nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)

[Deleted User]

As all the most interesting main players to the current module of this tribunal are due to start giving evidence in the coming weeks, (early september 07 onwards),Please keep all discussion pertaining to the tribunal in this sticky thread.
All threads started on the subject outside of this thread will be deleted.

Please post sensibly.
By that I mean strictly keep your own comments to being your own opinion and reason out your posts.
Do not attack other posters.
The moderators of this board if they see something posted that they think does not conform to the above instruction may edit or delete posts in this thread if they see fit.

#Thread now open#
Please also be mindfull of the discussion on pages 8 and 9 of the discussion on the rules thread as a more indepth guideline as to what we will allow or disallow in this thread.

[EDITED for clarity as people dont seem to be able to follow a simple instruction to read pages 8 and 9 of the rules thread]

That thread makes things very clear on those pages:
Specifically

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm really not sure how to make myself any clearer without typing more slowly: accusations of lying are a special case on this forum and will not be tolerated without proof. Accusations of all sorts of other things can be argued about on their merits, but I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

Once again: clear? I don't give a goddamn rat's ass. I'm talking specifically about accusations of lying. It doesn't matter whether anything else is better, worse or indifferent - we'll deal with them on their merits. I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

Now: is any of this unclear in any way?

and this

I'd have thought it obvious that unproven crimes cannot be thrown around as accusations here either-but I'll repeat that too for clarity.Accusing someone of a crime without proof of what you may even think might be a crime (as crimes are the subject of a legal process) are most definitely not allowed here.
Thank you.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ballooba

mike65 wrote: »

The rates were set by the Dail in legistation, the were going to cut rates but never did AFAIK.

In fairness then it's Fianna Fail that are to blame for that situation.

edanto

Fair enough, warning heeded. I was prompted to ask that question on thread, since you hadn't replied to PM with a similar question a while ago, maybe if you get a few minutes you could have a look for it. I'm sure you've been busier than ever with the modship, so fair enough I'll stop wrekcing ur head.

Where is the best thread re the legal position of boards in the context of the Mahon tribunal?

murphaph

So what does everyone make of Ahern's latest move to block the tribunal asking him sticky questions?

I think this is the most disgraceful act to date!

A Dub in Glasgo

No surprise, afterall he has nothing to hide as he has always told the truth

Mr.Micro

Another stroke I suspect to delay any further questions into his financial affairs. Its to be expected though IMO he has been obdurate and makes obfuscation of the simplest scenario or question, at least from the public's perspective. The thing is he always seems to have another tactic up his sleeve. I just remember before the general election Bertie told us all that he was going to reveal all at the tribunal. I do'nt think so. It just gives the impression ( I am sure he does not give a hoot as long as he stays in office) that he is hiding something big?

I bet that Judge Alan Mahon is sorry he took this job because it is making him look foolish with his authority being constantly questioned and derided. It is probable that this tribunal will be closed down ( probably for the best as it is fast becoming a farce ) long before Mr. Ahern leaves office with the public none the wiser.

edanto

The guy is supposed to be the leader of our country. What kind of example is he setting?

In light of the allegations of money laundering against Des Richardson I find it disgusting that the alleged links between Rohan and Berraway will not be investigated by the tribunal. The developments so far look like value for money. Of course the CAB will never go after the Haughey estate and others to cover the costs.

Where is there more information about this other than the article you linked to or Today FM?

DancesWithChimp

Yeah, Bertie has always gone on about looking forward to being questioned at the Tribunal so he could tell his side and answer all questions...yet at every turn his answers are ambiguous and demand more questions and when more questions come he avoids them...now he is attempting to prevent questions from being asked at all.

IMO, he looks like a desperate man with a lot to hide.
IMO, he disgraces his office and our country, and insults our intelligence, with this behaviour.

In the end I reckon it'll be the $45,000 that does him in.
He was unable to show in any way that the lodgement could have been sterling and was forced to accept that no formula supports his assertion that it was.

JerkyBoy

Bertie trying to deflect again at the Tribunal...

He started complaining “Do I have to explain how my mother and father dealt with their affairs.”

Eh, no Bertie...you have to explain how YOU dealt with your financial affairs, which you seem to be incapable of doing.

Bertie fails to realize that he is in fact the only person who keeps bringing up his family in relation to the Tribunal.
And then afterwards he attempts to turn it back on the Tribunal as if they are intruding into his family affairs.

He's some chancer!
But you'll hear the usual FF idiots and parrots on Q&A on Monday in the audience repeating how the Tribunal is sticking its nose into Bertie's family's private affairs and that its all a farce.

Yes, it is a farce.

