraudulently claimed expense so they did no rule on this matter one way or another.

The courts did note the they were not saying the findings of the Seanad Committee were inaccurate but that the committee itself was working outside its remit by investigating Callely; it was not legally entitled to do so. Callely was entitled to fair procedure and he did not get this - that was all the court found. They quashed the findings of the Seanad committee because the Committee did not have the power to make the ruling - they did not however say the ruling was wrong.

Ivor Callely's expense claims have not and probably will not now be the subject of a criminal investigation .
The tax payer will be the only group with end up paying for this fiasco, if your looking for a double standard, try that one on for size.

Liam Byrne

ISAW wrote: »

So now he is guilty of something he was not charged with and the courts didn't look into?

Pretty much, yeah.

ISAW wrote: »

If he was not entitled to it why did a court award him damages?

He was awarded damages because of the decision by Government to get a Seanad committee to look into it, it wasn't their job.

ISAW wrote: »

the point isnt about Callelly. It is about the non political business in which he and his wife he is involved
! Why are people going on about his "property empire" or "business empire" if they have nothing to do with his political job?

I've said nothing about his "property empire", and I haven't seen anyone else say anything about it either. My only objection to Callely is that he used two houses and alternately claimed to be living in both according to what got him the most money and/or votes.

ISAW wrote: »

It is asking why are double standards applied!

You can't ask that, because they weren't applied. It's like asking for an opinion on why the Earth is flat.

In fact, you weren't asking why double-standards were applied; you asked if people found it odd, and they answered that question - that they didn't find it odd. You've now changed the question because their answers weren't what you wanted to hear.

ISAW wrote: »

Had they given the land for free to the school I would say they have socialist credentials.
They didnt

Having (or not having) socialist credentials isn't "wrong". It doesn't defraud the state or get you more than you're entitled to.

It might get you more than you say that you need, which is a separate debate, but the thread title attempts to compare Callely & Gilmore's wife, which is completely off the wall.

ISAW wrote: »

But Im not talking about that. Im talking about Callellys other property elsewhere and his wife's businesses. why make an issue of it if like Gilmores wife it has no bearing on his Dail business. I onluy posted tyhe other thread because other things outside of his Dail/Senate business was brought into the debate.

That would explain why I hadn't a clue what you were on about. You mentioned at the start of the thread that :

Do people find it odd that when IC wind a legal case people are appalled and link Ivor to a corrupt party and a corrupt element in society.

That "link" is based on Callely's unacceptable actions.

If he didn't create that link, then there would be no cause to question any of his other activities.

If someone does something wrong, people tend to question other things that they do; if someone does nothing wrong, people don't.

WHY? Why one rule for him and another for Gilmore?

Because Gilmore didn't lie about where he lived and get expenses that he shouldn't have as a result.

Do you actually believe that Callely lives in West Cork ?

If so, do you actually believe that he drove up every morning to take his dogs for a walk on a beach ?

If not, do you still think he should have claimed the expenses ?

And - since most people would say "no" - do you not think that that arrogance and sense of entitlement, combined with forged invoices - would make people examine other aspects of his lifestyle more closely, particularly since we had to foot the bill for it ?

If I claimed €80,000 off the taxpayer that I hadn't spent, and bought a house with it, of course people would look on it as reflecting badly on me.

If, however, I sold land to the taxpayer for €80,000 they would have no justification in viewing me badly.

Shea O'Meara

ISAW wrote: »

Do people find it odd that when IC wind a legal case people are appalled and link Ivor to a corrupt party and a corrupt element in society. They mention the houses and businesses Ivor 's wife has and so on.

Yet consider Eamon Gilmore's wife. The same sort of people say it has nothing to do with Gilmore if his wife legally makes over a half million on artificially inflated property'

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68800849&postcount=7

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69013466&postcount=119

A string of vitriolic attacks are made against Ivor mentioning his properties wife etc. but Gilmore whom his detractors do not attack in such a vitriolic manner, is presented by his supporters as having nothing to do with the wife or property.

How can one have one standard for the Labour leader and another for a person who was ejected from FF?

Are people going to continue to raise this proven nonsense every couple of months?
Ivory is a liar, a fraudster and everything wrong with our country. He should apologise and in the least give the 17K to charity.

Gilmore's wife sold a house at market value.

I can't see the connection here at all. Is it throw enough mud and some of it will stick?
Honestly if/when Gilmore gets in I'll be just as quick to post on any perceived wrong doing, but the house issue is bull****.

Shea O'Meara

ISAW wrote: »

No! By land price increases. Not my standard. It is a standard of Marxist theory and it is a standard opposed by Joan Burton at a Labour conference where she specifically targeted land being sold by at inflated prices to schools. It is in the thread I referenced.

Bollocks my friend, complete bollocks. Are they champagne socialists or Marxists? I can't keep up.
It was proven that the property was sold at the going rate and the school board bought it. It was also proven that this whole, holding out to screw the school board for every red cent was bull.
Look, if you were right I'd be agreeing with your point, but you are not. Thems the facts.

ISAW wrote: »

Who is using some insane standard of your own devising now?
The courts did not find IC to be claiming expenses for travel he didn't make did it?