Mr.Micro

What I find truly amazing is that Mr.Ahern was a former finance minister and yet his recall as to facts figures appears to be truly vague, in the extreme, if thats the right word. How was the economy under his stewardship about 1993 was it? Its just a circus now and the clowns rule. We are not laughing though.

DancesWithChimp

The transcript of Bertie earlier today is pretty interesting...he changes his story again and gets caught out on not declaring another gift of 5 grand to the revenue in 1994.

Transcript here:
http://www.planningtribunal.ie/images/SITECONTENT_809.pdf

Read from question 139 onwards (page 24)

Bertie first claims that the 5 grand was a political donation.
Then claims it was a political donation for "personal use", meaning for his political career rather than just to spend on whatever he liked personally.
Then he is caught out and forced to admit that this money, allegedly given as a political donation, was a gift and was lodged to an account which he used to buy his house with.

Then when asked if this gift, with likely tax implications, was declared to the Revenue, he tries to worm his way out of it by claiming that he did indeed report it to the revenue, only to be corrected that his declaration of it occurred in 2006 rather than in 1994 when it should have been declared.

Ouch!
No wonder he's had to bring his family back into the picture again in an attempt, IMO, to create spin, look for sympathy, and skew the headlines!

Cunning and devious indeed!

Akrasia

JerkyBoy wrote: »

Bertie trying to deflect again at the Tribunal...

He started complaining “Do I have to explain how my mother and father dealt with their affairs.”

Eh, no Bertie...you have to explain how YOU dealt with your financial affairs, which you seem to be incapable of doing.

Bertie fails to realize that he is in fact the only person who keeps bringing up his family in relation to the Tribunal.
And then afterwards he attempts to turn it back on the Tribunal as if they are intruding into his family affairs.

He's some chancer!
But you'll hear the usual FF idiots and parrots on Q&A on Monday in the audience repeating how the Tribunal is sticking its nose into Bertie's family's private affairs and that its all a farce.

Yes, it is a farce.

yeah. This seems to be a recurring theme alright.

Why is the tribunal obsessed with Berties poor dead mother?

It's ridiculous, but unfortunately it's working . Bertie has successfully spun the line that the tribunal is investigating Aherns 'personal finances' Instead of describing them as suspicious transactions, lodgements or payments to Ahern.

Ahern has amazing access to the media, and he is using it. He can decide his own headlines by his choice of words in the full knowledge that anything controversial will be splashed across tomorrows front page and knowing that he has an army of lackeys to back him up on anything he says.

This is not an investigation of Aherns family, his divorce, his living conditions, his personal finances or anything like that, this is an investigation into allegations that he received corrupt payments. The tribunal is only interested in the suspicious elements of his finances that relate directly to the allegations made against him (large unexplained lodgements and foreign exchange transactions)

ballooba

Today's developments are interesting. Some meaty evidence of potential impropriety. Money from B/T account went through Celia to some relatives of hers. Can't really discuss here though.;)

edanto wrote: »

Where is there more information about this other than the article you linked to or Today FM?

No where. Somebody has effective council working on their books. I'm guessing Rohan.

is_that_so

Akrasia wrote: »

yeah. This seems to be a recurring theme alright.

Why is the tribunal obsessed with Berties poor dead mother?

It's ridiculous, but unfortunately it's working . Bertie has successfully spun the line that the tribunal is investigating Aherns 'personal finances' Instead of describing them as suspicious transactions, lodgements or payments to Ahern.

Ahern has amazing access to the media, and he is using it. He can decide his own headlines by his choice of words in the full knowledge that anything controversial will be splashed across tomorrows front page and knowing that he has an army of lackeys to back him up on anything he says.

This is not an investigation of Aherns family, his divorce, his living conditions, his personal finances or anything like that, this is an investigation into allegations that he received corrupt payments. The tribunal is only interested in the suspicious elements of his finances that relate directly to the allegations made against him (large unexplained lodgements and foreign exchange transactions)

As page 30 of the transcript confirms.

... we are not interested to know how your mother came to have the money or why she gave it to you...

DancesWithChimp

>> ... we are not interested to know how your mother came to have the money or why she gave it to you...

They were simply trying to get Bertie to re-confirm a claim he made previously that the 7 grand that he got from his mother was inheritance money from his father.

Ahern had stated this previously and the Tribunal lawyer was simply asking Bertie to acknowledge that.

But Bertie can't answer a simple question so it ended up going round in circles with Bertie dithering and nearly changing his position from one of surity to one of not being sure, then finally accepting his initial position.

All of this then ended up causing headlines where Bertie is angry that he is being asked about his family's affairs...when really all it was was a simple request to acknowledge a previous statement.

When you read these transcripts you start to question the intelligence level of our Taoiseach...he really comes of as quite a muddle-brain.
And then any time he does give a long answer to a question it is usually full of irrelevance and the question has to be put to him again...sometimes several times.

The Tribunal would probably be done with him by know if he would just give straight answers to straight questions.

A Dub in Glasgo

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

The Tribunal would probably be done with him by know if he would just give straight answers to straight questions.

If he could do that, he would not be in politics. I think this whole thing is a total farce that puts the Irish people in bad light considering they keep re-electing the truth teller

Mr.Micro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If he could do that, he would not be in politics. I think this whole thing is a total farce that puts the Irish people in bad light considering they keep re-electing the truth teller

The "Truth Teller" would be a good title for a biography of the Great Man? Should it be fiction or non fiction? Hmmm!

murphaph

Seems Judge Mahon finally lost his temper today. Just caught it on the news there-apparently he asked Ahern's SC if he thought they (the tribunal) were a bunch of crooks!

Ahern's position would be completely untenable in pretty much every other western democracy.

How self absorbed are the irish that we don't fcuk this chancer out of his 250 grand a year 'job' tomorrow??!!! arrrghhhhh!!!

tech77

murphaph wrote: »

Seems Judge Mahon finally lost his temper today. Just caught it on the news there-apparently he asked Ahern's SC if he thought they (the tribunal) were a bunch of crooks!

Ahern's position would be completely untenable in pretty much every other western democracy.

How self absorbed are the irish that we don't fcuk this chancer out of his 250 grand a year 'job' tomorrow??!!! arrrghhhhh!!!

It's a sad reflection alright.
This clown's position has been untenable for a good while now.
Desperate attempts at deflection, obfuscation and confusion at this stage and he's still there- truly extraordinary.

Cowen's loyalty is surely misplaced at this stage TBH.
Why don't they just get rid of him before it gets worse?

DancesWithChimp

tech77 wrote: »

Why don't they just get rid of him before it gets worse?

Because they know they can get away with just about anything and the Irish electorate will for the most part be apathetic and tolerate it.

We get the Government we deserve...

meglome

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

Because they know they can get away with just about anything and the Irish electorate will for the most part be apathetic and tolerate it.

We get the Government we deserve...

So true... although I didn't vote for him.

Every bit of digging they do they find more money he doesn't appear to have any reason for having in the first place. Have to say it really bothers me that the general public are not more outraged by his shenanigans. If the man at the top can act like this then it's okay for anyone.

It adds insult to injury for me that our company can't get paid by any of our government clients as were waiting on our tax clearance cert. But aul Bertie can just claim he's tax compliant.

Mr.Micro

meglome wrote: »

So true... although I didn't vote for him.

Every bit of digging they do they find more money he doesn't appear to have any reason for having in the first place. Have to say it really bothers me that the general public are not more outraged by his shenanigans. If the man at the top can act like this then it's okay for anyone.

It adds insult to injury for me that our company can't get paid by any of our government clients as were waiting on our tax clearance cert. But aul Bertie can just claim he's tax compliant.

The people had their say at the election. Its up to the FF party or an effective opposition to oust Mr.Ahern if they wish. So far this does not appear to be forth coming. As the FF party is happy, on the surface at least, to keep Mr.Ahern as Taoiseach then there is nothing the public can do until the next election, as clearly Mr.Ahern is not troubled with any of the alleged financial revelations and how they marry up with his present position.

meglome

I wonder what harm the greens have done to themselves by still going along with this crap. They were the very ones taking a hard line during the election.

Akrasia

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The people had their say at the election.

A lot of people trusted Ahern before the election and gave him the benefit of the doubt, they don't trust him now.
Ahern told stories, teary eyed, to the irish people that have turned out to have been untrue.

there is nothing the public can do until the next election, as clearly Mr.Ahern is not troubled with any of the alleged financial revelations and how they marry up with his present position.

Isn't that an awful indictment of of 'democracy'? (noun: rule by the people??) We get one chance every 5 years to make a decision and then the government gets to do what it likes for the rest of the time and there's nothing we can do about it.

DancesWithChimp

Well let's not forget...the people of Ireland did not elect Bertie Ahern.
They elected a Government composed of FF, PDs, Greens and Inds.

The people of Dublin central elected Bertie Ahern as a TD.
The Government elected Ahern as Taoiseach.

Therefore it is only the Government who have a say in whether or not he remains Taoiseach.

We the people have no say in that matter, nor should we. It's the Government's job to do that.

Unfortunately for us, our Government are morally corrupt and are defending a man who has essentially admitted to tax dodging, not to mention the rest of his sordid financial dealings.

The man has no excuse as he was responsible for writing tax law in this country, yet at that time he himself failed to declare and pay tax on large payments to him, which were used for personal benefit by his own addmission, at the time that he received those payments.
Only when caught out 12 years later did he declare them.