They were deliberating on whether the Seanad had the right to suspend him...that is all. It's been proven he falsified accounts/expenses reports.

ISAW wrote: »

And Gilmore's wife ignored Marxist theory and Laboutr policy against profiting on inflated land. It was not illegal. Is it acceptable for Labour party people to make money on inflated land prices which they accuse the government of artifically inflating and consider it despicable to be selling inflated property to schools?

Define inflated? Selling something for what it is worth is not a crime or sly.

ISAW wrote: »

Most marxists think that making over a million in the last five years ( as Gilmore and his wife did ) and making over a half million on inflated property and inflation caused they claim by bad government policy ( which she also did) should not be a nice little bonus income.

They are not a Marxist party and I've explained the facts on the above.

ISAW wrote: »

the Same Marxist principles i have never heard Gilmore deny and that he ascribes among the bearded classes of SIPTU etc.

Ah the bearded classes:D
I must apologise for thinking all your points were legitimate. Sometimes alternative whacky humour goes over my head. I do suggest you remove these posts from the politics thread though. Best of luck with the stand up career.

ISAW

28064212 wrote: »

Who exactly posted these attacks on Ivor Callely's wife and defended Gilmore's wife?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70386405&postcount=20

Interesting to read in the Indo of Ivor's property empire, looks like he puts his wages to good use.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70389495&postcount=43

I would speculate that Ivor is a man with a requirement to maintain a cash-flow position and that may yet be threatened further if the newest property related relevations are to be believed Quote:
PeterIanStaker posted: I am a postgraduate profesional who's currently working unpaid to get experience.

I apply for on average five jobs a week. Did two interviews in recent weeks, and waiting to hear back. The Dole office people have suspended my claim until I provide evidence (which I did) that I am seeking employment.

PeterIanStaker,you really need to stake out the right sort of hairdresser and marry her,seems to work well for some ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70389762&postcount=47

a piece on some money Ivor allegedly owes to a company whose director he put onto another state board - nothing dodgy there at all no doubt.

Seriously, we are a nation of idiots for letting these guys get away with loose morals (at best)as they do.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70391486&postcount=61

See in today's Indo he and his wife/son have up to 18 properties in their names.
This man also has 2 taxi's on the road........he has his hands in everything.

.

edanto

I don't know why I'm still reading this - it's going nowhere... but still and all.

Above this post you've posted your links to where people are giving out about Ivor. That's not quite what the quote from 28064212 referenced now is it.

ISAW

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Bollocks my friend, complete bollocks. Are they champagne socialists or Marxists? I can't keep up.

Smoked salmon socialists it would seem.

It was proven that the property was sold at the going rate

Which was five times the "going rate" when she initially agreed to sell. why five times? Because according to Labour government policy was causing inflated property prices and schools were suffering on the backs of people making profit from these increased prices.

They were deliberating on whether the Seanad had the right to suspend him...that is all. It's been proven he falsified accounts/expenses reports.

here? have you a reference?

Define inflated? Selling something for what it is worth is not a crime or sly.

according to Labour property was being artifically inflated and the sellers making a killing and this was the governments fault. The fact that the wife of the Labour leader was a seller is nothing to do with this ?

They are not a Marxist party and I've explained the facts on the above.

No they just pander to them to get working class votes. FF used to get them and now PBP will probably get them. I wonder how Gilmore will react to a real socialist in his constituency?

Ah the bearded classes:D
I must apologise for thinking all your points were legitimate. Sometimes alternative whacky humour goes over my head. I do suggest you remove these posts from the politics thread though. Best of luck with the stand up career.

Actually it is Senator Ross uses those words AFAIK.

edanto

/ unfollow

ISAW

edanto wrote: »

/ unfollow

My fingers are in my ears and I'm not listening is not the sort of comment which has any input into a discussion.

28064212

ISAW wrote: »

Seriously? That's the best you can come up with? You honestly believe that people who think it might be worth investigating a politician where there's evidence of bizarre financial irregularities are then hypocritical to defend a person who completely transparently sold some land?

28064212

ISAW wrote: »

here? have you a reference?

Edanto already posted evidence of Callely's indiscretions, which you unsurprisingly ignored

Laminations

ISAW wrote: »

Which was five times the "going rate" when she initially agreed to sell. why five times? Because according to Labour government policy was causing inflated property prices and schools were suffering on the backs of people making profit from these increased prices.

You do understand that the 'going rate' refers to the actual market rate at time of sale and that 'when she initially agreed to sell', nobody was initailly agreeing to buy? A sale takes an invitation to treat and an offer of that amount... or do you want to sell me your house for the price you paid for it back in 1990? Better still, I've a friend who bought for 300k in 2006 and is now 80k in negative equity. Wanna pay the 'going rate' of 2006 when he 'initially agreed to sell'?

Callely is a snake, you dont like that?
Well thats what separates you out as FF. You accept the bending of rules and use of loopholes for personal gain and then try and compare (like a sleveen) that behaviour with regular market behaviour.

Q: Am I a hypocrite? I think there needs to be wage restraint and some more cuts in the PS. Now as a PS worker should I volunteer myself for a wage cut? You expect too much, unless of course its FF, then you accept anything they spit on you.