I'm not sure if what he has done constitutes a crime or not, perhaps someone more knowledgable than me can chime in on that.

All I know is that I recently had to pay tax on around 5 grand I received from the benefits of exercising stock.
Had I failed to declare and pay tax on that 5 grand, I'm pretty sure that would be considered to be a serious offence.

So, a change of Government is not necessarily the answer...they were elected fair and square and we have to live with that for 5 years.

But Bertie Ahern should no longer be our Taoiseach...and our Government should do the right thing.

LostinBlanch

meglome wrote: »

I wonder what harm the greens have done to themselves by still going along with this crap. They were the very ones taking a hard line during the election.

I heard Gormley on Newstalk was reported as saying that he is only responsible for the ethics of his own party. So why were they going after the PDs for propping up FF when the likes of Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor? Anyone sniff get the smell of hypocrisy in the air?

But he also said the greens like being in government. So that's all right then. :rolleyes:

DancesWithChimp

The Greens should just be honest and cut the bullsh*t by just stating clearly that they are keeping their mouths so that they can continue to implement Green policies in Government, and are choosing pragmatism over idealism.

All this garbage about waiting for the Tribunal to report is just that.
While in opposition they had no problem evaluating Ahern before the Tribunal was ready to report, and that was before even the most damning of evidence had come to light.

I'd respect them if they were just honest about it but from their statements as they are right now they just come off as pathetic.

serfboard

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

The Greens should just be honest and cut the bullsh*t by just stating clearly that they are keeping their mouths so that they can continue to implement Green policies in Government, and are choosing pragmatism over idealism.

All this garbage about waiting for the Tribunal to report is just that.
While in opposition they had no problem evaluating Ahern before the Tribunal was ready to report, and that was before even the most damning of evidence had come to light.

I'd respect them if they were just honest about it but from their statements as they are right now they just come off as pathetic.

Agree 100%. If you remember the Greens had a debate before joining the government, and this debate was characterised in the media as being between the "realos" (realists - personified by most of the leadership) and the "fundies" (fundamentalists - personified by Roger Garland and, I think, Patricia McKenna). Since the "realos" won out (M3/Shannon/Co-location anyone?) their behaviour now should not be all that surprising.

So, when the General Election comes around again in 4 years time, and Fianna Fail has taken credit for Green policies ("This government has embraced the challenges posed by climate change") and the Greens are as decimated as the PDs are now, they will realise the long-term damage that their "realism" has done.

Auditor #9

Akrasia wrote: »

A lot of people trusted Ahern before the election and gave him the benefit of the doubt, they don't trust him now.
Ahern told stories, teary eyed, to the irish people that have turned out to have been untrue.

Isn't that an awful indictment of of 'democracy'? (noun: rule by the people??) We get one chance every 5 years to make a decision and then the government gets to do what it likes for the rest of the time and there's nothing we can do about it.

the old argument about getting a mandate from the people is a bit lame in fairness - it's based on the false assumption that representative democracy is being exercised adequately whereas that may not be the case at all and in fact may be getting exercised against the wills of many of the voters who somehow vote for these people as the interests of the voters themselves get betrayed. Shannon during last summer for example.

O sorry, it was a management/commercial decision, not a political one.

ballooba

RTE is calling the "B/T" account the "B and T" account. This is presumably alluding to the "Bertie and Tim" version of events supported by the existence of the "D/T" or "D and T" or "Des and Tim" account. How many different versions of events can be true?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0313/mahon.html?rss

partholon

i still get annoyed when they call it "a loan" instead of "an alleged loan" as 15yrs without making a payment does not a loan make, particularly when the only reason you paid the money back was you were rumbled by the tribunals. plus they keep saying she bought the house for her aunt. if thats so whys the aunts name not on the deeds? the correct statement is "cecelia larkin bought the house to let her aunt live in."

i know its only a small difference but it portrays what actually happened instead of regurgitating a particular spin on the events. RTE have been lax in this regard

its been tough keeping up with this as ive only had newstalk coverage to base opinion on (damn you politics.ie for shutting down! ) but from what i can hear tim collins is getting a right bollocking from the tribunals. he's confirmed theres no direct connection from this account and the FF cumman plus there appears to be two other accounts knocking about that did the job this "B/T" account was meant to do i.e fund the refurbisment of st lukes. apparently to quote father ted "the money was just resting in that account", literally.

collins said this was set up as a "sinking fund" in case anything happend to bertie (whatever that means !) and while he maintains the loan to cecelia was on the condition she'd pay interest he never seen documentation to show cecelia got the loan either as it was left for the conveniently dead gerry brenan to sort it.